In September 2022, three researchers published the provocatively titled article, “Do Introductory Courses Disproportionately Drive Minoritized Students Out of STEM Pathways?” The article garnered significant attention on social media for its conclusion that unequal withdrawal rates from STEM degree tracks are due to systemic racism. Co-authors Chad Topaz, a data scientist, mathematician, and activist, and Nate Brown, who sees math faculty as a barrier to diversifying STEM fields, supplemented their research with an opinion article guiding “How STEM Faculty Can Fight Institutional Racism and Sexism.”
However, the scholarly article was critiqued as fundamentally flawed. Professor Lee Jussim, known for his expertise in identifying scientific inaccuracies, critically analyzed the article on Substack, pointing out several methodological issues:
- Lack of Preregistration: The authors did not preregister their study, leaving the possibility that they tailored their hypothesis to fit the data post-analysis.
- Correlation vs. Causation: The authors confused correlation with causation and failed to consider alternate hypotheses that could explain their data.
- Statistical Significance: The study relied on p-values that indicated no statistical significance or were so marginal that they likely resulted in false positives.
- Measurement Categories: The use of unnecessarily broad measurement categories suggested intentional creation of measurement error.
Jussim concluded that no rigorous researcher would take this study seriously, highlighting that its acceptance in peer review exemplifies how peer review can perpetuate groupthink rather than deter it.
Such subpar research is alarmingly common in the sciences and social sciences. This problem extends beyond academia, influencing policymaking, judicial decisions, and legislation. Experts who claim the mantle of “Science” often prioritize imposing preferred policies over the pursuit of truth, utilizing flawed methods to support political agendas.
Conservatives have long been aware of this issue, recognizing how the predominantly left-leaning academic environment produces research that aligns with radical polemics. However, addressing this problem has proven challenging. Shoddy research permeates public policy, often repeated until it is accepted as truth. While skepticism and critiques like Jussim’s provide some counterbalance, the influence of politically-driven, incompetent professionals remains significant.
The politicization of academia is likely to worsen. While some professionals strive to address the intellectual and institutional failures causing the irreproducibility crisis, radical advocates in higher education continue to tighten their grip on the sciences and social sciences. They censor access to databases and screen out dissenting graduate students and professors, risking a future where no professionals challenge the progressive party line.
Addressing academia’s politicization requires comprehensive reforms. Specifically, the politicization of science and social-science expertise demands targeted policy proposals:
- Education Reform: Public K-12 and undergraduate education should emphasize statistical literacy and experimental design, enabling students to recognize flawed research.
- Institution-Building: Conservatives must establish new programs in statistics and public policy, independent of the existing higher-education establishment. This includes supporting institutions like the University of Austin and ensuring their financial independence from federal aid.
The claim that minoritized students are driven out of STEM education is unfounded. However, the Woke movement aims to prevent dissenters from receiving the education and credentials needed to critique such claims. Conservatives must prioritize educating statistically literate experts to counter this trend.
We must ensure that the next generation of experts can distinguish credible research from flawed studies and communicate effectively with the public. Preparing for this future starts with investing in education and independent institutions dedicated to upholding rigorous academic standards.
