5 ms·

I am assuming that there is vastly less to this than this particular cluster of publications, and too many of the commenters here, are getting themselves worked

I am assuming that there is vastly less to this than this particular cluster of publications, and too many of the commenters here, are getting themselves worked up about.

dang 2y ago
I'm not sure if you're questioning whether the story was true or whether it was important or whether it was offtopic for HN. If it was untrue, then we will have made a bad moderation call and should have waited. However, today has brought more 3rd party reports on the story, albeit still from ideologically slanted publications (e.g. https://nypost.com/2024/05/06/us-news/mit-bans-controversial-diversity-statement-hiring-requirement-they-dont-work/ https://nypost.com/2024/05/06/us-news/mit-bans-controversial...), so I think the odds of it being true are getting a bit higher. If you mean it wasn't important, that's a matter of preference. There's no story on the front page that everyone thinks is important. It's enough if enough do. If you mean it was offtopic for HN, I've addressed that in a bunch of other places.
- davidgerard 2y ago
  Sorry, I just meant to the story itself. NY Post and Unherd are low-quality sources given to beatups they think are in favour of their ideology. I am specifically sceptical that this is any sort of significant thing, let alone a huge deal. I'm not saying Unherd falsified quotes or anything, but I'm not at all convinced that this passes e.g. the Wikipedia "reliable sources" test of being worth mentioning in general (which Unherd probably wouldn't be and the NYP explicitly isn't). Has anything mainstream covered it? I had a look in Google News for "MIT DEI" and it was overwhelmingly trash-tier sources of the Unherd/NYP level.
  - dang 2y ago
    It looks like the mainstream sources were just lagging behind the ideological vanguard, which makes sense since the latter care about it more. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/06/us/mit-diversity-statements-faculty-hiring.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/06/us/mit-diversity-statemen... I think you were right to be skeptical though—I had the same worry. Sometimes we wait until a story has had more independent verification, but in this case the community appetite to discuss it was so strong, I decided not to stand in front of the train.
    - davidgerard 2y ago
      ok, NYT clearly passes :-)

I am assuming that there is vastly less to this than this particular cluster of publications, and too many of the commenters here, are getting themselves worked up about.

dang 2y ago

I'm not sure if you're questioning whether the story was true or whether it was important or whether it was offtopic for HN. If it was untrue, then we will have made a bad moderation call and should have waited. However, today has brought more 3rd party reports on the story, albeit still from ideologically slanted publications (e.g. https://nypost.com/2024/05/06/us-news/mit-bans-controversial-diversity-statement-hiring-requirement-they-dont-work/ https://nypost.com/2024/05/06/us-news/mit-bans-controversial...), so I think the odds of it being true are getting a bit higher. If you mean it wasn't important, that's a matter of preference. There's no story on the front page that everyone thinks is important. It's enough if enough do. If you mean it was offtopic for HN, I've addressed that in a bunch of other places.

davidgerard 2y ago
Sorry, I just meant to the story itself. NY Post and Unherd are low-quality sources given to beatups they think are in favour of their ideology. I am specifically sceptical that this is any sort of significant thing, let alone a huge deal. I'm not saying Unherd falsified quotes or anything, but I'm not at all convinced that this passes e.g. the Wikipedia "reliable sources" test of being worth mentioning in general (which Unherd probably wouldn't be and the NYP explicitly isn't). Has anything mainstream covered it? I had a look in Google News for "MIT DEI" and it was overwhelmingly trash-tier sources of the Unherd/NYP level.
- dang 2y ago
  It looks like the mainstream sources were just lagging behind the ideological vanguard, which makes sense since the latter care about it more. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/06/us/mit-diversity-statements-faculty-hiring.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/06/us/mit-diversity-statemen... I think you were right to be skeptical though—I had the same worry. Sometimes we wait until a story has had more independent verification, but in this case the community appetite to discuss it was so strong, I decided not to stand in front of the train.
  - davidgerard 2y ago
    ok, NYT clearly passes :-)