Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

You seem to have two issues here:
1. The money the University uses…
2. The professors the University has…

I will not comment on the money. However, you’re position on the professors is highly dubious. You are advocating that we limit the freedoms of the academia from thinking and expressing their findings.

Did you know that the anti-slavery movement started from Universities?

Did you know women’s suffrage started from Universities?

Did you know anti-segregation started in Universities?

As for Universities “losing their edge”, I was unaware that Universities became any more liberal than they were in 1960. Are the Professors today more or less different than the hippies of 40 years ago? Did we “lose our edge” 4 decades ago too? I forget.

Posted by: Aldous at March 14, 2006 12:36 AM

Aldous

I am advocating an “Emperor’s new clothes” moment. American universities, as I said, are still the best, but when you get more and more PC and limit debate on major issues (look what happend to Summers at Harvard) you set yourself down a road to irrelevance.

I am not complaining about universities becoming liberal. It is the PC and lack of rigor that bothers me.

Posted by: Jack at March 14, 2006 12:44 AM

Jack,
I’m having trouble deciding what your point is. The last link you post says that although universities seem expensive, the actual costs are not as much as they appear and the education is worth it in terms of earning, so I don’t see how that supports your contention that university education is becoming less and less worth it.
I would say that for most people who don’t have degrees in political science or maybe history, the idea of warped political ideology lessening school value is meaningless. Neither my nor my professors’ political views changed the chemistry I had to study.
I read the article by Horowitz, and it seemed to be a hysterical rant complaining that professors didn’t share his viewpoint. Seriously, 1/4 of university professors agreeing with Ward Churchill? I especially liked the part where he complained that his detractors were comparing him to McCarthy, then went on to call his critics communists and say that the profession of journalism was run by marxists. I wonder why people compare him to McCarthy?
Why exactly are the universities becoming irrelevant? What lack of rigor can you identify? What do you propose we do about it? (my solution to making the US more competitive is to pay post-doctoral trainees in biology what they are so clearly worth, but that’s just my perspective).

Posted by: Brian poole at March 14, 2006 12:50 AM

Competition will dictate here. FYI… Yale is now considered the better school than Harvard. England’s Oxford, once considered the best in the planet, now ranks below even Harvard.

Besides, there is usually a complete turnover every 10 years or so in every college. The faculty will sort itself out.

Posted by: Aldous at March 14, 2006 12:54 AM

I just read yesterday where Saudis are looking elsewhere in the world to send their university students, foregoing the U.S. schools which they always regarded very highly in the past. Chinese, Korean, Indian, and other nation’s students are also declining to take their education in the U.S. in greater numbers.

To my knowledge, no one has studied empirically the reasons for this changing direction of foreign enrollments, though the rise in development of superb schools in Japan, China, India and Europe no doubt is having some effect. Cultural issues are also playing role. Why should students move to such a foreign culture as the U.S. if they can stay closer to home or at least within a culture not nearly so foreign and receive comparable education.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 14, 2006 01:27 AM

Students are staying away because the Student Visas needed to come here are almost impossible to get. Add to that the ridiculous Homeland Security Requirements…. Its easier to study somewhere else.

Posted by: Aldous at March 14, 2006 01:43 AM

“Universities are getting very expensive. Are they worth it?” -Jack

We can’t all work at Walmart.

American universities have always had some wack jobs. Give the students some credit. An overwhelming majority can discern fact from BS.
Hyperventilating talk show hosts ranting about students being “indoctrinated” are just after ratings.

During the Russian, Communist Chinese, and Iranian revolutions, the leaders immediately closed the universities and jailed most of the professors. Some were even executed. Why? Because ideas are dangerous to a totalitarian state.

America is built on an extremely strong and compelling foundation. It can easily withstand few professors spouting radical opinions or even lies.

We need to buttress our university system. Globalization requires us to develop a more educated populace. We can’t be the cheapest so we better be the best and most innovative. It’s the only way we can improve our standard of living and maintain our world leadership position.

The blunt-edged visa policies enacted after 9/11 hopefully keep terrorists out. Unfortuanately, they also block many outstanding foreign students. Before 9/11, the best and the brightest from all over the world flocked to the US university system. Many stayed here and contributed greatly to our economy. We need those minds especially in technical fields.

Posted by: Don Gray at March 14, 2006 02:41 AM

I’m personally disappointed in the lack of supervision of many of today’s professors, although I certainly understand it’s not a new issue.

Even a class such as political science shouldn’t expose the political leanings of a professor. Present everything from extremist left to extremist right on each issue. Which ever way the student leans, make him/her back up their stance on the issue. Make them sort fact from opinion. But in each and every class, from Aerospace Engineering to Poly Sci 401, students should be able to walk out of a semester with a prof and have no true understanding which way the prof leans politically. Sadly, that is not the case way too often.

Now we have high school teachers in geography class giving the “Bush is Hitler” speech. What???!!! IT’S GEOGRAPHY!! Countries, states, capitals, borders, topography, population, weather, farming … how in the Hell does even the worst idiot incorporate their extremist views about a State of the Union speech into a geography class???!!!

Jack is absolutely correct in being concerned. Are teachers/profs teaching what they should … or are they giving their own personal SOTU speech during precious class time?

Posted by: Ken C. at March 14, 2006 03:40 AM

Jack:
“The extremists have taken over.”

Indeed they have. The Neocon Extremists have completely taken over our government — and now they want to stamp out every last shred of liberal thinking so that they may control all thought in America.

As for David Horowitz — he’s a complete wack-o. Formerly a far-left Communist Extremist who was once very involved with the Black Panthers, he then suddenly went in the exact opposite direction (in the eighties, I think) to become a Rightwing Extremist and neo-McCarthyite.
I tend to think of him as just another “Product of the New American Century” — bigoted, morally bankrupt, hopelessly irrational, downright insane.
What’s really hilarious about Horowitz though is the fact that those on the right speak of him as though he’s an intellectual. He isn’t. Horowitz is about as much of an intellectual as Ann Coulter is — and equally as nasty and immature, too.
Maybe they take him more seriously because they think he looks more like someone who should be —after all, he isn’t a skeletal anorexic who goes in for bimbo-like ultra mini’s and four-inch heels like Mistress Ann. But just like her, he is a Neocon nutjob full of over the top self-righteousness and insane zeal, who seldom gets any of his facts straight in his writing.
Most of the bombs he lobs at the left are comprised of rightwing spin, rumors and gossip. When he has even less than that to work with, the man is not above engaging in made-up slander and vicious innuendo. This has lead to many ongoing feuds with people who he has targetted.

In short, this man should never be used as a credible source for mounting any kind of an argument.

Here are a few of Horowitz’s more memorable remarks:

What about the debt blacks owe to America �€” to white America �€” for liberating them from slavery?

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?

The claim for reparations is premised on the false assumption that only whites have benefited from slavery. If slave labor created wealth for Americans, then obviously it has created wealth for black Americans as well, including the descendants of slaves.

These quotes from the article: Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks is a Bad Idea for Blacks and Racist Too.

Leftists think that nothing is bad but the Holocaust.

Leftists want to regulate everything but hard drugs and sex.

— from a speech at Michigan State University

One has to stigmatize the left and segregate it.

—Insight magazine in 1989.

This book is a record of our sightings of the beast. We may not yet have set the final harpoon, but we have given chase.

—From his 1991 book: ‘Deconstructing the Left’. (Something of a political bible to the Neocon’s.)
Btw, the “beast” he is referring to is any kind of Liberal thought.

Horowitz: “There are 50,000 professors … [who] identify with the terrorists

Summary: On MSNBC’s Scarborough Country, right-wing activist David Horowitz claimed that “[t]here are 50,000 professors” who are “anti-American” and “identify with the terrorists.” There are just over 400,000 tenured and tenure-track full-time university professors in the United States. If Horowitz’s numbers are accurate, that means approximately one out of every eight tenured or tenure-track college and university professors is a terrorist sympathizer.

Horowitz admonished by MSNBC host for “call[ing] guests names on the air”

You Neocon neo-McCarthyites cannot stamp out liberal thought in America. Ever. No matter how hard you try.
Good Night and Good Luck.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 14, 2006 03:50 AM

Jack

Here is another timely column on professors and universities.

JewishWorldReview.com for Tuesday 3/14/06

Tom Sowell’s column is very fitting

Posted by: tomh at March 14, 2006 04:57 AM

Jack,

Sloppy thinking, my friend. There is no evidence here, or even a coherent argument, that what the cons call “political correctness” is undermining the ability of universities to conduct scientific research (and continue to win Nobel Prizes). Can you think of a single example of world-class researchers leaving a US university because of political problems?

Actually, I can, but it is not in the direction you would like. Biologists Neal Copeland and Nancy Jenkins turned down an offer from Stanford and went to Singapore instead. Their reason? Too many restrictions on stem cell research here. Damned political correctness! It is killing our universities! ;)

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 14, 2006 07:12 AM

By the way, I hope you conservatives realize how massively hypocritical it is to complain about political correctness and at the same time compile enemies lists of professors who are… um… what’s the phrase I’m looking for… politically incorrect.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 14, 2006 07:42 AM

Jack and other ‘Reds’ here real problem is that most degrees are defined as “Liberal Arts” degrees. They won’t be happy until all those degrees are replaced by “Conservative Arts” degrees. AND that is the bottom line. Little else on this subject will be relevant.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 14, 2006 08:36 AM

Jack,

Your post seems to be:”There can’t be so many liberals by natural means so they must have been created by evil and ‘irrelevant’ teachers.”

Now that the Bushies are being called out on their lies about the reality of the world, they are being forced to attack teachers to attempt to discredit liberals via false 3rd party associations. Who or what will you point to next? Milk?

BTW, Bush numbers are down again! The rats are abandoning the ship, why are even those few still remaining?

Posted by: Dave at March 14, 2006 09:06 AM

Jack,

Is it the fault of the Universities that their students are free thinking individuals who oppose the “arm-band” style of blind loyalty the “Super-Patriots” seem to think we should all posess?
Is it the open dialogue or the individuality that scares the “far right?”
Maybe the fact that there fact-based research materials that could counter the idiotic “spin” that fascinates the “far right” that has you folks afraid.
Have you ever noticed that where(cities,Unicersities) there is a larger concentration of information ex. books, mass media,technology etc. they tend to vote against you party?
Here’s some alternate titles for your post:
“Stop Thinking and Listen To Us”
“We’re the Right and We Know What’s Best For You”
“Bush Is My Shepard”
“Information, The Liberal Poison”

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 14, 2006 09:10 AM

Woody puts it in a nutshell, Jack - you’re complaining about university professors that speak their minds in unpopular ways in one breadth, and then claiming they’re “too PC” in another.

Laately, I’ve been noticing a common theme in Red-Team posts. It’s now popular (should I say “PC”?) to diss universities, scientists, foreign opinion, and “liberal” media (ie anything not controlled by Team Red). Could I summarize the argument as: anyone that might disagree with me, please ignore them?

This seems to be mostly a Team-Red game, and while this might be an effective argument short-term, I worry that in this case it is damaging long-term to the very institutions you claim to care about. Military, technological, technical, scientific, and academic strengths are all inter-related - and by trying to pull down academia in general you are doing a disservice to the country as a whole.

If you really care about this you might abandon your vague inneundo and follow up on Aldous’s comment:

Students are staying away because the Student Visas needed to come here are almost impossible to get. Add to that the ridiculous Homeland Security Requirements�€�. Its easier to study somewhere else.

This is a really big issue in technical fields, and it is doing long-term damage to our technical strength. What can we do about it?

Posted by: William Cohen at March 14, 2006 09:11 AM

When you consider Universities as a bastion of free speech remember it is only free speech for the professor who has the power to affect your career options for the rest of your life. The professor has your GPA in the palm of his hand, a bad grade because you disagree with the professor is still a bad grade which will lower your GPA, a situation to be avoided at all costs. Disagreement with the professor can spell disaster for your grade, I learned this first hand. I was then advised, as many are, that the class really doesn’t matter just the grade so say what is needed to get a good grade. Since then the socialist classes have become easy A’s, hate Bush, the war is about oil, Bush is a racist, and basically any kindergarden name calling of Bush (no proof needed) will ensure a GPA boosting grade. The idea of going against a professors beliefs, even with proof, is not worth the loss of a grade. In talking with other students in these classes I find they are of the same mind, say what is needed to get the grade and ignore all else.

The idea of free speech and thought in the universities is not an issue, there is none, at least on the part of the students.

Posted by: MikeH at March 14, 2006 09:50 AM

Mike H,

Where did you attend college The University Of Tehran?
The Fidel Castro School of Art and Design?
I’ve had quite the opposite experience at the three schools i’ve attended.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 14, 2006 10:05 AM

MikeH

Clearly you’ve had a few bad professors. Unfortunately you also didn’t know that there are always channels through which you can see that any bias a teacher may have is questioned and, if substantiateed, punished. Some of the best students that I’ve known have been conservative and at the same time outspoken. Universities are certainly liberal, for many reasons i’m sure, but to say that they systematically punish certain political beliefs and, further, that this is done through their apparent stranglehold of grades does not mesh with my experience at four different universities. Most of my professors in the past have invited debate and, when done well, have rewarded it.
it’s too bad that you surrendered your free speech in return for a number that, despite what you believe, doesn’t mean dogshit.

Posted by: mpc at March 14, 2006 10:13 AM

I went to the liberal University of Wisconsin at a liberal time. You could argue with your professor and sometimes win. I like the free exchange of ideas because sometimes you convince the other person; sometimes he convinces you, but always you get to see other points of view. We had plenty of weirdoes, but what we didn’t have were enforceable speech codes. People could ridicule you and argue against you, but they couldn’t shut you down. My impression is now they can.

I would like to hear some real experiences from current students. Can you say what you want, no matter? If you write a paper praising George Bush�€™s policies, will that automatically mean a bad grade?

I agree that the visa for students is a big problem. We may have thrown out the baby with the bathwater on this case. Our whole visa system is messed up in general, but that is a topic for another post. And, BTW, it has been messed up for decades. This is not George Bush.

Since I evidently did not make myself clear, these are some of things I worry about.

- American universities are the best in the world. But like the auto industry, they suffer from hubris. Others can copy the model and improve on it.

- University education is not rigorous for everyone. It is possible to get through four years without taking calculus or seriously learning a foreign language.

- There are too many boutique courses and majors. We have the various ethnic and gender study programs. Nothing wrong with that in theory, but they get to be controlled by activists. It should be possible that the best scholar in African American studies is white, or the very best scholar in women’s studies is a man, just like the best Egyptologist or Greek scholar is not a Egyptian or Greek. A liberal education presupposes the ability to communicate beyond your own reference group. My reading of the Cornel West or the link text affair indicate that identity politics trumps the search for truth and meaning.

Universities are costing too much. I am paying the tuition for my daughter and soon will do my sons. My daughter goes to public university, which is still a good deal, but it is not cheap. Why does it cost so much and why has it gone up so much faster than the inflation rate?

Finally, admissions. Admissions has become even more of a crap shoot. We should go to a simpler system. Make minimum qualifications (i.e. the students can do the work based on grades and test scores) and then assign places by random chance. Forget about all those other “outside interests” or racial quotas. You know that looked for the well rounded student instead of relying on grades was originally instituted to discriminate against Jews and now it tends to hit Asians. It has a very bad history and we should get rid of it.

The way we do it now is a lot like asking someone if he can lift 100lbs. Instead of picking it up, he tells you how much time he spent in the gym last year. Either you can pick it up or not. The amount of time you spent in the gym or how hard it was to get there means nothing.

Posted by: Jack at March 14, 2006 10:14 AM

I’m having real difficulty seeing what, exactly, teaching blind faith in classes has to do with any sort of decline in the American University system.

1. Our governmnent’s investment in research programs in Universities has gone down substantiallly, simultaneously the Koreans Chinese and Indians have focused on building their own infrastructures to support the growing need for these sort of possitions. This is relevant to the possition of the American schools in the technology side, you know, the one that is so important all of a sudden.

2. Indoctronating students into one point of view or another in intro to government is not really a big problem. For one thing, university students are between 17 and 21 years old, if you think that a 17 year old doesnt have a fully formed opinion already, I have some friends to introduce you to. For another, the affect of coursework on political science and social science programs isnt really major, since American government is the intro course. These classes (anything after poli 100) are designed to give students a full understanding of the process of whatever they are focusing on, be it public policy, international relations, philosophy, etc. The opinions of the professor don’t have anything to do with these classes, which are very straightforward in outlining how these processes work.

3. This has nothing to do with anything really. You mention money given to encourage students to join the government program, well, someone gave several billion dollars to Yale to make their music program free for however long the money lasts. Individuals will donate money for whatever purpose they want, and the university will comply because any money is less money they have to spend out of their stretched (not the ivy leagues, but other universities are having financial issues) budgets.

This is just being alarmist and silly. Our problem is a lack of investment in the valuable resource that is the large network of technloglically relevant schools that have pushed major technological developments in the past.

Posted by: iandanger at March 14, 2006 10:18 AM

I have a question. What ambitious young person wants to work their butt off before and after getting a Phd in math when they can get an mba and make twice as much?

Posted by: Amani at March 14, 2006 10:58 AM

This is just being alarmist and silly. Our problem is a lack of investment in the valuable resource that is the large network of technloglically relevant schools that have pushed major technological developments in the past.

Posted by: iandanger at March 14, 2006 10:18 AM

ian,

I think the danger is our Universities may become arm of the government propoganda machine. The institutions are being assaulted because the majority of people with university level education (not to be confused with a community or 2 yr level) will be liberal. I mean liberal in a classic sense, not the way the rightwing has tried to redefine it. You must be able to challenge the status quo or you haven’t really learned enough. Note also that challenge does not always mean to change.

Posted by: Dave at March 14, 2006 11:05 AM

THE EXTREAMIST IS YOU.

Teaching critical thinking goes against the
grain of your party who prefer the blind patriot
instead of one who questions your agenda.

The Republican party has spoken loud and clear
education is a talking point. The rich are the
real market they fund your retention of power.

This is evident in your cutting education funding.
The cuts in grants the rise in interest rates for
student loans. The middle and lower
classes can no longer afford to educate there
childern. The only place to recieve education
for some is Military service. Enter Recruters
on campus pushing this fact home and makeing
education promises they often do not honer.

Now comes the final attack on so called Liberal
Professers. Well forgive me but many feel this is
just another power grab. To say someone is
teaching a agenda? I say hold up a mirror for
you are guilty of the agenda. You fail to see
you are makeing communist china look liberal.
You and your retoric is responsable for dumbing
down america. Someday this will cost us our title
of Greatest Nation and Super Power. You the
Repulican party are selling America for your greed
and special interest. You are wrapping control
of minds for power in the American Flag and
selling it to us as patriotism.

Posted by: Honey P at March 14, 2006 11:05 AM

I was reading thru the comments and alot of people are complaining about the Red Teams “style” of “debate” or approach to a subject.
i.e. not much substance — but lots of promoting fear over some vague “threat”
Professors a “threat” to students and somehow our society
Gay Marriage is a threat to the “sanctity of the institution of marriage”
Sex is a threat to the culture (notice the comment by Horowitz that the left think Sex and drugs are ok, but nothing else is — so red team doesn’t like sex??? where are they all coming from?? — test tubes??)

back on track
Sadaam was a “threat” to the US (an impotent dicator that was confined to his little corner of the world — get real)
Notice a trend
whatever they don’t like is a “threat” to some sort of vision of a way of life that I don’t quite comprehend
Also do you ever notice that they NEVER quite are able to articulate exactly how these thing are a “threat” — they just are, and if you don’t know, then you must agree with them and you become part of the “threat” yourself
Could the answer be as simple as to put team red on a high dose of anti-paranoid drugs???
Something in the water perhaps
(or — are they smoking too much weed behind the barn and becoming paranoid THAT way??)
I am tired of all these rantings over vague threats that are never explained as to how they pose a threat
Ciao

Posted by: Russ at March 14, 2006 11:33 AM

I really dont see a problem with the ideology of proffessors. I argue with my proffessors all the time, I’m a liberal to a certain extent, but really I am a utilitarian, and I have a tendency to contradict people telling me things simply for the sake of deconstructing their argument.

I’ve never had a problem with a proffessor grading me based on ideology, even in classes where I wind up fighting with the teacher daily. They usually have a great deal of respect for my tendency to speak my mind.

One last thing I forgot to comment on, In the original post Jack said:
“We all know that the Supreme Court had to force some universities even to ALLOW military recruiters on campus. The extremists have taken over.”

The reason they had to force the campuses to let the military recruiters on campus is that the military is a discrimantory employer. I personally protest any recruiting because they violate the civil rights of homosexuals. I don’t care about any of the reasons the biggoted military leadership gives, the fact of the matter is that the military discriminates and needs to either change or be forced to change by withholding funding and ceasing recruiting activites.

Posted by: iandanger at March 14, 2006 11:38 AM

Iandanger

Since you are a liberal, you probably disagree within the allowed parameters of liberal thought, so you might not feel the wrath of the liberal establishment.

Re 17 year olds having formed opinions - I hope not. If you have formed your opinions by the age of 17 there is very little chance they are considered and thoughtful and they certainly are not based on broad and continuing experience.

Young people tend to have strong opinions, but they are as changeable as Wisconsin weather and the wind blows hard in both directions. It is just that given their short experience, they think that maintaining a point of view for a year or so is a long time.

Re the military and gays - most ROTC was pushed off campus before the issue was important. Besides, the military is a government institution. If you want to change it, you have to do it through democratic or political means.

Finally, universities, as I understand, ARE still allowed to ban recruiting. They just can’t get any money from the government, which is a fair trade if you really want to stand up for your beliefs.

Posted by: Jack at March 14, 2006 11:51 AM

iandanger

Pulling that old discrimination card always gets a mile or two. I’m being generous. Everybody discriminates and on a daily basis. What’s wrong with that. Keeping queers out of the military is a good decision. At one time they were considered security risks but we have become so smart and wise that we don’t go there anymore. And by the way queers use the queers to describe themselves, so I can use it too.

Posted by: tomh at March 14, 2006 11:52 AM

If there are too many liberal professors, then where are all the unemployed conservative Ph.D.’s who can’t get faculty jobs?

Posted by: bobo at March 14, 2006 11:56 AM

The problem is not in the scientific areas of study, like math and chemistry, it’s in areas like political science and economics. Because most professors are liberal, they teach in line with their beliefs. As a recent graduate (with a minor in political science) I have had my share of political science classes, and I can tell you that in my experience, there were very few professors that taught both sides of an issue. I found myself only hearing the left side, and when I’d go home and talk to my dad (who is pretty conservative), only then would I get the other perspective. Sometimes I’d agree with the professors, sometimes I’d agree with my dad, however, the point is that very rarely would professors teach both sides of the issue. We didn’t read both liberal and conservative writers, we would read only liberal. Now, understandably this is only one person’s experience, and I did go to a pretty liberal school, but in hard sciences you are taught multiple theories, whether or not the professors agree with them…. So why is this not the case in other, ‘soft science’ areas??? Regardless of how ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ the university is, both schools of thought should be taught and discussed. How educated are we when we don’t know or understand where the other side is coming from?

Posted by: e at March 14, 2006 11:58 AM

The threat to our educational system comes from people like Horowitz - who wish to quash intellectual freedom and speech - rather than from any “dangerous” professors. The fact that such a person even gets the time of day here at WatchBlog - which should be devoted to the honest airing of ideas - makes me want to weep. The rightwing nutjobs would kill the goose who lays the golden eggs merely because they don’t like the way it honks. Talk about PC gone insane.

As for recruiting on campuses, the Court had its say. The system works. Let’s see if the Court will protect the nation from the horrors of Horowitz.

Posted by: Reed Sanders at March 14, 2006 12:02 PM

“Pulling that old discrimination card always gets a mile or two. I�€™m being generous. Everybody discriminates and on a daily basis. What�€™s wrong with that. Keeping queers out of the military is a good decision. At one time they were considered security risks but we have become so smart and wise that we don�€™t go there anymore. And by the way queers use the queers to describe themselves, so I can use it too.”

I try and control myself when it comes to this sort of thing. I have a tendency to get angry, and if you said something like that to my face, i probably wouldnt be able to maintain my composure. But you are not here in front of me, so I’ll just play nice on this one. You are wrong. Not allowing Gays in the military is a sign that they are still considered second class citizens. there is no reasonable explanation for the policies, especially since the Dont as Dont tell policy means gays are allowed as long as they deny who they are. This needs to stop because as long as Gays are treated as lesser people by individuals like you, tomh, our country is not living up to any of the ideals we find to be so essential and defend daily.

Jack, Im a Utilitarian, and more importantly, I don’t let my political beliefs be known to anyone in my classes. I’ve attacked liberal proffessors on issues spanning from abortion to resistance to the war in Iraq, my own beliefs have nothing to do with academic pursuits. If you do not attack and challenge authority at all times, you are wasting your potential as an intellectual. I am a liberal, in that I believe in a market economy, I believe in absolute liberty, and I believe that there must be equality accross the board. Because of this i support free education, that sort of thing, because I think every person should be allowed to fulfill their potential.

But I am a utilitarian, so for the time being i support Liberal foreign policy (something I don’t necessarily agree with in theory), Social Security, the Tax Code, and various other things that I would change overall.

At the Same time as being a liberal, I agree with the theoretical propositions of traditional Communism, something which is very unpopular in my university. Essentially, I read a lot of philosophy and attempt to argue every side whenever possible.

One of the problems with debate is a defintion of the terms. Liberalism is a form of government as proposed by John Locke and perfected by others. Social Democracy is similar to what Rousseau suggested, with the good of the whole trumping the individual, Communism is Marx, Socialism is a number of thinkers including Marx with a number of others before and after him presenting a very broad theory with lots of different aspects.

More importantly, I don’t see any problems in my classes of students being discriminated against because of ideology. More than half of my Political Science classes are generally made up of conservatives (that means i have to sit through presentations of policy papers suggesting that abstenace only education is the best form of sex ed, HAH), I debate them as well as the liberals, and I honestly don’t think either side is as good as id like, and thusly I refuse to join the Republicans or Democrats at my school, instead im going to be the president of the campus green party as of next semester.

Now, in terms of opinions, I am 19 years old and I don’t presume I’ll have the same ideas when im 21 as now, and I dont have the same ideas now that I did when I was 17 and starting college, but my point is that I had attained what John Locke would call reason, and as such I am fully able to do my own legwork when it comes to politics. I read and argue and make up my mind for myself. Have since I was about 13 and realized my Fascist father was wrong about most everything. (yes I said fascist, Mussolini is my fathers personal hero, he believes fascism is the ideal form of government)

Posted by: iandanger at March 14, 2006 12:27 PM

iandanger,

Well said. Your Dad may like Benito but he & mom(?) seem have done OK with you. Reminds me some of the me of the 70’s; big ego, excess self confidence, think I know a lot, maybe even some humility. Some comments:
Avoid absolutes: “perfected by others”
Don’t let the ego subtract from others points of view: “don�€™t think either side is as good as id like”
You don’t have alot of experience, be willing to listen to those who do and challenge your own assumptions. (I know you said you did but do you really?)
Good luck with Greens. I hope you decide to stay around here for a bit. The occasional new and literate view is needed, especially when it generally agrees with mine…

Posted by: Dave at March 14, 2006 12:52 PM

A lot of you smart people with so called bachelors and masters degrees can’t even spell! So I don’t think people with degrees are so smart after all! Let’s get back to the basics earlier in your education, can we?

Posted by: Michael Bonacci at March 14, 2006 12:55 PM

Our Universities ARE the best. So are our cars, and electronics. Unfortunately I think Curtis Mathis went out of business. Which means if my 20 year-old TV ever does give up the ghost We’ll have to buy a cheepy foreign job for the same price.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 14, 2006 12:56 PM

“Don�€™t let the ego subtract from others points of view: �€œdon�t think either side is as good as id like�€
You don�€™t have alot of experience, be willing to listen to those who do and challenge your own assumptions. (I know you said you did but do you really?)”

I was reffering to my campus only, the parties are full of people without very many ideas. I mostly hang out with the libertarians, but in Maryland, Libertarians are doomed to failure. The greens on the other hand actually have a chance.

I also regularly engage my father in debates about many of these issues, which provides me about as solid a rightward perspective as possible.

I certainly don’t think I have a solid grasp on a lot of issues, and I try and read as much as possible.

Posted by: iandanger at March 14, 2006 12:57 PM

Aldous,

Whar, pray tell, is so ridiculous about Homeland Security. We will all be serving a one world dictator and speaking some language foreign to us if we are not valiant and vigilant on our borders. I for one would like to see many mor controls put up to end illegals from slipping through. I also agree with the comments on PC and the limited debate. We need more debate from the people and not from so called literary elitists.

Posted by: John at March 14, 2006 01:11 PM

ian,

I hope I didn’t sound critical, we don’t know each other and my data set on the ‘actual you’ is pretty small. I was just being (trying to be) constructive.
Here’s a challenge: Could you argue convincingly that a fascist is simply a pro-business liberal?

Posted by: Dave at March 14, 2006 01:18 PM

Iandanger

You don�€™t need to answer and I don’t mean any disrespect, but I am curious. Is your father an ethnic who is smart but not well educated, worked all his life and feels the rich fat cats have mistreated him?

I ask because he sounds like my father. In my father’s case, he kind of admired Stalin. People with these sorts of backgrounds and experience have an affinity for strong men and collectivist dictatorships like communism or fascism, but it is more an emotional than a thoughtful reaction. It also might be a reaction to you. When I came how with all sorts of book learnin’ my father felt outclassed intellectually. His defense was this dogmatic “cut the crap” strongman.

I couldn’t argue with it because it was so outragousI used to get really mad at the old man, but now that he is dead and I have had a chance to think about it, I have come away with a different point of view.

Posted by: Jack at March 14, 2006 01:22 PM

Congratulations John and taking a quote out of context! Homeland Security is very ridiculous for foreign students trying to study in the US . It makes it harder for them to study in the country and because it gives many foreign students the impression that they are unwelcome here.

Posted by: Erika at March 14, 2006 01:28 PM

I still see hypocritical liberals right here on this page. On one hand they say folks like Jack and others like him are trying to force a certain point of view and damn the opposite point of view.

But if you read what folks like him and me say, we’re just saying their should be no opinion at all endorsed by a professor … while the liberals apparently seem to continue to support the idea of liberal professor idealogues. Yet, liberals will still label their view (“You can’t force your opinion BUT OUR PEOPLE STILL CAN!”) on this matter as reasonable … which is just plain laughable.

Posted by: Ken C. at March 14, 2006 01:37 PM

Erika,

So should we scrap homeland security because it might cause extra admin work and processing for foreign students? Is that really the worse possible scenario in your mind?

Posted by: Ken C. at March 14, 2006 01:40 PM

It’s not a matter of admin work. It’s a matter of perception. The good students do not want to come here because they feel unwelcome. If it were only more paperwork, that would be fine, foreign students already have to deal with a lot of it.

Posted by: Erika at March 14, 2006 02:02 PM

This discussion reminds me of a discussion I once saw on American attitudes towards judges verses European views. Americans think that judges should be completely neutral. Europeans think that is impossible and should just be as neutral as possible. While the former may be better for judges, I do think the latter attitude is better for professors. Professors should not have to repress their opinions. They should bring their opinions up when they are relevant to the class but also create an environment where students are free to express their own opinions, even if they are conflicting.

Those of you advocating neutral professors are addressing the wrong problem. The problem that needs to be address is figuring out how to make sure that students can complain if a professor makes students feel that opposing opinions are unwelcome.

Posted by: Erika at March 14, 2006 02:05 PM

Jack,
My dad comes from a poor family out in Michigan. He grew up Catholic with 12 brothers and sisters, and was extremely smart. He was lucky enough to get himself through school (acquiring a very large debt in the process) and had acchieved somewhere in the area of a phd
(he has a habit of pissing people off, so none of us are sure if he actually has his Phd or not, because he angered the staff in the Government and Politics department at the University of Maryland, and they were, for a time at least, preventing him from actually having the degree. He has issues when it comes to lying, and as such when he says he has a phd, none of the family is really sure.)
He is disabled though, and so doesnt have a job. this means that he really sits around complaining about politicians most of the time. I used to fight with him, now we have amiable discussions about politics, he’s just a little crazy, something i suppose i cant do anything about.

Posted by: iandanger at March 14, 2006 02:20 PM

1) A good professor knows the difference between stating his own opinion to generate discussion vs. holding students accountable to repeating those opinions with an impact onto grades.

2) The rightwing is more interested in suppresion of opinion because it might not agree with their’s vs. the leftwing is more interested in ensuring that all opinions are expressible(1) A good professor knows the difference between stating his own opinion to generate discussion vs. holding students accountable to repeating those opinions with an impact onto grades.

2) The rightwing is more interested in suppresion of opinion because it might not agree with their’s vs. the leftwing is more interested in ensuring that all opinions are expressible(real word?).

Posted by: Dave at March 14, 2006 02:20 PM

Iandanger

With some variations, it sounds very familar.

Dave

The right wing is no more interested in supressing opinion than the left wing and both extremes are likely to supress. The left currently does more of it.

Most speech codes are left wing inspired. Most of the time when an article in a campus newspaper provokes the campus administration, it is most often the lefties who are mad. The left wing heckles and throws pies.

I am for free speech. I don’t care what people say, as long as they are not violent or advocating immediate violence. Let’s have that as our only speech code.

But the left sometimes mistakes speaking with being listened to. Who doesn’t know what prominent leftists think. Who has not heard of people like Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan? We just don�€™t want to listen. That is the other part of free speech.

Take the example of the military. The left wants to ban them. Banning is not free speech.

Posted by: Jack at March 14, 2006 02:38 PM

iandanger
I do not treat homosexuals as second class persons. In this country everybody is a citizen, period. I go by that standard. I have friends who call themselves queers and they are homosexuals. You judged me by the use of one word that I treated queers as second class citizens. Wrong buddy.

Posted by: tomh at March 14, 2006 02:46 PM

I am amazed at the presumption by those on the right that these “children” are being indoctrinated by, God forbid, liberal professors.

We have seen what, two or three high profile cases, and from that we have to surmise that our universities are going to hell in a handbasket?

Hannity has been whining about this Hitler comparison for weeks. He has gone as far as to request that “conservitive” students tape their professors, so that he might “expose their wrong thinking” to America.
This is gotcha politics at it’s worst.

Jack,

You are the one that always advocates a free market.
If these students and there parents are soooo upset with this, why aren’t they going through the proper channels to complain?
And then if their complaints aren’t addressed to their satisfaction, why aren’t they voting with their feet and their wallets and moving their studies to a university that is more in line with their thinking, uh, sorry, ideology?

Posted by: Rocky at March 14, 2006 02:47 PM

The right wing is no more interested in supressing opinion than the left wing and both extremes are likely to supress. The left currently does more of it.

Posted by: Jack at March 14, 2006 02:38 PM

You thought there was a war on Xmas too, right? Posted by: Dave at March 14, 2006 02:52 PM

I hate codes of speech, I’m a true liberal, I believe in liberty, you should be able to say what you want and deal with the consequences. If you want to wear a Nazi uniform in the middle of downtown baltimore, you sure as hell should be able to. Can’t guarantee the peacefulness of the dissent though.

basically the free flow of ideas is essential to utilitarianism, and besides that, my favorite commedians are all ones that push the boundaries of what is acceptable. I will rue the day of the death of political correctness.

Still, talking about how its good to keep queers down in front of me isnt going to have nice results, similar to if someone used a racial epitaph and was talking about keeping black people or hispanics out of whatever business you like, be it government or law or anything like that. I’m touchy, but its because ive dealt with too many biggots to be appologetic.

Posted by: iandanger at March 14, 2006 02:53 PM

tomh,

The word itself doesnt matter, call them gay call them fags call them queers, what you are advocating is discrimination. If you were not allowed to join the military, werent allowed to marry the person you love, and in many other places were discriminated against, you would probably react pretty strongly about it.

To me, the oppression of one class is the oppression of all of us, and as such I refuse to back down on this issue. If you cannot admit that you are actively encouraging discrimination, and in turn the general attitude of hatred toward a large segment of our population, that is your own problem.

Posted by: iandanger at March 14, 2006 02:58 PM

iandanger
Every day everybody discriminates about somebody or something. I do not seek oppression of anybody. Anybody can marry anybody they choose to that is within the law. Same sex marriage is illegal and immoral. The whole reason for a male and female gender is to procreate. Procreation cannot be done by two women or two men who are married to their own gender. There are many arguments against homosexual activity. The arguments that have surfaced just in the last few years do not negate what has been the moral fiber of one man and one woman in a marriage for over 6,000 years. Remember Lots wife turned to a pillar of salt because of her love of Sodom and Gomorrah. NAMBLA wants to negate age of consent so that they can have their immoral ways with a man/boy relationship. Polygamy is now being pursued by the ACLU as a legal relationship. If you peek around the corner animals are right in line. Back to what got me here. Homosexuals have been kept out of the military because of national security. There have been a number of cases where homosexuals where compromised. One of the most notorious is Kim Philby. Am I wrong to think that a pedophile should not be in charge of a day care center? Am I wrong that a bank robber should not be placed in a financial position of trust? The bottom line is that homosexuals should not serve in the military because of national security.

Posted by: tomh at March 14, 2006 03:28 PM

Jack,

Wonderful delivery of thoughts here. I couldn’t agree more. What this makes me think is that our “leaders” are looking for the best and brightest. But, they assume they come from Ivy League educational institutions or colleges at least. If Ivy league scools are the most desied locations to pick leaders to represent America/the common man. Why is it that the common man doesn’t go to school there? People hear an education level and automatically think, “Oh well, he has a master’s from Brown he must be smart.”. I have met a lot of dumb doctors in my day and they have more education than I could ever dream of getting. I think I’ll use them as an example here. Dr.’s have theoretical knowledge because of what they learned in school. They studied what responses to stimuli indicate the issue, and eventually bring them to a diagnosis. I think it ,ay be that application in our “leadership” positions that cause our politicians to do what they assume we want them to do. Which is the “well, nobody seemed to complain about that decision” mind-set that keeps bad politicians in office. How many average Americans are given information on the happenings in the government on a daily basis. Maybe the common American would be more well informed to make a choice on a political leader if they knew more about what he/she did for them. I know it takes the individual to listen. But, why aren’t politician’s voter records on bills and laws shown to the voter at the end of every year? Then, put into tearms the average American can fully comprehend so, the average American is informed as to what they are voting for on election day. Ignorance in the common man is due to lack of education by those in power. If people’s demand to know what was going on was met, expectations would rise and so would the standards of acceptability of politician’s actions. Just me maybe but, I would like to know what my representatives are saying I want and how I feel life should be. But, you have to be Sherlock Holmes to find out what all happend in a year and Hitler to flood the streets with the newly found propaganda. Because, the Ivy League grads use bigger words and are in a more elite club and, they just happen to be the one’s running the show. So, yeah it is pretty shitty but, what do we do to change this injustice to the common man?

Posted by: chad at March 14, 2006 04:15 PM

Rocky

Our universities are among our most important assets. They will not disappear. But they can be made less relevant.

Think back when John Kennedy became president, he went to Harvard etc for his new ideas. Now the best (at least the most actionable) ideas are more likely to come from think tanks or semi independent scholars. Or universities have created semi independent institutes to bypass the main structure.

Not all subjects are the same. The hard sciences have resisted better. So have Business Schools and Law Schools. Decision makers pay attention to something that comes out of the Harvard Business School a lot more than they care if it is from the Dept of Sociology. Why is that? (not a rhetorical question, BTW).

Posted by: Jack at March 14, 2006 04:29 PM

JACK i thought lately the dems wanted to install the draft?

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 14, 2006 05:08 PM

Jack,

“Not all subjects are the same. The hard sciences have resisted better. So have Business Schools and Law Schools. Decision makers pay attention to something that comes out of the Harvard Business School a lot more than they care if it is from the Dept of Sociology. Why is that? (not a rhetorical question, BTW).”

You are aware that I haven’t attended a university or collage, that what I know is from experience.

The hard sciences may have resisted this “liberal” movement because there is little room for argument in the math or physics depts.

These soft sciences are open for discussion because that is what these subjects are all about, discussion. Political science, to me seems like a completely subjective course.

When a liberal professor says that all he was looking for was discussion, why is it that the right rolls it’s collective eyes and says, “yeah, right”?

Are we to condemn the vast majority of “liberal” professors for the objective silliness of a few?

Posted by: Rocky at March 14, 2006 05:13 PM

tomh,

What you are saying is baseless, if someone is homosexual they are not in any way less trustworthy. The problem I assume you are reffering to would be people who are in the closet being blackmailed into revealing information, which has nothing to do with out homosexuals serving. If you think that homosexuals are somehow more likely to defect to communist russia like philby, then I really have nothing more to contribute to that discussion.

The issue of marriage: I dont care. Mary 16 peole, a million, what does that have to do with me? I am not concerned with anything anyone else does in their personal life, that is not my business, if you want to do heroin and have sex with tons of men and women, it is not my possition to stop you. the only point where government can intervene is where somethign is actually harming someone else. i dont care if someone does heroin or cocaine, but if you steal to pay for your habit, its off to jail. The primary tenant of utilitarianism is that if it makes someone happy and does not harm another (animals are included in this case) it is not the jurisdiction of the government. So, if someone wants to marry their horse, I dont care, unless they attempt to molest the horse, which is harmful and illegal. If someone wants to marry 3 women, I don’t care, unless he is treating them as slaves, which is sometimes the case, then its time to step in. Our government cant spend its time telling people how to think, we need to allow uninhbitted thought and expression in order to continue to be ideologically productive.

relating what NAMBLA does to all homosexuals is like relating the Posse Comatetus or various other nutjob terrorist organizations to the NRA, its bad logic. Explain to me, using reason rather than emotion and examples (pedophile being in charge of a daycare center) how in any way allowing gay people (we already do, we just require them to stay in the closet) to be in the military. I’ve never heard a reason that wasnt pure biggotry, but maybe you’ve got something original and you can change my mind.

P.S. What if i think it is immoral to kill animals, should I start to push legislation to stop you from eating meat? Should I come to you rhome and tell you what you can and cannot eat? No, morality is each persons business, good fences make good neighbors.

Posted by: iandanger at March 14, 2006 05:17 PM

Homosexuals have been kept out of the military because of national security. There have been a number of cases where homosexuals where compromised. One of the most notorious is Kim Philby. Am I wrong to think that a pedophile should not be in charge of a day care center? Am I wrong that a bank robber should not be placed in a financial position of trust? The bottom line is that homosexuals should not serve in the military because of national security.

Congratulations that’s the biggest load of bullshit I’ve heard today! So your argument is basically that we ought to keep gays out of the military because, as a rule they are untrustworthy, unmannly, and as far as treating others goes, on a par with pedophiles? Wow thanks for the info, buddy!

Posted by: Amani at March 14, 2006 05:32 PM

Jack’s drunk the Kool-Aid. He no longer discusses, he accuses and rebuts relentlessly and mindlessly. The amazing thing is that this formerly thoughtful conservative who used to be willing to rationally consider various points of view has become more and more polemical as the incompetence of the Bush administration has become more obvious to everyone. He now basically spouts the conservative talking points, complete with links to people like Horowitz in a feeble attempt to make it seem like intellectual argument.

BTW, I am a “hard science” faculty member at a top-tier research university and the ranks of the faculty lean heavily liberal in politics. The problem is that the facts have a liberal spin, and with thinking people the counterspin from the right doesn’t have much effect. We are used to parsing an conjecture and comparing it to the data and to questioning a highly selected set of facts that don’t draw a complete picture. It’s what we do. And funny smelling arguments are usually dismissed after some chewing over.

So don’t talk to the poor ranting man over there in the corner. His hero has turned out to have feet of clay and the lies he told are slowly being revealed despite his best efforts. So forgive Jack his lashing out at any convenient liberal targets. He’s a man in pain and must be pitied.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at March 14, 2006 06:16 PM

Amani, iandanger

I am really thankful you are not my personal chef. Your mixture of what ifs and could ofs and mixing statements sure would give a person a gastrointestinal problem. You just don’t understand national security. So, we won’t go there. There are some personal situations that over the years have been negative behavioral situations. We really are not that smart or wise that we can in a few short years rename those behaviors and call them normal and reasonable behaviors. Narcissism and hedonism comes to mind when I read your response. Self centered and if it feels good do it. That is not responsible behavior. Just because SCOTUS says sodomy is legal does not make it right morally. These are behaviors that break down family as we knew it for thousands of years. As far as “rights of homosexuals” for their culture, their are no special rights for homosexuals. The government has entered into a liberal mantra area by forcing the Catholic Charities in Boston to place children with homosexuals, which is contrary to the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church in MA now is being denied their rights to practice their faith. It will continue to go that way even though 80% if the American public want marriage defined as one woman and one man.

Posted by: tomh at March 14, 2006 07:02 PM

WOULD SOMEBODY PLEASE TELL ME, WHERE HAVE ALL THE REAL DEMOCRATS GONE? ATTEMPTING TO REDEFINE WORDS LIKE, “LIBERALS” IS REDICULOUS! IF YOU THINK THAT ANYONE BUYS IT, YOUR ONLY FOOLING YOURSELVES. “LIBERALS”(TO KEEP FROM REFERING TO YOU AS SOCIALISTS, COMUNISTS OR JUST PLAIN, HATERS OF AMERICANS) ARE SO FOND OF ACCUSING PEOPLE OF McCARTHYISM. IT’S ONE OF THE OLD FALL BACKS. WELL IF YOUR “LIBERAL” TEACHERS WOULD’VE TAUGHT ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT JUSTIFIES THEIR POSITION, YOU WOULD KNOW BY NOW THAT McCARTHY WAS RIGHT, ATLEAST ACCORDING TO DECLASSIFIED KGB FILES. SO FROM NOW ON ACCUSING SOMEONE OF DOING SOMETHING THEY DIDN’T DO WILL BE KNOWN AS A “KENNEDYISM”! AND THEN YOU CAN’T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU ARE NOW BEING REFERRED TO AS “THE LYING LEFT”! BUT, AS FAR AS I’M CONCERNED, YOU KEEP THINKING AND ACTING LIKE, ANYONE WHO DOESN’T HOLD THE SAME VIEW OR OPINION AS YOU IS A DOLT OR AN IDIOT. WE CAN SEE YOU COMMING A MILE AWAY, EINSTEINS.

Posted by: BOB RAMOS at March 14, 2006 07:12 PM

Jack:

You are a typical Republican: If you don’t like anything, you attack it.

You don’t like liberals. So you attack them.

You don’t like how universities are developing. So you attack. You say they use PC. What you mean by PC is what liberals ask for. And yet you are asking for a PC of your own - get rid of “100 dangerous professors.” What makes them dangerous? Is it that Horowitz and you don’t agree with their opinions? You do not consider them PC?

When it comes to business, you say “laissez faire.” When it comes to academia, you say “we need control.” It should be the other way around.

We need independent thinkers of all sorts in universities in order to develop as a healthy society. Leave the professors alone. Allow the various universities to do their job.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at March 14, 2006 08:43 PM

I think our colleges and universities are diverse enough to protect us from this ominous intellectual collapse you folks keep predicting.

It seems like the most vocal cultural critics on the right see this in eschatological terms. Even one Liberal spouting their opinion off with equal volume to one of their people is the end of the world.

So much of the political history of interaction between the paries is colored with the Fifth Column view of history. Rather unfortunate really. It means you can’t rest while we exercise our rights as Americans. You have to make sure we’re not letting the terrorists, or the communists or the UN (or whatever group you’ve decided will try and destroy us all) in through the backdoor.

Meanwhile, you folks let all the nice lobbyist and businessmen do what they want unopposed. Now corporate interests deserve a fair hearing, but their interests must be weighed against (not pre-emptively assumed to be the same as) the interests of the public. Again we get into eschatology though, as any regulation that hinders the making of the profit gets made out to be the start of an economic apocalypse. Same for taxes or any other issue. One false move (generally defined as one to the left) and all will be lost.

I think America is a little stronger, and more robust than that. Excuse me if I think the millionth pronouncement of the fall of western civilization is a bit off the mark.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 14, 2006 08:44 PM

Paul and Stephen

I don’t fear the fall of the U.S. or even the university. What I see is universities being bypassed. Decision makers no longer trust whole university departments. Professors no longer get the respect they used to.

When I search for useful advice, I go to think tanks, independent institutes or scholars. I wouldn’t think of asking a the average professor of African American studies for constructive advice on the race problem, nor would I seek management advice at a Department of Sociology.

This is sad. They used to say that in my home state of Wisconsin that the boundries of the university were the boundries of the state. It was the university’s mission to help the people of the state with problems they thought were important. That idea now seems a little quaint, but it was a good one.

Posted by: Jack at March 14, 2006 08:54 PM

When I search for useful advice, I go to think tanks,,,

Sure, because we all know how much think tanks like the National Center for Policy Analysis welcome a diversity of opinions.

Posted by: Reed Sanders at March 14, 2006 09:15 PM

Going to think tanks is like going to the GOP or DNC for your info. Each think tank is nothing more than a glorified political machine carping the positions of those who fund them.

Posted by: Aldous at March 14, 2006 09:18 PM

Obviously I don’t understand National Security, because being homosexual in the military doesnt seem to equate to even being relevant to National Security to me. Tell me, why would America be less secure if we allowed the gay soldier to come out and further gay individuals to join the service?

In other matters, when you talk about morality, you need to remember, I don’t believe in your God, and I don’t think you are correct. I consider it wrong to eat meat, to profit in any way off the suffering of others, including animals, to harm other people in any way, etc. but that is all my personal belief system. I don’t expect you to stop the senseless slaughter of millions upon millions of animals every day, because to you this is not wrong. You’re close minded about morality, thats your business, you want to stand on a corner in Washington and tell me what to do with a big ol sign, go right ahead, but the moment you try and make a law to limit my liberty, you are entering a state of war with me, as defined by Locke, and it is my responsibility to defend myself with as much force as necissary. Go ahead, tell me that I’m a hedonist, of course I pursue a life concentrating on ending desire, so there isnt anything in the judeo-christian rules im violating.

Posted by: iandanger at March 14, 2006 09:37 PM

Reed

The National Center for Policy Analysis is a complier, not strictly speaking a think tank.

Aldous

Think tanks have a point of view, just like university departments. But they tend to produce useful advice and background.

It is becoming more and more true that conservative scholars tend toward think tanks and liberals tend toward university departments.

The point is that universities are losing their edge in this respect, and their presumption of neutrality. This would not have been possible in the 1960s or 1970s. That is how much the world has changed.

There is also a problem with the university model. People used to go to university when they were young and then not go back. In this day and age of continuing education this makes less sense.

Rocky

Re university, you learned a lot more than most people get in university. That is an example of the “continuing education” I am talking about.

Posted by: Jack at March 14, 2006 10:10 PM

More background on the state of academia

Posted by: Jack at March 14, 2006 10:41 PM

Jack,

From your last link;

“Jonathan Kozol�€™s books �€” in praise of Cuban-style classroom indoctrination and �€œdisobedience instruction,�€ which instructs teacher �€œchange agents�€ in how to use stealth in nurturing skepticism of authority in students �€” are required reading in education schools”

When I went to parochial school in the ’60s, we were taught to question authority, and to “dare to be different”.
Neither of these precepts were pronounced “subversive” at the time.

The call to go back to the roots of education has been a drumbeat for decades, yet nothing has happened. Up to now, there still has been no great movement, other than home schooling (which to my mind has more to do with regligous beliefs than grades), in primary education to change the way we educate our children.

I still blame the failure of the public school system on the apathy of parents, who seem to be more interested in giving “little Jane or Johnny” a comfortable place to live than an education.

Posted by: Rocky at March 14, 2006 10:54 PM

tomh: Since you feel it so pertenent to expound your morality to me, let me do the same for you: What causes unnecessary suffering to another being without a good reason is evil. What causes a voluntary love is good. YOUR system “of what ifs and could ofs” often makes about as much sense to me as your posts. Personally, I find it amusing that you can look at the enormity of the universe and your own speck of existance and still believe you understand all the details.

Posted by: Amani at March 14, 2006 10:56 PM

In terms of the dangerous liberals infiltrating the schools (k-12), I was told that if I participated in the walkout I organized in highschool I would be arrested, and sat the walkout out in the principal’s office. I got suspended a lot for speaking my mind in highschool.

My college campus is just kind of dull when it comes to politics (we have a great public policy school, but that is all bureaucracy related stuff, none of the meat and potatoes issues)

Posted by: iandanger at March 14, 2006 11:00 PM

so those who have most studied and researched the ‘soft science’ fields are liberal? while i find this hard to believe, it does occur to me - if the *experts* are liberal, i would not consider it very intelligent to bring this ‘fact’ to light.

neocons; ‘all the experts disagree with me! wah!’

so we should treat the opining of a layman as equivalent to the knowledge of college professors? good argument?!

also, consider the religious right’s attack on the ‘hard sciences’. i don’t hear any complaint about the attempt to bring religion into biology class?

Posted by: diogenes (i) at March 14, 2006 11:45 PM

Amani
Where did I say I understood all the details. I searched all over and I honest to goodness could not find it. Enlighten me. Sure I know a lot, but there is a lot more I don’t know. I have experienced a lot, but there is a lot more I have not experienced and don’t want to experience. I have a broad education background. I serve on four different boards of charitable organizations. I deal with all the rottenness of life on a daily basis. I see broken homes. I see distraught children. And I have not seen it all nor do I want to. Just a few words why I am where I am. Good night.

Posted by: tomh at March 15, 2006 12:36 AM

Dave

2) The rightwing is more interested in suppresion of opinion because it might not agree with their�€™s vs. the leftwing is more interested in ensuring that all opinions are expressible(1) A good professor knows the difference between stating his own opinion to generate discussion vs. holding students accountable to repeating those opinions with an impact onto grades.

O really? When was the last time the cops drug you out of you home and locked you up for expressing your opinions? Today? Yesterday? Last week, Last month? Last year? When?
If what you said was true everyone on this blog would be in jail.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 15, 2006 01:11 AM

Where did I say I understood all the details.

I confess, you did not say those exact words, but the implication is there that you know enough, at least, to judge a person’s character based on some of the non-abusive, consensual details of their sex life. This doesn’t square with my own and others experience, or with common sense, yet you insist it is a fact. I have known a few gay people who were abusive and many who were not. The overall quality of their character had little dependency upon their being gay and their being gay had little dependency on their character.

I deal with all the rottenness of life on a daily basis. I see broken homes. I see distraught children. And I have not seen it all nor do I want to.

But there is joy in life, too. There is such a thing as love and goodness, even in the most desolate places. Surely this is why you are so active in charities?

Posted by: Amani at March 15, 2006 01:46 AM

I once had a conservative instructor in college teaching intro to politics. He was a business attorney. I was very liberal then. On his first day in class he assigned something like 20 books for the semester to the mostly full lecture hall.

During the 2nd class session, the lecture hall was only 1/3 full, the rest having dropped the course. During this 2nd session, he handed out the syllabus, it contained one text book for the whole course. It was brilliant. The man understood the marketplace.

Also, during the 2nd class he pulled out his wallet, opened it, and a 6’ long trail of plastic unfolded revealing all manner of credit cards and other cards. He said, THIS is what Politics IS, and this is what Politics is all About. He said those of us who grasped this concept that politics is all about money and who gets it, and who doesn’t, would pass his course easily. He was true to his word.

He was conservative, but, he was an outstanding instructor and I enjoyed his course immensely, though he and I continually debated the place for ideals and ethics and utopian standards in American politics. I got an A as I recall. He was afterall, quite prescient about what would happen when conservatives achieved one party control over government for the most part. It is now all about money, who gets it, and who doesn’t, with abortion and religious expression thrown in as distractions to hide the fact that it is all about who gets the money, and who doesn’t.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 15, 2006 01:53 AM

tomh:

good night by the way.

Posted by: Amani at March 15, 2006 02:37 AM

I think anytime there’s an institution that Republicans don’t have full control over, standard right-wing procedure is to declare that it’s failing, that it’s unpatriotic, and (horrors of horrors) that it’s biased.

Academics have long been a target of the right’s culture war, it’s attempt to undermine the institutional support for liberalism (real and perceived) in this country. Why should Jack depart from that long tradition of destructive politics now?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 15, 2006 07:52 AM

I think anytime there�s an institution that Republicans don�t have full control over, standard right-wing procedure is to declare that it�s failing, that it�s unpatriotic, and (horrors of horrors) that it�s biased.

This is absolutely right. If conservatives controlled every institution in this country besides, say, organic grocery stores, O’Reilly and Rush and friends would have to kvetch about how they are corrupting America. Every time someone in the business compared the Dear Leader to a Nazi, he would get months of coverage. These are the people we trust to feed our children! They must be stopped!

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 15, 2006 08:17 AM

2) The rightwing is more interested in suppresion of opinion because it might not agree with theirⳠvs. the leftwing is more interested in ensuring that all opinions are expressible(1) A good professor knows the difference between stating his own opinion to generate discussion vs. holding students accountable to repeating those opinions with an impact onto grades.

O really? When was the last time the cops drug you out of you home and locked you up for expressing your opinions? Today? Yesterday? Last week, Last month? Last year? When?
If what you said was true everyone on this blog would be in jail.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 15, 2006 01:11 AM

Not sure what the relationship is between my post and your rant. Supression of opinion doesn’t require incarceration. Just look at the DickBushRove slime machine and what it did to McCain, O’Neill, et. al.
But, we’re not up to the level of 1984 thought crimes yet. Soon enough if the neocons retain power, but that is not looking good. I mean it is looking good because they are going to be out of power by years end. Posted by: Dave at March 15, 2006 08:37 AM

“America is built on an extremely strong and compelling foundation. It can easily withstand few professors spouting radical opinions or even lies.” — Don Gray

You are right. And we have withstood worse. But I have the right to complain when it is my tax dollars that are used to support dissident professors spouting anti-American drivel.

Posted by: Ray Clary at March 15, 2006 08:41 AM

I went to the liberal University of Wisconsin at a liberal time. You could argue with your professor and sometimes win. I like the free exchange of ideas because sometimes you convince the other person; sometimes he convinces you, but always you get to see other points of view. We had plenty of weirdoes, but what we didn�t have were enforceable speech codes. People could ridicule you and argue against you, but they couldn�t shut you down. My impression is now they can.

I don’t know about these “PC speech codes” in general, but this was my experience: I went to Indiana University in the 90’s. In those days, and maybe still today, there was a uncredentialed preacher named “Mad Max” who would stand in the middle of campus and rant about the evils of homosexuality. Loudly. (He should have tried out for the opera, because he could really project.) Sometimes students would argue with him. He had no connection to the university, but they couldn’t rid of the guy if they wanted to because he was on public property.

The IU newspaper published David Horowitz’s notorious “advertisement” about slave reparations. The administration criticized the editors for not running opposing viewpoints in the same issue, but they didn’t say it was wrong to publish the ad at all.

We also had a “Miss Gay IU”. I’m sure some conservatives felt oppressed by this fact, but you were free to speak your mind on the matter. Mad Max certainly did.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 15, 2006 08:46 AM

But I have the right to complain when it is my tax dollars that are used to support dissident professors spouting anti-American drivel.

Posted by: Ray Clary at March 15, 2006 08:41 AM

Two comments:
- You can “complain” about anything you want. Would you agree that you have no right to decide the issue for private universities?
- Since when is calling BushII an evil incompetent asshole being anti-American? It is anti-Bush and is probably very pro-American. Posted by: dave at March 15, 2006 09:18 AM

Diogenes

Religion has no place in the science classroom. Creation science is about as valid as Marxism. It is BS and not science. I would certainty keep it out.

That is one of the points I am making in this article. Acdaemia should be about finding truth, not political ideology.

I don’t believe in any impediments to inquiry.

The experts don’t disagree with me (us). It depends on how you define experts. I think most experts who actually study the real word know that markets work better than government fiat. Free marketers so effectively won that argument that the counter argument sounds like flat world theory and can survive only in a hothouse environment where it is protected. Most of the disagreement is normative not descriptive. In that there can be no experts.

Woody

We had a guy on our campus called “Jed Smock”. He was like your Mad Max. He put on a good show. Maybe it’s the same guy. He would start out saying:

“The University of Wisconsin is full of drunks, and drug takers and wicked fornicators.” Most people didn’t disagree. In fact some were proud of that, especially the fornicator part (although for many of us it was an idle boast). But then he would go on. “And you are all going to Hell!”

These guys can still speak freely. I worry about debate in class. Here’s a hypothetical (and I don�€™t know the answer). If a freshman was asked to write about the most admirable black woman in history, and he chose Condoleezza Rice, would he get flack from most professors?

Posted by: Jack at March 15, 2006 09:40 AM

Full disclosure: I’m a political science professor with a PhD from a Big Midwestern U. My entire dissertation committee was conservative, but then, like many contemporary political scientists, I run with economists and statisticians, not humanities types. The chair of my PhD department was a consultant to Bush 41, and one of the senior faculty ran for Congress as a Republican in 94.

Anyway, I came across this article in the Duke U student paper, written by a conservative student in the aftermath of David Horowitz’ visit:

http://www.dukechronicle.com/media/paper884/news/2006/03/10/Columns/Warning.Dangerous.Column-1683874.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.dukechronicle.com

Posted by: Arr-squared at March 15, 2006 09:43 AM

Jack,

“Jed Smock”. What a name for a fire-and-brimstone preacher! Dickens would be jealous.

To answer your question, I think that the vast majority of college faculty would be delighted to read a cogent, well-written essay about the greatness of Condi Rice. Are there some who let their biases decide their grades? Probably. But that is why there is a process to appeal your grades. If you conservatives think they are getting shafted on their grades, then by all means present the evidence. Someone could even build a website for papers that got “biased” grades. Transparency can solve a lot of problems.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 15, 2006 09:56 AM

If a freshman was asked to write about the most admirable black woman in history, and he chose Condoleezza Rice, would he get flack from most professors?

Posted by: Jack at March 15, 2006 09:40 AM

See (1), below.
If it were well written and supported, my bet is even your friend W Churchill would give a good grade. But, if it were about Shirley Chisolm, I bet a neo-con prof would flunk you.

I will repost:

(1) A good professor knows the difference between stating his own opinion to generate discussion vs. holding students accountable to repeating those opinions with an impact onto grades.
2) The rightwing is more interested in suppresion of opinion because it might not agree with their�€™s vs. the leftwing is more interested in ensuring that all opinions are expressible(real word?).
Posted by: Dave at March 14, 2006 02:20 PM

r^2,
So you’re one of those intellectual elite, eh!? Does it make you laugh and/or shake your head when you encounter posts such as:

Because, the Ivy League grads use bigger words and are in a more elite club and, they just happen to be the one’s running the show. So, yeah it is pretty shitty but, what do we do to change this injustice to the common man?
Posted by chad at March 14, 2006 04:15 PM

Posted by: Dave at March 15, 2006 09:58 AM

Jack,

“If a freshman was asked to write about the most admirable black woman in history, and he chose Condoleezza Rice, would he get flack from most professors?”

I can’t imagine she would. The students at my university are overwhelmingly conservative, religious, and Republican, and I am, of course, fairly liberal. I teach quite a bit of Intro to American Government, and I assign a lot of short “critical thinking” essays, so I evaluate a lot of articulations of conservative viewpoints.

It’d be easy to write an A essay about Dr. Rice as the ‘most admirable black woman in history.’ Agree or disagree with her politics, her track record of success is amazing. Period.

The question is, can the student deploy relevant facts in support of her opinion and write in a clear, organized, and convincing manner. Period.

There are over 400,000 professors in American higher ed. Some of them suck abysmally, just as there are miserable failures in every profession. Certainly, it seems like the humanities and softer social sciences seem to attract more of the pontificators than other disciplines, but let’s be honest: that Marxist lit professor probably has virtually no impact at all on the median student, beyond learning how to tolerate idiots and blowhards. The latter is probably the single best real-world skill professors like this can impart.

And they exist on the right as well - I often hear one of our history faculty use his classroom to repeat Limbaugh and Hannity-esque slander and vilification. I once TA’d for a far-right crackpot who was the best classroom teacher I ever saw.

Personally, I find myself bending over backwards to give legitimacy to views that I find abhorrent, and I try to be provocative all across the ideological spectrum. It’s good customer service, and I take my students and their tuition dollars very seriously.

Dave,

Yup, I’m a proud part of the intellectual elite. I’m from a blue-collar family, financed virtually all of my education myself, a veteran, and am a damned good professor. Like Chad, I don’t have a lot of respect for the American aristocracy that the Ivies crank out at the undergrad level.

Posted by: Arr-squared at March 15, 2006 11:04 AM

r^2
Now that’s not nice, I am one of “Ivies”. Although I met my share of what you called aristocrats, they weren’t the majority (except probably within the MBA tracks). Most of us were just smart and hard working. Perhaps that’s changed since I went.
Nowadays it’s like watching burlesque when the middle and lower economic classes right wing rail against the “elite intellectual” yet these “elite” are a mixed set with the same people the right wing support in their next tirade. I.e. money first pure capitalist philosophy suits who in reality laugh and look down disparingly at the sheep who enrich them. Believe me, they do laugh. Just look at the boiler-rooms and “Only the poor pay taxes” attitudes.

Posted by: Dave at March 15, 2006 11:45 AM

Arr

I think you hit my point when you talked about Marxist lit.

There are only so many hours in a day and only so many days in a four year education. If you are getting stuck with Marxist lit or the various liberation courses, you are not studying useful or beautiful things. It is a free country and people can do as they please. Fortunately, the market does sort these things out after college, which is why an MBA is worth more than an MA gender studies. It also helps explain why Marxism is totally discredited everywhere but college campuses. They got no place else to go.

Posted by: Jack at March 15, 2006 11:46 AM

Why are these universities having trouble finding physicists that believe in intelligent design over the theory of evolution? They must not be looking. Riiiiiiiight.

Posted by: Max at March 15, 2006 12:23 PM

Jack,

I know it was your conversation with r^2, but let’s do a critical review of your post:

There are only so many hours in a day and only so many days in a four year education. If you are getting stuck with Marxist lit or the various liberation courses,

You are assuming Marxism is a required course. I can’t imagine a semester of Marx is a requirement anywhere in the US, I could be wrong…

you are not studying useful

Isn’t all knowledge useful? It helps to tell the “good” from the “bad” but mostly depends on a persons ability to understand and incorporate

or beautiful things

Is this a referral to liberal “arts”?

It is a free country and people can do as they please. Fortunately, the market does sort these things out after college, which is why an MBA is worth more than an MA gender studies.

True, but the MBA is worth shit today, unless it’s from a high powered school and then mostly for the persons contacts. We only hire MBAs with techincal degrees, otherwise their other skills are too limited. The MA in Gender Studies might be very helpful as a counsellor in a rape crisis center or in bias litigations, etc…

It also helps explain why Marxism is totally discredited everywhere but college campuses. They got no place else to go.

Cute, but irrelevent and unsupported by your prior assumptions. But the same could be said for neocons and the GOP.

Posted by: Dave at March 15, 2006 12:28 PM

When my friend’s school made the decision to not let military recruiters on campus, the president sent out an email explaining that he felt the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was unconstitutional. That’s all this was about. Get over it.

I also pity Bushies. I’m not totally over their betrayals of this country’s ideals and their placing a huge burden on my children, but I worry that so much reality denial will land some of them in mental institutions.

Posted by: Max at March 15, 2006 12:32 PM

Jack,

I don’t entirely disagree with you. Where I think you’re off base is the idea that students are “forced” to take biased courses. The evidence that I see is that students have more choices than ever.

At my institution, we have a University Studies (gen ed) distribution. Students have to take some number of classes to satisfy the distribution. For example, I am teaching a 300-level university studied course this semester (classical political philosophy - so I dug your “good and the beautiful” comment). Each student needs, I believe, 2 300-level courses to graduate. There are, literally, 110 courses that fit the requirement, spread through every department.

Surely, we can’t ALL of us be propagandizing? You take my classical thought class, you read the hell out of Plato, Aristotle, and Aeschylus. You analyze the texts. You compare and contrast. And of course, in my stat class, there’s no room for ideology, unless we’re measuring it.

You don’t want to take “The Social Construction of Gender Identity in Childrens’ Lit?” I don’t blame you. Don’t take it. Take my course. Not sure how to choose? Use the info at your disposal - ask friends, ratemyprofessors.com, whatever. Take responsibility for some of your education.

And regarding Marx, if you can read Capital and NOT find that his criticisms of laissez-faire capitalism have merit, you’re as shallow a thinker as the hypothetical professors you excoriate.

When did so many conservatives become victims?

Posted by: Arr-squared at March 15, 2006 01:28 PM

Arr

Re Marx - I found that what was good in Marx was not original and what was original was not good. His criticism of the market is sometimes valid (if dated even at the time, since he was using old data) but you can find them in many places. It is the way he puts it together with the class struggle, materialism, and dialectic crap that makes it silly.

I take your point about reading these things, however. A lefty professor made me read Marx. Before that I didn’t really know how bad it was.

Re Greek - I studied classical Greek and read Plato. Many of the references don’t come through as clearly in the English translations. I expect if they did, many of the homophobes would avoid him. I don’t advocate that, BTW, just an observation that I wonder if you have in your class.

Re taking things voluntarily. That is fine. But if a university has too many weirdo majors its student body will decline and if those in the marginal majors give out better grades it might be luring people into a time waste or worse a manipulation. I had a roommate who was not fond of study. He majored in engineering and had to maintain a 2.5 grade average (as I recall), so he double majored in engineering and African-American studies. He got Ds in engineering, but balanced them with the easy As in African-American studies. He was happy. His professors were happy. But I am not sure I would like to drive across a bridge he built.

Dave

All knowledge is useful in that sometimes you learn that something is not useful and can be avoided. It is like saying that every failure just shows you a way that something cannot be done. But besides these cases, some knowledge is not useful and it is not all equal. You have to weight the cost of acquiring it (time, money, opportunity) versus the knowledge. Some things you study just as truth or beauty, so not everything fits this paradigm, but most college courses do.

Re MBA - they make more money on average than gender studies majors. If the market decides gender stu