Between 30 and 40 percent of Americans identify as conservative, but conservatives make up only one of every 10 professors in academia, and even fewer in the humanities and most social-science departments. (At least they did in 2014, when the most recent comprehensive study was done. The number today is probably even lower.) Of the money donated by Yale faculty to political candidates in 2023, for example, 98 percent went to Democrats. Some university leaders worry that this degree of ideological homogeneity is harmful both academically (students and faculty would benefit from being exposed to a wider range of ideas) and in terms of higher education’s long-term prospects (being hated by half the country is not sustainable). Accordingly, Johns Hopkins recently unveiled a partnership with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a center-right think tank, designed to inject some ideological diversity into the university. Steven Teles, a political scientist who wrote a widely discussed article last year for The Chronicle of Higher Education titled “Why Are There So Few Conservative Professors?,” is one of the faculty members involved with the partnership. The institutions will collaborate on a number of efforts to integrate conservative and heterodox thinkers.
If other colleges would make an effort to try to eradicate the woke mind virus, their funding would be safe.
If Donald Trump and the idiot cult understood the First Amendment, funding would also be safe (but that's too much to ask).
Furthermore, who the f*ck wants to study pre-med from a conservative that doesn't believe in vaccines? Who the f*ck wants to learn astronomy from a conservative that thinks the earth is 6000 years old and flat? Who the f*ck wants to learn zoology from a conservative that doesn't believe in evolution? If conservatives weren't f*cking morons, they too could have a seat at the big kid table. But, the idiot cult is gonna idiot cult.
Between 30 and 40 percent of Americans identify as conservative, but conservatives make up only one of every 10 professors in academia, and even fewer in the .....
Those who seek out new ideas, usually via higher education are liberal by definition. People who resist change, new ideas, education, science, etc are conservatives. Strangely, there are not a lot of people who reject education who are working in higher education.
Liberal definition
1. willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
2.
relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
Between 30 and 40 percent of Americans identify as conservative, but conservatives make up only one of every 10 professors in academia, and even fewer in the .....
Those who seek out new ideas, usually via higher education are liberal by definition. People who resist change, new ideas, education, science, etc are conservatives. Strangely, there are not a lot of people who reject education who are working in higher education.
Liberal definition
1. willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
2.
relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
The point of higher education is to get a job. Learning isn’t the important part - getting the credential is, preferably from as high ranked a school as possible.
One thing to note - in all economics classes I took, every professor was vehemently against tariffs. No ideological diversity at all even though there are very many, very great economists who recognize the power of tariffs.
Economists Who Support Tariffs: A Look at the Voices Behind America???s Trade Debate While controversial, tariffs have their share of respected supporters who
Those who seek out new ideas, usually via higher education are liberal by definition. People who resist change, new ideas, education, science, etc are conservatives. Strangely, there are not a lot of people who reject education who are working in higher education.
Liberal definition
1. willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
2.
relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
The point of higher education is to get a job. Learning isn’t the important part - getting the credential is, preferably from as high ranked a school as possible.
One thing to note - in all economics classes I took, every professor was vehemently against tariffs. No ideological diversity at all even though there are very many, very great economists who recognize the power of tariffs.
So an article mentioning a total of SIX economists (3 of whom have been dead for more than 50 years) that supported tariffs in certain situations. Here's 1500 that agree that Trump's tariffs are dumb. 1500 is many more than 6, which explains why all your Econ professors were opposed to tariffs.
Between 30 and 40 percent of Americans identify as conservative, but conservatives make up only one of every 10 professors in academia, and even fewer in the humanities and most social-science departments. (At least they did in 2014, when the most recent comprehensive study was done. The number today is probably even lower.) Of the money donated by Yale faculty to political candidates in 2023, for example, 98 percent went to Democrats. Some university leaders worry that this degree of ideological homogeneity is harmful both academically (students and faculty would benefit from being exposed to a wider range of ideas) and in terms of higher education’s long-term prospects (being hated by half the country is not sustainable). Accordingly, Johns Hopkins recently unveiled a partnership with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a center-right think tank, designed to inject some ideological diversity into the university. Steven Teles, a political scientist who wrote a widely discussed article last year for The Chronicle of Higher Education titled “Why Are There So Few Conservative Professors?,” is one of the faculty members involved with the partnership. The institutions will collaborate on a number of efforts to integrate conservative and heterodox thinkers.
If other colleges would make an effort to try to eradicate the woke mind virus, their funding would be safe.
Yes, definitely the federal government should punish institutions for political thought frowned upon by the White House. That is what Adams and Jefferson and Hamilton would have wanted.
Between 30 and 40 percent of Americans identify as conservative, but conservatives make up only one of every 10 professors in academia, and even fewer in the humanities and most social-science departments. (At least they did in 2014, when the most recent comprehensive study was done. The number today is probably even lower.) Of the money donated by Yale faculty to political candidates in 2023, for example, 98 percent went to Democrats. Some university leaders worry that this degree of ideological homogeneity is harmful both academically (students and faculty would benefit from being exposed to a wider range of ideas) and in terms of higher education’s long-term prospects (being hated by half the country is not sustainable). Accordingly, Johns Hopkins recently unveiled a partnership with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a center-right think tank, designed to inject some ideological diversity into the university. Steven Teles, a political scientist who wrote a widely discussed article last year for The Chronicle of Higher Education titled “Why Are There So Few Conservative Professors?,” is one of the faculty members involved with the partnership. The institutions will collaborate on a number of efforts to integrate conservative and heterodox thinkers.
If other colleges would make an effort to try to eradicate the woke mind virus, their funding would be safe.
Yes, definitely the federal government should punish institutions for political thought frowned upon by the White House. That is what Adams and Jefferson and Hamilton would have wanted.
Obama and Biden used “dear colleague” to give men even less due process under title IX kangaroo sham trials. They used the full power of the federal government to try to get what they wanted.
Biden also said it would be a title IX violation to have a categorical ban on men in women’s sports.
Those who seek out new ideas, usually via higher education are liberal by definition. People who resist change, new ideas, education, science, etc are conservatives. Strangely, there are not a lot of people who reject education who are working in higher education.
Liberal definition
1. willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
2.
relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
The point of higher education is to get a job. Learning isn’t the important part - getting the credential is, preferably from as high ranked a school as possible.
One thing to note - in all economics classes I took, every professor was vehemently against tariffs. No ideological diversity at all even though there are very many, very great economists who recognize the power of tariffs.
No, getting a job is NOT the point of higher education. One can drop out of HS and work at an auto shop, become a master mechanic and make an excellent living. Or any number of other good jobs. Heck, becoming a programmer doesn’t require college anymore.
For many, a driving factor of higher education to get a BETTER job than lower education may allow. A job that challenges the mind or develops new things. Many people are pursuing knowledge for its own sake, especially those who go on to get masters degrees and PhDs.
The problem with this Trumpian logic of higher education being exclusionary of conservatives is that they have not done the work to be at the education table, but they demand to be there without the education / degrees required.
The same goes for their politics. Trump and Republicans are not popular. Their polling is well below 50%. People are frustrated with economy, lack of transparency etc. Yet, rather than pivot to a more popular stance to win elections, they try to change the rules or just outright cheat in elections and lie more about their actions and motives. Some are stupid enough to believe them, but >50% are not.
My higher education has allowed me to see these truths. It is a shame that many cannot.
Between 30 and 40 percent of Americans identify as conservative, but conservatives make up only one of every 10 professors in academia, and even fewer in the humanities and most social-science departments. (At least they did in 2014, when the most recent comprehensive study was done. The number today is probably even lower.) Of the money donated by Yale faculty to political candidates in 2023, for example, 98 percent went to Democrats. Some university leaders worry that this degree of ideological homogeneity is harmful both academically (students and faculty would benefit from being exposed to a wider range of ideas) and in terms of higher education’s long-term prospects (being hated by half the country is not sustainable). Accordingly, Johns Hopkins recently unveiled a partnership with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a center-right think tank, designed to inject some ideological diversity into the university. Steven Teles, a political scientist who wrote a widely discussed article last year for The Chronicle of Higher Education titled “Why Are There So Few Conservative Professors?,” is one of the faculty members involved with the partnership. The institutions will collaborate on a number of efforts to integrate conservative and heterodox thinkers.
If other colleges would make an effort to try to eradicate the woke mind virus, their funding would be safe.
Yes, definitely the federal government should punish institutions for political thought frowned upon by the White House. That is what Adams and Jefferson and Hamilton would have wanted.
Sure, both admins were wrong. But Obama Biden was like a 5/100 wrong and trump is a 90/100 wrong. A dear colleague letter is one thing….killing billions of dollars of funding is way more severe.
No, getting a job is NOT the point of higher education. One can drop out of HS and work at an auto shop, become a master mechanic and make an excellent living. Or any number of other good jobs. Heck, becoming a programmer doesn’t require college anymore.
For many, a driving factor of higher education to get a BETTER job than lower education may allow. A job that challenges the mind or develops new things. Many people are pursuing knowledge for its own sake, especially those who go on to get masters degrees and PhDs.
The problem with this Trumpian logic of higher education being exclusionary of conservatives is that they have not done the work to be at the education table, but they demand to be there without the education / degrees required.
The same goes for their politics. Trump and Republicans are not popular. Their polling is well below 50%. People are frustrated with economy, lack of transparency etc. Yet, rather than pivot to a more popular stance to win elections, they try to change the rules or just outright cheat in elections and lie more about their actions and motives. Some are stupid enough to believe them, but >50% are not.
My higher education has allowed me to see these truths. It is a shame that many cannot.
Getting certain jobs is what I meant. With the exception of certain STEM fields, you learn on the job anyway. The diploma is just a credential you need. How much do you think a history major at Yale learned? Probably not much. Yet I doubt they’re “underrepresented” in certain fields…
I’d say that spending time working on interpersonal skills / networking is MUCH more important than what you specifically learn in the classroom
Regarding this blowing up of a speed boat that was supposedly carrying drugs and operated by a violent gang based in Venezuela, which one seems most likely:
1) There was no destruction of a boat at all. The video is simply AI generated. There was no such actual event.
2) There was a boat that was blown up but it had nothing to do with drugs or violent gangs - just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
3) It was an actual event but was simply the murder of someone executed by the US military after the victim's rival paid Trump a few million and said flattering things to Trump.
4) It was an actual event and the boat was operated by a violent gang running drugs. The US blew it up without warning, killing all aboard and violating international maritime law in the process.
Regardless of 1) - 4), 5) is certainly true.
5) The entire thing was primarily motivated by the need of Trump to distract from the Epstein files.
Regarding this blowing up of a speed boat that was supposedly carrying drugs and operated by a violent gang based in Venezuela, which one seems most likely:
1) There was no destruction of a boat at all. The video is simply AI generated. There was no such actual event.
2) There was a boat that was blown up but it had nothing to do with drugs or violent gangs - just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
3) It was an actual event but was simply the murder of someone executed by the US military after the victim's rival paid Trump a few million and said flattering things to Trump.
4) It was an actual event and the boat was operated by a violent gang running drugs. The US blew it up without warning, killing all aboard and violating international maritime law in the process.
Regardless of 1) - 4), 5) is certainly true.
5) The entire thing was primarily motivated by the need of Trump to distract from the Epstein files.
And speaking of which, does it still feel odd to not be able to believe anything the US government tells us? There was a time when that would have felt strange.
Today? I think that I would believe this administration over the regime of Kim Jong Un . . . sometimes. I am not sure there exists any other comparably untrustworthy regime - but perhaps there are a few (Putin? who else?).
No, getting a job is NOT the point of higher education. One can drop out of HS and work at an auto shop, become a master mechanic and make an excellent living. Or any number of other good jobs. Heck, becoming a programmer doesn’t require college anymore.
For many, a driving factor of higher education to get a BETTER job than lower education may allow. A job that challenges the mind or develops new things. Many people are pursuing knowledge for its own sake, especially those who go on to get masters degrees and PhDs.
The problem with this Trumpian logic of higher education being exclusionary of conservatives is that they have not done the work to be at the education table, but they demand to be there without the education / degrees required.
The same goes for their politics. Trump and Republicans are not popular. Their polling is well below 50%. People are frustrated with economy, lack of transparency etc. Yet, rather than pivot to a more popular stance to win elections, they try to change the rules or just outright cheat in elections and lie more about their actions and motives. Some are stupid enough to believe them, but >50% are not.
My higher education has allowed me to see these truths. It is a shame that many cannot.
Getting certain jobs is what I meant. With the exception of certain STEM fields, you learn on the job anyway. The diploma is just a credential you need. How much do you think a history major at Yale learned? Probably not much. Yet I doubt they’re “underrepresented” in certain fields…
I’d say that spending time working on interpersonal skills / networking is MUCH more important than what you specifically learn in the classroom
So sad there is no talk of higher education making people better humans, more knowledgeable,wiser and familiar with great books and ideas and the American tradition.
thats one reason this nation elected Trump twice. Next to zero knowledge of civics and history.
Getting certain jobs is what I meant. With the exception of certain STEM fields, you learn on the job anyway. The diploma is just a credential you need. How much do you think a history major at Yale learned? Probably not much. Yet I doubt they’re “underrepresented” in certain fields…
I’d say that spending time working on interpersonal skills / networking is MUCH more important than what you specifically learn in the classroom
So sad there is no talk of higher education making people better humans, more knowledgeable,wiser and familiar with great books and ideas and the American tradition.
thats one reason this nation elected Trump twice. Next to zero knowledge of civics and history.
I took a class vaguely aligned with great books (about “big ideas” if I remember correctly) that included basically no classics - Greek, Roman, or other European philosophers because there would have been too many white male authors. So I had to read tons of Toni Morrison and other random authors instead.
Was she a good writer? Yes. But is avoiding some of the best writers because they don’t check a certain DEI box a great way to learn? Not at all
So sad there is no talk of higher education making people better humans, more knowledgeable,wiser and familiar with great books and ideas and the American tradition.
thats one reason this nation elected Trump twice. Next to zero knowledge of civics and history.
I took a class vaguely aligned with great books (about “big ideas” if I remember correctly) that included basically no classics - Greek, Roman, or other European philosophers because there would have been too many white male authors. So I had to read tons of Toni Morrison and other random authors instead.
Was she a good writer? Yes. But is avoiding some of the best writers because they don’t check a certain DEI box a great way to learn? Not at all
Regarding this blowing up of a speed boat that was supposedly carrying drugs and operated by a violent gang based in Venezuela, which one seems most likely:
1) There was no destruction of a boat at all. The video is simply AI generated. There was no such actual event.
2) There was a boat that was blown up but it had nothing to do with drugs or violent gangs - just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
3) It was an actual event but was simply the murder of someone executed by the US military after the victim's rival paid Trump a few million and said flattering things to Trump.
4) It was an actual event and the boat was operated by a violent gang running drugs. The US blew it up without warning, killing all aboard and violating international maritime law in the process.
Regardless of 1) - 4), 5) is certainly true.
5) The entire thing was primarily motivated by the need of Trump to distract from the Epstein files.
We do have a fentanyl / drug problem. I don’t personally know anyone who has overdosed but I read about it frequently. Cartels are actively involved in harming Americans.
Striking one boat sends a powerful message - maybe they can pay off local officials, but they can’t deal with the power of the American military
Regarding this blowing up of a speed boat that was supposedly carrying drugs and operated by a violent gang based in Venezuela, which one seems most likely:
1) There was no destruction of a boat at all. The video is simply AI generated. There was no such actual event.
2) There was a boat that was blown up but it had nothing to do with drugs or violent gangs - just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
3) It was an actual event but was simply the murder of someone executed by the US military after the victim's rival paid Trump a few million and said flattering things to Trump.
4) It was an actual event and the boat was operated by a violent gang running drugs. The US blew it up without warning, killing all aboard and violating international maritime law in the process.
Regardless of 1) - 4), 5) is certainly true.
5) The entire thing was primarily motivated by the need of Trump to distract from the Epstein files.
We do have a fentanyl / drug problem. I don’t personally know anyone who has overdosed but I read about it frequently. Cartels are actively involved in harming Americans.
Striking one boat sends a powerful message - maybe they can pay off local officials, but they can’t deal with the power of the American military
Classic lawless trumper attitude. ‘just break laws, morals, ethics once. One murder is fine.’ I mean listen to yourself.
Regarding this blowing up of a speed boat that was supposedly carrying drugs and operated by a violent gang based in Venezuela, which one seems most likely:
1) There was no destruction of a boat at all. The video is simply AI generated. There was no such actual event.
2) There was a boat that was blown up but it had nothing to do with drugs or violent gangs - just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
3) It was an actual event but was simply the murder of someone executed by the US military after the victim's rival paid Trump a few million and said flattering things to Trump.
4) It was an actual event and the boat was operated by a violent gang running drugs. The US blew it up without warning, killing all aboard and violating international maritime law in the process.
Regardless of 1) - 4), 5) is certainly true.
5) The entire thing was primarily motivated by the need of Trump to distract from the Epstein files.
I never thought I would experience what it feels like living under an authoritarian government where all the citizens know that nothing the government says is truth and just accepts it as the way it is.
Our constitution only guarantees the protection of one industry by name. That is the freedom of the press. Unfortunately the business model of the press today causes it to obey in advance and abandon any attempts to hold an autocrats feet to the fire. Trump knows this.
