Q&A: Liberals and Conservatives in Academia
Liberals and Conservatives in Academia
Question
Following the message the Rabbi sent me:
Worth reading:
True, this was originally published on the Hidabroot website, which advocates complete non-dialogue and usually does not display impressive honesty or intelligence, but there is definitely something to it here (although of course one could logically argue that conservative = stupid).
“We liberals believe in pluralism and diversity, and we want women, blacks, Hispanics, and Muslims sitting with us at the table—as long as they are not conservatives.”“We are perfectly fine with people who don’t look like us—as long as they think like us.”
It’s always amusing to read separatist people who distance themselves from anything unlike them, and who have no problem demanding equality from those who actually do believe in equality.
Besides, usually religious / Republican / conservative people who are really willing to stand behind their positions do not meet accepted academic standards.
Answer
You’re being disingenuous. There is no doubt that there is blatant discrimination against conservatives, and their abilities won’t help them. By virtue of being conservatives, they are considered backward, and it is impossible that they could be talented.
As for the Hidabroot website, I already noted that myself. And still, there are two differences: 1. The academy declares openness, and they do not. 2. The academy consists of state institutions that are supposed to be egalitarian, whereas Haredi society or the Hidabroot organization is not.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
I’m not being disingenuous. Conservative people are prepared to cast doubt on the scientific method more than non-conservatives are, by definition as conservatives.
(1) The academy does not declare openness; the academy declares that whoever is willing to conduct research according to academic standards and respect democratic values as it has defined them will be given an equal opportunity. (2) A state institution does not need to be egalitarian when the discrimination is based on relevant grounds.
For example, regarding gender separation—in my opinion it is very good that the Hebrew University decided not to allow a separate campus. The principles accepted in the Western world, and especially in academia, do not allow gender separation, and whoever wants to enjoy the benefits of academia has to accept its rules.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Conservatism is a worldview that has different expressions—political, legal, and others. It does not have the slightest connection to the scientific method (except in the liberal propaganda that is the subject of discussion here). On the contrary, specifically liberal circles, especially those that make up large parts of the humanities and social sciences, long ago abandoned the scientific method and academic standards, and certainly democratic values. For them everything is agenda, nothing more. It is ridiculous that precisely these people boycott conservatives on such grounds.
(1) The academy absolutely declares openness at every turn. Academic freedom is a sacred principle, one of its cornerstones. Any appearance of harm to academic freedom (from one side only, of course) is met with hysterical shrieks in the name of openness and academic freedom. Regarding the standard of research and values, see my previous comment.
(2) As for the relevance of the grounds, see my first comment.
I also disagree regarding a separate campus. That does not touch on any academic value in any way. You speak about those who want to “enjoy the benefits of academia,” and this contains the hidden assumption that it belongs to someone who magnanimously grants some of its bounty to others, and indeed academia behaves as though it were the private property of certain circles.
The social sciences believe that they are supposed to serve the secular state, just as in the past the university served the Christian religious establishment that created it.
Freedom of thought has nothing to do with academia. In the natural sciences there is freedom of thought and research because the private sector threatens to expose their nakedness experimentally. In the humanities there is a kind of freedom of research mainly because nobody really cares. In the social sciences there is no real freedom of research.
However, whoever pins freedom of research on universities is doing himself a disservice. The Enlightenment was advanced by people who were not academics in any institutional framework. As Leo Strauss points out, philosophy used to be a private matter. So we should stop whining and start working.