• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Liberal intolerance in education

sailordeac said:
Ph as the most conservative person in his department? Sad, but probably true. This will tell you a lot about intellectual diversity on college campuses today.
Click to expand...

I bet you'll find a lot of conservatives in the math and business schools. The reason you won't find as many in science departments is the evangelicals have major problems with science.

Why don't the dozens or hundreds of faith based colleges count? How many liberals do you think you'll find at Liberty? BYU?

Here's a major factor that shows the weakness of this non-study of a fake issue. According to Pew, in 2014 on 23% of Americans identify themselves as Republicans (http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/). Thus, you start out with a potential pool that maxes out at about 1 in 4 people.

If only 25% of those who identify themselves as Republicans consider themselves to be moderates rather than evangelicals, you've dropped the pool to 1 in 6.

We haven't even looked at the skew of graduates and post-grads in those fields. Even a small shrinking of this pool would mean you are down to a top end of 1 in 8 or 1 in 10 before you even start the hiring process.

If you move from sociology and anthropology to the provable sciences, do you think that climate change deniers should be equal to those who believe in it? Or should it be reflective of the field in which 97+% of actual scientists believe in climate change? Should universities be teaching what is accepted or give a radical fringe (much of which has been funded by self-interest not science) equal status?

Should science departments be forced to teach creationism as science?

In sociology should equal status be given to adherents of policies like the Bell Curve?
 
PhDeac said:
Conservatives deride intellectuals yet complain about "intellectual diversity."
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair not actual "intellectuals", just people who feel the need to anoint themselves as such.
 
PhDeac said:
Black? At conception
Evangelical Christian? As a kid
Sociology professor? 2005
Click to expand...

you are black before you are a human? I would have thought you would have said when a woman chooses I am human or at birth?
 
The conservative war on education has admittedly been one of the more baffling trends of the past few years. As a party it doesn't make much long-term sense, even if as a party leader you think that your best chances of continuing to stay in power are to keep people stupid. The alternative is that people in the party don't even realize they're being anti-intellectual and anti-education in many cases, which is probably even sadder.
 
A McCrory cabinet appointee came around to speak to one of my civic groups a couple months ago. He was there to sell the educational facilities bond package that got passed in the primary. The civic group is relatively conservative, so I guess he felt he was in a safe space. He kept repeating that this bond package was only going to pay for STEM and health care educational facilities, not humanities, and that "we're not going to be making any more anthropologists!" It was supposed to be his big laugh line I guess. I sat there with my history major/anthro minor which has led to a nice successful career thankyouverymuch, and just kind of took it in. It's not enough for GOP operatives to try and drum up support for spending on education, they have to gratuitously shit on the humanities. Apparently Republican voters have to be assured that any money they vote to spend won't be spent on anthropology. And doofuses like this NY times opinion writer wonder why not many Republicans are getting hired in humanities departments? The party has actively set itself up as the enemy of the humanities and misses no opportunity to throw shade on the value of what humanities scholars do.
 
Hear hear. I make a good living with my lowly History major as well.

It's time to call a spade a spade - the new "conservatism" in America is junk, co-opted by demagogues with an ill-defined agenda apparently driven by radio/TV ratings which is highly successful. Very intelligent people in America subscribe to some horrible, ridiculous ideas (see McCrory quote above) that are flat wrong and bad for America (and themselves) and leave the rest of us scratching our heads.

And jhmd will tell us that the liberals want to tell everyone how to think....
 
Right. It makes no sense to complain that a field has no value then complain that people who also think it had no value don't have jobs in that field.
 
Four studies found that the proportion of professors in the humanities who are Republicans ranges between 6 and 11 percent, and in the social sciences between 7 and 9 percent.

Conservatives can be spotted in the sciences and in economics, but they are virtually an endangered species in fields like anthropology, sociology, history and literature. One study found that only 2 percent of English professors are Republicans (although a large share are independents).

In contrast, some 18 percent of social scientists say they are Marxist. So it’s easier to find a Marxist in some disciplines than a Republican.
Click to expand...

So in recap:

Humanities (History, Geography, Languages, Law, Politics, Literature, Performing Arts, Philosophy, Religion, Visual Arts): 6%-11%

Social Sciences: (Anthropology, Communication, Economics, Education, Geography, History, Law, Linguistics, Poli-Sci, Psychology, Sociology): 7%-9%

English: 2%

I realize there are some fields that would clearly trend liberal, (and here comes the snark replies) but English is not a liberal stranglehold. Neither is politics, religion, law, geography, or economics. The admission by PH that he is the MOST conservative member of his department is simply more of the same. Mocking the realities of a higher education system is a sad approach for anyone that truly cares about diversity of opinion. Again - you have to look no further than this board as a microcosm of what happens in the nation at large. There are 10 aggressive, condescending liberal posters on this board for every conservative that engages in the same behavior. A little self awareness would go a long ways. When you wonder why Conservatives around the country have given up on any sort of open forum, it is because when the forum is open it is often used as a whipping post for anyone that doesn't conform to the liberal status quo. See any controversial topic on this board as a great example.
 
Wrangor said:
So in recap:

Humanities (History, Geography, Languages, Law, Politics, Literature, Performing Arts, Philosophy, Religion, Visual Arts): 6%-11%

Social Sciences: (Anthropology, Communication, Economics, Education, Geography, History, Law, Linguistics, Poli-Sci, Psychology, Sociology): 7%-9%

English: 2%

I realize there are some fields that would clearly trend liberal, (and here comes the snark replies) but English is not a liberal stranglehold. Neither is politics, religion, law, geography, or economics. The admission by PH that he is the MOST conservative member of his department is simply more of the same. Mocking the realities of a higher education system is a sad approach for anyone that truly cares about diversity of opinion. Again - you have to look no further than this board as a microcosm of what happens in the nation at large. There are 10 aggressive, condescending liberal posters on this board for every conservative that engages in the same behavior. A little self awareness would go a long ways. When you wonder why Conservatives around the country have given up on any sort of open forum, it is because when the forum is open it is often used as a whipping post for anyone that doesn't conform to the liberal status quo. See any controversial topic on this board as a great example.
Click to expand...

Proving the theory that I do the work of 10 Shoos.
 
"Diversity of opinion" isn't a goal in academia because opinions aren't a goal.

And again Wrangor, why would a group of people who don't believe social science and humanities have value be equally represented in those fields.
 
To be fair there are far more liberals in the professorial pool to start with. Most four-year colleges require professors to have a Ph.D I would imagine and a recent Pew Study shows that 54 percent of Americans overall with a post-graduate degree have political views that are liberal, 22 percent have political views that are mixed, and only 24 percent have conservative views.

Kind of a circle in my opinion. Do people who have post-graduate degrees tend to be more liberal because with increased knowledge and education you become more liberal, do people who have these degrees self-select, is it a mixture? Simply stated: if you know more are you more likely to be liberal or are you more likely to go to get a graduate degree if you're already liberal (or a mix)?

This also doesn't get into the core beliefs or details of the conservative ideology at least specific to my political science major. With the exception of some areas of political theory, I'm thinking back to what would have even been taught in a modern-day political science course about the underlying tenets or origins of political conservatism in America in 2016. I didn't take an intro-level American politics course at Wake so I'm not sure what the focus was on there (or if this is even something that gets into it).
 
Wrangor said:
So in recap:

Humanities (History, Geography, Languages, Law, Politics, Literature, Performing Arts, Philosophy, Religion, Visual Arts): 6%-11%

Social Sciences: (Anthropology, Communication, Economics, Education, Geography, History, Law, Linguistics, Poli-Sci, Psychology, Sociology): 7%-9%

English: 2%
Click to expand...

I'mma need political leanings of applicants before that means anything.
 
PhDeac said:
"Diversity of opinion" isn't a goal in academia because opinions aren't a goal.

And again Wrangor, why would a group of people who don't believe social science and humanities have value be equally represented in those fields.
Click to expand...

Conservatives don't believe in English, Econ, religion, or politics? You are painting some broad strokes. Which is precisely what the article proposed.

In addition you state: 'diversity of opinion isn't a goal'. So what you are saying is that you want the best opinion regardless of other factors. PH starting to Sound dangerously close to your boy JH.

I mean who would want diversity of opinion in politics where the 'truth' is so readily seen. Or in communication. Or in sociology. I mean. Those disciplines are basically 1+1=2 right?
 
Last edited:
First of you assume that all the studies in the group that is listed at 7-9% have that rate in their field. Rather than being simply an average.

As more people are jumping on my bandwagon of "how many conservatives apply?" and "how do their credentials compare?" Do you think a school will think a Bob Jones degree and as equal to UVA or Harvard?

Wrangor hasn't addressed what the percentage of liberal professors at schools like Bob Jones, Liberty, BYU, etc. are.

That opinion piece was lazy.
 
Wrangor said:
Conservatives don't believe in English, Econ, religion, or politics? You are painting some broad strokes. Which is precisely what the article proposed.

In addition you state: 'diversity of opinion isn't a goal'. So what you are saying is that you want the best opinion regardless of other factors. PH starting to Sound dangerously close to your boy JH.

I mean who would want diversity of opinion in politics where the 'truth' is so readily seen. Or in communication. Or in sociology. I mean. Those disciplines are basically 1+1=2 right?
Click to expand...


This is so dumb I can't tell if it's straight trolling. Conservatives don't believe in the scientific method and social inquiry. They don't believe in the basic process of acquiring knowledge. Modern conservativism is dogmatic. You can't convince conservatives that their opinions aren't absolute truth even if their opinions aren't backed up by any empirical knowledge.

"Diversity of opinion" isn't important because scholars aren't simply peddling their opinions. Sure research interests are informed by one's personal experiences but it's also formed by theory and the research of others. What value would a conservative who dismisses anthropology as a way of learning about the world bring to an anthropology department? Diversity within a social science field is found in the methods and approaches they use to address a wide variety of topics.

To numbers' point, why would a Republican finish four years of undergrad, then go to school for another 4-8 years to study a field they believe is BS in order to become an expert in that field?

Wrangor, you may as well be asking why their aren't more vegan cattle ranchers. Your premise is ridiculous.
 
Wow. That is an amazing post PH.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Take your own approach on this thread as an example, Wrangor.

You read an op-ed that confirmed your bias on a topic that you know very little about personally or professionally. You could have used an inquiry based approach to learning more about the topic. (e.g. "I just read this op-ed about discrimination against conservatives in academia. Has there been any research on this topic? How does this jive with the personal experiences of professors on the boards?) Instead you posted it and preemptively dismissed any possible disagreement with its premise.

Anybody who uses that approach would not do well in academia.
 
He still hasn't addressed the fact that one of the three people held up as a an example of conservative intellectual has rejected most of the major conservative social issues that Wrangor seems to think are holding back conservatives in academia (spoiler alert: it's not because conservative views on social issues are unpopular, it's because they're not backed by reality).

Like I seriously don't understand what your point is Wrangor. You say there is a lack of intellectual diversity in academia. Do you think science departments should be hiring evolution deniers and climate change deniers for the sake of diversity? Even if the "opinions" they are espousing are categorically false?
 
Yeah I mean in a 2014 Pew poll, only 21% of Republicans believed that evolution occurred "due to natural processes." Only 43% of Republicans believed that any sort of evolution had occurred and 48% believed humans have always existed in their present form. These numbers were actually a decrease from a 2009 poll for Republicans so that's kind of sad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top