| |
| ▲ | WarmWash 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Sure https://www.aei.org/articles/partisan-professors/ I'd be shocked to find anyone surprised by this. | | |
| ▲ | cosmicgadget 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't think there is surprise that higher learning is associated with progressivism. I think the surprise is that someone believes its indicative of a giant conspiracy to exile conservative professors. | | |
| ▲ | try_the_bass 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I don't think there is surprise that higher learning is associated with progressivism. This is such a wildly elitist take. There's nothing intrinsically progressive about education, and to just declare so as fact is an excellent example of the exact kind of hostility that keeps non-progressives from being at home in higher education. > I think the surprise is that someone believes its indicative of a giant conspiracy to exile conservative professors. Is it really surprising that people who disagree with someone's politics would let that bleed over into their assessment of that person's professional abilities? We literally see this everywhere! People use a person's politics to discredit other aspects of their being all the time. Conservative professors are a rare breed in academia because non-conservatives in academia make it a very hostile workplace environment. | | |
| ▲ | cosmicgadget 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > just declare so as fact is an excellent example of the exact kind of hostility that keeps non-progressives from being at home in higher education. My friend, I simply stated a conclusion that is very commonly accepted, including by conservatives (hints: populism, religion, gender roles). You're welcome to dispute it but instead you declare it 'hostile'. If conservatives think this is offensive then I'll add that to the list of reasons they seem to avoid scenarios where their viewpoints are challenged (because that's how academia works). > Is it really surprising that people who disagree with someone's politics would let that bleed over into their assessment of that person's professional abilities? It certainly can. That's a long way from a coordinated conspiracy. And there are layers of insulation like wanting talent regardless of personality and avoiding legal issues. > Conservative professors are a rare breed in academia because non-conservatives in academia make it a very hostile workplace environment. Like stealing their lunch or lighting them up in a reply-all or what are we talking about here? Note I'm not freaking out that you "just declared something as a fact". | | |
| ▲ | try_the_bass 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > My friend, I simply stated a conclusion that is very commonly accepted, including by conservatives (hints: populism, religion, gender roles). People commonly accept that God exists, too, all across the political spectrum. That doesn't mean he actually does exist, though. "Commonly accepted" does not mean "is true". > It certainly can. That's a long way from a coordinated conspiracy. And there are layers of insulation like wanting talent regardless of personality and avoiding legal issues. No one in this thread is claiming a "coordinated conspiracy", just years and years of ever increasing political bias amongst faculty at universities in the U.S. C'mon, implicit bias training is supposed to teach you about how the negative impacts of persistent, low-grade bias accumulate over time, right? > Like stealing their lunch or lighting them up in a reply-all or what are we talking about here? Note I'm not freaking out that you "just declared something as a fact". Like not inviting them to conferences, social gatherings, networking opportunities, etc. Again, decades of small bias add up. I mean, isn't that the entire thesis of things like "systemic racism"? Why would that not also be true in other areas? Don't get me wrong, I believe theories like systemic racism have merit and are largely true. I just acknowledge that, if it's true that being black in America is an inherent disadvantage due to years of accumulated bias, it's probably also true that being conservative in academia is also an inherent disadvantage, due to the same mechanism. All that being said, way to double down on the elitism! | | |
| ▲ | cosmicgadget 30 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > "Commonly accepted" does not mean "is true". Correct. And if you asserted the existence of a god based on this common notion I wouldn't scream that it's religous hostility. Of course, dieties are not a great example here since they're based purely on people's superstitions. > No one in this thread is claiming a "coordinated conspiracy" From above: "Conservatives have been basically purged from academia over the last 30 years" Most political purges I'm familiar with aren't "oops, implicit bias!" At the start of this I said: "I think the surprise is that someone believes its indicative of a giant conspiracy to exile conservative professors." If you agree with this could have saved yourself a lot of trouble. > Like not inviting them to conferences, social gatherings, networking opportunities, etc. We're talking about adults, right? In any event, it would be interesting to see some stats or hear some anecdotes on the matter. > Again, decades of small bias add up. Does it? Seems far more likely to settle on some sort of median. It's just that the median is considered 'leftist' because it embraces the scientific method while most conservative platforms need to deny evolution, climate change, etc. > it's probably also true that being conservative in academia is also an inherent disadvantage, due to the same mechanism. There are far, far more dissimilarities. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | javascriptfan69 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What if its just self selection? Conservatives spread propaganda about woke universities -> conservative kids are less likely to go. Do this for decades and you end up in the situation we're in. Either that or conservatives are just stupider and less likely to be academics; which is, in my opinion, more likely than your hypothesis about grand conspiracy. | | |
| ▲ | cosmicgadget 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | And it's more than the self selection force of conseratives being too frightened that college will change their worldview. Take a liberal and a conservative with equivalent postgraduate degrees. Now offer them their choice of a faculty position or a C-suite career track. Based on the values that define their respective ideologies, is it a coin toss for which path either chooses? | |
| ▲ | anon84873628 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Or even that the categories are shifting. People who hold perfectly reasonable classical Conservative viewpoints are now excluded from the Republican party. An institution failing to shift more right doesn't make it biased. | |
| ▲ | Levitz 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What if it's not that? Let me give you a hint: the concept of DEI statement to apply for a position exists |
| |
| ▲ | jasonlotito 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That doesn't show they were purged. There are many reasons their numbers declined. | | |
| ▲ | WarmWash 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Just like there are many reasons why the climate is getting warmer, not just humans. See how easy hand waving is? | | |
| ▲ | esarbe 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That human industrial activities are the primary direct causation of the currently observed climate change is a scientific fact, proven beyond any reasonable doubt. What you show is that there are not many conservatives in academia. The reason for that is manifold. It could be that they are forced out. It could be that their views are changed with higher learning and turn progressive. It could be that conservatives self-select to not go into academia. Pointing that out is not hand-waving. | |
| ▲ | jasonlotito 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | So you admit you were lying. Gotcha. | | |
| ▲ | WarmWash 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | There are not many reasons for climate change, it is in fact just humans. That should be obvious. | | |
| ▲ | anon84873628 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ok, so we establish that "Climate change could seem to have many causes, but educated people know that human activity is the proven cause of the majority of the change." And now you have another situation where "there could be many causes for the change X". And you think that because Climate Change followed that pattern above, X must necessarily have only one real cause, and that cause is your preferred pet theory. Does not sound like a convincing argument. | | |
| ▲ | defrost 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Let's just talk about the recent (past 500 years) change in the insulation properties of the planet's atmosphere. It's been in a constant burbling flux that has many factors, fires, volcanoes, etc all contribute to the steady level of churn. The substantial change away from baseline is well recorded, tied back to sources by isotopes, and has a single cause - carbon dioxide by products from the combustion and release of previously sequestered carbon sources. There's no doubt about that - there are multiple atmospheric libraries of gases from various parts of the world to back that up. The data source sets for atmospheric makeup and ocean thermoclines are deeply tied into Cold War nuclear test monitoring and watching enemies, not some hippy dippy eco friendly new age hand wavyness. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | xdennis 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > That doesn't show they were purged. There are many reasons their numbers declined. Fun fact, what you're arguing is actually one of the reasons Charlie was murdered. He notoriously said that the Civil Rights Act was a mistake. He specifically referred to Title VII which states even a neutral policy can be racism if it produces disparate impact[1] in practice. That is, if a neutral policy results in fewer black people being hired, that's evidence of racism. Charlie disagreed with that. It's fun to see leftists argue the same when it comes to discrimination against right wing or centrist academics. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact | | |
| ▲ | anon84873628 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well, a key difference is that race is an intrinsic immutable attribute, and political views aren't. The paradox of tolerance is real. And more practically, it's impossible to guarantee representation of all viewpoints because there are an infinite number of them. | | |
| ▲ | try_the_bass 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > race is an intrinsic immutable attribute Is it? Care you define who makes up the "white race"? Or any other overly-broad category that typically gets bandied about as "race"? From my perspective, as someone who is flexibly categorized as "white" or "latino", depending on whatever is most convenient for the categorizer, "race" is a remarkable fluid label. Most people can't even agree on what "race" folks of mixed ethnic heritage actually are. Race is a social construct. There's nothing intrinsic or immutable about any social construct. | | |
| ▲ | anon84873628 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think you know perfectly well my meaning in context of the comment thread I was replying to. Yes, some people are mixed ethnicity or "white passing". Yes societal views changes ("Italian used to not be considered white"). At the end of the day, most people fall into one of the categories and don't get to change that. | | |
| ▲ | defrost 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Which categories are these though? William Z. Ripley's 1899 The Races of Europe or more, say, Steven Coons Carleton's 1939 treatise? | | |
| ▲ | mindslight 21 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. But since you're insisting that this be spelled out: The categories are quite arbitrary, can vary, and can change. Yes, race is a social construct. The point is the physical attributes that often define the categories cannot be significantly changed. One can't particularly make their own skin lighter, regardless of people with marginal skin tones being able to change other aspects about themselves to pass for a lighter category, or regardless of being able to go to a different community where one might be in the lighter category by default. Compare with say how easy it is for someone with different political views to just hold their tongue when bureaucrats and true believers are waxing poetic about DEI, just as one had to hold their tongue when bureaucrats and true believers were waxing poetic about the virtues of mega golf or owning a boat, just as one might have to hold their tongue these days when bureaucrats and true believers are waxing poetic about the virtues of fascism. (also can we stop using the word "conservative" as a lazy synonym? Applying that label to the Republican party after ~2020 is absurd) | | |
| ▲ | defrost 7 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The categories are quite arbitrary, can vary, and can change. Yes, race is a social construct. Obviously. > Compare with say how easy it is for someone with different political views to just hold their tongue when bureaucrats and true believers are waxing poetic about DEI, just as one had to hold their tongue when bureaucrats and true believers were waxing poetic about the virtues of mega golf or owning a boat, just as one might have to hold their tongue these days when bureaucrats and true believers are waxing poetic about the virtues of fascism. That seems very un-Australian; I'm unfamiliar with the concept of letting rank stupidity ride w/out having a poke at it, and a lot of people have boats, big, small, whatever. I'm quite fond of shed built ground effect boat/planes FWiW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ILbQHnHPnY > can we stop using the word "conservative" as a lazy synonym? Applying that label to the Republican party after ~2020 is absurd TBH I'm not sure I have ever done that; "Conservative" varies by country, as does "Liberal". |
|
| |
| ▲ | try_the_bass 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I think you know perfectly well my meaning in context of the comment thread I was replying to. No, I don't, and smugly insinuating I have some ulterior motive or whatever is, frankly, offensive. I asked you a question because I didn't know what you meant, because you made a statement that was wildly ambiguous even with well-defined context. > most people fall into one of the categories One of... Which categories, exactly? This is why I'm asking. You keep making statements as if they're somehow inherently obvious, but... I can think of many different competing definitions of "race", so I'm trying to figure out which one you're using, or if you're even using one at all. |
|
| |
| ▲ | defrost 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > that race is an intrinsic immutable attribute Not to those familiar with the history of the US Census racial classifications, given the number of times the categories shifted and changed it seems more than a little opinionated. | | |
| ▲ | anon84873628 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ok fine, let's call it "ethnicity" then. Would you and your sibling care to comment on the actual point of the parent comment thread? | | |
| ▲ | defrost 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > fine, let's call it "ethnicity" then. Ethnicity is mostly stable for most individuals, sure, but it too is hardly immutable - people do and have changed their countries, social cultures, and daily language usage- even to the point of struggling to think and talk in their primary birth languages. > care to comment on the actual point of the parent comment thread? Ahh, that "Charlie" (Kirk) had opinions, that US science is in chaos, that US use of the phrase "leftists" is always grating, that a two party Hotelling's law cluster feck inevitably resulting from US style elections is inadequate to politically represent a large population? There's a lot going on here; one thing at a time is that race being an "an intrinsic immutable attribute" is all manner of horseshit. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | mullingitover 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
| |
| ▲ | datsci_est_2015 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It’s a pretty commonly repeated theory amongst far right / reactionary “thought leaders”. They call it the “Long March Through the Institutions”. I think the comment you were responding to was ironically referencing it. | | |
| ▲ | logicchains 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The phrase wasn't concocted by the right wing, it's was coined by a left-winger as an explicit plan of approach: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_march_through_the_institu... | | |
| ▲ | magicalist 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > To extend the base of the student movement, Rudi Dutschke has proposed the strategy of the long march through the institutions: working against the established institutions while working within them, but not simply by 'boring from within', rather by 'doing the job', learning (how to program and read computers, how to teach at all levels of education, how to use the mass media, how to organize production, how to recognize and eschew planned obsolescence, how to design, et cetera), and at the same time preserving one's own consciousness in working with others. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a German student activist's definitionally anodyne proposal to engage with society and barely referenced in the decades since has probably been coopted more than a little to concoct a new boogeyman for the right wing. | |
| ▲ | datsci_est_2015 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, often one wing of political thought leaders will adopt terms and ideas from the other wing to serve as a foundation for their theories. I never suggested that the term itself was invented by someone on the right, merely that it’s a term widely used to describe the very specific idea of a calculated political effort to expel conservatives from academia. Ironically, Rudi’s ambitions were much more grand than simply transforming academia, he wanted to transform society. Anyway, what you presented is not a “gotcha”, despite the fact that I’ve heard it a million times when engaging with right wing “intellectuals”. It’s still a conspiracy theory. |
| |
| ▲ | WarmWash 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's not especially a "right wing theory" anymore than climate change is a "left wing theory" https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/05/conservati... | | |
| ▲ | datsci_est_2015 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | You misunderstand, the idea of the “Long March Through the Institutions” is that innocent conservative intellectuals are the victims of a central, coordinated campaign for them to be expelled from academia in order to transform academia into an institution that serves leftwing agendas. It’s an explicit rejection that such a transformation could occur naturally, and can fairly be considered a conspiracy theory by the mainstream specifically because it meets Barkun’s criteria for conspiracy theories: - nothing happens by accident
- nothing is as it seems
- everything is connected
as well as the lack of a smoking gun. | | |
| ▲ | WarmWash 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't really buy that idea, but like the one black guy at the Country Line Dance, you get the strong vibe you are not in the right place, and kind of just want to leave, regardless of how people are upfront treating you. | | |
| ▲ | intuitionist 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The people you’re talking to don’t understand why you would ever want to have the Wrong Kind of Person around an institution as sacred as the university | |
| ▲ | datsci_est_2015 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah you may not believe it personally but there are definitely many in the reactionary right who do. It’s not difficult to find their forums. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | amanaplanacanal 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | More likely that conservatives turned liberal once the right went all in on anti-intellectualism. Of course the real question is: what does conservative even mean any more? The joining of Falwell and Reagan fucked both conservatism and evangelical Christianity. |
|
| |
| ▲ | thinking_cactus 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think conservatives don't really know what they are, and that's a big problem. I think Sagan discussed this. Like science is a pretty well established "institution" dating back centuries. Intellectualism dates back kind of as far back as humanity, almost every large civilization I can think (that left records) of had strong intellectual presence (including Greeks, Romans, etc.). I'm not even critiquing any particular cultural stance. But I think it's possible and important to critique anti-intellectualism and specially denialisms specially in things that are actually important and threatening to society -- simply because of greed, most of the time. Let's not fool ourselves, climate change denialism isn't like a random cultural thing they chose to deny, it's specifically because of connections to coal, oil and gas industries. If things are bad, you should want to know what will be the consequences and what can be done to mitigate things. In fact, I think denial tends to create some reactionary behavior from the left as well, sometimes leading to overblown claims around climate change. All of this leads to increasing polarization. Slowing down cultural change is perfectly fine (as long as it's respectful of well established things like human rights), cosplaying a farmer is fine, whatever. Or being an actual farmer, or living outside of a big city, etc.. What's not fine is actively denying important scientific facts, being hypocritical (and, largely, stupid) in their positions: for example, farming tends to use very high tech equipment and methods, seeds, and so on; I'm sure most farmers enjoy most technological development, treatment against cancers, all sorts of diseases; computers, the internet, etc.. You can't at the same time want progress in cancer treatment and other conditions and want to cut funding to health sciences. And so on. I am willing to even entertain say technological regression. I don't love every technological change we've been through. But at least be consistent, you can't advocate to stop wearing clothes and want to live in the arctic. Also, culture should be, carefully yes, questioned. It's not because it's cultural that it should stay frozen forever. People who want their culture completely frozen forever are dangerous to human progress and flourishing (I imagine most people wouldn't find ancient practices of human sacrifice, or say medieval torture practices nice and acceptable today). Being careful and well-reasoned is a completely different thing, and something conservatism could stand for instead. | |
| ▲ | etchalon 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Conservatives views are not anti-science, so much as they are a demand that science only be allowed to answer certain questions, and only answer those questions in specific ways. | | |
| ▲ | lovich 39 minutes ago | parent [-] | | That is anti science. It’s just faith based dogmatism. You also see it with conservatives calling belief in the scientific process being able to produce knowledge being called scientism like it’s just faith based. They literally look down on the idea of updating your previous beliefs. |
| |
| ▲ | logicchains 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Liberal views are very anti-science on race. Some famous professors even lost their positions just for adopting the statistically correct position that the majority of the difference in outcomes between races is accounted for by IQ, which is mostly immutable after childhood, not some societal conspiracy against certain races. | | |
| ▲ | tptacek 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Which famous professors would those be? This is an active research area, with papers published year-round. | | |
| ▲ | jayGlow 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | James Watson the guy who discovered DNA was stripped of honorary titles based on comments related to race and IQ. there was a lot of discussion about that recently when he died. | | |
| ▲ | tptacek 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Before I reply, let me ask: is that your best example? | | |
| ▲ | jayGlow 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Does he not meet the criteria of a famous professor? | | |
| ▲ | tptacek 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Maybe you could start with an actual practicing scientist. One problem you're going to run into here is that, as I said, this is an active area of study. If these papers are firing offenses, someone ought to be telling HR. | | |
| ▲ | jujube3 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Person 1: give me an example of someone who was kicked out of academia for uncomfortable truths. Person 2: [gives examples] Person 1: oh ho! But those people are not in academia any more! They're not "practicing scientists"! Person 2: ... | | |
| ▲ | tptacek 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, me and my Calvinball rule of "actual scientist prevented from publishing on this subject". There's a kind of Schneierism thing that happens in these threads; like: I could ask, ok, name a scientist practicing in this field. They exist, but they don't have names your 3rd grade science teacher knows. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | lopsotronic 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "just for adopting . ." OK, I'm really sorry, but "just for adopting" is doing some heavy lifting here. Watson's other greatest hits: worries about Big Black Dicks; melanin injections as boner pill; what I call "The Cunning Chinaman"; and a whole bucket of others. Taken in sum: it turns out you can be asked to leave a private club if you are being an asshole. To clear the air, as a card carrying liberal (even a !gasp! Socialist) I don't necessarily reject empirical racial differences based on genetics. Maybe even for "intelligence", for whatever good that does ya, since "intelligence" lacks anything like a quantitative definition. But I also think that - if they're even present, which is by no means certain - these are not significant differences. Structuring your entire society around quantitative racial differences, from a strictly utilitarian standpoint, is not enough juice for the squeeze. But, well, the juice isn't the point, is it? It's the squeezing - the ability to brutalize your citizenry, to purge Unmanly Virtues like "empathy" or "introspection", to be always prepared for violence - the squeezing, being able to squeeze, is what is important. And the fastest way to do that is convince a bunch of people that other people aren't people. Europe tried that, a few years ago. You might remember that it did not go well. A lesson America never really got. Maybe someday we'll need to learn the same damn thing the same way, except instead of B-17s and Red Army Sex Crime we get to enjoy thermonuclear weapons. Come back Ivan. All is forgiven. | | |
| ▲ | tptacek 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I mean I like to hold my cards closer to my vest than this, but if we're just going right at it: (1) He wasn't a practicing scientist. (2) He wasn't fired for making scientific claims, but rather for saying things like "I'm pessimistic about Africa". (3) He didn't do any research in behavioral genetics, psychometrics, or molecular genetics; his authority in the discussion was "famous science guy". (4) He lost an honorary and, later, an emeritus position, in which his role was not "scientist" but rather "spokesperson for a scientific organization". I wouldn't want him for a spokesperson either, any more than I'd want Ibram X. Kendi or, maybe closer to the mark, Elijah Mohammed as my spokesperson. James Watson was closer to Donald Sterling than to Galileo. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | platevoltage an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | For real. We are doing race science on HN? | |
| ▲ | akerl_ 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Are we just ignoring all the major societal factors that happen to children before and during childhood? | |
| ▲ | bencorman 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Race science is just about the apex of pseudoscience. Academics haven't rejected it because it doesn't mesh with their liberal politics, they've rejected it because it's junk. | |
| ▲ | etchalon 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "Liberal views" are not anti-science on race. "Liberal views" tend to reject the reductionism and selectivity of "race science" that points to arbitrarily defined measurements like IQ as being the sole explanation for things we can easily prove have multiple better, non-arbitrary explanations. Bluntly, racists have decided IQ measurements mean they're not racist instead of wondering whether IQ, as a measurement, is itself racist. | |
| ▲ | esarbe 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Watson's comments are not based in scientific fact. First of - there is no such thing as a "race". Putting people in classes based on the colour of their skin is ludicrously simplistic, ignoring the incredible genetic diversity in the human genome. There's simply no viable scientific concept that is able to capture the features that "race" is supposed to capture. Secondly there's no strong argument that links larger population groups genetic makeup to intelligence - that's what Watson claimed and what's so infuriating; it's plain racism.
There's an inherited component in intelligence - that much is right. But population groups have enough diversity that this does not have a statistically relevant impact on these groups as a whole. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/13/james-watson-s... |
|
|
