New from me: Drawing on a survey of 20K+ students from 55 universities, @RealClearEd and @TheFIREorg have ranked schools according to how healthy the free speech climate is on campus. Unfortunately, its design has a strong anti-liberal bias.
Quick summary: In the survey, students are assigned a Tolerance Score, which is supposed to measure how tolerant they are of controversial speakers. And one of the major findings is that conservatives score much higher on Tolerance than liberals.
But there's a problem.
Here's the question used to measure tolerance. See if you can spot where things go wrong.
Did you catch it? With the exception of the news media question, all of these are ideas that are MUCH more offensive to liberals than conservatives.
Of *course* libs look less tolerant than cons in this survey. Their tolerance is being subjected to a much more difficult test.
The Tolerance Score makes up 40% of each school's overall score, so this problem matters. For instance, @KState scores very well in the rankings (#2). And maybe that's because its students care deeply about free speech. But it could also just be that they're deeply conservative.
I have other major concerns with the Rankings, as well as with surveys in general as a tool for measuring free speech climates. For instance, there's a real problem with external validity, which I briefly discuss in this earlier piece on UNC-Chapel Hill.
But the Tolerance Score issue is a straightforward mistake that can (and I hope will) be corrected in future surveys. In the meantime, you should take with an enormous grain of salt the idea that cons are better on tolerance than libs. The data just doesn't support it.
CODA: Based on some of the ways people are responding to this thread, let me offer my own opinion of FIRE: They're great. I don't agree with everything they do/say, and obviously I'm no fan of this survey, but they are on balance a bona fide Good Thing.
That's all. Carry on.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Lincoln Project and the IDW were the two highest profile projects launched by centrists during the Trump years. The first tried to rescue conservatism from Trump. The second tried (ostensibly) to tamp down the Culture War. Both have failed. Why?
Lots of reasons, obviously! But for myself, I keep coming back to tribalism. Not as a causal factor, but as an analytic framework. More than any other, tribalism has been the frame used by centrists to make sense of US politics. An atavistic flight from rationality.
I think this frame has served them very poorly, for two reasons. First, it permits them to shift the debate from matters of pressing political concern to one about the right and proper way to talk about those matters of pressing political concern.
2016: Again over the objections of its own justices, the Georgia GOP expands the court from 7 to 9. This represents something of a compromise for state Republicans, as they had previously sought to expand the court to 13.
Basically, it's a story of elite overproduction. The job market for journalists and writers has collapsed, even as J Schools and MFA programs churn out grads at a record clip.
Meanwhile, many of the most important stories of the day require in-depth knowledge of a specialized field (e.g. public health, climate science, global finance) that few have the patience or ability to master.
Lastly, up until quite recently, ours was an extraordinary period of relative peace and prosperity, at least in North America. No Cold War to report, a terrorist threat in retreat. So what's an aspiring journalist to do? What crusade can he join? What mission can he make his own?
There are all sorts of third rails in academic discourse. The kinds of topics where if a prof says the wrong thing, his or her reputation, job, or even physical safety might be at risk.
The police is one of those third rails.
Nathan Jun is a prof at Midwestern State. Shortly after George Floyd's death, Jun changed his Facebook cover photo to a black "Abolish the Police" banner.
Ever since, the death threats have been pouring in.
Local far right activists disseminated Jun's personal information (phone #, address, etc), as well as that of his family. His house has been vandalized four times in the last two months. A swastika and racial epithet were spray painted in his garage.
@Noahpinion seems to have deleted this tweet, which is a shame, because I think he’s right. But scrolling through his replies, it looks like he’s getting two types of objections. 1/n
Objection #1: It won't make a difference. The Right has always hated academia and nothing we do will change that.
Maybe, but consider. Yes, there has always been suspicion on the Right about higher ed, going right back through Buckley to the interwar years. It's not new. 2/n
But it's also gotten much, much worse. Another way of putting it is that this general complaint, one mainly held by a small percentage of conservatives, has suddenly gone mainstream. And I do mean *suddenly*. 3/n
Dipping into some old @ggreenwald articles has reminded me of a couple elemental truths: 1) The suppression of pro-Palestinian speech is just off the charts. I'm talking state laws, well-organized blacklists, and sophisticated international surveillance operations. It's unreal.
Yes, international surveillance. Yes, threats against university professors by private intelligence operations. It's happening, and it's happening right now.
Yes, a well-funded blacklist that collects and publicizes pro-Palestinian and anti-Semitic speech by college students, faculty, and random people, all with the explicit goal of rendering them unemployable.