4 ms·

I'd be really leery of anybody who went to work in his lab. It's going to lead to tough conversations for any junior scientist as they apply for advancement. I

I'd be really leery of anybody who went to work in his lab. It's going to lead to tough conversations for any junior scientist as they apply for advancement. I guess they'd be able to go to Hillsdale (now) or New College (in a few years), but I'd love to see the DEI statement good enough to get a Sabatini lab alum hired to a faculty position. This, among many other reasons, is why this whole thing is such a waste and such an insult. He did real and lasting harm. He hasn't apologized. He hasn't attempted to make amends.

version_five 4y ago
Maybe they won't go to a cult that requires "DEI Statements" from people that are there to do scientific work. Upon reflection though the above post is actually an interesting example of how this kind of statement could be weaponized to enforce some kind of ideological compliance. "Don't do this because of how it could affect your DEI rating"
- MengerSponge 4y ago
  I suggested institutions that won't require DEI statements. They're, uh... not the pinnacle of academia. Putting moral arguments aside, there's a rational argument to exclude abusers from a research environment. If you let them in and shelter them, their prey (marginalized people, typically) will be less likely to visit, collaborate, and ultimately join. You've excluded roughly 75% of the general population with that choice! It's worse than that, though, because some fraction of that remaining 25% will also avoid you, because you've excluded that 75%. Recruiting from the remaining groups does not mean you won't make progress, breakthroughs, and valuable inventions. But you've massively hamstrung yourself for no real reason. Weaponized ideological compliance isn't always a bad thing. We don't engage Nazis or hooded members of the KKK in debate, because our priors tell us that they won't engage in good faith (c.f. Sartre's Anti-Semite and Jew) Instead of "Don't do this because of how it could affect your DEI rating", try "Don't do this because of how it makes you look", or Vonnegut's "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."
iosono88 4y ago
[dead]

version_five 4y ago

Maybe they won't go to a cult that requires "DEI Statements" from people that are there to do scientific work. Upon reflection though the above post is actually an interesting example of how this kind of statement could be weaponized to enforce some kind of ideological compliance. "Don't do this because of how it could affect your DEI rating"

MengerSponge 4y ago
I suggested institutions that won't require DEI statements. They're, uh... not the pinnacle of academia. Putting moral arguments aside, there's a rational argument to exclude abusers from a research environment. If you let them in and shelter them, their prey (marginalized people, typically) will be less likely to visit, collaborate, and ultimately join. You've excluded roughly 75% of the general population with that choice! It's worse than that, though, because some fraction of that remaining 25% will also avoid you, because you've excluded that 75%. Recruiting from the remaining groups does not mean you won't make progress, breakthroughs, and valuable inventions. But you've massively hamstrung yourself for no real reason. Weaponized ideological compliance isn't always a bad thing. We don't engage Nazis or hooded members of the KKK in debate, because our priors tell us that they won't engage in good faith (c.f. Sartre's Anti-Semite and Jew) Instead of "Don't do this because of how it could affect your DEI rating", try "Don't do this because of how it makes you look", or Vonnegut's "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."

iosono88 4y ago

[dead]