By Dave Andrusko
Stay with me for just a second, this really does directly apply to us.
I was reading a post today written by Michael Cook, who is the editor of the very fine website Bioedge. The title of the piece is “Popping the bubble of objectivity.”
In a nutshell, “Several leading liberal/progressive social psychologists have launched an initiative called Heterodox Academy to foster more political diversity in social science,” Cook writes. The long and the short of it is that people whose work I recognize themselves recognize that, politically, the field is overwhelmingly dominated by liberals–and that this is not a good thing.
As an article in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences concludes, “Academic psychology once had considerable political diversity, but has lost nearly all of it in the last 50 years.” Why? According to the abstract, “The underrepresentation of non-liberals in social psychology is most likely due to a combination of self-selection, hostile climate, and discrimination.”
So what? “This lack of political diversity can undermine the validity of social psychological science.”
Well…yes, of course.
The application to what we are about is pretty transparent, don’t you think? What if a few hearty souls, embedded deep in the Media Establishment, not only admitted that, politically, diversity is woefully lacking, but committed themselves (for the sake of their profession) to acknowledging that and sought to do something about it?
From our perspective, that matters because–alas–the liberal domination of the three major networks and the most powerful newspapers means a powerful gallery of cheerleaders for the Abortion Industry. Being “Liberal” ought not to equate to being pro-abortion, but unfortunately it customarily does.
If you read any account of the comings and goings of PPFA President Cecile Richards, it’s impossible to miss how uncritically her every utterance is taken, how gushing and effusive are the interviewers in their unstinted praise.
That Richards and her organization had something to account for–well that thought never made its way into the narrative.
My point is simple but profoundly important. What if–a huge if, I concede–the bastions of the Media Elite actually asked themselves if their virtually monolithic support for abortion on demand is good for them, let alone for America? Is an utter “lack of diversity” helpful or likely to lead to better coverage? We would respond
You can read an abstract of the article in the Behavioral and Brain Sciences.