In a move akin to the old Soviet Empire meeting Monty Python absurdity, the federal government has launched $2.1 million in taxpayer money to “root out” oppression in “plant sciences.”
Sure is great that the U.S. has a Constitution, isn’t it?
The National Science Foundation’s Directorate for Biological Sciences recently awarded $2.14 million to the American Society of Plant Biologists for the development of a multi-organization research coordination network called ROOT and SHOOT.
ROOT stands for Rooting Out Oppression Together. And SHOOT? Sharing Our Outcomes Transparently.
If you’re wondering when someone will “root out” the bores who come up with those annoying acronyms ad-infinitum, you’re not alone.
Nuccio offers more:
’The demographic distribution of scientists, especially those in positions of authority, does not reflect that of the US population,’ the award’s abstract states.
Curiously, the demographic distribution of virtually every profession doesn’t reflect that of the U.S. population.
The demographic distribution of lumberjacks lacks a lot of women. So what?
The demographic distribution of romance novelists is overwhelmingly female. So what?
Why does everything have to be uniform, or CONFORM to some elitist view of what is good or even “normal”?
The award follows the release of a 2021 Dear Colleague Letter from National Science Foundation’s Directorate for Biological Sciences encouraging ‘professional societies to submit proposals to develop collaborative networks for facilitating cultural changes in the biological sciences to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion.’
Can they stop with the “Directorate” lingo? Moreover, can these insufferable wokesters stop adoring their touchy-feely “DEI,” “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion?”
It’s one thing to promote that kind of thing at a private establishment, and to see what happens when customers find out. Through such a manner, employers, fellow workers, and consumers can test, and achieve a balance of what they prefer.
But the use of tax money destroys diversity. It is manifestly inequitable. And it exercises the tyrannical practice of forced inclusion.
The “societal malady” the politicians choose to “fix” is irrelevant. However one feels about the “numbers” and “kinds” of people on their woke checklists for different professions, the moment tax money is spent on it – even on talking about their “equity, diversity, and inclusion” plans, all three of those vaunted goals have been attacked and minimized, because real people with TRULY diverse, unique, human, free wills have been prevented from engaging in some facet of their own experience, with their own money and time.
In the letter, NSF BIO stated that it ‘recognizes culture change in the biological sciences as an urgent priority and is committed to supporting efforts that use evidence-based practices to remove barriers for individuals historically excluded from science.’
Ahh. They employed that over-used term “evidence-based.” That’s very sophisticated, so disregard any of your own protestations.
Sure, you might be wondering why “culture change in the biological sciences is an urgent priority.” But, see, likely you’re not a government-funded scientist. You have to follow the science.
The letter sought proposals that ‘build networks to generate the changes needed to broaden participation within academic and professional spheres of the biological sciences.’
The letter did not, however, provide many details regarding how the biological sciences, as they are today, maintain barriers that may have historically excluded certain groups from participation or how furthering DEI benefits science.
Nor did the letter mention the baseline differences between interests of people within their pet, government-favored groups. As I reported in 2021, and as Thomas Sowell has noted, preferential policies instituted through the force of the state often lead to disastrous outcomes, placing students into schools where their skills are not suited, leading to “academic mismatch,” greater dropout rates, and already-stolen tax cash being directed into wasteful areas which free markets would have cleared.
By definition, government imposes a regime of “exclusion” of choice and “forced inclusion” which some people might not prefer.
Certainly, regional, historical, cultural, gender – heck, nature-based and “nurture-based” – differences between people exist. Some folks who live in the American Southwest likely will have a multitude of skills that folks in Alaska don’t, and vice-versa.
It’s one thing to personally, through the market, offer people the opportunity to learn and try something new. But to artificially impose that, first, through the taking of tax cash, then through the use of that money to promote what the state determines is “fair,” is by definition, unfair.
No amount of Soviet-style 'Directorates," soft language, “evidence-based” lingo, or use of the term “equity, diversity, and inclusion” can change these facts.
(Cover Photo: Wikimedia Commons/Lufa Farms)