The Liberal Blind Spot

[Independent voter]

Kristof writes opinion for the NY Times, whatever you say about him millions of people will read his column.

He says that universities have become a left wing bubble. Sure they promote speech from minorities and women, but they actively discriminate against conservatives. Kristof says this is wrong and liberals should be more accepting of different views.

The article was long, much more to read at the link

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/op...lind-spot.html

In a column a few weeks ago, I offered “a confession of liberal intolerance,” criticizing my fellow progressives for promoting all kinds of diversity on campuses — except ideological. I argued that universities risk becoming liberal echo chambers and hostile environments for conservatives, and especially for evangelical Christians.

As I see it, we are hypocritical: We welcome people who don’t look like us, as long as they think like us.

It’s rare for a column to inspire widespread agreement, but that one led to a consensus: Almost every liberal agreed that I was dead wrong.

“You don’t diversify with idiots,” asserted the reader comment on The Times’s website that was most recommended by readers (1,099 of them). Another: Conservatives “are narrow-minded and are sure they have the right answers.”

Mixed in here are legitimate issues. I don’t think that a university should hire a nincompoop who disputes evolution, or a racist who preaches inequality. But as I see it, the bigger problem is not that conservatives are infiltrating social science departments to spread hatred, but rather that liberals have turned departments into enclaves of ideological homogeneity.

Sure, there are dumb or dogmatic conservatives, just as there are dumb and dogmatic liberals. So let’s avoid those who are dumb and dogmatic, without using politics or faith as a shorthand for mental acuity.

On campuses at this point, illiberalism is led by liberals. The knee-jerk impulse to protest campus speakers from the right has grown so much that even Democrats like Madeleine Albright, the first female secretary of state, have been targeted.

Frankly, the torrent of scorn for conservative closed-mindedness confirmed my view that we on the left can be pretty closed-minded ourselves.

As I see it, there are three good reasons for universities to be more welcoming not just to women or blacks, but also to conservatives.

First, stereotyping and discrimination are wrong, whether against gays or Muslims, or against conservatives or evangelicals. We shouldn’t define one as bigotry and the other as enlightenment.

When a survey finds that more than half of academics in some fields would discriminate against a job seeker who they learned was an evangelical, that feels to me like bigotry.

[apples]

colleges dont ask you your political leanings before they accept or deny your application

since this isnt goint to be understood,

conservative is a catchall phrase that "liberals" use to denounce people who arent them, classic us vs them.

as well, lol at the idea that universities have suddenly become liberal bastions

lastly, the idea that because many people do something that it must be meaningful, has been debunked time and time again, and gives no merit to any argument. twilight, the superbowl, random racist float in a parade, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc

[Flurryfang]

There is nothing wrong about having preferences when it comes to hiring people. If you don't want strong religious people working for you, there is proberly someone else, who is not religious, who is educated for the job.

On topic: I think that is pretty much the opposite when it comes to universities in EU. Some say, that it is a nesting-place for people of left-wing politics. So i don't really know to be honest. Universities are often the hot spot for a lot of conversation and debate, and i think the center of debate is different depending on which university you go to. So, i would not worry too much about it. The world inside a university is often quite different then how reality is.

[Spectral]

When a survey finds that more than half of academics in some fields would discriminate against a job seeker who they learned was an evangelical, that feels to me like bigotry.

Were the same found for discrimination against Muslims instead of Evangelicals, there would be much hand-wringing and declarations that we need to have a national conversation about Christian privilege. Academics revile conservatives and Evangelicals? No problem! Working as intended everyone!

Here's a professor that sits on hiring committees openly declaring that he'd use religiosity as a proxy for other views he doesn't like and would discriminate against Evangelicals:

But here’s the deal: if I knew someone was a Republican evangelical, I would be less likely to recommend them for hiring. It’s not because of a bias on my part, but a bias on their part. It’s thanks to crank magnetism.

This is, of course, blatantly in violation of equal opportunity employment, but academics are sufficiently comfortable that they can get away with it that they'll put their name on it in writing.

[Cosmic Janitor]

Some good points some not so good ones.

As I see it, we are hypocritical: We welcome people who don’t look like us, as long as they think like us.

I think this one misses the mark a bit. Often it's more like "as long as they aren't with the guys we've been hating longer they are okay, even if they undermine us at every point", just primitive the enemy of my enemy thinking and a lot of mental gymnastics to justify it.

[Spectral]

There is nothing wrong about having preferences when it comes to hiring people. If you don't want strong religious people working for you, there is proberly someone else, who is not religious, who is educated for the job.

Interestingly, this is basically the position of conservatives (and libertarians) - employers should be able to discriminate on the basis of religion. If someone says, "I don't want to hire atheists, I don't trust their ethics", conservatives generally believe this is just fine. Most leftists (and modern centrists) disagree and as a result have passed laws against such religious discrimination. For better or worse, it's explicitly codified in American law that you can't discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion without very good reasons (and no, "I don't like their beliefs" is not a sufficiently good reason).

What rankles is the hypocrisy on display - academics are among the people most likely to believe that laws preventing discrimination against protected groups are important and should be enforced. Unless, of course, they want to discriminate against some protected group that they don't like - that's different.

[Acidbaron]

colleges dont ask you your political leanings before they accept or deny your application

since this isnt goint to be understood,

conservative is a catchall phrase that "liberals" use to denounce people who arent them, classic us vs them.

as well, lol at the idea that universities have suddenly become liberal bastions

You can replace liberal in that post with conservative and still be right, same goes with people trying to merely shut down a debate by using catch phrases as SJW while all they really do is define how much of a moron they really are. Morons are found in every group, i am actually surprised that people define themselves by their political stance while if people had to look at politics on a more per issue basis they would find themselves on different sides on the spectrum spread over several issues.

Also if people have to be told that there are close minded morons everywhere, they have greater issues than defining their political stance. This is why a mixture of left and right is often the best outcome for a government and why extremes should never be let to rule unchecked, but good thing that extremes generally never get in power without it having disastrous outcomes and no despite all the dramatic shows opposition like to put forward this hasn't happened in the west over the last few decades.

[twelvethirty]

the extremes of both wings are just as crazy and bigoted as the other, the difference is one is more acceptable than the other

[Acidbaron]

Interestingly, this is basically the position of conservatives (and libertarians) - employers should be able to discriminate on the basis of religion. If someone says, "I don't want to hire atheists, I don't trust their ethics", conservatives generally believe this is just fine. Most leftists (and modern centrists) disagree and as a result have passed laws against such religious discrimination. For better or worse, it's explicitly codified in American law that you can't discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion without very good reasons (and no, "I don't like their beliefs" is not a sufficiently good reason).

What rankles is the hypocrisy on display - academics are among the people most likely to believe that laws preventing discrimination against protected groups are important and should be enforced. Unless, of course, they want to discriminate against some protected group that they don't like - that's different.

Because you are enforcing discrimination and removing the free will to believe and think what you want especially when it's unrelated to the job at hand. We had an era when we didn't have laws against discrimination, i'm surprised that you as an american have to be told this with all the civil right movements.

If the majority of your nation suddenly became another religion you would be happy these laws existed to protect you. It's not uncommon for those in the majority to not see the need of said laws, but people who do so have very short term memory regarding history.

Also even with those laws in place discrimination still happens, which is again proof for the need of them.

[Bodakane]

I find it bizarre that the right has taken to comparing "discrimination" against ideas/thoughts/actions to actual discrimination against race/gender/religion/sexual preference/etc.

People's actions and ideologies are the thing we're supposed to judge by.

[Spectral]

Because you are enforcing discrimination and removing the free will to believe and think what you want especially when it's unrelated to the job at hand. We had an era when we didn't have laws against discrimination, i'm surprised that you as an american have to be told this with all the civil right movements.

If the majority of your nation suddenly became another religion you would be happy these laws existed to protect you. It's not uncommon for those in the majority to not see the need of said laws, but people who do so have very short term memory regarding history.

Also even with those laws in place discrimination still happens, which is again proof for the need of them.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. I don't think I took a position on discrimination laws - I'm pointing out that leftists in academia are blatant hypocrites when it comes to these laws. There is no meaningful legal difference between, "I don't want to hire atheists, I don't trust their ethics" and "I don't want to hire Evangelicals, they believe lots of ridiculous things".

[Ryme]

Illiberal liberals are a damn plague on higher education at the moment. I'm a firm believer that 'stupid' ideas should be allowed the same platforms as good ones, at worst they should be shot down in open discussion and all we lose is some time and at best there could be grains of truth in stupid ideas that let us refine the good ones.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

I find it bizarre that the right has taken to comparing "discrimination" against ideas/thoughts/actions to actual discrimination against race/gender/religion/sexual preference/etc.

People's actions and ideologies are the thing we're supposed to judge by.

Wouldn't religion fall into the ideas/thoughts/actions category?

[Spectral]

Wouldn't religion fall into the ideas/thoughts/actions category?

So does gender. As we all know in the current year, gender is a social construct that is performed, not something that's hardcoded. If someone thinks they're a woman and acts out gender as a woman, well damn it, she's a woman.

[Deleted]

Were the same found for discrimination against Muslims instead of Evangelicals, there would be much hand-wringing and declarations that we need to have a national conversation about Christian privilege. Academics revile conservatives and Evangelicals? No problem! Working as intended everyone!

Here's a professor that sits on hiring committees openly declaring that he'd use religiosity as a proxy for other views he doesn't like and would discriminate against Evangelicals:

This is, of course, blatantly in violation of equal opportunity employment, but academics are sufficiently comfortable that they can get away with it that they'll put their name on it in writing.

My favorite is still this quote:

We really don’t want some wild-eyed nut throwing batty ideas at our students that we’ll have to un-teach in the next semester.

Straight from the ministry of peace i mean free thought blogs.

[Theodarzna]

I find it bizarre that the right has taken to comparing "discrimination" against ideas/thoughts/actions to actual discrimination against race/gender/religion/sexual preference/etc.

People's actions and ideologies are the thing we're supposed to judge by.

Yet if you criticize Islam as a series of ideas you will be judged the king kamehameha bigot.

[Lakrin]

I feel that this is missing the point that certain types of fields with certain types of thought attract certain types of people. You probably won't see an atheist in seminary school, for instance.

[Underverse]

I don't have a problem with university environments encouraging ideologies that are more likely to be objectively true. This falls into the category of the evolution vs creationism 'debate'. A lack of classes on creationism does not a blind spot make.

[Elian]

What puzzles me is that the extreme rightwingers in the U.S. and the Islamists have so much in common and, yet the right wing hates the Isamists and most liberals defends these islamists and Islam to the to the death.

[Grummgug]

Colleges and Universities have been left wing bubbles for at least 100 years.

Communism has 3 main pillars (best shown in the North Korea logo below



1. The hammer is the blue collar factory workers
2. The sickle is the farmers / rural population
3. The pen is in the intellectual elite class / colleges and universities

(The middle class is left out of the equation. The middle class is viewed as too ambitious to bother trying to convert to communism)

If you can convert all 3 of those groups into leftist strongholds, then a nation falls to communism. That's the meaning behind the symbol.

They have successfully converted #3, the colleges and universities, into leftist strongholds, and actively weed out any right-wing influence by quickly and swiftly discriminating and banning them and justify it by claiming right wingers are all racist and bigoted. When FDR was president, blue collar factory workers had also been converted into a leftist stronghold and they used union muscle to intimidate and scare any right wing blue collar workers to comply. When it came to farmers, FDR won them over with government subsidies to "guarantee" they would get paid for their crops. FDR had pretty much assembled everything he needed to convert the US into a communist state except he did not have the support of the supreme court, which still leaned heavily to the right and kept striking down a lot of his New Deal provisions as unconstitutional. FDR attempted to pack the court with far leftists in 1937 to fix his problem with the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill (which would have allowed him to expand the court to 12 or more judges and thereby push it far left enough to rubber stamp his agenda) but it wasn't able to win public support.

But it was simply a waiting game. As long as the far left held all 3 groups in America, they could eventually turn the supreme court to the left.

Except something happened. Eisenhower in the 1950s embraced farm subsidies and built that into the republican platform as an issue of national security. That unexpected tactical maneuver weakened the far left's hold on #2. Without the farm subsidies issue on the table, younger generations of farmers born after the great depression were influenced by other issues instead like religion. The rural areas began to shift increasingly to the right. It wasn't until the old great depression era farmers started dying off due to old age that the republicans won both houses of congress in 1994, which was shocking when it happened but had been coming for a long time. The congress has been mostly republican ever since.

Now Trump has come along and is making a play to convert #1 to a right wing group. His argument is that illegals are taking their jobs and depressing their wages. So tighten the borders to protect blue collar workers. The left now clearly opposes this.

Currently, we have an America where #2 is very right wing and #1 is threatening to turn right wing. All the far left has is #3. This is why its possible for all 3 branches of government to be right wing after the 2016 elections are over.

The right wing COULD, in theory, embrace free college education with an argument that it is a national security issue to provide high quality education for all. That would convert a large percentage of the intellectual class to the right. But there is absolutely no need to do so when they almost have locked the democrats out of power without making that offer.

- - - Updated - - -

What puzzles me is that the extreme rightwingers in the U.S. and the Islamists have so much in common and, yet the right wing hates the Isamists and most liberals defends these islamists and Islam to the to the death.

Liberals are rich and powerful elites. They fear everyone turning their anger towards them. So what the liberal elites do is control the press and then use the press to constantly try to pit the middle class vs the poor. They achieve this with "social issues". Basically, they build a fake case that the middle class is filled with white racists and that the liberal elites are not racist at all. Then they allow the poor to consume all of these lies and then the poor and middle class tear each other apart while the liberal elites run away with the money and power. Liberals race to defend Islamists because that is the correct strategy to help keep the poor and middle class fighting each other.

I mean unisex bathrooms. Its a stupid issue when you look at it on the surface. But it has a purpose. The reason liberals make a big deal out of unisex bathrooms is to help get the middle class and poor fighting each other so that they cannot unify and go after the liberal elites.