4 ms·

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.
    - PraetorianGourd 4y ago
      That is only partially true in most cases. The problem is that partisan rhetoric gets amplified so it became "the Right hates immigrants!" vs. "The Left is selling out our Country" when a rational debate around, "are we getting a result of being in the EU that meets or exceeds what we are putting into it." And it is scary if academia can't debate the latter example. And yes, I know UKIP is very responsible for the acidic rhetoric
    - zeruch 4y ago
      "Not every debate has equal evidence on both sides" Don't tell that to the side with a deficit.
WalterGR 4y ago
It says that they couldn't find academics to argue for Leave, not that they were incapable of doing so.
zeruch 4y ago
Well, ask why that was the case for starters: I could posit a few things, assuming the intent was 'serious' debate and not just any amateurish attempt to prop up unequal-in-quality ideas: 1. Arguments to support it were so thin, that doing so would look fundamentally poor contextually (e.g. you can make an argument for Leave, but not any of the ones that were used to sell the idea, because logically they were either outright daft, or any arguments that could be used would have exposed underlying emotional, not factual, underpinnings that in light of day would appear either unsavory, or at the very least, self-sabotaging and indefensible under anything OTHER than agit-prop. 2. Given the political media environment, it became a third rail no self-respecting academic would want to touch (e.g. most academics won't argue for flat earth theory even as a mock exercise) I don't know what drivers for the debates were in play, but I suspect that depending on the seriousness (or lack thereof) would have played a key factor. There is also the simple idea that arguing for something that has no defensible premises (read: it will improve the economy when it won't, it will secure borders when it won't, etc...but will appeal to certain reactionary political contrivances. As a person who has historically leaned center-right on security and economic aspects, I had the same issue in the US over "the wall", an idea I found deeply stupid, still find even more stupid, and ultimately a boat-anchor that only bigoted imbeciles will support reflexively, regardless of cheaper, more effective alternatives existing...because goddammit they need the theater of 'winning' more than actual effective policy).

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.
  - PraetorianGourd 4y ago
    That is only partially true in most cases. The problem is that partisan rhetoric gets amplified so it became "the Right hates immigrants!" vs. "The Left is selling out our Country" when a rational debate around, "are we getting a result of being in the EU that meets or exceeds what we are putting into it." And it is scary if academia can't debate the latter example. And yes, I know UKIP is very responsible for the acidic rhetoric
  - zeruch 4y ago
    "Not every debate has equal evidence on both sides" Don't tell that to the side with a deficit.

WalterGR 4y ago

It says that they couldn't find academics to argue for Leave, not that they were incapable of doing so.

zeruch 4y ago

Well, ask why that was the case for starters: I could posit a few things, assuming the intent was 'serious' debate and not just any amateurish attempt to prop up unequal-in-quality ideas: 1. Arguments to support it were so thin, that doing so would look fundamentally poor contextually (e.g. you can make an argument for Leave, but not any of the ones that were used to sell the idea, because logically they were either outright daft, or any arguments that could be used would have exposed underlying emotional, not factual, underpinnings that in light of day would appear either unsavory, or at the very least, self-sabotaging and indefensible under anything OTHER than agit-prop. 2. Given the political media environment, it became a third rail no self-respecting academic would want to touch (e.g. most academics won't argue for flat earth theory even as a mock exercise) I don't know what drivers for the debates were in play, but I suspect that depending on the seriousness (or lack thereof) would have played a key factor. There is also the simple idea that arguing for something that has no defensible premises (read: it will improve the economy when it won't, it will secure borders when it won't, etc...but will appeal to certain reactionary political contrivances. As a person who has historically leaned center-right on security and economic aspects, I had the same issue in the US over "the wall", an idea I found deeply stupid, still find even more stupid, and ultimately a boat-anchor that only bigoted imbeciles will support reflexively, regardless of cheaper, more effective alternatives existing...because goddammit they need the theater of 'winning' more than actual effective policy).