"Honestly you are critiquing DEI in the same article you are calling for even percentages of professors to be of all the political bents"
Exactly. Shouldn't it be entirely beside the point who someone voted for in the last election? There seems to be an unwarranted assumption that political affiliations should be exactly evenly distribu…
"Honestly you are critiquing DEI in the same article you are calling for even percentages of professors to be of all the political bents"
Exactly. Shouldn't it be entirely beside the point who someone voted for in the last election? There seems to be an unwarranted assumption that political affiliations should be exactly evenly distributed among all careers that flies in the face of the supposed goal of the classically liberal freedoms (I think cynically) espoused by Rufo et al. You can't mandate that no more than 42% of faculty be registered as Democrats without committing active viewpoint discrimination.
But he explicitly says he *isn't* calling for even percentages! This is arguing with a position he didn't take!
From the piece:
"When I dream of diversity in academia, I do not dream of a diversity that sees every university aiming to achieve a perfect 50/50 balance of people who fall on the left or the right of the American political spectrum. I do not dream of a diversity in which every economics department offers the same mix of Keynsian, Chicago, and Austrian economics. I dream of diversity between institutions [...]."
If you keep reading it seems like he's saying he wants each institution to discriminate in whatever way it seems fit and then overall you get the percentages to equal out. I don't believe in discriminating by viewpoint in any case. Of course private colleges can do what they want.
Yeah it’s a lousy remedy. It’s too bad we got to the point that a remedy is needed. The recognition that there is indeed a problem to be addressed is a necessary first step and I applaud the writer for acknowledging that. Better remedies are possible. The embrace of free speech is a start. You have to be able to disagree. You have to be able to risk being wrong, and not get crucified for it.
"Honestly you are critiquing DEI in the same article you are calling for even percentages of professors to be of all the political bents"
Exactly. Shouldn't it be entirely beside the point who someone voted for in the last election? There seems to be an unwarranted assumption that political affiliations should be exactly evenly distributed among all careers that flies in the face of the supposed goal of the classically liberal freedoms (I think cynically) espoused by Rufo et al. You can't mandate that no more than 42% of faculty be registered as Democrats without committing active viewpoint discrimination.
But he explicitly says he *isn't* calling for even percentages! This is arguing with a position he didn't take!
From the piece:
"When I dream of diversity in academia, I do not dream of a diversity that sees every university aiming to achieve a perfect 50/50 balance of people who fall on the left or the right of the American political spectrum. I do not dream of a diversity in which every economics department offers the same mix of Keynsian, Chicago, and Austrian economics. I dream of diversity between institutions [...]."
If you keep reading it seems like he's saying he wants each institution to discriminate in whatever way it seems fit and then overall you get the percentages to equal out. I don't believe in discriminating by viewpoint in any case. Of course private colleges can do what they want.
Yeah, you might even call his viewpoint - "counterhegemonic."
Yeah it’s a lousy remedy. It’s too bad we got to the point that a remedy is needed. The recognition that there is indeed a problem to be addressed is a necessary first step and I applaud the writer for acknowledging that. Better remedies are possible. The embrace of free speech is a start. You have to be able to disagree. You have to be able to risk being wrong, and not get crucified for it.