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

301–310 of 906 posts

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

#301

Post by _8j50 »

darthrupert wrote: post #64
_8j50 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly.

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

#302

Post by nimonian »

akkartik wrote: post #280
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.

"most academic work has nothing to do with diversity, so these mandatory statements force many academics to betray their quasi-fiduciary duty to the truth by spinning, twisting, or otherwise inventing some tenuous connection to diversity."

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

#303

Post by _8j50 »

kenjackson wrote: post #25
_8j50 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How do you feel about standing for the national anthem? Does that repulse you too?

Thanks for reminding me, yes it does. I use to stand but refuse to say or do anything when I was in school. I didn't get in trouble but teachers were visibly upset and would be mean afterwards.

I love america and will defend her if we ever get attacked for the record.

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

#304

Post by oceanplexian »

imgabe wrote: post #47
kenjackson wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that much of the US felt that way about Kaepernick.

Yes, you might get some criticism for it, just like Haidt is. A private organization like the NFL or the SPSS might not let you be a member if you don’t follow their rules. That’s within the bounds of free speech. We only have freedoms by continually asserting them and sometimes sacrificing some social capital to use them.

Yes and no, a private organization can’t deny someone membership if a prospective member refused to make an oath to the effect of “I swear to discriminate against Asians”. So their freedom of speech ends where it infringes on the civil rights of others. Arguably, some DEI statements could come close to crossing that line.

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

#305

Post by yummypaint »

bluejekyll wrote: post #221
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…

Quoted post unavailable.

Once one realizes that tolerance follows the model of a peace treaty rather than a moral precept, these apparent dilemmas resolve themselves. Treaties only protect parties who abide by their terms. There is no contradiction in being intolerant of intolerance.

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

#306

Post by 0x445442 »

mpweiher wrote: post #158
tomp wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's actually even worse. It is enough for research to not actively promote "social justice" (which is of course anything but social or just) to get the boot. So everything must be politicised. "How does your new caching algorithm promote social justice?". (If the same criteria were applied in CS).

> If the same criteria were applied in CS

And this will be here before you know it unless more people start calling bullshit.

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

#307

Post by socialismisok »

mlyle wrote: post #293
socialismisok wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a quote from Haidt, speaking from his memory of the policy. That's not the policy. He's hardly a neutral point of view.

https://spsp.org/events/demonstrating-our-commitment-anti-ra... "Evaluate the extent to which the submission advances SPSP's goal of promoting equity, inclusion and anti-racism. To do so, please consider the equity statement as well as the submission as a whole. Submissions advancing equity, inclusion, and anti-racist goals may include (but are not limited to): * Diverse research participants (e.g., understudied or u…

I... This seems pretty different than what Haidt is painting it as. This is saying sociology research should communicate if it engaged with communities that haven't been a part of this sort of research in the past.

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

#308

Post by yakshaving_jgt »

socialismisok wrote: post #298
tomohawk wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." - Kendi Kendi is a key promoter of "anti-racism", which is described in the above quote. Many institutions are signing on to this agenda, which requires people to view everything through this ideological (social j…

Let's apply this to a material, concrete condition that exists in our world. We can all hopefully agree that: A) Redlining existed B) Redlining was explicitly racist C) Redlining has impacts that are still felt today Let's use an antiracist lens to talk about it and compare to a modern, liberal "just don't be racist" lens. The standard liberal response is, "well, redlining is over, and we know now not to do that. So,…

The question of course is then at what point do reparations end?

My heritage is Polish. How much do the Germans owe me?

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

#309

Post by pessimizer »

wcerfgba wrote: post #276
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 abou…

> 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.

The only way that this works is to exert total control of the content of all communications.

Otherwise, as in the real world until now, people find each other and network. You're talking about destroying freedom of association and expression in order to root out reprehensible people with the wrong values who could speak to people who want to listen to them.

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

#310

Post by 0x445442 »

sgc wrote: post #204
mpweiher wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the de facto the purpose of a university is the furtherance of the intellectuals Yes, and unavoidably so. That is why it is society's task to structure the universities in such a fashion that those goals align with society's goals.

Ah yes, the always correct "society" should be heavy handed, to counter unnecessary heavy-handed university administration. That is just shifting the tyranny of the majority from an internal to a less qualified external source. Universities' end should be pursuit of the truth, not society's "goals". If society must intervene, it should be to uphold the pursuit of truth, not its own goals. That is a tall task, but let…

I don’t think society is opposed to higher learning. I think they’re opposed to scientism.
Post reply on HN