(02-07-2024 04:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: The woman, Brooke Johnson, holds the title of “ Preceptor (Chemistry)” in the DEI Office. Here is her bio: “ Dr. Brooke Johnson joined the DEI team as a Preceptor after obtaining her Ph.D. in chemistry from Princeton University (‘23). Rice alum (‘17) and former Rice track athlete, Dr. Johnson is passionate about the intersection of science and social justice and using her unique experiences to teach, support and inspire diverse students.”
Seems to me she actively wants to be involved in teaching chemistry and DEI-related topics.
As I said... if you decide that this is what you want to teach, she has skills and experiences that would be high on my personal list..... but also as I said... the bolded is something that we disagree exists... or perhaps better said, deserves the attention it is getting when so many more obvious issues remain....
As in, being so upset about the founding of our University, despite the fact that we generally do fairly well (peer relative) in providing admission and financial aid to minorities.... that we will in ANY way disrespect the memory/memorial of the founder... when we've (allegedly) got racist cops shooting people for 'driving while black'.
Before you come back with the idea that 'we can multi-task', I'd ask how many courses Rice has started dealing with that, or the 'trans in sports' issues etc... a biology course focusing on the concept of infinite genders. Of course I've selected 'hot button' issues because I don't want to get into a debate about what is and is not important... I just don't think any of us on the right accept there are very many cars waiting for a turn signal at the intersection of chemistry and social justice.
(02-07-2024 07:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: I find this continued focus especially odd, given how regularly I interact with PhDs. It's definitely more common for PhDs to continue on in their field - OO is right about that. But given how brutal the process can be, and the uncertainty and pressure related to the academic market, I don't bat an eye when I hear about a PhD making a decision to not go into their chosen field.
While I don't take huge issues with what you say here... especially in that there probably aren't (m)any DEI PhD's.... and you have to start somewhere.... my perception is that it is once again a compendium of factors...
As you note, the probability is that people continue in their field of study is fairly high... so it becomes a laundry list of unlikely, non-traditional... 'choose your adjective' events. Such things therefore come across to many as being contrived. Putting someone else's concern into my words... something that 'they' would design and then claim was organic.
(02-08-2024 12:04 AM)Rice93 Wrote: This paragraph is jibberish. I have no idea what you are driving at here.
It's 2 things
1) what I said to begin with... which is that most of what you argue, I had already said in my 'that said' comment.
and
2) that the choice of the words 'lecture' can apply to anyone and any situation... and mostly is determined by 'how you perceive things' and not how I deliver them. The length of my posts
Quote:Here's my POV of what went down. Paraphrasing.
From my perspective, you left off two very important steps before your last line.
You left off where I responded to the discussion... and where you responded to me... and THAT is the approach I noted.... your response to me... not your comments to anyone else... or regarding anyone else.
This has nothing to do with being a moderator... though it is somewhat in my personality and now multiple professions... trying to see the obstacles and purposes of the involved parties and find ways to bridge gaps so that they can be addressed.... and SOME people (not you, but some) just want to argue to argue.
My intent, while perhaps poorly delivered was to note that we agree much more than we disagree... and I think if you had read the whole thing first, you would have seen that... and while I get that you're disagreeing with others on the weight of things, you have not yet significantly disagreed with me on the content.
Quote:Nobody thinks chemistry works differently for the different races. But chemistry principles can be used to examine various aspects of the black experience (as she suggests in the brief course description).
To the first sentence... I don't think MANY people think that, but I can't agree that NOBODY does... as that is one of the concerns some of us have... that this idea is what is being introduced.
To the second, Agreed... but if the goal of the course (using your words, which I agree with based on the course description) is to 'examine aspects of the black experience', then as you seem to agree, this is a DEI course for Chemists... people who already know chemistry principles... and we're going to apply them to non-chemistry things.... It's much harder to use principles you don't already know to study a field you don't know either.
Once again, this is a compendium of concerns... with a variety of weights assigned to each concern by a number of individuals...
I understand with and generally agree with the concerns from the right.... but with VERY low weight. I downplay some more than others, and am perhaps more concerned about a few than others... but I really haven't heard any FACTUAL refutation of those concerns... as in the fact that 'some' people don't remotely follow their PhD doesn't mean that it is not much more common for people to do so.... and thus not doing so is to some degree, 'off'... but that isn't the end of the discussion.
The closest factual refutation I'm aware of is one that I made myself... and you and perhaps others also said.... that 'a degree, much less a PhD in DEI' would be pretty rare and thus any SIGNIFICANT concern or surprise that she doesn't have a PhD in DEI is not reasonable.
