Quote: Animalman said: According to you and G-Man, this is a conservative belief, rather than something everybody who doesn't work in the government(and, apparently, even a lot of people who do) believes.
In brief, Democrats tend to favor an active role for government in society and believe that such involvement – be it environmental regulations against polluting or anti-discrimination laws – can improve the quality of our lives and help achieve the larger goals of opportunity and equality. On the other hand, Republicans tend to favor a limited role for government in society and believe that such reliance on the private sector (businesses and individuals) – be it avoiding unnecessary environmental regulations or heavy-handed anti-discrimination laws – can improve economic productivity and help achieve the larger goals of freedom and self-reliance.
Quote: Animalman said: According to you and G-Man, this is a conservative belief, rather than something everybody who doesn't work in the government(and, apparently, even a lot of people who do) believes.
That, to me, is ludicrous.
Of course you think it's ludicrous. That's because you're used to using the claim of victim.
Quote: No. It was a straightforward joke. He wasn't talking about how precisely the government he thought the government should be run, or how centralized it should be, etc. He was saying government = bad. That is a sentiment pretty much everyone shares.
No. It's not.
Federal Government, in general, it's not "a sentiment that pretty much everyone shares." It only seems that way to you because the left is just angry at the current administration all the time. And because it earns them more points to play the 'tyrrany of the majority' card, they refer to Big Brother.
Socialism is the logical extension of modern liberalism. And socialism is about total reliance on the government--Or a government if you wish.
Quote: I can't believe I'm having to explain basic humor to you guys. Good grief.
Whatever happened to "satire?"
Quote: This is an entirely different thread unto itself. In short, I'll say that I think you do a disservice to yourself and to liberals by trying to pass off such sweeping generalizations of incredibly complex ideologies.
Or maybe I'm just not fooling myself into believing that the joke isn't conservative--Or, at least, partisan in nature.
Quote: How? The quote you give of me isn't even referring to the comment.
Actually, it is. You used the comment to say that it sounds exactly opposite of what G-man felt it sounded like. Thus, it was a spin. So what if you didn't quote the thing, you were obviously talking about it.
Quote: I think in the modern political world, there are many "extremists" who have blindly followed the administration, and I guess you could have perhaps extrapolated some of that from what I said...but that has very little to do with this topic, and absolutely nothing to do with Barry's remark.
In your very first post regarding the subject, you brought up those "extremists" and their alleged blind loyalty to the government and now you're saying it has "very litte" to do with the issue?
Quote: Which would seem to contradict your point about me somehow referring to Bush, Jr.
No. Conservatives are not the government. Just because they could maintain the government, that doesn't mean they embody it. Things like government and big corporations are entities all their own.
Quote: How am I the one spinning the joke, when I'm saying that I don't think it applies to any one group, and you and G-Man are saying it applies to conservatives like you?
Your first comment, in direct association with the comic, was: "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: I'm so glad you said so...after I wrote it.
Imply what you wish. I really don't care.
Quote: I did say the joke was too broad in the first place. That's what I've been saying all along. Go back and re-read my posts.
No you didn't
Quote: I only brought up conservatives to counter G-Man's rather flimsy line of logic, by pointing out that, for the most part, the only people who have been vocal about their support of the government(and, in this case, defining "the government" becomes an issue) have been conservatives. In this forum, or in the news.
Defining the government? Are you for real?
It's "Administration." Big difference.
Quote: I never said Barry's view wasn't shared by the majority of conservatives, though. I said flat out I thought it was a basic, obvious joke that pretty much anyone would make or appreciate.
Obviously somebody didn't however.
Quote: That doesn't answer my question. You applied a conservative lean to it(which you've admitted several times), but you also said it's too broad for my argument to be true, which is odd, given that my argument all along has been that it was too broad.
I said that your use of the administrations as an example of the left hating government was too broad since the two are mutually exclusive (although they obviously interact with eachother).
Quote: I kind of thought I just spent the last five posts or so explaining that. The whole "too broad" bit, which you seem to both agree and disagree with simultaneously.
Quote: Pariah said: Of course you think it's ludicrous. That's because you're used to using the claim of victor.
In dealing with you, it's often true.
Quote: Whatever happened to "satire?"
Benny Hill took it with him when he left.
Quote: Or maybe I'm just not fooling myself into believing that the joke isn't conservative--Or, at least, partisan in nature.
Have you read a Dave Barry book before?
Quote: In your very first post regarding the subject, you brought up those "extremists" and their alleged blind loyalty to the government and now you're saying it has "very litte" to do with the issue?
No, I made a general comment about today's political world. You took that general comment, and applied an extrememly specific message to it.
Quote: Your first comment, in direct association with the comic, was: "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."
That's not spin. It's called giving a counter example.
Spin is what you and G-Man are doing: spinning the joke as a support of a political ideology. I was countering that spin with an example to the contrary, showing that you have read something into that wasn't really there.
You pretty much admitted this with your post:
"I may have over-assumed the intent of Barry--I admit I probably shouldn't have"
So, now I've had to explain humor and simple debate to you. What has happened to our education system?
Quote: No you didn't
"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.
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."
I didn't use the exact words "too broad". But you'd have to be either pretty stubbornly partisan or just pretty thick-headed not to get that that's what I was talking about.
Quote: Defining the government? Are you for real?
...eh?
There are a lot of different ideas about what exactly "the government" is, and so in discussing it, there can be some cognitive dissonance there.
Quote: Obviously somebody didn't however.
Yes, obviously. It was censorship, and stupid censorship.
Just not liberal censorship.
Quote: I said that your use of the administrations as an example of the left hating government was too broad since the two are mutually exclusive (although they obviously interact with eachother).
I didn't say hate. I said distrust. There's a pretty big difference.
You said that it was too broad for me to be applying it to Bush, despite the fact that I wasn't talking about Bush, and I was making the claim that it was a general statement all along, rather than a specific comment supporting or admonishing any political cause or figure...then you said in the very next post it had an "inherent" conservative lean to it.
So, if it's argument for the left(one I wasn't making), it's too broad. If it's an argument for the right...it's just specific enough.
Quote: Fine. You don't have to answer.
I did. Several times.
I don't think it has a conservative lean to it because I don't think he was talking about a kind of government(i.e specifically what role the government played). It was a basic, general joke, about any modern government, and how generally untrustworthy it is. For it to have a conservative lean, it has to be something that most conservatives believe, and most liberals don't. I think most people find the government at least a little untrustworthy, regardless of what side of the political aisle they stand on.
Writing at the NAS Online Forum, Brooklyn College professor K.C. Johnson discusses at length his experience with education school "dispositions" requirement that are clearly designed to filter out from education schools anyone who doesn't completely buy the whole "social justice" mindset that is so predominant among the faculty and administrators.
You should read the whole thing, but here's a paragraph to whet your appetite:
Meanwhile, I heard back from Evan and two other students of mine, Christina Harned and Simon Tong, that the Education course's instructor demanded that they recognize "white English" as the "oppressors' language," and, without explanation, had the class spend its session before Election Day 2004 screening Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. The alleged "bullying" behavior came when several students complained to the professor about the course's politicized content, prompting her to inform them that their previous education had left them "brainwashed" on matters relating to race and social justice. The three students, as well as a fourth, Scott Madden, who had a similar experience with the same instructor the previous semester, communicated this information to the dean of the Brooklyn Ed School. Five other students would subsequently file statements.
I tip my hat to Professor Johnson for having the guts to expose the real bullies, namely the ed-school thought police and their dictatorial regime.
Quote: Animalman said: In dealing with you, it's often true.
In editing my quote, you've proved yourself an advocate of censorship. And since you're a liberal atheist....
Quote: Have you read a Dave Barry book before?
I didn't say that Dave Barry was partisan. In fact, I think he's one of the few real moderates out there. That doesn't mean a particular stand he takes or statement from him isn't patently conservative--Even if he's not totally conservative himself.
Quote: No, I made a general comment about today's political world.
Yes, a generally liberal comment that had to do with modern "extremists" and their alleged blind loyalty to the administration.
Quote: You took that general comment, and applied an extrememly specific message to it.
Stones in a glass house...
Quote: Animalman said: He was saying that the government is generally corrupt and not trustworthy.
Say what you want about me being wrong regarding exactly who are the advocates of Federal Government and who aren't, but I'm not the one who tried to impose his "generally" judgemental views towards politicians in another person's opinion. I say this in knowing that when you say "government," you mean "administration."
Quote: That's not spin. It's called giving a counter example.
No. It's not.
You used the same quote that G-man did as your basis, and then you applied an entirely different POV of what it meant while attempting to use its own criteria to justify it. That's a definite spin. A "counter example" would be pulling up an entirely different citation as a way of combating G-man's argument. Instead, you tried to use it against him.
Quote: Spin is what you and G-Man are doing: spinning the joke as a support of a political ideology. I was countering that spin with an example to the contrary, showing that you have read something into that wasn't really there.
You pretty much admitted this with your post:
"I may have over-assumed the intent of Barry--I admit I probably shouldn't have"
So, now I've had to explain humor and simple debate to you. What has happened to our education system?
See? Now you're doing it again. You're spinning my words.
I didn't admit to "reading into the something that wasn't there." If you read more thoroughly, I said that the terminology of the joke, even if not consciously backed by Barry himself, is a fundamentally conservative outlook. Furthermore, the situation with James South, shows that they're looking at it similarly, which is exactly why we're talking about censorship. You already agreed with me that we're talking more about their interpretation than we are about Barry's intent.
Quote: I didn't use the exact words "too broad". But you'd have to be either pretty stubbornly partisan or just pretty thick-headed not to get that that's what I was talking about.
If you say so....But you're wrong.
Quote: ...eh?
There are a lot of different ideas about what exactly "the government" is, and so in discussing it, there can be some cognitive dissonance there.
Stop trying to confuse the issue; "Administration" and "Federal Government" are two different terms.
If you can't understand that, then that's on you.
Quote: Yes, obviously. It was censorship, and stupid censorship.
Just not liberal censorship.
That's a double standard if I ever heard one considering you just said it was "stupid" censorship.
Quote: You said that it was too broad for me to be applying it to Bush, despite the fact that I wasn't talking about Bush,
You only assumed that the strip was from about a decade ago after I called you out on your interpretation of the strip. That would mean it was before "today's USA conservatives." i.e. It was more likely towards Carter's and Clinton's reign than any "conservative Administration" you're thinking of. Then again, it's pretty obvious whatever conservative administration you were thinking of in your first post had nothing to do with the past....
Quote: then you said in the very next post it had an "inherent" conservative lean to it.
Obviously you've never heard of an "archetype." I'm not actually saying that Barry's conservative. As I said before: A particular statement or stand on government that he makes can be conservative without him actually being totally conservative himself.
Quote: So, if it's argument for the left(one I wasn't making), it's too broad. If it's an argument for the right...it's just specific enough.
Unless you're pleaing Devil's Advocate, this statement is in and of itself an argument for the left
In any event, that all depends on what statement we're arguing over now doesn't it? It's very possible it could be. But in this case, I've already gone over how the strip's wording doesn't coencide with the left at all since "Administration" and "Federal Government" are not the same thing. Furthermore, it already been demonstrated how such a statement does fit well with conservatives. Aside from you saying, "it's general!" I haven't seen a liberal archetype that's comfortable with such a statement that's against the Federal Government.
Quote: I don't think it has a conservative lean to it because I don't think he was talking about a kind of government(i.e specifically what role the government played).
Quote: Pariah said: In editing my quote, you've proved yourself an advocate of censorship. And since you're a liberal atheist....
Satirization and censorship are not the same thing, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that.
Quote: I didn't say that Dave Barry was partisan.
Dave Barry isn't partisan, but his jokes are?
That doesn't make much sense. Having a political tilt and being partisan aren't the same.
Quote: Yes, a generally liberal comment that had to do with modern "extremists" and their alleged blind loyalty to the administration.
I think there are a good number of people in this country blindly loyal to the administration(and, by extension, the government the administration helps run), and of those people, the majority are conservative.
If that's a "liberal" opinion...then so be it.
Quote: Stones in a glass house...
C'mon. You can do better than that.
Quote: Say what you want about me being wrong regarding exactly who are the advocates of Federal Government and who aren't, but I'm not the one who tried to impose his "generally" judgemental views towards politicians in another person's opinion. I say this in knowing that when you say "government," you mean "administration."
You know that, do you? Strange, considering that I pointed out the distinction in this thread.
"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."
I think the problem here is that you seem to think I'm attacking someone or some group, when I'm not. You seem so defensive about it that you're conjuring up imaginary slights where there are none. The government is not just the administration. I didn't say that, I didn't imply that. It's not true. I have never, in my years of posting here, ever said that the President and his staff are to blame for everything. That's cheap, mindless drivel completely lacking in rationality. It's unfortunate so many people believe it(by the way: I think the majority of those people are liberals; what does that make me now?), and something I think the media should take part of the blame for.
I really can't believe you're actually accusing me of imposing my views. Is that just what you do when you get bored? Throw that out there when you've got nothing left to say?
Quote: You used the same quote that G-man did as your basis[, and then you applied an entirely different POV of what it meant while attempting to use its own criteria to justify it. A "counter example" would be pulling up an entirely different citation as a way of combating G-man's argument. Instead, you tried to use it against him.
I wasn't countering the quote...I was countering this part of G-Man's comment:
"Traditional conservatives (as well as libertarians) have tended to believe that government, at least big government, is a problem, not a solution."
Quote: See? Now you're doing it again. You're spinning my words.
I didn't admit to "reading into the something that wasn't there." If you read more thoroughly, I said that the terminology of the joke, even if not consciously backed by Barry himself, is a fundamentally conservative outlook.
If that's what you really meant, then I misinterpreted you(I wasn't "spinning" what you said). However, you were pretty vague initially, and if you had said this in the first place, I wouldn't have disagreed with you.
Quote: That's a double standard if I ever heard one considering you just said it was "stupid" censorship.
...explain, please, because I have absolutely no idea how it's a "double-standard" to say it's censorship and stupid cenorship, but not liberal censorship.
Quote: You only assumed that the strip was from about a decade ago after I called you out on your interpretation of the strip. That would mean it was before "today's USA conservatives." i.e. It was more likely towards Carter's and Clinton's reign than any "conservative Administration" you're thinking of.
I don't know when the strip was, and I didn't assume when it was. You accused me of assuming Barry was talking about Bush:
"Your assumption that he's talking about government more literally (i.e. specifically talking about Bush), is totally opposite of Dave's comment."
I didn't assume Barry was talking about anybody specifically. I brought up today's political climate because it's somewhat relevant towards the interpretation of the joke(which we've already established is what's actually important), not towards Barry's original intent. I wasn't making that connection, you were.
Quote: Obviously you've never heard of an "archetype." I'm not actually saying that Barry's conservative. As I said before: A particular statement or stand on government that he makes can be conservative without him actually being totally conservative himself.
You said "inherently conservative", though. If you wanted to say the comment had a conservative tilt, that would be one thing(though I'd still disagree). Saying it was inherently conservative, to me, implies its denotive of the whole(the whole in this case being Barry's political beliefs).
Perhaps that's just my english major background talking. It probably isn't wise to get into semantics at this point. Either way, your diction belies your actual argument at certain points.
Quote: But in this case, I've already gone over how the strip's wording doesn't coencide with the left at all since "Administration" and "Federal Government" are not the same thing. Furthermore, it already been demonstrated how such a statement does fit well with conservatives.
Wait...so, you're agreeing with me? After all this? Because it feels like you are.
Quote: Aside from you saying, "it's general!" I haven't seen a liberal archetype that's comfortable with such a statement that's against the Federal Government.
A liberal archetype? I know what an archetype is, but I'm not exactly sure what it is you're asking me to do, here.
Quote: He said "Federal Government."
When I said "kind of government", I meant the different roles it could take, while stil within the confines of federalism.
Quote: Animalman said: Satirization and censorship are not the same thing, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that.
I understand now that you believe censorship is a form of satire...
Quote: Dave Barry isn't partisan, but his jokes are?
That doesn't make much sense. Having a political tilt and being partisan aren't the same.
It wouldn't be so hard to understand if you would pay attention to when I use the term "moderate." Jim Jackson is one of the most passionate left-wingers here, but his adamance against abortion is downright conservative. Considering his overwhelming number of leftist views, you couldn't call him moderate, but this example is definitely in the same vein as most moderate cases.
You're essentially saying that Dave Barry can't have an opinion that's primarily conservative just because he's not totally conservative--Which is utter BS.
Quote: You know that, do you? Strange, considering that I pointed out the distinction in this thread.
"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."
I think the problem here is that you seem to think I'm attacking someone or some group, when I'm not. You seem so defensive about it that you're conjuring up imaginary slights where there are none. The government is not just the administration. I didn't say that, I didn't imply that. It's not true.
Actually, you did imply it. There's no evidence that you implied it knowingly, but it was implied nonetheless. For I have pointed out multiple times how you made that 'trust in conservative administration" statement in regards to Barry's comment on the "Federal Government," which, all by itself, does not allude to the administration in any way.
Quote: I really can't believe you're actually accusing me of imposing my views. Is that just what you do when you get bored? Throw that out there when you've got nothing left to say?
You said that Barry made that comment to express how governments are "generally corrupt." In contrary to your beliefs Ani, not everyone makes such sweeping generalizations about politicians before they've at least read about them. From your interpretation of that quote being a timeless illustration of what the government is (which, again, I find that you've confused with administration), it's obvious that you imposed your own opinion into Barry's words.
There's no need for an indignant tone. I think you just made a mistake.
Quote: I wasn't countering the quote...I was countering this part of G-Man's comment:
"Traditional conservatives (as well as libertarians) have tended to believe that government, at least big government, is a problem, not a solution."
Nice dodge.
Quote: If that's what you really meant, then I misinterpreted you(I wasn't "spinning" what you said). However, you were pretty vague initially, and if you had said this in the first place, I wouldn't have disagreed with you.
If so, I apologize.
Quote: You said "inherently conservative", though. If you wanted to say the comment had a conservative tilt, that would be one thing(though I'd still disagree). Saying it was inherently conservative, to me, implies its denotive of the whole(the whole in this case being Barry's political beliefs).
I think you just rounded up the phrase. Like I said, a particular opinion coined by Barry can be conservative without every view from him being as such.
Quote: Wait...so, you're agreeing with me? After all this? Because it feels like you are.
No. Because ultimately you feel the strip is more indicative of liberal standards as far as modern day politics goes whereas I think it's conservative in both past and present.
Quote: A liberal archetype? I know what an archetype is, but I'm not exactly sure what it is you're asking me to do, here.
I have never heard a card carrying liberal say that the federal government was an ultimate evil. I hear the term "government" thrown around a great deal, but beyond their complaints of how the administration maintains it, they've never said that the Federal entity in itself was "corrupt." In fact, as I pointed out earlier, Liberals are the ones that feel more and more government sanctions are required within private organizations.
Quote: When I said "kind of government", I meant the different roles it could take, while stil within the confines of federalism.
....Um....Okay?
I don't get what you mean, but it's irrelevent anyway.
Brooker v. The Governors of Missouri State University (MSU), was filed on Oct. 30 by the Alliance Defend Fund on behalf of Emily Brooker, a student in the university's school of social work. The ADF, a Christian legal group that advocates religious freedom, accuses tax-funded MSU of retaliating against Brooker because she refused to sign a letter to the Missouri Legislature in support of homosexual adoption as part of a class project.
Gay adoption violates Brooker's Christian beliefs.
ADF says the letter violated her First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of religion; the subsequent punishment violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection.
Brooker's lawsuit...alleges the following:
In 2002, Brooker entered MSU for a bachelor of social work degree. In Spring 2005, she enrolled in "Social Welfare Policy and Services I" taught by Frank G. Kauffman, a non-tenured assistant professor. The course was a requirement; that is, Brooker could not graduate without passing it.
When Kauffman reportedly "engaged in leftist diatribes denigrating President Bush," Brooker and several other students objected. She received an atypically bad grade which, after a year of effort, was successfully appealed.
Unfortunately, Kauffman taught another required course that Brooker attended in Fall 2005. Students were required to engage in a social work advocacy project of their choice; Brooker chose "homelessness," but Kauffman ordered the entire class to focus on advocating for the rights of gays to adopt and serve as foster parents, which he strongly favors.
Using a draft that Kauffman provided as their guide, the students were to compose and individually sign a letter on MSU letterhead in support of gay adoption which was addressed to the Missouri State legislature. Brooker declined. Eventually Kauffman agreed that she could write "an alternate letter." Before this agreement occurred, however, Brooker and another student went to an outside professor for advice. Perhaps due to pressure from coworkers, Kauffman dropped the letter campaign.
After Brooker completed the course, she learned that Kauffman had filed a Level 3 Grievance against her. A Level 3 is the most serious charge that can be directed at a student's academic performance, and such a mark on her record significantly impairs Brooker's potential for employment or enrollment elsewhere.
The School of Social Work's Standard of Essential Functioning states, "More often, a Level 3 review is conducted when concerns have not been resolved in prior reviews…or when the student is being considered for withdrawal or discontinuance in the program."
Brooker had undergone no prior review.
On Dec. 16, Brooker faced a two-and-a-half hour ethics review conducted by faculty, including Kauffman. Brooker was permitted neither legal representation nor her parents' presence. A written transcript of the meeting was not allowed.
Three accusations were aired. One was 'tardiness' for which no other MSU student had ever received a Level 3 review. The overwhelming focus, however, was on her refusal to sign Kauffman's letter.
The education journal Insider Higher Education reported, "According to the [ADF] complaint…faculty members asked Brooker: "'Do you think gays and lesbians are sinners? Do you think I am a sinner?'"
In their third accusation, the committee allegedly claimed "that Ms. Brooker's Christian beliefs conflicted with the National Association of Social Worker Code of Ethics (NASWCE)." It demanded she write a paper on how to "lessen the gap" between her personal beliefs and professional obligations.
At a later meeting, as a condition of continuing her degree, Brooker was required to sign a contract pledging to conform to the NASWCE. However Allison Hadelhaft of NASW's national office denies that the group's ethics code requires a social worker to hold a specific view on homosexuality or to compromise their religious beliefs.
Brooker received a one-day deadline to sign. She complied under protest.
Brooker's complaint declares, "Statements in the contract implied that Ms. Brooker had engaged in additional unprofessional behavior. Further, there were several contradictions in the language of the contract."
Brooker graduated on May 19, 2006. This lawsuit is a test case that almost certainly will go to court or result in a very public apology that alters MSU policy. It asks not only to remove the stain of a Level 3 from Brooker's record but also to compensate her financially.
If successful, the lawsuit may reverberate through academia. The tax-funded policies at MSU are similar to those in other universities where parallel dramas play out.
For example, last year Rhode Island College’s School of Social Work required a master’s degree student, who identified himself as politically conservative, to publicly advocate for political causes to which he morally objected. When the student refused, he was informed "he could no longer pursue a master’s degree in social work policy" at the college.
David French, a senior legal counsel with ADF, said the Brooker case illustrates the brazenness with which universities now violate a student's freedom of conscience.
It is a well-known fact that professors lean to the left. According to a recently released study by the Institute for Jewish & Community Research, professors are more likely to identify as liberals than as conservatives by a ratio of 3-to-1. In the social sciences and humanities the figure is 5-to-1.
These findings were not particularly surprising. More interesting are the effects of this overwhelming ideological uniformity. According to our survey, 63% of American faculty members say that their colleagues are sometimes reluctant to express their true opinions when those opinions contradict dominant views on campus. In institutions whose very reason for being is to promote free inquiry, that number should be zero.
If most American professors — even those protected by tenure — feel constrained in speaking their minds, then American campuses are going to be poor places to learn.
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.
KC Johnson is professor of history at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, where he teaches offerings in 20th century U.S. constitutional, political, and diplomatic history.
Johnson has an essay detailing how elite universities manage to populate their faculties with political radicals whose commitment to leftist causes is unquestioned, but their scholarship is suspect (at best) by
Manipulating Search Committees
disproportionately awarding lines for new hires to favored departments
Prioritizing Ideological Conformity
The post is an excellent primer for those with little or no exposure to the inner workings of faculty search committees, and even a jaded cynic like me was surprised by some of the revelations — including a proposal at the University of Arizona to make the “advancement of diversity” the “primary” indicator of quality in faculty hiring
The plan, part of a broader emphasis on diversity in hiring at Arizona, envisions a university in which “diversity” rather than academic quality becomes the primary motive for hiring, promotion, and tenure. According to the campus diversity plan, in faculty personnel matters, “In order to make significant progress in creating a more diverse faculty and a campus that truly embraces diversity, the advancement of diversity must be established as a primary indicator of quality.” Until diversity, the report concludes, “is included in the institutional family of primary indicators of quality, other indicators will continue to trump it – especially in the hiring of new faculty.” The U of A contends that “this does not mean lessening our commitment to excellence in research and teaching,” but such a claim is absurd: research and teaching, according to the “diversity” plan, will have to meet an ideological litmus test before being judged on their quality. Indeed, the plan argues, “Depending upon the discipline,” new faculty should be required to “conduct research and contribute to the growing body of knowledge on the importance of valuing diversity.
Ruth Wisse is the Martin Peretz Professor of Yiddish Literature and a professor of comparative literature at Harvard. She argues that universities are, at times, paralyzed by their left-wing faculty members:
University administrations live in fear--but not of al Qaeda or the destructive capabilities of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il. They fear the tactics of disruption and violent uprising perfected by radicals of the 1960s and available to their heirs. The more prestigious the university, the more traumatized it seems to be by memories of riots it was once powerless to quell.
Preying on those fears, dissident groups have learned to use the politics of intimidation to impose their agenda, as was recently demonstrated by a consortium of student groups at Columbia University that organized to prevent the speech of Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist. So far, Columbia's President Lee Bollinger has left these hooligans unpunished, making it all the more unlikely that he would risk inviting them or their peers to participate in the national defense.
Recent surveys confirm that university faculties have been tilting steadily leftward, but I think it is wrong to assume they have been tilting toward "liberalism" as is commonly assumed.
Liberalism worthy of the name emphasizes freedom of the individual, democracy and the rule of law. Liberalism is prepared to fight for those freedoms through constitutional participatory government, and to protect those freedoms, in battle if necessary. What we see on the American campus is not liberalism, but a gutted and gutless "gliberalism," that leaves to others the responsibility for governance, and arrogates to itself the right to criticize. It accepts money from the public purse without assuming reciprocal duties for the public good.
Instead of debating public policy in the public arena, faculty says, "I quit," but then continues to draw benefits from the system it will not protect.
In 2005, Emily Brooker, a social-work student at Missouri State University, was enrolled in a class taught by a professor who advertised himself as a liberal and insisted that social work is a liberal profession. At first, a mandatory assignment for his class was to advocate homosexual foster homes and adoption, with all students required to sign an advocacy letter, on university stationery, to the state legislature.
When Brooker objected on religious grounds, the project was made optional. But shortly before the final exam she was charged with a "Level 3," the most serious, violation of professional standards. In a 2 1/2 -hour hearing -- which she was forbidden to record and which her parents were barred from attending -- the primary subject was her refusal to sign the letter. She was ordered to write a paper ("Written Response about My Awareness") explaining how she could "lessen the gap" between her ethics and those of the social-work profession.... (University eventually paid restititution)
The NAS study says that at Rhode Island College's School of Social Work, a conservative student, William Felkner, received a failing grade in a course requiring students to lobby the state legislature for a cause mandated by the department. Sandra Fuiten abandoned her pursuit of a social-work degree at the University of Illinois at Springfield after the professor, in a course that required students to lobby the legislature on behalf of positions prescribed by the professor, told her that it is impossible to be both a social worker and an opponent of abortion.
In the month since the NAS released its study, none of the schools covered by it has contested its findings. Because there might as well be signs on the doors of many schools of social work proclaiming "conservatives need not apply,"
Writing in the Washington Post, Robert Maranto, a former member of the Clinton administration, asks "are university faculties biased toward the left? And is this diminishing universities' role in American public life? "
I spent four years in the 1990s working at the centrist Brookings Institution and for the Clinton administration and felt right at home ideologically. Yet during much of my two decades in academia, I've been on the "far right"
At many of the colleges I've taught at or consulted for, a perusal of the speakers list and the required readings in the campus bookstore convinced me that a student could probably go through four years without ever encountering a right-of-center view portrayed in a positive light.
Recently, my Villanova colleague Richard Redding and my longtime collaborator Frederick Hess commissioned a set of studies to ascertain how rare conservative professors really are, and why.
Among the findings:
conservatives and libertarians are outnumbered by liberals and Marxists by roughly two to one in economics, more than five to one in political science, and by 20 to one or more in anthropology and sociology.
strong statistical evidence that talented conservative undergraduates in the humanities, social sciences and sciences are less likely to pursue a Ph.D than their liberal peers...in part because they are offered fewer opportunities to do research with their professors.
academic job markets seem to discriminate against socially conservative Ph.Ds. ... these academics must publish more books and articles to get the same jobs as their liberal peers. Among professors who have published a book, 73 percent of Democrats are in high-prestige colleges and universities, compared with only 56 percent of Republicans.
subtle biases in how conservative students and professors are treated in the classroom and in the job market have very unsubtle effects on the ideological makeup of the professoriate. The resulting lack of intellectual diversity harms academia by limiting the questions academics ask, the phenomena we study and ultimately the conclusions we reach.
All this is bad for society because academics' ideological blinders make it more difficult to solve domestic problems and to understand foreign challenges. Moreover, a leftist ideological monoculture is bad for universities, rendering them intellectually dull places imbued with careerism rather than the energy of contending ideas, a point made by academic critics across the ideological spectrum from Russell Jacoby on the left to Josiah Bunting III on the right.
Ultimately, universities will have to clean their own houses. Professors need to re-embrace a culture of reasoned inquiry and debate. And since debate requires disagreement, higher education needs to encourage intellectual diversity in its hiring and promotion decisions with something like the fervor it shows for ethnic and racial diversity. It's the only way universities will earn back society's respect and reclaim their role at the center of public life.
I don't think so. The reference to "ethnic diversity" was, it appears, simply a metaphor, a reminder that colleges embrace diversity of skin color and should also embrace diversity of thought.
In support of this, I would note part of the article I didn't cite, where the author says:
Conservative activist David Horowitz and Students for Academic Freedom, a group he supports, advocate an Academic Bill of Rights guaranteeing equality for ideological minorities (typically conservatives) and ensuring that faculty are hired and promoted and students graded solely on the basis of their competence and knowledge, not their ideology or religion. That sounds great in theory, but it could have the unintended consequence of encouraging any student who gets a C to plead ideological bias.
Accordingly, I don't think he's looking for quotas, speech codes or any sort of legislative action on a par with "affirmative action." Instead, it appears that he's suggesting, simply, that colleges should put their biases aside and hire the best person for the job.
It sounds like they want to give conservatives some sort of miniority status.
but then conservatives would have to complain about special treatment being given to themselves. and then Liberals would defend conservatives because they're a minority. which conservatives would use to point out that Liberals are soft on conservatives because of their minority status.
After reading this, one has to be concerned about whether some of other conspiracy theories and accusations of liberal conniving targeting conservatives are nothing more than a...well...you get the idea.
And this will make it harder to convince people that legit incidents are indeed legit.
This is not vengeance. This is pun-ishment.
"The goodness of the true pun is in the direct ratio of its intolerability." — Edgar Allan Poe
Buchanan rightly points out (as in the example of George W. Bush and Karl Rove's attempt to pander to hispanic voters) that no matter how much Republicans pander to hispanic voters by lowering immigration enforcement, hispanics remain loyal Democrats, no matter what. So Republicans can't buy hispanic voters by turning their backs on illegal immigration. It just doesn't work. (Funny how you approve of this hispanic-pandering lack of enforcement by Bush and Rove, while you rail at everything else they've done)
By GEOFF MULVIHILL, Associated Press Writer Mon Dec 17, 6:31 PM ET
MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. - A Princeton University student who argued that his conservative views were not accepted on the campus confessed to fabricating an assault and sending threatening e-mail messages to himself and some friends who shared his views, authorities said Monday.
Princeton Township police said that Francisco Nava was not immediately charged with any crime, but that the investigation was continuing.
Nava claimed to have been assaulted Friday by two men off campus, police said. But he later confessed that scrapes and scratches on his face were self-inflicted, and that the threats were his work, too, said Detective Sgt. Ernie Silagyi...
Wonder Boy and Pat Buchanan should tell this guy that he's supposed to be voting Democratic.
Otherwise their half assed theories and assertions are all shot to shit.
After reading this, one has to be concerned about whether some of other conspiracy theories and accusations of liberal conniving targeting conservatives are nothing more than a...well...you get the idea.
And this will make it harder to convince people that legit incidents are indeed legit.
True dat. It's kind of like that incident a year or so ago where some black student faked a hate crime against himself.
If you think Hillary Clinton has been slow to accept the results at the ballot box, meet the folks who run Dartmouth College.
Like Sen. Clinton, the powers that be at Dartmouth have been getting trounced at the voting booth by an opposition campaigning for change. Like Sen. Clinton, Dartmouth's establishment has responded with increasingly desperate attacks. And like Sen. Clinton, its hopes of victory now depend on increasing the power and influence of unelected officials.
In Mrs. Clinton's case, these are called superdelegates. In Dartmouth's case, they are the self-perpetuating members of the Board of Trustees.
T.J. Rodgers – class of 1970 and CEO of Cypress Semiconductor – ran for one of the board's alumni seats. Mr. Rodgers had to mount a petition drive just to get his name on the ballot, and then won election by a comfortable margin. Like many of his fellow alums, Mr. Rodgers is a passionate believer in the liberal arts, and his platform stressed high academic standards, free speech and the primacy of the undergraduate mission at Dartmouth.
"It sounds hammy," he says. "But Dartmouth is unique because it has this great liberal arts tradition and people who just love the place."
Since Mr. Rodgers's election, three other alums have also run as "petition candidates": Peter Robinson, '79; Todd Zywicki, '88; and Stephen Smith, '88. All have run on themes stressing accountability and the quality of undergraduate education. And all have been elected by their fellow alums.
Only in academe could an institution respond the way Dartmouth has. Instead of embracing reform, the Dartmouth establishment and its allies have launched personal attacks on the four popularly elected petition trustees.
In a recent letter from 12 establishment trustees sent to all alumni (a mailing list Dartmouth refuses to share with the elected trustees), the four were accused of pursuing "Washington-style politics" as part of a "political agenda" (read: vast right-wing conspiracy).
To end their influence on the board, the college approved a plan that would transfer real oversight to an unelected executive committee – and give unelected trustees a 2-1 numerical advantage on the board, down from the 50/50 split today.
Mr. Robinson is a fellow presidential speechwriter and friend, and I know Messrs. Zywicki and Smith – both law professors in Virginia – by reputation. All three are reasonably described as conservative.
Mr. Rodgers, by contrast, is a libertarian who favors gay marriage and opposes the war in Iraq. Far from pursuing a political agenda, these men have all run on an Obama-style campaign for change that Dartmouth alumni can believe in. For all to have won the popular vote of an Ivy League electorate underscores the real message here: A high level of alumni discontent with the Dartmouth establishment.
Which brings us back to the current election. Right now, the Association of Alumni is supporting a lawsuit that is the only thing stopping Dartmouth from implementing its board-packing plan. In other words, the election for the association's leadership is in fact a referendum on the board-packing plan.
Daniel King, '02, sums it up well. Mr. King describes himself as "an openly gay man, a teacher, a card-carrying member of the Democratic Party, the ACLU, and the Human Rights Campaign." In an essay posted online, he puts it this way: "The real battle going on is one between an overly paternalistic College administration, supported by a rubber-stamp Board of Trustees that has totally abdicated its oversight responsibilities – and, on the other side, loyal alumni from all sides of the political spectrum who wish to not see the value of their Dartmouth degree plummet and to preserve the historic and unique ties that alumni have to our alma mater."
Precisely. Next week marks the end of elections for both the Democrats and Dartmouth. Only the latter results will really mean anything. And that's why, when the rest of America is zeroing in on Hillary, some of us will be looking at Hanover.
Dartmouth was founded by Eleazar Wheelock, a Puritan minister from Connecticut, who sought to establish a school to train Indians as ministers to spread civilization and Christianity. Wheelock's inspiration for such an establishment largely resulted from his relationship with Mohegan Indian Samson Occom. Occom became an ordained minister after studying under Wheelock’s tutelage from 1743 to 1747 and later moved to Long Island to preach to the Montauks.[19]
Wheelock instituted Moor's Indian Charity School in 1755.[20] The Charity School proved somewhat successful, but additional funding was necessary to continue school’s operations. To this end, Wheelock sought the help of friends to raise money. Occom, accompanied by Reverend Nathaniel Whitaker, traveled to England in 1766 to raise money in the dissenting churches of that nation. With the funds, they established a trust to help Wheelock.[19]
Although the fund provided Wheelock ample financial support for the Charity School, Wheelock had trouble recruiting Indians to the institution – primarily because its location was far from tribal territories. Receiving the best land offer from New Hampshire, Wheelock approached the Royal Governor of the Province of New Hampshire John Wentworth for a charter. Wentworth, acting in the name King George III of the United Kingdom, granted Dartmouth a royal charter on December 13, 1769, establishing the final colonial college and naming the institution after his English friend, William Legge, 2nd Earl of Dartmouth.[19] Dartmouth's purpose, according to the original charter, was to provide for the Christianization, instruction, and education of "youth of the Indian Tribes in this land [...] and also of English youth and any others."
Like all the Ivy League schools, how far it has fallen from its original Christian roots and mission, to become a tool of those who despise what it originally stood for.
Metro State College is investigating a professor who asked students to write an essay critical of Republican vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin.
One student said the instructor singled out Republican students in the class and allowed others to ridicule them.
Instructor Andrew Hallam asked students to write an essay to contradict what he called the 'fairy tale image of Palin'
Metro State officials are investigating claims of bias, harassment and bullying.
Hallam declined an interview with CBS4. He has revised the assignment.
A former New York college instructor may proceed with a claim that he was denied tenure because school administrators disapproved of his conservative politics and support for President George W. Bush, not for deficiencies as an educator, a federal judge has ruled.
Michael Filozof has presented sufficient evidence of a possible First Amendment violation ... on his free speech claim, Western District Court Judge David G. Larimer has determined.
Filozof contends the tenure track he was on as a political science instructor at the Rochester, N.Y., community college was suddenly derailed in 2003, during a period of hot debate among students and faculty over the ramp-up to the war in Iraq. His complaint characterized faculty and administrators as liberals who are intolerant of right-of-center viewpoints.
Filozof's department recommended that his contract be renewed for a second year, calling him an "exceedingly gifted teacher" and including unsolicited letters from students praising his work.
The liberal arts dean at the college, Chet Rogalski ... recommended against renewal... The trustees at the college ultimately voted against rehiring Filozof.
"It is clear from Rogalski's handwritten notes outlining the written recommendation that his conclusion ... referred to Filozof's political views," the judge wrote.
The judge also wrote that the timing of the decision not to renew Filozof's contract is "suggestive of a potential causal relationship" between the decision and Filozof's expressions of support for Bush and the Iraq war.
"Politically charged" conversations were occurring at the college about the country's involvement in Iraq, Larimer wrote, and Filozof had posted an American flag sticker on his office door with a pro-Bush slogan on it, leaving no doubt where he stood.
Just think: if, instead of putting a flag sticker on his door, Filozof had firebombed the Pentagon, he'd probably have tenure today.
Targeted for Being Conservative? Ex-student at Rhode Island college sues school and several professors, claiming persecution by 'liberal political machine'
A former student at the Rhode Island College School of Social Work is suing the school and several of his professors for discrimination, saying he was persecuted by the school's "liberal political machine" for being a conservative.
William Felkner says the New England college and six professors wouldn't approve his final project on welfare reform because he was on the "wrong" side of political issues and countered the school's "progressive" liberal agenda.
He said Professor James Ryczek wrote to him on Oct. 15, 2004, saying he was proud of his bias and questioning Felkner's ability to "fit with the profession."
"I think the biases and predilections I hold toward how I see the world and how it should be are why I am a social worker. In the words of a colleague, I revel in my biases," he wrote.
Felkner's complaint also alleges discrimination by other professors and administrators.
Felkner said he received failing grades in Ryczek's class for holding viewpoints opposed to the progressive direction of the class.
Felkner says he was also discriminated against by Professor Roberta Pearlmutter, who he says refused to allow him to participate in a group project lobbying for a conservative issue because the assignment was to lobby for a liberal issue. He alleges that Perlmutter spent a 50-minute class "assailing" his views and allowed students to openly ridicule his conservative positions, and that she reduced his grade because he was not "progressive."
The Rhode Island College School of Social Work did not respond to a request for comment.
Yeah, I remember something similar to that when I worked as a staff member in public health. Most all of we staff members were conservative while all the faculty was crazy liberal. Made for some interesting times in the 2004 election.
A college student has filed a lawsuit saying a public speaking professor berated him in class for making a speech opposing same-sex marriage.
In the federal court suit filed last week, student Jonathan Lopez said that midway through his speech, when he quoted a dictionary definition of marriage and recited a pair of Bible verses, professor John Matteson cut him off and would not allow him to finish. He said Matteson also called him a "fascist bastard."
A student evaluation form included with the lawsuit lacks a score for Lopez's speech, and reads "ask God what your grade is."
Matteson did not immediately respond to calls and e-mails seeking comment early Monday. Offices of the Los Angeles Community College District were closed for the Presidents Day holiday.
Lopez made the speech at Los Angeles City College in November, days after the passage of Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California.
"Basically, colleges and universities should give Christian students the same rights to free expression as other students," David J. Hacker, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal organization that is representing Lopez, told the Los Angeles Times.
Lopez and his attorneys are seeking financial damages and want the court to strike down a code at Los Angeles City College forbidding students from making statements deemed offensive.
Barry discussing why freedom of expression is important to him and how todays politically correct college campuses are creating a culture of censorship that stifles humor writing and the opinions of millions of students across the country.
In August 2006, a PhD student at Marquette University, Stuart Ditsler, posted a Dave Barry quote on his office door. 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." In September, the University administration had the quote taken down because it was "patently offensive." On September 5, Distler received an email from the Philosophy Department Chair, James South, stating that there had been several complaints about the quote and that it had been removed as a result.
A branch of the University of Minnesota may require all education students at the school to understand and accept that they are either privileged or oppressed and that they be well-versed in issues like "white privilege," "institutional racism” and the "myth of meritocracy in the United States."
Critics are condemning the Race, Culture, Class and Gender Task Group at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities, which proposes making race, class and gender issues the "overarching framework" of all teaching courses.
The task group, formed as part of the Teacher Education Redesign Initiative at the state university, aims to change how future teachers are trained, based on the assertion that the teachers' lack of "cultural competence" contributes to minority students' poor grades.
