Well, it's explicitly giving an advantage to submissions that engage with these diversity goals.

Favoring research of understudied populations makes a lot of sense and is necessary.

Favoring researchers based on their own personal diversity metrics is controversial.

Favoring research whose findings support specific diversity-related desired outcomes is dangerous (and the policy may do this in practice).

> Well, it's explicitly giving an advantage to submissions that engage with these diversity goals.

I honestly don’t understand your problem with this.

Historically, the majority of humanity was not a part of social science study. For example, economics has a tradition of drawing conclusions about the labor market based on data only on American white males (literally). This has been changing and it reveals blind spots in our previous understanding of the economy.

All that this policy change seems to be doing is encourage researchers in social psychology to work with a wider subpopulation than, for example, American undergraduates aged 18 to 22. It does not mandate anywhere what their findings should be.

What is so bad about this?

I feel like you didn't read my comment. It contained:

> Favoring research of understudied populations makes a lot of sense and is necessary.

Which is in direct agreement with what you wrote in response.

> Favoring researchers based on their own personal diversity metrics is controversial.

But it also acknowledges there are aspects others may find controversial. The policy extends beyond sample selection and populations addressed in research, and e.g. favors researchers from diverse backgrounds. Personally, I think this is useful (more perspectives good; more inclusion in science good)-- within reason.

> Favoring research whose findings support specific diversity-related desired outcomes is dangerous (and the policy may do this in practice).

And it points out that if interpretation of the policy extends too far, that by only allowing certain types of outcome to publish, it could create distortions. The worry is that the latter criteria in the policy could reach here.

What is your argument for the last point because that isn't clear at all.

If you can publish research that has a finding that supports "A", but cannot publish research that supports "!A", then the only published research will say "A", whether or not "A", "!A", or something else entirely are true.

Even modest publication biases can dwarf true effect sizes in social research, and can create the illusion of consistent effects and scientific consensus when neither actually exists.

There is never any such thing as neutral review. Someone always gets favored. The premise of neutrality existing in some golden bygone era is a myth.

That's great, because my comment never assumed the existence of neutral review.

It merely pointed out that some kinds of DEI input to review are almost certainly helpful to advancing science (e.g. ensuring we get reasonable samples in social research); some are controversial (e.g. favoring diverse researcher groups); and some are almost certainly harmful (e.g. determining whether the research can be published based on whether it makes a pro-DEI finding).

Yeah it looks like it's just an opportunity for "unusual" datasets and research by the "outsiders" to possibly break through academia's typical cronyism.

Edit: it's actually sort of hilarious that Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory can't come up with any diversity angle. Is it foundational or not?

It's got the smell of someone selling a Grand Unified Theory being annoyed that they're asked to check off whether and how their research addresses gravity.

Is DEI gravity?

Imagine giving papers that described how they advanced Christendom priority.

Ironically, "saluting" DEI in academic papers has the opposite of the ostensibly intended effect.

Political alignment of professors favors the left by 9 to 1. If anything, favoring DEI will cement "academia's typical cronyism".

Some things need correction. Using samples composed of overwhelmingly white university students in social research is hilariously and obviously flawed. In that sense, lacking inclusion is like ignoring gravity.

If you're shopping a general theory about morality that encompases Christian morality and non-Christian morality, I don't see what there's to be worked up about.

Unless you haven't actually explored the world beyond your backyard. I have typically found Haidt's moral foundations to be pretty interesting but because he's always sold it as cross-cultural. So this seems a bit odd, honestly.

Extremely likely to be a virtue-signaling publicly stunt, TBQH.

They also have an explicit expectation that most papers will "slightly to moderately advance[] SPSP's goal of promoting equity, inclusion, and anti-racism", as well as a header that separates the DEI review from the normal review. It's hard to imagine someone reading this policy and saying "well, my research is unrelated to equity or anti-racism, so I'll just say that and it'll be fine".

I doubt it's SPSP's intention to completely abandon all non-diversity related research.

OTOH, it may get a little harder to publish research where your study population / sample is all-white-wealthy-undergrads.

I guess I'm not sure why you doubt that. The standards are pretty clear that "does not advance SPSP's goal of promoting equity, inclusion, and anti-racism" is a failing grade on the DEI section, and that anti-racism in particular is not merely a thing the conference does but a core component of their identity. I'm sure if you sat down with them, they wouldn't frame it as abandoning anything; they would tell you that social psychology inherently touches on diversity and authors who believe their papers are unrelated should maybe think a bit harder about it.

> The standards are pretty clear that "does not advance SPSP's goal of promoting equity, inclusion, and anti-racism" is a failing grade on the DEI section

Please cite how it is a "failing grade" versus not receiving the bonus for it. The bottom score is "not applicable", not "not satisfactory" like it is in other areas.

Reviewers did not receive the statements. The assessment of the statement was only a small input into the committee making final decisions primarily based upon reviewer feedback.