Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Hawki]

How a shoplifting clash in Peckham opened a rift between Asian store owners and the black community

A video of a shop owner with his hands around the neck of a customer he thought was stealing has caused a protest

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Silvanus]

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

The principles of diversity, equity and inclusion are "rotten"?

No, they're not, and it's quite reasonable for an organisation with a diverse student base to avoid employing people who think they are.

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.

No-- what you've done is found an example that fits that definition in a specific context, and concluded that therefore all forms and versions fit that definition. That's not how it works.

This would be like finding an example of a segregated playdate, and then arguing that playdates are therefore necessarily segregated.

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.

It's not just me though, is it: it's the institutions themselves, the employers, who believe its beneficial to the role to value diversity, equity and inclusion.

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.

They're not random examples, no, but that's not the point. They are not definitive or representative. 9 times out of 10, a DEI statement wouldn't resemble them at all, yet those examples are used as grounds to oppose the entire concept.

 

[Silvanus]

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.

Of course there's sometimes more. But that extra guff isn't definitive or necessary. If you oppose something on principle because sometimes people add more stuff to it that you don't like, then you'll find yourself opposing literally everything, from clothes to walking.

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

They've done so sometimes, in their own institutions, and gullible fools have looked at those instances and concluded that all instances must be like them. Like someone observing a nudist beach and then insisting that public beaches are all full of naked people and should be closed down.

You mean you have no counterargument at all.

Don't really need a 'counterargument' when the statement to begin with is just an empty assertion.

 

[Hawki]

The principles of diversity, equity and inclusion are "rotten"?

No, they're not, and it's quite reasonable for an organisation with a diverse student base to avoid employing people who think they are.

Re-read the post you quoted - the principles of segregation are rotten. The principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion I'd say are neutral, contentious, and positive respectively.

No-- what you've done is found an example that fits that definition in a specific context, and concluded that therefore all forms and versions fit that definition. That's not how it works.

This would be like finding an example of a segregated playdate, and then arguing that playdates are therefore necessarily segregated.

Except I'm not arguing that. Playdates are fine, segregated playdates aren't (or shouldn't be). No-one's saying that playdates are in of themselves an issue.

Want to have a playdate? Great! Want to have a playdate where you separate the children based on ethnicity? Yikes.

It's not just me though, is it: it's the institutions themselves, the employers, who believe its beneficial to the role to value diversity, equity and inclusion.

And employees who have said otherwise.

As I've said, if a university requires a DIE statement, if it has the prerogative to regret an application out of hand based purely on the DIE statement (as is cited in the original article), that's technically their business. There's lots of things that are legally allowed that one can disapprove of.

They're not random examples, no, but that's not the point. They are not definitive or representative. 9 times out of 10, a DEI statement wouldn't resemble them at all, yet those examples are used as grounds to oppose the entire concept.

And your evidence for this is...?

I've given you examples from academics. You haven't presented counter-examples, only assertions. Also, going over said articles, the objection isn't so much that DIE statements exist, it's more their requirements and guidelines.

 

[tstorm823]

Of course there's sometimes more. But that extra guff isn't definitive or necessary. If you oppose something on principle because sometimes people add more stuff to it that you don't like, then you'll find yourself opposing literally everything, from clothes to walking.

Nobody is opposing something on principle here. The opposition is to a practice. That is where I came into this conversation: it is not unreasonable for someone to value all 3 of those words (in principle) but not want to be coerced to write about it (in practice).

They've done so sometimes, in their own institutions, and gullible fools have looked at those instances and concluded that all instances must be like them.

Perfectly level-headed people have studied corporate diversity trainings and DEI requirements and found statistical evidence that current DEI practices can be actively counterproductive.

Another source: https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail

" Firms have long relied on diversity training to reduce bias on the job, hiring tests and performance ratings to limit it in recruitment and promotions, and grievance systems to give employees a way to challenge managers. Those tools are designed to preempt lawsuits by policing managers’ thoughts and actions. Yet laboratory studies show that this kind of force-feeding can activate bias rather than stamp it out. As social scientists have found, people often rebel against rules to assert their autonomy. Try to coerce me to do X, Y, or Z, and I’ll do the opposite just to prove that I’m my own person. "

And I have only one complaint about that quote, it's the use of the word "yet", as though the ineffectiveness at preventing bias is unexpected from policies designed to preempt lawsuits.

 

[Silvanus]

Re-read the post you quoted - the principles of segregation are rotten. The principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion I'd say are neutral, contentious, and positive respectively.

In almost all cases, DEI has nothing to do with segregation.

Except I'm not arguing that. Playdates are fine, segregated playdates aren't (or shouldn't be). No-one's saying that playdates are in of themselves an issue.

Want to have a playdate? Great! Want to have a playdate where you separate the children based on ethnicity? Yikes.

You've completely missed the point here. Obviously nobody is saying playdates are an issue themselves. What I'm doing is applying the same logic you're applying to DEI ("some examples involved X in Y, therefore all Y are the issue") to playdates, to show you how absurd it is.

Look, we can even do the same with your reply: "Want to have DEI? Fine! Want to have DEI where you segregate people? Yikes."

And employees who have said otherwise.

Yes. But it's not just my word against theirs, is it? You acted as if you were just rationally siding with the people who have direct experience, instead of silly old me who doesn't. It's relevant to point out that people with direct experience exist on both sides of this.

And your evidence for this is...?

I've given you examples from academics. You haven't presented counter-examples, only assertions. Also, going over said articles, the objection isn't so much that DIE statements exist, it's more their requirements and guidelines.

My evidence is the fact that DEI is extremely commonplace. I've encountered it several times, and not once has it resembled the requirements described in that article.

 

[Silvanus]

Nobody is opposing something on principle here. The opposition is to a practice. That is where I came into this conversation: it is not unreasonable for someone to value all 3 of those words (in principle) but not want to be coerced to write about it (in practice).

If you believe a question in an application is "coerced", despite the fact that those people voluntarily opted to join that organisation, then you must believe all job applications are "coerced". Organisations can ask what they want if they think its relevant to the job.

'Tell me an example of when you've worked in a team'.

'No. I've worked in a team before, and I think it's valuable, but I'm opposed to you coercing me into writing about it'.

Perfectly level-headed people have studied corporate diversity trainings and DEI requirements and found statistical evidence that current DEI practices can be actively counterproductive.

Another source: https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail

" Firms have long relied on diversity training to reduce bias on the job, hiring tests and performance ratings to limit it in recruitment and promotions, and grievance systems to give employees a way to challenge managers. Those tools are designed to preempt lawsuits by policing managers’ thoughts and actions. Yet laboratory studies show that this kind of force-feeding can activate bias rather than stamp it out. As social scientists have found, people often rebel against rules to assert their autonomy. Try to coerce me to do X, Y, or Z, and I’ll do the opposite just to prove that I’m my own person. "

And I have only one complaint about that quote, it's the use of the word "yet", as though the ineffectiveness at preventing bias is unexpected from policies designed to preempt lawsuits.

Incredible-- both of your sources talk about pitfalls of DEI as currently implemented in some places... and then propose evidence-based approaches for better DEI. So, directly supporting my position that these issues aren't inherent in DEI, and that DEI isn't the issue, but rather specific elements of implementation.

 

[tstorm823]

Incredible-- both of your sources talk about pitfalls of DEI as currently implemented in some places... and then propose evidence-based approaches for better DEI. So, directly supporting my position that these issues aren't inherent in DEI, and that DEI isn't the issue, but rather specific elements of implementation.

I would highly recommend you reread the last few pages of conversation and consider what you are arguing against and what you are defending. The people you've argued against have been criticizing a specific practice, not the principles, and you have been disagreeing, which is to say you have been defending the specific practice. To now say your position is that specific elements of implementation are at issue strongly implies you had no actual reason to argue about this in the first place.

 

[Silvanus]

I would highly recommend you reread the last few pages of conversation and consider what you are arguing against and what you are defending. The people you've argued against have been criticizing a specific practice, not the principles, and you have been disagreeing, which is to say you have been defending the specific practice. To now say your position is that specific elements of implementation are at issue strongly implies you had no actual reason to argue about this in the first place.

I'd highly recommend /you/ reread it.

From the very start, Hawki (and the article he posted) has been objecting to DEI as a whole-- not just specific or poorly-implemented versions, but DEI in principle. When I said that the issues outlined were only with particular implementations, and weren't definitive of the principle, Hawki's exact words in response were: "The principle itself is rotten".

 

[tstorm823]

I'd highly recommend /you/ reread it.

From the very start, Hawki (and the article he posted) has been objecting to DEI statements as a whole-- not just specific or poorly-implemented versions, but DEI statements in principle. When I said that the issues outlined were only with particular implementations, and weren't definitive of the principle, Hawki's exact words in response were: "The principle itself is rotten".

You're conflating "diversity, equity, and inclusion" with "diversity equity and inclusion statements". Hawki and the article are both objecting the DEI statements. You are defending DEI statements. The statements are the poor implementation. Quote from the article:

" I oppose mandatory DEI statements not because I oppose diversity (and that includes ethnic, gender, ideological, and socioeconomic diversity), but because their use constitutes compelled speech, a violation of the First Amendment as well as of the purpose of academia, which is to teach, create knowledge, and learn. There is no justification for making academics hew to certain political or ideological points of view to be hired; this is fact is counterproductive to the vigorous argument and discussion that is the heart of academia. And it takes no imagination to see that as “approved” political points of view change, so will the statements that academics are forced to swear to. "

The principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion aren't the problem, the problem is found in the methods claiming to promote those things, including DEI statements.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Imagine a university did the same thing on "teamwork". They asked some questions on it in applications, and used their quality for their "first pass" filter in the review process.

Would anyone object and write newspaper articles about it?

No, because teamwork can be learned and developed.
Unless you're Michael Jackson you don't generally change race in a short space of time.

 

[Silvanus]

You're conflating "diversity, equity, and inclusion" with "diversity equity and inclusion statements". Hawki and the article are both objecting the DEI statements. You are defending DEI statements. The statements are the poor implementation.

That's odd, because the articles you posted to support your position weren't merely talking about the statements, but about DEI in general. The issues they outlined don't even much relate to statements specifically.

The principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion aren't the problem, the problem is found in the methods claiming to promote those things, including DEI statements.

So it's fine to value these things in a candidate... yet inexplicably unacceptable to ask the candidate to talk about those values.

Sorry, not seeing it. Asking a candidate about something an employer has identified as relevant isn't "compelled speech".

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

The principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion aren't the problem, the problem is found in the methods claiming to promote those things, including DEI statements.

I'd argue one of them is.

Equity, as the initial idea behind it is sound "Ok people who need more help should get it rather than the help spread equally possibly among people who don't need it". In reality it's being applied in such a way as to create lower expectations of certain groups based on factors that really aren't the bigger issue. Why should some white dude who went to some rough inner city school be expected to get higher grades for the same chance at further education than his classmates who happen to be black in a majority black school?

 

[tstorm823]

The issues they outlined don't even much relate to statements specifically.

"Firms have long relied on diversity training to reduce bias on the job, hiring tests and performance ratings to limit it in recruitment and promotions, and grievance systems to give employees a way to challenge managers."
" ...diversity statements, often appended to the end of job postings, can make people less sympathetic to employees who report discrimination. "

Sorry, not seeing it.

You don't want to see it. That's your prerogative, I suppose.

 

[tstorm823]

I'd argue one of them is.

Equity, as the initial idea behind it is sound "Ok people who need more help should get it rather than the help spread equally possibly among people who don't need it". In reality it's being applied in such a way as to create lower expectations of certain groups based on factors that really aren't the bigger issue. Why should some white dude who went to some rough inner city school be expected to get higher grades for the same chance at further education than his classmates who happen to be black in a majority black school?

Mostly agreed. There's nothing wrong in principle with doing more for those who need it, for spending more time on the student falling behind than the one who already understands the lesson. To try to apply that principle to demographic groups instead of individuals is self-contradicting. Giving someone additional benefit based on the average of their demographic rather than their personal circumstance is ultimately still quite inequitable and systematically unjust.

 

[Silvanus]

"Firms have long relied on diversity training to reduce bias on the job, hiring tests and performance ratings to limit it in recruitment and promotions, and grievance systems to give employees a way to challenge managers."
" ...diversity statements, often appended to the end of job postings, can make people less sympathetic to employees who report discrimination. "

Love that the first quote there doesn't relate specifically to diversity statements, supporting my position that the articles are much broader in scope.

You don't want to see it. That's your prerogative, I suppose.

It's also the prerogative of all employers. All employers consider it entirely normal to ask candidates about values they consider relevant to the job, and always have done-- its never been contentious before, or denigrated as "coerced speech".

 

[tstorm823]

Love that the first quote there doesn't relate specifically to diversity statements, supporting my position that the articles are much broader in scope.

I don't know what you're trying to accomplish with this sentence other than suggest that you can't read.

It's also the prerogative of all employers. All employers consider it entirely normal to ask candidates about values they consider relevant to the job, and always have done-- its never been contentious before, or denigrated as "coerced speech".

This is a thing you do: you take whatever position you support, and then claim it's the normal thing to do and has been normal for a long time. It's sort of ironic, since what you're attempting to do is create a conservative argument for whatever the thing is, and I'm sure the idea of taking conservative positions nauseates you, but that's what you're doing. It just doesn't work, because you never have any basis for what you call normal, other than it's what you like.

 

[Terminal Blue]

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'm going to propose a conspiracy theory. I have absolutely no evidence for it, and I'm not going to use it to inform my behavior in real life. I'm just throwing it out there because, if it turns out to be true, I want the credit.

The reason so many middle aged white male "celebrity academics" are suddenly shifting to the right and speaking out against "progressive" politics is because at some point it's going to come out that they have been using their students to live out their favorite harem anime storylines (because basically every male academic over a certain age has done that) and when that happens they will need a bunch of rational smart boys to rally around them, claim it's all an SJW conspiracy, and keep buying their books.

Anyway, serious point.

If you base your idea of "what professors are saying" on those who will call up their media friends and complain about the politicization of academia because they were asked to make an anti-racism statement, you're cherry picking a sample. Amusing, if you read the article, Haidt himself kind of gives this away by pointing out that there's a generational divide between those agreeing with him and those who don't seem to care (because they immediately realize his entire point is a basic misunderstanding of what is being asked).

We live in an increasingly neoliberal world with a neoliberal education system and a neoliberal knowledge economy, and that means academics are not paid to sit around stroking their enormous throbbing galaxy brains. They are delivering a service and the quality of that service is continually monitored and judged, whether it be their research output or their teaching. Being asked to evidence a commitment to anti-racism is not an enforced political position, it's a basic precondition of being able to provide that service to all people (side note: isn't it weird how it's always the anti-racism component of that obligation which gets brought up and not, for example, the mandatory consent training).

Like, the idea that being asked to include an anti-racism statement means you somehow have to connect your work to racism is such an absurd straw man I'm surprised it works on anyone. The simple fact is that if you work in the human sciences, your work will end up dealing with humans, humans who possess racial characteristics because all humans do. Elaborating your operational assumptions with regard to race should be absolutely trivial for anyone with a background in the human sciences, unless you're some kind of oversly sensitive snowflake who cries at the mere mention of words like diversity or doesn't understand the basic history of your own field.

And that's kind of the point. If you can't explain your basic assumptions about race without adopting an anti-racist position, that's a problem for your ability to do your job. Academia is a racially diverse environment.

 

[Hawki]

You've completely missed the point here. Obviously nobody is saying playdates are an issue themselves. What I'm doing is applying the same logic you're applying to DEI ("some examples involved X in Y, therefore all Y are the issue") to playdates, to show you how absurd it is.

Look, we can even do the same with your reply: "Want to have DEI? Fine! Want to have DEI where you segregate people? Yikes."

This isn't the trump card you think it is. I've said multiple times that I agree that private institutions are within their prerogative to have DIE training, or whatever (again, see the religious school analogy). I'm not fond of the existence of religious schools in principle, but as long as they operate, I can imagine them having specific terms of employment. So if universities insist on DIE statements, even to the extent that a poor DIE statement can forfeit the application regardless of any consideration, that's within their rights to do so.

So yes, universities can insist on DIE, even though I find the requirement extremely questionable, and equity extremely iffy (since equity by nature involves discrimination).

Yes. But it's not just my word against theirs, is it? You acted as if you were just rationally siding with the people who have direct experience, instead of silly old me who doesn't. It's relevant to point out that people with direct experience exist on both sides of this.

Doesn't that fit the definition though? People with experience say X, you with experience say Y. Hence, we have a "you said, they said" situation.

I don't have any issue believing you have experience with DIE requirements, but I don't see that as a trump card. Sorry, but I don't know you personally, nor have I seen any articles by you, so there's a weight of evidence that veers more to one side.

I'd highly recommend /you/ reread it.

From the very start, Hawki (and the article he posted) has been objecting to DEI as a whole-- not just specific or poorly-implemented versions, but DEI in principle. When I said that the issues outlined were only with particular implementations, and weren't definitive of the principle, Hawki's exact words in response were: "The principle itself is rotten".

Actually, I said the principle of segregation is rotten. What I said about DEI was that diversity, equity, and inclusion are neutral, questionable, and positive respectively.

It's also the prerogative of all employers. All employers consider it entirely normal to ask candidates about values they consider relevant to the job, and always have done-- its never been contentious before, or denigrated as "coerced speech".

Um, really? Because I can't think of a single instance where personal values of mine have ever come up in a job interview. If anything, when it comes to performance reviews (which I have to do five times a year), the only time personal values ever really came up was the consensus that it was best not to talk about personal values.

 

[Elijin]

Why do you keep saying DIE? Is it a passive aggressive bit? A mistake you've committed to?