There used to be a time when scientists strove to gather hard data, rationally assess evidence, and develop theories that helped us better understand our world.

That was when I learned who Richard Feynman was. He became one of my personal heroes of science. Feynman was the guy who famously dropped the o-rings into a glass of ice water showing how brittle these o-rings (identical to the ones in Challenger) became when cold. pic.twitter.com/cvzjEVGJQA

— Diane (@dianeclectica) January 29, 2024

Good times, my friends, good times.

We now live in the era of the ideological capture of science. The only science that is permitted is the science that supports political narratives and agendas.

As “Diversity-Equity-Inclusion” permeates our institutions of higher learning, those who promote this rebranded racism seek “scientific” support for ignoring job candidates that may have more talent and fewer instances of plagiarizing work.

To aid in the effort, the ultra-woke American Psychological Association now claims that “hiring the most qualified candidate might be unfair” based on one of its recent studies.

The study, titled “Can Selecting the Most Qualified Candidate Be Unfair?,” examined people’s perceptions of merit-based hiring after learning more about the socioeconomic status of potential workers.

While previewing the results, it argued that hiring the most qualified candidate could contribute to more inequality.

“Fairness heuristic theory suggests that, as long as people consider selection processes such as hiring and promotion to be meritocratic and fair, they may continue to accept ever-increasing levels of income inequality. Yet, in reality, inequality and merit-based decisions are deeply intertwined,” the study noted.

It explained, “Socioeconomic advantages and disadvantages early in life can have profound influences on educational achievement, test scores, work experiences, and other qualifications that form the basis of ‘meritocratic’ selection processes. Yet the near-universal support for meritocracy suggests that most people may not give much weight to unequal advantages and disadvantages.”

The study is essentially backlash to the challenges DEI is experiencing from legislators across the country.

Governor Spencer Cox (R-UT) signed a bill into law this week that prohibits diversity training, hiring and inclusion programs, making it the latest state to join the anti-diversity movement.

Other states that have either canceled or proposed canceling EDI programs include Florida, Missouri, Iowa, and South Carolina.

‘We’ve been concerned about some DEI programs and policies, particularly with hiring practices, and this bill offers a balanced solution,’ Cox said.

However, the study said that despite Republican’s latest stance on DEI programs, conservative participants said they believe merit-based hiring and promotion is generally fair, but still adjusted their fairness perceptions after they learned about a candidates socioeconomic disparities.

I will note that the study focused on socio-economic considerations, not racial ones. I will point out that this piece was published in “Science Magazine,” which is how I came across it in the first place.

The researchers conducted five online experiments with a total of more than 3,300 participants. In two experiments, participants read about a merit-based hiring or promotion process where the most qualified candidate would be selected. Half of the participants weren’t given any additional information, while the other half were informed about the past socioeconomic disadvantages for one candidate and the advantages for another candidate. Both liberal and conservative participants who received the background information perceived the merit-based hiring or promotion process as less fair with less equal opportunity.

In two additional experiments, participants also found merit-based hiring or promotions to be less fair after learning how low income can hinder educational opportunities and career advancement.

A final experiment found that knowledge about socioeconomic disparities increased support for hiring programs that seek to foster social class diversity, such as removing the names of prestigious universities or companies from resumes and making prior internships a lesser requirement for being hired.

The experiments didn’t include race as a factor so the findings may have been different if race had been the focus instead of socioeconomic disadvantages, Goya-Tocchetto said.

I think many fair-minded Americans agree giving a poor or middle-class student who is hard-working and talented a break, in terms of scholarship or educational opportunities, is a fine practice. Yet many white and Asian students who are qualified for admittance and scholarship are denied in preference to others who check the right victim-status boxes regardless of their economic status.

DEI is used to promote racialist agendas, gender ideology, and other policies that are destructive to our children, our families, our society . . . and to science itself. No amount of pseudoscience can mitigate the level of its toxicity.

The new science is certainly different from the old science.

“As long as man is free to ask what they will, free to say what they think, think what they must. Science will never regress and freedom itself will never be wholly lost”—J. Robert Oppenheimer, 1955 pic.twitter.com/JsA62pqwS3

— Brian Roemmele (@BrianRoemmele) November 1, 2023

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.