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.
The problem is our public institutions (universities) are using public dollars on things that are not desired by the public.
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
> The problem is our public institutions (universities) are using public dollars on things that are not desired by the public.
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.
Public universities should not be beholden to the public in what they research. It’s important that institutions are able to make conclusions that are true and expand human knowledge despite certain portions of the population not liking those conclusions.
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.
This is simply untrue and backforming extreme right-wing ideology as a reason for why people voted for a ln entire candidate.
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.
If a university has thought diversity, their demographics will match America's: they'll employ around 50% conservatives. If they have like 3% conservatives, as many do, that is a good sign that they are captured by an ideology, and then the question becomes, why should conservatives support institutions with federal money that actively spread an ideology that excludes conservatives? If the universities want to continue this way, they should pursue First Amendment religious protection.
Your core assumption is false. Education is not evenly distributed alongside ideologies.
Education is negatively correlated with conservatism, thus a sample of a job requiring higher education will not be representative of the general public.
It's not a secret - perhaps this source is more palatable to you, although it lacks exact figures: Mathematicians divided over faculty hiring practices that require proof of efforts to promote diversity - https://www.science.org/content/article/mathematicians-divid...
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...
I started voting for Republicans because I watched Democrats become anti-science, e.g., gender-affirming care. Anyone with ideology rejects science, which includes people from both parties, but currently my life is impacted in a negative way by liberal ideology, not conservative ideology (conservatives actually talk with me, while liberals shun me if I ask for evidence).
> I started voting for Republicans because I watched Democrats become anti-science, e.g., gender-affirming care.
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.
There's no such thing as being "without ideology". To quote Zizek, leading expert on ideology:
> 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.
Dental assistants are significantly female. Should we defund them until they are more representative? How many other industries and professions are like this?
Also, America is not 50% conservative. The split is more like thirds, i.e. America is non-binary
> If a university has thought diversity, their demographics will match America's: they'll employ around 50% conservatives.
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.
That is straight up not what's happening though and the "diversity of thought" framing is a way conservatives like to gaslight people into accepting their censorship.
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.
I would argue there was. You’re using “Accepts conservative thoughts uncritically” as the barometer here. Conservative thought just tends to lose out when examined critically, so the right seeks to compensate by authoritarian measures.
See heavy handed, top down efforts to suppress climate science, gender and trans science, research into effects of diversity, etc.
So which is it now? Is it newly found diversity of thought or has it always been this way? I don't remember the last time the president bullied universities the way this one is doing, fwiw.
They are. Transgenderism has decades of research backing it and the right has just unilaterally decided that it’s wrong. They didn’t do this based on any sort of real research but rather empty appeals to nature and essentialism.
Sports bans were not put in place because of a prevalence of trans athletes beating cis athletes.
> Gender affirming care is unsupported by evidence, so it is inaccurate to say "unilaterally".
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.
That is exactly what I called out in my post above. "Diversity of thought" is just a mask conservatives use for "our groupthink", in my experience. Same as "freedom of speech" or "states rights".
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.