Virginia Sowell Lecture Series: Fill & Download for Free

Here is some interesting research on the subject:Social Scientist Sees Bias Withinhttps://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html… Discrimination is always high on the agenda at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s conference, where psychologists discuss their research on racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism, stereotype threat and unconscious bias against minorities. But the most talked-about speech at this year’s meeting, which ended Jan. 30, involved a new “outgroup.”It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals. …… The politics of the professoriate has been studied by the economists Christopher Cardiff and Daniel Klein and the sociologists Neil Gross and Solon Simmons. They’ve independently found that Democrats typically outnumber Republicans at elite universities by at least six to one among the general faculty, and by higher ratios in the humanities and social sciences. In a 2007 study of both elite and non-elite universities, Dr. Gross and Dr. Simmons reported that nearly 80 percent of psychology professors are Democrats, outnumbering Republicans by nearly 12 to 1.The fields of psychology, sociology and anthropology have long attracted liberals, but they became more exclusive after the 1960s, according to Dr. Haidt. “The fight for civil rights and against racism became the sacred cause unifying the left throughout American society, and within the academy,” he said, arguing that this shared morality both “binds and blinds.”“If a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a tribal-moral community,” he said. “They’ll embrace science whenever it supports their sacred values, but they’ll ditch it or distort it as soon as it threatens a sacred value.” It’s easy for social scientists to observe this process in other communities, like the fundamentalist Christians who embrace “intelligent design” while rejecting Darwinism.A Bias to Call Our Ownhttp://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/science-small-talk/201102/bias-call-our-ownThe data on faculty composition are clear. Based on my own more anecdotal observations and interactions with colleagues, my only surprise at seeing the 12 to 1 ratio might be that the number isn't higher. And this sort of disparity is hardly confined to one discipline–on many a college campus, being a conservative student or faculty member means unambiguous membership in a clear statistical minority.Preferred Colleagueshttp://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/preferred-colleagues/29160?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=enWhen a quarter to a half of the members of a field openly admit that they would prefer that people who fit a certain social profile not be their colleagues, you can be sure that very few such people will end up with academic appointments.… Compromising Scholarship concludes with chapters in which Yancey reflects on the effects of bias in the social sciences and some suggestions on what might be done to offset them. The main effects he worries about are the loss of good, competing ideas and the loss of public legitimacy, as people rightly conclude that the declarations of social scientists often reflect bias, not science.A Confession of Liberal Intolerancehttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.htmlI’ve been thinking about this because on Facebook recently I wondered aloud whether universities stigmatize conservatives and undermine intellectual diversity. The scornful reaction from my fellow liberals proved the point.“Much of the ‘conservative’ worldview consists of ideas that are known empirically to be false,” said Carmi.“The truth has a liberal slant,” wrote Michelle.“Why stop there?” asked Steven. “How about we make faculties more diverse by hiring idiots?”To me, the conversation illuminated primarily liberal arrogance — the implication that conservatives don’t have anything significant to add to the discussion. My Facebook followers have incredible compassion for war victims in South Sudan, for kids who have been trafficked, even for abused chickens, but no obvious empathy for conservative scholars facing discrimination.The Liberal (and Moderating) Professoriatehttp://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/10/08/politicsFaculty members identify as liberals and vote Democratic in far greater proportions than found in the American public at large. That finding by itself won't shock many, but the national study released Saturday at a Harvard University symposium may be notable both for its methodology and other, more surprising findings. …… To date, Summers said, he has largely viewed the political imbalance as one of "able people making choices." He said that if you are a smart individual, and you like the market, profits, and "striving for profits," you have "a wide range of choices in life," of which an academic career is but one. If you are a smart person who doesn't like the world of markets and profits, "you have a much narrower range of choices," he said, and academic careers may be quite desirable. In this way of thinking, he said, it's not surprising to find more liberals than conservatives on college faculties.At the same time, he added, the extent of the imbalance and some informal research he has conducted "give me pause" and has him wondering about the possibility of bias against right-leaning thinkers. He examined the scholars being asked to give Tanner Lectures (a top lecture series at leading universities) and the political leanings of economists and political figures among honorary degree recipients at a top university (which he declined to name). Liberals receive more such honors by far, he said.It's not that there are no conservative professors, he said, but their share is so small as to raise questions that deserve more attention. Summers wondered if the situation isn't like it was in the early days of baseball's racial integration, when people trying to say equality had arrived could point to the relatively equal performance of black and white stars. "But it appeared that there were not any African-American .250 hitters," Summers said. "The only [black] players who played were stars."But here is the part I find most telling:… "As someone who is a strong Democrat and is a liberal, and does not think that we have won the argument with the country over the last 40 years, rather to the contrary, it makes me wonder whether if you do not engage in intense dialogue with those whom you disagree with in substantial number whether your own arguments will be sharpened and honed to maximum effect."Larry Summers (former president of Harvard University)Academics traditionally held the mission of higher education to be the search for truth through the free exchange of ideas. Summers is a man who was president of one of the most prestigious academic institutions in the world. And yet, here he is saying that the only reason he sees for being exposed to opposing ideas is to sharpen and hone his own preconceived ideas. THAT is a telling statement about the current condition of academia.Uncommon Knowledge: Thomas Sowell on the Vulgar Pride of Intellectuals