I liked the article, but I feel like this article, and many artices like, only hint or brush at truly one of the largest issues for conservatives: the numbers game. Strong majorities of professors, in pretty much every college in the United States, range from liberal to marxist. There just aren't enough conservative professors to go around! How many conservative professors even exist in the United States? 500? Maybe? Seems high honestly. (And of those, perhaps a dozen are actually honest to goodness God-fearing Conservatives, and not just libertarians.) So to me, it's no wonder that universities are such a target, pretty much everyone who staffs them, everyone who teaches at them, and everyone who attends them, is liberal.
There’s roughly 1.5 million post-secondary instructors in the United States, roughly half full-time.
Estimates of conservative faculty range between 7-15%. (FIRE, where the 15% figure comes from, probably overestimates due to their conservative bias.)
So approximately 50,000 to 110,000 conservative faculty. You’re off by a couple orders of magnitude.
There’s over 500 faculty working at Liberty University alone, never mind the other, larger Evangelical Christian schools.
add-sub-mul-div 6 hours ago [-]
It's not the fault of universities that education is incongruous with certain values like fear of change and progress.
pfannkuchen 2 hours ago [-]
It’s not the fault of the church that faith is incongruous with certain values like sin and blasphemy.
paulddraper 3 hours ago [-]
> incongruous with certain values like fear of change and progress
I essentially agree.
Though “progress” connotes improvement.
Brave New World was extremely “progressive.”
jarjoura 2 hours ago [-]
This whole article is nonsense.
Yes, the Trump administration fucked over a decade of university research with his weird DEI campaign. That same fuckery also blew up all kinds of research grants not tied to universities. I'm sure some of us here know someone directly impacted by that decision. It was cruel and ruthless.
Otherwise, everything else that article talks about is a nothing-burger.
I can't tell you my professors' political beliefs, nor did I care. I went to school to learn about the world and topics that interested me. If there was a professor who tried to radicalize me or speak about things I didn't agree with, I would have dropped the class.
Some students are like me, and are there loving the process of learning. Other students couldn't care less, and are happy just to get the grade and get out of there. Either way, if a teacher is going to make a course an extension of their personal beliefs, I highly doubt any student will suddenly assimilate if they didn't already agree. They'll just bitch to their friends that the professor is some wacko, and roll their eyes.
No no, some conservatives are just trying to do what they love doing and that's get academics worked up and divided for empty rhetoric.
epsteingpt 6 hours ago [-]
The core fiction that enables the university to work is a dedication to 'truth' and progress through discussion. Safety and freedom is part of that bargain. Universities have failed on those accounts.
That breaks down when there isn't open discussion on campus. Communists were jeered but essentially allowed on campus in the 60s and 70s, even at the height of the cold war.
The left now holds a place of orthodoxy in the universities and power structures. Whether the 'right' can break it back into an enforced balance is yet to be seen.
Until then, the central tie of an otherwise diverse institution will break down and break into fragments. Which would be a shame. The opposition needs to "live" somewhere!
pjc50 9 minutes ago [-]
> The opposition needs to "live" somewhere!
Not if they're systematically wrong about everything. There's no need to keep an intellectual disease vector in the academy any more than there would be a moral obligation to open your windows to the malaria mosquitos.
Climate change and medicine are the largest, most visible aspects of this, but it's intellectual dishonesty all the way down.
Note that this has got much worse since about the Obama era. There are no true small-c conservative intellectuals any more.
mastermage 2 hours ago [-]
I think these comparisons between left and right, always break down when one side clearly does not want others to live. I am fine with opposition when we can both agree on the fundamentals that every person deserves to live (and probably a good life too not just barely scraping by). There are alot of people now again, that do not belive in this fundamental principle.
nixon_why69 4 hours ago [-]
I think its better to take aim at "safetyism" rather than the left or right. The last couple years have seen the right become increasingly good at weaponizing it although the left did have a head start.
Note that the current wave of attacks are all justified by safetyism, they're pushed by an anti-semitism task force that's encompassed any anti-war sentiment.
TimorousBestie 5 hours ago [-]
> The core fiction that enables the university to work is a dedication to 'truth' and progress through discussion. . . . That breaks down when there isn't open discussion on campus.
Umberto Eco, “Ur-Fascism”: “Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Goering’s alleged statement (“When I hear talk of culture I reach for my gun”) to the frequent use of such expressions as “degenerate intellectuals,” “eggheads,” “effete snobs,” “universities are a nest of reds.””
> The left now holds a place of orthodoxy in the universities and power structures.
Eco: “Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged.”
> Whether the 'right' can break it back into an enforced balance is yet to be seen. . . . The opposition needs to “live” somewhere!
Eco: “However, the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
whattheheckheck 5 hours ago [-]
There isn't really a valid reason to be a right wing authoritarian white supremacist except to extract wealth from working class people. The opposition can actually go shrivel up.
What even is a valid right wing take? Can't think of one in good faith.
TimorousBestie 5 hours ago [-]
To play devil’s advocate since I’ve been a little energetic in this thread already, I’ll go ahead and agree that they’re probably correct about single-income, two-parent homes having better outcomes for children.
I disagree that it should always be the woman staying home (or always the same parent through the children’s adolescence, or that both parents should have different genders, or) but I think the premise is sound.
They’re also objectively correct that women should, on average, be having children earlier (but wrong when they want it to be before the age of majority, or when they want to lower that age, or permit child marriage, or want to deny that couple sound sex education and medical care.)
jarjoura 2 hours ago [-]
Who is "they" here?
Having a single-income parent in a two-parent home was the norm for most of US history. It's also still the norm outside of the US. Where is the evidence that children are worse off because both parents work? Kids (5+) barely spend any time at home during a typical work day, so I'm not sure what "they" are correct about.
How is it objectively correct that women should, on average, have children earlier? Sorry, but this is purely a subjective statement and women are free to agree or disagree with that statement.
Having been raised by my grandparents, I personally believe the only secret for success is to show up for children, and love them and provide them a stable environment to thrive in. Everything else is just window dressing.
watwut 55 minutes ago [-]
> Having a single-income parent in a two-parent home was the norm for most of US history.
You dont really have income and non income on a household farm. You have patriarch making decisions and everybody else working. This included slave owning farms where she had managing/organizing responsibilities.
Also, women in lower classes needed income and did worked for it. They did not had professional occupations and they were responsible for children, so it was things that fit into those boundaries - low income non professional work. But it was not really done for funsies. Then again, kids as small as 5 were left to handle by themselves and older kids were supposed to contribute.
It is really incomparable to being stay at home parent now, isolated and literally having nothing useful to do except existing and playing.
mastermage 1 hours ago [-]
Just to also play the devils advocate, why SHOULD women be having children earlier. Its very much a very personal choice in their own freedom. I don't think this should be a political take at all. In this decision there is nothing any Government should have a say in.
paulddraper 3 hours ago [-]
* Markets should be free
* Theft should be punished
* There should be educational choice
A lot of this depends what you consider to be “right” wing.
watwut 54 minutes ago [-]
Neither of these is right wing value. They are right wing talking points right uses when it suits them and completely ignores when it does not suit them.
There’s roughly 1.5 million post-secondary instructors in the United States, roughly half full-time.
Estimates of conservative faculty range between 7-15%. (FIRE, where the 15% figure comes from, probably overestimates due to their conservative bias.)
So approximately 50,000 to 110,000 conservative faculty. You’re off by a couple orders of magnitude.
There’s over 500 faculty working at Liberty University alone, never mind the other, larger Evangelical Christian schools.
I essentially agree.
Though “progress” connotes improvement.
Brave New World was extremely “progressive.”
Yes, the Trump administration fucked over a decade of university research with his weird DEI campaign. That same fuckery also blew up all kinds of research grants not tied to universities. I'm sure some of us here know someone directly impacted by that decision. It was cruel and ruthless.
Otherwise, everything else that article talks about is a nothing-burger.
I can't tell you my professors' political beliefs, nor did I care. I went to school to learn about the world and topics that interested me. If there was a professor who tried to radicalize me or speak about things I didn't agree with, I would have dropped the class.
Some students are like me, and are there loving the process of learning. Other students couldn't care less, and are happy just to get the grade and get out of there. Either way, if a teacher is going to make a course an extension of their personal beliefs, I highly doubt any student will suddenly assimilate if they didn't already agree. They'll just bitch to their friends that the professor is some wacko, and roll their eyes.
No no, some conservatives are just trying to do what they love doing and that's get academics worked up and divided for empty rhetoric.
That breaks down when there isn't open discussion on campus. Communists were jeered but essentially allowed on campus in the 60s and 70s, even at the height of the cold war.
The left now holds a place of orthodoxy in the universities and power structures. Whether the 'right' can break it back into an enforced balance is yet to be seen.
Until then, the central tie of an otherwise diverse institution will break down and break into fragments. Which would be a shame. The opposition needs to "live" somewhere!
Not if they're systematically wrong about everything. There's no need to keep an intellectual disease vector in the academy any more than there would be a moral obligation to open your windows to the malaria mosquitos.
Climate change and medicine are the largest, most visible aspects of this, but it's intellectual dishonesty all the way down.
Note that this has got much worse since about the Obama era. There are no true small-c conservative intellectuals any more.
Note that the current wave of attacks are all justified by safetyism, they're pushed by an anti-semitism task force that's encompassed any anti-war sentiment.
Umberto Eco, “Ur-Fascism”: “Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Goering’s alleged statement (“When I hear talk of culture I reach for my gun”) to the frequent use of such expressions as “degenerate intellectuals,” “eggheads,” “effete snobs,” “universities are a nest of reds.””
> The left now holds a place of orthodoxy in the universities and power structures.
Eco: “Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged.”
> Whether the 'right' can break it back into an enforced balance is yet to be seen. . . . The opposition needs to “live” somewhere!
Eco: “However, the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
What even is a valid right wing take? Can't think of one in good faith.
I disagree that it should always be the woman staying home (or always the same parent through the children’s adolescence, or that both parents should have different genders, or) but I think the premise is sound.
They’re also objectively correct that women should, on average, be having children earlier (but wrong when they want it to be before the age of majority, or when they want to lower that age, or permit child marriage, or want to deny that couple sound sex education and medical care.)
Having a single-income parent in a two-parent home was the norm for most of US history. It's also still the norm outside of the US. Where is the evidence that children are worse off because both parents work? Kids (5+) barely spend any time at home during a typical work day, so I'm not sure what "they" are correct about.
How is it objectively correct that women should, on average, have children earlier? Sorry, but this is purely a subjective statement and women are free to agree or disagree with that statement.
Having been raised by my grandparents, I personally believe the only secret for success is to show up for children, and love them and provide them a stable environment to thrive in. Everything else is just window dressing.
You dont really have income and non income on a household farm. You have patriarch making decisions and everybody else working. This included slave owning farms where she had managing/organizing responsibilities.
Also, women in lower classes needed income and did worked for it. They did not had professional occupations and they were responsible for children, so it was things that fit into those boundaries - low income non professional work. But it was not really done for funsies. Then again, kids as small as 5 were left to handle by themselves and older kids were supposed to contribute.
It is really incomparable to being stay at home parent now, isolated and literally having nothing useful to do except existing and playing.
* Theft should be punished
* There should be educational choice
A lot of this depends what you consider to be “right” wing.