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 linkdude64 on Friday December 02 2016, @04:22PM
"Just because they are distinguished in their fields . . ."
Lots of people are good at what they dedicate their lives to. Most people simply don't dedicate themselves to acadamia.
"Just because they are associated with a highly notable institution of higher learning . . ."
I don't ask an English teacher - even a Triple Gold Medalist PhD Super Deluxe English Professor - how to fix my car, and I wouldn't ask a particle physicist how to run a successful business or how to keep a country safe, and I would certainly not ask a menial figure in a prestigious bueracracy how to Lead. Leading is an art in its own right.
"Just because they are known for sound reason, supporting facts, reproducible results . . ."
Yet they are as biased as anyone else when it comes to personal matters and opinions.
Again, a Triple-Platinum PhD Particle Physicist who says "Nobody needs guns" is not any more correct than a single person who responds with, "I used a gun to defend my house from a burglar with a knife. I needed a gun."
". . . does NOT mean that you should give credibility to what they say!"
Or what you say, I suppose.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Friday December 02 2016, @05:22PM
So instead you're going to let a businessman with a record of fraud and zero experience in government and foreign diplomacy decide what is best for the country? I really don't understand this level of cognitive dissonance.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @05:45PM
That's what happens when you allow influential people to be installed through democratic voting rather than free market economics.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by linkdude64 on Friday December 02 2016, @07:44PM
"So instead you're going to let a businessman with a record of fraud"
and a current standing of billions of dollars in revenue and considerable profit whom he is entirely responsible for creating? Yes! I absolutely want that. What was that about cognitive dissonance, again?
The other option has not a "past record" but a current agenda of perpetuating war in the mid-east and destroying this country (economically and militarily at least) for the sake of campaign donors. If you would like, I can show you the Wikileaks emails - aka the evidence.
"zero experience in government and foreign diplomacy decide what is best for the country? I really don't understand this level of cognitive dissonance."
And I really don't understand your thinking that somehow having been in the government immediately qualifies you to improve the country. If Trump had been a high-up Republican politician for the past 30 years I would say that would make him less qualified than he is now! You really believe that the longer people stay in politics, the better they become at being representatives of the common man? You have your head in the MSM sand.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Friday December 02 2016, @07:53PM
I was pointing out the flaw in the argument. I don't advocate for Clinton, I know she would support terrible policies as well. The point was listening to hundreds/thousands of high level academics is statistically a much better idea than listening to a fraudulent real estate developer. He has been in court numerous times, been defeated (contrary to his statements otherwise), and hasn't even released his taxes. According to gossip and hints from his own children he is not a billionaire and made his way in life by subsidies from his father. Conning people and getting a huge amount of free seed money does not a good businessman make. Get your head out of Trump's ass, I don't even watch the news or cruise MSM websites since they're too full of propaganda bullshit.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Friday December 02 2016, @07:59PM
To be clear, I'm not advocating that Trump step down and let Clinton be president, that was your weird take on what I said. At the very least Trump said he'll torpedo the TPP so I'm happy with that bit if it happens, but I do worry about a lot of other things. None of those things were likely to be different under Clinton anyway.
As for draining the swamp, he just filled the white house with swamp creatures! So I don't have any faith Trump will come through on that account.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 03 2016, @12:20AM
Not to put too fine a point on this but some think Donald Trump would be richer if he'd have invested in index funds. [fortune.com] And I think it should also be pointed out that his businesses have gone into bankruptcy at least a couple of times now; the billions he has managed to keep were mostly at the expense of the creditors and contractors he has stiffed along the way. Are you really sure this is what you want? Are you sure? If I were you, I would keep a close eye on your wallet for the next four years. Just sayin'.