I agree that DEI is an unreasonable review criterion. If the reviewers are biased asking them to NOT be biased is absurd. If bias are that easy to remove, we wouldn’t have a DEI movement. This is something that has to be addressed orthagonally above the level of paper reviewers. And there is no easy way to do that without reducing the odds of white males who won’t be happy that it’s much harder to get on panels...this entire controversy started in the 1990s in anthropology. The problem then as now is that graduate schools need to rebalance admissions to doctoral programs to solve diversity over time. Reducing the odds of the dominant group from advancing their career AFTER they committed to it is unethical at best and likely to generate lawsuits at worst.
Yes, excellemt. That this response should even be needed at all is appalling. Who runs these professional organizations. This is not the only one to drink DEI kool-ade.
A well-argued letter that is very much to the point. Remarkable how this insanity has spread like wildfire. We all need to stamp it out in whatever ways we can.
Happy to report I have not yet been cancelled. On the other hand: (i) I’m not very important, and so not much worth cancelling and (ii) This letter went out to maybe 6 people who were on the conference planning committee and/or the SREE Board of Directors (some of whom I know personally). With one exception no one saw fit to reply. The exception was a one sentence reply to the effect of “I think this criterion is a good idea.” No one offered a substantive defense of the criterion and/or a rebuttal of my arguments.
So, it seems it was much easier to ignore my objections than it was to gin up a mob to cancel me. However, now that Lee has done me the service of publicizing this, I am going to do my best to make others aware of this and pressure SREE to change. So stay tuned…
Dr. Rhoades, thank you for that reply. I received a Master's from the History department there and have been appalled by the direction of UConn, especially in regards to the segregated dorms, etc.
“But part of me wishes he would have written instead something like ...”
I am baffled by this note; to what end would such a statement be made? It appears to be completely in support of the new review criteria when his statement makes quite clear that he is not. I do not think it would cause even the slightest doubt about the wisdom of the changes. Am I missing something?
Heh. Indeed. Conferences and journals need reviewers. About 70-80% of academics are not from "marginalized groups." This would, in essence, constitute a strike by 3/4 of academia in the name of DEI anytime we are asked to do ... anything (other than our core jobs of teaching and research).
#DEI commissars are not interested in the quality of research or education but are only concerned with the destruction of the Western democratic canon and its substitution with an authoritarian ideology based communist and national socialist principles.
I agree that DEI is an unreasonable review criterion. If the reviewers are biased asking them to NOT be biased is absurd. If bias are that easy to remove, we wouldn’t have a DEI movement. This is something that has to be addressed orthagonally above the level of paper reviewers. And there is no easy way to do that without reducing the odds of white males who won’t be happy that it’s much harder to get on panels...this entire controversy started in the 1990s in anthropology. The problem then as now is that graduate schools need to rebalance admissions to doctoral programs to solve diversity over time. Reducing the odds of the dominant group from advancing their career AFTER they committed to it is unethical at best and likely to generate lawsuits at worst.
Yes, excellemt. That this response should even be needed at all is appalling. Who runs these professional organizations. This is not the only one to drink DEI kool-ade.
The most scholarly 'kick in the balls' response I have seen in my life.
Bloody excellent !
Excellent letter. Good on you, sir.
A well-argued letter that is very much to the point. Remarkable how this insanity has spread like wildfire. We all need to stamp it out in whatever ways we can.
Well written response. Has he been cancelled yet?
Happy to report I have not yet been cancelled. On the other hand: (i) I’m not very important, and so not much worth cancelling and (ii) This letter went out to maybe 6 people who were on the conference planning committee and/or the SREE Board of Directors (some of whom I know personally). With one exception no one saw fit to reply. The exception was a one sentence reply to the effect of “I think this criterion is a good idea.” No one offered a substantive defense of the criterion and/or a rebuttal of my arguments.
So, it seems it was much easier to ignore my objections than it was to gin up a mob to cancel me. However, now that Lee has done me the service of publicizing this, I am going to do my best to make others aware of this and pressure SREE to change. So stay tuned…
Dr. Rhoades, thank you for that reply. I received a Master's from the History department there and have been appalled by the direction of UConn, especially in regards to the segregated dorms, etc.
This DEI plague must be stopped.
“But part of me wishes he would have written instead something like ...”
I am baffled by this note; to what end would such a statement be made? It appears to be completely in support of the new review criteria when his statement makes quite clear that he is not. I do not think it would cause even the slightest doubt about the wisdom of the changes. Am I missing something?
Heh. Indeed. Conferences and journals need reviewers. About 70-80% of academics are not from "marginalized groups." This would, in essence, constitute a strike by 3/4 of academia in the name of DEI anytime we are asked to do ... anything (other than our core jobs of teaching and research).
#DEI commissars are not interested in the quality of research or education but are only concerned with the destruction of the Western democratic canon and its substitution with an authoritarian ideology based communist and national socialist principles.
Can’t disagree with any of this. Thank you for your work.