On April 28, 2023, the new establishment Journal of controversial ideas published a study previously rejected by several major journals. Named “In defense of merits before scienceThe authors of the study are 29 scientists, including two Nobel Prize laureates, men and women of various nationalities and ethnicities from seven countries. In the summary of the work you can read:

The research focuses on several main topics of modern academic life: Merit science is effective and just, the dangers of replacing merit with social engineering and ideological control, the genesis of current attacks on merit science, evidence of ideology’s invasion of science, and attacks on merit.

Despite the prestige of the 29 authors – scientists working in fields as diverse as geophysics, theoretical physics, chemistry, genetics, oncology, psychology or molecular biology – and their careful efforts to raise more alarm signals about scientific research, the increasingly (in)informed politicized agenda,[1] and accusations of fundamental racism against science that urgently needs “decolonization”, the study was rejected by major US journals, including TheProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). After all, the authors were forced to publish their work in a journal they had barely heard of a few months ago.

Although it is hard to believe, the initial rejection of the study was caused by the presence of a single word – Merit – in the title and subheadings of sections on 26 pages of the study.

One of the 29 authors (J. Coyne) provided some details of the publishing odyssey:

I submitted the article to several scientific journals, which shall remain anonymous, and they all found reasons why they could not publish it. One likely reason was that merit in science (and everywhere else) is being pushed out in favor of… “political correctness” and the defense of merit is seen as an “anti-progressive” point of view. In other words, any journal that published it would be protected by protests… I have always found it very strange that an article defending the virtues was so controversial that we had to publish it in a journal devoted to non-religious thought.

From the note to the article, we also learn that the editors of the magazines PNAS denied the presence of the word “merit” in the title of the work and proposed to remove it:

“Most readers will immediately associate the term ‘merit’ with the ongoing debate … about merit in college admissions and the whole concept of meritocracy in education. The problem is that this conception of merit, as the authors are sure to know, has come under widespread attack and legally as a lack of content… If the authors could use a different term, we would encourage it [sublinierea autorilor]”. Thus, not only is meritocracy in science a controversial idea, the very existence of merit as a concept is being questioned in some quarters. So from the outset, publishing our manuscript proved to be an uphill battle. Indeed, our paper was reviewed and rejected mostly from for ideological reasons, citing, among other things, its “pain-provoking nature.” We then approached several other scientific journals with informal inquiries about the advisability of publishing the manuscript, but there was no encouragement.

That’s right, any sane person can ask:

Where was it stated that science should not be judged on its merits?

Answer: In your country wake upwhose president was recently compared to a Flaming Woke Warrioralthough he no longer remembers all the letters in the famous LGBTQIA+ formula.

Another question: if “merit” is no longer a representative indicator of the quality of scientific research, what do we replace it with?

Answer: With one or more goals of ideology wake up which replaces meritocracy. For the most part, these goals are detached from the triad Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (DEI), persistent, pervasive action associated with her sister, political correctness.

VARIETY it is a euphemism for racial proportionality, follows from the guiding principle of ideology wake up: differentiated influence.

According to this ideology, any standard or norm of behavior that negatively and disproportionately affects people of color is considered a tool of white supremacy. If academic admissions standards for colleges and high schools result in a lower percentage of black students than the national population (13%), then those standards must be lowered for reasons of racial equity.[2]

You only need to extend this example to other fields of STEMM education (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math, Medicine) and related activities. Federal organizations such as NASA, NOAA, EPA, USGS, DOE, USGS, NIH, and other agencies are required to propose and implement specific plans to increase diversity so that federal research funds are prioritized to those researchers who “resemble his country” wake up:

Congress should mandate some NIH funding [National Institutes of Health] ensuring that young researchers look like the country… For decades, the NIH has underfunded research by women and researchers of color. White applicants for NIH grants are approximately 65% ​​more likely to receive funding than black applicants. Currently, researchers of color receive less than 2 percent of all funding for the most coveted awards—researcher-initiated grants. Over the last decade, this percentage has not changed significantly.[3]

Equity considered by ideology wake up is not synonymous levels rights and duties of all citizens before the law, but with observance of racial proportionality. Under these conditions, if people of color are underrepresented in science labs but overrepresented in prisons, the only possible explanation is white racism.

In the beginning, equity meant “equal access.” Now progressives have twisted its definition into “equal outcomes.” In this new paradigm, individual merit became a vampire word or, as the PNAS editors explained, a concept without meaning. Specifically, if white and Asian high school students perform better than their black and Hispanic peers on various school tests (such as the SAT, ACT, MCAT, LSAT, GRE, etc.), activists wake up Campaigns are now underway to eliminate these methods of testing individual merit. It has come to the point that exceptional merit awards, such as the rank of farewell (high school senior) to be considered potentially problematic for the rest of the less deserving graduates. And then, in order to control for the receptivity of all graduates, they were either completely de-ranked in descending order of final averages, or they were all given the title farewellas did one school in Tennessee, which honored 48 valedictorians that same year.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision to strike down so-called “affirmative action” at two major universities — Harvard and the University of North Carolina — is a landmark decision that will limit race-based college admissions across the country. The Supreme Court has previously approved consideration of race as a factor in promoting diversity in education. After nearly six decades of “affirmative action,” there is hope for a return to normalcy, where an applicant’s personal merit as reflected in test scores is evaluated regardless of race. Unfortunately, hope was placed under the sign of uncertainty by the president of his country wake upthat the Supreme Court is “no ordinary court” and that comfortable majority decisions are not the final word on affirmative action.

If the diversity concerns the representation or composition of the subject, inclusion describes an active, intentional, and ongoing interaction with diverse intellectual, social, scientific, cultural, etc. communities. Inclusion ensures the presence and appreciation of the contributions of different groups of people integrated into the environment.-

Read the whole article and comment on Contributors.ro