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.
They said that they were creating a "space" to discuss BIPOC issues and I misunderstood it as assigned seating. But all the white students moved to the tables behind those tables. They placed signs saying "BIPOC students" and announced those tables were "for" those students. No other tables were "spaces" for discussing any other issues. They ignored my thank yous (normal obviously)...but when, after the decision, I wrote them and expressed how uncomfortable this had made me, they magically replied within an hour "to clarify." It was the first time I had ever heard them use "space" or "discuss BIPOC issues" in reference to these tables.
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 wonder if it would be mud if I did that...are psychologists so ideological that they would cancel someone for defending their civil rights? I don't know. It looks like I am going to get into another program. But I've honestly thought of leaving the profession because I fear you may be right.
I'm making an assumption. When I identified as a Jew, the faculty seemed uncomfortable. It didn't seem like they had a lot of experience working with someone from my background. I also met around 20 students, talking with them about where they are from and hearing them share their backgrounds. Given that is around 20% of the student body, I would be very surprised if any other Jews are there.
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 🐂 💩
Amri, I appreciate you weighing in here. For the record, in my last year as Psych Dept Chair (2021-22), the deans wanted some psych faculty to teach in another unit. I extracted a **diversity postdoc** from them in exchange. The Dept agreed that the person could add diversity by their identity *or* by having a track record of doing work on diversity-related issues. I tell this story, because I agree with you -- it is actually possible to do diversity reasonably well. However, I also think many (how many? I don't really know, but too many just from what I do know) diversity bureaucracies have been captured by ideologues and corrupted to do ideological screening.
Thanks Lee. I hear you. Ideology has taken over solid work to create the conditions for people to thrive and organizations to create value (including and beyond profitability).
I don’t know how to practice grievance-oriented, reductionist, rhetorical, blame-placing so-called social justice or anti-racism.
White Fragility occurs as a woman writing for “white” people to coddle and infantilize black folx. These popular ideological notions do not square with the principles that the practice of DEI that I engage with and in does.
In too many cases (in practice, perhaps they are closer in intentions) the principles of the ideological approaches are completely contrary to mine.
It is hard to watch and more difficult to evolve. We have to be willing to influenced by ideas outside of those we prefer.
Too many people who practice and support DEI hold on to traditions, even those that no longer serve their original purpose and perhaps never truly did. They only occurred as if they did because so many people repeated them that they started to occur as truth. I guess that brings me back to ideology.
"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.
The scenario was 5 people and 2 hearts available to transplant. All 5 needed the hearts right away and would die if they did not receive a heart. Each person had their age, race, sex (and in some cases political beliefs listed). For instance, one person was a "white supremacist" middle aged white male close to curing AIDS. Did he deserve a heart? I said he did because if he cured aids that would help a lot of others.
What I found disturbing is that most of the characteristics they listed are illegal to consider in medical care. So they are starting someone's clinical training by inviting them to consider characteristics which would make them lose a medical license? The same law that extended insurance that most psychologists accept? Whether someone is a white supremacist or not is irrelevant...same if BIPOC, latinx...legally medicine is required to be color blind.
To any one else in this situation in the future: take pictures of this written material. Send them to someone who can publish them while keeping you anonymous (eg Chris Rufo). But do NOT let the institution stay anonymous!
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.
And the reason Leftism is wrong is that it promotes and fosters egotism. Woke is a manifestation of Leftist culture.
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.
They said that they were creating a "space" to discuss BIPOC issues and I misunderstood it as assigned seating. But all the white students moved to the tables behind those tables. They placed signs saying "BIPOC students" and announced those tables were "for" those students. No other tables were "spaces" for discussing any other issues. They ignored my thank yous (normal obviously)...but when, after the decision, I wrote them and expressed how uncomfortable this had made me, they magically replied within an hour "to clarify." It was the first time I had ever heard them use "space" or "discuss BIPOC issues" in reference to these tables.
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 wonder if it would be mud if I did that...are psychologists so ideological that they would cancel someone for defending their civil rights? I don't know. It looks like I am going to get into another program. But I've honestly thought of leaving the profession because I fear you may be right.
I would really like to see networks of organizations and legal services come together around various issues. This is what it comes down to.
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'm making an assumption. When I identified as a Jew, the faculty seemed uncomfortable. It didn't seem like they had a lot of experience working with someone from my background. I also met around 20 students, talking with them about where they are from and hearing them share their backgrounds. Given that is around 20% of the student body, I would be very surprised if any other Jews are there.
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 🐂 💩
Amri, I appreciate you weighing in here. For the record, in my last year as Psych Dept Chair (2021-22), the deans wanted some psych faculty to teach in another unit. I extracted a **diversity postdoc** from them in exchange. The Dept agreed that the person could add diversity by their identity *or* by having a track record of doing work on diversity-related issues. I tell this story, because I agree with you -- it is actually possible to do diversity reasonably well. However, I also think many (how many? I don't really know, but too many just from what I do know) diversity bureaucracies have been captured by ideologues and corrupted to do ideological screening.
Thanks Lee. I hear you. Ideology has taken over solid work to create the conditions for people to thrive and organizations to create value (including and beyond profitability).
I don’t know how to practice grievance-oriented, reductionist, rhetorical, blame-placing so-called social justice or anti-racism.
White Fragility occurs as a woman writing for “white” people to coddle and infantilize black folx. These popular ideological notions do not square with the principles that the practice of DEI that I engage with and in does.
In too many cases (in practice, perhaps they are closer in intentions) the principles of the ideological approaches are completely contrary to mine.
It is hard to watch and more difficult to evolve. We have to be willing to influenced by ideas outside of those we prefer.
Too many people who practice and support DEI hold on to traditions, even those that no longer serve their original purpose and perhaps never truly did. They only occurred as if they did because so many people repeated them that they started to occur as truth. I guess that brings me back to ideology.
Bear shit?
Bear/Bull—no difference in the process or outcome
"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.
The scenario was 5 people and 2 hearts available to transplant. All 5 needed the hearts right away and would die if they did not receive a heart. Each person had their age, race, sex (and in some cases political beliefs listed). For instance, one person was a "white supremacist" middle aged white male close to curing AIDS. Did he deserve a heart? I said he did because if he cured aids that would help a lot of others.
What I found disturbing is that most of the characteristics they listed are illegal to consider in medical care. So they are starting someone's clinical training by inviting them to consider characteristics which would make them lose a medical license? The same law that extended insurance that most psychologists accept? Whether someone is a white supremacist or not is irrelevant...same if BIPOC, latinx...legally medicine is required to be color blind.
To any one else in this situation in the future: take pictures of this written material. Send them to someone who can publish them while keeping you anonymous (eg Chris Rufo). But do NOT let the institution stay anonymous!
Is it possible they were testing to make sure you *didn't* preference for characteristics that would be illegal?