7 ms·

Clicked through some links in the article. Really mind boggling material. How did such garbage end up in top universities is really weird.

• leosanchez 2y ago
  I don't understand how this crap got into America of all countries
  • 6312783123 2y ago
    [flagged]
  • anonylizard 2y ago
    Certain people, discovered how easy it is, to change entire institutions, by applying targeted pressure towards individual managers of those institutions. No manager dares to refuse these initiatives because they'll be instantly named by the activist, with the help of journalist friends, and ensure they lose their job. Hence by going one at a time, a small group of activists can change far larger organisations. Of course, every action has a reaction. Enough resentment has built up, that made anti-woke a legitimate position to take in the public eye, with no longer much risk of losing the job. This makes all the previous tactics lose their power. Also, the 'anti-woke' crowd is learning these tactics too. From congressional grilling of university presidents, to gamers explicitly documenting the DEI consultancy involvements, its all targeting and absolutely destroying individuals to cause a chilling effect on the populace at large.
    • leosanchez 2y ago
      > No manager dares to refuse these initiatives because they'll be instantly named by the activist, with the help of journalist friends, and ensure they lose their job. Doesn't this feel very authoritarian ? Just replace manager with citizen and you have USSR.
      • lazide 2y ago
        Authoritarianism would be if it was top down. This is more a leftist version of McCarthyism. Aka intellectual purity testing and purges.
        • hallway_monitor 2y ago
          I don't know why you're getting down voted for this. It's a very precise description of what has been happening the last decade. Conform and declare your support or be ruined, even if you have valid criticisms and disagreements with the doctrine.
          • lazide 2y ago
            I would assume it’s precisely because it’s a precise and accurate description. Given the current climate.
        • marcosdumay 2y ago
          > Authoritarianism would be if it was top down. If a minority can impose their will into institutions, destroying the life of anybody that opposes them, you need a quite messed-up conception of power structures to place that minority "down".
          • hotdogscout 2y ago
            Because you can't put the power to influence behavior on a straight line. Each clique has it's own power structure. Charisma, rule of law, pity, revenge, resentment, morality, resources, it's all a part of it.
          • lazide 2y ago
            When said minority are just as likely to be peers or subordinates within the power structure, I don’t see how it could be ‘from the top’. Do you?
      • eastbound 2y ago
        Do you think every participant to Mao’s cultural revolution was consenting? No. People do whatever they can throughout history, and end up having to participate to larger changes. The only remedy we’ve found was Humanism, l’esprit critique, education for everyone, and raising awareness and allergy to all authoritarian acts, but see, in the last 50 years, I’ve seen younger people who aren’t even aware who Diderot is, let alone had enough literacy to read or write those books fluently if they spent the time, even in $130k jobs. Then we flooded each country with about 12% people who haven’t had those Humanism tenants taughts at school. I’ll from using a stronger metaphor because it will sound cheesy, but by losing the teachings of logic, rhetoric and history, our civilization is not able to hold the pillars of democracy anymore.
    • geraldwhen 2y ago
      I’ve been here. “We can’t hire any more white men” is probably an illegal stance, but what do I gain from fighting that? Nothing, and I suspect I’d be fired. I’m a tadpole in a huge lake. I have no influence over these likely illegal hiring decisions. And unless I’m just incredibly unlucky, these same conversations are happening everywhere at big companies.
  • pelorat 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • silverquiet 2y ago
      I often see the "complaint" (hard to find the right word here - it's discussed in somewhat coded/conspiratorial language for fear of sounding racist I'm sure) that when Indians are hired into a company, they'll then begin hiring more and more Indians. As you say, this is actually a rather natural human tendency and I doubt it's limited to Indians. Of course, many people here will also note that they get most of their jobs through their network (side note; it must be nice speaking as an introvert who just has to apply to jobs like a regular schlub). Well, if you're Indian, especially from India, I bet your network is going to be fairly Indian.
    • Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
      > DEI is meant to be a counter to this. If DEI was about removing barriers due to racial (both conscious and unconscious) biases, then it wouldn't be so controversial. For example, symphonies auditioning candidates behind a screen so they hiring people are only presented with the sound of their playing. But DEI is the opposite of that. It's about very explicitly identifying race/gender/etc up front and then using that as the primary basis for hiring decisions. Disqualifying someone because of their race is not only allowed but required by DEI policies.
    • inemesitaffia 2y ago
      How did we end up with it ending up as "no more white males", white people excluded from events and buildings, people talking about how they like their white free orgs in publicly traded companies, companies with no white people in a white majority city described as diverse, someone posting on HN with a full sense of righteousness about the Google Gemini racism scandal that he'd consider a request for a photo containing only white people to an LLM suspect but one of any other ethnicity perfectly fine. From me I'd like to ask where all the people from the Indian sub continent are in the Gemini Photos given they make a large percentage of developers at Google but are non existent in the output. Why the literal erasure of ~2 billion people?
  • fullshark 2y ago
    Cause few are brave enough to stick their neck out and stand up to it. Those who do are called nasty names and are forced to withstand a ideological purity trial that carries some potential of being fired. There is a lot risk for a minor reward, especially if you don't actually care about the institution you are defending.
  • YZF 2y ago
    American society is a bit messed up going back to slavery (and maybe the treatment of the indigenous people). That part (America of all countries) is not a surprise. It's also not new, random e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness Maybe this also has to do with the general idea that it's not up to a government to do things, it's up to individuals, which to me is how Americans think. I would think that dealing with inequalities in society, ensuring everyone has equal opportunity and has their basic needs provided for (health, education etc.) would be the function of a government. If the government isn't addressing that then you have a vacuum. To me it's obvious that e.g. hiring policies or university acceptance criteria are not the right place to fix society but rather issues should be addressed upstream from those. By the government. But having government do things seem to be something Americans dislike.
    • lazyeye 2y ago
      Just as a side point, approx 3-4% of slaves ended up in North America. Most went to the Carribbean and South America (Brazil mainly). Nobody ever seems to want to talk about those countries though for some reason. Nor do they seem particularly interested in the slave trade that exists now in many countries in one form or another. My guess is its because these other examples are not politically useful.
      • TMWNN 2y ago
        >Just as a side point, approx 3-4% of slaves ended up in North America. Most went to the Carribbean and South America (Brazil mainly). Nobody ever seems to want to talk about those countries though for some reason. The average SJW/Redditor/DEI advocate sincerely believes that slavery has existed in only one country in the world's history: In the United States, involving Africans. The etymology of the word "slav"? Brazil? Haiti? Guadeloupe? North Africans enslaving Europeans? Vikings taking thralls? Feudalism? Never heard of 'em.
      • thiagoharry 2y ago
        Here in Brazil, we care, and we try to make amends: there are quotas for black people in universities, and our law is rigorous against manifestation of racism in social media, or in real life. I think it is expected that any place that enslaved people make their amends for their past crimes. But I fail to understand how for American people this should mean talking about slavery in Brazil instead of in their own country.
  • primax 2y ago
    America is the most likely country for this to happen to, due to the unresolved issues surrounding slavery and the abandonment of reconstruction after the civil war. This is compounded when viewed through the USAs founding mythology. Other countries have done worse, but they haven't done so as hypocritically as the United States.
    • cooper_ganglia 2y ago
      >unresolved issues surrounding slavery >country was founded 248 years ago >the "issue" stopped happening 159 years ago I don't think an issue that lasted for barely 1/3 of our country's history and hasn't been legal for the entirety of this century, last century, or much of the century before that is the problem. I think people's addiction to being full-time victims is the issue, because if you're always a victim, you never have to be responsbile for anything in your life, you can always blame your imagined "oppressor". People do this, teach their children that they are also victims regardless of their actions, and maintain a long line of familial victimhood. DEI is a direct symptom of that.
      • primax 2y ago
        You were the last western country to deal with slavery, and it took a civil war to force the issue. Then reconstruction was ended due to a political backlash from the south. Don't pretend this is all over.
  • Izkata 2y ago
    It was too outrageous to be believed until it was too late. Remember the term "SJW" (social justice warrior) from around a decade ago? That was wokeism and DEI before it got its current branding. The people who saw this coming were dismissed as crazy.
• LaurensBER 2y ago
  If you see yourself (or your group) as a victim it's easy to rationalize rather extreme measures to "fix" the world. The intentions behind a lot of these things are good but the sensitivity of the subject has made it hard(er) to have a healthy discussion about these issues.
  • drewcoo 2y ago
    But we're not talking about protected classes. They did not take "extreme measures." We're talking about large institutions adopting policies to shield themselves from potential lawsuits from protected classes.
    • Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
      > "extreme measures." What is this [0] then? [0] https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/can-job-postings-in-canada-exclude-white-people-short-answer-yes https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/can-job-postings-in-can...
    • eastbound 2y ago
      They do censor research on the opposite of their viewpoint, though. Which further reinforces their impression that they are right. We’re back to 1590 in terms of civilizational evolution.
  • germinator 2y ago
    I don't think that's a good explanation. The vast majority of people behind such initiatives don't come from underprivileged or victimized backgrounds. It's more about this idea of being an advocate for the downtrodden - a good person fighting the racists on behalf of those without a voice. And because you're fighting the good fight, it's of course OK to make the oppressors uncomfortable or to bully them into submission. Depending on your priors, this is either messed up, or it's messed up not to act and accept the status quo. Pick your poison, I guess.
    • whythre 2y ago
• Ekaros 2y ago
  [flagged]
• bmitc 2y ago
  People might be surprised how dumb top universities can be. When everyone is biased to thinking they're the best, it pretty easily creates tunnel vision.
  • ethbr1 2y ago
    Tenure is also a blessing and a curse. It ensures academic freedom. But it also ensures someone has limited checks on their bullshit, until they retire.
    • throw-the-towel 2y ago
      Isn't mortality supposed to be check-and-balance on the bullshit in science?
      • userbinator 2y ago
        Did you really mean mortality as in "exercising the 2nd Amendment", or morality?
        • mhuffman 2y ago
          I think they meant mortality as in the old guard that have power and use it to protect their point of view die off and are replaced with a new guard that does the same.
          • ethbr1 2y ago
            Definitely mortality. For those unfamiliar with how org structures work in academia/tenure... (at least, assume this is still true) Once attaining tenure, your promotion track focuses on faculty leadership positions. These positions are selected by a combination of administration & faculty. It varies institute to institute, but strong candidates usually have backing from both. These positions are almost always held by tenured faculty, as non-tenure is looked down upon for historical/political reasons. Note: You only need to please 2 types of stakeholders: administration & faculty. Ergo, the path to promotion becomes: - Make tenure - Politick with faculty colleagues - Politick with administration - Wait for someone to die This leads to a weird bent where your bosses (faculty) are selected for their ability to navigate political winds and say the thing that most people agree with, moreso than being disagreeably brilliant.
• andy99 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • nwoli 2y ago
    Cowardice selected for by ejecting the non cowards through filters that makes them not hired at these places
    • andy99 2y ago
      Universities typically have an old guard. They all cared too much about keeping their heads down and collecting their pay cheques too oppose this. It's not just new screening, it's active cowardice.
• TrackerFF 2y ago
  Decades of institutional discrimination. I'm a white upper middle-class dude, and there used to be a time where it was only guys like me that got into prestigious schools, and had a chance at landing influential jobs - while others would either get silently rejected, scolded for trying, or simply laughed out of the office. So while the intentions for DEI were good, the reality might be that they've regressed back to initial problem. Should some people be rejected, simply because they're overrepresented? And must your workers write/sign a statement that basically says "I, [name], hereby agree that discrimination is good if it is for the greater good."