You're right -- the whole incentive structure of academia invites and rewards conformism, and left wing views are the ones that have captured that conformism. It doesn't have to be like that though. Yes there are a lot of left wing academic scientists, and that's who we hear from, but then there are a lot of libertarian/centrist/right wing academic scientists who just want to lay low and focus on their science. I think it's incumbent on the latter to have the courage to be disliked and to offer diverse viewpoints in constructive ways. One of the reasons I started my Substack was to help to fill the void of non-Leftist academic scientists online.
It's interesting to me that schools like Harvard would rather lose significant research funding for science and medicine rather than capitulate on issues that don't involve that same research. In other words, the political monoculture of these institutions is so strong that some (scientists who just want to do research) are expected to take one for the team. Making concessions is simply not an option.
Yup I agree. I was encouraged at Columbia’s apparent moves to compromise. Harvard seem to be viewing this very tribally and see stubbornness as a virtue, while their own scientists suffer for it.
Tribal is the keyword. For many in academia, this is part of an existential struggle...a fight between good and evil where they are some kind of hero. The reality is that a significant number of people consider academics to be just political actors now, and they are merely being treated that way.
Mr cremieux there, well known eugenicist and someone who spreads 30’s era nazi germany level race science. I’m sure you know that which is why you follow them though.
America’s scientists are awfully political. Nobody made them become so. Did they think they could afford luxury beliefs?
You're right -- the whole incentive structure of academia invites and rewards conformism, and left wing views are the ones that have captured that conformism. It doesn't have to be like that though. Yes there are a lot of left wing academic scientists, and that's who we hear from, but then there are a lot of libertarian/centrist/right wing academic scientists who just want to lay low and focus on their science. I think it's incumbent on the latter to have the courage to be disliked and to offer diverse viewpoints in constructive ways. One of the reasons I started my Substack was to help to fill the void of non-Leftist academic scientists online.
It's interesting to me that schools like Harvard would rather lose significant research funding for science and medicine rather than capitulate on issues that don't involve that same research. In other words, the political monoculture of these institutions is so strong that some (scientists who just want to do research) are expected to take one for the team. Making concessions is simply not an option.
Yup I agree. I was encouraged at Columbia’s apparent moves to compromise. Harvard seem to be viewing this very tribally and see stubbornness as a virtue, while their own scientists suffer for it.
Tribal is the keyword. For many in academia, this is part of an existential struggle...a fight between good and evil where they are some kind of hero. The reality is that a significant number of people consider academics to be just political actors now, and they are merely being treated that way.
Good luck with that.
Shout out to you for following white supremacists on sub stack
To whom are you referring?
Mr cremieux there, well known eugenicist and someone who spreads 30’s era nazi germany level race science. I’m sure you know that which is why you follow them though.