Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday December 02 2016, @02:37PM   Printer-friendly
from the more-like-pantry-picks dept.

MIT's Tech newspaper reports on a growing list of MIT faculty who have signed a statement opposing a number of Donald Trump's cabinet appointments and "reaffirming their dedication to 'principles at the core of MIT's mission.'"

The statement denounces discrimination, promotes open communication, and asserts the need to respect the scientific method. Signatories include four out of the ten Nobel Prize winners currently part of the MIT faculty, as well as author Junot Diaz and Affordable Care Act architect Jonathan Gruber. [...]

About 25 percent of MIT faculty have now signed the statement. [The School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences], which comprises 17 percent of MIT faculty, represents a disproportionately large percentage of the signatories at about 22 percent. The School of Engineering is underrepresented, with also about 22 percent of signatories, but comprising 37 percent of total faculty. These differences may be a result of the thus far uneven dissemination of the statement across departments.

The MIT statement joins a growing litany of open letters from scientists to the Trump administration, with over 2300 scientists -- including 22 Nobel Prize winners -- signing another statement asking for a "strong and open culture of science" and "adhering to high standards of scientific integrity and independence." A group of female scientists concerned about racism and sexism in science initially aimed for 500 signatures from women scientists, but their list now has grown to over 11,000 worldwide.

The actual MIT statement with list of signatories can be found here. At the time of this submission, it had grown by over 10% since the Tech report was written on Wednesday afternoon and now has over 500 signatures.

[Continues...]

The complete text of the statement reads:

The President-elect has appointed individuals to positions of power who have endorsed racism, misogyny and religious bigotry, and denied the widespread scientific consensus on climate change. Regardless of our political views, these endorsements violate principles at the core of MIT's mission. At this time, it is important to reaffirm the values we hold in common.

We, the undersigned faculty at MIT, thus affirm the following principles:

  • We unconditionally reject every form of bigotry, discrimination, hateful rhetoric, and hateful action, whether directed towards one's race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, disability, citizenship, political views, socioeconomic status, veteran status, or immigration status.
  • We endorse MIT's values of open, respectful discourse and exchange of ideas from the widest variety of intellectual, religious, class, cultural, and political perspectives.
  • We uphold the principles of the scientific method, of fact- and reason-based objective inquiry. Science is not a special interest; it is not optional. Science is a foundational ingredient in how we as a society analyze, understand, and solve the most difficult challenges that we face.

For any member of our community who may feel fear or oppression, our doors are open and we are ready to help. We pledge to work with all members of the community – students, faculty, staff, postdoctoral researchers, and administrators – to defend these principles today and in the times ahead.

I imagine some reactions may be to dismiss this as yet another college appeal for "safe spaces" and "diversity," but from first-hand experience with the MIT community, I can say it's definitely distinct from the average "liberal arts school" environment. When they say "open, respectful discourse and exchange of ideas" from different perspectives, they generally mean it; I've personally seen debates there that would be instantly "shut down" elsewhere. I only wish they had reversed the order of the three bullet points and put science upfront, because that's what really distinguishes their message from many other groups.

More coverage on these letters expressing concern about science in the new administration in the Guardian and the Washington Post.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by FatPhil on Friday December 02 2016, @02:57PM

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Friday December 02 2016, @02:57PM (#435954) Homepage
    Yet "We unconditionally reject every form of ... hateful rhetoric and hateful action ... directed towards one's ... *political views* ..."

    Logic lobe of my brain just kaboomed.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Informative=1, Disagree=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @03:52PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @03:52PM (#435989)

    It's not hateful to disagree.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @06:55PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @06:55PM (#436102)

      To be clear, there is not a single policy position that is being disagreed with. They are essentially saying "we don't like you".

      Similarly with the protest against Trump's election. These were not protests against the electoral college, protests for proportional representation, or even protests that the vote was rigged.

      These were temper-tantrums about not getting their way.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @08:20PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @08:20PM (#436182)

        It's eggheads saying that they don't like the results of democracy. They are saying that they know better than you about who will act in your best interest. But they don't even know anything about you or your best interests. I suspect it's all about *their* best interests Why else would they whine about it publicly?

    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday December 02 2016, @07:24PM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Friday December 02 2016, @07:24PM (#436123) Homepage
      Disagreeing is what you do in your own mind. Writing a fucking petition that effectively says "we hate trump and what he stands for" is an *action*. Tough shit - you didn't make any attempt to fix your pathetic approximation to democracy whilst your guy was in the lead, why should we listen to you now your guy isn't in the lead.

      I'm a Brit, I'm suffering Brexit; and I mean suffering - I will lose rights that I currently depend on month-to-month when brexit goes through. However, I got over it quicker very quickly, way quicker than these whining SJW-infected (oops, meant to write infested, but it's the same general thrust) anti-democrats, apparently. If the system is broken, don't attack the person who's getting the most from the system, that makes you a sore loser, attack the system itself.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:36PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:36PM (#436139)

        Writing a fucking petition that effectively says "we hate trump and what he stands for" is an *action*.

        That is not a fair characterization of this particular petition. All they are doing is asking him to reconsider some of his choices based on the concerns outlined.

        Tough shit - you didn't make any attempt to fix your pathetic approximation to democracy whilst your guy was in the lead, why should we listen to you now your guy isn't in the lead.

        Partisan bullshit. How do you know these people voted Obama? Why do you assume they didn't vote FOR Trump? And why do you think it's wrong to petition the politicians who are supposed to represent you and your concerns?

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:48PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:48PM (#436154)

          The President-elect has appointed individuals to positions of power who have endorsed racism, misogyny and religious bigotry, and denied the widespread scientific consensus on climate change. Regardless of our political views, these endorsements violate principles at the core of MIT’s mission. At this time, it is important to reaffirm the values we hold in common.

          Those aren't concerns as much as an agenda wrapping itself in the halo of science. i mean exactly how has M.I.T. lead the way in combating racism, misogyny, or religious bigotry? Can I audit how they made determinations of who resides on their faculty?

          https://www.jstor.org/stable/2963425?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents [jstor.org]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 03 2016, @12:43AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 03 2016, @12:43AM (#436344)

          And why do you think it's wrong to petition the politicians who are supposed to represent you and your concerns?

          If I understand correctly, FatPhil is a Brit. Apparently, they don't think all that much of our First Amendment over in the UK.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @04:57PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @04:57PM (#436029)

    Its funny (haha not so much) that the conservative base has repeatedly pointed out that liberals attack the for disagreeing, but now its ok to do the same because they disagree with you??

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @08:20PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @08:20PM (#436183)

      Yes. Turnabout is fair play. Goose, meet gander.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 03 2016, @04:35PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 03 2016, @04:35PM (#436549)

        Its not fair play when you complain about such tactics. Does the word "integrity" ring a bell?