4 ms·
> 1. If the self selection occurs at the student levels (i.e. professors are hostile to conservatives which causes them to drop out of academia before they get
by npsimons 10y ago
> 1. If the self selection occurs at the student levels (i.e. professors are hostile to conservatives which causes them to drop out of academia before they get to the teaching level) this is still bad.
Not necessarily; if someone realizes that their basic beliefs are incompatible with the basic tenets of an institution, that saves everyone time in the long run.
And I'd like to see some evidence, any evidence of professors being hostile to conservatives. And no, "God's not Dead" doesn't count. That's such a persecution complex strawman.
> 2. Even if it's entirely self selected, it's still a diversity problem.
There's diversity and there is pandering to vox populi and anti-intellectualism. The first is good, the second is not, and quite frankly, the face of modern conservatism in America has been anti-intellectual for quite some time.
And hey, Kristoff seems to have misrepresented the data!
https://medium.com/@ginasue/the-lie-of-liberal-intolerance-on-campus-6ba4c67ea8e0#.de9ylal06 https://medium.com/@ginasue/the-lie-of-liberal-intolerance-o...
Surprised, I am not.
- hsod 10y agoI don't see anything in that essay that supports any but a very broad interpretation of the phrase "misrepresented the data". I see a bunch of innuendo and odd stats like this one: > Of professors who say that they are religious, fully 19% of them can be classified as “traditionalists,” which would include evangelical Christians (which in Kristof’s NYT op-ed were presented as a maligned minority, not part of the solid 1-in-5 religious professors who are traditionalists found by the survey). One in five religious professors are traditionalists. So what?