Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DOE requires plans to promote diversity from grant applicants

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 140 posts

Re: DOE requires plans to promote diversity from grant applicants

#131

Post by dotgov »

javajosh wrote: post #101
dotgov wrote: post #93

I would like to share how I've seen those policies impact people working in the DOE complex. Those policies are referred to as DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) usually, because we love our three letter acronyms. Anyway, here my experience: - I have seen the same woman get invited to countless hiring panels, as hiring panels need to be "diverse". Hiring panels are multi-hour endeavors and take away from her produ…

Well written. You're not alone. There seems to be no good platform upon which to fight back. Trumpism has taken the other side of this issue, but that side is poisoned by fascism, (real) racism, ignorance and the malignance that is Trump himself. The left has potent messaging and branding power - what are you going to say, that you're against diversity? The phrase "men's rights advocate" has been coopted to mean anti…

Thank you, those things have been weighing on me, mostly because I feel powerless to a degree. When I can keep my spirits up, I try approach the things by asking questions in small groups and see change bit by bit. Which seems like an uphill battle, pitted against the mindless wheels of bureaucracy, as someone else here put it, but from time to time and with compassion people (me included) can see the standpoint of others better. It takes time. But much like the "solution" to racism can't be anti-racism, the "solution" to woke can't be anti-woke. We probably all just need a hug.

Re: DOE requires plans to promote diversity from grant applicants

#132

Post by Velc »

ajross wrote: post #123
Bakary wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And I think the fact that "prove me wrong" was included the first time, that Velc (making the same misinterpretation you did) thought it was "snide" to insinuate that the OP was gay, and that you jumped in to a thread seven comments down to tell me that you were "irritated" that I was calling the OP "homophobic" puts the lie to that. No, all three of you are clearly bothered by the idea that someone would be incorrec…

There’s no way your being sincere. Genuine question, are you being inflammatory online for attention?

At no point have any of us indicated that we care about misidentification. The original comment had to imply he was straight in order for his point to make sense. His point being anyone can lie about their identity for personal gain if that opportunity presents itself. That is the only point that was being made.

I can obviously only speak for myself, but identity doesn’t matter to me one bit. If I need to lie and say I’m gay on a form to achieve something I otherwise wouldn’t, I will do so. I also don’t care if that means people actually think I’m gay. They might be shocked when they see me with my wife though.

Re: DOE requires plans to promote diversity from grant applicants

#133

Post by faeriechangling »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #119
faeriechangling wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Most DEI people I see in real life are ghost white HR ladies who had mediocre grades in school and work for a mediocre company and send out regular company emails about how it’s Polynesian history month, asexual pride week, and progressiveness day. I would say most of them are not “true believers” but may generally agree that DEI is noble.

Re: DOE requires plans to promote diversity from grant applicants

#134

Post by faeriechangling »

djanlermats2020 wrote: post #124
gruez wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. They fixed that inconsistency by redefining racism in ter…

If they're getting paid and you're required to listen to them then they have the power and you're the oppressed one.

Seems like a trivial bit of oppression to be forced to sit through a trite racist lecture honestly.

The racist stuff that matters is more how HR engages in ways to implement racial discrimination of questionable legality if it ever hit the highest court in the land but which has never been specifically tried against before and which is so unfamiliar that people don’t fully understand the implications. They engineer novel and creative means of racial discrimination in hiring to meet their quotas, things that would make any Hollywood accountant jealous. Since the law is practically internally contradictory (you can’t hire too many Whites and Asians but you can’t have a literal White and Asian quota) it leads to all manner of imagineering.

Re: DOE requires plans to promote diversity from grant applicants

#135

Post by javajosh »

dotgov wrote: post #131
javajosh wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well written. You're not alone. There seems to be no good platform upon which to fight back. Trumpism has taken the other side of this issue, but that side is poisoned by fascism, (real) racism, ignorance and the malignance that is Trump himself. The left has potent messaging and branding power - what are you going to say, that you're against diversity? The phrase "men's rights advocate" has been coopted to mean anti…

Thank you, those things have been weighing on me, mostly because I feel powerless to a degree. When I can keep my spirits up, I try approach the things by asking questions in small groups and see change bit by bit. Which seems like an uphill battle, pitted against the mindless wheels of bureaucracy, as someone else here put it, but from time to time and with compassion people (me included) can see the standpoint of o…

We definitely all need a hug! The left is driven by anger over the past; the right is driven by fear over the future. And humans are always at their worst when they are angry and afraid. A little faith, a little hope, would go a long way right now.

Re: DOE requires plans to promote diversity from grant applicants

#136

Post by cat_plus_plus »

davrosthedalek wrote: post #103
cat_plus_plus wrote: post #94

How is any of that even helping groups being boosted? If you come from an underprivileged background, why would you want to try to survive on government grants? Pick up whatever pays well with fastest/cheapest education, maybe become an electrician if you are starting out poor, software engineer if you are middle class. Or if women value family and social life over work, why would we want to take that away from them?…

I don't think you quite understand what is done here. It's not grants for underprivileged. Let me explain (I'll start from the basics of the situation, please don't interpret this as I am assuming you wouldn't know at least some of this.). In the US, most research funding at universities and national labs for basic sciences comes from DOE or NSF. From these grants, we pay students (phd students get paid, and don't pa…

Whenever you find someone in an unusual field for their demographics, chances are they are pretty good. People tend to go with the flow and those who don't tend to have particularly strong motivation. But my point is PhD is not the most obvious choice for someone with disadvantaged background. You will not be earning much and will be on the hook for tuition for a long time and even afterwards your salary in research is likely to be much lower than what you could earn in industry with same talent and similar amount of training. Obviously research has benefits to society and individuals may have dreams for things other than money. But I don't think they should be pushed in the direction that may not be best for them personally otherwise.

Re: DOE requires plans to promote diversity from grant applicants

#137

Post by Bakary »

hotpotamus wrote: post #114
Bakary wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm not entirely sure what elite conservatism is or whether you endorse this view or not, but there's no civilizational context where meritocracy can exist given first mover advantages, resource accumulation, and institutional capture. What meritocracy usually ends up meaning in a practical sense is a deeply hierarchical society that happens to be pleasing in a certain way to the groups defining what meritocracy is in the local context.

The search for objective truth isn't the main concern but rather the premise from which we jump to justifying prescriptive claims, which are by definition outside of the purview of the scientific method. In this case, using the idea that certain groups are more intelligent than average than others to push forward highly culturally specific modes of societal organization.

Re: DOE requires plans to promote diversity from grant applicants

#138

Post by cuteboy19 »

Bakary wrote: post #104
n0tth3dro1ds wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you feel like neighborhoods need to be static in terms of racial composition, forever? Science is science? Okay then. Is tech tech? It seems that there are more white and Asian people in tech, and Apple is hiring in RDU. Should they not hire the best technologists? Should those technologists not have homes in the area? By “gentrifying”, it seems you just mean white people moving for their jobs. Why isn’t that…

Let's leave aside the American-style debate around ethnicity for a moment. We know what happens when high-income workers move en masse to a neighborhood. Things get more expensive, and the quality of life decreases for people who did absolutely nothing wrong except live in a place that eventually got settled by some adtech company. The character of the neighborhood changes, and is destroyed in favor of a copy-pasted…

There is actually a one to one mapping between anti immigrant rhetoric and this gentrification nonsense.

If people wish to maintain the racial makeup of their neighborhood then they should at least be honest about it. Don't use dogwhisles like neighborhood character when everyone knows it means race

Re: DOE requires plans to promote diversity from grant applicants

#139

Post by Bakary »

cuteboy19 wrote: post #138
Bakary wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's leave aside the American-style debate around ethnicity for a moment. We know what happens when high-income workers move en masse to a neighborhood. Things get more expensive, and the quality of life decreases for people who did absolutely nothing wrong except live in a place that eventually got settled by some adtech company. The character of the neighborhood changes, and is destroyed in favor of a copy-pasted…

There is actually a one to one mapping between anti immigrant rhetoric and this gentrification nonsense. If people wish to maintain the racial makeup of their neighborhood then they should at least be honest about it. Don't use dogwhisles like neighborhood character when everyone knows it means race

I live in one such neighborhood. The ethnic mix has not changed, at least not in a noticeable way. The cool people are gone, and were replaced by tech workers. The old locals are struggling. A new coffee shop with high-priced drinks and a co-working space literally just opened a few weeks ago.

Don't assume your own North American perspective maps to everything.

Re: DOE requires plans to promote diversity from grant applicants

#140

Post by stonogo »

dotgov wrote: post #93

I would like to share how I've seen those policies impact people working in the DOE complex. Those policies are referred to as DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) usually, because we love our three letter acronyms. Anyway, here my experience: - I have seen the same woman get invited to countless hiring panels, as hiring panels need to be "diverse". Hiring panels are multi-hour endeavors and take away from her produ…

At least half of your bulleted list is actionable. Your lab should have an employee concerns program that accepts anonymous input, but if they don't the DOE certainly does: https://www.energy.gov/ehss/doe-employee-concerns-program

Specifically it should not be possible to 'informally justify' a hire; at the very least this is a contract violation.

Post reply on HN