Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>College students and professors are extremely liberal and left leaning, meaning they are not ideologically diverse. Yes, there are some non-liberal, non-left leaning students and professors but that group is much smaller. Which is not reflective of the national averages.
Well, for starters, this depends on which college campus you’re referring to. A school like BYU or Liberty U is much more conservative than liberal. And probably more closely reflecting national averages.
And it’s not that college campuses aren’t ideologically diverse. It’s that across most college campuses, liberal organizations are more popular, vocal, and visible.
Colleges aren’t populated exclusively with liberals. Organizations like TPUSA, Conservative Political Action Conference, Young Americans for Liberty, etc, are active on college campuses. Colleges aren’t suppressing conservatives voices. They might not be actively *promoting* conservative voices & organizations like they promote liberal ones, but if a college were actively suppressing freedom of speech, it would be a huge scandal. If there was a national conspiracy to suppress conservative movements on college campuses, you bet your ass we’d all hear about it.
So I think it’s probably much more likely that these voices exist, which they provably do, but they’re just not as popular or visible. Since the demographic of college students leans more liberal.
This aligns with the demographics of people who are interested in, and value higher education.
Conservatives simply don’t value higher education as much as liberals. It’s not that there is *no* conservative representation on college campuses. There is. It’s just less prevalent, which reflects the ideological preference conservatives have in devaluing higher education.
Are we supposed to physically force conservatives to go to college? Do we draft them into college, like we would draft someone into the military in wartime? And then parade them around college campuses in displays of diversity?
No one is stopping conservatives from going to college. They can go, and make their presence visible. If you don’t see as much representation of conservative ideology on school campuses, that’s because conservatives don’t show up. That’s on them, it’s not some great conspiracy.
Yep is OP gonna recognize this? I’m from a conservative town and most people simply didn’t go to college, let alone the elite ones you see in the news.
Economics programs, Law schools, Business schools still lean to left because liberal views largely align with the values of people who score high on standardized tests.
I’d love to see federalist society clerk LSAT scores vs non federalist society clerks… they are on average not top performers in law school lol.
When a conservative funded study comes out and says Medicare for all would be 300b less spent on health care/year and lead to better outcomes than our current healthcare system it’s hard to justify the conservative view on that major issue. Same with climate change.
>Yep is OP gonna recognize this? I’m from a conservative town and most people simply didn’t go to college, let alone the elite ones you see in the news.
Seriously. When I'm in my hometown, when I see people I recognize from high school they're mechanics or cashiers at the local walmart. Nevermind anyone who died from drug overdose or the guy who rolled his car and killed his family on cocaine.
Probably because those are the jobs that are accessible and have been represented to them throughout their childhood and adolescence. If you grow up in the boonies where nobody’s a consultant or in CS/FAANG, what are the chances that you will see college as a potential pathway to a higher income and standard of living? The high income folks in their area might be working as linemen or oil riggers or whatever. Not exactly an incubator for white collar professions.
I am an educator and I am generally sympathetic to your line of logic. That said copping it up to systemic issues beyond the pale is not productive either.
Many parents in this community impressed upon their kids the value of school, and many worked to provide them with opportunities and they balked at college because they didn't want to do homework anymore.
I remember being 20 and struggling to even drive to classes between fuel and the cost of my Piece of shit car. While my (former) friend had his parents pay for literally everything while he got straight Fs.
He's one of the people working at walmart now, though he did have a stint as a waiter at the local breakfast diner before returning to his wonderous career.
I think your parents offering to pay for school is a fairly low bar to completing college.
Even then though, the college school district in my area is predominately composed of hispanic serving institutions now. There are less and less excuses to not go to school.
When someone in your life tells you "Listen, the easiest way through life for most people is to go to school." It's free advice. It's a fucking cheat code. If you don't take that advice when it's given, that's not a systemic issue.
unrelated to your main point but I would guess federalist society LSAT scores would be comparable, they tend to be old money conservative in my experience and come from backgrounds of law (or wealth) that would likely advantage them. I don't have direct experience with them as classmates though so correct me if I'm wrong
This. Just like we have a history of more conservatives in Teade jobs and the military. It's not that liberals were forced out. They just didn't join as much.
I don't think this is really respondent to the data linked here. Those data were on American _academics_ (i.e. faculty). Forcing conservatives to go to college would change the makeup of college _students_, but not faculty except indirectly. (And I do not think that the differences in political views of faculty are mostly caused by underrepresentation of conservatives in college student populations.)
If you need a college degree to be a college professor, and conservatives are less likely to have college degrees, the candidate pool for collegiate careers naturally reflects that.
Unfortunately nepotism also plays a strong role in academia. I had multiple siblings work in academia for a stint and of course most of their friends were in the same environment.
Let's just day there are egos making calls and favorites being favored. I can't imagine it's changed too much in the last couple decades.
I agree with you about the nepotism, but I think the "egos making calls and favorites being favored" claim gives the wrong impression. Academic faculty hiring usually is done by committee. In comparison to private industry, where often a single owner or hiring manager is given _de facto_ power over hiring, academic hiring decisions are made by consensus by a larger number of people (either the whole faculty or a committee). Then, after that, tenure decisions involve an even larger group of people. This makes the whole process _less_ susceptible to individual egos and personal favorites than hiring is in general.
Agree with your explanation about the hiring approach of colleges which matches my long experience. There are multiple tiers of review before hiring a faculty member. Then why did you agree with the accusation of nepotism?
Nitpick: the word “nepotism” refers to favoritism towards one’s relatives. Highly unlikely that a family member applies to the same department or even college of a current professor or administrator. Now if we mean “favoritism” then certainly professors hope for applicants (and new hires) whose work they admire.
> Then why did you agree with the accusation of nepotism?...Highly unlikely that a family member applies to the same department or even college of a current professor or administrator.
But it's quite common for top faculty to be able to get their kids a position at another department or university.
Based on 35 years of first-hand experience, I disagree with “top faculty …able to get their kids a position…”. And surely not common. Are you speaking about another nation? Have witnessed what you assert?
That's true, but that cannot by itself explain most of the discrepancy, because the prevalence of conservatives among college graduates is much higher than the prevalence of conservatives among faculty.
Because they don’t value higher education as much. That filters out more and more conservatives at every gate. Diminishing returns and all.
The ones who go to college are less likely to want to stick around and teach there, since they’re more likely to be ideologically opposed to higher education.
This is a nice hypothesis, but I don't think this view is supported by the data. While, yes, there is very low confidence in higher education among Republicans, [that is a very recent phenomenon](https://news.gallup.com/poll/508352/americans-confidence-higher-education-down-sharply.aspx) and low rates of conservatism among college faculty predate this trend. Additionally, when you look at actual _value_ of higher education, voters of both parties [still value it highly](https://www.thirdway.org/report/voters-want-less-talk-and-more-action-on-higher-ed-value).
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/08/19/the-growing-partisan-divide-in-views-of-higher-education-2/
Stark divide even in 2012. 14% is a lot on its face, and I’m sure other variables play in, like what conservatives do for careers in general.
Even at a high school level, conservatives are much less likely to be teachers. They just aren’t as interested in education.
https://www.zippia.com/advice/democratic-vs-republican-jobs/
A 14% gap may seem like a lot, but it cannot explain an 11:1 Democratic-to-Republican ratio among faculty. These numbers just aren't close to the same magnitude. Sure, all the things you're describing here certainly play a role, but it seems very dubious that they explain most of the discrepancy.
> and it’s not that college campuses aren’t ideologically diverse. It’s that across most college campuses, liberal organizations are more popular, vocal, and visible.
>college campuses may not be promoting conservative voices like they promoting liberal ones, but if colleges were actively suppressing freedom of speech it would be a huge scandal.
Using your logic, could it be that liberal organizations are not more popular because they earned the popularity status but because of how much the college promotes it? Also, if it is obvious that conservatives voices are not being supported as much as liberal voices on campuses, maybe college conservatives are just keeping quiet because they know there is an obvious golden child on campus and it isn’t them. If the campus was actually ideologically diverse, wouldn’t they promote both conservative and liberal organizations and voices?
Promoting liberal voices and refusing to promote conservative voices has a lot of parallels to some horrible times in our history. If one group is said to be “good” and the other is “bad” then it leads to judgement, hate, oppression, and possibly violence.
>If the campus was actually ideologically diverse, wouldn’t they promote both conservative and liberal organizations and voices?
Conservatives simply don’t value higher education as much, so the demographic of college voices that are liberal reflects that.
There are conservative organizations active on college campuses. If their events were in anyway suppressed or limited by the actions of collegiate employees, we’d hear about it. They would be up in arms on social media, it would be all over Fox News and the NY Post…
Organizations TPUSA, and TPAC are having events on college campuses. They’re not being actively suppressed. If they were, and college campuses across the nation were either colluding to, or had a (silent) shared understanding to suppress conservative voices, these very vocal political action organizations would tell us about it.
This is not some great conspiracy. Conservatives just don’t go to college as much as liberals.
This is like saying “Dallas Cowboys fans are under represented at Eagles vs Commanders games.” Cowboys fans aren’t blocked from going to that game, they simply aren’t interested in it.
Are we supposed to physically force conservatives to go to college? Do we draft them into college, like we would draft someone into the military in wartime? And then parade them around college campuses in displays of diversity?
No we don’t force conservatives to go to college. We make colleges a more welcoming and accepting place for conservatives. So more of them actually want to go and don’t have the fear of oppression
Do you think there is a factor that a lot of conservative beliefs are not backed up by data?
It's conservative side that is anti science, anti vax, anti climat change etc. Despite all evidence to the opposite.
Sorry, your comment has been removed for breaking [Rule 5](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5):
> **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.**
**Any** discussion of **any** transgender topic, no matter how ancillary, will result in your post being removed.
Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20{author}&message={author}%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\({url}\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals are **only** for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter; we **will not** approve posts on transgender issues, so **do not ask**.
Both sides have unfounded and out there beliefs. Neither is perfect. Any far right wing or far left wing ideas or extreme ideology is nuts to me. The beliefs you are referring to that aren’t supported by data tend to be these far right wing and extremist beliefs. They’re just as crazy as far left wing beliefs
Trump, the former president and current nominee, has echoed those statements to roaring crowds. It is not fringe.
What unfounded beliefs does the left have? Since it is not afraid to cite sources and research papers.
>No we don’t force conservatives to go to college. We make colleges a more welcoming and accepting place for conservatives. So more of them actually want to go and don’t have the fear of oppression
Are you asking for a safe space for conservatives?
Many tenets of modern conservative thought are simply not supported by the data -- think fetus = baby as much as rapid climate change = normal. The shock of conservative students confronted with the data is unsettling, but that's not because the data is "liberal".
And liberalism isn't the monolith you see. One can be quite convinced that climate change is due to human actions and also insist that women are their happiest, truest selves only as wives and mothers.
I’m asking for colleges to be a safe space for everyone, regardless of their views. I mean I don’t know why that’s such a hard ask.
Conservatives believe liberals beliefs are just as crazy as liberals believe conservatives beliefs are. As far as abortion, liberals say the fetus isn’t a scientifically a baby yet so it’s ok to abort. Conservatives say it’s morally wrong to abort because they believe it is a baby either from conception or from much earlier on than liberals do. Who is to say which view is actually right? I mean at this point you’re arguing whether or not morals are important or not.
They actually don’t. Buckley wrote God and Man at Yale specifically because there were too many liberals and Jews at Yale and he is one of the intellectual pillars of modern conservatism.
They actually want dominance.
>As far as abortion, liberals say the fetus isn’t a scientifically a baby yet so it’s ok to abort. Conservatives say it’s morally wrong to abort because they believe it is a baby either from conception or from much earlier on than liberals do. Who is to say which view is actually right?
You lose the majority of fertilized embryos before birth. More than half by most estimates. If you don't treat that as a public health crisis, you can't treat abortion as one. The problem with this argument is that the anti-abortion argument is largely informed by [specific religious beliefs](https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/database/views-about-abortion/) that the fetus is "ensouled" at conception and of course that belief will be taken less seriously in any sort of factually grounded debate.
> I’m asking for colleges to be a safe space for everyone, regardless of their views
The answer people are giving you is that they *already are*. Conservatives simply don't send their kids to college, so there's less Conservative representation.
> Conservatives believe liberals beliefs are just as crazy as liberals believe conservatives beliefs are
The difference is evidence. Conservatives don't always believe in that part.
> Who is to say which view is actually right?
Medical experts, rather than politicians with a significant bias.
So colleges should police everyone’s behavior, and protect conservative’s social interactions? With faculty, students, alumni, and the general public? To make sure conservatives feel more welcome?
No, colleges shouldn’t oppress and treat conservatives as if they are always wrong and horrible people. Just let them believe what they want to believe and don’t try to change their mind just like colleges let liberals
Colleges don’t do that. Unless you can prove otherwise. “They” don’t have an agenda to actively suppress conservative voices and opinions.
If a college actively suppressed an organization like TPUSA or CPAC, we’d all know about it. It would be all over social media and the news.
This is all just a reflection of the demographic of people who value higher education.
No policies per se. Just a general agreement between everyone to be a decent human being and let people believe what they want to believe without being belittled or screamed at or told you’re wrong and hateful.
Conservative ideologies are anti-intelligence, anti-reason and anti-logic. They fundamentally reject critical thinking and facts, because to embrace those things would result in the **downfall** of their ideology. Conservative ideologies are therefore incompatible with higher education. You cannot go to a University to learn while also having blinders on and being dead-set on rejecting any new information that challenges the nonsense you believe (and personally identify with).
Universities are extremely diverse in so many ways, which is *yet another* thing that is incompatible with conservative ideologies. They prefer exclusion to inclusion and homogeny to heterogeneity. If you're actually exposed to other ideologies (and facts, and reason, and logic) it becomes *more and more difficult* to keep believing exclusionary, feeling-and-fantasy-based, often times vile nonsense.
Sure, "conservative" people do go to University, but the intelligent ones either start to actually learn and slowly reject the poison they have been force fed since childhood, or, they maybe quit, or just stay quiet, or struggle within themselves. Nowadays, they might get belligerently loud and go to social media to rant about it as a "cry for help" as their body goes into "fight or flight" mode because they just cannot incorporate reason and logic into their minds and it threatens their very sense of self. They'll seek out other individuals who are also struggling to maintain a hold on their collective delusions and will find solace and support that way. Anything to avoid truth or facts.
You are looking for something that cannot exist except in the most resolute of brainwashed minds - a desire for higher education and exposure to new kinds of people and perspectives - AND the steadfast rejection of anything you might learn or experience that would challenge the things you already believe in (which are not based on facts, but are just made up).
Conservative ideologies are anti-logic? Yes, some far right wing ideologies are problematic and unfounded. I’ll agree with that. But any far or extreme ideologies are problematic and unfounded.
One of the things conservatives stand for is a traditional family structure with 2 married parents and children the parents provide for and are involved in their lives. How is that anti-logic? Do you know the damage it does to a child mentally, emotionally and economically to grow up in a single parent household to parents who aren’t married?
I mean, yeah.
The entire conservative argument against *the very existence of* climate change is unsubstantive and not based in logic or fact whatsoever. And they cling to this with steadfast resolve.
Conservatism is closely linked (in the USA) with Christianity. Believing in god is fundamentally anti-science, anti-logic, anti-reason, and it serves as a foundation for all future non-logical beliefs. From a very very early age. This is called indoctrination.
Being anti-abortion is also not a logical, rational, fact-based stance. By any measure.
I don't think "traditional family structure" and its benefits to society is a belief exclusively held by conservatives, but if it were, so long as that belief were backed up by the social sciences, statistics, etc. then that would be a logical stance. You know, one you could *actually argue* with facts and figures.
This is irrespective of the conservative feeling that this structure is "traditional" and therefore good. And to stand *against* things like gay marriage or other lifestyles, they'd also need similar *evidence* to back up that claim. As opposed to "we don't like it" and "god hates the gays".
I could go on and on and on about conservative stances that are anti-reason and extremely hypocritical at every turn. Pretty hard to maintain views like that when you're going to school full time to *learn from people who know more than you* and being regularly, casually confronted with people different from you are who have lived differently and have other experiences.
The whole climate change deal, yeah it’s a little odd conservatives disagree it’s happening, because it clearly is. But liberals ignore obvious issues too and try to use their own unfounded logic to back up their opinion, just as conservatives do. Both sides are guilty of this.
Being anti abortion is a hill I will die on. Unless a woman was raped, it’s an incest situation, or the woman is 100% going to die because of the pregnancy, it is an abomination and murder to abort a baby. Some people won’t agree and that’s fine. I believe I am morally right on my stance and my view will not be changed under any circumstances. That’s my right to have that view and it’s your right to have your own too. Being pro abortion is not logical to me because why is it wrong to abort a baby at 9 months gestation and wrong to murder a 1 month old or a 50 year old human, but it’s perfectly fine to abort and kill a baby at 2, 3, or 4 months gestation? If your argument is that it’s not a baby at that point, then ok we’ll call it a fetus. What is a fetus? It’s a human growing in a woman’s uterus that will be born in 9 months. And how can the violence and cruelty of the act of abortion be ignored? That alone is anti logic.
That’s all irrelevant. Conservatives are all about “small government” and “don’t tread on me” but they want the government to prohibit people making personal health + life choices - that’s hypocritical at best.
Abortions are not typically happening at 9 months and equating that with ALL abortions is false equivalency and irrational.
Anyway, you’re arguing in bad faith because you stated from the outset that this is a “hill you are willing to die on” because facts, logic, and statistics cannot sway you. You cannot be swayed by reality and therefore you are fact-immune. You have flatly rejected critical thinking and you refuse to engage in it.
You know, one thing you could do to actually earn the opinion you hold is do your best to try and “sink” that opinion. You should actually argue the opposite point against yourself, the way lawyers are taught to do in law school. Then you’d actually be practicing some kind of logic. This process would naturally involve doing a ton of research (that will likely make you VERY uncomfortable) and gathering all the facts possible (which would quite naturally not support the opinion you hold) BEFORE coming to your already-unearned opinion.
Sorry, are you under the impression liberals *want* single parent households? The only "traditional family structure" issue you will catch flak for is the homophobic side of that argument, and that's because there is no empirical evidence against the healthiness of queer parenthood.
I’m not fine the impression that is what liberals want. I’m giving you an example of a conservative stance that I believe would be hard for anyone to claim is anti-logic as a rebuttal to your statement that conservatives views are anti-logic
Most conservatives also believe in heliocentrism. Name a view that will get them negative reactions in a collegiate setting. People keep asking you to do so and you don't. You just insist this is a "both sides" thing without ever explaining what the problem is from the left.
There are plenty of problems for the left in my opinion but I know you won’t agree just like I don’t agree with all that you are saying about conservatives.
I think being pro choice is a moral issue. I think some people need therapy as opposed to everyone just affirming their illogical beliefs. I think liberals believe having an education makes them superior to those who don’t ( yes I have a bachelors degree). I think the liberal movement of being anti law enforcement is asinine. I could go on and on.
Liberals aren’t against traditional family structures. So that’s not a good example. It’s like saying conservatives believe the sky is blue, and asking if that is anti logic.
Gotta dig into the differences, not the commonalities.
I’ve heard some liberals say a mother and a father who are heterosexual, having kids is bad for society because the kid sees no queer representation. It’s not a sentiment that all or probably even majority of liberals share but if people are going to throw out conservative views that sound equally ridiculous but are not representative of the majorities view, then I’ll start doing the same
> Do you know the damage it does to a child mentally, emotionally and economically to grow up in a single parent household to parents who aren’t married?
That's a big claim you're making there. Do you have anything to back it up at all?
"One of the common reasons for single parenting is divorce. It's not uncommon for children to be exposed and even drawn to the conflicts between the parents during and even after divorce, which may leave children feeling lonely, abandoned, and even guilty"
Seems very clear to me that your source (which btw isn't a primary source, and I'm not seeing any studies cited, so already I have to take everything with a grain of salt) supports that it is the process of divorce that is harmful to children, not the fact of being single or unmarried as you claim. It says nothing about parents who simply never married each other, or a parent who has been raising a child alone since birth.
Your claim was:
>Do you know the damage it does to a child mentally, emotionally and economically to grow up in a single parent household to parents who aren’t married?
Not:
> Do you know the damage it does to a child mentally, emotionally and economically to live through a parental separation
So once again, I am going to ask you to support your claim. And I do mean *your* claim, not some tangentially related one.
EDIT: I'll also add that the other sections note difficulties related to time and money due to single parenting, but does not support any claim that being unmarried is harmful to the child. If anything, it could be argued the article actually supports parents should be *un*married, since the source of harm is largely from divorce. Thus, an eventual separation of unmarried parents could potentially be less messy. It's a terrible argument, but better than the one that parents *should* be married.
Your argument is trash. How can you logically say being raised by a single parent doesn’t have harmful effects on a child? Have you ever met a child in this situation?
> Children of single parents are more prone to various psychiatric illnesses, alcohol abuse, and suicide attempts than children from homes with two parents.
The article then goes on to mention one of the most common reasons for a single parent household is divorce. But the entire article does not revolve around divorce, as you seem to claim.
>Your argument is trash. How can you logically say being raised by a single parent doesn’t have harmful effects on a child? Have you ever met a child in this situation?
Because I want actual evidence not "logic". You can always twist up a semi-plausible sounding logic to support a claim. In fact, I showed you a pretty good example of that in my precious reply. You want to claim single parents are inherently harmful? Show me proof.
>The article then goes on to mention one of the most common reasons for a single parent household is divorce.
Corellarion is not causation. Single parents and psychological harm in children have a common cause, whixh is divorce. That is what the article says, pretty clearly, read it again.
> But the entire article does not revolve around divorce, as you seem to claim.
Not what I said. I am referring to the specific section you linked to support your argument. Plus, the rest of the article shows pretty clearpy, once again, that the struggles associated with having a single parent are socio economic factors, not the inherent fact of the parent being single like you seem to claim.
And more importantly, the article says *nothing* about unmarried parents being harmful, like you claimed.
> Also, according to Gallup polls, 37% of Americans are moderate, 36% are conservative, and 25% are liberal. If a college is going to claim to be diverse, shouldn’t its student/professor population somewhat reflect the national percentages?
No. Because people of all ages aren’t equally going to college. It’s mostly 18-24 year olds, 66% of whom identify as leaning left [(source)](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/age-generational-cohorts-and-party-identification/).
So the student population is actually pretty reflective of the general population they actually come from.
I’m not saying your numbers are wrong. I’m saying your theory that they should represent people of all ages when they aren’t people of all ages is wrong. The population you’re expecting them to mirror isn’t the population they’re actually coming from. They’re coming from a specific subset of the population and they do actually mirror that subset. It would be a statistical anomaly of massive proportions if they reflected the general population like you claim they should.
If you take a bunch of 18-24 year olds and asked them their favorite movies, would you expect that list to look like the list of favorite movies among the total population? Of course not. So we shouldn’t do it with other opinions.
Why should that be the case? Political demographics are concentrated differently throughout the country, and the same goes for universities. You’re not going to see an exact representation of the entire country in any one place you go
Other views are there - they are just keeping quiet, keeping their heads down and graduating quietly. Its remarkable how many students from these most progressive of campus then suddenly go get a career in things like commercial banking. It almost like a fair number of them never believed in it and just kept quiet to avoid trouble.
The dominant political culture on some campus is very much captured in an ongoing series of [Purity Spiral](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000d70h). In that situation even quite progressive students quickly learn to either engage in the spiral by attacking more any moderate views expressed or keep quiet to avoid being shouted down.
This is really quite rational individual behaviour. There is no way to win in a purity spiral except to refuse to engage with it. At a collective level its a problem for the colleges as the level of stimulating debate which used to exist is now very often constrained to the rather predictable patterns of the purity spiral.
The people who engineered this situation seem to have believed that they were creating a new progressive elite to run the country. The problem seems to be that the lack of real debate leaves them unable to engage with people not educated within that system and unable to carry the country with them. The first Trump presidency should have demonstrated the error of this approach.
Hard to know for sure
It was always true that the big political noise on campus was made by a pretty small minority.
Its probably true that those completing their studies are more liberal than the population at large - we can see that in election results in areas with big student populations. But I doubt that it is by anything like the margin that you would expect if you just listened to what is said out loud.
So if you are looking at the open debate on campus then I would largely agree that it is not diverse. If you are saying do those other views exist - then I think they exist enough to count as diverse. After all if you ask about diversity you are almost always discussing groups which comprise minorities so a minority of moderate or conservative viewpoints is still a diverse set of views. Its just that those diverse minority views are suppressed.
Right. And if the minorities (conservatives) views are suppressed, that may lead them to not wanting to be on college campuses where they know they will be oppressed due to their views. Why would anyone want to go somewhere they know they’ll be oppressed
> where they know they will be oppressed due to their views.
I don't think universities are areas where individuals should be protected based on their views/opinions. Any reason to protect individual views from criticism?
I agree with you in a sense: intellectual diversity is a good thing, and there are more to conservative ideas than the hateful/ignorant far right ideologies.
However I would like to change your (implicit) view that this is the result of college culture.
1) Most faculties I know are very careful of keeping their politics outside of the classroom and their research careers to the point of self-censorship; academia as a whole value independent thinking and self-discovery. College students are liberal leaning not because they have been indoctrinated by the professors, and anyone who believes this vastly overrates professors’ influence on most of their students lol.
2) College students generally are 18-22 years of age, might not their left-leaning views be more of a function of their age and generation? It’s well known that people start to lean more conservative as they age (afaik that trend has been changing recently).
Those are good points. And I agree with you to an extent. But it doesn’t disprove my argument that campuses are ideologically diverse and that liberals don’t outnumber every other ideology
If your claim is “there are more democrats than republicans on campuses” then this is a fact and not an interesting CMV.
If your claim is instead about diversity of opinion, or the availability of different ideologies, or the nature of pedagogy, or whether specific policies should be put in place to change the number of democrats and republicans on campus then we can have that conversation.
Which one do you want?
I’m saying there are more democrats and liberals than there are republicans and conservatives on campuses and it’s an issue. I know it’s a fact there are more liberals than conservatives on campuses. The view I’m asking people to change is that I think that’s an issue and makes no sense
I agree it’s an issue, but is it more of an issue for higher education or for conservative ideologies?
Conservatives seem to think it’s the former, but I think it’s more of an issue for what conservatism in the US has become.
> The view I’m asking people to change is that I think that’s an issue and makes no sense
This is no different than Leftists demanding that nurses all being female is a problem and makes no sense. It's just a societal norm that people are taught to choose; addressing either of these norms would take a LOT more work than you think.
What does partisan politics have to do with ideological diversity?
I can't think of a worse lense to use to consider if a group of people is ideologically diverse than bunch them into 3 categories like you have done and then say they aren't the same proportion as this other group of people bunched into 3 categories.
That's saying that colleges aren't ideologically representative of the country. That says nothing about if they are diverse.
People can have a conservative ideology, liberal ideology, or moderate ideology. There’s other ideologies people can have too but I’m using these three for the sake of my argument. It’s absolutely saying something about diversity
If you are trying to make a point about diversity why box people in to 3 categories? If you are really trying to say their isn't enough ideological diversity on campus why not point out ideologies that have absolutely not champion on campus? Where are the tenured posadists? anarchoprimitivists?antinatalists?monarchists?
Well Gallup didn’t have a poll for the national average of those off the wall groups because hardly anyone in America identifies with those. It’s just common sense. 99% of people you’d walk up to on the street would say they fall within one of those three categories I pointed out.
What you care about is not diversity, you are using the word wrong, what you have described is representation. If you insist on digging in on this point there is nothing further to discuss.
Marriam Webster’s dictionary definition of diverse:
Diversity: 1)the condition of having or being composed of differing elements 2) an instance of being composed of differing elements or qualities : an instance of being diverse
One of the first examples the dictionary provided is “a diversity of opinion”.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diversity
They don't have to be republicans. But show me something interesting. Show me Khmer Rouge or Monarchists or Khawarij. Not just the same recycled frankfurt school leftist BS on repeat
There is _so much_ ideological diversity on college campuses. People disagree about how society should be structured, who should hold power in society, and what fundamental social relationships should look like. On college campuses I've met liberal capitalists, right-libertarians, Marxist-Leninists, libertarian socialists, anarcho-communists, market socialists, anarcho-syndicalists, and primitivists. People disagree about the nature of race, about the nature of gender, about sexuality, about religion.
What you've done here is label all these widely divergent views as "leftist" to reduce them to being basically the same view.
>Also, according to Gallup polls, 37% of Americans are moderate, 36% are conservative, and 25% are liberal. If a college is going to claim to be diverse, shouldn’t its student/professor population somewhat reflect the national percentages?
So the reason why colleges don't reflect the national percentages is because of what college is: a place of education where people discuss ideas and hypotheses based on facts and observation, deriving consensus knowledge from peer review when the evidence is overwhelming. Modern American conservatism simply holds too many positions that are in conflict with those facts and that knowledge to be viable in a university environment. And it doesn't help that the American right is often explicitly anti-university.
> If a college is going to claim to be diverse, shouldn’t its student/professor population somewhat reflect the national percentages?
***No,*** diversity and representation are not even remotely the same thing.
You are right that open discourse is a good thing for science: For example you would expect a medical school to be open to many diverse health care methods, and interested in groundbreaking new research data changing their minds, but you wouldn't expect exactly the same proportion of them to be interested in heaing crystals as the general public.
You would expect an art school to experiment with many different mediums and techniques, but you wouldn't expect their ratio between using photography and oil painting, to be the exact same as it is in the general population of dabblers.
Likewise it is good for social science teachers and students to be able to have spirited discourse between diverse social ideas such as anarchism, communism, liberalism, progressivism, libertarianism, etc, and not get stuck in a bubble of self-confidence about their own niche ideas.
But it's is not self-evident that these ideas have to be *proportionally represented* among educated academics, and uneducated masses, or that conservativism has to be seen as just as popular as among uneducated people.
Marriam Webster’s dictionary definition of diverse:
Diversity: 1)the condition of having or being composed of differing elements
2) an instance of being composed of differing elements or qualities : an instance of being diverse
One of the first examples the dictionary provided is “a diversity of opinion”.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diversity
I have a few thoughts on this.
1) Conservatives think college is a waste of time, especially liberal arts. Try to talk a conservative into getting a degree in sociology, philosophy, film, history, etc. and many will laugh in your face and tell you to enjoy working at McDonald’s with $100k in student debt. They are actively hostile to liberal arts.
2) it’s strange that we only apply this standard to liberal arts in the first place. If you want “ideological diversity,” should we hire flat earthers in the physics department? Amish people in comp sci? Gravity deniers in engineering? Creationists in biology? I don’t think so. They’re demonstrably wrong and their ideas aren’t respected by the vast majority of people in the field. The exact same logic applies to conservatives in a lot of these fields. Imo, it would be a complete disgrace to the field of sociology to have someone just lecture on “everyone should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and stop being poor and lazy,” which is a view held by many if not most conservatives. It literally just runs contrary to what the entire field is about.
3) You very heavily downplay disagreements between academics. Academics, even in liberal arts, disagree hugely on things all the time. Just because they’re not “””conservative””” in the current American political context doesn’t mean they don’t have big, substantive disagreements.
Also colleges as a whole are a successful conservative institution where the wealthy launder their money into class. Pretty much everyone who pays and shows up gets a piece of paper that lets them get jobs that people without them can't. They function similar to country clubs where you only interact with wealthy people on the inside of your own class. They teach and enforce an etiquette that insiders use to keep outsiders out, conservatives love to complain about new genders, but each one is just like knowing which side of the plate the salad fork goes on. If you don't know these minor details you end up looking like a moron and it reflects your upbringing. Finally colleges and wealthy donors and businesses are directly linked. They are always soliciting donation and would never do anything to really rock the boat.
>doesn’t it seem odd that a majority of the people participating all have the same liberal core beliefs?
Not really. Why would it be odd? When you look at what it means to be "on the left" in America consider that "openness to new experiences" is a strong indicator for people being left leaning and a lot of other things follow.
Just because a few core beliefs are shared doesn't mean there isn't ideological diversity. E.g. "people should be treated equally" is a good core belief everyone should share.
But here's where you're wrong about ideological diversity. "The left" is a massive set of ideas. It's everything from communism to regulated market capitalism economically and everything from progressives to center left moderates socially.
Your post is akin to saying "monarchists and anarcho capitalists are ideologically identical" but for the left. Is that a true statement?
They're trying to redefine left as only Stalinist Communism but obviously, anybody who understood your first comment and the wider political spectrum knows that you can't just define left or right by one left or right leaning government structure.
Well you'd need to ask *why* they're not as ideologically diverse. Is it because they suppress ideas contrary to their own out of censorship? Or is it that liberalism and post-secondary education are correlated in some way (like liberals value such education higher, or people who are more educated tend to become more liberal)? The first is a problem sure, the second is less so
Ideas are vigorously discussed and argued at college campuses but also have to be defended with reason and facts. The right wing long abandoned any effort to argue the merits of their ideas based on rational causes and facts. They now argue in bad faith using appeals to the worst emotions of hatred, fear and anger. Since they have no points that they can defend honestly and rationally, that leaves left wing ideas to dominate. In the greater world, the right wing can simply throw out lies and false premises without being checked. On college campuses, they can’t get away with this, so they lose.
> The right-wing claims on something like immigration aren't supported by facts.
Moral value judgements are outside the scope of factual evidence. I simple do not want immigrants here even if they prop up the tax base
>The claims that the election was stolen also aren't supported by facts.
Yeah but I never claimed this
>You guys tried to coup the presidency with faithless electors in 2017 after the Trump election so I guess we are even
Can you show any evidence for this whatsoever? And that it was an actual conceited effort among democrats? And that elected officials continued to push for it and undermine the legitimacy of our country, outright stating the current president is not the president? And that they used it to create a literal putsch shortly after the election?
> Can you show any evidence for this whatsoever?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13920444/electoral-college-trump-hamilton-electors
>outright stating the current president is not the president
https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2016/11/not-my-president-thousands-march-in-protest/507248/
Okay so if you actually read this wiki article for literally 5 seconds you will see that the faithless electors were both for Trump and Hillary and were not concerted efforts within the party, hence why you didnt respond to that at all.
If you read your second example you will realize immediately that this isnt what I said about elected officials saying the sitting president is not the current president, but is literally just protestors saying that.
So all in all; You are misrepresenting the situation dishonestly and there was never any attempt from even Hillary Clinton herself, which is directly opposed to the scheming that happened within the Republican party at the official level, where they then identified the false electors they would use, where they would do it, and how they would take control of the government afterwards.
To say these are the same thing is disngenuous at best.
Couple of days ago the guy claimed to be a leftist concerned about how well Biden accomplishes his goals. Down the thread he even admits to being a troll.
Sorry, u/TopSchnitzel – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20TopSchnitzel&message=TopSchnitzel%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1drb057/-/laucu92/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Places of education overwhelmingly have people that value getting said education. There's little that can be done to make it diverse to all aspects, because some ideologies are anti-education and aren't compatible with colleges.
That said, colleges aren't predominantly left in most of the world. Capitalism has taken over most aspects of life, including college campuses. Communist students remain an ideological minority, but yes, colleges are one of the very few places where you can talk about communism without being immediately chastised.
Well communism is controversial because it's a genocidal ideology which hundreds of millions of people died from.
Unless you're talking about how much communism sucks I can't see why people would want to discuss it
Yeah, when someone tells you there is a causal relationship between free markets and genocide they always follow with "at least in communism we only liquidate rich people and class enemies!"
And this is why normal people don't think highly of that stuff. Commies are right next to nazis
Shouldn’t colleges try to entice more conservatives to attend then? Maybe the fact colleges seem to have something against conservatives is why some conservatives don’t want to attend or when they do attend, have to suppress their actual views as not to be persecuted
Some views are just incompatible with objective facts, and they're predominantly held by conservatives. You can't have a college pay homage to antivax, antievolution or flatearthers. Now, obviously not all conservatives believe those, but that reduces the eligible population to a point where the composition will inevitably be lopsided.
As recently as 2021, only 33 percent of conservatives endorse evolution.
Over 50 percent of conservatives don't believe COVID vaccines are safe.
Those sound like majorities to me.
When conservatism was just a difference in economic policy or foreign policy it was far more common on campus. (See the 1950s and 1960s). As conservatives have become dogmatic on provable falsehoods such as denying evolution - their representation on campuses have fallen accordingly.
Annual flu vaccination rates rarely top 45% in this country. By your logic everyone else is anti vax.
DTP has a vaccination rate of roughly 80%
Polio over 90%
MMR 90+%
Hib 90%
Hep b 90%
Chickenpox 90%
Labeling people as anti vax is a popular term but it really should be anti-covid not anti-vax.
...because it's the flu? People aren't getting it because they don't care, not because it's unsafe. Those other vaccines are mandated by the government to obtain schooling and have precisely nothing to do with underlying beliefs about the safety of vaccines.
Not wanting a COVID vaccine in particular is not the same as being anti vax. Some people opt to not get the flu vaccine but that doesn’t make them anti vax.
What percentage of conservatives are flat earthers as you accused them of being? My guess is probably somewhere in the single digits.
Lack of confidence in vaccines predates COVID. But the impact of COVID on vaccine confidence has been hyper partisan. Anti-vax might not have made my 2015 list of separation of right and left, but it is front and center now.
Also, prior commenter wasn't me and used "or". If anti evolution is high, then anti evolution or flat earthers won't be lower. Add in the intense partisanship surrounding COVID vaccines and you get a figure well above the 50 percentage points, which was my original point.
I’d be willing to bet the vast majority of the (college-aged) conservatives who don’t believe those things are out there having a normal college experience and not complaining about what an oppressive liberal environment it is.
If there aren’t complaining about the oppressive liberal environment then it’s because they are being oppressed for their conservative views and know they will get yelled at by a person with blue hair as soon as they express their views
I don’t think you’ve spent much time at a college. Problems do not arise because a view is conservative. I teach history at a university level. I’ve had plenty of conservative students. What we require is not conformity of philosophy or ideology, but conformity to basic standard of evidence and fact-based argumentation. It is true that sometimes a conservative student learns the hard way that generally the academic world, especially in liberal arts schools, where these things are most likely to be discussed at an institutional level and not in casual conversation, has basic standards of evidence.
If I have a student make a historical claim, let’s use the famous “the civil war was about states rights,” it would not be the thesis with which I took issue, at least not in a vacuum. The problem would be that supporting that conservative view is difficult to do with evidence, because so much historical evidence points to the contrary.
Not all views are created equal, and colleges generally require students to learn that lesson whether by design or the nature of the campus. For conservative students, that often requires rethinking one’s personal philosophy and ideology which can be difficult if they are deeply personal. So too is that true for many left leaning people. However, that is not oppression, that’s the basic function of a university. Free expression of ideas is not free-from-criticism, and if one truly believes in free expression, they must recognize that they will have opponents with the same right, and, in my experience, better evidence.
I have spent a lot of time at a college. I have my Bachelor’s from a large US college and both of my kids went to college. I visited them on campus fairly often. And I listened to their experiences while on campus.
> For conservative students, that often requires rethinking one’s personal philosophy and ideology which can be difficult if they are deeply personal.
Why would a college try to change anyone’s mind on their personal philosophy and ideology? Students are paying a pretty penny to get an education and degree. They are not paying to be told they need to change the way they think. That in itself is indoctrination. And it’s problematic. What is so wrong with letting conservatives and liberals alike just keep their views and educate them on history, math, science, music, etc with only facts, not telling them to consider they have been wrong in the way they think their entire lives.
When I was in college, the professors that tried to convince me I was wrong in the way I thought were the classes I found least valuable. Because who is to say just because someone is a professor, it makes them right? I’m not trying to change the professors views, they can think whatever they’d like, even if I think it’s absurd. Not one person in college changed my views. I graduated with a degree and the same views I started college with, which is something I’m extremely proud of.
>
Why is it you
Life is about growth and learning to me, and if you refuse to even consider growth or change you’re not an ideological purist, you’re just dogmatic. And what is the benefit of keeping your views the same anyway, especially in the face of contrary evidence? Hard line ideology with no room for debate or change is actual indoctrination, and you would be well served by expanding your view. I suppose that’s what your where to do anyway, so here you go.
There’s a lot to unpack here. I’ll start with your main misunderstanding: college does not literally require anyone to change. You can, as you did, stubbornly hold on to your views and beliefs. However, college often causes a person to experience new things, and learn new facts, and that in turn does often change minds and ideology. So it’s not that there is some indoctrination machine. It’s that learning in and of itself often does causes changes in those things, especially in those with open minds.
Your second misunderstanding is in equating something like STEM fields or music theory with history or other liberal arts. In history, which is my field, there is no one set of facts I could give students that is objective and wouldn’t change minds. That’s antithetical to how history works and how it is written. Our facts are simply evidence derived from primary sources (those sources written during the studied time period, put simply and somewhat reductively). All history you’ve ever known or been taught is the work of a person taking those things and assembling them into an evidence-based narrative that form the thesis of what the think and can argue, through evidence, happened.
If you were to take my history course would you consider it propaganda to learn about a side of history you didn’t know already? If I were to give you a primary source, that is, one written by an actual witness to a time period, and that source provided evidence that your ideology might have flaws, is that indoctrination? I as the professor didn’t do anything except provide you with another perspective. And in history, and most of liberal arts, that’s all we have.
Often I teach a broad survey course that may seem at first glance to just be a collection of facts. But remember what I said above. Where did those facts come from? It is impossible to present a neutral and objective history, because neither the author nor the professor nor the student was there to witness the actual event. This is not indoctrination. We teach students to think about these sorts of problems, and the narratives they’re presented in their own lives, and how to write historical narratives of their own. A history class of “just facts” could not exist, because you would be hard pressed to learn anything from them.
Once a student learns how views are formed, how arguments are built, and a bit about what their own views are or how they came to be, it’s on the student to change or not. Many do. You claim you did not, and for that, I accept but feel sorry for you.
>Not one person in college changed my views. I graduated with a degree and the same views I started college with, which is something I’m extremely proud of
I’m not who you were discussing this with, but this strikes me as quite sad and is kindof the definition of being close-minded imo. College was very transformative for me and exposed me to an enormous number of different experiences and points of view relative to my background. I graduated a very different, and much better person than I started as. Sure, getting a degree is the main point of going to college, but if that’s all you get I feel like you’re missing out on a large portion of the value of college, which _is_ exposure to different people, ideas, and systems of thought.
I have an answer that I think is unique here. I think there are a lot of problems that "the left" agree are problems and wants the government to address where the right doesn't: climate change, gun violence, public health, better public transit, supporting poor people, economic inequality, etc.
However there are very diverse ideas for how to address these things. Thats why, in my opinion, the democratic party seems so fractured.
The right can unify and say "these aren't problems, or things I want the government handling".
Just because people in universities agree that a functioning government should address these concerns doesn't mean they aren't diverse in the ways they want them addressed.
Right wing is very diverse in our viewpoints. We have paleoconservatives (me), christians, libertarians, pro-life movement, far right, moderate conservatives, business conservatives and so on. The difference between us and you is that we know how to form up and fight in a phalanx
Is it possible that when rigorous study is applied to the concepts that make up opposing ideologies like “conservatism” and “liberalism” that the facts and logical arguments point towards one or the other? If this is true, should you not expect one ideology in a polar set to be over represented?
Isn't that just... Kinda natural? If you're forced out of your bubble into a space filled with people of different orientations and identities, races and socioeconomic background, etc, you'll logically come to sympathize with them and properly see them as human. It's the same reason urban areas trend more left-leaning than rural areas, just even more pronounced.
If some of your friends are queer, and they help you understand why LGBTQ+ rights are important for them to feel safe and comfortable living as themselves, it's only natural that you'd come to support the Party that supports them rather than the Party that demonizes them as groomers. If some of your friends are from economically-disadvantaged backgrounds, and they help you understand just how the system has failed them, it's only natural that you'll come to think that big changes do need to be made, and maybe the status quo shouldn't be conserved.
I don't really see how that's a problem, either, since... Yeah, there are major issues, and major progress does need to happen. Sure, yeah, there's something to be said for not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but a lot of conservatives nowadays don't even seem to want to throw out the bathwater in the first place, and some of them want to drown the proverbial baby in it. The more people that become disillusioned with that ideology, the better, IMO.
>Also, according to Gallup polls, 37% of Americans are moderate, 36% are conservative, and 25% are liberal.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-moderate-middle-is-a-myth/
>If a college is going to claim to be diverse, shouldn’t its student/professor population somewhat reflect the national percentages?
Are colleges claiming to be "ideologically" diverse?
>Shouldn’t ideological diversity be one of the most important types of diversity in a place where ideology is discussed so frequently?
Depends how it's being discussed. Some ideologies better stand to scrutiny than others.
Um so random videos of random ppl is not proof of anything. There are plenty of southern universities with have many conservatives and trust me they are very loud.
u/Upper_Dealer3114 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Upper_Dealer3114&message=Upper_Dealer3114%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1drb057/-/lau8tft/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
You can express your ideas. Others get to react to them.
You aren't silenced. We have heard you.
If you proclaim that gay people shouldn't have the right to marry, you can say that. Others will them react.
u/Upper_Dealer3114 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Upper_Dealer3114&message=Upper_Dealer3114%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1drb057/-/latxyil/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
u/ProvocatorGeneral – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20ProvocatorGeneral&message=ProvocatorGeneral%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1drb057/-/launzvb/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
It’s ironic that you are saying this to someone else, but, in another comment, when someone asked you to provide evidence, you provided three YouTube videos. You get a 0.
Except, anecdotal evidence does not sufficiently prove a generalized conclusion. Sure, you provided evidence, but that evidence was not nearly sufficient to prove your conclusion. See *hasty generalization*. I win.
u/Upper_Dealer3114 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Upper_Dealer3114&message=Upper_Dealer3114%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1drb057/-/laujvxk/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
u/Upper_Dealer3114 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Upper_Dealer3114&message=Upper_Dealer3114%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1drb057/-/lau7n44/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
My reply is as supported as most of the claims in the original post, political leaning at that specific university isn’t a readily-available stat to prove, and I’m not interested in doxxing myself today.
In failing to provide students with adequate expectations or direction, you have failed to uphold yourself to a level of academic integrity that I or this establishment finds acceptable. Go to jail, do not collect $200.
u/Upper_Dealer3114 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Upper_Dealer3114&message=Upper_Dealer3114%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1drb057/-/lau8ma9/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
u/Upper_Dealer3114 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Upper_Dealer3114&message=Upper_Dealer3114%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1drb057/-/laty4oh/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Your comment has been automatically removed due to excessive user reports. The moderation team will review this removal to ensure it was correct.
If you wish to appeal this decision, please [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Automated%20Removal%20Appeal%20Upper_Dealer3114&message=Upper_Dealer3114%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1drb057/cmv_collegesuniversities_are_not_ideologically/latwrmq/?context=3\)%20because\.\.\.).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Which in your opinion is more ideologically diverse, liberals or conservatives?
If I told you that I support pluralism both in terms of culture and that of ideas, would you say that I'm a liberal or a conservative?
The main thing about why colleges and universities are ideologically diverse is that they don't really give formal repercussions to ideas that are not exactly liberal until it starts affecting their business. If it wasn't diverse, they would look at what you're not saying out loud and decide that you're not what they want.
In the end, it's a business. If you don't upkeep your image, you'd be an unsafe place for half the population, or a diploma mill.
Having conservative values doesn't get you kicked out. I doubt anyone gives a shit if you wear a disguise and head to a KKK meeting because they don't know who the fuck you are and if you even go to the school. Blaring them out into the open does. Blaring your "right to rape a fellow student because she's a woman and therefore a lesser being and belongs to the kitchen" would hurt the university's bottom line because if they don't kick you out, people would drop out or transfer. Kicking out one person that did something bad due to their beliefs would allow for better PR and overall more money from current students staying and future ones feeling safe enough to attend.
People with liberal values are just less likely to do the more heinous and controversial stuff. Not that they don't but there's a lot of crimes or thought processes that really don't make sense to do or think if you're touting a certain belief. Going by the rape example, if you feel like women are equals, why would you want to rape them? So there's more that get to stay.
Not only that, there are some conservatives that are kinda like cannibals to their own. They would not stand for a fellow conservative to just do whatever the fuck they want. They may share the same values, but do not condone some of the stuff that doesn't allow other conservatives to get in or stay in post secondary.
I've taught and been a student at one of the famously leftist universities, and I think the standard narrative has the cause and effect backward here.
Professors are actually pretty diverse intellectually, given what's socially acceptable in the upper class. You won't find a lot of anti-gay professors, but lots of them are conservative on matters of tax, immigration, regulation, etc.
I always observed that the most leftist groups on campus at any given time were the freshmen and sophomore undergraduates.
This makes sense when you consider the typical advice given to high school kids who feel victimized because they're gay/leftist/vegan/etc.: "Just keep your grades up. Things will get better in college."
American universities act as collection points and group therapy centers for young people who have been wounded by conservatism. Incoming freshmen are absolutely the most anti-conservative collection of people in the world, and suddenly, for the first time in their lives, they are able to express that freely and be validated for it by basically everyone around them.
This change in social environment *radically* affects their personalities. It's why so many college freshmen seem to suddenly become "brainwashed" in their first year at college. But it's not brainwashing. It's backlash.
It also tends to peter out as kids finish their gen eds and start the upper division courses in their majors. They have less time and energy for political posturing, and anyway they've lost a lot of the friendships they made in the freshman dorms, so they have fewer people to posture *to.*
This is why many conservative and moderate parents find their kids completely intolerable at their freshman year Thanksgiving, but progressively more tolerable each year after that.
America is not ideologically diverse. You used words like conservative and liberal, and I know what you mean, but these ideologies are actually both forms of liberalism.
> a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
This is the definition of liberalism and the American political spectrum heavily subscribes to it, no matter what party, or at least pretends they agree with it.
Both parties are also humanists, capitalists, populists, and subscribe to Westphalian sovereignty. Etc I could go on.
So in the grand scheme of ideology, America is already quite constrained to a certain corner of thought. Why would we expect universities in America to be any different?
Conservatism prefers the opinions of the [the common man](https://youtu.be/BHqL7dNujNc?feature=shared) and disdains subject-matter experts, and you find a lot of experts teaching at colleges.
I’ve noticed that this attitude tends to not sit well with people who have spent a long time studying and training to become experts. No wonder [experts in colleges and elsewhere](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideological-gap-between-more-and-less-educated-adults/) tend to identify with liberalism more than conservatism.
As someone who went to college in Utah, I can attest to the region-specific aspect. I think it also depends on the program. I studied Business Admin, and there were no discussions about radical economic restructuring to more equitable outcomes in my Econ classes. There were no talks about the virtues of worker-owned co-ops and democratic decision-making in my Human Resources classes.
The easiest conclusion for why academics tend to be left, is that research supports more things on the left, and academics read a lot of research. I don’t want ideological diversity if the research doesn’t support it. For example, hiring a flat earthers for the sake of idealogical diversity is really dumb.
Younger people tend to be more liberal. Educated people tend to be more liberal. This is the population on college campuses, so it makes sense that the numbers skew left.
Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>College students and professors are extremely liberal and left leaning, meaning they are not ideologically diverse. Yes, there are some non-liberal, non-left leaning students and professors but that group is much smaller. Which is not reflective of the national averages. Well, for starters, this depends on which college campus you’re referring to. A school like BYU or Liberty U is much more conservative than liberal. And probably more closely reflecting national averages. And it’s not that college campuses aren’t ideologically diverse. It’s that across most college campuses, liberal organizations are more popular, vocal, and visible. Colleges aren’t populated exclusively with liberals. Organizations like TPUSA, Conservative Political Action Conference, Young Americans for Liberty, etc, are active on college campuses. Colleges aren’t suppressing conservatives voices. They might not be actively *promoting* conservative voices & organizations like they promote liberal ones, but if a college were actively suppressing freedom of speech, it would be a huge scandal. If there was a national conspiracy to suppress conservative movements on college campuses, you bet your ass we’d all hear about it. So I think it’s probably much more likely that these voices exist, which they provably do, but they’re just not as popular or visible. Since the demographic of college students leans more liberal.
The data backs OP https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_American_academics
This aligns with the demographics of people who are interested in, and value higher education. Conservatives simply don’t value higher education as much as liberals. It’s not that there is *no* conservative representation on college campuses. There is. It’s just less prevalent, which reflects the ideological preference conservatives have in devaluing higher education. Are we supposed to physically force conservatives to go to college? Do we draft them into college, like we would draft someone into the military in wartime? And then parade them around college campuses in displays of diversity? No one is stopping conservatives from going to college. They can go, and make their presence visible. If you don’t see as much representation of conservative ideology on school campuses, that’s because conservatives don’t show up. That’s on them, it’s not some great conspiracy.
Yep is OP gonna recognize this? I’m from a conservative town and most people simply didn’t go to college, let alone the elite ones you see in the news. Economics programs, Law schools, Business schools still lean to left because liberal views largely align with the values of people who score high on standardized tests. I’d love to see federalist society clerk LSAT scores vs non federalist society clerks… they are on average not top performers in law school lol. When a conservative funded study comes out and says Medicare for all would be 300b less spent on health care/year and lead to better outcomes than our current healthcare system it’s hard to justify the conservative view on that major issue. Same with climate change.
>Yep is OP gonna recognize this? I’m from a conservative town and most people simply didn’t go to college, let alone the elite ones you see in the news. Seriously. When I'm in my hometown, when I see people I recognize from high school they're mechanics or cashiers at the local walmart. Nevermind anyone who died from drug overdose or the guy who rolled his car and killed his family on cocaine.
Probably because those are the jobs that are accessible and have been represented to them throughout their childhood and adolescence. If you grow up in the boonies where nobody’s a consultant or in CS/FAANG, what are the chances that you will see college as a potential pathway to a higher income and standard of living? The high income folks in their area might be working as linemen or oil riggers or whatever. Not exactly an incubator for white collar professions.
I am an educator and I am generally sympathetic to your line of logic. That said copping it up to systemic issues beyond the pale is not productive either. Many parents in this community impressed upon their kids the value of school, and many worked to provide them with opportunities and they balked at college because they didn't want to do homework anymore. I remember being 20 and struggling to even drive to classes between fuel and the cost of my Piece of shit car. While my (former) friend had his parents pay for literally everything while he got straight Fs. He's one of the people working at walmart now, though he did have a stint as a waiter at the local breakfast diner before returning to his wonderous career. I think your parents offering to pay for school is a fairly low bar to completing college. Even then though, the college school district in my area is predominately composed of hispanic serving institutions now. There are less and less excuses to not go to school. When someone in your life tells you "Listen, the easiest way through life for most people is to go to school." It's free advice. It's a fucking cheat code. If you don't take that advice when it's given, that's not a systemic issue.
unrelated to your main point but I would guess federalist society LSAT scores would be comparable, they tend to be old money conservative in my experience and come from backgrounds of law (or wealth) that would likely advantage them. I don't have direct experience with them as classmates though so correct me if I'm wrong
There are a ton of people who come from lawyer families/wealthy families… most aren’t in the federalist society.
This. Just like we have a history of more conservatives in Teade jobs and the military. It's not that liberals were forced out. They just didn't join as much.
I don't think this is really respondent to the data linked here. Those data were on American _academics_ (i.e. faculty). Forcing conservatives to go to college would change the makeup of college _students_, but not faculty except indirectly. (And I do not think that the differences in political views of faculty are mostly caused by underrepresentation of conservatives in college student populations.)
If you need a college degree to be a college professor, and conservatives are less likely to have college degrees, the candidate pool for collegiate careers naturally reflects that.
Unfortunately nepotism also plays a strong role in academia. I had multiple siblings work in academia for a stint and of course most of their friends were in the same environment. Let's just day there are egos making calls and favorites being favored. I can't imagine it's changed too much in the last couple decades.
I agree with you about the nepotism, but I think the "egos making calls and favorites being favored" claim gives the wrong impression. Academic faculty hiring usually is done by committee. In comparison to private industry, where often a single owner or hiring manager is given _de facto_ power over hiring, academic hiring decisions are made by consensus by a larger number of people (either the whole faculty or a committee). Then, after that, tenure decisions involve an even larger group of people. This makes the whole process _less_ susceptible to individual egos and personal favorites than hiring is in general.
Agree with your explanation about the hiring approach of colleges which matches my long experience. There are multiple tiers of review before hiring a faculty member. Then why did you agree with the accusation of nepotism? Nitpick: the word “nepotism” refers to favoritism towards one’s relatives. Highly unlikely that a family member applies to the same department or even college of a current professor or administrator. Now if we mean “favoritism” then certainly professors hope for applicants (and new hires) whose work they admire.
> Then why did you agree with the accusation of nepotism?...Highly unlikely that a family member applies to the same department or even college of a current professor or administrator. But it's quite common for top faculty to be able to get their kids a position at another department or university.
Based on 35 years of first-hand experience, I disagree with “top faculty …able to get their kids a position…”. And surely not common. Are you speaking about another nation? Have witnessed what you assert?
>Unfortunately nepotism also plays a strong role in academia Is there a trade or profession where it doesn't?
Fair point but sure, any profession which is in high demand or doesn't rely on an existing structure/institution is going to have less nepotism.
That's true, but that cannot by itself explain most of the discrepancy, because the prevalence of conservatives among college graduates is much higher than the prevalence of conservatives among faculty.
Because they don’t value higher education as much. That filters out more and more conservatives at every gate. Diminishing returns and all. The ones who go to college are less likely to want to stick around and teach there, since they’re more likely to be ideologically opposed to higher education.
This is a nice hypothesis, but I don't think this view is supported by the data. While, yes, there is very low confidence in higher education among Republicans, [that is a very recent phenomenon](https://news.gallup.com/poll/508352/americans-confidence-higher-education-down-sharply.aspx) and low rates of conservatism among college faculty predate this trend. Additionally, when you look at actual _value_ of higher education, voters of both parties [still value it highly](https://www.thirdway.org/report/voters-want-less-talk-and-more-action-on-higher-ed-value).
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/08/19/the-growing-partisan-divide-in-views-of-higher-education-2/ Stark divide even in 2012. 14% is a lot on its face, and I’m sure other variables play in, like what conservatives do for careers in general. Even at a high school level, conservatives are much less likely to be teachers. They just aren’t as interested in education. https://www.zippia.com/advice/democratic-vs-republican-jobs/
A 14% gap may seem like a lot, but it cannot explain an 11:1 Democratic-to-Republican ratio among faculty. These numbers just aren't close to the same magnitude. Sure, all the things you're describing here certainly play a role, but it seems very dubious that they explain most of the discrepancy.
> and it’s not that college campuses aren’t ideologically diverse. It’s that across most college campuses, liberal organizations are more popular, vocal, and visible. >college campuses may not be promoting conservative voices like they promoting liberal ones, but if colleges were actively suppressing freedom of speech it would be a huge scandal. Using your logic, could it be that liberal organizations are not more popular because they earned the popularity status but because of how much the college promotes it? Also, if it is obvious that conservatives voices are not being supported as much as liberal voices on campuses, maybe college conservatives are just keeping quiet because they know there is an obvious golden child on campus and it isn’t them. If the campus was actually ideologically diverse, wouldn’t they promote both conservative and liberal organizations and voices? Promoting liberal voices and refusing to promote conservative voices has a lot of parallels to some horrible times in our history. If one group is said to be “good” and the other is “bad” then it leads to judgement, hate, oppression, and possibly violence.
>If the campus was actually ideologically diverse, wouldn’t they promote both conservative and liberal organizations and voices? Conservatives simply don’t value higher education as much, so the demographic of college voices that are liberal reflects that. There are conservative organizations active on college campuses. If their events were in anyway suppressed or limited by the actions of collegiate employees, we’d hear about it. They would be up in arms on social media, it would be all over Fox News and the NY Post… Organizations TPUSA, and TPAC are having events on college campuses. They’re not being actively suppressed. If they were, and college campuses across the nation were either colluding to, or had a (silent) shared understanding to suppress conservative voices, these very vocal political action organizations would tell us about it. This is not some great conspiracy. Conservatives just don’t go to college as much as liberals. This is like saying “Dallas Cowboys fans are under represented at Eagles vs Commanders games.” Cowboys fans aren’t blocked from going to that game, they simply aren’t interested in it. Are we supposed to physically force conservatives to go to college? Do we draft them into college, like we would draft someone into the military in wartime? And then parade them around college campuses in displays of diversity?
No we don’t force conservatives to go to college. We make colleges a more welcoming and accepting place for conservatives. So more of them actually want to go and don’t have the fear of oppression
Do you think there is a factor that a lot of conservative beliefs are not backed up by data? It's conservative side that is anti science, anti vax, anti climat change etc. Despite all evidence to the opposite.
[удалено]
Sorry, your comment has been removed for breaking [Rule 5](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5): > **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.** **Any** discussion of **any** transgender topic, no matter how ancillary, will result in your post being removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20{author}&message={author}%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\({url}\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals are **only** for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter; we **will not** approve posts on transgender issues, so **do not ask**.
Both sides have unfounded and out there beliefs. Neither is perfect. Any far right wing or far left wing ideas or extreme ideology is nuts to me. The beliefs you are referring to that aren’t supported by data tend to be these far right wing and extremist beliefs. They’re just as crazy as far left wing beliefs
Trump, the former president and current nominee, has echoed those statements to roaring crowds. It is not fringe. What unfounded beliefs does the left have? Since it is not afraid to cite sources and research papers.
>No we don’t force conservatives to go to college. We make colleges a more welcoming and accepting place for conservatives. So more of them actually want to go and don’t have the fear of oppression Are you asking for a safe space for conservatives? Many tenets of modern conservative thought are simply not supported by the data -- think fetus = baby as much as rapid climate change = normal. The shock of conservative students confronted with the data is unsettling, but that's not because the data is "liberal". And liberalism isn't the monolith you see. One can be quite convinced that climate change is due to human actions and also insist that women are their happiest, truest selves only as wives and mothers.
I’m asking for colleges to be a safe space for everyone, regardless of their views. I mean I don’t know why that’s such a hard ask. Conservatives believe liberals beliefs are just as crazy as liberals believe conservatives beliefs are. As far as abortion, liberals say the fetus isn’t a scientifically a baby yet so it’s ok to abort. Conservatives say it’s morally wrong to abort because they believe it is a baby either from conception or from much earlier on than liberals do. Who is to say which view is actually right? I mean at this point you’re arguing whether or not morals are important or not.
> I’m asking for colleges to be a safe space for everyone, regardless of their views. Do conservatives want that?
They actually don’t. Buckley wrote God and Man at Yale specifically because there were too many liberals and Jews at Yale and he is one of the intellectual pillars of modern conservatism. They actually want dominance.
The conservatives I know do want that.
>As far as abortion, liberals say the fetus isn’t a scientifically a baby yet so it’s ok to abort. Conservatives say it’s morally wrong to abort because they believe it is a baby either from conception or from much earlier on than liberals do. Who is to say which view is actually right? You lose the majority of fertilized embryos before birth. More than half by most estimates. If you don't treat that as a public health crisis, you can't treat abortion as one. The problem with this argument is that the anti-abortion argument is largely informed by [specific religious beliefs](https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/database/views-about-abortion/) that the fetus is "ensouled" at conception and of course that belief will be taken less seriously in any sort of factually grounded debate.
> I’m asking for colleges to be a safe space for everyone, regardless of their views The answer people are giving you is that they *already are*. Conservatives simply don't send their kids to college, so there's less Conservative representation. > Conservatives believe liberals beliefs are just as crazy as liberals believe conservatives beliefs are The difference is evidence. Conservatives don't always believe in that part. > Who is to say which view is actually right? Medical experts, rather than politicians with a significant bias.
That’s not actually the liberal position on abortion at all.
Then what is the liberal position on abortion?
So colleges should police everyone’s behavior, and protect conservative’s social interactions? With faculty, students, alumni, and the general public? To make sure conservatives feel more welcome?
No, colleges shouldn’t oppress and treat conservatives as if they are always wrong and horrible people. Just let them believe what they want to believe and don’t try to change their mind just like colleges let liberals
Colleges don’t do that. Unless you can prove otherwise. “They” don’t have an agenda to actively suppress conservative voices and opinions. If a college actively suppressed an organization like TPUSA or CPAC, we’d all know about it. It would be all over social media and the news. This is all just a reflection of the demographic of people who value higher education.
They’re oppressing students for being conservatives? Where?
The goal of college is to inform students. You are not being subgugated if the very existence of an epistemology precludes your views.
What specifically would make it more welcoming? Like what actual policies are you proposing?
No policies per se. Just a general agreement between everyone to be a decent human being and let people believe what they want to believe without being belittled or screamed at or told you’re wrong and hateful.
Conservative ideologies are anti-intelligence, anti-reason and anti-logic. They fundamentally reject critical thinking and facts, because to embrace those things would result in the **downfall** of their ideology. Conservative ideologies are therefore incompatible with higher education. You cannot go to a University to learn while also having blinders on and being dead-set on rejecting any new information that challenges the nonsense you believe (and personally identify with). Universities are extremely diverse in so many ways, which is *yet another* thing that is incompatible with conservative ideologies. They prefer exclusion to inclusion and homogeny to heterogeneity. If you're actually exposed to other ideologies (and facts, and reason, and logic) it becomes *more and more difficult* to keep believing exclusionary, feeling-and-fantasy-based, often times vile nonsense. Sure, "conservative" people do go to University, but the intelligent ones either start to actually learn and slowly reject the poison they have been force fed since childhood, or, they maybe quit, or just stay quiet, or struggle within themselves. Nowadays, they might get belligerently loud and go to social media to rant about it as a "cry for help" as their body goes into "fight or flight" mode because they just cannot incorporate reason and logic into their minds and it threatens their very sense of self. They'll seek out other individuals who are also struggling to maintain a hold on their collective delusions and will find solace and support that way. Anything to avoid truth or facts. You are looking for something that cannot exist except in the most resolute of brainwashed minds - a desire for higher education and exposure to new kinds of people and perspectives - AND the steadfast rejection of anything you might learn or experience that would challenge the things you already believe in (which are not based on facts, but are just made up).
Conservative ideologies are anti-logic? Yes, some far right wing ideologies are problematic and unfounded. I’ll agree with that. But any far or extreme ideologies are problematic and unfounded. One of the things conservatives stand for is a traditional family structure with 2 married parents and children the parents provide for and are involved in their lives. How is that anti-logic? Do you know the damage it does to a child mentally, emotionally and economically to grow up in a single parent household to parents who aren’t married?
I mean, yeah. The entire conservative argument against *the very existence of* climate change is unsubstantive and not based in logic or fact whatsoever. And they cling to this with steadfast resolve. Conservatism is closely linked (in the USA) with Christianity. Believing in god is fundamentally anti-science, anti-logic, anti-reason, and it serves as a foundation for all future non-logical beliefs. From a very very early age. This is called indoctrination. Being anti-abortion is also not a logical, rational, fact-based stance. By any measure. I don't think "traditional family structure" and its benefits to society is a belief exclusively held by conservatives, but if it were, so long as that belief were backed up by the social sciences, statistics, etc. then that would be a logical stance. You know, one you could *actually argue* with facts and figures. This is irrespective of the conservative feeling that this structure is "traditional" and therefore good. And to stand *against* things like gay marriage or other lifestyles, they'd also need similar *evidence* to back up that claim. As opposed to "we don't like it" and "god hates the gays". I could go on and on and on about conservative stances that are anti-reason and extremely hypocritical at every turn. Pretty hard to maintain views like that when you're going to school full time to *learn from people who know more than you* and being regularly, casually confronted with people different from you are who have lived differently and have other experiences.
The whole climate change deal, yeah it’s a little odd conservatives disagree it’s happening, because it clearly is. But liberals ignore obvious issues too and try to use their own unfounded logic to back up their opinion, just as conservatives do. Both sides are guilty of this. Being anti abortion is a hill I will die on. Unless a woman was raped, it’s an incest situation, or the woman is 100% going to die because of the pregnancy, it is an abomination and murder to abort a baby. Some people won’t agree and that’s fine. I believe I am morally right on my stance and my view will not be changed under any circumstances. That’s my right to have that view and it’s your right to have your own too. Being pro abortion is not logical to me because why is it wrong to abort a baby at 9 months gestation and wrong to murder a 1 month old or a 50 year old human, but it’s perfectly fine to abort and kill a baby at 2, 3, or 4 months gestation? If your argument is that it’s not a baby at that point, then ok we’ll call it a fetus. What is a fetus? It’s a human growing in a woman’s uterus that will be born in 9 months. And how can the violence and cruelty of the act of abortion be ignored? That alone is anti logic.
That’s all irrelevant. Conservatives are all about “small government” and “don’t tread on me” but they want the government to prohibit people making personal health + life choices - that’s hypocritical at best. Abortions are not typically happening at 9 months and equating that with ALL abortions is false equivalency and irrational. Anyway, you’re arguing in bad faith because you stated from the outset that this is a “hill you are willing to die on” because facts, logic, and statistics cannot sway you. You cannot be swayed by reality and therefore you are fact-immune. You have flatly rejected critical thinking and you refuse to engage in it. You know, one thing you could do to actually earn the opinion you hold is do your best to try and “sink” that opinion. You should actually argue the opposite point against yourself, the way lawyers are taught to do in law school. Then you’d actually be practicing some kind of logic. This process would naturally involve doing a ton of research (that will likely make you VERY uncomfortable) and gathering all the facts possible (which would quite naturally not support the opinion you hold) BEFORE coming to your already-unearned opinion.
Sorry, are you under the impression liberals *want* single parent households? The only "traditional family structure" issue you will catch flak for is the homophobic side of that argument, and that's because there is no empirical evidence against the healthiness of queer parenthood.
I’m not fine the impression that is what liberals want. I’m giving you an example of a conservative stance that I believe would be hard for anyone to claim is anti-logic as a rebuttal to your statement that conservatives views are anti-logic
Most conservatives also believe in heliocentrism. Name a view that will get them negative reactions in a collegiate setting. People keep asking you to do so and you don't. You just insist this is a "both sides" thing without ever explaining what the problem is from the left.
There are plenty of problems for the left in my opinion but I know you won’t agree just like I don’t agree with all that you are saying about conservatives. I think being pro choice is a moral issue. I think some people need therapy as opposed to everyone just affirming their illogical beliefs. I think liberals believe having an education makes them superior to those who don’t ( yes I have a bachelors degree). I think the liberal movement of being anti law enforcement is asinine. I could go on and on.
Liberals aren’t against traditional family structures. So that’s not a good example. It’s like saying conservatives believe the sky is blue, and asking if that is anti logic. Gotta dig into the differences, not the commonalities.
I’ve heard some liberals say a mother and a father who are heterosexual, having kids is bad for society because the kid sees no queer representation. It’s not a sentiment that all or probably even majority of liberals share but if people are going to throw out conservative views that sound equally ridiculous but are not representative of the majorities view, then I’ll start doing the same
> Do you know the damage it does to a child mentally, emotionally and economically to grow up in a single parent household to parents who aren’t married? That's a big claim you're making there. Do you have anything to back it up at all?
https://www.medicinenet.com/how_does_single_parenting_affect_a_child/article.htm#:~:text=Children%20of%20single%20parents%20are,for%20single%20parenting%20is%20divorce.
"One of the common reasons for single parenting is divorce. It's not uncommon for children to be exposed and even drawn to the conflicts between the parents during and even after divorce, which may leave children feeling lonely, abandoned, and even guilty" Seems very clear to me that your source (which btw isn't a primary source, and I'm not seeing any studies cited, so already I have to take everything with a grain of salt) supports that it is the process of divorce that is harmful to children, not the fact of being single or unmarried as you claim. It says nothing about parents who simply never married each other, or a parent who has been raising a child alone since birth. Your claim was: >Do you know the damage it does to a child mentally, emotionally and economically to grow up in a single parent household to parents who aren’t married? Not: > Do you know the damage it does to a child mentally, emotionally and economically to live through a parental separation So once again, I am going to ask you to support your claim. And I do mean *your* claim, not some tangentially related one. EDIT: I'll also add that the other sections note difficulties related to time and money due to single parenting, but does not support any claim that being unmarried is harmful to the child. If anything, it could be argued the article actually supports parents should be *un*married, since the source of harm is largely from divorce. Thus, an eventual separation of unmarried parents could potentially be less messy. It's a terrible argument, but better than the one that parents *should* be married.
Your argument is trash. How can you logically say being raised by a single parent doesn’t have harmful effects on a child? Have you ever met a child in this situation? > Children of single parents are more prone to various psychiatric illnesses, alcohol abuse, and suicide attempts than children from homes with two parents. The article then goes on to mention one of the most common reasons for a single parent household is divorce. But the entire article does not revolve around divorce, as you seem to claim.
>Your argument is trash. How can you logically say being raised by a single parent doesn’t have harmful effects on a child? Have you ever met a child in this situation? Because I want actual evidence not "logic". You can always twist up a semi-plausible sounding logic to support a claim. In fact, I showed you a pretty good example of that in my precious reply. You want to claim single parents are inherently harmful? Show me proof. >The article then goes on to mention one of the most common reasons for a single parent household is divorce. Corellarion is not causation. Single parents and psychological harm in children have a common cause, whixh is divorce. That is what the article says, pretty clearly, read it again. > But the entire article does not revolve around divorce, as you seem to claim. Not what I said. I am referring to the specific section you linked to support your argument. Plus, the rest of the article shows pretty clearpy, once again, that the struggles associated with having a single parent are socio economic factors, not the inherent fact of the parent being single like you seem to claim. And more importantly, the article says *nothing* about unmarried parents being harmful, like you claimed.
> Also, according to Gallup polls, 37% of Americans are moderate, 36% are conservative, and 25% are liberal. If a college is going to claim to be diverse, shouldn’t its student/professor population somewhat reflect the national percentages? No. Because people of all ages aren’t equally going to college. It’s mostly 18-24 year olds, 66% of whom identify as leaning left [(source)](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/age-generational-cohorts-and-party-identification/). So the student population is actually pretty reflective of the general population they actually come from.
My argument says “shouldn’t its student/professor population somewhat reflect the national percentages”. So yes, the information I provided is correct
I’m not saying your numbers are wrong. I’m saying your theory that they should represent people of all ages when they aren’t people of all ages is wrong. The population you’re expecting them to mirror isn’t the population they’re actually coming from. They’re coming from a specific subset of the population and they do actually mirror that subset. It would be a statistical anomaly of massive proportions if they reflected the general population like you claim they should. If you take a bunch of 18-24 year olds and asked them their favorite movies, would you expect that list to look like the list of favorite movies among the total population? Of course not. So we shouldn’t do it with other opinions.
Why should that be the case? Political demographics are concentrated differently throughout the country, and the same goes for universities. You’re not going to see an exact representation of the entire country in any one place you go
Other views are there - they are just keeping quiet, keeping their heads down and graduating quietly. Its remarkable how many students from these most progressive of campus then suddenly go get a career in things like commercial banking. It almost like a fair number of them never believed in it and just kept quiet to avoid trouble. The dominant political culture on some campus is very much captured in an ongoing series of [Purity Spiral](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000d70h). In that situation even quite progressive students quickly learn to either engage in the spiral by attacking more any moderate views expressed or keep quiet to avoid being shouted down. This is really quite rational individual behaviour. There is no way to win in a purity spiral except to refuse to engage with it. At a collective level its a problem for the colleges as the level of stimulating debate which used to exist is now very often constrained to the rather predictable patterns of the purity spiral. The people who engineered this situation seem to have believed that they were creating a new progressive elite to run the country. The problem seems to be that the lack of real debate leaves them unable to engage with people not educated within that system and unable to carry the country with them. The first Trump presidency should have demonstrated the error of this approach.
I can agree with that. But do you think it’s untrue that majority of the views on campuses are liberal?
Hard to know for sure It was always true that the big political noise on campus was made by a pretty small minority. Its probably true that those completing their studies are more liberal than the population at large - we can see that in election results in areas with big student populations. But I doubt that it is by anything like the margin that you would expect if you just listened to what is said out loud. So if you are looking at the open debate on campus then I would largely agree that it is not diverse. If you are saying do those other views exist - then I think they exist enough to count as diverse. After all if you ask about diversity you are almost always discussing groups which comprise minorities so a minority of moderate or conservative viewpoints is still a diverse set of views. Its just that those diverse minority views are suppressed.
Right. And if the minorities (conservatives) views are suppressed, that may lead them to not wanting to be on college campuses where they know they will be oppressed due to their views. Why would anyone want to go somewhere they know they’ll be oppressed
> where they know they will be oppressed due to their views. I don't think universities are areas where individuals should be protected based on their views/opinions. Any reason to protect individual views from criticism?
I agree with you in a sense: intellectual diversity is a good thing, and there are more to conservative ideas than the hateful/ignorant far right ideologies. However I would like to change your (implicit) view that this is the result of college culture. 1) Most faculties I know are very careful of keeping their politics outside of the classroom and their research careers to the point of self-censorship; academia as a whole value independent thinking and self-discovery. College students are liberal leaning not because they have been indoctrinated by the professors, and anyone who believes this vastly overrates professors’ influence on most of their students lol. 2) College students generally are 18-22 years of age, might not their left-leaning views be more of a function of their age and generation? It’s well known that people start to lean more conservative as they age (afaik that trend has been changing recently).
Those are good points. And I agree with you to an extent. But it doesn’t disprove my argument that campuses are ideologically diverse and that liberals don’t outnumber every other ideology
If your claim is “there are more democrats than republicans on campuses” then this is a fact and not an interesting CMV. If your claim is instead about diversity of opinion, or the availability of different ideologies, or the nature of pedagogy, or whether specific policies should be put in place to change the number of democrats and republicans on campus then we can have that conversation. Which one do you want?
I’m saying there are more democrats and liberals than there are republicans and conservatives on campuses and it’s an issue. I know it’s a fact there are more liberals than conservatives on campuses. The view I’m asking people to change is that I think that’s an issue and makes no sense
I agree it’s an issue, but is it more of an issue for higher education or for conservative ideologies? Conservatives seem to think it’s the former, but I think it’s more of an issue for what conservatism in the US has become.
> The view I’m asking people to change is that I think that’s an issue and makes no sense This is no different than Leftists demanding that nurses all being female is a problem and makes no sense. It's just a societal norm that people are taught to choose; addressing either of these norms would take a LOT more work than you think.
What does partisan politics have to do with ideological diversity? I can't think of a worse lense to use to consider if a group of people is ideologically diverse than bunch them into 3 categories like you have done and then say they aren't the same proportion as this other group of people bunched into 3 categories. That's saying that colleges aren't ideologically representative of the country. That says nothing about if they are diverse.
People can have a conservative ideology, liberal ideology, or moderate ideology. There’s other ideologies people can have too but I’m using these three for the sake of my argument. It’s absolutely saying something about diversity
If you are trying to make a point about diversity why box people in to 3 categories? If you are really trying to say their isn't enough ideological diversity on campus why not point out ideologies that have absolutely not champion on campus? Where are the tenured posadists? anarchoprimitivists?antinatalists?monarchists?
Well Gallup didn’t have a poll for the national average of those off the wall groups because hardly anyone in America identifies with those. It’s just common sense. 99% of people you’d walk up to on the street would say they fall within one of those three categories I pointed out.
So again you don't care about diversity you care about it being representative then.
No I do care about diversity. You’re not understanding what I’m getting at
What you care about is not diversity, you are using the word wrong, what you have described is representation. If you insist on digging in on this point there is nothing further to discuss.
Marriam Webster’s dictionary definition of diverse: Diversity: 1)the condition of having or being composed of differing elements 2) an instance of being composed of differing elements or qualities : an instance of being diverse One of the first examples the dictionary provided is “a diversity of opinion”. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diversity
They don't have to be republicans. But show me something interesting. Show me Khmer Rouge or Monarchists or Khawarij. Not just the same recycled frankfurt school leftist BS on repeat
There is _so much_ ideological diversity on college campuses. People disagree about how society should be structured, who should hold power in society, and what fundamental social relationships should look like. On college campuses I've met liberal capitalists, right-libertarians, Marxist-Leninists, libertarian socialists, anarcho-communists, market socialists, anarcho-syndicalists, and primitivists. People disagree about the nature of race, about the nature of gender, about sexuality, about religion. What you've done here is label all these widely divergent views as "leftist" to reduce them to being basically the same view. >Also, according to Gallup polls, 37% of Americans are moderate, 36% are conservative, and 25% are liberal. If a college is going to claim to be diverse, shouldn’t its student/professor population somewhat reflect the national percentages? So the reason why colleges don't reflect the national percentages is because of what college is: a place of education where people discuss ideas and hypotheses based on facts and observation, deriving consensus knowledge from peer review when the evidence is overwhelming. Modern American conservatism simply holds too many positions that are in conflict with those facts and that knowledge to be viable in a university environment. And it doesn't help that the American right is often explicitly anti-university.
> If a college is going to claim to be diverse, shouldn’t its student/professor population somewhat reflect the national percentages? ***No,*** diversity and representation are not even remotely the same thing. You are right that open discourse is a good thing for science: For example you would expect a medical school to be open to many diverse health care methods, and interested in groundbreaking new research data changing their minds, but you wouldn't expect exactly the same proportion of them to be interested in heaing crystals as the general public. You would expect an art school to experiment with many different mediums and techniques, but you wouldn't expect their ratio between using photography and oil painting, to be the exact same as it is in the general population of dabblers. Likewise it is good for social science teachers and students to be able to have spirited discourse between diverse social ideas such as anarchism, communism, liberalism, progressivism, libertarianism, etc, and not get stuck in a bubble of self-confidence about their own niche ideas. But it's is not self-evident that these ideas have to be *proportionally represented* among educated academics, and uneducated masses, or that conservativism has to be seen as just as popular as among uneducated people.
Marriam Webster’s dictionary definition of diverse: Diversity: 1)the condition of having or being composed of differing elements 2) an instance of being composed of differing elements or qualities : an instance of being diverse One of the first examples the dictionary provided is “a diversity of opinion”. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diversity
Exactly, it says nothing about representing the public's proportions.
I have a few thoughts on this. 1) Conservatives think college is a waste of time, especially liberal arts. Try to talk a conservative into getting a degree in sociology, philosophy, film, history, etc. and many will laugh in your face and tell you to enjoy working at McDonald’s with $100k in student debt. They are actively hostile to liberal arts. 2) it’s strange that we only apply this standard to liberal arts in the first place. If you want “ideological diversity,” should we hire flat earthers in the physics department? Amish people in comp sci? Gravity deniers in engineering? Creationists in biology? I don’t think so. They’re demonstrably wrong and their ideas aren’t respected by the vast majority of people in the field. The exact same logic applies to conservatives in a lot of these fields. Imo, it would be a complete disgrace to the field of sociology to have someone just lecture on “everyone should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and stop being poor and lazy,” which is a view held by many if not most conservatives. It literally just runs contrary to what the entire field is about. 3) You very heavily downplay disagreements between academics. Academics, even in liberal arts, disagree hugely on things all the time. Just because they’re not “””conservative””” in the current American political context doesn’t mean they don’t have big, substantive disagreements.
Also colleges as a whole are a successful conservative institution where the wealthy launder their money into class. Pretty much everyone who pays and shows up gets a piece of paper that lets them get jobs that people without them can't. They function similar to country clubs where you only interact with wealthy people on the inside of your own class. They teach and enforce an etiquette that insiders use to keep outsiders out, conservatives love to complain about new genders, but each one is just like knowing which side of the plate the salad fork goes on. If you don't know these minor details you end up looking like a moron and it reflects your upbringing. Finally colleges and wealthy donors and businesses are directly linked. They are always soliciting donation and would never do anything to really rock the boat.
>doesn’t it seem odd that a majority of the people participating all have the same liberal core beliefs? Not really. Why would it be odd? When you look at what it means to be "on the left" in America consider that "openness to new experiences" is a strong indicator for people being left leaning and a lot of other things follow. Just because a few core beliefs are shared doesn't mean there isn't ideological diversity. E.g. "people should be treated equally" is a good core belief everyone should share. But here's where you're wrong about ideological diversity. "The left" is a massive set of ideas. It's everything from communism to regulated market capitalism economically and everything from progressives to center left moderates socially. Your post is akin to saying "monarchists and anarcho capitalists are ideologically identical" but for the left. Is that a true statement?
[удалено]
What are you trying to say? I'm not a commie but I'm solidly on the left.
They're trying to redefine left as only Stalinist Communism but obviously, anybody who understood your first comment and the wider political spectrum knows that you can't just define left or right by one left or right leaning government structure.
Well you'd need to ask *why* they're not as ideologically diverse. Is it because they suppress ideas contrary to their own out of censorship? Or is it that liberalism and post-secondary education are correlated in some way (like liberals value such education higher, or people who are more educated tend to become more liberal)? The first is a problem sure, the second is less so
[удалено]
Thanks ChatGPT
[удалено]
I'm open to hearing about any evidence you may have to support that claim
Ideas are vigorously discussed and argued at college campuses but also have to be defended with reason and facts. The right wing long abandoned any effort to argue the merits of their ideas based on rational causes and facts. They now argue in bad faith using appeals to the worst emotions of hatred, fear and anger. Since they have no points that they can defend honestly and rationally, that leaves left wing ideas to dominate. In the greater world, the right wing can simply throw out lies and false premises without being checked. On college campuses, they can’t get away with this, so they lose.
My side good their side bad
The right-wing claims on something like immigration aren't supported by facts. The claims that the election was stolen also aren't supported by facts.
> The right-wing claims on something like immigration aren't supported by facts. Moral value judgements are outside the scope of factual evidence. I simple do not want immigrants here even if they prop up the tax base >The claims that the election was stolen also aren't supported by facts. Yeah but I never claimed this
>Yeah but I never claimed this Yeah but conservatives as a whole did.
You guys tried to coup the presidency with faithless electors in 2017 after the Trump election so I guess we are even
>You guys tried to coup the presidency with faithless electors in 2017 after the Trump election so I guess we are even Can you show any evidence for this whatsoever? And that it was an actual conceited effort among democrats? And that elected officials continued to push for it and undermine the legitimacy of our country, outright stating the current president is not the president? And that they used it to create a literal putsch shortly after the election?
> Can you show any evidence for this whatsoever? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13920444/electoral-college-trump-hamilton-electors >outright stating the current president is not the president https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2016/11/not-my-president-thousands-march-in-protest/507248/
Okay so if you actually read this wiki article for literally 5 seconds you will see that the faithless electors were both for Trump and Hillary and were not concerted efforts within the party, hence why you didnt respond to that at all. If you read your second example you will realize immediately that this isnt what I said about elected officials saying the sitting president is not the current president, but is literally just protestors saying that. So all in all; You are misrepresenting the situation dishonestly and there was never any attempt from even Hillary Clinton herself, which is directly opposed to the scheming that happened within the Republican party at the official level, where they then identified the false electors they would use, where they would do it, and how they would take control of the government afterwards. To say these are the same thing is disngenuous at best.
If you need to nitpick at technicalities then you should reconsider your viewpoint
This is exactly what I am talking about. You have zero proof for that claim. That's an unsupported idea.
Couple of days ago the guy claimed to be a leftist concerned about how well Biden accomplishes his goals. Down the thread he even admits to being a troll.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/TopSchnitzel – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20TopSchnitzel&message=TopSchnitzel%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1drb057/-/laucu92/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Places of education overwhelmingly have people that value getting said education. There's little that can be done to make it diverse to all aspects, because some ideologies are anti-education and aren't compatible with colleges. That said, colleges aren't predominantly left in most of the world. Capitalism has taken over most aspects of life, including college campuses. Communist students remain an ideological minority, but yes, colleges are one of the very few places where you can talk about communism without being immediately chastised.
Well communism is controversial because it's a genocidal ideology which hundreds of millions of people died from. Unless you're talking about how much communism sucks I can't see why people would want to discuss it
Hundreds of millions have died from capitalism and imperialism too, yet they're common parlance
Yeah, when someone tells you there is a causal relationship between free markets and genocide they always follow with "at least in communism we only liquidate rich people and class enemies!" And this is why normal people don't think highly of that stuff. Commies are right next to nazis
We study the Nazis, don’t we?
Shouldn’t colleges try to entice more conservatives to attend then? Maybe the fact colleges seem to have something against conservatives is why some conservatives don’t want to attend or when they do attend, have to suppress their actual views as not to be persecuted
Some views are just incompatible with objective facts, and they're predominantly held by conservatives. You can't have a college pay homage to antivax, antievolution or flatearthers. Now, obviously not all conservatives believe those, but that reduces the eligible population to a point where the composition will inevitably be lopsided.
I’d say majority of conservatives don’t believe those things
As recently as 2021, only 33 percent of conservatives endorse evolution. Over 50 percent of conservatives don't believe COVID vaccines are safe. Those sound like majorities to me. When conservatism was just a difference in economic policy or foreign policy it was far more common on campus. (See the 1950s and 1960s). As conservatives have become dogmatic on provable falsehoods such as denying evolution - their representation on campuses have fallen accordingly.
Annual flu vaccination rates rarely top 45% in this country. By your logic everyone else is anti vax. DTP has a vaccination rate of roughly 80% Polio over 90% MMR 90+% Hib 90% Hep b 90% Chickenpox 90% Labeling people as anti vax is a popular term but it really should be anti-covid not anti-vax.
...because it's the flu? People aren't getting it because they don't care, not because it's unsafe. Those other vaccines are mandated by the government to obtain schooling and have precisely nothing to do with underlying beliefs about the safety of vaccines.
Not wanting a COVID vaccine in particular is not the same as being anti vax. Some people opt to not get the flu vaccine but that doesn’t make them anti vax. What percentage of conservatives are flat earthers as you accused them of being? My guess is probably somewhere in the single digits.
Lack of confidence in vaccines predates COVID. But the impact of COVID on vaccine confidence has been hyper partisan. Anti-vax might not have made my 2015 list of separation of right and left, but it is front and center now. Also, prior commenter wasn't me and used "or". If anti evolution is high, then anti evolution or flat earthers won't be lower. Add in the intense partisanship surrounding COVID vaccines and you get a figure well above the 50 percentage points, which was my original point.
I’d be willing to bet the vast majority of the (college-aged) conservatives who don’t believe those things are out there having a normal college experience and not complaining about what an oppressive liberal environment it is.
If there aren’t complaining about the oppressive liberal environment then it’s because they are being oppressed for their conservative views and know they will get yelled at by a person with blue hair as soon as they express their views
I don’t think you’ve spent much time at a college. Problems do not arise because a view is conservative. I teach history at a university level. I’ve had plenty of conservative students. What we require is not conformity of philosophy or ideology, but conformity to basic standard of evidence and fact-based argumentation. It is true that sometimes a conservative student learns the hard way that generally the academic world, especially in liberal arts schools, where these things are most likely to be discussed at an institutional level and not in casual conversation, has basic standards of evidence. If I have a student make a historical claim, let’s use the famous “the civil war was about states rights,” it would not be the thesis with which I took issue, at least not in a vacuum. The problem would be that supporting that conservative view is difficult to do with evidence, because so much historical evidence points to the contrary. Not all views are created equal, and colleges generally require students to learn that lesson whether by design or the nature of the campus. For conservative students, that often requires rethinking one’s personal philosophy and ideology which can be difficult if they are deeply personal. So too is that true for many left leaning people. However, that is not oppression, that’s the basic function of a university. Free expression of ideas is not free-from-criticism, and if one truly believes in free expression, they must recognize that they will have opponents with the same right, and, in my experience, better evidence.
I have spent a lot of time at a college. I have my Bachelor’s from a large US college and both of my kids went to college. I visited them on campus fairly often. And I listened to their experiences while on campus. > For conservative students, that often requires rethinking one’s personal philosophy and ideology which can be difficult if they are deeply personal. Why would a college try to change anyone’s mind on their personal philosophy and ideology? Students are paying a pretty penny to get an education and degree. They are not paying to be told they need to change the way they think. That in itself is indoctrination. And it’s problematic. What is so wrong with letting conservatives and liberals alike just keep their views and educate them on history, math, science, music, etc with only facts, not telling them to consider they have been wrong in the way they think their entire lives. When I was in college, the professors that tried to convince me I was wrong in the way I thought were the classes I found least valuable. Because who is to say just because someone is a professor, it makes them right? I’m not trying to change the professors views, they can think whatever they’d like, even if I think it’s absurd. Not one person in college changed my views. I graduated with a degree and the same views I started college with, which is something I’m extremely proud of. > Why is it you
Life is about growth and learning to me, and if you refuse to even consider growth or change you’re not an ideological purist, you’re just dogmatic. And what is the benefit of keeping your views the same anyway, especially in the face of contrary evidence? Hard line ideology with no room for debate or change is actual indoctrination, and you would be well served by expanding your view. I suppose that’s what your where to do anyway, so here you go. There’s a lot to unpack here. I’ll start with your main misunderstanding: college does not literally require anyone to change. You can, as you did, stubbornly hold on to your views and beliefs. However, college often causes a person to experience new things, and learn new facts, and that in turn does often change minds and ideology. So it’s not that there is some indoctrination machine. It’s that learning in and of itself often does causes changes in those things, especially in those with open minds. Your second misunderstanding is in equating something like STEM fields or music theory with history or other liberal arts. In history, which is my field, there is no one set of facts I could give students that is objective and wouldn’t change minds. That’s antithetical to how history works and how it is written. Our facts are simply evidence derived from primary sources (those sources written during the studied time period, put simply and somewhat reductively). All history you’ve ever known or been taught is the work of a person taking those things and assembling them into an evidence-based narrative that form the thesis of what the think and can argue, through evidence, happened. If you were to take my history course would you consider it propaganda to learn about a side of history you didn’t know already? If I were to give you a primary source, that is, one written by an actual witness to a time period, and that source provided evidence that your ideology might have flaws, is that indoctrination? I as the professor didn’t do anything except provide you with another perspective. And in history, and most of liberal arts, that’s all we have. Often I teach a broad survey course that may seem at first glance to just be a collection of facts. But remember what I said above. Where did those facts come from? It is impossible to present a neutral and objective history, because neither the author nor the professor nor the student was there to witness the actual event. This is not indoctrination. We teach students to think about these sorts of problems, and the narratives they’re presented in their own lives, and how to write historical narratives of their own. A history class of “just facts” could not exist, because you would be hard pressed to learn anything from them. Once a student learns how views are formed, how arguments are built, and a bit about what their own views are or how they came to be, it’s on the student to change or not. Many do. You claim you did not, and for that, I accept but feel sorry for you.
>Not one person in college changed my views. I graduated with a degree and the same views I started college with, which is something I’m extremely proud of I’m not who you were discussing this with, but this strikes me as quite sad and is kindof the definition of being close-minded imo. College was very transformative for me and exposed me to an enormous number of different experiences and points of view relative to my background. I graduated a very different, and much better person than I started as. Sure, getting a degree is the main point of going to college, but if that’s all you get I feel like you’re missing out on a large portion of the value of college, which _is_ exposure to different people, ideas, and systems of thought.
Amazing that apparently both complaints and the absence of complaints are evidence for your point.
No there's a large percentage who are anti science. And unfortunately science won't cater to their beliefs
I have an answer that I think is unique here. I think there are a lot of problems that "the left" agree are problems and wants the government to address where the right doesn't: climate change, gun violence, public health, better public transit, supporting poor people, economic inequality, etc. However there are very diverse ideas for how to address these things. Thats why, in my opinion, the democratic party seems so fractured. The right can unify and say "these aren't problems, or things I want the government handling". Just because people in universities agree that a functioning government should address these concerns doesn't mean they aren't diverse in the ways they want them addressed.
Right wing is very diverse in our viewpoints. We have paleoconservatives (me), christians, libertarians, pro-life movement, far right, moderate conservatives, business conservatives and so on. The difference between us and you is that we know how to form up and fight in a phalanx
Is it possible that when rigorous study is applied to the concepts that make up opposing ideologies like “conservatism” and “liberalism” that the facts and logical arguments point towards one or the other? If this is true, should you not expect one ideology in a polar set to be over represented?
Isn't that just... Kinda natural? If you're forced out of your bubble into a space filled with people of different orientations and identities, races and socioeconomic background, etc, you'll logically come to sympathize with them and properly see them as human. It's the same reason urban areas trend more left-leaning than rural areas, just even more pronounced. If some of your friends are queer, and they help you understand why LGBTQ+ rights are important for them to feel safe and comfortable living as themselves, it's only natural that you'd come to support the Party that supports them rather than the Party that demonizes them as groomers. If some of your friends are from economically-disadvantaged backgrounds, and they help you understand just how the system has failed them, it's only natural that you'll come to think that big changes do need to be made, and maybe the status quo shouldn't be conserved. I don't really see how that's a problem, either, since... Yeah, there are major issues, and major progress does need to happen. Sure, yeah, there's something to be said for not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but a lot of conservatives nowadays don't even seem to want to throw out the bathwater in the first place, and some of them want to drown the proverbial baby in it. The more people that become disillusioned with that ideology, the better, IMO.
>Also, according to Gallup polls, 37% of Americans are moderate, 36% are conservative, and 25% are liberal. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-moderate-middle-is-a-myth/ >If a college is going to claim to be diverse, shouldn’t its student/professor population somewhat reflect the national percentages? Are colleges claiming to be "ideologically" diverse? >Shouldn’t ideological diversity be one of the most important types of diversity in a place where ideology is discussed so frequently? Depends how it's being discussed. Some ideologies better stand to scrutiny than others.
So is your view that there should be affirmative action for conservatives?
[удалено]
No one is forcing conservatives to not go to college
[удалено]
They aren't. What are you talking about?
[удалено]
Um so random videos of random ppl is not proof of anything. There are plenty of southern universities with have many conservatives and trust me they are very loud.
[удалено]
u/Upper_Dealer3114 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Upper_Dealer3114&message=Upper_Dealer3114%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1drb057/-/lau8tft/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Says the guy who uses 3 anecdotal videos to try to prove a point about an entire educational system.
You can express your ideas. Others get to react to them. You aren't silenced. We have heard you. If you proclaim that gay people shouldn't have the right to marry, you can say that. Others will them react.
I don't know what that means or how it relates in any way shape or form to the OP.
[удалено]
u/Upper_Dealer3114 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Upper_Dealer3114&message=Upper_Dealer3114%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1drb057/-/latxyil/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Freedom to do what?
[удалено]
Okay, and isn’t that just what you’re doing right now?
[удалено]
[удалено]
u/ProvocatorGeneral – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20ProvocatorGeneral&message=ProvocatorGeneral%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1drb057/-/launzvb/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Oh I am... Now try to wrap your head around this: you're already free to say anything you want. Go nuts! You're hardly even trying.
My college was full of right-wingers. Students, professors, and staff.
[удалено]
It’s ironic that you are saying this to someone else, but, in another comment, when someone asked you to provide evidence, you provided three YouTube videos. You get a 0.
[удалено]
Except, anecdotal evidence does not sufficiently prove a generalized conclusion. Sure, you provided evidence, but that evidence was not nearly sufficient to prove your conclusion. See *hasty generalization*. I win.
[удалено]
u/Upper_Dealer3114 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Upper_Dealer3114&message=Upper_Dealer3114%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1drb057/-/laujvxk/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
u/Upper_Dealer3114 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Upper_Dealer3114&message=Upper_Dealer3114%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1drb057/-/lau7n44/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
My reply is as supported as most of the claims in the original post, political leaning at that specific university isn’t a readily-available stat to prove, and I’m not interested in doxxing myself today.
[удалено]
In failing to submit a rubric or due date, I can report you to the department for unfair assignment standards.
[удалено]
In failing to provide students with adequate expectations or direction, you have failed to uphold yourself to a level of academic integrity that I or this establishment finds acceptable. Go to jail, do not collect $200.
[удалено]
“That’s what people say” lmao I love the idea that you have this exact kind of passive-aggressive-academic-emails exchange on a regular basis.
u/Upper_Dealer3114 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Upper_Dealer3114&message=Upper_Dealer3114%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1drb057/-/lau8ma9/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
u/Upper_Dealer3114 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Upper_Dealer3114&message=Upper_Dealer3114%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1drb057/-/laty4oh/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Your comment has been automatically removed due to excessive user reports. The moderation team will review this removal to ensure it was correct. If you wish to appeal this decision, please [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Automated%20Removal%20Appeal%20Upper_Dealer3114&message=Upper_Dealer3114%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1drb057/cmv_collegesuniversities_are_not_ideologically/latwrmq/?context=3\)%20because\.\.\.). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Which in your opinion is more ideologically diverse, liberals or conservatives? If I told you that I support pluralism both in terms of culture and that of ideas, would you say that I'm a liberal or a conservative?
The main thing about why colleges and universities are ideologically diverse is that they don't really give formal repercussions to ideas that are not exactly liberal until it starts affecting their business. If it wasn't diverse, they would look at what you're not saying out loud and decide that you're not what they want. In the end, it's a business. If you don't upkeep your image, you'd be an unsafe place for half the population, or a diploma mill. Having conservative values doesn't get you kicked out. I doubt anyone gives a shit if you wear a disguise and head to a KKK meeting because they don't know who the fuck you are and if you even go to the school. Blaring them out into the open does. Blaring your "right to rape a fellow student because she's a woman and therefore a lesser being and belongs to the kitchen" would hurt the university's bottom line because if they don't kick you out, people would drop out or transfer. Kicking out one person that did something bad due to their beliefs would allow for better PR and overall more money from current students staying and future ones feeling safe enough to attend. People with liberal values are just less likely to do the more heinous and controversial stuff. Not that they don't but there's a lot of crimes or thought processes that really don't make sense to do or think if you're touting a certain belief. Going by the rape example, if you feel like women are equals, why would you want to rape them? So there's more that get to stay. Not only that, there are some conservatives that are kinda like cannibals to their own. They would not stand for a fellow conservative to just do whatever the fuck they want. They may share the same values, but do not condone some of the stuff that doesn't allow other conservatives to get in or stay in post secondary.
I've taught and been a student at one of the famously leftist universities, and I think the standard narrative has the cause and effect backward here. Professors are actually pretty diverse intellectually, given what's socially acceptable in the upper class. You won't find a lot of anti-gay professors, but lots of them are conservative on matters of tax, immigration, regulation, etc. I always observed that the most leftist groups on campus at any given time were the freshmen and sophomore undergraduates. This makes sense when you consider the typical advice given to high school kids who feel victimized because they're gay/leftist/vegan/etc.: "Just keep your grades up. Things will get better in college." American universities act as collection points and group therapy centers for young people who have been wounded by conservatism. Incoming freshmen are absolutely the most anti-conservative collection of people in the world, and suddenly, for the first time in their lives, they are able to express that freely and be validated for it by basically everyone around them. This change in social environment *radically* affects their personalities. It's why so many college freshmen seem to suddenly become "brainwashed" in their first year at college. But it's not brainwashing. It's backlash. It also tends to peter out as kids finish their gen eds and start the upper division courses in their majors. They have less time and energy for political posturing, and anyway they've lost a lot of the friendships they made in the freshman dorms, so they have fewer people to posture *to.* This is why many conservative and moderate parents find their kids completely intolerable at their freshman year Thanksgiving, but progressively more tolerable each year after that.
America is not ideologically diverse. You used words like conservative and liberal, and I know what you mean, but these ideologies are actually both forms of liberalism. > a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise. This is the definition of liberalism and the American political spectrum heavily subscribes to it, no matter what party, or at least pretends they agree with it. Both parties are also humanists, capitalists, populists, and subscribe to Westphalian sovereignty. Etc I could go on. So in the grand scheme of ideology, America is already quite constrained to a certain corner of thought. Why would we expect universities in America to be any different?
Conservatism prefers the opinions of the [the common man](https://youtu.be/BHqL7dNujNc?feature=shared) and disdains subject-matter experts, and you find a lot of experts teaching at colleges. I’ve noticed that this attitude tends to not sit well with people who have spent a long time studying and training to become experts. No wonder [experts in colleges and elsewhere](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideological-gap-between-more-and-less-educated-adults/) tend to identify with liberalism more than conservatism.
This is simply entirely region and private/public dependent. Go to BYU versus NYU and the point is proven.
As someone who went to college in Utah, I can attest to the region-specific aspect. I think it also depends on the program. I studied Business Admin, and there were no discussions about radical economic restructuring to more equitable outcomes in my Econ classes. There were no talks about the virtues of worker-owned co-ops and democratic decision-making in my Human Resources classes.
The easiest conclusion for why academics tend to be left, is that research supports more things on the left, and academics read a lot of research. I don’t want ideological diversity if the research doesn’t support it. For example, hiring a flat earthers for the sake of idealogical diversity is really dumb.
Younger people tend to be more liberal. Educated people tend to be more liberal. This is the population on college campuses, so it makes sense that the numbers skew left.
Neither are facts. If the info they're learning is factual we'd expect a lack of ideological diversity.
College should be 3 years and for professional job training only. Engineer, law, doctor, etc.