Academia is Far to the Left of the Electorate

[Parasaurolophus]

Just curious, can you name one person or organization who is trying to change it? Because it seems to me the left is gloating over their victory and the right has just gone away to lick its wounds.

Can you name any gloaters?

Also, since when does crying about it as loudly as possible at every possible opportunity count as 'going away to lick your wounds'? Conservative crocodile tears about 'viewpoint diversity' (hah!) have been a mainstay of the editorial pages for years. Remember all the Heterodox Academy hullabaloo? Remember the last decade of 'free speech on campus' BS? Remember the Harper's letter?

[pgher]

Among other things, follow the money. Its hard to be against Big Government when you work for a public institution or depend on federal research grants.

[Sun_Worshiper]

But, for the sake of argument, let's accept the results. They aren't really surprising and it also isn't particularly healthy for most of higher education to be of one party. The real question is why this is the case and what is the solution?

Just curious, can you name one person or organization who is trying to change it? Because it seems to me the left is gloating over their victory and the right has just gone away to lick its wounds.

Not quite sure what you are asking here, but there are lots of conservative organizations that cater to conservative students and professors (e.g. College Republicans and NAS) and there are foundations that give money to advance conservative scholarship (e.g. Smith Richardson, Institute for Humane Studies).

The point remains, however, that the conservative party has to offer something to attract academics. Mostly they haven't done that and have instead demonized professors and attacked higher education (not to mention promoting ignorance and conspiracies).

Not sure about licking wounds or gloating either. Feel free to be specific or give examples.

[mahagonny]

The point remains, however, that the conservative party has to offer something to attract academics.

That's easy. They are somebody other than the liberals.

Among other things, follow the money. Its hard to be against Big Government when you work for a public institution or depend on federal research grants.

Makes sense. So would it follow logically that perhaps there are academics, perhaps even many, who see themselves as favoring big government of necessity while not so much on board with all of today's liberal passions and causes? Or is that not something one can live with comfortably and so not worth the trouble, therefore just fall in with the herd and don't make trouble?

[marshwiggle]

If you looked at the last four years and decided you still wanted to be a Republican--hell, if you looked at the last twenty!--then I think you're either stupid or morally bad (and that's an inclusive 'or').

The morally bad part is telling: Politics as religion, as a crusade.

No, we are neither saints nor devils. We merely have different interests and otherwise disagree.

Morality ≠ religion. And, while we're at it, moral relativism is incoherent.

I'm not sorry your feelings are hurt when I say you're a bad person.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean about moral relativism. But people disagreeing on something doesn't automatically mean it is because one is more virtuous and one is more evil. 

I'm glad I got away from the extremely moralistic religious communities I was exposed to when  I was young. Dividing everyone into "good" and "bad" may give a self-righteous glow, but it doesn't make  a better society.

If you insist on doing bad things, I'm going to judge you for them. That's life, and them's the breaks. Even children are capable of understanding that from an early age. That's perfectly consistent with you mistakenly believing you're a good person doing good things. But at some point you have to wake up and smell your farts.


And just to be crystal clear: I don't think that being conservative entails you're either stupid or bad. I do think that, at this point, being a Republican does. There comes a point when good people have to stop being complicit in doing bad things, if they're going to continue to count as good people.

Given how long it takes (decades, at least) for a new political party to form and reach sufficient popularity to be a serious contender for forming a government, this basically says that a one party state would be better than the status quo.

Through all of history, all over the globe, the evidence is pretty clear that a one party state of any political stripe  becomes a totalitarian dictatorship.

[Sun_Worshiper]

The point remains, however, that the conservative party has to offer something to attract academics.

That's easy. They are somebody other than the liberals.

Clearly that isn't enough, at least according to your own opening post

[mahagonny]

The point remains, however, that the conservative party has to offer something to attract academics.

That's easy. They are somebody other than the liberals.

Clearly that isn't enough, at least according to your own opening post

It would be enough if the interest in diversity, the mantra of nearly every school in the USA, were to be taken seriously.

Can you name any gloaters?

Yeah, Sun Worshiper and yourself.

[Sun_Worshiper]

The point remains, however, that the conservative party has to offer something to attract academics.

That's easy. They are somebody other than the liberals.

Clearly that isn't enough, at least according to your own opening post

It would be enough if the interest in diversity, the mantra of nearly every school in the USA, were to be taken seriously.

So academics should vote for things that they are opposed to in order to create ideological diversity, even in the absence of efforts by the conservative party to seek their votes? Ok, I'm sure that strategy will bring lots of academics into the fold.

Look if you actually care about why academics are more liberal and what can be done to deal with it, then you need to think both about academics themselves and about the parties that they vote for. If you just want to pointlessly criticize academia for having lots of liberals, then keep doing what you are doing.

Can you name any gloaters?

Yeah, Sun Worshiper and yourself.

Where do you see me gloating about academics being more liberal? In my first response to this thread I said that the current situation is not healthy.

[mahagonny]

Eliminate fields in which the student has to have or affect a liberal sensibility and leaning in order to get a degree. Eliminate all fields in which the same is true for conservatives. What will you end up with? A shift to the middle.

So academics should vote for things that they are opposed to in order to create ideological diversity,

Alternatively, they should advise their administrations to stop advertising an interest in diversity until such time as they actually have some. And get rid of the diversity and inclusion staff so they can get a real job where you actually have to accomplish something. A learning experience for them and cost savings for the institution.