> For example, the President is a climate change denier. How do you expect those views to be represented in universities when they fly in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence?
That scientific evidence is created, studied and reviewed by people who self-select to study it and are very much part of the overwhelming liberal bias in academia.
That's not to say the evidence isn't valid--but this is kind of a "chicken and egg" situation. If you already distrust academia, you are less likely to unconditionally accept that groupthink and bias could have no possible impact on the conclusions. You can't personally measure changes in climate without implicitly trusting the measurements and adjustments of these institutions, so it's tougher to accept the need for dramatic changes in policy.
Put differently: If science in academia had more conservative thinkers, the party's position might change, or at least soften over time. Or it's even possible the science could be made better by having more diverse viewpoints in the fields.
That scientific evidence is created, studied and reviewed by people who self-select to study it and are very much part of the overwhelming liberal bias in academia.
That's not to say the evidence isn't valid--but this is kind of a "chicken and egg" situation. If you already distrust academia, you are less likely to unconditionally accept that groupthink and bias could have no possible impact on the conclusions. You can't personally measure changes in climate without implicitly trusting the measurements and adjustments of these institutions, so it's tougher to accept the need for dramatic changes in policy.
Put differently: If science in academia had more conservative thinkers, the party's position might change, or at least soften over time. Or it's even possible the science could be made better by having more diverse viewpoints in the fields.