Silencing critics of racial preferences

[Toni]

Did anyone else notice that the article Wang authored was published a year ago?

 

[laughing dog]

Did anyone else notice that the article Wang authored was published a year ago?

Good catch.

Dr. Wang is most likely a tenured faculty member. If that is the case, there is no way Dr. Wang can be silenced if he does not wish to be silenced. It does not appear that Dr. Wang lost his position as an associate professor of medicine. He can still publish or promote his ideas on any platform that will accept them.

The idea that removing any professor from a directorship is an effective way to silence them is silly.

I am not defending the removal. IMO, it is an appeal to emotion to claim he is being silenced.

 

[Toni]

A tweet is evidence of someone's view of reality, it is not evidence of the actual reality.

Actually, someone's testimony usually provides evidence of that which is testified. The strenght varies from almost zero to extremely strong. And of course, as I already pointed out, the celebratory words of the Director of Women’s Heart program at the University of Pittsburgh are significant evidence of the removal (from the post as program director; he wasn't fired from the university).

As for Mr. Voloch's article, of course as a serious writer he would very probably check his sources, so either he has enough information about the author of the other article to reckon that his words constitute good evidence that Wang was removed, or else he checked in some other way, e.g., by asking in private.

Whether Dr. Wang was actually removed as the director is a question of fact that cannot be addressed by someone's tweet.

Of course it can. A tweet is testimony. Testimony is usually and properly used to assess matters of fact. It is a matter of context how good the evidence is. In this case, pretty good. Again, she informed of and was happy with the removal. And she has a high position at that university. And also - and also of course - Mr. Voloch's article is evidence as well.

Good journalists generally cite sources. Good authors provide sources for information they offer as fact.

Donald Trump and his propensities to desiminate ‘information’ or to announce the termination employment of government officials by tweet aside, an assertion by tweet is not ‘source’ of anything other than the tweeter’s opinions. I actually follow some news organizations and journalists and writers provide links to articles and other information to support their claims.

 

[Toni]

I have two friends who majored in Education. One went to prestigious Baylor University and another went to some state university in the University of Texas system. One of them paid many times more for her education but both sat down and compared classes and they pretty much covered the same thing. What gives?

I could see Baylor as perhaps the place for upper and lower graduate work. More money for research, ect.

And if minorities have problems at the elite universities wouldnt they have the same problems at the less expensive ones and colleges?

I don’t have time to go back and find any of the several threads here where minority performance at say, Harvard, has been discussed or to find the articles clear I’ve LinkedIn the past, but it is true that the drop out rate of minority students at Harvard is higher than for white students, the graduation rate is still extremely high. There is no evidence that Harvard or any other elite school or medical school admits ‘unqualified’ students or unqualified applicants over qualified applicants. All programs and schools have a certain number of students who drop out or who fail enough classes that they are dismissed from the program or school. There are many reasons for these ‘failures.’ Sometimes there is a mismatch between student and program, in terms of interests or effort but most often, students do not compete a program because of some life event: illness(students or family members), and financial hardship are most common. But so is the simple hardship or difficulty in attending a demanding program far from home and their usual support system. It is quite common for students to experience some degree of depression, for example, and this can have a serious negative impact on the brightest students’ academic performance. What many white people fail to take into account is that implicit racism and bias is enormously stressful. The solution is not that students only considered fee programs near where they live, although the vast overwhelming number of students do just that, but that all institutions of higher education examine their programs and campuses for systemic and implicit bias. For the record: the belief that black and brown students are less qualified is evidence of bias. The belief that Asian students are more qualified is evidence of bias.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Thinking tweets are evidence is exactly what is wrong with our country. Rational skepticism, examining evidence, and critical thinking are things we need to do in response.

Failing to realize that testimony is evidence in a particular case when the evidence is used by members of your out-group is one of the many things that are wrong with group thinking.

By the way, I'm not in America. But also, obviously, in context, the claim + celebratory words of the Director of Women’s Heart program at the University of Pittsburgh are significant evidence of the removal. Adding the evidence from other sources (see above), it's a pretty solid case. Part of the evidence, of course, consists in the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever of anyone from the University of Pittsburgh is disputing it.

 

[laughing dog]

Thinking tweets are evidence is exactly what is wrong with our country. Rational skepticism, examining evidence, and critical thinking are things we need to do in response.

Failing to realize that testimony is evidence in a particular case when the evidence is used by members of your out-group is one of the many things that are wrong with group thinking.

By the way, I'm not in America. But also, obviously, in context, the claim + celebratory words of the Director of Women’s Heart program at the University of Pittsburgh are significant evidence of the removal. Adding the evidence from other sources (see above), it's a pretty solid case. Part of the evidence, of course, consists in the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever of anyone from the University of Pittsburgh is disputing it.

In personnel matters, employers are not necessarily at liberty to divulge what really happens. It is possible Dr Wang is no longer the director because Dr. Wang resigned. It is possible Dr. Wang was removed as director for various reasons including this paper.

But no one is required to accept someone's else's opinion (a tweet) as evidence of an independent fact. In fact, in most cases, it would incredibly stupid to do so.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You are wrong - it was an alleged statement of fact.

Hmm..., so you're saying it's a claim that a person fucks pigs?
Well, sure that is evidence that he does fuck pigs. But as always, how good the evidence is depends on context. It can be pretty good, or (usually, with regard to fucking pigs) very, very weak. In the case under consideration, the evidence is not weak.

No, it is evidence of her belief of his removal.

Which is pretty good evidence of his removal, given context. But there is more evidence of course, like the article I mentioned. Plus the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever of anyone from the University of Pittsburgh is disputing it.

Unless you are person in a position of power at UP, there is no way for you to know that. You confuse your assumptions with fact.

You confuse intuitive probabilistic assessmens (which is what we actually use to know facts, all the time) with assumptions.

As usual, your reasoning is faulty. I could simply believe it without conclusive evidence.

If your evidence that he was removed from his directorship is not enough to warrant belief beyond a reasonable doubt, and yet you have no doubt whatsoever that he lost his directorship, then you are being epistemically irrational.

Dr. Wang is most likely a tenured faculty member.

It looks like you have not read the posts offered as evidence. He certainly is.

If that is the case, there is no way Dr. Wang can be silenced if he does not wish to be silenced.

Well, that depends on whether taking away his directorship is enough to silence him. But of course, that could have the effect of silencing others, who are not in the same position and know what's coming to them if they talk.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Did anyone else notice that the article Wang authored was published a year ago?

Good catch.

Did you accept Toni's post as conclusive evidence that it was published a year ago? Or did you look for some independent evidence?

Anyway, here is the place where it was originally published, it seems:

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.120.015959

 

[Toni]

Did anyone else notice that the article Wang authored was published a year ago?

Good catch.

Did you accept Toni's post as conclusive evidence that it was published a year ago? Or did you look for some independent evidence?

Anyway, here is the place where it was originally published, it seems:

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.120.015959

I was looking at the link upthread and found this:

https://www.onlinejacc.org/content/74/2/257

 

[laughing dog]

Hmm..., so you're saying it's a claim that a person fucks pigs?
Well, sure that is evidence that he does fuck pigs. But as always, how good the evidence is depends on context. It can be pretty good, or (usually, with regard to fucking pigs) very, very weak. In the case under consideration, the evidence is not weak.

We have a different view on evidence. You think hearsay is evidence of an independent fact, I don't.

Which is pretty good evidence of his removal, given context. But there is more evidence of course, like the article I mentioned. Plus the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever of anyone from the University of Pittsburgh is disputing it.

You are entitled to believe whatever you wish.

You confuse intuitive probabilistic assessmens (which is what we actually use to know facts, all the time) with assumptions.

So what Bayesian probability do you give to your assumption "probabilistic assessment"?

If your evidence that he was removed from his directorship is not enough to warrant belief beyond a reasonable doubt, and yet you have no doubt whatsoever that he lost his directorship, then you are being epistemically irrational.

Nah, that would mean I think a tweet is evidence of fact.

It looks like you have not read the posts offered as evidence. He certainly is.

Perhaps I missed where it said he was a tenured faculty member. Please point to it.

Well, that depends on whether taking away his directorship is enough to silence him. But of course, that could have the effect of silencing others, who are not in the same position and know what's coming to them if they talk.

Taking away his directorship will not make him mute or prevent him from physically writing, so he would have to choose to be silent.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Did you accept Toni's post as conclusive evidence that it was published a year ago? Or did you look for some independent evidence?

Anyway, here is the place where it was originally published, it seems:

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.120.015959

I was looking at the link upthread and found this:

https://www.onlinejacc.org/content/74/2/257

That's a different article, though.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

We have a different view on evidence. You think hearsay is evidence of an independent fact, I don't.

Whatever "an independent fact" means (what would be a dependent fact), obviously testimony is usually evidence, as one should increase the probability one assigns to an event on the basis of it. How good it is depends on many factors, obviously.

As for hearsay, that is a legal term and it's about statements made under oath in court. But obviously, reports about what others reported are evidence of the content of the latter in a gazillion cases - most of them, actually, though it could be very weak.

Which is pretty good evidence of his removal, given context. But there is more evidence of course, like the article I mentioned. Plus the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever of anyone from the University of Pittsburgh is disputing it.

You are entitled to believe whatever you wish.

I believe what I do. Being entitled to believing what I wish has no effect, as I do not choose what to believe. At any rate, my point stands on its own.

So what Bayesian probability do you give to your assumption "probabilistic assessment"?

Bayesian probability? As opposed to non-Bayesian? What are you talking about? Regardless, in the vast majority of cases, our intuitive assessments do not have a precise number associated to them. But that's not the issue. It's the way humans do assess and have always assessed matters.
But as I said, I reckon it is very probable she'd be in a position to know. But that's not counting the rest of the evidence. And by the way:



https://www.thecollegefix.com/first...for-saying-affirmative-action-harms-students/

UPMC demoted Wang, removing him as program director of the electrophysiology fellowship in the Heart and Vascular Institute, “as soon as” it learned about his white paper, one of his colleagues, Katie Berlacher, tweeted Aug. 3. (UPMC media relations told MedPage Today that happened July 31.)

Now thecollegefix, in addition to report the tweet from Dr. Berlacher as evidence, reports that Medpage reported that UPMC media relations confirmed it. And yes, that thecollegefix reports that MedPage reported that (and provides a link) is good evidence that MedPage did just that. And then in turn that is evidence that UPMC said that. But you can register and check whether MedPage reported that.

If your evidence that he was removed from his directorship is not enough to warrant belief beyond a reasonable doubt, and yet you have no doubt whatsoever that he lost his directorship, then you are being epistemically irrational.

Nah, that would mean I think a tweet is evidence of fact.

No, it doesn't. You do not seem to understand what is wrong with your reasoning. The point holds regardless of whether you think a tweet is evidence of fact. And obviously, tweets are usually evidence of facts. How good the evidence is depends on the case, etc.

Perhaps I missed where it said he was a tenured faculty member. Please point to it.

Never mind, I thought associate professors were tenured, but it looks like they're only usually tenured, but not always, so my mistake.

Taking away his directorship will not make him mute or prevent him from physically writing, so he would have to choose to be silent.

That is not a reasonable criterion to assess whether he is being silenced. For that matter, actually firing him would not make him mute or prevent him from physically writing. Would you say that firing him would not be a way of silencing him? (and yes, it would be illegal to fire him, but that is not the point). in fact, telling him to shut up or else his family will be shot dead would not make him mute or prevent him from physically writing. The point is that there are plenty of ways of silencing a person, in the usual sense of the words, that do not involve making him mute or prevent him from physically writing. It would be a choice, but a coerced one. (the level of coercion of course is not the same in the examples. Rather, it's a reductio of your argument)

 

[laughing dog]

Whatever "an independent fact" means (what would be a dependent fact), obviously testimony is usually evidence, as one should increase the probability one assigns to an event on the basis of it. How good it is depends on many factors, obviously.

As for hearsay, that is a legal term and it's about statements made under oath in court. But obviously, reports about what others reported are evidence of the content of the latter in a gazillion cases - most of them, actually, though it could be very weak.

While hearsay is used in a legal sense, it is not just a legal term. You believe hearsay (information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor - https://www.google.com/search?channel=cus2&client=firefox-b-1-d&q=hearsay) is evidence. I do not.

Bayesian probability? As opposed to non-Bayesian? What are you talking about? Regardless, in the vast majority of cases, our intuitive assessments do not have a precise number associated to them. But that's not the issue. It's the way humans do assess and have always assessed matters.

Intuition is not the same as probabilistic assessment unless you have some sort of idiosyncratic use of the terms.

But as I said, I reckon it is very probable she'd be in a position to know.

You have no reality-driven basis for conclusion.

But that's not counting the rest of the evidence. And by the way:



https://www.thecollegefix.com/first...for-saying-affirmative-action-harms-students/

UPMC demoted Wang, removing him as program director of the electrophysiology fellowship in the Heart and Vascular Institute, “as soon as” it learned about his white paper, one of his colleagues, Katie Berlacher, tweeted Aug. 3. (UPMC media relations told MedPage Today that happened July 31.)

Now thecollegefix, in addition to report the tweet from Dr. Berlacher as evidence, reports that Medpage reported that UPMC media relations confirmed it. And yes, that thecollegefix reports that MedPage reported that (and provides a link) is good evidence that MedPage did just that. And then in turn that is evidence that UPMC said that. But you can register and check whether MedPage reported that.

Let me get this straight. Dr Berlacher tweets something. Medpage reports she made the tweet. Then collegefix reports that Medpage reports that Dr. Berlacher tweeted something. And you are claiming that is good evidence that what Dr. Berlacher tweeted is true. A charitable interpretation of that argument is that it is pure bootstrapping.

No, it doesn't. You do not seem to understand what is wrong with your reasoning. The point holds regardless of whether you think a tweet is evidence of fact. And obviously, tweets are usually evidence of facts. How good the evidence is depends on the case, etc.

You are mistaken. I fully understand that someone's opinion about a fact is not evidence of the actual fact.

That is not a reasonable criterion to assess whether he is being silenced. For that matter, actually firing him would not make him mute or prevent him from physically writing. Would you say that firing him would not be a way of silencing him? (and yes, it would be illegal to fire him, but that is not the point). in fact, telling him to shut up or else his family will be shot dead would not make him mute or prevent him from physically writing. The point is that there are plenty of ways of silencing a person, in the usual sense of the words, that do not involve making him mute or prevent him from physically writing. It would be a choice, but a coerced one. (the level of coercion of course is not the same in the examples. Rather, it's a reductio of your argument)

There are plenty of ways of silencing someone. Taking away a directorship from a presumably tenured faculty member is not a very effective way of doing so. Especially a professor who has a history of making such arguments as Dr. Wang, because there is little to no coercion available under normal circumstances.

Returning to the actual OP, there is little evidence of any sort that Dr. Wang has been silenced by the University of Pittsburgh at this time.

 

[ruby sparks]

Did you accept Toni's post as conclusive evidence that it was published a year ago? Or did you look for some independent evidence?

Anyway, here is the place where it was originally published, it seems:

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.120.015959

I was looking at the link upthread and found this:

https://www.onlinejacc.org/content/74/2/257

That's a different article, though.

I’m to blame for that. I read and cited the wrong paper.

I have just read the relevant, recent one.

It’s pretty much a denouncement of AA in the form of racial preferences at college admission stage (and not just in cardiology, or even just medicine) and calls for its end.

It is certainly being reported here and there that he has been sacked, but it does not seem to be officially confirmed, nor has Dr Wang reported it.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

While hearsay is used in a legal sense, it is not just a legal term. You believe hearsay (information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor - https://www.google.com/search?channe...-1-d&q=hearsay) is evidence. I do not.

No, of course I do not believe information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate. But that has nothing to do with what I said. So, if that is what you were accusing me of, you simply have no warrant for your charge. And of course, information received from other people that is not sufficient to provide conclusive evidence is generally also evidence, just less than conclusive.

Intuition is not the same as probabilistic assessment unless you have some sort of idiosyncratic use of the terms.

Intuitive probabilistic assessments are a class of intuitions, not the same as intuition that is a larger class.
Regardless, we look at different pieces of information and reckon whether something is probable, improabable, very probable, so probable that it's beyond a reasonable doubt, astronomically improbable, and so on. We do that with information with all sources, including reports of what others say.

You have no reality-driven basis for conclusion.

Of course I do. It is very improbable that she'd made that up, in context, and further, that she'd not have been refuted by now. It's an intuitive probabilistic assessment, as almost everything is when discussing every piece of evidence (even in science, people need to do that all the time, but it's proper anyway). And that tweeet is not the only piece of evidence, clearly.

But that's not counting the rest of the evidence. And by the way:
https://www.thecollegefix.com/first...for-saying-affirmative-action-harms-students/

UPMC demoted Wang, removing him as program director of the electrophysiology fellowship in the Heart and Vascular Institute, “as soon as” it learned about his white paper, one of his colleagues, Katie Berlacher, tweeted Aug. 3. (UPMC media relations told MedPage Today that happened July 31.)

Now thecollegefix, in addition to report the tweet from Dr. Berlacher as evidence, reports that Medpage reported that UPMC media relations confirmed it. And yes, that thecollegefix reports that MedPage reported that (and provides a link) is good evidence that MedPage did just that. And then in turn that is evidence that UPMC said that. But you can register and check whether MedPage reported that.

Let me get this straight. Dr Berlacher tweets something. Medpage reports she made the tweet. Then collegefix reports that Medpage reports that Dr. Berlacher tweeted something. And you are claiming that is good evidence that what Dr. Berlacher tweeted is true. A charitable interpretation of that argument is that it is pure bootstrapping.

No, that is not at all what I said in the post you're quoting. It's not a charitable interpretation. Read again: thecollegefix, in addition to report the tweet from Dr. Berlacher as evidence,, reports that Medpage reported that UPMC media relations confirmed it. That has nothing to do with the tweet. It is an independent line of evidence. It is thecollegefix reporting that Medpage reported that UPMC media relations confirmed the removal.

Again, thecollegefix even provides the link to the MedPage page in question, though it requires a somewhat annoying registration.

You are mistaken. I fully understand that someone's opinion about a fact is not evidence of the actual fact.

Of course, reports are generally evidence, and how good they are depends on the case. But regardless, you lost track of this part of the exchange. Let me remind you:

If your evidence that he was removed from his directorship is not enough to warrant belief beyond a reasonable doubt, and yet you have no doubt whatsoever that he lost his directorship, then you are being epistemically irrational.​

So, either your evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt (so the evidence provided here so far suffices), or else you are not being reasonable.

There are plenty of ways of silencing someone. Taking away a directorship from a presumably tenured faculty member is not a very effective way of doing so. Especially a professor who has a history of making such arguments as Dr. Wang, because there is little to no coercion available under normal circumstances.

That is a very different matter. What my argument shows is that the criterion you used for ruling out that he was being silenced is not a reasonable one. As for whether he is being silenced, well surely they are putting pressure on him, and on many others by example. Maybe that is not deliberate on the part of all of those removing him. Maybe some do so in order not to be themselves targeted. But regardless, this sort of thing is purely one example, and the pattern of silencing people is pretty pervasive.

 

[Toni]

Did you accept Toni's post as conclusive evidence that it was published a year ago? Or did you look for some independent evidence?

Anyway, here is the place where it was originally published, it seems:

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.120.015959

I was looking at the link upthread and found this:

https://www.onlinejacc.org/content/74/2/257

That's a different article, though.

It IS a different articl although absolutely along the same lines. I was ‘multitasking’ at the time and did not go all the way to the beginning of this thread. My apologies.

However this earlier article does bring up the potential that he had previously been advised that publishing such articles was expressing points of view that differed sharply with that of the university and medical school policy and was incompatible vile. That is merely speculation, tho.

 

[laughing dog]

No, of course I do not believe information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate. But that has nothing to do with what I said. So, if that is what you were accusing me of, you simply have no warrant for your charge. And of course, information received from other people that is not sufficient to provide conclusive evidence is generally also evidence, just less than conclusive.

You are babbling. I pointed out that hearsay is not simply a legal term - that is it.

Intuitive probabilistic assessments are a class of intuitions, not the same as intuition that is a larger class....

Not in my book.

Of course I do. It is very improbable that she'd made that up, in context, and further, that she'd not have been refuted by now. It's an intuitive probabilistic assessment, as almost everything is when discussing every piece of evidence (even in science, people need to do that all the time, but it's proper anyway). And that tweeet is not the only piece of evidence, clearly.

No, you don't. As far as you know, she heard from the a maintenance worker.

Of course, reports are generally evidence, and how good they are depends on the case. But regardless, you lost track of this part of the exchange. Let me remind you..

No, I understand that someone's opinion about a fact is not evidence that the fact is true while you do not.

That is a very different matter. What my argument shows is that the criterion you used for ruling out that he was being silenced is not a reasonable one.

To silence someone means to prevent them from speaking out. Dr. Wang's removal from the directorship does not prevent him from speaking out especially if he is tenured. You do realize that one of the reasons for tenure is to protect professors from fearing to speak out.

 

[ruby sparks]

One problem with the paper that I see is that it is very selective in its use of data and evidence. It is a paper written by someone who opposes this form of AA and who then goes to find only evidence against it.

For example, in support of the claim that this sort of AA harms its recipients, the paper cites that the graduation rates in California for the relevant protected minorities went up after the ban on AA of this sort (Proposition 209). But elsewhere I read that graduation rates for this group were already rising in the years before Prop 209 and that the increase after Prop 209 was less than before.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/are-minority-students-harmed-by-affirmative-action/

In other words, Dr Wang accepts the 'mismatch hypothesis' more or less unquestioningly, whereas in fact it is a strongly disputed hypothesis.

So the question is, is it reasonable for an institution to tolerate this level of dissent from institution policy, given that it is quite a one-sided (and therefore arguably unbalanced) analysis of the policy, by someone who (as I understand it) is employed to implement the policy? I don't know the answer to that, but if he has been sacked (which does not seem entirely clear) then the university's answer would be 'no'. Though my guess would be that in that scenario he may have a good case for unfair dismissal, though in the end it may come down to what the terms of his contract were, whether they were reasonable, and whether he broke any of them.

Aside from that, I would say that it's a good paper in some ways, in that it throws up important issues and challenges to this form of AA. If he's right, then it counts against this form of AA. And I think we need to hear the case against as well as the case for.

Perhaps retracting the paper, later publishing a counter to it and elaborating on the reasons for retraction, but not going as far as sacking him, would be the better option. I am assuming that there is no evidence that in the carrying out of his role, he actually did anything to contravene the (presumably legitimate) policy it was partly his job to implement.

But it's a bit (but not entirely) like saying if a company appoints a diversity officer and it turns out the person appointed strongly disagrees with the diversity policy, should he company retain that person in that position? It's not quite like that because he was (or is) director of the department, not a diversity officer specifically, so he had (or has) a wider role.

 

[ruby sparks]

That's a different article, though.

It IS a different article although absolutely along the same lines. I was ‘multitasking’ at the time and did not go all the way to the beginning of this thread. My apologies.

It was partly my fault for citing and discussing the wrong (2019) paper.

Having read both, I would say that the recent 2020 paper goes quite a bit further in its opposition to this form of AA, even though as you say, they are similar in many ways.

Given the title of the first one ("How Do Asians Fit Into the American College of Cardiology’s Diversity and Inclusion Initiative?") I think it's fair to say he's obviously at least partly motivated on behalf of the Asian demographic.

 

[J842P]

Given the title of the first one ("How Do Asians Fit Into the American College of Cardiology’s Diversity and Inclusion Initiative?") I think it's fair to say he's obviously at least partly motivated on behalf of the Asian demographic.

A crazy reaction to institutional discrimination. Who could imagine?