Liberal Colleges and Universities - Why and How Did They Get That Way?

[daveman]

Broadly speaking, conservatism by definition is traditional; liberalism, tolerant and open to new ideas. Conservatives home-school or send their children to private schools for a reason. (The wealthy do too but that is a class issue.) The reason conservatives dislike college and universities is they are broad minded and broad minded conflicts with narrow traditional ideas. Why no conservative simply says that is because ideally Americans are supposed to be open minded etc. Imagine a strict conservative coming home from college, and now understanding evolution, and believing it is science. The parents may go cuckoo. Or even worse suppose the child comes home agnostic. Ideas have power, conservatives recognize this well, their think tanks spew nonsense constantly, and calling colleges and media "liberal" is one constant charge. Of course they have had to make liberal a bad word too.


"Objectivity cannot be equated with mental blankness; rather, objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences and then subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny." Stephen Jay Gould

By definition, perhaps. But liberalism in practice is intolerant.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

By definition, perhaps. But liberalism in practice is intolerant.

Not my experience at all. Conservatism, with a tendancy to favor what has gone before, has always been more intolerant to anything that amounts to change in my experience.

 

[antagon]

Just a couple of possibilities-

I'm sure you know the old adage "those who can't do, teach".

Generally, in my observation, those who are "hands-on" in personality tend to be more practical, while those who are thinkers tend to live more in the world of ideas, thus are less practical. Many of us live in both worlds, and can find a balance point at which our ideology doesn't dominate what is practical, but universities seem to be staffed primarily with a high proportion of thinkers rather than doers.

universities tend to 'live in both worlds' too. i don't think there's any sense in separating practicality from knowledge if you're talking about the real world.

The university as an entity does (live in both worlds). The individuals who make up the teaching staff of universities do not. Those who are teaching are not running and managing the institution- they are instructing those of us who are the doers.

this has not been my experience. i argue administrators are the isolated folks, if anything. professors two-time in industry because they are the top in their field. these thinkers are on boards directing american businesses and offering consultation and research to the 'doer' sector.

the person who came up with 'those who can't do, teach' might have gone to a shit university, if at all. where i went to school, doers with a renown track-record were invited to teach -- to share what they had learned in application.

 

[rdean]

When people say "conservatives" are more charitable than "liberals", at first, it seems totally true. When such statistics are gathered, they are always taken from "churches" and "food banks" and similar institutions.

What do you think happens to the money once there? You think they just sit on it?

No. They help people with it.

But liberals give to the "National Endowment for the Arts" and create scholarships in rural areas, urban areas and military bases.

Ahh, yes, the NEA, last refuge for mediocre artists who think bodily excretions are "art".

While conservatives feel superior for giving a man a loaf of bread, liberals "teach" that man how to make his own loaf of bread. One of the distinctive differences between "conservative" and "liberal".

Utterly false. Liberalism wants to make people dependent on government. Conservatism wants people to take care of themselves.

If you have to lie to make your point, your point's not worth making.

That is strictly a conservative fantasy. It's a false premise demonstrated by the fact the liberals push education and conservatives only have contempt for education. If you were honest, you would admit that.

 

[DiveCon]

When people say "conservatives" are more charitable than "liberals", at first, it seems totally true. When such statistics are gathered, they are always taken from "churches" and "food banks" and similar institutions.

What do you think happens to the money once there? You think they just sit on it?

No. They help people with it.

Ahh, yes, the NEA, last refuge for mediocre artists who think bodily excretions are "art".

While conservatives feel superior for giving a man a loaf of bread, liberals "teach" that man how to make his own loaf of bread. One of the distinctive differences between "conservative" and "liberal".

Utterly false. Liberalism wants to make people dependent on government. Conservatism wants people to take care of themselves.

If you have to lie to make your point, your point's not worth making.

That is strictly a conservative fantasy. It's a false premise demonstrated by the fact the liberals push education and conservatives only have contempt for education. If you were honest, you would admit that.

another lie by rdean

 

[rdean]

Broadly speaking, conservatism by definition is traditional; liberalism, tolerant and open to new ideas. Conservatives home-school or send their children to private schools for a reason. (The wealthy do too but that is a class issue.) The reason conservatives dislike college and universities is they are broad minded and broad minded conflicts with narrow traditional ideas. Why no conservative simply says that is because ideally Americans are supposed to be open minded etc. Imagine a strict conservative coming home from college, and now understanding evolution, and believing it is science. The parents may go cuckoo. Or even worse suppose the child comes home agnostic. Ideas have power, conservatives recognize this well, their think tanks spew nonsense constantly, and calling colleges and media "liberal" is one constant charge. Of course they have had to make liberal a bad word too.


"Objectivity cannot be equated with mental blankness; rather, objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences and then subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny." Stephen Jay Gould

By definition, perhaps. But liberalism in practice is intolerant.

liberal is in fact both tolerant and diverse. It has to be.

Conservative Republicans are 90% white and mostly Christian. They are neither tolerant nor diverse. They don't have to be. That is just the plain, unvarnished truth. Sorry if you don't like it.

 

[DiveCon]

Broadly speaking, conservatism by definition is traditional; liberalism, tolerant and open to new ideas. Conservatives home-school or send their children to private schools for a reason. (The wealthy do too but that is a class issue.) The reason conservatives dislike college and universities is they are broad minded and broad minded conflicts with narrow traditional ideas. Why no conservative simply says that is because ideally Americans are supposed to be open minded etc. Imagine a strict conservative coming home from college, and now understanding evolution, and believing it is science. The parents may go cuckoo. Or even worse suppose the child comes home agnostic. Ideas have power, conservatives recognize this well, their think tanks spew nonsense constantly, and calling colleges and media "liberal" is one constant charge. Of course they have had to make liberal a bad word too.


"Objectivity cannot be equated with mental blankness; rather, objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences and then subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny." Stephen Jay Gould

By definition, perhaps. But liberalism in practice is intolerant.

liberal is in fact both tolerant and diverse. It has to be.

Conservative Republicans are 90% white and mostly Christian. They are neither tolerant nor diverse. They don't have to be. That is just the plain, unvarnished truth. Sorry if you don't like it.

tell that to Joe Lieberman

and i have a news flash for you

America is mostly white and mostly christian

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is strictly a conservative fantasy. It's a false premise demonstrated by the fact the liberals push education and conservatives only have contempt for education. If you were honest, you would admit that.

If liberals support education why have they not set up a program where everyone who receives welfare gets to go to the college of their choice? Why did they oppose the Welfare to Work program under Clinton?

 

[Tech_Esq]

By definition, perhaps. But liberalism in practice is intolerant.

Not my experience at all. Conservatism, with a tendancy to favor what has gone before, has always been more intolerant to anything that amounts to change in my experience.

Guess you haven't been in a university with the new speech codes in the last 20 years. The current occupants of the administration building are attempting to write the book on intolerance to a degree never imagined by their predecessors.

 

[Tech_Esq]

That is strictly a conservative fantasy. It's a false premise demonstrated by the fact the liberals push education and conservatives only have contempt for education. If you were honest, you would admit that.

If liberals support education why have they not set up a program where everyone who receives welfare gets to go to the college of their choice? Why did they oppose the Welfare to Work program under Clinton?

If you view all questions of education by these two razors, it will illuminate the supposed leftist support for education:

"Will the proposed bill have the effect of keeping or adding to more dues paying union members?"

"Will the proposed bill be a handout to some group that may become a new suckler at the teat of the government?" (see Pell grant and student loans in general)

If the answer is no to these questions, then the leftists are not for "that kind of support for education."

A prime example is school choice, the Dems are against it even though their constituency (blacks) are for it. Even though this will tend to have the effect of lifting this group out of poverty over time, the Dems oppose it. Why? Because of what it will do to teachers.

The employee trumps the child.

 

[daveman]

By definition, perhaps. But liberalism in practice is intolerant.

Not my experience at all. Conservatism, with a tendancy to favor what has gone before, has always been more intolerant to anything that amounts to change in my experience.

I'll bet Joe Lieberman might have something to say about liberal tolerance.

 

[daveman]

When people say "conservatives" are more charitable than "liberals", at first, it seems totally true. When such statistics are gathered, they are always taken from "churches" and "food banks" and similar institutions.

What do you think happens to the money once there? You think they just sit on it?

No. They help people with it.

Ahh, yes, the NEA, last refuge for mediocre artists who think bodily excretions are "art".

While conservatives feel superior for giving a man a loaf of bread, liberals "teach" that man how to make his own loaf of bread. One of the distinctive differences between "conservative" and "liberal".

Utterly false. Liberalism wants to make people dependent on government. Conservatism wants people to take care of themselves.

If you have to lie to make your point, your point's not worth making.

That is strictly a conservative fantasy. It's a false premise demonstrated by the fact the liberals push education and conservatives only have contempt for education. If you were honest, you would admit that.

I really don't know how you're posting here from your alternate universe. Liberals want people dependent on government. Their actions of the last 50 years prove it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is strictly a conservative fantasy. It's a false premise demonstrated by the fact the liberals push education and conservatives only have contempt for education. If you were honest, you would admit that.

If liberals support education why have they not set up a program where everyone who receives welfare gets to go to the college of their choice? Why did they oppose the Welfare to Work program under Clinton?

If you view all questions of education by these two razors, it will illuminate the supposed leftist support for education:

"Will the proposed bill have the effect of keeping or adding to more dues paying union members?"

"Will the proposed bill be a handout to some group that may become a new suckler at the teat of the government?" (see Pell grant and student loans in general)

If the answer is no to these questions, then the leftists are not for "that kind of support for education."

A prime example is school choice, the Dems are against it even though their constituency (blacks) are for it. Even though this will tend to have the effect of lifting this group out of poverty over time, the Dems oppose it. Why? Because of what it will do to teachers.

The employee trumps the child.

I know that, but taking a factual approach with rdean has never worked when I have done it in the past, so I thought I would try a "what if?" approach.

 

[daveman]

liberal is in fact both tolerant and diverse. It has to be.

Yes, they have both Marxists AND Leninists.

Conservative Republicans are 90% white and mostly Christian. They are neither tolerant nor diverse. They don't have to be. That is just the plain, unvarnished truth. Sorry if you don't like it.

I guarantee you minorities are more accepted by conservatives than conservatives are by liberals.

Yeah, you love everybody...as long as they think like you tell them to.

 

[daveman]

By definition, perhaps. But liberalism in practice is intolerant.

liberal is in fact both tolerant and diverse. It has to be.

Conservative Republicans are 90% white and mostly Christian. They are neither tolerant nor diverse. They don't have to be. That is just the plain, unvarnished truth. Sorry if you don't like it.

tell that to Joe Lieberman

 

[Tech_Esq]

universities tend to 'live in both worlds' too. i don't think there's any sense in separating practicality from knowledge if you're talking about the real world.

The university as an entity does (live in both worlds). The individuals who make up the teaching staff of universities do not. Those who are teaching are not running and managing the institution- they are instructing those of us who are the doers.

this has not been my experience. i argue administrators are the isolated folks, if anything. professors two-time in industry because they are the top in their field. these thinkers are on boards directing american businesses and offering consultation and research to the 'doer' sector.

the person who came up with 'those who can't do, teach' might have gone to a shit university, if at all. where i went to school, doers with a renown track-record were invited to teach -- to share what they had learned in application.

That may be true for some universities and SOME professors at those universities, but the VAST, VAST, VAST majority of professors have one single job, being a university professor.

I can tell you that sitting in political science classes with these supposedly "tolerant" people was no picnic. They consistently attempted to mislead the poor students in their class and would try to tell them all manner of things if they were not called out for it. Calling them out was a process and a chore in itself. One had to ensure that you did not endanger your grade, so you had to be right and then you had to be able to prove it or you were made to look like an ass (an example, "don't step across the line or we'll squish you like a bug"). In my era, it was saying anything pro-Reagan. Oh it was like the lightening would strike from the heavens if that happened. The tolerant professors were thrown into fits of apoplexy.

I once had the temerity to suggest that it was Reagan's decisions that one the cold war. (The professor had been pontificating about how it would have happened in the normal course of events no matter who was in office at the time. Of course utter drivel.) Oh my god, you would have thought I suggested Karl Marx was a bad guy!! The professor sharply rebuked me. I answered back and eventually proved my point. (I did lose a letter grade in the class though, so sometimes winning isn't everything).

Tolerance indeed.

 

[daveman]

That is strictly a conservative fantasy. It's a false premise demonstrated by the fact the liberals push education and conservatives only have contempt for education. If you were honest, you would admit that.

If liberals support education why have they not set up a program where everyone who receives welfare gets to go to the college of their choice? Why did they oppose the Welfare to Work program under Clinton?

If you view all questions of education by these two razors, it will illuminate the supposed leftist support for education:

"Will the proposed bill have the effect of keeping or adding to more dues paying union members?"

"Will the proposed bill be a handout to some group that may become a new suckler at the teat of the government?" (see Pell grant and student loans in general)

If the answer is no to these questions, then the leftists are not for "that kind of support for education."

A prime example is school choice, the Dems are against it even though their constituency (blacks) are for it. Even though this will tend to have the effect of lifting this group out of poverty over time, the Dems oppose it. Why? Because of what it will do to teachers.

The employee trumps the child.

Not only that, but poor blacks are much more likely to vote Democrat.

Can't have them getting ideas of their own, now.

 

[Greenbeard]

If you view all questions of education by these two razors, it will illuminate the supposed leftist support for education:

"Will the proposed bill have the effect of keeping or adding to more dues paying union members?"

"Will the proposed bill be a handout to some group that may become a new suckler at the teat of the government?" (see Pell grant and student loans in general)

If the answer is no to these questions, then the leftists are not for "that kind of support for education."

Today is a rather unfortunate day to try and make this point. Honestly, choosing the day the Race to the Top winners are announced to argue how Democratic education policy is designed to do the teachers unions' bidding?

 

[rdean]

By definition, perhaps. But liberalism in practice is intolerant.

liberal is in fact both tolerant and diverse. It has to be.

Conservative Republicans are 90% white and mostly Christian. They are neither tolerant nor diverse. They don't have to be. That is just the plain, unvarnished truth. Sorry if you don't like it.

tell that to Joe Lieberman

and i have a news flash for you

America is mostly white and mostly christian

Yes, but those Americans who are gay, lesbian, atheist, feminist, educated and liberal aren't welcome in the "Party of White". You know it. I know it. Why deny it?

 

[DiveCon]

liberal is in fact both tolerant and diverse. It has to be.

Conservative Republicans are 90% white and mostly Christian. They are neither tolerant nor diverse. They don't have to be. That is just the plain, unvarnished truth. Sorry if you don't like it.

tell that to Joe Lieberman

and i have a news flash for you

America is mostly white and mostly christian

Yes, but those Americans who are gay, lesbian, atheist, feminist, educated and liberal aren't welcome in the "Party of White". You know it. I know it. Why deny it?

more delusional lies by rdean