Federal Government Allocates $2.14 Million to Root Out Oppression in ‘Plant Sciences’
“The demographic distribution of scientists, especially those in positions of authority, does not reflect that of the US population”
One of the problems here, in the government’s view, is that the field of plant sciences is not diverse enough. What a scandal.
The College Fix reports:
Feds spend $2.1M in taxpayer dollars to ‘root’ out oppression in plant sciences
The federal government has allocated $2.14 million dollars to “root” out oppression in plant sciences.
The National Science Foundation’s Directorate for Biological Sciences recently awarded $2.14 million to the American Society of Plant Biologists for the development of a multi-organization research coordination network called ROOT and SHOOT.
ROOT stands for Rooting Out Oppression Together. And SHOOT? SHaring Our Outcomes Transparently.
“The demographic distribution of scientists, especially those in positions of authority, does not reflect that of the US population,” the award’s abstract states.
“Some of the causes of this disparity are known, such as a lack of role models and the tendency for people to look within their own circles when they recruit, appoint, and promote. This award will provide resources, trainings, opportunities, and structures that will allow participating plant science and affiliated organizations to change that construct.”
The award follows the release of a 2021 Dear Colleague Letter from National Science Foundation’s Directorate for Biological Sciences encouraging “professional societies to submit proposals to develop collaborative networks for facilitating cultural changes in the biological sciences to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
In the letter, NSF BIO stated that it “recognizes culture change in the biological sciences as an urgent priority and is committed to supporting efforts that use evidence-based practices to remove barriers for individuals historically excluded from science.”
The letter sought proposals that “build networks to generate the changes needed to broaden participation within academic and professional spheres of the biological sciences.”
The letter did not, however, provide many details regarding how the biological sciences, as they are today, maintain barriers that may have historically excluded certain groups from participation or how furthering DEI benefits science.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
I am anxiously awaiting the official effort to racially balance the NBA and the NFL.
Too much money there. They will remain untouched for the foreseeable future.
I’m living in a Monty Python sketch and can’t get out.
“a multi-organization research coordination network called ROOT and SHOOT.”
Not that they’ve walked headlong into a popular joke there (or even into a bar with a Rabbi, a priest, and a talking dog).
Q: Why is a panda such a lousy date?
A: Because a panda only eats roots shoots and leaves.
A rabbi, a priest, and a preacher walk into a bar. The bar tender looks at them, then asks, “What is this? Some kind of joke?”
To oppose oppression in Plant Sciences, I’m going to start a chapter of PETW: People for the Ethical Treatment of Weeds.
We will go on a self-righteous crusade to stop the use of plants in experiments. We will also require quotas of the different colors of flowers that florists will stock and sell. We will encourage “ethical” people (ie woke nuts) to stop the wanton killing and eating of plants.
Will there be a shelter for escaping Bkack-eyed Susan’s?
Will persons of chlorophyll get affirmative action?
Tell them they should be eating carbon emissions.
“This award will provide resources, trainings, opportunities, and structures that will allow participating plant science and affiliated organizations to change that construct.”
Get ready for quotas, indoctrination, affirmative action and other word salad platitudes. It’s doubtful anything useful will come of this.
Don’t need much math in biological sciences, so it’s easier to have the racial quotas there rather than in physical sciences.
“The demographic distribution of scientists, especially those in positions of authority, does not reflect that of the US population,” the award’s abstract states.”
Then again, the demographic distribution of just about everything seldom reflect that of the US population. An obvious (if unasked) question is, “Why would you expect it to?”
Of course, NSF represents a huge pot of government money, and everything government does is going to be political (how could it not be?) so perhaps it’s not such a surprise that NSF awards grants based on fashionably-correct politics.
After all, why shouldn’t grants be awarded on the basis of unsubstantiated assumptions (such as, assuming that differing demographic distributions could not be due to anything other than racism (or some other pernicious “ism”?
Why shouldn’t science itself be defined as the cis-heteronormative patriarchal white racism that it is? (Or at least “white adjacent” racists, which would include any demographic deemed to be overachievers).
Underachievers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your sanity. For all have achieved and all must be awarded prizes! Except for those of the wrong color or sex (of course) or who cannot be relied upon to deliver the ‘correct’ fashionable nonsense.
This seems to have merit, considering all the minority experts there are in the cannabis and related psychotropic plant areas. /s