Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

Post by inglor_cz » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 5:13 PM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #363

specialist wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> How has Chomsky's strategy worked? It's worked incredibly well. The United States - the country with easily some of the most well protected free speech laws - continues to be one of the most diverse and welcoming countries in the world. It's one of the most desired places for people to immigrate to, and continues to have a large foreign born population. By comparison, look at how a single digit percentage influx of…

Post by HyperSane » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 5:15 PM UTC

pas wrote: post #168

HyperSane wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the SPSP requirement went a step further, dropping "diversity" in favor of "anti-racism," a term frequently associated with Boston University's Ibram X. Kendi, author of How to Be an Antiracist and other works. Among the book's passages is a widely shared one highlighted by Haidt: "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discriminati…

That's ... not how this works. This is not a zero-sum thing. (Even if there are parts of the problem where the actual conflicts are zero-sum, ie. there's a limit of how many first-year students can fit into classes, etc.) Discriminating against already well off groups to help chronically not well-off groups (affirmative action) is of course discrimination but the consequence is very unlikely to cause the well-off gro…

Post by ttpphd » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 5:16 PM UTC

mlyle wrote: post #322

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.

Well, it's explicitly giving an advantage to submissions that engage with these diversity goals. Favoring research of understudied populations makes a lot of sense and is necessary. Favoring researchers based on their own personal diversity metrics is controversial. Favoring research whose findings support specific diversity-related desired outcomes is dangerous (and the policy may do this in practice).

Post by andrew_ » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 5:16 PM UTC

hackerlight wrote: post #368

1MachineElf wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>When one group wants to eliminate open society and civility, how is it possible to have an open and civil debate with them? In the US, there is not one group trying to do that, but a multitude of groups, some who are in power and some who are not, most of whom deny that they are trying to do what you charge them with.

There are a multitude of groups doing that, but they're not equally dangerous now. The problem is that the hard right has control of the Republican Party. The hard left does not have control of the Democratic Party. If US democracy falls in the next few years, it's almost guaranteed to be because of the hard right.

Post by sneak » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 5:16 PM UTC

lkrubner wrote: post #408

pessimizer wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. The only way that this works is to exert total control of the content of all communications. Otherwi…

> You're talking about destroying freedom of association and expression in order to root out reprehensible people with the wrong values We all have a strong moral obligation to root out "reprehensible people with the wrong values." If you think otherwise then you don't understand what the word "reprehensible" means.