Do you have any proof that college professors are not extremely liberal? The only facts presented so far in this thread indicate that most college professors are overwhelmingly of the left. If you are not willing to provide facts to support your opinion, you really shouldn’t ask other people to do so.
I’m very conservative. Two of my three children are the same. In the total of college and graduate school classes for three children, many have been very liberal, but exactly one has been anything but fair, reasonable and professional. I would say those are very good odds.
I absolutely do not support affirmative action for conservatives.
I would like the people who are most vocal and most represented in academia to be more open to other points of view.
And what is your point? That all conservatives are racists, sexists and homophobes? That such people as you describe are fairly representative of the roughly thirty five percent of this country that self identifies as conservative? Because if it is not one of those two things I do not know what you are saying, or what point you believe you are advancing.
And from where do you derive your understanding of the “right” position on any issue? As someone who is admittedly far left, in a left leaning department, in a field and industry that tilts pretty substantially left, how much sophisticated conservative thought in your discipline do you believe you are exposed to? Wouldn’t it be more ideal to have a department made up of scholars from a variety of perspectives rather than relying on professors who self identify on one edge of the spectrum to try and fill both intellectual spaces? That is really what Roth is talking about, yeah?
Until we reach an agreed-upon definition of what ‘extremely liberal’ means, you’re just talking past one another. I don’t see any attempts at coming to consensus, just staking out positions.
What is ‘extremely liberal’ that defines most college professors? For some people ‘extremely liberal’ means ‘comfortable with gay people’. For some people ‘extremely liberal’ means ‘destroy all capitalism’. What do you mean?
I’m out on this one, whether I am tagged or not as it seems to me that between personal insults and people attempting to go off the subject anyway, this thread is likely to be closed down. Have a nice day.
Respectfully, the definition of “extremely liberal” is not germane to the discussion. The data is the data. It may mean something, it may not. There may be efforts that should be made to increase intellectual diversity on campus, or maybe any such efforts would be misguided meddling.
But unless people are willing to concede the obvious, rather than demand all encompassing definition for terms that are not susceptible to such (which is basically my favorite logical fallacy, the fallacy of the beard), you are right people will just continue to talk past each other.
@Much2learn “The problem is that most conservative voters will just tell you (I have asked them) that they don’t really care about facts and evidence at all. The base their views on how they feel. They feel that the earth is only 5000 years old.”
There are two views on this in Christianity, the “young earth” and “old earth” creationism views. You might want to do some research on the differences between the two, especially how the old earth view ties into Darwinism.
Folks, for a moment, try to draft your thoughts and then review for the stereotypes you assume. Including this notion that you know “popular mainstream conservative beliefs” fall into a fixed box. Folks on all sides come in all flavors and to various degrees.
Can’t have dialogue with assumption after assumption, finger pointing, and, so to say, fingers in our ears.
Some irony in trying to point to social science profs, btw. SS, in its target form, isn’t about blindly labeling and assuming. (It happens as an academic exercise or for other academic purposes.) If asked, I would call myself liberal- so what? It doesn’t tell you the range of sides I take on various issues. These surveys tend to be kind of limiting in their “either/or” approach. They look for labels, not further.
So, you can’t build a stance on some surveys. They simply are the snapshot, at the time, limited by the folks who designed them.
And there is no goal to exclude conservatives, ime, from mostly “liberal” institutions. Nor are they treated like zoo exhibits. The issue is more how they “think,” not what. How they pursued their stands, not just those stands. AND, the same applies to social justice warriors.
If you could be more specific about the types of conservative arguments you think colleges should pay more attention to, it is possible that I might agree with you.
So far I see conservatives denying that popular conservative views match their views without putting forth any examples of specific ideas that deserve more consideration but do not get it.
I am always open to facts and evidence, and I do agree with several conservative views. Can you be specific about conservative views that you would like to see more attention given to?
@Much2learn I have not been in a college classroom in several years, so I cannot comment on each and every college curriculum. I was responding to one specific statement in your stereotyping of every Christian conservative person based on the answers a handful of people who you just happened to ask. I suggested that you might want to learn about old earth creationism because it appears that you haven’t been exposed to that theory. Most conservative Christians I know are actually old earth creationists. I know very few (if any) who truly believe that God created the earth in seven 24-hour days. And, further up the thread, I made a comment that it doesn’t hurt to be exposed to ideas beyond your personal beliefs and to learn why people think the way they do. If you want to change the world, you have to listen and understand the people in it. In short, don’t try to put people into neat and tidy packages. Conservative Christians are comprised of millions of people of varying beliefs.
@Much2learn, not shockingly, I reject your premise. I do not believe “the earth is 5000 years old”, “a woman’s place is in the home”, or that “climate change is fake” are mainstream conservative views. There are plenty of people though who believe it is laudable to be a stay at home parent and that making such a sacrifice can lead to happier, more successful children. Many too believe that human caused warming is unproven, and more to the point question the appropriate response to any long term significant warming. It’s the difference between a rational position and the caricature that I find most troubling. And I have personally never met anyone who believes the earth is 5000 years old but I guess those people are out there.
As far as conservatives not caring about facts, or having no interest in adjusting their views, I would point out in the university context that we have seen exactly one example of righty college kids shutting down a speaker they didn’t like. This occurred after dozens of examples of like behavior on the left. It is also not conservatives who are trying to shut down classes, or arguing that math and science are tools of whiteness and the patriarchy. So those in massive glass houses probably shouldn’t be looking for rocks.
As to why conservatives should be included in the discussion, the simplest reason is because they are half the country. On many issues of social policy far more than that.
So ignore all the objective data, but even if it is real, it doesn’t matter because conservatives aren’t suited for the academy. I wonder how you would respond to such an argument about any other under represented group?
http://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx indicates that 38% chose “God created humans in present form within last 10,000 years” (versus 38% “Humans evolved, God guided process” and 19% “Humans evolved, God had no part in process”).
http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate/ says that, for the statement that “Earth is warming due to human activity”, 15% of conservative Republicans agree, versus 34% of moderate/liberal Republicans, 63% of moderate/conservative Democrats, and 79% of liberal Democrats.
I.e. young earth creationism and global warming skepticism are more popular than just fringe viewpoints.
As some posters have already indicated, political views tend to be fungible; a Republican today carries a very different connotation than it did as recently as twenty years ago. I think it’s useful to go back to @Corinthian’s initial admonition that any efforts to diversify university views are likely to be restricted to those views that can complement fairly orthodox academic disciplines like Economics. I have no problem with studying creationism as a social phenomenon any more than I would BLM, but I suspect that a good deal of that sort of thing already takes place in Sociology and Poli Sci classes all over the country. Same with climate change deniers: I have no problem discussing policy implications for the indigenous coal industry and how that may effect long-term unemployment in Appalachia. A lot of these things are such no-brainers that you wonder how they could have become so politicized in the first place!
OhioDad. How the hooey did you get your response from my post?
Maybe reread my posts here.
And the issue of “how they think” applies to all.
" The issue is more how they “think,” not what. How they pursued their stands, not just those stands. AND, the same applies to social justice warriors."
This.
You can’t condemn, advocate a position nor learn without first understanding another’s views and where they come from experience-wise.
On BOTH sides.
And I made that comment based on the comments U’s seek to exclude conservatives for being conservative. And the idea thst surveys/who declares themselves "liberal " is proof the conservative voice is squelched (by some rabid pack.)
@lookingforward, I have read your posts, and often find them insightful. I believe the language I quoted from you fairly supports the statement I made. I do not know how else to interpret your position that the issue, at least in part, is how conservatives think. If you intended another meaning, I would be happy to hear it.
As far as survey data, I agree that any individual survey is problematic. But to go from there to ignoring the unassailable fact that the professoriate in general tilts pretty uniformity left is a bridge to far imho.
@ucbalumnus, seriously? What, do you just assume that people wouldn’t read the part where I said “many too believe that human caused warming is unproven”? If you are going to take issue with what I say, I would appreciate that you fairly or accurately represent my statements.
“And there is no goal to exclude conservatives, ime, from mostly “liberal” institutions. Nor are they treated like zoo exhibits. The issue is more how they “think,” not what. How they pursued their stands, not just those stands. AND, the same applies to social justice warriors.”
Academics being liberal does not mean they fail to hear out conservatives. That would be one big leap to assume. And that everyone has to tow the same line.
Where’s this thread going. I thought it could be somewhat open-minded.
Unbookmarking, for the moment. Carry on.
It’s no doubt nice to “allow” or “pay attention to” conservative arguments. But I think Roth recognized the benefit of what the Heterodox Academy advocates: actual diversity of viewpoints among faculty, speakers and students for dynamic interaction, discussion and testing of each other’s arguments. As John Stuart Mill said in the quote in #26, it is far better to hear and challenge an argument from one who really believes it than from a teacher who presents it together with the teacher’s own refutation.