7 ms·

> I'm increasingly sympathetic to the perspective that universities cannot both exclude any questioning of their ideological leaning Well, they don't do that.

> I'm increasingly sympathetic to the perspective that universities cannot both exclude any questioning of their ideological leaning Well, they don't do that. The myth that universities are liberal monocultures is propagated by the right as an excuse to attack them. Let's turn your argument around: most police departments employee conservative voters. Would you be comfortable with the government requiring "viewpoint diversity" among police offices? After all, why should liberal politicians fund non-liberal institutions? The government should not discriminate based on political orientation. Government services, including government-funded universities, should serve all Americans. > It's one thing to want public funding, but it's quite another to want that funding while expecting nakedly partisan purity testing like "DEI statements" for faculty. Universities are, and should be, free to choose their own values and hiring practice.

ethbr1 1y ago
There was a liberal monoculture in American universities ~2000-2023. Said as a liberal. Litmus test: Say something incendiary in a liberal direction at a university and observe reaction (i.e. "there is no such thing as biological gender"). Say something incendiary in a conservative direction and observe reaction (i.e. "life begins at conception and abortion is murder"). There absolutely was a double-standard. That said, even if liberals created consequences for conservative speech, they by and large allowed it. (While picketing and, in later years, shouting it down) In contrast to the current group of populist-conservatives who are anti-free speech and want to erase liberal ideas from existence.
- hackyhacky 1y ago
  > There was a liberal monoculture in American universities ~2000-2023. The fact that there are a large number of liberals at universities does not make it a monoculture. There is no conspiracy to keep non-liberals out. Your anecdote shows nothing.
  - ethbr1 1y ago
    The affiliations of employees and students (if liberal) isn't what creates a monoculture -- it's the double standard and resulting self-censorship. Too few liberals in academia were willing to say "I disagree with what you say, but support your right to say it" when it was inconvenient. Which isn't in any way to justify the excessive clusterfuck of a reprise by populist conservatives these days. Two wrongs do not make a right, and what's being done today is much worse than the liberal bent of early 21st century US universities.
  - hnburnsy 1y ago
    A Quantitative Study of DEI Statements in American University Job Listings >Job applicants should not be required as a condition of employment to profess their loyalty to partisan statements or beliefs. Yet universities that solicit statements of commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion from job applicants do precisely that. ... >We have discovered that 86 out of the 98 American universities we investigated required diversity statements for at least some job positions. https://www.nas.org/reports/ideological-insistence/full-report https://www.nas.org/reports/ideological-insistence/full-repo...
    - hackyhacky 1y ago
      A commitment to nondiscrimination is not "partisan", or at least it wasn't until the president made it so. University professors are also required to accommodate students under the Americans with Disabilities Act. If the president finds that wheelchairs are a communist plot, does that make the ADA partisan?
      - ethbr1 1y ago
        Hiring wasn't requiring candidates to make ADA statements, because it was the law. And the command performances of DEI (the implementation) did get a little Kool Aid-y, even if diversity, equity, inclusion (the principles) are individually laudable. But that's most things once they go through the HR washer.
        1y ago
hnburnsy 1y ago
>Universities are, and should be, free to choose their own values and hiring practice. If you are going to take in millions in Pell grants, student loans, and research funding, you are going to be beholden to politics. There are many that decline the funding to retain their independence.
- hackyhacky 1y ago
  > If you are going to take in millions in Pell grants, student loans, and research funding, you are going to be beholden to politics. There are many that decline the funding to retain their independence. What does "beholden" mean? Does it mean the executive branch gets to install "viewpoint diversity" police and cancel whole departments, as they wanted to at Harvard? Do you think that level of government takeover benefits the university or the community?

ethbr1 1y ago

There was a liberal monoculture in American universities ~2000-2023. Said as a liberal. Litmus test: Say something incendiary in a liberal direction at a university and observe reaction (i.e. "there is no such thing as biological gender"). Say something incendiary in a conservative direction and observe reaction (i.e. "life begins at conception and abortion is murder"). There absolutely was a double-standard. That said, even if liberals created consequences for conservative speech, they by and large allowed it. (While picketing and, in later years, shouting it down) In contrast to the current group of populist-conservatives who are anti-free speech and want to erase liberal ideas from existence.

hackyhacky 1y ago
> There was a liberal monoculture in American universities ~2000-2023. The fact that there are a large number of liberals at universities does not make it a monoculture. There is no conspiracy to keep non-liberals out. Your anecdote shows nothing.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  The affiliations of employees and students (if liberal) isn't what creates a monoculture -- it's the double standard and resulting self-censorship. Too few liberals in academia were willing to say "I disagree with what you say, but support your right to say it" when it was inconvenient. Which isn't in any way to justify the excessive clusterfuck of a reprise by populist conservatives these days. Two wrongs do not make a right, and what's being done today is much worse than the liberal bent of early 21st century US universities.
- hnburnsy 1y ago
  A Quantitative Study of DEI Statements in American University Job Listings >Job applicants should not be required as a condition of employment to profess their loyalty to partisan statements or beliefs. Yet universities that solicit statements of commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion from job applicants do precisely that. ... >We have discovered that 86 out of the 98 American universities we investigated required diversity statements for at least some job positions. https://www.nas.org/reports/ideological-insistence/full-report https://www.nas.org/reports/ideological-insistence/full-repo...
  - hackyhacky 1y ago
    A commitment to nondiscrimination is not "partisan", or at least it wasn't until the president made it so. University professors are also required to accommodate students under the Americans with Disabilities Act. If the president finds that wheelchairs are a communist plot, does that make the ADA partisan?
    - ethbr1 1y ago
      Hiring wasn't requiring candidates to make ADA statements, because it was the law. And the command performances of DEI (the implementation) did get a little Kool Aid-y, even if diversity, equity, inclusion (the principles) are individually laudable. But that's most things once they go through the HR washer.
      - 1y ago

hnburnsy 1y ago

>Universities are, and should be, free to choose their own values and hiring practice. If you are going to take in millions in Pell grants, student loans, and research funding, you are going to be beholden to politics. There are many that decline the funding to retain their independence.

hackyhacky 1y ago
> If you are going to take in millions in Pell grants, student loans, and research funding, you are going to be beholden to politics. There are many that decline the funding to retain their independence. What does "beholden" mean? Does it mean the executive branch gets to install "viewpoint diversity" police and cancel whole departments, as they wanted to at Harvard? Do you think that level of government takeover benefits the university or the community?