Wait a minute... a conservative author from a conservative organization writing in a paper with a majority-convervative base...THAT article's source study found that there was a liberal bias in COLLEGES?!!?
Sorry; I know HN isn't kind to sass. But, sass aside, look at the details and it's obvious this is propaganda. Yes colleges (and life) have a liberal bias. That doesn't mean asking people to promise not to be racist (with a signature) is a fascist plot to indoctrinate orthodoxy. It just means that if you can't even promise to not be racist, there's a high likelihood there will be problems in your tenure, vis a vis how you respond to reasonable assurances of common ground.
But it's not about people signing a thing saying they won't be racist.
Since I know you read the article, I'm sure you saw the bit about someone penalizing a candidate for saying that "he respects his students and treats them equally." People can now quote the I Have A Dream Speech as part of their application essay and be branded racist for daring to say we should judge people by the content of their character. Whether it's coordinated or not is irrelevant - there is a group of people that push a particular subjective world view on others not just on not being racist but how one should not be racist.
Life doesn't have a liberal bias. If you think so, then either you are surrounding yourself by too many people that think exactly the same way you do (which kind of misses the point on diversity), or you have created an environment in which there are people who think differently than you, but are reluctant to actually speak their mind.
Babe, I live in ruby-red Texas. You're barking up the wrong tree with that "surrounded by alike-thought" nonsense. If you don't find that life has a liberal bias, then you haven't lived enough of it. And - for the record - that's not even a "progressive" jab; it's a reference to a complaint by a conservative. It's not like this is a partisan opinion; this is something conservative think-tanks constantly whine about.
In any case, the thing you ommitted from your quote - where the guy said DEI isn't important (because he "treats students equally") - is the problem area. Just like it would be if you said "Oh, I don't need to keep my gun unloaded. I practice trigger safety." It's not that trigger safety is bad; but any gun enthusiast would be very unsatisfied with that answer.
Why should treating students equally be unsatisfactory? That was the goal for decades after the civil rights until recently when DEI became all the rage, and all of a sudden now equality isn't enough. You have to be pro-equity, which seems to be outcome-based instead of opportunity-based. Which is a very different idea of equality. It's ideological, and I don't see why university professors need to be making statements in it's favor.
But see, it isn't. You've got an axe to grind; I get it. I just don't care that you don't like DEI for these slippery-slope, made-up reasons you have, in your head.
Learn what DEI is actually about. Then learn what the interviews actually produced (read: get your information from as many different sources as you can; not "one", even if it supports your bias). Then learn how the interview results correspond to the associated DEI standards. THEN you can speak constructively about what points are being misconstrued, which ones are being purposefully distorted, which ones are being ignored, and which other actions are unrelated to DEI and are only using it as a way to cover for politically-motivated actions.
OR, just go on believing that this "confirmation" doesn't have anything to do with your "bias", and believe it wholesale. Whatever floats your boat, dog.
I didn't contend that DEI discludes equity. I made the point that "equity" isn't what the commenter said it "seems to be". As in, ne said it seemed to be "outcome-based instead of opportunity-based". It's a complicated subject but I don't think any earnest reading of the tenets of DEI can be summarized as "outcome based" and especially not in place of "opportunity based". It immediately sets up a false dichotomy which implies a certain shallowness to the interpretation. Which is why my response took aim at the "axe to grind"; it sets up the foundation for the larger complaint (that professors shouldn't be employed based on ideological conformity), which makes that complaint resting on an un-validated argument. If ne wants to make that argument, ne needs to validate ner accusation, or refactor it to not be reliant upon a shallow understanding of DEI.
> I didn't contend that DEI discludes equity. I made the point that "equity" isn't what the commenter said it "seems to be". As in, ne said it seemed to be "outcome-based instead of opportunity-based".
What is equity then? Everything I've read on the subject defines it as being equality of outcome. Every definition I find contrasts it to equality being the equality of opportunity and that the focus of equity is a focus on equality of outcome. You're saying it doesn't mean what every source definition I can find says.
So what does it mean if I can't even trust the first page of Google results?
Sorry; They are just gender-neutral pronouns, since I don't know the comment author's gender. I find it easiest to parse, when reading, as "she" and "her", in my head, because trying to use "he" and "him" gets me mixed up when I read "ner".
I know it's not the common pronouns, and I'm happy to use whatever "xe", "they", or [insert] anyone wants me to use, about them. But when I'm making the editorial decisions based on ignorance (don't know the person's pronouns and have no reasonable way to get them before publishing), I prefer the "ne" pronouns because they don't have the plural confusions* that "they" does, nor do they turn your mouth to mush when you try to pronounce them, like "ze"/"xe".
*(heading this off at the pass) yes, "they" is often used singularly. But where "they" can, in contrived instances, be confusing as to whether you mean a group or not, "ne" simply doesn't have that problem. "ne" removes one more complication and I'm all for that. I also prefer plain JS to typescript; I'm aware that "simplicity" is a vice of mine.
Yes, it has. And can still lead to confusion, in certain instances.
I'm not trying to convince you, or anyone else, to write or speak the way I do. And I'm amenable to any specific person or group of persons representing their (<- there's one!) own interests telling me how to describe them. But I'm not particularly interested in etymological diatribes; I've seen them all and understand the arguments. I have made my decisions, and will continue to make my decisions, with all of those arguments in mind. Rest assured that you have nothing to gain by advocating them to me, as a third-party trying to police writing. I use "they" singularly, all the time, just like everyone else. And I use "ne" when I'm specifically acknowledging that I don't know the preferred pronouns, and have been left to fill them in using my own standards.
As an aside -- and maybe I'm missing it -- but I am a gun enthusiast and a competitive shooter with extensive police training. I keep one in the chamber and expect others would too.
Not surprising that your typical culture war conservative would fuel a culture war of their own. What a disgraceful person especially considering how Texas currently treats the individuals he seems to hate.
If it helps (in seeing people as human, or in justifying your hate for them) I doubt he actually hates any particular individuals. This is always about money and fame, for them. They want people to know them, and they want to be rich. And once you have come to terms with that, in your own head, you're kind of fine shitting on other people to further your own goals.
The culture war makes them famous; the beneficiaries of the culture war make them rich. It's just a business, and that's how they treat it. It's why shame doesn't work, and logic doesn't work. It's about an agenda, and not even one they particularly support. It's just the one that pays the bills.
Oh no I'm fully aware of the economics of fueling the culture war, but that makes it even more unethical because they're trying to directly profit from destroying the lives of others. It's sociopathic, though sociopathy and wealth seem to be somewhat correlated.
I've provided evidence to support the claims I made about the article. I have no particular interest in whether DEI - as implemented - is productive for academia. I do, however, have an interest in determining what is and what is not propaganda (for myself), and sharing the relevant information with my peers so that interested parties may dig in, for themselves.
> It just means that if you can't even promise to not be racist
Can I take a look at this Minimum Credible Commitment to Not Being Racist? Are there standard terms? Are there standard reciprocal commitments? For example, I would want any counter-party to commit to not treating me worse on race-related grounds than anyone else signing the same commitment. (That excludes any kind of rank-system, by the way, apologies if that's obvious to you.)
If liberal US colleges just want to filter for people who aren't so racist that they can't even be professional, then it's clear, to me at least, that there must be some other process that's frustrating their aim and making them expend a lot more resources than they would want to, to achieve a much worse result. In that case ISTM that what would be good for them is for some sort of overriding power to impose a Minimum Credible Commitment standard on them.
It must be very hard for you to not have strict, rigorous standards that you can apply and adhere to so that everything can be either "right" or "wrong". Unfortunately, such is the case with social issues. Good luck on navigating interpersonal issues! I can tell you, from experience, it's a lot easier when you drop the "Okay, if I have to put up with it, let's get some strict definitions!" bullshit.
The social issues may be messy. Why does that mean the employment conditions must be messy?
> I can tell you, from experience, it's a lot easier when you drop the "Okay, if I have to put up with it, let's get some strict definitions!" bullshit.
My experience is that if you take that attitude into a serious negotiation you have a great chance of being fucked over by people who "tell you things from experience".
Because employment is social. There's no rule that says you can't rub your stomach. But if you consistently find woman coworkers and stand around them vigorously rubbing your stomach, there's a good case for management to put an end to that.
There's no "rule" that can stop that kind of thing. People have to be reasonable and understand that it's just about "comfort". And silly people made up rules about "making people uncomfortable" and, predictably, people set about testing that rule because that's what people will always do. "Well, why is THIS creepy, but not THAT?!"
Nobody can tell you, Gene. We just all fucking know it. It's pretty obvious if you're not being obtuse about it.
An the other note: I'm sorry you seem to find yourself in situations where you are consistently (or with a great possibility) are getting fucked over by people. Might say something about your adherence to obtuseness, but I suppose I'll take your point here that you don't care what my experience says. Duly noted. I won't bring it up again.
If not being racist is one of those things that everyone fucking knows then that should make it easier to agree a standard commitment to not being racist. Breaches can then be dealt with in the same way that your hypothetical sexual harassment thing is dealt with, i.e. your boss (not "management", if "management" are responsible then you have bigger problems than people Stallmanning in the workplace) telling you to stop that, or firing you, or whatever, depending on what you agreed to when you were hired. If everyone really does know not to do X then being fired for doing X was a predictable consequence and you really have no-one else to blame but yourself. Moreover if you want your job then you probably will not actually do X whether you like being obtuse or not, which is the point of the whole thing.
None of which resembles the rank-system self-report antiracist-in-a-particular-way bollocks that is under discussion. That is not in fact a wonderful innovation. It's actually a lot closer to tribal politics than your excellent suggestion of a "promise not to be racist". Specifically in that it's something that "everyone knows" but you nevertheless get ranked on it; which is to say, it's not something everyone knows how to do but rather something everyone important knows about you, it's about your social status, it's a popularity contest.
Thank you for your concern about the situations I've found myself in! I did find myself in much better situations once I learned to treat business more seriously than high school.
Why would that make it easier? Everyone knows you shouldn't vigorously rub your stomach near your coworkers, but it's still hard to write a commitment that would satisfy all situations. What about when Gene gets a really bad itch on his stomach, and just happens to be standing by some coworkers?!
You can spend forever, drowning yourself in the "what ifs" trying to appease a type of person that will always be tilting at their preferred windmills, with their only point appearing to be "look! it's not PERFECT, so it's not worth doing."
Alternatively, you can understand why we - as a society - appreciate adjudication by other people (not an ironclad set of rules; the law leaves a lot of leeway for judges and juries to decide), and embrace that kind of governance even within your companies and other social structures. Rules to measure against, not rules to adhere to blindly.
You can pretend it's not the case all day long, but it's an observable state of the world that some people refuse the idea of "institutional racism". Some people refuse the idea that certain actions can be "racist" or "microaggressions". Some people vehemently REFUSE to understand the things that "everybody knows" because they are contrarian.
Writing rules around these people is an effort in futility. It's best to just identify those kinds of people and treat them accordingly.
But! If you disagree, feel free to write any sort of policy that you'd like, and ask reddit to try to abuse it. I eagerly await seeing your ironclad policies that take everything into account such that they can be listed as commitments to achieve said policy goals.
Alternatively, you could admit that not everything needs to be codified into a specific rule and that, sometimes, people are going to have to use judgement which, while not perfect, is not necessarily malicious or even harmful.
And hey - glad you found better situations! Sorry you weren't able to treat things seriously, in high school, but better late than never!
Because the immediate problem you're trying to solve as an employer isn't writing a commitment satisfying all situations, it's having a valuable association with your employees, and if employees know under what conditions they will be fired your problem is easier to solve than if they don't. Gene's rules-lawyering is not relevant. Refusal of an idea is not relevant, why would you try to make a window into men's souls that way, are you a better administrator than Elizabeth I? No.
Maybe they can also promise not to vote for a certain political party, just to be on the safe side. And maybe throw in a statement against capitalism and neoliberalism while they're at it, just to emphasize how they're not holding up the status quo.
If they did that, then even neutral organizations, like the ACLU and the National Academy of Sciences, would call out their poor practices. There are plenty of examples of that.
Turns out, well-written articles get input from all interested parties and include any opposition research so that readers can look at the information presented and decide what the report means. Please note that Mr. Sailer elided all of that and, instead, used a singular study (which he plainly admits) to attack a philosophy that he and his funders are on record trying to dismantle. This isn't complicated, it's just barely disguised.
> Turns out, well-written articles get input from all interested parties and include any opposition research so that readers can look at the information presented and decide what the report means.
You do realize this is an opinion piece, and not a news article, right?
Of course, and what is the issue with that? Propaganda has a vague definition, and basically any published opinion piece trying to persuade could be technically considered propaganda. At least it is labeled as an opinion piece, so what is the point about crying "It's propaganda!"? So what?
I have a problem with propaganda disguised as a news article, but that is not what is going on here.
So [what]... there is value in reminding people of that, because everyone has confirmation biases and while some opinion pieces are thoughtful, critical, and comprehensive, other are just propaganda.
Identifying it is a matter of contextualization. You don't have to employ it, if you don't want to. But if it gives even one person pause, I'm satisfied with that.
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause.
Nothing in the definition about how "thoughtful" it is
Is not being racist now a liberal ideology? This seems more akin to signing a document that you won’t have relations with your students or that you won’t fabricate research.
Sorry; I know HN isn't kind to sass. But, sass aside, look at the details and it's obvious this is propaganda. Yes colleges (and life) have a liberal bias. That doesn't mean asking people to promise not to be racist (with a signature) is a fascist plot to indoctrinate orthodoxy. It just means that if you can't even promise to not be racist, there's a high likelihood there will be problems in your tenure, vis a vis how you respond to reasonable assurances of common ground.