I just took my school's annual mandated diversity ("you're a racist") training video. This lasted a short period of time if you just click through, which was fairly easy to do with this once since there was no audio the user was not allowed to bypass, only text. The last section focused on different types of bias and the last one was group think. I'm awaiting my weight loss training video sponsored by McDonald's any day now.
I wish I could just click through, but, psychopath that I am, I always have to argue with them a bit. Then again, perhaps the videos used by my institution are of a different kind. We have to answer some questions, then watch a presentation, then re-answer the questions using our reeducation. I like to f--k with them by going from Harmless Caveman in round one to Hitler Resurrected in round two.
Is it possible to just decline to answer? Or alternatively, I might just randomly answer without giving any thought to the impression I'm creating. Like just randomly hitting things on the keypad. And of course, you can always give them the answers they want and expect. Confess. Redeem yourself, from the accepted point of view, and get it done. What difference does it make? The people who are fixated on such theories as 'implicit bias' and 'institutional racism' don't really have any resolution that's grounded in reality in mind anyway. They are just enjoying their moment of standing out there in the spotlight with big balls. It will pass.
'Never tell the truth to people who aren't worthy of it.' - Mark Twain
It is an assault on your identity, and identity you did not choose. Of course, you know this already. And the people who don't know it, refuse to know it.
Quote from: writingprof on December 09, 2020, 03:47:44 PM
I wish I could just click through, but, psychopath that I am, I always have to argue with them a bit. Then again, perhaps the videos used by my institution are of a different kind. We have to answer some questions, then watch a presentation, then re-answer the questions using our reeducation. I like to f--k with them by going from Harmless Caveman in round one to Hitler Resurrected in round two.
Hilarious. But you have tenure so...or maybe they are anonymous? I am suspicious of anything done on a computer being trace-proof. However I am considering following your lead.
The climate in our faculty union now is if you didn't vote against Trump you're indecent.
This is a great forum!
Quote from: mahagonny on December 10, 2020, 04:05:34 AM
Quote from: writingprof on December 09, 2020, 03:47:44 PM
I wish I could just click through, but, psychopath that I am, I always have to argue with them a bit. Then again, perhaps the videos used by my institution are of a different kind. We have to answer some questions, then watch a presentation, then re-answer the questions using our reeducation. I like to f--k with them by going from Harmless Caveman in round one to Hitler Resurrected in round two.
Hilarious. But you have tenure so...or maybe they are anonymous? I am suspicious of anything done on a computer being trace-proof. However I am considering following your lead.
Yes, I do have tenure. More importantly, though, I have a canary in the coal mine. A colleague of mine is even farther right and even less shy about it. If they fire him, I'll clean up my act.
Speaking of f***ing them up, which they are vigorously asking for, how could you force their hand? Could you for example, ask them to state unequivocally that a vote for Donald Trump will have signified that one is either racist or does not have any objection to racism? There is really no doubt that they have broad consensus among themselves about that. I think we deserve an honest answer. They should be able to admit that in their view voting to either condone or promote racism shows fundamental unpreparedness to engage in antiracism training in good faith, and must be brought into the discussion before serious progress can happen.
Even if you agree that (1) Trump is racist and (2) he actively courts the racist vote there is still along way to go for anyone to posit that it is unacceptable for any American to vote for him under any conditions on that basis. How many white supremacists are there in the USA currently? Is the number not even enough to fill one football stadium as Tucker Carlson says, or is the number the population of Buffalo New York or more? Makes a big difference. Threats to our country should be seen as measurable in strength and potential for harm. It's the voter's job.
Still, if they are sure you can't vote for Trump and be open minded enough to try to improve yourself with anti-racism training, let them stand by it. We've had four long years to get know him and ourselves.
Then we could get them into a position where they require forfeiting your voting rights in exchange for employment. Which could open the door for legal challenges...? I dunno. I'm a layperson ruminating over it.
Years ago following complaints from Native American students, my entire campus was forced to undergo "you're a racist" training. The complaints stemmed from inappropriate student behavior, but only faculty and staff had to do the training. Online tripe, utterly predictable. I had my then-8-year-old son do the quiz for me at the end. Needless to say, I scored poorly. There was no follow-up. It was a meaningless exercise and everyone, including the president who mandated it, knew it.
Quote from: wareagle on December 10, 2020, 11:36:50 AM
Years ago following complaints from Native American students, my entire campus was forced to undergo "you're a racist" training. The complaints stemmed from inappropriate student behavior, but only faculty and staff had to do the training. Online tripe, utterly predictable. I had my then-8-year-old son do the quiz for me at the end. Needless to say, I scored poorly. There was no follow-up. It was a meaningless exercise and everyone, including the president who mandated it, knew it.
That's good news. They are meaningful to people who would be dangerous if put in charge.
What was frustrating was that the students, whose behavior was clearly egregious, got off scot-free, and those of us who worked hard to provide opportunity for the Native students got punished.
Quote from: wareagle on December 10, 2020, 02:01:04 PM
. . . and those of us who worked hard to provide opportunity for the Native students got punished.
See, that's where you went wrong. Working hard never leads to good outcomes.
Quote from: writingprof on December 10, 2020, 02:07:15 PM
Quote from: wareagle on December 10, 2020, 02:01:04 PM
. . . and those of us who worked hard to provide opportunity for the Native students got punished.
See, that's where you went wrong. Working hard never leads to good outcomes.
Wild guess: you are Caucasian.
I miss the sexual harassment trainings that were always done as a group and terms had to be explained to the foreign nationals to explain why those things were wrong. Just explaining why an invitation to do body shots was inappropriate usually crossed the line into inappropriate.
Nearly every year, a 20ish intern (summer college student) would stand up in front of all the male engineers and the poor manager to explain why she was angry that anyone would think she couldn't deal with any sexist language or something like a swimsuit calendar.
For the next month, we'd all be joking in the hall along the lines of "it's a good think they trained us on how to properly sexually harass because otherwise this place would be very boring."
The "You're a Racist Trainings" are much less fun...except for the ones that include implicit bias. Those are still a hoot as the novice from HR encounters elderly defense engineers for the first time (AKA people who are quite angry about the waste of their time and cannot be fired for anything short of a felony).
My irritation level is higher than most since I have to take so many of them or sometimes the same one at multiple institutions. I have the one at my main institution, the one where I occasionally adjunct when a need arises, the one where I consult to update the online platform for any changes in law or facts from year to year, and then another one for an unusual "niche" government speaking on-call contract in my field related to the military. Even though I may only give a speech two times a year or update a few numbers to reflect annual changes, they are mandated for "all employees" and thus I have to do them annually.
Quote from: mahagonny on December 10, 2020, 02:33:04 PM
Quote from: writingprof on December 10, 2020, 02:07:15 PM
Quote from: wareagle on December 10, 2020, 02:01:04 PM
. . . and those of us who worked hard to provide opportunity for the Native students got punished.
See, that's where you went wrong. Working hard never leads to good outcomes.
Wild guess: you are Caucasian.
What's the point of having "privilege" if you aren't going to rest on it?
Quote from: financeguy on December 10, 2020, 08:23:46 PM
My irritation level is higher than most since I have to take so many of them or sometimes the same one at multiple institutions. I have the one at my main institution, the one where I occasionally adjunct when a need arises, the one where I consult to update the online platform for any changes in law or facts from year to year, and then another one for an unusual "niche" government speaking on-call contract in my field related to the military. Even though I may only give a speech two times a year or update a few numbers to reflect annual changes, they are mandated for "all employees" and thus I have to do them annually.
One of my schools has some seminars at the beginning of the winter term. Fortunately part timers get paid for attending. They are not required, but I always go for the money and, when I'm lucky, education. This year's theme is, (are you ready for a shock?) how to understand the work ahead in being anti-racist. Many one the seminars have a strong dose of diversiphoria, but not all. General rule: the more frequently you hear the word 'diversity' the less tolerance in the room.
At least they pay us, which is appreciated, and comes at a good time. The keynote speaker will be a heavy hitter in the number one challenge facing Americans today, racism. Of course it's remote. If I mute the sound, they won't hear me snoring, which has been an issue in the past.
Quote from: writingprof on December 11, 2020, 05:41:11 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 10, 2020, 02:33:04 PM
Quote from: writingprof on December 10, 2020, 02:07:15 PM
Quote from: wareagle on December 10, 2020, 02:01:04 PM
. . . and those of us who worked hard to provide opportunity for the Native students got punished.
See, that's where you went wrong. Working hard never leads to good outcomes.
Wild guess: you are Caucasian.
What's the point of having "privilege" if you aren't going to rest on it?
Laden with irony.
At my state flagship I have to watch a five minute video once a year. It doesn't accuse anyone of being racist, but does encourage people to think before saying something racially charged in the workplace (sounds obvious, but some people are actually too dumb to figure this out on their own). It takes a few minutes and is such a small thing that I literally never think about it, until I see a thread like this one.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 11, 2020, 07:19:53 AM
At my state flagship I have to watch a five minute video once a year. It doesn't accuse anyone of being racist, but does encourage people to think before saying something racially charged in the workplace (sounds obvious, but some people are actually too dumb to figure this out on their own). It takes a few minutes and is such a small thing that I literally never think about it, until I see a thread like this one.
It sounds to me like a CYA type of thing, like they really don't want to get too far into the controversy. They're probably not buying the BS people like you are apt to be promoting, not 100%.
In our school there are some who think having the first name 'Becky' means you need to be watched because you're likely insensitively and untactfully unaware of your privilege, then getting combative, and could improve yourselves by enduring some ridicule. They converge on social media and spot each other readily. Just the kind of people you need to have a collegial workplace.
I did go to one workshop about something I can't remember, and the half dozen people in the room were to introduce ourselves and give our preferred pronouns. Which was odd, since in that small a group non-one would need to refer to anyone by a pronoun; their names would make more sense.
If you are feeling rebellious and don't care who you offend, say your pronoun is itt, and can be used as a proper name as well, as in Cousin Itt.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 11, 2020, 08:15:43 AM
I did go to one workshop about something I can't remember, and the half dozen people in the room were to introduce ourselves and give our preferred pronouns. Which was odd, since in that small a group non-one would need to refer to anyone by a pronoun; their names would make more sense.
What is the etiquette around that? Can you write down the pronouns requested for each member, or is that rude? I have enough trouble with names.
Not to mention, the elephant in the room. What is it about academia that gives it the right to both (1) proclaim they are at the cutting edge of appreciation of diversity and tolerance, and also (2) require a new age social etiquette that is not characteristic of the society at large? They are doing someone one should expect to find in a cult, which you would have joined specifically because it has a self limiting, unique dogma. The whole thing strikes me as arrogant.
Quote from: mahagonny on December 11, 2020, 09:04:07 AM
Can you write down the pronouns requested for each member, or is that rude? I have enough trouble with names.
I have yet to be in one of those meetings where the pronouns turned out to be different from the ones that I would have guessed from the person's name and appearance. In general, this seems to be a massive virtue-signaling exercise.
Quote from: PScientist on December 11, 2020, 10:10:07 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 11, 2020, 09:04:07 AM
Can you write down the pronouns requested for each member, or is that rude? I have enough trouble with names.
I have yet to be in one of those meetings where the pronouns turned out to be different from the ones that I would have guessed from the person's name and appearance. In general, this seems to be a massive virtue-signaling exercise.
This. Also, what a wonderful way to make anyone whose pronouns
don't match their expressed gender feel excluded. The norm should be "indicate them, if they differ from expressed gender." But that'd not give people an opportunity to virtue signal.
The disconnect between expressed views and behavior would be funny if it were not consequential. Left-leaning organizations doing work around immigration policy who will not sponsor work visas are a hoot. During the election, major political consulting companies that support Democratic candidates didn't sponsor work visas, those supporting Republicans did. A friend of mine received a reason for not getting a job at an organization reducing bias in hiring decisions, telling him they can't sponsor a work visa -- he's a 2nd generation immigrant (they didn't ask about work authorization during the application, presumably to reduce bias).
Quote from: mahagonny on December 11, 2020, 09:04:07 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 11, 2020, 08:15:43 AM
I did go to one workshop about something I can't remember, and the half dozen people in the room were to introduce ourselves and give our preferred pronouns. Which was odd, since in that small a group non-one would need to refer to anyone by a pronoun; their names would make more sense.
What is the etiquette around that? Can you write down the pronouns requested for each member, or is that rude? I have enough trouble with names.
Not to mention, the elephant in the room. What is it about academia that gives it the right to both (1) proclaim they are at the cutting edge of appreciation of diversity and tolerance, and also (2) require a new age social etiquette that is not characteristic of the society at large? They are doing someone one should expect to find in a cult, which you would have joined specifically because it has a self limiting, unique dogma. The whole thing strikes me as arrogant.
These are the same people who took a gendered language like Spanish and created some genderless neologism like Latinx. I still don't know if that's pronounced Latin x or Lantincks so I'm gonna go with Latin or Hispanic. If only they all spoke German instead, some neutral pronoun may make more sense.
Anybody who asks me my pronouns will receive the reply "Whatever you want them to be."
Christ. I used to be a liberal, but between this nonsense, who gets to pee where, inauthentic Banh Mi sandwiches are cultural appropriation, and the rest of the identitarian left, I have trouble caring. Not enough people care about what AOC and the rest of the squad are proposing to fix to suggest that the far left agenda is any more attractive than the far right. But at least the far right talks about lowering taxes which is an attractive (if actually stupid) idea.
At least the regular sexual harassment training was easy to process -- don't be creepy and whatever you do, be careful who you ask for a date. How to be an anti-racist? A rather more complicated message that a lot of people struggle to process.
Quote from: secundem_artem on December 11, 2020, 11:20:05 AM
At least the regular sexual harassment training was easy to process -- don't be creepy and whatever you do, be careful who you ask for a date. How to be an anti-racist? A rather more complicated message that a lot of people struggle to process.
Well (
so far at least; I'm not holding my breath) sexual harassment still requires you to make some sort of direct contact (although the infamous "male gaze" is pretty amorphous) with someone; we aren't
yet blamed for "
institutional sexual harassment" (although "rape
culture" is heading that way...)
Give it 6 months.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 11, 2020, 12:09:06 PM
Quote from: secundem_artem on December 11, 2020, 11:20:05 AM
At least the regular sexual harassment training was easy to process -- don't be creepy and whatever you do, be careful who you ask for a date. How to be an anti-racist? A rather more complicated message that a lot of people struggle to process.
Well (so far at least; I'm not holding my breath) sexual harassment still requires you to make some sort of direct contact (although the infamous "male gaze" is pretty amorphous) with someone; we aren't yet blamed for "institutional sexual harassment" (although "rape culture" is heading that way...)
Give it 6 months.
Around the beginning of the year we were shown a video demonstrating the basics of using the zoom platform. As the class began the female instructor greeted the first arrival to her class, a female student, and complimented her on how pretty she looked. When the presentation was over I quietly pointed out that, as male instructors, we must never do that.
(Aside: however, you can still write songs that compliment people on their appearance. Come to think of it, you can put anything in a song. If it's toxic enough maybe you can blame it on the neighborhood you had to grow up in.)
There are a lot of "used to be" liberals out there. No one seems to talk about the main reason. There is nowhere left for the left economically. When you live in a country where most "poor" people are overweight, the "lower class" have multiple color TVs, air conditioning and more than one automobile and it's quite nearly impossible to go without food and shelter if you are willing to follow the rules and take advantage of the services already available, the only problems are vanity and identity problems which must be manufactured. I guess if you can try to make the case that someone else has more "hey, does he need that jet!" but the people shouting this the loudest still have three meals a day and a roof at a good school where they can study a fluff field and complain about the guy with a jet on their $500 iPhone. Hard to maintain much outrage for economic reasons. Ok, let's poke the race issue...
Lots of truth* being spoken on this thread.
*For any progressive lurkers out there, "truth" was an Enlightenment concept, now understood to be racist, that posited that some things actually were, while others actually were not--irrespective, if you can believe it, of voguish political orthodoxies. You had to be there, but it was pretty good while it lasted.
Quote from: writingprof on December 11, 2020, 03:07:44 PM
Lots of truth* being spoken on this thread.
*For any progressive lurkers out there, "truth" was an Enlightenment concept, now understood to be racist, that posited that some things actually were, while others actually were not--irrespective, if you can believe it, of voguish political orthodoxies.
Or
feeeeeelings. Or anyone's "lived experience".
Quote
You had to be there, but it was pretty good while it lasted.
Quote from: financeguy on December 09, 2020, 12:51:20 PM
I just took my school's annual mandated diversity ("you're a racist") training video. This lasted a short period of time if you just click through, which was fairly easy to do with this once since there was no audio the user was not allowed to bypass, only text. The last section focused on different types of bias and the last one was group think. I'm awaiting my weight loss training video sponsored by McDonald's any day now.
Applicable to your post
Motivated Skepticism: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3694247?seq=1 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3694247?seq=1)
The Bias Blind Spot: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167202286008 (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167202286008)
Quote from: PScientist on December 11, 2020, 10:10:07 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 11, 2020, 09:04:07 AM
Can you write down the pronouns requested for each member, or is that rude? I have enough trouble with names.
I have yet to be in one of those meetings where the pronouns turned out to be different from the ones that I would have guessed from the person's name and appearance. In general, this seems to be a massive virtue-signaling exercise.
I have encountered a person here whose appearance and legal name (printed on required badges we all wear) were not in accord with the pronouns a casual assessment would apply.
It was weird because the mentor mentioned bringing a student and referred to her being late due to an unavoidable conflict. I didn't pick up how many times the mentor said she/her before the student showed up to the meeting. However, when the student showed up, it became clear that this CS mentor was trying to prep us to address this person as the female equivalent of the male name and to address this visibly male person in our typical jeans-and-T-shirt attire as female without explicitly saying something like "This guy Robert goes by Roberta and identifies as female. This is your opportunity to apply the new guidance on transgender individuals".
It was fine as a meeting went, but we have never introduced using pronouns and we didn't do it here, either.
Quote from: PScientist on December 11, 2020, 10:10:07 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 11, 2020, 09:04:07 AM
Can you write down the pronouns requested for each member, or is that rude? I have enough trouble with names.
I have yet to be in one of those meetings where the pronouns turned out to be different from the ones that I would have guessed from the person's name and appearance. In general, this seems to be a massive virtue-signaling exercise.
My university allows students to indicate their preferred pronouns and now includes them in the class rosters, which is useless in large classes when I don't even know most of their proper names. And how often are pronouns even used?
Quote from: Anon1787 on December 11, 2020, 06:13:26 PM
Quote from: PScientist on December 11, 2020, 10:10:07 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 11, 2020, 09:04:07 AM
Can you write down the pronouns requested for each member, or is that rude? I have enough trouble with names.
I have yet to be in one of those meetings where the pronouns turned out to be different from the ones that I would have guessed from the person's name and appearance. In general, this seems to be a massive virtue-signaling exercise.
My university allows students to indicate their preferred pronouns and now includes them in the class rosters, which is useless in large classes when I don't even know most of their proper names. And how often are pronouns even used?
I think they are used, some. but I don't have huge classes. Everyone gets to know each other a little, eventually. For example I might ask a class a question, get an answer, and then say 'what do you think of what he said? Anything to add?' It would be an adjustment, and I wouldn't relish it. So I hope the whole thing fades away quietly. But not just for that reason. I don't think it benefits us. What Pigou said.
There have to be ways of respecting everyone without going crazy about it.
And it's when I'm just meeting people that I won't be seeing regularly that things are already challenging enough.
Imagine old songs. 'He Loves and She Loves' becomes 'They Love and They Love.' Or you leave it like it was, but it's wrong.
But if it takes hold, I'll do it. Years ago I would never have thought gay marriage would happen.
And like I was bitching upthread, it seems weird that academia thinks it may just change society instead of blending with it.
I expect it to further wound the democratic party. Who will you vote for when you want collective bargaining rights? The losers.
Quote from: mahagonny on December 11, 2020, 07:52:24 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 11, 2020, 07:19:53 AM
At my state flagship I have to watch a five minute video once a year. It doesn't accuse anyone of being racist, but does encourage people to think before saying something racially charged in the workplace (sounds obvious, but some people are actually too dumb to figure this out on their own). It takes a few minutes and is such a small thing that I literally never think about it, until I see a thread like this one.
It sounds to me like a CYA type of thing, like they really don't want to get too far into the controversy. They're probably not buying the BS people like you are apt to be promoting, not 100%.
In our school there are some who think having the first name 'Becky' means you need to be watched because you're likely insensitively and untactfully unaware of your privilege, then getting combative, and could improve yourselves by enduring some ridicule. They converge on social media and spot each other readily. Just the kind of people you need to have a collegial workplace.
Not really. My place is pretty typical. What type of school do you teach at?
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 11, 2020, 08:38:16 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 11, 2020, 07:52:24 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 11, 2020, 07:19:53 AM
At my state flagship I have to watch a five minute video once a year. It doesn't accuse anyone of being racist, but does encourage people to think before saying something racially charged in the workplace (sounds obvious, but some people are actually too dumb to figure this out on their own). It takes a few minutes and is such a small thing that I literally never think about it, until I see a thread like this one.
It sounds to me like a CYA type of thing, like they really don't want to get too far into the controversy. They're probably not buying the BS people like you are apt to be promoting, not 100%.
In our school there are some who think having the first name 'Becky' means you need to be watched because you're likely insensitively and untactfully unaware of your privilege, then getting combative, and could improve yourselves by enduring some ridicule. They converge on social media and spot each other readily. Just the kind of people you need to have a collegial workplace.
Not really. My place is pretty typical. What type of school do you teach at?
I'll just give you a few particulars.
It's going to take way longer than five minutes, though it's not required, yet. But there's all kinds of stuff. The diversity and inclusion staff have a recommended reading list, as does the union. they have lists of books recommended for POC, 'whites
who wish to explore and better understand their whiteness' or some such ridiculous phraseology (oh, so it's optional then...why thanks!!) Every author on the list is left of center, and most are those people that you already know I dislike. D'Angelo, Kendi, that kind of thinker. It is an absolute joke and an insult to one's intelligence.. there is no diversity of viewpoint whatsoever.
I think you would fit right in.
Quote from: mahagonny on December 11, 2020, 08:43:52 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 11, 2020, 08:38:16 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 11, 2020, 07:52:24 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 11, 2020, 07:19:53 AM
At my state flagship I have to watch a five minute video once a year. It doesn't accuse anyone of being racist, but does encourage people to think before saying something racially charged in the workplace (sounds obvious, but some people are actually too dumb to figure this out on their own). It takes a few minutes and is such a small thing that I literally never think about it, until I see a thread like this one.
It sounds to me like a CYA type of thing, like they really don't want to get too far into the controversy. They're probably not buying the BS people like you are apt to be promoting, not 100%.
In our school there are some who think having the first name 'Becky' means you need to be watched because you're likely insensitively and untactfully unaware of your privilege, then getting combative, and could improve yourselves by enduring some ridicule. They converge on social media and spot each other readily. Just the kind of people you need to have a collegial workplace.
Not really. My place is pretty typical. What type of school do you teach at?
I'll just give you a few particulars.
It's going to take way longer than five minutes, though it's not required, yet. But there's all kinds of stuff. The diversity and inclusion staff have a recommended reading list, as does the union. they have lists of books recommended for POC, 'whites who wish to explore and better understand their whiteness' or some such ridiculous phraseology (oh, so it's optional then...why thanks!!) Every author on the list is left of center, and most are those people that you already know I dislike. D'Angelo, Kendi, that kind of thinker. It is an absolute joke and an insult to one's intelligence.. there is no diversity of viewpoint whatsoever.
I think you would fit right in.
So you aren't actually required to do anything? Smh at all the complaining over some voluntary thing that isn't even required.
I actually have to do more than you, and what I have to do is practically nothing.
The problem is not the herculean effort required to skip through what is essentially a powerpoint presentation. The problem is that I am expected to accept the premise that I am biased regardless of my knowledge or intent by people who have accepted a conclusion not in evidence by assuming all disparate outcomes are the result of bias.
Bias is one of many possible reasons for disparate outcomes. Counterproductive cultural norms, personal preferences, genetics and other possible explanations exist. If someone wishes to state a bias exists, I simply want evidence that it is the cause of whatever problem is stated to be present. I refuse to accept bias (or any other explanation) as the cause of a problem simply because it happens to fit a narrative advantageous to a given ideological axe someone wishes to grind.
My skepticism is highest when people attempt to remove systems that are in place specifically to remove bias. Objective test scores that DO measure intelligence fairly accurately are biased? All of them? What a conspiracy! Orchestra auditions with performers behind a curtain to remain anonymous are another example. If the representation isn't what's desired, the anonymous audition is biased? Maybe at a certain point bias needs to be proven rather than assumed, like any other fact.
Oh my God, we actually have someone on the Fora arguing that "certain races are poor and lower down in society because of inherent characteristics of that race." (Or, "disparate outcomes," etc etc etc.) What is bitterly amusing to me is that people of this viewpoint also insist that there is effectively no bias in white society — while embodying exactly that bias. "I'm just telling it like it is. Some people just are inferior. Well, let's not use the word "inferior" because that sounds insulting, so let's use the phrase, oh, maybe, 'differently abled.' They have some abilities, they're just not like white people's abilities." Etc. It's also bitterly amusing that such people will never read the books that blast this kind of thing out of the water with rigor. Instead all the well-meaning white folks who once by mistake used the wrong word for something will be reading and feeling guilty, whereas the actual out-and-out racists are impervious. I've met a few in my time, but none recently. They did use exactly the same arguments, which were really common in the nineteenth century, along with "We enslave them for their own good" and so on.
Quote from: Hegemony on December 12, 2020, 02:54:04 AM
Oh my God, we actually have someone on the Fora arguing that "certain races are poor and lower down in society because of inherent characteristics of that race." (Or, "disparate outcomes," etc etc etc.) What is bitterly amusing to me is that people of this viewpoint also insist that there is effectively no bias in white society — while embodying exactly that bias. "I'm just telling it like it is. Some people just are inferior. Well, let's not use the word "inferior" because that sounds insulting, so let's use the phrase, oh, maybe, 'differently abled.' They have some abilities, they're just not like white people's abilities." Etc. It's also bitterly amusing that such people will never read the books that blast this kind of thing out of the water with rigor. Instead all the well-meaning white folks who once by mistake used the wrong word for something will be reading and feeling guilty, whereas the actual out-and-out racists are impervious. I've met a few in my time, but none recently. They did use exactly the same arguments, which were really common in the nineteenth century, along with "We enslave them for their own good" and so on.
You don't get out very much if you think that's what financeguy wrote.
Many academics never walk across campus to the actually diverse engineering departments that draw folks from all over the world and see what true racism and sexism look like from the new arrivals who are quite adamant that they are not Asian/African/Other, but are in fact <Country Members> who definitely should not be lumped in with <Other Country Members in the Same Geographic Region> or even <Region of the Same Country Filled with Deplorables>.
Watching people flat out refuse to sit at the same table or acknowledge the presence of those lesser folks makes the folks pushing for general acknowledgement of specific implicit biases that may not exist look silly.
I've told the story before, but one of my favorite diversity trainings involved my Russian colleague leaning over and asking what the assumptions about Asians meant. I explained that Americans assume Asians are great at math and school in general. My colleague's response was, why would anyone think those people are smart or even hard-working when everyone knows differently; are Americans even stupider than I thought? This was at a top ranked graduate program in the Midwest by someone who had been living in the US for several years at that point. She was not the only one who expressed such views; she stands out in my mind because we were friends and the only women in the filled room other than the humanities grad student giving the mandatory training to the new crop of engineering TAs.
I was also one of only a handful of Americans in the room filled with engineering TAs and I will repeat that this was in the Midwest in a state that is still vast majority white with no other races at even 10%. I can remember only one African American student because she was in one of my classes and most of the African national students had pretty pale skins. The department was almost half Asian of various flavors, but few of the professors were what the humanities folks would identify as POC. There was one woman professor and only about 10% women students.
This was decades ago, but I can imagine how a black lives matter portion to the diversity trainings would have gone over in that room, which will have picked up a handful of more women, probably foreign nationals.
Quote from: Hegemony on December 12, 2020, 02:54:04 AM
Oh my God, we actually have someone on the Fora arguing that "certain races are poor and lower down in society because of inherent characteristics of that race." (Or, "disparate outcomes," etc etc etc.) What is bitterly amusing to me is that people of this viewpoint also insist that there is effectively no bias in white society — while embodying exactly that bias. "I'm just telling it like it is. Some people just are inferior. Well, let's not use the word "inferior" because that sounds insulting, so let's use the phrase, oh, maybe, 'differently abled.' They have some abilities, they're just not like white people's abilities." Etc. It's also bitterly amusing that such people will never read the books that blast this kind of thing out of the water with rigor. Instead all the well-meaning white folks who once by mistake used the wrong word for something will be reading and feeling guilty, whereas the actual out-and-out racists are impervious. I've met a few in my time, but none recently. They did use exactly the same arguments, which were really common in the nineteenth century, along with "We enslave them for their own good" and so on.
You mean there needs to be more unbiased stuff like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYZ2XoaBO2A
Quote from: Hegemony on December 12, 2020, 02:54:04 AM
Oh my God, we actually have someone on the Fora arguing that "certain races are poor and lower down in society because of inherent characteristics of that race."
I'm searching this thread in vain for an instance of someone using the words you "quoted." If my search function is malfunctioning, I apologize.
But it seems like you're responding to FinanceGuy's reference to
Quote from: financeguy on December 12, 2020, 02:00:10 AM
counterproductive cultural norms, personal preferences, genetics and other possible explanations.
"Genetics" is the most controversial item in the sequence, obviously. But, leaving that aside, I wonder if you agree that "counterproductive cultural norms" and "personal preferences" exist. If they exist, surely we can consider them as possible explanations for unequal outcomes.
Actually some of the blame can go to that crowning achievement of contemporary white liberal culture, feminism. Devaluing the role of fatherhood and specialized labor among couples, which of course, had worked fine for centuries. Therefore the prevalence of black kids growing up without a consistent father figure in the home of guidance and support. Very destructive. This has nothing to do with any assumptions about genetics or inherent differences among races.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 11, 2020, 09:00:21 PM
So you aren't actually required to do anything? Smh at all the complaining over some voluntary thing that isn't even required.
I actually have to do more than you, and what I have to do is practically nothing.
Only if I want to eat. I get paid for attending the seminars and speeches which are considered a more worthy expenditure by the college than running that popular course I used to have. But I didn't see myself so much complaining as ridiculing people who are begging for it.
What finance guywrote: I read him as asking for evidence. What academics do.
On becoming a former liberal: life in academia has done it for me. The winners/losers lay of the land among college faculty, being snubbed and shut out by the tenure track's union, seeing the liberal pol university president trying to snuff out our union, plus all the hypocrisy, hype, victimology and total waste of time trends we are discussing here. It's not that voting republican would seem to make great sense. It's more that anything else makes less sense.
Quote from: mahagonny on December 12, 2020, 07:59:02 AM
Actually some of the blame can go to that crowning achievement of contemporary white liberal culture, feminism. Devaluing the role of fatherhood and specialized labor among couples, which of course, had worked fine for centuries. Therefore the prevalence of black kids growing up without a consistent father figure in the home of guidance and support. Very destructive. This has nothing to do with any assumptions about genetics or inherent differences among races.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 11, 2020, 09:00:21 PM
So you aren't actually required to do anything? Smh at all the complaining over some voluntary thing that isn't even required.
I actually have to do more than you, and what I have to do is practically nothing.
Only if I want to eat. I get paid for attending the seminars and speeches which are considered a more worthy expenditure by the college than running that popular course I used to have. But I didn't see myself so much complaining as ridiculing people who are begging for it.
What finance guywrote: I read him as asking for evidence. What academics do.
You get paid to go to diversity training? Sounds like a pretty sweet deal actually. What kind of university do you teach at again?
I don't know what financeguy wrote about evidence, but certainly these things are only worthwhile if they are effective. Of course, rejecting them out of hand without conducting or consulting empirical research on their effectiveness would also be silly.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2020, 08:09:00 AM
You get paid to go to diversity training? Sounds like a pretty sweet deal actually. What kind of university do you teach at again?
I don't know what financeguy wrote about evidence, but certainly these things are only worthwhile if they are effective. Of course, rejecting them out of hand without conducting or consulting empirical research on their effectiveness would also be silly.
What I'm calling diversity training is not specifically that; it is a series of seminars and a keynote speech. It happens every so often; not every year. Full timers are required to attend and part timers are encouraged to attend by getting a stipend. Lots of internet discussion follows. In my opinion, too much. Still, this is, actually and potentially, one of the positive things about having a college that does not have a tenure track. Part time faculty can be, here and there, considered an asset to the college to be invested in, not a temporary mistake that threatens the dynasty. And as I wrote, some of the seminars have been great. I've learned things. It's where social justice matters come into it that they really stink, for the most part. If you asked them to invite Coleman Hughes to present one, you'd be ridden out of town on a rail five minutes after they google him to find out who he is. One thing I can tell you about liberals:
they don't like diversity.As for the sweet deal part, it's the same situation as it is for part timers everywhere, as Kaysixteen and others have noted hereabouts, and as full timers who used to be part timers are so good at forgetting: part of your job is looking for work, so your hourly pay is lower than what might be calculated with prep time, classroom time, grading, etc.
Following the seminars, we are invited to comment on them, and I'm doing that here. Just following instructions.
A colleague works at the union. He says everyone but him has one type or another of 'Black Lives Matter' identifier on their desk or email signature. He's definitely feeling a draft.
Quote from: mahagonny on December 12, 2020, 08:20:41 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2020, 08:09:00 AM
You get paid to go to diversity training? Sounds like a pretty sweet deal actually. What kind of university do you teach at again?
I don't know what financeguy wrote about evidence, but certainly these things are only worthwhile if they are effective. Of course, rejecting them out of hand without conducting or consulting empirical research on their effectiveness would also be silly.
I teach at two colleges, so it is likely my anecdotes can be confusing. The college I'm referring to has a 'strong union.' this is both good and bad.
What I'm calling diversity training is not specifically that; it is a series of seminars and a keynote speech. Full timers are required to attend and part timers are encouraged to attend by getting a stipend. Lots of internet discussion follows. In my opinion, too much. Still, this is, actually and potentially, one of the positive things about having a college that does not have a tenure track. Part time faculty can be, here and there, considered an asset to the college to be invested in, not a temporary mistake that threatens the dynasty. And as I wrote, some of the seminars have been great. I've learned things It's where social justice matters come into it that they really stink, for the most part. If you asked them to invite Coleman Hughes to present one, you'd be ridden out of town on a rail five minutes after they google him to find out how he is.
As for the sweet deal part, it's the same situation as it is for part timers everywhere, as Kaysixteen and others have noted hereabouts, and as full timers who used to be part timers are so good at forgetting: part of your job is looking for work, so your hourly pay is lower than what might be calculated with prep time, classroom time, grading, etc.
Gotcha. So, to confirm: The things you are griping about in this thread are not actually a trainings. These are seminars, which you choose to attend, and you enjoy them because they are great, and you even get paid to attend. Sometimes they are focused on social justice, and you don't like those and resent your university for not letting you bring in somebody named Coleman Hughes. You don't have to attend the social justice talks, of course, but you choose to because you want to get the check (how principled of you... although you might want to think about the opportunity costs).
And this all somehow this has to do with part timers looking for work and full timers being forgetful.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2020, 08:46:05 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 12, 2020, 08:20:41 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2020, 08:09:00 AM
You get paid to go to diversity training? Sounds like a pretty sweet deal actually. What kind of university do you teach at again?
I don't know what financeguy wrote about evidence, but certainly these things are only worthwhile if they are effective. Of course, rejecting them out of hand without conducting or consulting empirical research on their effectiveness would also be silly.
I teach at two colleges, so it is likely my anecdotes can be confusing. The college I'm referring to has a 'strong union.' this is both good and bad.
What I'm calling diversity training is not specifically that; it is a series of seminars and a keynote speech. Full timers are required to attend and part timers are encouraged to attend by getting a stipend. Lots of internet discussion follows. In my opinion, too much. Still, this is, actually and potentially, one of the positive things about having a college that does not have a tenure track. Part time faculty can be, here and there, considered an asset to the college to be invested in, not a temporary mistake that threatens the dynasty. And as I wrote, some of the seminars have been great. I've learned things It's where social justice matters come into it that they really stink, for the most part. If you asked them to invite Coleman Hughes to present one, you'd be ridden out of town on a rail five minutes after they google him to find out how he is.
As for the sweet deal part, it's the same situation as it is for part timers everywhere, as Kaysixteen and others have noted hereabouts, and as full timers who used to be part timers are so good at forgetting: part of your job is looking for work, so your hourly pay is lower than what might be calculated with prep time, classroom time, grading, etc.
Gotcha. So, to confirm: The things you are griping about in this thread are not actually a trainings. These are seminars, which you choose to attend, and you enjoy them because they are great, and you even get paid to attend. Sometimes they are focused on social justice, and you don't like those and resent your university for not letting you bring in somebody named Coleman Hughes. You don't have to attend the social justice talks, of course, but you choose to because you want to get the check (how principled of you... although you might want to think about the opportunity costs).
And this all somehow this has to do with part timers looking for work and full timers being forgetful.
so, to confirm: colleges may hire academics from on or off campus to give talks on social justice issues for the purpose of provoking thought and discussion, on campus and beyond, and you want the discussion to be all the type you agree with, and when it's not, you choose to make an issue with the person discussing it in a way you don't agree with; notably, his succumbing to his need to make a living, rather than take up any of the points ardently and regularly made by the far left university culture, which we are well familiar with by now.
Trying it a different way before we get into the ad hominem blasting phase:
A presentation by a speaker these days feels to many of us like training and peer pressure rather than an exchange of ideas for this simple reason: he starts with the assumption that everyone in the room agrees that a new, reinvented way of thinking teaching talking and acting, infused with 'antiracist' objective, is urgently needed, as mandated by the killing of George Floyd, which of course was racially motivated,(?) and other similar current events. And the only points on which we may disagree are 'what should this vigorous anti-racist work look like, and what required of each of us?'
They are treating things as settled issues that are not, and in doing do, isolating one part of the room (the squares) from the cool people in the other. And under the the banner of 'inclusion'.
I call psychological manipulation.
Quote from: mahagonny on December 12, 2020, 08:58:17 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2020, 08:46:05 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 12, 2020, 08:20:41 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2020, 08:09:00 AM
You get paid to go to diversity training? Sounds like a pretty sweet deal actually. What kind of university do you teach at again?
I don't know what financeguy wrote about evidence, but certainly these things are only worthwhile if they are effective. Of course, rejecting them out of hand without conducting or consulting empirical research on their effectiveness would also be silly.
I teach at two colleges, so it is likely my anecdotes can be confusing. The college I'm referring to has a 'strong union.' this is both good and bad.
What I'm calling diversity training is not specifically that; it is a series of seminars and a keynote speech. Full timers are required to attend and part timers are encouraged to attend by getting a stipend. Lots of internet discussion follows. In my opinion, too much. Still, this is, actually and potentially, one of the positive things about having a college that does not have a tenure track. Part time faculty can be, here and there, considered an asset to the college to be invested in, not a temporary mistake that threatens the dynasty. And as I wrote, some of the seminars have been great. I've learned things It's where social justice matters come into it that they really stink, for the most part. If you asked them to invite Coleman Hughes to present one, you'd be ridden out of town on a rail five minutes after they google him to find out how he is.
As for the sweet deal part, it's the same situation as it is for part timers everywhere, as Kaysixteen and others have noted hereabouts, and as full timers who used to be part timers are so good at forgetting: part of your job is looking for work, so your hourly pay is lower than what might be calculated with prep time, classroom time, grading, etc.
Gotcha. So, to confirm: The things you are griping about in this thread are not actually a trainings. These are seminars, which you choose to attend, and you enjoy them because they are great, and you even get paid to attend. Sometimes they are focused on social justice, and you don't like those and resent your university for not letting you bring in somebody named Coleman Hughes. You don't have to attend the social justice talks, of course, but you choose to because you want to get the check (how principled of you... although you might want to think about the opportunity costs).
And this all somehow this has to do with part timers looking for work and full timers being forgetful.
so, to confirm: colleges may hire academics from on or off campus to give talks on social justice issues for the purpose of provoking thought and discussion, on campus and beyond, and you want the discussion to be all the type you agree with, and when it's not, you choose to make an issue with the person discussing it in a way you don't agree with; notably, his succumbing to his need to make a living, rather than take up any of the points ardently and regularly made by the far left university culture, which we are well familiar with by now.
Who are you referring to here? Certainly I never said anything remotely close to this.
What type of university do you teach at again? I've never heard of a school paying adjuncts to attend seminars.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2020, 09:44:40 AM
What type of university do you teach at again? I've never heard of a school paying adjuncts to attend seminars.
you're not going to out me this way.
Have you heard of Coleman Hughes? Do you need to get out more?
Quote from: mahagonny on December 12, 2020, 09:50:11 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2020, 09:44:40 AM
What type of university do you teach at again? I've never heard of a school paying adjuncts to attend seminars.
I see you've never heard of Coleman Hughes either.
What? Is this supposed to be an answer to my question? I feel like I'm talking to one of those automated voice systems at TIAA:
Automated voice: "Please state your reason for the call in a few words"
Me: "Diversity trainings"
Automated voice: "You wish to talk about voluntary seminars this correct?"
Me: "No"
Automated voice: "Please restate your reason for the call in a few words"
Me: "You get paid to attend seminars... that's weird"
Automated voice: "You wish to talk about full time faculty forgetfulness. Is this correct?"
Me: "No"
Automated voice: "Please restate your reason for the call in a few words"
Me: "What kind of university do you teach at?"
Automated voice: "You wish to talk about Coleman Hughes. Is this correct?"
White people are so fragile.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2020, 10:03:19 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 12, 2020, 09:50:11 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2020, 09:44:40 AM
What type of university do you teach at again? I've never heard of a school paying adjuncts to attend seminars.
I see you've never heard of Coleman Hughes either.
What? Is this supposed to be an answer to my question? I feel like I'm talking to one of those automated voice systems at TIAA:
Automated voice: "Please state your reason for the call in a few words"
Me: "Diversity trainings"
Automated voice: "You wish to talk about voluntary seminars this correct?"
Me: "No"
Automated voice: "Please restate your reason for the call in a few words"
Me: "You get paid to attend seminars... that's weird"
Automated voice: "You wish to talk about full time faculty forgetfulness. Is this correct?"
Me: "No"
Automated voice: "Please restate your reason for the call in a few words"
Me: "What kind of university do you teach at?"
Automated voice: "You wish to talk about Coleman Hughes. Is this correct?"
I did not answer you directly, not even after editing, because your answer appears in reply #14 upthread:
Quote
At least they pay us, which is appreciated, and comes at a good time.
If your question is still 'what kind of an institution pays adjuncts to go to seminars' my answer is 'the kind that does.'
But you either don't believe that we get paid (your issue), or you believe being paid means the speakers may not be criticized after the school asks for our reaction. Or something else. I can't think of any reason in particular that
an adjunct may not give a critique of the speaker. Can you?
Not going well. Anyone else have anything here?
Quote from: mahagonny on December 12, 2020, 10:54:16 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2020, 10:03:19 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 12, 2020, 09:50:11 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2020, 09:44:40 AM
What type of university do you teach at again? I've never heard of a school paying adjuncts to attend seminars.
I see you've never heard of Coleman Hughes either.
What? Is this supposed to be an answer to my question? I feel like I'm talking to one of those automated voice systems at TIAA:
Automated voice: "Please state your reason for the call in a few words"
Me: "Diversity trainings"
Automated voice: "You wish to talk about voluntary seminars this correct?"
Me: "No"
Automated voice: "Please restate your reason for the call in a few words"
Me: "You get paid to attend seminars... that's weird"
Automated voice: "You wish to talk about full time faculty forgetfulness. Is this correct?"
Me: "No"
Automated voice: "Please restate your reason for the call in a few words"
Me: "What kind of university do you teach at?"
Automated voice: "You wish to talk about Coleman Hughes. Is this correct?"
I did not answer you directly, not even after editing, because your answer appears in reply #14 upthread:
Quote
At least they pay us, which is appreciated, and comes at a good time.
If your question is still 'what kind of an institution pays adjuncts to go to seminars' my answer is 'the kind that does.'
But you either don't believe that we get paid (your issue), or you believe being paid means the speakers may not be criticized after the school asks for our reaction. Or something else. I can't think of any reason in particular that an adjunct may not give a critique of the speaker. Can you?
Not going well. Anyone else have anything here?
I never said any of the bolded (you seem to have a hard time engaging in discussion without misrepresenting my earlier comments), just asking what sort of institution pays adjuncts to attend seminars. I've never heard of this, and I have been around, so I'm curious. If you don't want to answer, that's fine, but it is out of the ordinary, so I'm asking.
Quote from: larryc on December 12, 2020, 10:27:02 AM
White people are so fragile.
Do you mean that criticizing something regardless of whether it was said by a white-supremacist or an "anti-racist" is evidence of "fragility"?
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2020, 11:36:04 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 12, 2020, 10:54:16 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2020, 10:03:19 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 12, 2020, 09:50:11 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2020, 09:44:40 AM
What type of university do you teach at again? I've never heard of a school paying adjuncts to attend seminars.
I see you've never heard of Coleman Hughes either.
What? Is this supposed to be an answer to my question? I feel like I'm talking to one of those automated voice systems at TIAA:
Automated voice: "Please state your reason for the call in a few words"
Me: "Diversity trainings"
Automated voice: "You wish to talk about voluntary seminars this correct?"
Me: "No"
Automated voice: "Please restate your reason for the call in a few words"
Me: "You get paid to attend seminars... that's weird"
Automated voice: "You wish to talk about full time faculty forgetfulness. Is this correct?"
Me: "No"
Automated voice: "Please restate your reason for the call in a few words"
Me: "What kind of university do you teach at?"
Automated voice: "You wish to talk about Coleman Hughes. Is this correct?"
I did not answer you directly, not even after editing, because your answer appears in reply #14 upthread:
Quote
At least they pay us, which is appreciated, and comes at a good time.
If your question is still 'what kind of an institution pays adjuncts to go to seminars' my answer is 'the kind that does.'
But you either don't believe that we get paid (your issue), or you believe being paid means the speakers may not be criticized after the school asks for our reaction. Or something else. I can't think of any reason in particular that an adjunct may not give a critique of the speaker. Can you?
Not going well. Anyone else have anything here?
I never said any of the bolded (you seem to have a hard time engaging in discussion without misrepresenting my earlier comments), just asking what sort of institution pays adjuncts to attend seminars. I've never heard of this, and I have been around, so I'm curious. If you don't want to answer, that's fine, but it is out of the ordinary, so I'm asking.
Some institutions do pay adjuncts for office hours. Adjuncts in one or more institutions in large metropolitan areas can use some of these hours to attend professional development workshops.
Quote from: larryc on December 12, 2020, 10:27:02 AM
White people are so fragile.
Dude,
White Fragility is racist now.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/dehumanizing-condescension-white-fragility/614146/
Follow the plot.
Quote from: larryc on December 12, 2020, 10:27:02 AM
White people are so fragile.
Not everyone expressing skepticism of some of these initiatives and ideas is white, straight, etc. but go on making assumptions (or make even nastier comments about who is and is not an authentic member of a group).
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2020, 08:09:00 AM
Who are you referring to here? Certainly I never said anything remotely close to this.
What type of university do you teach at again? I've never heard of a school paying adjuncts to attend seminars.
Next semester, my large urban public university is offering a paid workshop on diversity in the classroom to all faculty--including adjuncts--while of course cutting classes offered to adjuncts because the one part of the budget that must not be cut is the pay and number of administrators.
Quote from: Langue_doc on December 12, 2020, 01:38:39 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2020, 11:36:04 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 12, 2020, 10:54:16 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2020, 10:03:19 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 12, 2020, 09:50:11 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2020, 09:44:40 AM
What type of university do you teach at again? I've never heard of a school paying adjuncts to attend seminars.
I see you've never heard of Coleman Hughes either.
What? Is this supposed to be an answer to my question? I feel like I'm talking to one of those automated voice systems at TIAA:
Automated voice: "Please state your reason for the call in a few words"
Me: "Diversity trainings"
Automated voice: "You wish to talk about voluntary seminars this correct?"
Me: "No"
Automated voice: "Please restate your reason for the call in a few words"
Me: "You get paid to attend seminars... that's weird"
Automated voice: "You wish to talk about full time faculty forgetfulness. Is this correct?"
Me: "No"
Automated voice: "Please restate your reason for the call in a few words"
Me: "What kind of university do you teach at?"
Automated voice: "You wish to talk about Coleman Hughes. Is this correct?"
I did not answer you directly, not even after editing, because your answer appears in reply #14 upthread:
Quote
At least they pay us, which is appreciated, and comes at a good time.
If your question is still 'what kind of an institution pays adjuncts to go to seminars' my answer is 'the kind that does.'
But you either don't believe that we get paid (your issue), or you believe being paid means the speakers may not be criticized after the school asks for our reaction. Or something else. I can't think of any reason in particular that an adjunct may not give a critique of the speaker. Can you?
Not going well. Anyone else have anything here?
I never said any of the bolded (you seem to have a hard time engaging in discussion without misrepresenting my earlier comments), just asking what sort of institution pays adjuncts to attend seminars. I've never heard of this, and I have been around, so I'm curious. If you don't want to answer, that's fine, but it is out of the ordinary, so I'm asking.
Some institutions do pay adjuncts for office hours. Adjuncts in one or more institutions in large metropolitan areas can use some of these hours to attend professional development workshops.
That's not what he's describing. If he was being paid for office hours then he wouldn't have to go to the seminar to get a check.
Quote from: Anon1787 on December 12, 2020, 03:40:16 PM
Quote from: larryc on December 12, 2020, 10:27:02 AM
White people are so fragile.
Not everyone expressing skepticism of some of these initiatives and ideas is white, straight, etc. but go on making assumptions (or make even nastier comments about who is and is not an authentic member of a group).
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2020, 08:09:00 AM
Who are you referring to here? Certainly I never said anything remotely close to this.
What type of university do you teach at again? I've never heard of a school paying adjuncts to attend seminars.
Next semester, my large urban public university is offering a paid workshop on diversity in the classroom to all faculty--including adjuncts--while of course cutting classes offered to adjuncts because the one part of the budget that must not be cut is the pay and number of administrators.
Also not what he's describing, although closer.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2020, 09:44:40 AM
Also not what he's describing, although closer.
I believe that what was mentioned is a speaker from off or on campus and that all participants are compensated (the stipend for participation is in addition to regular salary), so I don't see how that does not qualify, but you are splitting hairs to make what point exactly?
Quote from: Anon1787 on December 12, 2020, 04:00:49 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2020, 09:44:40 AM
Also not what he's describing, although closer.
I believe that what was mentioned is a speaker from off or on campus and that all participants are compensated (the stipend for participation is in addition to regular salary), so I don't see how that does not qualify, but you are splitting hairs to make what point exactly?
There is a difference between a guest speaker series and a professional development workshop. They are fundamentally different, and so not splitting hairs imo, although you are welcome to disagree. The point is that I've never heard of anyone being paid to attend events of the former sort, which is what the poster appears to be describing, and so I'd like to know what type of university does this.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2020, 04:32:45 PM
Quote from: Anon1787 on December 12, 2020, 04:00:49 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2020, 09:44:40 AM
Also not what he's describing, although closer.
I believe that what was mentioned is a speaker from off or on campus and that all participants are compensated (the stipend for participation is in addition to regular salary), so I don't see how that does not qualify, but you are splitting hairs to make what point exactly?
There is a difference between a guest speaker series and a professional development workshop. They are fundamentally different, and so not splitting hairs imo, although you are welcome to disagree. The point is that I've never heard of anyone being paid to attend events of the former sort, which is what the poster appears to be describing, and so I'd like to know what type of university does this.
Welcome to the new "normal".
Quote
Next semester, my large urban public university is offering a paid workshop on diversity in the classroom to all faculty--including adjuncts--while of course cutting classes offered to adjuncts because the one part of the budget that must not be cut is the pay and number of administrators.
You can always grab a part timer to teach a course on short notice. Teaching courses that help you know stuff is routine, taken for granted and, accordingly, the people who fill these jobs are interchangeable. Whereas this antiracism thing is cutting edge stuff. You can't sit still on these breaking trends. It's how you make your college a cool, woke, up-to-date place. You import a publishing star to give a talk, you have something to write about in your college newsletter.
QuoteDude, White Fragility is racist now.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/dehumanizing-condescension-white-fragility/614146/
Follow the plot.
If I understand McWhorter he believes that it would be racist to suppose that black Americans are so weak in coping skills, self confidence, that we must always approach our relationships with them with some extremely fastidious type of concern about any utterance with even the remote possibility of being offensive. I agree with him.
Let me make this even simpler:
-I'm not opposed to bias as as explanation to some differences in outcomes.
-If this explanation is proposed, it (like any other explanation) should be supported with evidence.
-Other possible explanations should be considered, subjected to evidence-based scrutiny and accepted if the evidence supports them as a complete or partial cause of a disparate outcome.
I don't see how any of these are remotely controversial. In order to reject this basic premise, you would have to believe non-bias related explanations for disparate outcomes are literally impossible. Is anyone explicitly stating this? Not that I'm aware of, but in making insane statements assumptions about the bias of all standardized tests or anonymous instrumental auditions they imply that bias and bias alone is the only acceptable solution. This to me puts someone in the crazy lane of "believe all women." You're no longer trying to find the truth but advocate for a position. That's fine most places outside an academic environment which theoretically attempts to apply ration and logic to arrive at conclusions rather than simply indoctrinate.
Even what is stated as the most controversial possible outcome, genetics can be easily shown to be a possible (although still not assumed without evidence) cause of a disparate outcome. Take the following example:
Local police department's force has slightly lower than the local Asian population. The department has a height requirement. At around 3 inches shorter on average, the total number of Asians who meet this requirement relative to those over represented relative to their percentage of the population explains the difference. Of course bias is also a possibility. Given only those facts so far I would say it is not the most likely explanation, but presented with evidence that the police chief and other top officials have been found to have made anti-Asian remarks, that could change and bias could "take the lead" as an explanation. It just doesn't get to be the default or escape the requirement of evidence.
SunWorshipper,
I'm sorry this thread has so much close-minded baloney on it. I think you'll find, if you frequent this forum, that the bitter cheesed-off older faculty predominate. They resent the fact that the world has moved on from their halcyon days, if they ever had them. They are pretty racist and sexist, and don't like the way the world has changed in the past 5-6 decades. And then many of them are under-employed and angry at higher-ed in general. It's unfortunate, but this thread's type of resentful griping about a short training video is pretty typical. How offensive! How dare they imply I might be less than perfect?! How dare they suggest I might be better able to help my students and be a better colleague if I had to rethink some of my ingrained reflexes?! Sniff, snort.
Quote from: bento on December 13, 2020, 01:02:05 PM
How dare they suggest I might be better able to help my students and be a better colleague if I had to rethink some of my ingrained reflexes?! Sniff, snort.
Yes, ingrained biases are definitely problematic. Like this:
Quote
I think you'll find, if you frequent this forum, that the bitter cheesed-off older faculty predominate. They resent the fact that the world has moved on from their halcyon days, if they ever had them. They are pretty racist and sexist, and don't like the way the world has changed in the past 5-6 decades. And then many of them are under-employed and angry at higher-ed in general.
No bigotry there, no sir.
Quote
SunWorshipper,
I'm sorry this thread has so much close-minded baloney on it.
Aren't we all.
Quote from: bento on December 13, 2020, 01:02:05 PM
SunWorshipper,
I'm sorry this thread has so much close-minded baloney on it. I think you'll find, if you frequent this forum, that the bitter cheesed-off older faculty predominate. They resent the fact that the world has moved on from their halcyon days, if they ever had them. They are pretty racist and sexist, and don't like the way the world has changed in the past 5-6 decades. And then many of them are under-employed and angry at higher-ed in general. It's unfortunate, but this thread's type of resentful griping about a short training video is pretty typical. How offensive! How dare they imply I might be less than perfect?! How dare they suggest I might be better able to help my students and be a better colleague if I had to rethink some of my ingrained reflexes?! Sniff, snort.
Pal, I'm thriving in the new world order. Laughing at idiots is merely my leisure activity.
Bento is referring to me. I am bitter. But then, so are the scholars who think that better or good enough lives for black Americans can only happen by everyone becoming 'antiracist' according to their instructions, and he/she has no problem taking them seriously. Bento will find, if he or she looks around, that the people who think this movement has gone overboard do not all belong to one group. That's because no one has exclusive rights to common sense.
Quote from: wareagle on December 10, 2020, 02:01:04 PM
What was frustrating was that the students, whose behavior was clearly egregious, got off scot-free, and those of us who worked hard to provide opportunity for the Native students got punished.
Or they figured faculty and staff are in a better position to see abuse or micro aggressions when they happen and need training to know how to respond? IDK if I'd call that punishment...
Quote from: Burnie on December 30, 2020, 11:12:06 AM
Quote from: wareagle on December 10, 2020, 02:01:04 PM
What was frustrating was that the students, whose behavior was clearly egregious, got off scot-free, and those of us who worked hard to provide opportunity for the Native students got punished.
Or they figured faculty and staff are in a better position to see abuse or micro aggressions when they happen and need training to know how to respond? IDK if I'd call that punishment...
Presumably a proportional response would be a micro-sanction, or some other micro-action.
Quote from: Burnie on December 30, 2020, 11:12:06 AM
Quote from: wareagle on December 10, 2020, 02:01:04 PM
What was frustrating was that the students, whose behavior was clearly egregious, got off scot-free, and those of us who worked hard to provide opportunity for the Native students got punished.
Or they figured faculty and staff are in a better position to see abuse or micro aggressions when they happen and need training to know how to respond? IDK if I'd call that punishment...
I would call it both useful information, essential for doing one's best to avoid accusation at the workplace and also punishment for not, en masse, challenging the 'anti-racist' mob as they encroach on academic freedom, etc.