Woozle at 00:26, 11 September 2025

2025-09-11T00:26:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:26, 11 September 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
			In response to [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xk94il8L820 this video]:
			==Contents==
			<blockquote>
	Hi W:		Hi W:

Line 62:		Line 65:

	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFPj8tNVoLQ		https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFPj8tNVoLQ
			</blockquote>

Woozle at 00:25, 11 September 2025

2025-09-11T00:25:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:25, 11 September 2025
Line 17:		Line 17:
	This is from a much longer post:		This is from a much longer post:

	~~<nowiki>~~https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2021/07/30/the-multiversity-and-its-discontents-the-evolution-of-a-fatal-flaw/~~</nowiki>~~		https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2021/07/30/the-multiversity-and-its-discontents-the-evolution-of-a-fatal-flaw/

	And on the funding issue:		And on the funding issue:

	~~<nowiki>~~https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2025/08/12/duke-turns-scientists-into-salesmen/~~</nowiki>~~		https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2025/08/12/duke-turns-scientists-into-salesmen/
	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable"
	\|		\|
Line 32:		Line 32:
	and on the granting system:		and on the granting system:

	~~<nowiki>~~https://jamesgmartin.center/2025/04/how-to-judge-a-basic-research-proposal/~~</nowiki>~~		https://jamesgmartin.center/2025/04/how-to-judge-a-basic-research-proposal/
	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable"
	\|		\|
Line 61:		Line 61:
	Oh, and if you want a reasoned approach by a really good science broadcaster, do look at this (mostly about)climate but talks about science funding at the end). The two interviewers run a series, they are excellent:		Oh, and if you want a reasoned approach by a really good science broadcaster, do look at this (mostly about)climate but talks about science funding at the end). The two interviewers run a series, they are excellent:

	~~<nowiki>~~https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFPj8tNVoLQ~~</nowiki>~~		https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFPj8tNVoLQ

Woozle: copypasta of email, which was mostly copypasta from previously published articles/posts

2025-09-11T00:23:29Z

copypasta of email, which was mostly copypasta from previously published articles/posts

New page

Hi W:

Well, JO is an annoying smart ass, and he's right that Trump is heavy handed. But, believe me, the universities have gone crazy and the science funding process is broken, in two ways. It is monopolistic, for one thing, which is really bad for the intellectual diversity that is essential for good science, and the indirect cost process has bloated the universities' bureaucracy. The ideological capture of Duke, for example, hit me in the George Floyd era. Here is my experience in 2020:

'''Systemic racism in higher education, a petition'''

My personal Rip-Van-Winkle moment arrived in the summer of 2020, at the peak of public ''angst'' surrounding police shootings of blacks. It came in the form of a circulating petition/op-ed, that ''Science'' (one of the two leading general-science journals) had apparently agreed to publish, about combating systemic racism in STEM. I first heard about it from an email circulated to the faculty: "''Dear [Department] faculty: Please see below the announcement about a commentary in Science (attached) to which you should consider lending your voice. Best wishes..."''

After I read the petition, I was struck by three things: First, the issue—a rather hysterical reaction to the George Floyd killing and the riots that followed—was totally unrelated to anything remotely academic, let alone to the mission of our department. It was a completely inappropriate cause for any ''collective'' action from the university. Second, the claim of ''systemic racism'' already struck me as specious; I had explained why in an article a year or so previously, before the idea became fashionable. Third, I could see no evidence at Duke University for any of the racial crimes alleged. Indeed, the only demonstrable ''systemic'' racism took the form of "diversity," "equity," and "affirmative action" preferences happily accorded to women and people of color.

I reacted with a "Reply all" memo as follows: "Dear [Chair]: If there is a 'disagree' column, I would be inclined to sign-up. The cited 'diversity' study is questionable as is the whole idea of 'systemic racism.'" I also added a link to my "systemic racism" piece.

The first responses, which were supportive, came from several faculty who all wished to remain anonymous (one even asked that I not use his university email address to reply). I was horrified to find my colleagues intimidated by their own department, too afraid to publicly express perfectly reasonable dissent. I soon found that their fear was justified. When my objection became more widely known, I was accused of "racist dogma" and being a "bully." I was also apparently guilty of ignoring the "mountains of evidence" (unspecified) for "persistent systemic racism." I was told that my "willfully ignorant perspective is not welcome" and (devastatingly!) "You will be on the wrong side of history." A cultural revolution (with Marxist characteristics, one might say) had occurred.

<nowiki>--------------------</nowiki>

This is from a much longer post:

<nowiki>https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2021/07/30/the-multiversity-and-its-discontents-the-evolution-of-a-fatal-flaw/</nowiki>

And on the funding issue:

<nowiki>https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2025/08/12/duke-turns-scientists-into-salesmen/</nowiki>
{| class="wikitable"
|
|Duke Turns Scientists into Salesmen - Minding The Campus

Duke University's School of Medicine is preparing to dock the salaries of tenured faculty who fail to bring in enough research grant money—a move that undermines one of academia's most sacred job protections. Under the policy, basic science professors who fall short of "minimum expectations" for external funding could see their pay reduced to as [...]

www.mindingthecampus.org
|}
and on the granting system:

<nowiki>https://jamesgmartin.center/2025/04/how-to-judge-a-basic-research-proposal/</nowiki>
{| class="wikitable"
|
|How to Judge a Basic-Research Proposal - jamesgmartin.center

How to Judge a Basic-Research Proposal Academic science is being funded incorrectly. Here's an idea to fix it.

jamesgmartin.center
|}
There's lots more so I won't burden you with it. Bottom line

''Wall Street Journal'' letter (3/4/2025)

The University indirect rate should be cut to zero, for at least three reasons:

1.    Grants have become a source of income, so faculty are evaluated by an irrelevant metric: not "What have they found?" but "How much money do they bring in?"

2.    Private foundations give many grants with no overhead. Universities are happy to accept them. Administrators continue to claim that all awards cost them money, even as they urge faculty to get them. (I recall one STEM chair complaining about a productive faculty member who managed to do his work without any external support).

3.    In the absence of overhead, what is to prevent the administration from billing the award holder for the use of university facilities, expenses which could be added to the direct costs? The researcher is surely in a better position than accountants to judge how fair those costs are.

Sincerely,

John Staddon

As for Trump, yes his policy is crude but, frankly, the system is broken and his broadside approach is perhaps the only way to force some restructuring.

Oh, and if you want a reasoned approach by a really good science broadcaster, do look at this (mostly about)climate but talks about science funding at the end). The two interviewers run a series, they are excellent:

<nowiki>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFPj8tNVoLQ</nowiki>

2025/09/09/JERS - Revision history

Woozle at 00:26, 11 September 2025

Woozle at 00:25, 11 September 2025

Woozle: copypasta of email, which was mostly copypasta from previously published articles/posts