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

521–530 of 807 posts

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

#521

Post by dangerlibrary »

WalterBright wrote: post #371
OJFord wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Edit: what are the arguments against this? I happen not to agree with them, but leaving that aside they're often that Ok fine, it's a pipeline problem^, but the solution is to address that at every stage, not just the beginning. (^meaning for example schoolgirls aren't sufficiently interested and encouraged into STEM so university applications are low, so admissions are low, so graduations are low, so job applicati…

STEM is something you gotta have some substantial internal motivation to do, such as doing it for a hobby. The kind of work I enjoy, you gotta really like it or it isn't going to work out for you. For example, I was taking machines apart when I was 7 trying to figure out how they worked. I'd break open resistors to see what was inside - just baffling grey dust. Eventually I took bicycles apart, then engines, then who…

I get very little joy from programming. I never program outside of work - I hike, climb, work on my house, raise my kids. But it pays the bills and I can do it, so I've put in the time to learn enough to be worth paying a salary.

When I was a kid I wanted to be a paleontologist. Then I wanted to be a smoke jumper. Now I'm a staff engineer.

Not everyone gets to do what they love. Some of us are just following the money.

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

#522

Post by noisy_boy »

llm_trw wrote: post #330
axoltl wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is true in 2024 also, just that you have to choose a location different from US; go to Southeast Asia to see it in action everyday, where everyone is extra nice to white people - sales people are extra polite, people laugh extra hard at everything white people say, the lady at the counter pays first attention to white people among the group of folks waiting and so on. I have heard white people say "I loved the experience, everyone was so nice"... Of course it was, of course they were.

To be fair, there are flip sides to this too e.g white folks are more likely to be overcharged, more likely to be subject of scams etc but that's just the other side of the same coin.

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

#523

Post by zero-sharp »

throwaway22032 wrote: post #475
zeroonetwothree wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that you are arguing against equity not equality . Usually the latter means “equality of opportunity”. At least that’s typically the difference in most debates.

I don't consider there to be a difference. A society in which the children of successful people are prioritised over the children of unsuccessful people is almost certain to lead to better outcomes for exactly the same reasons. I came from an underprivileged background myself, if I were investing money with an aim to generating a return, I'd far sooner give it to a banker's son than someone from the estate I grew up…

Family wealth is probably an indicator for future success. I don't know the numbers, but I would expect family wealth to correlate positively with the earnings of the children. So if you want a return on investment, it makes sense to bet on the wealthy.

But I thought we were talking merit and opportunity? No, being a banker's son doesn't predestine you to being more skillful. You should already have enough counterexamples to demonstrate that fact.

Your comment is borderline bewildering. It's like corruption and nepotism don't exist.

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

#524

Post by briantakita »

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…

I can see a DEI program as promoting the social values of an institution. A position that I once had was this. If all ethnic groups have a bell curve of intelligence. All things being equal, the ethnic groups would have similar distributions of academic qualifications.

So if a particular ethnic group is disadvantaged in a quantifiable way. Then applying a factor to who is accepted into the academic programs. Would bring in people at the upper ends of the bell curve across the different ethnic/racial groups.

In other words, all things being equal across quantifiable ethnic/racial opportunity. This would bring in the top tier candidates across all ethnicities/racial groups. And if all ethnicities/racial groups are equal in intelligence. Then it would bring in the top tier candidates across *all* ethnicities/racial groups.

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

#525

Post by EnigmaFlare »

nsagent wrote: post #437
jimbokun wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not really DEI. That's just targeting schools with skills gaps, and it might have turned out to be mostly white. To be DEI, they'd have to be chosen because of ethnicity, gender, etc.

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

#526

Post by Dylan16807 »

transcriptase wrote: post #348
axoltl wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And so the cosmic scales apparently require that this person be discriminated against, not on the basis of anything they’ve done, or have had done for them, but because of the colour of their skin and what wasn’t done to them. Regardless of all other hardships and lack of opportunity they may have experienced their whole life. I still don’t follow the logic, if you’re claiming there is some to be followed.

> And so the cosmic scales apparently require that this person be discriminated against [...] because of the colour of their skin and what wasn’t done to them.

The scale was already tipped because of race. Is it unfair to try to tip it back? Is there no way at all to reasonably apply pressure?

Even if your answer is that it's unfair, it should be easy for you to understand why some people try.

And if any attempt to adjust the scale counts as "discrimination", then "discrimination" is not necessarily a dirty word.

> not on the basis of anything they’ve done, or have had done for them, [...] Regardless of all other hardships and lack of opportunity they may have experienced their whole life.

Well, if you had a way to measure that, it would help a lot. But if you don't have a way to measure it, I feel like disregarding it is probably reasonable.

"Don't try to fix problem X, because for some people problem X compensates for problem Y" is a pretty bad reason not to try to fix X. (With problem X being racism and problem Y being the other discrimination this white poor person faced.)

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

#528

Post by WalterBright »

kelipso wrote: post #480
WalterBright wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

STEM is something you gotta have some substantial internal motivation to do, such as doing it for a hobby. The kind of work I enjoy, you gotta really like it or it isn't going to work out for you. For example, I was taking machines apart when I was 7 trying to figure out how they worked. I'd break open resistors to see what was inside - just baffling grey dust. Eventually I took bicycles apart, then engines, then who…

Maybe decades ago when college students based their choice of majors on feelings or whatever that might have been true. Nowadays college students are much more practical. An obvious example is the rise in CS majors in the last decade. The notion of substantial motivation or hobby to go into STEM is absolutely ridiculous.

> The notion of substantial motivation or hobby to go into STEM is absolutely ridiculous.

Pretty much all the ones I know that are good at it love it. Just like musicians and athletes.

Sure, there are those in it for the money. They're usually the tweeners.

> Nowadays college students are much more practical.

I'm not so sure about that. There's a large number of math avoiders in college, and when they graduate discover their degree is worth a minimum wage job.

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

#529

Post by thaumasiotes »

shrimp_emoji wrote: post #256
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…

Anyone with a brain and sense of dignity will feel like racism is bad and unfair. Experiencing negative racism is enraging and depressing. Experiencing positive racism instantly gives you impostor syndrome and a sense of dehumanization. The only systems that aren't racist are those that strive to be colorblind (in the sense that we're colorblind to eye or hair color).

There sure is a lot of effort invested in changing hair color, given that we're blind to it.

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

#530

Post by EnigmaFlare »

goodfellah wrote: post #496
rr808 wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont like the DEI industry, but affirmative action is good. Slavery ended 150 years ago and its disgraceful that so many African-Americans still live zero wealth, poor jobs, with second rate schools and healthcare. Many/most corporate jobs really dont require a lot of unique skills, its good that employers have a preference to hire under represented minorities, hopefully it'll help improve society for all of us.

The issue is that there are many who suffer from generational poverty and are not “diverse”. The DEI benefits should go to all of disadvantaged people regardless of skin color. And there are many wealthy African Americans. Why are they getting the benefits of DEI vs the generationally low income white kid?

Not in America, but I was talking to some managers for a childcare service here and they were explaining why they try to favor brown people. One put it as "for want of a better measure". It's kind of strange since that's sort of what all racism is, isn't it? An easy shortcut for evaluating people without having to go to the trouble of investigating each individual.
Post reply on HN