“The invocation of “woke ideology” as a bogeyman is a calculated distraction to avoid discussing profound social inequalities that have existed and continue to exist; it is an abdication of accountability.”
Thus opined the head of MIT’s chemistry department Troy Van Voorhis, along with a party-pack of progressive professors in their guest commentary recently published in the Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters. Let these scholars help you get your mind right, first and foremost by opposing calls for “unencumbered free speech.”
What we are witnessing across academia and society is not cancel culture, it is “consequence culture.” Removing names from buildings, tearing down statues, renaming awards, and driving out-of-favor scientists from the public square “is not canceling it is recalibrating.” You will also be relieved to know that “Twitter mobs and call-outs on social media … are a form of activism no less legitimate because the venue is relatively new.”
See how easy that is? Controlling speech is the key to controlling thought. And only thoughts and speech that “empowers the next generation of scientists to create a more just and equitable – and hence more excellent – scientific community” should be permitted on campus. Excellence is diversity and diversity is excellence because “to view merit and diversity as mutually antagonistic is a false dichotomy.” Why? Because we are your thought leaders, and it is “natural for any community to maintain and enforce its social norms.”
Welcome to the new Science.
* Everything in quotes is taken verbatim from the referenced article.
“how should the scientific community evaluate that person’s overall contribution to humanity? ” Perhaps the ten authors of the JPC Letters meant “why?” Why is it the business of a scientific discipline to evaluate someone’s “contrubtion to humanity”? How do they, could hey, know? what arrogance!