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

Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 906 posts

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

#71

Post by tpoacher »

imgabe wrote: post #57
SamReidHughes wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not so much off-topic research. The research output of much of social psychology tends to hurt the cause of DEI. They want to stop that.

Research should not be dependent on whether or not it hurts any cause. If the research is poorly done, exclude it for that reason. If not, maybe re-examine what your cause is in light of the research. Copernicus's research into the Earth revolving around the Sun hurt the Catcholic church's cause of being the ultimate source of truth for all humanity. They wanted to put a stop to that... Starting with the answer and r…

Copernicus and Galileo being harangued by the Church of their time, and stifling progress of the obvious, is more popular myth than historical fact. It has been debunked many, many times. Ironically, the fervor and persistence with which this story gets propagated ad nauseam feels almost ... religious.

I wish people would stop dropping it as the de facto example of interference with science when there are so many better ones (and also current ones). It's a bad analogy, evokes emotion, and ultimately it typically does a disservice to the argument intended.

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

#72

Post by tpoacher »

Manuel_D wrote: post #50
defrost wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Is it not possible to do research on anything else that maybe doesn’t have anything to do with identity issues? It's the Society for Personality and Social Psychology ... You may as well ask is not possible to submit to the Association for Computing Machinery a piece of research unrelated to computing.

No, it's more like requiring everyone submitting papers to the ACM to explain how their research will result in a more equitable society. That'd exclude a ton of research topics: how is a faster rendering technique going to result in anti-racist outcomes? I guess you cant submit that paper.

Faster renders favour people in socioeconomically deprived areas who lack higher-end resources and thus face a barrier to entry in the field.

Boom. Submit.

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

#73

Post by EdwardDiego »

Dalewyn wrote: post #67
EdwardDiego wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

By their very nature, "diversity" and "inclusion" are racist because it must consider someone's race. By arguing for "diversity" and "inclusion" we are mandating we judge people for what they are, rather than who they are; judge them by the color of their skin rather than the quality of their character. "Anti-racism", which in American academia usually comes about in the form of blacks and latinos receiving preferent…

That doesn't quite explain why it's specifically anti-Asian though?

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

#74

Post by [deleted] »

kenjackson wrote: post #68
busterarm wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say it's a leap but then you present an argument where only way to achieve "fairness" is to engage in discrimination the other way. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE BOOK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CALLS FOR! Life isn't and will never be fair. The fairness you seem to be seeking is "eye for an eye". You know what does make life fair though? We're all headed for worms and dirt eventually. None of us escape that. That's how you s…

Your rationale for the lack of attempting to right past wrongs is we all die? Is that how you view the Justice system? I assume you see no need for detectives.

[deleted]

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

#75

Post by EdwardDiego »

rippercushions wrote: post #59
EdwardDiego wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I believe GP is referencing American university admissions, where DEI-flavored racial quotas tend to disadvantage Asians when compared to a race-blind system based purely on standardized tests.

Huh, okay, so, to clarify my understanding, because of the quotas, assuming a fixed amount of available spots, less Asians get in than they would without the quotas.

But a) wouldn't that apply to other demographics too? and b) All Asians? Are Hmong, for example, over-represented in college enrollments?

I'm just trying to understand why it's specifically anti-Asian.

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

#76

Post by jl6 »

kenjackson wrote: post #68
busterarm wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say it's a leap but then you present an argument where only way to achieve "fairness" is to engage in discrimination the other way. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE BOOK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CALLS FOR! Life isn't and will never be fair. The fairness you seem to be seeking is "eye for an eye". You know what does make life fair though? We're all headed for worms and dirt eventually. None of us escape that. That's how you s…

Your rationale for the lack of attempting to right past wrongs is we all die? Is that how you view the Justice system? I assume you see no need for detectives.

You seem to be suggesting that the only way to right past wrongs is to commit further wrongs. Is there really no positive way forward?

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

#77

Post by blix »

kenjackson wrote: post #70
mpweiher wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. People rightly reject these "principles" as incorrect and both morally and pragmatically reprehensible.

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.

I wonder if there are any historical examples of racial discrimination justified by invoking evolution.

This argument is hilarious but this is not a turn I expected it to take.

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

#78

Post by somenameforme »

rippercushions wrote: post #59
EdwardDiego wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I believe GP is referencing American university admissions, where DEI-flavored racial quotas tend to disadvantage Asians when compared to a race-blind system based purely on standardized tests.

Elaborating on this, there is a passage quoted in the article from the most common text on "anti-racism" : "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."

The consequences of this are easy to illustrate in orchestras. Orchestras have always been heavily dominated by white and Asian musicians. When it was argued that this was due to discrimination in hiring, the solution was quite simple and tasteful - swap to blind auditions. And that is something few would oppose. So they did.

The problem is that not only did it fail to create more diverse orchestras, in many cases they became even less diverse than they were prior. So now the 'anti-racist' view is that orchestras need to begin being racist against white and Asian applicants, and start biasing selection by race. [1] Groups that disproportionately overperform become acceptable targets for racism.

Incidentally this is not entirely different than the motivation for some of the darkest moments in our history. Alas people never seem to appreciate that the "evil" groups in times past never saw themselves as evil, but simply as people engaging in temporarily distasteful action for a greater future. That greater future never comes, but the distasteful actions certainly do. Of course, "this time it'll be different."

[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/arts/music/blind-audition...

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

#79

Post by josephg »

tpoacher wrote: post #71
imgabe wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Research should not be dependent on whether or not it hurts any cause. If the research is poorly done, exclude it for that reason. If not, maybe re-examine what your cause is in light of the research. Copernicus's research into the Earth revolving around the Sun hurt the Catcholic church's cause of being the ultimate source of truth for all humanity. They wanted to put a stop to that... Starting with the answer and r…

Copernicus and Galileo being harangued by the Church of their time, and stifling progress of the obvious, is more popular myth than historical fact. It has been debunked many, many times. Ironically, the fervor and persistence with which this story gets propagated ad nauseam feels almost ... religious. I wish people would stop dropping it as the de facto example of interference with science when there are so many bet…

> I wish people would stop dropping it as the de facto example of interference with science when there are so many better ones (and also current ones)

Could you provide some examples of better stories to use instead?

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

#80

Post by Dalewyn »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #73
Dalewyn wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By their very nature, "diversity" and "inclusion" are racist because it must consider someone's race. By arguing for "diversity" and "inclusion" we are mandating we judge people for what they are, rather than who they are; judge them by the color of their skin rather than the quality of their character. "Anti-racism", which in American academia usually comes about in the form of blacks and latinos receiving preferent…

That doesn't quite explain why it's specifically anti-Asian though?

It's anti-asian and also anti- any race that isn't on the list of beneficiaries. The original argument could have been conveyed better by framing it more broadly, but it isn't wrong.
Post reply on HN