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

401–410 of 906 posts

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

#401

Post by paulryanrogers »

oceanplexian wrote: post #275
paulryanrogers wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Could it be affirmative action is sometimes rational?

After decades of apartheid would you prefer the South African government stop all consideration of race across the board, despite the profits of inequity having already been partitioned?

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

#402

Post by inglor_cz »

hackerlight wrote: post #385
shellami wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All we need to do to end piracy or pornography is "no-platform" it, right? Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Rational or not, it's better for bad ideas (ignoring the even more pernicious question of who decides which ideas are "bad") to be examined than have them fester in dark corners.

[flagged]

If people are so irrational that they can't be trusted with judging information, so will be the gatekeepers that will wield the weapons of censorship.

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

#403

Post by mlyle »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #366
mlyle wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt it's SPSP's intention to completely abandon all non-diversity related research. OTOH, it may get a little harder to publish research where your study population / sample is all-white-wealthy-undergrads.

I guess I'm not sure why you doubt that. The standards are pretty clear that "does not advance SPSP's goal of promoting equity, inclusion, and anti-racism" is a failing grade on the DEI section, and that anti-racism in particular is not merely a thing the conference does but a core component of their identity. I'm sure if you sat down with them, they wouldn't frame it as abandoning anything; they would tell you that…

> The standards are pretty clear that "does not advance SPSP's goal of promoting equity, inclusion, and anti-racism" is a failing grade on the DEI section

Please cite how it is a "failing grade" versus not receiving the bonus for it. The bottom score is "not applicable", not "not satisfactory" like it is in other areas.

Reviewers did not receive the statements. The assessment of the statement was only a small input into the committee making final decisions primarily based upon reviewer feedback.

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

#404

Post by mlyle »

shellami wrote: post #396
fluidcruft wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah it looks like it's just an opportunity for "unusual" datasets and research by the "outsiders" to possibly break through academia's typical cronyism. Edit: it's actually sort of hilarious that Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory can't come up with any diversity angle. Is it foundational or not? It's got the smell of someone selling a Grand Unified Theory being annoyed that they're asked to check off whether and how…

Is DEI gravity? Imagine giving papers that described how they advanced Christendom priority. Ironically, "saluting" DEI in academic papers has the opposite of the ostensibly intended effect. Political alignment of professors favors the left by 9 to 1. If anything, favoring DEI will cement "academia's typical cronyism".

Some things need correction. Using samples composed of overwhelmingly white university students in social research is hilariously and obviously flawed. In that sense, lacking inclusion is like ignoring gravity.

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

#405

Post by hackerlight »

inglor_cz wrote: post #402
hackerlight wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

If people are so irrational that they can't be trusted with judging information, so will be the gatekeepers that will wield the weapons of censorship.

I was talking about whether censorship is effective at preventing the spread of specific ideas.

You're talking about whether censorship is a good idea.

Separate discussion.

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

#406

Post by lkrubner »

logifail wrote: post #369
pas wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a problem if someone with a big audience advocates for and does not use rational arguments, as long as that thing is relatively harmless. (Let's say Bono advocates for peace, or a local group wants a new playground because it would warm their hearts. Or a group wants lower taxes, or a different group wants to tax the rich more. Even this last one, while advocates discrimination, it's not against a disadvanta…

> It's not a problem if someone with a big audience advocates for and does not use rational arguments, as long as that thing is relatively harmless. (Let's say Bono advocates for peace [..] Q: Who gets to define "relatively harmless"? "Advocating for peace" sounds pretty harmless, yet if you dare to mention any specifics - at least this year - it seems supporting it is deemed anything but harmless. Before my time, bu…

> Q: Who gets to define "relatively harmless"?

Each of us defines this for ourselves, using our own moral compass.

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

#407

Post by throwawaymaths »

These policies may even negatively impact faculty who broadly agree with their institution's DEI values but disagree on some of the specifics

This is a money quote, and I think it's spot on. I don't think I'm projecting to say many people are personally committed to DEI but hate hate hate DEI initiatives (doubly so when they become cringey).

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

#408

Post by lkrubner »

pessimizer wrote: post #309
wcerfgba wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Otherwi…

> You're talking about destroying freedom of association and expression in order to root out reprehensible people with the wrong values

We all have a strong moral obligation to root out "reprehensible people with the wrong values." If you think otherwise then you don't understand what the word "reprehensible" means.

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

#409

Post by andrew_ »

ianai wrote: post #335
1MachineElf wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>When one group wants to eliminate open society and civility, how is it possible to have an open and civil debate with them? In the US, there is not one group trying to do that, but a multitude of groups, some who are in power and some who are not, most of whom deny that they are trying to do what you charge them with.

Quoted post unavailable.

One group also set alight many businesses, destroyed property, incited violence, and destroyed the lives of countless individuals in the last two years. The point remains: there are a multitude of groups. Focusing on a single one only shows a blatant and ignorant bias.

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

#410

Post by HyperSane »

kenjackson wrote: post #70
mpweiher wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Racism is symmetric/reciprocal. If it is wrong for group A to discriminate against group B, then it is ALSO wrong for group B to discriminate against group A.
Post reply on HN