5 ms·

From the cited sources [1]: > A total of 993 applications were received, of which 893 met basic qualifications. The LSI Committee conducted a first review and

From the cited sources [1]: > A total of 993 applications were received, of which 893 met basic qualifications. The LSI Committee conducted a first review and evaluated candidates based solely on contributions to diversity, equity and inclusion. Only candidates that met a high standard in this area were advanced for further review, narrowing the pool down to 214 for serious consideration. What was misrepresented? "Evaluated solely on contributions to diversity, equity and inclusion [sic]" is not quite the same as evaluated solely on their diversity statement, but it doesn't seem too far off the mark. Aside from the candidates' diversity statement, how would the bureaucrats evaluate their "contribution to diversity, equity, and inclusion"? As far as the effect on applicant demographics, here's the stats before the diversity evaluation / After diversity evaluation: Female: 41.7% / 60.3% Male: 56.5% / 39.3% African American: 2.8% / 6.1% Hispanic: 13.2% / 22.9% Native American: 0.4% / 1.4% Asian: 25.7% / 18.7% White: 53.7% / 48.1% 1. https://ofew.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/life_sciences_inititatve.year_end_report_summary.pdf https://ofew.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/life_sciences_...

gamblor956 4y ago
The candidates were reviewed based on their "contributions to diversity, equity, etc." They were not reviewed based on their DEI statements. This is a fancy way of saying that they used affirmative action to advanced African American, Hispanic, and Native American candidates.
- heygood 4y ago
  Considering affirmative action is explicitly illegal in California, I would hope that it wouldn't be the case of candidates being advanced solely by race, and that the diversity statements are what is being considered the 'contribution' here, unless there are some loopholes in the law that I'm not aware of.
  - crackercrews 4y ago
    Not illegal everywhere. But it is illegal for CA govt hiring, so this would be illegal.
  - gamblor956 4y ago
    In California, affirmative action is only illegal with respect to university admissions (meaning students), not with respect to hiring. Race-conscious hiring is allowed if it would increase under-represented minorities. Whether you agree, or disagree with this policy (which I think most of us do), it is nonetheless legal in California, and it is what happened at the UC schools mentioned in the opinion piece you cited. Fun fact: Berkeley and UCLA each employ more conservative professors than most "conservative" schools do. But they employ real conservatives, not the modern snowflake conservatives that constantly portrays themselves as victims.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  > The candidates were reviewed based on their "contributions to diversity, equity, etc." They were not reviewed based on their DEI statements. And what does this mean, besides reviewing their DEI statements? We know that review of diversity statements are one component of this - you keep alluding to the notion that there's more to it than that, but neglect to actually provide any such example of how the universities measured this contribution besides their diversity statement. > This is a fancy way of saying that they used affirmative action to advanced African American, Hispanic, and Native American candidates. This is illegal in California. This is why people speculate that the review of diversity statements is a smokescreen for universities to illegally discriminate on the basis of protected classes.
  - gamblor956 4y ago
    Affirmative action is not illegal in California with respect to hiring. It is only illegal with respect to college admissions...
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      Affirmative action is illegal in hiring nation-wide. The only exemptions are bona-fide occupational qualification: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualification https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_quali...
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    > you keep alluding to the notion that there's more to it than that, but neglect to actually provide any such example of how the universities measured this contribution besides their diversity statement. Many ways. For one there’s an interview where such topics can be probed. For another there are various talks given, where candidates can expand on their DEI activities. Finally there are grant applications and grant activities which relate to DEI that can be evaluated.
- SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    Not good. For one, it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of race and gender. And second, contrary to what seems to men common belief, Asian and white people don't just have opportunities served up to them on a silver platter (in fact on the axis of gender, job opportunities have not only reached disparity but inverted: millennial and Gen Z women outperform their male counterparts). The academic job market could not be further from "innumerable additional opportunities." This kind of comment serves as incredibly good ammunition for people looking to stir up racial resentment.
    - SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - crackercrews 4y ago
        > white and asian folks absolutely do have more opportunities than other racial groups, and that’s borne out over and over again, whenever people look into these kinds of things. If you look at academic outcomes, black, hispanic, native american groups are still substantially further behind than white and asian groups. You haven't proven differential opportunity. You've only proven that some groups outperform other groups. You have not proven whether this is due to opportunities, discrimination, or hard work. Asian students, for example, spend more than 3x as much time studying as Black students.[1] Do you think there's a chance that this contributes to their higher representation at Caltech? 1: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/07311214221101422 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/07311214221101...
        SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
        If your cultural group is substantially underrepresented in academia, why would you participate in academics? If you know the game is rigged against you, it’s perfectly reasonable not to play. I wonder what black study rates would be if they were given the same chances as white and asian people are. Hopefully we’ll get there, but we’re still a long way off.
- throway33 4y ago
  > their contributions to diversity It sounds like a fancy way of saying "the sign says no Homerssss. We're allowed to have one." (From the Simpsons:) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwHGE7uhjco https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwHGE7uhjco
msla 4y ago
I note nothing in there about Rich / Poor or anything similar. It's interesting (by which I mean utterly unsurprising and completely typical but in a revealing way) that social class and money are not considered for "diversity" and are, in fact, rather pointedly ignored. This debunks the whole thing, but I'm sure the proponents will be incapable of understanding why.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  All the applicants are Ph.D. academics, so they are a priori known to be poor.

gamblor956 4y ago

The candidates were reviewed based on their "contributions to diversity, equity, etc." They were not reviewed based on their DEI statements. This is a fancy way of saying that they used affirmative action to advanced African American, Hispanic, and Native American candidates.

heygood 4y ago
Considering affirmative action is explicitly illegal in California, I would hope that it wouldn't be the case of candidates being advanced solely by race, and that the diversity statements are what is being considered the 'contribution' here, unless there are some loopholes in the law that I'm not aware of.
- crackercrews 4y ago
  Not illegal everywhere. But it is illegal for CA govt hiring, so this would be illegal.
- gamblor956 4y ago
  In California, affirmative action is only illegal with respect to university admissions (meaning students), not with respect to hiring. Race-conscious hiring is allowed if it would increase under-represented minorities. Whether you agree, or disagree with this policy (which I think most of us do), it is nonetheless legal in California, and it is what happened at the UC schools mentioned in the opinion piece you cited. Fun fact: Berkeley and UCLA each employ more conservative professors than most "conservative" schools do. But they employ real conservatives, not the modern snowflake conservatives that constantly portrays themselves as victims.
Manuel_D 4y ago
> The candidates were reviewed based on their "contributions to diversity, equity, etc." They were not reviewed based on their DEI statements. And what does this mean, besides reviewing their DEI statements? We know that review of diversity statements are one component of this - you keep alluding to the notion that there's more to it than that, but neglect to actually provide any such example of how the universities measured this contribution besides their diversity statement. > This is a fancy way of saying that they used affirmative action to advanced African American, Hispanic, and Native American candidates. This is illegal in California. This is why people speculate that the review of diversity statements is a smokescreen for universities to illegally discriminate on the basis of protected classes.
- gamblor956 4y ago
  Affirmative action is not illegal in California with respect to hiring. It is only illegal with respect to college admissions...
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    Affirmative action is illegal in hiring nation-wide. The only exemptions are bona-fide occupational qualification: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualification https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_quali...
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > you keep alluding to the notion that there's more to it than that, but neglect to actually provide any such example of how the universities measured this contribution besides their diversity statement. Many ways. For one there’s an interview where such topics can be probed. For another there are various talks given, where candidates can expand on their DEI activities. Finally there are grant applications and grant activities which relate to DEI that can be evaluated.
SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
[flagged]
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  Not good. For one, it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of race and gender. And second, contrary to what seems to men common belief, Asian and white people don't just have opportunities served up to them on a silver platter (in fact on the axis of gender, job opportunities have not only reached disparity but inverted: millennial and Gen Z women outperform their male counterparts). The academic job market could not be further from "innumerable additional opportunities." This kind of comment serves as incredibly good ammunition for people looking to stir up racial resentment.
  - SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - crackercrews 4y ago
      > white and asian folks absolutely do have more opportunities than other racial groups, and that’s borne out over and over again, whenever people look into these kinds of things. If you look at academic outcomes, black, hispanic, native american groups are still substantially further behind than white and asian groups. You haven't proven differential opportunity. You've only proven that some groups outperform other groups. You have not proven whether this is due to opportunities, discrimination, or hard work. Asian students, for example, spend more than 3x as much time studying as Black students.[1] Do you think there's a chance that this contributes to their higher representation at Caltech? 1: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/07311214221101422 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/07311214221101...
      - SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
        If your cultural group is substantially underrepresented in academia, why would you participate in academics? If you know the game is rigged against you, it’s perfectly reasonable not to play. I wonder what black study rates would be if they were given the same chances as white and asian people are. Hopefully we’ll get there, but we’re still a long way off.
throway33 4y ago
> their contributions to diversity It sounds like a fancy way of saying "the sign says no Homerssss. We're allowed to have one." (From the Simpsons:) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwHGE7uhjco https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwHGE7uhjco

msla 4y ago

I note nothing in there about Rich / Poor or anything similar. It's interesting (by which I mean utterly unsurprising and completely typical but in a revealing way) that social class and money are not considered for "diversity" and are, in fact, rather pointedly ignored. This debunks the whole thing, but I'm sure the proponents will be incapable of understanding why.

ModernMech 4y ago
All the applicants are Ph.D. academics, so they are a priori known to be poor.