Originally Posted by Jubelum
Originally Posted by midwinter
So then there should be thousands of conservatives across America flunking out of school. Where are they?
This is not at all a non sequitur, because you're trying make a claim of a general effect, but only offering personal anecdote as evidence.
You say you can't offer better evidence for oppression of conservatives because this is all about subjective experiences and things that are not routinely recorded, not the kind of thing you can cite a journal reference for or post a link to as documented proof.
What you're missing, and this is midwinter's point, is that real, serious oppression would have real measurable effects. Unless you'd like us to believe that conservative students are so perfectly adaptable to oppression that their responses completely cancel out any measurable negative effects, some
concrete effect of the claimed oppression would have to emerge: lower average grades for conservatives, higher drop-out rates, higher suicide rates, higher incidences of conservatives being victims of violent campus crime, etc. Something
Without that kind of evidence, the rest of us have good reason to suspect that your sense of oppression, and the scale of it, is the result of a bias toward your own personal experiences and selective awareness and sensitivity to perceived wrongs against conservative students.
That said, my guess is that there is an element of truth in what you say. Since liberals professors tend to outnumber conservatives in academia, that's likely to have some sort of effect. But what matters here, when it comes to whether or not something like ID gets a "fair chance" in the academic world, is whether or not the oppression you speak of is both powerful and systematic.
If the bias is not so potent and pervasive as you'd have us believe, then the failings of ID are largely the fault of ID itself having little scientific or academic merit. The more powerful and effective a scientific idea is, the faster it can beat down the forces of entrenched acceptance of older views.
Creationism has been around a very long time, and its latest incarnation as ID began in the 1980s. ID has had nearly a generation
to catch on and prove itself. A good scientific idea with good evidence to back it should show some signs of progress over that span of time. Trying to blame a lack of progress over a nearly generational span of time on unfair academic bias is, I have to say, a pretty lame case to be trying to make.
By contrast, when Darwin published On the Origin of Species
in 1859, although the principles of evolution contained therein faced strong opposition and created a great deal of controversy, evolution made swift progress towards academic and scientific acceptance. And that's even when the evidence for evolution was paltry compared to the mountains of data gathered since.
Why? Because evolution was and is good science, it's a powerful and effective theory for explaining what we see in the natural world. Then again, I suppose the creationist/ID explanation for the rapid rise and subsequent staying power of evolution would be something along the lines that evolution satisfied some supposed powerful hunger for an academic tool that could be used to "destroy God" -- how could it be anything else, since evolution is so "obviously" "junk science"?