RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events How Liberal Profs Harass Conservatives

Quote:

---

Bruin Alumni Association Targets 'Radical' Faculty

An organization calling itself the "Bruin Alumni Association" that has no official affiliation with the University of California has published on online list of UCLA professors it deems "radical."? The Association also posted an online offer to pay students for evidence proving that instructors have been espousing left-wing views in class, in violation of University of California rules.

The Association lists an advisory board of UCLA alumnae that includes Senator and current Congressional candidate Bill Morrow, R-San Diego, former Congressman Jim Rogan, and former California Republican Party head Shawn Steel. The group's founder is Andrew Jones, a 2003 UCLA graduate who has worked as a research assistant to David Horowitz, the right-wing commentator closely identified with criticizing universities for being too liberal.

The Web site, www.uclaprofs.com, lists 31 current and former professors in disciplines such as African-American studies, Chicano studies, education, history and political science. These names are linked to detailed profiles of professors and their activities. There is also a ratings system in which faculty are rated from one to five "black power" fists to indicate how radical they are.

The site, which states that it was launched Jan. 7, also includes a button that reads, "UCLA Students: Help UCLAprofs and get paid!"? This invitation leads to a page that states:

"Do you have a professor who just can't stop talking about President Bush, about the war in Iraq, about the Republican Party, or any other ideological issue that has nothing to do with the class subject matter? It doesn't matter whether this is a past class, or your class for this coming winter quarter. If you help UCLAProfs.com expose the professor, we'll pay you for your work. Full, detailed lecture notes, all professor-distributed materials, and full tape recordings of every class session, for one class: $100."

This offer was followed by a list of another 24 professors who had yet to be profiled but were "of special interest." The text of the offer matched that sent to Capitol Weekly by several listed professors.

Offering to pay students for notes and recordings violates University of California rules, according to UCLA campus counsel Patricia Jasper. A 2003 policy gives instructors copyright on their class materials. Another rule precludes the recording off classes without explicit permission and disclosure of the purpose of the recording.

The original offer was taken down over the weekend, then reposted with numerous legal disclaimers. However, Jasper said, it was still not fully in compliance, and that she planned to contact Jones. Jasper said that she her only contact with Jones so far occurred last year, when she sent him a warning that his website and donation materials were causing confusion among some UCLA alumni, who thought the group was officially connected with the school.

---

Quote:

---

Jim Jackson said:
If someone points out real stats that show I'm wrong, I'll gladly apologize. I meant no offense by it. But if you extend the idea that Universities are Liberal bastions, then it only makes sense to assert that most educated people are Liberal.

Universities are full of educated people. It's kind of a prerequisite for getting a job. And Universities are Liberal bastions.

Draw the conclusion.

---

Quote:

---

magicjay38 said:
The very nature of a university is antithetical to conservative thinking. By definition a conservative is resistant to change. Inquiry by its very nature is about questioning and exploring new ways of thinking. It seeks to understand how things are rather than how things fit into the existing model of thought.

Academic careers are made by making new discoveries and seeing things in a new and different light. Those aren't among the charms of conservatism.

---

A professor at Northern Kentucky University said she invited students in one of her classes to destroy an anti-abortion display on campus Wednesday evening.

NKU police are investigating the incident, in which 400 crosses were removed from the ground near University Center and thrown in trash cans. The crosses, meant to represent a cemetery for aborted fetuses, had been temporarily erected last weekend by a student Right to Life group with permission from NKU officials. . . .

Witnesses reported "a group of females of various ages" committing the vandalism about 5:30 p.m., said Dave Tobertge, administrative sergeant with the campus police.

Sally Jacobsen, a longtime professor in NKU's literature and language department, said the display was dismantled by about nine students in one of her graduate-level classes.

"I did, outside of class during the break, invite students to express their freedom-of-speech rights to destroy the display if they wished to," Jacobsen said. . . .

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Hmmmmm....let's see...

A "student Right to Life group" goes to the effort of getting a permit to, and in fact does, erect a display in support of their deeply-held religious beliefs...

Despite said permit, a professor decides that said display is offensive to her, so she induces/conspires with a group of like-minded individuals to destroy the display.

And you think the students who put it up in the first place don't feel even the teensy bit, I dunno, harassed about having their project vandalized?

---

i can't believe you said "erect."
that's making it too easy for me.

Quote:

---

'Catch immigrant' game raises an outcry at PSU

Friday, April 14, 2006
By Bill Schackner, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette


The College Republicans at Penn State University wanted to enter the debate about the nation's borders by playing a "Catch an Illegal Immigrant Game."

People would be invited to "catch" group members wearing orange shirts symbolizing illegal aliens.

Amid the student outcry that ensued, they softened their plan to an illegal immigration awareness day in which leafleting and speech-making would let both sides air their views on immigration policies.

But that hasn't entirely erased the bad feeling over the campus event, now planned for Wednesday.

Yesterday, about 150 students and some faculty opposed to the idea rallied in the student union building. And the university itself joined the fray, urging the College Republicans to "re-think their approach as a step toward fostering civility on campus."

Penn State President Graham Spanier labeled the original idea "unproductive and offensive."

On any college campus, one person's crusade against intolerance is another person's bow to political correctness. Even as groups such as the Black Caucus and Latino Caucus registered passionate objections, others said they viewed the Republicans' plan -- the game included -- as a reasonable way to highlight concern about the nation's porous borders.

"You have to be creative to get students to listen to you," sophomore Chuck Knight wrote in a letter to the editor published recently in the student newspaper, The Daily Collegian. "For that matter, you have to be creative anytime you are trying to raise concern about something."

An official with the College Republicans seemed at a loss yesterday to understand the continuing outrage as he stood within earshot of speakers who decried his group as discriminatory and insensitive.

"They're against something that no longer exists," said Seth Bender, 20, chairman of the group and a sophomore from Lebanon. "I think they're just misinformed."

He said the controversy helped publicize the event. But he also said even some within his organization were uneasy with the original idea.

In recent days, the dispute over immigration and immigrant rights has turned out hundreds of thousands of protesters in cities across the nation. Such debate belongs on a university campus, said Penn State officials, and the Republicans' event as currently proposed, complete with a forum in which illegal immigration and the benefits of legal immigration are to be discussed, seems at least to be an attempt to do that.

"The Constitution allows College Republicans and other student groups to hold expressive events, even ones that may be deemed offensive by some," said Penn State spokesman Tysen Kendig.

Still, he said, there is lingering ill will that the event would be staged in any form. Some who registered complaints with the administration said they saw uncomfortable likenesses to the original game, down to participants designated to discuss illegal immigration wearing orange shirts.

Similar events staged by conservative students on other campuses, including the University of North Texas, have stirred emotions. And that was true at Penn State yesterday as protesters like alumnus Michael Benitez called the event unfit for his alma mater:

"If we're supposed to be a place that promotes diversity and social intelligence, why is this happening?"

---

Quote:

---

Captain Sammitch said:
Actually, the conservative label itself is pejorative in nature. I've never understood why you and others with similar political views are so eager to self-apply it.

---

Reyes Medrano, professor of business at Paradise Valley Community College and president-elect of the faculty association for the Maricopa Community College District ... said that while he doesn’t object to anyone flying a flag, he doesn’t see why it should be forced on college classrooms, especially when its meaning isn’t entirely positive to everyone. “I’m not anti-U.S. or anti-any country,” he said, but flags equate with nationalism, which “creates separatism and unnecessary conflict.”

Focusing on the flag, he said, can encourage people to “place our values in an institution rather than in humanity.”

According to the Wall St. Journal:

In a 60-question multiple-choice quiz, "college seniors failed the civic literacy exam, with an average score of 53.2 percent, or F, on a traditional grading scale." And at many schools "seniors know less than freshmen about America's history, government, foreign affairs, and economy."

The schools with the worst records, the Journal notes, include some of the top-ranked colleges in the nation:

Cornell, UC Berkeley and Johns Hopkins were the worst three, their seniors scoring between 3.3 and 7.3 percentage points worse than their freshmen. A[lso] on the negative list were some other very prestigious universities: Williams, Georgetown, Yale, Duke and Brown.

The Journal, citing a report from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute ("ISI"), recommended that universities "must improve the quantity and quality of their teaching" in this area.

ISI concludes that "students don't learn what colleges don't teach." In other words, in colleges where students must take more courses in American history they do better on the test, outperforming schools where fewer courses were completed. Seniors at the top test-scoring colleges "took an average of 4.2 history and political science courses, while seniors at the two lowest-ranked colleges . . . took an average of 2.9 history and political science courses." Similarly, higher ranked colleges spent more time on homework, 20 hours a week at fourth-ranked Grove City College and 14 or 15 at low-ranked [universities]"

I have to wonder whether an anti-American or liberal bias at some of these colleges might have also contributed to the decline in scores.

For example, Cornell, one of the lowest scoring schools, also has one of the lowest percentages of conservative faculty members, according to the September 2002 issue of American Enterprise. The possibility that the scores may be tied to liberal bias may also be supported by the areas where students tested better:

More than 80% of students could identify Franklin D. Roosevelt's programs as the New Deal, 79% knew that Brown v. Board of Education ordered an end to racial segregation

Certainly those are important parts of history but they aren't the only aspects of it. They are, however, well known as touchstones of the left's view of history.<

NYC Mayor Bloomberg took the unusual step yesterday of criticizing the president of Columbia University for not doing enough to foster free speech on the Ivy League campus.

His harshly worded assessment of the leadership of Lee Bollinger stemmed from recent campus upheaval surrounding the invitations of controversial speakers from both sides of the political spectrum.

The latest occurred this week, when scores of left-leaning students bum-rushed the founder of the conservative Minuteman Project just moments after he took the stage, forcing him to run for cover and cancel his address.

The speaker, Jim Gilchrist, was invited by students from the College Republicans.

"Bollinger's just got to get his hands around this," Bloomberg said to a caller on his weekly radio program on WABC. "There's just too many incidents at the same school where people get censored . . .

"I think it's an outrage that somebody who was invited didn't get a chance to speak."

In a statement released by the university, Bollinger did not directly address Bloomberg. But he called the disruption of the Minuteman address "one of the most serious breaches of academic faith that can occur in a university such as ours."

A university investigation of the incident is under way.

Chris Kulawik, 18, president of the College Republicans, applauded the mayor.

Many students interviewed believe the university must do more to ensure order at controversial events.

Quote:

---

Jim Jackson said:

I also do not feel it's a problem that Universities in general are havens for Liberalism. As I've said, this has LONG been the case. I think it's also the general case that educated people (people with advanced degrees) tend to be Liberal. And Universities are full of educated people LOL.

If someone points out real stats that show I'm wrong, I'll gladly apologize.

---

Quote:

---

Beardguy57 said:
UW Instructor Compares Bush to Hitler
By CARRIE ANTLFINGER, Associated Press Writer
5 hours ago

MILWAUKEE - A university instructor who came under scrutiny for arguing that the U.S. government orchestrated the Sept. 11 attacks likens President Bush to Adolf Hitler in an essay his students are being required to buy for his course.

The essay by Kevin Barrett, "Interpreting the Unspeakable: The Myth of 9/11," is part of a $20 book of essays by 15 authors, according to an unedited copy first obtained by WKOW-TV in Madison and later by The Associated Press.

The book's title is "9/11 and American Empire: Muslims, Jews, and Christians Speak Out." It is on the syllabus for Barrett's course at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, "Islam: Religion and Culture," but only three of the essays are required reading, not including Barrett's essay.

Barrett, a part-time instructor who holds a doctorate in African languages and literature and folklore from UW-Madison, is active in a group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth. The group's members say U.S. officials, not al-Qaida terrorists, were behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

"Like Bush and the neocons, Hitler and the Nazis inaugurated their new era by destroying an architectural monument and blaming its destruction on their designated enemies," he wrote.

Barrett said Tuesday he was comparing the attacks to the burning of the German parliament building, the Reichstag, in 1933, a key event in the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship.

"That's not comparing them as people, that's comparing the Reichstag fire to the demolition of the World Trade Center, and that's an accurate comparison that I would stand by," he said.

He added: "Hitler had a good 20 to 30 IQ points on Bush, so comparing Bush to Hitler would in many ways be an insult to Hitler."

Moira Megargee, publicity director for the Northampton, Mass., publisher Interlink, said the book is due out at the end of November and the editing isn't finished.

"It is not final and for all we know that essay may not be in the book or may be edited," she said.

The university's decision to allow Barrett to teach the course touched off a controversy over the summer once his views became widely known.

Sixty-one state legislators denounced the move. One county board cut its funding for the UW-Extension by $8,247 _ the amount Barrett will earn for teaching the course _ in a symbolic protest, even though the course is unrelated to that branch of the UW System.

Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle and his Republican challenger, Mark Green, have both said they believe Barrett should be fired.

One essay Barrett is requiring students to read is entitled: "A Clash Between Justice and Greed," and argues that conflicts between Islam and the western world were made up after the "collapse of the Soviet Union to justify U.S. 'defense' spending, and to provide a pretext of controlling the world's resources."

The author of another essay, "Interpreting Terrorism: Muslim Problem or Covert Operations Nightmare?," contends some western intelligence agencies are commiting acts of terrorism to make them look like the work of radical Islamics.

The university's chief academic officer, Provost Patrick Farrell, decided to retain Barrett for the course after reviewing his plans and qualifications. He said Barrett could present his ideas during one week of the course as long as students were allowed to challenge them.

He later warned Barrett to stop seeking publicity for his personal political views.

Farrell said he has not seen the essay, but faculty can assign readings that may not be popular to everyone.

"I think part of the role of any challenging course here is going to encourage students to think of things from a variety of perspectives," he said.

---

A report released on Wednesday on the political views of faculty members accuses professors of liberal "groupthink," a stance that the report says puts them at odds with the beliefs of most Americans on national and international issues.

The report, by the Institute for Jewish & Community Research, was based on an online, nationally representative survey of 1,259 professors at four-year colleges and universities in the spring of 2005. It found that, in general, professors are critical of American business and foreign policy and are skeptical of capitalism.

Professors, says the report, are at the "forefront of the political divide" over U.S. foreign policy that has developed since the 2001 terrorist attacks. Faculty members have "aligned themselves in direct opposition to the political philosophy of the conservative base voting for the prevailing political power" in America, it says. Unlike most Americans, it adds, faculty members "blame America for world problems" and regard U.S. policies as "suspect."

The report labels the faculty's overall stance as liberal "groupthink," and says it is dangerous because faculty members "are supposed to provide a broad range of ... approaches to addressing problems in American society and around the world." Professors are role models for students and frequently are called upon to act as "pundits" by the media and as experts on foreign policy, it adds.

"The fact that there are more liberals than conservatives on campus is not the key issue," Gary A. Tobin, president of the institute, said during a teleconference on Wednesday. "We argue that were the political ideology reversed -- that three of every four identified themselves as conservatives rather than liberals -- the problem would be exactly the same. The presence of a dominant ideology has the potential to interfere with unbiased, honest, and creative scholarship and teaching."

The Institute for Jewish & Community Research is a nonprofit think tank that performs research on a broad range of issues, including racial and religious identity, philanthropy, and higher education. It plans to release two additional reports based on the survey. One will cover the religious identity and behavior of college faculty members, and the other will gauge professors' attitudes toward the Middle East and U.S. foreign policy.

All told, Mr. Tobin called the survey "the most comprehensive look at the beliefs and ideology of faculty ever compiled."

"In early September, a Marquette University administrator removed a Barry quote about the federal government from Ph.D. student Stuart Ditsler's office door because the quote was "patently offensive." ....

In late August, Ditsler posted a quote by Dave Barry on his office door in the philosophy department. The quote read, "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government."

On September 5, Philosophy Department Chair James South sent Ditsler an e-mail stating that he had received several complaints and therefore removed the quote. He wrote, "While I am a strong supporter of academic freedom, I'm afraid that hallways and office doors are not `free-speech zones.' If material is patently offensive and has no obvious academic import or university sanction, I have little choice but to take note."

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
"As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government."

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Traditional conservatives (as well as libertarians) have tended to believe that government, at least big government, is a problem, not a solution.

---

Quote:

---

Animalman said:

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Traditional conservatives (as well as libertarians) have tended to believe that government, at least big government, is a problem, not a solution.

---

Yeah, but Dave Barry wasn't making a statement about the kind of government that was most preferable. He was saying that the government is generally corrupt and not trustworthy.

Distrust in the government is hardly an attitude exclusive to conservatives. In fact, in today's USA, the conservatives tend to be the ones saying we should all trust the government, or, at least, the conservative administration running it.

This is censorship, but not liberal censorship(technically, that's a kind of an oxymoron, anyway). I think you're reading something into it that wasn't there.

---

Quote:

---

Animalman said:
Yeah, but Dave Barry wasn't making a statement about the kind of government that was most preferable. He was saying that the government is generally corrupt and not trustworthy.

---

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
Ronald Reagan made many similar comments (as Dave Barry) about federal government.

---

Quote:

---

I'd hardly call Reagan a liberal.

---

Quote:

---

The point is that the PC thought police have struck again, and told a college professor what he can and cannot put on the door of his own office.

---

Quote:

---

Pariah said:
He didn't say anything of the sort. He said that the nature of big and complicated government is what's "untrustworthy."

---

Quote:

---

Your assumption that he's talking about government more literally (i.e. specifically talking about Bush), is totally opposite of Dave's comment.

---

Quote:

---

His satirical claim is stated in too broad a fashion for your argument to be true.

---

Quote:

---

Pariah said:
His satirical claim is stated in too broad a fashion for your argument to be true.

---

Quote:

---

Animalman said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
Ronald Reagan made many similar comments (as Dave Barry) about federal government.

---

Ronald Reagan called the government "an enemy"? That doesn't seem like something a President, ex-President, or aspiring President would do.

I must ask: what and when were some of these comments?

---

Quote:

---

thedoctor said:

• The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'
  
  
• The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
  
  
• The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them away.
  
  
• Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.
  
  
• People don't start wars, governments do.
  
  
• I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves.
  
  
• History teaches that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.

---

Quote:

---

Animalman said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
Ronald Reagan made many similar comments (as Dave Barry) about federal government.

---

Ronald Reagan called the government "an enemy"? That doesn't seem like something a President, ex-President, or aspiring President would do.

I must ask: what and when were some of these comments?

---

Quote:

---

Animalman said:
I said I wanted a when, too! Geez.

---

Quote:

---

Animalman said:
No, I don't think so. If he had, he probably would have said something remotely close to that, instead of saying what he actually said, which wasn't remotely close to that.

---

Quote:

---

His joke was that the government was an enemy. How is that a conservative perspective being expressed?

---

Quote:

---

I have no idea if he was talking specifically about this Bush, and I didn't make that claim, or imply it was so. For all I know, he wrote the comment 10 years ago(he wrote most of his books before 2000, so it's fairly likely he did).

---

Quote:

---

Animalman said:
Distrust in the government is hardly an attitude exclusive to conservatives. Infact, in today's USA, the conservatives tend to be the ones saying we should all trust the government, or, at least, the conservative administration running it.

---

Quote:

---

Regardless, these days, it doesn't appear to be a widespread belief amongst conservatives. Really, Barry's intent means less than the intepretation of the statement and the context in which it's placed.

---

Quote:

---

Anyway, the comment itself way too unspecific to ascribe a political agenda. That's my point. You, and G-Man, are making this out to be something it isn't, both on the part of Barry, and of the professor who interpreted the quote.

---

Quote:

---

Yet not too broad for you to attribute a "conservative lean" to it?

---

Quote:

---

Pariah said:
However, government in general is a beast.

---

Quote:

---

it is very safe to say that he was talking about the nature of government.

---

Quote:

---

Because modern conservatives don't want their lives governed by government. This is opposed to liberals who want particular sanctions for every social and business issue out there. The individual citizen cannot do anything for him/herself without socialist America deciding a law should be attached to his/her whims.

---

Quote:

---

This is a clear implication on your part that you thought the comment was regarding modern political extremes.

---

Quote:

---

Even if that strip was written 10 years ago, the 'Big Brother Conservative' label, used by the left, has been around since the mid-eighties.

---

Quote:

---

You could probably say that you were just humoring G-man, but at the same time, you also bothered to try and spin the joke.

---

Quote:

---

Which is my point.

---

Quote:

---

But your attempt at trying to spin G-man's observation by saying 'Conservatives trust in the administration' instead of just saying that the joke was "too broad" in the first place doesn't put your intent in a much better light.

---

Quote:

---

However, even in the face of my over-assumption, I'd still bet dollars to donuts that I got the context of Barry's joke right as well as South's interpretation.

---

Quote:

---

Once again: I wasn't simply interpreting Barry's intent, but also (and primarily) South's interpretation of what it meant.

---

Quote:

---

Also, I'd like to hear how you think the statement doesn't have a conservative lean to it

---