DEI in Academia

I finally got around to listening to Razib interview Steve Hsu, who is also on my sidebar.  IQ, Artificial Intelligence, and Academia (transcript sort of available.) I love it when that happens.  Hsu is a genetic researcher via BGI and knows a great deal about IQ and genetics. (He calls IQ a "colloquial term," which I think is a step forward. I'm going to start using that disclaimer in favor of "general intelligence factor.") He was a physics professor at Oregon, then took a job at Michigan State as Dean of Research.  He was asked to resign from that position and did, for reasons some of you may have followed - it was mildly notorious - and are included in the podcast. He is part of both genetic and AI startups and is knowledgeable about what China is doing in both sectors and in fact, in all tech sectors.

For those of you who like real-life examples about DEI resulting in 50th-best candidates (on average) being hired in math, or tenure granted to professors of color in the university, I recommend this.  He has sat at those tables, has pointed out the illegality of some practices, and vetoed or denied funding to research, hiring, or promotions that are not the best on the table.  I don't follow it much.  I tend to write academia off as a general lost cause anyway, and something I will never have much influence over. My impression is that the more their focus has to be put on real victories over discrimination fifty or one hundred years ago, the more it is an admission that we are not supposed to be looking at what is happening in the present.  Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. 

But Hsu points out that in STEM, such things contribute to the US and the West in general falling behind China in important tech sectors. It is real and happening now, and it is an excellent point.

But the part that fascinated me is how Hsu, an Obama-voting liberal who has depended on Republicans in the legislature to make sure the laws are followed and the sentiments reinforced publicly, has found that they don't follow through.  Do we complain that liberals do not value real diversity, only the appearance of it?  Well conservatives do not care about real victory over DEI, only the appearance of it. People and whole universities are reported and nothing is done.

Some quotes

The National Institutes of Health now blocks access to an important database if it thinks the scientist's research may enter into forbidden territory...a lot of people are griping about this and angry, but they don't know what to do.  They don't want to put a target on their back.

...they would say the following: "Oh I support you, Steve. But you know, my main goal is to push forward our understanding of dark energy in the universe.  And I can't jeopardise my big NSF grant by supporting you publicly. But I do support you." And OK, that person at least has an articulated justification for the cowardly behavior.  Fine, I respect that. Maybe I would not have been a hero in the Holocaust. But they're just go with the flow conformists who don't have an original thought in their head.

I have never had a wokester academic come at me on the facts. It's never happened.  It's never happened. They say, like* "I didn't like what you wrote in the blog post," I'm like* "Let's talk about it." They didn't. "You think this paper published by these researchers at Harvard is wrong? Tell me why you think it's wrong."

It is hard to go against the flow. I know people who went to very evangelical or conservative Catholic undergrad programs, but have now gone native because the pressure starts early. For those who treasure social status, you start noticing what beliefs are the cool ones and which are the shunned ones all the way back to junior high.  And why not? People like me - or Republican legislators - can come make a big show about "You should do this. You should do that." Yet they have their life, often also in academia, and children in the local schools in a university dominant district that they have to live in every day, not just when we want to trot them out as examples. Why should they? We don't back them up. "Sure go on into the Valley of Death.  I'll be right behind you. Oh wait, I'll be delayed a couple of minutes.  Forgot my phone."

If you are absolutely certain you would not do that to them, I would ask you to cite evidence that you have actually done it. Otherwise it might be just wishful thinking on your part.

* Reminder that this "like" construction means "accurate but not exact quote."