The new scientific meeting: Big Brotherism, allyship pledges to change the world, pervasive ideology, and roaming spies

There seems to be no limit to the willingness of scientific societies to alter their mission from purveying science to promoting the Critical Theory version of Social Justice, and I’m getting tired of reporting it.  Stories of science meetings replete with behavioral guidelines, appointed roaming Pecksniffs and snitches, and admonitions to further equity and recognize one’s “privilege” are now the “dog bites man” stories of online reporting. They’re almost too common to mention.  Regular meetings not infused with social justice have become the “man bites dog” story!

Sadly—and it does pain me—the MBD stories are mostly reported on right-wing sites, for the Left’s narrative prefers to keep the infection of science by ideology under wraps.  But why? Isn’t publicity what the “progressive” Left wants? The reason for the silence (which is deafening in the MSM liberal media), is that most Americans don’t want Critical Social Justice to be the dominant strains of all our institutions, so while the more vocal of the “progressive” left wreak their damage, they’d prefer that their efforts be kept quiet until their hands are firmly on the reins of power. They know that the Right can use such ideological intrusion as a weapon against the Left.

But I digress. This reports is about a small scientific organization doing what every other science group is doing: laying out a panoply of behaviors at meetings that are not only seen as inappropriate, but urging attendees to snitch on offenders. If these behaviors were pervasive and not stopped, that would be one thing, but science meetings are the very picture of respectful behavior, civility, and equal opportunity.  Rules, then, should be minimal, and limited to common sense. And the focus of the meeting should be, again, to promote science, not change society in ways that appeal to its organizers. The long list of strictures that come with every meeting announcement these days is a form of virtue-flaunting for scientists.

The article below appeared in another conservative site dealing with academia: Minding the Campus. But ignore the source and focus on the details, which can be verified. Click on the screenshot below to read:

Quotes from the piece are indented, and you can of course check for yourself by going to the hyperlinks.

“Allies … will have ‘ALLY’ presented on their name badges at the conference.”

What kind of conference is this, one wonders? Athletic? Religious? Political?

None of the above. This is the 2023 conference of the Comparative Cognition Society (CCS), a small scientific organization devoted to understanding the intelligence and learning capacities of animals. The “Ally” information is from a new group created by the organization’s president.

Does “ally” refer to ethical matters involving the well-being of animals—a PETA initiative, perhaps? Or maybe it represents an effort by CCS to resist attacks on animal research?

None of the above. The committee gently explains:

Warm greetings from your new Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) committee. We are here to help promote EDI initiatives in the society, and are excited to share some of the new features you might notice at the CO3 [comparative cognition] conference this year … The CCS EDI Committee has advanced the following five initiatives with the goal of creating a welcoming and inclusive environment for all …

That first sentence would put a chill up my spine (who believes that those greetings are really “warm”?), and the greetings include a three-page code of conduct outlining behaviors that are now only frowned upon, but reportable.  This is not really an effort to promote diversity, but civility, which is ubiquitous at meetings. Yes, people can get out of line, but in all my years of going to science meetings I haven’t seen a single case (of course it could happen behind close doors). And at least for legal violations, like sexual misconduct or harassment, the police should be called in.

Anyway, with respect to that code of conduct, the article notes this:

Next, readers are referred to a thousand-word Code of Conduct, much of which states etiquette that should not have to be reiterated. But it also rates as “unacceptable” “Verbal comments related to gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, age, body size, race, religion, national origin. [italics added]” Any verbal comments? Would the claim that “Marie Curie was female” lead to disciplinary action? Possibly. But saying that Roscoe Arbuckle was “fat” is surely over the line.

This is followed by an invitation to snitch:

If you are the subject of unacceptable behavior, have witnessed any such behavior, or are acting as an ally to someone who was the subject of unacceptable behavior, please notify a CCS EDI member on-site or e-mail your concern to edi@comparativecognition.org [emphasis mine].

There’s the obligatory section on pronouns, which links to a somewhat patronizing guide to the topic.  This obsession with pronouns always puzzles me: at meetings you refer to people by their names, not by their pronouns; in fact, I can’t even see a third-person use of pronouns: if you introduce a speaker, for instance, you can say something like “I’m pleased to introduce Joan Smith, who will discuss how bees can identify a genuine threat to their colony.”

And what about being an “ally”? Here ideology has overcome science completely. If you want to become an ally at the meeting, you have to pledge to actively work to change society. (Not necessarily for the better if you’re not aboard the Critical Social Justice juggernaut). A quote from the meeting protocol:

 Allyship:
CCS EDI committee members are all Allies during the conference and will have “ALLY” presented on their name badges at the conference. To quote from Dr. Maysa Akbar in the APA EDI Inclusive Language Guideline:

“Allies are people who recognize the unearned privilege they receive from society’s patterns of injustice and take responsibility for changing these patterns. Being an ally is more than being sympathetic and feeling bad for those who experience discrimination. An ally is willing to act with, and for, others in pursuit of ending oppression and creating equality. Real allies are willing to step out of their comfort zones. Those who decide to undertake the ally role must recognize and understand the power and privileges that one receives, accepts, and experiences and they use that position to act for justice.”

This is fine, and I have no objections to people working on their own time to better society (though of course it depends on what you mean by the verb “better”). But do that on your own time, not as a part of a team working at a scientific meeting. Allies, snitches, and patronizing codes of conducts, treating scientists as if they were juveniles who need a stiff lecture on behavior—all of this somehow rubs me the wrong way. In fact, the concept of enforcing social conformity through allies and snitching is one of the themes of Nineteen Eighty-Four. More important, being a “ally” at a scientific meeting accomplishes nothing for society. It’s purely performative.

This is all par for the course. The Society for the Study of Evolution, once my go-to society, has also chosen this route. In this case there’s a specially trained group of snitches, “Evo Allies”, who walk around looking for misbehavior with the goal of interceding to stop it. Snitching is also encouraged. Lest you think I am making this up, check here:

Evo Allies:

Started in 2019, Evo Allies are members of our community who have been vetted by a safety officer and trained to help support individuals who have experienced or witnessed potentially inappropriate behavior during the conference, including informing them of their options. They commit to creating safe spaces at the meeting by serving as active bystanders. The inspiration for this program came from the https://entoallies.org program.

Anyone, whether an Evo Ally or not, can make a report directly to the meeting safety officer for investigation; Evo Allies are not involved in investigation nor sanctioning, but instead serve as peer supports and help to make the meeting a more welcoming place.

Evo Allies are chosen through a nomination and vetting process; we anticipate that the next call will be for the 2023 meeting. Any vetting process is imperfect; if you have concerns about any Evo Ally, please reach out to the meeting safety officer.

New: Due to the unique nature of the 2022 conference and its covid policies, Evo Allies and meeting staff are empowered to remind participants of the mask mandate and, for participants who endanger others by refusing to wear a mask properly, to call for them to surrender their badges for the rest of the day. These individuals may be readmitted to the conference the next day by picking up their badge again at registration, if there have not been further sanctions placed upon them (which would involve an investigation by the safety officer and ruling by the sanctioning committee). \

At least the roaming Pecksniffs don’t pledge to work towards Critical Social Justice.

I always thought that science would be the last bastion of academia to be infected by ideology and, and that this kind of enforced conformity would be resisted on the grounds that it’s not needed, is a power grab, and, most of all, is not supported by data showing that science is structurally rife with bigotry or bad behavior.

I was wrong: we were among the first to jump aboard the juggernaut, probably because scientists don’t want to be bothered fighting ideology since we’re too busy doing our work. (And of course the humanities have jumped on this with vigor.)

Unfortunately, the article ends with a bump, invoking Godwin’s Law. The first paragraph below is fine; the second, which I’ve put in bold, is objectionable. The meeting, after all, is not a Nuremberg Rally. But there is a certain element of Big Brotherism in it:

After succumbing to “allyship,” and, perhaps, being warned a couple of times about their potential microaggressions, most of the now-cowed cognitive scientists will have forgotten that the purpose of the CO3 meeting is science; that the virtues to be promoted should be honesty, rigor, and creativity; and that the demographic makeup of the group is utterly irrelevant.

Good job, EDI’ers! You’ve shown how effective a short slogan like ally can be! (Another one that worked pretty well is heil).

h/t:Anna