Texas Bill Nukes Tenure

[mleok]

Do you know what Butler actually says, Marshy?

Big-D got it absolutely wrong. And it is not clear that downer understands her either.

A cursory reading of this module on Butler does suggest that she pushes back on the distinction between sex and gender,

https://www.cla.purdue.edu/academic/english/theory/genderandsex/modules/butlergendersex.html

which suggests that the statement that sex is a social construct is not an entirely unfair characterization of her point of view. To me however, her premise seems to be more based on redefining what "sex" means as opposed to a scientifically based argument. I think that is at the heart of much of the confusion and controversy surrounding such work, because they attempt to co-opt words that have well-established meanings in order to advance a specific social/political worldview. At the end of the day, words have meaning.

[dismalist]

Partly, it is a matter of terminology. Think of the claims of some scientists that global climate change is not caused by humans. Is that science or is it just bad science, not really science at all? In the 1950s, there were some doctors who apparently said that cigarettes are healthy. Was that science? There are neo-creationist "scientists" who say the evidence points to God creating the universe in 7 days. All this is probably best characterized as not science, but "science" in quotation marks.

The current debate over "woke science" is mostly about claims about sex and gender. In particular, there's a claim that biological sex is socially constucted -- Judith Butler, a philosopher, is often cited. People who call the claims of some scientists "woke" don't think it is really science at all. It is just "science."

Part of the problem of decipering the debate is to work out what is actually being asserted by each side. The critics of "woke science" claim that "woke scientists" think biology should stop using the words "female" and "male" for example. Generally, these alarmist claims are greatly exaggerated.

There are more extreme positions. For example. I don't think Butler herself would see any legitimate distinction between science and "science."

I wasn't thinking of stuff such as downer wrote, certainly nothing as specific. Though it could definitely be a repelling force.

I was thinking of faculty up for tenure who fail on DEI grounds. I believe in California the DEI is evaluated first and the rest of the package is evaluated only after DEI is accepted. Those rejected on DEI grounds and who like academia enough -- discussion upthread confirms there are benefits aside from tenure -- would be good candidates for migrating to a non-tenure Texas public.

[mleok]

I wasn't thinking of stuff such as downer wrote, certainly nothing as specific. Though it could definitely be a repelling force.

I was thinking of faculty up for tenure who fail on DEI grounds. I believe in California the DEI is evaluated first and the rest of the package is evaluated only after DEI is accepted. Those rejected on DEI grounds and who like academia enough -- discussion upthread confirms there are benefits aside from tenure -- would be good candidates for migrating to a non-tenure Texas public.

I would like to see you quote an example of a professor at a California public university who was denied tenure on the basis of DEI issues. I assure you that it is precisely because tenure and shared governance is strong at the University of California that such nonsense would never pass unnoticed and unanswered.

Now, a biology professor who doesn't publish anything but on creation science or irreducible complexity would be rightfully denied tenure, but that's not because of "woke science," just science.

Edit: perhaps you're referring to what we call "excellence positions," which were created to improve the diversity of our faculty, where it is true that the lack of DEI activity would be a bar to appointment to such positions. Such a bar does not exist for promotion and tenure.

[Parasaurolophus]

Although not an expert, I occasionally teach Butler (her early work on gender, though, not her extension to sex).

What she has to say about the influence of social construction on sex is not that outlandish, however. At bottom, it's pretty much what Anne Fausto-Sterling spent her career arguing--and she has a PhD in genetics.

I mean, she might want to go further than that. I don't know. But it's not weird to think that the social world affects how we choose to classify the world around us. There's quite a robust literature on the influence that gendered assumptions have on how science is done and its results reported, after all. Recently, for example, it was discovered that female snakes have a clitoris. It had always just been assumed they don't, because it's not obvious. But it took until now for somebody to actually go looking.

[dismalist]

I wasn't thinking of stuff such as downer wrote, certainly nothing as specific. Though it could definitely be a repelling force.

I was thinking of faculty up for tenure who fail on DEI grounds. I believe in California the DEI is evaluated first and the rest of the package is evaluated only after DEI is accepted. Those rejected on DEI grounds and who like academia enough -- discussion upthread confirms there are benefits aside from tenure -- would be good candidates for migrating to a non-tenure Texas public.

I would like to see you quote an example of a professor at a California public university who was denied tenure on the basis of DEI issues. I assure you that it is precisely because tenure and shared governance is strong at the University of California that such nonsense would never pass unnoticed and unanswered.

Now, a biology professor who doesn't publish anything but on creation science or irreducible complexity would be rightfully denied tenure, but that's not because of "woke science," just science.

Edit: perhaps you're referring to what we call "excellence positions," which were created to improve the diversity of our faculty, where it is true that the lack of DEI activity would be a bar to appointment to such positions. Such a bar does not exist for promotion and tenure.

Seems you are incorrect.

DEI statements are enforced with the express goal of hiring underrepresented faculty members. And applicants can score points for discussing their awareness of and experience with diversity. The DEI requirement, therefore, allows hiring committees to impose racial preferences. And faculty members are strongly incentivized to do so as searches may be canceled or postponed if diversity bureaucrats do not like the racial composition of the finalists.

For instance, a written assessment of a prospective hire's contributions to diversity will become a requirement. And within the next two years, these statements will be required not just of future hires but of all current faculty when they are evaluated for potential promotion, tenure, or pay increase. The new guidelines also emphasize that "[l]ife experiences may be an important aspect of candidate statements," which continues to leave the door open for racial discrimination.

https://pacificlegal.org/california-globe-university-of-california-retreats-from-unlawful-diversity-statement-mandates/

[Parasaurolophus]

That's for hiring, though, not tenure.

[dismalist]

That's for hiring, though, not tenure.

The second quote says the opposite.

But even if it were just for new  hires, DEA rejects could come to Texas right away! :-)

[ciao_yall]

For instance, a written assessment of a prospective hire's contributions to diversity will become a requirement. And within the next two years, these statements will be required not just of future hires but of all current faculty when they are evaluated for potential promotion, tenure, or pay increase. The new guidelines also emphasize that "[l]ife experiences may be an important aspect of candidate statements," which continues to leave the door open for racial discrimination.

Not really. I find candidates are asked what proactive steps they have taken to support under-represented students. Never about their own backgrounds, just what they have done and how it helped students whose needs were often overlooked.

Having sat on hiring committees where someone says "I'm X and therefore I know what students need" gets 0 points. But, regardless of what the candidate looks like, when they say "I was in charge of a project... I noticed... I did..." that gets a lot of points.

[Wahoo Redux]

Do you know what Butler actually says, Marshy?

Big-D got it absolutely wrong. And it is not clear that downer understands her either.

A cursory reading of this module on Butler does suggest that she pushes back on the distinction between sex and gender,

https://www.cla.purdue.edu/academic/english/theory/genderandsex/modules/butlergendersex.html

which suggests that the statement that sex is a social construct is not an entirely unfair characterization of her point of view. To me however, her premise seems to be more based on redefining what "sex" means as opposed to a scientifically based argument. I think that is at the heart of much of the confusion and controversy surrounding such work, because they attempt to co-opt words that have well-established meanings in order to advance a specific social/political worldview. At the end of the day, words have meaning.

Butler differentiates between "sex" (the chromosomes and the organs one is born with) and "gender" (how you construct your identity in the world) through "speech" (in all its manifestations, including, gesture, walk, stance, attitude, etc.) over a long period of time.  The internal vs. the external.  She lays all this out in her work.  The words she uses are the words we use.  One just has to know what one is talking about. 

My father was a sensitive, highly educated, worldly man, but he had absorbed all the 'I-am-man-don't-take-to-no-hornswoggle-but-gimme-common-sense-in-my-gut' ideology of the Eisenhower era.    One day we decided to stop at a Starbucks and my intelligent dad said, "Would John Wayne have drunk a late"---and he said it like "laa-teeee" as if it were a nonsense word.  That is performativity at its finest.

[dismalist]

For instance, a written assessment of a prospective hire's contributions to diversity will become a requirement. And within the next two years, these statements will be required not just of future hires but of all current faculty when they are evaluated for potential promotion, tenure, or pay increase. The new guidelines also emphasize that "[l]ife experiences may be an important aspect of candidate statements," which continues to leave the door open for racial discrimination.

Not really. I find candidates are asked what proactive steps they have taken to support under-represented students. Never about their own backgrounds, just what they have done and how it helped students whose needs were often overlooked.

Having sat on hiring committees where someone says "I'm X and therefore I know what students need" gets 0 points. But, regardless of what the candidate looks like, when they say "I was in charge of a project... I noticed... I did..." that gets a lot of points.

That has no bearing on my point that losers on account of DEI are good candidates for going to Texas.

[Wahoo Redux]

That's for hiring, though, not tenure.

The second quote says the opposite.

But even if it were just for new  hires, DEA rejects could come to Texas right away! :-)

Didn't they back off these statements?

[downer]

Although not an expert, I occasionally teach Butler (her early work on gender, though, not her extension to sex).

What she has to say about the influence of social construction on sex is not that outlandish, however. At bottom, it's pretty much what Anne Fausto-Sterling spent her career arguing--and she has a PhD in genetics.

Right. There's plenty of debate about how strong the arguments of of Anne Fausto-Sterling are, even though she has a PhD in science.

With Butler, it's often pretty unclear how extreme her claims are. She is skeptical that science has objective access to the truth. But so was Popper. It's not so clear how much she endorses the ideal of objective science.

But Butler isn't one of the "woke scientists" if there are any, so it isn't helpful to focus on her, even though she is very influential.

Obviously the label "woke science" is not helpful. There are definitely scientists driven by socially progressive aims who want to uncover and end the ways in which current science and scientific funding is attached to sexist, racist and colonialist ideas. Current debate about the role of race in medicine is a good example of that.

Conservatives don't like that kind of science, any more than the Catholic Church liked Galileo.

[dismalist]

I wouldn't focus on this or that individual, either. It's system that matters.

Here's a nice one:

... as Andrew Gillen points out regarding applications for a single life sciences faculty post at Berkeley,

    The scale of the resulting purge would make Stalin blush. Of 893 nominally qualified candidates, 679 were eliminated solely due to insufficiently woke diversity, equity and inclusion statements. In other words, Berkeley used a political litmus test to eliminate over three-quarters of the applicant pool.9

Ideological conformity may also result in a narrowing of research questions, with negative consequences for intellectual pursuits.

From https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/other-than-merit-the-prevalence-of-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-statements-in-university-hiring/

Plenty of candidates for non-tenured positions in Texas!

[jimbogumbo]

How exactly would an economist with a Texas right wing think tank know how a faculty search at Berkely was conducted?

[dismalist]

How exactly would an economist with a Texas right wing think tank know how a faculty search at Berkely was conducted?

Can't get at the argument, go for the person!