6 ms·

I'm not American and I wasn't thinking of the US exclusively. I think it's a problem of democratic western academia, but there's no data outside the US as far a

• cauch 3y ago
  > If academic institutions of rich reputation champion, for example, denial of the Cambodian genocide, is the harm undone if another institution admits it happened? That's a really good example: if another institution admits it happened, it demonstrates that institutions are not controlled by a cambodian-genocide-denial-dogma. Same here: as some left-wing events were cancelled by another university, even they are not the majority of the cancellation, it demonstrates that universities are not controlled by a left-wing-dogma. > I'm a lot less concerned about Milo's exclusion than I am of Xi Van Fleet's. And your Milo is another person Xi Van Fleet: you are basically admitting that you base your impression based on people you think were unfairly cancelled because they have an opinion that you think is sensible. I was not able to find cases where Van Fleet was cancelled in an university event (the large majority of the research results are about how she is cancelled, again, the "bad leftist" has probably done more for spreading her view than what her views would have been otherwise, as they appear to be not really original). But I'm pretty sure you can easily find a person who say that the right-wing is like the chinese communists based on their own experience, and I'm pretty sure the right-wing people will criticize this person as much as Van Fleet is, and will protest as much to their event if they have the opportunity and if this person gets as much media coverage as Van Fleet. (also about "democratic western academia problem": I don't get how this argument is a "win". It's basically "right-wing people are so stupid they cannot even find a way to publish something true themselves". If what a right-wing person is saying is true, then you will have universities that will support them, just because supporting someone who tells something that is true is just very very beneficial for the university. On top of that, as said elsewhere, it's not like the whole power spectrum is left-wing, so they will have plenty of support. Imagine the level of effort it will need for the bad university-leftist-owners to chase down every academic that is not a left-wing dishonest conspiracists (being left-wing does not mean a scientist will accept to reject the truth) in the WHOLE WESTERN WORLD so they cannot get any level of power in any one western uni? And at the same time, there are plenty of academic people who are right-wing, have done very well career-wise)
  • hotdogscout 3y ago
    I'm well aware there's nuance but it's still a problem. A country club is extremely biased towards conservatism even if there isn't an all encompassing authoritarian mind control scheme for it. Leftism is popular in Academia because of selection bias and not some huge conspiracy, I'm aware, but that is still a problem if it lets so much misbehaviour pass and keeps gaslighting critics. >being left-wing does not mean a scientist will accept to reject the truth I agree but it's been known to happen and it's been known to be brushed under the carpet. Although there has been recent cases of literal socialist conspiracies in Ivy League universities. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/harvard-university-professor-and-two-chinese-nationals-charged-three-separate-china-related https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/harvard-university-professor-...
    • cauch 3y ago
      > Leftism is popular in Academia because of selection bias and not some huge conspiracy Even if indeed "academia is left-wing" (which I'm still not sure it's properly proven: everyone who said that appeared to just "feel it's the case" and turn out to have some sympathies with more right-wing values. Of course you think it's more left-wing if you see left-wing event and right-wing event in same quantities: the right-wing events are not "right-wing", they are just "normal", so you end up thinking "this uni is doing 50% of normal and 50% of left-wing, so it is left-wing". Not saying it's not the case, my problem is that if it is left-wing, I would expect it will be said by people who are less biased). I was saying ... even if it is left-wing, it is interesting that you are attributing that to "selection bias". There are plenty of other hypothesis: - people in academia thinks a lot, and right-wing ideas are just not very good (I don't think it's true, but it's as charitable as 'selection bias') - approach in academia is more compatible to left-wing way of thinking - socio-economic and culture of people going to academia are more compatible to left-wing way of thinking - ... > I agree but it's been known to happen and it's been known to be brushed under the carpet. How is that relevant? It's like saying "academia is dominated by right-wing: we can see some collusion and then it being brushed under the carpet", such as whatever you can find by googling "pro-iran academia in us" or any other right-wing dictatorial countries. I love how Americans are so brainwashed about "the communist threat". I'm sure there are sometimes political games from China, sometimes linked to ideology (and maybe the example you gave it's indeed one of them, big deal, there are plenty of fraud done by right-wing academics), but in the majority of the cases, China involvement in frauds is just because China is a big country with an emergent economy, with a lax regulation to fraud supported by a corrupted dictatorship. China would have been a right-wing dictatorship, the same thing would have happened. But again, you are doing a confirmation bias: you want to see reason why academia is ideologically communist. It does not change anything to the initial argument: what you call a paradox is not a paradox. You are just pretending here that someone the students who do the protests are the one in charge of vetting the events they are protesting about in the first place, which is just stupid.