Why Are Universities Dominated By The Left?

[wonderwench]

Fascinating first piece of a two part article discussing why universities are controlled by the Left.

The hegemony of the Left over the universities is so overwhelming that not even Leftists deny it. Whether the institution is public or private, a community college or an Ivy League campus, you can with absolute confidence predict that the curriculum will be suffused with themes such as:

* capitalism is inherently unjust, dehumanizing, and impoverishing;
* socialism, whatever its practical failures, is motivated by the highest ideals and that its luminaries -- especially Marx -- have much to teach us;
* globalization hurts the poor of the Third World;
* natural resources are being depleted at an alarming rate and that human industrial activity is an ever-increasing threat to "the environment";
* most if not all psychological and behavioral differences between men and women are "socially constructed" and that male-female differences in income, representation in various professions, and the like are mostly the result of "sexism";
* the pathologies of the underclass in the United States are due to racism and that the pathologies of the Third World are due to the lingering effects of colonialism;
* Western civilization is uniquely oppressive, especially to women and "people of color," and that its products are spiritually inferior to those of non-Western cultures;
* traditional religious belief, especially of the Christian sort, rests on ignorance of modern scientific advances, cannot today be rationally justified, and persists on nothing more than wishful thinking;
* traditional moral scruples, especially regarding sex, also rest on superstition and ignorance and have no rational justification; and so on and on.

More

 

[William Joyce]

I think the answer is that the left saw an opportunity and took it. Anyone interested in how this all went down should look into the life story of communist Antonio Gramsci, namesake of the "Gramscian March." Another interesting story is how Franz Boas of Columbia's anthropology department took over from the Darwinians and, with a coterie of co-scholars, turned social science on its head. Basically, some very dedicated people got in there, worked in concert and made inroads that are today basically unchallenged.

I'm not supposed to mention it outside my dedicated thread, but those who are up for a little walk on the wild side of conservative thought might want to investigate whether "the left" is really an accurate description of the particular individuals involved in the takeover of American academia.

 

[Big D]

Who else is going to listen to these liberal views, then a bunch of kids?
I think most of us had more liberal views when we were younger, at least I did, but then it's time to grow up, for some of us at least.

 

[Bern80]

Dinesh D'Souza has some theories on this as well.

The simple answer if you ask me is that if the liberal slant is really your passion in life, then academia is the only place you can get a job. Especially, in the social sciences where there is not as much emphasis on facts. It is where liberals get to pass off their propaganda as actual knowledge. Though there are few conservatives in Academia the few that are teach the hard sciences teaching facts.

I know first hand how hard it is to filter out liberal academia from actual knowledge and really it's getting simply asanine. One prof from my school went so far as to require students to write letters to congressman condemning the war. This was an actual graded assignment.

Not to toot my own horn, but if you want balance things out, do what i did and get involved. The one thing liberals have going for them is that they are usually more organized. I was President of the Trap Shooting Club in college. Yes that, has to do with guns. Can you imagine? I also am a cofounder of Students Fostering Conservative Thought. A club formed for the specific intent of presenting the never heard other side on our campus.

 

[freeandfun1]

Because liberals can't hold real jobs in the real world, so they end up in universities.

Let me ask you this.... How many times have you taken a course or studied a major only to find what they teach you in college is nothing like how it is done in real life. See, the thing is, they don't know how things work in the real world, because they have never worked in it. I laughed when I went back to finish college after 8 years in the Army and I had a business professor that had NEVER worked beyond being a teacher. He was one of those lifelong students that never gets any real-life experience.

JMHO!

 

[kcmcdonald]

I'm going to college right now and i can tell you 90% of every involved with or attending my school U of Montana is extermly liberal. I mean absoluttly radical. Even the teachers. Those point about gloabalization and race are totally true. I took an International relations course and my professor said these exact same things.
All who are college students check out "students for academic freedom." It's headed by David Horawitz and deals with this very subject of Left influenced learning enviroment of colleges.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Because liberals can't hold real jobs in the real world, so they end up in universities.

running IT departments for all these financial companies must be a figment of my imagination then

 

[Bry]

It seems that this is not a new trend. The University has *ALWAYS* been a bastion of left-leaning thought and resistance, and a source of criticism of the mainstream.

My own experience was different, as the university I attended might be called right-leaning. My professors, almost across the board, valued construction and defense of independent thought regardless of its orientation, rather than the regurgitation of left propaganda. I did take a few psychology classes at a different institution, and those few classes did seem to be more explicitly dogmatically left. However, it has frequently been pointed out that Marx is seldom read in the University (at least in the US...), and that his disciples are few and far between, including most notably Frederic Jameson at Duke. Most of my own philosophy professors rejected Marx outright, while Yale and other more mainstream philosophy departments, on the other hand, have long been dominated by more conservative individualist schools of thought, the disciples of John Rawls. (The article in fact is written by a member of that school, and a card-carrying member of the ivory tower.) Of course, even most individualists recognize the threat posed to individual freedoms by laisez-faire economics.

That youth tends toward idealism has long been held to be almost self-evident. When else in life can we dedicate ourselves to contemplating abstract concepts while enjoying an almost complete sanctuary from such "real-world" concerns as shelter and nourishment? Afterwards, practical demands experienced with the cut-throat competition of the "real-world" typically force that idealism to alter significantly. However, Universities are increasingly being forced out of this role of sanctuary, cutting funding across the board to humanities departments and inverting funding in business schools and the hard sciences. Positions opening for humanities department at Universities are few and far between, usually temporary, and the competition for such positions is incredible, frequently attracting thousands of thoroughly qualified applicants for each position made available. That someone might seek to make a career of academia I find perfectly understandable, but it is, simply, no longer a viable option.

On the other hand, is it a mere accident that this article which criticizes the bias of American Universities was written by a Visiting Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Loyola Marymount University?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Bry
Of course, even most individualists recognize the threat posed to individual freedoms by laisez-faire economics.

Oh really? Please explain it to me.

On the other hand, is it a mere accident that this article which criticizes the bias of American Universities was written by a Visiting Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Loyola Marymount University?

and of course, the inevitable christian bash. You're pathetic.

 

[Bry]

rtwngAvngr:

There was no "christian bash" intended. I was merely pointing out that he is a card carrying academic, even as he criticizes the self-interest with which left-academics justify their existence. I did not know that Loyola Marymount was christian affiliated, nor did it have anything to do with my comments. I'd appreciate it if you'd say something more substantive than insults when you respond to my posts.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Bry
rtwngAvngr:

There was no "christian bash" intended. I was merely pointing out that he is a card carrying academic, even as he criticizes the self-interest with which left-academics justify their existence. I did not know that Loyola Marymount was christian affiliated, nor did it have anything to do with my comments. I'd appreciate it if you'd say something more substantive than insults when you respond to my posts.

If he's an academic, he should be MORE reliable, not less.

Sorry. I didn't realize you were academic bashing.

 

[freeandfun1]

running IT departments for all these financial companies must be a figment my imagination then

1, 2, 3, or even 300 exceptions, do not make a rule. I stand by my statement. I would venture a guess that 90% of all liberals come from 4 classes.

1. University Faculty
2. Journalists
3. Government Workers (or lfelong politicians)
4. Personal Injury and Defence Attorneys

Also, I am not sure, but I will check unless somebody else knows for sure off the top of their head, but if I recall correctly, NOT ONE democratic president of the 20th Century ever held a meaningful job in the civilian world. In other words, none of them had ever run a business. Carter is probably the closest to being a businessman as any as he was a farmer that worked a FAMILY farm.

 

[Psychoblues]

I certainly can't speak for all of them but I can speak for a few. UT, University of Tennessee, has always been and is now not a bastion of liberal ideology but quite the opposite. Same for MSU, Mississippi State University, UG, University of Georgia and on and on. The desire of southerners to somehow break the glass ceiling of entreprenurial and educational heirarchy is evidenced in their consistently conservative curriculi. Even the University of Memphis, formerly Memphis State, is inundated by pressures to conform to more conservative ideology to the expense of true education and artful expressionism. Go figure?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
I certainly can't speak for all of them but I can speak for a few. UT, University of Tennessee, has always been and is now not a bastion of liberal ideology but quite the opposite. Same for MSU, Mississippi State University, UG, University of Georgia and on and on. The desire of southerners to somehow break the glass ceiling of entreprenurial and educational heirarchy is evidenced in their consistently conservative curriculi. Even the University of Memphis, formerly Memphis State, is inundated by pressures to conform to more conservative ideology to the expense of true education and artful expressionism. Go figure?

Liberal dogma is not true education. Liberalism is a distortion of logic, history, and reality itself.

 

[RightyRightOn]

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.