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

591–600 of 906 posts

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

#591

Post by naasking »

janef0421 wrote: post #558
curioushacking wrote: post #465

My understand for how we measure systemic racism issues seems to typically be predicated on assumed outcomes. For example that if the distribution of employees race does not match the general population then there must be a systemic cause for this. What I don’t understand is why that is assumed true. If we want to encourage many different cultures to live together wouldn’t it naturally make sense that different cultu…

It's not unreasonable to think that cultural preferences might influence job roles in academia, but in a country with a strong and poorly addressed history of racism, the assumption should be that it results from discrimination. Cultural factor should only be considered if there is strong evidence for them, otherwise they would be used as a rhetorical justification for maintaining discriminatory systems.

Or you could just not assume any specific cause and actually study the problem, otherwise you leave such policies open to perfectly justified attacks, to say nothing of the fact that you're potentially persecuting a whole class of innocent people.

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

#592

Post by henriquez »

vlark wrote: post #589

He should have tested the statement requirement policy before resigning. All he had to do was provide a statement that his research does not advance SPSP's equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals but that it is important to the field on its own. Then he would have a stronger case to point out the irony of the policy itself being discriminatory. Right now, he just comes across as a whiner.

No, it’s a fucking stupid requirement. The best way to not lose a game is not to play.

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

#593

Post by majormajor »

curioushacking wrote: post #465

My understand for how we measure systemic racism issues seems to typically be predicated on assumed outcomes. For example that if the distribution of employees race does not match the general population then there must be a systemic cause for this. What I don’t understand is why that is assumed true. If we want to encourage many different cultures to live together wouldn’t it naturally make sense that different cultu…

In the United States coming from a position of "maybe there is or isn't an effect from racism" is simply naive. A quick glance at history will show you that many differences in both outcomes AND culture have deep-seated intentionally racist historical sources (in different ways for different races).

How do you fight intentional racism, with a healthy dose of residual lasting generational effects from past racism, with passivity?

It's like creating a game with rules, but having no penalty for breaking them for the first half of the game, and then saying it's just the fault of the loser if someone cheats to beat them.

Or saying "I can't tell for sure if it's below freezing, my thermometer has an error bar of +/- ten degrees" and ignoring a bunch of freezing water around you.

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

#594

Post by LatteLazy »

I broadly agree with the wider point he is making. And he is free to leave any association he wants. But isn't Dr Haidt jumping the gun? Surely a valid statement would be "this research is just research, it does advance "equality" or fight racism". Wouldn't such a statement on good quality research be much more effective to communicate the core point?

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

#595

Post by mhuffman »

throwbacktictac wrote: post #581
mhuffman wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>despite the vast amount of empirical data Well, your examples seem pretty cherry-picked and not necessarily generally empirical (ie. lots of embedded subjectivity). Now your first link is more interesting and is usually the one that everyone pulls out as "absolute proof" that discrimination is live and well in modern hiring against Black people. I wonder, though, how much of this is in the bias of the experimenters…

I'm genuinely missing your point. It sou d like you're insinuating that the lack of a "normal" name is a good reason to disqualify someone from a job opportunity. That possibly implies that the resume screen uses someone's name as a discriminating factor and I don't think that it should be.

>I'm genuinely missing your point

Yes, you are missing my point. I am not insinuating anything, I am stating directly that some people might be biased against unusual (to them) names. Names that are difficult to say, spell, etc. depending on the language, or just out-right stereotypical prejudice with a name (which is what these studies just assume). I am not saying that any of this is ok, people rarely get to pick their names. What I am saying is that it might not all be based on the color of people's skin.

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

#596

Post by ZeroGravitas »

gadflyinyoureye wrote: post #551
specialist wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a result, observers were deprived of a chance to hear opposing speakers' arguments. In 1963, was there anyone in America left unaware of George Wallace's project to preserve white supremacy? Why is a private institution obligated to signal boost a national leader who openly defies the law?

This specific institution claimed to have high academic credentials. One of the historical bonifides was the ability to hear an opposing view. It was thought that one could then argue back. Yale bouncing his presentation showed that they weren’t living up to their claimed standards.

Yale in the 1960s still had a secret Jewish Quota to limit the number of Jewish students they would enrol, as they had done for decades.

I'm not sure them inviting popular racists to speak against human rights is really a good look for them in that situation, nor an instant solution to centuries of systemic racism in America at that time, even if they made some really good points in the debate.

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

#597

Post by naasking »

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…

> 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

If they were invited to speak then they already have an audience. Censoring them is working against the cause of fighting their ideas.

Protest or debate them if you consider their views reprehensible.

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

#598

Post by meowtimemania »

brightball wrote: post #572

He’s right to do so. Statements that your research must be presented with a filter based on how it will advance political goals calls into question the integrity of all research. When people don’t “trust the science” this will be why. But further, I’d never seen the statement from antiracist before…wow. The idea that the only cure for discrimination is discrimination is akin to saying the only cure for violence is vi…

I always thought anti-racist meant “this will stop with me.” My understanding was that anti-racism meant, if you hear/see something racist, take a part in ending it. I think you can be anti-racist, and walk the fine line of being forgiving of unintentional missteps, while also helping people realize why what they did was wrong.

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

#599

Post by DoingIsLearning »

brightball wrote: post #572

He’s right to do so. Statements that your research must be presented with a filter based on how it will advance political goals calls into question the integrity of all research. When people don’t “trust the science” this will be why. But further, I’d never seen the statement from antiracist before…wow. The idea that the only cure for discrimination is discrimination is akin to saying the only cure for violence is vi…

> The cure for discrimination is forgiveness.

Too handwavy, the cure for discrimination is at the very minimum adequate public funding for primary and secondary education _everywhere_ (with adequate student to teacher ratios _everywhere_).

Although the discussion is at NYU this problem is not limited to the US. The issue with this and other societal problems is that state governance is operated in 4 year cycles (much like corporations now are restrained by the next quarter). Public education is something you invest in now to see a benefit of 25 years down the road. Until we collectively solve the incentives around long term policy all other aspects of addressing discrimination fall short.

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

#600

Post by naasking »

hackerlight wrote: post #360
pessimizer wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Quoted post unavailable.

> Sunlight isn't the best disinfectant. Censorship is. Ideas, especially those that stoke resentments, are like viruses

Prove it.

Post reply on HN