Diversity of Everything but Thought

O, woe! The poor, VICTIMized conservatives!
Forced into compromise and tolerance... what a tragedy!

1. O, woe! The poor, VICTIMized conservatives! Forced into compromise and tolerance... what a tragedy

2. O, woe! The poor, VICTIMized liberals! Forcing their compromise and their tolerance... what a tragedy

Ican said

Quote:

Only this quote from Lubet's article really interests me. I thought its last sentence funny as I'm sure it was meant to be. But what is a liberal institution, a conservative institution, a liberal scholar, and a conservative scholar? Lubet doesn't say, and from my previous posts you should be able to tell, I can't say either.

The Lubet quote referred to

Quote:

The reality is that universities, by their nature, tend to be liberal institutions, not only in the United States, but in many countries around the world. Conservatives may bemoan the social forces behind this phenomenon, but there is nothing sinister about it. Nonetheless, liberals (like me) should admit that faculties face a risk of intellectual conformity, which can be stultifying and confining even when it is unintentional. Most major universities would likely benefit from the presence of more conservative scholars, who would sharpen the dialog and challenge many assumptions. I might even be convinced to support some form of recruiting outreach or affirmative action for Republicans -- but surely my conservative colleagues would never stand for it.

Yes, the last sentence is a joke, the writer making the ironic point of affirmative action and quotas for conservative placement in university. Lubet, by 'liberal institution', refers to the sorts of institutions where one might expect to find a relatively high percentage of people who consider themselves 'liberals', eg., teachers, nurses. He notes such in his piece, and contrasts with institutions where one might expect to find more 'conservative' folks, eg., corporate boardrooms, Baptist seminaries, etc.

The 'liberal scholar' and 'conservative scholar' is rather more difficult to make sense of, as really these terms refer to one's notions of how the polity ought to be designed, which has really very little or no relevance to 99% of what transpires in university classrooms. I truly have no idea, thinking about my many professors, what most of their sexual preferences might be or what Canadian party they might have voted for or whether they vote at all.

The claim, such as Finn makes in a later post, of political indoctrination in university classrooms are really very silly. The folks here on A2K who are at university, or who have spent a lot of time there, understand just how silly such claims are. We could do an interesting poll...do you believe this claim? what evidence do you have for it? and how many years have you actually attended a university?

Lubet argues for diversity, and he should, as it's a necessary condition in education for producing open minds, challenging fixed ideas, generating new ideas and consequently, real learning.

Conservatives (if we define that term not in the economic sense, but in the social sense to mean support for traditional ideas and values) have a bit of a problem when it comes to open mindedness and generation of new ideas, by definition. Is this not obvious? Who would be the 'liberal' and who the 'conservative' in the example of Galileo and the church hierarchy of that period?

The claim, such as Finn makes in a later post, of political indoctrination in university classrooms are really very silly. The folks here on A2K who are at university, or who have spent a lot of time there, understand just how silly such claims are. We could do an interesting poll...do you believe this claim? what evidence do you have for it? and how many years have you actually attended a university?

Silly? It's amusing how often you rely upon "silly" as a rebuttal blatham.

I have three children in three different American universities and I rely upon their reporting to advise me of the current state of American academia.

As it turns out there is far more intellectual bullying than there is indoctrination (althought there is no shortage of attempts towards the latter).

I'm not sure what your connection to current US academia might be blatham, but I have faith in mine.

For a moment, consider the possibility that Liberals might be off the path of the beam. It is possible you know, and Liberalism will surrvive with or without your valiant defense.

Lubet argues for diversity, and he should, as it's a necessary condition in education for producing open minds, challenging fixed ideas, generating new ideas and consequently, real learning.

Conservatives (if we define that term not in the economic sense, but in the social sense to mean support for traditional ideas and values) have a bit of a problem when it comes to open mindedness and generation of new ideas, by definition. Is this not obvious? Who would be the 'liberal' and who the 'conservative' in the example of Galileo and the church hierarchy of that period?

blatham wrote:

Conservatives (if we define that term not in the economic sense, but in the social sense to mean support for traditional ideas and values) have a bit of a problem when it comes to open mindedness and generation of new ideas, by definition. Is this not obvious? Who would be the 'liberal' and who the 'conservative' in the example of Galileo and the church hierarchy of that period?

My God, blatham you're right! Anyone who considers himself a conservative must be a flat earther.

I expect better arguments from you.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,1369643,00.html

'We have to protect people'

President Bush wants 'pro-homosexual' drama banned. Gary Taylor meets the politician in charge of making it happen

Thursday December 9, 2004
The Guardian

What should we do with US classics like Cat on a Hot Tin Roof or The Color Purple? "Dig a hole," Gerald Allen recommends, "and dump them in it." Don't laugh. Gerald Allen's book-burying opinions are not a joke.

Earlier this week, Allen got a call from Washington. He will be meeting with President Bush on Monday. I asked him if this was his first invitation to the White House. "Oh no," he laughs. "It's my fifth meeting with Mr Bush."

Bush is interested in Allen's opinions because Allen is an elected Republican representative in the Alabama state legislature. He is Bush's base. Last week, Bush's base introduced a bill that would ban the use of state funds to purchase any books or other materials that "promote homosexuality". Allen does not want taxpayers' money to support "positive depictions of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle". That's why Tennessee Williams and Alice Walker have got to go.

I ask Allen what prompted this bill. Was one of his children exposed to something in school that he considered inappropriate? Did he see some flamingly gay book displayed prominently at the public library?

No, nothing like that. "It was election day," he explains. Last month, "14 states passed referendums defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman". Exit polls asked people what they considered the most important issue, and "moral values in this country" were "the top of the list".

"Traditional family values are under attack," Allen informs me. They've been under attack "for the last 40 years". The enemy, this time, is not al-Qaida. The axis of evil is "Hollywood, the music industry". We have an obligation to "save society from moral destruction". We have to prevent liberal libarians and trendy teachers from "re-engineering society's fabric in the minds of our children". We have to "protect Alabamians".

I ask him, again, for specific examples. Although heterosexuals are apparently an endangered species in Alabama, and although Allen is a local politician who lives a couple miles from my house, he can't produce any local examples. "Go on the internet," he recommends. "Some time when you've got a week to spare," he jokes, "just go on the internet. You'll see."

Actually, I go on the internet every day. But I'm obviously searching for different things. For Allen, the web is just the largest repository in history of urban myths. The internet is even better than the Bible when it comes to spreading unverifiable, unrefutable stories. And urban myths are political realities. Remember, it was an urban myth (an invented court case about a sex education teacher gang-raped by her own students who, when she protested, laughed and said: "But we're just doing what you taught us!") that all but killed sex education in America.

Since Allen couldn't give me a single example of the homosexual equivalent of 9/11, I gave him some. This autumn the University of Alabama theatre department put on an energetic revival of A Chorus Line, which includes, besides "tits and ass", a prominent gay solo number. Would Allen's bill prevent university students from performing A Chorus Line? It isn't that he's against the theatre, Allen explains. "But why can't you do something else?" (They have done other things, of course. But I didn't think it would be a good idea to mention their sold-out productions of Angels in America and The Rocky Horror Show.)

Cutting off funds to theatre departments that put on A Chorus Line or Cat on a Hot Tin Roof may look like censorship, and smell like censorship, but "it's not censorship", Allen hastens to explain. "For instance, there's a reason for stop lights. You're driving a vehicle, you see that stop light, and I hope you stop." Who can argue with something as reasonable as stop lights? Of course, if you're gay, this particular traffic light never changes to green.

It would not be the first time Cat on a Hot Tin Roof ran into censorship. As Nicholas de Jongh documents in his amusingly appalling history of government regulation of the British theatre, the British establishment was no more enthusiastic, half a century ago, than Alabama's Allen. "Once again Mr Williams vomits up the recurring theme of his not too subconscious," the Lord Chamberlain's Chief Examiner wrote in 1955. In the end, it was first performed in London at the New Watergate Club, for "members only", thereby slipping through a loophole in the censorship laws.

But more than one gay playwright is at a stake here. Allen claims he is acting to "encourage and protect our culture". Does "our culture" include Shakespeare? I ask Allen if he would insist that copies of Shakespeare's sonnets be removed from all public libraries. I point out to him that Romeo and Juliet was originally performed by an all-male cast, and that in Shakespeare's lifetime actors and audiences at the public theatres were all accused of being "sodomites". When Romeo wished he "was a glove upon that hand", the cheek that he fantasised about kissing was a male cheek. Next March the Alabama Shakespeare festival will be performing a new production of As You Like It, and its famous scene of a man wooing another man. The Alabama Shakespeare Festival is also the State Theatre of Alabama. Would Allen's bill cut off state funding for Shakespeare?

"Well," he begins, after a pause, "the current draft of the bill does not address how that is going to be handled. I expect details like that to be worked out at the committee stage. Literature like Shakespeare and Hammet [sic] could be left alone." Could be. Not "would be". In any case, he says, "you could tone it down". That way, if you're not paying real close attention, even a college graduate like Allen himself "could easily miss" what was going on, the "subtle" innuendoes and all.

So he regards his gay book ban as a work in progress. His legislation is "a single spoke in the wheel, it doesn't resolve all the issues". This is just the beginning. "To turn a big ship around it takes a lot of time."

But make no mistake, the ship is turning. You can see that on the face of Cornelius Carter, a professor of dance at Alabama and a prize-winning choreographer who, not long ago, was named university teacher of the year for the entire US. Carter is black. He is also gay, and tired of fighting these battles. "I don't know," he says, "if I belong here any more."

Forty years ago, the American defenders of "our culture" and "traditional values" were opposing racial integration. Now, no politician would dare attack Cornelius Carter for being black. But it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against people for what they do in bed.

"Dig a hole," Gerald Allen recommends, "and dump them in it."

Of course, Allen was talking about books. He was just talking about books. He never said anything about pink triangles.

What should we do with US classics like Cat on a Hot Tin Roof or The Color Purple? "Dig a hole," Gerald Allen recommends, "and dump them in it." Don't laugh. Gerald Allen's book-burying opinions are not a joke.

Yes, I believe in the Ten Commandments, The Golden Rule, The Declaration of Independence, The Rule of Law, and rooting for people. Do either conservatives or liberals or leftists or rightists not believe in those things too?

For a moment, consider the possibility that Liberals might be off the path of the beam. It is possible you know, and Liberalism will surrvive with or without your valiant defense.

For me to fully comprehend and judge the validity of Lubet's article I need to know what those terms really mean. Perhaps my problem is actually simpler than I think. I'm a registered Republican who doesn't "shun ivy towers." I only shun voting for some Republican and Democratic candidates. I'm not a conservative activist "on the march, determined to expose hotbeds of liberal wherever they find (or even suspect) them." I merely seek and am content to lie in one particular warm bed.

Yes, I believe in the Ten Commandments, The Golden Rule, The Declaration of Independence, The Rule of Law, and rooting for people. Do either conservatives or liberals or leftists or rightists not believe in those things too?