Everyone likely understands how politically biased academia is.
However, one of the things that was also assumed is that those who are not speaking for or against “wokeness” and “cancel culture” are actually against it. If that is true, then it doesn’t come out when you ask them about it.
Purporting to be the first paper of its kind to “investigate authoritarianism and political discrimination in academia,” the study, conducted by the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology’s Eric Kaufmann, seemed to support conservatives’ longstanding complaints that they and their political viewpoints face disproportionate levels of ideologically-motivated censorship.
While what the researchers called “hard authoritarianism” – no-platforming, social media brigading, ‘open’ letters, dismissal campaigns, and formal complaints – was comparatively rare, the absence of any opposing intellectual force meant that the militant cancel-culture activists often got their way. Meanwhile, “soft authoritarianism” – punishing non-conformists by limiting their ability to publish, win grants for their work, be promoted or retain current positions – provided an added burden (and incentive to keep quiet about their beliefs) to conservative academics.
Yes, there is already a total absence of any conservative or otherwise right-wing thinking in academia, so it’s really already a done deal – the remaining witch hunts are just house-cleaning.
As the study shows, they are also ensuring that conservatives don’t want to get involved in academia, meaning that the ruling elite has already institutionalized an ideology hostile to non-elites.
In the US, UK and Canada, some 40 percent of academics told the researchers they would not hire a Trump supporter, and one out of three in Britain would refuse a position to a Brexit supporter. But there’s one scarlet letter that will get a person ostracized even further in academia, they found: being considered a gender-critical feminist, i.e. holding a biological-based view of sex.
Just 28 percent of American and Canadian academics told CSPI they would be OK with going to lunch with someone who believed trans women should not have access to women’s shelters – though the survey did not specify the anatomical characteristics of the trans woman, a factor that would typically have a significant bearing on how gender-criminal feminists answer that question.
That is to be expected.
Trannies are the thing that has been pushed the hardest, specifically because it is the most bizarre. If you will accept trannies, you will accept anything else, so they’ve chosen that issue to be the red line and the one that really agitates people.
The fact that it came out on this study just confirms that making it the center of the indoctrination campaign has worked. The goyim understand that men in dresses are the one thing you never question.
There also seems to be some significance of the issue of “gender” to the post-human agenda.
“Identity politics” are largely about removing people’s identities, and the end goal is to create a massive slave class where any individual on earth is indistinguishable from any other.
While most college professors insisted they were not fans of authoritarian cancel culture, most wouldn’t lift a finger to oppose it either. Just 10 percent of those surveyed supported firing “controversial professors,” a faction that is clearly exercising its powers far disproportionately to its numbers. But if left to its own devices, cancel culture is bound to get quite a bit worse before it gets better. Younger academics were more favorably inclined toward kicking “controversial” scholars out of their posts – a factor which appears to be self-perpetuating, as conservative graduate students claimed that a hostile academic climate “plays a part” in stopping them from pursuing academic careers.
Yes, it would actually be insane for a conservative-minded person to get into academia.
Ten years ago, you could say “infiltrate,” but we’re far beyond that at this point. At this point, they’ve institutionalized an ideology, and made it clear that in no scenario can the core of the ideology ever be questioned.
Conservatives’ insistence on bias in the academy seems to be successfully borne out by CSPI’s research, which indicated more than a third of right-wing academics had been threatened with some form of discipline for their viewpoints. Fully 70 percent cited a “hostile departmental climate for their beliefs,” even if they had not personally been threatened, suggesting at least some on the right camouflage their beliefs to avoid punishment.
And indeed, the vast majority of academics in the social sciences or humanities (90 percent of Trump supporters and 80 percent of Brexit supporters) admitted they would not feel comfortable sharing their views with colleagues, with more than half admitting to self-censoring in research and/or teaching to avoid repercussions. Academics in the social sciences – particularly those involved in studying race, gender and sexuality – were particularly required to walk on eggshells.
The younger the academic in question, the more likely they were to support at least one of four hypothetical research findings, CSPI noted, stating that a 30-year-old leftist academic has a 50-50 chance of supporting one of its hypothetical cancel-culture campaigns while his 70-year-old ideological equivalent had just a 35 percent chance of doing so.The conclusion does not look good for academic freedom, as each new generation reads as more likely to cancel someone with whom they disagree, and Kaufman’s research reportedly dispelled the notion that the majority of academics not speaking up about cancel culture are against it.
Academia is the center of all power in Western civilization. It is the plantation on which culture is grown.
These people have decided to shove their culture down our throats now that they have control.
The Jews ran a “free speech on campuses” campaign in the 1960s, even though there already was free speech, because they wanted to more actively promote drug use, homosexuality, feminism, and race-mixing. White people went along with the “open ideas” concept, and now they’re closing the openings for ideas.
Everything is now locked in.
Understand: the only reason you would want to shut down open public discourse is if you wanted to hurt a lot of people on purpose. There is no other plausible reason.
Donald Trump was the last chance to change course, culturally, and people chose not to make that choice. Now, we’re just along for the ride here.
All any of us can do is protect ourselves, and try to do the right thing by others when we can.