|
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 January 31 2022 07:19 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2022 19:33 EnDeR_ wrote:On January 30 2022 18:44 justanothertownie wrote:On January 30 2022 15:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 30 2022 14:51 NewSunshine wrote:
Who's saying that being a black woman is a requirement? Biden just said that his next appointee will be one, because he probably has someone in mind already. That's it. We followed that with a discussion about what that can mean. Representation may not matter to you, it doesn't matter much to me because I'm over-represented as is, but it does matter to some folks. All you're doing is pointing out why being part of a demographic doesn't necessarily mean you represent it in the best way, which nobody argued with? But also it's kind of obnoxious and presumptuous to keep dredging up the idea that people outside that demographic are somehow inclined to represent them better, on average.
Also, can we please stop butting in with this stupid argument that merit isn't entering the picture because we're just trying to "virtue signal". Just. Stop. Please. Nobody said that, it's not a thing, and it's exhausting to keep reading it, let alone responding to it. One day, our society will have progressed past the white/male savior tropes, but sadly, we're not there yet. If that is what you read out of mainis post then you are so blinded by your mission that your reading comprehension got lost along the way. Entirely. The difference between the positions is obviously that in his opinion merit should be the most important/only criterion. Noone is saying reducing the pool of candidates to black women means the resulting choice is unqualified. But in general, if you look for the person who is the most qualified you cannot impose such restrictions (equally as idiotic as religious restrictions or anything else the Republicans might do). You are just giving the anti-woke crowd valuable ammunition by uttering such a condition. Just nominate her if you think she is the best option and while many people might still complain about the choice at least they cannot say "he is openly being racist against everyone not black". Just do it like LL said and make it a part of the desired qualities if you think the life experience is valuable. But do not exclude people because of their race in your supposed fight against racism... The anti-woke crowd will go bananas either way if it's not an old white dude. Anyone who thinks that choosing a back woman for SCOTUS is compromising quality for diversity is never going to be on board, regardless of how the selection process was done. We can run the tapes backwards. What was the conservative reaction to Clarence Thomas' appointment? I honestly don't know. But my sense is that at least now strong conservatives are most happy with him because he votes more consistently rules conservatively than most Republican appointments.
According to Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org:
Attorney General Richard Thornburgh had previously warned Bush that replacing Thurgood Marshall, who was widely revered as a civil rights icon, with any candidate who was not perceived to share Marshall's views would make the confirmation process difficult;[12] and the Thomas nomination filled various groups with indignation, among them the: NAACP, Urban League and the National Organization for Women, who believed he would likely swing the ideological balance on the court to the right. They especially opposed Thomas' appointment because of his criticism of affirmative action and also because they were suspicious of his position on Roe v. Wade.[13]
Sounds like he was pretty conservative for the time too. Digging further:
In the second half of the 20th century, Supreme Court nominees were customarily evaluated by a committee of the American Bar Association (ABA) before being considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee.[14] Anticipating that the ABA would rate Thomas poorly, the White House and Republican Senators pressured the ABA for at least the mid-level "qualified" rating, and simultaneously attempted to discredit the ABA as partisan.[nb 1][15] Ultimately, on a scale of well-qualified, qualified, or unqualified, 12 members of the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary voted that he was "qualified", one abstained, and the other two voted "not qualified", for an overall vote of qualified. This vote represented one of the lowest levels of support for Supreme Court nominees.[16][17][18][19][20][21] Although the ABA vote was viewed as a "significant embarrassment to the Bush administration",[12] it ultimately had little impact on Thomas' nomination.[15]
His qualifications were put into question, because of course they were, and his vote represented one of the lowest levels of support for a supreme court nominee but the opposition seems to be from the left -- there's nothing here about conservatives resenting his appointment.
|
This conversation would go a lot better if people just had the balls to admit that they are okay with discrimination/preferential treatment so long as it serves the purpose to promote diversity and underrepresented groups. The amount of beating around the bush and attempts to frame this in a certain way to make it seem most favorable to their side is dumb.
In California last election we had a proposition to repeal a constitutional amendment that said "government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting."
$25 million was spent on it and it was supported by many major names, Pelosi, Kamala, Bernie, etc.
So it's definitely a "mainstream" idea that we should have some kind of Affirmative Action that would discriminate or grant preferential treatment to people based on race, sex, etc. Not sure why people can't just argue for this position instead of just trying to label people as racist or right-wingers. Even Liquid`Drone has said this doesn't sit well with him, are we going to call him a right-winger to dismiss his opinion?
|
On January 31 2022 07:32 BlackJack wrote:
This conversation would go a lot better if people just had the balls to admit that they are okay with discrimination/preferential treatment so long as it serves the purpose to promote diversity and underrepresented groups. The amount of beating around the bush and attempts to frame this in a certain way to make it seem most favorable to their side is dumb.
In California last election we had a proposition to repeal a constitutional amendment that said "government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting."
$25 million was spent on it and it was supported by many major names, Pelosi, Kamala, Bernie, etc.
So it's definitely a "mainstream" idea that we should have some kind of Affirmative Action that would discriminate or grant preferential treatment to people based on race, sex, etc. Not sure why people can't just argue for this position instead of just trying to label people as racist or right-wingers. Even Liquid`Drone has said this doesn't sit well with him, are we going to call him a right-winger to dismiss his opinion?
In general? I'd be very much against positive discrimination of any kind. Hiring practices should be fair to ensure everyone gets an equal opportunity.
For a SCOTUS pick? I'm fine with selecting a black woman this round. Competence/merit/fairness are not primary criteria for a SCOTUS pick -- primary criteria are, in order of importance:
1. Political leaning (i.e. progressive vs conservative)
2. Their stance on issues the current white house is concerned about.
3. Their age/ethnicity
Competence/merit? - optional; as exemplified by Brett Kavanaugh's case.
|
On January 31 2022 07:23 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2022 06:22 justanothertownie wrote:On January 31 2022 06:07 EnDeR_ wrote:On January 31 2022 05:15 justanothertownie wrote:On January 31 2022 03:48 EnDeR_ wrote:On January 31 2022 00:19 justanothertownie wrote:
Look, if Biden had the actual person in mind as his best choice (and had to confirm that somehow) all this time then it is of course a slightly different story. But he still handled it extremely poorly in that case because that is not what the general public will understand from this. Just nominate her and say she is the most qualified full stop.
This kind of "fighting" racism or inequality in general by instituting quotas or selection bias is a special annoyance to me since I saw it day in day out in german academia with respect to the favored choice of women for basically anthing (going so far as the level of this being the deciding factor if some university/institute gets funding or not). It leads to the majority of them who are actually a good appointment being questioned by their peers and themselves not being sure if they actually deserve their position and also to a few that are really "diversity hires" and completely unsuitable. All in a field where the gender ratio is already more or less 50:50. There are also already more female than male professors at my former institute. Wait: "I saw it day in day out in german academia with respect to the favored choice of women for basically anthing (going so far as the level of this being the deciding factor if some university/institute gets funding or not)" Really? So when a woman gets a job, she got it because she's a woman? You might want to have a think about that one. Care to elaborate? I was present when this criterion was discussed. By highly ranking officials of the German research foundation. Yes, some women get a scientific position because of their gender. If you think that is the way things should be done we may as well just agree to disagree and call it a day. I mean, do I really need to tell you that women and other under-represented groups have a difficult time being selected for any kind of position when most panels are near 100% old, white and male? There's a lot of research in this area if you're curious. To your other point, maybe you should elaborate because I've never heard of a single institution/example of funding being pulled out by the DFG for not complying with generic diversity guidelines. FYI, I worked in Germany for 3 years as a W2 professor before my current position so I am not actually a stranger to the system. At worst, I imagine you probably had someone coming in advertising their new funding scheme targeting under-represented groups. It is a big jump from there to saying something like 'women are favoured for any position in german academia'. I mean, have you been to any of the DFG-funded network grant meetings? There's like 2 women professors out of 100. Most women you do meet tend to be in very junior positions or in a management role, i.e. like the secretary of a big german prof or some such. The ratio is very dependent on your actual field. In mine there is no such imbalance. As I said - there are more female than male professors at the institute I was working for (as the substitute for a professor due to his parental leave). The panel I was talking about also was not male dominated at all. And no, it wasn't some advertisement for a funding scheme. It were evaluations of proposals for "sonderforschungsbereiche" which are quite a big thing. If you think it is more difficult to get an academic position in Germany as a woman you are either of a very different field than me or your time here was not very recent. But even if the ratio was drastically in favor of men for me that is no justification for handing positions out based on gender. These things need to adjust organically over time. The more women go into the sciences the more will get to the top if you create an equal playing field. Encourage them to do that and be attentive if they encounter any problems that should not exist. But you cannot enforce a 50:50 ratio overnight and expect to choose the most qualified candidates. This is the first article I found: www.nature.com"Sexism is still a problem for German research". Show nested quote +Despite being among the world’s most developed countries — Germany has the European Union (EU)'s largest economy and the world’s fourth-largest by gross domestic product — the nation performs poorly when it comes to giving women equal opportunity in sciences (see ‘Lagging behind’). So things don't seem so different to when I was there 6 years ago. Bringing this discussion back to US pol, the situation for women in academia in the US is not that different www.aauw.org. Show nested quote +Women make up the majority of nontenure-track lecturers and instructors across institutions, but only 44% of tenure-track faculty and 36% of full professors. It doesn't matter where you live. Being a woman or from an under-represented group is a disadvantage, not an advantage.
Well I guess if this article says so then I must have imagined all my personal experiences on this subject. Not to mention that being underrepresented does not automatically mean that the group is being disadvantaged. If (completely made up numbers) 5 % of candidates for high ranking academic positions in the engineering fields are women then it is not a scandal if they only make up 10 % of professors. I do not intend to study this paper as deep as would be necessary to see if they account for these things.
But let me tell you there were way more inquiries by the DFG into the amount of women being part of a proposal or questions why someone dared to give a new position to an obviously scientifically excellent man than on scientific subjects. Maybe they started this policy recently. I have only been part of it for the last 2 years but I think it is a terrible approach.
|
On January 31 2022 06:36 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2022 06:27 Doc.Rivers wrote:On January 31 2022 05:33 justanothertownie wrote:On January 31 2022 04:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 31 2022 04:39 Jockmcplop wrote:
You guys realize what the outrage over this looks like from a distance, right?
Biden says he wants a black woman on the SC, the right gets furious about the idea.
Its so predictable.
Frankly, for supporters of the party that put Trump in power, talking about merit for important positions is laughable. Pretty much. It's...pathetic, really. I am not from the right. Not even in Germany. I would basically vote Democrat no matter what if I was an US citizen (thankfully I am not) and try to do what I can to influence people to vote for more progressive candidates in the primaries since this is the only way I can see to change anything for the better in your horrible election system. Kavanaugh for example is a disgusting person to appoint as a judge. But when that happened I did not feel interested to participate in this thread yet. And also there was no point since that was the dominant consensus anyways. I am just an opponent of combating unfairness with your own unfairness. And I am also not a fan of unnecessarily giving the people who are actually on the right ammunition with which they can convince people on the fence to join their camp. If your kneejerk reaction to that is "the people on the right get furious" then you have one of the reasons why the left in your country cannot win anything meaningful. Besides all the obviously shitty advantages the Republicans implemented for themselves and the lacking education of the populace. The claims against Kavanaugh were not very credible, for a variety of reasons. The only reason I can see to believe them is political bias. Yikes, irony alert! What about Dr. Basely Ford was not credible? I mean even that "beers" Kavanaugh claimed he didn't drink much screams honesty.... How many people do you know with nick names related to booze don't drink very much? Any?
First there is the fact that her claims were unprovable, having occurred 30+ years prior, and there was nothing but he said she said. In that situation it sets a terrible precedent to axe the candidate.
The claims were not brought up until it was clear the dems could not otherwise sink Kavanaugh. I.e. it was after his actual hearings, during which every effort was made to sink him.
Ford stated multiple verifiable lies, including that she had multiple front doors installed in her house because of her trauma.
She was also represented by hardcore democratic political operatives. She was encouraged to bring the accusations by another democratic operative. One of those operatives counseled her that they could forever put an asterisk on any decision by Kavanaugh to overturn Roe v. Wade.
|
|
|
On January 31 2022 07:46 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2022 06:37 justanothertownie wrote:On January 31 2022 06:32 JimmiC wrote:On January 31 2022 06:04 justanothertownie wrote:On January 31 2022 05:55 JimmiC wrote:On January 31 2022 05:42 Dan HH wrote:On January 31 2022 05:08 JimmiC wrote:On January 31 2022 05:01 Dan HH wrote:On January 31 2022 04:13 JimmiC wrote:On January 31 2022 02:20 Dan HH wrote:
[quote]
You're basically asking me to repurpose every single argument to a scenario that doesn't add anything and only subtracts.
Yes Biden making a shortlist only from Texas, a conservative state, with the implication of "there you go, now you're represented!" is silly. Do you think it is silly for Black women to want to be represented in the Supreme court for the first time ever? Do you think they think they have been excluded unfairly in every appointment so far and in points that never allowed them to be considered? Do you think they would be wrong? Everyone, myself included, acknowledge from the start that underrepresented minorities exist and this should hold at least some weight. That by itself answers all those questions. You have been this discussion's most active participant and yet you keep making me have to explain its premise after 10 pages. So if you think it should hold some weight, you know Biden has been looking at this candidate pool for at least a decade, why are you so convinced that whoever he has chosen is not the "most qualified"? My other point is equal and equitable are different concepts. Every person regardless of race and gender might, and likely did not have equal chance at this job, but given that it has happened in the other direction with certainty for 200 years, and even the current group has none that if this person is qualified, and we have no reason to think they will not be, it is an equitable choice. Even without bias, If I every time there was a extra donut I flipped a coin between my kids on who got it and my son got it 5 times in a row, if on the 6th time I didn't flip the coin and instead just gave it to my daughter would you say I was being unfair? I'm not. I explained that here but you didn't understand it then because at that point you hadn't acknowledged the premise of the White House reviewing a black-women only shortlist yet. So we kept jumping backwards in the discussion and downwards in the concepts being discussed. I will stop here, on the next subject you find yourself in spiral like this please take your time to read the subject being discussed and the posts you reply to. I have acknowledged it since the beginning of the conversation that is what they announced. I have also pointed out over and over again, as have 5 or more others, that they have been looking at this position for a LONG time and knew within that shortlist the best candidate for this group existed. You say you don't have an issue with diversity being a criteria, but then that the shortlist included people with the criteria is an issue? Are they not qualified in other ways? That I don't agree with you does not mean I'm not reading your posts, it means I both disagree and think what you are saying is logically incongruent. If you think you found the overall best candidate on this shortlist why even make this whole identity thing a point at all? Instead of just saying: this is my candidate. She is the best choice in my opinion. That would have been perfectly fine by me. Deciding prior to all of this that the candidate needs to be (or will be) of a certain arbitrarily chosen subgroup on the other hand is not. If that is not what happened then don't make it seem that way by virtue signaling the way Biden did. It is contraproductive. Because he is trying to score political points AND believes that being a Black women is part of what makes the candidate the best choice. It was going to seem like virtue signaling to the crowd that is mad anyway, he wants this discussion, he wants to repoint out to people why it is important to vote Dem over Rep because the Reps believe a Black woman could not possibly the best choice. He's not polling well, either are the Dems in general, reminding people of the difference and what they bring makes a lot of sense. People who are mad about him putting a Black women were not voting Dem anyway. Well, then I am here to prove you wrong. I would vote dem and I am mad about the way he did it. Am I the only one thinking this way? Maybe. But probably not. What you fail to understand is that being against declaring the candidate shall definitely be a black women does not mean that you also have to think that a black women cannot be the best candidate. One does not follow from the other. Except he didn't declare that, he declared it would be a Black women. Why would someone who would vote Dem believe the strawman? Also, mad enough to vote Trump?
OK, I will stop discussing this with you. There is no point to it. Of course not mad enough to vote trump. I am perfectly able to see that this is an insignificant issue in comparison with other things. But not everyone will see it that way. And that would have been avoidable.
|
|
|
On January 31 2022 07:50 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2022 07:32 BlackJack wrote:
This conversation would go a lot better if people just had the balls to admit that they are okay with discrimination/preferential treatment so long as it serves the purpose to promote diversity and underrepresented groups. The amount of beating around the bush and attempts to frame this in a certain way to make it seem most favorable to their side is dumb.
In California last election we had a proposition to repeal a constitutional amendment that said "government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting."
$25 million was spent on it and it was supported by many major names, Pelosi, Kamala, Bernie, etc.
So it's definitely a "mainstream" idea that we should have some kind of Affirmative Action that would discriminate or grant preferential treatment to people based on race, sex, etc. Not sure why people can't just argue for this position instead of just trying to label people as racist or right-wingers. Even Liquid`Drone has said this doesn't sit well with him, are we going to call him a right-winger to dismiss his opinion? Its because people don't believe that. They believe diversity matters and they believe that a Black women can be the best candidate. No but we can disagree with his opinion. The "left" compared to the US right is not monolith where we all have to agree on what Trump says or what Tucker says no matter what.
That might be your opinion, but I'm pretty sure plenty of people, including many on this thread, argue for affirmative action on its most direct terms. Situations may vary, but discrimination/preferential treatment to promote diversity can be useful, and sometimes even necessary to bridge historical gaps in representation, especially at the top (and this situation is one of them).
|
|
|
On January 31 2022 07:59 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2022 07:50 JimmiC wrote:On January 31 2022 07:32 BlackJack wrote:
This conversation would go a lot better if people just had the balls to admit that they are okay with discrimination/preferential treatment so long as it serves the purpose to promote diversity and underrepresented groups. The amount of beating around the bush and attempts to frame this in a certain way to make it seem most favorable to their side is dumb.
In California last election we had a proposition to repeal a constitutional amendment that said "government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting."
$25 million was spent on it and it was supported by many major names, Pelosi, Kamala, Bernie, etc.
So it's definitely a "mainstream" idea that we should have some kind of Affirmative Action that would discriminate or grant preferential treatment to people based on race, sex, etc. Not sure why people can't just argue for this position instead of just trying to label people as racist or right-wingers. Even Liquid`Drone has said this doesn't sit well with him, are we going to call him a right-winger to dismiss his opinion? Its because people don't believe that. They believe diversity matters and they believe that a Black women can be the best candidate. No but we can disagree with his opinion. The "left" compared to the US right is not monolith where we all have to agree on what Trump says or what Tucker says no matter what. That might be your opinion, but I'm pretty sure plenty of people, including many on this thread, argue for affirmative action on its most direct terms. Situations may vary, but discrimination/preferential treatment to promote diversity can be useful, and sometimes even necessary to bridge historical gaps in representation, especially at the top (and this situation is one of them).
There are different ways of achieving that aim. For instance, if you want to get good diversity for a senior position, you can identify good candidates and invite them to apply. Note that it'd still be an open competition and you'll still select the best candidate that fullfils the essential criteria for the job.
I am not a fan of earmarked positions, I think it's better to drive up the applications from under-represented groups by other means. All hires for non-politically appointed jobs should be fair and transparent.
Then again, I am a privileged white guy who has never faced discrimination. So I'd actually like to hear from our more diverse posters.
|
On January 31 2022 08:08 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2022 07:59 Sbrubbles wrote:On January 31 2022 07:50 JimmiC wrote:On January 31 2022 07:32 BlackJack wrote:
This conversation would go a lot better if people just had the balls to admit that they are okay with discrimination/preferential treatment so long as it serves the purpose to promote diversity and underrepresented groups. The amount of beating around the bush and attempts to frame this in a certain way to make it seem most favorable to their side is dumb.
In California last election we had a proposition to repeal a constitutional amendment that said "government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting."
$25 million was spent on it and it was supported by many major names, Pelosi, Kamala, Bernie, etc.
So it's definitely a "mainstream" idea that we should have some kind of Affirmative Action that would discriminate or grant preferential treatment to people based on race, sex, etc. Not sure why people can't just argue for this position instead of just trying to label people as racist or right-wingers. Even Liquid`Drone has said this doesn't sit well with him, are we going to call him a right-winger to dismiss his opinion? Its because people don't believe that. They believe diversity matters and they believe that a Black women can be the best candidate. No but we can disagree with his opinion. The "left" compared to the US right is not monolith where we all have to agree on what Trump says or what Tucker says no matter what. That might be your opinion, but I'm pretty sure plenty of people, including many on this thread, argue for affirmative action on its most direct terms. Situations may vary, but discrimination/preferential treatment to promote diversity can be useful, and sometimes even necessary to bridge historical gaps in representation, especially at the top (and this situation is one of them). Mine and many others, but yes not everyone's. My issues and most of the people arguing this side is that it is a assumed fact that this was affirmative action and not the best choice is a problem. We also believe that diversity in a group is valuable and making it part of the criteria is not discriminatory to others. I know for sure me and likely others would have different take if there was a person picked and people were bringing up actual reasons why that person other qualifications were worse and had some actual reasons instead of just assumptions.
I may be coming late to the discussion, but isn't it the whole point that Biden made an apriori decision to choose on basis of race and gender? I mean, if Biden went through a bog-standard selection process that just happened to end up with a black woman, then I agree whole conversation is a bit pointless.
|
On January 31 2022 07:40 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2022 07:23 EnDeR_ wrote:On January 31 2022 06:22 justanothertownie wrote:On January 31 2022 06:07 EnDeR_ wrote:On January 31 2022 05:15 justanothertownie wrote:On January 31 2022 03:48 EnDeR_ wrote:On January 31 2022 00:19 justanothertownie wrote:
Look, if Biden had the actual person in mind as his best choice (and had to confirm that somehow) all this time then it is of course a slightly different story. But he still handled it extremely poorly in that case because that is not what the general public will understand from this. Just nominate her and say she is the most qualified full stop.
This kind of "fighting" racism or inequality in general by instituting quotas or selection bias is a special annoyance to me since I saw it day in day out in german academia with respect to the favored choice of women for basically anthing (going so far as the level of this being the deciding factor if some university/institute gets funding or not). It leads to the majority of them who are actually a good appointment being questioned by their peers and themselves not being sure if they actually deserve their position and also to a few that are really "diversity hires" and completely unsuitable. All in a field where the gender ratio is already more or less 50:50. There are also already more female than male professors at my former institute. Wait: "I saw it day in day out in german academia with respect to the favored choice of women for basically anthing (going so far as the level of this being the deciding factor if some university/institute gets funding or not)" Really? So when a woman gets a job, she got it because she's a woman? You might want to have a think about that one. Care to elaborate? I was present when this criterion was discussed. By highly ranking officials of the German research foundation. Yes, some women get a scientific position because of their gender. If you think that is the way things should be done we may as well just agree to disagree and call it a day. I mean, do I really need to tell you that women and other under-represented groups have a difficult time being selected for any kind of position when most panels are near 100% old, white and male? There's a lot of research in this area if you're curious. To your other point, maybe you should elaborate because I've never heard of a single institution/example of funding being pulled out by the DFG for not complying with generic diversity guidelines. FYI, I worked in Germany for 3 years as a W2 professor before my current position so I am not actually a stranger to the system. At worst, I imagine you probably had someone coming in advertising their new funding scheme targeting under-represented groups. It is a big jump from there to saying something like 'women are favoured for any position in german academia'. I mean, have you been to any of the DFG-funded network grant meetings? There's like 2 women professors out of 100. Most women you do meet tend to be in very junior positions or in a management role, i.e. like the secretary of a big german prof or some such. The ratio is very dependent on your actual field. In mine there is no such imbalance. As I said - there are more female than male professors at the institute I was working for (as the substitute for a professor due to his parental leave). The panel I was talking about also was not male dominated at all. And no, it wasn't some advertisement for a funding scheme. It were evaluations of proposals for "sonderforschungsbereiche" which are quite a big thing. If you think it is more difficult to get an academic position in Germany as a woman you are either of a very different field than me or your time here was not very recent. But even if the ratio was drastically in favor of men for me that is no justification for handing positions out based on gender. These things need to adjust organically over time. The more women go into the sciences the more will get to the top if you create an equal playing field. Encourage them to do that and be attentive if they encounter any problems that should not exist. But you cannot enforce a 50:50 ratio overnight and expect to choose the most qualified candidates. This is the first article I found: www.nature.com"Sexism is still a problem for German research". Despite being among the world’s most developed countries — Germany has the European Union (EU)'s largest economy and the world’s fourth-largest by gross domestic product — the nation performs poorly when it comes to giving women equal opportunity in sciences (see ‘Lagging behind’). So things don't seem so different to when I was there 6 years ago. Bringing this discussion back to US pol, the situation for women in academia in the US is not that different www.aauw.org. Women make up the majority of nontenure-track lecturers and instructors across institutions, but only 44% of tenure-track faculty and 36% of full professors. It doesn't matter where you live. Being a woman or from an under-represented group is a disadvantage, not an advantage. Well I guess if this article says so then I must have imagined all my personal experiences on this subject. Not to mention that being underrepresented does not automatically mean that the group is being disadvantaged. If (completely made up numbers) 5 % of candidates for high ranking academic positions in the engineering fields are women then it is not a scandal if they only make up 10 % of professors. I do not intend to study this paper as deep as would be necessary to see if they account for these things. But let me tell you there were way more inquiries by the DFG into the amount of women being part of a proposal or questions why someone dared to give a new position to an obviously scientifically excellent man than on scientific subjects. Maybe they started this policy recently. I have only been part of it for the last 2 years but I think it is a terrible approach.
I provided an article in a reputable journal pointing out that sexism is still a problem in german academia as of 2019. A similar problem that women face in any and all academic settings around the world, including the US as per my second link.
You've told me a story I cannot verify.
If you want to discuss further, please provide some data that we can actually discuss. If, as you say, this is a widespread problem in your field/institution (that women are favoured for any position), I am sure that someone, somewhere has studied it and has published some data. I don't know your field, nor which institution, so I cannot find it for you.
In any case, if you don't post any links, I will stop replying because this is getting seriously off-topic from the US pol thread.
|
|
|
On January 31 2022 08:18 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2022 07:40 justanothertownie wrote:On January 31 2022 07:23 EnDeR_ wrote:On January 31 2022 06:22 justanothertownie wrote:On January 31 2022 06:07 EnDeR_ wrote:On January 31 2022 05:15 justanothertownie wrote:On January 31 2022 03:48 EnDeR_ wrote:On January 31 2022 00:19 justanothertownie wrote:
Look, if Biden had the actual person in mind as his best choice (and had to confirm that somehow) all this time then it is of course a slightly different story. But he still handled it extremely poorly in that case because that is not what the general public will understand from this. Just nominate her and say she is the most qualified full stop.
This kind of "fighting" racism or inequality in general by instituting quotas or selection bias is a special annoyance to me since I saw it day in day out in german academia with respect to the favored choice of women for basically anthing (going so far as the level of this being the deciding factor if some university/institute gets funding or not). It leads to the majority of them who are actually a good appointment being questioned by their peers and themselves not being sure if they actually deserve their position and also to a few that are really "diversity hires" and completely unsuitable. All in a field where the gender ratio is already more or less 50:50. There are also already more female than male professors at my former institute. Wait: "I saw it day in day out in german academia with respect to the favored choice of women for basically anthing (going so far as the level of this being the deciding factor if some university/institute gets funding or not)" Really? So when a woman gets a job, she got it because she's a woman? You might want to have a think about that one. Care to elaborate? I was present when this criterion was discussed. By highly ranking officials of the German research foundation. Yes, some women get a scientific position because of their gender. If you think that is the way things should be done we may as well just agree to disagree and call it a day. I mean, do I really need to tell you that women and other under-represented groups have a difficult time being selected for any kind of position when most panels are near 100% old, white and male? There's a lot of research in this area if you're curious. To your other point, maybe you should elaborate because I've never heard of a single institution/example of funding being pulled out by the DFG for not complying with generic diversity guidelines. FYI, I worked in Germany for 3 years as a W2 professor before my current position so I am not actually a stranger to the system. At worst, I imagine you probably had someone coming in advertising their new funding scheme targeting under-represented groups. It is a big jump from there to saying something like 'women are favoured for any position in german academia'. I mean, have you been to any of the DFG-funded network grant meetings? There's like 2 women professors out of 100. Most women you do meet tend to be in very junior positions or in a management role, i.e. like the secretary of a big german prof or some such. The ratio is very dependent on your actual field. In mine there is no such imbalance. As I said - there are more female than male professors at the institute I was working for (as the substitute for a professor due to his parental leave). The panel I was talking about also was not male dominated at all. And no, it wasn't some advertisement for a funding scheme. It were evaluations of proposals for "sonderforschungsbereiche" which are quite a big thing. If you think it is more difficult to get an academic position in Germany as a woman you are either of a very different field than me or your time here was not very recent. But even if the ratio was drastically in favor of men for me that is no justification for handing positions out based on gender. These things need to adjust organically over time. The more women go into the sciences the more will get to the top if you create an equal playing field. Encourage them to do that and be attentive if they encounter any problems that should not exist. But you cannot enforce a 50:50 ratio overnight and expect to choose the most qualified candidates. This is the first article I found: www.nature.com"Sexism is still a problem for German research". Despite being among the world’s most developed countries — Germany has the European Union (EU)'s largest economy and the world’s fourth-largest by gross domestic product — the nation performs poorly when it comes to giving women equal opportunity in sciences (see ‘Lagging behind’). So things don't seem so different to when I was there 6 years ago. Bringing this discussion back to US pol, the situation for women in academia in the US is not that different www.aauw.org. Women make up the majority of nontenure-track lecturers and instructors across institutions, but only 44% of tenure-track faculty and 36% of full professors. It doesn't matter where you live. Being a woman or from an under-represented group is a disadvantage, not an advantage. Well I guess if this article says so then I must have imagined all my personal experiences on this subject. Not to mention that being underrepresented does not automatically mean that the group is being disadvantaged. If (completely made up numbers) 5 % of candidates for high ranking academic positions in the engineering fields are women then it is not a scandal if they only make up 10 % of professors. I do not intend to study this paper as deep as would be necessary to see if they account for these things. But let me tell you there were way more inquiries by the DFG into the amount of women being part of a proposal or questions why someone dared to give a new position to an obviously scientifically excellent man than on scientific subjects. Maybe they started this policy recently. I have only been part of it for the last 2 years but I think it is a terrible approach. I provided an article in a reputable journal pointing out that sexism is still a problem in german academia as of 2019. A similar problem that women face in any and all academic settings around the world, including the US as per my second link. You've told me a story I cannot verify. If you want to discuss further, please provide some data that we can actually discuss. If, as you say, this is a widespread problem in your field/institution (that women are favoured for any position), I am sure that someone, somewhere has studied it and has published some data. I don't know your field, nor which institution, so I cannot find it for you. In any case, if you don't post any links, I will stop replying because this is getting seriously off-topic from the US pol thread.
Yes, it is off topic. We can let it rest if you want.
I absolutely agree with your other post btw.
|
|
|
Yeah, I remember some complaints about her once she was named, I made some myself, but I don't recall any fuss over the nominee being a woman before the fact.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 31 2022 07:41 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2022 06:36 JimmiC wrote:On January 31 2022 06:27 Doc.Rivers wrote:On January 31 2022 05:33 justanothertownie wrote:On January 31 2022 04:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 31 2022 04:39 Jockmcplop wrote:
You guys realize what the outrage over this looks like from a distance, right?
Biden says he wants a black woman on the SC, the right gets furious about the idea.
Its so predictable.
Frankly, for supporters of the party that put Trump in power, talking about merit for important positions is laughable. Pretty much. It's...pathetic, really. I am not from the right. Not even in Germany. I would basically vote Democrat no matter what if I was an US citizen (thankfully I am not) and try to do what I can to influence people to vote for more progressive candidates in the primaries since this is the only way I can see to change anything for the better in your horrible election system. Kavanaugh for example is a disgusting person to appoint as a judge. But when that happened I did not feel interested to participate in this thread yet. And also there was no point since that was the dominant consensus anyways. I am just an opponent of combating unfairness with your own unfairness. And I am also not a fan of unnecessarily giving the people who are actually on the right ammunition with which they can convince people on the fence to join their camp. If your kneejerk reaction to that is "the people on the right get furious" then you have one of the reasons why the left in your country cannot win anything meaningful. Besides all the obviously shitty advantages the Republicans implemented for themselves and the lacking education of the populace. The claims against Kavanaugh were not very credible, for a variety of reasons. The only reason I can see to believe them is political bias. Yikes, irony alert! What about Dr. Basely Ford was not credible? I mean even that "beers" Kavanaugh claimed he didn't drink much screams honesty.... How many people do you know with nick names related to booze don't drink very much? Any? First there is the fact that her claims were unprovable, having occurred 30+ years prior, and there was nothing but he said she said. In that situation it sets a terrible precedent to axe the candidate. The claims were not brought up until it was clear the dems could not otherwise sink Kavanaugh. I.e. it was after his actual hearings, during which every effort was made to sink him. Ford stated multiple verifiable lies, including that she had multiple front doors installed in her house because of her trauma. She was also represented by hardcore democratic political operatives. She was encouraged to bring the accusations by another democratic operative. One of those operatives counseled her that they could forever put an asterisk on any decision by Kavanaugh to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Kavanaugh was definitely a pretty political pick. Unlike with Gorsuch, you really can't quite call him a SCJ pick of unquestionable integrity (he seems pretty political for a judge), and Trump did use him as a means to remake the court by replacing swing-justice Kennedy with a highly reliable pillar of support for his own policies. That entire concern immediately went out the window when Democrats decided to bet it all on #MeToo, and overplayed their hand with unreliable witnesses that couldn't make anything substantial stick. I'm certainly convinced that Kavanaugh did some things in his college years that he's embarrassed to talk about, but for the all-in effort that Democrats put into trying to sink it, they can proudly take the big fat L on that one because that's not enough to matter.
It's a whataboutism, at any rate. I think he's not the best choice, but the Democratic approach to stopping him was a giant blunder. But apparently the Democratic approach to the other side doing something they don't like is "when they go low, we go 99% as low and treat the difference as a moral high ground." If they consider Kavanaugh to be so bad, maybe they'd aspire to a higher standard than merely "less problematic than Kavanaugh" but evidently not so. It might as well be saying "neener-neener, black woman SCJ cuz we're the winners" which would at least be more honest than accusing left-wing opposition of being right-wing racists for finding this approach objectionable.
|
On January 31 2022 07:50 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2022 07:32 BlackJack wrote:
This conversation would go a lot better if people just had the balls to admit that they are okay with discrimination/preferential treatment so long as it serves the purpose to promote diversity and underrepresented groups. The amount of beating around the bush and attempts to frame this in a certain way to make it seem most favorable to their side is dumb.
In California last election we had a proposition to repeal a constitutional amendment that said "government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting."
$25 million was spent on it and it was supported by many major names, Pelosi, Kamala, Bernie, etc.
So it's definitely a "mainstream" idea that we should have some kind of Affirmative Action that would discriminate or grant preferential treatment to people based on race, sex, etc. Not sure why people can't just argue for this position instead of just trying to label people as racist or right-wingers. Even Liquid`Drone has said this doesn't sit well with him, are we going to call him a right-winger to dismiss his opinion? The "left" compared to the US right is not monolith where we all have to agree on what Trump says or what Tucker says no matter what.
In the interest of balance it should be pointed out that the right is not a monolith either. It's not true that people on the right feel they must agree with trump and Tucker. That may be what the left-allied media says is the case, but it's not accurate.
|
Absolutely, there are differences among the American Right. A lot of prominent figures have just gotten attacked or disenfranchised among their party for disagreeing with the rest of them, though. John McCain stood by his own set of principles as he voted on bills with his fellow Republicans, and his reward for that was a bunch of Trumpers calling him a RINO the day after he died. Disagreements don't have to cross party lines to get ugly. Happens on the Left too, but more in the form of the milquetoast centrists usually winning out while progressives struggle to center on any one candidate. FPTP voting and all that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
