[TaylorPhebillo]

Agreed- I was really interested in the facts cited at the start, less so in the citation-less analysis later. So I looked into the report cited many, many times- it's from the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology. Looking into them, influence watch says "The organization primarily reports on bias against conservatives. CSPI provides research grants of $2,000-$15,000 to applicants to study incidents or trends of bias against conservatives."

https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/center-for-study-o...

On a side note, I'd really prefer not stating something as fact, then linking only to a 200 page report without any hints about where to actually find the info.

Edit: I'm not thrilled with the linked report in general, but:

The author says

> Nearly a quarter of American social science and humanities academics support dismissing colleagues who have unorthodox views in areas such as immigration or gender differences.

From page 24 of the report, I see where the author finds this information, but it's worth noting the support for dismissing academics comes almost entirely from the topic "women and minorities lower organizational performance"- more conventionally conservative topics don't seem to have anything like a similar rate.

I can't find anything obviously like the 4 out of 5 PhD students discriminating against right wing scholars.

[ContrarianBrit]

Thanks - these are valid points. I'm going to revise this part of the article. But I still think that this is a problem. See for example,

https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/8614/Academic-Freedom-in-the-UK...

https://source.wustl.edu/2020/08/free-speech-nearly-half-of-...

[blacksqr]

The study at your first link seems to have similar problems to the CSPI paper linked in the original post: email solicitation, self-selected replies, low response rates.

[ContrarianBrit]

Thanks - I'll also look at this.