This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
In my field, there's a bit of chaos going around, too, but the main cause of it predates the election. In my case, the U.S. Dept. of _____ Office of _____ Research has just decided to totally revamp the grant structure so that now the fundamental units that are being funded are large teams organized based on what sorts of problems they're investigating, but such teams do not now and have never before existed. This was the plan back in October, and we've not gotten word since then except declaring this plan to be official. I don't expect that the administration change has made things easier, but I can say that my case is not primarily caused by this.
That said.
Last month I noted that the facility I work at was planning to hide its DEI department under a paper-thin disguise. The week after the inauguration, though, they were told in no uncertain terms that that wouldn't be permitted, and (as far as I have seen) they caved. Much of the next weekly science meeting was dedicated to mourning their DEI efforts (and after hearing this - hearing how so-very-confused! they now are about what counts as 'DEI' - I certainly believe that a good deal of the chaos is due to malicious compliance. I cannot fail by now to recognize the tactic of wholly emptying out one's head when put on the defensive. ["'Woke?' What is this thing you call 'woke?'"])
And I'm glad I didn't attend that meeting in person, lest I have done something intemperate. I might have stood up and tried to say something like "I think it is wrong to discriminate based on race or gender. I do not think that we should be in the business of discriminating based on race or gender." (I'm sure I would have gotten tongue-tied - but probably would have gotten the point across ["he's an enemy"] enough to be retaliated against.)
Backing up a little, one of the main reasons I'm where I am at all - on the particular small team working at this big facility - is that this was one of the few job openings available in my field that did not require me to submit a Diversity Statement. (I don't know how my PI got away with it; I know the institution we're affiliated with requires it.) If I had had to do so, and actually tried to be honest about my beliefs (see the intemperate sentences above,) I know now and knew then that that would get me a failing grade.
Here's an example rubric - associated with a university I personally have had some connection to - showing what they're looking for in Diversity Statements, and more importantly, what they're not looking for. You get the lowest scores for saying things like you intend to "[treat] all students the same regardless of background." '90s colorblindness is being explicitly filtered against. That's not enough, you see. If you want to be a scientist, you must have the heart of an activist - the spirit of a revolutionary! You must be sure to fit in exactly with the political monoculture.
Now, the purpose of all of this is clearly to advance the ideology by closing all available doors to anyone who doesn't submit to it. But the problem with ensuring that [general you] you're all a bunch of revolutionaries is that sometimes revolutions lose. The problem with ensuring that every one among you is dedicated to Overthrowing The System is that you might be the system already. The problem with welding yourself to something as indispensable as Science is that, perhaps, science might be done great damage in extricating you (to say nothing of the damage done inserting yourself.)
Perhaps my career will be derailed by this. Perhaps my entire field will get torpedoed. But at this level of corruption - frankly mind-boggling when I step back to take it in - I can't say academia wouldn't have it coming.
More options
Context Copy link