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

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

#421

Post by inglor_cz » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 5:17 PM UTC

hackerlight wrote: post #405

inglor_cz wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people are so irrational that they can't be trusted with judging information, so will be the gatekeepers that will wield the weapons of censorship.

I was talking about whether censorship is effective at preventing the spread of specific ideas. You're talking about whether censorship is a good idea. Separate discussion.

OK, fair enough.

I suspect that the answer is "it depends on the culture". China seems to have a lot more control over the spread of anti-CCP ideas than Iran has over the spread of anti-regime ideas, and it isn't because of Iranian censors trying less or having worse tools. But the Iranian population seems to be much less conforming and more ready to rebel.

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

#422

Post by rogershock » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 5:17 PM UTC

yathaid wrote: post #112

"Now that many university presidents have agreed to implement many of the demands, I believe that the conflict between truth and social justice is likely to become unmanageable." Can someone ELI5 what is this conflict between truth and social justice Haidt refers to?

Haidt gave a lecture on the topic at Duke in 2016. It's titled, "Two incompatible sacred values in American universities." It's on the YouTube channel of Duke's political science department.

It's been a while since I've watched the lecture, but what I remember is that Haidt sees the academy seeking truth as (potentially?) incompatible with the academy seeking social justice. As such, he anticipates a day when universities will have to choose individually which path they will follow.

I suspect that's the context in which Haidt is making this decision.

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

#423

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 5:18 PM UTC

Stupulous wrote: post #279

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's that research going to be used for? Will it become of the basis of policy that says 'only asians are allowed to enter the power lifting club', 'only east africans on the running team', 'only white land owning men are allowed to vote'.

Setting aside the question of whether the truth should be suppressed because of consequences, this kind of research could very easily be beneficial. Suppose you find out that the green people from East Arbitria are less productive. The immediate effect is that an innocent objective employer who being tried for discrimination or hated by a community no longer has to suffer- the cruelty of the universe is no longer bei…

It would also mean that people could use this to say "All East Arbitaria people are less productive than all other ethnicities, therefore I shall ban them from my workplace. I am not anti-Arbitrian, I am just using the latest science". And of course these things are always statistical and so high performing East Arbitarians are going to be shut out of work because of this study.

The point is, there is a history of race-based discrimination in the world and researchers can't just pretend that it doesn't still exist when constructing these kinds of studies and how their outcomes could be used negatively by both benevolent and malevolent actors. It isn't just 'truth or not truth', also because lots of sociological studies aren't repeatable and many others suffer all sorts of issues with methods, populations, etc. Measuring people is crazy hard to do reliably. Anyway, my hot take is that its not a simple question and does not have a simple answer.

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

#424

Post by tsol » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 5:18 PM UTC

hackerlight wrote: post #360

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…

Quoted post unavailable.

>I'm not saying that censorship is just or desirable. Just that it works.

Does it though? Ideas are hard to kill. Just because you stop people from saying something in public, does not mean they aren't talking about it in private. In fact, oftentimes people even assume the thing you can't talk about must be really important or else they'd let you talk about it. And in turn, it holds more powerful and spreads further. I don't think censorship is really effective at stopping ideas

You say ideas are like viruses. Since when has trying to stop viruses worked?

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

#425

Post by HyperSane » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 5:19 PM UTC

kenjackson wrote: post #48

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…

In this thread I’ve noticed people have jumped from these principles, which do seem true to very specific statements about race that don’t seem true. Interesting.

Ibram X Kendi is explicitly advocating for racial discrimination here. Just racial discrimination in favor of his race. That is pretty obviously racist.

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

#426

Post by JohnHaugeland » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 5:19 PM UTC

arthur5005 wrote: post #281

JohnHaugeland wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Because a lot people disagree with you. It’s not a conspiracy, your take just isn’t popular.

Flagging a gentle and reasonable statement like "that isn't what I meant" isn't a practical way to handle disagreement, and doesn't follow HN's rules

The punishment culture for not being part of the crowd has gotten too much here.

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

#427

Post by rayiner » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 5:19 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…

The Christian right could make identical arguments, and a few decades ago had the political power to deplatform” those who disagreed with them. Why is your argument different?

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

#428

Post by everybodyknows » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 5:20 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.

> popular among the administrative class

There you have it. And will remain popular as long as it's a ticket to career advancement. Or, in plainer terms, to power.

From the mid-20th century, a satire in allegorical form:

https://mathematicalcrap.com/2022/08/14/the-great-loyalty-oa...

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

#429

Post by mlyle » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 5:20 PM UTC

ttpphd wrote: post #415

mlyle wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

There is never any such thing as neutral review. Someone always gets favored. The premise of neutrality existing in some golden bygone era is a myth.

That's great, because my comment never assumed the existence of neutral review.

It merely pointed out that some kinds of DEI input to review are almost certainly helpful to advancing science (e.g. ensuring we get reasonable samples in social research); some are controversial (e.g. favoring diverse researcher groups); and some are almost certainly harmful (e.g. determining whether the research can be published based on whether it makes a pro-DEI finding).

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

#430

Post by pharrington » Sun, Oct 02, 2022, 5:21 PM UTC

jwarden wrote: post #259

bluejekyll wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

The problems often start historically when one group comes to believe that some other group wants to “eliminate open society and civility” (or so some other evil thing), and thus feel justified in using any means to oppose them. Never forget the bad guys almost always think they are good guys fighting evil.

The people who first do the targeted group violence are the bad guys.