Why Evolution is True Feed

I was quite surprised three days ago when I argued that Elon Musk’s “Hitler salute”  at the post-Inaugural rally simply seemed to be a gesture of exuberance made by an overexcited and awkward man and was not a Hitler or Mussolini salute. He said, when he made the “Sieg Heil”, that “My heart goes out to you,” and, indeed, touched his heart three times while extending his arm twice. See the video below, noting also his awkward dance moves when he also pumps and extends his arms:

It amazed me that this caused a fracas not only in the media, but on my own website, with a lot of people asserting unequivocally that it was Musk’s tribute to Hitler/white supremacy or that he was trolling the Left by doing something that would anger them. Musk himself has denied the allegations. From the BBC:

Some on X, the social medial platform he owns, likened the gesture to a Nazi salute, though others disagreed.

In response, the SpaceX and Tesla chief posted on X: “Frankly, they need better dirty tricks. The ‘everyone is Hitler’ attack is sooo tired.”

But of course to enraged “progressives” on the Left (and do I need to explain again that when I put that word in quotes, it’s perjorative?), Musk’s denial means absolutely nothing. He was lauding Nazis!

My interpretation of the “Hitler salute” explanation is that it is made by people who feel they must demonize their political opponents in the worst way possible, even though there’s a more charitable explanation. And we have to be more charitable in the future, including admitting when our opponents do things that are actually good.

Further, as the ADL (the Anti-Defamation League, an organization that combats anti-Semitism) explains, people are touchy after Trump’s inauguration, and this explains why some could mistakenly interpret an “awkward gesture” as a Hitler salute. One would think that the ADL’s take would give people pause, but not wokesters like AOC, who, in what some called “Jewsplaining”, tells the ADL that they were actually defending a Hitler salute:

Just to be clear, you are defending a Heil Hitler salute that was performed and repeated for emphasis and clarity.

People can officially stop listening to you as any sort of reputable source of information now. You work for them. Thank you for making that crystal clear to all. https://t.co/0gLdMCU3UV

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) January 21, 2025

This leads to the second issue with the Hitler take: it makes Leftists look loony, ready to demonize their opponents and lose their heads over something that at worst is dubious and at best (and most likely) is simply an “awkward gesture.”  Even the ADL realizes that the Hitler take is not going to reduce antisemitism and, in my view, it simply reduces the credibility of the Left in general.  Surely ludicrous interpretations of gestures as Hitleresque bespeaks a mindset that helped cost us the last election.  So, like Helen Pluckrose in her website post below, I agree that people have to stop this nonsense.  Even if you don’t like Musk, he was not giving fealty to Hitler.  If Democrats don’t regroup and get sensible, we’ll keep on losing elections.

So I’ll quote Pluckrose in extenso, and if you don’t like what she says, take it up with her.  I’m not arguing any more about this issue; I’ve pondered the Hitler argument, dismissed it as a misguided and kneejerk overreaction (Pluckrose calls it “deranged”) and I’ll move on.  But click below to read.

Pluckrose is no fan of Musk, but calls for a thoughtful rather than a reactive rebuttal of his views. Quotes from her piece are indented.

This makes it especially important that those who are concerned about his influence over the policies of the most powerful country in the world and the largest forum for public political discourse, and the impact the combination of these factors can have on the rest of the world conduct themselves as serious and responsible adults in their critiques of him.

Admirers and supporters of Mr. Musk who believe these concerns to be unfounded range from thoughtful, well-informed politically engaged people who support his general views and overall aims and believe that the benefits his expertise, his stances and his influence bring outweigh any personal foibles to utter lunatics, wedded to ideological narratives divorced from reality and engaging in tactics common to both the woke left and the woke right. It is important that his thoughtful and serious critics engage in good faith with his thoughtful and serious supporters and address the reality of his influence in ways that focus on what is true, what is significant and what has real impact on the world.

It is already the case that Musk’s least thoughtful and serious supporters on the woke right typically shut down any criticism of him by claiming it to be a symptom of “Musk Derangement Syndrome” (MDS). This accusation, when made spuriously, functions in a very similar way to the woke left’s use of the DiAngelo style concept of ‘whiteness’ (an unconscious drive to uphold the systems of white supremacy for one’s own political benefit). That is, it functions as a Kafka Trap in which any attempts to deny that one’s motivations in criticising Musk’s or DiAngelo’s ideas are caused by either of these pathologies are evidence of the pathologies. By formulating concepts of MDS or whiteness which contain within them the premise that any denial of them are evidence of the derangement or unconscious bias skewing the speaker’s judgement, it preemptively shuts down the possibility of any critique being legitimate. This kind of circular reasoning is not persuasive to reasonable, ethical people who care about what is true and share the stated aims of Musk to oppose censorship and dismantle governmental corruption or of DiAngelo to oppose racism and dismantle racial prejudice (my readers are likely to support both) but think that doing so in an evidence-based and consistently principled way is essential

Nevertheless, if one wishes to counter claims that any criticism of Musk is a manifestation of Musk Derangement Syndrome, it is important not to be deranged.

She gives a number of social-media examples of this “derangement”, and then analyzes interpretations of the gesture, all three of which followed my post:

. . . . even if there is a possibility that [Musk] was deliberately making a Nazi salute, mindreading him as doing so and responding in a hyperbolic and overwrought way is not remotely helpful whatever the motivations were. Consider the reasonable responses people are likely to make to such interpretations in any scenario.

1. Musk was simply illustrating his heart going out to the people he was speaking to.

People will see the woke left doing its “Everybody who disagrees with me is a Nazi” thing again and the perception that it should not be taken seriously is strengthened.

2. Musk was trolling with the gesture and trying to provoke this response in order to illustrate how deranged ‘the left’ is.

Well done. You played right into that and consequently reduced the credibility of left-wing critiques of Musk including from those of us who are not deranged.

3. Musk really does have sympathies with Nazi ideology and intended to convey that he will influence the Trump administration in that direction.

This would be highly alarming and indicate a need to seriously and carefully scrutinise his policy recommendations and shore up your credibility so that you are taken seriously should you find indications of it. The worst thing to do is shriek “Nazi” spuriously and increase the tendency of reasonable people to assume that somebody being accused of being a Nazi has simply said something considered problematic using the tortuous reasoning of the Critical Social Justice Left and ignore it rather than have a look to see if they have, in fact, expressed views compatible with a genocidal antisemitic and/or ethnonational ideology.

Stop it.

There is never a good time for hyperbolic, overwrought and, yes, deranged accusations of Nazism, fascism or far-right beliefs and intentions based on little to no evidence, but of all the times when this is a terrible idea, this is probably the worst. The Trump administration is in power, Elon Musk has significant influence on it, the power and influence of X as a platform for news has never been higher and policies that impact not only Americans but the rest of the world are already underway. This is a time to be serious grown ups and carefully, thoughtfully and honestly scrutinise both policy decisions influenced by Elon Musk and the impact of his social media platform on the state of political discourse and what everyday people who vote and influence culture believe to be true and ethical. It is a time to be particularly conscientious when evaluating the views and actions of Musk, give him credit for anything positive and beneficial he achieves in an ethical way, and present any concerns that arise in a serious, well-evidenced and well-reasoned way.

If there is reason to be concerned about the power, influence and character of Elon Musk (and I suspect there is), the people who will need to be convinced of this will be serious, ethical, thoughtful, American conservatives who care about what is true and what is morally right, who are currently of the view that Musk is beneficial to their great nation (and hopefully the world) and are absolutely sick of the authoritarian irrationality and spurious name-calling of the Critical Social Justice left.

I beg you, please stop being deranged.

Helen Pluckrose knows whereof she speaks, as she’s been a critic of “Critical Social Justice” for a long time, including her book with Lindsay, Cynical Theories (yes, Lindsay has gone a bit off the rails after the publication).  Her take on this whole kerfuffle is sensible and, I think, correct.

The best criticism is often satire, and here’s some: first a take from the Babylon Bee, and then a Musk interpretation of the often-used “Hitler goes nuts” scene from the 2004 movie Downfall:

HITLER REACTION SURFACES https://t.co/xRTNjzlTEK

— Adam Collett (@AdamCollettX) January 22, 2025

Mark Sturtevant is back with some lovely insect photos (and one gastropod). Mark’s captions and IDs are indented, and you can enlarge his photos by clicking on them.

Hello, everybody. Here are pictures of insects (mostly insects) from where I live, which is in eastern Michigan. Let’s get started.

First up are pictures of Thynnid Wasps (Myzinum quinquecinctum), which are odd-looking wasps that grow up as parasites of soil dwelling beetle larvae.

Next is a small group of tiny Acrobat Ants (Crematogaster sp.) that are tending aphids for their honeydew secretions. Acrobat ants are easy to recognize by the distinctive joint that allows them to elbow their abdomen upward to release a venom at prey or at enemies.

Next up is a bug-eyed Mayfly which I think is in the genus Stenacron.

Every summer or two I try to spend time alongside a particular area of the Flint River, as it is a great spot to photograph American Rubyspot Damselflies (Hetaerina americana). A particular aim, as it is a challenge, is to hang over the edge of the riverbank to get pictures of the brilliantly colored males while they are back-lit from the late afternoon sun. So here you go.

Next up are some beetles. First up are a pair of Six-spotted Tiger Beetles (Cicindela sexguttata), which a species abundant along woodland trails. This is among the most alert species that I know so I seldom get pictures, but when mating they are a bit distracted.

During a narrow window in the summer, I will find many of these small dung beetles (Canthon sp.) in the place I call the Magic Field. People take dogs and horses into the field, and their droppings provides support for this population. I swear these do roll little balls of dung around (I often see them trundling across a trail with them), but they immediately stop when I approach, darn it.

Here is a terrestrial snail which I photographed because I liked the branching pattern under its shell. I am not a snail person, but through iNaturalist I was able to narrow it down to an Amber Snail (family Succineidae).

Late summer is my favorite time to go to the Magic Field. It abounds with many species of grasshoppers, and the air is crackling with them as they fly about. But by far the most common ones are the ubiquitous Carolina Grasshoppers (Dissosteira carolina), which probably everyone in the U.S. has seen. These are the grasshoppers with flashy black hind wings, as shown in the linked picture. Anyway, Carolina ‘Hopper mating season is in the late summer, and one sees the following scene quite often.

Early in the morning, sleeping bees and wasps are commonly seen on plants, so here is a sleeping Common Eastern Bumblebee (Bombus impatiens). I really like how this picture turned out.

But now we get to a kind of finale from the Magic Field. The Eastern Cicada Killer Wasp (Sphecius speciosus) is probably the largest wasp in our area, and they are certainly the largest by weight. As their name explains, the females hunt cicadas, which they paralyze and store in an underground burrow with eggs. The Magic Field has a large population of them in late summer, and then certain areas become landscaped with their large burrows and earthen mounds. You see one of their burrows in the first picture, complete with its characteristic landing strip trough and just look at all that soil which was dug out! There will be several chambers deep inside, each intended for a larva and cicadas.

The next picture shows one of the wasps as it was exiting its burrow. I was just as nuts about insects as a kid as I am now, but back then I was also rather jumpy around these impressively large wasps. But now I know that they are completely indifferent to us humans and all our tribulations, so getting very close with the macro lens is never a problem. They really just don’t care about us.

There were dozens of burrows in a small area, and so over a few days I managed to photograph several of the wasps as they landed by their burrow with a helpless Cicada, their arrivals being announced by the loud droning that they make while flying. I could only get maybe one or two pictures off before they disappeared down the hole with their prize.

And finally we have a mystery. There are many species of solitary wasps at the Magic Field, but during these sessions I noticed these little wasps (do you see it?) that showed an inordinate interest in me and in Cicada Killer Town. They would investigate my camera gear, scurry about the mounds of earth, and even venture down the C.K. tunnels (!) ceaselessly searching for … ?? Well, this made me curious, and my next post will reveal what I managed to learn about them. The investigation led to my most favorite picture of the entire season, so stay tuned!

If you want to see a compilation of all of Trump’s executive orders, you can find links here that will take you to the contents of the official orders.

I’ve talked about the new rules on sex and gender before, but wanted to discuss them again, briefly. Click the screenshot below to see Trump’s EO on those issues:

It’s a long document (four pages when printed out single-space in 9-point Times type, but the upshot is an official recognition of two sexes (male and female, of course), which are seen as immutable. Coupled with that is a refusal to use, on government documents or in government work, any concept of gender.

One excerpt:

It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female.  These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.  Under my direction, the Executive Branch will enforce all sex-protective laws to promote this reality, and the following definitions shall govern all Executive interpretation of and application of Federal law and administration policy:

(a)  “Sex” shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female.  “Sex” is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of “gender identity.”

(b)  “Women” or “woman” and “girls” or “girl” shall mean adult and juvenile human females, respectively.

(c)  “Men” or “man” and “boys” or “boy” shall mean adult and juvenile human males, respectively.

(d)  “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.

(e)  “Male” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.

(f)  “Gender ideology” replaces the biological category of sex with an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity, permitting the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa, and requiring all institutions of society to regard this false claim as true.  Gender ideology includes the idea that there is a vast spectrum of genders that are disconnected from one’s sex.  Gender ideology is internally inconsistent, in that it diminishes sex as an identifiable or useful category but nevertheless maintains that it is possible for a person to be born in the wrong sexed body.

(g)  “Gender identity” reflects a fully internal and subjective sense of self, disconnected from biological reality and sex and existing on an infinite continuum, that does not provide a meaningful basis for identification and cannot be recognized as a replacement for sex.

While most of this seems okay to me, I’d make two changes. First, sex is not recognizable, at least via the apparatus to produce gametes, at conception, when we have only a single cell. With high probability you could identify its sex via DNA testing, but the reproductive apparatus develops only later. Ergo I would substitute “at birth” for “at conception”.

Second, it makes no provision for true intersex people, who cannot be identified as either male or female (hermaphrodites are one example). Though such people are vanishingly rare, so that sex is about as close to binary as you can get, they are not nonexistent, and constitute somewhere between 1 person in 5600 to 1 in 20,000.  There has to be some provision for identifying the sex of these people, perhaps with an “I” for intersex.

It also deals with women’s spaces:

Sec. 4.  Privacy in Intimate Spaces.  (a)  The Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that males are not detained in women’s prisons or housed in women’s detention centers, including through amendment, as necessary, of Part 115.41 of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations and interpretation guidance regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act.

(b)  The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall prepare and submit for notice and comment rulemaking a policy to rescind the final rule entitled “Equal Access in Accordance with an Individual’s Gender Identity in Community Planning and Development Programs” of September 21, 2016, 81 FR 64763, and shall submit for public comment a policy protecting women seeking single-sex rape shelters.

Sec. 5.  Protecting Rights.  The Attorney General shall issue guidance to ensure the freedom to express the binary nature of sex and the right to single-sex spaces in workplaces and federally funded entities covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  In accordance with that guidance, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Labor, the General Counsel and Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and each other agency head with enforcement responsibilities under the Civil Rights Act shall prioritize investigations and litigation to enforce the rights and freedoms identified.

In general I agree, but there may be specific cases, for example a trans woman in jail for embezzlement and not sexual aggression, might be placed in a woman’s prison. Even so, a trans woman is a biological male and on average men are more aggressive than women, but on the other hand a trans women in a male prison may be at risk of becoming sexually assaulted.

Also, re rape counseling and running women’s shelters, I do not think that there should be legal prohibitions against hiring trans women to do the job, I can’t imagine, in a private organization, of favoring their hiring. I said as much in two previous posts (one of which is here) in which I agreed with Ed Buckner. Buckner’s words are indented, mine doubly indented (bolding is his):

Coyne does offer some opinions that are related to ethics, of course.

For example,

Transgender women, for example, should not compete athletically against biological women; should not serve as rape counselors and workers in battered women’s shelters; or, if convicted of a crime, should not be placed in a women’s prison.

My own “ethical” opinion is close to Coyne’s. I would probably—but only after I studied the matter more carefully, including discussions with rape counselors and probably even with women who’ve been victims of rape or of women-batterers, modify some of what Coyne wrote slightly to say:

Neither men or women, cis- or trans-gendered, should serve as rape counselors and as workers in battered women’s shelters, unless the counselors or others working there pass a background check; even then, no one should so serve unless the clients are aware of and accept the status of the counselors/workers.

I can imagine circumstances where there might be an advantage to victims of having a man or a trans woman on hand, but the rights, needs, and wants of the victims, even if sometimes irrational, should be paramount.

In response, I agreed:

I think the second version, expressing Buckner’s views, is better than what I wrote, and it does summarize views I already held (but failed to express). While I still think that at present tranwomen should not compete against biological women in sports, and shouldn’t really be running battered women’s shelters, they should not be completely barred from that job nor from acting as rape counselors—so long as (as Buckner writes), they undergo a background check and the women residents of shelters or women being counseled for rape or sexual assault are made aware that the counselor is a trans woman (a biological man) and are okay with that. This view will, of course still be seen as “transphobic” by some extremists, but there’s a very good case for holding this view in light of the rights of biological women. This involves a conflict between two groups’ “rights”, and in the interests of fairness and the needs of biological women, I come down against sports participation of transwomen and cast a very cold eye on the other two issues.

In other words, I’d make the rule: “Any woman seeking counseling for rape or sexual assault, or seeking entry into a woman’s shelter, should have the right to have a woman counseling and dealing with her psychological or medical needs.”

In that sense I’d modify Trump’s rules.

h/t: Jay

The Brandeis center has announced a settlement in its civil lawsuit against Harvard University for allowing the creation of an anti-Semitic atmosphere, and Harvard will make some changes. The deal is announced by the Center, and you can see the announcement by clicking below:

Harvard, of course, has admitted to neither wrongdoing nor liability; I suppose it’s just making these changes because it’s the right thing to do. LOL!

From CNN:

One day after the inauguration of President Donald Trump, who has said he would “remove the Jew haters” if reelected, Harvard University has settled two lawsuits accusing the Ivy League school of failing to protect Jewish students from antisemitic bullying and harassment on campus.

In the settlement with the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education, and Students Against Antisemitism — a group of six Jewish students — Harvard agreed to make several changes to how it addresses antisemitism on campus.

Among them is adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism when reviewing complaints of antisemitic discrimination and harassment and posting a document online that clarifies people who identify as Jewish and Israeli are covered by the school’s non-discrimination and anti-bullying policies.

Additionally, the school agreed to draft an annual report for the next five years that details its response to discrimination and harassment; hire a point person to consult with on all complaints of antisemitism, and provide training on combating antisemitism for staff who review the complaints.

“Today’s settlement reflects Harvard’s enduring commitment to ensuring our Jewish students, faculty, and staff are embraced, respected, and supported,” a Harvard University spokesperson said in a statement. “We will continue to strengthen our policies, systems, and operations to combat anti-Semitism and all forms of hate and ensure all members of the Harvard community have the support they need to pursue their academic, research and professional work and feel they belong on our campus and in our classrooms.”

Harvard has come under fire in the past year for how it addresses antisemitic bullying on campus. Much of the criticism and complaints from students and faculty stemmed from the protests and vandalism on campus following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel.

Last year, Harvard received a failing grade from the Jewish civil rights advocacy group Anti-Defamation League for its policies to protect Jewish students from antisemitism on campus.

It also has the lowest Free Speech rating from FIRE among all 251 schools.  The two others right above it also have ratings of “abysmal”: NYU and Columbia, and both are, as I recall, subject to similar Title VI lawsuits.

I have no idea whether this settlement has anything to do with Trump’s threats, nor do I much care; I suspect, though, that a settlement was in the works before Trump was inaugurated. Harvard has not looked good after Claudine Gay stepped down on January 2, 2024, plagued by accusations not just of personal plagiarism, but of Harvard hypocrisy in how it dealt with speech.

At any rate, the IHRA definition of antisemitism is so tame that I don’t know why it’s even controversial. Here it is from their page of explanation:

Note that the definition doesn’t include anti-Zionism, but does state this:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

To me, that means that if you deny the right of Israel to exist, that’s anti-Semitism, for it conceives of Israel, because it’s the one Jewish state, as the one state that has no right to exist. We all known that “Zionist” has long since become a euphemism for “Jews” by pro-Palestinian or anti-Israeli demonstrators, and this ruse no longer carries water. That’s the point made by Natasha Hausdorff in the Munk debate on whether anti-Zionism is the same as anti-Semitism, and Hausdorff and her partner, Douglas Murray, did change the mind of the audience about this. I’ve watched this video several times; Hausdorff’s final metaphor is brilliant.

As for the other agreeements, about annual reports, point persons, and the like, yes, they are necessary to combat the atmosphere of anti-Semitism that Harvard itself tacitly admitted by settling the lawsuit.

None of this, however, should be construed as prohibiting acts of speech that are anti-Semitic or anti-Israel.  A Harvard student still has the right to stand in Harvard Yard holding a placard reading “Gas the Jews.” (It won’t do his reputation much good, however.)  It’s only when a multiplicity of anti-Semitic acts, teaching, and speech add up to create an atmosphere that discriminates against Jews, or creates a climate that chills the speech of Jews, that lawsuits must be filed.

Next, Columbia and NYU. . .

Even long-time readers are dominating threads with too many comments, which reduces intellectual diversity.  Please note this from Da Roolz (the posting guidelines) on the left sidebar:

9.) Try not to dominate threads, particularly in a one-on-one argument. I’ve found that those are rarely informative, and the participants never reach agreement. A good guideline is that if your comments constitute over 10% of the comments on a thread, you’re posting too much.

I am not calling out specific violaters, but asking for self-restraint. Perhaps everyone should refresh their knowledge of Da Roolz.

Thank you.

Natasha Hausdorff, barrister and legal director of UK Lawyers for Israel, discussed the prospects for peace between Israel and Palestine—I don’t say Hamas, because I don’t think either Natasha or I think there will ever be peace between Israel and Hamas—with Julia Hartley-Brewer on Talk TV yesterday.  In this seven-minute conversation, Hausdorff believes that the chances for peace, while not solid, have been increased with the new administration.  Trump may do (and is doing) a passel of crazy things, but most friends of Israel think he offers a more salubrious future for the Jewish state than did the Biden administration.  The Forward agrees, though it notes that Rubio’s support for Israel has by no means been sycophantic or 100%.  But it’s surely better than Anthony “There’s a Red Line Around Rafah” Blinken. 

As you surely know, the U.S. Supreme Court banned race-based college admissions in the highly publicized Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard case in 2023, (Military academies were an exception.) The vote, along the usual lines, was 6-2 (Sotomayor and Kagan dissenting) when Harvard was the defendant (Justice Jackson recused herself), and 6-3 for the University of North Carolina case.  As Wikipedia notes, the majority opinion, written by Justice Roberts, said this:

Justice Roberts wrote that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies “without regard to any difference of race, of color, or of nationality” and thus must apply to every person. As such, “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it”, adding that “For ‘[t]he guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color.‘ ” Roberts wrote that the affirmative action programs “lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today”.

There was vocal opposition by many colleges and universities, who said they were committed to promoting (racial) diversity, though they grudgingly admitted they’d follow the law.  But, as Jonathan Turley points out, they really didn’t. All of us at universities have seen how schools have tried to do an end run the law, including adding admissions essays in which students could tout their race by relating how they overcame difficulties in their past. Turley:

We have previously discussed how universities and colleges openly planned for the final rejection of race-based admissions criteria. Many universities denounced the Supreme Court and pledged to “reimagine” admissions. Medical schools are being encouraged to “pivot” to continue reaching diversity goals for entering classes. More schools are moving to dump objective standardized tests (or make them optional) in favor of more subjective scoring to shield racial criteria for admissions. Others are tweaking essay prompts to shift enhancements based on race.

Roberts himself anticipated some of those efforts in referencing how students could still self-identify as minorities in discussing their views or struggle with racial discrimination.

The use of federal authority to investigate such circumvention could be a major change for higher education. Most schools have resisted transparency or disclosures on such practices and private litigants often find it difficult to get courts to order discovery. This could expose schools to greater public scrutiny.

The question is how the government will address circumventions, such as using essay prompts to reintroduce racial identification. In my view, this would raise serious free speech issues for both schools and students.

The outcomes of this decision were not exactly what you’d expect: according to the NYT, black and Hispanic enrollment declined, but white and Asian enrollment didn’t increase, more students did not disclose their race, there was a HUGE variation in outcomes among colleges, and we have only one year of data to see what shook out.

The free speech issue is one that just arose when Trump issued his new executive order (below the fold) on DEI. I’ve already addressed the elimination of DEI in government, but this order extends it to institutes of higher education. Here’s the relevant part taken from Turley’s column, which reproduces it all:

Sec. 5.  Other Actions.  Within 120 days of this order, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Education shall jointly issue guidance to all State and local educational agencies that receive Federal funds, as well as all institutions of higher education that receive Federal grants or participate in the Federal student loan assistance program under Title IV of the Higher Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq., regarding the measures and practices required to comply with Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023).

Sec. 6.  Severability.  If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Sec. 7.  Scope.  (a)  This order does not apply to lawful Federal or private-sector employment and contracting preferences for veterans of the U.S. armed forces or persons protected by the Randolph-Sheppard Act, 20 U.S.C. 107 et seq.

(b)  This order does not prevent State or local governments, Federal contractors, or Federally-funded State and local educational agencies or institutions of higher education from engaging in First Amendment-protected speech.

That looks pretty straightforward but, as Turley says, litigation is in store:

However, the greatest contribution could be the exposure of circumvention systems or practices. In his order, Trump wrote that “Institutions of higher education have adopted and actively use dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion.’” His order directs all federal agencies to each identify up to nine corporations, large non-profit groups, or institutions of higher education with endowments exceeding $1 billion which are violating civil rights laws.

The agencies are to develop an action plan against “illegal discrimination or preferences.” Those preferences are described as not only violating “the text and spirit of our longstanding Federal civil-rights laws,” but “also undermine our national unity.” The plan is to consider federal litigation and regulatory actions.

The order also instructs incoming Attorney General Pam Bondi and Secretary of Education Linda M. McMahon to issue guidance within 120 days to all state and local educational agencies on how to abide by the 2023 Supreme Court ruling that struck down race-based affirmative action policies. That could prove a major new element for higher education in setting out criteria for evaluating compliance by schools.

This is clearly going to generate intense litigation. The definition of DEI is vague and is likely to draw challenges. For example, organizations will argue that the following line could become dangerously subjective in its application or enforcement:

“Terminate all ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ ‘equitable decision-making,’ ‘equitable deployment of financial and technical assistance,’ ‘advancing equity,’ and like mandates, requirements, programs, or activities, as appropriate.”

Such vague terms are likely to draw judicial scrutiny and could sweep too broadly for figures like Chief Justice Roberts. Agencies will need to narrow and add greater clarity on these terms as they move forward with this mandate.

Moreover, while the EO expressly states that it is not to be construed as limiting free speech, these policies and programs could easily contravene that right. Federal contacts will now have an affirmative statement of compliance by organizations, including universities and colleges, that they do not have DEI components.

An affirmative statement of compliance could, I suppose, also be construed as compelled speech.  “Equity” is not defined, and so on. It seems to me that there are better ways to monitor compliance with the Supreme Court’s order.  After all, the Harvard case rested on statistical analysis, interviews, and the like, and showed, at least to the Court’s satisfaction, that Harvard was not complying with standing law (presumably the Bakke case).

Click “read more” to see the order

01/21/25 EXECUTIVE ORDER ENDING ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION AND RESTORING MERIT-BASED OPPORTUNITY

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1.  Purpose.  Longstanding Federal civil-rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.  These civil-rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans.  As President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans.

Yet today, roughly 60 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, critical and influential institutions of American society, including the Federal Government, major corporations, financial institutions, the medical industry, large commercial airlines, law enforcement agencies, and institutions of higher education have adopted and actively use dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) or “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (DEIA) that can violate the civil-rights laws of this Nation.

Illegal DEI and DEIA policies not only violate the text and spirit of our longstanding Federal civil-rights laws, they also undermine our national unity, as they deny, discredit, and undermine the traditional American values of hard work, excellence, and individual achievement in favor of an unlawful, corrosive, and pernicious identity-based spoils system.  Hardworking Americans who deserve a shot at the American Dream should not be stigmatized, demeaned, or shut out of opportunities because of their race or sex.

These illegal DEI and DEIA policies also threaten the safety of American men, women, and children across the Nation by diminishing the importance of individual merit, aptitude, hard work, and determination when selecting people for jobs and services in key sectors of American society, including all levels of government, and the medical, aviation, and law-enforcement communities.  Yet in case after tragic case, the American people have witnessed first-hand the disastrous consequences of illegal, pernicious discrimination that has prioritized how people were born instead of what they were capable of doing.

The Federal Government is charged with enforcing our civil-rights laws.  The purpose of this order is to ensure that it does so by ending illegal preferences and discrimination.

Sec. 2.  Policy.  It is the policy of the United States to protect the civil rights of all Americans and to promote individual initiative, excellence, and hard work.  I therefore order all executive departments and agencies (agencies) to terminate all discriminatory and illegal preferences, mandates, policies, programs, activities, guidance, regulations, enforcement actions, consent orders, and requirements.  I further order all agencies to enforce our longstanding civil-rights laws and to combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities.

Sec. 3.  Terminating Illegal Discrimination in the Federal Government.

(a)  The following executive actions are hereby revoked:

(i)    Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations);

(ii)   Executive Order 13583 of August 18, 2011 (Establishing a Coordinated Government-wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce);

(iii)  Executive Order 13672 of July 21, 2014 (Further Amendments to Executive Order 11478, Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government, and Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity); and

(iv)   The Presidential Memorandum of October 5, 2016 (Promoting Diversity and Inclusion in the National Security Workforce).

(b)  The Federal contracting process shall be streamlined to enhance speed and efficiency, reduce costs, and require Federal contractors and subcontractors to comply with our civil-rights laws.  Accordingly:

(i)    Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965 (Equal Employment Opportunity), is hereby revoked.  For 90 days from the date of this order, Federal contractors may continue to comply with the regulatory scheme in effect on January 20, 2025.

(ii)   The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs within the Department of Labor shall immediately cease: (A)  Promoting “diversity”; (B)  Holding Federal contractors and subcontractors responsible for taking “affirmative action”; and (C)  Allowing or encouraging Federal contractors and subcontractors to engage in workforce balancing based on race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin.

(iii)  In accordance with Executive Order 13279 of December 12, 2002 (Equal Protection of the Laws for Faith-Based and Community Organizations), the employment, procurement, and contracting practices of Federal contractors and subcontractors shall not consider race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin in ways that violate the Nation’s civil rights laws.

(iv)   The head of each agency shall include in every contract or grant award:

(A)  A term requiring the contractual counterparty or grant recipient to agree that its compliance in all respects with all applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws is material to the government’s payment decisions for purposes of section 3729(b)(4) of title 31, United States Code; and

(B)  A term requiring such counterparty or recipient to certify that it does not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.

(c)  The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), with the assistance of the Attorney General as requested, shall:

(i)    Review and revise, as appropriate, all Government-wide processes, directives, and guidance;

(ii)   Excise references to DEI and DEIA principles, under whatever name they may appear, from Federal acquisition, contracting, grants, and financial assistance procedures to streamline those procedures, improve speed and efficiency, lower costs, and comply with civil-rights laws; and

(iii)  Terminate all “diversity,” “equity,” “equitable decision-making,” “equitable deployment of financial and technical assistance,” “advancing equity,” and like mandates, requirements, programs, or activities, as appropriate.

Sec. 4.  Encouraging the Private Sector to End Illegal DEI Discrimination and Preferences.

(a)  The heads of all agencies, with the assistance of the Attorney General, shall take all appropriate action with respect to the operations of their agencies to advance in the private sector the policy of individual initiative, excellence, and hard work identified in section 2 of this order.

(b)  To further inform and advise me so that my Administration may formulate appropriate and effective civil-rights policy, the Attorney General, within 120 days of this order, in consultation with the heads of relevant agencies and in coordination with the Director of OMB, shall submit a report to the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy containing recommendations for enforcing Federal civil-rights laws and taking other appropriate measures to encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI.  The report shall contain a proposed strategic enforcement plan identifying:

(i)    Key sectors of concern within each agency’s jurisdiction;

(ii)   The most egregious and discriminatory DEI practitioners in each sector of concern;

(iii)  A plan of specific steps or measures to deter DEI programs or principles (whether specifically denominated “DEI” or otherwise) that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences.  As a part of this plan, each agency shall identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations, large non-profit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of 500 million dollars or more, State and local bar and medical associations, and institutions of higher education with endowments over 1 billion dollars;

(iv)   Other strategies to encourage the private sector to end illegal DEI discrimination and preferences and comply with all Federal civil-rights laws;

(v)    Litigation that would be potentially appropriate for Federal lawsuits, intervention, or statements of interest; and

(vi)   Potential regulatory action and sub-regulatory guidance.

Sec. 5.  Other Actions.  Within 120 days of this order, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Education shall jointly issue guidance to all State and local educational agencies that receive Federal funds, as well as all institutions of higher education that receive Federal grants or participate in the Federal student loan assistance program under Title IV of the Higher Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq., regarding the measures and practices required to comply with Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023).

Sec. 6.  Severability.  If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Sec. 7.  Scope.  (a)  This order does not apply to lawful Federal or private-sector employment and contracting preferences for veterans of the U.S. armed forces or persons protected by the Randolph-Sheppard Act, 20 U.S.C. 107 et seq.

(b)  This order does not prevent State or local governments, Federal contractors, or Federally-funded State and local educational agencies or institutions of higher education from engaging in First Amendment-protected speech.

(c)  This order does not prohibit persons teaching at a Federally funded institution of higher education as part of a larger course of academic instruction from advocating for, endorsing, or promoting the unlawful employment or contracting practices prohibited by this order.

Sec. 8.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or (ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to and does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE,     January 21, 2025.

 

I am pretty sure I predicted this, though I’m not going to trawl back through my posts to see for sure. Pamela Paul is a heterodox op-ed writer at the New York Times, tackling topics that you wouldn’t expect to see of a regular columnist save established “house conservatives” like Ross Douthat. But Paul wasn’t a designated “conservative writer.” She was a liber and was, for nine years, the editor of the NYT Book Review. I presume she was recruited to the op-ed section for both her writing ability and her depth of analysis. And she chose to take on controversial topics—apparently with a slant not to the paper’s liking.

And I bet they got someone whose work they didn’t expect.  Here are some of her columns, shown just as screenshots. And these are just within the last year!

Of course she got pushback, though what came from inside the paper we don’t know (I bet it was of the nature that Bari Weiss got). Below we see a piece from The Hub arguing that Paul had no right to write about “scholasticide” or to point out that Gaza’s universities were assaulted by the IDF because they sat atop Hamas tunnels, had plenty of weapons inside, and because students were even taught to manufacture weapons. How dare she point that out? Look at the patronizing title by this misguided defender of terrorism who decries Israel’s “US-sponsored genocide.” “Do better,” my tuchas!

The columns above show her defending Israel, going after religion, criticizing the iconic Ta-Nehisi Coates, and, above all, criticizing gender-affirming care, writing about “desisters,” and—the ultimate blasphemy—defending J. K. Rowling! Heresy!

Is it any surprise that an elite white writer, with no protection of minority status, was given the pink slip? Although the NYT gives an unconvincing denial below, I don’t believe it for a minute. Paul wrote with passion, panache, and, above all, sensibility (read the Rowling column).  And the NYT can’t have its “progressive” leftism criticized, not by a white liberal writer.  So they parted ways.  I predicted they’d deep-six her, but hoped against hope they wouldn’t. They did.

Read about it in the New York Magazine column below (archived here).

 

 

The piece (my bolding):

The New York Times Opinion section is negotiating the exit of columnist Pamela Paul, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter. Her impending departure is part of a handful of job cuts being made at the section. Last month, Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist who had been a part of Opinion since 2000, announced to much fanfare that he was leaving. Paul was made an Opinion columnist in 2022 after nearly a decade running the Book Review.

Her ouster is sure to raise eyebrows both within and outside the Times. The Opinion section has been the site of the paper’s fiercest culture war battles in recent years, most famously leading to the firing of editor James Bennet in 2020 over an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton calling for the deployment of troops during the George Floyd protests. Since then, under Opinion editor Kathleen Kingsbury, management at the Times has labored mightily to show that it is open to a diversity of thought, an effort that appeared to be spearheaded by Paul, who has taken on challenging, contentious topics such as gender-affirming youth care.

Paul is admired by some of her colleagues for her willingness to buck liberal-left conventional wisdom. She has written a defense of J.K. Rowling and scrutinized the MeToo movement for overreach, while a recent column criticized the American Historical Society’s vote to condemn the ongoing “scholasticide” in Gaza. But others have said she does little more than produce rage bait, with what one Times staffer referred to as “intellectually lazy” positions. “It is a rarity inside the Times for someone to manage to make enemies on every desk they touch; Pamela is indeed a rarity,” one newsroom employee said. “She should have spent time making allies if she was going to be as divisive a figure as she was internally. But she didn’t put the time in there, or at least did not have the interest.”

I’m told, however, that Opinion’s decision to part ways with her is not because of her ideological positions. Kingsbury said, “We don’t discuss personnel matters, but any insinuation I make staffing or editorial decisions based solely on political viewpoints is false.”

Look at that weaselly explanation: she was not let go “based solely on political viewpoints.”  Well, what about IN PART for political viewpoints?

Of course the NYT won’t clarify this further, but the  “based solely on political viewpoints” part tells the tale. I loved Paul’s columns (she was supposed to be at our USC Ideology in Science conference, but somehow didn’t show up), and grew to like her as a person through her writing. Now she’s gone.  What anodyne “progressive” writer will they replace her with. Some dispenser of religious bromides like Tish Harrison Warren, whose departure was something to celebrate?

h/t: Jez

If you click on the link below, you’ll go to Trump’s executive order, signed in his first day in office, ending DEI positions in the government and describing the dismantling of DEI programs.

As readers know, I’m not a fan of Trump, whom I see as dangerously unstable, and I’m not a MAGA-ite. Regardless, neither will I damn everything his administration does as harmful or evil, for that’s simply not the case, and those determined to do that from the outset have a problem.  In this case, the action seems salubrious.

Here’s the whole thing; I’ve put in bold part that I see as especially important:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1.  Purpose and Policy.  The Biden Administration forced illegal and immoral discrimination programs, going by the name “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI), into virtually all aspects of the Federal Government, in areas ranging from airline safety to the military.  This was a concerted effort stemming from President Biden’s first day in office, when he issued Executive Order 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.”

Pursuant to Executive Order 13985 and follow-on orders, nearly every Federal agency and entity submitted “Equity Action Plans” to detail the ways that they have furthered DEIs infiltration of the Federal Government.  The public release of these plans demonstrated immense public waste and shameful discrimination.  That ends today.  Americans deserve a government committed to serving every person with equal dignity and respect, and to expending precious taxpayer resources only on making America great.

Sec. 2.  Implementation.  (a)  The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), assisted by the Attorney General and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), shall coordinate the termination of all discriminatory programs, including illegal DEI and “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (DEIA) mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government, under whatever name they appear.  To carry out this directive, the Director of OPM, with the assistance of the Attorney General as requested, shall review and revise, as appropriate, all existing Federal employment practices, union contracts, and training policies or programs to comply with this order.  Federal employment practices, including Federal employee performance reviews, shall reward individual initiative, skills, performance, and hard work and shall not under any circumstances consider DEI or DEIA factors, goals, policies, mandates, or requirements.

(b)  Each agency, department, or commission head, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Director of OMB, and the Director of OPM, as appropriate, shall take the following actions within sixty days of this order:

(i)    terminate, to the maximum extent allowed by law, all DEI, DEIA, and “environmental justice” offices and positions (including but not limited to “Chief Diversity Officer” positions); all “equity action plans,” “equity” actions, initiatives, or programs, “equity-related” grants or contracts; and all DEI or DEIA performance requirements for employees, contractors, or grantees.

(ii)   provide the Director of the OMB with a list of all:

(A)  agency or department DEI, DEIA, or “environmental justice” positions, committees, programs, services, activities, budgets, and expenditures in existence on November 4, 2024, and an assessment of whether these positions, committees, programs, services, activities, budgets, and expenditures have been misleadingly relabeled in an attempt to preserve their pre-November 4, 2024 function;

(B)  Federal contractors who have provided DEI training or DEI training materials to agency or department employees; and

(C)  Federal grantees who received Federal funding to provide or advance DEI, DEIA, or “environmental justice” programs, services, or activities since January 20, 2021.

(iii)  direct the deputy agency or department head to:

(A) assess the operational impact (e.g., the number of new DEI hires) and cost of the prior administration’s DEI, DEIA, and “environmental justice” programs and policies; and

(B) recommend actions, such as Congressional notifications under 28 U.S.C. 530D, to align agency or department programs, activities, policies, regulations, guidance, employment practices, enforcement activities, contracts (including set-asides), grants, consent orders, and litigating positions with the policy of equal dignity and respect identified in section 1 of this order.  The agency or department head and the Director of OMB shall jointly ensure that the deputy agency or department head has the authority and resources needed to carry out this directive.

(c)  To inform and advise the President, so that he may formulate appropriate and effective civil-rights policies for the Executive Branch, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy shall convene a monthly meeting attended by the Director of OMB, the Director of OPM, and each deputy agency or department head to:

(i)    hear reports on the prevalence and the economic and social costs of DEI, DEIA, and “environmental justice” in agency or department programs, activities, policies, regulations, guidance, employment practices, enforcement activities, contracts (including set-asides), grants, consent orders, and litigating positions;

(ii)   discuss any barriers to measures to comply with this order; and

(iii)  monitor and track agency and department progress and identify potential areas for additional Presidential or legislative action to advance the policy of equal dignity and respect.

Sec. 3.  Severability.  If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected.

Sec. 4.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

January 20, 2025.

Although I feel that the government (and its citizens) need to give people in the underclass a hand up, I think in general that has to be through the creation of a system of equal opportunities from birth rather than equal representation in colleges and hiring (“equity”). Inequities are often imputed to structural racism acting right now, but, at least in academia, that doesn’t seem to be the case. If racism or misogyny is a cause, it was bigotry in the past whose effects persist in the present, reducing equal opportunity. While it’s a lot harder to effect equal opportunity, as that means effacing the environmental differences that, say, hold back black and Hispanic children from accessing good educations and decent resources.  Rectifying this also involve effacing cultural differences, for example the attitude that I’ve seen that smart minority kids, and those who study hard, are somehow  “acting white”—something to be denigrated.  Fixing this entails a herculean task which will cost money (even worse, creating cultural changes, for we know that simply throwing more money at schools doesn’t improve education).  But it’s the only way to help those who, for no fault of their own, lack opportunity.

That said, the solution is not DEI programs, which have not done anything to equalize opportunity, and have effaced the idea of merit, replacing it with identity. By the time DEI programs kick in, usually in or after college or in hiring after high school, it’s too late. Further, it’s widely recognized that DEI training does not change people’s attitudes.

Finally, there is a sense of palpable unfairness with aspects of DEI that are racist in the sense that people are advanced at high levels because of their ancestry.  One example in science are grants that are either given out preferentially to investigators from minority groups or, especially, grants given out with DEI aims: grants designed to show that structural racism is responsible for inequities X, Y, and Z. (See this post on how National Science Foundation grants studying DEI issues have gone from 0.29% of all grants in 2021 ($14,280,928) to 27.21% of all grants ($289,593,584) in 2024. All scientists are aware of this, and of the paucity of anything useful coming from such funding.

Under the new order, not only will all DEI positions and programs be terminated in the government, including jobs relabeled to hide the fact that they were DEI positions. As section ii(E) suggests, this would also include federal grant money used to further equity, which presumably means federal grants to science.

These are early days, and it’s not clear to me whether public universities or schools with DEI programs will have to terminate them or surrender government funding, but if that’s the case, places like the University of Michigan are going to lose a lot of jobs.

And it looks as if the requirement of including DEI statements for job applications is on its way down the drain. That is good because I consider this compulsory speech that is prima facie illegal, though almost nobody’s challenged this in court.

You heard it here first, folks, so the New Yorker was slow on the uptake (and they don’t have the photos and videos that I featured). At any rate, the new issue features the recent story of Robert Lang, master origami artist and reader, whose wildlife photographs have been featured here often (and there are more to come).  If you don’t have a subscription, you can click on the NYer headline below and read the piece perhaps once, but otherwise I’ll give some excerpts from the story and add that a judicious inquiry might yield a pdf.

First, though, have a look at Robert’s origami page to see the incredible art he’s made. (I’ll wager he’s one of the ten best origami artists in the world.) As he told me, he lost virtually all of the art he had kept during the fire, which burned up his and his wife’s old home and studio, as well as a new home down the block. They have insurance and will rebuild.  In the meantime, I told him that I still had an origami duck he folded for me, and he responded that it was probably one of the few surviving original Langs.  It sits atop my computer, and here it is (it is another version of his “Duck Opus 11” on watercolor paper that you can see here).

And the story:

Here are some excerpts:

“The first thing you think of when you see your home engulfed in flames is, My world and future have changed,” Robert J. Lang, one of the world’s foremost origami artists and theorists, said recently. He was sitting in a small hotel room in Arcadia, California. The week prior, the house where he lived with his wife, Diane, had burned down when the Eaton Fire erupted and swept through Altadena, outside Los Angeles, with incredible speed, levelling entire neighborhoods. Robert’s studio, a separate property where he kept decades of his professional origami work—all highly flammable— along with research and personal artifacts, was also reduced to ash.

Diane walked in with their two dogs, Casey and Scout, who hopped onto the mattress and lay down. Diane, with no other place to sit in the room, joined them. “Two people offered their back yards for them to wander around in,” she said. “So, we were just in a back yard.”

The Langs had gone to sleep on a Monday night in their own bed. By Tuesday night, they were sleeping in their cars, with their many pets—the two dogs, two desert tortoises (Sal and Rhody), a Russian tortoise (Ivan), a snake (Sandy), and a tarantula (Nicki)—and the few things they could grab as they fled the inferno. The snake, tortoises, and tarantula were now being taken care of at the San Dimas Canyon Nature Center, rather than staying at the hotel. “Just to make my life simpler,” Diane, who works with the Eaton Canyon Nature Center, said.

In the early hours of Wednesday morning, Robert watched his studio burn from a nearby ridge. Then, at around 9 A.M., he and Diane learned that their home was destroyed. At sixty-three years old, Robert, who was profiled in this magazine in 2007, has been designing origami for most of his life; one of his early designs, in the seventies, was an origami Jimmy Carter. He used to be a physicist, working on things like semiconductor lasers, at places such as NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab, before he decided to devote his time fully to origami. The studio held much of his art, and all of his tools. The laser cutter he used to help make prototypes had melted. “It’s now a pile of metal,” he said. “A 3-D printer is now a pile of ash.” Rare paper, including fig-based paper from a tiny village in Mexico, had burned. He went on, “There were correspondence letters with other origami artists over the years that were a historical record for me and perhaps for others. And then my exhibition collection was there. The pieces I had in MoMA”—a large grizzly bear, a bull moose, and a fiddler crab, all folded between 2003 and 2007—“are gone.” As he evacuated, however, he was able to grab a single piece of art work, perhaps his most famous: a framed, fifteen-inch cuckoo clock folded into dazzling complexity from a single sheet of paper

. . . .Most of the Langs’ days now are spent on details. Dealing with insurance. Filing documents of everything lost. Texting with neighbors. Walking the dogs. Checking the weather for changes in wind. Monitoring evacuation zone updates from the Watch Duty app. And, mainly, finding a more stable place to live.

Robert’s phone rang. Their real-estate agent had a prospective rental apartment they could see that afternoon.

“Ask him about the dogs,” Diane said to Robert. She explained, “We’d founda place we liked—a good vibe. But the owner said he didn’t want dogs.”

Robert hung up. “They take dogs,” he said. “We can see it at 3 P.M.”

“It’ll probably be for two years,” Diane said. “But we’ll rebuild. We still have our land. We even have the floor plans.”

And they will rebuild on the site of their new home and of their original studio. It may take a couple of years, but, as I said in my previous post, the Langs are remarkably resilient and are just getting on with what they need to do.

As for the cuckoo clock he saved: here it is, reproduced with permission. You can see it and read about it here, but he adds:

This is the one I saved.  There are four of them in existence (that I folded; lots of other people have followed the folding instructions to make their own versions). One of them was also in a fire that destroyed the owners’ apartment, but almost miraculously, it survived. He had a fourth-floor apartment in a building in which all the interior collapsed in the fire. After the fire, he was poking through the rubble in the basement, lifted a collapsed door that he recognized as his, and found the cuckoo clock, flattened, but unburnt. He sent it to me, and I spent some time restoring it (dampening, wiping off the ash that caked it, and re-folding/re-shaping it). I eventually got it back to its original appearance, though it still had bits of ash in crevices and smelled of smoke, but that just added to its character, and to my knowledge, it survives to this day.]

Here’s the first time I met Robert—at the Kent Presents meeting in Connecticut in August, 2018. (There’s a description here; sadly I’ve removed all photos from this site before January of last year because of copyright claims by stupid and venal firms, but there is a video of some origami that I’ve put below.) This photo shows part of Robert’s presentation, which was accompanied by slides of his artwork). Here Lang (left) talks to biology Nobel laureate Harold Varmus:

Here’s the video showing some of Robert’s origami:

On a day that’s dolorous for many of us, let’s have some music. Here is a fantastic song by a fantastic band, featuring one of the greatest guitar solos in the history of rock: fifty short seconds of sublime inventiveness. The song is “Kid Charlemagne,” the band is of course Steely Dan, and the guitar solo is by Larry Carlton (b. 1948), a great studio musician who isn’t well known because he mostly backed up others. (I once saw him play as a solo act.)

Nearly all Steely Dan’s songs have opaque lyrics, but at least these lyrics were explained by the writers:

Writers Walter Becker and Donald Fagen have stated that the lyrics of “Kid Charlemagne” were loosely inspired by the rise and fall of the San Francisco-based LSD chemist Owsley Stanley, augmented with other images of the counterculture of the 1960s:

On the hill the stuff was laced with kerosene
But yours was kitchen clean
Everyone stopped to stare at your Technicolor motor home

The first two lines draw on the fact that Owsley’s LSD was famed for its purity. The “Technicolor motor home” of the third line is likely a reference to Furthur, the Merry Pranksters‘ modified school bus; Stanley supplied them with LSD.

The final verse describes Stanley’s 1967 arrest after his car reportedly ran out of gas:

Clean this mess up else we’ll all end up in jail
Those test tubes and the scale
Just get it all out of here
Is there gas in the car?
Yes, there’s gas in the car
I think the people down the hall know who you are.

More from Wikipedia:

Larry Carlton’s guitar solo starts at 2:18 into the song and ends at 3:08. Pete Prown and HP Newquist described it as consisting of “twisted single-note phrases, bends, and vibrant melody lines”; they called it and Carlton’s “joyous, off-the-cuff break” during the song’s fade-out “breathtaking.”  According to Rolling Stone, which ranked “Kid Charlemagne” at #80 in its list of the “100 Greatest Guitar Songs”: “In the late seventies, Steely Dan made records by using a revolving crew of great session musicians through take after take, which yielded endless jaw-dropping guitar solos. Larry Carlton’s multi-sectioned, cosmic-jazz lead in this cut may be the best of all: It’s so complex it’s a song in its own right.”  In 2022, Far Out Magazine listed it as the fourth-greatest guitar solo on a Steely Dan song, calling Carlton’s playing “intense, fluid, and frequently on the brink of spinning out of control”.[10] Nick Hornby, in Songbook, spoke of the solo’s “extraordinary and dexterous exuberance”, though he questioned its relationship with the “dry ironies of the song’s lyrics”.[11]

“It’s my claim to fame,” Carlton told Guitar World in 1981. “I did maybe two hours worth of solos that we didn’t keep. Then I played the first half of the intro, which they loved, so they kept that. I punched in for the second half. So it was done in two parts and the solo that fades out in the end was done in one pass.”

. . . Carlton called his solo on “Kid Charlemagne” the high point of his career at the time, saying, “I can’t think of anything else that I still like to listen to as strongly as that.”

Carlton also plays the “outro” at the end.

Rick Beato’s third episode of his well know What Makes This Song Great series was an analysis of “Kid Charlemagne”, and you can hear it here. It’s a good one.

Listening to Steely Dan songs and reading comments, I see that many people think that Donald Fagen has a horrible voice. I disagree. Yes, it’s nasal, but I thinks it fits very well with their unusual songs.

The band, which included many studio musicians, is vastly underrated, and I wonder if today’s young people even listen to its music. It is sui generis and unmistakable: a melange of jazz, rock, and ballads. Some of my other favorites are “Dr. Wu,” “Dirty Work,” “Bad Sneakers” (totally opaque), and, of course, the song below,” which mentions my alma mater William & Mary—one of the few rock songs to mention a college or university (can you name two others?) Oh, and the guitar-rich stop time during the song is great.

Becker (left) and Fagen:

Kotivalo, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

This article, published in the Journal of Anatomy four years ago, was also highlighted in ScienceAlert this January 18, which is how Matthew Cobb found it.  And although the results aren’t new, I find them interesting from an evolutionary point of view and sure didn’t know about them before. (I’m not sure why ScienceAlert chose to highlight them this week.)

The paper (and the shorter popular summary) describes an Australian study of a variable trait: an extra artery in the forearm and hands of humans called “the median artery”.  It is present in fetuses, where it feeds the growing arm and hand, but regresses during development so that it’s not usually present in newborns. However, in a substantial number of cases—now about 30%—it remains as a functioning artery in adults.  The paper describes a present study of the incidence of this “vestigial artery” in modern adult Australians, and compares this incidence with that seen in adults going back to the late 19th century. There has been a marked increase in persistence—threefold!—over that period.  What we don’t know is why this is happening.  It could be strong natural selection, an environmental change we don’t understand, or both.

You can see the paper by clicking on the title below, or download a pdf here.

First, here’s what the artery looks like in an adult (caption from the paper). I’ve put a red oval around the artery:

Median artery and superficial palmar arch (anterior dissection of the left lower forearm, wrist and hand) – Median artery accompanied the median nerve and completed the superficial palmar arch laterally.

Now although the artery feeds the arm and hand, we don’t know whether it actually benefits those who have it.  The authors and ScienceAlert appear to favor natural selection as the reason for the increase over time, but we don’t know that. To know for sure, we’d have to do long-term studies of the reproductive output of individuals having the artery versus those lacking it, or perhaps genetic studies (see below). We don’t have that data and therefore cannot say anything about natural selection.

Further, perhaps its increased persistence into adulthood is due to some environmental effect. We have no data on that, either. All we can say, and we can’t even say that with a high degree of confidence, is that the percentage of adults having the artery seems to have increased drastically over time.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. The authors dissected 78 arms of Australians aged from 51 to 101 years who died between 2015 and 2016, determining how many of them had the persisting median artery.  Individuals were excluded who might have skewed the studies, including individuals with only the hands and not arms examined, people who had carpal tunnel syndrome (possibly caused by persistence of the artery), and examinations using angiography, which has a greater ability to detect arteries.  Exactly a third of adults (33.3%) showed the artery.

The authors then went back and scoured the literature, using data on adults from 47 published papers going back to 1897. Using data from that arms in individuals who died at a known age, we have a dataset of individuals born from about 1846 to 1997—a span of roughly 150 years, or about 5 human generations.  That’s a remarkably short span of time from an evolutionary viewpoint.

Nevertheless, they found a significant increase over this period of the proportion of individuals having a median artery nearly tripled—from about 10% to 30%. Here’s the most relevant graph plotting the percentage of individuals showing the artery as adults born between 1880 and 2000. (There’s considerable scatter because sample sizes at each date are small.). The authors gives a probability of less than 0.0001 that this temporal trend would be due to chance, so it’s highly statistically significant (they don’t specify whether they’re testing the regression coefficient or the correlation coefficient, but it doesn’t really matter with p values that low.

They also extrapolate this trend and say that one “could predict that the median artery will be present in 100% of individuals born in the year 2100 or later.”  It will then no longer be a persisting fetal trait, but a trait that persists throughout life, and the persisting adult trait could no longer be seen as “vestigial”, like persisting wisdom teeth in some people.

The authors do suggest that environmental factors could play a role in this increase, but also that it could be due to natural selection. Such selection, to cause such a strong change in just a few generations, would have to be strong! The ScienceAlert article plays up the selection part, saying this:

“This increase could have resulted from mutations of genes involved in median artery development or health problems in mothers during pregnancy, or both actually,” said Lucas.

We might imagine having a persistent median artery could give dexterous fingers or strong forearms a dependable boost of blood long after we’re born. Yet having one also puts us at a greater risk of carpal tunnel syndrome, an uncomfortable condition that makes us less able to use our hands.

Nailing down the kinds of factors that play a major role in the processes selecting for a persistent median artery will require a lot more sleuthing.

Indeed, a TON of more sleuthing. What would be required to show selection would be either or both of two things:

1.) Show that, over a long period of time, individuals with median arteries as adults leave more offspring than individuals lacking these arteries. This is how the Framingham Heart Study, which began in 1948, showed that there appeared to be natural selection in women for reduced height, increased stoutness, reduced total cholesterol levels, and lower systolic blood pressure. Further, there appears to have been selection for women to produce their first child earlier and to reach menopause later. This is what I tell people who ask me, as they inevitably do when I lecture on human evolution, where our spercies is going. Not that exciting, is it? But of course the time span of such studies are necessarily limited.

2.) Find the genes responsible for the persistence of the artery and show, by population-genetic analysis, that those genes leading to persistence have been undergoing positive selection. This would be even harder because we have no idea what those genes are.

Absent those two types of studies, all we can say is that we have a putative case of evolution occurring over a short period of human evolution.

Caveats: The authors offer these caveats, and I have one more:

Limitations of the present study include the fact that the number of whole cadavers that were available for the study was not adequate. In addition, our search of the literature may have missed some publications not listed in Google Scholar. Finally, the definitions of ‘persistent median artery’ may have differed somewhat among the various published studies included in the present study.

Finally, as far as I can determine from looking at a few of the papers they cite in the older literature, the samples of arms came not just from Australia, but from other countries like Brazil and South Africa. Given that we know that at present populations from different places differ in the persistence of the artery, this could also throw some bias into the data. However, to create a time course this significant, I don’t think that using arms from different places could be the explanation, for it would require that arms from older people tended to come from places which had a lower incidence of the artery in general.

h/t: Matthew Cobb

The video of Day 1 of our “Censorship in the Sciences” conference is up (and down below), and this baby is nearly seven hours long.  Few people have the patience to listen to the first day’s sessions all at 0ne go, but I want to single out a few talks. The first is by Jonathan Rauch, author of The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth, an excellent book. His talk begins at 12:01, outlines how knowledge acquisition should work, and is quite eloquent.

Later, the four-member panel on “Examples of Censorship” gives a good account of how ideology has led to suppression of science.  Luana introduces it at 2:43:26 and Lawrence Krauss kicks it off at 2:44:45 via Zoom. His examples are numerous and disturbing—and not just from physics.  He pulls no punches, and even calls out America’s National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the most prestigious honorary organization of scientists in the U.S. It so happened that the NAS President (Marcia McNutt) was in the audience, and heard Krauss call out her organization for identity-based choosing of candidates for a supposedly meritocratic society (see 2:55:45). As Krauss shows, the NAS even admitted this explicitly in a quote from an executive of the organization, and it’s widely admitted by Academy members themselves. (Note that at the end of her later talk, at 4:39:30, President McNutt denies this. accusing Krauss implicitly of ignorance, but her own organization’s stated policies belie her words.)  Finally, Krauss gives evidence that both the NSF and DOE have likewise been captured by ideology in their funding of grants.

If you want to hear about how indigenous peoples are preventing anthropologists and forensic scientists from studying relics likes bones and objects used by Native Americans, Elizabeth Weiss’s short talk in that panel, beginning at 3:23:43,  gives a good idea. She has a new book about these issues.

I heard all the talks, and some of the others engaged me as well, but I’ve just mentioned the ones I enjoyed the most.

Here is the first day’s schedule (from here)

And here’s some of the press as detailed by Heterodox at USC:

Press Coverage

Censorship in the Sciences conference speakers call on peers to organize, defend free speech, writes Jennifer Kabbany in The College Fix.

Rauch’s opening speech highlighted surveys which found that almost half of Americans think that colleges have a negative effect on the country.

“It really is a crisis,” he said, adding a combination of factors are to blame, including students’ emotional fragility, the politicization of hiring, tenure and funding based on ideology, and a newer trend of academic journals refusing to publish findings that allegedly harm some communities.

Kabbany also covered Musa al-Gharbi’s presentation at the conference. Read that article here.

Alice Dreger, managing editor at the Heterodox Academy, wrote a recap on HxA’s Free the Inquiry Substack:

On the issue of censorship of research publication, many speakers at the conference objected to the idea that claims about potential harm to vulnerable populations should be used as a reason to stop, force changes to, or retract research reports. Some raised the question of the harms that arise from alleged-harm-reduction censorship–that is, the harms that arise from stopping valuable research out of fear of harm

In response to a Saturday morning presentation by Nature editor Stavroula Kousta, journalist Jesse Singal, also a speaker at our event, published a critique of some the ideas presented.

Conference organizer and panelist Lee Jussim wrote about the conference (and whether we should just burn academia down).

Panelist Jerry Coyne wrote several dispatches about the conference on his blog Why Evolution is True (which reaches nearly 75,000 readers).

Attendee Zvi Shalem wrote up his take-ways from the conference here.

Panelist Michael Bowen of Free Black Thought reflected on attending conference on his Substack.

Natalya Murakhver wrote about her experience debuting her documentary 15 Days at the conference.

Panel chair Abhishek Saha wrote up excellent Twitter threads (in real time!) detailing conference proceedings. Here is one on the first day of conference.

Today’s photos come from mathematician and Hero of Intellectual Freedom Abby Thompson of UC Davis, whose avocation is photographing California tide pools and their invertebrates. Abby’s captions are indented, and you can enlarge her photos by clicking on them.

New year’s tidepool pictures from Dillon Beach in northern California, plus a few older photos.  It’s not that much colder during the winter here- August can be freezing, December delightful.   To see much in December you have to be willing to go out after dark, which is a little spooky, but has the advantage that you often get to see racoons foraging on the rocks.    Sadly the only pictures I get of them look like two red dots (their eyes) on a black background.

As usual I got help with some of the IDs from people on inaturalist.

Schuchertinia milleri (tentative):

This is through a microscope, taken with my iphone.  In the tidepools it appears as a small very pink blob stuck to a rock. These are hydroids, closely related to jellyfish, unlikely as that seems.

Kelp crab:

These crabs are one of the few things you should be cautious about in the tidepools here- they are reported to have a strong bite with their claws (I haven’t tested this), and they’re not shy.

The next four pictures are all nudibranchs. As you can see, their coloration is quite varied, but nevertheless they are all the same species. Keep this in mind for when we get to pictures 7,8 and 9.

Triopha maculata 1:

 

Triopha maculata 2:

 

Triopha maculata 3:

 

Triopha maculata 4:

 

Ok, the next two pictures are two distinct species of nudibranch.    To my eye, the difference in coloration here is a bit more subtle than for the Triophas; H. crassicornis has white “stripes” on the frilly stuff on its back.

Hermissenda opalescens:

Hermissenda crassicornis:

And the next picture is of these two local species of Hermissenda hanging out together.  Not exactly in flagrante (nudibranchs spend an awful lot of their time mating and laying eggs), but still, looking pretty friendly. Maybe Jerry will chime in with some info on delimiting species?  and how exactly it is done, for us non-experts. [JAC: two different forms copulating doesn’t resolve their species status!]

Hermissenda opalescens and Hermissenda crassicornis:

Clam siphons:

There is not enough appreciation of bivalves in the world, except as dinner,  Their siphons can be lovely (I admit this may be in the eye of the beholder).

Coryphella trilineata:

A pretty nudibranch. There are lots of this species at the moment.

Pycnogonid stearnsi:

There are several species of “sea spiders” locally.   They’re small (this one was less than an inch across), and lively.      This is the most common here.

Anthopleura artemisia (Moonglow anemone):

You may remember from earlier pictures that this is another species with many dramatically different color variants.

Camera info:  Mostly Olympus TG-7, in microscope mode, pictures taken from above the water.

Here is a live video of a group of Israelis watching the release of three of the hostages, Romi Gonen, Emily Damari and Doron Steinbrecher, captured during the October 7 massacre. They are all young women, and of course they are alive.  We know that some families will be getting their relatives in boxes, which is ineffably sad, but today we can rejoice at this reunion of the living.

The released:

(From the NYT): Undated handout photographs from the Hostages Families Forum Headquarters of the freed hostages Romi Gonen, left, Emily Damari, center, and Doron Steinbrecher.Credit…The Hostages Families Forum

This will be the next-to-last item I write about my entanglement with the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF)—I hope.

I am pretty sure that the joint statement below resulted from the fracas that ensued after the FFRF took down my post about biological sex, followed by my resignation and those of Richard Dawkins and Steve Pinker—all of us members of the FFRF’s Honorary Board.  This censorship didn’t look good, and although some blogging miscreants defended the FFRF’s claim that what I wrote was “harmful”, the real press didn’t make the FFRF’s censorship look so good.  Further, the organization then simply dissolved its entire honorary board of 15 remaining members. The FFRF’s announcement of that, below, actually comes from an Intelligent Design site run by the Discovery Institute:

Here’s the announcement from the FFRF site (archived here as well); rectangle is mine:

and from the Intelligent Design site Mind Matters:

They really need some competent people to run their website, even more so because there’s still a page listing the entire Honorary Board. Oy!  I suspect the “Mind Matters” citation will be removed within a day or so. (This reminds me of the “”cdesign proponentsists” vestigial wording found by Barbara Forrest and revealed during the Dover Trial as evidence that “Intelligent Design” was simply a recasting of creationism.)

At any rate, the FFRF got together with 16 other humanist organizations to issue a joint statement that is below, and which you can find here .  The words are indented below the headline. I have bolded three passages.

As the 119th Congress and state legislative sessions begin across the nation — and the incoming Trump-Vance administration prepares to take office — the extreme White Christian nationalist movement and their politician enablers have made it clear that LGBTQ-plus Americans, particularly trans people, will be singled out for discrimination, exclusion and attacks in 2025. Indeed, this dangerous movement has made anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and policies a cornerstone of their agenda.

As organizations committed to protecting the separation of government and religion, as well as universal human and civil rights threatened by the White Christian nationalist ideology, the undersigned organizations reaffirm our commitment to forcefully advocate for the rights of LGBTQ-plus Americans, create inclusive and welcoming communities, represent the interests of our diverse constituents, and act in accordance with our values.

We will not permit religious extremists to foment a moral panic, encourage harassment or violence, and enact dangerous policies that seek to force LGBTQ-plus Americans generally — and trans Americans in particular — out of public life and out of existence. Nor will we sit silently or ignore when the talking points, misinformation and outright fabrications of anti-LGBTQ-plus extremists are laundered and given a veneer of legitimacy or acceptability by those who hold themselves out as voices of reason or science.

In just the past year, we have seen book bans forcing libraries and schools to remove materials that even mention LGBTQ-plus characters; bathroom bans and “bounty” laws that threaten harassing lawsuits or even criminal prosecution against trans Americans simply for using the restroom; religious refusal laws allowing medical providers to deny treatment; outright bans on a range of medical care for gender dysphoria, substituting the judgement of state governments for that of patients, parents, and physicians; and even investigations threatening to remove trans and gender nonconforming children from their families. More of the same is coming in 2025.

For the more than 1.5 million trans Americans, this is the reality they are forced to live every day. It is not merely some academic debate.

These unworkable, ill-conceived and plainly discriminatory laws and policies are about one thing: forcing a regressive, largely religious view of gender norms onto the American people. They are “solutions” in search of a problem that simply doesn’t exist. Instead, the extremists advocating for these actions intend to send a clear message that trans Americans are not worthy of dignity or respect — and their cruel and dehumanizing rhetoric only confirms that intention. We cannot and will not ignore such bigotry, no matter its source.

Instead, we stand with our trans members, supporters, and constituents. We will continue to advocate for policies that protect the civil and human rights of every community that comes under threat from the White Christian nationalist ideology. And we will ensure that the inherent dignity and worth of all people is respected within our community and beyond.

American Atheists
Nick Fish
President
American Humanist Association
Fish Stark
Executive Director
Association of Secular Elected Officials
Leonard Presberg
President
Black Nonbelievers
Mandisa Thomas
President
Camp Quest
Alyssa Fuller
Executive Director
The Clergy Project
Duane Grady
President
Freedom From Religion Foundation
Dan Barker & Annie Laurie Gaylor
Co-Presidents
Freethought Society
Margaret Downey
President
Hispanic American Freethinkers
David Tamayo
President
Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers
Jason Torpy
President
Recovering From Religion
Gayle Jordan
Executive Director
Secular Student Alliance
Kevin Bolling
Executive Director
Secular Coalition for America
Steven Emmert
Executive Director
Secular Woman
Monette Richards
President
Society for Humanistic Judaism
Paul Golin
Executive Director
Unitarian Universalist Humanist Association
Leika Lewis-Cornwell
President

Now I largely agree with this statement! As I have made clear many times, I think that LGBTQ+ individuals deserve exactly the same rights and dignity afforded to everyone else, save for a few areas in which the rights of such people (mostly of the “T” persuasion rather than the other letters) clash with the rights of other groups. But singling out these few areas (like sports or hormones given to children) gets one called a “transphobe”. So be it. I am not sure whether the organizations above approve of things like infusing children with hormones, proselytizing them with “affirmative” therapy, or allowing a biological male who self-identifies as a woman to compete in women’s athletics. If they wouldn’t, then we largely agree!  But they don’t tell us.

Further, it is not just “White Christian Nationalists” who are wary of giving unlimited rights to trans people. A new NYT poll, summarized here, shows that the American public in general has pushed back against the two trans rights I mentioned above.  Here’s a summary of the NYT data, divided by political affiliation. As you see nearly 80% of Americans, including 67% of Democrats, don’t think that trans female athletes should be able to compete in women’s sports.  These are clearly not all “White Christian Nationalists”!  For these people, as for me, the views on sports reflect a simple concern of fairness for women. And the concerns about drugs and hormone therapy on minors comes from the fact that we don’t know the long-term effects of these drugs plus people should be of a certain age (I think about 18 or 21) before they can decide whether to take hormone therapy or surgery to assume some secondary traits of their non-natal sex. There are, after all, permanent effects of such treatment that require a certain maturity to grasp and understand.

As for “White Christian Nationalists,” well, I suspect that many people of color share the attitudes given in the tables above.  Where does the “White” come from? Are there no Christian Nationalists of Color? And, of course, neither I nor, I suspect, most of the Democrats (or even Republicans) mentioned above, are Christian Nationalists.  In fact, as far as I see, their views seem to me to be based on ethics, not religion! But it is in the interest of humanist organizations to blame religion for every ideological or ethical view they don’t like, as it keeps the members and money flowing in.

Finally, I have no doubt about one thing: the statement below was aimed at me, Steve Pinker, and Richard Dawkins:

Nor will we sit silently or ignore when the talking points, misinformation and outright fabrications of anti-LGBTQ-plus extremists are laundered and given a veneer of legitimacy or acceptability by those who hold themselves out as voices of reason or science.

I stand by my “talking points”, affirm that sex in humans is binary, and reject assertions that “a woman is whoever she says she is.” If that is not misinformation, then I’m a monkey’s uncle (actually, I’m a monkey’s relative).

As one reader emailed me, and I quote with permission:

[The FFRF] apparently canvassed other humanist/atheist organizations and got them to endorse the statement as well, though I’d guess at least some those organizations viewed it as a boilerplate expression of support for those communities and weren’t aware of FFRF’s larger agenda. This is a textbook and quite literal case of “virtue signalling” — a full-throated declaration that they are the virtuous ones, complete with a strenuous denunciation of heretics to demonstrate that virtue. It’s incredible, and incredibly disappointing to see this level of ideological and (frankly) religious capture within the allegedly-secular community.

Now I don’t know if the FFRF instigated this group statement, but, as I said, I’m pretty sure that it wouldn’t have been issued had I not written my short essay (archived here) that was taken down after a day by the FFRF.

Now, onto what seems to be one of the few remaining secular/skeptical organizations that remains sensible: the Center for Inquiry. Click to read. It was written by Robyn Blumner, the President and CEO

The text:

January 17, 2025

The Center for Inquiry (CFI) stands for reason, science, and secularism and has been doing so for nearly fifty years.

We are often the speakers of inconvenient truths: There is no evidence that you will see your departed loved one in a place called heaven. There is no evidence that a loving god is answering your prayers. Ancient indigenous medicine is not on a par with western medicine. GMO crops are not harmful per se and can be hugely beneficial.

Lately, there has been a disagreement among secular groups with regard to transgender activism. As disagreements go, this one is rather narrow, though it has been made to seem gigantic.

Biological science indicates there are two biological sexes, a fact consistent throughout the animal world of which humans are a part. There is also a more fluid concept of gender that allows for a more complex picture of human sexuality. Both things can be true at the same time. There can be two biological sexes and multiple gender identities. And when public policy is enacted, it should be sensitive to the former as well as the latter.

This appears to be an inconvenient truth in light of the response by some secular groups.

Some secular groups are taking the position that any discussion of biological facts is transphobic and a denial of civil and human rights. They posit that giving reasons for understanding the natural world as a place divided into biological male and female members of species isn’t just a scientific discussion but a cover for full-on Christian nationalism.

CFI is opposed to Christian nationalism in all its guises. And to the extent Christian nationalists have used transgender issues to gin up outrage and make gains politically for their agenda of injecting religion into public policy, we are opposed.

None of that changes biological facts or the complexities of the issues involved. Good people of good will should be willing to grapple with these complexities without imputing bad motives for divergent views.

For instance, if there is a medical clinical trial for women to determine if a medication has a different impact on women than men, should transgender women participate? If transgender women are to be considered the same as natal women, the answer is “yes” they should participate. However, science suggests otherwise, because they are not biologically the same.

Saying as much doesn’t make you a tool of Christian nationalism.

There are other places where the biology of sex has a significant role to play. In sports, for instance. Once male puberty has occurred, it is no longer fair physiologically for whoever has benefited from it to compete in almost any category of women’s sports. At least that is what the science and evidence demonstrate.

One of the most contested areas involves transitioning minors before they reach the age of majority. In light of the latest research and actions by several European countries that have stepped back from such medical interventions, the way “gender-affirming care” is practiced in the United States is no longer universally accepted as the most beneficial approach. There are increasing numbers of detransitioners, whether transgender activists want to believe it or not, and those stories can be just as heartbreaking as the stories of transgender-identifying children seeking medical intervention.

To elide past these complex issues and claim that only one side involves civil and human rights is simply wrong. Natal women athletes have civil rights as well. Children have human rights that include not having permanent disabling surgeries before they truly understand the consequences.

Those who think these and other areas are open to rational, scientific, evidence-based debate are not laundering the fabrications of Christian nationalists as has been charged. They are recognizing that these are not simple matters of right and wrong and that the full panoply of interests at stake should be considered.

But if the conversation is over before it even begins, if any crack of daylight between one’s point of view and that of the most extreme transgender activist is considered hateful bigotry and shall not be uttered without fear of cancellation, then that is a place where reason and science have disappeared and all that remains is vitriol, anger, and self-righteousness.

That won’t happen at CFI.

CFI will continue to promote the separation of church and state, the rights of nonbelievers here and around the world, and the end of pseudoscience wherever it arises. And we strongly disagree with people or groups who think discussion is dangerous, biology is bigotry, and science is Christian nationalism in disguise.

Robyn E. Blumner,
CEO and President, Center for Inquiry
Executive Director, Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science

This is eminently rational, and I have nothing to add to it.  But I have to repeat this part, which I especially like:

But if the conversation is over before it even begins, if any crack of daylight between one’s point of view and that of the most extreme transgender activist is considered hateful bigotry and shall not be uttered without fear of cancellation, then that is a place where reason and science have disappeared and all that remains is vitriol, anger, and self-righteousness.

That won’t happen at CFI.

No, it won’t happen at CFI—not as long as they steer the course that Robyn describes.

While I continue to admire the work that the FFRF does in keeping church and state separate, I will no longer support them financially given their new ideology and behavior. Instead, my donations will go to the Center for Inquiry as the sole secular/skeptical organization I support.  If you have rescinded membership in the FFRF, I would suggest that you simply give that money to the CFI, which will need it since it may lose some donors over this fracas.

We’re back to readers’ wildlife, and I have about five days’ worth, but please send in your photos. Today being Sunday, we’re featuring the photos of John Avise, who has moved from birds to butterflies. John’s captions are indented, and you can enlarge his photos by clicking on them.

Butterflies in North America, Part 6 

This week continues my many-part series on butterflies that I’ve photographed in North America.  I’m continuing to go down my list of species in alphabetical order by common name.

Dorantes Longtail (Urbanus dorantes), topwing:

Dorantes Longtail, underwing:

Dotted Blue (Euphilotes enoptes):

Dotted Blue, underwing:

Dun Skipper (Euphyes vestris):

Eastern Comma (Polygonia comma):

Eastern Comma, underwing:

Eyed Brown (Satyrodes eurydice):

Eyed Brown, another specimen:

Field Crescent (Phyciodes pulchella), topwing:

Field Crescent, underwing:

Fiery Skipper (Hylephila phyleus), male topwing:

Fiery Skipper, male underwing:

Fiery Skipper, female topwing:

Fiery Skipper, female underwing:

After a vacation hiatus, Bill Maher is back with a monologue called, “New rules: political firestorm.”  Here he parses blame for the L.A. fires between unavoidable causes (no rain, lots of brush) and avoidable ones (blockheaded politicians).  The latter, he says, involves cuts in the firse-department budget, stolen or nonfunctional hydrants, empty reservoirs, exposed power lines, and a mayor who was off in Africa after saying she wouldn’t leave L.A. while in office.

Maher is clearly pissed off, more so than in many other videos. But he’s still funny (note his criticism for a city statement apparently prioritizing DEI over fighting fires.)

h/t: Divy

When I was invited to go on Piers Morgan Uncensored, I was deeply undecided.  I knew Morgan was quite conservative and religious, and I’ve seen clips of him bullying his guests.  So I had a back-and-forth with the producer, trying to discern what Morgan wanted to ask me about. I got a long list of questions, which I decided I could field, but it turned out that Morgan was on my side about the sex binary, the need to treat trans and non-binary gender people with respect and dignifty, but also for the need to discuss the issue of what happens when trans rights conflict with the rights of other groups, most especially women. Further it also turned out that the big issue for Morgan was trans women in women’s sports, something I could easily discuss.  Finally, I asked several of my friends who had been on that show, who encouraged me to go on.

So I said “yes”—with some trepidation. I emphasized that I didn’t want to debate, because I don’t see debates as a good way to rationally discuss issues (you can see a failed attempt below), and I prefer to express my views in talks or written articles, where rhetorical dexterity is not so important.  That was fine with the producer.  They gave me half an hour, and then said there would be a multi-person debate following my segment, though they didn’t tell me the participants.  They are listed below.  They sent a fancy studio truck to my University, complete with a Chicago background and a satellite broadcasting dish, and lo and behold, I was on t.v. (taped).

It turned out that yes, Piers and I agreed in our one-on-one, which goes for the first 25½ minutes below and involves mostly sports. My segment was followed by a heated debate.  Here’s the YouTube description:

This week, House Republicans passed a bill that bans transgender women and girls from school sports, and soon that legislation will advance to the Senate. Speaker Mike Johnson, says this move protects young girls, but others say this will further ostracise vulnerable kids. Emotions are running high, and people on both sides of the debate are reporting receiving online abuse and death threats.

To cover this vital discussion, Piers Morgan speaks to biologist Jerry Coyne, who left the Freedom from Religion Foundation due to its position on sex and gender. Then, he turns to his panel made up of host of ‘Tomi Lahren is Fearless’ Tomi Lahren, Executive Director from the progressive organisation, Rebellion Pac, Brianna Wu and trans rights activist, Eli Erlick for their expert opinions.

I had heard of Tomi Lahren and Brianna Wu before, but not Eli Erlick. (Wu and Erlick are trans women, while Lahren is a biological woman, but hates that term and prefers to call herself just “a woman.”)  But I knew little about any of them. It turns out that both Wu and Lahren agree that extreme trans activism was hurting the trans movement, while Erlick basically takes issue with everything I said.  Everybody save Erlick got quite exercised, and of course there was no rapprochement.

But one thing that came out, which is mentioned on Wikipedia, is that Erlick, at the least, had a plan to illegally supply puberty blockers to “trans children and adolescents”.  And at least one source says that Erlick actually followed through with this distribution, which is clearly unethical and possibly dangerous. (At 46:00, Erlick more or less admits she did indeed do the distribution.)

I think Wu would have had a bit more credibility had she not characterized Erlick and her confrères as “trans freak show friends”, and the same with Lahren and her “rainbow mafia” designation. (Wu is clearly disturbed that the excesses of gender activists could have helped Harris lose the election.)

Nevertheless, I do agree in general with what Wu and Lahren said.  Even conservatives (e.g., Lahren and Morgan) can be right about some things, and this is one of them.  Surely organizations like the ACLU or FFRF would not approve of the illegal distribution of puberty blockers to children!

Anyway, here’s the 50-minute video, which shows that, at least at present, there is no possibility of a thoughtful adjudication of the few areas in which trans rights clash with women’s rights.

Addendum: Although Erlick denies that the authors of study described below—mentioned by Lahren at 46:45—tried to bury it, Erlick is wrong.It has, as far as I know, still not been published.  Read the NYT article below by clicking the headline, or find it archived here:

An excerpt:

An influential doctor and advocate of adolescent gender treatments said she had not published a long-awaited study of puberty-blocking drugs because of the charged American political environment.

The doctor, Johanna Olson-Kennedy, began the study in 2015 as part of a broader, multimillion-dollar federal project on transgender youth. She and colleagues recruited 95 children from across the country and gave them puberty blockers, which stave off the permanent physical changes — like breasts or a deepening voice — that could exacerbate their gender distress, known as dysphoria.

The researchers followed the children for two years to see if the treatments improved their mental health. An older Dutch study had found that puberty blockers improved well-being, results that inspired clinics around the world to regularly prescribe the medications as part of what is now called gender-affirming care.

But the American trial did not find a similar trend, Dr. Olson-Kennedy said in a wide-ranging interview. Puberty blockers did not lead to mental health improvements, she said, most likely because the children were already doing well when the study began.

“They’re in really good shape when they come in, and they’re in really good shape after two years,” said Dr. Olson-Kennedy, who runs the country’s largest youth gender clinic at the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles.

That conclusion seemed to contradict an earlier description of the group, in which Dr. Olson-Kennedy and her colleagues noted that one quarter of the adolescents were depressed or suicidal before treatment.

This is a prime example of scientific truth being kept under wraps because it undermines people’s ideology.

There will be news tomorrow as Israel finalizes its ceasefire deal with Hamas. In the meantime, let’s hear a story about how orcas can imitate human speech.  Apparently this horrifies some people, but I think it’s cool.

The story comes from an entertainment newsite, vt.com, and here’s an excerpt: (it’s from 2018 but I bet you didn’t know this):

Killer whales, the largest dolphin species and apex predators, possess remarkable intelligence, including the ability to mimic human speech.

This discovery was made by a team of researchers from Germany, Spain, the UK, and Chile, who conducted a study into the vocal capabilities of orcas and published their findings in the journal, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, in 2018.

“We wanted to see how flexible a killer whale can be in copying sounds,” Josep Call, professor in evolutionary origins of mind at the University of St Andrews and study co-author, told The Guardian.

“We thought what would be really convincing is to present them with something that is not in their repertoire – and in this case ‘hello’ [is] not what a killer whale would say,” he added.

The team trained Wikie, a 14-year-old female orca living in an aquarium in France, to copy three sounds made by her three-year-old calf, and then tested her ability to imitate five unfamiliar orca sounds.

Wikie was then exposed to three orca sounds and six human sounds, including the words “hello,” “Amy,” “ah ha,” “one, two,” and “bye-bye”.

The team was amazed to discover that the orca was able to quickly replicate the sounds, successfully mimicking two on the very first attempt.

Here’s Wikie in a news story. It’s pretty amazing.  Orcas live in pods that are matrilineal, and each pod has its own repertoire of sounds culturally inherited over many generations, and coming from mom.

More:

Recordings of Wikie’s attempts to mimic human speech have been released on social media, with some listeners finding them “terrifying”.

One user said: “This is as terrifying as it is hilarious,” while another quipped: “Ok, that second hello was a little demonic. Was that really an orca, or the Devil speaking through a ghost box LOL The funniest and scariest thing EVER!”

“Now I’m scared,” a third wrote, and a fourth added: “OK that’s the creepiest f’ing thing I’ve ever heard.”

However, others were amazed at the orca’s ability. “That’s genuinely amazing,” one person said. “These giants are much smarter than we think….amazing,” a second chimed in.

“Certainly a momentous occasion discovering another mammal that can enunciate human language. This could be significant given the high level of intelligence orcas have?” someone else shared.

Some of the “scary” noises.  They’re not as good as parrots or crows, but they’re discernible.  The abilities to imitate are probably evolved as a cohesion mechanism for pods, but what their pod-specific noises are learned. In that way it’s just like human language.

Here’s the Proceedings of the Royal Society article (click for free access). I’ve put the abstract below along with what was known about vocal imitation in orcas and in other species as well.

Abstract

Vocal imitation is a hallmark of human spoken language, which, along with other advanced cognitive skills, has fuelled the evolution of human culture. Comparative evidence has revealed that although the ability to copy sounds from conspecifics is mostly uniquely human among primates, a few distantly related taxa of birds and mammals have also independently evolved this capacity. Remarkably, field observations of killer whales have documented the existence of group-differentiated vocal dialects that are often referred to as traditions or cultures and are hypothesized to be acquired non-genetically. Here we use a do-as-I-do paradigm to study the abilities of a killer whale to imitate novel sounds uttered by conspecific (vocal imitative learning) and human models (vocal mimicry). We found that the subject made recognizable copies of all familiar and novel conspecific and human sounds tested and did so relatively quickly (most during the first 10 trials and three in the first attempt). Our results lend support to the hypothesis that the vocal variants observed in natural populations of this species can be socially learned by imitation. The capacity for vocal imitation shown in this study may scaffold the natural vocal traditions of killer whales in the wild.

And what was known anecdotally:

Elucidating the precise mechanism of social learning involved is difficult, however, particularly for acoustic communication in wild populations. Although killer whales are capable of learning novel motor actions from conspecifics through imitation , the experimental evidence for vocal production learning is still scarce in this species. There are reports of killer whales in the field and in captive settings suggesting that they can copy novel calls from conspecifics, and even from heterospecifics such as bottlenose dolphins or sea lions. One Icelandic female was found to match novel calls from a Northern Resident female with whom she had been housed together for several years. Two juvenile killer whales, separated from their natal pods, were observed to mimic the barks of sea lions in a field study . Crance et al. [and Musser et al.  took advantage of two unplanned cross-socializing experimental situations to show that two juvenile males learned novel calls from an unrelated but socially close adult male, and three individuals learned novel whistles from a dolphin, respectively.

However, as suggestive as these reports are, the lack of experimental controls curtails the interpretation about the underlying acquisition mechanisms. Experimental data are needed to ascertain whether vocal learning is a plausible mechanism underlying the complexity of vocal traditions in wild killer whales. However, to the best of our knowledge, not even anecdotal reports exist about killer whales spontaneously mimicking human speech similar to those reported in some birds (e.g. parrots, mynahs) and mammals (elephants, seals, belugas ).

Elephants can miic human speech? Here’s one elephant in Korea who can: