Re: [AUDITORY] [External] Re: arXiv web of trust

You want evidence, here it is (again). The link I had posted earlier on "Gender differences in peer reviewed grant applications, awards, and amounts: a systematic review and meta-analysis" (from 2023):

In grant applications, there is a fixed number of grantees, say top 5. Somebody who may have equal qualitites as you but have just a few disadvantage points will easily be left out of this 5. Not your fault, but not their fault either, and yet they will have to suffer from these consequences. If we are unaware of such issues, how will we ever correct this?

On the other hand, I also would like to thank you for bringing up your thoughts, this was very eye-opening and has been very educational for all of us.

You are changing the conditions. You are misrepresenting what I said. You do not understand what I said. You are assuming facts not in evidence. Typical of an "internet argument." No point to this.

Les

On 6/10/2023 4:46 PM, Lesicko, Alexandria wrote:

*** Attention: This is an external email. Use caution responding, opening attachments or clicking on links. ***

Using a reference as a standard in this case only makes sense if you assume adequate resources. If we do not have enough money to pay both Fred and John at market value, what do we do? There is a limited amount of scientific funding, a limited number of faculty jobs, etc. Historically, people from certain demographic backgrounds have largely been the recipients of this funding and have populated these positions. If people who look like Fred are repeatedly chosen to get grants and to fill faculty slots, while people who look like John are not, can we just throw our hands in the air and say “well, Fred is being treated fairly”? No, Fred is benefitting from the privileges of his demographic background while John is not. So yes, I do understand the difference between two values and the case when one is a reference (I have, after all, been a trainee in this field for over 10 years!), but I question the validity of using a reference here at all.

I didn’t make your point, you negated it. You stated that you and “other white guys” were not given some undeserved privilege and that nothing was handed to you, implying that you deserve the privilege you have and that therefore privilege can somehow be earned. Now you suggest you have no privilege at all. I have maintained throughout this conversation that privilege can reflect factors outside of our control, such as our race and gender, and is undeserved. Suggesting you have no privilege implies that people are, in fact, not treated differently based on these demographic factors. If your life would have looked any different by altering any one of these factors, for example if you were born a black man or a white woman, then you have privilege.

You have decided that injustice does not exist in our field basely solely and entirely on your own lived experience. Why is your experience the null hypothesis? How is that scientific? Others have supported their arguments with references and citations, you have not contributed anything other than your own perspective, which is the perspective of, in your words, “a fairly successful old white guy.”

Allyship is not about “taking sides”, it is about listening to, supporting, and advocating for people from different backgrounds than your own. There’s been a great show of that on this thread and that is a positive product of this conversation. I don’t think acknowledging that is stoking polarization.

From: Les Bernstein <lbernstein@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 2:51 PM
To: Lesicko, Alexandria <Alexandria.Lesicko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: arXiv web of trust

It is most unfortunate that you do not understand the distinctions between a simple difference between two values and the case when one is a reference. If Fred earns market value for his work and John does not, it is not the case that Fred is privileged. Fred and others should work to ensure that John is paid market value as well. If you still fail or refuse to grasp the difference, then I cannot help you.

Indeed, the use of "privileged" implies it is undeserved. Thank you for making my point! I do not have privilege. Rather, I believe I have been treated fairly. The sad truth is that others have not been treated fairly and are not being treated fairly. I never suggested that such societal inequities and injustices are irrelevant simply because some do not face them. That's your invention. I did say, that, in our field, I do not think such injustices are substantive. It is not for me to acceded to your insistence that I prove the null hypothesis. It is, rather, incumbent upon you to demonstrate that, in our field, such injustice exists in substantive fashion.

This is not about allies or "sides." Your thinking reflects the corruption wrought by polarization. I do not deny the societal ills identified. I simply have a different view of how they arose and persist. That they should be addressed is undeniable, as I see it. Still, this is the Auditory List. I limited my comments regarding the existence of injustices (or lack thereof), to our field.

On 6/10/2023 12:50 PM, Lesicko, Alexandria wrote:

*** Attention: This is an external email. Use caution responding, opening attachments or clicking on links. ***

There is no difference. By analogy: “it is ok to say that 3 is 5 less than 8 but we mustn’t suggest that 8 is 5 more than 3.” No matter what phrasing of it makes you feel comfortable, you are referring to the same gap of 5, the same inequity in access to resources, support, etc. There is no such thing as deserved privilege. It would be very weird to say, “I deserved to be born white” or “I deserved to be born a man.” Privilege can stem from circumstances outside of our control. Regardless, those of us who were born with it still benefit from it. That does not mean, for example, that I must hate myself to atone for it, nor does it mean that everything I have accomplished in my life is a direct cause of my whiteness and must be reduced to this factor. But it does mean that I very likely had an easier time in my life and my career than I would have had I been born otherwise. I think recognizing that is the first step in having more supportive and less harmful interactions with the people around me who come from different backgrounds with different lived experiences.

To those suggesting that these issues are irrelevant to them because they have succeeded in the face of obstacles, you are again missing the point. Your personal experience is not universal, and one example of success does not negate the fact that others suffer the consequences of bias and discrimination. If you work in science, you are part of an international community made up of people from diverse backgrounds, meaning these issues are relevant to you and the manner in which you engage with other scientists. Further, by saying that these issues are non-existent, trivial, or irrelevant, you are sending a message to anyone in your field who may experience bias or discrimination that they cannot come to you for support and allyship, because you have already minimized or devalued their experiences. Thank you to Matt, Mario, David, Ken, and everyone else on this thread who have demonstrated allyship - one benefit of having these conversations out in the open is that members of the community know who they can turn to in the face of such issues.

From: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Vani Rajendran <vani.g.rajendran@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 4:37 AM
To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: arXiv web of trust

I'm sorry if I'm being thick but what exactly is the difference?

If the cards are being stacked against rather than in favor... ok... but who benefits from the stacking? Who decides the stacking?

Vani

On Fri, Jun 9, 2023, 22:11 Les Bernstein <lbernstein@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

I agree with Ken's views, save for this statement:

The cards are stacked in favor of those with privilege...

No, the cards are stacked against those unfairly denied opportunity and dignity. The difference is both non-trivial and crucial.

Les

On 6/9/2023 4:12 PM, Ken Grant wrote:

*** Attention: This is an external email. Use caution responding, opening attachments or clicking on links. ***

Thank you Alexandria for expressing what it means to have systemic obstacles and barriers to success throughout our society. Folks got upset when the Black Lives Matter movement took off because they were wondering "don't White Lives Matter as well". Anyone who felt this way misunderstood the entire enterprise. Nobody ever claimed that white lives don't matter, or matter more, or matter less. A good friend suggested that, if the Black Lives Matter movement had printed signs that read "Black Lives Matter Too". While I understood his point and that I can see how this might have helped white male americans feel better, this too misses the point. Centuries of inequities do not get wiped away in an instant. Declaring racism over is a monstrous error. Some scientists rise to the top of their fields by working very very hard. But as the cartoon displayed, not all children, adolescents, or teens have the same opportunities. The cards are stacked in favor of those with privilege, and your comment that recognizing this fact might make us more willing and able to consider these systemic obstacles.

On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 12:15 AM Bernstein,Leslie <lbernstein@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

I disagree. I think I understand the points and the reality quite well.

Les

From: "Lesicko, Alexandria" <Alexandria.Lesicko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, Jun 8, 2023, 5:06 PM
To: "Bernstein,Leslie" <lbernstein@xxxxxxxx>, AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [External] Re: arXiv web of trust

*** Attention: This is an external email. Use caution responding, opening attachments or clicking on links. ***

I think it's important to establish the DC-level, sea-level, the "reference level." The societal inequities that exist are not because I and other "white guys" (i.e., the "Richards" in the cartoon) were given some undeserved privilege but, rather, because some minorities and cultures (i.e., the Paula's in the cartoon) have been unfairly denied their due. I think it very much matters where one perceives the unfairness to be.

I think you are missing the main point of the cartoons that have been shared here. They are meant to illustrate the point that our gender, racial, etc. identities and economic realities shape our experiences and opportunities in science and in the world. This benefits some people and works against others. The “perceived unfairness” isn’t on one side of the coin or the other, it is all a product of the same system.

I find the self-loathing concept of "privilege" to be misguided folly I will not apologize for what I have accomplished and for what I have. It was not handed to me. For those who still don't understand, I'll say it again. The social injustice lies in the fact that the less fortunate (often minority cultures and ethnicities) have been denied the opportunity and dignity they deserve as human beings. That is where we must focus our efforts for change.

I think this is also a misunderstanding - I don’t think that the concept of privilege invokes self-loathing. Nobody is asking you to apologize and hate yourself for whatever privileges you may have. Further, nobody is saying that you have not worked hard for your accomplishments. My understanding of acknowledging privilege is that it is about humility rather than self-loathing. For example, understanding that my path in life and in my career may have looked different and involved more obstacles if I were a person of color, queer, disabled, etc. You can still be proud of your accomplishments and your hard work while acknowledging this. I also don’t think acknowledging privilege is the end goal in these discussions or an exercise unto itself, but a necessary step in the process of beginning to tackle the social injustices that you mention above. If we cannot first admit that these factors play a role in our trajectories, then it is hard to get any further in enacting change - we are blind to what we are trying to tackle.

It is trivially true to say that, in any field, in any vocation, in any hierarchy, there are biases that come into play. That's because they are all human endeavors. Matters of degree count! In our field of auditory science-- and this is after all the Auditory List-- others here have asserted that discriminatory factors must be at play to a substantial degree. I think that is patently false and my observations across decades support that belief.

You cannot say that because you have not experienced or witnessed discrimination in this field that it does not exist. All you can say is that you have not experienced or witnessed it. Other people on this thread are telling you that their experiences have been different (and citing literature that points to the existence of bias and discrimination at large). Again, it is important to listen to and acknowledge the experiences of other people if we want to address social injustice. People from different demographic backgrounds can have radically different experiences of the same community. You can simultaneously take pride in your field and your community and want to make it better.

Some of you have acted as "scientists" drawing conclusions on the basis of essentially no evidence when you have implied that I, personally, must have a myopic view because you assume that I'm just another fairly successful old white guy. Shame on you. You know nothing of my history and that of my family. You commit the genetic fallacy, that of evaluating an idea on the basis of who generated the idea, rather than on the merits of the idea, per se. In so doing, you commit the very sin that you decry so vociferously in self-righteous fashion!

It seems that most people are replying directly to what you said, point-by-point, not assuming that you must be myopic because you are, as you describe, a “fairly successful old white guy”. 😊

I suggest that you read this excellent work by the brilliant linguist, John McWhorter.

This began as a discussion of open-access dissemination of scientific results. I hope, if this thread continues at all, it will return to that topic, a topic that is most appropriate for the Auditory List.

I don’t think that these topics are inappropriate and are actually very important and beneficial to discuss.

Les

From: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Les Bernstein <lbernstein@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 12:10 AM
To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [External] Re: arXiv web of trust

I think it's important to establish the DC-level, sea-level, the "reference level." The societal inequities that exist are not because I and other "white guys" (i.e., the "Richards" in the cartoon) were given some undeserved privilege but, rather, because some minorities and cultures (i.e., the Paula's in the cartoon) have been unfairly denied their due. I think it very much matters where one perceives the unfairness to be.

I find the self-loathing concept of "privilege" to be misguided folly I will not apologize for what I have accomplished and for what I have. It was not handed to me. For those who still don't understand, I'll say it again. The social injustice lies in the fact that the less fortunate (often minority cultures and ethnicities) have been denied the opportunity and dignity they deserve as human beings. That is where we must focus our efforts for change.

It is trivially true to say that, in any field, in any vocation, in any hierarchy, there are biases that come into play. That's because they are all human endeavors. Matters of degree count! In our field of auditory science-- and this is after all the Auditory List-- others here have asserted that discriminatory factors must be at play to a substantial degree. I think that is patently false and my observations across decades support that belief.

Some of you have acted as "scientists" drawing conclusions on the basis of essentially no evidence when you have implied that I, personally, must have a myopic view because you assume that I'm just another fairly successful old white guy. Shame on you. You know nothing of my history and that of my family. You commit the genetic fallacy, that of evaluating an idea on the basis of who generated the idea, rather than on the merits of the idea, per se. In so doing, you commit the very sin that you decry so vociferously in self-righteous fashion!

I suggest that you read this excellent work by the brilliant linguist, John McWhorter.

This began as a discussion of open-access dissemination of scientific results. I hope, if this thread continues at all, it will return to that topic, a topic that is most appropriate for the Auditory List.

Les

On 6/4/2023 9:24 PM, Svirsky, Mario wrote:

*** Attention: This is an external email. Use caution responding, opening attachments or clicking on links. ***

I have a small contribution to the very interesting conversation between Matt Winn and Les Bernstein.

I recommend those of you who are also interested in this conversation watch “Picture a Scientist”, which is on Netflix in the U.S. until June 12. It is a fascinating description of some of the obstacles faced by women in general and black women in particular, in academia.

I agree with Les that, ideally, status as a researcher should be earned by a person’s contributions to their field. The problem is that in the real world women get fewer resources and less recognition than men given the same intellect and productivity. Ditto for minorities. “Picture a Scientist” doesn’t even get into the issues of class, nationality, or able bodiedness, which are also important.

Or instead of watching Picture a Scientist (which, after all, will take you 103 minutes), you could invest just two minutes in reading the cartoon below. About the concept of having things handed to you on a plate (or “being born on third base and thinking you hit a triple”, a quote attributed to Barry Switzer, 1986).

Mario A. Svirsky, Ph.D.

Noel L. Cohen Professor of Hearing Science,

Professor of Otolaryngology (School of Medicine) and Neural Science

Vice-Chairman for Research

Department of Otolaryngology

Address:

Dept. of Otolaryngology                     Phone (direct):    212-263-7217

NYU Langone Medical Center              Fax:                    212-263-7604 or 212-263-8257

550 First Ave., NBV-5E5

New York, NY 10016

Pronouns: he, him, his

CONFIDENTIAL - NYU SCHOOL OF MEDICINE SENSITIVE DOCUMENT

“This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is proprietary, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender by return email and delete the original message. Please note, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The organization accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.”

--

Leslie R. Bernstein, Ph.D. | Professor Emeritus

Depts. of Neuroscience and Surgery (Otolaryngology) | UConn School of Medicine
263 Farmington Avenue, Farmington, CT 06030-3401
Office: 860.679.4622 | Fax: 860.679.2495

--

Leslie R. Bernstein, Ph.D. | Professor Emeritus

Depts. of Neuroscience and Surgery (Otolaryngology) | UConn School of Medicine
263 Farmington Avenue, Farmington, CT 06030-3401
Office: 860.679.4622 | Fax: 860.679.2495

--

Leslie R. Bernstein, Ph.D. | Professor Emeritus

Depts. of Neuroscience and Surgery (Otolaryngology) | UConn School of Medicine
263 Farmington Avenue, Farmington, CT 06030-3401
Office: 860.679.4622 | Fax: 860.679.2495

Leslie R. Bernstein, Ph.D. | Professor Emeritus

Depts. of Neuroscience and Surgery (Otolaryngology) | UConn School of Medicine
263 Farmington Avenue, Farmington, CT 06030-3401
Office: 860.679.4622 | Fax: 860.679.2495