No that's a more partisan one, and is exactly the sort of thing OP was arguing against. If you want broad based support for research funding you will necessarily need support from a lot of people you personally find distasteful. You can either try to appeal to people across the spectrum and keep bipartisan support, or label half the country racist and deal with the resulting backlash.

As someone who hates the current administration and thinks it's doing untold harm to our future, I'm disappointed by how many people in the sciences chose option two.

▲

amanaplanacanal 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't understand. We shouldn't research whether institutional racism is causing problems? Because Republicans don't want it to be true? Is that the claim, or am I confused about what you are saying?

▲

Borealid 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I will have a stab at legitimately explaining the viewpoint you profess not to understand.

"Institutional" or "structural" racism doesn't just mean racism by one or two people in power. It's the idea that the majority of society demonstrates some kind of racial bias, by whatever means.

Society is made up of people.

One of two things must, logically, be true:

1. A SUBSTANTIAL portion of the people who make up society exhibit some kind of racist behavior, or

2. Structural racism is not a widespread issue

Which one of these two propositions must one believe is likely if one is researching the impact of structural racism? Keep in mind people do not generally don't go looking for things they do not believe exist.

In other words, people don't like other people believing they-en-masse discriminate (even IF they do), so taking actions that only make sense if you think that poorly of the everyman offends them. It's not about what someone wants to be true, it's that investigating implies a level of distrust in society some members of that society find uncivil.

To use a blunt analogy, "why not let me check your underwear to make sure you haven't soiled it? Do you just not want it to be true?".

	▲	ordersofmag an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You have misunderstood what structural racism is. It is not about the majority of people being racist. Is about the systems being constructed in ways that lead to racist outcomes. You can have a society with zero racist individuals and if they continue to enact the racist systems (perhaps created by racist folks long dead) you'll have structural racism. I don't disagree with the idea that the mis-understanding you have is widespread though, and would certainly be a cause for folks not being comfortable with the idea (as they have mis-understood it).
	▲	2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	kaitai an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It's so disappointing that you have made the mistake of thinking that those two possibilities listed cover the entire set of possibilities. The Parable of the Polygons is a cute case study that shows that it is possible, in a mathematical sense, to prefer diversity and yet end up segregated: https://ncase.me/polygons/ The whole point of studying institutional and structural racism is that no one needs to be racist per se to have racially discriminatory outcomes. Perhaps a good analogy is the higher mortality rates among left-handed people. We no longer persecute them and drive them out of society or beat them for their sin, and yet, they die earlier due to structural factors. I agree with you that "people don't like other people believing they-en-masse discriminate." And that's why science in the US is f*(&ed, because somehow everyone takes intellectual inquiry as some sort of personal affront or verdict on individual virtue, and that's the one thing the American cannot abide, the thought that someone else is judging them and finding them wanting.

▲

tbrownaw 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I don't understand. We shouldn't research whether institutional racism is causing problems?

Is "institutional racism" when institutions do treat individuals differently on the basis of race, or when they make sure not to?

I'm used to seeing that term in context of advocating for explicit double standards.

▲

wins32767 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Part of the issue here is that the academy has lost the trust of Republicans. So even if there are results that institutional racism is a significant factor, if it's coming from someone who is "woke" in their views it'll just be dismissed. To them it feels like using their tax dollars to fund someone who is going to skew results so they have a club to beat them with. And a big part of the reason they've lost trust is that the academy doesn't acknowledge when it's being political (see "reality has a liberal bias" in this thread or your frame here, for that matter).

	▲	amanaplanacanal 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The way science is supposed to work, it doesn't matter who is doing the study. Anybody can read the resulting paper and see whether the conclusions are supported by the data. That's what science is. Saying they don't trust science is a pretty heavy indictment that they have lost their way. What are they proposing to replace science with, vibes?

▲

datsci_est_2015 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> or label half the country racist and deal with the resulting backlash.

This is an unfair characterization, and frankly, is baseless political rhetoric. Incredible propaganda job moneyed interests have performed in order to convince the right wing that any research that asks probing questions about equity automatically implies anyone white and conservative is “racist”.

My favorite research that falls into this category concerns the effects of nuclear weapons testing on the lands and livelihoods of indigenous peoples. Clearly, nakedly something that anyone with a decent moral compass would give a shit about, but pulled under the umbrella of DEI because empathy is dead.

	▲	wins32767 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's not propaganda, it's all the normal people on the left in my life who have in the last 5-6 years started calling anyone to their right on social justice issues racist. You're doing a lesser form of it here with "Clearly, nakedly something that anyone with a decent moral compass..." That makes a moral issue out of something that's clearly within the realm of politics in a healthy society (where to direct tax dollars). It's perfectly reasonable to think that I'd rather have slightly higher dollars spent on Medicaid funding than do that research study. If you agree with that, then it's clearly a political question, not a moral one.