Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UBC bans non-minority candidates from applying for tenure-track quantum position

cs.ubc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–119 of 119 posts

Re: UBC bans non-minority candidates from applying for tenure-track quantum position

#111

Post by oceanghost »

civilized wrote: post #3

Just to be clear, they seem to be only excluding able-bodied cisgender white men. Which is not to say it's a great policy, but in the interests of precision: > In accordance with UBC’s CRC Equity, Diversity, & Inclusion Action Plan, and pursuant to Section 42 of the BC Human Rights code, the selection will be restricted to members of the following designated groups: persons with disabilities, Indigenous Peoples, wome…

And this is how we ended up with the MAGA crowd, IMHO.

Telling white males they're inherently bad and nothing they can do to change that and that society that they still have a significant amount of control over despises them...

Re: UBC bans non-minority candidates from applying for tenure-track quantum position

#112

Post by inglor_cz »

zomglings wrote: post #102
cdot2 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont think discrimination solves discrimination

What do you think solves discrimination?

Does the OP need to have such answers ready?

If someone observes that healing crystals and prayers do not cure cancer, should they be required to provide a perfect cure for cancer before the healing crystal and prayer practice is discontinued?

I happen to agree with the OP. Discrimination to solve discrimination is rather similar to "war to end all wars". And as for your question, I don't think that wars, discrimination etc. can be ultimately solved; they aren't mathematical tasks but results of innate human flaws, so fundamentally unsolvable unless you redesign humans, which has always been a failure. But they or their consequences can be mitigated, much like we managed to mitigate many other human flaws.

I would rather ask the opposite side for some reasons why they think that an end of discrimination will be achieved by lifting the categories of race or gender to a legally critical concept.

Re: UBC bans non-minority candidates from applying for tenure-track quantum position

#113

Post by rknintiet »

oceanghost wrote: post #111
civilized wrote: post #3

Just to be clear, they seem to be only excluding able-bodied cisgender white men. Which is not to say it's a great policy, but in the interests of precision: > In accordance with UBC’s CRC Equity, Diversity, & Inclusion Action Plan, and pursuant to Section 42 of the BC Human Rights code, the selection will be restricted to members of the following designated groups: persons with disabilities, Indigenous Peoples, wome…

And this is how we ended up with the MAGA crowd, IMHO. Telling white males they're inherently bad and nothing they can do to change that and that society that they still have a significant amount of control over despises them...

Who's telling them they are inherently bad?

Re: UBC bans non-minority candidates from applying for tenure-track quantum position

#114

Post by civilized »

rknintiet wrote: post #113
oceanghost wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this is how we ended up with the MAGA crowd, IMHO. Telling white males they're inherently bad and nothing they can do to change that and that society that they still have a significant amount of control over despises them...

Who's telling them they are inherently bad?

It's a good question. The best message here might be "we've made the decision to prioritize fighting marginalization and we think this is the most effective way to do it -- nothing personal white guys". But it's a delicate message to send, and some people will never accept this as an appropriate way to hire: "why do I have to be completely shut out to make inclusion possible?"

Re: UBC bans non-minority candidates from applying for tenure-track quantum position

#115

Post by causality0 »

andreskytt wrote: post #109
causality0 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two Spirit is considered a contemporary, umbrella term that is specific to the Indigenous LGBT2QQIA (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, Two Spirit, queer, questioning, intersexual, asexual) community. Frankly I'm not sure whether to laugh at the idea a gender identity can be limited to a specific ethnicity or to condemn it as inherently racist. This is entirely too meta.

The entire concept of talking about gender being “fluid” while proceeding to divide it into an increasingly complex framework of discrete classes is very meta. People are more complex than that, let them be! I do get that young people seek to gain a labeled identity (mine was “metalhead”) but that does not mean the rest of the society should play along. This creates a dangerous feedback loop: the more acceptable the…

Over time I've increasingly leaned toward the idea that "gender" is only different from "style" in the general perception that gender obligates other people to react to you in a specific way based on your chosen expression. Which is weird.

Re: UBC bans non-minority candidates from applying for tenure-track quantum position

#116

Post by native_samples »

rknintiet wrote: post #113
oceanghost wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this is how we ended up with the MAGA crowd, IMHO. Telling white males they're inherently bad and nothing they can do to change that and that society that they still have a significant amount of control over despises them...

Who's telling them they are inherently bad?

UBC? I mean they're saying it would be bad for straight white men to get a tenure-track position. There's no difference between that and "we think you're bad and don't want you".

Re: UBC bans non-minority candidates from applying for tenure-track quantum position

#117

Post by civilized »

native_samples wrote: post #116
rknintiet wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who's telling them they are inherently bad?

UBC? I mean they're saying it would be bad for straight white men to get a tenure-track position. There's no difference between that and "we think you're bad and don't want you".

I don't see that they're saying that. I think they're saying it's very important for UBC to get some marginalized people into these positions, so they're making space for such a person. It doesn't mean white men are bad. (And technically, FWIW, the passage doesn't explicitly count sexual orientation as a dimension of marginalization.)

Re: UBC bans non-minority candidates from applying for tenure-track quantum position

#118

Post by joannanewsom »

olliej wrote: post #110
joannanewsom wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you determine which ethnic groups have been historically disadvantaged and to what extent need correction? Black: Yes Native American: ? Afghan: ? Puerto Rican: ? Hawaiian: ? Japanese: ? Jewish: ? White: No Or do you simply go until the diversity of the position/company matches the diversity of the general population?

Determining groups that have been historically disadvantaged is generally not difficult. The part that is difficult is how you correct for that. There are many things you need to deal with. The most obvious ones being * Fields having relatively small populations run into the standard low population vs. overall population statistics * Fields that have historically restricted access to a group can legitimately point to…

> Determining groups that have been historically disadvantaged is generally not difficult.

Want to elaborate on how to determine if an ethnic group is disadvantaged? I really do not see what the process would look like, that isn't just comparing population sizes.

Otherwise you get into these impossible questions of is anti-semitism worse than hate crimes against asians. Every ethnicity can point to a history of injustice against them. But if the ideas is to favor certain groups, that means there needs to be a way of choosing which are deserving and which are not.

Re: UBC bans non-minority candidates from applying for tenure-track quantum position

#119

Post by native_samples »

civilized wrote: post #117
native_samples wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UBC? I mean they're saying it would be bad for straight white men to get a tenure-track position. There's no difference between that and "we think you're bad and don't want you".

I don't see that they're saying that. I think they're saying it's very important for UBC to get some marginalized people into these positions, so they're making space for such a person. It doesn't mean white men are bad. (And technically, FWIW, the passage doesn't explicitly count sexual orientation as a dimension of marginalization.)

By definition it does mean that - they have identified a problem (something bad; too many white men) and a solution (a way to make things better; get rid of them).

Clearly it's painful to accept this, but banning people from positions on the basis of their race or gender is racism, hateful and always has been. Whatever their motivations are or are claimed to be is irrelevant. The claim that it isn't racism if it's against "powerful" people i.e. whites is a lie.

Post reply on HN