OPINION: Two Florida International University chemistry professors challenged why an academic journal would publish a paper that was so ‘flawed’
An academic journal article about “feminism” and “dysconscious racism in STEM” never should have been published, according to two chemistry professors.
Professors John Landrum and Joseph Lichter questioned why the Journal of Chemical Education allowed a paper that vaguely touched on “white supremacy” to be published.
“Overlooking the obligation to provide clear definitions and valid evidence for such terms, especially ‘White Supremacy’ which was deemed sufficiently important to include in the abstract, is hard to rationalize for a journal that ascribes to upholding reasonable standards of scientific rigor,” the two Florida International University professors wrote.
They also called the paper a “deeply flawed work of scholarship.” Only two academic publications cited the paper – the Landrum (pictured, left) and Lichter (pictured, right) reply, and a subsequent response from the original author to these criticism.
The 2022 paper argued for “teaching science with a feminist framework.” “This article presents a pedagogical model for implementing a special topic class on science and feminism for chemistry students at East Carolina University,” Professor Michelle Reyes originally wrote. She teaches at ECU.
Landrum and Lichter criticized the proposed topics, saying they “have little to do with chemistry and more to do with medical or STEM-related historical events dealing with racial and gender inequality.”
“Content appears to have been selected to advocate the authors’ sociopolitical preconceptions, and there is a noted absence of balance,” they wrote.
Lichter and Landrum suggested scholars might not have criticized the course for fear of reprisal, citing cancel culture in academia (including this College Fix article).
The professors warned about the consequences of letting DEI and leftist politics infect science education.
They wrote:
Our experiences teaching at a large university in one of the most diverse communities in the US have consistently demonstrated that chemistry educators, as imperfect as any humans, overwhelmingly reject bias and welcome people of all backgrounds into the study of our discipline. Views such as those of Reyes et al…that emphasize the dissimilarities of students and faculty based on personal self-identities, so prevalent in contemporary society, devalue the more important common interests we all share: a passion for the field of chemistry, recognizing merit, and the value of experience and demonstrable expertise. If we succumb to Reyes et al.’s views and accept this course as the direction forward in chemistry education, we foresee our society becoming an Orwellian dystopia where principles once taught as fact are replaced by fashionable nonsense.
In a reply, Reyes argued that the course is not about pushing a “left-wing agenda.” As proof, she cited the reading list’s inclusion of a bell hooks’ book – a curious counter-argument, since hooks was a feminist and committed leftist, as a fawning profile by Yes! Magazine indicates.
The reply to the reply argues for further political injection into classes – “we suggest any interested reader to consult a review that compiles the potential application of critical race theory (CRT) in physics which might be useful in designing similar classes in STEM,” Reyes and a co-author wrote.
My reply to the reply to the reply to the paper is simpler – chemistry classes should teach chemistry and physics classes should teach physics.
MORE: Cal State STEM job openings mandate DEI loyalty
IMAGES: Florida International University
Please join the conversation about our stories on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, MeWe, Rumble, Gab, Minds and Gettr.