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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!