|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 16 2020 04:24 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2020 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 16 2020 03:14 Sbrubbles wrote:On July 16 2020 02:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 16 2020 02:48 Sermokala wrote:On July 15 2020 20:47 Broetchenholer wrote:
I don't really understand your stance on abolishing the police GH. Other countries have crime as well, have no history of slavery and still see it necessary to police crime. The American definition of crime is mostly the same as the French or German, still their police force is not strangling minorities to death to the American extent. If the social contract is broken, you need someone to solve that. The question is how to approach the crime/criminal, not whether the crime was historically enforced more on minorities.
The German police caused a shitstorm yesterday, because they approached a person known to love guns without confrontation, so that guy suddenly pulled a gun on them. They disarmed themselves afterwards and let him escape. It's still the cops showing up with guns in Germany, they just don't shoot you. That's your goal in the states, not abolishing the whole force because 200 years ago they were catching slaves. He doesn't actually want to abolish the police... I most certainly do. Time to go into another 5 page tangent try to figure out what GH means by "abolish" and "the police". Actually, let's just skip to the end On June 06 2020 01:11 Simberto wrote:On June 05 2020 23:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2020 23:39 Sr18 wrote:
GH, how would you go about law enforcing without law enforcement? It seems impossible to me. First, law enforcement and police aren't synonymous, as we see criminal cops literally all over the country right now. I don't understand the questions because they presume a relationship between police, crime, and society that doesn't exist. Like the "why don't you peacefully protest instead" assumes a relationship between politicians actions and the people protesting that simply doesn't exist. Okay, i think i see where you are coming from, and also why people are really confused. If i understand you correctly, when you say "the police", you mean the organisation which is currently called police in the US, with all its structural problems on so forth. So if you say "abolish the police", you mean to get rid of this organisation, and come up with another organisation without these problems to do law enforcement (but not some of the additional stuff that police in the US tend to do, and especially not the racist and/or overly violent parts) Is that how you use that word? Meanwhile, when people you are discussing with say "police", they mean "a law enforcement agency of some sort". Which leads to lots of confusion, because a society without any law enforcement agency whatsoever sounds like a very utopian concept which doesn't really fit with reality very well. But getting rid of the currently problem-riddled US police organisations and replacing them with something else is not that absurd. What "replacing them" means is what Wegandi and I were discussing. THATS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SAYING. You don't want to get rid of the police you want to replace the police with a lot more police that do different things. Therefore saying that you want to get rid of police is a lie.
It's not, but I don't see this going anywhere at this point. I most certainly want to abolish the police.
If you're arguing we also never abolished slavery and just replaced it, I might better understand your argument.
|
|
|
On July 16 2020 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2020 04:24 Sermokala wrote:On July 16 2020 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 16 2020 03:14 Sbrubbles wrote:On July 16 2020 02:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 16 2020 02:48 Sermokala wrote:On July 15 2020 20:47 Broetchenholer wrote:
I don't really understand your stance on abolishing the police GH. Other countries have crime as well, have no history of slavery and still see it necessary to police crime. The American definition of crime is mostly the same as the French or German, still their police force is not strangling minorities to death to the American extent. If the social contract is broken, you need someone to solve that. The question is how to approach the crime/criminal, not whether the crime was historically enforced more on minorities.
The German police caused a shitstorm yesterday, because they approached a person known to love guns without confrontation, so that guy suddenly pulled a gun on them. They disarmed themselves afterwards and let him escape. It's still the cops showing up with guns in Germany, they just don't shoot you. That's your goal in the states, not abolishing the whole force because 200 years ago they were catching slaves. He doesn't actually want to abolish the police... I most certainly do. Time to go into another 5 page tangent try to figure out what GH means by "abolish" and "the police". Actually, let's just skip to the end On June 06 2020 01:11 Simberto wrote:On June 05 2020 23:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2020 23:39 Sr18 wrote:
GH, how would you go about law enforcing without law enforcement? It seems impossible to me. First, law enforcement and police aren't synonymous, as we see criminal cops literally all over the country right now. I don't understand the questions because they presume a relationship between police, crime, and society that doesn't exist. Like the "why don't you peacefully protest instead" assumes a relationship between politicians actions and the people protesting that simply doesn't exist. Okay, i think i see where you are coming from, and also why people are really confused. If i understand you correctly, when you say "the police", you mean the organisation which is currently called police in the US, with all its structural problems on so forth. So if you say "abolish the police", you mean to get rid of this organisation, and come up with another organisation without these problems to do law enforcement (but not some of the additional stuff that police in the US tend to do, and especially not the racist and/or overly violent parts) Is that how you use that word? Meanwhile, when people you are discussing with say "police", they mean "a law enforcement agency of some sort". Which leads to lots of confusion, because a society without any law enforcement agency whatsoever sounds like a very utopian concept which doesn't really fit with reality very well. But getting rid of the currently problem-riddled US police organisations and replacing them with something else is not that absurd. What "replacing them" means is what Wegandi and I were discussing. THATS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SAYING. You don't want to get rid of the police you want to replace the police with a lot more police that do different things. Therefore saying that you want to get rid of police is a lie. It's not, but I don't see this going anywhere at this point. I most certainly want to abolish the police. If you're arguing we also never abolished slavery and just replaced it, I might better understand your argument.
Once you're done abolishing the police, who will take the role they have in other western countries ? Just different individuals in a different organization ?
|
On July 16 2020 07:47 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2020 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 16 2020 04:24 Sermokala wrote:On July 16 2020 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 16 2020 03:14 Sbrubbles wrote:On July 16 2020 02:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 16 2020 02:48 Sermokala wrote:On July 15 2020 20:47 Broetchenholer wrote:
I don't really understand your stance on abolishing the police GH. Other countries have crime as well, have no history of slavery and still see it necessary to police crime. The American definition of crime is mostly the same as the French or German, still their police force is not strangling minorities to death to the American extent. If the social contract is broken, you need someone to solve that. The question is how to approach the crime/criminal, not whether the crime was historically enforced more on minorities.
The German police caused a shitstorm yesterday, because they approached a person known to love guns without confrontation, so that guy suddenly pulled a gun on them. They disarmed themselves afterwards and let him escape. It's still the cops showing up with guns in Germany, they just don't shoot you. That's your goal in the states, not abolishing the whole force because 200 years ago they were catching slaves. He doesn't actually want to abolish the police... I most certainly do. Time to go into another 5 page tangent try to figure out what GH means by "abolish" and "the police". Actually, let's just skip to the end On June 06 2020 01:11 Simberto wrote:On June 05 2020 23:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2020 23:39 Sr18 wrote:
GH, how would you go about law enforcing without law enforcement? It seems impossible to me. First, law enforcement and police aren't synonymous, as we see criminal cops literally all over the country right now. I don't understand the questions because they presume a relationship between police, crime, and society that doesn't exist. Like the "why don't you peacefully protest instead" assumes a relationship between politicians actions and the people protesting that simply doesn't exist. Okay, i think i see where you are coming from, and also why people are really confused. If i understand you correctly, when you say "the police", you mean the organisation which is currently called police in the US, with all its structural problems on so forth. So if you say "abolish the police", you mean to get rid of this organisation, and come up with another organisation without these problems to do law enforcement (but not some of the additional stuff that police in the US tend to do, and especially not the racist and/or overly violent parts) Is that how you use that word? Meanwhile, when people you are discussing with say "police", they mean "a law enforcement agency of some sort". Which leads to lots of confusion, because a society without any law enforcement agency whatsoever sounds like a very utopian concept which doesn't really fit with reality very well. But getting rid of the currently problem-riddled US police organisations and replacing them with something else is not that absurd. What "replacing them" means is what Wegandi and I were discussing. THATS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SAYING. You don't want to get rid of the police you want to replace the police with a lot more police that do different things. Therefore saying that you want to get rid of police is a lie. It's not, but I don't see this going anywhere at this point. I most certainly want to abolish the police. If you're arguing we also never abolished slavery and just replaced it, I might better understand your argument. Once you're done abolishing the police, who will take the role they have in other western countries ? Just different individuals in a different organization ?
Things will just magically work out. Of course, first you need to dismantle capitalism because it makes people evil.
|
On July 16 2020 07:47 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2020 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 16 2020 04:24 Sermokala wrote:On July 16 2020 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 16 2020 03:14 Sbrubbles wrote:On July 16 2020 02:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 16 2020 02:48 Sermokala wrote:On July 15 2020 20:47 Broetchenholer wrote:
I don't really understand your stance on abolishing the police GH. Other countries have crime as well, have no history of slavery and still see it necessary to police crime. The American definition of crime is mostly the same as the French or German, still their police force is not strangling minorities to death to the American extent. If the social contract is broken, you need someone to solve that. The question is how to approach the crime/criminal, not whether the crime was historically enforced more on minorities.
The German police caused a shitstorm yesterday, because they approached a person known to love guns without confrontation, so that guy suddenly pulled a gun on them. They disarmed themselves afterwards and let him escape. It's still the cops showing up with guns in Germany, they just don't shoot you. That's your goal in the states, not abolishing the whole force because 200 years ago they were catching slaves. He doesn't actually want to abolish the police... I most certainly do. Time to go into another 5 page tangent try to figure out what GH means by "abolish" and "the police". Actually, let's just skip to the end On June 06 2020 01:11 Simberto wrote:On June 05 2020 23:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2020 23:39 Sr18 wrote:
GH, how would you go about law enforcing without law enforcement? It seems impossible to me. First, law enforcement and police aren't synonymous, as we see criminal cops literally all over the country right now. I don't understand the questions because they presume a relationship between police, crime, and society that doesn't exist. Like the "why don't you peacefully protest instead" assumes a relationship between politicians actions and the people protesting that simply doesn't exist. Okay, i think i see where you are coming from, and also why people are really confused. If i understand you correctly, when you say "the police", you mean the organisation which is currently called police in the US, with all its structural problems on so forth. So if you say "abolish the police", you mean to get rid of this organisation, and come up with another organisation without these problems to do law enforcement (but not some of the additional stuff that police in the US tend to do, and especially not the racist and/or overly violent parts) Is that how you use that word? Meanwhile, when people you are discussing with say "police", they mean "a law enforcement agency of some sort". Which leads to lots of confusion, because a society without any law enforcement agency whatsoever sounds like a very utopian concept which doesn't really fit with reality very well. But getting rid of the currently problem-riddled US police organisations and replacing them with something else is not that absurd. What "replacing them" means is what Wegandi and I were discussing. THATS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SAYING. You don't want to get rid of the police you want to replace the police with a lot more police that do different things. Therefore saying that you want to get rid of police is a lie. It's not, but I don't see this going anywhere at this point. I most certainly want to abolish the police. If you're arguing we also never abolished slavery and just replaced it, I might better understand your argument. Once you're done abolishing the police, who will take the role they have in other western countries ? Just different individuals in a different organization ?
Wegandi and I were exploring to what degree they should be replaced/imitated. That's why I mentioned the abolition of slavery. If people want to play stupid semantic games they can, but then they'd have to explain whether the abolition of slavery was also a lie and instead just replaced with different individuals in different organizations.
EDIT: I'll pick it up with Wegandi or drop it at this point.
|
On July 16 2020 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2020 07:47 Erasme wrote:On July 16 2020 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 16 2020 04:24 Sermokala wrote:On July 16 2020 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 16 2020 03:14 Sbrubbles wrote:On July 16 2020 02:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 16 2020 02:48 Sermokala wrote:On July 15 2020 20:47 Broetchenholer wrote:
I don't really understand your stance on abolishing the police GH. Other countries have crime as well, have no history of slavery and still see it necessary to police crime. The American definition of crime is mostly the same as the French or German, still their police force is not strangling minorities to death to the American extent. If the social contract is broken, you need someone to solve that. The question is how to approach the crime/criminal, not whether the crime was historically enforced more on minorities.
The German police caused a shitstorm yesterday, because they approached a person known to love guns without confrontation, so that guy suddenly pulled a gun on them. They disarmed themselves afterwards and let him escape. It's still the cops showing up with guns in Germany, they just don't shoot you. That's your goal in the states, not abolishing the whole force because 200 years ago they were catching slaves. He doesn't actually want to abolish the police... I most certainly do. Time to go into another 5 page tangent try to figure out what GH means by "abolish" and "the police". Actually, let's just skip to the end On June 06 2020 01:11 Simberto wrote:On June 05 2020 23:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2020 23:39 Sr18 wrote:
GH, how would you go about law enforcing without law enforcement? It seems impossible to me. First, law enforcement and police aren't synonymous, as we see criminal cops literally all over the country right now. I don't understand the questions because they presume a relationship between police, crime, and society that doesn't exist. Like the "why don't you peacefully protest instead" assumes a relationship between politicians actions and the people protesting that simply doesn't exist. Okay, i think i see where you are coming from, and also why people are really confused. If i understand you correctly, when you say "the police", you mean the organisation which is currently called police in the US, with all its structural problems on so forth. So if you say "abolish the police", you mean to get rid of this organisation, and come up with another organisation without these problems to do law enforcement (but not some of the additional stuff that police in the US tend to do, and especially not the racist and/or overly violent parts) Is that how you use that word? Meanwhile, when people you are discussing with say "police", they mean "a law enforcement agency of some sort". Which leads to lots of confusion, because a society without any law enforcement agency whatsoever sounds like a very utopian concept which doesn't really fit with reality very well. But getting rid of the currently problem-riddled US police organisations and replacing them with something else is not that absurd. What "replacing them" means is what Wegandi and I were discussing. THATS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SAYING. You don't want to get rid of the police you want to replace the police with a lot more police that do different things. Therefore saying that you want to get rid of police is a lie. It's not, but I don't see this going anywhere at this point. I most certainly want to abolish the police. If you're arguing we also never abolished slavery and just replaced it, I might better understand your argument. Once you're done abolishing the police, who will take the role they have in other western countries ? Just different individuals in a different organization ? Wegandi and I were exploring to what degree they should be replaced/imitated. That's why I mentioned the abolition of slavery. If people want to play stupid semantic games they can, but then they'd have to explain whether the abolition of slavery was also a lie and instead just replaced with different individuals in different organizations.
"Police" to you means something besides "state-sanctioned entity capable of law enforcement through violent means", and when you don't define what that is in a straightforward matter, it's obvious discussion will consistently return to trying to figure out what you mean.
Just like if you make a claim that slavery was never abolished, just replaced, then we'd devolve into discussing what the heck you mean by "slavery".
|
On July 16 2020 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2020 07:47 Erasme wrote:On July 16 2020 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 16 2020 04:24 Sermokala wrote:On July 16 2020 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 16 2020 03:14 Sbrubbles wrote:On July 16 2020 02:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 16 2020 02:48 Sermokala wrote:On July 15 2020 20:47 Broetchenholer wrote:
I don't really understand your stance on abolishing the police GH. Other countries have crime as well, have no history of slavery and still see it necessary to police crime. The American definition of crime is mostly the same as the French or German, still their police force is not strangling minorities to death to the American extent. If the social contract is broken, you need someone to solve that. The question is how to approach the crime/criminal, not whether the crime was historically enforced more on minorities.
The German police caused a shitstorm yesterday, because they approached a person known to love guns without confrontation, so that guy suddenly pulled a gun on them. They disarmed themselves afterwards and let him escape. It's still the cops showing up with guns in Germany, they just don't shoot you. That's your goal in the states, not abolishing the whole force because 200 years ago they were catching slaves. He doesn't actually want to abolish the police... I most certainly do. Time to go into another 5 page tangent try to figure out what GH means by "abolish" and "the police". Actually, let's just skip to the end On June 06 2020 01:11 Simberto wrote:On June 05 2020 23:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2020 23:39 Sr18 wrote:
GH, how would you go about law enforcing without law enforcement? It seems impossible to me. First, law enforcement and police aren't synonymous, as we see criminal cops literally all over the country right now. I don't understand the questions because they presume a relationship between police, crime, and society that doesn't exist. Like the "why don't you peacefully protest instead" assumes a relationship between politicians actions and the people protesting that simply doesn't exist. Okay, i think i see where you are coming from, and also why people are really confused. If i understand you correctly, when you say "the police", you mean the organisation which is currently called police in the US, with all its structural problems on so forth. So if you say "abolish the police", you mean to get rid of this organisation, and come up with another organisation without these problems to do law enforcement (but not some of the additional stuff that police in the US tend to do, and especially not the racist and/or overly violent parts) Is that how you use that word? Meanwhile, when people you are discussing with say "police", they mean "a law enforcement agency of some sort". Which leads to lots of confusion, because a society without any law enforcement agency whatsoever sounds like a very utopian concept which doesn't really fit with reality very well. But getting rid of the currently problem-riddled US police organisations and replacing them with something else is not that absurd. What "replacing them" means is what Wegandi and I were discussing. THATS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SAYING. You don't want to get rid of the police you want to replace the police with a lot more police that do different things. Therefore saying that you want to get rid of police is a lie. It's not, but I don't see this going anywhere at this point. I most certainly want to abolish the police. If you're arguing we also never abolished slavery and just replaced it, I might better understand your argument. Once you're done abolishing the police, who will take the role they have in other western countries ? Just different individuals in a different organization ? Wegandi and I were exploring to what degree they should be replaced/imitated. That's why I mentioned the abolition of slavery. If people want to play stupid semantic games they can, but then they'd have to explain whether the abolition of slavery was also a lie and instead just replaced with different individuals in different organizations.
The abolition of slavery has no impact on other western "polices". So let's not play stupid semantic games and bring that into it. In the end, you will need some form of state entity that is allowed to use violence in specific conditions. I guess I can boil this to a simple question. Would you be against that entity ?
|
Northern Ireland26078 Posts
On July 16 2020 04:45 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2020 04:20 svl3 wrote:
Sigh, way to dodge what I said to address this exact issue, though it is true I was off on the current %. Most people were hired decades ago. Tenured professors almost never leave their job until they retired for good.
White people are still over-represented in new hires, it's not an old people problem. Then I'll obviously decline to engage in a discussion that is not really going anywhere. The information is solid and it is out there. You could start by googling 'leaky pipeline in stem'. Show nested quote +
I meant in the same context, not for salaries negotiated decades ago (and are outside of STEM). As I mentioned, research grants favor minorities. Research funding is the primary variable in determining a salary for bio professors (and any field where external funding is common). In fact, when applying for funding, even non-black people are desperate to write paragraphs about diversity and mention they had a black summer student one time and so on, because without it you'll lose to a similar candidate who has it... But anyways, I think the salary for a professorship has little room for negotiation (can be pre-determined before candidates apply) outside of the influence of existing funding which comes from external reviews, and in that underrepresented minorities are held to a lower standard to get the same funding.
I admit I do not have data for America on this one, but in the UK, white PIs consistently have higher award rates than ethnic minority PIs. You could potentially argue that America is different, but these trends are pretty global. I'd be happy to look at whatever evidence you can find in this respect. Show nested quote +Welcome to America, where the Civil Rights Act has not been followed according to that clear statement in numerous cases. https://www.thecollegefix.com/columbia-professor-who-fled-communism-resigns-says-university-is-becoming-communist/' "Serban, who was the director of the hiring committee, says that he was told that it could not be someone like him because he is a man that has been “married, a heterosexual man who has children.”
The professor says that he then asked if they could choose a straight white male if the most qualified candidate happened to be so, and was promptly told that they could not. “I felt like I was living under communism again,” he said ' That contains an explicit discrimination claim. But we can't really say affirmative action is not going to have a similar effect with discrimination, especially when there are so few positions in this field. It's all subjective. If you hire an 18 year old black high school graduate because you allege the diversity weight is very valued, against some suitable Asian male candidate, who gets to say when it is discrimination or not? I'm of the view that Asians are discriminated against very plainly in college admissions cases, it is only willful deceit to pretend otherwise that the country arbitrarily says is OK. Regardless of disagreement on that off-topic principle, the point in contention was about the ease of getting a job as a minority. Both discrimination and affirmative action-like cases are relevant there, whatever the status of any law. If you think diversity is not weighted as a criteria you probably have not looked for a job in academia in recent years. Answering your last question, I literally started my new job in academia 2 weeks ago... With regards to your other point. Discrimination on the basis of race is illegal. Race is a protected characteristic. I actually read the article you linked, the guy resigned because he couldn't countenance a trangender student playing Juliet: Show nested quote +A second incident involving a male-to-female transgender student was the final impetus for Serban to resign, according to the translated video.
While reviewing applicants to the theater school, the transgender student prepared Juliet’s monologue from “Romeo and Juliet.”
Serban says that he could not believe that this person could become Juliet. After his colleagues expressed displeasure with him for stating as much, Serban resigned, saying that he could not violate his principles. Let's just say that your source of information here on hiring practices does not look particularly reliable. I'd be happy to look at any other source you can find for this.
It’s an intriguing area, I’m unsure what the answers are. In theory more diverse employee populations should over time organically settle on some new norms, but then again the culture is so set that even people who aren’t straight white dudes can still show them favour.
It’s a rather stratified problem too. The first, large tier that encompasses a disproportionate amount of minorities and that’s just poor people, for whom poverty is a barrier to educational opportunity, so plenty are excluded at this juncture.
Then your undergrad levels, who chooses to do what programs, who perhaps feels courses aren’t for people like them at a culturally ingrained level and how that manifests in choices.
Then the transition into post-grads and academia and how those factors come into play in that particular environment, and so on and so forth. Different approaches may be appropriate remedies at each particular point.
I’m in favour of attempting it. Despite me personally for once wanting to be a woman (for once) for the process of re-schooling in software engineering. I’m under crippling stress financially trying to afford it, plenty of rather juicy grants and bursaries are there if you’re a woman going into that field here.
Which I’m not up in arms about, it seems ineffective as an approach to me. Young women picking their undergrad will either already be considering it, or have long been turned off about learning about computers as it’s ‘not for them’ or what have you.
From briefly volunteering in doing workshops with younger girls they pretty quickly drop those self-imposed mental barriers if they’re exposed to it in a suitable environment. Unfortunately it’s difficult to bring that exposure, especially to the less salubrious schools.
I guess in my rambling way getting the base intake to be more equivalent makes it easier for institutions to maintain a more diverse internal environment and would reduce the necessity of some diversity initiatives and quota systems and whatnot.
|
On July 16 2020 04:45 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2020 04:20 svl3 wrote:
Sigh, way to dodge what I said to address this exact issue, though it is true I was off on the current %. Most people were hired decades ago. Tenured professors almost never leave their job until they retired for good.
White people are still over-represented in new hires, it's not an old people problem. Then I'll obviously decline to engage in a discussion that is not really going anywhere. The information is solid and it is out there. You could start by googling 'leaky pipeline in stem'. Show nested quote +
I meant in the same context, not for salaries negotiated decades ago (and are outside of STEM). As I mentioned, research grants favor minorities. Research funding is the primary variable in determining a salary for bio professors (and any field where external funding is common). In fact, when applying for funding, even non-black people are desperate to write paragraphs about diversity and mention they had a black summer student one time and so on, because without it you'll lose to a similar candidate who has it... But anyways, I think the salary for a professorship has little room for negotiation (can be pre-determined before candidates apply) outside of the influence of existing funding which comes from external reviews, and in that underrepresented minorities are held to a lower standard to get the same funding.
I admit I do not have data for America on this one, but in the UK, white PIs consistently have higher award rates than ethnic minority PIs. You could potentially argue that America is different, but these trends are pretty global. I'd be happy to look at whatever evidence you can find in this respect. Show nested quote +Welcome to America, where the Civil Rights Act has not been followed according to that clear statement in numerous cases. https://www.thecollegefix.com/columbia-professor-who-fled-communism-resigns-says-university-is-becoming-communist/' "Serban, who was the director of the hiring committee, says that he was told that it could not be someone like him because he is a man that has been “married, a heterosexual man who has children.”
The professor says that he then asked if they could choose a straight white male if the most qualified candidate happened to be so, and was promptly told that they could not. “I felt like I was living under communism again,” he said ' That contains an explicit discrimination claim. But we can't really say affirmative action is not going to have a similar effect with discrimination, especially when there are so few positions in this field. It's all subjective. If you hire an 18 year old black high school graduate because you allege the diversity weight is very valued, against some suitable Asian male candidate, who gets to say when it is discrimination or not? I'm of the view that Asians are discriminated against very plainly in college admissions cases, it is only willful deceit to pretend otherwise that the country arbitrarily says is OK. Regardless of disagreement on that off-topic principle, the point in contention was about the ease of getting a job as a minority. Both discrimination and affirmative action-like cases are relevant there, whatever the status of any law. If you think diversity is not weighted as a criteria you probably have not looked for a job in academia in recent years. Answering your last question, I literally started my new job in academia 2 weeks ago... With regards to your other point. Discrimination on the basis of race is illegal. Race is a protected characteristic. I actually read the article you linked, the guy resigned because he couldn't countenance a trangender student playing Juliet: Show nested quote +A second incident involving a male-to-female transgender student was the final impetus for Serban to resign, according to the translated video.
While reviewing applicants to the theater school, the transgender student prepared Juliet’s monologue from “Romeo and Juliet.”
Serban says that he could not believe that this person could become Juliet. After his colleagues expressed displeasure with him for stating as much, Serban resigned, saying that he could not violate his principles. Let's just say that your source of information here on hiring practices does not look particularly reliable. I'd be happy to look at any other source you can find for this.
On top of already acknowledging there was no evidence of racial discrimination in candidate selection from the paper's quotes, the 70% of White junior faculty and over-representation of Asians that you point to seemed to fail to adjust for the proportions of different candidates from each group before hand. They did not disclose the number of applicants were white, it would not be surprising if it was over 70%. It doesn't make sense to use population averages of a country and ignore that the distribution is vastly different in various niches. It might happen that they select black candidates at a 10x higher rate when they do have an applicant. That's before even considering other alternatives like objective application strength (funding being carried with them and past papers, etc). The hypothesis of systemic discrimination occurring when Asian's get overrepresented seems weak to the point of being a parody.
I find it odd you would complain the convo is not "going anywhere" because I disagreed for reasons that were clearly substantiated and mostly non-controversial. My original post was about the initial topic of foreign job competition relating to Unis. The reason for mentioning diversity hiring was to address an impact on foreign hires, and my expectation that this would not help domestic minorities, for the reasons I've gone on about repeatedly.
Your suggested topic to google ("leak in STEM" )led me to a Wiki page that merely says that women and minorities drop out of STEM degrees more often. This seems not related to the hiring decision unless you advocate hiring dropouts or giving favoritism to a group that had more drop outs. The Wiki page does not indicate that discrimination caused it. Any unfairness involved is speculative, apparently theoretical sociology... An opinion, not objective evidence. No focus given to the possibility that perhaps they chose to switch majors for individual and personal preferences. It seems ironic to see people drop out of a degree and then complain there are too many men when they actively decided not to be involved. The biggest factor in those decisions in my experience is not whether a field is "welcoming" or diverse, but how well you do on exams or things like your excitement level.
The topic is similar to every single point you've made (without addressing any alternatives raised). It's always: there is a disparity in the numbers, therefore seems like someone is to blame for racism. Maybe they did not do as good in the field. If we don't attempt to rigorously identify the underlying reason, trying to go for population quotas based on race is a random attempt of a solution.
The point about the UK seems like we're now totally switching topics, but OK. (You seem interested in racial justice narratives rather than the discussion about the relationship with the US Uni policy.) Anyways...You pointed to a 9 percentage point decrease in awards for PIs, and don't mention it was the reverse (3 points higher) for minority Fellowship awards. Does this mean Whites are discriminated against in Fellowships? For PIs, how do I know it is not similar to Koreans in SC? How would you respond to some outsider popping up and talking about the systemic anti-non-Korean SC industry? Maybe in that group from the link White people actually wrote better applications on average. They again do not appear to look at much nuance- seems they do not look at multiple variables together, like Age and Ethnicity. It said older applicants were more successful, but ethnicities are simply compared with all ages together. Fellowships are usually for younger candidates, so pro-minority awarding seems reasonable when accounting for age (if not likely).
Congratulations on your new job. With regard to the current points of discussion, I don't mean to pry, but it is probably different between a PI position or post-doc and PhD student (as mostly independent choices by PIs / less administrative control). 99% of Professorship applications require a diversity statement about what you do to promote diversity/equity/inclusion, and the strongest card there is being diverse yourself. Committees within the school also give pressure to departments to select someone more diverse...this is not a secret.
I can give a simple example from my experience in my PhD program in the case of gender. We had ~50% female professors in new hires the past 5 years, but whenever a female candidate came up, most of the women would lobby and demand that she be chosen in the meetings voting on who to hire. This I heard this from my adviser, who was a female, because she was frequently pressured to join the group and told to choose the woman too because there was a discriminatory "boys club" that she had to fight against (which my adviser, from outside the US it happens, and thus untrained in Western feminism, thought was weird and without evidence).
I have no idea why you focus on the transgender issue from the Serban article. It came up there, but wasn't related to our topic. Whatever you think about a play and him quitting, this was brought up to say he was straight out told he cannot hire a straight white male if that was the best candidate for a job...
For some sources about grant awards, as an example there is data among Physician Scientist NIH R01s (random category chosen). NIH awards I think are inarguably the key force for salary and hiring as a PI in Bio for the US. This used applicants of similar background (i.e., having had prior K awards) and reveals no pattern of blacks or hispanics getting less awards. In contrast, multiple years from the 1999-2012 data had 100% of minority applicants getting awarded (for black/hispanic/native American). E.g., year 2000: 100% black applications funded, 33.3% Hispanic, 16.7% Asian, 41.4% White. Similar occurred in over half the years for different minorities and 3 times with blacks. Whites never had the highest success rate in a single year. The average black success rate was higher than Asian for all the years shown. I can probably look up similar data elsewhere later if needed.
https://report.nih.gov/Workforce/PSW/appendix_iv_a5_12.aspx#MD_Asian_Hispanic_White__1999_2012
Weird to think you'd see multiple occasions of under-represented minorities getting 100% funding rates for the far-and-away largest driving factor for career success in this field if there is "systemic racism" against them. I don't think we should draw any conclusions simply from proportions in random job positions. It's a weak association to attempt to use anywhere, and it seems that all of the substantial, strong evidence, to the contrary is not addressed. Selectively ignoring actual evidence in order to favor the desired hypothesis that white people in STEM are guilty of the extremely hideous evil of racism. Doesn't seem very nice.
|
It's funny how you attack the positions of other people by saying they do not show evidence and then not ever include any evidence yourself. If you do not believe there is racism in general hiring, as you expressed in a post above, but hold your own experience and anecdotes of people you know as evidence for your argument, maybe you should not request others to qualify their positions with scientific proof. To believe that racism is hiring cannot exist because companies do not want to hurt themselves with worse employees is so far away from reality it hurts.
It's like stating humans cannot commit crimes because they are forbidden.
|
On July 16 2020 08:33 Wombat_NI wrote:
I’m in favour of attempting it. Despite me personally for once wanting to be a woman (for once) for the process of re-schooling in software engineering. I’m under crippling stress financially trying to afford it, plenty of rather juicy grants and bursaries are there if you’re a woman going into that field here.
Which I’m not up in arms about, it seems ineffective as an approach to me. Young women picking their undergrad will either already be considering it, or have long been turned off about learning about computers as it’s ‘not for them’ or what have you.
Software engineering workplaces [and pretty much all new 'tech'] have well-documented hostile environment towards women, so you'd also have to live with a lifetime's worth of discrimination if you were a woman in this field. This has a pretty strong effect in choosing to go down this path in the first place.
|
On July 16 2020 14:54 svl3 wrote:
Congratulations on your new job. With regard to the current points of discussion, I don't mean to pry, but it is probably different between a PI position or post-doc and PhD student (as mostly independent choices by PIs / less administrative control). 99% of Professorship applications require a diversity statement about what you do to promote diversity/equity/inclusion, and the strongest card there is being diverse yourself. Committees within the school also give pressure to departments to select someone more diverse...this is not a secret.
I find it amusing that you assume I'm a postdoc or PhD student. Anyway, I've been part of 3 hiring committees involving around 30 interviews. We requested candidates to provide an EDI statement with a title 'how would you champion EDI at our institution'. The candidates that scored highly were the ones that brought in interesting ideas and understood the concept. Two of our candidates who were from under-represented groups themselves completely tanked it by making it exclusively about race in one case, and the other for making it exclusively about gender. It turns out that being from an underrepresented group yourself does not, in fact, give you a free pass when it comes to implementing EDI.
Fun fact, there was little correlation between ethnicity and gender and how well the candidates understood EDI. One candidate from a minority background even made the point that women in academia were only getting their jobs because they were women, i.e. to fill a quota; similar to the point you're making.
|
On July 16 2020 16:21 Broetchenholer wrote:
It's funny how you attack the positions of other people by saying they do not show evidence and then not ever include any evidence yourself. If you do not believe there is racism in general hiring, as you expressed in a post above, but hold your own experience and anecdotes of people you know as evidence for your argument, maybe you should not request others to qualify their positions with scientific proof. To believe that racism is hiring cannot exist because companies do not want to hurt themselves with worse employees is so far away from reality it hurts.
It's like stating humans cannot commit crimes because they are forbidden.
I mean, I just linked an analysis on awards based on race for people in my field, for awards which are the largest factor in hiring and promotion, and it fully supported my claims. I think that's better evidence than just mentioning a disparity across races in a random field. Meanwhile you did not post evidence and complain about lack of evidence somehow. It seems you must believe pointing out disparities qualifies as a convincing argument, maybe you can explain that to me as this is not a universally accepted view. You might also want to address why an allegedly racist system actually led to over-representation of certain minorities too. The logic with linking racism to disparities seems internally inconsistent when you look at more than the two groups found have a lower than population-level representation in this topic.
Otherwise you might consider if someone wants to make an accusation of racism or any crime, that should be the side that has the burden of proof. If you claim there is racism but can't show exactly where it is, there is no way to effectively resolve it anyway... I'd like to see someone show me actual info of black applicants in Biology with a stellar application that get rejected from a grant or job opportunity. It's really the type of thing to make me say I'd eat my shoes if you can show this happens. Finding disparities is not convincing by any way I can see. I can't make a more simple example than the one mentioned before- this is like saying there is an anti-non-Korean racism present in the system of Starcraft. I think I do not need to provide a source to make that point.
My anecdotes were examples, I'm in this field, I think it's not strange to refer to my experience. I don't think someone in the same system would think it is strange (for Ender_ that I'm arguing with I'm not sure at what point he is at in the US system and for what length of time, but I think in general most there for a long time won't find my anecdotes to be abnormal). The parts about Diversity requirements in hiring at Unis is common too. You could actually go look at job listings for Professor posted online and see it is usually in the initial application process. Universities openly state they have an initiative to increase Diversity and this is entirely consistent with what I claimed. If you actually don't believe these parts I can provide links, but I don't think they actually are not believed. As you didn't really take issue with any point I made from my anecdotes it feels like you're just making a vague smear. :/
For the idea about companies not likely to be racist at their own expense, my point is just that this would be weird, to me. I never said it was proof and never imagined it could be taken that simplistically. Or perhaps you do not use that logic but it is really an issue with having a different viewpoint.
Your analogy was quite different. You write it to indicate that humans cannot commit crimes in a clearly different set of conditions, in an attempt to paint it as ridiculous. You do not indicate there is a trade off with forbidding crimes through there being some punishment, and also write it so that it applies to all humans and all crimes to make it yet more ridiculous. If you correct these things, the analogy would obviously work. I at least hope it would not be difficult to agree that humans would commit less crimes if there were rules enforced with punishments, or do you need a source for that? Again, I was just speculating maybe people will be racist if there are no consequences, but personally I'd find it strange if they would prefer that over their own profit. Apparently you disagree -- so terribly sorry for having a different opinion and experience than you.
|
On July 16 2020 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2020 04:24 Sermokala wrote:On July 16 2020 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 16 2020 03:14 Sbrubbles wrote:On July 16 2020 02:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 16 2020 02:48 Sermokala wrote:On July 15 2020 20:47 Broetchenholer wrote:
I don't really understand your stance on abolishing the police GH. Other countries have crime as well, have no history of slavery and still see it necessary to police crime. The American definition of crime is mostly the same as the French or German, still their police force is not strangling minorities to death to the American extent. If the social contract is broken, you need someone to solve that. The question is how to approach the crime/criminal, not whether the crime was historically enforced more on minorities.
The German police caused a shitstorm yesterday, because they approached a person known to love guns without confrontation, so that guy suddenly pulled a gun on them. They disarmed themselves afterwards and let him escape. It's still the cops showing up with guns in Germany, they just don't shoot you. That's your goal in the states, not abolishing the whole force because 200 years ago they were catching slaves. He doesn't actually want to abolish the police... I most certainly do. Time to go into another 5 page tangent try to figure out what GH means by "abolish" and "the police". Actually, let's just skip to the end On June 06 2020 01:11 Simberto wrote:On June 05 2020 23:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2020 23:39 Sr18 wrote:
GH, how would you go about law enforcing without law enforcement? It seems impossible to me. First, law enforcement and police aren't synonymous, as we see criminal cops literally all over the country right now. I don't understand the questions because they presume a relationship between police, crime, and society that doesn't exist. Like the "why don't you peacefully protest instead" assumes a relationship between politicians actions and the people protesting that simply doesn't exist. Okay, i think i see where you are coming from, and also why people are really confused. If i understand you correctly, when you say "the police", you mean the organisation which is currently called police in the US, with all its structural problems on so forth. So if you say "abolish the police", you mean to get rid of this organisation, and come up with another organisation without these problems to do law enforcement (but not some of the additional stuff that police in the US tend to do, and especially not the racist and/or overly violent parts) Is that how you use that word? Meanwhile, when people you are discussing with say "police", they mean "a law enforcement agency of some sort". Which leads to lots of confusion, because a society without any law enforcement agency whatsoever sounds like a very utopian concept which doesn't really fit with reality very well. But getting rid of the currently problem-riddled US police organisations and replacing them with something else is not that absurd. What "replacing them" means is what Wegandi and I were discussing. THATS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SAYING. You don't want to get rid of the police you want to replace the police with a lot more police that do different things. Therefore saying that you want to get rid of police is a lie. It's not, but I don't see this going anywhere at this point. I most certainly want to abolish the police. If you're arguing we also never abolished slavery and just replaced it, I might better understand your argument.
Are you now comparing the struggle to abolish slavery to the struggle of abolishing the police?
"we need to get the cops out of black nabourhoods" i read a few pages back.
But the police already is out of black nabourhoods. You wont see much police deep in the hood in the bronx or similar urban areas in other citys,there is many NO GO areas for the police in the usa. The people living in those areas who want try make something of their life face a huge uphill battle.
Now imagine the police leaving nabourhoods which are slightly better then "deep in the hood" and which have a slightly more diversed population,what would that do to those nabourhoods and the people living there? Would that make the situation in those nabourhoods any better?
The problem is there beeing black nabourhoods (and schools) in the first place. How can you expect racism to come down when people are living highly segregated from other population groups. There is a lot of segregation within the usa and in the end this segregation is caused largely by economic circomstances.
If anything the fight against racism starts with more police,not less. Get a more diversified police force,more people of color working as police officers. Get a more integrated society,which in the end starts with more economic equality.
|
On July 16 2020 19:48 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2020 14:54 svl3 wrote:
Congratulations on your new job. With regard to the current points of discussion, I don't mean to pry, but it is probably different between a PI position or post-doc and PhD student (as mostly independent choices by PIs / less administrative control). 99% of Professorship applications require a diversity statement about what you do to promote diversity/equity/inclusion, and the strongest card there is being diverse yourself. Committees within the school also give pressure to departments to select someone more diverse...this is not a secret.
I find it amusing that you assume I'm a postdoc or PhD student. Anyway, I've been part of 3 hiring committees involving around 30 interviews. We requested candidates to provide an EDI statement with a title 'how would you champion EDI at our institution'. The candidates that scored highly were the ones that brought in interesting ideas and understood the concept. Two of our candidates who were from under-represented groups themselves completely tanked it by making it exclusively about race in one case, and the other for making it exclusively about gender. It turns out that being from an underrepresented group yourself does not, in fact, give you a free pass when it comes to implementing EDI. Fun fact, there was little correlation between ethnicity and gender and how well the candidates understood EDI. One candidate from a minority background even made the point that women in academia were only getting their jobs because they were women, i.e. to fill a quota; similar to the point you're making.
I didn't assume that. Your statements before implied a higher rank than postdoc. But I then found it odd for someone (assuming it is in the US system) to seem to not be aware of the impact of diversity pushes, from either the committees at a department level or from pressure from administrators on the outside. I was just trying to find the source of our discrepancy and said "congratulations" while trying to get to the bottom of what informed your view as politely as I knew how. Meanwhile, you began your conversation with me by saying that I must not know anything about labs and must not have worked in them (LOL), then when I merely wonder about the basis of your underlying experience you act offended. That's got to be breaking some irony sensors with overload somewhere.
I'm glad to hear you did not make the ethnic group a heavy weighting in the EDI evaluation. I've heard examples of that before, but I don't think this is a universal standard. EDI statements often include suggestions to include one's "lived experience", and ask what you have already done to further EDI in the past. To me, that is almost trolling to ask applicants about their diversity volunteer work and so on when they have been forced to stay in the lab 7 days a week for long hours for over a decade.
I personally despise these statements suddenly popping up, it seems political and not related to objectivity or science, and makes me think I should leave academia and pursue research outside, even after reaching the position I worked for after a long time. I think science is relatively diverse and international, but scientists are mostly not trained in political correctness. It's sad that a non-racist scientist will get a politically-correct dogma test that can cost him a job. It's basically a recent and far left view to me, and everyone I know thinks it is a litmus test and then lies to the max on the EDI to try to play the game. I don't want to assume, but given typical norms and what you said, I suppose you would reject a good scientific candidate if he disagreed with thinking on EDI and just said he was a non-racist person who would train students of all races to the best of his abilities?
I'm getting off topic from the original discussion but I am pretty curious what your purpose is to ask scientific researchers what they would do to champion EDI? How come your department does not have a plan out there instead? Why would a scientist know better than whatever the department has planned? This is related to social policy, not STEM-related expertise. Thus, whatever answer they can think in an EDI application Q in one page would not be ideal. If you have a EDI initiative you want followed, tell them that is the policy or give them a training session if they come onboard. OTOH, if the goal is trying to get political alignment, asking for EDI essays makes sense.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26078 Posts
On July 16 2020 19:37 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2020 08:33 Wombat_NI wrote:
I’m in favour of attempting it. Despite me personally for once wanting to be a woman (for once) for the process of re-schooling in software engineering. I’m under crippling stress financially trying to afford it, plenty of rather juicy grants and bursaries are there if you’re a woman going into that field here.
Which I’m not up in arms about, it seems ineffective as an approach to me. Young women picking their undergrad will either already be considering it, or have long been turned off about learning about computers as it’s ‘not for them’ or what have you. Software engineering workplaces [and pretty much all new 'tech'] have well-documented hostile environment towards women, so you'd also have to live with a lifetime's worth of discrimination if you were a woman in this field. This has a pretty strong effect in choosing to go down this path in the first place.
Which is also true aye. It’s a little different here as we’re carving out a niche for tech (we’re attractive due to them being able to pay us less) and there’s a shortfall of qualified grads for the new positions being created.
While not an entirely blank slate it’s still relatively nascent over here so from that starting point and in a position where there aren’t enough qualified grads to begin with, companies are making it their business to hire as much women as they can and have various initiatives to attract more. Plus minorities in general.
From friends I have in industry/my current de facto girlfriend it seems that the work environment is pretty good, so some progress there.
So I guess a combination of getting in early to show that tech is a route for everyone with the ability, as well as being less white male dominated at the employment level is a pretty effective combination, albeit not wholly effective.
As to elsewhere, well you have decades of it being a very male dominated environment so I imagine reversing something more firmly established is much more difficult.
|
On July 17 2020 00:16 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2020 19:37 EnDeR_ wrote:On July 16 2020 08:33 Wombat_NI wrote:
I’m in favour of attempting it. Despite me personally for once wanting to be a woman (for once) for the process of re-schooling in software engineering. I’m under crippling stress financially trying to afford it, plenty of rather juicy grants and bursaries are there if you’re a woman going into that field here.
Which I’m not up in arms about, it seems ineffective as an approach to me. Young women picking their undergrad will either already be considering it, or have long been turned off about learning about computers as it’s ‘not for them’ or what have you. Software engineering workplaces [and pretty much all new 'tech'] have well-documented hostile environment towards women, so you'd also have to live with a lifetime's worth of discrimination if you were a woman in this field. This has a pretty strong effect in choosing to go down this path in the first place. Which is also true aye. It’s a little different here as we’re carving out a niche for tech (we’re attractive due to them being able to pay us less) and there’s a shortfall of qualified grads for the new positions being created. While not an entirely blank slate it’s still relatively nascent over here so from that starting point and in a position where there aren’t enough qualified grads to begin with, companies are making it their business to hire as much women as they can and have various initiatives to attract more. Plus minorities in general. From friends I have in industry/my current de facto girlfriend it seems that the work environment is pretty good, so some progress there. So I guess a combination of getting in early to show that tech is a route for everyone with the ability, as well as being less white male dominated at the employment level is a pretty effective combination, albeit not wholly effective. As to elsewhere, well you have decades of it being a very male dominated environment so I imagine reversing something more firmly established is much more difficult.
Yes, that's the key problem. Effecting culture change is extremely difficult, but benefit all in the long run, i.e. we all want a nice working environment where everyone can contribute. That's the core principle of EDI.
On July 16 2020 21:01 svl3 wrote:
I'm getting off topic from the original discussion but I am pretty curious what your purpose is to ask scientific researchers what they would do to champion EDI? How come your department does not have a plan out there instead? Why would a scientist know better than whatever the department has planned? This is related to social policy, not STEM-related expertise. Thus, whatever answer they can think in an EDI application Q in one page would not be ideal. If you have a EDI initiative you want followed, tell them that is the policy or give them a training session if they come onboard. OTOH, if the goal is trying to get political alignment, asking for EDI essays makes sense.
Asking candidates how they would champion EDI at our institution makes candidates think about what EDI means and things they can do to implement good EDI practice, and this generally leads to a better working environment, which leads to happier staff, which leads to improvements in productivity.
|
Hogan, R-MD Governor, just wrote an op-ed blasting Trump's handling of the pandemic. He had to go through his wife (a south korean immigrant) to buy tests from a South Korean lab (working with SK government heavily) early in April, after Trump said states were on their own. Trump then attacked him for doing this. So, things were and are probably even worse than they seemed on how badly Trump has been handling the virus. Sitting governor attacking their own sitting president publicly like this is pretty rare.
(you may have to click confirm to view article due to some new EU laws going into effect)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/07/16/larry-hogan-trump-coronavirus/?arc404=true
The plane was filled with 500,000 test kits for my state, where the coronavirus had already infected 12,308 Marylanders and killed 463 of them. The numbers were still climbing, and we would never be able to contain them without mass testing. “Anybody that wants a test can get a test,” President Trump had declared the previous month. In reality, only 2,252 Americans had been tested at that point in March. Across the country, my fellow governors were desperately pleading for help on testing. But in early April, Trump said it was the states’ job.
Yumi was born and raised in South Korea, a country that had, by then, erected a well-coordinated testing regime. So, with nowhere else to turn, Yumi and I asked President Moon Jae-in for help. He arranged the sale of a half-million test kits from LabGenomics, one of the world’s leading medical testing firms, for $9 million. It was a bargain considering the $2.8 billion in revenue we projected the pandemic would cost Maryland.
[...]
This should not have been necessary. I’d watched as the president downplayed the outbreak’s severity and as the White House failed to issue public warnings, draw up a 50-state strategy, or dispatch medical gear or lifesaving ventilators from the national stockpile to American hospitals. Eventually, it was clear that waiting around for the president to run the nation’s response was hopeless; if we delayed any longer, we’d be condemning more of our citizens to suffering and death.
[...]
|
I believe I heard those tests were hidden at an undisclosed site so the feds wouldn't take them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
