Slippery Slope

Doug:
I must admit that I hate the term "slippery slope." This seems to be a phrase thrown at a point when there is nothing else to argue about it. Does it actually mean anything to you?

David:
Just the common interpretation. If you start something new or legislate something that has not been in place before, similar events may start up that you don't want to happen. Perhaps you pass a law restricting a certain type of speech. The slippery slope phenomenon would suggest you are now open to restricting any type of speech.

Doug:
I guess I don't believe in a "slippery slope" if one makes choices based on principles. Slippery slope implies that the issue is completely arbitrary.

David:
I disagree. Once you open a door to an idea, the next folks who come along may not follow the original principles at all. Principles, definitions, paradigms....they all may change over time, and allow a follow up action that may even be contradictory to the original idea.

I prefer the designation "unintended consequences" to what happens next, although you could make an argument the two are not exactly the same thing. Slippery slope indicates your actions open the door to unexpected or unwanted follow up actions. Unintended consequences warns of untoward outcomes based on the actual action you have taken.

Doug:
They are not the same thing at all, in my mind. Everything with enough complexity has unintended consequences... that is the nature of interactions. Especially when dealing with an adversary who is trying to divert intended consequences. Slippery slope may have unintended consequences (from the law's designer, for example). As long as the principle isn't violated, then all should be fine. In fact, one can discover new freedoms in exactly this manner. All "men" are created equal? What is the principle? Unintended, no doubt, by the original framers, but all people are created equal is the principle.

David:
Again, the principals are based on the original designer's understanding and interpretation of the principals. For instance, if you pass a law banning "hate speech", those words have certain meaning for the designer. You may even define the words as specifically as you can at the time. Yet, when someone else with a different set of morals or principals is making the rules, "hate speech" may mean something completely different, like speech that differs from that persons ideology.

Doug:
If a law is passed banning "hate speech" then the principles and definitions of "hate" and "speech" have to be very clearly defined.

David:
You and I have many of the same principals, and yet we also have some principals that are quite different. As we have seen in the blogs, we both are quite certain of our principals, and can back up our positions. From different paradigms, sometimes I am right, and once in a blue moon, someone, somewhere may think you're right.

By throwing this topic out, are you insinuating we have reached the end of all debate, and we have nothing left to argue about? To paraphrase John Paul Jones, I have not yet begun to argue!

Doug:
No, not at all. My problem with slippery slope is that it really is a statement that the argument doesn't have principles. To go back to your example, I think one can make laws on certain types of speech without any fear of slipping on a slope. But, those principles need to be clearly stated. I think valid limitations can be made on all kinds of things, including speech, gun ownership, taxes, and even abortion.

David:
Perhaps. Referring back to your previous comments regarding unintended consequences, we've seen how the complexity of variables means that you cannot take in to account all of the instances that could arise that may be misused by a different interpretation of language. The Second Amendment to the Constitution probably was debated by the Founding Fathers, and the language they settled on was  understood to have a very specific meaning. I would argue a reading of  other documents from the founders indicates clearly that they meant for everyone to own a personal firearm without limitations. But plenty of very smart legal scholars (and my older brother ) would say the meaning is something totally different. Principals, definitions, paradigms, and language change.

Doug:
But what is the underlying principle? Gun ownership, in and of itself, is not the principle. If it were, then we could just ban bullets and we would meet the criteria specified in the amendment, but would gut the principle. We indeed need to look at what arms meant for citizens at the time, and attempt to keep the principle intact.

David:
To keep and bear arms is the principal. Courts have ruled that individuals being able to purchase guns and all of the supplies needed to operate them is exactly the principal involved.  It may not be your principle, but that is just the point.

Doug:
The second amendment's principle is stated in the first part of the first sentence: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State..." This is not about citizens carrying guns. It is about a State's militia.

And we don't allow individuals to have any type of arms. Individuals can't own tanks or nuclear weapons. Why not? Because that is not the principle. Arms don't technically include bullets, but we allow them. Why? Because that is the principle. Therefore, "to keep and bear arms" is not the principle. To have a way for a State's militia to escape from their government is the principle.

David:
And so, the gun debate goes on, you see.

As another example, we've seen this past week that the President, and his agencies, have changed the definition of "man" and "woman". The next president may change that definition once again. That is not a conversation that could have been imagined by the vast majority of Americans even a decade ago.

Doug:
But clarifications of the definitions of "man" and "woman" aren't slippery slopes, they are clarifications based on principles. A person shall be treated as the gender they identify with. You may not agree with the principle, but that is a different issue. Focusing on principles rather than on hyperbole gets to the heart of issues and avoids any slope to slip on.

David:
But don't you see that you are now arguing with yourself. You've said that you must define your words carefully and base your laws on principals. Yet now you are saying that redefining the words  using a different set of principals is just fine. In other words, a different leader can now just change the fundamental definitions of the actual words to mean something completely at odds with the original definitions, and enact a completely egregious outcome from the original purpose (and principles) of the law. The idea that an agency or a president can fundamentally change laws by re-defining (or as you say, "clarifying") the terms used within the law does seem to be the proverbial "slippery slope".

Doug:
No, I am saying that the words "man" and "woman" always were rooted in a principle. That principle has nothing to do with one's actual genitalia at a particular point in time. Sure, modern issues change the context under which we interpret laws. But finding the meaningful principle is the goal. But I'm talking about more important issues than the current design of public bathrooms. I'm talking about important principles. If you find a law to be on a slippery slope, then we just need to identify the real principles to get it on flat, stable ground.

David:
I'm glad you find the issue (or principal) rooted in one's genitalia, and not just your state of mind.

I fault Congress as well, in that for decades now they've written laws in very broad terms, and leave the enactment of the bill to unelected officials within the vast array of agencies in the executive branch, via regulations and rules to be written later. That leaves the door open to all sorts of unintended regulations and rules (and crazy ideological ideas) that leave no one ultimately responsible to the people. When these agencies and employees feel they have no one to watch over them, they feel free to act as they see fit. Who purposfully released weapons to criminals  in the Fast and Furious debacle? No one. Who targeted conservatives in the IRS scandal? No one.  Who failed to provide security to our ambassador in Benghazi despite his repeated pleas for help? No one. Who told Hillary she could keep top secret documents on her own private server in her bathroom closet? No one.

Doug:
Really? In a discussion on slippery slopes versus principles, you want to ask "What about Benghazi?" and blow your other dog whistles. I think that means that the reasonable discussion is over.

David:
It's actually a slippery slope argument. If you don't hold anyone accountable when a government agency screws up, then you are inviting other governmental agencies to also take risks, or step outside of their boundaries. In fact, it isn't just a slippery slope, it's the reality. I didn't even mention other gigantic government failings like the EPA mine disaster, or the Healthcare.gov website fiasco.

Doug:
Yes, there may have been a few government failings you didn't mention (Vietnam War, Iraq War, to name a couple of little ones). But who cares what you (or I) consider a government failing? You have morphed the idea of calling something a slippery slope argument, to now considering entire class of actions slippery slopes. Hold people accountable. That is a fine principle, but you have to do it all of the time, not just when you feel like it. There is nothing slippery here. Have a hearing, and hold them responsible. Done. Oh, wait. Not done. Where did George W. Bush go? The fact that we did not have any hearings about the Iraq war is not a slippery slope. Just a travesty.

David:
We had an enormous number of hearings before the war. Remember, when Hillary voted to send in the troops. What I'm talking about is firing the person or persons responsible for the failure of basic governmental functions. In the private sector, people get fired for failure. Not so in big government. So, managers in government appear to be getting sloppier and more careless.

Moving back to the slippery slope discussion (from here on, I'll just use "SS"),  I think what you're getting at is that quite a few SS arguments try to tie unrelated or unlikely events together. "If you allow gay marriage, then people will start marrying their dogs", or something like that.

Doug:
Yes, I have heard Republicans and conservatives say exactly that! A quick search shows:

• Keith Ablow
• Bill O'Reilly
• Rep. J.D. Hayworth

and many religious people, including Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Rick Santorum. Lots of people  discussing it (2.4 million web pages).

David:
Then again, Liberals often roll out the slippery slope arguments whenever they talk about  gun rights, restricting late-term (or any form of) abortions, or entitlement reforms. "Republicans want children to have guns, wage war on women, and they want to kill Grandma!!"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/03/slippery_slope_arguments_not_just_for_conservatives_anymore_118226.html

However, there are some SS arguments that link consequences that are not only possible, but even likely. Using the speech argument from earlier, banning speech based upon a listeners interpretation of speech, as some colleges have done, invites abuse, and adding to the list of what speech becomes "hateful" is inevitable.

Doug:
But again, I ask you to dive down to the fundamental principle.

David:
I'd ask the same of you. What is the fundamental principal behind banning free speech?

Here's an example of where we're headed with the transgender issue.

Doug:
"The transgender issue"? I have a feeling that your packaging up of the situation is going to largely miss the point (and probably not include their perspective at all). But, do tell: where are we headed?

David:
Remember, this issue about locker rooms came about by an interpretation and re-definition of Title IX authority. Recently, a transgender female was allowed to compete in women's MMA fighting.

http://keepingscore.blogs.time.com/2013/05/24/should-a-former-man-be-able-to-fight-women/

Although not competing on the national scene yet, this fighter has been cleared to fight women in Florida. In her last fight, her competitor left the mat unconscious with multiple facial fractures, and spent time in the hospital.

If transgender women can be approved to compete in MMA events, the SS argument would allow for them to compete in other sports as well. How long do you think it will take for Russian or Chinese olympic teams to begin recruiting transgender women for all sports? After all, both of those countries have been in trouble for years (the Russians may not be allowed at the next olympics) for using male hormones on their female athletes. This would be a completely legal way for them to skirt the rules. If it's illegal to give a female athlete male hormones, because it provides a competitive benefit, would the olympic committee allow males taking female hormones to compete as females? Seems the SS argument would be that, in an ironic twist, Tile IX redefinitions of "male" and "female" could end up excluding females from the very sporting opportunities it was intended to provide for them. It isn't just possible, but I don't see how it can be avoided, if the new Department of Education rules prevail.

Doug:
I don't think MMA (nor boxing for that matter) is a "sport". But I do think some sports will change. And many other distinctions based on sex and gender will also change. Why do we have "best supporting actress"? Can't men and women be placed into the same category for that one? But what is the principle? We want to see good competition between roughly equal performing people. I think we can do that.

David:
In other words, you have no "principal" to dive down into. Why would only some sports change? The principal of Title IX was to increase opportunities for women. By changing the definition of "women", males (who have become women with penises) may replace those original females and their opportunities the law was designed to protect. That seems to illustrate my slippery slope points pretty well.

Doug:
My opinion stands: one only yells "slippery slope!" when one has no idea what the principle is.

Seeds of Distrust- Politics vs. Science

Doug:
I've run across a segment of the US population that have a big distrust of science and scientists. Do you think that Republicans have helped sow this distrust for political gain?

David:
Not at all. I think politicians of all stripes have tried to use their interpretation of "science" to benefit them whenever it suits them, politically and personally. Usually they have a particular agenda item they're pushing, and their spiel is followed with the claim that anyone who disagrees with them doesn't believe in science, and is therefore a simpleton. This in turn creates a distrust of science and scientists.

Doug:
So, you are saying that there is a distrust of science? And both Democrats and Republicans have contributed to it? But what about what scientists say about climate change? It seems that most scientists agree, and most Republicans disagree with the scientists?

David:
People will distrust any information, if given a reason to distrust it. The surest way to taint science is to associate it with politics. When Al Gore became the face of global warming with his film, An Inconvenient Truth, it made the entire issue appear to be political rather than scientific. The fact that his film was littered with inaccuracies and gross exaggerations made this worse.  No one trusts a politician, so no one trusts what a politician preaches.

And the term "Climate Change" has many meanings. It has enough different meanings we should have an entire blog about just that.

Doug:
I don't blame Al Gore for trying to address something that he considered to be important. But I do blame people that don't believe something just because Al Gore did. That doesn't help. Al Gore, personally, has nothing to gain if people actually believe in climate change. Do you think that more people would care about climate change now if Al hadn't mentioned it?

David:
Absolutely. I think fewer people would have reason to doubt it. And I'll bet if you surveyed climatologists, they would rather he had stayed out of the whole fray.

Doug:
I wonder too. It is sad that Republican's beliefs are not based on the science, but in a reaction to the science. It makes having a scientific discussion impossible.

David:
Democrats aren't immune to the same biases. Most of them believe with all their hearts that George Bush lied about WMDs to propel us into an unwarranted war.  A great many Democrats and Republicans believe there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy.

Gore made the issue political when few people knew anything about it. According to Gore, half of Florida should have been underwater ten years ago. When people can still go to the same beaches for spring break that they went to last year, it does a lot to discredit that theory. If climatologists could get a Clinton "reset" button, they'd certainly want to do things differently, and keep politics out of the mix.

Doug:
Isn't it weird that we still blame Al Gore? Shouldn't we be telling people to quit bringing Al into the argument, and look at the science. Then, as you say, fewer people would have reason to doubt it.

David:
Like I said, for many, Al Gore is the poster child for global warming. He won an Academy Award (from the leftists in Hollywood) and a Nobel Peace Prize (from the same folks who gave one to Obama before he had done anything), as well as amassing millions as he invested in "green" companies while he proclaimed the coming disaster.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/03/global-warmings-biggest-winners/

That made this a political issue before science had a chance to even make a case.

Doug:
Ok, I guess I see how the seeds of distrust get sown and grow. That must have been his plan from the beginning. He must be on to a new scam, now that the cat is out of the bag.

David:
Scientist should learn from the mistakes made here. I'm sure they all thought the publicity was a great idea. But while politics often uses science to make a point, science should be wary of getting in bed with politicians. Only a nasty rash can come from that.

Doug:
Even if you are right that this was a money-making scam by evil Al Gore, I don't think you can blame the scientists. Politicians can pick up any theory that they like, but that shouldn't say anything about the science.

David: Just the fact that we now call the issue "climate change" instead of "global warming" illustrates why some may have reasons to distrust the science. When you change the name of an issue because the issue didn't live up to the hype, you've got a problem in the eyes of the public.

Doug:
The climate scientists I know have always called it "climate change" because they always knew that some places would get warmer and other places would actually get colder. If you believe that this is more about marketing than a real problem, then you are not listening to the scientists.

David:
I am listening to the scientists. Scientists also contributed to this narrative by continually making dire predictions, none of which has come to fruition.

Doug:
At what point do you say: "Oh, crap. They were right"?

David:
When they finally get one single, tiny thing right. Take the predictions from the first Earth Day back in 1970. Scientist predicted we'd have all starved to death back in 2000. It didn't happen. None of the predictions came true:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-didnt-first-earth-days-predictions-come-true-its-complicated-180958820/?no-ist

This article notes that the issue is complicated, and scientists did not take in to account that human behavior changes over time, sometimes because of changes that are occurring. The climate scientists haven't learned a thing, as they continue to make what now appear to be outlandish predictions which continue to fail. Ever heard the story of the boy who cried wolf? So have a lot of folks. If you already believe that an issue may have political motivations behind it, multiple errors just reinforce the idea it isn't really "science", but politicians pushing their own agenda using quasi-science.

Doug:
That is not the lesson that you should get from the story, the story warns. The lesson I see is that the media attempts to make a drama out of everything. The article (like the media then) tells this battle from two individuals' predictions. But there are a whole lot of scientists that make specific predictions and recommendations. Some predictions are more dire than others. You may be right that making really dire predictions might make it more likely for you to get on the nightly news, or the cover of Time magazine. Perhaps the news has done more harm to science than politics?

David:
Now it's the failure of their dire predictions that gets them on the news.

Doug:
First, you can always find someone making "dire predictions" on any topic. In this case, some of the dire predictions were wrong: the ice caps are melting faster than predicted.

David:
Add to all of this that the Democratic president claims (in the face of all of these mistaken predictions) that the science is not even worthy of discussion, and that the science is "settled", leads to a polarization of the debate. It has been the Democrats, pushing wrong information in the name of science, that have made this a two-party argument, rather than a discussion of the science itself.

Doug:
Let's assume that you are correct: the scientists were wrong. You can't blame Al for that, right? Unless they were working together.... In any event, the scientists weren't wrong. There are many topics that are settled, as much as science can be. But I am talking about how regular people end up not believing in big ideas in science. What about evolution? It seems that many Republicans (especially in the south) disagree with scientists.

David:
I'm saying that the scientists have dug themselves a big hole, and politicians like Al Gore and President Obama have given them the shovels. They've made predictions for decades that have been wrong. Politicians have given people a reason to believe the motivations for pushing wrong information is more about politics than science. 

Doug:
That is the Republican storyline. But the science continues since 1970, and it continues to look dire. I'm not sure what denying this does, except to sow doubt on all of science.

David:
As to other science issues like evolution, I think what you mean to say is that anyone who believes in a strict interpretation of the Bible has a problem with evolutionists claims. That is not a Republican (or a Democrat) issue. You're making it a political issue when it isn't one.

Doug:
Ok, let's just talk generally about those who have a strict interpretation of the Bible. Those people seem to have been increasing in the last few decades. Is it just those people that are doubting science? And why are their numbers growing? I don't care how they vote, but I do care that real science is being treated like a reality TV show. This can lead to deep conspiracy theories, even beyond evolution and climate change. For example, there are people that believe that:

1. The earth is really flat

This goes beyond the few hundred people that are card-carrying members of the Flat Earth Society. There are many people that have made videos and blogs that have very personal explanations defending a Flat Earth, such as this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlTMrIvZsR4

2. Plate tectonics is not real

Another area of personal distrust appears to be based on finding patterns in photographs. This can be used to disprove plate tectonics (using something called Electric Geology):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz8eoIJAOKY

Also, lots of patterns seen in Moon photos (if you believe that we actually went to the Moon):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wssOgRaUGwE

3. The earth is 5,000 years old

Consider The Creation Museum in Kentucky that teaches about humans and dinosaurs living together.

Doesn't it seem that the Republicans have used conspiracy theories in the past (birtherism, climate change deniers, anti-evolution) against science, and that it has now gotten away from them? Trump has suggested that Ted Cruz's father had something to do with JFK's assassination.

David:
I'm surprised you didn't throw in the Bermuda Triangle, Bigfoot, and Area 51 as Republican or Christian ideals. Again, you're mistakenly claiming these issues are Republican issues. I don't recall any of them appearing in the Republican platform. There is certainly a divide between people of faith, and scientists on some issues. (See our prior blog, Faith in Science.) That divide encompasses the exact claims made and the explanations for findings, and not a denial of the science. After all, God created science, and gave us the abilities to sort out the data.

Doug:
I didn't pick these topics above at random... I saw that actual people actually believe them. Some of them I don't know their political leanings, but others we do. Of those that we do know, they all lean right. Many of the Flat Earthers believe the Earth is flat because of a strict interpretation of the Bible (watch the video). And of course if the Earth is flat, then the photos from the Moon need to be explained (many people believe that gravity and space travel are conspiracies). The anti-plate tectonic theorists, too, are looking for explanations that don't take billions of years, because of a strict interpretation of the Bible. There are many that believe that the Earth is 5k years old, and humans lived with dinosaurs. I don't know of Biblical connections to the Bermuda Triangle, aliens, or Bigfoot. But I bet that there are.

My point is that there are many people who have turned away from science (for whatever reason) and there are those people cultivating that distrust.

David:
Well, if it's in a YouTube video, it must be true. I'd venture there are more transgender people out there than folks who believe the Earth is flat, which means only the guy who made the video and his cousin. I know a great many Christians who have no doubts we revolve around the Sun in our galaxy in the grand universe, that was created by God.

Doug:
You are correct that there are a lot of trans people (strange to use their numbers). But don't dismiss the numbers of conspiracy theorists. Over 50% of Republicans still think President Obama is Muslim.

David:
It turns out I'm wrong. By quite a bit. While transgenders only make up 0.3% of the population at best, I did a quick google search for "flat-Earth videos", and found over 1 million hits. I looked through quite a few of them (very amusing, I must say) and didn't find a single one tied to religion or the Bible. While I was surprised at how many videos there were (of course, they could all be just one very industrious fellow) I didn't find Christians or Republicans to be behind this sinister plot to melt people's brains.

Doug:
It's funny that you assume a conspiracy theory, which is exactly my point. Rather than seeing evidence, you instead look for a conspiracy to discount evidence. First, thank you for finally actually looking at the data and seeing that there are many, many people exploring the theory of "flat Earth." I don't find it amusing, but very sad. (And by the way, 0.3% of 7.125 billion people is over 21 million people.)

Finding a connection from the flat Earth to religion is not difficult. If you do an internet search for "flat earth firmament" you'll see about 37,000 videos and over 100,000 web sites, and millions and millions of views. These are explanations of the flat Earth for the literal interpretation of the Bible. From there, you'll find another set of videos and articles to explain how this conspiracy has been hidden by scientists and other "elites."

My contention is not that these people are Christians or Republicans. My contention is that the Republican party has tapped into, and been feeding, this doubt of science.

David:
I'd suggest that the Democrats forcing coal miners out of jobs because they wrongly claimed Florida and San Francisco would be underwater by now is a major factor for Americans of all stripes to doubt climatologists ability to predict just about anything. Climatic change is complicated, and has many more variables than the scientists themselves knew about, or factored in. People have eyes.

Doug:
I think that "people have eyes" can be the rallying cry for anti-science. It is obvious the Sun goes around us! It is obvious that it still snows! My kid was diagnosed with Autism after he got vaccinated! People have eyes!

David:
When claims are wrong, year after year, and real people are paying more for gas and electricity, and entire industries are wrecked because of those claims, people lose faith in the scientists making those claims.

Doug:
Isn't it science that has made gas as inexpensive as it ever has been? Seeds of distrust.

David:
You're wandering away from the topic a bit.

Doug:
You brought up gas and electricity prices. I'm just refuting your claims. Don't make them if you want to stay on topic.

David:
If climatologists make 50 predictions, and not one of them materializes, people will stop listening, and the seeds of distrust in that science are sown. For Pete's sake, the boy who cried wolf only did it 3 times!

Doug:
You do realize that the boy was eaten by the wolf, right? Your analogy is apt. Climate change is real, just like the wolf. Perhaps you think the climatologists are lying or wrong, but that doesn't mean you won't get eaten in the end. To continually not listen to the scientists "because Al Gore" is exactly the politicalization of science.

David: I might also suggest that the public school system, liberal higher education, and the degradation of American culture is responsible for some of your YouTube phenomena. One in five Americans (20%) believe the Sun revolves around the Earth. Surprisingly, we scored better than the Germans or Great Brittons on that question. Republicans are not responsible for the failings in those countries, so what's your explanation for their answers?

Doug:
I agree that this is an issue in education. But what is the solution? There are schools in Texas that want to teach all of the above ideas. Teach the controversy! I don't blame Republicans for all of this stupidity. I think that there is a worldwide crisis in critical thinking skills. If teachers made more money, or received more attention, perhaps we could get kids thinking better earlier.

David:
Wrong-o. Texas schools are not teaching the Earth is flat. Your nose is growing faster than the Earth's temperature, Pinocchio. You'll have a hard time suggesting to anyone who is buried under the debt of higher education to pay more for the experience.

Doug:
Don't just take my word for it, check it out. The Flat Earthers may be just a joke to you, not worthy of any attention, but why are some people drawn to it? Here is a picture that many believe explains what we see in terms of the Bible, and the conclusion is that the Earth must be flat:

David:
I don't see anything in your fancy chart that says "Texas School Corp." or any other school's district. I think you're just looking for scraps to suit your bias.  I don't know any Christians who subscribe to this view, and I know many. How's it go? You're searching for any data to prove what you believe you already know. Isn't that exactly what we're talking about in this blog?

Doug:
That is a great way to discount any evidence: you found it because you were looking for it. Seed planted. You'll find many schools advocating to "teach the controversy" rather than specifically stating that the Earth is flat, or new.

David:
Again, education ( or a lack of it) is the key.

Doug:
I'm talking about K-12 education at the state level, and not higher education. What is the solution to poor K-12 education?

David:
Glad you asked. Charter schools and parental choice is the correct answer. Providing vouchers so that poor parents and minorities can choose to move their kids from poorly performing schools is an important component.

Doug:
That sounds like it would make the problem worse. "They tried to teach my kid about evilution, so I moved them to a better school."

David: It might also be worth noting that older, white males scored the highest in the poll about the Sun being the center of our solar system, and many other questions as well. Since prevailing wisdom from the media states that older, white males are all Republicans, that would mean we're much smarter than Democrats (and the rest of the world as well..)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/new-poll-gauges-americans-general-knowledge-levels.aspx

Doug:
I can assure you that not all older white males are Republican.

David:
Just the smart ones.

Doug:
I don't understand what this has to do with the discussion, and why you feel the need to assert that white males scored high on a poll question.

David:
I'll talk slowly. You see, you're the one who brought it up. You've insinuated that Republicans don't believe in science. Your entire thesis is that Republicans (and Christians) are dumb. You've argued that Republicans distrust science because it just doesn't process through their neanderthal brains.  I'm showing you that Republicans scored higher than others on general science questions. Now do you see how it fits?

Doug:
No. You said that it was "white males" that did well, not "Republicans". I did not insinuate that all Republicans don't believe in science (#NotAllRepublicans). I do not believe that birthers are dumb. Do you see how that doesn't fit, and is completely unrelated to our discussion?

David: Getting back on our original thread,  Donald Trump was trying to tie Cruz to Lee Harvey Oswald in an effort  to cast any dark shadow on his opponent. He certainly is not above throwing some mud.

Doug:
But this isn't any old dark shadow: this is crazy conspiracy theory that has no basis in reality. And Trump seems to believe in a few conspiracy theories.

David:
He's actually just practicing an old LBJ political trick. When Lyndon Johnson was in a much closer-than-anticipated race with his opponent, he wanted to spread the story that his opponent liked to have sex with barnyard animals. One of LBJ's aides said, "Christ, Lyndon, we can't say he's a pig f----r. It isn't true."

"Of course it ain't true," replied Johnson. "But I  want to make the SOB deny it."
I'd say you're actually using the same strategy during this blog. Make an outrageous, and all-encompassing declaration, just to make me deny it. It fits your narrative that Christians, Republicans, and Donald Trump are all morons, while Democrats are the true standard-bearers of real science. I'm trying to show you that science, when handled poorly and with a heavy topping of politics, can be doubted by thinking, educated people.

Doug:
Where are these thinking people? The ones that believe in a strict interpretation of the Bible? Which leads (logically) to a flat Earth? Or the ones that don't believe in climate change because Al Gore did? The ones that believe that Obama is a Muslim? Ken Ham and his Creation Museum visitors? Or the ones that have some doubt about Ted Cruz's father?

You have already admitted that Republicans don't believe in climate change because Al Gore did. This is the seed of distrust. Now, it is growing everywhere. Once you stop trusting evidence, any evidence, then all bets are off. And Donald Trump is a moron. Use your eyes.

David:
People have doubts about global warming because the information and predictions Gore and climatologists provided was wrong. The greatest threat to science is bad science, not Republicans or Christians.

Doug:
That is completely backwards. First, Al Gore is not a scientist. Second, you are not a climatologist. Third, science makes predictions, and refines them over time. Climatology continues to make better, and more dire predictions. Some Republicans and Christians have politicized science.

David:
As has Obama, Gore, and a lot of Democrats. Climatologist certainly need to do some serious refining.

You assume that Trump is a moron, and probably Bush, Reagan, and every other Republican because they're Republicans. And you probably assume that all Democratic presidents were intellectually superior, because you are also a Democrat. That's bias, pure and simple.

Doug:
You assume too much. Trump is a moron because he is an ignorant person who thinks he can be a politician without any experience. If Reagan were running today, he'd be seen as a genius. And probably a Democrat. Please don't argue with what you assume I believe! I think we can argue enough on actual points of disagreement.

But I don't want you to deny that people believe crazy things that have nothing to do with science! I want you to agree that people should not base their opinion on what politicians think, one way or the other. I want you to agree that if you believe that the Earth is flat and new, then you aren't listening to science. I want you to agree that ignoring evidence can be dangerous.

David:
Ah, evidence.

Evidence indicates Hillary Clinton had top secret documents on an unsecured server, in direct conflict with the law. There is evidence that climatologists don't understand most of the variables involved with climate change, and yet they insist they know everything.  There is evidence that transgenders are troubled people who are at high risk of suicide, not because they are not accepted, but because they are seriously and psychologically troubled. But you choose to ignore all of that evidence. Why? Because you have distrust in the origin of the data. I guess I do agree that makes you dangerous.

Doug:
For many people, believing that trans people kill themselves because they are bullied and rejected by society is a whole lot easier than believing that the Earth is 5,000 old. Why do you want to throw your hands up in the air and not see the difference between those two kinds of arguments? Why does it have to be a conspiracy?

David:
So now you're agreeing that not all data is equal. I suppose that's a step in the right direction.

I'll give you another easily understood example. If a drug company sponsors, and sets up a study on one of their drugs, and the study shows it performs miraculously, I'm sure you and I both would want an independent researcher to verify the results. If the data comes from a source you distrust, then the data isn't really evidence, is it?

Doug:
Wow... you are more cynical about big pharma than I am! Which scares me. No, I would consider that as evidence. But opinions are not made on single experiments, or single sets of data. Science does not work like big pharma, even though big pharma is supposed to be based on science.

David:
You're showing your  anti-Christian bias again. I've read the Bible a few times, and I've never interpreted anything to indicate a flat Earth. I don't know any Christians who do.

Doug:
I don't think you can accuse me of showing my bias when you extrapolate from yourself and your friends to all Christians. I'm sure you and your friends can interpret the Bible in a "normal" way. So when the Bible says "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so" you can interpret that any way you wish. But some take that literally, and build a theory literally on top of it. The fact that there is no evidence for a "firmament" (let alone a flat Earth) does not sway their beliefs.

David:
I think I can speak for Christians better than you. Especially since you've admitted before you have never bothered to read the Bible, the most widely read book ever written.

Who said Republicans don't believe in climate change? Republicans, and many other thinking people, have good reason to doubt the global warming proponents, because almost 50 years of predictions have failed. You're projecting your beliefs onto Christians and Republicans, because you want to believe they are somehow inferior to you. You need them to be stupid and moronic, because if they are thoughtful, educated people, then maybe some of the things you believe (or don't believe) might be wrong.

Doug:
Well, that is sad that you actually believe that I would think that. Why would you want to discuss these things each week if you thought your brother thought that you and your friends were inferior to him? For the record, Trump is a moron, but I don't think that many of the flat/new Earth people or Electric Geology people are stupid. Rather, I think that they have been let down by the system. I see a lot of curiosity and thirst for knowledge. Consider this young man's description of the patterns that he is "discovering" in Geology:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TupvyWLatcI

This young man is not stupid. He is passionate, but uneducated about Geology. There are patterns everywhere, and humans are hardwired to see them. That is what science shows. And we all do it. But most of us can recognize it for what it is: just because it looks like those left turn signals are somehow synchronized, doesn't mean that they are. If you believe there is a secret mechanism that science doesn't want you to know about, then you begin to distrust all science. Sometimes "people have eyes" can lead you astray.

I believe that there are those that would attempt to prey upon such distrust of science for political gain. You don't have to believe me; I wondered what you believe, which is why I asked you the question. But you don't need to undermine others to explain why one might believe that some of this is politically motivated, by at least some.

David:
Why do we distrust politicians? Because they continually lie to us. If you're a scientist, the last person you want to jump on your bandwagon is a politician. Smart, thinking people will have a least some doubt about your work because of the association. Politics and science just don't mix.

Doug:
I agree! So I suggest that when a politician on either side of the aisle attempts to "use science" you should just ignore the politician. But, please, don't ignore the science.

Foreign Policy in the Age of ISIS

David:
I thought we might branch out into an area where neither of us has expertise, and talk a little about America's goals, or role, in the world today. With ISIS, the rules of war have changed. They aren't a country (more like a cancer),  so what is the end goal in our battle with them? Interestingly, Hillary Clinton seems to be more of a hawk than the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald Trump.

What do you see as our role in the world today, what should be our foreign policy goals, and how do we reach them?

Doug:
Like any good citizen of the world, we need to listen to our allies and work together. We should never again be reactionary; we should spend our lives, money, and energy in productive ways. We should not always look to the "hawks" to solve our problems, but embrace diplomacy where we can. We should stand-up for injustice, even if it doesn't make us money. We should use available resources, including the United Nations, and other international organizations.

David:
And the whole world should get along together and sing Kumbaya at least once a day. Unfortunately, as history shows us, there are more countries in the world bent on acquiring territory and resources from others than there are countries like us.

Doug:
What? That sounds scary! There are more countries that want to attack other countries than don't? No, that just isn't true. Perhaps catching your breath and singing a little might indeed give everyone a bit of calmness. I know the last 8 years have been different: we haven't invaded a single country!

David:
Perhaps you need to watch the news more. And pay attention to the "world news" section. In the past ten years there have been wars all over the world, particularly in Africa and the Middle East. Darfur, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Lebanon, Niger, and Mali are only a few of the conflicts and wars that have occurred and are still ongoing. Did you not hear that Russia invaded Ukraine? Have you not heard that China is taking over the South China Sea, despite the protests of multiple other countries in the region? The Palestinians continue to shower Israel with rockets on a daily basis. Iran continues to thumb their nose at the UN and the rest of the world as they continue testing ballistic missiles in clear violation of UN resolutions. The world is a scary place. That's reality. And, it's history.

But what about ISIS? They are religious zealots following an extreme brand of Islam. Their own words lay out a plan to dominate the world. Their resources appear to be limited, but they certainly have enough supporters to continue to wreak havoc in the Middle-East, Paris, San Bernadino, and the rest of the world. Should we follow the Trump plan, and let those in the Middle-East deal with ISIS, or do we contribute to the fight, as Hillary Clinton suggests?

Doug:
What to do about ISIS? I have no idea. We should elect responsible people who will surround themselves with knowledgeable people, and do responsible things in light of specific circumstances. We have our own share of Religious Zealots right here in the good ole US of A. We just need to minimize the damage they can do all over the world.

David:
I think your first sentence is almost exactly what Donald Trump said he'd do. You're still talking in great, fluffy, happy-sounding words, that have little to no basis in reality. You're back to singing Kumbaya.

You sound as though you'd be happy just trusting the military to take whatever actions in the world they deem "necessary". That's an unusual position for one who leans as far left as you do, and feels all of our other wars were illegitimate.

Apparently you think Christians in this country voicing their beliefs is more dangerous, or on the same level as Radical Muslims beheading Christians because they aren't Muslims? Your theory of relativity falls well short of reality. Arguing that you don't want someone with a penis changing in the women's locker room with your  daughter is not the same as killing transgender and gay people because they violate Sharia law..

What about Russian aggression? Putin walked through half of Ukraine, and continues to work to destabilize the rest of Ukraine. He's invaded a sovereign country. Should we take a harder line against him? Should we lead the UN in taking a stronger stance against Russian aggression? Or should we "reset" our relationship with Putin? President Obama has made many idle threats, without any substance. This has encouraged Russia, Iran, and China to do whatever they want in the world, to benefit themselves at the expense of other free nations. Putin has indicated numerous times he'd like to re-assemble the former USSR. To do this, he'll have to take over several other countries. If we don't stop him, who will? Greece? Spain? Any of the other socialist countries of Europe who now can't even pay their own debts?

Trump may be able to negotiate with Putin, but he intends to follow the Teddy Roosevelt gameplay: Speak softly and carry a big stick. Clinton is also inclined to use our military to force Putin to back down.

Doug:
We need to be consistent across the planet. That will help give the world stability.

David:
But all conflicts are not the same. In fact, almost all of them are very unique in their causes, and the motivations of the players. Each individual conflict takes a unique approach to solve. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to stabilizing the world. But it does take a fair and militarily strong authority to step in to stabilize these areas. That authority has traditionally been the US. Along with our NATO allies, we've largely kept the world peace since the 1940's.

Doug:
Your world view is filled with false dichotomies. Can we realistically work towards world peace? Yes. Does being consistent mean that we treat all conflicts the same? No. Perhaps you see attempting to live in a better, peaceful world as just fluffy sounding words that should be ridiculed. Perhaps it is easier to just do what humans have always done throughout history: fight. Or, perhaps we can actually work towards peaceful coexistence. How do we work towards peace? By electing rational, thinking people who understand history, but also can lead the world to a place we have never been: a peaceful place worthy of our children's future.

David:
You have never spoken truer words. Well, at least partly. Human nature is to fight. There will never be a time where everyone will get along peacefully. We can hope for that end, but to pretend it already exists denies history and human nature. Even in Socialist countries, those in charge ultimately become corrupt. Communism has led to more deaths in the world than any other ideology. Just like Orwell's book "Animal Farm", some animals see themselves as more equal than others, and when in power, we have seen "rational, thinking" people become just as corrupt and power hungry as every other dictator through history. There will always be "haves" and "have-nots".

Without a strong influence from the US in the world, bad actors and evil people will continue to advance against those who are weaker. To make the world a safer and peaceful place for our children, we have to exert our influence across the globe, as a city of light on a hill, to cower the darkness. Otherwise, history shows us the darkness will always try to conquer where it can.

I'm surprised that you don't have a better analysis of US foreign policy. Of course, President Obama has done just about everything he can to utterly destroy our ability to maintain a superior and able military (and I assume he's your model of a "rational, thinking" man).  By doubling our national debt, and expanding entitlement programs, while at the same time pushing manufacturing jobs to other countries, we have little cash to maintain the military, and fewer factories to build equipment if we should need those resources. While he says he believes in American exceptionalism, he doesn't believe  in any of the things that created American  exceptionalism. He's big on rhetoric (like drawing red lines, and saying things like "Assad must go"), but lacks any actions to back those words. You said you wanted rational, thinking people who understand history to be in charge. Well, Obama got the sitting-around-and-doing-a-lot-of-thinking part down.

Well, either of the candidates likely to be our next president appears ready to take a much stronger and assertive stance on the world stage. The Donald says he will make NATO members contribute more, and will invest more resources in the military, and Hillary looks poised to flex American muscle around the globe.  They both understand that the best way to avoid war in this complex world is to  follow examples of great civilizations and minds through history: You achieve peace through strength. 

To quote George Washington:  "If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known, that we are at all times ready for War."

To be prepared for War is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace."
President George Washington
first annual address to Congress, January 8, 1790

"To be prepared for War is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace."
President George Washington
first annual address to Congress, January 8, 1790

Do Universities Lack Ideological Diversity?

David:
There has been many news stories this year about increasing diversity on campuses across the country. But very little of the clamoring has been for a diversity of ideas or ideology. It seems their is an absolute lack of political diversity at universities, to the point that Donald Trump's name in chalk causes some students to run screaming in fear to their administrators.

Doug:
If you get your view of reality from particular evening news organizations, then you might think that. Diversity is a idea that many institutions of higher learning have committed to. But a commitment to diversity doesn't mean that an institution wants to equalize categories along every dimension. For example, most colleges don't ask about (or attempt to balance across) the political spectrum. They don't have to, because political ideology cuts across those dimensions that we are interested in diversifying, such as race and cultural representation.

David:
Then why are the numbers so skewed?

It's not the evening news that notes a complete lack of ideological diversity at universities. Reality is actually reality. The 2006 Politics of the American Professoriate Survey, conducted by sociologists Neil Gross and Solon Simmons,  found that only 3.6% of professors considered themselves as conservatives. A full 17.6% consider themselves to be outright Marxists. The others just settled for "liberal". Other studies have consistently found conservative educators to be a minority living in hiding, lest their political viewpoint lead to dismissal or failure to achieve tenure.

Doug:
No doubt that higher-educated people lean liberal. That isn't true in just colleges and universities---that is true across all higher-educated people. Why, indeed, is that so skewed? The more that one knows (across all disciplines), the more likely one is to be "liberal". But I don't think that merely uttering Trump's name causes fear in students. That is complete particular TV news drama. With a little fact-checking in the survey analysis that you mention (but didn't link to), I see the authors note that "self-identified Marxists are rare in academe today." In fact, they claim that "the number of moderates in academe appears to be growing." Universities hardly sound like scary places for reasonable people.

David:
Of course the numbers of moderates are growing. The study is asking professors to self-identify. If everyone around you is a liberal, and no one is conservative, you would believe that you are "middle-of-the-road" too. And if everyone thinks just like you do, you'd also believe everyone around you is "reasonable".

Doug:
So, we shouldn't trust these numbers? You can't pick and chose which data you want to believe. Either the study is flawed, or it isn't. You can't say that you believe the self-reporting conservatives, but not the self-reporting moderates, or the self-reporting liberals.

David:
The numbers are enormously skewed even with the self-reporting. That makes it all the more disturbing.

"Higher-educated" people may lean liberal, but that should be the case if everyone who goes to college is inundated by liberal-only ideology. What multiple studies actually show is that more people who go to college lean left, but also more people who don't finish high school lean left. Liberals have a slightly larger share at both ends of the spectrum. The bulk of the middle (high school diplomates and those with some college) are Republicans.

Doug:
Then, I can only conclude that high school makes people conservative. Where is the outrage that high schools don't have ideological diversity! That doesn't fit your particular narrative, I guess.

David:
Show me any data at all to support your conclusion, and I'll look at it. As it is, you're just diverting from the real discussion, which actually does have data.

In the book, Passing on the Right, authors Jon Shields and Joshua Dunn, political science professors at Claremont McKenna College, interviewed as many conservative professors as they could find. They describe professors insisting they conduct their interviews at locations miles away from the college to avoid anyone hearing the discussions, and describe some professors stating they had been hiding their views for decades because they feared being attacked, losing their jobs, or becoming pariahs on their campuses. Tenure doesn't protect you from ideological attacks.

Doug:
Tenure does indeed protect you from ideological attacks. Attempting to get tenure is not protected. But if they claimed that they had been "hiding their views for decades" then something is fishy (it usually only takes about 7 years to get tenure). With more fact-checking on this book, I see that it just came out in the last few weeks. I haven't read it yet, but the official description states: "Most conservative professors told them that the university is a far more tolerant place than its right-wing critics imagine. Many, in fact, first turned right in the university itself, while others say they feel more at home in academia than in the Republican Party." But maybe you heard about the book on a particular nightly news, and they accidently left out some details to make a good story, which also happens to be fake.

David:
I doubt you'd find the book interesting, because you've already determined the data doesn't exist, because you don't want it to exist.

The authors were only able to identify 153 conservative professors. They freely admit that their numbers are low, but also confess that they just couldn't find more conservatives in academia. It is not surprising to me that the professors who volunteered  they were conservative would be more outspoken than those who fear for their career. A full 30% of those brave enough to appear in the book hide their views for fear of retribution.  Pointing out that some professors did not feel threatened does not make the story "fake".  It makes it accurate. They go on to conclude that conservative academics are a "stigmatized minority" on college campuses.

And I'm not talking faculty attacks. I'm talking about the students themselves. We've discussed before how professors that don't tow the ideological line face protests from students that have been raised through the system to believe there is only one "right way" to think. This is a direct result of homogeneous ideology in their professors, and argues for a need for more exposure of these students to conservative thinkers.

You've said before that college is where students learn to think for themselves, and yet you are now defending the decision to totally dismiss ideological variation.

Doug:
Even at an all women's college, like Bryn Mawr College where I work, we can both be interested in representing certain kinds of diversity (income, race, culture, trans) while not interested in others (male-female, for example).

David:
Right. We want a really diverse-looking group of folks....who all think alike. It seems that differing viewpoints, that challenge students to actually think, would be something to strive for. In addition, it would diminish stereotypical bias towards conservatives and liberals alike.

Doug:
If there is one thing that colleges promote, it is creativity and free thinking. As I just mentioned, many of the conservatives interviewed in the book apparently became conservative at college. That is what thinking for oneself looks like.

David:
That comment made no sense.  Those conservatives became conservative because they refused to be brainwashed.

Doug:
I'm just quoting the book that you mentioned: "Many, in fact, first turned right in the university itself, while others say they feel more at home in academia than in the Republican Party."

David:
They saw how lopsided the faculty was, and became conservative despite the lack of ideological diversity. You're claiming that 153 professors balances the rest of all faculty in America? How do you promote creativity and free thinking when you eliminate any dissenting or challenging debate? Did you ever read the book "1984"?

John Hasnas, a professor at Georgetown's McDonough School of Business, noted that Yale is spending $50 million, and Brown is spending $100 million to hire a "more diverse" faculty. He has served on the faculty search committee at Georgetown for more than 20 years.  He notes that the committee has never been instructed to look for political or ideological diversity. Instead, the chairman of the committee once stated that no libertarian candidates would be considered. Sometimes the administration would change the description of the position if the best resumes were coming from applicants with right-of-center viewpoints. If applicants were associated with any conservative groups, their applications would be tossed.

Doug:
One professor on a committee can't dictate such practices. So that doesn't sound like reliable information. Particular evening news again? But I appreciate that institutions of higher learning sometimes have tough choices to make. For example, do you let a person give a talk at your university that is filled with talk demeaning others? It could very well depend who the vitriol is aimed at. For example, if someone gave a talk about how evil hedge-fund managers are, I doubt anyone would be opposed to that. Why not? I think hedge-fund managers can take care of themselves. On the other hand, attack a group that has historically been oppressed, and you'll have a different outcome: the institution probably won't want to be involved in that.

David:
If the committee chairman is the one who selects candidates to be evaluated, then he certainly can dictate the ideology of the candidates.

Doug:
No "he" can't. I've been on many academic hiring committees, and that is not true.

David:
I see. John Hasnas is a liar because your experience has not been the same as his. And when did you serve on the Georgetown search committee? Why did you put "he" in quotes? The chairman of the committee at Georgetown, which is what "we" are talking about was a man.

You're claiming that minority groups can't take care of themselves. You've just stated that minorities and women need someone to protect them from hearing dissenting viewpoints from the liberal mantra. Don't you see how wrong that thinking is? Minorities and women can certainly think for themselves, and defend their views.  Perhaps you should allow some conservatives to actually visit and speak to the students. If you actually meet them, you might just realize they aren't vicious monsters and stereotypical racists cartoons. You're regurgitating MSNBC language that says conservative views are demeaning towards others. That isn't true at all. Conservatives may have different solutions to the problems we face, but to claim they're demeaning is biased and wrong.

Doug:
Hedge-fund managers already have a platform to speak from. Their money ensures that. Colleges and universities make sure that those that have been historically oppressed do have a place to express their viewpoints. Do you see how right that thinking is? Colleges and universities work hard to make sure that voices that don't otherwise have a place can be heard. But no one typically gets to speak (regardless of any criteria) if they demean another group. But your hand-wringing sounds like you are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, except on fabricated television news dramas.

David:
In stereotypical fashion, you're equating all conservatives with hedge-fund managers. You need to get out and meet more conservatives.  In fact, the best known hedge-fund manager, Bernie Madoff, was a Democrat. It may surprise you, but conservatives don't bite.

Doug:
But that is my point: Bernie Madoff (or any hedge fund manager) would probably not be given a space to talk. He can buy his own station, or buy any advertising he wants. Colleges and universities are much more interested in making a space for those that can't buy their way into a conversation.

David:
You mean someone like Bill Gates? Oh, wait! Bill regularly gets invited to speak at numerous colleges and universities. What could be the difference? Ah, yes, it's his approved ideology.

You appear to endorse the idea universities should be a "safe-space" for only liberal thought, paid for with taxpayer dollars or student loans, and conservatives should have to find a different off-campus forum to share their views. That concurs with my entire argument. Conservatives are not welcomed, and are actually discriminated against in academia.

It appears your viewpoint is shared across the higher-educational profession. In a letter to the Wall Street Journal, Rosa Dierks, PhD, describes how, after she completed her doctorate in political science, she applied for a position at her Alma Mater. She was denied a tenure-track position because she was a Republican.

Doug:
I'm sure that is what she said, and I'm sure that that is what she thinks. She didn't get hired, so it must be that they didn't like her politics! Sorry, but your third-hand story about somebody not getting hired is not a very strong case for an argument.

David:
She stated the chairman of the search committee told her that liberal academics "hire their own, because this is the only place where they can thrive and advance". You appear to be making that same argument. Successful conservatives must fend for themselves, and their ideas are not wanted at a university. You are claiming that they have a voice somewhere else (where that is, you don't say), so they don't deserve a place at the university table. You are also claiming once again, that you can decide if someone's speech "demeans", and therefore can silence someone before they even speak. In the context of this discussion, you are arguing that there should not be conservative ideology represented on campus, which concurs with my initial contention.

Dr. Dierks did get hired. She accepted a non-tenured position, because she really wanted to teach.

Doug:
This is only true if the conservative speech you imagine is actually demeaning. If so then it (like all other demeaning speech) probably won't find many pulpits at colleges and universities to spew it. If creating a tolerant environment with which to discuss ideas is seen as "liberal" then, well, ok then.

David:
Now you're talking like a politician. "I welcome conservative speech, but I won't tolerate demeaning speech, which is also known as conservative speech."

Doug:
I never said that "conservative speech" was demeaning. That is you projecting. I don't even know what "conservative speech" or "liberal speech" would be.

David:
Here's a nice article about a study of  this issue within the social-psychology sciences:

http://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/01/07/new-study-finds-conservative-social-psychologists/

The comment section to this article is particularly enlightening, with quite a few thoughtful responses from both the left and the right.

The reason I feel it's important to work to correct the deficiency of conservative thought in higher education, is the divide between liberal  academia and non-academic conservatism makes it more difficult to find accord for issues like immigration, foreign policy, and even climate change.  The absence of conservative thought means potentially important questions may not be asked and possible answers  to serious problems won't be tested or even proposed. If a goal of education is truly to challenge prejudice,  then a balancing conservative presence is essential.

Doug:
If the problem you are trying to solve is that not enough people in an academic meeting raise their hands when asked if they are conservative, and you want to solve that by hiring different academics, then there is your problem. People can switch political affiliations in an instant, if they are given a reasonable alternative. Academics (whatever their political leanings) are smart. That is why they got hired. But the current conservative brand does not appear to be very inclusive. Everything is a litmus test for being a conservative. Smart people tend to have a fine-grained set of beliefs and values. And smart people come from diverse populations. Conservatives need to show these smart people a better alternative. Academics aren't afraid to raise their hand.

Diversity is one of the most important aspects of any group, in my opinion. You achieve diversity from getting people from different backgrounds, ethnicities, geographical locations, classes, etc. Political affiliation can change from moment to moment. If a diverse, smart group of people come to agreement on some aspect, then that is great! There are plenty of other problems to solve. There is no lack of ideological diversity on campus. There does seem to be a lack of ideological diversity in the Republican party. Fix that, and you'll get more academics raising their hand.

David:
Goodness gracious, Doug, your last comment says volumes. But not in the way I think you intended.

You deny any lack of ideological diversity on campus, despite multiple studies that state there is almost none.  You make a faulty argument that since only "smart" people are in academia, and there are no conservatives  in academia (which disproves your own claim there isn't a lack of diversity) , that conservatives are therefore not smart. (The word "smart" itself, is a biased word.) I believe you when you claim you don't know what conservative thought is, because you have not been exposed to it for decades. Then, you demand that Republicans (an ideological political group) need to change their ideology, but your ideological group (the Democrat Party) is just fine, although it also lacks ideological diversity.  You are proving my point.

Doug:
If conservatives only represent one ideology, then there is your problem.

David:
Definition of Ideology (from the Cambridge Dictionary): a set of beliefs or principles, especially one on which a ​political system, party, or organization is based.  Perhaps the English language is your problem....

The lack of ideological diversity on campus reinforces  and bias to the point you don't even realize you are reinforcing stereotypes and bias. You're bias isn't "fine-grained", it's ingrained. You  excuse and even support the lack of ideological  diversity within academia, but at the same time, you claim diversity is the most important aspect of any group.  And that, my dear Big Brother, is the real problem.