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

771–780 of 906 posts

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

#771

Post by arinlen »

rayiner wrote: post #757
quacked wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the reason that he wants it administered by "good white people" because every other ethnic group (including the "bad white people") is nakedly self-interested when it comes to racial preference?

What makes you think they’re not nakedly self interested? They get the most out of the system, because they get to run the show. They not only get a powerful club against “bad white people,” but also get to hand-pick “representation” to shape minority groups according their own preferences. They’ll pick Hispanics who answer to “Latinx” but never one that believes that abortion is wrong. They’ll pick Muslims that endo…

> They’ll pick Hispanics who answer to “Latinx” but never one that believes that abortion is wrong. They’ll pick Muslims that endorses white American views of gender roles. They’ll pick the Asian that says Asian values are a “model minority myth.”

Is that worse than not picking a single Hispanic, Muslim, or Asian because they are Hispanic, Muslim, and Asian?

The main flaw in your blend of anti-affirmative action argument is that at it's core it's a pro-racism argument, which supports the racist status quo as a default desirable scenario by first going out of your way to reject each and any alternative to the racist status quo.

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

#772

Post by n4r9 »

mhuffman wrote: post #517
bjourne wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you separate potential racism from cultural differences? By conducting studies where you study the effect of the race variable. This has been done many times over in multiple countries and the results have shown that colored people and racial minorities are discriminated against. But despite the vast amount of empirical data, people still refuse to believe that racial discrimination is a factor in the job ma…

>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 not sure it matters, in the sense that both feel like an example of "systemic" racism (as referred to above). It may not be the recruiter/interviewer's intention to be prejudiced, but it is the outcome of the system.

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

#773

Post by barry-cotter »

beowulfey wrote: post #658
darawk wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You immediately assume one of the three is the brightest of them, because your understanding of Affirmative Action Policies says this particular race has the highest likelihood of having higher overall test scores. I think it's important to distinguish between probabilities and possibilities . It is possible that any of them has the highest score. However, it is most likely that the Asian does. Let me articulate th…

This is a good example, and I appreciate you trying to explain it further. But I think we are a bit like two ships passing in the night here. As I interpret it, you are trying to explain the effect of affirmative action on the likelihood that someone from a particular background is more likely to be skilled or not. I totally understand that this is an effect of AA, and that neither of us are arguing about the merits…

> However, the point that I am trying to make is that we, as a society, should be trying to ignore these obvious statistical likelihoods when we are choosing a candidate.

The truth is one. If you lie to other people and demand they lie to you it affects your entire model of the world. If there are facts about the world that you would prefer not to acknowledge they are linked to other facts. Lying consistently requires enormous effort.

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

#774

Post by arinlen »

quacked wrote: post #752
rayiner wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 violence. It’s abject insanity that such a notion is being advanced in society. Kendi is just advocating for a system of racial preferences administered by "good white people." That's been a hobby horse of a segment of the political le…

Is the reason that he wants it administered by "good white people" because every other ethnic group (including the "bad white people") is nakedly self-interested when it comes to racial preference?

> Is the reason that he wants it administered by "good white people" because every other ethnic group (including the "bad white people") is nakedly self-interested when it comes to racial preference?

Systems like this have historically been managed by the dominant "white people", which have unknowingly or not been advancing "white people" almost exclusively whether due to good or bad intentions, thus forming a vicious cycle. See for instance companies that employed machine learning models to drive admissions which ended up admitting candidates which already match the candidates which were already admitted in the past (white candidates from specific white-dominated academic institutions) and rejecting everyone else in the process regardless of ability.

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

#775

Post by barry-cotter »

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.

Exactly. No platforming is a naked display of power without any pretence at principle. If you can keep the power forever, great. You win. If not, well, turnabout is fair play and if you have no attachment to free speech or the marketplace of ideas yourself and you couldn’t maintain power with the benefit of censorship you’re probably in for a bad time.

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

#776

Post by barry-cotter »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #401
oceanplexian wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Depends. If you believe discrimination by race is wrong you should not discriminate by race. If you disagree with how discrimination was done but have no objection to racial discrimination as such you should discriminate in the way your values suggest you do.

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

#777

Post by dillondoyle »

trention wrote: post #765
dillondoyle wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jesus christ. these threads on hn have become so toxic this is pointless to engage. how tf is ethnic diversity harmful? also my comment had nothing to do with hiring. but to respond anyways: ideological diversity !== making room for racist, homophobic, christian nationalist or otherwise hateful people. and people have every right not to want to have to work and sit next to someone who is actively working to make thei…

Quoted post unavailable.

lmfao is all I got at this point. flagged

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

#778

Post by cuteboy19 »

arinlen wrote: post #771
rayiner wrote: post #757

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think they’re not nakedly self interested? They get the most out of the system, because they get to run the show. They not only get a powerful club against “bad white people,” but also get to hand-pick “representation” to shape minority groups according their own preferences. They’ll pick Hispanics who answer to “Latinx” but never one that believes that abortion is wrong. They’ll pick Muslims that endo…

> They’ll pick Hispanics who answer to “Latinx” but never one that believes that abortion is wrong. They’ll pick Muslims that endorses white American views of gender roles. They’ll pick the Asian that says Asian values are a “model minority myth.” Is that worse than not picking a single Hispanic, Muslim, or Asian because they are Hispanic, Muslim, and Asian? The main flaw in your blend of anti-affirmative action argu…

I feel like you are putting words in their mouth. They didn't imply anything of this sort. It's a false dichotomy of racist vs ""anti-racist""

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

#779

Post by antonvs »

barry-cotter wrote: post #759
OOPMan wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to point out that one of the important reasons South African didn't descend into a race war at the end of the apartheid was the formation of the Truth & Reconciliation Committee for precisely this reason: to forgive and reconcile.

> South Africa's ANC defends "Kill the Boer" song > South Africa’s ruling party on Tuesday defended the singing of an apartheid-era song with the words “Kill the Boer” in a row that has raised fears of increasing racial polarisation. > The African National Congress dismissed a ruling by a regional high court last week that uttering or publishing the words would amount to hate speech and violate the constitution put i…

And your point is?

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

#780

Post by philosopher1234 »

JellyBeanThief wrote: post #760
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. The cure for violence is forgiveness. The cure for hatred is forgiveness. Stepping aside from the main debate, how can you possibly justify this? If I'm going to be forgiven every time I discriminate, assault, and slander people, why would I ever want to change my behavior? After all, I get rewarded for it: When I do those things I gain advantages over other people that b…

The forgiveness line is straight out of the Bible. If you were a domineering tyrant wouldn’t it be convenient if your population were obligated to forgive you? Sounds pretty docile
Post reply on HN