Pragmatism as Anti-Authoritarianism(commonwealmagazine.org)
commonwealmagazine.org
Pragmatism as Anti-Authoritarianism
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/should-philosophy-retire
94 comments
> We pragmatists must be content to offer suggestions about how to patch things up, how to adjust things to each other, how to rearrange them into slightly more useful patterns. That is what I hope to have done in these lectures. I see myself as having shifted a few pieces around on the philosophical chessboard, rather than having answered any deep questions or produced any elevating thoughts.
I feel like this attitude is very important in software, especially on legacy codebases. Everything is broken, nothing is "as it should be". But you can't really wait for everything to be perfect. You have to work with what you already have, maybe cleaning up a bit here and there. Pragmatism is very important to not fall into despair, inaction or burn-out.
This may also hint at something deeper. Is there only one answer to deep questions? Is there one perfect way to handle strings? Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. But what's certain is that we could do better than what we're currently doing, whatever is our position. And once we're doing our best within the constraints, we can choose which tradeoffs to pick. But at this point, they will be tradeoffs, not fundamentally better ways to do things.
I feel like this attitude is very important in software, especially on legacy codebases. Everything is broken, nothing is "as it should be". But you can't really wait for everything to be perfect. You have to work with what you already have, maybe cleaning up a bit here and there. Pragmatism is very important to not fall into despair, inaction or burn-out.
This may also hint at something deeper. Is there only one answer to deep questions? Is there one perfect way to handle strings? Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. But what's certain is that we could do better than what we're currently doing, whatever is our position. And once we're doing our best within the constraints, we can choose which tradeoffs to pick. But at this point, they will be tradeoffs, not fundamentally better ways to do things.
Maybe the philosophical questions that Rorty derides have a productive and pragmatic value in the lives of the philosophers who consider them.
> The point of pragmatism is that a philosophical problem or distinction is only real to the extent that it has consequences—and those consequences are, in fact, the meaning of the problem or distinction. Dissolving those questions, casting doubt on the existence of any such consequences, was a frequent move by James and Dewey and a favorite move of Rorty’s.
It reads like an argument technique and not a tool for illuminating truth about the world. Just in the previous paragraph, he takes all the meaningful value of philosophy off the table and puts it out of scope:
> Pragmatism as Anti-Authoritarianism speaks to and for those who, living in a post-positivist, Wittgensteinian world, would never ask themselves questions like: “Do objects really have the properties they seem to, or are they only appearances? How can we know?” “What is the essence of a human being? Soul? Personality? Genetic code?” “Is mind material or immaterial?” “Are some actions intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of all consequences (or none) to all parties concerned, anywhere in the universe, in saecula saeculorum?” “Can an act be both caused and free?” “Can something be objectively good even if no one anywhere thinks it so?” “Can a proposition be true if no one exists?”
Maybe I'm misreading, and I'm going to go way out on a limb here with my reaction to it. It's just more dialectic materialism, where to even start a conversation with someone using it, you have to accept ontological premises that are necessarily absurd. To another commenter here, it does indeed sound like Poppers paraphrase, which is a thought terminating cliche that protects lazy minds from dissonance. When inclusion of authors and texts from unexpected* places was transgressive it added perspective, but now, it's just designed to homogenize and liquify culture to produce nihilistic ideologues who can't be trusted as fellow citizens to share a recourse to truth.
Personally, I think secular philosophers were tricked into giving up the one tool or razor that would have kept them from drowning in the hall of mirrors flooded with bullshit that their field has become, and that is the question, "is this philosophy, ideology, or critical theory designed to deceive and subordinate us to others, and if so, who, how, and to what end?"
The beauty of it is you can apply it to religion easily, even though the result is pretty clumsy, but it gets interesting when someone like this Rorty takes all the meaningful questions off the table first, as you should feel the hairs on your neck stand up, because you are being rounded on by an intellectual predator.
If you just take a cryptanalyst or a hackers mindset to it and ask, "am I being deceived?" the whole secular dialectic materialist edifice crumbles. I would argue that this question is also necessarily theistic, as it presupposes truth, and a belief in truth is proof of a belief in something divine by which truth can be measured or compared. That is how fragile secular presuppositions are. As in, boom, you just found out you belive in god and that mythical evil is just plain old deception, just what the crazies have been banging on about for millennia. For many that's kind of an oh shit moment, because if that's true, some other things become very urgent.
Nobody articulates this stuff, but it's the underlying schism in the culture, where though we might see barberous religious fundamentalists filling the heads of children with hate, what these people really believe is that there is truth, and they are innoculating kids against being deceived by thinkers who begin by taking truth off the table, since once you've done that, nothing has fixed meaning or consequences, and all that's left is a material power struggle.
While I don't need for anyone to agree with my views, they should at least try to understand that the irreconcilable difference between conservatives and liberals reduces to a fixed belief in truth. It's the only meaningful question, and based on a light reading of the article, this Rorty guy seems like he's just producing more deceptive misdirections.
To me, the ideas in the article sounded like just more NINO: Nihilisim-In-Nihilism-Out.
It reads like an argument technique and not a tool for illuminating truth about the world. Just in the previous paragraph, he takes all the meaningful value of philosophy off the table and puts it out of scope:
> Pragmatism as Anti-Authoritarianism speaks to and for those who, living in a post-positivist, Wittgensteinian world, would never ask themselves questions like: “Do objects really have the properties they seem to, or are they only appearances? How can we know?” “What is the essence of a human being? Soul? Personality? Genetic code?” “Is mind material or immaterial?” “Are some actions intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of all consequences (or none) to all parties concerned, anywhere in the universe, in saecula saeculorum?” “Can an act be both caused and free?” “Can something be objectively good even if no one anywhere thinks it so?” “Can a proposition be true if no one exists?”
Maybe I'm misreading, and I'm going to go way out on a limb here with my reaction to it. It's just more dialectic materialism, where to even start a conversation with someone using it, you have to accept ontological premises that are necessarily absurd. To another commenter here, it does indeed sound like Poppers paraphrase, which is a thought terminating cliche that protects lazy minds from dissonance. When inclusion of authors and texts from unexpected* places was transgressive it added perspective, but now, it's just designed to homogenize and liquify culture to produce nihilistic ideologues who can't be trusted as fellow citizens to share a recourse to truth.
Personally, I think secular philosophers were tricked into giving up the one tool or razor that would have kept them from drowning in the hall of mirrors flooded with bullshit that their field has become, and that is the question, "is this philosophy, ideology, or critical theory designed to deceive and subordinate us to others, and if so, who, how, and to what end?"
The beauty of it is you can apply it to religion easily, even though the result is pretty clumsy, but it gets interesting when someone like this Rorty takes all the meaningful questions off the table first, as you should feel the hairs on your neck stand up, because you are being rounded on by an intellectual predator.
If you just take a cryptanalyst or a hackers mindset to it and ask, "am I being deceived?" the whole secular dialectic materialist edifice crumbles. I would argue that this question is also necessarily theistic, as it presupposes truth, and a belief in truth is proof of a belief in something divine by which truth can be measured or compared. That is how fragile secular presuppositions are. As in, boom, you just found out you belive in god and that mythical evil is just plain old deception, just what the crazies have been banging on about for millennia. For many that's kind of an oh shit moment, because if that's true, some other things become very urgent.
Nobody articulates this stuff, but it's the underlying schism in the culture, where though we might see barberous religious fundamentalists filling the heads of children with hate, what these people really believe is that there is truth, and they are innoculating kids against being deceived by thinkers who begin by taking truth off the table, since once you've done that, nothing has fixed meaning or consequences, and all that's left is a material power struggle.
While I don't need for anyone to agree with my views, they should at least try to understand that the irreconcilable difference between conservatives and liberals reduces to a fixed belief in truth. It's the only meaningful question, and based on a light reading of the article, this Rorty guy seems like he's just producing more deceptive misdirections.
To me, the ideas in the article sounded like just more NINO: Nihilisim-In-Nihilism-Out.
side note first, dialectic materialism is as modernist and 'truthy' as it gets. It stands in stark contrast to the the kind of thinking you appear to disagree with.
To the main point, you're honestly just being sentimental. You're calling secular philosophers nihilistic, predatory, accuse them of trickery but you're not actually making a point to be honest. They may be all those things, that doesn't mean their arguments are bad.
The article talks about a very foundational question. Can metaphysics make progress? Is it possible to come to consensus when in fact everyone, as you put it, has to accept someone else's ontological premises in arbitrary fashion?
The answer to that question is probably not, and Wittengestein, Rorty, and the mentioned pragmatists have deflated this kind of discourse successfully. Pay close attention to your own rhetoric
"it's just designed to homogenize and liquify culture to produce nihilistic ideologues who can't be trusted as fellow citizens to share a recourse to truth."
This is not an argument, that's someone saying "don't listen to the devil kids". It's appealing to a notion of truth as a sort of communal protection racket because you don't like the consequences of Rorty et al being right. In fact even worse, you're doing the sort of power play you're accusing the philosophers in question of. "They are trying to homogenize our culture, don't listen to them!, if we don't believe in capital T Truth, everything will fall apart!"
To the main point, you're honestly just being sentimental. You're calling secular philosophers nihilistic, predatory, accuse them of trickery but you're not actually making a point to be honest. They may be all those things, that doesn't mean their arguments are bad.
The article talks about a very foundational question. Can metaphysics make progress? Is it possible to come to consensus when in fact everyone, as you put it, has to accept someone else's ontological premises in arbitrary fashion?
The answer to that question is probably not, and Wittengestein, Rorty, and the mentioned pragmatists have deflated this kind of discourse successfully. Pay close attention to your own rhetoric
"it's just designed to homogenize and liquify culture to produce nihilistic ideologues who can't be trusted as fellow citizens to share a recourse to truth."
This is not an argument, that's someone saying "don't listen to the devil kids". It's appealing to a notion of truth as a sort of communal protection racket because you don't like the consequences of Rorty et al being right. In fact even worse, you're doing the sort of power play you're accusing the philosophers in question of. "They are trying to homogenize our culture, don't listen to them!, if we don't believe in capital T Truth, everything will fall apart!"
Sharp! I'm rejecting the premise that metaphysics should make progress, or that progress is an artifact of anything other than wishful secularism and deception at all. When we do discover new tools in it, the version numbers for metaphysics shouldn't increment, they should go backwards to approach zero. Is that progress? Imo, metaphorically directional, but otherwise no.
The reason someone says, "don't listen to the devil kids" is it's the best tool they can equip a young mind with that it can understand. I'd argue it's distinct from the same kind of noble lies I'm criticising, in that it's a metonym.
Responses like this make risking being very publicly wrong worth it, thank you.
The reason someone says, "don't listen to the devil kids" is it's the best tool they can equip a young mind with that it can understand. I'd argue it's distinct from the same kind of noble lies I'm criticising, in that it's a metonym.
Responses like this make risking being very publicly wrong worth it, thank you.
I don’t believe in anything divine, because my equations do not require it. Also, yours don’t either. You are like a child drawing happy suns in blue skies because that’s what you like. It’s not required.
I have no need of “Truth.” I just notice and make use of persistent, reliable patterns to make safe conjectures that will have consequences for people who disregard them. I call that the truth. That’s good enough.
I have no need of “Truth.” I just notice and make use of persistent, reliable patterns to make safe conjectures that will have consequences for people who disregard them. I call that the truth. That’s good enough.
> It's just more dialectic materialism, where to even start a conversation with someone using it, you have to accept ontological premises that are necessarily absurd.
Imagine, if you will, two legislators arguing some bill in some parliament. The first is proposing some amendment to the bill which hinges on the existence of God. The second argues against it believing there is no God.
The question is, can this be resolved? Let us assume they are both perfectly rational and exhibit impeccable integrity. Could they forward arguments to settle their dispute? Let's assume they are both scientific materialists. Can they investigate the material world to find evidence to support their positions and resolve their dispute?
I don't know. If given infinite time, maybe? I honestly don't know. But as of now, it would seem that even given a complete willingness from either party to change their mind based on either argument or evidence we would still find ourselves at an impasse.
So a third person shows up and says: It would seem that we are at an impasse, stuck in a kind of infinite loop. The cause of that infinite loop seems to be our inability to determine whether or not God exists. I suggest we set aside the question of whether or not God exists since what we really want to do here is pass legislation that makes every life better. After we finish up doing what we need to do, we can go down to the pub and have a really good discussion on the topic of the existence of God. But for now, in the interest of making progress on practical matters, I suggest we put the question aside and find other points to discuss.
Miraculously the legislators agree. The first then puts forward the argument that the bill should pass if knowledge is primarily based in the material world. The other legislator scoffs and insists the bill should not pass because knowledge is primarily based within the conscious mind.
So the third person says, we're at an impasse again. Somehow you have alighted on another premise that does not seem solvable through rational or empirical investigation. Our discussion will remain stuck until we disallow any premise that can't be either rationally or empirically determined. Both men lament: "this man is forcing us to accept an ontological premise that is absurd".
I'm sorry that my attempt to explain pragmatism with a tortuous analogy is basically fodder for /r/badphilosophy
Imagine, if you will, two legislators arguing some bill in some parliament. The first is proposing some amendment to the bill which hinges on the existence of God. The second argues against it believing there is no God.
The question is, can this be resolved? Let us assume they are both perfectly rational and exhibit impeccable integrity. Could they forward arguments to settle their dispute? Let's assume they are both scientific materialists. Can they investigate the material world to find evidence to support their positions and resolve their dispute?
I don't know. If given infinite time, maybe? I honestly don't know. But as of now, it would seem that even given a complete willingness from either party to change their mind based on either argument or evidence we would still find ourselves at an impasse.
So a third person shows up and says: It would seem that we are at an impasse, stuck in a kind of infinite loop. The cause of that infinite loop seems to be our inability to determine whether or not God exists. I suggest we set aside the question of whether or not God exists since what we really want to do here is pass legislation that makes every life better. After we finish up doing what we need to do, we can go down to the pub and have a really good discussion on the topic of the existence of God. But for now, in the interest of making progress on practical matters, I suggest we put the question aside and find other points to discuss.
Miraculously the legislators agree. The first then puts forward the argument that the bill should pass if knowledge is primarily based in the material world. The other legislator scoffs and insists the bill should not pass because knowledge is primarily based within the conscious mind.
So the third person says, we're at an impasse again. Somehow you have alighted on another premise that does not seem solvable through rational or empirical investigation. Our discussion will remain stuck until we disallow any premise that can't be either rationally or empirically determined. Both men lament: "this man is forcing us to accept an ontological premise that is absurd".
I'm sorry that my attempt to explain pragmatism with a tortuous analogy is basically fodder for /r/badphilosophy
It seems like the proper solution would be to write the legislation such that it would be reasonably acceptable no matter whether knowledge is primarily based in the material world or the conscious mind.
My examples were chosen, of course, to be ridiculous. "Compromise" is a major point of the work done by the political philosophers who are identified with Pragmatism. The fact that the word compromise is so liberally used in modern political discourse is likely due to this influence.
However, as is the case in some governments, the very idea that one would compromise with their enemies is an anathema. This is especially true if one side believes they are fighting against evil. It is also the case that some people are just trolls; bad actors delighting in bad faith.
It also starts getting into game theory. For example, one could forward a totally absurd position that tries to force a "legislation such that it would be reasonably acceptable no matter ..." which is actually what I wanted in the first place. That is, demand that the opposition compromise with an absurd position in order to get what I really wanted all along. It could be argued that the polarization we see in modern politics is partly attributed to this.
Pragmatism has a lot of problems which the philosophers have wrestled with. I suppose some of that complexity just goes away if you refuse to deal with indeterminate positions as a rule.
However, as is the case in some governments, the very idea that one would compromise with their enemies is an anathema. This is especially true if one side believes they are fighting against evil. It is also the case that some people are just trolls; bad actors delighting in bad faith.
It also starts getting into game theory. For example, one could forward a totally absurd position that tries to force a "legislation such that it would be reasonably acceptable no matter ..." which is actually what I wanted in the first place. That is, demand that the opposition compromise with an absurd position in order to get what I really wanted all along. It could be argued that the polarization we see in modern politics is partly attributed to this.
Pragmatism has a lot of problems which the philosophers have wrestled with. I suppose some of that complexity just goes away if you refuse to deal with indeterminate positions as a rule.
>To another commenter here, it does indeed sound like Poppers paraphrase, which is a thought terminating cliche that protects lazy minds from dissonance. When inclusion of authors and texts from unexpected* places was transgressive it added perspective, but now, it's just designed to homogenize and liquify culture to produce nihilistic ideologues who can't be trusted as fellow citizens to share a recourse to truth.
I have nothing to add, just want to say that you hit the nail on the head and this sentence in particular is enlightening.
I have nothing to add, just want to say that you hit the nail on the head and this sentence in particular is enlightening.
>>> Personally, I think secular philosophers were tricked into giving up the one tool or razor that would have kept them from drowning in the hall of mirrors flooded with bullshit that their field has become, and that is the question, "is this philosophy, ideology, or critical theory designed to deceive and subordinate us to others, and if so, who, how, and to what end?"
...
If you just take a cryptanalyst or a hackers mindset to it and ask, "am I being deceieved?" the whole secular dialectic materialist edifice crumbles. I would argue that this question is also necessarily theistic, as it presupposes truth, and a belief in truth is proof of a belief in something divine by which truth can be measured or compared. That is how fragile this stuff is.
This probably one of the most insightful things I have read on HN in a good while in terms of dealing with bs, which seems to be a staple of the era we live in. Sometimes all it takes is to question the motive of the message to peel the onion.
This probably one of the most insightful things I have read on HN in a good while in terms of dealing with bs, which seems to be a staple of the era we live in. Sometimes all it takes is to question the motive of the message to peel the onion.
"the logic of an idea, where when you project it on something, the reflection doesn't illuminate the object so much as reinforce the underlying idea itself as a lens."
The shape of the tool is as important as the shape of the material, and that is technology.
Maybe there is real engineering/science/philosophy to be made there, but I guess it might become the ITER/LHC of philosophy if attempted.
The shape of the tool is as important as the shape of the material, and that is technology.
Maybe there is real engineering/science/philosophy to be made there, but I guess it might become the ITER/LHC of philosophy if attempted.
[flagged]
Any teaching that assumes that the student is a biggot that needs to be corrected, and that the student should just accept his truth on the basis of his/her authority as a teacher, is obviously a fairly bad way of teaching.
The teacher should make the knowledge he wants to impart approachable and use an angle that the student can accept so as to convince him/her.
The teacher should make the knowledge he wants to impart approachable and use an angle that the student can accept so as to convince him/her.
That's not what teaching is. What you're thinking of is called selling.
Many teachers, professors and daycare workers have been trained to believe that this is an absolute, fundamental ground truth about their students and the air that they breathe; this is an increasingly prevalent worldview in the sphere of education, and we're likely to see further developments as it strengthens its hold.
I’m curious to know the basis of your assertions, to try to get a better idea of this situation from your point of view. First, the idea that many have been trained to believe this. What is this training specifically they are receiving? How many teachers/professors/daycare workers are receiving this training and where? By whom? Is the basis of this belief something you read or personal knowledge of teachers and professors in your life?
Secondly the idea that this worldview is increasingly prevalent: do you have any data on this, that teachers and daycare workers increasingly believe their students are bigots? When did this belief start increasing? How fast is it increasing? If we know it’s increasing we must have a measure on how much and how quickly. Is it a lot rapidly, or not so much over a long time?
I’m seeing a lot of strong conclusive statements in this thread without a lot of accompanying evidence. I’m sure your statements are rooted in well-researched evidence or at least personal experience with the educational community, so I’m just curious to see exactly what so I can incorporate them into my own point of view.
Secondly the idea that this worldview is increasingly prevalent: do you have any data on this, that teachers and daycare workers increasingly believe their students are bigots? When did this belief start increasing? How fast is it increasing? If we know it’s increasing we must have a measure on how much and how quickly. Is it a lot rapidly, or not so much over a long time?
I’m seeing a lot of strong conclusive statements in this thread without a lot of accompanying evidence. I’m sure your statements are rooted in well-researched evidence or at least personal experience with the educational community, so I’m just curious to see exactly what so I can incorporate them into my own point of view.
Interestingly this is the top article on The Atlantic at the moment: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/universiti...
It’s an interesting trend where suddenly the universities are not only trying to find the truth, but apparently they have a monopoly on it.
It’s an interesting trend where suddenly the universities are not only trying to find the truth, but apparently they have a monopoly on it.
I checked my IL university out of sheer curiosity, but in that case there was no official statements of any kind. Local student paper covered it with mild bias towards racial inequities, but still within the parameters of a neutral tone. Is it possible that Atlantic is citing CA university as an example that just happens to be an outlier?
I don't think it is impossible either way. Rittenhouse trial showed some interesting divisions in US.
I don't think it is impossible either way. Rittenhouse trial showed some interesting divisions in US.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/11/must-see-list-colle...
This is a sampling of some of the statements issued by colleges and universities in response to the Rittenhouse verdict. Lot of prominent names on the list including Columbia, NYU and Stanford.
This is a sampling of some of the statements issued by colleges and universities in response to the Rittenhouse verdict. Lot of prominent names on the list including Columbia, NYU and Stanford.
Oh wow. Thank you. Maybe I would accept an outlier community college here and there, but it is hard not to come to the originally posited conclusion. I will admit that it fills me with an odd feeling of bemusement. Those schools are no mere diploma-mills. There is a medical school and a law school. If those poor souls that are hit so hard by this verdict, how on earth are they going to cope with the real world ( and the very real burdens of those professions ), which is noticeably less nice than US of A?
If that’s what we’re talking about, was weird to see Merriam-Webster swiftly adding a definition for “anti-vaxxer” that includes those opposed to vaccine mandates.
So apparently a person who is willingly fully vaccinated, believe vaccines work, and believes that everyone should get vaccinated may still be an “antivaxxer”.
That’s some Ministry of Truth level stuff.
So apparently a person who is willingly fully vaccinated, believe vaccines work, and believes that everyone should get vaccinated may still be an “antivaxxer”.
That’s some Ministry of Truth level stuff.
Is that really a new trend though? Academia has always fancied itself to be an arbiter of truth. Religion as well, which is why a tension exists between the two, and people like to cast Academia as a religious order (they are not wrong to do so).
Maybe before there was more of a pretense?
the quote does not make any assumption about bigotry of the student, but rather of the parents.
Indeed. If the parents are concerned about the book being part of the curriculum because the author is black, Jewish, homosexual, or any ‘other’ (rather than on the contents of the book), it seems to be a fairly accurate assumption.
“Look, we literally can’t force your child to do anything. If they prefer to sit non-disruptively and receive a zero in that part of the curriculum, that works for us.”
“Look, we literally can’t force your child to do anything. If they prefer to sit non-disruptively and receive a zero in that part of the curriculum, that works for us.”
Often it happens like this:
Teacher: Your kid needs to read a book by a black author.
Parent: Why do my kid need to read a book by a black author? I don't think that is a good way to pick books.
Teacher: So you say you refuse to let your kid read any books by black people? Stop being such a bigoted racist! Society isn't tolerant enough to tolerate people like you!
Teacher: Your kid needs to read a book by a black author.
Parent: Why do my kid need to read a book by a black author? I don't think that is a good way to pick books.
Teacher: So you say you refuse to let your kid read any books by black people? Stop being such a bigoted racist! Society isn't tolerant enough to tolerate people like you!
Do you think that teacher’s first line is actually “often” the way such a controversy starts?
Yes. How else would it start? The teacher decides that the kids needs to read a book for racist reasons, eg because the skincolor of the books author is what the teacher wants it to be. Teachers associations often writes such goals in their agenda, this isn't a conspiracy theory, they say that this is why they do it openly themselves. Then when people protest that the protesters gets called racists. Maybe there are some real racists out there, but I believe that this version is overwhelmingly more common. I have seen it many times, so I have no reason to believe that the "racism" the author refers to anything more than this sort of "racism".
Edit: Can you give a single case where teachers first didn't pick a book because the author was black but instead that it made the most sense to use that book, and parents still complained in the past 5 years?
Edit: Can you give a single case where teachers first didn't pick a book because the author was black but instead that it made the most sense to use that book, and parents still complained in the past 5 years?
Can you provide a single case to support your position? You can’t ask someone to prove a negative. But you have told us this this is happening “often”. In fact it’s so prevalent you can’t even imagine an alternative conversation.
You presented a specific conversation. Did you hear that conversation personally? If not, who told you this conversation happened or where did you read about it happening? I’m not doubting you, I just want to get more hard facts into this thread.
You said that teacher associations have “often” written this into their “agendas” so it’s not a conspiracy theory. What are these associations and do you have a copy of these agendas into which they have written this? Since it happens often and it’s written down, you should show us and we can have a more substantive discussion about what they actually wrote versus your interpretation of what they wrote.
You presented a specific conversation. Did you hear that conversation personally? If not, who told you this conversation happened or where did you read about it happening? I’m not doubting you, I just want to get more hard facts into this thread.
You said that teacher associations have “often” written this into their “agendas” so it’s not a conspiracy theory. What are these associations and do you have a copy of these agendas into which they have written this? Since it happens often and it’s written down, you should show us and we can have a more substantive discussion about what they actually wrote versus your interpretation of what they wrote.
> Can you provide a single case to support your position?
There is plenty, this article gives a good view, apparently people have been pushing for things I claimed for 50 years according to this article. I have no reason to believe all these "racists" described here aren't just people who push back against these movements. I'm not saying that such movements aren't warranted, however I would not say that people who are against them are racist. There is a huge leap between "I don't want to read a book just because it was written by a black person" and "I refuse to read any book written by a black person no matter what the book is about".
> It’s been more than 50 years since literacy experts first stressed the need for more diverse books in the classroom, and yet reading lists look surprisingly the same as they did in 1970.
https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/ed/19/08/hooked-classics
There is plenty, this article gives a good view, apparently people have been pushing for things I claimed for 50 years according to this article. I have no reason to believe all these "racists" described here aren't just people who push back against these movements. I'm not saying that such movements aren't warranted, however I would not say that people who are against them are racist. There is a huge leap between "I don't want to read a book just because it was written by a black person" and "I refuse to read any book written by a black person no matter what the book is about".
> It’s been more than 50 years since literacy experts first stressed the need for more diverse books in the classroom, and yet reading lists look surprisingly the same as they did in 1970.
https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/ed/19/08/hooked-classics
I read the article. I don’t see a basis for the conversation you presented, nor the assertion about teachers associations, nor any information on the specific training teachers and professors are getting. I’m interested specifically in these claims you made in this thread. You are saying the basis for them is this article? Did you hold these beliefs before reading this article, or did it convince you of these beliefs. If the former, then what is the foundation of that belief? Personal experience? Research? TV?
The article states that there is a movement pushing literature by diverse authors into classrooms. The article also claims that there is a great pushback against that movement. Those two is what I am referring to.
People happily label pushback to such movements as "racist parents" and similar. I believe that people pushing back against movements shouldn't get rejected by society, this is the controversial part.
People happily label pushback to such movements as "racist parents" and similar. I believe that people pushing back against movements shouldn't get rejected by society, this is the controversial part.
Okay, but a push for more diverse authors into the classroom is not the same as what you are presenting here.
What you’ve linked is not saying “we must read these authors because their skin is black”. It is saying “their black skin has caused them to live a life different from other authors, which has caused them to write something different from other authors, and we want to know about that.”
Based on our back and forth here, it seems you have presented a conversation you claim happens “often” that you’ve neither heard personally nor can cite an instance of it. This conversation is a strong caricature of teachers calling parents “racists” for not agreeing with their book choice.
Meanwhile the evidence you’ve linked to shows nothing of the kind. TFA doesn’t support it, nor does the article you linked.
What the Harvard article says is that the topics contained in literature written by white men who are now dead are not relatable to a diverse classroom. Unsurprisingly, people write what they know, and as is true with all people, straight white male people don’t know a whole lot about the lived experience of people who are not them e.g. gay, black, and women etc. One way to get this perspective is to read books by authors in those demographics.
Again, this is not the same as saying “we must read these authors because they are black.” There are many black authors who are not being suggested, and it’s not black authors to the exclusion of everyone else. What they have to say in their books is how the books get chosen. We are talking about content, not color. Does the color of the author change the content? Yes. And that’s the point, but it’s not racist to recognize that and want to learn from it.
So again I ask: where is the conversation between parents and students that you’ve heard often happening? I really want to know the answer to this and It’s concerning you are evading that question.
What you’ve linked is not saying “we must read these authors because their skin is black”. It is saying “their black skin has caused them to live a life different from other authors, which has caused them to write something different from other authors, and we want to know about that.”
Based on our back and forth here, it seems you have presented a conversation you claim happens “often” that you’ve neither heard personally nor can cite an instance of it. This conversation is a strong caricature of teachers calling parents “racists” for not agreeing with their book choice.
Meanwhile the evidence you’ve linked to shows nothing of the kind. TFA doesn’t support it, nor does the article you linked.
What the Harvard article says is that the topics contained in literature written by white men who are now dead are not relatable to a diverse classroom. Unsurprisingly, people write what they know, and as is true with all people, straight white male people don’t know a whole lot about the lived experience of people who are not them e.g. gay, black, and women etc. One way to get this perspective is to read books by authors in those demographics.
Again, this is not the same as saying “we must read these authors because they are black.” There are many black authors who are not being suggested, and it’s not black authors to the exclusion of everyone else. What they have to say in their books is how the books get chosen. We are talking about content, not color. Does the color of the author change the content? Yes. And that’s the point, but it’s not racist to recognize that and want to learn from it.
So again I ask: where is the conversation between parents and students that you’ve heard often happening? I really want to know the answer to this and It’s concerning you are evading that question.
I'm pretty sure the first line by the teacher would be something like - your kid needs to read a book by Maya Angelou or they would name some other specific black author.
Or maybe they might say something like in order to diversify our reading we will be bringing books by black authors into the curriculum, authors like Maya Angelou.
But I doubt they would say your kid needs to read a book by a black author.
Because then I guess the kid could just choose the read The Three Musketeers, which actually I would think that a kid choosing to read that had their head on right but probably that is not what the teacher is hoping for.
Or maybe they might say something like in order to diversify our reading we will be bringing books by black authors into the curriculum, authors like Maya Angelou.
But I doubt they would say your kid needs to read a book by a black author.
Because then I guess the kid could just choose the read The Three Musketeers, which actually I would think that a kid choosing to read that had their head on right but probably that is not what the teacher is hoping for.
> I'm pretty sure the first line by the teacher would be something like - your kid needs to read a book by Maya Angelou or they would name some other specific black author.
No, they absolutely are talking about people like this, they say that kids needs to read books by black authors, then the teachers reads this and adds books because the authors are black:
> The push to modernize reading lists is challenging traditional definitions of literature. Surprise: Not everyone is happy about it.
https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/ed/19/08/hooked-classics
No, they absolutely are talking about people like this, they say that kids needs to read books by black authors, then the teachers reads this and adds books because the authors are black:
> The push to modernize reading lists is challenging traditional definitions of literature. Surprise: Not everyone is happy about it.
https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/ed/19/08/hooked-classics
>then the teachers reads this and adds books because the authors are black
maybe the teacher finds appropriate authors who also happen to be black.
maybe the teacher finds appropriate authors who also happen to be black.
Ok, the example wasn't clear enough. Lets take the more real world example:
Teacher Organization: Kids should be forced to read books by black authors.
Parent Organisation: I don't think you should do that, it isn't a good way to pick books.
Teacher Organisation: We are doing this to fix a historical problem, your pushback is just because you don't want your kids to read books by black authors, stop being such racist bigots! I really hate racist parents! Society shouldn't tolerate people like you!
Teacher Organization: Kids should be forced to read books by black authors.
Parent Organisation: I don't think you should do that, it isn't a good way to pick books.
Teacher Organisation: We are doing this to fix a historical problem, your pushback is just because you don't want your kids to read books by black authors, stop being such racist bigots! I really hate racist parents! Society shouldn't tolerate people like you!
Why do you think this a more “real world” example? This is messaging coming from a teacher organization? Which one? Have you heard this in the real world personally? Or can you point us to where this conversation actually occurred, if it’s a real world example? Or is this something that just happens on Twitter?
What makes this conversation more real than the other one, which you claimed happens often. Does that one not happen often after all?
I’m just looking for the real world basis of this model conversation you have written for us here. What has given you this perception? Facebook? Twitter? Your personal experience with teachers associations (which ones)? Your friends and family?
What makes this conversation more real than the other one, which you claimed happens often. Does that one not happen often after all?
I’m just looking for the real world basis of this model conversation you have written for us here. What has given you this perception? Facebook? Twitter? Your personal experience with teachers associations (which ones)? Your friends and family?
It is "more real world", not "real world". The example is exaggerated to make a point.
But your point is that this exaggerated thing is happening. We all understand the caricature you're trying to paint. I'm trying to get at the real world thing underneath of that. Get rid of the exaggeration. What's really happening?
Ok I read the link to the article above, it was sort all over the place but a major part of the article was about a teacher who found that some of their non-white students thought it lame to always be reading about white people, so the teacher mixed their curriculum with books that they thought would appeal more to their students, which had black characters in them.
It was not specified in this part that the books added by the teacher were written by people of any particular racial profile, although that is probably the case it is not certain given that writers such as Ursula K. LeGuin were white but often had non-white protagonists.
It was not specified in this part that the books added by the teacher were written by people of any particular racial profile, although that is probably the case it is not certain given that writers such as Ursula K. LeGuin were white but often had non-white protagonists.
Yes, as you noticed the article is written by a liberal and is pro adding more books by black authors. My point wasn't to show that this is a bad movement, but to show that the movement and a resistance to the movement exists. My view is that those who argue that resistance to such movements shouldn't be tolerated are making society worse. There are good reasons to be against such movements, meritocracy has a point, but social justice and diversity also are good points, so I see no reason to forcibly reject either side.
You're bashing a strawman. I don't doubt your sincerity (as I was of a similar perspective when subject to this), but it is still ultimately a strawman. Because what "Black author" actually means is picking books written from the perspective of the Black community. Which to a parent or student not familiar with that culture, of course feels foreign and unnecessary. It also doesn't help that analysis of such books inevitably focuses on race relations (tedious social science), because that's where it crops up. But if education should aim to encompass the entirety of American culture, of which the Black community was and is still a significant part of, then this type of thing is probably the best we can do despite it seeming trite and forced. Quick: name a historical Black scientist who didn't work with peanuts.
> Quick: name a historical Black scientist who didn't work with peanuts.
I like to think of myself as an educated person, and I’m struggling with this. I’d struggle also to name an Indian or Chinese or Russian historical scientist. This reflects a White Western English bias in educational system imo. Also my own responsibility to do something about as well.
I like to think of myself as an educated person, and I’m struggling with this. I’d struggle also to name an Indian or Chinese or Russian historical scientist. This reflects a White Western English bias in educational system imo. Also my own responsibility to do something about as well.
Sounds like a religion to me. We are born in sin and need to be saved.
You should assume that your students don't know many perspectives on different lifes, nations, cultures, professions, etc. not because they are intolerant, but because how should they know something that they haven't been in contact with their whole lives? So you teach them about the world not because you think they are stupid, but because it is your task to teach them about the world they live in, with the hope that they will make good citizens that in turn are capable of decent choices that create a liveable society for all. You teach them in order to not have them turn into ignorant people.
Political groups that tell you that teaching facts about society and history have the goal of bringing their propaganda into the schools.
Political groups that tell you that teaching facts about society and history have the goal of bringing their propaganda into the schools.
An idea only worthy of medieval scholasticism. I would hope that as a society we have evolved from such a war like perspective on education, as if the student and the teacher are at odds and the teacher must triumph over the students in a final "educational" victory, when in reality the ideas are simply hamfisted and pushed onto the student, while no true learning or discussion exists.
"An idea only worthy of medieval scholasticism."
If that were so there wouldn't need to be education in the first place.
Change comes kit and parcel with learning and experience. Just learning _how to learn_ to truly grasp arcane and rigid topics is difficult in it's own right. E.g. learning to challenge your own intuition and recognizing when you're using heuristics to take cognitive shortcuts.
Buffing out the rough edges to ones thinking and practice of a skill is exactly what education is designed to do which is why I find Rorty's writing here lazy and uninteresting. The question of "how much education should be required to function in a society and what should its content be" is more than fair. Its the tone of thos piece as if the discovery of education presenting a friction point for others is profound and paradoxical which I find vapid.
If that were so there wouldn't need to be education in the first place.
Change comes kit and parcel with learning and experience. Just learning _how to learn_ to truly grasp arcane and rigid topics is difficult in it's own right. E.g. learning to challenge your own intuition and recognizing when you're using heuristics to take cognitive shortcuts.
Buffing out the rough edges to ones thinking and practice of a skill is exactly what education is designed to do which is why I find Rorty's writing here lazy and uninteresting. The question of "how much education should be required to function in a society and what should its content be" is more than fair. Its the tone of thos piece as if the discovery of education presenting a friction point for others is profound and paradoxical which I find vapid.
Is this any different than Popper’s paradox of tolerance?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#Discussio...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#Discussio...
A purely intolerant society would necessarily also have to have some tolerance, or else it would collapse upon itself when there is no acceptable in group. Thus a natural stable zone in between total tolerance and total intolerance exists. Karl Popper's and Richard Rorty's views on tolerance are only rationalizations which attempt to position democracies intolerance as somehow justifiable in the name of "tolerance". What is stopping an autocratic regime from stating the exact same thing? They are intolerant towards x group or y idea to preserve tolerance to w group or z idea. Truthfully humanity has a certain capacity for tolerance, as defined by a zone between total tolerance and total intolerance. This capacity may have increased over time (although I would argue for technological reasons, not for cultural of philosophical reasons), but it will never reach total intolerance or total tolerance. They have both deluded themselves in the hubristic and elitist view that our shifting of the tolerance zone is in some way a testament to an increase in potential tolerance or tolerance "capacity", and have come up with such schizophrenic arguments which claim that a tolerant society must be intolerant. While natural law continues to prove them wrong and they themselves prove their positions wrong.
Popper at least has the decency to call it a paradox. This quote fully assumes that anyone that does not agree with the author on everything is intolerant and deserves to be excluded.
I have a hard time imagining that that's what Popper meant.
I have a hard time imagining that that's what Popper meant.
The "paradox" is only that people incorrectly assume that an inclusive society accepts all sort of behaviors.
It is in no way a real paradox.
It is in no way a real paradox.
I thought all paradoxes were based on incorrect assumptions of one kind or another.
What makes one paradox real while another is not?
What makes one paradox real while another is not?
No, a paradox is a contradiction in itself, like the famous "this sentence is false": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox
As I understand it, there is not a single clear definition of what is meant when we say that something is true. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, seems to list at least five major schools of thought on the subject.[1]
So, given "This sentence is false" it seems to me that there must be assumptions behind it that cause us to perceive it as a paradox.
Interested in your thoughts, if you wish to say more.
[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/
So, given "This sentence is false" it seems to me that there must be assumptions behind it that cause us to perceive it as a paradox.
Interested in your thoughts, if you wish to say more.
[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/
Yes, at least Popper wasn't trying to "excommunicate" the "undesirables". He said it's perfectly sensible to tolerate even their intolerance, as long as you can counter it by reasoned argument and keep it in check by public opinion.
"We are not so inclusivist as to tolerate intolerance such as yours."
This is exactly what you shouldn't do. As long as you can talk to people you should. These people are talking, they aren't out there being violent or murdering people, they are just sitting there talking, if you attack verbally them like this then their kids will hate you as well. Like "my parents aren't racist, they just want us to get the best books we can get instead of just forcing us to read books based on the skin of the authors", do you really think that view is so intolerant that we need to create a huge rift in society to fight it? I don't.
This is exactly what you shouldn't do. As long as you can talk to people you should. These people are talking, they aren't out there being violent or murdering people, they are just sitting there talking, if you attack verbally them like this then their kids will hate you as well. Like "my parents aren't racist, they just want us to get the best books we can get instead of just forcing us to read books based on the skin of the authors", do you really think that view is so intolerant that we need to create a huge rift in society to fight it? I don't.
> "We are not so inclusivist as to tolerate intolerance such as yours."
More like "we are inclusivist therefore we cannot tolerate intolerance such as yours".
More like "we are inclusivist therefore we cannot tolerate intolerance such as yours".
The people refusing dialog are the one who are most intolerant. That is the intolerance that shouldn't be tolerated.
Exactly, they do not understand that when dialogue becomes forbidden, violence becomes inevitable.
Violence becomes inevitable... because people are can't call black people subhuman in public without being censured?
That's one hell of a take.
That's one hell of a take.
The very opposite.
Honest debate requires being open to have your mind changed.
If you believe that killing children is ethically unacceptable you cannot at the same time engage in a debate on when to kill children.
There is a reason why legal systems have a distinction between crimes that allow debate, extenuating circumstances, statutory time limits and others don't have such wiggle room.
Honest debate requires being open to have your mind changed.
If you believe that killing children is ethically unacceptable you cannot at the same time engage in a debate on when to kill children.
There is a reason why legal systems have a distinction between crimes that allow debate, extenuating circumstances, statutory time limits and others don't have such wiggle room.
This confuses cause and effect.
Intolerance of intolerance isn't just political theatre. It's a deliberate attempt to avoid the kinds of practical horrors that racism etc create in an otherwise liberal culture.
Those horrors includes personal and mob violence, lynchings, rapes, other random murders, institutionalised economic apartheid, privilege (and its close ally, corruption), the reduction of public debate to reactionary dogwhistles instead of future substance - and ultimately, with tedious predictability, torture and mass murder.
There isn't really a paradox here. These are all very, very hard to justify on basic humanitarian grounds.
And if someone wants to say "But communism" - it's not hard to agree that's often been a different brand of authoritarianism which takes root in countries with no liberal tradition.
But the question remains - can "not communism" prove it's better? If it's justifying and accepting racism etc, I don't see that it can - because if you're on the wrong end of endemic social violence you get a very different view of your culture to the people who live in the comfortable and privileged part of it.
And this is not an abstract debate, but something that is going to affect your lived experience, possibly on a daily basis.
Intolerance of intolerance isn't just political theatre. It's a deliberate attempt to avoid the kinds of practical horrors that racism etc create in an otherwise liberal culture.
Those horrors includes personal and mob violence, lynchings, rapes, other random murders, institutionalised economic apartheid, privilege (and its close ally, corruption), the reduction of public debate to reactionary dogwhistles instead of future substance - and ultimately, with tedious predictability, torture and mass murder.
There isn't really a paradox here. These are all very, very hard to justify on basic humanitarian grounds.
And if someone wants to say "But communism" - it's not hard to agree that's often been a different brand of authoritarianism which takes root in countries with no liberal tradition.
But the question remains - can "not communism" prove it's better? If it's justifying and accepting racism etc, I don't see that it can - because if you're on the wrong end of endemic social violence you get a very different view of your culture to the people who live in the comfortable and privileged part of it.
And this is not an abstract debate, but something that is going to affect your lived experience, possibly on a daily basis.
> Those horrors includes personal and mob violence, lynchings, rapes, other random murders, institutionalised economic apartheid, privilege (and its close ally, corruption), the reduction of public debate to reactionary dogwhistles instead of future substance - and ultimately, with tedious predictability, torture and mass murder.
Those are real problems, yes. But it should still be allowed to question the solutions people claim to have to those problems. The author here claims that you shouldn't be allowed to question solutions, if you do then you are evil and should get rejected by society.
Those are real problems, yes. But it should still be allowed to question the solutions people claim to have to those problems. The author here claims that you shouldn't be allowed to question solutions, if you do then you are evil and should get rejected by society.
>But it should still be allowed to question the solutions people claim to have to those problems.
Why should we be having social discussions about whether or not genocide against a particular out-group is acceptable? Would the proposition that slaughtering an out-group be a good faith discourse about the best path forward for society? If not, why should we have that discussion at the cost of other discussions?
Why should we be having social discussions about whether or not genocide against a particular out-group is acceptable? Would the proposition that slaughtering an out-group be a good faith discourse about the best path forward for society? If not, why should we have that discussion at the cost of other discussions?
bopbeepboop(1)
This aligns with my thinking as well.
The problem with any kind of enforcement is of course that it’s fast lane to authoritarian (albeit perhaps distributed) oppression of dissent legitimate dissent.
But it’s very rare to see discussion on this level. As seen in this thread it usually stops way earlier.
If I’m allowed to branch to a separate topic, I think this is reflected in what I believe is a fundamental issue in larger social networks: moderation. It would solve so many problems (and introduce new ones, which can be solved) if, like email, it was by filters set both by user and server (assuming sufficient federation).
This could breed an economy of curation markets/algorithms. If you want to stick to a particular echo chamber, you could.
Conway’s law on global scale.
But it’s very rare to see discussion on this level. As seen in this thread it usually stops way earlier.
If I’m allowed to branch to a separate topic, I think this is reflected in what I believe is a fundamental issue in larger social networks: moderation. It would solve so many problems (and introduce new ones, which can be solved) if, like email, it was by filters set both by user and server (assuming sufficient federation).
This could breed an economy of curation markets/algorithms. If you want to stick to a particular echo chamber, you could.
Conway’s law on global scale.
Obviously, possessing or expressing an idea is not the same as these "practical horrors" you list. This unfortunately too common line of thinking attempts to rationalize violence against people who think differently than you. There's nothing "liberal" about it. It's nakedly totalitarian.
> There isn't really a paradox here
Correct. It's called paradox not because it's a logical impossibility but simply because some people *incorrectly* assume that a tolerant society should tolerate every behavior including those that harm others.
Correct. It's called paradox not because it's a logical impossibility but simply because some people *incorrectly* assume that a tolerant society should tolerate every behavior including those that harm others.
I like how people willingly misunderstand Popper's parable of tolerance and think it's a gotcha. Popper was talking about those people who refuse to participate in free speech in the first place, not just your favorite intellectual enemies.
People equating inclusivity and totalitarianism while at the same time downvoting me to -4. Oh the irony.
>equating inclusivity and totalitarianism
Mmm so true. When authorities and regimes imprison their enemies or fire them from jobs over opinions or brainwash their children or put them under constant surveillance, they are simply totalitarians being totalitarian, but when authorities and regimes you like do it, they are the manifestation of inclusivity descending into the material world to defend itself against the nasty totalitarians who need to be put in their place. I'm 100% sure that the only difference between the two is not just you affiliating with the latter, that's a completely irrelevant detail. Just like everybody knows that my religion is right and that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it's mine off course.
>downvoting me to -4
The Horror! what a massive injustice to good men and women everywhere that a database record somewhere contains your words next to a negative integer. Hacker news reader sure do have a lot of totalitarian tendencies for expressing contempt for your opinon in the savage and inhumane way that they did. It worries me a lot, keeps me up at night even.
Have you considered, though, the possibility that hacker news readers decided that you're a threat to tolerance and therefore shouldn't be tolerated ? Surely that's a thing you would support and admire ?
Mmm so true. When authorities and regimes imprison their enemies or fire them from jobs over opinions or brainwash their children or put them under constant surveillance, they are simply totalitarians being totalitarian, but when authorities and regimes you like do it, they are the manifestation of inclusivity descending into the material world to defend itself against the nasty totalitarians who need to be put in their place. I'm 100% sure that the only difference between the two is not just you affiliating with the latter, that's a completely irrelevant detail. Just like everybody knows that my religion is right and that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it's mine off course.
>downvoting me to -4
The Horror! what a massive injustice to good men and women everywhere that a database record somewhere contains your words next to a negative integer. Hacker news reader sure do have a lot of totalitarian tendencies for expressing contempt for your opinon in the savage and inhumane way that they did. It worries me a lot, keeps me up at night even.
Have you considered, though, the possibility that hacker news readers decided that you're a threat to tolerance and therefore shouldn't be tolerated ? Surely that's a thing you would support and admire ?
> credentials which we liberals have been making steadily more stringent by doing our best to excommunicate racists, male chauvinists, homophobes, and the like.
They're excommunicating a lot more than just those:
Diversity Statements Required for One-Fifth of Academic Jobs - https://www.schoolinfosystem.org/2021/11/11/study-diversity-...
They're excommunicating a lot more than just those:
Diversity Statements Required for One-Fifth of Academic Jobs - https://www.schoolinfosystem.org/2021/11/11/study-diversity-...
They basically want you to swear loyalty to the Party, and even after that, if you're a straight white cis male your diverse experiences are judged insufficient and you won't get hired. Universities are no longer grounds for intellectual exploration; they're factories, and professors are assembly line workers pushing out tiny variations from the accepted ideology du jour.
This a caricature, a misrepresentation of the process, and not how this "basically" works at all. As a straight white cis male academic (who had to write a diversity statement when I was hired, who is involved in hiring other faculty, and who reads a lot of DEI statements) what you write here does not match my experience or the experience of my colleagues, who are majority straight white male and cis.
The purpose of the DEI statement during hiring is not to filter out straight white cis males. It is to filter out people who haven't put sufficient thought into incorporating diversity into their teaching practice, no matter who they are. This is important to universities because professors necessarily encounter a diverse classroom. Issues of race, gender identity, and sexual orientation are important for a professor to consider so that they may create a safe learning environment for all students. This does not limit intellectual exploration in any way - it relates to discharging the duties of teaching, not the content taught.
Sometimes these issues can feel abstract, but in the classroom they are concrete, and I want colleagues who have thought these things through. It does not matter that you are a straight white cis male, and judging by the makeup of our faculty, it's not an impediment for them getting hired.
The purpose of the DEI statement during hiring is not to filter out straight white cis males. It is to filter out people who haven't put sufficient thought into incorporating diversity into their teaching practice, no matter who they are. This is important to universities because professors necessarily encounter a diverse classroom. Issues of race, gender identity, and sexual orientation are important for a professor to consider so that they may create a safe learning environment for all students. This does not limit intellectual exploration in any way - it relates to discharging the duties of teaching, not the content taught.
Sometimes these issues can feel abstract, but in the classroom they are concrete, and I want colleagues who have thought these things through. It does not matter that you are a straight white cis male, and judging by the makeup of our faculty, it's not an impediment for them getting hired.
> It is to filter out people who haven't put sufficient thought into incorporating diversity into their teaching practice, no matter who they are. This is important to universities because professors necessarily encounter a diverse classroom.
Please be honest. What happens if they do put "sufficient thought" into it, but come to the wrong conclusions? What if they didn't put any thought into it at all, and just parrot various "diversity is strength" talking points, and their contributions to diversity are limited to ethnocentrism, such as a Latino candidate working with the Latin American Student Organization, helping their co-ethnics?
> Issues of race, gender identity, and sexual orientation are important for a professor to consider so that they may create a safe learning environment for all students.
Those statements require much more than just competence in making a "safe" environment (Isn't that the job of campus security? What kind of safety do you expect professors to provide?). From the open letter of Abigail Thompson, professor of mathematics at UC Davis:
Why is it a political test? Politics are a reflection of how you believe society should be organized. Classical liberals aspire to treat every person as a unique individual, not as a representative of their gender or their ethnic group. The sample rubric dictates that in order to get a high diversity score, a candidate must have actively engaged in promoting different identity groups as part of their professional life.... Requiring candidates to believe that people should be treated differently according to their identity is indeed a political test...The idea of using a political test as a screen for job applicants should send a shiver down our collective spine.... - https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201911/rnoti-p1778.pdf
Please be honest. What happens if they do put "sufficient thought" into it, but come to the wrong conclusions? What if they didn't put any thought into it at all, and just parrot various "diversity is strength" talking points, and their contributions to diversity are limited to ethnocentrism, such as a Latino candidate working with the Latin American Student Organization, helping their co-ethnics?
> Issues of race, gender identity, and sexual orientation are important for a professor to consider so that they may create a safe learning environment for all students.
Those statements require much more than just competence in making a "safe" environment (Isn't that the job of campus security? What kind of safety do you expect professors to provide?). From the open letter of Abigail Thompson, professor of mathematics at UC Davis:
Why is it a political test? Politics are a reflection of how you believe society should be organized. Classical liberals aspire to treat every person as a unique individual, not as a representative of their gender or their ethnic group. The sample rubric dictates that in order to get a high diversity score, a candidate must have actively engaged in promoting different identity groups as part of their professional life.... Requiring candidates to believe that people should be treated differently according to their identity is indeed a political test...The idea of using a political test as a screen for job applicants should send a shiver down our collective spine.... - https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201911/rnoti-p1778.pdf
Sure I'll be honest, and I'll appreciate if you take me at my word as opposed to the other poster, who straight up said that I was lying here.
You have to recognize that for educators, these topics go beyond a political nature and into a practical matter. We in academia are trying to sell a service (a college "experience"), and our students are customers of this service. The idea that "the customer is always right" applies here.
For instance, if you have the belief that men and women should not be educated in the same classroom together, or that women should not be educated at all, that's a political opinion. If you want to be a teacher, that opinion turned into practice could be problematic for our business because >50% of our customers are female. So that's what we are interested in -- actions, not beliefs. Your deepest opinion of their presence in the classroom is immaterial; what is important though, is how will you make our female students feel welcome in the classroom? Because they are our paying customers, and your political opinion of their presence in the classroom is irrelevant after they hand over their tuition dollars. They have a right to be there as much as anyone else, and we want you as a teacher to make our customers feel welcome, safe, and that they belong. It's not political, it's business. Customers who feel welcome and safe in our classrooms donate money to us and send their children to us. Customers who feel marginalized and antagonized transfer and don't send their kids to us. It's good business to be inclusive.
Same goes for black students. You may have the political opinion that black students should not be in the classroom with white students. Again, this political opinion does not matter to us, because we actually have black customers in our classrooms. What is the practical action you will take to make our black customers feel welcome and happy about the purchase of our services? The answer to this question usually would involve an empathetic view of what black students are looking for in education, the challenges they face, and the solutions that may overcome those challenges. Notice that your personal political opinion of their existence in the classroom doesn't factor into that discussion.
One more, maybe more contemporary example: you may have the political opinion that there are only two genders and that trans people are a made up concept. This opinion is immaterial, because we have actual trans students in our classrooms. You may think they are completely insane and that they are living in a fantasy and you refuse to address any trans person by their chosen pronoun. But as a practical matter they have put down a large sum of money to learn in our classrooms, and they would prefer to be addressed by their chosen pronouns. So as an employee, are you going to disrespect our customers, or will you treat them with the respect they are asking for and address them using the gendered pronoun they are most comfortable with? Again, your personal political opinion doesn't really factor into that answer.
> (Isn't that the job of campus security? What kind of safety do you expect professors to provide?).
Intellectual safety. Learning new ideas can make people feel vulnerable and uncomfortable, which is expected. But learning in an antagonistic environment is difficult: imagine trying to learn the intricacies of e.g. functional programming when your peers and instructors are telling you that you don't matter and your idea of your own personhood is a delusion. Suddenly your homework assignments and exams don't mean that much when you're not sure if you're insane or sick. So to get the course content across, we first have to provide a safe environment where the things we say get heard instead of drowned out by lower-level needs like personal safety, a sense of belonging, and sense of self esteem. Only then does actual learning occur.
So the job of a teacher is not just to put on power points and talk about a topic for an hour twice a week. It is also to create an ideal learning environment for all our customers. This also includes managing interpersonal conflicts. Campus police don't really manage that either.
> From the open letter of Abigail Thompson, professor of mathematics at UC Davis:
Prof. Thompson's letter is problematic in a couple ways. For starters, she tries to liken the current diversity statements to anti-communist hysteria in the 1950s. The issue with this is that the anti-communist movement asked professors to sign letters disavowing an ideology and association with a group. Setting aside this is obviously in violation of the first amendment, that's not even close to what's happening with DEI statements. They are essentially saying "We have a diverse student population. What concrete experience do you have working with a diverse student population?" This is completely different from the Red Scare because, I will reiterate again, teaching a diverse student body is part of the job description for a professor. Community service is also part of the job description for a professor. Therefore if you're applying for a job, you have to show you are qualified irrespective of your personal beliefs. No one is asking you to disavow your group membership and personal beliefs. No one is checking if you're a card carrying member of the Republican party or that you watch Fox News or associate with other conservatives.
Secondly, she's really overstating how these statements are used in the selection process. I mean, maybe it's different at the Math department at UC Davis, but where I'm from there's really only two kinds of candidates: entry level assistant professors and already tenured senior professors. Entry level assistant professors are fresh out of gradschool, newly minted Ph.Ds. They have been in the higher ed. system anywhere from 8 to 15+ years. If they don't have anything to demonstrate community service, and if they haven't put any thought into the emotional needs of their students, that's a problem. Not because of their political ideology or group membership, but because that's the job description. Moreover, the bar is pretty low at that point. It's really not a high hurdle to talk about your community service experience. If you really have nothing to say here along the lines of "Here's some evidence that I can work well with others in my community to make it a better place", that's a red flag. Senior professors will be chosen based on their research record first and foremost. I can't think of any situation where a senior researcher with a stellar publication track record would be filtered out of a search due to a lackluster DEI statement. Our number 1 question for these people is, what is your H-index? Seriously, there's way too much weight placed on this thing.
Finally, she says that this is a political filter because it is a reification of the classical liberal ideology. I think the implication here is that it will filter out anyone who isn't a classical liberal. She says that the DEI statements require candidates to "demonstrate their knowledge and experience" as part of their professional life, but then pivots very quickly to the idea that the DEI statements require certain beliefs. What one believes and what one is required to do professionally are completely different things. The Red Scare was about what one believes. DEI statements are about one's professional record on issues of DEI in a profession that requires such interactions. So in practice you can believe whatever you want, which means that this isn't really a filter of ideologies but of experience. For instance, in my department I know of 0 classical liberals including me. I don't know everyone's political leanings, but of the ones I do know they span the political spectrum. It's not much of an ideological filter, in my experience, is what I'm saying.
At the end of the day, the DEI statement is answering the question: what will you do for our necessarily diverse student body? It's not asking if you believe a diverse student body is a good thing. It's not asking you about your personal beliefs or political leanings. It's not asking you to sign a pledge. It's one aspect of a job application intended to make sure you are qualified to discharge a critical duty of the job to which you're applying. That's it.
I hope you've read this far an you find this post insightful. It's my honest opinion. One thing I'd be interested in knowing from you is: how many DEI statements have you actually personally read? I'm just wondering because you made a statement about what's involved in those statements, so I was curious if you had any first-hand experience, or if you're going by what Prof. Thompson wrote in the link you provided.
You have to recognize that for educators, these topics go beyond a political nature and into a practical matter. We in academia are trying to sell a service (a college "experience"), and our students are customers of this service. The idea that "the customer is always right" applies here.
For instance, if you have the belief that men and women should not be educated in the same classroom together, or that women should not be educated at all, that's a political opinion. If you want to be a teacher, that opinion turned into practice could be problematic for our business because >50% of our customers are female. So that's what we are interested in -- actions, not beliefs. Your deepest opinion of their presence in the classroom is immaterial; what is important though, is how will you make our female students feel welcome in the classroom? Because they are our paying customers, and your political opinion of their presence in the classroom is irrelevant after they hand over their tuition dollars. They have a right to be there as much as anyone else, and we want you as a teacher to make our customers feel welcome, safe, and that they belong. It's not political, it's business. Customers who feel welcome and safe in our classrooms donate money to us and send their children to us. Customers who feel marginalized and antagonized transfer and don't send their kids to us. It's good business to be inclusive.
Same goes for black students. You may have the political opinion that black students should not be in the classroom with white students. Again, this political opinion does not matter to us, because we actually have black customers in our classrooms. What is the practical action you will take to make our black customers feel welcome and happy about the purchase of our services? The answer to this question usually would involve an empathetic view of what black students are looking for in education, the challenges they face, and the solutions that may overcome those challenges. Notice that your personal political opinion of their existence in the classroom doesn't factor into that discussion.
One more, maybe more contemporary example: you may have the political opinion that there are only two genders and that trans people are a made up concept. This opinion is immaterial, because we have actual trans students in our classrooms. You may think they are completely insane and that they are living in a fantasy and you refuse to address any trans person by their chosen pronoun. But as a practical matter they have put down a large sum of money to learn in our classrooms, and they would prefer to be addressed by their chosen pronouns. So as an employee, are you going to disrespect our customers, or will you treat them with the respect they are asking for and address them using the gendered pronoun they are most comfortable with? Again, your personal political opinion doesn't really factor into that answer.
> (Isn't that the job of campus security? What kind of safety do you expect professors to provide?).
Intellectual safety. Learning new ideas can make people feel vulnerable and uncomfortable, which is expected. But learning in an antagonistic environment is difficult: imagine trying to learn the intricacies of e.g. functional programming when your peers and instructors are telling you that you don't matter and your idea of your own personhood is a delusion. Suddenly your homework assignments and exams don't mean that much when you're not sure if you're insane or sick. So to get the course content across, we first have to provide a safe environment where the things we say get heard instead of drowned out by lower-level needs like personal safety, a sense of belonging, and sense of self esteem. Only then does actual learning occur.
So the job of a teacher is not just to put on power points and talk about a topic for an hour twice a week. It is also to create an ideal learning environment for all our customers. This also includes managing interpersonal conflicts. Campus police don't really manage that either.
> From the open letter of Abigail Thompson, professor of mathematics at UC Davis:
Prof. Thompson's letter is problematic in a couple ways. For starters, she tries to liken the current diversity statements to anti-communist hysteria in the 1950s. The issue with this is that the anti-communist movement asked professors to sign letters disavowing an ideology and association with a group. Setting aside this is obviously in violation of the first amendment, that's not even close to what's happening with DEI statements. They are essentially saying "We have a diverse student population. What concrete experience do you have working with a diverse student population?" This is completely different from the Red Scare because, I will reiterate again, teaching a diverse student body is part of the job description for a professor. Community service is also part of the job description for a professor. Therefore if you're applying for a job, you have to show you are qualified irrespective of your personal beliefs. No one is asking you to disavow your group membership and personal beliefs. No one is checking if you're a card carrying member of the Republican party or that you watch Fox News or associate with other conservatives.
Secondly, she's really overstating how these statements are used in the selection process. I mean, maybe it's different at the Math department at UC Davis, but where I'm from there's really only two kinds of candidates: entry level assistant professors and already tenured senior professors. Entry level assistant professors are fresh out of gradschool, newly minted Ph.Ds. They have been in the higher ed. system anywhere from 8 to 15+ years. If they don't have anything to demonstrate community service, and if they haven't put any thought into the emotional needs of their students, that's a problem. Not because of their political ideology or group membership, but because that's the job description. Moreover, the bar is pretty low at that point. It's really not a high hurdle to talk about your community service experience. If you really have nothing to say here along the lines of "Here's some evidence that I can work well with others in my community to make it a better place", that's a red flag. Senior professors will be chosen based on their research record first and foremost. I can't think of any situation where a senior researcher with a stellar publication track record would be filtered out of a search due to a lackluster DEI statement. Our number 1 question for these people is, what is your H-index? Seriously, there's way too much weight placed on this thing.
Finally, she says that this is a political filter because it is a reification of the classical liberal ideology. I think the implication here is that it will filter out anyone who isn't a classical liberal. She says that the DEI statements require candidates to "demonstrate their knowledge and experience" as part of their professional life, but then pivots very quickly to the idea that the DEI statements require certain beliefs. What one believes and what one is required to do professionally are completely different things. The Red Scare was about what one believes. DEI statements are about one's professional record on issues of DEI in a profession that requires such interactions. So in practice you can believe whatever you want, which means that this isn't really a filter of ideologies but of experience. For instance, in my department I know of 0 classical liberals including me. I don't know everyone's political leanings, but of the ones I do know they span the political spectrum. It's not much of an ideological filter, in my experience, is what I'm saying.
At the end of the day, the DEI statement is answering the question: what will you do for our necessarily diverse student body? It's not asking if you believe a diverse student body is a good thing. It's not asking you about your personal beliefs or political leanings. It's not asking you to sign a pledge. It's one aspect of a job application intended to make sure you are qualified to discharge a critical duty of the job to which you're applying. That's it.
I hope you've read this far an you find this post insightful. It's my honest opinion. One thing I'd be interested in knowing from you is: how many DEI statements have you actually personally read? I'm just wondering because you made a statement about what's involved in those statements, so I was curious if you had any first-hand experience, or if you're going by what Prof. Thompson wrote in the link you provided.
This whole thing is based on the supposition that supporting diversity is the right move from a business perspective. If someone came to you with hard evidence that said removing gender from bathrooms would bring in 10 trans students and cause you to lose 50 other students, would your DEI action be to keep gendered bathrooms?
That’s rhetorical, DEI statements are absolutely about pledging a particular type of political alignment and a university would get absolutely skewered if it got caught optimizing for student body count over diversity.
That’s rhetorical, DEI statements are absolutely about pledging a particular type of political alignment and a university would get absolutely skewered if it got caught optimizing for student body count over diversity.
> For instance, if you have the belief that men and women should not be educated in the same classroom together, or that women should not be educated at all, that's a political opinion. If you want to be a teacher, that opinion turned into practice could be problematic for our business because >50% of our customers are female.
Was there a big problem with professors instituting sex- and race-segregated classrooms, that necessitated filtering them out with diversity statements? There must have been, since in one instance, a pool of 893 candidates was narrowed down to 214 only on the basis of how convincing their DEI statements were [1].
Imagine that - a full 76% of candidates were some kind of segregationists (that's the kind of person you claim DEI statements are meant to exclude, right?). And that's in academia, in California - the most liberal of the most liberal.
> how many DEI statements have you actually personally read?
None. But I have read one set of rating criteria [2]. Candidates that merely do "what is already expected of staff" [3] regarding diversity (I.e. what you claim is the goal of DEI statements) are given the lowest scores.
[1] https://ofew.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/life_sciences_...
[2] https://ofew.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/rubric_to_asse...
[3] Only mentions activities that are already the expectation of faculty as evidence of commitment and involvement (for example, "I always invite and welcome students from all backgrounds to participate in my research lab, and in fact have mentored several women. [..] Describes only activities that are already the expectation of Berkeley faculty (mentoring, treating all students the same regardless of background, etc).
Was there a big problem with professors instituting sex- and race-segregated classrooms, that necessitated filtering them out with diversity statements? There must have been, since in one instance, a pool of 893 candidates was narrowed down to 214 only on the basis of how convincing their DEI statements were [1].
Imagine that - a full 76% of candidates were some kind of segregationists (that's the kind of person you claim DEI statements are meant to exclude, right?). And that's in academia, in California - the most liberal of the most liberal.
> how many DEI statements have you actually personally read?
None. But I have read one set of rating criteria [2]. Candidates that merely do "what is already expected of staff" [3] regarding diversity (I.e. what you claim is the goal of DEI statements) are given the lowest scores.
[1] https://ofew.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/life_sciences_...
[2] https://ofew.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/rubric_to_asse...
[3] Only mentions activities that are already the expectation of faculty as evidence of commitment and involvement (for example, "I always invite and welcome students from all backgrounds to participate in my research lab, and in fact have mentored several women. [..] Describes only activities that are already the expectation of Berkeley faculty (mentoring, treating all students the same regardless of background, etc).
I appreciate your response and I will point out a few things about the links you provide. Regarding [1] I will say a few things. First, the paper makes clear that the effort described is not a typical search process.
Secondly, I will also tell you that filtering down applications from 893 to 214 on the basis of a robust diversity statement is not surprising. A lot of people treat it as a cursory exercise and devote no real effort to it. It's not hard to spot these. And ~24% seems like a reasonable ratio based on my experience. One of the issues with academics is as they are being brought up through the Ph.D. system, they do not place a large emphasis on DEI activities at all. So it's easy as a Ph.D. student if you're not careful to devote 100% of your time to research and very little to DEI related activities. And as I've said in another post, DEI issues are important discharging the actual job duties of a professor. I'm going to keep emphasizing that because it can often get lost, giving way to the idea that this whole DEI thing is orthogonal to professorship. It's not.
Third, this looks like it was a special search process directed for the specific reason's stated in the document. This kind of experimental and one-time thing is typically separate from the normal hiring process.
> But I have read one set of rating criteria [2]. Candidates that merely do "what is already expected of staff" [3] regarding diversity (I.e. what you claim is the goal of DEI statements) are given the lowest scores.
What [2] is saying would be the lowest score isn't really what I was saying in my post. The document characterizes low scoring DEI statements as "vague", "little expressed knowledge", "little demonstrated awareness", "seems to be not aware", "no specifics", "brief descriptions" etc. A vague DEI statement should score low on the rubric.
The "Only mentions activities that are already the expectation of faculty as evidence of commitment and involvement" is because a lot of people will say something along the lines of "My experience with DEI is that I tutored a black/Hispanic/female/Muslim/blind person" or "I've taught in diverse classrooms". That's not what we're looking for. We want specific examples of practices that you have implemented in your classroom and mentorship that demonstrates an understand of the issues faced by educators who teach diverse classrooms. It's not interesting to anyone that you taught a diverse classroom. We all do that. How did you teach it? What specific teaching methodologies did you deploy and why? What was the specific outcome of those teaching practices? How did you adjust them? These are all basic questions that yes, probably 75%+ of applications cannot answer.
Look at how the the rubric characterizes top scoring DEI statements: "clear knowledge", "aware", "comfort", "understands", "discusses", "consistent track record", "roles taken were significant and appropriate", "identifies", "clearly formulates", "convincingly expresses". The bar is not super high here. You just have to demonstrate a clear understanding of the issues, show examples of actual instances where they mattered to you as a teacher, and talk cogently about the subject. It's not hard, and yet indeed, many fail because they don't take it seriously as a job requirement. Many aspiring faculty think the job of being a professor is 100% research, and that's just not the case and really never has been.
And anyway, even if you only do the minimum expectation you can still score a 12/15, so not exactly the "lowest" scoring. The lowest scoring would be if you do the minimum, and also are vague and express little knowledge of the field and have no track record. That sounds reasonable to me.
> And that's in academia, in California - the most liberal of the most liberal.
I mean, we're talking about Berkeley here. It's one of the top schools in the world. The applications will come from all over including totalitarian regimes like China and Iran where I imagine there's not a lot of emphasis on DEI. Applications aren't restricted to Californians.
This search was unique, both in scale and in intent ... Limiting the first review to contributions in DE&I is itself a dramatic change of emphasis in the typical evaluation process which generally focuses on primarily on research accomplishments.
Secondly, I will also tell you that filtering down applications from 893 to 214 on the basis of a robust diversity statement is not surprising. A lot of people treat it as a cursory exercise and devote no real effort to it. It's not hard to spot these. And ~24% seems like a reasonable ratio based on my experience. One of the issues with academics is as they are being brought up through the Ph.D. system, they do not place a large emphasis on DEI activities at all. So it's easy as a Ph.D. student if you're not careful to devote 100% of your time to research and very little to DEI related activities. And as I've said in another post, DEI issues are important discharging the actual job duties of a professor. I'm going to keep emphasizing that because it can often get lost, giving way to the idea that this whole DEI thing is orthogonal to professorship. It's not.
Third, this looks like it was a special search process directed for the specific reason's stated in the document. This kind of experimental and one-time thing is typically separate from the normal hiring process.
> But I have read one set of rating criteria [2]. Candidates that merely do "what is already expected of staff" [3] regarding diversity (I.e. what you claim is the goal of DEI statements) are given the lowest scores.
What [2] is saying would be the lowest score isn't really what I was saying in my post. The document characterizes low scoring DEI statements as "vague", "little expressed knowledge", "little demonstrated awareness", "seems to be not aware", "no specifics", "brief descriptions" etc. A vague DEI statement should score low on the rubric.
The "Only mentions activities that are already the expectation of faculty as evidence of commitment and involvement" is because a lot of people will say something along the lines of "My experience with DEI is that I tutored a black/Hispanic/female/Muslim/blind person" or "I've taught in diverse classrooms". That's not what we're looking for. We want specific examples of practices that you have implemented in your classroom and mentorship that demonstrates an understand of the issues faced by educators who teach diverse classrooms. It's not interesting to anyone that you taught a diverse classroom. We all do that. How did you teach it? What specific teaching methodologies did you deploy and why? What was the specific outcome of those teaching practices? How did you adjust them? These are all basic questions that yes, probably 75%+ of applications cannot answer.
Look at how the the rubric characterizes top scoring DEI statements: "clear knowledge", "aware", "comfort", "understands", "discusses", "consistent track record", "roles taken were significant and appropriate", "identifies", "clearly formulates", "convincingly expresses". The bar is not super high here. You just have to demonstrate a clear understanding of the issues, show examples of actual instances where they mattered to you as a teacher, and talk cogently about the subject. It's not hard, and yet indeed, many fail because they don't take it seriously as a job requirement. Many aspiring faculty think the job of being a professor is 100% research, and that's just not the case and really never has been.
And anyway, even if you only do the minimum expectation you can still score a 12/15, so not exactly the "lowest" scoring. The lowest scoring would be if you do the minimum, and also are vague and express little knowledge of the field and have no track record. That sounds reasonable to me.
> And that's in academia, in California - the most liberal of the most liberal.
I mean, we're talking about Berkeley here. It's one of the top schools in the world. The applications will come from all over including totalitarian regimes like China and Iran where I imagine there's not a lot of emphasis on DEI. Applications aren't restricted to Californians.
Either we're not looking at the same DEI guidelines or this is disingenuous. It's not enough for a professor to merely state a commitment to fostering a respectful classroom environment permitting no disrespect to anyone's identity or dignity. DEI statements[0] don't want professors to merely block offensive and disruptive behavior, they want them to make diversity, equity, and inclusion a core part of teaching, research, and the candidate's personal life. A professor researching, for example, graph theory who merely creates a respectful classroom environment and treats students and research associates without distinction based on their identity doesn't meet these criteria. This results in a form of dog-whistling. Like all dog-whistling, it relies on the core message being subtextual.
[0] https://facultyinnovate.utexas.edu/drafting-diversity-equity...
[0] https://facultyinnovate.utexas.edu/drafting-diversity-equity...
Look, if you don't believe me that's fine. But I'm not lying or being disingenuous. I didn't spend all the time writing that out because I'm trying to trick anyone. I did it because I'm trying to engage in an honest discussion.
Anyway, let's talk about your link. First of all, let's give some context as to what exactly this document is and how it's produced. This was probably written by the very people you have in mind as a DEI woke liberal activist professor. Looking at the bios of the people at the bottom, that's the impression I get. That's why you are reading the "dog-whistling" but I would call it virtue signaling. Because it's there. It's the kind of document people in this community will show off to one another as a model DEI initiative. But that doesn't give this document any real weight in the hiring process. I'll explain why.
Frist, everything that's written here isn't really required for the hiring packet. It even says:
> they want them to make diversity, equity, and inclusion a core part of teaching, research, and the candidate's personal life. A professor researching, for example, graph theory who merely creates a respectful classroom environment and treats students and research associates without distinction based on their identity doesn't meet these criteria.
But I don't see exactly where this document is implying that. Do you have that impression based on this document or based on something else? Because the document for example says this about research:
As for their personal life, again I don't see the basis in this document to support that. The document says:
Finally as far as teaching goes, this is the one where I will say yes, it's completely acceptable and indeed required to integrate DEI practices into teaching. That's the job. The authors of the UT document agree with me, as the language in this section is not qualified with an "if":
--
Okay, so that's the content of the article. But then there's the separate issue of how the DEI statement is used in the hiring process. I think maybe if you understand how the process works, you will see exactly where and how the DEI statement factors in. Here's how it works at my institution, and it works like this in many other places. We are by no means unique.
First of all, the people who wrote this UT page and their counterparts have little to no sway on the hiring process itself. The hiring process is conducted by the department, usually by a committee of professors appointed by the department chair. The committee requests permission to hire from the dean. The dean grants the permission to conduct a search and an ad is posted. When the application deadline listed on the ad passes, the application packets are collected and distributed to the committee members. The committee will rank the applications by any criteria they deem appropriate. It can be completely arbitrary. They don't even have to look at the DEI statement. They invite top candidates to a phone screen. Usually on this screen they will ask some DEI related question related to teaching because it is part of the job. After all interviews are conducted the committee will rank the candidates and choose who will be offered an on-campus interview. The ranking, again, is done in an arbitrary way by the hiring committee. 99% of the discussions I've been involved in focus on the merits of the candidate's research agenda.
During the on-campus visit, the candidate meets with faculty members outside of the committee over a 2 day period. The candidate's application packet is distributed to the rest of the faculty in the department. The candidate will meet with someone from the DEI office. This is usually to explain to the candidate the University's commitment to DEI. It's not an inquisition into the personal beliefs of the candidate, or a filter, or a purity test. The candidate will then have meetings with maybe a dozen or so faculty members, during which they can discuss any topic whatsoever. Usually the topic discussed is the candidate's research. They can discuss DEI topics or not. At some point the candidate will give a research presentation, and they will meet with the dean and department chair.
After all candidates have been interviewed in this way, the faculty convenes to vote on whether to extend an offer. A discussion commences wherein members may voice support or concern. Concerns usually revolve around the likelihood of a given research agenda to attract funding from top funding agencies, and which classes in the curriculum the candidate could teach. After the discussion the decision is taken to a vote. If the vote passes, a recommendation is taken to the dean. The dean makes the final decision (100% of the time in my experience they side with the faculty, but I'm sure there are reasons candidates have been rejected by the dean), and an offer is presented to the candidate as far as salary and startup package. After a period of negotiation the candidate accepts or rejects the offer and so concludes the academic hiring process.
Now, where does the DEI statement play into it? The DEI office doesn't have much sway. The content of the DEI letter isn't prescribed. Well, for us there's no official mandate to consider it. Others implement some kind of mandatory scoring system that was alluded to in another post. But at the end of the day the decision to hire/pass is typically a democratic process left to the department faculty, who are granted the agency to vote however they see fit, by whatever criteria.
Anyway, I've spent a long while typing this out, so I hope you can see I'm not trying to be disingenuous or mislead you in any way. I'm telling you my honest and candid first-hand experience of how DEI statements are used in the hiring process for University professors. I understand it's not quite what you imagine it to be, but it’s not a lie. And in fact if it were what you implied in your original post, that it was akin to signing if a pledge to join a political party, I would be the first in line to oppose that.
Anyway, let's talk about your link. First of all, let's give some context as to what exactly this document is and how it's produced. This was probably written by the very people you have in mind as a DEI woke liberal activist professor. Looking at the bios of the people at the bottom, that's the impression I get. That's why you are reading the "dog-whistling" but I would call it virtue signaling. Because it's there. It's the kind of document people in this community will show off to one another as a model DEI initiative. But that doesn't give this document any real weight in the hiring process. I'll explain why.
Frist, everything that's written here isn't really required for the hiring packet. It even says:
To aid you in writing your DEI statement, we have provided brief descriptions of five different topics to consider addressing in your statement below. There are no requirements that you must address all of these topics, and you are not limited to only discussing these perspectives. Your statement should reflect the relative importance of these issues to your work and reveal your personal commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
> they want them to make diversity, equity, and inclusion a core part of teaching, research, and the candidate's personal life. A professor researching, for example, graph theory who merely creates a respectful classroom environment and treats students and research associates without distinction based on their identity doesn't meet these criteria.
But I don't see exactly where this document is implying that. Do you have that impression based on this document or based on something else? Because the document for example says this about research:
If your research addresses issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion, describe them here. If you work with marginalized populations in your research, explain how your research advances knowledge and addresses equity in different communities. Describe how you respectfully engage in that research and how you honor those communities in your scholarship.
As for their personal life, again I don't see the basis in this document to support that. The document says:
Highlight your service and mentoring experience. If you have examples of serving on committees, participating in community outreach, or volunteer work, describe them here. Share some of your accomplishments or lessons learned from those experiences. If you have mentored underrepresented students, explain what you have learned from those relationships and how you will continue mentoring others.
Finally as far as teaching goes, this is the one where I will say yes, it's completely acceptable and indeed required to integrate DEI practices into teaching. That's the job. The authors of the UT document agree with me, as the language in this section is not qualified with an "if":
Describe how you create inclusive and equitable learning environments for your students. You may describe frameworks you utilize when designing courses and assignments. Explain some of the teaching strategies you use to make your classroom accessible and inclusive.
--
Okay, so that's the content of the article. But then there's the separate issue of how the DEI statement is used in the hiring process. I think maybe if you understand how the process works, you will see exactly where and how the DEI statement factors in. Here's how it works at my institution, and it works like this in many other places. We are by no means unique.
First of all, the people who wrote this UT page and their counterparts have little to no sway on the hiring process itself. The hiring process is conducted by the department, usually by a committee of professors appointed by the department chair. The committee requests permission to hire from the dean. The dean grants the permission to conduct a search and an ad is posted. When the application deadline listed on the ad passes, the application packets are collected and distributed to the committee members. The committee will rank the applications by any criteria they deem appropriate. It can be completely arbitrary. They don't even have to look at the DEI statement. They invite top candidates to a phone screen. Usually on this screen they will ask some DEI related question related to teaching because it is part of the job. After all interviews are conducted the committee will rank the candidates and choose who will be offered an on-campus interview. The ranking, again, is done in an arbitrary way by the hiring committee. 99% of the discussions I've been involved in focus on the merits of the candidate's research agenda.
During the on-campus visit, the candidate meets with faculty members outside of the committee over a 2 day period. The candidate's application packet is distributed to the rest of the faculty in the department. The candidate will meet with someone from the DEI office. This is usually to explain to the candidate the University's commitment to DEI. It's not an inquisition into the personal beliefs of the candidate, or a filter, or a purity test. The candidate will then have meetings with maybe a dozen or so faculty members, during which they can discuss any topic whatsoever. Usually the topic discussed is the candidate's research. They can discuss DEI topics or not. At some point the candidate will give a research presentation, and they will meet with the dean and department chair.
After all candidates have been interviewed in this way, the faculty convenes to vote on whether to extend an offer. A discussion commences wherein members may voice support or concern. Concerns usually revolve around the likelihood of a given research agenda to attract funding from top funding agencies, and which classes in the curriculum the candidate could teach. After the discussion the decision is taken to a vote. If the vote passes, a recommendation is taken to the dean. The dean makes the final decision (100% of the time in my experience they side with the faculty, but I'm sure there are reasons candidates have been rejected by the dean), and an offer is presented to the candidate as far as salary and startup package. After a period of negotiation the candidate accepts or rejects the offer and so concludes the academic hiring process.
Now, where does the DEI statement play into it? The DEI office doesn't have much sway. The content of the DEI letter isn't prescribed. Well, for us there's no official mandate to consider it. Others implement some kind of mandatory scoring system that was alluded to in another post. But at the end of the day the decision to hire/pass is typically a democratic process left to the department faculty, who are granted the agency to vote however they see fit, by whatever criteria.
Anyway, I've spent a long while typing this out, so I hope you can see I'm not trying to be disingenuous or mislead you in any way. I'm telling you my honest and candid first-hand experience of how DEI statements are used in the hiring process for University professors. I understand it's not quite what you imagine it to be, but it’s not a lie. And in fact if it were what you implied in your original post, that it was akin to signing if a pledge to join a political party, I would be the first in line to oppose that.
You must excuse me if I am not swayed by this since no one would expect university faculty to admit to the motives I described (such a letter filters out far more than just those who don't incorporate "diversity into their teaching practice" according to your institution's definition). Yours is exactly the bias I am speaking against.
Please don't start flamewars on HN. We're trying to avoid that hell here, and you pushed this thread straight into it.
Inflammatory quote plus snarky one liner is definitely against the site guidelines. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules from now on.
Inflammatory quote plus snarky one liner is definitely against the site guidelines. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules from now on.
"We're trying to avoid that hell here, and you pushed this thread straight into it."
Was it I who pushed this thread into a flame war or the other commenters?
I only intended to point out that education, by its nature, changes people which inevitably leads to friction with other people who don't like that change or what that change enables which is not new. The origin of the word "erudition" highlights that point quite well.
Was it I who pushed this thread into a flame war or the other commenters?
I only intended to point out that education, by its nature, changes people which inevitably leads to friction with other people who don't like that change or what that change enables which is not new. The origin of the word "erudition" highlights that point quite well.
The bulk of the fault lies at the root of the subthread, yes.
If you had actually pointed out what you say you intended to point out, that would have been much better. What you actually posted was an inflammatory quote plus a snarky one liner, and the expected value of that is a flamewar [1].
I realize it's not so easy to make intent explicit, because it seems obvious to you (by "you" I mean all of us, of course)- the problem is that it exists in your head where no one else has access to it - therefore the burden is on the commenter to disambiguate [2].
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
If you had actually pointed out what you say you intended to point out, that would have been much better. What you actually posted was an inflammatory quote plus a snarky one liner, and the expected value of that is a flamewar [1].
I realize it's not so easy to make intent explicit, because it seems obvious to you (by "you" I mean all of us, of course)- the problem is that it exists in your head where no one else has access to it - therefore the burden is on the commenter to disambiguate [2].
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
It's worth noting that Rorty's pragmatism is not C.S. Peirce's pragmatism (Peirce repudiated James in his lifetime). Skeptical philosophy is not new (article makes it seem like it is). Also, for someone who "abandoned philosophy" (and truth...), Rorty sure spent a lot of time arguing about it.