98% of professors who register a party register democrat. Which party do you think given that data?
If your point is that professional truth-seekers (what scientists and academics are supposed to be) avoid the Republican party in its current state, I'd say it should be pretty obvious why that is.
As someone who was a chemistry professor with great reviews for the majority of a decade, and left after being told by the dean of science that "it's not advantageous that you are a white scientist" and "you came from a well educated family right?" (I didn't). This came after years of increasing discomfort with the state of college education.
I wasn't and still am not a republican - I see myself much more comfortable as critical of the left. The political left in college environments is now super unhealthy since it's the vast majority of the professorate - to the point that ideas that can be associated with the right are simply wrong if not morally repugnant.
Do you agree that any disparity is evidence of racism, and that policies either increase disparity (and are racist) or decrease disparity (and therefore anti-racist)? That was the current discussion when I left the field. For example I'll pull from the nytimes discussion (not a right leaning news source) https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/12/nyregion/covid-vaccine-bl... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/05/world/boston-mayor-janey-... Are new york vaccine mandates racist since they disproportionately effect BIPOC? This type of discussion was so far removed from science and so deeply held that anything other than full acceptance of that was career suicide.
At the college I worked at, the 80%+ of the faculty I worked at was female, 80%+ of the department heads were female, 80%+ of the deans were female, 80%+ of the VPs were female, the college president was female, and the majority of the students were female. Female was considered diverse in hiring and diversity was considered very important.
To your comment, I was trying to be a truth-seeker as a scientist and academic, and I left the academia because it stopped seeking truth in an honest way.
At the moment, in the US? Absolutely. Have you seen the kind of things that people on the right are saying? And not just some nutjobs (they always exist as part of any group), but their political leadership and political commentators. They have completely embraced lies as a point of policy.
That is of course a completely different issue from what's going on in American universities, and I'm not arguing that there's nothing wrong is wrong there. I'm just saying that this:
> it's not advantageous that you are a white scientist"
Is not a party line of the Democratic Party, it's not a traditionally left-wing position either. And excluding people for their skin colour is also not exactly a left-wing thing. Many, many people on the left will disagree with silencing professors for any reason, especially merely for being white.
> to the point that ideas that can be associated with the right are simply wrong if not morally repugnant.
It depends on what those ideas are. Racism? Yes, that is absolutely morally repugnant. Low taxes? Well, I think extreme economic inequality is harmful, but it's not something I'd call "morally repugnant".
> Do you agree that any disparity is evidence of racism
Obviously not. Though racism can obviously be an important cause of disparity, but it's one of many.
> and that policies either increase disparity (and are racist) or decrease disparity (and therefore anti-racist)?
If we're talking racial disparity, then knowingly enacting policies that increase that disparity would be racist. The policies themselves might be totally fine in a different context. Context matters a lot.
> Are new york vaccine mandates racist since they disproportionately effect BIPOC?
Not as long as vaccines are easily available to them. (What does "BIPOC" mean? I know PoC means people of colour.)
> Female was considered diverse in hiring and diversity was considered very important.
Not if 80% of the people are women. Then focusing on hiring more women is anti-diversity. Again, there's nothing left-wing about intentionally trying to exclude entire demographic groups, and I don't think trying to exclude men completely has ever been the party line of the Democratic Party, which is the specific claim I was addressing.
> To your comment, I was trying to be a truth-seeker as a scientist and academic, and I left the academia because it stopped seeking truth in an honest way.
And I applaud you for doing so. I'd probably have done the same in your situation. I'm just arguing that there's nothing traditionally left-wing about this. It's just archconservatism with the roles swapped.
I guess it's a form of extremism hijacking what were originally good ideas and taking them to unhealthy extremes. It's like the difference between real feminism that wants equality for men and women, versus the man-hating parody of feminism that wants to replace the patriarchy with an identical matriarchy and not actually solve anything (and I know those people exist, and they might well be a big part of the problem at your university).
BIPOC = Black, Indigenous, People of Color
Anyways, one final thought. What I presented above isn't a fringe and extremist thought on college campuses anymore. It's what has to be openly accepted as full truth. It's hard to communicate to people who aren't in the thick of it how crazy it has become. Admittedly, I'm in a more "progressive" city, but this is almost unbelievably pervasive at this point. The "good" liberals are often not aware the extent of how crazy this is and how much capture there is to this mindset in colleges.
If you have 1.5 minutes at 2x speed and are interested in some shock and awe around this discussion at harvard discussing the moral choses of whites, check out https://youtu.be/Ei-d83i5PNg?t=3433