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 ikanreed on Tuesday December 20 2016, @06:50PM
Uh, still no when it comes to the people doing actual research, but feel free to say "Burn". Turns out when you have a useful science PhD, you're typically a rare commodity that you don't feel compelled to follow the implied ideology of your employers. Research engineering is still 51% liberal to 20% conservative.
Your beliefs are based on non-reality. There's no science field dominated by right-leaning researchers. None. If you isolated your population down to Liberty University, you'd get a right-leaning group.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 20 2016, @07:59PM
Turns out when you have a useful science PhD, you're typically a rare commodity that you don't feel compelled to follow the implied ideology of your employers.
It's just a curious coincidence that they have the ideology that happens to benefit them the most?
Research engineering is still 51% liberal to 20% conservative.
Where did that come from? The Pew survey didn't cover that group.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @08:14PM
Its telling that you interpret their beliefs as directly related to their "bread butter". A very typical conservative approach, self centered and ignorant.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 20 2016, @10:03PM
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
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
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
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
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?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20 2016, @11:14PM
Your beliefs are based on non-reality. There's no science field dominated by right-leaning researchers.
Not quite true! Almost all of the professors of "White Studies" are right-wing nut-jobs. And then there is the David Duke Endowed Chair for the Study of European American Supremacy at the Ku Klux Klan Institute of Post-factual Studies.