U. Georgia Prof Given $200K to Study Microaggressions
“There has been little research in this area in science education”
The study is supposedly looking into the idea that microaggressions are the reason for the lack of diversity in science. Really.
Red Alert Politics reports:
Lack of diversity in science prompts $200k study on microaggressions
Even though Barack Obama is no longer president, government agencies are still doing his bidding by doubling down on identity politics and social justice.
This week, the University of Georgia announced that one of their science and math professors, Mary Atwater, was given a $229,061 Early-Concept Grant for Exploratory Research to study microaggressions from the National Science Foundation. Their hypothesis seems to be that microaggressions are causal to a lack of diversity in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics or STEM fields for people of “African or Latino ancestry.”
“There has been little research in this area in science education,” Atwater said. “In fact, there is very little microaggression research that has been done in which the participants are people of European-American descent.”
Atwater, who is currently a guest lecturer at Columbia University’s Teacher College, will exclusively study faculty and students of color at seven different higher education institutions to identify microaggressors in their science programs. She’ll be framing her project using critical race theory, and collect data through questionnaires, implicit attitude tests, interviews and other archival documents.
“This grant can have an impact on the number of African-American and Latino/a faculty members we have in science education,” Atwater continued.
Of course, liberals are looking to confirm that microaggressions and racism are the reason why there aren’t more people of color in the STEM fields. Perhaps if they embraced the concept of school choice to give students access to better education, then maybe that would even the playing field.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
“Peer” reviewed, but the authors did it as a hoax.
Here it is, unadorned, from the online but obviously misnamed journal Cogent Social Sciences:
The conceptual penis as a social construct*
Jamie Lindsay and Peter Boyle
Anatomical penises may exist, but as pre-operative transgendered women also have anatomical penises, the penis vis-à-vis maleness is an incoherent construct. We argue that the conceptual penis is better understood not as an anatomi- cal organ but as a social construct isomorphic to performative toxic masculinity.
The androcentric scientific and meta-scientific evidence that the penis is the male reproductive organ is considered overwhelming and largely uncontroversial.
That’s how we began. We used this preposterous sentence to open a “paper” consisting of 3,000 words of utter nonsense posing as academic scholarship. Then a peer-reviewed academic journal in the social sciences accepted and published it.
I taught Chemistry for several decades. I can remember virtually no minority student who liked Freshman Chemistry or any other course they were required to take in the Chemistry field. When asked why they hated Chemistry so much, you often got the usual response of it was just too difficult.
However, from time to time, you got another very honest and revealing answer from other minority students (almost always black) that revealed quite a bit more not only about their views on Chemistry, but on their view of their own education as a whole.
It seems that these “honest” students did not like chemistry because on exams you had to provide actual answers in the form of a number and it was either right or it was wrong. There was no option to provide a BS answer that could be construed as an intellectual response by the grading professor (and often a joke by the student). This meant that the student was forced to learn the subject matter and could not BS their way through the course as they could in other disciplines.
Using the excuse of microaggressions as a reason why minorities do not major in the hard sciences is nothing more than this BS effort writ large. But then again, the supposed existence of microaggressions as well as the endless BS you hear in all of these student protests and such never seem to involve students majoring in STEM fields thus supporting this real reason for why minorities typically do not major in STEM fields.
There, that question is now answered honestly. I wonder if they will pay me 200 kilobucks for this analysis for it is almost certainly going to be more accurate an answer than what this contrived study will show.
I resent the use of micro and penis in the same article. Just because mine is so small that I rate a handicap placard, there is no reason to heap such abuse on me. I’m going back to my safe space now.
Where’s that professor’s funding of the study of the “Easter Bunny,” the Great Pumpinkin, and Mrs. Santa Claus??????