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: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday December 02 2016, @04:29PM
Interesting. I probably shouldn't feed the trolls, but since the first AC comment has been modded up, I guess I'll reply. I don't know if you're the same AC who posted earlier, but that post argued that notable faculty were too busy to participate because it was apparently too onerous to leave their labs and sign onto a statement. Now, when notable faculty might have actually signed the statement... now signing a statement is apparently doing "nothing" and they are apparently being cajoled to by their apparent opponents on the faculty with opposing political views, and if they don't participate, they won't get funding for their research.
Are you serious? You do realize that MIT receives a lot of FEDERAL funding, right? For fiscal year 2016, they are receiving $477 million dollars from various federal departments toward research (roughly 2/3 of the research income for MIT). And you think faculty members in labs are idiotic enough to show up and sign a statement against the new federal government head because they are afraid their COLLEAGUES are going to take away their grant money?? That money comes from the government they are criticizing!
If you wanted to be really cynical, I suppose you could have taken the opposite argument -- that these "scientists" aren't seriously concerned about science, and are really just worried about their grant money. And they're afraid that the new government officials will take away their money if allowed to take office. THAT would at least be a slightly more logical argument, even though I still think it doesn't explain the actions of most of the people on this list (many and probably most of whom receive funding for stuff that is unlikely to be defunded under Trump for political reasons).
Keep trying. Instead of actually taking things at face value, eventually you'll find some random set of ideas that could create a conspiracy theory that will explain away any inconvenient set of facts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @05:06PM
The "notable" faculty are almost certainly people who have morphed from high thinkers into figurehead managers of large organizations that have evolved to work with politically tainted bureaucracies. It is what it is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:12PM
"almost certainly" correct?