Lots of bluster, but it boils down to this: This is ridiculous. We can argue about the firing of the Catholic chaplain, but "wokeness instruction" here means a pretty normal DEI and anti-sexual...
Lots of bluster, but it boils down to this:
We object to MIT’s politically correct measures, including the firing of its Catholic chaplain. [...] We also deplore MIT’s new mandatory diversity training. In the autumn of 2020, MIT sent an email to new and current students informing them that they would be unable to register for spring classes if they failed to undergo wokeness instruction.
This is ridiculous. We can argue about the firing of the Catholic chaplain, but "wokeness instruction" here means a pretty normal DEI and anti-sexual assault training. I had to do that when I was in college; my mother, who is a professor, has to do it every few years.
They complain that:
The compulsory videos contain deftly worded but fatuous questions implying that straight white males are at the “intersection” of all oppressive behaviors. Everyone else is an oppressed victim, with extra points for being a member of multiple minority groups. Thus, the concept of “intersectionality” is a kind of conspiracy theory of victimization.
This is a complete misunderstanding of the term "intersectionality" and how it applies to modern feminism.
The letter ends with a screed about how implementing DEI policies is evil and that MIT ("and other universities") need to be "redeemed".
This is almost certainly the prompting for this post and I'm putting it here for completeness.
Not to mention every single tech company - from piddling startups to huge enterprise behemoths have to take these kind of trainings repeatedly. Yes, it can be annoying to listen to the same badly...
I had to do that when I was in college; my mother, who is a professor, has to do it every few years.
Not to mention every single tech company - from piddling startups to huge enterprise behemoths have to take these kind of trainings repeatedly. Yes, it can be annoying to listen to the same badly rehearsed scenarios over and over again every year, but I would rather go through that if it spares one person from being sexually harassed.
The other thing I think a lot of people miss is that having mandatory training like this helps prevent harassers from hiding behind ignorance or "misreading" situations. When everyone has the same...
The other thing I think a lot of people miss is that having mandatory training like this helps prevent harassers from hiding behind ignorance or "misreading" situations. When everyone has the same baseline understanding of harassment and assault, it's much easier to actually punish people who cause problems without getting sued (which makes it more likely HR will actually step in.)
Exactly. Whatever loss MIT suffers from losing the donations of two not terribly successful individuals is going to be vastly outweighed by the gains in not being sued and paying damages to...
Exactly. Whatever loss MIT suffers from losing the donations of two not terribly successful individuals is going to be vastly outweighed by the gains in not being sued and paying damages to students and faculty.
Will they redeem themselves by standing for merit and truth, or will they forfeit the support of countless alumni and donors by surrendering to wokeness?
Countless? You're just 2 sad octogenarians. Who the hell cares?
I think this sort of training is needed but it can be done well or badly. I'd have to look at the materials to see how it's done in this case. The authors of this letter say it's being done badly,...
I think this sort of training is needed but it can be done well or badly. I'd have to look at the materials to see how it's done in this case. The authors of this letter say it's being done badly, but there's not enough in the letter to say.
A debate over whether this training is effective and how it might be improved seems like this sort of thing a university should allow and encourage, just as there is debate over other parts of the curriculum.
Absolutely, I completely agree. Much of this training is quite useless, except for limiting liability. But that's not really the criticism being levied here.
Absolutely, I completely agree. Much of this training is quite useless, except for limiting liability. But that's not really the criticism being levied here.
Well, I was tempted to tag it "whiny right wing bullshit", but that seemed inappropriate. Is there a consensus on how to tag things the poster doesn't agree with?
Well, I was tempted to tag it "whiny right wing bullshit", but that seemed inappropriate. Is there a consensus on how to tag things the poster doesn't agree with?
I always feel that sort of sentiment should be expressed in the form of a comment rather than the tags, like you have done. It allows for discussion and keeps the tags strictly taxonomical.
I always feel that sort of sentiment should be expressed in the form of a comment rather than the tags, like you have done. It allows for discussion and keeps the tags strictly taxonomical.
Honestly, I don't really get how tags are used on the site these days. I mean, why is this tagged "woke"? What taxonomical purpose does that serve? The other tags are all nouns - are adjectives...
Honestly, I don't really get how tags are used on the site these days. I mean, why is this tagged "woke"? What taxonomical purpose does that serve? The other tags are all nouns - are adjectives also valid tags?
This prompts a thought I've dealt with a lot recently... First, I want to call the complaints bad faith bullshit. But these people honestly believe they are fighting a good fight and are...
This prompts a thought I've dealt with a lot recently... First, I want to call the complaints bad faith bullshit. But these people honestly believe they are fighting a good fight and are straightforward in their methods. So, maybe it's ignorant bullshit. But the ignorance has to be willful at this point. To frame intersectionality and sexual assault bystander training as conspiracy theory level victimhood worship tells me that their ignorance has its roots in malice. Or if it's not ignorance, then it really is just bad faith bullshit.
Ah, the eternal question when trying to understand conservatives... Are they actually evil, or just so dumb they appear to be such? After some consideration I have come to the conclusion that (a)...
Ah, the eternal question when trying to understand conservatives... Are they actually evil, or just so dumb they appear to be such? After some consideration I have come to the conclusion that (a) they are often just frighteningly stupid and more importantly (b) trying to draw a line between stupid and evil doesn't matter because there's no meaningful difference anyway.
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice
A bit off topic, but I will never understand why anyone donates to any large university. MIT's endowment is $27 billion. They do not need your money and they never will. They could eliminate...
A bit off topic, but I will never understand why anyone donates to any large university. MIT's endowment is $27 billion. They do not need your money and they never will. They could eliminate tuition for the next century and not even notice. Please find a cause that will actually benefit from your support, no matter how much you love your college.
Lots of bluster, but it boils down to this:
This is ridiculous. We can argue about the firing of the Catholic chaplain, but "wokeness instruction" here means a pretty normal DEI and anti-sexual assault training. I had to do that when I was in college; my mother, who is a professor, has to do it every few years.
They complain that:
This is a complete misunderstanding of the term "intersectionality" and how it applies to modern feminism.
The letter ends with a screed about how implementing DEI policies is evil and that MIT ("and other universities") need to be "redeemed".
This is almost certainly the prompting for this post and I'm putting it here for completeness.
Not to mention every single tech company - from piddling startups to huge enterprise behemoths have to take these kind of trainings repeatedly. Yes, it can be annoying to listen to the same badly rehearsed scenarios over and over again every year, but I would rather go through that if it spares one person from being sexually harassed.
The other thing I think a lot of people miss is that having mandatory training like this helps prevent harassers from hiding behind ignorance or "misreading" situations. When everyone has the same baseline understanding of harassment and assault, it's much easier to actually punish people who cause problems without getting sued (which makes it more likely HR will actually step in.)
Exactly. Whatever loss MIT suffers from losing the donations of two not terribly successful individuals is going to be vastly outweighed by the gains in not being sued and paying damages to students and faculty.
Countless? You're just 2 sad octogenarians. Who the hell cares?
I think this sort of training is needed but it can be done well or badly. I'd have to look at the materials to see how it's done in this case. The authors of this letter say it's being done badly, but there's not enough in the letter to say.
A debate over whether this training is effective and how it might be improved seems like this sort of thing a university should allow and encourage, just as there is debate over other parts of the curriculum.
Absolutely, I completely agree. Much of this training is quite useless, except for limiting liability. But that's not really the criticism being levied here.
I think it would be good to make it clearer in the tags that you aren't posting this article because you agree with it.
Well, I was tempted to tag it "whiny right wing bullshit", but that seemed inappropriate. Is there a consensus on how to tag things the poster doesn't agree with?
I always feel that sort of sentiment should be expressed in the form of a comment rather than the tags, like you have done. It allows for discussion and keeps the tags strictly taxonomical.
Honestly, I don't really get how tags are used on the site these days. I mean, why is this tagged "woke"? What taxonomical purpose does that serve? The other tags are all nouns - are adjectives also valid tags?
Not a criticism, I just genuinely don't get it.
It was tagged woke as that phrase is used in the piece linked. It allows quick search for all other content related to wokeness.
Fair enough, I guess.
This prompts a thought I've dealt with a lot recently... First, I want to call the complaints bad faith bullshit. But these people honestly believe they are fighting a good fight and are straightforward in their methods. So, maybe it's ignorant bullshit. But the ignorance has to be willful at this point. To frame intersectionality and sexual assault bystander training as conspiracy theory level victimhood worship tells me that their ignorance has its roots in malice. Or if it's not ignorance, then it really is just bad faith bullshit.
Bullshit either way.
Ah, the eternal question when trying to understand conservatives... Are they actually evil, or just so dumb they appear to be such? After some consideration I have come to the conclusion that (a) they are often just frighteningly stupid and more importantly (b) trying to draw a line between stupid and evil doesn't matter because there's no meaningful difference anyway.
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice
A bit off topic, but I will never understand why anyone donates to any large university. MIT's endowment is $27 billion. They do not need your money and they never will. They could eliminate tuition for the next century and not even notice. Please find a cause that will actually benefit from your support, no matter how much you love your college.