STEM fields are next on the SJW hitlist. Beware, engineers.

STEM fields are next on the SJW hitlist. Beware, engineers. By Stuart Reges.

Jordan Peterson recently tweeted that, “The STEM fields are next on the SJW hitlist. Beware, engineers.” I’m convinced that Peterson is correct and I feel that my ongoing case has allowed me to see a likely avenue of attack from those who support the equity agenda.

They will characterize any discussion of sex differences, no matter how calm and rational, as a form of gender harassment which in turn constitutes sexual harassment. In other words, if you dare to discuss the science of sex differences — even at a university — there’s a good chance that you’ll be accused of violating US law. …

Is it sexual harassment to discuss this article? Might be soon.

The mere mention of James Damore awakens a tribal response from supporters of the equity agenda. Saying anything positive about Damore is considered a form of harassment. …

You’re only allowed to say negative things about this guy … it’s the law?

Claire Lehmann … in a recent Quillette article entitled “Redefining Sexual Harassment,” … explained that the report was able to cite alarmingly high percentages of women who were harassed because the most common form of harassment reported is gender harassment, which can be something as saying that “women don’t make good supervisors.” …

What about bland statistical truths like “the distributions of men and women’s IQs are slightly different”? Presumably that too is on the way to becoming illegal, or at least will get you fired. Read on.

Consider, for example, this section from the primary web page on sexual harassment hosted by the EEOC (the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission):

Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general.

Does it go the other way? Are generalizations about men firing-offenses too in SJW world, or is all one way traffic like on “racism”?

As an example, consider the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis, which posits that, although men and women may have the same average ability in many areas, men tend to have a higher variance, leading to more outliers at the extremes (the tails of the distribution). The theory is often summarized as “more idiots and more geniuses” among men versus women. Quillette readers will recall that a peer-reviewed article on the subject that had been accepted for publication was withdrawn because of the controversy it generated.

This raises an important question. Is discussing this theory a form of gender harassment and, thus, a form of sexual harassment? When Larry Summers mentioned it in a public discussion of gender imbalances in STEM, many called for him to resign as President of Harvard, which he did soon after.

James Damore also discussed this idea in his ten-page memo on gender differences and the National Labor Relations Board released their opinion that his discussion of this theory did in fact constitute sexual harassment:

Statements about immutable traits linked to sex — such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution — were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding effort to cloak comments with “scientific” references and analysis, and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers. …

Yep. This post you are reading now is illegal in some parts of the western world. Definitely not safe for work. You can download all the porn and obscenity you want, but some truths are unmentionable. And that’s progress.

I expect to see more of this going forward as the #MeToo movement broadens out. Recommendation 3 from the national academies report is to, “Move beyond legal compliance to address culture and climate.” The next phase of the culture war will include attempts to silence any discussion of sex differences within the STEM disciplines. As Jordan Peterson said, “Beware, engineers.”