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

701–710 of 807 posts

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

#701

Post by aleph_minus_one »

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #638
medellin wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m still looking for the single person who was offended by the use of master as the default git branch name. I never found them but everyone got to pretend like they were making a difference for a little bit. These statements are the exact same thing to me.

> I never found them but everyone got to pretend like they were making a difference for a little bit. Keyword: virtue signalling > https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling (in Germany, it is common to use a much more derogatory term for a related concept: "[der] Tugendterror" [virtue terror]).

EDIT: I accidentally linked the German Wikipedia page. Here the link to the English Wikipedia:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling

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

#702

Post by Dylan16807 »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #649
Dylan16807 wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a big goalpost move from the original claim that meanings can be different.

No it isn't. They said UIs are different in different cultures because "red implies prosperity and vitality" so prove it. Show me some examples and evidence. Anyone can make claims based off of cliches, but when it comes time to back it up with real world examples everyone either goes silent or gets upset and makes the same claim more aggressively. Chinese historical art has a use of red due to cinnabar being believe…

The actual claim was "UI colors can have different meanings in different cultures."

I don't know about that prosperity thing, but I can give you an example that happens a lot. Some groups use red to mean stopped and green to mean moving, while others use red to mean danger and moving, and green to mean safe and stopped. This isn't directly country-related but I believe there's significant variation based on location.

Oh, wait, while searching to double check that I found an example of exactly what you asked for. CJK stock market displays tend to use red for increases, while the West uses red for decreases.

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

#703

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

tharne wrote: post #683
KorematsuFredt wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of things have "said purpose" and the "real purpose" because of which such absolutely kafkaesque things survive in organizations. The said purpose of-course is to make sure that the candidate is "committed to diversity". We can argue all day on whether a statement is in any way good measure of it. It really isn't. I have helped people write such statements and we have always written it with cynicism and great c…

> A lot of things have "said purpose" and the "real purpose" because of which such absolutely kafkaesque things survive in organizations. I remember sitting in conference room once and between meetings we started discussing the MBA degree and how you often needed one to move up at big companies. I mused that I didn't understand why this was so important since an MBA program didn't teach you much that you couldn't lea…

> proof you can spend a lot of time and effort completing bullshit assignments on time without too much heel-dragging or back talk.

You don't need an MBA for that, a highschool GPA would be enough proof.

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

#704

Post by akavi »

KorematsuFredt wrote: post #587

[flagged]

As an Indian-American, "South Asian" is a perfectly reasonable ethnic grouping in the United States. Collectively, that represents ~1% of the US population, too small a grouping to reasonably split out when talking about ethnicity in general terms.

All cultures are fractal. For my own ethnic heritage, for example, I could insist on splitting out:

* South Indian Dravidians from North Indian Arynans

* Kannadigas from other South Indians

* Lingayats from Vaishnavites

But that level of detail (absent special contexts where its relevant) would almost always confuse rather than clarify.

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

#705

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #639
kortilla wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it’s just cultural have you thought of “getting the fuck over it” and letting your wife get a dog? You seem like a logical person, unless you specifically have an issue with them that isn’t cultural baggage, just embrace the ability to have dogs.

Culture includes some of our most deep-down disgust responses. I have trouble even being at people’s houses if there’s dog hair on the couch or I can smell them. It’s coded to me as a dirty environment.

Not being a dog person doesn't make you a xenophobe! Lots of Americans don't like dogs. You are one of them.

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

#706

Post by TrackerFF »

ssijak wrote: post #3

Clicked through some links in the article. Really mind boggling material. How did such garbage end up in top universities is really weird.

Decades of institutional discrimination.

I'm a white upper middle-class dude, and there used to be a time where it was only guys like me that got into prestigious schools, and had a chance at landing influential jobs - while others would either get silently rejected, scolded for trying, or simply laughed out of the office.

So while the intentions for DEI were good, the reality might be that they've regressed back to initial problem. Should some people be rejected, simply because they're overrepresented? And must your workers write/sign a statement that basically says "I, [name], hereby agree that discrimination is good if it is for the greater good."

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

#707

Post by Dylan16807 »

naasking wrote: post #693
Dylan16807 wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A huge fraction of humans don't have gametes. That definition only works for describing a species, not individuals. That doesn't need debating, he's off in his own corner talking about a completely different metric.

He addresses that in one of the links.

Now you're cursing me to read entire twitter threads?

This isn't in fact my hobby horse so without more specifics I'll just treat him as talking past people and move on.

Looking at the video in the second link, it looks like he only spent three minutes talking about trans people and I don't see any explanation there about how you're supposed to apply his universal biological definition to individual people.

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

#708

Post by KorematsuFredt »

akavi wrote: post #704
KorematsuFredt wrote: post #587

[flagged]

As an Indian-American, "South Asian" is a perfectly reasonable ethnic grouping in the United States. Collectively, that represents ~1% of the US population, too small a grouping to reasonably split out when talking about ethnicity in general terms. All cultures are fractal. For my own ethnic heritage, for example, I could insist on splitting out: * South Indian Dravidians from North Indian Arynans * Kannadigas from o…

South Asian is not "reasonable" it is pretty much racist. We white people could not be bothered with actually noticing the difference between Pakistan and India is the reason.

> Lingayats from Vaishnavites

This tells me you are probably some kind of humanities graduate from some murican university ?

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

#709

Post by KorematsuFredt »

faizan-ali wrote: post #681
KorematsuFredt wrote: post #587

[flagged]

This is the most ridiculous take I've seen all year. South Asia is an established geographical-cultural term that includes the two largest countries in Southern Asia - India and Pakistan.

It is not "established" at all. No one calls their restaurant "South Asian", it is always Indian/Pakistani.

"South Asian" = > Racist and Hindu-phobic is the established norm.

Post reply on HN