> The median US Republican (good proxy for conservatism) does not believe in evolution or climate change- extremely difficult to find a serious faculty candidat

> The median US Republican (good proxy for conservatism) does not believe in evolution or climate change- extremely difficult to find a serious faculty candidate who fits that profile, just for starters. Do you not agree with that? The "median" person doesn't become a professor. I think you're confusing object level Republican issues with conservatism. One doesn't have to agree with the Republican party on every issue to be considered a "conservative." One thing that opened my eyes to this issue was reading Haidt's book "The Righteous Mind." Conservatism and liberalism are ways of looking at the world which involve valuing different moral principles. From a book review[0] on the book: "He and his colleagues have compiled a catalog of six fundamental ideas that commonly undergird moral systems: care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority and sanctity... These moral systems aren’t ignorant or backward. Haidt argues that they’re common in history and across the globe because they fit human nature. He compares them to cuisines. We acquire morality the same way we acquire food preferences: we start with what we’re given. If it tastes good, we stick with it. If it doesn’t, we reject it. People accept God, authority and karma because these ideas suit their moral taste buds. Haidt points to research showing that people punish cheaters, accept many hierarchies and don’t support equal distribution of benefits when contributions are unequal. You don’t have to go abroad to see these ideas. You can find them in the Republican Party. Social conservatives see welfare and feminism as threats to responsibility and family stability. The Tea Party hates redistribution because it interferes with letting people reap what they earn. Faith, patriotism, valor, chastity, law and order — these Republican themes touch all six moral foundations, whereas Democrats, in Haidt’s analysis, focus almost entirely on care and fighting oppression. This is Haidt’s startling message to the left: When it comes to morality, conservatives are more broad-minded than liberals. They serve a more varied diet." These values are inherited culturally and some evidence[1] suggests there may be a genetic component too. So, to clarify, I'm not necessarily asking that professors be hired with wrong object-level beliefs. But I do want to make sure that we're not discriminating against people who view the world through different moral structures, and who may view certain issues more clearly than those of us who are inclined to be on the left. Have you ever considered that the reason for the intellectual bankruptcy (I note your mention of Glenn Beck et al) in the right in America today is because conservative minded people have been pushed out of academia (and the media, and entertainment...)? I can't emphasize this point enough, but the evidence is that there is overt and explicit discrimination against conservatives in academia. People with conservative beliefs are 100% correct to distrust these institutions, and our society, our democracy, and our political discourse as a whole is poorer for it. > It seems like those in the field are usually the best at distinguishing crankery from genuine ideological difference- if we don't trust them, who do we trust? One might also argue "we should trust tech interviewers to determine who's a good fit for tech and who's an imposter. And if that discriminates against people of color or women, that's just because they're worst." My answer to that would be "humans are irrational, and we have to recognize the possibility of bias and therefore we need to think long and hard about how to ensure that everybody is getting a fair shot." The bare minimum we could do is make it absolutely clear that openly and explicitly discriminating against people (our fellow citizens!) based on their political beliefs is incredibly harmful and morally wrong. [0]: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-righteous-mind-by-jonathan-haidt.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-righteous... [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/ (btw: Scott Alexander identifies as a liberal and votes for the Democratic Party) Also, politicizing a scientific-existential threat is not unique to the right: http://www.vox.com/2016/10/18/13012394/i-732-carbon-tax-washington http://www.vox.com/2016/10/18/13012394/i-732-carbon-tax-wash... I would also be remiss to mention that Republican intellectuals just put forward a carbon tax proposal last week: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/opinion/a-conservative-case-for-climate-action.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/opinion/a-conservative-ca...