Following! 💙🌊🚫👑🥭

Following! 💙🌊🚫👑🥭

Following! 💙🌊🚫👑🥭

Following! 💙🌊🚫👑🥭

Following! 💙💙💙🌊🚫👑🚫🌮🚫🥭

And even then: you could not be certain that the people you hired taught in ways that differed significantly from the mainstream. We all read the same books, we all go to academic conferences. What we do is inherently "liberal," and if the point of reform is illiberal, then we're gonna disappoint.

That would be illegal at most public institutions of higher education, so you'd have to use surreptitious proxies, like only hiring graduates of Hillsdale or Bob Jones. That's probably illegal, too, but you could get away with it.

www.niche.com/colleges/sea...

But I digress. The only way you could pull it off, I figure, is by doing what Stanford pioneered, decades ago: get some plutocrat to fund a lavish "civics institute," and vet job candidates for their political beliefs.

www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty...

By the way, there is little correlation between a historian's political views and their professional skills. Politics may lurk behind their choice of topics, but that's true on the left as well. One of my mentors was pretty right-wing, but an excellent historian.

www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/b...

In my field, would it mean hiring more military historians? More historians of nineteenth-century Great Power diplomacy? If we sought to increase "viewpoint diversity" through the choice of sub-field, how would we ensure that we were not hiring a closet Stalinist?

jacobin.com/2025/04/paul...

But let's set aside the quest for causes. How would one implement "viewpoint diversity"? Even inside the disciplines in which "viewpoint diversity" might plausibly have a flimsy salience, what would achieving it look like, as a practical matter?