A math professor who objects to diversity statements

Part of the problem though is that we seem to have a tendency towards polar vortices of worldviews that suck in various issues that aren't even necessarily strongly connected, just to make them more effective in opposing the other side in an excessively concentrated way.

So there is this tendency of social activists towards conformance and centralization in the direction of authoritarianism. But on the other side, total denial of any systemic social problems that results in increasing inequality leaving more and more people fighting for scraps as monopoly powers increase.

I think you need a philosophy and system that embraces both the need for holism on some level, but also the importance of independence and evolution.

Typical human organizations may have a lot of trouble pursuing these goals simultaneously. But I think that the right technologies may be able to make it feasible.

But the first challenge would be for the left to acknowledge the need for freedom and the right to acknowledge the need for average people to exist without fighting for scraps.

It seems the war between camps means that anyone trying to promote a more subtle or intricate message is shunned or ignored by both sides. Leading anyone in the middle to just hide or more likely migrate to a camp and conform.

So I have to conclude that this is not just a left problem.

You must consider an individual's race, gender, sexual preference, and other immutable factors in contexts that have absolutely no bearing upon the bigger matter at hand. That is racist and sexist, that is discrimination of the purest order.

And before someone accuses me of "white supremacy" or "patriarchy" or other buzzword nonsense: I'm Japanese-American, I'm Asian; I'm a "minority". I'm male, but more importantly a man as in mankind.

And no, do not dare call me a "POC". I'm an American man of Japanese heritage. Simple as that.

There is absolutely no reason why being White or Asian means they need to get inferior treatment and vice versa; there is absolutely no reason why men must be treated inferior to women and vice versa.

There is absolutely no reason why anyone must be treated inferior or superior to anyone else for reasons that do not concern their character or capabilities.

> Even if one is required to say ‘I passionately believe that water would certainly wet us, as fire would certainly burn,’ the routine affirmation of one’s beliefs as a precondition of making a living constitutes compelled speech and corrupts everyone who participates in the performance.

the link to the letter, stripped of the tracking data on the https://archive.is/j1Xyg link, is https://community.ams.org/journals/notices/202307/rnoti-p104... and is reproduced in full below

In 2022, having been a member of the AMS for more than 30 years, I decided not to renew my membership for another year.

Here are my reasons:

With grave concern, I see the growing use of DEI statements as a required component for job applications, in particular in mathematical sciences. In my opinion, it has an enormous corrosive effect on the math community and education in this country. Even if one is required to say “I passionately believe that water would certainly wet us, as fire would certainly burn”, the routine affirmation of one’s beliefs as a precondition of making a living constitutes compelled speech and corrupts everyone who participates in the performance.

I grew up in the Soviet Union, where people had to affirm their fealty to ideals and the leaders embodying those ideals, on a daily basis. As years went by, I observed the remarkable ease with which passionate communists turned first into passionate pro-Western liberals and then into passionate nationalists. This lived experience and also common sense convince me that only true conformists excel in this game. Do we really want our math departments to be populated by conformists?

Currently, the compelled speech of the compulsory DEI statements affects mostly people at the beginning of their careers, that is when they are most vulnerable. The sheer logic of bureaucratic expansion suggests that those who position themselves as experts in evaluating the merits and judging the sincerity of the DEI statements will find new venues to apply their skills, affecting other demographics.

The AMS does nothing to investigate these developments. About 25 years ago, when one of the universities decided to close its PhD program in math, the AMS saw it urgent enough to dispatch a fact-finding mission. Now, as we have a social experiment on a national scale, with potentially devastating consequences, the AMS demonstrates a remarkable lack of curiosity.

I can think of several reasons for this detachment.

First, it can be that the majority of members see nothing wrong in the DEI statements, or consider them a welcome development. I, for one, would be interested to find out if this is indeed the case. A couple of years ago, several letters were circulated and published that painted an inconclusive, to say the least, picture. As far as I can tell, the discussion ended having barely started. Wouldn’t it be useful to have it restarted, now that we have seen more results of the DEI proliferation?

Second, I anticipate an argument that the AMS is “not involved in politics”. But this is the kind of “politics” that, rephrasing Pericles, will get involved with you, whether you like it or not, and hence inaction is just as political as action.

Third, people can be simply afraid to voice their opinions (admittedly, the line between the second and third reasons is blurred). The fears of being accused of having certain pernicious attitudes and creating an unsafe environment, as well as the fear of losing one’s livelihood are not without merit. However, compared to the standards set by the totalitarian movements of the past these repercussions may not seem like such a big deal. The more we are afraid to talk and act now, the more debilitating the fear becomes, and the more devastating will be the effect of our inaction.

Sincerely,

Alexander Barvinok

They already spent the last few decades objecting to Joseph McCarthy. Denunciation of his evil, and celebration of his downfall to the "Have you no shame?" speech, was an element of modern leftist canon.

If they couldn't recognize what was happening every time they mentioned his name, they never will.