4 ms·

Anti-DEI junk. Yes, I'm sure if academia self-sabotaged by continuing to keep out women and minorities, Trump wouldn't be stomping all over it. Also, pay an ac

Anti-DEI junk. Yes, I'm sure if academia self-sabotaged by continuing to keep out women and minorities, Trump wouldn't be stomping all over it. Also, pay an actual artist next time, instead of crapping out AI "art".

palmotea 2y ago
> Yes, I'm sure if academia self-sabotaged by continuing to keep out women and minorities, Trump wouldn't be stomping all over it. Honestly, Trump probably wouldn't be stomping on it if academia merely had been more accepting of conservatives and conservative viewpoints. In other words, include and represent the full range of Americans. But it excluded them (and then to rub it in, people used that exclusion as proof that the excluded were intellectually inferior). It's predictable that would lead to a backlash when the tables were turned, and that's exactly what we got. If you make someone your enemy, that tends to have the effect of making you their enemy.
- JoeAltmaier 2y ago
  Maybe some conflation of 'conservatives' and 'ignorant and superstitious'. It is the purpose of education to exclude ignorance and superstition.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- krapp 2y ago
  Conservatives - particularly post Trump populists - would make academia their enemy regardless, because conservative ideology harbors a longstanding prejudice against what it considers the perfidious influence of "cultural Marxism", postmodernism and secularism within academia on American culture. And academia excludes them because it rightly understands that the goal of conservatism is to destroy them utterly. One cannot have a foundation of science while accepting people who want to normalize Christian Biblical literalism, racial realism and anti-vaccine conspiracy theories. These two paradigms simply cannot coexist.
  - palmotea 2y ago
    > And academia excludes them because it rightly understands that the goal of conservatism is to destroy them utterly. Is it really? And even granting that "the goal of conservatism is to destroy [academia] utterly," for the sake of argument. Are you confusing the situation at the end with the situation at the start? The fact of the matter is academia hasn't been able to destroy conservatism, so it seems all it accomplished was making an enemy and picking a fight. They're in a bad situation now, which calls into question the wisdom of their previous strategy and positions. > One cannot have a foundation of science while accepting people who want to normalize Christian Biblical literalism, racial realism and anti-vaccine conspiracy theories. These two paradigms simply cannot coexist. I think what you're doing is cherry-picking extreme examples in order to justify a prejudice. You can tar academia just the same, by cherry-picking academics who taken all kinds strange and indefensible positions.

palmotea 2y ago

> Yes, I'm sure if academia self-sabotaged by continuing to keep out women and minorities, Trump wouldn't be stomping all over it. Honestly, Trump probably wouldn't be stomping on it if academia merely had been more accepting of conservatives and conservative viewpoints. In other words, include and represent the full range of Americans. But it excluded them (and then to rub it in, people used that exclusion as proof that the excluded were intellectually inferior). It's predictable that would lead to a backlash when the tables were turned, and that's exactly what we got. If you make someone your enemy, that tends to have the effect of making you their enemy.

JoeAltmaier 2y ago
Maybe some conflation of 'conservatives' and 'ignorant and superstitious'. It is the purpose of education to exclude ignorance and superstition.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
krapp 2y ago
Conservatives - particularly post Trump populists - would make academia their enemy regardless, because conservative ideology harbors a longstanding prejudice against what it considers the perfidious influence of "cultural Marxism", postmodernism and secularism within academia on American culture. And academia excludes them because it rightly understands that the goal of conservatism is to destroy them utterly. One cannot have a foundation of science while accepting people who want to normalize Christian Biblical literalism, racial realism and anti-vaccine conspiracy theories. These two paradigms simply cannot coexist.
- palmotea 2y ago
  > And academia excludes them because it rightly understands that the goal of conservatism is to destroy them utterly. Is it really? And even granting that "the goal of conservatism is to destroy [academia] utterly," for the sake of argument. Are you confusing the situation at the end with the situation at the start? The fact of the matter is academia hasn't been able to destroy conservatism, so it seems all it accomplished was making an enemy and picking a fight. They're in a bad situation now, which calls into question the wisdom of their previous strategy and positions. > One cannot have a foundation of science while accepting people who want to normalize Christian Biblical literalism, racial realism and anti-vaccine conspiracy theories. These two paradigms simply cannot coexist. I think what you're doing is cherry-picking extreme examples in order to justify a prejudice. You can tar academia just the same, by cherry-picking academics who taken all kinds strange and indefensible positions.