A generous reading of @conor64 et al on "viewpoint diversity on campus" implies 3 considerations:
1) viewpoint diversity for its own sake
2) ideological representation of US (or some) public
3) "coping" & engaging with disagreement
Each important, each bad in extremes
1) viewpoint diversity for its own sake
2) ideological representation of US (or some) public
3) "coping" & engaging with disagreement
Each important, each bad in extremes
Problem with 1: If diversity in itself is important, then why not hire on absurd and rare belief systems? That would maximize diversity.
Problem with 2: Better representation of US public's ideology in academia would almost certainly reduce the number of NeverTrump conservatives (rare the public), but massively increase Trumpism on campus. That's fine, but I'm not sure that's what this coalition wants.
Problem with 3: There are probably some limits on this related to Popper's paradox of tolerance.
This discussion is one of the most conceptually amorphous and frustrating ones out there in intellectual discourse, because everybody just says "diversity" and nobody really engages with edge cases. Before we can actually discuss the issue, we need some coherent arguments!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
