Because you have deliberately misrepresented what John Stuart Mill stated in the 19-Century, or are ignorant of the political facts regarding the statement you quoted recently while claiming that "liberals" are smarter than "conservatives" and the American public in general, I have decided to inform you so that you may offer a public admission and apology.First you state "We try to hire the best, smartest people available. If, as John Stuart Mill said, stupid people are generally conservative, then there are lots of conservatives we will never hire." You are obviously unaware (unless you are deliberately lying to those whom you feel are your inferiors) that Mill deeply distrusted the idea of inherited status, such as the British aristocracy possessed, and was instead much more free-market oriented. He also would have been appalled at the fascistic speech codes left-wingers have applied to the nation's campuses. He would have been much more in favor of the views of Ronald Reagan and William Rehnquist than you or any other left-winger, as the ideas behind the labels "liberal" and "conservative" have undergone a nearly-complete reversal from the 19th- to the 20th-/21st-Centuries.
Then you stated "Mill's analysis may go some way towards explaining the power of the Republican party in our society and the relative scarcity of Republicans in academia." This is your elitist way of saying that Republicans are too dumb to work in academia, and also that the public is even more dumb than the Republicans because they vote for them. And then you people have the unmitigated gall to attack others as being elitists!
I work in the academic field. In fact, I help raise money to pay for the programs, scholarships, and professorships at one of the nation's leading universities. I know from experience that the alumni who create businesses or otherwise succeed in the real world, and in turn make the gifts that pay your salary, are for the most part free-marketers who are much more likely to vote Republican than Democrat (and that is based on the political contributions listed on various proprietary databases that I use in my job).
You are a perfect example of the arrogant, elitist, left-wingers that cannot understand the hypocrisy of championing admissions and scholarship preferences based solely on skin color and not the content of the applicant's character, and then turn around and howl over the satirical yet informative affirmative action bake sales that have become a favorite form of street theater among American students.
You are a perfect example of someone who cannot succeed in the real world while you sit comfortably in your tenured little fascist kingdom and pontificate on subjects of which you have no knowledge.
You are a perfect example of why Americans no longer respect or trust academics as we once did.
I look forward to reading of you admission of ignorance regarding John Stuart Mill or your deliberate misrepresentation, and your apology to Americans everywhere for your ignorant, elitist, and incorrect statement.
"We try to hire the best, smartest people available," Brandon said of his philosophy hires. "If, as John Stuart Mill said, stupid people are generally conservative, then there are lots of conservatives we will never hire.Well, here's the exact quote from Michael St. John Packe, The Life of John Stuart Mill 454 (1954), quoting Mill's letter in whic he said this:
"Mill's analysis may go some way towards explaining the power of the Republican party in our society and the relative scarcity of Republicans in academia. Players in the NBA tend to be taller than average. There is a good reason for this. Members of academia tend to be a bit smarter than average. There is a good reason for this too."
"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. Suppose any party, in addition to whatever share it may possess of the ability of the community, has nearly the whole of its stupidity, that party must, by the aw of the constitution, be the stupidest party; and I do not see why honourable gentlemen should see that position as at all offensive to them, for it ensures their being always an extremely powerful party . . . There is so much defense, solid force in sheer stupidity, that any body of able men with that force pressing behind them may ensure victory in many a struggle, and many a victory the Conservative party has gained through that power."What's more, here's the original statement to which he was alluding, from his Representative Government:
The Conservatives, as being by the law of their existence the stupidest party, have much the greatest sins of this description to answer for: and it is a melancholy truth, that if any measure were proposed, on any subject, truly, largely, and far-sightedly conservative, even if Liberals were willing to vote for it, the great bulk of the Conservative party would rush blindly in and prevent it from being carried.Mill never said that stupid people are generally conservative -- he said that stupid people in the England of his era belonged to the Conservative Party. Mill, as a partisan, wrote a partisan rant about the Conservative Party; he said nothing about conservatives generally. It's hard to see how his comment has anything to do with conservatism in 2004. (Note that the problem can't just be explained as an error on the part of the Duke Chronicle; even if Prof. Brandon said "Conservative" and the reporter wrote it as "conservative," the problem is with Prof. Brandon's using a quote about a particular party as if it were a quote about conservatism generally. Nor is it easily dismissable as an obvious joke, especially given Prof. Brandon's talk about "Mill's analysis.")