Slashdot Mirror

Because it's not a normal job. An informed public is elemental to a healthy democracy.

You do realize the danger of the government controlling the media directly right? If they were serious about this they would take pains to ensure a level playing field and that the all viewpoints were represented by people that actually understand them. More akin to this: https://heterodoxacademy.org/ What I, and probably many others, suspect we would get is a left leaning America hating "official news" organization that shuts out all cisgender white males while loudly accusing others of discrimination.

My problem is that the center left folks are not criticizing the far left angry "I hate white cis males who are all nazis who deserve to be taxed/punished".

Since the centre left is not criticizing these folks, they are opening the door to some godawful policies being put in place to police our thoughts and words when/if the next time they get voted in.

This definitely isn't true. I suspect that this criticism doesn't get as much "air time" because it's not nearly as exciting as clashes between neo-nazis and antifa.

Two places where you can read criticism of this sort that jump to my mind are Heterodox Academy and Areo Magazine. While both of these sites are explicitly open to authors from all parts of the political spectrum, they do both publish critiques of social justice politics from a progressive standpoint.

China is going strong in the sciences, while America has a replication crisis in the humanities. For anyone who doesn't know, this means that the "science" performed for the last 20-30 years or so in the humanities is not able to be replicated. In other words, it's not science. In a strange coincidence, in the last 20-30 years the intellectual upper class moved far out to the left.

For more on this, see Heterodox Academy's piece on the topic.

Jonathan Haidt gives a lot of references and examples, both of explicit mission statements and indicators (actually, he ranks a couple of hundred schools based on objective criteria):

Given the arguments made in sections 1-7, I think it is clear that no university can have Truth and Social Justice as dual teloses. Each university must pick one. I show that Brown University has staked out the leadership position for SJU, and the University of Chicago has staked out the leadership position for Truth U.

He says it's somewhat analogous to how universities split along religious/secular lines a century ago.

As long as you don't study economics at Chicago.

I think the Great Recession showed that the "freshwater" supply-side folks were wrong (how many were calling for massive inflation because of QE?), and the "saltwater" demand-side Keynesians (who predicted that QE would not produce inflation because of IS-LM ZLB) were right.

Jonathan Haidt gives a lot of references and examples, both of explicit mission statements and indicators (actually, he ranks a couple of hundred schools based on objective criteria):

Given the arguments made in sections 1-7, I think it is clear that no university can have Truth and Social Justice as dual teloses. Each university must pick one. I show that Brown University has staked out the leadership position for SJU, and the University of Chicago has staked out the leadership position for Truth U.

He says it's somewhat analogous to how universities split along religious/secular lines a century ago.

We're reading research study after research study that demonstrates causation

No, you are not. The research is very mixed, but it tends to favor the argument by James Damore, that the observed demographic differences may be caused by factors other than discrimination. See

https://heterodoxacademy.org/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences

AmiMoJo, why don't you try linking to claims made actual scientists, rather than journalists?!??

Here is a comprehensive scientific evaluation of the factual points made in the Google Memo:

https://heterodoxacademy.org/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/

The science is generally in agreement with Damore, and certainly far from "dubious". Here is an article at Psychology Today that makes similar claims:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/why-brilliant-girls-tend-favor-non-stem-careers

Yeah, sorry, that was my bad.

A lack of political diversity in psychology is said to lead to a number of pernicious outcomes, including biased research and active discrimination against conservatives. The authors of this study surveyed a large number (combined N = 800) of social and personality psychologists and discovered several interesting facts. First, although only 6% described themselves as conservative "overall," there was more diversity of political opinion on economic issues and foreign policy. Second, respondents significantly underestimated the proportion of conservatives among their colleagues. Third, conservatives fear negative consequences of revealing their political beliefs to their colleagues. Finally, they are right to do so: In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists said that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues. The more liberal respondents were, the more they said they would discriminate.

Composite scores of perceived hostile climate for conservatives (a = .85) were significantly correlated with political orientation, r(263) = .28, p the hostile climate reported by conservatives is invisible to those who do not experience it themselves.

At the end of our surveys, we gave room for comments. Many respondents wrote that they could not believe that anyone in the field would ever deliberately discriminate against conservatives. Yet at the same time we found clear examples of discrimination. One participant described how a colleague was denied tenure because of his political beliefs. Another wrote that if the department "could figure out who was a conservative they would be sure not to hire them."

-- Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammers, "Political Diversity in Social and Personality Psychology"

For simple problems or fully resolved technical matters there is little need for viewpoint diversity. Sometimes there is just one answer, or just one way to approach a problem. But for âoewicked problemsâ â" those that can be framed in multiple ways and that may trigger passions or partisan motivationsâ"viewpoint diversity is essential.

The surest sign that a community suffers from a deïcit of viewpoint diversity is the presence of orthodoxy, most readily apparent when members fear shame, ostracism, or any other form of social retaliation for questioning or challenging a commonly held idea.In these contexts, it is likely that the dominant idea is not entirely correct because it is protected from challenge and change. If, however, the response to dissent is civil discussion and evidence-based argument, then the community does not suffer from orthodoxy.

The question, then, is whether colleges and universities welcome and celebrate viewpoint diversity. While some individual institutions do (see our Guide to Colleges), many American universities are typiïed by an ideological monoculture.

For example, as the graph shows, in the 15 years between 1995 and 2010, the American academy went from leaning left to being almost entirely on the left. Similar trends and problems are occurring in the UK and Canada, and to a lesser extent in Australia.

A lack of viewpoint diversity on campus undermines the academyâ(TM)s ability to realize the goals of scholarly inquiry and education. Instead, research and learning spaces become self-afïrming echo chambers in which ideological validation displaces critical inquiry.

Full disclosure, I posted in the comments section in the article you linked, but my comments are still being held in moderation because they are detected "spam" (this appears to happen any time you provide a lot of links for references with discus). In any event, you can see the thread here:

https://disqus.com/home/discus...

Regarding expert's opinions, the discussion at Quillete has been good and includes very good comments from David P Schmitt, who is one of the authors that James Damore quoted.

http://quillette.com/2017/08/0...

There's also been a very good meta-analysis of studies being performed at Sean Stevens heterodox academy:

https://heterodoxacademy.org/2...

And a very good back and forth between Adam Grant and Scott Alexander here:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017...

How about the press goes back to being watch dogs instead of lap dogs, shake off the "Democrats with bylines" label,expose the corruption themselves, and undermine the FSB?

Good luck with that. Ever since Journalism schools started teaching students that it's a-okay to write in "order to change the world" instead of "present a view as neutrally as possible and let the reader decide." It's been a problem, one can't forget either that academia has a huge left-wing problem, and that in turn has created an entire echo chamber which believes that it's perfectly okay to do whatever they want in order to win. It's so bad in the soft sciences that people are sending out the warning alarms on it.

The EiC of the local paper ~20 years ago at the high school I went to warned about it then, he's probably spinning in his grave at top speed that his warnings weren't heeded and his buddies taught an entire generation to be opinion writers posing as journalists who need to write articles to support their guy and push a narrative while screaming "fuck facts" all along the way.