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

321–330 of 807 posts

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

#321

Post by SpaceManNabs »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #287

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…

> killer robots won't care about your race

that is not necessarily true... while i agree with most of your sentiment, this statement is specifically why I believe everyone is racist, and nobody knows how racist they are if they only live in a homogeneous place. "this" being not understanding that being race-blind also being blind to correcting disparate treatment.

Regardless, DEI went off too far in the track of identity politics instead of correcting all forms of socioeconomic disparity so wtv. I am not surprised that you could not see the best argument in all the noise and the chaos.

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

#322

Post by hallway_monitor »

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.

TL;DR - a dystopia where anyone with an "advantage" is "handicapped" to make everyone "equal". Advantages such as intelligence and beauty must not be used to let anyone get ahead.

It was adapted into a short film - 2081 - and it's very very good. It's free on this site: https://www.teaching2081.org/watch-the-film#form

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

#323

Post by axoltl »

transcriptase wrote: post #307
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #287

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…

Which sort of goes hand in hand with the idea of white privilege. If I grow up dirt poor, with uneducated parents, in a rural dirt poor region where there wasn’t anyone except other white people in a 100 mile radius for me to be favoured over, apparently I’ve still benefited from some sort of systemic or inherent bias in favour of myself on the basis of race. Which apparently needs to be corrected and puts me at a di…

The term "white privilege" is a bit of a misnomer. What it's mean to convey is the fact that a white person is much less likely to get passed over for something than a person of color. It doesn't mean an actual privilege, more the lack of a hardship.

That doesn't mean one didn't experience hardship, just that it's unlikely to have been due to the color of your skin.

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

#324

Post by CoastalCoder »

pfdietz wrote: post #263
slenocchio wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a mischaracterization. No one is _for_ inequality. The opposition you speak of is _for_ race/gender blind meritocracy. Anyone with a little knowledge of economics understands that groups of people cut across any dimension will always have different outcomes; Russian Americans earn more than French Americans, Japanese Americans earn more than Fillipino Americans, taller people earn more than shorter people, etc…

> No one is _for_ inequality. I suggest that's an extraordinarily naive statement.

I assumed it was hyperbole on the GP's part.

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

#325

Post by YurgenJurgensen »

photochemsyn wrote: post #213

When recruiting students into science/technology-centric paths (which is what MIT is looking for), it's important to accept that the required mix of interest in the subject and a strong work ethic is just not all that common. It's also difficult to predict which students are going to have those characteristics based solely on high school grades, SAT scores, etc. Thus excluding anyone from the pool of applicants on th…

We already have a word for "STEAM": "Academia". Unless you don't consider, say, History an art or a science, in which case, why do you hate historians so much that you'd make up an acronym that basically means "not you specifically"?

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

#326

Post by arduanika »

The hubbub began to subside slowly as Major – de Coverley paused in the doorway with a frown of puzzled disapproval, as though viewing something bizarre. He started forward in a straight line, and the wall of officers before him parted like the Red Sea. Glancing neither left nor right, he strode indomitably up to the steam counter and, in a clear, full-bodied voice that was gruff with age and resonant with ancient eminence and authority, said:

‘Gimme eat.’

Instead of eat, Corporal Snark gave Major – de Coverley a loyalty oath to sign. Major – de Coverley swept it away with mighty displeasure the moment he recognized what it was, his good eye flaring up blindingly with fiery disdain and his enormous old corrugated face darkening in mountainous wrath.

‘Gimme eat, I said,’ he ordered loudly in harsh tones that rumbled ominously through the silent tent like claps of distant thunder.

Corporal Snark turned pale and began to tremble. He glanced toward Milo pleadingly for guidance. For several terrible seconds there was not a sound. Then Milo nodded.

‘Give him eat,’ he said.

Corporal Snark began giving Major – de Coverley eat. Major – de Coverley turned from the counter with his tray full and came to a stop. His eyes fell on the groups of other officers gazing at him in mute appeal, and, with righteous belligerence, he roared:

‘Give everybody eat!’

‘Give everybody eat!’ Milo echoed with joyful relief, and the Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade came to an end.

(From Catch-22 by Joseph Heller. Longer passage here: https://mathematicalcrap.com/2022/08/14/the-great-loyalty-oa... )

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

#327

Post by eapressoandcats »

rayiner wrote: post #144

I’m glad that MIT is standing up for an evidence based approach to all this, as they did with reinstating the SAT. Skin color differences don’t make organizations or schools better or worse: https://econjwatch.org/File+download/1296/GreenHandMar2024.p... . (Lack of diversity, of course, may be evidence of underlying race-based discrimination.) It was an idea that was developed in response to Supreme Court cases that…

The SAT thing was wild. I have no idea why people thought making the admissions criteria more opaque and fudge-able would help prevent bias and racism.

I saw the same thing at a company I worked at where they found at that Black people were getting lower performance ratings and there were people in the Diversity interest group advocating getting rid of numeric ratings so, you know, instead of knowing there was bias we would… not know? Like maybe it was a management psy-op or something but that was insane.

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

#328

Post by lazide »

hallway_monitor wrote: post #167
lazide wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Authoritarianism would be if it was top down. This is more a leftist version of McCarthyism. Aka intellectual purity testing and purges.

I don't know why you're getting down voted for this. It's a very precise description of what has been happening the last decade. Conform and declare your support or be ruined, even if you have valid criticisms and disagreements with the doctrine.

I would assume it’s precisely because it’s a precise and accurate description. Given the current climate.

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

#329

Post by hallway_monitor »

jorvi wrote: post #218
jmyeet wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An inbuilt assumption of what you say is that you believe in meritocracy, specifically that the powerful and wealthy are that way at least part by merit. The flipside of this assumption is that poverty is a personal moral failure. Personally i reject both of these assertions. So much of wealth can be attributed to imperialism, war, slavery, segregation, instituational discrimination and so on. But let's assume what y…

> An inbuilt assumption of what you say is that you believe in meritocracy, specifically that the powerful and wealthy are that way at least part by merit. That is not what a meritocracy is. Meritocracy means our brightest and most capable lead us, instead of democracy where it is basically whoever can play the political game the best.

Bret Weinstein suggested this on his podcast - that we select leaders because they would do the best job - and we DON'T let them self-select. They're called to serve similar to jury duty. I don't recall how the selection would be done, which seems like the harder part.

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

#330

Post by llm_trw »

axoltl wrote: post #323
transcriptase wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which sort of goes hand in hand with the idea of white privilege. If I grow up dirt poor, with uneducated parents, in a rural dirt poor region where there wasn’t anyone except other white people in a 100 mile radius for me to be favoured over, apparently I’ve still benefited from some sort of systemic or inherent bias in favour of myself on the basis of race. Which apparently needs to be corrected and puts me at a di…

The term "white privilege" is a bit of a misnomer. What it's mean to convey is the fact that a white person is much less likely to get passed over for something than a person of color. It doesn't mean an actual privilege, more the lack of a hardship. That doesn't mean one didn't experience hardship, just that it's unlikely to have been due to the color of your skin.

Which may have been true in 1970s, today I get told in emails to pass over White and Asian candidates because we need more diversity. The sheer hubris of putting racism in writing makes me feel like I'm in a topsy turvy 1950s.
Post reply on HN