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

Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 906 posts

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#61

Post by mpweiher »

kenjackson wrote: post #48
HyperSane wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the SPSP requirement went a step further, dropping "diversity" in favor of "anti-racism," a term frequently associated with Boston University's Ibram X. Kendi, author of How to Be an Antiracist and other works. Among the book's passages is a widely shared one highlighted by Haidt: "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discriminati…

In this thread I’ve noticed people have jumped from these principles, which do seem true to very specific statements about race that don’t seem true. Interesting.

Nope. People rightly reject these "principles" as incorrect and both morally and pragmatically reprehensible.

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#62

Post by zozbot234 »

epgui wrote: post #4

Quoted post unavailable.

Because what often passes for equity/diversity/inclusion in these contexts is the farthest thing from what would be truly equitable or inclusive. True diversity is not fostered by EDI goals, these are purely about enforcing conformity. And dangerous conformity at that - many people ITT have pointed out that "anti-racist" has pretty much become code for anti-Asian.

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#63

Post by politelemon »

rnk wrote: post #3
armagon wrote: post #2

I applaud Mr. Haidt for standing up for what he believes in.

Quoted post unavailable.

> he can't sign a statement that he is anti-racist, and supports diversity and inclusion?

The strange part to me in comments similar to yours is how you have chosen to interpret his actions and completely ignore his explanation or the context around it.

I will not be surprised if this sort of incendiary kneejerk where you deliberately misrepresent a person is becoming pervasive, and causing people to leave.

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#64

Post by darthrupert »

_8j50 wrote: post #7
rnk wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

No that's bullshit. If you ask me to say "I hate hitler and bin laden" for no reason I would have a similar reaction as well. How can people put up with this filth? It repulses and disgusts me so much when kindness, compassion and even justice are absorbed by this bureaucratic ideological machine where people say and do things out if insincerity, just as lip service to fall in line politically. How do people feel com…

Or more akin to this case, you would need to explain how your research contributes to hating Hitler.

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#66

Post by busterarm »

zozbot234 wrote: post #62
epgui wrote: post #4

Quoted post unavailable.

Because what often passes for equity/diversity/inclusion in these contexts is the farthest thing from what would be truly equitable or inclusive. True diversity is not fostered by EDI goals, these are purely about enforcing conformity. And dangerous conformity at that - many people ITT have pointed out that "anti-racist" has pretty much become code for anti-Asian.

As a hiring manager, DEI efforts have made hiring a lot more challening.

For my team we pretty much can only hire experienced, senior candidates with specialized skillsets. We do hire and train up juniors from time to time when our team gets big enough and has the time to mentor effectively. Anyway, women and minority candidates do apply (and get hired) for our positions but at much lower percentages.

To meet DEI goals though, our internal recruiters shove completely inexperienced/unqualified candidates into our pipeline and then put internal pressure on us to hire their candidate (one time there was a complaint from HR to a few exceutives claiming we were sabotaging their DEI efforts...the executives had to explain to the HR team how difficult and specialized the job that we do is and how important it is for us to have a pipeline of the best candidates...) even though they can't succeed in the role at that experience level.

They've even gone so far as to modify resumes of people we interview to inflate the experience level and immediately get caught out by the candidate who tells us that isn't the resume they submitted...and these are our _internal_ recruiters fucking with us like this. They even pushed through a candidate once who didn't speak any of the same languages as anyone else on our team. We only found out at the in-person interview stage...

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#67

Post by Dalewyn »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #44
tomp wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t believe the propaganda. “Anti-racism” is actually about racism against Asians. “Equity” is actually about lowering the standards and destroying meritocracy. “Inclusion” is actually about excluding people that have different political or moral opinions (e.g. that don’t want to be racist against Asians or that support meritocracy).

Quoted post unavailable.

By their very nature, "diversity" and "inclusion" are racist because it must consider someone's race. By arguing for "diversity" and "inclusion" we are mandating we judge people for what they are, rather than who they are; judge them by the color of their skin rather than the quality of their character.

"Anti-racism", which in American academia usually comes about in the form of blacks and latinos receiving preferential treatment at the cost of whites and asians, is indeed racism.

Racism is not acceptable, no matter how benevolent the intent or goal.

And while we're here, since it's part of the bigger, main discussion anyway:

"Equity" is the anti-thesis of equality, because "equity" mandates that all individuals arrive (and stay!) at the same place in life no matter who they are. It throws out individual ambitions and efforts towards obtaining a better silver plate in lieu of society handing everyone the same steel plate.

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#68

Post by kenjackson »

busterarm wrote: post #60
kenjackson wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your characterization of poor treatment seems like a leap. I guess the question for you is: if I discriminate against you in the post in such a way it creates inequity, but never attempt to correct it but merely say from this point forward no one can discriminate — is everyone being treated fairly?

You say it's a leap but then you present an argument where only way to achieve "fairness" is to engage in discrimination the other way. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE BOOK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CALLS FOR! Life isn't and will never be fair. The fairness you seem to be seeking is "eye for an eye". You know what does make life fair though? We're all headed for worms and dirt eventually. None of us escape that. That's how you s…

Your rationale for the lack of attempting to right past wrongs is we all die? Is that how you view the Justice system? I assume you see no need for detectives.

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#69

Post by JumpCrisscross »

rnk wrote: post #3
armagon wrote: post #2

I applaud Mr. Haidt for standing up for what he believes in.

Quoted post unavailable.

Haidt was required to endorse an ideology stating “the only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination…only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.” We can debate the merits of that premise. Simpler is concluding it’s contentiousness. Academia exists to resolve contention; forcing an outcome by dictat is dishonest.

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#70

Post by kenjackson »

mpweiher wrote: post #61
kenjackson wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this thread I’ve noticed people have jumped from these principles, which do seem true to very specific statements about race that don’t seem true. Interesting.

Nope. People rightly reject these "principles" as incorrect and both morally and pragmatically reprehensible.

How is the principle incorrect? It’s a truth like evolution. You can’t fix past discrimination without future discrimination, in most cases. That is something you can model quite nicely mathematically.

The question is just if it is reprehensible to do so. Or if there are times when it is more or less reprehensible.

Post reply on HN