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

371–380 of 807 posts

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

#371

Post by WalterBright »

OJFord wrote: post #358
dgfitz wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you were simply evaluated against your noggin and not your skin? Edit: what are the arguments against this?

> 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 whole cars. It was just foregone that I was going to engineering school.

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

#372

Post by codeflo »

gruez wrote: post #344
Aurornis wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve heard this same argument for DEI statements every time the topic has been debated: They sidestep arguments about DEI statements and instead retreat to safer arguments about how advancing DEI is a good thing. On one hand, I get it. Arguing for DEI in an abstract sense is much easier than arguing for specific interventions. On the other hand, this is the textbook example of a Motte-and-bailey fallacy, where the de…

>On the other hand, this is the textbook example of a Motte-and-bailey fallacy, where the debater conflates two topics and then retreats to the safer position while hoping that the audience will accept it as an argument for the more difficult position. Motte and bailey accusations only work if the statemnts in question are being made by the same person. For the debater in the post above at least, is there any evidenc…

> Motte and bailey accusations only work if the statemnts in question are being made by the same person.

I think it's perfectly justified in cases where debater self-identifies as part of the "bailey" community -- that is, if in other contexts the debater wouldn't oppose people arguing for the bailey position.

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

#373

Post by rebeccaskinner »

rayiner wrote: post #334
rebeccaskinner wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Perhaps, but a team that would not have hired you because of your skin color or ethnicity would also be a worse team since they would not be willing or able to hire the best candidates. > As soon as you make it acceptable to say that p…

I agree with the “eliminate artificial barriers” version of DEI. I’m a huge beneficiary of the push in the 1990s to “not see race.” But I don’t think that’s the dominant version of DEI today. I think the notion that “diverse teams are better” actually erects barriers, because it socializes people to think that the races are different. I think the situation is different for sex diversity because men and women are diff…

It seems to me like we’re probably not too far apart in our opinions- and perhaps each of us bringing a separate set of experiences is letting us come to a better and more nuanced view.

I still do personally think that at a high level diverse teams and companies do tend to be better than non-diverse ones, especially when you have many axes of diversity. I imagine that some of that is direct benefit when someone is able to pull on their experiences to directly benefit a project, and some of it is simply that teams who hire the best people without artificial barriers will both be better and tend to be more diverse.

That’s observational rather than prescriptive though. When it comes to individual teams and individual hiring decisions I’d never advocate for anything other than hiring the best available candidate. Similarly, while you can say that across the population having diversity is good, you shouldn’t assume any specific part of an individual’s background or experience should manifest in any particular way.

All that said, I do think understanding the general ways that different aspects of a persons background impacts their work experience is a necessary part of building an effective workforce. How can you remove artificial barriers without taking time to understand what those barriers are?

Although I’ve had my own negative experiences at times, my experience overall is that most DEI initiatives I’ve been involved with have not been unaware of the risks and nuance, and people involved are usually trying to do the right things. I don’t think modern DEI approaches are overall worse- just more controversial because of broader social, cultural, and political tensions.

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

#374

Post by jimbokun »

rebeccaskinner wrote: post #244
collingreen wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am very interested in increasing diversity but I don't like the idea that anyone disagreeing with any dei suggestion should be labeled as intentionally disruptive and bad faith. Calling 80% of discussion here bad faith aimed at holding particular groups down is a big claim that shouldn't be thrown around lightly in a good faith post.

> 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.)

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

#375

Post by slenocchio »

pfdietz wrote: post #370
slenocchio wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you send me writing or video of any serious thinker advocating for this? The OP is a common straw-man characterization of the position I described.

> serious thinker No True Scotsman detected.

Ok how about any thinker.

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

#376

Post by beerandt »

cogman10 wrote: post #318
Aurornis wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve heard this same argument for DEI statements every time the topic has been debated: They sidestep arguments about DEI statements and instead retreat to safer arguments about how advancing DEI is a good thing. On one hand, I get it. Arguing for DEI in an abstract sense is much easier than arguing for specific interventions. On the other hand, this is the textbook example of a Motte-and-bailey fallacy, where the de…

Feels a little bit like making people take anti-theft pledges. I don't think anyone could reasonably expect that theft would be prevented by someone pledging not to engage in it yet it might be tricky to publicly remove because "what are you, pro-theft!?!" Similar to DEI training in general which doesn't appear to do too much. It should be argued that "we shouldn't do these trainings" yet you also don't want to be th…

Imo it's very different bc the ideology pledge itself is mostly distracting from the real purpose of the dei statement (again imo), which is to provide a way to select employees based on race, etc, without it being the explicit reason.

A better comparison would be if instead of an anti-theft pledge, there were a ten-commandments plus beatitudes test/ statement, without referencing the source religion. Maybe call it a morality pledge.

It's essentially a religious test hiding behind another name and terms, and even if it doesn't explicitly discriminate based on religion, it's obviously designed so that people of certain religions do better.

And filters people not from those religions by boosting those who essentially share the same values, or can fake it.

In the same way, dei doesn't explicity select for diversity applicants, but for people who are explicitly pro-diversity-applicant.

Which doesn't sound quite as pure of you replace "diversity" with any of the approved / included groups...

'I'm not picking applicant based on them being black, but based on them having an ideology that is pro-black-applicant.'

Although sadly we've normalized it to crossing that line as well, with the last SCOTUS nominee.

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

#377

Post by uejfiweun »

_lvbh wrote: post #274

Beyond the culture war, I find DEI uncomfortable. I’m not the most articulate and don’t keep up with modern trends. Ask me about computers or tell me to code, but writing about social subjects when I barely leave my room and even then only to exercise feels like a nightmare. I’ve been asked to optionally write something similar during university applications in the past but along with ethnicity and other private info…

I'm with you on this one. I take pride in being out of tune with pop culture, I much prefer to focus on my real-life relationships, tech, personal projects, etc. This DEI stuff seems to change so rapidly that I often have no clue whether something I said was OK or not OK in the eyes of the overlords. It's caused me quite a bit of anxiety, especially during the peak of it in June 2020.

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

#380

Post by jimbokun »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #357
eapressoandcats wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The American obsession with race is deeply rooted in historically having a large, enslaved underclass that was kept down using racial justifications and against which there is still measurable bias across all areas of life (hiring, police stops, criminal sentencing, etc.) It’s not unique to America but it is a major differentiator from other countries. A key thing to note is that many homogeneous countries are extrem…

Didn't you guys do the same to every other immigrant? Italian? Irish? Even us, slavs? And isn't affirmative action a form of open racial preference? In my country, there's no way a race would play any benefit in eg. college acceptance... tbf., colleges don't even see the candidates until they're accepted (with few exceptions).

Every immigrant was treated poorly initially, but nothing compares to the special hell inflicted on African slaves brought to this country. With the possible exception of the Native Americans.
Post reply on HN