Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Satinavian]

Good for you. I have. I've written 1000-2000 word personal statements, and I've also applied under a competency-based system. Both, I would point out, for academic positions. You might find they can be quite common in certain areas.

Now if we are comparing experiences, i never had to write an essay for a job either. What i did have to do was hold a presentation about my earlier research. That was seen as a good way to confirm both lecturer qualities and competence with the added benefit of having something interesting for students and postgrads to attend and get some idea what other universities were doing. Downside of this was that you usually only had one of these per week and group so it might take a while until you get the confirmation of whether you got the job or not.

Oh, but there was one exception. A certain professor decided to hold a job interview for a Postdoc posiotion on a conference he was visiting. I actually got the job but the professor got into so much trouble for not following guidelines and not ferrying everyone who had a say to that conference.

Universities are places of education. What makes a good teacher? Protip: it's not being a "genius". It's about understanding one's subject to a suitable level, and then ability to explain, describe, to mentor, support, guide. Skills of empathy, communication, etc.

Oh yes. And i would add that, if you are expected to teach, you should actually be fluent in the language you are teaching. That might be less of an issue with English speaking countries considering the whole scientific world works in English, but even there some people are really hard to understand even if they can write perfectly fine papers.

Yes, they do need to make diversity a big deal. Their paying customers expect it, for a start.

Of course this particular mindset only holds for countries without free university education.

Universities are professional workplaces that can have reasonable professional expectations of their workers. Up to an including requirements for them to demonstrate appropriate respect for the students.

Universities are not particularly special though. All the other professional workplaces have similar standards.



As for the actual controversity... i don't have much to share. It never was a topic when i worked at universities, no scandals not even any heated arguments or allegations. The worst we had was some Mexican Postdoc making some inappropriate jokes. We had a single discussion about what is acceptable and what not in certain countries and he never doing that again.

 

[Hawki]

Don't give me that shit, because the article you cited does it, which has gone without comment from you.

Where? I went over the article yet again, where does it do that?

Do you not realise that describing affinity groups as "segregation" is argumentum ad extremum?

Elementary school hosts racially segregated ‘playdate’; critics slammed as ‘racists’ | The College Fix

We now live in a world where those OPPOSED to racial segregation are the bad ones.

www.thecollegefix.com

Evergreen copes with fallout, months after 'Day of Absence' sparked national debate

Students and staff at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, are teasing out how to define and express issues of racism and oppression on campus.

www.pbs.org

If you're conducting activities and separating students based on race/ethnicity, if you're requesting students to stay away based on those same traits, then yes, that meets the definition of segregation.

Affinity groups for the most part represent student support processes - many of which are student-led activities: fora or other systems to provide avenues for minority groups to talk about their experiences, forms of mentorship programmes, etc. In terms of student societies, they've de facto existed for decades.

De facto, not de jure.

Yes, people tend to self-segregate, that's true. What students do on their own time is up to them.

There is absolutely no reason to think this means splitting up students by race in regular classroom activities. "Affinity graduations" for instance are not the formal, university-run degree ceremonies, they are additional and separate celebrations.

And you seriously think universities should be doing that? Conducting special events based on inherent traits. Even dorm rooms?

New York University moves to implement racial segregation in student dorms

Calls for race-based student housing stem not from a desire to improve the lives of all students and youth, but to advance the interests of a small layer of the population.

www.wsws.org

As the original article points out, it was this kind of thing that was fought against sixty years ago.

No, you should be smarter than this.

You do this way too often: a significant number of the posts you put up are dubious crap that you never bothered to check facts about and put enough critical thought into the first place, and when your source is questioned act like it's the god-given truth and refuse to back down an inch.

What haven't I fact checked? I've posted links, I've gone over the article countless times, all you seem to be doing is defending practices that less than 15 years ago would have been seen as abhorent.

 

[Silvanus]

If a candidate was opposed to those things, sure. Now find a candidate in any of the material cited that actually opposes those things, as opposed to (among other things) segregation (segregated dorms and graduations are already a thing in some areas).

But here, you've run away with your own assumptions about the content of the DEI statements, or just accepted the characterisations in that article.

The article, for instance, equates affinity groups with segregation, which is just complete drivel.

You don't actually know what makes a successful DEI statement for these employers. The article doesn't enlighten us on that point-- it lies and exaggerates, and then makes a broader argument that DEI statements shouldn't be required at all.

It's like saying "if you oppose the Ten Comandments being displayed in classrooms, you must hate Christians" or "if you're opposed to zionism, you must be an anti-semite." There'd certainly be overlap in those cases, but any action/belief can be opposed for any number of reasons. Not all those reasons are identical.

No, its more like saying "if you refuse to endorse X, then you probably don't support X, and we as an employer need people who will help us carry out X".

Not being a twat is pretty value neutral. Of course, what counts as being a twat is going to vary from person to person.

? It's literally not. Insults are implicit value judgements.

 

[Silvanus]

I think there's a leap in logic here. Just because you're against the corporatized notion of DEI that doesn't mean you're against the spirit of wanting everyone to be treated fairly and would rather some people not be there or be mistreated. You can just be against the label for the politics it signals but actually treat students totally fair.

So... these are people who are in favour of diversity and equity and inclusion, but will refuse to write a statement in support of those principles because they don't like the fact the organisation is asking them to do it?

Yeah, if that's their sticking point, then those candidates are being pointlessly obtuse. It's a candidate selection process for a job. You have to do it the employer's way.

There's a false dichotomy here basically that corporatocracies are using to push their agenda. No, what people are against is the machinations of the world economic forum.

Meaningless waffle.

 

[Hawki]

But here, you've run away with your own assumptions about the content of the DEI statements, or just accepted the characterisations in that article.

The article, for instance, equates affinity groups with segregation, which is just complete drivel.

Segregation:

The action or state of setting someone or something apart from others.

The enforced separation of different racial groups in a country, community, or establishment.

How does that not meet the definition?

You don't actually know what makes a successful DEI statement for these employers. The article doesn't enlighten us on that point-- it lies and exaggerates, and then makes a broader argument that DEI statements shouldn't be required at all.

And do you know? If you do, please enlighten us. In the meantime, all I can rely on is what actual professors are stating. For example:

Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

NYU professor Jonathan Haidt is resigning an academic association after attempts to force diversity statements into his work.

reason.com

If you want to point out the lie, please, by all means, do so.

No, its more like saying "if you refuse to endorse X, then you probably don't support X, and we as an employer need people who will help us carry out X".

But more seriously...okay, sure. In the sense that a university is a private institution, it can, technically, force employees to follow certain beliefs and carry out certain actions.

? It's literally not. Insults are implicit value judgements.

Insults are value judgements, being a twat isn't.

We can all agree being a twat is bad, what constitutes being a twat is going to vary from person to person. There's people here who think I'm a twat, there's people here who I think are twats, the reasons for us thinking we're twats are going to be different.

 

[Silvanus]

Segregation:

The action or state of setting someone or something apart from others.

The enforced separation of different racial groups in a country, community, or establishment.

How does that not meet the definition?

So, we can see that it definitely doesn't match the second definition there, because it isn't enforced.

The first definition-- which is so broad as to include the act of putting lettuce in the bottom draw of the fridge rather than next to the cheese and eggs-- is very obviously not the definition we have in mind when referring to oppressive, racist policy.

And do you know? If you do, please enlighten us. In the meantime, all I can rely on is what actual professors are stating. For example:

Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

NYU professor Jonathan Haidt is resigning an academic association after attempts to force diversity statements into his work.

reason.com

If you want to point out the lie, please, by all means, do so.

I don't know. And neither do you. An example given by one pissed-off person of a single instance doesn't mean much-- you can find individual instances of people who failed to get employed because the experience requirements were unrealistic, but that hardly means the principle of experience requirements is bad across the board.

But more seriously...okay, sure. In the sense that a university is a private institution, it can, technically, force employees to follow certain beliefs and carry out certain actions.

When the belief is that people should be included, treated equitably, and regardless of background or characteristic, then employees following actions in line with that belief is quite important for the job. So yeah, I'm fine with universities 'forcing' candidates to fit criteria that are required to do the job well.

Remember: that's all "DEI" actually means at its core. You're presuming it always has loads of extra guff attached, without a solid basis for that presumption.

Insults are value judgements, being a twat isn't.

We can all agree being a twat is bad, what constitutes being a twat is going to vary from person to person. There's people here who think I'm a twat, there's people here who I think are twats, the reasons for us thinking we're twats are going to be different.

Yep. Those reasons being tied up with value judgements by necessity.

 

[Hawki]

So, we can see that it definitely doesn't match the second definition there, because it isn't enforced.

Look up the segregated playdate link.

Look up the dorms link.

Elite private school hosts racially segregated ‘dialogue sessions’ with parents, teachers | The College Fix

‘Minority communities don’t ask for this kind of segregation.’…

www.thecollegefix.com

Look up that one.

If a body is conducting segregated events/meetings, it is, by definition, enforcing them.

The first definition-- which is so broad as to include the act of putting lettuce in the bottom draw of the fridge rather than next to the cheese and eggs-- is very obviously not the definition we have in mind when referring to oppressive, racist policy.

Nice use of the royal "we" there, but yes, the segregation described here isn't as bad as the segregation of the past, that shouldn't make it defensible.

I don't know. And neither do you. An example given by one pissed-off person of a single instance doesn't mean much-- you can find individual instances of people who failed to get employed because the experience requirements were unrealistic, but that hardly means the principle of experience requirements is bad across the board.

Two instances, actually, and I can find more. And Haidt's noteworthy considering that he drew attention to the phenomena in The Coddling of the American Mind, if not earlier.

And that's not the reason he resigned, the reason is that the requirements were incompatible with his field.

When the belief is that people should be included, treated equitably, and regardless of background or characteristic, then employees following actions in line with that belief is quite important for the job.

You're conflating equity with equality. If you're treating people equitably, that often means taking inherent traits into account. For for instance, the example of the 80% discount earlier in this thread can't be called equal (in that you're discriminating on ethnicity), but call it "equitable," and then you have a shield against accusations of discrimination. Hence, if someone believes in equality (as most do) but not equity (something many have reservations with, Haidt included), then, well, tough luck I guess.

So yeah, I'm fine with universities 'forcing' candidates to fit criteria that are required to do the job well.

Even when it hinders their ability to do their jobs?

Remember: that's all "DEI" actually means at its core. You're presuming it always has loads of extra guff attached, without a solid basis for that presumption.

I'm not presuming anything, I'm going by what academics have described, and what's been reported on.

If you want to claim they're lying, sure. Go for it.

 

[Silvanus]

Look up the segregated playdate link.

Look up the dorms link.

Elite private school hosts racially segregated ‘dialogue sessions’ with parents, teachers | The College Fix

‘Minority communities don’t ask for this kind of segregation.’…

www.thecollegefix.com

Look up that one.

What these institutions chose to do does not define what an affinity group is.

This is again like pointing to instances of unreasonable experience requirements, and then arguing that experience requirements are necessarily unreasonable and thus must be opposed on principle.

Nice use of the royal "we" there, but yes, the segregation described here isn't as bad as the segregation of the past, that shouldn't make it defensible.

You've not engaged with the point I made. The second definition is so broad as to include completely innocuous things.

You're conflating equity with equality. If you're treating people equitably, that often means taking inherent traits into account. For for instance, the example of the 80% discount earlier in this thread can't be called equal (in that you're discriminating on ethnicity), but call it "equitable," and then you have a shield against accusations of discrimination. Hence, if someone believes in equality (as most do) but not equity (something many have reservations with, Haidt included), then, well, tough luck I guess.

I'm not conflating them-- Both have uses in different contexts.

And yes, tough luck if you oppose equitable treatment while applying to an organisation that believes it's important for the job. You're just describing a candidate being unwilling to follow the requirements the employer has for the position.

Even when it hinders their ability to do their jobs?

it doesn't.

I'm not presuming anything, I'm going by what academics have described, and what's been reported on.

If you want to claim they're lying, sure. Go for it.

You are presuming, because you're using individual examples to characterise the entire concept. Some examples you don't like have been reported (it's not an assumption that they occurred); you therefore oppose the concept across the board (it is an assumption that these are definitive).

 

[tstorm823]

So... these are people who are in favour of diversity and equity and inclusion, but will refuse to write a statement in support of those principles because they don't like the fact the organisation is asking them to do it?

Yeah, if that's their sticking point, then those candidates are being pointlessly obtuse. It's a candidate selection process for a job. You have to do it the employer's way.

I don't think that is an unreasonable distinction. Like, I'm a Catholic. I have no hesitation declaring my faith in Jesus and belief in the doctrines of the Catholic Church. If an employer required me to write a short piece about how great Catholicism is, I would definitely hesitate to do so, cause that's not a great look. Even if it's exactly my beliefs, even if it were for a position where that was relevant, coerced beliefs by your employer feels like a bad situation to be in.

And that's setting aside the specifics that all the DEI stuff is filled with performative, condescending, and often self-contradictory nonsense.

 

[Silvanus]

I don't think that is an unreasonable distinction. Like, I'm a Catholic. I have no hesitation declaring my faith in Jesus and belief in the doctrines of the Catholic Church. If an employer required me to write a short piece about how great Catholicism is, I would definitely hesitate to do so, cause that's not a great look. Even if it's exactly my beliefs, even if it were for a position where that was relevant, coerced beliefs by your employer feels like a bad situation to be in.

And that's setting aside the specifics that all the DEI stuff is filled with performative, condescending, and often self-contradictory nonsense.

OK, but the belief in this case-- that people should be treated equitably-- is one the employer has quite reasonably concluded is important to do the job.

So it's more like an explicitly Catholic organisation asking you as a Catholic to write about Catholicism.

 

[Absent]

I don't think that is an unreasonable distinction. Like, I'm a Catholic. I have no hesitation declaring my faith in Jesus and belief in the doctrines of the Catholic Church. If an employer required me to write a short piece about how great Catholicism is, I would definitely hesitate to do so, cause that's not a great look. Even if it's exactly my beliefs, even if it were for a position where that was relevant, coerced beliefs by your employer feels like a bad situation to be in.

And that's setting aside the specifics that all the DEI stuff is filled with performative, condescending, and often self-contradictory nonsense.

It's not about being a catholic, it's about being an asshole. Typically, I wouldn't want someone like you as a co-worker, that is : someone who has your perception, opinion, feeling about homosexuals or transsexuals, just like I wouldn't want a racist, an antisemite or a homophobe. These underlying judgements do ooze through conscious and subconscious attitudes and biases, and stink up the workplace, through micro-agressions and micro-discriminations. Bigotry is not a sacred right, and nobody has to suffer it in exchange for their salary. Especially in fields dedicated to the advancement of mankind and society. So filtering that out is a good move. The kind of people who freak out in front of DEI stuff have nothing to do there.

And again, a lot of catholics aren't bigots, so it's very far from being a religion thing.

 

[Ag3ma]

Where? I went over the article yet again, where does it do that?

The general practice of affinity groups is "segregation" in the same way that G. W. Bush is a "fascist" or Obama a "communist". It's the melodramatic misuse of terms with very strong associations to defame people and things by association. In this case it's right-wing attack rhetoric.

As demonstrated by the fact you've already had to start defending your position through grabbing whatever nakedly ideological conservative news media you could find to prop up your position.

And this is what I mean by the fact you don't think about your material before you splurge it, and then you'll sell your soul to whoever you need to in order to pretend you didn't post something ill-considered in the first place.

 

[tstorm823]

OK, but the belief in this case-- that people should be treated equitably-- is one the employer has quite reasonably concluded is important to do the job.

Do you think that's an honest assessment of "diversity, equity, and inclusion"? Do you think that can actually be summarized as "people should be treated equitably"? Not that it's an uncontroversial stance to begin with, "people should be treated equitably" is a highly controversial statement, as "equity" in this context has ceased to mean "fair and impartial", and has been replaced with the notion that impartiality is itself sexist, racist, and homophobic.

So it's more like an explicitly Catholic organisation asking you as a Catholic to write about Catholicism.

As I said, even if that's the case, that's still a bit off. If I was applying to be a math teacher at a Catholic School, and they made me write an essay about how I would proliferate the faith through my teaching, I'd question that hiring practice. It isn't precisely the same, because these organizations aren't explicitly about diversity and inclusions, but whatever.

And this is what I mean by the fact you don't think about your material before you splurge it, and then you'll sell your soul to whoever you need to in order to pretend you didn't post something ill-considered in the first place.

Ok, but if someone posts something ill-considered that you agree with, any criticism is suddenly problematic.

 

[Gergar12]

Generally, if there is a much more competent neoliberal and an incompetent social democrat/progressive/dem socialist(can't think of any examples in the US right now off the top of my head). You should vote for the neoliberal. What good is getting a left president if they are a Maduro or Cristina Fernández de Kirchner?

 

[Silvanus]

Do you think that's an honest assessment of "diversity, equity, and inclusion"? Do you think that can actually be summarized as "people should be treated equitably"?

"Diversity, equity and inclusion" can be summarised as diversity, equity and inclusion. All the information is in the name.

People who don't like DEI have attached a bunch of additional extraneous associations, though.

Not that it's an uncontroversial stance to begin with, "people should be treated equitably" is a highly controversial statement, as "equity" in this context has ceased to mean "fair and impartial", and has been replaced with the notion that impartiality is itself sexist, racist, and homophobic.

Absurd one-sided exaggeration that can safely be skipped.

As I said, even if that's the case, that's still a bit off. If I was applying to be a math teacher at a Catholic School, and they made me write an essay about how I would proliferate the faith through my teaching, I'd question that hiring practice. It isn't precisely the same, because these organizations aren't explicitly about diversity and inclusions, but whatever.

These organisations don't need to be "explicitly about diversity and inclusion"-- you've missed the point of the analogy. The organisations have concluded that treating people equitably, and including people, and not acting in a discriminatory way, are important for them to fulfil their role. And very reasonably so.

 

[Gergar12]

No, it's not a ransom. it's a complete surrender by the State Department and the Biden Admin against the DOD for Iran.

White House: Prisoner deal with Iran ‘is not a ransom’

The White House on Wednesday defended a deal with Iran to unfreeze billions of dollars in Iranian funds in exchange for U.S. prisoners, insisting it was not a ransom payment in the face of GOP crit…

thehill.com

Yes I know it's their money, but it shouldn't be their money right now. If you have even glanced at the news you will know that the first thing Iran will do with that money will be as follows.

1. Use it to fund their missile program designed to blackmail Israel and Europeans into giving them more money, if not they bomb those countries

2. Give it to their proxies to cause more havoc in the Middle East.

3. Build HESA Shahed 136 drones to murder Ukrainian civilians.

The last time they had a massive Earthquake the international community gave them funds to recover, next time we should give them nothing and let them take it out of their murder drone fund.

Edit: Also I don't care if your elderly parents are in Iran don't go there, their release from the Iranian Religious regime is someone else's death, I have relatives in China including Chinese grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins if I go there now I will give the State Department such a headache when they have to ax a Chinese sanction to release me and possibly other people. I am not going to risk it.

Those prisoners were selfish, and short-sighted especially if they had googled the fact that many people who are dual citizens have been arrested in Iran to be used as hostages.

 

[Hawki]

What these institutions chose to do does not define what an affinity group is.

This is again like pointing to instances of unreasonable experience requirements, and then arguing that experience requirements are necessarily unreasonable and thus must be opposed on principle.

The principle in of itself is rotten though. Experience requirements are standard.

You've not engaged with the point I made. The second definition is so broad as to include completely innocuous things.

The enforced separation of different racial groups in a country, community, or establishment.

It meets the definition of both enforced separation, of racial groups, and of being an establishment. It's hardly "inocuous" when the thing you're segregating is based on race/ethnicity. This isn't celery and cheese, or whatever example you used.

I'm not conflating them-- Both have uses in different contexts.

it doesn't.

Well, sure, you can say that, but then we're in a case of "he said, you said." They say it does, you say it doesn't, except I'm more inclined to believe the people in the field.

You are presuming, because you're using individual examples to characterise the entire concept. Some examples you don't like have been reported (it's not an assumption that they occurred); you therefore oppose the concept across the board (it is an assumption that these are definitive).

These aren't just random examples, these are examples where people in the academic field have given their reasons for opposing them. Haidt, for instance, has been writing on the subject for over a decade.

The general practice of affinity groups is "segregation" in the same way that G. W. Bush is a "fascist" or Obama a "communist". It's the melodramatic misuse of terms with very strong associations to defame people and things by association. In this case it's right-wing attack rhetoric.

It's hardly a misuse of terms. I've given the definition of segregation, I've given examples of segregation that meet that definition, trying to use actual examples of misued term is just sidestepping the point.

As demonstrated by the fact you've already had to start defending your position through grabbing whatever nakedly ideological conservative news media you could find to prop up your position.

Yes, "nakedly conservative media," despite the people I've cited being liberals.

So, stuff like Coyne's blog and "Coddling" are nakedly conservative, despite the fact that the people writing them are self-described liberals. I know "liberal" and "conservative" are broad terms that vary in context, but it's an incredible convolution to claim that people who describe themselves as X are actually Y.

Also, PBS is hardly conservative, and Reason is libertarian, so please, by all means, continue sidstepping the point.

And this is what I mean by the fact you don't think about your material before you splurge it, and then you'll sell your soul to whoever you need to in order to pretend you didn't post something ill-considered in the first place.

Actually, my soul is quite fine. You might want to look at your own statements before accusing others of ill-considered one.

 

[davidmc1158]

No, it's not a ransom. it's a complete surrender by the State Department and the Biden Admin against the DOD for Iran.

White House: Prisoner deal with Iran ‘is not a ransom’

The White House on Wednesday defended a deal with Iran to unfreeze billions of dollars in Iranian funds in exchange for U.S. prisoners, insisting it was not a ransom payment in the face of GOP crit…

thehill.com

Yes I know it's their money, but it shouldn't be their money right now. If you have even glanced at the news you will know that the first thing Iran will do with that money will be as follows.

1. Use it to fund their missile program designed to blackmail Israel and Europeans into giving them more money, if not they bomb those countries

2. Give it to their proxies to cause more havoc in the Middle East.

3. Build HESA Shahed 136 drones to murder Ukrainian civilians.

The last time they had a massive Earthquake the international community gave them funds to recover, next time we should give them nothing and let them take it out of their murder drone fund.

Edit: Also I don't care if your elderly parents are in Iran don't go there, their release from the Iranian Religious regime is someone else's death, I have relatives in China including Chinese grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins if I go there now I will give the State Department such a headache when they have to ax a Chinese sanction to release me and possibly other people. I am not going to risk it.

Those prisoners were selfish, and short-sighted especially if they had googled the fact that many people who are dual citizens have been arrested in Iran to be used as hostages.

If it makes you feel any better, Iran actually ISN'T getting the money. The money, which is currently in South Korean banks, is being freed up to be put under the control of an international aid group in Qatar to be used for humanitarian efforts. So there's that.

 

[tstorm823]

"Diversity, equity and inclusion" can be summarised as diversity, equity and inclusion. All the information is in the name.

You know that's not how this or anything works. "People named something, therefore the thing is exactly what the name says and never anything more or less!" Sure.

People who don't like DEI have attached a bunch of additional extraneous associations, though.

No, people who push DEI policies have attached a bunch of additional extraneous associations, and you're content to pretend that's not happening.

Absurd one-sided exaggeration that can safely be skipped.

You mean you have no counterargument at all.

 

[Gergar12]

If it makes you feel any better, Iran actually ISN'T getting the money. The money, which is currently in South Korean banks, is being freed up to be put under the control of an international aid group in Qatar to be used for humanitarian efforts. So there's that.

Iran then proceeds to substitute the funds they would have spent on portions of their anti-poverty policy in a given area on missiles, drones, and proxies.