Hacker News Reader

Comment by bell-cot | Hacker News Reader

Subtitle: "Demanding that everyone embrace the same values will inevitably narrow the pool of applicants who work and get hired in higher education."

Better subtitle: "The academic workforce's skills and values will shift yet further toward ideological argument, posturing and correctness. And willingness to lie about their values."

View on HN

Therefore discriminating against people with autism and other social disabilities that find lying difficult or impossible.

Or believe it’s important to be true to themselves…

A DEI statement can instead be about costing a lab environment compatible with people who have autism and other social disabilities. Especially as a professor who will be expected to mentor other students and conduct research, the professor can say they have first hand knowledge on how to foster a space friendly to the neurodivergent.

I'm not sure how much you know about this, but some neurodivergent/autism-friendly places absolutely shit on neurodivergent people. Especially when it involves not following unwritten rules, sadly. Expecting an autistic person to implicitly understand what not to say or what topics not to talk about is like expecting women not to be afraid at night. It is just very out of touch.

Well, that’s what the professor with autism can do though: in a statement establish that they will create a mentorship environment with explicit rule and clear boundaries such that will foster an environment for other autistics to succeed in the field.

Yes, but compulsory DEI statements achieve the opposite effect sadly - they water down true commitment to the issue by making everyone make them, which has the effect of making the pledge worthless.

This again disadvantages neurodivergent people because they often can't effectively filter between mandatory bullshit and genuine commitments, so they might be abused by people who were just forced to sign the DEI pledge but do not actually care about it to make proper accommodations like explicit rules and the such.

There’s no proof that making everyone make such statements waters them down. It might also just make everyone actually think about ways their labs and mentorship style might exclude people and adjust accordingly. I think an autistic professor who writes about making a genuine commitment into supporting other autistic students and actually following through with that is just as competitive as other professors who may lie about it, because autistic people are just as capable of success as neurotypical. In fact I’m willing to be that autistic professor will be even more so, because they are going to foster amazing students that other ableist professors overlook.

It creates pushback though... even when some people are generally sympathetic to inclusion and those general goals, a forced statement might make them push back and say "fuck it I hate this and I won't be taking it seriously".

I think the best way of promoting inclusivity is offering incentives for doing so (not necessarily financial by the way - even small things like events or postcards help!) and creating a healthy atmosphere. Trying to make a polarised and generally toxic atmosphere inclusive only furthers the divide and the polarisation.

> 'is like expecting women not to be afraid at night'

some women that I am afraid of would like a word :)

I don't appreciate this reasoning. Promotion of lying isn't wrong because of some strained "discrimination" connection, it's wrong because lying is immoral and deteriorates trust.

I agree, but I was pointing out the hypocrisy/irony of it.

Could you tell us about the job where difficulties with discerning the lies that the boss currently wants to hear, or in telling him those lies, is not discriminated against?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com