(updated 1-13-12)<\/small><\/big><\/p>\n
<\/small><\/big>I have two main criteria for accepting graduate students into my lab:
\n1. You need to meet the standards necessary to gain admission to Rutgers Social Psychology Program
\n2. You convince me that you are going to work in my lab long, hard, diligently, and cooperatively on social psychological research.\u00a0Fulfill your end, and I will do my damnedest to advance your career.<\/p>\n
For undergraduates, the only criterion is #2 above.\u00a0 For undergraduates, my lab is open admissions,\u00a0meaning that no matter how bad your record is, if we have openings, the SPL will take you with open arms.\u00a0One of my great pleasures has long been giving students who themselves have run into difficulty,\u00a0a chance to “find themselves” by discovering the satisfaction that can come from deep involvement in psychological research.<\/p>\n
Anyone, from any background whatsoever, regardless of race, gender, ethnic, religious, political, social class,sexual or gender orientation, and health or mental health status, and any other status or category not listed here\u00a0is welcome in the Social Perception Lab (SPL), as long as you meet the standards articulated above.<\/p>\n
The Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP) declared itself to have the goal of fostering:\u00a0“the career development of students who come from underrepresented groups, i.e.,\u00a0<\/em>ethnic or racial minorities, first generation college students, individuals with a physical disability, and\u00a0or lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered students.”<\/p>\n I strongly endorse fostering the career development of such students.\u00a0 One of the great pleasures\u00a0of being at Rutgers is the extraordinary diversity of the students who come here.\u00a0 My\u00a0Social Perception Lab has produced honors students, and masters and PhD students from almost\u00a0any background you can imagine, and, possibly, some you have never even heard of.<\/p>\n Second, however, SPSP’s statement clearly does not go far enough.\u00a0 Here is Jon Haidt’s\u00a0analysis of that statement:\u00a0First, can we change “i.e.” to “e.g.?”<\/em> Why should it be i.e.? Do we really want to say\u00a0to the public that this is the official list of groups that get benefits? Second, can we tack on a phrase like:\u00a0“or who bring helpful and underrepresented perspectives in other ways<\/em>?”<\/p>\n Exactly!\u00a0 What was SPSP’s diversity statement authors’ thinking?\u00a0 What about social class?\u00a0 Doeslifting one’s self out of poverty to get a college degree not “count”? Are they saying, “Its important\u00a0to foster the careers of transgendered students, but impoverished students … not so much”?\u00a0 I doubt that\u00a0is what they meant, but it is very hard not to read it that way.\u00a0 And, similarly, physical disabilities\u00a0count, but psychological ones do not?\u00a0 “If you are in a wheelchair we want to foster your career,\u00a0but if you have issues with depression, you are on your own”?\u00a0 Again, I doubt that’s what they meant, but, again,\u00a0it is very hard not to read it this way.<\/p>\n And what about people with differeing political or religious views than most social psychologists?<\/p>\n Jon Haidt’s second point:\u00a0or who bring helpful and underrepresented perspectives in other ways\u00a0<\/em>is also a dead-on bullseye.\u00a0 One of the main intellectual arguments for diversity is that\u00a0people from diverse backgrounds will often (not necessarily all the time, but in general)\u00a0have different experiences and therefore different perspectives to bring to bear on solving\u00a0scientific and social problems.\u00a0 I agree.\u00a0 So, that sounds like we should make a particular point\u00a0of trying to encourage and support the careers of people who actually think differently than most of us.<\/p>\n And who might those people?\u00a0 Two strong contenders are political nonliberals (including centrists,\u00a0libertarians, and conservatives) and people who are highly religious.\u00a0Indeed, social psychology (like most of the social sciences and humanities) is overwhelmingly\u00a0dominated by researchers from largely secular and leftwing political backgrounds.\u00a0You can read more about this here:\u00a0http:\/\/www.edge.org\/3rd_culture\/haidt11\/haidt11_index.html\u00a0http:\/\/www.thedivineconspiracy.org\/Z5238L.pdf\u00a0and Consequently, my view is that, for its own good (and regardless of my own particular However, if you are not particularly political, or if you are a centrist, libertarian, Lee Jussim<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\nhttp:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/national\/archive\/2011\/02\/what-does-bias-look-like\/71153\/<\/p>\n
\npolitical and religious beliefs), social psychology would greatly benefit from an influx of people\u00a0whose political and personal beliefs are different than those of the overwhelming secular\u00a0and leftwing majority of current social psychologists.\u00a0 You are perfectly welcome in my lab,\u00a0regardless of your politics.<\/p>\n
\nor a conservative, or deeply religious, I warmly encourage you to join us (assuming you meet\u00a0the competence-based criteria described at the beginning of this page).\u00a0 Social psychology\u00a0particularly needs you for its own good.<\/p>\n