I initially started to read this as a generic rant about DEI politics in university settings, but realized it's actually about a specific issue, diversity statements, how they're used, the fact there are scoring methods for them, and whether or not that is desirable.
Readers who are apt to dismiss this because of initial appearances (bad title really) might want to reread it. I think there's something worth thinking about in it even if you're a on board with DEI efforts on campuses in general.
The USSR had a period, when ideology was guiding a scientific research process. This resulted in total destruction of Soviet genetics and cybernetics. The course was reversed in the mid-50s, but it was too late, USSR could never catch up the West in these fields up to its dissolution.
Ideology has been and will always be a guiding force in science. Western genetics was heavily influenced by capitalism. Many concepts in Soviet genetics ended up being closer to correct than competing Western theories, although it took a while for this to be appreciated (e.g., epigenetics).
Philosophers of science Collins and Pinch have an excellent entry-level book on this called "The Golem" that I would strongly recommend to anyone interested. Very accessible and not overly philosophical/jargon-y.
Mmmh, so the argument is to take politics out of uni.
So will flagging this as too political for HN be seen as conforming to the article or as wokeism?
This post was flagged and now it’s not, which is pretty interesting in and of itself. I’d be curious to know why the post is controversial. Is it a subject that is simply considered beyond rational discussion?
Readers who are apt to dismiss this because of initial appearances (bad title really) might want to reread it. I think there's something worth thinking about in it even if you're a on board with DEI efforts on campuses in general.