LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.
March 4, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – A new study exploring political biases in academia over a decade demonstrates “that a majority of conservative academics experience a hostile environment for their beliefs in U.S., Canadian, and British universities.”
Academic Freedom in Crisis: Punishment, Political Discrimination, and Self-Censorship, authored by Dr. Eric Kaufmann, professor of politics at Birkbeck College, University of London, was published Monday.
According to Kaufmann, the study is the first of its kind investigating political discrimination in academia and authoritarianism by surveying professors and graduate students in social sciences and humanities faculties (SSH) at universities in the United States, Canada, and United Kingdom. His findings constitute “hard data on the absence of viewpoint diversity (in universities) and the presence of discrimination against conservative and gender-critical scholars.”
In the top 100 U.S. universities, the study found that 73 percent of academics are liberal, 22 percent made no affiliation, and only around 5 percent are conservative. Less than half of left-leaning professors would be comfortable in a close social situation with someone who voted for Donald Trump, with that number plummeting to a quarter if the voter is critical of transgenderism, i.e., holds to the biological truth of man and woman.
Among his main findings, Kaufmann noted that more than 90 percent of Trump supporters and 80 percent of Brexit supporters (Britain leaving political union with Europe) working in academia reported discomfort in expressing their views to colleagues, while more than 50 percent of all conservative academics in North America and Britain have admitted censoring their own work, be it in teaching or research. This is compared with around 8 percent combined slightly-left and far-left academics who believe their department is hostile to their political beliefs.
Kaufmann’s study also revealed a tendency of younger academics, including Ph.D students, to favor their ideological opponents being fired for holding “controversial” beliefs than do their older counterparts. Kaufmann warned that the trend signifies “progressive authoritarianism is likely to get worse in the coming years.”
Generally, though, Kaufmann found that less than 10 percent of academic staff members support “hard authoritarianism,” which includes dismissal campaigns, social media smears, and disciplinary action. That being said, “a significantly larger group” of left-leaning academics are unwilling to challenge free speech infringements, the burden of which lies upon “a significant minority of right-leaning academics and doctoral students.”
But being “cancelled” is “the tip of the iceberg” as far as Kaufmann is concerned.
UPDATE (1/29/21) - On day one of the new administration, Biden signed an Executive Order dismantling girls sports, and allowing biological boys back into girls locker-rooms.
The order declares: "Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the rest room, the locker room, or school sports. . . . All persons should receive equal treatment under the law, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation."
This affront to reason effectively signals an end to girls' and women's sports, and diminishes their effort to compete on a level playing field.
Though this petition has already been delivered once, we will deliver new signatures to the US Dept of Education when restrictions permit, in honor of Selina Soule, who filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in 2019.
UPDATE (5/29/20) - US Dep’t of Education: Letting males compete in girls’ sports violates female athletes’ civil rights
UPDATE (2/13/20) - Selina Soule and two other Connecticut high school girl track athletes, Alanna Smith and Chelsea Mitchell, have sued the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC) to stop boys who claim to be girls from competing in their sport.
Soule is the same high school girl who, last year, filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). That complaint is still ongoing, as the OCR has not yet handed down its guidance ruling.
This also explains why this petition is still ongoing. Please SIGN and SHARE.
But, with another track season soon coming to an end, the girls' attorneys have asked the Court for an injunction that would stop the CIAC from implementing its current policy while the lawsuit proceeds.
Soule, Smith, and Mitchell will soon run in regional and state meets, competing for state championships. This year, they would like to have the opportunity to win, fair and square.
Please learn more about the latest news concerning this case, here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/three-girls-sue-state-to-stop-boys-who-say-theyre-girls-from-competing-in-their-sport
Then, please SIGN this petition. Thank you!
Selina Soule is a female athlete who now must compete against biological males because of Connecticut's policy requiring that boys who identify as girls be admitted into girls' sports competitions.
But, when boys compete in girls' sports, they win because they have a natural advantage. It's scientifically proven, and it's also common sense.
This crushes the motivation of the biological girls who have worked hard to compete on a level playing field, only to enter into competitions which they can never win, despite all of their efforts.
It also puts girls into harm's way in contact sports, AND it deprives female athletes of their right to fairly compete for college scholarships and other accolades.
This is wrong! And, that's why this URGENT petition supports Selina and all the other female athletes out there, who have put in the hours on the track or on the court.
Please SIGN this common sense petition supporting Selina Soule's complaint to the Dept of Education's Office for Civil Rights, against Connecticut's discriminatory policy.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
*Above photo credit: Michael Goodin / The Daily Signal
In terms of “soft discrimination,” Kaufmann explained it is again a minority group of conservative academics who, dissenting from consensus views, suffer from prejudices regarding “hiring, promotion, grant applications, publishing, the allocation of teaching and research tasks, workplace civility, and social inclusion.”
His findings show that, left or right, discrimination arises at similar rates. The key distinction that puts conservatives at particular risk is “the heavy leftward skew among staff at virtually all universities, and among students – especially at elite institutions.”
Soft discrimination is much more broadly practiced among the ranks of leftists, according to Kaufmann’s study, which found that “not only a near-majority on the far left, but also some center-left and even centrist staff” would support softer censorship measures against their right-wing colleagues.
“One in 3 British academics would discriminate against a known Brexit supporter while 40 percent of American academics and 45 percent of Canadian academics would discriminate against a known Trump supporter,” he said.
As a result, most conservative academics report self-censorship, with the problem being of particular concern in the United States, where 70 percent of professors admit to taking such measures.
The leftist bias in academia has intensified dramatically since the 1960s, at which time leftists outnumbered conservatives twofold. Now, that ratio has shifted to a 10-1 average bias of leftists over conservatives. This vast left-leaning proportion within academia has, according to Kaufmann, discouraged conservatives from pursuing careers in SSH university departments, with “70 percent to 80 percent” of current conservative academics saying “their departments are hostile environments for their political beliefs.”
The high proportion of left-leaning academics somewhat explains a lack of pressure from within tertiary-level institutions to engender a freer academic environment.
Kaufmann demonstrated that conservative grad students have a much greater notion of being discriminated against for their political views than leftists, with as much as 62 percent of “very right” identifying students admitting to this fear. Conversely, only 8 percent of “very left” identifying students made the same admission.
Kaufmann concluded that interest in academia is stifled among conservative-minded individuals, in part on account of the difficulty found in attainting an academic job and of progression thereafter based solely on their political beliefs. In like manner, more conservative professors retire early than their liberal counterparts, increasing the disparity of political thought and entrenching the already implacable biases.
Kaufmann observed that, in the “four decades” that this “problem” has existed, no internal measures have proved capable of redressing the growing levels of discrimination against conservative academics. Since “(u)niversities cannot reform themselves,” Kaufmann proposes they “require external intervention.”