Is Harvard Sacrificing Science for Wokeness?
There is a cultural shift underway affecting all aspects of American life. Though hard to define, it usually takes the form of an emphasis on what is known variously as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), critical race theory, wokeness, anti-racism, and the like. Several scholars and writers have been raising the alarm about its anti-intellectual and illiberal aspects. Heather Mac Donald has shown how it has permeated the university. One might suspect that the new ideology only affects intrinsically political areas of study, such as Government and History. But in fact it has infected every area, even science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Below is a sampling of new policies at Harvard that reveal how this ideology is affecting STEM education. It has been pursued, certainly, by flawed peoplebut science is the pursuit of universal truth. It cannot itself be racist. At best, such classes will simply be a waste of time. At worst, as the language above suggests, they will attempt to indoctrinate students by teaching them that they, and the medicine they practice, are inherently racist. Not even mathematics, the most rigorous and least ideological of the STEM disciplines, is unscathed. Harvards math department is currently implementing suggestions from last years town hall concerning diversity and anti-oppression. It is suggested to no longer require the GRE for graduate admissions, and, shockingly, to reform Math 55 culture and content for the sake of promoting equity. Now, Math 55 is known as the hardest undergraduate math class in the countrysome years more than half the class does not finish. The rationale underlying these suggestions is unmistakable: there are not enough women and minorities succeeding in the department, so let us lower the standards to make our classes and programs more diverse. Such thinking has become disturbingly common. It's both condescending and an open admission that diversity is more important than rigorous education. Perhaps. But that is preferable to encouraging students to take it who may not succeed or lowering the standards for all. A final example, this time from the School of Engineering and Applied Science (SEAS). Buried on the 17th of the 37-page SEAS Strategic Plan for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging it is recommended that a comprehensive training program be created for all members of SEAS to address bias, privilege, inclusive leadership, gender identity, etc. including inviting speakers and in-house training. Naturally, they neglect to mention the cost of such a program or how it advances the core mission of SEAS. The above examplesand many more are easily foundtaken together paint a disturbing picture of Harvards outlook. Diversity is more important than rigorous education. Students and faculty will be recruited who are not prepared. Standards of academic rigor will be lowered. Millions will be spent supporting a bloated bureaucracy of deans and administrators whose primary job is to tell others that they are racist. Time that could have been spent studying and researching will instead be spent in DEI trainings. Overall, the quality and prestige of Harvard University will diminish. Rational inquiry and the scientific method will be sacrificed to the new idols: diversity, equity, and inclusion. And these examples are only taken from publicly available information; one shudders to think about how the content of the classes might beor already has beenperverted as DEI infects the classroom. To combat the pernicious influence of DEI on STEM education at Harvard will be no easy task. It is already entrenched in the university. But as a first step, I suggest the following: Publicize information on just how much money is being spent on DEI programs instead of the true aims of the university  education and research. Allow students, faculty, and the public to see, for example, how much money goes to speakers peddling ideological nonsense, to consulting firms who develop new DEI initiatives, and to the staff that run them.