Tuesday, November 15, 2022




Gender quotas have no place in science funding

CLAIRE LEHMANN

Quotas are the latest Leftist policy of destruction. They exclude merit

To fund their medical research in Australia, male scientists may have to start identifying as trans or “non-binary” to get a fair shake.

This is because the nation’s largest body that administers medical research funding – the taxpayer-funded National Health and Medical Research Council – has decided to impose gender quotas on the awarding of funding for research, even though female researchers are already more likely to receive funding.

The NHMRC typically awards about $370m in investigator grants to medical researchers every year. Starting from next year, these grants must be awarded equally to male and female researchers, even if applications are not evenly split. The NHMRC also has announced: “For the first time, non-binary researchers will also be explicitly included in this and other measures to foster gender equity in NHMRC funding, recognising the systemic disadvantage that they experience.”

Of course, nobody wants women to miss out on fair opportunities for research funding. And if high-quality applications can be split perfectly down the middle to ensure a perfect 50-50 ratio between male and female researchers, I don’t think anyone would have a problem with it. If 70 per cent of applications were from female scientists and only 40 per cent of the grants were awarded to them, I think all of us would understand the policy’s rationale.

But that is not the case. According to an editorial recently published in Nature, last year only 20 per cent of the applicants in the most established research group were women. How the NHMRC will achieve a 50 per cent gender ratio out of a 20 per cent female application rate at this level has not been made clear. (At least they’ve included the non-binary category for some wiggle room.)

What is clear is that when women apply for funding, they are just as likely as men to receive it. According to Nature: “From 2019 to 2021, more applications for investigator grants at the earliest career stage came from women – who were awarded 137 grants, compared to 123 for men.”

And according to table five of the NHMRC’s Investigator Grants 2022 Outcomes Fact Sheet, women are already more likely to be funded. This year, although the total number of female applicants was fewer at the top level, when they did apply 41.7 per cent of women won grant funding compared with 23 per cent of men. At the mid-career level, 26.6 per cent of women were successful in getting their research funded while 12.6 per cent of men were. And at the junior level, where more women apply for funding than men, 11.8 per cent of women were funded compared with 8.8 per cent of men. If women are already more likely to receive funding then the disadvantage that the quota is apparently correcting for is ambiguous.

The usual argument is that there are fewer women applying for grant numbers at the top level because they have faced disadvantage throughout their careers and so it is justifiable that some form of affirmative action is required to even the playing field.

As a working mother I am sympathetic to the argument that women face challenges that are unique to their sex. But while it is true that women once faced systemic barriers in the past it is not clear that these barriers still exist.

More women than men earn PhDs, including in science, technology, engineering and maths disciplines, and female doctoral graduates out-earn men. In the early stages of their careers more women than men apply for grants and receive them. The NHMRC’s data shows that last year 181 junior women applied for funding compared with 167 men. If more women earning PhDs, applying for grants and winning grants counts as structural disadvantage, then the patriarchy really does work in mysterious ways.

Two research scientists writing in Quillette, the online magazine of which I am editor, have argued the reason for the discrepancy at the top levels is simply an artefact of a generational shift.

Decades ago there were fewer women earning PhDs and undertaking science careers. This discrepancy shows up today when looking at senior levels of the profession. But this discrepancy is not necessarily evidence of unfair treatment. It could be, but to assert that it is without conducting the appropriate study is unscientific – not what we would expect from a leading scientific body.

Former NHMRC grant recipient and University of Melbourne emeritus professor Anthony Jorm writes in Quillette: “The new policy champ­ioned by the current CEO (Anne Kelso) means that gender equity will override quality. Any adjustment of grant outcomes by gender necessarily requires that some women with lower quality applications will be favoured over some men with higher ones.”

We already have dubious research being produced within scientific fields from “feminist glaciology” to “the Racialisation of Epistemology in Physics”. We hardly need incentives for more.

And it is likely the public would prefer that its money were spent on the highest quality medical research – regardless of the gender of the lead researcher. Funding for scientific research is a public good, not a mandate for preferencing one set of researchers over another. The prestige of science rests on its perceived impartiality and meritocracy. While bias can and does exist in any human endeavour, custodians of our institutions have a duty to reduce bias, not exaggerate it.

The high status afforded to science in our society exists because it is seen as being above politics. Enforcing quotas to satisfy political objectives such as gender equity erodes the perception that science is above politics and reduces its status. By awarding funding for any reason other than merit, Australia’s leading body of funding for medical research undermines the principles on which the scientific enterprise rests.

*******************************************************

Court shoots down Biden administration Title IX rule change

AMARILLO, Texas – In a victory for female athletes and health care providers, a federal district court rejected the Biden administration’s reinterpretation of the word “sex” to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in federal statutes.

In Neese v. Becerra, two Texas-based physicians are challenging the administration’s mandate in Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act that forces health care professionals to perform harmful medical procedures that seek to alter a patient’s biological sex even if the procedure violates the doctor’s medical judgment or religious beliefs. That mandate depends on Title IX, a federal statute that the administration is also attempting to interpret to require women to compete against men on women’s sports teams.

In its ruling Friday, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division, determined that “because Title IX does not protect ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender identity’ status, neither does Section 1557.” Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a friend-of-the-court brief in August arguing for the court to protect female athletes by striking down the administration’s rewriting of federal law, which the court did in its ruling.

“Female athletes deserve to compete on a fair and level playing field with other women, and federal law protects equal opportunity for women to excel in sports,” said ADF Legal Counsel Rachel Csutoros. “We’re pleased the court ruled to not only protect female athletes, but also doctors who should never be forced to perform controversial and medically dangerous procedures that violate their conscience and religious beliefs. In its opinion, the court rightly stopped the Biden administration’s gross overreach of its authority and political agenda.”

“Title IX’s protections center on differences between the two biological sexes—not SOGI status,” the court wrote in its opinion. “Title IX expressly allows sex distinctions and sometimes even requires them to promote equal opportunity… Defendants’ theory actively ‘undermine[s] one of [Title IX’s] major achievements, giving young women an equal opportunity to participate in sports.”

The court further wrote, “the Defendants’ reinterpretation of Title IX through the Notification imperils the very opportunities for women Title IX was designed to promote and protect—categorically forcing biological women to compete against biological men.”

ADF attorneys filed the brief on behalf of Maddie Dichiara, who is on a full-tuition scholarship to play soccer at the University of Houston, Chelsea Mitchell, an All-American long jumper who won numerous state championships in sprinting and jumping events, and Madison Kenyon, a track and cross-country athlete at Idaho State University.

The brief explains how U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra “simply takes women’s teams for granted without stopping to consider the pivotal role that biology-based classifications have played in promoting equal opportunities. His interpretation has dire ramifications for female athletes too, threatening to end women’s sports. Yet to give women ‘real opportunities,’ rather than participation trophies, schools must offer women-only teams. Title IX accomplishes this by focusing on biology, and neither the statute’s text nor purpose support the Secretary’s interpretation.”

***********************************************

Four reasons to scrap ‘diversity and inclusion’

Esteemed American psychologist Jonathon Haidt recently made headlines having resigned from his major professional association. He did so out of frustration that ‘everybody presenting research at the group’s conferences [must] explain how their submission advances “equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals”.’

‘The Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP)—recently asked me to violate my quasi-fiduciary duty to the truth. I was going to attend the annual conference in Atlanta next February to present some research with colleagues on a new and improved version of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. I was surprised to learn about a new rule: In order to present research at the conference, all social psychologists are now required to submit a statement explaining “whether and how this submission advances the equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals of SPSP”.’

Like Haidt, I too have had a gutful of hearing ‘diversity and inclusion’ (D&I) being propagated the left, right, and centre. At schools. At universities. In the workplace, where the average base salary for D&I managers is $98,000. In politics. In the media. In sports. It is inescapable.

These values may seem fair on the surface, but in reality, D&I initiatives are backwards. Here are four reasons why:

1. They are a waste of time, money, and resources.

Australia already is a diverse and inclusive society. In such an immensely successful multicultural society like ours, the constant push for D&I is pointless. Australia is a great melting pot of different ethnic backgrounds; we are a migrant nation. This is not to deny any historical wrongs, with respect to the treatment of Indigenous Australians and certain immigrant communities. As no person is perfect, so it is with nations. Nevertheless, it is imperative that we take the good with the bad.

It follows that the talent pool in Australia is inherently diverse, hence there is no need to deliberately mandate diversity quotas or schemes. It is in any organisations best interest to hire on a meritocratic basis for the best outcomes (just as ‘the telos of a university is truth’, not D&I), and we are blessed to have the luxury of choosing from a diverse talent pool, without having to obsess over D&I; for it will occur organically.

With respect to the wastage of both money and resources, examples are aplenty, with over 80 per cent of Australian businesses emphasising D&I. Why does BOM require a D&I manager? Perhaps if they allocated more resources toward their core responsibility, we might receive a more accurate weather forecast.

2. They are racist.

The ideology behind D&I initiatives stems from identity politics and Critical Race Theory, which is inherently bigoted and racist as it categorises individuals according to their immutable characteristics, like their skin color, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

‘D&I’ is a neat way to cover up the progressive ideological identity-politics-laden agenda, which is in fact antithetical to a diverse and tolerant society. Left-wing ideologues are solely preoccupied with pushing their agenda, not treating all unique individuals with dignity and respect. The Academic Freedom Alliance warned that ‘academics seeking employment or promotion will almost inescapably feel pressured to say things that accommodate the perceived ideological preferences of an institution’. This is devastating for the pursuit of truth and equally the notion of justice.

As George Orwell warned in Animal Farm, ‘All animals are equal, [but some] are more equal than others.’ In other words, many progressive ideologues (most often the very one’s pushing for D&I) can be as vile, bigoted, hateful, and malicious to those that are not in line with the cause. In an insightful piece entitled Misunderstanding Equality, Bo Winegard illustrates the proclivity for modern leftist editors to ‘reject articles [contradictory toward] progressive political views about race, sex, and gender-identity’. It would now seem that those harbouring the politically correct opinions are those animals that ‘are more equal than others’. As it has been quipped, Orwell’s work now seems to be utilised as a manual for ideologues, rather than a warning for us all on the dangers of communism.

3. They create a problem where none existed before – they make normal people angry.

D&I initiatives inevitably result in adverse reactions from people like Haidt who just want to get on with their lives and not get caught up in this tripe. While many proponents are well-intentioned (and not knowingly driven by ideology), I am convinced that many quiet Australians have had a gutful. There is something excruciatingly patronising about being told how to treat other people with respect. People want to get on with their lives and not be treated like kindergarteners. The rising resentment is palpable. The danger of this trend persisting is the risk that the pendulum swings too far back. The last thing anyone should want is for Australia to become as deeply polarised as America. Nota bene: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

4. Their cheerleaders are hypocrites.

I had a good chuckle when I read this ABC article claiming ‘ageism’ against Fran Kelly. I’d be placed in a financially enviable position had I received $1 during my BA degree for every time I heard a lecturer or tutor describe the historical figures we were studying as ‘old, pale, male, and stale’. I doubt though that the ABC (one of the big media proponents of D&I) would see fault with this particular term. More to the point, the ABC completely lacks diversity of opinion (especially politically), as Gerard Henderson consistently observes, it is ‘a conservative-free zone’. Diversity of opinion is vital in a free society, and especially on our public broadcaster which is funded by all Australians, and therefore should be representative of all views.

Instead of wasting our time with D&I Initiatives, couldn’t we all just take it as a rule that we need to be kind to each other? It is incumbent upon us all to treat one another with respect, irrespective of our differences.

From what I understand, there is a famous book that mentions this Bloke who was keen to spread the message ‘love one another, as I have loved you’. Seems reasonable!

Good on Haidt for taking a stand against the uniformity and exclusivity (not real D&I) of the progressive-left. He sets a strong example for us all

***************************************************

Suing Google for Censorship Isn’t Enough

The RNC is suing Google for its bulk-labeling of millions of RNC campaign email communications to its supporters and donors as “spam.”

The lawsuit also alleges that Google has been targeting its emails that “communicat[e] political messaging and important Get-Out-The-Vote information.”

When private companies dominate or virtually monopolize communications used by the public, are they prohibited from engaging in...selective censorship?

After enduring years of targeted censorship, the Republican National Committee is suing Google for its bulk-labeling of millions of RNC campaign email communications to its supporters and donors as “spam” during “pivotal points in election cycles.”

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in California, where Google has its corporate headquarters, is seeking an injunction ordering Google to stop its “en masse,” “egregious filtering,” and asking for “actual, statutory, and exemplary damages” and attorneys’ fees.

Political campaigns and political parties have become increasingly reliant on email services, such as Gmail. While the midterm elections will soon be over, the 2024 presidential election cycle will start shortly thereafter, and the decision in this case could have a serious impact on both the conduct and the outcome of the next presidential election.

The RNC is alleging that Google is discriminating against Republicans by using its Spam Filter Algorithm to reduce the visibility of the RNC’s emails, including labeling as “spam” RNC emails to individuals who have specifically requested to be on the RNC’s email communications list.

Specifically, Google has targeted the fundraising efforts of the RNC, resulting in the loss of an estimated more than $2 billion in donations since 2019, according to the complaint.

But the lawsuit also alleges that Google has been targeting its emails that “communicat[e] political messaging and important Get-Out-The-Vote information.”

Emails are a “crucial conduit” for the RNC to engage “in its core mission of conducting political activity,” something that is undoubtedly true for all political parties and party organizations, not just the RNC.

Earlier this year, North Carolina State University published a study that found emails from Republican candidates for office were marked as spam at a rate 820% higher than the emails of their Democratic opponents, significantly disadvantaging Republican candidates.

As argued by the RNC, this study credibly proves that Google’s Spam Filter Algorithm is deliberately censoring Republicans.

Instead of ending the censorship of Republican candidates, Google has “fallen silent,” according to the complaint, and it has quit responding to RNC efforts to work out a remedy, instead urging the RNC to join its “Verified Sender Program,” which would impose even more stringent rules on RNC emails that wouldn’t resolve the censorship.

And the RNC claims that the discrimination by Google in filtering its emails increased dramatically in February of this year as the 2022 election cycle got underway.

The lawsuit provides an interesting historical context for the alleged violations that emphasizes that while the internet and email communications are modern technological developments, the principle at stake and the issue involved with a private company having “market-dominant” control over important communications is not a new one.

The complaint points out that in the mid-1800s, the equivalent of today’s email communications were telegrams and the newly developed telegraph system. Just like Google today, one company, Western Union, “had a dominant market share across the country.”

The complaint alleges that Google controls 53% of the email traffic in the country.

Citing NetChoice LLC v. Paxton, a case this year out of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the complaint says that legislators grew concerned over “the possibility that the private entities that controlled this amazing new technology” of almost instant communications through the telegraph system “would use that power to manipulate the flow of information to the public when doing so served their economic or political self-interest.”

Western Union “repeatedly discriminated” against certain telegram senders based on their political views and affiliations, and influenced the “reporting of political elections in an effort to promote the election of candidates” favored by the directors of the company.

Many states enacted laws outlawing such discrimination in telegraph services, including California, which is apparently one of the reasons this lawsuit was filed in that state. The RNC is claiming that Google is a “common carrier” within the definition of that state’s law that requires communication companies to “deliver messages without preference in time, price, or otherwise.”

The complaint further alleges that Google is violating a California civil rights law that guarantees “full and equal” treatment by all business establishments. Exclusionary policies based on “political affiliation” are unlawful discrimination.

The RNC is also asserting violations under California’s unfair business practices statute, as well as tort claims for both negligent and intentional “interference with prospective economic relations.”

In addition to these state law claims, the RNC is alleging that Google’s discriminatory actions violate the federal Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 202. The RNC acknowledges that the Federal Communications Commission does not currently classify Google as a “common carrier” within the definition of that law and that several court decisions have upheld the FCC’s decision as reasonable. But the RNC says it is preserving “the issue for further review or intervening Supreme Court authority.”

This is an important case, because it raises a crucial issue that the courts, Congress, and state legislatures ought to address. When private companies dominate or virtually monopolize communications used by the public—the same way Western Union did throughout the 19th century—are they prohibited from engaging in discrimination and in selective censorship and filtering in accordance with the political views, opinions, and interests of the directors of those companies? Or should they be treated like other private entities over whom the government has no regulatory authority?

Google has abused its email and internet-browsing dominance to control speech online. Regardless of the outcome of this case, the tech giant ought to be far more transparent with the American people over how it moderates and censors content. The country would never accept a telecommunications firm blocking phone calls, or the Postal Service redirecting political mail. The law should provide the same respect and protection for private email communications.

The resolution of this case will help determine the future of digital communications. But we shouldn’t have to rely on the courts to deliver Big Tech accountability. Lawmakers should prioritize legislation that requires greater transparency and prevents Big Tech from monopolizing—and controlling—this critical infrastructure.

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*****************************************

No comments: