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

741–750 of 906 posts

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

#741

Post by HyperSane »

pas wrote: post #715
HyperSane wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kendi argues that policy outcomes are central in measuring and effecting racial equity. He has said, "All along we've been trying to change people, when we really need to change policies." When speaking in November 2020 to the Alliance for Early Success, Kendi was asked if that even means abiding racist behavior and attitudes if it leads to winning an antiracist policy. Kendi answered with a definitive yes. "I want t…

Thanks for the detailed reply! I can't really say much about this. It's typical vague bullshit. Kendi projects everything onto white people. (This argument/rant that "white person does X and now they think racism is no more" or "white person does X and now white person is automatically a hypocrite" is typical in radical social justice texts. Here he hedges it with "too many" white people have this belief.) That said,…

"That said, I don't see where they say that fuck poor Asians, or where they say that being black entitles someone to more social help/justice than being a poor Asian. "

It isn't just Asians, any racial minority that is "too" successful, like Jews, Indians, Asians, Persians, etc, would be hurt by Kendi's ideas because they are essentially just the same philosophy that is mocked in the story Harrison Bergeron. Kendi thinks any difference in outcome between racial groups proves racism and thus must be fixed.

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

#742

Post by dudul »

trention wrote: post #100

I am extremely glad I live in a country in continental Europe where this shit is unconstitutional and will be stricken down by the courts immediately (as will be any sort of preferential treatment of any minority in hiring or admissions). Hope it stays that way.

Unlikely, I don't know what "continental Europe" means here, but DE&I is gaining a lot of traction in Western/Central Europe. In countries whose history is completely different from the US' and where it makes literally no sense to think of race this way.

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

#743

Post by josephg »

kenjackson wrote: post #493
josephg wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The important thing is establishing that one group has too many resources which rightfully belong to some other group I understand the arguments, but I don't think I'll ever be comfortable with the police taking someone's house from them because they're white.

No one will take your house for that reason by itself. But they might take it when you can no longer afford to pay the mortgage because you were convicted of a drug felony where you were given a harsher sentence than someone of a different race, after being arrested under suspicion that others wouldn’t be. As a result you can’t find a job after release from prison.

> because you were convicted of a drug felony where you were given a harsher sentence than someone of a different race

Sounds racist. I’m not comfortable with that.

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

#744

Post by naniwaduni »

pharrington wrote: post #524
sneak wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fundamental attribution error. There are no reprehensible people, there are only reprehensible deeds.

Would you call someone who's primary goal is to due good deeds a "good person"? Would you call someone who's primary goal is to due reprehensible deeds a "reprehensible person"? People certainly can change over time, but someone's state at a given time is what that person actually is at the time .

I wouldn't think either of those people exist, from anyone else's perspective.

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

#745

Post by rhaksw »

specialist wrote: post #732
rhaksw wrote: post #723

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> And speakers show up to be shouted down.

That's right. It can be a political win for you when people don't let you speak. The audience wants to hear both sides. Anyone who acts censoriously comes off as afraid of words, as if words are violence. And that's the exact argument that many (but not all) protesters today are using, that words are violence. We can instead draw a distinction between words and violence in order to encourage civil discourse. When you don't do that, the majority naturally suppresses minority views.

> 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.

What happened with Bernie [1] was not as bad as other cases where violence occurred, but preventing a speaker from talking is still against free speech principles.

> 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.

You don't think those protesters are genuinely expressing themselves?

I can understand how it's hard for some of them to see why blocking speakers is not a good idea. It is a bit similar to what the likes of MLK Jr. and John Lewis supported, direct action by standing in the way, as was done at the lunch counters. But I don't think either of those civil rights defenders would have supported the current movements that seek to displace speakers. They wanted their ideological opponents to speak so that they could respond with reason and win more followers.

Nonviolent direct action, in itself, is not a bad thing, but it's problematic when you use that method to prevent someone from speaking. Words are not violence, so speech should be acceptable. If it's not, then we need more speech to discover where the disconnect is. Free speech is an old idea, not a new one, and it's been proven to work. It takes some effort to understand, and I would argue that such challenging issues are the very ones worth taking the time to learn.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWOuCfdJYMM

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

#746

Post by toomim »

anon_123g987 wrote: post #561
sacrosancty wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I "just Googled" it: > In recent decades, as understanding of human genetics has advanced, claims of inherent differences in intelligence between races have been broadly rejected by scientists on both theoretical and empirical grounds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence The article is full of references of primary sources that support this claim.

That particular article's censorial bias is described in detail here: https://quillette.com/2022/07/18/cognitive-distortions/

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

#747

Post by rayiner »

tptacek wrote: post #735
rayiner wrote: post #734

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yes, but he’s applying the inverse here: asking me to assume that a non-Black coded name doesn’t refer to a Black person. That rests on the stereotype that most Black people have Black-coded names.

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

#748

Post by wombatpm »

CrazyPyroLinux wrote: post #324
0x445442 wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the same criteria were applied in CS And this will be here before you know it unless more people start calling bullshit.

I already can't commit to a master branch or have a master key, because reasons.

It’s probably time for Master Lock to change their branding as well

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

#749

Post by boppo1 »

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’d never seen the statement from antiracist before…wow.

You’re at least a year behind.

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

#750

Post by patrick451 »

ponow wrote: post #655
meowtimemania wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You would be cancelled for that view. The correct view is that people of good standing should only admit and hire from a few groups until there is parity. Extra points if you want overrepresentation, to compensate for past imbalances. Explicitly, you must accept the proposition that the son is not only to be blamed for the sins of the father, but also to be blamed for the sins of all who share similar ancestry. Indiv…

It such a barbaric view that makes little more sense than sacrificing virgins to Baal so it will rain.
Post reply on HN