Baldimo wrote:blatham wrote:Quote:There was s study that showed that at least 70% or more of college professors were liberal and voted democrat. This is indeed proof that colleges are littered with the liberal mindset. When writers like Chomsky are used in classes what else could it mean?
Is this a study you read? Is this a study you even know anything about, other than hearing someone else say, "there was a study..."?
Can you deny that a majorty of college professors are liberal? When was the last time you were in school or even college? I'm there now and happen to see it even in my public speaking class.
Ten years ago.
Probably the majority of university professors would define themselves as liberal. Also nurses. Also social workers. Also anglican priests. Also canadian citizens as it happens. If your interests and goals lead you in the direction of helping others, as opposed to making a pile of money, your probably going to define yourself as a liberal.
What do you see in your public speaking class? And are you now a liberal as a consequence of this siting?
Quote:Chomsky? Do you have even the foggiest notion of what percentage of university students would have him on a reading list? Perhaps one out of every two-five thousand. Do you have any idea what they would be studying? Linguistics.
While you are right that he is into linguistics, it is his study of politics and socialism
he's not a socialist that bothers me
why would it bother you? Some ideas are illegal in that institution which is our most fundamental bulwark against repression of ideas and towards the forwarding of the open investigation of ideas?[/[/color]color] and it is those books that seem to make it around the university circuit. Nice try with the evade. It won't work, remember I'm there now and have seen this and have heard about it from other students. There's no evasion, baldimo. You clearly know next to nothing about chomsky (have you read a single paragraph?) and evasion is unnecessary.
[quote]But let's say it's approximately accurate. What would it tell you? That when you walk out of biology, you are going to vote x instead of y? That when you take a course in physiology or French literature or physics or computer science that political viewpoints will be shoved down your throat between peeks into a microscope or those french verbs? Your lack of familiarity with the university environment is too apparent. And that does some pretty serious damage to any pretence of certainty you have here.
You forget about the manadorty humanities classes that people have to take to fulfil requirements for degrees. It is the poly sci classes that have to be taught, the into to soc classes that have to be taken. Don't try and confuse the issue with classes that you know don't require a point of view. There are others that do and you know it.
Few universities I know of have mandatory courses in political theory or in sociology even for a Bachelor of Arts degree. For other degrees, often none at all. History requirements are common, as are english and math and often a science, but that's about it for mandatory.
So you've got the picture wrong, because of what you are reading and listening to (and it is false or misrepresentative) but even if you didn't, so what? You haven't turned into a commie.
Quote:You wish to see the 'academic bill of rights' applied in universities. I like that. Affirmative Action for conservatives and the religious (preferably christian though). And I wish to have communists placed in 50% of all government departments, board offices, and church podiums. Can we make a deal?
No because it is the liberal view that already has a voice in such places as the schools.
We have no strong voice in the evangelical churches, and we demand 50% What do you call it when entering freshmen are forced to read a book about Islam and then right a paper on it?
That's the reddest herring I've ever seen. You find me the instance where this occured. Not a link to a right wing source of ridiculous surmise, but to the university program where this occured. What the hell do you think is education? It's about learning NEW things, about expanding your noggin, about fresh ideas. You, probably more than anyone else on this thread ought to read Muslim scripture. Would this same thing have happened for the Bible or even the Torah? No people like you would scream about "Seperation of Church and State".
Nah. What I'd like most of all is for muslims to study the bible and Buddhism and for christians to study the Qur'an and Hinduism.
Here's a article about how liberal schools keep conservatives from teaching certain subjects.
--------------
Mediator's Ruling Favors Conservative Professor in Dispute at U. Montana
By Jennifer Jacobson--Chronicle of Higher Ed--08/27/04
A law professor at the University of Montana who said he had long been denied his wish to teach constitutional law because of his conservative political views will now get a chance to teach it, under a ruling issued by an outside mediator.
The professor, Robert G. Natelson, had appealed the School of Law's most recent decision to deny his request, charging that the administration had allowed only liberal professors to teach the course.
However, Donald C. Robinson, a Montana lawyer who mediated the case this summer, did not consider the question of whether Mr. Natelson had been discriminated against based on his politics. Mr. Robinson found only that the professor had been treated unfairly and decided that he should be permitted to teach constitutional law, on a trial basis.
"The decision of the hearing officer was really a clarion call for fairness," Mr. Natelson told The Chronicle after Mr. Robinson announced his ruling, on Thursday. "If everyone is treated fairly in academia, there will be no political discrimination."
Mr. Natelson, who ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination for governor in 1996 and 2000, said he was "really happy" about the decision. "It's good for the law school," he said. "I really look forward to working with students in constitutional law."
In a letter to Mr. Natelson and E. Edwin Eck, dean of the law school, G.M. Dennison, the university's president, said he accepted Mr. Robinson's recommendations. Those include that Mr. Natelson be allowed to teach constitutional law in the spring semester and that Mr. Eck establish an independent committee to evaluate Mr. Natelson's teaching, scholarship, and service, and to decide whether to assign him to the course permanently.
In his grievance, Mr. Natelson, who has taught courses in property and real-estate law and legal history, argued that allowing senior faculty members to move from courses they have taught into vacant ones was a common practice.
On Thursday he said that he welcomed an objective evaluation of his performance, and that he had struggled for years to get one. Four times the law school had denied his request to fill a vacancy in teaching the course, he said.
Montana officials praised Mr. Robinson for choosing not to judge the dispute's political dimension.
"I was pleased to see the president noting there was no finding of political discrimination," Dean Eck said, referring to Mr. Dennison's letter. In it, the president wrote that Mr. Robinson had found "personal animus" on the part of several law professors toward Mr. Natelson, but not political discrimination.
Even so, "there's no question I am disappointed," said Mr. Eck, who described himself as a conservative Republican. The mediator's recommendations, he said, limited his discretion in considering teaching evaluations in assigning professors to teach courses. Some evaluations, he said, had criticized Mr. Natelson for a lack of collegiality with both students and professors.
Even so, Mr. Eck said that he and his colleagues plan to put the dispute behind them.
"Fairness is a good beginning for building a collegial working relationship," Mr. Natelson said, echoing his dean's sentiment. "My hope is we can go forward at the law school with such a relationship. I'll do everything I can to foster that
--------------------
The same thing could have been said 50 years ago of blacks, just because it wasn't found doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Interesting to see how this one turns out.
Did you bother to read this piece you pasted?
"the president wrote that Mr. Robinson had found "personal animus" on the part of several law professors toward Mr. Natelson, but not political discrimination."
[/quote]
For anyone else who is following Baldimo's tortured arguments here, you might want to read up on Clint Bollick. He was a young lawyer working for Bork when Bork was refused. That event set him on a passionate crusade and probably more than anyone else, he's responsible for this legal and public relations strategy of hijacking civil rights language (baldimo's use of the segregation and racial intolerance metaphor) for use in forwarding the conservative ideology through the courts (eg against affirmative action). A common trick is portraying the person or group as a victim. In the affirmative action cases, the white guy is really the victim of racism, not the black guy.
