Once again, the self-styled people of reason and science aren’t really into either one. Fulfilling Orwellian prophecies seems more their jam.
The latest proof comes via Heather MacDonald, who laments that the push for improved scientific rigor in public education via STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) curriculum is increasingly a front for the standard-issue tribalism and identity politics that actually serve to alter science’s ability to speak clearly and unequivocally.
This is how you get a plethora of genders to choose from despite what we have long known to be obviously true about chromosomes. Seeking truth in any form isn’t the goal of progressivism. They will sacrifice all in order to worship the reflection they see in their black mirror. And you know that’s true as soon as you hear that the National Science Foundation, which is the federal agency that funds university research, has a program called “Inclusion across the Nation of Communities of Learners of Underrepresented Discoverers in Engineering and Science.”
So what does that look like? You guessed it -- horrible.
An introductory chemistry course at UC Berkeley exemplifies “culturally sensitive pedagogy.” Its creators described the course in a January 2018 webinar for STEM teachers, sponsored by the University of California’s STEM Faculty Learning Community. A primary goal of the course, according to teachers Erin Palmer and Sabriya Rosemund, is to disrupt the “racialized and gendered construct of scientific brilliance,” which defines “good science” as getting all the right answers. The course maintains instead that “all students are scientifically brilliant.” Science is a practice of collective sense-making that calls forth “inclusive ways” of being brilliant. Students in this “inclusive” Chem 1A course work in groups arranging data cards in the proper sequence to represent chemical processes, among other tasks. Chemical terms of art are avoided wherever possible to accommodate students’ different academic backgrounds. The instructors hold the teams “accountable to group thinking”; a team can’t question an instructor unless it has arrived collectively at the question and poses it in “we” language.