STEM, A Return to Sanity — Part Two
By: Will Sommers
Tags: Diversity, Equality, Science, STEM, Enlightenment

Exploring possibilities for STEM in an uncertain future

An Excerpt from the book Cu*t — by Will Sommers

Available here.

Ideas that could help STEM in the current assault from people living and working in an Alternate Reality Game (ARG)

Principle One

We must stop activities that posit understanding ourselves in relation to power between groups and individuals, with activities that are governed by who has what bias halted. Recognise that the ad nauseam use of simplistic binaries and counter arguments are anything but wholly unproductive, it is not them versus us, it is just us, and as one of the us, it is our responsibility as individuals to live up to our better angels.

For far too long, across sectors/disciplines, EDI has been propelled by top down initiatives, statistically driven, and that inevitably falls into the trap of being something as opposed to doing something.

For the vision to be realised, we must acknowledge that EDI is the responsibility of the individual, and it is for STEM workplaces to provide the guidance and learning that will be the catalyst for advocacy, critical self-analysis and subsequent social and cultural presentation from the individual, wherever that individual may work.

Likewise, we must bring an end to the bonkers idea that assumes we can “tick box” away the bad behaviours or cultures, we simply cannot.

Nor can we make someone who is determined to be uncomfortable. at whatever cost, readily drop the mantle of victimhood; and likewise, we cannot turn a racist or homophobe into Jesus, simply because HR says they should be that way.

This is a conflict that must be fought by individuals, and over and beyond education (not training, not indoctrination) on the subject, does not require overseers and thought police, that should save a few bob.

Principle Two

We must stop counting everything and giving that too much importance in shaping EDI. You cannot fatten a pig by weighing it.

Recognising the occasionally absurdist nature of statistics and the analysis of them, which can be helpful, but rarely definitive, and are often presented at such a low resolution, that we all so easily fall to confirmation bias and run with them, is a good start.

They have moved us away from monitoring EDI anonymously, for the sake of understanding, and manifested it as a great big stick to hit everyone with, and on from that, to positioning EDI as the raison d’etre of any project, regardless of the nature of the project.

This constant and relentlessly ideological counting must be curtailed, and in the (almost) words of the marvellous curmudgeonly Sea Captain Quint in Stephen Spielberg’s “Jaws”

“I’ll never put on a life jacket again.”

I’ll never fill in an equity monitoring form again, too many sharks.

Principle Three

Workplaces must establish policies and procedures that are adult, that eschew enforcement and diktat and that encourage maturity of thinking and that distance themselves (workplaces) from responsibility for safeguarding or coddling adults.

The tendency for protectionism by administrative departments and individuals within them, leads to the proliferation and overreach of tacit and often absurd rules based on vague guidelines (that are in the main so ill defined as to be unknowable if you are not in the “in” group) around such ridiculous concepts as microaggressions and trigger warnings.

These are the antithesis of learning and the acquisition of matured reasoning and wisdom, both from an individual intrapersonal perspective and communally, the effect is one of suppression and a “diseasing” of the social contract of enlightenment and inquiry that characterises education.

“Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities, Can Make You Commit Atrocities” Voltaire.

This is one of the hardest of my principles to attain, because much is enshrined in law, but I think that it must be attempted.

The EDI represented by STEM, if it is to remain true to the idea of strong, competent, independent and capable individuals must actively call for an end to extraneous provisions that should not be the prevue of Universities in the first place.

Sam Gyimah, who was a joint Minister for Higher Education at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for Education, stated in a rousing but sick making speech entitled “A Revolution in Accountability” on the 28 February 2018…

“When these students arrive, for some this will be the first time they are away from home, the ‘uni experience’ can be disorientating and demanding, as it should be. But, in this the universities need to act in loco parentis, that is to be there for students offering all the support they need to get the most from their time on campus.”

Politicians, intent on infantilising all and sundry in their strident attempts at victim creating, have hoodwinked Universities into becoming “in loco parentis” literally translated as “in the place of a parent”.

Parents for adults, yes adults…just fuck off.

Universities seem to be politically gullible at best, or in collusion with this idea of weakening adults and providing victims for the cultists ever growing sales drive, again; you get to decide if that is true.

The re-examination of this “Duty of Care” should be called for, with the details I laid out in the section on “Creating an Environment of Weakness and the Therapeutic” as a starting point, it is time Universities got out of the nursery school business, mental health sales drives and policing and got back to teaching and enlightenment.

This may involve a larger drive to repeal the Equality Act and replace it with human rights-based legislation that does not allow preference of identity.

I know, an immensely tall order.

Principle Four

STEM faculties must draw up a clear and concise set of guidelines, founded on the principles of free speech and tolerance, inquiry, debate. They must influence the student contract in a way that explicitly goes against the weaknesses beloved by the cult, such as trigger warnings, safe spaces, segregation of any kind, positive discrimination, and the positioning of any group against or above another.

This is a need for an internal vision within STEM faculties, that may well go against the University the faculty is in. These contracts should be drawn up as part of faculty entry.

Yes, you will lose people, but trust me you don’t want them in the first place.

You shouldn’t care about that, you need the fight, you need to get the dangerous acolytes out in the open, that way you can take them on.

Including if necessary, the university that houses you.

Principle Five

STEM faculties and the individuals within them must be cognisant of any attempt whatsoever to place EDI, no matter what form it manifests, as an intrinsic part of and/or requirement of the scientific process, over and above it being an educational pursuit for Individuals.

This is where another very real concern kicks in, that the extremists acting in the EDI sphere will see a glaring weakness in the STEM world.

That funding bodies or other parties, many of whom, when it comes to EDI, will have been trained by organisations that will have the taint of the ideology, and are able to systematically insert themselves into the scientific process itself.

These bureaucrats and overseers will position themselves within the processes that feed innovation and discovery, and in doing so, delay, stymie or disrupt and disavow anything that STEM produces that they disapprove of from an EDI perspective.

Can you imagine, if the discovery of Dwarf Wheat, which saved millions of lives, was delayed by six months?

How many would have died?

All because some miserabilist, do-gooding and intellectually stunted collection of hobgoblins, had formed an equity board that sat between Norman Borlaug and his work.

They would have insisted on EDI statements, quotas, evidence of diversity, ensuring the right colour, sexuality or other identity garbage of the people involved, withholding funding till this was achieved and forever hobbling the future of STEM.

Surely this could never happen in the UK.

Well, maybe not, we can live in hope.

For if someone we loved, succumbed to a fatal disease, and we discovered that a cure was finally available for, twenty four hours after their death, we would want to know why it wasn’t available sooner.

If the answer came back, I am sorry, our equity board was waiting for a diversity statement that we could accept before we permitted the project to begin”.

What would your reaction be?

Tolerating these impediments to the efficiency of STEM, and the validation by silence of the various doctrinal and mellifluous tools that attempt to identify “wrong think”, in whichever direction that happens to be required on the day, is to give up and betray the enlightened for the inquisition.

Truly, it is saying that we do not want cancer cured by a bigot.

At the institutional level, they, I, nor you, should care less.

Principle Six

Where STEM projects are required to have an EDI element, this will be outsourced to enable external collaboration and provide a bulwark against interference.

Whenever a STEM project is undertaken, it is done so with the provision of EDI from the outset, being built into the bidding process.

This would be EDI as visitor, not intrinsic, in fact secondary.

In doing so, when establishing the EDI agenda for the project, do not do it internally, it must be outsourced.

Avoid large organisations, for they may be indoctrinated, and you will unlikely have time or understanding to discover if they are.

Try and deal with individuals that have absolute autonomy, know their stuff, and are impervious to external pressure. With small organisations, deal with the MD only, seek guidance about the specifics you require.

They should assist with the funding bid and build in the EDI cost of learning; they should be embedded at the start.

Remember, EDI is not about the equality act, it is social, historical, and cultural.

Ensure that any work you are doing with them states that they are the go to folks for EDI and ensure anything and everything that comes to you in regards EDI, from whatever source, is funnelled back to those folks, in other words, let them protect you.

Embed those individuals into the projects from the get-go, look for the self-employed or micro businesses, and ensure a robust engagement process that can weed out those would be collaborators infected with the toxic ideologies we have discussed before engaging them.

Principle Seven

The adherence required by the zealots of EDI is a gradual and insidious process. Individual resistance will be required in watching and seeing key tactics in play.

The list of things to watch out for is a long one, but in the main, I suggest the following…

Refuse to complete any documentation that collects identity information. Start today.

In any documentation that you deal with, ensure that the word sex is used instead of gender, likewise when asked for your gender in any document, send the offending text to the author and ask why this is included, and asking for its replacement with the word sex.

Look out for the use of D & I or DIE instead of EDI and again do as above.

Look for the word equity in all instances, conversational and otherwise and clarify as equality of opportunity asking for any relevant documentation to be altered.

Where documentation asks you to preference identity of a group for whatever reason, question why, and critically assess the legitimacy of the reason.

For example, where an advert would say that applications from only an identity group are allowed (BBC).

In all the examples above I am saying to stop whatever process that documentation is part of until you get a full and fact driven explanation. Do so with extreme prejudice.

Do not celebrate identity and say why.

Never, and I repeat never, put your pronouns on anything as a show of virtue.

In conversation, work out ways to exclude personal identity-based narratives or calls to emotion.

If someone starts with as a… [insert identity], challenge why that is relevant and what authenticity or authority it brings to the discussion.

Ask people what they think, not what they feel, try to get the word feel out of your speech patterns as much as possible. You may well be amazed how often you say “I feel…”

When someone you ask to think about something, describes what they are feeling, ask them to try again and think.

If someone claims victimhood in conversation, again point it out, in many cases, someone’s status as a pathological victim is nothing that should matter to anyone else.

If you are approached for a matter concerning criminal harassment or any other criminal matter signpost to the relevant authorities, the police, not anyone else.

You’ll be surprised how many fake or victimhood garnering allegations disappear in a puff of dishonest smoke when you start dialling 999.

Do not allow the inclusion of learning nonsense into the STEM academic process and be suspicious of ideas such as mindfulness, unconscious bias, white fragility or any other snake oil, masquerading as therapeutic, that undermines individual agency and autonomy.

If you are confronted by this, seek to disprove its veracity.

When it comes to the legalities of EDI and a Duty of Care, do the absolute minimum the law requires, do not go above the law as many are doing.

Principle Eight

Let’s just do something else.

Here’s an idea, lets add to the other excellent work being done in STEM public engagement right now and massively expand it, and take it to the people.

No, this does not mean another round of awards, another lanyard, and another rainbow hat, I mean really take it to the people.

Less PR but a more clearly defined idea of what the result will be, more scientists, engineers et al. yay!

Let’s get STEM it off of its natural home on television and have regular and sustained roadshows in some of the most depressed areas of the country, we can even use the tactics of the cult and emotionally blackmail some of the virtue signalling celebrities, they’ll do anything for money, and even more if they think their reputation is at risk.

This may already be happening, but if it is, it isn’t happening loud enough for me to hear it.

Let’s have a corporate STEM tax. 1% will do it, on turnover naturally (could you imagine) and that could be used to carry out marvellous, enormous and spectacular experiments in parks and town centres, zoos and safari parks, theatres, and arenas.

Let’s continue to recruit and train, an army of vibrant and engaging scientists and get them out into schools and colleges, where they espouse the enlightenment values, real inclusivity, and equality of opportunity for all.

For goodness sake let’s just get excited.

STEM should be the key topic of our time and we shouldn’t be scared to say so, loudly, with music, dance and if necessary, fireworks.

Let’s sell the shit out of STEM, embed that anyone can do anything into whatever we do and take it to the people.

We should do this crazy idea on a much grander scale and build on the excellent work already occurring, we have to, because the abhorrent thinking of the cult has colonised and embedded across our society, it started by exploiting and masquerading as STEM and it is time STEM took it back.

The response should be publicly overwhelming.

It really is time for a massive and sustained period of noisy enlightenment bloated STEM, just, bring, it, on.