Activism has become central to academia; left-wing scholar-activism is prominent in fields which use qualitative methods and universities endorse certain causes.
I think that if academia goes down this path, it will lose its “social licence”. No one will trust research, people will stop sending their children to university, so forth. The incentives to be activist must change. Part of it, I think, goes back to government grants. This means people must research whatever is currently promoted and government-style bureaucracies penetrate academia. I don’t get grants because I am not trendy, but we actually need people who are not trendy, who preserve knowledge as well as find new knowledge, who emphasise teaching… okay, I’ll stop, but you get the picture.
"Activism has become central to academia". In my view activism should lead to an unceremonious EXIT from academia. Especially tax-payer-funded academia. And whilst we're on the subject, in my idea of academia....'Activism' and 'Scholar' don't go in the same sentence. Sorry.
Are there any regular public opinion tests on respect for higher education institutions? I've an intuition that the Gaza war could be quite damaging. How different (if at all) is the UK from the US in this respect?
It's a bit tangential but I'm curious about the causal direction of social justice ideology in universities. The fault line seems to be between those who think uni indoctrinates students and those who think that higher intelligence leads to more leftish leaning. I'm sceptical of both positions, but don't know where to begin finding information.
I certainly swung left at university, but that was due to groupishness and peer influence. I never had any idea how my lecturers or tutors voted or even what they thought, beyond the philosophy I was studying.
I think the idea that intelligent = progressive is utter crap (though obviously a lot of progressives, some of them intelligent ones, do believe in this hypothesis!) I'm sure you're aware of the is-ought problem, but if you're not - intelligence is about answering "is" questions, politics is about answering "ought" questions, and you can't logically deduce "ought" from "is". Therefore there should be no relationship between intelligence and values a priori, so any empirically observed patterns are probably the result of social conditioning.
But there are many other factors to consider on top of this - I don't think social conditioning is the whole explanation: most obviously, being educated isn't the same thing as being intelligent! It's possible to be smart and not go to university, and surely there's some self-selection going on here - young adults who are more right-leaning are more likely to be "on your bike" types who skip uni and go straight into work. And, of course, in the UK the Conservatives have significantly contributed to the radicalisation of students by saddling them with tens of thousands of pounds of debt.
The blurring of is and ought seems to be the root of all epistemic evils. I don't know if it's really concentrated on the left, but it *feels* that way to me.
A leftish stacker has recently started dunking on my posts, leading with them being insufficiently 'educated' or 'informed'. He also says, apparently sincerely, that this prevents me from accessing the 'one truth' and the 'one correct policy'. I've never seen this claim from the right and I used to be back & forthing quite aggressively when the onetime alt-right were being dicks online.
I think that if academia goes down this path, it will lose its “social licence”. No one will trust research, people will stop sending their children to university, so forth. The incentives to be activist must change. Part of it, I think, goes back to government grants. This means people must research whatever is currently promoted and government-style bureaucracies penetrate academia. I don’t get grants because I am not trendy, but we actually need people who are not trendy, who preserve knowledge as well as find new knowledge, who emphasise teaching… okay, I’ll stop, but you get the picture.
Agreed - it's a dangerous game and we're already seeing effects on public opinion.
"Activism has become central to academia". In my view activism should lead to an unceremonious EXIT from academia. Especially tax-payer-funded academia. And whilst we're on the subject, in my idea of academia....'Activism' and 'Scholar' don't go in the same sentence. Sorry.
Not my cup of tea either ;-)
Are there any regular public opinion tests on respect for higher education institutions? I've an intuition that the Gaza war could be quite damaging. How different (if at all) is the UK from the US in this respect?
Public opinion has been getting worse, e.g. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/anti-university-views-becoming-more-entrenched-poll-finds
Think it's even worse in the US - that congressional hearing was a disaster.
It's a bit tangential but I'm curious about the causal direction of social justice ideology in universities. The fault line seems to be between those who think uni indoctrinates students and those who think that higher intelligence leads to more leftish leaning. I'm sceptical of both positions, but don't know where to begin finding information.
I certainly swung left at university, but that was due to groupishness and peer influence. I never had any idea how my lecturers or tutors voted or even what they thought, beyond the philosophy I was studying.
On this topic, this paper is good: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03054985.2016.1151408?casa_token=Kp4VSWCohpwAAAAA:LZRjQEt52QjD5EGCcmUE61r-RaAhM_VJsybFPfNnlyUux0SqYRHNx2zBCr2BHcJ4Z05ZKjevO-cqow
Thanks!
I think the idea that intelligent = progressive is utter crap (though obviously a lot of progressives, some of them intelligent ones, do believe in this hypothesis!) I'm sure you're aware of the is-ought problem, but if you're not - intelligence is about answering "is" questions, politics is about answering "ought" questions, and you can't logically deduce "ought" from "is". Therefore there should be no relationship between intelligence and values a priori, so any empirically observed patterns are probably the result of social conditioning.
But there are many other factors to consider on top of this - I don't think social conditioning is the whole explanation: most obviously, being educated isn't the same thing as being intelligent! It's possible to be smart and not go to university, and surely there's some self-selection going on here - young adults who are more right-leaning are more likely to be "on your bike" types who skip uni and go straight into work. And, of course, in the UK the Conservatives have significantly contributed to the radicalisation of students by saddling them with tens of thousands of pounds of debt.
Thanks - very interesting! This paper on the relationship between education and liberalism is worth reading: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03054985.2016.1151408?casa_token=rJzWlnZ1aXwAAAAA:axekHxFJvcxvH8ygP64AI9VoaFSjceQgH94Xp9RIv6_Wi7e4kECKpThiN97rOQgHPPm5sch40_VLcw
The blurring of is and ought seems to be the root of all epistemic evils. I don't know if it's really concentrated on the left, but it *feels* that way to me.
A leftish stacker has recently started dunking on my posts, leading with them being insufficiently 'educated' or 'informed'. He also says, apparently sincerely, that this prevents me from accessing the 'one truth' and the 'one correct policy'. I've never seen this claim from the right and I used to be back & forthing quite aggressively when the onetime alt-right were being dicks online.
Thanks! On naming, I'd better not ;-)