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: 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!