5 ms·

The Ivy leagues today are anything but diverse in thought, this should be obvious. What actually exists is a repressive liberal orthodoxy, and no dissent is tol

The Ivy leagues today are anything but diverse in thought, this should be obvious. What actually exists is a repressive liberal orthodoxy, and no dissent is tolerated. I ought to expand on this since this comment will surely be controversial. I make no comment on which view is right or wrong; but suppose the conservative view were favored, and any disagreement with the ideology got your fired from your job, publicly shamed, made a pariah, etc.? Would you feel comfortable sharing dissenting opinions? There is no open debate, no sense that truer speech will naturally win out over disfavored speech, no sense that people have the right to say and think unorthodox beliefs.

tomrod 4y ago
This is pretty far removed from my direct experience with Ivy League alumni and professors (coauthors, colleagues, coworkers). It is a common refrain though. Elements of conservatism are sometimes viewed as being eschewed when they are ideologically based and the evidence doesn't support claims. But this is true generally and a consequence of the academic incentive structure where there are never enough resources to fund. On the other hand, academic malfeasance does occur (e.g. Alzheimers research in recent decades), so the system is far from perfect, but the risky/rewarding incentive is to absolutely decry the current state as being completely wrong. Consider Nassim Taleb's popularization after the Great Recession as a great example, or earlier Paul Krugman's transaction cost theories.
- btilly 4y ago
  It is not at all removed from my direct experience. (And I am, in fact, an Ivy League alumnus.) See https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/03/the_prevalence_1.html https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/03/the_prevalence_1.ht... for the shocking level of acceptance of Marxist ideas in the social sciences, despite a lack of anything resembling evidence for it. And a tremendous amount of evidence that attempts at implementing Marxism have done insane amounts of damage to the world.
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    How is 18% Marxists in the social sciences evidence for "a repressive liberal orthodoxy, and no dissent is tolerated"?
    - tomrod 4y ago
      Personal experience can be source of bias in evaluation, News @ 10! /s :)
    - btilly 4y ago
      It is evidence that academia doesn't require evidence for left-wing claims. So to the extent that they do that, insisting on evidence from conservatives is discrimination. (I'd prefer that everyone's claims require evidence.) But https://www.johnlocke.org/academics-support-discrimination-against-conservatives/ https://www.johnlocke.org/academics-support-discrimination-a... speaks more directly to your question. Conservatives are discriminated against in academia for being conservative.
      - tomrod 4y ago
        Doesn't this just mean that conservatives believe Marxism is an unacceptable worldview, since it exists? Why would we police evidence-based thought in academia?
        btilly 4y ago
        If the thought in academia which leads to Marxism was actually evidence-based, then it should be easy to cite evidence for Marxism. You'd just have to read what they say and quote their arguments. But it is not. Evidence for Marxism that I've seen boils down to rhetoric. Evidence against Marxism involves mass famines, low economic productivity, failed predictions, and so on. Therefore a significant fraction of Marxists in academia must support it for reasons other than the evidence.
        shkkmo 4y ago
georgestephanis 4y ago
btilly 4y ago
I'm reminded of https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1526975113597489154 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1526975113597489154: Yale is the epicenter of the woke mind virus attempting to destroy civilization. Paul Graham's immediate chime of support shows it isn't just a piece of random silliness on Elon Musk's part. And other things I've seen (eg the harassment of Amy Chua) certainly fit. This amicus brief speaking up for racism and discrimination (as long as it is against those funny looking Asians) is a minor piece of the general pattern.
- xiande04 4y ago
  How exactly does Amicus entail racism and discrimination against Asians?
  - btilly 4y ago
    The lawsuit that they are filing an Amicus in was brought by an Asian-American organization for the purpose of getting Harvard to stop specifically discriminating against Asian-Americans. Therefore the brief is arguing for racism and discrimination against Asians. What is particularly galling is that the argument in the brief is defending the university's ability to pick students who have been affected by their race. Thereby implicitly arguing that Asian-Americans have NOT been affected by their race. Meanwhile, back in reality, hate crimes against Asian-Americans are up over 300% nationwide: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/anti-asian-hate-crimes-increased-339-percent-nationwide-last-year-repo-rcna14282 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/anti-asian-hate-c....
    - alsaaro 4y ago
      The purpose of affirmative action policies is to help under-represented groups. Asians aren't under-represented at Yale, they are 19 percent of the student population, while only 6 percent of the American population.
      - inkblotuniverse 4y ago
        So asian students are being punished because other asian students did too well? Back in the early-to-mid 20th century, universities had limits to how many jewish students could join each year, with the argument that if they didn't, jews would make up the entire university population. Are you in favor of bringing back that policy, as well?
light_hue_1 4y ago
[flagged]
- treeman79 4y ago
  It’s group think. Or in Reddit terms a circle jerk. Bunch of people surrounding themselves with like minded people and driving away anyone who disagrees. Try being a professor on some of theses campuses and claiming that men can’t get pregnant. A position that was the norm for thousands of years until what 5-15 years ago? You’ll be burned at the stake for disputing the “science” now.
- buscoquadnary 4y ago
  Really, are you also more likely to be athiest as well? Because I mean Donald Knuth is pretty darn bright and a devout Lutheran. And when we say evidence and science are we talking about the evidence and science that guided our pandemic response? If reality has such a hard left bent to it why do so many communist nations end up massacring their people through famine when trying to implement their ideal utopian leftist solutions? But please go on telling me how your people are so much smarter and more intelligent than the other group of people you don't like. Actually I'm convinced we need to do something about these dangerous conservatives, their dangerous racist, deadly views are killing children and limiting women's rights. We need to do something to stop them and help them understand reality as it really is, they just need more education. Clearly however the current model isn't working maybe if we setup special camps for them to all go to so they can be really educated, re-educated for short. Of course there will still be people that will resist, we'll need some sort of final solution for them....
  - tomrod 4y ago
    > Really, are you also more likely to be athiest as well? Surprisingly, this has been studied -- here a broad introduction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence#Studies_comparing_religious_belief_and_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence#S... > why do so many communist nations end up massacring their people I always assumed it was because Communism/Leninism/Maoism countries as implemented were authoritarian rather than democratic and encouraged "Animal Farm" type power distributions. Adoption of communism probably doesn't make people smarter, causally. But rejection of evidence-based worldviews can certainly have consequential results for individuals and communities.

tomrod 4y ago

This is pretty far removed from my direct experience with Ivy League alumni and professors (coauthors, colleagues, coworkers). It is a common refrain though. Elements of conservatism are sometimes viewed as being eschewed when they are ideologically based and the evidence doesn't support claims. But this is true generally and a consequence of the academic incentive structure where there are never enough resources to fund. On the other hand, academic malfeasance does occur (e.g. Alzheimers research in recent decades), so the system is far from perfect, but the risky/rewarding incentive is to absolutely decry the current state as being completely wrong. Consider Nassim Taleb's popularization after the Great Recession as a great example, or earlier Paul Krugman's transaction cost theories.

btilly 4y ago
It is not at all removed from my direct experience. (And I am, in fact, an Ivy League alumnus.) See https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/03/the_prevalence_1.html https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/03/the_prevalence_1.ht... for the shocking level of acceptance of Marxist ideas in the social sciences, despite a lack of anything resembling evidence for it. And a tremendous amount of evidence that attempts at implementing Marxism have done insane amounts of damage to the world.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  How is 18% Marxists in the social sciences evidence for "a repressive liberal orthodoxy, and no dissent is tolerated"?
  - tomrod 4y ago
    Personal experience can be source of bias in evaluation, News @ 10! /s :)
  - btilly 4y ago
    It is evidence that academia doesn't require evidence for left-wing claims. So to the extent that they do that, insisting on evidence from conservatives is discrimination. (I'd prefer that everyone's claims require evidence.) But https://www.johnlocke.org/academics-support-discrimination-against-conservatives/ https://www.johnlocke.org/academics-support-discrimination-a... speaks more directly to your question. Conservatives are discriminated against in academia for being conservative.
    - tomrod 4y ago
      Doesn't this just mean that conservatives believe Marxism is an unacceptable worldview, since it exists? Why would we police evidence-based thought in academia?
      - btilly 4y ago
        If the thought in academia which leads to Marxism was actually evidence-based, then it should be easy to cite evidence for Marxism. You'd just have to read what they say and quote their arguments. But it is not. Evidence for Marxism that I've seen boils down to rhetoric. Evidence against Marxism involves mass famines, low economic productivity, failed predictions, and so on. Therefore a significant fraction of Marxists in academia must support it for reasons other than the evidence.
        shkkmo 4y ago

georgestephanis 4y ago

btilly 4y ago

I'm reminded of https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1526975113597489154 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1526975113597489154: Yale is the epicenter of the woke mind virus attempting to destroy civilization. Paul Graham's immediate chime of support shows it isn't just a piece of random silliness on Elon Musk's part. And other things I've seen (eg the harassment of Amy Chua) certainly fit. This amicus brief speaking up for racism and discrimination (as long as it is against those funny looking Asians) is a minor piece of the general pattern.

xiande04 4y ago
How exactly does Amicus entail racism and discrimination against Asians?
- btilly 4y ago
  The lawsuit that they are filing an Amicus in was brought by an Asian-American organization for the purpose of getting Harvard to stop specifically discriminating against Asian-Americans. Therefore the brief is arguing for racism and discrimination against Asians. What is particularly galling is that the argument in the brief is defending the university's ability to pick students who have been affected by their race. Thereby implicitly arguing that Asian-Americans have NOT been affected by their race. Meanwhile, back in reality, hate crimes against Asian-Americans are up over 300% nationwide: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/anti-asian-hate-crimes-increased-339-percent-nationwide-last-year-repo-rcna14282 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/anti-asian-hate-c....
  - alsaaro 4y ago
    The purpose of affirmative action policies is to help under-represented groups. Asians aren't under-represented at Yale, they are 19 percent of the student population, while only 6 percent of the American population.
    - inkblotuniverse 4y ago
      So asian students are being punished because other asian students did too well? Back in the early-to-mid 20th century, universities had limits to how many jewish students could join each year, with the argument that if they didn't, jews would make up the entire university population. Are you in favor of bringing back that policy, as well?

light_hue_1 4y ago

[flagged]

treeman79 4y ago
It’s group think. Or in Reddit terms a circle jerk. Bunch of people surrounding themselves with like minded people and driving away anyone who disagrees. Try being a professor on some of theses campuses and claiming that men can’t get pregnant. A position that was the norm for thousands of years until what 5-15 years ago? You’ll be burned at the stake for disputing the “science” now.
buscoquadnary 4y ago
Really, are you also more likely to be athiest as well? Because I mean Donald Knuth is pretty darn bright and a devout Lutheran. And when we say evidence and science are we talking about the evidence and science that guided our pandemic response? If reality has such a hard left bent to it why do so many communist nations end up massacring their people through famine when trying to implement their ideal utopian leftist solutions? But please go on telling me how your people are so much smarter and more intelligent than the other group of people you don't like. Actually I'm convinced we need to do something about these dangerous conservatives, their dangerous racist, deadly views are killing children and limiting women's rights. We need to do something to stop them and help them understand reality as it really is, they just need more education. Clearly however the current model isn't working maybe if we setup special camps for them to all go to so they can be really educated, re-educated for short. Of course there will still be people that will resist, we'll need some sort of final solution for them....
- tomrod 4y ago
  > Really, are you also more likely to be athiest as well? Surprisingly, this has been studied -- here a broad introduction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence#Studies_comparing_religious_belief_and_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence#S... > why do so many communist nations end up massacring their people I always assumed it was because Communism/Leninism/Maoism countries as implemented were authoritarian rather than democratic and encouraged "Animal Farm" type power distributions. Adoption of communism probably doesn't make people smarter, causally. But rejection of evidence-based worldviews can certainly have consequential results for individuals and communities.