Dorian Abbot, an associate professor of geophysics at the University of Chicago, wrote in an op-ed on New York Times exile Bari Weiss’ Substack last weeky that MIT, just a few bocks beyond Harvrad on Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge, Mass., had informed him that his Carlson Lecture was being canceled to “avoid controversy.” He wrote in part,
“In the fall of 2020 I started advocating openly for academic freedom and merit-based evaluations. I recorded some short YouTube videos in which I argued for the importance of treating each person as an individual worthy of dignity and respect. In an academic context, that means giving everyone a fair and equal opportunity when they apply for a position as well as allowing them to express their opinions openly, even if you disagree with them.
“As a result, I was immediately targeted for cancellation, primarily by a group of graduate students in my department. Whistleblowers later revealed that the attack was partially planned and coordinated on the Ford Foundation Fellowship Program listserv by a graduate student in my department….
“That group of graduate students organized a letter of denunciation. It claimed that I threatened the ‘safety and belonging of all underrepresented groups within the department,’ and it was presented to my department chair. The letter demanded that my teaching and research be restricted in a way that would cripple my ability to function as a scientist. A strong statement in support of faculty free expression by University of Chicago President Robert Zimmer put an end to that, and that is where things stood until the summer of 2021.
“On August 12, a colleague and I wrote an op-ed in Newsweek in which we argued that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) as it currently is implemented on campus “violates the ethical and legal principle of equal treatment” and “treats persons as merely means to an end, giving primacy to a statistic over the individuality of a human being.” We proposed instead ‘an alternative framework called Merit, Fairness, and Equality (MFE) whereby university applicants are treated as individuals and evaluated through a rigorous and unbiased process based on their merit and qualifications alone.’ We noted that this would mean an end to legacy and athletic admission advantages, which significantly favor white applicants.
“Shortly thereafter, my detractors developed a new strategy to try to isolate me and intimidate everyone else into silence: They argued on Twitter that I should not be invited to give science seminars at other universities and coordinated replacement speakers. This is an effective and increasingly common way to ratchet up the cost of dissenting because disseminating new work to colleagues is an important part of the scientific endeavor.
“Sure enough, this strategy was employed when I was chosen to give the Carlson Lecture at MIT — a major honor in my field. It is an annual public talk given to a large audience and my topic was “climate and the potential for life on other planets.” On September 22, a new Twitter mob, composed of a group of MIT students, postdocs, and recent alumni, demanded that I be uninvited.
- “The fact that such stories have become an everyday feature of American life should do nothing to diminish how shocking they are, and how damaging they are to a free society,” he writes later in the piece. Yup!
The department head, Professor Robert van der Hilst, huminahumina-ed that “We felt that with the current distractions we would not be in a position to hold an effective outreach event. I made this decision at my discretion, after consulting with faculty and students in the department, and knowing that some might mistake it as an affront on academic freedom — a characterization I do not agree with.” What a weasel. Oh, it was at his discretion! That’s OK, then! He wasn’t bullied by the mob into silencing an academic for advocating points of view that were opposed by progressives! If you shut down speech based on viewpoint discrimination after consulting with others, then it’s no longer shutting down speech! Right! Sure!
- Princeton University will host Abbot’s lecture via Zoom on Oct. 21, the same day it was scheduled to take place at MIT. Princeton professor Robert P. George, who publicly backed Abbot, tweeted that the school had to increase the limit on attendees because of demand. “I’m delighted to report that we’ve expanded the Zoom quota for Dr. Dorian Abbot’s Princeton lecture — the one shockingly and shamefully canceled by MIT — and literally thousands of people have registered,” George said.
- Professor Turley, predictably nauseated at MIT’s conduct, writes, “What occurred at MIT this month is a chilling reminder that even a premier institution will yield to anti-free speech campaigns. The problem is that few department heads or administrators want to risk their own careers in standing between a mob and a controversial speaker. The result is cringing obedience to a rising orthodoxy on our campuses.”
- Take it away, Gina!
4 thoughts on “To Be Fair, MIT Was Probably Corrupted By Being Too Close To Harvard….”
Am I the only person who’s always been creeped out by that MIT building? Why is there something that looks like it’s a Soviet building in the middle of Cambridge, Mass? Is it a nuclear reactor? Could there be a more inhumane style of architecture?
It could be a reactor. Even U of Mich has a “swimming pool” reactor on its North Campus in a building occupied by its Nuclear Engineering Department. These small (2 MWe) reactors were salted around a number of research universities years ago by, I think, AEC at the time. I’d be astounded if one didn’t exist at MIT.
And by the way, I saw a bumper sticker on a car the other day that said “Celebrate Diversity!” I wanted to ask, “Why?” Do we really want diverse engineering departments instead of competent ones? When a plane flies into the ground because of a programming error, do we really want to be told, “Fortunately, the program in question was the result of the efforts of the most diverse programming department we’ve ever had! Let’s celebrate!”
Maybe I am slow, but this phenomenon seems to be a form of ad hominem fallacy brought to life:
We don’t like you, so we will dismiss your thoughts without considering them (or even allowing them to be considered).