Thank you, Professor, for this post. I'd just like to note that all of the 'speakers' and 'actors' in this episode are firmly within the liberal camp (i.e. pro-'diversity', etc.). Given the realities described here, the prospect that someone *without* liberal beliefs could make it through the gauntlet of admissions, supervision, publishing, hiring, etc., is virtually nil. As such, it is absolutely predictable that conservatives will see universities as "the enemy" and target them for attacks.
In an alternate universe, it might be nice to envision a set of public universities that were equally hospitable to actual conservatives, and could reasonably claim to be serving the whole country rather than only half of it.
Bravo, Matt, for holding a public discussion of this important issue. I share your perspective that faculty hiring and promotion should be based on evaluations of merit and not ideological or political views. I've had similar conversations espousing the views you shared in your post, though usually not as articulate as yours.
Hi Matt, thanks for some of this additional context. Who do you think is ultimately responsible for the violations of the bylaws? Is it the search committee, the dept chair, or parties beyond the psych dept? Given the sequence of failures and violations of the psych dept admin, who should be held accountable if this situation constitutes violation of bylaws?
You ask: "What else could have driven the decision?"
The main objection I've seen to Yoel's narrative is that there are a variety of reasons a hiring (even of a capable candidate) might not work out. Alternatives I've seen floated are that the hire could have been vetoed from outside the department (e.g. due to funding considerations), or even that UCLA may have been dangling the job offer as a part of courting his partner.
With all of the other circumstances, neither of these seem convincing to me. But I wonder if you have any thoughts on these or other possibilities?
Thank you, Professor, for this post. I'd just like to note that all of the 'speakers' and 'actors' in this episode are firmly within the liberal camp (i.e. pro-'diversity', etc.). Given the realities described here, the prospect that someone *without* liberal beliefs could make it through the gauntlet of admissions, supervision, publishing, hiring, etc., is virtually nil. As such, it is absolutely predictable that conservatives will see universities as "the enemy" and target them for attacks.
In an alternate universe, it might be nice to envision a set of public universities that were equally hospitable to actual conservatives, and could reasonably claim to be serving the whole country rather than only half of it.
Bravo, Matt, for holding a public discussion of this important issue. I share your perspective that faculty hiring and promotion should be based on evaluations of merit and not ideological or political views. I've had similar conversations espousing the views you shared in your post, though usually not as articulate as yours.
Hi Matt, thanks for some of this additional context. Who do you think is ultimately responsible for the violations of the bylaws? Is it the search committee, the dept chair, or parties beyond the psych dept? Given the sequence of failures and violations of the psych dept admin, who should be held accountable if this situation constitutes violation of bylaws?
Great post. The distinction between actions and thoughts is essential, and it certainly seems that bylaws against thought-policing were broken.
You ask: "What else could have driven the decision?"
The main objection I've seen to Yoel's narrative is that there are a variety of reasons a hiring (even of a capable candidate) might not work out. Alternatives I've seen floated are that the hire could have been vetoed from outside the department (e.g. due to funding considerations), or even that UCLA may have been dangling the job offer as a part of courting his partner.
With all of the other circumstances, neither of these seem convincing to me. But I wonder if you have any thoughts on these or other possibilities?