Texas Bill Nukes Tenure

[mleok]

You also seem to miss the point that DEI statements and tenure are distinct policies, so I am not sure why you feel the need to conflate the two. There are other states besides California and Texas. Just because I am supporting tenure does not mean that I support the mandatory use of DEI statements in hiring, promotion, and tenure decisions.

[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.

No amount of "performance" can enable a biological male to have a baby.

Oh Marshy. 

You have no idea what you are talking about, even with a simplistic explanation right there.

You just want to be stubborn.  You have gone done the wingnut wormhole.

[Hegemony]

Well, there's no consensus currently on what the word "woman" means or should mean, which is part of why there's a lot of turmoil right now.

Judith Butler is actually rather old-fashioned on these matters, in today's climate; which is not to say that she's at all clear even when she has a definite point of view.

[Parasaurolophus]

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.

No amount of "performance" can enable a biological male to have a baby.

Biological females can't have babies for most of their lives. Indeed, some never can, and others never do.

[marshwiggle]

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.

No amount of "performance" can enable a biological male to have a baby.

Biological females can't have babies for most of their lives. Indeed, some never can, and others never do.

And there are still all kinds of medical reasons to make distinctions between even those infertile females and biological males. And nothing "performative" at all. Any blurring of the distinction between "sex" and "gender" is totally unscientific.

[Parasaurolophus]

And there are still all kinds of medical reasons to make distinctions between even those infertile females and biological males. And nothing "performative" at all. Any blurring of the distinction between "sex" and "gender" is totally unscientific.

Except that some people do not fit neatly into a binary classification scheme. And our insistence on classing them on one side or the other has a lot more to do with our socializing and our preferences than it does sound science. Indeed, not all cultures have or have had a binary sex classification scheme.

(This may or may not be what Butler thinks, according to her later work. I'm not sure. But it's certainly what plenty of other, fully-credentialed scientists think. Including, among many others, Fausto-Sterling.)

[Wahoo Redux]

And there are still all kinds of medical reasons to make distinctions between even those infertile females and biological males. And nothing "performative" at all. Any blurring of the distinction between "sex" and "gender" is totally unscientific.

You were the one bragging about how smart engineers are, Marshy, or at least your students.

Butler was not talking about a "performance."  Her argument about "sex" and "gender" is solid if one cares to look at it.

You simply don't understand, do you?

[downer]

Butler does on about performativity. It's not the easiest of concepts to grasp. It's something to do with performing, but it's not the same. A sceptic might think her view just is not well formulated.

It's also important to remember that Butler thinks that the science of biological sex is socially constructed too, under the influence of gender ideology. What does that imply? It's not so easy to tell how far she takes it.

[Wahoo Redux]

Butler does on about performativity. It's not the easiest of concepts to grasp. It's something to do with performing, but it's not the same. A sceptic might think her view just is not well formulated.

It's also important to remember that Butler thinks that the science of biological sex is socially constructed too, under the influence of gender ideology. What does that imply? It's not so easy to tell how far she takes it.

One as to actually delve into her stuff.  It's convincing.  She does not argue that men can have babies if they think hard enough about it, which seems to be what people think.

[ciao_yall]

A DEI statement is not the same as swearing to not have been a Communist, Socialist, Sexual Deviant or any other such silliness.

All a DEI statement says is that you will make sure that students will be supported and successful, regardless of their race, gender, religion or ethnicity. It means you are aware that there are different ways students might experience the college environment and that you will make sure their opportunities are not limited due to the above.

The other asks about your political or other beliefs and behaviors that, last time I checked, were protected by the First Amendment and unlikely to affect one's teaching or research responsibilities.

So anyone who tries to conflate DEI with McCarthyism is kinda stupid.

[marshwiggle]

A DEI statement is not the same as swearing to not have been a Communist, Socialist, Sexual Deviant or any other such silliness.

All a DEI statement says is that you will make sure that students will be supported and successful, regardless of their race, gender, religion or ethnicity.

If that's all it means, then it's pointless, because by law discrimination on those grounds is prohibited, and could get you fired.

You might as well also be required to sign a document saying you won't embezzle your employer, or assault other people on campus.

So anyone who tries to conflate DEI with McCarthyism is kinda stupid.

That would be true if, indeed, that was all it meant. The problem with McCarthyism and other witch hunts is that it's impossible to prove a negative, which is what is being demanded. You're assumed to be a (witch, communist, bigot) unless you can somehow prove you're not. You can't prove that any more than you can prove that you're not just a figment of the imagination of the person questioning you. Any "evidence" in your favour can be taken as just "evidence" of how careful you are about covering up your deviance.

[ciao_yall]

A DEI statement is not the same as swearing to not have been a Communist, Socialist, Sexual Deviant or any other such silliness.

All a DEI statement says is that you will make sure that students will be supported and successful, regardless of their race, gender, religion or ethnicity.

If that's all it means, then it's pointless, because by law discrimination on those grounds is prohibited, and could get you fired.

You might as well also be required to sign a document saying you won't embezzle your employer, or assault other people on campus.

That said, it's one thing to say you won't XYZ. It's another to explain how you will set up policies and procedures to ensure that there won't be conditions in which embezzlement won't be possible, such as conflicting duties; or protecting personal safety, such as background checks, hotlines, well-lit back alleys, that sort of thing.

DEI shows that you are aware, alert, and proactive, rather than waiting for a student or employee to sue the college.

So anyone who tries to conflate DEI with McCarthyism is kinda stupid.

That would be true if, indeed, that was all it meant. The problem with McCarthyism and other witch hunts is that it's impossible to prove a negative, which is what is being demanded. You're assumed to be a (witch, communist, bigot) unless you can somehow prove you're not. You can't prove that any more than you can prove that you're not just a figment of the imagination of the person questioning you. Any "evidence" in your favour can be taken as just "evidence" of how careful you are about covering up your deviance.

You're right. It is difficult, if not impossible to prove a negative. DEI statements don't prove or disprove anything. They just demonstrate a level of social and professional competence in today's world.

[dismalist]

A DEI statement is not the same as swearing to not have been a Communist, Socialist, Sexual Deviant or any other such silliness.

All a DEI statement says is that you will make sure that students will be supported and successful, regardless of their race, gender, religion or ethnicity.

If that's all it means, then it's pointless, because by law discrimination on those grounds is prohibited, and could get you fired.

You might as well also be required to sign a document saying you won't embezzle your employer, or assault other people on campus.

That said, it's one thing to say you won't XYZ. It's another to explain how you will set up policies and procedures to ensure that there won't be conditions in which embezzlement won't be possible, such as conflicting duties; or protecting personal safety, such as background checks, hotlines, well-lit back alleys, that sort of thing.

DEI shows that you are aware, alert, and proactive, rather than waiting for a student or employee to sue the college.

So anyone who tries to conflate DEI with McCarthyism is kinda stupid.

That would be true if, indeed, that was all it meant. The problem with McCarthyism and other witch hunts is that it's impossible to prove a negative, which is what is being demanded. You're assumed to be a (witch, communist, bigot) unless you can somehow prove you're not. You can't prove that any more than you can prove that you're not just a figment of the imagination of the person questioning you. Any "evidence" in your favour can be taken as just "evidence" of how careful you are about covering up your deviance.

You're right. It is difficult, if not impossible to prove a negative. DEI statements don't prove or disprove anything. They just demonstrate a level of social and professional competence in today's world.

DEI statement requirements differ across states and across institutions within states. That's one reason somebody working at a particular California university can think DEI statements don't exist and others claim they do. Here  is Berkeley's:

https://ofew.berkeley.edu/recruitment/contributions-diversity/rubric-assessing-candidate-contributions-diversity-equity

Part I tests knowledge. Part II tests what the candidate has done in the past. Part III tests what the candidate plans to do in future.

None of this is harmless and all of it filters out candidates who have different political views. It's more like an admission test to a cell of a political party.

It forces other thinking people to game the system, thereby promoting the idea of widespread support, or -- go to Texas!

[marshwiggle]

That would be true if, indeed, that was all it meant. The problem with McCarthyism and other witch hunts is that it's impossible to prove a negative, which is what is being demanded. You're assumed to be a (witch, communist, bigot) unless you can somehow prove you're not. You can't prove that any more than you can prove that you're not just a figment of the imagination of the person questioning you. Any "evidence" in your favour can be taken as just "evidence" of how careful you are about covering up your deviance.

You're right. It is difficult, if not impossible to prove a negative. DEI statements don't prove or disprove anything. They just demonstrate a level of social and professional competence posturing in today's world.

FTFY.

[Anselm]

Not sure if this has been mentioned already but tenure is a form of compensation.  It allows the school to hire people for less money in exchange for prestige and stable income.  The legislators are likely in a bubble where everyone they know has no concept of unemployment.  They can easily move from one job to the next with good connections.  They have no idea about the difficulties of the academic job search process.