4 ms·

Does liberal bias affect academia? Advancing a deadlocked debate

h2odragon 4y ago
> During the Brexit referendum, I helped organize debates within universities; a major problem was that we could not find academics who would argue for Leave. Really? Isn't one of the skills in debate the ability to argue either side of an issue? Isn't that still a skill valued for increasing understanding and easing communication through empathy? I'd expect someone to be able to take up the challenge; "even a werewolf deserves legal representation."
- Clubber 4y ago
  Sadly, I would think that in this politicized environment, that a recorded debate where a professor argued against a common held belief by academia would be career suicide, even if that wasn't the position they actually take outside of the debate.
- codefreeordie 4y ago
  One of the skills in debate is the ability to argue either side of an issue, yes. But that is not valued by modern academia. Modern academia is the new orthodoxy. Also, very few people -- the fewest indeed amongst academics -- still believe that "even a werewolf deserves legal representation". These days, it's hard to get people to agree to waiting for an investigation before punishment, let alone a trial.
  - zeruch 4y ago
    "But that is not valued by modern academia." Bollocks. I have yet to see any decent univeristy that doesn't have Model UN, Forensics, mock courts, and other debate groups that all practice that skill set.
    - MockObject 4y ago
      Ok, so, then, how do you address > a major problem was that we could not find academics who would argue for Leave.
      - vannevar 4y ago
        It doesn't say what (if any) compensation would be offered. It could be that it was simply much easier to argue against Brexit than for it, and consequently no one was motivated to take time from their other duties to take up the work to argue in favor.
        PraetorianGourd 4y ago
        They had no problem finding debaters for "Stay", but you'd argue that something external is needed to argue for "Leave"? That is essentially supporting the authors thesis, that political ideology motivates academic output and at this time the academy is overwhelmingly liberal. The more sinister read on topic could be that there are professors who would argue "Leave" but recognize it would be career suicide to do so. For examples, see attacks on professors who are not adequately anti-racist[1] I also want to cite Brian Leiter[2] who while I find his tone childish at times (calling Republicans repugnicans, imagine the blowback if a conservative professor used libtards[3]) but nevertheless he tends to be a staunch supporter of academic freedom [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/princeton-president-asks-board-to-fire-tenured-classics-professor-citing-sexual-misconduct-investigation-11653013224?mod=mhp https://www.wsj.com/articles/princeton-president-asks-board-... [2] https://leiterreports.typepad.com/ https://leiterreports.typepad.com/ [3] I realize this term is uniquely offensive by it's use of a slur of people with handicaps, but I would argue that that isn't the main thing
        vannevar 4y ago
        My point was that it might have been easier to argue against Brexit, that those arguments might be more readily at hand. Not every debate has equal evidence on both sides; in fact, that's a rarity. Usually, it's easier to make an argument one way than the other. That doesn't mean the other side is completely invalid, it just means it's harder to argue. And if you're not being compensated, it's less appealing to do that extra work.
- WalterGR 4y ago
  It says that they couldn't find academics to argue for Leave, not that they were incapable of doing so.
- johnday 4y ago
  You'd be hard pressed to find an academic who would be willing to defend the position that climate change doesn't exist, or that the sea is luminous purple. The parameters of Brexit are sufficiently well understood by any academic who is involved enough to participate in such a debate. The reason that one finds it so difficult to find a defender for it is that Brexit is not driven by any well-meaning intent and any argument in favour of it is inherently intellectually dishonest and trivial to dismiss.

> During the Brexit referendum, I helped organize debates within universities; a major problem was that we could not find academics who would argue for Leave. Really? Isn't one of the skills in debate the ability to argue either side of an issue? Isn't that still a skill valued for increasing understanding and easing communication through empathy? I'd expect someone to be able to take up the challenge; "even a werewolf deserves legal representation."

Clubber 4y ago
Sadly, I would think that in this politicized environment, that a recorded debate where a professor argued against a common held belief by academia would be career suicide, even if that wasn't the position they actually take outside of the debate.
codefreeordie 4y ago
One of the skills in debate is the ability to argue either side of an issue, yes. But that is not valued by modern academia. Modern academia is the new orthodoxy. Also, very few people -- the fewest indeed amongst academics -- still believe that "even a werewolf deserves legal representation". These days, it's hard to get people to agree to waiting for an investigation before punishment, let alone a trial.
- zeruch 4y ago
  "But that is not valued by modern academia." Bollocks. I have yet to see any decent univeristy that doesn't have Model UN, Forensics, mock courts, and other debate groups that all practice that skill set.
  - MockObject 4y ago
    Ok, so, then, how do you address > a major problem was that we could not find academics who would argue for Leave.
    - vannevar 4y ago
      It doesn't say what (if any) compensation would be offered. It could be that it was simply much easier to argue against Brexit than for it, and consequently no one was motivated to take time from their other duties to take up the work to argue in favor.
      - PraetorianGourd 4y ago
        They had no problem finding debaters for "Stay", but you'd argue that something external is needed to argue for "Leave"? That is essentially supporting the authors thesis, that political ideology motivates academic output and at this time the academy is overwhelmingly liberal. The more sinister read on topic could be that there are professors who would argue "Leave" but recognize it would be career suicide to do so. For examples, see attacks on professors who are not adequately anti-racist[1] I also want to cite Brian Leiter[2] who while I find his tone childish at times (calling Republicans repugnicans, imagine the blowback if a conservative professor used libtards[3]) but nevertheless he tends to be a staunch supporter of academic freedom [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/princeton-president-asks-board-to-fire-tenured-classics-professor-citing-sexual-misconduct-investigation-11653013224?mod=mhp https://www.wsj.com/articles/princeton-president-asks-board-... [2] https://leiterreports.typepad.com/ https://leiterreports.typepad.com/ [3] I realize this term is uniquely offensive by it's use of a slur of people with handicaps, but I would argue that that isn't the main thing
        vannevar 4y ago
        My point was that it might have been easier to argue against Brexit, that those arguments might be more readily at hand. Not every debate has equal evidence on both sides; in fact, that's a rarity. Usually, it's easier to make an argument one way than the other. That doesn't mean the other side is completely invalid, it just means it's harder to argue. And if you're not being compensated, it's less appealing to do that extra work.
WalterGR 4y ago
It says that they couldn't find academics to argue for Leave, not that they were incapable of doing so.
johnday 4y ago
You'd be hard pressed to find an academic who would be willing to defend the position that climate change doesn't exist, or that the sea is luminous purple. The parameters of Brexit are sufficiently well understood by any academic who is involved enough to participate in such a debate. The reason that one finds it so difficult to find a defender for it is that Brexit is not driven by any well-meaning intent and any argument in favour of it is inherently intellectually dishonest and trivial to dismiss.