And the troll shouted "Who's that trip-tropping across MY BRIDGE!??"

Namnezia is sorely provoking YHN.

I do the best imitation of myself

So why is it plagiarism? Because you are copying text of something that already has been published. And since most journals own the copyright to your manuscripts, re-using your own text verbatim is likely a copyright violation. It’s a bit silly, but apparently that’s the way it is and according to the article in The Scientist, papers have been retracted by journals because of this. My approach that I tell people in my lab is that it’s OK to take the old methods and change them around a bit, but that the introduction should be written from scratch. They can read an old introduction and then replicate it by memory, and this is usually enough to make the two texts sufficiently different, but they should never cut and paste text form their old papers.

No, no, NO! This is NOT plagiarism. There is no intent to deceive and academic papers are not supposed to contain lyrical text of overwhelming genius and originality. NOT. The text is there to service understanding the data, how it was collected and to advance the scientific interpretations. Which might be repeated over and over again.

"...which all supports Darwin's conception of the Origin of Species". This is science. We all create unique studies to address issues of common interest. We use common techniques. For common reasons. There are only so may ways to say "dopamine overflow in the nucleus accumbens" for chrissakes! Or to say "the rat presses the lever to get an intravenous infusion of drug".

On Expanding Diversity

For the most part, in these programs the definition of enhancing diversity in sciences and other academic fields means increasing participation of minorities (and women) within the sciences. However, I’ve started to think that this is a somewhat narrow view of what diversity should mean. In my view, the current rationale for providing programs to help minority students is that these students traditionally don’t have access to the same type of educational resources as non-minorities do. This is due in part to the fact that many come from socioeconomically disadvantaged areas which simply do not have the same resources and academic support networks. Yet, there are several other people who also do not have access to these resources because they also come from socioeconomically disadvantaged areas, but just not happen to be from an underrepresented racial or ethnic minority group.

Straw-man. I'm sorry but if your University has not clued into the need to include first-generation college students and other indicators of impoverished background into the diversity effort, it has been living under a policy rock for at least 5-8 years, maybe more.

Take the wording of the NIH program traditionally shorthanded as "Minority Supplements".

Individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds which are defined as:

1. Individuals who come from a family with an annual income below established low-income thresholds. These thresholds are based on family size; published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census; adjusted annually for changes in the Consumer Price Index; and adjusted by the Secretary for use in all health professions programs. The Secretary periodically publishes these income levels at http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/index.shtml . For individuals from low income backgrounds, the institution must be able to demonstrate that such candidates have qualified for Federal disadvantaged assistance or they have received any of the following student loans: Health Professions Student Loans (HPSL), Loans for Disadvantaged Student Program, or they have received scholarships from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the Scholarship for Individuals with Exceptional Financial Need.

2. Come from a social, cultural, or educational environment such as that found in certain rural or inner-city environments that have demonstrably and recently directly inhibited the individual from obtaining the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to develop and participate in a research career. Eligibility related to a disadvantaged background is most applicable to high school and perhaps to undergraduate candidates, but would be more difficult to justify for individuals beyond that level of academic achievement.

That's the 2005 Notice which replaced the older 2001 Notice which did not contain this sort of language and was apparently exclusive to ethnic minorities. So ever since 2005 even the NIH has been on board with this. I am aware of University level revisions of diversity language that date to at least five years before that. The times have changed so people who keep banging on about how this is needed are a bit out of step. If your local University hasn't adapted, it needs to get with the program pronto.

Given my understanding of this change in the reality of diversity efforts in modern academia, it rings quite jarringly in my ears to bang on with the "what about the poor white folks" line. That, my friend, is falling right into anti-diversity talking points. Are you sure you want to align yourself with those folks?
Grrr, Namnezia-Goat Gruff. Grr.

34 responses so far

  • qaz says:

    On the diversity issue - while I agree 100% DM/Y[not-so]HN that it is an obvious point of general agreement and that both university (including mine) and NIH language have accommodated this, the official position on diversity at NIH is that if one makes it to graduate school, one is no longer "economically disadvantaged". In particular, economic disadvantage does NOT count for diversity on training grants. I have this from several program officers at several institutes, in response to this specific question. It's unfortunate that NIH policy has not caught up with their notifications.

  • Namnezia says:

    Feisty today, huh? Let's leave the plagiarism thing aside for now, since I agree that calling it plagiarism is ridiculous and am personally not opposed to copying one's own methods or intro. I was just pointing out that this practice can cause problems with the journals, thus I simply do not do it.

    About the diversity issue - I think that if you read my post as saying that "poor white folks" are being discriminated against, then you've got me all wrong. I'm not in that camp. I was suggesting that socioeconomic need be one of the primary criteria for defining underrepresentation, alongside race and ethnicity, much like the NIH supplement eligibility policy you pointed out. However - despite this and other initiatives at the NIH level, I do not see this happening at an institutional level at my university. The diversity initiatives in sciences that I know of solely focus on minorities. Furthermore, if you look at some well-funded diversity initiatives form other government agencies such as the NSF you will find things like this:

    "This portfolio seeks to increase the number of students successfully completing quality degree programs in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). Particular emphasis is placed on transforming STEM education through innovative academic strategies and experiences in support of groups that historically have been underrepresented in STEM disciplines: African Americans, Alaskan Natives, Native Americans, Hispanic Americans and Native Pacific Islanders."

    From: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2008/nsf08545/nsf08545.htm

    Occasionally they will mention people with disabilities. You can look at similar initiatives in individual institutes, and you will find the same thing. And as I said before, these programs are great and essential, but could be expanded.
    So while socioeconomic status is being increasingly recognized, it is not universal, as you seem to suggest.

  • becca says:

    Didn't you know, drugmonkey? ALL cases of academic dishonesty are black and white*. Since copy pasting your own words can violate copyright, it is clearly in the "bad" camp. Ergo, YOU are a dirtyfilthyplagarist!!!!111eleventy

    *true story- this was told to me by a professor my first month in grad school

    Keep in mind, any discussion of nuances or ethical gray zones or protestations that you didn't actually violate copyright, you just want the option to copy yourself when it doesn't violate copyright, are hereby PROOF POSITIVE of your guilt. Enjoy.

  • Isabel says:

    "I think that if you read my post as saying that “poor white folks” are being discriminated against, then you’ve got me all wrong. I’m not in that camp.....The diversity initiatives in sciences that I know of solely focus on minorities. "

    Does not compute.....

  • Namnezia says:

    @Isabel - I would not call that active discrimination, that term has very different implications. I'm saying that current initiatives are not necessarily broad enough.

  • Isabel says:

    "I would not call that active discrimination, that term has very different implications"

    Please elaborate. Not including a group is not discrimination because it is not active enough for your definition? What is your definition then?

    And what a vague response! I don't think I've ever seen so many qualifying terms in such a short comment before.

  • Namnezia says:

    Isabel - The way discrimination has been used in the US is different than the dictionary definition of discrimination. In my view, it typically refers to actively prohibiting a group of individuals from doing something which is allowed for the rest of the population - such as not being allowed to ride a bus or eat at a specific restaurant or having separate restrooms, or being put in internment camps, or not being allowed to vote or hold certain jobs, and typically the criteria for this discrimination has been racially or ethnically based and is directed at a minority. Not being included in a diversity initiative is not the same thing. So that's why I don't call it discrimination.

  • Isabel says:

    Well, by that definition, minorities aren't discriminated against anymore either. What a fruitful discussion this has been.

    You are the one who used the word in the first place. What was your point?

    "Not being included in a diversity initiative is not the same thing. So that’s why I don’t call it discrimination."

    So what do you call it? Being accidentally overlooked by otherwise good-hearted people?

  • Isabel says:

    "it rings quite jarringly in my ears to bang on with the “what about the poor white folks” line. That, my friend, is falling right into anti-diversity talking points. Are you sure you want to align yourself with those folks?"

    And WTF does this mean?

    Anti-diversity talking points?

    those folks?

  • Isabel says:

    Furthermore, as I have poiinted out before, the people DM snottily refers to as 'poor white folks' ARE being discriminated against because of their race.

    Because they are white, they are not receiving the sympathy, understanding and aid that others in their economic situation are receiving.

    They are mocked incessantly as well, and blamed for the sins of their social betters - the people with the institutional power.

    Why not have socio-economic status be the ONLY criterion?

    And what about the concern that it is the lower class whites, rather than the upper class, who are stepping aside to make room for the PoC? Shouldn't it be the opposite? What about the fact that grad schools are dominated by upper class whites?

  • Luna_the_cat says:

    Ah, Isabel. Back riding your favourite hobbyhorse at full gallop, I see.

  • Isabel says:

    "anti-diversity talking points"

    huh?

    "align yourself with those folks"

    huh?

    "favourite hobbyhorse"

    huh?

    What the fuck are you people talking about?

    Well Luna DM oissed me off a few weeks ago when he implied I was a racist, and when I challenged him on it he ignored me. Fuckhead.

    So spell it in plain language with no vague innuendo or qualifiers. Oh wait you are all completely incapable of doing so when it comes to diversity. We just want Jews, upper class WASPs and 'dark people' with accents in our diversity mix, which is weird so we have to trip all over the usual logic to make it sound good.

    But try anyway and maybe we can have a real discussion.

    Hey DM since you are on board with the low income white thing for years now, how come you didn't mention it in your Scientopia diversity discussion and instead implied I was a racist for bringing it up. Yeah sure you're on board with it.

    And how about for ONCE addressing my points?

    (what a concept!)

    It is so obvious that you are the ones with the agendas.

  • Isabel says:

    The asshole didn't respond to my comments over on Namnezias blog either, even though they were a response to comments he made about me! Gee he's such a nice guy isn't he? So caring about those who are under-represented in academia.

    When it comes to diversity no one seems to have any idea what the fuck they are talking about. This is a major clue that is driven by emotion. Maybe the people who claim that Jews have lead this agenda so they won't have to feel like a minority anymore because of the traumas they have suffered.

  • Isabel says:

    are on to something. (hit send to fast sorry)

  • drugmonkey says:

    What agenda have "Jews" lead, now, Isabel?

  • Isabel says:

    Ooooo more innuendo from DM! Hahaha I'm an anti-semite now lol. And CPP your "don't listen to her she's crazy" shtick is getting old.*yawn*

    re: agendas: I heard a really good case for this, but I forget the source (I can look it up though it won't be straightforward to retrace, but I would be happy to if you are interested) though I retain an open mind. I don't jump to conclusions like some people around here!

    But your hysterical reaction to my comments and Namnezia's post are strange. You are so tied to this idea of "colorful" diversity and you refuse to listen even to the people you have offended by treating them as valuable just because of their "dark" race and ethnicity!!

    What's the big deal anyway as far as your obsession with *color* based diversity on blog collectives? Why do you freak out when someone brings up class? You call me a racist with zero evidence, yet you appear to be truly obsessed with skin color. Blogging is free, PoC don't need your patronizing help to blog, and they can start their own collectives, or link to each other's blogs to increase traffic. But you hang on with this intense determination. And freak out about my suggestion of helping all people who have traditionally been denied entry into the upper echelons of academia.

    You still haven't answered any of my objections, not a single one. Very telling.

  • drugmonkey says:

    I am simply unclear on what your comment is referring to and why you have brought Jewish individuals (or as you would have it, "Jews") into the discussion.

    As I indicated at Namnezia's blog, I do not disagree with you that people of lower socioeconomic background are disadvantaged. Not at all. I simply wonder why you absolutely insist on bringing this up each and every time I discuss issues of ethnic or racial diversity. I also wait for you to acknowledge that individuals of ethnic and racial underrepresentation are more likely than individuals of majority appearance to be of lower socioeconomic class in the US and also to admit that for a *given* socioeconomic background, the ethnic / racially underrepresented individual labors under the additional disadvantage.

    It is really quite easy for one who can juggle multiple variables, as you seem to claim you are capable of doing.

  • Namnezia says:

    As a Jewish Mexican, am I the oppressor or the oppressed?

  • Namnezia, you are neither, just the maker of some delicious kosher tacos!

  • Shhhhhh, Namnezia. You are giving away the secret that not all Jewish people are of white Eastern European and/or German descent. How will we keep infiltrating everywhere on our path to WORLD DOMINATION?!?!

  • antipodean says:

    Namnezia is correct about copyright though.

    Batshit insane though it sounds, copypasting your own methods section is a copyright violation if you do not hold that copyright yourself or the journal you are publishing in is owned by the organisation who holds it. It's got nothing to do with right or wrong or decieving people or some sort of special pleading for science in society.

    Those words are being used to sell copies of journals or at least advertising space in those journals. It's a copyright violation

  • drugmonkey says:

    How many ways are there to state "eight rats were used.." or "bunnies were evaluated in the 50 meter dash runway made by Antipodean Equipment, LLC" or "two way ANOVA using SPSS..."

  • antipodean says:

    More than a few.

    And I still don't disagree with you that it's scientifically defensible, particularly in the methods section.

    But copyright (which we're forced to sign away) isn't designed to promote scientific discourse.

  • beccathejew says:

    You see DM, we Jews have a Sekrit Agenda (tm) to encourage colorful diversity at the expense of all other type of diversity.
    Jews do this because we all identify first and foremost as ethnically Jewish, and any other aspects of Judaism, such as the religious aspect, are unimportant (also, latkes and education centric worldviews are completely unimportant- cultural Judaism is a meaningless term).
    This ethnic fixation is what best facilitates us to continue to claim victim status even as we carry out our nefarious plots. You see, despite the fact that a significant fraction of the population hates us because we refuse JC as our personal savior, and another chunk hates us cause we own all the banks, or something, and another fraction hates us because they assume Jews = Israel, the only discrimination we face that actually MATTERS is the ethnicity one.
    Either that, or we assume that arguing with people about any of those other things is futile anyway. Because it's totes ok to hate Jews as long as it's for one of those reasons, but it's totes not Kosher to hate them because they have funny noses (we do have SUCH funny noses though, amirite?).

    The orthodox Jews, on the other hand, facilitate the Sekrit Agenda because they think an occasional case of Tay Sachs is a small price to pay to continue to have funny noses. That is, they use it as a way to be racist against the unsavory non-Jews while pretending to be all about fixing racism. Diabolical.

  • drugmonkey says:

    I have to admit, I never did get the nose thing.

  • Isabel says:

    "I do not disagree with you that people of lower socioeconomic background are disadvantaged. Not at all."

    So tell me, DM, what actions have you taken? For example, how have you attempted to increase socioeconomic class of origin diversity on Scientopia? I say it's lip service.

    You can try (as you have above) but you can't say the same about me. I've explained many times here the many efforts I have made to help young people of color.

    The reason I bring it up is obvious too. I have explained that many times also.

    You still don't get it do you? This is why I think you are driven by emotion on this issue.

    I am out of town, but when I get back I will find the reference, and you can react to that, not pretend I am refering to world domination plots (similar to CPP saying 'm crazy). It wasn't about that at all.

    The reactions are interesting here, because the paper started out with the inception of the rule that you can bash all groups except the Jews, about whom you can only say nice things....like oooo the Jews are so much smarter than everyone else! They are so progressive! They really care! They are so sophisticated and funny! etc. Are you offended by those stereotypes?

  • drugmonkey says:

    So tell me, DM, what actions have you taken? For example, how have you attempted to increase socioeconomic class of origin diversity on Scientopia? I say it’s lip service.

    Number one, you continue to confuse the fact that I have an issue that I happen to discuss with an antipathy toward another issue. Kinda like the cannabis fans can't seem to understand that discussion of the adverse consequences of cannabis doesn't imply ignorance or lack of caring about nicotine addiction or alcoholism. This logic is an error on your part. Second, you don't see me traipsing around derailing any conversations about socioeconomic diversity with "what about the brown, you are ignoring the brown and until you address my issue there can be no discussion of your issue!". Yet that is the activity you continually pursue for some odd reason. Number three, the fact that underrepresented ethnic or racial groups are disproportionally of lower socioeconomic status and that is part of the problem that needs to be addressed apparently escapes you. Are you opposed to efficiency? What's not to like about a two-fer?

    The reason I bring it up is obvious too. I have explained that many times also.

    No, actually you haven't explained why each and every time an discussion of ethnic diversity emerges you insist on derailing it. Nor have you explained why we should not view you in precisely the same light as we view people who use such derailing and distracting strategies because they are in fact motivated to oppose the points at hand.

    the paper started out with the inception of the rule that you can bash all groups except the Jews, about whom you can only say nice things….like oooo the Jews are so much smarter than everyone else! They are so progressive! They really care! They are so sophisticated and funny! etc. Are you offended by those stereotypes?

    Ok, you've lost me again. What paper are you talking about?

  • Isabel says:

    "Number three, the fact that underrepresented ethnic or racial groups are disproportionally of lower socioeconomic status and that is part of the problem that needs to be addressed apparently escapes you"

    No it does not. You have no evidence for this fact. Also, it is only partially true. Many of the ethnic groups being mentioned here (Jews, Asians and Asian -Americans) are NOT disproportionally of lower socioeconomic status. In fact, American Christians are far more likely than American Jews to be of lower socioeconomic status. Your point is? I'm saying we should help those who need help.

    You are talking in circles with no evidence whatsoever. It's almost scary. You can't even follow a thread on your own blog. Slow down and reread the thread. Reread the threads you are referring to above, and get back to me okay?

    Also, "Isabel cares about ordinary working Americans of all races, not just PoC, so she must be a teabagger since they also care about ordinary working Americans" Is the biggest logic fail of all.

    Oh, and yeah, still avoiding my points. Big surprise there.

    How is your GRAD program seeking to increase socioeconimic diversity? How are you seeking to increase it on Scientopia? Is you plan to increase skin tone diversity, and as a by-product increase socio-economic diversity?

  • drugmonkey says:

    being mentioned here (Jews, Asians and Asian -Americans)

    I mentioned none of these groups, save to ask why you were bringing up "Jews". As you know full well. What I did mention was "underrepresented" as in "in science". None of these groups qualify.

    any and all experiences that I've had in real life on the relevant committees to enhance diversity in academia have had socioeconomic status on the docket. From when I was an undergraduate to the present day.

    as far as Scientopia goes, no, it is not a main interest of mine to worry about socioeconomic diversity. Again, why am I obliged to focus on *your* particular issue again?

    she must be a teabagger

    Who called you a teabagger? Moi? You seem to hear a lot of things that are not being said, perhaps you should get that checked out...

  • Isabel says:

    Okay so what WERE you calling me? Spit it out.

    "Nor have you explained why we should not view you in precisely the same light as we view people who use such derailing and distracting strategies because they are in fact motivated to oppose the points at hand. "

    "Again, why am I obliged to focus on *your* particular issue again? "

    Ummm, "my" issue?? Really? Classism is my issue? How is that?
    I thought you were interested, in the interest of fairness, including under-represented groups in science related endeavors. That's my whole point. It goes against your whole philosophy to favor certain of those groups. You are ignoring the largest of those groups, because you are unhappy with their pale skin.

    Yet if someone is from a privileged background (relative to a working class white American with no contacts in academia and shitty rural schools) like Samia or Isis you count them in the diversity concept. So I don't think you're being disingenuous again.

    The Jewish issue is relevant because it makes clear that other religions are under-represented. This brings me back to my original request to paint a vision for us of what diversity looks like for you. It sounds lie you want to pick and choose the groups represented, not just have proportional representation.

    So, what is the socio-economic composition of your colleagues and grad students?

  • Isabel says:

    "So I don’t think you’re being disingenuous again. "

    Actual I DO think so:)

  • [...] See the rest here: And the troll shouted “Who's that trip-tropping across MY BRIDGE … [...]

Leave a Reply