MICHAEL SCHWALBE: N.C. needs a governor who understands science

EDITOR'S NOTE: Michael Schwalbe is professor emeritus of sociology at North Carolina State University.

The skills and qualities of mind required of a state governor differ from those required of a scientist. Governors must know how to evaluate laws and how to inspire people to work together for the common good. Scientists must know how to gather and analyze data relevant to answering tightly-focused research questions. And yet, as different as these jobs are, no one can be an effective governor in today’s world without being scientifically literate.

        Being scientifically literate, in the role of a state leader, means understanding several basic things: how scientific knowledge can be brought to bear on solving problems of public policy; the importance of scientific research for promoting a thriving economy; the difference between honest scientific disagreements and partisan attacks on science; and the evidence-dependent processes by which scientific consensus is achieved.

Lacking these understandings should disqualify anyone seeking to lead a US state in the 21st century. In North Carolina, a state where our economic future is heavily staked on scientific research and development, to be unable to distinguish data from drivel is to be unable to do what the job demands. That’s exactly the problem with Republican gubernatorial nominee Mark Robinson. But don’t take my word for it. Take his.

In a speech just last summer, Robinson said, “We have now allowed those folks [scientists] to dictate what we do based on pseudoscience, junk science that has not proven a single solitary thing. These people [scientists and professors] that are at the college telling your young people that it’s the climate change is gonna kill us all ... these people, I’m gonna say it right now, they are liars. Liars.”

In Robinson’s mind, the 97% of climate scientists who agree that global warming is happening and is caused largely by human activity are simply lying, en masse, for reasons that elude any sane analysis. The NASA scientists—the people who can land a vehicle on Mars—who have neatly summarized the overwhelming evidence for climate change must also be in on the scam. Perhaps Robinson thinks the 72% of North Carolinians who see climate change as real are too dumb to see through the hoax.

In fact, it’s Robinson who, lacking a grasp of science, has fallen for discredited energy industry propaganda that denies the reality of climate change for the sake of delaying regulation that might reduce profits. That kind of gullibility, combined with a know-nothing disparagement of science, is not what North Carolinians need at the helm of state government.

Robinson’s disdain for science is further evident in his ideas about education. Writing in his 2022 memoir, We Are the Majority!, Robinson said that elementary school kids need to study only reading, writing, and math. What about science? No, Robinson said, until after fifth grade, “We don’t need to be teaching science.”

Experienced teachers think that’s a terrible idea, out of touch with current practice and with what excites kids’ interests. No dinosaurs, no planets and stars, no volcanoes, no fossils, no tadpoles and frogs, no rocks and minerals until after fifth grade? Wow. It’s hard to think of a better way to make school boring and to educationally handicap our students relative to young people in other states and countries.

And while it’s not a matter of science per se, Robinson’s remarks about the Holocaust suggest that he is challenged by the concept of evidence. To quote a 2018 Robinson social media post: “This foolishness about Hitler disarming MILLIONS of Jews and then marching them off to concentration camps is a bunch of hogwash.” It’s hard to know where to start with a statement like that. At the very least, putting the word “millions” in caps seems to imply that Robinson thinks historians’ claims about the scope of the Holocaust are exaggerated.

Robinson, of course, knows how to do his own research. In a 2019 podcast, he agreed with the host that Muslims, China, the CIA, and Jewish bankers are the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.” Robinson expressed amazement that this wasn’t more widely known: “We live in this age of information where you can go online and you can find all this information, and it’s not hidden from anybody.” According to Robinson, the truth is out there, on YouTube.

All this might be funny, in a cringey sort of way, if not for two things: Robinson is one election away from the governor’s office, and North Carolina faces problems that require scientifically literate state leadership. Those problems go beyond climate change and finding a path to a clean energy future. They also include how to allocate public resources to support scientific research and development; how to prepare for future epidemics; and how to deal with industrial toxins and the threat they pose to public health.

There is also what might be called the laughingstock factor. Like it or not, the governor of a state becomes an emblem of the state. Would a governor who disparages science and scientists, who thinks science doesn’t belong in elementary schools, and who embraces far-out conspiracy theories project the kind of image that attracts businesses and people who value education? Not likely, and even thoughtful conservatives know this.

One of those conservatives, Brant Clifton, who writes for The Daily Haymaker, said this of Robinson: “He can give a great speech. But beyond that, there’s nothing there.” Nothing positive, for sure, from the standpoint of valuing and making wise use of science. It would be greatly damaging if North Carolina had to suffer this. We need a governor who understands science and who can intelligently support scientists and science educators, from elementary school through college, as they work to improve the quality of life for everyone in the state.

Capitol Broadcasting Company's Opinion Section seeks a broad range of comments and letters to the editor. Our Comments beside each opinion column offer the opportunity to engage in a dialogue about this article. In addition, we invite you to write a letter to the editor about this or any other opinion articles. Here are some tips on submissions >> SUBMIT A LETTER TO THE EDITOR