3 ms·

So, part of my job is to work with this sort of thing and, meh? Both sides have a few fair points? I think the thing is; there's always a lot of play in these

by jrm4 4y ago

So, part of my job is to work with this sort of thing and, meh? Both sides have a few fair points? I think the thing is; there's always a lot of play in these words and people perhaps frequently get too uptight when it comes to a current definition etc. I'd say my only issue would be "anti-racist" (I'm black fwiw). I don't think that much belongs in a mission statement for roughly the same reason I don't much respect air-quotes "Atheism" -- being against a thing, or "not" a thing is just far weaker than being for something. While I actually do personally believe that racism is at least a plausible candidate for our worst problem right now, I still don't like it in a statement like this. It would be like if, instead of "spreading knowledge" there was a bit about "fighting ignorance." Mission statements aren't the place. But I think e.g. "social justice" and "diversity" are terms that are loose enough to be appropriate, even if they carry certain connotations today. It's hard to not think that, again, taking these words at face value -- that "social justice" and "diversity" aren't well within the mission of a college/university. Get these people in a room and hash it out.

wolverine876 4y ago
> Get these people in a room and hash it out. That is the key and it's not that big a deal. People with a certain political agenda, seek to depict these situations as irreconcileable warfare - because the division and conflict are what they seek. A mission statement could easily address everyone's concerns, which as usual are understandable.
- nr2x 4y ago
  I don’t think it’s an agenda so much as a desire to create a grand victim/hero narrative. There seems to be some attitude present that they are fighting some grand battle. In reality this is the same type of stupid academic infighting that has existed since Monks ran the place hundreds of years ago.
nr2x 4y ago
Exactly, they’re trying to leverage mob outrage and not actually seeking a reasonable accommodation that allows all sides to come out with a win.
- riedel 4y ago
  I myself work at a university (had the pleasure to be in the working group that drafted our first code of conduct) and I can very much relate to this: that is both sides. IMHO CS professors, however, tend to become drama queens when it comes to any progressive political thinking. And they might have reason for this reflex. An important aspect of this is that keeping things as they are in the scientific community is also very political. And what claims to be apolitical in the letter and purely research guided is often radical conservatism. I think one has to understand that the academic system at its current state still relies a very biased narrative of excellence that has promoted a certain type of academic. The reaction demonstrates IMHO that there might a bit of good reasoning behind the mission statement (which I still don't really like because it seems to not reflect other important values in science)
  - nr2x 4y ago
    Part of the reason I left a faculty position at one of the tippity-top CS programs was my research was having trouble getting published and funded because I was basically invalidating 20 years of a certain type of approach. I went to industry and I’m loving it. For all its faults, SV is way more oriented towards new ways of thinking that the academy is. Why would you allow a paper to be published that put your giant NSF grant at risk? Why would you focus on making efficient and scalable systems that require less grants to fund? Saving money is literally career poison when the university feeds on big bloated budgets. In industry I can make a case I can save $10M with a new technique and I get a shot at proving it. Try writing a grant that says you can do the same type of research with 1/10th of the funds!

by jrm4 4y ago

wolverine876 4y ago

> Get these people in a room and hash it out. That is the key and it's not that big a deal. People with a certain political agenda, seek to depict these situations as irreconcileable warfare - because the division and conflict are what they seek. A mission statement could easily address everyone's concerns, which as usual are understandable.

nr2x 4y ago
I don’t think it’s an agenda so much as a desire to create a grand victim/hero narrative. There seems to be some attitude present that they are fighting some grand battle. In reality this is the same type of stupid academic infighting that has existed since Monks ran the place hundreds of years ago.

nr2x 4y ago

Exactly, they’re trying to leverage mob outrage and not actually seeking a reasonable accommodation that allows all sides to come out with a win.

riedel 4y ago
I myself work at a university (had the pleasure to be in the working group that drafted our first code of conduct) and I can very much relate to this: that is both sides. IMHO CS professors, however, tend to become drama queens when it comes to any progressive political thinking. And they might have reason for this reflex. An important aspect of this is that keeping things as they are in the scientific community is also very political. And what claims to be apolitical in the letter and purely research guided is often radical conservatism. I think one has to understand that the academic system at its current state still relies a very biased narrative of excellence that has promoted a certain type of academic. The reaction demonstrates IMHO that there might a bit of good reasoning behind the mission statement (which I still don't really like because it seems to not reflect other important values in science)
- nr2x 4y ago
  Part of the reason I left a faculty position at one of the tippity-top CS programs was my research was having trouble getting published and funded because I was basically invalidating 20 years of a certain type of approach. I went to industry and I’m loving it. For all its faults, SV is way more oriented towards new ways of thinking that the academy is. Why would you allow a paper to be published that put your giant NSF grant at risk? Why would you focus on making efficient and scalable systems that require less grants to fund? Saving money is literally career poison when the university feeds on big bloated budgets. In industry I can make a case I can save $10M with a new technique and I get a shot at proving it. Try writing a grant that says you can do the same type of research with 1/10th of the funds!