5 ms·

Ah yes, diversity statments are the real problem in academia. Not, say, 10:1 PhD student to position ratio. Or exploitation. Or the visa slavery (accept all t

Ah yes, diversity statments are the real problem in academia. Not, say, 10:1 PhD student to position ratio. Or exploitation. Or the visa slavery (accept all the crap, or get kicked out of the country you've been toiling for over the course of 10 years). Or $50K/yr being acceptable research professor's salary. Or the disgusting proportion of adjunct positions used as full-time. Or (gasp) actual lack of diversity. Nooo, it's the statements, which were invented as a non-solution that requires nobody to sacrifice anything, changes nothing, but can be a great taking point. Same with the industry. Wage stagnation, treating workers as disposable, job conditions — no, it's the diversity efforts that are the problem. Never mind that diversity is profitable [1], and is pushed by managements for that reason if they have the brains to understand it. Which Scott Addams, sadly, does not. If Dilbert is a mirror, it's one that's been covered with poop its maker piled up on it. No, I don't like what I see. Or smell. [1]https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/diversity-wins-how-inclusion-matters https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inc...

AinderS 4y ago
> Nooo, it's the statements, which were invented as a non-solution that requires nobody to sacrifice anything, changes nothing, but can be a great taking point. They require candidates to show a track record promoting diversity. Merely saying it is not enough, so they do in fact require sacrifices - even if you don't count being forced to profess beliefs you don't hold as a sacrifice. But then forced conversion is also no big deal. This is required by one fifth of academic jobs, as of 2021: https://www.schoolinfosystem.org/2021/11/11/study-diversity-statements-required-for-one-fifth-of-academic-jobs/ https://www.schoolinfosystem.org/2021/11/11/study-diversity-...
- namdnay 4y ago
  > being forced to profess beliefs you don't hold I don't understand what beliefs you're referring to? I thought they were asking people to promote diversity, what "belief" is there in that?
  - romwell 4y ago
    "Belief" that there's something wrong with the fact that you might spend your entire career in academia and never see a Black mathematics professor who was born and educated in the US. It's a very radical concept for many people, including Scott Adams.
    - AinderS 4y ago
      You should update your assumptions. This is the current composition of the Ivy League: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30339041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30339041 You can take a guess how good your chances of passing the diversity filter are, if your main contribution is trying to reduce the discrimination against non-Jewish whites, by which they are 12-times less likely to be admitted to the Ivy League than their Jewish counterparts.
    - namdnay 4y ago
      that's just basic human decency, no? are we now to respect someone who believes it's completely normal not to see any black professors in a country that's 15% balck?
      - romwell 4y ago
        Yes, it's decent human decency. And yet, most commentors here would want you to respect such a person. Welcome to HN.
- romwell 4y ago
  - AinderS 4y ago
    > Oh right, because a token gesture that you throw on your CV and took 0.05% of the time you'd otherwise spend on writing grant proposals Sure enough, a report on Berkeley's diversity initiative—recently publicized by Jerry Coyne and John Cochrane—shows that eight different departments affiliated with the life sciences used a diversity rubric to weed out applicants for positions. This was the first step: In one example, of a pool of 894 candidates was narrowed down to 214 based solely on how convincing their plans to spread diversity were. - https://reason.com/2020/02/03/university-of-california-diversity-initiative-berkeley/ https://reason.com/2020/02/03/university-of-california-diver... I'll let you decide if using this criterion as the first step, that disqualifies 76% of candidates, is a "token gesture that takes 0.05% of your time".
    - namdnay 4y ago
      if there are 894 candidates for a position, there's going to be somewhat arbitrary weeding out somewhere down the line
      - AinderS 4y ago
        They could have used any number of other criteria for "arbitrary" weeding. Academic or research record, number and impact of publications, years of experience... Regardless of how arbitrary you claim the filtering is, the effect is the same - it makes commitment to diversity the most important, primary criterion.
nmilo 4y ago
Who the hell said that was the real problem in academia, as if it was the only problem there? Are we not allowed to talk about a problem if some greater problem also exists?
- MrMan 4y ago
  complaining about something that makes little or no difference compared to real problems makes one look petty and weak-minded even after we steel-man your less-wrong opinions
  - Joker_vD 4y ago
    Interestingly, this very comment is self-applicable because the "whiny comments on HN" make little or no difference compared to real problems.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - nmilo 4y ago
    Why? Obviously GP does not particularly care about the success of academia, it was only brought up as an indicator of a larger trend. Why derail the conversation and bring up all this other stuff about academia that's not related to the original point?
  - Chris2048 4y ago
    You could just as well be describing "micro-aggressions" which are literally small and/or petty transgressions. Would you agree no one should talk about those too?
- romwell 4y ago
  > Are we not allowed to talk about a problem if some greater problem also exists? Being facetious, are we? Talking about petty nuisances related to trying to solve the greater problem while not even mentioning what the greater problem is usually an indicator that you don't see the greater problem as a problem. The greater problems being racism and transphobia in the context of this discussion.
selfmodruntime 4y ago
Any diversity efforts that go beyond explicitly stating that minorities are treated well (read: sorting out inherent attributes in people you don't want) are definitely a real problem.
JacobThreeThree 4y ago
>Never mind that diversity is profitable [1] Mckinsey admits it's just a correlation. I don't think it's correct to say diversity is causally linked to increased profit. Yes, diversity is often considered profitable by corporate executives, but usually for reasons that are not exactly positive, like with Amazon whose analysis was that diversity decreased the chance the employees would unionize. >Whole Foods' heat map says lower rates of racial diversity increase unionization risks https://archive.ph/1khJw https://archive.ph/1khJw
simonh 4y ago
>Not...., Not...., etc Dilbert comics have lampooned pretty much all of those things.
the_doctah 4y ago
[flagged]
Chris2048 4y ago
> are the real problem This sounds a lot like whataboutism or "Fallacy of relative privation": dismissing an argument or complaint due to what are perceived to be more important problems. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Red_herring_fallacies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Red_herring_... Also, Your characterisation of diversity statements as changing nothing could itself be a problem if there divert from meaningful change; It seems like DEI is very well funded compared to the other issues you raise, if they are funded at all (where are the anti-visa-slavery corporate initiatives?). > Never mind that diversity is profitable That's another conversation altogether, but one corrupted by the fact that any other conclusion would be considered heresy e.g. rather than argue that it's true, you assume it's true and imply anyone who disagree is stupid..
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

AinderS 4y ago

> Nooo, it's the statements, which were invented as a non-solution that requires nobody to sacrifice anything, changes nothing, but can be a great taking point. They require candidates to show a track record promoting diversity. Merely saying it is not enough, so they do in fact require sacrifices - even if you don't count being forced to profess beliefs you don't hold as a sacrifice. But then forced conversion is also no big deal. This is required by one fifth of academic jobs, as of 2021: https://www.schoolinfosystem.org/2021/11/11/study-diversity-statements-required-for-one-fifth-of-academic-jobs/ https://www.schoolinfosystem.org/2021/11/11/study-diversity-...

namdnay 4y ago
> being forced to profess beliefs you don't hold I don't understand what beliefs you're referring to? I thought they were asking people to promote diversity, what "belief" is there in that?
- romwell 4y ago
  "Belief" that there's something wrong with the fact that you might spend your entire career in academia and never see a Black mathematics professor who was born and educated in the US. It's a very radical concept for many people, including Scott Adams.
  - AinderS 4y ago
    You should update your assumptions. This is the current composition of the Ivy League: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30339041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30339041 You can take a guess how good your chances of passing the diversity filter are, if your main contribution is trying to reduce the discrimination against non-Jewish whites, by which they are 12-times less likely to be admitted to the Ivy League than their Jewish counterparts.
  - namdnay 4y ago
    that's just basic human decency, no? are we now to respect someone who believes it's completely normal not to see any black professors in a country that's 15% balck?
    - romwell 4y ago
      Yes, it's decent human decency. And yet, most commentors here would want you to respect such a person. Welcome to HN.
romwell 4y ago
- AinderS 4y ago
  > Oh right, because a token gesture that you throw on your CV and took 0.05% of the time you'd otherwise spend on writing grant proposals Sure enough, a report on Berkeley's diversity initiative—recently publicized by Jerry Coyne and John Cochrane—shows that eight different departments affiliated with the life sciences used a diversity rubric to weed out applicants for positions. This was the first step: In one example, of a pool of 894 candidates was narrowed down to 214 based solely on how convincing their plans to spread diversity were. - https://reason.com/2020/02/03/university-of-california-diversity-initiative-berkeley/ https://reason.com/2020/02/03/university-of-california-diver... I'll let you decide if using this criterion as the first step, that disqualifies 76% of candidates, is a "token gesture that takes 0.05% of your time".
  - namdnay 4y ago
    if there are 894 candidates for a position, there's going to be somewhat arbitrary weeding out somewhere down the line
    - AinderS 4y ago
      They could have used any number of other criteria for "arbitrary" weeding. Academic or research record, number and impact of publications, years of experience... Regardless of how arbitrary you claim the filtering is, the effect is the same - it makes commitment to diversity the most important, primary criterion.

nmilo 4y ago

Who the hell said that was the real problem in academia, as if it was the only problem there? Are we not allowed to talk about a problem if some greater problem also exists?

MrMan 4y ago
complaining about something that makes little or no difference compared to real problems makes one look petty and weak-minded even after we steel-man your less-wrong opinions
- Joker_vD 4y ago
  Interestingly, this very comment is self-applicable because the "whiny comments on HN" make little or no difference compared to real problems.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nmilo 4y ago
  Why? Obviously GP does not particularly care about the success of academia, it was only brought up as an indicator of a larger trend. Why derail the conversation and bring up all this other stuff about academia that's not related to the original point?
- Chris2048 4y ago
  You could just as well be describing "micro-aggressions" which are literally small and/or petty transgressions. Would you agree no one should talk about those too?
romwell 4y ago
> Are we not allowed to talk about a problem if some greater problem also exists? Being facetious, are we? Talking about petty nuisances related to trying to solve the greater problem while not even mentioning what the greater problem is usually an indicator that you don't see the greater problem as a problem. The greater problems being racism and transphobia in the context of this discussion.

selfmodruntime 4y ago

Any diversity efforts that go beyond explicitly stating that minorities are treated well (read: sorting out inherent attributes in people you don't want) are definitely a real problem.

JacobThreeThree 4y ago

>Never mind that diversity is profitable [1] Mckinsey admits it's just a correlation. I don't think it's correct to say diversity is causally linked to increased profit. Yes, diversity is often considered profitable by corporate executives, but usually for reasons that are not exactly positive, like with Amazon whose analysis was that diversity decreased the chance the employees would unionize. >Whole Foods' heat map says lower rates of racial diversity increase unionization risks https://archive.ph/1khJw https://archive.ph/1khJw

simonh 4y ago

>Not...., Not...., etc Dilbert comics have lampooned pretty much all of those things.

the_doctah 4y ago

[flagged]

Chris2048 4y ago

> are the real problem This sounds a lot like whataboutism or "Fallacy of relative privation": dismissing an argument or complaint due to what are perceived to be more important problems. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Red_herring_fallacies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Red_herring_... Also, Your characterisation of diversity statements as changing nothing could itself be a problem if there divert from meaningful change; It seems like DEI is very well funded compared to the other issues you raise, if they are funded at all (where are the anti-visa-slavery corporate initiatives?). > Never mind that diversity is profitable That's another conversation altogether, but one corrupted by the fact that any other conclusion would be considered heresy e.g. rather than argue that it's true, you assume it's true and imply anyone who disagree is stupid..

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]