It's sad to think many people will read this (or, more likely, the title and a comment or two, once this topic is populated) and come away with the unjustified assumption that Barvinok is just a...
Exemplary
It's sad to think many people will read this (or, more likely, the title and a comment or two, once this topic is populated) and come away with the unjustified assumption that Barvinok is just a [racist, homophobe, fill in the blank]. The unease many of us feel over the current climate of shaming people over anything that challenges the current status quo re statements' acceptability in public discourse—up to and including firing/"cancelling" people for disagreeing with that culture—is not due to some deep-set bigotry, but an instinct to protect freedom of thought. It doesn't feel good to be coerced or forced under duress into publicly holding extreme beliefs, but that is what happens when a small subset of the population thinks they are intellectually and morally superior—they feel justified in smacking down everyone who thinks differently. It isn't right. (That is, it's wrong.) And if all discussion on these matters is just shut down immediately, we'll never be able to make progress as a society, because as we now know very well, that tactic only further entrenches people in their beliefs.
Not to take this too far off topic, but in the last week or so, I've seen too many examples of this kind of behavior. Some people refuse to even engage with dissenting opinions in good faith, instead opting for sarcasm and cruel derision from (ostensible) high ground. But at the end of the day, it's nothing more than posturing. It doesn't change minds. It just makes them look...well, bad. And to be quite honest, as one who generally agrees with the verdicts these people have made (but obviously not their tactics), it really weakens the standing of these positions in the public eye, because anyone would come away from a "discussion" like that thinking their opponent (shouldn't be a brawl, btw) can't actually defend their viewpoint. To be honest, I'm embarrassed to even make it known that I agree with them a lot of the time, because the general perception in pubic is that people who hold progressive views are basically children having tantrums, thanks entirely to people online who think abuse is acceptable as long as they're punching down on those who are morally inferior (by their judgment).
Please pardon my tangent, but I have to agree with Barvinok here. If we shut down the ability to criticize official positions, whether in academia, any other workplace, or simply in public, then we're certainly not heading toward a freer future.
What exactly are the 'extreme beliefs' that people are being coerced into holding? That diversity in the academy is a positive goal? As someone in academia, I really struggle to see these...
Exemplary
It doesn't feel good to be coerced or forced under duress into publicly holding extreme beliefs, but that is what happens when a small subset of the population thinks they are intellectually and morally superior—they feel justified in smacking down everyone who thinks differently.
What exactly are the 'extreme beliefs' that people are being coerced into holding? That diversity in the academy is a positive goal?
As someone in academia, I really struggle to see these diversity statements being anything close to Soviet era loyalty oaths or whatever. And to be honest, I've been in this setting for long enough now to have a somewhat cynical view of people who hoot and holler about "broader impact" statements on grant proposals. Most of the time, to me, it just sounds like someone complaining that they have to engage with the larger context of their academic position within society and can't just "focus on their research". And when you are asking for public funds, I personally think you should have to think a bit about the ways your research can impact society as a whole. There is a genuine and concerted assault on higher education in the US at the moment, and its not coming from the left and its not because of diversity statements.
If we shut down the ability to criticize official positions, whether in academia, any other workplace, or simply in public, then we're certainly not heading toward a freer future.
Except that is not even close to what is happening. People are absolutely free to criticize official positions, but they are not free from the consequences from their peers and others of making those positions publicly known. And I can guarantee that for every professor who is officially reprimanded for speaking out against this (are there even that many examples of that?), there are many more who are protected despite creating hostile environments for women and minorities (c.f. any of countless examples of professors being serial sexual harassers).
I am all for ideas being assessed in the marketplace of ideas, but people act like we as a society haven't already done that for a lot of these ideas, and there has been a clear winner. The march towards a more inclusive academy has been a rocky one over the past century, and the question of who gets to be included has been endlessly debated in all sorts of contexts. Forgive me for not feeling it is that important to rehash what is in my eyes (and many others') a settled question.
I remember a job interview I had for a c-suite position at a university where I was recruited by the firm contracted for the search. I wrote a DEI letter, which received glowing feedback from the...
I remember a job interview I had for a c-suite position at a university where I was recruited by the firm contracted for the search. I wrote a DEI letter, which received glowing feedback from the search firm, who afterwards said they used it with their teams as an exemplar. I went through the process, and the firm shared feedback throughout, including glowing remarks from the division I would head, the cabinet, etc.
Afterwards the firm told me I was the top candidate, but the university decided to cancel the search and restart. I accepted the loss and moved on, but literally the next day was called back. It turns out the firm pressed the university as to why, and they said the DEI office had said they weren't excited about my answers. The firm pushed, and it turns out that when I was asked to give an example of developing diversity I gave examples of career mentorship and going to bat for a few specific women who worked for me in a make dominated field and who were facing discrimination when asserting themselves.
The firm read them the riot act a bit, because I guess the DEI folks didn't know that women were a minority in that field. The president of the University reversed the decision and the firm called me back.
Long and short, they offered, we talked, I declined.
At the same time, I've had some wonderful DEI prompts that led to great discussions about exercises in perspective taking, etc.
So as I said in another comment, I reserve judgement for individual cases. But I have certainly seen DEI misused and misapplied. It's not always just people disliking things and being against diversity. Some DEI offices use group shibboleths as litmus tests for group membership or participation rather than really assessing an individuals qualities.
But on the whole, I'm glad for DEI efforts and have been on the hiring side and set such requirements often enough myself. But I've also seen enough odious behavior to give the benefit of the doubt when people do raise well articulated concerns.
To be clear, I agree that they are imperfectly implemented. In fact, the general state of DEI in academia is good testament to the fact that current approaches are not enough — in some sense then,...
To be clear, I agree that they are imperfectly implemented. In fact, the general state of DEI in academia is good testament to the fact that current approaches are not enough — in some sense then, these statements are the bare minimum. Just like with any other aspect of the hiring process, these metrics can be misused or misunderstood even by the people doing the hiring. In any case, while there may be problems here, in my view they are so minor in comparison to everything else going on in higher ed right now, for example the recent "plagiarism" crusades being instigated by right wing actors, less and less independence from the state (c.f. Florida), and other issues.
The issues in Florida and Congress don't have anything to do with this one professors letter. The merits of his position should be evaluated on their own and not set aside because there are other...
The issues in Florida and Congress don't have anything to do with this one professors letter. The merits of his position should be evaluated on their own and not set aside because there are other issues.
I will say that one of the issues I have with current DEI implementations is that they are often simple checkboxes rather than meaningful processes, which harms the effort for a number of reasons, including breeding skeptics.
That said, I don't agree that this is a minor issue for higher ed. A fundamental aspect of how research institutions create value is through the institutional disconfirmation of biases in ideas, usually through peer review processes. Through open discussion and the ability to sound ideas that deviate from the norm, errors in knowledge products due to individual biases are corrected, resulting in higher quality generalizable knowledge for society. The thematic elements of this authors letter, namely forced statements breeding conformity, is very relevant to the concept of institutional disconfirmation.
While I personally believe that we can square well-formed DEI programs with scholarly processes, and the call should be for better implemented programs, the prevalence of poorly implemented programs makes this a very germane discussion to higher ed.
I would recommend a book but can't recall the title. Let me skim my bookshelves and see if I can find it.
Edit: the coddling of the American mind, by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt. It did, I think, lay out a good case in the latter half for the importance of not losing sight of the academic process and standards that bring about great scholarship. That said, they do, for obvious reasons, cite the most dramatic examples of poor DEI esque issues and it can feel a little pearl clutching at times. That said, it's a good counterpoint to have for someone in the business of higher ed.
This, I would say, is the most true and harmful part of it all. I have to include DEI and Sexual Harassment Prevention on my performance reviews. It's literally a boilerplate stamp that goes in,...
I will say that one of the issues I have with current DEI implementations is that they are often simple checkboxes rather than meaningful processes, which harms the effort for a number of reasons, including breeding skeptics.
This, I would say, is the most true and harmful part of it all. I have to include DEI and Sexual Harassment Prevention on my performance reviews. It's literally a boilerplate stamp that goes in, verbatim, on all of them.
Two problems, one is that there's a limited space for the reviews, so if a person has a particularly productive year I'm literally downplaying their accomplishments to include it. Two is that it has led to it becoming a joke, when everyone supports DEI in their reviews, no one does.
So, when people hear DEI or Equal Opportunity or Harassment Prevention, everyone's mind just goes to "ah, checking that box." I have to take time from my seminars and training to really dig in a let people know why things are important so that they don't tune out when it's 'that' time.
This comment isn’t going to be terribly useful for conversation because I’ve forgotten all of the details on it, but that book you mentioned is the reason why I tend to just wholesale discount...
This comment isn’t going to be terribly useful for conversation because I’ve forgotten all of the details on it, but that book you mentioned is the reason why I tend to just wholesale discount everything Jonathan Haidt says. He writes about social issues in this roundabout way that tends to obscure his reasoning rather than explain it, which is why I have such a hard time remembering; it was difficult to put everything together enough to realize when his stories were misleading in the first place. It’s very easy to miss what he is trying to actually say and end up agreeing with him because you have just effectively bypassed your internal checks for veracity and logic.
That's funny, but I know what you mean. I read a different book, the case against higher education, and found it to be such milquetoast argument that I can't even recall what I didn't like about...
That's funny, but I know what you mean. I read a different book, the case against higher education, and found it to be such milquetoast argument that I can't even recall what I didn't like about it.
I couldn't say which author contributed what in the coddling of the American mind, but one thing I do recall enjoying was the part about raising children to be adventurous. I read the book while on a multi-week train trip with my young sons, and those portions resonated with me.
That said, as much as I appreciate its treatment of the history of safe spaces, language, and influence on campuses, I felt that they over applied their arguments from the fringe cases to the common.
That said, I try never to entirely write an author off, but do understand it.
I'm not sure it's the case that people are "free to criticise positions". For example, you've got the Lloyds Bank case from a few days ago, where a manager was fired for trying to actively engage...
I'm not sure it's the case that people are "free to criticise positions". For example, you've got the Lloyds Bank case from a few days ago, where a manager was fired for trying to actively engage in DEI and correct his own ignorance, because he used the wrong language while doing so. Like, yes, the guy shouldn't have used the language he did, but the whole point of the training was to learn. And yet they fired him for that. What would that have looked like if he'd been legitimately criticising some part of the training?
I think for me the danger is that what is in principle a valuable concept (training in how to foster diversity in the workplace) becomes a dogma with its own rules that no longer make sense. I remember an all-hands at a previous company where the HR team boasted about having over 60% women in the company. Except, the majority of those women were working in the printing segment of the business - a low-skill, low-pay job that typically attracted women because it was a good source of supplemental income. Essentially, we were completely in line with industry and societal norms, but because we were nominally a tech company, we could pretend to be "diverse".
In this sense, I worry that a lot of these DEI initiatives end up acting like carbon offset schemes. It is not important whether people from diverse backgrounds are actually more accepted in society (because nobody gets paid for that). Instead, it's important that the right boxes have been ticked, and the right certificates awarded, because they can be advertised and give people the sense that things have improved.
Possibly off-topic because I'm discussing your link: I'm very curious how his dyslexia made it so he couldn't say "n-word" instead of using the word... It seems to me that an employer would be...
Possibly off-topic because I'm discussing your link: I'm very curious how his dyslexia made it so he couldn't say "n-word" instead of using the word...
It seems to me that an employer would be justified in firing an employee who uses the word just for the poor judgement that they are showing. If they can't avoid using the word itself, how can they be trusted to represent the company appropriately?
I agree, the dyslexia thing is a bit odd, and I think there are parts of this story that we're not hearing fully. Similarly, the idea of a grown adult needing five days to recuperate from this...
I agree, the dyslexia thing is a bit odd, and I think there are parts of this story that we're not hearing fully. Similarly, the idea of a grown adult needing five days to recuperate from this incident feels weird.
That said, to me the key part of this is that the guy was informed that this was a safe space for questions where he could learn more, and the question he had was informed by a genuine desire to understand a nuanced topic better. He asked his question very poorly, and probably should have known better than to use that language, but the response was completely disproportionate.
To me, that's the danger of these sorts of things: they're not used to actually help people who are disadvantaged, or who want to understand these issues more, but rather they're an exercise in corporate PR.
This kind of training is little more than verification of an employee's willingness to conform. When whole workforces are put through training aimed at pretty fringe views, on racism, for example,...
This kind of training is little more than verification of an employee's willingness to conform. When whole workforces are put through training aimed at pretty fringe views, on racism, for example, the reasonable majority learns not how to identify their own ingrained prejudices (which are surely present, as they are in literally every person in the workforce), but rather they learn how to acceptably speed through such training with the minimum friction. The Lloyds example is a perfect case that seems to produce one very easy lesson -> don't ask questions, sit down and shut up and you'll have fewer problems.
The linked article is looking at Daily Mail reporting. It's important to remember the Daily Mail is misleading, especially on anything to do with race, and so any article that looks at Daily Mail...
The linked article is looking at Daily Mail reporting. It's important to remember the Daily Mail is misleading, especially on anything to do with race, and so any article that looks at Daily Mail reporting will either repeat the misinformation or spend time trying to debunk the misinformation, but either way it's suboptimal. Going direct to the Employment Tribunal decision is useful. It's 46 pages long, and it's full of very careful, very fact specific legal reasoning, but it's pretty clear. I can't summarise it, I don't have the skill to do so.
The decision, linked in the article, explains the dyslexia angle:
We have however upheld one of the disability discrimination claims. The claimant has dyslexia and this can lead him to keep reformulating questions and to ‘spurt’ things out before he loses his train of thought, so that he is concentrating more on the complex thought in his head than how he actually formulates the question and on the surrounding social cues. The evidence led us to believe, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant’s dyslexia was a strong factor causing how he expressed himself at the session, and in his use of the full word rather than finding a means to avoid it.
They say that use of the full word was very strongly wrong, but that's not necessarily enough to dismiss him in this particular instance, but this is highly dependent on the specific facts of the case:
The tribunal believes the Bank was entirely reasonable to hold the view that (1) the full N word is an appalling word which should always be avoided in a professional environment; and (2) even if no malice was intended and the full word was used not as a term of abuse and not as a descriptor of people, nevertheless, simply hearing it said is likely to be intensely painful and shocking for black people because it may well echo other discriminatory experiences in their lives and because of its history and derivation. Indeed white people might also be very uncomfortable if the word is used in their hearing.
Nevertheless, whether the claimant should have been dismissed for using the word, is a different question from whether he ought to have used the word. The tribunal suspects the Bank felt that not dismissing the claimant would somehow be condoning use of the word. In many circumstances, that may be true. But in the very unusual and particular circumstances of this case, the tribunal finds that no reasonable employer would have dismissed the claimant. Had the facts been different, we may well have said otherwise
The very particular circumstances are that this took place at a race education training session, where the whole purpose was to explore intention vs effect, and for the attendees to learn. The Bank accepted that the question was without malice. It was not a matter of the claimant using an opportunity to say the word under guise of an ‘innocent’ question. The word was not used as a term of abuse towards anyone. It was not used as a word to describe anyone. It was used in what the dismissing officer said was a good question. The claimant wanted to learn. The claimant apologised immediately and continued to apologise throughout the disciplinary process. He never used the full word again. There was no evidence that he had ever said or done anything racially discriminatory before. If the Bank wanted to make a point, it could have given the claimant a warning and more training, as he suggested himself.
Just to clarify, the article I linked (and I chose that one specifically because of this) is also basing their information off the tribunal judgement, I don't know where you're seeing that they've...
Just to clarify, the article I linked (and I chose that one specifically because of this) is also basing their information off the tribunal judgement, I don't know where you're seeing that they've based it on the Daily Mail. I know it's from LinkedIn, but it was the best technical summary that I could find, and does point out much of what you've mentioned, in particular points 5 and 6 that you've quoted here. It also links to the tribunal case at the end.
EDIT: I think, rereading your comment, I misunderstood: you're not saying it's based on the DM, you're saying that it's written to prevent misinformation from other articles. That's true, and a good point of clarification. I don't think they specifically mention anything about the DM, though, and like I say, I think the article does a good job of giving a good overview, pulling out some specifics from the judgement, and explaining what that means at the end.
I just figured it out...the screenshot at the top of the article (which I didn't even initially notice) has a center aligned caption that just says "Daily Mail Online." I thought that was saying...
I just figured it out...the screenshot at the top of the article (which I didn't even initially notice) has a center aligned caption that just says "Daily Mail Online." I thought that was saying the article was literally from the Daily Mail and rehosted on LinkedIn, much like Yahoo Finance does.
That barely has anything that wasn't directly stated or that you couldn't infer from the initial article. The dyslexia explanation barely makes it any better and really just sounds like a lawyer...
That barely has anything that wasn't directly stated or that you couldn't infer from the initial article. The dyslexia explanation barely makes it any better and really just sounds like a lawyer seeing an opportunity to use their client's disability to garner sympathy. It honestly sounds like something from other (related) disorders, not dyslexia itself. Perhaps moving to immediately fire them was a hasty decision in this case, but I stand by my claim that it's reasonable for a company to not want to be represented by someone who is incapable of paying attention to the actual words that are coming out of their mouth, regardless of if that was because they used the n-word or because they used some other less-than-diplomatic phrase.
I am confused as to what this means. Where are you that you have to swear allegiance to job roles? How on earth is a DEI statement the way to do that? For comparison, the only allegiance we swear...
I am confused as to what this means. Where are you that you have to swear allegiance to job roles? How on earth is a DEI statement the way to do that?
For comparison, the only allegiance we swear to in any jobs in Canada is to Crown of England, and that only applies with government jobs. That is done by way of an official oath and it is in no way a DEI exercise. I am fairly sure it would be a legal issue if a workplace here made employees swear allegiances upon hiring, we already have legal issues with workplaces trying to do lesser things like mandating prayers.
I’m unsure if you are being serious. I think my meaning is pretty obvious here. If I don’t put in writing my strict adherence to a set of progressive political principles, I can’t get a job in the...
I’m unsure if you are being serious.
I think my meaning is pretty obvious here. If I don’t put in writing my strict adherence to a set of progressive political principles, I can’t get a job in the first place where I would be in a position to criticize those political principles. Which makes the claim that employees are free to criticize those principles laughable.
I am being serious because I have no idea where these situations you describe are happening, and how they are happening in the ways you've identified. Let me ask that question again in a new way:...
I am being serious because I have no idea where these situations you describe are happening, and how they are happening in the ways you've identified. Let me ask that question again in a new way: how have you identified DEI initiatives as being the method for restricting criticism of official positions?
First you describe DEI as somehow an avenue for "swearing allegiance" to certain job roles, and now it's changed to "a set of progressive political principles" that is submitted in writing, that also somehow prevents criticism of... "political principles" (why did this change from criticism of official positions to criticism of political principles?). Both of these sound completely alien as employment requirements, especially the idea that you have to sign a paper saying you cannot have certain political principles, and that that is somehow enforceable. If that was the case, I'd expect every single corporation to gag every single one of their employees in many different ways.
Can you use real-world, actual examples of what you're actually talking about, with specifics and details? Because so far, all these vague references to strange sounding events is extremely confusing and only begs more and more questions. It's highly unclear what you are referring to when it all seems to fantastical. What kinds of political leanings are you describing that would preclude you from jobs, exactly? What are these documents you're forced to sign that you disagree with politically, and what exact politics are so protected by them that you also you cannot criticize those same politics (or, originally, colleagues on the basis of those politics)?
I can think of very, very few political stances where this could actually apply to, and those ones have pretty good reasons for being a barrier to employment considering they lay on the extremist and harmful side of things.
From the article that I assumed we were all talking about. Did you somehow think that the words “official positions” means a job role rather than the official positions, in other words, the...
From the article that I assumed we were all talking about.
Earlier this year, he resigned his three-decade membership in the American Mathematical Society in a letter citing the group’s failure to oppose the growing number of job openings for mathematics faculty that require applicants to draft and submit a statement on diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI.
Did you somehow think that the words “official positions” means a job role rather than the official positions, in other words, the political positions, that a university takes on DEI? I find it hard to believe that anyone would jump to such a tortured reading of what I think is a fairly clear statement.
It’s morally questionable in my view to deny people employment based on political leanings, especially at a university or other government funded institution, whether it is legal or not.
It’s morally questionable in my view to deny people employment based on political leanings, especially at a university or other government funded institution, whether it is legal or not.
I don't agree that it's discrimination in any form, but I'll still go along with it. "Disagreeing with DEI efforts" is not the same as a protected class. I understand that the terms therein are...
I don't agree that it's discrimination in any form, but I'll still go along with it.
"Disagreeing with DEI efforts" is not the same as a protected class. I understand that the terms therein are not all-encompassing, and that there's certainly forms of discrimination that aren't included in that (brief) list. If what the interviewee of the article is experiencing is truly discrimination, then he would have grounds for a lawsuit - potentially a class action, as I'm sure there's plenty of other folks that have experienced similar "discrimination".
I can be on board with the fact that the interviewee was raised in a different culture and at a different time, and as such they have a perspective somewhat outside of what we're experiencing here today. That said, he is comparing the actions of a single university to those of an entire government. The parallels aren't parallel, in my assessment.
We’re kind of talking past each other here. Like I said, I’m not asserting any legal rights here, I’m saying that requiring this kind of ideological conformity is a bad thing.
We’re kind of talking past each other here. Like I said, I’m not asserting any legal rights here, I’m saying that requiring this kind of ideological conformity is a bad thing.
Which only underscores how institutions have their priorities wrong. They give the boot to the visible squeaky wheels while not looking too hard for real problems they may have to fix. Meaningless...
I can guarantee that for every professor who is officially reprimanded for speaking out against this (are there even that many examples of that?), there are many more who are protected despite creating hostile environments for women and minorities (c.f. any of countless examples of professors being serial sexual harassers).
Which only underscores how institutions have their priorities wrong. They give the boot to the visible squeaky wheels while not looking too hard for real problems they may have to fix.
broader impact statements
Meaningless boilerplate. In science, it's all tenuous connections between green energy and anti-cancer drugs. Ranking grant proposals is a mistake. Instead, filter out all the obviously incompetent ones and select the rest randomly.
I think this is the key point that people outside of academia don't get. These policies are largely just the latest implementations about what has been policy and culture for decades, in order to...
Forgive me for not feeling it is that important to rehash what is in my eyes (and many others') a settled question.
I think this is the key point that people outside of academia don't get. These policies are largely just the latest implementations about what has been policy and culture for decades, in order to address that problem of persistent racism and sexism that exists in spite of it. Often just getting new names and/or implementation details...for better and worse.
To add to this, Barvinok's complaints (and those who complain about the DEI process) just don't hold up to examination. The author says he thinks they are a requirement to 'affirm their fealty',...
To add to this, Barvinok's complaints (and those who complain about the DEI process) just don't hold up to examination. The author says he thinks they are a requirement to 'affirm their fealty', but it's not a requirement, just something that will likely get you weeded out of the applicant pool if you don't write something positive. But how is this any different than how people already embellish and lie about their experience, job descriptions and more on their resume already? Why is attention focused on this part of the process rather than say, 'requires five years of experience' in the job posting?
The part about soviet era loyalty oaths is just as confusing. There are a bunch of other oaths many institutions require that they have to swear to, often including but not limited to an oath to defend the constitution of the US and state of residence, to not advocate or be a member of any party that's looking to overthrow the government, and to report child abuse to the appropriate authorities. Why is this oath being singled out, with no mention of other oaths which were sworn? Perhaps because the author doesn't actually care about oaths being sworn, but only when they must swear an oath they know they cannot endorse. But that doesn't even apply here, since writing a letter about your thoughts on DEI as a part of an application process is not an oath by any stretch of the imagination.
We live in an increasingly competitive world. I'm sure if Barvinok wanted to teach at a less prestigious university that such DEI requirements might be entirely absent or the bar be much lower. It's silly to think that these increasing requirements for securing a position are anything but a reflection of the increasingly globalized world we live in, and institutions either responding to an increase in supply of eligible professors and the ability to be more picky, or an increase in demand from students for a place of education to be more than just where they go to learn their trade, but somewhere they go to learn how to be better.
But also there's just a general negative vibe the subject that Barvinok gives off. He calls humanities 'ideologically infested', negatively frames praising people who contribute to the betterment of humanity at large, only seems to speak about diversity in a negative light (they don't specify how people are harmed, they fight amongst themselves, they never accomplish anything), and highlights all the pain that someone might receive for speaking up while simultaneously compressing the message they give down to a single point (pro/anti DEI statement) which ignores the specifics of the message given (a positive statement endorsing DEI is not analogous to a negative statement swearing not to be a member of a specific political party). It also doesn't help that he thinks everything is a zero sum game and that if you're not doing good that you must be doing harm.
The world has moved on and he refuses to join it. It's sad, because there are some nuggets of wisdom in what he's saying and some of the points being brought up. For example, the criticism he gives for the statement 'we have work to do' being 'an unmistakable indicator that no work would be done' is a concise and accurate take on people who care more about appearing progressive than actually being progressive. He's also correct that DEI can be and is sometimes weaponized by folks in order to further their own needs or goals. But it's really hard to give these any credit when the way they're called out is specifically to attempt to bolster his own opinion, rather than a critique of how these can be harmful to everyone, including individuals he disagrees with. It seems fairly clear that Barvinok and folks like him are more concerned on their ability to air their thoughts with impunity than they are concerned about whether these organizations can be criticized in the first place. As you said, they're all free to criticize, but they are not free from the consequences of doing so.
The take in the article is exhausting honestly. Another concerned libertarian worrying if maybe we've gone too far with all this recognizing the humanity of minorities. Isn't it kind of like the...
The take in the article is exhausting honestly. Another concerned libertarian worrying if maybe we've gone too far with all this recognizing the humanity of minorities. Isn't it kind of like the Soviet Union?
This situation seems pretty benign to me. This guy chose to resign because of opposition to DEI statements in job applications. He was not removed or otherwise forced out. As for the statements themselves, I don't have strong feelings on their inclusion in the process one way or the other, but it strikes me as another piece of promotional fluff you're expected to produce as part of applying to a professional job. Just like if you can't put a resume or cover letter together, if you can't muddle your way through a statement about how some people are different and that's ok without letting your crazy slip through, I have reservations about your qualifications for a position in education.
I also have the opinion that DEI statements are in the same bucket as résumés and cover letters. However, it’s the opposite bucket as yours: all three merely serve to make the hiring committee...
I also have the opinion that DEI statements are in the same bucket as résumés and cover letters. However, it’s the opposite bucket as yours: all three merely serve to make the hiring committee feel good about itself and have zero correlation to job performance.
Really depends on the job. If your job involves bullshitting professionally; which many, many jobs do (mine included), being able to tailor a resume, cover letter, and DEI or any other statement...
Really depends on the job. If your job involves bullshitting professionally; which many, many jobs do (mine included), being able to tailor a resume, cover letter, and DEI or any other statement to the organizations particular brand of bullshit is a real measurable skill, and an excellent indicator of your job performance, I’ve found.
For certain jobs, especially jobs that don’t require interaction with lots of other people, or which don’t require you to bullshit them often, no, there should be better methods of weeding out candidates, generally.
I can’t wait for AI to remove the remaining signal in the soup of jobs that require bullshitting. Then it will be a true stupid test. Can’t convince the computer to string together passable words?...
I can’t wait for AI to remove the remaining signal in the soup of jobs that require bullshitting. Then it will be a true stupid test. Can’t convince the computer to string together passable words? Either too idiotic to engineer a prompt or too pedantically committed to human effort. In either case, unemployable in those fields.
The real fun arrives when the masses figure out how to sound impressive with Grammarly assistance when applying for jobs but have NOT figured out they can apply the same skills to the actual job. I have no idea how flippant or serious this next statement is, but I will point and laugh at anyone who has their investment portfolio zeroed when industry-wide productivity dramatically underperforms expectations from the “all-star” hiring cohort.
I think we have to step back a bit from our online culture. As you said, he wasn't fired: he resigned as a protest. This is low stakes stuff. His position is nuanced here, more about the process...
I think we have to step back a bit from our online culture. As you said, he wasn't fired: he resigned as a protest. This is low stakes stuff. His position is nuanced here, more about the process and him bringing in his past trauma. But the instinct is always there to try and throw wood on the fire.
I would disagree with your comment here though:
if you can't muddle your way through a statement about how some people are different and that's ok without letting your crazy slip through, I have reservations about your qualifications for a position in education.
DEI statement shouldn't be some trick to try and out the "bad guys". On the contrary, they should be there to address systematic racism by getting everybody on board. Ideally they'd be a chance for everyone to confront and analyze the problems of our institutions.
Totally agree on the "ideally" part. If you've got a strong and impactful DEI statement full of personal experience, I think that should absolutely weigh positively on your candidacy. Of course,...
Totally agree on the "ideally" part. If you've got a strong and impactful DEI statement full of personal experience, I think that should absolutely weigh positively on your candidacy. Of course, if it otherwise makes you melt into a puddle of "reverse racism" and whiny articles in The Atlantic, well, that's good to know ahead of time.
I think that now, though, even your position of "if you can't muddle your way through a statement about [XYZ]" needs amending to "if you can't muddle your way through writing a prompt to generate...
I think that now, though, even your position of "if you can't muddle your way through a statement about [XYZ]" needs amending to "if you can't muddle your way through writing a prompt to generate a statement about [XYZ]". Generative AI makes it astonishingly simple to basically bat aside this kind of fluff barrier. To the point where it's not really a check of what you believe, but rather a quick check of how willing you are to participate in some performative behaviour. So it becomes a measure of conformity, rather than a measure of actual prejudice (or lack of it, hopefully).
Bingo. It's like the "the milk and bread test" in American Politics. Though I'm given to understand it takes place in other countries as well. At some point, in Ye Olden Times, a clever reporter...
Bingo.
It's like the "the milk and bread test" in American Politics. Though I'm given to understand it takes place in other countries as well.
At some point, in Ye Olden Times, a clever reporter popped a simple question on a politician running for office. "How much does a gallon of milk and loaf of bread cost?" If the politician doesn't know, they're "out of touch" and not a good fit for representing the common citizen.
Except this is gameable. Politicians just staff it out, they don't even have to look the information up themselves, or deal with it really. One of their functionaries has the information ready, and it's included in their prep for appearances. "Oh, and remember sir/ma'am, in this state milk is $2.60/gal and bread is $1.75/loaf."
The point of the question is to try and figure out if the politician feels the fears and situation of ordinary citizens. But the question is meaningless when they game it. The statements in this topic are the same way.
The "diversity statements" outlined by the professor in the article are just a litany basically. And just as religious. If you don't say them, clearly something's wrong with you. So you have to mouth them or people target you, same as the priests target you for not mouthing the prayers. It's just something you're expected to say. And something you're apparently evil and suspect for questioning in any way.
That's dangerously scary thoughtpolicing. It's not punishing actions, but assumed thoughts. It's targeting people who have done nothing actionable except refuse to pledge allegiance to the flag. They're not being targeted for punishment because they've done anything, only because they won't say the words.
"If you've nothing to hide, why are you hiding? Why won't you let us search you, your house, your car, go through your things. Stop resisting. Comply. Comply!"
Now I'm hoping that the investigation into the next professor who is fired for legitimate sexual harassment or racism uncovers that he had a flawless DEI statement generated by AI.
Now I'm hoping that the investigation into the next professor who is fired for legitimate sexual harassment or racism uncovers that he had a flawless DEI statement generated by AI.
While the extreme people you describe certainly do exist I think comparing a DEI statement to the Soviet Union is a false equivalency. Western society has treated minorities, women, homosexuals,...
While the extreme people you describe certainly do exist I think comparing a DEI statement to the Soviet Union is a false equivalency. Western society has treated minorities, women, homosexuals, etc horribly for so long I would rather over correct than the previous option. Sure, maybe some people who don't deserve it will get "cancelled" but that's still better in my opinion than lynching, marital rape or conversion therapy.
Barvinok is still free to leave the mathematics society and speak out with zero real repercussions, which he did. He still has his job and tenure. I doubt he would have had the same freedom in the Soviet Union.
Well, if you'd like to feel better, two things - Your comment made me think "Well, now I've got to read this article." I agree with your stance. I recently had a performance review of a great...
Well, if you'd like to feel better, two things -
Your comment made me think "Well, now I've got to read this article."
I agree with your stance. I recently had a performance review of a great subordinate kicked back because I didn't mention that she also happened to uphold our sexual harassment policies this year.
I believe I understand the core of what you're thinking but it made me think of a meme I saw saying "Leftists who get annoyed by leftists and become right wing in response are weak. True leftists get annoyed by leftists every day and stay left." Or something like that.
Though, I just admit I was laughing at this comment
Do we really want our math departments to be populated by conformists?
Because if there's any department I'd expect to find conformists, it'd probably be math departments. Isn't that why Terrence Howard got laughed out of the room? "Think different" isn't there algebra slogan after all.
As a mathematician, we value differences in thought quite highly. Not only does it make for more interesting people and discussions, in math there are many ways to solve a problem, and many...
As a mathematician, we value differences in thought quite highly. Not only does it make for more interesting people and discussions, in math there are many ways to solve a problem, and many possible avenues to discover something new. I could form and prove a set of theories that would allow me to replicate the complete work of calculus using just the rational numbers. Some people have. Maybe someday that helps solve a bigger problem down the line.
Mathematicians love to prove weird things weird ways because you never know when that one little trick becomes a critical step in a novel proof. P-adic numbers used to be a curiosity until, boom, one of the most important tools in math.
Plus, there is a large contingent of mathematicians who feel more in line with the arts rather than the sciences because of the creative work in theoretical proofs, category theory, and other more abstract areas. Of course there is also a large contingent of applied folks, and sometimes mathematicians talking about each other sound like Willie from the Simpsons.
Yes. People have this idea that the field of mathematics is a realm of pure certainty, with no space for tension, opinion, subjectivity, and disagreement. It only takes meeting a group of...
Yes. People have this idea that the field of mathematics is a realm of pure certainty, with no space for tension, opinion, subjectivity, and disagreement. It only takes meeting a group of mathematicians to change that opinion.
How can it equal one? If one times one equals one that means that two is of no value because one times itself has no effect. One times one equals two because the square root of four is two, so...
How can it equal one? If one times one equals one that means that two is of no value because one times itself has no effect. One times one equals two because the square root of four is two, so what's the square root of two? Should be one, but we're told it's two, and that cannot be.
Thanks for your comment, I think it helped set a good tone for this discussion. I am definitely pro-DEI, but it was helpful to see the structure of an objection with a rational argument. I think...
Thanks for your comment, I think it helped set a good tone for this discussion.
I am definitely pro-DEI, but it was helpful to see the structure of an objection with a rational argument.
I think the MAGA folks (and others) so prominently railing against wokeness in the media can make it feel like there is no reasonable objection.
I'm not sure I would characterize his position in terms of left or right though. It seems more contrarian than anything else.
I can't really find agreement with him though. I can feel empathy for how things that remind him of past trauma affect him, and except his position in that context. That part about his translation work becoming worthless due to hyperinflation while he's struggling to survive is frankly terrifying to think about.
I think where it breaks down for me is that his attitude treats academia and intellectual freedom as though it were some kind of pure world where ideas exist for their own sake. If that were the case, then I can see taking such a stance. But academia is part of the world. It's messy and flawed in practice. In my experience, it rarely lives up to the hype. And it's definitely harmed women and minorities in clear and measurable ways. I see DEI as the best effort (so far) of a broken and imperfect system to use broken and imperfect tools.
Because Germany has some very strict anti-anti-semitism laws. For good reason. The entire reason Israel was formed. Many other countries have some reasonable wiggle room to debate if the creation...
Because Germany has some very strict anti-anti-semitism laws. For good reason. The entire reason Israel was formed.
Many other countries have some reasonable wiggle room to debate if the creation of modern Israel was the correct path. Germany is not one of them.
Germany's anti-hate speech laws are not why they're forcing immigrants who wish to naturalize to essentially swear allegiance to a state that isn't Germany. This policy in Sachsen-Anhalt exists as...
Germany's anti-hate speech laws are not why they're forcing immigrants who wish to naturalize to essentially swear allegiance to a state that isn't Germany. This policy in Sachsen-Anhalt exists as a way for politicians in one of Germany's most right-wing states to reduce immigration disproportionately from those with Arab backgrounds while using a veneer of opposition to antisemitism as an excuse. Antisemitism in Germany is and has always been primarily driven by born-and-bred Germans, who are not required at any point in their lives to swear they believe Israel has a right to exist. This is just one of a myriad ways in which ethnonationalists launder their beliefs that immigrants are ruining Germany into something a broader political audience will accept.
As someone who occupies leadership positions in higher ed, I have both written and reviewed DEI letters while applying for jobs and while hiring. My general thought is that the devil is in the...
As someone who occupies leadership positions in higher ed, I have both written and reviewed DEI letters while applying for jobs and while hiring. My general thought is that the devil is in the details. I have seen both really interesting and really bothersome DEI prompts. I've been interviewed and given public presentations on DEI topics, and seen some institutions use them to virtue signal and others to challenge applicants to show they can meaningfully work and support a diverse environment.
So I would reserve judgement for specific cases. That said, this professors position is real and warranted. I've seen DEI used as a screen to circumvent normal hiring criteria, or to overreach what is reasonable to expect in a given position in terms of DEI leadership. Specifically, using knowledge of group shibboleths is particularly odious to me because a person could be a wonderful, open, and empathetic candidate, who just doesn't know the word of the day to get the job.
So good for this guy in taking a stand; I just hope people can pause their knee jerk long enough to consider carefully the good and the bad.
Man, it would have been so easy. The interviewer could just have asked where Barvinok stood politically, whether progressive ideals, despite him being so worried about them being forced upon him,...
Man, it would have been so easy. The interviewer could just have asked where Barvinok stood politically, whether progressive ideals, despite him being so worried about them being forced upon him, is something he believe in or something he's against.
For instance, a month after the US police murdered George Floyd, he's annoyed that a math-department committee says that systematic racism is a thing. Here it would be pretty relevant to know if he believe systematic racism is a thing.
Throughout the piece, there is this weird insistance on pretending that he exist in this neutral, very science space, high above the realm of politics, from where he can apolitically criticize progressive endavors.
A classic strategy among bigots is to place themselves outside their own views, and, as outside observers, declares that "people" should have the right to voice those views while they (notice the irony), carefully avoid voicing those views themselves. And it sound an awful lot like when he's saying that:
The third trend he noticed was the changing nature of debate. More and more often, someone would claim that an argument was harming a particular demographic, often without specifying how. As he recalls it, “It was at this ‘harm’ stage that people became afraid to speak their minds.”
It's true that perfectly relevant topics are sometimes avoided for no good reasons. Like how this piece carefully avoid touching upon his political views. But the quote above is so vague that I begin to wonder what it is saying, exactly; if it is intentionally vague. What arguments are silenced? Which “demographics” are claimed to be harmed, are they by any chance minorities? And if so, which minorities? Just say it, talk about the thing you're talking about.
If he's a progressive, then I still don't think he make a very good argument. But I may at least find it interesting that someone may arrive at that position from a progressive starting point. If...
If he's a progressive, then I still don't think he make a very good argument. But I may at least find it interesting that someone may arrive at that position from a progressive starting point.
If he's a reactionary, then it is pretty obvious that he's arguing in bad faith. He's against getting that mail about systematic racism being a thing simply because he is against the idea of systematic racism. I don't feel it is worth my time to consider ideas if the one presenting them doesn't actually believe in them themselves.
He's an immigrant from a country that did not historically participate in chattel slavery based on color, did make interesting failed attempts to implement equal rights for women earlier than we...
He's an immigrant from a country that did not historically participate in chattel slavery based on color, did make interesting failed attempts to implement equal rights for women earlier than we did, and did historically commit atrocities in the name of implementing progressive ideals. I don't blame him for being jumpy about perceived attempts at thought control or imposing ideological litmus tests.
I was intrigued by his personal history related to Jewish ethnicity and thought it could serve as an interesting foundation to a diversity statement if he had chosen to make one.
He might very well be racist or sexist or ableist, but I was interested to hear what he had to say and I suspect it would be easy to misjudge his perspective.
I think it's mostly that a lot of what he says is so wuzzy that I can't make out what his arguments are. He is voicing political opinions, but from this weird perspective where it's pretended that...
You say, assuming he's a progressive, that he hasn't made a good argument. Can you expand on that? (If you don't want to spend the time though I completely understand.)
I think it's mostly that a lot of what he says is so wuzzy that I can't make out what his arguments are. He is voicing political opinions, but from this weird perspective where it's pretended that he's voicing them from some kind of non-political stance.
His resignation letter to AMS, which he leaves after three decades, is a protest about some politics making the field more inclusive to various groups. But he makes a point of not addressing this goal of all, it could just as well be about being forced to say that "I passionately believe that water would certainly wet us, as fire would certainly burn”, (guess he meant "ass" not "as") Whether those (admittedly buraucratic and unsexy) politics would result in a more inclusiveness, this is simply not something he care about. But he do care about is that:
people can be simply afraid to voice their opinions (...). The fears of being accused of having certain pernicious attitudes and creating an unsafe environment, as well as the fear of losing one’s livelihood are not without merit.
Sure, that would be bad. But the flipside of people not having to worry about being acused of having certain pernicious attitudes and creating an unsafe environment, is that people may do just that. But that is simply not an issue.
In the early 2000, when Islamophobia was rampant, hate groups sprouted up everywhere, wars were started, and the US ran a literal international torture program, what filled his little head was that he "were increasingly expected to contribute, so to speak, to the betterment of humanity at large"
After the murder of George Floyd, what affected him was that he got that email saying that systematic racism was bad.
His grieviances just seem so priviledged and petty.
I just find it frustrating that so many progressives, instead of addressing an argument on its merits, instead immediately look for facts of a person's identity as justification to discredit them
As I understand it, by "look for facts of a person's identity" you don't mean thing like that they are skinny or that they are collecting stamps ironically. What you talk about is me trying to figure out whether Barvinok is driven by things like misogyny, homophobia, racism or transphobia. I have long ago dismissed such ideas as being hot garbage, so if a person's identity is dominated by those, I simply won't bother with them.
And depressingly, the vast majority of the ideas that challenge my views just end up being the above with a fernis of bad faith. So I click open an article already having a feeling that this would be X category of toxic shit, and likely would use this and that logical fallacy, and most of the time, it's pretty much exactly that.
But progressives don't actually want that. What they want most of all is having their world view shattered, exploring new ground. Even finding out cringe uncool things about themselves is sometimes accompaniet with a sort of masochistic excitement—"Oh my gawd, I was like, totally racist there, and I wasn't even aware!"
Finding that someone is likely engaging in bad faith is certainly a good reason to not spend your time engaging them in an online forum, but that judgment call does not in and of itself invalidate any argument they are making.
You are right that a bad faith argument could, by happenchance, have merits on its own. Even if something is a lie, there is always some little unpleasant facts which suggests that it is not. And I could point out those regarding various minority groups. But I choose not to, because even as factual, smearing it around makes the world worse, not better.
But mostly bad faith argument are sort of like an inverted Suduko, where it looks like everything fits, but where you have to scrutinize it carefully to find out why exactly it doesn't make sense. I remember a Reddit post (wish I'd saved it) which despite being only two lines long raised all kind of red flags in me. But try as I might, I could figure out why. Then someone wrote a reply entangling it, exposing exactly what was so utter wrong about the post. But the reply was an entire screenlength long, that how much it took to explain the mechanics of the two-line bad faith argument.
And rhetorically, its really amazing, all those logical fallacies, dogwhistles, mindgames and hidden suggestions. I unironically think that the far right have a much more sophisticated use of language than any progressive.
You just said you dislike the "very tribal mentality" of looking at a person's identity as justification to discredit them, but specifically credited it toward progressives. The same can be said...
I just find it frustrating that so many progressives, instead of addressing an argument on its merits, instead immediately look for facts of a person's identity as justification to discredit them and to not engage with the argument they are making. It's a very tribal mentality, and tribal mentalities are dangerous, as they mostly change who is doing the victimizing rather than curtailing victimization. We abhor this mentality in the right yet tolerate it too much on the left.
You just said you dislike the "very tribal mentality" of looking at a person's identity as justification to discredit them, but specifically credited it toward progressives. The same can be said of any political view, be it left or right or any other direction. I would encourage you to remember that.
More frustrating, sure; fine. I still rankle with it being pointed out as a problem with progressives. The framing of the statement, to me, suggests pointing out the problem as existing within...
More frustrating, sure; fine. I still rankle with it being pointed out as a problem with progressives.
The framing of the statement, to me, suggests pointing out the problem as existing within progressive movements rather than it being an issue with politics or human nature in general. u/rez did point out the problem being extant on the right and on the left - granted, as the last statement in a paragraph criticizing progressives.
I'm being a pedant, and those that know me know that I love me some pedantry.
The solution to what? Anyhow, "the same DEI mold" doesn't seem all the repressive to me. It's just having to acknowledge, or being assume to acknowledge, some very basic humane ideas. Like that he...
The solution to what?
Anyhow, "the same DEI mold" doesn't seem all the repressive to me. It's just having to acknowledge, or being assume to acknowledge, some very basic humane ideas. Like that he got that email about systematic racism being a thing.
https://web.archive.org/web/20240114160919/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/professor-american-academia-parallels-soviet-union/676305/ Archive link for anyone stuck at the paywall
It's sad to think many people will read this (or, more likely, the title and a comment or two, once this topic is populated) and come away with the unjustified assumption that Barvinok is just a [racist, homophobe, fill in the blank]. The unease many of us feel over the current climate of shaming people over anything that challenges the current status quo re statements' acceptability in public discourse—up to and including firing/"cancelling" people for disagreeing with that culture—is not due to some deep-set bigotry, but an instinct to protect freedom of thought. It doesn't feel good to be coerced or forced under duress into publicly holding extreme beliefs, but that is what happens when a small subset of the population thinks they are intellectually and morally superior—they feel justified in smacking down everyone who thinks differently. It isn't right. (That is, it's wrong.) And if all discussion on these matters is just shut down immediately, we'll never be able to make progress as a society, because as we now know very well, that tactic only further entrenches people in their beliefs.
Not to take this too far off topic, but in the last week or so, I've seen too many examples of this kind of behavior. Some people refuse to even engage with dissenting opinions in good faith, instead opting for sarcasm and cruel derision from (ostensible) high ground. But at the end of the day, it's nothing more than posturing. It doesn't change minds. It just makes them look...well, bad. And to be quite honest, as one who generally agrees with the verdicts these people have made (but obviously not their tactics), it really weakens the standing of these positions in the public eye, because anyone would come away from a "discussion" like that thinking their opponent (shouldn't be a brawl, btw) can't actually defend their viewpoint. To be honest, I'm embarrassed to even make it known that I agree with them a lot of the time, because the general perception in pubic is that people who hold progressive views are basically children having tantrums, thanks entirely to people online who think abuse is acceptable as long as they're punching down on those who are morally inferior (by their judgment).
Please pardon my tangent, but I have to agree with Barvinok here. If we shut down the ability to criticize official positions, whether in academia, any other workplace, or simply in public, then we're certainly not heading toward a freer future.
What exactly are the 'extreme beliefs' that people are being coerced into holding? That diversity in the academy is a positive goal?
As someone in academia, I really struggle to see these diversity statements being anything close to Soviet era loyalty oaths or whatever. And to be honest, I've been in this setting for long enough now to have a somewhat cynical view of people who hoot and holler about "broader impact" statements on grant proposals. Most of the time, to me, it just sounds like someone complaining that they have to engage with the larger context of their academic position within society and can't just "focus on their research". And when you are asking for public funds, I personally think you should have to think a bit about the ways your research can impact society as a whole. There is a genuine and concerted assault on higher education in the US at the moment, and its not coming from the left and its not because of diversity statements.
Except that is not even close to what is happening. People are absolutely free to criticize official positions, but they are not free from the consequences from their peers and others of making those positions publicly known. And I can guarantee that for every professor who is officially reprimanded for speaking out against this (are there even that many examples of that?), there are many more who are protected despite creating hostile environments for women and minorities (c.f. any of countless examples of professors being serial sexual harassers).
I am all for ideas being assessed in the marketplace of ideas, but people act like we as a society haven't already done that for a lot of these ideas, and there has been a clear winner. The march towards a more inclusive academy has been a rocky one over the past century, and the question of who gets to be included has been endlessly debated in all sorts of contexts. Forgive me for not feeling it is that important to rehash what is in my eyes (and many others') a settled question.
I remember a job interview I had for a c-suite position at a university where I was recruited by the firm contracted for the search. I wrote a DEI letter, which received glowing feedback from the search firm, who afterwards said they used it with their teams as an exemplar. I went through the process, and the firm shared feedback throughout, including glowing remarks from the division I would head, the cabinet, etc.
Afterwards the firm told me I was the top candidate, but the university decided to cancel the search and restart. I accepted the loss and moved on, but literally the next day was called back. It turns out the firm pressed the university as to why, and they said the DEI office had said they weren't excited about my answers. The firm pushed, and it turns out that when I was asked to give an example of developing diversity I gave examples of career mentorship and going to bat for a few specific women who worked for me in a make dominated field and who were facing discrimination when asserting themselves.
The firm read them the riot act a bit, because I guess the DEI folks didn't know that women were a minority in that field. The president of the University reversed the decision and the firm called me back.
Long and short, they offered, we talked, I declined.
At the same time, I've had some wonderful DEI prompts that led to great discussions about exercises in perspective taking, etc.
So as I said in another comment, I reserve judgement for individual cases. But I have certainly seen DEI misused and misapplied. It's not always just people disliking things and being against diversity. Some DEI offices use group shibboleths as litmus tests for group membership or participation rather than really assessing an individuals qualities.
But on the whole, I'm glad for DEI efforts and have been on the hiring side and set such requirements often enough myself. But I've also seen enough odious behavior to give the benefit of the doubt when people do raise well articulated concerns.
Have a great evening!
To be clear, I agree that they are imperfectly implemented. In fact, the general state of DEI in academia is good testament to the fact that current approaches are not enough — in some sense then, these statements are the bare minimum. Just like with any other aspect of the hiring process, these metrics can be misused or misunderstood even by the people doing the hiring. In any case, while there may be problems here, in my view they are so minor in comparison to everything else going on in higher ed right now, for example the recent "plagiarism" crusades being instigated by right wing actors, less and less independence from the state (c.f. Florida), and other issues.
The issues in Florida and Congress don't have anything to do with this one professors letter. The merits of his position should be evaluated on their own and not set aside because there are other issues.
I will say that one of the issues I have with current DEI implementations is that they are often simple checkboxes rather than meaningful processes, which harms the effort for a number of reasons, including breeding skeptics.
That said, I don't agree that this is a minor issue for higher ed. A fundamental aspect of how research institutions create value is through the institutional disconfirmation of biases in ideas, usually through peer review processes. Through open discussion and the ability to sound ideas that deviate from the norm, errors in knowledge products due to individual biases are corrected, resulting in higher quality generalizable knowledge for society. The thematic elements of this authors letter, namely forced statements breeding conformity, is very relevant to the concept of institutional disconfirmation.
While I personally believe that we can square well-formed DEI programs with scholarly processes, and the call should be for better implemented programs, the prevalence of poorly implemented programs makes this a very germane discussion to higher ed.
I would recommend a book but can't recall the title. Let me skim my bookshelves and see if I can find it.
Edit: the coddling of the American mind, by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt. It did, I think, lay out a good case in the latter half for the importance of not losing sight of the academic process and standards that bring about great scholarship. That said, they do, for obvious reasons, cite the most dramatic examples of poor DEI esque issues and it can feel a little pearl clutching at times. That said, it's a good counterpoint to have for someone in the business of higher ed.
This, I would say, is the most true and harmful part of it all. I have to include DEI and Sexual Harassment Prevention on my performance reviews. It's literally a boilerplate stamp that goes in, verbatim, on all of them.
Two problems, one is that there's a limited space for the reviews, so if a person has a particularly productive year I'm literally downplaying their accomplishments to include it. Two is that it has led to it becoming a joke, when everyone supports DEI in their reviews, no one does.
So, when people hear DEI or Equal Opportunity or Harassment Prevention, everyone's mind just goes to "ah, checking that box." I have to take time from my seminars and training to really dig in a let people know why things are important so that they don't tune out when it's 'that' time.
This comment isn’t going to be terribly useful for conversation because I’ve forgotten all of the details on it, but that book you mentioned is the reason why I tend to just wholesale discount everything Jonathan Haidt says. He writes about social issues in this roundabout way that tends to obscure his reasoning rather than explain it, which is why I have such a hard time remembering; it was difficult to put everything together enough to realize when his stories were misleading in the first place. It’s very easy to miss what he is trying to actually say and end up agreeing with him because you have just effectively bypassed your internal checks for veracity and logic.
That's funny, but I know what you mean. I read a different book, the case against higher education, and found it to be such milquetoast argument that I can't even recall what I didn't like about it.
I couldn't say which author contributed what in the coddling of the American mind, but one thing I do recall enjoying was the part about raising children to be adventurous. I read the book while on a multi-week train trip with my young sons, and those portions resonated with me.
That said, as much as I appreciate its treatment of the history of safe spaces, language, and influence on campuses, I felt that they over applied their arguments from the fringe cases to the common.
That said, I try never to entirely write an author off, but do understand it.
Thanks for the reply, and have a great day!
I'm not sure it's the case that people are "free to criticise positions". For example, you've got the Lloyds Bank case from a few days ago, where a manager was fired for trying to actively engage in DEI and correct his own ignorance, because he used the wrong language while doing so. Like, yes, the guy shouldn't have used the language he did, but the whole point of the training was to learn. And yet they fired him for that. What would that have looked like if he'd been legitimately criticising some part of the training?
I think for me the danger is that what is in principle a valuable concept (training in how to foster diversity in the workplace) becomes a dogma with its own rules that no longer make sense. I remember an all-hands at a previous company where the HR team boasted about having over 60% women in the company. Except, the majority of those women were working in the printing segment of the business - a low-skill, low-pay job that typically attracted women because it was a good source of supplemental income. Essentially, we were completely in line with industry and societal norms, but because we were nominally a tech company, we could pretend to be "diverse".
In this sense, I worry that a lot of these DEI initiatives end up acting like carbon offset schemes. It is not important whether people from diverse backgrounds are actually more accepted in society (because nobody gets paid for that). Instead, it's important that the right boxes have been ticked, and the right certificates awarded, because they can be advertised and give people the sense that things have improved.
Possibly off-topic because I'm discussing your link: I'm very curious how his dyslexia made it so he couldn't say "n-word" instead of using the word...
It seems to me that an employer would be justified in firing an employee who uses the word just for the poor judgement that they are showing. If they can't avoid using the word itself, how can they be trusted to represent the company appropriately?
I agree, the dyslexia thing is a bit odd, and I think there are parts of this story that we're not hearing fully. Similarly, the idea of a grown adult needing five days to recuperate from this incident feels weird.
That said, to me the key part of this is that the guy was informed that this was a safe space for questions where he could learn more, and the question he had was informed by a genuine desire to understand a nuanced topic better. He asked his question very poorly, and probably should have known better than to use that language, but the response was completely disproportionate.
To me, that's the danger of these sorts of things: they're not used to actually help people who are disadvantaged, or who want to understand these issues more, but rather they're an exercise in corporate PR.
This kind of training is little more than verification of an employee's willingness to conform. When whole workforces are put through training aimed at pretty fringe views, on racism, for example, the reasonable majority learns not how to identify their own ingrained prejudices (which are surely present, as they are in literally every person in the workforce), but rather they learn how to acceptably speed through such training with the minimum friction. The Lloyds example is a perfect case that seems to produce one very easy lesson -> don't ask questions, sit down and shut up and you'll have fewer problems.
Do ask questions...just don't be stupid enough to use the n-word...unless you want to win £490k.
And a compliance checkbox for insurance against harassment lawsuits.
The linked article is looking at Daily Mail reporting. It's important to remember the Daily Mail is misleading, especially on anything to do with race, and so any article that looks at Daily Mail reporting will either repeat the misinformation or spend time trying to debunk the misinformation, but either way it's suboptimal. Going direct to the Employment Tribunal decision is useful. It's 46 pages long, and it's full of very careful, very fact specific legal reasoning, but it's pretty clear. I can't summarise it, I don't have the skill to do so.
The decision, linked in the article, explains the dyslexia angle:
They say that use of the full word was very strongly wrong, but that's not necessarily enough to dismiss him in this particular instance, but this is highly dependent on the specific facts of the case:
Just to clarify, the article I linked (and I chose that one specifically because of this) is also basing their information off the tribunal judgement, I don't know where you're seeing that they've based it on the Daily Mail. I know it's from LinkedIn, but it was the best technical summary that I could find, and does point out much of what you've mentioned, in particular points 5 and 6 that you've quoted here. It also links to the tribunal case at the end.
EDIT: I think, rereading your comment, I misunderstood: you're not saying it's based on the DM, you're saying that it's written to prevent misinformation from other articles. That's true, and a good point of clarification. I don't think they specifically mention anything about the DM, though, and like I say, I think the article does a good job of giving a good overview, pulling out some specifics from the judgement, and explaining what that means at the end.
I just figured it out...the screenshot at the top of the article (which I didn't even initially notice) has a center aligned caption that just says "Daily Mail Online." I thought that was saying the article was literally from the Daily Mail and rehosted on LinkedIn, much like Yahoo Finance does.
That barely has anything that wasn't directly stated or that you couldn't infer from the initial article. The dyslexia explanation barely makes it any better and really just sounds like a lawyer seeing an opportunity to use their client's disability to garner sympathy. It honestly sounds like something from other (related) disorders, not dyslexia itself. Perhaps moving to immediately fire them was a hasty decision in this case, but I stand by my claim that it's reasonable for a company to not want to be represented by someone who is incapable of paying attention to the actual words that are coming out of their mouth, regardless of if that was because they used the n-word or because they used some other less-than-diplomatic phrase.
I agree with you! I'm just highlighting what the judges said about it.
You can’t even be hired without explicitly swearing allegiance to the official positions in writing, by providing a DEI statement.
I am confused as to what this means. Where are you that you have to swear allegiance to job roles? How on earth is a DEI statement the way to do that?
For comparison, the only allegiance we swear to in any jobs in Canada is to Crown of England, and that only applies with government jobs. That is done by way of an official oath and it is in no way a DEI exercise. I am fairly sure it would be a legal issue if a workplace here made employees swear allegiances upon hiring, we already have legal issues with workplaces trying to do lesser things like mandating prayers.
I’m unsure if you are being serious.
I think my meaning is pretty obvious here. If I don’t put in writing my strict adherence to a set of progressive political principles, I can’t get a job in the first place where I would be in a position to criticize those political principles. Which makes the claim that employees are free to criticize those principles laughable.
I am being serious because I have no idea where these situations you describe are happening, and how they are happening in the ways you've identified. Let me ask that question again in a new way: how have you identified DEI initiatives as being the method for restricting criticism of official positions?
First you describe DEI as somehow an avenue for "swearing allegiance" to certain job roles, and now it's changed to "a set of progressive political principles" that is submitted in writing, that also somehow prevents criticism of... "political principles" (why did this change from criticism of official positions to criticism of political principles?). Both of these sound completely alien as employment requirements, especially the idea that you have to sign a paper saying you cannot have certain political principles, and that that is somehow enforceable. If that was the case, I'd expect every single corporation to gag every single one of their employees in many different ways.
Can you use real-world, actual examples of what you're actually talking about, with specifics and details? Because so far, all these vague references to strange sounding events is extremely confusing and only begs more and more questions. It's highly unclear what you are referring to when it all seems to fantastical. What kinds of political leanings are you describing that would preclude you from jobs, exactly? What are these documents you're forced to sign that you disagree with politically, and what exact politics are so protected by them that you also you cannot criticize those same politics (or, originally, colleagues on the basis of those politics)?
I can think of very, very few political stances where this could actually apply to, and those ones have pretty good reasons for being a barrier to employment considering they lay on the extremist and harmful side of things.
From the article that I assumed we were all talking about.
Did you somehow think that the words “official positions” means a job role rather than the official positions, in other words, the political positions, that a university takes on DEI? I find it hard to believe that anyone would jump to such a tortured reading of what I think is a fairly clear statement.
An employer is not required to offer you a job, regardless of your political leanings.
It’s morally questionable in my view to deny people employment based on political leanings, especially at a university or other government funded institution, whether it is legal or not.
And your response to a single topic (DEI) does not, or should not, constitute the whole of your political views.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Why is this topic appropriate for discrimination exactly?
I don't agree that it's discrimination in any form, but I'll still go along with it.
"Disagreeing with DEI efforts" is not the same as a protected class. I understand that the terms therein are not all-encompassing, and that there's certainly forms of discrimination that aren't included in that (brief) list. If what the interviewee of the article is experiencing is truly discrimination, then he would have grounds for a lawsuit - potentially a class action, as I'm sure there's plenty of other folks that have experienced similar "discrimination".
I can be on board with the fact that the interviewee was raised in a different culture and at a different time, and as such they have a perspective somewhat outside of what we're experiencing here today. That said, he is comparing the actions of a single university to those of an entire government. The parallels aren't parallel, in my assessment.
We’re kind of talking past each other here. Like I said, I’m not asserting any legal rights here, I’m saying that requiring this kind of ideological conformity is a bad thing.
And I disagree, at least insofar as it pertains to DEI. But c'est la vie.
Which only underscores how institutions have their priorities wrong. They give the boot to the visible squeaky wheels while not looking too hard for real problems they may have to fix.
Meaningless boilerplate. In science, it's all tenuous connections between green energy and anti-cancer drugs. Ranking grant proposals is a mistake. Instead, filter out all the obviously incompetent ones and select the rest randomly.
I think this is the key point that people outside of academia don't get. These policies are largely just the latest implementations about what has been policy and culture for decades, in order to address that problem of persistent racism and sexism that exists in spite of it. Often just getting new names and/or implementation details...for better and worse.
To add to this, Barvinok's complaints (and those who complain about the DEI process) just don't hold up to examination. The author says he thinks they are a requirement to 'affirm their fealty', but it's not a requirement, just something that will likely get you weeded out of the applicant pool if you don't write something positive. But how is this any different than how people already embellish and lie about their experience, job descriptions and more on their resume already? Why is attention focused on this part of the process rather than say, 'requires five years of experience' in the job posting?
The part about soviet era loyalty oaths is just as confusing. There are a bunch of other oaths many institutions require that they have to swear to, often including but not limited to an oath to defend the constitution of the US and state of residence, to not advocate or be a member of any party that's looking to overthrow the government, and to report child abuse to the appropriate authorities. Why is this oath being singled out, with no mention of other oaths which were sworn? Perhaps because the author doesn't actually care about oaths being sworn, but only when they must swear an oath they know they cannot endorse. But that doesn't even apply here, since writing a letter about your thoughts on DEI as a part of an application process is not an oath by any stretch of the imagination.
We live in an increasingly competitive world. I'm sure if Barvinok wanted to teach at a less prestigious university that such DEI requirements might be entirely absent or the bar be much lower. It's silly to think that these increasing requirements for securing a position are anything but a reflection of the increasingly globalized world we live in, and institutions either responding to an increase in supply of eligible professors and the ability to be more picky, or an increase in demand from students for a place of education to be more than just where they go to learn their trade, but somewhere they go to learn how to be better.
But also there's just a general negative vibe the subject that Barvinok gives off. He calls humanities 'ideologically infested', negatively frames praising people who contribute to the betterment of humanity at large, only seems to speak about diversity in a negative light (they don't specify how people are harmed, they fight amongst themselves, they never accomplish anything), and highlights all the pain that someone might receive for speaking up while simultaneously compressing the message they give down to a single point (pro/anti DEI statement) which ignores the specifics of the message given (a positive statement endorsing DEI is not analogous to a negative statement swearing not to be a member of a specific political party). It also doesn't help that he thinks everything is a zero sum game and that if you're not doing good that you must be doing harm.
The world has moved on and he refuses to join it. It's sad, because there are some nuggets of wisdom in what he's saying and some of the points being brought up. For example, the criticism he gives for the statement 'we have work to do' being 'an unmistakable indicator that no work would be done' is a concise and accurate take on people who care more about appearing progressive than actually being progressive. He's also correct that DEI can be and is sometimes weaponized by folks in order to further their own needs or goals. But it's really hard to give these any credit when the way they're called out is specifically to attempt to bolster his own opinion, rather than a critique of how these can be harmful to everyone, including individuals he disagrees with. It seems fairly clear that Barvinok and folks like him are more concerned on their ability to air their thoughts with impunity than they are concerned about whether these organizations can be criticized in the first place. As you said, they're all free to criticize, but they are not free from the consequences of doing so.
The take in the article is exhausting honestly. Another concerned libertarian worrying if maybe we've gone too far with all this recognizing the humanity of minorities. Isn't it kind of like the Soviet Union?
This situation seems pretty benign to me. This guy chose to resign because of opposition to DEI statements in job applications. He was not removed or otherwise forced out. As for the statements themselves, I don't have strong feelings on their inclusion in the process one way or the other, but it strikes me as another piece of promotional fluff you're expected to produce as part of applying to a professional job. Just like if you can't put a resume or cover letter together, if you can't muddle your way through a statement about how some people are different and that's ok without letting your crazy slip through, I have reservations about your qualifications for a position in education.
I also have the opinion that DEI statements are in the same bucket as résumés and cover letters. However, it’s the opposite bucket as yours: all three merely serve to make the hiring committee feel good about itself and have zero correlation to job performance.
Really depends on the job. If your job involves bullshitting professionally; which many, many jobs do (mine included), being able to tailor a resume, cover letter, and DEI or any other statement to the organizations particular brand of bullshit is a real measurable skill, and an excellent indicator of your job performance, I’ve found.
For certain jobs, especially jobs that don’t require interaction with lots of other people, or which don’t require you to bullshit them often, no, there should be better methods of weeding out candidates, generally.
I can’t wait for AI to remove the remaining signal in the soup of jobs that require bullshitting. Then it will be a true stupid test. Can’t convince the computer to string together passable words? Either too idiotic to engineer a prompt or too pedantically committed to human effort. In either case, unemployable in those fields.
The real fun arrives when the masses figure out how to sound impressive with Grammarly assistance when applying for jobs but have NOT figured out they can apply the same skills to the actual job. I have no idea how flippant or serious this next statement is, but I will point and laugh at anyone who has their investment portfolio zeroed when industry-wide productivity dramatically underperforms expectations from the “all-star” hiring cohort.
I think we have to step back a bit from our online culture. As you said, he wasn't fired: he resigned as a protest. This is low stakes stuff. His position is nuanced here, more about the process and him bringing in his past trauma. But the instinct is always there to try and throw wood on the fire.
I would disagree with your comment here though:
DEI statement shouldn't be some trick to try and out the "bad guys". On the contrary, they should be there to address systematic racism by getting everybody on board. Ideally they'd be a chance for everyone to confront and analyze the problems of our institutions.
Totally agree on the "ideally" part. If you've got a strong and impactful DEI statement full of personal experience, I think that should absolutely weigh positively on your candidacy. Of course, if it otherwise makes you melt into a puddle of "reverse racism" and whiny articles in The Atlantic, well, that's good to know ahead of time.
I think that now, though, even your position of "if you can't muddle your way through a statement about [XYZ]" needs amending to "if you can't muddle your way through writing a prompt to generate a statement about [XYZ]". Generative AI makes it astonishingly simple to basically bat aside this kind of fluff barrier. To the point where it's not really a check of what you believe, but rather a quick check of how willing you are to participate in some performative behaviour. So it becomes a measure of conformity, rather than a measure of actual prejudice (or lack of it, hopefully).
Bingo.
It's like the "the milk and bread test" in American Politics. Though I'm given to understand it takes place in other countries as well.
At some point, in Ye Olden Times, a clever reporter popped a simple question on a politician running for office. "How much does a gallon of milk and loaf of bread cost?" If the politician doesn't know, they're "out of touch" and not a good fit for representing the common citizen.
Except this is gameable. Politicians just staff it out, they don't even have to look the information up themselves, or deal with it really. One of their functionaries has the information ready, and it's included in their prep for appearances. "Oh, and remember sir/ma'am, in this state milk is $2.60/gal and bread is $1.75/loaf."
The point of the question is to try and figure out if the politician feels the fears and situation of ordinary citizens. But the question is meaningless when they game it. The statements in this topic are the same way.
The "diversity statements" outlined by the professor in the article are just a litany basically. And just as religious. If you don't say them, clearly something's wrong with you. So you have to mouth them or people target you, same as the priests target you for not mouthing the prayers. It's just something you're expected to say. And something you're apparently evil and suspect for questioning in any way.
That's dangerously scary thoughtpolicing. It's not punishing actions, but assumed thoughts. It's targeting people who have done nothing actionable except refuse to pledge allegiance to the flag. They're not being targeted for punishment because they've done anything, only because they won't say the words.
"If you've nothing to hide, why are you hiding? Why won't you let us search you, your house, your car, go through your things. Stop resisting. Comply. Comply!"
Textbook imposed groupthink.
Now I'm hoping that the investigation into the next professor who is fired for legitimate sexual harassment or racism uncovers that he had a flawless DEI statement generated by AI.
While the extreme people you describe certainly do exist I think comparing a DEI statement to the Soviet Union is a false equivalency. Western society has treated minorities, women, homosexuals, etc horribly for so long I would rather over correct than the previous option. Sure, maybe some people who don't deserve it will get "cancelled" but that's still better in my opinion than lynching, marital rape or conversion therapy.
Barvinok is still free to leave the mathematics society and speak out with zero real repercussions, which he did. He still has his job and tenure. I doubt he would have had the same freedom in the Soviet Union.
Well, if you'd like to feel better, two things -
Your comment made me think "Well, now I've got to read this article."
I agree with your stance. I recently had a performance review of a great subordinate kicked back because I didn't mention that she also happened to uphold our sexual harassment policies this year.
I believe I understand the core of what you're thinking but it made me think of a meme I saw saying "Leftists who get annoyed by leftists and become right wing in response are weak. True leftists get annoyed by leftists every day and stay left." Or something like that.
Though, I just admit I was laughing at this comment
Because if there's any department I'd expect to find conformists, it'd probably be math departments. Isn't that why Terrence Howard got laughed out of the room? "Think different" isn't there algebra slogan after all.
As a mathematician, we value differences in thought quite highly. Not only does it make for more interesting people and discussions, in math there are many ways to solve a problem, and many possible avenues to discover something new. I could form and prove a set of theories that would allow me to replicate the complete work of calculus using just the rational numbers. Some people have. Maybe someday that helps solve a bigger problem down the line.
Mathematicians love to prove weird things weird ways because you never know when that one little trick becomes a critical step in a novel proof. P-adic numbers used to be a curiosity until, boom, one of the most important tools in math.
Plus, there is a large contingent of mathematicians who feel more in line with the arts rather than the sciences because of the creative work in theoretical proofs, category theory, and other more abstract areas. Of course there is also a large contingent of applied folks, and sometimes mathematicians talking about each other sound like Willie from the Simpsons.
Yes. People have this idea that the field of mathematics is a realm of pure certainty, with no space for tension, opinion, subjectivity, and disagreement. It only takes meeting a group of mathematicians to change that opinion.
I think Terrence Howard gets laughed at because he keeps insisting that 1 x 1 = 2
How can it equal one? If one times one equals one that means that two is of no value because one times itself has no effect. One times one equals two because the square root of four is two, so what's the square root of two? Should be one, but we're told it's two, and that cannot be.
This actually convinced me.
https://youtu.be/535Zy_rf4NU?si=NJdSHuYM4fj54ywY
Edit: I wish I knew Terrence Howard movie quotes I could use here.
Thanks for your comment, I think it helped set a good tone for this discussion.
I am definitely pro-DEI, but it was helpful to see the structure of an objection with a rational argument.
I think the MAGA folks (and others) so prominently railing against wokeness in the media can make it feel like there is no reasonable objection.
I'm not sure I would characterize his position in terms of left or right though. It seems more contrarian than anything else.
I can't really find agreement with him though. I can feel empathy for how things that remind him of past trauma affect him, and except his position in that context. That part about his translation work becoming worthless due to hyperinflation while he's struggling to survive is frankly terrifying to think about.
I think where it breaks down for me is that his attitude treats academia and intellectual freedom as though it were some kind of pure world where ideas exist for their own sake. If that were the case, then I can see taking such a stance. But academia is part of the world. It's messy and flawed in practice. In my experience, it rarely lives up to the hype. And it's definitely harmed women and minorities in clear and measurable ways. I see DEI as the best effort (so far) of a broken and imperfect system to use broken and imperfect tools.
Because Germany has some very strict anti-anti-semitism laws. For good reason. The entire reason Israel was formed.
Many other countries have some reasonable wiggle room to debate if the creation of modern Israel was the correct path. Germany is not one of them.
Germany's anti-hate speech laws are not why they're forcing immigrants who wish to naturalize to essentially swear allegiance to a state that isn't Germany. This policy in Sachsen-Anhalt exists as a way for politicians in one of Germany's most right-wing states to reduce immigration disproportionately from those with Arab backgrounds while using a veneer of opposition to antisemitism as an excuse. Antisemitism in Germany is and has always been primarily driven by born-and-bred Germans, who are not required at any point in their lives to swear they believe Israel has a right to exist. This is just one of a myriad ways in which ethnonationalists launder their beliefs that immigrants are ruining Germany into something a broader political audience will accept.
Now that is some useful and important context, thanks!
Doesn't sound like a job to me. Sounds like an oath of fealty to me.....merely with one added requirement that makes sense given the location.
As someone who occupies leadership positions in higher ed, I have both written and reviewed DEI letters while applying for jobs and while hiring. My general thought is that the devil is in the details. I have seen both really interesting and really bothersome DEI prompts. I've been interviewed and given public presentations on DEI topics, and seen some institutions use them to virtue signal and others to challenge applicants to show they can meaningfully work and support a diverse environment.
So I would reserve judgement for specific cases. That said, this professors position is real and warranted. I've seen DEI used as a screen to circumvent normal hiring criteria, or to overreach what is reasonable to expect in a given position in terms of DEI leadership. Specifically, using knowledge of group shibboleths is particularly odious to me because a person could be a wonderful, open, and empathetic candidate, who just doesn't know the word of the day to get the job.
So good for this guy in taking a stand; I just hope people can pause their knee jerk long enough to consider carefully the good and the bad.
Man, it would have been so easy. The interviewer could just have asked where Barvinok stood politically, whether progressive ideals, despite him being so worried about them being forced upon him, is something he believe in or something he's against.
For instance, a month after the US police murdered George Floyd, he's annoyed that a math-department committee says that systematic racism is a thing. Here it would be pretty relevant to know if he believe systematic racism is a thing.
Throughout the piece, there is this weird insistance on pretending that he exist in this neutral, very science space, high above the realm of politics, from where he can apolitically criticize progressive endavors.
A classic strategy among bigots is to place themselves outside their own views, and, as outside observers, declares that "people" should have the right to voice those views while they (notice the irony), carefully avoid voicing those views themselves. And it sound an awful lot like when he's saying that:
It's true that perfectly relevant topics are sometimes avoided for no good reasons. Like how this piece carefully avoid touching upon his political views. But the quote above is so vague that I begin to wonder what it is saying, exactly; if it is intentionally vague. What arguments are silenced? Which “demographics” are claimed to be harmed, are they by any chance minorities? And if so, which minorities? Just say it, talk about the thing you're talking about.
If he's a progressive, then I still don't think he make a very good argument. But I may at least find it interesting that someone may arrive at that position from a progressive starting point.
If he's a reactionary, then it is pretty obvious that he's arguing in bad faith. He's against getting that mail about systematic racism being a thing simply because he is against the idea of systematic racism. I don't feel it is worth my time to consider ideas if the one presenting them doesn't actually believe in them themselves.
He's an immigrant from a country that did not historically participate in chattel slavery based on color, did make interesting failed attempts to implement equal rights for women earlier than we did, and did historically commit atrocities in the name of implementing progressive ideals. I don't blame him for being jumpy about perceived attempts at thought control or imposing ideological litmus tests.
I was intrigued by his personal history related to Jewish ethnicity and thought it could serve as an interesting foundation to a diversity statement if he had chosen to make one.
He might very well be racist or sexist or ableist, but I was interested to hear what he had to say and I suspect it would be easy to misjudge his perspective.
I think it's mostly that a lot of what he says is so wuzzy that I can't make out what his arguments are. He is voicing political opinions, but from this weird perspective where it's pretended that he's voicing them from some kind of non-political stance.
His resignation letter to AMS, which he leaves after three decades, is a protest about some politics making the field more inclusive to various groups. But he makes a point of not addressing this goal of all, it could just as well be about being forced to say that "I passionately believe that water would certainly wet us, as fire would certainly burn”, (guess he meant "ass" not "as") Whether those (admittedly buraucratic and unsexy) politics would result in a more inclusiveness, this is simply not something he care about. But he do care about is that:
Sure, that would be bad. But the flipside of people not having to worry about being acused of having certain pernicious attitudes and creating an unsafe environment, is that people may do just that. But that is simply not an issue.
In the early 2000, when Islamophobia was rampant, hate groups sprouted up everywhere, wars were started, and the US ran a literal international torture program, what filled his little head was that he "were increasingly expected to contribute, so to speak, to the betterment of humanity at large"
After the murder of George Floyd, what affected him was that he got that email saying that systematic racism was bad.
His grieviances just seem so priviledged and petty.
As I understand it, by "look for facts of a person's identity" you don't mean thing like that they are skinny or that they are collecting stamps ironically. What you talk about is me trying to figure out whether Barvinok is driven by things like misogyny, homophobia, racism or transphobia. I have long ago dismissed such ideas as being hot garbage, so if a person's identity is dominated by those, I simply won't bother with them.
And depressingly, the vast majority of the ideas that challenge my views just end up being the above with a fernis of bad faith. So I click open an article already having a feeling that this would be X category of toxic shit, and likely would use this and that logical fallacy, and most of the time, it's pretty much exactly that.
But progressives don't actually want that. What they want most of all is having their world view shattered, exploring new ground. Even finding out cringe uncool things about themselves is sometimes accompaniet with a sort of masochistic excitement—"Oh my gawd, I was like, totally racist there, and I wasn't even aware!"
You are right that a bad faith argument could, by happenchance, have merits on its own. Even if something is a lie, there is always some little unpleasant facts which suggests that it is not. And I could point out those regarding various minority groups. But I choose not to, because even as factual, smearing it around makes the world worse, not better.
But mostly bad faith argument are sort of like an inverted Suduko, where it looks like everything fits, but where you have to scrutinize it carefully to find out why exactly it doesn't make sense. I remember a Reddit post (wish I'd saved it) which despite being only two lines long raised all kind of red flags in me. But try as I might, I could figure out why. Then someone wrote a reply entangling it, exposing exactly what was so utter wrong about the post. But the reply was an entire screenlength long, that how much it took to explain the mechanics of the two-line bad faith argument.
And rhetorically, its really amazing, all those logical fallacies, dogwhistles, mindgames and hidden suggestions. I unironically think that the far right have a much more sophisticated use of language than any progressive.
You just said you dislike the "very tribal mentality" of looking at a person's identity as justification to discredit them, but specifically credited it toward progressives. The same can be said of any political view, be it left or right or any other direction. I would encourage you to remember that.
More frustrating, sure; fine. I still rankle with it being pointed out as a problem with progressives.
The framing of the statement, to me, suggests pointing out the problem as existing within progressive movements rather than it being an issue with politics or human nature in general. u/rez did point out the problem being extant on the right and on the left - granted, as the last statement in a paragraph criticizing progressives.
I'm being a pedant, and those that know me know that I love me some pedantry.
The solution to what?
Anyhow, "the same DEI mold" doesn't seem all the repressive to me. It's just having to acknowledge, or being assume to acknowledge, some very basic humane ideas. Like that he got that email about systematic racism being a thing.
I'd like to be walked through the line of thinking between that comment above to how this question relates to it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20240114160919/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/professor-american-academia-parallels-soviet-union/676305/
Archive link for anyone stuck at the paywall