Who Says Academia Isn’t Awash in Liberal Bias?

James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal ^ | October 28, 2020 | Mitchell Langbert

[karpov]

In a year when numerous faculty members who aren’t “woke” have been pilloried, and many universities are revamping themselves in accordance with the agenda of Black Lives Matter and Antifa, I was amazed to read an article by Harvard history professor Naomi Oreskes and her student, Charlie Tyson, who claim that research findings that university professors overwhelmingly lean to the left are wrong.

Oreskes and Tyson published “Is Academe Awash in Liberal Bias?” in the Chronicle of Higher Education on September 14. Their piece violates common sense and misconstrues basic statistical reasoning.

[a fool in paradise]

“Bias? No, these are the ‘centrist’ views!”

Anything else would be far right extremist.

There is no such thing as “far left extremist”.

No Leftist position is too far.

This year we heard Bernie Bros calling for gulags and political re-education of dissidents, claiming that Stalin was right.

[imardmd1]

From the original article:

Their piece violates common sense and misconstrues basic statistical reasoning.

I cannot understand why columnists and those who, like myself, want not only to bring these current faces of Marxism/communism down, but want them to abandon their footing, which is to refuse to debate, use logic or true statistics in confrontations.

Their locked-in forcible approach is to believe in their false dogma regardless of any reasoning and proofs to the contrary. They have become convinced of their boilerplate mottos and hypopcritical untruths actually to the point of death, violent if necessary, and theirs if not first yours. for their tenacity to unreasoned bulwarks, which itself is not only unreasonable but suicidal.

A measure of IQ regarding the sensibility of their talking points is less than zero--it is to be refuted as an anchoring quality, though they be tenured "professors" of what used to be centers of humanistic intellectuality.

The article supposes that the published paper in view can be measured by and confronted with logic or reason. It cannot, in the rules of engagement that they have put in place, not debative ones that the article presumes useful.

***********

(The above written by myself, possessor of a PhD and postdoctoral training obtained when the hard sciences and engineering had not yet succumbed to the socialistic SDS hedonism of the liberal arts departments, 1970s era.)

[Kirkwood]

I don’t understand a word of this.

[hinckley buzzard]

Naomi Orestes is a well known crackpot, one of the climate catastrophists who screams that we’re all going to die in a baking dish called earth. Figures she would expand her resume’ by lying about the cesspool once known as higher education.

[Mariner]

Liberal bias?

They’re committed Marxists.

[Mariner]

“A measure of IQ regarding the sensibility of their talking points is less than zero”

IQ is merely a device used by the white supremacist patriarchy to enslave black, brown and alternatively gendered people!/s

[GOPJ]

At Brooklyn College (a part of the City University of New York), where I work, a faculty group called “Rank and File Action” just emailed a university-wide invitation to an event featuring the Marxist Democratic Socialists of America chapter at LaGuardia Community College. RFA describes itself as “a group of militant rank & file activists at CUNY challenging the culture of austerity in higher education...

FLASH TO MARXIST ACADEMIA... We HAVE FREE EDUCATION NOW!!!

It's our public school system: K - 12.

DO YOU REALLY WANT TO WORK UNDER THAT SYSTEM? What fools.

[imardmd1]

I don’t understand a word of this.

College liberal educators are behind, not in front of, the extremists; the who sprang outy of the Students for a Democraic Society of the 1960s-early 1970s, the ones who burned down ROTC Quonset quarters, and "occupied" college administration offices until the college presidents and Deans accomodated their demands and kissed their butts.

The activists of that Vietnam era are now the professors and administrators of the leftist faculties of today.

You cannot debate them. They will not engage. Their strategy is not to engage in respectful discussion, debate, or logical reasoning, because that is the method (they say) "intelligent people use to dominate the lesser 'gifted'."

Their tactic is dogmatic rejection of mature reasoning, disrespectful use of over-talking, shouting, obscenities, ridicule, and other forceful methods with the objective of dominating any confrontive situation.

That is what I'm talking about.

And that is why you don't understand what I wrote. Either in high school or in college you haven't been trained for it, perhaps.

If you don't understand this, you don't understand what motivates any Antifa(scist) or BLM adherent, or any obsessively oppositional defiant individual. It's a puzzle to you, I would guess.

Unless there was supposed to be a < /sarc > tag after your comment?

If not, be informed and think it over until you do understand. Else such activists will dominate you. any time, anywhere.

[JimRed]

ACADEMIA (ak-uh-DEEM-e-yuh): An institution infested with academics.

ACADEMIC (ak-uh-DEM-ik): An individual educated beyond his intelligence who is unwilling or unable to create or provide anything of value to others, who while hiding out in a think-tank, college or university pontificates and expects to be paid for it, usually from public funds.