While researching the post on the potential for Chinese influence at UNH I stumbled over an article about some National Science Funding that I wrote a few years ago. The University of New Hampshire received $999,752 to “create a “bias awareness guide and intervention tool.”
Related: Heads up UNH – Congress is Investigating Chinese Infiltration of US Campuses
This was two years after the now-infamous Bias-Free Language guide which suggested, among other things, that the word ‘American’ is problematic. That was why it caught my attention. It is part of a three million dollar disbursement by the NSF to fight microaggressions in STEM fields and to “explore strategies for preventing “bias incidents” perpetrated against minorities in science.”
Two years after the Bias-Free Language Guide got national attention and UNH quickly made it disappear. [No worries, we saved it for posterity, right here.]
As for the NSF STEM guide, this sounds like your typical identity-political give-away. But I can’t seem to uncover what product the grant produced if anything. Granted, it has only been three years, and the funding (I believe) allowed for five as if it would take them that long.
Boyz Klub
We all know the problem with the hard sciences. It tends to attract mostly men and in places where there are more of them, white men. The presumption is that this is a product of bigotry and not just human nature, individual choice, and personal interest.
I’m reminded of the recent efforts to identify why New Hampshire is so damn white. A panel of interested parties (virtue signalers) coalesced to look for ways to make the Granite State more appealing to people of color. It sounds racist to me to even consider that, but I’m not #woke so shut me up.
Another example is the so-called pay-gap. The poo-flinging identity-politics monkeys want you to think it’s about sexism, but the numbers tell another story. Men and women are attracted to different occupations for different reasons. Men accept higher risk jobs where dying at work is more common. Women, not so much.
Risk reaps rewards regardless of your sex parts. And when all the jobs and hours and other factors are weighed, men make more on average because they risk more or work more. And that’s not sexist, it’s practical.
I worked for women at my very first job and many since. Many women have worked for me. Sex had nothing to do with their pay or mine. We chose the jobs accepted the wages and moved on when we wanted a change.
So, back to the NSF grant, UNH, and the “bias awareness guide and intervention tool.” Where is it? We’d like to take a look.
It is, after all, our money. We’d like to see what you bought with it.
