My last undergraduate to go to grad school in philosophy went to a highly-regarded in-state terminal masters program. He quit just shy of getting his M.A., however. One of his main reasons was the indifference of the professors. But his primary reason was that he went looking to be immersed in philosophy. Instead, he found that the graduate students talked about almost nothing but race and "gender." A significant number of them "identify" as "trans," and, according to him, almost every discussion was turned to gender or pronouns or sexual preference or the denunciation of white men or some other such topic. Instead of immersion in philosophy, my student described it as being like immersion in Tumbler, ca. 2014.
At the faculty level, I can tell you this: five years ago, our two most important philosophy faculty retired--one specializing in Ancient philosophy and one in Modern. Our woke dean refused to allow us to search for and fill these positions, insisting instead on "world [i.e. non-western] philosophy, philosophy of race, disability, etc. So: instead of the very core of Western philosophy, we were only allowed to hire for peripheral, unneeded, woke-left subfields.
The goal, so far as I can tell, is a re-engineering of the field. In ten years, as even more woke graduate students and woke-brainwashed graduate students, make their way into the discipline, woke irrelevancies like feminism, gender theory, "the philosophy of race," etc. may well take the place of Ancient philosophy, epistemology, and metaphysics.
Yet another example of the lowest quality people running things. How much better off we would all be if we upgraded to having mediocre people in charge.
DEI, woke, and Progressivism are essentially egotism. They are attractive because they have the patina of virtue. Notice that Leftist policies are all premised on oppression and the destruction of the oppressor. Leftists need this construct. Leftism relies on and manipulates people throughout our tendencies towards envy and vanity. It is far easier to blame someone else. Tax the rich. They don’t need that much money. They have privilege. They have and we don’t. Notice that the Left never promotes self discipline, hard work. Indeed they inveigh such behaviors. Leftism is attractive because it is easy.
It would be great if you sued. You'd win. If you'd liked to be connected with a lawyer, let me know at erasmuse61@gmail.com. They'd probably do it for free; if it's a civil rights suit, the winning lawyer gets paid by the loser. Your name would be mud in the psychology profession, but it sounds like you don't have a bright future there anyway on account of your race and sex.
I don’t know why I keep being gobsmacked by account like this in academia. Yet, each time I hear this foolishness perpetuated, I am. This, on top of being pissed (as DEI practitioners) that this woke gobbledygook is what “the work” is being made out to be.
This is not an example of practicing DEI, this is complete and utter 🐂 💩
"The essay asked us to decide from a list of 5 people of different races, sex, and sexual orientations which 3 would die from not receiving medical care."
It seems like some info is missing here. I first read it as asking which 3 "should" die, as if asking the interviewee to prioritize certain demographics over others. But "would die" is different. Was it asking to decide which demographic is most at risk? Still very strange.
My last undergraduate to go to grad school in philosophy went to a highly-regarded in-state terminal masters program. He quit just shy of getting his M.A., however. One of his main reasons was the indifference of the professors. But his primary reason was that he went looking to be immersed in philosophy. Instead, he found that the graduate students talked about almost nothing but race and "gender." A significant number of them "identify" as "trans," and, according to him, almost every discussion was turned to gender or pronouns or sexual preference or the denunciation of white men or some other such topic. Instead of immersion in philosophy, my student described it as being like immersion in Tumbler, ca. 2014.
At the faculty level, I can tell you this: five years ago, our two most important philosophy faculty retired--one specializing in Ancient philosophy and one in Modern. Our woke dean refused to allow us to search for and fill these positions, insisting instead on "world [i.e. non-western] philosophy, philosophy of race, disability, etc. So: instead of the very core of Western philosophy, we were only allowed to hire for peripheral, unneeded, woke-left subfields.
The goal, so far as I can tell, is a re-engineering of the field. In ten years, as even more woke graduate students and woke-brainwashed graduate students, make their way into the discipline, woke irrelevancies like feminism, gender theory, "the philosophy of race," etc. may well take the place of Ancient philosophy, epistemology, and metaphysics.
Yet another example of the lowest quality people running things. How much better off we would all be if we upgraded to having mediocre people in charge.
My doc program is different than most and we’ve managed to avoid this nonsense in admissions and overall program.
Has anyone asked the clinical program for a response to this? I'd be interested to know whether they deny or defend these practices.
DEI, woke, and Progressivism are essentially egotism. They are attractive because they have the patina of virtue. Notice that Leftist policies are all premised on oppression and the destruction of the oppressor. Leftists need this construct. Leftism relies on and manipulates people throughout our tendencies towards envy and vanity. It is far easier to blame someone else. Tax the rich. They don’t need that much money. They have privilege. They have and we don’t. Notice that the Left never promotes self discipline, hard work. Indeed they inveigh such behaviors. Leftism is attractive because it is easy.
It would be great if you sued. You'd win. If you'd liked to be connected with a lawyer, let me know at erasmuse61@gmail.com. They'd probably do it for free; if it's a civil rights suit, the winning lawyer gets paid by the loser. Your name would be mud in the psychology profession, but it sounds like you don't have a bright future there anyway on account of your race and sex.
What were the demographic profiles of the 5 imaginary people in the dumb exercise?
Thoughtful post. Did the author explain how he/she determined there were “certainly no [other] Jews” amongst the candidates?
I don’t know why I keep being gobsmacked by account like this in academia. Yet, each time I hear this foolishness perpetuated, I am. This, on top of being pissed (as DEI practitioners) that this woke gobbledygook is what “the work” is being made out to be.
This is not an example of practicing DEI, this is complete and utter 🐂 💩
"The essay asked us to decide from a list of 5 people of different races, sex, and sexual orientations which 3 would die from not receiving medical care."
It seems like some info is missing here. I first read it as asking which 3 "should" die, as if asking the interviewee to prioritize certain demographics over others. But "would die" is different. Was it asking to decide which demographic is most at risk? Still very strange.