Great news for
mathematicians. Their services – or the services of a few of them,
appropriately selected – look likely to be increasingly required to
monitor the implementation of the Government’s diversification policies.
Those policies are
being pushed into the domain of science by the Royal Society of New Zealand and
by Research, Science and Innovation Minister Megan Woods.
The society and
the Minister are saying – in effect – they can’t wait for the gender and race
blends they seek to evolve naturally. They favour a creative approach, to
be effected through social engineering.
This puts merit on
the back seat and promotes a numbers game.
Mathematicians –
it seems fair to suppose – therefore will be required to monitor progress with
diversification programmes and make the necessary calculations about whether
the quota targets are being met.
Woods yesterday
launched new measures “to help increase diversity in New Zealand’s science
community”.
“Diversity
guarantees we capture the very best ideas and talent to support the highest
quality research. This work will maintain the existing high level of scientific
excellence in the workforce while enabling fair and equal opportunities for
all,” says Dr Woods.
This sounds like
an attractive theory. The outcomes are a gamble.
According to
Woods’ data, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment estimates
female doctoral graduates outnumber male doctoral graduates, but women make up
just 32% of the scientific workforce.
And whilst nearly
a quarter of the New Zealand population identifies as Māori or Pasifika it is
estimated they make up less than 2% of the scientific workforce.
The ministry’s new
Diversity in Science Statement
” … aims to
support a vibrant and successful science and research workforce that is as
diverse as New Zealand. This will happen through the way policies are
developed, encouraging diversity of people and perspectives as part of
scientific process, challenging bias, and ensuring fair and inclusive funding
processes.”
Specifically, it’s
a commitment to:
·
collect and report on the diversity of science funding applicants,
·
review funding policies and process to understand their impact on inclusion and
diversity,
·
ensure a diverse range of people and perspectives in science advisory,
assessment and decision making bodies, and
·
showcase researchers from a diverse range of backgrounds and raise awareness of
unconscious bias.
“This initiative
is a big step towards everyone having a fair and equal opportunity to
participate in our science system to their fullest potential,” says Dr Woods.
“Diversity of
genders, ethnicities and career stages throughout the science community cannot
be achieved without strong leadership, mentors and role models who challenge
bias and encourage inclusivity at every step of the science process.”
An antidote to
this faith in the efficacy of diversification programmes comes
from Heather MacDonald, the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan
Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. She earned a
BA from Yale University, an MA in English from Cambridge University, and a JD
from Stanford Law School.
She writes for
several newspapers and periodicals, including The Wall Street Journal, The
New York Times, The New Criterion, and Public Interest,
and is the author of four books, including The War on Cops: How The New
Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe and The
Diversity Delusion: How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and
Undermine Our Culture (forthcoming September 2018).
She argues:
Why not appreciate
seeing the most qualified scholar in front of your classroom? Any female
student who thinks she needs a female professor in order to envision a
scientific career has declared herself a follower rather than a pioneer—and a
follower based on a characteristic that is irrelevant to intellectual
achievement.
Marie Curie did
not need female role models to investigate radioactivity. She was motivated by
a passion to understand the world. That should be reason enough for anyone to
plunge headlong into the search for knowledge.
As for the belief
that diversity encourages excellence and that diverse thought is necessary to
solve complex problems, MacDonald says this is ludicrous on multiple fronts.
“Aside from the
fact that the one thing never sought in the academic diversity hustle is
“diverse thought,” do [the champions of diversity] believe that females and
underrepresented minorities solve analytical problems differently from males,
whites, and Asians?
“A core plank of
left-wing academic thought is that gender and race are ‘socially constructed.’
Why then would females and under-represented minorities think differently if
their alleged differences are simply a result of oppressive social categories?”
Columbia’s science
departments do not have 50/50 parity between males and females.
But does this
prevent them from achieving “excellence”?
MacDonald notes:
“Since 1903,
Columbia faculty members have won 78 Nobel Prizes in the sciences and economics.
The recipients were overwhelmingly male (and white and Asian); somehow, they
managed to do groundbreaking work in science despite the relatively non-diverse
composition of their departments. “
This challenges
Woods confidence that greater diversity will create a stronger science system
which will benefit all New Zealanders.
MacDonald’s
scepticism – alas – has not been applied by the Royal Society, which
has a diversification policy aimed (among other things):
To embrace
diversity in all Society activities, with particular emphasis on those
involving panel- and committee-based evaluation and assessment processes, and
public lectures and other events.
The society shares
the Minister’s confidence in the beliefs which are debunked by MacDonald. Its
policy says:
The value in
different viewpoints and perspectives offered by people of different
backgrounds, age, experience, ethnicity and gender is considered to lead to
more informed decision making, greater innovation and better outcomes for our
stakeholders.
We believe that
recognising and embracing diversity provides the opportunity to make our
organis
ation stronger, leads to increased morale, and is an essential element
in the long term success of the Society.
Put into practice,
this means all employment interview panels should have at least 30% women.
At least 30% of
nominations/applications in all nomination rounds should be from people from
under-represented group.
The Society’s
staff including management and Council must have at least 30% from
under-represented groups.
Results are to be
published annually.
People involved in
selecting and recruiting candidates are encouraged to actively seek out people
with diverse skills, backgrounds and capabilities when considering candidates
for roles within the Society.
Good thing this
sort of thing wasn’t happening 100 years ago.
Albert Einstein
might have been told he was being kicked off a speaking panel or out of a job
to make way for a lesser talent being given his place under the diversification
policy.
1 comment:
Note the 'diversity of genders' bit. So there has to be a bloke who pretends to be a sheila, a sheila who pretends to be a bloke, a pre-op tranny, a post-op tranny, a...... complete the list at your leisure.
I think there should be a quota for sexually normal White boys like poor little me or we'll never get a look in!
Post a Comment