It is good to go to the sources - but the obvious source I found appears to be [0] a recursive link so that isn't too helpful. Throwing babies out with the bathwater is bad and doing studies with diverse participants seems like a good idea. The statement can say "this research doesn't further the SPSP's goals" So I don't see why the statement itself would be objectionable.
The objection would be if the statement is used as a tool to discriminate against good research. So this resignation should probably be treated as a vote of no confidence in the people and goals of the specific institution. I can see why the sort of people who would demand this statement would be a problem as ironically the DIE crowd seems to sometimes attract a weird sort of modern racist. Something that is always a risk when developing a race-obsessed ideology.
The source doesn't actually say whether submissions not advancing "SPSP's goal of promoting equity, inclusion and anti-racism" would be accepted though.
They would pass the reviewing process where they would receive the lowest score on the "3-point rating scale".
It would also mean by negation that the submission did not employ "diverse research participants", "diverse research methods (e.g., methodology that promotes equity)", or "diverse members of the research team", which basically would be viewed as a self-indictment in our political climate. Nobody with an interest to succeed would willingly arrive at this conclusion, they would view it as necessary to avoid it (like by making up reasons as to why the submission advances anti-racism).
In other words, the requirement to include the statement is a way of enforcing the stated goals and policing the researchers' conformity.
I'm not sure that this is really a problem. The sample of "57 college students that we forced to participate" is a bane of psychology research even if we ignore the racism angle. So what's wrong with writing a paragraph about how you took pains to get a representative sample?
> I personally think it’s disgusting Democrats are trying to revive institutional racism — but they’ve been doing that for 150 years, so I’m not surprised.
Any ideology that discriminates against one race or ethnic group vs. any other is racist. Trying to make elaborate arguments as to why some types of discrimination are acceptable because historical or societal reason X or Y is a form of rationalization.
Could it be affirmative action is sometimes rational?
After decades of apartheid would you prefer the South African government stop all consideration of race across the board, despite the profits of inequity having already been partitioned?
Depends. If you believe discrimination by race is wrong you should not discriminate by race. If you disagree with how discrimination was done but have no objection to racial discrimination as such you should discriminate in the way your values suggest you do.
The objection would be if the statement is used as a tool to discriminate against good research. So this resignation should probably be treated as a vote of no confidence in the people and goals of the specific institution. I can see why the sort of people who would demand this statement would be a problem as ironically the DIE crowd seems to sometimes attract a weird sort of modern racist. Something that is always a risk when developing a race-obsessed ideology.
[0] https://spsp.org/events/demonstrating-our-commitment-anti-ra... - the "We requested the submitters to please explain whether and how this submission advances the equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals of SPSP" link leads to the same page for me.