American Universities: Conservatives Need Not Apply

[Grantywanty]

Perhaps, but who put the system into place?

I think, if the New Deal is actually a liberalist policy, it was still accomplished by those who did the work ....which in almost all cases is the conservatives.

Baron Max

Baron, sometimes you never having read anything rears its ugly head. The people who did the physical work, for example, were union members in very high percentages and many of them liberal, certainly the vast majority voted liberal since they knew conservative politicians were serving the corporate interests more openly.

 

[Baron Max]

... The people who did the physical work, for example, were union members in very high percentages and many of them liberal, certainly the vast majority voted liberal since they knew conservative politicians were serving the corporate interests more openly.

Do you have any data to back up those foolish claims? Or are you just talking out of your ass in some idiotic attempt to make some point?

Baron Max

 

[Grantywanty]

Do you have any data to back up those foolish claims? Or are you just talking out of your ass in some idiotic attempt to make some point?

Baron Max

Uh, Max. You made a claim that it was conservatives who did all the work. I think that claim is a joke. You back that up with some statistics and I'll consider backing up mine.

 

[quadraphonics]

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?

Everything you mention here relates to administrators, not professors, and so has no bearing on the presentation of material in the classroom or the cannon. Moreover, these are all uncommon occurences that represent the exceptions to the rule of professionalism and integrity. There are plenty of college newspapers of all stripes that get stolen or vandalized, and the fact is that there's little the administration can do about it.

Race, sex, and sexual orientation are irrelevant. It's ideas that matter.

If you can't see that people of different races, genders and sexual orientations have dramatically different ideas about many subjects, you don't have the wherewithall to complain about these issues.

I doubt it. But I've never called for affirmative action or watering down the quality or integrity of education.

Well, like most "conservatives," you've been long on complaints and short on remedies, but it is clear that you favor politicizing the classroom, and support grossly unqualified academians on the pretext of their politics. This amounts to watering down and degrading education. That you're just smart enough not to admit this explicitly doesn't stop anyone from reading between the lines.

But, hey, don't let me put words in your mouth: why don't you sack up and propose some actual remedies to this supposed problem, instead of just pissing in the wind? You've made it clear that you don't expect academians to display integrity, and also demanded balance. How is that to be achieved other than through affirmative action for conservatives? Naturally, it's problematic for you to support affirmative action, but what's the alternative?

Quite the contrary. Quality suffers when only one side of every argument is allowed to be presented.

Or rather, your sense of entitlement suffers when your point of view is determined to be erroneous and so rightly excluded from the position of authority granted to educators. The idea that there is necessarily some legitimate "conservative" side to every issue is just another barely-concealed demand for political bias in the classroom.

 

[Tiassa]

To spin off Quadraphonics' last post, there is a certain irony to it.

In theory, a good professor (of any political alignment) will always suffer some natural bias. In fact, the harder a good professor tries to eliminate the natural bias, the more that bias will show. Because not only is the information the professor gives subject to the bias, but the information s/he receives, as well.

Which is why the seeming death of critical thinking in American education is worrisome.

Now, one of the problems with "conservative" scholarship is that it often proposes radical paradigm shifts. And while circumstances do occasionally call for such huge changes, it's rare, and those changes usually happen gradually, as the data comes in and the conclusions become inescapable.

But with "liberal" scholarship like Columbus revisionism, the change was simply to give attention to the primary sources. The rest--the condemnation of the Columbus cult--came from the fact that the primary sources paint a picture that offends common values. (He was a cold butcher, according to his own hand.)

"Conservative" scholarship, though, often seems to demand that we change the common values before looking at the information. Like I tried to point out about this whole Vietnam thing. There is on record at least one complaint that his "Vietnam was winnable" argument meant going absolutely overboard, and conducting ourselves in a manner we simply would not accept of anyone else. Blowing up dams, drowning the population, destroying the food supply, inviting epidemic. We, the United States, have agreed to not conduct ourselves that way, so accusing a "lack of political will" is a thoroughly political assertion.

What happens, then, is that in the end, conservatives pretend that it's solely about their politics, and in one of the great, ironic twists of American politics, weep and wail and demand affirmative action.

Question: Will conservatives open their demands for affirmative action so that universities should be required to hire a certain number of holocaust deniers? How about rape advocates? I mean, our psychology and women's studies departments severely lack any balance in that aspect. So where's the "she was asking for it" professor? I mean, don't students deserve to hear diverse points of view? What about the law school professor teaching the family law class that asserts that the U.S. Constitution contains no specific laws about marriage, therefore it's unconstitutional to ban polygamy or incestuous marriages? Don't our students deserve, for all their money and hard work, to hear diverse viewpoints?

 

[quadraphonics]

Question: Will conservatives open their demands for affirmative action so that universities should be required to hire a certain number of holocaust deniers? How about rape advocates? I mean, our psychology and women's studies departments severely lack any balance in that aspect. So where's the "she was asking for it" professor? I mean, don't students deserve to hear diverse points of view? What about the law school professor teaching the family law class that asserts that the U.S. Constitution contains no specific laws about marriage, therefore it's unconstitutional to ban polygamy or incestuous marriages? Don't our students deserve, for all their money and hard work, to hear diverse viewpoints?

Nice... this brings up a point that's often neglected in these exchanges: the place for shaking out the bias of researchers and educators is in the peer-review process used to decide what gets published and put into cirricula, not in the classroom. This process is conducted by professionals whose reputations are on the line, and features numerous mechanisms for correcting any mistakes that should happen to slip through.

The model of education implied by the conservative activists, wherein partisan "researchers" concoct theories in a vacuum, which schools then treat as equally valid and simply pass on unedited to the students for judgement, is a terrible idea and, thankfully, not even close to how it's done in actual universities. Despite all of the nice rhetoric about "marketplace of ideas" and "think for yourself," college education, at least at the undergrad level, consists almost entirely of bringing students up to speed on material that the experts settled ages ago, typically on the basis of authority. And with good reason.

All of which betrays the fundamental insecurity driving these conservative activists: they're not very intellectual, and feel threatened by people who are. Their lack of mental rigor is observed throughout their arguments (expecting nobody to notice that they're demanding affirmative action provided they don't actually use the words "affirmative action," for example) and their insecurity is attested by the ends they seek: the castration of intellectual authorities and subservience of educational institutions to political ends. Fortunately for the rest of us, few people are either craven or gullible enough to go along with this.

 

[joepistole]

Very, very well said Quad!

 

[iceaura]

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.

First, lets keep it clear: You aren't talking about "left wing" vs "right wing", you are talking about "other" vs Republican.

In their fields of expertise, you'll find these otherwise comfortingly Rep profs far other of official Rep assertions, quite often. Back in the 80s, for example, the sight of engineering and physics profs supporting Reagan on social and economic issues, but digging in their heels on the subject of Star Wars feasability, was common. That was often because they knew a lot about the factual reality of Star Wars feasability, and much less about the factual reality of Reaganite social and economic policy.

The expertise of humanities profs is in fields like history, anthropology, etc. So that's where their other views are to be found. This appears to you as "left wing monolith" because you have no idea what "left wing" looks like, and because you are looking at educated and informed people coming to judgment in their fields - a "monolith" that somehow encompasses bitter enemies and factional strife and divergent views, while not encompassing Republican talking points.

Well informed judgment in matters of factual reality is very often contrary to Republican political positions these days. That's going to be most visible among concentrations of the well-informed.

 

[madanthonywayne]

If you can't see that people of different races, genders and sexual orientations have dramatically different ideas about many subjects, you don't have the wherewithall to complain about these issues.

If you can't see that there's a diversity of opinion among people of all races, well, I'll refrain from your name calling.

Well, like most "conservatives," you've been long on complaints and short on remedies

That's right. Us conservatives are just so durn stoopid we plum don't deserve to be seen with respectable sorts, such as yourself.

, but it is clear that you favor politicizing the classroom, and support grossly unqualified academians on the pretext of their politics.

Is that clear? If you say so. Afterall, as a conservative, my opinions on such issues doesn't matter. Right?

That you're just smart enough.....

Yep, us conservatives are just barely smart enough.

But, hey, don't let me put words in your mouth

Too late

why don't you sack up and propose some actual remedies to this supposed problem

Well, the only solution is for us alumni and soon to be parents of college students to not support universities that spit upon our values.

You've made it clear that you don't expect academians to display integrity

Just like I don't expect the sun to rise in the west. Everyone is biased, even those who honestly try to not let it affect their decisions. That you feel it is a good thing to have our universities made up of people with all the intellectual diversity of the Harper Valley PTA astounds me.

Naturally, it's problematic for you to support affirmative action, but what's the alternative?

As I said. exert what control we can thru voting with our feet and not sending our children to the worst offenders. Publicize the most extreme cases so that the public knows what it's supporting.

The idea that there is necessarily some legitimate "conservative" side to every issue is just another barely-concealed demand for political bias in the classroom.

The idea that the left has a monopoly on truth is the height of arrogance.

PS Are you on the faculty of some college? You seem to take this issue quite personally.

 

[Tiassa]

In 1992, conservatives in Oregon, going after homosexuals, actually put on the ballot a measure so broad as to morally instruct the public medical schools. And psychologists. I wonder what lit class would have been like for Oscar Wilde? And reconstructing Sherwood Anderson. Nice.

This seems to be just the latest version of an ever-crumbling protest against progress. There is, generally, plenty of diversity among academics, who are known to fight something wicked over really random-seeming shit. It's just that this diversity is too subtle for this bloc of the conservative voice.

A favorite conservative argument is to point out that even the specialists can't agree. And sometimes this is a scam, when the ones making the complaint are in league with the ones trying to make a ridiculous argument. But even in terms of anthropology, history, and social sciences, what conservatives are trying to pretend is a conspiratorial monotone is, in fact, generally a discordant mess. I know this because there are plenty of strange theses I didn't get into because I don't have a doctorate.

In the '90s, with the Columbus thing, knowing they didn't have a leg to stand on, conservatives dared play the "how dare you tarnish a hero!" bit, which essentially scolded folks for paying attention to the truth and tarnishing a myth. Definitions of character assassination do not include pointing out what is (A) obvious, and (B) significant. If pointing out the truth makes the mythical hero ugly, what's the problem? As 9/11 reminds, we're capable of creating new myths. We've become cynical enough to build a tangled, ugly mess. And even if you focus the discussion to the point where the conspiracy theorists are excluded, there's going to be plenty of diversity about the significance. We have plenty to argue about before we get around to whether American currency really depicts the 9/11 attack.

 

[madanthonywayne]

In 1992, conservatives in Oregon, going after homosexuals, actually put on the ballot a measure so broad as to morally instruct the public medical schools. And psychologists. I wonder what lit class would have been like for Oscar Wilde? And reconstructing Sherwood Anderson. Nice.

Conservatives are not always right. Many of the more religious variety often pursue wrong headed policies such as what you're describing. But that doesn't justify intellectual apartheid.

 

[Grantywanty]

Conservatives are not always right. Many of the more religious variety often pursue wrong headed policies such as what you're describing. But that doesn't justify intellectual apartheid.

I went to a public school in a very liberal neighborhood. My 'social studies' education was straight out patriotic, on many occasions jingoistic. By omission it gave us a skewed history both domestically and in terms of foreign relations, to such a hysterically cleaned up and conservative degree that it is no wonder Americans have no understanding about why anyone might be justified in being angry - from within or without. This was not some statistical fluke. I worked in the school system for a period in the 90s and this crap is still the rule. Sure some teachers make it more complex, but textbooks and teachers take a conservative approach to history in public schools. There is liberal dressing of course and nice sections on Martin Luther King, etc. But the core is very conservative.

Whatever imbalance there may be in state institutions will hardly manage to play catch up with students whose opinions have long since been shaped. Conservatives whine about this imbalance but always seemed perfectly content with kids saluting and pledging the flag, the silencing of kids who questioned mythical and one sided accounts of a wide range of issues, textbooks that were de facto edited by certain southern states - publishers had to cowtow to them or they would have to publish two textbooks - and so on.

 

[iceaura]

But that doesn't justify intellectual apartheid.

It's not intellectual apartheid. The intellectuals are all grouped together.

 

[madanthonywayne]

It's not intellectual apartheid. The intellectuals are all grouped together.

That's what the Afrikaners said, too.

 

[Grantywanty]

That's what the Afrikaners said, too.

I think you've pushed that metaphor too far. Like feminazis it's trying to get impact from situations that are quantitatively and qualitatively so vastly more severe.

 

[madanthonywayne]

I think you've pushed that metaphor too far. Like feminazis it's trying to get impact from situations that are quantitatively and qualitatively so vastly more severe.

You're correct, of course. But with entire departments devoid of a single Republican, it's not that much of a reach to use a term that means "separate-ness".

Feminazi is a good one. It was brilliant of Rush Limbaugh to create that term. It took the term, nazi, which had been thrown at conservatives for decades, and threw it back on those who had been using it for so long.

 

[peta9]

Feminism is a natural occurence of evolution. The fantasy of males being responsible for and to women and thier offspring and women being able to depend on them is just that, a fantasy. Women have realized this and need to fend for themselves. You can't do this well barefoot and pregnant, uneducated and wishing upon hope that your wayward spouse or mate will show up not drunk, womanizing, abusive or spending needed cash for home and family on other women, carousing etc.

Of course, not all men are irresponsible but there is no guarantees in life so you have to make sure you can take up the slack. You can't expect someone to be helpless and depend on you soley when you can't live up to your end of the bargain. The helpless state of women has been very painful for them as well with their experiences.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Feminism is a natural occurence of evolution.

Not at all. Feminism is an artifact of high tech civilization.

 

[peta9]

Not at all. Feminism is an artifact of high tech civilization.

No it's not. You've got it backwards actually. In the animal kingdom, most females are alone to fend for themselves and thier offspring. But then their are other animals who have a different social strata, some mate for life, some live in packs, some are solitary etc. It depends on those factors and for how long they are viable.

 

[madanthonywayne]

No it's not. You've got it backwards actually. In the animal kingdom, most females are alone to fend for themselves and thier offspring. But then their are other animals who have a different social strata, some mate for life, some live in packs, some are solitary etc. It depends on those factors and for how long they are viable.

You can't arbitrary draw examples from the animal kingdom. Their are plenty of animals in which the male is much smaller than the female. Hell, the praying mantis kills the male during sex.

In humans, low tech civilizations tend to be Patriachial because a premium is put on brute strength. Woman are weaker than men, so they get the short end of the stick in low tech civilizations.

In high tech civilizations where physical strength is not so important, woman can achieve equal status.