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:
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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @04:41PM
There is some merit to the idea, already renewables are covering the first point, to the degree that Florida had a vote on the matter!
The second is much more problematic because money is a system of interaction for humans, and humans can screw with it if they want. Solving human equations is hard, but I will agree with op that we could figure out something at least a little better.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday December 02 2016, @08:57PM
Yeah that's the kind of thing I had in mind in writing that. Also additive manufacturing has been in my mind the last decade as a means to undermine our centralized systems of control. If I suppose I have all the energy I need and the means to create anything I want, what power does a magnate still hold over me then? Do they chase after me and every other person forever like the RIAA does file-sharing, while they wither on the vine?
I'm ashamed to say that I have no answers here, though I studied at the Chicago School of Economics. Others came up with BitCoin, which I would never have thought of, but it strikes at one of the fundamental levers of centralized control through the money supply. It's a hell of an engineering solution to a social problem. (There are such bright lights out there and I am not among them.)
Also, Bill Gate's quote from a couple decades ago has stayed with me, that "Banking is necessary, banks are not." It's not quite what he meant, but I think it means more than he intended. Through my adventures in hedge funds I found myself wondering again and again why all the posturing psychopaths were necessary when algorithms did the work. Didn't another wise man say, "Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script?" Maybe we can give all the human bankers a pink slip and come up with a better way to manage the computers that do the work of banking and finance.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Friday December 02 2016, @11:01PM
Careful, I can hear echoes from the future...
"OFF WITH HIS HEAD!"
~Tilting at windmills~