The astrophysicist & past Critical Mass contributor to gives a clear description of what should be changed about this federal science agency that diverts significant funds to DEI instead of science
Very funny from L Krauss, whose Origins project always emphasizes how scientists were encouraged and mentored to pursue science! But forgive me, they were mostly white boys! Seriously, it is one thing to want to eliminate the excesses of DEI bureaucracy, and another to abolish efforts to encourage "all people" (including the underrepresented and underprivileged) from pursuing scientific careers. Think again.
Before DEI policies, how many qualified people were shut out of NSF because they weren't white dudes? Did DEI change this? Has the quality of science gone down because of DEI? What percentage of the overall budget is DEI initiatives? Hiring "the most qualified" is such a huge copout because studies have shown that people tend to hire "themselves" and in science (and many other fields) that means white dudes.
But doesn't NOT having some sort of DEI-like initiative serve to shut out qualified women, handicapped, Indigenous, people of colour etc. etc.? Isn't that the purpose of DEI in the first place? What would you suggest as an alternative to level the playing field? I understand that much of the problem is societal and systemic. But representation matters, and getting more diversity in the work force inspires others to go for STEM careers, no matter their ethnicity, socio-economic status, disabilities and such. I'm seeing a lot of derogation of DEI initiatives - but no alternatives.
It was supposedly the purpose of DEI when it began, but no one is shut out, and for over 40 years science departments have been prioritizing hiring women and minorities. All that DEI has done is create new ridiculous programs that serve no purpose.. Have written tons on this.. look at earlier posts on Critical mass.. and new upcoming book.. To really level the playing field, more money needs to be spent on primary school education in poor and minority areas, not on the choice of PhD scientists at this point.
I agree 100% with your last statement, but that's going to be a HUGE slog. Realistically, it's going to be a tough slog at all levels. I don't see this as either a top-down OR a bottom-up problem - it needs to be tackled at both ends. I had a 45-year career in STEM and it's changed a lot, and not for the better. When I studied comp sci at Waterloo (early 80s), 35% of my class were women. Currently it's about 15% and they are cheering that because for a while it was much lower. That is DEFINITELY a bottom-up problem. But still, the people at the top are mostly men, who like to hire "themselves" so the next generation of people at the top are... mostly men. How do you change that?
Very funny from L Krauss, whose Origins project always emphasizes how scientists were encouraged and mentored to pursue science! But forgive me, they were mostly white boys! Seriously, it is one thing to want to eliminate the excesses of DEI bureaucracy, and another to abolish efforts to encourage "all people" (including the underrepresented and underprivileged) from pursuing scientific careers. Think again.
the groups he targets are excesses.
What do you mean by "excesses"?
Before DEI policies, how many qualified people were shut out of NSF because they weren't white dudes? Did DEI change this? Has the quality of science gone down because of DEI? What percentage of the overall budget is DEI initiatives? Hiring "the most qualified" is such a huge copout because studies have shown that people tend to hire "themselves" and in science (and many other fields) that means white dudes.
DEI hasn't changed much of anything except shutting out other qualified candidates.
But doesn't NOT having some sort of DEI-like initiative serve to shut out qualified women, handicapped, Indigenous, people of colour etc. etc.? Isn't that the purpose of DEI in the first place? What would you suggest as an alternative to level the playing field? I understand that much of the problem is societal and systemic. But representation matters, and getting more diversity in the work force inspires others to go for STEM careers, no matter their ethnicity, socio-economic status, disabilities and such. I'm seeing a lot of derogation of DEI initiatives - but no alternatives.
It was supposedly the purpose of DEI when it began, but no one is shut out, and for over 40 years science departments have been prioritizing hiring women and minorities. All that DEI has done is create new ridiculous programs that serve no purpose.. Have written tons on this.. look at earlier posts on Critical mass.. and new upcoming book.. To really level the playing field, more money needs to be spent on primary school education in poor and minority areas, not on the choice of PhD scientists at this point.
I agree 100% with your last statement, but that's going to be a HUGE slog. Realistically, it's going to be a tough slog at all levels. I don't see this as either a top-down OR a bottom-up problem - it needs to be tackled at both ends. I had a 45-year career in STEM and it's changed a lot, and not for the better. When I studied comp sci at Waterloo (early 80s), 35% of my class were women. Currently it's about 15% and they are cheering that because for a while it was much lower. That is DEFINITELY a bottom-up problem. But still, the people at the top are mostly men, who like to hire "themselves" so the next generation of people at the top are... mostly men. How do you change that?