Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society • Hacker News Board

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

#731

Post by qu4z-2 » Mon, Oct 03, 2022, 12:50 AM UTC

orf wrote: post #454

nilespotter wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Opportunities and rights on the one hand, outcomes on the other. e.g. - Equality: We are both free to operate in an open market to secure the best outcomes for ourselves - Equity: You made $1000, I made $100, we both get $550 Wokes will bend over backwards to paint equality as an impossible project, claiming that it is doomed because of historical white supremacy, generational oppression, moon phases, etc. We're aske…

There’s a lot of nonsense to unpack in that comment. Equity is not “literally communism”, it’s the pretty simple understanding that if you always start 40 meters ahead of someone in a 100 meter race, you’re likely to always finish first and they won’t have a chance. So we put more (and therefore unequal) resources into helping the competitor who’s having to run 40 more meters than you.

> So we put more (and therefore unequal) resources into helping the competitor who’s having to run 40 more meters than you.

So, to each according to their needs, and from each according to their ability, more or less?

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

#732

Post by specialist » Mon, Oct 03, 2022, 12:54 AM UTC

rhaksw wrote: post #723

specialist wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whoops. I owe you an apology. I blindly accepted your claim that Wallace was not permitted to speak at Yale. That's not true. I regret not being more skeptical. I am fail. Please accept my most humble apology. TLDR: Yale Political Union invites Wallace. President Kingman Brewster Jr blocks. Much drama. Including local black leaders and civil rights activists, who defended Wallace's appearance per principles of free s…

> I owe you an apology. For what? I don't think we conversed yet in this thread. > I blindly accepted your claim that Wallace was not permitted to speak at Yale. That's not true. I can see that the context changed the meaning for you. Good thing I cited the source. For me, my original comment still rings true as a summary. Wallace was disinvited and ultimately did not speak at Yale. There are a few errors in your TLD…

> Kingman was provost at the time, not president...

Oops. I initially wrote "Provost" and then changed it. I gotta learn to trust my gut more.

I stand by the rest of my reply.

> These days, it is common for students to shout down undesired speakers...

And speakers show up to be shouted down. I think all the clapping and pwnage is lame.

But what do I know?

Remember when Bernie got shouted down in Seattle? As a Bernie fan, I was confused. Why would those kids mess with the candidate closest to their own views?

I actually know one of the persons who climbed onto the stage. Afterwards, I asked the Gen Z and Y people I know, and that person on stage, about the incident.

A kid name Xander, who I respected very much, said something very interesting. Paraphrasing: "All politicians should be challenged." So he agreed with the action, despite being a Bernie fan.

I can't speak to what's happening in higher ed. And I really don't, truly don't care. All that drama is just performance art.

But clearly something has changed. Direct action and confrontation are the norms again. For better or worse.

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

#733

Post by dillondoyle » Mon, Oct 03, 2022, 1:04 AM UTC

zdragnar wrote: post #707

dillondoyle wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That freedom of public accommodation is under attack. If it even existed in the first place; there are plenty of laws that expressly allow discrimination in deference to 'religious beliefs.' Courts, & the Supreme Court in particular, are giving far more weight to 'christian freedom' at the expense of the rest of us. Cases include recent PrEP ruling, insane football prayer ruling that willfully ignored facts, bathroom…

Religious (non) belief is itself a protected class. If it were not, mosques would be legally compelled to hire rabbis and churches would have to consider hiring druids for services. Where the line ought to be drawn is nowhere near as obvious as you seem to think it should be.

I'm referencing the many other classes that are perfectly legal to discriminate against. and the allowable discrimination is becoming broader.

But this disagreement highlights this major problem the US faces.

We live in two increasingly separate realities with different 'facts', where obvious is totally different based on your identity.

the one religious non-belief class example I gave is the football coach prayer case.

to me it's an obvious overreach and clearly breaks secular education norms (and past scotus rulings).

to such an obvious degree that the minority (on the court, majority in public opinion) broke precedence and put photos directly refuting the 'facts' the majority claim are truth.

that's also a bit spurious. i don't think anyone is arguing that churches must be forced to interview (or hire) other religions.

but the majority does believe that the state & courts shouldn't create laws that expressly allows someone to discriminate or refuse to provide service to someone else just because they are gay or trans or use different pronouns. or deny an adoption. or disallow kids from playing incredibly low states high school sports. or ban books. or not talk about gender & sexuality. i keep using queer-centric issues because that's my identity and I can speak to it better than race/trans issues. there are plenty of examples there too.

it's minority religion dictating laws that affect our lives and explicitly allowing those beliefs to take away rights from the rest of us.

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

#734

Post by rayiner » Mon, Oct 03, 2022, 1:07 AM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #717

rayiner wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who is the more impressive student? Alice who had a stable suburban comfortable upbringing and went to prestigious private high school and got a 34 on her ACT, or Bob who grew up with a single father, went to a public high school in an high needs district, had to work a part time job after school and babysit his little brother every day before his dad got home and got a 29? The kid with the higher score is a more i…

> treat certain minorities as if they’re all from single parent homes That’s not what you should have taken from that example at all, which is specifically why I used two white coded names. The point is that people grok individual disadvantages easily and giving them a leg up feels natural, and the same reasoning should be applied to systematic disadvantages. > regardless of whether that’s true for the individual. Wh…

> That’s not what you should have taken from that example at all, which is specifically why I used two white coded names

What’s a “white coded name?” Most Black people have names similar to other Americans. E.g. here are the top names by ethnicity for babies in NYC in 2013: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/vs/baby-names-.... The top 3 Black baby names are Ethan, Jayden, and Aiden. Playgrounds in Park Slope are full of kids with those names.

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

#735

Post by tptacek » Mon, Oct 03, 2022, 1:17 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #734

Spivak wrote: post #717

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> treat certain minorities as if they’re all from single parent homes That’s not what you should have taken from that example at all, which is specifically why I used two white coded names. The point is that people grok individual disadvantages easily and giving them a leg up feels natural, and the same reasoning should be applied to systematic disadvantages. > regardless of whether that’s true for the individual. Wh…

> That’s not what you should have taken from that example at all, which is specifically why I used two white coded names What’s a “white coded name?” Most Black people have names similar to other Americans. E.g. here are the top names by ethnicity for babies in NYC in 2013: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/vs/baby-names-... . The top 3 Black baby names are Ethan, Jayden, and Aiden. Playgrounds in Park Sl…

Don't be tendentious. There are obviously black-coded names, and decades of research about black-coded names.

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

#736

Post by tptacek » Mon, Oct 03, 2022, 1:18 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #713

deepl_derber wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The outcomes have been underwhelming because we (at least, the US) haven't actually been doing this, and we've just found new and arguably worse ways to maintain deeply racist policies.

If what you say is true, books like “how to be an antiracist” would include examples of these “arguably worse” mechanisms to maintain inequality. They don’t contain such examples. Indeed, a central premise of Kendi’s book is that affirmative measures are required because simply “not being racist” doesn’t work.

When you say "books like _How To Be An Antiracist_", you mean... bad books, right? Why would you expect bad-faith actors like Kendi to do better?

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

#737

Post by aaplok » Mon, Oct 03, 2022, 1:29 AM UTC

dillondoyle wrote: post #702

aaplok wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key quote is this: "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." In other words a researcher studying a topic unrelated to diversity will need to lie by claiming that there is a link.

No. They just need to say that the research has nothing to do with DEI. It's just like a canonical tag. This whole thread is crazy to me.

I didn't claim I agree or disagree with this. I answered GP's question on Haidt's argument, especially because I found the other reponses didn't do justice to Haidt by focusing on research that would contradict the dominant narrative. As far as I could tell from the article he didn't allude to that.

The question that triggered his reaction is (quoting from the article) 'whether and how this submission advances the equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals of SPSP.' Indeed in principle they could just answer that it doesn't. What is left out here is why they are asking this. If the purpose of the question is unclear then researchers may feel incentivised to lie to 'fit' the requirements.

My personal view is that this is much ado about nothing. More likely than not most people will ignore the answers. There will, however, be reviewers who use that to reject papers.

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

#738

Post by dudul » Mon, Oct 03, 2022, 1:30 AM UTC

mushbino wrote: post #588

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…

You're saying the only way to end discrimination is for the victims to forgive the perpetrators? How would that work exactly? IMO, the only way to move forward is to correct past wrongs by heavily investing in affected communities economically and afa education and health. What Haidt is being asked to do here does none of these things and is purely for show.

Isn't "correcting past wrongs" how wars usually start? Anti-racists don't want justice in the future, they want revenge for the past.

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

#739

Post by hackerlight » Mon, Oct 03, 2022, 1:33 AM UTC

autoexec wrote: post #720

hackerlight wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They may not have adopted those beliefs if those beliefs had been censored to begin with. They adopted those beliefs from someone.

From what I can tell most racists are either born into it (grew up surrounded by it) or fall into it looking for a place to fit in. Mere exposure to an idea is insufficient. I propose you test this 'idea virus' theory yourself. Go find a racist podcast and see how many episodes it takes for you to start thinking that jews and black people are inferior. I'm going to go ahead and guess that no amount of hate speech wil…

Exposure is neither a sufficient nor necessary condition. But exposure increases the propagation. You have this realization yourself when you say "grew up surrounded by", which is one way people get exposed.

There are many case studies in the real world.

  "Go find a racist podcast and see how many episodes it takes for you to start thinking that jews and black people are inferior."

That is what happens, though. Not with probability one, but with a probability decently above zero.

Rwandan genocide being incited over radio, 1930s/1940s Germany being incited by the press and speeches, same with 1930s Japan.

Many mass shooters that targeted specific ethnicities were radicalized online. Dylan Roof. Also the recent guy that wrote the N word on his gun. These were white nationalists. The latter said it wasn't his offline world, it was purely online where he got radicalized.

You're just making assertions that it's not like this but our best understanding of ideas that they are social and contagious.

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

#740

Post by hackerlight » Mon, Oct 03, 2022, 1:34 AM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #502

hackerlight wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> I'm not saying that censorship is just or desirable. Just that it works. But it doesn't, unless it is extensive/complete. It just seems like it does because censored media is constantly reassuring us that the censorship is working, and that all reasonable people enjoy it. You can't destroy ideas by censoring them from the largest outlets, you have to perpetually search out the smallest outlets (e.g. open everyone's…

It does. Look at Alex Jones and Trump. Their reach was significantly cut after deplatforming.

It's not about surefire ways to silence someone. You're setting up a burden that's too high for no good reason. It's about whether it works in practice to an extent.