Feminist Professor Thinks "Rigor" is Evil

[Cerebus]

Have another riposte from an interlocutor.

Wrongthink is not from 1984 (which I've read several times, once again last year). It's a term of the alt-right, and is a clue to TwoOfFive's online diet.

It would help if people would actually make an argument, rather than attacking someone for their age, supposed associations and more. Strawman arguments only lead to nasty and pointless discussions.

I did ask klaff to put forward a cogent argument quite early in the proceedings, but after a while it becomes quite apparent that he's "not here for the hunting" as the joke has it.

It's a shame, as early on this was beginning to look like quite a decent discussion was going to ensue - but then the usual suspects hurled some abuse at people who don't think like them "SJWs, feminists, etc" and, unusually, someone taking almost as unthinking a position from the  opposing view, thusly any prospect of actual debate gets drowned out.

[Ampera]

Wrongthink may not be from 1984, which is on part my bad. It's a term designed in the style of 1984's Newspeak, and is very similar to the term crimethink which is from 1984. Got my terminology mixed up.

Hey TwoOfFive, I apologize for the alt-right labelling. Where I saw the term was on places like InfoWars (talking about Damore from Google) and I assumed you were lifting it from there or somewhere similar. My bad.

Info Wars isn't alt-right, they are just a concentrated form of screaming and stupid. At least they know that we're turning the frogs gay. It's a media company I try to stay far away from.

[klaff]

Have another riposte from an interlocutor.

Wrongthink is not from 1984 (which I've read several times, once again last year). It's a term of the alt-right, and is a clue to TwoOfFive's online diet.

It would help if people would actually make an argument, rather than attacking someone for their age, supposed associations and more. Strawman arguments only lead to nasty and pointless discussions.

I did ask klaff to put forward a cogent argument quite early in the proceedings, but after a while it becomes quite apparent that he's "not here for the hunting" as the joke has it.

It's a shame, as early on this was beginning to look like quite a decent discussion was going to ensue - but then the usual suspects hurled some abuse at people who don't think like them "SJWs, feminists, etc" and, unusually, someone taking almost as unthinking a position from the  opposing view, thusly any prospect of actual debate gets drowned out.

My personal position was stated most clearly in reply 30.

[nctnico]

WTF is this shit? I don't care what colour or creed the person designing my xxxxxx is, but I certainly want them to be rigourous about it.

I agree. Dumbing down education is not the solution. IMHO education needs to be stepped up and be equally available for everyone. From my own experience I know that intelligence has nothing to do with the physical appearance of a person.

[Cerebus]

My personal position was stated most clearly in reply 30.

"Well thar's yer problem". A position is not an argument (and, yes, I did review it before saying this and it is as you describe, a "position"). A position is saying "I think this" - all well and good if you intend to just entrench, or are virtue signalling, but if either is your intent then there is no point in being in a discussion about it. It needs to be followed by "because ..." before it forms the basis for an argument. Just running around and harrying anyone who, as far as you can tell, does not take the same position as you is not engaging in debate.

[Ampera]

WTF is this shit? I don't care what colour or creed the person designing my xxxxxx is, but I certainly want them to be rigourous about it.

I agree. Dumbing down education is not the solution. IMHO education needs to be stepped up and be equally available for everyone. From my own experience I know that intelligence has nothing to do with the physical appearance of a person.

Except one day I will be smart enough to engineer a machine to make me look smarter than all of y'all.

EDIT: I just want to go on the record that I intended to say better than smarter, but I like how this meaningless joke turned out better.

[Cerebus]

From my own experience I know that intelligence has nothing to do with the physical appearance of a person.

Yeah, my mirror keeps doing that to me too. 

[EEVblog]

Can anyone explain to me what value Riley’s ideologies add to an engineer’s education?

Adding a social justice dimension to the education helps in making one aware of the impact your profession has on the world at large. Are your design choices good for the environment? The patient? Are you creating an addictive product? Does it kill people or save lives? Does it reduce pain? Bring people together? More concretely, think products like VW "Clean Diesel", Monsanto's dicamba, or Facebook and Twitter. It's encouraging one to think beyond the assignment, beyond profit.

That stuff can be handled in an engineering ethics class. No need to bring "social justice" issues of gender, race, disability, equality etc into it.
As I previously linked, this seems to be starting to be an issue in general in universities (US primarily, but I'm told by recent graduates Australia too) and is
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/prof-social-justice-warriors-destroying-engineering/250/

And in particular Purdue and Donna Riley's vision (and she is in a position at Purdue to enact this) is very disturbing:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/prof-social-justice-warriors-destroying-engineering/msg1295212/#msg1295212

"The recently appointed dean of Purdue’s school, Dr. Donna Riley, has an ambitious agenda.
In her words (italics mine): “I seek to revise engineering curricula to be relevant to a fuller range of student experiences and career destinations, integrating concerns related to public policy, professional ethics, and social responsibility; de-centering Western civilization; and uncovering contributions of women and other underrepresented groups…. We examine how technology influences and is influenced by globalization, capitalism, and colonialism…. Gender is a key…[theme]…[throughout] the course…. We…[examine]… racist and colonialist projects in science….”

[wraper]

Can anyone explain to me what value Riley’s ideologies add to an engineer’s education?

Adding a social justice dimension to the education helps in making one aware of the impact your profession has on the world at large. Are your design choices good for the environment? The patient? Are you creating an addictive product? Does it kill people or save lives? Does it reduce pain? Bring people together? More concretely, think products like VW "Clean Diesel", Monsanto's dicamba, or Facebook and Twitter. It's encouraging one to think beyond the assignment, beyond profit.

Social justice divides people into the groups, not unites them. Also usually this "justice" is achieved by discriminating one group to "help" another. SJ things like race or gender based quotas at employment or education are outright discriminating and racist despite being presented as exactly opposite. IMO, race or gender should never be used to give advantage or disadvantage to someone, anything should be based solely on one's performance and nothing else. You want more women in engineering? Did you ask them if they are interested in such sort of work to begin with? Why bother, let's make 50/50 men and women into the field and screw all those loads of extra men who left after fitting all the women despite their performance. Ok, let's make this for every "good job", but then how many women will do coal mining to equalize things?

EDIT: This is what social justice does: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5474368/f1-grid-girls-latest-stopped-snowflake-feminists-bernie-ecclestone/
Strange, why women who got "protected" are not happy at all  .

[klaff]

Here's the full text from her page at Smith College (https://www.smith.edu/swg/faculty_riley.php), without the editing.

Donna Riley earned her B.S.E from Princeton University and her M.S. and Ph.D. from Carnegie Mellon University.

My scholarship currently focuses on applying liberative pedagogies in engineering education, leveraging best practices from women's studies and ethnic studies to engage students in creating a democratic classroom that encourages all voices. In 2005 I received a CAREER award from the National Science Foundation to support this work, which includes developing, implementing, and assessing curricular and pedagogical innovations based on liberative pedagogies and student input at Smith, and understanding how students at Smith conceptualize their identities as engineers. I seek as an engineering educator to be part of a paradigm shift that these pedagogies demand, repositioning concerns about diversity in science and engineering from superficial measures of equity as headcounts, to addressing justice and the genuine engagement of all students as core educational challenges.

I currently teach traditional courses in the areas of chemical and environmental engineering, as well as elective courses on engineering and global development, science, technology, and ethics (cross-listed with SWG) and technological risk assessment and communication. I seek to revise engineering curricula to be relevant to a fuller range of student experiences and career destinations, integrating concerns related to public policy, professional ethics and social responsibility; de-centering Western civilization; and uncovering contributions of women and other underrepresented groups.

In EGR 330 (Engineering and Global Development), we critically evaluate past and current trends in appropriate and sustainable technology. We examine how technology influences and is influenced by globalization, capitalism and colonialism, and the role technology plays in movements that counter these forces. Gender is a key thread running through the course in examining issues of water supply and quality, food production and energy.

In EGR 205 (Science, Technology and Ethics), we consider questions such as who decides how science and engineering are done, who can participate in the scientific enterprise and what problems are legitimately addressed within these disciplines and professions. We take up racist and colonialist projects in science, as well as the role of technology, culture and economic systems in the drive toward bigger, faster, cheaper and more automated production of goods. A course theme around technology and control provides for exploration of military, information, reproductive and environmental applications. Using readings from philosophy, science and technology studies, and feminist and postcolonial science studies, we explore these topics and encounter new models of science and engineering that are responsive to ethical concerns.

[wraper]

Here's the full text from her page at Smith College (https://www.smith.edu/swg/faculty_riley.php), without the editing.

Donna Riley earned her B.S.E from Princeton University and her M.S. and Ph.D. from Carnegie Mellon University.

What a load of crap publications she made. Not a single work doing real science:

Riley, D., Pawley, A., Tucker, J., and Catalano, G.D. "Feminisms in Engineering Education: Transformative Possibilities." National Women's Studies Association Journal, (August 2009).

Riley, D. Engineering and Social Justice. San Rafael, CA: Morgan and Claypool (2008).

Riley, D. and Sciarra, G.L. "'You're all a bunch of fucking feminists': Addressing the Perceived Conflict Between Gender and Professional Identities Using the Montreal Massacre." Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, October 28–31, San Diego, CA (2006).

Riley, D. M., and Claris, L. "Power/Knowledge: Using Foucault to promote critical understandings of content and pedagogy in engineering thermodynamics." ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, June 18 - 21, Chicago, IL (2006).

Riley, D. and Armstrong, E. "Common Ground: How a course collaboration between engineering and women's studies produced fine art." ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, June 12-15, Portland, OR (2005).

Chesler, N. and Riley, D. "The Art of Engineering: Using fine arts to discuss the lives of women faculty in engineering." ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, June 20-23, Salt Lake City, Utah (2004).

Riley, D. "Employing Liberative Pedagogies in Engineering Education." Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 9(2): 137-158 (2003).

Riley, D. "Sex, Fear and Condescension on Campus: Cybercensorship at Carnegie Mellon University." Wired_Women: Gender and new realities in cyberspace. L. Cherney and E.R. Weise, eds. Seattle: Seal Press, 1996.

[TerraHertz]

Heh. I'm most amused by Dave exploring where the boundary lies between engineering (allowed on this forum) and politics (not allowed.)

A Feminist SJW talking shit about Engineering. The Mandelbrot set of the Pol-Eng plane.

[EEVblog]

Here's the full text from her page at Smith College (https://www.smith.edu/swg/faculty_riley.php), without the editing.

Donna Riley earned her B.S.E from Princeton University and her M.S. and Ph.D. from Carnegie Mellon University.

My scholarship currently focuses on applying liberative pedagogies in engineering education

WTF is that?

, leveraging best practices from women's studies and ethnic studies to engage students in creating a democratic classroom that encourages all voices.

WTF has that got to do with teaching engineering?

In 2005 I received a CAREER award from the National Science Foundation to support this work, which includes developing, implementing, and assessing curricular and pedagogical innovations based on liberative pedagogies and student input at Smith, and understanding how students at Smith conceptualize their identities as engineers.

 

I seek as an engineering educator to be part of a paradigm shift that these pedagogies demand, repositioning concerns about diversity in science and engineering from superficial measures of equity as headcounts, to addressing justice and the genuine engagement of all students as core educational challenges.

Translation - "I want equal numbers of women and other "minorities" in the course even if they have no interest in it or aptitude for it, because equal numbers are more important that those things."

I currently teach traditional courses in the areas of chemical and environmental engineering, as well as elective courses on engineering and global development, science, technology, and ethics (cross-listed with SWG) and technological risk assessment and communication. I seek to revise engineering curricula to be relevant to a fuller range of student experiences and career destinations, integrating concerns related to public policy, professional ethics and social responsibility; de-centering Western civilization; and uncovering contributions of women and other underrepresented groups.

Again, WTF does this have to do with teaching engineering?

In EGR 330 (Engineering and Global Development), we critically evaluate past and current trends in appropriate and sustainable technology. We examine how technology influences and is influenced by globalization, capitalism and colonialism, and the role technology plays in movements that counter these forces. Gender is a key thread running through the course in examining issues of water supply and quality, food production and energy.

Is this abortion of a class compulsory to complete your EE at Prudue?
Sounds like she wants it to be if it isn't, screw that.

In EGR 205 (Science, Technology and Ethics), we consider questions such as who decides how science and engineering are done, who can participate in the scientific enterprise and what problems are legitimately addressed within these disciplines and professions. We take up racist and colonialist projects in science, as well as the role of technology, culture and economic systems in the drive toward bigger, faster, cheaper and more automated production of goods. A course theme around technology and control provides for exploration of military, information, reproductive and environmental applications. Using readings from philosophy, science and technology studies, and feminist and postcolonial science studies, we explore these topics and encounter new models of science and engineering that are responsive to ethical concerns.

WHY?
 

I feel sorry for anyone doing EE at Purdue.

[EEVblog]

Here's the full text from her page at Smith College (https://www.smith.edu/swg/faculty_riley.php), without the editing.

Donna Riley earned her B.S.E from Princeton University and her M.S. and Ph.D. from Carnegie Mellon University.

What a load of crap publications she made. Not a single work doing real science:

Riley, D., Pawley, A., Tucker, J., and Catalano, G.D. "Feminisms in Engineering Education: Transformative Possibilities." National Women's Studies Association Journal, (August 2009).

https://engineering.purdue.edu/Engr/People/NewFaculty/New_Faculty_2017/riley.html

Dr. Riley’s research interests include engineering and social justice; engineering ethics; social inequality in engineering education; the liberal education of engineers; and engineering studies.

Riley, D. Engineering and Social Justice. San Rafael, CA: Morgan and Claypool (2008).

Riley, D. and Sciarra, G.L. "'You're all a bunch of fucking feminists': Addressing the Perceived Conflict Between Gender and Professional Identities Using the Montreal Massacre." Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, October 28–31, San Diego, CA (2006).

Riley, D. M., and Claris, L. "Power/Knowledge: Using Foucault to promote critical understandings of content and pedagogy in engineering thermodynamics." ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, June 18 - 21, Chicago, IL (2006).

Riley, D. and Armstrong, E. "Common Ground: How a course collaboration between engineering and women's studies produced fine art." ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, June 12-15, Portland, OR (2005).

Chesler, N. and Riley, D. "The Art of Engineering: Using fine arts to discuss the lives of women faculty in engineering." ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, June 20-23, Salt Lake City, Utah (2004).

Riley, D. "Employing Liberative Pedagogies in Engineering Education." Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 9(2): 137-158 (2003).

Riley, D. "Sex, Fear and Condescension on Campus: Cybercensorship at Carnegie Mellon University." Wired_Women: Gender and new realities in cyberspace. L. Cherney and E.R. Weise, eds. Seattle: Seal Press, 1996.

That's laughable in itself, but what I have a problem with is that this person is the Head of the School of Engineering Education at Purdue 

https://engineering.purdue.edu/Engr/People/NewFaculty/New_Faculty_2017/riley.html

Dr. Riley’s research interests include engineering and social justice; engineering ethics; social inequality in engineering education; the liberal education of engineers; and engineering studies.

[Brumby]

If Donna Riley actually has a real point - something about which I am unclear - then she hasn't framed it very well ... and her arguments (from that video, at least) are impossible to follow.  She speaks around the word "rigour" - but I sincerely wonder if she has the right word.

My head is still spinning from that disingenuous dictionary discourse.  That was devoid of logic and any hint of rigour.

[amyk]

de-centering Western civilization;

Ironically, the West is already "de-centering" itself by copiously indulging in this SJW crap, while the East just marches on...

[EEVblog]

https://www.linkedin.com/in/donna-riley-63108326

Professor of Engineering Education
Virginia Tech
August 2014 – June 2017 (2 years 11 months)
Professor in the Department of Engineering Education in the College of Engineering
Affiliate faculty in Science, Technology & Society and Women & Gender Studies

I developed and taught an undergraduate course in "Citizen Engineering" for non-engineers, exploring informal and formal forms of engineering design, the interrelationship of technology and society, and public participation in large engineering projects. I taught the departmental Graduate Seminar, and co-prepared a graduate elective in Proposal Writing.

I conducted research in engineering education that intersects with ethics, gender studies, and STS/engineering studies.

I do like the "I developed and taught an undergraduate course in "Citizen Engineering" for non-engineers" part though,  to that.
Too bad the other crap see researches and want to teach everyone should have nothing to do with engineering education.

[EEVblog]

I don't think I understand half of this, but the taxpayer paid $25M for it:

Program Director
National Science Foundation
March 2013 – August 2015 (2 years 6 months)
Managed $25 million funding portfolio across four programs in engineering education. Led development of new initiative in Professional Formation of Engineers, including creation of new solicitation in Revolutionizing Engineering Departments (RED) as well as re-design of Research in Formation of Engineers (RFE) and Research Initiation in Engineering Formation (RIEF).

Through its funding portfolio the Engineering Education Program focuses on informing the creation of a more agile engineering education ecosystem that offers diverse pathways to engineering careers to all members of society and that dynamically and rapidly adapts to meet the changing needs of society and the nation's economy.

The RED program enables engineering departments to lead the nation by successfully achieving significant sustainable changes necessary to overcome long-standing issues in their undergraduate programs and educate inclusive communities of engineering students prepared to solve 21st century challenges.

The RFE program focuses on achieving systemic improvements by exploring: advancing holistic engineering formation; diversifying pathways to and through engineering; citizen engineering, credentialing and expertise; understanding how change in engineering formation travels, translates, transfers, diffuses, and/or scales; and developing engineering-specific theories of formation.

The RIEF program seeks to enable engineering faculty who are renowned for teaching, mentoring, or leading educational reform efforts on their campus to initiate collaborations with colleagues in the social sciences to address difficult, boundary-spanning problems in the formation of engineers.

The Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) program recognizes exceptional junior faculty in
the area of engineering education research and practice.

[EEVblog]

Found these two articles:

https://www.christopherfountain.com/blog/2017/4/1/whos-going-to-build-our-bridges-and-wholl-dare-cross-them-if-theyre-built

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/queer-engineering-purdue-social-justice-warriors/
Modify message

[EEVblog]

This is written by one of her students in the Thermodynamics class Donna Riley was teaching at Smit College (an all women college)

http://ashish-dss.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/critical-pedagogy-in-engineering.html

[John B]

On the theme of persuasive definition fallacies - the buzz-phrase "women and minorities" has always been an interesting one. If you consider men and women to be binary categories, then "women and minorities" would logically imply everyone as women aren't a minority, hence being a redundant saying. Of course the retort would be that women would be a minority in terms of "power", bringing in another unquantified dimension to the argument. Damn that pesky rigour, perhaps we should do something to erode that a touch.....

[Brumby]

If you consider men and women to be binary categories, then "women and minorities" would logically imply everyone as women aren't a minority, hence being a redundant saying.

Ah ... No.  It is a valid description:

[Cerebus]

I taught the departmental Graduate Seminar, and co-prepared a graduate elective in Proposal Writing.

Oh yeah? Yet she writes like this:

Through its funding portfolio the Engineering Education Program focuses on informing the creation of a more agile engineering education ecosystem that offers diverse pathways to engineering careers to all members of society and that dynamically and rapidly adapts to meet the changing needs of society and the nation's economy.

Anybody who writes paragraph length, buzz-phrase loaded, run-on sentences like that ought, by law, to be prohibited from any involvement in teaching writing.

Back in my writing days, if I'd dropped that on my chief sub-editor's desk she would have strangled me with her keyboard cord and stabbed me through the heart with a blue pencil.

[John B]

If you consider men and women to be binary categories, then "women and minorities" would logically imply everyone as women aren't a minority, hence being a redundant saying.

Ah ... No.  It is a valid description:

The only thing I would modify is that children could be considered outside that classification, but since the phrase is usually used in relation to workplaces and institutions, the set of valid people does not include children. Other than that my comment stands.

[ataradov]

This is written by one of her students in the Thermodynamics class Donna Riley was teaching at Smit College (an all women college)

Breaking the Western hegemony. In order to decenter the male hegemony of the Western civilization, Riley discussed examples of thermodynamic inventions done by non-Western and non-male inventors. Also, some of the assignments required students to make interracial and intercultural connections in thermodynamics.

What kind of BS is that? No wonder you have people that don't understand engineering as the result.

All in all, it looks like a fluffy way of teaching where everyone is a winner. Unsustainable and useless, in other words.