SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @03:33PM
Ummm.... the implication here is that "We should listen to these people, because they are MIT brains on legs!" Well, so what? Being a urologist doesn't imply you know anything about cars; that's not a good reason to heed advice on that matter.
Now, if an MIT civil engineer pointed out irrefutable mistakes in the technical proposal to Build That Wall, then you might have something worth considering.
Get it yet?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @04:25PM
We all get this "expertise" argument you're making, but those of us saying we should listen to these professors think your argument is really dumb. Now, if we were talking about actually complicated subjects like brain surgery or rocket engine design then you would have a point. But we're not, we're talking about straightforward policies everyone can understand. This anti-intellectualism must stop! It has people praising their future overlords and kicking in the teeth of those working to save our future.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @04:48PM
And to think, I'm young enough that I might yet see the Library of Congressed burned to the ground by Christians.
Not really sure why Christians like burning libraries. Probably a similar reason to why Moooooooooooooooooooooslims like destroying historical sites.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday December 02 2016, @07:30PM
You're trolling, but you are absolutely correct about the reasons. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all spring from the same poisonous root and until they die off in the collective consciousness there can and will be no peace.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...