Culture Intelligent Design Philosophy Science

Diversity or mere division? Another reason the March for Science didn’t have much impact

Spread the love

Physics Today’s media analyst., Steven T. Corneliussen, whom we quoted earlier on the downturn of pop science writing drew attention to the fate of the March for Science, as covered by Kate Sheridan and Lev Facher at STAT:

The event’s official diversity policy, posted just days after the march was announced in January, has undergone repeated revisions, and is now in its fourth version.

They were not inclusive enough, it seems.

The statement was designed to be an evolving document, Holloway said, but the massive early interest led to a level of scrutiny the march’s organizers didn’t expect.

It was rewritten and expanded in late January, and tweaked again in February to add language about disability and inclusiveness. The official Twitter account said that these changes were in response to “feedback” and “complaints” about the policy. (March 22, 2017) More.

There were issues about race and gender too. If you didn’t have a group gripe to air, it probably wasn’t worth going.

Trouble is, the marchers were all pieces from different jigsaw puzzles.

See also: Most of the pop science media are poised on the edge of the recycle bin… If popular science media don’t start looking seriously at covering non-naturalist, non-crackpot news, they will simply lose attention (the currency of the internet) to those who can risk it.

5 Replies to “Diversity or mere division? Another reason the March for Science didn’t have much impact

  1. 1

    Great headline. Diversity today means division and exclusion. Sad… but true.

  2. 2
    polistra says:

    “The statement was designed to be an evolving document, Holloway said, but the massive early interest led to a level of scrutiny the march’s organizers didn’t expect.”

    In other words, we believe in evolution but we won’t allow natural selection by scrutiny. All mutations in the document must accumulate.

    A lot like “Endangered” “Species” laws.

  3. 3
    tribune7 says:

    The march wasn’t for “science” but for money and to maintain power.

    Politics poisons science. The march was anti-science.

  4. 4
    Axel says:

    What concise and hard-hitting points. It’s a pity they would not currently get the wide publicity that their vapid and deeply-dishonest antitheses get.

  5. 5
    News says:

    Well, basically, when diversity politics creates more division, we know we are on the wrong track.

    The United States is thinking about going back to the moon but I hear less about that from current pop science media than I do about sexual harassment in the lab. Maybe back in the days of Hidden Figures, people were busy doing more science and needed everyone they could get for real work?

    Look, I (O’Leary for News) don’t mind if a sex harasser ends up wearing a trash can on his way to the unemployment kiosk in the rain. But it’s not good news if that kind of thing is becoming an obsession among scientists, in the way it would more naturally be an obsession in the film industry…

Leave a Reply