Centerfield

Diversity of opinion can sure be sorely lacking in the academy. I wonder to what extent this will endure as the boomers gray and technological advances continue. It'll be locked in to some extent, along the lines of the polluted bucket you can dilute but not dump out...

But at least some college kids are bound to be drawn to the internet for genuine debate if that's what they really want and they find it lacking in school. And those same students may well return to class less willing to toe the party line. It's up to the better critical thinkers to lead the way on that. By my latter years in college I became something of a scoffer at some of my professors. Mostly in my 2nd majo,r psychology, where I bristled at what I lfelt was an arrogant pretense that psychology knew much more than it did. But my grades didn't go down that much so long as I backed it up.

I'd like to see more diversity of political opinion in colleges. Just as much, I'd love to see a weeding out and scaling back of some of the more, well, bullshitty disciplines. Sadly, some schools, and especially state schools, due to regulations, see their only path to growth as one which includes adding programs. You add esteem and budget with a new department more than by expanding an existing one unless that porgram is close to or among the elite. Which fosters bullshit, bad scholarship, academic hangers on, and so on and so forth.

The social sciences are in many cases without any good miracles for the various churches to hang their hats on, and in some cases a day of reckoning is IMO overdue if they are being subsidized by taxpayer dollars. Will that day come? Not holding my breath, but hoping...

I suspect that the issue at university, as it almost always has been over the centuries, is that many Professors tend to be immoveably stuck in the ideology of their own college days. (Which, for most of the current crop, would be the late 1960s and early 1970s.) They are, in short, conservative under any meaningful definition of the term -- and however much they would react in horror to the idea. The situation today is not all that different from my own experience. (Berkeley in the late 1960s, when the Professors were often those who had done college in the early 1930s. Picture wearing a uniform around in that environment -- but actually I never had a problem.)

Fortunately, in most colleges there are the few nuggets of gold who are still interested in their field of study as a subject to be explored rather than an ideology to be defended. It can be a little difficult to recognize that they do not subscribe to the dominant ideology, simply because they are not putting a lot of energy into pushing any ideology. They are simply focused on their own field. They can also be the best teachers in the place.

When I went to school, Humanism was certainly fighting against the Republican policies that discriminated against gays, the environment, workers rights, civil rights etc. This real battle brought the West into the twenty first century. While the hard Left existed in side of many Ivory Towers, the general Liberalism being taught was more centrist and certainly did not reject the scientific method. The lack of center in our nation at the time allowed educational institutions to counter balance to the Left, supporting the arts, humanities and a healthy dose of idealism..

Today, education itself has turned political. In preparing a response to a global warming thread at SF, I was surprised how much of the global warming issue "I didn't get". Just look at the following article and please examine the comments left by scientists. Again, scientist is presently "Right" of the spin coming from our academies, and others who have serious scientific concerns about the science of climate prediction are considered "scientific neocons". This trend in education is getting a bit dangerous. Today's student set tomorrow's policies. Of course over population and the mess it makes is a serious issue we all realized decades ago. We have much to be alarmed about. War and death are serious issues too, as is nuclear proliferation. If we examine these things in an educational process that is too bias in either direction, we ruin the objectivity of future generations. While I applaud schools in rejecting Intelligent Design, the “consensus” over evolution is far different that the “consensus” over global warming. Some of the "explanations" about 9/11 are even more disturbing. On one hand, it is unacceptable to give Fundamentalism and evolution the same weight in a science class, in an effort to be “fair”, it is equally unfair to give politics an equal airing in science class as well. The failure for our educators in making that distinction highlights the political bias entering scientific debate. I wonder now how less dangerous Leftist theories are as an overall filter, than religious ones in our school systems.

I've been watching the question of how academics with extreme politics perform academically. The answer turns out to be, pretty well. Much as they may ignore facts outside their disciplines, within their disciplines they keep their eyes on evidence.

That's not true of everybody, of course, just most.

It's harder for me to watch what happens in class than to see what academic bloggers write, of course, but I suspect class is (again, mostly) conducted professionally while the class remains on professional topics.

I do think that the academy has long had a history of attracting or creating extremism. Right now, it's mostly lefties, but in interwar Germany, fascism and monarchy were all the thing. In France, between the wars, it was both Fascists and Communists. Aristotle may well have given advice to Alexander the Great that helped him and his Dad wipe out the Greek Democratic cities.

Brian;

bullshitty disciplines

Also

But at least some college kids are bound to be drawn to the internet for genuine debate if that's what they really want...

Well,. your experience if you go to either of those sites looking for a debate is markedly different than the experience you get when you go there looking for affirmation. Seems to me that students who already feel affirmed are unlikely to seek further affirmation. But some folks want nothing more than affirmation. That's why peachin g to a chior is lucrative gig if you can get it.

If course, if you go looking for debate (say as a liberal to LGF or a conservative to Daily Kos) and then you just get shouted down, you do get a different kind of affirmation...the kind that affirms your view that those who think differently than you do deserve nothing but your contempt.

Fortunately, in most colleges there are the few nuggets of gold who are still interested in their field of study as a subject to be explored rather than an ideology to be defended. It can be a little difficult to recognize that they do not subscribe to the dominant ideology, simply because they are not putting a lot of energy into pushing any ideology.

If you do that as a blogger, you're a centrist, still trying to explore and understand. Your site gets less traffic, but fewer trolls.

Slim pickins' for trolls here!

Some cruise the 'net loking for debate, others looking for argument. And then there's those who don't know the diff, and should watch more Python.

Call it "Classical Studies." :-)

I'm not surprised at all by Jon's observation about politicized academics being good in their fields. Those who are at the tops of their fields are also the most likely to have built up enough ego to fall into the trap of believing their expertise extends into other fields.

Stockbrokers get rich playing up on that belief, convincing their clients that their clients can be experts at playing the market simply because they're good in their own fields. Somehow the client is magically a better investment pro than the investment pros themselves! So the client goes merrily along, churning out commissions for the broker with their frequent trading. Some clients actually are good at it, others are lucky, but most end up doing somewhat less well than they would just buying and holding good index funds.

Brokers sometimes call these kinds of clients "mullet." A mullet is a baitfish. The good and lucky "mullet" drags in new brokerage customers with glowing reviews of the broker who has boosted their esteem so well. Just like a racetrack tout will give a thousand different customers ten different tips for a single race, then the hundred winners from the thousand come back for more....

Before I started a debate with you over at SF, Tully, I spent days pouring over global warming information. I admit my view of Gore's movie has changed quite a bit. While I think solar activity (including sunspot activity) can be omitted from the deabate, it is clear that the data (even when reviewed by "my expert" I linked again above) does not advocate extreme alarm. Blogging does give one the chance to step back and consider the "facts" before getting into debates. I often rely on Sci. Am. for common sense and I was shocked how quickly scientists and bloggers took apart the idea of a scientific “consensus” in the Sci. Am. comment thread linked above. I sense that despite the Kos and Hard Right BlogWorld, the internet has the potential to offset the weird left slant in our higher educational institutions. Again, how academies handle Intelligent Design as opposed to Global Warming is inconsistent. Environmentalism was a different beast when I was in College. Common sense, I believe gave many teachers some ground to rally behind. Now, I fear, rather than produce objective professionals and open-minded artists, we are dangerously polarizing learning into producing agendas.

I think Brian hit upon some meaning of centrist. I do think that "alarm" is often "used" to generate traction for an apathetic public. Such alarm must be grounded in hard probabilities. Perhaps then, alarm might produce action before the problems become insurmountable. Many of us do this on national security issues, when second chances are not very probable. This would be a case for the ends justifying the means. In the case of global warming, it might take the "sky is falling down" to motivate the kind of long term action that would be required to keep NYC above water, or lower forest fires due to rising temperatures. I also was surprised to learn that even the volcanic blast that turned the summer of 1815 into winter, the half-degree drop in global temperature lasted just a year.

Also, I am a bit worried that policy-makers are so removed from the science, they often make ineffective decisions.

Last, sometimes when I proofread my blurbs and make some final edits they don't translate into my final post. My post above is an example. Must I preview always before pressing "post" to have the changes stick?

tully said "should watch more Python. "

Man: Oh, look this is futile.

Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: I came here for a good argument.

Mr Vibrating: No you didn't, you came here for an argument.

Man: Well, an argument's not the same as contradiction.

Mr Vibrating: It can be.

Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition.

Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: Yes it is. It isn't just contradiction.

Mr Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

Man: But it isn't just saying 'No it isn't'.

Mr Vibrating: Yes it is.

Man: No it isn't, Argument is an intellectual process ... contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: Yes it is.

Great quote

I wonder if anyone has looked at the idea that increasing ethnic diversity decreases Ideological diversity.

Since all ethnic groups except whites are 70% or more Democratic leaning, then increasing the number of hispanics or blacks just decreases the number of political conservatives.

Whites are the only demogrpahic group that has diversity in its political views. When Universities started emphasiziing volunteer work and a holistic review it probably eliminate most conservatives or libertarians.

While I think solar activity (including sunspot activity) can be omitted from the deabate, it is clear that the data (even when reviewed by "my expert" I linked again above) does not advocate extreme alarm.

It doesn't lend itself to extreme alarm, but as far as solar activity goes, I do beg you to remember where almost all "global warming" actually comes from. That big ball of nuclear fire in the sky, without which the temperature of the planet would be maybe 20 or 30 degrees Kelvin (minus 400-some Fahrenheit), mostly residual core heat from initial planetary material compression. Obviously solar variation is a factor, as you can see here. Cosmic radiation, which is not constant, is also a factor in several ways.

(P.S.--you can get some great pics for computer wallpaper from Wikipedia....)

Univs. are a way outdated model. 85-90% of programs should have been cut out 25 yrs. ago --for several reasons.
Sports, Arts, Music, Lit, Comms.,Ethnic, and similar
fee supported only Academy.

Could elaborate regarding, but won't take up space here.

See? There IS a God.

Superdestroyer, what if diversity of opinion is a luxury good?