Rationale and Methods for Diversity Efforts in Medicine

[Hank]

Seems like the thread isn’t going anywhere positive or constructive. Closed.

[VentAlarm]

Nope. I said I’m done with your argument, so I’m done. Not going to get baited into further nonsensical argument.

[afan]

The behavior you’re supporting is toxic. Read Coddling of the American Mind. If perfectly describes what you’re proposing.

I am not supporting or promoting anything. Just reporting facts.

Coddling... is full of examples of the off limits statements and consequences of making them. If you have read it, how can you claim you are unaware of this???

[afan]

Again with the ad hominem.

It really does not strengthen your argument.

Check out the president of MSU, fired over the Nassar affair, along with a number of other tenured professors, none of whom were ever charged with crimes.

Dean of the school of medicine at the University of Utah and president of the University, fired for losing the support of the biggest donor.

Rohit Varma, dean of medicine at USC. Fired for becoming an embarrassment over a years old case of sexual harassment.

For more, check out a list from the AAUP

"Academic Freedom and Tenure Investigative Reports"

Many examples of disciplinary actions against professors, tenured or not at institutions that are public or private. Sometimes publicity or lawsuits help the profs keep their jobs if not their leadership positions. Often not.

Google
"Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania bills threaten academic freedom over race and sex instruction"

Bills to explicitly reduce academic freedom at state universities.

Google "Critics Say Academic Freedom Will Suffer After Georgia Changed the Rules of Tenure"

Read the debates about post-tenure review practices across the country.

Read some of the many reports by FIRE about codes and cases at colleges and universities.

Academic freedom is not nearly so absolute as some imagine. Tenure is worth something. Those who think they can say whatever they want without consequences often are brought up by rude surprises.

[VentAlarm]

Google "tenured professor fired" and see how many examples you find. Happens all the time.
If you mean it that this surprises you, you must have been ignoring what is going on.

I’m done with your nonsense arguments. Academia isn’t an oil refinery or an airline. Then, “you don’t know about academics.” Now, ok, you’re an academic, but you’re not paying attention. You seem to be dead set on moving the goalposts in spite of being wrong. The behavior you’re supporting is toxic. Read Coddling of the American Mind. If perfectly describes what you’re proposing.

[afan]

I trained at a top 10 institution and am an academic with NIH and FDA funding at one of the largest institutions in the country. But, other than that, I have no idea about academia.

Google "tenured professor fired" and see how many examples you find. Happens all the time.
If you mean it that this surprises you, you must have been ignoring what is going on.

[VentAlarm]

I will omit the customary retaliatory ad hominem.

I suspect you do not actually work in academia. It is not the free speech nirvana you seem to assume. It never has been.

As I indicated, academic leaders losing their leadership positions for going against the dictates of the institution is the norm, not an exception. It is not a recent phenomenon by any means. This has been the case for years, decades, centuries. Tenured professors can keep their jobs for painting outside the lines. Department chairs, deans, presidents and other leaders cannot go off the reservation and hold their leadership jobs now and have not been able to keep them in the past.

You may want to read up on what actually goes on in academia.

I trained at a top 10 institution and am an academic with NIH and FDA funding at one of the largest institutions in the country. But, other than that, I have no idea about academia.

[Tim]

I will omit the customary retaliatory ad hominem.
I suspect you do not actually work in academia. It is not the free speech nirvana you seem to assume. It never has been.
As I indicated, academic leaders losing their leadership positions for going against the dictates of the institution is the norm, not an exception. It is not a recent phenomenon by any means. This has been the case for years, decades, centuries. Tenured professors can keep their jobs for painting outside the lines. Department chairs, deans, presidents and other leaders cannot go off the reservation and hold their leadership jobs now and have not been able to keep them in the past.
You may want to read up on what actually goes on in academia.

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/04/16/texas-tenure-ut-austin/

Some say "Freedom" is under attack, from both the left and right. Many are at risk, formally and informally.
Face it, just about every Bill of Rights, Amendment and the Constitution is subject to interpretation. Slippery slope.
What is lost in the debate is any right comes with a responsibility. I doubt academics will solve that problem. Nor politicians.

[afan]

No one is examing the ideas implicit in these questions of implicit bias and what should be done about it.


First of all, implicit bias is not only racial, or driven by gender, sexuality, or any of the other variables that have been taken up by the identitarian movement. What this means is that a 'minority' may have bias against someone of their own racial/ethnic/sexual identification group that is far more loaded than someone who cannot be identified in that minority. This recalls Freud's 'narcissism of small differences' and this slatestarcodex post. The more factors that we identify, the more complicated this picture gets. Jordan Peterson has rightfully argued that there is no logical end to the variables by which one may identify oneself and others, particularly when taking into account the idea of intersectionality - you will at some point accumulate enough variables to arrive at a unique combination of intersectionality(-ies?) for each living person. And in fact, we don't have to anticipate this at all, because I would argue that there is one factor, or one set of implicit biases, that supercede all popularly recognized biases, and this is personality. I don't just mean personality disorders. I mean that there are plenty of people out there that rub you the wrong way. Generally you have these reactions to other because you have these same reactions to aspects of your own self. These blind spots in your psyche are a far more potent source of conflict than any particular visible difference of race, sex, class difference, subculture difference, etc.

Equality of opportunity is the only equality that is desirable - equality of outcome has no limit, gives the lie to differences in, for example, gender, and this process of interfering with any reasonably meritocratic system is itself affected by a whole raft of biases, foremost of which is the civilizational biases regarding what categories of identity one considers valid for manipulating to arrive at equal outcomes.

"First, do no harm."

It is not only about the people who are applying to medical school.

You are assuming that the individuals who apply for positions are the only ones affected by the policies. If that were the case, then it would be a simpler problem. But, as we have discussed here, there is an entire society involved as well. The quality of care given across society depends to an extent on whether members of minority groups have some people of their same demographic providing part of their care. There are far more of these people than there are medical school applicants. Now, one has to weigh the best interests of this large group as well as the interests of the medical school applicants.

[afan]

Dude. You are so far down the rabbit hole as to not see the light. If you don’t want to engage in your intelligent conversation, fine; but your analogies are repeatedly absurd - and I suspect you know this. Academia is THE place for intellectual diversity. I don’t know how else to say it. If you think someone who is supposed to be a thought leader is analogous to an oil refiner or airline pilot, you just don't get it. An academic isn’t a contractor who is following a blue print. You’re saying that an artist should be fired for not painting in the lines.

I will omit the customary retaliatory ad hominem.

I suspect you do not actually work in academia. It is not the free speech nirvana you seem to assume. It never has been.

As I indicated, academic leaders losing their leadership positions for going against the dictates of the institution is the norm, not an exception. It is not a recent phenomenon by any means. This has been the case for years, decades, centuries. Tenured professors can keep their jobs for painting outside the lines. Department chairs, deans, presidents and other leaders cannot go off the reservation and hold their leadership jobs now and have not been able to keep them in the past.

You may want to read up on what actually goes on in academia.

[afan]

But I find the issues of diversity, quality of care given to minorities and access to higher education more interesting than the case of this one guy.

[VentAlarm]

Again, he has the freedom to express his opinions that are contrary to the goals and policies of the institution.

He cannot express those opinions and keep his leadership job.

The leaders are supposed to lead in the directions set by the institution. Like an airline pilot who decides they do not want to go to LA and takes the LA flight to Houston instead. Would not again have the opportunity to lead airplanes.

I am surprised that people find this surprising. It is no different from any other institution. Leaders who do not want to lead in the institutional directions are sent on their ways. The unusual part is that he gets to keep his clinical job. The oil executive would simply be fired.

Dude. You are so far down the rabbit hole as to not see the light. If you don’t want to engage in your intelligent conversation, fine; but your analogies are repeatedly absurd - and I suspect you know this. Academia is THE place for intellectual diversity. I don’t know how else to say it. If you think someone who is supposed to be a thought leader is analogous to an oil refiner or airline pilot, you just don't get it. An academic isn’t a contractor who is following a blue print. You’re saying that an artist should be fired for not painting in the lines.

[legobikes]

No one is examing the ideas implicit in these questions of implicit bias and what should be done about it.


First of all, implicit bias is not only racial, or driven by gender, sexuality, or any of the other variables that have been taken up by the identitarian movement. What this means is that a 'minority' may have bias against someone of their own racial/ethnic/sexual identification group that is far more loaded than someone who cannot be identified in that minority. This recalls Freud's 'narcissism of small differences' and this slatestarcodex post. The more factors that we identify, the more complicated this picture gets. Jordan Peterson has rightfully argued that there is no logical end to the variables by which one may identify oneself and others, particularly when taking into account the idea of intersectionality - you will at some point accumulate enough variables to arrive at a unique combination of intersectionality(-ies?) for each living person. And in fact, we don't have to anticipate this at all, because I would argue that there is one factor, or one set of implicit biases, that supercede all popularly recognized biases, and this is personality. I don't just mean personality disorders. I mean that there are plenty of people out there that rub you the wrong way. Generally you have these reactions to other because you have these same reactions to aspects of your own self. These blind spots in your psyche are a far more potent source of conflict than any particular visible difference of race, sex, class difference, subculture difference, etc.

Equality of opportunity is the only equality that is desirable - equality of outcome has no limit, gives the lie to differences in, for example, gender, and this process of interfering with any reasonably meritocratic system is itself affected by a whole raft of biases, foremost of which is the civilizational biases regarding what categories of identity one considers valid for manipulating to arrive at equal outcomes.

"First, do no harm."

[Tim]

But they did NOT take away his livelihood. He STILL WORKS THERE. Not only was he not physically attacked, he did NOT lose his job.

They did not "demote" him. He is still a professor.

So one professor survived. Anecdotal for sure. I know one that was accused (one of 6 attendings) that left and came back after false accusations. Mostly the "new rules" meant that extraordinary investigations were needed. She had the audacity to ask for a LOR. He had left for two years due to the "red tape". The MS recruited him back. He had to sign a non-disclosure agreement to return. He politely referred her request to HR and let them respond. NO.

[afan]

Actually, they take no prisoners. Accusations are used. It is based upon a "new set of rules". The "accusations" themselves cause the most damage, not the result.
This IS new. Multiple examples exist. Attack, attack, attack makes one leave. "Innocent until proven guilty" has been thrown out. Mandatory "training". We have seen this at every level of society. Well funded with a goal, "enforce the new rules". Everything from "she must be believed" to "masks". Oppose and they try to take away your livelihood and reputation. Echo chambers at every level. The privilege of "accusation" is powerful.

But they did NOT take away his livelihood. He STILL WORKS THERE. Not only was he not physically attacked, he did NOT lose his job.

They did not "demote" him. He is still a professor.