45 ms·

Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

• armagon 4y ago
  I applaud Mr. Haidt for standing up for what he believes in.
  • rnk 4y ago
    • Auracle 4y ago
      You need to reread the article. It’s not “signing a statement that he’s anti-racist.”
      • dmix 4y ago
        Everyone tries to pretend it's "just not being an asshole". But it's never that simple. It's always comes with demands for an ideological obedience that goes well beyond just accepting others or letting people be free to do what they want.
    • tomp 4y ago
      Don’t believe the propaganda. “Anti-racism” is actually about racism against Asians. “Equity” is actually about lowering the standards and destroying meritocracy. “Inclusion” is actually about excluding people that have different political or moral opinions (e.g. that don’t want to be racist against Asians or that support meritocracy).
      • EdwardDiego 4y ago
        • rippercushions 4y ago
          I believe GP is referencing American university admissions, where DEI-flavored racial quotas tend to disadvantage Asians when compared to a race-blind system based purely on standardized tests.
          • EdwardDiego 4y ago
            Huh, okay, so, to clarify my understanding, because of the quotas, assuming a fixed amount of available spots, less Asians get in than they would without the quotas. But a) wouldn't that apply to other demographics too? and b) All Asians? Are Hmong, for example, over-represented in college enrollments? I'm just trying to understand why it's specifically anti-Asian.
            • BlargMcLarg 4y ago
              It isn't specifically "anti-Asian". A bunch of pro-diversity people see white people do well and get successful. They see the same in Asians. They see the opposite for black and latino. They conclude "we must give black and latino preferential treatment to catch up". It is a bit more elaborate, but not much more than that. >All Asians? Yes. Despite their fronts, diversity initiatives don't look much further beyond sex, gender and skin color. You're already one level deeper than most of these politics go.
              • EdwardDiego 4y ago
                Yeah, that's always the problem with race-based initiatives, there's always edge cases, like any policy.
          • somenameforme 4y ago
            Elaborating on this, there is a passage quoted in the article from the most common text on "anti-racism" : "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." The consequences of this are easy to illustrate in orchestras. Orchestras have always been heavily dominated by white and Asian musicians. When it was argued that this was due to discrimination in hiring, the solution was quite simple and tasteful - swap to blind auditions. And that is something few would oppose. So they did. The problem is that not only did it fail to create more diverse orchestras, in many cases they became even less diverse than they were prior. So now the 'anti-racist' view is that orchestras need to begin being racist against white and Asian applicants, and start biasing selection by race. [1] Groups that disproportionately overperform become acceptable targets for racism. Incidentally this is not entirely different than the motivation for some of the darkest moments in our history. Alas people never seem to appreciate that the "evil" groups in times past never saw themselves as evil, but simply as people engaging in temporarily distasteful action for a greater future. That greater future never comes, but the distasteful actions certainly do. Of course, "this time it'll be different." [1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/arts/music/blind-auditions-orchestras-race.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/arts/music/blind-audition...
      • xg15 4y ago
        > “Equity” is actually about lowering the standards and destroying meritocracy. The "meritocracy" that includes your rich parents into your "merit".
        • tomp 4y ago
          No, the correct answer to this is "provide free/subsidised schooling to exceptional people who cannot otherwise afford it". By the way, this is the meritocratic way because we're looking for best people, which includes identifying unrealized talent and then nurturing it. Instead, the SJW/woke way is "reduce standards until everybody passes", literally https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-leftists-try-to-cancel-math-class-11621355858 https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-leftists-try-to-canc... (a.k.a. everybody equal, everybody stupid akin to Communism's everybody equal, everybody poor)
          • varnaud 4y ago
            >exceptional people Why would you only provide free/subsidized schooling to exceptional people. Why not all people? If you truly believe in meritocracy, wouldn't you want everyone to have a fair opportunity to prove themselves?
            • tomp 4y ago
              If resources are limited (and they're always limited) you invest into the highest ROI options. Exceptional people have a chance of pushing society forward (i.e. creating more resources for the future... exponentially). (But yeah in general I oppose age-segregated schooling, I think education should have "tracks" (math, physics, sports, music, etc.) and people should attend whatever "level" they're at in each track, in mixed-age groups. And make mostly free (but guided) choices regarding which tracks to put most effort in.)
          • kiba 4y ago
            Meritocracy is opposed to egalitarianism. After all, people with advantages rise to the top, whether that's upbringing, talent, or gene.
      • cma 4y ago
        > destroying meritocracy Low inheritance tax has had that covered for a while.
    • _8j50 4y ago
      No that's bullshit. If you ask me to say "I hate hitler and bin laden" for no reason I would have a similar reaction as well. How can people put up with this filth? It repulses and disgusts me so much when kindness, compassion and even justice are absorbed by this bureaucratic ideological machine where people say and do things out if insincerity, just as lip service to fall in line politically. How do people feel comfortable living lies and forcing others to live and practice falsehoods? No matter how much I agree with the statement, when you force it, it becomes an insincere compelled speech.
      • kenjackson 4y ago
        How do you feel about standing for the national anthem? Does that repulse you too?
        • imgabe 4y ago
          You are generally free not to stand for the national anthem. Suppose the SPSS (the professional society Haidt left in protest) had instead made a rule that they would play the national anthem at the start of every conference and anyone who didn’t stand wouldn’t be allowed to present their research. If he had left in protest of that, would you assume he’s an unpatriotic asshole who hates America or that he’s standing up for free speech?
          • kenjackson 4y ago
            It seems that much of the US felt that way about Kaepernick.
            • imgabe 4y ago
              Yes, you might get some criticism for it, just like Haidt is. A private organization like the NFL or the SPSS might not let you be a member if you don’t follow their rules. That’s within the bounds of free speech. We only have freedoms by continually asserting them and sometimes sacrificing some social capital to use them.
    • marcusestes 4y ago
      He wasn’t asked to sign a statement that he was anti-racist. He was asked to sign a statement explaining how the academic work submitted to be presented “advanced… anti-racism goals.” He’s quite right that not every academic paper need directly concern itself with the very specific set of ideologies contained within contemporary anti-rascist texts.
    • imgabe 4y ago
      > newly adopted requirement that everybody presenting research at the group's conferences explain how their submission advances "equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals." Diversity is fine. But every single piece of research has to be related to diversity? Is it not possible to do research on anything else that maybe doesn’t have anything to do with identity issues? This is not a statement about promoting diversity, this is a statement that identity issues are the only thing that matters and only research that has to do with identity will be considered (for presentation at this conference) An ideological monoculture is not a healthy intellectual environment.
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      • SamReidHughes 4y ago
        It's not so much off-topic research. The research output of much of social psychology tends to hurt the cause of DEI. They want to stop that.
        • whythre 4y ago
          That sounds gross and corrupt.
        • imgabe 4y ago
          Research should not be dependent on whether or not it hurts any cause. If the research is poorly done, exclude it for that reason. If not, maybe re-examine what your cause is in light of the research. Copernicus's research into the Earth revolving around the Sun hurt the Catcholic church's cause of being the ultimate source of truth for all humanity. They wanted to put a stop to that... Starting with the answer and rejecting anything that doesn't support it is not how research is supposed to work.
          • tpoacher 4y ago
            Copernicus and Galileo being harangued by the Church of their time, and stifling progress of the obvious, is more popular myth than historical fact. It has been debunked many, many times. Ironically, the fervor and persistence with which this story gets propagated ad nauseam feels almost ... religious. I wish people would stop dropping it as the de facto example of interference with science when there are so many better ones (and also current ones). It's a bad analogy, evokes emotion, and ultimately it typically does a disservice to the argument intended.
    • latency-guy2 4y ago
      Haidt argues that much of the work that researchers do have no relationship to 'anti-racism' that Kendi popularized, or DEI goals in general. It also appears that Haidt is taking SPSP's new direction literally - whereas you appear to be taking it figuratively. That SPSP's direction is a requirement for all members, not an interpretive statement that all members can come to terms with on their own accord. I think being compelled to a specific viewpoint by an institution is antithesis of freedom. Your comment seems like a huge dismissal of Haidt's view with this regard. That is, if we are to trust that you looked at the linked article as you claim.
    • Blackstone4 4y ago
      It isn’t that black and white…to look at it in that light is reductionist. Further equality is good however it would be helpful to do so in a constructive manner. What often happens is that SJWs just shut down debates and discussions.. because they disagree. This kills freedom of speech and ideas. This goes exactly to your last point. Are you threatened by others who disagree with you?
    • fullmoon 4y ago
      “Anti-racism” is, in fact, racist. Your last paragraph points towards some internalized racial stereotypes. Don’t make the mistake of thinking it’s anything else by some people that manipulate language.
    • aliasxneo 4y ago
      Being mostly sheepish about responding to this kind of argument, it feels me with gratitude that so many here can more finely discern the situation presented.
    • inciampati 4y ago
      Would you support requiring a pledge of allegiance to a particular political party or ideology before conference attendees made their presentations? This is surprisingly close. The issue at stake is more abstract than American racism. This is a dangerous precedent. And it requires some itchy mental gymnastics. Thinking about and encouraging diversity and inclusion through action is great. Forcing people to do it seems specifically contrary to the abstract goals of diversity and inclusion! Said another way: Is the point of these statements to increase or decrease the intellectual diversity of discourse?
      • pas 4y ago
        > This is a dangerous precedent. Agreed. And the whole style, wording, method is dumb. > intellectual diversity of discourse The goal is clearly to reduce a certain part of the "thought space" (intellectual diversity), in particular the goal is to weed out anti-racist thoughts. I guess they think of this as public health thinks of pathogens. Diversity of species is great but we still want less of pathogens. What these people seemingly have no idea about, is that populist xenophobic movements can start, spread and become popular at no time. And obviously (?) the way to contain them is not with preemptive firebombing of academia, but by strengthening the ideals of equity, and the institutions themselves that implement those ideals. Make them shining beacons of good. The first criterion for that is efficiency, transparency, etc. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    • Manuel_D 4y ago
      > He quit that group because he can't sign a statement that he is anti-racist, and supports diversity and inclusion? Incorrect, this statement was not directed to members' conduct. The diversity statement was to pledge that members' research submissions are advancing anti-racism, equity, and inclusion. This would, for example, prohibit a psychologist studying something like memory retention. This has no reasonable link to advancing equal racial outcomes. How does measuring the amount of time it takes to memorize a paragraph advance racial justice? Thus such research would thus fail to live up to this pledge, and be ineligible for submission - if this pledge were actually enforced, that is. Of course, I doubt the people making this pledge actually intend to have every piece of their research connected to an anti-racist goal. This is just performance and naval-gazing.
      • pas 4y ago
        > prohibit a psychologist studying something like memory retention wat? how? why? real social justice doesn't work that way. (contrary, it needs to know deficiencies so it can help those who are in need, so people have equal opportunities for self-actualization.)
    • claytongulick 4y ago
      In this context anti-racist doesn't mean what it appears to mean by a "plain language" interpretation. If you look at the quote in the article, it illustrates that "anti-racist" actually means supporting discrimination: "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." This "friendly fascist" form of discrimination festers under the cover of cheap political expediency. It is abhorrent, at least to any society that supports liberal values.
    • rippercushions 4y ago
      "Anti-racist" here requires signing up to the following creed: > "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."
    • throwawayallday 4y ago
      >He quit that group because he can't sign a statement that he is anti-racist, and supports diversity and inclusion? Can you reply to my comment with the anti-racist and supportive of diversity and inclusion phrase "it's OK to be White"? >I'm from the american south. It was full of racists when I lived there, who were all against diversity, hated the idea of needing to hire minorities to be teachers, things like that. There was no need to hire them, everything was fine. It didn't matter that all the school principals were white men, there was no point to a kid seeing a black man or woman as the principal I heard. I'm from the american west. It was full of racists when I lived there, who were all against diversity, hated the idea of needing to hire whites to be teachers, things like that. There was no need to hire them, everything was fine. It didn't matter that all the school principals were women of color, there was no point to a kid seeing a white man or woman as the principal I heard. >That's all I can take way from the usually white men who see some incredible threat from saying there's a benefit in including more voices. I can only see this as people threatened by including other voices that might disagree with their own. That's all I can take way from the usually women of color who see some incredible threat from saying there's a benefit in including more voices. I can only see this as people threatened by including other voices that might disagree with their own.
    • politelemon 4y ago
      > he can't sign a statement that he is anti-racist, and supports diversity and inclusion? The strange part to me in comments similar to yours is how you have chosen to interpret his actions and completely ignore his explanation or the context around it. I will not be surprised if this sort of incendiary kneejerk where you deliberately misrepresent a person is becoming pervasive, and causing people to leave.
    • JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      Haidt was required to endorse an ideology stating “the only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination…only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.” We can debate the merits of that premise. Simpler is concluding it’s contentiousness. Academia exists to resolve contention; forcing an outcome by dictat is dishonest.
    • faeriechangling 4y ago
      "Antiracists" is literally, as explained in the article, are a political group that prescribes racial discrimination against white people. They're a very ironically named group of people considering. If your research is not specifically engineered to justify racial discrimination against a group of people you may be subject to a number of administrative consequences. Regarding your experiences in the American South, all I can say is two wrongs don't make a right. This is hardly about including more voices, this is about opposing a policy that prescibes the acceptable Overton window of research, it's clearly about limiting the acceptable range of discourse. We are literally maybe a quarter of a century towards whites becoming a plurality, and not much longer after that until they become an actual minority. You can't just think about the past, think about the future, making publishing scientific racism an ideological goal because a group is politically powerful NOW when they won't be in the future is bound to have unintended consequences.
    • concordDance 4y ago
      Did you know that forcing schools to hire teachers and principals that better reflect the demographics of the school worsens the outcomes of black students in those schools?
• epgui 4y ago
  • mrazomor 4y ago
    Err... the gist of the protest is: not all research is there to advance diversity, while Uni requires it, that guy doesn't want to lie to get his work presented. I'm not going to assume any interior motives. Isn't forcing left/right political views counter productive? I've seen this in the industry (people rant) and local politics (e.g. my country swings between left and right every few years after they get fed with one PoV).
    • busterarm 4y ago
      Not even diversity. They replaced the word diversity with anti-racism.
      • HyperSane 4y ago
        And anti-racism is actually just racism towards whites and Asians.
        • kenjackson 4y ago
          That’s not true. Why do you think that?
          • HyperSane 4y ago
            But the SPSP requirement went a step further, dropping "diversity" in favor of "anti-racism," a term frequently associated with Boston University's Ibram X. Kendi, author of How to Be an Antiracist and other works. Among the book's passages is a widely shared one highlighted by Haidt: "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."
• bruce511 4y ago
  • imgabe 4y ago
    In other words, you make snap judgements and assumptions about people based on their age, race, and sex.
    • busterarm 4y ago
      That is in fact what the book How to be Anti-Racist prescibes that you do. Part of the thesis of that book is that you are a racist if you treat people as individuals. To be Anti-Racist, you must treat people as part of their collective and then treat them well or badly based on membership of that collective in the name of equity. Thus whites and asians must be treated poorly because of their race and other minorities treated positively because of their race. Basically you fight racism with racial discrimination.
      • imgabe 4y ago
        Indeed, and the problem with all that is that it’s stupid and wrong.
        • busterarm 4y ago
          As stupid and wrong it is, it is invading every aspect of our professional lives. It's extremely disturbing to find how many of my generation (let's say 30s & 40s) have accepted this belief system uncritically. It seems at least that zoomers are somewhat more critical, or at least 50-50 on the topic. It's going to take many, many decades to unravel the harm this is causing.
      • HyperSane 4y ago
        Well that is just utterly vile.
        • nathanaldensr 4y ago
• DoctorNick 4y ago
  • fullmoon 4y ago
    The good news is that some of us have instruments attached do those view holes that are capable to reason beyond the URL.
  • EdwardDiego 4y ago
    I understand your objection to the Kochs, but I'm not sure that it invalidates the facts in question?
    • jimbob45 4y ago
      No, it doesn’t, but the article will still attempt to sensationalize the facts as much as it can. I’m going to add Reason to the sites I unilaterally ignore next to WaPo, NYT, and FOX.
      • EdwardDiego 4y ago
        I understand that, I tend to avoid them as much as possible also, but if it's the only place where certain facts are present, I'll read them. But I ignore the emotive language or opinion dressed as reporting. Which is something I noted while staying in LA recently - all the news shows I had access to on the hotel TV were "here's something that happened", which typically ran for 30 - 60 seconds, followed by 15 minutes of people offering opinions on it. And the channels that wanted to present as unbiased would give a Democrat aligned commentator and a Republic aligned commentator equal "this is how you should interpret this" time. But yeah, blew my mind that so much of the "news" was talking heads telling you what to think about the news.
  • trention 4y ago
    >Koch-funded propaganda If you are not simultaneously against bezos-funded propaganda or zuck-funded propaganda (he still funds fwd.us whose main goal is to lower tech salaries by increasing immigration), you are a hypocrite.
• anm89 4y ago
  A true act of courage. Suffering personal consequences to stick up for what he believes in and do the right thing. The world needs more people like this.
  • hackerlight 4y ago
    He's the most important public intellectual today in more ways than one. Probably the only person who is communicating a deep understanding of the political divide to the public, and what can be done to fix it. Unlike some of his colleagues like the hack Gad Saad or the slightly less hacky but still partisan Jordan Peterson.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• tpoacher 4y ago
  > Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) Hiding in plain sight, as they say xD
  • superkuh 4y ago
    FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) has been defending student rights from attacks from all sides since the late 90s, well before any of this social justice stuff. They've done innumerable good works that your slanderous implications here deny without cause simply because the world changed around them and they're not exclusively protecting students from one political block instead of all political blocks. But maybe you're just acting the clown to highlight the very issue this comment thread is discussing: inability to discern shades of grey due to polarization.
    • throwaway2037 4y ago
      I was not aware of their history. Others can read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Individual_Rights_and_Expression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Individual_Righ... And I like this phrase: "inability to discern shades of grey due to polarization". It is well-said. Many intersting intellectual discussions are about exploring shades of grey in a difficult topic.
• kwatermark 4y ago
  • cycomanic 4y ago
    You can be in favour of immigration and still object to immigrants being carted (likely illegally) around the country for political stunts. If you feel you need to call out hypocrisy, why don't you complain that people are not allowed to carry guns into an NRA or Republican convention, or how security and supporters beat up people protesting at trump rallies. Or about senators family members getting abortions while the same senators are advocating for making abortions for any reason (including rape) illegal.
• fithisux 4y ago
  The more people talk against racism the more racism is generated. As if they are ashamed from their racist practices and they try to exorcise it ... with just talk.
  • TMWNN 4y ago
    Incidents like the Jussie Smollett hoax, the Jazmine Barnes hoax, and what happened to the Covington Catholic kids show that the demand for racism often exceeds supply. An example from the Barnes hoax <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/06/us/jazmine-barnes-arrest.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/06/us/jazmine-barnes-arrest....>, which occurred just before the Smollett hoax: >But to civil rights activists, including Shaun King, who received the tip that led to the arrest, the race of the suspect did not upend the meaning of the case — for Jazmine's family or for the country. >"We live in a time where somebody could do something like this based purely on hate or race," he said on Sunday. "And that it turned out to not be the case I don't think changes the devastating conclusion that people had thought something like that was possible."
• trention 4y ago
  I am extremely glad I live in a country in continental Europe where this shit is unconstitutional and will be stricken down by the courts immediately (as will be any sort of preferential treatment of any minority in hiring or admissions). Hope it stays that way.
  • stjohnswarts 4y ago
    I think there is a burgeoning push back on quotas and such as well. I think the woke crowd pushed their luck a bit too hard. This is coming from a very progressive person (me) but who also feels egalitarianism and personal responsibility should always be the goal and not an afterthought.
    • BlargMcLarg 4y ago
      I'm not getting that impression. For what it's worth, "woke left" has always been a minority, yet it hasn't lost momentum as much as it continually rotates in direction. Specifically, we're seeing more and more non-NA countries adopt these rhetorics from both the US and CA. Politics is becoming more and more extremist too, with the extreme left lashing out and calling anyone who even questions the status quo an extreme rightist bigot, and the extreme right doing the equivalent. And the two are fueled by both one another, as well as increasing tensions due to national issues.
      • hackerlight 4y ago
        The extreme left and right do fuel each other. I think Trump's rise in 2015 was somewhat related to the rise of wokeness in 2012. A large slice of right wing media today is outrage at wokeness. It's animating them. The fascists in Japan and Germany were partly motivated out of a fear of Bolsheviks. This is my main gripe with wokeness. Yes I dislike the illiberalism of quotas and the collectivist nature of its moral system (collective guilt and inherited guilt). But my main concern is the right wing backlash and the consequences of that on democracy and freedom.
    • whoooooo123 4y ago
      Aren't egalitarianism and personal responsibility kind of incompatible with each other? You can't maximise them both at the same time.
• yathaid 4y ago
  "Now that many university presidents have agreed to implement many of the demands, I believe that the conflict between truth and social justice is likely to become unmanageable." Can someone ELI5 what is this conflict between truth and social justice Haidt refers to?
  • gnull 4y ago
    > "The telos of a knife is to cut, the telos of medicine is to heal, and the telos of a university is truth."
    • pas 4y ago
      That sounds nice, but the de facto the purpose of a university is the furtherance of the intellectuals. The scientific method's purpose is to get closer to the truth. Some research does happen at universities, but academia in its current state is far from the ideal vessel for that. (Especially when it comes to softer sciences.)
      • mpweiher 4y ago
        > the de facto the purpose of a university is the furtherance of the intellectuals Yes, and unavoidably so. That is why it is society's task to structure the universities in such a fashion that those goals align with society's goals.
        • sgc 4y ago
          Ah yes, the always correct "society" should be heavy handed, to counter unnecessary heavy-handed university administration. That is just shifting the tyranny of the majority from an internal to a less qualified external source. Universities' end should be pursuit of the truth, not society's "goals". If society must intervene, it should be to uphold the pursuit of truth, not its own goals. That is a tall task, but lets at least aim in the right direction. This comment is also a bit odd given the context of the last 5 years of society being ever more overrun by anti-intellectualism, that is diametrically opposed to higher learning.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• jl6 4y ago
  Any research published under a regime of pre-approved conclusions should be treated as an opinion piece, not as an academic paper. If this is the way NYU operates, it is no longer a university.
  • thaumasiotes 4y ago
    The loyalty oaths are, as noted in the article, quite common. This isn't just the way NYU operates. It's also, for example, the way the entire University of California system operates.
  • sumanthvepa 4y ago
    Just to clarify, NYU is not asking for any pledges. It is the professional association he is a part of.
    • jl6 4y ago
      My mistake, I retract any suggestion of NYU wrongdoing.
• roenxi 4y ago
  It is good to go to the sources - but the obvious source I found appears to be [0] a recursive link so that isn't too helpful. Throwing babies out with the bathwater is bad and doing studies with diverse participants seems like a good idea. The statement can say "this research doesn't further the SPSP's goals" So I don't see why the statement itself would be objectionable. The objection would be if the statement is used as a tool to discriminate against good research. So this resignation should probably be treated as a vote of no confidence in the people and goals of the specific institution. I can see why the sort of people who would demand this statement would be a problem as ironically the DIE crowd seems to sometimes attract a weird sort of modern racist. Something that is always a risk when developing a race-obsessed ideology. [0] https://spsp.org/events/demonstrating-our-commitment-anti-racism-through-programming-and-events https://spsp.org/events/demonstrating-our-commitment-anti-ra... - the "We requested the submitters to please explain whether and how this submission advances the equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals of SPSP" link leads to the same page for me.
  • z7 4y ago
    The source doesn't actually say whether submissions not advancing "SPSP's goal of promoting equity, inclusion and anti-racism" would be accepted though. They would pass the reviewing process where they would receive the lowest score on the "3-point rating scale". It would also mean by negation that the submission did not employ "diverse research participants", "diverse research methods (e.g., methodology that promotes equity)", or "diverse members of the research team", which basically would be viewed as a self-indictment in our political climate. Nobody with an interest to succeed would willingly arrive at this conclusion, they would view it as necessary to avoid it (like by making up reasons as to why the submission advances anti-racism). In other words, the requirement to include the statement is a way of enforcing the stated goals and policing the researchers' conformity.
    • treis 4y ago
      I'm not sure that this is really a problem. The sample of "57 college students that we forced to participate" is a bane of psychology research even if we ignore the racism angle. So what's wrong with writing a paragraph about how you took pains to get a representative sample?
• say_it_as_it_is 4y ago
  Seems like one can submit their works, advancing diversity goals, simply by claiming one's membership of one or more minority groups
  • hellojesus 4y ago
    That's because diversity is a stand-in term for Marxism. You either belong to the proletariat class, or you renounce your position in the bourgeoisie and join a work camp to repent for your crimes, which were completely unknown to you before your great awakening.
• fdewrewrewf 4y ago
  >"The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." It just shows the power of ideology to crush dissent, when obviously poisonous and destructive statements like these are accepted. If more people thought like that, then Jews would still be shovelling Germans into ovens.
• rhaksw 4y ago
  Free Speech for Me--But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other (1992) [1] is a good read on how we got to a point where our ability to communicate across ideologies appears to be broken in many ways. For example, in 1963 Yale disinvited George Wallace, who was popular in the deep south, as a speaker. As a result, observers were deprived of a chance to hear opposing speakers' arguments. To some, Yale appeared censorious. As Jonathan Rauch describes [2], that's not good for your case. Censorship is all these characters need to gain new followers. Wallace ran for president in 1968 and nearly forced a plurality which would have given him significantly more influence [3]. Early episodes of the podcast So to Speak [4] by FIRE can inform the direction that can get us talking again. Basically, open and civil discourse is the way. The podcast demonstrates, through interviews with free speech advocates, a bunch of examples showing why that is a good target to shoot for, and how to achieve it. [1] https://archive.org/details/freespeechformeb0000hent https://archive.org/details/freespeechformeb0000hent [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0T9XSG73kY&t=4889s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0T9XSG73kY&t=4889s [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace_1968_presidential_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace_1968_presidenti... [4] https://www.thefire.org/category/newsdesk/so-to-speak/page/17/ https://www.thefire.org/category/newsdesk/so-to-speak/page/1...
  • ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    [flagged]
    • rhaksw 4y ago
      That's not what I wrote. I said he was already a popular figure whose views should be publicly refuted. The fact that he later became a presidential contender isn't Yale's fault, but rather the unfortunate result of a lack of willingness to let the bad ideas see themselves out the door. > "Haters in the end bury themselves if you let them talk" - Jonathan Rauch https://youtu.be/E0T9XSG73kY?t=3083 https://youtu.be/E0T9XSG73kY?t=3083
      • ZeroGravitas 4y ago
• mensetmanusman 4y ago
  It’s an insightful critique that a mandated statement does force many academics to lie. This is by grasping at straws trying to find a relationship between their decades-long research thrust and a shiny new requirement popular among the administrative class that is now in charge.
  • akkartik 4y ago
    Where have you encountered this critique? I didn't find it in the article.
    • aendruk 4y ago
      Paragraph five.
    • nimonian 4y ago
      "most academic work has nothing to do with diversity, so these mandatory statements force many academics to betray their quasi-fiduciary duty to the truth by spinning, twisting, or otherwise inventing some tenuous connection to diversity."
      • akkartik 4y ago
        Ah, thanks to you and aendruk's sibling comment.
  • _fat_santa 4y ago
    > This is by grasping at straws trying to find a relationship between their decades-long research thrust and a shiny new requirement popular among the administrative class that is now in charge. That's my biggest problem with it. It's not a bad idea by itself, but what makes it such a bad idea is that it seemingly gets shoved on top of everything. The idea that everything has to advance DEI is crazy, because some things just aren't related. This is a classic boy who cried wolf problem. I'm sure there is racism in the US and we can certainly do a better job in advancing DEI in _some_ places. But when you go around yelling that everything has a DEI problem, you focus on the bullshit and miss the real issues.
• sn0w_crash 4y ago
  Not surprised about Haidt. There’s a large scale pushback against this new religion and it’s happening fast.
  • raxxorraxor 4y ago
    Not if everyone against it quits academia.
• djohnston 4y ago
  > because of a newly adopted requirement that everybody presenting research at the group's conferences explain how their submission advances "equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals." Wow and I thought psychology was a pseudo-science before!
  • Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
    "Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low."
    • throwaway2037 4y ago
      <hat tip> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre%27s_law Sayre's law states, in a formulation quoted by Charles Philip Issawi: "In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake." By way of corollary, it adds: "That is why academic politics are so bitter."
    • ip26 4y ago
      Such a great generalized insight. I’ve added the other criteria is winner take all conditions. The infighting over a small pie grows in intensity when only one person gets to take it home.
• SeanLuke 4y ago
  Entirely independent of the primary theme of this discussion, I found this statement from Haidt to be quite grating: > "The telos of a knife is to cut, the telos of medicine is to heal, and the telos of a university is truth." Since when is "truth" a verb?
  • bobbylarrybobby 4y ago
    https://help.truthsocial.com/how-do-you-retruth/ https://help.truthsocial.com/how-do-you-retruth/
  • dash2 4y ago
    It's not. Instead, the infinitives of "cut" and "heal" are being used as noun phrases. The grammar is correct, and the switch if anything makes the sentence more punchy.
  • FerociousTimes 4y ago
    I would have preferred and opted for "to teach" instead, or probably the more emphatic yet more problematic "to teach the truth" but the sentence structure seems sound to me grammatically speaking.
• ffggvv 4y ago
  DEI is beyond evil and i will vote for any party which opposes it regardless of any other issue
• bannedbybros 4y ago
• fareesh 4y ago
  This is now firmly in religious territory. Is there much of a difference between this and halal/kosher certification?
  • memish 4y ago
    We have laws for separation of church and state, they should be applied to this as any other. This is a religion. It's the same as any religious group trying to impose their morality and beliefs on everyone else. To be a good person use the correct words and correct ideas as defined by us, the good people. If you disagree you are a bad person. Sinful, evil. How can you disagree with the Holy Words, Diversity, Inclusion and Equity? You're either with us or against us. Sign here on the dotted line to confirm membership. http://paulgraham.com/heresy.html http://paulgraham.com/heresy.html
    • ethbr0 4y ago
      Private academic institutions (in the US-sense / not-government-funded) have no blanket obligation to separate from church, because they aren't the state.
      • JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > Private academic institutions I assume at least some of this research is funded with public grants. That might be from where pressure can be exerted.
      • origin_path 4y ago
        I wonder how private universities really are, given the reliance on government backed loan structures and NSF grants.
    • pessimizer 4y ago
      > We have laws for separation of church and state, they should be applied to this as any other. This is a religion. I'd say this about any sort of psychological theories that get intertwined into the justifications of power structures. The government should not be speculating about or creating rules about people's inner states. A government trying to change the minds of the population undermines democracy. An administration, fine, but not the government itself, with regulations paid for with tax money. People should change governments. Governments shouldn't change people.
• rayiner 4y ago
  The irony of “anti racism” is that its core goal of racial preferences is one championed mainly by white elite administrators. Let’s be clear: most minorities oppose explicit racial preferences, including Black people: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/05/08/americans-see-advantages-and-challenges-in-countrys-growing-racial-and-ethnic-diversity/ https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/05/08/america... In a recent example, the California ballot measure that would have legalized racial preferences in the state failed overwhelmingly, including in every majority Hispanic county in the state. But explicit racial preferences are at the core of anti racism as Kendi formulates it: > The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination. Why does this hold so much appeal? Because the audience of Kendi’s book isn’t minorities, it’s white people. And white people who dominate university faculties and professional organizations love this because it empowers them. For one thing, it empowers them to use race as a club against other white people. For another, it gives them tremendous power to shape minority culture. They have the power to select the brown people who will “represent” their whole group. Want a Muslim American professor, but don’t like what Islam has to say about women or homosexuality? Easily handled. The white faculty in charge can just pick a Muslim who agrees with white people about those things instead of other Muslims. And for good measure they can be made to sign a diversity statement. No wonder it’s the dream for Elizabeth Warren types.
  • memish 4y ago
    It could be described as thinly veiled white supremacy.
    • rayiner 4y ago
      Quite thinly veiled. They are the intellectual descendants of Lord Macaulay: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00generallinks/macaulay/txt_minute_education_1835.html http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00generallinks/... > In one point I fully agree with the gentlemen to whose general views I am opposed. I feel with them that it is impossible for us, with our limited means, to attempt to educate the body of the people. We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern, --a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population.
• joemazerino 4y ago
  I for one welcome this change. The whole university system has for decades been built on a house of straw and the ideologues of DIE are dismantling it bit by bit. What structures we build next will surely be interesting.
  • djohnston 4y ago
    Yes this needs more adoption. Why aren't math papers being gauged for their DEI readiness before publication?!!? /s
    • undersuit 4y ago
      Respectfully they should. Math papers against, fighting, or attacking DEI should be suspect.
      • secondcoming 4y ago
        suspect of what?
        • undersuit 4y ago
          Wouldn't it be odd if a Math paper was pushing racist views?
          • stainablesteel 4y ago
            what would be odd is people trying to re-define racism to attack math papers the re-definition problem has been going on for a while in this sphere, if someone needs to control the definition of every aspect of a conversation, it basically shows they have no integrity
          • secondcoming 4y ago
            Math papers aren't opinion pieces or editorials.
      • 4y ago
• socialismisok 4y ago
  The article doesn't quote or link to the policy in question, seems difficult to get a neutral point of view without actually reading the changes to the policy. Edit: the link was in the sixth paragraph, but it's much less damning than the article frames it.
  • happyopossum 4y ago
    The article clearly says this: “In order to present research at the conference, all social psychologists are now required to submit a statement explaining 'whether and how this submission advances the equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals of SPSP.’”
    • edmcnulty101 4y ago
      What are the consequences though?? Can they just submit a statement that says it doesn't? It's missing a lot of context.
    • socialismisok 4y ago
      That's a quote from Haidt, speaking from his memory of the policy. That's not the policy. He's hardly a neutral point of view.
      • mlyle 4y ago
        https://spsp.org/events/demonstrating-our-commitment-anti-racism-through-programming-and-events https://spsp.org/events/demonstrating-our-commitment-anti-ra... "Evaluate the extent to which the submission advances SPSP's goal of promoting equity, inclusion and anti-racism. To do so, please consider the equity statement as well as the submission as a whole. Submissions advancing equity, inclusion, and anti-racist goals may include (but are not limited to): * Diverse research participants (e.g., understudied or underserved populations) * Diverse research methods (e.g., methodology that promotes equity or engages underserved communities or scholars). * Diverse members of the research team (e.g., those from underrepresented sociodemographic backgrounds, from an array of career stages, from outside the United States, or with professional affiliations that are not typical at SPSP such as predominately undergraduate serving institutions, minority-serving institutions, or outside academia) * Presentation content (e.g., prejudice and discrimination, critical theories, cross-cultural research). " Note none of these things are required but will be considered. The text from the paper submission document has a large blank labelled: "Please explain whether and how this submission advances the equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals of SPSP. This may include, but is not limited to: The research participants in the sample; the methods used in the research; the members of the research team(s) involved in the work (e.g., background, diversity, career stage, affiliation type); the content of the presentation (e.g., critical theories, prejudice, equity, cross-cultural research). "
• workingon 4y ago
  Academic societies can have whatever ideologies they wish. Go present at a conference that doesn't have an ideology you don't have. That's true freedom. This is the same thing as Trump complaining about being banned from twitter. It's anti-capitalism and anti-freedom.
  • trention 4y ago
    Can an academic society in the USA today have an ideology explicitly presented as "the advancement and preservation of the white race"? No? Then your whole argument falls apart.
    • thebooktocome 4y ago
      The white suprematists found it more effective not to explicitly state their ideological goals. There are plenty of academic legal societies very interested in “states’ rights”, “returning to the constitution”, “memorializing the Confederacy”, etc. I don’t see a important distinction between an explicit statement and dog-whistle so thinly veiled that everyone knows what it stands for.
      • Ancapistani 4y ago
        > I don’t see a important distinction between an explicit statement and dog-whistle so thinly veiled that everyone knows what it stands for. That’s an interesting statement. I’ve personally attended a memorial ceremony hosted by the United Daughters of the Confederacy where a Black woman spoke for an hour about the conditions under which Blacks, both enslaved and free, existed in the Confederacy. She was a UDC member, which means that she was a thoroughly documented descendant of a Confederate soldier. In her case, that was a man who was offered his freedom in exchange for military service. You say “everyone knows it stands for”, but my experience says that a more truthful statement would be “most people believe they know what it stands for”.
        • thebooktocome 4y ago
          Yes, all communication channels have noise.
• specialist 4y ago
  Whatever. Haidt should start a new professional sociology society that excludes class, caste, and wealth. After the 2016 presidential, I binge read everything that might provide a clue to what just happened. Haidt was highly recommended. (Corporate media has a radical centricism fetish.) So I read all his words. Not impressed. This review of Haidt's Coddling of the American Mind [2018], by another professor, perfectly captures my own reaction to all the cancel culture boomers: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2520208235 https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2520208235 This is a very narrow and small-minded book parading as a big thoughtful one. It says it is about the American Mind, but the data and the theory only support "the coddling" of a very narrow subset of the American mind: upper middle class college kids born after 1995 that got to college in 2013. As far as that group is concerned, this is really good advice. I totally agree with his three untruths--your feelings are not necessarily true, the world is not good and evil, and adversity does not make you weak. I also agree that children need lots of free play and that social media is bad for kids and they are over-protected. There is nothing to disagree with here (even though I sometimes chafe at "when we were kids..." arguments) HOWEVER, using this group's specific problems, the authors make vast over-generalizations. The few anecdotes highlighted are meant to be examples of a deeper problem, but to me, they are the sum total of the problem. Left leaning students are behaving very badly toward conservative speakers. At most, there are 10 or so highly publicized events that seem to play on a loop among conservatives and intellectual dark web types. And there are no defenses to these behaviors, but it hardly represents our nation. And they provide no data whatsoever that it does. It's too soon to even tell that the next generation will be like this one. And for people who seem to care a lot about both sides arguments, they seem to leave out a lot of counter-examples. Here are a few: 1. They talk about the metoo movement once in the beginning. Is that not a product of this "call out" generation? None of us "old" women had the "balls" to speak truth to power like these young women do. Good for them. 2. And the Parkland teens and all the ways in which this generation is more compassionate and engaged than we were. My generation (I'm 40) thought it was cool not to care about anything. My middle school kid stays up after school making protest signs and watching political debates. Is that not progress? 3. The authors also focuses on one particular subset of an entire generation (left-leaning, and mostly women and LGBT or Trans students asking for safe spaces). They leave out that Gamergate and the trolls and the alt right are also made up of this generation. Why not talk about them at all? Seriously. They are literally the same age and except for one aside in the entire book that "the right does it too" there are no examples at all of the right doing the thing they are decrying. It seemed like a half-assed "both sides" argument without support. 4. Do you know how many books I've read written by old people decrying the hippie generation of the 60s (Alan Bloome's Closing of the American Mind is an example)? Bloome was talking about Haidt and Luianoff. Boy do they grow up fast. 5. It makes me sad that more people will read this book than will read books highlighting actual big problems like inequality. The authors give a nod to the fact that inequality should definitely be remedied, but they would rather you do it the right way and not call it "social justice." Again, I agree with all the parenting advice and the cognitive behavior advice, but this is not a self-help book. It's meant as a polemic and it strikes at the wrong target.
• gameshot911 4y ago
  Off-topic, but the Reason icon is strikingly similar to YCombinator's. Orange square, with a single white letter in the middle. Wonder if one was modeled off the other.
  • hotdamnson 4y ago
• briantakita 4y ago
  It comes down to first principles. Are we basing our values & worth on merit (being productivity or social impact & what defines productivity or social impact), equality, equity, classifications? What we base our values & worth will determine how the downstream systems are designed & what they optimize for.
• jscipione 4y ago
  Jordan Peterson also recently retired from the University of Toronto citing diversity statements as his reason. https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2022/01/20/jordan-peterson-resigns-from-u-of-toronto-citing-appalling-ideology-that-is-demolishing-education/ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2022/01/20/jordan-peterson-re... I would source a publication more well-received by the Hacker News moderators, but I couldn’t find any stories published by those sources. This reporting bias seems to be more and more common unfortunately.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• web007 4y ago
  Make your statement "This ain't got nothin' to do with that malarkey!" and move on, there's no need to throw a tantrum and take your ball and go home. It's like a conflict of interest statement, "yes" or "no" are both acceptable answers, just say something. For others who view this DEI addition as positive, it gives them an explicit place to call out areas of focus. For people who are looking for DEI-impacting work it's a much simpler filter than abstracts or full papers.
• ZoomerCretin 4y ago
  >Last week the New York University (NYU) psychology professor announced that he would resign at the end of the year from the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, his primary professional association, because of _a newly adopted requirement that everybody presenting research at the group's conferences explain how their submission advances_ "equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals." It was the sort of litmus test against which he has warned, and which he sees as corroding institutions of higher learning. This sounds bad! Not all research has anything to do with equity, inclusion, or anti-racism. >all social psychologists are now required to submit a statement explaining 'whether and how this submission advances the equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals of SPSP.'" Oh, so it wasn't a "litmus test" or hard requirement. Emphasis on "whether". His research didn't have to do anything with DEI. He could have very easily just said "This research has nothing to do with equity, inclusion, and anti-racism." and been done with it, but instead chose to make a mountain out of a molehill and rage-quit his position in this association to make himself a martyr for the anti-DEI movement. >As of now, everybody presenting research at the society's upcoming conference will have to pledge that their work advances political goals. This is a lie that is disproven by quotes provided in the article. Once again, you are not required to "pledge" anything. You just have to state whether your research has anything to do with EIAR, and if it does, what it has to do with EIAR.
  • shellami 4y ago
    Individuals that value liberty will chafe at "saluting" a politically ideology.
  • eggsmediumrare 4y ago
    This sounds optional in the same way that company socials are optional. Maybe you can skip it once, but too many times and people start asking questions.
• throwawaymaths 4y ago
  These policies may even negatively impact faculty who broadly agree with their institution's DEI values but disagree on some of the specifics This is a money quote, and I think it's spot on. I don't think I'm projecting to say many people are personally committed to DEI but hate hate hate DEI initiatives (doubly so when they become cringey).
• lkrubner 4y ago
  As the article suggests, these "diversity and inclusion" initiatives have negative effects when they become institutional mandates. And yet we can all agree that there is a strong moral argument in favor of ensuring that each profession is open to everyone of real talent. My sense of the right way to approach this is to encourage every hiring manager to remember their moral obligations, but without formalizing such moral concerns into mandates. I wrote a long bit about this in "One on one meetings are underrated:" When hiring, I rely heavily on recommendations from people I know, or at least know of. To use some Silicon Valley jargon, I rely on "social proof." If a good engineer with whom I’ve worked recommends some other engineer or project manager or product manager, that counts for a lot with me. I recently tweeted this idea on Twitter and James Youngman responded, “It seems to me that this kind of approach is what perpetuates the domination of the industry by an in-group (who know each other, directly or indirectly) at the expense of outsiders, to the detriment of both diversity and fairness.” That’s a valid concern. We all have a professional and ethical obligation to be sure that we hire a diverse workforce; that is, the workforce must be open to anyone who has real talent. In my experience, there is no contradiction between that obligation and a requirement that a candidate be recommended by someone we trust. Assuming you have friends and colleagues who understand their professional and ethical obligations the same way you do, they should be able to give recommendations on people they know or put you in touch with friends of theirs who can offer such recommendations. Within your extended social penumbra of friends, friends of friends, and friends of friends of friends, you should be able to find someone who can vouch for most of the candidates that you need to hire. You just need to put in the effort, chasing down those recommendations through extended chains of acquaintances. This approach very much works when you are hiring novices who are straight out of school. It helps to stay in touch with friends and colleagues who are teaching or mentoring at schools or the software developer bootcamps. Back in 2018, when I needed some junior-level frontend software developers, I hired several women from the Grace Hopper program for women that is run by Fullstack Academy. In that case I spoke with some experienced friends of mine who had either taught at the school or volunteered as mentors. As such, they could point me to those who were the best of the graduating class and I ended up with an unusually excellent team of novices. [I then tell a story from 2009, when I go to a job interview, and they give me a technical test: to find the problems in their code. And yet, they didn't know what they were doing, and their code was horrible. Here is the conclusion of that story:] ...Needless to say, I didn’t get the job, nor did I want the job. He was looking to hire software developers who would be willing to follow his idiosyncratic and unprofessional style. I wasn’t interested. I tell this story when I’m being critical of certain kinds of coding tests, and hiring managers respond, “Well, that is an extreme and ridiculous example.” It is indeed extreme and ridiculous, therefore, it’s easy to see the problem. Yet, even when tests are less idiosyncratic than that one, they will still reflect the values, skills, and aesthetics of the person doing the hiring. How could they not? Anyone who hires someone for their team will want someone who is at least somewhat consonant with the style and goals of the team. Wanting that consonance is reasonable, up to a point. Certainly, when I hire, I’m looking for someone who either shares my aesthetics or is willing to learn my aesthetics. That is, I explicitly recognize that there are subjective factors that shape hiring decisions. Whenever I say this, I get pushback from people who say some variation of, “This is why tech remains exclusive, with a dominant in-group that never changes, because the people with the power to hire only hire those who are just like them.” I, however, would say the opposite is true. The only way to make the profession of software development (or the profession of marketing or operations or sales or law or any other profession) more diverse is to explicitly recognize that all hiring contains a subjective element, and that one of the goals of hiring must be the creation of a diverse workforce, open to anyone with real talent. Only after you’ve explicitly recognized that there are subjective factors that shape hiring can you explicitly move to build a diverse workforce. By contrast, the pretense of objective tests has too often served as a smokescreen behind which lurk forces that conserve the status quo. If the moral urgency of this issue leaves you unmoved, consider the practical element: everything you need to know about a candidate you can learn from recommendations and by talking to the candidate. If you ask them direct questions, and you ask follow up questions until you are sure you know everything that you need to know, then you will discover what you need without wasting time on tests. This is faster for you, and it is faster for the candidate, and therefore this is both more fair and more efficient for everyone. This is not to say that I never use tests. I use tests all the time. Not because they are objective, but for the opposite reason: they often reveal some of the subjective factors that are essential for making good hiring decisions. If I am interviewing a junior level software developer, and I give them a challenge that only a senior level software developer could handle, I’m not actually looking to see if this developer can do the work. I know they can’t. I am looking to see if they panic, or if they remain calm and ask me all of the questions that they should be asking me.
• mikewarot 4y ago
  Why is it acceptable to derange academia in this fashion?
• ok123456 4y ago
  Will you be censured if you make your diversity statement about class diversity?
• curioushacking 4y ago
  My understand for how we measure systemic racism issues seems to typically be predicated on assumed outcomes. For example that if the distribution of employees race does not match the general population then there must be a systemic cause for this. What I don’t understand is why that is assumed true. If we want to encourage many different cultures to live together wouldn’t it naturally make sense that different cultures would have different outcomes in job preferences? How do you separate potential racism from cultural differences? My fear is if there are strong cultural differences that lead to disparate racial outcomes so organizations will always be able to point out that systemic issues exist even when they may be eradicated. I don’t know how we measure this.
  • Slava_Propanei 4y ago
    • xctr94 4y ago
      This isn’t Reddit. Sarcasm adds nothing to GP’s question.
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      • mistermann 4y ago
        The ideas within a comment that is stated in a sarcastic form on the other hand, still possess the same value as they would have if stated in a different form. A sarcastic form may render the value invisible from certain frames of reference, but it is still there.
  • peter422 4y ago
    The only issue with this is we can and have isolated clear mechanisms in which certain races are treated differently as compared to others (for example, names on resumes and interview rates, property assessments given a white looking household vs black looking household, pain management in hospitals for women of various races during childbirth, etc), and do I think it is fair to say that the expectation would be if the system were truly unbiased that the proportion of people of different races in various roles would be about similar. Obviously there are a lot of mechanisms that might change that equal expectation, but it still seems reasonable to me that for most jobs the default expectations should be around equal.
• Seattle3503 4y ago
  > In order to present research at the conference, all social psychologists are now required to submit a statement explaining 'whether and how this submission advances the equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals of SPSP.'" What are the consequences of saying "This research does not have any DEI implications."?
  • layer8 4y ago
    In light of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33056630 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33056630, probably reduced likelihood of the submission being selected.
• w10-1 4y ago
  Bullies love it when their opponents quit. Who's to stop the bullies?
• MisterBastahrd 4y ago
  [flagged]
  • camdenlock 4y ago
    You literally sound like a QAnon acolyte, just with a different ideology.
• brightball 4y ago
  He’s right to do so. Statements that your research must be presented with a filter based on how it will advance political goals calls into question the integrity of all research. When people don’t “trust the science” this will be why. But further, I’d never seen the statement from antiracist before…wow. The idea that the only cure for discrimination is discrimination is akin to saying the only cure for violence is violence. It’s abject insanity that such a notion is being advanced in society. The cure for discrimination is forgiveness. The cure for violence is forgiveness. The cure for hatred is forgiveness. The only way anything stops is for people to have the humility and wisdom to say “this will stop with me.”
  • henriquez 4y ago
  • Arainach 4y ago
    After decades/centuries of abuse, how does "forgiveness" fix systemic issues? Forgiveness can't fix the fact that black Americans were denied access to loans, houses, GI Bill provisions, and all sorts of opportunities that were the primary source of household wealth gains for the last 75 years. It can't fix the fact that those gains mean white people have, on average, more access to "a small loan" from a family member to start a business, a house or inheritance to fall back on if their take a risk starting a business and it doesn't pan out, and so on.
    • ponow 4y ago
      So, with your reasoning, what's the correct response today to the Holocaust?
      • Arainach 4y ago
        Germany has been paying reparations to survivors since the 1950s and paid large sums to Israel and the World Jewish Congress as heirs to the deceased. http://www.mnchurches.org/blog/2021/02/18/holocaust-survivors-receive-german-reparations-day http://www.mnchurches.org/blog/2021/02/18/holocaust-survivor... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_Agreement_between_Israel_and_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_Agreement_between_...
• nyxtom 4y ago
  I firmly believe that DEI and its neighbor ESG have become one giant scam. Anyway to demonstrate that your corporation, literature, or organization mimics the ideologically virtue-signaled narrative and you are more likely to get better funding/support/grants.
  • foofoo4u 4y ago
    You're not the only one. I see DEI and ESGs as a giant scam as well. More people are starting to see them this way as well. Here's a take I enjoyed listening to by Capitalisn't: [The Smoke and Mirrors of ESG Investing with Tariq Fancy](https://capitalisnt.com/episodes/the-smoke-and-mirrors-of-esg-investing-with-tariq-fancy-hqC704vU https://capitalisnt.com/episodes/the-smoke-and-mirrors-of-es...) Episode Summary > Environmental, social and governance investing, also know as ESG, has exploded in recent years. It promises to help us solve problems like climate change and inequality all while allowing investors to still turn a profit. > > But BlackRock’s former global chief investment office for sustainable investing, Tariq Fancy, says it isn't what's being advertised. Recently, he penned a blog post claiming that not only are ESGs not making societal problems better, they may actively be making them worse.
• vlark 4y ago
  He should have tested the statement requirement policy before resigning. All he had to do was provide a statement that his research does not advance SPSP's equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals but that it is important to the field on its own. Then he would have a stronger case to point out the irony of the policy itself being discriminatory. Right now, he just comes across as a whiner.
  • henriquez 4y ago
    No, it’s a fucking stupid requirement. The best way to not lose a game is not to play.
• LatteLazy 4y ago
  I broadly agree with the wider point he is making. And he is free to leave any association he wants. But isn't Dr Haidt jumping the gun? Surely a valid statement would be "this research is just research, it does advance "equality" or fight racism". Wouldn't such a statement on good quality research be much more effective to communicate the core point?
• TheMightyLlama 4y ago
  This policy feels to be synonymous with having a political officer aboard a soviet submarine…
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• _qua 4y ago
  Christopher Hitchens on free speech. I return to this every one or two years. https://youtu.be/4Z2uzEM0ugY https://youtu.be/4Z2uzEM0ugY
• stainablesteel 4y ago
  It's a religion. There's supposed to be a separation of church and state. They make grand non-disprovable claims and don't operate on any empirical basis. It's that simple. Kick out the religion before we damage our society.
• duxup 4y ago
  It is telling about how much of a human problem bigotry is that in fighting it we resort to it all over again. A good warning to all of us to try to keep ourselves in check.
• throw7 4y ago
  "equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals." Sadly, I've come to a place where I have no idea what these words mean. And at this point, I'm afraid to ask.
• sethammons 4y ago
  > the left used to be creeped out by loyalty oaths, whether administered by the McCarthyite right or the Soviet left. But young people on the left seem to be very comfortable requiring such pledges. I've witnessed this too. It is concerning
• lenocinor 4y ago
  I read the whole thread up till now and did not see anyone supporting mandated DEI statements. So I’m posting to say that I do support them. In my experience at a couple of different learning institutions I’ve seen what I believe are positive changes that they’ve enabled. EDIT: I also support antiracist sentiments and policies. I’ve watched them make what I believe are significant positive impacts when I’ve employed them personally.
  • trention 4y ago
    I also support diversity statements when they are about the only type of diversity that matters - intellectual diversity. Join me in making equal far-right representation on all campuses a reality. (Only the 'join me' in the above is sarcasm)
    • dillondoyle 4y ago
      I don't quite parse your intent here. But if I'm understanding the 2nd sentence, this is so true in that these extremists feel that unless we are forced to listen to & give them a platform that they are somehow being censored. No one is taping someone's mouth shut. In fact those voices are louder now than they have been in my entire life. But I'm not going to listen to it. and yeah young people are generally more open minded and yes they are peer pressuring (subject of this complains about peer pressure). Maybe that says something.. One can change ones behavior and beliefs and maybe they'll be more accepted into the group they want to to be in. Or not! it's their choice that they are free to make.
      • trention 4y ago
        >unless we are forced to listen to & give them a platform No, actually if you just don't explicitly engage in hiring practices on the basis of ideology. https://unherd.com/thepost/political-discrimination-is-fuelling-a-crisis-of-academic-freedom/ https://unherd.com/thepost/political-discrimination-is-fuell... >Several studies find that between 18 and 55% of academics would discriminate against a Right-wing applicant for a job or grant. I found that 40-45% of North American academics would not hire a Trump supporter and 1 in 3 in Britain would not hire a Leave supporter. I of course don't expect the fact to lead to any form of reflection. After all, it's obvious you can't even grasp the fact that ideological diversity is beneficial and matters while ethnic diversity doesn't matter and is often harmful.
• dillondoyle 4y ago
  There is misunderstanding & exaggeration felt by those who feel their identity is under attack. In this instance a statement simply saying their research doesn't perpetuate discrimination !== mandating your research must do ___ whatever ___ if the research does somehow discriminate, simply not accepting it into this particular society or some conference doesn't wipe it off the face of the earth or send someone to woke jail. no one is forcing you to accept concepts of diversity & inclusion worldviews. or that recognizing and trying to correct real factual imbalances somehow means that the 'other' group must be treated worse or be discriminated against. multiple recent WSJ editorials are super similar to this article. ---- "‘Implicit Bias’ Training Cost Me My Nursing Job" [1] the author argued that that training would have required her to 'discriminate.' instead of the reality of a discussion highlighting the real, legitimate, and actually factual disparities of treatment and higher death rates of POC. correcting imbalance !== actively treating white patients worse. no one is mandating that we lower treatment quality to level the playing field. instead of trying to correct and raise everyone up! btw a very common refrain: they knew this without actually taking the training? ---- "The College Board’s Racial Pandering" [2] Glossing over the weird argument that funding pre-k is somehow bad because test scores have remained stagnant.. hand waving away huge benefits, including for the economy, printed by the wall street journal! Author makes another false equivalency and presents un truths. The addition of a new AP course on afam studies does not somehow take away from remedial math & science classes. No one is forcing students to take this class. author claims some ambiguous liberal education propaganda machine is aiming to "turn students who haven't even learned to read and write into social-justice warriors" what student who can't read are taking an AP level course? Author even spends paragraphs writing about what he assumes will be taught even though he says himself he doesn't even have a syllabus. he complains that the afam course will ignore jewish & asian discrimination!?! what? 1: we don't know this. 2: even so, that's not the subject of the course! his language like "pander to black kids" sends shivers down my spine. ---- I love WSJ reporting. But the anti-factual junk they are printing in their opeds makes it hard to read. At least they are still labeling it oped, unlike fox news. i've written to apple news so many times. they will put non-factual, non-reporting opinion on the news feed and not label it, presenting it as real news. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/fired-from-my-nursing-job-for-refusing-to-say-im-racist-kentucky-michigan-implicit-bias-training-healthcare-fairness-11664551932?mod=opinion_lead_pos9 https://www.wsj.com/articles/fired-from-my-nursing-job-for-r... [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-college-boards-racial-pandering-education-k-12-schooling-ap-courses-exams-testing-high-schools-math-reading-propaganda-11664309793 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-college-boards-racial-pande...
• soueuls 4y ago
  I tried to find the original source, I could not. That being said, I have witnessed this non sense during my professional career, we had meeting discussing the need to hire woman or black people. As an engineer I can't possibly agree to that. I want to work with engineers, problem solvers. I don't think Melatonin or the presence or absence of a vagina to be a useful metric. That's also the reason I left the Western world for the foreseeable future. It's clearly impossible to focus long enough on a problem without being disturbed by the new shiny ideology of the moment.
  • jbrr 4y ago
    That’s a pretty strong reaction to HR wanting more diversity. I wouldn’t call that a “new shiny ideology of the moment” either. Affirmative action dates back to reconstruction. I think the fallacy here is that there’s a single best applicant for any given position. There are often multiple qualified candidates, why shouldn’t race or gender be a factor if you’re just going to choose arbitrarily anyway.
    • soueuls 4y ago
      You can use gender or race or any other factor. I just don't want to have anything to do with that company because I am afraid I will lose IQ point on the long run. I am a capitalist, I am not sure which factors are the best factors when it comes to correlating with performance. Is it hard skills? Communication? Do I need a generalist? A specialist? Is it better to hire people with ego or not? One thing I am pretty confident is that vagina or Melatonin are pretty weak factor. And I would not trust any HR or managers optimizing for it. I am a lot more happy since I live in a country where that does not value these things.
• braingenious 4y ago
  I’ve noticed an interesting trend of people attempting to performatively “get cancelled” and when they fail to accomplish that, the next best option is to very publicly voluntarily quit their job and imply they had no other choice. What is the implied real-world loss by this man choosing to no longer (according to wikipedia) do research to help the Democratic party win over conservatives and libertarians? I genuinely cannot imagine a scenario where I’m actually concerned that somebody who is described as a “thinker” voluntarily chooses to stop… “thinking”?
• xkcd1963 4y ago
  Psychology is not a science
• hi41 4y ago
  President Biden said he wanted a black woman to be in Supreme Court. Shouldn’t he have instead said he wanted the best and most qualified person for that position?