ok, i just watched an interesting documentary called "Indoctrinate U!" In the name of academic freedom, professors are using
the classroom as their ideological bully pulpits. Part of my college career days was spent working for David Horowitz and
Students for Academic Freedom, www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org. How is UIUC, when it comes to academic freedom for
conservative, pro-Israel, pro-American liberals/Democrats, evangelical Christian, Catholic students and professors? Maybe it is
just California. At UC Irvine, the president of the College Republicans received death threats after they posted advertisments for
a lecture by a pro-Israel Arab speaker, Nonie Darwish. At Concordia University, former Israeli prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu
was physically prevented from speaking due to security threats because the protests were turning into riots and they were
concerned for students safety. I have never heard of speakers like Noam Chomsky, Jimmy Carter, Michael Moore, needing
heavy security at their speaking events. I have never heard of out of control College Republicans rioting outside of a liberal speaker.
However, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, David Horowitz, Bill Kristol, and Star Parker have all been assaulted during their speech.
Meanwhile, the professors who use their classroom for extremist politics cry "McCarthyism" when someone dares to question them.
At California State University San Bernardino, pro-life students, who were holding a peaceful vigil outside of a lecture by Gloria
Steinem were arrested and charged with, get this, protesting "outside of the 'free-speech zone,'" and "creating a hostile environment
for women on campus. Considering that the majority of those arrested were women was amusing, only one male was arrested.
Students in the California State University system are forced to sign a statement that they will not engage in "hate speech." All
student organization have to sign a severely draconian "inclusiveness" statement in their club constitution. This has been
mostly used against conservative, evangelical Christian, Catholic, Mormon, and Muslim organizations because of the fact that all of these religions do not condone nor promote homosexuality. At Cal State Long Beach, the Muslim Student Association decided to leave out sexual orientation and religion in their anti-discrimination policy since, they only wanted committed Muslims to be voting in their organization.
At CSUSB, the LDSSA, and the Catholic Club were denied a charter because they would not include sexual orientation in their anti-discrimination policy. The Alliance Defense Fund, filed suit, however, the LDSSA chickened out and amended their Constitution to placate the student government and the campus dean of political correctness.
How is UIUC? I know that the Hillel was being attacked back in 2000. After the Palestinian reign of terror reignited in the "2nd Intifada", Jewish students were reporting harrassment, and even the Hillel building was defaced with anti-Semitic slogans.
The Orange and Blue Observer, (when it actually had writers who could write well), was the only paper outside of the Jewish community that covered what was going on with the anti-Israel activism on campus.
So, what is UIUC like these days? I know that when the PRC, GEO, and other campus organizations held their sit-ins, die-ins, encampments, BOT meeting disruptions, that the campus police and administration cowtowed to their every demands. I wonder if it was a pro-life group protesting outside of McKinley Health Center, whether they would be treated with the same respect. Hell, GEO was ordering pizzas on the BOT office phone during their 2000 Henry Administration Building take over, and the U of I police were bringing the pizzas up to the demonstrators! Where was a CPRB when you needed one? (Sarcastic comment)
Any words, Bambanek, Dan Fielding???
[insert comment regarding the reactionary, misguided, and poorly defended argument here]
Seriously, do you ever read these things before you post them? I know I'm attacking right away, but I really have to ask this question...this is the same regurgitated, alarmist "I'm a conservative white guy, woe is me" crap from other threads, just in a different form.
I want to pick it apart more, but I just don't know where to begin...perhaps later...
"I want to pick it apart more, but I just don't know where to begin..."
Arvid, I share your frustration, but I'll start by suggesting that Mr. Dunn should read anything by Paul Findley on the relationship between the US government and Israel. I think some balance is warranted in the face of such terminology as "Palestinian reign of terror."
To be clear, however, I am also disturbed at the notion of inconsistent defense of individuals' 1st Amendment rights. I don't think anyone would argue that most college campuses seem to exhibit atmospheres that skew more pro-liberal, but that's no excuse in the face of any demonstrable discrimination -- not to mention intimidation or outright violence -- against legitimate individuals or groups.
Even Ann Coulter, as much as it pains me to type that.
yes, intimidation has never been empl;oyed by the right. ignore historic things like the mccarthy witchhunt, watergate burglaries, various CIA operations -- more recnetly, local righties shouting down Cindy Sheehan.
your ignorance is amazing
I have to agree that it is very disturbing to see the concerted effort of violence and intimidation of conservative or Jewish organizations, speakers, etc. on college campuses by liberal groups who allegedly embrace tolerance, diversity, and the like. What is more troubling is the general passivity of the campus administration for not dealing with these people so that everyone may have the opportunity to speak on a given topic without being assaulted or intimidated. More needs to be done to make campuses inclusive whatever the political ideology of the organization as distasteful as it may be to some.
So because conservative groups don't embrace tolerance, diversity, etc., it's ok for them to use violence and intimidation to stifle opinions they don't agree with? Remember all the threats made against the anti-Chief people, or does that not count because you don't agree with them? The Far Left and Far Right groups/people use the same methods to attain their opposite goals. I don't agree with either side using those methods, but let's not kid ourselves here and think this behaviour is limited to the liberal side only...
The overwhelming majority of these actions are being committed by liberal groups which makes it all the more ironic because of what they allege to embrace. I'm not aware of any active threats made against anti-Chief people unless you are referring to a passive comment made on Facebook recently that was blown out of proportion. I do recall, however, regular comments over the years by anti-Chief people during protests wishing Pro-Chief people would just get a gun and kill themselves. What is actually being discussed here are the very real actions of liberal groups who not only threaten, but engage in violence to stifle conservative speech on a regular basis.
it's a tough world out there for successful white people
Heh.
Arvid, conservatives are for tolerance. We are for tolerance of opinion. It is not conservatives who are calling for "hate crimes" laws, its not conservatives who came up with the "free speech zones", it is not conservatives or the College Republicans who are pushing for mandatory "diversity training" for all students. It is mostly on the Left.
The Left follows Rousseau's famous dictum of "If people do not want to be free, they must be forced to be free." True tolerance and diversity includes diversity and tolerance of thought, which the Left surely is against. It is not diverse when you have entire academic departments devoted to a far-left political agenda, ex. Women Studies, (which is not about studying all theories about women and the relationship between the two sexes, but about a radical feminist agenda that wants to "deconstruct everything and expose the 'gender bias in everything.'"
Sure, you can have a diverse group of people based on race, ethnicity, sexual behavior and lifestyle, however when they all are espousing the same anti-American, neo-Marxist doctrine that America is the root of all evil, middle class straight white men are beyond redemption unless they recant "their privilege," you do not have diversity, but conformity, strickly maintained by the thought police on college campuses.
By the way, i think its the Republicans on the County Board that are pushing for more minority contracts and hiring.
The solution to any speech you disagree with or classify as "Hate Speech" is more speech. That is why blogs like Illinipundit, and talk radio are necessary. Any attempt at "Fairness" is to stifle free speech. The market place of ideas, free from government regulation is the best way for views to be heard.
I just wish that college campuses, and our public school system was ruled based on the market place of ideas.
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
Congratulations Robert. The arguments are still ridiculous, but I think the trendy poetic stanzas make up for the lack of thought put into it.
Obviously threats against Super-Zionist organizations are bad, and people should be held responsible. But I think it's awesome that folks on the right think this is some crazy lefist anomaly.
Phil Yu gets threatened for just writing an Asian American blog. I get threatened for making fun of Columbus or dating/marrying someone the "wrong" color.
Any place where dogma often wins out over evidence is unfortunate. I work hard to give my conservative students an opportunity. But make no mistake--folks like Horowitz and Dunn are not interested in freedom of speech. Look at the lists that Horowitz made--he's not just talking about oppressors of speech. He wants to "out" anyone with leftist political positions regardless of the supports or thoughtfulness of their arguments.
Here's some more on Horowitz (worse than Rather :)):
Aaron Barlow, who teaches at New York City College of Technology, takes a different view, Horowitz, he says, has "codified lying, making it into a tactic rather than just a careless mistake... The point, for Horowitz, like [Joe] McCarthy before him, seems to be to lie in such a way that the rebuttal sounds like a splitting of hairs."
Gotta love this quote:
The black middle-class in America is a prosperous community that is now larger in absolute terms than the black underclass. Does its existence not suggest that economic adversity is the result of failures of individual character rather than the lingering after-effects of racial discrimination and a slave system that ceased to exist well over a century ago? - From "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks is a Bad Idea for Blacks and Racist Too".
It's not only false, but it is an intentional falsehood designed to prop himself and his own ideology up while blaming the poor for all of their own problems. What a dick!
Horowitz has had a tough past himself--while he grew up extremely privileged, he saw one of his friends murdered and has faced a number of political crises that affected him personally.
However, that doesn't excuse his extreme tendency for deceit, bigotry through generalized statements about diverse social groups, and the hatred he possesses for people not sharing his political background that manifests itself in his witchhunts and character assassinations of his opponents. After all, he simply wants to win--replacing left-wing dogma with right-wing dogma and has little or no interest in a constructive dialogue, at least in the behavior he displays.
Welcome back, xian.
at least i got Xian back into the fold!
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
Now if you could just figure out formatting and punctuation....
On August 15th, 2007 at 01:46 PM, Robert Dunn said: at least i got Xian back into the fold! I was hoping it was a trade. I'll even throw in a blogger to be named later, ok, named now. Bam-buh-nek
Some liberal just came by my house and tried to force me to be free. I smacked him
I'll even throw in a blogger to be named later, ok, named now. Bam-buh-nek
Sorry, he's on the 40-man. You'll have to go for a prospect...
"The overwhelming majority of these actions are being committed by liberal groups..."
Do you have any evidence that the above statement is true? When I wrote "most college campuses seem to exhibit atmospheres that skew more pro-liberal," that's a different observation. In any case, neither a liberal nor a conservative bias in any environment justifies the types of retaliation we've been discussing.
"Arvid, conservatives are for tolerance."
Whew. If your posts on this thread are representative of a typical conservative's level of tolerance, then I'll have to disagree with your statement. To address just one of your many claims, if you want to blame liberals/Democrats for free speech zones, you clearly don't know your history. This limitation on free speech has been used by both sides, but its application seems to have become more commonplace under the current administration.
Regarding your claim that conservatives are for tolerance, the following quote kinda says it all for me:
"Sure, you can have a diverse group of people based on race, ethnicity, sexual behavior and lifestyle, however when they all are espousing the same anti-American, neo-Marxist doctrine that America is the root of all evil, middle class straight white men are beyond redemption unless they recant their privilege."
The Police delivered the pizza?
Does CPRB stand for Citizens Pizza Review Board?
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
Anfs...
The link that Dunn privided is a good place to start. FIRE has additional examples, and I would recommend the short Indoctrinate U. You can also view footage of what happened at Concordia and Columbia on Youtube. Again, the true test is for schools to do more in allowing people the ability to safely voice their opinions across the board without fear and not favor one over the other.
IP, could you explain what you mean by formatting and punctuation? Are you an English teacher?
I don't think the police were delivering pizza's to the protestors. Then the protestors would have to give the cops a tip! If police did deliver pizza, would you complain in Urbana to the new Civilian Review Board that your pizza was 30 minutes late?
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
Xian, here is an example of the Left's intolerance. When David Horowitz placed ads in college campus newspapers on ten reasons why reparations for slavery are a bad idea, and the Daily Illini ran it, the campus Left was in an uproar. They demanded that the DI apologize for printing something offensive. Meanwhile, it is perfectly ok to badmouth evangelical Christians, Catholics, conservatives, Republicans, and Southerners. We can poke fun at these groups because its politically correct to do so. The commissars of thought control make sure that certain protected classes do not have their feelings hurt. No one cares if a conservative evangelical Christian is mocked. Where was the outcry over the Virgin Mary being smothered in cowdung? Yup, the Left called that art and was covered under the 1st Amendment, which according to the Left means that not only should it be protected as political speech, but subsidized by taxdollars.
But, when a fraternity and sorority hold a party that mocks African-Americans and Latinos, the Greeks are forced to attend "sensitivity seminars." Why wasn't the "artist" who had a crucifix submerged in urine, "Piss Christ", and the Virgin Mary having cow dung and pornography plastered all over her, forced to attend diversity workshops. When Catholics and Evangelicals are insulted, the people doing the insulting get to hide behind the lst Amendment and cry "censorship" or "McCarthyism" when criticized. When Bill Maher wishes on HBO that the Vice President would have died in a terrorist attack, no condemnation! Yet, Ann Coulter uses an old schoolyard taunt against John Edwards, everyone attacks her, including other conservatives.
So Xian, is it "hate speech" when conservatives have opinions? Would you classify the attacks on Ronald Reagan after he died, Laura Ingraham, after she was diagnosed with breast cancer as hate speech. Some leftists claimed it was a good thing that Reagan died and that Laura Ingraham should have died from breast cancer. Elizabeth Edwards was the only one on the national Left who showed any sympathy for Miss Ingraham.
I do not hate anyone. However, i think it is disingenious to cry "hate speech" whenever you hear of opinions you do not like. Being called anti-American is not hate speech. Saying that anyone who opposes the war in Iraq should be taken out and shot is! Get the difference? I hope so!
Xian, i know you are smart and sincere in your beliefs, but in my opinion, you are sincerely wrong!
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
Of course you can point out examples on both sides. I have been in dozens of college classes at the undergraduate and graduate level. I have worked with and besides men and women of all political persuasions. I have seen college professors debate students in class, with the debates going both ways. In other words, I have seen conservative profs debating liberal students and vice versa.
I have never, ever heard of a prof lowering a grade solely because they disagreed with a students opinion.
But you are right. Most professors tend to lean left. I guess that's what happens when you spend most of your life studying history, philosophy, politics, etc. The more you learn, the more you tend to side with the left.
Hmmm.
It's fitting that you reference two of the most sinister right-wing meme about art to support your point. Quick--list off everything you know about Piss Christ and the painting of Mary you are so outraged by.
There are plenty of people who understand the art work, are Christian and/or Catholic and are not idiots who appreciate its commentary. The idea that an artist cannot use certain materials to express a thoughtful point certainly sounds dogmatic to me. For me, my faith is not about supporting dogma.
I fail to see how that is at all analogous to trying to get attention for yourself by blaming blacks slavetraders for European slavery. After all, the U of I campus was certainly not some hot point for reperations support before Horowitz's article.
That said, I had no problem with them printing Horowitz. My only problem was that it was a waste of ink. They could have used the space for something better researched and constructive like a ad for Kam's or something. The dude should get to voice his idiocy all he wants, and I don't think the DI should apologize, but certainly we get to criticize right?
So with that in mind, what's your second paragraph about? Aren't you proving my thesis? You seem angry that you can't censor others' viewpoints. You seem angry that people don't like Reagan. Of course, it's find to say you are happy that Reagan or Clinton or MLK died. And a lot of people will think you are an idiot. That's a healthy marketplace of ideas.
And you are right, calling someone "Anti-American" is not hate speech. However, calling someone "Anti-American" because they speak out against the current crop of elected officials' decisions is about as "Anti-American" as one can get.
So I don't disagree with you, but in the labelling that has gone on, it is pretty clear who is against the core American values--at least the ones I'm interested in.
<< We can poke fun at these groups because its politically correct to do so. >>
Yep. We sure can. We have the freedom to be assholes in this country. Other people also have the freedom to point out when we're being assholes. As far as "sensitivity training" goes, I think it's safe to say that the artists who created those statements (however distasteful) were doing so with the express intent of shocking and horrifying the devout. What's the point of trying to teach them about results that they clearly intended? With the frats and the sororities? We're speaking about pretty young kids here, who may not be aware that racism really is still a problem that black people and hispanic people have to deal with. No big deal. You have your fun at the expense of others, but the community does it's best to make sure you're aware that you're offending people in the process.
I truly don't have a problem with that.
<< Meanwhile, it is perfectly ok to badmouth evangelical Christians, Catholics, conservatives, Republicans, and Southerners. >>
Sure, if you don't mind people assuming that you're a narrow-minded jerk. Attacking/criticising beliefs is one thing. Attacking people? That's a whole different story.
<< Some leftists claimed it was a good thing that Reagan died and that Laura Ingraham should have died from breast cancer. >>
Odd. I never heard those leftists. Maybe I just wasn't hanging around with the right crowd. I'm sure they're plenty happy about that, because I would have smacked them all soundly and sent them to bed if I had been. Hate is not a family value, no matter which side of the spectrum it's coming from.
<< However, i think it is disingenious to cry "hate speech" whenever you hear of opinions you do not like. >>
So do I. "Hate speech" is a label that should be reserved for situations where it actually is applicable.
<< Being called anti-American is not hate speech. >>
Nope. It's just a stupid comment that fails to acknowledge the fact that Americans have a fairly diverse set of opinions.
<< Saying that anyone who opposes the war in Iraq should be taken out and shot is! >>
Yep. Odd, though, how the whole "love it or leave it" argument does seem to escalate into "die hippy scum" with relative fluidity. Honestly, I've hung out on far right boards and far left boards-- the far right boards tend to be the ones where physical threats of either temporal or eternal torture pop up against the dissenting point of view. The far left boards typically are a bit more subdued. I'm not sure why that is, and I'm aware it's a completely unscientific study, but that's been my experience.
__
Kem
I just found out that the Alorton city government has erected a sign saying "Welcome to Alorton, where Jesus is Lord." Not a lot of tolerance for other religions there.
Really? I don't remember those cropping up during the Clinton adminstration. I don't remember mass, trumped-up arrests of protestors at the RNC convention prior to 2004.
In the wake of the recent "tacos and tequila" party, maybe a little reminder to not act like jerks isn't entirely out of line.
Today, it came out that a pastor in California has asked his followers to pray for the deaths of member of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. There are plenty of jerks in both the liberal and conservative camps.
I don't think the police were delivering pizza's to the protestors. Then the protestors would have to give the cops a tip! If police did deliver pizza, would you complain in Urbana to the new Civilian Review Board that your pizza was 30 minutes late?
How would Dick Reynolds feel about this? Would this be a dangerous job, in his opinion?
Robert Dunn says: "Xian, here is an example of the Left's intolerance. When David Horowitz placed ads in college campus newspapers on ten reasons why reparations for slavery are a bad idea, and the Daily Illini ran it, the campus Left was in an uproar."
Robert, have you looked into Horowitz's past? It's not as straightforward as it seems. He too did the "hip to be square" left to right conversion, and now, well...
Basically, he's an attention whore.
Meaning, he puts his ads in places that he HOPES will be rejected, because his whole point is to raise a stink when they are.
Mind you, this is not to say that I think places should knee-jerk reject him, but when he whines that places put his ad in, with opposing commentary on the other page, well... he's there to cause people on the left to scream, and then laugh at them when they do. It's a tactic.
It's the same tactic the "Protest Warriors" use, if you're familiar with them. Of course, intelligent observers ignore all of that nonsense, but that's the goal of it. Basically your girl doing handstands on the beach. Not much else to it.
/everyone wants t be Alex Keaton these days, it's the latest fad, haven't you heard?
//don't tell me you think you're ORIGINAL, doing it?
useless to argue with the young ex-lefty now righty. next week he'll be a muslim libertarian
Yet the truth remains, the college campus is controlled by the liberal professor.
Probably a secular man, full of knowledge lacking understanding and wisdom.
Our children must be prepared to pass thru his class and grow from the experience, it is always good to know how the other side thinks.
The truth lies here.
P.S. Cindy Sheehan is nothing short of deserving???????
<< Probably a secular man, full of knowledge lacking understanding and wisdom. >>
Do you have to believe in a "higher power" in order to have understanding and wisdom, or am I reading too much into that?
__
Kem
Racktivist, your argument has already been made by the Taliban.
hey, your wrong, i am today a Muslim libertarian. I have joined the "Jihad for Constitutional Government."
Muslims for Ron Paul!
Death to the Income Tax!
No, wait, i actually am a Hindu anarchist!
No, wait, a Buddhist monarchist!
On second thought, i am comfortable with being a Christian conservative!
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
What are these values? Everyone talks about their "values". Just what are they?
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
But you are right. Most professors tend to lean left. I guess that's what happens when you spend most of your life studying history, philosophy, politics, etc. The more you learn, the more you tend to side with the left.
Jeez, talk about the vanity of so many on the left. I always hear about how smart the left is, and then they complain that their voters are too stupid to figure out a butterfly ballot. Yes, there are plenty of leftists on the faculty of just about every university, but that doesn't mean that years of study makes you smart enough to be a lefty. It means that those who enter the humanities grad programs and go on to teach are self-selecting, and that those who are equally smart but conservative do something else. No one wants to be the guy that goes through six or seven years of grad school, always being the outsider that argues not just every point with every other grad student and faculty member, but the entire world view of academia. All of that would be followed by a total inability to get a job in all but a handful of universities, since the hiring process is controlled by other professors, who, as you say, tend to lean left. If you get enough of any type of person in an organization, eventually others will feel unwelcome and chose other paths.
Has there ever been a time in the last five hundred years where universities, when not controlled by the government, have ever been what we today consider right of center? I do not think so, but would appreciate counterexamples.
the university climate here was extremeyl unfriendly t lefties not that long ago. in the 60s, there were several assistant profs who signed a petition against the Vietnam war who were denied tenure, while Revilo P. Oliver, who thought Eisenhower was a commie traitor, flourished. colleges reflect their eras
No one wants to be the guy that goes through six or seven years of grad school, always being the outsider that argues not just every point with every other grad student and faculty member, but the entire world view of academia. _______________ Yeah, it's a good thing that people are never marginalized in other arenas of our society. Holy crap, there's actually one place where the group you speak of faces adversity--it's an atrocity! Part of being a courageous member of a free speech society is that you are willing to forge your own beliefs and not just because you get props for them. I mean, I'm clearly the smartest person here, why won't you all just shut up and do what I say? My mommy thinks I'm special, so you should too? I used to brush my teeth, but then I worked with a visionary who is a born-again non-toothbrusher. I'm such a gifted child.
Ok, the University climate was unfriendly to those on the Left during the Vietnam War. I am talking about now in 2007. All over America, many on the Left who received educational deferments from the draft received Ph.Ds and became full-time tenured professors. Todd Gitlin said it best when after the fall of the Berlin Wall, "We lost in the streets, but we won the textbooks." What this meant was that even though the Left was discredited once the West won the Cold War and communism was thrown on the ash heap of history, the only place where communism was still in vogue was on college campuses. But, rather than just throwing up the same Marxist jargons, a neo-Marxism called identity politics, critical theory, post-modernism, cultural and moral relativism became the new academic fad. In Dinesh D'Souza's book, "Illiberal Education", the University environment, for the most part became a haven for radical leftists.
It is not that conservatives went elsewhere, its just that politics instead of merit made sure that almost no conservatives would be in the social sciences and humanities. The conservative scholars were pushed out of the Universities, and found homes in the think tank world.
At CSUSB, my now alma mater, there was an evangelical Christian who applied for a teaching position in the Sociology department. His doctoral dissertation was on the collapse of the traditional family. I have read his works, and he uses scholarly material. However, the department chair found out that he was an evangelical Christian who was also an ordained Southern Baptist pastor locally, and was denied even an adjunct position. He was told that because of the fact that he was a Southern Baptist minister, he could not seriously be into scholarly work, and would not be professional and fair in the classroom.
The moral to all of this is that education should not be about bringing "social justice" or "social change", or to be fair, "restoring traditional values." Educators mission should be to teach their students how to think, not what to think.
I will provide more info about the fight for academic freedom on college campuses soon!
Robert,
You make the most ludicrous claims of anybody here (and lately in the News-Gazette), without any kind of source other than your "personal guarantee" that you "know" the aims, missions and objectives of "the Left". I guess you must have missed out on all the Big National Radical, America-Hating, Baby-Eating Nefarious Liberal Agenda Planning Session where we set our real agenda to be nothing like what you claim to have personal knowledge. Didn't you get the memo, or did this take place after you became an "ex-leftist"?
Ok, the University climate was unfriendly to those on the Left during the Vietnam War. I am talking about now in 2007.
I guess history doesn't matter unless it only supports your viewpoint.
All over America, many on the Left who received educational deferments from the draft received Ph.Ds and became full-time tenured professors.
What about all those conservative who received the same educational deferments? I guess they don't exist because any good American in the 70's should've been off defending our country from the overwhelming threat of the Viet Cong.
What this meant was that even though the Left was discredited once the West won the Cold War and communism was thrown on the ash heap of history, the only place where communism was still in vogue was on college campuses.
Riiiight....and the Right is always Right....that's why they're the "Right" after all, isn't it? I mean, nothing a conservative has ever said has been discredited, has it?
It is not that conservatives went elsewhere, its just that politics instead of merit made sure that almost no conservatives would be in the social sciences and humanities. The conservative scholars were pushed out of the Universities, and found homes in the think tank world.
Unless you've got a survey that shows the political leanings of a statistically significant portion of those in the social sciences, you're just pulling this out of nowhere. Using your logic, I could easily claim that politics instead of merit made sure that liberal scholars were pushed back into the walls of academia and barred from think tanks and the business word. But please, don't let my mocking you get in the way of jumping to your own wild-ass conclusions.
However, the department chair found out that he was an evangelical Christian who was also an ordained Southern Baptist pastor locally, and was denied even an adjunct position.
This is such a load of bull, and I think everybody here who has had even the remotest dealing with getting a job in academia. If anything, academia proves time and time again that nothing can be decided unless it is done by a committee, be it hiring/firing faculty, proposing curriculum standards, or even what to order for lunch in the middle of a pre-planning committee meeting.
It really amazes me that you could possibly believe any of the garbage you put down here. It really makes my day and reminds me why I love reading IP :)
"IP, could you explain what you mean by formatting and punctuation? Are you an English teacher?"
I'm not an English teacher. But my preference is to read posts that are properly capitalized, with paragraph breaks in the right places, and with clear formatting that makes reading the post easier. Robert's longer posts are, frankly, hard for me to read. There are often no capitalized words to open sentences, his paragraph breaks often occur in the middle of sentences, and he's doing something really strange with his line spacing.
I just think that stuff matters when one is trying to write persuasively. I've cleaned up a few posts for him, but I've given up now, because I'm not going to make the effort if he's not.
End of threadjack.
Yes. Agreed. Explanation point.
I do wonder if the weird linebreaking is due to cutting and pasting from some other application to the Drupal compose window?
Arvid,
Don't be so dismissive. Robert's conclusions are not wild ass at all, but actually supportable. You might find this survey interesting: jewishresearch.org/PDFs2/FacultySurvey_Web.pdf
Or maybe you would be interested in this WAPO article: washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html
There are any number of stdies that have explored this issue over the last few years and every one including the study by Daniel Klein and Charlotta Stern from UCLA that the 'The Nation' finds compelling found the imbalance nearly 3 to 1 in favor of liberals.
And yet no one seems to find a problem with the vast majority of investment bankers being (fiscal) conservatives? Gee. I find football players tend to be large, too.
As for argument - academia is ABOUT argument. That's how knowledge is advanced, it's all about doing your damndest to prove the prevailing wisdom wrong. That's how science WORKS.
An attitude of "I'm going to be 'nice,' I'm going to defer to my elders, I'm going to pass on the same things I was told, and not question them" is fundamentally incompatible with the academic or scientific enterprise.
And yes, there ARE academics who argue from the right wing (particularly the libertarian area of that wing) but if you look at their arguments, you'll find they do the same thing - they question everything, they're confrontational, they're always looking for holes and trying to find the minutest shades of grey. Why? Because they're academics.
But many social conservatives, at least the large-brush "passes the talk-radio litmus test" types, like to stir the popular passions by angsting over the supposed "better era" that their parents lived in, where everything made intuitive sense and the world was properly black and white and we knew not to question things, because The Traditional Ways Are Best. They don't like the idea that the kollidges are telling their kids to question them.
Traditional ways may indeed be best. But if you don't question them, you'll never know, and if you don't question things, you'll never advance knowledge, which is what being an academic or a scientist is fundamentally (heh) all about.
Interesting articles (the one from the Jewish and Community Research is lenghty but interesting in how they lead some of their questions), but I'm still dismissive of his statments, because in reading Robert's post, it's clear that he's claiming a vast majority of those running colleges aren't just left leaning, but are ultra-left nutjobs. This would be like me saying because there are a vast majority of conservatives in the clergy, that clearly there is a far-right occupation of churches, and every conservative pastor/preacher/reverend is a Jerry Falwell clone. It's just libelous to go that far. There are crazies on both sides, and it's not fair to either side to paint the other with the crazy brush. I did note that the survey showed 33% of the general public to openly label themselves "conservative" and 18% liberal, which shows that 49% of the population doesn't care enough to identify either way. I have a hard time taking stock in an article that sets out to prove a bias in hiring practices and Rothman's charge of political hiring discrimination is found to be "preliminary", which is a nice way of saying "I just know it's there, but I can't prove it!". The article also says that they aren't aware of "any good evidence" that personal views are having an impact on campus policies. That's hardly concrete evidence of the Vast Ultra-Liberal Conspiracy to Destroy Academia.
I'm not doubting that academia is left-leaning, and I think one would expect that most fields that are focused on the "greater good" lean to the left just as one would expect most business-oriented fields lean to the right. I'm doubting the claims that there is a pervasive, active and openly anti-conservative effort on college campuses. He cites how the president of the College Republicans at UC-Irvine received death threats, but ignores all the threats made against Stephen Kauffman for his anti-Chief views. He's never heard of College Republicans rioting outside a liberal speaker, but ignores people shouting down Cindy Sheehan or several other liberal speakers. He says that student groups being required to be open to all students is a policy out to get conservative, evangelical Christian, Catholic, Mormon, and Muslim organizations, but forgets that the university provides campus resources to all student organizations, including access to funding from the student body, room space on campus, etc. Student Organizations are part of the University, and as such are subject to all university policies and federal laws regarding discrimination and Title IX. In fact, the only student organization that is allowed by law to be selective in its membership are the greek organizations and that's only because they lobbied hard and long to get that inserted into the legislation that clarified Title IX.
akibare:
<< An attitude of "I'm going to be 'nice,' I'm going to defer to my elders, I'm going to pass on the same things I was told, and not question them" is fundamentally incompatible with the academic or scientific enterprise. >>
*applause*
<< And yes, there ARE academics who argue from the right wing (particularly the libertarian area of that wing) but if you look at their arguments, you'll find they do the same thing - they question everything, they're confrontational, they're always looking for holes and trying to find the minutest shades of grey. Why? Because they're academics. >>
That's been my experience, certainly. It's not that they don't exist, it's that they tend to gravitate towards areas where they will find support for their ideas. Who could blame them? (Frankly, I suspect it also has to do with money. Let's face it... education isn't where it's at. Why get paid peanuts to be a pariah when you could make real money and have a group of peers who respect your point of view?)
And then you get people like Professor Mike Adams who do it anyway just for the sheer passion of teaching and being the gadfly who asks the uncomfortable questions and isn't afraid to bring on the intelligent dissent with caustic good cheer. I have a feeling I'd enjoy the heck out of his classes. I get bored when my professors agree with me. That's not what learning is about.
Elitism is fine, in my book. It's good to distinguish between people who think about the positions they hold dear and people who just go with the flow, if for no other reason than the simple fact that it is a collossal waste of time to argue a point with someone who doesn't care one way or the other. What I object to is the kind of elitism that assumes that the other side is completely unreasonable and not worth talking to, or somehow intellectually inferior.
Life is rarely that black and white.
__
Kem
The Left follows Rousseau's famous dictum of "If people do not want to be free, they must be forced to be free."
Did the current administration borrow Rousseau's dictum from the Left to justify the war in Iraq?
Some very interesting links appear to tie in some factors. Why is it that liberal students on a number campuses feel free to violently act out their opposition to conservatives? Why is it that university administrators are passive to such activity and take little to no action to balance the campus or prevent a repeat? After having read the links there appears to be a connection between a liberal faculty and the general intolerance of conservatives creating the environment that includes the inevitability of violent confrontation by liberals. As far as Kaufman is concerned I've never heard it, but I'll always remember the anti-Chiefers encouraging pro-Chiefers to commit suicide. Not to justify it, but Kaufman's combative and confrontational approach invites negative comments. Concerning Sheehan, it was my understanding that it was only one individual that kept asking her questions the crowd began to dislike and shouted him down to the point he was asked to leave and did. That's still a far cry to conservative speakers who must cancel the rest of their speaking engagement to change clothes because of some food that struck them, seek cover because they are being pelted with objects, or being shoved away from the podium as it is being rushed by a couple dozen liberals shouting lewd, demeaning, and profane slogans. No one has said that it is only liberals, but it is clear that liberals overwhelmingly engage in that behavior because of the permissive environment they are in. This behavior should not be tolerated at all.
"He says that student groups being required to be open to all students is a policy out to get conservative, evangelical Christian, Catholic, Mormon, and Muslim organizations, but forgets that the university provides campus resources to all student organizations, including access to funding from the student body, room space on campus, etc."
I'm not going to provide you with links because I don't want to be accused of picking and choosing as you accuse Robert, but I encourage you to look up some of these situations when you have time because they do happen. Mike Adams has some very incisive observations of things such as this in the UNC system. He is a delight to read.
Ah, the I never heard of it argument. That wins the debate.
Also, you're wrong about the Cindy Sheehan story. The haranger did not leave until the event was over, and nobody followed him out to harass him.
"Violent liberals" are probably even more rare than "compassionate conservatives" in life, as well as on campus. What planet are these comments from? It's certainly nothing I've seen or heard about at UIUC.
As a sometime teacher of undergrads myself, I've encountered a mindset like Robert's more than once. For instance, the fellow in one of my classes last time I made the Incomplete List of Teachers Rated as Excellent by Their Students, which does provide you with valuable feedback about whether or not your pedagogical efforts are effective and appreciated by those you teach. I made generally clear what my political leanings are at the start of the semester. Just like I always do, I do this because my specialization has me teaching courses that frequently deal with issues that reflect on positions that still resonate in our society. The students probably already have an opinion one way or another on many of the issues I teach about. However, I also emphasize what is really important to me is teaching my students how to effectively argue their own positions. I encourage them to speak their minds, but to do so in an effective fashion that is well-supported by the evidence they bring to the table from their readings and real life. Furthermore, they also need to respect the opinions of others in the class, even if they sharply disagree with them. In other words, attack the argument, not the person, if they want to do well.
This fellow complained that his B- effort on his second paper (after a C+ on his first) was because I was prejudiced against conservatives. I pointed out that there were a number of other identifiably conservative students in the class -- and that all of them were doing better than he was, including one who was pulling down a solid A (without being specific about who they were or in which section.) Unfortunately for him, his skills at effectively arguing his points, which were actually hard to pick out (but I tend to grade as generously possible when someone is clearly helping pull down the average GPA), were similar to Roberts. Poor grammar, sloppy presentation, too much personal opinion and not nearly enough evidence to support it.
I suspect that Robert, as a recent college graduate, WAS taught about the need to exercise his best effort and that most of his instructors actually made a good effort themselves at letting him know what it would take to more effectively make his argument, whatever political position it represents. However, like my student who tended to think his grade was all about politics, he fixates on his persecution complex, rather than applying himself.
The best I can do with my own arguments is to make them effectively in front of students, serving as a model for what they should do. I even try to do this in as gentle a manner as possible, because such an argument in the classroom is more effective than what I might do at a political rally or in writing a paper that needs to meet the arguments of my colleagues, who are much better intellectually armed than the typical undergrad. If students choose to ignore the opportunity and wring their hands about how "liberal" I am -- which is ridiculous, because I am thoroughly radical politically and probably disdain liberals nearly as much as they do -- instead of taking adavantage of the educational guidance I offer to the best of my ability, well, then they shoot themselves in the foot in arguing their own positions. That's disappointing for me, as well as disappointing to them, although the reasons for that are distinctly different. And that is rather much like Robert. YMMV.
The moral to all of this is that education should not be about bringing "social justice" or "social change", or to be fair, "restoring traditional values." Educators mission should be to teach their students how to think, not what to think.
The vast majority of "social justice" educators I've encountered (which is certainly more than you have) believe that "social justice education" is the very definition of what I've bolded in your post. At the last student-led social justice fair, it was defined essential as you have above.
Robert, this is simply another case where you've decided to blindly accept the caricatures of those involved in ACTUALLY addressing the issues you are discussing that you have been supplied by some pompous self-absorbed, reactionary blowhards. It's really a shame.
To give an example, we had a group present an anti-immigration board at the student symposium. This is a tough situation because a good percentage of our students are undocumented, so feelings can be hurt. However, the board was professional and made salient points and was chosen. In the end, it led to a good discussion where students on both sides of the issue gained, learned and appreciated each other more.
The fact that it was professional and made salient points was critical. Sadly, my experience is that people like Horowitz and yourself tend to be missing on those two attributes. You are boorish, and see to play obnoxious "gotcha" games while not supporting your arguments with evidence from multiple sources. You give anecdotal accounts--like the one above--and then when I check with primary sources who actually experienced the situation from different perspectives, they say that there are fabrications in the account.
So I'd be happy to work with conservatives and have many times in the past. But you are not conservative. You are simply a zealot looking to win little exchanges and you want affirmative action because the horrible, horrible, left has oppressed you and your people so much. It's whiny privilege and you aren't getting any smarter, craftier or prettier as the days go by.
And that squandering of potential evokes not anger--merely pity.
I will provide more info about the fight for academic freedom on college campuses soon!
Hurray! I'm sure it will be new, thoughtful information that none of us have ever seen before, and it will blow our minds with its depth and insightfulness.
Robert,
It would appear you have touched upon some nerves here and methinks you are striking too close to home for some. Keep it up. There's a lot out there so take your time with it.
Note to other liberals: We must squash this al-knowing Robert Dunn. His insightful commentary is changing the world. He is the greatest threat to our national dominance in the history of America. Please, paray with me, that he becomes an ex-conservative!
Thanks Liberal. I just won 5 bucks.
Soooo predictable.
Also on our liberal squash list: Ghost 4-6. His/her lambent wit is too powerful for any mere liberal
Gordy, i did not realize that I was having that problem. Is there a problem with Drupal, because it looks like
that when it is finally posted, there are many changes to the post, mostly in regards to structure. I apologize if it
looks sloppy. Would you please provide me some suggestions as to how I can alleviate this problem in the
future?
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
Gordy, it has something to do with Drupal! This is not me! I did everything you like, yet it came up weird in the final post!
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
To other liberals: Good work sabotaging the formatting on Robert Dunn's posts. Dirty tricks are our greatest hope of defeating him.
"Gordy, i did not realize that I was having that problem. Is there a problem with Drupal, because it looks like
that when it is finally posted, there are many changes to the post, mostly in regards to structure. I apologize if it
looks sloppy. Would you please provide me some suggestions as to how I can alleviate this problem in the
future?"
Don't use Microsoft Word to compose your posts. Drupal doesn't like its formatting, and that's probably the reason for the strange line breaks.
Proofread. Drupal has nothing to do with the lack of capitalized letters and run-on sentences and spelling errors.
Robert Dunn continues to get more attention than he deserves. Until he quits his drug addiction to cigarettes, his Us/Them political intrigue, gets an actual job, and expresses ideas that serve people, he will remain an uninformed, angry crybaby who won't get over his mugging in California. And he dares to call himself a Christian harboring the hate he holds for his muggers. He has adopted the politics of a coward in response to this suffering.
For those who indulge his suck-up-to-the-money blathering, you will notice in the long run, Dunn is but mere talk. Has he taken out a petition to run for office? Does he do anything but walk around smoking and making up mean arguments? Oh great, another Michael Fuerst. Just what we don't need.
Do some work Robert. You're just blowing cigarette smoke otherwise. Do you even volunteer to help the unfortunate that you claim to be?
hey anony 9:13AM, FWI, i do have an actual job. I work Monday through Fridays during the daytimes at Potbelly Sandwiches on campus. Thank you for your concern about my health. Well, i have not lived in my precinct or CB district long enough. Hmm, maybe i will file for petititions in the future, just not now. I have just moved into an apartment in South Urbana, in wonderful Ward 7 where folks are represented by at least some sanity.
BTW, How do you know what i do and what i do not do? Are you stalking me Anony 9:13AM? Also, what does my cigarette habit have to do with my political opinions? As well, i have not met Michael Fuerst, does he walk around smoking? I have to admit that i do enjoy taking long evening walks and i do happen to smoke on those walks. Its not illegal in Urbana yet!
Finally, when did i ever claim to be so unfortunate? All i said was that i was a victim of a mugging in CA. I do not hold a grudge against the guy nor do i hate him. I am glad that justice was served. I used that analogy during the debate about the CPRB which is now over with. You guys won! We'll see if Urbana does or does not turn into a cesspool haven for the criminally inclined. As for the Christianity comment, Christianity is about a personal relationship between myself and God, it does not concern you. I am blessed to have a roof over my head, a full time job, even if its low pay for now. I would suggest to you Anony 9:13AM to read the Bible for yourself. In conclusion, I do help the poor out, tithing to my church which helps the poor out, preaching a different message than the usual liberal claptrap of how unfair "the Rich" have made life for "the Poor", and being taxed a third of my paycheck for welfare programs that do nothing but keep the poor in poverty.
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American