18 ms·

I was denied admission to a PhD program because of my perceived political views

211 points by randomname2 11y ago

merpnderp 11y ago
I once sat in on an academic research meeting where the PI of the group stated "If there are any Republicans in the room, leave, you are fired." They felt comfortable enough saying this even though there were obviously people there from outside the group and nothing like that could be kept secret.
- briandear 11y ago
  So much for tolerance. How about transgendered Republicans? Would they have been welcomed?
  - cglace 11y ago
    Like Bruce Jenner? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/04/27/bruce-jenner-is-a-republican-heres-the-reason-that-shouldnt-surprise-you/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/04/27/br...
    - tangled_zans 11y ago
      (Caitlyn. Caitlyn Jenner. Surely the definition of "transgender" couldn't have eluded you while you were making a point about her being transgender?)
      - cglace 11y ago
        Actually it did. . . I don't see the need for outrage.
        tangled_zans 11y ago
        What outrage? Simply teaching you some respect, as well as some factual accuracy.
        garrettgrimsley 11y ago
        >Simply teaching you some respect, as well as some factual accuracy. The author of the parent comment has established that they made a mistake. Maybe you weren't outraged before but now there is some readily apparent hostility.
        tangled_zans 11y ago
        Yes, that was indeed the case. Surely if I made a factual error on something that you were knowledgeable on - say, NodeJS - and you corrected me, you'd be slightly peeved - or at least see my behavior as odd - if I replied to you claiming that your friendly input was "outrage".
        cglace 11y ago
        It wasn't that you pointed out a factual inaccuracy. It was how you did it. You assumed you needed to "teach me some respect" instead of just saying "It's actually Caitlyn Jenner".
        tangled_zans 11y ago
        The initial comment was just a joke, mate (clearly you're the one choosing to be outraged over my tone?) which came out of my assumption that it's impossible to both know that she is transgender and that she does not want to be called Bruce. If that was indeed an honest error then you could have elaborated on how it was possible for you to hold both of these contradicting views simultaneously, and I would have admitted that I was wrong to assume that you were a prick. Since instead of doing that you've decided to deflect with "STOP WITH THE OUTRAGE THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!", I did surmise that you are simply not aware of what 'respect' is. Hence while it was wrong of me to take on that role of 'teaching' it to you (what a waste of effort), I stand by my implication that someone should have done that by now.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  So, did you get up and leave out of solidarity with the Republicans? If someone pulled that stunt here I'd be out of there. Politics are people's private business (unless they hold a very visible function, then it becomes relevant again but for folks just doing a job somewhere politics should be a non issue).
  - Retra 11y ago
    >Politics are people's private business What twisted hoops did you have to jump through to say something like that? "Private politics" is not politics. It makes no sense to say something like that. Politics is explicitly about interacting with other people in a non-private way.
    - pcl 11y ago
      I imagine that what the author intended to say was something along the lines of "An individual's political views are the private business of that individual." I think that's pretty clear from the context.
      - jacquesm 11y ago
        Yes, that's exactly what I meant.
      - Retra 11y ago
        I know what the author intended; my point still stands. The term for "non-personal belief" in English is "political belief." Anyone who says otherwise is usually either lying in an attempt to put their beliefs beyond criticism (which may be warranted,) or simply repeating what their culture has taught them to say. (This is only 2015, after all, and we are the cavemen of the future. We have many self-contradictory and damaging cultural norms.) Politics is explicitly about controlling other people, and there's nothing personal about that.
        engi_nerd 11y ago
        Or maybe English isn't their first language?
- BostonEnginerd 11y ago
  I've seen similar situations at scientific conferences. To be fair, the Republican caucus was trying to significantly cut the budget for the field at the time.
ecopoesis 11y ago
What school denied him? Because if was a public institution, bad on them. But if it was a private university, then that's their right. Feel free to disagree with them, but a private university is allowed to have political views and admit folks to their programs based political views [1]. [1] http://education-law.lawyers.com/school-law/can-private-schools-discriminate-against-students.html http://education-law.lawyers.com/school-law/can-private-scho...
- akerro 11y ago
  >I recently (and successfully) defended my doctoral dissertation in social psychology at Arizona State University (don't call me Dr. until the degree confers in December, 2015, or just don't call me Dr...)
- ocfx 11y ago
  Whether they can or not is kind of irrelevant since our legal system isn't based on right or wrong otherwise we would just take every law at current face value and not try to lobby against them. I'm curious whether people feel that regardless of legal right if private universities SHOULD be able to do that.
- waterlesscloud 11y ago
  Reading your link, it's not so much a matter of public vs private schools as it is whether or not they receive public funding. And the vast majority of private universities do.
  - kazagistar 11y ago
    I would say that the relevant question to this article would be if they should be accepted into the broader academic journals and conferences if they are explicitly biased. They have every right to enforce a bias, but then they have no right to be thought of as scientists and researchers by the public at large.
- zeveb 11y ago
  > But if it was a private university, then that's their right. Feel free to disagree with them, Oh, of course! But disagreement does include saying, 'they have a right to do this, but they are wrong to do so.'
Zikes 11y ago
If everyone in a research group thinks the same way and agrees on everything, why do you need a whole group?
- isolate 11y ago
  If everyone in government is a Democrat, why do you need elections?
  - Zikes 11y ago
    If everyone has been so far as to do look like, why do you even?
    - isolate 11y ago
      I guess English is not your first language? I can't understand anything past "been", which is surprising given how easily I understood your last question.
      - tricolon 11y ago
        That was a reference to a meme: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/has-anyone-really-been-far-even-as-decided-to-use-even-go-want-to-do-look-more-like http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/has-anyone-really-been-far-eve...
        isolate 11y ago
        Yeah, sorry, I graduated junior high a while ago. The guy probably assumed I was disagreeing with him, which is fair, I suppose. (But anyway thanks for educating me.)
      - striking 11y ago
        "has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like" http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/has-anyone-really-been-far-even-as-decided-to-use-even-go-want-to-do-look-more-like http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/has-anyone-really-been-far-eve...
FussyZeus 11y ago
As someone who grew up in a strongly red area and with beliefs in that vein, I know EXACTLY the kind of exclusion that the author is talking about to a painful degree. For anyone who wants to experience it, walk into any Reddit discussion and tell everyone you're a devout Christian and watch the pseudo intellectuals exercise their "openness." And yes it's true I'm far from the most religious person there is, and I strongly believe in birth control, women's rights, on and on, I am constantly assumed to be some Bible-thumping redneck by anyone who doesn't know me. It also doesn't help that I regularly enjoy working with my hands, building things, fixing things, which mind you when it comes to many things to fix there's a great deal of intelligence required, but because it's not the fancy coastal intelligence that gets you six figure jobs I'm assumed to be an idiot. And then people wonder why Middle America has such a disdain for the cultures and intellectual achievement, after they've spent their entire learning lives being told how dumb they are by the snobs, most of whom can't even swap a tire for a donut without calling AAA. </rant>
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- fweespeech 11y ago
  No offense but if you are judging any large group by what a bunch of people say on an anonymous internet forum the problem is likely the fact you are taking the trolls to seriously.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    I grew up in the D.C. suburbs, probably the single place in the country that most highly values traditional academic intellectualism. His characterization is entirely consistent with my observations growing up. In my high school, peoples' disdain for the rest of the country was open. Even the snobs in NYC or SF are more tolerable (NYC having a pragmatic undercurrent, and SF at least having a "builder" mentality).
    - fweespeech 11y ago
      Yes but both you and the person I'm responding to casually ignore the fact you are basically engaging in broad generalizations while complaining about the fact other groups make broad generalizations and his primary justification was the fact it happens on Reddit. The sheer irony involved in that original comment and his choice of example should have been immediately obvious. The fact it wasn't makes me think, frankly, its OP who is the issue. The fact I have to put up with bullshit from people who live in the [insert location here] on a regular basis and make condescending comments doesn't mean I assume the entire [insert location here] behaves that way in general. Rather, I recognize that its the specific individuals I deal with in that instance that are the problem and not the general population. The fact both of you immediately jumped in to defend the generalization and expand on it, frankly, makes it even more ironic to the point of hypocrisy.
rayiner 11y ago
The fourth one was great. I grew up in D.C. visiting some of the greatest museums in the world until I was bored of them. But some of the strongest experiences I've had are attending church services with my wife and daughter and listening to sermons.
OJFord 11y ago
Does 'rationalisation' have some strange meaning in this context that I'm unfamiliar with? As far as I'm concerned any view justifying the matter is a rationalisation, left or right wing politically; agree or disagree it's certainly nothing to be upset about being called a rationalisation.
- tome 11y ago
  "Rationalisation" has a negative connotation.
  - i80and 11y ago
    Specifically, it typically has a connotation of ex post facto.
  - OJFord 11y ago
    Are you British? (I'm picking up on the 's', not sure if you're just quoting me). It seems others commenting on negative connotation are all American, but personally I would only consider it thus in the form of a question: > Oh yes? How do you rationalise that then? The answer to which is a statement of facts - how it is that I deem whatever 'that' is to be rational. I would proffer it stems from an assumption that we are rational beings (uh-oh) which may suggest that the very fact it's questionable implies it is incorrect; but we're not rational, people differ - the one thing we all have in common is that we tend to think our own actions rational. Hence "my rationalisation" is neutral; "your rationalisation" has a negative --ahem-- ex post facto connotation.
- josinalvo 11y ago
  Rationalization is usually said when the conclusion comes first, and the "reasoning" latter. First you decide what you think, then why. This "reasoning" is considered suspect, and called a rationalization.
  - dang 11y ago
    "So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do." http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/autobiography/page18.htm http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/autobiography/page18.htm
donatj 11y ago
I was blocked by a large mass of people with a shared Twitter block list including a number of comedy feeds I used to like to follow, because one of them disliked my political affiliation I had listed on my Twitter page. The person told me as much before blocking me. I've since removed it to prevent future discrimination, but I shouldn't have to and I don't much care for this brave new world.
- __44x0 11y ago
  There's nothing new about this. Some people stopped associating with you because they didn't like your opinions, a story as old as humanity itself.
  - donatj 11y ago
    No. The new part is that even people I didn't offend with my sensibilities are not associating with me on an automated basis.
    - MaysonL 11y ago
      In Bruce Sterling's novel Distraction, there's a bot trawling the net for opponents of a particular politician, and posting the names of the leading ones on a blog, where fans (in the original sense of fanatic followers) of the politician would note them, and they would end up assassinated. The novel seems to be coming a lot truer than I expected when I first read it (1998 or '99).
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      People choosing to delegate association decisions to others is not new; the mechanism might be novel, but seems to be hardly relevant to the basic effect.
      - derefr 11y ago
        Sure, but the scale and the lack of oversight in the new methods is a lot scarier. Everything you can think of that works like this—DNSBLs, the TSA watchlist, etc.—creates a Kafka-esque hell for a non-negligible set of people. Whereas what these replaced was just lists maintained by people, somewhere—where those people could be reached and pleaded with.
squozzer 11y ago
I offer as a hypothesis the belief that graduate study programs, even in hard sciences such as physics, aren't looking for scholars, but disciples.
- spinlock 11y ago
  Yup. My thesis advisor flat out told me to stop wasting my time with "crap" like neural nets. He came up in the time when they were disparaged by researchers competing for funding in AI so he didn't like them. He didn't care that I was using them to solve problems he was interested in, he wanted me to solve problems he was interested in using methods he approved of.
- BellsOnSunday 11y ago
  Unless you want to put the word some in there your hypothesis/belief is easy to falsify/repudiate.
  - littletimmy 11y ago
    As a matter of fact, a leading philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn would agree with that. He talks about science progressing by way of paradigm, and graduate programs a way to induct people into a paradigm. The book is called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Very interesting read.
    - BellsOnSunday 11y ago
      My point was that there are exceptions to the rule. I don't think the exceptions (scientists with, generally speaking, open minds who pass these habits on to students) are as rare as people reading Kuhn might think. I don't think there is a correlation with doing brilliant work or sparking a paradigm shift, but not everyone is small minded and protective of their territory. Maybe it just seems that way to me because I'm not very ambitious, but I notice quite a few people who don't fit the Kuhnian stereotype.
- a_bonobo 11y ago
  It really depends on the supervisor, which is a bit of a weird thing since so much depends on a single person - my supervisor let me do anything I want as long as there were a few publications at the end (graduation requirement, and in academia the only way to get jobs), other supervisors just look for cheap work for their own project (~robots). I have a friend from the US who worked full-time for 7 years on her PhD and published only one paper! The rest was work on the supervisor's stuff. I would've switched supervisor after 2 years at the latest (but hindsight, 20/20, yaddayadda)
fromMars 11y ago
I grew up in a red state, too, and as an atheist, I got tired of being told I was going to hell by peers and forced to pray at school events. As such, I have a lot of Christian friends but, it is understandable that some "intellectuals" are hostile to those with strong religious beliefs given that many with similar beliefs deny scientific concepts like evolution, advocate teaching creationism in schools, and deny the existence of global warming.
- talmand 11y ago
  I'm curious, how exactly were you forced to pray at school events? Regardless, maybe the intellectuals should stop being hostile, have an honest dialogue with such people, and maybe they'll get somewhere.
  - munin 11y ago
    being forced to pray at school events is pretty simple, the teacher asks "why aren't you praying?" and sends you to the principals office. nobody within a 200mi radius of you thinks that there is anything wrong with this because "it's the way it's always been" and there's no higher power to appeal to, so... how can you "have an honest dialogue" with someone that thinks that you are going to burn in Hell and tells you that your ideas about women, voting, and abortion are "the Devils"?
    - talmand 11y ago
      No, that's a mild punishment for not praying at a school event. That is not forcing you to pray, you can continue to refuse to pray in that case. Were you somehow forced to pray once you got to the principal's office? There is always a higher power to appeal to unless the head of your country's government and legal system agrees with the sentiment. I agree it's a hard path to take, but the option is there. I guess in the same way you try to have an honest dialogue with a person that insists you are stupid and they can dismiss anything you say because of your beliefs. Both are equally guilty of refusing to participate in the dialogue. Many of the intellectuals refuse to see their failing is evident as much as the overly religious person's failing.
adamconroy 11y ago
Welcome to life. The only thing that matters is what is perceived.
daodedickinson 11y ago
Ideological homogeneity isn't the starting condition it's the ending condition, the achieved goal. How could you see that homogeneity and then say "this could be an issue only in an incredibly tribal ideological environment" and not realize that's exactly what academia is and has been for a long time? Have you not read your Saul Alinsky? There's a reason his devotee is the top prez nominee (Clinton). Climate conferences, academia, these are pure political spheres; you CANNOT rock the boat before tenure. With the net now, nothing is under the radar, so you will have to resign yourself to a lower tier placement, but it might be a great spot for you since politics determines school ranking.
- striking 11y ago
  > Climate conferences, academia Are you sure the two are exactly alike? I realize there's a lot of soft science that's ridiculous, but it's generally accepted that global warming exists.
  - fleitz 11y ago
    It's fairly well understood that most organizations exist to perpetuate themselves. If GW doesn't exist a whole tonne of organization cease to exist, just as if GW does exist a whole tonne of organizations cease to exist. Oddly, you'll find that organizations opinions on GW align fairly well with their source of funding. GW is a hugely political topic, and in my estimation has little to do with hard science anymore.
    - jolux 11y ago
      You've provided no evidence of anything you've laid out here and you're trying to disprove a theory agreed upon by 99% of scientists with indirect arguments about their source of funding. Why exactly should I believe you? I'd love to hear more about all of these points but find it hard to trust them currently.
      - midwest1 11y ago
        I believe the number is somewhat less than 99 percent. If you are referring to the Cook study, the study borders on fraudulent, to be kind. Hard to type using my phone, I have a couple of posts from 70 days or so ago explaining my problem with that study. No one really knows how big that consensus is, or what the consensus even is. Too much noise in the way.
hackuser 11y ago
Is there any evidence that someone rejected him on that basis? I didn't read the whole article in detail, but it seems like a suspicion with nothing to substantiate it, and a lot of hearsay about what some people told him about the risks.
- Yen 11y ago
  At the end of the article, under the header "The original post from July, 2014", he describes his experience. In summary: 1. In 2007, 14 Jewish Members resign from the advisory board of the Carter Center, due to disagreements over statements in Carter's book. 2. OP blogged about this, apparently in support of their statement. (The original original blog post is not linked to) 3. Some undetermined amount of time later (it sounds like at least a year later), OP applies for PHD programs at several schools. 4. When interviewing for a PHD program at one unnamed school, the interviewer explicitly asks about OP's blog post, about OP's political views on Jimmy Carter, and outright admits that the other faculty members oppose OP's admission to the program, on basis of his blog post.
  - MichaelMoser123 11y ago
    Wow; its amazing that the school called him back and confronted OP on his political views. OP mentions that HR people would never do that for fear of being sued, has the university some form of immunity against being sued? Is industry a more liberal place than academia? Also what exactly was the keyword that put him into the 'enemy camp' - was it support of Israel, criticism of Carter or both of them that raised the red flag for them ?
    - Yen 11y ago
      From the article: > She also asked if I "really" felt that way about Jimmy Carter. and > During the call, I got the impression that they thought / were worried that I was a conservative. The horror.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    Thanks. Based on what you wrote, all we have his uncorroborated hearsay about one conversation (#4). While discrimination certainly takes place in the world, I think we're blowing this article out of proportion; we don't know what happened here.
jolux 11y ago
"Why would they? There's been lots of noise lately about how conservatives don't respect science or the intellectual sphere. Why would they? They know we're politically biased." This is where it took a turn for me. I'm basically in agreement with everything else, and it's personally eye opening to gain a greater understanding of these kinds of biases, but when you take a few bad apples in the social sciences (literally what? five? six?) and extrapolate that out to justify distrust of all of science, it becomes problematic. The leftists I know (not including myself, though I share similar views) don't dislike conservative attitudes towards social science or other "soft" sciences, in fact most of them take it as a foregone conclusion that conservatives won't like them. They dislike point blank denial of facts such as that of human-caused climate change perpetuated mostly by conservative think tanks and consumed by an undereducated population of people who legitimately don't know better. The problem is really that we live in a culture that does not value education very highly, nor does it enable good forms of it for the majority of our nation. And just for fun, let's take the opposites of this so-called "urban intellectualism" that is expressed with these characteristics: "... is ingenious, a deep thinker." vs. is dumb, a shallow thinker. "... values artistic, esthetic experiences." vs. values uncreative, ugly experiences "... is inventive." vs is uninventive "... is sophisticated in art, music, and literature." vs. knows nothing of art, music, or literature "... likes to reflect, play with ideas" vs likes to avoid introspection, take things at face value, and move on. Pardon me if a few of those don't seem obviously better to more than just liberals than their alternatives. I know a lot of conservatives who would be exceptionally proud to call themselves inventive, sophisticated, deep thinkers with passions in art and literature. You're doing intellectual conservatism a disservice by acting like these are all things conservatives would be offended to see described as "openness." If being an intellectual, sophisticated person is synonymous with being a blinkered bourgeois intellectual liberal then I'm friends with an awful lot of blinkered bourgeois liberals who are also big fans of Austrian economics.
- isolate 11y ago
  > point blank denial of facts such as that of human-caused climate change Science can't prove/disprove AGW because there's no control, which means that it isn't and can't be a fact. (I believe we should assume AGW to be safe.)
ljw1001 11y ago
Uh, although 'crowded' is leading the witness, "The earth is like a crowded spaceship with limited room and resources" IS an observable fact.
- Blackthorn 11y ago
  No it is not. Like every simile or analogy, there is more that's not true with it than there is that's true with it.
- tbrownaw 11y ago
  Define "crowded" (how many people per acre does a typical spaceship hold? How about the earth?). Define "limited" (the spaceship analogy heavily implies it's being used in a sense other than "not infinite"). Go find out what this "renewable" stuff people keep talking about these days is.
ap22213 11y ago
Well, at least they weren't being politically correct, right? Personally, I look down on people who are members of any political party. I truly try not to be biased, but it's pretty hard not to generalize. People who seek out association with amorphous groups just seem intellectually weak, lazy, or worse. The irony is that I'll probably be down-voted for stating my opinion (the way things are these days). Edit: Actually you guys are even cooler than that. You're down-voting my old posts, too. I admire your commitment to group-think!
- hguant 11y ago
  No, you'll be down voted for being pretentious. This is a lazy, "I'm so superior hahaha look at how great I am" comment. You're being this guy. http://www.theonion.com/article/area-man-constantly-mentioning-he-doesnt-own-a-tel-429 http://www.theonion.com/article/area-man-constantly-mentioni...
  - ap22213 11y ago
    Sure, you can be annoyed with my tone or even not like me personally. But, down-voting me just for one of those reasons - that's just a form of suppression / censorship. But, on the other hand, I know I violated the guidelines, so I took a risk. Just trying to prove a point.
    - derefr 11y ago
      Well, yeah; that's what downvoting means: "I want to protect everyone else from wasting their time reading this." It certainly is suppression; and everyone who wants to be here has signed up for suppression. Calling it censorship, though, makes it sound like you think of HN as your blog. HN is a forum; a downvote is the virtual equivalent of what happens in a real public forum when people—as a group—decide to walk away from someone so they can talk without that person's viewpoint interrupting them. It's not censorship; the person is still free to talk. It's a decision to not listen, and a persistent notice posted that the person is—for people whose tastes agree with those that walked away—not worth one's time listening to. You can say anything you like by responding to an HN comment as a quote on your own blog. Anyone trying to deny you that would be attempting censorship. Everything else, though, is just the reaction of a community-as-organism to something that community doesn't like. It's no more censorship than a single person ignoring you and walking away is.
xupybd 11y ago
Anyone else notice, that an article about assumptions made based on political views immediately stirred up religious arguments. Why does one have to be religious to be on the right and non-religious to be on the left? (I'm not from the USA so maybe this is an American thing?)
typon 11y ago
I don't understand why Republicans automatically deserve respect from the 'liberal' intellectuals? If I disagree with someone on basic axioms of our society (climate change is real, xenophobia is bad, etc.) I'm not going to get much traction in other topics. I agree with his other points though: liberal bias in science is a great danger and needs to be removed.
rdancer 11y ago
This is the same old tired schtick: you must be a member of the Party to progress in your career, and reactionary views are incompatible with holding certain jobs. It reminds me of Gad Saad talking on Joe Rogan's podcast about being denied professorship at various universities for not being Christian enough. I believe at one point he was asked to write a short essay on his relationship with Jesus as his saviour (at which point he realized that job offer wasn't probably going to work out). [I don't have a link at this time]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

211 points by randomname2 11y ago

I once sat in on an academic research meeting where the PI of the group stated "If there are any Republicans in the room, leave, you are fired." They felt comfortable enough saying this even though there were obviously people there from outside the group and nothing like that could be kept secret.

briandear 11y ago
So much for tolerance. How about transgendered Republicans? Would they have been welcomed?
- cglace 11y ago
  Like Bruce Jenner? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/04/27/bruce-jenner-is-a-republican-heres-the-reason-that-shouldnt-surprise-you/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/04/27/br...
  - tangled_zans 11y ago
    (Caitlyn. Caitlyn Jenner. Surely the definition of "transgender" couldn't have eluded you while you were making a point about her being transgender?)
    - cglace 11y ago
      Actually it did. . . I don't see the need for outrage.
      - tangled_zans 11y ago
        What outrage? Simply teaching you some respect, as well as some factual accuracy.
        garrettgrimsley 11y ago
        >Simply teaching you some respect, as well as some factual accuracy. The author of the parent comment has established that they made a mistake. Maybe you weren't outraged before but now there is some readily apparent hostility.
        tangled_zans 11y ago
        Yes, that was indeed the case. Surely if I made a factual error on something that you were knowledgeable on - say, NodeJS - and you corrected me, you'd be slightly peeved - or at least see my behavior as odd - if I replied to you claiming that your friendly input was "outrage".
        cglace 11y ago
        It wasn't that you pointed out a factual inaccuracy. It was how you did it. You assumed you needed to "teach me some respect" instead of just saying "It's actually Caitlyn Jenner".
        tangled_zans 11y ago
        The initial comment was just a joke, mate (clearly you're the one choosing to be outraged over my tone?) which came out of my assumption that it's impossible to both know that she is transgender and that she does not want to be called Bruce. If that was indeed an honest error then you could have elaborated on how it was possible for you to hold both of these contradicting views simultaneously, and I would have admitted that I was wrong to assume that you were a prick. Since instead of doing that you've decided to deflect with "STOP WITH THE OUTRAGE THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!", I did surmise that you are simply not aware of what 'respect' is. Hence while it was wrong of me to take on that role of 'teaching' it to you (what a waste of effort), I stand by my implication that someone should have done that by now.
jacquesm 11y ago
So, did you get up and leave out of solidarity with the Republicans? If someone pulled that stunt here I'd be out of there. Politics are people's private business (unless they hold a very visible function, then it becomes relevant again but for folks just doing a job somewhere politics should be a non issue).
- Retra 11y ago
  >Politics are people's private business What twisted hoops did you have to jump through to say something like that? "Private politics" is not politics. It makes no sense to say something like that. Politics is explicitly about interacting with other people in a non-private way.
  - pcl 11y ago
    I imagine that what the author intended to say was something along the lines of "An individual's political views are the private business of that individual." I think that's pretty clear from the context.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      Yes, that's exactly what I meant.
    - Retra 11y ago
      I know what the author intended; my point still stands. The term for "non-personal belief" in English is "political belief." Anyone who says otherwise is usually either lying in an attempt to put their beliefs beyond criticism (which may be warranted,) or simply repeating what their culture has taught them to say. (This is only 2015, after all, and we are the cavemen of the future. We have many self-contradictory and damaging cultural norms.) Politics is explicitly about controlling other people, and there's nothing personal about that.
      - engi_nerd 11y ago
        Or maybe English isn't their first language?
BostonEnginerd 11y ago
I've seen similar situations at scientific conferences. To be fair, the Republican caucus was trying to significantly cut the budget for the field at the time.

ecopoesis 11y ago

What school denied him? Because if was a public institution, bad on them. But if it was a private university, then that's their right. Feel free to disagree with them, but a private university is allowed to have political views and admit folks to their programs based political views [1]. [1] http://education-law.lawyers.com/school-law/can-private-schools-discriminate-against-students.html http://education-law.lawyers.com/school-law/can-private-scho...

akerro 11y ago
>I recently (and successfully) defended my doctoral dissertation in social psychology at Arizona State University (don't call me Dr. until the degree confers in December, 2015, or just don't call me Dr...)
ocfx 11y ago
Whether they can or not is kind of irrelevant since our legal system isn't based on right or wrong otherwise we would just take every law at current face value and not try to lobby against them. I'm curious whether people feel that regardless of legal right if private universities SHOULD be able to do that.
waterlesscloud 11y ago
Reading your link, it's not so much a matter of public vs private schools as it is whether or not they receive public funding. And the vast majority of private universities do.
- kazagistar 11y ago
  I would say that the relevant question to this article would be if they should be accepted into the broader academic journals and conferences if they are explicitly biased. They have every right to enforce a bias, but then they have no right to be thought of as scientists and researchers by the public at large.
zeveb 11y ago
> But if it was a private university, then that's their right. Feel free to disagree with them, Oh, of course! But disagreement does include saying, 'they have a right to do this, but they are wrong to do so.'

Zikes 11y ago

If everyone in a research group thinks the same way and agrees on everything, why do you need a whole group?

isolate 11y ago
If everyone in government is a Democrat, why do you need elections?
- Zikes 11y ago
  If everyone has been so far as to do look like, why do you even?
  - isolate 11y ago
    I guess English is not your first language? I can't understand anything past "been", which is surprising given how easily I understood your last question.
    - tricolon 11y ago
      That was a reference to a meme: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/has-anyone-really-been-far-even-as-decided-to-use-even-go-want-to-do-look-more-like http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/has-anyone-really-been-far-eve...
      - isolate 11y ago
        Yeah, sorry, I graduated junior high a while ago. The guy probably assumed I was disagreeing with him, which is fair, I suppose. (But anyway thanks for educating me.)
    - striking 11y ago
      "has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like" http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/has-anyone-really-been-far-even-as-decided-to-use-even-go-want-to-do-look-more-like http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/has-anyone-really-been-far-eve...

FussyZeus 11y ago

As someone who grew up in a strongly red area and with beliefs in that vein, I know EXACTLY the kind of exclusion that the author is talking about to a painful degree. For anyone who wants to experience it, walk into any Reddit discussion and tell everyone you're a devout Christian and watch the pseudo intellectuals exercise their "openness." And yes it's true I'm far from the most religious person there is, and I strongly believe in birth control, women's rights, on and on, I am constantly assumed to be some Bible-thumping redneck by anyone who doesn't know me. It also doesn't help that I regularly enjoy working with my hands, building things, fixing things, which mind you when it comes to many things to fix there's a great deal of intelligence required, but because it's not the fancy coastal intelligence that gets you six figure jobs I'm assumed to be an idiot. And then people wonder why Middle America has such a disdain for the cultures and intellectual achievement, after they've spent their entire learning lives being told how dumb they are by the snobs, most of whom can't even swap a tire for a donut without calling AAA. </rant>

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
fweespeech 11y ago
No offense but if you are judging any large group by what a bunch of people say on an anonymous internet forum the problem is likely the fact you are taking the trolls to seriously.
- rayiner 11y ago
  I grew up in the D.C. suburbs, probably the single place in the country that most highly values traditional academic intellectualism. His characterization is entirely consistent with my observations growing up. In my high school, peoples' disdain for the rest of the country was open. Even the snobs in NYC or SF are more tolerable (NYC having a pragmatic undercurrent, and SF at least having a "builder" mentality).
  - fweespeech 11y ago
    Yes but both you and the person I'm responding to casually ignore the fact you are basically engaging in broad generalizations while complaining about the fact other groups make broad generalizations and his primary justification was the fact it happens on Reddit. The sheer irony involved in that original comment and his choice of example should have been immediately obvious. The fact it wasn't makes me think, frankly, its OP who is the issue. The fact I have to put up with bullshit from people who live in the [insert location here] on a regular basis and make condescending comments doesn't mean I assume the entire [insert location here] behaves that way in general. Rather, I recognize that its the specific individuals I deal with in that instance that are the problem and not the general population. The fact both of you immediately jumped in to defend the generalization and expand on it, frankly, makes it even more ironic to the point of hypocrisy.

rayiner 11y ago

The fourth one was great. I grew up in D.C. visiting some of the greatest museums in the world until I was bored of them. But some of the strongest experiences I've had are attending church services with my wife and daughter and listening to sermons.

OJFord 11y ago

Does 'rationalisation' have some strange meaning in this context that I'm unfamiliar with? As far as I'm concerned any view justifying the matter is a rationalisation, left or right wing politically; agree or disagree it's certainly nothing to be upset about being called a rationalisation.

tome 11y ago
"Rationalisation" has a negative connotation.
- i80and 11y ago
  Specifically, it typically has a connotation of ex post facto.
- OJFord 11y ago
  Are you British? (I'm picking up on the 's', not sure if you're just quoting me). It seems others commenting on negative connotation are all American, but personally I would only consider it thus in the form of a question: > Oh yes? How do you rationalise that then? The answer to which is a statement of facts - how it is that I deem whatever 'that' is to be rational. I would proffer it stems from an assumption that we are rational beings (uh-oh) which may suggest that the very fact it's questionable implies it is incorrect; but we're not rational, people differ - the one thing we all have in common is that we tend to think our own actions rational. Hence "my rationalisation" is neutral; "your rationalisation" has a negative --ahem-- ex post facto connotation.
josinalvo 11y ago
Rationalization is usually said when the conclusion comes first, and the "reasoning" latter. First you decide what you think, then why. This "reasoning" is considered suspect, and called a rationalization.
- dang 11y ago
  "So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do." http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/autobiography/page18.htm http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/autobiography/page18.htm

donatj 11y ago

I was blocked by a large mass of people with a shared Twitter block list including a number of comedy feeds I used to like to follow, because one of them disliked my political affiliation I had listed on my Twitter page. The person told me as much before blocking me. I've since removed it to prevent future discrimination, but I shouldn't have to and I don't much care for this brave new world.

__44x0 11y ago
There's nothing new about this. Some people stopped associating with you because they didn't like your opinions, a story as old as humanity itself.
- donatj 11y ago
  No. The new part is that even people I didn't offend with my sensibilities are not associating with me on an automated basis.
  - MaysonL 11y ago
    In Bruce Sterling's novel Distraction, there's a bot trawling the net for opponents of a particular politician, and posting the names of the leading ones on a blog, where fans (in the original sense of fanatic followers) of the politician would note them, and they would end up assassinated. The novel seems to be coming a lot truer than I expected when I first read it (1998 or '99).
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    People choosing to delegate association decisions to others is not new; the mechanism might be novel, but seems to be hardly relevant to the basic effect.
    - derefr 11y ago
      Sure, but the scale and the lack of oversight in the new methods is a lot scarier. Everything you can think of that works like this—DNSBLs, the TSA watchlist, etc.—creates a Kafka-esque hell for a non-negligible set of people. Whereas what these replaced was just lists maintained by people, somewhere—where those people could be reached and pleaded with.

squozzer 11y ago

I offer as a hypothesis the belief that graduate study programs, even in hard sciences such as physics, aren't looking for scholars, but disciples.

spinlock 11y ago
Yup. My thesis advisor flat out told me to stop wasting my time with "crap" like neural nets. He came up in the time when they were disparaged by researchers competing for funding in AI so he didn't like them. He didn't care that I was using them to solve problems he was interested in, he wanted me to solve problems he was interested in using methods he approved of.
BellsOnSunday 11y ago
Unless you want to put the word some in there your hypothesis/belief is easy to falsify/repudiate.
- littletimmy 11y ago
  As a matter of fact, a leading philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn would agree with that. He talks about science progressing by way of paradigm, and graduate programs a way to induct people into a paradigm. The book is called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Very interesting read.
  - BellsOnSunday 11y ago
    My point was that there are exceptions to the rule. I don't think the exceptions (scientists with, generally speaking, open minds who pass these habits on to students) are as rare as people reading Kuhn might think. I don't think there is a correlation with doing brilliant work or sparking a paradigm shift, but not everyone is small minded and protective of their territory. Maybe it just seems that way to me because I'm not very ambitious, but I notice quite a few people who don't fit the Kuhnian stereotype.
a_bonobo 11y ago
It really depends on the supervisor, which is a bit of a weird thing since so much depends on a single person - my supervisor let me do anything I want as long as there were a few publications at the end (graduation requirement, and in academia the only way to get jobs), other supervisors just look for cheap work for their own project (~robots). I have a friend from the US who worked full-time for 7 years on her PhD and published only one paper! The rest was work on the supervisor's stuff. I would've switched supervisor after 2 years at the latest (but hindsight, 20/20, yaddayadda)

fromMars 11y ago

I grew up in a red state, too, and as an atheist, I got tired of being told I was going to hell by peers and forced to pray at school events. As such, I have a lot of Christian friends but, it is understandable that some "intellectuals" are hostile to those with strong religious beliefs given that many with similar beliefs deny scientific concepts like evolution, advocate teaching creationism in schools, and deny the existence of global warming.

talmand 11y ago
I'm curious, how exactly were you forced to pray at school events? Regardless, maybe the intellectuals should stop being hostile, have an honest dialogue with such people, and maybe they'll get somewhere.
- munin 11y ago
  being forced to pray at school events is pretty simple, the teacher asks "why aren't you praying?" and sends you to the principals office. nobody within a 200mi radius of you thinks that there is anything wrong with this because "it's the way it's always been" and there's no higher power to appeal to, so... how can you "have an honest dialogue" with someone that thinks that you are going to burn in Hell and tells you that your ideas about women, voting, and abortion are "the Devils"?
  - talmand 11y ago
    No, that's a mild punishment for not praying at a school event. That is not forcing you to pray, you can continue to refuse to pray in that case. Were you somehow forced to pray once you got to the principal's office? There is always a higher power to appeal to unless the head of your country's government and legal system agrees with the sentiment. I agree it's a hard path to take, but the option is there. I guess in the same way you try to have an honest dialogue with a person that insists you are stupid and they can dismiss anything you say because of your beliefs. Both are equally guilty of refusing to participate in the dialogue. Many of the intellectuals refuse to see their failing is evident as much as the overly religious person's failing.

adamconroy 11y ago

Welcome to life. The only thing that matters is what is perceived.

daodedickinson 11y ago

Ideological homogeneity isn't the starting condition it's the ending condition, the achieved goal. How could you see that homogeneity and then say "this could be an issue only in an incredibly tribal ideological environment" and not realize that's exactly what academia is and has been for a long time? Have you not read your Saul Alinsky? There's a reason his devotee is the top prez nominee (Clinton). Climate conferences, academia, these are pure political spheres; you CANNOT rock the boat before tenure. With the net now, nothing is under the radar, so you will have to resign yourself to a lower tier placement, but it might be a great spot for you since politics determines school ranking.

striking 11y ago
> Climate conferences, academia Are you sure the two are exactly alike? I realize there's a lot of soft science that's ridiculous, but it's generally accepted that global warming exists.
- fleitz 11y ago
  It's fairly well understood that most organizations exist to perpetuate themselves. If GW doesn't exist a whole tonne of organization cease to exist, just as if GW does exist a whole tonne of organizations cease to exist. Oddly, you'll find that organizations opinions on GW align fairly well with their source of funding. GW is a hugely political topic, and in my estimation has little to do with hard science anymore.
  - jolux 11y ago
    You've provided no evidence of anything you've laid out here and you're trying to disprove a theory agreed upon by 99% of scientists with indirect arguments about their source of funding. Why exactly should I believe you? I'd love to hear more about all of these points but find it hard to trust them currently.
    - midwest1 11y ago
      I believe the number is somewhat less than 99 percent. If you are referring to the Cook study, the study borders on fraudulent, to be kind. Hard to type using my phone, I have a couple of posts from 70 days or so ago explaining my problem with that study. No one really knows how big that consensus is, or what the consensus even is. Too much noise in the way.

hackuser 11y ago

Is there any evidence that someone rejected him on that basis? I didn't read the whole article in detail, but it seems like a suspicion with nothing to substantiate it, and a lot of hearsay about what some people told him about the risks.

Yen 11y ago
At the end of the article, under the header "The original post from July, 2014", he describes his experience. In summary: 1. In 2007, 14 Jewish Members resign from the advisory board of the Carter Center, due to disagreements over statements in Carter's book. 2. OP blogged about this, apparently in support of their statement. (The original original blog post is not linked to) 3. Some undetermined amount of time later (it sounds like at least a year later), OP applies for PHD programs at several schools. 4. When interviewing for a PHD program at one unnamed school, the interviewer explicitly asks about OP's blog post, about OP's political views on Jimmy Carter, and outright admits that the other faculty members oppose OP's admission to the program, on basis of his blog post.
- MichaelMoser123 11y ago
  Wow; its amazing that the school called him back and confronted OP on his political views. OP mentions that HR people would never do that for fear of being sued, has the university some form of immunity against being sued? Is industry a more liberal place than academia? Also what exactly was the keyword that put him into the 'enemy camp' - was it support of Israel, criticism of Carter or both of them that raised the red flag for them ?
  - Yen 11y ago
    From the article: > She also asked if I "really" felt that way about Jimmy Carter. and > During the call, I got the impression that they thought / were worried that I was a conservative. The horror.
- hackuser 11y ago
  Thanks. Based on what you wrote, all we have his uncorroborated hearsay about one conversation (#4). While discrimination certainly takes place in the world, I think we're blowing this article out of proportion; we don't know what happened here.

jolux 11y ago

"Why would they? There's been lots of noise lately about how conservatives don't respect science or the intellectual sphere. Why would they? They know we're politically biased." This is where it took a turn for me. I'm basically in agreement with everything else, and it's personally eye opening to gain a greater understanding of these kinds of biases, but when you take a few bad apples in the social sciences (literally what? five? six?) and extrapolate that out to justify distrust of all of science, it becomes problematic. The leftists I know (not including myself, though I share similar views) don't dislike conservative attitudes towards social science or other "soft" sciences, in fact most of them take it as a foregone conclusion that conservatives won't like them. They dislike point blank denial of facts such as that of human-caused climate change perpetuated mostly by conservative think tanks and consumed by an undereducated population of people who legitimately don't know better. The problem is really that we live in a culture that does not value education very highly, nor does it enable good forms of it for the majority of our nation. And just for fun, let's take the opposites of this so-called "urban intellectualism" that is expressed with these characteristics: "... is ingenious, a deep thinker." vs. is dumb, a shallow thinker. "... values artistic, esthetic experiences." vs. values uncreative, ugly experiences "... is inventive." vs is uninventive "... is sophisticated in art, music, and literature." vs. knows nothing of art, music, or literature "... likes to reflect, play with ideas" vs likes to avoid introspection, take things at face value, and move on. Pardon me if a few of those don't seem obviously better to more than just liberals than their alternatives. I know a lot of conservatives who would be exceptionally proud to call themselves inventive, sophisticated, deep thinkers with passions in art and literature. You're doing intellectual conservatism a disservice by acting like these are all things conservatives would be offended to see described as "openness." If being an intellectual, sophisticated person is synonymous with being a blinkered bourgeois intellectual liberal then I'm friends with an awful lot of blinkered bourgeois liberals who are also big fans of Austrian economics.

isolate 11y ago
> point blank denial of facts such as that of human-caused climate change Science can't prove/disprove AGW because there's no control, which means that it isn't and can't be a fact. (I believe we should assume AGW to be safe.)

ljw1001 11y ago

Uh, although 'crowded' is leading the witness, "The earth is like a crowded spaceship with limited room and resources" IS an observable fact.

Blackthorn 11y ago
No it is not. Like every simile or analogy, there is more that's not true with it than there is that's true with it.
tbrownaw 11y ago
Define "crowded" (how many people per acre does a typical spaceship hold? How about the earth?). Define "limited" (the spaceship analogy heavily implies it's being used in a sense other than "not infinite"). Go find out what this "renewable" stuff people keep talking about these days is.

ap22213 11y ago

Well, at least they weren't being politically correct, right? Personally, I look down on people who are members of any political party. I truly try not to be biased, but it's pretty hard not to generalize. People who seek out association with amorphous groups just seem intellectually weak, lazy, or worse. The irony is that I'll probably be down-voted for stating my opinion (the way things are these days). Edit: Actually you guys are even cooler than that. You're down-voting my old posts, too. I admire your commitment to group-think!

hguant 11y ago
No, you'll be down voted for being pretentious. This is a lazy, "I'm so superior hahaha look at how great I am" comment. You're being this guy. http://www.theonion.com/article/area-man-constantly-mentioning-he-doesnt-own-a-tel-429 http://www.theonion.com/article/area-man-constantly-mentioni...
- ap22213 11y ago
  Sure, you can be annoyed with my tone or even not like me personally. But, down-voting me just for one of those reasons - that's just a form of suppression / censorship. But, on the other hand, I know I violated the guidelines, so I took a risk. Just trying to prove a point.
  - derefr 11y ago
    Well, yeah; that's what downvoting means: "I want to protect everyone else from wasting their time reading this." It certainly is suppression; and everyone who wants to be here has signed up for suppression. Calling it censorship, though, makes it sound like you think of HN as your blog. HN is a forum; a downvote is the virtual equivalent of what happens in a real public forum when people—as a group—decide to walk away from someone so they can talk without that person's viewpoint interrupting them. It's not censorship; the person is still free to talk. It's a decision to not listen, and a persistent notice posted that the person is—for people whose tastes agree with those that walked away—not worth one's time listening to. You can say anything you like by responding to an HN comment as a quote on your own blog. Anyone trying to deny you that would be attempting censorship. Everything else, though, is just the reaction of a community-as-organism to something that community doesn't like. It's no more censorship than a single person ignoring you and walking away is.

xupybd 11y ago

Anyone else notice, that an article about assumptions made based on political views immediately stirred up religious arguments. Why does one have to be religious to be on the right and non-religious to be on the left? (I'm not from the USA so maybe this is an American thing?)

typon 11y ago

I don't understand why Republicans automatically deserve respect from the 'liberal' intellectuals? If I disagree with someone on basic axioms of our society (climate change is real, xenophobia is bad, etc.) I'm not going to get much traction in other topics. I agree with his other points though: liberal bias in science is a great danger and needs to be removed.

rdancer 11y ago

This is the same old tired schtick: you must be a member of the Party to progress in your career, and reactionary views are incompatible with holding certain jobs. It reminds me of Gad Saad talking on Joe Rogan's podcast about being denied professorship at various universities for not being Christian enough. I believe at one point he was asked to write a short essay on his relationship with Jesus as his saviour (at which point he realized that job offer wasn't probably going to work out). [I don't have a link at this time]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]