Is this really news?

[Agathon]

I'd like the views expressed on campus to be roughly similar to those expressed in society at large

That removes one of the points of universities. They are supposed to tell us things we don't want to hear. In New Zealand this is actually enshrined in the law.

Add to that the number of ordinary citizens who believe in moronic crap like astrology, and you can't expect universities to give equal time to everything that is reflected in society.

On what specific issues do you think that universities do not give conservative points of view?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS
Over $100,000 a year? That's news to me.

The starting salary at Hopkins for an assistant prof of physics is in the 70k range. Most full professors are making well over 100k

[Drake Tungsten]

That removes one of the points of universities. They are supposed to tell us things we don't want to hear.

I hear things I don't want to hear everyday in society at large.

And the folks at universities aren't exactly open to listening to things that they may not agree with. Just look what happened to Larry Summers at Harvard for evidence of the intolerance many faculties have for honest inquiry into topics that don't agree with their liberal world view.

[Agathon]

The Summers thing was stupid... but there's stupid politics everywhere. Usually it's a storm in a teacup. Believe me, there were plenty of people outraged at the way Summers was treated.

But then again, a lot of women spent years suffering all sorts of crap like this -- so it's no wonder they get jumpy.

On a serious note, there is an underlying reason why conservative views do not get much time at university.

That is that the ideas that underpin them are antiquated.

A good example is what we could call the conservative notion of what it is to be a person. According to conservatives, we are creatures who are responsible for our actions, because we have free will. This underlies a great deal of conservative thinking on politics and economics (consider punishment for example).

The problem is that this is a vestigially religious view. People have always "held each other responsible" for doing things, and this has been a boon to humanity since it helps us get along with others and remove threats to community survival. That is all the concept of responsibility is for - it is a socially useful concept which enables us to sort out the malicious from the misguided and ignorant. There is a utility gain to any community that does so. It's just a way of separating useful from useless causes, it has nothing to do with free will.

But religion turned this metaphysical because to make sense of the idea that our lives are some grand moral game, we need free will. Unfortunately, the concept of free will is riddled with contradiction, but people didn't notice as long as our knowledge of the causes of human behaviour was fairly rudimentary.

But as science has progressed it has become more and more evident that our decisions just are brain processes and that there is no need for some magical "soul" or "free will" to explain our behaviour. Every day, the old picture of human nature is destroyed a little bit more.

With every passing moment the materialist explanation of human behaviour gains strength. As it gains strength we begin to learn that our very psychology is determined by these causes -- so when a liberal commentator says that a murderer murdered someone because of a bad upbringing, they are saying something that fits better with scientific explanation than a simple claim of "he chose to". This naturally suggests a different attitude towards what to do about crime amongst liberals.

Conservatism is also largely supported by the idea that we are rational and free creatures. But the whole move of modernity has been away from this. From Freud onwards we have discovered that we aren't particularly rational or enlightened, and from science we have discovered that our freedom, if it exists at all, is largely an illusion. Conservatives are at war with modernity -- we can see this clearly in the Schiavo case, stem cells, abortion and so on.

In the case of abortion, it is clear that a fetus is not a person in the biological sense. It lacks all the material features that make a person a person. But the religious still believe in souls, even though such things are the equivalent of fairies. The liberals have science on their side, the conservatives faith.

Indeed Conservatism is common amongst the religious because they share so many fundamental concepts. The problem is that these concepts are like a lot of the ones I deal with in Greek philosophy -- they have no contemporary application because they rest on errors. That is why conservatism has no real place in the university. The world view that informs it is fundamentally at odds with what is being discovered in universities as those institutions fulfil their function of trying to discover the truth.

That is why there are so few conservatives on campus. Most of the ones that are there are inevitably socially liberal. When you are confronted by people who will constantly push the latest evidence in your face it becomes hard to maintain conservative views and be taken seriously.

[Drake Tungsten]

The Summers thing was stupid... but there's stupid politics everywhere. Usually it's a storm in a teacup. Believe me, there were plenty of people outraged at the way Summers was treated.

You can explain it away and maybe you're right, but people notice when the Arts & Sciences faculty at one of the world's premier institutions expresses no confidence in their president because he brought up a legitimate but politically incorrect topic of inquiry. Incidents like this make it difficult for many of us to take academia seriously anymore...

[Agathon]

You can explain it away and maybe you're right, but people notice when the Arts & Sciences faculty at one of the world's premier institutions expresses no confidence in their president because he brought up a legitimate but politically incorrect topic of inquiry. Incidents like this make it difficult for many of us to take academia seriously anymore...

Which is silly, because political spats like this do not really make much difference to what goes on. People who are studying IQ and gender will simply get on with it.

[Drake Tungsten]

What if those researchers make a discovery that supports the idea that there are some intrinsic gender-based differences in scientific aptitude? Do you think the people who tried to bring down Summers are just going to ignore them? And if they do go after the researchers, do you think the researchers are going to be able to withstand the kind of ****storm that even a man of Summers' clout and stature could barely weather? I don't even think they'd want to take that risk...

[Agathon]

What if those researchers make a discovery that supports the idea that there are some intrinsic gender-based differences in scientific aptitude?

Then it will be subjected to peer review. Of course the bar will be set fairly high as the political consequences of such a conclusion would be immense.

But Summers wasn't doing that -- he was just being an ass.

[Drake Tungsten]

I fail to see how he was being an ass. He provided possible explanations to a legitimate question in a rather academic and non-offensive way, IMO at least. I'm not alone in that opinion, either.

edit: Summers' remarks, for those who don't know what we're talking about...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon

What if those researchers make a discovery that supports the idea that there are some intrinsic gender-based differences in scientific aptitude?

Then it will be subjected to peer review. Of course the bar will be set fairly high as the political consequences of such a conclusion would be immense.

Politics has no place in science.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Politics has no place is science.

Err... Yes it has.

While scientists like to research science for its own sake, the reason why we (States and private interests) fund them is because we want to ultimately use their discoveries in the actual world. In particular, when it comes to pure academic science, the State's funding becomes extremely important, because private investments want faster returns (innovation and applied science). Politics is important.

Don't get me wrong: politics shouldn't be deciding what's kosher and what's not. However, when a discovery could rock the political boat (which potentially means the daily life of millions, not just of a few politicians), the academia has to make sure the discovery isn't bunk. It's basic responsibility.

[Kuciwalker]

The academia has that responsibility anyway. Politics should NOT have any effect on the researchers.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The academia has that responsibility anyway.

At least in my field of Academia, peer review is most often a joke. The "peers" are often acquaintances or friends of each other, and they often have written collective works. They don't tend to take shots at each other, and they're mostly interested in the productions of their clique (which is normal, considering that their clique is the group that specializes on the topic they're specialized the most).

When something is very important, I would think some exceptional peer review is in order.

[Agathon]

Politics should NOT have any effect on the researchers.

Don't be ridiculous. Try growing up and living in the real world.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Dissident
If these liberals were truelly compassionate, they would be teachers.

For many University professors being a high school teacher would be an immense waste of talent. There's research to be done, and I can guarantee you that it wouldn't get done if people had to teach 8 hours a day.