NASA names headquarters after first Black female engineer Mary W. Jackson(axios.com)
axios.com
NASA names headquarters after first Black female engineer Mary W. Jackson
https://www.axios.com/nasa-black-female-engineer-headquarters-7e859612-0832-4448-af5c-6a7ad3b64f19.html
110 comments
Probably not to be honest, she deserves the merit she is getting for the work she did. However, the Apollo program in the 60s at it's peak was 4% of the US government budget compared to 0.5% today. The federal government was had a fire hose full of greenbacks aimed at NASA so I'd assume they were hiring huge numbers of engineers directly, and also indirectly through all the aerospace/defense manufacturers who were working on the space program while also simultaneously getting huge contracts for designing ballistic missiles.
NASA has a much smaller budget today so I wouldn't be surprised if you've got to display much more merit in college or your career to get selected as an engineer.
NASA has a much smaller budget today so I wouldn't be surprised if you've got to display much more merit in college or your career to get selected as an engineer.
I think you are seriously lacking in historical knowledge and context for the general regard and treatment of black professionals in the 60s.
Edit: the article spells this out.
She was the junior of the three starring characters in the movie Hidden Figures.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Figures
She was the junior of the three starring characters in the movie Hidden Figures.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Figures
I'm not much of a movie watcher but this one is an outstanding one! Highly recommend it to anyone who hasn't already seen it.
A great movie indeed however it uses the white savior trope gratuitously. The scene where Kevin Costner’s character lets Octavia Spencer’s character into the mission control room never happened in real life.
Octavia Spenser plays Dorothy Vaughan, the programmer. Katherine Johnson was played by Taraji Henson.
The movie deliberately side steps history in order to tell a story. For example the accomplishments of the three primary characters occurred during unrelated timelines. The three primary characters likely knew each other in passing but in addition to the different timelines they worked in unrelated departments on unrelated projects. Also Katherine Johnson took 3 days to confirm John Glenn’s landing coordinates within the week of launch. The movie reduced that to an hour effort holding up launch for dramatic effect. John Glenn really did ask for Johnson to personally verify the numbers though.
There are three supporting characters that are real life figures: Al Harrison played by Kevin Costner, Jim Johnson played by Mahershala Ali, and Olke Krupa who played a fictionalized version of a real engineer mostly accurately depicted as Mary Jackson’s real life supervisor. The rest of the supporting cast were largely stereotype figures.
Considering the historical reality I did not take the white characters as white saviors at all.
The movie deliberately side steps history in order to tell a story. For example the accomplishments of the three primary characters occurred during unrelated timelines. The three primary characters likely knew each other in passing but in addition to the different timelines they worked in unrelated departments on unrelated projects. Also Katherine Johnson took 3 days to confirm John Glenn’s landing coordinates within the week of launch. The movie reduced that to an hour effort holding up launch for dramatic effect. John Glenn really did ask for Johnson to personally verify the numbers though.
There are three supporting characters that are real life figures: Al Harrison played by Kevin Costner, Jim Johnson played by Mahershala Ali, and Olke Krupa who played a fictionalized version of a real engineer mostly accurately depicted as Mary Jackson’s real life supervisor. The rest of the supporting cast were largely stereotype figures.
Considering the historical reality I did not take the white characters as white saviors at all.
There are other... issues with the movie. At the end, Katherine Johnson is shown running between her office in Virginia, and Mercury mission control, which was actually in Florida. This has to do with her checking computer calculations of orbits for John Glenn's flight -- something she actually did do, but it's depicted as being done in minutes, and it actually took her more like a week. (Computers of the time were damn slow by modern standards, but they were still faster than that!) It was not a big secret that the Redstone rocket (a souped-up V2) couldn't put something as heavy as a Mercury capsule into orbit. And so forth.
The movie's a good story, but if you want actual history, read the book.
The movie's a good story, but if you want actual history, read the book.
I didn’t read it as Costner being a “savior”. She had all the agency and action. She just needed someone to give her a fair shake. I should go back and read the book though because I’m curious about where they bent the story for dramatic purposes.
Yeah, that trope is regrettable. Don't forget the entirely fictitious scene where Costner's character "ended" segregated bathrooms by taking down a "whites only" sign.
I didn't think Costner's character even existed in real life but I'm also not convinced that fact detracts much from the film.
I've seen negative comments of people claiming this is fruitless and that it pretends to solve racism forever (here and elsewhere).
No one involved in naming this thought that was the case. They are giving overdue recognition.
I can't imagine why people would be negative about this besides feeling threatened.
No one involved in naming this thought that was the case. They are giving overdue recognition.
I can't imagine why people would be negative about this besides feeling threatened.
I dont know if feeling threatened but aware this person’s contribution was not the reason for the naming but the fact that black people were supressed. It’s a generous move but not highly meritocratic. People might have a problem or two with that. I want to remind them we dont live in a meritocratic society anyway and the powerful snatch the merit away like a giant magnet.
It will naturally bruise some egos and pump up some other ones and appear to make a bit of justice. The question is, will black americans be treated as second class citizens in 10, 20, 50 years from now?
> I want to remind them we dont live in a meritocratic society
The reason I love the sciences is that in general, people are more meritocratic in those circles compared to others. I've found especially in scientific academia that people are far more meritocratic compared to other disciplines. This also applies at science/engineering companies. No, not at all levels (the more business-y you get, the less of a meritocracy it becomes). But usually team-leads, senior engineers, etc. rise because of merit. Always exceptions, but in general. Much more than as an accounting firm where you rise because you know somebody who knows somebody.
Unfortunately, as time goes on, I've seen academic circles in sci&eng, and especially tech companies (and silicone valley in general) become much more interested in stay relevant, keeping up with social trends and movements, and appearing progressive. You see this with all the FAANG companies calmoring to be the first to speak out against some injustice or another, or be the first to take a stand on Their Platform(TM).
And with this, the meritocracy has slowly declined. You don't rise in a company because you're a skilled engineer - you can rise because you're a token minority. Or because you're the most outspoken on a social injustice and can see a way for your company to solve it (sorry, profit from it). You can be rewarded because you were the first (insert random minority here) to solve a problem or do something that plenty of other people had already done. Rather than celebrating scientific advancement, we're now celebrating the type of people making that advancement. What next, the first black woman to clone a GitHub repo? Let's name the GitHub HQ after that.
The reason I love the sciences is that in general, people are more meritocratic in those circles compared to others. I've found especially in scientific academia that people are far more meritocratic compared to other disciplines. This also applies at science/engineering companies. No, not at all levels (the more business-y you get, the less of a meritocracy it becomes). But usually team-leads, senior engineers, etc. rise because of merit. Always exceptions, but in general. Much more than as an accounting firm where you rise because you know somebody who knows somebody.
Unfortunately, as time goes on, I've seen academic circles in sci&eng, and especially tech companies (and silicone valley in general) become much more interested in stay relevant, keeping up with social trends and movements, and appearing progressive. You see this with all the FAANG companies calmoring to be the first to speak out against some injustice or another, or be the first to take a stand on Their Platform(TM).
And with this, the meritocracy has slowly declined. You don't rise in a company because you're a skilled engineer - you can rise because you're a token minority. Or because you're the most outspoken on a social injustice and can see a way for your company to solve it (sorry, profit from it). You can be rewarded because you were the first (insert random minority here) to solve a problem or do something that plenty of other people had already done. Rather than celebrating scientific advancement, we're now celebrating the type of people making that advancement. What next, the first black woman to clone a GitHub repo? Let's name the GitHub HQ after that.
As an actual scientist, no, science is not particularly meritocratic or objective. The current scientific world is highly catered towards people that can afford to devote their 20s and 30s to a low-paying job. Because of in-group dynamics, it also maintains the existing population make-up, which is predominantly white or Asian.
Just because you need to sacrifice your prime years in order to succeed, doesn't mean the system isn't meritorious. What isn't meritorious about needing to work hard even if you're talented? Nobody gets a free ride.
If you mean that gifted people should have their livelihood subsidised by the state, then sure, I'm open to exploring merit based scholarships, and society investing more in the sciences and so on. But nobody gets a prize in science without actually putting in the work and achieving something. Though, admittedly we are seeing that less and less. Society in general is becoming less meritorious (participation awards, etc).
If you mean that gifted people should have their livelihood subsidised by the state, then sure, I'm open to exploring merit based scholarships, and society investing more in the sciences and so on. But nobody gets a prize in science without actually putting in the work and achieving something. Though, admittedly we are seeing that less and less. Society in general is becoming less meritorious (participation awards, etc).
The problem is that, in a world where white folks have access to a better social safety net, on average they can afford to sacrifice their 20s and 30s in this pursuit, where others might not have that luxury.
Anyway, I won't waste my time further debating what's obvious gaslighting.
Anyway, I won't waste my time further debating what's obvious gaslighting.
This is simply not true. Most people can’t afford education but they still take loans and pursue it, even if they have no aptitude for science.
It is indeed gaslighting to talk about “safety nets” when there is a student loan crisis in the country.
It is indeed gaslighting to talk about “safety nets” when there is a student loan crisis in the country.
I believe they are referring to the safety net provided by relative white wealth. Median net worth for white families in America is 10x that of black families.
Which means they are much more likely to be able to get support from home or even a home to move back to if things get tough.
It's a lot easier to take the economic risk of a post-grad or post-doc program when you know there is a family with means to fall back on.
Excessive student loans are not a serious issue relative to what many in poverty face. If you don't make enough money to pay your student loans, then you can defer them indefinitely. Or just not pay them. It might keep you from getting rich. But it's not going to keep you from eating.
Which means they are much more likely to be able to get support from home or even a home to move back to if things get tough.
It's a lot easier to take the economic risk of a post-grad or post-doc program when you know there is a family with means to fall back on.
Excessive student loans are not a serious issue relative to what many in poverty face. If you don't make enough money to pay your student loans, then you can defer them indefinitely. Or just not pay them. It might keep you from getting rich. But it's not going to keep you from eating.
Yes that’s what I mean by safety net
> Anyway, I won't waste my time further debating what's obvious gaslighting.
Calling someone’s argument “obvious gaslighting” is just an appeal to incredulity.
Calling someone’s argument “obvious gaslighting” is just an appeal to incredulity.
larcrimacida(2)
People who come to surface are either genial or narcisistic prize seekers. A lot of white people worth mentioning were forgotten because others trampled on them.
Don’t be so sure it’s so meritocratic, thats just a myth
Most Nobel prize winners to date have been white. Would you say the majority of them sought out the prize? I've read about many of them, and most seem to have just had a great discovery that was awarded on merit. There will always be outliers that do things for the awards, but it's not a generialisation I've seen in the sciences. Should we start giving more Nobel prizes to black people just because of the color of their skin, or should we continue giving the Nobel prize to objectively high achievers?
Just how do you think the Nobel committee decides which work to look at?
I don't think they need to be meeting racial quotas for prizes, but my guess is that there is a lot of work to be done in the system that promotes and nominates candidates and those systems in place that decide who and what gets published.
I don't think they need to be meeting racial quotas for prizes, but my guess is that there is a lot of work to be done in the system that promotes and nominates candidates and those systems in place that decide who and what gets published.
a lot of Nobel Prizes in the sciences just go to the high-profile Professors that lead projects, and not to the grad students that do most of the labour.
Doesn't this go both ways? Is it really more meritocratic to choose someone who made a greater contribution if they were given significantly better opportunities throughout their life to achieve it? Can you even judge merit if not everyone is given an equal start?
The problem your opposition sees is that:
It is a gross generalization and on an individual basis there is no way to check or know if that ______ person had equal opportunities or they didn’t. The problem with generalized appropriations but localized relief is that unfairness is vividly unbearable to those who are impacted. Imagine if race ______ gets 20 more points in an exam than the rest because they just happen to be a part of a minority. That would be infuriating to a lot of people who took that exam. It’s no fault of ours - this is a natural reaction of all humans. Now, if you’re not taking that exam, that might sound very benevolent. Life is like an exam in some ways. If everyone can take the exam, that would be great. Some can’t even take it, and that where the focus should be - eliminate poverty, inspire people to work hard, and enable people to go to college.
Imagine for a moment - you’re laid off, your family depends solely on you to survive. You’ve interviewed and you think you got the job only to realize that a minority person took it instead only because of the color of their skin. Would you be ok with that(assuming it’s true that there was no meritocracy involved)? This whole thing about improving the world goes into the toilet when your child is crying and you’re looking at your house being foreclosed.
If you’re well off, everything is rosy. You need to also consider other viewpoints.
It is a gross generalization and on an individual basis there is no way to check or know if that ______ person had equal opportunities or they didn’t. The problem with generalized appropriations but localized relief is that unfairness is vividly unbearable to those who are impacted. Imagine if race ______ gets 20 more points in an exam than the rest because they just happen to be a part of a minority. That would be infuriating to a lot of people who took that exam. It’s no fault of ours - this is a natural reaction of all humans. Now, if you’re not taking that exam, that might sound very benevolent. Life is like an exam in some ways. If everyone can take the exam, that would be great. Some can’t even take it, and that where the focus should be - eliminate poverty, inspire people to work hard, and enable people to go to college.
Imagine for a moment - you’re laid off, your family depends solely on you to survive. You’ve interviewed and you think you got the job only to realize that a minority person took it instead only because of the color of their skin. Would you be ok with that(assuming it’s true that there was no meritocracy involved)? This whole thing about improving the world goes into the toilet when your child is crying and you’re looking at your house being foreclosed.
If you’re well off, everything is rosy. You need to also consider other viewpoints.
Now imagine that your great grandparents were enslaved. Then your grandparents and parents suffered through Jim Crow. Then you go through life being slighted and made to feel like an other and anytime you achieve something, some idiot claims it was because of racial quotas and you know some others think it to themselves.
Then you are told that you didn't get the job because now (as of the day the civil rights act passed or the day Obama was elected) we no longer have racial bias in our hiring practices and we are now officially a meritocracy.
So no, I don't see a problem with a system that might slightly favor a minority because I doubt that on the whole they are actually getting any sort of advantage anyway.
97% feels oppressive when you are used to 100%.
Then you are told that you didn't get the job because now (as of the day the civil rights act passed or the day Obama was elected) we no longer have racial bias in our hiring practices and we are now officially a meritocracy.
So no, I don't see a problem with a system that might slightly favor a minority because I doubt that on the whole they are actually getting any sort of advantage anyway.
97% feels oppressive when you are used to 100%.
I totally disagree, how far do we want to go back? Reparations should be provided as funding the schools, better education for poor and impoverished neighborhoods, not some kind of a $4000 check to people of color.
Why not focus on improving communities? I don't want to replace meritocracy with favored treatment one iota, doesn't matter if you were disadvantaged or not.
It is the height of hypocrisy as:
- What about native indians?
- What about asian minorities?
- What about people with disabilities?
- What about people with low IQ scores?
- What about people with low grades in schools?
- What about people that got killed by Genghis Khan?
- What about people that died in the crusades?
At this point, this whole thing lands on a shaky foundation of hypocrisy and favored treatment which is kind of ironic that that's exactly the problem you're trying to solve.
Born with a brown skin? You've got things lined up pretty good for you just because you were born brown. Born with a white skin? You've got things lined up pretty much against you just because you were born white (for the record, I am not white). This is reversing what used to happen. I don't think this is the solution, the solution is to go fix the problems in the first place - higher funding to impoverished schools, lifting up the people from poverty and letting these communities flourish. Colored or not. Instead, Democrats focus on reparations in place for meritocracy.
I want a society that stops talking about race on both sides - the oppressive and the oppressed. Color of the skin should be taught as a matter of historical context, not some kind of a revenge/reparations. Stop wasting energy on trying to undo history, instead focus on the future.
Why not focus on improving communities? I don't want to replace meritocracy with favored treatment one iota, doesn't matter if you were disadvantaged or not.
It is the height of hypocrisy as:
- What about native indians?
- What about asian minorities?
- What about people with disabilities?
- What about people with low IQ scores?
- What about people with low grades in schools?
- What about people that got killed by Genghis Khan?
- What about people that died in the crusades?
At this point, this whole thing lands on a shaky foundation of hypocrisy and favored treatment which is kind of ironic that that's exactly the problem you're trying to solve.
Born with a brown skin? You've got things lined up pretty good for you just because you were born brown. Born with a white skin? You've got things lined up pretty much against you just because you were born white (for the record, I am not white). This is reversing what used to happen. I don't think this is the solution, the solution is to go fix the problems in the first place - higher funding to impoverished schools, lifting up the people from poverty and letting these communities flourish. Colored or not. Instead, Democrats focus on reparations in place for meritocracy.
I want a society that stops talking about race on both sides - the oppressive and the oppressed. Color of the skin should be taught as a matter of historical context, not some kind of a revenge/reparations. Stop wasting energy on trying to undo history, instead focus on the future.
What-aboutism is not a valid argument. And there are programs in place for some of the issues in your list (none of which really stack up much to America's history of slavery and jim crow).
Who said anything about cash reparations or Democrats? Yes, programs should be better funded to make up for the past evils of our society. But what about the people here and now that are disadvantaged due to past evils and the lack of these programs in the past?
It's the pairing of past injustices with the inability to just "blend in" with the rest of the crowd that creates a special case.
If you are born poor as a black person, you are still twice as likely to remain poor.
As for your comment that being born white is some kind of disadvantage is just laughable. Look at the data, what does it tell you? The fact is, almost every statistic out there indicates the opposite.
Median net worth for black families is 1/10th that of median white family net worth in America.
You may think that your success in life is entirely dependent on your personal grit and whatever. But the reality is that wealth and success is heavily dependent upon generational wealth and social capital. Which means that those whose ancestors were enslaved and otherwise abused are by definition starting way, way back from the starting line.
You don't get to have a head-start and then halfway through the race declare that from this point forward, all rules will apply to everyone equally. You especially don't get to pretend that those that had to start way back from the start line don't have some little weights attached to their ankles (i.e. modern racial bias).
Who said anything about cash reparations or Democrats? Yes, programs should be better funded to make up for the past evils of our society. But what about the people here and now that are disadvantaged due to past evils and the lack of these programs in the past?
It's the pairing of past injustices with the inability to just "blend in" with the rest of the crowd that creates a special case.
If you are born poor as a black person, you are still twice as likely to remain poor.
As for your comment that being born white is some kind of disadvantage is just laughable. Look at the data, what does it tell you? The fact is, almost every statistic out there indicates the opposite.
Median net worth for black families is 1/10th that of median white family net worth in America.
You may think that your success in life is entirely dependent on your personal grit and whatever. But the reality is that wealth and success is heavily dependent upon generational wealth and social capital. Which means that those whose ancestors were enslaved and otherwise abused are by definition starting way, way back from the starting line.
You don't get to have a head-start and then halfway through the race declare that from this point forward, all rules will apply to everyone equally. You especially don't get to pretend that those that had to start way back from the start line don't have some little weights attached to their ankles (i.e. modern racial bias).
The problem with this "97% feels oppressive when you are used to 100%" view is that it's zero-sum. If we treat the racial disparity issue as a zero-sum problem, we practically guarantee the perpetuation of racial inequality and racial animosity. It takes away from individuals of one race in order to give advantages to individuals of another race, and that's rarely a recipe for a just, equitable, unified and harmonious society.
Nobody serious denies that individuals of the latter race were less likely compared to individuals of the former race to win a given prize amount in the lottery of birth, due to historical and ongoing slavery, Jim Crow and systemic racism, war on drugs/black families, etc. Most people believe that the historical and cultural context justifies giving members of the latter race help to "catch up".
The problem lies in the perceived taking away, factual or not: requiring higher test scores for individuals of your race for university admission, hiring less-qualified individuals of another race rather than well-qualified individuals of your race for the good corporate PR, etc. It's obvious that racial handicaps ensure a distributional qualification disparity among the races for accepted candidates. They also make it easy for candidates who don't make the cut, even if they would not have made the cut had they been members of the preferred race, to blame the preferred race for their failure. Whenever an individual of the preferred race makes a mistake or gets a bad grade or review, more people will assume that that person is simply unqualified, even if members of the non-preferred race actually make the same mistake/get the same grade/review at higher rates! As you note, this especially harms qualified members of the preferred race. The racial handicap is fertilizer for racists and sets up a pervasive subconscious racial bias that simply won't go away until the handicap is removed.
I think true progress will only be made once we avoid taking anything away or imposing any racial handicaps and gather the collective willpower to positively support disadvantaged people of all races. We need to ameliorate the stumbling blocks people face to fully developing the skills, personal character, and emotional and familial stability necessary to access opportunity. But this is an enormous task requiring huge amounts of coordination across government and civil society, and doesn't get clicks^H^H^H^H^H^H votes as well as "This One Quick Fix Will Solve Racism in 20 Years! Doctors Hate It!"
Nobody serious denies that individuals of the latter race were less likely compared to individuals of the former race to win a given prize amount in the lottery of birth, due to historical and ongoing slavery, Jim Crow and systemic racism, war on drugs/black families, etc. Most people believe that the historical and cultural context justifies giving members of the latter race help to "catch up".
The problem lies in the perceived taking away, factual or not: requiring higher test scores for individuals of your race for university admission, hiring less-qualified individuals of another race rather than well-qualified individuals of your race for the good corporate PR, etc. It's obvious that racial handicaps ensure a distributional qualification disparity among the races for accepted candidates. They also make it easy for candidates who don't make the cut, even if they would not have made the cut had they been members of the preferred race, to blame the preferred race for their failure. Whenever an individual of the preferred race makes a mistake or gets a bad grade or review, more people will assume that that person is simply unqualified, even if members of the non-preferred race actually make the same mistake/get the same grade/review at higher rates! As you note, this especially harms qualified members of the preferred race. The racial handicap is fertilizer for racists and sets up a pervasive subconscious racial bias that simply won't go away until the handicap is removed.
I think true progress will only be made once we avoid taking anything away or imposing any racial handicaps and gather the collective willpower to positively support disadvantaged people of all races. We need to ameliorate the stumbling blocks people face to fully developing the skills, personal character, and emotional and familial stability necessary to access opportunity. But this is an enormous task requiring huge amounts of coordination across government and civil society, and doesn't get clicks^H^H^H^H^H^H votes as well as "This One Quick Fix Will Solve Racism in 20 Years! Doctors Hate It!"
>Nobody serious denies that individuals of the latter race were less likely compared to individuals of the former race to win a given prize amount in the lottery of birth, due to historical and ongoing slavery, Jim Crow and systemic racism, war on drugs/black families, etc. Most people believe that the historical and cultural context justifies giving members of the latter race help to "catch up".
I have found that quite a few people seriously DO deny those facts. Look no further than several of the other responses to my comment.
As for taking things away, I agree that handicapping someone due to their race is not good. But unfortunately, society is a bit too complex to completely avoid it. The reality of many racial equality programs is not that less qualified candidates are awarded over more qualified candidates but that in cases where two candidates are effectively equal, preference is given to minority candidates. Because let's be honest, a few exam points here and there or extra-curriculars do not really make much difference.
I have found that quite a few people seriously DO deny those facts. Look no further than several of the other responses to my comment.
As for taking things away, I agree that handicapping someone due to their race is not good. But unfortunately, society is a bit too complex to completely avoid it. The reality of many racial equality programs is not that less qualified candidates are awarded over more qualified candidates but that in cases where two candidates are effectively equal, preference is given to minority candidates. Because let's be honest, a few exam points here and there or extra-curriculars do not really make much difference.
Do you have a spreadsheet or something similar of who is more deserving based on past injustices? I'm interested how native Americans are ranked compared to black people?
It's not about comparing those injustices. It's just about knowing our American History and acting with compassion to try to right the wrongs of our past. Both Native Americans and African Americans have a special situation due to their origin story in the founding of our country. But the African American experience is also different from most others due to the more obvious visual differences between a white and black person. It allowed injustices to continue both spoken and unspoken for many, many decades, and still to this day continue both consciously and sub-consciously.
If a white person grew up poor and in a single parent home, they can put on a nice suit and go to a job interview and blend in. And I'm not necessarily just talking about today. But definitely in the very recent past. Which affects the parents of children today and their ability to provide a good education among many other things to make their children competitive.
But talking more about today, it was in the early 2000s I believe where a study was done sending out thousands of identical resumes. Some with white sounding names and others with black sounding names. The white names got 50% more callbacks than the black names. That is an astounding difference and that alone shows that we have a serious problem. I suspect if we did that today, the results would be better, but still not "color blind".
If a white person grew up poor and in a single parent home, they can put on a nice suit and go to a job interview and blend in. And I'm not necessarily just talking about today. But definitely in the very recent past. Which affects the parents of children today and their ability to provide a good education among many other things to make their children competitive.
But talking more about today, it was in the early 2000s I believe where a study was done sending out thousands of identical resumes. Some with white sounding names and others with black sounding names. The white names got 50% more callbacks than the black names. That is an astounding difference and that alone shows that we have a serious problem. I suspect if we did that today, the results would be better, but still not "color blind".
Well at the and of the day you still have to make a choice who deserves what. Since you don't want meritocracy and argue for a compassionate ideological framework you still haven't provided how people are ranked in your system. How does a Russian immigrant Igor who is white, has a bad accent, hardly speaks the language compares to Karim, a successful black business man?
All I see is a group of white people arguing with an another group of white people for power and one is using minorities just so that it can call the other white group racist. No where have i seen minorities ranking themselves in the historical injustice ladder. You don't even realize how patronizing you are. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW2LpFkVfYk
newacct583(1)
NASA seems to have started a pattern of naming things after people featured in movies, rather than those who contributed deeply to its achievements. Re-naming the Dryden Center to the Armstrong Center appears to have been part of an unfortunate trend.
If only Neil Armstrong had accomplished something significant outside Hollywood, perhaps then he would be worthy of having a building at Edwards named after him, is what you're saying?
(he is a particularly bad exemplar of the point you are trying to make)
(he is a particularly bad exemplar of the point you are trying to make)
Dryden was much more important to NASA than Armstrong was. Armstrong was lucky to be assigned Apollo 11; he was not the best test pilot (having crashed an X-15 due to his own recklessness).
If they were going to pick people who greatly contributed to the success of the Apollo program, they should have picked Houbolt.
If they were going to pick people who greatly contributed to the success of the Apollo program, they should have picked Houbolt.
If only Armstrong had accomplished something that made up for overshooting the runway and scraping the paint on the bottom of an experimental aircraft, perhaps then he'd be worthy of having a building at Edwards named after him. I cannot imagine what sort of act might erase the stain of that kind of universal infamy.
I think what those people mean when they say that is that it hasn't materially changed anything for most people, unlike what some reforms (or revolution) could do for people. They see it as a form of tokenism which they think historically hasn't helped much.
Personally, I see both sides. I think this is actual progress that will indirectly have positive material benefits while also recognizing we can obviously do better than this.
Personally, I see both sides. I think this is actual progress that will indirectly have positive material benefits while also recognizing we can obviously do better than this.
The negative comments are because people aren’t aware of their privilege and they need to check it. I personally don’t see the issue, this is recognizing someone for their contribution. It’s a very easy gesture that doesn’t harm anyone. Yet people want to rant about this isn’t fair or this won’t solve racism. Life isn’t fair and this woman had to deal with hardships that were imposed on her because of things she had zero control over. Yet she still accomplished a lot. Recognizing the unsung heroes is a great thing and there should be more of that, especially if it’s a woman or a person of color.
Thorentis(8)
This is good because it encourages African-Americans, other minority people, and women to pursue engineering. There are so many people who would be great engineers but aren't. They are missing out on good careers. And society is missing out on good engineers.
Renaming buildings is an easy way to help improve things.
Renaming buildings is an easy way to help improve things.
Asians do very well in America and they didn't need buildings named after them. Why do you think black people need buildings renamed before they start learning calculus, physics, etc?
dontspeak(1)
HerbsMan(1)
Thorentis(1)
This woman should be on the front of a limited edition $100 US bill.
No offense to Salmon Chase, but the bill denomination your face shows up on is not proportional (even logarithmically) to one's importance or worth as a human being
[deleted]
Did you edit this after posting?
We haven't been to the moon since 1969.
There have been six Moon landings. The last happened in 1972.
Strongly disagree. If the overall contribution was close, I'd say give her name to the building but apparently it isn't. Also naming the building after her solves nothing, in fact its obvious why they did it.
Yes, I know as a black woman she had so many things against her, but so did a lot of people back then.
Yes, I know as a black woman she had so many things against her, but so did a lot of people back then.
A well deserved announcement.