Like many scientific societies, the Geological Society of America (GSA) gives out prizes for scientific achievement. Their awards page lists ten, including the Young Scientist Award, also called the “Donath Medal” after the family that endowed the prize. Here is what the prize is for—contributing to geologic knowledge through your research:
As you see, the criteria are that you have to be 35 or younger and have shown “outstanding achievement in contributing to geologic knowledge through original research that marks a major advance in the earth sciences.”
Apparently, though, this year they added one item to the judging “rubric” (I hate that word) used previously. Can you guess what that item might be? Stop and think for a second before reading on.
Okay, read on:
Here are the current criteria and evaluation form for the Donath Medal from the GSA’s page. Note that scientific achievement as well a young age are the SOLE criteria for judging the award. But they tweaked “scientific achievement” a bit (bolding is mine):
Overview: Ranking of candidates will consider scientific achievement in contributing to geologic (interpreted to include all Earth science disciplines of GSA) knowledge through original research that marks a major advance in the earth sciences. Significance of scientific achievement and age (<36 yrs) shall be the sole criteria (age evaluated by GSA staff). Appropriate contributions to DEI related to scientific achievement should be considered as an essential part of advancing Earth science disciplines of GSA.
What they’ve apparently done is lumped DEI contributions with real science as a part of “scientific achievement”. You can see that in the numerical evaluation form below. I suspect that a candidate, no matter how impressive their scientific accomplishments, has no chance at the award if they don’t have a decent record of fostering DEI. This, of course, like the many universities who require DEI statements for hiring or promotion, is a way of turning science into social engineering. Not only that, but a particular and debatable form of social engineering: the creation of equity in all fields of endeavor. And because you must express one point of view to get these prizes, you are the victim of compelled speech.
Characterizing this criterion as part of scientific achievement seems to me clearly duplicitous. If you’re under 35 and the sole criterion for the award, besides being young, is “scientific achievement”, then you can’t just go tacking Social Justice onto that. DEI efforts, regardless of how much you value them, are not scientific achievements but sociopolitical activities meant to advance an ideological goal.
As Anna commented below (I missed this bit somehow), you can get extra DEI points by “increasing representation of underrepresented groups through their own participation as a member of a URM group. . . “. This means that if you’re a member of an underrepresented minority group, you get extra points just for being who you are. This means it’s easier to win the prize if you’re of a “minoritized” group, making it a somewhat race-based prize.
And this is now the big problem with science. Not only is it being infiltrated by woke ideology to an extent I would have thought impossible, but now that ideology is considered as an essential part of science itself. This is why activists feel empowered to tweak and change scientific truth if it doesn’t comport with their beliefs. One example of this is the pervasive insistence that animals have more than two sexes. (They don’t.) If you can’t see your ideology instantiated in nature, you must find a way to force nature into the Procrustean bed of your ideology.
And you make ideological criteria piggyback on scientific merit. I wonder if the Donath family is down with the new rules. (They’ve also added DEI statements as requirements for other GSA awards.)
“… should be considered as an essential part ..”
I had to read that a few times… as I am in an optimistic mood today.
Jerry, I think there is a mistake here: “pervasive denial that animals have more than two sexes”. I believe the word “claim” (or some synonym) should be there instead of “denial”.
Yes, I made an arrant typo. I’ve fixed it to “insistence” already. Thanks!
The Donath Medal of the GSA takes its place in the same sphere as the exciting Lenin Prize, formerly awarded to outstanding scholars in a galaxy far away. The 1980 Lenin Prize went to a writer whose books, according to the 1980 award statement, “inspired new heroic deeds for the sake of the triumph of socialism and communism, democracy and freedom, international fraternity”, The writer’s name was Leonid Brezhnev.
The best part of the rubric is “candidate increases representation of underrepresented groups …. through their own participation as a member of URM group”. Simple and clear — the selection committee can grant extra points to candidates *solely* based on their gender or race.
Good catch, Anna. I can’t bring myself to read this stuff as carefully as I should anymore. Have gotten too used to seeing science job postings saying, “applications only from women and visible minorities will be considered.”
Yes, the institutions become more and more brazen — even in the US, where it is still illegal to discriminate by race and gender.
Good catch, Anna. I’ll add that above and reference your comment here.
And, now that I’m paying attention, notice how the DEI criterion is the only one that needs a justificatory “as…” clause tacked on after the comma, that is longer than the criterion itself, with helpful examples including the one that Anna caught. It’s as if the commissars were anticipating derisory skepticism.
“Integrates Indigenous methodologies in scientific research”. I am struggling to understand that one.
Replacing science by voodoo science I suppose.
After reading and participating in so much of this in my job, I’ve become sadly and reluctantly more race-conscious about these things. I think what they mean by Indigenous methodologies is just “not what white people do”. If the Indigenous method was scientific then it would just be science; and if it wasn’t scientific then it wouldn’t be used in scientific research. Feel like I’m taking crazy pills sometimes.
From a purely sociological point of view, it would be informative to find out who inserts these DEI affirmations into rules like the one under discussion. That information would permit analysis of the age, status, and professional and psychological profile of the demographic responsible. In principle, this could be a subject for future science history studies—assuming that science does have a future, which may not be assured.
Fred Donath is still alive. I wonder how he feels about this?
As if I didn’t have enough to be alternatively pissed off and depressed about.
I’m more than happy to have any sex/gender/identity/race/ethnicity/national origin doing science, but based on their hard work, intelligence, insight, and ability, and until someone can prove to me that doing geology with a vagina, for example, is somehow going to reveal some new and exciting method or theory, then I don’t see the point in focusing on anything but an individual’s abilities and results. But I guess I’m old fashioned.
I recently found myself asked by a major journal, after I’d turned down a request to review, to recommend alternate reviewers with a particular eye to under-represented minorities, etc. What about somebody who actually has knowledge of the subject?
Sloppy work, bolting on a new requirement without even reviewing the wording of the existing requirements. If “significance of scientific achievement and age … shall be the sole criteria”, then there cannot be other criteria. If, on the other hand, “appropriate contributions to DEI related to scientific achievement should be considered as an essential part of advancing Earth science disciplines”, then significance of scientific achievement and age are not the sole criteria.
Exactly. Totally self-contradictory. What a mess.
When you told me to stop reading and consider what was added before continuing, I predicted correctly. Can I haz star for the day?
Just kidding, it was depressingly simple. sigh.
Me, too. And i also HATE rubrics. Forcedto use them to grade Math papers and exams🙀🙈
This is unfortunate but not unexpected. Now that my own field of geology has succumbed to the pressure, it now seems that all the sciences have joined the humanities and social sciences in promoting a narrow political ideology along with—or ahead of—the substance of their respective disciplines.
Particularly irksome in this case is the rhetorical attempt to characterize DEI as an element of science itself, as Jerry points out. Most scientists will recognize the two as conceptually distinct, but what about the future? Will young scientists just entering the workforce understand what science is and how it’s done? Or will the purpose and methods of science become a useless muddle? Only time will tell.
Oh. And let’s not forget. Geology students go to field camp in their junior or senior year in college (or, they used to). I wonder if the next move will be to replace Field Camp by “Summer Practicum” or something of the sort. Maybe it’s already happening…
The “sole criteria” phrase probably stems from the prize endowment and could not be changed. But how to go with the flow of DEI? Easy: change the meaning of the printed words of the endowment.
The invasion of science by ideology began a long time ago. As early as the 20th century, many scientists were considered “regressive” and canceled because of their research results that were “no different from racism and sexism” even in America this is a thing. Today’s wokeism is nothing more than the result of long-term leftist domination of academia in the past half century. Many liberal scientists who complain about wokeism today have participated in the cancellation of “racist/sexist pseudoscience”, and today’s wokeist is nothing more than repeating the behavior of their predecessors.
It would be a good reflection if someone could admit his mistakes and take back his cancellation of Watson years ago.
Nice essay, but I especially love this:
“Not only is it being infiltrated by woke ideology to an extent I would have thought impossible, but now that ideology is considered as an essential part of science itself. This is why activists feel empowered to tweak and change scientific truth if it doesn’t comport with their beliefs.”
Indeed. Jerry, you seem to be coming around to my draconian, dysphoric view of things on this score in academia. Just saying…