Here is an Antiracism Statement from Harvard Medical School:
We will focus on measures designed to improve recruitment, hiring, retention, and promotion of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color ... We must be intentional in accompanying the marginalized, and actively engaging in anti-racism in all our collaborations. This means recognizing and including our Black, Indigenous, and colleagues of color in setting the agenda in all aspects of our academic, policy and advocacy work.Translation: in order to become fully anti-white, we need to hire a lot of BIPOCs.
U. of Virginia medical School kicked out a student for this exchange:
Bhattacharya: Hello. Thank you for your presentation. I had a few questions just to clarify your definition of microaggressions. Is it a requirement, to be a victim of microaggression, that you are a member of a marginalized group?His lawsuit was just reinstated by an appellate court.Adams: Very good question. And no. And no—
Bhattacharya: But in the definition, it just said you have to be a member of a marginalized group—in the definition you just provided in the last slide. So that's contradictory.
Adams: What I had there is kind of the generalized definition. In fact, I extend it beyond that. As you see, I extend it to any marginalized group, and sometimes it's not a marginalized group. There are examples that you would think maybe not fit, such as body size, height, [or] weight. And if that is how you would like to see me expand it, yes, indeed, that's how I do.
Bhattacharya: Yeah, follow-up question. Exactly how do you define marginalized and who is a marginalized group? Where does that go? I mean, it seems extremely nonspecific.
Adams: And—that's intentional. That's intentional to make it more nonspecific . ...
It appears that medical culture operates on groupthink, and that anyone who questions official policy is not likely to be successful.
The Harvard student newspaper has a popular article on The Scarcity of Harvard’s Conservative Faculty. Only 3% lean conservative at all, and only 0.4% are truly conservative. While the professors talk about diversity all the time, there is no attempt at ideological diversity. Just the opposite, there are active campaigns to kick out any Trump supporters.
If Harvard professors publish research on climate science, or crime, or economics, or many other topics that can be influenced by politics, would you take it as objective research? Not anymore. Harvard has become a left-wing think tank.
You would think that a magazine title The Skeptic would rely on hard objective science, but it is filled with leftist nonsense. Sure it has anti-superstition articles, but it also a lot of articles pretending to be scientific, but actually are just political opinions denying modern science.
I expect political, religious, and other organizations to give opinions that are not necessarily grounded in science. But these opinions in The Skeptic are not much different from the superstitions that they denounce.