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

131–140 of 194 posts

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

#131

Post by oefrha »

hgir8937q63hlay wrote: post #113
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…

> Edit: And I wonder if and when these will start to appear in PhD applications, as PhD students are employees in a sense and often need to teach, too. I applied for CS PhDs last year and Stanford did indeed require a diversity statement. I don't remember any of the other universities I applied to asking for this. MIT certainly did not.

> Stanford did indeed require a diversity statement.

If true (and similar to the “contributions to diversity” statements discussed here), that’s quite disappointing news about my alma mater. At least there was no such nonsense back when I applied to Stanford Physics, but that was ages ago.

What the hell happened to Die Luft der Freiheit weht?

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

#132

Post by Mezzie »

throwaway8174 wrote: post #110
da_chicken wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in the US, there have always been two places where freedom of expression is taken to its most extreme: libraries and universities. Libraries tend to take the view that even bad and hateful ideas are worth preserving simply to record how bad they are. The idea should live on in its horrific badness, an example to all of the idiocy of humanity. In my experience, you'll never meet anyone as dedicated to privacy…

I don’t mean this disrespectfully, but this is completely wrong and comically naïve. It is not representative of academic libraries at elite US universities. I work at an academic library at an Ivy League school, and am familiar enough with our peer institutions to provide some context. What you describe is a very rosy and idealistic view of libraries and especially librarians. The truth is, academic libraries are ex…

Agreed.

The way the profession presents itself and the way librarians actually act are very at odds.

Academic librarians are in full on social justice mode, to the point where I wouldn't be comfortable writing the paper I wrote in 2015 on the ethics of archival neutrality today because my rejection of post-modernism archival theory just wouldn't be acceptable now. I've also been chased out of a library discussion group because in discussing the lack of POC who get MLISes, I mentioned we should also check the socio-economic status of the white students to determine if it was racism or classism keeping POC out of the programs (since many groups of POC are more likely to be poor, if poor people don't get MLISes, then yeah, you'll see fewer POC). This was unacceptable.

The public libraries are full of people with, honestly, a white savior complex who are convinced it's their job to let the poor, belabored proles have access to some crumbs of (properly selected) educational material or to act as heroes on behalf of the marginalized. You can find this out really quickly if you ask questions like, "What if someone needed INSERT BAD BOOK because they're studying the rhetoric of evil?" The idea that their public patrons might have equal (or even superior) intellectual needs to their own is completely anathema to them.

The profession is very credentialist and elitist. Very off-putting, personally, as someone from a complicated class background. I'd also use a throwaway, but I got MS as I finished my MLIS and so I'm useless to the profession and don't care.

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

#133

Post by ModernMech »

zozbot234 wrote: post #112
ModernMech wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not the appropriate place for such a discussion Why? We want to hire faculty who have experience managing a diverse classroom. We want a diverse classroom because our student body is diverse. Our student body is diverse because our applicants are diverse. Diversity is part of this whole thing, and experience as faculty teaching diverse classrooms tells us that it's not something that can be treated as an afterthoug…

> Even just discussing the problems is more than enough to get you past any cutoff or filter I've encountered. Even assuming that this were true, the clear implication is merely that the scoring rubric for that part of the application is being disregarded, since it very explicitly says otherwise. The linked blog post series actually discusses the issue at length, so I'm not going to repeat what it says. Regardless, h…

You're still not pointing out how this rubric is demanding ideological conformity. The wording of the rubric and the context in which it's presented have explicit language about how this is not in fact demanding ideological conformity. It's presented as a "sample", a "template", a "guide", "illustrative", and "recommended". It implores faculty search committees to tailor the rubric to the norms particulars of the academic discipline. Nowhere is it stated that this mandated and required.

I think one of the main issues here is that you are looking at the DEI component of the hiring process through the lens of the DEI office, which is not necessarily the view of the faculty search committee, who are the actual gatekeepers in the process.

But even if we consider the rubric as presented, I still fail to see where it's demanding ideological conformity. The rubric states it is evaluating:

  knowledge and understanding (section 1), track record of activities to date (section 2), and plans for contributing at Berkeley (section 3).
- For Section 1, requiring knowledge of a topic is not the same as requiring ideological conformity to a topic. I think we can all agree on that.

- Section 2 asks about a track record of activities. This is just asking about a candidate's service record, and an appropriate response here would be to talk about any community service experience one has.

- Section 3 asks about future plans. This is an opportunity for a candidate to talk about plans for incorporating community service and outreach with their research and teaching, which is usually a prerequisite to getting funding from top government funding agencies. A detailed service plan is an important part of any faculty candidate's application package, and the DEI letter is a great place to include it.

I don't see how any of that is onerous or demanding of ideological purity and conformity. It seems rather reasonable to me.

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

#134

Post by ModernMech »

oefrha wrote: post #89
ModernMech wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 esp…

As a non-white male person who successfully navigated highly diverse top U.S. institutions as an international student without all the DEI bullshit a while back, I’d rather work with faculty and staff who don’t cater to my ethnicity, gender or whatever irrelevant traits, thanks.

> without all the DEI bullshit a while back, I’d rather work with faculty and staff who don’t cater to my ethnicity, gender or whatever irrelevant traits,

Let me give you an example of where one example where it might feel like bullshit and be perceived to be irrelevant to you, but makes a big deal when it comes to individual students in my classroom.

On the issue of pronouns, many people feel like it's a bullshit thing they don't want to deal with. They view the inclusion of pronouns in a signature as a waste of time. I've been told as much. It's fine to have this position in the abstract, but it comes with costs in contexts that confront the reality that transgendered students exist.

Consider the fact that every semester, I will have at least 1-2 transgendered students in my classroom. For 99% of the students there, their pronouns are conventionally obvious. However, some students might be registered as "Christopher" yet they may present as conventionally female, and go by "Chris".

A good DEI statement might talk about an experience one has with this kind of situation. It's a situation that happens commonly for educators. How did they handle this situation? How did the students respond? What did the applicant learn? Pretty much the only wrong answer here is to dismiss this as a bullshit nonissue that is irrelevant. Maybe it's irrelevant to you in your personal life, but it's not irrelevant to everyone, and in fact is quite relevant to the professional performance of a faculty member.

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

#135

Post by zozbot234 »

ModernMech wrote: post #133
zozbot234 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even just discussing the problems is more than enough to get you past any cutoff or filter I've encountered. Even assuming that this were true, the clear implication is merely that the scoring rubric for that part of the application is being disregarded, since it very explicitly says otherwise. The linked blog post series actually discusses the issue at length, so I'm not going to repeat what it says. Regardless, h…

You're still not pointing out how this rubric is demanding ideological conformity. The wording of the rubric and the context in which it's presented have explicit language about how this is not in fact demanding ideological conformity. It's presented as a "sample", a "template", a "guide", "illustrative", and "recommended". It implores faculty search committees to tailor the rubric to the norms particulars of the aca…

> I think we can all agree on that

The OP (viz. economist John H. Cochrane) clearly disagrees, so I can only point to his blog post series. The "understanding" requirement especially can be twisted to argue that disagreeing with the common, ideologically slanted outlook of DEI offices equates to a lack of "understanding". Section 2 and 3 have similar issues, where the requirement for a "track record" and future "plans" could be construed to imply that "service" to an increasingly expansive DEI administrative bureaucracy must henceforth be part of one's duties as faculty.

You're effectively saying that everything is OK so long as faculty, and not the DEI offices that, by all indications, actually drafted these scoring rubrics, are ultimately in control of the process. There's likely quite a bit of truth to what you're saying, but this nonetheless strikes me as a rather weak argument.

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

#136

Post by throwaway8174 »

Mezzie wrote: post #132
throwaway8174 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t mean this disrespectfully, but this is completely wrong and comically naïve. It is not representative of academic libraries at elite US universities. I work at an academic library at an Ivy League school, and am familiar enough with our peer institutions to provide some context. What you describe is a very rosy and idealistic view of libraries and especially librarians. The truth is, academic libraries are ex…

Agreed. The way the profession presents itself and the way librarians actually act are very at odds. Academic librarians are in full on social justice mode, to the point where I wouldn't be comfortable writing the paper I wrote in 2015 on the ethics of archival neutrality today because my rejection of post-modernism archival theory just wouldn't be acceptable now. I've also been chased out of a library discussion gro…

Agreed. I admire your candor and wish I could speak as freely as you, but like you said, this field is an ideological minefield where publicly voicing a dissenting opinion can cost you your job, or at the very least your social credibility.

The most difficult part is watching people you know and respect say things that you know they don’t believe to appease a group of people who are salivating for any opportunity to absolutely destroy them if they slip up.

You’re right about the class dynamics as well. I have coworkers who are descendants of multi-millionaire families yet have a palpable contempt for the working class while simultaneously claiming to speak in its interests.

It’s all rather dispiriting and frustrating.

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

#137

Post by BeFlatXIII »

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…

Catch-alls are necessary so that clever rules lawyers can get dunked on. Without them, someone will find a loophole and then proceed to abuse it to be disruptive.

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

#138

Post by AnimalMuppet »

AlanYx wrote: post #119
hnaccy wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does he resolve the paradox? He says you should claim the right to suppress the intolerant and that preaching intolerance is outside the law.

Popper essentially takes the same position as Thomas Jefferson. Popper says: "I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise." Emphasis on the unwise -- for some unknown reason, there's this idea floating around that Popper thought…

More briefly: When the intolerant reach for a gun, the tolerant don't have to tolerate that. Not when the intolerant speak - when they proceed past speech into violence. Then the tolerant don't have to tolerate it (and, in fact, kind of have to not tolerate it.)

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

#139

Post by AnimalMuppet »

ComradePhil wrote: post #109
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…

The whole idea of "free speech" is misleading and should be abolished. There is no such thing in practice. No government wants information that is damaging, whether the information is true or not, to be leaked out to the enemy, external or internal. Same applies to every organization. They will create whatever structures/laws to make sure that they limit this. They should be expected to. There may be some value in te…

See, that's exactly why we need a right to free speech. The government doesn't like it. The next government won't, either. So we need the principle that the government cannot stop speech, and we need people to rigorously police that right, because the government will always try to encroach on it.

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

#140

Post by BeFlatXIII »

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.

Lying about one's identity is a social necessity. It's when people take the claims of others at face value to societal delusions can take hold from one bad actor.
Post reply on HN