Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society • Hacker News Board

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#341

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 4:12 PM UTC

memish wrote: post #245

fareesh wrote: post #223

This is now firmly in religious territory. Is there much of a difference between this and halal/kosher certification?

We have laws for separation of church and state, they should be applied to this as any other. This is a religion. It's the same as any religious group trying to impose their morality and beliefs on everyone else. To be a good person use the correct words and correct ideas as defined by us, the good people. If you disagree you are a bad person. Sinful, evil. How can you disagree with the Holy Words, Diversity, Inclusi…

Like most religious analogies in this area, I completely agree with it as a framework but don't really follow the conclusions. If it's a religion, surely part of living in a secular society is allowing people to practice it freely, even if that means that some conferences (or professors, or schools) adopt explicit creeds. I do worry, because I think this particular religion is factually wrong in ways that matter a lot, but the idea that academics should never let their core beliefs impact their work isn't really realistic.

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#342

Post by hackerlight » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 4:13 PM UTC

BlargMcLarg wrote: post #121

stjohnswarts wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a burgeoning push back on quotas and such as well. I think the woke crowd pushed their luck a bit too hard. This is coming from a very progressive person (me) but who also feels egalitarianism and personal responsibility should always be the goal and not an afterthought.

I'm not getting that impression. For what it's worth, "woke left" has always been a minority, yet it hasn't lost momentum as much as it continually rotates in direction. Specifically, we're seeing more and more non-NA countries adopt these rhetorics from both the US and CA. Politics is becoming more and more extremist too, with the extreme left lashing out and calling anyone who even questions the status quo an extre…

The extreme left and right do fuel each other. I think Trump's rise in 2015 was somewhat related to the rise of wokeness in 2012. A large slice of right wing media today is outrage at wokeness. It's animating them. The fascists in Japan and Germany were partly motivated out of a fear of Bolsheviks.

This is my main gripe with wokeness. Yes I dislike the illiberalism of quotas and the collectivist nature of its moral system (collective guilt and inherited guilt). But my main concern is the right wing backlash and the consequences of that on democracy and freedom.

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#343

Post by logifail » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 4:15 PM UTC

wcerfgba wrote: post #276

rhaksw wrote: post #173

Free Speech for Me--But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other (1992) [1] is a good read on how we got to a point where our ability to communicate across ideologies appears to be broken in many ways. For example, in 1963 Yale disinvited George Wallace, who was popular in the deep south, as a speaker. As a result, observers were deprived of a chance to hear opposing speakers' argu…

> Censorship is all these characters need to gain new followers. No, they also need a platform to make people aware of their existence, their views, and to recast their censorship to be in their favour. The whole point of no-platforming individuals is to make a statement that their views are seen as reprehensible and to stop them from being able to air those views to an audience. Not all ideological disputes are abou…

> we know that have a tendency to abuse such spaces through techniques such as emotional rhetoric [..]

In the spirit of fairness, should one actually no-platform everyone using emotional rhetoric?

Your favourite media outlet will almost certainly have a lot less to say if we do. Depending on your PoV, this may or may not be a bad thing.

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#344

Post by kenjackson » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 4:15 PM UTC

mpweiher wrote: post #104

kenjackson wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is the principle incorrect? It’s a truth like evolution. You can’t fix past discrimination without future discrimination, in most cases. That is something you can model quite nicely mathematically. The question is just if it is reprehensible to do so. Or if there are times when it is more or less reprehensible.

1) Evolution is not "a truth", as in a revealed truth that is true just by uttering it. Evolution is a well-supported and falsifiable scientific theory. 2) Evolution was not blindly accepted as "truth" the way you seem to expect this so-called "principle" to be accepted simply on your say-so (or prophet Kendi's?). Quite the contrary, it was not accepted at all and evidence had to provided. Lots and lots of evidence.…

For 1-4, we will mostly set that aside for now. But I do think that most people find it obviously true -- it just may or may not be to their benefit to say so.

Identity politics does lead to bad outcomes, yet here we are. Unfortunately we've gotten ourselves to the point that now acting like there are no identities is just another form of identity politics. E.g., saying "lets stop talking about gender -- we have male and female and lets just stop there and move on" seems less appealing to those that feel currently disenfranchised by the status quo.

On 6, anti-racism is racist, but not for the reason that most people assume. It is because white people tend to double down when confronted with anti-racist data. For example, when whites are told that the legal system is unjust to blacks, they tend to support it more. By anti-racisms very definition of being strictly results, and not intent, oriented -- it itself is racist.

On your second 6 -- the second wrong can dampen the impact of the first wrong. I also notice that the beneficiaries of the first wrong, do love this quote. A tad convenient?

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#345

Post by rayiner » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 4:16 PM UTC

memish wrote: post #263

rayiner wrote: post #231

The irony of “anti racism” is that its core goal of racial preferences is one championed mainly by white elite administrators. Let’s be clear: most minorities oppose explicit racial preferences, including Black people: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/05/08/america... In a recent example, the California ballot measure that would have legalized racial preferences in the state failed overwhelmingly, inclu…

It could be described as thinly veiled white supremacy.

Quite thinly veiled. They are the intellectual descendants of Lord Macaulay: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00generallinks/...

> In one point I fully agree with the gentlemen to whose general views I am opposed. I feel with them that it is impossible for us, with our limited means, to attempt to educate the body of the people. We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern, --a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population.

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#346

Post by monocasa » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 4:16 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #316

ngetchell wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those people are still allowed to protest and march through the town. What part of free speech says that private companies need to carry hate speech?

Where we pretend that groups like the ACLU didn't have to go to court for that, and that it's always allowed for everyone and it's never a huge problem.

The ACLU has backed a bit off of that since Charlottesville.

https://www.vox.com/2017/8/20/16167870/aclu-hate-speech-nazi...

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#347

Post by _fat_santa » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 4:17 PM UTC

mensetmanusman wrote: post #189

It’s an insightful critique that a mandated statement does force many academics to lie. This is by grasping at straws trying to find a relationship between their decades-long research thrust and a shiny new requirement popular among the administrative class that is now in charge.

> This is by grasping at straws trying to find a relationship between their decades-long research thrust and a shiny new requirement popular among the administrative class that is now in charge.

That's my biggest problem with it. It's not a bad idea by itself, but what makes it such a bad idea is that it seemingly gets shoved on top of everything. The idea that everything has to advance DEI is crazy, because some things just aren't related.

This is a classic boy who cried wolf problem. I'm sure there is racism in the US and we can certainly do a better job in advancing DEI in _some_ places. But when you go around yelling that everything has a DEI problem, you focus on the bullshit and miss the real issues.

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#348

Post by mlyle » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 4:20 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #327

socialismisok wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I... This seems pretty different than what Haidt is painting it as. This is saying sociology research should communicate if it engaged with communities that haven't been a part of this sort of research in the past.

They also have an explicit expectation that most papers will "slightly to moderately advance[] SPSP's goal of promoting equity, inclusion, and anti-racism", as well as a header that separates the DEI review from the normal review. It's hard to imagine someone reading this policy and saying "well, my research is unrelated to equity or anti-racism, so I'll just say that and it'll be fine".

I doubt it's SPSP's intention to completely abandon all non-diversity related research.

OTOH, it may get a little harder to publish research where your study population / sample is all-white-wealthy-undergrads.

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#349

Post by mkmk3 » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 4:20 PM UTC

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #333

pessimizer wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Imagine complaining about not being able to sit at a particular lunch counter, or getting the seat on the bus you want. I mean, dude, there are other seats and better places to eat. Why are you eating at diners anyway?

We have always made a distinction between things that are not the fault of the individual (skin color, gender, ethnicity) and things that are (speech and actions). Which seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Religion (/dressed up ideologies)?

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#350

Post by hackerlight » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 4:22 PM UTC

anm89 wrote: post #36

A true act of courage. Suffering personal consequences to stick up for what he believes in and do the right thing. The world needs more people like this.

He's the most important public intellectual today in more ways than one. Probably the only person who is communicating a deep understanding of the political divide to the public, and what can be done to fix it. Unlike some of his colleagues like the hack Gad Saad or the slightly less hacky but still partisan Jordan Peterson.