5 ms·

Wait a minute... a conservative author from a conservative organization writing in a paper with a majority-convervative base...THAT article's source study found

Wait a minute... a conservative author from a conservative organization writing in a paper with a majority-convervative base...THAT article's source study found that there was a liberal bias in COLLEGES?!!? Sorry; I know HN isn't kind to sass. But, sass aside, look at the details and it's obvious this is propaganda. Yes colleges (and life) have a liberal bias. That doesn't mean asking people to promise not to be racist (with a signature) is a fascist plot to indoctrinate orthodoxy. It just means that if you can't even promise to not be racist, there's a high likelihood there will be problems in your tenure, vis a vis how you respond to reasonable assurances of common ground.

goatlover 4y ago
Maybe they can also promise not to vote for a certain political party, just to be on the safe side. And maybe throw in a statement against capitalism and neoliberalism while they're at it, just to emphasize how they're not holding up the status quo.
- catapart 4y ago
  If they did that, then even neutral organizations, like the ACLU and the National Academy of Sciences, would call out their poor practices. There are plenty of examples of that. Turns out, well-written articles get input from all interested parties and include any opposition research so that readers can look at the information presented and decide what the report means. Please note that Mr. Sailer elided all of that and, instead, used a singular study (which he plainly admits) to attack a philosophy that he and his funders are on record trying to dismantle. This isn't complicated, it's just barely disguised.
  - dbsmith83 4y ago
    > Turns out, well-written articles get input from all interested parties and include any opposition research so that readers can look at the information presented and decide what the report means. You do realize this is an opinion piece, and not a news article, right?
    - catapart 4y ago
      I realize that it is propaganda, regardless of the chosen packaging. Do you?
      - dbsmith83 4y ago
        Of course, and what is the issue with that? Propaganda has a vague definition, and basically any published opinion piece trying to persuade could be technically considered propaganda. At least it is labeled as an opinion piece, so what is the point about crying "It's propaganda!"? So what? I have a problem with propaganda disguised as a news article, but that is not what is going on here.
        catapart 4y ago
        So [what]... there is value in reminding people of that, because everyone has confirmation biases and while some opinion pieces are thoughtful, critical, and comprehensive, other are just propaganda. Identifying it is a matter of contextualization. You don't have to employ it, if you don't want to. But if it gives even one person pause, I'm satisfied with that.
        dbsmith83 4y ago
        Well thanks for your concern, but I would imagine many people here would consider your reminder as being quite patronizing
        catapart 4y ago
        And what do you expect I consider your hand-wringing over my concern?
        dbsmith83 4y ago
        If it gives you pause, I'm satisfied with that.
- kenjackson 4y ago
  Is not being racist now a liberal ideology? This seems more akin to signing a document that you won’t have relations with your students or that you won’t fabricate research.
catapart 4y ago
John D. Sailer: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/author/john-d-sailer/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/author/john-d-sailer... National Association of Scholars: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/education/22conservative.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/education/22conservative.... For people who are willing to look critically at the information, and discern what the sum of it indicates about the subject piece.
- fzeroracer 4y ago
  Not surprising that your typical culture war conservative would fuel a culture war of their own. What a disgraceful person especially considering how Texas currently treats the individuals he seems to hate.
  - catapart 4y ago
    If it helps (in seeing people as human, or in justifying your hate for them) I doubt he actually hates any particular individuals. This is always about money and fame, for them. They want people to know them, and they want to be rich. And once you have come to terms with that, in your own head, you're kind of fine shitting on other people to further your own goals. The culture war makes them famous; the beneficiaries of the culture war make them rich. It's just a business, and that's how they treat it. It's why shame doesn't work, and logic doesn't work. It's about an agenda, and not even one they particularly support. It's just the one that pays the bills.
    - fzeroracer 4y ago
      Oh no I'm fully aware of the economics of fueling the culture war, but that makes it even more unethical because they're trying to directly profit from destroying the lives of others. It's sociopathic, though sociopathy and wealth seem to be somewhat correlated.
jkingsbery 4y ago
But it's not about people signing a thing saying they won't be racist. Since I know you read the article, I'm sure you saw the bit about someone penalizing a candidate for saying that "he respects his students and treats them equally." People can now quote the I Have A Dream Speech as part of their application essay and be branded racist for daring to say we should judge people by the content of their character. Whether it's coordinated or not is irrelevant - there is a group of people that push a particular subjective world view on others not just on not being racist but how one should not be racist. Life doesn't have a liberal bias. If you think so, then either you are surrounding yourself by too many people that think exactly the same way you do (which kind of misses the point on diversity), or you have created an environment in which there are people who think differently than you, but are reluctant to actually speak their mind.
- catapart 4y ago
  Babe, I live in ruby-red Texas. You're barking up the wrong tree with that "surrounded by alike-thought" nonsense. If you don't find that life has a liberal bias, then you haven't lived enough of it. And - for the record - that's not even a "progressive" jab; it's a reference to a complaint by a conservative. It's not like this is a partisan opinion; this is something conservative think-tanks constantly whine about. In any case, the thing you ommitted from your quote - where the guy said DEI isn't important (because he "treats students equally") - is the problem area. Just like it would be if you said "Oh, I don't need to keep my gun unloaded. I practice trigger safety." It's not that trigger safety is bad; but any gun enthusiast would be very unsatisfied with that answer.
  - goatlover 4y ago
    Why should treating students equally be unsatisfactory? That was the goal for decades after the civil rights until recently when DEI became all the rage, and all of a sudden now equality isn't enough. You have to be pro-equity, which seems to be outcome-based instead of opportunity-based. Which is a very different idea of equality. It's ideological, and I don't see why university professors need to be making statements in it's favor.
physPop 4y ago
This is the definition of ad homenim fallacious argument. Do you have evidence to support or refute the claims being made? Is DEI productive for academia?
- catapart 4y ago
  I've provided evidence to support the claims I made about the article. I have no particular interest in whether DEI - as implemented - is productive for academia. I do, however, have an interest in determining what is and what is not propaganda (for myself), and sharing the relevant information with my peers so that interested parties may dig in, for themselves.
- x86_64Ubuntu 4y ago
  No one is going to disregard the source and their ideological tendencies when looking at their writings.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  Being aware of the slant and typical quality-level of a source isn't ad hom, it's the basics of being able to navigate the written word.
topynate 4y ago
> It just means that if you can't even promise to not be racist Can I take a look at this Minimum Credible Commitment to Not Being Racist? Are there standard terms? Are there standard reciprocal commitments? For example, I would want any counter-party to commit to not treating me worse on race-related grounds than anyone else signing the same commitment. (That excludes any kind of rank-system, by the way, apologies if that's obvious to you.) If liberal US colleges just want to filter for people who aren't so racist that they can't even be professional, then it's clear, to me at least, that there must be some other process that's frustrating their aim and making them expend a lot more resources than they would want to, to achieve a much worse result. In that case ISTM that what would be good for them is for some sort of overriding power to impose a Minimum Credible Commitment standard on them.
- catapart 4y ago
  It must be very hard for you to not have strict, rigorous standards that you can apply and adhere to so that everything can be either "right" or "wrong". Unfortunately, such is the case with social issues. Good luck on navigating interpersonal issues! I can tell you, from experience, it's a lot easier when you drop the "Okay, if I have to put up with it, let's get some strict definitions!" bullshit.
  - topynate 4y ago
    The social issues may be messy. Why does that mean the employment conditions must be messy? > I can tell you, from experience, it's a lot easier when you drop the "Okay, if I have to put up with it, let's get some strict definitions!" bullshit. My experience is that if you take that attitude into a serious negotiation you have a great chance of being fucked over by people who "tell you things from experience".
    - catapart 4y ago
      Because employment is social. There's no rule that says you can't rub your stomach. But if you consistently find woman coworkers and stand around them vigorously rubbing your stomach, there's a good case for management to put an end to that. There's no "rule" that can stop that kind of thing. People have to be reasonable and understand that it's just about "comfort". And silly people made up rules about "making people uncomfortable" and, predictably, people set about testing that rule because that's what people will always do. "Well, why is THIS creepy, but not THAT?!" Nobody can tell you, Gene. We just all fucking know it. It's pretty obvious if you're not being obtuse about it. An the other note: I'm sorry you seem to find yourself in situations where you are consistently (or with a great possibility) are getting fucked over by people. Might say something about your adherence to obtuseness, but I suppose I'll take your point here that you don't care what my experience says. Duly noted. I won't bring it up again.

goatlover 4y ago

Maybe they can also promise not to vote for a certain political party, just to be on the safe side. And maybe throw in a statement against capitalism and neoliberalism while they're at it, just to emphasize how they're not holding up the status quo.

catapart 4y ago
If they did that, then even neutral organizations, like the ACLU and the National Academy of Sciences, would call out their poor practices. There are plenty of examples of that. Turns out, well-written articles get input from all interested parties and include any opposition research so that readers can look at the information presented and decide what the report means. Please note that Mr. Sailer elided all of that and, instead, used a singular study (which he plainly admits) to attack a philosophy that he and his funders are on record trying to dismantle. This isn't complicated, it's just barely disguised.
- dbsmith83 4y ago
  > Turns out, well-written articles get input from all interested parties and include any opposition research so that readers can look at the information presented and decide what the report means. You do realize this is an opinion piece, and not a news article, right?
  - catapart 4y ago
    I realize that it is propaganda, regardless of the chosen packaging. Do you?
    - dbsmith83 4y ago
      Of course, and what is the issue with that? Propaganda has a vague definition, and basically any published opinion piece trying to persuade could be technically considered propaganda. At least it is labeled as an opinion piece, so what is the point about crying "It's propaganda!"? So what? I have a problem with propaganda disguised as a news article, but that is not what is going on here.
      - catapart 4y ago
        So [what]... there is value in reminding people of that, because everyone has confirmation biases and while some opinion pieces are thoughtful, critical, and comprehensive, other are just propaganda. Identifying it is a matter of contextualization. You don't have to employ it, if you don't want to. But if it gives even one person pause, I'm satisfied with that.
        dbsmith83 4y ago
        Well thanks for your concern, but I would imagine many people here would consider your reminder as being quite patronizing
        catapart 4y ago
        And what do you expect I consider your hand-wringing over my concern?
        dbsmith83 4y ago
        If it gives you pause, I'm satisfied with that.
kenjackson 4y ago
Is not being racist now a liberal ideology? This seems more akin to signing a document that you won’t have relations with your students or that you won’t fabricate research.

catapart 4y ago

John D. Sailer: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/author/john-d-sailer/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/author/john-d-sailer... National Association of Scholars: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/education/22conservative.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/education/22conservative.... For people who are willing to look critically at the information, and discern what the sum of it indicates about the subject piece.

fzeroracer 4y ago
Not surprising that your typical culture war conservative would fuel a culture war of their own. What a disgraceful person especially considering how Texas currently treats the individuals he seems to hate.
- catapart 4y ago
  If it helps (in seeing people as human, or in justifying your hate for them) I doubt he actually hates any particular individuals. This is always about money and fame, for them. They want people to know them, and they want to be rich. And once you have come to terms with that, in your own head, you're kind of fine shitting on other people to further your own goals. The culture war makes them famous; the beneficiaries of the culture war make them rich. It's just a business, and that's how they treat it. It's why shame doesn't work, and logic doesn't work. It's about an agenda, and not even one they particularly support. It's just the one that pays the bills.
  - fzeroracer 4y ago
    Oh no I'm fully aware of the economics of fueling the culture war, but that makes it even more unethical because they're trying to directly profit from destroying the lives of others. It's sociopathic, though sociopathy and wealth seem to be somewhat correlated.

jkingsbery 4y ago

But it's not about people signing a thing saying they won't be racist. Since I know you read the article, I'm sure you saw the bit about someone penalizing a candidate for saying that "he respects his students and treats them equally." People can now quote the I Have A Dream Speech as part of their application essay and be branded racist for daring to say we should judge people by the content of their character. Whether it's coordinated or not is irrelevant - there is a group of people that push a particular subjective world view on others not just on not being racist but how one should not be racist. Life doesn't have a liberal bias. If you think so, then either you are surrounding yourself by too many people that think exactly the same way you do (which kind of misses the point on diversity), or you have created an environment in which there are people who think differently than you, but are reluctant to actually speak their mind.

catapart 4y ago
Babe, I live in ruby-red Texas. You're barking up the wrong tree with that "surrounded by alike-thought" nonsense. If you don't find that life has a liberal bias, then you haven't lived enough of it. And - for the record - that's not even a "progressive" jab; it's a reference to a complaint by a conservative. It's not like this is a partisan opinion; this is something conservative think-tanks constantly whine about. In any case, the thing you ommitted from your quote - where the guy said DEI isn't important (because he "treats students equally") - is the problem area. Just like it would be if you said "Oh, I don't need to keep my gun unloaded. I practice trigger safety." It's not that trigger safety is bad; but any gun enthusiast would be very unsatisfied with that answer.
- goatlover 4y ago
  Why should treating students equally be unsatisfactory? That was the goal for decades after the civil rights until recently when DEI became all the rage, and all of a sudden now equality isn't enough. You have to be pro-equity, which seems to be outcome-based instead of opportunity-based. Which is a very different idea of equality. It's ideological, and I don't see why university professors need to be making statements in it's favor.

physPop 4y ago

This is the definition of ad homenim fallacious argument. Do you have evidence to support or refute the claims being made? Is DEI productive for academia?

catapart 4y ago
I've provided evidence to support the claims I made about the article. I have no particular interest in whether DEI - as implemented - is productive for academia. I do, however, have an interest in determining what is and what is not propaganda (for myself), and sharing the relevant information with my peers so that interested parties may dig in, for themselves.
x86_64Ubuntu 4y ago
No one is going to disregard the source and their ideological tendencies when looking at their writings.
yamtaddle 4y ago
Being aware of the slant and typical quality-level of a source isn't ad hom, it's the basics of being able to navigate the written word.

topynate 4y ago

> It just means that if you can't even promise to not be racist Can I take a look at this Minimum Credible Commitment to Not Being Racist? Are there standard terms? Are there standard reciprocal commitments? For example, I would want any counter-party to commit to not treating me worse on race-related grounds than anyone else signing the same commitment. (That excludes any kind of rank-system, by the way, apologies if that's obvious to you.) If liberal US colleges just want to filter for people who aren't so racist that they can't even be professional, then it's clear, to me at least, that there must be some other process that's frustrating their aim and making them expend a lot more resources than they would want to, to achieve a much worse result. In that case ISTM that what would be good for them is for some sort of overriding power to impose a Minimum Credible Commitment standard on them.

catapart 4y ago
It must be very hard for you to not have strict, rigorous standards that you can apply and adhere to so that everything can be either "right" or "wrong". Unfortunately, such is the case with social issues. Good luck on navigating interpersonal issues! I can tell you, from experience, it's a lot easier when you drop the "Okay, if I have to put up with it, let's get some strict definitions!" bullshit.
- topynate 4y ago
  The social issues may be messy. Why does that mean the employment conditions must be messy? > I can tell you, from experience, it's a lot easier when you drop the "Okay, if I have to put up with it, let's get some strict definitions!" bullshit. My experience is that if you take that attitude into a serious negotiation you have a great chance of being fucked over by people who "tell you things from experience".
  - catapart 4y ago
    Because employment is social. There's no rule that says you can't rub your stomach. But if you consistently find woman coworkers and stand around them vigorously rubbing your stomach, there's a good case for management to put an end to that. There's no "rule" that can stop that kind of thing. People have to be reasonable and understand that it's just about "comfort". And silly people made up rules about "making people uncomfortable" and, predictably, people set about testing that rule because that's what people will always do. "Well, why is THIS creepy, but not THAT?!" Nobody can tell you, Gene. We just all fucking know it. It's pretty obvious if you're not being obtuse about it. An the other note: I'm sorry you seem to find yourself in situations where you are consistently (or with a great possibility) are getting fucked over by people. Might say something about your adherence to obtuseness, but I suppose I'll take your point here that you don't care what my experience says. Duly noted. I won't bring it up again.