Can Social Justice Go Too Far? Recently a professor gave a presentation about how men are being discriminated against in physics due to ideology and not merit. His talk was pulled from the CERN website due to being offensive. My opinion is that social justice is great when it helps to promote equality of opportunity. But when we try to regulate for outcome we only end up discriminating against people based on race or gender, among other identities. This means that sometimes the drive for social justice can push us into creating similar laws but in different ways. We end up in a society promoting people based not on merit but on appearance.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Can social justice go too far. I think the obvious answer is, of course, anything can go too far too much of a good thing can be bad personally,
Chel Justice, in my opinion, is a good thing when it creates equality of opportunity. People shouldn't be restricted from jobs from educations from any kind of program simply because of the way they look where they come from what they believe. People should have an equal access to opportunity, but when people start advocating for equal outcome, they start putting people who probably should be a job in a
in a certain job, and that could be dangerous and it can be bad for everybody and it actually results in more discrimination when social justice,
It's too hard, you actually end up
ng racism and sexism. So, yes, I think it's fair to say it can go too far. Recent
at CERN one of the largest scientific research centers in the world, a man gave up
temptation, which was deemed highly offensive in it. He presented evidence that he claims showed men were
being discriminated against in the Sciences, Sir, and remove
with the slides and data from their website, because it was upsetting
any of the young women who are at the presentation and they've issued a statement about it. It's rather controversial-
and here we have another way in which social justice can go too far. If this data is factually accurate,
then why remove it? You don't want to hide facts simply because it hurts peoples feelings. This can be bad for everybody. So there's my question: can it go too far and I've got more examples, but first, let's start by looking at what happened at CERN from the BBC Cern scientist
Physics built by man, not by invitation at a workshop organized by CERN
Professor Alessandro Stream of university, said that physics was invent.
And built by man. It's not by invitation. He said. Male scientists were
discriminated against because of ideology rather than merit. You,
speaking at a workshop in Geneva on gender and high energy physics, professors,
Show me since defended his comments, saying he was only presenting the facts. Cern the European Nuclear Research center
you miss presentation as highly offensive the center, which discovered the Higgs boson.
Twelve has removed slides used in a talk from its website, in line with a code of conduct that does not tolerate personal attacks and insults.
Stream Yahoo regularly works. At CERN presented the results of a study of published research papers from an online library. He told his audience of young, predominantly female, physicists that his results proved. That physics is not sexist against women. However, the truth does not matter because it
It's part of a political battle coming from outside, and it is entirely possible he's wrong. People can take studies and facts and present them in such a way to try and mislead people into believing things that may or may not be true. But if forty presented was true or if at least
The data was factually accurate, regardless of how he presented them removing.
From the website is not an argument,
Thus, we see scientific data being removed from a research center website because it hurt peoples feelings. This is bad. This is not a good
we want to know more about the world. We want to advance
understanding well in advance science, but we can't do that if we're going to hide information because we're worried about how people feel- and this in my opinion, is a really good example of when so she
this can go too far. He produced a series of graphs which he claimed showed that women were high.
It's over man whose research was cited more than other scientists in their publications, which is an indication of higher quality. He also part of the data that he claimed showed that mailing for
Now researchers were equally cited at the start of their careers, but men scored progressively better, as their careers progressed. Professor streaming appointed to behavioral research, which he suggested may account for the disparity one study. He told his audience indicated that men prefer working with things and women prefer working with people and and uh
He claimed suggested that there was a difference even in children before any social influence. Strom, yes, said these
agents may not be fully right, but the opposite.
Assumption of identical brains is ideology as evidence of discrimination.
Cancer male researchers Stroomi acclaimed at Oxford, university extends exam times for women's benefit, and ITALY offers free or cheaper university for female students. He also
that he himself was overlooked for a job that he was more qualified for, which was given to a woman. Now, personally,
Like the steel approach, the opposite of strong man, you want to argue against the strongest position of your opponents. He's claiming
that men are more likely to be cited than men, women and that's proof at the matter more qualified. Arguably, you could also say
proof that women are being discriminated against because they're not being cited as much. It's not a strong enough data point on its own to make this argument and then
see that streaming himself claims to have been discriminated against. That's an anecdote. We don't know if that's true, there's no data behind that, and it's fair to say that he is personally biased. It is not hard for someone to take a study and then presented data and claim it proves there their conclusion. So it's possible this.
Is a biased output, but the evidence within the story that CERN was willing to remove the data because it was offensive and not because
is wrong and they didn't even argue against it. I think shows that this is actually a bit ideological and stream yeah. Maybe he may be at least somewhat correct,
or just wait. A physicist at Imperial College London, who was at the meeting, told BBC News that professor stream is analysis, was simplistic drawing ideas,
been long been discredited, it was really upsetting at those workshops. She said
there were young women and men, exchanging ideas and their experiences on how to encourage more women into the subject and to combat discrimination in their careers. Then this man gets up saying all this horrible stuff,
I don't understand how such a forward thinking organization, like CERN, which does so much to promote diversity in research, could have invited him to speak to young
well just starting off in their research careers when his ideas are so well known. A lot of people argue against scientific research because of the political outcomes they say
Why should you have this data? And what are you going to do with it? And whether or not it's true, it will dissuade women from getting into physics. We want as many people as possible to want to work wherever they want, but they should choose to work where they want. There are a lot of people who think that we should be actively telling women. They should do this job instead of letting them do the job if they want to
I don't think we should be trying to shift our culture and society to tell men and women. They should do certain jobs. People talk
How gender roles are bad, their archaic and they shouldn't exist. Well, if that's the case, then you don't need to tell women to do anything if
and wants to become a physicist by all means. Let her do so. Let her take the take the time to go to school. Do the studies get cited whatever she wants to do? If a man doesn't want to be a scientist, if you want to be a stay at home parent by all means, you should be able to choose.
To do that, but I feel right now. Alot of our society is advocating for people to do certain jobs in a state
sir in which currently has its first ever woman director General said that the organizers were not aware of the content of the talk prior to the workshops earn as a culture.
Diverse organization bringing together people from dozens of nationalities. It is a place where everyone is welcome and
all have the same opportunities regardless of ethnicity, beliefs, gender or sexual orientation. It's at when the BBC contacted professor streaming out. He said it
people say that physics is sexist. Physics is racist. I made
some simple checks and discovered that it wasn't that it was becoming sexist against men and said so. This is hardly
and a lot of what I said. It's just my personal opinion. It's fair to say that, based on historical disparities between races and nationalities and genders, it is likely that you will see certain trends per.
Test if someone grows up in a wealthy neighborhood there more like
to have access to good schools and they're more likely to be set on a path that will lead them to be successful. Someone who grows up in a poor area has less advantage is one of the problems with
of the equality of outcome. Stuff. That I see is that Look Serena Williams yeah the whole,
ask a couple weeks ago. She is not an oppressed,
she's a millionaire with massive influence. She is one of the most influential people in the world should we give her special benefits simply because of her race or gender. In my opinion, the answer is no, absolutely not because she is extremely powerful.
She doesn't need the advantage. There are poor people of all races. There are people of all genders who do need help
to alleviate some disadvantage or disparity so that they can succeed. But let's look at
modern scientific data, because there's
the reason why we might see disparities in certain fields, especially physics, something I've talked about Before- is the variability hypothesis. It's also known.
Greater male mail, variability hypothesis states that males display greater variability and traits than females do is often been discussed in relation to cognitive ability, whereas
observe that human males are more likely than females to have a very high or very low intelligence. The sex difference in the very ability of intelligence has been discussed since at least Charles Darwin. Sex differences in very ability are present in many abilities and traits, including physical, psychological and genetic,
it is not only found in humans but in other sexually selected species as well, and they show this image it's as bell curve. Comparisons based in sex differences in means and standard deviations for arm service, vocational aptitude, battery some tests and total scores and four armed forces qualification test, scores. Women, picker of men, Blucher we can see on the higher on
the spectrum there are more men and on the lower end of the spectrum, there are also more men when we were talking about competition when we're talking about people being peer, reviewed or cited in journals, and we're talking about people being good at math, we're going to go to the cream of the crop the best of the best, and we can see that
outcome, will never be equal because some men are just going to be better than some women, even though, on average, men and women are pretty equal. We're talking about people getting jobs based on merit, and that means there's going to be a very high density of very intelligent men relative to the amount of intelligent women. But the same is true in the background. There's gonna be a lot of really dumb men who are
struggle and not do well overall. So in a previous video, I made this point, but I'll make it again here. If you have one hundred jobs that are available
and you have one thousand men and one thousand women, it is likely that almost every job will be filled by a
because the men are going to be slightly higher in skill than the women just because men tend to have higher variability
most, men will never make the cut most women will never make the cut, and even though the average woman, the average
are relatively the same inability, there's more male idiots. Who aren't going make the cut then female one.
But there are more male geniuses who will make the cut than female ones. And thus you are like
see on equal outcomes. More men will be scientists than women, but going a little bit more into the very ability hypothesis. I've got this study from twenty ten. It says sex differences in math intensive feels the abstract reads. Despite impressive employment gains in many fields of science, women remain underrepresented in fields requiring intensive use of mathematics. Here we discussed three potential explanations for women's under representation: hey male female mathematical and spatial ability, gaps, be sex discrimination and see sex differences in career preferences and lifestyle choices. Synthesizing findings from psychology and a chronology sociology economics and education leads to the conclusion that, among a combination of interrelated factors, preference and choices will freely made and constrained are the most significant because of women's under representation. So this is just one
study that I've pulled up making its arguments, but I think it's fair to say that yes, sex discrimination, it does play a role in women being restricted from certain jobs. If people are going to assume that men tend to be smarter, they're- probably just going to choose man because of the stereotype and because of the assumption and that that sucks, because, like I say
We want to make sure everyone has an opportunity to do the job and they shouldn't be discriminated against. It's really hard to limit that discrimination, because when you go too far, you end up discriminating against other people based on their gender and that just doesn't make sense. Throughout history, people have been restricted access to certain jobs into academia for reasons that make no sense because of discrimination because of stereotypes, an assumption, and that means that great talents great minds, great people, weren't able to discover the things they should have discovered to accomplish the feat they should have for arbitrary reasons, and this is why equality of opportunity is so important and that's why social justice can be a really good thing, because we haven't reached perfect equality of opportunity. We haven't
there are there still racism there still germination, it's not as bad as it used to be absolutely not. But when you push too far, you create more discrimination. It makes no sense to remove a great man from a position or not give them the opportunity simply because there are men because then you're
getting more inefficiency and you restricting great minds and great thinkers for arbitrary reasons, you can't
and racism by being racist. You can't end sexism by being sexist. It just doesn't make sense so again, whatever the solution is, I certainly don't have it, but let me know what you think in the comments below will keep the conversation going. How do you feel about all this? How do you feel about the guy at CERN? Is he right? Was he discriminated against is physics discriminating against men comment below will keep the
station going, you can follow me on Twitter at TIM, cast, stay tuned new videos every day at four hundred pm and I'm going to have more videos up on my second channel Youtube: dot com, Slash TIM cast new starting at six hundred pm. Thank you all so much for hanging out.
Do you want like that.
Transcript generated on 2019-10-27.