Not necessarily Republicans, since they are statists too, although somewhat less than Dems.

But for the sake of argument, yes, conservatives tend to be biased against statist academia because they are aware that since academia wouldnt exist without a state it is biased toward the state and against contra-statists.

The notion that conservatives would indeed be biased against an independent, non-statist academia, simply because they are -as is often implied- biased against knowlege itself, is not convincing.

> The notion that conservatives would indeed be biased against an independent, non-statist academia, simply because they are -as is often implied- biased against knowlege itself, is not convincing.

This is a complete straw man. Nobody is saying conservatives would be biased against 'knowledge itself'.

What is being suggested is that they would be biased against social psychological research with the potential to change ideas about power relations away from supporting the status quo.

Furthermore, if as you say, conservatives are supportive of this research being done, but just object to 'statist' academia, you will easily be able to prove that by pointing us to the independent institutions they have funded.

I think you're operating from a serious misconception about the Republican party- they advocate and have historically voted for extremely strong State power, just distributed for a greater degree of regional control.

I think you're operating from a serious misconception about the Republican Party.

Why? What would that be?

If one of these statements is true then it's more likely that the other one is also true. It's a chicken and egg relationship.

Why not both?