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.
“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?
#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?
“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?
#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.