Category: liberal bias in academia

Silk Road News: Of Frauds and Chus

Frauds and anti-White ideologues.

See this.  It’s not enough that Chinamen make cheap knock-offs of clothing and electronics, etc. – now they are doing so for scientific reagents.  Asians – the “human” photocopiers, and those copies are of poor fidelity indeed.

It’s Chu again. That’s not good enough.  She should be completely kicked out.  And Yale needs to put together a special commission – it can be called the Silk Road Commission – charged with investigated anti-White hatred from Asians.  Fertile ground for study indeed – a virtually limitless supply of study material.

Left Behind: More on Bias in Social "Science"

I’m no fan of Shermer, but he’s right here.

Article as follows, emphasis added:
In the past couple of years imbroglios erupted on college campuses across the U.S. over trigger warnings (for example, alerting students to scenes of abuse and violence in The Great Gatsbybefore assigning it), microaggressions (saying “I believe the most qualified person should get the job”), cultural appropriation (a white woman wearing her hair in cornrows), speaker disinvitations (Brandeis University canceling plans to award Ayaan Hirsi Ali an honorary degree because of her criticism of Islam’s treatment of women), safe spaces (such as rooms where students can go after a talk that has upset them), and social justice advocates competing to signal their moral outrage over such issues as Halloween costumes (last year at Yale University). Why such unrest in the most liberal institutions in the country?
Although there are many proximate causes, there is but one ultimate cause—lack of political diversity to provide checks on protests going too far. A 2014 study conducted by the University of California, Los Angeles, Higher Education Research Institute found that 59.8 percent of all undergraduate faculty nationwide identify as far left or liberal, compared with only 12.8 percent as far right or conservative. The asymmetry is much worse in the social sciences. A 2015 study by psychologist José Duarte, then at Arizona State University, and his colleagues in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, entitled “Political Diversity Will Improve Social Psychological Science,” found that 58 to 66 percent of social scientists are liberal and only 5 to 8 percent conservative and that there are eight Democrats for every Republican. The problem is most relevant to the study of areas “related to the political concerns of the Left—areas such as race, gender, stereotyping, environmentalism, power, and inequality.” The very things these students are protesting.
How does this political asymmetry corrupt social science? It begins with what subjects are studied and the descriptive language employed. Consider a 2003 paper by social psychologist John Jost, now at New York University, and his colleagues, entitled “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition.” Conservatives are described as having “uncertainty avoidance,” “needs for order, structure, and closure,” as well as “dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity,” as if these constitute a mental disease that leads to “resistance to change” and “endorsement of inequality.”Yet one could just as easily characterize liberals as suffering from a host of equally malfunctioning cognitive states: a lack of moral compass that leads to an inability to make clear ethical choices, a pathological fear of clarity that leads to indecisiveness, a naive belief that all people are equally talented, and a blind adherence in the teeth of contradictory evidence from behavior genetics that culture and environment exclusively determine one’s lot in life.

Duarte et al. find similar distortive language across the social sciences, where, for instance, certain words are used to suggest pernicious motives when confronting contradictory evidence—“deny,” “legitimize,” “rationalize,” “justify,” “defend,” “trivialize”—with conservatives as examples, as if liberals are always objective and rational. In one test item, for example, the “endorsement of the efficacy of hard work” was interpreted as an example of “rationalization of inequality.” Imagine a study in which conservative values were assumed to be scientific facts and disagreement with them was treated as irrational, the authors conjecture counterfactually. “In this field, scholars might regularly publish studies on … ‘the denial of the benefits of a strong military’ or ‘the denial of the benefits of church attendance.’” The authors present evidence that “embedding any type of ideological values into measures is dangerous to science” and is “much more likely to happen—and to go unchallenged by dissenters—in a politically homogeneous field.”
Political bias also twists how data are interpreted. For instance, Duarte’s study discusses a paper in which subjects scoring high in “right-wing authoritarianism” were found to be “more likely to go along with the unethical decisions of leaders.” Example: “not formally taking a female colleague’s side in her sexual harassment complaint against her subordinate (given little information about the case).” Maybe what this finding really means is that conservatives believe in examining evidence first, instead of prejudging by gender. Call it “left-wing authoritarianism.”
The authors’ solution to the political bias problem is right out of the liberal playbook: diversity. Not just ethnic, race and gender but viewpoint diversity. All of us are biased, and few of us can see it in ourselves, so we depend on others to challenge us. As John Stuart Mill noted in that greatest defense of free speech, On Liberty, “He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.”
This article was originally published with the title “Left Behind”

Academic Free Speech Killed by Diversity

It’s getting so bad, even the Huffington Post writes about it.


If there is a common denominator to the complaints, it is students’ expectation that they are entitled to a campus that is a “safe place” — by which is meant an academic environment uncontaminated with ideas that they find “offensive.” And by “offensive,” students mean expression that deviates from a politically correct orthodoxy of received opinion. By this standard, any criticism, any dissent or disagreement, is not merely unwelcome, but actually threatening and harmful in a way that demands immediate protective measures by college administrators. This is a new and disturbing phenomenon. While the current generation of college students is not the first to be seduced by the power of censorship, it may be the first to insist on that power as a means of protection from viewpoints that are insufficiently sensitive to their self-image as victims. When did college students become so fearful of competing ideas? When did they become so emotionally frail that even the hint of criticism is seen as a hostile act from which they must be shielded (and for which perpetrators must be re-educated)?


The basic foundation here is White cowardice and White uselessness. Whites get cowed by affirmative action minorities most likely on race-based scholarships.  Student goes on a hunger strike?  Let them starve to death. Football team doesn’t want to play?  Hey, Whitey, stop jock sniffing the Negro athlete.  White students cry when a professor criticizes affirmative action?  Laugh at them. Students get rowdy and suppress the freedoms of others? Expel them. Stop being prancing pansies, White Men.

Long-Term Silver Lining

These are your opponents.

The Derb exposes some academic stupidity:


During Wax’s speech, about a dozen members of the [Union] … rose and walked to the back of the room, where they turned their backs on Wax and raised their fists in the air. Several students cried during her speech.


In the short-term, this is of course a problem: the destruction of American academia, White worthlessness (but, how many of the “Whites” were White Gentiles?), etc.

In the long-term, there is a real silver-lining here.  Think about it, you White racist haters. Your ideological opponents are such that openly start crying because they hear a speech (by a professor) opposing affirmative action.

The Left is dominant only because the Right is pathetic and refuses to fight back.  People who cry because they hear an academic argument that goes against their beliefs?  Do you think these “people” are going to oppose a determined Rightist take-over of society?  What will they do?  Burst out into tears?  Demand “safe spaces?”  What does it say about “the Right” that it constantly loses to an opponent that has the mentality and fortitude of an over-sensitive spoiled child?

Yes, in the short run, this is all depressing and bad news. In the long run, it tells us that if the Right can ever become assertive and, more importantly, highly organized and disciplined, then the crybabies will collapse in a paroxysm of tears, curled up in a fetal position, sucking their thumbs.

This is why the situation is so frustrating. Yes, the System is powerful. Yes, it has a repressive infrastructure and great external resources. Yes, it has the backing of the wealthy and of various organizations and corporations,. But the System is intellectually and morally bankrupt, and its academic foot soldiers are soft, flabby crybabies. The System is a colossus with feet of clay.  It has not yet been tested by a determined opposition.