Among all disciplines mathematics has some unique qualities: logic; completeness; and correctness. You either proved Fermat's or you didn't. You can prove things do add up or that they never will. Of course by math, this means real math, not the pseudo- or fake-maths like statistics and certainly not the vulgar concept that any endeavor involving numbers is "math." So back in the day when you found yourself in the company of real mathematicians you were amongst some of the most rational, logical human beings alive.
Those days appear to be gone, at least in academia. We've known for decades that colleges and universities have abandoned the classroom mission of teaching and learning so it should be no surprise that such activities hardly find their way to the average prof's to-do list. But maths is cumulative and plays an important support role. You are definitely going to need those calculus skills when you take on PDE's and you're going to be a mental cripple in Heat Transport without some reasonable math chops. You would think it would be hard, nearly impossible, to expunge teaching/learning from maths. But academicians can do hard things. And so they have.
Unshackled from classroom responsibilities Math professors have joined their colleagues in an obsession over social justice especially as it is manifested as "diversity" in their mind's eye if not in reality. A recent tempest in their teapot was brewed up when Abigail Thompson published an op-ed piece in "Notices," an American Mathematical Society publication where she raised concerns about the use of Diversity Statements as a gating factor in hiring faculty. Doing this by delegation to pre-screeners in HR by providing a rubric makes this a litmus test from which no Teaching Statement or Research Statement can salvage the application. If you cannot satisfy the Thought Police your application will never even be read by anyone on the hiring committee.
Where Thompson lit up the SJWs was in comparing this pre-requisite, overarching testimony to diversity to loyalty oaths of the McCarthy era. Backlash was as immediate as it was off target as there seem to be fetid bags of bile wrapped in human flesh, and ordained with PhDs, awaiting the slightest pin prick to unleashed their screed, even if that screed is otherwise irrelevant. They called for the AMS to retract her op-ed piece. They called for her dismissal. They called for boycotts of her University by job applicants and grad students until they removed her.
What they did not do is address the logical errors in her analogy. These pre-screening practices intended to guarantee that only those aligned with the political leanings of academia are allowed even a chance at entry are not McCarthyism. McCarthy sought to remove folks from positions they already held. He sought to de-platform, to "cancel" before there was even an internet. These diversity litmus tests are much more like Trump's immigration policies than McCarthyism. That is what Abigail Thompson's detractors should have, but did not point out. Instead, what they actually did by trying to cancel Abigail Thompson was demonstrate that academia is saturated with actual McCarthyism. Because she did not pledge her loyalty to their satisfaction, she did not join their jihad, they insisted she be black-balled. And like Joe McCarthy they believe they wield that power.
And the most outspoken Joey in this inter-web Kangaroo Kourt goes by the name of Chad Topaz with a day job at Williams College and he was swift in leveraging his twitter feed for a call to arms--a petition in protest of Abigail Thompson. He wasn't alone and upwards of 600 loyal SJWs chimed in with attribution (naming their employer). But wait! There's more!
Having not learned a damn thing from the Oberlin Over-reaction the jihadists had gone a bridge too far and there was backlash to the backlash which seems to include at least one individual from Williams. Apparently there are still some reasonable minds remaining in academia, even at Williams, and the original petitioners presenting themselves as speaking on behalf of their institution ended up with "some 'splainin' to do." Herr Doktor's twits were abruptly deleted from his twit-feed but have been preserved and analyzed by a group championing, and critiquing, all things Williams. And then there is the money. One commentator observed that Herr Doktor runs a "non-profit" where he solicits donations for which he provides "free and anonymous" consultation on preparing an effective diversity statement. He has set up a business monetizing the expansion of litmus-test diversity statements using a quid pro quo that would make Donald Trump blush.
Herr Doktor also provides mere taxpayers with an opportunity. From his web page (you'll have to go directly to chadtopaz.com as he redirects links) you'll notice he has been sucking off the taxpayer via the NSF and expects to continue through 2021. He includes a disclaimer that opinions on that site are his and not a representation of the NSF and yet he was among those who refused to accept Abigail Thompson's similar statement that her op-ed piece was her personal opinion only. Maybe we can learn from Herr Doktor--perhaps he can be cancelled. From the NSF. Perhaps if we all write to the NSF and our US Representatives and Senators demanding de-funding this foolishness we can effect a meaningful change.
Those days appear to be gone, at least in academia. We've known for decades that colleges and universities have abandoned the classroom mission of teaching and learning so it should be no surprise that such activities hardly find their way to the average prof's to-do list. But maths is cumulative and plays an important support role. You are definitely going to need those calculus skills when you take on PDE's and you're going to be a mental cripple in Heat Transport without some reasonable math chops. You would think it would be hard, nearly impossible, to expunge teaching/learning from maths. But academicians can do hard things. And so they have.
Unshackled from classroom responsibilities Math professors have joined their colleagues in an obsession over social justice especially as it is manifested as "diversity" in their mind's eye if not in reality. A recent tempest in their teapot was brewed up when Abigail Thompson published an op-ed piece in "Notices," an American Mathematical Society publication where she raised concerns about the use of Diversity Statements as a gating factor in hiring faculty. Doing this by delegation to pre-screeners in HR by providing a rubric makes this a litmus test from which no Teaching Statement or Research Statement can salvage the application. If you cannot satisfy the Thought Police your application will never even be read by anyone on the hiring committee.
Where Thompson lit up the SJWs was in comparing this pre-requisite, overarching testimony to diversity to loyalty oaths of the McCarthy era. Backlash was as immediate as it was off target as there seem to be fetid bags of bile wrapped in human flesh, and ordained with PhDs, awaiting the slightest pin prick to unleashed their screed, even if that screed is otherwise irrelevant. They called for the AMS to retract her op-ed piece. They called for her dismissal. They called for boycotts of her University by job applicants and grad students until they removed her.
What they did not do is address the logical errors in her analogy. These pre-screening practices intended to guarantee that only those aligned with the political leanings of academia are allowed even a chance at entry are not McCarthyism. McCarthy sought to remove folks from positions they already held. He sought to de-platform, to "cancel" before there was even an internet. These diversity litmus tests are much more like Trump's immigration policies than McCarthyism. That is what Abigail Thompson's detractors should have, but did not point out. Instead, what they actually did by trying to cancel Abigail Thompson was demonstrate that academia is saturated with actual McCarthyism. Because she did not pledge her loyalty to their satisfaction, she did not join their jihad, they insisted she be black-balled. And like Joe McCarthy they believe they wield that power.
And the most outspoken Joey in this inter-web Kangaroo Kourt goes by the name of Chad Topaz with a day job at Williams College and he was swift in leveraging his twitter feed for a call to arms--a petition in protest of Abigail Thompson. He wasn't alone and upwards of 600 loyal SJWs chimed in with attribution (naming their employer). But wait! There's more!
Having not learned a damn thing from the Oberlin Over-reaction the jihadists had gone a bridge too far and there was backlash to the backlash which seems to include at least one individual from Williams. Apparently there are still some reasonable minds remaining in academia, even at Williams, and the original petitioners presenting themselves as speaking on behalf of their institution ended up with "some 'splainin' to do." Herr Doktor's twits were abruptly deleted from his twit-feed but have been preserved and analyzed by a group championing, and critiquing, all things Williams. And then there is the money. One commentator observed that Herr Doktor runs a "non-profit" where he solicits donations for which he provides "free and anonymous" consultation on preparing an effective diversity statement. He has set up a business monetizing the expansion of litmus-test diversity statements using a quid pro quo that would make Donald Trump blush.
Herr Doktor also provides mere taxpayers with an opportunity. From his web page (you'll have to go directly to chadtopaz.com as he redirects links) you'll notice he has been sucking off the taxpayer via the NSF and expects to continue through 2021. He includes a disclaimer that opinions on that site are his and not a representation of the NSF and yet he was among those who refused to accept Abigail Thompson's similar statement that her op-ed piece was her personal opinion only. Maybe we can learn from Herr Doktor--perhaps he can be cancelled. From the NSF. Perhaps if we all write to the NSF and our US Representatives and Senators demanding de-funding this foolishness we can effect a meaningful change.
Posts
