no fucking bias

Here's the problem with the liberal academia debate.  It's a fake debate.  It's full of straw men.  A study appears, and the study is a survey of the political views of college professors.  And here's what we get from the conservative media.

Washington Times:

Said Mr. Lichter [one of the study's authors]: "This is the richest lure of information on faculty ideology in 20 years. And this is the first study that statistically proves bias [against conservatives] in the hiring and promotion of faculty members."

No.  Not true.  The study doesn't "prove bias."  Mr. Lichter seems to be lying about his own study.  The study isn't publically available (good job guys), but the abstract says this:

A multivariate analysis finds that, even after taking into account the effects of professional accomplishment, along with many other individual characteristics, conservatives and Republicans teach at lower quality schools than do liberals and Democrats. This suggests that complaints of ideologically-based discrimination in academic advancement deserve serious consideration and further study.

Let's have that again. It "suggests" that something deserves "serious consideration" and "further study."  If something were proven, it wouldn't mean that it deserved further study, now, would it? 

Now, why would a scholar be untruthful about their own study?  You tell me.  I'm curious to know

-- Michael

Comments

[d]

that's just shoddy presentation of analysis. anyone who knows they might get called out on a theoretical claim wouldn't say something like that. i'm a research dope (but it's still my job) and i know that.

i call shenanigans.

[jordan retro 1]

work is more thar a necessary for most human being; it is the focus of their lives, the souece of their iadentity and creativity.Do you think so?