I wondered why you referred to it as an “organised social media campaign”, but then your cited references made that clear. In a way, I get it (though I'm not in/from the US). They think they are trying to redress the balance of past bias so that races previously affected negatively now no longer have that hurdle. But Dr Wang’s point was something different. What is disgraceful about their attitude is they don’t want to acknowledge the problem, which is NOT racism, but the fact that some folks are still disadvantaged despite getting this med school entry concession. So, you’d think they’d be looking for solutions as to how to help them bridge that gap for the sake of the betterment of all. Instead, they just want to score some kind of virtue-signalling points. (BTW, cute little boy!)
The elephant in the room is the role of women in almost every single instance of attacks on people expressing the wrong opinion.
In a free society, everybody should be able to openly debate ideas in a civil manner. And yet, the people who are for censorship because of "hurt feelings" are overwhelmingly women. It's almost always women who are triggered and need safe spaces. I'm afraid science, medicine, and rule of law itself will not survive the growing cadre of single, childless, women.
Here is another famous instance of a math paper about male/female differences getting retracted because of female activists.
Thank you for writing this summary. Very akin to what Richard Sander wrote about mismatch in law schools and the effect of affirmative action on law school classes, graduation rates, passage, attrition from corporate law firms etc. You are not allowed to tell the truth about race in this country, even with supporting data-c.f. Charles Murray.
“Identity politics” are evil. Jesus taught the opposite of identity politics. Thankfully, he already won. Happy Easter a day late!
The ‘race’ to the bottom is running apace!
Good for Dr Wang, I hope he wins his case.
I wondered why you referred to it as an “organised social media campaign”, but then your cited references made that clear. In a way, I get it (though I'm not in/from the US). They think they are trying to redress the balance of past bias so that races previously affected negatively now no longer have that hurdle. But Dr Wang’s point was something different. What is disgraceful about their attitude is they don’t want to acknowledge the problem, which is NOT racism, but the fact that some folks are still disadvantaged despite getting this med school entry concession. So, you’d think they’d be looking for solutions as to how to help them bridge that gap for the sake of the betterment of all. Instead, they just want to score some kind of virtue-signalling points. (BTW, cute little boy!)
Good luck to Dr. Wang. One should not be fired for publishing an argument. Absurd.
The elephant in the room is the role of women in almost every single instance of attacks on people expressing the wrong opinion.
In a free society, everybody should be able to openly debate ideas in a civil manner. And yet, the people who are for censorship because of "hurt feelings" are overwhelmingly women. It's almost always women who are triggered and need safe spaces. I'm afraid science, medicine, and rule of law itself will not survive the growing cadre of single, childless, women.
Here is another famous instance of a math paper about male/female differences getting retracted because of female activists.
https://chicagomaroon.com/26248/news/university-professors-involved-retraction-controve/
Thank you for writing this summary. Very akin to what Richard Sander wrote about mismatch in law schools and the effect of affirmative action on law school classes, graduation rates, passage, attrition from corporate law firms etc. You are not allowed to tell the truth about race in this country, even with supporting data-c.f. Charles Murray.
Brilliant piece!!