Diversity is fine. But every single piece of research has to be related to diversity? Is it not possible to do research on anything else that maybe doesn’t have anything to do with identity issues?
This is not a statement about promoting diversity, this is a statement that identity issues are the only thing that matters and only research that has to do with identity will be considered (for presentation at this conference)
An ideological monoculture is not a healthy intellectual environment.
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 rejecting anything that doesn't support it is not how research is supposed to work.
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.
The banned book list was compiled and maintained by the Church. We can split words whether Copernicus or Galileo were harangued in person and to what degree, but nascent modern astronomy was very much in the scope of Catholic censorship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_and_works_on_t...
I’m not sure why it has suddenly become so popular to claim that every single historical fact is a myth. Galileo’s prosecution by the Church is not only well-documented, John Paul II. officially apologized for it in 1992. He might have looked into their archives before doing that.
I swear, going around smugly claiming “Only sheeple still believe that theory” about random facts doesn’t make a person seem nearly as smart as they might think it does.
Could you provide some examples of better stories to use instead?
Could you link some example of those many, many times?
This might be the most potentially fascinating comment in the thread. In what way is the research of much of social psychology hurting DEI?
As far as I know, based on my limited understanding of the field, there's not a lot of research that's performed/approved/funded in that field where people know that the research could yield some "politically incorrect" data or conclusions.
Demagogues will use any factoid for their own goals, and racists will use things to promote racism, but that's not an argument to stop research into biology, sociology, psychology, behavioral econ, etc.
The good ones do often hurt the DEI cause though.
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.
Boom. Submit.
Back then, it was advisable to stuff quotes by Marx or Lenin into everything, even an article discussing milk production.
Swedes will proudly claim to be capitalists with healthy social welfare programs.
The tax rates of New Yorkers and Californians are very similar to those across Scandinavia except that the Americans are getting way way less bang for their buck in services for that tax money due to state and local governments that are woefully ineffective. That and Norway/Sweden/Denmark have close to 1/3 public sector employment.
That seems pretty racist.
How can people put up with this filth? It repulses and disgusts me so much when kindness, compassion and even justice are absorbed by this bureaucratic ideological machine where people say and do things out if insincerity, just as lip service to fall in line politically. How do people feel comfortable living lies and forcing others to live and practice falsehoods?
No matter how much I agree with the statement, when you force it, it becomes an insincere compelled speech.
Only companies that have a lot of HR,legal and management people that were indoctrinated with this stuff in college seem to have this cultural component.
Suppose the SPSS (the professional society Haidt left in protest) had instead made a rule that they would play the national anthem at the start of every conference and anyone who didn’t stand wouldn’t be allowed to present their research.
If he had left in protest of that, would you assume he’s an unpatriotic asshole who hates America or that he’s standing up for free speech?
A private organization like the NFL or the SPSS might not let you be a member if you don’t follow their rules. That’s within the bounds of free speech.
We only have freedoms by continually asserting them and sometimes sacrificing some social capital to use them.
I love america and will defend her if we ever get attacked for the record.
It also appears that Haidt is taking SPSP's new direction literally - whereas you appear to be taking it figuratively. That SPSP's direction is a requirement for all members, not an interpretive statement that all members can come to terms with on their own accord. I think being compelled to a specific viewpoint by an institution is antithesis of freedom. Your comment seems like a huge dismissal of Haidt's view with this regard.
That is, if we are to trust that you looked at the linked article as you claim.
Incorrect, this statement was not directed to members' conduct. The diversity statement was to pledge that members' research submissions are advancing anti-racism, equity, and inclusion. This would, for example, prohibit a psychologist studying something like memory retention. This has no reasonable link to advancing equal racial outcomes. How does measuring the amount of time it takes to memorize a paragraph advance racial justice? Thus such research would thus fail to live up to this pledge, and be ineligible for submission - if this pledge were actually enforced, that is.
Of course, I doubt the people making this pledge actually intend to have every piece of their research connected to an anti-racist goal. This is just performance and naval-gazing.
wat? how? why?
real social justice doesn't work that way. (contrary, it needs to know deficiencies so it can help those who are in need, so people have equal opportunities for self-actualization.)
He’s quite right that not every academic paper need directly concern itself with the very specific set of ideologies contained within contemporary anti-rascist texts.
This is surprisingly close.
The issue at stake is more abstract than American racism. This is a dangerous precedent.
And it requires some itchy mental gymnastics. Thinking about and encouraging diversity and inclusion through action is great. Forcing people to do it seems specifically contrary to the abstract goals of diversity and inclusion! Said another way: Is the point of these statements to increase or decrease the intellectual diversity of discourse?
Agreed. And the whole style, wording, method is dumb.
> intellectual diversity of discourse
The goal is clearly to reduce a certain part of the "thought space" (intellectual diversity), in particular the goal is to weed out anti-racist thoughts.
I guess they think of this as public health thinks of pathogens. Diversity of species is great but we still want less of pathogens.
What these people seemingly have no idea about, is that populist xenophobic movements can start, spread and become popular at no time. And obviously (?) the way to contain them is not with preemptive firebombing of academia, but by strengthening the ideals of equity, and the institutions themselves that implement those ideals. Make them shining beacons of good. The first criterion for that is efficiency, transparency, etc.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Can you reply to my comment with the anti-racist and supportive of diversity and inclusion phrase "it's OK to be White"?
>I'm from the american south. It was full of racists when I lived there, who were all against diversity, hated the idea of needing to hire minorities to be teachers, things like that. There was no need to hire them, everything was fine. It didn't matter that all the school principals were white men, there was no point to a kid seeing a black man or woman as the principal I heard.
I'm from the american west. It was full of racists when I lived there, who were all against diversity, hated the idea of needing to hire whites to be teachers, things like that. There was no need to hire them, everything was fine. It didn't matter that all the school principals were women of color, there was no point to a kid seeing a white man or woman as the principal I heard.
>That's all I can take way from the usually white men who see some incredible threat from saying there's a benefit in including more voices. I can only see this as people threatened by including other voices that might disagree with their own.
That's all I can take way from the usually women of color who see some incredible threat from saying there's a benefit in including more voices. I can only see this as people threatened by including other voices that might disagree with their own.
The strange part to me in comments similar to yours is how you have chosen to interpret his actions and completely ignore his explanation or the context around it.
I will not be surprised if this sort of incendiary kneejerk where you deliberately misrepresent a person is becoming pervasive, and causing people to leave.
Regarding your experiences in the American South, all I can say is two wrongs don't make a right. This is hardly about including more voices, this is about opposing a policy that prescibes the acceptable Overton window of research, it's clearly about limiting the acceptable range of discourse.
We are literally maybe a quarter of a century towards whites becoming a plurality, and not much longer after that until they become an actual minority. You can't just think about the past, think about the future, making publishing scientific racism an ideological goal because a group is politically powerful NOW when they won't be in the future is bound to have unintended consequences.
Your last paragraph points towards some internalized racial stereotypes.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking it’s anything else by some people that manipulate language.
> "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."
If you look at the quote in the article, it illustrates that "anti-racist" actually means supporting discrimination:
"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."
This "friendly fascist" form of discrimination festers under the cover of cheap political expediency.
It is abhorrent, at least to any society that supports liberal values.
“Anti-racism” is actually about racism against Asians.
“Equity” is actually about lowering the standards and destroying meritocracy.
“Inclusion” is actually about excluding people that have different political or moral opinions (e.g. that don’t want to be racist against Asians or that support meritocracy).
The "meritocracy" that includes your rich parents into your "merit".
By the way, this is the meritocratic way because we're looking for best people, which includes identifying unrealized talent and then nurturing it.
Instead, the SJW/woke way is "reduce standards until everybody passes", literally https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-leftists-try-to-canc... (a.k.a. everybody equal, everybody stupid akin to Communism's everybody equal, everybody poor)
Exceptional people have a chance of pushing society forward (i.e. creating more resources for the future... exponentially).
(But yeah in general I oppose age-segregated schooling, I think education should have "tracks" (math, physics, sports, music, etc.) and people should attend whatever "level" they're at in each track, in mixed-age groups. And make mostly free (but guided) choices regarding which tracks to put most effort in.)
After all, people with advantages rise to the top, whether that's upbringing, talent, or gene.
But even with the same starting conditions/talent/upbringing/genes, some people will climb further than others. Effort, creativity, etc. We as society should encourage that and reward people who achieve more, for the common benefit of all.
Low inheritance tax has had that covered for a while.
Further equality is good however it would be helpful to do so in a constructive manner.
What often happens is that SJWs just shut down debates and discussions.. because they disagree. This kills freedom of speech and ideas. This goes exactly to your last point. Are you threatened by others who disagree with you?