Left-wing bias in academia

>I have no argument

No, I don't mean "God did it".
I mean the President of my school routinely affirming that the university will shield illegal immigrants. I mean the entire department cheering when Trump's travel ban got blocked by a judge. I mean giant anti-Trump posters everywhere around campus.

Maybe he doesnt want to see matress girl
and I dont blame him

I see, and why is that? I would assume it's more likely the other way around.
> for what purpose do you request a particular politically leaning school
see this:

>I mean the President of my school routinely affirming that the university will shield illegal immigrants.
I don't know what to think of this...

>I mean the entire department cheering when Trump's travel ban got blocked by a judge.
Or this...

>I mean giant anti-Trump posters everywhere around campus.
It isn't wrong to protest those meant to represent you, I have an interesting philosophy for people who despise of this country.

If you have a problem with the USA, you can:
>Attempt to fix it to fit your views
>Leave this country for another that caters to you
>Become content with the situation and remain

you're a retard. he's clearly okay with the country and how it's being run, and sick and tired of criminals and imbeciles supporting them.

Before we can go further in this discussion, I need you to define "right" and "left"

Take for example a professor who believes the government should stay out of peoples' lives as much as possible. Is he "right" or "left"?

just look for a university with as small of a reddit community as possible, that website is lefty central and any large university community on there is a clear warning sign

>Who here is troubled by the severe liberal bias in academia?
Not me. Why should politics have anything to do with doing science? Leave that shit at home.

You're a bit slow, so I'll explain it one more time. If you still don't appear to understand after this, I'll assume you're trolling.

If I were to voice a non-leftist opinion in my current university, I will either get fired immediately, or not get my contract renewed at the end of the year. Not because of my academic performance, but because of my political beliefs.
If I get a tenure-track position in a university like the one I'm currently in, and I voice a non-leftist opinion, I will either get fired immediately, or be denied tenure.

I don't oppose anyone protesting the current administration, in fact I support free speech, protest, and open discourse. What I oppose is the fact that only one type of opinion is allowed in most universities. If I were to protest Obama two years ago, or hang up a MAGA sign on my door now, I would suffer negative consequences.

>Why should politics have anything to do with doing science?
Because governments fund the vast majority of science, and determine guidelines for what research is "ethical" or not (a spook)

which university? please don't see it as an attempt to identify you, I want to actively avoid the place.

That's a libertarian view, which is closer to the current right than the current left.
By the umbrella term "right", I mean limited government, personal freedom, protection of the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments, low taxes and bureaucracy, and support only for negative rights

This is the case in most universities. I've visited and given talks at 30+ schools, and the only one where people seemed centrist rather than far-left was BYU

That is true, but it's a function of the political leanings of the governments, not the universities themselves. I will grant that grant-writing is affected by political sensitivities; but I don't see the political opinions *in academia* making a difference here.

>I see, and why is that?

Because privately funded entities be it corporate or education are not required to adhere to your freedom of speech rights. As they have are their own agency acting for their own interest/ voice and not directly collecting your taxes to fund themselves.

>I would assume it's more likely the other way around

It's not, private institutions tend to "advertise" the ability for students/ teachers to freely express themselves (viewing themselves as high ground or to compete with public institutions) but other than their own advertising they are not required by law to respect this. You can arguably take them to court over false advertising but not over restricting your rights.

>personal freedom
So you mean you support LGBTQ rights and feminist causes?

sounds like a copout
you sound like you're in a specially heavily repressed place, california?

This makes sense, I'll keep it in mind. Thanks

everyone is in favor of people being whatever the fuck they want in their own space. NOT laws which jail you for using pronouns that someone else doesn't like. NOT retarded quotas and blocking streets and fucking with businesses for your paranoia.

be an idiot in your own fucking space. but by all means, you have the right to be an idiot.

I think the issue is that conservatives have increasing made their views and allegiances less honest. Higher IQ people then self identify as liberal not because there is any particular liberal stance they agree with, but because conservatives have effectively driven them away.

When you care about truth, you find it difficult to identify as the group taht more regularly denies climate change, or the age of the earth, or... math.

what an obtuse, silly way to say
>hurr conservatives are dumb
literally nothing of value in your post

I support LGBT people to have the same rights as straight people, but I don't like gay and trans propaganda actively shoved down my throat, children becoming transgender, etc. I also support equality for females and males, but not feminist causes which attempt to give women an advantage over men (affirmative action, preferential treatment in divorce cases, etc).
I also support abortion, but don't support taxpayer funded abortions, and universal healthcare in general

Samefag.

I think the perfect example of this is /pol/. When smart people look at that mess they think "whatever the hell that is, I want to be the opposite of it."

Smart people don't want to be liberals, they just want to identify as the opposite of what conservatism is becoming.

>all the anti-intellectualism ITT
fuck off progs.
I almost lost my position as a physics PhD candidate this year for telling a woman in my department that men and women are biologically different with one difference being a disparity in strength.
eg women are typically weaker than men
then i found out that girl is make 20% more than me for just being a woman

universities are leftist havens because they relentlessly bully and subjugate all forms of divergent thought.

Conservatism isn't dumb, but it's increasingly becoming the identity of dumb people, and then values of an ideology change with the demographics of the people who identify as it.

Conservatism can serve as a valuable and necessary counterpoint to liberalism. A robust and intellectually honest version of both are needed in a healthy society. The decline of conservatism hurts liberalism as well, because it has less to compete against in the academic space.

that's not smart behavior at all. that's the thought process of an easily manipulated imbecile.
fitting for the push to the left to come from low IQ social science radicals.

>smart people believe more intelligent things

it's not bias, it's just conservatives believe dumb shit due to being uneducated. You can't be biased if you're right.

I have a PhD and I love /pol/.
Only normies and pseudointellectuals prefer reddit to /pol/.

>becoming the identity of dumb people
just because a label is hurled at someone like an epithet, that doesn't make it their "identity"

>When smart people look at that mess they think "whatever the hell that is, I want to be the opposite of it."
Speak for yourself.

congratulations on being tied for fewest braincells in this thread with every other Dunning-Kruger child reciting that very line

/pol/ did nothing wrong
/pol/ is always right
I have 10 PhDs
etc

if I believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the other side believes it's 5,000 years old, am I being biased? No, I'm just being correct.

There is no liberal "bias" it's simply smarter people having more intelligent viewpoints that happen to line up with the left. I can tell you're a trumpfag though so there's no point wasting my breath

you're inventing a fictitious opponent to bolster your equally fictitious arguments

stop replying to 9210289, he's just fishing for (You)'s

I don't think he is, user.

In most western countries, there is a legitimate association between the practice of ignoring scientific truths for ideological reasons, and the political right wing. Religion (and the association between religious beliefs and the political right) is one prominent driver of this relation, though by no means the only one. In that setting, the pursuit of science is inevitably aligned with the opposing political side.

>everyone is in favor of people being whatever the fuck they want in their own space
But that's not true, user.

>NOT retarded quotas
So you don't support a 100% white quota for higher education? You might be a nigger.

the association is a construction, not a natural observation.
there is no religious inclination in the idea that "the social institutions that work for people right now should be preserved" which is what Conservatism is.
If you have a different notion of what that means, you have been mislead.

>there is no religious inclination in the idea that "the social institutions that work for people right now should be preserved" which is what Conservatism is.
Indeed. It's the other way around: there is a conservative inclination towards religion (it's a social institution that works, after all). Which supports the association equally well.

The right you speak of is establishment GOP, personified by McCain, Ryan, McConnell, and others like them. Neocons and their beliefs are essentially the same as neolibs as Clinton and Obama.

The right most people in this thread (and in the US at large) are referring to is actually more closely aligned with libertarianism, personified by people like Trump, Rand Paul, and Steve King.

>The right you speak of is establishment GOP, personified by McCain, Ryan, McConnell, and others like them.
No, I am speaking about the political right across just about all western countries. This association exists in all of them. The specifics of the GOP have nothing to do with my position.

only if you take "liberal" and "conservative" to mean their literal meaning, and not what they actually represent in politics. I'm sure most liberal professors don't take issue with literally being conservative, but the bigger picture of what that represents in america. (IE being racists, sexist, pro-religion, uneducated, etc.)

the facets of western religion that "work" are charity, independence and benevolent social institutions.
the inclination towards anti-science and regressive action is the construction. my hometown (Huntsville, AL) is very religious, and we're one of the premier military and technological research locations in the world. everyone i know goes to church, if only just to participate, and everyone i know is an engineer or expert.

if we want to talk about what the parties actually represent in politics, they're both authoritarian and warmongering. they only vary on superficial social issues that benefit/exclude the tiniest minority of people at their expense or the expense of everyone else.

I have no desire to make arguments of ideology based on their disgusting facsimiles in the real world

>the facets of western religion that "work" are charity, independence and benevolent social institutions.
What parts we consider to "work" is irrelevant. It's what works in the eyes of the religious conservatives that counts here.

>the inclination towards anti-science and regressive action is the construction.
Then how come it exists in pretty much unmodified form all across the western world? That certainly is not a coincidence.

>everyone i know goes to church, if only just to participate, and everyone i know is an engineer or expert.
Religion is of course not an instant killer of intellectual thought. It is a dampener, but it CAN be overcome.

>what parts we consider "work" is irrelevant
why even bother talking about it?

>then how come it exists pretty much unmodified form all accross the western world
because most people aren't intelligent enough to question a lie when it's told to them. just look at this thread. look at your posts.

>It is a dampener, but it CAN be overcome.
such a dogmatic position, i would think you were part of a cult.

shoo, sophist. don't bother me

>they're both authoritarian and warmongering. they only vary on superficial social issues that benefit/exclude the tiniest minority of people at their expense or the expense of everyone else.
This, 100%.
If you haven't realized this, you're a brainlet.

The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.

>60% of professors are brainlets

nah, sounds like you're just trying to act edgy and superior by not picking a side

>why even bother talking about it?
I dunno. YOU talked it in , not me.

>because most people aren't intelligent enough to question a lie when it's told to them.
I don't see how that explains why the relation exists so widely, user.

>such a dogmatic position, i would think you were part of a cult.
I'm sorry, user... but if this part is not transparently obvious to you, then you are not in an intellectual position to rationally consider this debate.

then you finish the glass and underneath it is a coaster called nihilism

That is a nice quotation with a nice wise soundbite. Unfortunately, that doesn't make it true.

More than 60% of professors are brainlets. That figure is closer to 95%.
Do you know how easy it is to get a PhD and a job at a liberal arts school?
Even of those in R1 schools, half are in retarded disciplines anyway.

There are at most a thousand truly intelligent academics in the United States right now.

Have fun burning in hell faggots

If you don't like brown people just go to a uni that's 90% white and Christian

Have you read the study? Supposedly not like that at all.
nap.edu/login.php?record_id=18319&page=http://www.nap.edu/download.php?record_id=18319#

>literally making shit up to fit muh uhpinyuns
can conservatives get any more delusional?

this is a true fact.

>far-left pseudoliberals adopts explicitly anti-scientific views like all of science representing "male knowledge", radical social constructionism, effective bans on research into the origins of sexuality, and violently protesting biology professors
>academics show no sign of losing interest in this platform
>they still want affirmative action for incompetents who can't get in om merit
>tfw

>liberal
>left wing

Leftism is the thinking man's political ideology

Which right-leaning views? There's a difference between the right-winger that says "I want less government spying and interventionism" and the one that says "Jews and blacks need to be exterminated."

If you're the latter, tough luck. Former? I think most people in the administration will leave you alone if you're good at your job. It'd be the students that would protest you at most in that case.

Thinking men aren't ideologues.

>when a burning bush is talking to you and you realize you've had too much to drink

>tfw leftist
>tfw I just want all whites exterminated
>tfw don't have to censor myself at work because my colleagues agree