EDITORS' CORNER
ANALYSIS: ‘DNA-based predictors of intelligence [conclude] being genetically predisposed to be smarter causes left-wing beliefs’
Yale University senior Milan Singh didn’t much like an op-ed from one of his college peers who criticized the lack of ideological balance at the school.
Hannah Owens Pierre had cited figures which regular readers of The Fix will be familiar — about how left-leaning faculty dominate college departments — and says Yale “shuts off opportunities for intellectual growth by keeping students in an ideological bubble.”
She concluded by saying Yale “must amend its hiring and admissions practices” to obtain more right-leaning staff and students.
In a response titled “Reject ideological affirmative action,” Singh notes — bluntly — the reason there are more liberal faculty and students at places like Yale is because they are innately smarter, especially compared to social conservatives. He offers up a bit of research as proof.
One of the studies, he claims, says “DNA-based predictors of intelligence tend to predict political beliefs within families, concluding that being ‘genetically predisposed to be smarter causes left-wing beliefs.’”
(Imagine if he cited “DNA-based predictors” regarding a “historically marginalized” demographic.)
Singh then asks “Does that mean all conservatives are stupid? Obviously not. There are plenty of intelligent people who happen to be on the right politically. But on average, conservatives are just not as smart as liberals.”
Singh adds that Pierre “must not have been looking very hard” for Yale classes dealing with “conservative political thought” because in “30 seconds” he found a trio of courses allegedly fitting that description, along with their professors.
But if Singh actually looked into the ideological bent of the professors, he’d have discovered that just one of the three doesn’t elicit much skepticism regarding political bias: English Prof. David Bromwich and his course on Edmund Burke.
Bromwich appears rather center-minded, more of an independent/libertarian than anything else. But the third noted professor in particular, Timothy Kreiner, (also in the English dept.) teaches courses on contemporary and African-American literature along with feminist theory. And among other things, in 2020 Kriener “emailed information” about a “racial justice strike” to students in his “Racial Capitalism and Black Revolt” and “Against Racial Capitalism” classes.
But I’m sure the seminar he teaches about “the rise of the far-right” (noted by Singh) is politically centrist/conservative (/sarcasm).
Did I mention Yale’s English department has zero Republican professors?
Singh certainly isn’t alone in his belief that conservatives are dumber than liberals; his Yale peer Mau Bosteels feels similarly, as does a U. North Carolina neurology professor, a Penn State international affairs/comparative literature prof, and ditto a USC political science professor.
The editorial editor of The Harvard Crimson, allegedly with a straight face, had claimed more conservative professors would not “increase productive disagreement in any meaningful way,” because hey — “liberal professors can disagree.”
Cornell’s Student Assembly even failed to pass a resolution calling for faculty ideological diversity — because conservatives “have not been historically oppressed.”
And, of course, if progressives are so damn smart, why are they so unwilling to allow people who have different views to speak on campus (and elsewhere)?
In a subsequent rebuttal, Pierre offered links to studies which counter Singh’s claim(s) of liberals’ higher intelligence … but she didn’t have to. The assertion is ridiculous to begin with.
At least Singh is an opponent of affirmative action; Pierre said she is too, challenging Singh’s claim that her first column, particularly the statement “Yale must amend its hiring and admissions practices,” was not a call for ideological A.A.
MORE: Top 40 universities refuse to address survey showing campuses dominated by Democrat professors
