2 ms·
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
by 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 agoWow; 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 agoFrom 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 agoThanks. 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.
- Yen 11y agoFor my own opinion, outside of just the article - Sure, the contents of that conversation are uncorroborated, but I don't think it's fair to the author to deny his experience on that basis. Denying that is, implicitly, accusing him of either being dishonest, or at the very least exaggerating and misinterpreting the event. And, to do so is hypocritical for a supposedly liberal person - recognizing and acknowledging the individual experience before demanding systemic evidence in one case, but not this case. (Not that you, necessarily hold that as a valid method of understanding the world, but many people supposedly do - it's the basis of a lot of popular identity politics) You might want to actually read the article in detail - the majority of it concerns widespread bias in academic social science, and provides what's arguably concrete evidence of that. His personal anecdote is just a reinforcement of his main point, not the entirety of the article. We don't know what happened during one particular phone call, but we do know what questions (and what results were drawn) on several social science surveys.