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 Azuma Hazuki on Friday December 02 2016, @07:33PM
I gave up on them after this election. I don't care whether they learn it or not, they can all go to hell. Right now my concern is getting the ever-merciful fuck out of Dodge before that "lesson" kills me in the backsplash.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @07:51PM
Have a nice trip, and don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on the way out.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday December 02 2016, @08:07PM
Laugh while you can, idiot. You and your kind have condemned this nation to a Hell the likes of which you cannot possibly imagine.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @09:39PM
In Indiana, did Trump make United Technologies/Carrier "pay a damn tax" the way he promised?
Nope. The deal he made keeps FEWER THAN HALF of those jobs in the USA and to do that Trump gave Carrier a tax BREAK (with any other concessions to be revealed in the course of time).
Trump, at best, is a bag of hot air.
The only bright spot left is that the Blue minority in the Senate can use the auto-filibuster to make sure that nothing clears the Congress (the way that the Reds in Congress have been doing for 8 years to Obama's Neoliberal proposals).
It is indeed in the Executive Branch that the Trum Administration will do lots of damage.
Trump will cancel Obama's (already timid) executive orders on Day 1.
The 3 Reactionaries that Trump has lined up for the FCC will kill Net Neutrality on Day 1 as well as set-top box rule reforms.
The Interior Department will start rubberstamping oil lease approvals (more fracking) at a furious rate.
OSHA will be completely neutered and workplace safety will plummet even farther.
Yada, yada, yada.
Good luck, USA. You're gonna need it.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]