These findings seem to be in conflict with other surveys, some of which were discussed on these pages. For example, the Northwestern study indicated that public wants universities to retreat from DEI. I wonder why the results of different studies are so different.
Much of the variation in survey results and their specifics are due to how questions are worded, the broader context of the survey, and simple variation among samples. I enjoy that there are so many surveys on this being done to identify overall patterns. What I'm seeing between this study and other surveys I wrote about here https://heterodoxacademy.substack.com/p/americans-praise-higher-ed-research are the general consensus of moving away from ideological political engagement -- that is the common thread among all the surveys I see. Even in this specific study in the post, the strong DEI support falls along predictable gender and partisan lines.
As I was reading the article, my very first thought was that the results of the first set of questions had to be very strongly dependent on how each question was worded. I could imagine myself giving different answers to the same questions based on wording alone. Words like "engage in" mean vastly different things to different people. The second part, where respondents were forced to divide their money, gets around this and gives, I think, the clearest answers as to where people stand because it does not constrain their decisions with language. The questions allow people to express the totality of their attitude, whereas pretty much however you word the questions in the first part, you are sampling only part of someone's attitude.
Personally I think there can be in many respects -- equality of opportunity for all to participate in higher education is obvious. Women were not permitted in the Ivy league until the 1970s and 1980s!
The Prussian model - created to crush the natural learn drive and create docile slaves - sure is outdated.
It’s almost as if the university system was built upon the Freemasonic pyramid hierarchy - degrees and all - in order to gate-keep information and networks from the people who actually produce everything we have and could throw the ruling bloodlines out of power if only access itself were not being bought and sold at the highest levels of nepo-baby chicanery.
The system is not corrupt. When you see a glove, you know it goes on a (in this case, hidden) hand. What a thing does is what it was designed to do.
Interesting results, although options are at least somewhat prone to differential interpretation by the identity factors and context. Consider Free Speech. Conservatives might think about traditional fiscal Conservatives or moderate social Conservatives. Liberals might worry about "anything-goes" speakers like Holocaust deniers, proponents of hate, or extreme social Conservatives. To illustrate importance of interpretation, what would Conservatives and Liberals say about allowing commie speaker on campus? Or trans advocate? Might depend as well on whether respondents see "their" side or the "other" side as being canceled at present. Be interesting to retest given resurgence of Conservative canceling of university discourse by external (political) forces. Also curious whether above are net of statistical controls for confounding, such as sex and college status?
These findings seem to be in conflict with other surveys, some of which were discussed on these pages. For example, the Northwestern study indicated that public wants universities to retreat from DEI. I wonder why the results of different studies are so different.
Much of the variation in survey results and their specifics are due to how questions are worded, the broader context of the survey, and simple variation among samples. I enjoy that there are so many surveys on this being done to identify overall patterns. What I'm seeing between this study and other surveys I wrote about here https://heterodoxacademy.substack.com/p/americans-praise-higher-ed-research are the general consensus of moving away from ideological political engagement -- that is the common thread among all the surveys I see. Even in this specific study in the post, the strong DEI support falls along predictable gender and partisan lines.
As I was reading the article, my very first thought was that the results of the first set of questions had to be very strongly dependent on how each question was worded. I could imagine myself giving different answers to the same questions based on wording alone. Words like "engage in" mean vastly different things to different people. The second part, where respondents were forced to divide their money, gets around this and gives, I think, the clearest answers as to where people stand because it does not constrain their decisions with language. The questions allow people to express the totality of their attitude, whereas pretty much however you word the questions in the first part, you are sampling only part of someone's attitude.
Is there not a realistic comprimise that could be reached with DEI and traditional values being brought in universities?
Personally I think there can be in many respects -- equality of opportunity for all to participate in higher education is obvious. Women were not permitted in the Ivy league until the 1970s and 1980s!
The Prussian model - created to crush the natural learn drive and create docile slaves - sure is outdated.
It’s almost as if the university system was built upon the Freemasonic pyramid hierarchy - degrees and all - in order to gate-keep information and networks from the people who actually produce everything we have and could throw the ruling bloodlines out of power if only access itself were not being bought and sold at the highest levels of nepo-baby chicanery.
The system is not corrupt. When you see a glove, you know it goes on a (in this case, hidden) hand. What a thing does is what it was designed to do.
Skeptical about the results.
And HxA needs to do more than explain that x means y. It needs to advocate for the values of Western civilization.
See our Open Inquiry U reform agenda that is driving all of our work. https://heterodoxacademy.org/open-inquiry-u/
Nice document.
Have you helped FAIR out with this?
https://www.fairforall.org/ocr-complaint-against-colorado-state-university/
Interesting results, although options are at least somewhat prone to differential interpretation by the identity factors and context. Consider Free Speech. Conservatives might think about traditional fiscal Conservatives or moderate social Conservatives. Liberals might worry about "anything-goes" speakers like Holocaust deniers, proponents of hate, or extreme social Conservatives. To illustrate importance of interpretation, what would Conservatives and Liberals say about allowing commie speaker on campus? Or trans advocate? Might depend as well on whether respondents see "their" side or the "other" side as being canceled at present. Be interesting to retest given resurgence of Conservative canceling of university discourse by external (political) forces. Also curious whether above are net of statistical controls for confounding, such as sex and college status?
Sex drugs and rock n roll