Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Tuesday December 20 2016, @01:36PM   Printer-friendly
from the foolproof-like-all-other-watchlists dept.

The latest manifestation of the conservative targetting of academia is the Professor Watchlist, created by the "activist organization" Turning Point USA, founded by rising star Charlie Kirk. It's stated purpose is to "watch" professors "who discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom"

Of course, this is not new. David Horowitz has written a book called The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America . HeterodoxAcademy.org has rational articles discussing the liberal slant to modern college campuses. Nicholas Kristoff writes an interesting piece on the same topic. However, with the election of President Trump, the stakes may have been raised. A professor in California has gone incognitio after criticizing Trump in the classroom and receiving death threats.

But more important is how the attempt to blacklist liberal academics has actually backfired. George Yancy [not the George Yancey from the Kristoff piece above] published a response, "I Am a Dangerous Professor" in the New York Times, and since then it seems to have become de rigueur for all academics to get their name on the Professor Watchlist in order to cement their tenure. An entire hashtag on Twitter has taken form: #trollprofwatchlist! People have taken to mocking the list by suggesting candidates such as Thomas Jefferson, Gandhi, and Jesus, not to mention Socrates, who obviously belongs.

Charlie Kirk may not be dangerous, but he did start this list. I am watching him now.


[Editor note - This story was substantially rewritten for balance. As always, the original submission is available at the link below.]

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 20 2016, @10:03PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 20 2016, @10:03PM (#444068) Journal

    Its telling that you interpret their beliefs as directly related to their "bread butter".

    It's true.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 21 2016, @04:16AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 21 2016, @04:16AM (#444199)

    Uh huh sure buddy. You really are in some little universe to yourself. I don't doubt that it does happen, just like you shouldn't doubt that the same thing happens with private industry scientists. Except that the private industry scientists are under an even bigger "bread and butter" conflict of interest. Boss says make it read favorably, scientist obliges by stretching his scientific integrity to personal limits.

    I 100% disagree that a relevant majority of scientists are under such influence, and the primary negative influence comes from the industries themselves.

    But seeing your general post history I'd wager your pro-industry and against government funded research. The problem is industry has a financial motive for research to have favorable outcomes for their products / activities. The democratic party has nothing to gain from pro-climate change research, aside from your theory that they are some evil cabal making people afraid of pollution so that some oil barons have to jump through regulation hoops and do things the "hard" way.

    Your theory just doesn't make sense, except as a false flag type argument to keep the conversation away from the real problem with current scientific research. Industry funded research is basically propaganda which confuses the less scientifically literate.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 21 2016, @09:05AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 21 2016, @09:05AM (#444264) Journal
      Really, what is the point of your post?

      But seeing your general post history I'd wager your pro-industry and against government funded research. The problem is industry has a financial motive for research to have favorable outcomes for their products / activities.

      That's why in a nutshell. Industry needs research that is productive. Government doesn't give a shit as long as the checks get signed by the right people. And what's the better approach for the would-be researcher of dubious competence and diligence? They know how to sign checks so they're going to swing that way. Having to spend a good portion of their working day with grant application theater is just a cost of doing business.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 21 2016, @10:56PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 21 2016, @10:56PM (#444508)

        That's why in a nutshell. Industry needs research that is productive

        Even if it is fake research; in fact, especially when it is fake research! This is what happens when you define knowledge in terms of revenue. If they are so rich, why aren't they smart?

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 22 2016, @02:20AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 22 2016, @02:20AM (#444581) Journal

          If they are so rich, why aren't they smart?

          That goes for everything else too. If they're so rich, why do they need anyone to clean the toilets?