To be clear, while there is _specific_ language around DEI/gender identity, the actual language of parts of this goes far, far further, and essentially codifies giving political appointees explicit discretion over what gets funded and what conferences scientists with government funds can go to, and disallows any government money to go towards publishing research.
I agree there are serious concerns and drawbacks with giving appointees discretion. But the reason they did this is likely that agencies otherwise have a way of basically doing their own thing, and not complying with language. One example that isn’t about DEI. is Fauci working around restrictions on gain of function research, following the ban Obama put into place. You can have language around DEI or gender identity (or some issue on the other side) but people can find ways around it.
> and essentially codifies giving political appointees explicit discretion over what gets funded
I approve of this. The people who make the funding decisions should be politically accountable. If you have a mental model of unappointed civil servants as detached, neutral, non-political entities, I can understand why you wouldn't. But I see them as just people, and I don't know anybody like that. I'd like the folks who make bad choices with tax dollars to be votable out of office along with their boss, rather than protected from accountability by layers of boards, laws and unions.
Religion used to be the biggest supporter of science. Then science surpassed religion in civilization relevancy. Now conservative politics is stepping up to the fight.
Citizens in a free society do not temper their criticisms for fear that "the government" might get mad about them. Donald Trump's science policy is destroying one of the key components of American power, and if he doesn't like people posting evocative images about that he'll have to get over it.
yes some of the provocative imagery is non-productive in public spheres outside private circles.
As a remedy, I recommend everyone on the left read George Lakoff's book "Don't Think of an Elephant." It's a guide for how to communicate effectively, especially to people who have a vastly different worldview from themselves.
He's been consulting to organizations for a long time and these books are the distillation of his knowledge in plain language.
Preview:
1. He makes an (obv simplified) model of left vs right communication as "nurturing parent" vs. "strict father." There is obvious overlap - it's a model, but you can see how much this explains as he develops it a bit further.
2. He talks about a "staining" or "triggering" effect when communicating. what does that mean? people have key words that instantly shut down their thought, preventing useful discussion. For example, immediately upon hearing the words "trans," conservatives might picture a man in a dress molesting someone in a bathroom. Similar for leftists when they hear a word like "corporation" or "business." So he teaches how to communicate without stumbling on these.
The party is against reality broadly, is Ballardian Hyper Reality writ large. A fabricated world of nonsense and fear mongering. Being opposed to science is the only thing that makes sense those who so broadly are opposed to truth and peace.
The ultra wealthy that fund them are also all too happy to see proud institutions hollowed out, happy to see knowledge workers cast out of good worthy public effort and prestigious storied jobs, and made to look for corporate jobs.
That's a fair objection, but it's not OK to politicize everything else in science just because a few idiots handed your party an unusually-catchy wedge issue.
Climate science is not "woke." Basic and applied research at agencies like NASA is not "woke." Math departments are not "woke." NIST is not "woke." Yet all of their funding is under threat by the Trump administration and Republicans in general.
To be clear, while there is _specific_ language around DEI/gender identity, the actual language of parts of this goes far, far further, and essentially codifies giving political appointees explicit discretion over what gets funded and what conferences scientists with government funds can go to, and disallows any government money to go towards publishing research.
I agree there are serious concerns and drawbacks with giving appointees discretion. But the reason they did this is likely that agencies otherwise have a way of basically doing their own thing, and not complying with language. One example that isn’t about DEI. is Fauci working around restrictions on gain of function research, following the ban Obama put into place. You can have language around DEI or gender identity (or some issue on the other side) but people can find ways around it.
> and essentially codifies giving political appointees explicit discretion over what gets funded
I approve of this. The people who make the funding decisions should be politically accountable. If you have a mental model of unappointed civil servants as detached, neutral, non-political entities, I can understand why you wouldn't. But I see them as just people, and I don't know anybody like that. I'd like the folks who make bad choices with tax dollars to be votable out of office along with their boss, rather than protected from accountability by layers of boards, laws and unions.
What's needed are democratically-agreed upon guidelines.
Yes if you suck at science, you can't get paid.
But if the subjects you study are politically inconvenient to the presently-in-charge admin, you should still be allowed to research them.
Religion used to be the biggest supporter of science. Then science surpassed religion in civilization relevancy. Now conservative politics is stepping up to the fight.
The picture of the flag being dissolved in acid is ... perhaps not the best way to convince the government to change course ...
Yes this is the exact opposite of the message conveyed in the article. Terrible graphic and communication for an important topic
Citizens in a free society do not temper their criticisms for fear that "the government" might get mad about them. Donald Trump's science policy is destroying one of the key components of American power, and if he doesn't like people posting evocative images about that he'll have to get over it.
The evocative image is of science destroying America, which is not the point the article is making.
Ok, I guess that's fair.
yes some of the provocative imagery is non-productive in public spheres outside private circles.
As a remedy, I recommend everyone on the left read George Lakoff's book "Don't Think of an Elephant." It's a guide for how to communicate effectively, especially to people who have a vastly different worldview from themselves.
He's been consulting to organizations for a long time and these books are the distillation of his knowledge in plain language.
Preview:
1. He makes an (obv simplified) model of left vs right communication as "nurturing parent" vs. "strict father." There is obvious overlap - it's a model, but you can see how much this explains as he develops it a bit further.
2. He talks about a "staining" or "triggering" effect when communicating. what does that mean? people have key words that instantly shut down their thought, preventing useful discussion. For example, immediately upon hearing the words "trans," conservatives might picture a man in a dress molesting someone in a bathroom. Similar for leftists when they hear a word like "corporation" or "business." So he teaches how to communicate without stumbling on these.
The party is against reality broadly, is Ballardian Hyper Reality writ large. A fabricated world of nonsense and fear mongering. Being opposed to science is the only thing that makes sense those who so broadly are opposed to truth and peace.
The ultra wealthy that fund them are also all too happy to see proud institutions hollowed out, happy to see knowledge workers cast out of good worthy public effort and prestigious storied jobs, and made to look for corporate jobs.
I will not miss "US science as we know it", at least that part of it that gave us terms like "menstruating people".
That's a fair objection, but it's not OK to politicize everything else in science just because a few idiots handed your party an unusually-catchy wedge issue.
Climate science is not "woke." Basic and applied research at agencies like NASA is not "woke." Math departments are not "woke." NIST is not "woke." Yet all of their funding is under threat by the Trump administration and Republicans in general.
[dead]