0
   

Diversity of Everything but Thought

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 04:01 pm
blatham wrote:
And what might he say about his brother, finn?


Of course you would have to ask him, but I expect he would say that I have lost my soul along the way and that I am the Saruman to his Gandalf...but, that he loves me still.

This last bit tells us that we can still love one another no matter how foolish and wrongheaded we think each other to be. Ain't it grand?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 04:59 pm
bethie

You're quite right...I didn't look at that link.

finn

It is grand indeed. Though I'll certainly never love you. Casual sex, maybe.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 11:08 pm
blatham wrote:
bethie

You're quite right...I didn't look at that link.

finn

It is grand indeed. Though I'll certainly never love you. Casual sex, maybe.


Blatham you rascal you.

You know how your homoerotic comments trigger a wave of ambiguity within me. Here I am thinking about how I should track you down in the Big Apple, but I don't know if I should bring flowers or a brickbat.

Oscar Wilde or Anita Bryant - which of my patron saints should I follow?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2005 07:17 am
Let me help you out...

Wilde..."A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."

Bryant..."I am disgusted by the very sight of a penis. Particularly, those big black ones."
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 11:48 am
blatham wrote:
Let me help you out...

Wilde..."A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."

Bryant..."I am disgusted by the very sight of a penis. Particularly, those big black ones."


Bryant : "If homosexuality was the normal way, God would have made Adam and Bruce"

Wilde: "A dreamer is one who can only find his way by moonlight, and his punishment is that he sees the dawn before the rest of the world."

I'm still conflicted
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 07:20 pm
Another fine example of liberal bias on campuses.......oh, there's a little more to it.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502220005

Quote:
Hannity & Colmes, Horowitz ignored facts undermining GOP student's claim that professor failed him for "pro-American" paper

Foothill College student Ahmad al-Qloushi -- who claims that he received a failing grade on a term paper about the U.S. Constitution because it was "pro-American" and whose allegations have been publicized by right-wing pundit David Horowitz -- appeared as a guest on the February 17 edition of FOX News' Hannity & Colmes. But no one on the show mentioned that al-Qloushi's professor disputes his version of events, that al-Qloushi's claims were originally publicized by the Foothill College Republicans (of which al-Qloushi is president), or that al-Qloushi has been touted by Horowitz to promote Horowitz's right-wing university campus initiatives.

"The Foothill College Republicans blasted faxes to reporters this month complaining that a professor had forced a student to see the college therapist merely because the student wrote a pro-American essay," the San Jose Mercury News reported on December 26, 2004. On January 6, Horowitz's right-wing website FrontPageMag.com posted an article by al-Qloushi about the incident. The Washington Times ran an January 16 article titled "California professor flunks Kuwaiti's pro-U.S. essay," in which it relayed al-Qloushi's claims and noted only that "Mr. Woolcock did not respond to telephone and e-mail inquiries." On February 1, al-Qloushi appeared on a segment of ABC's World News Tonight about "conservatives who claim they are victims of a double standard on college campuses," where his assertion that "I was attacked and intimidated because I love America" went unchallenged.

On the February 17 edition of Hannity & Colmes, al-Qloushi reiterated his story, claiming that his professor, Joseph Woolcock, "threatened [him] into seeking regular psychological treatment ... by threatening [his] visa status." But in a statement responding to al-Qloushi, Woolcock provided his version of events, which was ignored on Hannity & Colmes. According to Woolcock, he never "threatened" al-Qloushi's visa status or "threatened" him "into seeking regular psychological treatment," as al-Qloushi claimed. Woolcock also noted that al-Qloushi had "failed to write the mid-term assignment" and had turned down offers of assistance before turning in his final term paper:

When I read the paper, it became clear to me that it did not respond to the question. In late November, after grading all final papers, I asked Mr. al-Qloushi to come and discuss with me the grade. ... [H]e expressed in great detail, concerns and feelings of high anxiety he was having about certain developments which had occurred over ten years ago in his country. Some aspects of his concerns were similar to certain concerns expressed in his paper.

Based on the nature of the concerns and the feelings of high anxiety which he expressed, I encouraged him to visit one of the college counselors. I neither forced nor ordered Mr. al-Qloushi to see a counselor; I have no authority to do so. My suggestion to him was a recommendation he freely chose to accept and which he acknowledged in an e-mail message to me on December 1, 2004.

Foothill College counselors are competent and highly respected professionals capable of providing professional services to students, and faculty members are always encouraged by the college administration to make such referrals to college counselors as the need may arise.

In my conversation with Mr. al-Qloushi, I did not make any reference, explicitly or implicity [sic], to the Dean of International Students or to any other Dean. In my conversation with Mr. al-Qloushi, I did not make any reference, explicit or implicit, to Mr. al-Qloushi's status as an international student. At the time of our conversation, Mr. al-Qloushi was still enrolled in my class, but after he met with the counselor, he never returned to the class.

I deny unequivocally all the allegations Mr. al-Qloushi has attributed to me regarding my suggestion to him that it might be helpful for him to discuss his long-standing concerns with a college counselor, as I have described here. All the other allegations made are false and have no basis whatsoever in fact.

Al-Qloushi's essay, which is posted on Horowitz's Students for Academic Freedom website, has been described by conservative blogger and political science professor James Joyner as "an incredibly poorly written, error-ridden, pabulum-filled [sic], essay that essentially ignores the question put forth by the instructor." Another conservative blogger, political science professor Steven Taylor, concluded: "I can see how this essay resulted in a failing grade."

As Media Matters for America has noted, Horowitz is president and co-founder of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC) and the editor-in-chief of FrontPageMag.com, which serves as the CSPC's online journal. The center's agenda includes right-wing campus organizing and opposing affirmative action programs. At the end of al-Qloushi's FrontPageMag.com article and in a February 1 interview with the website, al-Qloushi expressed his support for Horowitz's "Student Bill of Rights," a campus initiative seeking to prevent professors from "forc[ing] their opinions about philosophy, politics and other contestable issues on students in the classroom."


Bias? Who's bias?
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 07:26 pm
Quote:




http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/archive/December2004/Ahmad'sessay121004.htm
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 09:38 pm
Wilde: "There is no sin except stupidity"

Bryant: "I'm a sinner"

Latham: "I'll say"
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 11:57 pm
Whether or not one agrees with the thoughts, conclusions, opinions of Thomas Sowell, he always offers a thesis worthy of discussion. This thread started with the presumption that a mostly leftwing faculty in universities is likely to present a skewed or biased point of view rather than providing opportunities to hear more than one side of issues.

Several posting in this thread have asserted there is no evidence of leftwing bias at American universities, and more than a few carried this further that even if there is bias, it isn't a problem.

Thomas Sowell puts it into perspective with the analogy of the jury arriving at a verdict after hearing the case from the prosecution only or the defense only. He reports that at least one of his readers found that acceptable.

Do a lot of A2K readers think that would be acceptable if the side you heard was prepared by the side you trusted implicitly? Is it a given that one's mind will be made up without hearing from the other side? Especially if the 'other side' is the hated 'them'?

I would like to discuss this as rationally and logically as possible with a minimum of sarcasm and insults. I think the exercise might be instructive for both conservatives and liberals.

Tuesday, March 01, 2005
March 1, 2005
Believing The True Believers
By Thomas Sowell

While the media have been focusing on the flap at Harvard growing out of its president's statement about the reasons for the under-representation of women in the sciences, a much worse and more revealing scandal has unfolded at the University of Seattle, where a student mob prevented a military recruiter from meeting with those students who wanted to meet with him.

At first, the university president said that the student rioters should apologize. But the storm this created forced the typical academic administrator's back-down under pressure.

One of the student rioters explained that she didn't want anyone to be sent overseas to be killed. Apparently it never occurred to her that what she wanted was not automatically to be imposed on other people, with or without mob violence.

Back in the days of the divine rights of kings, it might be understandable why a given monarch might think that what he wanted was all that mattered. But, in an age of democracy, how can millions of people live together if each one asserts a divine right to impose his or her will on others?

Surely our educational system has failed if it has not taught something so basic in logic or morality. But too many of our schools and colleges have been so busy pushing particular forms of political correctness that they have not bothered to explain why other views by other people cannot be ignored intellectually or disregarded politically.

When the propagandizing activities of educational institutions were recently criticized in this column, a defender of these institutions sent an e-mail, claiming that there was nothing wrong with pushing particular beliefs, if those beliefs were correct.

Violating my New Year's resolution to stop trying to reason with unreasonable people, I replied, asking if this man would feel all right, if he were a member of a jury, to vote after having heard only the prosecution's case or only the defendant's case.

His reply was that he would -- if the people presenting one side of the case were people he knew and trusted.

Bizarre as that might sound, it is by no means as unusual as it might seem, even though most people who act on that basis do not spell out such a reason to others -- nor probably even to themselves. They don't say that they believe people on a particular issue because those are people with whom they feel simpatico. But that is often how they act.

An example of this mindset was recounted in a recent essay by Ralph de Toledano, who told of being a young reporter, years ago, during a case involving Whittaker Chambers against Alger Hiss. Chambers claimed that Hiss had been a spy for the Soviet Union, operating at the highest levels of the American government.

The charges against Hiss began as just one man's word against another's. No one knew who was lying but virtually everyone took sides.

Among the reporters and the intelligentsia, it was widely assumed that Hiss was innocent and Chambers was lying. De Toledano recalled that those few reporters who thought that Hiss might be the one who was lying were immediately ostracized by other reporters.

Why? Because Hiss was in so many ways one of them -- in politics, in manner, in lifestyle. He was a New Deal liberal, an Ivy League-educated young man, trim, erect, well-spoken, a member and leader of the kinds of prestigious organizations that liberals looked up to. Chambers was a paunchy old man in rumpled clothes who slouched and was obviously anti-Soviet.

To the reporters, Hiss was one of Us and Chambers was one of Them. Like today's young man who would be content to reach a verdict after hearing only one side of a case, the press chose to believe Hiss, their fellow true believer.

Many chose to continue to believe Hiss even after the evidence that came out at the trial sent him to prison -- and some continue to believe even today, despite information from the secret files of the former Soviet Union which added more damning evidence against Hiss.

The time is long overdue for our media and our educational institutions to start presenting both sides of issues -- and for our schools and colleges to start teaching students how to think, instead of telling them what to think.

Copyright 2005 Creators
http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-3_1_05_TS.html
0 Replies
 
Vengoropatubus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Mar, 2005 11:47 pm
I just found out about this today and my god. This bit of legislation has completely proven me wrong on something I was ranting about a day or two ago. I was wandering around the halls of a local art studio that has an event called "teen-night" where local teenagers are allowed to come and for about 2 dollars have access to art materials and a studio. I was wandering around looking for something to do, and so I started reading the posters on the wall. I found a specific poster by a guy named Fred Babbs who has created many posters actually, and one of them read something to the effect of "I was walking around my studio one day when I heard a knock on the door. I went to the door, and a policeman was standing there. He explained that he had recieved some complaints from people in my area. Apparently I was making people think, and was going to be arrested for it. 'take me away' I said." as I read this, I thought to myself, "good lord! How incredibly melodramatic. We live in one of the most diverse and accepting countries in the world. What sort of stupid shadow boxing is this? It's as if they're fighting against an enemy that isn't even there!" A few days later, I read this and that's when the irony hit.

Edit: Sorry about a bit of a necro by the way.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2005 07:46 am
Vengo,

Did you mean to post here(http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1240650#1240650)?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2005 07:48 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Several posting in this thread have asserted there is no evidence of leftwing bias at American universities, and more than a few carried this further that even if there is bias, it isn't a problem.


These are two separate arguments....
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2005 07:55 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Thomas Sowell puts it into perspective with the analogy of the jury arriving at a verdict after hearing the case from the prosecution only or the defense only. He reports that at least one of his readers found that acceptable.

Do I even need to point out the different purposes behind education and prosecuting a crime?

Shall we have rules of evidence, motions, counter-motions, etc.?

Foxfyre wrote:
Do a lot of A2K readers think that would be acceptable if the side you heard was prepared by the side you trusted implicitly? Is it a given that one's mind will be made up without hearing from the other side? Especially if the 'other side' is the hated 'them'?

I'm thinking of a news service that many of our fellow A2Kers seem to love....
0 Replies
 
Vengoropatubus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2005 04:38 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Vengo,

Did you mean to post here(http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1240650#1240650)?


yah. I'm out of it this week man. Something's wrong with my head.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 06:02 am
Okay, thanks to information on another thread, here's new ammunition for this one. I doubt any who are convinced the liberal swamp on U.S. universities is natural and normal will be persuaded otherwise. But perhaps it will be comforting for those who still think. Smile

College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 29, 2005; Page C01

College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

Harvard's faculty of arts and sciences hit President Lawrence Summers with a vote of no confidence after he privately wondered about the abilities of women in science and math. (Steven Senne -- AP)

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

"What's most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field," said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. "There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It's a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you'd expect to be dominated by liberals."

Religious services take a back seat for many faculty members, with 51 percent saying they rarely or never attend church or synagogue and 31 percent calling themselves regular churchgoers. On the gender front, 72 percent of the full-time faculty are male and 28 percent female.

The findings, by Lichter and fellow political science professors Stanley Rothman of Smith College and Neil Nevitte of the University of Toronto, are based on a survey of 1,643 full-time faculty at 183 four-year schools. The researchers relied on 1999 data from the North American Academic Study Survey, the most recent comprehensive data available.

The study appears in the March issue of the Forum, an online political science journal. It was funded by the Randolph Foundation, a right-leaning group that has given grants to such conservative organizations as the Independent Women's Forum and Americans for Tax Reform.

Rothman sees the findings as evidence of "possible discrimination" against conservatives in hiring and promotion. Even after factoring in levels of achievement, as measured by published work and organization memberships, "the most likely conclusion" is that "being conservative counts against you," he said. "It doesn't surprise me, because I've observed it happening." The study, however, describes this finding as "preliminary."

When asked about the findings, Jonathan Knight, director of academic freedom and tenure for the American Association of University Professors, said, "The question is how this translates into what happens within the academic community on such issues as curriculum, admission of students, evaluation of students, evaluation of faculty for salary and promotion." Knight said he isn't aware of "any good evidence" that personal views are having an impact on campus policies.

"It's hard to see that these liberal views cut very deeply into the education of students. In fact, a number of studies show the core values that students bring into the university are not very much altered by being in college."

Rothman, Lichter and Nevitte find a leftward shift on campus over the past two decades. In the last major survey of college faculty, by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in 1984, 39 percent identified themselves as liberal.

In contrast with the finding that nearly three-quarters of college faculty are liberal, a Harris Poll of the general public last year found that 33 percent describe themselves as conservative and 18 percent as liberal.

The liberal label that a majority of the faculty members attached to themselves is reflected on a variety of issues. The professors and instructors surveyed are, strongly or somewhat, in favor of abortion rights (84 percent); believe homosexuality is acceptable (67 percent); and want more environmental protection "even if it raises prices or costs jobs" (88 percent). What's more, the study found, 65 percent want the government to ensure full employment, a stance to the left of the Democratic Party.

Recent campus controversies have reinforced the left-wing faculty image. The University of Colorado is reviewing its tenure system after one professor, Ward Churchill, created an uproar by likening World Trade Center victims to Nazis. Harvard's faculty of arts and sciences voted no confidence in the university's president, Lawrence Summers, after he privately wondered whether women had the same natural ability as men in science and math.

The study did not attempt to examine whether the political views of faculty members affect the content of their courses.

The researchers say that liberals, men and non-regular churchgoers are more likely to be teaching at top schools, while conservatives, women and more religious faculty are more likely to be relegated to lower-tier colleges and universities.

Top-tier schools, roughly a third of the total, are defined as highly ranked liberal arts colleges and research universities that grant PhDs.

The most liberal faculties are those devoted to the humanities (81 percent) and social sciences (75 percent), according to the study. But liberals outnumbered conservatives even among engineering faculty (51 percent to 19 percent) and business faculty (49 percent to 39 percent).

The most left-leaning departments are English literature, philosophy, political science and religious studies, where at least 80 percent of the faculty say they are liberal and no more than 5 percent call themselves conservative, the study says.

"In general," says Lichter, who also heads the nonprofit Center for Media and Public Affairs, "even broad-minded people gravitate toward other people like themselves. That's why you need diversity, not just of race and gender but also, maybe especially, of ideas and perspective."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html?nav=rss_politics
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 06:21 am
My goodness. Are you going to keep promoting this simple-minded and uneducated idiocy, foxfyre?
Quote:
An Academic Question
By PAUL KRUGMAN

It's a fact, documented by two recent studies, that registered Republicans and self-proclaimed conservatives make up only a small minority of professors at elite universities. But what should we conclude from that?

Conservatives see it as compelling evidence of liberal bias in university hiring and promotion. And they say that new "academic freedom" laws will simply mitigate the effects of that bias, promoting a diversity of views. But a closer look both at the universities and at the motives of those who would police them suggests a quite different story.

Claims that liberal bias keeps conservatives off college faculties almost always focus on the humanities and social sciences, where judgments about what constitutes good scholarship can seem subjective to an outsider. But studies that find registered Republicans in the minority at elite universities show that Republicans are almost as rare in hard sciences like physics and in engineering departments as in softer fields. Why?

One answer is self-selection - the same sort of self-selection that leads Republicans to outnumber Democrats four to one in the military. The sort of person who prefers an academic career to the private sector is likely to be somewhat more liberal than average, even in engineering.

But there's also, crucially, a values issue. In the 1970's, even Democrats like Daniel Patrick Moynihan conceded that the Republican Party was the "party of ideas." Today, even Republicans like Representative Chris Shays concede that it has become the "party of theocracy."

Consider the statements of Dennis Baxley, a Florida legislator who has sponsored a bill that - like similar bills introduced in almost a dozen states - would give students who think that their conservative views aren't respected the right to sue their professors. Mr. Baxley says that he is taking on "leftists" struggling against "mainstream society," professors who act as "dictators" and turn the classroom into a "totalitarian niche." His prime example of academic totalitarianism? When professors say that evolution is a fact.

In its April Fools' Day issue, Scientific American published a spoof editorial in which it apologized for endorsing the theory of evolution just because it's "the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time," saying that "as editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence." And it conceded that it had succumbed "to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do."

The editorial was titled "O.K., We Give Up." But it could just as well have been called "Why So Few Scientists Are Republicans These Days." Thirty years ago, attacks on science came mostly from the left; these days, they come overwhelmingly from the right, and have the backing of leading Republicans.

Scientific American may think that evolution is supported by mountains of evidence, but President Bush declares that "the jury is still out." Senator James Inhofe dismisses the vast body of research supporting the scientific consensus on climate change as a "gigantic hoax." And conservative pundits like George Will write approvingly about Michael Crichton's anti-environmentalist fantasies.

Think of the message this sends: today's Republican Party - increasingly dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research - doesn't respect science, or scholarship in general. It shouldn't be surprising that scholars have returned the favor by losing respect for the Republican Party.

Conservatives should be worried by the alienation of the universities; they should at least wonder if some of the fault lies not in the professors, but in themselves. Instead, they're seeking a Lysenkoist solution that would have politics determine courses' content.

And it wouldn't just be a matter of demanding that historians play down the role of slavery in early America, or that economists give the macroeconomic theories of Friedrich Hayek as much respect as those of John Maynard Keynes. Soon, biology professors who don't give creationism equal time with evolution and geology professors who dismiss the view that the Earth is only 6,000 years old might face lawsuits.

If it got that far, universities would probably find ways to cope - by, say, requiring that all entering students sign waivers. But political pressure will nonetheless have a chilling effect on scholarship. And that, of course, is its purpose.
Link
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 07:46 am
I went ahead and changed my sig line after reading that one. (Had been thinking about it as soon as I saw the Sci Am editorial.)

Miss the blue, but really encapsulates so much of what bothers me these days.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 07:52 am
New ammo? This study is based on data older than that in the orginal article in the thread. ROTFLMAO!
Foxfyre wrote:
Okay, thanks to information on another thread, here's new ammunition for this one. I doubt any who are convinced the liberal swamp on U.S. universities is natural and normal will be persuaded otherwise. But perhaps it will be comforting for those who still think. Smile

<snip>

The findings, by Lichter and fellow political science professors Stanley Rothman of Smith College and Neil Nevitte of the University of Toronto, are based on a survey of 1,643 full-time faculty at 183 four-year schools. The researchers relied on 1999 data from the North American Academic Study Survey, the most recent comprehensive data available.

<snip>
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 08:02 am
soz

Being bothered, right now, is a prudent response.

Quote:
"Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer our country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism"... Randall Terry, Indiana News Sentinel


Quote:
"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."... Pat Roberston, Washington Post


Quote:
"The Vatican should get behind America"...Bill O'Reilly, two nights ago on his show


Quote:
The Supreme Court should be "an enforcer of political decisions made by elected representatives of the people"...Senator John Cornyn, Texas
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 08:26 pm
blatham wrote:
My goodness. Are you going to keep promoting this simple-minded and uneducated idiocy, foxfyre?


Are you disputing the fact there are many more Liberal than Conservative University professors?

Are you attempting to promote the simple-minded and uneducated idiocy that it is arguable, let alone conceivable, that so few of university professors allow their personal beliefs to influence the performance of the jobs that the disparity is meaningless?

While I have no doubt that self-selection, as Krugman suggests, has played a role in creating the disparity, it is disingenuous, at best, to suggest it is the sole reason, and (more to the point) that Liberal academics are somehow incapable of rigging the university environment to reflect their personal beliefs.

I always find it particularly ironic when I see post-modernist Liberals, like Krugman and yourself, who so often rail against the Manichean tendencies of Conservative thought, espousing some nonsense premised on the notion that Liberals, due to some exalted nature, would never engage in the crude behaviors of Conservatives.

But then I suppose this comes from the fact that I am so simple-minded, uneducated and idiotic as to believe that Liberals will act on their beliefs in essentially the same manner as Conservatives. What, I suppose, I fail to understand is that the mere fact that one might belive in conservative principles reveals mental and moral defect, while acceptance of Liberal tenets affirms one enlightenment.

Yes, let's ignore the possible influence of an ideological majority within academia, and let's ignore that educated Conservatives tend to pursue careers more lucrative than university professor. As Krugman suggests, the answer is one of values. (God, how Krugman must labor to turn the values table on Conservatives with each piece he writes!). Conservatives do not value ideas, they do not value facts, they do not value reason, and they certainly do not value dialogue and this is the truly crucial reason why we find so few of them on campus.

I will concede that it is simply foolish and or stubborn to refuse to accept the fact of evolution, but that it might be taught as such is hardly the only, and by no means, the primary, basis for Conservative criticism of Liberal Academia.

But what better Conservative Bogeyman for academics than a Republican Creationist?

Finally, I really have to laugh at Krugman's totally predictable and entirely gratuitous shots at Michael Crichton.

Clearly Krugman has an impressive resume (How else could he become one of Blatham's heroes?), but Crichton is certainly no slouch:

Educated at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, A.B. (summa cum laude) 1964 (Phi Beta Kappa). Henry Russell Shaw Travelling Fellow, 1964-65. Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at Cambridge University, England, 1965. Graduated Harvard Medical School, M.D. 1969; post-doctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences, La Jolla, California 1969-1970. Visiting Writer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1988.

But Crichton is only a "best selling novelist," while Krugman is an "award winning columnist." Once again my simple-mindedness reveals itself through my inability to understand the distinction between the two.

I have to wonder if Krugman read State of Fear, let alone any of the supporting research Crichton cites. If he has, and he's written a column on it, I'm sure you (blatham) can point me in its direction.

It is disappointing that someone as educated and intelligent as Krugman falls into the very trap against which Crichton warns in his book, but then I have so often been disappointed in Krugman, because so often beneath his eloquence is the very sort of irrational assumptions and arguments he pretends to abhor.
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 07/19/2025 at 03:06:37