Choose One: University or Free Speech

[daveman]

Poor, poor Conservatives. Just to dumb to make it in academia.

Seems to me to be just another thread in which the Conservatives are venting their dislike of education and science. As opposed to conservatives, I might add.

Pointing to your own bigotry as proof of mine is moronic.

 

[manifold]

Gotta love how conservatives laud the free market until it kicks one their own in the teeth.

 

[editec]

If you take SURVEY course, then "conflicting points of view" are necessary.

But no SCHOLAR is required to offer counter arguments that are largely bullshit.

Scholarship demands that one makes his argument as clearly as possible.

If a counter-argument truly addresses his points THEN he needs to address those critiques.

FWIW, my pointing out what nonsense surrounds the issue of TENURE mostly has to do with addressing the MYTH that high school teachers have ANY protection from abuse because of tenure.

And we are seeing that fewer and fewer university professors ever get tenure, too.

So the whole issue that our educational system is falwed because of tenure is absurd on its face.

Those days are LONG gone.

HS teachers "tenure" does not remotely give them academic freedom.

If you doubt that go read those contracts.

Public school teachers have almost NOT job security except if they are politically connected.

 

[Old Rocks]

And, since one party is open in it's disdain toward education, and quite scathing in it's criticisms of all teachers, which party would the those in education look to for some protection?

 

[Old Rocks]

Poor, poor Conservatives. Just to dumb to make it in academia.

Seems to me to be just another thread in which the Conservatives are venting their dislike of education and science. As opposed to conservatives, I might add.

Pointing to your own bigotry as proof of mine is moronic.

Daveboy, it is you fellows that are pissing and moaning about not being in academia. Either that lack is because the Conservatives do not want to be in academia, or they simply are unable to compete there. Since you are mewling and puking about not being there, I would have to assume that latter is the case.

So why don't you fellows aquire an education, and some credentials? Afraid that if you did, you might actually see the world in a more Liberal light? One thing it would help, if you Conservatives got off your fat asses and did some work in any sphere, we liberals in the blue states would not have to continue to support you Conservatives in the red states.

 

[elvis]

Poor, poor Conservatives. Just to dumb to make it in academia.

Seems to me to be just another thread in which the Conservatives are venting their dislike of education and science. As opposed to conservatives, I might add.

what's your degree in again, fuckstain? oh that's right. you don't have one.

 

[Old Rocks]

Look who's here again, our local Rent-a-Boy representative.

That is correct. No degree. And, unlike all too many on this board, I have not claimed any education that I do not have. Nor have I been mewling and puking about what is being taught in our universities.

 

[elvis]

Look who's here again, our local Rent-a-Boy representative.

That is correct. No degree. And, unlike all too many on this board, I have not claimed any education that I do not have. Nor have I been mewling and puking about what is being taught in our universities.

So, who is it that is too dumb to make it in academia? On which scale are you considered conservative, you stupid fuck?

 

[Coyote]

Interesting study here:

Certain professions tend to be self-selecting. Liberals tend to be drawn more towards academia and journalism, for example. Conservatives outnumber liberals however in the spheres of business and finance.

But I don't see anyone bitching about that.

Really? What about all the liberals bitching about rich conservatives, while giving rich liberals a pass?

We're not talking about rich and poor, so stop throwing out red herrings. When it comes to "giving a pass".....something about glass houses and stones comes to mind.

Certain professions tend to attract certain mind-sets. Historically - even in ancient times, universities have been dominated by "liberal" thinkers - they are attracted to higher education. The same with journalism. Which kind of makes sense because higher education is constantly striving to push the envelope, encourage innovative (even radical) thinking that challanges the status quo. That's not a bad thing either. Journalism is about staying in the forfront of the news - ferreting out what is new or different. Something that often attracts liberal thinkers.

The business world attracts a different kind of mindset.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Certain professions tend to be self-selecting. Liberals tend to be drawn more towards academia and journalism, for example. Conservatives outnumber liberals however in the spheres of business and finance.

But I don't see anyone bitching about that.

Really? What about all the liberals bitching about rich conservatives, while giving rich liberals a pass?

We're not talking about rich and poor, so stop throwing out red herrings. When it comes to "giving a pass".....something about glass houses and stones comes to mind.

Certain professions tend to attract certain mind-sets. Historically - even in ancient times, universities have been dominated by "liberal" thinkers - they are attracted to higher education. The same with journalism. Which kind of makes sense because higher education is constantly striving to push the envelope, encourage innovative (even radical) thinking that challanges the status quo. That's not a bad thing either. Journalism is about staying in the forfront of the news - ferreting out what is new or different. Something that often attracts liberal thinkers.

The business world attracts a different kind of mindset.

To be clear, is it your position that a conservative stands the same chance of career advancement in academia as a liberal?
They merely choose not to choose academia?

If so, consider this from "The Death of Feminism," by Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women's Studies at City University of New York.

"Academic feminists who received tenure, promotion, and funding, tended to be pro-abortion, pro-pornography (anti-censorship), pro-prostitution (pro-sex workers), pro-surrogacy, and anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti-American…proponents of simplistic gender-neutrality (women and men are exactly the same) or essentialist: men and women are completely different, and women are better. They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth. "
(emphasis mine)

I'm sure that you understand that the predominance of Democrats, liberals, progressives, etc., according to the above is in large measure the result of bias and prejudice, not randomness, and not due to the 'mindset' you suggest.

 

[Coyote]

Really? What about all the liberals bitching about rich conservatives, while giving rich liberals a pass?

We're not talking about rich and poor, so stop throwing out red herrings. When it comes to "giving a pass".....something about glass houses and stones comes to mind.

Certain professions tend to attract certain mind-sets. Historically - even in ancient times, universities have been dominated by "liberal" thinkers - they are attracted to higher education. The same with journalism. Which kind of makes sense because higher education is constantly striving to push the envelope, encourage innovative (even radical) thinking that challanges the status quo. That's not a bad thing either. Journalism is about staying in the forfront of the news - ferreting out what is new or different. Something that often attracts liberal thinkers.

The business world attracts a different kind of mindset.

To be clear, is it your position that a conservative stands the same chance of career advancement in academia as a liberal?
They merely choose not to choose academia?

Nope.

That is not my position. Or, to be clear, that is only partly my position

If so, consider this from "The Death of Feminism," by Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women's Studies at City University of New York.

"Academic feminists who received tenure, promotion, and funding, tended to be pro-abortion, pro-pornography (anti-censorship), pro-prostitution (pro-sex workers), pro-surrogacy, and anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti-American…proponents of simplistic gender-neutrality (women and men are exactly the same) or essentialist: men and women are completely different, and women are better. They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth. "
(emphasis mine)

She has her opinion, she's entitled...but...it is an opinion.

I'm sure that you understand that the predominance of Democrats, liberals, progressives, etc., according to the above is in large measure the result of bias and prejudice, not randomness, and not due to the 'mindset' you suggest.

Democrats now? Are you confusing parties with ideologies? Parties are highly inconsistent.

I have never asserted "randomness" nor do I deny some bias exists - as bias exists in all fields. However, research seems to show that Academia attracts more liberals than conservatives.

Faculties Are Liberal Because Conservatives Don't Seek Academic Careers, Study Finds

...The new research -- "Why Are Professors Liberal?," by Neil Gross, of the University of British Columbia, and Ethan Fosse, a doctoral student at Harvard, both sociologists -- says that faculty positions are "typecast" just like any other jobs that are also overwhelmingly held by one gender, such as nursing (women), or one political outlook, such as law enforcement (conservative). "Occupational reputations affect people's career aspirations," said Mr. Gross. The research, which echoes similar findings in a paper published two years ago by Matthew and Kellie Woessner, found that intentional discrimination against conservatives in hiring was an insignificant factor in the pattern; rather, conservatives were simply choosing not to enter the field...​

 

[PoliticalChic]

We're not talking about rich and poor, so stop throwing out red herrings. When it comes to "giving a pass".....something about glass houses and stones comes to mind.

Certain professions tend to attract certain mind-sets. Historically - even in ancient times, universities have been dominated by "liberal" thinkers - they are attracted to higher education. The same with journalism. Which kind of makes sense because higher education is constantly striving to push the envelope, encourage innovative (even radical) thinking that challanges the status quo. That's not a bad thing either. Journalism is about staying in the forfront of the news - ferreting out what is new or different. Something that often attracts liberal thinkers.

The business world attracts a different kind of mindset.

To be clear, is it your position that a conservative stands the same chance of career advancement in academia as a liberal?
They merely choose not to choose academia?

Nope.

That is not my position. Or, to be clear, that is only partly my position

If so, consider this from "The Death of Feminism," by Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women's Studies at City University of New York.

"Academic feminists who received tenure, promotion, and funding, tended to be pro-abortion, pro-pornography (anti-censorship), pro-prostitution (pro-sex workers), pro-surrogacy, and anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti-American…proponents of simplistic gender-neutrality (women and men are exactly the same) or essentialist: men and women are completely different, and women are better. They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth. "
(emphasis mine)

She has her opinion, she's entitled...but...it is an opinion.

I'm sure that you understand that the predominance of Democrats, liberals, progressives, etc., according to the above is in large measure the result of bias and prejudice, not randomness, and not due to the 'mindset' you suggest.

Democrats now? Are you confusing parties with ideologies? Parties are highly inconsistent.

I have never asserted "randomness" nor do I deny some bias exists - as bias exists in all fields. However, research seems to show that Academia attracts more liberals than conservatives.

Faculties Are Liberal Because Conservatives Don't Seek Academic Careers, Study Finds

...The new research -- "Why Are Professors Liberal?," by Neil Gross, of the University of British Columbia, and Ethan Fosse, a doctoral student at Harvard, both sociologists -- says that faculty positions are "typecast" just like any other jobs that are also overwhelmingly held by one gender, such as nursing (women), or one political outlook, such as law enforcement (conservative). "Occupational reputations affect people's career aspirations," said Mr. Gross. The research, which echoes similar findings in a paper published two years ago by Matthew and Kellie Woessner, found that intentional discrimination against conservatives in hiring was an insignificant factor in the pattern; rather, conservatives were simply choosing not to enter the field...​

I thought that your post was pretty good, point for point. Nice.

But one wonders why the study on which you rest was unpublished...

Did you notice the comment below same?
"And conservatives do not enter the field, at least in part, because if they are known to be conservative, they don't get hired. If they do manage to make it onto a faculty, they can be fired. (And believe me, I know.) Which is why so many conservatives who ARE on faculties keep their mouths shut - at least until they have tenure."

Kind of dismissive of Chesler, "just an opinion," as though it is not based on a lifetime of experience.
BTW, Chesler has a pretty extensive history in academia. This from wikipedia...but you can easily check her references:
Phyllis Chesler (born October 1, 1940) is an American writer, psychotherapist, and professor emerita of psychology and women's studies at the College of Staten Island (CUNY). She is known as a feminist psychologist, and is the author of 13 books, including the best-seller Women and Madness, and the recent publications The Death of Feminism and The New Anti-Semitism.

And: Paul Hollander is a professor emeritus of sociology at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and an associate of Harvard's Davis Center of Russian and Eurasian Studies.Paul Hollander - Remembering communism - washingtonpost.com
You might find Hollander's comment instructive, as well:

"PC is, above all, a climate of opinion, a complex of social and institutional pressures and threats, beliefs and taboos which have come to dominate the campuses and academic public discourse over the past quarter century…
There are at least five areas to which PC applies and where it succeeded in imposing a fair amount of conformity. They are: 1) race-minority relations; 2) sexual and gender relations: 3) homosexuality; 4) American society as a whole; 5) Western culture and values. In regard to each, PC prescribes publicly acceptable opinions and attitudes which are often conveyed on the campuses by required courses, freshman orientation, sensitivity training, memoranda by administrators, speech codes, harassment codes, official and student publications and other means.
Deviations from the norm of PC may result in public abuse, ostracism, formal or informal sanctions, administrative reproach, delayed promotion, difficulty in finding a job, being sentenced to sensitivity training. "
Paul Hollander, “Political correctness is alive and well on campus near you,” Washington Post, December 28, 1993, p. A19
(emphasis mine.)

The picture, it seems to me, becomes clearer when viewed through the eyes of these experts on the topic.

 

[daveman]

Poor, poor Conservatives. Just to dumb to make it in academia.

Seems to me to be just another thread in which the Conservatives are venting their dislike of education and science. As opposed to conservatives, I might add.

Pointing to your own bigotry as proof of mine is moronic.

Daveboy, it is you fellows that are pissing and moaning about not being in academia. Either that lack is because the Conservatives do not want to be in academia, or they simply are unable to compete there. Since you are mewling and puking about not being there, I would have to assume that latter is the case.

So why don't you fellows aquire an education, and some credentials? Afraid that if you did, you might actually see the world in a more Liberal light? One thing it would help, if you Conservatives got off your fat asses and did some work in any sphere, we liberals in the blue states would not have to continue to support you Conservatives in the red states.

You sure are a hateful old geezer, aren't you?

The Left has control of academia. Since they fear their ideas cannot stand up to comparison with others, they eliminate them and prevent their entrance.

 

[daveman]

Look who's here again, our local Rent-a-Boy representative.

That is correct. No degree. And, unlike all too many on this board, I have not claimed any education that I do not have.

I'll remember that in the AGW cult threads.

Nor have I been mewling and puking about what is being taught in our universities.

Just because you agree with the bias doesn't mean the bias is not there.

 

[daveman]

Certain professions tend to be self-selecting. Liberals tend to be drawn more towards academia and journalism, for example. Conservatives outnumber liberals however in the spheres of business and finance.

But I don't see anyone bitching about that.

Really? What about all the liberals bitching about rich conservatives, while giving rich liberals a pass?

We're not talking about rich and poor, so stop throwing out red herrings. When it comes to "giving a pass".....something about glass houses and stones comes to mind.

Certain professions tend to attract certain mind-sets. Historically - even in ancient times, universities have been dominated by "liberal" thinkers - they are attracted to higher education. The same with journalism. Which kind of makes sense because higher education is constantly striving to push the envelope, encourage innovative (even radical) thinking that challanges the status quo. That's not a bad thing either. Journalism is about staying in the forfront of the news - ferreting out what is new or different. Something that often attracts liberal thinkers.

The business world attracts a different kind of mindset.

You're getting dangerously close to admitting the leftward bias in academia and the media.

 

[daveman]

For those who are somehow still convinced there is no leftward bias in academia, I present the Cry Wolf Project. Drier-Email

 

[jillian]

if a professor got up in front of a class and taught that there was nothing wrong with homosexuality, the psycho pseudo intellectual would be shrieking that the professor was trying to brainwash students.

the loon is perfectly fine with brainwashing people into hating others.

 

[Charles_Main]

Republicans Outnumbered in Academia, Studies Find

Academic leaders have resisted his group's legislative proposal, saying that discrimination is rare and already forbidden, and they dispute the accusations of faculty bias. Robert J. Birgeneau, the chancellor of Berkeley, said that he was not sure if the new study of his faculty accurately reflected the professors' political leanings, and that these leanings were irrelevant anyway.

"The essence of a great university is developing and sharing new knowledge as well as questioning old dogma," Dr. Birgeneau said. "We do this in an environment which prizes academic freedom and freedom of expression. These principles are respected by all of our faculty at U.C. Berkeley, no matter what their personal politics are."

I bet he actually believes this, too.

Who is he kidding, No matter what their politics are, They are all liberals at that place. It is possibly the most liberal University in America.

 

[rdean]

Creationism Slips Into a Peer-Reviewed Journal

Alternatively, instead of sinking into a swamp of endless debates about the evolution of mitochondria, it is better to come up with a unified assumption. ... More logically, the points that show proteomics overlapping between different forms of life are more likely to be interpreted as a reflection of a single common fingerprint initiated by a mighty creator than relying on a single cell that is, in a doubtful way, surprisingly originating all other kinds of life.

-----------------------------------

Conservative "science" - God did it. Saves on "debate".

 

[Coyote]

Really? What about all the liberals bitching about rich conservatives, while giving rich liberals a pass?

We're not talking about rich and poor, so stop throwing out red herrings. When it comes to "giving a pass".....something about glass houses and stones comes to mind.

Certain professions tend to attract certain mind-sets. Historically - even in ancient times, universities have been dominated by "liberal" thinkers - they are attracted to higher education. The same with journalism. Which kind of makes sense because higher education is constantly striving to push the envelope, encourage innovative (even radical) thinking that challanges the status quo. That's not a bad thing either. Journalism is about staying in the forfront of the news - ferreting out what is new or different. Something that often attracts liberal thinkers.

The business world attracts a different kind of mindset.

You're getting dangerously close to admitting the leftward bias in academia and the media.

Never denied it - bias exists in every profession but it's not necessarily left and right, when it is - it is not necesarily so across the board.

Look at media - with the explosion of ideologicaly tailored media (which often makes little distinction between fact and opinion) - 24 hours a day (quite a feat when you consider there just isn't enough newsworthy news to fill 24 hours so the gaps are packed with opines, speculation and celebrity gossip) - the myth of a liberal dominated media has been busted. You can find plentiful media slanted to just your taste in cable and internet. The term, MSM, has ceased to have any meaning.

As far as academia - it attracts liberals as a profession, so does that mean it will have a liberal bias? Depends, I think, on the institution and more, on the discipline. Certain fields of study lend themselves to a stronger bias (and not always liberal). Just because a person is liberal or conservative, doesn't mean they are incapable of being professional and impartial. If you don't like "liberal academia" there are quite a few high quality "conservative" colleges (and don't you just bet they squash liberal voices...) to choose from.