Federal Government's letter to Harvard demanding changes [pdf](harvard.edu)
harvard.edu
Federal Government's letter to Harvard demanding changes [pdf]
https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2025/04/Letter-Sent-to-Harvard-2025-04-11.pdf
126 comments
Related ongoing thread: Harvard's response to federal government letter demanding changes - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43684536
The points "Viewpoint Diversity in Admissions and Hiring" and "Discontinuation of DEI" seem inconsistent. Enforcing "viewpoint diversity" is a DEI practice in all but name. Actually, it is even in the name. Also with the merit-based stuff, of course. What if people of merit skew towards certain viewpoints? Then hiring/admissions won't be merit based after all?
While you are completely right about the impossible/conflicting legal standards here, this is not an unusual state of things. For example: it has been illegal to discriminate for a very long time, but it has also been de facto illegal to have demographic compositions substantially different from the general population. So, they've always been faced with the problem of needing to either discriminate to get the numbers to match, or not discriminating and risking the numbers falling out of line. The real law has always been, and always will be, prosecutorial discretion. Whatever party is in control will choose whether they go after you or not, and they can because you're always violating one side of something.
> it has also been de facto illegal to have demographic compositions substantially different from the general population
How so? To which law or case precedent?
How so? To which law or case precedent?
Any law or policy that has a "disproportionate impact" on a protected class is subject to challenge, and will often lose in other public policy matters. I've not seen it happen in school demographics, though most, if not all, schools had some form of affirmative action policy until recently.
The "disparate impact" test applies mainly in civil rights act litigation, and it's extremely hard to make a case under that theory. It's a three-part test, and showing that a particular policy has a disparate impact on one race is just the first hurdle.
You also have to prove that the party acted with malice: either the policy exists for explicitly racist reasons, or the race-neutral justification is pretextual. If you can do that, you _also_ have to prove that there is a less-discriminatory alternative policy that achieves the same goal.
see, e.g., https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/T6Manual7#C'
It is definitely not de facto illegal to have a racially lopsided student body -- the school might be asked to justify the specific policy or practice that led to that outcome on race-neutral grounds, but saying "GPA and test scores" would be more than enough.
You also have to prove that the party acted with malice: either the policy exists for explicitly racist reasons, or the race-neutral justification is pretextual. If you can do that, you _also_ have to prove that there is a less-discriminatory alternative policy that achieves the same goal.
see, e.g., https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/T6Manual7#C'
It is definitely not de facto illegal to have a racially lopsided student body -- the school might be asked to justify the specific policy or practice that led to that outcome on race-neutral grounds, but saying "GPA and test scores" would be more than enough.
There is no disparate impact language in the civil rights title VI itself, but the language does appear in the enforcement regulatory frameworks issued by the federal agencies, including the department of education.
Title VI gives agencies authority to enforce Title VI, and many of those agencies added in disparate impact language into their own enforcement language (I think under the Obama administration, but I might be wrong about that).
Title VI gives agencies authority to enforce Title VI, and many of those agencies added in disparate impact language into their own enforcement language (I think under the Obama administration, but I might be wrong about that).
Do you know what "de facto" means? I didn't say "de jure," and you're asking for de jure evidence.
It can only be "de facto" illegal if legal action was brought against some entity and succeeded, otherwise it'd be "de facto" nothing. GP also asked for an example case. TBH though I'm not how legal action would succeed without an accompanying law.
Any source at all here for your claim would be nice.
Any source at all here for your claim would be nice.
[deleted]
> It has been illegal to discriminate for a very long time, but it has also been de facto illegal to have demographic compositions substantially different from the general population.
> So, they've always been faced with the problem of needing to either discriminate to get the numbers to match, or not discriminating and risking the numbers falling out of line.
Not disagreeing with your larger point, but this sounds wrong (in a sense that, I don’t think that’s the case).
If what you claim was the case, how has CalTech been managing to have such a large percentage of Asian undergrad students (44% according to their Fall 2024-2025 enrollment data[0], with numbers from previous years not straying that far off either) without ever even a hint of getting in trouble over it (given that Asian people make up roughly 7% of the US population)?
I am sure there are similar examples of other schools, this was just the first major known one that came to my mind. Perchance you are correct, and there is simply something special that CalTech has (and Harvard doesn’t) that lets them not worry about this. But that seems unlikely.
0. https://registrar.caltech.edu/records/enrollment-statistics
> So, they've always been faced with the problem of needing to either discriminate to get the numbers to match, or not discriminating and risking the numbers falling out of line.
Not disagreeing with your larger point, but this sounds wrong (in a sense that, I don’t think that’s the case).
If what you claim was the case, how has CalTech been managing to have such a large percentage of Asian undergrad students (44% according to their Fall 2024-2025 enrollment data[0], with numbers from previous years not straying that far off either) without ever even a hint of getting in trouble over it (given that Asian people make up roughly 7% of the US population)?
I am sure there are similar examples of other schools, this was just the first major known one that came to my mind. Perchance you are correct, and there is simply something special that CalTech has (and Harvard doesn’t) that lets them not worry about this. But that seems unlikely.
0. https://registrar.caltech.edu/records/enrollment-statistics
> de facto illegal to have demographic compositions substantially different from the general population
The Trump administration mid level staffing decisions are something like 70%+ white men! This seems laughable. Controversial maybe, certainly not "illegal" or they wouldn't have done it.
The Trump administration mid level staffing decisions are something like 70%+ white men! This seems laughable. Controversial maybe, certainly not "illegal" or they wouldn't have done it.
You need to read what I wrote more carefully. The entire point is that whoever is in power decides which law actually gets applied and to whom. Do you think for some reason that the Trump administration risks being prosecuted by the Trump administration?
> The entire point is that whoever is in power decides which law actually gets applied and to whom.
And that "entire point" is historically incorrect in the United States. There is a long, long, LONG history of the Department of Justice investigating and prosecuting members of the administration that technically runs it.
That your point seems to be correct now, in the most corrupt administration of the modern era, is something that is notable and worth discussing. It's certainly not something to sweep under the rug with a both-sides-ist dismissal.
And that "entire point" is historically incorrect in the United States. There is a long, long, LONG history of the Department of Justice investigating and prosecuting members of the administration that technically runs it.
That your point seems to be correct now, in the most corrupt administration of the modern era, is something that is notable and worth discussing. It's certainly not something to sweep under the rug with a both-sides-ist dismissal.
We can quibble about the definition of "the administration", but the head of it a man who can pardon whomever he pleases for any federal crime he pleases. The very fact that any of these historical charges weren't instantaneously mooted with a pardon is self-evidence to me that all of these prosecutions were of former members of the administration who had fallen out if favor of the actual administration.
Classic No-True-Scotsman here: "Oh, well, sure, they were prosecuted in contravention of my point above. But that means they wanted to prosecute them."
(It's also tautological: I mean, of course they wanted to prosecute them. They were criminals and prosecutors prosecute criminals, definitionally!)
(And also also, it's an Occam's violation: the simpler explanation is that they were just treated like criminals and not that they were double-negative enforcement actions by a corrupt regime.)
(It's also tautological: I mean, of course they wanted to prosecute them. They were criminals and prosecutors prosecute criminals, definitionally!)
(And also also, it's an Occam's violation: the simpler explanation is that they were just treated like criminals and not that they were double-negative enforcement actions by a corrupt regime.)
Did that sound clever in your head? Again, the head of the executive branch can quash any charge he wants. You're the one contending that a person doing X is evidence that they support not-X.
The executive branch is afforded some discretion, but the judicial system decides how law gets applied as directed by Congress when they write laws.
DAs of all kinds have enormous discretion. A significant part of our legal system is entrusted to them to act honorably, regardless of what judges and legislators say. DAs can't force outcomes that judges say are incorrect, but DAs can and do choose not to prosecute obvious crimes, and there are not great checks against that power beyond replacing them with the political process.
And even when cases are brought, the DoJ needs to defend them. See a number of cases that were very far along in the court system that the Biden administration was pursuing, that the Trump DoJ just quit defending. They simply no longer have a lawyer, and functionally cannot proceed.
And even when cases are brought, the DoJ needs to defend them. See a number of cases that were very far along in the court system that the Biden administration was pursuing, that the Trump DoJ just quit defending. They simply no longer have a lawyer, and functionally cannot proceed.
This seems like an argument against the rule of law. When arguing for demographic compositions, at least for my personal admittedly limited experience, I see arguments for how policy X upholds the law, or maybe only the spirit of the law in Y ways.
I do not see that here for the current admins demands for diversity.
I do not see that here for the current admins demands for diversity.
[deleted]
Viewpoint diversity is that you want fsr right propagated more. Bonus points for open racism and sexism.
However, left of any kind is not part of diversity. No one arguing for Palestine, no one arguing for equality. I was tempted to say "no communists" but those kind of don't matter.
However, left of any kind is not part of diversity. No one arguing for Palestine, no one arguing for equality. I was tempted to say "no communists" but those kind of don't matter.
Cowards are now saying it was a mistake: "Trump Officials Blame Mistake for Setting Off Confrontation With Harvard" - https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/18/business/trump-harvard-le...
> What if people of merit skew towards certain viewpoints?
What if admissions is actually a cyborg alien race??? I am just asking questions!
Having the government dictate University level programs is bad, we should all agree to let Universities and colleges run themselves.
What if admissions is actually a cyborg alien race??? I am just asking questions!
Having the government dictate University level programs is bad, we should all agree to let Universities and colleges run themselves.
Was this pedantry really worthwhile? The current interpretation of "diversity" is of outward characteristics, not points of view. So, technically, you're right. Kudos.
It is far from universally accepted that 'the current interpretation of diversity is of outward characteristics, not points of view'. In fact, I would be surprised if anyone who favors DEI aggrees with that statement.
Moreover, the actual interpretation of most proponents of diversity is very much that we desire a diversity of views, which it wants to get through getting a diversity of backgrounds. That is, of course, not the only reason behind DEI. There is also the fact that it is fair to allow people of all backgrounds the same opportunity.
Moreover, the actual interpretation of most proponents of diversity is very much that we desire a diversity of views, which it wants to get through getting a diversity of backgrounds. That is, of course, not the only reason behind DEI. There is also the fact that it is fair to allow people of all backgrounds the same opportunity.
Wikipedia[1] says
>Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the organizational workforce in characteristics such as race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, age, culture, class, veteran status, or religion.
Brittanica[2] says
>Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs—meant to address historical and systemic disparities based on race, gender, age, ability, and sexual orientation in the workplace
CNN lists the following as examples of the title of this article[3] ("DEI programs benefit many groups, not just Black and brown communities"):
>White women
>LGBTQ+ people
>Families who need IVF
>Disabled people
>Veterans
This is the first three links I clicked on, so it seems to be broadly agreed upon. It's (obviously) not an exhaustive search of the literature, and I'd love to see your side of it.
I have heard ideological diversity used as a defense of DEI, but it doesn't seem to be central. I've never heard of a DEI push to get more conservatives in tech or academia, for example.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity,_equity,_and_inclusi...
[2]https://www.britannica.com/topic/diversity-equity-and-inclus...
[3]https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/08/us/dei-programs-diversity-lis...
>Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the organizational workforce in characteristics such as race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, age, culture, class, veteran status, or religion.
Brittanica[2] says
>Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs—meant to address historical and systemic disparities based on race, gender, age, ability, and sexual orientation in the workplace
CNN lists the following as examples of the title of this article[3] ("DEI programs benefit many groups, not just Black and brown communities"):
>White women
>LGBTQ+ people
>Families who need IVF
>Disabled people
>Veterans
This is the first three links I clicked on, so it seems to be broadly agreed upon. It's (obviously) not an exhaustive search of the literature, and I'd love to see your side of it.
I have heard ideological diversity used as a defense of DEI, but it doesn't seem to be central. I've never heard of a DEI push to get more conservatives in tech or academia, for example.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity,_equity,_and_inclusi...
[2]https://www.britannica.com/topic/diversity-equity-and-inclus...
[3]https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/08/us/dei-programs-diversity-lis...
Try talking about race as a white man during a DEI seminar. Unless you very carefully follow the approved messaging, you will be in trouble.
I doubt you’ll be “in trouble”, whatever that means. But I do think that if you’re a white man attending a seminar about diversity, a great option is to just _listen_. Understanding that white men have done a lot of the talking on race for most of America’s history means it would behove him to listen.
Nah, you're just confusing the KPI with the desire.
You get different viewpoints by having people with different sets of experience.
Differing gender, race, and socioeconomic backgrounds are drivers of different experiences, and therefore viewpoints. You can't easily measure "did this company hire different experiences", but you can easily measure "did this company hire a bunch of different genders, races, etc", which doesn't guarantee differing viewpoints in individuals, but does strongly suggest it in aggregate/at the statistical level.
You get different viewpoints by having people with different sets of experience.
Differing gender, race, and socioeconomic backgrounds are drivers of different experiences, and therefore viewpoints. You can't easily measure "did this company hire different experiences", but you can easily measure "did this company hire a bunch of different genders, races, etc", which doesn't guarantee differing viewpoints in individuals, but does strongly suggest it in aggregate/at the statistical level.
This is so hilariously reductive it reads like satire. As if someone’s life experience can be deduced from their immutable characteristics.
Yes, congratulations, you've understood why it's extremely difficult. Well done.
I suppose next you'll tell me that either you don't understand it so it shouldn't be done or that because it's hard people should give up.
I suppose next you'll tell me that either you don't understand it so it shouldn't be done or that because it's hard people should give up.
[deleted]
Your argument dropped something - the self selecting applicant pool for Harvard.
It's the points of view that people are after when they promote diversity. The outward characteristics are at best a convenient proxy. Monocultures fail, diversity is a hedge against that.
That is absolutely not the case even for a moment. No white leftist seeks out black conservatives like Thomas Sowell. Not even for a moment. Leftism is a monoculture that uses cancelling as a way to force ideological uniformity.
You may have had a point fifteen years go, but the right has recently leapfrogged the left in all of the dimensions you're concerned about.
This cultural uniformity of the left you speak of. What's it like? I mean, the right drives big trucks and puts American flags on everything and eats a lot of meat and is really enamored of loyalty and the military and the atomic family.
So what's it like for the left? Because as far as I can tell, the only element of uniformity among the left is that they agree that they shouldn't enable things that are a threat to their safety. The argument towards wokeness is pretty strong: if you're not aware of a threat, it might hurt you, so you should stay vigilant. That's not cultural uniformity, that's survival. Sure, many have run with it in a variety of weird directions, but there's no agreement on the left that those directions are good ones. It's precisely because the left isn't a monoculture that those elements are allowed to persist.
For further evidence that the left permits dissent among their ranks, note that they kind of suck at getting anything done because they're always debating each other about how it ought to be done and not doing it. Meanwhile it's the right that falls uniformly in line and goes off to do something that was poorly thought out (but hey at least they did something).
And taking this back to the article, it's precisely because the right can't tolerate disagreement that it wants to cancel academia and create a safe space where it doesn't have hear the truth about the consequences of its terrible policies. This is literally a letter about the Right cancelling something to enforce ideological uniformity.
This cultural uniformity of the left you speak of. What's it like? I mean, the right drives big trucks and puts American flags on everything and eats a lot of meat and is really enamored of loyalty and the military and the atomic family.
So what's it like for the left? Because as far as I can tell, the only element of uniformity among the left is that they agree that they shouldn't enable things that are a threat to their safety. The argument towards wokeness is pretty strong: if you're not aware of a threat, it might hurt you, so you should stay vigilant. That's not cultural uniformity, that's survival. Sure, many have run with it in a variety of weird directions, but there's no agreement on the left that those directions are good ones. It's precisely because the left isn't a monoculture that those elements are allowed to persist.
For further evidence that the left permits dissent among their ranks, note that they kind of suck at getting anything done because they're always debating each other about how it ought to be done and not doing it. Meanwhile it's the right that falls uniformly in line and goes off to do something that was poorly thought out (but hey at least they did something).
And taking this back to the article, it's precisely because the right can't tolerate disagreement that it wants to cancel academia and create a safe space where it doesn't have hear the truth about the consequences of its terrible policies. This is literally a letter about the Right cancelling something to enforce ideological uniformity.
The left wants to hold people accountable, even their own. It’s always a good chuckle to see people complain about the left doing “cancel culture” when it’s conservatives that tried to cancel Bud Light, it’s conservatives that shut down opposing viewpoints (listen to Ben Shapiro or Alex Jones answer tough questions), it’s conservatives that _literally tried to cancel a democratic election_.
> The current interpretation of "diversity" is of outward characteristics, not points of view.
Only, amusingly, to people one particular point of view. No, that's ridiculous. There is no woker impulse than listening carefully and respectfully to all points of view.
Only, amusingly, to people one particular point of view. No, that's ridiculous. There is no woker impulse than listening carefully and respectfully to all points of view.
DEI has led to anything but viewpoint diversity, fostering ideological conformity via practices such as DEI statements, DEI metrics, mandatory trainings, or cancel culture leading to censorship.
That the current administration is also purging viewpoints it doesn't like, adopting the same authoritarian mindset, but having it enforced by the government (which is worse, IMO), that goes to show horseshoe theory is true.
That the current administration is also purging viewpoints it doesn't like, adopting the same authoritarian mindset, but having it enforced by the government (which is worse, IMO), that goes to show horseshoe theory is true.
> DEI statements
Just going to point out that this is absolutely not the same thing as rescinding research grants using some lazy grepping of abstracts like the absolute clown show going on now.
> horseshoe theory is true.
Had to look this one up. Apparently the "far left" and "far right" are somehow the exact things we are dealing with here and now.
Nope, sorry. Not equivalent. Not at all.
Just going to point out that this is absolutely not the same thing as rescinding research grants using some lazy grepping of abstracts like the absolute clown show going on now.
> horseshoe theory is true.
Had to look this one up. Apparently the "far left" and "far right" are somehow the exact things we are dealing with here and now.
Nope, sorry. Not equivalent. Not at all.
[deleted]
> Viewpoint Diversity in Admissions and Hiring. By August 2025, the University shall commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith, to audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity, such that each department, field, or teaching unit must be individually viewpoint diverse.
I kind of hope they go through with this just for the comedy. If students and staff have to fill out some kind of viewpoint survey, the only rational strategy is for them to randomize their answers to minimize the chance of being in the group that gets told “sorry, we have too many of your type this year”.
I kind of hope they go through with this just for the comedy. If students and staff have to fill out some kind of viewpoint survey, the only rational strategy is for them to randomize their answers to minimize the chance of being in the group that gets told “sorry, we have too many of your type this year”.
I think the intent is to reduce the politically leftward trend in universities, as well as the fact that not all viewpoints are presented anymore. Universities used to be billed as a "marketplace of ideas".
Also, the hermeneutics used for interpreting literature on the fringes in the 1980s are now mainstream -- students aren't learning the methods of interpretation used everywhere in the west up until the turn of the century.
Also, the hermeneutics used for interpreting literature on the fringes in the 1980s are now mainstream -- students aren't learning the methods of interpretation used everywhere in the west up until the turn of the century.
Or one can view it as the increasing intellectual vacuousness of ideas on the "right". (In quotes because the dividing line between left and right itself has shifted rightward over the years.)
As far as the "left", one need only consider the ideological rigidity around the topic of transvestites to see that specific, thoughtful, deep, data driven, and evidence based rhetoric is abandoned in favor of not hurting the feelings of a group of people prone to threaten harm to themselves for political and social gain.
Don't ever forget that the left cant clearly articulate what a woman is without resorting to circular reasoning.
Don't ever forget that the left cant clearly articulate what a woman is without resorting to circular reasoning.
This is probably pointless to reply to, but for anyone else reading this:
For starters, the current right-wing hate campaign is targeting transgender people, not transvestites since the latter simply means people who wear clothing associated with the opposite gender, which is quite common in right-wing circles.
Aside from that silliness, let's highlight the "specific, thoughtful, data driven, evidence based rhetoric" that is "not hurting the feelings of a group of people", as if "hurt feelings" were all that has happened.
Also, hurt feelings matter. Humans are our feelings. They're who we are and what we are. People be hurt in a large variety of ways and they're all bad. It's trivial to demonstrate that non-fatal gash on your body is considerably less worse than being, say, ostracized and outcast from the community you grew up in.
On a related note, why is "the right" so obsessed with defining what a woman is? What are the data driven and evidence based rhetorical reasons for coming up with a rigorous and definitive definition of woman?
The idea that evidence or logic is involved in any of this is laughable.
Edit: Nobody can come up with a good definition for what a planet it is either, but somehow we manage to stagger onwards.
For starters, the current right-wing hate campaign is targeting transgender people, not transvestites since the latter simply means people who wear clothing associated with the opposite gender, which is quite common in right-wing circles.
Aside from that silliness, let's highlight the "specific, thoughtful, data driven, evidence based rhetoric" that is "not hurting the feelings of a group of people", as if "hurt feelings" were all that has happened.
Also, hurt feelings matter. Humans are our feelings. They're who we are and what we are. People be hurt in a large variety of ways and they're all bad. It's trivial to demonstrate that non-fatal gash on your body is considerably less worse than being, say, ostracized and outcast from the community you grew up in.
On a related note, why is "the right" so obsessed with defining what a woman is? What are the data driven and evidence based rhetorical reasons for coming up with a rigorous and definitive definition of woman?
The idea that evidence or logic is involved in any of this is laughable.
Edit: Nobody can come up with a good definition for what a planet it is either, but somehow we manage to stagger onwards.
Well, the evidence is that when males and females compete against each other in sport, the males tend to win, so if you think womens' sport should exist, then you need to define who is included and who is excluded from that category.
And when big males compete against small males the big ones tend to win, so uh, what are we arguing about?
Female only categories are always going to be a compromise, their literal existence is defined by excluding people from being able to participate. So you have to draw the line somewhere and say "this person is allowed and this person isn't". I'm sorry it's not as easy as just asking if someone has a uterus or something but just because things are tricky is no excuse to give up.
And frankly, this whole argument is incredibly disingenuous. You didn't give a damn about the sanctity of women's sports 5 years ago and when the right finds a new minority to demonize, you'll happily forget all about them.
There's a word for this, mote and bailey fallacy? The advanced premise is that we should discriminate and hate transgender people and then when challenged you fall back to something something women's sports.
Are women's sports good? Sure, we should support them. Is that worth demonizing a minority and blaming them for society's ills? I hope not. There's like 5 transgender people PER STATE competing in female only sports and 99% of the time they aren't even winning. It really doesn't affect you or anyone else.
But because of this "issue" that people like you keep repeating, people are trying to pass laws that require genital inspectors for our child athletes. Think about that for a second. What exactly are we trying to accomplish here?
Female only categories are always going to be a compromise, their literal existence is defined by excluding people from being able to participate. So you have to draw the line somewhere and say "this person is allowed and this person isn't". I'm sorry it's not as easy as just asking if someone has a uterus or something but just because things are tricky is no excuse to give up.
And frankly, this whole argument is incredibly disingenuous. You didn't give a damn about the sanctity of women's sports 5 years ago and when the right finds a new minority to demonize, you'll happily forget all about them.
There's a word for this, mote and bailey fallacy? The advanced premise is that we should discriminate and hate transgender people and then when challenged you fall back to something something women's sports.
Are women's sports good? Sure, we should support them. Is that worth demonizing a minority and blaming them for society's ills? I hope not. There's like 5 transgender people PER STATE competing in female only sports and 99% of the time they aren't even winning. It really doesn't affect you or anyone else.
But because of this "issue" that people like you keep repeating, people are trying to pass laws that require genital inspectors for our child athletes. Think about that for a second. What exactly are we trying to accomplish here?
The UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and Girls, Reem Alsalem, published a report on this recently. She examined the evidence and concluded that a protected female category is needed, at all levels of sport, to ensure fairness and - in contact sports - safety.
According to the research conducted for her report, the failure of governing bodies to exclude males from women's competitions has so far led to more than 600 female athletes losing out of 890 medals in 29 different sports - and this is likely to be a considerable underestimate.
Another adverse effect of male inclusion is that some female athletes, seeing the unfairness of this, will choose not to compete at all. Others will be displaced from qualifying for competition. By including males, governing bodies are excluding female athletes from what should be their own category.
The oft-repeated claim that it's just conservatives bringing up this issue is a false narrative, as is the incorrect assumption that this is being driven by "hate". Many people who have been speaking out on this - whether they're athletes themselves, UN officials, feminist activists, or simply just care about the wellbeing of women and girls - are doing so because they see the inherent unfairness and safety risks this imposes upon female athletes.
According to the research conducted for her report, the failure of governing bodies to exclude males from women's competitions has so far led to more than 600 female athletes losing out of 890 medals in 29 different sports - and this is likely to be a considerable underestimate.
Another adverse effect of male inclusion is that some female athletes, seeing the unfairness of this, will choose not to compete at all. Others will be displaced from qualifying for competition. By including males, governing bodies are excluding female athletes from what should be their own category.
The oft-repeated claim that it's just conservatives bringing up this issue is a false narrative, as is the incorrect assumption that this is being driven by "hate". Many people who have been speaking out on this - whether they're athletes themselves, UN officials, feminist activists, or simply just care about the wellbeing of women and girls - are doing so because they see the inherent unfairness and safety risks this imposes upon female athletes.
Just for you, and anyone else reading this, I actually went and looked up this report. For the record, you can find it right here: https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/a79325-r...
Here's a snippet from the first few pages:
> Women and girls in sport, including female sports officials, are vulnerable to physical violence.5 When eligibility norms are deliberately violated and when the risk of injury to athletes is knowingly increased, the physical harms sustained can be characterized as “violence”.6
"The risk of injury is increased [...] can be characterized as violence". Really. People getting hurt in a sport is now violence against women. Ok.
But hey, they cited a source to back up this claim! It's got a footnote and everything! Let's check it out:
> 6 Submission by Independent Council on Women’s Sports
Well, that's pretty vague. I'm not an expert in reading academic papers so someone correct me, but what exactly is this citing? An email from an advocacy agency?
Just for amusment I went and looked up "Independent Council on Women’s Sports." just to see what kind of non-partial and independent academic body was making this submission
> The Independent Council on Women's Sports (ICONS) is an American anti-transgender advocacy organization that opposes transgender athletes participating in women’s sports. ICONS hosts an annual International Women's Sports Summit, where anti-transgender activists are invited to give talks over the course of three days. They also contribute amicus briefs and organizational assistance to anti-transgender legal cases, and their co-founder, Kim Jones, has infrequently hosted a podcast to discuss ICONS’ activities since August of 2022.
I don't want to make an argument from authority here, but this citation is not really compelling me to do further research.
I mean, the person making the claim is required to provide proof, right? Or is that not a thing any more?
Edit:
I looked further in the paper. The next good bit is here: "Female athletes are also more vulnerable to sustaining serious physical injuries when female-only sports spaces are opened to males,9 as documented in disciplines such as in volleyball,10 basketball11 and soccer.12"
What a scary sentence. Good thing it's got citations to prove it's worrying claims, let's check those out:
> Alec Schemmel, “Injured volleyball player speaks out after alleged transgender opponent spiked ball at her”, ABC 13 News, 20 April 2023
Wow, that sounds bad, injured by a spike, hey what's that funny word doing there, "alleged". Hmm, what could that be doing there?
> (of an incident or a person) said, without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality.
I'm glad we cited this definitive source where they claim they were hurt by someone who was transgender with zero proof whatsoever.
A bonus section! Here's another worrying section about the horrors of being a female athlete:
> Female athletes who may look “masculine” may be derogatorily described as lesbians.46
Ok, yes, that seems like a problem, but I wonder what else "female athletes who make look masculine" are called? Like, maybe they're accused of something else these days? Some other term is used to attempt to diminish their achievements and slander them? Weird they didn't mention that term.
Here's a snippet from the first few pages:
> Women and girls in sport, including female sports officials, are vulnerable to physical violence.5 When eligibility norms are deliberately violated and when the risk of injury to athletes is knowingly increased, the physical harms sustained can be characterized as “violence”.6
"The risk of injury is increased [...] can be characterized as violence". Really. People getting hurt in a sport is now violence against women. Ok.
But hey, they cited a source to back up this claim! It's got a footnote and everything! Let's check it out:
> 6 Submission by Independent Council on Women’s Sports
Well, that's pretty vague. I'm not an expert in reading academic papers so someone correct me, but what exactly is this citing? An email from an advocacy agency?
Just for amusment I went and looked up "Independent Council on Women’s Sports." just to see what kind of non-partial and independent academic body was making this submission
> The Independent Council on Women's Sports (ICONS) is an American anti-transgender advocacy organization that opposes transgender athletes participating in women’s sports. ICONS hosts an annual International Women's Sports Summit, where anti-transgender activists are invited to give talks over the course of three days. They also contribute amicus briefs and organizational assistance to anti-transgender legal cases, and their co-founder, Kim Jones, has infrequently hosted a podcast to discuss ICONS’ activities since August of 2022.
I don't want to make an argument from authority here, but this citation is not really compelling me to do further research.
I mean, the person making the claim is required to provide proof, right? Or is that not a thing any more?
Edit:
I looked further in the paper. The next good bit is here: "Female athletes are also more vulnerable to sustaining serious physical injuries when female-only sports spaces are opened to males,9 as documented in disciplines such as in volleyball,10 basketball11 and soccer.12"
What a scary sentence. Good thing it's got citations to prove it's worrying claims, let's check those out:
> Alec Schemmel, “Injured volleyball player speaks out after alleged transgender opponent spiked ball at her”, ABC 13 News, 20 April 2023
Wow, that sounds bad, injured by a spike, hey what's that funny word doing there, "alleged". Hmm, what could that be doing there?
> (of an incident or a person) said, without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality.
I'm glad we cited this definitive source where they claim they were hurt by someone who was transgender with zero proof whatsoever.
A bonus section! Here's another worrying section about the horrors of being a female athlete:
> Female athletes who may look “masculine” may be derogatorily described as lesbians.46
Ok, yes, that seems like a problem, but I wonder what else "female athletes who make look masculine" are called? Like, maybe they're accused of something else these days? Some other term is used to attempt to diminish their achievements and slander them? Weird they didn't mention that term.
As any other readers of this thread will be able to observe, your response is a useful example of how misogynistic attitudes stifle discussion on women's issues.
Instead of engaging with curiosity and open-mindedness towards an expert UN report on this issue adversely affecting women and girls, you chose shallow, snarky dismissal and sarcastic quips.
Your reflexive refusal to take women's safety and fairness in sport seriously speaks volumes about your view of women more generally.
Thanks for linking the report though, even if it was just to cherry-pick bits of it to lazily sneer at. It gives other readers an easier way to click through and engage with the content thoughtfully.
Instead of engaging with curiosity and open-mindedness towards an expert UN report on this issue adversely affecting women and girls, you chose shallow, snarky dismissal and sarcastic quips.
Your reflexive refusal to take women's safety and fairness in sport seriously speaks volumes about your view of women more generally.
Thanks for linking the report though, even if it was just to cherry-pick bits of it to lazily sneer at. It gives other readers an easier way to click through and engage with the content thoughtfully.
I was curious and open-minded enough to go and look up several layers of citations from the article you didn't even bother to link. It wasn't convincing.
It turns out that when people actually read your citations, sometimes they find out you're full of crap.
Arguing that women are in danger because one woman got hurt by another woman hitting a volleyball at her is ludicrously patronizing.
It turns out that when people actually read your citations, sometimes they find out you're full of crap.
Arguing that women are in danger because one woman got hurt by another woman hitting a volleyball at her is ludicrously patronizing.
Hey, if you don’t want to listen to that woman, that’s fine, but maybe you might listen to these women?:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02640414.2024.2...
“The study compared current Olympic versus current Olympic Recognised sports, elite versus world class, and current versus retired Olympic sport athletes. Most athletes favoured biological sex categorisation (58%) and considered it unfair for trans women to compete in the female category, except for precision sports. This view was held most strongly by world class athletes regarding their own sport (77% unfair, 15% fair).”
There’s a conflict of rights here, and it has two sides.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02640414.2024.2...
“The study compared current Olympic versus current Olympic Recognised sports, elite versus world class, and current versus retired Olympic sport athletes. Most athletes favoured biological sex categorisation (58%) and considered it unfair for trans women to compete in the female category, except for precision sports. This view was held most strongly by world class athletes regarding their own sport (77% unfair, 15% fair).”
There’s a conflict of rights here, and it has two sides.
> your response is a useful example of how misogynistic attitudes stifle discussion on women's issues.
:100:
Also hiding behind "scientific" findings that there is a purported spectrum between men and women. Science has known that XY and XX configurations of chromosome 47 are the normal genotypes of male and female, respectively, and that any other configuration of these chromosomes (or a failure of the Y chromosome to activate) are disorders and not normative. Trisomy 47 (XXX, XXY, or XYY) is a genetic disorder just like trisomy 18 (Edward's syndrome) or trisomy 21 (Down's syndrome). The fact that some people's lived experience is a life with a genetic disorder does not make it normative or not a disorder.
Women (~50.5% of the population) need their own spaces, and it is devastating to them and society at large to sacrifice their well-being for the sake of small, vocal portion of the population who happen to consistently beat them in sports. The vast majority of genetic men claiming access to women's spaces have no genetic disorder, so invoking genetic disorders (as some do) to support them is a red herring, and there's no cut-and-dry science to apply (except to invoke their genotype which contradicts their claim).
The stance I'm taking on this almost definitionally adheres to "objective truth over subjective emotion" - something GP says they also hold to in a different thread.
:100:
Also hiding behind "scientific" findings that there is a purported spectrum between men and women. Science has known that XY and XX configurations of chromosome 47 are the normal genotypes of male and female, respectively, and that any other configuration of these chromosomes (or a failure of the Y chromosome to activate) are disorders and not normative. Trisomy 47 (XXX, XXY, or XYY) is a genetic disorder just like trisomy 18 (Edward's syndrome) or trisomy 21 (Down's syndrome). The fact that some people's lived experience is a life with a genetic disorder does not make it normative or not a disorder.
Women (~50.5% of the population) need their own spaces, and it is devastating to them and society at large to sacrifice their well-being for the sake of small, vocal portion of the population who happen to consistently beat them in sports. The vast majority of genetic men claiming access to women's spaces have no genetic disorder, so invoking genetic disorders (as some do) to support them is a red herring, and there's no cut-and-dry science to apply (except to invoke their genotype which contradicts their claim).
The stance I'm taking on this almost definitionally adheres to "objective truth over subjective emotion" - something GP says they also hold to in a different thread.
[deleted]
This isn’t new. Buckley is the best they could manage in the entire last century or so, and that’s… not a great high water mark.
What about Tolkien, Lewis, Chesterton, Dorothy Sayer, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, or Josef Pieper?
These were in fact some of the intellectual greats of the 20th century. Like many today, they wouldn't necessarily closely identify with "the right" as much as they'd disagree with and argue against the current ideology of the left.
These were in fact some of the intellectual greats of the 20th century. Like many today, they wouldn't necessarily closely identify with "the right" as much as they'd disagree with and argue against the current ideology of the left.
Tell me more about your seances with tolkien and lewis. Where did you have them? What's their favorite foods these days? Are they well?
Many authors poured their mind into their works such that simply reading their books makes it possible to know them pretty well. If you haven't tried it, I strongly suggest it :)
Since you called out Lewis -- one of my favorites is his The Abolition of Man and its narrative counterpart That Hideous Strength. They describe in exquisite, arguably prophetic detail many of the evils of the modern left, particularly how it has ushered in a progressive downfall of society through institutionalized lies.
Since you called out Lewis -- one of my favorites is his The Abolition of Man and its narrative counterpart That Hideous Strength. They describe in exquisite, arguably prophetic detail many of the evils of the modern left, particularly how it has ushered in a progressive downfall of society through institutionalized lies.
The irony of you citing a work that critiques placing "subjective emotion over objective moral truths" and attempting to apply it to the "modern left" is almost physically painful.
You and everyone like you owe so much of your current life to the modern left that your ingratitude is astounding. The very computer you're using to send your words to me is a product of science and rational thinking that you seem to abhor.
You and everyone like you owe so much of your current life to the modern left that your ingratitude is astounding. The very computer you're using to send your words to me is a product of science and rational thinking that you seem to abhor.
One of the central problems of left-wing ideology is placing (or more accurately, weaponizing) subjective emotion over objective truth, moral or otherwise. I'm sorry if that's painful to hear, but it is true.
> science and rational thinking that you seem to abhor.
What did I say that gave you that impression? Au contraire.
Modern life, science, rational thinking -- these are not products of left-wing political, moral, or social ideology, not even a little bit. I'm curious how you arrived at that viewpoint, which is incoherent.
Perhaps that which is not currently right-coded is leftist to you, but political coding is a disparate concept from the propositions upon which worldviews are built.
> science and rational thinking that you seem to abhor.
What did I say that gave you that impression? Au contraire.
Modern life, science, rational thinking -- these are not products of left-wing political, moral, or social ideology, not even a little bit. I'm curious how you arrived at that viewpoint, which is incoherent.
Perhaps that which is not currently right-coded is leftist to you, but political coding is a disparate concept from the propositions upon which worldviews are built.
You brought up the right-left dichotomy, I'm just following your lead.
It's undeniable that, right now, the right wing is anti-intellectual and anti-science. They constantly seek to censor speech, defund research and privatize public goods.
Where's a prominent politician saying "no actually, we should keep funding public research"? Or defending free speech? They're awfully quiet on the matter.
Frankly, I don't know how to define "left wing ideology", I've yet to hear anyone give a particularly good definition, but if we assume that what people who self-identify as right wing hate and fear is considered to be left wing, then it seems like I'm in favor of most of that.
Gender/transgender is a trivial subject to demonstrate the point. People thought "male" and "female" was a super specific binary that was trivial to separate people into. Then people did Science and found out it was considerably more complicated and closer to a spectrum with people crossing over at various points.
Now look at which group of people is rejecting that research by calling it a lie and shouting loudly and which group of people are changing their world views.
It's undeniable that, right now, the right wing is anti-intellectual and anti-science. They constantly seek to censor speech, defund research and privatize public goods.
Where's a prominent politician saying "no actually, we should keep funding public research"? Or defending free speech? They're awfully quiet on the matter.
Frankly, I don't know how to define "left wing ideology", I've yet to hear anyone give a particularly good definition, but if we assume that what people who self-identify as right wing hate and fear is considered to be left wing, then it seems like I'm in favor of most of that.
Gender/transgender is a trivial subject to demonstrate the point. People thought "male" and "female" was a super specific binary that was trivial to separate people into. Then people did Science and found out it was considerably more complicated and closer to a spectrum with people crossing over at various points.
Now look at which group of people is rejecting that research by calling it a lie and shouting loudly and which group of people are changing their world views.
I have thoughts to share about the topics you brought up, but you're not demonstrating any curiosity in this comment section, so I don't think continuing the discussion here will be helpful.
My email is in my bio if you'd like to discuss there.
My email is in my bio if you'd like to discuss there.
So I did some introspection and I want to go up a few levels to make a broader point to end this conversation.
First off, universities, including harvard and stanford or anyone else, are absolutely not perfect or above criticism. I'm sure they make tons of bad decisions and mistakes at all levels of their system and those deserve to be pointed out and complained about.
A subtle point is that I think it's useful to look at what someone was trying to accomplish, even if they did it badly or in a way that hurt people. Motive usually matters.
The more important point is that I want people to look at what happens when their agreement gives people more power. Donald trump is an easy example, a man who is literally famous for lying, could theoretically point out an actual mistake or even crime being committed by a university and be right. It's possible! But what actually happens when you agree with his position and start supporting it? He uses it to gain more power for him self, commit more corrupt actions and in general hurt society.
So yes, harvard or the faa or whoever did bad things and should be criticized. The solution is probably not anything involving trump or his cronies though.
First off, universities, including harvard and stanford or anyone else, are absolutely not perfect or above criticism. I'm sure they make tons of bad decisions and mistakes at all levels of their system and those deserve to be pointed out and complained about.
A subtle point is that I think it's useful to look at what someone was trying to accomplish, even if they did it badly or in a way that hurt people. Motive usually matters.
The more important point is that I want people to look at what happens when their agreement gives people more power. Donald trump is an easy example, a man who is literally famous for lying, could theoretically point out an actual mistake or even crime being committed by a university and be right. It's possible! But what actually happens when you agree with his position and start supporting it? He uses it to gain more power for him self, commit more corrupt actions and in general hurt society.
So yes, harvard or the faa or whoever did bad things and should be criticized. The solution is probably not anything involving trump or his cronies though.
I don't understand why "rightward" viewpoints need affirmative action in the form of government regulations?
That's very reasonable.
Viewpoints are essentially grounded in actions, and actions are grounded in values or ways of being.
Values are acted out by individuals and groups through a relative hierarchy, and generally guide which actions are taken.
People generally consider what's true to be what works, and what works is relative to what action is being taken, and what action is being taken depends on the persons underlying values.
Because almost all of the universities' leadership has shifted far to the left side of the US political spectrum over the last 50 years, there is now a hostile environment to many right leaning values. You can argue that this was natural and that right leaning values are worse, but that would be unwise. There is good and bad in everything, and it's not helpful to over generalize. The reality is that there are both "good" and "bad" values on both sides of the political bias, but even that is probably too generalized. What makes a value good or bad is contextual. Some values are more helpful in certain situations or environments than others.
Even more important is that values don't naturally exist on one spectrum... The idea of "right" and "left" values is artificial.
So while I agree that the constriction of values being supported within universities is unhealthy like a stool that's had three legs chopped off, the idea that top down authoritarian enforcement on these organizations is the solution is somewhat terrifying.
Scary times.
Viewpoints are essentially grounded in actions, and actions are grounded in values or ways of being.
Values are acted out by individuals and groups through a relative hierarchy, and generally guide which actions are taken.
People generally consider what's true to be what works, and what works is relative to what action is being taken, and what action is being taken depends on the persons underlying values.
Because almost all of the universities' leadership has shifted far to the left side of the US political spectrum over the last 50 years, there is now a hostile environment to many right leaning values. You can argue that this was natural and that right leaning values are worse, but that would be unwise. There is good and bad in everything, and it's not helpful to over generalize. The reality is that there are both "good" and "bad" values on both sides of the political bias, but even that is probably too generalized. What makes a value good or bad is contextual. Some values are more helpful in certain situations or environments than others.
Even more important is that values don't naturally exist on one spectrum... The idea of "right" and "left" values is artificial.
So while I agree that the constriction of values being supported within universities is unhealthy like a stool that's had three legs chopped off, the idea that top down authoritarian enforcement on these organizations is the solution is somewhat terrifying.
Scary times.
> Because almost all of the universities' leadership has shifted far to the left side of the US political spectrum over the last 50 years, there is now a hostile environment to many right leaning values. You can argue that this was natural and that right leaning values are worse, but that would be unwise. There is good and bad in everything, and it's not helpful to over generalize
Good lord that was a lot of words that said very little.
I'll try to be more concise and take an actual position: there's no such thing as a leftward shift, it's just people adopting the good ideas and abandoning the bad ideas.
Good lord that was a lot of words that said very little.
I'll try to be more concise and take an actual position: there's no such thing as a leftward shift, it's just people adopting the good ideas and abandoning the bad ideas.
The reality is definitely not that simple. There are many ideas that are good in one context and bad in others, but have been adopted (and imposed) far beyond the context they are good.
I've seen first hand many examples where leadership (within specific schools, probably with a highest concentration within liberal arts schools), consistently value the jobs of the faculty over the future wellbeing of the students. They don't value providing students with knowledge and skills that will make them successful in life after they graduate, and they do value growing their own staff and power within the organization. They value adding more rules and avoiding making any mistakes over taking risks and evolving the education to keep up with the rest of the world. Some of them value short-term benefits for themselves over long-term benefits of their students. I've seen this first hand on many occasions, so many it's beyond anecdote. It's not all bad, that's not my point, but to assume that all their judgement is perfect and they haven't made any mistakes and they have it all figured out and shouldn't reconsider anything... Well, that sounds more like faith and church to me. You're treating them like bishops not academics.
I've seen first hand many examples where leadership (within specific schools, probably with a highest concentration within liberal arts schools), consistently value the jobs of the faculty over the future wellbeing of the students. They don't value providing students with knowledge and skills that will make them successful in life after they graduate, and they do value growing their own staff and power within the organization. They value adding more rules and avoiding making any mistakes over taking risks and evolving the education to keep up with the rest of the world. Some of them value short-term benefits for themselves over long-term benefits of their students. I've seen this first hand on many occasions, so many it's beyond anecdote. It's not all bad, that's not my point, but to assume that all their judgement is perfect and they haven't made any mistakes and they have it all figured out and shouldn't reconsider anything... Well, that sounds more like faith and church to me. You're treating them like bishops not academics.
The topic of the conversation is the government requiring right-wing ideas be taught in schools. It has nothing to do with your anecdotes about educators valuing their own wellbeing over their students or whatever.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are schools and their professors perfect? Obviously not. Should they be improved? Sure. Is this trump driven ideological attack related to improving schools? Again, obviously not.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are schools and their professors perfect? Obviously not. Should they be improved? Sure. Is this trump driven ideological attack related to improving schools? Again, obviously not.
You stated:
"I don't understand why "rightward" viewpoints need affirmative action in the form of government regulations?"
And I attempted to explain (steelman) why some people may feel that this is necessary. For the record I think that this government letter, the precedent for it, etc. are authoritarian, and I don't support it.
My point is that schools have drifted in the values they support, and distinctly away from politically right values (both the good ones and the bad ones), which has made America more fragile and led to an increase in authoritarianism. I am not condoning an authoritarian solution to the problem, but I am aware of and attempting to explain the problem, because I thought you were inviting an explanation.
Little did I know your "I don't understand" wasn't an expression of curiosity. This is a great example of expressing values, since I place a higher value on curiosity, and I guess you place a higher value on judgement?
And I attempted to explain (steelman) why some people may feel that this is necessary. For the record I think that this government letter, the precedent for it, etc. are authoritarian, and I don't support it.
My point is that schools have drifted in the values they support, and distinctly away from politically right values (both the good ones and the bad ones), which has made America more fragile and led to an increase in authoritarianism. I am not condoning an authoritarian solution to the problem, but I am aware of and attempting to explain the problem, because I thought you were inviting an explanation.
Little did I know your "I don't understand" wasn't an expression of curiosity. This is a great example of expressing values, since I place a higher value on curiosity, and I guess you place a higher value on judgement?
I was criticizing your explanation. I don't think it made a persuasive case. This is how discussions work. Or at least, arguments.
I also disagree with your point that "schools have drifted in the values they support". It's probably more accurate to say the right wing has sprinted in the opposite direction of the typical values of a university.
I also don't think this has anything to do with a rise in authoritarianism, it's far more likely to attribute such a thing to fear and desperation, whether real or invoked by influencers for a specific reason.
I also disagree with your point that "schools have drifted in the values they support". It's probably more accurate to say the right wing has sprinted in the opposite direction of the typical values of a university.
I also don't think this has anything to do with a rise in authoritarianism, it's far more likely to attribute such a thing to fear and desperation, whether real or invoked by influencers for a specific reason.
Longitudinal studies show a steady increase in liberal-identifying faculty:
A 2005 paper by Daniel Klein and Charlotta Stern found that in humanities and social sciences, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 10:1.
A 2016 study by Mitchell Langbert, Anthony Quain, and Daniel Klein updated this, showing Democrat-to-Republican faculty ratios as high as 17:1 in some disciplines (e.g., history, sociology).
STEM fields tend to be more balanced, but even there, the trend has leaned more left over time.
The HERI Faculty Survey (Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA) consistently reports increasing liberal identification among faculty since the 1980s.
In 1989: ~39% of faculty identified as "liberal" or "far left"
By 2017: ~60% identified that way
The National Association of Scholars and Pew Research have shown that students are also trending more liberal, particularly in elite institutions.
DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) offices have expanded dramatically:
A 2021 Heritage Foundation study found that DEI staff at major universities often outnumbered tenured history faculty.
Speech codes and bias response teams:
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has tracked increases in campus speech restrictions, often under the guise of protecting against offensive or harmful speech, typically aligned with progressive concerns.
Emergence and expansion of identity studies programs (e.g., gender studies, critical race theory, postcolonial studies) reflect values that align with left-leaning critiques of power and hierarchy.
Declining requirements in Western Civilization or classical education in general education curricula, often replaced with more critical or globalized approaches.
A 2012 study in PS: Political Science & Politics reported that a majority of academic psychologists would discriminate against conservatives in hiring or grant review.
A 2020 paper by Honeycutt and Freberg showed similar bias in academic psychology departments.
Growing number of conservative-leaning donors (e.g., from the University of Chicago, Claremont Institute) have publicly criticized institutions for abandoning viewpoint diversity.
New initiatives such as the University of Austin (UATX) were launched explicitly as a reaction against perceived ideological conformity in mainstream academia.
The cumulative effect of these trends—political affiliation data, surveys, policy changes, curriculum developments, and institutional responses—strongly supports the claim that American universities have moved leftward over the past five decades. The change is most pronounced in the humanities and social sciences, and more muted in professional and STEM fields.
A 2005 paper by Daniel Klein and Charlotta Stern found that in humanities and social sciences, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 10:1.
A 2016 study by Mitchell Langbert, Anthony Quain, and Daniel Klein updated this, showing Democrat-to-Republican faculty ratios as high as 17:1 in some disciplines (e.g., history, sociology).
STEM fields tend to be more balanced, but even there, the trend has leaned more left over time.
The HERI Faculty Survey (Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA) consistently reports increasing liberal identification among faculty since the 1980s.
In 1989: ~39% of faculty identified as "liberal" or "far left"
By 2017: ~60% identified that way
The National Association of Scholars and Pew Research have shown that students are also trending more liberal, particularly in elite institutions.
DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) offices have expanded dramatically:
A 2021 Heritage Foundation study found that DEI staff at major universities often outnumbered tenured history faculty.
Speech codes and bias response teams:
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has tracked increases in campus speech restrictions, often under the guise of protecting against offensive or harmful speech, typically aligned with progressive concerns.
Emergence and expansion of identity studies programs (e.g., gender studies, critical race theory, postcolonial studies) reflect values that align with left-leaning critiques of power and hierarchy.
Declining requirements in Western Civilization or classical education in general education curricula, often replaced with more critical or globalized approaches.
A 2012 study in PS: Political Science & Politics reported that a majority of academic psychologists would discriminate against conservatives in hiring or grant review.
A 2020 paper by Honeycutt and Freberg showed similar bias in academic psychology departments.
Growing number of conservative-leaning donors (e.g., from the University of Chicago, Claremont Institute) have publicly criticized institutions for abandoning viewpoint diversity.
New initiatives such as the University of Austin (UATX) were launched explicitly as a reaction against perceived ideological conformity in mainstream academia.
The cumulative effect of these trends—political affiliation data, surveys, policy changes, curriculum developments, and institutional responses—strongly supports the claim that American universities have moved leftward over the past five decades. The change is most pronounced in the humanities and social sciences, and more muted in professional and STEM fields.
because they would otherwise fail in the "marketplace of ideas" among educated people
> not all viewpoints are presented anymore. Universities used to be billed as a "marketplace of ideas".
That's true. Universities no longer present the viewpoint that black people are inferior to whites and deserve to be slaves. They no longer present the viewpoint that human health comes from the balance of the four humours. They no longer present the viewpoint that women are the property of their fathers/husbands. They no longer present the viewpoint that nature is fundamentally made up of earth, aire, fire, and water. How dare they abandon these ideas and still call themselves a "marketplace of ideas"! Hypocrisy!
That's true. Universities no longer present the viewpoint that black people are inferior to whites and deserve to be slaves. They no longer present the viewpoint that human health comes from the balance of the four humours. They no longer present the viewpoint that women are the property of their fathers/husbands. They no longer present the viewpoint that nature is fundamentally made up of earth, aire, fire, and water. How dare they abandon these ideas and still call themselves a "marketplace of ideas"! Hypocrisy!
Indulging in your blatant straw man argument for a moment, what if discussing these ideas and the downsides of them to society helped the world transition away from them faster and minimized the chance of backslide?
There is nothing wrong with discussing bad ideas, especially with students that aren't familiar with them, if done responsibly, with respect for the student, and facilitation of critical thinking.
This attitude that certain topics or ideas are taboo and shouldn't ever be acknowledged or discussed because they are bad is a big part of what is increasing extremism and pushing America to the brink. It's authoritarian, and it makes the nation more fragile, not stronger.
There is nothing wrong with discussing bad ideas, especially with students that aren't familiar with them, if done responsibly, with respect for the student, and facilitation of critical thinking.
This attitude that certain topics or ideas are taboo and shouldn't ever be acknowledged or discussed because they are bad is a big part of what is increasing extremism and pushing America to the brink. It's authoritarian, and it makes the nation more fragile, not stronger.
You are free to discuss any idea you want. I'm also free to call you an idiot and ask you to leave my house.
Please stop arguing that ideas should be free from criticism.
Please stop arguing that ideas should be free from criticism.
I am not arguing that ideas should be free from criticism. Not at all. Not sure how you got that idea.
I'm arguing that we shouldn't censor bad ideas, or exclude them entirely from the relevant discussions. And more to the point, when we educate the next generation we should be doing so in a holistic way so that they understand why and when bad ideas are bad, and why those ideas were ever popular in the first place.
I'm arguing against ideological censorship, not justified and well constructed criticism.
I'm arguing that we shouldn't censor bad ideas, or exclude them entirely from the relevant discussions. And more to the point, when we educate the next generation we should be doing so in a holistic way so that they understand why and when bad ideas are bad, and why those ideas were ever popular in the first place.
I'm arguing against ideological censorship, not justified and well constructed criticism.
Let's start from the beginning. There is, by and large, no such thing as ideological censorship in american university settings. Ideas are free to be advanced and argued with.
Certain ideas have been so heavily criticized that people have stopped bringing them up. Criticizing a speaker at a college is not censorship, it's criticism and argument. Having a protest outside a speaker's event isn't censorship either, it's free speech.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here since perhaps you genuinely don't know that the people you're aligning your argument with are asking for their own ideas to be free from criticism.
This might be a good starting point: https://popehat.substack.com/p/our-fundamental-right-to-sham...
> This is sheer nonsense from the jump. Americans don’t have, and have never had, any right to be free of shaming or shunning. The First Amendment protects our right to speak free of government interference. It does not protect us from other people saying mean things in response to our speech. The very notion is completely incoherent. Someone else shaming me is their free speech, and someone else shunning me is their free association, both protected by the First Amendment.
When you bring up an abhorrent idea and I call you an idiot and ask you to leave, I'm not censoring you. If I refuse to invite you over next week, I'm still not censoring you. Nobody owes you a platform and demanding one is one of the more pernicious forms of free-speech-rights violations there are.
Certain ideas have been so heavily criticized that people have stopped bringing them up. Criticizing a speaker at a college is not censorship, it's criticism and argument. Having a protest outside a speaker's event isn't censorship either, it's free speech.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here since perhaps you genuinely don't know that the people you're aligning your argument with are asking for their own ideas to be free from criticism.
This might be a good starting point: https://popehat.substack.com/p/our-fundamental-right-to-sham...
> This is sheer nonsense from the jump. Americans don’t have, and have never had, any right to be free of shaming or shunning. The First Amendment protects our right to speak free of government interference. It does not protect us from other people saying mean things in response to our speech. The very notion is completely incoherent. Someone else shaming me is their free speech, and someone else shunning me is their free association, both protected by the First Amendment.
When you bring up an abhorrent idea and I call you an idiot and ask you to leave, I'm not censoring you. If I refuse to invite you over next week, I'm still not censoring you. Nobody owes you a platform and demanding one is one of the more pernicious forms of free-speech-rights violations there are.
Thank you for the benefit of the doubt. I am not attempting to align with anyone, only explore what's true. I certainly don't condone any attempt to shield ideas from criticism, or dismantling the right to free association. It doesn't surprise me that some people want that, but frankly I have seen that exact behavior on both sides of the political spectrum in the US. It looks to me like America is fragmenting into two cults with nothing but least respectful interpretations of each other. Both sides are trying to protect certain ideas from criticism and also censor aspects of the other. It's an ideological culture war.
When I criticize the actions of one of the cults, it doesn't automatically put me in the other cult.
I am not American, therefore I am not republican. I don't even consider myself politically right. I align with some right-leaning values, while aligning with more left-leaning ones.
I am here discussing these things in an effort to keep tabs on what's going on, but also because I think attempting to reconcile the differences between the two sides is a positive action. I want America to work this out without a full blown kinetic civil war. I have virtually no control over this outcome, so I will take small barely significant actions to try and nudge towards a more favorable outcome. My engagement here is an attempt to act as one tiny piece of a bridge, even if it means I am going to get trampled. It's a sacrifice, potentially in vein, and maybe even unwise, but at this point I don't know what else to do to help, and I am also afraid of making it worse.
Maybe I should just do nothing?
When I criticize the actions of one of the cults, it doesn't automatically put me in the other cult.
I am not American, therefore I am not republican. I don't even consider myself politically right. I align with some right-leaning values, while aligning with more left-leaning ones.
I am here discussing these things in an effort to keep tabs on what's going on, but also because I think attempting to reconcile the differences between the two sides is a positive action. I want America to work this out without a full blown kinetic civil war. I have virtually no control over this outcome, so I will take small barely significant actions to try and nudge towards a more favorable outcome. My engagement here is an attempt to act as one tiny piece of a bridge, even if it means I am going to get trampled. It's a sacrifice, potentially in vein, and maybe even unwise, but at this point I don't know what else to do to help, and I am also afraid of making it worse.
Maybe I should just do nothing?
Is this an example of "one strawman deserves another"? You know that when GP talked about "presenting a viewpoint", he didn't mean "as an example of a bad idea that nobody should believe". He meant he wants alt-right talking points parroted to everyone because he's upset that reality has a liberal bias. You know this. You also know that I'm not suggesting outlawing the discussion of slavery in its historical context, but simply saying that universities have no obligation to make a case for failed and abhorrent ideas in the name of "diverse viewpoints". Why are you pretending like you don't know this already?
Your First Comment:
"That's true. Universities no longer present the viewpoint that black people are inferior to whites and deserve to be slaves."
Your Later Comment: "You also know that I'm not suggesting outlawing the discussion of slavery in its historical context, but simply saying that universities have no obligation to make a case for failed and abhorrent ideas in the name of "diverse viewpoints"."
I am not American, Republican or even politically right. I am not your enemy. Please try and take the most respectful interpretation of what I am saying.
Your first and second comments I quoted above contradict each other.
The straw man I was referencing in your original post is how you pointed to the worst examples of "right" values. I indulged the examples you shared by stating even in those cases those ideas need to be explored fully in order to understand why they failed, so they are not repeated. I understand you are not advocating for these discussions to be outlawed, and I agree! I also don't advocate for these discussions to be forcefully imposed! However I do think that schools have evolved their curriculums to such an extent that many of these ideas are not adequately analyzed or represented within the programs offered, and the consequence is that it makes society weaker and more susceptible to the ideas resurfacing.
Also, I honestly don't know who GP is that you are referring to. I also don't know who you are, what you believe, or what you meant beyond the words you wrote in that one comment. I am not pretending anything. Just trying to point out how avoiding discussing certain ideas (by deliberately excluding them from curriculums), just because those ideas are "bad", is a problem that will have big long-term consequences, including the resurgence of those "bad" ideas (because the education system didn't inoculate people against them).
In your original comment that I responded to, it sounded like you were saying universities shouldn't discuss these ideas (including their subjective historical-context-dependent merits or correlated beliefs) at all. Now it sounds like you are saying that's not your stance. That's fine, you clarified your stance.
It's not helpful to assume that I should have known this was your stance all along and that I am pretending not to.
Your Later Comment: "You also know that I'm not suggesting outlawing the discussion of slavery in its historical context, but simply saying that universities have no obligation to make a case for failed and abhorrent ideas in the name of "diverse viewpoints"."
I am not American, Republican or even politically right. I am not your enemy. Please try and take the most respectful interpretation of what I am saying.
Your first and second comments I quoted above contradict each other.
The straw man I was referencing in your original post is how you pointed to the worst examples of "right" values. I indulged the examples you shared by stating even in those cases those ideas need to be explored fully in order to understand why they failed, so they are not repeated. I understand you are not advocating for these discussions to be outlawed, and I agree! I also don't advocate for these discussions to be forcefully imposed! However I do think that schools have evolved their curriculums to such an extent that many of these ideas are not adequately analyzed or represented within the programs offered, and the consequence is that it makes society weaker and more susceptible to the ideas resurfacing.
Also, I honestly don't know who GP is that you are referring to. I also don't know who you are, what you believe, or what you meant beyond the words you wrote in that one comment. I am not pretending anything. Just trying to point out how avoiding discussing certain ideas (by deliberately excluding them from curriculums), just because those ideas are "bad", is a problem that will have big long-term consequences, including the resurgence of those "bad" ideas (because the education system didn't inoculate people against them).
In your original comment that I responded to, it sounded like you were saying universities shouldn't discuss these ideas (including their subjective historical-context-dependent merits or correlated beliefs) at all. Now it sounds like you are saying that's not your stance. That's fine, you clarified your stance.
It's not helpful to assume that I should have known this was your stance all along and that I am pretending not to.
> I am not American, Republican or even politically right. I am not your enemy.
It's telling that intelligent discussions with people on the left are almost impossible without such disclaimers
It's telling that intelligent discussions with people on the left are almost impossible without such disclaimers
how dare people slander the right like this. Are you saying you can’t make a right leaning argument without government help?
The right should have pride in their selves, and build their own universities, if not their own realities!
The right should have pride in their selves, and build their own universities, if not their own realities!
Sounds like "The soft bigotry of low expectations" to me!
> If students and staff have to fill out some kind of viewpoint survey, the only rational strategy is for them to randomize their answers to minimize the chance of being in the group that gets told “sorry, we have too many of your type this year”.
University students love messing with surveys.
My prediction: They'd coordinate to answer according to the groups they don't belong to. Right-leaning people would claim to be on the left. Left-leaning people would claim to be on the right.
University students love messing with surveys.
My prediction: They'd coordinate to answer according to the groups they don't belong to. Right-leaning people would claim to be on the left. Left-leaning people would claim to be on the right.
I think in practice everyone would just claim to be right. Clearly "viewpoint diversity" is code for more (if not mostly) right wing students and faculty.
> If students and staff have to fill out some kind of viewpoint survey, the only rational strategy is for them to randomize their answers to minimize the chance of being in the group that gets told “sorry, we have too many of your type this year”.
This seems obviously preferable to "Sorry, we have too many of your race."
This seems obviously preferable to "Sorry, we have too many of your race."
I'm amazed this isn't flagged.
The earnest determination of segemnts of the HN comments "community" to prevent discussion of topics they don't agree with is almost as concerning as the actions of this adminstration.
The earnest determination of segemnts of the HN comments "community" to prevent discussion of topics they don't agree with is almost as concerning as the actions of this adminstration.
It was flagged, but saved by the mods soon after, I saw it.
This is such a great move by this administration. The Executive branch has been doing this for a long time across the nation. They use funding to pull strings and execute their views. This latest move is ad absurdum and the whole country will see how ridiculous it is that the President can demand a university (or any other body) do this or that... well guess what folks, you're right, and it has been going on for a long time. Look at the Dept of Education next. It needs to stop. The federal Executive Branch is way too large it is breaking the idea of independent states - incubators of ideas and democracy.
ah yes "ad absurdum" is how i want my policies to be made - similar to the tariffs, renaming the gulf of mexico, threatening to take over Canada and Greenland, DOGE... great moves all of them! I'm sure they are just using reverse psychology to make the american public understand how corrupt their government is
[deleted]
[deleted]
rich_sasha(2)