0
   

Diversity of Everything but Thought

 
 
Magus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 02:40 pm
At $60.00+ per hour, it's also very lucrative...
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 02:45 pm
Quote:
It is that kind of tolerance of diversity of thought that I would want for any person attending any institution of learning.


Me too, Foxfire. You and I and cycloptichorn and DTOM and Dys might all agree on that one. (not speaking for anybody, just making a conjecture.) But it's not what the people who have stirred all this up want. They want the Kingdom of God to be established, meaning only fundamentalist Christian doctrine be taught and nothing else. After all, they say, universities started with Martin Luther and John Calvin.

Some rationale, huh?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 02:57 pm
Quote:
Me too, Foxfire. You and I and cycloptichorn and DTOM and Dys might all agree on that one. (not speaking for anybody, just making a conjecture.) But it's not what the people who have stirred all this up want. They want the Kingdom of God to be established, meaning only fundamentalist Christian doctrine be taught and nothing else. After all, they say, universities started with Martin Luther and John Calvin.


Uh no, that really isn't what those advocating 'diversity of thought' as expressed in the thesis for this thread want. What those wanting 'diversity of thought' on campus want is for students who do not share the ideology--political, social, economic, religious, or whatever--of their professors to not be ostracized or ridiculed and most particularly graded down because they hold a different view when they can support their view logically and rationally. And diversity would also allow for students to be exposed to many different perspectives of politics, society, economics, religion or whatever and encouraged to think critically about each.

Some posts--dismissed, demeaned, and/or ridiculed by several who believe public universities are sufficiently diverse--were opinions of people who showed evidence that diversity is not the norm on many public university campuses. There are some political undercurrents suggesting something may be done to mandate more diversity. How that might be done or whether it in fact needs to be done was not explored as we veered off into other emphasis.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 03:04 pm
Interesting how a few schools has turned into many schools.

Until more comprehensive data than anecdotal opinion is available, then there is no argument to be made that any sort of mandated diversity is needed, in the slightest.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 03:09 pm
If it was a 'few', there wouldn't be a problem. Because the studies cited in the posts earlier in this thread suggest quite a bit more than a 'few', some do see a problem. That any one of us does not see a problem does not mean a problem does not exist any more than one of us seeing a problem is confirmation that there is one.

Collectively, however, observations and opinions begin to carry more weight.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 03:14 pm
Quote:
If it was a 'few', there wouldn't be a problem. Because the studies cited in the posts earlier in this thread suggest quite a bit more than a 'few', some do see a problem. That any one of us does not see a problem does not mean a problem does not exist any more than one of us seeing a problem is confirmation that there is one.


Actually, there aren't any studies that show any such things. One of the largest attacks on your position in this thread is the failure of your side to show how rising liberalism has led to the problems you cite. This has not been explained in nearly an adequate fashion.

Therefore; until more comprehensive data than anecdotal opinion is available, then there is no argument to be made that any sort of mandated diversity is needed, in the slightest.

Quote:
Collectively, however, observations and opinions begin to carry more weight.


No, they don't. This is a point you seem to be incapable of understanding.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 03:15 pm
foxfyre wants more than freedom of expression and freedom of speech within the university setting.

She wants 'freedom' to determine curricula that will match her social values and her political philosophy, through enforced placement of faculty who believe as she (via funding controls or some such means).
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 03:18 pm
Quote:
There are some political undercurrents suggesting something may be done to mandate more diversity.


Do you know anything about who is stirring these under currents? They are pretty sleazy bed fellows.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 03:28 pm
Check out the suggestions from Horowitz a few pages back. And also those syndicated columnists who have written on the subject several pages back. Not a sleazy one in the bunch I think. It goes right back to the whole issue of diversity of thought--whether we can tolerate somebody who holds a different view than we hold. (Admittedly there are a few who are so arrogant or mean spirited I don't want to tolerate them but I generally get around that by simply ignoring them. University students do not always have that option however.)
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 03:34 pm
Forget the opinion issue, it's irrelevant.

Instead, would you care to explain how any of the studies posted support the given thesis at all? Hmm?

The gauntlet has been thrown down; answer or concede the point.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 03:49 pm
I concede nothing. My own observation abd experience, my kids' observations and experience (and one is pretty damn liberal and I love her like anything), the experience and observations cited by other friends and family members who are themselves in academia, coupled with the posted studies citied and the opinions of respected professors and/or writers known to utilize good scholarship based on the studies citied, all put together support a good enough case to at least merit consideration. That is my opinion.

It is also my opinion that simply believing something to be so or simply not wishing something to be so or depending purely on one's own experience as the way it is for everybody won't make it as conclusive evidence either.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 03:56 pm
So, bottom line, Foxfyre says she's offered an opinion, and stated that it's not conclusive evidence.

Or is there another twirl to be expected?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 03:58 pm
You have conceded the fact that you have zero empirical evidence that there is a problem. You have proven yourself unable to show the link between your empirical data and your personal opinion. Therefore, your argument fails badly.

It is your argument that a problem exists in 'many' schools; you have been unable to provide evidence that this is so. Therefore, until such evidence can be shown, there is no reason to mandate any sort of diversity.

Haven't you figured out that you've lost yet? This is getting rather sad, the way you keep circling your wagons around nothing but anecdotal opinion and zero evidence. You do realize this is a debate forum, correct?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 03:59 pm
<sigh>
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 04:05 pm
Not conclusive evidence, true, as I don't think we have sufficient information to draw an absolute conclusion at this time. All I'm saying is I think there is most probably a problem based on the information we have. Whether it is a serious problem has not been conclusively proved to me or anyone else apparently.

And I acknowledge there are several who have posted on this thread who are absolutely certain (with no evidence whatsoever presented) that no problem exists. This latter group is satisfied that diversity of thought is actively promoted and is widespread through public universities everywhere. I respect their opinions though I do not agree with them.

And every now and then there is somebody with an open mind who is interested in actually exploring the issue.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 04:06 pm
The axiom of conditioned repetition, like the binomial theorem, is nothing but a piece of insolence.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 04:34 pm
how many pages back?.....if you know right off, otherwise I'll find it.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 04:58 pm
No I don't Lola--this has been a particularly active thread--and I'm working so don't have time to look.
It's all in there somewhere amongst the kibitzing, sniping, insults, and thoughtful comments. Smile
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 05:03 pm
This is a good place to note the passing of one Billy James Hargis, who was one of the very first right-wingers (remember when we called them John Birchers?) who established his own *ahem* "institutions of higher learning" and then went on to infamy as a sinning televangelist (bold emphasis mine):

Quote:
He was not sorry because the Devil was to blame; the Devil, and communists. Both were out to get him. They were, of course, in cahoots. The entire left-wing movement, as he often said, was of the Devil. In the 1950s and 1960s, Mr Hargis's heyday, Satan and the Reds had their claws deep in America's government, its schools, the Federal Reserve, the National Council of Churches, the movie industry and the press -- especially Newsweek and the New York Times. Though the communists in the country might be numbered in the thousands, a violent takeover was imminent. [...]

No one could accuse Mr Hargis of downplaying the menace. At the height of his fame, he made daily broadcasts on 500 radio stations and 250 TV channels. (In 1950, he had been one of the first evangelists to preach on the small screen.) His Christian Crusade ministry also put out a weekly intelligence report on the progress of Soviet plots. He wrote books: "Communism: The Total Lie", "The Real Extremists -- The Far Left", "Why I fight for a Christian America", and his bestseller, "Is the School House the Proper Place to Teach Raw Sex?" [...]

As televangelists do, he also set up courses and centres of learning: the National Anti-Communist Leadership School, the Christian Crusade Anti-Communist Youth University and, in Tulsa, the American Christian College. A naive reporter once asked him what was taught there. Why, Mr Hargis answered, "anti-comunism, anti-socialism, anti-welfare state, anti-Russia, anti-China, a literal interpretation of the Bible and states' rights." [...]

The targets of his daily wrath were not only homosexuals and women's libbers but the blatantly sexual pop-gods of the day: "When the Beatles thrust their hips forward while holding their guitars and shout, 'Oh Yeah!!', who cannot know what they really mean?"

Yet in 1974 both male and female students at the American Christian College, and three male members of the college choir, the All-American Kids, claimed Mr Hargis had deflowered them. One couple allegedly made the discovery, on their wedding night, that Mr Hargis had slept with them both. He strenuously denied wrongdoing, citing the biblical love of David for Jonathan, blaming "chromosomes and genes" (an unexpectedly scientific explanation) and threatening to blacklist his defamers. Later, when the scandal had caused the collapse of his college and his empire, he defended himself with a line that has since become a televangelical favorite: "I was guilty of sin, but not the sin I was accused of."


One of the necessities of conservatism, by definition, is its constancy. We think of the sinning Bennetts, the Bakkers and the Swaggerts, the Falwells and Robertsons and Limbaughs as individual hypocrites, and the conflation of religion and conservativism as a new contraption rigged by the current (largely amoral) Republican Party, but the rhetoric borrows almost entirely from that of the most frothing of the anti-Communists and moralists of fifty years ago.

Or, to be less eloquent: Same crap, different day.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 05:07 pm
Well I've always said I couldn't ever run for high office because when I was in college, I was a member of the campus equivalent of the John Birch Society and also the equivalent of the Young Communists of America. I joined anything and everything looking for news stories--talk about being exposed to diversity of thought--but can you imagine the political hay my opponent of whatever stripe could make out of all that? Smile
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/15/2025 at 10:53:15