5 ms·

When I see someone argue from first-hand experience that this is all no big deal, I feel fairly confident predicting that their politics are more or less aligne

When I see someone argue from first-hand experience that this is all no big deal, I feel fairly confident predicting that their politics are more or less aligned with present-day progressivism. And within that context, I can believe that it's no big deal to merely repeat the progressive world view that the interviewers want to hear at that moment. What would change my view on this is to hear someone who has reasonably strong disagreement with present-day progressive stances on education, and nevertheless felt comfortable stating their true beliefs in a DEI statement and was still hired. > Applicants who can’t articulate a salient position on real issues they will face on the job are rejected for being unqualified But that is the whole question right there. What is a salient position? If only one world view is credited as being "salient", then it is a de facto political litmus test.

ModernMech 4y ago
> What would change my view on this is to hear someone who has reasonably strong disagreement with present-day progressive stances on education, and nevertheless felt comfortable stating their true beliefs in a DEI statement and was still hired. Once again, the purpose of a DEI statement is not to articulate how much you agree (or disagree) with progressive ideology. Doing either will sink your application. The point of the essay is to describe how you handle on the job challenges related to diversity, because they are not abstract. Discussions of trans kids, sick people, blind people, wheelchair bound people, etc. are abstract to many here on HN, because meeting and serving the needs of such people is not part of the daily job description of the commentariat here. But it is part of the daily job of a professor, so it’s essentially addressed in the job application. Could you imagine giving your political views during a C++ coding interview? DEI statements are no different. Just because the political parties have made diversity into a political issue, doesn’t mean it’s a political issue in our department during the hiring process. We never talk about candidates with any political colorings, only about their ideas and experience related to the job. The key mistake many posters here are making (including you) is assuming this process is carried out by political actors looking to implement an agenda. Maybe you can find instances of that (as you can anywhere), but it’s mostly people just looking to hire a colleague, and trying to find the best one. It’s not political. Consider yourself lucky that political parties haven’t turned your hiring process at your job into a political football. I didn’t ask for this grief. > What is a salient position? If only one world view is credited as being "salient", then it is a de facto political litmus test. The salient position is that: the classroom is diverse, and that creates challenges in teaching. Any denial of that is to deny the reality of the job. That’s not a political litmus test, that is a job qualification test. Every member of the faculty knows this to be true from experience, from the famously conservative prof in the bio department, to the purple haired feminist in the sociology department. To deny this on your application is to telegraph you are willing to put your own political feelings ahead of the realities of the job. Moreover, when an applicant parrots anodyne platitudes about how they treat every student equally, they neglect an opportunity to set oneself apart by highlighting experience in this area. For instance pronouns are a hot button issue. Some applicants will make some big deal about pronouns not being necessary, and we will have to reject that application because we all have our pronouns in our signatures. Not for political reasons, but because we have many trans students, and it makes things easier for everyone when pronouns are used upfront; when you have a Frank on your roster who is wearing a dress and lipstick and goes by Francine, having a protocol of pronoun visibility reduces friction in the classroom. It makes Francine feel welcomed and it helps her classmates as well. It’s a net win for everyone, and so political options about tans and pronouns are just not needed. You may feel political about pronouns, but our acceptance and usage of them is a practical matter for us because we have trans customers. Therefore arguments from a political position have no place in a DEI statement. You can argue that they aren’t practically needed, but that will go against our experience. Feel free to hold whatever political opinion you want. Like I said, the bio prof is famously conservative. But you should keep your politics to yourself, especially during the application process. I believe that’s universally applicable advise.
- nicvg 4y ago
  > when you have a Frank on your roster who is wearing a dress and lipstick and goes by Francine, having a protocol of pronoun visibility reduces friction in the classroom. It makes Francine feel welcomed and it helps her classmates as well Does it help female students, knowing that they have to accommodate this misogyny?
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    No student has ever expressed to me or anyone else an issue regarding pronoun usage. The whole push for pronoun usage was a student-lead effort in the first place, including cis girls. So until I hear them complain (and students love to complain), I’m going to assume they are okay with it.
    - nicvg 4y ago
      They stay quiet out of politeness and not wanting to be harassed and bullied for dissenting views on this topic. But I can guarantee that at least some of your female students are scoffing at the misogynistic idea that "woman = lipstick and dress and she/her pronouns".
      - ModernMech 4y ago
        > They stay quiet out of politeness and not wanting to be harassed and bullied for dissenting views on this topic. I can tell you don't work with students. They are very vocal when you do something they don't agree with, to the point where they will anonymously send you their thoughts via a burner gmail account if they actually do feel for some reason they will suffer repercussions (which they never do). If the silent dissenters have thoughts, they will go unaddressed as long as they remain silent. But to be clear you're arguing for a hypothetical person, correct? When you say "they stay quiet out of politeness", you are talking about students you invented that you assume exist, and not actual students you know personally who voiced this particular concern to you? > "woman = lipstick and dress and she/her pronouns" If you're trying to imply this is something I've said here or in the classroom, neither has occurred.
thwayunion 4y ago
> I feel fairly confident predicting that their politics are more or less aligned with present-day progressivism. I have no clue what the fuck this means, but I can tell you I think HR DEI training is a bunch of bullshit. I have to do it, of course, just like I have to do the AML training and the Insider Trading training and the Phishing training. It's all dumb bullshit. And the corporation has to require it because the risk of not requiring it is too large. So we all play the dumb game. > and nevertheless felt comfortable stating their true beliefs in a DEI statement and was still hired. LMAO. This would not get you hired. Like, "faculty make fun of your app on the hiring committee slack channel" levels of not getting hired >'D MechE gives the reasons why -- people are asking if you can do the job and going on a political rant in your job application is a huge red flag regardless of your politics. Believe me -- faculty, esp in STEM departments, are wary of hiring wacko leftists. It's not even about the political valence. You just don't want to work with someone who's obsessed with politics and feels the need to spout off about it in their job application. Those sorts of people fucking suck to spend time around. When reading DEI statements, universities want to know that you can help increase the size of their total addressable market. The harsh cold logic of financial capitalism combined with demographics demands that they only hire sufficiently woke faculty. If you don't like it, time travel back to 2008 and pop out a bunch more white babies.

ModernMech 4y ago

> What would change my view on this is to hear someone who has reasonably strong disagreement with present-day progressive stances on education, and nevertheless felt comfortable stating their true beliefs in a DEI statement and was still hired. Once again, the purpose of a DEI statement is not to articulate how much you agree (or disagree) with progressive ideology. Doing either will sink your application. The point of the essay is to describe how you handle on the job challenges related to diversity, because they are not abstract. Discussions of trans kids, sick people, blind people, wheelchair bound people, etc. are abstract to many here on HN, because meeting and serving the needs of such people is not part of the daily job description of the commentariat here. But it is part of the daily job of a professor, so it’s essentially addressed in the job application. Could you imagine giving your political views during a C++ coding interview? DEI statements are no different. Just because the political parties have made diversity into a political issue, doesn’t mean it’s a political issue in our department during the hiring process. We never talk about candidates with any political colorings, only about their ideas and experience related to the job. The key mistake many posters here are making (including you) is assuming this process is carried out by political actors looking to implement an agenda. Maybe you can find instances of that (as you can anywhere), but it’s mostly people just looking to hire a colleague, and trying to find the best one. It’s not political. Consider yourself lucky that political parties haven’t turned your hiring process at your job into a political football. I didn’t ask for this grief. > What is a salient position? If only one world view is credited as being "salient", then it is a de facto political litmus test. The salient position is that: the classroom is diverse, and that creates challenges in teaching. Any denial of that is to deny the reality of the job. That’s not a political litmus test, that is a job qualification test. Every member of the faculty knows this to be true from experience, from the famously conservative prof in the bio department, to the purple haired feminist in the sociology department. To deny this on your application is to telegraph you are willing to put your own political feelings ahead of the realities of the job. Moreover, when an applicant parrots anodyne platitudes about how they treat every student equally, they neglect an opportunity to set oneself apart by highlighting experience in this area. For instance pronouns are a hot button issue. Some applicants will make some big deal about pronouns not being necessary, and we will have to reject that application because we all have our pronouns in our signatures. Not for political reasons, but because we have many trans students, and it makes things easier for everyone when pronouns are used upfront; when you have a Frank on your roster who is wearing a dress and lipstick and goes by Francine, having a protocol of pronoun visibility reduces friction in the classroom. It makes Francine feel welcomed and it helps her classmates as well. It’s a net win for everyone, and so political options about tans and pronouns are just not needed. You may feel political about pronouns, but our acceptance and usage of them is a practical matter for us because we have trans customers. Therefore arguments from a political position have no place in a DEI statement. You can argue that they aren’t practically needed, but that will go against our experience. Feel free to hold whatever political opinion you want. Like I said, the bio prof is famously conservative. But you should keep your politics to yourself, especially during the application process. I believe that’s universally applicable advise.

nicvg 4y ago
> when you have a Frank on your roster who is wearing a dress and lipstick and goes by Francine, having a protocol of pronoun visibility reduces friction in the classroom. It makes Francine feel welcomed and it helps her classmates as well Does it help female students, knowing that they have to accommodate this misogyny?
- ModernMech 4y ago
  No student has ever expressed to me or anyone else an issue regarding pronoun usage. The whole push for pronoun usage was a student-lead effort in the first place, including cis girls. So until I hear them complain (and students love to complain), I’m going to assume they are okay with it.
  - nicvg 4y ago
    They stay quiet out of politeness and not wanting to be harassed and bullied for dissenting views on this topic. But I can guarantee that at least some of your female students are scoffing at the misogynistic idea that "woman = lipstick and dress and she/her pronouns".
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      > They stay quiet out of politeness and not wanting to be harassed and bullied for dissenting views on this topic. I can tell you don't work with students. They are very vocal when you do something they don't agree with, to the point where they will anonymously send you their thoughts via a burner gmail account if they actually do feel for some reason they will suffer repercussions (which they never do). If the silent dissenters have thoughts, they will go unaddressed as long as they remain silent. But to be clear you're arguing for a hypothetical person, correct? When you say "they stay quiet out of politeness", you are talking about students you invented that you assume exist, and not actual students you know personally who voiced this particular concern to you? > "woman = lipstick and dress and she/her pronouns" If you're trying to imply this is something I've said here or in the classroom, neither has occurred.

thwayunion 4y ago

> I feel fairly confident predicting that their politics are more or less aligned with present-day progressivism. I have no clue what the fuck this means, but I can tell you I think HR DEI training is a bunch of bullshit. I have to do it, of course, just like I have to do the AML training and the Insider Trading training and the Phishing training. It's all dumb bullshit. And the corporation has to require it because the risk of not requiring it is too large. So we all play the dumb game. > and nevertheless felt comfortable stating their true beliefs in a DEI statement and was still hired. LMAO. This would not get you hired. Like, "faculty make fun of your app on the hiring committee slack channel" levels of not getting hired >'D MechE gives the reasons why -- people are asking if you can do the job and going on a political rant in your job application is a huge red flag regardless of your politics. Believe me -- faculty, esp in STEM departments, are wary of hiring wacko leftists. It's not even about the political valence. You just don't want to work with someone who's obsessed with politics and feels the need to spout off about it in their job application. Those sorts of people fucking suck to spend time around. When reading DEI statements, universities want to know that you can help increase the size of their total addressable market. The harsh cold logic of financial capitalism combined with demographics demands that they only hire sufficiently woke faculty. If you don't like it, time travel back to 2008 and pop out a bunch more white babies.