A couple of weeks ago I noted the following sad fact from Academia:
The latest milestone on this march away from reality came last month with the announcement that the American Anthropological Association has dropped the word “science” from its mission statements. The AAA has long been under the control of the postmodernist far left, so the announcement was no great surprise.
The proper study of mankind may still be man, but that study now belongs not to science but to the humanities, along with Chicana Studies, Queer Literary Theory, and Post-Colonial Discourse.
Here is some encouraging push-back in the human sciences, from the New York Times of all places.
Discrimination is always high on the agenda at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s conference, where psychologists discuss their research on racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism, stereotype threat and unconscious bias against minorities. But the most talked-about speech at this year’s meeting, which ended Jan. 30, involved a new “outgroup.”
It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.
“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal.
What’s to be done? Get ’em reading National Review!
To overcome taboos, he advised them to subscribe to National Review and to read Thomas Sowell’s A Conflict of Visions.
By a friendly little coincidence, the current issue of National Review contains a feature article on Prof. Sowell.
Some said [Haidt] overstated how liberal the field is, but many agreed it should welcome more ideological diversity. A few even endorsed his call for a new affirmative-action goal: a membership that’s 10 percent conservative by 2020.
Ten percent by 2020? Hey, let’s not go overboard here, guys.
[And never mind Queer Literary Theory: If I’d been writing a few days later I could have cited Gay Math.]
[And-and, I should qualify having said “the New York Times of all places” with a word of tribute to their excellent Science section, which routinely publishes results from the human sciences that would cause apoplexy among the newspaper’s op-ed writers, if they bothered to read them.]