Do you not see the irony in your statement?
What is conservatism if not an ideology?
All you're saying is universities that align with the prevalent ideology of the authoritarian regime will be fine. Congrats, you're now the Soviet Union.
What is conservatism if not an ideology?
All you're saying is universities that align with the prevalent ideology of the authoritarian regime will be fine. Congrats, you're now the Soviet Union.
Institutions have accountability to the people. Nobody except a fringe wants universities to be maga centers, most people just want them to reflect “common sense” and forward the will of the American people
I would also dispute your assertion that “no one wants universities to be maga centers.” Leaders on the right have said that they do want that, or at least the right wing American mythos to be uncritically taught and not challenged.
I said “nobody except a fringe”, which is correct
One things that fascists do when voted into power is assume that any random strange ideology as part of the platform is now so popular that it must override existing law and procedure, and that is exactly what Trump is doing here. Which is why these researchers are leaving. Not because they are doing something the public dislikes. The public looooves scientific research.
That are not desired by the public until it is. A lot of people might find research in advance and quite esoteric math useless, as it does not produce any benefit to them. That is until those research yield something that can be used in a way, or in another field, where it does impact their lives. The issue is that you cannot easily tell what is useful or not. Some research have a clear goal, who, if achieved, will yield very tangible benefit, but they might never reach it. On the other hand, something that seems impenetrable to the average man might yield incredible benefit.
Without the freedom to explore, nothing would ever be found.
Education is negatively correlated with conservatism, thus a sample of a job requiring higher education will not be representative of the general public.
> I already am eating from the trashcan all the time. The name of this trashcan is ideology. The material force of ideology - makes me not see what I'm effectively eating. It's not only our reality which enslaves us. The tragedy of our predicament - when we are within ideology, is that - when we think that we escape it into our dreams - at that point we are within ideology.
No, you decided to vote republicans when you stop agreeing with some of the science.
> (conservatives actually talk with me, while liberals shun me if I ask for evidence)
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=tran...
Gender-affirming care is not "anti-science", you just don't understand the science.
Gender-affirming care is not saying that people can change their biological sex. It was never that. That was, and will remain, a conservative hallucination.
Gender-affirming care is about curtailing the effects of gender dysphoria and improving the quality of life of transgender individuals, and some cisgender individuals. Which is science-backed. It works. Gender-affirming care leads to better outcomes for transgender individuals, period.
The problem here with you, and other's, is that you're just arguing the wrong points. You might not think gender dysphoria is real or that it matters, but that's not the conversation. The conversation is "does gender-affirming care help people and improve outcomes". Which yes, it does.
Whether those people deserve to be helped is not a scientific question. It's a political one. Please, know and understand the difference.
That is, in 19% of jobs it is an official, open requirement. It's safe to assume the unofficial discrimination is higher.
Or this one: Required ‘diversity and inclusion’ statements amount to a political litmus test for hiring - https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-universitys-new-loyalty-oat...
Or this one: Berkeley Weeded Out Job Applicants Who Didn't Propose Specific Plans To Advance Diversity - https://reason.com/2020/02/03/university-of-california-diver...
Or this one: A recent report from the Goldwater Institute found that 80% of job postings for Arizona’s public universities required applicants to submit a statement detailing their commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. - https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/policy-report/the-new-loy...
Or how about directly from the horse's mouth: Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences Will No Longer [i.e. they did until 2024] Require Diversity Statements - https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/6/4/dei-faculty-hiri...
And a few more admissions of past use of these statements:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/20/us/diversity-statements-u...
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/06/us/politics/dei-statement...
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/05/us/university-of-michigan...
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/08/us/ucla-dei-statement.htm...
Oh, and just to show my statement on unofficial discrimination being higher wasn't uninformed speculation:
With State Bans on D.E.I., Some Universities Find a Workaround: Rebranding - https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/12/us/diversity-ban-dei-coll...
Also, America is not 50% conservative. The split is more like thirds, i.e. America is non-binary
Well sure, but you're missing a very key component here: conservatives are ideologically opposed to education, especially public education. It's a foundational part of American conservative ideology.
Yeah, that influences things.
i.e. If I accept and employ a conservative person then I'm aligning with conservative values and betraying liberal values.
What the GP is proposing is abandoning this black and white thinking, or in other words: accepting diversity of thought.
(Waiting for downvotes from the HN echo chamber that abhors diversity of thought.)
Climate change research is being threatened. Universities are being bullied for supporting trans athletes.
There's a reason these folks are fleeing. It's not because they can't stand to have colleagues with opposing views, it's because they are threatened. To reframe it as "diversity of thought" is disingenuous and dishonest.
Was there?
Academia has been this way for decades.
See heavy handed, top down efforts to suppress climate science, gender and trans science, research into effects of diversity, etc.
These two things are not equivalent.
Always only when it's convenient for them.
Sports bans were not put in place because of a prevalence of trans athletes beating cis athletes.
Trans woman tend to dominate their sports. There are so many examples of this. We don't need to have opinions on this: just use the evidence.
It is supported by evidence -- plenty of research around outcomes and comparisons to the alternative. The right wing does not engage with that evidence. Your denial of this is exactly an example of "unilaterally" denying it.
> Trans woman tend to dominate their sports. There are so many examples of this. We don't need to have opinions on this: just use the evidence.
There aren't, actually. You say there's so many examples but I have failed to see any of them. They tend to dig up examples where trans women just manage to place at all, usually in lower ranks. Hardly an example of domination, and even if it was its an anecdote and not statistical. In fact, the right was so desperate for examples that they leapt to conclusions at the Olympics and claimed that a cis woman was trans.