MCATs, Affirmative Action, and DEI, Oh My

[Emily Lake]

I get that you're trying to excuse my unwillingness to continue being the whipping post for posters who don't know the basics of civilized behavior, but I'm not "acting out" here.

And there we go again. What exactly are those basics of "civilized" behavior? I assume not being "tribalistic" is one of your rules? Us "tribal" people to be more "civilized", even if occasionally a sturdier hand must be applied to "whip us into shape" a bit?

O! Lonely must be your long burdens! How little thanks received! How little love for your tutelage, though you offer it openly, and in simple language make it plain!

How about you just try not to be an asshole? How about you make at least some reasonable attempt to treat me with the respect you would like in return?

Or you can continue to behave like a spoiled nepo baby who thinks it's appropriate and acceptable to treat other people with contempt while demanding that they be considerate toward you?

In case that was too long or too complex a thought for you to process:

Stop behaving like an asshole.

We have very different notions of what constitutes "asshole" behavior. But I also have not, on fact, asked you not to be one if that is what God has laid it on your heart to be. And I'm not much interested in what you think of my character. I certainly haven't requested a scathing analysis of my personality, but I also don't much mind. I'm more interested in the *checks notes* actual content of the thread.

To me at least, habitually using colonial era slang to describe human beings in a disparaging fashion is very much connected to the overall question of why students drop out of programs before attaining a degree. You're not wrong that your use of language is common, even everyday. And if you tell me that "you don't think of things that way", that you think it is fine to call people you hate and fear "tribal" and those you admire and seek the approval of "civil" or "civilized" (because everyone you know talks that way) I do believe you. I think you genuinely do not think it is racist to bring out these ugly, loaded phrases and sling them around as though they had no weight or history before they popped into your head. We all talk how we were taught to speak, at least by default. But they do. And I think you ought to spend at least five minutes of your life thinking about the forces that shaped the world you live in, and placed you in a social class to whom horrifically racist language is part of the everyday patois. We don't learn language from dictionaries, we learn it from people. Who taught you that it is wicked to to be "tribal" and honorable to be "civilized"? Was there anything that tied all those people and their expectations about "normal language" together? A race, class, or political distinction they all shared, for instance? Do you really trust that they had society's best interests in mind, or whether they still do?

If you truly desire to make universities a place where all Americans feel comfortable enrolling, you cannot just ignore the fact you're struggling to discuss the matter at all without using that kind of language. Most university administrators are much the same. So are most faculty. Counselors, likewise. These are, in fact incredibly popular terms and concepts to use. Entirely acceptable to use in, say, a college board meeting. A program review. A faculty evaluation. A recommendation for transfer. And that's one of the problems we face.

Like you, those who use such language habitually don't think they are being racist when they do. Even when presented with hard data showing that our university system discriminates against Black, Chicano, and Native students at every stage, from admissions to counseling, to evaluation, to transfer, to thesis defense, to internship, to employment, their first response is always "how dare that person accuse me of racism when I don't feel racist?", not "Did my choice of words close a door that could have remained open?". But one of those is the more mature, adult response to criticism. And whether or not it is "nice", some reforms to our common practice and our common language are going to be needed, if we expect the gaps and rifts in our system to ever be healed.

The fact that you have provided us such a heartfelt rant about the term "tribal thinking", and somehow feel that such is causing some students to drop out of school because it's such a loaded racist phrase is pretty on-point for you.

The phrase tribal thinking isn't racist, and it never has been. It's a succinct term that captures the combination of in-group favoritism, out-group hostility, and motivated reasoning. It's just a fuck ton easier to type two words that are well-understood by normally functioning humans than typing out an entire half a paragraph every time you want to touch on the behavior. Especially given that it's a fairly well established phrase that is still in use:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1047840X.2020.1721233

https://philarchive.org/archive/CYCTEP

The Tribal Mind: Moral Reasoning and Public Discourse

Editor’s note: Books discussed in this essay include Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind; Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow; Bruce Schneier’s Liars and Outliers; and Jim Manzi’s Uncontrolled. Moral reasoning is often used to intensify...

www.aei.org

But the fact that you - a dyed in the wool social justice warrior - cannot hear it without thinking of black, hispanic, and first nations people... that says a whole lot about your mindset and what implicit assumptions you make about black, hispanic, and first nations people.

 

[Politesse]

I get that you're trying to excuse my unwillingness to continue being the whipping post for posters who don't know the basics of civilized behavior, but I'm not "acting out" here.

And there we go again. What exactly are those basics of "civilized" behavior? I assume not being "tribalistic" is one of your rules? Us "tribal" people to be more "civilized", even if occasionally a sturdier hand must be applied to "whip us into shape" a bit?

O! Lonely must be your long burdens! How little thanks received! How little love for your tutelage, though you offer it openly, and in simple language make it plain!

How about you just try not to be an asshole? How about you make at least some reasonable attempt to treat me with the respect you would like in return?

Or you can continue to behave like a spoiled nepo baby who thinks it's appropriate and acceptable to treat other people with contempt while demanding that they be considerate toward you?

In case that was too long or too complex a thought for you to process:

Stop behaving like an asshole.

We have very different notions of what constitutes "asshole" behavior. But I also have not, on fact, asked you not to be one if that is what God has laid it on your heart to be. And I'm not much interested in what you think of my character. I certainly haven't requested a scathing analysis of my personality, but I also don't much mind. I'm more interested in the *checks notes* actual content of the thread.

To me at least, habitually using colonial era slang to describe human beings in a disparaging fashion is very much connected to the overall question of why students drop out of programs before attaining a degree. You're not wrong that your use of language is common, even everyday. And if you tell me that "you don't think of things that way", that you think it is fine to call people you hate and fear "tribal" and those you admire and seek the approval of "civil" or "civilized" (because everyone you know talks that way) I do believe you. I think you genuinely do not think it is racist to bring out these ugly, loaded phrases and sling them around as though they had no weight or history before they popped into your head. We all talk how we were taught to speak, at least by default. But they do. And I think you ought to spend at least five minutes of your life thinking about the forces that shaped the world you live in, and placed you in a social class to whom horrifically racist language is part of the everyday patois. We don't learn language from dictionaries, we learn it from people. Who taught you that it is wicked to to be "tribal" and honorable to be "civilized"? Was there anything that tied all those people and their expectations about "normal language" together? A race, class, or political distinction they all shared, for instance? Do you really trust that they had society's best interests in mind, or whether they still do?

If you truly desire to make universities a place where all Americans feel comfortable enrolling, you cannot just ignore the fact you're struggling to discuss the matter at all without using that kind of language. Most university administrators are much the same. So are most faculty. Counselors, likewise. These are, in fact incredibly popular terms and concepts to use. Entirely acceptable to use in, say, a college board meeting. A program review. A faculty evaluation. A recommendation for transfer. And that's one of the problems we face.

Like you, those who use such language habitually don't think they are being racist when they do. Even when presented with hard data showing that our university system discriminates against Black, Chicano, and Native students at every stage, from admissions to counseling, to evaluation, to transfer, to thesis defense, to internship, to employment, their first response is always "how dare that person accuse me of racism when I don't feel racist?", not "Did my choice of words close a door that could have remained open?". But one of those is the more mature, adult response to criticism. And whether or not it is "nice", some reforms to our common practice and our common language are going to be needed, if we expect the gaps and rifts in our system to ever be healed.

The fact that you have provided us such a heartfelt rant about the term "tribal thinking", and somehow feel that such is causing some students to drop out of school because it's such a loaded racist phrase is pretty on-point for you.

The phrase tribal thinking isn't racist, and it never has been. It's a succinct term that captures the combination of in-group favoritism, out-group hostility, and motivated reasoning. It's just a fuck ton easier to type two words that are well-understood by normally functioning humans than typing out an entire half a paragraph every time you want to touch on the behavior. Especially given that it's a fairly well established phrase that is still in use:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1047840X.2020.1721233

https://philarchive.org/archive/CYCTEP

The Tribal Mind: Moral Reasoning and Public Discourse

Editor’s note: Books discussed in this essay include Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind; Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow; Bruce Schneier’s Liars and Outliers; and Jim Manzi’s Uncontrolled. Moral reasoning is often used to intensify...

www.aei.org

But the fact that you - a dyed in the wool social justice warrior - cannot hear it without thinking of black, hispanic, and first nations people... that says a whole lot about your mindset and what implicit assumptions you make about black, hispanic, and first nations people.

Read my post again. Did I argue that those phrases were uncommon, or that there aren't a lot of people, many of them in places of considerable power, who use them regularly? I know that perfectly well. It is, in fact, the problem. Your sense of what constitutes "neutral" language did not emerge in a vacuum.

Did you notice that neither of the sources you make are, or are attempting to be, neutral or objective observations of society? All three authors clearly state their theses, and all three are making an argument for sonething they think is wrong and ought to change. These are persuasive essays, in short, not research articles, and neither article claims otherwise. Indeed, your second link is... a blog post. Citing popular books, all of them polemical, as evidence.

What do you suppose that says about your argument? That it is supported by sound science and wise social policy, or that it is exactly the kind of politically motivated but epistwmologically questionable speech that you claim to be taking a noble stand against? If you like, I could cite quite a LOT of literature on the history of the terms "tribal" and "civilized" and the impact they have had on American health and society. But I should warn you, it's not a happy story. It ends badly (for now) and starts in straight up Hell.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm sorry if I've offended you. Truly. I think all of us or at least most of us are on edge re: political situation and it is reflected in some of our posts. I periodically take breaks from reading anything political so that I can sleep at night. And not scream at people.

You haven't offended me, I recognize that you're trying to be helpful.

I do think that you are reacting out of scale. But of course, you are the one who feels attacked and you do not see your responses as out of scale. This is, to me, a case of not my circus, not my clowns kind of issue. It's your business what you write, how you react, etc. as well as any obvious immediate motivation or any underlying background going on.

I don't think I'm reacting out of scale. I'm reacting in a way that differs from the amount of bullshit I've been willing to tolerate in the past. But it's not out of scale. Mostly, I consider it polite to give people advance notice that I'm going to change my style of interaction.

Historically I've been something like 10 tits for tat - I tolerate a lot of repeated meanness before I stop being nice. I don't think it's reasonable, it's not working well for me, and it mostly ends up with some select posters here feeling that they can be mean with impunity.

It's not always the same posters - but they do it to you too. My observations, which are directional but not concrete, is that it happens a bit more often when the target is female. This happens to you, I've observed it in action even if you're somewhat inured to it. You get treated like crap when you stray from the fold. Just look at almost any thread where we've discussed the experiences of women in society - a lot of people who are otherwise your ally start treating you like shit and being unnecessarily contemptuous and mean when you take a stance on how women are treated. Shockingly, those are almost always men... and some of them are men who consider themselves very virtuous defenders of social justice. But you know, you stepped out of line and opposed their views, and they then feel justified in treating you poorly until you either drop out or back down.

But it also happens across the board to people who are simply nice and courteous by nature, especially if they lean somewhat more conservative than the noisy bunch. Some of them just leave instead of tolerating it. Some post less often (Jason Harvestdancer comes to mind). Some tolerate it and never lose their temper. Some have become less tolerant the longer it goes on - Bomb#20 for example, still technically courteous, but a lot more biting than a couple of years ago.

I'm at the intersection of those two. And I just done with it. I'm done being nice when I get nothing out of it. These people aren't my family, they're not my friends. A few of you I view as fond acquaintances... but I don't actually know any of you. So I've simply decided that I'm not going to continue soaking up the poor behavior of other people so that their feelings don't get hurt. Some posters have demonstrated repeatedly that they don't care if they offend me... but they expect me to go out of my way to avoid offending them.

It's arrogant and it demonstrates that they fundamentally believe they are superior to me. I'm done putting up with it.

You mentioned the whole menopause (or perimenopause?) contribution or I would not have delved into any such mention. It's your business. And yes, they (the guys) do absolutely expect us (women) to be much nicer and more polite and conciliatory than they are, although they likely to not see it that way. Sometimes I almost regret correcting those posters who assumed I am male, mostly out of curiosity about whether they'd respond differently to me.

Menopause. Last panel had my estrogen almost non-existent. So estradiol supplements are in my daily routine now. I was already in the midst of peri when I needed a hysterectomy, it went downhill rapidly after that even though we kept my ovaries.

I don't think menopause has changed my outlook much. This has been growing for probably about 5 years. The stupid RvW thread really pushed my tolerance to the limit, and that's when I started really thinking that being the "nice girl" as expected has no return on investment for me. There's no equilibrium, no give and take, no balance in these interactions.

Whenever someone responds to me with just basic courtesy and respect, I'll continue to do so. I might even let one or two bits of snottiness slide if I'm in a particularly generous mood. But I'm done being their doormat. My tolerance has not resulted in improved interactions with them. So I'm not doing it anymore. They get to set the tone of our interactions. It's entirely up to them now.

 

[Emily Lake]

Read my post again. Did I argue that those phrases were uncommon, or that there aren't a lot of people, many of them in places of considerable power, who use them regularly? I know that perfectly well. It is, in fact, the problem. Your sense of what constitutes "neutral" language did not emerge in a vacuum.

It *is* neutral language. It identifies a behavioral pattern that has it's roots in small social groups, and it remains in place with social groups today. Why do you seem to think that "tribe" is a bad thing? Why do you rub extra meanings of savagery, or barbarity, or lack of civilization onto it? None is implied in any fashion.

You know, the same kind of language flattening has been going on for a while. We're no longer supposed to use the term "master bedroom" because someone somewhere grew faint at the thought that the same word in a different context made them think about slavery. Same with master/slave circuits. Hell, same with blacklists and black sheep and black market. Some people are just looking for anything they can find so they can shove their own panties so far up their cracks that they're impeding their diaphragm - and I'm not talking about birth control here.

At this point, so many things have been cast as dog whistles, or subtly racist, or whatever newly constructed taboo, that we're making it difficult to communicate.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I get that you're trying to excuse my unwillingness to continue being the whipping post for posters who don't know the basics of civilized behavior, but I'm not "acting out" here.

And there we go again. What exactly are those basics of "civilized" behavior? I assume not being "tribalistic" is one of your rules? Us "tribal" people to be more "civilized", even if occasionally a sturdier hand must be applied to "whip us into shape" a bit?

O! Lonely must be your long burdens! How little thanks received! How little love for your tutelage, though you offer it openly, and in simple language make it plain!

How about you just try not to be an asshole? How about you make at least some reasonable attempt to treat me with the respect you would like in return?

Or you can continue to behave like a spoiled nepo baby who thinks it's appropriate and acceptable to treat other people with contempt while demanding that they be considerate toward you?

In case that was too long or too complex a thought for you to process:

Stop behaving like an asshole.

We have very different notions of what constitutes "asshole" behavior. But I also have not, on fact, asked you not to be one if that is what God has laid it on your heart to be. And I'm not much interested in what you think of my character. I certainly haven't requested a scathing analysis of my personality, but I also don't much mind. I'm more interested in the *checks notes* actual content of the thread.

To me at least, habitually using colonial era slang to describe human beings in a disparaging fashion is very much connected to the overall question of why students drop out of programs before attaining a degree. You're not wrong that your use of language is common, even everyday. And if you tell me that "you don't think of things that way", that you think it is fine to call people you hate and fear "tribal" and those you admire and seek the approval of "civil" or "civilized" (because everyone you know talks that way) I do believe you. I think you genuinely do not think it is racist to bring out these ugly, loaded phrases and sling them around as though they had no weight or history before they popped into your head. We all talk how we were taught to speak, at least by default. But they do. And I think you ought to spend at least five minutes of your life thinking about the forces that shaped the world you live in, and placed you in a social class to whom horrifically racist language is part of the everyday patois. We don't learn language from dictionaries, we learn it from people. Who taught you that it is wicked to to be "tribal" and honorable to be "civilized"? Was there anything that tied all those people and their expectations about "normal language" together? A race, class, or political distinction they all shared, for instance? Do you really trust that they had society's best interests in mind, or whether they still do?

If you truly desire to make universities a place where all Americans feel comfortable enrolling, you cannot just ignore the fact you're struggling to discuss the matter at all without using that kind of language. Most university administrators are much the same. So are most faculty. Counselors, likewise. These are, in fact incredibly popular terms and concepts to use. Entirely acceptable to use in, say, a college board meeting. A program review. A faculty evaluation. A recommendation for transfer. And that's one of the problems we face.

Like you, those who use such language habitually don't think they are being racist when they do. Even when presented with hard data showing that our university system discriminates against Black, Chicano, and Native students at every stage, from admissions to counseling, to evaluation, to transfer, to thesis defense, to internship, to employment, their first response is always "how dare that person accuse me of racism when I don't feel racist?", not "Did my choice of words close a door that could have remained open?". But one of those is the more mature, adult response to criticism. And whether or not it is "nice", some reforms to our common practice and our common language are going to be needed, if we expect the gaps and rifts in our system to ever be healed.

The fact that you have provided us such a heartfelt rant about the term "tribal thinking", and somehow feel that such is causing some students to drop out of school because it's such a loaded racist phrase is pretty on-point for you. The phrase tribal thinking isn't racist, and it never has been. It's a succinct term that captures the combination of in-group favoritism, out-group hostility, and motivated reasoning.

Politesse did not claim that the isolated phrase "tribal thinking" directly causes students to drop out, but rather that language and word choices can actively block opportunities. Do you disagree with that? For someone who insists words have no impact, you certainly use a lot of them attempting to impact others.

As for the term itself: "tribalism" and "tribal thinking" have a long history of selective application. Historically, critics used the term to accuse Jewish people of adhering to a "tribal god" or practicing "tribalism"--a framing many on your side of this debate would label anti-Semitic if presented in isolation. Defenders countered by highlighting the strong tradition of universalism within Jewish thought.

While that doesn't begin examine how far back these terms were used nor their etymology, it does bring us to the core contradiction.

If "tribe" is simply a neutral synonym for "group," then adding the -al suffix should yield a simple, neutral adjective--roughly equivalent to "group-based." But in common usage, "tribal" immediately shifts meaning to connote "in-group bias," "favoritism," and "out-group hostility."

If "tribal" carries those negative traits by default, then the base word "tribe" is not being treated as neutral at all. It is inherently pre-defined by those negative behaviors. Yet in practice, actual tribes--much like any non-cosmopolitan group--are diverse. Their traditions range from open, tolerant, and charitable to closed and insular.

So we end up with two parallel usages for tribe:
1. Literal: A neutral identifier for a distinct group of people.
2. Pejorative: A shorthand for reflexive bias and hostility.

The irony here is that a certain cohort likes to hide behind the literal definition while actively deploying the pejorative one--all while assuming that "tribes" are incapable of universalist thought, i.e. they think the latter version is the literal or "natural" one.

That is a textbook display of a learned, hidden bias. It is also interesting because I learned that usage of tribal here myself from the people here. I even used the word tribal in this fashion once or twice, but had never encountered this usage before coming here to post.

 

[Politesse]

Some people are just looking for anything they can find so they can shove their own panties so far up their cracks that they're impeding their diaphragm - and I'm not talking about birth control here.

Thank goodness we have you to defend polite speech against the many threats it faces.

 

[Politesse]

At this point, so many things have been cast as dog whistles, or subtly racist, or whatever newly constructed taboo, that we're making it difficult to communicate.

I posted one sentence observing something I thought was true about language, and that gave you material, apparently, for fifteen pages of unhinged ranting and incoherent personal attacks. Clearly I am not inhibiting communication. You're communicating us all to death quite ably. The quality of that communication leaves much to be desired, but not the quantity, and certainly not the legality. You chose to say all that shit, I didn't make you. But I have no capacity to prevent you from saying anything, nor would I have any desire to do so. You are arguing against an imaginary foe.

 

[Toni]

I'm sorry if I've offended you. Truly. I think all of us or at least most of us are on edge re: political situation and it is reflected in some of our posts. I periodically take breaks from reading anything political so that I can sleep at night. And not scream at people.

You haven't offended me, I recognize that you're trying to be helpful.

I do think that you are reacting out of scale. But of course, you are the one who feels attacked and you do not see your responses as out of scale. This is, to me, a case of not my circus, not my clowns kind of issue. It's your business what you write, how you react, etc. as well as any obvious immediate motivation or any underlying background going on.

I don't think I'm reacting out of scale. I'm reacting in a way that differs from the amount of bullshit I've been willing to tolerate in the past. But it's not out of scale. Mostly, I consider it polite to give people advance notice that I'm going to change my style of interaction.

Historically I've been something like 10 tits for tat - I tolerate a lot of repeated meanness before I stop being nice. I don't think it's reasonable, it's not working well for me, and it mostly ends up with some select posters here feeling that they can be mean with impunity.

It's not always the same posters - but they do it to you too. My observations, which are directional but not concrete, is that it happens a bit more often when the target is female. This happens to you, I've observed it in action even if you're somewhat inured to it. You get treated like crap when you stray from the fold. Just look at almost any thread where we've discussed the experiences of women in society - a lot of people who are otherwise your ally start treating you like shit and being unnecessarily contemptuous and mean when you take a stance on how women are treated. Shockingly, those are almost always men... and some of them are men who consider themselves very virtuous defenders of social justice. But you know, you stepped out of line and opposed their views, and they then feel justified in treating you poorly until you either drop out or back down.

But it also happens across the board to people who are simply nice and courteous by nature, especially if they lean somewhat more conservative than the noisy bunch. Some of them just leave instead of tolerating it. Some post less often (Jason Harvestdancer comes to mind). Some tolerate it and never lose their temper. Some have become less tolerant the longer it goes on - Bomb#20 for example, still technically courteous, but a lot more biting than a couple of years ago.

I'm at the intersection of those two. And I just done with it. I'm done being nice when I get nothing out of it. These people aren't my family, they're not my friends. A few of you I view as fond acquaintances... but I don't actually know any of you. So I've simply decided that I'm not going to continue soaking up the poor behavior of other people so that their feelings don't get hurt. Some posters have demonstrated repeatedly that they don't care if they offend me... but they expect me to go out of my way to avoid offending them.

It's arrogant and it demonstrates that they fundamentally believe they are superior to me. I'm done putting up with it.

You mentioned the whole menopause (or perimenopause?) contribution or I would not have delved into any such mention. It's your business. And yes, they (the guys) do absolutely expect us (women) to be much nicer and more polite and conciliatory than they are, although they likely to not see it that way. Sometimes I almost regret correcting those posters who assumed I am male, mostly out of curiosity about whether they'd respond differently to me.

Menopause. Last panel had my estrogen almost non-existent. So estradiol supplements are in my daily routine now. I was already in the midst of peri when I needed a hysterectomy, it went downhill rapidly after that even though we kept my ovaries.

I don't think menopause has changed my outlook much. This has been growing for probably about 5 years. The stupid RvW thread really pushed my tolerance to the limit, and that's when I started really thinking that being the "nice girl" as expected has no return on investment for me. There's no equilibrium, no give and take, no balance in these interactions.

Whenever someone responds to me with just basic courtesy and respect, I'll continue to do so. I might even let one or two bits of snottiness slide if I'm in a particularly generous mood. But I'm done being their doormat. My tolerance has not resulted in improved interactions with them. So I'm not doing it anymore. They get to set the tone of our interactions. It's entirely up to them now.

What I’ve found is that I give fewer fucks about a lot of things, like offending people who are being dicks. I think that’s true of a lot of women who are of a certain age. We grow up, being socialized to be nice, accommodating, smoothing things over. Not provoking male anger. Being damn careful about provoking any strong emotional or biological responses.

Yeah I’m well aware of the general atmosphere of misogyny around here. A bunch of years ago, another poster started a thread specifically for women talking about misogyny, existing as female in this world and well, one (former) member lost his damn mind.

I grew up with sisters and these guys don’t hold a candle when it comes to being mean. But then, I love my sisters and they know where most of the bodies are buried so….

 

[Emily Lake]

Hey, I have extra shovels

 

[Emily Lake]

What I’ve found is that I give fewer fucks about a lot of things, like offending people who are being dicks. I think that’s true of a lot of women who are of a certain age. We grow up, being socialized to be nice, accommodating, smoothing things over. Not provoking male anger. Being damn careful about provoking any strong emotional or biological responses.

That’s pretty much where I’m at. I don’t really care enough to try to avoid offending people who are dicks. I mostly just thought a PSA was reasonable. At least they can’t pretend they didn’t know.