Is this really news?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Bill3000
(In particular I remember I was outraged when she said that non-whites can't be racist, or that there is no such thing as a self-made man)

If racism is defined as a system of power relations (which is how it is defined in academia), then it is true that non-whites cannot be racists in our society, as they do not have the power to enforce their prejudices. Most (non-academic) whites reject that defintion, however.

As for the self-made man, she is correct. Everyone receives some help from other human beings. No one does everything alone.

[Seeker]

This interests me for one reason:

The 'hard sciences' departments (engineering, etc) have a reputation for being 'more conservative' that seems to be an illusion. According to this, people in applied/professional programmes ALSO tend to be american-style 'liberals'.

[chequita guevara]

Oh course. The smarter you are, the more likely you are to be lean left. It allows you to see the interconnectedness of our species and the need for us to work together.

[Sava]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Oh course. The smarter you are, the more likely you are to be lean left.

[Drake Tungsten]

Oh course. The smarter you are, the more likely you are to be lean left.

[Bill3000]

I could see that theory work out up to a certain point, but not much. Einstien and Newton weren't anarchists.

I see it in the fact that smarter people tend to love the concept of research of new knowledge more, and thus are alienated by more conservative non-scientific points of view. But you don't have to be an anarchist to be a deist or agnostic as a good amount of scientists are.

Plus, you can still be conservative economically and promote science while having a disgust toward religious evangicals: I've seen this in neo-conservatives.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Bill3000
I could see that theory work out up to a certain point, but not much. Einstien and Newton weren't anarchists.

No, but Einstein was a socialist.

You should look up is essay, "Why Socialism?"

[Spiffor]

I wonder what would be the results of such a study in European countries, where the replies are based on the political spectrum of that country.

I'd expect a clear domination of the center-left, but I think it would be less drastic than that, considering that the right isn't associated with anti-science in most European countries.

[DanS]

considering that the right isn't associated with anti-science in most European countries.

Neither is it in the US.

[Spiffor]

Err, which political party is associated with attempts to ban the teaching of evolution in highschools? Which one wants to shut down the research on stem cells?

[Agathon]

It obviously reflects a failure on the part of universities to encourage a healthy discussion among a broad range of ideological stripes. Universities lack diversity.

Don't be stupid. It does not. They just tend to lack stupid people.

If someone in the biology department, or any other department, except maybe theology or religious studies, denied evolution they would be laughed off campus. That's not to say that there aren't plenty of religious people among the faculty, it's just that universities aren't amenable to fundies.

Economic conservatism is also a proven stupid idea. You'll find that most faculty (apart from the politicos) support the mixed economy and the welfare state.

Why? Because it works, and because they're decent people. You can't espouse conservative economics in decent company, because it's so obviously like defending child molestation. And you definitely aren't going to find the kind of knuckle dragging conservatism of fundies, because you have to be completely disconnected from reality to believe that tripe.

In short, when you get a bunch of clever people around and give them time to think, they'll tend to come to agreement about the moronic features of our society which are produced by people who don't think about what they're doing.

That doesn't mean agreement about politics, religion, gender, science or any of the things that they deal with, but it does mean that there is a definite rejection of monumentally daft and unsupportable ideas, which unfortunately are what comprises most of contemporary social conservatism.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Agathon
Economic conservatism is also a proven stupid idea. You'll find that most faculty (apart from the politicos) support the mixed economy and the welfare state.

In my experience, there's a quasi-consensus for free markets with only a bare minimum of State intervention. And the pure economists tend to be worse than the politicos.

[...]because you have to be completely disconnected from reality.

That's actually what much of academia is about. At least in humanities, where many scholars won't bother honestly substantiang their speculations. I have found the level of some scholarly texts to be sub-Poly, as they were pure BAMs the author were convinced of.

[Agathon]

On a slightly less trollish note..

What conservative beliefs do you think that the faculty should have to remain balanced?

Should we have advocates for:

anti-evolution

religious intolerance

segregation

anti-homosexuality

misogyny

What is it that you want?

[Agathon]

That's actually what much of academia is about. At least in humanities, where many scholars won't bother honestly substantiang their speculations. I have found the level of some scholarly texts to be sub-Poly, as they were pure BAMs the author were convinced of.

Yes, but you live in France. It is done differently elsewhere.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm just waiting for affirmative action for Republicans...