The Culture of the Smug White Liberal

[PhDeac]

Can you think of any facets of professional academia that are discouraging towards conservatives? Also, what goes on during a typical college experience that lends to more liberal (vs conservative) college students pursuing a career in academia?

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk

Depends on the field. I'll answer for mine.

Discouraging? Research and use of the scientific method. Having to read works from a variety of perspectives. Day 1 requires an admission there are broader structural forces at play beyond someone's individual control.

Typical experience? Being a poor grad student. Having to admit you don't know everything.

I knew conservatives in grad school but they usually weren't in social science.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

I would like to eliminate the "anti-intellectualism" motivation for the liberal skew of academia, but conservatives don't offer a more rational rebuttal than hiring discrimination.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk

 

[knowell]

Breaking News - Smug white liberal UNC professor demsplains why most professors are Democrats

-trigger warning for evolution and climate change deniers

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/opinion/article97532662.html

Article in a nutshell: We don't actively search for Democrats, we just hire people with our same views. Since our viewpoints are obviously correct, it would degrade the conversation to allow opposing viewpoints.

 

[jhmd2000]

Depends on the field. I'll answer for mine.

Discouraging? Research and use of the scientific method. Having to read works from a variety of perspectives. Day 1 requires an admission there are broader structural forces at play beyond someone's individual control.

Typical experience? Being a poor grad student. Having to admit you don't know everything.

I knew conservatives in grad school but they usually weren't in social science.

This is so good.

 

[PhDeac]

So science departments shouldn't hire people with the "same view" that science is a valid way to acquire knowledge?

 

[knowell]

So science departments shouldn't hire people with the "same view" that science is a valid way to acquire knowledge?

Are you really this dense or more do you just prefer to make stupid arguments for sport?

 

[jhmd2000]

So science departments shouldn't hire people with the "same view" that science is a valid way to acquire knowledge?

I don't question your department's ability to hire people with the same views. The audacity of saying that other people have a problem seeing things from a different perspectives is comical coming from a place where conservatives need not apply. What percentage of the faculty in your department fits the contemporary definition of a political conservative?

 

[PhDeac]

Are you really this dense or more do you just prefer to make stupid arguments for sport?

That's the best question I could ask in response to your dense reading of the article.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

So you few conservatives are certain that the liberal skew in the academic profession is due to biased hiring practices? You don't have any other theories as to the reason for the discrepancy? You believe that there are as many conservative candidates as liberal?

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk

 

[ImTheCaptain]

The idea that hiring in academia, especially the sciences, is based on political preference is insane.

 

[knowell]

So you few conservatives are certain that the political bias in the Academic profession is due to biased hiring practices? You don't have any other theories as to the reason for the discrepancy? You believe that there are as many conservative candidates as liberal?

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk

I would imagine that the biggest reason is that there are few conservative applicants.

The Democrats have controlled academia for the past 50 years. Pubs neglected to see the importance of that and are now reaping the consequences. I don't know if it was a concerted effort on part of liberals or just natural gravitation of interest. Either way, the dialogue suffers.

 

[knowell]

That's the best question I could ask in response to your dense reading of the article.

I think you can do much better. I have seen the evidence. Sometimes you just don't try as hard, professor.

 

[PhDeac]

I would imagine that the biggest reason is that there are few conservative applicants.

The Democrats have controlled academia for the past 50 years. Pubs neglected to see the importance of that and are now reaping the consequences. I don't know if it was a concerted effort on part of liberals or just natural gravitation of interest. Either way, the dialogue suffers.

This is part of the problem. You and presumably other conservatives/libertarians see this as an "us vs. them" thing and about control. Instead, it should be about education and seeking knowledge.

Over the last 50 years, the anti-intellectual strain of conservationism has gotten stronger. There's no room for evidence-based learning. The party line is to deny any evidence that contradicts existing beliefs. That's not going to fly in academia.

 

[DeaconSig]

I would imagine that the biggest reason is that there are few conservative applicants.

The Democrats have controlled academia for the past 50 years. Pubs neglected to see the importance of that and are now reaping the consequences. I don't know if it was a concerted effort on part of liberals or just natural gravitation of interest. Either way, the dialogue suffers.

Not according to jh. They are being rejected from ever getting jobs, the legions of poor, conservative sociologists that now roam the streets, homeless and alone.

 

[jhmd2000]

This is part of the problem. You and presumably other conservatives/libertarians see this as an "us vs. them" thing and about control. Instead, it should be about education and seeking knowledge.

Over the last 50 years, the anti-intellectual strain of conservationism has gotten stronger. There's no room for evidence-based learning. The party line is to deny any evidence that contradicts existing beliefs. That's not going to fly in academia.

88 professors at....I can't remember which school...Had no problem ignoring evidence that wrongly accused athletes were demonstrably innocent because it fit there narrative. This childish behavior cost their school a fortune. How many were fired? Gtfoh with your high horse about evidence-based learning

 

[knowell]

This is part of the problem. You and presumably other conservatives/libertarians see this as an "us vs. them" thing and about control. Instead, it should be about education and seeking knowledge.

Over the last 50 years, the anti-intellectual strain of conservationism has gotten stronger. There's no room for evidence-based learning. The party line is to deny any evidence that contradicts existing beliefs. That's not going to fly in academia.

I really don't think this is accurate. Their are certainly very uneducated people on both sides. The right tends to be more religious and there may be some in this camp that reject science if it conflicts with their religion, but this is not a majority. Very few candidates for higher education teachers would fall in this category.

Libs like to conflate evolution which is accepted science with anthropomorphic global warming (which is not). Changing the name to Climate Change is an attempt to win the argument without winning the science.

 

[RJKarl]

You're right only about 97% of scientists believe in climate change and none of those who don't work for companies that create the problem.

Climate change is accepted as scientific fact.

 

[PhDeac]

I really don't think this is accurate. Their are certainly very uneducated people on both sides. The right tends to be more religious and there may be some in this camp that reject science if it conflicts with their religion, but this is not a majority. Very few candidates for higher education teachers would fall in this category.

Libs like to conflate evolution which is accepted science with anthropomorphic global warming (which is not). Changing the name to Climate Change is an attempt to win the argument without winning the science.

I'm not sure what that has to do with my point. Could you explain further?

 

[knowell]

I'm not sure what that has to do with my point. Could you explain further?

Your point about an "anti-intellectual" strain. Fits both sides if you look at the least educated and those who have little interest in becoming educated.

 

[knowell]

You're right only about 97% of scientists believe in climate change and none of those who don't work for companies that create the problem.

Climate change is accepted as scientific fact.

Day late and a dollar short on this much debunked talking point.