Diversity in hiring is the top priority of most colleges and universities. However, the effort to hire more women, minorities, and LGBT individuals notably lacks one group: ideological diversity. It is well-known that most faculty are composed of an overwhelming majority of liberal and democratic members. However, this view, while generally accepted, is largely anecdotal. Now a new study by Heterodox Academy Director of Research Sean Stevens and Brooklyn College Professor Mitchell Langbert claims to have put hard numbers on that lack of diversity. In reviewing records with the Federal Election Commission, they say that they found that professors gave to Democrats over Republicans by a 95:1 ratio.
The researchers looked at 2,301 political donations and found that 2,081 went to Democrats while just 22 went to Republicans. Only nine professors gave to both parties.
An earlier study found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans by a 10:4 ratio. Business Management Associate Professor Mitchell Langbert reviewed the party affiliations of 8,688 professors at 51 of the top 60 liberal arts colleges listed in U.S. News and World Report’s 2017 rankings.
These studies magnify concerns for those of us who have objected to increasing speech regulation on campuses — restrictions that have seem to be more often applied to conservative students and speakers. Indeed, academics have at times been at the heart of such attacks on the free speech rights of conservatives on campus. In one incident at the California State University where assistant professor of public health professor Greg Thatcher is shown on a videotape wiping out the pro-life statements written in chalk by members of Fresno State Students for Life.
Perhaps the most unnerving controversy involved the confrontation of Feminist Studies Associate Professor Mireille Miller-Young with pro-life advocates on campus of the University of California at Santa Barbara. Miller-Young led her students in attacking the pro-life display, stealing their display, and then committing battery on one of the young women. She was convicted and sentenced for the crime. Despite the shocking conduct of Miller-Young and the clear violation of the most fundamental values for all academics in guaranteeing free speech and associational rights, the faculty overwhelmingly supported Miller-Young and the university decided not to impose any meaningful discipline. Faculty and student defenders attacked the pro-life advocates and one even referred to them as “terrorists” who did not deserve free speech. Miller-Young should have been fired but was instead lionized by faculty and students.
A recent study found at Harvard found that only 35 percent of conservative students felt free to share their views on campuses. That chilling effect is the result of not just open hostility to conservative voices on campus but a striking lack of diversity among academics in terms of ideology.
The (Current) Education Issue Turley Didn’t Want To Address..
SCOTUS Ready To Demolish Wall Between Church And State
In a case with potentially profound implications, the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed ready to invalidate a provision of the Montana state constitution that bars aid to religious schools. A decision like that would work a sea change in constitutional law, significantly removing the longstanding high wall of separation between church and state.
The focal point of Wednesday’s argument was a ruling by the Montana Supreme Court that struck down a tax subsidy for both religious and nonreligious private schools. The Montana court said that the subsidy violated a state constitutional provision barring any state aid to religious schools, whether direct or indirect.
“We are a Christian family and I want those values taught at school,” she said. “Our morals as a society come from the Bible. I feel we are being excluded simply because we are people of religious background.”
Thirty-seven other states have no-aid state constitutional provisions similar to Montana’s, and for decades conservative religious groups and school-choice advocates have sought to get rid of them. On Wednesday, though, that goal looked a lot closer.
Edited from: “Supreme Court Could Be Headed To A Major Unraveling Of Public School Funding”
Today’s NPR
………………………………………………………….
For some time I have noticed that whenever conservatives in Congress or the courts are scheming to push controversial outcomes, Professor Turley typically picks these moment to run columns concerning the ‘tyranny of liberals in academia’.
this socalled wall is not in the first amendment. read it. don’t confuse that with a letter from Massa Tom Jeff
the disestablishment clause is alive and well. actually its severely overextended application is what needs a haircut!
That’s why I took my Daughter out of a University in NYC.
The takeover of academics by Democrats illustrates the dictatorship of a majority. Once they achieved sufficient numbers to affect hiring decisions, they continued to look out for their own, preferentially hiring and offering tenure to Democrats. A majority is less likely to convey equal benefits to a minority. This is true for taxes, where a majority will gleefully jack up the tax rate on the rich that they would never be willing to pay themselves. And it’s true in academia, where the majority Democrats enjoy free speech, while inhibiting it in the minority conservatives on campus. They would never tolerate dissent, let alone bullying, but even professors happily bully conservative students and the vanishingly few conservative professors.
This is the why the Constitutionally protected rights of the individual are vitally important. They protect one person from being disenfranchised by a majority.
At some point, there should be a lawsuit that requires universities to prominently mark on their literature that they are Democrat institutions, and Republicans are not welcome on staff or as students. Political institutions, like today’s universities and NPR, should not receive taxpayer money. That’s not fair, as it forces Republicans to pay for the Democratic political indoctrinations of their children. If you get a political bias, you should forego public funds.
Either that, or public funds should be equally available to all political institutions.
Diversity is not skin deep.
A team comprised of a blonde, a redhead, a brunette, an African American, and an Asian is not diverse, if they all have the same skills and approach to a problem. A team is diverse if it brackets a range of skill sets and talents.
Diversity means different opinions, thought patterns, likes and dislikes. Ever been to a party filled with Democrats who might look different, but they all talk the same?
It’s racist to think that someone’s value is in their skin color, or that everyone with darker skin is supposed to vote the same. They all have different life experiences, interests, and personalities. Two women might be both black, but maybe one had a single mother, and one had two parents. One liked ballet and one liked rap. One liked the color yellow and red, and the other liked red and orange. One was a gifted conversationalist while the other was shy. One was straight and the other lesbian. One worked in science while the other in fashion. Each woman could have any number of these traits, in any combination. To distill someone down to the color of their skin is absurd. Your skin does not define you. It’s what’s underneath that matters. Isn’t that obvious?
One of the most intolerant, closed minded places in the United States today is a college campus.
Egad: It sounds as if you’re advocating examining the content of one’s character over their outward appearance. That sounds exactly like how a racist would feel. You should be banned from the Interwebs, have your bed sheets slit lengthwise, and have every pair of your socks de-paired! The nerve to suggest that people shouldn’t be pigeonholed according to their genetic founding.
YOUR INTOLERANCE WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!!
Both my wife and I are emeritus professors at a major state university art department. As an example of the ingrained hostility toward conservative faculty, over 20 years ago my wife served on a search committee for dean of our college, chaired by then chancellor Donna Shalala. An interviewed candidate was asked what she would do about the then fledgling and controversial National Association of Scholars. The candidate replied enthusiastically that she “would round up the ring leaders!”. After the interview, my wife objected to the candidate’s statement and informed the committee that she was a member of the NAS. She was excluded from any subsequent meetings. Out of a department faculty of 40 at that time, there were 4 of us with conservative views known as “the gang of four”, with one pothead colleague referring to us as subhuman (thank God for tenure). After a recent memorial service for a 97 year old liberal department colleague and friend, having drinks with a group of faculty and former students, we revealed that we had voted for Trump and watched their horrified responses with amused enjoyment. We retired 14 years ago. I would hate to still be on campus. Democrats, with their arrogant sense of superiority, will never cease viewing Republicans and conservatives as knuckle-dragging neanderthals, and must simply be defeated at the ballot box.
University age kids in the extended families are all under strict orders to conceal any politically incorrect or Pro Trump common sense beliefs they may have and lay low. This is not the time to evangelize. RUN SILENT RUN DEEP.
I explained to them the “Red Guards” incident in Chinese history and said this is basically the situation except the students are the victims and the Red Guards are the socalled professors.
They want to strangle the next Herakles in the crade like so many snakes. That’s what the college PC codes and pressure groups are all about. Live to fight another day kids!
I would remain quiet and write the answers they wanted to see. Shake their hand the last day of class and tell them the most valuable thing I learned was how not to be an ignorant commie.
TURLEY CLAIMS VICTIMHOOD.. AGAIN..!!
Here Professor Turley feels compelled to distract us from impeachment issues with another in his long series of columns decrying the hold liberals allegedly have on academia.
In these columns, Turley embraces a culture of victimhood for conservative academics and coeds. The implication seems to be that Federal action is needed to free conservatives from the yoke of liberal tyranny. Although he doesn’t say it explicitly, Turley hints that Affirmative Action of some kind is needed to get more conservatives into university classrooms.
There is a reason ‘why’ Academics and Journalists tend to be liberal. Educated, well-traveled people living in bigger cities tend to be more liberal than less-educated people is less-populated regions. That is true throughout the world. In every country the less-educated in less-populated areas tend to be more conservative than big city intellectuals. Nothing will ever change that.
So this culture of victimhood Turley promotes is an irrational response pandering to non-iintellectuals. It’s saying, in effect, that non-iintellectuals deserve chairs at universities.
TURLEY CLAIMS VICTIMHOOD.. AGAIN..!!
I can never figure out if you’re as obtuse as you seem, or whether your handlers at Media Matters told you to just jam the discussion with whatever pops into your head.
Tabby, I can never figure out if you”re serious about Media Matters. Like no liberal beyond Media Matters employees cares to comment here..?? Such lame paranoia!
black clad antifa with their gay flag skateboards
i should like to see the scum sent to one of those reeducation camps the bernie guy was talking about
why are the Minnesota cops so INCOMPETENT?
“handlers at Media Matters”
Silly.
“This is absurd x XV” can’t be taken seriously.
“Absurd” to be sure.
Seth always replies to his own comments under Anonymous because his ego desperately needs someone to validate him
Well this is malicious: an unauthorized ‘Peter Hill’. I cant even use that name!
One can be sure this user is one those deplorables who argue that MAGA hates are ‘perfectly harmless’.
“One can be sure this user is one those deplorables who argue that MAGA hates are ‘perfectly harmless’.”
Peter, use whatever logic you have. Gather it all up and think.
If hats are made by the same vendor and the only thing that changes is the name Maga and Obama where the Obama name causes no problem and the Maga hat does that means it is the people that don’t like the Maga hats that are dangerous, not the hats.
Excellent response, XV, I work in higher ed and can confirm everything Turley says, including the original article he quotes regarding the large imbalance of political views on campus. It exactly echoes my own experience. 90% of profs at my school are liberal and 5% say they are libertarian, 4% say they are independent (though they are actually liberal), and about 1% are conservative. My school is not in a “bigger city”; it is in the heart of the “Bible Belt” and has been overrun with extreme leftist liberals who care nothing about American greatness, our founding principles, or our Lord. They used to hide their political affiliations and agendas but now they proclaim it boldly in the student union and throughout the halls. It is rampant and folks like me keep to ourselves and keep quiet, no longer willing to enter into debate with such hate-filled people who will not consider another reasoned point of view. Seth Warner is either uninformed or is a political hack. The few profs here that are conservative are not “less-educated”; they tend to be very well rounded and informed about a host of things. The so-called “intellectuals” tend to walk around with blinders on, specializing in early 16th century French social impact of table napkins or the Sephardic Jewish Diaspora After 1492. They have no clue about the Constitution, yet they cite it regularly. They have no sense of sacrifice of American soldiers’ defense of liberty, yet claim to have suffered from a parking fee increase. They have no clue how to set up an iPhone, much less a computer. And they are almost always angry about something. They don’t know how to properly govern or even how to be happy but are, somehow, too proud to learn otherwise. They will will never change their way of thinking, short of a spiritual conversion. Come Holy Spirit!
Unless you personally have been involved in hiring and selecting full-time college professors, I recommend you rethink your amazingly arrogant rationalization for academic totalitarianism. Truth is, there are lots of conservative scholars with PhDs who would love to have access to the classrooms of elite universities in America, but the Left guards every aspect of that doorway to minimize campus heterodoxy. The Left’s ideological purification extends from the subjects we’re allowed to explore as doctoral candidates and continues all the way through hiring and even the granting of tenure. In fact, UNC-Wilmington criminology Professor Mike Adams won a federal discrimination lawsuit over the bigotry demonstrated by his peers in promoting demonstrably less-qualified teachers around him because of his personally held religious beliefs. The school even was forced to remit his legal expenses and all back pay associated with the promotion he was denied. Coincidentally, a few days after the settlement was announced, the Chancellor resigned. The bottom line is that, rather than defend this ideological hijacking of higher education, we should be working on ways to correct this dangerous imbalance…for the sake of the students!
Jay, is this the Mike Adams you refer to? He sounds like an online bully if nothing else; a total jerk who uses religion as cover. According to this piece below, 3,000 students circulated a petion to have Adam’s fired. And this was ‘after’ he won that lawsuit.
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/free-speech-or-hate-speech-controversial-professor-tests-limits-n689841
Jay, is this the Mike Adams you refer to? He sounds like an online bully if nothing else;
To anyone remotely familiar with Adams, such a description sounds unreal. I don’t think he produces regular topical commentary anymore, but he once did. He wasn’t a polemical writer at all, just amused at the folly of the social world of the faculty. Being playful with other people’s pieties and making public their petty abuses of power does irk them. His political views are quite unremarkable and favored by about 1/2 the population, but they enrage the other people in the sociology department at UNCW.
Do you ever get tired of being an ignorant wanker?
i have known a fixer or two in my life, who’ve represented august halls of academe.
they keep that football & basketball money flowing so the lazy professors can prattle on their nonsense
the professors don’t like them but they stay out of their way for the most part and keep their yaps shut on the scuttlebutt and make sure they cooperate on grades for the stars
i follow a strict rule of no names mentioned so nothing will emanate from me, but anybody can find the dirt, it’s never very hard to dig up dirt on the topic and one never needs to look to far. follow the money
of course the older stories are the best, like before title IX investigations system really got organized well.
back then wow
what a bunch of pious frauds the university dons and their lackeys are
False Seth actually the groupthink the headline represents is precisely what is anti-intellectual.
The loss of mental diversity and true cultural diversity today, is mostly engineered in the name of skin-deep diversity, is the big irony
The issue is what is ‘educated’? If you mean having a college degree, that is nothing short of laughable. There are countless people with worthless degrees that do not provide good jobs, and educate them only in very small area of the collective intelligence. I have a Ph.D in Neuroscience. Yeah, i can tell you a lot about microdialysis, western blots, the hippocampus and memory, etc. On the other hand, my boat mechanic has no college degree, built his own house, plumbed it, can take apart and fix almost anything that has a motor in it, can weld anything, has good morals and raised an excellent and intelligent kid. Of course, a liberal with a bachelors degree in art would say he is an ‘idiot’. On the other hand, a leftist tool art critic who looks at a feel squiggly lines and says ‘this speaks to me of chaos….perpetual collisions speaking to a collaborative gesture of context’ is a GENIUS to the typical far left tool. So those of us with advanced college degrees who are conservative are getting pretty tired of listening to the liberal narcissists who think a college degree confers ‘intellect’…it doesn’t. No shortage of people with college degrees who couldn’t change the tire on their car but they fancy themselves among the intellegentsia. Get off you high horse pal….academics and journalists are ‘liberal’ because they learned early on that they are too stupid to fix, repair, or build anything, so they turned to some of the easiest choices in life…get a liberal arts degree, especially in journalism Easiest college majors when i was in college, and still are today. Then look down your nose at the people that really make this country work, and fancy yourself far smarter than they are.
Nailed it!
Dan Jacobs – I stopped at my Masters because my school did not offer a Ph.D. in my field, so I would have to move to another field and I didn’t think I could kiss another liberal ass without puking. 😉
This comes as no surprise. Liberal interpretations of law (and everything else) date back to the 1930s when many college students were caught up in the Spanish Civil War and supported the communists. It’s continued ever since. The solution is to NOT send children to those schools and not provide government grants to any school that espouses a biased view. Remember the old axiom – those that can do, those that can’t teach.
Part of the solution is strong informal, face to face, anti-Leftist organization over decades, which is durable enough to outlast the fickle trends projected with budgets and headlines. We call this “culture creation” as opposed to culture-destruction. It’s long hard work and starts inside the family.
Proving that the smarter and more learned one is, the less likely to accept Trump’s (and his enablers’) BS.
Faculty are seldom ‘learned’ in the sense that they’ve imbibed the literature of the ages. They’re usually schooled in one discipline, and a number of these disciplines have entered decadent periods. It’s also foolish to assume that their viewpoint derives from their study, rather than from the predisposing factors which led them to academe and keep them within it.
And I’d like to see faculty function in a competitive business setting. Most wouldn’t.
most can’t which is why they were in advanced whatever in the first place. too sheepish, too weak, to geeky, in so many words. we all know the type; they were “t.a.s” decades ago that weren’t fit to explain a syllogism and are now commanding budgets that shame private enterprise
seems to me the nonprofit status of a lot of the hallowed ivory towers should be immediately revoked, for starters, and let them start paying a just amount of property taxes at least, for all that fancy real estate they occupy and siphon resources from the local communities
private businesses and employers are constantly at a disadvantage just for hiring against universities who suck up a lot of good local candidates for their bloated bureacracies, where the human talent is squandered in a lot of sycophantic meetings of one sort or another, massive time wsters at best
Guess who we shouldn’t be relying on to sort the labor market. Let’s re-institute timely and rigorous civil servants examinations give private employers plenary discretion to institute paper and pencil tests. Employment discrimination law has a number of ill-effects, but one of the more irritating is the way it has worked to buttress the undeserved social position of higher education.
one of my friends did his PHD in IQ tests as a general employment selection tool.
suffice to say, he was headed back to his homeland in Asia where that is a great idea and they use it
here, it’s rejected on its face since it’s supposedly racially discriminatory
there, over in Asia, they laugh at some of our stupid laws like that and the even stupider ways we implement
Not surprised since the university campus’s were the original source host for the socialist regressive movement BUT the two questions are
How much did they donate
Have they filed for pay increases from monies of the federal government to cover the costs
Ten to one the first amount will be inconsequential unless they strong armed their students in a pay for grades scheme and
The second amount will not be what they donated but what they and their captive students donated,
What it’s an indication of is two things:
1. The subcultural variation in education has evaporated, much as it did in vernacular architecture after the war. There are no Southern universities, there are no Catholic universities.
2. Higher education has decayed into an agent for replicating a particular social ideology, suffused with academic education that is increasing composed of degenerate apologetical disciplines and pseudo-vocational instruction.
3. NB, as recently as 1928, we got along passably with about 6% of each cohort attending colleges and universities (with an additional increment in hospital nursing schools and junior colleges).
4. So, what is to be done:
a. Replace extant boards of trustees with those elected by those alumni registered to vote in the state where the college is located. The voter roll could be assembled by state boards of elections, which could also handle candidate registration. Local boards could mail out the ballots and count them when returned.
b. Replace academic tenure with renewable contracts. Re-institute mandatory retirement.
c. Replace the current degree architecture with brief single-subject courses of study (some supplemented with preparatory certificates). These would last 1 calendar year or two academic years.
d. Scrap pseudoprofessional schools. Replace all extant schools of education with teachers’ colleges which do nothing but train teachers. The training program would consist of a modest run of methods courses (as few as four), a partial year of internship, and then a year of stipended apprenticeship. Eliminate schools of social work and dismantle social work as an independent profession. Eliminate schools of library administration and train archivists, librarians, and curators in certified diploma programs at state libraries and the like. Eliminate j-schools entirely.
e. Limit academic and professional education to subjects in a glossary enacted by the state legislature. Or, go whole hog and can the humanities faculty, can the social research faculty, and the performing and studio arts faculty.
f. Eliminate the admissions offices at state schools. Instead, have students mail their applications (including their ranked choices among state schools) to a central admissions office. Said office will assign each student a composite score derived from their board scores, achievement test scores, and transcripts, and admit and assign students according to these scores.
g. Require by law that private schools publish and audited statement of their demographic stock and flow, including the board and achievement test scores of each coarse racial category among their admitted students.
h. Close extant law schools. Institute a set of preparatory certificates in arts and sciences and business which can be completing in 18 months followed by a 50 credit calendar year degree in the fundamentals of law. From thence, your aspirant lawyer lands an apprenticeship at a firm, and takes his licensing exams after a couple of years of work and private study.
Blah, blah, blah.
The lack of originality points to Anonymous the Stupid.
actually absurd these are excellent brainstorming ideas. you should have been on a blue ribbon committee. of course they exclude guys like you in a variety of ways
I would also immediately end their nonprofit income and property tax exclusionary status and let these bloated billion dollar budget outfits pay their fair share and get on an equal footing with the private sector
of course they are thick as theives with politicians so nothing good will happen soon.
Let me paraphrase Thomas Sowell. When an executive proposes a major screw up that causes damage he is fired. When a professor proposes a major screw up no matter how many people are hurt he is likely to be advanced.
Repeating a stupid statement doesn’t make it true but it does show your stupidity.
YNOT are you saying Thomas Sowell’s statement was wrong. He actually has numbers for you to suck on. You only have your thumb.
Have to ask, what do they expect to gain if a LIEbral wins?
The Harvard Business Review found that Republicans outnumber Democrats on corporate boards 2 to 1. More troubling is that in spite of losing the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 presidential elections, there are 5 republicans on the SC vs 4 democrats, with 4 of those members selected by presidential losers.
If Hillary had been elected and appointed two more Ginsburgs or Breyers to the SC, I doubt that byethebook would find that “troubling”.
When corporate boards are 95:1 I’ll begin to worry.
When liberal Democrats are at or near those percentage levels as professors or journalists, is that a cause for concern?
Popular vote does NOT equal representation which was purposely constructed in the Constitution. The 2016 US popular vote was determined by LA County and Cook County. If you take those 2 counties out, Trump won the popular vote! So it’s not states BUT specific counties of dense populations that determine popular vote. Group think (aka herd mentality) is prevalent in these counties and exactly what our founders were against and did want them to have outright power.
If you proceed to take out Brooklyn and Manhattan, then Trump received 1 million more votes in 2016. There is no GOP county that has absolute numbers in their favor like these counties.
So let’s stop pretending the popular vote represents America. The following shows the DIFFERENCE is votes Hillary received vs Trump
US = 2,868,518
LA County = 1,747,072
Cook County = 1,158,659
Manhattan = 514,084
Brooklyn = 499,509
Queens = 367,879
you should take Crook county out because it’s the worst historical offender for vote fraud by fair
so said from a safe distance beyond the city limits
What’s a presidential loser? I thought Trump won the election. Popular vote does not matter since we are the United States, not the United People of America.
The popular vote is nothing more than a poll and is not a legal or valid voting system. Had the population wanted to make a change they wouldn’t have elected delegates to the federal congregation that turned down such attempts over 700 times.
The score remains ..55% to 45% with a majority required. Of that amount the largest voting block was a coalition of independents from different anti Clinton anti Socialist organizations, The difference is they registered to vote and voted while the socialists yammered about non existent election procedures
“Harvard Business Review found that Republicans outnumber Democrats on corporate boards 2 to 1.”
Half were Democrats and independents. The other half was Republican. That probably is most revealing of the work product of the different subset of people.
I wonder how the study would be impacted if we dealt solely with those on welfare, Medicaid and food stamps. I wonder if we would see a shift in the opposite direction.
They don’t get their money’s worth out of you. You look like an idiot scrounging around like that.
A 2-1 margin is normal inter-occupational variation in preferences. The qualitative distinction between the two situations is quite blatant.
“The Harvard Business Review found that Republicans outnumber Democrats on corporate boards 2 to 1.”
That is true 50% Republican ~25% Democrat and ~25% Independent. That demonstrates who has the better work habit.
I wonder what the statistics would look like if one were to do a study of only those on welfare, Medicaid and food stamps. My guess is that the Dems would prevail by even wider margins.
Professor
Is it a slow news day or are you giving us a break from the bizarre, corrupt travesty of the impeachment freak show? Of course the professoriate donates heavily to Dem candidates. The professor class,with few exceptions, live in a world devoid of ascertainable metrics of performance and consequently support those who, like them, are free of consequences.
Exactly. This cannot possibly be a surprise, JT. It’s just a lot more obvious today.
Let’s extend this diversity argument out further. What passes for “conservatism” is often not conservative. It’s more like being idiotic and then hiding beneath a generalistic banner for justification purposes. It”d be nice to see discussion on conservatism taken away from the Ben Shapiro school of faulty syllogism.
Because 95 out of 100 professors have functioning brains.
That was easy.
Wally – I spent way to much time in academia and if those professors had to carry a full teaching load (5 classes per semester) they would die. Honestly, in some of the departments, there aren’t that many functioning brains.
“I spent way to much time in academia” apparently not enough to learn the proper use of to, too, or two. Are your children genetically burdened by your hubris and incompetence?
Tony – good catch. Thanks for being the grammar police.
geeks and sycophants galore actually
in university administration, creative thinking is discouraged, apple shining is rewarded, and in-authenticity commands the highest premium as a personality trait
some of them are famous traitors to their roots
Land O Lakes statement of the socalled Catholic universities is a place to start on “who”
Are we surprised?
I was told about the alleged imbalance and then I started teaching. It was not my experience at all. Having said that, I support robust discussions of political views. The examples offered by JT are troubling and should not be permitted. I have one question. Will academics now have to disclose their political affiliation and lose their jobs because of it? Perhaps there is a sound reason for the support academics give to Democratic candidates. I realize that may be a difficult concept for some on this thread but there it is.
“The examples offered by JT are troubling and should not be permitted” .
This ranks at or near the top of all of the foolish statements made by “Justice” Holmes.
The sound reason is this: they choose their colleagues, and increasingly choose clones of themselves.
Perhaps there is a sound reason for the support academics give to Democratic candidates.
Agreed. Hubris is apropos in describing Democrats.
Those of us who have doctorates or professional degrees are less than 5% of the US population.
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/02/number-of-people-with-masters-and-phd-degrees-double-since-2000.html
“To him whom much is given, much shall be expected”
Sitting in ivory towers is neither admirable nor a safe place to hide. Laborers know how to topple them.
Flawed as we all are, being in the trenches with the smelly sheep is the only place to be and that requires humility.
I was told about the alleged imbalance and then I started teaching.
They’re not hiring our best, I see.