So, Loopydude, you’re not interested in discussing this in a calm and reasonable tone with me? If someone questions your paradigms will you simply shut down any debate with them?
Monstro offered a fairly eloquent and well thought out post. Will you do the same?
And, as an afterthought that should have been a forethought, it seems everyone can agree that one real problem among the population of underrepresented minorities is poverty. So, obviously, these kids could use some extra financial help, and that demographic might get it anyway. It appears the only problem is they’ve earmarked it, and added puported insult to injury by recruiting underrepresented minorities with the enticement of its availability, which apparently a lot of these kids don’t even consider.
To me, this just doesn’t seem at all as cut-and-dry as taking two kids, looking at their grades and scores, and giving the one with the worse of both a coveted spot in the freshman class because he’s black.
I think this boils down to whether you can, in terms of money, and its allocation, define ethnic background as a “need”. The kids still have to have the grades and scores to get in, according to the web site. No standards of academic excellence are being relaxed, apparently. It’s just a question of money, and whether you can set aside some of it for an at-risk community that unfortunately is defined by ethnicity. I agree, that sucks eggs, but what can you do if it’s the real world? I can only see this as addressing the demographic realities, so if the explicit criterion of race is expunged, it either has to be somehow implicit, or essentially financial aid can only be doled out on a first-come, first-serve basis. Naively, this is fair, but entirely ignores the reality of race and class in America. How a good read of the Constitution could leave us so hobbled troubles me, but such may be the new reality with the new SCOTUS.
To be honest, I haven’t even seen Monstro’s quote, as I’ve had my hands full just on page two. However, I’m not sure how I could have much of a fruitful dialogue with you, as we can’t even agree on some very basic points. If a completely unrepresentative science workforce is something you haven’t the slightest concern about, what more is there I can say on the matter that is worth debating?
Anyhow, on to page one…
You’re right.
It’s taking two kids, looking at their grades and scores, and giving one the equivalent of enough money to buy a house because he’s black.
This strikes me as particularly condescending and smacks of “lowering the bar.”
So, again, no needy white kids are getting any money?
I can’t see how or why, as academic standards don’t appear to be compromised with the allocation.
Not from this program, they’re not.
Not “lowering the bar” in an academic sense (which is why I said it only smacks of it), but more of a “You know you can’t expect THOSE people to do it on their OWN. . .”
If you can’t have a debate with someone who doesn’t agree with your paradigm, and make a case for it via reason, what does that say about your position?
Why it’s something I should be concerned about.
If you’re right, you should be able to create a logical and compelling post, no? Monstro has suggested that the vitality of science itself depends on having various viewpoints represented among its population. I’m not sure if I can get behind that reasoning, as I’d need some hard data to believe that the vitality of the sciences is impaired if only, say, folks with skin color (X) are conducting science… especially since there’s a global community of scientists who represent pretty much every nation and culture as it is. But he/she has at least posited a reason.
OK. Aplogies myself, but it is a long post, and I’m not sure I can do it justice in the time I have. I don’t want to leave it lying for two days, and I’m headed out the door in a matter of minutes. Here are a couple of my concerns. I probably won’t be able to post much more of substance until maybe Tuesday.
For one, I can’t tell if you approve of race as a criterion, or even the criterion, at least in terms of addressing economic disparities, as the SIU program does.
Also, in terms of the proximate causes you cite (I’ll simply go with the argument they’re not easily attributable to the negative effects of bias) being more important, or even solely important, this seems to at least partially contradict the statements of the folks at SIU, who allude to some of the issues you mention, but also clearly implicate racial bias in a more direct way, even so far as to suggest it has helped breed the perception that black kids don’t belong there somehow.
I certainly think it’s wonderful you’ve had the experiences you’ve had, but it doesn’t seem that they’re the norm, unless folks like Dr. McNeil are making invalid or outdated points about the applicant pool and their experiences.
At any rate, I highly doubt the people you worked with took pity on you somehow. It’s just too hard to succeed in the sciences, I think, if you’ve nothing to contribute. No amount of charity can ultimately compensate, though conversely I’ve seen some hardasses who could bring a Laureate to tears. Sounds like you simply lucked out in the nice mentor lottery.
Yeah, well, this doesn’t make it very easy. I don’t think that science is so special that the community of scientists is immune from the concerns of the larger community, and its need for simple fairness. If there’s something blatantly unfair going on, there’s a moral obligation, I guess, to do something about it, as with anything else of that nature. You know, if there’s an injustice, a scientist should be just as concerned as any other citizen. Are there better reasons?
Yes, but, convince me that the fact that many black students, of their own free will, are choosing different career paths represents unfairness. How is letting people choose for themselves, unfair?
That’s why I said that if there was discrimination at work, I’d be 100% behind you. But you have yet to convince me or, quite frankly, suggest any logicaly compelling reasons why this situation is truly abhorent.
Just curious…how come? Don’t we encourage diversity of viewpoints in every other endeavor (politics, the humanities, journalism, etc.)? Why should science be any different?
Please read what I wrote. I said the science is shaped by culture, environment, socioeconomics, and sometimes race. Not “only skin color”.
And I disagree that there’s a 1)global community of scientists and 2) that every nation and culture is represented. Not adequetely, at least. Science is composed of a multitude of ivory towers–and rarely are there bridges linking them (although this is changing, hopefully). Physicists don’t rub shoulders with ecologists, who don’t rub shoulders with chemists, who don’t rub shoulders with mathematicians. There is no “scientific community”, only a bunch of different communities who hold their own meetings, publish their own journals, and communicate in their own jargon.
And are you really confident in saying that every nation and culture is represented? What counts as representation? Back in August, I attended an international meeting of ecologists, and it wasn’t very international. Mostly North Americans and Western Europeans. A handful of Asian guys. Very few speakers of Spanish, even fewer people who were of African descent. About the only thing that was “equal” was the representation of men to females. So it would be hard to convince me that this was a particularly diverse group. It would also be equally hard to convince me that not having a diverse pool of ecologists and environmental scientists is an “okay” thing. Perhaps if I had been at a meeting for quantum physics, I would feel differently. But ecology has very real world implications. It affects policy.
All the potential questions, problems, and solutions in science are not equally accessible. Our ability to “see” certain ideas depends on the cultural lenses we’re wearing. We don’t pull our ideas out of the same hat, because ideas arise from inspirations found in our environments. And everyone has a different environment–everyone. Are scientists in Kenya thinking about the same things as scientists in Russia or Australia? Is a scientist who’s never left the urban landscape thinking about the same thing as a scientist born and raised in a rural area? No. That’s why I think there’s value in creating a diverse scientific pool. I really don’t know why you need hard data in order to accept this. It just seems self-evident.
Would you mind hammering out what influence, exactly, culture, SES levels, etc… have on science? How would history have been different, for example, if Einstein was Christian, Newton was African, or Marie Curie was Asian?
Well… no. Journalism endevours to be objective and remove personal bias by reporting solely on factual matters, and science deals solely with objective phenomena. Likewise, I don’t advocate diversity of political views, necessarily. If that’s the result of people applying critical thinking and following their hearts, than so be it… but that’s a secondary issue, not primary.
Pardon me for conflating the issues. But, by the same token, if culture, enviornment, and socioeconomics are at issue, then it seems that we should be primarily focused on those. Recruit from differeing geographic regions, SES levels, etc… No?
Perhaps. I must admit I’m not aware of any nations which don’t have scientists, but then again, I’m not aware of the full demographics. Are you, by chance?
That’s actually a huge problem I’ve encountered, and I don’t think it’s limited to the sciences. For instance, linguistis, cognitive scientists, philosophy of mind students, and education students did virtually no networking. Much of the research I did during grad school required me to knit together highly related fields which had done very little to cooperate. But I’m not sure what role culture, etc… played in that.
True enough, and I suppose even those “communities” are a reification to a certain degree. But then again, so are various “cultures.”
Perhaps we’re using different metrics. I don’t think that each country needs to put out the same number of scientists in all fields, as long as all have equal access to scientific training and such. I’m also not aware of any industrialized nation on the planet that doesn’t have, for instance, at least some engineers.
Can you elaborate on that? If, for instance, the only ecologists were American, but they made the global community/UN care about things, wouldn’t that still have a profound impact?
So does quantum physics 
(The Manhattan project springs to mind)
But shouldn’t we be more concerned with whether or not we’re getting good science out of folks, rather than diverse scientists creating the good science?
Can you give me some examples of this? Because it sort of sounds like you’re suggesting that certain ‘groups’ aren’t as able to get at the truth, via science, as other groups. Or that certain groups have advantages in certain areas. Can you elaborate please?
Are you sure?
If I find you one scientist who lived his life in Manhattan but worries about, say, wetlands, wouldn’t that shatter your model?
Yes, scientists will often focus on problems which affect their own lives, but I fail to see how the current American scientific community isn’t doing that for all Americans.
Come now, you don’t know why a Doper who doesn’t share your paradigm would need hard evidence?
Just because it is self-evident to you does not mean that it’s true. As I said, I’m open to rational dialogue and doing my best to meet folks half way, but with the only proof being that it’s self evident to you…
You being certain of something doesn’t convince me of anything other than that you’re certain of it.
It’s only shameful if you think government’s goal should be to insure that in every single field of study and in every single industry the proportion of blacks to whites is equal to that of the population at large.
Which is a pretty fucking stupid position for anyone to take.
And that’s what we call a good thing. You don’t fix racism with more racism.
Set asides for scholarships aren’t near as heinous as quota programs for admissions. Because admissions programs like the one that was at Michigan created situations where more qualified white students were being rejected while less qualified black students were being rejected.
I don’t care too much about these types of scholarship programs, but since they are specifically closed to white males it’s definitely racist and violates the relevant SCOTUS ruling. Just because the equation has multiple parts doesn’t mean it is okay if there is an underlying rule that no whites or no blacks or no hispanics or etc can ever receive one of the scholarships.
Imagine discovering all kinds of nifty ideas but not being able to broadcast them to the world because your society says that it’s not useful information. I just finished reading Stephen Hawking’s Universe: The Cosmos Explained by David Filkin. In the book, Filkin describes how Andre Linde, who is credited with originally coming up with “inflation theory”, was severely hampered by the culture of Soviet Russia. I’d say that if he and other Russian physicists hadn’t finally gotten the gumption to escape their environment, the field of cosmology would be totally different than it is now.
How do you think history would have turned if the scientists you named had been born in different bodies and circumstances? Do you think Marie Curie would have still discovered radium if she had been born a Muslim girl in Saudi Arabia? Do you think Einstein would have been given an audience if he had been a black man? Do you think Newton would have become the Father of Physics if he had been too poor to attend university? It’s obvious I feel that things would have been totally different, just as I feel things would be different if Dubya had been born in New Delhi, son of a street whore. The question is why don’t you? Or do you?
Science has historically been the realm of the priviledged. Do you think Darwin was a rich man or a poor man? How about Newton? Einstein grew up in comfortable, middle-class home–blessed with educated parents, books, violin lessons, and private schooling. Would Einstein have still been a genuis if he had grown up in South Boston, in a single-parent home? Maybe. But maybe he would haven’t been a genuis in physics. Maybe his gifts would have gone into a different direction, like sociology or psychology. Maybe they wouldn’t have developed at all.
I know ecology as an area of study would not be around if it hadn’t been for a bunch of rich white guys with tons of free time on their hands, taking pensive strolls through abandoned farm fields, traveling on safaris, and collecting specimens to showcast on their fireplace mantles.
Do you think an American journalist has the same perspective on the Iraq War as a journalist in Iraq? Will they interview the same people, highlight the same quotes, and report the same facts? Draw the same conclusions? Which journalist will be said to be capable of being more objective? Wouldn’t it be interesting to read what both of them produce, rather than just what the American says happened?
I agree, but I know I appreciate the StraightDope not because of the liberal Dopers who share my point-of-view, but because of those conservative Dopers who can articulate their mindsets. And I know that I appreciate individuals who have mixed-up politics–favoring some liberal views and favoring some conservative–over those who are more “straight ticket” thinkers.
I agree with you. And I don’t see what’s wrong for using race as a proxy for at least some of these things–like culture.
I never said culture had a role to play in that. I was only disagreeing with your use of the phrase “global community of scientists”. There is no such thing.
I’m curious…which cultures do you believe are reified?
They would have a profound impact, but I can imagine that there focus would tend toward American-centric issues. And they would have a hard time affecting the policy of other governments , since they would most likley be seen as foreigners with ulterior motives (this is already the case).
The US president already doubts that global warming is a real phenomona, and it’s American scientists telling him that it is. Imagine if it were a bunch of Middle Eastern or Russian climatologists who were wailing their heads off about it. Do you think things would be different? Do you think Americans would be more or less accepting of the hypothesis’s validity?
I don’t see why we can’t do both.
No, I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying that there’s a big hunk of stuff called Truth, and we all gleam different parts of it. The part we see is determined by our position in time and place and cultural baggage.
Uh, no. 'Cause Manhattan has plenty of wetlands, and regardless–there’s nothing keeping a Manhattanite from going into New Jersey or Connecticutt and finding a-plenty there. 
But I would be shocked if an Indian in a tropical rain forest worries about wetlands in the same way that a nomad in Western Sahara does.
One reason I went into ecology/environmental science was because I grew up in big city and experienced a world full of pollution. Every science project I did from middle school up focused on some issue related to pollution. Riding the school bus home every afternoon, I would pass by the nasty factories and get to wondering about the bad smells they were emitting in the air. If I had grown up in surburbia, far from the smog and factories, maybe my life would have turned out differently. I might be a different kind of scientist than I am today. Who knows?
I notice you said “current”. Do you think the scientific community has always done that? If not, what changed? Why are scientists more enlightened now than they were before?
The distrust many black Americans harbor for science stems from one horrible episode in this country’s history: the Tuskegee Syphilis study. Yes, people should get over it, it happened a long time ago, blah blah blah, but it’s true. That shit scared folks. And the reason it’s scary is because the scientists geniuely felt they were being both objective AND doing good science. They were not, on both accounts.
I know this to be true: The Tuskegee Syphilis Study would have not have happened if black scientists had been involved with it and the white scientists had not been carrying with them racist cultural baggage.
So if the current American scientific community is serving everyone equally, this is a fairly recent development. I’d have to ask for a cite that this is in fact the case, that’s how doubtful I am.
To me, this isn’t about paradigms. This is about something as simple as “the sky is blue”. Different people => different experiences => different questions about the world. How do I provide hard evidence of this?
Well, the same can be said of you. You are so certain that what I’m saying needs to be proven in “hard data” before you can accept it, but you aren’t providing any evidence that I’m wrong. In fact, your questions about Einstein, Newton, and Curie only solidy my feeling that our experiences shape the kinds of questions we ask. I’ve expressed my reasons for feeling this way. I’d love if you were to do the same for your opinion.
I’m going to start with a quote a bit out of order:
You’ve been on the Dope long enough to know how the burden of proof works. You’re making a claim, and a broad generalization. It is not my job to provide evidence that you’re wrong, but your job to provide evidence that you’re right.
To be fair, you might say the same exact thing to me, to which I’d have to reply “Nyeh nyeh, I said it first, no backsies!”
Pre-internet? I can imagine it.
Post-internet? Can’t imagine it.
Or if they’d been able to publish under psudonyms over the 'net.
Yes.
I do not believe one’s ethnicity, culture, etc… counters self determination and autonomy.
Besides, America isn’t Saudi Arabia, and regardless of what one’s background is, in America, you can go into the sciences.
Yes.
He was a Jew in Germany, for God’s sake.
Shifting the goalposts a bit. Obviously one who can’t afford college is at a disadvantage. That is why I’ve said, repeatedly, that economic aid should be given to poor people to be used for their education.
“It steam engines when it comes steam engine time.”
An idea which has found its time can change the entire world.
And I believe that if we’re talking about the scientific community in America, as we’ve been doing, that as long as someone can receive funding for an education, then their talent can carry them as far as possible.
Possibly, but I’ve already said I believe education is the best path to success and that we should make sure that even the poor have access to it.
You don’t think that the massive economic pressures of farming would’ve triggered it sooner or later?
If they do their jobs well?
Yes.
Well, for instance, a Jewish man from Georgia might have a totally different life than a Jewish man from Manhattan.
Fair enough. What phrase would be acceptable to use for “all the scientists on the planet.”
All of them. We flatten on what properly runs on a virtually endless continuum, and try to break it up into little boxes.
Perhaps I was a bit unclear, I should’ve said "so are the various ‘cultures.’ "
Perhaps, but I seem to remember more than one western scientist talking about, for instance, desertification, or the rain forest, or the oceans. And in some cases, they’ve helped create eco-tourism and save endangered patches of land. Am I wrong?
Yeah, but he also doubts that the light goes out in the fridge when he closes the door and who is proudly outside of the fact-based-community. Maybe he’s not a good example 
If they were properly educated?
They’d judge it on its scientific merits.
And yes, we’ve got a long way to go, but the only way I can see to make sure they’re properly educated is to educate them.
I suppose my own real worry is that we get good science out of our scientists. I’m simply not convinced that in our country, for example, someone can’t publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal and have that stand on its own.
Possible… but you’ve given an example of, for instance, Russian scientists who followed the truth even though their culture forbade it.
There are wetlands in Manhattan???
Wetlands are swamps, right? I mean… Manhattan has central park, but that’s not exactly a swamp. Have I missed something?
But, likewise, what’s to prevent someone from anywhere else from logging onto the 'net, or reading a book, and becoming curious about another place?
Perhaps, but intellectual curiousity, or as you put it knowledge for the sake of knowledge, can do powerful things.
Well, that’s a good point, but it still seems that has more to do with geography than culture, or SES status, or what have you.
The ability to access more information than ever before has allowed people, at least those who take the time, to learn more than ever before. Sometimes the phrase “the world has gotten smaller” is trotted out, and although it’s cliche, sometimes it’s sorta true.
I’d agree, but as far as I’m aware that shit wouldn’t stand in today’s day and age, right?
Likewise, if the white scientists were properly educated and there were correct professional codes of conduct.
Well, before I dig up cites, what would you find acceptable? Would, for instance, medical research on certain genetic problems various bloodlines have be okay? Or enviornmentalists who seek to improve the enviornemnt for everybody? Or engineers who are working on a better mousetrap, or what have you?
But, for instance, let’s say I’m a white scientist and someone who is, oh, I don’t know, Kenyan writes to me and explains a problem that they have. My whiteness shouldn’t get in the way of me being able to understand, and perhaps solve their problem.
I suppose what I’m getting at is that through education the limitations of our histories can be overcome to a large degree. To co-opt (mwahaha) an example that you used, even as a white Jewish man, I can take an interest in making sure that things like the Tuskegee study never happen again.
I think that, for instance, a required science course on global issues would be quite useful.
Have I done so to your satisfaction yet, or should I elaborate further?
Boy, all this sudden concern about racism from the right sure does a fella’s heart good! The power and fury of their anger at racism is truly a thing to behold. Imagine, if they’re THAT concerned about the very small barrier – just a curb, really, nothing more than a four-inch curb – encountered by some white people, perhaps even merely HYPOTHETICAL white people – well, one can only IMAGINE the insane, ravening fury that will fill their breasts when they finally notice the twelve-foot high, three-foot-thick concrete wall topped with razor wire, studded with spikes and inset with broken glass that minority students have historically had to deal with in pursuit of higher education. I imagine they will be reduced to frothing, gibbering hordes of insensate fury, if they ever get around to noticing that gigantic wall right next to that curb.
The wailing, the gnashing of teeth, the eyes cast heavenward occasioned by that tiny four inch curb for white males portends great things … GREAT THINGS, I say! – when they finally notice that gigantic wall for minorities and respond proportionately to it. I can’t hardly wait! But I suspect I will have to wait … possibly until a certain place freezes over.
Nope.
When Einstein made history in physics, he was a naturalized citizen of Switzerland 25 years prior to the Nazi campaign to marginalize Jews. He later returned to Germany and resumed his German citizenship, but left as soon as Hiler rose to power. When seeking an audience with FDR, he was a noted celebrity and an immigrant to the U.S., not a “Jew in Germany.” It should be noted that there was not a universal antipathy to Jews in Germany prior to the rise of the Nazis. Many Jews actually sought out Germany as a good place to live and during the 1920s many prominent Germans were Jews (which made the reversal of fortunes beginning in 1933 all that more bitter).
That doesn’t change the fact that he was born a Jew in Germany. His early schooling, for example, was in Munich. When he became a German citizen again in 1914, he didn’t just go back to Germany, he was made director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Physical Institute and a professor at the University of Berlin. I’d take it that during that time his influence on quantum mechanics and ‘the new physics’ didn’t exactly wane?
The fact that he was able to gain a different audience actually supports my point. With the ability to get your ideas out to a different population, much easier with the 'net, one can communicate beyond limits of geography.
Was he taken seriously during that time?
He was a Jew in Germany, he was, of course, also not a Jew in Germany. The timeframe matters, as always. Perhaps I was unclear, but my point was that a German Jew transcended his ‘culture’ and place of birth. Perhaps I should’ve used the phrase “had been” instead of “was”.
Just as there is not universal antipathy to, say, minorities in America currently.
He didn’t have to. Prior to 1933, there was no overwhelming antipathy to Jews in Germany. They were not denied education. They were not denied jobs. They were not even treated as badly as Jews in other parts of Europe (or the U.S.).