3 ms·

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 auth

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.

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.