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: 4, Insightful) by schad on Friday December 02 2016, @04:08PM
You're begging the question. Try it with advice you don't already know to be good. What if your doctor told you to switch your car's motor oil to Motul 8100 X-CESS 5w40 from the brand (and viscosity!) your manufacturer recommends? And that doing so would get you 10% more power and fuel economy, not to mention smoother performance and increased engine life? Would you go out and do it? I mean, those are pretty big advantages. And if your highly-educated and trained doctor recommends it, it must be a good idea, right?
Only the executive branch. The president doesn't appoint people to Congress; we voters are responsible for that shit show. You can't even claim gerrymandering. Congressional districts are drawn up by the states: usually the state legislatures, though in some cases by the judiciary or independent panels, but in no case by the federal government. And while the president does appoint people to the judicial branch, they must be confirmed by the Senate. If our senators aren't doing the advice-and-consent thing, it is, again, our fault as voters for not holding them responsible.
If you think the executive generally and the president specifically has too much power, I absolutely and completely agree with you. Unfortunately, empowerment of the executive branch is something that's been going on at least since Jackson. And Congress's abrogation of its Constitutional responsibilities has been going on at least since FDR. So while Republicans will try to tell you that this is a new thing (OBAMA RULED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER) and Democrats will try to tell you that this is an almost-as-new thing (BUSH LIED) the reality is that both parties have been complicit in making the executive branch increasingly authoritarian. And now, thanks to the shortsightedness of those idiots, Donald J. Trump, reality TV star, can start a global thermonuclear war on his own authority.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday December 02 2016, @07:16PM
Regarding the first point, my response would be "Now that sounds good. I'm going to go look up peoples' experiences with this stuff and see a) if they say the same things and b) if something like the model or weight of my car an affect this."
Second point...yeah the executive is way too powerful, but I don't think the legislature is as open to and amenable to the voting public and its wishes as you think. It's too complex for most people to understand, hence low midterm turnouts, and as it is, the entire thing's turned into an old-boys' club with a cycle of lobbying and legislation. The judicial branch...this may be the scariest part, since we have a good idea of what kind of judges a Dominionist would appoint.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...