Changing Tenor in HR Departments

[superrific]

Well, I did not initially read the article. I often just turn to What's New and read the latest messages. Those included lots of misuses of the term DEI.

I take the topic rather seriously because over two decades ago I found myself serving on two small university-wide committees charged with drafting "Plans for Diversity." Both became passed by the university. (I changed jobs, which is how I found myself doing this twice.) In short, "Diversity" and "inclusion" etc. movements/regulations are organized around the notion of creating an improved/inclusive COMMUNITY. Bothj plans included multiple proposals, largely oriented around improving knowledge and resources of all sorts. [Essentially, if the school is going to create a diverse community, then it also should provife resources for folks who are part of various minorities, and they also should provide information for the white majority so it can learn about the diverse segments of that community. These Diversity Plans were not largely about hiring or quotas, although the plans did include advice on how hiring committees could go about their business.


Now I have read (or skimmed) the article. There is much that one might say, but my chief response is that the author really lacks a good sense of quantitative methods, The numbers offered do not generally support the larger points. I don't really have time to spell that out in more detail. [It sort of reminds me of articles on Inside Carolina that were generally written by folks who had no training in writing about numbers.]

1. I get that you might be sensitive for that reason.
2. I don't think the author is trying to use quantitative methods at all. It's a piece of journalism written by an aspiring screenwriter. As I noted in my first post, the statistics are cherry-picked, anecdotal and not at all systematic. I think it's not a good piece for diagnosing, "exactly what has DEI become." It is a good piece for listening to "here's my experience of it," one offered seemingly without too much bitterness.
3. The interesting thing about it was the way the author pointed fingers at older white men. Not to the minorities "taking his job." And it seems to be reflective, though maybe I'm reading this in, that the problem is less DEI than the simultaneous use of DEI in a "diversity through addition only" way that is arithmetically destined to fail.

 

[Batt Boy]

In 2021, however, I was told informally by a member of the admissions committee that “that” (meaning admitting a white male) was “not happening this year.”

Why I’m Leaving Harvard

Two weeks ago I gave my last lecture at Harvard, where I have been a history professor for forty years.

www.compactmag.com

 

[ChileG]

In 2021, however, I was told informally by a member of the admissions committee that “that” (meaning admitting a white male) was “not happening this year.”

Why I’m Leaving Harvard

Two weeks ago I gave my last lecture at Harvard, where I have been a history professor for forty years.

www.compactmag.com

Am I reading that wrong, or is this professor saying that no white males were admitted to Harvard in 2021?

 

[superrific]

Am I reading that wrong, or is this professor saying that no white males were admitted to Harvard in 2021?

To the graduate school, or maybe his graduate program. But almost certainly those are fabrications. He knows how to be specific (judging not only from this article, some of which is behind a paywall and I didn't read, but also others he wrote). When he's not, I suspect there's a reason, which is likely "it isn't true."

 

[superrific]

Hankins is a apparently an unabashed supporter of the idea that "Western Civilization" is principally defined by dudes who died at least two centuries ago and often two millennia.

I just don't get it. Leave race and gender aside for a minute. Have white men just gotten stupider over time? Why does Plato have so much to teach us, but not John Rawls? Shakespeare did address a lot of big questions, but so did Tennessee Williams. It's such a bizarre idea. You don't need to read ancient Greeks to find readings addressing the Great Questions. But if you want to address some Great Questions and exclude others, I suppose the Greeks do well.

That's ultimately the whole point of the "Western Civilization" classes. It isn't to allow students to think about questions they wouldn't be able to otherwise. It's to prevent students from being exposed to questions that the instructor wants everyone to avoid.

 

[superrific]

By the way, here's quite a takedown of a different piece by Hankins. From a teacher at a community college. Scalding.

A Rebuttal from the Third Tier: What the Harvard Professor Doesn’t Wanna Get - Baltimore Post-Examiner

In his recent article entitled “Offshore Core,” Harvard history professor James Hankins argues that universities are abandoning a traditional liberal arts education, excluding such writers as Plato, Voltaire, Shakespeare, and even Thomas Aquinas, the “great thinkers.”

baltimorepostexaminer.com

 

[BlooVooDoo]

Hankins is a apparently an unabashed supporter of the idea that "Western Civilization" is principally defined by dudes who died at least two centuries ago and often two millennia.

I just don't get it. Leave race and gender aside for a minute. Have white men just gotten stupider over time? Why does Plato have so much to teach us, but not John Rawls? Shakespeare did address a lot of big questions, but so did Tennessee Williams. It's such a bizarre idea. You don't need to read ancient Greeks to find readings addressing the Great Questions. But if you want to address some Great Questions and exclude others, I suppose the Greeks do well.

That's ultimately the whole point of the "Western Civilization" classes. It isn't to allow students to think about questions they wouldn't be able to otherwise. It's to prevent students from being exposed to questions that the instructor wants everyone to avoid.

This guy is just a crank and a disingenuous one at that. He was so terribly offended by how things were going at Harvard that he sought a four year long phased retirement arrangement? Please.

 

[Batt Boy]

Am I reading that wrong, or is this professor saying that no white males were admitted to Harvard in 2021?

I read it as for a particular graduate program.

 

[wmheel1287]

This guy is just a crank and a disingenuous one at that. He was so terribly offended by how things were going at Harvard that he sought a four year long phased retirement arrangement? Please.

Old ass coddled white man. Really nothing more to see than that.

 

[grubar]

Okay, misc thoughts on this essay and this thread and this topic:
1. I've said this frequently and it is still true. "DEI" does not = "Affirmative Actions," although there are evil folks who want you to think they are the same. Frankly, when I see folks using DEI when they mean "Affirmative Action" I conclude that they are ignorant and probably racist.
2. I had my career in Higfher Ed. I was involved in dozens of faculty hires, and I spent 4 years running a pretty major graduate program, The disciussions here - and in general - tend to misunderstand how these hiring and admissions decisions happen. Specificiaally, there is a tendency to perceive that there are really clear lists which tell us who is "more qualified." But that just isn't how things work. There are lots of variables, and reasonable people rank them differently. It is rare that candidate A is clearly "better" than Candidate B, once you are looking at your top options.
3. (This may be unpopular) I don't think that hiring committees or admissions committees should be worried about "fairness" to the applicants. Their obligation is to create the best possible community. In both the department and the classroom, there are intellectual virtues in hearing from people who come from non-typical perspectives. So, fin instance, if I have the choice between the student whose background is similar to 40% of other students and the student who can bring a unique perspective, that might affect my vote

 

[superrific]

3. (This may be unpopular) I don't think that hiring committees or admissions committees should be worried about "fairness" to the applicants.

Let me help you rephrase to make it less unpopular: hiring committees or admissions committees should not be preoccupied with simplistic definitions of "fairness" that you often hear from conservatives. In a way, giving a black applicant a boost is unfair to the white applicant; but in a way, it was unfair for the black applicant to have been born black. And both of these unfairnesses might pale in comparison to other types of unfairness-- like if an applicant had a serious illness, or a sibling or parent died during childhood, has some sort of condition that might be classified as a disability. So while hiring committees should try to do the most fair thing, it's really an impossible target to hit and not worth the fuss.