DOE requires plans to promote diversity from grant applicants • Hacker News Board

Re: DOE requires plans to promote diversity from grant applicants

#111

Post by wyager » Thu, Oct 06, 2022, 2:22 PM UTC

javajosh wrote: post #51

I am astonished. I thought we had this conversation 30 years ago, and the consensus was affirmative action of this sort is a terrible idea. It is particularly bad for minorities, since ALL of them will be suspected of having their position/funding/etc because of their identity instead of merit, even if they are legitimately qualified. Talent capable of pushing the boundaries of science is extremely scarce in humans,…

> It is particularly bad for minorities, since ALL of them will be suspected of having their position/funding/etc because of their identity instead of merit

It's bad for the ones who would have achieved these things on merit, but it's evidently good enough for the rest of them that (as a voting bloc) they will reliably support people who push these kinds of policies.

I think it's hard to understand when you're not part of a group that interacts this way with the political system. There's no Asian Jim Clyburn.

Re: DOE requires plans to promote diversity from grant applicants

#112

Post by jwarden » Thu, Oct 06, 2022, 2:25 PM UTC

I see these efforts as an XY problem. The goal is X=Fairness. The solution Y=Help Disadvantaged groups.

Giving things to people who have been treated unfairly seems fair. But each individual in the group is different.

Do you want to help a member of this group because (X) they have been treated unfairly? Or because (Y) they are a member of the group?

Re: DOE requires plans to promote diversity from grant applicants

#113

Post by ajross » Thu, Oct 06, 2022, 2:32 PM UTC

Bakary wrote: post #107

ajross wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He literally suggested saying something not true to make people think he's gay. That's... literally the idea! Make the DOE think he's gay, so he gets the perceived benefits. If that was snide, it wasn't me being snide, it was the upthread commenter. And that's exactly my point: you KNOW he's not gay (because of his careful phrasing), and you find it "snide" to suggest that anyone think he is, when he's not. You agree…

The psychological profiling you are attempting here is, in addition to being clunkily shoehorned into fitting the OP's wording, somewhat irritating because it's conceptually equivalent to the idea that homophobic people must be secretly gay, which is detrimental to LGBT people for all sorts of reasons.

For clarity: I don't think the upthread poster is gay. At all. He made it very clear he is not.

I'm drawing attention to that fact, and the fact that the other upthread commenter and you seem to be likening the possibility that someone might think he was[1] as some kind of insult. And that's exactly why identity matters, even among people who claim it doesn't. It matters to you that people not confuse someone for being gay.

And I'm hoping maybe you take that to heart and realize that other people think the same way about their own identities. This seemed like a learning opportunity to me.

[1] Which, again, was the whole idea! He was going to claim he was gay to the DOE!

Re: DOE requires plans to promote diversity from grant applicants

#114

Post by hotpotamus » Thu, Oct 06, 2022, 2:38 PM UTC

Bakary wrote: post #105

hotpotamus wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, what other explanation do you think there is? Isn't the alternative that for one biological reason or another, white men, asians, and jews are winning the meritocracy of tech? This is actually fairly mainstream elite conservative opinion, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve for instance. Not all that satisfying an answer in my opinion, but I can't entirely discount it. I'd say the jury is still w…

What bothers me about this sort of idea is more the follow-up. Let's imagine for the sake of discussion that we prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that some groups are, on average, less intelligent than others. What then would the people advancing this argument suggest we do as a society? My gut feeling tells me they won't stop at just removing some current measures in the name of meritocracy, but will also gradually…

I'll put on my elite conservative hat to answer your question.

Is concern for the consequences worth it to suppress the truth - being that some races are simply less intelligent than others (on average). If that is true, then there is no need to make any changes - each race has already assumed their proper place in our meritocratic society.

And taking off that hat, I agree with your thoughts and concerns. I will say that it's uncontroversial that there are IQ differences in race, but it's far from proven that those differences are purely genetic and can't be attributed to societal differences.

Re: DOE requires plans to promote diversity from grant applicants

#115

Post by Bakary » Thu, Oct 06, 2022, 2:43 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #113

Bakary wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The psychological profiling you are attempting here is, in addition to being clunkily shoehorned into fitting the OP's wording, somewhat irritating because it's conceptually equivalent to the idea that homophobic people must be secretly gay, which is detrimental to LGBT people for all sorts of reasons.

For clarity: I don't think the upthread poster is gay. At all. He made it very clear he is not. I'm drawing attention to that fact, and the fact that the other upthread commenter and you seem to be likening the possibility that someone might think he was[1] as some kind of insult. And that's exactly why identity matters, even among people who claim it doesn't. It matters to you that people not confuse someone for bei…

You are assigning these ideas to people but that's not at all the takeaway I got from the conversation myself. I won't presume to speak for the other people involved but I'm not getting the vibe there either. I understand the draw of wanting to challenge social norms and make us think about identity and whatnot; it's something I encourage in other contexts and have done myself. The specific argument would in fact work in other contexts. But it does not fit the present situation and the condescension about 'learning opportunities' is not warranted.

Re: DOE requires plans to promote diversity from grant applicants

#116

Post by dotgov » Thu, Oct 06, 2022, 2:55 PM UTC

Bakary wrote: post #106

remarkEon wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if the Manhattan Project was constructed with these ridiculous requirements.

This could be a somewhat ironic example considering the likelihood that many people who could have contributed to the Manhattan Project were unable to do so due to institutional barriers relating to their ethnicity. Even some talented people who did work for the Project got life-altering roadblocks later on such as Qian Xuesen.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Here is an article about a scientist being stripped of his position for "lying to government officials about his contact with a Chinese government agency": https://apnews.com/article/235705c7507a46188fc26a663d96b014

Relevant quote:

As part of a new science and technology “risk matrix,” which has not been made public, the Department of Energy also said it would not fund joint research or support “sensitive country foreign nationals.”

Re: DOE requires plans to promote diversity from grant applicants

#117

Post by ajross » Thu, Oct 06, 2022, 3:01 PM UTC

Bakary wrote: post #115

ajross wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For clarity: I don't think the upthread poster is gay. At all. He made it very clear he is not. I'm drawing attention to that fact, and the fact that the other upthread commenter and you seem to be likening the possibility that someone might think he was[1] as some kind of insult. And that's exactly why identity matters, even among people who claim it doesn't. It matters to you that people not confuse someone for bei…

You are assigning these ideas to people but that's not at all the takeaway I got from the conversation myself. I won't presume to speak for the other people involved but I'm not getting the vibe there either. I understand the draw of wanting to challenge social norms and make us think about identity and whatnot; it's something I encourage in other contexts and have done myself. The specific argument would in fact wor…

You're still arguing against a point I said explicitly was not mine. I won't presume to speak for you or why you're "not getting the vibe", but I can say with authority that it is the wrong vibe and that you have misunderstood.

Re: DOE requires plans to promote diversity from grant applicants

#118

Post by Bakary » Thu, Oct 06, 2022, 3:19 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #117

Bakary wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are assigning these ideas to people but that's not at all the takeaway I got from the conversation myself. I won't presume to speak for the other people involved but I'm not getting the vibe there either. I understand the draw of wanting to challenge social norms and make us think about identity and whatnot; it's something I encourage in other contexts and have done myself. The specific argument would in fact wor…

You're still arguing against a point I said explicitly was not mine. I won't presume to speak for you or why you're "not getting the vibe", but I can say with authority that it is the wrong vibe and that you have misunderstood.

I understand the argument, I just disagree with the premise that the OP was specifically anxious about not being seen as gay (though maybe they are in other contexts, I don't know) or that in context being gay is presented as an insult. The premise is projection and/or mind reading in this particular case.

More generally, cynicism about diversity points doesn't automatically mean disagreeing with the validity of LGBT or non-LGBT identity, just the validity of the corporate approach to that identity.

Re: DOE requires plans to promote diversity from grant applicants

#119

Post by eli_gottlieb » Thu, Oct 06, 2022, 3:33 PM UTC

faeriechangling wrote: post #61

kadabra9 wrote: post #43

I can’t think of many better examples of “The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions” than the DEI cult.

I just wish they would stop talking about fighting systemic racism while literally being the greatest institution of systemic racism in the world. I can kind of see where they’re coming from and the benefits they have in some ways, but it’s incredible the same people who enforce racial quotas for a living give condescending seminars on how to be anti racist which people are mandated to sit though and be educated on.…

>When the DEI people say “hey hire out of this HBCU, not out of this elite college with tons of legacy admissions which there is almost no pathway to from a school in a poor neighbourhood” that’s not all evil and terror.

But the DEI people went to the elite college with legacy admissions, and work there now. "DEI" is "more BIPOCs at elite colleges to which there's no pathway from a poor neighborhood."

Re: DOE requires plans to promote diversity from grant applicants

#120

Post by eli_gottlieb » Thu, Oct 06, 2022, 3:37 PM UTC

treeman79 wrote: post #50

ohCh6zos wrote: post #41

I suspect white men see these things and this is why people like Trump keep winning.

Nice of you to notice that Trump is not a bigot. Unlike the other side. An ass. Yes. But he did more for lifting up all ethnic groups then any government mandated racism / sexism has ever done.

>But he did more for lifting up all ethnic groups

How?