Tuesday, December 03, 2019

Diversity statements: rebellious UC Davis under attack by far left warriors

Anti-Western, far left fanatics have taken over most of the Californian universities.

One of the shocking "improvements" that has been introduced by these pathological entities are the so-called "diversity statements". Newly hired people – especially in the mathematics departments – are obliged to submit "diversity statements" in which they not only plead loyalty to the far left movement but they must also present actual evidence that they have spent nonzero energy to fight against the whites, men, straight people, and other groups that the far left movement labeled undesirable.

Make no mistake about it. Everyone who is being hired under these conditions is a despicable being and I wouldn't sacrifice a minute to save his or her life. Instead, I could buy the air ticket needed to urinate on his or her grave.

Fine. There are obviously some decent people left who are shocked what is being done to the basic Academic freedoms on campus. One of them is Ms Abigail Thompson, the chair of mathematics at UC Davis and a Vice President of the American Mathematical Society. In the December 2019 issue of the Notices of the American Mathematical Society, she wrote a very peaceful, sensible, and cautious essay titled
A Word From...
where she argued against similar "political tests" whose basic problem is trivially isomorphic to the problem with the loyalty oaths in the McCarthy era. In order to make sure that she wouldn't make a snowflake melt, she has actually omitted the name "McCarthy" and all derived words – as well as all other "power words" that could be labeled controversial.

Nevertheless, she dared to disagree with the "diversity statements" and as many of you who are familiar with the atmosphere in that environment correctly expect, the reaction was brutal and swift and Dr Thompson became a target of vicious attacks herself. If you search Twitter for the name of Abigail Thompson, you will find mixed reactions – both from reasonable people as well as the SJWs.

Only one of these sets holds genuine power at Californian universities or the mathematical institutions and be sure that it is not the set of the reasonable people.

So a far left NPC running the AMS blogs immediately posted a vitriolic reaction. Thompson's self-evident isomorphism with the McCarthyist oaths was said to be "a false equivalence, a weak argument, and frankly a dangerous one on par with the reverse racism claims".

The far left loon who wrote this "official AMS blog post" continued by claiming that the reverse racism was the fairest system possible and promised to publish both comments that agree and disagree with the leftist's pro-diversity-statement position. However, there was a small catch. Those comments that disagree with the diversity statements would only be published if they agree with the diversity ideology i.e. if they are not racist/sexist/homophobic. Well, in other words, comments by reasonable people were completely banned and only the far left loons were allowed to contribute comments to the official "AMS blogs". The text almost explicitly encouraged the allowed commenters to attack Dr Thompson.

Brian Leiter summarized the situation by the words that Dr Thompson was being pilloried.

Needless to say, a moronic Stalinist blog post at the AMS blog site wasn't the last reaction by the SJWs. The official AMS Twitter handle reported that several AMS members were "deeply hurt" by her "A Word From...". The Twitter account added several tweets worth of a loyalty oath by itself and encouraged all the "deeply hurt" people to send their vitriol at specific places. And be sure that they did.

So about 17 immoral mathematicians have penned their own Particles for Justice where they attack Dr Thompson and her important ideas. The letter basically said that she didn't represent anyone (only far left loons may represent others, isn't it common sense?) and the current AMS leadership is racist. She is "spinning things" and she is "dangerous", we read. They subtly indicate that they will go after the neck of those who would allow any similar essay in the future.

Needless to say, this distasteful letter was turned into a petition and it was signed by 500 names including many well-known ones. Among the "heavyweights", Chanda Prescod-Weinstein is signed as #5 and Joseph Stalin was signed just a bit later. His name was later erased because the managers of the petition want to obfuscate what they actually represent. The number of signatories from Princeton is zero, to mention anecdotal evidence of the statement that the truly best places tend to avoid this toxic junk.

A rogue bound state of elementary particles named Chad Topaz wrote some particularly nasty letter, one basically demanding Dr Thompson to be fired. Topaz was later pressured to delete the most explicit FB posts demanding her head.

A competing letter was written to support Dr Thompson and has collected over 500 signatures, too (including 4 from Princeton and 5 from Harvard in this case). So people are on both sides. In fact, the numbers of signatories under both petitions are almost exactly equal.

However, I think that I am not the only one who feels that it's the people like the irrepairable Chad Topaz who actually hold the power. Some sentences in his or her piece – which was called "terrific" by the official AMS blog post – read:
For those of you who are in mathematics, advise grad-school-bound undergraduate students – especially students who are minoritized along some axis – not to apply to UC Davis. Advise your graduate student and postdoc colleagues not to apply there for jobs.
Mr or Ms Chad Topaz actually called for the boycott of UC Davis where Dr Thompson is a department chair. (Well, the "especially" part indicates that Chad Topaz could actually help UC Davis to become a decent mathematics department without the diversity toxins.) I am pretty sure that it wouldn't happen in a department in Nazi Germany whose chair would question some of the Nazi policies. The freedoms were restricted in Nazi Germany but they were less restricted than they are today. In this particular case, Mr or Ms Topaz remained isolated. But Dr Thompson is still going through the heat – for very cautiously stating something that every decent kid in the kindergarten clearly understands, namely that the diversity statements are immoral and incompatible with the basic values and mechanisms of the Western scholarly environment.

Right now, you can't exist in the environment without generating loyalty oaths and without actively participating in reverse racism or similar kinds of bigotry that is already tangibly hurting real and honest people. On top of that, even if you happen to become the Vice President of the American Mathematical Society, you are not even allowed to publicly yet safely disagree with these policies.

Dr Thompson's essay repeatedly mentioned Dr David Saxon who refused to sign a McCarthy oath 60 years ago but became the president of the University of California later. I am afraid that the likes of Dr Saxon have helped to build the current, "reverse" McCarthyism. In comparison with the current diversity statements, the McCarthy loyalty oath was basically just an innocent declaration of one's compatibility with the U.S. laws and non-alliance with a formidable enemy, the Soviet Union, that was close to waging a nuclear war on America (the Soviets went nuclear in 1949). Such loyalty oaths could have prevented far left fanatics such as the fans of the diversity statements from polluting the American university environment – but they failed to do so. A result is this "reverse" but much more extreme McCarthy era. It's worse because the degree of loyalty that is demanded is much deeper and the totalitarian activists' control over the employees is much more personal – and all the scholars also need to waste much more time with this incredible garbage than their predecessors spent with the original McCarthy loyalty oath six decades ago.

No comments:

Post a Comment