Update: I have decided to restore this post with some minor edits. I will write more about my decision to do so in another post, since I think the topic of self censorship in terms of the social structure of academia is an interesting topic.
—
Hrmph.
I’m frustrated. As I talked about before, I’m working on my NSF Graduate Fellowship proposal. Part of this process is getting a ton of students and professors to critique your paper. I honestly shouldn’t be too annoyed, because overall the reviews of my proposal have been very good. But a critique that I got from many – but not the majority of – my reviewers happens to be a major pet peeve of mine.
I was too “dogmatic.”
The offending part was the opening paragraphs of my personal statement. I’ll post it here for full disclosure:
“College was a bit of a culture shock for me. I grew up in a nurturing environment that embraced science – Bill Nye the Science Guy was the program of choice, and competing in Science Olympiad was cool. But when I moved a tad farther south into the heartland of Indiana for my undergraduate education at Purdue University, I quickly realized this was not a universal truth. The attitude toward evolution was terrible amongst non-scientists on campus. One of the local churches was a major donor to the infamous Creation Museum in Kentucky, activists handed out anti-evolution tracts on the main quad, and anti-evolution letters in the campus newspaper were commonplace. I was shocked to learn that even many of my fellow biology majors did not accept evolution.
The fact that so many people didn’t share my fascination with evolutionary theory troubled me on a personal level. This wasn’t simply someone disagreeing with how I earned a paycheck: Learning about evolution was the key event that led me to adopt a skeptical, naturalistic worldview. I felt like people were rejecting the ideals that shape my humanist ethics. I wanted others to understand my feelings of awe as I contemplate the universe, or how lucky I feel to have evolved the necessary traits to contemplate the universe in the first place. I quickly learned that many of these people still valued science, but never had the opportunity to become educated about evolution.
That realization motivated my passion for science communication and mentoring. […]”
Now, I’m not claiming that’s perfect. It’s a draft that can obviously still do with some tweaking. And I realize I have to walk on egg shells and be politically correct if I actually want to get funded. It doesn’t matter if I’m being honest or if I’m technically right if I happen to get three Christian biologists who read this as a belligerent attack against their belief. Which is apparently how it came off to my reviewers.
Fine. Whatever. I don’t read it that way, but I guess I can see how you can read it to be negative. I thought I was being as diplomatic as I could possibly be, but apparently it’s still not diplomatic enough – I’ll have to change some of the wording.
If we would have stopped at “This could potentially be interpreted negatively,” I would not have been writing this post. But it didn’t. Some of my reviewers, including a professor, insisted that I was “dogmatic,” and “wanted people to believe in evolution just because that’s what you happen to believe in.” That rejecting evolution isn’t a “terrible” attitude. That I shouldn’t be “shocked” that some biology majors don’t believe in evolution, because not everyone has to be like me. That wanting to help people learn about evolution means I thought they were stupid.
That I came off as, I quote, “Dawkins-esque.”
I think that was supposed to be negative remark, but I took it as a compliment.
I fumed the whole bus ride home, wishing I could have responded then and there – but a meeting for a review of your work is not the place for a philosophical debate. But these are things I hear over and over – not just from professors and classmates I like and respect who accept evolution but think I’m too “dogmatic” about promoting it. Because they’re so common, I feel that it’s important that I address those types of ideas here.
1. Wanting people to adopt an evidence-based view of the universe is not dogmatic. In fact, it’s the very opposite of dogma. I want people to be able to change their minds when confronted with new evidence. Admitting you were wrong is one of the most intellectually honest things you can do. The only “dogmatic” thing about living in reality is that some things are true, and some things are not. You don’t get to flap your arms and start flying through the air just because you wish that was the way the universe works.
2. I don’t want people to “believe in evolution because that’s what I believe in.” I want people to accept evolution because there’s an insurmountable mountain of evidence supporting it. This isn’t a subjective opinion that’s up for debate. I’m not forcing people to think that chocolate ice cream with peanut butter swirls is the best flavor (though it totally is). To deny evolution is either based on ignorance or willful delusion. I know, what mean words. That doesn’t make them less true. People have either not learned about evolution or not had it explained to them well, or they’re people who go and build Creation Museums and think people walked with dinosaurs because of their religious convictions. There may be less hope at getting the latter to accept evolution, but being a science educator is important to me, and I want to tackle the “ignorance” side of that equation.
In my future draft, I plan to explicitly say that I accept evolution because of that mountain of evidence. I thought that would be self-evident to biologist NSF reviewers, but might as well be safe…
3. Rejecting evolution is certainly a “terrible” attitude. Again, why should we pat people on the back for ignoring scientific facts?
4. We don’t give chemistry degrees to people who believe in alchemy. We don’t give aerospace engineering degrees to people who think planes are held up by fairies. We don’t give geology degrees to people who think the Earth is made of chocolate pudding. But we have no problem giving biology degrees to people who think an invisible supernatural being created life, despite it having as much evidence as Puddingology. I should feel shocked that people who reject the fundamental concepts of their field can still successfully earn a degree.
5. I don’t think that everyone who rejects evolution is stupid. I do, however, think they are wrong. Those things are not equivalent. And when ignorance – the lack of information – is the cause of their rejection, that can be fixed. And should be fixed – but apparently it’s dogmatic to think people should be educated.
Why do I even need to have this discussion? Why, if I had proposed educating people about gravity or plate tectonics, would there have been no debate? Why would any other drive to educate be seen as positive, rather than dogmatic? Why are we expected to roll over and simply accept that some people are going to ignore the fact of evolution?
Because religion is protected in our culture. Telling someone they’re wrong is “dogmatic” if it’s contradicting their religious beliefs even if, you know, they’re wrong. Mincing words and avoiding hurt feelings is more important than education and reality.
Religion does not deserve this special status. We don’t have to tiptoe around, pretending the universe bends to their wishes when all of the evidence says otherwise.
Of course, I have to wonder if this whole “dogmatic” thing came up because later in my personal statement I mention my involvement with some secular organizations. They were relevent – I talk about various pro-science events we’ve done, and the organizational and leadership skills I’ve gained from them. Or if it came up because these people aren’t reading my proposal in a vacuum – they all know I’m a strident, outspoken atheist in my free time. Even if I don’t say that in my proposal and I mince words as much as possible, that knowledge still colors their interpretation. Without the atheism side, would my drive to educate about evolution have been a problem? Did my classmates who mentioned teaching students about evolution in their applications get called dogmatic?
I hate that I even have to wonder about it.
138 comments
Eric RoM says:
Oct 29, 2011
To be fair, Jen’s use of “social standing” when she meant “professional standing” in her next post shows that many could learn to use English more gooder.
“Diplomacy” != “kowtowing”.
NK says:
Oct 29, 2011
The problem isn’t that you believe in evolution, or even that you want to convince other people. I believe in evolution and while it’s not a personal pet cause, I generally believe people should be taught that evolution is pretty well proven, not that it’s a subject of debate, because I do believe there’s a mountain of evidence. But it’s not just that you don’t mention the mountain of evidence. It’s that you say this:
“Learning about evolution was the key event that led me to adopt a skeptical, naturalistic worldview. I felt like people were rejecting the ideals that shape my humanist ethics. I wanted others to understand my feelings of awe as I contemplate the universe, or how lucky I feel to have evolved the necessary traits to contemplate the universe in the first place.”
To an objective reader, it looks like you’re saying that the belief in evolution is very important to you and when people reject it, you feel rejected and invalidated, and that therefore you want to go out and make everyone conform to your belief. Because this puts the emphasis on how YOU feel when people don’t agree with you, not (for instance) on the negative consequences for THEM if they don’t understand how things actually work.
The frank fact is, if I wanted to write one of those “atheism is just another brand of religious belief” arguments, I could point to that chunk of sentences right there, because that’s how it comes off. LIke what’s important is not the science itself, but making people believe the same thing you believe because the fact that they don’t makes you feel rejected. It’s not about needing to treat beliefs with kid gloves. It’s that you’re coming across as wanting to do this because creationists make you feel bad.
sc_af4f3773976236ddc573af390b0cb267 says:
Oct 29, 2011
My religion is eating, and Cherry Garcia is my prophet.
Sorry about the weird login. I thought I was signing in as Farcebook.
ormond at lmi. net
abb3w says:
Oct 29, 2011
Jen:
Or an alien foundation set of starting premises, which may be more akin to an involuntary (and thus non-willful) delusional psychosis.
There also may be cases of someone who simply tends to get lost following all the inferential steps in the entirety of the reasoning, and thus consistently finds it more credible when at some point “Goddidit” via (say) intuitive appeal to evolved human agency recognition systems. This is not so much ignorance as stupidity – but not even necessarily stupidity relative to human norms.
Given usual suppositions (scientific OR theist) about human nature, there may also be cases where someone fully understands evolution and believes it is correct, but believes denial would be more socially useful. Rare, I think, and more rarely admitted; but I suppose worth mentioning for completeness.
Ignorance, delusion, stupidity, and some rare lying seem to cover it.
Josh Slocum says:
Oct 29, 2011
And how long have you been a snotty, passive-aggressive snarker who criticizes other people for being rude while you pretend you’re quite nice and reasonable?
DaveG says:
Oct 29, 2011
I agree with the poster who said you have to learn to educate. I admit I’m a bit contempuous toward godbots and their paradigms, and that might not serve me well if I were a science educator. People cling very tightly to their worldviews and can view the attacks as personal. I know I’d be quite agitated if “evidencyness” were fully eradicated. If you’re careful to avoid the appearance of ad hominem attacks, that might be half the battle. To paraphrase a Florida high school science teacher who had to deal with creationist students, “I don’t care if you believe this as long as you understand it”. Very wise words.
sc_af4f3773976236ddc573af390b0cb267 says:
Oct 29, 2011
AND if you’re feeling rejected, why can’t THEY feel rejected? Golden rule and all that…
sc_af4f3773976236ddc573af390b0cb267 says:
Oct 29, 2011
Here we get into Alan Gewirth and the Principle of Generic Consistency. See the wikipedia entry.
hf says:
Oct 29, 2011
Nobody would write, “Learning about evolution was the key event that led me to adopt a Christian worldview,” because that seems like too transparent a lie. The rest of it seems like the default in our society. I’d feel shocked if no successful applications had that kind of pap; more likely the NSF would see it as a plus.
hf says:
Oct 29, 2011
I should point out that even though you described your atheism or naturalistic worldview in a positive way, Christians will still tend to see it as an attack. Greta pointed this out in a recent post.
With that preparation, the rest of the quoted part will make it seem to them like you want to teach atheism to children. That seems like the natural way for real dogmatists to read it.
aspidoscelis says:
Oct 29, 2011
Agreed. Combined with the previous paragraph describing some disdain towards students at Purdue (justified though that disdain may be!) it sounds as though by teaching evolution you want to settle a score rather than help people understand the world. That’s going to raise red flags with people who work in science education. Approaching education with an adversarial viewpoint towards students is not a recipe for success.
RandomReason says:
Oct 29, 2011
Respectfully, this statement is suggestive of rigid thinking and a rather unscientific reluctance to admit fallibility. Rather than simply saying, “oops, I made a mistake”, you are framing it as some interesting sociology phenomenon unrelated to your decision, using detached language (“the topic of self censorship” rather than “my choice to self-censor”).
“Full disclosure” would be posting your entire personal statement. You are framing things here defensively and selectively, in a way that serves your interpretation of what reviewers were reacting to – again, not behavior indicative of an inquiring scientific mindset.
Again, not a particularly scientific approach to inquiry. Rather unprofessional & embarrassing, actually.
Interesting – yet you react with rejection to the notion that you might temper your obviously antagonistic approach to teaching evolution. Rationally inconsistent.
If you sincerely did, you wouldn’t write that here, and you would examine your own prejudices and assumptions. Instead, you use one of the most disrespectful defensive ploys in public discourse (“I’m not saying that Obama is Kenyan, but, unfortunately some people feel it necessary to research the matter.”)
You also know that your reviewers can’t exactly defend themselves online in public debate, so what you are doing here is doubly shameful.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the next version of your defense uses the non-denial trick: “I’m sorry you chose to be offended by what I wrote”.
—-
TL;DR version:
You could choose to take reviewer feedback as constructive, intended to improve your odds of a successful grant submission. Or, you could choose to seek to find blame elsewhere, fail to take responsibility for your own decisions, and make this a public political statement of your own virtue as a poor peon and an assignment of blame to “The Man”.
How you respond is *your* choice.
Appeals to mob emotion and allegations of victimization are not the optimal way to win an academic grant. But they certainly win points on The Internets.
Mike Ducey says:
Oct 29, 2011
As a preface, I want to say I agree with your world view but I offer this in the way of constructive criticism:
I think there are several points where you invite being dismissed by people who may agree that evolution should be generally accepted but who would still reject your proposal. First you call people names. “Terrible” and being “shocked,” describe how you have negative reactions to people with whom you disagree. I have those reactions too but if you want a federal grant to communicate with “those people” you might not want to tell the grant committee that you feel shocked to meet “terrible” people.
Secondly you frame evolution as a means of promoting your secular world view:
“The fact that so many people didn’t share my fascination with evolutionary theory troubled me on a personal level. This wasn’t simply someone disagreeing with how I earned a paycheck: Learning about evolution was the key event that led me to adopt a skeptical, naturalistic worldview.”
That may be true but it is death for a grant proposal. No review committee would approve it because they know that some bible belt congressman or senator would find your proposal and scream about how the federal government, in cahoots with the devil, is out to destroy faith in America, blah blah blah. And they cut your funding. Promoting your secular world view may be a result of good education programs on evolution but don’t tell anyone.
Grant proposals are public and political… and the only beliefs you can express are those of the “I love puppies!” variety. (ok you can say science is neat!)
BrotherGilburt says:
Oct 29, 2011
You said: “The fact that so many people didn’t share my fascination with evolutionary theory troubled me on a personal level,” but I’d condider changing it slightly. What people are and are not fascinated by is totally and understandably subjective. What’s truly troubling is that people are denying the objective fact that is Evolution.
kohldamunga says:
Oct 29, 2011
Great. Maybe you don’t realise, but I think “Dogmatic” is indeed the right word, the perfect word, that describes someone’s blind faith in a theory.
But I guess this ‘peer reviewing’ process does work indeed…. :)
By the way, from what I have read so far, I too think your belief in the theory of evolution is dogmatic and religious. Take it as a compliment.
bluejohn says:
Oct 29, 2011
Random reason has it phrased correctly:
“Appeals to mob emotion and allegations of victimization are not the optimal way to win an academic grant. But they certainly win points on The Internets.”
We have seen this approach in other realms (i.e. elevatorgate). The vast majority of academics are evolution friendly, particularly in the sciences. But you are correct in pointing out that not all scientist are skeptics or rational.
evodevo says:
Oct 29, 2011
What Ing:Od Wet Rust said !! Reasonable, non-dogmatic people can’t see this because they know no theology. Fundie Christians (and to some extent, Jews and Muslims) can’t accept anything except a physical Eden with a real Adam and Eve, 6,000 years ago. If that is not true, then there was no Original Sin and the whole edifice falls. Even old-earth creationists get the stink eye.
mikecline says:
Oct 29, 2011
Are the boobs who refuse to flaty discredit anti-evolutionism your peers? Seems not. Don’t ignore them, but also don’t worry about them reviewing your work.
echidna says:
Oct 29, 2011
Jen,
Try removing this section:
I wouldn’t have used the word “dogmatic”, but in this section you do come across as if you wish to proselytise.
After removing the above, what’s left tells the story that you are shocked that people who should know better don’t accept evolution, and you have found out that lack of education is key. This is what drives you.
This is what you want your reader to focus on. Don’t leave them thinking that you couldn’t deal with someone who is religious.
Eric RoM says:
Oct 29, 2011
Here’s the crap part of Jen’s statement:
“The fact that so many people didn’t share my fascination with evolutionary theory troubled me on a personal level”
I’m not “fascinated” by evolutionary theory: it’s mildly interesting, but lacks a mesmerizing “fascination”.
Just Me says:
Oct 29, 2011
“I’m not “fascinated” by evolutionary theory: it’s mildly interesting, but lacks a mesmerizing “fascination”.”
—–
Uh, oh another intelligence spewer? Lock and Load!
But you know it’s not a theory, right? There is SO much circumstantial evidence it and Billions of years HAVE to be undisputed fact.
ORGANIZE AND EVANGELIZE!
(or don’t and keep your best feature; the ability to change who you are if the truth “shifts”, like Christians are doing now, trying to be ‘likable’ in the face of the evidence and social pressure.)
julian says:
Oct 29, 2011
I’m eager to test the damage a 200 foot fall onto concrete will do to another human being. Would you like to volunteer, Just Me?
Human Ape says:
Oct 29, 2011
Considering their alternative explanation for the diversity of life, magical creation out of nothing, I would say these science deniers most definitely are stupid.
sc_af4f3773976236ddc573af390b0cb267 says:
Oct 30, 2011
Stupid is a physical condition. I think you mean ignorant, or even ornery.
Don’t sound uneducated while you’re excoriating the ignorant.
It’s not cool.
Charles says:
Oct 30, 2011
I do have to wonder how the Creationism believing students will fare if they have to cooperate with students from other countries. The best they can hope for is that the pity and hilarity would be kept out of their hearing.
Even if the American students stick to being educators how are they going to deal with the educators from other countries?
Tyler says:
Oct 30, 2011
Exactly what Tom said. As a current NSF fellow, I would add that the best personal statements are honest, unique, and have a generally positive story to tell. I think your essay would be improved by focusing more on your own positive internal sources of motivations (your desire to improve science education, how education shaped your worldview, general amazement at the way natural processes shape the world) rather than negative external motivations (other people’s denial/ignorance of facts).
Best of luck on your fellowship application!
Just Me says:
Oct 30, 2011
Why study the origins and history of life if there was nothing “magical” to be interested in?
My understanding is that things called “magic” are acts of matter that transform with no conventionally understood means or direct manipulation.
So if the beginning and launch into life wasn’t “magical” I’m sure you can slap me upside the head with what happened behind the mirrors.
Remember though, being un-educated and stupid, the explanation would need be one where even a kid can see how lifeless ingredients spontaneously arranged and sparked to start the cycle.
And if that can’t be done, it’s just magic of a different hand, that skeptics will always doubt.
So then, I beg you, EVOLVE an answer already. Make me believe.
Or just continue to collectively throw me from your mountain of evidence, fulfilling my martyrdom and proving your hatred transcends my doubt of your blissful dis-belief in the supernatural.
Alteredstory says:
Oct 30, 2011
You get the same thing when you call someone on a climate change myth these days.
There’s a recent trend towards using words for what ever suits you. Pointing out factual errors? You’re being dogmatic and oppressive.
I even saw someone saying that OWS protesters started the violence when they refused to leave an off-limits area.
That’s right – standing in the wrong place is now considered violent behavior.
And anybody who starts a conversation about climate change or evolution (from the factual side of things) is, obviously, looking to cause trouble.
Or, someone mentions how they don’t think the fossil record is very convincing, or they think those CRU scientists were being dishonest, correcting them is antagonistic behavior.
sigh
Simon says:
Oct 31, 2011
I can see why it is a bit outrageous that biology professionals aren’t accepting evolution. However if the academic requirements are such that human evolution does not need to be taught or learned, then it would seem that your anger (which I agree with) ought perhaps to be directed at the system and those that influence it, rather than individual biologists.
Jurjen S. says:
Oct 31, 2011
I can come up with a plausible theoretical argument. A pilot who sincerely refuses to accept the physics involved in keeping a plane in the air will not be able to understand why his aircraft stalls, nor what to do to make his aircraft regain lift and get out of the stall. “A pilot is required to demonstrate competency in controlling an aircraft during and after a stall for certification” under FAA regulations, and you will not pass if your response during a stall is to put a saucer of cream on the wing.
Jurjen S. says:
Oct 31, 2011
Why would you be amazed? This is in no small part the result of Great Britain (and certain other countries) off-loading its religious extremists onto the New World for the better part of the 17th and 18th centuries.
NK says:
Oct 31, 2011
Which naturally explains why the US has been such a laggard in the development of science and technology.
Human Ape says:
Nov 2, 2011
sc_af4f3773976236ddc573af390b0cb267 says:
October 30, 2011 at 12:43 AM
Stupid is a physical condition. I think you mean ignorant, or even ornery.
I meant stupid, as in sc_af4f3773976236ddc573af390b0cb267 is stupid.
Understand tard boy?
Jason S says:
Nov 3, 2011
I agree with all of the points you are making. I can’t help but wonder if some of the people who are critiquing your paper are trying to point out that the language is going to be ineffective at educating those morons because it’s too abrasive and will shut them down almost immediately. I don’t think the points you are making are flawed, but your writing can use some tweaks. It’s not your fault that those people are so damn sensitive, but in order for your paper to have any affect on them you will need to figure out how to communicate those truths in a much less in-your-face way. I’m just sayin’.
milanillich says:
Nov 4, 2011
my christian nephew had a b.s in biology, applied for a grant and was asked about the origin of aids. he thought that god created aids to punish gay people and did not get the grant.
TPRJones says:
Nov 4, 2011
“Because religion is protected in our culture. Telling someone they’re wrong is “dogmatic” if it’s contradicting their religious beliefs even if, you know, they’re wrong.”
I think I’ve decided to change my “religious” label. I am no longer an Atheist. I am now an Antagonist. As an Antagonist, I believe that You are wrong. It doesn’t matter what you believe in, you are wrong. It doesn’t matter who you are; you are wrong. I have faith that everyone who believes anything at any time is wrong. Including me.
And since this is my religious belief, you can’t get mad at me for telling you you are wrong. Because that would be wrong. Right?
counter strike global offensive news says:
Nov 24, 2011
Pretty nice post. I simply stumbled upon your weblog and wished to say that I’ve really enjoyed surfing around your blog posts. In any case I will be subscribing to your feed and I’m hoping you write once more soon!
webkinz pets with codes says:
Mar 1, 2012
amazing things here. I am very glad to peer your article. Thanks so much and i am looking ahead to contact you. Will you kindly drop me a mail?