https://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-disappearing-conservative-professor https://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-disappea... Sociolo

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.