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

271–280 of 906 posts

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

#271

Post by workingon »

whythre wrote: post #250
bluejekyll wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no nuance in this debate. Roger made those statements in 1982. The only access to broad public announcement was via TV, controlled by private companies for the most part. Today platforms have the same choices about what to air or not. Free Speech is also about not forcing people to say things they do not want, it is also about not forcing platforms to broadcast lies. These are not the same thing.

That is a lot of fancy words in favor of suppression.

what a world where someone thinks getting banned from facebook is oppression

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

#272

Post by elefanten »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #237
rhaksw wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what I wrote. I said he was already a popular figure whose views should be publicly refuted. The fact that he later became a presidential contender isn't Yale's fault, but rather the unfortunate result of a lack of willingness to let the bad ideas see themselves out the door. > "Haters in the end bury themselves if you let them talk" - Jonathan Rauch https://youtu.be/E0T9XSG73kY?t=3083

He was challenged by most, but not all, newspapers. It clearly didn't work as we're still dealing with the same BS 60 years later. But sure, the real problem is Psychologists trying to adress systematic racism in their field. That's worth resigning about. Because they're trying to hide the truth, but also we should let them speak, in our academic Psychological publications, because it's obvious nonsense.

Just want to point out that you became unilaterally unhinged over the course of this exchange while. the other commenter wrote calmly.

Also, how do you propose to convince people of this clearly-objective “truth” that you know, if you silence them from questioning and debating it? Do you think that’s ever worked?

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

#273

Post by OrvalWintermute »

tomp wrote: post #142
yathaid wrote: post #112

"Now that many university presidents have agreed to implement many of the demands, I believe that the conflict between truth and social justice is likely to become unmanageable." Can someone ELI5 what is this conflict between truth and social justice Haidt refers to?

Social justice advocates oppose publishing academic research that opposes their (“social justice”) goals. It’s Galileo all over again.

pledge allegiance to the Geocentric astronomical worldview if you want to get credentialed, study, apply for tenure/a job, etc.

This is a funny anachronism and the very opposite of science.

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

#274

Post by edmcnulty101 »

socialismisok wrote: post #264

The article doesn't quote or link to the policy in question, seems difficult to get a neutral point of view without actually reading the changes to the policy. Edit: the link was in the sixth paragraph, but it's much less damning than the article frames it.

This is the only correct post here.

Without both sides of the story it's impossible to deem the truth.

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

#275

Post by oceanplexian »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #254
zmgsabst wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> I personally think it’s disgusting Democrats are trying to revive institutional racism — but they’ve been doing that for 150 years, so I’m not surprised. How so? Affirmative action?

The test is pretty simple.

Any ideology that discriminates against one race or ethnic group vs. any other is racist. Trying to make elaborate arguments as to why some types of discrimination are acceptable because historical or societal reason X or Y is a form of rationalization.

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

#276

Post by wcerfgba »

rhaksw wrote: post #173

Free Speech for Me--But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other (1992) [1] is a good read on how we got to a point where our ability to communicate across ideologies appears to be broken in many ways. For example, in 1963 Yale disinvited George Wallace, who was popular in the deep south, as a speaker. As a result, observers were deprived of a chance to hear opposing speakers' argu…

> Censorship is all these characters need to gain new followers.

No, they also need a platform to make people aware of their existence, their views, and to recast their censorship to be in their favour. The whole point of no-platforming individuals is to make a statement that their views are seen as reprehensible and to stop them from being able to air those views to an audience.

Not all ideological disputes are about rational argumentation, many are based in a fundamental misalignment of values. Those value-based disputes cannot be resolved by open and civil discourse alone, and we know that racists have a tendency to abuse such spaces through techniques such as emotional rhetoric and Gish galloping.

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

#277

Post by throwaway2037 »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #195
djohnston wrote: post #191

> because of a newly adopted requirement that everybody presenting research at the group's conferences explain how their submission advances "equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals." Wow and I thought psychology was a pseudo-science before!

"Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre%27s_law

    Sayre's law states, in a formulation quoted by Charles Philip Issawi: "In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake." By way of corollary, it adds: "That is why academic politics are so bitter."

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

#278

Post by edmcnulty101 »

happyopossum wrote: post #270
socialismisok wrote: post #264

The article doesn't quote or link to the policy in question, seems difficult to get a neutral point of view without actually reading the changes to the policy. Edit: the link was in the sixth paragraph, but it's much less damning than the article frames it.

The article clearly says this: “In order to present research at the conference, all social psychologists are now required to submit a statement explaining 'whether and how this submission advances the equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals of SPSP.’”

What are the consequences though?? Can they just submit a statement that says it doesn't? It's missing a lot of context.

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

#279

Post by Stupulous »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #209
collegeburner wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

does it rly change anything? like, take sports. asians have some structural advantages (endomorphism and limb to body ratio) for lifting, west africans at mnay explosive/power sports (fast twitch muscle concentration, arms/legs to body), east africans at long-distance running etc. (lighter structure, efficient muscles over long term), whites at swimming (shoulder structure & torso length). should we stop large swathe…

What's that research going to be used for? Will it become of the basis of policy that says 'only asians are allowed to enter the power lifting club', 'only east africans on the running team', 'only white land owning men are allowed to vote'.

Setting aside the question of whether the truth should be suppressed because of consequences, this kind of research could very easily be beneficial.

Suppose you find out that the green people from East Arbitria are less productive. The immediate effect is that an innocent objective employer who being tried for discrimination or hated by a community no longer has to suffer- the cruelty of the universe is no longer being made anyone's fault. The secondary effect is that we now have grounds to investigate why Arbitrarians have that disadvantage. Maybe green people have a harder time metabolizing a nutrient; a non-issue with the diet/climate/lifestyle of Arbitria. An update to health recommendations later and millions of people's lives are improved.

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

#280

Post by akkartik »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #189

It’s an insightful critique that a mandated statement does force many academics to lie. This is by grasping at straws trying to find a relationship between their decades-long research thrust and a shiny new requirement popular among the administrative class that is now in charge.

Where have you encountered this critique? I didn't find it in the article.
Post reply on HN