Discussion of the critical letters on my article in Eugene's "Register Guard"

Two major points raised by the letter writers so far are the following:

  • 1). Republicans and conservatives are not the same thing, so the study I cite does not apply.

    Response. The way I cited the study (for the lack of space) was the most unfavorable for the point I was trying to make, and even then it is very convincing (greens, for example are on the left and I skipped the data about them). If we do go into details though, my point gets even stronger. For example, my opponents correctly stress considerable variations among Republicans and Democrats. If we take those variations into account the situation will be even worse than the ratio of 15 to 1 suggests. Indeed, the Democrats on our campus tend to be very liberal, while Republicans tend to be rather moderate. For example, of the four Republicans I know, all four are not religious, all four do not own guns and are indifferent to the second amendment, and three do not see any problem with abortions, so by all accounts our Republicans are not very conservative. If you look at the important issues dividing the two camps, the ratio of liberals to conservatives on our campus will be much bigger than 15 to 1.

  • 2). Membership in racial or ethnic groups is not voluntary and do not change. Party affiliation and political views are voluntary and can change over time. The analogy between racial minority status and party affiliation or political views does not hold.

    Response. This popular argument seems to be beyond the point. I claim that the UO discriminates based on people's convictions and faith. You respond that people's convictions and faith are not something they are born with. So? I hope you don't believe it is O.K. to discriminate against people based on their convictions? You need to either argue that no discrimination occurs or to agree that it does, and then you will hopefully also have to agree that something needs to be done about it.

  • 3). Democrats are also over-represented in sciences and engineering where there clearly is no discrimination.

    Response. Over the country Democrats are indeed over-represented in sciences, on average by the ratio of 3:1, and I am quite willing to accept that this is caused by "natural causes", rather than by discrimination. But then we face two important issues: first, what can explain much higher imbalance in humanities? I still insist that the only explanation is discrimination. Second, if we agree that discrimination in sciences is virtually non-existent, how is it then that my opponents use it to explain under-representation of women and some minorities in the sciences?

  • 4). Liberal education means what it says, so liberal bias is O.K. and even desirable.

    Amazingly this came from a person who mentioned Webster dictionary in the same letter. Well, here is what liberal education is according to the Webster: an education based primarily on the liberal arts, emphasizing the development of intellectual abilities as opposed to the acquisition of professional skills. Does not seem to have much to do with liberal versus conservative meaning of the word.

  • 5). Ad hominem attacks (I am not a serious thinker, I am whining, I represent increasingly unreasonable voices, etc.).

    I do not respond to these. Those who use such attacks have already lost the debate.

    Back to my UO Diversity Forum Home Page