yx1CEsUBYVM.srt

1
00:00:00,140 --> 00:00:01,540
Dr brown,
uh,

2
00:00:01,610 --> 00:00:04,610
you've talked about a nonmonetary 
orders,

3
00:00:04,611 --> 00:00:07,010
uh,
that could include sanctions like orders

4
00:00:07,011 --> 00:00:09,710
to undertake sensitivity and anti bias 
training.

5
00:00:11,060 --> 00:00:16,060
I would like either one or both of you 
to comment on whether you could explain 

6
00:00:16,191 --> 00:00:21,191
why an individual may have a strong 
objection to undertaking such a 

7
00:00:21,291 --> 00:00:22,670
training.
And Mr Brown,

8
00:00:22,671 --> 00:00:25,310
could you let the committee know how 
serious the sanction could be?

9
00:00:25,311 --> 00:00:27,520
And of course you already dead on that.
Uh,

10
00:00:27,530 --> 00:00:29,570
if you refuse to undertake such an 
order,

11
00:00:29,850 --> 00:00:32,060
uh,
and specifically at the federal level,

12
00:00:32,061 --> 00:00:33,050
but what would,
what would,

13
00:00:33,080 --> 00:00:35,530
why would people have an objection to 
taking such training?

14
00:00:35,600 --> 00:00:40,600
I think I'm going to let Dr Peterson 
answer why he or someone like him might 

15
00:00:40,600 --> 00:00:42,670
have an objection to undertaking that 
type of training and lot obviously,

16
00:00:43,040 --> 00:00:45,650
once again with the severity of that 
decision.

17
00:00:45,651 --> 00:00:46,910
If it gets before the tribunal,

18
00:00:48,310 --> 00:00:50,350
well,
I have a profound objection to,

19
00:00:50,550 --> 00:00:52,180
to undergoing such training.
In fact,

20
00:00:52,240 --> 00:00:55,750
I would flatly refuse under all 
conditions to undergo it.

21
00:00:56,020 --> 00:00:58,030
And the reason,
there's multiple reasons for that.

22
00:00:58,060 --> 00:01:01,720
The first reason is that the science 
surrounding the,

23
00:01:01,721 --> 00:01:06,721
uh,
the so called charge of implicit bias 

24
00:01:06,721 --> 00:01:08,120
that's associated with perception is by 
no means settled in,

25
00:01:08,560 --> 00:01:13,560
in to such a degree that one of the 
three people who designed the most 

26
00:01:13,560 --> 00:01:16,390
commonly used measure,
which is the implicit association test,

27
00:01:16,510 --> 00:01:21,510
has detached himself from the other two 
researchers on the grounds that the use 

28
00:01:21,510 --> 00:01:26,461
of the test has become,
has far transcended its scientific 

29
00:01:26,461 --> 00:01:30,361
validity and reliability.
It's nowhere near valid or reliable 

30
00:01:30,361 --> 00:01:30,880
enough to be used in the manner that has
been using.

31
00:01:31,060 --> 00:01:36,060
And even the more a pro iat researchers 
who developed the test have admitted to 

32
00:01:36,791 --> 00:01:41,791
that publicly,
even though they haven't stressed it 

33
00:01:41,791 --> 00:01:41,791
nearly to the degree they should have.

34
00:01:41,791 --> 00:01:43,690
So first of all,
the sciences is not settled and is being

35
00:01:43,691 --> 00:01:48,691
used absolutely inappropriately.
And I can say that as a clinician 

36
00:01:48,691 --> 00:01:52,441
because I know that and as a 
psychometrician I know the criteria for 

37
00:01:52,441 --> 00:01:54,220
using a test for a sec.
Essentially diagnostic purposes and the,

38
00:01:54,221 --> 00:01:56,770
it doesn't even come close to what's 
necessary.

39
00:01:56,920 --> 00:01:58,960
And then the next issue is,
well,

40
00:01:58,961 --> 00:02:03,430
where's the evidence that an anti 
unconscious bias training works?

41
00:02:03,431 --> 00:02:08,431
There's no evidence and what little 
evidence there is suggests that it 

42
00:02:08,431 --> 00:02:10,660
actually has the opposite effect because
people don't like being brought in front

43
00:02:10,661 --> 00:02:14,290
of a reeducation committee and having 
their fundamental perceptions.

44
00:02:14,320 --> 00:02:16,660
You see their perceptions,
not even their thoughts,

45
00:02:16,661 --> 00:02:20,370
but their perceptions themselves altered
by collective Fiat.

46
00:02:20,380 --> 00:02:21,850
It's an unbelievable honor,
sir.

47
00:02:22,570 --> 00:02:27,570
We have a very engaged committee,
concise questions and concise responses 

48
00:02:27,570 --> 00:02:27,570
with the helpful,
uh,

49
00:02:27,580 --> 00:02:28,270
senator pro.