Dare you to reply!

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members don't see this ad.
RealSimulD said:
Do you think if someone spoke the way he did about anyone other than white people he would be invited to give keynotes at major academic meetings?
Click to expand...
Was this essay even a thing in 2020?

I don't know. I hadn't heard of it. It was not covered in press that I read. It was not a story that I was acquainted with.

The essay in question may not have been known to anyone making a decision about a keynote speaker. (I do not know).

Did I defend the essay? No. Did I post the entire essay as I encountered it after an internet search...yes, because the most ridiculous parts of the essay are of course the one's promulgated. The thesis on this thread presently is DEI begets hate. Even Kendi at 21, with clearly racist opinions, was not advocating for hate.

You would be hard pressed to see Kendi's work or interviews from 2019 or 2020 and intuit this essay from 2003.

Interesting to Kendi's arguments (as I perceive them) is that he decouples racism with the the personal attribution of being racist. I like this. In other words, anyone can be racist at any point in time and it is the real time assessment of one's actions or support of policies or vote that can be designated as racist as opposed to the person themselves.

Like those liberal coastal elites that buy Kendi's book and talk about racism...they may be racist awhen they vote against affordable housing in their neighborhood, or maybe even when they support tax benefits that are only enjoyed by the wealthy and by default mostly by certain ethnic groups. It's a high standard that everyone fails...similar to some religious traditions.

BTW, Kendi has since had a significant downfall.

Do we as a society have a little more forgiveness with anti-white sentiment coming from minority groups? I think so. This is not rational but intuitive (like Heidt would say). It's rooted in our collective perception of the present and history. We also have more tolerance for little guys being violent than big guys, because big guys are much more scary.

I am personally more forgiving of someone having anti-white sentiment, because I am not the effing underdog here (some of you white guys are...I understand). I'm just like...whatever, time to go home to my beautiful home and my beautiful wife.

I do think the DEI movement probably needs to stop trying to discuss the concept of privilege. If you are someone who internalizes privilege and likes John Rawls and believes that social justice is something to work towards (which is different than absolute equality), you are comfortable with this concept. If you have a different makeup and are concerned about the tyranny of social justice, central planning and social engineering, you probably just feel discriminated against.

Peace.
 
communitydoc13 said:
Good...just let's get this straight.

Kendi states like 5 times in the essay that he does not hate white people and gives several reasons for this.

He also states his stereotypes about white people, and the stereotypes are wrong, as they always are. It's not like he couldn't find data if he wanted to (not about cloning or recessive genes or AIDS 🤣). But, he could find data about white's opinions on race, about slavery, Jim Crow, lending practices and law enforcement practices.

The important thing...the very pro DEI thing...is that whatever data he found would not justify his stereotype. This is not a data driven thing, this is based on a presupposition...namely, that regardless of group identity, the value of the individual is uniform. I'll stick to this presupposition in the face of data any day.

Likewise, whatever data you find is not going to justify your stereotypes about any other group.

It is farcical that valuing DEI is itself viewed as the big nidus of hate. Even Haidt is subject to lazy thinking on this. He knows full well that most people just feel a certain way, that this is incredibly complicated and contextual, and that they then find a cognitive framework to support those feelings. If there is hate, it was always there. Every time I look at a distillation of DEI values, I like them.

So what is the problem? Well Kendi was not very cognizant of his bias here and people think he's gotten off easier than a person from other demographics would who expounded on their biases. People think that the DEI movement is protecting biased people who have historically not been protected. I think they are correct. I also think that this is so far down the list of critical issues presently that the emphasis on it in our discussions and the media is very telling.

While I don't relate to Amy Chua's premise about the cultural foundations of success (I'll take kindness over success any day), I do relate to her premise that group loyalty outweighs other considerations. This group loyalty is so, so strong, and is what mandates at times initiatives to work against it, particularly when disparities are big.

It is clear that we have different group loyalties on this board...that is good.

DEI initiatives need some revisions. But, DEI is not causing antisemitism or anti-white sentiment, and high achieving "woke" college kids who are advocating for a particular group are not necessarily "coddled minds". They probably know a little bit about history, statistics, disparities and their friend's personal narratives. They can also say stupid things.

Make sure that Elon gets that switch as well.

Wikipedia was utilized as a reference here...but nothing was lifted directly.
Click to expand...

I think the DEI has noble intentions: to undue systems that are systemically biased against certain groups (and I DO think this is a real thing). However, My biggest issue with DEI (and the underlying philosophical framework of CRT) is that it applies different rules to different people, depending on whether or not they belong to a group that has been historically marginalized.

A person from Group 1 can say "Group 2 is causing all of the problems in this country", and a person in Group 2 can say the same thing about Group 1... but under a DEI framework, the person in Group 1 may get tenure, and the person in Group 2 may get fired.

While I see logic of doing this as a means of giving marginalized groups an advantage to help them overcome systemic bias... it doesn't FEEL just, and doesn't convince anyone of anything. For those who aren't already on board with the goals of DEI, this sort of approach is alienating.

The question of antisemitism is very complicated. In my limited experience as a Jew, antisemitism differs a bit from other forms of discrimination. At its heart is a perception of Jews have undeserved power, and a fear that we conspiring to keep this power behind the scenes. This is true of antisemisits both on the right AND on the left.

On the left, criticizing Jews is more tolerable than criticizing other minorities, because it FEELS like they are punching up (Jews having all this undeserved power and all). This his how DEI may (unintentionally) feed into antisemitism -it emphasizes that different rules apply to different people depending on who is the "oppressor" vs. who is "oppressed". Many on the left view Jews as the oppressor (both regarding their perception of Israel and their perception of Jews in America).

Dr. Gay wouldn't have had such a lawyerly response if the question arose about the genocide of a "DEI-approved" oppressed group. When I heard the recording of the hearings, I'd be lying if it didn't feel a bit like a gut-punch. I don't imagine that Dr. Gay would ever condone such hateful rhettoric against Jews if she encountered it personally, but she just didn't feel comfortably saying that it was unequivocally unjustified.
 
PSA to academics: If someone ever asks you if genocide is acceptable, you just say a full-throated and sincere "no".

PSA to attorneys: If a judge asks you if your client can order Seal Team 6 to murder a political rival with impunity, you just say a full-throated and sincere "no".
 
communitydoc13 said:
Oh fer f&3ks sake.

If you can't figure out what the real threats to society are, what the substrate is for something akin to fascism... I can't help you.

It's not DEI.

It's that "gleeful majoritarian sentiment" that allows for bullying, discrimination, scapegoating, militarism, a sense of victimhood in the context of relative wealth and the denial of basic truths (like the loss of an election or WWI).

Kendi is extremely small potatoes.
Click to expand...
My thoughts:

The continued consternation about things such as a third-rate racist demagogue giving a keynote at a third-rate medical conference, 3 years ago and has since all but disappeared from the discourse; strikes me as a false equivalence/permission structure to allow oneself enough cognitive dissonance to vote for a first-rate racist demagogue sociopath, convicted fraudster/sexual assaulter, who loves all authoritarians, has attempted a baseless coup/insurrection, is routinely using rhetorical devices of Adolph Hitler, who described himself as a day-1 dictator, and whose chief political platform is “retribution”… for president of the United States….again.

DEI in its current incarnation is a mouse under the floorboard. Of course it’s irritating and problematic and the folks with the most crumbs may have to worry about a little **** on their counter, but please worry more about the ****ing wolf at the door y’all.
 
Last edited:
Bequerel said:
Can DEI go too far???

www.foxnews.com

FAA’s diversity push includes focus on hiring people with ‘severe intellectual’ and ‘psychiatric’ disabilities

Fox News Digital has learned the Federal Aviation Administration is pushing a hiring initiative that emphasizes employing people with "missing extremities" and other disabilities.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
Click to expand...
I hope this is a joke post and everyone is aware that this is basically a non-story that may be headlined in a way to generate clicks in the present setting of DEI outrage.

Federal agencies routinely give consideration to the disabled for employment and disabled veterans are preferentially hired for many federal positions. I don't think most conservatives are not very concerned about this policy, and having a gainfully employed disabled population is obviously much better than the converse.

What no one is proposing is recruiting folks with severe intellectual disabilities for jobs that they are not capable of performing.

Just waiting for the headline, "Diversity initiatives lowering test performance in schools" …with reference to special education.

Click bait.
 
Any mainstream media outlet, regardless of political bias, is going to be full of clickbait that confirms the priors of its audience. I don't think anyone here actually believes the FAA is trying to hire people with Down's Syndrome to be air traffic controllers. But it doesn't mean there's nothing there -- the concept of DEI over merit in ATC hiring is very real.

Most reasonable people (and most people are reasonable) can understand that when it comes to piloting aircraft, the only thing that matters is aptitude. Unfortunately not everyone is reasonable or knowledgeable enough about aviation to understand that not everyone can be trained to be a competent pilot (it is impossible to train many people to be competent pilots -- it can't be done, talk to any CFI). There is a reason that the overwhelming majority of pilots are male (97%) and it's not because of systemic prejudices in hiring and training. Actuaries in the insurance industry do this every day when they do risk calculations on drivers based on demographics to come up with auto insurance rates.

However, the false premise of DEI and critical theory, that anytime there is an inequality (97% of pilots are male vs. 50%), it must be due to systemic prejudices that must be actively corrected for, is resulting in active efforts to prioritize increasing the number of women pilots (which necessarily must decrease the number of male pilots). It is simply a logical fallacy. To discount the idea that anything else, such as inherent differences between the sexes that tend towards different aptitudes and career choices, could be responsible.

There are more women ATCs, about 20%. Yet how many older ATCs are there (above 60)? Exactly zero. Seems like an inequality that must be accounted for and corrected. In reality, there is a mandatory retirement age for ATCs at 56. There is/was a reason for this. So overt age discrimination is cool but not perceived sexual or racial discrimination? It makes no sense.

unherd.com

Is DEI risking air traffic control safety?

Several stories and tweets went viral this week calling into question the competency of airline pilots over DEI concerns. Critics such as Elon Musk have pointed to diversity hiring initiatives for airline pilots, assuming that standards are lowered for underrepresented groups, but federal...
unherd.com unherd.com

Airline pilots (in the US) tend to skew towards the middle aged, white, and republican crowd. Curiously, we don't see similar (or any) outrage focused and inequities in similar high earning skilled labor with high potential for harm professions such as electrical/plumbing, high power line work, offshore oil drilling, nuclear reactor maintenance, etc. Wonder why no one cares about the systemic prejudices in those jobs?

Then we've got the Dallas Mavericks. Sure, Mark, you've got diversity among the coaches, trainers, staff in the company, as you say. I notice no women on the court though. Why is that? Why is it that when it comes to your players, it's 100%-aptitude based hiring from people who both won the birth lottery for size/strength and worked the hardest, and the better they are, the more you pay them? Again, I think most people, at some level see through all of this whether they admit it openly or not.
 
MidwestRadOnc said:
However, the false premise of DEI and critical theory, that anytime there is an inequality (97% of pilots are male vs. 50%), it must be due to systemic prejudices that must be actively corrected for
Click to expand...
I don't think so. There are lots of disparities and there will always be disparities. The wokest thinkers acknowledge that it it is impossible to eliminate all disparities in a society.

This does not mean that many disparities that we observe need to be there at the level they exist presently. Also important is how disparities manifest in terms of future opportunity, influence and personal wealth. Many folks on the left may see more injustice in the fact that an airline pilot makes 1/100th of what an airline CEO makes than in the fact that most pilots are male.

But does anyone believe that a pilot workforce that is 97% male is making the best use of potential talent for the position? (India has ~12% female pilots BTW). I think in this setting, it is reasonable to consider if the 97% number itself is indicative of an non-ideal workforce and to strategically target underrepresented females for training positions (meaning, let them know that they are welcome even if they are not well represented). It's probably just a good recruitment practice. If promoting an all female flight crew gets you more applicants from the academically performing better sex, more power to us...right?

Did the the 94% male physician workforce in 1950 represent an ideal workforce?

These examples are of course different than the professional athlete example. In the modern era, do we have a reason to be believe that having greater than average strength is critical for safe operation of an Airbus? Do female drivers perform worse in terms of bad outcomes (I know the answer to that one)? I don't think our priors indicate that females can't get the job done.

NBA players literally represent remarkable physical outliers in terms of height, length, explosiveness and quickness. It is not a job for anyone within 3 standard deviations of the norm for many physical traits on a male only curve. Of course, given the difference in distribution of these traits between the sexes, it is unlikely that we will ever see a female playing in the NBA.

There are remarkably few positions in society where you are actually almost universally pulling from the extremes of human distributions. I think most reasonable people shrug at disparities that arise in these circumstances. Small numbers beget weird distributions. This does not apply to positions like doctors and airline pilots.

Or nurses...86% female....plenty of initiatives in terms of recruiting male nurses, as there should be.

I think we are moving in the right direction.
 
communitydoc13 said:
But does anyone believe that a pilot workforce that is 97% male is making the best use of potential talent for the position? (India has ~12% female pilots BTW). I think in this setting, it is reasonable to consider if the 97% number itself is indicative of an non-ideal workforce and to strategically target underrepresented females for training positions (meaning, let them know that they are welcome even if they are not well represented). It's probably just a good recruitment practice.
Click to expand...

I have no idea, and I don't care. All I care about is that there are no subjective barriers to becoming what you want to be in this country. If the path to becoming a pilot, or deep sea welder, or lobster boat captain, or whatever is open to all and that math shakes out that only 3% of women are interested and able to get to the point of doing that for a living, then what does it matter? I don't care what people choose to do or how hard they want to work. I don't care that only 14% of men are interested in nursing enough to do it for a living. Do you care that only 11% of DOT highway workers are female?

I don't know how you interpreted my comments to mean that I was suggesting that females don't have the physical strength to operate the flight controls of an airliner. Of course that's not what we're talking about. The reality is that men and women are different and tend to have different strengths, weaknesses, and interests (there are definitely outliers, more masculine women, more effeminate men, etc). I don't understand why so many struggle with this concept. Men tend to be more interested in things, women tend to be more interested in people. Men tend to be more interested in the study of mathematics and do well with visuospatial concepts, women tend to be more interested in the study of language and have better verbal abilities, etc (hence they test better and perform better in school, as you noted). People like doing things they are (1) interested in and (2) naturally good at. It should come as no surprise that flight engineers, A&P mechanics, and pilots are almost all men as it all requires an understanding and interest in complex mechanical and electrical systems. These are not creative jobs. Communication is brief and machine-like. You're making a complicated machine go through the air, following rigid checklists, making the same thing happen over and over again with dramatic consequences if you screw up even a tiny bit. This is not going to be interesting to a lot of people. And that's ok.

Does this mean that I think young girls should be told that math and building/operating things is more of a boy thing and they need to pursue more verbal careers in communications, law, nursing, working with children, etc? Definitely not. The reflexive response of anybody pro-DEI reading the above is probably to bark at me that I'm a sexist by implying that these jobs are somehow harder and that women are being unfairly excluded because of a perceived notion that they aren't smart enough to do it, which is ridiculous. Everyone should be given the opportunity to explore all subjects and pursue what they feel they are good at and interested in. Definitely this happened in the past. The military didn't let women fly planes until the 70s and not in combat until the 90s (30+ years ago). Where do you think most airlines get their pilots from? Outside of the military picking your job for you based on your competence, self-funding your pilot training is as expensive as funding medical training so you better be really sure you like it and are going to be good enough to make it through.

And yes, the person who takes the risk to start and manage an airline or any business, rightly should reap greater financial rewards than a hired employee. Does that mean I think health system CEOs should earn 49 million in one year? Of course not.

All that to say, we shouldn't sit around scratching our heads too hard when we can't get a 50:50 male:female ratio in something like the mining industry. Maybe, just maybe that's the way it naturally comes out. On one hand, there is this focus on these two separate types of humans: males and females, but on the other hand there is this desire to make them as much the same as possible. Is it ok that that the varying levels of sex hormones tend to drive these two different types of creatures in different directions, or do we need to correct for it and try to make sure they are represented 50:50 in everything? Prove to me that there is a systemic bias keeping women from becoming pilots or anything else, and I will completely support active efforts to eliminate that prejudice in the system. But pointing to only the outcome of the present sex ratio is not sufficient proof.

I agree with you that we are moving in the right direction. But we have been for a very long time and I think sometimes the more progressive among us don't want to acknowledge the progress that has been made and instead are only interested in seeing unjust disparities everywhere they look, stretching as much as possible to identify them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MidwestRadOnc said:
I agree with you that we are moving in the right direction. But we have been for a very long time and I think sometimes the more progressive among us don't want to acknowledge the progress that has been made and instead are only interested in seeing unjust disparities everywhere they look, stretching as much as possible to identify them.
Click to expand...
Hey, we both agree that we are moving in the right direction...beautiful!

Nobody reasonable is scratching too hard at exactly 50:50 and DEI budgets are tiny. ( I agree there are some shady people commoditizing DEI).

From where I sit, figuring out how to get more boys engaged in academics (or in productive things that they like and that will be valued) and away from Andrew Tate is one of the most pressing DEI initiatives out there.
 
I don’t think the rates of imbalances are all fixed at whatever proportion they are in 2023. Some may be - NBA, for example. I have no reason to believe that 3% is the optimal and fair percentage of pilots that are female. It could be a recruiting thing or a lack of communication to all potential applicants. That one is a great example that with time and maybe enhanced recruiting and awareness can change and improve use of human capital. My suspicion is that since many are former military, that’s why the number is so skewed. There is a role for DEI programs - the good kind.

My issue is we start saying airlines are sexist or that we are discriminating against females or that we are lowering metrics / standards substantially for females applying. Then we are a start to engage in “DEI” - the bad kind.

The example of physicians is a great one. Look at the class picture in 1960. A face that looks like mine would not be on that photo. But, medicine changed. And now there are more people of color and females.

By 2030, we may have to create actual programs to help men go to college, as it is 60/40 female today, with no signs of going back to 50/50.

@MidwestRadOnc - in 1960, would you say that the number of female physicians was just because ladies were not interested or as skilled as men or something else was going on?
 
RealSimulD said:
By 2030, we may have to create actual programs to help men go to college, as it is 60/40 female today, with no signs of going back to 50/50.

@MidwestRadOnc - in 1960, would you say that the number of female physicians was just because ladies were not interested or as skilled as men or something else was going on?
Click to expand...

I wasn't alive in 1960 (in fact, only about 10% of the people who were alive then are still alive today - chat GPT), but history is clear and recent enough to reasonably say with confidence that women and non-white males had to jump through many more hoops to become a physician. I am sure there was less interest among them as well, not because they didn't want to do it, but because they believed they either would not be allowed to or the path to do it would be much more onerous for them and not worth it. The issue of a young black girl or boy in inner city Chicago raised in a single parent household not thinking this is an option to them or having interest in it at this present point is not simply a consequence of old white men conspiring to keep them poor and segregated. There are definitely real barriers there but I'm pretty confident they are not still boiling down to racist white men on admissions committees. It's certainly a lot easier to come up with solutions if the problem is this simply perceived then. Unfortunately they won't/don't work because the complexity of the problem is not being honestly addressed.

But why are we talking about 1960? Why not 1980? Why not 1760? I guess there are some still focused on injustices and inequities from 1619. But nobody is talking about injustices from the middle ages or the Roman Empire. All sorts of extremely horrible things happened then. I guess the historical persecution of the Jews has been carried forward thousands of years. When do we stop trying to correct for the sins of the past with sins in the present? Eventually we will all be the same skin color and ethnic heritage and tradition/cultures will be a thing of the past (or more likely we will have nuked ourselves into oblivion long before that happens) as genes from all cultures of the world mix and we all speak a common language. We have thousands of more years to go? Kind of a depressing thought. Wouldn't some bemoan the loss of culture as they currently celebrate pride in their heritage and group identity? I do think we have a come a long way. I don't know the answer to the question I just asked. My personal feeling is that we have way over-corrected with the current state of DEI and will suffer the consequences of this.

Also, I see no issue with college admissions being majority female. It is very likely that the natural order of things is that formal higher education also doesn't come down to a 50:50 split with more men being inclined to trades and entrepreneurial endeavors. At least, I would believe it and have no problem with my son not pursuing college if that was what was chosen. I've seen the consequences of the everyone-goes-to-college concept. Treating it as the 13th grade, but with debt, often doesn't work out well for aimless young people.
 
Yeah, we can disagree here 🙂

Men are failing, lonely and dying early And it’s not because they are less capable, less smart, less likely to love life. More to it than that, IMO.

I picked 1960, because the acceleration of change begins around then in American history. It’s not arbitrary, as you are assuming. Go back to your med school alum wall and note when it starts changing.
 
RealSimulD said:
Yeah, we can disagree here 🙂

Men are failing, lonely and dying early And it’s not because they are less capable, less smart, less likely to love life. More to it than that, IMO.

I picked 1960, because the acceleration of change begins around then in American history. It’s not arbitrary, as you are assuming. Go back to your med school alum wall and note when it starts changing.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you are disagreeing with. I suppose where you went to medical school matters. It is undeniable that medical schools in the south did not admit non-whites. Integration was slow. There was rapid growth of medical students in the early 70s from expansion, and the number of minorities went way up, but relative proportions didn't change much. The proportion of black males in medicine has remained pretty much constant for over a century. Proportion of Black physicians in U.S. has changed little in 120 years, UCLA research finds

So what's going on there? Is that number not higher for the same reasons it was pre-integration? Why are Asians over-represented now? There is the idea that immigration policy around that time preferentially allowed foreign born physicians and other professionals to come here and now there are downstream effects with their subsequent generations having a leg up. How do you correct for that? Should you correct for that? Why are we lumping everyone together just based on skin color (check here for black, check here for Asian-american (not a small homogeneous place), etc) and perceived appearance when cultural background and individual circumstances can vary wildly?

The frustrating part of DEI is that it focuses on optics instead of root problems. What does a picture of a bunch of doctors of all different types of skin tones who all coincidentally happened to come from wealthy families really tell us?

The increase in percentage of women in the workplace was actually pretty linear and gradual from about a century ago when it was around 25% (probably higher than many would guess) to 55% now reaching a steady state in the 90s.

Regardless of whether you view 1960 as an inflection point, it was nearly 65 years ago. So when do you declare victory vs. constantly complaining about how the system/country is hopelessly broken and needs to be rebuilt from the ground up (or rather from the top down)?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I never felt that the country needs “rebuilding from the ground up”. Remember we agree that a lot of this is silly?

I don’t think that the current proprortions of every single industry or job are the steady state. 1960 you would have argued the same, it sounds like, because you had no idea what the future would hold.

The scent of KHE88 has wafted into the air…
 
MidwestRadOnc said:
The frustrating part of DEI is that it focuses on optics instead of root problems. What does a picture of a bunch of doctors of all different types of skin tones who all coincidentally happened to come from wealthy families really tell us?
Click to expand...
I think this is a valid point. Recent study shows that 2/3 of economics PhD students have a parent who has a PhD. I bet there are similar data for medicine. As the first doc in my extended family, it definitely felt like it was a lot harder to get into med school than it was for my buddies who had parents who were doctors -not having someone who could make a few calls for you, or help you tweak your personal statement/CV.

Is diversity of upbringing important? I couldn't say... but would argue that it is as important as others that receive far more emphasis.

 
MidwestRadOnc said:
Not sure what you are disagreeing with. I suppose where you went to medical school matters. It is undeniable that medical schools in the south did not admit non-whites. Integration was slow. There was rapid growth of medical students in the early 70s from expansion, and the number of minorities went way up, but relative proportions didn't change much. The proportion of black males in medicine has remained pretty much constant for over a century. Proportion of Black physicians in U.S. has changed little in 120 years, UCLA research finds

So what's going on there? Is that number not higher for the same reasons it was pre-integration? Why are Asians over-represented now? There is the idea that immigration policy around that time preferentially allowed foreign born physicians and other professionals to come here and now there are downstream effects with their subsequent generations having a leg up. How do you correct for that? Should you correct for that? Why are we lumping everyone together just based on skin color (check here for black, check here for Asian-american (not a small homogeneous place), etc) and perceived appearance when cultural background and individual circumstances can vary wildly?

The frustrating part of DEI is that it focuses on optics instead of root problems. What does a picture of a bunch of doctors of all different types of skin tones who all coincidentally happened to come from wealthy families really tell us?

The increase in percentage of women in the workplace was actually pretty linear and gradual from about a century ago when it was around 25% (probably higher than many would guess) to 55% now reaching a steady state in the 90s.

Regardless of whether you view 1960 as an inflection point, it was nearly 65 years ago. So when do you declare victory vs. constantly complaining about how the system/country is hopelessly broken and needs to be rebuilt from the ground up (or rather from the top down)?
Click to expand...

There was a researcher at Harvard who was successfully looking into the root problems and how to solve them, but the DEI squad destroyed him.
 
OTN said:
There was a researcher at Harvard who was successfully looking into the root problems and how to solve them, but the DEI squad destroyed him.
Click to expand...
Nah. He did get punished...and he got teaching and research privileges back at Harvard in 2021 and full privileges back in 2023. I would not reference the Montz documentary as serious (Fryer did not participate).

I expect him to continue to do good work.

The simplest narrative (when it comes to people not physics) is almost always wrong.
 
communitydoc13 said:
Nah. He did get punished...and he got teaching and research privileges back at Harvard in 2021 and full privileges back in 2023. I would not reference the Montz documentary as serious (Fryer did not participate).

I expect him to continue to do good work.

The simplest narrative (when it comes to people not physics) is almost always wrong.
Click to expand...

Did he get his lab back? His research team? Why isn't it a serious documentary?
 
OTN said:
Did he get his lab back? His research team? Why isn't it a serious documentary?
Click to expand...
Maybe it is? I haven't watched it, but I am aware of his work preceding any downfall of Fryer. There is a consistent narrative (anti-PC culture, anti-IVY). No serious documentarian is going to have a unifying narrative so forward in everything they do IMO.

Fryer was able to teach and do research again at Harvard in 2021 and was able to supervise grad students again in 2023. I'm sure it was devastating for him.

But, what did he get punished for? I believe he got punished for real complaints and real communications between him and grad students that by most standards are inappropriate . I don't even want to dig too deep, because I like his style and I'm rooting for him. He apologized and apparently really believes that he made mistakes. (I have made mistakes and I am quite glad that there is no internet record of some of my behaviors circa 1996).

I trust nothing that is promoted by Fox News. Fryer's conclusions are never super simple. He finds disparities, just not always the ones that fit a nice narrative.

Fryer>>>>Montz.
 
Lamount said:
I think this is a valid point. Recent study shows that 2/3 of economics PhD students have a parent who has a PhD. I bet there are similar data for medicine. As the first doc in my extended family, it definitely felt like it was a lot harder to get into med school than it was for my buddies who had parents who were doctors -not having someone who could make a few calls for you, or help you tweak your personal statement/CV.

Is diversity of upbringing important? I couldn't say... but would argue that it is as important as others that receive far more emphasis.

Click to expand...
I don't want to claim that admissions strategies are perfect or that the utilization of affirmative action has been ideal, clearly it has not been. There is gross unfairness at every level.

But, at least in recent memory, elite schools with large enough endowments can actually buy reasonable diversity, including really going for first generation college students (I am unaware of any initiative regarding first generation med studs). So, while the cases of affluent but racially diverse applicants getting an edge do exist, these are not the bulk of "diversity admits" to these schools. Many schools are in fact, presently focusing on diversity of upbringing.

What is very interesting is how the sticker price of the schools, combined with the way financial aid works, creates a "donut hole" regarding upper middle class kids. IVYs do not offer merit based financial aid. So a kid who gets in from a household making less than 120K really should go to an IVY if they get in from a value standpoint as they will have to pay close to nothing and the degree value is huge for many fields. However, a kid from a family making 200-300k a year is much more likely to take the merit based package at UVA, UGA, UM or IVY adjacent schools. The consequence is some of these schools are made of of roughly 20-30% of kids getting close to total aid and a lot of kids too rich to care. There is an underrepresentation of the upper middle class, despite this being the group with the strongest academic performance on average.
 
My understanding of the Fryer story is that he made some offensive comments and that a Harvard committee investigated and recommended sensitivity training. Claudine Gay then tried to revoke his tenure and he was banned from campus for several years. it certainly sounds like his views influenced the severity of punishment.
 
Entering class
1705433833259.png
 
RickyScott said:
I agree it is hyperbole, but pilots and air traffic controllers should be hired based on skills only. Equity means equal opportunity not equal outcomes.
Click to expand...

That's not what the DEI crowd believes.

What you describe is equality.

Equity is that everyone has equal outcomes.


1705586968650.png


As you can see, the person in the blue shirt has had benefits actively taken away from him to help the person in the purple shirt. This is exactly what DEI proponents want. Take away from those who are already successful (Caucasian, Jewish, Asian, along with men in most fields) to benefit those who are felt not to be on even footing (URMs, women in most fields). I don't really think there is a medium ground (person in the red shirt) in society, where equity doesn't give or take something from you. It's a zero sum game. I think there are only blue shirts and purple shirts in the push for DEI. What's in the eye of the beholder is whether that's a good thing or not.

To me, in an ideal world, we would push for equity based on socioeconomic factors. "Good stories" would get bonus points. A white man who was homeless in his youth would get more 'brownie points' or whatever than a child with rich parents (who happened to be Black). Unfortunately, that's harder to accurately process than stereotyping and splitting people based on the color of one's skin and/or their gender.
 
evilbooyaa said:
That's not what the DEI crowd believes.

What you describe is equality.

Equity is that everyone has equal outcomes.


View attachment 381219

As you can see, the person in the blue shirt has had benefits actively taken away from him to help the person in the purple shirt. This is exactly what DEI proponents want. Take away from those who are already successful (Caucasian, Jewish, Asian, along with men in most fields) to benefit those who are felt not to be on even footing (URMs, women in most fields). I don't really think there is a medium ground (person in the red shirt) in society, where equity doesn't give or take something from you. It's a zero sum game. I think there are only blue shirts and purple shirts in the push for DEI. What's in the eye of the beholder is whether that's a good thing or not.

To me, in an ideal world, we would push for equity based on socioeconomic factors. "Good stories" would get bonus points. A white man who was homeless in his youth would get more 'brownie points' or whatever than a child with rich parents (who happened to be Black). Unfortunately, that's harder to accurately process than stereotyping and splitting people based on the color of one's skin and/or their gender.
Click to expand...
Is it really equity if all the white people are watching the game from luxury boxes?

Jk
 
evilbooyaa said:
That's not what the DEI crowd believes.

What you describe is equality.

Equity is that everyone has equal outcomes.


View attachment 381219

As you can see, the person in the blue shirt has had benefits actively taken away from him to help the person in the purple shirt. This is exactly what DEI proponents want. Take away from those who are already successful (Caucasian, Jewish, Asian, along with men in most fields) to benefit those who are felt not to be on even footing (URMs, women in most fields). I don't really think there is a medium ground (person in the red shirt) in society, where equity doesn't give or take something from you. It's a zero sum game. I think there are only blue shirts and purple shirts in the push for DEI. What's in the eye of the beholder is whether that's a good thing or not.

To me, in an ideal world, we would push for equity based on socioeconomic factors. "Good stories" would get bonus points. A white man who was homeless in his youth would get more 'brownie points' or whatever than a child with rich parents (who happened to be Black). Unfortunately, that's harder to accurately process than stereotyping and splitting people based on the color of one's skin and/or their gender.
Click to expand...
achieving equal outcomes by disadvantaging rather than boosting anyone and this can turn very dystopian very quickly. SF actually banned algebra in junior high (and calculus in high school?) and there are attempts to spread this nationally. SAT is no longer required (even though its was developed to level the playing field for catholics and jews.) Upenn does not require the MCAT for graduates of HBUCs. I personally would not want to see a doctor who not did take the MCAT or its foreign equivalent for FMGs

www.theatlantic.com

California’s Math Misadventure Is About to Go National

The fight over math in the Golden State’s public schools is likely to spread across the country.
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com

www.nytimes.com

California Tries to Close the Gap in Math, but Sets Off a Backlash (Published 2021)

Proposed guidelines in the state would de-emphasize calculus, reject the idea that some children are naturally gifted and build a connection to social justice. Critics say math shouldn’t be political.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
Last edited:
evilbooyaa said:
That's not what the DEI crowd believes.

What you describe is equality.

Equity is that everyone has equal outcomes.


View attachment 381219

I don't really think there is a medium ground (person in the red shirt) in society, where equity doesn't give or take something from you. It's a zero sum game. I think there are only blue shirts and purple shirts in the push for DEI. What's in the eye of the beholder is whether that's a good thing or not.
Click to expand...

There's a key person missing from this graphic: The person responsible for taking the box from the blue shirt and giving it to the person with the purple shirt. They aren't standing on wooden boxes at all. They are flying around in private jets making the rules for the other 99%.

Google image search "equality equity saw" if you want to see another interpretation of this silly comic. Not gonna post that here but it demonstrates basically how Marxism always ends up playing out, which is what this is.
 
Also missing from the graphic is the billionaires (successfully) trying to get you buy that the short kid getting an extra box is the chief cause of all your problems and the largest issue facing the nation. They aren't flying in private jets. They are shooting billion dollar rockets into outer space, pulling your puppet strings from Australia, and trying to get their butts back on Air Force One to enact Project 2025 (aka: The Actual Deep State).
 
Last edited:
RickyScott said:
You can also achieve equal outcomes by disadvantaging one group, rather than boosting anyone and this can turn very dystopian very quickly.
Click to expand...
I would consider any initiative that deters high performance by any group to be a non-starter. (With the exception that at some point wealth must be limited at the individual, institutional and corporate level).

Math education in general (aside from any equity issues) is very controversial as far as I can tell, with some concern that our present model does not provide a useful mathematical foundation for most people.

From where I stand, I would much rather that we focus on the typical student having an intuitive sense of the law of large numbers, expectation values, outliers and basic statistics than a lot of facility with algebra or calculus. This would make for better citizens and media consumers (and markedly less conspiratorial thinking).

I am in general in favor of standardized tests. However, the way they are formulated, combined with insane prep culture, has degraded their value to some degree.

I could care less about the MCAT, but we need to fail some people out of MD school and pass/fail boards need to have some reasonable fail rate (maybe 10%). Meaningful testing is hard over time due to adjustments in prep/culture.

Maybe we should get Wallner to set the cut line on Step 1.
 
MidwestRadOnc said:
Is this discussion about DEI or Donald Trump and Elon Musk?
Click to expand...
The fact of the matter is 90% of the reason you care about DEI right now is because entities WAYYYY more powerful than any boxless short kid, college administrator, or corporate Chief Diversity Officer have repeatedly told you to care about DEI. This has entered your social media and news feed algorithms (most of which are directly owned by those powerful entities) and has become an echo chamber in your brain. It’s a comforting echo chamber to you because it fits your preconceived narrative and neatly explains away some complex issues. You don’t know it’s happened to you, but you’ve got to be outraged about something. And so it goes.

The motivation of these few billionaires getting half the country to care/be fearful of this DEI thing is up to your own interpretation.
 
Last edited:
Mandelin Rain said:
The fact of the matter is 90% of the reason you care about DEI right now is because entities WAYYYY more powerful than any boxless short kid, college administrator, or corporate Chief Diversity Officer have repeatedly told you to care about DEI. This has entered your social media and news feed algorithms (most of which are directly owned by those powerful entities) and has become an echo chamber in your brain. It’s a comforting echo chamber to you because it fits your preconceived narrative and neatly explains away some complex issues. You don’t know it’s happened to you, but you’ve got to be outraged about something. And so it goes.

The motivation of these few billionaires getting half the country to care/be fearful of this DEI thing is up to your own interpretation.
Click to expand...
They coming to take our jobs!
 
Mandelin Rain said:
The fact of the matter is 90% of the reason you care about DEI right now is because entities WAYYYY more powerful than any boxless short kid, college administrator, or corporate Chief Diversity Officer have repeatedly told you to care about DEI. This has entered your social media and news feed algorithms (most of which are directly owned by those powerful entities) and has become an echo chamber in your brain. It’s a comforting echo chamber to you because it fits your preconceived narrative and neatly explains away some complex issues. You don’t know it’s happened to you, but you’ve got to be outraged about something. And so it goes.

The motivation of these few billionaires getting half the country to care/be fearful of this DEI thing is up to your own interpretation.
Click to expand...
Soros, DEI, trannies, antifa, the unborn, gun control, sanctuary cities.... I'm sure I'm triggering someone right now!!
 
Last edited:
temujim said:
View attachment 381410
Click to expand...
Is there any question that the results will be biased? Those with opinions at odds with the DEI impulse will either not complete or will lie and give the "correct" answer for fear of being labeled a racist, etc.

The true believers will all complete.

Preference falsification is a real thing
 
Chartreuse Wombat said:
Is there any question that the results will be biased? Those with opinions at odds with the DEI impulse will either not complete or will lie and give the "correct" answer for fear of being labeled a racist, etc.

The true believers will all complete.

Preference falsification is a real thing
Click to expand...
One more thing. Anyone wanna guess what the response rate will be? Most survey scholars worth their salt will admit that anything under 60-70% response is garbage and inferences derived are likely biased.

I bet the response rate will never be reported.
 
Doctorer said:
I opened the survey. It's kind of a mess. I closed it.
Click to expand...
I clicked too, for morbid curiosity more than anything else. The few questions I saw are highly leading (e.g. what do you think are the benefits of DEI? There is no checkbox for "none" just "other").

I don't feel comfortable giving my opinions to ASTRO when it seems like it would come back and bite me in the ass in the future.
 
Doctorer said:
I opened the survey. It's kind of a mess. I closed it.
Click to expand...

Ya I clicked on it a did the first few question and closed out of it. Incredible that Astor wastes money and resources to hire consultants for this drivel. I imagine the response rate will be less then the percentage of members voting in the Astro elections. Only the die hards will waste their time with such nonsense.
 
Not an ASTRO member and in general I feel that hiring of consultants is often a way to establish action without action and with a prohibitive cost.

However, if this was a good faith effort at getting a sense of how stakeholders feel about DEI initiatives, that is not a bad thing (at all).

I just want to make sure that the narrative is correct here. Is there a good reason to believe that your answers will not be anonymized. Often, there are free form answers at the end of surveys as well. Are these present?

Is this malfeasance or just incompetence on ASTRO's part...or are we just paranoid.

Is there a way forward for ASTRO on the DEI front with this group or no?

It matters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CurbYourExpectations
  • Poll Poll
Would you apply today?
2 3
Replies
103
Views
11K
TheWallnerus
TheWallnerus
CurbYourExpectations
  • Locked
Thank you all
Replies
8
Views
2K
evilbooyaa
evilbooyaa
CurbYourExpectations
  • Poll Poll
Do you support encroachment into the field?
Replies
46
Views
3K
medgator
M
DoctwoB
Which of you is irradiating Joel Embiid?
Replies
8
Views
2K
SneakyBooger
SneakyBooger
Anthodite
To rad oncs who acknowledge rt students, I love you
Replies
0
Views
867
Anthodite
Anthodite
Top