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

431–440 of 807 posts

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

#431

Post by Gimpei »

GIFtheory wrote: post #207
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 first reaction to this news was, “fine, sounds like a silly requirement.” However, being a PhD graduate from a minority background, I really have to thank my advisor for the undergraduate outreach work he did, without which there is realistically a negligible chance I would have ended up with a PhD and a great research career. I don’t know what motivated him to do this work, but from a purely pragmatic perspective…

I think this is a good point. I wonder how useful diversity statements are for accomplishing this task. It just seems like cheap talk to me. More useful would be to reward people in tenure review for outreach to minorities.

I’m from a minority, just not one that is recognized as such in the convoluted system that is racial politics in the US (I am of Iraqi descent). But if I were in the shoes of someone who should be benefiting from DEI policies, I’d be pissed off with how it’s shaken out. Seems like a whole lot of empty, performative symbolism with negligible actual change. Things like DEI statements read like box ticking to me, allowing administrators to say they’ve “tried” without doing anything. Same goes for sensitivity trainings, and flashy renaming of, for example, master to main. The singular focus on symbolism has not done anyone any favors apart from a few semiotics professors, although I wonder if they’ve been chastened by how little their favored policies have accomplished.

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

#432

Post by zamadatix »

lupire wrote: post #407

This news is interesting (but is there even a legitimate source?) but this flame bait troll article is well below HN standards. Slightly better reporting: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/mit-scraps-diversity-sta...

That National Review article seems to be a rehash of it's reference from https://unherd.com/newsroom/mit-becomes-first-elite-universi... which claims to actually have been in communication with the university.

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

#433

Post by bastawhiz »

Ignoring the pros and cons of these statements, I would bet money that the biggest (or perhaps "real") reason they're being axed is that nobody is reading them. It's one thing to all agree that something sounds great on paper, until you're forced to sit down and read page after page after page of drivel the authors didn't want to have to write while trying to say the things that you probably want to hear.

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

#434

Post by freeone3000 »

lupire wrote: post #413
lazide wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s just being conspicuous that they’re doing the performatively ‘right thing’, something academia is quite familiar with. That way they can point to their statement anytime grant writers/sponsors need to show their respective stakeholders that they’re ’good folks’. Don’t worry, regardless they’ll still treat their grad students as terribly as the law allows (and a bit worse).

Did you know that prospective faculty also have to write a statement about their research, teaching, and service when they apply for a job? Is that also conspicuously performatively doing the right thing in those job responsibilities?

(Maybe conspicuously doing what is perceived as the right thing is how people get hired…)

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

#435

Post by skissane »

jimbokun wrote: post #374
rebeccaskinner wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't like the idea that anyone disagreeing with any dei suggestion should be labeled as intentionally disruptive and bad faith. My point isn't that anyone disagreeing with a particular suggestion is arguing in bad faith, it's that there are enough bad faith arguments that it becomes effectively impossible to have a productive discussion. > Calling 80% of discussion here bad faith aimed at holding particular grou…

Anyone still using the term "woke" in a serious discussion at this point is using a thought terminating cliche. (I still catch myself using it sometimes, and will try to do better.)

> Anyone still using the term "woke" in a serious discussion at this point is using a thought terminating cliche.

In December 2020, New Republic published an essay by the African-American Marxist Adolph Reed Jr (professor emeritus of political science at the University of Pennsylvania), entitled "Beyond the Great Awokening: Reassessing the legacies of past black organizing" [0] in which he criticises "the Woke".

Now, you may or may not agree with his criticisms, but he is not using "a thought terminating cliche". On the contrary, he means something quite specific by it: a contemporary form of progressive politics which prioritises race over class, as opposed to Reed's own classic Marxism which prioritises class over race.

I myself tend to avoid invoking the word, because I find it derails discussions from whatever the substantive topic was, into debating what that word means and the appropriateness of using it.

But, on the other hand, I think the phenomenon which Reed labels as "Woke" is a real thing, and if we aren't to call it "Woke", what then should we call it? I get the impression that some people don't want to let people call it anything, as part of a strategy to put it beyond criticism.

[0] https://newrepublic.com/article/160305/beyond-great-awokenin...

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

#436

Post by underlipton »

It seems like it's every day that I see signs that institutions are preparing for and aligning themselves with a prospective Trump presidency. Recent purges of media are another big one, especially of ones featuring marginalized groups, though thoughtful and challenging stories in general are targets - inclusive, ironically-though-quite-creatively, of something like Helldivers 2. You might not think that that example counts, but I do. It fits what is fast becoming the zeitgeist, one of monoliths flexing their ability to act with impunity, individuals left with nothing more than futile, quiet acts of resistance (which don't ultimately do much resisting). The guy at the top is doing it, after all, so for those at the top of their particular interest (market, field, etc.): why not? Who's going to stop you?

Our democracy might be and remain intact, but our democratic values - particularly those of valuing forthright thought; of speaking up and across instead of down; and of not hiding our faults behind smug strength or stone walls of silence, but instead exposing them so that they may be cleansed and sutured - do seem to be in jeopardy. This is an example of choosing easy over rigorous, and that's sad, especially for MIT.

We have ample evidence of how this happens in societies descending into radical nationalism, if not fascism. So, now I'm just wondering if we're the "learn from the past"-types or the "doomed to repeat it"-types. (Just as much as I'd like to know the answer to that, I'd love to hear from someone who understands what I'm trying to say here, even if they disagree.)

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

#437

Post by nsagent »

jimbokun wrote: post #354
GIFtheory wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My first reaction to this news was, “fine, sounds like a silly requirement.” However, being a PhD graduate from a minority background, I really have to thank my advisor for the undergraduate outreach work he did, without which there is realistically a negligible chance I would have ended up with a PhD and a great research career. I don’t know what motivated him to do this work, but from a purely pragmatic perspective…

How was the outreach aimed at you different than the outreach aimed at any other students?

It's not about treating students differently. Rather it's about where you spend your limited resources for outreach.

For example, during my PhD I did outreach in both elementary and middle schools where teachers said there were skills gaps they needed help with. The demographics in some of those schools happened to be such that 80-90% of the students were black and brown.

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

#438

Post by eapressoandcats »

algorias wrote: post #381
eapressoandcats wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

> instead of knowing there was bias Why do you automatically assume this? Might be related to why people wanted to hide these numbers.

I was surprised because the person suggesting it wanted to get rid of it even though it helped his case. His argument was literally that it would help Black employees advance to get rid of the numbers. I would have expected management to want to hide the numbers.

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

#439

Post by neltnerb »

avs733 wrote: post #395
neltnerb wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 proposin…

> There are a handful of contexts where it makes more sense, like for a HR person potentially In academia, faculty functionally ARE HR people - with significant power

Sorry, I meant to explicitly include faculty as people who create teams and are responsible for a good work culture. I agree with you, they are HR people in practice.

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

#440

Post by zarathustreal »

metabagel wrote: post #405
zarathustreal wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the modern-day conflation of the philosophical notion of diversity with “diversity of skin color” / “racial diversity” is actually harmful. When we speak of diversity today we often imply a sort of supposed-deserved reparations toward the “minorities.” Obviously there are so many incorrect aspects of these assumptions, but many people in power, perhaps all, have accumulated guilt that needs an outlet. Diversi…

[flagged]

[flagged]
Post reply on HN