How ‘Diversity’ Policing Fails Science

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-diversity-policing-fails-science-equality-equity-education-texas-tech-job-candidates-interview-dei-pronouns-11675722169

by mckern • 3 years ago

178 282 3 years ago

wsj.com

swader9994• 3 years ago

As a parent there's no way I'm encouraging my kids to take on mega debt to fund this nonsense.

cm21874• 3 years ago

As a parent, you are exposed to your kids making a non DEI-compliant joke on a social media and as a result be barred from university admission years later.

swader9994• 3 years ago

Right, problem solved.

boringg2• 3 years ago

As a parent I would hope you wouldn't take on mega debt to go to texas tech and would be able to discern the quality of taking a lesson from a sample size from one.

goatlover11• 3 years ago

Texas Tech is hardly the only example.

fidgewidge4• 3 years ago

The problems sadly aren't limited to Texas Tech Biology, Texas Tech, Texas or the USA.

Even if you ignore DEI ideology entirely, the amount of low quality pseudo-science coming out of universities is a crisis all by itself. The biology world seems especially hard hit but social sciences, humanities and economics also have major reputational issues due to a proliferation of shoddy papers.

The questions are really, are universities as valuable as people currently assume? And if so, should they be?

archagon2• 3 years ago

As a parent, you have little say in what your kids will end up finding valuable. Prepare to be disappointed.

swader9994• 3 years ago

I'll just keep loving them, their decisions are theirs, especially as they get older.

4RealFreedom2• 3 years ago

https://archive.ph/I0SKS

cm21874• 3 years ago

Given that the example is a biology department, it is inevitable to evoke Lysenkoism. But unfortunately it is not limited to biology nor education. Large corporations are pulling slides from the US democratic party manifest in mandatory trainings. I have no idea how they think it is appropriate.

sfpotter• 3 years ago

Large corporations can do whatever they like provided that they deliver profits to shareholders. Do you think they care what you think?

sangnoir• 3 years ago

Large corporations tend to be multicultural. Training employees to respect colleagues regardless of their background, and to be mindful of potential cultural minefields is not "pulling slides from the US Democratic party", but is any company's self-interest.

I know the culture war is now being fought openly, but this is such a disappointingly shallow reading - especially on HN. Companies are not being "woke" to be cool, they provide training as a legal shield so that when the next racist shithead employee does what racist shitheads do and the company gets sued, a company rep will take the stand in court and testify that it is not company policy and refer to the training that was provided. Companies have not stopped being capitalist, DEI is clearly legal CYA but the culture warriors will miss that. Next rime you take DEI training, count the number of times they mention laws and statutes pertaining to protected classes and discrimination.

cm21874• 3 years ago

I was litterally presented with a slide from Kamala Harris' campaign.

Georgelemental4• 3 years ago

You are correct. Far too many conservatives fail to realize that DEI nonsense is in large part a legal liability shield against the armies of rapacious trial lawyers and fundamentalist bureaucrats. Kind of like how in authoritarian regimes, the statues of Glorious Leader get larger and larger, because nobody wants to have the smallest statue. Expunging DEI nonsense has to happen in the legislatures.

https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/woke-institutions-is-j...

https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/wokeness-as-saddam-sta...

fidgewidge4• 3 years ago

"I have no idea how they think it is appropriate."

They don't see politics as a series of intellectual debates between sides with opposing experiences and views, resolved via votes. They think they're perfect angels and their opponents are an evil that should not exist at all. If they thought they could force you to vote Democrat as part of your job contract they'd do it in a heartbeat. If they thought they had a way to eliminate the Republicans forever and then ban it from ever re-emerging, they wouldn't even hesitate.

If you think that's extreme or flamebait, well, it's what US academia is now actually doing via these loyalty pledges and openly politically biased hiring practices: systematically erase the non-left from academic existence. It's what happened to James Damore, it's what your HR department would do to you in an instant if you complained about the inappropriateness of forcing employees to sit through left wing political material. They would love you to complain so they can identify you and eliminate you because that's just how they roll.

At some point, our society is going to have to face the fact that this is how it always goes with the left. It has happened throughout history, going back to the French Revolution. Having a left that doesn't try and take over to impose a dictatorship the moment it spies an opportunity to do so is very difficult. In Europe there is a similar problem except it's being done via encoding leftist worldviews into the European Union, instead of by trying to take over universities and corporations, and is arguably more advanced.

It's a really big problem and it's very unclear what to do about it. Society needs to (re)develop norms and taboos about allowing anything to do with politics into the workplace. Or it needs to radically shift towards the libertarian right, as a way to mitigate the risk of a left wing violent uprising.

NB for any lefties who never got the memo at the end of the 20th century, "the left" doesn't refer to anti-war anti-capitalists anymore. It refers to middle class culture and eco warriors - the sort of people the WSJ article is about.

nhchris• 3 years ago

Science is incidental. The purpose is to select candidates that will produce ammunition in the form of research (e.g. various marginalization studies) for your side, and exclude candidates that might produce research useful to your opponents. This has been the case for a while in social sciences [1], now it's taking over all fields, and being made explicit and open [2,3,4]. The result of "just stick to your research, they won't bother STEM" attitudes.

[1] The authors also submitted different test studies to different peer-review boards. The methodology was identical, and the variable was that the purported findings either went for, or against, the liberal worldview (for example, one found evidence of discrimination against minority groups, and another found evidence of "reverse discrimination" against straight white males). Despite equal methodological strengths, the studies that went against the liberal worldview were criticized and rejected, and those that went with it were not. - https://theweek.com/articles/441474/how-academias-liberal-bi...

[2] Advancing knowledge and understanding is a fundamental public good. In some cases, however, potential harms to the populations studied may outweigh the benefit of publication. - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01443-2

[3] Science Must Not Be Used to Foster White Supremacy - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-must-not-...

[4] Study: Diversity Statements Required for One-Fifth of Academic Jobs - https://freebeacon.com/campus/study-diversity-statements-req...

evancox100• 3 years ago

It’s the biology department!

cm21874• 3 years ago

I still think biology is on a collision course with DEI. At the core of DEI there is the belief that if there is any discrepency in outcome between two groups (whichever way you cut the population), it is the result of discriminations and power struggles. There is a remote possibly that our genes have zero influence on our brain and behaviour, but I wouldn't bet on that. And that is an unacceptable outcome to DEI.

commandlinefan3• 3 years ago

This has been the case for a while in social sciences

“Oh, the humanities!”

josephcsible• 3 years ago

IMO, your second link is the scariest thing. It's basically saying that Nature is going to censor (i.e., refuse to publish) any facts that conflict with their preferred political opinions.

dandare• 3 years ago

research may — inadvertently — stigmatize individuals or human groups. It may be discriminatory, racist, sexist, ableist or homophobic.

Sexist research, racist facts.

bayesian_horse• 3 years ago

You're accusing mild opinionism by being even more opionated.

DiggyJohnson• 3 years ago

What? Can you break your perspective down more into the context of the comment you're replying to?

4RealFreedom2• 3 years ago

I'd really like to know what the endgame is for DEI. Can anyone explain that?

causi12• 3 years ago

The destruction of meritocracy. Meritocracy forces people to confront things about themselves they don't like and influences them to change. Change is hard and painful. Especially now, when the things people need to change about themselves are also things they hold as being very important to their identity. People with a cultural background that fosters academic achievement will on average achieve more than people who don't. In the Western world, those cultural differences often also line up with ethnic differences. That's what we refuse to confront: that, by ourselves or in response to circumstances imposed on us by others, some of us have developed cultures that put us at a disadvantage.

Did my Korean friend growing up who spent his every afternoon and weekend studying while I was playing videogames deserve to get into a better university than me and make more money than me? I say he did. DEI says he didn't.

ramesh312• 3 years ago

Did my Korean friend growing up who spent his every afternoon and weekend studying while I was playing videogames deserve to get into a better university than me and make more money than me? I say he did. DEI says he didn't.

But why was your friend able to spend his every afternoon and weekend studying?

Because he was raised in a supportive, nurturing environment. Probably with grandparents and aunts/uncles to help take care of him. He probably had older relatives in professional careers to aspire to and mentor him. He probably never had to work a job in high school to help support his family, or raise his younger siblings while mom worked night shift. His parents were probably married and able to hold decent jobs to provide a stable home, good nutrition, and a lack of stress. They probably were able to make sure he went to preschool, and had reliable transportation to get him to/from there and kindergarten, and drilled into him the importance of education from a young age. All of these things are what DEI tries to correct for. The people who had none of that never get a shot at redemption otherwise.

The cards are stacked from birth.

Dalewyn5• 3 years ago

Asians (read: a minority in the US) throwing a spanner in "diversity" and revealing the whole charade for what it is is hilarious (for all the wrong reasons) every time.

"Diversity" is supposedly all about "helping minorities", except when those minorities are too successful for the narrative. Can't have success, oh no! Minorities are supposed to be oppressed and victims in need of saving by the good diversifiers!

And so asians quite often get rounded up with whites.

Fuck that noise. Meritocracy is by far the best system we have to figure out the good people from the bad. Judging by the quality of one's character rather than the color of one's skin. We are all humans, race literally doesn't and shouldn't matter.

zzzeek3• 3 years ago

from that logic, the only reason that nationwide higher education achievement for African Americans and Latinos being about half of what it is for whites would be...that people of those backgrounds are inherently more lazy. What other reason can you offer ? If we live in a pure "meritocracy" as you claim, why does this "merit" seem to correlate so highly with racial background? Specific reasons please

(note to the repliers - the assumption given by the parent is, we live in a pure meritocracy and the reason people achieve less is strictly because "they're lazy". I did not say I believe that. )

andrepd10• 3 years ago

The destruction of meritocracy.

Meritocracy is a myth. participants have too much variability on starting points and environment for the concept to have any usefulness.

That being said, the "nihilistic" attitude of DEI towards meritocracy is as unsatisfactory as that "naive" attitude of pretending it exists. The right attitude is to recognise that the concept is meaningless in a society of staggering (and rising) inequality, and take steps to correct that.

mnky9800n• 3 years ago

i would say that is a bit biased view of it all. i would suggest the goal of DEI is a true meritocracy. One where the only thing that matters is merit. There would be no measurable difference based on uncontrollable factors. There would be true acceptance of differences without any tolerance of differences.

I like to think about it from the stand point of star trek. When Gene Roddenberry was asked "would a starship really have a bald captain? Wouldn't they have invented a cure for baldness in the 24th century?" Gene Roddenberry replied, "In the 24th century nobody cares if you are bald or not."

That is a rather innocuous example, but the point remains, the future should be a place where it doesn't much matter who you are, only what you do. The future should be a place where everyone is accepted as they are and there are no personal difficulties due to being different. A blind man can be the pilot of a ship, a black woman a deck officer, a person with a handicap (like the alien going to starfleet academy that doesn't breathe oxygen) isn't kept back from their job. All that is expected that you want to be there and you want to work towards being where you want to be. And if some things are more difficult for you, society will help you out. You will get a VISOR if you are blind, or a device to help you breathe.

The argument that often comes from post-modernist DEI advocates is that the world I'm describing is an ideal and doesn't exist. Well that is true. Ideals don't exist. That doesn't keep us from seeking them. We cannot reject DEI on face value or because some activists see change needing methods we disagree with (e.g., top down approaches that refuse to have the system accept responsibility and force the individual to account for the inequities and injustices). the internal ideals of DEI are good, differences cannot be simply tolerated, they must be accepted and accounted for.

gadders6• 3 years ago

Yes and no. I do genuinely think that there are some things that should be taken into account when hiring - not in terms of quotas, but in terms of allowances made.

For instance consider two students:

Student A: Lived in a comfortable middle-class home in which parents worked in professional jobs and went to the best schools

Student B: Grew up in a deprived area to single parent who worked menial jobs. Had to work at weekends as well as study.

If both students apply to a job or college, should their final academic grades be treated equally? If both students got the same grade, who would you think was "smarter"?

anoxor• 3 years ago

It functions as a religious cult, and the goal is power and control. See justification for use of power because they project that their opponents goal was power first.

CWuestefeld5• 3 years ago

Yesterday there was a lot of chatter in various fora about the recent near-tragedy at Austin Bergstrom Airport. Obviously you won't see this in the news, but apparently the cause of the incident was an air traffic controller who has a reputation in the industry for incompetence, but can't be fired because he continuously files EEOC claims.

I think that is an example of where we wind up.

JumpCrisscross• 3 years ago

Source?

banannaise2• 3 years ago

And this ATC was hired and retained for DEI purposes? What relevance does this have, aside from insinuating that DEI is a scheme to replace good workers with incompetent ones?

kenjackson4• 3 years ago

People literally get fired everyday with EEOC claims. In fact it’s quite the opposite. Most people who file EEOC claims lose their job.

https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2021/07/63-workers-who-fil...

automatic6131• 3 years ago

endgame is for DEI

Power and control for those that advanced it, power and control for those who join in to advocate for it.

goatlover11• 3 years ago

Win the culture war and replace existing power structures with ones that favor the DEI proponents.

bunbunbun4• 3 years ago

In other countries it could be different, but in the US: Redistribution of wealth and access to opportunity such that those things are not concentrated in one demographic group, the result with also theoretically will redistribute power.

AJ007• 3 years ago

What happens if the redistribution of power no longer reflects liberal values?

papandada• 3 years ago

I think the witty observation about regular expressions holds true very generally. "I have a problem with p_1 -- I know, I'll use p_2! Now I have two problems."

Where here, I would agree there is a problem around biases, systems which favour certain people unfairly. Disagree with me on that point if you want but I claim the motivation is/was largely rooted in sincere recognition of injustice.

But does the typical DEI implementation actually address that injustice? Or is it just a new evolutionary force for sociopaths and abusers to adapt to and subvert for their own power, most likely aided by a mass of well-intentioned people along the way. (This is an anecdotal personal opinion based on experience, not double blind randomized trials.)

willcipriano• 3 years ago

You know how they can't make new movies, comic books, video games or TV shows anymore and just lazily add black and gay characters to existing ones? Picture Schindler's List getting that treatment but it's real life.

"History never repeats itself, but it does often rhyme"

at_a_remove2• 3 years ago

They're already rewriting Stonewall.

pixxel2• 3 years ago

Attributing laziness is being kind.

standardUser• 3 years ago

Like most social change it is part of a much larger process and the current form is transitory. Anyone who has been around since the 70's or 80's has seen several distinct waves that have changed how we talk about and handle race and other issues related to diversity. Some people see DEI as excessive or an overreach, but people have felt that exact same about so many other approaches over the decades.

jl6• 3 years ago

A culture free of racism, sexism and prejudice with equal opportunity and fair outcomes for all.

I think that is genuinely the intended endgame that most proponents seek.

Unfortunately they do not grasp that their methods are counterproductive and will probably achieve the opposite.

wonderwonder5• 3 years ago

Same as the goal of the BLM organization (I am being very specific here referring to the organization, not the movement) to enrich the people that control it via the exploitation of cultural schisms regardless of the cost to others.

The monster though has now escaped its creator and is a threat to meritocracy and what makes America great. If I was an enemy country with patience I would just fund and promote the movement from the shadows and wait for the fall.

cplanas• 3 years ago

I don't think that most of proponents of DEI share my opinion, but for me, the endgame of DEI (and antiracism in general) is the destruction of race as a social concept. IMO, race is basically a casta system, particularly given how it operates in America.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe in genetics. I do believe that certain groups of people form genetic clusters. Nevertheless, I don't think that "race" the genetic cluster and "race" the social concept are that much intertwined. Of the 4 major racial groups in America, there are two that very obviously don't cluster (Asians and Hispanics): this somehow is ignored by both pro and anti DEI sides.

In a world in which DEI efforts are successful, the current races would just become non-sensical, in the same way in which considering Irish and Italians non-white has become non-sensical today.

62951413• 3 years ago

Read up on the Soviet history. The Commies invented this stuff and turned Soviet Russia into a gigantic proving ground.

akomtu• 3 years ago

DEI is a shot at creating a left-wing religion, above the law and reason, and hence the name choice (dei=god). Its founders know, that in order to establish a cult like DEI, they need to undermine the pillars of the american nation: christianity, the bill of rights, and meritocracy. And they do: DEI positions itself as firmly anti-christian, anti-freedom and anti-merit. If this works, a few very rich dudes will become the high-priests of DEI, with the power similar to Imam or Pope.

If DEI had anything good in it, it would focus on what all races and sexes have in common. Instead DEI is fixated on differences.

Georgelemental4• 3 years ago

There is no endgame, that would mean that they would lose their jobs and relevance.

Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!

—George Wallace, 1963

The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.

—Ibram X. Kendi, 2019

boringg2• 3 years ago

Not defending anything here - but is this a case where a low-middle quality school is trying to protect itself from downside risk of one of their staff creating an uproar? They probably already have an enrollment and funding problem so any further debacle will only hurt further.

This article is creating that same debacle I would imagine.

bunbunbun4• 3 years ago

Don’t be fooled into outrage, there are at least two issues with this op Ed. First, even with negative remarks some candidates will proceed in the process and maybe become the hired person. Second, the author is relying on your ignorance of academic hiring procedures, which has its own reasoning grown out of years of faculty politics.

Flatcircle• 3 years ago

Reading this type of stuff makes me so sad. It’s Very Soviet.

goatlover11• 3 years ago

You would think South Park spending a season lampooning it would register, but I guess it can be dismissed as just being edgy instead of apt social satire.

snek_case2• 3 years ago

Which season is that? I have to watch it.

saul_goodman• 3 years ago

American exceptionalism is dead. Persia was once known for their strong pursuit of knowledge and science, it's why the majority of the visible stars in the sky have Arabic names even to this day. Then the region transitioned heavily into religion. That's not an indictment of religion, just that we are watching our own downfall by valuing political beliefs above the actual requirements of any given job. It's probably too late to correct at this point as there will always be people willing to do what is asked of them, to proselytize the desired belief system to the next generation. Our union will just fracture as so many before have been fractured.

blibble• 3 years ago

indeed, if you extrapolate this out several decades then you end up with companies far less competitive on the global scale

and the same applies to societies too

snek_case2• 3 years ago

if you extrapolate this out several decades then you end up with companies far less competitive on the global scale

Just look at how Google is doing lately...

catapart18• 3 years ago

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.

goatlover11• 3 years ago

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.

catapart18• 3 years ago

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.

kenjackson4• 3 years ago

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.

catapart18• 3 years ago

John D. Sailer: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/author/john-d-sailer...

National Association of Scholars: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/education/22conservative....

For people who are willing to look critically at the information, and discern what the sum of it indicates about the subject piece.

fzeroracer2• 3 years ago

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.

jkingsbery• 3 years ago

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.

catapart18• 3 years ago

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.

physPop• 3 years ago

This is the definition of ad homenim fallacious argument.

Do you have evidence to support or refute the claims being made? Is DEI productive for academia?

catapart18• 3 years ago

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.

x86_64Ubuntu• 3 years ago

No one is going to disregard the source and their ideological tendencies when looking at their writings.

yamtaddle• 3 years ago

Being aware of the slant and typical quality-level of a source isn't ad hom, it's the basics of being able to navigate the written word.

topynate4• 3 years ago

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.

catapart18• 3 years ago

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.

SamoyedFurFluff3• 3 years ago

This is an opinion piece, not actual journalism, for context.

wonderwonder5• 3 years ago

The most interesting twist to come out of the rise of DEI is the now open discrimination against Asians, and the rising open casting of Jews as the real enemy of African Americans. Although Jews get blamed for everything else so maybe it's not so much of a surprise. A year or so ago when there was a large number of cases of Asians being attacked in the streets by African Americans; the DEI director where I worked posted on slack in response to posts by concerned Asian coworkers that it was because of white supremacy and we mustn't let white supremacists drive us apart. It was very much whites are the bad guys and just ignore whatever is really happening.

What makes it worse is DEI leaders are essentially given unlimited power. They can say anything and if you say anything to contradict them you are a racist and your career is destroyed.

Article reminds me of this:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1608188826291167242/phot...

bunbunbun4• 3 years ago

Washington post had a nice economic and historical analysis of what you are talking about a few years ago: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/29/the-r...

It’s not exhaustive but gives some touchstones for further reading

throwawayacc64• 3 years ago

https://archive.is/62ktx

bwing2• 3 years ago

There's no logical endpoint for "disparate group outcomes prove a problem that must be fixed" outside of discrimination against Asians and Jews. (It's an ineffective racist, white supremacist society that allows immigrant Asians and their descendants to outscore native whites on every metric of success used to prove the racism and white supremacy.)

faeriechangling2• 3 years ago

Asians have been facing discrimination in work and schools for over a century. DEI is conceptually much younger. It’s just more yellow peril bullshit wrapped up in a veneer of morality pushed by career racists and bigots.

testfoobar• 3 years ago

I've heard it quite explicitly. Acquaintances with diversity/blm/love is love/lgbt yard signs, anti-racist t-shirts, the whole yards will unprompted make blindingly racist statements about Chinese and Indians. E.g. Academic ambition is all "those people" care about...Asians are hoarding all the "best spots" in universities/jobs. "They" must hate their kids. Their kids must be all so unhappy and miserable.

If you present a neutral, non-judgmental, position, it has been surprising me to how so many people will share all their racist views.

snowpid2• 3 years ago

I am repeatedly surprised that in Germany some vocal antisemitics are black. (Not so many but everything above 0 is just surprising)

mrguyorama3• 3 years ago

Man, it's almost like black people are people too and susceptible to the same faults as those with a lighter complexion, and being part of an oppressed class does not grant you immunity to being an oppressor

bwing2• 3 years ago

If anything, it reflects a greater degree of logical rigor:

1) It's commonly taken as a simple fact that overrepresentation of white people among e.g. the top hedge fund managers is evidence of society being structured in those people's favor

2) Jews are way more overrepresented among top hedge fund managers than non-Jewish whites

3) ...

Obviously the missing piece here is that (taken as a whole; obviously "Jews" comprises many different groups) Jewish people, on average, are culturally and genetically predisposed to success in intellectual fields. However, if you notice this but grow up in a climate where cultural and genetic reasons for group success are verboten, the nefarious explanations are the ones left.

MisterTea• 3 years ago

I am continually surprised that there are people who are surprised that black and brown people can participate in racism.

skippyboxedhero3• 3 years ago

Historical racism is largely interpreted today as hate directed towards minority groups. Very roughly: people were racist because they hated X or Y, that was some defect in their personality, some individual reason, mental illness, etc.

But it was also a function of group dynamics and attempting to preserve cohesion (perhaps more commonly, I think actively hating people you don't know has always been regarded as odd). Outsiders were discriminated against in order to maintain the values of the group (ignoring for a second whether these values were good or bad).

And this kind of collective thinking is something that is more typical of the left. So you are seeing more and more of this reverse discrimination. And will continue to do so because this instinct towards group cohesion is overwhelming.

You also see this outside the US with left-wing nationalist groups. I think there a tacit assumption today that left-wing and nationalism cannot go together. But nationalism has often been a key source of group cohesion for left-wing movements, and that has (unfortunately) often been defined exclusively.

To say this another way: this has to end up with more discrimination. Everything that you do as an adult today is set against your record of "privilege". Why do people pretend to be poor? Why do people pretend to be a different race? And the people doing this are apparently privileged ones? It makes no sense.

prox• 3 years ago

I have been going over the article and the comments a couple of times now. And it makes no sense to me at all. So with some distance from this subject, it’s seems by reading the comments to be a very polarized issue with lots of emotional reactivity attached to it (and calling out the “other side”)

I have no idea what DEI is (not the acronym, the movement behind it) and what it’s cultural setting is, and if it is different from other systems or movements that promote equality.

I would love to see a neutral toned third party observer insight into the mechanics of this topic.

distantaidenn6• 3 years ago

I hate to see this rhetoric on HN. I considered this one of the last bastions of rational, open, and unbiased discourse. I suppose "Eternal September" comes for all.

As a member of the Black and Asian community (and others), first I'd like to say. What? Since when did Black people (en masse) begin assigning any manner of blame to the Jewish community as the "real enemies?" Aside from a one particular prominent rap artist and one very fringe religious group, no one I know or any of the Black online communities I frequent have ever said such. If there was a newsletter, I sure as hell didn't get it.

Regarding the Black on Asian violence we saw in the US. It was and is a damned shame. Again, as a member of those communities, it hurts. However, I know I walk the fine line of whataboutism here, but I have to make it known. The increase in Asian hate was not led by Black Americans (but the reporting of it sure as hell made it look that way). I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine which group was the number one culprit of such vile acts -- from simple assault to mass murder. Regardless, no matter the culprit, any act of violence based on race is absolutely and utterly reprehensible.

We don't need a designated "bad guy" in order to address these horrible events. We all need to do better.

[Edit] I seemed to have ruffled some feathers here.

skippyboxedhero3• 3 years ago

We don't need a designated "bad guy" in order to address these horrible events. We all need to do better.

Also:

I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine which group was the number one culprit of such vile acts

I think everyone hates to see this on HN. Implying that your "and we know which race is responsible" is unbiased is...something else.

wonderwonder5• 3 years ago

What rhetoric? Asians are being discriminated against, see the entire Harvard scandal. As well as corporate hiring policies. At no point in time did I say it was just by African Americans. I did reference a national series of events that involved African Americans because it allowed me to describe an anecdotal experience involving a corporate DEI director.

As far as African Americans holding anti semitic views, nearly a quarter of African Americans hold antisemitic views as opposed to 14% of the general population.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...

What have I said that is not "rational, open, and unbiased"? I was very clear that the DEI director experience was something I saw and I provided the context of when it occurred. Take your accusations elsewhere.

davidktr• 3 years ago

I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine which group was the number one culprit of such vile acts

Let us have that open discussion and actually make it known, not just alluding to it. I don't know the answer. Which group is it?

Please make sure 1) to control for population ratios, 2) to control for additional factors potentially influencing the outcome where the groups differ, e.g., degree of urbanisation, 3) to include a procedure how the groups are classified.

You indicate to know the answer so I trust confounding factors have been excluded and it is transparent how the group labels were assigned. Thanks in advance!

throwawayacc64• 3 years ago

The increase in Asian hate was not led by Black Americans

Yes it was.

I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine which group was the number one culprit of such vile acts -- from simple assault to mass murder.

Let's look at the objective facts backed by data: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf

Table 14

Asians were the only group more likely to be attacked by someone of a different race. Blacks were the most frequent aggressors. 27% of attacks were from Black aggressors. 24% were from White aggressors. Blacks make up 13% of the population, so they are WAY more likely per capita to attack Asians than Whites. QED.

inb4 this is from 2018. If you have numbers from a latter reputable study, please provide them here, but the facts are facts. Blacks are the number one perpetrators of crime against Asians.

[Edit] No feathers rustled here, you're just projecting after being called out. I simply enjoy being a data driven adult.

hdjjhhvvhga• 3 years ago

The increase in Asian hate was not led by Black Americans (but the reporting of it sure as hell made it look that way). I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine which group was the number one culprit of such vile acts.

Since you present an opinion that is directly against the reporting, it would make sense to back it up rather than make some vague suggestions.

jimbob45• 3 years ago

Americans in general are dumbasses when it comes to Jews. Most I talk to don't know the difference between an ethnic Jew and a practicing Jew. Most consider someone to be a practicing Jew/Jewish if they've ever been to Temple, even if they haven't gone in years. Meanwhile, those same people won't consider themselves to be a practicing Christian because "they haven't been to church in years". The whole conversation is just brainrot.

andrepd10• 3 years ago

That meme is kind of stupid, to be fair. Scientific skepticism means question and probe and doubt in a measure appropriate to the evidence presented, not that we suddenly have to doubt that the earth is round or that gravity exists.

wonderwonder5• 3 years ago

Sure in those specific cases but not in the context of journals like Nature announcing that they will refuse to publish any scientific studies that conflict with their DEI policies.

Also I'm a sucker for anything involving Lego people

syzarian2• 3 years ago

The land acknowledgement statements really irk me. Pretty much all land has been conquered, reconquered, or otherwise changed hands many times over the last several thousand years. What is the point of saying this land once belonged to group A? How does that help marginalized people? It reminds me of people saying, “Thank you for your service” and then voting against politicians that want to increase funding for veterans.

I suppose this sort of meaningless act lets some people feel like they are “allies” of native people without having to actually help native people. It’s like, “thoughts and prayers”. There will be a backlash and these dumb requirements are an obstacle to progress toward racial equality.

beej71• 3 years ago

I think the two options people generally go with are:

1. Forget about it and do nothing. 2. Remember it and do nothing.

While both of these are pretty poor, the second, I'd argue, is marginally better. Forgetting history isn't usually the best plan.

syzarian2• 3 years ago

All else being equal I would agree with you. I do think though that enforcing things like land acknowledgment statements in syllabi creates resentment amongst those in the middle. There is also harm, I think, in letting those who advocate for such policies feel good about themselves without them doing anything to feel good about.

How ‘Diversity’ Policing Fails Science

Related Stories