The next battleground-'Cancel Culture & Identity Politics' - Page 20 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15158581
So, to deliver on my promise. As I mentioned earlier, there is most definitely a trend in academia towards the so-called "decolonization" of knowledge in several fields.

In the humanities, we saw the example in Classics and I also brought up an example in Medieval History, where in both the "decolonization" of knowledge is being pushed by 1) tying it to some vague notion of inclusion, which should be understood as the support for taking identity classes such as ethnicity/race and gender into account when analyzing the demographics of researchers in these fields and 2) by also pushing taking these identity categories into account when determining the value of the knowledge generated in these fields, that is, complaining that (for instance) Classics and Medieval History are way too centered in the study of Ancient and Medieval Europe, including its history, culture, philosophy, politics, etc or that the identity of the researchers is tied to the content of their research. The latter could also be extended to other fields in the humanities where this debate has been going on for a long while and where it is actually feasible to argue that, indeed, only considering traditional Western constructs in the analysis probably limits the generation of knowledge therein. Issues like whether the journal system is discriminatory or not is basically a mix of these two points, since they are quite evidently not mutually exclusive and may actually be correlated (because field preferences may be correlated with some identity classes).

In particular, I do believe there is huge value in broadening the analysis and taking non-traditional and non-Westernn perspectives into account in the humanities and I don't think anyone in those fields has a problem with that - hence the existence of several "XXXX" studies departments (where "XXXX" is always an identity category) and also the existence of complete fields within key disciplines of the humanities dedicated to the study of non-Western history, culture, philosophy, politics, etc. What's weird, though, is why would someone then pick a fight with Classicists and Medievalists when these two fields are simply doing the same, but centered in Europe (and, in particular, the Ancient Greco-Roman civilization) - which may be very traditional but that does not really mean it lacks value, at all. At worst, one could simply rename the fields to make this clearer, but the criticism actually goes beyond that and jumps into our present-day identity politics as one can easily tell by the constant presentism the so-called "decolonizers" and their supporters like @Pants-of-dog engage in. I would guess this should be non-controversial, and if it somehow is controversial then it's as easy as to read the history of those "XXXX" studies fields.

Where things get more complicated is when this extends to science, and particularly STEM. For social sciences, the idea that Eurocentrism is a bad thing is already fairly questionable, and probably depends on the case. For instance, take clinical psychology: Is eurocentrism necessarily a problem when studying personality disorders? Maybe, perhaps what for some culture is a "disorder" for another is not. But, does it mean that the validity of the research of these aspects of personality will depend on the researcher's cultural background? That seems to be tougher to defend, but perhaps there is a way to do so. Either way, one can easily find academics who do believe this and who have their own journals to that effect:

Decolonizing Psychological Science: Introduction to the Special Thematic Section (JSPP Vol 3 Num 1, 2015) wrote:Abstract

Despite unprecedented access to information and diffusion of knowledge across the globe, the bulk of work in mainstream psychological science still reflects and promotes the interests of a privileged minority of people in affluent centers of the modern global order. Compared to other social science disciplines, there are few critical voices who reflect on the Euro-American colonial character of psychological science, particularly its relationship to ongoing processes of domination that facilitate growth for a privileged minority but undermine sustainability for the global majority. Moved by mounting concerns about ongoing forms of multiple oppression (including racialized violence, economic injustice, unsustainable over-development, and ecological damage), we proposed a special thematic section and issued a call for papers devoted to the topic of "decolonizing psychological science". In this introduction to the special section, we first discuss two perspectives—liberation psychology and cultural psychology—that have informed our approach to the topic. We then discuss manifestations of coloniality in psychological science and describe three approaches to decolonization—indigenization, accompaniment, and denaturalization—that emerge from contributions to the special section. We conclude with an invitation to readers to submit their own original contributions to an ongoing effort to create an online collection of digitally linked articles on the topic of decolonizing psychological science.


Similarly, one can also find a similar discussion in political science, and indeed there is an explicitly organized effort in one of the field's associations to that effect:

Western Political Science Association (WPSA) wrote:Decolonizing Political Science

Community Co-Chairs
We call this virtual community a virtual collective, as it is an intentional organization of scholars united by shared values and goals centered on decolonial politics and decolonizing academia. This virtual collective is organized and facilitated by junior women of color political scientists. We come from different subfields, universities, backgrounds, and academic ranks. We acknowledge that there are no Native or Indigenous women in this initial group of facilitators. To address this, we will prioritize the recruitment of Native and Indigenous women colleagues in all of our initiatives and develop non-tokenizing relationships based on genuine trust and solidarity in this continuous process.

Our leadership style is flexible and reflective. We refuse to reproduce neoliberal or diversity-based styles that lead to nepotism and the concentration of power with status quo academics. We do not have a centralized or a hierarchical power structure, our members' input has equal weight to those of the facilitators. Our facilitators are determined by time and interest, rather than appointment.

...


There are also journal articles in the field in this matter, including point 1):

Indigenizing Political Science or Decolonizing Political Scientists? (Wilmer, 2016) wrote:Abstract

Native Americans have been structurally excluded from the discipline of political science in the continental United States, as has Native epistemology and political issues. I analyze the reasons for these erasures and elisions, noting the combined effects of rejecting Native scholars, political issues, analysis, and texts. I describe how these arise from presumptions inherent to the disciplinary practices of U.S. political science, and suggest a set of alternative formulations that could expand our understanding of politics, including attention to other forms of law, constitutions, relationships to the environment, sovereignty, collective decision-making, U.S. history, and majoritarianism.


...And also point 2) above:

Decolonising the political theory curriculum, Choat (Politics, 2020) wrote:Abstract

Recent calls to ‘decolonise the curriculum’ are especially pertinent to the teaching of political theory, which has traditionally been dominated by a canon made up overwhelmingly of White (and male) thinkers. This article explores why and how political theory curricula might be decolonised. By mapping core political theory modules provided at UK universities, and examining associated textbooks, the article shows that non-White thinkers and discussions of colonialism and race are marginalised and neglected. It then argues that there are intellectual, political, and pedagogical reasons why this neglect is problematic and should be reversed. Finally, the article reflects on the experience of rewriting and delivering a core second-year undergraduate modern political thought module at a post-92 London university, including assessing the impact of the changes on the attainment gap between White students and Black and minority ethnic students.


There is also an analogous movement in sociology, and one can also find journal articles with the same theme. An example:

Decolonizing Sociology: Epistemic Inequality and Sociological Thought (Social Problems, Go, 2017) wrote:It is hardly disputable there is inequality and marginalization within our discipline along the lines of ethnicity, gender, race, sexuality, and socioeconomic status among other vectors. What more can be said about it? For my part, I would like to pose two issues to consider. The first is the question of epistemic inequality and marginalization. My claim is that confronting social inequality and marginalization within the discipline must also confront inequality and marginalization at the level of social knowledge. We must confront how certain standpoints and knowledges are subjugated by the dominant standpoint of disciplinary sociology. The second is the spatial scale of inequality and marginalization within the discipline. My claim is that confronting social inequality and marginalization within the discipline also

...


And one can also find opinion pieces among practitioners in the field, which I think can be summarized just like this one does:

Steinberg (Stanford University Press blog, 2016) wrote:DECOLONIZING SOCIOLOGY

Since its inception, sociologists have unconsciously practiced a white sociology.

...


There is also a similar movement in economics (which hits closer to home), some examples: D-Econ (centered on heterodox economists), the Sadie Collective (centered on Black female economists) and also the most relevant (and institutional example) comes from the slate that was elected to the American Economic Association (AEA) last year (no other slates were formed to run, so it was a given from the beginning), where their priority is also centered on point 1) above regarding "decolonization" and the demographics of researchers in the field in particular. The AEA is important because it's by far the most important association in the field worldwide.

And of course, STEM is not an exception either. For starters, there's the Science letter I linked to earlier:

Science (2020) wrote:LETTERS

Systemic racism in higher education

Paul H. Barber1,*, Tyrone B. Hayes2, Tracy L. Johnson3, Leticia Márquez-Magaña4, 10,234 signatories
See all authors and affiliations

Science 18 Sep 2020:
Vol. 369, Issue 6510, pp. 1440-1441
DOI: 10.1126/science.abd7140

The nexus of Black Lives Matter protests and a pandemic that disproportionately kills Black and Latinx people (1) highlights the need to end systemic racism, including in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), where diversity has not meaningfully changed for decades (2). If we decry structural racism but return to the behaviors and processes that led us to this moment, this inexcusable stagnation will continue. We urge the Academy to combat systemic racism in STEM and catalyze transformational change.

Everyone in academia must acknowledge the role that universities—faculty, staff, and students—play in perpetuating structural racism by subjecting students of color to unwelcoming academic cultures (3). Universities are not level playing fields where all students have an equal opportunity to participate and succeed. The misuse of standardized tests such as the GRE excludes students who could have otherwise succeeded (4). Once admitted, Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) face challenges when transitioning to college life (5) and are more likely to be nontraditional students. Innovative pedagogies (6) and programs (7) can overcome these challenges but are not widely applied in higher education. Evidence-based, institution-wide approaches focused on equity in student learning are foundational to eliminating structural racism in higher education. Once we abandon the view of “fixed” student ability, more BIPOC students will succeed (8).

Academic culture also fails BIPOC faculty, who receive fewer federal grants due to systemic bias (9) and topic area (10). BIPOC faculty are most likely to invest substantial time in activities that promote diversity, which are devalued in the tenure and promotion process (11). BIPOC faculty are further disadvantaged in tenure decisions through cultural taxation of unequal service and mentoring demands. Given these burdens, BIPOC faculty cannot be expected to be the primary agents of institutional change. Instead, those most empowered to make change—non-BIPOC faculty—must join BIPOC faculty in their efforts to prioritize recruiting, supporting, and championing diversity.

Finally, the false dichotomy of “excellence or diversity” must end. Diversity results in better, more impactful, and more innovative science (12), and it is essential to building novel solutions to challenges faced by marginalized and nonmarginalized communities. Catalyzing these culture shifts in the Academy, however, will require making tenure dependent on excellence in research, teaching, and service that centers on equity and inclusion.

Making STEM equitable and inclusive requires actively combating racism and bias. All faculty, staff, and students should commit to learning about racism, engaging in courageous conversations with non-BIPOC colleagues, and calling out unfair practices to prevent the normalization of discriminatory behavior. Faculty should examine courses for ethnicity and gender performance disparities, ask whether departmental and lab demographics reflect society at large, and actively remedy any disparities.

Breaking down the barriers of systemic racism in STEM and achieving the promise of diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEM require unwavering dedication and real work. It is time to make the commitment to be an agent of change.


Some analogous examples to those from the social sciences can be found below. Let's take one from engineering:

Using a social justice approach to decolonize an engineering curriculum (IEEE, Winberg & Winberg, 2017) wrote:Abstract:

Globally there have been many changes in the roles of universities, in particular the increasing complexity of the university's relationship with the state and society; it is thus unsurprising that there is a growing pressure on engineering programs to become more inclusive, innovative and `relevant' to social needs. This study arises out of a call in South Africa, for the `decolonization' of higher education. There is considerable debate and controversy about what a decolonized curriculum might comprise, and this paper sought to identify elements of a decolonized computer engineering curriculum through interviews with academic and practicing engineers, as well as a student survey. The findings suggest that there are different ways in which a curriculum might be understood as being decolonized (or progressing towards such a state). In this paper we argue that decolonizing a curriculum requires a systematic approach, such as understanding of curriculum development as an activity system in order to identify the elements that require change. We further argue that an appropriate framework, such as Nancy Fraser's tripartite understanding of `social justice' would ensure that the decolonized curriculum is also a socially just one. We use `fictive scripting' to forecast a variety of possible scenarios for a socially just decolonized computer engineering curriculum, based on the data obtained from participants. We then presented these scenarios to faculty to gain their views towards further development. Results of our case study indicate that a socially just decolonized engineering curriculum may need more resources and staffing to achieve its purpose, compared to a more traditional curriculum. The case study suggests further that a decolonized curriculum has benefits, such as improving student motivation, enhancing relevance to the local context and helping to inspire innovative solutions for local needs.


Physics:

How to Decolonize South African Physics (Physics by the American Physics Society, 2020) wrote:...

What do you mean by “decolonization” of science?

“When I talk about decolonization of the physics curriculum, people immediately think we’re talking about the content, but it’s broader than that,” says Azwinndini Muronga. For him, it involves questioning multiple aspects. Who is teaching? Are they representative of the country’s diversity or interested in promoting it? Do they shape their teaching based on European models? Do they pick and deliver the content of their classes in a way that is relevant and understandable to South African students? “Once you think about that entire package you will be addressing decolonization,” he says.

For Justin Jonas, decolonizing physics also involves showing the relevance of the discipline to a democratic South Africa. He says, “you can’t make the assumption that just because you think physics is a good thing, everyone feels the same way. It needs to find its place in the world. It needs to justify itself. I think that physics is a vital part of culture and society,” but physicists have the burden of proving to society that they are relevant.

However, Zeblon Vilakazi cautions against the use of the term decolonization. “Decolonization is a political term, and the minute you say decolonization of science, it is political, and we’ve seen what happens when science gets politicized. It’s not good,” he says. Instead of using that term, people should talk about inclusion and diversity, which are global challenges, not just South African ones, he says.

...


Mathematics:

Undark (2018) wrote:In South Africa, ‘Decolonizing’ Mathematics

Student efforts to break free of colonial dogma embedded in education have now turned to math. Some academics are wary.

BY THOMAS LEWTON
12.31.2018
62 COMMENTS
TWICE A WEEK, Tiri Chinyoka holds extracurricular classes for mathematics undergraduates at the University of Cape Town in South Africa. One October evening, a predominantly black group of first-year students gathered around whiteboards as they grappled with the intricacies of vectors and matrices, while on the wall behind them some oppressive history looked on: a mural spanning some 30 feet portraying students past, dressed in black gowns and mortarboards — all of them white.

“Structurally, nothing has changed from the colonial era, whether you’re talking about human experience or you’re talking about the physical infrastructure,” says Chinyoka, sitting later in his office in one of the university’s classically inspired buildings that overlook the city. Sporting a black leather flat cap and dreadlocks, Chinyoka is not a stereotypical mathematician. “If you look at what we teach in the mathematics curriculum, it is almost irrelevant to the South African context,” he says.

Since apartheid ended in 1994, South Africa’s universities have struggled to transform themselves, leading to escalating student protests over the last three years — including the toppling of a prominent statue of Cecil Rhodes, an infamous colonizer who donated the land on which the University of Cape Town now stands. And as students and academics accelerate the process of decolonization across South African universities, the spotlight has fallen onto mathematics.

Exactly what decolonizing math would entail isn’t entirely clear: Curriculum revisions that promote non-Western contributions to the field, new teaching methods rooted in indigenous cultures, and greater openness to ideas outside the academic mainstream are all under discussion. Some want to go further, challenging the philosophical foundations of mathematics itself.

...


Note how the last paragraph emphasizes points 1) and 2) I mentioned earlier. And adds a point about mathematical education, which for mathematicians is of course relevant, but is applicable to STEM in general. And indeed, here's an example of that:

Oxford University wrote:Diversifying STEM Curriculum Project – new call for interns

PROJECT SUMMARY

The Diversifying STEM Curriculum project aims to bring the conversation and actions around decolonising and diversifying curriculum in higher education into the STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) disciplines. While there have been some efforts in our departments in this area, this project aims to build upon and to coordinate activity in the Division and collaborate with others across the University.

This project is a collaboration between scientists/mathematicians and historians in the University of Oxford. The current participating STEM departments are: Chemistry, Engineering Science, Maths, Physics and Zoology. We have partnered with colleagues from the Faculty of History and the History of Science Museum. Funding has been received by the Vice Chancellor's Diversity Fund.

Undergraduate students in science will work with and be supervised by DPhil historians of science on a summer project to develop an online repository of materials available to professors/lecturers teaching undergraduate courses in maths and physical sciences subjects (within Oxford and externally). The material will include (1) a critical understanding of the historical context of key scientific concepts/theorems/research, and (2) highlight and discuss important contributions from a diverse range of people (with respect to ethnicity, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, disability, class, religion, etc.) and those who may have been sidelined or not given the recognition they deserve.

The specific aims are to:

Research material and collect approaches to diversifying the undergraduate science curriculum;
Broaden student learning in undergraduate science courses to have a better understanding of: the global historical and social context to scientific research; the diverse range of people who have contributed to scientific knowledge construction; colonial contexts in which ideas about whose knowledge is ‘scientific’ have been developed and deployed and their consequences for indigenous knowledge; and historical work revising older narratives of scientific progress;
Create collaborations between scientists and historians;
Develop an online repository of material for undergraduate lecturers within Oxford and across the sector to easily integrate into their lectures/courses, encouraging them to critically reflect on their curriculum content;
Ultimately to advocate for a cultural shift towards STEM curriculum that embraces an interconnected global view of sciences/maths (not just a euro-centric one) and includes a diverse range of people and historical context alongside the necessary technical content.
While this project was planned to launch in Summer 2020, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, it has been postponed until Summer 2021.

If you have any questions, please contact [email protected]


In Statistics, so far the only thing I've heard of is to somewhat demote RA Fisher and other major classical statisticians for supporting the eugenics movement and the racism that was typical of their time (late 19th century and early 20th century), particularly since racialist theories had not been debunked yet. Even then, this demotion is mostly about naming prizes rather than doing away with the field at large.

Are these enough for establishing a trend? Since @Pants-of-dog asked for examples from several fields, I would say so.

Now, some people actually think the genetic fallacy should be the law of the land and the fact that much of our knowledge and institutions comes from an era where racism was commonplace and racialism was a legitimate scientific paradigm would thus be problematic. But, if we took it seriously we would need to do away with quite a bit of our scientific knowledge. For instance, since I'm a statistician, let's take classical statistics: If we followed this reasoning, we would need to abolish experimental design (RA Fisher invented the field) and much of contemporary statistics since as I said earlier the other two major classical statisticians (Pearson and Galton) also held racialist/racist beliefs and these actually motivated their research on statistical methods and concepts that are ubiquitous in statistics, empirical research in general and even regular discussion, including PoFo. Do you agree with this idea, @Pants-of-dog? I recall you were claiming elsewhere that the police should be abolished in the US, since professional policing in the country had been motivated by, among some things, catching slaves in the American South and many Police Departments in large Northern US cities had been established before slavery had been abolished at the Federal level (hence, they had to comply with Federal law) and thus this unholy origin made it inherently racist. This reasoning also seems to be partly what motivates your agreement with Dan-el Padilla regarding Classics (correct me if I'm wrong here, but he also engaged in the genetic fallacy as quoted by Dr. Williams). But if we followed this reasoning and applied to statistics, how would we make any causal claims using stochastic data and how would science progress by renouncing the use of any data that necessitates the use of statistical methods for its analysis and collection? For instance, how would we know COVID vaccines work and, in consequence, get vaccinated to finally end the current pandemic and the restrictions in place to deal with it if we refuse to use what is known about inference and experimental design?

As I mentioned earlier, this is intimately tied to the idea of deconstruction of science. After all, if science can be deconstructed, if applying this concept from philosophy of language means scientific research has no essence and is simply a construction with no bearing to reality (or if reality itself doesn't actually exist, another theme among the postmodern people), then of course these ideas of decolonization make a lot of sense - after all, it would mean science is simply a means to letting some people acquire and keep their privileges. And if we move onto analyzing the history of deconstruction of science, then one should simply read about the Science Wars of the 1990s, a fight the postmodernists lost in my opinion (the epic trolling by Alan Sokal is particularly noteworthy here), in fact, they were basically destroyed on the merits.

If one believes science can or should be deconstructed, that it has no essential meaning nor the scientific method helps to discover anything, then I will assume the same person would have no problem with anti-vaxxers (particularly in light of the current pandemic) since the whole case for vaccines was, in fact, based on the use of the scientific method.

At last, this whole trend of introducing identity politics in academia, and particularly in science, is not new at all. As I mentioned earlier, there's the example of Deutsche Physik of the first half of the 20th century:

Wiki wrote:Deutsche Physik (German: [ˈdɔʏtʃə fyˈziːk], lit. "German Physics") or Aryan Physics (German: Arische Physik) was a nationalist movement in the German physics community in the early 1930s. A pseudoscientific movement, it nonetheless won the support of many eminent physicists in Germany. The term was taken from the title of a four-volume physics textbook by Nobel Laureate Philipp Lenard in the 1930s.

Deutsche Physik was opposed to the work of Albert Einstein and other modern theoretically based physics, which was disparagingly labeled "Jewish physics" (German: Jüdische Physik).


...Which of course did not end too well, even though it was supported not just by Nazi Germany (in fact, it predates Nazism as the movement began in WWI) but, more importantly, by several top German physicists, including Nobel Prize laureates.

So, going back to the OP of this thread, another reason why the current strain of postmodern identity politics is a problem is that it is likely to hurt scientific development and academia at some point, by using concepts such as deconstruction and decolonization as means to justify introducing the belonging of certain identity categories as a criterion to evaluate research and researchers, even if it conflicts with whether the research is actually accurate (helps us understand reality) and useful (can actually improve our quality of life). Or, in other words, by politicizing science in such a way that the identity of the researcher may actually trump the researcher's actual work when it comes to academia's incentive system. And even if it doesn't, it serves as a distraction from the more pressing problems science is indeed facing, such as the replication crisis - a problem that may well be worth discussing in a different thread. A science in crisis is bad news for the future, as the Industrial Revolution we're still living in should have shown us already.
#15158648
@wat0n

While I thank you for the effort you put forth, it is not evidence for a general trend. You have a few voices in a few fields asking for an end to systemic racism.

While I would welcome such a trend, it seems more like this is just the beginning of a conversation that every field needs to have.

As for your worries about science being taken over by identity politics, I would argue that the status quo is already taken over by identity politics. But we incorrectly see it as being objective and normal.

For example, we still teach medical students to look for symptoms according to how they show up on white skin. A resource showing how they look on black skin was only developed last year ( https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as ... -1.5657451 ).

If anything, this conversation of “decolonising” academic fields is actually removing identity politics from the fields.
#15158652
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

While I thank you for the effort you put forth, it is not evidence for a general trend. You have a few voices in a few fields asking for an end to systemic racism.


A few voices like some academic associations or the 10k+ people who signed that Science letter?

Nonsense.

Pants-of-dog wrote:While I would welcome such a trend, it seems more like this is just the beginning of a conversation that every field needs to have.


What is "this" exactly? Trying to evaluate research not on its merits or how it advances its field, but on who the researcher is?

Pants-of-dog wrote:As for your worries about science being taken over by identity politics, I would argue that the status quo is already taken over by identity politics. But we incorrectly see it as being objective and normal.

For example, we still teach medical students to look for symptoms according to how they show up on white skin. A resource showing how they look on black skin was only developed last year ( https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as ... -1.5657451 ).

If anything, this conversation of “decolonising” academic fields is actually removing identity politics from the fields.


That's a rather absurd example, because medicine curriculum will quite understandably prioritize more widespread conditions over the rest. In the UK, 87.2% of the population is White according to the 2011 census (and only 3% is Black), so it's not surprising that the medicine curriculum doesn't include a diagnostic manual for skin conditions for nonwhites. What you are saying, then, is like claiming that a decision by the UK not to teach and evaluate students on diagnosing rare diseases from the Urals is driven by identity politics when the most logical explanation is that the case load of those diseases in the UK is just too low to be a priority.

In that sense, your reasoning above is yet another example of my point about how the identity of the researchers is claimed to be the most logical explanation for research content, hence the accusations of systemic racism or the need to decolonize science, when more logical explanations are available.

Furthermore, it's even weaker when taking into account that just because such diagnostic manual does not get taught in the UK, it does not mean it does not exist. A doctor whose interest or patient demographics demands it, could likely find similar manuals from African countries where their use is of course more justified because of the demographics of the African continent and where I'm fairly sure there are competent doctors who have already created them. That is, the decision not include such manual was simply driven by a lack of a critical mass of British population to justify its inclusion in the British curriculum, not a grand white supremacist conspiracy.
#15158657
wat0n wrote:A few voices like some academic associations or the 10k+ people who signed that Science letter?
.

Yes, those are only a few voices when we compare then to the number of people in each field.

What is "this" exactly? Trying to evaluate research not on its merits or how it advances its field, but on who the researcher is?


By “this”, I mean the examples you gave of people questioning the systemic racism and bias inherent in each field.

As I pointed out, the different fields in academia are already infused with identity politics in that hey support a white male view of the world and exclude other voices.

And now people are questioning this, and challenging it.

That's a rather absurd example, because medicine curriculum will quite understandably prioritize more widespread conditions over the rest. In the UK, 87.2% of the population is White according to the 2011 census (and only 3% is Black), so it's not surprising that the medicine curriculum doesn't include a diagnostic manual for skin conditions for nonwhites. What you are saying, then, is like claiming that a decision by the UK not to teach and evaluate students on diagnosing rare diseases from the Urals is driven by identity politics when the most logical explanation is that the case load of those diseases in the UK is just too low to be a priority.


Ignoring whole ethnic groups is a form of identity politics, even if you can explain it through demographics. It is still focused exclusively on the experiences of white people, serves white people at the expense of others, and creates disproportionate negative impacts for people of colour.

In that sense, your reasoning above is yet another example of my point about how the identity of the researchers is claimed to be the most logical explanation for research content, hence the accusations of systemic racism or the need to decolonize science, when more logical explanations are available.


No, fixing a mistake of omission (caused by only focusing on white people) is not a support of your claim that the person doing the work is the most important point. It has nothing to do with that.

Furthermore, it's even weaker when taking into account that just because such diagnostic manual does not get taught in the UK, it does not mean it does not exist. A doctor whose interest or patient demographics demands it, could likely find similar manuals from African countries where their use is of course more justified because of the demographics of the African continent and where I'm fairly sure there are competent doctors who have already created them. That is, the decision not include such manual was simply driven by a lack of a critical mass of British population to justify its inclusion in the British curriculum, not a grand white supremacist conspiracy.


If these manuals exist and are not being taught, that us even worse.

That would show a deliberate intent to exclude this information.

I would prefer to assume that this discrimination was done out of ignorance.
#15158662
Pants-of-dog wrote:.Yes, those are only a few voices when we compare then to the number of people in each field.


But they sit at the top, meaning that they actually help set the trends.

Pants-of-dog wrote:By “this”, I mean the examples you gave of people questioning the systemic racism and bias inherent in each field.


As I pointed out, the different fields in academia are already infused with identity politics in that hey support a white male view of the world and exclude other voices.

And now people are questioning this, and challenging it.


Indeed, a rhetorical device used by those who are aiming to decolonize science. But you have provided little evidence to that effect.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Ignoring whole ethnic groups is a form of identity politics, even if you can explain it through demographics. It is still focused exclusively on the experiences of white people, serves white people at the expense of others, and creates disproportionate negative impacts for people of colour.


So in you view, universities should teach all illnesses and symptoms that affect people from all ethnicities, even when the students will probably find no patients from those ethnic groups, in lieu of more prevalent conditions or making the degree longer?

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, fixing a mistake of omission (caused by only focusing on white people) is not a support of your claim that the person doing the work is the most important point. It has nothing to do with that.


Yes it is, because you are trying to change the demographics of the researchers in the field appealing to systemic racism.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If these manuals exist and are not being taught, that us even worse.

That would show a deliberate intent to exclude this information.

I would prefer to assume that this discrimination was done out of ignorance.


Deliberate intent to exclude this information? No, it's simply prioritizing the actual patient population doctors will have to serve.

It would be as illogical as to teach the analogue skin symptoms for White people in a country with virtually no white population like Chad, and then have some people whine about it claiming racism

Quite obviously, resources are finite and priorities need to be established.

:roll:
#15158679
wat0n wrote:But they sit at the top, meaning that they actually help set the trends.


Not at all.

Most high positions in the fields are filed by white men, while most of the people you are quoting are not.

Indeed, a rhetorical device used by those who are aiming to decolonize science. But you have provided little evidence to that effect.


I did not need to, since this evidence has been presented by others.

So in you view, universities should teach all illnesses and symptoms that affect people from all ethnicities, even when the students will probably find no patients from those ethnic groups, in lieu of more prevalent conditions or making the degree longer?


If you want to attribute strawmen to me, please understand that I will ignore them.

My point, that you seem to not refute, is that the traditional paradigms in almost all fields is already taken over by identity politics: one that focuses almost exclusively on white men.

Yes it is, because you are trying to change the demographics of the researchers in the field appealing to systemic racism.


No, pointing out the existing systemic racism is not necessarily an advocacy of “trying to change the demographics of the researchers in the field”. The young man simply put together a manual helping doctors understand how symptoms present on people of colour.

It is incorrect to treat this as a race based attempt to get people fired.

Deliberate intent to exclude this information? No, it's simply prioritizing the actual patient population doctors will have to serve.

It would be as illogical as to teach the analogue skin symptoms for White people in a country with virtually no white population like Chad, and then have some people whine about it claiming racism

Quite obviously, resources are finite and priorities need to be established.

:roll:


You are contradicting yourself here.

you claim it is not deliberate, then explain why they deliberately chose to support a policy that ignores the experiences of non-white patients.
#15158682
Pants-of-dog wrote:My point, that you seem to not refute, is that the traditional paradigms in almost all fields is already taken over by identity politics: one that focuses almost exclusively on white men.
No, pointing out the existing systemic racism is not necessarily an advocacy of “trying to change the demographics of the researchers in the field”.
I did not need to, since this evidence has been presented by others.


No such evidence has been presented by anybody. Please show how all those academic fields brought forward by wat0n are white supremacist & racist.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you want to attribute strawmen to me, please understand that I will ignore them.


He didn't attribute a strawman, even if you lack the understanding of your own argument in favour of the decolonisation of science, ignoring it, means abandoning it.

The young man simply put together a manual helping doctors understand how symptoms present on people of colour.
It is incorrect to treat this as a race based attempt to get people fired.


You 're talking to yourself here. That is a strawman.

You are contradicting yourself here.
you claim it is not deliberate, then explain why they deliberately chose to support a policy that ignores the experiences of non-white patients.


He didn't explain that and you have not brought evidence for this claim of yours that "someone deliberately is being white supremacist and racist".
#15158694
Pants-of-dog wrote:Not at all.

Most high positions in the fields are filed by white men, while most of the people you are quoting are not.


The decision by the journals to publish these articles was made by whoever runs them. They wouldn't have been published if the editors were against it.

Also, if they had been published by White men only, I guess then there would be new complaints along the lines of why don't you allow nonwhite, non-male academics to voice their opinions, then?

At last, I'm fairly sure the Science letter had academics from various ethnic groups and genders and not just white men as signatories.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I did not need to, since this evidence has been presented by others.


It's pretty weak, however. One of the arguments by Dr Williamson was:

Quillette wrote:I wasn’t persuaded by Padilla’s “evidence.” Surely, to determine whether bias and sexual discrimination is the cause of gender disparity among these journal contributors, you would have to factor in the number of female classicists who had submitted articles in the same period? Was the acceptance rate lower for women than for men? Padilla said nothing about that.


This actually reminds me of Simpson's Paradox in statistics, which had a very interesting example regarding gender discrimination that illustrates the importance of taking all relevant variables into account.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you want to attribute strawmen to me, please understand that I will ignore them.

My point, that you seem to not refute, is that the traditional paradigms in almost all fields is already taken over by identity politics: one that focuses almost exclusively on white men.


Are they? Care to explain why is it important that, for example, Classical mechanics was developed largely by white men?

Does this make its representation of reality any less or more accurate than it could be? Why would this be important in disciplines like physics, math or statistics?

Why is this obsession with who the classical physicists were not reminiscent of the Deutsche Physik movement?

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, pointing out the existing systemic racism is not necessarily an advocacy of “trying to change the demographics of the researchers in the field”. The young man simply put together a manual helping doctors understand how symptoms present on people of colour.

It is incorrect to treat this as a race based attempt to get people fired.


Oh, it isn't? Then what did Prof. Padilla mean in his presentation in the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Society of Classical Studies? What do you propose to do to change academia's demographics?

Pants-of-dog wrote:You are contradicting yourself here.

you claim it is not deliberate, then explain why they deliberately chose to support a policy that ignores the experiences of non-white patients.


The policy only prioritizes other needs, seemingly based on the UK's demographics. Shouldn't the university curriculum actually be the one that's most geared towards the general demand for healthcare services above all?

The above does not mean further training couldn't be done about (in this case) the skin symptoms for Black or Brown skin, for those doctors who, well, actually serve Black and Brown communities. Thankfully, there is likely research about it so it's as simple as teaching its findings to those doctors whose jobs demand it.

That is, there is a false dichotomy here since your concern can be addressed through alternative means that would likely be more rational and cost effective overall.
#15158711
Creating a guide for doctors to better diagnose skin ailments in people with darker skin is a practical and good idea. A lot of the other identity stuff is hogwash. I generally don't think the race or gender of an academic has much if any relevance whatsoever in the majority of fields.
#15158737
wat0n wrote:The decision by the journals to publish these articles was made by whoever runs them. They wouldn't have been published if the editors were against it.

Also, if they had been published by White men only, I guess then there would be new complaints along the lines of why don't you allow nonwhite, non-male academics to voice their opinions, then?

At last, I'm fairly sure the Science letter had academics from various ethnic groups and genders and not just white men as signatories.


This does not relate to the point we were arguing.

I will clarify:

The number of academics who are currently trying to make academia less biased against women and BIPOC scholars are few in comparison to the total number of academics, and they do not enjoy high positions within the field.

Due to this low number of academics and the relative powerlessness of these few, it is illogical to assume that there is a general trend in an all academic fields.

It's pretty weak, however. One of the arguments by Dr Williamson was:



This actually reminds me of Simpson's Paradox in statistics, which had a very interesting example regarding gender discrimination that illustrates the importance of taking all relevant variables into account.


So you agree that the evidence has been presented.

Are they? Care to explain why is it important that, for example, Classical mechanics was developed largely by white men?

Does this make its representation of reality any less or more accurate than it could be? Why would this be important in disciplines like physics, math or statistics?

Why is this obsession with who the classical physicists were not reminiscent of the Deutsche Physik movement?


Here you seem to he agreeing with me, that these fields are dominated by white men, and are providing some historical reasons why I am correct.

Oh, it isn't? Then what did Prof. Padilla mean in his presentation in the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Society of Classical Studies? What do you propose to do to change academia's demographics?


Since Dr. Padilla had nothing to do with this book on skin symptoms, the book on skin symptoms has nothing to do with Dr, Padilla’s remarks.

The policy only prioritizes other needs, seemingly based on the UK's demographics. Shouldn't the university curriculum actually be the one that's most geared towards the general demand for healthcare services above all?

The above does not mean further training couldn't be done about (in this case) the skin symptoms for Black or Brown skin, for those doctors who, well, actually serve Black and Brown communities. Thankfully, there is likely research about it so it's as simple as teaching its findings to those doctors whose jobs demand it.

That is, there is a false dichotomy here since your concern can be addressed through alternative means that would likely be more rational and cost effective overall.


If you wish to believe this omission was intentional, feel free.

It still ignores people of colour, focuses exclusively on the experiences of white people, and helps cause disproportionate negative health impacts on BIPOC people.
#15158746
Pants-of-dog wrote:This does not relate to the point we were arguing.

I will clarify:

The number of academics who are currently trying to make academia less biased against women and BIPOC scholars are few in comparison to the total number of academics, and they do not enjoy high positions within the field.

Due to this low number of academics and the relative powerlessness of these few, it is illogical to assume that there is a general trend in an all academic fields.


Being editor of a major journal in a field is not a low position therein.

You just repeated your claim, without ever addressing this quite obvious idea: Journals go through a rather intense process of filtering and selecting whatever is published there. If these articles were published, it's because the editors thought it was relevant to run articles about, for example, South African Black academics trying to "decolonize" their universities, whatever that is supposed to mean. And when it comes to major journals, these editors are indeed senior people in their field - in fact, they are among the most senior and powerful ones since their editorial decisions can easily make or break the tenure cases for junior academics, which is why the issue of whether there is discrimination in this process is actually important and being subject of an intense debate.

Also, you have no idea of what percentage of the researcher population agrees with this project of decolonization since you are quoting no surveys. If you are right and only a minority agrees, then it's even more noteworthy that there is a rather stable and large stream of articles being published and discussed in major field journals about this, all with the support of the senior people who actually run them. If you are right, it is the powerful in these fields who are actively leading this project.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So you agree that the evidence has been presented.


No, there could be many cogent explanations for Padilla's figures (assuming they are correct) that do not involve discrimination. As such, it's weak evidence.

One example would be that if the researcher population in the Classics is largely white and male, then it's entirely possible that most published research is done by then even if journals have greater acceptances rates of research authored by nonwhite, non-male academics in the field.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Here you seem to he agreeing with me, that these fields are dominated by white men, and are providing some historical reasons why I am correct.


And here you are not addressing my questions. Why would anyone care about a physicist's identity when it comes to evaluating her work? How does such identity affect the field's paradigms? Would Newtonian gravity be any different if Newton had been a Black woman?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since Dr. Padilla had nothing to do with this book on skin symptoms, the book on skin symptoms has nothing to do with Dr, Padilla’s remarks.


But it has a lot to do with our overall discussion. Again, what do you propose to solve what you consider to be a problem?

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you wish to believe this omission was intentional, feel free.

It still ignores people of colour, focuses exclusively on the experiences of white people, and helps cause disproportionate negative health impacts on BIPOC people.


How does this snowflakism relate to my argument? Does the fact that the British medicine curriculum is not geared towards treating the illnesses of the population in the Urals mean that it only focuses on the experiences of non-Uralians and causes disproportionate negative health impacts on Uralians? Where is your concern about them, @Pants-of-dog?

Even worse, you have also not actually proven that statement. For all we know, British NHS hospitals who actually serve its BIPOC population are in charge of providing the necessary training and manuals to their staff, while what they learn at the University has a more generalist character - just as it happens in most fields, where the University degree is just the beginning of the process of actually learning about your field.

Spoiler: show
I am also bewildered by this biologicism. Do you really want to keep implying that "race" is anything but a social construction, @Pants-of-dog? Because if you do, the science will quite evidently disagree
#15158769
For example, we still teach medical students to look for symptoms according to how they show up on white skin. A resource showing how they look on black skin was only developed last year ( https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as ... -1.5657451 ).

Can you give us some examples of how an illness or an injury might look different on different types of colours of skin?

For instance, we saw with COVID-19, the picture of Kawasaki disease [a rare and potentially fatal inflammatory disease], which was circulating on the internet. In the picture it is clear to see that on white skin Kawasaki will appear very bright red.

However, on dark skin, some people would even argue it looks like goose bumps. So these … conditions are both the same. But if both those patients presented to a hospital, we can almost tell that, if there was not this knowledge, who would be getting sent home and who would be receiving treatment. Consequently, it can mean that someone will end up dying because of that.


This second-year black student doesn't get Kawasaki disease at all. Swollen or red skin appears on the palms of the hands and the soles of the feet, which are generally light-skinned regardless of one's race. It is obvious clinically that skin of the palms and soles (volar skin) of blacks is lighter in color than black glabrous skin. There are other symptoms to look for such as extremely red eyes and an extremely red, swollen tongue.
#15158806
wat0n wrote:Being editor of a major journal in a field is not a low position therein.

You just repeated your claim, without ever addressing this quite obvious idea: Journals go through a rather intense process of filtering and selecting whatever is published there. If these articles were published, it's because the editors thought it was relevant to run articles about, for example, South African Black academics trying to "decolonize" their universities, whatever that is supposed to mean. And when it comes to major journals, these editors are indeed senior people in their field - in fact, they are among the most senior and powerful ones since their editorial decisions can easily make or break the tenure cases for junior academics, which is why the issue of whether there is discrimination in this process is actually important and being subject of an intense debate.


I never discussed journals at all.

Also, you have no idea of what percentage of the researcher population agrees with this project of decolonization since you are quoting no surveys. If you are right and only a minority agrees, then it's even more noteworthy that there is a rather stable and large stream of articles being published and discussed in major field journals about this, all with the support of the senior people who actually run them. If you are right, it is the powerful in these fields who are actively leading this project.


If we do not have the evidence to show it is a minority of voices, then we also lack the evidence to say it is a general trend.

Are you saying that journal editors are deliberately foisting this on their respective academic fields by allowing people like Dr. Padilla to voice their concerns in journals?

No, there could be many cogent explanations for Padilla's figures (assuming they are correct) that do not involve discrimination. As such, it's weak evidence.

One example would be that if the researcher population in the Classics is largely white and male, then it's entirely possible that most published research is done by then even if journals have greater acceptances rates of research authored by nonwhite, non-male academics in the field.


I was not discussing evidence for Dr. Padilla’s claims.

I was claiming that the evidence for a need for decolonization has been presented in this thread already.

And here you are not addressing my questions. Why would anyone care about a physicist's identity when it comes to evaluating her work? How does such identity affect the field's paradigms? Would Newtonian gravity be any different if Newton had been a Black woman?


I never made any of these arguments.

But it has a lot to do with our overall discussion. Again, what do you propose to solve what you consider to be a problem?


I did not claim to have solutions.

How does this snowflakism relate to my argument? Does the fact that the British medicine curriculum is not geared towards treating the illnesses of the population in the Urals mean that it only focuses on the experiences of non-Uralians and causes disproportionate negative health impacts on Uralians? Where is your concern about them, @Pants-of-dog?


If you are discussing your argument about whether or not this omission in education was deliberate, I am more than happy to concede it.

Even worse, you have also not actually proven that statement. For all we know, British NHS hospitals who actually serve its BIPOC population are in charge of providing the necessary training and manuals to their staff, while what they learn at the University has a more generalist character - just as it happens in most fields, where the University degree is just the beginning of the process of actually learning about your field.


Feel free to provide evidence for this.

I am also bewildered by this biologicism. Do you really want to keep implying that "race" is anything but a social construction, @Pants-of-dog? Because if you do, the science will quite evidently disagree.


I have no idea what you are talking about. You have probably misunderstood something. If you can show me where you think I said this, I can clarify what my actual claim was. Thanks.
#15158813
Pants-of-dog wrote:I never discussed journals at all.


Most of the articles were published by academic journals or outlets affiliated to them. Dr Padilla was also talking about them as quoted by Dr Williams.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If we do not have the evidence to show it is a minority of voices, then we also lack the evidence to say it is a general trend.


Actually, we do have the evidence to claim that as it's easy to see these opinions being published in the journals, in the webpages of some academic associations, to see seminars and other presentations about these topics, etc.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Are you saying that journal editors are deliberately foisting this on their respective academic fields by allowing people like Dr. Padilla to voice their concerns in journals?


If they are a minority as you claimed, yes. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that these are getting published in the journals and to some extent being introduced into the daily activities of universities should be enough evidence of a trend, regardless of whether those who support it represent a minority or not.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I was not discussing evidence for Dr. Padilla’s claims.

I was claiming that the evidence for a need for decolonization has been presented in this thread already.


How so?

Pants-of-dog wrote:I never made any of these arguments.


You did say that identity politics has somehow tainted the current paradigms in different fields, even physics ("My point, that you seem to not refute, is that the traditional paradigms in almost all fields is already taken over by identity politics: one that focuses almost exclusively on white men"). Can you explain how is this the case?

Pants-of-dog wrote:I did not claim to have solutions.


In fact, you can't even actually support the idea that it is a serious problem either.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Feel free to provide evidence for this.


The NHS Quality Standards for Dermatology would mandate such training for professionals serving BAME communities.

The UK and the USA also seem to compile statistics and approve treatments for solving skin conditions that affect Black people as well. Here's an article with some of the most common ones.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I have no idea what you are talking about. You have probably misunderstood something. If you can show me where you think I said this, I can clarify what my actual claim was. Thanks.


Just highlighting an apparent contradiction here. The bulk of genetic research suggests there is more variation within ethnic groups than between them, meaning then that it's unlikely they need substantially different medical care, save for some exceptions (many of which may actually have to do more with geography). This would argue against the need for a radically different university curriculum to teach med school students based on the race/ethnicity of prospective patients, and further supports the idea that this could be kept for specialization (something a second year student has not done) or on-site training.
#15158910
wat0n wrote:Most of the articles were published by academic journals or outlets affiliated to them. Dr Padilla was also talking about them as quoted by Dr Williams.

Actually, we do have the evidence to claim that as it's easy to see these opinions being published in the journals, in the webpages of some academic associations, to see seminars and other presentations about these topics, etc.


No. You cannot magically have enough numbers to say that it a significant percentage of people on every field are claiming this, and at the same time not have enough numbers to say that it is an insignificant percentage.

It is literally the same number.

If they are a minority as you claimed, yes. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that these are getting published in the journals and to some extent being introduced into the daily activities of universities should be enough evidence of a trend, regardless of whether those who support it represent a minority or not.


You are defining a trend as “any discussion at all”, then.

How so?

You did say that identity politics has somehow tainted the current paradigms in different fields, even physics ("My point, that you seem to not refute, is that the traditional paradigms in almost all fields is already taken over by identity politics: one that focuses almost exclusively on white men"). Can you explain how is this the case?

In fact, you can't even actually support the idea that it is a serious problem either.


Since I have already done so, and since repeating myself clutters the thread, I suggest you reread the discussion. Please let me know if you need any help.

The NHS Quality Standards for Dermatology would mandate such training for professionals serving BAME communities.

The UK and the USA also seem to compile statistics and approve treatments for solving skin conditions that affect Black people as well. Here's an article with some of the most common ones.


Okay. But this is not what was asked for.

This seems like a policy statement saying these resources are needed (which seems obvious, but I guess people need to have it explained) and not actually a resource like the one the young man came up with.

Just highlighting an apparent contradiction here. The bulk of genetic research suggests there is more variation within ethnic groups than between them, meaning then that it's unlikely they need substantially different medical care, save for some exceptions (many of which may actually have to do more with geography). This would argue against the need for a radically different university curriculum to teach med school students based on the race/ethnicity of prospective patients, and further supports the idea that this could be kept for specialization (something a second year student has not done) or on-site training.


Oh I see.

You incorrectly believe that I am arguing that the disproportionate negative health impacts that BIPOC people deal with are caused by genetics.

I am not arguing that at all.

I am arguing that they are caused by the policies that you described when you explained why doctors are not taught to identify illnesses in people of colour. This is not genetics.
#15158924
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. You cannot magically have enough numbers to say that it a significant percentage of people on every field are claiming this, and at the same time not have enough numbers to say that it is an insignificant percentage.

It is literally the same number.


I said it's a trend, and that trend can be seen by what's being published in the journals, by what's being discussed in seminars and congresses, and so. It's likely that most academics support this, actually, but we don't know. But what we do know is that these efforts to "diversify" the academic body and curriculum had already enjoyed a rather widespread support among university provosts back in 2017, which reinforces the idea that this project does have a significant measure of support among those at the top of the profession - both in terms of those who edit the journals and university administrators.

It's also rich that you chose to make this about opinion polling numbers, making claims on this matter while providing zero evidence about what academics think about this issue.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You are defining a trend as “any discussion at all”, then.


No, my definition of a "trend" here is that there is an increasingly large discussion on the matter and that this is translating into institutional efforts on the matter. Those who decide what gets published in this discussion are largely those at the top of the profession.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since I have already done so, and since repeating myself clutters the thread, I suggest you reread the discussion. Please let me know if you need any help.


No, you have not. You have made this claim but have failed to actually prove it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Okay. But this is not what was asked for.

This seems like a policy statement saying these resources are needed (which seems obvious, but I guess people need to have it explained) and not actually a resource like the one the young man came up with.


I'd be surprised if the NHS published those resources, but if there are studies being done on these matters then there are in fact doctors who know how to treat these symptoms in the system. And the prevailing NHS policy would be that doctors who actually need to know them because of the communities they serve need to get the training to that effect.

I also ignore if @ThirdTerm is right regarding the example mentioned about this resource, but I would definitely not trust a diagnostic manual authored by someone who hasn't finished med school yet. Even more so since it does seem the UK has doctors who have the necessary training to do so and for all we know a med school student is likely unaware of where to get the necessary training if coursework does not offer it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Oh I see.

You incorrectly believe that I am arguing that the disproportionate negative health impacts that BIPOC people deal with are caused by genetics.

I am not arguing that at all.

I am arguing that they are caused by the policies that you described when you explained why doctors are not taught to identify illnesses in people of colour. This is not genetics.


And yet, the need to have specific diagnostic manuals for BIPOC would result from... Well, from genetics in the example you provided. In reality, since genetic differences between human populations are not particularly large, it's unlikely that there needs substantially different teaching under these grounds, at least for the GP curriculum (Mukwende is a 20-year old 2nd year student, so it's unlikely he's getting a degree in dermatology unless he's a genius who finished high school at 14 and got a GP degree at 18 or something along these lines - basically, he doesn't even know the full curricula, let alone the post-graduation training in the NHS, to even have an informed opinion either).

I would actually point to some social determinants of health to explain outcome disparities in this case.
#15158926
wat0n wrote:I said it's a trend, and that trend can be seen by what's being published in the journals, by what's being discussed in seminars and congresses, and so. It's likely that most academics support this, actually, but we don't know. But what we do know is that these efforts to "diversify" the academic body and curriculum had already enjoyed a rather widespread support among university provosts back in 2017, which reinforces the idea that this project does have a significant measure of support among those at the top of the profession - both in terms of those who edit the journals and university administrators.

It's also rich that you chose to make this about opinion polling numbers, making claims on this matter while providing zero evidence about what academics think about this issue.


You claimed that there was a general trend. You have not provided said evidence.

When you provided evidence, it seemed like a few voices from a few fields.

No, my definition of a "trend" here is that there is an increasingly large discussion on the matter and that this is translating into institutional efforts on the matter. Those who decide what gets published in this discussion are largely those at the top of the profession.


Please cite institutional efforts to decolonise academia. Thank you.

No, you have not. You have made this claim but have failed to actually prove it.

I'd be surprised if the NHS published those resources, but if there are studies being done on these matters then there are in fact doctors who know how to treat these symptoms in the system. And the prevailing NHS policy would be that doctors who actually need to know them because of the communities they serve need to get the training to that effect.

I also ignore if @ThirdTerm is right regarding the example mentioned about this resource, but I would definitely not trust a diagnostic manual authored by someone who hasn't finished med school yet. Even more so since it does seem the UK has doctors who have the necessary training to do so and for all we know a med school student is likely unaware of where to get the necessary training if coursework does not offer it.

And yet, the need to have specific diagnostic manuals for BIPOC would result from... Well, from genetics in the example you provided. In reality, since genetic differences between human populations are not particularly large, it's unlikely that there needs substantially different teaching under these grounds, at least for the GP curriculum (Mukwende is a 20-year old 2nd year student, so it's unlikely he's getting a degree in dermatology unless he's a genius who finished high school at 14 and got a GP degree at 18 or something along these lines - basically, he doesn't even know the full curricula, let alone the post-graduation training in the NHS, to even have an informed opinion either).

I would actually point to some social determinants of health to explain outcome disparities in this case.


This seems like a lot of speculation to avoid discussing how this policy or omission is an example of discrimination.
#15158927
Pants-of-dog wrote:You claimed that there was a general trend. You have not provided said evidence.

When you provided evidence, it seemed like a few voices from a few fields.


I already provided you quite a bit of evidence:

  • Plenty of journal of articles and letters from several fields, including major multi-field journals like Science
  • Official policies and advocacy on this matter by some field associations
  • Now polling of university provosts about these matters, who help determine hiring policies at the university level

I'm not sure about what else do you want.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please cite institutional efforts to decolonise academia. Thank you.


I already did. You can read my first post in this very page to see some examples.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This seems like a lot of speculation to avoid discussing how this policy or omission is an example of discrimination.


This seems like an attempt to shove on the reader's throat that discrimination is the only explanation for this policy, when there are more reasonable explanations for it.

Why don't you just address my argument? I actually backed it up by credible sources on the matter, much more credible than the claims of an undergrad.
#15158928
wat0n wrote:I already provided you quite a bit of evidence:

  • Plenty of journal of articles and letters from several fields, including major multi-field journals like Science
  • Official policies and advocacy on this matter by some field associations
  • Now polling of university provosts about these matters, who help determine hiring policies at the university level

I'm not sure about what else do you want.


I have already explained what I think you need in terms of burden of proof, and I have also provided my analysis of the evidence you presented.

I already did. You can read my first post in this very page to see some examples.


No. The closest you came was mentioning an association of scholars, but that is not an institution, and the webpage discussing provosts contradicts that claim.

This seems like an attempt to shove on the reader's throat that discrimination is the only explanation for this policy, when there are more reasonable explanations for it.

Why don't you just address my argument? I actually backed it up by credible sources on the matter, much more credible than the claims of an undergrad.


The discrimination is obviously occurring. It is a fact that education for doctors is lacking when it comes to people of colour, and it is a fact that people of colour have disproportionately negative health impacts.

All your speculation about "why" do not change these facts.

Perhaps you are assuming that it is not discrimination if you can imagine a situation where the discrimination is not intended.
#15158929
Pants-of-dog wrote:I have already explained what I think you need in terms of burden of proof, and I have also provided my analysis of the evidence you presented.


No, I already fulfilled the reasonable burden of proof: I showed there is a lot of journal discussion on these matters (not possible if editors reject those articles), that there is official advocacy at the association level and that university provosts generally agree with these efforts. That is, there is indeed an institutional effort to that effect.

Your analysis made claims about what most professors think about these matters without providing any evidence to that effect.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No. The closest you came was mentioning an association of scholars, but that is not an institution, and the webpage discussing provosts contradicts that claim.


Field associations have a fair amount of power over their fields. They often have roles in the academic job market and they also run journals (often top ones in their professions, which can easily make a tenure case).

I don't see how the webpage discussing provosts contradicts my claim. On the contrary, they seem to value efforts to diversify their universities, even if they believe it's not an easy task.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The discrimination is obviously occurring. It is a fact that education for doctors is lacking when it comes to people of colour, and it is a fact that people of colour have disproportionately negative health impacts.

All your speculation about "why" do not change these facts.

Perhaps you are assuming that it is not discrimination if you can imagine a situation where the discrimination is not intended.


It's not discrimination when there is no intent and a business justification for whatever you consider to be discriminatory (this is a disproportionate impact test in American anti-discrimination law) and even more so when there are alternatives being offered that fulfill the same needs in a more rational way.

The example you cited was an ignorant 20-year old snowflake who was sad that he couldn't learn what he wanted to learn as part of his undergrad degree. As any rational person does, I don't care if snowflakes melt.
  • 1
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 24
Derek Chauvin Trial

Biden and some congresswoman intervened and p[…]

The Unthinkable is now reality.

@Juin So here is a question I have. How would […]

I would say social interaction is the main issue w[…]

Democracy is supposed to be bottom up, most other […]