I’m glad I retired before the anti racism police arrived at the company I worked at for 35 years. I view this latest iteration of requirements placed on presenters that Haidt speaks of as simply a tax. Something that causes people in the workplace to be diverted from their primary focus (manufacturing something, serving a client, etc...) - that causes them to have to spend more time doing their job. And that’s a problem. Having invested a lifetime of 70 hours weeks serving my clients demands, adding other requirements that do not get embedded into the deliverable or advice given to the client serves no purpose in my opinion. If you cut the legs out of a true meritocracy, eventually it will no longer be best in class.
I do respect your point of view and appreciate your position.
I just know that in my prior work-life, adding more requirements would have been fatal, there just were not enough hours in the day and additional requirements would have put pressure on quality. And that’s very dangerous.
At the same time, the “culture” of any organization can achieve anti racist objectives without building in requirements similar to what Haidt speaks of. It comes from developing appropriate processes into recruiting, engaging in the community, engaging with your suppliers and customers, training and coaching your people and many other aspects of an organization. Culture is set at the top, but if done properly, is an extremely powerful force that resonates from the bottom up - when all of the ores are in the water pushing in the same direction. I was lucky to work with subject matter experts at the top of their field from a very diverse (color, nationality, religion, gender, etc.....) back ground. The one thing they all had in common was getting the best result for - - the client.
To an outsider, universities look like profit motivated institutions. But tenure doesn’t seem to fit that goal. Could it be a concession to truth as an institutional value?
Hmm. You liken a professional organization to a country club. Well, I liken Haidt's resignation to quitting a country club that doesn't accept black members. (Yes, deliberately inflammatory analogy, but it doesn't seem that much of a stretch to me.)
Thanks for the thoughtful (if mild) and even handed take down of Jonathan Haidt. Personally I'm not a fan of his. He seems particularly adept at positioning himself on issues where he can "provoke heterodox thought" while not pissing off his deeply progressive fan base and maintain his lucrative job at NYU. He comes across (to me) as self serving and preachy.
Thanks ... Haidt seems to do a pretty good job attracting a fan base (and angry base) from across the spectrum. Which seems appropriate for someone self described as heterodox. I like a lot of his work, but this move/argument didn't hit the mark for me.
Nevertheless, Haidt has the right to leave this SPSP for any reason.
As you write, he may be wrong about the purpose of a university (truth instead of curiosity).
But, asking "people to indicate how their presentation advances the Equity and Anti-racism goals of SPSP" means that all association's activities should include "affirmative action" to advance equity and/or anti-racism. Should it do so? Why this in particular?
Regardless of the value of such moral goals, it is doubtful that Personality and Social Psychology has nothing else to discuss regarding their profession.
For example, what should be the content of the political correctness statement of the authors of the study on "Mechanisms linking attachment orientation to sleep quality in married couples" that has just been published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (PSPB)? Should they make up something to tell and then expose themselves to the possible accusation of being insincere?
This self-righteousness smells of Soviet-style inquisitiveness with an awfully bad taste.
So, Haidt may have a good reason to leave this professional association.
America Needs a New Civil Rights Act WSJ editorial 10/17/22
The WSJ gives another (and i think valid) perspective on this issue.
I’m glad I retired before the anti racism police arrived at the company I worked at for 35 years. I view this latest iteration of requirements placed on presenters that Haidt speaks of as simply a tax. Something that causes people in the workplace to be diverted from their primary focus (manufacturing something, serving a client, etc...) - that causes them to have to spend more time doing their job. And that’s a problem. Having invested a lifetime of 70 hours weeks serving my clients demands, adding other requirements that do not get embedded into the deliverable or advice given to the client serves no purpose in my opinion. If you cut the legs out of a true meritocracy, eventually it will no longer be best in class.
I do respect your point of view and appreciate your position.
I just know that in my prior work-life, adding more requirements would have been fatal, there just were not enough hours in the day and additional requirements would have put pressure on quality. And that’s very dangerous.
At the same time, the “culture” of any organization can achieve anti racist objectives without building in requirements similar to what Haidt speaks of. It comes from developing appropriate processes into recruiting, engaging in the community, engaging with your suppliers and customers, training and coaching your people and many other aspects of an organization. Culture is set at the top, but if done properly, is an extremely powerful force that resonates from the bottom up - when all of the ores are in the water pushing in the same direction. I was lucky to work with subject matter experts at the top of their field from a very diverse (color, nationality, religion, gender, etc.....) back ground. The one thing they all had in common was getting the best result for - - the client.
To an outsider, universities look like profit motivated institutions. But tenure doesn’t seem to fit that goal. Could it be a concession to truth as an institutional value?
That is a fair characterization (profit motivation). I do wonder if tenure is at risk.
Hmm. You liken a professional organization to a country club. Well, I liken Haidt's resignation to quitting a country club that doesn't accept black members. (Yes, deliberately inflammatory analogy, but it doesn't seem that much of a stretch to me.)
Yes, agreed -- a fine analogy. If the club's values don't square with your own, then quitting makes good sense.
Thanks for the thoughtful (if mild) and even handed take down of Jonathan Haidt. Personally I'm not a fan of his. He seems particularly adept at positioning himself on issues where he can "provoke heterodox thought" while not pissing off his deeply progressive fan base and maintain his lucrative job at NYU. He comes across (to me) as self serving and preachy.
Thanks ... Haidt seems to do a pretty good job attracting a fan base (and angry base) from across the spectrum. Which seems appropriate for someone self described as heterodox. I like a lot of his work, but this move/argument didn't hit the mark for me.
Nevertheless, Haidt has the right to leave this SPSP for any reason.
As you write, he may be wrong about the purpose of a university (truth instead of curiosity).
But, asking "people to indicate how their presentation advances the Equity and Anti-racism goals of SPSP" means that all association's activities should include "affirmative action" to advance equity and/or anti-racism. Should it do so? Why this in particular?
Regardless of the value of such moral goals, it is doubtful that Personality and Social Psychology has nothing else to discuss regarding their profession.
For example, what should be the content of the political correctness statement of the authors of the study on "Mechanisms linking attachment orientation to sleep quality in married couples" that has just been published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (PSPB)? Should they make up something to tell and then expose themselves to the possible accusation of being insincere?
This self-righteousness smells of Soviet-style inquisitiveness with an awfully bad taste.
So, Haidt may have a good reason to leave this professional association.
Yes, I agree that he may well be right about leaving his association. I'm just not sure that there is any larger significance.