"It's not that they don't support diversity or affirmative action... it's that they think it ought to be applied to conservative white professors." I don't really follow. What about their "about" page suggests this? They even have a link to a post on this topic on that page, which I don't see a problem with: http://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/02/24/krugman-is-wrong-we-are-not-conservative/
"Professors moved left since 1990s, the rest of the country did not" "Why are liberals so condescending?" "It may be harder than we thought, but political diversity will (still) improve social psychological science" "Passing on the Right: Conservative Professors in the Progressive University" "Liberal privilege in academia" Did you miss all of those?I don't really follow. What about their "about" page suggests this?
This comment is in two parts. The first presents some implications of Inbar and Lammers’ (2012, this issue) findings by making salient many of the advantages and privileges enjoyed by scientists when they extol the moral and intellectual superiority of liberals, liberal beliefs, liberal attitudes, and liberal policy preferences over conservatives, conservative beliefs, conservative attitudes, and conservative policy preferences. The second part of this comment refutes (or, at least, vigorously contests) some of the most common arguments that have attempted to defend social psychology from charges of unscientific and distorting liberal biases.
I mean, I saw titles of individual publications by these individuals and they obviously do think it should be applied to conservative professors, but I don't see anything about race and it seemed like you were implying they believed it should be applied to conservative white professors to the exclusion of any other group in any other context (which I'm still not getting). I haven't had time to go through and familiarize myself with these people or their general dispositions, outlooks, and beliefs, maybe that's the problem.