The conference organizer states quite clearly that the requirements you object to have been in place since 2022 and *won't change.* If you find it aversive to describe how your work fosters diversity, equity, and inclusion, why not turn your attention to journals and conferences within your field that don't make such requirements?
"These requirements are part of, but hardly the central issue in, the evaluation process. They are not a gatekeeping device."
I do not understand these two sentences in combination. If a statement is required and it is evaluated for content (that is, one could not get full marks for Lorem Ipsum), it is by definition a gatekeeping device in any context where there are fewer slots than applicants.
I think that means there are multiple criteria in addition to that statement for a submission to be accepted. If u suck on this statement, and got excellent on the other (say theoretical novelty), they will take your submission. That is what they mean by “promote” diversity, i.e., granting “diversity” as a factor to consider. Whether or not this is fair, “diversity”/“ant-racism” should or should be taken into consideration along with other factors is an open question.
I googled Laura King in order to see her picture, to see if I could somehow discern if she was a sincere person or was consciously dissembling. Because -- could she really believe what she is writing? This is the fascinating thing to me, at this point. If she DOES believe it, how is that happening, psychologically? Is it some sort of denial, some block or defense? ... I'm sorry, I'm really confused by this.
When I read this -- "To cut to the chase, the policy, generally, will not change." -- I feel the power in that. BOOM. "You guys can say what you will but the train has left the station."
"In my view, much of your concern is rooted in a misunderstanding of the policy." Good God! That is not her view, she is far too intelligent for that! She KNOWS that your concern is rooted in a very clear reading of the policy and knowledge of its historical context and ideological aims.
One last and then I will desist, but this one just raises my hackles: "Finally, I assume that the comparisons you drew in your email were referring to the specific definition of anti-racism that you cited." Yes, Professor King, you can assume that. Yes, you can assume that the comparisons drawn, obvious even to children at this point, were referring to the ubiquitous definition of anti-racism that we all have known about since the plethora of books on the subject began to land five years ago.
I hate to use this term, "gaslighting", and I keep wanting to give people like Dr. King the benefit of the doubt, but I don't really have the right words to understand what is going on here. I much appreciate your attempts to carve out a space for sanity.
I was tempted to end there because it is such an excellent comment, but I'll just add that I completely agree with your opening question. I do not know which would be worse: That she actually believes what she wrote or whether it is intentionally disingenuous or whether she just has some weird psychological dissociation that permits her to make claims so obviously divorced from any reality or some witches' brew combination. It is actually an interesting social psychological question because it applies to her, but way beyond her.
It seems to me that what’s happened to liberals/the left these past 5-10 years is that their noble concern for the rights of ethnic and sexual minorities has gradually, like the proverbial boiling frog, moved from the realm of the political into the realm of the sacred, or more simply, that the rights and identities of ethnic and sexual minorities have now become sacralized.
And when it comes to American academia (the Vatican of the Social Justice movement) and American blacks (the ur-Victim, the symbol and literal incarnation of the crimes of our society and its founders) this religious mindset has intensifed into a form of fundamentalism, where (just as other fundamentalists need to pray to God upon awakening and sleeping and before every meal etc) the historical pain and injustice faced by American blacks needs to start every conference, be included in every speech, book, TV show and movie, play a role in every decision etc.
I appreciate Lee trying to talk sense to Laura King, but we all know what's going on here: our colleges and culture have been captured by a fundamentalist ideology and she knows deep in her bones that either she sings the Antiracist hymn along with everyone else or she abandons the career she's devoted her whole life to and finds another line of work.
The truth about American academia (at least for anyone w an independent mind not willing to be baptized in the cult and take a loyalty oath) is the same truth that Dante inscribed over Hell: Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter.
Heh. Good points all. I have (abandoned hope). No, really, not just saying that. I had some hope for a long time, and about 2 years ago, came to the conclusion that it was hopeless. That was amazingly liberating. It inspired both the foundation of SOIBS.com (see my essay on this here:
i didnt mean to get too drastic or defeatist with the Dante quote, i just think modern liberals are well past the point of good-faith debate and are really in need of cult deprogramming on a societal scale.
but someone has to stand up and fight for sanity, scholarship, and freedom of thought and you do a great job and is much appreciated!
This closes the loop for all wondering how it came to this insanity ...
It is a deliberate, specific project of the radical element of Marxism.
Yes, I typed that. Yes, "communist conspiracy nut" may have arisen in your mind.
Here are two things I have to say about that:
1) just because it smells like a right-wing-nut-job-conspiracy does not mean it is not an actual, intentional, by-the-playbook, well-financed, focused campaign to destroy USA/Capitalism/Enlightenment.
Another thing -- after submitting a proposal to SPSP, the confirmation e-mail includes the following: "In order for this submission to be considered complete, you must complete your demographic information in our SPSP database. Demographic information is being collected for SPSP data analysis and for use by the Professional Development Committee when making final decisions about what to accept." Not sure if this is typical -- was my first time submitting. Was pretty surprised.
Great article. But it looks to me like you missed crossing out the name of your colleague who asked not to be identified. Search for their name in the article, I think you missed one mention of it.
I appreciate such feedback, which I have often received on other entries here and when I was active at Psych Today. BUT, I checked like 10x, and can't find it. Could you give me some hint as to the location?
It’s in the paragraph that begins with “**Does the term "Woke fragility" piss you off? “
Maybe it’s not their name, but there’s a name in that paragraph that doesn’t quite fit with the rest of the article unless it’s some figure of speech I’m not familiar with.
Heh. I sincerely appreciate it because I am definitely prone to careless errors, and I'd much rather have them caught quickly. But, in this case, "Virginia" is a play on "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus." I know of no Virginias among SPSP's leadership. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes,_Virginia,_there_is_a_Santa_Claus. Its another case of Appropriate Intellectual Appropriation, which if you have not read yet, I also recommend. It helps explain, writ small but very concretely, how academia has arrived at its current state. https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/appropriate-intellectual-appropriation
As a layperson, it is so disheartening to see science destroyed by a bureaucracy. Eerily similar to the period where the institutional Catholic Church controlled and held-back science.
So what is the ideology supposed to be now? All of this convoluted 'acedemia' that is hard to grasp, I only have a BA degree in Communications from UCSB, please forgive my ignorance. Maybe now I need to be spoken to like a 1st grader to understand WTF anyone's point is in 2022.
The book Cynical Theories (a play on Critical Theories) is also very good on this score. Some call it Cultural Marxism, The Successor Ideology, or Critical Social Justice. It has those names because it is the modern successor to, but not the same as, Marxism. It is as dogmatic as hardcore Marxism, but replaces class with culture/ethnicity/race/gender identities. It divides the world into the "privileged" and everyone else, much like Marxism divides the world into the bourgeois & the exploited. Both see (almost?) everything through a lens of oppression and oppressed, but who counts as oppressor and oppressed is slightly different (bourgeois for Marxists, White people, men, heterosexual people, for Critical Social Justice). Hardcore Marxists and socialists (like Freddie, who imho is more of a social democrat than hardcore Marxist) often reject it as misplaced emphasis on race/ethnicity/culture, whereas, they believe, the emphasis should be on class and economic inequalities. I am not a socialist, but I am sympathetic to many of these ideas. Safety nets? Support for people from low SES backgrounds? I am usually in. These include, and probably would even disproportionately benefit, but would not be restricted to, POC from such backgrounds.
Thanks! That makes a bit more sense. I'm not a Socialist either, but have compassion for the general public. Socialism is too close to Communism IMO and after living in China for a year that's the last thing we should be aiming for. But hard core Capitalism sucks too. It will be interesting to see what direction America will take, I can feel the battle within the infrastructure, The States is imploding. I've been watching the chaos ensue out here in Asia for the past 4 year.
The conference organizer states quite clearly that the requirements you object to have been in place since 2022 and *won't change.* If you find it aversive to describe how your work fosters diversity, equity, and inclusion, why not turn your attention to journals and conferences within your field that don't make such requirements?
"These requirements are part of, but hardly the central issue in, the evaluation process. They are not a gatekeeping device."
I do not understand these two sentences in combination. If a statement is required and it is evaluated for content (that is, one could not get full marks for Lorem Ipsum), it is by definition a gatekeeping device in any context where there are fewer slots than applicants.
I think that means there are multiple criteria in addition to that statement for a submission to be accepted. If u suck on this statement, and got excellent on the other (say theoretical novelty), they will take your submission. That is what they mean by “promote” diversity, i.e., granting “diversity” as a factor to consider. Whether or not this is fair, “diversity”/“ant-racism” should or should be taken into consideration along with other factors is an open question.
Institutional Othering.
I googled Laura King in order to see her picture, to see if I could somehow discern if she was a sincere person or was consciously dissembling. Because -- could she really believe what she is writing? This is the fascinating thing to me, at this point. If she DOES believe it, how is that happening, psychologically? Is it some sort of denial, some block or defense? ... I'm sorry, I'm really confused by this.
When I read this -- "To cut to the chase, the policy, generally, will not change." -- I feel the power in that. BOOM. "You guys can say what you will but the train has left the station."
"In my view, much of your concern is rooted in a misunderstanding of the policy." Good God! That is not her view, she is far too intelligent for that! She KNOWS that your concern is rooted in a very clear reading of the policy and knowledge of its historical context and ideological aims.
One last and then I will desist, but this one just raises my hackles: "Finally, I assume that the comparisons you drew in your email were referring to the specific definition of anti-racism that you cited." Yes, Professor King, you can assume that. Yes, you can assume that the comparisons drawn, obvious even to children at this point, were referring to the ubiquitous definition of anti-racism that we all have known about since the plethora of books on the subject began to land five years ago.
I hate to use this term, "gaslighting", and I keep wanting to give people like Dr. King the benefit of the doubt, but I don't really have the right words to understand what is going on here. I much appreciate your attempts to carve out a space for sanity.
Yes.
I was tempted to end there because it is such an excellent comment, but I'll just add that I completely agree with your opening question. I do not know which would be worse: That she actually believes what she wrote or whether it is intentionally disingenuous or whether she just has some weird psychological dissociation that permits her to make claims so obviously divorced from any reality or some witches' brew combination. It is actually an interesting social psychological question because it applies to her, but way beyond her.
It seems to me that what’s happened to liberals/the left these past 5-10 years is that their noble concern for the rights of ethnic and sexual minorities has gradually, like the proverbial boiling frog, moved from the realm of the political into the realm of the sacred, or more simply, that the rights and identities of ethnic and sexual minorities have now become sacralized.
And when it comes to American academia (the Vatican of the Social Justice movement) and American blacks (the ur-Victim, the symbol and literal incarnation of the crimes of our society and its founders) this religious mindset has intensifed into a form of fundamentalism, where (just as other fundamentalists need to pray to God upon awakening and sleeping and before every meal etc) the historical pain and injustice faced by American blacks needs to start every conference, be included in every speech, book, TV show and movie, play a role in every decision etc.
I appreciate Lee trying to talk sense to Laura King, but we all know what's going on here: our colleges and culture have been captured by a fundamentalist ideology and she knows deep in her bones that either she sings the Antiracist hymn along with everyone else or she abandons the career she's devoted her whole life to and finds another line of work.
The truth about American academia (at least for anyone w an independent mind not willing to be baptized in the cult and take a loyalty oath) is the same truth that Dante inscribed over Hell: Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter.
Heh. Good points all. I have (abandoned hope). No, really, not just saying that. I had some hope for a long time, and about 2 years ago, came to the conclusion that it was hopeless. That was amazingly liberating. It inspired both the foundation of SOIBS.com (see my essay on this here:
https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/introducing-the-society-for-open)
and the blunt tone and substance of this very essay.
hey, big fan of your work!
i didnt mean to get too drastic or defeatist with the Dante quote, i just think modern liberals are well past the point of good-faith debate and are really in need of cult deprogramming on a societal scale.
but someone has to stand up and fight for sanity, scholarship, and freedom of thought and you do a great job and is much appreciated!
This closes the loop for all wondering how it came to this insanity ...
It is a deliberate, specific project of the radical element of Marxism.
Yes, I typed that. Yes, "communist conspiracy nut" may have arisen in your mind.
Here are two things I have to say about that:
1) just because it smells like a right-wing-nut-job-conspiracy does not mean it is not an actual, intentional, by-the-playbook, well-financed, focused campaign to destroy USA/Capitalism/Enlightenment.
2) James Lindsay
Another thing -- after submitting a proposal to SPSP, the confirmation e-mail includes the following: "In order for this submission to be considered complete, you must complete your demographic information in our SPSP database. Demographic information is being collected for SPSP data analysis and for use by the Professional Development Committee when making final decisions about what to accept." Not sure if this is typical -- was my first time submitting. Was pretty surprised.
Great article. But it looks to me like you missed crossing out the name of your colleague who asked not to be identified. Search for their name in the article, I think you missed one mention of it.
I appreciate such feedback, which I have often received on other entries here and when I was active at Psych Today. BUT, I checked like 10x, and can't find it. Could you give me some hint as to the location?
It’s in the paragraph that begins with “**Does the term "Woke fragility" piss you off? “
Maybe it’s not their name, but there’s a name in that paragraph that doesn’t quite fit with the rest of the article unless it’s some figure of speech I’m not familiar with.
Heh. I sincerely appreciate it because I am definitely prone to careless errors, and I'd much rather have them caught quickly. But, in this case, "Virginia" is a play on "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus." I know of no Virginias among SPSP's leadership. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes,_Virginia,_there_is_a_Santa_Claus. Its another case of Appropriate Intellectual Appropriation, which if you have not read yet, I also recommend. It helps explain, writ small but very concretely, how academia has arrived at its current state. https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/appropriate-intellectual-appropriation
Ah gotcha 👍
As a layperson, it is so disheartening to see science destroyed by a bureaucracy. Eerily similar to the period where the institutional Catholic Church controlled and held-back science.
So what is the ideology supposed to be now? All of this convoluted 'acedemia' that is hard to grasp, I only have a BA degree in Communications from UCSB, please forgive my ignorance. Maybe now I need to be spoken to like a 1st grader to understand WTF anyone's point is in 2022.
As some partial answer to your question, I highly recommend this excellent essay by socialist and education reformer Freddie deBoer:
https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/please-just-fucking-tell-me-what
The book Cynical Theories (a play on Critical Theories) is also very good on this score. Some call it Cultural Marxism, The Successor Ideology, or Critical Social Justice. It has those names because it is the modern successor to, but not the same as, Marxism. It is as dogmatic as hardcore Marxism, but replaces class with culture/ethnicity/race/gender identities. It divides the world into the "privileged" and everyone else, much like Marxism divides the world into the bourgeois & the exploited. Both see (almost?) everything through a lens of oppression and oppressed, but who counts as oppressor and oppressed is slightly different (bourgeois for Marxists, White people, men, heterosexual people, for Critical Social Justice). Hardcore Marxists and socialists (like Freddie, who imho is more of a social democrat than hardcore Marxist) often reject it as misplaced emphasis on race/ethnicity/culture, whereas, they believe, the emphasis should be on class and economic inequalities. I am not a socialist, but I am sympathetic to many of these ideas. Safety nets? Support for people from low SES backgrounds? I am usually in. These include, and probably would even disproportionately benefit, but would not be restricted to, POC from such backgrounds.
Thanks! That makes a bit more sense. I'm not a Socialist either, but have compassion for the general public. Socialism is too close to Communism IMO and after living in China for a year that's the last thing we should be aiming for. But hard core Capitalism sucks too. It will be interesting to see what direction America will take, I can feel the battle within the infrastructure, The States is imploding. I've been watching the chaos ensue out here in Asia for the past 4 year.
Great job! You nailed it.