6 ms·
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
by 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 agoNot even diversity. They replaced the word diversity with anti-racism.
- HyperSane 4y agoAnd anti-racism is actually just racism towards whites and Asians.
- kenjackson 4y agoThat’s not true. Why do you think that?
- HyperSane 4y agoBut 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."
- kenjackson 4y agoIn this thread I’ve noticed people have jumped from these principles, which do seem true to very specific statements about race that don’t seem true. Interesting.
- mpweiher 4y agoNope. People rightly reject these "principles" as incorrect and both morally and pragmatically reprehensible.
- kenjackson 4y agoHow is the principle incorrect? It’s a truth like evolution. You can’t fix past discrimination without future discrimination, in most cases. That is something you can model quite nicely mathematically. The question is just if it is reprehensible to do so. Or if there are times when it is more or less reprehensible.
- blix 4y agoI wonder if there are any historical examples of racial discrimination justified by invoking evolution. This argument is hilarious but this is not a turn I expected it to take.
- kenjackson 4y agoI trust you do understand the distinction between the nature of this use vs past.
- blix 4y agoTomato tomahto. The important thing is establishing that one group has too many resources which rightfully belong to some other group. The rest is implementation detail.
- 4y ago
- pas 4y agoThat's ... not how this works. This is not a zero-sum thing. (Even if there are parts of the problem where the actual conflicts are zero-sum, ie. there's a limit of how many first-year students can fit into classes, etc.) Discriminating against already well off groups to help chronically not well-off groups (affirmative action) is of course discrimination but the consequence is very unlikely to cause the well-off groups to suddenly find themselves at the other end of the spectrum. (Mostly because they have a lot of other opportunities... that's why they're well-off. Of course it's not that simple, because there's stratification of these groups themselves, so it's very important to look at people individually, and don't simply give them plus/minus points just because of an external trait. Eg. skin color.)
- zmgsabst 4y agoSaying that it’s okay to discriminate against poor Whites, Jews, and Asians because some are rich is entirely racist: You’re viewing people as defined by their race, not their individual attributes and histories.
- pas 4y agoNo one said that, and I don't view people as that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- HyperSane 4y agoIbram X Kendi does.
- pas 4y agoI haven't read anything from him (except that one line, I assume, you quoted a few comments back), but now I'm interested. Can you cite the relevant parts?
- akomtu 4y agoHis name is Ibram Rogers Kendi, and under this name he has published books that make his "anti-racism" a moderate view. He's switched to this X pseudonym to make readers forget what kind of extremist he had been.