Most championing of viewpoint diversity in unis ignores #disciplinarity. Mostly binary analyses of "left-wing"/"liberal"/"progressive" vs. "conservative"/"right-wing" that have been pushed by groups who espouse political heterodoxy and viewpoint diversity are beside the point. 1/
They are beside the point especially when the point is as general as "science/truth needs disagreement." Your first question should be: do you have disciplinary expertise combined with cross-disciplinary experience in the questions, concepts, and evidence you use? 2/
How do we know that some ideas are bad ideas? We know when an idea has been discussed for decades, in some cases centuries, and has lost all its ground in those debates. Is it authoritarian if we dismiss that idea in the researched discussions we're part of? No, of course not. 3/
Is it of primary relevance how uni researchers score in a liberalism vs. conservatism questionnaire when they dismiss or include ideas and concepts in their disciplinary discussion? No. If it is relevant, then because it feeds into disagreements to be had *on the concepts.* 4/
Because what we need to talk about, what we might disagree on regularly, are the concepts and ideas, the questions and the evidence, and how they are linked to each other. That is disciplinary work. It has research methods and shared values. 5/
From what I have seen, superficial or sustained attention to that which is mostly beside the point--expressed, for instance, in concern with liberalism vs. conservatism questionnaires--often provides cover for white supremacist, white nationalist, racist, & misogynist thought. 6/
@threadreaderapp unroll
