All this arrant DEI nonsense puts me in mind of a Saul Bellow quote: "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep" In these few words he hit the nail on the head about the nature of our wokeified academia in the Western world. Anyone who has read Heather Mac Donald's comprehensive study of campus DEI The Diversity Delusion could be left in no doubt about who is really discriminated against in universities. But of course the kind of people who need to be put straight on all this, won't ever read anything that doesn't indulge their infantile virtue-signalling prejudices. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/how-diversity-narrows-the-mind
I would be interested to see a figure that shows promotion rates (Y axis) as a function of h-index scores (X axis), with separate lines for whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. I suspect that we would find higher promotion rates for DEI faculty at all or most levels of research impact, as measured by the h-index. Just a thought.
With just 93 samples in the black/Hispanic bin, it doesn't sound like there is enough data to make reliable estimates of promotion rates with much granularity. The one graph of h-index vs ethnicity implies that at least two of those lines would stop close to the Y axis anyway, because there is no data for candidates with high h-index in those groups.
I would go further and blatantly state that it is entirely possible for them to have completely fabricated the data from whole cloth. This is referred to as "outcomes-based" results. The conclusion is not jumped to, it is preordained, Soviet style via Lysenko. If the methodology cannot be clearly delineated by the authors without others redoing the statistical calculations, then the results are meaningless, all according to my major professor while I was in graduate school. When the NSF controls almost all of the funding, then you have political control over the scientific findings and topics of interest. I was heavily criticized for going to relatively obscure conferences and publishing in journals not widely subscribed to by certain 'libraries'. I did so due to the political nature of those scholarly works, yet published anyway to the consternation of my enemies. So they were relegated to primitive mockery. One of the conferences I attended and presented at had folks from the world over in attendance, including many Eastern Europeans, Asians, and Buddhist monks in full garb. How much more diversity, true diversity, can one be involved in than that? Yet I was still criticized, although I spoke to a standing room only audience with hundreds of people, many of whom approached me later to tell me that they primarily only came for my talk and no others. Censorship is now to be expected or at least ridicule for the most productive members of society. But this is nothing new to me, for I experienced this firsthand in my industrial career as well. It took a little longer to infiltrate other institutions and now has fully engulfed society as a whole.
All this arrant DEI nonsense puts me in mind of a Saul Bellow quote: "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep" In these few words he hit the nail on the head about the nature of our wokeified academia in the Western world. Anyone who has read Heather Mac Donald's comprehensive study of campus DEI The Diversity Delusion could be left in no doubt about who is really discriminated against in universities. But of course the kind of people who need to be put straight on all this, won't ever read anything that doesn't indulge their infantile virtue-signalling prejudices. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/how-diversity-narrows-the-mind
Name the authors and their institutions.....
Please submit a letter to the editor at Science with these findings
I would be interested to see a figure that shows promotion rates (Y axis) as a function of h-index scores (X axis), with separate lines for whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. I suspect that we would find higher promotion rates for DEI faculty at all or most levels of research impact, as measured by the h-index. Just a thought.
With just 93 samples in the black/Hispanic bin, it doesn't sound like there is enough data to make reliable estimates of promotion rates with much granularity. The one graph of h-index vs ethnicity implies that at least two of those lines would stop close to the Y axis anyway, because there is no data for candidates with high h-index in those groups.
I would go further and blatantly state that it is entirely possible for them to have completely fabricated the data from whole cloth. This is referred to as "outcomes-based" results. The conclusion is not jumped to, it is preordained, Soviet style via Lysenko. If the methodology cannot be clearly delineated by the authors without others redoing the statistical calculations, then the results are meaningless, all according to my major professor while I was in graduate school. When the NSF controls almost all of the funding, then you have political control over the scientific findings and topics of interest. I was heavily criticized for going to relatively obscure conferences and publishing in journals not widely subscribed to by certain 'libraries'. I did so due to the political nature of those scholarly works, yet published anyway to the consternation of my enemies. So they were relegated to primitive mockery. One of the conferences I attended and presented at had folks from the world over in attendance, including many Eastern Europeans, Asians, and Buddhist monks in full garb. How much more diversity, true diversity, can one be involved in than that? Yet I was still criticized, although I spoke to a standing room only audience with hundreds of people, many of whom approached me later to tell me that they primarily only came for my talk and no others. Censorship is now to be expected or at least ridicule for the most productive members of society. But this is nothing new to me, for I experienced this firsthand in my industrial career as well. It took a little longer to infiltrate other institutions and now has fully engulfed society as a whole.
The author conflates a symptom with a cause ... it's not junk science propping up DEI, it's "liberalism".
Might work as a Comment for Econ Journal Watch, which I edit. If we published, we would invite the commented-on authors to reply.