Campus Free Speech

Being Conservative in Academia: Like Being Gay in '50s Mississippi

New book explores lack of intellectual diversty in academia.


Horse Feathers screen shot

Former Reason Editor Virginia Postrel has a great column up at Bloomberg View. It's about the new book, Passing on the Right: Conservative Professors in the Progressive University, whose title pretty much gives away the game.

The modern academy pays lip service to diversity. Yet as a "stigmatized minority," the authors note, right-of-center professors feel pressure to hide their identities, in many cases consciously emulating gays in similarly hostile environments. "I am the equivalent of someone who was gay in Mississippi in 1950," a prominent full professor told Shields and Dunn. He's still hiding because he hopes for honors that depend on maintaining his colleagues' good will. "If I came out, that would finish me," he said.

The study is built around interviews with dozens of academics. Folks in the humanities face the least-welcoming environment while economists tend to do OK, or at least better. Postrel again:

Shields and Dunn put a positive spin on their results because, like many of their subjects, they want to encourage others on the right to pursue scholarly careers. Research and teaching benefit from a variety of political lenses, they argue. The paucity of conservative professors also gives liberal scholars a misleading picture of the American right, reinforcing the idea that conservatism is incompatible with intellectual rigor. Liberal academics picture Rush Limbaugh rather than an intellectual peer.

To the contrary, most of those interviewed expressed what the authors call a "Madisonian" political philosophy: "It is a political vision that values the discovery of common ground over ideological purity, learned elites over charismatic leaders, and reasoned appeals over passionate exhortations." If institutions of higher learning refuse to make a place for scholars who share this vision, they will not only stifle inquiry. They will also deprive themselves of vital allies when the inevitable backlash comes to pull them down.

Read the whole thing here.

NEXT: Obama Commutes Sentences of 61 Prisoners, North Korea Warns of Famines, New Features for Snapchat: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The modern academy pays lip service to diversity.

    Diversity is fine as long as we all do it together. It ain’t called university for nothing.

    1. People need to realize that it’s about diversity of upbringing and social status, each providing a rich and unique viewpoint as to why progressivism has it all figured out.

  2. “We can think differently as long as we say the same thing,” I believe that is paraphrase of Lord Melbourne.

  3. Postrel thinks BOEK LARNIN EZ 4 FAGS!!!/Warty

    1. Excellent Warty impression

      1. The testosterone has become self aware. We’re all doomed.

  4. You’d think the take away here would be “hey, being oppressed sucks, lets all have more empathy for each other.” But no, the take away here is gonna be “your tribe suck more, because you are doing it more egregiously.”

    1. The take away is going to be “to get message of hate out into the mainstream, conservative bigot culturally appropriates past gay struggle for acceptance.”

      1. They are straight white cismale powerful haters so of course they deserve it.

        1. You forgot shitlords.

  5. We’re seeing this in Science Fiction as well. Just look at last year’s Hugo disaster which was 30 years in the making. Worse than being declared a communist sympathizer in Hollywood, and with less reason.

    1. Who won the Lovecraft Prize?

      1. The World Fantasy Award is a different thing. Those folks decided the Gahan Wilson bust of Lovecraft that had been the award would be ditched, because Lovecraft had un-PC views about certain ethnicities.

  6. The modern academy pays lip service to diversity.

    Well, for one thing, when they talk about “diversity” they’re not talking about diversity of opinion, just making sure that all the officially recognized victim classes are present and accounted for.

    1. diversity of opinion


    2. Well, for one thing, when they talk about “diversity” they’re not talking about diversity of opinion

      What? Universities allow all sorts of different strains of Marxism – Maoism, Trotksy, hell, they even sometimes allow Pol Pot-style agrarian socialism. No diversity of opinion? They can’t even.

  7. “The study is built around interviews with dozens of academics. Folks in the humanities face the least-welcoming environment while economists tend to do OK, or at least better.”

    Well, obviously they shouldn’t be welcoming to hatemongers!

    1. Exactly. It’s a “common-sense” environment.

  8. “Conservatives can safely study ancient history but not modern American history”

    I don’t think even this is true anymore. When I was doing my thesis on medieval literature 15 years ago, you had to be very careful when studying early periods to make sure you constantly made it clear that you weren’t advocating or approving of anything that was going on prior to 1900, and to try and find ways to project Marxian analysis onto the ancient and medieval worlds.

    Granted, this was in CA, so it may be that.

    1. try and find ways to project Marxian analysis onto the ancient and medieval worlds.

      How about a discussion of the similarities between Marxism and Feudalism? Somehow I suspect that wouldn’t fly. Unless one handwaves the similarities away because “TOP. MEN.” instead of “Divine Right.”

      1. I’ve actually been reading _Das Kapital_ for shits and grins, and I’m very struck by Marx’s nostalgia for feudalism. He really is bound up in the mid-19th century romanticizing of the medieval. Like the economic equivalent of a Pre-Raphaelite painting or a gothic novel.

        1. But no – one thing I noticed is that you don’t look *at* Marxism. You look at other things and find them wanting, and then go “See? Marxism!”

          1. It’s amazing how Marxists always want to carry on about the alleged “failures of Capitalism” but never want to discuss the very real and very visible failures of their own chosen system. Funny that…

            1. It’s not about efficacy, it’s about power.

            2. Mostly because, and this is just a theory, little shits are attracted to Marxism or some other left-wing ideology.

              1. That’s because in it’s purest essence Marxism is the political philosophy of the permanent couch surfer as written by the premier couch surfer of his time.

            3. No, Loki, you don’t get it: Marxism is judged on theoretical results, but capitalism is judged on real-world results.

              1. The irony is that even judging it that way Marxism still gets its ass handed to it by Capitalism.

        2. I read Das Kapital 15+ years.

          It put me to sleep.

          1. It gets very repetitive at times, but the sheer crazy level keeps me involved. I picked it up because somewhere I read a comment recently that to get the full frontal crazy from Marx you really have to read the whole thing – Marxists only excerpt the parts that make him sound relatively sane.

            Reading it straight through, you have to stop about every half page and go “holy shit, what? Did you bounce that off of ANYONE before you wrote that?”

            1. The Bible has more validity than Das Kapital.

              At least the Bible, has awesome tales and good moral advice from time to time.

              1. Plus there is more sex in the Bible.

                1. Well shit, now that Playboy has no neked chicks, it’s practically (or LITERALLY?!) the same thing as the bible.

              2. (Hits Rufus with the jaw of an ass)

    2. Sounds horrific, I wouldn’t survive. I did my PhD on a tiny sub-area of “green technology” and luckily as an engineer I was able to avoid the virtue signalling BS and just write about how to make the technology better.

    3. I find this ironic because it use to be the liberal intellectuals who would caution others against presentism and were considered to be too forgiving of the ‘barbarities’ of past societies.

      Nowadays… well, to give an allegory, I once argued with a feminist that one of the major reasons women were excluded from much of the work force before modern times had to do with sheer amount of time they had to spend pregnant and nursing in order to sustain the population when half of all children died before maturity. When I pointed out that nearly half of children died and in some (European) places as many as a quarter of births resulted in the death of the mother (Ignaz Semmelweis being the original source for this info), the feminist couldn’t believe it, basically called me a lunatic, and honestly had the gall to insist that death in chilbirth was extremely rare even back in the 1800s (referring for evidence to her great grand momma having 5 kid and not dying or something), for no other apparent reason than that, if it were true (as it is) that things like maternal death and child death impacted gender norms, then it reduces the extent to which their gender norms can be blamed on out ancestors just being evil. She just so badly wanted to believe everyone (or at least every man) who lived before 1920 was, just by choice, a terrible person.

  9. Folks in the humanities face the least-welcoming environment

    Oh, the humanities!

    1. That joke is full of hot air.

  10. For historians and literary scholars, a leftist spin is all but required, with apolitical work often deemed boring. Shields and Dunn cite a literature professor who is a permanent adjunct despite a long record of publications. When he asked a colleague what was wrong with his vita, he was told, “It was a nice resume for 1940.”

    “Where’s the biting social commentary? Where’s the hook for today’s enlightened youth? Where’s the pizzazz? Full time position denied.”

  11. “When a literature professor suggested that his department could increase enrollments by teaching Jane Austen, he told Shields and Dunn, one colleague “got very upset.” She said “that this was just a way of catering to the prejudices that students learned in high school, and after that she never spoke to me at all,” the professor reported.”

    You know, that persistent old prejudice that you would want to read “good” books in a literature class. Ones that are “well written.”

    1. Jane Austen sucks. But chicks dig it, so i see their point.

      I think Faulkner would probably be rejected even harder. Or not, i don’t know how he’s currently being treated by college profs.

      1. They had deeply mixed feelings about Faulkner when I was there. As with Austen you can’t deny the genius (I disagree with you on Austen, obviously), but he strongly implies that poor people are often poor because of their own actions, which is not OK.

        I assigned a lot of Faulkner, though.

        1. “I assigned a lot of Faulkner, though.”

          Thank you.

          1. I felt it was my duty.

            1. Yeoman’s work, really.

        2. I always felt Austen had a high “fluff to meat” ratio compared to stuff like Conrad or Faulkner, both of which i preferred at the time. Then again, i haven’t read anything by her since highschool or early college so i was probably also put off by the “girly stuff”

          1. Her tone is absolutely different from Faulkner or Conrad – much lighter and more sardonic. Neither Faulkner nor Conrad are ever funny really, while Austen can be hilarious if you’re in the groove with her, and she makes a point of passing things off as less serious than they really are, so you can miss that “great literature” tone of high seriousness.

            But granted, males between then ages of 15-20 are not really the target audience, and probably aren’t going to get drawn in that easily.

            1. But Conrad’s The Secret Agent has [SPOILER ALERT] an explosion. True, just one explosion, but that’s one more than Jane had.

            2. Neither Faulkner nor Conrad are ever funny really,

              On the latter, i completely agree.

              (*though there are some moments in “Typhoon” which are supposed to be a little ridiculous = the Chinese riot below decks in the middle of a storm? and the captain’s inability to perceive sarcasm etc.)

              re: Faulkner, i personally think he was hilarious, specifically in that dark southern way that the story “Sling Blade” managed to be funny. “Southern-Cringe-Humor: The ‘retard’ in sound & fury, and the exploration of the mental processes of stupid/selfish/flighty people in As I Lay Dying both create humor out of the different interpretations of the same events…. its clever in how it create humor out of mundane events by showing how differently two people might see the same moment in time. anyway, yes, Austen was definitely more ‘witty’ and sly, if that’s considered a great plus.

              1. Fair enough, and I was actually thinking of _As I Lay Dying_ and _Unvanquished_ as I wrote that as times when Faulkner was “funny.” But you would never remove the scare quotes with Faulkner.

                I also thought _Lord Jim_ was “funny” in a similar way at times, but what Austen is doing is more in the camp of 18th century satirical wit, and thus is a very different sport.

                1. Throws ascots and pipes at Gimore and Square.

                  1. Fuck that! Take their lunch money and stuff em in their wall-lockers.


          2. The only Faulkner I read in HS was actually about Reconstruction, and how they destroyed the ballots of all the black voters.

            I wonder if they’re still teaching that.

        3. he strongly implies that poor people are often poor because of their own actions, which is not OK.

          So i’m guessing that there’s not much appetite for a Flannery O’Connor revival?

          1. She’s made it under the radar because in personal conversation she was actually pretty far to the left politically speaking, despite her fiction writings. They would tend to downplay the mouth-frothing Catholicism, though, as a quaint regionalism.

            I assigned a lot of O’Conner, myself – one of my favorites.

            1. I assigned a lot of O’Conner, myself – one of my favorites.

              (high five)

              1. Conrad, Austen and Hardy are my three favorites, so I am not sure where I fall in your discussion.

        4. I never got into Austen. Best British writer of the century was Wilde hands down. I prefer Russian lit though.

          Personally, I’m puzzled that Dostoevsky (who I love) is so popular among many leftist professors. He was decidedly reactionary and the most politically prescient thing about his works is his anticipation of the rise of horrific amoral revolutionary ideologies in Russia and the havoc they would wreak in that country. Personally, I don’t read him for the politics; I like Tolstoy too even though his politics were rather nutty, but it’s conservatives if anyone who should love Dostoevsky.

      2. Just spread the word that he called himself “Wilhelmina.”

        Or just wait until alcoholics become their own victim group.

      3. In Canada they love their Margaret Atwood. I had to read ‘A Handmaid’s Tale’ in school. I don’t remember it though.

        Reggie being mean to Archie is something you can’t shake.

        1. I CAN NOT STAND Margaret Atwood. Second most overrated author ever.

          I was forced to read _Surfacing_ in a contemporary lit class.

          Piece. of. shit.

          1. Oh and her faux-intellectual musings are no better.

            1. Someone really needs to sit her down and say “Bitch, it doesn’t matter what you say, you’re a science fiction author”.

            2. She wrote a hilarious, pearl-clutching op-ed around the Afghanistan invasion, IIRC. She was totally freaked that some American warplanes had shark mouths painted on the front. This was Very Meaningful for what it said about the Horrible American Psyche. She didn’t know such aircraft painting goes back to WWII (at least) and wasn’t invented by Americans.

        2. I remember that story. It was just blah. I didn’t care for the characters, and it’s larger point didn’t really seem to be there.

    2. Is Jane Austen somehow political, and conservative at that? The only people I think I’ve ever met who actually read Jane Austen are single women with cats, most of whom I suspect sympathize with Bernie Sanders and voted for Obama.

      1. Hey!!!!!!

        My fiance has no cats whatsoever!!!! You take that back!!!!!

        Also she hates Sanders but is a casual Hillary supporter.

        To sum up, you suck.

        1. Check up Mr. Darcy over here.

            1. I prefer “up” and will be implementing it into my vernacular directly.

        2. “Also she…is a casual Hillary supporter”

          I presume she makes up for this glaring character deficiency in other ways.

          1. Gives good head?

      2. She is often considered politically conservative on the modern scale, yes. Not as much as George Eliot, but not good and Left like Dickens (who IMHO is perhaps the most overrated author ever).

        The main conflict in Austen is generally “OMG if I don’t get married I might have to *gasp* GET A JOB AND SUPPORT MYSELF!”, which is not generally considered a sympathetic struggle from a modern viewpoint.

        Plus she tends to portray upper middle class bourgeois business people as largely virtuous and aristocrats as largely idiotic and useless, which is also not really good with the current narrative.

        1. Dickens (who IMHO is perhaps the most overrated author ever).

          Dickens had a talent for names.

          Also, I loved one of his lesser known novels that portrayed America as one giant mosquito-infested swamp. Loved it because of its unintentional comic portrayal.

          1. The stuff from Dickens that I had to read (Oliver Twist, Great Expectations) bored me to tears. What I read on my own (AChristasCarol) did not. However, the latter was one of the few works where he was not paid by the word, and does it show.

        2. Not as much as George Eliot, but not good and Left like Dickens

          It’s been a long time since I read A Tale of Two Cities, but didn’t Dickens excoriate the Jacobins? IMHO, that alone would disqualify him from being “good and Left” in the eyes of today’s lefty academia.

          1. The current standard is _Hard Times_ – a screed on the evils of Capitalism and heartless bourgeois.

            And this is also the man who invented Ebenezer Scrooge.

            1. I always found fascinating the fact that Scrooge hoarded his money such that he lived a rather modest lifestyle.

              1. And he went right back to making money at the end of the novel.

                He was just a bit more generous.

            2. You mean the one about the misplaced loyalty and lack of vision of one Bob Crachit?

              What a put-upon doofus.

  12. “Unlike the many conservatives who attack the academy, Shields and Dunn believe in its scholarly mission, and they maintain that right-of-center professors can flourish.”

    By which they mean David Brooks-style “conservatives.” Conservatives who “get it.”

    1. There are “many” conservatives who don’t believe in the scholarly mission of the academy? Really?

    2. The conservatives who they keep around solely so they can hold them up to the people who dare to vocally disagree with them and say ‘why can’t you be like these conservatives, all docile and acquiescent?” They’re like male radical feminists. They long to be ‘one of the good ones.’

  13. Funny there were a couple of commenters who basically said I was full of shit for suggesting the same thing last week.

    1. Libertarians can’t possibly make arguments that Rednecks might make.

      1. Round like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel
        Never ending or beginning on an ever spinning reel

    2. Remember that we have two died in the wool socialist regulars on the comments board. There is a lot of diversity of opinion, and who is going to pop and argue at any given time is near impossible to guess ahead of time.

      1. I think we have at least 3 actually. Maybe a 4th new one I discovered recently. I won’t say we have true diversity though until we have at least one Guelph.

  14. So Speaking of how things have changed I watched some old episodes of Pinky and the Brain. In one episode The Brain turns into a Robin Hood-esque outlaw stealing from some Medieval English tax collectors who talk about raising the sales tax and claiming it is for education before laughing. Today wouldn’t that joke be insane teahadist nihilism?

    1. It’s amazing how fucked up popular culture has gotten in a short amount of time. I remember seeing some navel gazing bullshit not long about how EVUL Ghostbusters was because the main human antagonist was an EPA bureaucrat. Because how dare they portray a selfless public servant as a dickless asshat.

      1. I recall Chomsky complained of that back then and Rothbard seemed to approve of it since he hated Reagan.

        1. Noam Chomsky complains about Disney cartoons 40 years after they were published.

      2. Lets talk about the Simpsons: The people running the show are a bunch of progs but a major theme of the show is that Quimby is a crooked Democrat and the Public School system sucks. A new show with that sort of theme would have to be a teahadist nihilist, right?

        1. No. The moral of the story is how the Public School system sucks because it needs more money, and Democrats are corrupt because of Republicans and Citizens United.

          1. I’m sure that’s what they tell themselves…

        2. The greatest episode in the history of that show, Lisa the Vegetarian, was written and produced by 2 vegetarians.

          1. I agree. The magic animal bit is one of alls-times.

            And Barney telling Lisa to ‘go back to Russia’.

            Stonecutters comes second.

            1. for alls-times.

        3. Well, until 1998 (?) they were pretty even in their spoofing of both liberals and conservatives. Unless memory fails me. Which it has been doing a lot lately.

          1. They had some pretty conservative writers back then. Well, at least one, Swartzwelder.

            1. There was also a dislike of Bill and some of the old “fuck the government!” 1960s hippie sentiment left.

              1. “Hey, I’m a pretty lousy president.”

              2. The way I see it, Quimby offset Burns. And the rest was to and fro on how they applied politics via Lisa, Krusty, Skinner, and Ned.

                1. I think Lisa and Flanders are a pretty good representation of the show’s political leanings now.

                  1. I remember an episode where Lisa and some other eggheads got together and ran Springfield into the ground. Granted, that was a pretty old episode. I haven’t seen more than a handful in the last 10 years.

                    1. That seems to be one of the few criticisms of Lisa, she’s correct about almost everything just slightly too optimistic about human nature. (Frequently contrasted with Bart)

                      This current season has actually been pretty decent though, turning her back into an 8 year-old.

        4. Because virtually all human stories are libertarian by their nature. Individualism is crucial to any engaging story.

      3. Is that true?

        1. Is what true?

          1. *sigh*

            1. The threading can make it difficult to tell if you are replying to me or to Loki…

            1. “Farugia SilentBrook
              Dec 10 ? 03:18:16 PM
              That is so true !!! Thanks, GOP …

              … for protecting us (preemptively) from supernatural threats from beyond, real wrath of God type stuff.

              ZOMG, Ayn Rand was right! Deep down inside of me, I knew that all that union-busting stuff was for our own good. But now, we have proof!

              Think about it:
              1 – GOP being the biggest collection of anti-union douches ever assembled.
              2 – No union, no Twinkie
              3 – No Twinkie, no 35 ft long Twinkie, weighing approximately 600 pounds, worth of psychokinetic energy.
              4 – No psychokinetic Twinkie, no giant Marshmallow Man
              5 – No giant Marshmallow Man, no destruction of New York (give or take a few tidal storms)
              6 – New York is saved (melting ice caps and rising waters set aside…)

              There! The GOP is good for you, after all. All hail, Grover Norquist!

              PS: But it also means that Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd are also out of a job. Shared sacrifices, I guess…
              Recommended 2 times”

              Jesus. Christ.

          1. Thank God I only need to hover over the link to know what it’s all about. Starve the beast, I say!

            1. Of the two, I’d say the Daily Kos is definitely the derpier. Seriously, you should give it a read. It doesn’t disappoint.

          2. from salon

            But clearly the financial crisis? …. show that it’s more often a lack of regulations and weak government oversight that lead to catastrophe

            I highlight this because the financial crisis was 100% caused by regulations and government oversight. I get that very few people understand these issues, and the public narrative is that it was all evil bankers, but holding the financial crisis up as an example of lack of regulation is criminally dishonest.

            There were dozens of issues pushing the financial community toward the crisis, most coming from government regulators, but the primary force that pushed it off the cliff was the new regulation of “mark to market” valuations. When uncertainty crept into the mortgage bond market, you couldn’t sell them at anywhere close to a value that you would actually consider selling at. But the law said you had to value them thus, and so balance sheets were decimated….. aaand then the bank regulators said they had to sell off assets to get their cash ratios in order. So fire sale shotgun transactions took place that pretty quickly bankrupted banks all over the world. But not one of those transactions was voluntary, and none of them were a result of companies actually wanting to dump mortgage bonds. They would have been perfectly content to wait and collect their money over time, even if they suffered a few losses in foreclosures.

            The stupid is strong on this issue.

      4. It’s true: this man has no dick.

      5. I wonder if Stone and Parker would still make that South Park episode that unabashedly opposed the notion of ‘hate crimes’ today.

        Of course this is how they move the ball. Everything that comes out, at least some critic will accuse of being ‘right wing’, ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, etc. to earn some progressive street cred, causing so many of the artists (who may be naturally apolitical) to scramble to the left to appease them.

  15. Do you know who else was gay in the 1950s?

      1. please, dude: “Queer”

      1. Is that when you try to find the page that music is playing from?

    1. Enola?

    2. Alan Ginsburg?

      1. That’s “Allen Ginsberg,” Mr. Literature.

        Fun fact: in my long-haired college hippie days I once attended a poetry conference he attended, and when he saw me, gave me one of those old Hollywood movie-style, slow, head-to-toe look-overs. I felt like I was fresh meat. I thought: “Oh, so that’s what a woman feels like when a man does that!”

        1. Did you say to him “my eyes are up here”?

          1. I didn’t think of anything clever.

    3. Who *wasn’t* gay in the 1950s?

      1. Me.

        I love this game! Ask me another.

    4. Transgendered people in 2015?

      Black People in ’50s Mississippi?

      Jews in ’40s Germany?

    5. Not Hitler, ’cause he was dead.

      1. That’s what “they” want you to think.

      2. His clones, on the other hand…

    6. Anybody who was super happy?

    7. Mr. Talese?

    8. My grandparents because WWII had been won and they had their first child?

      1. +1 Advise
        +1 Consent

  16. “The modern academy pays lip service to diversity. Yet as a “stigmatized minority,” the authors note, right-of-center professors feel pressure to hide their identities, in many cases consciously emulating gays in similarly hostile environments.”

    Has the left (prominent spokesmen) ever said they care about intellectual diversity? Just going by one’s I’ve spoken with about this, racial diversity is indeed all that matters (at least to the point of helping Black and Hispanics, they don’t seem to care about whites and Asians) and that pointing out the lack of different viewpoints is completely irrelevant.

    1. I’ve heard a couple people argue that the whole point of racial diversity is intellectual diversity. That argument seems to be going to the wayside lately though.

      1. Yes, I remember that argument. One must encounter the “black” perspective, the “gay” perspective, etc. That’s not patronizing at all.

        1. +1 wise Latina

        2. With the assumption being that black people automatically get the white perspective from having a white mail man or women the male perspective from watching Home Improvement.

          In any event, it’s a ruse, because beneath the language of ‘it takes all kinds’, they are pretty clear about the white/male/cis perspective being the wrong one.

  17. Oh and in another Episode Pinky gets elected President by promising free shit to everyone and a saying a bunch of vapid platitudinous slogans and apparently saying the solution to the deficit is to “charge”. Very unrealistic…

  18. Virginia Postrel.

    That name.

    It’s familiar.

  19. Diversity is another way of saying intolerant.

    1. Diversity is an evil word these days. When Colin Cowherd dared to make a point about how bad education in the Dominican Republic was and everyone went apeshit (including bat flipper extraordinaire Bautista) despite him having made a good point – I forget what it was but I remember it being fair and not deserving of the hyper-reaction.

      Then some higher-up from ESPN took to Twitter with the usual ‘we believe in diversity’ drivel. I was sooooo disappoints.

      Apparently, ‘diverse’ means having to not ever make a controversial statement, however accurate, lest you upset the totalitarians.

      Suck my dick.

  20. Liberal arts departments simply need to be nuked from orbit.

    Beyond those crazies, I’d say the situation in research departments boils down to just what you’d expect from people who usually never left the school to see the real world, and operate in a downright communist system where risk is minimized (for the select who are allowed in the “union” of course) and everything hinges on central planning and crony connections.

    1. Good luck trying to nuke them.

      Up here Harper dared to ignore bureaucrat scientists who pushed climate changed and the narrative became he was anti-science for ‘muzzling’ them.

      1. Don’t forget Maclean’s cover story about how eliminating government databases would destroy Canada or the horror of non-compulsory long-form census.

        1. The latter really had me in stitches. My hippie sister kept babbling about that. All Harper did was make it VOLUNTARY. But not good enough for authoritarians (ie progressives and liberals). No siree. Nope. You must COERCE people into doing what’s “right” for the ‘greater good’.

          Such obscenities I witnessed I could no longer digest.


    2. Hmmmm, a college that would only hire professors and adjuncts that had held a non-education related private sector full time job post degree for at least five years would be interesting. The market would be smaller, so you’d have to pay them better, but you’d get a very interesting range of perspectives.

  21. I am the equivalent of someone who was gay in Mississippi in 1950

    In 1950’s Mississippi, homosexuality was a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

    So no, you’re not even close to being the equivalent.

    1. a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

      do you have an actual cite? the history of sodomy laws doesn’t detail actual ‘typical convictions’

      1. As an example, here’s a 1958 case where a guy got five years for agreeing to consensual gay sex with an undercover police officer:…..30/TAURASI v. STATE

        1. that is also the only case referenced (14) in the above linked history. and it was only noted because it was considered excessive and was subsequently challenged.

          I was just wondering where you got the “Up to 10 years” and whether you knew actual source for info on convictions.

    2. you don’t know how fabulous the guy is.

    3. While I’m sympathetic to the professor, you’re right to call him out on that. AFAIK, no one has been lynched for being conservative. Yet.

      1. Give them time…

      2. Physical assault and destruction of property has occurred several times, though.

    4. So no, you’re not even close to being the equivalent.

      Let’s sum up:

      Being gay in the 50’s could get you ostracized, fired, exiled and shunned and occasionally incarcarated. This climate of fear caused gay men to keep their desires in the closet.

      Being a conservative or libertarian in the 10’s can get you ostracised, fired, exiled and shunned – and potentially investigated for prosecution creating a climate of fear that causes people with non leftist political ideologies to keep that aspect of their opinions in the closet.

      And of course stormy doesn’t think the fact a climate of fear is keeping people closeted about what they truly believe or opine is not remotely equivalent.

      Hey Stormy, do you argue with the GPS when it tells you that your drive to work is 12.5 miles long when it is in fact 12.443 miles long? I’ll bet you hired a lawyer to demand a refund, didn’t you? 😀

      1. Don’t you know that if an analogy isn’t absolutely 100% point for point accurate then it invalidates and entire article’s entire point?

        1. Especially if you are appropriating someone’s victim hood at the same time.

          1. Are the victim hoods in Mississippi white and pointy?

    5. I find the use of Mississippi fascinating. Sure, it was no cakewalk there, but being gay in 1950s Boston wasn’t probably a delight, either.

      1. 2000’s Boston is one of the few places I have been “bashed” – on day 2 of a 3-day weekend.

        “Yeah, but this is Ohio Boston. I mean, if you don’t have a brewski in your hand you might as well be wearing a dress.”

    6. If feminist women can get away with claiming that choosing to where high heels and not having to register for the draft is akin to chattel slavery, I think we get to be a little imaginative sometimes.

      Besides, there is the similarity in that being gay in the 50s and being right of center in a university faculty is among the best ways to lose your job. Just looking at the faculty members who got run off their universities during the protests in the last year should give us a little pause, no?

  22. “a political scientist at a research university told the authors that he wouldn’t assign works by Friedrich Hayek in his political economy class before he was tenured.”

    I was actually reprimanded for using Joseph Campbell. Anti-semite, dontcha know.

      1. Wow, that actually *is* a thing.

        I suppose that’s not surprising since he inspired Star Wars with its Ferengi.

        1. Ha ha, I’m kidding, I know that Star Wars is the one with the Seven Pillars of Robotics.

          I’m not dum, you know.

          1. I’m not agreeing that Campbell was a racist.

            Lovecraft was not only a racist, it was a key influence on his work.

            1. I don’t either, but his _Oriental Mythology_ is pretty hard on both Judaism and Islam, and he’s not a big fan of Christianity, either.

              He argued that Europe had a native polytheistic culture that fit its society better, and that the importation of near-Eastern religions led to an “age of darkness” that Europe is only just emerging from.

              That’s a little dangerously close to “Germany was great before all those Jews came.”

              1. Look, so long as you criticize Christianity alongside Judaism, you get a pass for any anti-Jewish remarks you make.

                It’s the Voltaire/Nietzsche rule, look it up.

                1. Eh, Hitler was pretty strident in his criticisms of Christianity.

                  1. Sure, but (a) you weren’t supposed to notice that part, and (b) his approaches were different – he just wanted to kill off the Jews, but he tried to bamboozle and coopt the Christians.

                2. I would have thought so, too.

                  1. In response to Eddie.

              2. I’d say Campbell is closer to Gibbon, and more an attack on Christianity than Judaism, since Judaism’s influence on Europe was primarily second hand through Christianity.

        2. There was that one episode of Deep Space 9 that had an character based on Campbell.

    1. Should we ban Chluthu because Lovecraft was a racist?

      And L. Frank Baum did editorialize in favor of Indian Genocide…

      1. And Mr. Rogers made a necklace out of the ears of the “gooks” he killed in Vietnam.

        source: A warm, dark place.

        1. Mr. Rogers didn’t serve in ‘Nam but Baum did write editorials:


          Oh and he was a big McKinley fan too so there goes the arguments that the Wizard of Oz was some pro-Free Silver metaphor.

          1. I know about Baum, I just thought it was time for a Mr. Rogers joke.

            1. You gave up inappropriate jokes for Lent, didn’t you.

              1. You’re suggesting that my post-Lenten jokes are inappropriate?

                1. Not suggesting. Stating.

                  This, clearly, will not be a problem. But it has been noticed.

                  /eye on you, pal

        2. No, that was the hideous Lady Elaine Fairchild puppet.

      2. “Should we ban Chluthu because Lovecraft was a racist?

        And L. Frank Baum did editorialize in favor of Indian Genocide…”

        Are you asking a current literature faculty?

        Because the answer is “yes” and “yes.”

        1. We can’t ban Chluthu, he’s going to be the Libertarian presidential nominee.

          1. He can’t be! He is not a natural born citizen. He is not even natural born.

            1. He ain’t even old-timey!
              Oh, wait, he’s an Old One so I guess he is.

        2. I’m curious, what would current faulty say about George Bernard Shaw’s support for the Soviet Union and denial of the Holodomor? I suspect I already know the answer of course; plenty of academic historians who won’t even acknowledge Robert Conquest don’t care an iota if their favorite Marxian historians kept supporting the Soviets through the invasion of Hungary.

    2. Does anyone here drive a Ford?

      Those cars are “problematic.”

  23. “Liberal academics picture Rush Limbaugh rather than an intellectual peer.”

    Well, call me crazy, but I like Limbaugh better than, say, Toobin.

    1. Toobin sets the bar pretty low.

  24. Why is it better to be black than to be gay?

    If you’re black, you don’t have to worry about telling your mother!

    …is the kind of awful, bigoted joke we should stop telling in this country.

  25. I like how the authors of the book pen an Op-Ed about the book entitled “Forget what the right says: Academia isn’t so bad for conservative professors” and Postrel and Gillespie’s reaction was to say “Nuh-uh!” and proceed to tell us what Shield and Dunn really meant. Are you going to tell us that their favorite colors are incorrect too, Nick?

    1. You mean Gillespie will look at anything and only sees what he wants to see? What a shock!

      1. “By God, that square peg will fit into that round hole!” — Nick Gillespie, Editor in Chief, and Reason TV

      2. Like a snowball down a mountain or a carnival balloon
        Like a carousel that’s turning rings around the moon

          1. Those lyrics remind me of Butthole Surfers.

          2. I only respect the version song by Rex Harrison’s son.

            Also, your face is camp.

    2. It’s more like “conservative professors practice what they preach and instead of whining like victims, they just work twice as hard as their prog colleagues.”

      1. Well, except for the part where two of them write an entire book to whine and compare themselves to people who were forced to choose chemical castration over prison.

        1. When the liberal state set its sights on gays it could be extremely nasty.

          As with Turing, who according to Wikipedia was ordered castrated when they caught him having assignations with a young man whose friend burgled Turing’s house – Turing made the mistake of telling the cops about the burglary, and the assignations came to light. So he was convicted of indecency and ordered to choose between prison and chemical castration.

          This was in the era when the liberal state was trying to medicalize everything. Up to the time of the 2nd World War eugenics was respectable as a “medical” cure for poverty and other social problems.

          So if a gay person had the misfortune of doing something to alert the authorities to him doing gay stuff, then bad shit could happen. Much badder than getting denied tenure at UT Austin.

          Generally, the worst did *not* happen, but when it did, it was worse than being caught being conservative.

          So the analogy is hardly perfect.

          1. I was also amused by the statement:

            I am the equivalent of someone who was gay in Mississippi in 1950

            You mean you mean people would just mistake your effeminacy for the languid speech and mannerisms characteristic of the ‘dandified gentlemen‘ of the Deep South?

            Get back to me when the ‘Stonewall’ you’re talking about was the one in Manhattan.

            1. Mafia capo Matthew ‘Matty the Horse’ Ianniello, owner of Stonewall club was just trying to cater to an under-served population.

            2. Some modern authorities think they’ve found the trifecta – gay, Confederate and Jewish.

              1. [Joke about Robert E. Lee’s horse deleted]

                1. But those Confederates weren’t gay, they were just deeply into bondage.

        2. Getting a book published would also count as “work”.

    3. Nick’s concern for the well being of conservatives is touching. Now tell me how they all support Trump again…

    4. I think a lot of conservatives avoid academic careers because of what they’ve been led to believe about the academy. In most schools, if your research is solid and your teaching is good you’ll be fine from a professional standpoint. I choose not to have too many political conversations with academics but that’s mainly because their knowledge is so narrow and limited that it’s hard to find a starting point.

  26. My graduate business school professors were with one exception, all very conservative (same for the students). The one lib prof taught Organizational Behavior and was just brutalized during class discussions.

  27. I am the equivalent of someone who was gay in Mississippi in 1950


  28. If you’re going to appropriate culture, appropriate it correctly.…

    1. I recall a conversation with my mother about oranges. She was complaining about the price of those little oranges (mandarins?) in February. I retorted that it’s an amazing thing that these oranges even exist on a store shelf at a higher but still affordable in the middle of February. She shot me a look and said, “You’re such a Republican.”

      Make of that what you will.

      1. She was complaining about the price of those little oranges (mandarins?)

        Or Satsumas.

        Anyhoo, it’s funny how recognizing the marvels of modern technology and marketplace dynamics makes one “such a Republican”. I guess the whole “locavore” movement gets testy when they see convenient, fresh items on store shelves from 10,000 miles away.

        “A strict 100-mile diet would be awfully difficult to sustain over the long haul, primarily because of convenience, time ? those are the things that tend to drive our consumption patterns,” he says. “My fear is people would go into it as an all-or-nothing, and if you’re too puritanical about it, I don’t think it’s sustainable.”

        As it turned out, I couldn’t have picked a less convenient time than mid-April to engage in local-only eating habits. Farmers markets don’t open until May or June, and winter vegetable stocks are thinning out.…

        1. I had a similar exchange with a former coworker. We were celebrating a birthday and had a cake for the occasion. She sneered at the strawberries on the cake. It was a snowy April. She was getting her locavore idiocy on. I muttered, “There are two hemispheres, with opposite seasons.”

          I should have yelled “The globe, the fucking round earth, it’s a fucking spheroid. It has two hemispheres, north and south, with opposite seasonal systems. Crops grow at different times, and cargo ships smoothe out the difference between the two. If your biggest moral problem is eating a strawberry on a snowy April afternoon, you should kill yourself.”

          1. But then that would have ruined the party, so I didn’t say that.

          2. Locavore in the upper midwest in Febuary would be so authentic the hipsters would literally be drooling over it. Just imagine, hoping that your stash of bland root vegetables and even blander porridge would hold out until the spring thaw! The good old pioneers didn’t call it “the starving time” for nothing.

            A long time ago I read a fascinating book called “We Live in the Arctic” written by a husband and wife who canoed up the Yukon and built a cabin back in the 1940’s. I still vividly remember reading the passages about how halfway through the winter on an all-lean-meat diet, they craved fat so badly that by the time they finally shot a caribou the first thing they did was pop the eyeballs out of the carcass and suck the fat off of them.

            I for one welcome our flown-in vegetables.

      2. Everyone knows that Republican robber barons invented the refrigerated cars that made such advancements possible in order to exploit the poor, innocent Democrats who want oranges for free!

      3. She was complaining about the price of those little oranges (mandarins?) in February


        They *are* a winter thing now that i think about it. I have no idea why. When i was a kid i’d go ballistic for those things and eat the whole box.

        1. They dry out and are pretty terrible out-of-season. That’s why you get them when you do.

    2. Here are seven cardinal sins of eating sushi.

      1. Eating nigiri with chopsticks:

      oh, shut the fuck up. does it make a difference? no. its a pure “you have to do it like japanese people” whine. why don’t you sit on the floor and not talk while the men eat, lady.

      2. Mixing wasabi in your soy sauce

      Aggg. again, its *convenient*.

      3. Eating miso soup before your sushi:


      4. Rubbing your chopsticks together:

      what’s weird? Is that the ‘super-japanese’ places i’ve gone? its all the local japanese people doing that.

      5. Using too much soy sauce:

      Personal taste.

      6. Using your phone during dinner:

      Why not add, “Don’t shit on the floor or start singing “sweet home alabama””

      7. Ordering anything but sushi at the sushi bar:


      Basically, none of these things are “Sins” and none of them really have anything to do with sushi.

      1. I have eaten with such snobs. Not just of sushi, but of Korean barbecue as well.

        I don’t eat with them anymore.

      2. I don’t understand why some people worry about how or what others eat. Oddly, it’s always the ones who proclaim themselves to be “tolerant and open minded”.

        My only food sin is…bad smelling food that makes me retch. For example – food that is left out in room temperature for a long time (yay, tepid, slowly spoiling food, yum!) or liver and onions or most fast food. I’m weird and I think food belongs with other food or in the trash so that people who arent eating don’t have to smell what you had for lunch the rest of the day. To me it seems like a normal request but I’m literally the only person I know who feels that way.

        1. The NYC subway – surprisingly – does NOT prohibit eating and drinking. So… naturally, I often get some slob next to me basically exhaling their disgusting food in my face. One of my biggest pet peeves.

          Oh and don’t get me started with the nasty donut coffee that is so perplexingly popular.

      3. In Japan, rubbing your chopsticks together is interpreted as calling your host a huge cheapskate, and is thus frowned upon.

        1. Well its a good fucking thing we’re in the USA isn’t it? where it means FUCKING NOTHING

        2. Next time I get decent chopsticks without splinters, I’ll stop rubbing them together. Until then, they can take the hint.

      4. If you took someone out to a fancy steakhouse, and they got a really good steak and then started slathering ketchup all over it, would it be snobby to tell them 1) they’re ruining a good steak and 2) making themselves look like an uncultured yob?

        1. I missed the part where this stupid food writer was buying me dinner.

        2. Let me add = nothing you have said so far amounts to any substantive defense of a single point she cited.

          Your “BUT IN JAPAN” comment is self-negating. We’re not in Japan.

          Do you want to make a @#*(&$ case about why people “cant eat miso soup first” or “why mixing wasabi w/ soy sauce is gauche”?

          If not, STFU. I’ve eaten sushi all my life and not once had anyone suggest any single one of these points as being even mildly relevant to consuming good sushi or paying respect to the food itself.

          1. Yes, most etiquette rules are completely arbitrary. People who flaunt them are frequently looked down upon anyways.

            1. flount or flaut?

              1. They’re flaunting their flouting of sushi laws.

              1. If I have to drink blue raspberry malt beverage I am moving!

          2. I saw plenty of people eating nigiri at the kaitens in Tokyo. And miso soup appears to be eaten whenever. Plenty of ppl mixing wasabi in the soy sauce too. The only rude things I’ve been made aware of by the natives are:

            1) Sticking chopsticks in your rice standing up (funeral reference and very bad)
            2) Being messy including leaving a lot of excess soy sauce on your plate
            Distant 3) Rubbing your chopsticks together because it implies your host gave you shitty, splinter-y utensils. Other the other hand if they DID give you shitty splinter-y utensils…

        3. Yes. Yes, it would. I don’t know who you hang out with, but chastising your dinner companions as if they were your children is considered rude.

          1. And besides, ketchup is gross.

            /drops shit-covered spoon and runs

        4. would it be snobby to tell them 1) they’re ruining a good steak and 2) making themselves look like an uncultured yob?

          Yes it absolutely would. Sticking your nose in the air and calling other people ‘uncultured yob’ is… snobby.

        5. If you took someone out to a fancy steakhouse, and they got a really good steak and then started slathering ketchup all over it, would it be snobby to tell them 1) they’re ruining a good steak and 2) making themselves look like an uncultured yob?

          +1 old A-1 sauce commercial from the ’80’s

  29. Pul-leeze. Why should right-wingers bitch? If they can’t get a job with a university that is increasingly funded by billionaires and the endowed chairs that come along with this funding, they can always get a gig at some free market think tank that will publish their junk.

    I was an engineering major, nick. Do you think my professors were influenced more by Karl Marx or what they could do for Exxon. 99% of the people I went to school with couldn’t give a rat’s ass about politics and would have taken a job at a solar energy research company or at a polluting oil company.

    1. Shorter ASs: It’s OK when it happens to “the Others”! Here’s an anecdote to prove it!

      1. So, you don’t think an engineering professor is influenced in the research she undertakes by the corporate interests that write her grants? Or that right-wing humanities students have the potential to work for think tanks that will fund theim?

        This article is just #5,634,569,134 in the continuing and incredibly lazy and self-serving series of how right-wing intellectuals are being oppressed. I was bored at volume 53 on the subject. If I stipulate that college humanities professors tend to be a little to Left are you capable of feeling a little less down? Can we move on now that we know that, in general, the Greek antiquities teacher probably voted for Obama? Pretty please.

        1. Why does it matter?

          Does the government not influence the researchers it funds? Are humanities students not influenced by the ready availability of government jobs?

          Why is it that influence only flows one way?

        2. Also, I would say it’s less concerning that the antiquities teacher voted for Obama than that he wanted to vote for Hugo Chavez.

        3. “So, you don’t think an engineering professor is influenced in the research she undertakes by the corporate interests that write her grants?”

          Ah yes, the great ‘does Exxon cut you a check’ routine the left have come to pass off as legitimate criticism when all it amounts to is an ad hominen.

          As mentioned, I doubt you feel the same concern when your “argument” is reworked to in a government-grant-research scenario.

          It also fails when you consider private research has had many successes and breakthroughs.

        4. And how about those climate researchers funded by NOAA? How are they influenced?


        5. How does political bias affect an engineering professor’s research anyway? They develop cars that pull to the right?

          The vast majority of STEM funding in academia comes from the govt anyway. Industry contribution is probably in the single digits.

        6. Corporate funding for research as a small fraction of government funded research. And are you out of your fucking mind? The fraction of faculty positions that are privately endowed is small compared too those that are state-endowed, and most of those privately endowed ones are from lefty billionaires in any case.

          But you tell us again how it’s such an epic travesty that every little Occupy Wallstreeter can’t get their gender studies degree paid for by the taxpayers but anyone who’s not a leftist should just shut up and accept the fact that they might lose their job any day should one of their students bitch to the administration that they didn’t have enough trigger warnings on their material.

    2. a university that is increasingly funded by billionaires

      The U.S. Government is really more of a trillionaire.

      1. Largest corporation on Earth, really.

    3. Industrial Engineering is not real engineering despite the name.

    4. “I was an engineering major, nick”……bwaahaaahaaahaaa, fuck off you lying, loan welching, pos.

      1. Honestly, how does an engineering major end up not being able to pay off a mortgage? If he were a hobo I might have forgiven him, but he must be a loser to have an education in one of the highest paying fields there is and still manage to fuck it up.

  30. I’d be interested to get their impressions about math, engineering and the physical sciences (leaving out geology and anything else that has been co-opted by climate science). One would hope that where it comes down to fields ruled by hard data and numbers, one’s politics are not an issue. But then I recall that the Nazis claimed to be glad that Einstein left, so perhaps even the hard sciences are not immune.

    1. You get a lot of kudos from the administration if you can tie anything your doing into saving the environment, helping the poor, or any lefty cause. Note, your project doesn’t have to actually work but you’ve got to follow along the thought process progs would. I can’t tell you the endless praise we heard about one of the seniors building a bike out of majority bamboo. The process couldn’t be automated and the bikes weren’t even slightly comparable in quality to normal bikes, but OMG they were GREEN!

    2. Going for military funding would probably out them. Ultimately decisions regarding your career are all subjective, not based on merit (everyone is smart and productive to even get there), so being an outsider in any sense, who doesn’t share everyone’s values, is still dangerous.

      1. In the hard sciences? Um, yeah. Right.

        Lots of universities partner with the DoD for research projects. Heck, when I was a student (mid 2000s) the head of the computer science department was pushing students into a grant-for-service program where we’d go work for the fed after we got our degrees. I know quite a few people that jumped on that opportunity. Heck, my school worked with the army to develop anti-anti-tank armor (that is, armor for a tank against anti-tank weaponry) and a whole bunch of research on IED detection and handling.

        I get that the “academia is SUPER liberal” narrative is popular, but even if it’s true in liberal arts schools, it doesn’t extend to STEM fields.

        1. Sort of true; not in the material. I don’t think many people are concerned about DoD funding and whatnot; most will take money where it can be gotten.

          But, even in the sciences, one does have to tread carefully. Especially in some fields. Remember that Cook guy who got roasted by the media because he made a joke that was actually making fun of percieved sexist stereotypes in academia? Or Larry Summers mentioning in a lecture that men and women are innately different and this probably effects their job choices and losing his job over it?

          And anyone who teaches, whatever the field, runs risks. A student accuses you of something trivial like not choosing enough female students to answer questions, and your department chair knows you don’t agree with affirmative action for women, may be all it takes to get you a reprimand over nothing. Even in the sciences, I would still say one should keep one’s political views to oneself, and never talk politics even if pressed, if one is not a progressive. All it takes is one unstable co-worker or student to get ‘offended’ for your career to get derailed.

  31. Danny Westneat nearly makes me want to defend Democrats.

    Two political scientists from Brigham Young University studied these events, resulting in a paper called “Who Caucuses?” Mostly it’s “the wealthy, educated, white and interested.” This fits with The Seattle Times portrait of one caucus in the city’s most nonwhite neighborhood: “While the caucus was located in the racially diverse but gentrifying Rainier Valley, most of those who turned out were white.”

    If the caucuses were put through a race- and social- equity test, I bet they’d fail.


    Can you invoke the people’s will when 94 percent of the people weren’t there?

    We’ll never know if Hillary Clinton might have won here if we had had a primary.

  32. The issue is that institutions supposedly dedicated to intellectual debate have excluded a significant portion of the intellectual spectrum. The fact that some conservatives can hide their ideology long enough to get tenure is not a rebuttal of that problem. It is a statement of the problem.

    The reason we have the degree of maoist nonsense being spouted by the students these days is that for decades the only debates in the classroom or the scholarly literature have been between factions of the left. This leads academics to a view of the intellectual spectrum where a moderate leftist like Tony Blair is seen as right wing. Anyone to the right of that must be a fascist.

    1. Yep, and what few conservatives there are are mostly old guard who are dying off. Every conservative professor I had will be dead in twenty years. It’s really sad to think later generations won’t get the experience I had of being assigned various pie in the sky environmental ideas that looked good on paper, and told to try and make them work or prove that they couldn’t. It was eye opening just how bad most this technology is.

    2. And?

      These same people have been telling women, ethnic minorities, and gays that if they feel their workplace is hostile, the appropriate response is to either find or make a place that isn’t. That expecting existing places to be neutral, if not welcoming, is unreasonable. So frankly… they should take their own advice. If they feel their current workplace is hostile, they should find a new job.

      Would it be better if everyone got along? Sure. But frankly, if you spend decades arguing that no one is entitled to a non-hostile workplace and then whine that your workplace is too hostile, I’m not going to care.

      [Insert appropriate pithy phrase about making beds, taking cows to dances, sowing seeds, and so-on]

      1. Except for the part where the students are being trained in your nonsensical philosophy of self hatred and death without any exposure to philosophies of actual progress. Freedom is good for me and it is good for you. it is good for gay and straight, black, brown, yellow, red, and white, boys, girls, men, women, and the transgendered.

        Freedom won’t give you equality and someone might be mean to you, but you will live a better life than in progtopia.

        Equality may feel fair but it leads to decreasing wealth and happiness for all.

        In case you missed my point again I am not concerned that conservative and libertarian thinkers can’t find academic jobs. They can find productive work elsewhere. It’s the effect on the world I don’t like, and of course that is exactly why the left pushes the right out of academe. It is the only way your bankrupt philosophies can compete.

      2. But, we should all still have to fund the hostile workplace, and the ‘research’ dedicated to portraying us as evil, right?

        You’re argument will start to make sense when funding public subsidization of universities becomes optional; until then, I’d say non-leftists have every right to demand fairness from their state employees.

  33. So there’s some follow-up from the “Dreadlock White Kid” story

    1. I had a dreadlock once. I appropriated an apathy towards the use of combs and brushes.

      1. And showering?

    2. Cory is being very honest when he admits that his own hair is not naturally curly. He didn’t have to do that, who would known that other than his parents and few close friends and relatives. I wonder if Bonita accosts black women who straighten their hair.

  34. Comic books long ago. And now science Fiction/fantasy and video games. Japanese companies now have to censor games (or simply not bring them over) thanks to SJWs

  35. No its not. Gays in Mississippi have things much better now. In 60 years, if we follow the current pace, all Conservatives in Academia will be put in jail.

  36. I attended college in the late ’70s as an engineering student. We had to take some social science electives to be well rounded. I rarely went to class but I did attend one lecture where the professor let us know that African children attain depth perception earlier than European children. As I recall, black and white one-year-olds were set on a floor with patches of glass. Under the glass patches was a treacherous fall. The white kids would crawl right over the glass oblivious to the risk. The black kids would crawl around the glass. I don’t know what became of this experiment. Was it repeatable and validated? I do know that social scientists who conduct such experiments now are very bad people.

    1. Considering that attempts to reproduce experiments in social science journals led to a finding that over half them could not be reproduced, it’s likely that it is probably not valid.

      1. You are a Gutmensch, thrakkorzog.

  37. I actually had a physics professor who would wear a “Vote Libertarian” pin on his lapel every election season. This was a mostly engineering school circa 1985. He was very different from another physics professor who wore blue bib overalls and no shoes most of the year. Ahh, social diversity. They were both tenured, though.

  38. So I want to be clear… libertarians and conservatives have been attacking non-STEM academia for years. And then a few libertarian and conservative non-STEM academics complain that they feel they have to stay “closeted”?

    Further, libertarians and conservatives have been arguing, forever, that it’s perfectly acceptable for a place to fire someone for being gay. And then these conservative and libertarian academics try to drum up sympathy by comparing themselves to gay people, who they argue it should be acceptable to fire for being gay?

    Yeah, I can’t be arsed to care.

    1. “Further, libertarians and conservatives have been arguing, forever, that it’s perfectly acceptable for a place to fire someone for being gay. And then these conservative and libertarian academics try to drum up sympathy by comparing themselves to gay people, who they argue it should be acceptable to fire for being gay?”
      Show me where libertarians argued that the government should be allowed to fire people for being gay. I must have missed that. Or do you not distinguish between private entities funded through voluntary transactions and the state, which is funded through forced taxation?

    2. Oh, and, I know this is hard for you people to grasp, but some of us have enough brain cells to be capable of distinguishing between what people should do and what they should be allowed to do. There is nothing contradictory about saying someone should be allowed to do something while at the same time saying they shouldn’t do it. I suspect it’s a lost lesson on you though.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.