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

MIT abandons requirement of DEI statements for hiring and promotions

whyevolutionistrue.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 807 posts

Re: MIT abandons requirement of DEI statements for hiring and promotions

#181

Post by naasking »

heresie-dabord wrote: post #168
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #81

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 ther…

> is there anyone that actually defends these DEI statements with a coherent argument When Richard Dawkins spoke at UC Berkeley in 2008, he argued that "raising awareness" about feminism by changing how we speak and think has changed society for the better. (In the same discussion, he seeks to do the same for children's freedom from their parents' religion.) There is no doubt that Western society has changed how it t…

> That said, Dawkins has in more recent years found himself opposing identity politics as they seek to change language usage and perceptions of gender.

Correction: Dawkins doesn't care one whit about gender, and he has literally said so. He only cares when people cross into talking about sex, make incorrect claims about the nature of sex (spectrums and such), conflate sex with gender, and make unscientific claims about being able to change one's sex. Basically, when they enter his wheelhouse and start making a confusing mess of things.

Re: MIT abandons requirement of DEI statements for hiring and promotions

#182

Post by geraldwhen »

anonylizard wrote: post #17
leosanchez wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how this crap got into America of all countries

Certain people, discovered how easy it is, to change entire institutions, by applying targeted pressure towards individual managers of those institutions. No manager dares to refuse these initiatives because they'll be instantly named by the activist, with the help of journalist friends, and ensure they lose their job. Hence by going one at a time, a small group of activists can change far larger organisations. Of co…

I’ve been here. “We can’t hire any more white men” is probably an illegal stance, but what do I gain from fighting that? Nothing, and I suspect I’d be fired.

I’m a tadpole in a huge lake. I have no influence over these likely illegal hiring decisions. And unless I’m just incredibly unlucky, these same conversations are happening everywhere at big companies.

Re: MIT abandons requirement of DEI statements for hiring and promotions

#183

Post by zarathustreal »

userbinator wrote: post #127

The sooner we realise that DEI is making us head towards a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron situation, the better off everyone will be.

The notion that any of us could ever *be equal* has always annoyed me at how obviously absurd it is but I’m glad to see this has been written about before. It’s like we’ve already descended into 1984 territory and we’re all spouting about “equality” because it’s the “right thing to do” even though we all know it’s not physically possible. Equal opportunities are not enough, or so it would be said, because history! Well.. the historical period I care about!

And then we all act shocked when someone turns to violence to force people to grapple with reality

Re: MIT abandons requirement of DEI statements for hiring and promotions

#184

Post by willis936 »

LaurensBER wrote: post #5

Although 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…

I had a dinner with someone directly affected by MIT's recent slashing of DEI. At one point they mentioned that they made sure a venue had chairless locations and shuttles with lifts for baby strollers. Someone else at the dinner said "for disabled people too, right?" The person who worked at MIT organizing events reacted like they had never once considered disability access. The term "inclusion" should not be co-opted to mean "exclusion".

Re: MIT abandons requirement of DEI statements for hiring and promotions

#185

Post by shkkmo »

blueboo wrote: post #170
ryandrake wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your statement (which I happen to agree with) supports DEI policies but not the specific practice of requiring a written DEI statement , which is the important distinction OP made. I think you can be for DEI as a concept and as a corporate or school policy, but against the performative act of writing it out as some kind of weird "pledge of allegiance" in a job application.

Well, the “acknowledge and mark” phrase gets at the statement—That if the org thought objective X was authentic existential goal, it behooves them to understand how an applicant understands and would configure into that plan. (I have no claim about its efficacy. The highly-structured nature of the statement is a head-scratcher. I’m here watching the fallout with everyone else.) I hasten to restate that is my understa…

> it behooves them to understand how an applicant understands and would configure into that plan.

I (and a lot of us I think) follow you up to this point, but then you lose us here.

How does a written statement, the expected content of which is clearly known, give any understanding of the individual's position? This type of approach to education seems to me that it actively harms the ability to sway people's opinions.

I have this issue with a lot of discussions of DEI, there are a lot of arguments that support the DEI goal and a dearth of arguments that support the methods being used to achieve that goal.

Re: MIT abandons requirement of DEI statements for hiring and promotions

#186

Post by naasking »

blueboo wrote: post #124
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #81

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 ther…

This is the premise: There are outstanding systemic inequities at every level of American society. The threat these represent to our long term survival and prosperity are such that we are keen to at least acknowledge and mark our and our prospective collaborators’ efforts to improve the status quo. Maybe you don’t accept that. Maybe it’s asking for a virtue signal in service of performative posturing. Maybe this requ…

> The threat these represent to our long term survival and prosperity are such that we are keen to at least acknowledge and mark our and our prospective collaborators’ efforts to improve the status quo.

I'm very skeptical that there is any threat to our survival here, or that DEI is any kind of response capable of resolving it. DEI is about "justice", a set of ethical principles, not about some utilitarian calculation about social survival or prosperity.

Re: MIT abandons requirement of DEI statements for hiring and promotions

#187

Post by AtlasBarfed »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #81

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 ther…

When we have all the infrastructure for an even more oppressive and intrusive total information awareness regime, DEIs are so far from 1984. DEIs are just dumb paperwork and formal procedure on top of the usual facade of hiring and promotion rigamarole

Re: MIT abandons requirement of DEI statements for hiring and promotions

#189

Post by rayiner »

blueboo wrote: post #124
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #81

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 ther…

This is the premise: There are outstanding systemic inequities at every level of American society. The threat these represent to our long term survival and prosperity are such that we are keen to at least acknowledge and mark our and our prospective collaborators’ efforts to improve the status quo. Maybe you don’t accept that. Maybe it’s asking for a virtue signal in service of performative posturing. Maybe this requ…

I understand you’re trying to strong man this. But I think we need to interrogate the premise here. How does “inequity” represent a “threat” to our “long term survival and prosperity?” What is the specific causal mechanism by which we expect that to happen?

It seems facially implausible to me, given that America became prosperous when these inequalities were much worse. Why do we accept this premise as a given?

Re: MIT abandons requirement of DEI statements for hiring and promotions

#190

Post by neltnerb »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #81

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 ther…

There are a handful of contexts where it makes more sense, like for a HR person potentially, without trying to bring ideology into it that's the place it makes sense since that's the place where you can actually implement the concepts.

There are contexts where it is mandatory but makes no sense, like NSF Fellowship Applications where they're asking someone who is just finishing an undergraduate degree and is proposing a research project that ends in a PhD -- who has effectively no influence on hiring or even culture really, and is supposed to focus on the technical aspects and personal aspects of who they are. There are things you can fit in there, but let's say the mandatory question is worded so confusingly that it is hard to even guess what to write about. What, you're going to hire people to assist you in your research under DEI principles when you have no control over the budget? It's just confusing for someone in that position.

Staff hiring? That kind of makes more sense honestly, trying to be non-ideological here. Those people can actually hire people and create a culture that is either DEI positive or not, whatever you believe about whether they should.

Post reply on HN