Liberal profs admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, when you try to parade Creationism as science, you're kinda going beyond "diversity of opinion."

Why do you always resort to straw men?

Actually, I usually don't. But around here they seem so popular, I wanted to give it a try. I have to admit, it has pleasant oaky notes, but was disappointingly immature with distinct elements of green pepper and markedly astringent.

In other words, you are too stupid to actually argue from a position of strength, so you resort to making stupid jokes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why wasn't the thread title,

By almost 2 to 1, liberal professors said they would not discriminate against a conservative job applicant over a liberal, when the two were equally qualified for the job.

Eh? Doesn't sound quite as interesting when you describe the situation accurately does it?

When you clean the rightwing garbage out of it...

We have over a third that openly admit to discriminating, and a clear knowledge that everyone lies to make themselves look good, and you want me to actually believe that, just because a significant percentage says they wouldn't discriminate, they are telling the truth? How do you explain rdean's favorite statistic if that claim is true? Do you honestly think that conservatives routinely avoid academic fields?

So the premise of the survey is dependent on your theory that the liberals who said they wouldn't discriminate are lying?

good one. You never fail to deliver.

No, it is based on the premise that one third of those surveyed admitted to the discrimination. The reason this was so shocking to the people who took the survey is they expect people to lie, or did you miss the part where they said they usually have to trick people to get them to admit to discrimination?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The hypothetical of 2 equally qualified candidates to choose from eliminates discrimination from the equation no matter which candidate you pick.

I think they should go to Bob Jones university, or Liberty U, or the like, and ask the same question.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you, as usual.

Really? Which case is that? Which case determined that if 2 candidates are equally qualified, the employer has to hire the conservative?

Cite that please.

My suggestion to you is that you look up Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the cases surrounding it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There isn't a conservative here who if in a hiring decision were faced with 2 equally qualified candidates, one known to be liberal and one known to be conservative, would choose the liberal.

Unless perhaps, if she had nicer tits.

Why would I know which one is which? My experience in hiring people is that "equally qualified" never actually happens. One person always has a better interview, even if the resumes are almost identical.

Because that is the question they concocted as part of this survey.

One question, according to the researchers, “asked whether, in choosing between two equally qualified job candidates for one job opening, they would be inclined to vote for the more liberal candidate (i.e., over the conservative).”

So, maybe like me, for once, you are figuring out how bogus this whole deal is.

Actually, it is your excuse for arguing that it is not discrimination, which is contrary to federal law. But you can keep pretending that it is OK because it is a group you personally hate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Waaa...waaa... Conservatives are so funny, they cry so easily. The martyrdom syndrome is all conservatives know, a third of the more liberal profs say that given two equally qualified candidates they hire the person more open and similar to themselves. Wow does that surprise anyone but the the chickenhawk crybabies of the right. Imagine all the tissues you'd need if you hired the conservative. You wingnuts are too funny.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...es-of-midcans-insights-into-contemporary.html

If there are any characteristics that the right wing exemplifies they are the whining, the sky is falling, and martyrdom syndromes. Someone is always plotting to destroy some past utopia that only they can see. Add the Dunning-Kruger effect and you have the perfect right winger, usually a conservative, often republican, but occasionally a libertarian sort of mortal. They are real beauts, guided by the narrative of taxes are bad and government is even worse, the corporations play them like banjos, and like a banjo they willingly acquiesce
in their own demise.

You really like going back to threads were you had your ass handed to you, don't you? Tell me something, do you still think that the man that argued that, if we didn't fight the commies in Vietnam, we would be fighting them in San Francisco, was a liberal?

What do you think? Was JFK or LBJ liberals?

No liberal has ever been elected as President. Obama is the closest, but his narcissism is more important to him than his principles.

 

[Sinjorri]

It’s not every day that left-leaning academics admit that they would discriminate against a minority.

But that was what they did in a peer-reviewed study of political diversity in the field of social psychology, which will be published in the September edition of the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science.

Psychologists Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammers, based at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, surveyed a roughly representative sample of academics and scholars in social psychology and found that “In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists admit that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues.”

A 2007 report by sociologists Neil Gross and Solon Simmons found that 80 percent of psychology professors at elite and non-elite universities are Democrats. Other studies reveal that 5 percent to 7 percent of faculty openly identify as Republicans. By contrast, about 20 percent of the general population are liberal and 40 percent are conservative.

Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they'd discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement - Washington Times

Not surprising at all, but I'm glad it's finally in the open. The Kool Aid drinkers admit they are drinking Hatorade.

I am sure the conservatives would discriminate against the liberals if the numbers were reversed.

It isn't right, but if its not illegal, why worry?

if the left is caught doing something than say the other side would do it to with no evidence what so ever. I really cant wrap my brain around liberal thinking. Really, i bet you would be screaming how evil conservatives are if they were doing it. and your logic is very flawed.

 

[squeeze berry]

I'm a registered republicam and keep my conservative views private for fear of repurcussions

The OP why that is so.............

You're about as "conservative" as Pol Pot.

it's easy to understand why someone like myself, who is right of center, would be considered a commie by you.

 

[midcan5]

Waaa...waaa... Conservatives are so funny, they cry so easily. The martyrdom syndrome is all conservatives know, a third of the more liberal profs say that given two equally qualified candidates they'd hire the person more open and similar to themselves. Wow does that surprise anyone but the chickenhawk crybabies of the right. Imagine all the tissues you'd need if you hired the conservative. You wingnuts are too funny.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...es-of-midcans-insights-into-contemporary.html

If there are any characteristics that the right wing exemplifies they are the whining, the sky is falling, and martyrdom syndromes. Someone is always plotting to destroy some past utopia that only they can see. Add the Dunning-Kruger effect and you have the perfect right winger, usually a conservative, often republican, but occasionally a libertarian sort of mortal. They are real beauts, guided by the narrative of taxes are bad and government is even worse, the corporations play them like banjos, and like a banjo they willingly acquiesce in their own demise.

You really like going back to threads were you had your ass handed to you, don't you? Tell me something, do you still think that the man that argued that, if we didn't fight the commies in Vietnam, we would be fighting them in San Francisco, was a liberal?

Out of courtesy I have to ask what your comment even means? I missed something, fill me in. [....] Oh jeez, I think I see what you are getting at, more empty words, fighting commies is the operative slogan. I think you fail to realize backing up a corrupt government is south Vietnam may have been advertised as fighting communism, but the war ended badly and today you can buy clothing made in Vietnam at Macy's. Also check your home for products made in China, another communist country. History is a great deal more complicated than the slogans and empty rhetoric of the chickenhawks and neocons.

I do love how conservatives brag that they have won some internet debate based on their personal bubble. Victory again by words, theirs. Too funny.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is a false derivative analogy that confuses the discussion.

Because Creationism is not science.

Neither is the cult of anthropogenic global warming.

 

[Seawytch]

One question, according to the researchers, “asked whether, in choosing between two equally qualified job candidates for one job opening, they would be inclined to vote for the more liberal candidate (i.e., over the conservative).”

That's from the article.

Question:

If the premise is that the two candidates were EQUALLY QUALIFIED, how can it be discrimination if you chose the more liberal candidate, or, for that matter, chose the more conservative candidate?

It sounds like the Conservatives favor affirmative action for the Conservative candidate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We have over a third that openly admit to discriminating, and a clear knowledge that everyone lies to make themselves look good, and you want me to actually believe that, just because a significant percentage says they wouldn't discriminate, they are telling the truth? How do you explain rdean's favorite statistic if that claim is true? Do you honestly think that conservatives routinely avoid academic fields?

So the premise of the survey is dependent on your theory that the liberals who said they wouldn't discriminate are lying?

good one. You never fail to deliver.

No, it is based on the premise that one third of those surveyed admitted to the discrimination. The reason this was so shocking to the people who took the survey is they expect people to lie, or did you miss the part where they said they usually have to trick people to get them to admit to discrimination?

You said you wouldn't believe the 2/3's that said they wouldn't discriminate, therefore you have rejected the idea that the study has any credibility, in your opinion.

So, by your own logic, any conservative for example who says he isn't a racist ought not be believed,

because everyone lies to make themselves look good.

Are you a racist?

 

[NYcarbineer]

One question, according to the researchers, “asked whether, in choosing between two equally qualified job candidates for one job opening, they would be inclined to vote for the more liberal candidate (i.e., over the conservative).”

That's from the article.

Question:

If the premise is that the two candidates were EQUALLY QUALIFIED, how can it be discrimination if you chose the more liberal candidate, or, for that matter, chose the more conservative candidate?

It sounds like the Conservatives favor affirmative action for the Conservative candidate.

That's what's coming out.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why would I know which one is which? My experience in hiring people is that "equally qualified" never actually happens. One person always has a better interview, even if the resumes are almost identical.

Because that is the question they concocted as part of this survey.

One question, according to the researchers, “asked whether, in choosing between two equally qualified job candidates for one job opening, they would be inclined to vote for the more liberal candidate (i.e., over the conservative).”

So, maybe like me, for once, you are figuring out how bogus this whole deal is.

Actually, it is your excuse for arguing that it is not discrimination, which is contrary to federal law. But you can keep pretending that it is OK because it is a group you personally hate.

What federal law makes it illegal to chose the liberal between two job applicants who are equally qualified?

Cite that.

 

[chanel]

It isn't illegal. Unethical, sleazy, and wrong, but hey...

I don't have a problem with affirmative action when TWO CANDIDATES ARE EQUALLY QUALIFIED. But of course, that's rarely the case.

But I'd like you ask you NYCarbineer, do you think college students are getting their money's worth with only half the story? Yes or no?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they'd discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement - Washington Times

Not surprising at all, but I'm glad it's finally in the open. The Kool Aid drinkers admit they are drinking Hatorade.

I am sure the conservatives would discriminate against the liberals if the numbers were reversed.

It isn't right, but if its not illegal, why worry?

if the left is caught doing something than say the other side would do it to with no evidence what so ever. I really cant wrap my brain around liberal thinking. Really, i bet you would be screaming how evil conservatives are if they were doing it. and your logic is very flawed.

The central theme of the article in the OP is the implication that this is something unique to liberals.

 

[chanel]

In academia, it is.

And if the PURPOSE of higher ed. is to teach students multiple theories to reach independent conclusions, wouldn't it be logical to have more conservatives on staff? Yes or no?

Or is the purpose of higher ed. something completely different?

 

[NYcarbineer]

In academia, it is.

And if the PURPOSE of higher ed. is to teach students multiple theories to reach independent conclusions, wouldn't it be logical to have more conservatives on staff? Yes or no?

Or is the purpose of higher ed. something completely different?

How many liberal professors do you suppose there are at the late Jerry Falwell's Liberty University?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Why do you always resort to straw men?

Actually, I usually don't. But around here they seem so popular, I wanted to give it a try. I have to admit, it has pleasant oaky notes, but was disappointingly immature with distinct elements of green pepper and markedly astringent.

In other words, you are too stupid to actually argue from a position of strength, so you resort to making stupid jokes.

Translation: You're incapable of arguing from a position of strength, so you resort to logical fallacies, like ad hominems. BTW, this entire thread is a joke.

 

[JakeStarkey]

My friends and relatives in higher academia disagree. They tell me both sides fight each other using every tool they have. Right now, the libs are ascendant. There was a time when the cons were top dogs.

In academia, it is.

And if the PURPOSE of higher ed. is to teach students multiple theories to reach independent conclusions, wouldn't it be logical to have more conservatives on staff? Yes or no?

Or is the purpose of higher ed. something completely different?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

One question, according to the researchers, “asked whether, in choosing between two equally qualified job candidates for one job opening, they would be inclined to vote for the more liberal candidate (i.e., over the conservative).”

That's from the article.

Question:

If the premise is that the two candidates were EQUALLY QUALIFIED, how can it be discrimination if you chose the more liberal candidate, or, for that matter, chose the more conservative candidate?

You can't possibly be this fucking stupid.