Achieving utopia requires fundamental transformation. Nowhere is this more true than in education. As one of the Founding Fathers of oligarchical collectivism wisely noted,
“He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future.”
That’s why Chicago Public Schools are planning a curriculum that teaches literally every subject through the prism of liberal racial grievance ideology.
But controlling the future by controlling education extends beyond brainwashing children trapped in government schools. Universities also have important duties to The State in this regard. We recently saw how math can be exploited to advance the official ideology. Lysenkoism can also be applied to the physical sciences, as with feminist biology:
The University of Wisconsin-Madison is looking for a particular kind of biologist: a feminist one. The university has set up a fellowship, administered by its women’s studies department, for life sciences research. While it may sound strange for a social sciences department to host a biologist, the researchers in charge of the new fellowship are hoping to make it more of a norm.
That it will be. Nothing anywhere will go uncommandeered by liberal ideologues.
Scholars have long talked about how gender bias [i.e., failure to take into account leftwing gender ideology] affects biology research. … Just this month, Popular Science reported on the problems behind neuroscience studies purporting to find “hardwired” differences between men’s and women’s brains.
Acknowledgment of these hardwired differences is a thought crime. Larry Summers was purged from Harvard merely for mentioning scientists who believe the male brain is inherently better suited to pursuits like math and physics.
A sympathetic Popular Science interviewed Janet Hyde, who directs UW-Madison’s Center for Research on Gender and Women and is an administrator of the fellowship. Where we once had Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison, we now have the likes of Ms. Hyde. What she lacks in comprehension of physical reality she more than makes up in political correctness. Here she defines the field in question:
“Feminist biology is a couple things. One is that it’s a critique of past gender bias in biology. So it’s pointing at the problems that have existed with the theories or the methods in traditional biology. And then the second part is that it’s creating new research, new topics, new methods, new theories that remove the gender bias and take women into account fairly.”
That is, it is biology through the lens of liberal ideology. This is already the norm in the liberal arts.
“I think what’s happened is feminist analysis has been integrated in some fields really well. You know, in the English department, it’s a whole subfield. In the history department, it’s a whole subfield. It’s partly integrated into psychology. We started in psychology, which is my field, back in the 1970s. And it just hasn’t progressed as much in biology. But what we’re aiming to do is create a whole new generation of people who will pursue these approaches.”
Did you think hard sciences pertain to objective reality and are therefore immune from politically correct B.S.? Guess again:
“I think part of the reason is that many scientists believe that science is very objective and factual. It’s a wonderful aspiration, but it’s actually not true. You know, any scientist has his or her own point of view and there are things like confirmation bias. We want to confirm our own theories and so on.”
That’s the job of feminist biologists: to confirm their own theories. Among the most cherished of these is the belief that there is no difference between men and women. That these differences are obvious won’t stop moonbats from denying them.
“There are lots of phenomena in biology and psychology that seem really obvious and that’s why we do research, to see if those obvious things actually are true. An example I actually give is that it’s obvious that the sun rotates around the Earth because every morning you see it rise in the east and every evening you see it setting in the west. So some things that seem intuitively obvious actually aren’t right when you have better science to test the idea.”
As we have seen from the global warming hoax, sufficient government funding can provide scientific support for any theory, no matter how preposterous, and no matter how obviously our direct experience contradicts it.
Treasure all the great scientific advances this country has produced in the past, because there aren’t going to be many more of them unless the ideological gangrene that is spreading through every branch of our civilization is arrested and destroyed.
On a tip from Shawn R. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.