In the spirit of trying to learn something from the community: while I can certainly understand the rationale and goals behind DEI programs (many of which I agree with, others not), I honestly can't understand these "DEI statements" at all. They always seemed very "1984" to me, and almost designed to engender resentment in a way that would ultimately backfire. So perhaps I'm in a like-minded echo chamber, but is there anyone that actually defends these DEI statements with a coherent argument, or can you point me to one online? If so, I'd honestly love to hear it, and I mean this quite genuinely. I did some googling beforehand and found loads of "how to write a good DEI statement" articles, but literally every single one of them just took it at face value that these were a good thing to begin with (or, perhaps in their defense, that "academic jobs require it", so you better learn how to write one in any case).
MIT abandons requirement of DEI statements for hiring and promotions
81–90 of 807 posts
Re: MIT abandons requirement of DEI statements for hiring and promotions
#82How would academics react to mandates requiring them to declare their support for: - Ensuring open access to research - Committing to long-term, foundational research - Prioritizing high-quality teaching and mentorship - Embracing diverse viewpoints - Questioning established academic orthodoxy - Focusing research on public rather than personal gain - Openly sharing data and methodologies - Upholding research neutrali…
[deleted]
Re: MIT abandons requirement of DEI statements for hiring and promotions
#83[flagged]
The right wing conspiracists would talk about a "New World Order" and something they called "problem-reaction-solution", so they thought this Left authoritarian Woke movement, was designed deliberate by something (the elites?) to push society to voting right as a knee jerk reaction..
I wonder if those conspiracy theories themselves are Chinese propaganda of some kind, or maybe Russian, or are the propagandists themselves giving away the game plan in plain sight. Right in front of you, where the psychological blind spot is. As Vladimir Putin and other authoritarian regimes seem to like Trump and a having right-wing party in power.
So is it a meta conspiracy??? And the real people behind it are China and Russia? That's likely too far fetched though.
Re: MIT abandons requirement of DEI statements for hiring and promotions
#84Clicked through some links in the article. Really mind boggling material. How did such garbage end up in top universities is really weird.
If you see yourself (or your group) as a victim it's easy to rationalize rather extreme measures to "fix" the world. The intentions behind a lot of these things are good but the sensitivity of the subject has made it hard(er) to have a healthy discussion about these issues.
I don't think that's a good explanation. The vast majority of people behind such initiatives don't come from underprivileged or victimized backgrounds.
It's more about this idea of being an advocate for the downtrodden - a good person fighting the racists on behalf of those without a voice. And because you're fighting the good fight, it's of course OK to make the oppressors uncomfortable or to bully them into submission.
Depending on your priors, this is either messed up, or it's messed up not to act and accept the status quo. Pick your poison, I guess.
Re: MIT abandons requirement of DEI statements for hiring and promotions
#85[deleted]
Re: MIT abandons requirement of DEI statements for hiring and promotions
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even lebron james gets the n word spray painted on his house. Class may be the main divide, but race is still an absolutely huge one that transcends class.
How?
What evidence is there that it’s not what it seems? Its not like there’s a shortage of people who’d try something like that in this country.
Re: MIT abandons requirement of DEI statements for hiring and promotions
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Race is a distraction from the ultimate divide: class . IMO, every policy that wants to promote equality should revolve solely around class. In every place on earth, richer upper-class people are more advantaged than those from the lower classes. Every social policy should focus on lessening that gap (I recognize that the gap can't be closed entirely).
Even lebron james gets the n word spray painted on his house. Class may be the main divide, but race is still an absolutely huge one that transcends class.
Nit: it was spray-painted on his gate, not his house (mansion).
Re: MIT abandons requirement of DEI statements for hiring and promotions
#88Re: MIT abandons requirement of DEI statements for hiring and promotions
#89DEI statements are culty. I see it no different than a religious fundamentalist college asking faculty to sign an oath of allegiance. At least in such a case, you can always know beforehand the BS you'll put up with, unlike secular universities that are adopting DEI statements.
There is a huge difference between trying to counter institutional prejudice in order to improve the quality of the student body and work being done, and whatever you think a religious “pledge of allegiance” is. A pledge to God? The mishandling of DEI doesn’t invalidate the need to fix broken systems which fail to select the best people instead of those who score highest in easily gamed and inherently biased metrics.
What other metric is so valuable then?
Re: MIT abandons requirement of DEI statements for hiring and promotions
#90Although the intentions behind DEI are good such a top down approach doesn't seem to get the desired results (i.e optimal use of everyone's talent, irrespective of their colour, sex and/or identify). Unfortunately the name (and perhaps ideas?) are now tainted and I hope this doesn't impact the bottom up approaches (i.e support kids and young adults with extra classes, trainings, and in general just being chill and ac…
> support kids and young adults with extra classes, trainings
If that support is available to those who need it irrespective of race, sex, et cetera, sure.
Targeting underserved populations is one thing. Restricting access based on protected characteristics is illegal under any commonsense interpretation of the law.