wat0n wrote:No, I already fulfilled the reasonable burden of proof: I showed there is a lot of journal discussion on these matters (not possible if editors reject those articles), that there is official advocacy at the association level and that university provosts generally agree with these efforts. That is, there is indeed an institutional effort to that effect.
Your analysis made claims about what most professors think about these matters without providing any evidence to that effect.
Field associations have a fair amount of power over their fields. They often have roles in the academic job market and they also run journals (often top ones in their professions, which can easily make a tenure case).
I don't see how the webpage discussing provosts contradicts my claim. On the contrary, they seem to value efforts to diversify their universities, even if they believe it's not an easy task.
It's not discrimination when there is no intent and a business justification for whatever you consider to be discriminatory (this is a disproportionate impact test in American anti-discrimination law) and even more so when there are alternatives being offered that fulfill the same needs in a more rational way.
The example you cited was an ignorant 20-year old snowflake who was sad that he couldn't learn what he wanted to learn as part of his undergrad degree. As any rational person does, I don't care if snowflakes melt.
I think we can agree to disagree.
The evidence has been presented and people can see for themselves how much (or little) has been done to get rid of institutional and systemic racism and sexism in academia.
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...