We previously discussed how the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) elected an outspoken activist as its president. The selection of Todd Wolfson, a Rutgers University anthropologist, was viewed by many as the AAUP doubling down on support for academic activism and opposition to intellectual diversity. Now the leading AAUP publication, Academe, has run ‘Seven Theses Against Viewpoint Diversity.’ Written by Lisa Siraganian, the J. R. Herbert Boone Chair in Humanities and professor at Johns Hopkins University, the essay repeats the tired rationalizations of faculty members to excuse their purging of schools of dissenting and largely conservative or libertarian voices.
In my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss these arguments to justify the current levels of intolerance and orthodoxy in higher education. Siraganian’s essay is particularly transparent in the effort to dismiss opposing views without seriously addressing the range of objections to the current state of academia.
Siraganian focuses on the effort of the Trump Administration to force universities to restore greater diversity in faculty hiring and teaching. I opposed some of those efforts. While I agree with the need for such changes on faculties (and do not believe that faculty members like Siraganian will ever embrace diversity of thought), I do not like the government dictating such changes.
For liberals, it is impossible to deny the purging of faculties to create an academic echo chamber.
I discuss the intolerance in higher education and surveys showing that many departments no longer have a single Republican as faculty members replicate their own views and values.
That ideological echo chamber is hardly an enticement for many who are facing rising high tuition costs with relatively little hope of being taught by faculty with opposing views.
There are obviously many reasons why faculty may reject Trump specifically, but this poll also tracks more generally the self-identification and contributions of faculty.
A Georgetown study recently found that only nine percent of law school professors identify as conservative at the top 50 law schools — almost identical to the percentage of Trump voters found in the new poll.
There is little evidence that faculty members are interested in changing this culture or creating greater diversity at schools. In places like North Carolina State University a study found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans 20 to 1.
Not long ago, I had a debate at Harvard Law School with Professor Randall Kennedy on whether Harvard protects free speech and intellectual diversity.
Harvard has repeatedly found itself in a familiar spot on the annual ranking of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE): dead last among 251 universities and colleges.
Harvard has long dismissed calls for greater free speech protections or intellectual diversity. It shows.
The Harvard Crimson has documented how the school’s departments have virtually eliminated Republicans. In one study of multiple departments last year, they found that more than 75 percent of the faculty self-identified as “liberal” or “very liberal.”
Only 5 percent identified as “conservative,” and only 0.4% as “very conservative.”
Consider that, according to Gallup, the U.S. population is roughly equally divided among conservatives (36%), moderates (35%), and liberals (26%).
So Harvard has three times the number of liberals as the nation at large, and less than three percent identify as “conservative’ rather than 35% nationally.
Among law school faculty who have donated more than $200 to a political party, a breathtaking 91 percent of the Harvard faculty gave to democrats.
The student body exhibits the same biased selection. Harvard Crimson previously found that only 7 percent of incoming students identified as conservative. For the vast majority of liberal faculty and students, Harvard amplifies rather than stifles their viewpoints.
This does not happen randomly. Indeed, if a business reduced the number of women or minorities to less than 5 percent, a court would likely find de facto discrimination.
Yet, Kennedy rejected the notion that the elite school should strive to “look more like America.”
It is not just that schools like Harvard “do not look like America,” it does not even look like liberal Massachusetts, which is almost 30 percent Republican.
Our students are being educated by faculty taken from the same liberal elite of just 26 percent of our nation. I have never argued for the hiring of Republicans or the imposition of a partisan quota. Rather, the surveys and self-identification of faculty are one of the few objective means to show how lopsided the ideological balance has become in our schools.
Some sites like Above the Law have supported the exclusion of conservative faculty. Senior Editor Joe Patrice defended “predominantly liberal faculties” by arguing that hiring a conservative law professor is akin to allowing a believer in geocentrism to teach at a university.
Unable to deny this ideological cleansing of departments, faculty are creating a rationalization for their ideological bias. They declare opposing views as “dangerous” or intellectually lazy.
Notably, Siraganian argues that intellectual diversity can only be defended on “instrumental” grounds. My book criticized “functionalist” or instrumental arguments as rejecting core free speech values based on natural or autonomous values. Adopting functionalist models allows for endless trade-offs in speech.
The same is true for intellectual diversity. Intellectual diversity is not supported as a value in itself but only to the extent that it advances what faculty like Siraganian view as the truth or valid conclusions. Even if one were to confine support for intellectual diversity to its instrumental values, these advocates downplay the value of ideological diversity as key to any institution of higher education. She dismisses such claims, saying that “the pursuit of truth and the value of different opinions—do not work together seamlessly.”
The result, however, is the virtual jettisoning of real diversity. Higher education is currently “seamless” in running from the left to the far left.
I have spoken with various university presidents who privately admit that they want greater intellectual diversity but that departments refuse to make serious efforts to restore such balance. The AAUP and Siraganian are examples of why faculty members will not willingly diversify their ranks. They are now rationalizing their bias and intolerance through righteous rationalizations, claiming they are simply protecting students from harmful or subpar ideas.
Polling indicates that trust in higher education has hit a record low among the public. More importantly, numerous surveys consistently show that the intolerance of faculty members and the lack of diversity have chilled students, who are afraid to share their views in classrooms or on campuses.
Notably, many of these universities have overwhelmingly liberal faculties and student bodies; however, over 90 percent of students in some schools no longer feel comfortable speaking freely in classrooms. At Harvard, only a third of students feel comfortable speaking freely.
The current generation of faculty and administrators has destroyed higher education by destroying diversity of thought and free speech on our campuses. The effort of the AAUP and faculty like Siraganian to rationalize the basis for this intolerance is evidence of the hold of such bias. Faculty members would prefer to allow higher education to plunge to even lower levels of trust and applications than to allow for greater diversity in their departments.
Once again, we cannot rely on faculty members to restore balance. We will need to focus on donors (as well as public-funding legislative bodies) to withhold money from these departments. Universities will not allow for opposing or dissenting views unless they have little financial choice. In this sense, we need to focus on public universities as the best ground to fight for diversity of thought. These schools, directly subject to First Amendment protections, can offer an alternative to schools like Johns Hopkins and Harvard for those who want to learn in a more diverse environment.
Has anyone researched the applicants who have applied for positions at these institutions and been rejected? What was the pool of conservative applicants relative to the liberal and very liberal applicants? If the discrepancy was skewed to the more liberal than conservative applicants, it could be because the more conservative potential applicants did not wish to even be considered to be colleagues of these liberal and intellectually dishonest faculty. Why would anyone in their right mind subject themselves to such intellectual torture from intellectually dishonest, terminally unhappy, joyless colleagues? Better to get a real job in society, be productive and have a happy life.
I thought I would save George the trouble and post his first comment for him today?
“Professor Turley, oh I am so amused. Blah blah blah, the opposite of whatever you say, Turley, cuz I’m smarter than you. I did a 5 minute Google search so now I know everything there is to know about it. Blah blah blah Universities are liberal cesspools because thats what students want blah blah blah.
Of course you go to the hospital and the patients are all telling the doctors what they want, or the local Firestone and the customers are all telling the mechanics how to fix their car, so why shouldn’t a bunch of high schoolers determine what they dont know and what they should know. Makes perfect sense to me Turley.
I know I just made that up, but if you disagree you have a reading comprehension problem.
Anitifa is just an idea, Turley blah blah blah. I don’t know why I have an urge to say that again today, but I do. I dont care what the definition of ideology is, I said that religion is not an ideology, and thats all that matters.
Later, I will come back and make up my own definition for more words, like group.
Turley is just feeding the rage of his ignorant, stupid, lying, evil, disgusting MAGA base!! They are full of rage rhetoric!!!
By the way, I’m not George. I’m not Svelaz. I’m X. I just dropped out of the sky and was somehow immediately aware of everyone and everything Turleyville. I’m such a douche, I’ll deny it even when I know that I’m busted.
“ For liberals, it is impossible to deny the purging of faculties to create an academic echo chamber.
I discuss the intolerance in higher education and surveys showing that many departments no longer have a single Republican as faculty members replicate their own views and values.”
Such hogwash. There has never been a “purging of faculties” that’s just a fantasy Turley conocts to gain sympathy for ideas and views that are readily available anywhere.
Since when does party affiliation have anything to do with Faculty requirements. Schools don’t hire faculty based on party affiliation. What a stupid claim. Oooh, there are no Republican facluty members. Big deal. What does party affiliation have to do with qualifications to be a faculty member. It’s like asking why aren’t there an equal number of atheists at seminary schools or christian majority colleges and Universities. Should there be an equal number of Democrats be a requirment ot have diversity of views in conservative schools like Notre Dame or Brigham Young? Come on.
Maybe Republican faculty members cannot replicate their ideas and views because most students are not interested in them. Offer new ideas and/or points of view that students will be interested in. Make a damn effort to make conservative or libertarian ideas appealing to students. Instead we have Professors like Turley whining and complaining how unfair it is that students don’t find their ideas appealing or interesting. That’s on conservatives and libertarians to fix. Whining and bi***hing about it won’t solve that problem.
“Whining and bi***hing about it won’t solve that problem.”
Says the rabid pavlov puppy, who follows Turley around like a little bltch in heat, constantly whining and complaining, and hysterically repeating himself over and over.
Irony is lost on the double digit IQ
George: Please see my earlier comment today under the previous (yesterday’s) topic: Antifa Denial.
It might help you get through some difficult sortings-out.
“Such hogwash. There has never been a “purging of faculties””
Of course there has been. That is well documented.
“Since when does party affiliation have anything to do with Faculty requirements. Schools don’t hire faculty based on party affiliation.”
No they do so based on ideology.
“there are no Republican facluty members. Big deal. What does party affiliation have to do with qualifications to be a faculty member.”
I would suggest that you might want to read John Stuart Mill’s “On liberty”.
While it is about freedom and particularly about free speech, the arguments rest in the negative consequences that happen when there is not diversity in ideas.
What does party affilliation have to do with …… ?
The problem is that a lack of intellectual diversity corodes our future, When yoiu are only exposed ot one point of view you lose the ability to think critically – which is precisely what we see as the left has increasingly dominated academia.
Without viewpoint diversity – we make poor decisons, We end up poorer. Again what we see.
There are myriads of factors for the failure of the USSR – but most hinge on the fact that lack of freedom results in poor choices. Lack of exposure to divergent ideas leads to poor choices.
The faculty candidates have all been to the same colleges hence no diversity available.
When students are paying for their own education – in real time – not the worst of all possible worlds that we have today – in both education and government – which is immediate gratification with delayed cost, which is precisely how to get people to make the worst possible choices, then – when students are paying for heir education in real time,
they get to make choices.
Today education is paid for by parents and government – I would completely get rid of the latter.
Regardless – He who supplies the gold gets to make the choices.
It is naive to expect that Academia will correct itself. That will not happen. What is the point of Institutional Capture, after all? The Left has succeeded, and there is no mechanism to force them to concede any portion of control, which they will cling to with a death-grip. The only viable course is a funding tourniquet. Cut them off from all grants and other government money, make them ineligible for government-backed student loans, limit student visas, and let them die. It will take a while for some, but not all. As the less endowed universities begin to fail, the more monolithic may “see the light”, but probably not. Any change in behavior would be cynical and superficial anyway. Let them wither away.
C, add foreign donors and stay on top of donor laundered donations.
If not, saudi arabia will be opening islamic, tax free colleges on every block within the United States and Islamic temples also tax free sort of like the Pope. Then they’ll want a cut of pupil ADA.
It appears I was censored again, cionnath. Said some talk back about voodoo religions I presume.
Btw, masterpiece bake shop case, I hope the baker took a portion of his religious cakes deductions as income and business with the IRS.
PS. There are rational Christians. Not all Christians are fundamentalist.
“ Siraganian focuses on the effort of the Trump Administration to force universities to restore greater diversity in faculty hiring and teaching. I opposed some of those efforts. While I agree with the need for such changes on faculties (and do not believe that faculty members like Siraganian will ever embrace diversity of thought), I do not like the government dictating such changes.”
Professor Turley has been demanding such changes for a long time. Claiming that Conservative and libertarian faculty have been purged from higher learning institutions. Now the Trump administration is making that change by engaging in blackmail and threatening school funding to force the changes. Turley meekly “opposes” the government’s tactics meaning he barely goes on a full criticism of the Trump administration’s overreaching tactics. Those same tactics are undermining the Professor’s diversity argument. Ironically Turley could have used DEI to argue for greater diversity and equity of conservative ideas in higher education.
His bad reference to Joe Patrice’s point which makes more sense than Turley would like to admit is the point on why there is very little representation of conservative and libertarian faculty in higher education institutions. They are outdated ideas that a majority of students already know from their personal lives and politics. People go to college to expand their views. If conservatives and libertarians provided new ideas or approaches to issues that are radically different or dare I say, interesting enough to get attention then perhaps more conservative or libertarian faculty would be hired. The truth of the matter is Universities respond to what students want and it is often the fact that liberal ideas and perspectives are much more attractive. It’s basically a free market reaction and conservatives don’t like it. So, rather than let the market dictate how faculty at higher education institutions forms they want to force it upon students so they have ‘more diverse views’ available.
George could’nt even wait til his ex bf posted for him. Whats hilarious is how little difference there is between the 2 posts.
He is Turley’s rabid pavlov puppy, following him around and behaving exactly as expected.
“Now the Trump administration is making that change by engaging in blackmail and threatening school funding to force the changes.”
GeorgeX is back yapping furiously at Professor Turley’s heels like a stray cur nobody wants. Ever the hate filled communist, he claims that these universities, like him, are entitled to be supported with taxpayer welfare money. And attaching conditions to receiving that taxpayer welfare is “blackmail” is what GeorgeX claims.
“So, rather than let the market dictate how faculty at higher education institutions forms they want to force it upon students so they have ‘more diverse views’ available.”
Good idea for once, GeorgeX. Let the marketplace of vendors and purchasers of these university’s products decide. Marketplaces don’t need taxpayer welfare when they have billions of dollars in bursaries.
GeorgeX, if Marxism/communism/socialism is so successful… why are you begging American taxpayers to support you or these universities in the first place?
The Trump administration should not engage in efforts to coerge colleges into better choices.
They should just stop funding colleges entirely.
The free market is EXCELLENT at teaching people values that actually work.
But it can not do that when the free market is being distorted by government.
The lack of ideological diversity in colleges solves itself once you subject colleges to the full disciplining forces of a free market.
You keep ranting that this is all about what students want – the reality is that it is not.
But even if it were – Students are the discipline driving the education market ONLY when they are paying for their education in real time.
The greater the extent to which they do not have to pay or that payment is defered, the less consequential what students want is.
If they are so confident their liberal views are so blatantly always better than conservative views, they would be not just welcoming but aggressively setting up public debate of the opposing views. This would be the most effective way of proving only their viewpoint is right. However, the fact they don’t allow for debate is the best evidence we have that they don’t have confidence in their own opinions. It’s more likely their real goal is the shape society as they see fit. They want to play god! (often because they don’t believe God is real)
“… rationalizations of faculty members to excuse their purging of schools of dissenting and largely conservative or libertarian voices. …”
“… Unable to deny this ideological cleansing of departments, faculty are creating a rationalization for their ideological bias. They declare opposing views as “dangerous” or intellectually lazy. …” -JT
This situation is hilarious. To hear the ‘intellectual-cream-of-the-crop’ Faculty Elitist pontificate upon why it is that: this position or that position, should not be eliminated (on the basis of personal political preference etc.), just to save their own asses for when the Hatch Man cometh (when the Pink Slips are issued) … All the while when the Country as a whole has been going through a downsizing by depression and inflation economics done under the economic reality that “WE have to keep the Lights on” as a Nation (Overhead cost reductions – i.e.: Layoffs) lol, lol, lol …
WHAT A JOKE! They’re to smart to know that Their lives have no impact upon the Invisible Hand that is giving them a crushing defeat. Worse is that they don’t know when to quit.
If they had only done their jobs with the understanding that this Country has to be Productive (‘It Must’ produce successive ‘productive’ generations) in order to prosper or at least keep afloat, then They and We wouldn’t be in this situation today.
Like Rats on a Sinking Ship. Your time has cometh. LoL – SUCKERS!!!
So, here’s my take on the Seven Theses. Basically, viewpoint diversity would require that Flat-Earthers need to be represented in the Astronomy Department. However, doing so would impede the search for Truth.
At some theoretical level, she is right. But at a practical level, we are not dealing with Earth-geocentric believers, or Creationists in the Biology Department. We are simply dealing with two groups – The Liberal Left and the Conservative Right. Both groups are a bit fuzzy around the edges, and there is some slop-over. And sometimes the slop-over is so great that you end up with people like me, who are socially conservative and financially more Liberal, thus almost a third group. But generally, the two groups are what we are dealing with. A resort to the absurd is not a good argument.
Re: The humanities, she said:
“But even if we sometimes disdain the language of truth, avoiding truth in the humanities is impossible. As philosopher of science Susan Haack wrote decades ago, “everyone who believes anything, or who asks any question, implicitly acknowledges—even if he explicitly denies—that there is such a thing as truth.” However, it is qualified or danced around, the pursuit of truth remains as foundational to higher education faculty as it ever was. And viewpoint diversity opposes that pursuit.”
But she has drawn the wrong conclusion there, because experience shows that uniformity of thought tends to protect itself. People are not 100% rational, and believe, or pay lip service, to zany ideas and concepts. And they do not wish to be disabused of their beliefs. I learned that in Third Grade, when Steve M. made his class project – a box with plastic cavemen and plastic dinosaurs fighting each other. Trying to be helpful, I pointed out that the dinosaurs were extinct long before humans arrived on the scene. Rather than thanking me for sharing this knowledge, he simply punched me in the stomach.
As a more pointed example, consider Roland Fryer:
” A Harvard professor said that “all hell broke loose” and he was forced to go out in public with armed security after he published a study that found no evidence of racial bias in police shootings.
During a sit-down conversation with Bari Weiss of The Free Press, Harvard Economics Professor Roland Fryer discussed the fallout from a 2016 study he published on racial bias in Houston policing.
The study found that police were more than twice as likely to manhandle, beat or use some other kind of nonfatal force against blacks and Hispanics than against people of other races. However, the data also determined that officers were 23.8 percent less likely to shoot at blacks and 8.5 percent less likely to shoot at Hispanics than they were to shoot at whites.
When Fryer claimed the data showed “no racial differences in officer-involved shootings,” he said, “all hell broke loose,” and his life was upended.”
Most human beings do not have the ego strength to stand against the crowd. From what I have seen, those that do are often as crazy as a bessie bug, like the hulking dudes with beards who put on dresses and claim to be women. But I digress. Somebody like a Fryer, but with less courage, would be less likely to make that sort of stand. But, if half the faculty was more conservative, then I posit that a person is more likely to find their courage.
Plus, she ignores the whole concept of cognitive dissonance, which is extremely anti-truth and anti-reality based. Humans, even professors, generally have a bias toward doubling down when they are wrong.
Professor Turley has published many columns writing about the rot, bias, racism, and plain old academic corruption he sees in universities like the one he teaches at, and from his fellow professors at his and other universities.
But the theoretical purist in him leads him to state this position: Siraganian focuses on the effort of the Trump Administration to force universities to restore greater diversity in faculty hiring and teaching. I opposed some of those efforts…. I do not like the government dictating such changes.
The government giving OUR taxpayer money to these universities who are behaving as they are, is WRONG to attach conditions to those universities if they want to continue to receiving taxpayer money?
No explanation of why you’re offended that the government would do that to put an end to their racist admissions policies, bigoted hiring practices, etc?
Congratulations Professor Turley: you have assured us you’re theoretically pure. You’d like to see the misconduct and malfeasance of these universities and these professors fought – but not by putting conditions on the taxpayer money they receive. Wave a magic wand instead, perhaps?
It is telling that you also admit that we can’t depend on college professors like yourself to make these changes: Once again, we cannot rely on faculty members to restore balance.
Clearly, you are part of the problem with these colleges, just as you are part of the problem with bar associations you belong to who allow people like Comey, Lynch, McCabe, Garland, etc to retain their law licenses. Certainly no columns on how we should clean up your corrupt Washington DC Bar Association you are a member of.
Where colleges and universities get taxpayer money – usually while having massive endowments (your university’s being a cool $3.4 BILLION) being used mostly to generate more profit rather than educate students – the federal government has every right (and obligation to taxpayers) to attach conditions to that money to eliminate racism and bigotry in their hiring practices, permission of anti-Semitism, academic corruption, etc.
Many Americans want to see any college with these enormous endowments cut off from the taxpayer funding trough, at least until the money they have squirreled away in endowments has been spent.
Your public purism in how you want these colleges and universities protected from government conditions attached to taxpayer funding falls on their deaf ears.
“The government giving OUR taxpayer money to these universities who are behaving as they are, is WRONG to attach conditions to those universities if they want to continue to receiving taxpayer money?”
The government is not “giving” money to universities, not in the main. The government most often pays for them to perform research to avoid the government owning, managing, and staffing their own research labs. Money may be given to students in the form of grants, but even grants already have conditions.
What is discussed here is that if anyone on campus receives any government funding then everyone on campus must behave in strict compliance with politically driven requirements.
Those endowments often have strings; they often cannot be used for random endeavors and it is likely the university has to draw funds from the interest or dividends from the investments of those endowments, but at a rate that is lower than the general rate of inflation or the core capital will be depleted in a relatively short time. You can see in the statement below that about 1/3rd of endowments are encumbered.
It appears the annual operating budget is somewhat north of $1.3 Billion dollars with 8% of that offset via endowments. That’s roughly 3% of the above mentioned $3.4 Billion, but that 3% ROI has to be above the 6% or greater general inflation rate or they start losing capital, so they need to get nearly 9% ROI annually.
Those more familiar with financial statements can see it for 2022: https://facultysenate.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs6626/files/2024-03/jan-2022-fiscal-planning-and-budgeting-report.pdf
It does not appear they are holding a huge margin in investments, the largest slice being real estate.
Now, if they spend down the endowments, they will be easy victims to government whims. They would be insane to do that and would be more likely to simply reject government funding entirely. They can more easily ride out a cut to research than the government can.
If they are so confident their liberals views are so blatantly always better than conservative views they would be not just welcoming but aggressively setting up public debate of the opposing views. This would be the most effective way proving only their view point is
carpslaw,
I am confident in my view of the way the Earth and solar system operate, but that doesn’t mean I want a deluge of ill informed flat-Earthers making endless nonsense statements and expecting my agreement. The only value would be to the flat-Earthers in gaining the confidence that their nonsense is worth debating.
Ultimately the problem is conservatives aren’t looking to iron out issues with debate, to find new information to make adjustments to their world view. Conservatives want to argue that they alone know some truth and though the truth is in conflict with reality, others should stop pointing out the discrepancy because it makes them sad.
A story I read illustrates this: a warrior, strongest in the kingdom and trusted by the King is approached by some fellow who complains that the truth is the warrior is a coward. The warrior nods and continues on. One accompanying the warrior asks why the man was not cut down immediately and the warrior asks why he should. The fellow says “He called you a coward.” The warrior replies, “I know it is not true and therefore it does not affect me.”
If what liberals say annoys conservatives, the conservative outrage shows that either they are weak in their beliefs or what is said is true.
Clearly Turley is not confident enough of his political position to be comfortable and not whining about how unfair the liberals are. He could go teach at Liberty University if he wants to be surrounded by conservatives.
Unfortunately, so-called conservatism these days means being in favor of a dictatorship. So we don’t want that.
I live in a region and district thereof which votes Republican at every level of government and yet welcomes and participates in government assistance programs run or sponsored by the Department of Agriculture. These self-labeled conservatives are rather more traditionalists, as if that government support had always been present.
“Unfortunately, so-called conservatism these days means being in favor of a dictatorship.” I hope you don’t miss the “No Kings” rally this weekend, dear!
David Benson is not even sure what time zone his nursing home is in, yet he is certain about it’s regional politics.
His sundowners is kicking in earlier every day.
Of course he still hasn’t explained how someone who can’t think, can “learn to think”. Of course, he gave that advice while doubling down on his demented assertion that there is a 4 hour time difference between coasts.
How about it Davey? Inquiring Nony Mice would like to know.
Quite cruel of you…
“Unfortunately, so-called conservatism these days means being in favor of a dictatorship.” Or, as the Government agent told Winston in Orwell’s novel 1984: “When our language is perfect, the revolution will be complete”
David B. Benson is here yet again to say that the totalitarian police state fascism of Obama and Biden was just compassionate, even handed communism.
But Trump enforcing immigration laws and dealing with Democrat street terrorists and cutting off taxpayer funding to racist, bigoted universities who have become home to the Democrats’ New Hitler Youth Movement is what a dictatorship looks like.
So while Davey wants that, the country sent him a signal they don’t want his fascism and compassionate police state communism by electing Trump to office.
You haven’t gotten the language quite perfect yet, David B. Benson. I’m sure you’ll continue trying even harder to accomplish that.
“the totalitarian police state fascism ”
I must have missed when armed troops were deployed by President Obama or President Biden to city streets and people were dragged from their jobs by masked men in unmarked vehicles with guns drawn.
David, you keep making unfounded statements while ignoring the facts that already disproved you. Two of my replies remain unanswered.
I’ll take your silence to mean you realized you were wrong, and couldn’t bring yourself to admit it.
Left wing ideology demands that they stamp out diversity of viewpoints and demand adherence to their leftists beliefs. The left is now fully nihilist. That is, they reject any facts which clash with their ideology and all human values, honesty, competence, integrity, excellence, beauty, etc., as such. As a direct result, intellectually and psychologically, they cannot tolerate diversity of opinion and they approach anyone who disagrees with them in the slightest as an enemy who they must deal with in malevolent authoritarian, and quite possibly violent, fashion. The only solution to the iron clad grip which the left has on education is to shut off the flow of government money into our schools and universities. I do support stop gap measures such as law suits on behalf of freedom of speech but legal action will not solve the problem long term. To repeat, in order to break the left’s grip on our educational system, the government must get out of education.
“. . . in order to break the left’s grip on our educational system, the government must get out of education.” And alumni donors need to stop enabling limitations of viewpoint diversity by these institutions. Money talks.
I am so confused. I was told to believe that “Diversity is our strength” but apparently not in academic circles. Not that this is news as this has been know for a long time. And as Professor Turley points out, they no longer try to pretend the overwhelming bias exists only in Conservative minds. They are now actively justifying it and that is a very troubling development. It suggests a paradigm shift to turning “the others” into undesirables, enemies, defectives, and we all know how that has inspired the Left in the past.
Sirius the Grating,
On the liberal side is a vast area of many different opinions and approaches; the commonality is acceptance of those differences. On the conservative side there is now a tiny dot labeled “Trump” which is a “with us or against us” group.
Adding that tiny dot to the vast area is like adding a little bit of e coli to a salad. For the e coli, it’s great. A lot of room to spread. For the rest, it is just puking and running to the bathroom and stomach cramps.
WAY BEYOND time to END Federal Aid to Colleges(cities, states, non-profits)
Also outlawing public unions
The Democrats get more money the worse they make it!
Choose the appropriate Latin phrase; mors voluntaria (voluntary death) or necatrix mei (literally “my own slayer” or “self-killer”). Both seem appropriate at this point when assessing the future of academia in the Western world.
The purging of Conservatives and Libertarians from college and university faculties simply makes it easier to inculcate and indoctrinate students as opposed to imparting to them an “education.” How truly Marxist. How truly ominous.
Senior Editor Joe Patrice defended “predominantly liberal faculties” by arguing that hiring a conservative law professor is akin to allowing a believer in geocentrism to teach at a university.
That tells you all you need to know about how low Joe Patrice’s IQ really is.
It informs us on the level of contempt they have for people with opposing views as well as the level of their arrogance.
The statistical imbalances cited by the good professor are truly stunning.
“…we cannot rely on faculty members to restore balance. We will need to focus on donors (as well as public-funding legislative bodies) to withhold money from these departments. Universities will not allow for opposing or dissenting views unless they have little financial choice. In this sense, we need to focus on public universities as the best ground to fight for diversity of thought.”
Amen, Professor Turley.
Exactly, squeeze them where it hurts, monies and government support and funding. Cut of all student aid to any DEI university. Hound donors so that they become social and political pariahs among those in power. Stifle this movement before it swallows the entire nation – and demographically, they are ahead of the game at this point because the rinos were unwilling to fight this fight.
They could pump out a dozen papers a day on this theme. The words are like grooves on an old record. Same tune, same themes, same self-satisfying justifications. And they listen to their own music without variation.
I’ve always said academics are firebrands until they’re thirty. Then, they become fossilized.
They also live in a shadow of unemployment if we decide to rebel and they know they have no useful skills in the real world and would end up baristas or mouthpieces for NGOs that hate America. But their cushy academic life would be gone so they fight to defend their “homeland”.
Turley proves “Seven Theses Against Viewpoint Diversity” is on point with it’s criticism of viewpoint diversity. He is exactly why it is a bad idea.
And one of those intolerant, racist college students leaves his college’s Safe Space to post an example of why viewpoint monoculture permanently damages very small minds.