Choose One: University or Free Speech

[Modbert]

Accurate views of history would be refreshing.

I'm in college. And the fact you think I only want Liberal ideas represented speaks of your own ignorance and not mine.

As for your non-answer I kept above, what do you mean by "accurate" views of history. What's "inaccurate" now in college? Do tell.

 

[Annie]

Accurate views of history would be refreshing.

I'm in college. And the fact you think I only want Liberal ideas represented speaks of your own ignorance and not mine.

As for your non-answer I kept above, what do you mean by "accurate" views of history. What's "inaccurate" now in college? Do tell.

Many think that because the universities in the US began in the main as theological or teaching colleges they were conservative, not the case. By the twentieth C nearly all the major ones, with the possible exceptions of East Coast ivies, skewed towards liberal or new thinking. Really who would logically come to any other conclusion? Truly inquisitive people are usually going to be interested in whatever is on the horizon, even just theoretically. It's no surprise that universities like U of C or Stanford had social sciences dominated by socialism and communism in the early part of the 20th C. Marx and Engles were seminal writers that presented something real to counteract the worst of capitalism.

I first entered the universities in mid-70's, U of Illinois and U of Chicago. Majoring in sociology and political science, in was inevitable that most of my professors would tend towards liberal and they did. Both were good schools, though it was at U of Chicago that I found more counter thinking from the university norm. Even 'liberal' professors wanted the students able to argue against either side. IL was a more 'normal' atmosphere of the times, lots of protests. Nixon was gone, Vietnam was over. The new 'issue' was the Shah of Iran and how he should be violently removed from the planet. The difference from the protests of bygone years was they did not spill off of the campuses.

Only once during those years did I have a professor that actually would not tolerate differences in thinking from his. It was at U of I and in political science. He wanted all of his classes to attend a rally against the Shah at Daley Center and required attendance as part of grade. I disagreed. He'd been an activist through the 60's and just wouldn't let go. I took the issue to the dean and successfully fought that requirement. That was the only time a professor's political agenda literally spilled onto possible success in completing a course.

Returning to university in early-90's was very different. While part of the reason surely was that I was raising 3 young children on my own and money was also a big deal, I chose to attend a mid-tier school within walking distance of my home. There were no 'burning issues' that were evident in class, with the possible exception of education department being full blown for inclusion and cooperative groups.

While all of my history profs were liberal in political thinking, only one actually was vocal about tying all discussions to what was currently wrong with America; from early on to the present and surely the future. Being older and better read than my peers, not too mention that by that time my own political thinking was well-developed, I would challenge him during class and in written exams. He always gave me an A. He had a healthy respect for differences in opinion and I had the same attitude. Discussions could get heated, but were respectful. His own comments during presentations would surely have influenced some of the students if they stood alone, but his respect for my own, especially counterpoints gave balance to the class. He acknowledged that and towards the end of the semester actually said so to the class.

That however was the 90's, not the most troubled of times for our country, at least not on the surface in the social science departments. My guess is that today students are not being exposed to much differences in opinions. I don't think it would much matter whether the professor's was skewed towards one extreme or the other, like the boards it's all about knowing one is correct and the other is to be annihilated or at best, demonized. This is not the most effective way to encourage logical thinking.

 

[daveman]

Accurate views of history would be refreshing.

I'm in college.

Well, that explains a great deal.

And the fact you think I only want Liberal ideas represented speaks of your own ignorance and not mine.

That's funny. When I make a claim based on observation, it's out of ignorance. When you make a claim based on your prejudice against conservatives, it's not ignorance.

Where did you get all your wrong ideas about conservatives?

As for your non-answer I kept above...

So you have no counter to the fact that academia is controlled by liberals? Well, you can't argue against the sunrise, I suppose.

...what do you mean by "accurate" views of history. What's "inaccurate" now in college? Do tell.

There was another thread about this. But surely even a smart college boy such as yourself will agree that just because you agree with the bias doesn't mean it's not biased.

 

[daveman]

Accurate views of history would be refreshing.

I'm in college. And the fact you think I only want Liberal ideas represented speaks of your own ignorance and not mine.

As for your non-answer I kept above, what do you mean by "accurate" views of history. What's "inaccurate" now in college? Do tell.

Many think that because the universities in the US began in the main as theological or teaching colleges they were conservative, not the case. By the twentieth C nearly all the major ones, with the possible exceptions of East Coast ivies, skewed towards liberal or new thinking. Really who would logically come to any other conclusion? Truly inquisitive people are usually going to be interested in whatever is on the horizon, even just theoretically. It's no surprise that universities like U of C or Stanford had social sciences dominated by socialism and communism in the early part of the 20th C. Marx and Engles were seminal writers that presented something real to counteract the worst of capitalism.

I first entered the universities in mid-70's, U of Illinois and U of Chicago. Majoring in sociology and political science, in was inevitable that most of my professors would tend towards liberal and they did. Both were good schools, though it was at U of Chicago that I found more counter thinking from the university norm. Even 'liberal' professors wanted the students able to argue against either side. IL was a more 'normal' atmosphere of the times, lots of protests. Nixon was gone, Vietnam was over. The new 'issue' was the Shah of Iran and how he should be violently removed from the planet. The difference from the protests of bygone years was they did not spill off of the campuses.

Only once during those years did I have a professor that actually would not tolerate differences in thinking from his. It was at U of I and in political science. He wanted all of his classes to attend a rally against the Shah at Daley Center and required attendance as part of grade. I disagreed. He'd been an activist through the 60's and just wouldn't let go. I took the issue to the dean and successfully fought that requirement. That was the only time a professor's political agenda literally spilled onto possible success in completing a course.

Returning to university in early-90's was very different. While part of the reason surely was that I was raising 3 young children on my own and money was also a big deal, I chose to attend a mid-tier school within walking distance of my home. There were no 'burning issues' that were evident in class, with the possible exception of education department being full blown for inclusion and cooperative groups.

While all of my history profs were liberal in political thinking, only one actually was vocal about tying all discussions to what was currently wrong with America; from early on to the present and surely the future. Being older and better read than my peers, not too mention that by that time my own political thinking was well-developed, I would challenge him during class and in written exams. He always gave me an A. He had a healthy respect for differences in opinion and I had the same attitude. Discussions could get heated, but were respectful. His own comments during presentations would surely have influenced some of the students if they stood alone, but his respect for my own, especially counterpoints gave balance to the class. He acknowledged that and towards the end of the semester actually said so to the class.

That however was the 90's, not the most troubled of times for our country, at least not on the surface in the social science departments. My guess is that today students are not being exposed to much differences in opinions. I don't think it would much matter whether the professor's was skewed towards one extreme or the other, like the boards it's all about knowing one is correct and the other is to be annihilated or at best, demonized. This is not the most effective way to encourage logical thinking.

Of course, logical thinking is not the goal. The goal is liberal thinking. That's why differing opinions are shut out.

 

[Annie]

I'm in college. And the fact you think I only want Liberal ideas represented speaks of your own ignorance and not mine.

As for your non-answer I kept above, what do you mean by "accurate" views of history. What's "inaccurate" now in college? Do tell.

Many think that because the universities in the US began in the main as theological or teaching colleges they were conservative, not the case. By the twentieth C nearly all the major ones, with the possible exceptions of East Coast ivies, skewed towards liberal or new thinking. Really who would logically come to any other conclusion? Truly inquisitive people are usually going to be interested in whatever is on the horizon, even just theoretically. It's no surprise that universities like U of C or Stanford had social sciences dominated by socialism and communism in the early part of the 20th C. Marx and Engles were seminal writers that presented something real to counteract the worst of capitalism.

I first entered the universities in mid-70's, U of Illinois and U of Chicago. Majoring in sociology and political science, in was inevitable that most of my professors would tend towards liberal and they did. Both were good schools, though it was at U of Chicago that I found more counter thinking from the university norm. Even 'liberal' professors wanted the students able to argue against either side. IL was a more 'normal' atmosphere of the times, lots of protests. Nixon was gone, Vietnam was over. The new 'issue' was the Shah of Iran and how he should be violently removed from the planet. The difference from the protests of bygone years was they did not spill off of the campuses.

Only once during those years did I have a professor that actually would not tolerate differences in thinking from his. It was at U of I and in political science. He wanted all of his classes to attend a rally against the Shah at Daley Center and required attendance as part of grade. I disagreed. He'd been an activist through the 60's and just wouldn't let go. I took the issue to the dean and successfully fought that requirement. That was the only time a professor's political agenda literally spilled onto possible success in completing a course.

Returning to university in early-90's was very different. While part of the reason surely was that I was raising 3 young children on my own and money was also a big deal, I chose to attend a mid-tier school within walking distance of my home. There were no 'burning issues' that were evident in class, with the possible exception of education department being full blown for inclusion and cooperative groups.

While all of my history profs were liberal in political thinking, only one actually was vocal about tying all discussions to what was currently wrong with America; from early on to the present and surely the future. Being older and better read than my peers, not too mention that by that time my own political thinking was well-developed, I would challenge him during class and in written exams. He always gave me an A. He had a healthy respect for differences in opinion and I had the same attitude. Discussions could get heated, but were respectful. His own comments during presentations would surely have influenced some of the students if they stood alone, but his respect for my own, especially counterpoints gave balance to the class. He acknowledged that and towards the end of the semester actually said so to the class.

That however was the 90's, not the most troubled of times for our country, at least not on the surface in the social science departments. My guess is that today students are not being exposed to much differences in opinions. I don't think it would much matter whether the professor's was skewed towards one extreme or the other, like the boards it's all about knowing one is correct and the other is to be annihilated or at best, demonized. This is not the most effective way to encourage logical thinking.

Of course, logical thinking is not the goal. The goal is liberal thinking. That's why differing opinions are shut out.

I'm very much going to sound like the 'teacher' here. The best way to protect against indoctrination in universities is to discuss issues at the dining table. Read the paper, share with your kids. Play devil's advocate. Begin this early, around kindergarten. Encourage critical thinking. Granted, you may raise kids that don't see eye-to-eye with you, but will know how to defend their logic.

 

[chanel]

Catholic Universities employ professors with a variety of backgrounds and views. Imagine if they fired every teacher who was gay, pro-choice, Jewish, Muslim, etc. It would not happen.

And professors views are not only slanted when it comes to history. Any social science class can be argued from a left/right, capitalist/communist, female/male, black/white, etc. perspective.

This school made a terrible mistake. But as we have discussed on many threads, unfortunately, the gay card trumps them all.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[daveman]

I'm very much going to sound like the 'teacher' here. The best way to protect against indoctrination in universities is to discuss issues at the dining table. Read the paper, share with your kids. Play devil's advocate. Begin this early, around kindergarten. Encourage critical thinking. Granted, you may raise kids that don't see eye-to-eye with you, but will know how to defend their logic.

I'd be interested to see how many liberals versus conservatives do that.

 

[editec]

What happened to that TENURE so many of you think gives all educators lifetime job security?

Gee...another perfect example of what total bullshit that myth really is.

 

[Annie]

What happened to that TENURE so many of you think gives all educators lifetime job security?

Gee...another perfect example of what total bullshit that myth really is.

Conservative professors and tenure has been a recent flash point for past several years. Here' a link, but as usual with university info, got to have an in for most of it. Still can pick up gist from bit:

Baylor Professors Criticize Denial of Tenure to Conservative Colleague; Indiana Community-College Figure Will Retire; Professor Is Islamic Society's First Female President - Faculty - The Chronicle of Higher Education

 

[PoliticalChic]

What happened to that TENURE so many of you think gives all educators lifetime job security?

Gee...another perfect example of what total bullshit that myth really is.

The myth here is that you actually know anything about the topic.

Here is a tutorial: your rebuttal is in item #6

1. In the 19th century, university professors largely served at the pleasure of the board of trustees of the university. Sometimes, major donors could successfully remove professors or prohibit the hiring of certain individuals;… In one debate of the Cornell Board of Trustees, in the 1870s, a businessman trustee argued against the prevailing system of de facto tenure, but lost the argument. Tenure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. The modern institution of academic tenure was hastened by progressive academia’s solidarity with E.A.Ross, progressive sociologist and social engineer and eugenicist. His thesis was that immigration would lead to “race suicide.”

3. He studied at Johns Hopkins under Woodrow Wilson and Richard Ely, and was influenced, as were most progressives, by German national socialists. He shared with Wilson and Ely the belief that social progress had to realize innate differences between races: Africans and South Americans were close to being savages, and Asians might be more advanced but were degenerating.

a. He served as a tutor to Teddy Roosevelt on immigration, and Roosevelt wrote the introduction to Ross’s “Sin and Society.”

4. Ross believed that America was headed for destruction due to immigration, intermarriage, and the refusal of the state to impose eugenic reforms.

a. He wrote: “Observe immigrants…in their gatherings, washed and combed, and in their Sunday best…[They] are hirsute, low-browed, big-faced persons of obviously low mentality…[C]learly they belong in skins, in wattled huts at the close of the Great Ice Age. These ox-like men are descendants of those who always stayed behind.” David M. Kennedy, “Can We Still Afford To Be A Nation Of Immigrants?” Atlantic Monthly, Nov. 1996, p.52-68

5. Ross got a position at Stanford, but Stanford’s conservative grande dame and benefactor, Jane Lathrop Stanford disliked his loud and crude denunciation of Chinese ‘coolies,’ as this position was at odds with the university's founding family, the Stanfords, who had made their fortune in Western rail construction - a major employer of Chinese laborers. Ibid.

a. Numerous professors at Stanford resigned after protests of his dismissal, sparking "a national debate.”

b. Progressive organizations led by Richard Ely’s American Economic Association, rallied to his cause.

c. The NYTimes and other newspapers editorialized on his behalf.

d. But, Ross moved on to the University of Nebraska, where he worked with Roscoe Pound, on ‘sociological jurisprudence,’ and modern liberalism’s “living Constitution.”

6. In 1915, this was followed by the American Association of University Professors' (AAUP) declaration of principles—the traditional justification for academic freedom and tenure. In 1940, the AAUP recommended that the academic tenure probationary period be seven years -- still the current norm.


A careful study of the above will indicate two main points:
a) the immense and ubiquitous effects that progressives/liberals have had on society
b) the racist and homicidal origins therein.

 

[Barb]

Illinois professor fired for doing his job
by Sheila Liaugminas | 13 Jul 2010
Illinois professor fired for doing his job

1. Freedom of speech is at the heart of it, as is the effort yet again to attack legitimate expression of belief, expressed…where? In a classroom setting that fosters intellecutal inquiry and critical thinking skills?

2. The University of Illinois has fired an adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism after a student accused the instructor of engaging in hate speech by saying he agrees with the church’s teaching that homosexual sex is immoral….

3. Fired for sending an e-mail explaining some Catholic beliefs to his students preparing for an exam.
“Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY,” he wrote in the e-mail. “In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same.”

4. An unidentified student complained, on behalf of an “offended” student, (not sure why the offended student didn’t speak for himself or herself…), that this was ‘hate speech.’
“Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing,” the student wrote. “Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another.”

5. Compainant: "The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one’s worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation.”

By the guiding lights of those who cry ‘hate speech’ like this, public discourse and the engagement of independent thought is only welcomed if it agrees with their views.

6. Howell: “My responsibility on teaching a class on Catholicism is to teach what the Catholic Church teaches,” Howell said. “I have always made it very, very clear to my students they are never required to believe what I’m teaching and they’ll never be judged on that.”

I would argue then that he should have identified the proscription against homosexuality as Catholic Canon rather than a violation of "natural law." Catholicism is what he's paid to teach about. Natural law is subjective, and his personal views pejorative.

 

[PoliticalChic]

When one is burdened with the limited understanding of democracy, liberty, and the meaning of freedom as it applies to not only going where one wants, but thinking and saying what one wants, then your reponse might seem reasonable.

Of course, there is the possibility that an actual education might change that.

Maybe not.

Give me a break. I don't have a limited understanding of any of those things. I have a full understanding. You're the one who would be defenseless in a debate that doesn't involve the internet. You can't copy and paste someone else's words on the internet into your brain yet there PC.

There is no doubt that the subterranean institution to which you owe provenance never taught you how to write a scholarly paper...but in your case, after all, that would have been wasted.

As usual, your posts lack substance, writing ability and, worst of all, interest.

The last hope of your scribbling is to criticize the form of the response, as in ' copy and paste someone else's words,' as you are unable to coherently criticize the concepts and theses.

I have noted, of late, that some opponents have chosen a tortuous route to arguing against my posts: rather than substance, they (you) have chosen style as the tactic.

The reason may be
1. harboring the desire to attack, they have neither the ability nor the ammunition to deal with the point.
2. you are lacking in the educational training of developing an argumentative essay.

Some pointers.
1. Citing an authority with an established reputation is better, of course, than citing someone whose credentials are not so lofty. (Guide to Writing Research Papers: MLA-Style)

2. What has been pejoratively referred to as ‘simply cut and paste,’ is, in fact, carefully chosen to substantiate a point. Is the information covered fact, opinion, or propaganda? Facts can usually be verified; opinions, though they may be based on factual information, evolve from the interpretation of facts.
(Critically Analyzing Information Sources)

3. A valid objection to this selection of sources may be the type of audience being addressed. Is the ‘pasted selection’ aimed at a specialized or a general audience? Do you find the level ‘over your head’ or is this source too elementary? Ibid.

4. Are you objecting to the author's credentials--institutional affiliation (where he or she works), educational background, past writings, or experience? Or simply looking for a weapon to attack the post? This, of course, would be puerile.

5. Providing summaries or outlines of a source is valid as long as a link to the original is provided, and the author’s meaning is conveyed.

6. Nor is it necessary to insert one’s own language if the original article is simply abbreviated, with link provided.

7. What has been called ‘cut and paste’ is frequently the message board version of footnotes and endnotes of an academic essay. “…footnotes were declared outmoded just before the era of the word-processors which make using footnotes so much easier. Still, because of its relative ease in both writing and reading, parenthetical documentation is greatly preferred by most instructors.” Guide to Writing Research Papers: MLA-Style

While a public message board is the exact venue for giving opinions no matter their provenance, their attachment to reality, or even whether they are on a cognitive wavelength of any human on the planet, one should invest more credence to those that are able to show relevance, documentation and/or links. And, of course, a sense of humor.

None of which you evince.

In summary, I understand your criticiam as that of a drowning swimmer clutching at straws. Your posts are no more than comedy gold.

 

[Modbert]

Perhaps Daveman can enlighten us here in this thread about what's so "inaccurately" taught in college. After all, if there is so many things that are inaccurate, he could easily point out a couple.

 

[Modbert]

PC, what's a "footnote" on a paper and what you do is entirely different. If your posts were a paper, you would be cited for plagiarism because you offer no original points of your own. The only two times I've seen you offer a original thought, it was to bash Liberals and the other one was when you went batshit. I don't think I need to bring up the incident where you confused my post for a "Coming to America" quote, do I?

 

[Modbert]

I'd be interested to see how many liberals versus conservatives do that.

See Daveman, Annie offers up a intelligent logical post. All you offer up is "WELL, THOSE LIBERALS. YOU KNOW! I'M WILLING TO BET IT'S THOSE LIBERALS FAULT!"

You're a moron Dave. You've offered nothing to do this thread.

 

[Modbert]

For those who want to know what I'm talking about. Take a look at what is PC's loose grip on reality.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-discussion/93317-halloween-treats-2.html

The sig quote in question she was talking about:

Oh there they go. There they go, every time I start talkin 'bout boxing, a white man got to pull Rocky Marciano out their ass. That's their one, that's their one. Rocky Marciano. Rocky Marciano. Let me tell you something once and for all. Rocky Marciano was good, but compared to Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano ain't shit.

 

[Woyzeck]

Perhaps Daveman can enlighten us here in this thread about what's so "inaccurately" taught in college. After all, if there is so many things that are inaccurate, he could easily point out a couple.

I am also interested to know what history Dave considers 'accurate.'

Because it's a well known fact our high school history textbooks are filled with bad history and crap excuses for facts, have been for decades. They've gotten a bit better recently, but not by much. College on the other hand, is usually much better, but a lot of the times it's only if you're a history major, and take more than just a basic required history class.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, what's a "footnote" on a paper and what you do is entirely different. If your posts were a paper, you would be cited for plagiarism because you offer no original points of your own. The only two times I've seen you offer a original thought, it was to bash Liberals and the other one was when you went batshit. I don't think I need to bring up the incident where you confused my post for a "Coming to America" quote, do I?

Thank you for verifiing that you had no ability to comprehend the post...

it seems others did.

I will continue to post erudite and well contructed posts, and, I am sure, it will continue to irritate you.

Now, you continue to do your best. I'm sure some will make allowances for your condition: I don't suffer fools as easily.

 

[midcan5]

Another twisted thread from PC. If a corporation couldn't fire a person for whatever reason you'd complain, when they do, you complain, and the bizarreness is the same group will be blamed no matter which way the decision goes or why.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another twisted thread from PC. If a corporation couldn't fire a person for whatever reason you'd complain, when they do, you complain, and the bizarreness is the same group will be blamed no matter which way the decision goes or why.

It is truly tragic what you have become...

There was a time when your posts were thoughtful, sometimes humorous, but followed a logical protocol.

Now look at you.

1. You begin with the conclusion: "Another twisted thread from PC."

2. You creat the juvenile sort of strawman that one would associate with the lesser gifted members of our board, hypothesizing what I would or wouldn't say, rather than what I have actually posted.

3. I find it hard to believe, based on our previous tussles, that you are equating some typical 'corporation' with that lofty and eminent collection of thinkers known as a university.
Is this the hill you want to die on?

a. “…The fate of the modern university and the fate of Western civilization are inextricably intertwined.” Brigette Berger, “Multiculturalism and the Modern University,” from ‘The Politics of Political Correctness,’ in the Partisan Review (1993) pp. 516, 519

b. This from Melanie Philips, "The World Turned Upside Down," may not be an exact quote:
…various ideas in the popular discourse are presented as unchallengeable truths, but are, in fact, ideologies in which evidence is manipulated, twisted and distorted to ‘prove’ their thesis. And since such ideas are assumed to be the sole and exclusive truth, it cannot permit any challenge: believers must maintain at all costs, the integrity of the falsity. Challenges must be repelled by vituperation, by coercive means, by distain, by disregard. Reason is replaced by bullying, intimidation, and by the suppression of debate.

Liberals stamp out dissent by social and professional ostracism and legal discrimination. This is the modern version of methods used by medieval Christianity: a secular Inquisition.
Intelligentsia as grand inquisitors: in the media, universities, the law, political and professional groups. The dominating ideologies include anti-capitalism, feminism, multiculturalism, and environmentalism. They form the unchallengeable orthodoxy in academia. No challenges or deviations are permitted, and anyone who does not share these values is defined as extreme.
These ideologies have as their common theme the overturning of the established order of the West.
How ironic that intellectual liberty is assaulted within the institutions of reason.
(emphasis mine)

I love the battle, the debate, the contention, the fun...but, lately, your posts fill me with sadness, as you are a mere shell of your former self.
I hope that this is not an emanation of a problem in your real life.