Many institutions and companies are finally recognizing that “good” discrimination, better known as diversity, equity, and inclusion , in admissions and hiring is counterproductive as well as often illegal. In contrast, federal agencies remain in thrall to DEI in evaluating and making grants for scientific research.
Government agencies that fund STEMM, which is science , technology , engineering, mathematics, and medicine, such as the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health, demand DEI affirmation in proposals and want to see tangible plans to further DEI once the work begins.
Deemphasizing merit in favor of race, gender, and other demographics can matter a great deal. Consider the Manhattan Project that ended World War II by developing the first atomic bombs. As we explained in a prior article , the bombs obviated the need for Operation Downfall, the invasion of the home islands of Japan, and saved as many as 10 million lives. What if instead of enlisting the nation’s best scientific minds, leaders of the project had let DEI considerations stall their efforts or dilute the knowledge base? If the project had failed or succeeded too late to forestall the invasion, many millions would have perished needlessly.
The United States is preeminent in technological innovation, but diverting funding to some ideological, social, or political agenda only diminishes our potential to remain a leader. Examples include symbolic but frivolous research and burdening the grant process with requirements unrelated to the science. We see the latter in the NSF’s emphasizing DEI requirements and statements and the NIH’s highly ideological “ Notice of Interest in Diversity .”
DEI statements, currently, a ubiquitous demand in grant proposals, amount to what the courts consider “compelled speech.” Projects are severely downgraded for insufficient adherence to the DEI dogma and language, as documented in nauseating detail by the University of California. The Biden administration has even mandated that this illegal practice be adopted by all federal agencies. However, the mandated “good” discrimination based on race and other demographics violates many civil rights laws, a consideration that is frequently ignored.
The matter of public trust in government and education is not trivial, and the mania for DEI diminishes it. The public understands that the criteria employed to service DEI are arbitrary (read: hypocritical). What genetic content, skin color, or ethnicity defines a minority? Such distinctions are highly susceptible to corruption and misuse. Already, many public institutions are mistrusted, Congress being the worst with single-digit approval ratings. Without strong public support for STEMM funding, political bickering and horse trading will likely diminish research allocations. This will damage U.S. competitiveness in STEMM fields , especially vis-à-vis China.
DEI also wastes resources. Conforming to the arcane requirements of DEI statements can consume up to 50% of the time spent writing grant applications. This steals time from considering the underlying research being proposed and ensnares other parties. The NIH, for example, sometimes requires that researchers’ mentors and third-party advisers be included in diversity plans .
Finally, there are no credible studies that show the science or outcomes are improved by the imposition of DEI on funding and hiring decisions. (Anecdotally, we have seen quite the opposite in practice.) On the other hand, the sole group that clearly does benefit is the DEI bureaucracy itself.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Both of us are STEMM graduates with advanced degrees who have had the privilege of working with many luminaries in our fields, including Nobel laureates. In our experience, most significant advances come from unique insights. A single talented person or a tiny team can out-innovate large groups. We are examples: Mr. Fillat is the co-inventor of the relational, and object-oriented, database, and Dr. Miller is the co-discoverer of a critical enzyme in the influenza virus . DEI and its predecessor, affirmative action, have never been shown to play a role in advancing science, and there is no basis to believe that will change.
We must stop undermining one of the key elements of America’s success. STEMM, more than most other societal undertakings, must focus on merit as the primary consideration in admissions, recruiting, hiring, and research grants. If a focus on merit produces disfavored demographics, let us return to the root cause: poor education. There is ample evidence that superior education benefits every demographic group. The devaluation of merit as a stopgap simply impairs all STEMM endeavors.
Andrew I. Fillat spent his career in technology venture capital and information technology companies. Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Glenn Swogger distinguished fellow at the American Council on Science and Health. They were undergraduates together at M.I.T.
Most Popular
Comments / 0