SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday December 20 2016, @11:37PM
I just don't understand the hatred. I've not badmouthed art. I've simply established that art and science are not the same thing. I have a prized painting. A woman in Corea, Maine painted it. It's of her granddaughter, showing off her new easter hat. The painting focuses on the straw hat, and only the lower half of the girl's face is visible. Jo wanted to give me a painting, and she pointed to dozens of paintings, told me to take the one I liked best. All of them were nice, all of them were attractive in one way or another. Sea scenes, beach scenes, meadows, children at play, downtown busy work, all sorts of subjects. That one painting, of her granddaughter, caught my eye. A demure little girl, tipping her head down, so that you could see the artwork in her new straw hat. To me, that was art, and I asked for that painting, ahead of other, more elaborate art. Art is good. But, Jo wasn't a scientist. Art is not science.
Oh my - I hope I haven't shocked anyone with the fact that I have met real artists in my life.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday December 21 2016, @12:06AM
You're right, inasmuch as I was putting you into a box that I should have known didn't really describe you based on what you said.
On the other hand, you're sneering disdain for non-STEM teachers was... pretty much out of left field and I still feel like everything I said about you came from a fair and reasoned place given that context.
You listed an arbitrary field of study, something that's not studied at college at all, and a minor elective art classes as the sole home for left-leaning thought in universities in a tone that implied your contempt(as if STEM was the only thing worthy of study and capable of real insight), and now, you're understandably hurt that I think so strongly that attitude reflects a certain class of anti-intellectualism.
So I know I'm supposed to act like it was okay to call you a manchild for you views, because defending what I've already said to the death is how internet arguments are supposed to work, and I know I went too far in impugning your character so directly. Sorry.
But dude, you were saying you think studying art is okay, when you pretty clearly implied you didn't think it isn't. That's not a contradiction I think you should let slide in your own belief system. Think about why you think, that of all people, only some arbitrary subset of scientists should be allowed political viewpoints informed by their expertise. And how that ties into the factually incorrect assumptions you made about the beliefs of those scientists. I think you've got some serious anti-intellectualism mixed into that.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday December 21 2016, @12:30AM
The problem is, the left is claiming that xx% of scientists are left wing, democrat, blah blah blah - and then they want to rewrite the definitions of science.
Of course those scientists who are getting grants from the US/UN/UK/other sources are going to speak out in favor of global warming theories. But then, every technician associated with that scientist's research and labs is promoted to scientist as well. Well, of course they all agree with the professor - publicly at least.
Professor watch list. We should have had a professor watch list decades ago. And we should have been watching the colleges and universities themselves. As evidence, I point to the surplus of "college educated" people who can't find a job today. People with degrees in black history, woman's history, and various almost useless degrees. Our liberal leaning colleges are failing us.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday December 21 2016, @02:26AM
Come on man, I linked my Pew study way back at the beginning. There's no definition fiddlyness at all. Research scientists are left leaning. In every field.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday December 21 2016, @04:34AM
I have two things to add here :- science begets multiculturalism and anti-establishment, and republicans are puritanical pro-christian anti-immigrant. And this has been so for so long that scientists have become democrat leaning. The use of word 'left' to describe liberal is an age old tactic of politics. Not to mention that there are multiple points of disagreement between different scientists who all call themselves liberal which such surveys purposefully reflect.
Second thing is that scientists in other countries don't reflect the same zeitgeist as american/european academia.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 22 2016, @07:59PM
My dad could have done it. He got his PhD in microbiology.
He's super-conservative, though not a Bible thumper: wants more nukes, attended tea party events, thinks Obama is the worst post-WWII president, owns 15 guns, hates abortion, opposes same-sex marriage, wants lower taxes, wants welfare gone, supported Goldwater for president, liked Nixon, wants active searching for illegal aliens and fast deportation, opposes affirmative action, avoided living in or downwind of places that the USSR might nuke, stocked up on disaster food, stayed with one wife, owned houses, good credit score, does preventative car maintenance, etc.
He went into the food industry. This fits a conservative: It's steady work. It's productive. The pay is reliable. There is no screwing around with post-doctoral busywork, in poverty, hoping that just maybe a professor position might open up. There is no gambling on tenure. You just take a job and get paid to do useful stuff.