On September 10, I sent the following letter — with more personal aspects removed — to Case Physics faculty to express my deepest disappointment that my alma mater has adopted DIE (Diversity, Inclusion, Equity).
To Current and Emeritus Faculty at my alma mater:
Some of you may not know who I am, so let me briefly introduce myself. I graduated with my PhD from Case in 2010, working with Tanmay Vachashpati (who is now at ASU) and Glenn Starkman. Today, however, I am not writing as Glenn’s (nor Tanmay’s) former PhD student, but rather as an alumnus deeply disturbed by the embracing of DIE (Diversity, Inclusion, Equity) at my alma mater.
I wish to state in unequivocal terms: I am vehemently opposed to DIE, because it is based neither on scientific evidence nor reason, but on the far Left ideology of equal representation (or, equal outcomes) — as opposed to equal opportunities. By recruiting more Blacks, women, etc. into our physics programs for the sake of equal representation, i.e., just because we do not see 13% of physicists being Black or 50% women, is not only misguided but will ultimately eat away our scientific, academic, and professional standards. Science is about seeking the truth, understanding reality as it is; and should therefore not be corrupted by our own ideologies. Yet, this is what Academia and, very sadly, my alma mater appears to be doing. Given there is always a finite amount of resources, artificially increasing certain groups’ representation will not only lead to perverted reward structures; but also end up punishing the hardworking and competent.
In many ways, DIE has already been in place in academia for several decades: it’s otherwise known as affirmative action. The SAT, GMAT, LSAT, and MCAT scores of admitted applicants to college, business, law and medical schools are significantly skewed. Just because an American is born Black means he/she would have a marked advantage over his/her fellow American who happens to be born White or Asian. Note that the Black academic achievement gap is real — the data is there for all to examine — and no amount of affirmative action is going help improve their existing under development, if we bury our heads in the sand and refuse to look into other factors. If “too many Blacks” sounds racist to you, so should “too many Whites”. As I understand it, during the first half of the last century, higher education institutes like Harvard, Princeton, etc., regularly said “too many Jews” to impose an artificial upper limit to curb Jewish(-American) admission; these days, it is Asian-Americans. We do not seem to have learned from history; that we should simply reward folks based on hard work, competence, and potential; regardless of their backgrounds or physical characteristics.
This email will be blunt, and you will understand why by its end.
I am growing extremely concerned that Academia is discarding values that are most conducive to the flourishing of Science — meritocracy; intellectual, academic, and scientific integrity; freedom of inquiry; freedom of expression; and freedom of conscience — in favor of Social Justice with Capital Letters. Even our (astro)physics communities have become deeply corrupted, as has been made clear and rather public by the extreme-Left Particles for Justice (PfJ) movement, signed by thousands of our virtue signaling self-righteous colleagues. I note with tremendous dismay a number of faculty from my alma mater have endorsed it too, despite its latest petition explicitly demanding that meritocracy be challenged and some mystical “White Supremacy” be urgently dismantled. (What sort of funny White Supremacist Nation is the US when, for instance, a Black Commander-in-Chief is democratically elected twice; and Whites as a group are currently out-earned by quite a number of other ethnic/racial groups?) Why did even the American Physical Society (APS), a scientific organization, turn to political activism by jumping onto the PfJ bandwagon and endorsing the far Left #Strike4BlackLives and #ShutDownSTEM movements last year? Why does CWRU Physics have “Black Lives Matter” on its department webpage; why is it getting so blatantly political — and, for that matter, does it thoroughly understand what it is endorsing? (Factually speaking, unarmed Blacks are killed by cops at the rate of 10-20 per year. This is certainly not a major issue of violence against Blacks, especially compared to the far more serious issue of violence, on the order of thousands of incidents per annum, within the Black community — see, Chicago, for instance — which disturbingly receives comparatively little attention.) Importantly: when scientific organizations such as APS or Case Physics turn political — I should really say, turn Woke — we should not be surprised that this leads to an erosion of the public’s trust in Science. And Trust, once lost, will be very difficult to earn back.
To be clear, as individuals residing in free societies, we should all have the freedom to endorse or condemn any political movements we desire. But when acting on behalf of Science, we scientists have a responsibility to stick as much as possible to reality, evidence, reason, logic, etc.; however strongly we personally feel about political or moral issues. Scientific organizations like the APS or Case Physics should stay as apolitical as possible. The first petition of PfJ claimed to be for Science, but it was really an extreme Left mob trying to cancel Alessandro Strumia, who delivered a talk at CERN regarding his scientific work on bibliometrics; specifically, citations of female versus male high energy physicists. Not only have two anonymous colleagues of ours since written up rebuttals, showing flaws in their arguments; much more crucially, Strumia’s work has since been published [StrumiaApr21] — likely the only person from that HEP+Gender CERN conference who did so. Just to highlight a scientific result: he found M vs F citations to be consistent with what is known in the literature as Higher Male Variability, that for certain traits like intelligence, males as a group tend to exhibit a higher variance than females. If true, Higher Male Variability implies, for e.g., there will be significantly more male than female Nobel Laureates and winners of Darwin Awards. This is a scientific issue: if you think the evidence for it is flawed, by all means write papers debunking it. But just the discussion of such topics got Lawrence Summers cancelled years ago; and James Damore fired by Google more recently. And now, this anti-science intolerance has, too, corrupted our (astro)physics communities.
Where is our respect for the freedom of expression and inquiry, not to mention our collective scientific integrity? Freedom of speech/expression and inquiry are not frivolous luxuries: within the scientific context, it ensures all ideas can be heard and pursued; so as to be compared for their merits and faults, however difficult or taboo the subject is. This in turn ensures we may collectively acquire a more comprehensive and accurate picture of reality itself; i.e., how or what Nature or the human condition actually is. Moreover, it should be Scientific Integrity 101, that we scientists are not allowed to censor or shout down facts just because we dislike them.
While folks like Strumia who were doing real science are vilified, I see the players of this game of far Left Identity Politics widely lauded and rewarded. Jessica Wade, the physicist who launched the first salvos against Strumia, did so on Twitter and through her article on New Scientist by comparing his talk to Damore’s “Google Memo” and by asserting it was “unevidenced”, as if that would instantly discredit Strumia’s points right away. Instead she showed herself to be not only dishonest — Strumia’s talk was evidenced; he did a whole bunch of bibliometrics and even got published — but also lacked a basic understanding of the scientific validity of Damore’s Memo. (Damore had a background in biology, and hence knew the relevant literature.) Unfortunately, not only did PfJ continue Wade’s volley against Strumia; she even appeared on “Nature’s 10”, where part of the citation praised her attack against him. (Who runs Nature these days?) Another key player is physicist Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, the beyond-extreme Left leader of PfJ, who openly called Strumia racist, even though he did not discuss race at all. I am absolutely appalled that my alma mater recently advertised one of her identity politics driven talks on the Department’s Facebook page — CWRU Physics is not the far Left wing of the Democratic Party, and should stick strictly to physics. Prescod-Weinstein even received ~$100,000 from physicists-run FQXi to work on her crackpot “White Empiricism” paper [CrackPot1], deliberately trying to obfuscate and entangle her far Left fundamentalism with physics. (My guess is, from articles I’ve read, her recent book is no better.) She also wrote a Slate article [CrackPot2] titled ‘Stop Equating “Science” With Truth’; and sub-titled “Evolutionary psychology is just the most obvious example of science’s flaws”; where she too showed her own ignorance of the validity of Damore’s Memo. (Has she not heard, evolution is well established science?) Like Wade, Prescod-Weinstein also appeared on “Nature’s 10”; which praised her for the PfJ, #Strike4BlackLives and #ShutDownSTEM activism. Furthermore, she was given the 2021 Edward A. Bouchet Award by the APS, which also praised her for PfJ. This same award was given to Juan Maldacena (of AdS/CFT) back in 2004; I consider it a grave insult to Maldacena, that the APS has stooped so low to pander to far Left ideology.
Let me emphasize this is not primarily about Wade nor Prescod-Weinstein (nor even Strumia) per se. Rather, it is clear to me, without the support of the scientific communities at large, dishonest players such as Wade and Prescod-Weinstein who are openly willing to corrupt science with identity politics would not have garnered so much positive attention and praise. Even CERN — currently the place on the planet for particle physics — appeared to have bowed to radical feminism and extremely illiberal elements within our scientific communities when it booted Strumia. Despite its publication, Strumia’s scientific paper on M vs F physicists’ bibliometrics was also prohibited by the arXiv; even though dubious identity politics related papers were allowed. I’m very saddened to say: when it comes to far Left Ideology, the collective Emperor of our scientific communities — including (astro)physics — has no clothes.
On the Left, where Academia firmly belongs — the data says it’s roughly Democrats : Republicans = 6:1 in Physics — we often enjoy ridiculing the Right for science denial, particularly regarding the climate. Some of the criticism is accurate, but I believe it is way overdue to examine the plank in our own eyes. It is of course likely there are individual cases of discrimination or harassment against our fellow physicists on the basis of sex, color, and even other categories that have thus far gone unidentified. But on the macro scale, it is an utter failure of both intellectual rigor and scientific skepticism to not recognize that disparity does not necessarily imply discrimination; all relevant factors ought to be considered.
One key factor that is commonly and oftentimes deliberately neglected by the Academic Left is: we humans are not blank slates. Like all life forms on Earth, our biological makeup, including the brain, are subject to powerful forces of evolution. For instance, just because there are roughly M:F = 1:1 in the overall human population does not imply, if there isn’t M:F = 1:1 in physics, there must be rampant discrimination. As I understand it, differences in prenatal testosterone exposure have been shown to affect M vs F interests; women tend to prefer “people” and men “things”. (See, for e.g., [PinkerYoutube]; which includes a discussion of Higher Male Variability.) In fact, the M vs F career distributions in the US quite clearly reflects this. How often do you hear folks complaining about sexism against women in truck driving (dominated by men), or against men in nursing (dominated by women)? Even though women did face significant institutional obstacles in the past to higher education, the West has made tremendous progress over the past decades. In the US and since the 1980s, women on the whole already have more access than men to higher education — and the gap is still growing. Furthermore, high performing women oftentimes have broader interests than their male counterparts; hence, such women actually have more options, not fewer. Despite these, we still see female-only scholarships and (faculty) positions, etc. in Academia, sometimes in direct violation of Title IX anti-discrimination laws. Openly pointing to these facts these days readily gets one labeled as “sexist”; nevermind whether or not they are true.
Humans spend up to 1/4 (or more!) of their lives with their parents, yet we neglect the importance of the family when it comes to life outcomes such as educational attainment. If Academia did not have such strong biases against the Right — remember thought diversity? — but open their minds and listen to Black conservatives like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Glenn Loury, Larry Elder, Jason Riley, etc., we will learn that the Black family remained largely intact and their economic conditions did in fact improve considerably after the abolishment of slavery and through the Jim Crow days. But upon the implementation of the Welfare State after the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, many Black women were incentivized to become single mothers. The rate of Black kids born to single moms has since risen from ~25% to the current ~70%. Is it surprising that many Black youth, especially boys, get into serious trouble and become disconnected from proper education? (Even some well known Black rappers and hip hop artists are involved in gangs.) In many places, studying hard is ridiculed as “acting White”. Of course, the lack of competitive and good quality K-12 schools, especially in poor neighborhoods, does not help either. No amount of DIE effort at the (under)graduate level is of relevance to all these points I’ve raised.
At the same time, there have been brave researchers such as Richard Herrnstein, Charles Murray, James Flynn, Arthur Jensen, etc. who dared ask if there are cognitive differences between racial groups. My guess is, many in academia would likely be extremely uncomfortable with this sort of questions; or immediately cry racism. It may not be well known to physicists, but the American Psychological Association wrote a consensus report in the 1990s acknowledging there are in fact average intelligence differences between groups. For instance, the Black-White IQ gap is roughly 15 points [APAReport]. (As I understand it, the causes of these group-level differences are still being hotly debated and investigated; but as already alluded to, such research has been made extremely taboo by Academia and the science-denying Left in general.) If there are indeed racial differences in average intelligence, this would be an important factor in understanding why certain groups are currently “over” or “under” represented in cognitively demanding disciplines such as (astro)physics. In fact, the higher the intellectual threshold of a given activity/career/job, the more sensitive it would be to any such average differences: this can be seen from an asymptotic analysis of the tails of the Gaussian distribution. In any case, these are scientific questions, and should be approached objectively and meticulously like any other scientific question.
A closely related incident occurred recently. Theoretical physicist Steve Hsu got demoted after a Twitter mob was launched against him, led by a graduate student at his school; all because of Hsu’s research into the relation between genetics and IQ/intelligence. While thousands of our colleagues thump their chests in faux SJW-righteousness to cancel Strumia for doing politically incorrect science, far fewer stood up to defend Hsu’s academic freedom and the freedom of inquiry. I saw only a handful of (astro)physicists signing the petition in support of him; while even some of his own faculty colleagues at Michigan joined the mob against him. That his school’s President bowed to the wishes of an online mob only speaks to how cowardly and unprincipled senior academic administrators have become. The vast disparity in the responses against Strumia versus those for Hsu by our own (astro)physics colleagues is an indication that we are not making any pro-Science progress whatsoever, despite what PfJ may try to sell us, but rather we are regressing extremely badly. Simply put, I fear Academia — including the (astro)physics disciplines — is losing its foundational values.
Now, it should be pointed out, just because groups differ in standard deviation or average performance — whatever the underlying cause (cultural, environmental, genetic/biological, etc.) — does not imply one group should be treated better than the other. Morality should be cleanly divorced from scientific facts, but it is not my place to come between you and your personal conscience / rabbi / priest / pastor / etc. What is of relevance to the discussion at hand is, despite differences in standard deviation and means, there will be highly capable folks admitted from every group, albeit in different proportions, as long as our system remains strictly unbiased and merit-based. Moreover, Western civilization has long figured out, to treat our fellow humans fairly, we should not judge folks based on the average (or worst) characteristics of their racial groups, sex, etc.; but, quite crucially, we should instead judge one another on a case-by-case basis — namely, as individuals. However, what DIE does is in fact the reverse. Academia’s incessant obsession with “identity” will only prove to be not only anti-meritocratic but also divisive, because it is encouraging people to judge each other by irrelevant but highly immutable traits, reinforcing our tribal nature.
While we enjoy promoting “Diversity and Inclusion” these days; it is apparent to me this is only skin-deep. Instead of judging our fellow scientists by the content of their scientific output, competence, and potential; we judge them by their sex, race, and other irrelevant (and, oftentimes, immutable) “identities” or characteristics to label them as “diverse”. What is of relevance to Science is thought or intellectual diversity, but here our hypocrisy is stark: any slight deviation from the far Left narrative approved by Academia is summarily sent to Gulag 13 — as was the case of Strumia, Summers, and many more. How “inclusive”!
In early April of this year, I noticed the co-chairs of my alma mater have openly and rather publicly endorsed the formation of a DIE-based physics student group PURMS. The student group had posted Corbin Covault and Glenn Starkman’s endorsement email on Twitter. I knew it would be risky, given the current very charged political climate within Academia; but given how public the endorsement was, I expressed my deep concerns on the thread and also directed a separate message towards Glenn. Despite (repeated) use of the words “meritocracy”, “professional and scientific standards”, “scientific integrity” — and despite Glenn being my PhD co-advisor, whom I’ve known for well more than a decade — I was met with the following highly public condemnation:
“Your mentors and advisors are horrified, troubled, and concerned by your posts, many of which have only recently come to our attention.”
Glenn Starkman, Apri 4, 2021 (on Twitter)
I even tried to back up my concerns with concrete data available right there on Twitter; regarding the SAT, MCAT, and LSAT scores already alluded to above. But before I could even press “reply” Glenn had already blocked me. Soon after, I discovered I was blocked by several of Case Physics Twitter accounts — CWRU PURMS and the CWRU Physics page itself; as well as by Ben Monreal.
[Over email, I was accused of “attacking” and “delegitimizing” students.]
[A few paragraphs dropped.]
I will let readers judge for themselves if I had actually attacked anyone — see link below [Blocked], if you’re interested in verifying the facts for yourself. Here, I will simply and directly falsify [censored] statements:
All students currently enrolled at CWRU Physics must be treated equally — given the same level of academic support and held to the same standards. No enrolled student is more or less legitimate than any other enrolled student.
As I’ve reminded both [censored] over email, one of the primary purposes of the University is the seeking of truth; and, I’d add here, the dissemination of that knowledge. The blatantly dishonest manner by which I was treated by [censored] and my alma mater speaks to the many points I have already raised above. Specifically, CWRU is an institute of higher learning in the United States, whose constitution enshrines the freedom of expression within its First Amendment. Within Academia, the spirit of open debate should be encouraged and firmly upheld; free expression should certainly not be stifled. By censoring dissident views like mine Case Physics is joining many other increasingly illiberal academic organizations and institutions in betraying their American ideals. Additionally, if faculty believe that students need to be “protected” (really, coddled) just because they are gay or Black or female, etc. — know that Case Physics would then be guilty of the bigotry of lowered expectations. Students should and ought to be expected to defend their ideas and arguments robustly, regardless of their backgrounds or physical characteristics. This is especially so if we are interested in training scientists; namely, scientific results should be robust under intense interrogation. What makes this incident even more egregious is, by endorsing the DIE-based student group and publicly blocking dissidents, Case Physics is protecting a particular brand of politics. This merely adds yet another data point to my hypothesis that our scientific communities are corrupted by ideologies that have little to do with Science itself. It also corroborates my fear that DIE is in fact a religion of Academia; a set of far Left doctrines that we are not allowed to question.
I was challenged by [censored] on why I did not first write to them privately. I hope they have done 2 microseconds of self-reflection to recognize that, through their hyperbolic, unprofessional, and dishonest responses to my deep concerns about DIE eroding meritocracy and scientific standards, they have confirmed my worst fears that doing so would merely have led to soured relationships — and I would have achieved nothing else. (In fact, [censored] implied that I needed to delete all my social media posts criticizing Case Physics before he would engage me: does that sound like he is truly interested in discussion?) It should be clear by now, my public posts on Case were not about anything personal at all; in fact, I even tried to find out from Lydia Kisley on Twitter how much support DIE related policies had among Case faculty, so I could better understand what had really happened.
On the other hand, the fear of speaking out is real. Since making my views public, (ex-)academics have written to me to express their support privately, but I sense many are worried about losing their jobs or facing serious backlash. The two rebuttals to PfJ were written by our professional colleagues; but they too felt the strong need to remain anonymous. On Facebook, when I asked Daniel Harlow, one of the co-authors of PfJ, why he and his collaborators did not even bother replying to the rebuttals; he immediately compared the two to crackpots on the internet. Even here in Taiwan, a physicist based at a neighboring city wrote to my Department Chair last year to try to cancel me for my views on Twitter. I’ve also lost count of how many FB groups, Twitter accounts, youtube commentary, etc. I’ve been blocked / censored / kicked off / etc. by science-related organizations or persons. Hence, by speaking out publicly, I am doing my (tiny) part to push back against the severe corrosion of academic ideals. Let me remind all of you, as academic faculty — i.e., with jobs more secure than most other careers — we have an obligation to speak up and defend the right for all views to be heard and discussed, especially in these highly illiberal times.
Rather importantly, as I’ve also reminded [censored]: the role of a scientist is not to cower to the latest political ideologies, however overwhelmingly fashionable they may be, but to speak the truth as he/she sees it.
[Paragraph removed.]
To speak from my conscience: I believe both moral and scientific authority must be earned, and certainly cannot be forced. As a scientist, I’ve always believed in holding myself to high standards of integrity, as far as my professional conduct is concerned. Merely sitting in meetings and asking the occasional clever question really should not qualify one for authorship on a scientific paper; yet, in theoretical physics, I worry this is a widespread practice due to the dwindling resources/jobs/etc and the dire need to appear productive. As an academic, I do in fact strive hard to mentor students to the best of my abilities. This is in no small part due to the poor standards of mentorship I have personally witnessed or experienced throughout my time as an academic. (Why don’t theoretical physicists discuss more frequently and openly such issues regarding intellectual credit and genuine mentorship, instead of chest-beating about DIE? In evolutionary biology-speak, I believe this amounts to whether or not the signaling is honest.) [Censored]
I will make a final appeal, directed especially to the more senior faculty, because according to recent surveys junior academics are increasingly supportive of far Left Illiberalism. Many of the values I am espousing here overlap a great deal with Enlightenment ones and with Classical Liberalism — particularly the need to view one another as individuals, These values, in turn, heavily influenced the Founding Fathers of America, as reflected in their Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Why does it take a Singaporean (me) to remind a bunch of Americans what your foundational values ought to be? Importantly, are senior faculty pushing back at all regarding the far Left corruption of Case Physics? Is anyone challenging the extremely poor leadership of [censored] with regards to Identity Politics? Are you too cowardly, afraid to offend your colleagues, even to defend such important values? Or, are all of you part of the same DIE cult?
The senior faculty at Case should also recognize, the particle astrophysics sector of CWRU Physics would not be what it is today without the leadership of your former Chair Lawrence Krauss. So, if you could care less about listening to this nobody writing from Taiwan, you should at the very least listen to Lawrence, one of the few senior physicists who have been speaking out against identity politics:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-new-scientific-method-identity-politics-11620581262
https://quillette.com/2020/07/04/podcast-98-physicist-lawrence-krauss-on-why-identity-politics-should-be-kept-out-of-science/
https://quillette.com/2021/06/02/in-defense-of-the-universal-values-of-science/
I end with the following.
- I urge Case faculty to push to abolish all DIE policies and withdraw official support for all DIE student groups; and adhere strictly to meritocracy and to judging our fellow scientists (students, faculty, etc.) as individuals. (The APS has gone Woke; and no physics department should be taking money from it to fund DIE.) As private individuals, students should of course enjoy the freedom of association, and be free to form whatever group they wish. But Case Physics should not be endorsing political movements and corrupting Science.
- I also urge Case faculty to set an example for students, to uphold the spirit of free expression and open debate, as it is fundamental to robust discussion. This means students should not be shielded from ideas that make them uncomfortable or even offend them. As I’ve already pointed out above, all these likely require senior faculty to take up a strong leadership role and to stand up firmly for American values — if there are any of you left — because your junior colleagues may have long abandoned them in favor of the Social Justice Religion.
- Case Physics should reinstate the GRE requirement for graduate admissions; it was waived last year, I remember. The abolishment of SAT, GRE, etc. requirements throughout US academia is evidence of what I’ve been alluding to: DIE does in fact involve lowering the bar, or removing it altogether, so that more Blacks and Hispanics may be admitted, even if they are under-qualified. The GRE is the one test that all domestic and international applicants would need to take; i.e., it should be the most objective measure of ability, since it provides a common standard, yet the Left dominated Academia is so eager to remove it. Is that not suspicious?
- [Censored] asserted that my concerns regarding meritocracy and scientific standards need to be judged based on the “very rich trail of public statements on these matters” I’ve made. I suppose this must have came from the faculty who runs the social media accounts of CWRU Physics? Do we have a Grand Wizard of the Holy Church of the Extreme Left residing in my alma mater? (The data indicates, the higher the administrative ranking the academic is, the more extreme Left his/her politics is likely to be.) Let me reiterate: Case Physics, as a science department, should be apolitical. Whoever runs the Department’s social media accounts should keep his/her politics to him/herself; or otherwise, a replacement is most definitely called for.
- If Case Physics stubbornly wishes to continue down this DIE path, at the very least invite external experts to speak on the relevant subject matter. No, Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, Jessica Wade, Brian Nord, etc. are most definitely not experts; particularly when their continued activism and celebrity status require there to be something to complain about in the first place. It is simply not in their self-interests to be honest players in this game of Identity Politics. In my view, it is particularly pressing that academics listen to dissident voices, primarily (though not limited to) those who are not Left-leaning; as well as those who have the relevant (scientific) knowledge especially regarding group differences. Some names I’d recommend include: Gad Saad, John McWhorter, Glenn Loury, Heather Mac Donald, Lee Jussim, Noah Carl, Bo Winegard, Alessandro Strumia, Janice Fiamengo, Heather Heying, Bret Weinstein, Charles Murray, Christina Hoff Sommers, etc.
— Yi-Zen Chu
[StrumiaApr21] https://direct. mit.edu/qss/article/2/1/225/ 99129 / Gender-issues-in- fundamental-physics-A
[Wade] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2181160-it-is-2018-so-why-are-we-still-debating-whether-women-can-do-physics/ and https://twitter.com/jesswade/status/1046334690268008448
[Crackpot1] https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/704991
[PinkerYoutube] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqMBUnaI29U
[APAReport] http://psych.colorado.edu/~carey/pdfFiles/IQ_Neisser2.pdf On p93, “African Americans. The relatively low mean of the distribution of African American intelligence test scores has been discussed for many years. Although studies using different tests and samples yield a range of results, the Black mean is typically about one standard deviation (about 15 points) below that of Whites….”
Soon after I sent my email — perhaps unsurprisingly — I received the following reply from a Case Physics faculty:
If your email can be blunt, so can mine: fuck off and never email me again.
Additionally, I also sent a letter to CWRU (intern) Scott Cowen and Provost Ben Vinson. (Unfortunately, I only realized after sending the letter that Scott Cowen has since stepped down.)
Freedom of Expression vs DIE (Diversity, Inclusion, Equity) at CWRU Physics
Dear President Scott Cowen and Provost Ben Vinson,
I obtained my PhD from Case Physics in 2010, and am now Associate Professor of Physics at National Central University, Taiwan.
In early April this year, Case Physics’ co-Chairs Corbin Covault and Glenn Starkman endorsed the formation of a minority student DIE-based group (CWRU PURMS) in the department. The group posted the email endorsement letter on their Twitter account, and explicitly stated they wish to hold “DEI-based” discussions. For a while now, I’ve been concerned about the erosion of academia’s scientific and academic standards in the name of DIE; so despite the risk — I’m fully aware we live in highly politically polarized times — I decided to post my concerns directly on the student group’s thread and also reached out on Twitter to Glenn Starkman (who was my PhD co-advisor). Soon after, I was blocked on Twitter by Glenn, CWRU PURMS, and CWRU Physics.
If these were personal affairs, I would not be reaching out to both of you. But Glenn Starkman is the co-Chair of Case Physics, and the Twitter CWRU Physics page is the official account. As such, I think it is fair to assert, CWRU Physics has behaved in a rather illiberal manner by rapidly censoring a concerned alumnus, just because my views were not aligned with theirs. To be sure, over email, I was accused by [censored] of “attacking students” or “delegitimizing” them; and I was therefore blocked in order to “protect” the students; but I will let you both verify who, if anyone, actually received negativity directed at them personally. Glenn further added that my comments are also to be judged based on the “rich trail” of social media comments I’ve left online; and even implied I need to remove my social media posts criticizing Case Physics before he will engage further.
Incidentally, I also gave via Zoom a colloquium talk last Fall (end October 2020). Despite staying up all night here in Taiwan, so that I may deliver my talk at 4 pm EST, I soon noticed the CWRU Physics’ Twitter account did not advertise my colloquium even though it had advertised those in the weeks before and after mine. In view of what had just transpired, I suspect this omission was done on purpose. If this suspicion does turn out to be true, and given my talk was strictly about physics, is this not unprofessional censorship?
As an alumnus, I am heartened to see that CWRU as an institution has in fact adopted a Chicago-like statement (linked below) affirming that it would uphold and protect freedom of expression. If I may speak from my conscience, however: while I can understand many academics may come from a place of good intentions, I fear DIE is not only eroding meritocracy, it is also eating away Academia’s respect for free speech — and, for the case at hand, the freedom of conscience. My experiences described here adds yet another example to the long list of violations of free expression by American academics and/or their institutions, censoring / canceling / censuring / etc. fellow academics for wrongspeak and wrongthink regarding “Diversity” and Identity Politics related issues. Given the protection of free expression is enshrined in the US constitution — which is what makes America one of the most liberal (and, in my opinion, one of the greatest) of all Western democracies — I am worried Case Physics, like many other institutions, is growing extremely unAmerican. We have forgotten, as academics, that the dedication to seek solutions to difficult problems and the responsibility to seek the truth, requires free thought and free speech.
To be clear, I personally do not care if I am blocked on Twitter by my alma mater. But the issue at hand is much larger: I urge both of you to help restore this foundational academic ideal of the freedom of expression to my alma mater, Cae [sic] Physics. While they do not have the obligation to engage every dissident view, both students and faculty — in their capacities as academics — should certainly not be censoring them. Furthermore, to ensure they mature as academics, students should most definitely not be shielded from ideas and viewpoints they might find deeply offensive. Instead, they have the full right to participate in rigorous debate, to push back with reason and logic.
Yours respectfully,
Yi-Zen Chu
P.S. I have copied this to both the Physics Department, as well as FIRE, an organization that has been fighting the corrosion of free expression on American campuses.
Struggles In Physics 
The link to Strumia’s paper isn’t working.
LikeLike
Thanks! I just fixed it.
LikeLike