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: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @03:51PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @03:51PM (#435988)

    Christopher Monckton has just produced and will within the next year have published a peer-reviewed article showing that all of the dire predictions of Global Climate Change are based on an incorrect application of mathematics. Somebody is wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time that it's the majority of "people who should know best"; I repeat myself: Humans are both malicious and incompetent. Surrounding your dumb ideas in loads of mathematics and journal entries and "non-profit" organizations and virtue signalling doesn't make them better.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @04:49PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @04:49PM (#436028)

    If I've learned anything it is to dismiss people who over use buzzwords. It is a clear indication that they aren't thinking, just applying a specific argument for too wide a base. There is generally some truth in just about every opinion, but buzzwords indicate that what they contain is thoughtless garbage. Your point about bad ideas cloaked in big words and equations is not wrong, plenty of crappy ideas are published. But, for such a large group this point falls apart. You want us to not listen to hundreds of top academics with little to no political ties just because they are academics? I think you're way off base here... Guess we can leave it to the MSM and shitty news websites to tell us what to think instead.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @05:23PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @05:23PM (#436045)

      No... I don't want that; please, take your straw man elsewhere.

      The whole of human history is replete with examples of "The People Who Should Know Best" getting it totally fucking wrong.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:17PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:17PM (#436116)

        Instead we'll let the bright minds of the Trump administration figure it out? Creationism, shock the gay out, nuke the middle east, bring back coal... It just doesn't make sense!!! Listen to these proven idiots, and NOT these proven smart people. Its not like this letter has a specific game plan, they just oppose regressive policies.

        JESUS FUCKING CHRIST I CAN'T TAKE THIS THREAD ANYMORE!! just a bunch of anti-intellectual bullshit with no alternative solutions, what the actual fuck?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:27PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:27PM (#436128)

          As noted, a urologist is a proven smart person... just not necessarily regarding cars...

          You don't want idiots in power? Then push for a Free Market, where those who want power both have to earn it and have to maintain it by providing an objectively profitable service to society; you get idiots in power when people are installed into lofty office by a vote that is virtually zero correlation with competence or previous success.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:49PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:49PM (#436155)

            providing an objectively profitable service to society

            El Chapo for president!

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @10:14PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @10:14PM (#436259)

            Since you're so completely ignorant of History and how unregulated business made the USA a Dickensian place, here are a few topics to investigate.

            Robber barons - A nation of a few superwealthy families and everybody else is poor.

            Dumping (trade) - Selling below your cost until the competition is driven out of business.

            Cartel - Carving up the market the way that the gangs of the 1920s did in Chicago.

            .
            There is no such thing as a "Free Market".
            Markets are functions of governments.
            Without regulation, you have The Law of the Jungle.

            -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @10:43PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @10:43PM (#436283)

              You're confusing governmental meddling and governmental cronyism for a Free Market; you cannot be blamed though, because that's the kind of pablum you've been force-fed as part of your government-dominated education.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 03 2016, @04:23AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 03 2016, @04:23AM (#436391)

                Ummm, re-read the post you replied to please.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Friday December 02 2016, @05:41PM

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Friday December 02 2016, @05:41PM (#436056) Journal

    Here's what we should do about Climate Change:

    1) Replace gasoline and diesel vehicles with electric ones with decent batteries, as soon as possible. If Climate Change is wrong, that still saves us a whole lot of money because electric motors are far, far better than combustion engines. It's also a lot of work, and will create lots of jobs. You go ahead and blow hundreds of $ on gas for your thirsty car, and breathe fumes and make noise, then whine that you can't afford a place to live, me, I'm switching to electric the moment it's practical to do a road trip in them and their prices come down to near parity with gasoline. Changing to electric motors is a huge improvement, well worth doing whether or not Climate Change is real.

    2) Replace coal and natural gas power plants with solar, wind, and hydroelectric power plants. Also worth doing whether or not Climate Change is real. Also more work, more jobs.

    3) We're going to need seawalls. Which would you rather build, a wall on the US-Mexico border, or walls to save our coastal cities? Let's see, which kind of wall works better? The Netherlands' dikes have been keeping the sea back for centuries. The Maginot Line was a total failure that was quickly circumvented at the start of WWII, afer a mere decade of existence. The Berlin Wall and the whole Iron Curtain were loser moves, showed the world that the entire Communist block was a giant prison. Walls didn't stop the barbarians from destroying Rome.

    4) Build more reservoirs, perhaps including salt water ones in the few areas we have below sea level. It's not much, can't possibly impound enough water to reduce sea levels significantly, but has a lot of other uses-- agriculture, water supply, and of course hydroelectric power.

    Doing nothing doesn't create jobs. Are you a Job Killer? Why do you hate work? You'd rather go to war?

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday December 02 2016, @07:37PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday December 02 2016, @07:37PM (#436140) Journal

    Christopher Monckton has just produced and will within the next year have published a peer-reviewed article showing that all of the dire predictions of Global Climate Change are based on an incorrect application of mathematics.
     
    Now, if only he was a mathematician we could be getting somewhere!

    I'm sure his diploma in journalism studies [wikipedia.org] provides a strong foundation for this mathematical research.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 03 2016, @06:15AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 03 2016, @06:15AM (#436423)

      A peer-reviewed article is a peer-reviewed article.