Thanks for the article. It's a bit of a goofy partisan piece though, and provides some hand-wavy conjecture like, "It is unclear why elite research institutions have been untouched by these changes, though it is possible that these institutions use less-politicized criteria when selecting faculty, and thus make it easier for talented conservative scholars to find jobs." The article never explains what criteria. It also makes funny statements like "if one wants to be exposed to a broad spectrum of political ideas, it is still far better to attend Notre Dame or Baylor than Berkeley or Cornell" Because... more faculty are Republican? Does the American two-party system accurately represent the wide spectrum of political thought?
You seem to be implying that the rise in liberal professors/teachers is a result of covert infiltration of American universities that is brainwashing students and faculty. I find it more likely that less conservatives want to be teachers/professors than liberals do in the first place.
Yes, it’s partisan, but I don’t think there’s a news site that isn’t partisan and, as you say, goofy.
> “I find it more likely that less conservatives want to be teachers/professors than liberals do in the first place.”
This is true. But consider that a little bit of subversion applied over a decade or two can make things uncomfortable for one side, tipping the scales that way.
Soon the whole field becomes unwelcoming to outsiders and a political spiral begins.
A century later, you’re 1000x more likely to find Das Kapital being read at university than Atlas Shrugged.
I just think we need more granola-eating chemical engineers and more libertarian English professors. Running society is about negotiating tradeoffs. How can we make intelligent tradeoffs when only one perspective is present?
> Yes, it’s partisan, but I don’t think there’s a news site that isn’t partisan and, as you say, goofy.
I guess what I was trying to say was it's not a very good piece and doesn't offer a balanced perspective.
> This is true. But consider that a little bit of subversion applied over a decade or two can make things uncomfortable for one side, tipping the scales that way.
I considered that, but I think this has less to do with universities politicizing their hiring process, and more to do with shifting societal norms and external factors; ex., Universities are more secular and multicultural than they were 50 years ago, public schools pay less.
> A century later, you’re 1000x more likely to find Das Kapital being read at university than Atlas Shrugged.
I think this is a bad example and false equivocation -- Das Kapital is a scientific text and analysis of economic models that was a work-in-progress for the entirety of Marx's life. Atlas Shrugged is a fiction novel written by a person who literally named her own philosophy and tried to build rules around it.
Also, Atlas Shrugged is commonly assigned reading in high school in the US.
> I just think we need more granola-eating chemical engineers and more libertarian English professors. Running society is about negotiating tradeoffs. How can we make intelligent tradeoffs when only one perspective is present?
I guess what I'm saying is: more perspectives are present. Just because all professors in a university vote Democrat doesn't mean they all hold carbon-copy political views. There's room for nuance outside of a meaningless metric like "50% of teachers should be Republican".
> I think this is a bad example and false equivocation -- Das Kapital is a scientific text and analysis of economic models that was a work-in-progress for the entirety of Marx's life.
There is absolutely nothing scientific about Marx’s works. The Envy driven garbage produced by Marxists and current neo-Marxists leaders is directly responsible for unimaginable human suffering.
I remember well trying to explain to an academic audience that teaching anything or even reading Marx is the economic equivalent to reading the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and taking it seriously. Both are 100% fantasy and evil. Das Kapital is a slanderous attack on the capitalist heroes improving the human condition by an evil dark and envious soul.
I'm not sure how to respond to this -- I'm almost certain you're just going to lament that I'm a product of a broken education system infiltrated by the evils of neo-Marxist propaganda. But I'm curious of your credentials when you mentioned explaining to an academic audience, and I'm wondering what capitalist heroes you think Marx slandered in Capital?
Your characterization of Marx as an "evil dark and envious soul" is humorous to me. Also, why do you keep capitalizing "Envy"?
Let’s take a look at a few highly referenced quotes from Das Kapital:
- "Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets!"
- "Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks."
- “The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and range."
- "Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the laborer, unless under compulsion from society."
- "In proportion as capital accumulates, the lot of the laborer, be his payment high or low, must grow worse."
These are from your supposedly “scientific” Marx. To call Marx a scientist is effectively calling a doomsday cult leader one.
As far as my own personal credentials. I graduated as the top analytical student in a large american high school in the late 80s. From which I went on to an top 5 university and was exposed to the methods of leftist indoctrination. However fortunately for me, having completed all mathematics classes available to me, including all offered at the community college by 15. I discovered markets and programing. I also discovered Hayak and Austrian economics, along with Smith, and many others, independently studying. This combination of extremely high analytical ability, max score on all standardized math tests ever taken, and exposure to actual legitimate political scientists, sociologists, and economists, made all attempts to indoctrinate me with collectivist nonsense futile, much to frustration of my college professors and classmates.
I am extremely familiar with the global banking and financial system. I also was able to comfortably retire before age 40 but instead continue working and expect to until I’m unable.
Marx is an evil man. His envy and hatred has inspired some of
the worst atrocities in human history. The fact he is even taught with any degree of respect or labeled by anyone as a “scientist” is outrageous. He has no numbers, no measurements, no evidence, and every single one of his assertions are categorically false.
So how is this possible. We come to capitalizing Envy.
Envy: A Theory of Social Behaviour
By Helmut Schoeck
I now see I am in the presence of a true genius, and that my Marx is not scientific as I once thought, but simply an evil beast fueled by his hatred of the human race and that he must be stopped. Thank you for enlightening me to the evils of Marx and the evil Left.
It’s just society hasn’t realized they continue to teach the equivalent of creationism to biology when giving legitimacy to Marx and collectivism for economics.
It’s absolutely infuriating and frankly disgusting.
Wait until you read his poetry. Truly a twisted soul. Even the worst dictators thought they were helping their own people at least; Marx just wanted everybody dead.
Angry with God. Makes sense it’s obvious to any real believer. You can feel the Envy and Anger dripping from his words. No submission to the Lord, no respect, no Love.
Obviously he has to try and ban religion also. Very interesting. Thank you. I never knew about this somehow.
—-
The Fiddler
The Fiddler saws the strings,
His light brown hair he tosses and flings.
He carries a sabre at his side,
He wears a pleated habit wide.
"Fiddler, why that frantic sound?
Why do you gaze so wildly round?
Why leaps your blood, like the surging sea?
What drives your bow so desperately?"
"Why do I fiddle? Or the wild waves roar?
That they might pound the rocky shore,
That eye be blinded, that bosom swell,
That Soul's cry carry down to Hell."
"Fiddler, with scorn you rend your heart.
A radiant God lent you your art,
To dazzle with waves of melody,
To soar to the star-dance in the sky."
"How so! I plunge, plunge wihout fail
My blood-black sabre into your soul.
That art God neither wants nor wists,
It leaps to the brain from Hell's black mists.
"Till heart's bewitched, till senses reel:
With Satan I have struck my deal.
He chalks the signs, beats time for me,
I play the death march fast and free.
"I must play dark, I must play light,
Till bowstrings break my heart outright."
The Fiddler saws the strings,
His light brown hair he tosses and flings.
He carries a sabre at his side,
He wears a pleated habit wide.
This probably depends where you went to school. I'm from South Florida where there is a large Cuban population.
> Here’s an article about how college professors used to be much more Republican: https://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-disappea...
Thanks for the article. It's a bit of a goofy partisan piece though, and provides some hand-wavy conjecture like, "It is unclear why elite research institutions have been untouched by these changes, though it is possible that these institutions use less-politicized criteria when selecting faculty, and thus make it easier for talented conservative scholars to find jobs." The article never explains what criteria. It also makes funny statements like "if one wants to be exposed to a broad spectrum of political ideas, it is still far better to attend Notre Dame or Baylor than Berkeley or Cornell" Because... more faculty are Republican? Does the American two-party system accurately represent the wide spectrum of political thought?
You seem to be implying that the rise in liberal professors/teachers is a result of covert infiltration of American universities that is brainwashing students and faculty. I find it more likely that less conservatives want to be teachers/professors than liberals do in the first place.