Yale Psych drama and current state of the program

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Do you think LGBTQ rights improved in America passively or because of progressive activism that made many people uncomfortable

I would imagine that better treatment toward those who are LGBTQ improved over time due to a number of factors. I would doubt that 'making people uncomfortable' was the critical variable. And I don't believe that maximizing 'making people uncomfortable' will lead to better treatment in the future.

Moreover, I believe that 'rights' are inherent in you whether other people choose to respect them or not. People who happen to be LGBTQ always had a right to self defense, to be left alone, to life, to liberty. They didn't 'gain rights' that they never had. Individuals have rights. I don't believe that the concept of 'group rights' makes any sense whatsoever.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

Do you think LGBTQ rights improved in America passively or because of progressive activism that made many people uncomfortable

Personally, I think the LBGTQ messaging and activism of the 80's through early oughts was vastly different than DEI messaging and activism today. It was much more effective and sought connection and understanding as opposed to division and us vs them messaging.

 

[untapped]

I would imagine that better treatment toward those who are LGBTQ improved over time due to a number of factors. I would doubt that 'making people uncomfortable' was the critical variable. And I don't believe that maximizing 'making people uncomfortable' will lead to better treatment in the future.

Moreover, I believe that 'rights' are inherent in you whether other people choose to respect them or not. People who happen to be LGBTQ always had a right to self defense, to be left alone, to life, to liberty. They didn't 'gain rights' that they never had. Individuals have rights. I don't believe that the concept of 'group rights' makes any sense whatsoever.

What other factors do you think were involved, besides progressive activism? Maybe progressivism in other areas benefitted the LGBTQ movement as well. But it definitely wasn't conservatives that were helping.

Personally, I think the LBGTQ messaging and activism of the 80's through early oughts was vastly different than DEI messaging and activism today. It was much more effective and sought connection and understanding as opposed to division and us vs them messaging.

It may have been. So you're opposed to the messaging of DEI activism but otherwise are very much in favor of DEI initiatives? MLK said something about this, that some white liberals prefer absence of tension to justice, and will agree with progressive ideas but then criticize the methods or whatever. Essentially, they want to have the moral high ground but never actually give up anything of value in the name of equality.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

What other factors do you think were involved, besides progressive activism? Maybe progressivism in other areas benefitted the LGBTQ movement as well. But it definitely wasn't conservatives that were helping.



It may have been. So you're opposed to the messaging of DEI activism but otherwise are very much in favor of DEI initiatives? MLK said something about this, that some white liberals prefer absence of tension to justice, and will agree with progressive ideas but then criticize the methods or whatever. Essentially, they want to have the moral high ground but never actually give up anything of value in the name of equality.

Frankly, I'm not sure. I haven't studied it deeply. But I don't believe that 'making people uncomfortable' or antagonizing them was the key. I believe that societies have tended to progress--albeit with stops, starts, backslides, and some turnabouts--toward a greater and greater recognition of individual human rights and liberty for the benefit of all. I also believe that the steady erosion (for better or worse) of organized religious presence in the greater society over the past 100 years has led to less automatic 'stigma' or bigotry against those who happen to be LGBTQ. I also believe that most people today just really don't care one way or another. And, really, it seems to have become somewhat 'chic' or 'cool' to be LGBTQ among the younger crowd these days, which is interesting.

'Marriage' was divested of most of its religious significance due to the decline in the prevalence of Christianity and other religions over the past several decades to the point where the legal 'privileges' of marriage afforded by the state was pretty much all that was left. In that sense, I believe that--if a man and a woman can petition the government for government-bestowed legal privileges under the concept of 'marriage'--then I don't see how it wouldn't make sense that two men or two women could enjoy the same legal privileges in a similar way. I'm not a legal scholar nor have I followed the particular legal battles surrounding 'gay marriage' but the concept of the equal protection (of the individual, under the law) clause (14th Amendment) would seem to apply here and I would be in agreement with its application.

 

[WisNeuro]

What other factors do you think were involved, besides progressive activism? Maybe progressivism in other areas benefitted the LGBTQ movement as well. But it definitely wasn't conservatives that were helping.



It may have been. So you're opposed to the messaging of DEI activism but otherwise are very much in favor of DEI initiatives? MLK said something about this, that some white liberals prefer absence of tension to justice, and will agree with progressive ideas but then criticize the methods or whatever. Essentially, they want to have the moral high ground but never actually give up anything of value in the name of equality.

I have been pretty explicit about supporting the theory and ideals of DEI, but not their current implementation. I have no problem with tension. Healthy debate is the hallmark of science and progress. I would argue that it is the proponents of current DEI initiatives who abhor tension, as there is no room for discussion or disagreement. I care nothing for moral high grounds, more of a utilitarian. I do care something about effectiveness and scientific integrity within our field, which is a rarity these days.

 

[untapped]

I have been pretty explicit about supporting the theory and ideals of DEI, but not their current implementation. I have no problem with tension. Healthy debate is the hallmark of science and progress. I would argue that it is the proponents of current DEI initiatives who abhor tension, as there is no room for discussion or disagreement. I care nothing for moral high grounds, more of a utilitarian. I do care something about effectiveness and scientific integrity within our field, which is a rarity these days.

It comes down to whether you see the current racial inequalities in America as an emergency or an acceptable state of affairs. There are still major disparities in almost every metric, and slavery ended in the 1860s and segregation in the 1960s. So over 150 years later the problem still hasn't been corrected.

A lot of the discussion on DEI is about "equalizing" at some gradual rate, like some asymptotic curve that never quite gets there at some infinity point in the future.

What if instead of figuring out what's a reasonable pace of DEI initiatives, we err on the side of overcorrection. What if minorities held the majority of positions of power and wealth in this country, as whites currently do?

 

[SmallBird]

It comes down to whether you see the current racial inequalities in America as an emergency or an acceptable state of affairs. There are still major disparities in almost every metric, and slavery ended in the 1860s and segregation in the 1960s. So over 150 years later the problem still hasn't been corrected.

A lot of the discussion on DEI is about "equalizing" at some gradual rate, like some asymptotic curve that never quite gets there at some infinity point in the future.

What if instead of figuring out what's a reasonable pace of DEI initiatives, we err on the side of overcorrection. What if minorities held the majority of positions of power and wealth in this country, as whites currently do?

That's the same logic that gets people put on clozapine for depression because it's 'that much of an emergency'. Going back to the case at hand - if we are to say that the issue is divided along whether or not one views racial inequality as an emergency, then those who won the argument just made everything worse. Do you want to be right or effective? I do think racial inequality is a crisis. This action didn't solve anything it made it much worse.

 

[WisNeuro]

It comes down to whether you see the current racial inequalities in America as an emergency or an acceptable state of affairs. There are still major disparities in almost every metric, and slavery ended in the 1860s and segregation in the 1960s. So over 150 years later the problem still hasn't been corrected.

A lot of the discussion on DEI is about "equalizing" at some gradual rate, like some asymptotic curve that never quite gets there at some infinity point in the future.

What if instead of figuring out what's a reasonable pace of DEI initiatives, we err on the side of overcorrection. What if minorities held the majority of positions of power and wealth in this country, as whites currently do?

I don't see it as an either/or issue, as it it almost always more nuanced than a binary choice. Also, I don't think pace is the issue.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

It comes down to whether you see the current racial inequalities in America as an emergency or an acceptable state of affairs. There are still major disparities in almost every metric, and slavery ended in the 1860s and segregation in the 1960s. So over 150 years later the problem still hasn't been corrected.

A lot of the discussion on DEI is about "equalizing" at some gradual rate, like some asymptotic curve that never quite gets there at some infinity point in the future.

What if instead of figuring out what's a reasonable pace of DEI initiatives, we err on the side of overcorrection. What if minorities held the majority of positions of power and wealth in this country, as whites currently do?

How are we going to get minorities to hold 'the majority of positions of power and wealth in this country?' Are you suggesting removing white people from their current 'positions of power' (whatever that means...all/any supervisory positions in whatever field? All positions requiring a bachelor's degree or higher? All positions making more than 50K/yr?) by force? Okay, let's play out that thought experiment.

1) First off, that would be highly illegal (and brazenly racist) under the same laws (e.g., equal protection clause) and legal reasoning that have been used during the entirety of the modern civil rights movement that resulted in improvement of conditions for minorities
2) As a practical matter, if we start using force to separate people from their property and job positions due to the color of people's skin (white), it will create societal destabilization and civil war like none of us have seen or even dreamed of in our lifetimes. Not good. Practically speaking, I don't think the numbers are there yet. Yeah, 30% or so of white people will attempt to 'go along' with the zeitgeist because they don't 'want the wolf to eat them yet' but that's not enough. Give it two or three decades and maybe it can be done, though. By the way, has there ever been a society where the numerical minority ethic group 'held the majority of position of power and wealth in the country?' How was that accomplished? What was the rationale for a minority holding the majority of positions of wealth and power? Were these stable societies?
3) You're ignoring the fact that there are some non-white ethnic groups (Asians, immigrants from the Indian subcontinent) who outperform whites on the 'power and wealth' metric; do they get removed from their positions of 'power' and have their property confiscated by force too? Do they get put into the camps? Because, (news flash), if you start using men with guns to separate people from their property due to their ethnicity then that is the definition of war. People are going to resist force with force and they would be justified in doing so. Globally, 'white' people are a distinct minority. As we move to a more 'global' society/economy will this be recognized? Depending on where you place the 'brackets' to determine the population under study, 'minority' status changes.
4) If you happen to be a white person, you are more than free to personally step down from your 'position of power' and/or to donate your money directly to whomever you wish. If you are non-white, then you are free to apply for positions for which--depending on the field (academia? health care? education? journalism?), you are likely to receive preferential hiring efforts. Has anyone ever sat on a hiring panel for medicine/academia/healthcare/education in the past 20 years? Has anyone failed to see the committee making significant efforts to hire non-white applicants over white applicants with similar or superior credentials?
5) If you're talking about singling out a single ethnic group (whites?) and 'remove wealth/power/privilege' from them by force (including passing racist laws to enable thugs and goons with guns to do so), there are plenty of historical precedents for how those sorts of things play out over time and none of them are good and none of them end up in the utopia that you imagine (assuming you are intending the results of these efforts to end in a utopia rather than hell). And how would we choose who is 'white' (and to be forcefully divested of their property/position) vs. who is 'non-white?' I'm sure there are methods of measuring levels of melanin in skin. What would constitute the 'cutting score' to be allowed to keep your job, your money or your property? Do you think all of these efforts will result in more or less racial harmony? What if the husband is black and his beloved wife and children fall 'below' your cutting score for discriminating between 'white' and 'non-white' in your new authoritarian social order? Do you think that that black husband is going to be on your side?

And--if you're not suggesting the above (use of force to remove an ethnicity from 'positions of power and wealth')--than what exactly are you proposing or alluding to?

I'm assuming that you want things to improve in society and especially around issues that are important to minorities and civil rights.

I can think of no 'better' way of ensuring that this won't happen--no way of ensuring that all of the civil rights progress that has been made up to this point is destroyed and, in fact, reversed (God forbid)--than using force and/or passing laws with the intention of forcefully removing a particular ethnicity from their positions and property. It's morally wrong when anyone does it.

 

[SmallBird]

How are we going to get minorities to hold 'the majority of positions of power and wealth in this country? Are you suggesting removing white people from their current 'positions of power' (whatever that means...all/any supervisory positions in whatever field? All positions requiring a bachelor's degree or higher? All positions making more than 50K/yr?) by force? Okay, let's play out that thought experiment.

1) First off, that would be highly illegal (and brazenly racist) under the same laws (e.g., equal protection clause) and legal reasoning that have been used during the entirety of the modern civil rights movement that resulted in improvement in conditions of minorities
2) As a practical matter, if we start using force to separate people from their property and job positions due to the color of people's skin (white), it will create societal destabilization and civil war like none of us have seen or even dreamed of in our lifetimes. Not good. Practically speaking, I don't think the numbers are there yet. Yeah, 30% or so of white people will attempt to 'go along' with the zeitgeist because they don't 'want the wolf to eat them yet' but that's not enough. Give it two or three decades and maybe it can be done, though.
3) You're ignoring the fact that there are some non-white ethnic groups (Asians, Indio-Americans) who outperform whites on the 'power and wealth' metric; do they get removed from their positions of 'power' and have their property confiscated by force too? Do they get put into the camps? Because, (news flash), if you start using men with guns to separate people from their property due to their ethnicity then that is the definition of war. People are going to resist force with force and they would be justified in doing so.
4) If you happen to be a white person, you are more than free to personally step down from your 'position of power' and/or to donate your money directly to whomever you wish. If you are non-white, then you are free to apply for positions for which--depending on the field (academia? health care? education? journalism?), you are likely to receive preferential hiring efforts. Has anyone ever sat on a hiring panel for medicine/academia/healthcare/education in the past 20 years? Has anyone failed to see the committee making significant efforts to hire non-white applicants over white applicants with similar or superior credentials?
5) If you're talking about singling out a single ethnic group (whites?) and 'remove wealth/power/privilege' from them by force (including passing racist laws to enable thugs and goons with guns to do so), there are plenty of historical precedents for how those sorts of things play out over time and none of them are good and none of them end up in the utopia that you imagine (assuming you are intending the results of these efforts to end in a utopia rather than hell). And how would we choose who is 'white' (and to be forcefully divested of their property/position) vs. who is 'non-white?' I'm sure there are methods of measuring levels of melanin in skin. What would constitute the 'cutting score' to be allowed to keep your job, your money or your property? Do you think all of these efforts will result in more or less racial harmony? What if the husband is black and his beloved wife and children fall 'below' your cutting score for discriminating between 'white' and 'non-white' in your new reich--ahem--country? Do you think that that black husband is going to be on your side?

And--if you're not suggesting the above (use of force to remove an ethnicity from 'positions of power and wealth')--than what exactly are you proposing or alluding to?

Here is some things we can do: we could create endowed chairs for diversity. We could assign value to lived experience when reviewing literature. We could ensure that excellent mentorship is available for minorities. We can hold old faculty to higher standards to prevent them from clogging up positions of power that they don't continue to deserve. Or we could just focus on one talented person and fire them or push them into resigning and leave a program without leadership which is the approach being defended here.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Here is some things we can do: we could create endowed chairs for diversity. We could assign value to lived experience when reviewing literature. We could ensure that excellent mentorship is available for minorities. We can hold old faculty to higher standards to prevent them from clogging up positions of power that they don't continue to deserve. Or we could just focus on one talented person and fire them or push them into resigning and leave a program without leadership which is the approach being defended here.

Okay. Let's just take one of these for a moment and zoom in a bit.

'We can hold old faculty to higher standards to prevent them from clogging up positions of power that they don't continue to deserve.'

So, older (than, say, age 65?) faculty who are 'white' (how is this determined on a person-by-person basis? How 'white' do they have to be? How will this be reliably and validly determined?) will be held to 'higher standards' (like what? And how is this not illegal racial and 'ageist' discrimination under our current legal system?). Just 'white' men or white women, too? What about 'transwomen?' Them too, or not?

How in the world--when applying this bias against an individual faculty member who happens to be white and older than age 65--can you (or anyone else) credibly assert that that individual faculty member doesn't 'deserve' their position? That they haven't earned it? Will you just de facto conclude that they 'don't deserve' it because they are 'white?' Is there any appeal? What if they were an astute and productive researcher in the area of racial discrimination and did a great deal of good to the cause of minorities over their career? Do they get a pass?

Do you or does anyone else actually think that having separate (and unequal) laws for people who are 'white' (however, again, that can be reliably/validly determined) is going to lead to a better society (for anyone?) in the medium to long term even if it could be brought about by force or threat of force? Are people thinking this through or is it about an impulse for revenge against 'the other?' The problem with general proposals about holding groups 'accountable' is that you end up with the nasty business of illegally or unfairly trampling upon the rights of individuals in the process and that gets messy, at best, and catastrophic for society (and everyone) at worst.

***By the way, thank you (sincerely) for proposing some options that appear (on their face, at least) to be non-violent and worthy of discussion. I say 'on their face' not to impugn you or your motives--I think you are, in fact, arguing in good faith and with good intentions--but only to point out that violence/force is very likely to be the inevitable 'end result' of attempts to 'reorganize society' based on race--whatever the race and whoever is doing the reorganization. If you cannot persuade your political and intellectual opponents to agree with you through reasoned argument and debate, through tolerating their disagreement with you long enough to have good faith discussions with them in which you treat them as equals in the process rather than attacking them personally, then the only two options for you left are to either accept the current state of affairs or somehow justify the initiation of force against your political/intellectual opponents. Once you initiate force against another, it is likely that they will respond in kind to defend their lives or their property.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Here is some things we can do: we could create endowed chairs for diversity. We could assign value to lived experience when reviewing literature. We could ensure that excellent mentorship is available for minorities. We can hold old faculty to higher standards to prevent them from clogging up positions of power that they don't continue to deserve. Or we could just focus on one talented person and fire them or push them into resigning and leave a program without leadership which is the approach being defended here.

Do they not already have positions like endowed chairs for diversity? 'Assigning value to lived experience' sounds good but I'm not sure how you would reliably and validly implement that proposal but it is worthy of discussion/exploration. Not sure how to 'ensure' that excellent mentorship is available for minorities' but I am 100% in support of the idea of making adjustments to the system to facilitate that outcome or make it more likely or more prevalent in academia.

The last statement appears satirical/rhetorical in nature and, if so, I agree with the sentiment.

 

[untapped]

Sorry if it's not clear, I was presenting a thought experiment, not suggesting violence or anything close to it.

I'm saying that there is currently a major disparity, and on the occasions when DEI overcorrects (such as possibly this Yale case), that is when the white voices come out to start criticizing DEI.

Imagine if I, as a man, say I support feminism, but never talk about that issue except when a man happens to lose out unfairly to a woman?

 

[WisNeuro]

Sorry if it's not clear, I was presenting a thought experiment, not suggesting violence or anything close to it.

I'm saying that there is currently a major disparity, and on the occasions when DEI overcorrects (such as possibly this Yale case), that is when the white voices come out to start criticizing DEI.

Imagine if I, as a man, say I support feminism, but never talk about that issue except when a man happens to lose out unfairly to a woman?

This is making a lot of assumptions of people and what they do and do not do on a daily basis as part of their careers and political advocacy. One can criticize parts of DEI efforts and also strongly advocate and work towards other DEI goals and initiatives. Are you saying that there is zero room for criticism of such actions?

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Sorry if it's not clear, I was presenting a thought experiment, not suggesting violence or anything close to it.

I'm saying that there is currently a major disparity, and on the occasions when DEI overcorrects (such as possibly this Yale case), that is when the white voices come out to start criticizing DEI.

Imagine if I, as a man, say I support feminism, but never talk about that issue except when a man happens to lose out unfairly to a woman?

I don't think you necessarily think you're advocating for violence...but when you advocate forcing things upon people (such as taking their property or destroying their lives because you have concluded that they don't deserve their positions or possessions)...violence is inevitably going to ensue. It's just human nature to respond to force with force and just because one group believes that it has the morally superior position to such an extent that it can ignore laws or rights of individuals (but the other side has to 'play by the rules' or 'obey the law') doesn't make it so. You don't get to just use force on those whom you perceive to be your political enemies and then expect that they will not fight back. It has always been this way and will always be this way. If you seek to take what other people already have then it is a logical inevitability that you are either going to have to use persuasion or you are going to have to use force.

 

[untapped]

This is making a lot of assumptions of people and what they do and do not do on a daily basis as part of their career sand political advocacy. One can criticize parts of DEI efforts and also strongly advocate and work towards other DEI goals and initiatives. Are you saying that there is zero room for criticism of such actions?

No, of course there's room for criticism. I am just suspicious, as are many other minorities, of white progressives who often seem to be controlled opposition. Diversity and equality, at a pace that makes white people comfortable.

 

[heartsink]

No, of course there's room for criticism. I am just suspicious, as are many other minorities, of white progressives who often seem to be controlled opposition. Diversity and equality, at a pace that makes white people comfortable.

I think the focus on quickening the "pace" of racial equality is not conducive to facilitating the desired outcome anymore than the focus on quickening the pace of correcting hyponatremia. If we overemphasize thinking about this from the perspective of how fast we are going, we are going to end up in a much worse place than we started.

 

[SmallBird]

Sorry if it's not clear, I was presenting a thought experiment, not suggesting violence or anything close to it.

I'm saying that there is currently a major disparity, and on the occasions when DEI overcorrects (such as possibly this Yale case), that is when the white voices come out to start criticizing DEI.

Imagine if I, as a man, say I support feminism, but never talk about that issue except when a man happens to lose out unfairly to a woman?

But what is the 'over correction'? If Yale had somehow ended up hiring 3 new program directors/APD who were all people of color, I don't think you'd have this thread here. They have nobody now, they have failed to achieve any DEI goal. This wasn't an uncomfortable, too fast transformation - it was a failure.

 

[michaelrack]

Diversity and equality, at a pace that makes white people comfortable.

"Equality" is great. "Equity " is where the disagreement comes in.

 

[WisNeuro]

No, of course there's room for criticism. I am just suspicious, as are many other minorities, of white progressives who often seem to be controlled opposition. Diversity and equality, at a pace that makes white people comfortable.

I am not a progressive, moderate for the most part. Pace has never been an issue, I don't mind quick changes. It's more about when it's poorly thought out, relies on shaky science, or simply replacing one form of discrimination for another. Also, I wouldn't really be worried about the white male progressives. I'd be more worried about the inroads the GOP has steadily made with several once stalwart democratic bases in certain demo segments.

 

[FlowRate]

"Equality" is great. "Equity " is where the disagreement comes in.

Neither word has a set meaning as this point as both of them got redefined by the PC/social justice types over the last decade. The point I used to make, when calls were for equality of outcome, was that we WANT equity (fair treatment/equal opportunity) not equality (arbitrary racial/gender/x leveling in all arbitrarily deemed desirable levels of employment and leadership.) But equity was redefined to mean "giving people an extra leg up ("fairness" of opportunity, not equality of opportunity) so that we can achieve equality of outcome." Both terms are basically synonymous now, depending on who's using them.

Necessary virtue signaling: None of this is arguing against appreciation for diversity more broadly. I'm making a more constrained point.

 

[docksan]

"Equality" is great. "Equity " is where the disagreement comes in.

Why is equity where the disagreement comes in?

 

[michaelrack]

The residents ONLY (perverse) defense is that somehow YALE didn’t follow a DEI narrative (even though the institution clearly favors, perhaps even over-favors DEI). If they didn’t bring DEI into the conversation, how in any world would this be ok to bring to media?

That's a significant defense. The "E" in DEI stands for "Equity" which is very different from "Equality":

Equity vs. Equality: What’s the Difference?

Knowing the difference between equity and equality is critical to helping communities overcome health disparities.

onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu

The Yale residents did not want equality... they wanted equity, which in this case demanded a black female PD. The E in DEI mandates equal outcomes, in this case a certain number of the nation's psych PD's to be Black females, and the Yale residents wanted their program to be one of those with a Black female PD.

As a Constitutional Conservative I generally oppose DEI. But in this case I guess I agree with the Yale residents. Many of them chose Yale due to its wokeness. I find it ironic and amusing that a white male liberal like Wasser who promotes equity/DEI initially lost out on the position due to equity itself.

 

[michaelrack]

Neither word has a set meaning as this point as both of them got redefined by the PC/social justice types over the last decade.

Well they did get redefined and now Equity means having the same outcome- basically having the percentage of persons in positions of power be the same as their percentage in the relevant population- For example, if the country is 12 % Black, then having 12 % Black Congressional Representatives, or 12% of medical students.

Equality means treating people the same - for example see the 14th Amendment to the Constitution : "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

(I am use the 14th amendment as an example, I am not trying to say that the Yale situation violates the 14th amendment).

 

[doctalaughs]

Well they did get redefined and now Equity means having the same outcome- basically having the percentage of persons in positions of power be the same as their percentage in the relevant population- For example, if the country is 12 % Black, then having 12 % Black Congressional Representatives, or 12% of medical students.

Equality means treating people the same - for example see the 14th Amendment to the Constitution : "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

(I am use the 14th amendment as an example, I am not trying to say that the Yale situation violates the 14th amendment).

I hear you. Yes, I strongly disagree with equity based on skin color. It’s a pretty superficial metric to base judgement of individuals by.

 

[emergentmd]

They certainly would know the best when it comes who they can trust, can hope to rely on, inspire them and help them attain their goals. Which is like more than half of the PD's job.
Again these are not babies, LOL. Most of them are highly accomplished individuals in their late 20s and 30s.
Of course other stuff matters, but no one is saying they should make the pick. Just that their contribution is very important and that they should be sitting at the table, being involved in decisions that literally shape their lives with enormous power consequences.

So ignorant and dumb. If residents truly know the best, then every year could very well have a new PD. I own my own businesses and in no way shape or form do the workers have the final say in who their boss will be. I take their opinions and many times will go with it but to say they know best is absurd.

 

[G Sheb]

So ignorant and dumb. If residents truly know the best, then every year could very well have a new PD. I own my own businesses and in no way shape or form do the workers have the final say in who their boss will be. I take their opinions and many times will go with it but to say they know best is absurd.

For someone who’s calling others ignorant and dumb, you should probably work on your terrible reading comprehension which doesn’t speak so much for your uhm, incredibly high intelligence apparently. No where did I say that they should have the final say or that they know best who the PD should be.
What part of half the PDs job you didn’t get?
So is comparing a residency program to a whatever business you’re running. Not a great sign of intelligence either imo.

 

[emergentmd]

For someone who’s calling others ignorant and dumb, you should probably work on your terrible reading comprehension which doesn’t speak so much for your uhm, incredibly high intelligence apparently. No where did I say that they should have the final say or that they know best who the PD should be.
What part of half the PDs job you didn’t get?
So is comparing a residency program to a whatever business you’re running. Not a great sign of intelligence either imo.

You are the classic academia who have no clue how the world works outside of your bubble. Ignorance is bliss and good that you don't step out in the real world.

 

[docksan]

I don't think you read their response correctly.

 

[annoyedpsychiatrist]

the fact that this thread is still going is awesome

 

[untapped]

the fact that this thread is still going is awesome

I'm sure it was a fruitful discussion and many minds were changed

 

[doctalaughs]

So is comparing a residency program to a whatever business you’re running. Not a great sign of intelligence either imo.

I’ve yet to hear why you think leaders of an academic program should have less decision-making power and less accountability for public reputation compared to a business owner. Or why a chair needs to bend to the desires of the residents any more than a CEO needs to bend to a group of employees (and avoid disciplining one when they are violating rules or their bosses’ decisions).

Sure- you can simply call other posters stupid for suggesting the similarities, but that’s not really an argument.

 

[ObsequiousAplomb]

For someone who’s calling others ignorant and dumb, you should probably work on your terrible reading comprehension which doesn’t speak so much for your uhm, incredibly high intelligence apparently. No where did I say that they should have the final say or that they know best who the PD should be.
What part of half the PDs job you didn’t get?
So is comparing a residency program to a whatever business you’re running. Not a great sign of intelligence either imo.

In the post you're replying to, they quoted you saying "They certainly would know the best when it comes who they can trust, can hope to rely on, inspire them and help them attain their goals. Which is like more than half of the PD's job."

So you're trying to draw a distinction between "knowing the best ..." "... more than half of the PD's job" and "truly know the best."

Did you consider that they weren't calling you ignorant and dumb but rather your post? Because nobody here thinks that G Sheb is dumb. The people disagreeing with you think your stance on this issue is ignorant and dumb. Because it kind of is. Yale went absurdly out of their way to please the residents and it backfired horrifically. You argued that the residents should have had even more of a say. Other people disagreed and said that having junior colleagues (including new hires) have much of a say is abnormal, and having them have no say at all is entirely reasonable in any enterprise.

I for one think that it's absurd to have residents have a major say in who the new program director is. At least one year of them have no experience whatsoever. At least one year of them are one foot out the door, plus all the people who will fast-track into child or a research fellowship. So maybe half of them have some skin in the game, but they're still only 1-3 years away from leaving. The director role is for much more than 1-3 years generally, and programs change so drastically every year that as a resident in the years who would actually benefit from the new program director, one would be entirely disenfranchised no matter who picks the director. It's really obvious to seemingly everyone in this thread but you right now.

 

[G Sheb]

In the post you're replying to, they quoted you saying "They certainly would know the best when it comes who they can trust, can hope to rely on, inspire them and help them attain their goals. Which is like more than half of the PD's job."

So you're trying to draw a distinction between "knowing the best ..." "... more than half of the PD's job" and "truly know the best."

Did you consider that they weren't calling you ignorant and dumb but rather your post? Because nobody here thinks that G Sheb is dumb. The people disagreeing with you think your stance on this issue is ignorant and dumb. Because it kind of is. Yale went absurdly out of their way to please the residents and it backfired horrifically. You argued that the residents should have had even more of a say. Other people disagreed and said that having junior colleagues (including new hires) have much of a say is abnormal, and having them have no say at all is entirely reasonable in any enterprise.

I for one think that it's absurd to have residents have a major say in who the new program director is. At least one year of them have no experience whatsoever. At least one year of them are one foot out the door, plus all the people who will fast-track into child or a research fellowship. So maybe half of them have some skin in the game, but they're still only 1-3 years away from leaving. The director role is for much more than 1-3 years generally, and programs change so drastically every year that as a resident in the years who would actually benefit from the new program director, one would be entirely disenfranchised no matter who picks the director. It's really obvious to seemingly everyone in this thread but you right now.

I'm not here to teach people how to read two sentences together.
Nor to be gaslighted by the supposed difference between calling me "dumb and ignorant" or my posts. Trust me, I couldn't care less what a random SDN poster thinks when they can't even read properly. Or what the supposed "majority" here thinks.

This is getting incredibly lame.

 

[G Sheb]

I’ve yet to hear why you think leaders of an academic program should have less decision-making power and less accountability for public reputation compared to a business owner. Or why a chair needs to bend to the desires of the residents any more than a CEO needs to bend to a group of employees (and avoid disciplining one when they are violating rules or their bosses’ decisions).

Sure- you can simply call other posters stupid for suggesting the similarities, but that’s not really an argument.

What if I don't feel like having this discussion with you?
Feel free to declare yourself a winner and run a victory lap.

 

[doctalaughs]

What if I don't feel like having this discussion with you?
Feel free to declare yourself a winner and run a victory lap.

That’s your prerogative. Just like you - I care little about what anonymous posters say. If you don't feel like explaining your reasoning and everyone else assumes it’s because your original statements/ positions were ridiculous (which seems to have happened already anyway), that’s fine as well.

 

[TexasPhysician]

I think we have proven that Yale’s actions are controversial, and it is clear that the state of the program is in limbo.

As we are moving toward personal attacks that are not benefiting the OP, I am locking the thread.