American Universities: Conservatives Need Not Apply

[madanthonywayne]

but one cannot be a professor of biology there without an accurate comprehension of the theory of evolution, or a professor of geology there and insist on the Noachian Flood as described in the Old Testament.

Give me a fuckin' break. No one is suggesting that kind of nonsense. Who cares what the political views of a geologist or biologist are? It doesn't matter a bit (which is why there are plenty of conservatives there, they're not weeded out as they are in the humanities). It's in areas of study where your political viewpoint matters there should be a balance. History, Philosophy, Polysci. That kind of stuff should not be taught from just one side of the aisle.

 

[joepistole]

I went to college and no doubt there were some wacko way out over the edge types in the humanities schools. However, I was not harmed by hearing their views. In fact it was a good exercise in logical thinking. The problem I have with conservatism as practiced in the Bushie era, is that there is no tollerance for other ideas.

 

[Tiassa]

Notes on the aisle

It's in areas of study where your political viewpoint matters there should be a balance. History, Philosophy, Polysci. That kind of stuff should not be taught from just one side of the aisle.

Philosophy as it would have been taught by Pastor Les Olsen, the Lutheran preacher regarded as the catalyst for my final fall away from Christianity:

"We don't ask those questions."​

My point being that even subjects like history and philosophy at some point appeal to reality.

For instance, "Lone Star Edition" textbooks are those made specifically for use in Texas, where textbook adoption boards are hostile to anything that attempts to correct the "Myth of Southern Reconstruction". If the primary historical record contradicts the history told, are you proposing that the mythical history deserves equal time?

With history, conservatives don't seem to understand the idea of revisionism. With the Columbus Myth, conservatives complained that we were demonizing the man for political correctness reasons. For many students, though, that revisionism was the first time they ever learned about the historical record as it pertains to Columbus. The whole rosy story we were taught was a complete fabrication. And yet there are "sides of the aisle" on this one? The Myth of Southern Reconstruction pretends that blacks never recovered from slavery, that the reason for problems in the black community is that blacks were lazy and unable to care for themselves once released from benevolent bondage. This, of course, overlooks the historical record. But including data from the actual record is apparently "politically motivated". The colonization of the American continent is a debacle as far as the teaching of history is concerned. Scalping? Taught to the tribes by the whites, who paid bounties to friendly tribes for killing off enemy tribes so that whites could take the land. Manhattan Island? Great deal. Purchased from a tribe rivaling the occupants. The land was empty? In certain areas following epidemics brought by Europeans. Including these parts of the historical record, though, is decried as having political motivations.

One of the comments I quoted from a blog page suggested something I've been wondering about. To reiterate:

I was a faculty member in the Texas Tech history department when Moyer stopped in for his interview and job talk. He argued that we should have won the Vietnam war by bombing dams in North Vietnam, flooding the farmland, and drowning the peasants. Only we didn't have the "political will" (or something to that effect) to do it. He was like a character from Dr. Strangelove. He also argued that we actually won the Vietnam war, in a strategic sense, by buying time to split the Chinese from the Soviets.

(Anonymous)

That sounds a bit like pointing out that we could win Iraq, except we don't have the political will to nuke the place.

Moyar's book allegedly contains "new" sources, but what, at this point, does that mean? The revisionism conservatives decried in the 1990s was a revival of the historical record itself. The revisionism of Moyar's work, at least as we've been exposed to it, suggest that the major revision of the historical perspective is a rearrangement of moral and ethical priorities. And this is why people have reservations about that kind of revisionism. "We could have won the war if only we'd gone out of our way to kill enough civilians."

There comes a point when one must also support the shift of moral paradigm. Because, in the end, a statement asserts itself: The idea of "human rights" prevented us from winning the Vietnam War. Would anyone agree in general? Would anyone agree that such a statement is tacit in the alleged outlook he offered at Texas Tech? Bombing dams. Flooding farmland. Drowning peasants.

Do conservatives really believe in that sort of thing? If so, the problem with teaching from that side of the aisle is that it's murderous, jingoistic, and ... here's the truly political kicker, it "cheapens human life".

Revisionism that demands attention to the primary historical record has merit. Revisionism that demands a moral/ethical paradigm shift needs to prove the merit of that change.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Philosophy as it would have been taught by Pastor Les Olsen, the Lutheran preacher regarded as the catalyst for my final fall away from Christianity:

"We don't ask those questions."​

My point being that even subjects like history and philosophy at some point appeal to reality.

WE DON'T ASK THOSE QUESTIONS. Exactly. All questions should be asked. Not just questions from the Left.

 

[quadraphonics]

Give me a fuckin' break. No one is suggesting that kind of nonsense. Who cares what the political views of a geologist or biologist are? It doesn't matter a bit (which is why there are plenty of conservatives there, they're not weeded out as they are in the humanities).

Except, no, there's hardly any conservatives in those areas of academia either. It's just that you never realize that all of your professors are flaming liberals because politics doesn't come up in those classes. There are lots of reasons that conservatives don't show up in academia much, but conspiracy is not one of them.

It's in areas of study where your political viewpoint matters there should be a balance. History, Philosophy, Polysci. That kind of stuff should not be taught from just one side of the aisle.

This argument is a transparent attempt to politicize these fields of study. Every reasonable person knows that the resolution to issues of bias is to require professional objectivity from the academians in question. Their jobs and reputations should be endangered by partisan behavior in the classroom. But to start with the premise that they're all incorrigible partisans in the first place amounts to rejecting the ideal of objectivity, which legitimates the approach of education as propaganda. To further suggest that "balance" will resolve this issue is nothing more than a flimsy pretext for demanding "conservative" propagandizing in the classroom. This is the same approach that Fox News uses to justify replacing news with propaganda.

The funny thing about all this is that the people doing it call themselves "conservatives" and like to go on screeds about keeping the government small and out of the way. And yet, here they are, demanding that all of our cultural and civic institutions be subordinated into propaganda instruments for political movements. The worst part is the victim pose they adopt while making these arguments.

 

[iceaura]

Give me a fuckin' break. No one is suggesting that kind of nonsense. Who cares what the political views of a geologist or biologist are?

You were using statistics from entire faculties fro your point, not just those small areas of the humanities where the kind of political party bias you find so important would make any difference.

And even in the humanities the reality problem is severe, for Republicans of the recent generation.

So you are suggesting exactly that kind of nonsense.

WE DON'T ASK THOSE QUESTIONS. Exactly. All questions should be asked. Not just questions from the Left.

And so professors of the Right are hired as faculty, quite often. Most of them Democrats, if they have any Party, of course. Because:

Again, do you really think that every single Republican to apply was unqualified? Every single one?

I think it quite possible taht very few of the qualified academics in many fields are Republican, regardless of their conservative or liberal or left or right personal affiliations. The Republican Party has thrown in with anti-intellectual cult-like religion, and it would not surprise me if very few high quality intellectuals are willing to throw themselves in with it.

 

[Tiassa]

So much for humanity

WE DON'T ASK THOSE QUESTIONS. Exactly. All questions should be asked. Not just questions from the Left.

I agree, despite the fact that you missed the point.

Let's ask some of those questions. Pencils, everybody?

(1) Could the United States have won the war by bombing the dams, flooding the land, disrupting the food supply, killing even more civilians, and inviting epidemic upon the land?

(2) Should the United States withdraw its participation in the Geneva Conventions?

(3) Should the concept of "war crimes" be disregarded?

(4) How is the mass killing of civilians in pursuit of a political goal justified?

(5) What was the moral or ethical (as compared to the purely territorial and statutory) offense of the September 11, 2001 attacks against New York and Washington, D.C.?​

They're all related questions arising from the thesis considered in #1.

Some folks may not like the way the Vietnam War is viewed in history, and that's their right. But proposing to teach students that mass killings of civilians is an appropriate tool in pursuit of political goals is, indeed, a questionable idea. It seems to me we object to that when other people teach it.

I guess it's just one of those things about American exceptionalism, right? If it's the "Commies" or "Islamists" or anyone else in the world, it's wrong. But if it's the Americans, how dare we suggest there's something amiss about it?

The Vietnam War was an ethical disaster to begin with. If the way to resolve an ethical disaster is to abandon ethics, fine. But teaching arbitrary exceptionalism in ethical considerations is pretty stupid.

It's not always the phrase of the thesis itself, Madanthonywayne. It's also the necessary rearrangement of reality, history, and humanity: there's only so much you can ask before people are going to say, "Now just wait a minute ...."

And when they do, it's not that there's some evil conspiracy against conservatives any more than laws against murder are a conspiracy against Charles Manson.

Bottom line: Are you willing to reorganize the American/Western/"free world" social contract that says government is there for the benefit of the people, in order that people should now exist for the sake of governments?

It's not just the thesis, Madanthonywayne, but where it leads.

 

[Baron Max]

(4) How is the mass killing of civilians in pursuit of a political goal justified?

Interesting that you should mention that ...because that's just exactly wha the North Vietnamese did before, during and after the Vietnam War. And yet most of y'all here seem quite happy to point out that the North Vietnamese "won" the war. Millions of South Vietnamese civilians were killed as well as many were taken to "re-education" camps after the war. And ya' know what? Most of that is simply forgotten, or peope just pretend that it didn't happen.

So, ...ya' know, perhaps that IS the way to win a war. At least many people here are quite happy to point out that the US lost that war.

(1) Could the United States have won the war by bombing the dams, flooding the land, disrupting the food supply, killing even more civilians, and inviting epidemic upon the land?

Judging by the notes above, perhaps that's the way to do it. All-out war, kill everything that moves, get it over with quickly, ........and people will forget it in a very short time.

Bottom line: Are you willing to reorganize the American/Western/"free world" social contract that says government is there for the benefit of the people, in order that people should now exist for the sake of governments?

Whenever anyone makes a statement like that, I always want them to define exactly what they mean by "the people". Since we, in the USA, are now more divided on more issues than ever before in history, just exactly who are "the people"? And how do we get "the people" to agree on anything when they can't even agree on simple things like banning smoking or not; like legalizing drugs; like social healthcare; .....and many other simple issues.

Who the fuck are "the people" anyway? Even a good hint would help me. And does it include criminals?

Baron Max

 

[Tiassa]

Advice for the challenged ....

Interesting that you should mention that ...because that's just exactly wha the North Vietnamese did before, during and after the Vietnam War.

So ... we should hope to be just like them, then?

Judging by the notes above, perhaps that's the way to do it. All-out war, kill everything that moves, get it over with quickly, ........and people will forget it in a very short time.

The problem with war is that it doesn't bring peace, except by a perverse definition that counts the heartbeats until the next war.

Which raises the flip-side: constant warfare, so people don't have time to worry about this or that atrocity.

Whenever anyone makes a statement like that, I always want them to define exactly what they mean by "the people". Since we, in the USA, are now more divided on more issues than ever before in history, just exactly who are "the people"? And how do we get "the people" to agree on anything when they can't even agree on simple things like banning smoking or not; like legalizing drugs; like social healthcare; .....and many other simple issues.

Who the fuck are "the people" anyway? Even a good hint would help me. And does it include criminals?

"The People" includes all human beings under the jurisdiction of any given government.

And whenever somebody makes a statement like yours in response to a question like the one I asked, I always wonder what the hell they're afraid of.

Here, I'll retool the question, even though you still might have difficulties:

Are you willing to reorganize the social contract so that you exists solely for the benefit of the government?​

 

[Baron Max]

So ... we should hope to be just like them, then?

Well, it worked, didn't it? The Vietnamese kicked us out, and they won the war, and they still continued to kill innocent civilians and steal the homes and businesses of the people of the south. Sure, it worked and they won and look what we're doing now .....the whole world is happily trading with the Vietnamese as if nothuing ever happened.

The problem with war is that it doesn't bring peace, except by a perverse definition that counts the heartbeats until the next war.

I doubt that there's a single person on Earth who'd say that there was/isn't peace in Vietnam today. And more to the point, everyone on Earth wants to trade with them, too. So, no, I don't see any problems with the North Vietnamese being overly cruel and harsh and killing millions of people, do you? ....especially since it all turned out so well in the end.

Which raises the flip-side: constant warfare, so people don't have time to worry about this or that atrocity.

Good point. Most people can't even remember yesterday's atrocity, can they? Unless they're reminded, most probably couldn't even name two! But, of course, they could name hundreds of famous actors and actresses, and probably tell you what the latest scandal about them is. See? Important stuff, not that mundane crap about killing people and blowing up things.

"The People" includes all human beings under the jurisdiction of any given government.

And have "the people" ever agreed on any fuckin' thing in all of history? ...without being forced in one way or another?

And whenever somebody makes a statement like yours in response to a question like the one I asked, I always wonder what the hell they're afraid of.[/q

Here, I'll retool the question, even though you still might have difficulties:

Are you willing to reorganize the social contract so that you exists solely for the benefit of the government?​

 

[Baron Max]

So ... we should hope to be just like them, then?

Well, it worked, didn't it? The North Vietnamese kicked us out, and they won the war, and they still continued to kill innocent civilians and steal the homes and businesses of the people of the south. Sure, it worked and they won and look what we're doing now .....the whole world is happily trading with the Vietnamese as if nothing ever happened.

The problem with war is that it doesn't bring peace, except by a perverse definition that counts the heartbeats until the next war.

I doubt that there's a single person on Earth who'd say that there was/isn't peace in Vietnam today. And more to the point, everyone on Earth wants to trade with them, too. So, no, I don't see any problems with the North Vietnamese being overly cruel and harsh and killing millions of people, do you? ....especially since it all turned out so well in the end.

Which raises the flip-side: constant warfare, so people don't have time to worry about this or that atrocity.

Good point. Most people can't even remember yesterday's atrocity, can they? Unless they're reminded, most probably couldn't even name two! But, of course, they could name hundreds of famous actors and actresses, and probably tell you what the latest scandal about them is. See? Important stuff, not that mundane crap about killing people and blowing up things.

"The People" includes all human beings under the jurisdiction of any given government.

And have "the people" ever agreed on any fuckin' thing in all of history? ...without being forced in one way or another?

And whenever somebody makes a statement like yours in response to a question like the one I asked, I always wonder what the hell they're afraid of.

Hell, that's easy, Tiassa ....I'm afraid of "the people"!!! You know, ...the ones that have brought wars and diseases and famine and conflict and murder and assault and rape and death and destruction and................ Yeah, I'm afraid of "the people", for sure.

Baron Max

 

[Tiassa]

Well, it worked, didn't it? The North Vietnamese kicked us out, and they won the war, and they still continued to kill innocent civilians and steal the homes and businesses of the people of the south. Sure, it worked and they won and look what we're doing now .....the whole world is happily trading with the Vietnamese as if nothing ever happened.

Yeah, well ... it is disappointing. And it's one of the reasons so many liberals are peaceniks: History suggests war doesn't do much for greater humanity.

I doubt that there's a single person on Earth who'd say that there was/isn't peace in Vietnam today. And more to the point, everyone on Earth wants to trade with them, too. So, no, I don't see any problems with the North Vietnamese being overly cruel and harsh and killing millions of people, do you? ....especially since it all turned out so well in the end.

Turned out great, didn't it?

Point 1: The perverse definition of peace is, "temporary cessation of hostilities".

Point 2: Peace, by that definition, does not mean much.

Point 3: There still isn't justice in Vietnam, where worker exploitation runs rampant.

Depends on what you mean by "turned out great". For Nike executives? Yeah. For the Vietnamese people? Not so much.

Good point. Most people can't even remember yesterday's atrocity, can they? Unless they're reminded, most probably couldn't even name two! But, of course, they could name hundreds of famous actors and actresses, and probably tell you what the latest scandal about them is. See? Important stuff, not that mundane crap about killing people and blowing up things.

And?

And have "the people" ever agreed on any fuckin' thing in all of history? ...without being forced in one way or another?

What does unanimity have to do with anything?

Hell, that's easy, Tiassa ....I'm afraid of "the people"!!! You know, ...the ones that have brought wars and diseases and famine and conflict and murder and assault and rape and death and destruction and................ Yeah, I'm afraid of "the people", for sure.

Well, shit, Max. That was obvious.

Of course, the most frightening thing of all, then, is that people should be equal before the law and treated with according decency?

Still, though, you dodged the question.

Are you willing to reorganize the social contract so that you exist solely for the benefit of the government?​

 

[madanthonywayne]

Except, no, there's hardly any conservatives in those areas of academia either. It's just that you never realize that all of your professors are flaming liberals because politics doesn't come up in those classes.

Sorry, I know that's not true because I knew many of my professors in the sciences well enough to know their feelings on politics. Overall, I'd say they were, perhaps, a bit more liberal than the general public. But by no means the left wing monolith seen in the humanities.

This argument is a transparent attempt to politicize these fields of study. Every reasonable person knows that the resolution to issues of bias is to require professional objectivity from the academians in question.

Did you go to college? You might as well call for honesty in government.

The funny thing about all this is that the people doing it call themselves "conservatives" and like to go on screeds about keeping the government small and out of the way. And yet, here they are, demanding that all of our cultural and civic institutions be subordinated into propaganda instruments for political movements.

You've got that exactly backwards. We want them to cease being left wing, anti-American propaganda instruments.

Your blindness on this issue is amazing. When the political affiliation of entire departments is 100% uniform, you don't suspect that it played some role in hiring decisions?

 

[madanthonywayne]

Judging by the notes above, perhaps that's the way to do it. All-out war, kill everything that moves, get it over with quickly, ........and people will forget it in a very short time.

Max,
I think you're right. War is hell. In trying to make it more humane, we simply drag it out. Really, the thing to do is fight like a madman. Kill everything that moves. Get the damned war over quickly, and people won't fuck with you again.

 

[Roman]

Max,
I think you're right. War is hell. In trying to make it more humane, we simply drag it out. Really, the thing to do is fight like a madman. Kill everything that moves. Get the damned war over quickly, and people won't fuck with you again.

Let's free them from Saddam by KILLING THEM ALL.

Knew you'd come around to seeing it my way one of these days.

 

[Tiassa]

War is hell. In trying to make it more humane, we simply drag it out. Really, the thing to do is fight like a madman. Kill everything that moves. Get the damned war over quickly, and people won't fuck with you again.

Which people won't fuck with you again? People in general? Or the ones you've just killed off?

Because I have a better idea. Don't go to war. If someone comes and fucks with you, do the job. But don't send troops abroad to establish machismo credentials for the nation for stupid reasons. For instance:

• Justified: They're shooting at us with these missiles, they aren't going to stop; we need to wreck their ability to shoot missiles at us.

• Unjustified: They're shooting at us with these missiles, they aren't going to stop; we need to invade, topple the regime, and then set up a puppet government in an effort to make foreign people our subjects.

• Unjustified: These guys from, like, Saudi Arabia just nailed us. They're dead. And their boss is somewhere in Afghanistan, or maybe Pakistan. Let's go invade Iraq, topple the regime, and then set up a puppet government in an effort to make foreign people our subjects.​

One of the things American warmongers forget is that the reason we're hard on our leaders for relatively minor fuckups in Iraq is that we shouldn't be there in the first place. When the war pigs get all huffy and demand, "What--what--what about ... what about, like, North Korea? Why do you want the terrorists to win?" they're just being stupid. Okay, look: We know Hussein was a bad guy. We said so years ago when Don Rumsfeld went over and stroked him. We know Kim Jong-Il is nuts; damn it, man, we knew years ago.

But Bush? He's supposed to be the good guy. The hero. It's a bit like if the Rebel Alliance, facing the threat from Coruscant and a new Death Star, ignored the Emperor and Vader and instead bombed Tattooine because Ewoks had taken the Princess prisoner.

So, yeah. When the good guys stoop to evil, they're called out. When the good guys are shown to be insincere, they're called out. When that insincerity costs unnecessary lives, they're called out. Get used to the obligations of being the good guys, or step aside and let someone else have the role.

I would let this country rot in its own filth, except that it's my home, too. If we're going to go to war, we ought to have a proper reason. Pearl Harbor was a pretty good reason. The German declaration of war was enough of a reason. 9/11? A fine reason to go after bin Laden, but our administration went out of its way to make as much of a mess of that as it could. Spending the whole of our credibility in an attempt to con the world over Iraq?

Yeah, whatever. Now we've got an activist conservative professor challenging the history of the Vietnam war on the basis that we should have hit dams and created even greater civilian casualties, creating a human disaster ... and just in time to use that "historical" platform as a foundation to advocate continued irresponsibility in Iraq.

And then he complains that he's not getting hired because of his views?

Meanwhile, academics are scratching their heads, saying that the allegations don't add up?

Which leaves us with: A conservative activist hyping a non-story on false pretenses in order to sell more books and spread a gospel of warfare and human disaster.

Yet the response to that is to advocate even more human disaster?

I'm starting to wonder if it's only the legal requirement to not do so that keeps conservative resumes out of the shredders. I mean, really ... if someone came to me with that kind of pitch during a job interview, it would be hard to keep a straight face.

I laugh beause it's easier to treat such reprehensible theories as a joke than it is to weep for the wretched state of humanity.

 

[madanthonywayne]

And then he complains that he's not getting hired because of his views?

Damn, you're on a tear now. Yeah, let's not hire any conservatives! Lets shred their resumes! Let's be sure the ideas presented at our public university are as tilted and biased as one of Tiassa'a posts!

Say, could I use a test like this? Could I ask prospective job applicants which political party they support and shred the applications from Democrats?

 

[quadraphonics]

Sorry, I know that's not true because I knew many of my professors in the sciences well enough to know their feelings on politics. Overall, I'd say they were, perhaps, a bit more liberal than the general public. But by no means the left wing monolith seen in the humanities.

Way more liberal than the general public, in my experience. Or at least way more likely to be registered as either Democrat or Independent. The differences between the science/engineering/math departments and humanities/social sciences departments is more one of disposition than politics. The former aren't the type to attend protest marches or write snarky letters to the editor, but that doesn't mean they're what would count for conservatives outside of the ivory tower. Outside of a few notable exceptions, of course.

Did you go to college?

I've spent longer in college than you've spent breathing, to judge by your rhetoric.

You might as well call for honesty in government.

As long as we're clear that honesty and the integrity are not among your goals here...

You've got that exactly backwards. We want them to cease being left wing, anti-American propaganda instruments.

Given that you don't expect professors to act in a nonpartisan way, and are demanding higher representation of right wing professors, it follows that you do not want them to cease the supposed liberal partisan activities. Rather, you claim to want to "balance" them with an equal number of conservative partisans. Indeed, were the liberal humanities professors to shut up, you'd have no pretext upon which to demand right-wing propagandizing in the classroom. The desired outcome, obviously, is a situation where conservative partisans openly corrupt the school system in the name of "fairness." The supposed liberal partisans, meanwhile, do not subscribe to the notion that politicization of academia is acceptable, and so are left in a position where they cannot effectively counter the onslaught.

Of course, to be receptive to this program, a person has to either share your nefarious goals, or be too daft to see the problem with promoting partisanship in academia as a remedy for partisanship in academia. The latter types being unlikely to have much of an intellectual streak, and so open to your hyperboles about the evils of liberal professors, there is a certain cynical logic to this plan. Fortunately for everyone, however, the appeal is still far short of what would be necessary to satisfy your designs. Which leaves us with the sad spectacle of you bitching and moaning.

Your blindness on this issue is amazing. When the political affiliation of entire departments is 100% uniform, you don't suspect that it played some role in hiring decisions?

The gender affiliation of many departments is as uniform as the political affiliations you're so worried about. However, this has been conclusively shown not to result from gender bias in admissions and hiring, but rather from self-selection. It doesn't seem any bigger a stretch to suppose that conservatives have an aversion to the humanities than to suggest that females have an aversion to engineering. And yet, where are your demands for greater balance in terms of gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.?

If conservatives want more representation in the humanities, they need to put their money where their mouths are and pursue scholarship in the humanities in greater numbers. If you they do solid work, there will be nothing that the feared liberal cabal can do to stop them and, best of all, we'll end up *increasing* the quality and integrity of education instead of watering it down and politicizing it. On the other hand, if interest in the humanities does not extent beyond its utility as a propaganda instrument, don't expect the rest of us to take your indignant posturing seriously. It's like conservatives are so fond of telling minorities when the subject of affirmative action comes up: put up or shut up.

 

[Tiassa]

Lets shred their resumes!

Well, if they're not going to be serious about the situation, why should anyone else?

Oh, right, because a fair and equal society is one in which you profit, but never have to give back.

 

[madanthonywayne]

The supposed liberal partisans, meanwhile, do not subscribe to the notion that politicization of academia is acceptable, and so are left in a position where they cannot effectively counter the onslaught.

The liberals do not subscribe to that notion? The same guys who have instituted speech codes at universities across the country? The same guys who make students go thru sensitivity training? The same guys who look the other way when every edition of a conservative paper is stolen?

And yet, where are your demands for greater balance in terms of gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.?

Race, sex, and sexual orientation are irrelevant. It's ideas that matter. Not the density of melanin in your skin or whether you reproductive organs are on the inside or outside! I'll take a black, gay, female conservative over a white, straight, male any day.

If you they do solid work, there will be nothing that the feared liberal cabal can do to stop them and, best of all, we'll end up *increasing* the quality and integrity of education instead of watering it down and politicizing it.

I doubt it. But I've never called for affirmative action or watering down the quality or integrity of education. Quite the contrary. Quality suffers when only one side of every argument is allowed to be presented.

I've spent longer in college than you've spent breathing, to judge by your rhetoric.

Insult noted. You don't have to get testy.