One of the points made in the Stanovich piece I referred to yesterday is
Identity politics advocates have succeeded in making certain research conclusions within the university verboten. They have made it very hard for any university professor (particularly the junior and untenured ones) to publish and publicly promote any conclusions that these advocates dislike.
As an example, consider another article on Quillette, by Zachary Robert Caverly.
Back in March 2020, a University of Pittsburgh physician by the name of Norman C. Wang published an article in the Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA) about the use of race and ethnicity considerations when recruiting for the US cardiology workforce. Wang argued that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusivity offices are ultimately unhelpful in promoting minorities in cardiology practice. He also pointed out that these offices may be unconstitutional and that they often make claims that may be unsupported by the relevant empirical evidence. Towards the end, he advocated race-neutral admissions and hiring practices as an alternative to the current model. . . .
After other professionals joined the outcry on social media, the American Heart Association (AHA) announced on its Twitter feed that Wang’s paper did not represent the organization’s values and assured its followers that, “We’ll investigate. We’ll do better. We’re invested in helping to build a diverse healthcare and research community.” A subsequent statement released on August 6th stated that the article would be retracted, and claimed that it “contains many misconceptions and misquotes and that together those inaccuracies, misstatements, and selective misreading of source materials strip the paper of its scientific validity.” Wang did not agree to the retraction and the AHA announced that it would be publishing a rebuttal.
“Wang argued that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusivity offices are ultimately unhelpful in promoting minorities in cardiology practice.”
Hmm…I wonder why this might be?
I’m thinking that if the NBA (or any other professional sports league) had a similar office of diversity, equity, and inclusivity, it would probably end up failing miserably as well.
The only difference I see is that our diverse society readily accepts athletic inequality, but for some reason, it cannot tolerate intellectual inequality.
Gentlemen, you can’t think here! This is a university!
LOL.
You, sir, win the internet for the day!
Sorry, Arnold. Without entering into a discussion of Stanovich’s paper, I think it’s wrong to associate canceling/exclusion/extortion/firing/condemnation/outcry with ideological positions. They are not different from propaganda to demonize enemies.
Those are means to destroy the opposition to radical leftists’ grab of power. The competition for the legitimate coercive power of government in democracies is not different from the competition in other political regimes: each candidate decides the restrictions on means to be acceptable to him, usually conditioned on the restrictions that other candidates accept. Violations are not a surprise. On the contrary, they should be expected and each candidate is expected to be ready for tit for tat.
To understand why radical leftists are fascists, read
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/real-history-left-fascism
and then ask yourself how you are going to stop them. Other than Trump, who else is between them and you?
Perhaps Trump’s right-wing fascism is preferable to left-wing fascism, but let’s not pretend that it is not another flavor of fascism.
Good point! Trump’s fascist policies are as follows: [insert your evidence here]
FFS. A medical journal is more concerned about perceived societal values rather than the damned SCIENCE.
Asians like Wang have more to lose than gain from the new penchant for race quotas. California is voting on proposition 16 that would allow the state to discriminate against Asians and whites. New York is attempting to boost Black and Hispanic admissions to elite competitive entry schools at the expense of Asians and whites. And Fairfax County, Virginia is making anti-Asian changes to its elite school admissions policies. https://www.joannejacobs.com/2020/10/asians-are-white-studying-is-cheating/
The beat down on Wang is a sad indictment of establishment intolerance.
Coincidentally, the last time I voted was in 1996 when Californians instituted the race neutral admissions policies that they are now trying to overturn. This is the issue got me to the polls.
Proposition 16 was supposed to be a rout, but it’s actually a toss up. I will be following this one closely even though I joyfully exited the state several years ago.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/an-anti-asian-proposition-11600729855?st=cz8hoysd6dw9yrh&reflink=article_copyURL_share
And, the cognitive dissonance on Prop 16 is legendary…
Proposition 16 aims to restore affirmative action in California via the November 2020 ballot. But despite the recent political wave in favor of social justice, the ballot measure isn’t polling particularly well.
Why? It may have something to do with the measure’s confusing wording.
Overturning a law that prevents discrimination — that sounds bad, right? That’s the part that’s confusing even supporters of affirmative action.
https://abc7news.com/whats-prop-16-what-is-ca-propostion-california-2020-polls/6439595/
Polling on affirmative action is highly dependent on wording. When its kept a vague incantation of trying to increase diversity its very popular. When it’s specifically about quotas its unpopular.
Prop 16 is struggling in CA because Hispanics don’t quite understand whether its supposed to help or hurt them.
————
In a split group, between 51% and 57% of Latinos surveyed said they were in support of Proposition 16. After respondents were told that it would help the Latino community “receive an equal opportunity to pursue a higher education here in California” about 76% of Latinos said they were in favor of reinstating affirmative action.
——–
The problem is that lots of Hispanics think they are discriminated against, and so wording about using race in admissions makes them think it’s something that will hurt them. If someone can get through the message that it will increase Hispanic slots, they support it.
But how to get that message through? By law you can’t say it will impose a quota, even if it will. You can’t say it will increase Hispanic slots, even if it will. You’ve got to like double wink nod what will happen while stating it won’t. Blacks get this, but many Hispanics aren’t culturally attuned enough yet. California doesn’t have many blacks. Asians may say what they need to say in public but it’s still a secret ballot.
“Asians may say what they need to say in public but it’s still a secret ballot.”
+1
There is a 70+ years running experiment in India – reservations in academic intake & public sector jobs. No time limit either but the results aren’t that encouraging. Has created perverse incentives for the gatekeepers and sjw’s to keep the target population, that is supposed to be helped, down – so they can keep on harping the same shibboleths and play the same power games.
Would US institutions heed to that experiments’ outcome?
On race – be it biological or societal – would each category get sub-categories? North of equator blacks vs south of equator blacks? How about gender quota – again in India there is a clamor for 33% quota for women in legislative bodies. Black XY vs XX – or even better the gender based on “lived experience” & “feelings” – so Black LGBTQ affirmative actions?
A good example: When I edited the Hamodiya in high school at the Hebrew Academy of Greater Washington (pre-Berman) we were warned that if we published certain things the newspaper would just be shut down.
To make the point that bias is deeply ingrained in human behavior, we are given an example where someone publishes an article arguing that existing institutional efforts to combat workplace bias don’t work due to bias. Due to the fact that the institutions were unwilling to agree with this viewpoint, they are deemed to be further biased.
These ideas ultimately go nowhere but in circles, and we end up convincing ourselves to listen less, not more. This isn’t helping anything.
Wow, that’s an impressively Orwellian take on what happened. No, it’s not “Due to the fact that the institutions were unwilling to agree with this viewpoint.” They retracted the paper without his consent and without justifying doing so with specific factual errors, condemned him and his beliefs unequivocally as racist, and removed him from his position. Try reading it again.
Yes, I’d agree with the Orwellian label.
There is a trade association with a journal, a university hospital system where he is a director, the general target of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusivity offices related to the cardiology field, and numerous individuals expressing their own opinions on twitter. Conflating them into one jumbled “they” isn’t helpful.
There is also the nature of the arguments. Related facts exist, but at its core, this debate is about organizational values. This is an argument about the basic stance organizations take towards the public and its employees. Organizations choose core values, and they require that their management align themselves with those values. They don’t have to take the form of a debating society if they choose not to.
My intent was not to step on your outrage over Dr. Wang, but to point out the absurdity of pushing aside rational arguments and viewing everything through the lens of bias. If you feel some of the players in this example did this too, fine, I agree. But this blog is pushing this to an extreme, and it is troubling.
“But this blog is pushing this to an extreme, and it is troubling.”
Where would you draw the line between extreme and reasonable amounts of concern about enforcement of orthodoxy and suppression of heresy on this topic?
What case would you accept to conclude that it is reasonable, and not extreme, in some particular situation, to conclude that, by a preponderance of the evidence available, intentional application of ideological bias and favoritism is the most likely explanation for what is occurring and not some more innocent or negligent explanation?
Is there a single standard and burden of rigor, or a double standard that only favors one side? Why should the American Heart Association and similar journals and organizations get such a pass and benefit of the doubt, presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, but not those who express contrary opinions, who just get cancelled?
I am not asking for anyone to get a pass. Hold everyone accountable for what they do. Challenge arguments, and stop worrying about the bias of the people making the arguments.
Other people felt the same way you feel now, fearing bias or believing they are the victim of bias. Believing they’ve been canceled. Believing they’ve gotten screwed.
Institutions have been convinced, and are now formalizing strategies to root out such bias. How’s that working out? You hate it, and believe it is corrosive.
And yet, you cannot see those same flaws in yourself.
None of this works, because claiming bias isn’t something that leads anyone anywhere. Deal with this a different way if you want to do anyone any good.
Brown people don’t have the IQ to be heart cardiologist in numbers equal to the population and the only way to force the issue is to admit unqualified brown people and reject qualified Asians. Wang didn’t like his people getting fucked over like that, so he tried to do the dignified thing and fight back. Poor bastard and his morals.
Brown people don’t have the IQ to be heart cardiologist in numbers equal to the population
Is that your own “myside bias” talking or you have data to back it up? Per capita? What is “brown people”?
[comment violates norms for this site–ed.]
[comment violates norms for this site–ed.]
My redacted comment: certain unnamed people within the comments of this blog take the valid points of Murray and Clark, but then try to build on them in uninteresting and unproductive ways.
Is the fallacy of decomposition no longer applicable? Murray would likely disagree.
[comment violates norms for this site–ed.]
Would love to see a post on the norms for this site.
Anti-gay OK…even when no evidence is provided and it insults the humanity of gay people.
Anti-brown OK… even when no evidence is provided and it insults the humanity of brown people.
But, insult the intelligence of the Anti-brown/gays….CENSORED.
Interesting equilibrium.
Hans,
Arnold tried to tell me once about the limits on this site. If he wants to ban me, he can. I think he’s less afraid of what I have to say then you are.
You’re not the first person to get into a huff over what I’ve posted. My working assumption is that Arnold is waiting for someone to post an actual argument against what I’ve said. Maybe even convince me otherwise. Maybe I’m wrong though.
I allow people on this site to say things that I disagree with. What I want try to tamp down on are personal put-downs.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:
You’ve taken the nuanced work of Murray and Clark and then tried to build on it in uninteresting and non-productive ways.
I have no fear of you Rather, I fear that you are perverting their work.
“My working assumption is that Arnold is waiting for someone to post an actual argument against what I’ve said”
Not sure why you need to bring the host into this, but here goes….
One of your favorite propositions: “parents ‘earn’ the IQ of their offspring”
How does this work exactly? For example, are there royalties involved should the parents so choose? Please enlighten us.
“I allow people on this site to say things that I disagree with. What I want try to tamp down on are personal put-downs.”
Personal put-downs = bad.
Unsubstantiated homophobic/racist comments that don’t rise to a personal put-down= ok.
Got it, thanks for clarifying! I shall follow this policy henceforth.
“parents ‘earn’ the IQ of their offspring”
Parents select for fitter mates, of which IQ is a component of fitness. Fitter parents are able to attract fitter mates.
In addition, fitter people are able help more of their offspring survive to adulthood.
So if a smart person (fit) is able to use their smarts to attract a smart mate (fit) either by being witty, or gaining fame, or making money, or whatever test of fitness you desire, they have “earned” the resulting fitness of their offspring.
For instance, if you bust your ass and use your IQ to get rich off some startup you’re going to get better mates and have children with better genes. That’s a very direct connection to “earning” your children IQ.
In the context of downs syndrome we can note that fitter men tend to have younger mates with healthier eggs and less instances of downs syndrome. Every man wants hot young women, but only better men can get them.
And to the extent people devote time and resources to making sure their offspring survive and thrive they have earned that as well.
Parenthood is one giant attempt to give your offspring advantages in life that others don’t have. Starting even in the mating stage before birth (when you try to acquire a superior genes from a superior partner for your offspring) and continuing onward.
In Greg Clark context generation after generation of yeomen farmers and shopkeepers struggled in a brutal malthusian system to marry well and help make their children slightly more likely to survive instead of other peoples children (which they certainly earned under those circumstances, in a way I doubt any of us could ever comprehend). IQ was one of the things that helped these individuals win that malthusian contest, and so over several generations IQ increased in the general population.
Had they live in different circumstances, like the Mongolian Steppe, maybe eyesight and bow legs would have been selected for. But luckily for us conditions in that part of the world at that time we’re favorable to selecting for the one trait to rule them all in the modern world, the one that could cause an industrial revolution and break the malthusian trap.
“Unsubstantiated homophobic/racist comments”
They are all heavily substantiated, you just don’t like them.
“You’ve taken the nuanced work of Murray and Clark and then tried to build on it in uninteresting and non-productive ways.”
If it was uninteresting I don’t think you’d be so riled up.
Non-productive I can buy into. I mostly post when I’m being non-productive.
Murray is (sort of) a Quaker and I think he takes a religious view of things I’d love to assent to but can’t. I gave that a try but when you get right down to it I’m just not signing onto a religious message that says you need to trade the direct and measurable worldly *needs* of your family for some theoretical otherworldly reward to be taken on faith if you let yourself be a martyr in some lost cause with no hope of success. If that is what God wants, I choose my family instead. I tried religion on one deathbed and gave it up on another.
Beyond that while I think my sentiments would make the world a better place, I certainly think the odds of any of them being implemented are basically zero. Given this, certainly its unproductive in the sense of thinking anything will happen based on this.
I mostly just state the truth to keep my own sanity. I’m not going to assent to lies, especially ones that make me and the people I love the devil. I am deeply afraid of my kids internalizing this woke system one day and I don’t find Murray-ism effective in combating it.
The only HBD aware effective rebuke of wokeness I’ve seen is LKY, and he was definitely not as polite or sensitive as Murray and has said many a thing I suspect you’ll gasp at too.
In essence, if Murray and those like him were successful I would love to live in such a world, but The Bell Curve was published in 1984. Every single word and prediction in it has come true. Has his philosophy been able to significantly move the needle on anything? Do you see it doing so anytime soon? If I’m supposed to know Murray-ism by its fruits, what fruits has it produced? What victory has it brought?
I’ll follow whoever or whatever can make a better future for my family, any way they can make it. I’m just not buying that what your selling is it.
@asdf
Technical interpretation: there is a direct inverse relationship between your long-winded analysis and my ideology.
My silly MAGA interpretation: the more you talk, the quicker I walk.
Lastly, I feel sorry for Murray and Clark. I wish that they had disciples with more nuanced analysis. Kind of reminds me of the post Rand days. Is Leonard Peikoff and Yaron Brook the best she’s got? I guess so…good luck to you.
I am unable to appreciate why this topic riles folks so much. To give some context, I come from India, where there are fixed quotas in institutions, so say out of 100 seats, 5o are reserved are for folks from historically disadvantaged castes and if you are not from one of those classes, you need to compete for the 50.
At a personal level: I always thought I am competing for the 5o seats. The fact that the institution had 100 seats was irrelevant to me.
At the societal level: Certainly this lowers the quality of graduates in the short term. ( In India the quality of graduates is very mixed) but provides other societa benefits – these traditionally disenfranchised classes are seeing more rapid social and economic gains ( Sorry, I don’t have a reference at my fingertips now)
From a hiring/institutional perspective: It puts additional onus on employers to test the candidates and they are less likely to use the name of school as a proxy for quality. That I think is a positive.
I do agree from a free speech perspective. But “calling heresy” has always existed and will always exist – just the definition changes. Maybe, its not the principle but the current definition that bothers folks…
” I always thought I am competing for the 5o seats. The fact that the institution had 100 seats was irrelevant to me.”
It would be irrelevant to you if you weren’t competing at all because there were 0 seats for you. That doesn’t make it just or good.
And yes, obviously it’s the current definition that bothers people, though also the stringency of standards of what constitutes heresy. Not all definitions of heresy are equal. Some are broader and some are narrower. Some of us prefer they be narrower (that is, a broader range of views should be socially acceptable), but also more qualitatively sane. There’s nothing hypocritical about being bothered by the idea that you can’t support race-neutral admissions and keep your job, and not being bothered by, say, the idea of someone being fired for endorsing forced sterilization of half the population. So what exactly is the lesson supposed to be that every society has some range of socially acceptable views? So what? Some are worse than others.
Good points Mark.
On the justness: I agree that at an abstract level ( because the institution as it exists for them is just 50 seats – it could be 100, but it is 50), it’s unjust to individuals who have to compete for a fewer seats. I was okay paying the price ( in my mind to correct historical wrongs) but can’t expect anyone else to be okay with it either. At the same time, it increases the chance for some folks to have a shot at a middle class existence, who otherwise wouldn’t.
On the second point, I completely agree the narrower the better.
But still begs the question – how do we decide the definition. And who decided the definition – its typically the group that is in power. Maybe, some of the frustration is at the loss of power?
@Traveler: Imagine this hypothetical. In South Asian countries there are official, formal, and clear laws on the books dictating how precisely the identity-based quota systems should operate. Simplifying for the sake of discussion, let’s say the rule is 50% X and 50% Y.
Ok, so there are 100 slots, you are an X, and you are confident you are in the top 50 Xs. Maybe not the top 3 or 4 Xs, but still, relying on what you thought was a reasonable expectation based on the official rules, your parents invested a lot of money and you invested a lot of time and hard work trying to get one of those slots, and you are a top X to be sure. You went without all the opportunity costs of those efforts, and you took a gamble that specializing in that particular field would pay off, because if it didn’t, all that time would have been wasted, because no one else cares about those narrowly applicable skills.
And then when the results are announced, 95 Ys, 5 Xs.
“But, but, in this country, the law says …”
“Ha ha ha, ‘the law’ he says, get a load of this clueless guy!” The Ys laugh behind your back. Maybe even in your face! And indeed, the 5 Xs *also* laugh in your face, because after all, they got their slots, and, also, they have to work with all those Ys. They will have some story to rationalize and justify this, and it doesn’t matter if it’s all a pile of obvious lies, because truth makes no difference. Their job is to tell you how it is, and your job is to shut up and listen, even though they will also twist the knife and call this a ‘conversation’. This job is now the only job you have, and it doesn’t pay any bills.
So, imagine you walk away very much upset at discovering the reality of this state of affairs, and someone walks past you and says, “I am unable to appreciate why the Xs are so riled up about the latest slot selection announcements.”
I get your point ( the one even below as well) – there should be clarity in the rules of the game. I understand some more as to why people get riled up – thanks!
Thanks,
At least in the US, it’s not clear to be how affirmative action can uplift some people into the middle class without pushing the same number of people down. They’re not expanding the total number of slots, just reapportioning who gets them. While state-specific studies find that white students who are rejected by California public universities do alright by going to other colleges, what gets ignored is that they displace students from those other colleges. It’s like a tax: it’s levied on rich white (and Asian) people, but they necessarily pass it down. A well-to-do white person may take it in stride that he has to go to Michigan instead of Harvard, but he displaces some kid who has to go to Detroit University instead of Michigan, and he displaces some kid who now doesn’t go to college at all because Detroit was his only option.
Opponents of aff. action haven’t had power in universities for a long time, but as a position it was at least considered mainstream. Being out of power is tolerable, but being outside the Overton Window isn’t.
Heresy laws would be better. A Grand Inquisitor would be better.
At least there’s only one Grand Inquisitor, and maybe you could bribe him. Unlike a zombie hydra with a million heads.
At least the laws would be written down somewhere, you could look them up and consult with an attorney before you dared open your mouth and express your honest sentiments about a topic, like a free man or something. Bureaucratic inertia would impose a certain amount of structurally conservative stability on them. Please, publish the heresy laws. “Would someone just please tell me what it is I’m supposed to believe!”
Oh, I have an idea, maybe we could have some kind of way for collectively determining what the laws under which we operate should be, and not just find out one day that one is somehow subject to something with the equivalent coercive power of law, but no one voted on it, and no laws or rules were written down anywhere about it.
So, it’s not just the current definition, but the fact that the definition is completely fuzzy, tends to depend for its imposition on your identity and politics, there is nothing like an appeals court to argue that you’ve been unfairly accused, and it changes rapidly all the time in hard to predict ways, such that one makes what one thinks to be a totally ordinary and safe statement well within the Overton window of acceptable and respectable debate, and finds out 10 years later they can’t get a job.
Your description reminded of “The Trial”…..
Bret Weinstein uses the phrase “Kafka trap.”
“I am unable to appreciate why this topic riles folks so much. To give some context, I come from India, where there are fixed quotas in institutions, so say out of 100 seats, 5o are reserved are for folks from historically disadvantaged castes and if you are not from one of those classes, you need to compete for the 50.”
The easy answer: people find it offensive to discriminate based on skin tone. And, meritocracy is superior from an economics standpoint.
The more controversial answer (and sorry for this, but just being honest): absent empirical data, I’m not sure that most people really care about the policies of a backwards country like India.
“absent empirical data, I’m not sure that most people really care about the policies of a backwards country like the country-name-doesn’t-matter-shithole-per-DJT-definition-suffices”.
In an article that follows up on “myside bias”. ROTFLMAO.
I should have put a trigger warning on the top of my message. Sorry for that!
I wasn’t aware that those folks suffering from TDS would start going hog wild with symptoms.
In any event, there is nothing here has any relevance to DJT. It’s just an obvious observation that before we import idea X from a certain country, that we vet it, particularly when that country has a per capita GDP of like $2k and hasn’t exported anything of intellectual value since the Buddha was wandering around several thousand years ago.
Are you good with this, or is it just a story you tell yourself because you are powerless to do much about it so you might as well rationalize it. I’ve yet to meet anyone genuinely happy with being discriminated against.
“From a hiring/institutional perspective: It puts additional onus on employers to test the candidates and they are less likely to use the name of school as a proxy for quality.”
Jobs in America are highly dependent on credentials, and besides, most employers have the same quotas that universities do. There were a few hard STEM fields that got exceptions to these quota systems (like cardiology) because competence was really important in them. Extending the quota system to these areas is part of the current upheaval.
Surprisingly, I ( and many others) was good with this and maybe still am ( since I don’t have as much skin in the game so not sure). But you ask a good question, and I think maybe we didn’t have have the vocabulary of “discrimination” in this case. ( To be clear, the support for reservations is/was no way universal – there was lot of pushback as well – but it was typically framed in terms of unfairness of different standards).
My most direct experience with hard quota systems is Malaysia, where the discriminated against Chinese all think the system is illegitimate, but they lack the numbers to overturn it, so they just kind of bitterly put up with it. Nobody believes in it and lots of Chinese Malay leave for other countries, which is bad for the overall level of talent and skills in Malaysia.
I man you can have a quota system if you’re willing to live in a more backward and underproductive society. Its a tradeoff, it just seems like a really bad one.
In the USA this was sort of sustainable when you gave blacks 10% make-work jobs and kept them away from anything important. But then we imported a lot of Hispanics that need to join in, and STEM got important but you can’t fake that, and the math really just stopped working.
You seem to have missed the fact that Asians — especially Chinese and Japanese — were historically disadvantaged in a big, big way. And in addition Filipinos were the colonial subjects of the USA and had to suffer heavily in a war because their country was a naval base for the US. Nonetheless, the descendants of all three groups are doing pretty well in the US today, notwithstanding things like the imprisonment of Japanese Americans or anti-Asian laws that often persisted in the West Coast longer than anti-black laws.
Why should Asians be punished for doing well despite their background and groups like Hispanics who were more favored — especially if they could pass as white and in many cases are literally 100% European Caucasian today — get affirmative action benefits instead?
Affirmative action is a spoils system for leftist vote banks. Blacks vote 90% D and support D cultural objectives, and AA is their payoff for doing that.
Hispanics will soon be a huge portion of the US population, so they get AA.
Asians aren’t a big portion of the population and they are concentrated in on-swing states (unlike blacks whose votes are very important in swing states).
You might as well ask why Chinese get discriminated against in Malaysia. Because the Malays outnumber them, that’s all.
https://quillette.com/2020/09/29/radicalized-antiracism-on-campus-as-seen-from-the-computer-lab/
This guy tries to explain why you can’t get enough minorities, but fails at one point.
“Inevitably, employment recruiters will have to take on the sorting role, perhaps by administering the same kind of basic tests that schools are now shunning.”
No, employers will take on the same quotas that schools have. Those that don’t will be punished. Even the success or failure of firms will have quotas (they have such equity quotas in Malaysia).
The goal of these groups are cradle to grave quotas even at the cost of efficiency and fairness. They will probably get it, even if such a thing remains unpopular with many (management will be on their side).
Add on: I think the media has taken to characterizing nearly every right-wing group as “racist.”
I read the Proud Boys are racist.
Upon cursory research, I find out their leader is an Afro Cuban American. The group officially eschews racism. They might be defined as sexist as they believe in traditional roles for men and women, and they like Western values. The group limits membership to men, but then a lot of groups limit membership by sex.
Demonizing people with alternative politics is the new norm.