7 ms·

I applaud Mr. Haidt for standing up for what he believes in.

• rnk 4y ago
  • Auracle 4y ago
    You need to reread the article. It’s not “signing a statement that he’s anti-racist.”
    • dmix 4y ago
      Everyone tries to pretend it's "just not being an asshole". But it's never that simple. It's always comes with demands for an ideological obedience that goes well beyond just accepting others or letting people be free to do what they want.
  • tomp 4y ago
    Don’t believe the propaganda. “Anti-racism” is actually about racism against Asians. “Equity” is actually about lowering the standards and destroying meritocracy. “Inclusion” is actually about excluding people that have different political or moral opinions (e.g. that don’t want to be racist against Asians or that support meritocracy).
    • EdwardDiego 4y ago
      • rippercushions 4y ago
        I believe GP is referencing American university admissions, where DEI-flavored racial quotas tend to disadvantage Asians when compared to a race-blind system based purely on standardized tests.
        • EdwardDiego 4y ago
          Huh, okay, so, to clarify my understanding, because of the quotas, assuming a fixed amount of available spots, less Asians get in than they would without the quotas. But a) wouldn't that apply to other demographics too? and b) All Asians? Are Hmong, for example, over-represented in college enrollments? I'm just trying to understand why it's specifically anti-Asian.
          • BlargMcLarg 4y ago
            It isn't specifically "anti-Asian". A bunch of pro-diversity people see white people do well and get successful. They see the same in Asians. They see the opposite for black and latino. They conclude "we must give black and latino preferential treatment to catch up". It is a bit more elaborate, but not much more than that. >All Asians? Yes. Despite their fronts, diversity initiatives don't look much further beyond sex, gender and skin color. You're already one level deeper than most of these politics go.
            • EdwardDiego 4y ago
              Yeah, that's always the problem with race-based initiatives, there's always edge cases, like any policy.
        • somenameforme 4y ago
          Elaborating on this, there is a passage quoted in the article from the most common text on "anti-racism" : "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." The consequences of this are easy to illustrate in orchestras. Orchestras have always been heavily dominated by white and Asian musicians. When it was argued that this was due to discrimination in hiring, the solution was quite simple and tasteful - swap to blind auditions. And that is something few would oppose. So they did. The problem is that not only did it fail to create more diverse orchestras, in many cases they became even less diverse than they were prior. So now the 'anti-racist' view is that orchestras need to begin being racist against white and Asian applicants, and start biasing selection by race. [1] Groups that disproportionately overperform become acceptable targets for racism. Incidentally this is not entirely different than the motivation for some of the darkest moments in our history. Alas people never seem to appreciate that the "evil" groups in times past never saw themselves as evil, but simply as people engaging in temporarily distasteful action for a greater future. That greater future never comes, but the distasteful actions certainly do. Of course, "this time it'll be different." [1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/arts/music/blind-auditions-orchestras-race.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/arts/music/blind-audition...
      • Dalewyn 4y ago
        By their very nature, "diversity" and "inclusion" are racist because it must consider someone's race. By arguing for "diversity" and "inclusion" we are mandating we judge people for what they are, rather than who they are; judge them by the color of their skin rather than the quality of their character. "Anti-racism", which in American academia usually comes about in the form of blacks and latinos receiving preferential treatment at the cost of whites and asians, is indeed racism. Racism is not acceptable, no matter how benevolent the intent or goal. And while we're here, since it's part of the bigger, main discussion anyway: "Equity" is the anti-thesis of equality, because "equity" mandates that all individuals arrive (and stay!) at the same place in life no matter who they are. It throws out individual ambitions and efforts towards obtaining a better silver plate in lieu of society handing everyone the same steel plate.
        • mejutoco 4y ago
          I think a good model to think about it are equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome. The articles in sep deal with the origins of these in depth https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equal-opportunity/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equal-opportunity/
        • EdwardDiego 4y ago
          That doesn't quite explain why it's specifically anti-Asian though?
          • Dalewyn 4y ago
            It's anti-asian and also anti- any race that isn't on the list of beneficiaries. The original argument could have been conveyed better by framing it more broadly, but it isn't wrong.
            • EdwardDiego 4y ago
              Aah, that makes sense, if I'm understanding it correctly, they specified Asians because they're another minority, but disadvantaged by policies that seek to help other minorities.
    • xg15 4y ago
      > “Equity” is actually about lowering the standards and destroying meritocracy. The "meritocracy" that includes your rich parents into your "merit".
      • tomp 4y ago
        No, the correct answer to this is "provide free/subsidised schooling to exceptional people who cannot otherwise afford it". By the way, this is the meritocratic way because we're looking for best people, which includes identifying unrealized talent and then nurturing it. Instead, the SJW/woke way is "reduce standards until everybody passes", literally https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-leftists-try-to-cancel-math-class-11621355858 https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-leftists-try-to-canc... (a.k.a. everybody equal, everybody stupid akin to Communism's everybody equal, everybody poor)
        • kiba 4y ago
          Meritocracy is opposed to egalitarianism. After all, people with advantages rise to the top, whether that's upbringing, talent, or gene.
          • tomp 4y ago
            I see "egalitarianism" as "equality of opportunity". That, and "equality before the law". But even with the same starting conditions/talent/upbringing/genes, some people will climb further than others. Effort, creativity, etc. We as society should encourage that and reward people who achieve more, for the common benefit of all.
        • varnaud 4y ago
          >exceptional people Why would you only provide free/subsidized schooling to exceptional people. Why not all people? If you truly believe in meritocracy, wouldn't you want everyone to have a fair opportunity to prove themselves?
          • tomp 4y ago
    • cma 4y ago
      > destroying meritocracy Low inheritance tax has had that covered for a while.
  • _8j50 4y ago
    No that's bullshit. If you ask me to say "I hate hitler and bin laden" for no reason I would have a similar reaction as well. How can people put up with this filth? It repulses and disgusts me so much when kindness, compassion and even justice are absorbed by this bureaucratic ideological machine where people say and do things out if insincerity, just as lip service to fall in line politically. How do people feel comfortable living lies and forcing others to live and practice falsehoods? No matter how much I agree with the statement, when you force it, it becomes an insincere compelled speech.
    • darthrupert 4y ago
      Or more akin to this case, you would need to explain how your research contributes to hating Hitler.
      • _8j50 4y ago
        Exactly.
    • kenjackson 4y ago
      How do you feel about standing for the national anthem? Does that repulse you too?
      • _8j50 4y ago
        Thanks for reminding me, yes it does. I use to stand but refuse to say or do anything when I was in school. I didn't get in trouble but teachers were visibly upset and would be mean afterwards. I love america and will defend her if we ever get attacked for the record.
      • imgabe 4y ago
        You are generally free not to stand for the national anthem. Suppose the SPSS (the professional society Haidt left in protest) had instead made a rule that they would play the national anthem at the start of every conference and anyone who didn’t stand wouldn’t be allowed to present their research. If he had left in protest of that, would you assume he’s an unpatriotic asshole who hates America or that he’s standing up for free speech?
  • marcusestes 4y ago
    He wasn’t asked to sign a statement that he was anti-racist. He was asked to sign a statement explaining how the academic work submitted to be presented “advanced… anti-racism goals.” He’s quite right that not every academic paper need directly concern itself with the very specific set of ideologies contained within contemporary anti-rascist texts.
  • imgabe 4y ago
    > newly adopted requirement that everybody presenting research at the group's conferences explain how their submission advances "equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals." Diversity is fine. But every single piece of research has to be related to diversity? Is it not possible to do research on anything else that maybe doesn’t have anything to do with identity issues? This is not a statement about promoting diversity, this is a statement that identity issues are the only thing that matters and only research that has to do with identity will be considered (for presentation at this conference) An ideological monoculture is not a healthy intellectual environment.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • SamReidHughes 4y ago
      It's not so much off-topic research. The research output of much of social psychology tends to hurt the cause of DEI. They want to stop that.
      • whythre 4y ago
        That sounds gross and corrupt.
      • imgabe 4y ago
        Research should not be dependent on whether or not it hurts any cause. If the research is poorly done, exclude it for that reason. If not, maybe re-examine what your cause is in light of the research. Copernicus's research into the Earth revolving around the Sun hurt the Catcholic church's cause of being the ultimate source of truth for all humanity. They wanted to put a stop to that... Starting with the answer and rejecting anything that doesn't support it is not how research is supposed to work.
        • tpoacher 4y ago
          Copernicus and Galileo being harangued by the Church of their time, and stifling progress of the obvious, is more popular myth than historical fact. It has been debunked many, many times. Ironically, the fervor and persistence with which this story gets propagated ad nauseam feels almost ... religious. I wish people would stop dropping it as the de facto example of interference with science when there are so many better ones (and also current ones). It's a bad analogy, evokes emotion, and ultimately it typically does a disservice to the argument intended.
  • latency-guy2 4y ago
    Haidt argues that much of the work that researchers do have no relationship to 'anti-racism' that Kendi popularized, or DEI goals in general. It also appears that Haidt is taking SPSP's new direction literally - whereas you appear to be taking it figuratively. That SPSP's direction is a requirement for all members, not an interpretive statement that all members can come to terms with on their own accord. I think being compelled to a specific viewpoint by an institution is antithesis of freedom. Your comment seems like a huge dismissal of Haidt's view with this regard. That is, if we are to trust that you looked at the linked article as you claim.
  • Blackstone4 4y ago
    It isn’t that black and white…to look at it in that light is reductionist. Further equality is good however it would be helpful to do so in a constructive manner. What often happens is that SJWs just shut down debates and discussions.. because they disagree. This kills freedom of speech and ideas. This goes exactly to your last point. Are you threatened by others who disagree with you?
  • fullmoon 4y ago
    “Anti-racism” is, in fact, racist. Your last paragraph points towards some internalized racial stereotypes. Don’t make the mistake of thinking it’s anything else by some people that manipulate language.
  • aliasxneo 4y ago
    Being mostly sheepish about responding to this kind of argument, it feels me with gratitude that so many here can more finely discern the situation presented.
  • inciampati 4y ago
    Would you support requiring a pledge of allegiance to a particular political party or ideology before conference attendees made their presentations? This is surprisingly close. The issue at stake is more abstract than American racism. This is a dangerous precedent. And it requires some itchy mental gymnastics. Thinking about and encouraging diversity and inclusion through action is great. Forcing people to do it seems specifically contrary to the abstract goals of diversity and inclusion! Said another way: Is the point of these statements to increase or decrease the intellectual diversity of discourse?
    • pas 4y ago
      > This is a dangerous precedent. Agreed. And the whole style, wording, method is dumb. > intellectual diversity of discourse The goal is clearly to reduce a certain part of the "thought space" (intellectual diversity), in particular the goal is to weed out anti-racist thoughts. I guess they think of this as public health thinks of pathogens. Diversity of species is great but we still want less of pathogens. What these people seemingly have no idea about, is that populist xenophobic movements can start, spread and become popular at no time. And obviously (?) the way to contain them is not with preemptive firebombing of academia, but by strengthening the ideals of equity, and the institutions themselves that implement those ideals. Make them shining beacons of good. The first criterion for that is efficiency, transparency, etc. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Manuel_D 4y ago
    > He quit that group because he can't sign a statement that he is anti-racist, and supports diversity and inclusion? Incorrect, this statement was not directed to members' conduct. The diversity statement was to pledge that members' research submissions are advancing anti-racism, equity, and inclusion. This would, for example, prohibit a psychologist studying something like memory retention. This has no reasonable link to advancing equal racial outcomes. How does measuring the amount of time it takes to memorize a paragraph advance racial justice? Thus such research would thus fail to live up to this pledge, and be ineligible for submission - if this pledge were actually enforced, that is. Of course, I doubt the people making this pledge actually intend to have every piece of their research connected to an anti-racist goal. This is just performance and naval-gazing.
    • pas 4y ago
      > prohibit a psychologist studying something like memory retention wat? how? why? real social justice doesn't work that way. (contrary, it needs to know deficiencies so it can help those who are in need, so people have equal opportunities for self-actualization.)
  • claytongulick 4y ago
    In this context anti-racist doesn't mean what it appears to mean by a "plain language" interpretation. If you look at the quote in the article, it illustrates that "anti-racist" actually means supporting discrimination: "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." This "friendly fascist" form of discrimination festers under the cover of cheap political expediency. It is abhorrent, at least to any society that supports liberal values.
  • rippercushions 4y ago
    "Anti-racist" here requires signing up to the following creed: > "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."
  • throwawayallday 4y ago
    >He quit that group because he can't sign a statement that he is anti-racist, and supports diversity and inclusion? Can you reply to my comment with the anti-racist and supportive of diversity and inclusion phrase "it's OK to be White"? >I'm from the american south. It was full of racists when I lived there, who were all against diversity, hated the idea of needing to hire minorities to be teachers, things like that. There was no need to hire them, everything was fine. It didn't matter that all the school principals were white men, there was no point to a kid seeing a black man or woman as the principal I heard. I'm from the american west. It was full of racists when I lived there, who were all against diversity, hated the idea of needing to hire whites to be teachers, things like that. There was no need to hire them, everything was fine. It didn't matter that all the school principals were women of color, there was no point to a kid seeing a white man or woman as the principal I heard. >That's all I can take way from the usually white men who see some incredible threat from saying there's a benefit in including more voices. I can only see this as people threatened by including other voices that might disagree with their own. That's all I can take way from the usually women of color who see some incredible threat from saying there's a benefit in including more voices. I can only see this as people threatened by including other voices that might disagree with their own.
  • politelemon 4y ago
    > he can't sign a statement that he is anti-racist, and supports diversity and inclusion? The strange part to me in comments similar to yours is how you have chosen to interpret his actions and completely ignore his explanation or the context around it. I will not be surprised if this sort of incendiary kneejerk where you deliberately misrepresent a person is becoming pervasive, and causing people to leave.
  • JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    Haidt was required to endorse an ideology stating “the only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination…only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.” We can debate the merits of that premise. Simpler is concluding it’s contentiousness. Academia exists to resolve contention; forcing an outcome by dictat is dishonest.
  • faeriechangling 4y ago
    "Antiracists" is literally, as explained in the article, are a political group that prescribes racial discrimination against white people. They're a very ironically named group of people considering. If your research is not specifically engineered to justify racial discrimination against a group of people you may be subject to a number of administrative consequences. Regarding your experiences in the American South, all I can say is two wrongs don't make a right. This is hardly about including more voices, this is about opposing a policy that prescibes the acceptable Overton window of research, it's clearly about limiting the acceptable range of discourse. We are literally maybe a quarter of a century towards whites becoming a plurality, and not much longer after that until they become an actual minority. You can't just think about the past, think about the future, making publishing scientific racism an ideological goal because a group is politically powerful NOW when they won't be in the future is bound to have unintended consequences.
  • concordDance 4y ago
    Did you know that forcing schools to hire teachers and principals that better reflect the demographics of the school worsens the outcomes of black students in those schools?