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: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @03:56PM
I realize that that the professors at Devry, or wherever Buzzard went to college don't necessarily have expertise in the many areas where the Trump administration will make policy and enforce, or not enforce, existing laws.
But it's different with professors at a top university such as MIT.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday December 02 2016, @04:00PM
Yes, it absolutely is. They're so highly specialized that they have virtually no expertise outside their chosen field. Being a rocket surgeon does not qualify you to speak on anything but rocket surgery.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @04:16PM
Only problem with your theory is statistics. If we're going to listen to anyone I'll put my money on hundreds of top level professors.
By your reasoning what in the HELL is trump doing in the whitehouse? He is less qualified than any president in history, but like others have said that seems to be a point of pride for his supporters. His cabinet choices are a very clear indication of the path they will take, and its this: more corporate welfare, congrats Goldman Sachs, and repressive legislation to undo civil rights.
If you can't see that then you are the one who nerds rocket surgery...
(Score: 1, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday December 02 2016, @04:24PM
No, Obama is less qualified than any President in history. Trump has held real jobs. The rest of your argument essentially boils down to "they agree with me so their opinions are wise".
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @05:31PM
Trump has no experience in government and zero concept of what diplomacy is all about. The only thing going for him is the sheer military and economic power of the US, so his bully tactics might actually get results. If we were a smaller country he'd just be ignored and the country would become the butt of political jokes like North Korea.
My argument is that I'll take the opinion of 500 of our top scientists over ... wait, over nothing. Trump and his cabinet have been pretty clear about what they will do, this isn't some debate about opinions. You want us to NOT listen to dire warnings from our top minds? You want us to wait and see if every horrible thing Trump said was just hot air? It becomes ever increasingly clear that you and your fellows are ruled by hatred and fear, not logic and critical thinking.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @05:33PM
My prediction is Trump's presidency will go much like Obama's, the major promises will fall through and we'll just experience 4-8 years of increased surveillance and corporate welfare.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:33PM
While Neoliberal do-nothing-useful Obama is among the worst ever, your memory is too short.
I remember Gerald Ford and his "brilliant" plan to deal with inflation: Buttons [google.com]
Reagan's plan to build a 600-ship Navy while building a new generation of nuclear-tipped missiles and simultaneously building a "new" generation of strategic bombers (which the U-2 shootdown of 1960 showed were already out of date) was also pretty stupid.
(Militarism has an extremely low multiplier effect and borrowing to accomplish that is simply moronic.)
Clinton's gutting of Glass-Steagall set up the 2nd giant crash of the USAian economy in less than a century.
Nixon said "If the president does it, it's not illegal".
Barry O'Bummer is pretty awful, but he's got lots of competition for "worst".
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by edIII on Friday December 02 2016, @10:12PM
Trump has not held a real job, unless you count getting $14 million from his daddy, working for daddy's companies, and then going bankrupt as a career. He has zero experience working for anyone else other than himself or daddy, and clearly does not play well with others. You have to be joking to compare the two men. Trump couldn't touch Obama, on Obama's worst day.
Obama was not the least qualified president in history, and was actually a Constitutional scholar. His experience in politics has clearly demonstrated that he has political skills, and Hillary was absolutely more qualified than Obama even. Stop making Obama look like an inexperienced idiot, because that is just fucking moronic dude. Nobody believes that, except the people that want to believe it due to emotional motivations. Those arguments went out the window in his two terms of office.
Stick to most salient point regarding Obama; He fucking betrayed us. That's why he is worse than Bush, and why he will still be worse than Trump. Obama fucking knew better, and could have been better.
Trump is just an ignorant, bombastic piece of shit, and is easily the least experienced person to ever hold such a high office. How does being an overbearing asshole that treats his workers like shit, goes bankrupt, and refuses to pay on contracts at his whim, make him qualified? I don't expect anything better out of him, than I did Obama (after he started fucking us over). The ONLY reason why I had any hope for Hillary was because the Democratic Party underwent a far more civil reorganization with new progressive policies. That, and the rest of you act as one hell of a check and balance against her. All we have to do is look the other way, stop supporting her, and you would have had her killed within days. At least according to how much hate and vitriol came from the other side. Trump may have been likened to Hitler (which is accurate), but Hillary achieved actual anti-Christ status :)
Stop saying stupid shit like that, and call out Obama from what he actually is. A very smart and experienced con man that ran on populism, albeit a more positive form of it. Once he was done, he abandoned us. Trump is already doing the same, except I don't believe he has the maturity and discipline to deal with other world leaders like Obama did. Being the arrogant strong man isn't all that useful in international diplomacy.
Fuck, even Reagan at his most senile was better than Trump on his best day. He was an actual governor you know, not some reality TV trainwreck....
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @10:59PM
That being the case, you'd think that he'd heard of this:
So then, how is it that Obama has had USA military personnel use drone-borne munitions to whack 8 USA citizens? [google.com]
Notice also that the Bill of Rights does NOT say "No USA citizen" nor "No resident of USA".
What it says is "NO PERSON".
I'd say that knowing better, then doing evil anyway, puts Obama well into the negative column.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday December 02 2016, @11:22PM
Did you think I would disagree with you or something? I was talking about experience.
Let me put to you in quasi D&D terms.
Obama: INT 19 WIS 10 CHA 25 STR 3 Alignment: Lawful Evil. Skills: Bluff, Diplomacy, and Street Wise.
XP 343,035,223
Trump: INT 4 WIS 3 CHA 15 STR 20 Alignment: Mentally Challenged Chaotic Evil. Skills: Oh So many Skills, I've Got the Best SKILLS
XP: 987
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @11:57PM
:D
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 03 2016, @07:38PM
In D&D terms, most people would have stats between 8 and 13, while anything diverging would be exceptional. A STR of 20 would make someone a professional bodybuilder, while 4INT is lower than the typical ape (who has 6). Anything above 20 is superhuman and rarely available even to lv20 characters who can strangle dragons with their bare firsts.
Turn in your nerd card right now.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Sunday December 04 2016, @12:45AM
Absolutely not!
I counter with my lvl42 Grammar Nazi and cast Your-Reading-Comprehension-Sucks And Yo-Momma-Dresses-You-Funny.
Did say quasi-D&D terms ;)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Sunday December 04 2016, @07:53AM
If forcing people to buy insurance, (especially in states that did not accept subsidies making the cost of the shittiest plan available over $300 dollars a month) is constitutional what a magnificent scholar. What a fucking genius.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday December 03 2016, @12:42AM
Sidestepping the issue of whether or not the MIT staff are qualified, another issue is that they're just another bunch of obnoxious academics speaking from their ivory tower and out of touch with commoners.
Anyway, just because somebody's good at being an academic doesn't mean they're any good at not only politics but also social skills and bathing. Just wait until a Black and/or Muslim student goes on another rampage on their campus, or sets up tents and shits all over the sidewalks by their houses, and their minds will change.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday December 02 2016, @04:36PM
Being a rocket surgeon does not qualify you to speak on anything but rocket surgery.
If you are a scientist of some sort, I assume it does qualify you at least somewhat to speak on the scientific method, which is actually one of the things coming up repeatedly in these statements. We can certainly debate whether these folks have any authority beyond anyone else to speak about issues of bigotry or free speech or whatever... but surely scientists have the right (and at least some qualification) to express concern about the support of general scientific methodologies?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @04:58PM
Doctors know nothing about politics, so why do we let them vote? I propose that only politicians should be able to vote.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @05:12PM
Now you're starting to get it.
Democratic voting is a terrible way to organize society; there is little correlation between voting and competence; the weight of one's vote is virtually detached from the results of one's previous votes.
In contrast, the free market allows society to evolve under the direction of those who devise and implement objectively sustainable patterns of existence based as much as possible on each individual's voluntary choice to participate.
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday December 02 2016, @05:51PM
Hate to burst your bubble, but the "Free market" requires strong government intervention to even work.
For example, the price system relies on money. Cyptocurrency *may* be possible without government intervention, but has scaling problems.
Contract enforcement relies on the rule of law: something the government typically provides.
The voluntary exchange of goods relies on infrastructure such as roads. Government provides that as well. Sometimes eminent domain is required to prevent somebody from blocking a road by buying up land.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @06:15PM
Money is just a commodity; it's existence is a manifestation of contract fulfillment.
Contract enforcement is just a service, and like any other service, it can be implemented as part of the free market; co-evolution of symbiotic systems is a thing.
The fact that a government has provided a service (such as building roads) does not imply that only a government can provide that service, or even that only a government can provide that service best.
Try again.
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday December 02 2016, @07:39PM
Governments also have a monopoly on the use of force.
In the absence of government, your contract may be ignored by an armed thug.
There is also the issue that resources are collectively owned. Why are you allowed to claim full ownership merely for making improvements?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @10:46PM
No. In the absence of contract-enforcement, your contract may be ignored by an armed thug; there is no requirement that a government handle contract-enforcement.
Ownership is a property of social interaction that is hashed out through various iterations of contract negotiation and enforcement.
Come on, man! Do a little independent thinking for once in your life!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @05:44PM
> They're so highly specialized that they have virtually no expertise outside their chosen field.
Said by the #1 over-confident ignoramus outside of his specialty on this site.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 03 2016, @06:03AM
There is some stiff competition for that title, but Buz is in the running.