Hi Chris, perhaps it's a good idea to refrain from engaging in ad-hominem yourself if you're going to raise it as an issue. The reasons for closing the mailing list were more complex than someone being offended and it's unfair (and honestly, unprofessional) for you to frame Adrian (I think you mean Adrian, not Glenn) in this light.

The reason I made a comment summarising your post history was because content-wise, it largely falls in the category of taking issue with initiatives relating to DEI issues. It seemed simpler for the sake of having a conversation to make the point in this thread, rather than reply to all of the posts that you've made or make a separate thread called "let's have a conversation about DEI". I apologise if you took this as an ad hominem, my goal was to shift the conversation to the broader topic of DEI which underpins the link you provided - summarising your post history seemed a reasonable illustration of why I was making that shift.

You're right though, I'm not interested in engaging on the issue you have linked to, I'm interested in understanding what beliefs you hold in regard to DEI and why you have them - because while we don't seem to share the same ideas on how we achieve DEI I'm not convinced we don't fundamentally share the same belief that nobody should face discrimination or systemic barriers in learning about statistics or becoming a statistician.

Regarding your three points from June 14 though:

1. In your post on gender based NHMRC grants, your response to the NHMRC's consultation round and underlying discussion paper was not to be the first on board to fix it, but rather to do your own analysis that supported the argument you were making. Given your response, I don't see discussions of evidence being fruitful.

2. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point it seems. I think it's important to reckon with the historical contexts in which modern statistics has come to be. For example, Ronald Fisher is a revered individual for his many and varied contributions to the field, but I don't think we should be uncritically praising Fisher without considering his position on race or involvement in eugenics. I'm going to assume that you feel the same way, but you'd rather the historical component be relegated to a separate (optional) subject, rather than part of the main statistical curriculum.

3. I think my comment on June 15 was largely in relation to your third point and I'm hoping that you could still expand on why you think inequity is a landmine and why you invoked MLK's name in your argument.

I hope you don't see the continuation of this conversation as a waste of your time.

Inequity is not an alternative term for inequality, they mean different things, but I expect you know that. What I'm more interested in though is why you think equity is a landmine? Treating everybody the same and ignoring their individual circumstances doesn't do anything to alleviate barriers that people historically excluded/underrepresented from particular spaces have faced.

It's an uncomfortable feeling being in spaces where you don't feel welcome, represented, etc. and unsurprisingly people tend to not do things that make them feel uncomfortable. Doing work to remove these kinds of barriers and create spaces for people to be present and learn ideally makes it more inviting, such that everyone who truly does have a common interest in mathematics and statistics feels confident and comfortable to participate.

I'm all for celebrating and utilising the common interest in mathematics and statistics of everyone in the room - what I care about though is ensuring that everyone actually has fair and equitable access to that room. Also I'm not sure what your intent was by comparing yourself to Martin Luther King Jr. (assuming that's who you meant by MLK), maybe you could expand on that too.

"Students should be able to study mathematics without also being required to pay for their own political indoctrination."

The decision to ignore completely the human history of mathematics is a political decision in itself, Chris. Your post history on this forum seems to consistently advocate for the dismantling of any efforts to redress historical (and contemporary) inequities in educational and employment spaces. Is your perspective that we should do nothing and maintain the status quo? Or do you have a different vision for where we should be headed as a field and profession?

Linked is an open letter, criticising a recent announcement of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (in Britain). They released a benchmark statement for mathematics, statistics and operations research stating that: "Values of Equality Diversity and Inclusion should permeate the curriculum and every aspect of the learning experience."

https://nms.kcl.ac.uk/john.armstrong/qaa/newletter/newletter.php