Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Improving MIT’s written commitment to freedom of expression

freespeech.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 194 posts

Re: Improving MIT’s written commitment to freedom of expression

#51

Post by pelasaco »

tokai wrote: post #21

Is this really needed? I'm not trying to be obstinate. But in the north european country where I reside, while we have hate speech laws etc., my speech is protected by the law - both from the state and my employer (a university). This commitment seems very bombastic for what feels like a work environment policy to me. Am I misunderstanding something cultural here? EDIT: thx for the comments, it makes it more sense to…

For sure it is needed, and you know it. You won't be protected by law from being "canceled" if you say something against what is understood as the "norm". Specially in the university world, we were reaching a situation where we couldn't scientifically study/discuss any controversial theme.

Re: Improving MIT’s written commitment to freedom of expression

#52

Post by coffeeisyummy »

jeremyis wrote: post #42
timthebeaver wrote: post #29

Some speech issues that come to mind which, I sometimes wonder, how they would have gone down today: * The 6.001 porn * The ghetto party * The Reg Day porn (particularly Deep Throat, but many) * The Visualizing Cultures display (with CSSA opposition) * Some 10% of the day to day traffic on senior-house@, bexley-minus-fascists@, and ec-discuss@ Norms around speech have evolved a lot even as the fundamentals of ethics…

Uhm what was the 001 porn?

http://tech.mit.edu/V118/N8/aporn.8n.html

Prof. Abelson wanted to hammer home the point porn was a problem on the internet back in 1998 and thought putting up a porn site for the first slide of a lecture would make his point.

It was pretty shocking when it happened.

Re: Improving MIT’s written commitment to freedom of expression

#53

Post by ModernMech »

zozbot234 wrote: post #48
ModernMech wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this a bad thing? Part of a faculty’s job is to do community service and to manage a diverse classroom. Faculty who have a good handle on the issues that arise through teaching such a diverse classroom are better equipped to handle the job. It’s no different than judging them based on the their research or teaching experience, which are also part of the job. If an applicant doesn’t understand the salient DEI i…

The requirements are not limited to "understand[ing] the salient DEI issues" in an abstract, neutral sense; going by the scoring rubric, they're explicitly demanding a statement of ideological conformity-- as well as a personal commitment to an especially divisive, controversial, dubiously-effective approach to mitigating DEI challenges-- that goes further than what was previously "expected of all faculty". That's wh…

Again, that's not about belief, that's about the reality that the student body is diverse, the school wants the student body to be diverse, and the classroom itself will accordingly be diverse. What specifically about the rubric is the most troubling to you?

By the way, as someone who hires faculty and reads many such statements (I have to ask, have you read any DEI statements? Do you have examples which you find especially troubling?), a discussion about how current efforts are dubiously effective would be welcome and would help your application at my institution. More often than not, what they are trying to do with these DEI statements is to weed-out applicants who have given no thought whatsoever to this part of the job. The most common failure here is to treat this job requirement as an afterthought and to focus 100% on the research portion. Someone who had genuine opinions about DEI education that run counter to the way things are done would be well received by the hiring committee at my institution.

Re: Improving MIT’s written commitment to freedom of expression

#54

Post by fallingknife »

roenxi wrote: post #26
zo1 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However, they negate it with this caveat: > "The Institute may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the Institute." Which is vague enough that an enterprising and determined ind…

At some point there has to be trust in people to be reasonable in their interpretation. If that trust isn't possible, the only available strategy is to try and purge the entire administrative apparatus and replace it rather than attempting to play word games. Word games are there to be lost. This statement is pretty clear that the intent is to allow speech that some people find offensive.

Problem is that there can be no trust since this statement is coming from a group that disinvited a lecturer on climate science because he opposed DEI initiatives https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/10/06/mit-controver.... Actions speak louder than words.

Purging and rebuilding the entire administrative apparatus of the US university system is actually a great idea, and for more reasons than just freedom of expression.

Re: Improving MIT’s written commitment to freedom of expression

#55

Post by colpabar »

zozbot234 wrote: post #37
oefrha wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damn, this is actually a lot worse than it sounds. Rather than requiring an arguably hollow oath like the infamous UC loyalty oath from the 50s, they actually grade each applicant against “DEI” rubrics and eliminate applicants based on that. You don’t get a job without demonstrating tangible contributions to DEI in the past (no, treating everyone equally doesn’t count) and plans to promote it in the future. According…

> they actually grade each applicant against “DEI” rubrics and eliminate applicants based on that Doesn't this explicitly incent applicants to lie by misrepresenting their views and past "contributions to DEI" as more pro-DEI than they actually are? I'm not sure how this requirement is compatible with rather basic norms of academic ethics.

Absolutely. Lying is always somewhat incentivized, but in most cases it doesn't work, because the candidate will be found out. If I interviewed at google, I could lie about my skills all I want, but I will be found out when asked to demonstrate them.

The DEI stuff really seems like as long as you say all the right words, you're fine. Which leads me to a scary thought - are we going to create some kind of "DEI social credit score" that employers can reference in the future?

Re: Improving MIT’s written commitment to freedom of expression

#56

Post by zozbot234 »

ModernMech wrote: post #49
db48x wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can it not be true? Berkely posts a detailed rubric for grading DEI statements on their own website, for all to see: https://ofew.berkeley.edu/recruitment/contributions-diversit... It is clear that they won’t hire anyone who doesn’t express beliefs identical to their own.

> It is clear that they won’t hire anyone who doesn’t express beliefs identical to their own. That's not really what's going on here. First of all, you're not really understanding the faculty hiring process. The DEI aspect is just one of many considered, and the people who have most direct impact on the hiring process are the department and college dean, not the DEI office who produced this website. Secondly, to the…

The DEI aspect is "one of many considered", but the scoring rubric says that applicants who do not score above a cutoff on DEI issues will not be considered. It's in fact not scoring neutral "knowledge" of posited DEI issues but ideological belief in their relevance, and it scores "experience" in furthering DEI by matching the adherence of said 'experience' to an especially divisive and controversial approach, and demanding impact on teaching and research activities that ought to be protected from ideological bias per well-known academic norms of neutrality. The requirements are worded in a misleading manner that makes them appear like they're not demanding anything more than the status quo, but they absolutely are.

Re: Improving MIT’s written commitment to freedom of expression

#57

Post by thematrixturtle »

evancoop wrote: post #7

Most responses to this will be positive, and they should be. Typically, the real evaluation is the market (will more students and professors be drawn to MIT?). However, there is already a tremendous demand for admission (from students) and competitive hiring processes (for professors). So...how many other comparable institutions will follow suit? Will universities in California adopt, oppose, or ignore?

Universities in California are going in precisely the other direction by mandating ideological purity tests aka "diversity statements" for staff.

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2019/11/24/uc-davis-math-prof...

Re: Improving MIT’s written commitment to freedom of expression

#58

Post by qsort »

woolion wrote: post #30

We have reached a point where it has been a mainstream position to view the idea of defending free speech as disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. This statement is so weak that it is necessary to consider this climate to even understand how this can be published as a statement. After explicitly saying that illegal speech is not free speech, it lists 6 exceptions for things that are not free speech either, includin…

There's always the tennis court.

Re: Improving MIT’s written commitment to freedom of expression

#59

Post by gadders »

tokai wrote: post #21

Is this really needed? I'm not trying to be obstinate. But in the north european country where I reside, while we have hate speech laws etc., my speech is protected by the law - both from the state and my employer (a university). This commitment seems very bombastic for what feels like a work environment policy to me. Am I misunderstanding something cultural here? EDIT: thx for the comments, it makes it more sense to…

If you have hate speech laws, then your speech is not protected.

Re: Improving MIT’s written commitment to freedom of expression

#60

Post by fallingknife »

ModernMech wrote: post #40
oefrha wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damn, this is actually a lot worse than it sounds. Rather than requiring an arguably hollow oath like the infamous UC loyalty oath from the 50s, they actually grade each applicant against “DEI” rubrics and eliminate applicants based on that. You don’t get a job without demonstrating tangible contributions to DEI in the past (no, treating everyone equally doesn’t count) and plans to promote it in the future. According…

Why is this a bad thing? Part of a faculty’s job is to do community service and to manage a diverse classroom. Faculty who have a good handle on the issues that arise through teaching such a diverse classroom are better equipped to handle the job. It’s no different than judging them based on the their research or teaching experience, which are also part of the job. If an applicant doesn’t understand the salient DEI i…

DEI doesn't help you manage a diverse classroom. In fact it does the opposite by harping on racial divisions instead of just teaching the subject you're supposed to teach. No better way to foster animosity than to divide a group of people that is supposed to be equal and start enforcing different rules on the different groups.
Post reply on HN