!@#% Around and Found Out

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Sanman said:
There definitely are. That said, I consider myself accomplishments fairly average in the doctoral sphere and graduating from a funded doctoral program and having a six figure government job is not the worst deal in the world.
Click to expand...

Indeed, everyone has to balance what they want in a career with what they want in life. Luckily, I enjoy the IME work, so that works out pretty well for me. If someone absolutely hated it, the extra money may not be worth it.
 
smalltownpsych said:
I actually think that it is a bit of a myth to think that there are other paths to make more money with less work. More money, sure, but less work at the same time, that’s harder to find.
Click to expand...

There is also a bit of a generational gap even among millennials. Back in the early 2000s, tech did not pay like it does now and healthcare was at the beginning of a since 20 year decline in non-procedure based services. If I was in college now, my choices might be different.
 
Last edited:
NewNeuroDemic said:
About 2 years ago I was on the job market and looking to land one of those elusive clinical phd program tenure-track jobs. One such institution took a shine to me, and I went through the several lengthy interview days, gave a job talk, and generally whored myself to these academics who style themselves as business hiring professionals every few years when a job comes open. One of the hoops I had to jump through was "meeting" with the current grad students and "discussing" my role in DE&I currently and perhaps in their program should I be hired. (Looking back, it's pretty ridiculous to have current grad students, who will be gone eventually, evaluate a faculty candidate.)

So all of this goes well, and the senior faculty member on the search committee (but not the chair of it) tells me they are going to make me an offer because he DGAF about protocol. Three (3!) weeks go by and I get a call from the search committee chair. Instead of making me an offer, they decide to terminate my application because " didn't move forward any of their DE&I initiatives via [my] white cis-gendered identities." Pretty lame.

Well, the very next year and again about two weeks ago this same program posts their intention to hire and have the balls to call me asking if I would like to reapply. They haven't been able to land a decent hire, and their students are pissed about a lack of in-house neuropsych training. I won't lie, it felt good to laugh and decline the invitation. !@#$ around and find out.
Click to expand...

First of all...good for you. To hell with them. I wanted to offer a thought on one thing you mentioned about grad students evaluating you - since I wasn't there, I am unsure of all the particulars involved obviously, but in my former profession as a classical musician, oftentimes those who apply to be on faculty at the music school (e.g., TCU, Juilliard, NEC, etc.) will have a very similar if not identical process you outlined. Typically, they do several rounds of interviews with various members of the music school, then give a masterclass, then offer 1:1 lessons with each current student in the studio (e.g., low brass, trumpet, horn, etc.). They use multi-data points to help the committee arrive at a decision. So, I am unsure if the students themselves had a direct impact, maybe had some influence. I think the reasoning is that if they intend to hire you to teach/develop young minds, especially in your area of expertise, it would make sense to get the feedback from those whom you would be potentially if not realistically educating to provide honest feedback. That would be a good form of external validity for them vs. interviews. In fact, in the grand scheme of things, the interview is probably the least reliable data point for them to consider.
 
Fan_of_Meehl said:
So...

"Instead of making me an offer, they decide to terminate my application because I didn't move forward any of their DE&I initiatives via [my] white cis-gendered identities."

...means they did't hire you because you're a white guy who dates women. Right? I'm just trying to parse the woke-speak.

If so, I guess that my emotional response would be more in line with sadness/grief for the state of the profession (rather than resentful glee) but...to each his/her/their own, so to speak.
Click to expand...
OMG...I thought I was the only one that was miffed at this whole woke stuff.

Fan_of_Meehl said:
I'm not more emotionally mature or intelligent, I am just having a different reaction, I think, than the person this actually happened to. I'm sure that it makes a difference if you've experienced it vs. are just reading about it (like me). What is sad is all the discord surrounding issues like this in our field and I think it sucks that you had to experience that.
For whatever reasons the DEI topic does tend to elicit strong emotional and, in my opinion, often extreme ideological stances and I wish--as someone commented earlier--that we could correct the pendulum over-swing and find some moderate ground for the profession as a whole on these issues.

I think one rather obvious stance--though it is rarely explicitly stated or addressed-- is the apparent opinion (value) is that if you happen to be a white heterosexual male in psychology then you have no place in this profession (neither you nor your values) and, if we allow you to exist at all, you'd better be happy and submissive and take your place at the bottom of the hierarchy.
Click to expand...

Absolutely - I think you characterized the current state of affairs very nicely in this statement. It's why I have not voted lately in the APA elections. I opted not to attend the most recent APA conferences either. Seems like depending on which way the wind is blowing, that's the direction APA will latch itself onto for sociopolitical gain in an effort to pander to situations that end up representing all of us, which I do not like. There has to be middle ground. I often see APA and divisions issue various public service announcements expressing their "outrage" over whatever the current sociopolitical flavor of the month is, and it's 99.9999% of the time leaning in one political direction, and they don't even attempt to see any other sides of the situation, nor interpret the existing "data" in a more inclusive compendious manner.

Sanman said:
:shrug:, my goal has always been the most amount of money for the least amount of work, so I never understood academia from the go.
Click to expand...

Me too...
 
Shiori said:
I would like to humbly request that the word "woke" be returned to Black folks. In the hands of others, it has turned into something unfortunate.
Click to expand...

Horse has been out of the barn with that one for some time now, and it ain't going back in. It enjoys its freedom too much. We're in a post "words have actual meaning" era. Much akin to the wore of those of us who operate in the trauma world with the word "trauma," that term now means whatever it is that people want it to mean.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tr
I will limit my request to SDN. I am not above throwing a tantrum. To be fair, I cringe when I hear it in most of my professional circles. It's usually only to decry "wokeness" or to refer to oneself as "woke." I run from the individuals in both circumstances.
 
Shiori said:
I will limit my request to SDN. I am not above throwing a tantrum. To be fair, I cringe when I hear it in most of my professional circles. It's usually only to decry "wokeness" or to refer to oneself as "woke." I run from the individuals in both circumstances.
Click to expand...

While I can understand the request from an academic standpoint, the term has that connotation in a political discussion, which is where it is used most often here on SDN and in most political circles. I think it'd be more useful to use another term to more accurately describe the original meaning of "woke" than to try and abolish its use in the sense that it's more commonly used today.
 
Shiori said:
I imagine any new word will be co-opted again because of its importance to various groups who are posturing at each other right now. I appreciate the dialogue though.
Click to expand...

This is largely true about any vocabulary. We can coin new phrases and terms all day long...it's not necessarily word or phrase that's at issue, but the meaning ascribed to it. The framing is often changed ever so often, so I would suspect the new PC words published by APA to-date will likely change in 10-15 years because someone will state it is either non-inclusive, offensive, or something else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tr
Shiori said:
I would like to humbly request that the word "woke" be returned to Black folks. In the hands of others, it has turned into something unfortunate.
Click to expand...
Indeed, there are other phrases and words that capture the idea without us using the term. I think it’s a reasonable request in this professional circle.
 
ohiopsychdoc said:
This is largely true about any vocabulary. We can coin new phrases and terms all day long...it's not necessarily word or phrase that's at issue, but the meaning ascribed to it. The framing is often changed ever so often, so I would suspect the new PC words published by APA to-date will likely change in 10-15 years because someone will state it is either non-inclusive, offensive, or something else.
Click to expand...
The heart of my sadness is less that the word is changing. It is who took it and how it has turned into what it is now with almost no input from the people who created it.
 
I think in part, people use the term woke for that purpose. Sure, it may be offensive, but that is life. Sure there will be people upset over it...there are plenty of things I hear from APA and other psychologists who have adopted new terms lately that doesn't sit well with me, but it is what it is. WE are psychologists, sure, but we are people with our own beliefs and opinions about the current state of affairs. We can't realistically subtract that from our conscious thought processes. Heck , in another thread I brought up my thoughts concerning potential ageism - people expressed their thoughts, several of which seemed to counter my thoughts. I moved on. They, just like me, are entitled to their opinions. We can all still be cordial and respect each other even if we disagree with nomenclature we use.
 
borne_before said:
I prefer "rigid dogmatic church moms but with less clear motives and social justice instead of christianity."
Click to expand...
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the idea that certain people--or arbitrary groups of people--"own" certain specific words in the English language.
 
Fan_of_Meehl said:
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the idea that certain people--or arbitrary groups of people--"own" certain specific words in the English language.
Click to expand...
In this specific case, it's because it has been used by Black people to signal community and address issues of safety with each other. Now it is apparently so toxic that anything denoted as "woke" is bad. When we create spaces of sharing and cultural fluidity, things that are unifying and culturally significant to us become jokes and/or commodified.

I never wear dog tags or put on any part of a military uniform. Some people are totally fine with it. It's deeply offensive to many of the veterans I work with. They're imbued with meaning by the people who are culturally connected to them. I can purchase any of these items, but don't.

When White folks were involved in discussion of "wokeness" after George Floyd, it took two years to bring us to this point. TWO. This word has been used in this way by Black people since the 1940s. It has gained prominence when there is a significant civil rights upheaval. It connects Black people during especially hard times. That is why "arbitrary groups" of people want to "own" things. Whenever we share, we often end up here. The internet has just sped up the process.
 
Last edited:
Trying to "own" words or ideas is a generally quixotic endeavor. That time and effort would be better spent shaping and controlling the narrative of those things instead. It's still likely to shift based on societal will and whim, but the more you tell people they can't have something, the more they will spend effort to prove you wrong.
 
I mean, I'm not knocking on doors asking people to stop saying it. To put things in context, I'm drinking a coconut pineapple sparkling ice in my office before I go home for a long weekend. I'm fine. For me, the actual stopping is less important. It's watching what happens when you ask people to stop that is important to me. I've been Black in White spaces my whole life. I'm also a millennial. I was forged in the Yahoo! Forums and mIRC.
 
Shiori said:
I mean, I'm not knocking on doors asking people to stop saying it. To put things in context, I'm drinking a coconut pineapple sparkling ice in my office before I go home for a long weekend. I'm fine. For me, the actual stopping is less important. It's watching what happens when you ask people to stop that is important to me. I've been Black in White spaces my whole life. I'm also a millennial. I was forged in the Yahoo! Forums and mIRC.
Click to expand...

Clearly it would be more efficient to post a sign requesting people not do this on the outside of your office door. This would help with the decor problem as well.

Funny story, back in college I posted a bunch of ridiculous things on the outside of my dorm door for people to stop and read. One day months later, I open the door to leave and I am nose to nose with two campus cops. I was so sure I was about to get arrested. Turns out they were waiting to speak to someone on my floor and got bored and started reading my door. Be careful what you wish for.
 
Last edited:
Shiori said:
In this specific case, it's because it has been used by Black people to signal community and address issues of safety with each other. Now it is apparently so toxic that anything denoted as "woke" is bad. When we create spaces of sharing and cultural fluidity, things that are unifying and culturally significant to us become jokes and/or commodified.

I never wear dog tags or put on any part of a military uniform. Some people are totally fine with it. It's deeply offensive to many of the veterans I work with. They're imbued with meaning by the people who are culturally connected to them. I can purchase any of these items, but don't.

When White folks were involved in discussion of "wokeness" after George Floyd, it took two years to bring us to this point. TWO. This word has been used in this way by Black people since the 1940s. It has gained prominence when there is a significant civil rights upheaval. It connects Black people during especially hard times. That is why "arbitrary groups" of people want to "own" things. Whenever we share, we often end up here. The internet has just sped up the process.
Click to expand...
This is probably the most woke post I have ever read.
 
Gotta say, I've not been on this forum as much in the last year or so, and came to check it out today and I'm a bit dismayed by what I'm seeing in this thread. It is a GOOD thing that psychology departments are trying (albeit clunkily) to push DEI efforts. The field is *still* dominated by White, cis-gendered, able-bodied, straight people, with men still holding the most power in terms of administrative positions and full professorships. I just don't see any issue with a program selecting a faculty candidate who *does* help move DEI efforts forward over one who does not. Does it feel good to have expectations violated? No--no one should ever promise offers until they are cleared through a search committee and HR. But still. And grad students are an important part of the process--grad students are often far more aware of the inequities and racist **** that happens in departments than faculty because they talk to each other more often and bitch about stuff more.

How must this exchange come across to people on this board who identify as a minority and want to think that psychology (of all fields) is maybe trying to do the right thing in moving toward a more inclusive and equitable workforce? Come on, ya'll. (The Monty Python references remain classically hilarious.)
 
This topic is going into a direction I think I will just sit on the sidelines and observe.

Fox Tv Popcorn GIF by The Four
 
EmotRegulation said:
Gotta say, I've not been on this forum as much in the last year or so, and came to check it out today and I'm a bit dismayed by what I'm seeing in this thread. It is a GOOD thing that psychology departments are trying (albeit clunkily) to push DEI efforts. The field is *still* dominated by White, cis-gendered, able-bodied, straight people, with men still holding the most power in terms of administrative positions and full professorships. I just don't see any issue with a program selecting a faculty candidate who *does* help move DEI efforts forward over one who does not. Does it feel good to have expectations violated? No--no one should ever promise offers until they are cleared through a search committee and HR. But still. And grad students are an important part of the process--grad students are often far more aware of the inequities and racist **** that happens in departments than faculty because they talk to each other more often and bitch about stuff more.

How must this exchange come across to people on this board who identify as a minority and want to think that psychology (of all fields) is maybe trying to do the right thing in moving toward a more inclusive and equitable workforce? Come on, ya'll. (The Monty Python references remain classically hilarious.)
Click to expand...


I don't see as much of a problem with that either, but that did not seem like what was happening here. My read of the situation was that the program chose to forgo choosing a candidate altogether when they couldn't find their unicorn, thereby leaving a major content area without anyone who can teach/supervise it competently. And then when they had insight into that issue, they started recontacting people who may have been a good fit academically, but did not check other boxes.
 
WisNeuro said:
I don't see as much of a problem with that either, but that did not seem like what was happening here. My read of the situation was that the program chose to forgo choosing a candidate altogether when they couldn't find their unicorn, thereby leaving a major content area without anyone who can teach/supervise it competently. And then when they had insight into that issue, they started recontacting people who may have been a good fit academically, but did not check other boxes.
Click to expand...

That was my take as well. Not sure if I'd jump to the conclusion this department was engaging in prejudice or bias per se. Maybe they were, but I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt.
 
ohiopsychdoc said:
That was my take as well. Not sure if I'd jump to the conclusion this department was engaging in prejudice or bias per se. Maybe they were, but I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...

Another issue is a supply problem. I think we could almost universally agree that certain aspects of diversity are not as represented in academia as they are in the general population. This is a fact that we can back up with survey data. And, we could all nearly universally agree that it'd be great if our academic institutions more closely matched our general population. But, we can't snap our fingers and make it so. The hiring pool reflects what is available at the moment, and it a lagging indicator given that to get to that point, someone must have gotten into grads school 7-10 years prior to that point. So, your hiring pool is where it is. I don't see how punishing your current students because the world isn't the way you want it to be helps anything but breed resentment and lead to missed opportunities and lowered competence in a key area. Solutions need to take into account the reality of the situation, not what you think the situation ideally should be.
 
WisNeuro said:
Another issue is a supply problem. I think we could almost universally agree that certain aspects of diversity are not as represented in academia as they are in the general population. This is a fact that we can back up with survey data. And, we could all nearly universally agree that it'd be great if our academic institutions more closely matched our general population. But, we can't snap our fingers and make it so. The hiring pool reflects what is available at the moment, and it a lagging indicator given that to get to that point, someone must have gotten into grads school 7-10 years prior to that point. So, your hiring pool is where it is. I don't see how punishing your current students because the world isn't the way you want it to be helps anything but breed resentment and lead to missed opportunities and lowered competence in a key area. Solutions need to take into account the reality of the situation, not what you think the situation ideally should be.
Click to expand...

Indeed - very much agreed. There are so many factors that influence the skewed nature of the socio-demographic makeup of professors in academia, so simply targeting one component may not be enough nor the appropriate target of change, and, could lead to adverse or deleterious effects. As you mentioned, it seems like this program was so keen on hiring a very specific demographic in an effort to project a sense of diversity and cultural inclusion, that it did so at the expense of the larger whole who would benefit from actually receiving education on the matter. In this case, these students got screwed over potentially because no one was fulfilling that role all because the hiring committee wanted very specific applicant characteristics. This actually has been occurring more recently with the Air Force Academy where apparently a memo was sent that white, cis-gender males "need not apply" for this particular fellowship/scholarship with the academy. It caught a good deal of media attention, and the A.F. of course back-peddled to "clarify" their intention of the scholarship and the resulting message they sent out.
 
On a different but similar note, I was pretty resentful and bitter towards the universities I attended. It seemed like they had offered scholarships and preferential treatment to certain minority demographic students. I get the reason, I understand the rationale. It wasn't lost on me. But I ended up feeling like I didn't matter. That, and because I was a white undergraduate and graduate student, nothing else about who I was mattered when it came time to determining scholarships. They didn't know that I came from a home where my dad had a lot of physical and mental disabilities that precluded him from working, thus, my mother was the only breadwinner in the family that made it pretty challenging growing up. I also had several physical and learning disabilities since childhood that made it very difficulty in my academic pursuits. I turned my life around in my early 20's. I no longer subscribed to being a victim to my learning disabilities and decided to craft a plan to prevail. I identified my strengths and weaknesses on my own and crafted a plan to do well in my collegiate studies. No longer was I a "C and D" student. I evolved in how I learned how to learn and earned a 3.7-4.0 throughout most semesters. I went onto a master's degree in neuroscience with no prior background in the "hard sciences" and actually was in the top of my class compared to other peers who came in with backgrounds in chemistry, physics, and biology. I published and worked at a very well-respected AMC. None of these accolades seemed to matter because I didn't "tick" certain minority checkboxes. What was rich was when I graduated from my undergrad and master's programs; they started sending me letters to see if I would be willing to contribute to their scholarship funds. That pissed me off a lot as I didn't receive crap. I was probably one of the students in significant need of money to help offset the fact I worked 1-2 jobs while going to school full time, and had to work twice as hard as my peers to be successful due to my learning impairments. But I guess since I didn't fit within the prevailing statistical models, I didn't matter. The whole nomothetic translating to idiographic approach really is a limitation of our field at times.
 
ohiopsychdoc said:
On a different but similar note, I was pretty resentful and bitter towards the universities I attended. It seemed like they had offered scholarships and preferential treatment to certain minority demographic students. I get the reason, I understand the rationale. It wasn't lost on me. But I ended up feeling like I didn't matter. That, and because I was a white undergraduate and graduate student, nothing else about who I was mattered when it came time to determining scholarships. They didn't know that I came from a home where my dad had a lot of physical and mental disabilities that precluded him from working, thus, my mother was the only breadwinner in the family that made it pretty challenging growing up. I also had several physical and learning disabilities since childhood that made it very difficulty in my academic pursuits. I turned my life around in my early 20's. I no longer subscribed to being a victim to my learning disabilities and decided to craft a plan to prevail. I identified my strengths and weaknesses on my own and crafted a plan to do well in my collegiate studies. No longer was I a "C and D" student. I evolved in how I learned how to learn and earned a 3.7-4.0 throughout most semesters. I went onto a master's degree in neuroscience with no prior background in the "hard sciences" and actually was in the top of my class compared to other peers who came in with backgrounds in chemistry, physics, and biology. I published and worked at a very well-respected AMC. None of these accolades seemed to matter because I didn't "tick" certain minority checkboxes. What was rich was when I graduated from my undergrad and master's programs; they started sending me letters to see if I would be willing to contribute to their scholarship funds. That pissed me off a lot as I didn't receive crap. I was probably one of the students in significant need of money to help offset the fact I worked 1-2 jobs while going to school full time, and had to work twice as hard as my peers to be successful due to my learning impairments. But I guess since I didn't fit within the prevailing statistical models, I didn't matter. The whole nomothetic translating to idiographic approach really is a limitation of our field at times.
Click to expand...
There’s lots of smaller violins out there to be played. But thanks for sharing your story. I think it is a good thing to have these perspectives out there in a world where being real isn’t reinforced. Part of why I like SDN.
 
smalltownpsych said:
Some of the therapists I worked with recently would refer to people like the OP as mediocre white males that just whine when they no longer get their privilege.
Click to expand...
Can't speak to the "mediocre" part in referencec to the OPer, but it's hard to that what might be a recent inconvenience to people like me (i.e. making it a little more difficult for us to get job because of things we can't change), has been happening a lot longer to people who aren't like us. Sound like the OP found another, likely more attractive (on at least some level) position. My
Guess is that all us old(er), white, cisgendered guys are doing OK, despite the occasional hiccup from a progressive policy challenging our privilege, even if seemingly unfairly so.
 
Yeah, I am not on board with this one bit. This is not something I support.
 
ClinicalABA said:
Can't speak to the "mediocre" part in referencec to the OPer, but it's hard to that what might be a recent inconvenience to people like me (i.e. making it a little more difficult for us to get job because of things we can't change), has been happening a lot longer to people who aren't like us. Sound like the OP found another, likely more attractive (on at least some level) position. My
Guess is that all us old(er), white, cisgendered guys are doing OK, despite the occasional hiccup from a progressive policy challenging our privilege, even if seemingly unfairly so.
Click to expand...

I'd be more concerned about the screwing over of the program's students, personally. Progressive policies don't really affect me personally in my work.
 
ClinicalABA said:
Can't speak to the "mediocre" part in referencec to the OPer, but it's hard to that what might be a recent inconvenience to people like me (i.e. making it a little more difficult for us to get job because of things we can't change), has been happening a lot longer to people who aren't like us. Sound like the OP found another, likely more attractive (on at least some level) position. My
Guess is that all us old(er), white, cisgendered guys are doing OK, despite the occasional hiccup from a progressive policy challenging our privilege, even if seemingly unfairly so.
Click to expand...
"us."
"them."

"privilege"
"progressive"

us/them: who is 'us?' Males in psychology? Young males in psychology? Old males in psychology? Males who were born and raised in poverty (whether white, Asian, black, Latino, gay, straight...etc., etc., etc.)? Males or females who were raised in rich households? People with high IQ? People with educational opportunities? People with or without physical disabilities? How severe do the disabilities have to be? Can they be mental disabilities? Does ADHD count? Does alcoholism count? There is an infinite number of dimensions along which individuals differ and, depending on the 'intersectional calculus' and comparison group, anyone can be said to be 'privileged' or 'disadvantaged' depending on which and how many variables are being considered and to whom they are being compared. Does a white lesbian female from an impoverished background who works incredibly hard and gets good grades 'deserve' to get a chance at grad school as much as a black heterosexual male from a wealthy background with a higher IQ who perhaps partied a lot in undergrad and got mediocre grades? What are the relevant 'equations?' What are the beta weights? What if there is disagreement? Who 'gets to win?' What do you tell the young person who didn't choose his skin color, sex, or sexual orientation (and can do nothing to change these characteristics about himself)? 'Too bad, buddy...you really got born with some crappy luck but, you know, the sins of the father are visited upon the sons (for eternity)? And no matter how hard you study, no matter how hard you try, no matter how good your grades, no matter how many hours you put into the lab, no matter how many publications you get you will always have the 'stain' of being a 'privileged' white male heterosexual and you can never live it down.' When, exactly, will men in psychology no longer be part of the 'oppressive patriarchy?' When the ratio is 90%/10% female/male? Even then? The field of clinical psychology is incredibly feminized at this point and is becoming more and more so as the years pass. Diversity is a good thing and people should be free to choose their profession and women do tend to have a stronger interest in the field than men. So it is inevitable that the field will be majority female from here on out (like many other professions--including medicine these days). As it should be. But at what point does it become ridiculous for the overwhelming majority to continue to claim 'minority' status in the field?
 
Fan_of_Meehl said:
"us."
"them."

"privilege"
"progressive"

us/them: who is 'us?' Males in psychology? Young males in psychology? Old males in psychology? Males who were born and raised in poverty (whether white, Asian, black, Latino, gay, straight...etc., etc., etc.)? Males or females who were raised in rich households? People with high IQ? People with educational opportunities? People with or without physical disabilities? How severe do the disabilities have to be? Can they be mental disabilities? Does ADHD count? Does alcoholism count? There is an infinite number of dimensions along which individuals differ and, depending on the 'intersectional calculus' and comparison group, anyone can be said to be 'privileged' or 'disadvantaged' depending on which and how many variables are being considered and to whom they are being compared. Does a white lesbian female from an impoverished background who works incredibly hard and gets good grades 'deserve' to get a chance at grad school as much as a black heterosexual male from a wealthy background with a higher IQ who perhaps partied a lot in undergrad and got mediocre grades? What are the relevant 'equations?' What are the beta weights? What if there is disagreement? Who 'gets to win?' What do you tell the young person who didn't choose his skin color, sex, or sexual orientation (and can do nothing to change these characteristics about himself)? 'Too bad, buddy...you really got born with some crappy luck but, you know, the sins of the father are visited upon the sons (for eternity)? And no matter how hard you study, no matter how hard you try, no matter how good your grades, no matter how many hours you put into the lab, no matter how many publications you get you will always have the 'stain' of being a 'privileged' white male heterosexual and you can never live it down.' When, exactly, will men in psychology no longer be part of the 'oppressive patriarchy?' When the ratio is 90%/10% female/male? Even then? The field of clinical psychology is incredibly feminized at this point and is becoming more and more so as the years pass. Diversity is a good thing and people should be free to choose their profession and women do tend to have a stronger interest in the field than men. So it is inevitable that the field will be majority female from here on out (like many other professions--including medicine these days). As it should be. But at what point does it become ridiculous for the overwhelming majority to continue to claim 'minority' status in the field?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that message is definitely not going to fit on a button or a postcard.
 
Fan_of_Meehl said:
"us."
"them."

"privilege"
"progressive"

us/them: who is 'us?' Males in psychology? Young males in psychology? Old males in psychology? Males who were born and raised in poverty (whether white, Asian, black, Latino, gay, straight...etc., etc., etc.)? Males or females who were raised in rich households? People with high IQ? People with educational opportunities? People with or without physical disabilities? How severe do the disabilities have to be? Can they be mental disabilities? Does ADHD count? Does alcoholism count? There is an infinite number of dimensions along which individuals differ and, depending on the 'intersectional calculus' and comparison group, anyone can be said to be 'privileged' or 'disadvantaged' depending on which and how many variables are being considered and to whom they are being compared. Does a white lesbian female from an impoverished background who works incredibly hard and gets good grades 'deserve' to get a chance at grad school as much as a black heterosexual male from a wealthy background with a higher IQ who perhaps partied a lot in undergrad and got mediocre grades? What are the relevant 'equations?' What are the beta weights? What if there is disagreement? Who 'gets to win?' What do you tell the young person who didn't choose his skin color, sex, or sexual orientation (and can do nothing to change these characteristics about himself)? 'Too bad, buddy...you really got born with some crappy luck but, you know, the sins of the father are visited upon the sons (for eternity)? And no matter how hard you study, no matter how hard you try, no matter how good your grades, no matter how many hours you put into the lab, no matter how many publications you get you will always have the 'stain' of being a 'privileged' white male heterosexual and you can never live it down.' When, exactly, will men in psychology no longer be part of the 'oppressive patriarchy?' When the ratio is 90%/10% female/male? Even then? The field of clinical psychology is incredibly feminized at this point and is becoming more and more so as the years pass. Diversity is a good thing and people should be free to choose their profession and women do tend to have a stronger interest in the field than men. So it is inevitable that the field will be majority female from here on out (like many other professions--including medicine these days). As it should be. But at what point does it become ridiculous for the overwhelming majority to continue to claim 'minority' status in the field?
Click to expand...

I just wanted to say - you took the words right out of my mouth. You said it perfectly. Bravo. This is exactly how I feel per my previous post regarding my background and the various disabilities and diversity variables I embody.
 
Fan_of_Meehl said:
And no matter how hard you study, no matter how hard you try, no matter how good your grades, no matter how many hours you put into the lab, no matter how many publications you get you will always have the 'stain' of being a 'privileged' white male heterosexual and you can never live it down.'
Click to expand...
This is the longstanding reality for lots of marginalized folks, though--that's kind of the point. You never get to quite be on the same playing field, because of the prejudice and discrimination that is so heavily baked into a lot of systems. Lots of female physicians will be assumed be others in medical settings to not actually be physicians, for example, at much higher rates than male physicians, nor matter what they achieve. Lots of Black people will be assumed to be criminals or dangerous by law enforcement, no matter what they achieve. The exhausting reality you imagine happening already does happen for lots of people. Of course, if/how we can address that is extraordinarily complicated and contenuous, and some proposed solutions may make things worse.
 
So folks with disabilities are a significant part of the DEI movement. The disability offices on campuses fought hard to be there. They lobbied aggressively to make sure things like rescinding an offer to pursue higher education didn't occur just because it was discovered someone had a learning disability. It was especially significant when veterans returned from wars with significant injuries. These efforts have been around for decades. There was and still is strong opposition to these individuals participating in college and employment. The very things being said now were said to them. "Why should we give you an opportunity when there are 'healthy' people who can likely perform just as well or better without extra accommodations?" So yes, disabilities count. Why do I know this? Because I have an interest in DEI and understanding the history of why some groups are more represented at the table than others. The table is small, so if a group is vastly overrepresented, it is worth looking at if important opportunities are being missed.

As a student, I requested more faculty with diverse backgrounds be considered when hiring. I was shouldering a lot of this work without support and on a stipend. I mentored other Black students. I helped White students with Black clients. I designed programming to strengthen multicultural competence because it wasn't built into the curriculum already. The faculty valued my work, but just didn't have a strong background in it and couldn't help me. That is why they made a strong effort to recruit someone also interested in DEI and competent. There was a hiring freeze and I went on internship. No clue how it all ended up. I say all of that to remind folks there is more than one way to screw over students.
 
This issue actually came up when I was teaching last week, so it's been on my mind a lot, but a fundamental challenge in DEI work is that things like identities and experiences of marginalization are incredibly visceral to people, so it's somewhat normative for people to react strongly. For example, someone from a marginalized group may very much have learned to respond to discrimination by pushing back; someone else may have learned to respond to their experiences of marginalization by just saying "screw it" and leaving the situation or putting their head down and not engaging for their own well-being. Some (many?) people may vary between the two. If someone had positive experiences with pushing back or educating others, they may react strongly to someone suggesting that people just leave spaces where they experience discrimination or disengage. On the other hand, if someone had negative experiences with pushing back or educating others, they may react really strongly to someone saying that people should respond to discrimation by pushing back or educating others. Which approach is "right"? Well, neither is inherently right or wrong, but both people may feel invalidated by the other, and because this conversation concerns experiences that were really impactful to them, may have very initial strong reactions to it.

We see this in other things with marginalized communities, too--the tensions between person-first versus identity-first language in the disability community (and various subcommunities), tensions between bi-/pan-erasure and lesbian-erasure in WLW community dialogue, etc.--where you get these complex reactions rooted in very real pain, and it's easy for everyone to feel potentially invalidated. And then you add in people from a majority position/position of power who may not see why these nuanced conversations or strong reactions exist and just want a simple DEI "solution" that makes them feel like they are doing the "right thing." The nuance and experiences of some people (often multiply marginalized people) often get lost in this. So, that's one reason why having a critical mass of diversity in a department can be important--you can get varied perspectives and more nuanced conversations about and approaches to these things, rather than just having one person being the token POC, token queer person, token disabled person, etc, who has to try to shoulder and explain all of that on top of their other job duties.
 
I don't think anyone is saying that DEI work is not important. However, I do think that as @Fan_of_Meehl pointed the question becomes how do you implement it. It's easy to take shots at white males, but the issue I often struggle with is that DEI work often becomes less about diversity and feels more like a power struggle with different groups at the table. If there are no white males in positions of power, but all white females is that progress or just demographics changes? How about a group that is all gay and lesbian except for one cis-gendered male? Often, my experiences in DEI groups have been less about true diversity and more about the next most powerful block of people that are not white cisgendered males pushing for an agenda for their group. This often makes me check out and lose interest as it feels like it is less about diversity and more about self-interest.
 
It's why I gave a specific example of why someone might prioritize an interest in DEI in hiring over someone less "perfect." I think I've been clear across similar threads that this work is challenging for the reasons futureapppsy2 highlighted. Because it's hard and emotionally challenging, people don't do it at all or do it in a way that comes off as performative or self-interested.

They also treat it like it's not an area of expertise with an evidence base. They often end up winging it, not collecting data, and then being surprised when it blows up in their faces. My department made a huge push to bring in students from different backgrounds and were overwhelmed when they had different needs and requests than their previous students. It also created a lot of tension between students that they didn't know how to address. That is the stage where a lot of people might give up. I hope my old department didn't. If there is tension, it means new ideas are being shared.
 
If you believe the current "stain" of being a white, male, heterosexual is anything remotely close to the historical "stain" of being non-male, non-white, or non-heterosexual, we are so far apart in our beliefs that we probably should find something more productive to debate. In answer to some of the questions above, I don't know when (or if) it will ever be even, or how we will even tell if it is, but I'm not thinking we (male white heterosexuals) are at any risk losing the advantages of our centuries-long head start within my lifetime.

I'm struck by how some posters will stray from their unusual "suck it up, make yourself more competitive and stop complaining 'cause that's the way it is fair or not" advice when it comes to this issue.
 
ClinicalABA said:
If you believe the current "stain" of being a white, male, heterosexual is anything remotely close to the historical "stain" of being non-male, non-white, or non-heterosexual, we are so far apart in our beliefs that we probably should find something more productive to debate. In answer to some of the questions above, I don't know when (or if) it will ever be even, or how we will even tell if it is, but I'm not thinking we (male white heterosexuals) are at any risk losing the advantages of our centuries-long head start within my lifetime.

I'm struck by how some posters will stray from their unusual "suck it up, make yourself more competitive and stop complaining 'cause that's the way it is fair or not" advice when it comes to this issue.
Click to expand...

My advice is more, let them eat their own for a while in academia until it balances out. In the meantime, go into PP and get paid. Far less in terms of arbitrary politics out here.
 
ClinicalABA said:
If you believe the current "stain" of being a white, male, heterosexual is anything remotely close to the historical "stain" of being non-male, non-white, or non-heterosexual, we are so far apart in our beliefs that we probably should find something more productive to debate. In answer to some of the questions above, I don't know when (or if) it will ever be even, or how we will even tell if it is, but I'm not thinking we (male white heterosexuals) are at any risk losing the advantages of our centuries-long head start within my lifetime.

I'm struck by how some posters will stray from their unusual "suck it up, make yourself more competitive and stop complaining 'cause that's the way it is fair or not" advice when it comes to this issue.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if anyone was saying that. I sure as hell wouldn’t say that I have seen evidence of that type of disparity anywhere or even have any concerns that it might be the case. I just am not a big fan of negative stereotypes regardless of the direction. My entire dissertation committee and myself were made up of people who were psychologists who also had a secondary minority identification. During my final defense, the challenge for all of us of living in those two worlds was brought up very directly and I take that responsibility seriously as did the rest of the folk in that room.
 
Shiori said:
It's why I gave a specific example of why someone might prioritize an interest in DEI in hiring over someone less "perfect." I think I've been clear across similar threads that this work is challenging for the reasons futureapppsy2 highlighted. Because it's hard and emotionally challenging, people don't do it at all or do it in a way that comes off as performative or self-interested.

They also treat it like it's not an area of expertise with an evidence base. They often end up winging it, not collecting data, and then being surprised when it blows up in their faces. My department made a huge push to bring in students from different backgrounds and were overwhelmed when they had different needs and requests than their previous students. It also created a lot of tension between students that they didn't know how to address. That is the stage where a lot of people might give up. I hope my old department didn't. If there is tension, it means new ideas are being shared.
Click to expand...

ClinicalABA said:
If you believe the current "stain" of being a white, male, heterosexual is anything remotely close to the historical "stain" of being non-male, non-white, or non-heterosexual, we are so far apart in our beliefs that we probably should find something more productive to debate. In answer to some of the questions above, I don't know when (or if) it will ever be even, or how we will even tell if it is, but I'm not thinking we (male white heterosexuals) are at any risk losing the advantages of our centuries-long head start within my lifetime.

I'm struck by how some posters will stray from their unusual "suck it up, make yourself more competitive and stop complaining 'cause that's the way it is fair or not" advice when it comes to this issue.
Click to expand...

I applaud your work @Shiori but your personal story is also pretty troubling from a larger perspective. When you leave it to people to push for something themselves, there will always be bias based on the representation that is there. You were there to help white students understand black clients. Who is helping them understand Hispanic, Asian, gay, etc clients? There has to be more structural buy-in to actual diversity than folks who volunteer to push it.

The other concern is economic. Push the white males or other groups of power too far away and you risk irrelevance. What good is equity if psychologists become the next public school teacher and white males who feel unwelcome all run toward tech jobs? A Google ads salesperson already makes significantly more than many psychologists with no graduate degree.
 
ClinicalABA said:
If you believe the current "stain" of being a white, male, heterosexual is anything remotely close to the historical "stain" of being non-male, non-white, or non-heterosexual, we are so far apart in our beliefs that we probably should find something more productive to debate. In answer to some of the questions above, I don't know when (or if) it will ever be even, or how we will even tell if it is, but I'm not thinking we (male white heterosexuals) are at any risk losing the advantages of our centuries-long head start within my lifetime.

I'm struck by how some posters will stray from their unusual "suck it up, make yourself more competitive and stop complaining 'cause that's the way it is fair or not" advice when it comes to this issue.
Click to expand...
So if people are arguing that a white male applicant to graduate school (who was born, say, in the year 2000) having his application sent to the bottom of the pile of applicants due to his sex and skin color--irrespective of merit--as a result of the implementation of explicit DEI policies/practices--to supposedly atone for 'the historical stain of being non-male, non-white, or non-heterosexual" is to be considered a noble practice that will be of benefit to the field of clinical psychology or even society at large then--I agree--we are quite apart in our beliefs so as to at least make further discussion extremely difficult, if not impossible. One of the things that I would appeal to people to at least consider is that the absolutely certain medium-term to long-term effects of arbitrarily 'punishing' individuals for the 'sins' of 'those of their sex/race in the past' is an incredibly foolish and destructive matter of policy that will only backfire and create justifiable resentment in those individuals. If I decided to enact a 'punishment' against you because people who happened to share your physical characteristics did bad things in the past you would (rightfully) believe that to be unfair and would be resentful about it. Why are young white males going to be any different in this regard, going forward? The very idea of judging people (or pre-judging people) based on race/sex as a matter of explicit policy or praxis as somehow inherently 'good' or 'bad' is profoundly foolish and misguided (and destructive) and will only devolve ultimately into a 'us vs. them' sort of tribalism irrespective of the publicly proclaimed noble sentiments of those who argue for its necessity in order to 'right the wrongs of history.' It will not end well and it will only serve to further inflame societal tensions, divide individuals who otherwise may have collaborated for a better future for everyone, and, I believe, will end up causing more suffering than if we tried to get along regardless of immutable personal characteristics that we were born with as individuals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DynamicDidactic
Are there valid and reliable adult ASD evaluations out there?
Replies
9
Views
2K
Dazen
Dazen
The Cinnabon
UCCs and EBPs?
Replies
16
Views
1K
WisNeuro
WisNeuro
clausewitz2
LLMs and autism diagnosis
Replies
17
Views
1K
clausewitz2
clausewitz2
WisNeuro
CTE and iatrogenesis
Replies
10
Views
1K
Sanman
Sanman
C
Post doc and FMLA
Replies
12
Views
1K
PsyDr
PsyDr
Top