alethicethic

You chose to start this argument with me, remember?  You replied to my post. You didn't like the way it went, so now you're trying to shut me down by ordering me to stop. Of course, you combined your demand with a fresh argument, so you're not really "leaving it be", are you? I made no such demands on you, so I'm hardly trying to get the last word. 
 
I have tried to be as constructive as possible while defending my position and pointing out why your view is wrong. You chose to argue in a public forum. I am responding publicly, and have zero interest in taking this discussion offline. It's not my responsibility to educate you, but I am serious about creating a public culture in which we call out offensive comments. 
 
I'm not having a nervous breakdown. Accusing your interlocutor of having a nervous breakdown is offensive in several respects:
 
A) it trivializes actual nervous breakdowns.
you shouldn't use that as an insult.
C) here, you used it as an ad hominem attack, specifically one used to deny epistemic authority to your opponent
D) labels such as "crazy", "emotional", "having a nervous breakdown" and so on, are frequently used to dismiss women in particular. Did that particular phrase just roll naturally off your tongue?  
 
As for hijacking the thread--I posted a specific complaint regarding an interpretation of the survey. You chose to pick a fight and make offensive comments. I chose to call you out. If you think it's derailed, look in the mirror.
 
In regards to:
 
2. I did not take any position in the epistemology of science--because that's completely irrelevant. Wield philosophy like a scalpel, not a bludgeon. 
 
The straw man that you argue against appears neither in my comments nor the research. Your refusal to update your beliefs despite the evidence is actually quite common. In short, you're in denial, and most of us fall into that trap at one point or another in our lives. This is related to motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, and disconfirmation bias. You might try asking yourself what's at stake for you, psychologically, in being wrong in this case.
 
I will walk you through an example. See here for an abstract of one study where highly qualified applicants with stereotypically Black names were called back less frequently than low skilled applicants with stereotypically white names, for job openings where employers were "actively seeking diversity". The study doesn't run all groups together as you claim--and it definitely does not imply, as you claim, that Black Americans are passive victims that need (white?) saviors. Good grief. Studies can help us measure how and why we are going wrong, and what can be done to change it.
 
It's not that underrepresented groups are incapable of success--after all, 17% of TT philosophers are women, and 16% of philosophers identify as non-white or multiracial. It's rather that the playing field is unfair. Because of systematic bias, members of certain groups face barriers to success. No one said that they can't succeed under such conditions. We're saying that they shouldn't have to. Duh. You claim that members of such groups should climb over the barriers with "iron will and talent". I say, dismantle the barriers.
 
3. That makes even less sense, because it's completely irrelevant. I never said that underrepresented groups lacked access to Google. WTF are you even talking about? 
 
4. Discrimination against Asians takes many forms, as outlined in a few of the articles I posted. Had you read them, you might realize how your comments contribute to damaging stereotypes. Seriously, your comments are offensive.  Stop doubling down on what you said and have the grace to be embarrassed. 
 
5. These are not people that you want to emulate. They managed to alienate nearly the entire 2014 cohort--the Vineyard was so offensive that women applicants created a separate, private forum for a safe space away from him. One of the major problems with the Vineyard was that he didn't realize that he was being offensive--largely because he failed to give epistemic authority to women's perspectives, and lacked the epistemic humility to realize that he has a superficial grasp of women's issues. He didn't recognize that there was a certain context in which he should defer, listen, and learn. Much can be learned from his mistake.
 
Are you going to keep whining about downvotes, or are you going to stop making offensive comments on a public bulletin board? So far, your downvotes have been deserved.

That's not what you said in your last post. You explicitly denied that underrepresented students face tremendous barriers to success and that the problems are, as you put it, "highly exaggerated". 17% of TT phil profs are women, and 84% of the discipline identifies only as "white". Suggesting that these numbers are somehow reflective of the failure of nonwhites and women to have "iron will and talent" is, quite frankly, as offensive as it is ridiculous. I'm beginning to wonder whether you are a troll.
 
I strongly object to your caricature of my position as well-intentioned objectification. My position is based on facts, not on some ignorant stereotype vaguely lumping together all underrepresented groups. You are the one who is conflating race, ethnicity, culture, values, and gender in your remarks. Of course different people have different experiences, and not all members of similar groups will have similar experiences, not least because of intersectionality. Who counts as a visible minority also changes depending on context--women are visible minorities in philosophy, but not in other fields. That doesn't make systematic bias any less real.
 
Failure to recognize the barriers faced by underrepresented groups helps keep those barriers in place. For example, "ignoring race/being race-blind" just has the effect of perpetuating racist social structures. "I don't see race" is itself a privileged position--check out unpacking the knapsack. This problem affects most of us, regardless of identity--there is also intragroup bias, like black cops perpetuating systematic racism against blacks, or female professors calling more frequently on male students. 
 
I do not think of policies that are designed to reduce bias in academia as "an extra push", because that's completely backwards. It's the difference between helping someone climb out of a pool vs. stopping holding their head underwater. Recognizing the differences in treatment is a way of rectifying the injustice of the current system. Hence my example of blind grading. After symphony orchestras started blind auditions, the ratio of women symphony musicians rose to match the proportion of women in the supply. Yet before that, conductors would say things like, "women just aren't as good musicians" and other such nonsense. 
 
You're not losing points because you challenge the status quo. I downvoted you because:
 
1) your writing is nearly incoherent
2) you responded to my empirically-supported position with your own musings which belie (most charitably) your own lack of knowledge
3) you insulted me by saying that "anyone with the diligence to look for it" could find research that supports your own view (back it up with links, then)
4) I found your comments about Jews and Asians to be offensive.
5) you dismissively refer to my objections as defending the status quo--presumably, you meant to imply that I and the others who downvoted you suffer from some kind of unreflective status quo bias, and that you are some kind of independent-thinking hero for defending the...status quo. As for that, I invite you to look in the mirror. Try taking the IAT. 

I have been experimenting with multiple citation styles for my more recent philosophy papers and have noticed a bit of disparity on the ones used in writing samples I've found scattered around the internet.

What style do you use and perhaps link a paper in that style? 

My personal preference thus far is the somewhat informal footnoted Chicago variation (maybe it's just Chicago?) as seen here: http://fitelson.org/epistemology/lewis.pdf

 

I fully endorse alethicethic's emendation of my comments about GPA.  I should have added that doing well in an MA program is a great way to dispel worries about a low undergrad GPA.  We had several applicants last time with low undergrad GPAs who went on to MA programs, did well, and were admitted to several really good doctoral programs.  I guess I was thinking of my advice as applying especially to those coming straight from undergrad.  I will say that my cohort at UNC has 8 students, 5 of whom came in with a Master's degree of some kind.  The three coming straight from undergrad went to very good schools with great reputations in philosophy.

Great advice, Gnothi Seauton! I endorse pretty much everything he said, and we were admitted to many of the same schools.
 
Don't worry too much if you have a lower GPA--it was definitely the weakest part of my application, but I still managed to get into terrific programs. The rest of my application was (apparently) solid enough to be successful. My undergrad transcript looks pretty bad--I am really embarrassed every time I have to show it to someone--but I was working full time, and had a professor explain this in a letter. There was also a marked improvement in my final years, and then I went to an MA program, where I earned stellar grades.
 
I highly recommend MA programs. You get more of a chance to develop philosophically, which comes out in all sorts of ways in your application. You also get to meet lots of terrific people who are passionate about philosophy and headed for different PhD programs.

Great advice, Gnothi Seauton! I endorse pretty much everything he said, and we were admitted to many of the same schools.
 
Don't worry too much if you have a lower GPA--it was definitely the weakest part of my application, but I still managed to get into terrific programs. The rest of my application was (apparently) solid enough to be successful. My undergrad transcript looks pretty bad--I am really embarrassed every time I have to show it to someone--but I was working full time, and had a professor explain this in a letter. There was also a marked improvement in my final years, and then I went to an MA program, where I earned stellar grades.
 
I highly recommend MA programs. You get more of a chance to develop philosophically, which comes out in all sorts of ways in your application. You also get to meet lots of terrific people who are passionate about philosophy and headed for different PhD programs.

Great advice, Gnothi Seauton! I endorse pretty much everything he said, and we were admitted to many of the same schools.
 
Don't worry too much if you have a lower GPA--it was definitely the weakest part of my application, but I still managed to get into terrific programs. The rest of my application was (apparently) solid enough to be successful. My undergrad transcript looks pretty bad--I am really embarrassed every time I have to show it to someone--but I was working full time, and had a professor explain this in a letter. There was also a marked improvement in my final years, and then I went to an MA program, where I earned stellar grades.
 
I highly recommend MA programs. You get more of a chance to develop philosophically, which comes out in all sorts of ways in your application. You also get to meet lots of terrific people who are passionate about philosophy and headed for different PhD programs.

Now that the fall semester is about to begin and prospective applicants are starting to get the pieces of their applications together, I thought I'd share my thoughts on the application/admissions process.  Everything I say should be taken with a grain of salt, since the basis of most of my claims is going to be "impressions" I've gotten from meeting prospective students and professors and watching things unfold on the gradcafe last admissions season.  I'm also going to make claims about "usual cases."  For instance, I'm going to claim that having a high GPA is important, but that's not to say that no one with a low GPA has a chance of getting into a top program.  I'm going to begin by saying something about the different parts of the application and then move on to more general thoughts.  
 
The online application:  You'll have to fill one out for every school you apply to.  They are annoying, and they take a bunch of time, so be prepared to dedicate several hours to filling these things out, particularly if you plan to apply to 10+ schools.  Most of what you're filling in is basic info (name, date of birth, etc.), but some stuff might seem important (there are spaces to fill in different awards you've received, for instance).  I would say go ahead and fill that stuff in, but don't spend too much time getting descriptive.  Submit a CV as a supplementary document, and any of those bonus parts of your application will be in one place.  I doubt the admissions committees spend much time going through the info on the online application.  They'll spend the majority of their time on the other stuff. 
 
GPA:  This is important.  If you're coming straight from undergrad, you might very well struggle with a GPA under, say, 3.7 or so (unless you are coming from a top notch university, you're coming from a school with a reputation for avoiding grade inflation, or you have a justifiable excuse for why your GPA is lower [must be explained by a letter writer]).  The philosophy GPA is even more important than overall.  Unless you attended a super prestigious university, you'll want it to be as close to perfect as possible (and even then, below 3.8 will raise red flags [again, absent justifiable excuses]).  
 
GRE:  This is less important than most people seem to think.  It is probably true that some programs use it as an initial screen, but I also think your scores would have to be pretty low to rule you out.  I also think that the GRE matters more for people coming from less prestigious undergrad institutions (when your letter writers are going to be less familiar, the rest of your application needs to be firing on all cylinders).  For top programs, I would say you should shoot for 160+ for verbal (and ideally 165+) and 155+ for quantitative.  No one cares about your writing score (they have a sample of your actual writing after all).  
 
Statement of purpose:  Just be straightforward and professional.  Describe your interests, but don't actively argue for any positions.  It's a good thing if you can sound relatively sophisticated about your interests.  I think the easiest way to do that is to describe work you've actually done in the past.  That allows you to be generic with your interests, but sophisticated in your elaboration.  So, for example, you could say, "I'm interested in moral philosophy generally, but I've worked primarily on Kantian ethics.  In my senior thesis, I argue for the view that Christine Korsgaard's version of Kantian constructivism must make use of unconstructed normative facts and thus collapses into a form of traditional moral realism."  (I didn't say this in mine [i'm not even sure if I believe what I just said], just using a possible example).  The nice thing about this way of stating your interests is that you aren't pigeon-holing yourself (in this case, as someone only interested in Kantian ethics) since you claim to be interested in ethics in general, but then you can sound like you actually know what you're talking about by describing more sophisticated work you've done.  I also think that naming professors you'd be interested in working with is a good idea, if done well.  Never attempt to fit a professor's interests into your own.  A professor doesn't count as sharing your interests if he/she wrote a paper twenty years ago on a topic of interest to you but never wrote anything else on it again (unless, perhaps, it's a classic paper or something).  It always sounds better if you've actually read the professor's work.  So, go ahead and name names, but just be careful how you do it.  "I would love to work with Peter Singer because he's interested in ethics" is not good enough.  
 
Letters of Recommendation:  I think that these are more important than departments let on.  When I initially visited UNC, I can't tell you how many times I heard, "Oh, you're so-and-so's student" or "How's so-and-so?"  Here, "so-and-so" refers to someone who wrote a letter for a prospective student.  It's innocent enough.  It just so happens that philosophers at top places tend to be friends with philosophers at other top places.  A letter from a friend or, at least, someone the committee knows and respects is more meaningful than a letter from an unknown person.  I'm not saying that it's justified, only that I understand why those letters stand out more.  I hate to say it, but if your letters aren't from relatively well-known philosophers, they had better be glowing.  (And I should be clear here:  Not everyone in my class at UNC had letters from famous philosophers.  I don't want to give that impression.  I'm just saying it helps more than people think.)
 
Writing sample:  You've heard it a million times, but this really is the most important part of the application.  I had long conversations about my writing sample with professors at two of the three departments I visited.  They'll know your writing sample well.  And I don't think it's enough for a writing sample to be nothing more than a literature review.  I also don't think it's enough if the sample only makes one small, original point at the end.  The sample should develop an original argument in favor of some position.  It's perfectly fine if the argument builds off the work of others (not many arguments are *completely* original).  It's just really important for the argument to be in your own voice.  If the paper says, "I'm going to defend the view that X.  Hume argues for A, B, and C as follows...It follows from A, B, and C that X.  Thus, I have defended X," then that's not enough in your own voice (unless you come up with novel ways of defending A, B, and C).  Also, I think whether the topic is "fresh" matters only to the extent that it bears on the originality of what you have to say.  Some topics have been done to death, and so it's hard to say anything particularly original.  But some "hot" topics are so popular that admissions committees have to read 150 samples all about the same topic (which bores them, or so I was told by some admissions committee members).  But no matter what the topic, if you can say something original in a compelling way, you're in with a shot.  I think that originality is probably slightly less important if you are writing on a topic that allows you to show off other philosophical virtues.  So, for example, if you are writing clearly about a really technical area of philosophy, originality is probably a bit less important.  And obviously the paper needs to be structured well and clearly written and exhibit all the usual signs of good writing. 
 
Other things:  I think the strength of one's undergraduate institution matters to the extent that it bears on who is writing letters.  I think it's true that coming from an undergrad institution without a reputation in philosophy is a disadvantage, but only because the letter writers will be unfamiliar to the admissions committee.  Letters have to be much stronger when written by unknown professors.  There's actually a good reason for this.  If Kit Fine writes a letter for an undergrad saying basically, "This student is very good, and I think she'd do well in graduate school," that's sufficient coming from him because NYU produces so many top quality students (and he has a good idea of what it takes to succeed in a top program).  But the admissions committee does not likely put the same confidence in a letter from an unknown professor.
 
Publications might be meaningful if they are in solid professional journals.  Undergrad and grad journals are meaningless (some people think they actually hurt an application; I doubt that's true).  Publishing outside philosophy is pretty much meaningless (unless it's in an area directly connected with your areas of interest).  "Best student" or "Best paper" awards are nice, but won't count for much.  The key is that there's a fundamental distinction between direct and indirect evidence for philosophical ability.  All of the little "extras" like awards are all indirect evidence.  The committee is going to focus on the direct evidence, the most direct of which is your writing sample.  
 
The admissions process is stressful.  I was worried about a lot of things going in.  I went to a relatively weak undergrad institution, but a solid overseas institution for an MSc (but I didn't know how admissions committees in the US would view it). I had a "W" on my transcript.  My GRE writing score was lower than I wanted it to be.  But, on reflection, I think these were things that I shouldn't have worried about.  I think the best advice I could give would be this:  don't sweat the small stuff (or the stuff you can't control).  The writing sample is far and away the most important part of the application.  You're in with a shot if your writing sample is awesome, so if you're going to spend time focusing on something, focus on improving the writing sample.  A less-than-stellar piece of an application can be overcome with a great writing sample, but a mediocre writing sample will keep you out.  Basically, a great writing sample is necessary, but not sufficient for admissions.  
 
I'm happy to answer questions or talk about the process in more detail with any prospective applicants.  Just shoot me a message.

You chose to start this argument with me, remember?  You replied to my post. You didn't like the way it went, so now you're trying to shut me down by ordering me to stop. Of course, you combined your demand with a fresh argument, so you're not really "leaving it be", are you? I made no such demands on you, so I'm hardly trying to get the last word. 
 
I have tried to be as constructive as possible while defending my position and pointing out why your view is wrong. You chose to argue in a public forum. I am responding publicly, and have zero interest in taking this discussion offline. It's not my responsibility to educate you, but I am serious about creating a public culture in which we call out offensive comments. 
 
I'm not having a nervous breakdown. Accusing your interlocutor of having a nervous breakdown is offensive in several respects:
 
A) it trivializes actual nervous breakdowns.
you shouldn't use that as an insult.
C) here, you used it as an ad hominem attack, specifically one used to deny epistemic authority to your opponent
D) labels such as "crazy", "emotional", "having a nervous breakdown" and so on, are frequently used to dismiss women in particular. Did that particular phrase just roll naturally off your tongue?  
 
As for hijacking the thread--I posted a specific complaint regarding an interpretation of the survey. You chose to pick a fight and make offensive comments. I chose to call you out. If you think it's derailed, look in the mirror.
 
In regards to:
 
2. I did not take any position in the epistemology of science--because that's completely irrelevant. Wield philosophy like a scalpel, not a bludgeon. 
 
The straw man that you argue against appears neither in my comments nor the research. Your refusal to update your beliefs despite the evidence is actually quite common. In short, you're in denial, and most of us fall into that trap at one point or another in our lives. This is related to motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, and disconfirmation bias. You might try asking yourself what's at stake for you, psychologically, in being wrong in this case.
 
I will walk you through an example. See here for an abstract of one study where highly qualified applicants with stereotypically Black names were called back less frequently than low skilled applicants with stereotypically white names, for job openings where employers were "actively seeking diversity". The study doesn't run all groups together as you claim--and it definitely does not imply, as you claim, that Black Americans are passive victims that need (white?) saviors. Good grief. Studies can help us measure how and why we are going wrong, and what can be done to change it.
 
It's not that underrepresented groups are incapable of success--after all, 17% of TT philosophers are women, and 16% of philosophers identify as non-white or multiracial. It's rather that the playing field is unfair. Because of systematic bias, members of certain groups face barriers to success. No one said that they can't succeed under such conditions. We're saying that they shouldn't have to. Duh. You claim that members of such groups should climb over the barriers with "iron will and talent". I say, dismantle the barriers.
 
3. That makes even less sense, because it's completely irrelevant. I never said that underrepresented groups lacked access to Google. WTF are you even talking about? 
 
4. Discrimination against Asians takes many forms, as outlined in a few of the articles I posted. Had you read them, you might realize how your comments contribute to damaging stereotypes. Seriously, your comments are offensive.  Stop doubling down on what you said and have the grace to be embarrassed. 
 
5. These are not people that you want to emulate. They managed to alienate nearly the entire 2014 cohort--the Vineyard was so offensive that women applicants created a separate, private forum for a safe space away from him. One of the major problems with the Vineyard was that he didn't realize that he was being offensive--largely because he failed to give epistemic authority to women's perspectives, and lacked the epistemic humility to realize that he has a superficial grasp of women's issues. He didn't recognize that there was a certain context in which he should defer, listen, and learn. Much can be learned from his mistake.
 
Are you going to keep whining about downvotes, or are you going to stop making offensive comments on a public bulletin board? So far, your downvotes have been deserved.

That's not what you said in your last post. You explicitly denied that underrepresented students face tremendous barriers to success and that the problems are, as you put it, "highly exaggerated". 17% of TT phil profs are women, and 84% of the discipline identifies only as "white". Suggesting that these numbers are somehow reflective of the failure of nonwhites and women to have "iron will and talent" is, quite frankly, as offensive as it is ridiculous. I'm beginning to wonder whether you are a troll.
 
I strongly object to your caricature of my position as well-intentioned objectification. My position is based on facts, not on some ignorant stereotype vaguely lumping together all underrepresented groups. You are the one who is conflating race, ethnicity, culture, values, and gender in your remarks. Of course different people have different experiences, and not all members of similar groups will have similar experiences, not least because of intersectionality. Who counts as a visible minority also changes depending on context--women are visible minorities in philosophy, but not in other fields. That doesn't make systematic bias any less real.
 
Failure to recognize the barriers faced by underrepresented groups helps keep those barriers in place. For example, "ignoring race/being race-blind" just has the effect of perpetuating racist social structures. "I don't see race" is itself a privileged position--check out unpacking the knapsack. This problem affects most of us, regardless of identity--there is also intragroup bias, like black cops perpetuating systematic racism against blacks, or female professors calling more frequently on male students. 
 
I do not think of policies that are designed to reduce bias in academia as "an extra push", because that's completely backwards. It's the difference between helping someone climb out of a pool vs. stopping holding their head underwater. Recognizing the differences in treatment is a way of rectifying the injustice of the current system. Hence my example of blind grading. After symphony orchestras started blind auditions, the ratio of women symphony musicians rose to match the proportion of women in the supply. Yet before that, conductors would say things like, "women just aren't as good musicians" and other such nonsense. 
 
You're not losing points because you challenge the status quo. I downvoted you because:
 
1) your writing is nearly incoherent
2) you responded to my empirically-supported position with your own musings which belie (most charitably) your own lack of knowledge
3) you insulted me by saying that "anyone with the diligence to look for it" could find research that supports your own view (back it up with links, then)
4) I found your comments about Jews and Asians to be offensive.
5) you dismissively refer to my objections as defending the status quo--presumably, you meant to imply that I and the others who downvoted you suffer from some kind of unreflective status quo bias, and that you are some kind of independent-thinking hero for defending the...status quo. As for that, I invite you to look in the mirror. Try taking the IAT. 

You chose to start this argument with me, remember?  You replied to my post. You didn't like the way it went, so now you're trying to shut me down by ordering me to stop. Of course, you combined your demand with a fresh argument, so you're not really "leaving it be", are you? I made no such demands on you, so I'm hardly trying to get the last word. 
 
I have tried to be as constructive as possible while defending my position and pointing out why your view is wrong. You chose to argue in a public forum. I am responding publicly, and have zero interest in taking this discussion offline. It's not my responsibility to educate you, but I am serious about creating a public culture in which we call out offensive comments. 
 
I'm not having a nervous breakdown. Accusing your interlocutor of having a nervous breakdown is offensive in several respects:
 
A) it trivializes actual nervous breakdowns.
you shouldn't use that as an insult.
C) here, you used it as an ad hominem attack, specifically one used to deny epistemic authority to your opponent
D) labels such as "crazy", "emotional", "having a nervous breakdown" and so on, are frequently used to dismiss women in particular. Did that particular phrase just roll naturally off your tongue?  
 
As for hijacking the thread--I posted a specific complaint regarding an interpretation of the survey. You chose to pick a fight and make offensive comments. I chose to call you out. If you think it's derailed, look in the mirror.
 
In regards to:
 
2. I did not take any position in the epistemology of science--because that's completely irrelevant. Wield philosophy like a scalpel, not a bludgeon. 
 
The straw man that you argue against appears neither in my comments nor the research. Your refusal to update your beliefs despite the evidence is actually quite common. In short, you're in denial, and most of us fall into that trap at one point or another in our lives. This is related to motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, and disconfirmation bias. You might try asking yourself what's at stake for you, psychologically, in being wrong in this case.
 
I will walk you through an example. See here for an abstract of one study where highly qualified applicants with stereotypically Black names were called back less frequently than low skilled applicants with stereotypically white names, for job openings where employers were "actively seeking diversity". The study doesn't run all groups together as you claim--and it definitely does not imply, as you claim, that Black Americans are passive victims that need (white?) saviors. Good grief. Studies can help us measure how and why we are going wrong, and what can be done to change it.
 
It's not that underrepresented groups are incapable of success--after all, 17% of TT philosophers are women, and 16% of philosophers identify as non-white or multiracial. It's rather that the playing field is unfair. Because of systematic bias, members of certain groups face barriers to success. No one said that they can't succeed under such conditions. We're saying that they shouldn't have to. Duh. You claim that members of such groups should climb over the barriers with "iron will and talent". I say, dismantle the barriers.
 
3. That makes even less sense, because it's completely irrelevant. I never said that underrepresented groups lacked access to Google. WTF are you even talking about? 
 
4. Discrimination against Asians takes many forms, as outlined in a few of the articles I posted. Had you read them, you might realize how your comments contribute to damaging stereotypes. Seriously, your comments are offensive.  Stop doubling down on what you said and have the grace to be embarrassed. 
 
5. These are not people that you want to emulate. They managed to alienate nearly the entire 2014 cohort--the Vineyard was so offensive that women applicants created a separate, private forum for a safe space away from him. One of the major problems with the Vineyard was that he didn't realize that he was being offensive--largely because he failed to give epistemic authority to women's perspectives, and lacked the epistemic humility to realize that he has a superficial grasp of women's issues. He didn't recognize that there was a certain context in which he should defer, listen, and learn. Much can be learned from his mistake.
 
Are you going to keep whining about downvotes, or are you going to stop making offensive comments on a public bulletin board? So far, your downvotes have been deserved.

You chose to start this argument with me, remember?  You replied to my post. You didn't like the way it went, so now you're trying to shut me down by ordering me to stop. Of course, you combined your demand with a fresh argument, so you're not really "leaving it be", are you? I made no such demands on you, so I'm hardly trying to get the last word. 
 
I have tried to be as constructive as possible while defending my position and pointing out why your view is wrong. You chose to argue in a public forum. I am responding publicly, and have zero interest in taking this discussion offline. It's not my responsibility to educate you, but I am serious about creating a public culture in which we call out offensive comments. 
 
I'm not having a nervous breakdown. Accusing your interlocutor of having a nervous breakdown is offensive in several respects:
 
A) it trivializes actual nervous breakdowns.
you shouldn't use that as an insult.
C) here, you used it as an ad hominem attack, specifically one used to deny epistemic authority to your opponent
D) labels such as "crazy", "emotional", "having a nervous breakdown" and so on, are frequently used to dismiss women in particular. Did that particular phrase just roll naturally off your tongue?  
 
As for hijacking the thread--I posted a specific complaint regarding an interpretation of the survey. You chose to pick a fight and make offensive comments. I chose to call you out. If you think it's derailed, look in the mirror.
 
In regards to:
 
2. I did not take any position in the epistemology of science--because that's completely irrelevant. Wield philosophy like a scalpel, not a bludgeon. 
 
The straw man that you argue against appears neither in my comments nor the research. Your refusal to update your beliefs despite the evidence is actually quite common. In short, you're in denial, and most of us fall into that trap at one point or another in our lives. This is related to motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, and disconfirmation bias. You might try asking yourself what's at stake for you, psychologically, in being wrong in this case.
 
I will walk you through an example. See here for an abstract of one study where highly qualified applicants with stereotypically Black names were called back less frequently than low skilled applicants with stereotypically white names, for job openings where employers were "actively seeking diversity". The study doesn't run all groups together as you claim--and it definitely does not imply, as you claim, that Black Americans are passive victims that need (white?) saviors. Good grief. Studies can help us measure how and why we are going wrong, and what can be done to change it.
 
It's not that underrepresented groups are incapable of success--after all, 17% of TT philosophers are women, and 16% of philosophers identify as non-white or multiracial. It's rather that the playing field is unfair. Because of systematic bias, members of certain groups face barriers to success. No one said that they can't succeed under such conditions. We're saying that they shouldn't have to. Duh. You claim that members of such groups should climb over the barriers with "iron will and talent". I say, dismantle the barriers.
 
3. That makes even less sense, because it's completely irrelevant. I never said that underrepresented groups lacked access to Google. WTF are you even talking about? 
 
4. Discrimination against Asians takes many forms, as outlined in a few of the articles I posted. Had you read them, you might realize how your comments contribute to damaging stereotypes. Seriously, your comments are offensive.  Stop doubling down on what you said and have the grace to be embarrassed. 
 
5. These are not people that you want to emulate. They managed to alienate nearly the entire 2014 cohort--the Vineyard was so offensive that women applicants created a separate, private forum for a safe space away from him. One of the major problems with the Vineyard was that he didn't realize that he was being offensive--largely because he failed to give epistemic authority to women's perspectives, and lacked the epistemic humility to realize that he has a superficial grasp of women's issues. He didn't recognize that there was a certain context in which he should defer, listen, and learn. Much can be learned from his mistake.
 
Are you going to keep whining about downvotes, or are you going to stop making offensive comments on a public bulletin board? So far, your downvotes have been deserved.

You chose to start this argument with me, remember?  You replied to my post. You didn't like the way it went, so now you're trying to shut me down by ordering me to stop. Of course, you combined your demand with a fresh argument, so you're not really "leaving it be", are you? I made no such demands on you, so I'm hardly trying to get the last word. 
 
I have tried to be as constructive as possible while defending my position and pointing out why your view is wrong. You chose to argue in a public forum. I am responding publicly, and have zero interest in taking this discussion offline. It's not my responsibility to educate you, but I am serious about creating a public culture in which we call out offensive comments. 
 
I'm not having a nervous breakdown. Accusing your interlocutor of having a nervous breakdown is offensive in several respects:
 
A) it trivializes actual nervous breakdowns.
you shouldn't use that as an insult.
C) here, you used it as an ad hominem attack, specifically one used to deny epistemic authority to your opponent
D) labels such as "crazy", "emotional", "having a nervous breakdown" and so on, are frequently used to dismiss women in particular. Did that particular phrase just roll naturally off your tongue?  
 
As for hijacking the thread--I posted a specific complaint regarding an interpretation of the survey. You chose to pick a fight and make offensive comments. I chose to call you out. If you think it's derailed, look in the mirror.
 
In regards to:
 
2. I did not take any position in the epistemology of science--because that's completely irrelevant. Wield philosophy like a scalpel, not a bludgeon. 
 
The straw man that you argue against appears neither in my comments nor the research. Your refusal to update your beliefs despite the evidence is actually quite common. In short, you're in denial, and most of us fall into that trap at one point or another in our lives. This is related to motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, and disconfirmation bias. You might try asking yourself what's at stake for you, psychologically, in being wrong in this case.
 
I will walk you through an example. See here for an abstract of one study where highly qualified applicants with stereotypically Black names were called back less frequently than low skilled applicants with stereotypically white names, for job openings where employers were "actively seeking diversity". The study doesn't run all groups together as you claim--and it definitely does not imply, as you claim, that Black Americans are passive victims that need (white?) saviors. Good grief. Studies can help us measure how and why we are going wrong, and what can be done to change it.
 
It's not that underrepresented groups are incapable of success--after all, 17% of TT philosophers are women, and 16% of philosophers identify as non-white or multiracial. It's rather that the playing field is unfair. Because of systematic bias, members of certain groups face barriers to success. No one said that they can't succeed under such conditions. We're saying that they shouldn't have to. Duh. You claim that members of such groups should climb over the barriers with "iron will and talent". I say, dismantle the barriers.
 
3. That makes even less sense, because it's completely irrelevant. I never said that underrepresented groups lacked access to Google. WTF are you even talking about? 
 
4. Discrimination against Asians takes many forms, as outlined in a few of the articles I posted. Had you read them, you might realize how your comments contribute to damaging stereotypes. Seriously, your comments are offensive.  Stop doubling down on what you said and have the grace to be embarrassed. 
 
5. These are not people that you want to emulate. They managed to alienate nearly the entire 2014 cohort--the Vineyard was so offensive that women applicants created a separate, private forum for a safe space away from him. One of the major problems with the Vineyard was that he didn't realize that he was being offensive--largely because he failed to give epistemic authority to women's perspectives, and lacked the epistemic humility to realize that he has a superficial grasp of women's issues. He didn't recognize that there was a certain context in which he should defer, listen, and learn. Much can be learned from his mistake.
 
Are you going to keep whining about downvotes, or are you going to stop making offensive comments on a public bulletin board? So far, your downvotes have been deserved.

You chose to start this argument with me, remember?  You replied to my post. You didn't like the way it went, so now you're trying to shut me down by ordering me to stop. Of course, you combined your demand with a fresh argument, so you're not really "leaving it be", are you? I made no such demands on you, so I'm hardly trying to get the last word. 
 
I have tried to be as constructive as possible while defending my position and pointing out why your view is wrong. You chose to argue in a public forum. I am responding publicly, and have zero interest in taking this discussion offline. It's not my responsibility to educate you, but I am serious about creating a public culture in which we call out offensive comments. 
 
I'm not having a nervous breakdown. Accusing your interlocutor of having a nervous breakdown is offensive in several respects:
 
A) it trivializes actual nervous breakdowns.
you shouldn't use that as an insult.
C) here, you used it as an ad hominem attack, specifically one used to deny epistemic authority to your opponent
D) labels such as "crazy", "emotional", "having a nervous breakdown" and so on, are frequently used to dismiss women in particular. Did that particular phrase just roll naturally off your tongue?  
 
As for hijacking the thread--I posted a specific complaint regarding an interpretation of the survey. You chose to pick a fight and make offensive comments. I chose to call you out. If you think it's derailed, look in the mirror.
 
In regards to:
 
2. I did not take any position in the epistemology of science--because that's completely irrelevant. Wield philosophy like a scalpel, not a bludgeon. 
 
The straw man that you argue against appears neither in my comments nor the research. Your refusal to update your beliefs despite the evidence is actually quite common. In short, you're in denial, and most of us fall into that trap at one point or another in our lives. This is related to motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, and disconfirmation bias. You might try asking yourself what's at stake for you, psychologically, in being wrong in this case.
 
I will walk you through an example. See here for an abstract of one study where highly qualified applicants with stereotypically Black names were called back less frequently than low skilled applicants with stereotypically white names, for job openings where employers were "actively seeking diversity". The study doesn't run all groups together as you claim--and it definitely does not imply, as you claim, that Black Americans are passive victims that need (white?) saviors. Good grief. Studies can help us measure how and why we are going wrong, and what can be done to change it.
 
It's not that underrepresented groups are incapable of success--after all, 17% of TT philosophers are women, and 16% of philosophers identify as non-white or multiracial. It's rather that the playing field is unfair. Because of systematic bias, members of certain groups face barriers to success. No one said that they can't succeed under such conditions. We're saying that they shouldn't have to. Duh. You claim that members of such groups should climb over the barriers with "iron will and talent". I say, dismantle the barriers.
 
3. That makes even less sense, because it's completely irrelevant. I never said that underrepresented groups lacked access to Google. WTF are you even talking about? 
 
4. Discrimination against Asians takes many forms, as outlined in a few of the articles I posted. Had you read them, you might realize how your comments contribute to damaging stereotypes. Seriously, your comments are offensive.  Stop doubling down on what you said and have the grace to be embarrassed. 
 
5. These are not people that you want to emulate. They managed to alienate nearly the entire 2014 cohort--the Vineyard was so offensive that women applicants created a separate, private forum for a safe space away from him. One of the major problems with the Vineyard was that he didn't realize that he was being offensive--largely because he failed to give epistemic authority to women's perspectives, and lacked the epistemic humility to realize that he has a superficial grasp of women's issues. He didn't recognize that there was a certain context in which he should defer, listen, and learn. Much can be learned from his mistake.
 
Are you going to keep whining about downvotes, or are you going to stop making offensive comments on a public bulletin board? So far, your downvotes have been deserved.

You chose to start this argument with me, remember?  You replied to my post. You didn't like the way it went, so now you're trying to shut me down by ordering me to stop. Of course, you combined your demand with a fresh argument, so you're not really "leaving it be", are you? I made no such demands on you, so I'm hardly trying to get the last word. 
 
I have tried to be as constructive as possible while defending my position and pointing out why your view is wrong. You chose to argue in a public forum. I am responding publicly, and have zero interest in taking this discussion offline. It's not my responsibility to educate you, but I am serious about creating a public culture in which we call out offensive comments. 
 
I'm not having a nervous breakdown. Accusing your interlocutor of having a nervous breakdown is offensive in several respects:
 
A) it trivializes actual nervous breakdowns.
you shouldn't use that as an insult.
C) here, you used it as an ad hominem attack, specifically one used to deny epistemic authority to your opponent
D) labels such as "crazy", "emotional", "having a nervous breakdown" and so on, are frequently used to dismiss women in particular. Did that particular phrase just roll naturally off your tongue?  
 
As for hijacking the thread--I posted a specific complaint regarding an interpretation of the survey. You chose to pick a fight and make offensive comments. I chose to call you out. If you think it's derailed, look in the mirror.
 
In regards to:
 
2. I did not take any position in the epistemology of science--because that's completely irrelevant. Wield philosophy like a scalpel, not a bludgeon. 
 
The straw man that you argue against appears neither in my comments nor the research. Your refusal to update your beliefs despite the evidence is actually quite common. In short, you're in denial, and most of us fall into that trap at one point or another in our lives. This is related to motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, and disconfirmation bias. You might try asking yourself what's at stake for you, psychologically, in being wrong in this case.
 
I will walk you through an example. See here for an abstract of one study where highly qualified applicants with stereotypically Black names were called back less frequently than low skilled applicants with stereotypically white names, for job openings where employers were "actively seeking diversity". The study doesn't run all groups together as you claim--and it definitely does not imply, as you claim, that Black Americans are passive victims that need (white?) saviors. Good grief. Studies can help us measure how and why we are going wrong, and what can be done to change it.
 
It's not that underrepresented groups are incapable of success--after all, 17% of TT philosophers are women, and 16% of philosophers identify as non-white or multiracial. It's rather that the playing field is unfair. Because of systematic bias, members of certain groups face barriers to success. No one said that they can't succeed under such conditions. We're saying that they shouldn't have to. Duh. You claim that members of such groups should climb over the barriers with "iron will and talent". I say, dismantle the barriers.
 
3. That makes even less sense, because it's completely irrelevant. I never said that underrepresented groups lacked access to Google. WTF are you even talking about? 
 
4. Discrimination against Asians takes many forms, as outlined in a few of the articles I posted. Had you read them, you might realize how your comments contribute to damaging stereotypes. Seriously, your comments are offensive.  Stop doubling down on what you said and have the grace to be embarrassed. 
 
5. These are not people that you want to emulate. They managed to alienate nearly the entire 2014 cohort--the Vineyard was so offensive that women applicants created a separate, private forum for a safe space away from him. One of the major problems with the Vineyard was that he didn't realize that he was being offensive--largely because he failed to give epistemic authority to women's perspectives, and lacked the epistemic humility to realize that he has a superficial grasp of women's issues. He didn't recognize that there was a certain context in which he should defer, listen, and learn. Much can be learned from his mistake.
 
Are you going to keep whining about downvotes, or are you going to stop making offensive comments on a public bulletin board? So far, your downvotes have been deserved.

That's not what you said in your last post. You explicitly denied that underrepresented students face tremendous barriers to success and that the problems are, as you put it, "highly exaggerated". 17% of TT phil profs are women, and 84% of the discipline identifies only as "white". Suggesting that these numbers are somehow reflective of the failure of nonwhites and women to have "iron will and talent" is, quite frankly, as offensive as it is ridiculous. I'm beginning to wonder whether you are a troll.
 
I strongly object to your caricature of my position as well-intentioned objectification. My position is based on facts, not on some ignorant stereotype vaguely lumping together all underrepresented groups. You are the one who is conflating race, ethnicity, culture, values, and gender in your remarks. Of course different people have different experiences, and not all members of similar groups will have similar experiences, not least because of intersectionality. Who counts as a visible minority also changes depending on context--women are visible minorities in philosophy, but not in other fields. That doesn't make systematic bias any less real.
 
Failure to recognize the barriers faced by underrepresented groups helps keep those barriers in place. For example, "ignoring race/being race-blind" just has the effect of perpetuating racist social structures. "I don't see race" is itself a privileged position--check out unpacking the knapsack. This problem affects most of us, regardless of identity--there is also intragroup bias, like black cops perpetuating systematic racism against blacks, or female professors calling more frequently on male students. 
 
I do not think of policies that are designed to reduce bias in academia as "an extra push", because that's completely backwards. It's the difference between helping someone climb out of a pool vs. stopping holding their head underwater. Recognizing the differences in treatment is a way of rectifying the injustice of the current system. Hence my example of blind grading. After symphony orchestras started blind auditions, the ratio of women symphony musicians rose to match the proportion of women in the supply. Yet before that, conductors would say things like, "women just aren't as good musicians" and other such nonsense. 
 
You're not losing points because you challenge the status quo. I downvoted you because:
 
1) your writing is nearly incoherent
2) you responded to my empirically-supported position with your own musings which belie (most charitably) your own lack of knowledge
3) you insulted me by saying that "anyone with the diligence to look for it" could find research that supports your own view (back it up with links, then)
4) I found your comments about Jews and Asians to be offensive.
5) you dismissively refer to my objections as defending the status quo--presumably, you meant to imply that I and the others who downvoted you suffer from some kind of unreflective status quo bias, and that you are some kind of independent-thinking hero for defending the...status quo. As for that, I invite you to look in the mirror. Try taking the IAT. 

I've had some nervous breakdowns, but I don't recognize educating someone on the dangers of implicit bias as being in the same category. 

That's not what you said in your last post. You explicitly denied that underrepresented students face tremendous barriers to success and that the problems are, as you put it, "highly exaggerated". 17% of TT phil profs are women, and 84% of the discipline identifies only as "white". Suggesting that these numbers are somehow reflective of the failure of nonwhites and women to have "iron will and talent" is, quite frankly, as offensive as it is ridiculous. I'm beginning to wonder whether you are a troll.
 
I strongly object to your caricature of my position as well-intentioned objectification. My position is based on facts, not on some ignorant stereotype vaguely lumping together all underrepresented groups. You are the one who is conflating race, ethnicity, culture, values, and gender in your remarks. Of course different people have different experiences, and not all members of similar groups will have similar experiences, not least because of intersectionality. Who counts as a visible minority also changes depending on context--women are visible minorities in philosophy, but not in other fields. That doesn't make systematic bias any less real.
 
Failure to recognize the barriers faced by underrepresented groups helps keep those barriers in place. For example, "ignoring race/being race-blind" just has the effect of perpetuating racist social structures. "I don't see race" is itself a privileged position--check out unpacking the knapsack. This problem affects most of us, regardless of identity--there is also intragroup bias, like black cops perpetuating systematic racism against blacks, or female professors calling more frequently on male students. 
 
I do not think of policies that are designed to reduce bias in academia as "an extra push", because that's completely backwards. It's the difference between helping someone climb out of a pool vs. stopping holding their head underwater. Recognizing the differences in treatment is a way of rectifying the injustice of the current system. Hence my example of blind grading. After symphony orchestras started blind auditions, the ratio of women symphony musicians rose to match the proportion of women in the supply. Yet before that, conductors would say things like, "women just aren't as good musicians" and other such nonsense. 
 
You're not losing points because you challenge the status quo. I downvoted you because:
 
1) your writing is nearly incoherent
2) you responded to my empirically-supported position with your own musings which belie (most charitably) your own lack of knowledge
3) you insulted me by saying that "anyone with the diligence to look for it" could find research that supports your own view (back it up with links, then)
4) I found your comments about Jews and Asians to be offensive.
5) you dismissively refer to my objections as defending the status quo--presumably, you meant to imply that I and the others who downvoted you suffer from some kind of unreflective status quo bias, and that you are some kind of independent-thinking hero for defending the...status quo. As for that, I invite you to look in the mirror. Try taking the IAT. 

That's not what you said in your last post. You explicitly denied that underrepresented students face tremendous barriers to success and that the problems are, as you put it, "highly exaggerated". 17% of TT phil profs are women, and 84% of the discipline identifies only as "white". Suggesting that these numbers are somehow reflective of the failure of nonwhites and women to have "iron will and talent" is, quite frankly, as offensive as it is ridiculous. I'm beginning to wonder whether you are a troll.
 
I strongly object to your caricature of my position as well-intentioned objectification. My position is based on facts, not on some ignorant stereotype vaguely lumping together all underrepresented groups. You are the one who is conflating race, ethnicity, culture, values, and gender in your remarks. Of course different people have different experiences, and not all members of similar groups will have similar experiences, not least because of intersectionality. Who counts as a visible minority also changes depending on context--women are visible minorities in philosophy, but not in other fields. That doesn't make systematic bias any less real.
 
Failure to recognize the barriers faced by underrepresented groups helps keep those barriers in place. For example, "ignoring race/being race-blind" just has the effect of perpetuating racist social structures. "I don't see race" is itself a privileged position--check out unpacking the knapsack. This problem affects most of us, regardless of identity--there is also intragroup bias, like black cops perpetuating systematic racism against blacks, or female professors calling more frequently on male students. 
 
I do not think of policies that are designed to reduce bias in academia as "an extra push", because that's completely backwards. It's the difference between helping someone climb out of a pool vs. stopping holding their head underwater. Recognizing the differences in treatment is a way of rectifying the injustice of the current system. Hence my example of blind grading. After symphony orchestras started blind auditions, the ratio of women symphony musicians rose to match the proportion of women in the supply. Yet before that, conductors would say things like, "women just aren't as good musicians" and other such nonsense. 
 
You're not losing points because you challenge the status quo. I downvoted you because:
 
1) your writing is nearly incoherent
2) you responded to my empirically-supported position with your own musings which belie (most charitably) your own lack of knowledge
3) you insulted me by saying that "anyone with the diligence to look for it" could find research that supports your own view (back it up with links, then)
4) I found your comments about Jews and Asians to be offensive.
5) you dismissively refer to my objections as defending the status quo--presumably, you meant to imply that I and the others who downvoted you suffer from some kind of unreflective status quo bias, and that you are some kind of independent-thinking hero for defending the...status quo. As for that, I invite you to look in the mirror. Try taking the IAT. 

. if you actually want to discuss this without hang a nervous breakdown or highjacking a forum after i said i will leave it be, just message me. otherwise, i will take it that you just want the last word. But if people are curious to my response to this...
 
  1. english is my 2nd language, and  i may have a mild form of dyslexia, have you thought that as a possibility?
 
2. i dont take science to be a tabula rasa endeavour where i passively learn about laws of the world, nor is your thesis as obvious as you take it to be. im objecting to a morally suspicious interpretation of the correlations that have been found, for it treats "minorities" , which i suppose would include me, as helpless victims of a systematic bias as if my attitude, of either rising to the occasion or meekly taking this abuse is entirely beyond our sphere of influence as individuals.
 
3. you completely misunderstood, diligence to look for refers to information about what grad schools look for in applicants, specialization by department ect which is now easily available to almost anyone thanks to the internet, so the resource disadvantage for minorities in this specific endeavour has been mostly mitigated 
 
4. well I can throw facts back at you like the percentage of nobel price winners that are of jewish descent relative to their population, or the fact that there is discrimination Against asian americans in the higher education system, and its so evident that schools that are strictly merit-based like caltech have almost 50% asian populations.
 
5. i oppose the silly downvote system entirely, it had nothing to do with you specifically. i have seen here firsthand last year that if a person here has a controversial opinion here, they are likely to get downvotes just for that but what really makes it counter-productive, is that if you are already seen as someone who has a few downotes consistently, voting tendency will be warped to downvote almost anything such person posted  or to not receive an upvote when others clearly would have received one.  i dont want to name folks, but poor dfinley and vineyard last year got this treatment even when they posted sensibly.
 
now let it rest, or get the last word when i clearly said if you actually want a discussion , to just message me, i dont care either way.

I think that you should strike #3. Many people wrongly assume that if you're a member of an underrepresented group, such as a woman or an ethnic minority, you have a higher chance of getting in. But this ignores the many factors that are working against such groups. Such students are also likely to get lower grades, and are not seen by professors as equally competent candidates, which comes out in letters of recommendation. They are less likely to get the mentoring necessary to write a good sample or choose the appropriate programs. The students who are members of underrepresented groups have to overcome tremendous barriers to success. 
 
Also, saying that underrepresented groups are more likely to get in leads to the view that the only reason visible minorities have been accepted is because of their underrepresented status. It downplays their accomplishment and marginalizes them. In actuality, they are far less likely to major in philosophy--and of those that do, they are far less likely to apply to graduate school. Of those that do apply, they have to overcome all the barriers listed in the previous paragraph (and many more besides.) 

I meant what I said. Underrepresented students, including visible minorities from high SES backgrounds, still get lower grades on average, unless blind grading is implemented. This starts as early as primary school and continues through graduate school. Check out this post on New APPS for a quick primer. They are also less likely to be called on in class, less likely to be mentored, etc. Everything that I said is backed up by extensive empirical research. Don't believe me? Maybe you'll believe Rutgers' philosophy department web site.
 
If you're interested in learning more, you can start by checking out some of the literature on implicit bias--perhaps start with Banaji and Greenwald's work. Blindspot is a great introduction.
 
Let's do avoid lumping Asian cultures together. But--to take your caricature at face value--then why aren't there MORE Asians in philosophy? Check out this link.

That's not what you said in your last post. You explicitly denied that underrepresented students face tremendous barriers to success and that the problems are, as you put it, "highly exaggerated". 17% of TT phil profs are women, and 84% of the discipline identifies only as "white". Suggesting that these numbers are somehow reflective of the failure of nonwhites and women to have "iron will and talent" is, quite frankly, as offensive as it is ridiculous. I'm beginning to wonder whether you are a troll.
 
I strongly object to your caricature of my position as well-intentioned objectification. My position is based on facts, not on some ignorant stereotype vaguely lumping together all underrepresented groups. You are the one who is conflating race, ethnicity, culture, values, and gender in your remarks. Of course different people have different experiences, and not all members of similar groups will have similar experiences, not least because of intersectionality. Who counts as a visible minority also changes depending on context--women are visible minorities in philosophy, but not in other fields. That doesn't make systematic bias any less real.
 
Failure to recognize the barriers faced by underrepresented groups helps keep those barriers in place. For example, "ignoring race/being race-blind" just has the effect of perpetuating racist social structures. "I don't see race" is itself a privileged position--check out unpacking the knapsack. This problem affects most of us, regardless of identity--there is also intragroup bias, like black cops perpetuating systematic racism against blacks, or female professors calling more frequently on male students. 
 
I do not think of policies that are designed to reduce bias in academia as "an extra push", because that's completely backwards. It's the difference between helping someone climb out of a pool vs. stopping holding their head underwater. Recognizing the differences in treatment is a way of rectifying the injustice of the current system. Hence my example of blind grading. After symphony orchestras started blind auditions, the ratio of women symphony musicians rose to match the proportion of women in the supply. Yet before that, conductors would say things like, "women just aren't as good musicians" and other such nonsense. 
 
You're not losing points because you challenge the status quo. I downvoted you because:
 
1) your writing is nearly incoherent
2) you responded to my empirically-supported position with your own musings which belie (most charitably) your own lack of knowledge
3) you insulted me by saying that "anyone with the diligence to look for it" could find research that supports your own view (back it up with links, then)
4) I found your comments about Jews and Asians to be offensive.
5) you dismissively refer to my objections as defending the status quo--presumably, you meant to imply that I and the others who downvoted you suffer from some kind of unreflective status quo bias, and that you are some kind of independent-thinking hero for defending the...status quo. As for that, I invite you to look in the mirror. Try taking the IAT. 

That's not what you said in your last post. You explicitly denied that underrepresented students face tremendous barriers to success and that the problems are, as you put it, "highly exaggerated". 17% of TT phil profs are women, and 84% of the discipline identifies only as "white". Suggesting that these numbers are somehow reflective of the failure of nonwhites and women to have "iron will and talent" is, quite frankly, as offensive as it is ridiculous. I'm beginning to wonder whether you are a troll.
 
I strongly object to your caricature of my position as well-intentioned objectification. My position is based on facts, not on some ignorant stereotype vaguely lumping together all underrepresented groups. You are the one who is conflating race, ethnicity, culture, values, and gender in your remarks. Of course different people have different experiences, and not all members of similar groups will have similar experiences, not least because of intersectionality. Who counts as a visible minority also changes depending on context--women are visible minorities in philosophy, but not in other fields. That doesn't make systematic bias any less real.
 
Failure to recognize the barriers faced by underrepresented groups helps keep those barriers in place. For example, "ignoring race/being race-blind" just has the effect of perpetuating racist social structures. "I don't see race" is itself a privileged position--check out unpacking the knapsack. This problem affects most of us, regardless of identity--there is also intragroup bias, like black cops perpetuating systematic racism against blacks, or female professors calling more frequently on male students. 
 
I do not think of policies that are designed to reduce bias in academia as "an extra push", because that's completely backwards. It's the difference between helping someone climb out of a pool vs. stopping holding their head underwater. Recognizing the differences in treatment is a way of rectifying the injustice of the current system. Hence my example of blind grading. After symphony orchestras started blind auditions, the ratio of women symphony musicians rose to match the proportion of women in the supply. Yet before that, conductors would say things like, "women just aren't as good musicians" and other such nonsense. 
 
You're not losing points because you challenge the status quo. I downvoted you because:
 
1) your writing is nearly incoherent
2) you responded to my empirically-supported position with your own musings which belie (most charitably) your own lack of knowledge
3) you insulted me by saying that "anyone with the diligence to look for it" could find research that supports your own view (back it up with links, then)
4) I found your comments about Jews and Asians to be offensive.
5) you dismissively refer to my objections as defending the status quo--presumably, you meant to imply that I and the others who downvoted you suffer from some kind of unreflective status quo bias, and that you are some kind of independent-thinking hero for defending the...status quo. As for that, I invite you to look in the mirror. Try taking the IAT. 

That's not what you said in your last post. You explicitly denied that underrepresented students face tremendous barriers to success and that the problems are, as you put it, "highly exaggerated". 17% of TT phil profs are women, and 84% of the discipline identifies only as "white". Suggesting that these numbers are somehow reflective of the failure of nonwhites and women to have "iron will and talent" is, quite frankly, as offensive as it is ridiculous. I'm beginning to wonder whether you are a troll.
 
I strongly object to your caricature of my position as well-intentioned objectification. My position is based on facts, not on some ignorant stereotype vaguely lumping together all underrepresented groups. You are the one who is conflating race, ethnicity, culture, values, and gender in your remarks. Of course different people have different experiences, and not all members of similar groups will have similar experiences, not least because of intersectionality. Who counts as a visible minority also changes depending on context--women are visible minorities in philosophy, but not in other fields. That doesn't make systematic bias any less real.
 
Failure to recognize the barriers faced by underrepresented groups helps keep those barriers in place. For example, "ignoring race/being race-blind" just has the effect of perpetuating racist social structures. "I don't see race" is itself a privileged position--check out unpacking the knapsack. This problem affects most of us, regardless of identity--there is also intragroup bias, like black cops perpetuating systematic racism against blacks, or female professors calling more frequently on male students. 
 
I do not think of policies that are designed to reduce bias in academia as "an extra push", because that's completely backwards. It's the difference between helping someone climb out of a pool vs. stopping holding their head underwater. Recognizing the differences in treatment is a way of rectifying the injustice of the current system. Hence my example of blind grading. After symphony orchestras started blind auditions, the ratio of women symphony musicians rose to match the proportion of women in the supply. Yet before that, conductors would say things like, "women just aren't as good musicians" and other such nonsense. 
 
You're not losing points because you challenge the status quo. I downvoted you because:
 
1) your writing is nearly incoherent
2) you responded to my empirically-supported position with your own musings which belie (most charitably) your own lack of knowledge
3) you insulted me by saying that "anyone with the diligence to look for it" could find research that supports your own view (back it up with links, then)
4) I found your comments about Jews and Asians to be offensive.
5) you dismissively refer to my objections as defending the status quo--presumably, you meant to imply that I and the others who downvoted you suffer from some kind of unreflective status quo bias, and that you are some kind of independent-thinking hero for defending the...status quo. As for that, I invite you to look in the mirror. Try taking the IAT.