4 ms·

I was on the academic job market recently. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the process of writing my DEI statement was a valuable learning experience. F

by whoza 2y ago

I was on the academic job market recently. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the process of writing my DEI statement was a valuable learning experience. For example, I read several interesting papers about randomized controlled trials testing the effects of various classroom interventions. I also have some more clarity about the relevant philosophical questions, both due to reading others' thoughts and due to being forced to articulate my own thoughts. For those reasons, my feelings toward DEI statements are more positive now than they were before. Still, on balance, I think I'm inclined to favor removing DEI statements from faculty applications.

neltnerb 2y ago
Yeah, this is what I am also thinking of. It makes sense for people in a position to create a culture or hire a team to know, it's a science you probably weren't exposed to in school and knowing the real effects that are known and studied is a darn good start to implementing DEI well. Doing it based on guesswork is probably worse than useless. So that's the non-ideological part. If you actually care enough to study it and propose hiring processes that encourage it then that's an actual worthwhile education process. It can be little stuff... like I hide names on resumes and obscure gender to avoid that very well known bias. It's not perfect, but it's actually a net win all around to do that kind of thing, and you wouldn't know how big a deal it is and how much benefit it is for your team without reading. It's a complicated topic, and I think many of the concepts applied earnestly but scientifically testing them is a good idea. To be ideological. This requirement wouldn't stop that, necessarily, but it means that such learning occurs after hiring rather than before. And after hiring there's a lot less incentive, and a lot to do.
- zlefgram 2y ago
  [dead]
- SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
  > it's a science you probably weren't exposed to in school Interesting take, why do you think it is you likely weren’t expose to DEI in school? While I’m thinking about it, didn’t we just used to call it “affirmative action”?
  - eecc 2y ago
    I guess: maths, physics, engineering, anything that’s not Sociology or Economics?
  - fsckboy 2y ago
    >didn’t we just used to call it “affirmative action”? no. in short, affirmative action represented an attempt at "equality of opportunity" in the belief that some extra pushes would remediate "the problem" "equity" refers to forcing particular outcomes, using various measure that operate as "quotas" including the lowering of standards like entrance exam scores. Affirmative action did not result in enough doctors meeting various criteria, so we must need to force the results we want by whatever means necessary; since we believe all people are equal, anything short of that must be the result of a pernicious mechanism
    - SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
      > "equity" refers to forcing particular outcomes, Oh, ok. Well we used to have a different word for that.

by whoza 2y ago

neltnerb 2y ago

Yeah, this is what I am also thinking of. It makes sense for people in a position to create a culture or hire a team to know, it's a science you probably weren't exposed to in school and knowing the real effects that are known and studied is a darn good start to implementing DEI well. Doing it based on guesswork is probably worse than useless. So that's the non-ideological part. If you actually care enough to study it and propose hiring processes that encourage it then that's an actual worthwhile education process. It can be little stuff... like I hide names on resumes and obscure gender to avoid that very well known bias. It's not perfect, but it's actually a net win all around to do that kind of thing, and you wouldn't know how big a deal it is and how much benefit it is for your team without reading. It's a complicated topic, and I think many of the concepts applied earnestly but scientifically testing them is a good idea. To be ideological. This requirement wouldn't stop that, necessarily, but it means that such learning occurs after hiring rather than before. And after hiring there's a lot less incentive, and a lot to do.

zlefgram 2y ago
[dead]
SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
> it's a science you probably weren't exposed to in school Interesting take, why do you think it is you likely weren’t expose to DEI in school? While I’m thinking about it, didn’t we just used to call it “affirmative action”?
- eecc 2y ago
  I guess: maths, physics, engineering, anything that’s not Sociology or Economics?
- fsckboy 2y ago
  >didn’t we just used to call it “affirmative action”? no. in short, affirmative action represented an attempt at "equality of opportunity" in the belief that some extra pushes would remediate "the problem" "equity" refers to forcing particular outcomes, using various measure that operate as "quotas" including the lowering of standards like entrance exam scores. Affirmative action did not result in enough doctors meeting various criteria, so we must need to force the results we want by whatever means necessary; since we believe all people are equal, anything short of that must be the result of a pernicious mechanism
  - SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
    > "equity" refers to forcing particular outcomes, Oh, ok. Well we used to have a different word for that.