DEI, Critical Race Theory language in sci-pubs increases by 4,200% between 2010 and 2021: study

A new study claims that language relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in scientific publications has increased by 4,200% between 2010 and 2021.

The National Association of Scholars released a report in late November outlining the steep increase of DEI-related language being used on university websites, university social media accounts, academic associations, scientific publications, and scientific grants.

Analyzing several different repositories for scientific publications, the study saw a substantial increase in DEI-related language being used.

Initially, I wasn't intending to create a thread on this topic. There is a certain amount of baggage accompanying the topic of CRT/DEI in the world, and it is clear that deliberate efforts to even approach the topic are often met with some pretty scathing vitriol and a kind of zealous support that is more common in the frenzied world of political debates. But quite coincidentally, while researching another topic, I came across an example or two of this which tipped the scales of relevance, a bit more on that later...

The source article points to a reference worthy of investigation: Ideological Intensification. The study is extremely revealing... which is to say that it quantifies a trend so striking that it raises questions about what exactly is happening - ideologically - within the academic leadership, who have increased their "ideological activism" by orders of magnitude... especially in the last two years.

From the study:

The activists’ aim is to radically transform the sciences by making all aspects of scientists’ careers conform to the demands of DEI ideology. Training and education in the sciences, hiring of new science educators and researchers, decisions on research grants, accreditation, governance of research universities, and more are now being reshaped to meet the demands of DEI ideology. The ideological intensification over the past few years is now empirically evident. Only the future remains unknown. Yet if the ideology continues to intensify and be institutionalized, then the future of STEM, along with the rest of the academy, is almost certainly imperiled.

The article offers a few examples of the growth in 'references' to DEI/CRT but stops short of the more egregious numbers reflected in the study.

the study analyzed the Web of Science, which is "among the largest commercial citation indices in the world," and found that "reports about antiracist and DEI-related topics have grown between 3 to 42 times faster than scientific topics in general in the Web of Science..."

...In analyzing the Twitter accounts of 100 universities, the study found that the number of "DEI-related" tweets gradually rose at a slow rate from 2010 to 2019, and then saw a rapid increase in 2020....

"University Twitter feeds show a similar pattern in the usage of DEI language to universities’ web sites: a modest yet steady amount of growth in the usage of DEI language, with a large spike in the summer of 2020. This spike is almost certainly an accompaniment to the Black Lives Matter riots," the study states.

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) topics are now being refocused on "diversity," equity," and "inclusion" wholesale. Federal funding for DEI/CRT topics are being infused into fields that are not humanities ... because: (I don't know - as camouflage?)

The numbers, in my opinion are moderate examples of a much larger picture.

The press, the makers of dictionaries, the government... all hip deep in changing the language landscape to accommodate IDE/CRT ideology. Universities forcing their students to change or conceal their own judgment in deference to their identity politics. And now the science community demonstrably being flooded with non-science ideological "tenets" of social justice faith.

Just to bring up one of the things which convinced me a thread might be in order (space is limited)

While reviewing " CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY " I found many things worth discussion, but troubling to me was something I found in the final two "targets" of the entire "biodiversity" conference resloutions:

TARGET 22

Ensure the full, equitable, inclusive, effective and gender-responsive representation and participation in decision-making, and access to justice and information related to biodiversity by indigenous peoples and local communities, respecting their cultures and their rights over lands, territories, resources, and traditional knowledge, as well as by women and girls, children and youth, and persons with disabilities and ensure the full protection of environmental human rights defenders.

TARGET 23

Ensure gender equality in the implementation of the framework through a gender-responsive approach where all women and girls have equal opportunity and capacity to contribute to the three objectives of the Convention, including by recognizing their equal rights and access to land and natural resources and their full, equitable, meaningful and informed participation and leadership at all levels of action, engagement, policy and decision-making related to biodiversity.

((all emphasis mine))

I don't deny that these principles have merit. But they are NOT germane to the conference. These are clearly added to pander to the overriding efforts to dilute science and scientific policy and practices into a social justice framework.

This effort, its explosive growth in science literature, the infusion of ideological language in unrelated fields, the increase in federal grants money to all things DEI/CRT, the infiltration of ideology into primary and secondary schooling... all point to something akin to a conspiracy.

Or am I being paranoid?

Edit to add source link: DEI , critical race theory language in scientific publications increases by 4,200% between 2010 and 2021: study

Your concerns are valid. But if the answer is to somehow reduce its presence in online academia (not public schools) that borders on censorship. Let them talk, because it costs us nothing to do nothing and perhaps a bit more to try and curb that subject no matter your intentions. It's also worth noting the conference isn't a federal event so there isn't really any influence happening on tax dime. These professionals have the right to gather, and the right to express, plain and simple. Is it stupid, maybe, but it's not a crime.

It IS a conspiracy. A conspiracy to rob us of the best minds in favor of false diversity.

Science has been poisoned by this ideology. We are headed for "Idiocracy" at a clip.

the increase in federal grants money to all things DEI/CRT,

There's the answer. Straight forward fear and greed. Leftists like Soros push this agenda and they hold the purse strings along with Liberal alumni. You've heard of "publish or perish" but now, if you publish anything not in line with what they want, you don't get the money and they'll even go so far as ruining your career.

Science used to follow the evidence, not matter where it lead. Now it just follows the money.

The most toxic, racist ideology on the planet. A normal person walks into a room and sees ten people. A "progressive" walks in and sees three black people, and seven white people....and then complains about it...

a reply to: TzarChasm

I recognize the "not on our dime" idea. It is more significant to me that the process of indoctrination is occurring over a huge swath of "authoritative" bodies virtually simultaneously - most of which have absolutely nothing to do with social justice.

Everywhere I look, I see it reiterated and reinforced... but the 'social travesty' upon which it is based is disproportionately inflated by the titanic effort to insert it everywhere. The last example I cited (the conference) was particularly troubling because logically any such assurances and focus shouldn't require constant and continual exposition.

To me, it's like reading "recipes for bread making" that all end in "...and equity, and diversity, and inclusion."

There is something evidently involved when no one can speak any longer without nodding their hat to the ideology or doctrine.

They keep insisting nit-picking Micromanaging is the way to go 🤣🤣🤣

originally posted by: Creep Thumper
It IS a conspiracy. A conspiracy to rob us of the best minds in favor of false diversity.

Science has been poisoned by this ideology. We are headed for "Idiocracy" at a clip.

"feelz" the same stuff that fuels liberal activists. Yes it's stupid, but no it doesn't deserve indignation and outrage. Well within the law and well justified by the same principles you lot keep quoting about autonomy and free speech.

a reply to: Maxmars

See my response above.

a reply to: Maxmars

Any paper that claims to be scientific but delves into DEI/CRT is by definition non-scientific drivel

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: Maxmars

Any paper that claims to be scientific but delves into DEI/CRT is by definition non-scientific drivel

... and by that standard there are many thousands of scientific statements and documents that need redressing.

Making refences to it has apparently become the "currency" necessary to get "legitimized" by someone who "decides" what is and isn't going to be funded, or published.

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: Maxmars

Any paper that claims to be scientific but delves into DEI/CRT is by definition non-scientific drivel

Ughhh
Umm NO
Just because something doesn't jive with you doesn't discredit in any way the scientific nature.
You don't have to agree or like things. But you can't just go around and discredit things you don't like.
I don't like the studies that prove that combustion engines polluted and continue to this day.
But I don't discredit the researchers.
I know that example is apple to oranges but I made my point.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: Maxmars

Any paper that claims to be scientific but delves into DEI/CRT is by definition non-scientific drivel

Ughhh
Umm NO
Just because something doesn't jive with you doesn't discredit in any way the scientific nature.
You don't have to agree or like things. But you can't just go around and discredit things you don't like.
I don't like the studies that prove that combustion engines polluted and continue to this day.
But I don't discredit the researchers.
I know that example is apple to oranges but I made my point.

It's not because it "does not jive with me"

It's because it's not SCIENCE, e.g. reality, reproducible, fact-based

The founding principle of CRT, so called "white privilege" was created by Peggy McIntosh in 1987, NOT via economic study, social study, population study OR ANY STUDY AT ALL

McInstoh ONLY HAS AN ENGLISH DEGREE

I.E. She pulled "white privilege" out of her ass, NOT based on anything, as real as "Santa Claus" or "the Force" or any other device in FICTION



Grow up !!!

originally posted by: Maxmars

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: Maxmars

Any paper that claims to be scientific but delves into DEI/CRT is by definition non-scientific drivel

... and by that standard there are many thousands of scientific statements and documents that need redressing.

Making refences to it has apparently become the "currency" necessary to get "legitimized" by someone who "decides" what is and isn't going to be funded, or published.

Exactly

This FARCE has gone too far already and must be stopped and reversed.

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: Allaroundyou

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: Maxmars

Any paper that claims to be scientific but delves into DEI/CRT is by definition non-scientific drivel

Ughhh
Umm NO
Just because something doesn't jive with you doesn't discredit in any way the scientific nature.
You don't have to agree or like things. But you can't just go around and discredit things you don't like.
I don't like the studies that prove that combustion engines polluted and continue to this day.
But I don't discredit the researchers.
I know that example is apple to oranges but I made my point.

It's not because it "does not jive with me"

It's because it's not SCIENCE, e.g. reality, reproducible, fact-based

The founding principle of CRT, so called "white privilege" was created by Peggy McIntosh in 1987, NOT via economic study, social study, population study OR ANY STUDY AT ALL

McInstoh ONLY HAS AN ENGLISH DEGREE

I.E. She pulled "white privilege" out of her ass, NOT based on anything, as real as "Santa Claus" or "the Force" or any other device in FICTION



Grow up !!!

I am really glad that those with the mindset of CRT being white privilege do not teach.
You sound like Tucker Carlson who ranted for weeks about it being solely about "white privilege" then to on live TV admit he doesn't know what CRT is.
So....
Grow up

once you bring gender inclusion into a "science" discussion, it's no longer about science but clown world science. Biology used to explain all this in a cohesive way that made sense. Feelz were not biological, but psychological. Gender dysphoria is a sickness, a diagnosable one, and should be treated, not celebrated. But in clown world, we do just that.

DEI sounds good until you realize it's repackaged racism. And as you eluded to, it has no place in a scientific setting.

a reply to: network dude

Do you imagine a society without gender inclusion in education, hiring practices and services as being more forward than one that doesn't?

DEI sounds good until you realize it's repackaged racism. And as you eluded to, it has no place in a scientific setting.

So diversity, equity and inclusion are equal to racism now too? Do you imagine a society that segregates students, employees and services based on their race as being more forward as a society than on that doesn't?

I don't get you guys, at all!

I don't deny that these principles have merit.

I love how you saved this insane sentence for last. Thanks a lot for wasting my time.

DIE or CRT... whatever it's called now, is nothing more than a way to demonize and slander one breed of humans. It is, and I hate using this word, simply: 'racist'.

a reply to: Maxmars

I think your being a little paranoid. Demographics are destiny and the future of the US isn't white. In fact, unless and until the Chicoms figure it out, the US will be a majority minority country with no single ethnic group in the majority.

DEI language makes perfect sense in that if there is to be a US future in STEM, they must attract as many people as possible from all ethnic groups.......and fast as due to low birthrate and emigration, (leaving the US), the white population is dwindling very quickly.

a reply to: Maxmars

How long have you been around? I recall in the '80s and '90s when, even in Safety meetings, every sentence had to end in the terms, multiculturalism and diversity. They are called "buzz words" used to polish the speakers PC credentials. No one pays any attention to the use of PC buzz words, especially those who are not multicultural or diverse.

a reply to: Maxmars

..In analyzing the Twitter accounts of 100 universities, the study found that the number of "DEI-related" tweets gradually rose at a slow rate from 2010 to 2019, and then saw a rapid increase in 2020....

I've read that because of the COVID lockdown what started festering on social media was anti-mandate, anti-gov't and the rise of radicalism and hate speech. Is this not true? Is it any wonder people opposed to - at the very least - radicalism and hate speech are rising up to protest it?

You know at every anti-whatever protesters there will be the pro-whatever protesters there too.

www.isdglobal.org...

www.isdglobal.org...

www.bbc.com...

There certainly is no lack of proof that people on online social media platforms will stand up for what they believe in - either way.