Hmmm, I’m fat (sadly), I’m allowed to identify as a women or any other damn thing (even though I’m not), so that covers trans and NB. I do like the outdoors! I’ve been called queer before now. Am I allowed to identify as BIPOC, or do I actually have to be BIPOC? If I’m not, why does that differ from trans/NB/Queer??
Rob, it isn’t enough to be fat. You have to identify as fat. That means I could have gotten a position when I was anorexic, because I identified as fat!
So becoming a PhD candidate apparently has nothing to do with intelligence. Therefore any pet chimpanzee, who loves the outdoors, identifies as a completely different species, and has been trained to become sexually aroused by the ringing of a bell is highly qualified, and will give a dissertation on the nature of existence, or any other topic for the small price of a banana or two.
I don’t love the outdoors, but I identify as someone who does. Unfortunately, that’s the one characteristic that they actually want to be true, rather than a possible figment of my imagination.
Maybe not all Canadian universities, but just Dr Szto. I’m not queer, Bipoc (I had to look that one up) or non-binary, but by French standards I could claim to be fat, though I wouldn’t be considered fat in North America — probably not even a bit overweight. As for disabled, for the last three weeks or so I’ve been having a lot of pain in one hip, so I’ve been using a walking stick and parking in disabled spaces at the supermarket. The walking stick was useful when I voted for the first time in a French election last year: the distance was easily walkable, but a little further than I like to walk in one go, so I took my walking stick. As soon as the person organizing the queue saw it he ushered me to the front.
I saw this post five minutes after receiving a message from the (British) Biochemical Society asking me if I wanted to join a committee or panel. It said that they are committed to diversity and that anyone could apply. They forgot to mention that expertise in biochemistry is irrelevant and of no interest.
Most fat chimpanzees prefer the terms weight challenged or gravity impaired. They can get violent if offended, even if they are philosophers (not the stoic kind), so fair warning.
Maybe not all Canadian universities, but just Dr Szto.
I have to agree with this. Being accepted as a doctoral student by a university is very different from a professor of your choosing agreeing to mentor you. Usually one finds the professor, gets accepted by that person (which is informal, often–just a verbal agreement) and then jumps the hoops of the university acceptance, which is easy. Getting into the university PhD program is straightforward and it’s guided by clearly defined rules and application deadlines. Getting a professor to agree to mentor you is a fucking mess and notoriously variable, depending on the professor. I knew of one professor who only accepted students if he felt that they were sufficiently “respectful” of him (which translated to “willing to do drudgery in terms of work for years without complaint”). My own research advisor accepted me because I managed to come up with a new insight in my final project of her graduate-level chaotic dynamics course. The drudgery guy could fund 20 or more doctoral students at once, so he was in high demand as a research advisor but once he had them on board he basically forgot about them for the next five years; my own advisor could not fund me at all for the first three years, but she was an incredibly good mentor who took a lot of time each week with each of her students. I feel like I made the right choice.
So I’d have to say that the tweet by Jonathan Kay is… misleading.
In any work that the Phd. candidate publishes with Dr. Szto, the good Doctor gets to tick off more boxes on the DEI statement appended to the papers. I was looking over a paper on killer whale behaviour that included a DEI statement at the end:
INCLUSION AND DIVERSITY
One or more of the authors of this paper self-identifies as an underrepresented
ethnic minority in their field of research or within their geographical location.
One or more of the authors of this paper self-identifies as living with a disability.
While citing references scientifically relevant for this work, we also actively
worked to promote gender balance in our reference list.
Worthy and noble sounding stuff, but whether or not this improves the quality of scholarship, or the reliability and value of the science created and discovered is anyone’s guess. I’m not denying that a broader range of viewpoints can shed more light on a subject than what was the case under the Old Boys network, which was essentially an unacknowledged Affirmative Action program for white dudes. But if someone is keeping track of this stuff, then people are going to try to maximize their brownie points under any such DEI regime. And if the system can be gamed, it will be gamed, especially if it relies upon “self identification.” A paleontology paper with Riley Black as a co-author is still not adding to “diversity” in any meaningful way, as he remains a white dude however he identifies. His scholarship might be top notch, but any added bonus “diversity” is completely illusory. Is there any verification or vetting of these “identities”, or is it just run on good faith and honour system? We can see how well that’s worked out for other fields; there’s no reason to expect academics to feel themselves any more bound by good faith than anyone else has. What’s stopping some of the Old Boys from putting on skirts and lipstick, or rolling themselves around in a wheelchair every other day?
If I had to be appropriately diverse in the reference section of my thesis, I would have been out of luck. It was a field dominated by men for a long time, and all the relevant work was done by men, except one recent paper I was able to find by a woman.
The question should not be do the authors of the paper meet some sort of DEI requirements; the question should be is their scholarship sound and did they contribute anything new to the field? If so, it is irrelevant whether they are “diverse” or not.
The entire field of inclusion and diversity threatens the goal of good scholarship. It shouldn’t. Done right, we could be diverse without the hoops. Statements like those are virtue signaling, and don’t contribute anything to diversity, especially since they can self-identify. I can self-identify as living with a disability; I also am living with a disability, and was at one time on Social Security Disability, so I could prove it. So what? It adds nothing to my scholarship. While there are fields (a lot of them) where old white men have led us down paths beneficial to old white men, the reality is that these statements do nothing to ensure that we are getting valid work. It just shows that another potential bias is introduced to offset the original bias. Does that make it any more accurate? Not necessarily.
Hmmm, I’m fat (sadly), I’m allowed to identify as a women or any other damn thing (even though I’m not), so that covers trans and NB. I do like the outdoors! I’ve been called queer before now. Am I allowed to identify as BIPOC, or do I actually have to be BIPOC? If I’m not, why does that differ from trans/NB/Queer??
Sounds like they really want PhD students from the United States…
Rob, it isn’t enough to be fat. You have to identify as fat. That means I could have gotten a position when I was anorexic, because I identified as fat!
Sorry iknklast, I’m such a naive amateur at all this.
So becoming a PhD candidate apparently has nothing to do with intelligence. Therefore any pet chimpanzee, who loves the outdoors, identifies as a completely different species, and has been trained to become sexually aroused by the ringing of a bell is highly qualified, and will give a dissertation on the nature of existence, or any other topic for the small price of a banana or two.
Pronoun people are the worst.
I don’t love the outdoors, but I identify as someone who does. Unfortunately, that’s the one characteristic that they actually want to be true, rather than a possible figment of my imagination.
Does this mean white straight people with average or skinny build and no disability are barred from this position?
If you use your granny’s handicap tag to park at the supermarket, it means you identify as disabled, right?
Maybe not all Canadian universities, but just Dr Szto. I’m not queer, Bipoc (I had to look that one up) or non-binary, but by French standards I could claim to be fat, though I wouldn’t be considered fat in North America — probably not even a bit overweight. As for disabled, for the last three weeks or so I’ve been having a lot of pain in one hip, so I’ve been using a walking stick and parking in disabled spaces at the supermarket. The walking stick was useful when I voted for the first time in a French election last year: the distance was easily walkable, but a little further than I like to walk in one go, so I took my walking stick. As soon as the person organizing the queue saw it he ushered me to the front.
I saw this post five minutes after receiving a message from the (British) Biochemical Society asking me if I wanted to join a committee or panel. It said that they are committed to diversity and that anyone could apply. They forgot to mention that expertise in biochemistry is irrelevant and of no interest.
Most fat chimpanzees prefer the terms weight challenged or gravity impaired. They can get violent if offended, even if they are philosophers (not the stoic kind), so fair warning.
I have to agree with this. Being accepted as a doctoral student by a university is very different from a professor of your choosing agreeing to mentor you. Usually one finds the professor, gets accepted by that person (which is informal, often–just a verbal agreement) and then jumps the hoops of the university acceptance, which is easy. Getting into the university PhD program is straightforward and it’s guided by clearly defined rules and application deadlines. Getting a professor to agree to mentor you is a fucking mess and notoriously variable, depending on the professor. I knew of one professor who only accepted students if he felt that they were sufficiently “respectful” of him (which translated to “willing to do drudgery in terms of work for years without complaint”). My own research advisor accepted me because I managed to come up with a new insight in my final project of her graduate-level chaotic dynamics course. The drudgery guy could fund 20 or more doctoral students at once, so he was in high demand as a research advisor but once he had them on board he basically forgot about them for the next five years; my own advisor could not fund me at all for the first three years, but she was an incredibly good mentor who took a lot of time each week with each of her students. I feel like I made the right choice.
So I’d have to say that the tweet by Jonathan Kay is… misleading.
In any work that the Phd. candidate publishes with Dr. Szto, the good Doctor gets to tick off more boxes on the DEI statement appended to the papers. I was looking over a paper on killer whale behaviour that included a DEI statement at the end:
https://www.whaleresearch.com/_files/ugd/760f65_59a31aeb2d9f442383fad65f930adb57.pdf
Worthy and noble sounding stuff, but whether or not this improves the quality of scholarship, or the reliability and value of the science created and discovered is anyone’s guess. I’m not denying that a broader range of viewpoints can shed more light on a subject than what was the case under the Old Boys network, which was essentially an unacknowledged Affirmative Action program for white dudes. But if someone is keeping track of this stuff, then people are going to try to maximize their brownie points under any such DEI regime. And if the system can be gamed, it will be gamed, especially if it relies upon “self identification.” A paleontology paper with Riley Black as a co-author is still not adding to “diversity” in any meaningful way, as he remains a white dude however he identifies. His scholarship might be top notch, but any added bonus “diversity” is completely illusory. Is there any verification or vetting of these “identities”, or is it just run on good faith and honour system? We can see how well that’s worked out for other fields; there’s no reason to expect academics to feel themselves any more bound by good faith than anyone else has. What’s stopping some of the Old Boys from putting on skirts and lipstick, or rolling themselves around in a wheelchair every other day?
If I had to be appropriately diverse in the reference section of my thesis, I would have been out of luck. It was a field dominated by men for a long time, and all the relevant work was done by men, except one recent paper I was able to find by a woman.
The question should not be do the authors of the paper meet some sort of DEI requirements; the question should be is their scholarship sound and did they contribute anything new to the field? If so, it is irrelevant whether they are “diverse” or not.
The entire field of inclusion and diversity threatens the goal of good scholarship. It shouldn’t. Done right, we could be diverse without the hoops. Statements like those are virtue signaling, and don’t contribute anything to diversity, especially since they can self-identify. I can self-identify as living with a disability; I also am living with a disability, and was at one time on Social Security Disability, so I could prove it. So what? It adds nothing to my scholarship. While there are fields (a lot of them) where old white men have led us down paths beneficial to old white men, the reality is that these statements do nothing to ensure that we are getting valid work. It just shows that another potential bias is introduced to offset the original bias. Does that make it any more accurate? Not necessarily.