This study is the first of its kind to investigate authoritarianism and political discrimination in academia, relying on survey responses from both the perpetrators and targets of discrimination.
Across three Anglophone countries, a significant portion of academics discriminate against conservatives in hiring, promotion, grants and publications. Over 4 in 10 US and Canadian academics would not hire a Trump supporter, and 1 in 3 British academics would not hire a Brexit supporter.
Gender-critical feminist scholars appear to experience even more discrimination than conservatives. Only 28% of American and Canadian academics would feel comfortable having lunch with someone who opposes the idea of transwomen accessing women’s shelters.
Most professors do not back cancel culture in its most authoritarian forms. Only 1 in 10 academics supports firing controversial professors. Nonetheless, while most do not back cancellation, many are not opposed to it, remaining non-committal.
Right-leaning academics experience a high level of institutional authoritarianism and peer pressure. In the US, over a third of conservative academics and PhD students have been threatened with disciplinary action for their views while 70% of conservative academics report a hostile departmental climate for their beliefs.
In the social sciences and humanities, over 9 in 10 Trump-supporting academics and 8 in 10 Brexit-supporting academics say they would not feel comfortable expressing their views to a colleague. More than half of North American and British conservative academics admit self-censoring in research and teaching.
Younger academics and PhD students, especially in the United States, are significantly more willing than older academics to support dismissing controversial scholars from their posts, indicating that the problem of progressive authoritarianism is likely to get worse in the coming years.
A hostile climate plays a part in deterring conservative graduate students from pursuing careers in academia. Conservative and liberal graduate students differ far more in their perceptions of whether their politics fit academia than they do on questions related to how well academia pays, the isolating nature of the work, and other aspects of the profession.
One policy option is for government to proactively apply the law to universities, instituting sanctions for institutions that repeatedly breach individuals’ academic freedom while opening up a means for plaintiffs to appeal around their universities to a regulatory ombudsman. While this report makes no policy recommendations, this approach has been largely adopted by the British government.
So you mean there’s hope for the future? 
(Sorry, couldn’t resist)
It’s probably best not to get too much into politics, but if one is supporting theories and alternative facts that have no data to back them up, there’s a reason they don’t belong in academia.
From what you wrote about this report, it’s impossible to know if those in the survey were thinking about those aspects when they answered the questions (in which case, no problem) or if they were rejecting even legit aspects of “the other view.” It’s tough when the two are often intermixed.
Lest you think I’m one of “those” (you know, liberal fanatics), hardly… but saying more would delve too much into politics. I’m very much in the middle hoping certain aspects get back to normal.
Agree with @Creekland. Isn’t this pretty much limited to the liberal arts? I mean, is there really that much discussion of politics in STEM fields? I don’t know what it’s like in the UK, but at present, in the United States, business and engineering are the two most popular majors. Otherwise, show me what you’ve published - that’s what people really care about.
Only in fields where facts can’t even be established or agreed upon, and where arguments are made based on a few sparse data points.
By “cancel culture”, do you mean when someone says “you’re fired!” (or equivalent) for the slightest disagreement?
There are not 2 sides to every argument. CNN does not need the pro-slavery or pro-nazi POV. There has to be a line.
I think not promoting people into academia who believe in alternate facts is a reasonable line. Do we need flat earthers in the astronomy department, or a professor in the biology dept that believes the earth is 6,000 years old? Doesn’t that also extend to a political science professor the believes that voting machines changed 7 million votes?
Also to help people understand the credibility of this quasi-academic sounding right wing source, here are 2 of the first paragraphs from their homepage. Essentially this is an organization created in 2020 to blame everything on the liberals and make conservatives victims:
Moral psychologists have discovered that there is something unique in the worldview of populations that are Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD). In the last decade, white American liberals have shifted further to the left on issues related to race, gender, and sexual orientation, a development that was documented by Zach Goldberg and termed “The Great Awokening” by Matt Yglesias.
White liberals make up the dominant group in academia, journalism, and other influential professions. They are the most powerful demographic in America, and therefore the world. Yet as of January 2020, the term “Great Awokening” has been mentioned only ten times according to Google Scholar. Relative to conservatism, liberalism, particularly in the form it has taken in recent years, remains underexplored. For example, while the study of the biases and prejudices of conservatives goes back decades, only in recent years have scholars truly explored their equivalents among those who identify with the political left. What are the psychological and social roots of The Great Awokening? Is it best thought of as an extension of WEIRD morality, or something new? Are there aspects of this morality that are particularly surprising or unusual? Is The Great Awokening restricted to American liberals, or is there evidence of similar processes elsewhere?
The division comes from the practical roots of learning to follow HR guidelines. People who can’t/won’t lose their jobs. People with facebook memes that don’t comply with HR guidelines don’t get hired. People that can, get hired and promoted. HR doesn’t look for a particular candidate, they are looking at whether or not there are harassing or discriminating statements being posted.
People tend to Google what they don’t understand.
The fact that on organazation that uses WEIRD as an acronym for white liberal values was able to find bias against conservatives is not exactly shocking.
And, yet. What organization’s website are we all going look up? White liberals may have won the war in terms of numbers of adherents but white conservatives pretty much control the internet.
If your argument can’t stand on its own then just shut down the other person’s argument. Lol.
But make sure you call them names first and claim to be on a moral soapbox. Tell me how it goes.
Really. Obviously you have never done debate. You have to practice both sides. They pick which side you argue whether or not it’s your point of view.
Highly recommend esp for those who don’t have this skill which is essential in life.
My kids have argued against some points they don’t agree and learned a valuable skill. The ethos of might is right doesn’t exist. One must Be able to come to consensus with people whom you don’t agree with. Or, you can chose to live in a very small echo chamber. That doesn’t increase your knowledge or moral standing. It just locks one in place. Statis.
Are you equating those with conservative views as nazi’s and being pro-slavery? Are you so arrogant that you feel that anyone with an opposing view believes in “alternate facts”? You seem to be using the most extreme examples to make your point. Do you work in academia - if so then the original article has validity.
Run for the hills @dadof4kids !!!
One of our government teachers will always take both sides pending which type of student engages her (she’ll be blue if they are red and vice versa). She’s told me the kids often ask her which way she’s voting in election years and she never tells them. She’s one who has the kids do debates on issues in her class and it’s a random draw as to who gets which topic and which side. Her goal is to get kids to understand the issues and arguments on anything from gun control to abortion to minimum wage or affirmative action and many others.
I applaud her. She gives kids the info and encourages them to think through making up their minds. (Technically she gives out the topics randomly and the kids have to research info supporting their cause - then do the debate in front of other students who are later quizzed on all topics.)
What? I think the point trying to be made is that somethings are flat out wrong.
Nothing was said that even implied that conservatives are nazis.
I didn’t get that out of his posts. I assumed he was using the far end of the spectrum that everyone could agree shouldn’t be there.
Moderator’s Note: I’m letting the thread continue but posters need to remember to be nice. Expressing different views is fine. Being provocative is not.
Thank you
I think there’s plenty of room for debate and differing opinions when both sides are operating in the same reality and using actual facts.
Anytime you start making up “facts” and depending on logical fallacies and hyperbole to make your point, then that doesn’t belong in academia. If this applies to you, then complaining about bias, discrimination, and cancel culture doesn’t help your case and only proves the point.
Note that I didn’t say anything above about liberal vs conservative. However if you are offended because you automatically assumed this applies to “your side”, then consider the reasons why you would make that assumption.