3 ms·
Your ad hominem attacks are completely inappropriate, and in fact might help prove the author's point, by your showing so much unwarranted hostility to him base
by brighteyes 11y ago
Your ad hominem attacks are completely inappropriate, and in fact might help prove the author's point, by your showing so much unwarranted hostility to him based solely on his politics.
To the substance of your post: I don't see any reason to suspect he wants a "war" or even a "contest". All he is doing is showing a large, deep inconsistency in academia:
1. Academia believes diversity is good, not just for fairness, but for results.
2. Academia is massively uniform, politically. It has almost no diversity in that area.
3. Academia hugely cares about diversity in all other forms, but does not care at all about this particularly large lack of diversity in their own home.
In other words, he's showing that academia is hypocritical. I don't see any way to avoid agreeing with him on 1-3 (even if I personally do not share his politics, which I do not).
- charlesism 11y agoIt's unfair to claim "academia believes diversity is good" in this case. Nobody thinks all kinds of diversity are good. You could use the same premise to complain that universities are prejudiced against the "homicidal maniac community", or against the "comatose community".
- brighteyes 11y agoYou might be technically correct, no one thinks all diversities are good. But academia strongly believes in every type of diversity related to a personal aspect of a person - size, age, religion, sexuality, etc. etc. Political diversity clearly belongs there (in particular, it is often very closely tied to diversity of religion), unless someone very specifically excludes it.
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago>Political diversity clearly belongs there (in particular, it is often very closely tied to diversity of religion), No, you don't want unlimited diversity of beliefs in an academic environment. You want to converge to the truth.