0
   

Diversity of Everything but Thought

 
 
Foxfyre
 
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2004 11:17 am
We've looked at how the U.S. media is 75% - 80% left of center with 8 out of 10 media figures being registered Democrats. The following illustrates an even more intense imbalance in academia when compared with the politics, values, and beliefs of average Americans.

What makes this remarkable is that there remains such wide diversity of thought among those average Americans.

Quote:
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 68,610 • Replies: 2,157
No top replies

 
husker
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2004 11:20 am
interesting
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2004 11:27 am
Perhaps there is a correlation between higher intelligence and liberalism?

"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."

- Washington

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2004 11:28 am
Yes I thought it was very interesting. It also explains why so many of the younger members in forums like A2K are so rabidly liberal. They are being brainwashed like crazy in the universities. Fortunately, many will see the light once they are out in the real world and have a clearer view of realities.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2004 11:31 am
Yeah, right, Fox!

According to you, it's the highest educated parts of our society that have it wrong, right? Doesn't seem to make much sense.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2004 11:36 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Yes I thought it was very interesting. It also explains why so many of the younger members in forums like A2K are so rabidly liberal. They are being brainwashed like crazy in the universities. Fortunately, many will see the light once they are out in the real world and have a clearer view of realities.


One can only hope. Meanwhile, here's more...

Quote:
Hate 101
Climate of hate rocks Columbia University
By DOUGLAS FEIDEN
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

In the world of Hamid Dabashi, supporters of Israel are "warmongers" and "Gestapo apparatchiks."
The Jewish homeland is "nothing more than a military base for the rising predatory empire of the United States."

It's a capital of "thuggery" - a "ghastly state of racism and apartheid" - and it "must be dismantled."

A voice from America's crackpot fringe? Actually, Dabashi is a tenured professor and department chairman at Columbia University. And his views have resonated and been echoed in other areas of the university.

Columbia is at risk of becoming a poison Ivy, some critics claim, and tensions are high.

In classrooms, teach-ins, interviews and published works, dozens of academics are said to be promoting an I-hate-Israel agenda, embracing the ugliest of Arab propaganda, and teaching that Zionism is the root of all evil in the Mideast.

In three weeks of interviews, numerous students told the Daily News they face harassment, threats and ridicule merely for defending the right of Israel to survive.

And the university itself is holding investigations into the alleged intimidation.

Dabashi has achieved academic stardom: professor of Iranian studies; chairman of the Middle East and Asian languages and cultures department; past head of a panel that administers Columbia's core curriculum.

The 53-year-old, Iranian-born scholar has said CNN should be held accountable for "war crimes" for one-sided coverage of Sept. 11, 2001. He doubts the existence of Al Qaeda and questions the role of Osama Bin Laden in the attacks.

Dabashi did not return calls.

In September in the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram, he wrote, "What they call Israel is no mere military state. A subsumed militarism, a systemic mendacity with an ingrained violence constitutional to the very fusion of its fabric, has penetrated the deepest corners of what these people have to call their soul."


Read more
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2004 11:37 am
Maybe you have some specific members in mind, fox? I don't presume to know the ages and education of other members, so I don't know how a conclusion like that could be formed.

While I do think that instruction in the social sciences and humanities leans left, I don't know how politics finds its way into the 'hard sciences' mentioned in the article. Any ideas there?
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2004 01:05 pm
Re: Diversity of Everything but Thought
Foxfyre wrote:
We've looked at how the U.S. media is 75% - 80% left of center with 8 out of 10 media figures being registered Democrats.


We have? Where? Would you mind directing me to this data? The definition of "data", just so's we're clear, does not include a George Will column.

Foxfyre wrote:
The following illustrates an even more intense imbalance in academia when compared with the politics, values, and beliefs of average Americans.


Here I was tempted to respond with, "So why don't you morons start up your own universities and media", and then I realized, you have. The ultraconservatives have for years now been building an infrastructure, outside the "reality-based community", to tell your minions and lickspittles what and how they are supposed to think.

<slaps forehead>

Foxfyre wrote:
I first read this in the NY Times (I think) - first place I found a link was in the NY Post but George is featured everywhere, so please don't hold that against him.


Yes he is, just like a bad rash. I'm sorry, but George Will lost any semblance of evenhandedness in his grade school years. You just shouldn't expect any agreement from any sensible person on Will as an unbiased source of information.

Listen, I'll cut to the chase, Foxy.

I think it would be just peachy if you red-state-of-mind folks simply stayed away from the institutions of higher learning in the blue states.

We wouldn't want you to be corrupted, either.

Go ahead and toss your epithets at them, though; that's what I enjoy the most when I go past the primate habitat at the zoo.

Monkeys flinging their poop.
0 Replies
 
Magus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2004 02:12 pm
"Poop" is just a generic term... for the "dogma" of the ignorant.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2004 02:39 pm
Freeduck writes
Quote:
Maybe you have some specific members in mind, fox? I don't presume to know the ages and education of other members, so I don't know how a conclusion like that could be formed.

While I do think that instruction in the social sciences and humanities leans left, I don't know how politics finds its way into the 'hard sciences' mentioned in the article. Any ideas there?


I won't use any specific name here.l It's just my observation that those who have indicated they are in the under 30 group and/or are in college all seem to be in the left-of-center crowd. Of course at that age, so was I.

I don't really know why the hard sciences are tilting predominently left at the universities cited unless left-leaning professors are given hiring preference. Without futher study, I don't know that this tilt is universal. My son is a mechanical engineering graduate and felt his professors were pretty apolitical. They just never got into it. My daughter, advanced degrees in sociology, did.

The issue of course is that with no diversity of thought out there, how much chance do students have to get a balanced picture so that they can make a reasoned choice?

For Pdiddie: Here. Poke around this site:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2004 02:44 pm
I left college 30 years ago, and I'm still left of center. While this doesn't disprove the thesis here, it seems to me that there has been a groundswell of conservative sentiment on campuses, including kids who think Reagan was some sort of deity.

Strange but true!
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2004 03:04 pm
Fox, very young people, of any ideology, tend to be the more rabid parrots of their parents or mentors. My hope would be that the purpose of higher education is to encourage research and independent thought so that over time a person can temper their ideology with actual facts. If the fact that students are exposed to left of center politics in college precludes them from hearing alternative ideas, then I could agree with you. But most people take from many different sources when developing their own political personalities. The conservative voice of America is very far from silent.
0 Replies
 
Steppenwolf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2004 04:15 pm
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2004 07:16 pm
Steppenwolf writes
Quote:
Do people expect academics to side with a group that calls academia and higher learning "out of touch," insists that academics are a bad influence, and calls scientists mass murderers, liars, idiots, immoral, etc. (look no further than this forum and thread for examples)? At the same time that populist Republicans are saying "you're ruining America" they're asking "why don't you academic types like us?" It's a bit odd.


Well firstly I don't know anybody out here in flyover country, and I do mean I don't know ANYBODY who calls scientists mass murderers, liars, idiots, immoral, etc. Some do place a tension between science and religion, but the vast majority do not even do that.

I do think any professor wrong who attempts to indoctrinate students with his/her left wing ideology and grades off for any who do not agree with it. I have gone toe to toe with a couple of these myself.

The problem is not only that students get only half an education from these people, but these people are indoctrinating the teachers who will be teaching the children too. It's no wonder than homeschooling is becoming increasingly popular.

I think the thing I object to the most is the incessant pessimism re our nation, re the human spirit, re the destiny of humankind that seems to be pervasive in higher education these days. I recommend an interesting movie out there: Joe Pesci in "With Honors". It really illustrates the point I think.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2004 07:40 pm
Steppenwolf wrote:
Do people expect academics to side with a group that calls academia and higher learning "out of touch," insists that academics are a bad influence, and calls scientists mass murderers, liars, idiots, immoral, etc. (look no further than this forum and thread for examples)? At the same time that populist Republicans are saying "you're ruining America" they're asking "why don't you academic types like us?" It's a bit odd.


Funny. People expected others to vote against Bush while at the same time calling them redneck idiots, etc.. and then after the election pondered "what were they thinking?" Pot -> kettle = black?
0 Replies
 
Steppenwolf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2004 08:35 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Well firstly I don't know anybody out here in flyover country, and I do mean I don't know ANYBODY who calls scientists mass murderers, liars, idiots, immoral, etc. Some do place a tension between science and religion, but the vast majority do not even do that.


Nobody? I can think of one. Anyway, that was a tongue-in-cheek reference to an ongoing thread in this forum. However, my point stands: While many complain about the Northeastern liberal elite and their oppressive views of middle America, some of the people making those arguments fail to see that their beliefs about the academic elite are equally condescending, self-righteous and alienating.

Allow me to introduce some anecdotal evidence. It's not worth much statistically, but it certainly trumps Joe Pesci movies.Smile As someone who straddles between the country and urban-academia, I find many rural 'common folk' much more judgmental than the allegedly condescending liberal elite, although neither side is particularly understanding. When I'm visiting home (rural south), I never talk about my education with anyone outside of my immediate family. If the topic ever comes up, I'm almost always greeted with some form of derision, as if anything above a bachelors degree from the local college is akin to a scarlet "A.' On the other hand, I never experience anything of the sort in class, from my classmates, or from professors.

Quote:
I do think any professor wrong who attempts to indoctrinate students with his/her left wing ideology and grades off for any who do not agree with it. I have gone toe to toe with a couple of these myself.


Toe-to-toe? It was my impression that you were well beyond the college years. Am I wrong? I also haven't experienced anything like what you describe. I've got ultra-conservative friends who get fantastic grades despite their disagreements with professors. I also find myself to the right of my colleagues and profs. on 95% of the issues, but I don't feel discriminated against, oppressed or anything of the sort. Yes, the top schools (Chicago excepted) are predominantly liberal, but are they really indoctrinating and brainwashing? I only hear about the horrible oppression of Republicans from my acquaintances back home, none of whom attend (or have even seen) the universities that they slander.

Quote:
I think the thing I object to the most is the incessant pessimism re our nation, re the human spirit, re the destiny of humankind that seems to be pervasive in higher education these days. I recommend an interesting movie out there: Joe Pesci in "With Honors". It really illustrates the point I think.
0 Replies
 
Steppenwolf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2004 08:37 pm
fishin' wrote:
Steppenwolf wrote:
Do people expect academics to side with a group that calls academia and higher learning "out of touch," insists that academics are a bad influence, and calls scientists mass murderers, liars, idiots, immoral, etc. (look no further than this forum and thread for examples)? At the same time that populist Republicans are saying "you're ruining America" they're asking "why don't you academic types like us?" It's a bit odd.


Funny. People expected others to vote against Bush while at the same time calling them redneck idiots, etc.. and then after the election pondered "what were they thinking?" Pot -> kettle = black?


I already made that point. And no, I've never called anyone a redneck idiot. And I'm not even liberal. Confused
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2004 08:42 pm
Steppenwolf wrote:
I already made that point. And no, I've never called anyone a redneck idiot. But keep fighting the good fight against the liberal bogeymen! And I'm not even liberal. Confused


Did I say anywhere that the comment was directed at you personally? Feeling a little paraniod tonight are you? lol
0 Replies
 
Steppenwolf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Nov, 2004 08:45 pm
fishin' wrote:
Steppenwolf wrote:
I already made that point. And no, I've never called anyone a redneck idiot. But keep fighting the good fight against the liberal bogeymen! And I'm not even liberal. Confused


Did I say anywhere that the comment was directed at you personally? Feeling a little paraniod tonight are you? lol


Perhaps. :wink: At any rate, you did quote me, so I don't feel too bad assuming that you were talking to the person you were quoting.

edit: I decided to remove the last part of my post--it was kind of smart-ass-ish.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Nov, 2004 06:48 am
I tend to agree with this guys take on things:

What Became of Conservatives?
by Paul Craig Roberts

America has blundered into a needless and dangerous war, and fully half of the country's population is enthusiastic. Many Christians think that war in the Middle East signals "end times" and that they are about to be wafted up to heaven. Many patriots think that, finally, America is standing up for itself and demonstrating its righteous might. Conservatives are taking out their Vietnam frustrations on Iraqis. Karl Rove is wrapping Bush in the protective cloak of war leader. The military-industrial complex is drooling over the profits of war. And neoconservatives are laying the groundwork for Israeli territorial expansion.

The evening before Thanksgiving Rush Limbaugh was on C-Span TV explaining that these glorious developments would have been impossible if talk radio and the conservative movement had not combined to break the power of the liberal media.

In the Thanksgiving issue of National Review, editor Richard Lowry and former editor John O'Sullivan celebrate Bush's reelection triumph over "a hostile press corps." "Try as they might," crowed O'Sullivan, "they couldn't put Kerry over the top."

There was a time when I could rant about the "liberal media" with the best of them. But in recent years I have puzzled over the precise location of the "liberal media."

Not so long ago I would have identified the liberal media as the New York Times and Washington Post, CNN and the three TV networks, and National Public Radio. But both the Times and the Post fell for the Bush administration's lies about WMD and supported the US invasion of Iraq. On balance CNN, the networks, and NPR have not made an issue of the Bush administration's changing explanations for the invasion.

Apparently, Rush Limbaugh and National Review think there is a liberal media because the prison torture scandal could not be suppressed and a cameraman filmed the execution of a wounded Iraqi prisoner by a US Marine.

Do the Village Voice and The Nation comprise the "liberal media"? The Village Voice is known for Nat Henthof and his columns on civil liberties. Every good conservative believes that civil liberties are liberal because they interfere with the police and let criminals go free. The Nation favors spending on the poor and disfavors gun rights, but I don't see the "liberal hate" in The Nation's feeble pages that Rush Limbaugh was denouncing on C-Span.

In the ranks of the new conservatives, however, I see and experience much hate. It comes to me in violently worded, ignorant and irrational emails from self-professed conservatives who literally worship George Bush. Even Christians have fallen into idolatry. There appears to be a large number of Americans who are prepared to kill anyone for George Bush.

The Iraqi War is serving as a great catharsis for multiple conservative frustrations: job loss, drugs, crime, homosexuals, pornography, female promiscuity, abortion, restrictions on prayer in public places, Darwinism and attacks on religion. Liberals are the cause. Liberals are against America. Anyone against the war is against America and is a liberal. "You are with us or against us."

This is the mindset of delusion, and delusion permits of no facts or analysis. Blind emotion rules. Americans are right and everyone else is wrong. End of the debate.

That, gentle reader, is the full extent of talk radio, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal Editorial page, National Review, the Weekly Standard, and, indeed, of the entire concentrated corporate media where noncontroversy in the interest of advertising revenue rules.

Once upon a time there was a liberal media. It developed out of the Great Depression and the New Deal. Liberals believed that the private sector is the source of greed that must be restrained by government acting in the public interest. The liberals' mistake was to identify morality with government. Liberals had great suspicion of private power and insufficient suspicion of the power and inclination of government to do good.

Liberals became Benthamites (after Jeremy Bentham). They believed that as the people controlled government through democracy, there was no reason to fear government power, which should be increased in order to accomplish more good.

The conservative movement that I grew up in did not share the liberals' abiding faith in government. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Today it is liberals, not conservatives, who endeavor to defend civil liberties from the state. Conservatives have been won around to the old liberal view that as long as government power is in their hands, there is no reason to fear it or to limit it. Thus, the Patriot Act, which permits government to suspend a person's civil liberty by calling him a terrorist with or without proof.

Thus, preemptive war, which permits the President to invade other countries based on unverified assertions.

There is nothing conservative about these positions. To label them conservative is to make the same ...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts81.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Diversity of Everything but Thought
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 06:40:12