MIT abandons requirement of DEI statements for hiring and promotions • Hacker News Board

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

#281

Post by johnneville » Sun, May 05, 2024, 10:50 PM UTC

HDThoreaun wrote: post #143

jmyeet wrote: post #111

So DEI is an obvious political hot-potato but that the idea that the group with all the money and power are somehow being discriminated against is just silly. Why? Because none of these discussions deals with the real bias in university admissions: legacy admissions. Harvard's undergraduate class hovers around 35% who are legacies. This is the very essence of anti-diversity and entrenching generational wealth and pow…

Legacy makes a lot of sense from an admissions standpoint. Having rich/connected peers is the main point of harvard for everyone else applying. I think what people have a problem with with DEI is that it largely seems counter to their goals of maximizing prestige and career success of graduates.

i would guess that the biggest incentive for legacy admissions is related to maximizing donations from the alumni parents but i'm just speculating

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

#282

Post by rebeccaskinner » Sun, May 05, 2024, 10:50 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #227

collingreen wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am very interested in increasing diversity but I don't like the idea that anyone disagreeing with any dei suggestion should be labeled as intentionally disruptive and bad faith. Calling 80% of discussion here bad faith aimed at holding particular groups down is a big claim that shouldn't be thrown around lightly in a good faith post.

> am very interested in increasing diversity Why? As a non-white immigrant, I’m deeply suspicious of the notion that a team with me on it is in any way different than a team without me on it based on my skin color or ethnicity. I think that line of thinking doesn’t go anywhere good, especially for me, but for everyone else too. As soon as you make it acceptable to say that people are different based on group membersh…

> Why? As a non-white immigrant, I’m deeply suspicious of the notion that a team with me on it is in any way different than a team without me on it based on my skin color or ethnicity.

Perhaps, but a team that would not have hired you because of your skin color or ethnicity would also be a worse team since they would not be willing or able to hire the best candidates.

> As soon as you make it acceptable to say that people are different based on group membership, they will start to notice those differences and categorize them as good and bad. DEI is based on the premise that people will recognize all of those differences as good but that’s completely delusional.

I don't think this is the right angle to look at it. Everyone has a unique combination of experiences that they bring, and what groups someone belongs to are one part of the set of experiences that make up how they experience the world. DEI programs aren't inventing this, it's just a part of the human condition that we're shaped by the unique combination of our experiences.

Focusing on specific unique aspects of individual people's backgrounds isn't the only shape DEI can take though. Done well, I think they instead look at the shape of systems and processes in place and try broadly to consider how to remove artificial barriers so that people have an equal chance to contribute.

> You are socializing people to identify other people with their group membership and they’re going to take those observations in directions you don’t expect.

I think this does happen a lot. Tokenism and only being seen as a particular part of your identity are problems. I can't speak to the experience of being a non-white immigrant, but I've had other forms of this experience. It sucks to be in a job interview where you have a great skill set that matches the role and a lot of relevant experience, but it's clear that the only thing the recruiter cares about is that you could add gender diversity to a team. It sucks to be told that I'm wrong to suggest take-home exercises in interviews are a good option because women have caregiver duties and can't make time for them when I, a woman, prefer them because I feel like they offer a better opportunity for me to think deeply about a problem.

I don't think this is a reason to ignore DEI programs though, it's simply a failure case to be aware of.

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

#283

Post by Aurornis » Sun, May 05, 2024, 10:52 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #134

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…

>but is there anyone that actually defends these DEI statements with a coherent argument, or can you point me to one online There was a recent debate on this[1] and even the debater for the pro DEI statement side (that they could find) admitted that DEI statements that were just ideological pledges were wrong, and he was only in favor of statements about concrete things you did to advance the DEI agenda (eg. "I did a…

I’ve heard this same argument for DEI statements every time the topic has been debated: They sidestep arguments about DEI statements and instead retreat to safer arguments about how advancing DEI is a good thing.

On one hand, I get it. Arguing for DEI in an abstract sense is much easier than arguing for specific interventions.

On the other hand, this is the textbook example of a Motte-and-bailey fallacy, where the debater conflates two topics and then retreats to the safer position while hoping that the audience will accept it as an argument for the more difficult position.

DEI statements have been quite unpopular as specific interventions, as noted in the article by the way that the majority of staff disagreed with them when polled privately. However, speaking out against them publicly was viewed as a very risky move and serious career mistake, so they slowly slipped into mainstream acceptance.

It’s interesting to see how they’re now quietly being removed from processes with as little attention as possible. Nobody wants to be known as the person who campaigned against them publicly, but I suspect there are a lot of people feeling relief in this case as they’re being quietly removed from the process.

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

#284

Post by shrimp_emoji » Sun, May 05, 2024, 10:52 PM UTC

inglor_cz wrote: post #142

worik wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am unsure about most of those countries but Japan and Israel have a reputation for being extremely racist Prejudice of any form is unhelpful. Racism is particularly nasty

DEI is prejudice squared. Individuals are stuffed into tight racial and gender boxes in a big bout of social engineering. It is better than stuffing them into boxcars and deporting them, but ultimately the logic behind those treatments is the same. You are not John Doe, you are White or Black or whatever, a Lego brick that can be replaced by another Lego brick of the same color and the bureaucratic system will be hap…

Thank you. In the immortal words of Aenea, "choose again".

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

#285

Post by lettergram » Sun, May 05, 2024, 10:54 PM UTC

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…

My wife enjoys going to these struggle sessions on DEI for academics (she has a PhD in neuroscience). She’s of the opinion she hasn’t been oppressed and in fact has regularly given opportunity because of her sex, so when lecturers try to reason with her or she has to write these letters they don’t know how to respond. I’ve attended a few where they try to convince her she’s repressed and the entire room just starts arguing she is. Weirdest discussion to witness, especially when the real repressed folks are probably the janitors and security. Many never even had the opportunity to go to school

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

#286

Post by userbinator » Sun, May 05, 2024, 10:55 PM UTC

porknubbins wrote: post #165

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…

[flagged]

HN tends to avoid politics, but when it does show up, there is a definite bias if you look at the pattern of up and down votes. What's more interesting is seeing how that bias has changed over time.

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

#287

Post by ajsnigrutin » Sun, May 05, 2024, 10:56 PM UTC

I never understood the american obsession with race (well, and sexuality).

I live in a small EU country on the edge of the balkans... what the hell should I write if I wanted to get hired? I'm white... everyone here is white... but just by living here, I might have a more "diverse" worldview (compared to a white american is massachussets, with enouh knowledge and money to attend MIT) than someone of a different race (also living in massachussets, with enough money and kowledge to attend MIT). But as to "what i've done", I can only put "saw two black people this year, both were tourists, saw a couple of buses of chinese tourists, or maybe japanese, I don't know".

Engineering schools should keep to engineering, killer robots won't care about your race, no matter if you're the one building them or the one making the weapons to fight against them.

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

#288

Post by rahimnathwani » Sun, May 05, 2024, 10:57 PM UTC

AdrianB1 wrote: post #224

rahimnathwani wrote: post #75

How 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…

> - Embracing diverse viewpoints If you read this as having some academics embracing Flat Earth viewpoints, it is obvious this will not happen. The devil is in the details, what does "Embracing diverse viewpoints" even mean? Science usually drives to unique conclusions, not diverse interpretations. How many correct and diverse viewpoints exist about E=m*c^2 ?

  what does "Embracing diverse viewpoints" even mean

I could have phrased this better. What I meant was: being open minded to being proven wrong.

There are many academics who will not entertain any viewpoint that's contrary to their own belief and agenda. They will happily share papers that support their preconceived notions, and be hostile towards anyone who questions whether these papers have merit.

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

#289

Post by dgfitz » Sun, May 05, 2024, 10:57 PM UTC

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.

To quote the link, and by golly does it seem germane to the topic at hand:

In the year 2081, the Constitution dictates that all Americans are fully equal and not allowed to be smarter, better-looking, or more physically able than anyone else. The Handicapper General's agents enforce the equality laws, forcing citizens to wear "handicaps": masks for those who are too beautiful, earpiece radios for the intelligent that broadcast loud noises meant to disrupt thoughts, and heavy weights for the strong or athletic. George and Hazel Bergeron have a 14-year old son named Harrison. He takes after his father, who is highly intelligent and physically strong. The government removes Harrison from his home. His parents are barely aware because of Hazel's low intelligence and George's mandated handicaps. George and Hazel watch a ballet on TV. Some dancers are weighed down to counteract their gracefulness and masked to hide their attractiveness. George's thoughts are continually interrupted by the different noises emitted by his handicap radio. Hazel urges George to lie down and rest his "handicap bag", 47 pounds (21 kg) of weights locked around his neck. She suggests taking a few of the weights out of the bag, but George resists because it is against the law. On TV, a reporter struggles to read a bulletin and hands it to the ballerina wearing the most grotesque mask and heaviest weights. She begins reading in her natural, beautiful voice before switching to a more unpleasant one. Harrison's escape from prison is announced, and a full-body photograph of him is shown. He is seven feet (2.1 m) tall and burdened by three hundred pounds (140 kg) of handicaps. George recognizes his son for a moment, before having the thought eliminated by his radio. Harrison storms the TV studio in an attempt to overthrow the government. He declares himself Emperor and rips off both his own handicaps and those of a ballerina, whom he chooses as his Empress. Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper General, enters the studio and kills Harrison and the Empress with two shotgun blasts. She threatens the musicians at gunpoint to put on their handicaps again. The TV goes dark. George, who left to get a beer and has returned, asks Hazel why she is crying, to which she replies that something sad happened on television that she cannot remember.

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

#290

Post by rayiner » Sun, May 05, 2024, 10:57 PM UTC

dctoedt wrote: post #250

rayiner wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> am very interested in increasing diversity Why? As a non-white immigrant, I’m deeply suspicious of the notion that a team with me on it is in any way different than a team without me on it based on my skin color or ethnicity. I think that line of thinking doesn’t go anywhere good, especially for me, but for everyone else too. As soon as you make it acceptable to say that people are different based on group membersh…

> As a non-white immigrant, I’m deeply suspicious of the notion that a team with me on it is in any way different than a team without me on it based on my skin color or ethnicity. I think that line of thinking doesn’t go anywhere good, especially for me, but for everyone else too. In various threads you've repeatedly argued (paraphrasing here) that you have a different set of values — e.g., giving higher priority to…

You’ve accurately described the differences, but none of those things are relevant to the workplace. All the ways I’m actually different from Americans are just a source of consternation where I have to bite my tongue and remind myself that it’s their country and I have to put up with the dog in the office, etc.

As to “cheap to observe” information: you might observe that Asian and Mormon communities socialize people to work without complaining or making demands. That seems profitable in the workplace. Is that the kind of cheap to observe information you can rely on? (It’s not—it’s illegal!)