When the Salt Has Lost Its Savor

At Persuasion Zaid Jilani laments that previously legitimate organs of serious inquiry are undermining themselves in the name of “social justice”:

The Urban Institute is one of America’s most storied think tanks. For half a century, it has produced high-quality research that has helped guide American policymakers as they tackle major domestic policy challenges.

Part of what makes the organization’s work so valuable is that it’s produced in an environment that values rigor and objectivity. Regardless of whether you agree with their policy recommendations or political lean—they tend to argue in favor of progressive solutions—you can count on their research being thorough and reliable.

That’s why it was so alarming to see a recent Urban Institute blog post by one of its policy analysts, Lauren Farrell, that argues that we should rethink the very concept of impartial research. She warned that the research practices of “objectivity” and “rigor” are “harmful” and “rooted in racism, ableism, and classism.”

“Objectivity allows researchers, intentions aside, to define themselves as experts without learning from people with lived experience,” she cautioned. “Objectivity also gives researchers grounds to claim they have no motives or biases in their work. Racism, sexism, classism, and ableism permeate US institutions and systems, which, in turn, allows for research that reproduces or creates racist stereotypes and reinforces societal power differences between who generates information (white cisgender people) and who is a subject (Black, Indigenous, and other people of color at the margins of class and gender).”

Here’s the heart of his piece:

Farrell seems to be concerned that objective and rigorous research may produce findings that are unfriendly to a progressive social agenda. She wants us to infuse our research practices with left-wing ideology for the purpose of serving left-wing goals.

But the point of research is not to promote a particular ideology or agenda. The point of research is to tell us what is true. Objectivity lets us see the world as it is, rather than what we might wish it were. It’s important to acknowledge reality and settle on a good set of facts before we do anything else. We can then use that knowledge as we see fit, based on our values—which is where ideology and argument about what should be done can come into the picture.

The irony of such a surrender is that it does not produce benefits for those who are victims of racism, for people with disabilities, or for the poor but it does reap financial rewards for those sowing discord and dissatisfaction.

The result is that each faction identifies its own approved sources of information and rejects any source not on the approved list out-of-hand.

3 comments… add one
  • bob sykes Link

    Did anything actually happen at Love Canal in the late 70’s? Just what? Was the rate of birth defects significantly higher than the background rate of about 4% of newborns?

    This is a true Rashomon event. I have a few books with incompatible narratives regarding the Love Canal incident. I tend to think that given the amount of toxic material present (which was not contained to the standards of the 70’s, but perfectly OK for the 50’s), and that the school board broke whatever containment there was, that some people were poisoned.

    If anything happened it was done by the local school district that forced Hooker Chemical to sell the site to them for the construction of schools and a neighborhood. Hooker noted the site was contaminated and not suitable for construction. The school board didn’t care.

    The school board escaped any censure or penalty. Hooker took the fall.

    By the end of my career in environmental engineering, I knew nothing.

    I would not recommend students pursue careers in any biologically related profession. Nowadays not even medicine. It’s all too corrupt.

  • Jan Link

    “ The result is that each faction identifies its own approved sources of information and rejects any source not on the approved list out-of-hand.”

    I completely agree. Sources of information are no longer analyzed (or judged) by the facts submitted, or the objectivity observed by the diversity of contributors. Rather, people go with and stand by narratives confirming their own bias. In fact, to find opinions and stances not tainted by one’s own ideological POV is truly difficult.

  • Drew Link

    Amen

Leave a Comment