4 ms·

>> The mere fact that someone does not hold with leftist ideology does not imply this criticism is "not in good faith", the opposite is actually true. fair >>

>> The mere fact that someone does not hold with leftist ideology does not imply this criticism is "not in good faith", the opposite is actually true. fair >> Yes, the university curriculum - and especially the humanities - is a left-wing echo chamber. If you do not agree I'd like you to show me some proof in the form of neutral or conservative courses in these fields. you're asserting something, why shouldn't i be asking you for proof? >> . Why do you even try to deny this fact, seeing as to how this is so obvious? If there were to be a place for a "not in good faith" accusation it would be far more towards your reply than to my original comment. What's obvious about it? We can go back and forth just asking open questions with specificity and being unmoved by any answers OR we can discuss what might be the roots of those arguments, e.g., what i brought up in a previous comment about empathy. The former is not in good faith. Like in the original comment: >> Have a look around the average university campus, look at the curriculum. Is it any surprise that those who went through these institutions come out ideologically lopsided? This is true for most of the countries I have experience with, it even holds true for a large part of pre-university education. Add to this the more recent phenomenon of trying to label all those who do not keep within the (narrow and shifting) window of allowed opinions and the recipe for producing an ideological monoculture is complete. To me this is a sign of these institutions failing in their duties. It this situation does not get remedied it will lead to the creation of new institutions which welcome those who do not wish to align themselves with the current dogma, something akin to the way the Protestant church was founded out of disagreements with Catholic dogma. my reasoning for assessing the comment isn't in good faith: you're prescribing your assumptions as truth to reach a biased conclusion. Whether or not you're correct is inconsequential, just like with your comment here, you're saying this situation is "obvious" and if not there needs to be proof. The original article actually says that it isn't "obvious", only that there's been some changes occurring over the last 70+ years and they're getting more prevalent (not that they're extreme in one direction or the other, where the 'simplest explanation is due to more access to higher education'). You're not discussing anything with respect to what the numbers are showing, how much 'liberal bias' is actually occurring? Is it 10%, 20%, ...do you know? Instead you're broad-brush approach to saying it's "obvious" that university curriculum is producing an "ideological monoculuture" is purely speculation based on your own bias. Change the words from where anecdote is your defense to a larger discussion on where your perception stems from and we'll have a real discussion about the topic.

the_third_wave 5y ago
https://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-disappearing-conservative-professor https://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-disappea... Sociology: 3% R, 26% L, 72% D Literature: 6% R, 21% L, 74% D History: 8% R, 29% L, 63% D Philosophy: 10% R, 30% L, 60% D, Political Science: 16% R, 36% L, 48% D Only economics has an under-representation of D with 33% R/33% L /33% D - as far as I know the general population is not 33% L. When looking for "conservative" professors the division is even more bleak with 8% in Sociology, 3% in Literature, 7% in History, 4% in Philosophy, 2% (!) in Political Science and, again, 27% in Economics. Don't believe that source? Here's The Harvard Crimson with the same message: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/4/9/disappearance-conservative-faculty/ https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/4/9/disappearance-co... Your reasoning for calling my argument not good faith is as biased as you ascribe my intentions to be. Again, please, show some proof of your statements. I can only assume that you do not have any proof - which would be difficult given the actual facts - and therefore take to the method of trying to discredit my intentions. This is a well-worn but ineffectual tactic when there is actual proof of the facts.

the_third_wave 5y ago

https://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-disappearing-conservative-professor https://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-disappea... Sociology: 3% R, 26% L, 72% D Literature: 6% R, 21% L, 74% D History: 8% R, 29% L, 63% D Philosophy: 10% R, 30% L, 60% D, Political Science: 16% R, 36% L, 48% D Only economics has an under-representation of D with 33% R/33% L /33% D - as far as I know the general population is not 33% L. When looking for "conservative" professors the division is even more bleak with 8% in Sociology, 3% in Literature, 7% in History, 4% in Philosophy, 2% (!) in Political Science and, again, 27% in Economics. Don't believe that source? Here's The Harvard Crimson with the same message: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/4/9/disappearance-conservative-faculty/ https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/4/9/disappearance-co... Your reasoning for calling my argument not good faith is as biased as you ascribe my intentions to be. Again, please, show some proof of your statements. I can only assume that you do not have any proof - which would be difficult given the actual facts - and therefore take to the method of trying to discredit my intentions. This is a well-worn but ineffectual tactic when there is actual proof of the facts.