36 ms·

DOE requires plans to promote diversity from grant applicants

71 points by Metacelsus 4y ago

throwawaysleep 4y ago
You also seem to just self declare on most applications, so claim whatever race/gender/sexuality you want. I am gay. Prove me wrong.
- zapdrive 4y ago
- JetAlone 4y ago
  Careful what you wish for, the commissars might catch up to you one day and bring out the gimp.
  - JetAlone 4y ago
    I joke but it's serious, governments or other offices wanting into your bedroom to verify if you qualify as regards occupational opportunities/requirements to prove it is a thing historically. Literally, give them enough rope and they'll try pushing it. https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2013/08/exemption-gay-men-iran-milita-1.html https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2013/08/exemption-gay-m... " If the psychological diagnosis confirms the individual’s homosexuality, an official, permanent exemption is issued for him. More often than not, a thorough rectal exam follows the mental evaluation. The physician’s observations providing proof of occurred same-sex intercourse is then written formally and submitted to the military. In some cases, further detail-oriented exams come into play, so the decision-makers can be certain of the applicant’s “queerness," making sure they are genuine, not a false pretense to escape the service. " It's honestly a disgusting overreach whether you're trying to include or exclude people of whatever sexual proclivity. We can become like Iran, but for any ideology, given enough time and institutionalized dogmatism.
- geofft 4y ago
  I'm not sure this is relevant to the article. It's saying that grant proposals must include plans to promote diversity, not that grant proposals must come from people of any particular race/gender/sexuality.
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    I believe they already address diversity though in their regulations, so I have a feeling this is indicative that they plan implement quotas which is ultimately discriminatory.
    - geofft 4y ago
      I'm not sure I see how that's connected to the article or the linked DOE policy - can you expand on what gets you that feeling? It seems to be saying the precise opposite of that, in my reading.
      - encryptluks2 4y ago
        See Hopwood v. Texas and Fisher v. University of Texas for examples of affirmative action causing schools to deny applicants based on race. Based on the new requirements, it appears to indicate that it will encourage grant applicants to do just that and implement quota-based programs.
  - throwawaysleep 4y ago
    This is in practice a quota system. They can’t say that, but that is what is expected.
- ajross 4y ago
  > I am gay. Prove me wrong. The weird thing about this is that you're relying on a clear sense of your own identity (that you are not gay, because if you were you wouldn't challenge someone to prove you wrong, you'd just say it) to deny the value of other people doing the same thing, but with a different answer. To wit: you're yelling about your own sexuality in an argument about how we shouldn't have to hear about someone else's. You know how all those woke folk talk about "privilege"? That's what privilege is. Trans kids don't get to say stuff like that on the internet, only straight guys.
  - throwawaysleep 4y ago
    I deny that it should matter for grants, hiring, and other career benefits. But it does and while it does, I shall claim I am gay.
    - ajross 4y ago
      That's what you said the first time, and I get the irony. I'm just struck that you're taking such care in your phrasing to clarify to the folks here how you're not actually gay. That doesn't seem to you to cut against your point? You think your identity is important enough not to be ambiguous about it[1], but not important enough to maybe be worth checking to see if people are being fair about it? (Which at the end of the day is all this policy means.) [1] I mean, why not just say "I'm gay, and I this helps me even though it shouldn't"? It's because you don't want people to think you're actually gay, right? I find that really interesting.
      - hattmall 4y ago
        I don't think they care about what people think with regard to their sexuality on an anonymous website. The point is you can't hand check diversity when it applies to a matter of personal preference. That makes any forced diversity of that preference pointless.
      - Velc 4y ago
        Snide comment, painful to read. Why should he say something that’s not true just to make people think he’s gay? Your logic is flawed.
- collegeburner 4y ago
  among my generation this has already caught on among some groups of young white women for "diversity clout" if that's a thing. they are all suddenly "bi" and put pride flags in their insta and tiktok bios. prove them wrong. p.s. there are doubtless plenty who are fr but there's a lot of bs too.
  - dtjb 4y ago
    I don't mean this as snide as it sounds, but really, who cares?
    - thereisnospork 4y ago
      The DOE, to start.
    - throwawaysleep 4y ago
      Jobs. Scholarships. Committees. Boards.
    - collegeburner 4y ago
      i don't much honestly. a few bi friends have complained but i don't much agree with the whole "appropriation" angle. it does matter if people start getting advantages from it, though, and that's literally the subject of this thread. hell if it meant the difference between grant and no grant i'd claim it, what can they do?
    - treeman79 4y ago
      Perhaps the people that don’t want to participate in open bigotry and other nonsense.
    - dymk 4y ago
      My company counts participation in groups such as the LGBT employees group as part of your yearly review.
      - collegeburner 4y ago
aklemm 4y ago
Excellent. Seems like a fine, fair way forward and I hope the challenge is successful.
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  It is completely the opposite, in truth. Subjectivism has intruded our society in a big way and it is only going to get worse.
steve76 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
throwaway12245 4y ago
Diversity of what? Thought? Height? Athletic ability? Age? Hair color? Education?
- JetAlone 4y ago
  Yes, these are all important elements of inclusion. For example, if only short people design energy equipment, tall people will hit their heads on it.
  - User23 4y ago
    As a tall person I’ve been frustrated by tallism my entire life. I hit my head all the time. And then I’m mocked for slouching!
    - remarkEon 4y ago
      I wish there were more tall people that designed urinals and bathrooms. Only tall people will understand this.
      - bombcar 4y ago
        When I redo the kitchen we’re going to put the cabinets higher because screw having some default countertop heigh when we could have something designed for us. The next owners can redo it if they care.
        remarkEon 4y ago
        The house I'm looking at buying has a deck, and I want to redo the stairs such that the steps are calibrated to the gait for people greater than 6' tall. You know what I mean ... steps that are "too short" can be literally painful to walk up.
- alfor 4y ago
  Let’s not forget IQ, people with low IQ are very marginalized in the field of physics and mathematics. Seriously diversity is a mind virus at this point. North america is one the the most diverse, just equitable place that ever existed in the history of humanity.
fny 4y ago
This is backwards. We need do this type of investment at the pre-K, elementary, and middle school levels. We need to provide funding to local communities. If all these top tier colleges (I'm looking at squarely my alma mater--Duke--as an example) invested directly in their local communities instead of affirmative action we'd have made far more progress as a nation. Meanwhile, big tech is gentrifying Durham, people of color are being pushed out, and these companies keep plastering signs everywhere about how they stand for diversity and inclusion. Science is science. Leave it the fuck alone. Give everyone equal opportunity, and train them to become the best damn scientists they can be. Then give out grants.
- n0tth3dro1ds 4y ago
  Why do you feel like neighborhoods need to be static in terms of racial composition, forever? Science is science? Okay then. Is tech tech? It seems that there are more white and Asian people in tech, and Apple is hiring in RDU. Should they not hire the best technologists? Should those technologists not have homes in the area? By “gentrifying”, it seems you just mean white people moving for their jobs. Why isn’t that allowed in your book? Have black people claimed the Durham area as theirs forever? What nonsense. Let’s just speak openly: you’re part of the problem. Neighborhoods can’t get claimed by any given race. People can move where they want. Successful businesses adding jobs to a historically poorer area is a good thing, and you shouldn’t use silly code words like “gentrification” to signal that you don’t want whites moving into your town.
  - fny 4y ago
    I have no issue with racial composition. I have no issue with Apple hiring the best technologist independent of race. To me, gentrification is a symptom that the people being "displaced" did not have *equal opportunity* to become the best technologists. This is because funding for upstream programs are ignored in these discussions about student loans, affirmative action, and now DOE grants. K-12 public schools and literacy rates are shit in the US compared to much of the developed world, and we're sitting here yapping about diversity in applied physics research. What the actual fuck?
pavon 4y ago
The DOE has long been a supporter of equality. For if the bomb that drops on you Gets your friends and neighbors too There'll be nobody left behind to grieve And we will all go together when we go What a comforting fact that is to know Universal bereavement - An inspiring achievement! Yes, we all will go together when we go
2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
A major challenge will be keeping researchers from simply treating the requirement as another box to tick or fobbing the work off on minority scientists, Hodari says. “That’s often people’s first ask,” she says, “to find anyone they think can help them and ask, ‘Do this for us.’” Hodari, who is Black, says she experienced such treatment when she was a postdoc. Much has been written about what actually succeeds in promoting diversity, she says, but it’s the researcher’s responsibility to read the material and take it seriously. “You just got to do your homework,” she says. “I don’t expect someone in middle school to walk into a quantum field theory class and understand tensor math, right?” How do we end up with someone who was subject to the behaviour we want to avoid, coming up with a set of policies that can be gamed in the way we want to avoid?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ng12 4y ago
Ah, yes. If there's one thing that can solve racial injustice it's mindless bureaucracy.
mjfl 4y ago
"If we get this grant we will fire our overrepresented Chinese postdocs and replace them with black people."
- hattmall 4y ago
  Subtle. I like it!
edmcnulty101 4y ago
Requiring diversity doesn't really solve the problem. Now instead of a small group of rich white people living in the same neighborhoods and going to the same parties and keeping the funding and opportunities away from the rest of the unwashed masses it will be a small group of mixed races of people doing the same. The ultimate issue is the cronyism of Science. This reminds me of the fact that 80% of new hire professorships already come from only 20% of schools. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/09/23/new-study-finds-80-faculty-trained-20-institutions https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/09/23/new-study-fin... Anything that is regulated by the government tends towards cronyism instead of competence over time because they have an endless flow of taxpayer money so no competence is needed to keep the money flowing.
faeriechangling 4y ago
The government is a democratic institution, it’s fairly reasonable in principle for them to try and ensure all their citizens and not some overrepresented group get the benefits of public funding. It is after all PUBLIC funding, every citizen should have equal influence on where it goes, which would predict it being distributed fairly equitably. > I believe that the vast majority of physicists—even the vast majority of white male physicists—want a more diverse and representative community I think the trick with this statement is the white people who get screwed by the policy won’t be employable as physicists anymore due to lack of funding so they don’t count as not wanting this since they’re won’t ever become physicists. But sure the elite white physicists will talk about how fantastic this is so they can get invited to parties, it’s not like they will ever become victims of their own rhetoric. It’s obviously the people who will be most adversely affected whose opinions who matter most, and those are the B students, not the established physicists. The other trick of course is that Asians are going to take the hit far more than Whites are but this isn’t talked about because Asians have more public sympathy. They aren’t thought of as a group with collective racial guilt to the same degree.
ohCh6zos 4y ago
I suspect white men see these things and this is why people like Trump keep winning.
- treeman79 4y ago
  Nice of you to notice that Trump is not a bigot. Unlike the other side. An ass. Yes. But he did more for lifting up all ethnic groups then any government mandated racism / sexism has ever done.
  - threatofrain 4y ago
    No, Trump brought a lot of heat on Asians who have no real allies among Democrats or Republicans.
    - encryptluks2 4y ago
      Did he though? I mean, I get that he called COVID-19 the kung fu flu... but that was more directed towards China and suggesting that they were responsible, meaning their government. I guess he could have consistently clarified that it was directed towards the Chinese government, but I don't know if he bears the brunt of responsibility of dumb people that think China meant all Asians and to not be able to understand the distinction between their government and people. I don't think the Democrats get the same kind of flack from criticizing China without spelling out that they are referring to the government and policies.
      - Kye 4y ago
        The kind of people who are swayed by racist rhetoric don't care about the difference. They get a notion to go out and attack the target ethnicity and find the nearest brown person.
        djanlermats2020 4y ago
        People who do this sort of thing are incredibly rare lol. Most interracial violence is black on white.
kadabra9 4y ago
I can’t think of many better examples of “The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions” than the DEI cult.
- JetAlone 4y ago
  Yeah. Power corrupts. Some noble intentions got twisted into a quest for revenge. Wake me up when humanity at large becomes better than this (they won't).
- faeriechangling 4y ago
  I just wish they would stop talking about fighting systemic racism while literally being the greatest institution of systemic racism in the world. I can kind of see where they’re coming from and the benefits they have in some ways, but it’s incredible the same people who enforce racial quotas for a living give condescending seminars on how to be anti racist which people are mandated to sit though and be educated on. When the DEI people say “hey hire out of this HBCU, not out of this elite college with tons of legacy admissions which there is almost no pathway to from a school in a poor neighbourhood” that’s not all evil and terror.
  - eli_gottlieb 4y ago
    >When the DEI people say “hey hire out of this HBCU, not out of this elite college with tons of legacy admissions which there is almost no pathway to from a school in a poor neighbourhood” that’s not all evil and terror. But the DEI people went to the elite college with legacy admissions, and work there now. "DEI" is "more BIPOCs at elite colleges to which there's no pathway from a poor neighborhood."
    - faeriechangling 4y ago
      Most DEI people I see in real life are ghost white HR ladies who had mediocre grades in school and work for a mediocre company and send out regular company emails about how it’s Polynesian history month, asexual pride week, and progressiveness day. I would say most of them are not “true believers” but may generally agree that DEI is noble.
javajosh 4y ago
I am astonished. I thought we had this conversation 30 years ago, and the consensus was affirmative action of this sort is a terrible idea. It is particularly bad for minorities, since ALL of them will be suspected of having their position/funding/etc because of their identity instead of merit, even if they are legitimately qualified. Talent capable of pushing the boundaries of science is extremely scarce in humans, and it makes no sense to make it artificially scarcer. It's funny, I almost ended there but realized: I didn't even make the point that it demeans the work itself, and the people who actually can do it. And that's tantamount to acknowledging non-minority people's rights, and that is socially very dangerous thing to do right now.
- faeriechangling 4y ago
  I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have a job and have people talk shit about me being a diversity hire, then not have a job and people just talk shit for a different reason.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - dymk 4y ago
    If you’re a capable software engineer, you don’t need dark skin or the right genitals to get a job.
    - faeriechangling 4y ago
      If you're a capable software engineer, you won't be negatively affected by affirmative action either. We still care about the issue because it has a profound effect on mediocre software engineers of various ethnicities and with various genitals.
      - dymk 4y ago
        That’s not true one won’t be negatively affected. If somebody is being given an opportunity because of their skin color, that means another person is having an opportunity taken away or delayed. That’s just how quotas work. It’s frustrating to see, especially when somebody is discriminated against for e.g. being white, but fills “other” URM boxes that aren’t visible such as sexuality or gender identity. A well-off cis-het person with worse qualifications will be given higher priority at resume review stage than a destitute queer person just because they have the ethnicity the company is looking for.
miley_cyrus 4y ago
For those who aren't in academia, this is every governmental science agency now. For example just 9 minutes ago (midnight ET) a funding announcement from the NIH just hit my inbox for "a mission to serve historically underrepresented populations in biomedical research that award doctorate degrees in the health professions or the sciences related to health."
- remarkEon 4y ago
  Imagine if the Manhattan Project was constructed with these ridiculous requirements.
  - Bakary 4y ago
    This could be a somewhat ironic example considering the likelihood that many people who could have contributed to the Manhattan Project were unable to do so due to institutional barriers relating to their ethnicity. Even some talented people who did work for the Project got life-altering roadblocks later on such as Qian Xuesen.
    - dotgov 4y ago
      The more things change, the more they stay the same. Here is an article about a scientist being stripped of his position for "lying to government officials about his contact with a Chinese government agency": https://apnews.com/article/235705c7507a46188fc26a663d96b014 https://apnews.com/article/235705c7507a46188fc26a663d96b014 Relevant quote: As part of a new science and technology “risk matrix,” which has not been made public, the Department of Energy also said it would not fund joint research or support “sensitive country foreign nationals.”
    - djanlermats2020 4y ago
      Sure, there were a bunch of genius-level physicists capable of building an atom bomb and the US Government didn't use them because it wanted to be mean to people. That's believable.
gotoeleven 4y ago
There's nothing in the article about what might qualify as a diversity plan besides a vague mention of "We've got a plan to give 5% of the funds to mentoring" people of diverseness. So are they saying they need to spend some of their grant money on extra tutoring for whatever few black students they manage to find?
Georgelemental 4y ago
renewiltord 4y ago
So claim you're bisexual. Who gives a fuck?
pfoof 4y ago
Remember another fact: if you cannot get a job or go to the university, that's an opportunity to start a business or go on a B2B/freelancing contract. And smart people are the ones who should do it. Easier said than done but pressure and needs lead to innovation.
cat_plus_plus 4y ago
Well, it definitely makes sense to hire more Chinese speakers in science because Xi Jinping is not hiring scientists based on their woke intersectional categories and before long Mandarin will replace English as the language of opportunity.
dotgov 4y ago
I would like to share how I've seen those policies impact people working in the DOE complex. Those policies are referred to as DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) usually, because we love our three letter acronyms. Anyway, here my experience: - I have seen the same woman get invited to countless hiring panels, as hiring panels need to be "diverse". Hiring panels are multi-hour endeavors and take away from her productive time, but she is afraid to say no as she feels she'd be contributing to an inequitable workplace otherwise. - I have seen a black woman invited to a hiring panel and when it came to ask the "DEI question" (to check for a commitment to DEI in an applicant), all of the eyes in the room were on her, her being the only "diverse" person in a room with people of four ethnicities. - I have seen a white man close to retirement afraid to ask questions about the diversity initiatives as he was afraid to be labelled a certain way and was "not willing to take the risk of repercussion". - I have seen DEI informally used to justify hires, as the hires had the right gender and/or skin color and supervisors get evaluated on their commitment to DEI on the yearly performance review. - I have been asked to acknowledge my "white privilege" in a DEI seminar. Attendance to those seminars is not required. At the same time there is a minimum threshold for hours spent on DEI activities on the yearly performance review. - I have heard of a case at another national lab where white male employees were asked to "[...] recite a series of "white privilege statements" and "male privilege statements." It concluded with its white male participants writing letters of apology to marginalized people whom they may have harmed" . After an employee protested, his protest was taken as a lack of commitment to DEI. This got picked up by right wing media and the Trump white house and was used to justify a, since retracted, executive order banning such trainings [1] [2]. - I personally have been asked to acknowledge that "Being antiracist is different for white people than it is for people of color. For white people, being antiracist evolves with their racial identity development. They must acknowledge and understand their privilege, work to change their internalized racism, and interrupt racism when they see it. For people of color, it means recognizing how race and racism have been internalized, and whether it has been applied to other people of color." [3] - I have been called a "plantation owner" by a colleague because I did not support the DEI initiatives in the form that they were being taught. - I have seen people victimizing themselves and ascribing behavior of colleagues towards them to their own gender or skin color. I had experienced similar behavior in my career as a white male and now attribute it to things I needed to learn when dealing with people. What I am trying to say is that whatever the intent of those policies is, this is not how they are being used in practice. They are used as a tool to exert power over people that do not share the same worldview, which in my humble opinion goes against the spirit of inclusion. For me the point of diversity and inclusion is to foster a workplace in which people feel included in conversations and their diverse opinions are being heard, with the goal to get better results out of people and not leave untapped potential on the table. I object to being ascribed attributes to based on the color of my skin. This is not how I treat people and I would prefer to not be treated that way. I also believe that teaching people that how they are being treated is solely because of their skin color or gender leads to self-victimization, which takes away their power and agenda and leads to suboptimal outcomes for the individual. There are a lot of assumptions being made about my person at my workplace. It is important for me to mention that I am an immigrant. I am white and I am male, but I did not grow up in this country. I constantly and repeatedly feel my lived experience being discredited. I am being shoved into a category based on my skin color by people that can not imagine that there might be differences in culture and worldview despite me being white, just so that they can feel morally superior. Please do apologize this emotional outburst after an overly long rant, but I an assure you that this is not some academic exercise to me. [1] https://reason.com/2020/08/13/sandia-laboratory-nuclear-white-male-privilege-training/ https://reason.com/2020/08/13/sandia-laboratory-nuclear-whit... [2] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/09/25/trump-executive-order-diversity-training-race-gender/3537241001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/09/25/trump-execut... [3] https://equityreset.lbl.gov/ https://equityreset.lbl.gov/
cat_plus_plus 4y ago
How is any of that even helping groups being boosted? If you come from an underprivileged background, why would you want to try to survive on government grants? Pick up whatever pays well with fastest/cheapest education, maybe become an electrician if you are starting out poor, software engineer if you are middle class. Or if women value family and social life over work, why would we want to take that away from them? Whoever wished they worked more on their death bed? I get it that some people's personal sacrifices can benefit humanity at large, but why are those who are supposedly most downtrodden have to sacrifice more? Helping people pick up a marketable skill is a good thing, and can be done on need and motivation bases rather than scrutinizing one's melanin levels. But pushing people into lower pay jobs than they could do just to feel enlightened is just cruel.
- davrosthedalek 4y ago
  I don't think you quite understand what is done here. It's not grants for underprivileged. Let me explain (I'll start from the basics of the situation, please don't interpret this as I am assuming you wouldn't know at least some of this.). In the US, most research funding at universities and national labs for basic sciences comes from DOE or NSF. From these grants, we pay students (phd students get paid, and don't pay tuition), postdocs, equipment etc. The NSF typically wants a broader impact statement: How does the funding of the grant affect the society in general. Stuff like: I train the next generation of scientists. Outreach to the general population (who pays it in the end via taxes after all). Maybe school programs etc. DOE traditionally was focused only on the research aspect. Now, DOE has a new requirement that one writes about DEI efforts. This doesn't mean quotas (but could, it's up to the applicant), but it requires you to reflect on and engage in programs at the university which tries to help the problem. This also includes that all students are safe. First and foremost, it forces the grantee to at least inform themselves what programs exist already. One example: The percentage of women in physics is abysmal low, but it's still large enough that I can make some statistical observations. In my experience, female students outperform their male peers on average. This is a strong indication that the women cohort has a higher effective qualification cut-off. There are many possible reasons for that, but I want to make sure it's not for stupid/bad reasons. Because we clearly missing out on some excellent researchers there. I am member of an admission committee. Judging the qualification of students is a very hard task, most signals are very noisy. So people build heuristics. It's absolutely possible, even likely, that these heuristics are not fair and select indirectly on race or gender. In any case, depending how you see it, /all/ phd students survive on government grants. Because that's how the work is funded. It's not hand outs.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
viridian 4y ago
I've already solved this, at least with regards to myself. I'm bisexual, native American, and have an invisible disability, for any form that asks. I haven't transitioned on paper yet, but may if it proves useful. I have no respect for these processes, and feel no guilt about my responses.
- kbelder 4y ago
  I couldn't bring myself to lie, honestly, but I feel that there's no ethical problem in lying to those sorts of questions. The ethical problem is solely in the wheelhouse of the people asking.
jwarden 4y ago
I see these efforts as an XY problem. The goal is X=Fairness. The solution Y=Help Disadvantaged groups. Giving things to people who have been treated unfairly seems fair. But each individual in the group is different. Do you want to help a member of this group because (X) they have been treated unfairly? Or because (Y) they are a member of the group?

71 points by Metacelsus 4y ago

You also seem to just self declare on most applications, so claim whatever race/gender/sexuality you want. I am gay. Prove me wrong.

zapdrive 4y ago
JetAlone 4y ago
Careful what you wish for, the commissars might catch up to you one day and bring out the gimp.
- JetAlone 4y ago
  I joke but it's serious, governments or other offices wanting into your bedroom to verify if you qualify as regards occupational opportunities/requirements to prove it is a thing historically. Literally, give them enough rope and they'll try pushing it. https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2013/08/exemption-gay-men-iran-milita-1.html https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2013/08/exemption-gay-m... " If the psychological diagnosis confirms the individual’s homosexuality, an official, permanent exemption is issued for him. More often than not, a thorough rectal exam follows the mental evaluation. The physician’s observations providing proof of occurred same-sex intercourse is then written formally and submitted to the military. In some cases, further detail-oriented exams come into play, so the decision-makers can be certain of the applicant’s “queerness," making sure they are genuine, not a false pretense to escape the service. " It's honestly a disgusting overreach whether you're trying to include or exclude people of whatever sexual proclivity. We can become like Iran, but for any ideology, given enough time and institutionalized dogmatism.
geofft 4y ago
I'm not sure this is relevant to the article. It's saying that grant proposals must include plans to promote diversity, not that grant proposals must come from people of any particular race/gender/sexuality.
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  I believe they already address diversity though in their regulations, so I have a feeling this is indicative that they plan implement quotas which is ultimately discriminatory.
  - geofft 4y ago
    I'm not sure I see how that's connected to the article or the linked DOE policy - can you expand on what gets you that feeling? It seems to be saying the precise opposite of that, in my reading.
    - encryptluks2 4y ago
      See Hopwood v. Texas and Fisher v. University of Texas for examples of affirmative action causing schools to deny applicants based on race. Based on the new requirements, it appears to indicate that it will encourage grant applicants to do just that and implement quota-based programs.
- throwawaysleep 4y ago
  This is in practice a quota system. They can’t say that, but that is what is expected.
ajross 4y ago
> I am gay. Prove me wrong. The weird thing about this is that you're relying on a clear sense of your own identity (that you are not gay, because if you were you wouldn't challenge someone to prove you wrong, you'd just say it) to deny the value of other people doing the same thing, but with a different answer. To wit: you're yelling about your own sexuality in an argument about how we shouldn't have to hear about someone else's. You know how all those woke folk talk about "privilege"? That's what privilege is. Trans kids don't get to say stuff like that on the internet, only straight guys.
- throwawaysleep 4y ago
  I deny that it should matter for grants, hiring, and other career benefits. But it does and while it does, I shall claim I am gay.
  - ajross 4y ago
    That's what you said the first time, and I get the irony. I'm just struck that you're taking such care in your phrasing to clarify to the folks here how you're not actually gay. That doesn't seem to you to cut against your point? You think your identity is important enough not to be ambiguous about it[1], but not important enough to maybe be worth checking to see if people are being fair about it? (Which at the end of the day is all this policy means.) [1] I mean, why not just say "I'm gay, and I this helps me even though it shouldn't"? It's because you don't want people to think you're actually gay, right? I find that really interesting.
    - hattmall 4y ago
      I don't think they care about what people think with regard to their sexuality on an anonymous website. The point is you can't hand check diversity when it applies to a matter of personal preference. That makes any forced diversity of that preference pointless.
    - Velc 4y ago
      Snide comment, painful to read. Why should he say something that’s not true just to make people think he’s gay? Your logic is flawed.
collegeburner 4y ago
among my generation this has already caught on among some groups of young white women for "diversity clout" if that's a thing. they are all suddenly "bi" and put pride flags in their insta and tiktok bios. prove them wrong. p.s. there are doubtless plenty who are fr but there's a lot of bs too.
- dtjb 4y ago
  I don't mean this as snide as it sounds, but really, who cares?
  - thereisnospork 4y ago
    The DOE, to start.
  - throwawaysleep 4y ago
    Jobs. Scholarships. Committees. Boards.
  - collegeburner 4y ago
    i don't much honestly. a few bi friends have complained but i don't much agree with the whole "appropriation" angle. it does matter if people start getting advantages from it, though, and that's literally the subject of this thread. hell if it meant the difference between grant and no grant i'd claim it, what can they do?
  - treeman79 4y ago
    Perhaps the people that don’t want to participate in open bigotry and other nonsense.
  - dymk 4y ago
    My company counts participation in groups such as the LGBT employees group as part of your yearly review.
    - collegeburner 4y ago

aklemm 4y ago

Excellent. Seems like a fine, fair way forward and I hope the challenge is successful.

systemvoltage 4y ago
It is completely the opposite, in truth. Subjectivism has intruded our society in a big way and it is only going to get worse.

steve76 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

throwaway12245 4y ago

Diversity of what? Thought? Height? Athletic ability? Age? Hair color? Education?

JetAlone 4y ago
Yes, these are all important elements of inclusion. For example, if only short people design energy equipment, tall people will hit their heads on it.
- User23 4y ago
  As a tall person I’ve been frustrated by tallism my entire life. I hit my head all the time. And then I’m mocked for slouching!
  - remarkEon 4y ago
    I wish there were more tall people that designed urinals and bathrooms. Only tall people will understand this.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      When I redo the kitchen we’re going to put the cabinets higher because screw having some default countertop heigh when we could have something designed for us. The next owners can redo it if they care.
      - remarkEon 4y ago
        The house I'm looking at buying has a deck, and I want to redo the stairs such that the steps are calibrated to the gait for people greater than 6' tall. You know what I mean ... steps that are "too short" can be literally painful to walk up.
alfor 4y ago
Let’s not forget IQ, people with low IQ are very marginalized in the field of physics and mathematics. Seriously diversity is a mind virus at this point. North america is one the the most diverse, just equitable place that ever existed in the history of humanity.

fny 4y ago

This is backwards. We need do this type of investment at the pre-K, elementary, and middle school levels. We need to provide funding to local communities. If all these top tier colleges (I'm looking at squarely my alma mater--Duke--as an example) invested directly in their local communities instead of affirmative action we'd have made far more progress as a nation. Meanwhile, big tech is gentrifying Durham, people of color are being pushed out, and these companies keep plastering signs everywhere about how they stand for diversity and inclusion. Science is science. Leave it the fuck alone. Give everyone equal opportunity, and train them to become the best damn scientists they can be. Then give out grants.

n0tth3dro1ds 4y ago
Why do you feel like neighborhoods need to be static in terms of racial composition, forever? Science is science? Okay then. Is tech tech? It seems that there are more white and Asian people in tech, and Apple is hiring in RDU. Should they not hire the best technologists? Should those technologists not have homes in the area? By “gentrifying”, it seems you just mean white people moving for their jobs. Why isn’t that allowed in your book? Have black people claimed the Durham area as theirs forever? What nonsense. Let’s just speak openly: you’re part of the problem. Neighborhoods can’t get claimed by any given race. People can move where they want. Successful businesses adding jobs to a historically poorer area is a good thing, and you shouldn’t use silly code words like “gentrification” to signal that you don’t want whites moving into your town.
- fny 4y ago
  I have no issue with racial composition. I have no issue with Apple hiring the best technologist independent of race. To me, gentrification is a symptom that the people being "displaced" did not have *equal opportunity* to become the best technologists. This is because funding for upstream programs are ignored in these discussions about student loans, affirmative action, and now DOE grants. K-12 public schools and literacy rates are shit in the US compared to much of the developed world, and we're sitting here yapping about diversity in applied physics research. What the actual fuck?

pavon 4y ago

The DOE has long been a supporter of equality. For if the bomb that drops on you Gets your friends and neighbors too There'll be nobody left behind to grieve And we will all go together when we go What a comforting fact that is to know Universal bereavement - An inspiring achievement! Yes, we all will go together when we go

2muchcoffeeman 4y ago

A major challenge will be keeping researchers from simply treating the requirement as another box to tick or fobbing the work off on minority scientists, Hodari says. “That’s often people’s first ask,” she says, “to find anyone they think can help them and ask, ‘Do this for us.’” Hodari, who is Black, says she experienced such treatment when she was a postdoc. Much has been written about what actually succeeds in promoting diversity, she says, but it’s the researcher’s responsibility to read the material and take it seriously. “You just got to do your homework,” she says. “I don’t expect someone in middle school to walk into a quantum field theory class and understand tensor math, right?” How do we end up with someone who was subject to the behaviour we want to avoid, coming up with a set of policies that can be gamed in the way we want to avoid?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ng12 4y ago

Ah, yes. If there's one thing that can solve racial injustice it's mindless bureaucracy.

mjfl 4y ago

"If we get this grant we will fire our overrepresented Chinese postdocs and replace them with black people."

hattmall 4y ago
Subtle. I like it!

edmcnulty101 4y ago

Requiring diversity doesn't really solve the problem. Now instead of a small group of rich white people living in the same neighborhoods and going to the same parties and keeping the funding and opportunities away from the rest of the unwashed masses it will be a small group of mixed races of people doing the same. The ultimate issue is the cronyism of Science. This reminds me of the fact that 80% of new hire professorships already come from only 20% of schools. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/09/23/new-study-finds-80-faculty-trained-20-institutions https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/09/23/new-study-fin... Anything that is regulated by the government tends towards cronyism instead of competence over time because they have an endless flow of taxpayer money so no competence is needed to keep the money flowing.

faeriechangling 4y ago

The government is a democratic institution, it’s fairly reasonable in principle for them to try and ensure all their citizens and not some overrepresented group get the benefits of public funding. It is after all PUBLIC funding, every citizen should have equal influence on where it goes, which would predict it being distributed fairly equitably. > I believe that the vast majority of physicists—even the vast majority of white male physicists—want a more diverse and representative community I think the trick with this statement is the white people who get screwed by the policy won’t be employable as physicists anymore due to lack of funding so they don’t count as not wanting this since they’re won’t ever become physicists. But sure the elite white physicists will talk about how fantastic this is so they can get invited to parties, it’s not like they will ever become victims of their own rhetoric. It’s obviously the people who will be most adversely affected whose opinions who matter most, and those are the B students, not the established physicists. The other trick of course is that Asians are going to take the hit far more than Whites are but this isn’t talked about because Asians have more public sympathy. They aren’t thought of as a group with collective racial guilt to the same degree.

ohCh6zos 4y ago

I suspect white men see these things and this is why people like Trump keep winning.

treeman79 4y ago
Nice of you to notice that Trump is not a bigot. Unlike the other side. An ass. Yes. But he did more for lifting up all ethnic groups then any government mandated racism / sexism has ever done.
- threatofrain 4y ago
  No, Trump brought a lot of heat on Asians who have no real allies among Democrats or Republicans.
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    Did he though? I mean, I get that he called COVID-19 the kung fu flu... but that was more directed towards China and suggesting that they were responsible, meaning their government. I guess he could have consistently clarified that it was directed towards the Chinese government, but I don't know if he bears the brunt of responsibility of dumb people that think China meant all Asians and to not be able to understand the distinction between their government and people. I don't think the Democrats get the same kind of flack from criticizing China without spelling out that they are referring to the government and policies.
    - Kye 4y ago
      The kind of people who are swayed by racist rhetoric don't care about the difference. They get a notion to go out and attack the target ethnicity and find the nearest brown person.
      - djanlermats2020 4y ago
        People who do this sort of thing are incredibly rare lol. Most interracial violence is black on white.

kadabra9 4y ago

I can’t think of many better examples of “The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions” than the DEI cult.

JetAlone 4y ago
Yeah. Power corrupts. Some noble intentions got twisted into a quest for revenge. Wake me up when humanity at large becomes better than this (they won't).
faeriechangling 4y ago
I just wish they would stop talking about fighting systemic racism while literally being the greatest institution of systemic racism in the world. I can kind of see where they’re coming from and the benefits they have in some ways, but it’s incredible the same people who enforce racial quotas for a living give condescending seminars on how to be anti racist which people are mandated to sit though and be educated on. When the DEI people say “hey hire out of this HBCU, not out of this elite college with tons of legacy admissions which there is almost no pathway to from a school in a poor neighbourhood” that’s not all evil and terror.
- eli_gottlieb 4y ago
  >When the DEI people say “hey hire out of this HBCU, not out of this elite college with tons of legacy admissions which there is almost no pathway to from a school in a poor neighbourhood” that’s not all evil and terror. But the DEI people went to the elite college with legacy admissions, and work there now. "DEI" is "more BIPOCs at elite colleges to which there's no pathway from a poor neighborhood."
  - faeriechangling 4y ago
    Most DEI people I see in real life are ghost white HR ladies who had mediocre grades in school and work for a mediocre company and send out regular company emails about how it’s Polynesian history month, asexual pride week, and progressiveness day. I would say most of them are not “true believers” but may generally agree that DEI is noble.

javajosh 4y ago

I am astonished. I thought we had this conversation 30 years ago, and the consensus was affirmative action of this sort is a terrible idea. It is particularly bad for minorities, since ALL of them will be suspected of having their position/funding/etc because of their identity instead of merit, even if they are legitimately qualified. Talent capable of pushing the boundaries of science is extremely scarce in humans, and it makes no sense to make it artificially scarcer. It's funny, I almost ended there but realized: I didn't even make the point that it demeans the work itself, and the people who actually can do it. And that's tantamount to acknowledging non-minority people's rights, and that is socially very dangerous thing to do right now.

faeriechangling 4y ago
I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have a job and have people talk shit about me being a diversity hire, then not have a job and people just talk shit for a different reason.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dymk 4y ago
  If you’re a capable software engineer, you don’t need dark skin or the right genitals to get a job.
  - faeriechangling 4y ago
    If you're a capable software engineer, you won't be negatively affected by affirmative action either. We still care about the issue because it has a profound effect on mediocre software engineers of various ethnicities and with various genitals.
    - dymk 4y ago
      That’s not true one won’t be negatively affected. If somebody is being given an opportunity because of their skin color, that means another person is having an opportunity taken away or delayed. That’s just how quotas work. It’s frustrating to see, especially when somebody is discriminated against for e.g. being white, but fills “other” URM boxes that aren’t visible such as sexuality or gender identity. A well-off cis-het person with worse qualifications will be given higher priority at resume review stage than a destitute queer person just because they have the ethnicity the company is looking for.

miley_cyrus 4y ago

For those who aren't in academia, this is every governmental science agency now. For example just 9 minutes ago (midnight ET) a funding announcement from the NIH just hit my inbox for "a mission to serve historically underrepresented populations in biomedical research that award doctorate degrees in the health professions or the sciences related to health."

remarkEon 4y ago
Imagine if the Manhattan Project was constructed with these ridiculous requirements.
- Bakary 4y ago
  This could be a somewhat ironic example considering the likelihood that many people who could have contributed to the Manhattan Project were unable to do so due to institutional barriers relating to their ethnicity. Even some talented people who did work for the Project got life-altering roadblocks later on such as Qian Xuesen.
  - dotgov 4y ago
    The more things change, the more they stay the same. Here is an article about a scientist being stripped of his position for "lying to government officials about his contact with a Chinese government agency": https://apnews.com/article/235705c7507a46188fc26a663d96b014 https://apnews.com/article/235705c7507a46188fc26a663d96b014 Relevant quote: As part of a new science and technology “risk matrix,” which has not been made public, the Department of Energy also said it would not fund joint research or support “sensitive country foreign nationals.”
  - djanlermats2020 4y ago
    Sure, there were a bunch of genius-level physicists capable of building an atom bomb and the US Government didn't use them because it wanted to be mean to people. That's believable.

gotoeleven 4y ago

There's nothing in the article about what might qualify as a diversity plan besides a vague mention of "We've got a plan to give 5% of the funds to mentoring" people of diverseness. So are they saying they need to spend some of their grant money on extra tutoring for whatever few black students they manage to find?

Georgelemental 4y ago

renewiltord 4y ago

So claim you're bisexual. Who gives a fuck?

pfoof 4y ago

Remember another fact: if you cannot get a job or go to the university, that's an opportunity to start a business or go on a B2B/freelancing contract. And smart people are the ones who should do it. Easier said than done but pressure and needs lead to innovation.

cat_plus_plus 4y ago

Well, it definitely makes sense to hire more Chinese speakers in science because Xi Jinping is not hiring scientists based on their woke intersectional categories and before long Mandarin will replace English as the language of opportunity.

dotgov 4y ago

I would like to share how I've seen those policies impact people working in the DOE complex. Those policies are referred to as DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) usually, because we love our three letter acronyms. Anyway, here my experience: - I have seen the same woman get invited to countless hiring panels, as hiring panels need to be "diverse". Hiring panels are multi-hour endeavors and take away from her productive time, but she is afraid to say no as she feels she'd be contributing to an inequitable workplace otherwise. - I have seen a black woman invited to a hiring panel and when it came to ask the "DEI question" (to check for a commitment to DEI in an applicant), all of the eyes in the room were on her, her being the only "diverse" person in a room with people of four ethnicities. - I have seen a white man close to retirement afraid to ask questions about the diversity initiatives as he was afraid to be labelled a certain way and was "not willing to take the risk of repercussion". - I have seen DEI informally used to justify hires, as the hires had the right gender and/or skin color and supervisors get evaluated on their commitment to DEI on the yearly performance review. - I have been asked to acknowledge my "white privilege" in a DEI seminar. Attendance to those seminars is not required. At the same time there is a minimum threshold for hours spent on DEI activities on the yearly performance review. - I have heard of a case at another national lab where white male employees were asked to "[...] recite a series of "white privilege statements" and "male privilege statements." It concluded with its white male participants writing letters of apology to marginalized people whom they may have harmed" . After an employee protested, his protest was taken as a lack of commitment to DEI. This got picked up by right wing media and the Trump white house and was used to justify a, since retracted, executive order banning such trainings [1] [2]. - I personally have been asked to acknowledge that "Being antiracist is different for white people than it is for people of color. For white people, being antiracist evolves with their racial identity development. They must acknowledge and understand their privilege, work to change their internalized racism, and interrupt racism when they see it. For people of color, it means recognizing how race and racism have been internalized, and whether it has been applied to other people of color." [3] - I have been called a "plantation owner" by a colleague because I did not support the DEI initiatives in the form that they were being taught. - I have seen people victimizing themselves and ascribing behavior of colleagues towards them to their own gender or skin color. I had experienced similar behavior in my career as a white male and now attribute it to things I needed to learn when dealing with people. What I am trying to say is that whatever the intent of those policies is, this is not how they are being used in practice. They are used as a tool to exert power over people that do not share the same worldview, which in my humble opinion goes against the spirit of inclusion. For me the point of diversity and inclusion is to foster a workplace in which people feel included in conversations and their diverse opinions are being heard, with the goal to get better results out of people and not leave untapped potential on the table. I object to being ascribed attributes to based on the color of my skin. This is not how I treat people and I would prefer to not be treated that way. I also believe that teaching people that how they are being treated is solely because of their skin color or gender leads to self-victimization, which takes away their power and agenda and leads to suboptimal outcomes for the individual. There are a lot of assumptions being made about my person at my workplace. It is important for me to mention that I am an immigrant. I am white and I am male, but I did not grow up in this country. I constantly and repeatedly feel my lived experience being discredited. I am being shoved into a category based on my skin color by people that can not imagine that there might be differences in culture and worldview despite me being white, just so that they can feel morally superior. Please do apologize this emotional outburst after an overly long rant, but I an assure you that this is not some academic exercise to me. [1] https://reason.com/2020/08/13/sandia-laboratory-nuclear-white-male-privilege-training/ https://reason.com/2020/08/13/sandia-laboratory-nuclear-whit... [2] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/09/25/trump-executive-order-diversity-training-race-gender/3537241001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/09/25/trump-execut... [3] https://equityreset.lbl.gov/ https://equityreset.lbl.gov/

cat_plus_plus 4y ago

How is any of that even helping groups being boosted? If you come from an underprivileged background, why would you want to try to survive on government grants? Pick up whatever pays well with fastest/cheapest education, maybe become an electrician if you are starting out poor, software engineer if you are middle class. Or if women value family and social life over work, why would we want to take that away from them? Whoever wished they worked more on their death bed? I get it that some people's personal sacrifices can benefit humanity at large, but why are those who are supposedly most downtrodden have to sacrifice more? Helping people pick up a marketable skill is a good thing, and can be done on need and motivation bases rather than scrutinizing one's melanin levels. But pushing people into lower pay jobs than they could do just to feel enlightened is just cruel.

davrosthedalek 4y ago
I don't think you quite understand what is done here. It's not grants for underprivileged. Let me explain (I'll start from the basics of the situation, please don't interpret this as I am assuming you wouldn't know at least some of this.). In the US, most research funding at universities and national labs for basic sciences comes from DOE or NSF. From these grants, we pay students (phd students get paid, and don't pay tuition), postdocs, equipment etc. The NSF typically wants a broader impact statement: How does the funding of the grant affect the society in general. Stuff like: I train the next generation of scientists. Outreach to the general population (who pays it in the end via taxes after all). Maybe school programs etc. DOE traditionally was focused only on the research aspect. Now, DOE has a new requirement that one writes about DEI efforts. This doesn't mean quotas (but could, it's up to the applicant), but it requires you to reflect on and engage in programs at the university which tries to help the problem. This also includes that all students are safe. First and foremost, it forces the grantee to at least inform themselves what programs exist already. One example: The percentage of women in physics is abysmal low, but it's still large enough that I can make some statistical observations. In my experience, female students outperform their male peers on average. This is a strong indication that the women cohort has a higher effective qualification cut-off. There are many possible reasons for that, but I want to make sure it's not for stupid/bad reasons. Because we clearly missing out on some excellent researchers there. I am member of an admission committee. Judging the qualification of students is a very hard task, most signals are very noisy. So people build heuristics. It's absolutely possible, even likely, that these heuristics are not fair and select indirectly on race or gender. In any case, depending how you see it, /all/ phd students survive on government grants. Because that's how the work is funded. It's not hand outs.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

viridian 4y ago

I've already solved this, at least with regards to myself. I'm bisexual, native American, and have an invisible disability, for any form that asks. I haven't transitioned on paper yet, but may if it proves useful. I have no respect for these processes, and feel no guilt about my responses.

kbelder 4y ago
I couldn't bring myself to lie, honestly, but I feel that there's no ethical problem in lying to those sorts of questions. The ethical problem is solely in the wheelhouse of the people asking.

jwarden 4y ago

I see these efforts as an XY problem. The goal is X=Fairness. The solution Y=Help Disadvantaged groups. Giving things to people who have been treated unfairly seems fair. But each individual in the group is different. Do you want to help a member of this group because (X) they have been treated unfairly? Or because (Y) they are a member of the group?