Why is this (I presume scientific) paper written like an opinion piece?
What will it take to make our undergraduate and graduate researchers, our postdoctoral interview candidates, our faculty and our academic leaders reflect local and global populations — and why should we bother?
It looks like an opinion piece because the article is a comment. It indicates that at the top of the article. Scientific journals often solicit a small number of commentaries that address issues in their field.
As the world erupts with demands for racial justice, the chemistry community has the obligation, opportunity and momentum to drive for diversity and inclusion in the sciences. Efforts towards that end must begin by allocating opportunities for success on the basis of potential, not privilege, and follow through by soliciting and acting upon feedback from the scholars we have recruited.
Because modern day social scientists have legitimately lost the plot and think it’s more important to for careers to be built by ethnicity rather than merit, and call any alternative a matter of facilitating and furthering “privilege” with no data to back up their claims.
I know people who have been pushed out of labs and bullied into quitting their degree programs just because they were hetero white males. I am unfortunately not kidding, not exaggerating, and the details I am leaving out only make the circumstances worse.
Academics have quietly acknowledged that academia itself is dying because of this and other issues that call the validity of modern science literature into question.
I have a friend who is published in Nature, and I’m very tempted to send them this article. They have already stated that being published in Nature means nothing these days to anyone who actually pays attention to what they publish, and this is just further proof of it.
For all who digress: I welcome all downvotes. I am not trolling, I am not inciting, I am laying out the honest truth as it has been illustrated to me by credible academics over the past five years. I don’t care what you learned in social sciences. I don’t care who published what. You seek to undermine academia by making merit moot and for that I respect you less than I even respect Silicon Valley-- that is to say, dismally little. And idgaf what you label me because if you are on the other side of this, your words mean absolutely nothing to me and never will.
Let me just point this out- this was the exact same argument by many intellectuals back in the 1950’s about segregation/integration and blacks in science. Why should we care about their color? If they are good scientists with great original ideas and experiments, then surely they will get published and get their positions commensurate to their merit. This is also ignoring their segregated schooling being underfunded, not being welcomed into higher ed unless at specific ‘negro’ universities, and the crippled career paths because of it. But sure, even with their second rate primary education due to their skin color, and their second rate secondary education due to their skin color, and then their crippled career prospects due to their skin color- why don’t we then measure them on merit? The black man never amounted to what out nice ivy league educated white man has done, so why take a risk on them? And again, should we not just judge them on merit? Ignore that if a black man has a novel idea then they must then have the idea reviewed into perpetuity while one of the white reviewers just so happens to come up with the same idea then publishes before the black man.
So to sit here and still argue that merit alone while disregarding the person is only progress is actually quite regressive.
Now, beyond that- modern publishing is blind in most every respectable journal because of this issue. It is only after being accepted is the author identity revealed to the reviewers.
This is also ignoring their segregated schooling being underfunded
I attended an underfunded public school system. It was intentionally underfunded by the state because of class/income segregation, not racial segregation. Caucasians were a statistical minority there.
not being welcomed into higher ed unless at specific ‘negro’ universities
I was denied my father’s “transferrable” GI bill by the federal government and received no substantial tuition assistance, had to work full-time through college to pay tuition. The tuition assistance I did receive was specifically established to empower disadvantaged households regardless of race, and was minimal.
their crippled career prospects due to their skin color- why don’t we then measure them on merit?
I am 100% self-taught in all technology and computer topics I’ve mastered. All I had was Google and 5Mbps. My parents did not encourage my exploration, and even dissuaded or hampered it often.
Ignore that if a black man has a novel idea then they must then have the idea reviewed into perpetuity while one of the white reviewers just so happens to come up with the same idea then publishes before the black man
[ . . . ]
modern publishing is blind in most every respectable journal because of this issue. It is only after being accepted is the author identity revealed to the reviewers.
Am I having a stroke or did you just contradict yourself? Why exactly would a black man’s publication be reviewed “into perpetuity” if the reviewers know nothing of their race? Furthermore, I am clearly arguing that their race means absolutely nothing and therefore would not be considered in review.
commenting before I go to bed to point out you have contributed nothing to this discussion, instead using the opportunity for an attempt at being offensive.
let me be more direct then - i find it difficult to take your view on the whole of academia seriously when its basis appears to be the “experience” of a “friend,” particularly keeping in mind you have already wholly dismissed social sciences. i understand that statements such as yours are not invitations to actual conversation.
I dismiss modern social sciences because they have made it impossible not to dismiss them by making absurd claims that are easily refutable and arguably do nothing to better society-- how the fuck is hiring or granting tuition assistance based on applicant’s identity equate to social progress, when their identity makes up so little of their effectual background?
If race is a social construct, then tell me why the fuck they insist on making things about race more than it ever was before instead of embracing objective equality?
This incongruence is the exact reason extremist groups have no trouble finding new members-- anyone embracing these half-cooked, bad-faith movements is actively driving neutral parties into the arms of the extremists. By treating the neutral party as the enemy, you make them your enemy. I affiliate with no social groups because of how awful they are, but I assure you I will always undermine DEI however I can in my day-to-day job duties simply because those behind the movement threw the first punch.
I see humans as humans. And I don’t give a flying fuck what anyone else says they are. They are humans, they will be treated like humans the same as all other humans are treated, no better, no worse, and their identity means zilch.
“Recruit and retain a diverse workforce” https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-020-0214-z
Only 24,99 € / 30 days, what a steal
i like that “open access” label just below the paywall
Why is this (I presume scientific) paper written like an opinion piece?
It looks like an opinion piece because the article is a comment. It indicates that at the top of the article. Scientific journals often solicit a small number of commentaries that address issues in their field.
It sounds like a Lemmy post
IM JUST ASKING QUESTIONS GUISE
Because modern day social scientists have legitimately lost the plot and think it’s more important to for careers to be built by ethnicity rather than merit, and call any alternative a matter of facilitating and furthering “privilege” with no data to back up their claims.
I know people who have been pushed out of labs and bullied into quitting their degree programs just because they were hetero white males. I am unfortunately not kidding, not exaggerating, and the details I am leaving out only make the circumstances worse.
Academics have quietly acknowledged that academia itself is dying because of this and other issues that call the validity of modern science literature into question.
I have a friend who is published in Nature, and I’m very tempted to send them this article. They have already stated that being published in Nature means nothing these days to anyone who actually pays attention to what they publish, and this is just further proof of it.
For all who digress: I welcome all downvotes. I am not trolling, I am not inciting, I am laying out the honest truth as it has been illustrated to me by credible academics over the past five years. I don’t care what you learned in social sciences. I don’t care who published what. You seek to undermine academia by making merit moot and for that I respect you less than I even respect Silicon Valley-- that is to say, dismally little. And idgaf what you label me because if you are on the other side of this, your words mean absolutely nothing to me and never will.
Let me just point this out- this was the exact same argument by many intellectuals back in the 1950’s about segregation/integration and blacks in science. Why should we care about their color? If they are good scientists with great original ideas and experiments, then surely they will get published and get their positions commensurate to their merit. This is also ignoring their segregated schooling being underfunded, not being welcomed into higher ed unless at specific ‘negro’ universities, and the crippled career paths because of it. But sure, even with their second rate primary education due to their skin color, and their second rate secondary education due to their skin color, and then their crippled career prospects due to their skin color- why don’t we then measure them on merit? The black man never amounted to what out nice ivy league educated white man has done, so why take a risk on them? And again, should we not just judge them on merit? Ignore that if a black man has a novel idea then they must then have the idea reviewed into perpetuity while one of the white reviewers just so happens to come up with the same idea then publishes before the black man.
So to sit here and still argue that merit alone while disregarding the person is only progress is actually quite regressive.
Now, beyond that- modern publishing is blind in most every respectable journal because of this issue. It is only after being accepted is the author identity revealed to the reviewers.
I attended an underfunded public school system. It was intentionally underfunded by the state because of class/income segregation, not racial segregation. Caucasians were a statistical minority there.
I was denied my father’s “transferrable” GI bill by the federal government and received no substantial tuition assistance, had to work full-time through college to pay tuition. The tuition assistance I did receive was specifically established to empower disadvantaged households regardless of race, and was minimal.
I am 100% self-taught in all technology and computer topics I’ve mastered. All I had was Google and 5Mbps. My parents did not encourage my exploration, and even dissuaded or hampered it often.
Am I having a stroke or did you just contradict yourself? Why exactly would a black man’s publication be reviewed “into perpetuity” if the reviewers know nothing of their race? Furthermore, I am clearly arguing that their race means absolutely nothing and therefore would not be considered in review.
yes, dispense upon us your second-hand, bitter expertise. i’m certain you have the Truth, the Facts, and the Data.
commenting before I go to bed to point out you have contributed nothing to this discussion, instead using the opportunity for an attempt at being offensive.
let me be more direct then - i find it difficult to take your view on the whole of academia seriously when its basis appears to be the “experience” of a “friend,” particularly keeping in mind you have already wholly dismissed social sciences. i understand that statements such as yours are not invitations to actual conversation.
good night.
I dismiss modern social sciences because they have made it impossible not to dismiss them by making absurd claims that are easily refutable and arguably do nothing to better society-- how the fuck is hiring or granting tuition assistance based on applicant’s identity equate to social progress, when their identity makes up so little of their effectual background?
If race is a social construct, then tell me why the fuck they insist on making things about race more than it ever was before instead of embracing objective equality?
This incongruence is the exact reason extremist groups have no trouble finding new members-- anyone embracing these half-cooked, bad-faith movements is actively driving neutral parties into the arms of the extremists. By treating the neutral party as the enemy, you make them your enemy. I affiliate with no social groups because of how awful they are, but I assure you I will always undermine DEI however I can in my day-to-day job duties simply because those behind the movement threw the first punch.
I see humans as humans. And I don’t give a flying fuck what anyone else says they are. They are humans, they will be treated like humans the same as all other humans are treated, no better, no worse, and their identity means zilch.
https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-020-0214-z
deleted by creator