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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday December 21 2016, @12:30AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 21 2016, @12:30AM (#444136) Journal

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday December 21 2016, @02:26AM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 21 2016, @02:26AM (#444174) Journal

    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

      by cubancigar11 (330) on Wednesday December 21 2016, @04:34AM (#444203) Homepage Journal

      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

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 22 2016, @07:59PM (#444821)

      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.