Queensland University of Technology defends removing 'merit' from hiring policy

[EEVblog]

As the title says:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-17/qut-defends-removing-merit-from-hiring-policy/103114562

Queensland University of Technology's vice-chancellor has defended the decision to remove all references to "merit" from its hiring policy.
Staff were told about the move via an internal email, which informed them that they would be moving away from "the merit principle" towards a "more inclusive suitability assessment".
Vice-chancellor Margaret Sheil told ABC Radio Brisbane the suitability assessment would consider factors such as gender and ethnic backgrounds.

Professor Sheil said it would also consider the current demographic breakdown of their various schools and disciplines.

She said women, for example, were under-represented in science and engineering at QUT whereas men were under-represented in teaching and nursing.
She dismissed suggestions that the hiring process should be colourblind, saying that was impossible in practice.

"When people say things like 'We do this on merit', they're actually reflecting the bias of their own experience," Professor Sheil said.
"There's so much data on this around selection, whether it's recruitment into orchestras or into universities.
"There isn't a way of being colourblind that's not got some form of bias into it."

She said staff undertook unconscious bias training, and that the selection committees were chosen with diversity in mind.
She said they would aim to hire a diversity of personalities, such as recruiting more outgoing scientists who were good at industry engagement.

'We don't want everybody to look the same'
Professor Sheil denied the policy was a "political" decision, insisting it was a practical move to improve the university's talent pool.

"We need to access the entire talent pool, and we don't want everybody to look the same," she said.
"We need the workforce to reflect the students coming through, and we also know people look at things differently when they come from different backgrounds.
"I've been working in improving diversity in academic environments my entire career; it's got nothing to do with contemporary politics."

Professor Sheil said she was the first female professor of chemistry in Australia and has subsequently spent her life trying to get more women into science.
QUT claims the suitability assessment is based on the Queensland Public Service Commission's hiring strategy.

[SiliconWizard]

Yes, let's remove any "friction", as they say.

I read the thing and am unable to say what exactly that means though. I see a lot of buzzwords, but what exactly will they do?

Just a note about this one: 'We don't want everybody to look the same'. While I still don't quite know what they mean by removing "merit" here, denying the concept of merit usually leads to exactly that though, making everyone precisely look more the same. Buggers.

[.RC.]

So I take it the Vice Chancellor will be standing down so she can be replaced by someone who is far more qualified.

By qualified I mean someone who is disabled,  identifies as a gender other then male and female, who also identifies as coming from a disadvantaged area, extra points awarded if it is determined  by a committee of specially selected lefties people who identify as human as having "suffered" at the hands of some more powerful country when they were a child.

So at this point in time, going by what I read on the news, she would be replaced this week by a genderless, disabled person from Gaza who specialises in rocket science or underground mining geology.   

After all they have to lead by example right?

[wraper]

I read the thing and am unable to say what exactly that means though. I see a lot of buzzwords, but what exactly will they do?

Hire worst among applicants instead of best qualified ones because reasons and whatever fits today's agenda.

[.RC.]

As with most things Trey Parker has already made something about this.

[Dan123456]

God damn that is a big oof 

I can’t see that backfiring in their face at all 

[CatalinaWOW]

This is mostly just word salad.  To me suitability is a perfectly valid reason for selection for a post.

Where the rubber meets the road is in the definitions of what makes one suitable for the job.  Sex is sometimes perfectly valid.  I have difficulty seeing how a male would be suitable for a surrogate mother position.  And from a purely local standpoint, if ones funding depends on having census matching numbers for various population cohorts on your staff, cohort membership is a valid suitability criterion.

Of course one would hope that capability of graduates is a metric of interest at all universities.  Contribution to that should have a high weight in the suitability evaluation.  Unfortunately it is difficult or impossible to measure even after years of employment and so the bureaucracies will fall back on the easy to measure things like membership in cohorts.

An interesting side effect of this may be a dramatic reduction in production of PhDs.  Even in the easiest of fields there is a fair amount of pain in achieving this degree, and if it is not valued why would anyone pursue it?

[EEVblog]

Yes, let's remove any "friction", as they say.

I read the thing and am unable to say what exactly that means though. I see a lot of buzzwords, but what exactly will they do?

Just a note about this one: 'We don't want everybody to look the same'. While I still don't quite know what they mean by removing "merit" here, denying the concept of merit usually leads to exactly that though, making everyone precisely look more the same. Buggers.

They mean "white men". I"m not kiding, that's what they really mean.
I asked AI to generate their worst nightmare:

[EEVblog]

This ranks up there with UTS lowering the engineering entry standard for women:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/university-boosts-female-enrolments-in-male-dominated-subjects-after-lowering-atar-bar-20221010-p5bomw.html

[.RC.]

I asked AI to generate their worst nightmare:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F_-9zvGawAAnSA5?format=jpg&name=small

Where is the PTSD trigger warning for that photo?

[EEVblog]

An interesting side effect of this may be a dramatic reduction in production of PhDs.  Even in the easiest of fields there is a fair amount of pain in achieving this degree, and if it is not valued why would anyone pursue it?

Because many people already have no idea about practicality, hence getting PhD's in gender studies etc.
https://arts.unimelb.edu.au/asia-institute/discipline-areas/gender-studies
https://www.phdportal.com/search/phd/gender-sexuality-studies

EDIT:
A 6 year PhD in Anthropology and Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at no less than Yale anyone?
https://anthropology.yale.edu/academics/graduate-programs/combined-phd-anthropology-wgss

[Bud]

the Pareto rule is about to change from "20% people doing 80% work" to "5% people doing 95% work." 

[magic]

It might be a symptom of a more general trend of academia going downhill.

Of the people I remember from my year, most of the brightest went for commercial careers because that's where real R&D happens and where the money is, while the "upper-mediocre" were left behind to attempt PhD. I remember two specific individuals who wanted to stay at the university simply because they had not a faintest clue what to do with their lives otherwise or felt not good enough for "real" work (one of them thankfully wasn't good enough for PhD either, the other got it after years of nonsense "research" no one will ever care about).

If computer science faculties become a government sponsored nursery for high functioning adult autists, I don't even want to think what happens in those "social studies"

[SiliconWizard]

Yes, let's remove any "friction", as they say.

I read the thing and am unable to say what exactly that means though. I see a lot of buzzwords, but what exactly will they do?

Just a note about this one: 'We don't want everybody to look the same'. While I still don't quite know what they mean by removing "merit" here, denying the concept of merit usually leads to exactly that though, making everyone precisely look more the same. Buggers.

They mean "white men". I"m not kiding, that's what they really mean.

Yeah, I know, that's the whole current "woke" trend that is going on. But what I was pointing out is that they never really say what they intend to do, it's always fuzzy with a lot of empty words, that are supposed to instantly resonate with the "initiated", while leaving everyone else either annoyed or in a state of denial.

The war on "merit" is not too surprising, even if it's just one angle of attack here among many. The "woke" movement is some kind of (at least in inspiration) neo-marxist movement and for neo-marxists, merit is one of the values to destroy.

[magic]

The war on "merit" is not too surprising, even if it's just one angle of attack here among many. The "woke" movement is some kind of (at least in inspiration) neo-marxist movement and for neo-marxists, merit is one of the values to destroy.

American food isn't real food.
American boobs aren't real boobs.
American marxists aren't real marxists

AFAIK actual commies never used gender or ethnic quotas and were opposed to feminism and other identity politics. Their position was that people are equal and any differences that may be observed today are caused by social dynamics of power and money, which dynamics communism claimed to eliminate. Infamous kleptocracy aside, hiring decisions were officially to be based on suitability for the job. As they had to be, for communism to have any chance of progressing and fighting the global evil of capitalism and imperialism.

Anti-merit is an American movement trying to explain inconvenient statistics for disgruntled liberals who realized that decades of state-level cult of liberalism and elimination of every form of genuine systemic inequality still didn't make the statistics go away completely, as their religion appeared to promise. It's also backed by the American conviction that they are at the top of the global food chain and will stay there forever no matter how hard they shoot their foot. Americans would make actual idealistic communists cringe.

In short, death to America, inshallah

[jpanhalt]

I assume many of you have seen this cartoon about diversity. 

[plain]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9edtHJMaws0[/plain]

It seems Queensland University is imitating parody.

[AndyBeez]

"When people say things like 'We do this on merit', they're actually reflecting the bias of their own experience,"
"There isn't a way of being colourblind that's not got some form of bias into it."

No sh!t Karen!

So no more hiring females or aboriginals(?) on the basis that they are the very best person for the job?

Clearly QLUT has a 'diverse' range of leadership skills. I can think of which box this one ticks - an empty one?

I should add, that as someone who works in the UK, this diversity BS is a conversation from decades ago.

[RoGeorge]

That "decision" is not to be taken lightly, that's national sabotage.  Universities are strategic objectives, just like military bases.  Ask you intelligence services to open an investigation.

Meanwhile, the students, the university and the Australian people should disobey the "decision", and remove her instead.  Find out who come up with that "decision", too.  Whoever is messing with the education system is doing so to ruin your future.

Also, her salary seems disproportionately large:

https://campusmorningmail.com.au › news › qut-finances-are-sound-but-what-about-the-casuals
QUT: finances are sound, but what about the casuals?
Professor Margaret Sheil's salary for 2020 was $1,209,999 and for 2019 $1,189,999. Compare this to the Premier of Queensland's annual pay of $385,605.

[.RC.]

AFAIK actual commies never used gender or ethnic quotas and were opposed to feminism and other identity politics.

In politics left and right is pretty corrupted and meaningless. In fact people can and do believe what they want to believe and justify to themselves that they hold the superior position.

Everything is mixed up.   You can have socially "conservative" people but still believe in communism.   You can have socially "progressive" people that believe in capitalism, and vice versa.

After being on internet forums for years to me it appears there is an infinite number of positions on the socially "progressive", socially "conservative", politically communist and politically capitalist graph and on top of that those positions people hold seem to change as their circumstances and life experience changes.

In fact I would say you can not tell a person's true views by what others say about them, or even what they write in forums themselves as communication skills vary from person to person and comprehension skills vary as well, and emotions are not easily determined by written language.

But it seems some people cannot handle this constant changing flux of views and think, well such and such said this so therefore they absolutely are X, and these people are on all sides as well.

[Warhawk]

I would have never said that a person with lobotomy could be a vice-chancellor.

[RoGeorge]

And now we are here, a parody from 8 years ago on the verge of becoming reality:

Modern Educayshun

[audiotubes]

the Pareto rule is about to change from "20% people doing 80% work" to "5% people doing 95% work." 

I'm pretty sure the 5/95 rule has been in effect for several decades already

[Circlotron]

They mean "white men". I"m not kiding, that's what they really mean.

Especially old straight white men.
The worst kind of people.

[magic]

And now we are here, a parody from 8 years ago on the verge of becoming reality:

It wasn't a parody.
Why you think blueskull bailed out?

[tszaboo]

Well, that's what you get when you let a leftist through your door. They shame you for who you are, send you on reeducation camp, or get you fired. Set up camp, and make policies like this.
Never hire an identity politician, they are truly the most toxic employees, and what their policies are doing is in fact illegal.

the Pareto rule is about to change from "20% people doing 80% work" to "5% people doing 95% work." 

I'm pretty sure the 5/95 rule has been in effect for several decades already

It's called Price's law, and for large organizations it's much worse than 80/20 or even 95/5.

[Neutrion]

So I take it the Vice Chancellor will be standing down so she can be replaced by someone who is far more qualified.

By qualified I mean someone who is disabled,  identifies as a gender other then male and female, who also identifies as coming from a disadvantaged area, extra points awarded if it is determined  by a committee of specially selected lefties people who identify as human as having "suffered" at the hands of some more powerful country when they were a child.

So at this point in time, going by what I read on the news, she would be replaced this week by a genderless, disabled person from Gaza who specialises in rocket science or underground mining geology.   

After all they have to lead by example right?

Good points, but in your list the analfabets would still be underrepresented. And having an analfabet quota based on the Australian population would be utterly racist.

And regarding the white guys on the picture it is horrendous to see you all calling them men....
How do you know? You might offend them! I recommend Queensland University to also implement new clothing standard, which makes it possible in any season the genitalia and a 17cm circle around it to be clearly seen. This would make these offenses less likely! (And would have other positive social effects which miss Sheil doesn't have to know about.)

But to be a bit more serious, there was an interesting study which one of the german state TVs also made a documentary about recently. Without the editors actually understanding the broader implications I think. They found that people were able to estimate other peoples intelligence levels by the look of a single picture. And the experiment was really well made. ALL the participants with different ages and gender were able to do it. I would really like to see more studies into this. It tells me that my gut feelengs regarding some are actually correct. If we are talking about being "biased" towards people.
The "bias" it seems could be actually quiet correct.


 

[coppice]

Well, that's what you get when you let a leftist through your door. They shame you for who you are, send you on reeducation camp, or get you fired. Set up camp, and make policies like this.
Never hire an identity politician, they are truly the most toxic employees, and what their policies are doing is in fact illegal.

the Pareto rule is about to change from "20% people doing 80% work" to "5% people doing 95% work." 

I'm pretty sure the 5/95 rule has been in effect for several decades already

It's called Price's law, and for large organizations it's much worse than 80/20 or even 95/5.

80/20 comes from the Pareto distribution. Price's law says half the results are produced by the most productive square root of the workforce. The two things are related, but not the same. Pareto is basically what happens when you have a statistical distribution with one end clipped. For example, there is no practical limit to how rich someone can get, but if poverty leads you to starve to death you are out of the game. Simulate the statistics of that and you will find you get more and more people out of the game, and a few winners taking all. If you just slightly nudge the destitute back into the game using a minor tax on the big winners you can massively even things up. If politicians could actually follow a statistics course they might act very differently.

[Bud]

They found that people were able to estimate other peoples intelligence levels by the look of a single picture.

IBM first meeting Bill Gates:
"We were waiting in the front, and this young fella came out to take us back to Mr. Gates office. I thought he was the office boy."
 

[coppice]

As the title says:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-17/qut-defends-removing-merit-from-hiring-policy/103114562

There have been a spate of books in the last couple of years decrying merit. They seem kinda wacky, until you read how they are defining merit. They are using it mostly as a synonym for credentials, rather than any concept of merit the general public would recognise. Huge numbers of credentialed people are pretty useless, so there is a lot of merit in the argument in these books, using their weird dictionary.

[coppice]

They found that people were able to estimate other peoples intelligence levels by the look of a single picture.

IBM first meeting Bill Gates:
"We were waiting in the front, and this young fella came out to take us back to Mr. Gates office. I thought he was the office boy."
 

That may have more to do with his look of youth than his apparent IQ. Also a lot of business people are not exactly the sharpest tools in the shed, so they might lack this ability to get a good estimate of intelligence.

[Neutrion]

They found that people were able to estimate other peoples intelligence levels by the look of a single picture.

IBM first meeting Bill Gates:
"We were waiting in the front, and this young fella came out to take us back to Mr. Gates office. I thought he was the office boy."
 

That may have more to do with his look of youth than his apparent IQ. Also a lot of business people are not exactly the sharpest tools in the shed, so they might lack this ability to get a good estimate of intelligence.

Participants in the test were average people. The case with Gates could be biased by clothing, age, situation, etc. This experiment was done in a way to possibly exclude all these factors. After the initial guess they were also later allowed to see videos about the guessed persons, so there were many stages.

[floobydust]

3rd year university, all engineering students are told their grades are going to be "normalized" with those of other faculties such as Science, Computing Science, Physics, Math etc.
We were all "huh?" 
It turns out engineering grades for the same courses were held down, much lower which was a problem for students transferring between faculties and of course... weak students needed a better chance at passing in engineering. Instead of weeding them out.
Made me laugh because 1st year engineering was brutal for marks, they trashed students on purpose to get them to drop out - you don't get a refund on tuition then. The uni made good money off this and enrollment numbers looked good for the government.

So all of our grades took a jump up, I estimate +20% or ~1/9.0 scale 
That was the day I realized student achievement and merit is arbitrary. Any problems you can blame the students for being lazy, low achievers. Set the bar wherever you like, but the Bell Curve can still be hacked and warped as needed.

In academia there are many "weak" profs that used a garbage thesis for their PhD. Some were pretty dumb but got their post-doc.
Merit? It could not be measured. Even volume, # of papers published actually means nothing. The content of the papers was most important but nobody ranks that, including the funding and grant agencies- that bring money into a university. An ounce of image is worth a pound of performance.

[Neutrion]

EDIT:
A 6 year PhD in Anthropology and Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at no less than Yale anyone?
https://anthropology.yale.edu/academics/graduate-programs/combined-phd-anthropology-wgss

Full of women? Well I would like to do a long term study for my Phd work on  "Measuring Caucasian Humans with female reproductive organs  changing intensity of reproductive instinct in direct contact with a male test person with male reproductive organs  under variable mechanical arrangements and verbal communication patterns"
Unfortunately a lot of experiments are needed for it, but I am sure the leaders of the programs will help me with the arrangement of them. I hope I can apply for some scholarship as well.
 

[tszaboo]

Well, that's what you get when you let a leftist through your door. They shame you for who you are, send you on reeducation camp, or get you fired. Set up camp, and make policies like this.
Never hire an identity politician, they are truly the most toxic employees, and what their policies are doing is in fact illegal.

the Pareto rule is about to change from "20% people doing 80% work" to "5% people doing 95% work." 

I'm pretty sure the 5/95 rule has been in effect for several decades already

It's called Price's law, and for large organizations it's much worse than 80/20 or even 95/5.

80/20 comes from the Pareto distribution. Price's law says half the results are produced by the most productive square root of the workforce. The two things are related, but not the same. Pareto is basically what happens when you have a statistical distribution with one end clipped. For example, there is no practical limit to how rich someone can get, but if poverty leads you to starve to death you are out of the game. Simulate the statistics of that and you will find you get more and more people out of the game, and a few winners taking all. If you just slightly nudge the destitute back into the game using a minor tax on the big winners you can massively even things up. If politicians could actually follow a statistics course they might act very differently.

What I'm saying is that Price's law is more applicable for a workspace work/effort assessment, than Pareto principle, since that is actually describing a work done by different people. I've always applied Pareto's principle as an estimation on how much time it takes to do 80% of the work.
But then, strangely, Pareto's principle approximates a solution to Price's law, for a certain sized organization.

EDIT:
A 6 year PhD in Anthropology and Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at no less than Yale anyone?
https://anthropology.yale.edu/academics/graduate-programs/combined-phd-anthropology-wgss

Full of women?

We should demand equal representation in those studies. And  reduce the faculty numbers until it's 50% men.

[coppice]

What I'm saying is that Price's law is more applicable for a workspace work/effort assessment, than Pareto principle, since that is actually describing a work done by different people. I've always applied Pareto's principle as an estimation on how much time it takes to do 80% of the work.
But then, strangely, Pareto's principle approximates a solution to Price's law, for a certain sized organization.

That's inaccurate. Price's Law doesn't refer to work done. It refers to results achieved. Most people in most organisations are doing quite lot of work. Most just aren't producing many useful results. What I find most interesting about Price's Law is it seems like something that should only apply to high skill activities, yet people who have tried to apply it to things like simple assembly work have found it a good fit there, too.

[Neutrion]

EDIT:
A 6 year PhD in Anthropology and Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at no less than Yale anyone?
https://anthropology.yale.edu/academics/graduate-programs/combined-phd-anthropology-wgss

Full of women?

We should demand equal representation in those studies. And  reduce the faculty numbers until it's 50% men.

Oh, no no no NO! I suggest this to be a strictly genitalically female study with the invitation of one single non american with a diverse reproductive organ interested in the above mentioned PhD work.
Otherwise the masculinity would be too toxic!

[Halcyon]

In relation to the article: What a load of shit. There really isn't much more that I can say.

[RJSV]

   Diversity, and don't forget fairness.
   I took the tack, similar to '.RC.' posted reply.
Mentioned 'Diversity signalling' in off-hand way, like "...Everybody knows that's a silly boast, how diverse our business, club, etc. is."
   WRONG MOVE there.  I got 86xed and plus they (said) my 'files were shredded'...whatever that means, in 2023.

[vk6zgo]

As the title says:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-17/qut-defends-removing-merit-from-hiring-policy/103114562

Queensland University of Technology's vice-chancellor has defended the decision to remove all references to "merit" from its hiring policy.
Staff were told about the move via an internal email, which informed them that they would be moving away from "the merit principle" towards a "more inclusive suitability assessment".
Vice-chancellor Margaret Sheil told ABC Radio Brisbane the suitability assessment would consider factors such as gender and ethnic backgrounds.

Professor Sheil said it would also consider the current demographic breakdown of their various schools and disciplines.

She said women, for example, were under-represented in science and engineering at QUT whereas men were under-represented in teaching and nursing.
She dismissed suggestions that the hiring process should be colourblind, saying that was impossible in practice.

"When people say things like 'We do this on merit', they're actually reflecting the bias of their own experience," Professor Sheil said.
"There's so much data on this around selection, whether it's recruitment into orchestras or into universities.
"There isn't a way of being colourblind that's not got some form of bias into it."

She said staff undertook unconscious bias training, and that the selection committees were chosen with diversity in mind.
She said they would aim to hire a diversity of personalities, such as recruiting more outgoing scientists who were good at industry engagement.

'We don't want everybody to look the same'
Professor Sheil denied the policy was a "political" decision, insisting it was a practical move to improve the university's talent pool.

"We need to access the entire talent pool, and we don't want everybody to look the same," she said.
"We need the workforce to reflect the students coming through, and we also know people look at things differently when they come from different backgrounds.
"I've been working in improving diversity in academic environments my entire career; it's got nothing to do with contemporary politics."

Professor Sheil said she was the first female professor of chemistry in Australia and has subsequently spent her life trying to get more women into science.
QUT claims the suitability assessment is based on the Queensland Public Service Commission's hiring strategy.

I've always thought "merit" was bullshit, particularly when management use it.
Every time I see it used by that demographic, I read it as "drinks with the Boss".
But, then, I'm old & nasty!

[EEVblog]

Well, that's what you get when you let a leftist through your door. They shame you for who you are, send you on reeducation camp, or get you fired. Set up camp, and make policies like this.
Never hire an identity politician, they are truly the most toxic employees, and what their policies are doing is in fact illegal.

Any wiff of identiy politics in a job candidate will usually get you instantly rejected these days. It's back firing big time.
Those who got caught up in the whole woke trend thing, if they have an ounce of sense left will scrub their history as best they can, starting with the pronouns.

[tggzzz]

As the title says:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-17/qut-defends-removing-merit-from-hiring-policy/103114562

Queensland University of Technology's vice-chancellor has defended the decision to remove all references to "merit" from its hiring policy.

At first I wondered whether this was a false report designed to provke "dog whistle" reactions.

Kurt Vonnegut memorably and neatly skewered such policies with his 1961 short story "Harrison Bergeron". It seems 2081 has arrived ahead of schedule
https://ia803002.us.archive.org/25/items/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Bergeron.pdf
or see any of the soulless study notes such as
https://www.sparknotes.com/short-stories/harrison-bergeron/summary/

Sounds like the vice chancellor could do with reading some literature

[tggzzz]

Meanwhile, the students, the university and the Australian people should disobey the "decision", and remove her instead.  Find out who come up with that "decision", too.  Whoever is messing with the education system is doing so to ruin your future.

There's an alternative: malicious sabotage.

Where identity politics is involved, I'll bet that there is a policy about LGBTQGHXK. In that case all the men have to do is state that they "identify as female". If enough do it, maybe some of the women will be ejected to ensure balance or be forced to "identify as men".

[coppice]

As the title says:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-17/qut-defends-removing-merit-from-hiring-policy/103114562

Queensland University of Technology's vice-chancellor has defended the decision to remove all references to "merit" from its hiring policy.

At first I wondered whether this was a false report designed to provke "dog whistle" reactions.

Kurt Vonnegut memorably and neatly skewered such policies with his 1961 short story "Harrison Bergeron". It seems 2081 has arrived ahead of schedule
https://ia803002.us.archive.org/25/items/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Bergeron.pdf
or see any of the soulless study notes such as
https://www.sparknotes.com/short-stories/harrison-bergeron/summary/

Sounds like the vice chancellor could do with reading some literature

Reading Harrison Bergeron won't help someone like that. They see it as an operating manual for society. Some people read 1984 and think "cool, that's what we need". The very people who need to truly awaken need something where the conclusion is explicitly stated, or they just don't get the author's point.

[tggzzz]

Well, that's what you get when you let a leftist through your door. They shame you for who you are, send you on reeducation camp, or get you fired. Set up camp, and make policies like this.

The hard right do exactly the same kind of thing.

As was pointed out long ago, the hard left intimidate via mass marches, the hard right intimidate in back alleys. Choose your poison, or choose to avoid poison.

Never hire an identity politician, they are truly the most toxic employees, and what their policies are doing is in fact illegal.

Yes, except I'm not sure about "illegal"

[tggzzz]

Reading Harrison Bergeron won't help someone like that. They see it as an operating manual for society. Some people read 1984 and think "cool, that's what we need". The very people who need to truly awaken need something where the conclusion is explicitly stated, or they just don't get the author's point.

Incompetence vs ignorance vs malice? Any of those is possible

Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between them. But arguably that doesn't matter, since they all should be fought.

[magic]

As was pointed out long ago, the hard left intimidate via mass marches, the hard right intimidate in back alleys.

This is not a fundamental difference but only a symptom of left infiltration of your government.

As is

Yes, except I'm not sure about "illegal"

Technically it was, or might still be illegal, like perhaps in America. But who cares if the courts rule otherwise?

[Neutrion]

Meanwhile, the students, the university and the Australian people should disobey the "decision", and remove her instead.  Find out who come up with that "decision", too.  Whoever is messing with the education system is doing so to ruin your future.

There's an alternative: malicious sabotage.

Where identity politics is involved, I'll bet that there is a policy about LGBTQGHXK. In that case all the men have to do is state that they "identify as female". If enough do it, maybe some of the women will be ejected to ensure balance or be forced to "identify as men".

Good Idea! Also womens toilet is a really discriminative thing, which should belong to the past.

I always wonder how this extremely small amout of people who are pushing this genderism could get so much influence.
Because with the skin color issue at least I see a lot of black etc. people, (in western Europe) but trans people and the extreme feminist brigade is possibly around 1/10000 ?-th of the population.
In Germany they even managed to change the language which is even annoying many leftist.
And in the german language it is much more irritating and complicated than in english.

So there are somwhere maybe a few thousand people who somehow got this extreme influence.
Do (did) they have botfarms? Or did anyone ever checked whether the shitstorm in case for example with Rowling was coming from real people?
Or are they sitting organised in front of the PC all day long hunting for some articles?
There are way more important issues with much more affected people where there is no change for decades, but this nonsense is spreading like pest.

[magic]

What would bot farms change?

The success of PQRS+ABCXYZ is a combination of two factors:
1. some narcissists having nothing better to do than sitting on the Internet all day and posting about their uniqueness, writing petitions and so on
2. stupidity and indoctrination of the general population to be "kind" and "understanding", largely a work done by earlier SJW movements

Okay, maybe a third:
3. rich media owners (in privatized media countries) giving air time to everything that focuses attention of pissed off plebs on something other than the rich

[armandine2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy

I liked the bit where it was hard to get published

[coppice]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy

I liked the bit where it was hard to get published

That was a funky period in British politics. The tripartite school system (actually just two levels in most of the country) was pushed by people on the left. It allowed working class kids in state schools to compete on fairly equal terms with wealthy kids going to expensive public schools, so it seemed like something the left should be behind. Before it was effectively rolled out across the whole of the UK fashion changed, and the left was suddenly in favour of scrapping the system, and having a single level of "comprehensive schools", which are a kind of "most children left behind" scheme . That suited the rich, as it reduced competition with their kids, so they let the change occur. No conspiracy, just everyone powerful pushing in the same direction with different goals.

That article says the Fabian Society wouldn't publish the book, not that is was hard to get published. I'm not sure which side of the argument the Fabian left was on at that time.

[tggzzz]

I always wonder how this extremely small amout of people who are pushing this genderism could get so much influence.

There was a significant problem and it required the Womens' Lib movement to focus attention on the problem and get some laws introduced. Good; that attention and those laws improved society. Most (young) people could identify with the problems, and appreciated the changes. The people that had fought that fight were justifiably lionised, and that lead to them finding themselves in postitions of influence.

Some people in the Womens' Lib movement had hitched their career and/or sense of value/purpose to the struggle. When the major problems had been addressed, they had to either retire and enjoy their success, or find new problems to fight against. Those problems have to be, by definition, less severe than the original problems.

The young people assumed without thinking that the reinvented fighters' cause was just as serious as the original, so the fighters were given the benefit of the doubt.
The original fighters (who hadn't retired) were now in a postition to influence the future, and they used it.

Rinse and repeat that a few times, and the remaining problems are much less significant than the original problems.  The new fighters have to become more extreme to get people to pay attention.

The same is true of the homosexual community.

There's an interesting 1990 book, "No More Sex War" by Neil Lyndon. In it he used the same debating tactics that the remaining feminists used against the patriachy. The feminists howled loudly, presumably not seeing the irony. It made Neil Lyndon almost unemployable.

Interesting question from that book: "what's the age that a UK resident is most likely to be a homicide victim?". Most people would guess teens or 16-24. Wrong. The most dangerous age was (is?) under 1 year old, and 55% of the perps were (are?) women - their mothers. Of course it isn't classed as murder, but as infanticide, so the naive statistics don't reflect the question.

[coppice]

I always wonder how this extremely small amout of people who are pushing this genderism could get so much influence.

There was a significant problem and it required the Womens' Lib movement to focus attention on the problem and get some laws introduced. Good; that attention and those laws improved society. Most (young) people could identify with the problems, and appreciated the changes. The people that had fought that fight were justifiably lionised, and that lead to them finding themselves in postitions of influence.

Some people in the Womens' Lib movement had hitched their career and/or sense of value/purpose to the struggle. When the major problems had been addressed, they had to either retire and enjoy their success, or find new problems to fight against. Those problems have to be, by definition, less severe than the original problems.

The young people assumed without thinking that the reinvented fighters' cause was just as serious as the original, so the fighters were given the benefit of the doubt.
The original fighters (who hadn't retired) were now in a postition to influence the future, and they used it.

Rinse and repeat that a few times, and the remaining problems are much less significant than the original problems.  The new fighters have to become more extreme to get people to pay attention.

The same is true of the homosexual community.

There's an interesting 1990 book, "No More Sex War" by Neil Lyndon. In it he used the same debating tactics that the remaining feminists used against the patriachy. The feminists howled loudly, presumably not seeing the irony. It made Neil Lyndon almost unemployable.

Interesting question from that book: "what's the age that a UK resident is most likely to be a homicide victim?". Most people would guess teens or 16-24. Wrong. The most dangerous age was (is?) under 1 year old, and 55% of the perps were (are?) women - their mothers. Of course it isn't classed as murder, but as infanticide, so the naive statistics don't reflect the question.

The real problem is this. If there is something meaningful people agree needs changing, and they can make it happen fast, all is good. If they take enough time that people get careers invested in the cause, they will never stop. If its something like an endangered animal, and they get it back to a safe position, they might move on to some other animal and do good work saving that. If there's no clear new path to persue they won't disband and ruin their pension plans. They'll do anything to keep the cause going, usually into strange territory.

Or,more succinctly: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” ― Eric Hoffer, The Temper of Our Time

[Gregg]

This is where many educational administrators are going:

[MrMobodies]

Queensland University of Technology's vice-chancellor has defended the decision to remove all references to "merit" from its hiring policy.
Staff were told about the move via an internal email, which informed them that they would be moving away from "the merit principle" towards a "more inclusive suitability assessment".
Vice-chancellor Margaret Sheil told ABC Radio Brisbane the * suitability assessment would consider factors such as gender and ethnic backgrounds.

Professor Sheil said it would also consider the current demographic breakdown of their various schools and disciplines.

She said women, for example, were under-represented in science and engineering at QUT whereas men were under-represented in teaching and nursing.

So what are they going to do, make it unfair on the male gender who want to study or rubbish their marks for a women there who happened to do the same amount and quality of work?

Where identity politics is involved, I'll bet that there is a policy about LGBTQGHXK. In that case all the men have to do is state that they "identify as female". If enough do it, maybe some of the women will be ejected to ensure balance or be forced to "identify as men".

So that's what this thing is called "identity politics".

It reminds me a bit like this article:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/red-alert-politics/teacher-bans-boys-playing-legos-gender-equality

Teacher bans boys from playing with legos because of 'gender equality'
by Ryan Girdusky  November 23, 2015 01:40 PM

Teacher: 'no legos' for boys for 'gender equality'

According to the Bainbridge Island Review, a kindergarten teacher restricted boys from playing with legos in order to institute more "gender equality." “I always tell the boys, ‘You’re going to have a turn’ — and I’m like, ‘Yeah, when hell freezes over’ in my head. I tell them, ‘You’ll have a turn’ because I don’t want them to feel bad,” said kindergarten teacher Karen Keller to the Bainbridge Island Review.

Keller has been a teacher at Captain Johnston Blakely Elementary since 2008 and realized that girls often times would play with dolls and crayons, while boys would play with blocks. This seemed to happen naturally, as if science and biology dictated what appealed to boys and girls. Societal norms, like girls playing with dolls over blocks, is what Kellar blames for the disparity between men and women in the science, technology, engineering, and math fields.

Being an active social justice warrior, Keller couldn't have the girls playing with that failed to develop perseverance, she had to act. After all children that play with blocks are more likely to better develop spacial and math skills. Keller appealed to the Bainbridge Schools Foundation to receive a grant for more blocks, only they would be for girls only.

The Washington Examiner reported that during the first month of children's time in kindergarten, Keller would ban boys from playing with the new LEGO Education Community Starter Kits. It's sad that the only way Keller a way to encourage "equality" was segregate the sexes and bring boys down. Despite concern from parents Blakely Elementary's principal, Reese Ande said the school does not "promote access or opportunity through any forms of exclusion." Ande also said that Keller is "a passionate teacher who cares deeply for each and every one of her students

So if the girls don't have an interest in a particular subject rather than try to make it more appealing or provide more stuff and resources if they are short to encourage more, don't do anything but restrict access to the boys to make it looks like it is equal.

[magic]

So if the girls don't have an interest in a particular subject rather than try to make it more appealing or provide more stuff and resources if they are short to encourage more, don't do anything but restrict access to the boys to make it looks like it is equal.

Crippling girls is just as harmful as crippling boys.

What would be the use of luring them away from their dolls and turning them into socially inept nerds?

[SiliconWizard]

The goal of this whole crap is to make the west, as we know it, commit suicide. I'm not kidding, it's not just speculation. But it's a question for another time and place I guess.
The ultimate reason, though, is still unclear, and most likely multiple. There isn't just one motive to it, I think there are several, they just happen to agree on the milestone.

[MrMobodies]

That was a funky period in British politics. The tripartite school system (actually just two levels in most of the country) was pushed by people on the left. It allowed working class kids in state schools to compete on fairly equal terms with wealthy kids going to expensive public schools, so it seemed like something the left should be behind. Before it was effectively rolled out across the whole of the UK fashion changed, and the left was suddenly in favour of scrapping the system, and having a single level of "comprehensive schools", which are a kind of "most children left behind" scheme .

I know of a maths teacher who I was still in contact that use to keep the students behind at the end of the day if he felt they were not doing well enough to help whatever problems they may have or what they don't grasp.

In 2016 he was told he was no longer allowed to this anymore and if they fall behind demote them to a lower class. He refused saying that no one tells me how teach I had been doing this job for 40 years and my teaching method ensure they are successful in passing.

Instead he decide to retire at the end of the year as he was of age and to teach privately. He said to me before he retired about the amount of paperwork they were getting him to do over the years which had nothing to do with teaching that he struggling with to find the time where he had to leave later in the evenings and then he spoke something to do with red tape being applied to things.

He said he had been teaching for 40 years and that they made him feel like he was no longer an expert anymore with them telling him how he should teach despite the high pass rate of his classes.

I just remembered something he told from last decade where the boys were quite most of the time but quite of few of the girls use to talk to one another during the lesson and not pay attention to him and the board so he had to plan where they were going to sit and every now again he'd shuffled them around and they'd be fine for a couple of weeks.

That suited the rich, as it reduced competition with their kids, so they let the change occur. No conspiracy, just everyone powerful pushing in the same direction with different goals.p.

That make sense to me where some places underarchieve and run the lowest and limited set of choices. Also my tutor above said to me "they make things so much more difficult than they need to be that he wouldn't be able to study to become a maths teacher in this day and age,

There was a thing in the news in 2010 on state schools running a restricted set of subjects and  many that were blacklisted by universities.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/aug/20/a-level-subjects-blacklist-claim

A-level results: Top universities secretly list 'banned' subjects – teachers
This article is more than 13 years old
Blacklist said to contain non-traditional A-level subjects mainly offered by comprehensives rather than private schools

Oxford is one of the elite universities accused of operating a subjects blacklist. Photograph: Oli
A-levels

A-level results: Top universities secretly list 'banned' subjects – teachers Blacklist said to contain non-traditional A-level subjects mainly offered by comprehensives rather than private schools
Jessica Shepherd, education correspondent
Fri 20 Aug 2010 21.30 BST
The country's top universities have been called on to come clean about an unofficial list or lists of "banned" A-level subjects that may have prevented tens of thousands of state school pupils getting on to degree courses.

Teachers suspect the Russell Group of universities – which includes Oxford and Cambridge – of rejecting outright pupils who take A-level subjects that appear on the unpublished lists.

The lists are said to contain subjects such as law, art and design, business studies, drama and theatre studies – non-traditional A-level subjects predominantly offered by comprehensives, rather than private schools.

The London School of Economics is thought to be the only top university to publish its own list of "non-preferred" subjects. Cambridge University did so until last year.

Teachers accused universities of putting comprehensive pupils at a disadvantage by refusing to publish their lists. Some claimed the lists were a filter that enabled the most prestigious universities to accept more private school pupils than state-educated ones.

Already private school pupils dominate entry to top universities and could do so more in future. A-level results published on Thursday showed that selective private schools continue to outperform comprehensives in terms of A and A* grades.

Private school pupils are three times more likely to score the highest grade than comprehensive pupils, achieving 30% of the total number of A* grades when their pupils accounted for just 14% of entries. Comprehensive schools achieve 30% of the A* grades on 43% of entries.

But even the brightest state school pupils, with a string of As and A*s, stand little chance of a place at a top university this year if they have taken one or more of the A-level subjects on the unofficial lists, the teachers said.

These students will join this year's unprecedented scramble for university places. An estimated 180,000 students are predicted to be turned away from every degree course starting this autumn because of record numbers of applications.

John Bangs, former head of education at the National Union of Teachers, said he strongly suspected that there was a single unofficial list of banned subjects. "The list is built on the assumption that these subjects are easier than others and not academic enough," he said. "This is just another sign of the Russell Group using a filter to stop people they don't want from getting into their universities. They have no concern about fairness. They should be far more transparent. If they have this list, let them publish it and show us the evidence that these subjects are easier."

Andy Gardner, of the Institute of Career Guidance, said he had confronted Russell Group universities about the alleged list in the past. "I think there is certainly an element of there being subjects that [the Russell Group] doesn't rate," Gardner, who advises state school pupils on their university choices, said. "Children in state schools are disadvantaged by this."

Mike Griffiths, headteacher of Northampton School for Boys and a council member of the Association of School and College Leaders, said he suspected universities of rejecting students who did drama A-level in particular. One of his pupils has three A*s but no place at university and he believes this may be because he took drama. "Universities need to be more honest about what criteria they are using [to select pupils]," he said. "I don't have a problem with universities having subjects that they consider to be less helpful, but they need to be upfront about it."

Geoff Lucas, secretary of the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference, which represents headteachers of 250 independent schools, said universities must "come clean if there were unwritten rules" about so-called banned subjects. State school pupils were more likely to choose a subject in the unofficial list because independent schools mainly offer traditional subjects, Lucas said. "Students have the absolute right to see this list."

Wendy Piatt, director general of the Russell Group, said no Russell Group university barred any A-level subject.

"University websites typically include details on 'essential' and 'preferred' A-levels to help students maximise their chances of gaining entry to competitive degree courses," she said. "Most provide very clear and comprehensive information on required A-level subjects and which ones will not be considered when making admissions decisions. Students would be well advised to take very careful note of such requirements."

This week's A-level results showed that pupils were increasingly shunning so-called "soft" subjects in favour of science, economics and maths.

Similar happening to the NHS with longer waiting lists and encouragement towards private care to get seen to sooner.

I remembered back in 2001, some years after Tony Blair brought out the tuition fee's and my school which had an agreement with a local university to help people like me but the fee's applied so they couldn't afford to send us and they scrapped the program before we even started. I went to many different colleges in the area which were running the courses I want to do but I was told they were not doing them next year and to apply to university to do it and they are now switching to these things called NVQ's that were we offered the year before instead of the GCSE's if the students didn't present enough work for it.

I sensed a watering down of things from that point onwards.

[Nominal Animal]

Western universities no longer exist for education and research, but for indoctrination and socio-cultural control.

The saddest part in this is that those driving this, truly and utterly believe this is for the good.  They are incapable of rational logic, and no amount of argument or proof will change their beliefs.

If those people live long enough to see the destruction their actions lead to, they will reject all blame by either claiming that their opponents are the reason their policies lead to destruction, or (in the absence of opponents) that nobody could have foreseen their policies would lead to such destruction.

There is no conspiracy, just irrational beliefs, ineptitude, and stupidity.

[CatalinaWOW]

Western universities no longer exist for education and research, but for indoctrination and socio-cultural control.

The saddest part in this is that those driving this, truly and utterly believe this is for the good.  They are incapable of rational logic, and no amount of argument or proof will change their beliefs.

If those people live long enough to see the destruction their actions lead to, they will reject all blame by either claiming that their opponents are the reason their policies lead to destruction, or (in the absence of opponents) that nobody could have foreseen their policies would lead to such destruction.

There is no conspiracy, just irrational beliefs, ineptitude, and stupidity.

Another outcome that is better for the rest of us, but similar for those driving this is that the bulk of society merely ignores the institutions involved in this, and that the real research and teaching universities return to the their roots.  The other unis would gradually die from lack of funding and recruits.  The excuses for what happened would be identical to your scenario.

I actually have some hope that this scenario will happen.   Not confidence.  Hope.

[magic]

The goal of this whole crap is to make the west, as we know it, commit suicide. I'm not kidding, it's not just speculation.

I hope that no one will miss "the west as we know it" today

Feminism was all fun when it was brainwashing girls to be like boys, but now that those brainwashed girls brainwash boys to be like girls suddenly it's a problem for men?
Gender theory was all fun when it was about pushing women into men's "spaces", but now that men want into women's "spaces" suddenly it's a problem for feminists?

I call it justice being served and I watch western news like a comedy they are. Speaking of which, here's another one from 40 years ago.
The action is set in 2044, so "the west" still has a few years left to meet the time frame...



Context: men have wiped themselves out in a world war and these were the last left, plus the leader of this feminist organization who of course was a disguised man too

[Neutrion]

What would bot farms change?


2. stupidity and indoctrination of the general population to be "kind" and "understanding", largely a work done by earlier SJW movements

You rather don't want to live in a country where there is no kindness and understanding for eachoter.
That is not the problem but the hijacking of this idea by actually very unkind people who are very agressively attacking people who are not sharing their ideology.

Botfarms:
When I read the news about Rowling, I remember a "big furore". But these mostly happen in the internet, and some people and politicians may think that this is actually some kind of major amount of .people

I always wonder how this extremely small amout of people who are pushing this genderism could get so much influence.

There was a significant problem and it required the Womens' Lib movement to focus attention on the problem and get some laws introduced. Good; that attention and those laws improved society. Most (young) people could identify with the problems, and appreciated the changes. The people that had fought that fight were justifiably lionised, and that lead to them finding themselves in postitions of influence.

Some people in the Womens' Lib movement had hitched their career and/or sense of value/purpose to the struggle. When the major problems had been addressed, they had to either retire and enjoy their success, or find new problems to fight against. Those problems have to be, by definition, less severe than the original problems.

The young people assumed without thinking that the reinvented fighters' cause was just as serious as the original, so the fighters were given the benefit of the doubt.
The original fighters (who hadn't retired) were now in a postition to influence the future, and they used it.

Rinse and repeat that a few times, and the remaining problems are much less significant than the original problems.  The new fighters have to become more extreme to get people to pay attention.

The same is true of the homosexual community.

There's an interesting 1990 book, "No More Sex War" by Neil Lyndon. In it he used the same debating tactics that the remaining feminists used against the patriachy. The feminists howled loudly, presumably not seeing the irony. It made Neil Lyndon almost unemployable.

Interesting question from that book: "what's the age that a UK resident is most likely to be a homicide victim?". Most people would guess teens or 16-24. Wrong. The most dangerous age was (is?) under 1 year old, and 55% of the perps were (are?) women - their mothers. Of course it isn't classed as murder, but as infanticide, so the naive statistics don't reflect the question.

The real problem is this. If there is something meaningful people agree needs changing, and they can make it happen fast, all is good. If they take enough time that people get careers invested in the cause, they will never stop. If its something like an endangered animal, and they get it back to a safe position, they might move on to some other animal and do good work saving that. If there's no clear new path to persue they won't disband and ruin their pension plans. They'll do anything to keep the cause going, usually into strange territory.

Or,more succinctly: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” ― Eric Hoffer, The Temper of Our Time

I always wonder how this extremely small amout of people who are pushing this genderism could get so much influence.

There was a significant problem and it required the Womens' Lib movement to focus attention on the problem and get some laws introduced. Good; that attention and those laws improved society. Most (young) people could identify with the problems, and appreciated the changes. The people that had fought that fight were justifiably lionised, and that lead to them finding themselves in postitions of influence.

Some people in the Womens' Lib movement had hitched their career and/or sense of value/purpose to the struggle. When the major problems had been addressed, they had to either retire and enjoy their success, or find new problems to fight against. Those problems have to be, by definition, less severe than the original problems.

The young people assumed without thinking that the reinvented fighters' cause was just as serious as the original, so the fighters were given the benefit of the doubt.
The original fighters (who hadn't retired) were now in a postition to influence the future, and they used it.

Rinse and repeat that a few times, and the remaining problems are much less significant than the original problems.  The new fighters have to become more extreme to get people to pay attention.

The same is true of the homosexual community.

There's an interesting 1990 book, "No More Sex War" by Neil Lyndon. In it he used the same debating tactics that the remaining feminists used against the patriachy. The feminists howled loudly, presumably not seeing the irony. It made Neil Lyndon almost unemployable.

Interesting question from that book: "what's the age that a UK resident is most likely to be a homicide victim?". Most people would guess teens or 16-24. Wrong. The most dangerous age was (is?) under 1 year old, and 55% of the perps were (are?) women - their mothers. Of course it isn't classed as murder, but as infanticide, so the naive statistics don't reflect the question.

Reasonable explanation, seems plausible. But it also needs a lot of young followers. Who are not just stupid but have a lack of respect for others. And politicians who get the feeling that they represent the majority. But whenever there is any  voting on these issues, or somehow connected to them we find that the majority is not at all behind these ideas. But because people are not allowed to vote direcly on issues, this is a very slow ind indirect reflection.

The goal of this whole crap is to make the west, as we know it, commit suicide. I'm not kidding, it's not just speculation.

I hope that no one will miss "the west as we know it" today

Feminism was all fun when it was brainwashing girls to be like boys, but now that those brainwashed girls brainwash boys to be like girls suddenly it's a problem for men?
Gender theory was all fun when it was about pushing women into men's "spaces", but now that men want into women's "spaces" suddenly it's a problem for feminists?

I call it justice being served and I watch western news like a comedy they are. Speaking of which, here's another one from 40 years ago.
The action is set in 2044, so "the west" still has a few years left to meet the time frame...



Context: men have wiped themselves out in a world war and these were the last left, plus the leader of this feminist organization who of course was a disguised man too

The "WEST". Well so far people from the east are moving to the west, so if it would be so bad it would be the other way around. The average happyness index is generally still better in the west despite all this bullshit. Not many americans or Germans are fleeing to Russia, or Hungary to have a better life.

You probably also would not like to live in China or Russia. So if you have a look at all statistics the west is still a better place to live. And if people wake up and talk about these issues they can change the situation. In Russia you go to prison, or just die in some accident or by high speed lead flying around.
And China became a totalitarian digital prison.
And of course you don't hear about similarly bad trends in the east in the state media. (At least in the hungarian) Read watch some different news channels as well, which are sometimes focusing on our problems.

[DimitriP]

The saddest part in this is that those driving this, truly and utterly believe this is for the good.  They are incapable of rational logic, and no amount of argument or proof will change their beliefs

The best puppet is the one that doesn't know it has strings attached to it.

[HalFET]

Fun fact: These sort of policies are the reason behind some of the biggest oafs I know becoming tenured professors and several skilled highly-motivated people burning out and working 9 to 5 designing lighting armatures instead of doing teaching and research.

[RJSV]

   Yes, I can see the point,...in isolation of all other dynamics you certainly COULD state that a bias or (how did she put it) recognize that, for instance, a male bias in engineering dept. seems to occur...HOWEVER;
   However; this little isolated dynamic is stated in EXCLUSION OF the myrid of other effects and outcomes happening, in the complex University hiring process.

   'Cant be color-blind'...Isn't that code talk for admitting RACISM ?

[coppice]

   Yes, I can see the point,...in isolation of all other dynamics you certainly COULD state that a bias or (how did she put it) recognize that, for instance, a male bias in engineering dept. seems to occur...HOWEVER;
   However; this little isolated dynamic is stated in EXCLUSION OF the myrid of other effects and outcomes happening, in the complex University hiring process.

   'Cant be color-blind'...Isn't that code talk for admitting RACISM ?

Racism, anti-semitism, all the old vices are back in fashion right now.

[tszaboo]

Racism, anti-semitism, all the old vices are back in fashion right now.

Oh, but can't you see that they are actually the anti-racist, and the good guys people?
And it isn't anti-semitism, they only seek to destroys the only democratic country in the middle east, and only to get rid of all the occupiers there?

Isn't that code talk for admitting RACISM ?

If you are not saying what they want you to say then you are racist or -phobe. So might as well stop caring what they call you for giving your opinion. Gloves are off.

[Gregg]

Academia and a myriad of do-gooders have been fighting racism with more racism for over 60 years and all it has done is foster even more racism. 

[RJSV]

   My head hurts, watching this unfold...
OR my ass.

   My head and my ass.

[Zero999]

The war on "merit" is not too surprising, even if it's just one angle of attack here among many. The "woke" movement is some kind of (at least in inspiration) neo-marxist movement and for neo-marxists, merit is one of the values to destroy.

American food isn't real food.
American boobs aren't real boobs.
American marxists aren't real marxists

AFAIK actual commies never used gender or ethnic quotas and were opposed to feminism and other identity politics. Their position was that people are equal and any differences that may be observed today are caused by social dynamics of power and money, which dynamics communism claimed to eliminate.

That's the premise of critical social justice, which borrows heavily from Marxism. The root of all Marxist doctrine is idea that all folk are innately equal and any inequalities are due social dynamics. Critical race theory, feminism and queer theory all revolve around the idea of minorities being oppressed, by a systemically oppressive society: whiteness, heteronormative, patriarchy etc.

Infamous kleptocracy aside, hiring decisions were officially to be based on suitability for the job. As they had to be, for communism to have any chance of progressing and fighting the global evil of capitalism and imperialism.

Anti-merit is an American movement trying to explain inconvenient statistics for disgruntled liberals who realized that decades of state-level cult of liberalism and elimination of every form of genuine systemic inequality still didn't make the statistics go away completely, as their religion appeared to promise. It's also backed by the American conviction that they are at the top of the global food chain and will stay there forever no matter how hard they shoot their foot. Americans would make actual idealistic communists cringe.

It's socialism, but of a different flavour to that of the old USSR. The idea is to use social engineering to ensure everyone is equal, rather than taking over the means of production. It's the same goal, just by a different means.

[coppice]

Academia and a myriad of do-gooders have been fighting racism with more racism for over 60 years and all it has done is foster even more racism. 

Outside their own little bubble it really hasn't. Any meaningful measure of racism in western democracies has shown a massive reduction in the last half century. This really pisses off anyone who makes a living from the idea its still a huge issue, and in the last few years they've managed to get some traction. I doubt its going to last.

[tggzzz]

Academia and a myriad of do-gooders have been fighting racism with more racism for over 60 years and all it has done is foster even more racism. 

Outside their own little bubble it really hasn't. Any meaningful measure of racism in western democracies has shown a massive reduction in the last half century. This really pisses off anyone who makes a living from the idea its still a huge issue, and in the last few years they've managed to get some traction. I doubt its going to last.

Follow the money and social standing. It worries anybody who's income or importance depends on it being a huge issue.

[RJSV]

   But, but, but;  What about MEDICAL Degrees and certifications ?
   Oh wait, that's not medical STUDENTS, that can evade some merit requirements,...only the professors, right ?

   Oh, wait...student merit requirements should then, naturally, also fall...right ?
Maybe, that happened, already.

   (Knock on wood), If I end up in emergency room, gazing up at ER people, We don't want thems people to all look the same.
   ??

[coppice]

   (Knock on wood), If I end up in emergency room, gazing up at ER people, We don't want thems people to all look the same.

If I wake up in an ER room I do want the people to all look the same. Calm. In control. Well prepared. Knowledgable, Thorough. Are there any other qualities in a person's demeanour that might matter?

[tggzzz]

   (Knock on wood), If I end up in emergency room, gazing up at ER people, We don't want thems people to all look the same.

If I wake up in an ER room I do want the people to all look the same. Calm. In control. Well prepared. Knowledgable, Thorough. Are there any other qualities in a person's demeanour that might matter?

Open and honest about what they don't know. I hate bullshitters, and tend to trust someone after they have told me what they do and don't know.

Fortunately medicine is so much better nowadays that there is less need for the patient to only have faith the doctor will cure them.

[coppice]

   (Knock on wood), If I end up in emergency room, gazing up at ER people, We don't want thems people to all look the same.

If I wake up in an ER room I do want the people to all look the same. Calm. In control. Well prepared. Knowledgable, Thorough. Are there any other qualities in a person's demeanour that might matter?

Open and honest about what they don't know. I hate bullshitters, and tend to trust someone after they have told me what they do and don't know.

Fortunately medicine is so much better nowadays that there is less need for the patient to only have faith the doctor will cure them.

Its interesting visiting a doctor, being asked your profession, and replying engineer. Usually, their faces light up. Here's someone with a STEM education and an analytical mind. They can have a meaningful conversation about what's wrong, and what can be done about it. This is clearly not the kind of interaction they have with most patients, and most medical people seem to appreciate the opportunity.

[EPAIII]

She is an idiot. So they put her in charge of hiring at the university.

Sounds like an excellent reason NOT to attend that university.

No students. Problem solved.

[SiliconWizard]

True, but there will always be tons of students applying. Probably just not the most capable ones.

[tggzzz]

   (Knock on wood), If I end up in emergency room, gazing up at ER people, We don't want thems people to all look the same.

If I wake up in an ER room I do want the people to all look the same. Calm. In control. Well prepared. Knowledgable, Thorough. Are there any other qualities in a person's demeanour that might matter?

Open and honest about what they don't know. I hate bullshitters, and tend to trust someone after they have told me what they do and don't know.

Fortunately medicine is so much better nowadays that there is less need for the patient to only have faith the doctor will cure them.

Its interesting visiting a doctor, being asked your profession, and replying engineer. Usually, their faces light up. Here's someone with a STEM education and an analytical mind. They can have a meaningful conversation about what's wrong, and what can be done about it. This is clearly not the kind of interaction they have with most patients, and most medical people seem to appreciate the opportunity.

By and large that's been my experience, but the converse can also be true.

Sometimes they prefer an easy docile patient that believes them implicitly, and does as they are told. Questions means they have to think/ persuade, and that takes time and mental energy. A consultant once told me during an  excellent conversation, that I knew more than the average GP about the condition. Some GPs might not like that.

[DimitriP]

   (Knock on wood), If I end up in emergency room, gazing up at ER people, We don't want thems people to all look the same.

If I wake up in an ER room I do want the people to all look the same. Calm. In control. Well prepared. Knowledgable, Thorough. Are there any other qualities in a person's demeanour that might matter?

It depends on who is doing the hiring, apparently, and stop being selfish 

[EEVblog]

Its interesting visiting a doctor, being asked your profession, and replying engineer. Usually, their faces light up. Here's someone with a STEM education and an analytical mind. They can have a meaningful conversation about what's wrong, and what can be done about it. This is clearly not the kind of interaction they have with most patients, and most medical people seem to appreciate the opportunity.

Happens to me a lot. Once you tell them you want to know every detail, and also when you ask really obscure technical questions, they really light up.
I'm the nerd that brings my thermal camera to the doctor 
In fact if a doctor or whoever it is, could be a tradie for example, doesn't light up and start talking technical when you ask, that's someone whos incompetant and should be avoided IMO.

[Circlotron]

In fact if a doctor or whoever it is, could be a tradie for example, doesn't light up and start talking technical when you ask, that's someone whos incompetant and should be avoided IMO.

Either that or they are simply not a doctor / tradie / whatever at heart. They possibly won't do as good a job as someone who eats and sleeps the subject night and day because they love it.

That is such an interesting thought.

[tggzzz]

Its interesting visiting a doctor, being asked your profession, and replying engineer. Usually, their faces light up. Here's someone with a STEM education and an analytical mind. They can have a meaningful conversation about what's wrong, and what can be done about it. This is clearly not the kind of interaction they have with most patients, and most medical people seem to appreciate the opportunity.

Happens to me a lot. Once you tell them you want to know every detail, and also when you ask really obscure technical questions, they really light up.
I'm the nerd that brings my thermal camera to the doctor 
In fact if a doctor or whoever it is, could be a tradie for example, doesn't light up and start talking technical when you ask, that's someone whos incompetant and should be avoided IMO.

They can just be pushed for time, which can be difficult to avoid for <political rant omitted>

Being able to have such conversations is part of knowing you've found someone "compatible". Other people will have different versions, e.g. my mother who wanted doctors to tell her what to do and, to a lesser extent, why.

[tggzzz]

In fact if a doctor or whoever it is, could be a tradie for example, doesn't light up and start talking technical when you ask, that's someone whos incompetant and should be avoided IMO.

Either that or they are simply not a doctor / tradie / whatever at heart. They possibly won't do as good a job as someone who eats and sleeps the subject night and day because they love it.

That is such an interesting thought.

When on interview panels, I always tried to find out what people did outside of their courses (and jobs), simply because they liked it. That is a good way of detecting (and avoiding) time servers.

And no, that doesn't mean I was looking for "passion" (ugh!)