I realized after I wrote this that it could stand for my mandatory Diversity statement.

We want Truth and Reality to be represented in academia. We certainly don’t need racial or sexual-desire Diversity, or any other Diversity based on non-intellectual ability. Pursuing Diversity of this kind is harmful to thinking.

The only Diversity we want and require is the Diversity in understanding the different aspects of Truth and Reality. Not every man of high intellect can be a physicist; some must become metaphysicists, a higher and more difficult calling. There must be poets and historians. And so forth.

We certainly don’t want or need ideological Diversity. Seeking it is a dumb idea.

Just think: if we required ideological Diversity in the same way we require skin color, “gender”, and perversion Diversity, with all of its monitoring and enforcement of quotas, mandatory oaths and ignorant screeching undergraduates, then we’d have our universities stuffed with measured fractions of feminist logicians, Wiccan theosophists, communists, extinction advocates, “I demand the right to kill my children!” reproductive health advocates, utilitarians, even, God help us, neoconservatives.

If the number of professors holding an ideology must exist in the same ratio as they exist in the population, why, we’d have universities that look not that different from those we already have. Except, perhaps, in political party affiliation, which is at best a weak indication of ideology.

There is no end of variation in ideology. Just like “gender”, ideologies are born in the imagination, which is infinite in its capacity. And also like “gender”, no proof except desire is needed to justify an ideology. Requiring any kind of Diversity, except the conditional high ability kind mentioned above, is to pursue the unattainable and create frustrations that can be never be assuaged.

So much for that. Now we come to the meat: Study: Professors Donate To Democrats Over Republicans By A 95:1 Ratio.

Diversity in hiring is the top priority of most colleges and universities. However, the effort to hire more women, minorities, and LGBT individuals notably lacks one group: ideological diversity. It is well-known that most faculty are composed of an overwhelming majority of liberal and democratic members. However, this view, while generally accepted, is largely anecdotal. Now a new study by Heterodox Academy Director of Research Sean Stevens and Brooklyn College Professor Mitchell Langbert claims to have put hard numbers on that lack of diversity. In reviewing records with the Federal Election Commission, they say that they found that professors gave to Democrats over Republicans by a 95:1 ratio.

The study itself acknowledges “while party affiliation imperfectly correlates with political ideology or values,” they still say “the correlation is significant, and the increasing prevalence of independents is probably less important than it seems.”

That correlation is weak. Almost no, or even no registered Democrats would identify as reactionary, whereas a fraction of Republicans would. “Conservative” is a dead word used now only to frighten children.

Of course, there are many professors who don’t affiliate with any party, or whose affiliation is only nominal and social. There are still, for instance, many true math nerds who might even call themselves Democrats but whose only real interest in life is in chasing theorems, people who still care deeply about proofs to the extent they do not advocate redefining math as that which each “culture” calls math.

Still, this number must be low and will diminish, because of the spread of the mandatory Diversity Inclusion an Equity (DIE, from Steve Sailer) oaths for hiring and promotion. Here’s one professor trying to rebel in as strong a way as he dares, as he applies for a merit raise. How many able, and even superior, men are not hired because they refuse the oath?

I use mathematicians as an example, because mathematics as a discipline has long been associated with Truth and Reality. Toss these out and you toss out the meaning of math: whence proof without Truth? And indeed, the Heterodox study found mathematicians had the lowest left to right ratio, which was still 5.5 to 1 in favor of Democrats. In contrast, Anthropology, which used to have the same ideals as mathematics, the ratio is 42.2 to 1.

It’s the ideals that must have changed. Real anthropology is impossible in a system ruled by the ideology of Equality. By definition, all men are the same; therefore, all conclusions of all anthropological studies are preordained.

The same will be true in math and in every field the further they drift into the ideology of DIE. Or into any ideology that is not aimed at Truth and Reality.

So again I conclude the seeking Diversity of ideology, or of skin color, or of anything not related to ability is wrong and wrongheaded.

Share this: Facebook

Reddit

Twitter

Pinterest

Email

More

Tumblr

LinkedIn



WhatsApp

Print



