Get out of my lab
In a series of interviews and public statements dating back to 2018, Eric Weinstein has warned that the infiltration of activist ideologies into academic biology and other STEM fields poses a serious threat to the integrity of scientific research. He argues that when scholarship becomes driven by activism rather than pure inquiry, it undermines the foundational principles of merit and rigor that have historically defined the sciences. Weinstein is particularly concerned about the impact of identity politics on evolutionary biology, noting that its principlesâdiversity, differential success, and heritabilityâare fundamentally at odds with the goals of social justice movements.
Eric emphasizes that the integration of DEI initiatives into STEM not only dilutes academic standards but also risks compromising the U.S.âs global competitiveness in science and technology. He argues that the scientific community must defend its rigorous standards against ideological pressures to preserve the fieldâs objectivity and ensure continued innovation. In Weinsteinâs view, safeguarding the future of science requires a renewed commitment to merit and the rejection of activist-driven agendas within academia.
Make sure that you have a uniform standard of scholarship, and not a form of scholarship that is friendly to activism. You have to make sure that activist scholarship is recognized as something other than pure inquiry. I mean, are you capable of disseminating a finding that you're very upset to find? That's a prerequisite for having professorial privileges, in terms of tenure and academic freedom. I suspect there's very little of that these days. People that truly go in withoutâ In the sciences, there's tons of it! Yeah? Yeah. And, you know, this is my basic take on universities, is that the heart and soul of a great research university is its hard core disciplines. We've done much more in those disciplines than anybody else. And so âwho are you and get out of my labâ, is an important principle. And as long as we have something that keeps bad scholarship from getting in from, you know, bringing the principle of explosion, as we talked about before, into the sciences, we should start exporting scientific notions of rigor. And we should be holding debates between disciplines to make sure that everything is of a piece, rather than saying, okay, well, you have no wage gap and you have a wage gap. We don't even know if it's the same word. So I think that it's a bad move. Instead, what we should do is we should make sure that all of theseâand by the way, if gender studies has figured out some things that the biologists don't know, we have to take our lumps in biology. It's not it's not a there's no fix in that game.
- Eric Weinstein on The Rubin Report on September 25, 2018
On YouTubeEdit
On XEdit
Q: Why must identity politics repeatedly target Biology?
A: Because the theory of Natural Selection is a machine which takes
A) VARIATION, subjects it to
B) DIFFERENTIAL SUCCESS, and makes it
C) HERITABLE to begin again.
Here's the rub:
A)=Diversity
B)=Inequality
C)=Privilege
Woke doesnât compile.
Ok! Tell me HOW to vote for biology?
This is very specific: I will campaign for your husband if he commits to protecting the job of *everyone* behaving scientifically. Which is to say âZERO anti/pseudo scientific social engineering.â No oaths. No compelled statements.
- YourMove
Are you ready to commit to logic, reason, science, open exchange of legitimate ideas? Will you protect the lab from the activist? Will you stand up and be misconstrued and mis-portrayed as racists, misogynists, bigots, transphobic if you are trying to think scientifically?
Y/N?
Oh for fâs sake. Science didnât lose the public trust.
Academicians stripped of academic freedom lost public trust. Irreproducible Peer reviewed papers lost public trust. Public health lost public trust.
Is ANYONE worried about Avogadroâs number or the genetic code being wrong?
You want to cure this problem we are having? Give scientists the freedom to form families with high participation in the very world science created, rather than asking them to peal you another grape while you take their work and humiliate them with truly *terrible* career paths.
Let them tell you to go F yourself when you subordinate them to a Fauci type politician in a lab coat.
When you ask for implicit bias testing to decolonize science, allow them to tell you that you are a quack racial fetishist. Let them kick you out of their buildings on campus.
Starkly: lap dogs & scientists are not the same thing. If you want to get a cuddle pal and put festive ribbons in its hair, you want a French poodle.
No one smart does that with a honey badger, wolf or Wolverine.
Scientists need insulation from you if you expect to trust them.
- peel
You can have scientists you trust.
You can have scientists you control.
Pick up to one of the above.
Would you prefer to send a promising STEM student to a university that was focused on Diversity Equity and Inclusion along with merit or one that was singularly focused on merit, ability, performance and academic freedom to the exclusion of nearly all other attributes:
Feel free to retweet the poll to spread the awareness well beyond those who follow this account. Particularly to accounts that disagree with this one. Thanks.
@matloff @MeGupsta I absolutely believe in diversity and inclusion through merit. I donât believe in equality of outcome under any circumstances. I believe in some remediation of real historical oppression and limited current structural problems. But not to the DEI extent by a long shot. Thanks.
@matloff @MeGupsta To me, Merit is a diversity program. My ethnic group has been among the most brutally oppressed in living memory. And merit worked for us even in eras of open discrimination. Letâs extend that success to all.
@matloff @MeGupsta In that sense. And the Italians? The Persians? Black Americans? Irish? Scots? All incredibly accomplished in the US. We have a lot to be proud of.
@matloff @MeGupsta Iâve been pretty clear about that. But DEI(tm) is a disaster. Letâs encourage and mentor those interested in STEM from underrepresented groups. And a lot of that is rigor. Soft DEI(tm) thinking doesnât help in hard STEM subjects. It does the opposite.
@Mangocorona No. Or at least they werenât very recently. A professor had the salary of a dentist but the intellectual freedom of a billionaire until recently. If we could restore that we wouldnât need much FU money. But now we do. BecauseâŚwe blew it on witch-hunting independent thinkers etc.
@matloff @MeGupsta Well, Iâm pretty outspoken about wanting a diverse group of Americans in STEM. And pretty outspoken about the woke abomination of DEI as a means to achieve that. If there were a program called âHelp every orphanâ I would likely oppose it because it is more likely to house a scam.
@matloff @MeGupsta Letâs not get sucked in to woke optics.
We get it: the woke are for all things good in theory. In practice it is a bit different. So they call their sub movements things like âDignity for first peoples!â to get you not to question what they are actually up to in reality.
Get this lunacy out of the labs. This isnât funny. Itâs not cute. The grownups need to exclude such buffoonery in matters of national health & security.
This is simple straight up racism. It has no place in science.
Look. This is simpler than we make it out to be.
We just need to remove the things that actually work from universities. Why we have algebraic topology and civil engineering co-located with DEI neocommunist indoctrination is absurd.
Itâs past time to let stupid fend for itself.
Are things perfect? No.
Is DEI the answer? Also No.
We have to stop letting this indoctrination campaign ruin our core infrastructure. Itâs an issue of national security, economic prosperity and survival.
Am I a conservative? Again: No. This is just dumb. And Iâm anti-dumb.
@DoctorEllwanger Music works. Linguistics works.
So does poetry. And literary analysis. Etc. But if they canât be redeemed, thatâs not a reason to take out neurobiology.
Iâve been quite serious about this for a long time: we need to move critical technical research fields out of the universities. Fast.
Self-explanatory:
How do we start excluding people who must not be anywhere near scientific research from being anywhere near scientific research?
I want us all to stop for just a moment and just think about this story for a minimum of 20 seconds.
How it is written. What it says about news. About us, our values & our future.
Thank you.
https://t.co/OM86RWaphj via @nbcnews
It was written in 2017. That is now 6 years ago. We have not pulled out of this madness. We went on to make test scores optional. We remade our research universities as factories of DEI rather than citadels of scholarship. And weâre going to have to undo this all at some point.đ