One of the worst things about our era is that our universities, which are supposed to stand apart from the conformist pressures of a democratic society and pursue the truth boldly, are filled with politically correct followers, whose critical thinking skills are defective. Most professors, pundits, and other opinion makers run away from the truth on the basis of the most sentimental myths about human beings.
Brave New World Watch had a nice link to an old Willmore Kendall piece where he recognized this tendency 50 years ago:
We stand constantly in the presence these days of a mode of argument that runs as follows: Proposition X, or Propositions X and Y, or Propositions X, Y, and Z, if valid, would force certain conclusions that are intolerable. The propositions in question are, therefore, not valid. And the view of reality that has tended to make them seem plausible, or attractive, or unavoidable, must be a false view of reality. The task, therefore, becomes that of substituting for the false view of reality another view of reality which will yield up propositions whose validity we are entitled to take for granted because it does not lead to the conclusions declared intolerable. Nor do we require any criterion by which to evaluate this other view of reality than just that: we embrace it, and all the tacit premises and clear implications that go with it, because it assures us a means of escaping the intolerable.
This is another illustration of an important truth about beliefs: ordinary people are more attached to their conclusions than their supposed first principles. They will readily change the latter rather than risk the former. But the politically correct conclusions of our age–denying the reality of IQ or the tyrannical implications of Islam–are supported by the most transparent, results-oriented, and unconvicing apologies in the academy. We do live in a decadent time.