How Academia’s Liberal Bias Is Killing Social Science

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, The Week, December 17, 201

{snip}

{snip} Social sciences and humanities cannot be completely divorced from the philosophy of those who practice it. And groupthink causes some questions not to be asked, and some answers not to be overly scrutinized. It is making our science worse. Anyone who cares about the advancement of knowledge and science should care about this problem.

That’s why I was very gratified to read this very enlightening draft paper written by a number of social psychologists on precisely this topic, attacking the lack of political diversity in their profession and calling for reform. For those who have the time and care about academia, the whole thing truly makes for enlightening reading. The main author of the paper is Jonathan Haidt, well known for his Moral Foundations Theory (and a self-described liberal, if you care to know).

Although the paper focuses on the field of social psychology, its introduction as well as its overall logic make many of its points applicable to disciplines beyond social psychology.

The authors first note the well-known problems of groupthink in any collection of people engaged in a quest for the truth: uncomfortable questions get suppressed, confirmation bias runs amok, and so on.

But it is when the authors move to specific examples that the paper is most enlightening.

They start by debunking published (and often well-publicized) social psychology findings that seem to suggest moral or intellectual superiority on the part of liberals over conservatives, which smartly serves to debunk both the notion that social psychology is bereft of conservatives because they’re not smart enough to cut it, and that groupthink doesn’t produce shoddy science. For example, a study that sought to show that conservatives reach their beliefs only through denying reality achieved that result by describing ideological liberal beliefs as “reality,” surveying people on whether they agreed with them, and then concluding that those who disagree with them are in denial of reality–and lo, people in that group are much more likely to be conservative! This has nothing to do with science, and yet in a field with such groupthink, it can get published in peer-reviewed journals and passed off as “science,” complete with a Vox stenographic exercise at the end of the rainbow. A field where this is possible is in dire straits indeed.

{snip}

The authors also drop this bombshell: In one survey they conducted of academic social psychologists, “82 percent admitted that they would be at least a little bit prejudiced against a conservative [job] candidate.” Eighty-two percent! It’s often said discrimination works through unconscious bias, but here 82 percent even have conscious bias.

{snip}

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Don White

    Hard to put the words “social” and “science” into anything meaningful or useful. Starts with a reality . . . Marxism sings a tune to which most social scientists march . . . whether consciously or not.

    • Publius Pompilius Quietus

      Social science is the successor to philosophy, using modern empirical methods to try to answer old philosophic questions. You might say it’s not totally scientific, but it is the most scientific way we have to study society and human nature.

      • LHathaway

        In one of the pioneering works of social science, ‘The Authoritarian Personality’ it sure Seems as if the authors wrote down the words used to describe liberals and conservatives and then labeled those attributed to conservatives as part of the ‘authoritarian personality’. I do agree with you. It’s grown quite sophisticated. It has even become a perpetual motion machine of sorts.

      • Westphilo

        “Most scientific way” is not science. Science requires any theory to be tested impartially and in such a manner that anyone can arrive at the same results. “Most scientific way” is like saying someone is ” a little pregnant. You are pregnant or you are not pregnant. There is no in between science. To say so, is sophistry.

        • Publius Pompilius Quietus

          Saying my argument is like saying someone is ‘a little pregnant’ is a red herring. The difference between natural sciences (biology, chemistry, neurology, et cetera) and social science (history, political science, sociology, et cetera) is the latter deals with human nature. Whereas a chemical or gene will act the same every time

          • Westphilo

            Thanks for your response. You make my case- “people act differently”. “Social science” is not science and does not use empirical methods. It’s based upon a false premise that man acts in a preconceived manner/according to some laws of nature. This is false. Psychology and it derivative subjects are as the words say- the study of man. Because one studies man does not make it science. Just as calling it a science, does not make it a science. Because you adopt protocols of science, does not make it a science. Example, all man’s efforts to quantify/qualify man still cannot determine if a man will commit a crime or not. Tell what good has the “social sciences” done. Some say, society is better off without “social science”. Maybe or maybe not, but do not call it a science.

    • LHathaway

      We all do, by this point. It’s worse than it sounds. Cause it sure sounds like this guy has truly become a conservative, but he’s unwilling to come out of the closet as such.

    • Unperson

      It’s like that old country-and-western song, “Mamas Don’t Let Your Babies be Social-Sciences Majors.”
      Take it from this Sociology Major/Psychology Minor grad, who found after four years that he had been taught no saleable skills; as well as a completely distorted and counterproductive (i.e. leftist) view of how the world operates.

    • DonReynolds

      Not true. There are a number of social sciences…..including economics….and I can assure you very few are given to Marxism……consciously or not.

  • anony

    The Frankfurt School was successful beyond its wildest dreams, I think.

    These far left ideologues have marched successfully through virtually all of our institutions.

    Diversity? Who in their right mind would believe that garbage? Our greatest strength? No, our downfall.

    • Augustus3709

      To be honest this is bigger than the Frankfurt School, and communist Jews etc.

      There is obviously a market for leftist garbage, otherwise it wouldn’t appeal to so many people.

      We are really at war with human nature; people being lazy and taking the easy way out.

      We need to not just point fingers and instead go back to the drawing board.

      • David Ashton

        Also true.

      • John R

        Yes, remember John Brown lived before Karl Marx. There is in the Northern European Anglo Saxon Protestant culture a pathology of guilt about the “other.” Yes, all of this runs a lot deeper than Marxists, Jews, sixties radicals, etc.

        • Augustus3709

          We might say the 60s radicalism nurtured, fermented, promoted, encouraged and enlarged something that was already there, a strain of emotional pathology that should have been squashed, but instead was brought to the forefront of the public psyche. The same thing occurred with female psychology and feminism. –A darkness which should be shunned and eliminated has been intellectualized and enabled.

          The Southern European Catholic strategy of wide spread race-mixing with the natives wasn’t exactly good racial strategy either, although it did create millions of loyal brown Catholics in central and south America.

          The phenomenon of Iberian race-mixing in the Americas was openly discussed in American politics in the mid 19th century, and miscegenation was cited as the reason for their imperial decline.

        • Sick of it

          Brown’s radical activities occurred years after the Revolutions of 1848 which were inspired by Marx. Leaders during said revolutions became military officers in the Union Army during the Civil War. Some were even generals. The Radical Republicans were more radical than even Lincoln knew and it cost him his life, not that I shed any tears over it.

    • David Ashton

      True.

    • John R

      And war is peace; bad is good; weakness is strength…

      • anony

        Orwell lives!

    • propagandaoftruth

      The best explanations are the simplest.

      “Conservatives” gravitate toward more “capitalist” career paths while “liberals” go more “socialist”.

      At some level of understanding this, libs have done their best to shun those cons who might prefer academia to business, while through non-stop indoctrination and political pressure, have been full tilt trying to make the world of business intolerable for “conservatives” as well, through “diversity training”, a form of genocidal workplace harassment.

      The end goal – White Genocide.

      • DonReynolds

        Conservatives will always choose individual freedom …..while Liberals insist on creating a Utopia that never before existed.
        Conservatives could live with no government control but the Liberals will never be satisfied.
        There are two basic minds in this world. One who insists on freedom for each person, so each can do their own thinking. The other insists that everyone must be equal, or made equal, or prevented from being anything other than equal. They insist on doing the thinking for everyone else and demand the authority to compel submission. They are slaveowners in search of slaves.

  • Oil Can Harry

    And these are the same p.c. blowhards who bash the genius William Shockley while praising the lying fraudster Steven Jay Gould.

    • George Clark

      Gould was a guest on the Simpsons. Shockley was not. Ergo, Gould is a genius, and Shockley is not.

      • John Smith

        James Watson’s name is now “Mudd” as well.

    • John Smith

      I was forced to take a class that used his “Mismeasure of Man” book as a text. It didn’t take.

      • David Ashton

        Useful for future students to dig out the refutations esp. of brain size.

  • guest

    Our (“we” meaning “whoever reads Amren”) goal should be not to fix the social sciences, but rather to defund them. They will change their attitudes if they find themselves in a competitive, outcome-oriented labor marketplace. We should help them by defunding them.

    As an article on Vdare said, our problem is not lack of followers, it’s lack of leaders. We don’t yet have an American MLP. But when that person comes along, I hope that person will take action to defund all the marxist studies departments which breathe taxpayer-supplied oxygen to stay alive.

    • RationaliseThis

      Perhaps we have a lack of leaders, I tend to think we don’t donate enough to support those leaders.

      • Jo

        We’d financially support ‘activist’ leaders.

    • David Ashton

      Both strategies. Refutation AND deprivation of tax or big-foundation funds.

    • John Ambrose

      Say what you want about Romney but when he proposed eliminating federal funding for PBS I was elated. Granted a lot of their stuff is apolitical (and I do watch many of their programs) but a significant minority is just blatant left-wing propaganda. -i.e. ‘race, the power of an illusion’- But defunding PBS is only the beginning.

  • Luca

    Liberals profess to tolerate much. Everything except an opposing opinion.

    • Alexandra1973

      More like liberals want their nonsense to be tolerated.

    • LHathaway

      This is not true. There are no white student unions on any of these campuses that promote diversity, which by ‘promote diversity’ means promoting non-whites and ignoring whites (and it also means supporting non-white student groups that are on campus as an expression of diversity, all that counts. Considering that their white counterparts, and white view points do not exist on campus, they really do not have diversity). Oh wait, they Don’t ignore whites. Promoting the idea that whites are cause of all evil in the world past and present would seem to be their job one. Any other viewpoint would be considered insensitive. They don’t always tolerate opposing viewpoints and they do not tolerate very well white skin, either.

      • DonReynolds

        There is a simple way to prove the truth of what you say. There are any number of “scholarships” for minority students and is very much limited to those who are usually black. That is fine. People (including liberals) can spend their money any way they like…..but on the day that anyone tries to start a scholarship fund for whites only, you will find out that diversity is a one-way street.

        I have known wealthy individuals who attempted exactly that with several universities (including private). Their first contacts with the university said they wished to establish a scholarship for minority students and everyone was all smiles. At the last minute, they said they want to make a tiny change to white students and all interest by the university evaporated immediately. So no, it is not a two-way street. Quite all right to have a scholarship fund for minorities but one for whites would be impossible.

        • LHathaway

          Yes, it’s not a diversity of ideas they are averse to. It is white skin that repels them.

    • John Ambrose

      make that into a bumper sticker

  • Easyrhino

    The good news is with the cost of a university degree skyrocketing far out pacing the rate of inflation, fewer and fewer will waste their time and money pursuing degrees in social sciences as the ROI is next to nil.

    • John Smith

      Those people will be AA candidates getting govt. grants, which will skew the subject even further leftward.

    • David Ashton

      Chinese and Arab students are wealthy enough to invade British universities instead of native whites.

      • Weisheit77

        Not only in Uk. They’re all in US ones, too.

        • David Ashton

          True enough: an inundation.

  • TruthBeTold

    They can’t handle the truth. So they have to make-up their own.

    • TomIron361

      The two components that make up the truth are the physical world we live in and the Newtonian dictum – “for ever action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

  • Mary

    I was actually naïve enough to major in political science in college. Even though I attended a (relatively) conservative university, every single professor was a foaming-mouth liberal. Most of my fellow classmates were as well. I was slightly more liberal then than now, but I still had to bite my tongue and squirm in my chair quite a lot.

    • John Smith

      Even majoring in a life science subject, you have to realize that your professors are left-wing.

    • DonReynolds

      When I went to graduate school, I was originally in public administration. When I decided to switch to economics, I had to get permission from the political science department to leave. The department head told me there were lots of Asians in economics and how would I like it when they got better grades and I did more work? I told him it would be like being in the political science department, where I did more work than the neggars, but they got better grades. He immediately signed my sheet to leave the department. Since then, I have done masters and doctorate in economics.

    • anony

      We all did it to get through; this was true all the way back to the ’60s!

    • monster

      I wish I had your strength to bite my tongue but I just couldn’t. One of the schools I’ve attended is a large online university. I am one class shy of a degree there but after two attempts I’ve moved on. The one class was cultural diversity. The first attempt failed because I disagreed with the professor’s stance about reparations. The rest of the class soaked it up and regurgitated everything the professor said. I just couldn’t stand by and do the same. I held my own but ultimately I quit the class and hoped that there was an alternative class. There wasn’t. The next attempt seemed as if the stars were aligned against me. The next professor was all for giving the country back to Native Americans. That went the same way as it did with my first attempt. My adviser tried to get me to the finish line, she suggested I just tell the professor what they wanted to hear. She suggested I pretend I was someone else to get through. Yeah right. Luckily I was at an age where getting the degree didn’t matter so much. My kid went through school at the same time but was much more diplomatic. At her age the degree was imperative.

      I laughed at your description of foaming-mouth liberal professors. That’s how I pictured them too when they lectured. I even accused a few of being liberal and they’d deny it saying I had no idea what their views were. This was after they’d railed against anything conservative and praised everything liberal. The pisser is that when I was younger I was liberal to some extent and can understand how they arrive at the conclusions they do. It’s just that real life happens and their views just don’t compute.

  • sestamibi

    Last line of job specifications for a position posted on the website of my former employer:
    “Candidate must foster an inclusive work environment and respect all aspects of diversity. Successful candidate must demonstrate and value differences in others’ strengths, perspectives, approaches, and personal choices.”
    I’m going to guess that this is the single most important qual for the job. I could never work there today (even if I wanted to), since I would be no doubt outed as a (gasp!) former GOP activist. Lord knows we can’t have THOSE people here.

    • David Ashton

      In Britain “equality [as in Animal Farm] and diversity [except in opinions]” are state-imposed doctrines. The leftists promote only their own (Boas the original exemplar) and there is “no platform” for contradiction. However, it is possible to disrupt the “education” by ASTUTE and INFORMED arguments and questions. “But what about…?”

      • anony

        Subversive activism is called for in instances such as you describe. We call it “monkey-wrenching”, as in “throwing a monkey wrench into the works to muck it up”. Do it.

        • David Ashton

          Good advice to all concerned, especially the intelligent youth – however few at present.

      • Sick of it

        General ignorance (continually encouraged by those in power) prevents very astute arguments from making much of an impact. I’ve argued things with liberals who, apparently, did not even have a basic knowledge of history, economics, etc. Ignorance IS strength – For the other side. Their emotional appeals hold fast that way.

        • David Ashton

          Yes, sadly there is much in what you say. The lack of general knowledge is abysmal, except for quiz participants, and brains are filled with celeb culture &c. You can see how the basics of literacy have been undermined by modern education – “lurve is all ya need” and in Britain’s case deliberate destruction of grammar schools, without an adequate replacement. All education is now subordinated to “ethnicity, gender and class” ideology.

          At Oxford the Politics, Philosophy & Economics course is supposed to give a good grounding for politicians (I was invited to change over to it, but declined) – and our top party-political “elite” are mostly graduates. “It is a bluffer’s charter…rather than a real academic discipline [unlike Classics or History]…They may learn how to argue fluently but they never dive beneath the surface….policies are dashed off at high speed without any serious thought…. In place of PPE-lists America has its lawyers [Obama, Biden, the Clintons…. By contrast, China’s transition from Maoism to the market has been led by engineers…. Britain’s political elite is held to account by a journalist clique trained in the same dismal [PPE] trinity.” – Adrian Wooldridge, “Sunday Times”, December 28, p.22

          However, what another contributor calls “monkey-wrenching” is still possible, here and there, and should not be abandoned as life gets worse.

          • Sick of it

            Very true re: “monkey wrenching” and I talk with people at work about race realism. Thing is, this is an area where you’ll find a good bit of support. Not so much in other parts of the country. Other parts of the country like to ignore the very real warnings given to them about blacks by white Southerners.

            I don’t hate any of the non-white races, but I know very well how different they are from us and that we are incompatible in the same society unless one race is firmly in charge of the others (a reference to Lincoln, rare for any Southerner). I would much prefer separation, no matter the avenue, as people are fickle and apt to destroy themselves from one generation to the next.

            Also, Common Core tends to push the same nonsense as your PPE along with a form of math which makes no sense whatsoever.

          • DonReynolds

            I can overlook a lack of general knowledge or basic ignorance, but what I cannot bear is to be confronted by “facts” shoehorned into their pointy little heads that simply are not true.
            Revised history is worse than maddening…..it is pure mythology created to justify an agenda that never before existed…..to imagine a line of steady progress based on values that simply were not current at the time.

          • David Ashton

            Who controls the past controls the future. A young student of my acquaintance said to me recently: “I cannot understand how women lacked ‘rights’ in the Middle Ages.” The Wife of Bath didn’t too badly, and Joan of Arc managed to overcome “transphobia”, I thought. I just said that I personally find the cruelty of medieval punishments a bit hard to contemplate, but that’s life. More importantly is the impact of postmodernism and deconstruction on one hand, and the ideological domination of “race, gender, class, ability” issues on the other – and on everything. There has been a method in the madness.

            We need a University of our own with courses on the internet.

          • DonReynolds

            Much is made of some of the cruelty inflicted on people in the Middle Ages. I would only point out that the worst abuses were not intended as punishment at all. Punishment was normally pretty swift and final, as set out in the law….there were no prisons to speak of. But the worst torments were reserved for those who refuse to plead, since they could not be tried by any court until they plead.

            Secondarily, there were abuses that were visited on persons by prosecutors and inquisitors and arresting officers to force confessions…..and those nasty forced conversions of faith.

            People in the Middle Ages thought of themselves as humane and merciful and Christian…..and this is certainly true when compared to the Romans or the Vikings or the other barbarians.

  • WhiteGuyInJapan

    Nice to see Haidt at work here. Big fan of his last book, “The Righteous Mind”. Recommended.

  • DonReynolds

    While we all suspected it before, we got all the proof we needed from the recent Mozilla flap, which led to the ouster of one of the founders of Mozilla from the CEO job after one week…….because he donated $1,000 to the Prop 8 campaign eight years before. Of course, Prop 8 was approved by the voters…..over 7 million California voters…. and later overturned by a leftist Federal judge. But none of that matters, you see, nor does the small amount of the donation.

    In the most telling declaration….which has been often used since…..the Leftists have demanded that NO PERSON that donated money to the Prop 8 campaign should be allowed to keep a position of responsibility in this society……not even in the private sector….not even if they own the company outright.

    We have seen people hounded from public office before by the Left. We have even seen the Left target high profile individuals, intimidate and threaten advertisers on television and radio programs, but somehow this is not extortion and racketeering. The shakedown artists are not just limited to the race hustlers….like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson…..but also the lavender radicals and militant gays. We have all seen attempted boycotts of Chick-Fil-A and Duck Commander….not because of anything they have done….but simply because of their personal beliefs. Some here are too young to remember former Miss America Anita Bryant.

    • Note that CfA is doing better business than ever, and Duck Commander is sponsoring a bowl game this year.

      • DonReynolds

        Both correct.
        But if someone shoots at me and misses, I do not give them a pass because they are a crummy shot. Next time, they may not miss.

    • John Ambrose

      Liberals will whine that conservatives are being paranoid and that no one is trying to restrict free speech. But while the Left may not be able to use “hate speech” laws in this country to suppress unpopular opinions, they have found an effective work-around. If you say something they disagree with, they run straight to your employer and try to get you fired.
      So basically anyone who has to work for a living doesn’t have freedom of speech.

      • DonReynolds

        I have been through it several times myself. I was working as department head in the city of Burnet, Texas, and went to a nearby city looking for a place to live. I told the realtor (in private) that I wanted an area that was not predominantly hispanic. Another realtor in the next office heard what I said and confronted me on my preference, then called the city manager a few times demanding that I be terminated.
        People can live wherever they like, unless they are avoiding minority neighborhoods, then they must be fired from their job. Of course, if any minority person prefers to live in a neighborhood that is non-white, that is permitted since it it only racial pride. No, whites cannot have any racial pride.

  • Evette Coutier

    Most social scientists are educated beyond their intelligence and well beyond their rationality.

    • anony

      They think they are “morally superior” to all of us because they “care” about the oppressed masses.

      Once they attain power, however, they begin to slaughter those same masses by the millions ala Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and on and on.

      Their ideology is merely a means to power.

  • Wing-nut.

    Academic social psychologists admitting that they are anti-social.

    Priceless…

  • Reynardine

    Leftists ruin everything they touch. Their little diseased mitts fondle a subject until it succumbs to their poisonous embrace, then withers forever. Can you think of any theory or idea that has come out of social psychology that isn’t tainted with the Marxist stain? Where are the great applications of an enlightening theory (survival of the fittest), as in biology? Where are the fundamental laws like in physics or economics?

    They don’t exist. Leftists aren’t system builders. They can only destroy, deteriorate, and corrupt.

    Thankfully, the more I discover the classics of the right (Kirk, Spengler, Evola, MacDonald), the more truth I see in them as social psychological analysis. There is an unparalleled and unacknowledged pulse of sophisticated and mature thought out there that is ignored by those who treasure “diversity.”

    • David Ashton

      MacDonald knows his psychology. You can see that there were reliable social theorists in the past – Wm McDougall for starters. Don Martindale’s “Nature & Types of Sociological Theory” (1st ed) is a useful handbook. Stanislav Andreski’s “Social Sciences as Sorcery” is well worth reading. There are some good critiques of the Psychoanalysis racket, Marxian historical materialism and New Left “anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-&c” if you look around. The British sociologist Patricia Morgan is a good defender of the traditional family.

    • Spikeygrrl

      Another classic you really should make time for: Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom.” No doubt it’s available at Amazon…but you’d be doing two good deeds for the price of one if you buy it instead at mises[dot]org

  • David Ashton

    “No tolerance for the ‘right'” (Marcuse).

  • John R

    Good article. Ditto for people who study history. Our history and our sociology are pretty much written by people who share the same worldview.

  • Westphilo

    White – well stated.

  • LHathaway

    Liberals have ruined academia? Remove leftism and here would be no universities.

    • anony

      Most universities, other than their hard science departments, have devolved into progressive propaganda mills and training grounds. Even the “hard science” professors, in large measure, are leftists.

      I have zero respect for 99.99% of them.

      • RationaliseThis

        I think that’s a bit harsh. I might accept 80% but varying wildly as to faculty. Some like Professor Kevin MacDonald will eventually turn as they follow the science down the rabbit hole of truth and come out when they have tenure. Some folks come through the brainwashing intact, shutting up and regurgitating the material as required to get high marks. Ben Schapiro I think did this in the humanities. There can be some seniour academics,(and actors) who know what is going on. Occasionally one slips and we get a hint.

        Much of it is group think, protecting careers.

        Some of these folks might transition over in the right circumstances.

        It would be useful to learn or be able to apply their “brainwashing” techniques which are related to marketing.

        • anony

          I can accept that; when making off-the-cuff comments, I often slip into hyperbole to make a point.

  • libertarian1234

    “82 percent of social psychologists admit they are prejudiced against conservatives.”

    And 15% of the remaining ones are leftist shills, but won’t admit to having an anti-conservative bias, because they’ve deluded themselves into thinking they’re fair-minded.

  • JohnEngelman

    A problem with the social sciences is that there is not a generally agreed upon method of testing hypotheses, and separating truth from falsehood. This does not mean that the social sciences have no value.

    Social scientists cannot test their theories the way chemists and physicists can with controlled, repeatable experiments. We cannot go back in time, choose a different policy, and measure different results.

    In the social sciences it is possible for an articulate charlatan like Stephen J. Gould to be considered the answer to Charles Murray simply because he tells people what they want to believe, and does so using big words and complex sentences.

  • Mike

    They’re both great at it

  • John Smith

    No – the Professor was a Quaker and into all that equality and diversity crap at the deepest level. I don’t even remember what the class was about, since it was just listed as a special topics honor class and required for graduation. The funny thing was that the town was mostly white and the school about the same – diversity is great to preach if you don’t have to live with it.

  • Earl P. Holt III

    These modern-day Lysenkos will do for for the social sciences what Trofim Lysenko did for Soviet Agriculture…

  • David Weeks

    More Americans may have attended college than ever before, however they are less educated than at any time in history. Liberal indoctrination by extreme left wing communist professors is not education, it is brainwashing of the young and ignorant. Colleges that suck in hundreds of thousands of dollars for tuition and leave graduates with a worthless degree in subjects such as liberal arts, social sciences, journalism, etc. should be sued for fraud.
    A person who is a good cement layer, toilet cleaner or a ditch digger is of more use to society than these college chumps. Obama is a perfect example of somebody that has been through the ivy league affirmative action education mill. He is incompetent, arrogant, racist, petty, and above all, he is a destructive, utterly worthless president. The institutions he is supposedly attended must be proud. I thought college was supposed to be mind broadening. What happened with Obama? Unfortunately, he is joined by millions of other useless graduates.
    We would be better of sending people to job oriented trade schools with proven placement records. Then at least the graduates would be employable and able to contribute something to society.

    • See The Future

      The truth!

  • expitch

    A political science professor once defined social science as “the systematic study of a determinate subject matter.” That definition could include a stalker.

  • Westphilo

    The fact that mistakes are made does not discredit science or its methods.
    All real science is a search for the natural laws of the universe. “Social science” is an intentional misnomer created to to imply that man acts in a predefined way. And by understanding these ways/laws man can determine cause and effect.
    The entire “social science” is based upon a flawed premise.

  • John R

    Not all Protestants, but some. Protestantism is widely varied. Examples might be the Quakers. (Oh, so looney!) And, if you look at immigration, it is precisely the Northern Protestant countries that seem to put up the least amount of resistance to Third World immigration. (Compare, say, Britain and Sweden, to say Poland and Italy, for example. Ditto, ironically, for Mexico, of all countries!)

    • DonReynolds

      The epicenter of radical thought and the real divide that occurred in this country, even before the Revolution (and since)…..is the Congregational church. Do your own search and you will find this is the cesspool from which we have radical abolitionists, women voting, temperance unions, labor unions, labor laws, etc etc.

      The Congregational church is geographically distributed in some of the most Liberal of states in this country and they have been the activists and radicals for a number of movements, even unto this very day. For them, the social gospel is a religious duty.

      • John R

        Good point. That is why I don’t go with blaming all our problems on “the Jews” as some on this site seem to insist.

        • DonReynolds

          I am certain I cannot explain why so many radicals, communists and anarchists were Jewish…..especially younger Jews. It is a fact that a disproportionate number of “reformers” and “activists” were Jewish, but the Congregationalists, centered in New England, seem to have been the most persistent and violent of the two. The Jews seem to be attracted to Bolshevism but the Congregationalists seem to believe they are doing God’s will on Earth.

          • John R

            Yes, Jews are fairly easy to understand: I belong to a hated and despised group, therefore I will side with other hated and despised groups in order to oppose the majority. But the real danger for us lies in the majority WASP members-the “whitest” of White people-who seem to gain a pathological satisfaction in siding with people just because they are DIFFERENT from themselves. Sick.

            Of course, Jews are not as liberal as in the past. Why? Two reasons: Jews are more accepted today, so feel less reason to side with the “oppressed” and, as in the past, the minority groups that they used to support have turned against Jews as well. Look at the radical Muslims, New Black Panthers, etc. Jews also, by instinct, are suspicious of any “establishment” that all are expected to conform to. They have seen it before and are more comfortable when dissent is tolerated. And now the “establishment” is liberal. On a final note, Jews are an urban people. They are more street smart than liberal WASP’s and are likely to live closer to blacks.

            Yes, growing up in and near Philadelphia, I have had more contact with Jews than most on this website, I suspect.

  • Lkoehn

    Obummer has filled his administration with academics and their big theories and look what it brought. Confusion, division, disrespect, and failure. All of those are offspring of Left Wing Loons. The only thing that have done that can be called a good move is trying to restore normal relations with Cuba and the only reason they did that is Castro is a commie left wing dictator which makes the Castro’s and the academics birds of a feather.

  • DonReynolds

    Thanks, bud.

    • Spikeygrrl

      De nada
      I hope you’d do the same for me.

  • Ella

    Clinical psychologists and psychiatrists probably have higher IQ’s and tend to be more conservative as they study genetic influences.

  • Augustus3709

    Here ya go.

    This one is particularly interesting.

  • 48224

    Reminds me of ‘The Animal Farm’

  • NoMosqueHere

    It’s a bit surprising that solid academic universities haven’t offered a conservative/right wing alternative to the sick lib academia model. Fox News has shown that alternatives to the standard sick lib media model can be successful, so why not universities?

  • WR_the_realist

    The social sciences and the humanities departments have long been a hostile work environment for conservatives. I’m sure Paul Gottfried would agree.

  • gregCall

    Just Google the Sokal hoax. Alan Sokal was a physics professor at New York university that created a completely bogus and nonsensical paper and submitted it for publication in a Social Science Journal. Even though it was intentionally retarded it was accepted and published because he said what they wanted to hear, things like The theory of gravity was “sexist” and the Quantum Physics was “racist” and that facts should be of secondary importance to “subjective truth”, meaning the leftists ideology. worth doing the research as he owned them and made complete fools of them when he publicly announced the hoax.

  • mattj458

    Now, if we could just get them to admit that their “profession” rivals kindergarten finger painting we’d be getting somewhere.

  • Mark Hillyard

    Civil Society must have laws. Ancient Israel was given the Ancient laws of God the Creator with the promise that peace and prosperity would be the crown of society. I personally disregarded those laws in part because I’m human and we think we are smarter than we actually are in this area of Law. The death penalty was required for murder, and other capital crimes yet we in our so-called wisdom and compassion thought it better to send these people to a “Penetentiary”, I suppose to give them time to reflect on their sin and come out a reformed person.
    I believe that if the death penalty was used as intended that there would be a lot less murder, kidnapping, rape etc. here in the USA. The point of the ultimate penalty was to put the fear of God in the criminally minded and cause him to think of the consequence.
    There are many books on the subject but I think it’s easy to see what this would do in today’s society. Actually it probably wouldn’t get much traction so I guess I’m just saying so.

    • My own problem with the death penalty is that people lie. FBI agent Robert Moen lied on the witness stand against me in federal court, and this was over a relatively minor case. Do they lie when someone’s life is on the line? You bet!

      Do Lemaricus Davidson and friends deserve to be tortured to death? Of course. I don’t even pretend to have all the answers.

      • Mark Hillyard

        My guess is that a lot of people have been falsely accused. Personally I’ve been accused by three women of doing deeds which would land you in jail for a long time. Fortunately none got past the police report as I threatened to go to the DA myself and get some answers. I guess that’s what stopped it. I left the town shortly thereafter.

        Regarding lying witness’s, the law states that if a person lies in order to condemn a man the same penalty the innocent person would have suffered would be put on the false accuser, including the death penalty. We are human and we have faults, that’s why God gave Moses the Laws at Mount Sinai. It’s also known that mankind knew these laws back to Adam and Eve. Mr. Moen would be in prison for the same term he was looking to place on you.

        Abraham obeyed the law, “Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” He was the father of Isaac and grandfather of Israel which shows that the Law was in existence before Moses and Jesus says it will be in existence for a very long time into eternity. If we were able, the only words of the law would be “Love God and Love your neighbor as you love yourself.”

    • RationaliseThis

      Using the death penalty for rape in this gynocentric world would be mad. The U.S. Army found that 27% of rape charges are verifiably false. Studies in civilian life come up with 40% to 45% as being false. There is a program that identifies potentially falsely charged prisoners and clears around 25%. Some of these are regret rape, some are payback against an ex boyfriend Or one night stand, some are consensual but look like rape after an alcoholic blackout wipes the last 2 hours of the girls memory. Charging a sex partner with rape (he forced me) occurs frequently to avoid being caught by a husband or boyfriend.

      Girls lie, they lie a lot, no less than men. We men have an unfortunately low opinion of other men, that needs to change because we instinctively go on the girls side and fight each other.