Post by Optimus on Jan 3, 2017 20:31:11 GMT -5
I posted this elsewhere but thought it was an interesting topic and maybe someone here might agree.
I could be wrong, though.
Back in the 90s, when I was much more conservative, I would hear a lot from Republicans about how colleges/universities were just "liberal indoctrination factories." Toward the mid and late 90s, I entered college and didn't really see that type of thing. As I got older, I became more liberal and started to feel that those people on the right who were making these claims were really all on the far right, so they were being unreasonably biased.
But, now as I've become more rational and centrist, I think maybe they had a point. Well, maybe not back then, but they might have a point these days.
I've had several conversations lately with friends, colleagues, and on the internet about politics, academia, and the need to emphasize critical thinking in the classroom. What sparked these conversations was a study from about a year ago by leading social psychologist Jonathan Haidt - a centrist liberal - showing that there is an enormously lop-sided ratio of Democrat to Republican professors in the humanities and social sciences. It's close to 20 Dems to every 1 Repub professor. Just 20 or 30 years ago, that ratio was closer to 5:1.
My more liberal friends usually retort something along the lines of, "Well, that's because Democrats are critical thinkers and Republicans are anti-science, closed-minded bigots. They're not open to facts and ideas or worldviews that are different from theirs." I find this response to be laughably ironic, given how authoritarian many of the Regressive Leftists are and how they engage in the exact same types of behavior.
Critical thinking doesn't guarantee that a person will accept an ideology from a particular side of the right/left political spectrum. And, there's no evidence that I'm aware of that demonstrates that Dems are better critical thinkers than Repubs. However, I think if it more people were taught critical thinking skills, it might cut down on some of the extremist ideology on the far right and the far left, and it might open up people on both sides to accepting factual arguments that go against their ideologies.
I don't feel that most universities and professors are pushing an overtly "liberal, socialist agenda" (I've heard that from some of my Repub friends too), even if some individual professors/departments definitely are. But I do feel that students are only getting one perspective from most of their humanities and social sciences professors (especially from Gender and Diversity Studies departments). As I said, twenty years ago, I would've said that Republicans were freaking out over nothing. However, now it's clear that they currently have a point. There's a growing trend of liberal intolerance in certain sectors of academia:
www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html
As to the claim of "socialists"...
The putative discrimination against Christian professors appears to me to be a symptom of the current uptick in Regressive Leftist hypocrisy (the "CTRL-Left"), where Islam is apparently the only religion that is "peaceful" and deserves to be protected against any and all perceived slights. If this type of hiring discrimination happened to just one Muslim professor, that college would be besieged by recreationally outraged SJW's furiously tweeting, hashtagging, and protesting, followed by the Southern Poverty Law Center knee-jerk labeling the university as a hate group. But, discriminating against Christians? That's totally acceptable because Christianity is horrible and closed-minded and the Bible is full of hate...or so they say.
Francis Collins helped map the human genome and is the director of the NIH, and is a devout Christian. What kinds of discoveries might we have missed out on if he hadn't been hired because he's a Christian?
In the STEM fields, overall, republican/democrat ratios are pretty close (well, closer). However, in the humanities and social sciences, it's absurdly lop-sided and that imbalance is growing at an alarming rate. In the 70s to 90s, the ratio was around 5:1, Democrat to Republican. Now, it's closer to 20:1, depending on the field you're looking at. The overall rate is 12:1, but it's only that low because Economics tends to be a lower ratio (4.5:1), which brings the average down.
econjwatch.org/articles/faculty-voter-registration-in-economics-history-journalism-communications-law-and-psychology
In my opinion, this is a bad thing because it makes many colleges de facto liberal echo chambers. Neither side, left or right, has a monopoly on the truth and neither side should be the arbiter of truth. Some of the smaller humanities disciplines are ballooning both in size and influence, and it is starting to creep into the social sciences. I used to think that my field of psychology would be able to weather the storm and stay objective, but even psychology seems to be growing more biased against Republicans. There is a distinct lack of diversity of perspectives in the social sciences, and it's getting worse:
www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-psychology-biased-republicans
heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/14/bbs-paper-on-lack-of-political-diversity/
In our department, I think it's something like 15:1 and it's pretty sad to me how much that one professor gets put down and looked down on for her political views by others in the department (faculty and students).
As much as I disagree with a lot of Republican/conservative ideology, that voice needs to be there to prevent the left from going too far left. And, admittedly, there are a few points that Republicans make that I agree with. But, just as the Republicans have the far-right authoritarian Tea Party and "ALT-Right," the Democrats also have a far-left authoritarian Regressives and "CTRL-Left."
The right tends to have anti-science views on certain topics (e.g., climate change and evolution) and the left does too (e.g., GMOs and nuclear power). There are also absurd extremes on both sides when it comes to social issues. However, there are many topics within the public sphere of debate that are not necessarily factual in nature (e.g., affirmative action, death penalty, immigration, etc.), which is why it's important that we allow these ideas to be debated, especially at the university level, and that requires that dissenting voices be allowed to be present and allowed to be heard. When there is only one ideological voice on campus, there's little debate to be had.
I wouldn't want one of my kids (if I had kids) going to Liberty University or Brigham Young, but I also wouldn't want them going to Oberlin or Brown for the same reason; extreme, authoritarian ideology. It's true that we need diversity of race, creed, and culture, but we also need diversity of thought, and that is something that seems to be becoming less and less a reality on many college campuses.
A stronger focus on teaching true critical thinking skills - from elementary school through college - would be a great step in the right direction for remedying some of these disparities.
I could be wrong, though.
Back in the 90s, when I was much more conservative, I would hear a lot from Republicans about how colleges/universities were just "liberal indoctrination factories." Toward the mid and late 90s, I entered college and didn't really see that type of thing. As I got older, I became more liberal and started to feel that those people on the right who were making these claims were really all on the far right, so they were being unreasonably biased.
But, now as I've become more rational and centrist, I think maybe they had a point. Well, maybe not back then, but they might have a point these days.
I've had several conversations lately with friends, colleagues, and on the internet about politics, academia, and the need to emphasize critical thinking in the classroom. What sparked these conversations was a study from about a year ago by leading social psychologist Jonathan Haidt - a centrist liberal - showing that there is an enormously lop-sided ratio of Democrat to Republican professors in the humanities and social sciences. It's close to 20 Dems to every 1 Repub professor. Just 20 or 30 years ago, that ratio was closer to 5:1.
My more liberal friends usually retort something along the lines of, "Well, that's because Democrats are critical thinkers and Republicans are anti-science, closed-minded bigots. They're not open to facts and ideas or worldviews that are different from theirs." I find this response to be laughably ironic, given how authoritarian many of the Regressive Leftists are and how they engage in the exact same types of behavior.
Critical thinking doesn't guarantee that a person will accept an ideology from a particular side of the right/left political spectrum. And, there's no evidence that I'm aware of that demonstrates that Dems are better critical thinkers than Repubs. However, I think if it more people were taught critical thinking skills, it might cut down on some of the extremist ideology on the far right and the far left, and it might open up people on both sides to accepting factual arguments that go against their ideologies.
I don't feel that most universities and professors are pushing an overtly "liberal, socialist agenda" (I've heard that from some of my Repub friends too), even if some individual professors/departments definitely are. But I do feel that students are only getting one perspective from most of their humanities and social sciences professors (especially from Gender and Diversity Studies departments). As I said, twenty years ago, I would've said that Republicans were freaking out over nothing. However, now it's clear that they currently have a point. There's a growing trend of liberal intolerance in certain sectors of academia:
www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html
The scarcity of conservatives seems to be driven in part by discrimination. One peer-reviewed study found that one-third of social psychologists admitted that if choosing between two equally-qualified job applicants, they would be inclined to discriminate against the conservative candidate.
Yancy, the black sociologist, who now teaches at the University of North Texas, conducted a survey in which up to 30 percent of academics said they would be less likely to support a job-seeker if they knew that the person was a Republican.
The discrimination becomes worse if the person is an evangelical Christian. According to Yancy's study, 59 percent of anthropologists and 53 percent of English professors would be less likely to hire someone they found out was an evangelical.
Yancy, the black sociologist, who now teaches at the University of North Texas, conducted a survey in which up to 30 percent of academics said they would be less likely to support a job-seeker if they knew that the person was a Republican.
The discrimination becomes worse if the person is an evangelical Christian. According to Yancy's study, 59 percent of anthropologists and 53 percent of English professors would be less likely to hire someone they found out was an evangelical.
As to the claim of "socialists"...
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.
The putative discrimination against Christian professors appears to me to be a symptom of the current uptick in Regressive Leftist hypocrisy (the "CTRL-Left"), where Islam is apparently the only religion that is "peaceful" and deserves to be protected against any and all perceived slights. If this type of hiring discrimination happened to just one Muslim professor, that college would be besieged by recreationally outraged SJW's furiously tweeting, hashtagging, and protesting, followed by the Southern Poverty Law Center knee-jerk labeling the university as a hate group. But, discriminating against Christians? That's totally acceptable because Christianity is horrible and closed-minded and the Bible is full of hate...or so they say.
Francis Collins helped map the human genome and is the director of the NIH, and is a devout Christian. What kinds of discoveries might we have missed out on if he hadn't been hired because he's a Christian?
In the STEM fields, overall, republican/democrat ratios are pretty close (well, closer). However, in the humanities and social sciences, it's absurdly lop-sided and that imbalance is growing at an alarming rate. In the 70s to 90s, the ratio was around 5:1, Democrat to Republican. Now, it's closer to 20:1, depending on the field you're looking at. The overall rate is 12:1, but it's only that low because Economics tends to be a lower ratio (4.5:1), which brings the average down.
econjwatch.org/articles/faculty-voter-registration-in-economics-history-journalism-communications-law-and-psychology
In my opinion, this is a bad thing because it makes many colleges de facto liberal echo chambers. Neither side, left or right, has a monopoly on the truth and neither side should be the arbiter of truth. Some of the smaller humanities disciplines are ballooning both in size and influence, and it is starting to creep into the social sciences. I used to think that my field of psychology would be able to weather the storm and stay objective, but even psychology seems to be growing more biased against Republicans. There is a distinct lack of diversity of perspectives in the social sciences, and it's getting worse:
www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-psychology-biased-republicans
heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/14/bbs-paper-on-lack-of-political-diversity/
In our department, I think it's something like 15:1 and it's pretty sad to me how much that one professor gets put down and looked down on for her political views by others in the department (faculty and students).
As much as I disagree with a lot of Republican/conservative ideology, that voice needs to be there to prevent the left from going too far left. And, admittedly, there are a few points that Republicans make that I agree with. But, just as the Republicans have the far-right authoritarian Tea Party and "ALT-Right," the Democrats also have a far-left authoritarian Regressives and "CTRL-Left."
The right tends to have anti-science views on certain topics (e.g., climate change and evolution) and the left does too (e.g., GMOs and nuclear power). There are also absurd extremes on both sides when it comes to social issues. However, there are many topics within the public sphere of debate that are not necessarily factual in nature (e.g., affirmative action, death penalty, immigration, etc.), which is why it's important that we allow these ideas to be debated, especially at the university level, and that requires that dissenting voices be allowed to be present and allowed to be heard. When there is only one ideological voice on campus, there's little debate to be had.
I wouldn't want one of my kids (if I had kids) going to Liberty University or Brigham Young, but I also wouldn't want them going to Oberlin or Brown for the same reason; extreme, authoritarian ideology. It's true that we need diversity of race, creed, and culture, but we also need diversity of thought, and that is something that seems to be becoming less and less a reality on many college campuses.
A stronger focus on teaching true critical thinking skills - from elementary school through college - would be a great step in the right direction for remedying some of these disparities.
)
