5 ms·

If you’re basing your understanding of the subject based on one anti-DEI activist’s misinterpretation of policies he doesn’t actually know anything about, who d

If you’re basing your understanding of the subject based on one anti-DEI activist’s misinterpretation of policies he doesn’t actually know anything about, who didn’t talk to anyone at those schools (even critics of the policy), and who very likely misread statistics and intentionally misrepresented processes, then you are not getting a fair picture. This piece you linked to is a mess of unsubstantiated statements. Several of the links are broken but the one that is still around does not say what he says, so I wouldn’t trust any of the rest of his summarization either.

yorwba 2y ago
Of course one should not use an opinion piece as the source when that opinion piece is just commenting on information found elsewhere, but also, in this day and age there's no reason to give up when you encounter a broken link: https://web.archive.org/web/20200202194620/https://ofew.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/life_sciences_inititatve.year_end_report_summary.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20200202194620/https://ofew.berk... A total of 993 applications were received, of which 893 met basic qualifications. The LSI Committee conducted a first review and evaluated candidates based solely on contributions to diversity, equity and inclusion. Only candidates that met a high standard in this area were advanced for further review, narrowing the pool down to 214 for serious consideration.
- habinero 2y ago
  Ok, so what exactly is the "high standard" here, and what about the standard do you find it objectionable? The fact that something exists doesn't count. If you don't know, you're just spreading urban legends and ghost stories.
  - yorwba 2y ago
    The text in italics is a verbatim quote from the archived PDF I linked, wherein UC Berkeley describes their hiring process. I encourage you to read it if you want to know further details.
    - habinero 2y ago
      I asked what you find objectionable, not what it says.
      - toonalfrink 2y ago
        Not the one you're asking, nor the one you meant to ask, but I find it rather objectionable that we are now restricting the production of new memes in academia to the ~25% that is most aligned with a moral fashion that is patently hostile to intellectual freedom. It's good to be willing to consider DEI like any other idea but to endorse it is a clear indication that you only care about truth insofar that it is socially advantageous to do so. You're basically unfit for the job at that point.
      - yorwba 2y ago
        I found objectionable that some people were unable to identify the original source of a claim they were discussing, so I decided to help out.
Manuel_D 2y ago
> However, other University of California schools have published this information. In one recent search at UC Berkeley employing substantially similar evaluation techniques to those that UC Davis used, there were 893 qualified applicants who submitted complete applications that met the basic job requirements. Of those applicants, 679 were eliminated solely because their diversity statements were deemed inadequate. Do you have any substantial criticism of the factual claims made here? Or are you just insisting that this is a misinterpretation, without any evidence?
- habinero 2y ago
  There's no facts to refute - he just states that this conclusion is true without evidence of how he knows that or what the criteria he's using is. That's the problem with all the DEI hysterics - it's never given any intellectual rigor. Instead, it's all profoundly mid men telling each other ghost stories.
  - Manuel_D 2y ago
    There are two very specific facts to refute: * UC Berkeley received 893 qualified applications * Of those applicants, 679 were eliminated solely because their diversity statements were deemed inadequate. If someone seeks to disprove the claim that 76% of applicants were rejected based on their diversity statements, they can find alternate figures for the numerator and denominator and offer reasons why their numbers are more authoritative. > That's the problem with all the DEI hysterics - it's never given any intellectual rigor. Instead, it's all profoundly mid men telling each other ghost stories. 3 out of the four companies I've worked at engaged in explicit discrimination on the basis of gender. As in, alternate interview pipelines where women got multiple chances to pass coding interviews where men got one. And one company even augmented that approach with outright withholding a portion of headcount for "diverse" applicants (which was defined as women and URM men, and in practice women made up over 95% of "diverse" applicants). If you haven't been witnessed to discriminatory DEI practices, that's fortunate for you. But that's not been the experience of many people. DEI is widely perceived as a dogwhistle for discrimination, because it often is used to refer to discriminatory hiring practices, and I don't think condescension is a way to convince people otherwise.

yorwba 2y ago

Of course one should not use an opinion piece as the source when that opinion piece is just commenting on information found elsewhere, but also, in this day and age there's no reason to give up when you encounter a broken link: https://web.archive.org/web/20200202194620/https://ofew.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/life_sciences_inititatve.year_end_report_summary.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20200202194620/https://ofew.berk... A total of 993 applications were received, of which 893 met basic qualifications. The LSI Committee conducted a first review and evaluated candidates based solely on contributions to diversity, equity and inclusion. Only candidates that met a high standard in this area were advanced for further review, narrowing the pool down to 214 for serious consideration.

habinero 2y ago
Ok, so what exactly is the "high standard" here, and what about the standard do you find it objectionable? The fact that something exists doesn't count. If you don't know, you're just spreading urban legends and ghost stories.
- yorwba 2y ago
  The text in italics is a verbatim quote from the archived PDF I linked, wherein UC Berkeley describes their hiring process. I encourage you to read it if you want to know further details.
  - habinero 2y ago
    I asked what you find objectionable, not what it says.
    - toonalfrink 2y ago
      Not the one you're asking, nor the one you meant to ask, but I find it rather objectionable that we are now restricting the production of new memes in academia to the ~25% that is most aligned with a moral fashion that is patently hostile to intellectual freedom. It's good to be willing to consider DEI like any other idea but to endorse it is a clear indication that you only care about truth insofar that it is socially advantageous to do so. You're basically unfit for the job at that point.
    - yorwba 2y ago
      I found objectionable that some people were unable to identify the original source of a claim they were discussing, so I decided to help out.

Manuel_D 2y ago

> However, other University of California schools have published this information. In one recent search at UC Berkeley employing substantially similar evaluation techniques to those that UC Davis used, there were 893 qualified applicants who submitted complete applications that met the basic job requirements. Of those applicants, 679 were eliminated solely because their diversity statements were deemed inadequate. Do you have any substantial criticism of the factual claims made here? Or are you just insisting that this is a misinterpretation, without any evidence?

habinero 2y ago
There's no facts to refute - he just states that this conclusion is true without evidence of how he knows that or what the criteria he's using is. That's the problem with all the DEI hysterics - it's never given any intellectual rigor. Instead, it's all profoundly mid men telling each other ghost stories.
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  There are two very specific facts to refute: * UC Berkeley received 893 qualified applications * Of those applicants, 679 were eliminated solely because their diversity statements were deemed inadequate. If someone seeks to disprove the claim that 76% of applicants were rejected based on their diversity statements, they can find alternate figures for the numerator and denominator and offer reasons why their numbers are more authoritative. > That's the problem with all the DEI hysterics - it's never given any intellectual rigor. Instead, it's all profoundly mid men telling each other ghost stories. 3 out of the four companies I've worked at engaged in explicit discrimination on the basis of gender. As in, alternate interview pipelines where women got multiple chances to pass coding interviews where men got one. And one company even augmented that approach with outright withholding a portion of headcount for "diverse" applicants (which was defined as women and URM men, and in practice women made up over 95% of "diverse" applicants). If you haven't been witnessed to discriminatory DEI practices, that's fortunate for you. But that's not been the experience of many people. DEI is widely perceived as a dogwhistle for discrimination, because it often is used to refer to discriminatory hiring practices, and I don't think condescension is a way to convince people otherwise.