Political & Elections

longprime · Guru

RE: Liberal Dominance in Academia Hurts America

longprime · Guru

^^

They never said the magic words:

Beetlejuice, beetlejuice, Beetlejuice. Maybe that would have banished Mom. smile

catahoula · Guru

DS2 said to me after seeing that on line, he believes there should be no such thing as tenure. They should be like the real world. If kids are saying she is horrible, she should be fired, but because she is tenured we pay the price!

Tenure's a one-word explanation for educator's resistance to the herbicides that work so well everywhere else.

I responded to him:
1. You and I are paying the price. We ware paying financially, you are paying educationally
2. Welcome to the Republican world, now you get the angst over how the education system is broken.

And "weeds are weeds, get used to it." Very good, pima.

Never forget things could be worse, though -- you could have a son or daughter who succumbed:

Ouch. Monday night was the first time I heard my daughter apply that label to herself, and the word didn't please me. She and six friends/coworkers were about to watch the final Obama-Romney debate on the large-screen TV in our suburban basement.

These twenty-something kiddies were enjoying our hospitality because it was free. They're a company (founder, partners, contractors, trainee), part of the start-up trend whereby young persons hang out at coffee shops, staring into laptops, trying to start the next Foursquare or Fab and make a billion dollars. Until that happens, they can't afford things like airfare or hotels. So in order to attend a conference in the city near us, they had driven cross-country in a minivan and were staying at our house for four and a half days.

Up to this point, neither my husband nor I had said a word to them about politics or cultural norms in general. When they brought in large quantities of beer and liquor and stayed up late consuming it, we said nothing. We did not inquire about the marital status of the couple cohabiting in the main guest room. On Sunday, we went to church but did not try to recruit them to go with us. We were not merely nonjudgmental, but supportive, stocking up on groceries to meet their various dietary needs and keeping quiet while they occupied the kitchen, "co-working."

Tolerant I am. But being told to leave my own basement did not cut it.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/mom_go_upstairs_were_all_liberals.html#ixzz2ASWDApIB

-- Edited by catahoula on Friday 26th of October 2012 06:35:22 PM

winchester · Guru

"Anywhere in the world that social psychologists see women or minorities underrepresented by a factor of two or three, our minds jump to discrimination as the explanation,” said Dr. Haidt, who called himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “But when we find out that conservatives are underrepresented among us by a factor of more than 100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate explanations.”

Two liberal scientists decided to do a study to test Haidt's claim. What they found surprised even them.

[A] new study, "Political Diversity in Social and Personality Psychology," by Dutch psychologists finds that overt discrimination against conservatives likely plays a role. The researchers surveyed several hundred social psychologists, most of them American, and found that 6 percent identified as "overall conservative" - certainly better than 3 in a 1,000 but nowhere near being representative of the larger population. The researchers then ask:

Why, then, did Haidt have such difficulty finding more than a handful of conservative colleagues? The current results suggest one answer: Members of the conservative minority are reluctant to express their political beliefs publicly. Survey 2 shows why: Hostility toward and willingness to discriminate against conservatives is widespread. One in six respondents said that she or he would be somewhat (or more) inclined to discriminate against conservatives in inviting them for symposia or reviewing their work. One in four would discriminate in reviewing their grant applications. More than one in three would discriminate against them when making hiring decisions. Thus, willingness to discriminate is not limited to small decisions. In fact, it is strongest when it comes to the most important decisions, such as grant applications and hiring.

This hostile climate offers a simple explanation of why conservatives hide their political opinions from colleagues. Given that all academics depend on the opinions of their colleagues—who judge their papers, grants, and job applications—and given that such judgments are typically made by multiple reviewers (most of whom are liberal), this means that outspoken conservatives face a very serious problem. Hence, the more conservative respondents are, the more they hide their political opinions.

Conservatives stay quiet (or stay out of academic psychology altogether) because they don't want the thundering herd of independent minds to stampede their careers into the dust.

The study is available here.

Our friend Emily Esfahani Smith wrote about it in The Washington Times.

One question, according to the researchers, “asked whether, in choosing between two equally qualified job candidates for one job opening, they would be inclined to vote for the more liberal candidate (i.e., over the conservative).”

More than a third of the respondents said they would discriminate against the conservative candidate. One respondent wrote in that if department members “could figure out who was a conservative, they would be sure not to hire them.”

Mr. Inbar, who volunteered for the Obama campaign in 2008, cautions that the finding reflects only what respondents said they would do — not necessarily what they actually would do in real life.

Generally speaking, the more liberal the respondent, the more willingness to discriminate and, paradoxically, the higher the assumption that conservatives do not face a hostile climate in the academy.

To Massimo Pigliucci, chairman of the philosophy department at the City University of New York-Lehman College, the problem is not that conservatives face discrimination; it’s that any hint of political bias, whether conservative or liberal, necessarily flouts the standards of objectivity to which scholarship must adhere.

The problem is pervasive and systemic.

These are the people who teach our children.

-- Edited by winchester on Friday 26th of October 2012 07:32:11 AM

longprime · Guru

How 'bout a liberal attending a conservative school?

And why is it that the so called IVY's are seen as liberal? Can we develop a University with obeyience to the multiforms of the Bible?

Can we change Harvard, where our past President, our current President and next President attended to be a the Harvard of Salem MA? Since it is only a few days before halloween-Do You Believe in witches, ghosts, and goblins who are going to have the last big fling before, All Saint's.?

winchester · Guru

geeps,

I do not in any way intend to say, or even imply, that you are doing anything wrong.

What I intend to say is that the liberal dominance in academia manifests itself as a hostile climate for non liberals on most campuses.

It is institutionalized bigotry against a lifestyle and/or ideology.

The fact that a scholarship is on the line compounds the problem by orders of magnitude.

In the workplace that would constitute harassment - either toe the liberal line or risk losing your scholarship - and the employer would be subject to legal action.

It is a violation of civil rights.

Liberal dominance on campus - K-12 and college - is a civil rights issue.

longprime · Guru

"RE:I told him before he went off that if he did encounter left wing profs., to just give them what they want to hear

We would never say that to son. That is thinking that many of our MOC and other elected officials think that we electors want.

He has a mind and freewill for which he needs to use it.

Standup, even if you are the only one.

Hasn't anyone seen Chicken Run? Takes but one hen to change the course of flock talk. The choice is either learn to fly or have your offspring eaten or you into canned soup. evileye

winchester · Guru

RE: I told him before he went off that if he did encounter left wing profs., to just give them what they want to hear

The above quote is from geeps, but I think pima - and possibly others - did (or would) express similar thoughts, or would at least identify with the sentiment.

In response to this sentiment I'll ask some rhetorical questions to help make my point. I'm not specifically looking for answers but if anyone wants to wax poetic I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Why do we put up with this? What message does it send to our kids when we tell them to keep their heads down and just tell the prof what he/she wants to hear?

Think about it.

In this age of supposed "tolerance" and "inclusiveness" and "diversity" we're forced to tell our kids to "go along to get along?" And to do it in a place which is SUPPOSED to be, among other things, about learning and growing and finding out who they are?

How is that helpful? In what universe is that fair, or inclusive, or tolerant or diverse? On what planet can that possibly be considered an intellectually safe environment, an incubator, a "greenhouse" for ideas, in which our kids can feel comfortable to explore ideas and grow? The answer is: None. The answer is: It's the opposite of that.

Actions speak louder than words. How does the action of telling our kids to not rock the boat not PROVE beyond the shadow of any possible doubt that the WHOLE IDEA of tolerance and inclusiveness and diversity is nothing but hollow sham; a bald faced lie?

Here's a pertinent quote from Haidt - a person who was born and raised, by his own account, as a Republican-hating liberal - about his findings:

“ Of course there are many reasons why conservatives would be underrepresented in social psychology, and most of them have nothing to do with discrimination or hostile climate. Research on personality consistently shows that liberals are higher on openness to experience. They're more interested in novel ideas, and in trying to use science to improve society. So of course our field is and always will be mostly liberal. I don't think we should ever strive for exact proportional representation.

But a ratio of two or three hundred to one, in a nation where the underlying ratio is one to two? When we find any job in the nation in which women or minorities are underrepresented by a factor of three or four, we make the strong presumption that this constitutes evidence of discrimination. And if we can't find evidence of overt discrimination, we presume that there must be a hostile climate that discourages underrepresented groups from entering.

K-12 and college campuses in America today are hostile climates for non-liberals.

geeps20 · Senior Member

Pima.. my S is a frosh as well and has told me his English and Philosophy teachers are way left and most lectures are very bias. I told him before he went off
that if he did encounter left wing profs., to just give them what they want to hear.. I just found out his last paper was why political correctness is a bunch of bull..I'm scrted..lol

longprime · Guru

I don't get it. If a Right Wing Prof says something, You oughta agree?

I don't agree with everything that Ron Paul says. Nor do I agree with everything that PBO says, He tells pretty good jokes. ... Ohioians, get a BIG Hersey Bar, If he wins. (Leno, Oct 24) evileye

-- Edited by longprime on Thursday 25th of October 2012 02:04:51 PM

geeps20 · Senior Member

winchester..actually I agree with you...BUT a merit scholarship is on the line. When you get hit in the wallet, sometimes you have to compromise a bit.
However, as I stated earlier, I don't think he's following my advice by his latest paper..

-- Edited by geeps20 on Thursday 25th of October 2012 01:43:56 PM

winchester · Guru

soccerguy: Precisely. (sarcasm noted)

longprime: Read "Coming Apart" by Charles Murray. The "beginning" happened around 40-50 years ago depending on which precipitating event you choose to mark it with.

winchester · Guru

I believe that Pima's anecdotal evidence is supported statistically AND through countless other examples and arguments that have been gathered over the yeas, from "God and Man at Yale" by William F. Buckley to "The Closing of the American Mind" by Alan Bloom and beyond.

This is a serious problem. I know what I'm about to say sounds hyperbolic but it is the simple factual truth. The fact of liberal dominance in Academia means that our education system in America is a de facto indoctrination for the liberal world view and cognitive style, to the practical exclusion and ostracism of any other views and of people who belive in them. This fact undermines the very principles of freedom of speech, thought, and religion upon which this country was founded and through which it achieved its greatness and does far greater harm than good to those principles and to our culture as a whole..

My recommended solution would be opposed like Michelle Rhee was opposed in DC. It would take probably a generation or two to accomplish, if it could be accomplished at all, because of the powerful forces that would line up against it. But for what it's worth, here it is:

We can reduce demonization and shrink the political divide by teaching the lessons of The Righteous Mind in age appropriate modules in practically every subject – from literature to history to civics to health to economics – in our public schools from K through 12 and beyond. I am confident that if our children understand how Moral Foundations influence the way people think in all walks of life and how they affect the way people relate with one another in the social world then future generations will have a deeper grasp of human nature and will thus be better equipped to get along; leaders who emerge will make better decisions through an increased empathy for how our righteous minds really work.

In the introduction of The Righteous Mind Dr. Haidt says:

People who devote their lives to studying something often come to believe that the object of their fascination is the key to understanding everything. Books have been published in recent years on the transformative role in human history played by cooking, mothering, war . . . even salt. This is one of those books.

I believe Dr. Haidt is more right than even he realizes. I believe the righteous mind (the phenomenon, rather than the book) is an integral part of the history of mankind, and certainly of politics. For example, I believe that the liberal and conservative righteous minds provided the intellectual underpinnings of the French and American Revolutions, respectively, and more recently of the Occupy and Tea Party movements in America. The two outlooks are also reflected, I suggest, in the economic visions of Keynes and Hayek. Moral foundations are evident in the stories and fables we tell our preschoolers, and in the literature our teenagers read in high school English. Practically every subject in our public education system could include a module which explicitly identifies and reinforces the ideas of The Righteous Mind and shows how those ideas abrought to bear on that subject; Even, or possibly especially, “Health” classes, where our kids might be taught how moral foundations can sometimes make it difficult to see eye to eye, and how understanding where others are “coming from” can help them to get past that problem.

We cannot possibly expect future generations to get along unless and until we “change the path” in a way that gives them a truer grasp of why getting along can be so hard to do.

-- Edited by winchester on Thursday 25th of October 2012 08:28:03 AM

pima · Guru

cat,

Our DS would agree with your comment he got an A for being the fish that got away. The prof had no other choice because his argument was logical and they as a prof couldn't find an argument to disprove his premise.

I too agree, a great prof as a Govt/poli-sci teacher should be the devil's advocate. They should present the issues from both sides, not here's my position. The students in both of our kids classes were freshmen, and this was by Columbus day, 1 month in, 6 classes at best. These kids are still getting their footing in how college works, they are not going to rock the boat.

They take other subjective classes, such as Eng. Psych/Soc, History where for many schools are mandated to graduate. Have a couple of those classes and add in Econ regarding trickle up or down theory and you can quickly see how they make an impact on an 18 yo's mind very quickly.

I have to give it up to DS2's English teacher, he tested out of Eng101 and 201, to the highest level. She has pulled in the election to her classes, but with a really neat twist. She wanted them to defend/attack either candidates speech from the writing perspective. She didn't care who they supported, she was trying to use this as an exercise for writing, since both of their speech writers are the best of the best.

The goal was not political, but to illustrate what makes a great essay/term paper. At the same time, she allowed them to process the political side and their own opinions regarding how/why they support one candidate over another.

That to me is a great prof. I asked DS if he knew which way she slanted, and if that impacted his decision, he said he had no idea, she only talks about politics to illustrate how to get your position across succinctly.

He also looked up his Poli Sci prof rating from a student perspective. She has the lowest score of every teacher, and the highest amount of complaints, but the prof is tenured.

DS2 said to me after seeing that on line, he believes there should be no such thing as tenure. They should be like the real world. If kids are saying she is horrible, she should be fired, but because she is tenured we pay the price!

I responded to him:
1. You and I are paying the price. We ware paying financially, you are paying educationally
2. Welcome to the Republican world, now you get the angst over how the education system is broken.

We went onto discuss Michelle Rhee. Michelle Rhee IMPO was the best chance for DC schools to become better.

I explained her program for teachers, which I thought was great, but unfortunately teacher's unions are too big to fight.

She had a 2 tier track. Teachers had an option to choose which tier.

Tier 1: No tenure, higher salary. If kids met the stds for testing, their job was safe.
Tier 2: Tenure, lower salary, obviously after tenuring testing results couldn't get you fired.

She also did this because many great DC teachers were jumping to VA because of pay.

DS2 looked at me and said, that is something I could agree with as a student. I think that it would make the tenure teachers that are competent to go to the other side and make more money, which means the level of education would increase dramatically because it is now their paycheck on the line.

When we give both sides of the fence, and show no partiality to either side it is amazing what 18 yos realize.

OBTW, when I was 18-24 I was a staunch Dem., probably would have been considered a liberal. The MSM and profs had me convinced that R's wanted to overturn Roe V Wade, and abortion would be outlawed under Reagan. Had me convinced that my student loans would disappear. That they wanted to blow up the world at any given chance.

What made me change at 24? I changed because none of that stuff happened.

Why have I stayed leaning right at 47? Because none of that stuff has ever happened!

They created a boogie monster and as an 18 yo I believed them.

-- Edited by pima on Thursday 25th of October 2012 07:42:36 AM

longprime · Guru

Thank goodness, young people have a predisposition to not take people's advice and wisdom. There is a danger that economic downs, more students try to conform rather than to explore. And those who are successful will pray on the weaker. I think we are beginnng to see the division happening amongst those who had a monetary and education advantages.

soccerguy315 · Guru

so what you are saying, is that U.S. schools have a diversity problem?

i'm sure the liberals will be on this right away, to fix the disparity...

longprime · Guru

Most of us will never ask the Opposite Question.

I had to go home to get some laundry that Mom's washing machine does a poor job on. A 4x6 sign was being put up, "Vote YES #84, Creates Jobs, across from high school"

So what is #84? It allows for a state constitutional change to allow nontribal casinos, on private land, privately funded- Oregon has 7 casinos for a population of 3.8 million.

"Creates Jobs", Yes, it will. But what are the Opposite Questions: Will NET Jobs be lost? Will new jobs mean a net gain in personal incomes? Will these jobs have a social benefit? Will these jobs have mean a redistribution of wealth and incomes? Is this a question of free markets, enterprise, and politics?

winchester · Guru

How'd we get onto taxes?

Oh. Yeah. Pima. It has something to do with dependent deductions. Or something.

Longprime. RE: It was W's tax cuts which caused the great devide

What great divide are you talking about?

What I'm talking about - the dominance of Academia by liberal thinking - is not even a divide. A divide is between two things. In academia there's only one thing: liberal thought. No other kind of thought is allowed. There's no divide.

catahoula · Guru

There's a line from an old, hard science fiction novel, Ringworld by Larry Niven. It goes something like:

"The majority is always sane, Louis".

Five words that encapsulate all those things (pressure to conform, groupthink, tyranny of the majority) liberals usually claim destroys that rarest and most precious of human traits -- diversity.

The sad thing is: they truly can't see when they're guilty of ruthlessly stomping it out of the race themselves.

I'd say that the prof was pretty good at teaching-Regardless of the political stance he was taking, which may have been Opposite of his true feelings. Doesn't matter, because 80% (approx) will just reguritate what they hear or what they think what other people want to hear.

It seems more like he was rewarding the fish for being smart enough to escape. I'd think a good teacher would be one that either argured both sides, as impartially as he could, or encouraged his students to do it for him. Without that creepy feeling of possible grade censure if they argue too well something he doesn't agree with.

-- Edited by catahoula on Wednesday 24th of October 2012 05:55:38 PM

longprime · Guru

Pima;

Taxes. It was W's tax cuts which caused the great devide. If you go back to the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts - he and the R Congress gave tax cuts to Everyone, which meant that the some of the lower income people who used to pay taxes, now didn't get to pay taxes, accomplished by raising the taxable income and lowering the rate-both of which cause large numbers of people to not pay taxes.

However, the increase of nonpayers barely affected the tax receipts, where tax receipts from the top wage earners increased. The top income people however did pay more taxes but because of wages but from capital gains occurred in 2000 and 2001. I made a joke of this then, because DS who was then 15-16 paid more in Federal and State taxes than we did, and he didn't have a job.

1.The Bill Walton (a fellow Arkansasan) heirs (4) has the same wealth of 100 million Americans.

2.The Waltons pay more in taxes than these 100 million Americans.

3.Doubling and tripling the taxes paid by these 100 million Americans would not affect either statement 1 or 2.

4 A rise in Yuan relative to US$ would affect the Waltons more or the 100 million?

5. In this Great Recession, the Walton's wealth increased while the 100 million decreased.

longprime · Guru

So MR's slogan is, "I know how to create 12 million jobs"

Is this statement a credible statement?

Is my thinking a Liberal thought or a Conservative thought?

-- Edited by longprime on Wednesday 24th of October 2012 03:33:01 PM

longprime · Guru

pima= "Prof: Let's move on.

Prof did give him an A. Prof did talk to him privately and said that it was due to his logical thinking skills, and defending his positions.

The point is, look at my 2 boys, both had the same experiences with their profs. How many kids that have no political information will be swayed by profs? As winchester stated kids look up to these people, especially in college. The profs live by the statement publish or perish. They are the know it alls in their fields, and 18 yr olds are impressionable."

I'd say that the prof was pretty good at teaching-Regardless of the political stance he was taking, which may have been Opposite of his true feelings. Doesn't matter, because 80% (approx) will just reguritate what they hear or what they think what other people want to hear.

-- Edited by longprime on Wednesday 24th of October 2012 03:14:09 PM

pima · Guru

Our youngest is a freshman in college right now, and he is seeing up close and personal how the collegiate academia world is tilted. He is in a poli-sci class, and the prof's assignments have been to watch the debates. It is a 1x a week class for 3 hrs. For the last 3 weeks, she has not touched upon the assignment. She has spent 3 weeks of spouting her political stance...share the wealth for the good of the nation, deadlock on the Hill because R's want to protect the wealthy, Voter violation for D's.

DS2 said nobody who disagrees with her dares to raise their hand to argue because they fear they will get a lower grade since exams and papers are subjective, plus they are all freshmen. 30+ kids 3 hrs a week are lectured.

DS1 (graduated last May), had the same deal 4 yrs ago at a different college. For him it was during the time of Joe the Plumber. He was a freshmen majoring in Govt and Relations as an honor student. The Prof did the exact same thing regarding share the wealth. DS2 makes me look like a liberal. He had the kahunas on him to say, so as far as this class goes, if I submit C work, and someone else submits A work, I can expect a B from you because of sharing the wealth?

The prof was dumbfounded by the question, and replied: NO, you will get a C, because you earned a C, they worked harder and earned an A..

DS: So how is that different than what Joe the Plumber was saying?

Prof: Because as a society we owe it to help others to succeed when they need help.

DS: I am on merit scholarship, must carry a 3.2 cgpa, if I get a C in this class, than I need help from people like you so I can succeed and stay in college, isn't that the same?

Prof: No, because you chose to rely on others and not yourself.

DS: Isn't that the same as what Joe is saying?

Prof: Let's move on.

Prof did give him an A. Prof did talk to him privately and said that it was due to his logical thinking skills, and defending his positions.

The point is, look at my 2 boys, both had the same experiences with their profs. How many kids that have no political information will be swayed by profs? As winchester stated kids look up to these people, especially in college. The profs live by the statement publish or perish. They are the know it alls in their fields, and 18 yr olds are impressionable.

What I find more interesting with both these profs., that when it comes to their own personal positions as a professor, they don't live by the liberal position, like I am sure George Soros doesn't live by it too.

They publish books that sell at their college for 200 a pop (they get royalties), and is mandated for their class. College education rises 10% a yr in tuition, at least, and that pays for their salary. They have free labor, i.e. interns. They hire tax attorneys to pay the least amount of taxes possible, but come to teaching our kids they preach what they don't live.

It is like Buffett. Buffett says the tax system is wrong when he pays less than his secretary, yet he fought the govt on taxes owed...and lost. Created a group with Gates, Oprah, etc for philanthropic purposes. If you truly believe that the government should be in charge of helping and can do a great job, than write a check to the IRS for the exact same amount. The IRS will gladly cash it.

If you don't you just proved to me, that what you say and what you do are two different things. Your actions are saying exactly what R's are about. Take your money out of the govt. let people help using their own decisions, because inherently, our society is good and will donate to those in need. Relay for Life, Habitat for Humanity, Autism Speaks, Soup Kitchens, etc. prove that is true. Heck, PBS and Big Bird have stated that the cut MR proposes won't kill them. Imagine if the deficit was gone, we get back to AAA rating for every county in the nation, and you had 25 bucks a week more in your pocket. Are you going to say you won't spend 10 bucks for a purple bow sold to support Relay for Life. Would you not now give 5 bucks for your volunteer FD when before you gave 1? Would you be able to buy more clothes for your kids, and donate their old clothes to Goodwill or Salvation Army? How about buying food for your church or county food pantry?

Do you think R's don't do this even when times are tight? Do you believe that they are so selfish they don't help? The true difference between an R and a D. R's believe in helping by a hand up, not a hand out!

Sorry for my rant, but seriously I am tired of libs, and their pretenses.

blankmind · Senior Member

Liberalism used to mean what you think it means longprime, but it's been replaced by something that is contradictory to the definition of the word "liberal." They continue to use the word "liberal" because it's a "good" word, a word that people like to think describes their ability to be free from bigotry and bias. Ironically, the word "liberal" does not describe Liberalism. Liberalism isn't open to differing opinions, it is only open to approved opinions.

Liberalism would eliminate Conservatism from the universe if it could.

I used to think I was a liberal. Then I started reading CC. It was quite a shock to find out what a liberal really is.

winchester · Guru

This is not about liberalism vs. conservatism. That's a different discussion.

This is about the fact that our college kids hear, and are taught, only one side of the story. Practically all of their teachers share the same world view.

The H. E. Babers of the world are the ones who are shaping our kids' minds.

University of Colorado is actively searching for a visiting scholar in conservative thought and policy. Why is that even necessary?

College campuses are the least diverse places in the country. Non-liberals feel ostracized. They keep their heads down.

winchester · Guru

Pima's examples are the rule, not the exception.

Haidt found that the ratio of liberals to conservatives within his own field to be somewhere around two or three hundred to one. He says:

Of course there are many reasons why conservatives would be underrepresented in social psychology, and most of them have nothing to do with discrimination or hostile climate. Research on personality consistently shows that liberals are higher on openness to experience. They're more interested in novel ideas, and in trying to use science to improve society. So of course our field is and always will be mostly liberal. I don't think we should ever strive for exact proportional representation.

But a ratio of two or three hundred to one, in a nation where the underlying ratio is one to two? When we find any job in the nation in which women or minorities are underrepresented by a factor of three or four, we make the strong presumption that this constitutes evidence of discrimination. And if we can't find evidence of overt discrimination, we presume that there must be a hostile climate that discourages underrepresented groups from entering. http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt11/haidt11_index.html

And indeed, a hostile environment is exactly what most college campuses are for non-liberals. Here’s a page from Haidt’s PowerPoint presentation on this subject:

Until about a year ago, I was very quiet about my sexual orientation... I often didn't understand the sexual jokes made by my colleagues… the people making the jokes thought that we all felt the same way, and I certainly wasn't going to reveal that I disagreed. That would have been much too awkward.

JB was really the first person I talked to about my sexual identity. He made me feel more comfortable and seemed to want to hear other perspectives…. Since then, taking PT’s class opened up a dialog and others have shared more as well. Before I thought that I was completely alone and was afraid to say much because of it. Now I feel both somewhat obligated to speak up (don't want others to feel as alone as I did) and also know that I have more support than I originally realized.

Only, that’s not the real letter he received. The real letter is below, with the five words Haidt changed to make the fake letter above, and his point, highlighted in bold:

Until about a year ago, I was very quiet about my political opinions… I often didn't understand the political jokes made by my colleagues… the people making the jokes thought that we all felt the same way, and I certainly wasn't going to reveal that I disagreed. That would have been much too awkward.

JB was really the first person I talked to about my political beliefs. He made me feel more comfortable and seemed to want to hear other perspectives…. Since then, taking PT’s class opened up a dialog and others have shared more as well. Before I thought that I was completely alone and was afraid to say much because of it. Now I feel both somewhat obligated to speak up (don't want others to feel as alone as I did) and also know that I have more support than I originally realized.http://people.stern.nyu.edu/jhaidt/postpartisan.html

Here’s another quote from Haidt’s presentation, from a graduate student in social psychology:

I consider myself very middle of the road politically: A social liberal but fiscal conservative. Nonetheless, I avoid the topic of politics around work… Given what I've read of the literature, I am certain any research I conducted in political psychology would provide contrary findings and, therefore, go unpublished. Although I think I could make a substantial contribution to the knowledge base, and would be excited to do so, I will not.

-- Edited by winchester on Wednesday 24th of October 2012 08:08:22 AM

pima · Guru

OBTW, just curious for those that believe we need to pay more taxes, how many of you did a 1040, and didn't take 1 deduction. No kids, no house, nothing?

Why not?

Seriously, I am not being antagonistic, I am curious. If you believe millionaires should share their wealth, which they already do at a higher rate, why don't you share yours and take no deductions? I don't know the stats, but isn't it like the top 10% of taxpayers make up @90% of the revenues? I am not in the top 10%, and even if it hit the 250K, I would still be safe, so I have no bone in that fight regarding statistics.

I am sure because like me, you can't afford to do it, and have an illusion they can, however, morally why are you less culpable than others when you use the system? What makes you any better when you ask others to pay more if you are unwilling to do the same?

I have never understood why it is "GREED" to want to keep the money, but not greed to want to take somebody else's money" Thomas Sowell

I truly agree with that statement.

Sorry for diverting the topic, but in honesty, it is tied to the academia world, because be it collegiate or even public k-12 education, it is still true. They want more money from the public dole, and if people squawk it is deemed evil.

-- Edited by pima on Wednesday 24th of October 2012 07:13:01 AM

longprime · Guru

Liberalism allows Conservatitism to survive.

Conservatitism stivels different thinkings.

Apparently all that liberal thinking makes USA a Conservative nation. ... Mom, APPLE PIE, and the Cowboy Way. evileye

I can't read your stufff on Haidt. too long. especially after a tall Moscato.

winchester · Guru

I think the dominance of liberalism in academia and the resulting lack of alternate views is harming our society. I think there are a lot more H. E Babers (see below) in the world than we realize.

Most of you here know I’m an unabashed fan, some might say groupie, of the work of Jonathan Haidt. I honestly believe that his work, and especially his book “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics And Religion” offers a Rosetta Stone for understanding the political divide.

One of the reasons I like Haidt is that he tries really, REALLY had to avoid taking sides. He studies morality almost as an anthropologist studies civilizations. He tries to describe only what is; only what the science shows. He tries to avoid saying than any morality is better than any other, just that they are different.

Many of my posts here are based on his findings which are, briefly, that natural selection has placed in the human psyche a predisposition to favor/avoid six specific phenomena in our social world; care/harm, fairness/cheating, liberty/oppression, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation. He finds that liberal morality is built on the first three (and of those mostly the first one), and conservative morality is built on an equal balance of all six.

He maintains a web site for his book . Part of that web site is a blog where he occasionally posts articles which support his work or which show how current events might be better understood through his work. His blog posts are open for comment by interested readers.

His most recent blog entry is called Look How Far We've Come...Apart . It is a summary and a pointer to a more in depth article of his about the depth of the political divide which was published in the New York Times.

I found one comment to that post particularly….well….interesting. It is from one H. E. Baber, a professor of psychology at the University of San Diego. In this post the acronym WEIRD stands for Western Educated Industrialized Rich Democratic. This requires a little explanation which I’ll let Haidt do himself in this quote:

Behavioral scientists routinely publish broad claims about human psychology and behavior based on samples drawn entirely from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic societies." The acronym there being WEIRD. "Our findings suggest that members of WEIRD societies are among the least representative populations one could find for generalizing about humans. Overall, these empirical patterns suggest that we need to be less cavalier in addressing questions of human nature, on the basis of data drawn from this particularly thin and rather unusual slice of humanity.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/morality10/morality.haidt.html

To put it more crudely, but about as accurately, most social scientists, who are practically all liberal, arrive at their generalizations about human nature after studying only liberals. Haidt did a presentation on this topic titled The Bright Future of Post-Partisan Social Psychology in which he claimed that the dearth of non-liberals in the field of social science hurts the science. It caused quite a stir. It, and much of the stir, is available at the link.

So, with that brief background, here’s the comment from University of San Diego Philosophy Professor H. E. Baber offering her interpretation of the political divide:

It’s class warfare, i’n’it: the dip in party polarization comes during the period Krugman characterizes as “the Great Compression”—when the gap between the richest and poorest Americans narrowed.

So, Haidt: let me ask you something after reading your book. Why should we regard the moral universe of the lower classes and primitive people as a consequence of their ability to taste more moral flavors than those we poor WEIRDs can distinguish? Why not regard it as a failure of discrimination on their part, in particular, their inability to make fine discriminations between moral intuitions and feelings of irritation or disgust?

This seems to be supported by your interviews with lower class people try to give a rationale in terms of harm for their gut feelings that sex between siblings, cleaning toilets with flag rages, etc. is bad by contriving scenarios involving harm. These poor, dumb, ignoramuses have a sense that their gut feelings by themselves shouldn’t license moral judgments, but they’re too stupid, unreflective and ignorant to figure out what’s going on.

I’m a liberal, one of your WEIRDs, and an academic. But I have nothing but hatred and contempt for working class Americans and members of non-Western cultures. And, c’mon Haidt: don’t you think that if these people get some education and financial security, they’ll become as WEIRD is us? The 6-dimension moral structure you describe is a defect—the illusion of stupid, unreflected, uneducated people. Our aim should be to dismantle their detestable **** cultures, to make everyone WEIRD! Look How Far We've Come...Apart

I think the problem of liberalism in academia is worse than Haidt suggest in his Post-Partisan talk. I think the problem affects not just academic social science, but our entire culture. Those same scientists are also our kids teachers, and not just in social science, but in most other subjects as well. These people - people like H. E. Baber - are who our kids look up to and trust to give them the "straight scoop" about the human condition. How can professors' personal world views and cognitive styles NOT creep into their lectures? How can the trusting kids NOT pick up on those messages and style? How is that trust NOT betrayed by the dearth of non-liberals in academia?

And the Post-Partisan problem is not contained within academic social science, or even in higher education, it also exists in K-12 education.

Through our education system the Post-Partisan problem is being propagated outward into our entire culture, and has been for decades. Entire generations of kids have been and are being taught to think by people who think like Baber and Westen. Our kids for the most part are not exposed to any other world views or cognitive styles. Our kids are not being taught how to think. They're being taught how to think like liberals.

The wonder of it all is that we actually wonder why the political divide is as bad as it is. Newt Gingrich (who Haidt blames for a lot of the partisanship in Washington because he took steps that helped to segregate liberals and conservatives in congress) is the least of the causes. He is a deck chair on the Titanic. How is the Post-Partisan problem in academia NOT the iceberg that caused the gash in the ship (and arguably on the cover of Haidt’s book)?