Professor Votes With His Feet

[Kron3007]

Sun Worshiper posted:

This thread - which you posted for us to respond to - is about Jordan Peterson and his letter explaining why he quit, so I'm reacting to your OP by pointing out what is obviously true: That he makes sweeping generalizations about academic hiring, applying to grants, etc., and instead of supporting these claims with data or evidence he says "this has been common knowledge among any remotely truthful academic who has served on a hiring committee for the last three decades."

Mahag replies:

Where is your evidence for this claim, then:

It doesn't help that lots of people are put off by Peterson's philosophy, but if his grads have top pubs they will get hired regardless.

to wit,

No one seems to dispute that this is going on:

"All my craven colleagues must craft DIE statements to obtain a research grant." -- Dr. Peterson

So I'll submit: if your claim (my bolding) is correct, a scholar applying for a grant should be able to state 'I sincerely hope, in the interest of viewpoint diversity/inclusion, that the currently held nonsense being spewed by DEI departments across our land gets some serious clock cleaning in the immediate future,; as well, I fervently hope we will be able to hear much more from the conservative faction (particularly the outstanding young, Black thinkers) their measured, well supported logical repudiation of today's democratic party platform and its racist treatment of BIPOC voters and the calamitous effects on their rates of success and health over decades resulting from that party's implausible victimhood/oppressor worldview, a worldview that unfortunately has recently dominated our American media, academic and entertainment culture today despite its unpopularity'   and still get the grant, as long as they meet the requirement of having recently published in the quality journals.'

...or some such broadside against the well-known monochromatic DEI rhetoric in our midst. They could probably state it better than me. (I'm just a trade school educated, adjunct artist -- academic also ran)

There is much reason to doubt it.

For most grants, you don't need to agree, you just have to show what steps you have taken in your lab to ensure everyone is treated equally and such.  No matter what your stance is on the topic, you can write about how your lab dosn't discriminate and creates an inclusive environment. 

For larger grants, you do need to describe systemic barriers etc.,  In this case, you would be pretty hard pressed to succeed by denying it exists.  This is the section I think takes it to far.  Not because I disagree that systemic barriers exist, just that I don't feel qualifies to write on the subject. 

[Kron3007]

Some of the things they are looking for are that you advertise with non-gendered language, distribute work and opportunities in an equitable manner (ie. Not always assigning females to take notes, giving equal support for conferences, etc.), Provide flexibility for religious/family needs, etc.

Again, even if you don't think there are any systemic barriers, it is pretty easy to tell them how you operate your lab to make sure that's true.  If you don't believe in any barriers, I'm sure you already do all these things and more.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Sun Worshiper posted:

This thread - which you posted for us to respond to - is about Jordan Peterson and his letter explaining why he quit, so I'm reacting to your OP by pointing out what is obviously true: That he makes sweeping generalizations about academic hiring, applying to grants, etc., and instead of supporting these claims with data or evidence he says "this has been common knowledge among any remotely truthful academic who has served on a hiring committee for the last three decades."

Mahog replies:

Where is your evidence for this claim, then?

It doesn't help that lots of people are put off by Peterson's philosophy, but if his grads have top pubs they will get hired regardless.

Here is are some articles that show evidence that pubs (especially top pubs) dominate when it comes to academic hiring at research universities:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982214004771
https://socialsciences.nature.com/posts/55118-the-path-to-professorship-by-the-numbers-and-why-mentorship-matters
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3604270

No one seems to dispute that this is going on:

"All my craven colleagues must craft DIE statements to obtain a research grant." -- Dr. Peterson

So I'll submit: if your claim (which I italicized) is correct, a scholar applying for a grant should be able to state 'I sincerely hope, in the interest of viewpoint diversity, that the currently held nonsense being spewed by DEI departments across our land gets some serious clock cleaning in the immediate future,; as well, I fervently hope we will be able to hear much more from the conservative faction (particularly the outstanding young, Black thinkers) their measured, well supported logical repudiation of today's democratic party platform and its racist treatment of BIPOC voters and the calamitous effects on their rates of success and health over decades resulting from their perpetual victimhood dogma'   and still get the grant, as long as they meet your requirement of having recently published in the quality journals.'

...or some such broadside against the DEI rhetoric in our midst. They could probably state it better than me. (I'm just a trade school educated, adjunct artist -- academic also ran)

There is much reason to doubt it.

Which of my claims is this in response to? I never said anything about applying for grants. I said (1) that Peterson is making sweeping claims without evidence beyond, to paraphrase, "everyone knows this is true." My statement is accurate - he offers no evidence, beyond his own experience, to back up many of his complaints. I also said (2) that top pubs dominate in terms of getting a job (not a grant) and the evidence I offered above supports that assertion.

As for whether you can get a grant that requires a diversity statement by arguing that your grant advances viewpoint diversity (whatever that means, exactly), I might personally buy, if the grant was otherwise well done and you made a strong case for why advancing viewpoint diversity in this way was important, so be sure to suggest me as a peer reviewer.

And look, I support JP's decision to leave his job at Toronto. Obviously he is unhappy and life is too short to stay in an unfulfilling job (if you have other options, which he surely does). I just don't find his arguments, as explained in his resignation blog, to be very convincing.

[mahagonny]

For larger grants, you do need to describe systemic barriers etc.,  In this case, you would be pretty hard pressed to succeed by denying it exists.  This is the section I think takes it to far.  Not because I disagree that systemic barriers exist, just that I don't feel qualifies to write on the subject.

I am not convinced they exist so I would be inclined to ask for evidence from them, and that would be the end of the grant application. But instead of doing something counterproductive, I might instead hang out with the local cool people long enough to learn how to fake it. This would mean I am another craven one, according to Peterson, but then I'm really essentially an outsider anyway (adjunct) so I don't feel much of a sense of duty in rooting out the rot.
I don't know a lot about the grant writing process first hand, but you can take Dr. Jordan Peterson out of the picture, and there are still many who think it stinks to high heaven, as do other things the DEI infiltrates.. He's just the one people in charge love to hate because he's been getting a following.
ETA: Encouraging sign, Gov. Glenn Youngkin dissolves the state DEI bureaucracy! And of course the liberal media is ready to pounce...https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/590908-virginias-youngkin-gets-the-desantis-treatment-from-media
https://news.yahoo.com/youngkin-eliminates-cabinet-level-dei-163904493.html

[Kron3007]

For larger grants, you do need to describe systemic barriers etc.,  In this case, you would be pretty hard pressed to succeed by denying it exists.  This is the section I think takes it to far.  Not because I disagree that systemic barriers exist, just that I don't feel qualifies to write on the subject.

I am not convinced they exist so I would be inclined to ask for evidence from them, and that would be the end of the grant application. But instead of doing something counterproductive, I might instead hang out with the local cool people long enough to learn how to fake it. This would mean I am another craven one, according to Peterson, but then I'm really essentially an outsider anyway (adjunct) so I don't feel much of a sense of duty in rooting out the rot.
I don't know a lot about the grant writing process first hand, but you can take Dr. Jordan Peterson out of the picture, and there are still many who think it stinks to high heaven, as do other things the DEI infiltrates.. He's just the one people in charge love to hate because he's been getting a following.
ETA: Encouraging sign, Gov. Glenn Youngkin dissolves the state DEI bureaucracy! And of course the liberal media is ready to pounce...https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/590908-virginias-youngkin-gets-the-desantis-treatment-from-media
https://news.yahoo.com/youngkin-eliminates-cabinet-level-dei-163904493.html

Then yes, you would fail before you started.  On these grants, the EDI section is a go/no-go section.  If they don't like this part, you have failed no matter what.  I agree that this takes it too far.

[mahagonny]

See, Dr. Kendi has explained impediments faced by minorities in a way everyone can understand. His explanation is 'White people are 77% of the population, but 95.8 % of farmers are white. So white supremacy is keeping BIPOC people out of the farming business, obviously, unless you are a racist and think black people are too stupid to succeed at farming, and that's why we're not doing it.' AnD the DEI professionals say 'hmm...i think I smell a full time benefitted gig here. Let me dust off my resume and apply.' And the liberal academic says 'yeah, I don't necessarily agree 100% with...what did you say his name was, I don't think I've heard of him yet...oh yeah, Kendi, but that's one way that scholars look at things and it deserves to be heard and not canceled by the radical right who, as we know, prevents black people from voting.'

Kendi has built his empire on this thing that he calls a theory fact. It's nothing but bullying with a moralistic ultimatum that puts the listener on trial. And Jordan Peterson is the one who's holding court with his free associating and can't be trusted.

[marshwiggle]

Some of the things they are looking for are that you advertise with non-gendered language, distribute work and opportunities in an equitable manner (ie. Not always assigning females to take notes, giving equal support for conferences, etc.), Provide flexibility for religious/family needs, etc.

Again, even if you don't think there are any systemic barriers, it is pretty easy to tell them how you operate your lab to make sure that's true.  If you don't believe in any barriers, I'm sure you already do all these things and more.

You can't prove a negative. So how do you prove that you "*distribute work and opportunities in an equitable manner"? Who actually has a written policy that "females take notes"?

The whole "systemic" assumption of guilty until proven innocent makes the task impossible.


*All the things that for decades were considered just decent professional behaviour. And for decades the people who didn't do those things were known for being jerks. The progressive idea that they just invented these 5 minutes ago is galling. Lots of people in the past were conscientious and just did these things as a matter of course because it was the right thing to do; now people need some sort of "seal of approval" from a DIE committee to identify them as not evil. (At least for the moment.)

[Parasaurolophus]

You can't prove a negative.

1.p > ~q
2. p
3. ∴ ~q (1, 2 MP)


Similarly, it's not particularly hard to prove that the earth is not flat.

So how do you prove that you "*distribute work and opportunities in an equitable manner"?

That's not a negative. And even if it was, Kron3007 did not suggest you had to prove it was true, merely that you had to describe your lab and its operations with an eye to showing that you're aware of the ways in which systemic barriers might potentially manifest, and that your lab is not a place where they do so.

Who actually has a written policy that "females take notes"?

Presumably, nobody. But there are some places where that's how things shake out. The idea is to be sufficiently aware of this stereotyped tendency that it's not one manifested in the spaces over which one is responsible.

*All the things that for decades were considered just decent professional behaviour. And for decades the people who didn't do those things were known for being jerks. The progressive idea that they just invented these 5 minutes ago is galling. Lots of people in the past were conscientious and just did these things as a matter of course because it was the right thing to do; now people need some sort of "seal of approval" from a DIE committee to identify them as not evil. (At least for the moment.)

All your emotionally-laden terms aside, you'll find that even a cursory look at recent history doesn't bear this out. We were much more tolerant of "jerks" and their behaviour, and it was widespread and normalized. It doesn't take a whole lot of "jerks" to make the workplace a miserable shithole, and there was an abundance of them.

[marshwiggle]

So how do you prove that you "*distribute work and opportunities in an equitable manner"?

That's not a negative. And even if it was, Kron3007 did not suggest you had to prove it was true, merely that you had to describe your lab and its operations with an eye to showing that you're aware of the ways in which systemic barriers might potentially manifest, and that your lab is not a place where they do so.

That's like enumerating the ways a person might die; murder, lightning strike, shark attack, etc. The potential list is endless. Seriously, is someone going to actually say "You know, some researchers put all the women in one office and the men in another, but since I'm enlightened I don't do that." ?????

The very fact that the kinds of discrimination people have observed are often very subtle means that it's ridiculous to pretend to have considered them all. Does saying "The newest person in the lab gets the vacant desk" count as OK, given that the vacant desk is probably the one near the rumbling machine and that's why everyone avoids it if they can?

Who actually has a written policy that "females take notes"?

Presumably, nobody. But there are some places where that's how things shake out. The idea is to be sufficiently aware of this stereotyped tendency that it's not one manifested in the spaces over which one is responsible.

Again, there's no way to possibly forsee every way things "might shake out" that might look bad.

Looking for "systemic" discrimination is like p-hacking; if you don't restrict yourself on what might count as "discrimination" in advance, then there will always be room to "find" it in any situation with enough variables.

(As John McWhorter says, "All roads lead to racism.")

*All the things that for decades were considered just decent professional behaviour. And for decades the people who didn't do those things were known for being jerks. The progressive idea that they just invented these 5 minutes ago is galling. Lots of people in the past were conscientious and just did these things as a matter of course because it was the right thing to do; now people need some sort of "seal of approval" from a DIE committee to identify them as not evil. (At least for the moment.)

All your emotionally-laden terms aside, you'll find that even a cursory look at recent history doesn't bear this out. We were much more tolerant of "jerks" and their behaviour, and it was widespread and normalized. It doesn't take a whole lot of "jerks" to make the workplace a miserable shithole, and there was an abundance of them.

Then deal with them as "standards of professional behaviour". There's no need to frame them as discrimination, and in many cases, the jerks were jerks to just about everyone they encountered.

[mahagonny]

*All the things that for decades were considered just decent professional behaviour. And for decades the people who didn't do those things were known for being jerks. The progressive idea that they just invented these 5 minutes ago is galling. Lots of people in the past were conscientious and just did these things as a matter of course because it was the right thing to do; now people need some sort of "seal of approval" from a DIE committee to identify them as not evil. (At least for the moment.)

All your emotionally-laden terms aside, you'll find that even a cursory look at recent history doesn't bear this out. We were much more tolerant of "jerks" and their behaviour, and it was widespread and normalized. It doesn't take a whole lot of "jerks" to make the workplace a miserable shithole, and there was an abundance of them.

Oh the type of jerks in the workplace that you two are discussing is only one type. there are others. Some of them seem brand new or almost new. Like the person who thinks being against racism is an attitude that dates back five years or so, and how that jerk thinks the attitude against racism became, of necessity and also legitimately expertized and handed over to a select few.
And there are students who think these folks are jerks, too. Don't doubt it.
Since many of us seem to report, anecdotally, serious slippage in student performance in recent years, or at least the shock of being shot out of a cannon into a new teaching situation in which the students are either much less prepared for college, or much less energetic scholastically than we expected, or both, I have an interest that I will mention. I wonder to what extent the helicopter DEI police hovering over faculty might convey a lack of trust of us to students. And how that might affect their thinking and performance.

[Parasaurolophus]

So how do you prove that you "*distribute work and opportunities in an equitable manner"?

That's not a negative. And even if it was, Kron3007 did not suggest you had to prove it was true, merely that you had to describe your lab and its operations with an eye to showing that you're aware of the ways in which systemic barriers might potentially manifest, and that your lab is not a place where they do so.

That's like enumerating the ways a person might die; murder, lightning strike, shark attack, etc. The potential list is endless. Seriously, is someone going to actually say "You know, some researchers put all the women in one office and the men in another, but since I'm enlightened I don't do that." ?????

Grant applications typically have you list your potential outcomes. IRB applications require you to list potential harms and explain how you've guarded against or mitigated them. You would have us--an academic forum--believe that doing so is impossibly impractical?

Irrespective of what these applications should or should not require of us, the fact is that they require what they require. And, as has been explained to you, the requirements are not particularly onerous. The objections you raise are made of straw, and thus are not at all compelling.

[marshwiggle]

So how do you prove that you "*distribute work and opportunities in an equitable manner"?

That's not a negative. And even if it was, Kron3007 did not suggest you had to prove it was true, merely that you had to describe your lab and its operations with an eye to showing that you're aware of the ways in which systemic barriers might potentially manifest, and that your lab is not a place where they do so.

That's like enumerating the ways a person might die; murder, lightning strike, shark attack, etc. The potential list is endless. Seriously, is someone going to actually say "You know, some researchers put all the women in one office and the men in another, but since I'm enlightened I don't do that." ?????

Grant applications typically have you list your potential outcomes. IRB applications require you to list potential harms and explain how you've guarded against or mitigated them. You would have us--an academic forum--believe that doing so is impossibly impractical?

IRB applications are about potential harm to subjects, not to researchers. So unless the research involves moving in with subjects for several hours a day over many months, there is much less scope for potential outcomes that might be harmful. Whereas for the lab itself, it's a different story. Research groups have lots of *informal interactions over many months, and all of those social interactions have the potential for someone to be upset by them. (There are many threads on here by grad students discussing the kinds of situations that they have found upsetting.) These difficulties happen even in homogenous groups, but as soon as the idea of "inclusion" arises, any problem that would have previously been considered just normal ups and downs of human groups now have the potential to be blamed on discrimination. To try to prove in advance that such a thing can't happen is impossible.


*For example, if someone in the group invites a bunch of people in the group to their house for a BBQ, does not inviting someone count as discrimination?

[Kron3007]

So how do you prove that you "*distribute work and opportunities in an equitable manner"?

That's not a negative. And even if it was, Kron3007 did not suggest you had to prove it was true, merely that you had to describe your lab and its operations with an eye to showing that you're aware of the ways in which systemic barriers might potentially manifest, and that your lab is not a place where they do so.

That's like enumerating the ways a person might die; murder, lightning strike, shark attack, etc. The potential list is endless. Seriously, is someone going to actually say "You know, some researchers put all the women in one office and the men in another, but since I'm enlightened I don't do that." ?????

Grant applications typically have you list your potential outcomes. IRB applications require you to list potential harms and explain how you've guarded against or mitigated them. You would have us--an academic forum--believe that doing so is impossibly impractical?

IRB applications are about potential harm to subjects, not to researchers. So unless the research involves moving in with subjects for several hours a day over many months, there is much less scope for potential outcomes that might be harmful. Whereas for the lab itself, it's a different story. Research groups have lots of *informal interactions over many months, and all of those social interactions have the potential for someone to be upset by them. (There are many threads on here by grad students discussing the kinds of situations that they have found upsetting.) These difficulties happen even in homogenous groups, but as soon as the idea of "inclusion" arises, any problem that would have previously been considered just normal ups and downs of human groups now have the potential to be blamed on discrimination. To try to prove in advance that such a thing can't happen is impossible.


*For example, if someone in the group invites a bunch of people in the group to their house for a BBQ, does not inviting someone count as discrimination?

If you are the PI or in a position of authority, I would say that it would be inappropriate to invite a subset of the lab to your house for a BBQ, especially if the division was along the lines of gender or race.  My former advisor told me that her new dean held a "meat  and greet" BBQ where he only invited male faculty.  If you dont see an issue (or two) there, it is on you.

Some areas of EDI are a little nebulous, but some are quite clear.  For example, as a society we have decided that we should be more accommodating to people with physical disabilities.  In that vein, if you want to build a new public building you need to include accessible washrooms, ramps, etc.   The government could have left it there and just said you have to do it, but when you request your permit, you have to include the specific design you are using to ensure you are compliant.  When you submit it, they review your plan to make sure it meets code and accessibility standards.

This is essentially the same thing.  They have said that any public research lab/group has to be structured to prevent discrimination and promote an inclusive work environment.  When you submit your proposal, you simply have to tell them the specific things you have done/are doing to meet those standards.  Seems pretty straight forward really.  FOr the larger grants it goesa little too far IMO (as I have mentioned), but the basic premise seems reasonable.

Earlier I mentioned women ending up taking notes and you scoffed and said that no one has a rule that only women take the notes.  This is true, but if you ask female academics (especially if they are older) they will tell you that it is a problem.  Likewise, there have never been any rules that state you cannot install ramps and wheelchair accessible washrooms, but if you dont have a rule specifically mandating it, many people will just overlook it since it is not immediately relevant to them.  So, there are many examples where it makes sense to ensure people are taking pro-active measures to promote inclusivity etc. 

Will EDI sections fix the problem, not a chance, but they do make you reflect on how you run your lab and consider these topics.  In fact, without the EDI sections we would not be having this very conversation.  If it were not for EDI requirements, I may have overlooked accessibility in the infrastructure proposal I am currently working on.  It is about slow and consistent change in social attitudes.  When I think back to my childhood, it is apparent that many of the terms and jokes we used were not appropriate and my children would never say them.  That is progress.

 

[marshwiggle]

IRB applications are about potential harm to subjects, not to researchers. So unless the research involves moving in with subjects for several hours a day over many months, there is much less scope for potential outcomes that might be harmful. Whereas for the lab itself, it's a different story. Research groups have lots of *informal interactions over many months, and all of those social interactions have the potential for someone to be upset by them. (There are many threads on here by grad students discussing the kinds of situations that they have found upsetting.) These difficulties happen even in homogenous groups, but as soon as the idea of "inclusion" arises, any problem that would have previously been considered just normal ups and downs of human groups now have the potential to be blamed on discrimination. To try to prove in advance that such a thing can't happen is impossible.


*For example, if someone in the group invites a bunch of people in the group to their house for a BBQ, does not inviting someone count as discrimination?

If you are the PI or in a position of authority, I would say that it would be inappropriate to invite a subset of the lab to your house for a BBQ, especially if the division was along the lines of gender or race.  My former advisor told me that her new dean held a "meat  and greet" BBQ where he only invited male faculty.  If you dont see an issue (or two) there, it is on you.

I agree that the PI has responsibilities beyond other members of the group. But for that example, what if it's not the PI, but one of the grad students hosting the party? Does the PI need to force the grad student to invite everyone, like the parent telling the kid "you can hang out with your friends, but you have to take your little brother along"? Is inviting a known vegan to a BBQ inclusive or insensitive?


If grad students are carpooling to a conference, and the car doesn't have room for everyone, is it the PI's job to ensure that the "new person" is in the carpool rather than someone else?

They have said that any public research lab/group has to be structured to prevent discrimination and promote an inclusive work environment. 

It's this last phrase that is so vague that it's not clear that it wouldn't be violated by the examples above.
It would be a truly oppressive environment if it prevented any kind of situation, at work or outside on personal time, from raising any of those kinds of issues.

When you submit your proposal, you simply have to tell them the specific things you have done/are doing to meet those standards.  Seems pretty straight forward really.  FOr the larger grants it goesa little too far IMO (as I have mentioned), but the basic premise seems reasonable.

Earlier I mentioned women ending up taking notes and you scoffed and said that no one has a rule that only women take the notes.  This is true, but if you ask female academics (especially if they are older) they will tell you that it is a problem. 

I have no doubt that those sorts of things happened, but again the issue of granularity matters. Other than having "inclusion inspections" at random times, it's hard to imagine how much could be codified in advance that wouldn't allow any number of small things that might be considered a failure to " promote an inclusive work environment."

[Puget]

I agree that the PI has responsibilities beyond other members of the group. But for that example, what if it's not the PI, but one of the grad students hosting the party? Does the PI need to force the grad student to invite everyone, like the parent telling the kid "you can hang out with your friends, but you have to take your little brother along"? Is inviting a known vegan to a BBQ inclusive or insensitive?

This is a total straw man argument. No of course not, no one has ever suggested policing the social lives of grad students, and this isn't the sort of thing anyone would ever put in a grant. Do you honestly think it is, or are you simply coming up with the most silly slippery slope arguments you can think of?