Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist and cosmologist is also an author. Like many in the sciences, Krauss is an atheist. He has even written articles to undermine other people’s belief in God.
Krauss published an op/ed at the Wall Street Journal towards the end of the month that sought to demolish a different type of dogma, the secular canon for diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). Krauss starts with a provocative title — “A Scientist’s Sexuality Shouldn’t Matter”. He then suggests that certain demographic data collected by the federal government on postgraduate science students are unnecessary.
Krauss acknowledges that at one time, the federal government’s measurement of demographic data about individuals who pursue careers in STEM fields (science, tech, engineering and math) served its purpose.
He writes that “the sex- and race-related data, which has been collected in the field since 1975, was initially helpful in efforts to overcome obstacles to women and minorities within academia.” “These barriers have mostly disappeared, but quotas have continued to be used and preferential hiring has persisted.”
Krauss says that the National Science Foundation, the federal agency that compiles all of this information, has a strong commitment to identity politics. This is true even though the Supreme Court is likely to strike down policies based on race in university admissions.
Last week, a pilot project to track “sexuality and gender identity” was announced. Participants will be asked to “currently define” themselves as either male or female, as “transgender”, or as “a different term”. They will also be asked whether they are a “gender minority”, a “sexual minority” and as “LGBT+.” And whether they accept any of the labels, including “Non-binary”, “Gender nonconforming”, “Genderfluid”, and “Genderque . . “Gay, lesbian, gay, bisexual or any other orientation.”
Krauss argues that this information is not only irrelevant but also violates privacy. The sexual preferences of a person have nothing to do with whether or not they are a good scientist, especially when you consider that the LGBTQ community is a very small minority.
Krauss says that in his time, he worked with gay scientists but that it didn’t really matter what they were sexually because their work was done. They didn’t focus on sexual orientation. He wonders then what the NSF’s focus on sexual identity should lead to. Charles Barber, NSF’s director of research and development, states that asking students their sexual preferences “gives us the opportunity to create opportunities and broaden the participation to yield equitable results for the LGBTQIA+ and other communities.”
Krauss wonders if this sudden focus on sexual minorities could lead to quotas. He also asks: “If so, then how would you even determine the ‘correct proportion’ of ‘queer,’ or genderqueer,’ scientists?” The NSF will find that the percentage of people who use these labels are so small, that the data they gather is statistically useless.
Albert Mohler, a Dr. at the University of Arizona, believes that surveys will lead directly to quotas. In his analysis of Krauss’ op-ed, he says that the federal “intends [to] use [the data], and that use will be political.” It’ll probably come down to quotas, or something similar. Lawrence Krauss also basically argues in this article that some of the categories here aren’t even meaningful when compared to science.
What about other minorities among scientists, if the NSF cares so much about ensuring that we have enough LGBTQ Cultists? Krauss also addresses this question.
Why not ask about religion or politics if the NSF wants to ask about sexual orientation and gender identity? These would also likely produce demographically skewed outcomes. Scientists are over-represented by atheists and Jews, while conservatives and evangelical Christians are under-represented. “I wonder what DEI officers would think of that.”
Oof. What a harsh word from an anti-theist, who is probably also on the left.
We all know the truth. Krauss describes them as “the loudest of the new minorities.” The left, and in particular the Biden administration are determined to pander to the LGBTQ crowd. The far-left bureaucrats are only interested in the LGBTQ crowd, and Krauss is to be commended for pointing this out.