Diversity of Everything but Thought

I just look at your posts and suspect that to be the case, Cyclop.

You ask how students are harmed by "liberal colleges".

I can answer that. I was kicked out of a class and almost failed it,because I dared to disagree with the proffessor.
It was a history course,and the proffessor was talking about what happened in Kuwait City during the first gulf war.
He made some factually inaccurate statements (they were actually lies),and when I called him on them he challenged my rebuttal.

I told him it was easy to rebut his statements,because I WAS THERE,and when he found that out he kicked me out of his class.
I went to the dept head,and after a week I was given a new proffessor.
I had to take the class over,because the first professor said he would fail me,without hesitation,because I challenged his claims.

So,for you to say it never happens is also factually inaccurate.

For me to say what never happens?

I never said that there weren't bad teachers or ones who shouldn't be fired. Just that there is no 'brainwashing' going on.

Look at your situation this way:

You, no doubt, felt it was neccessary to raise yer hand in class and point out that the prof was wrong about the things happening in Kuwait.

Your rebuttal of 'I WAS THERE' is meaningless to the classroom environment, as there is no evidence whatsoever, in that environment, that

A: You were there

or

B: That you know what the hell you are talking about

YOU aren't teaching the class. Did you contradict the prof in class? Did you tell him he was telling lies in front of the class? Was it after class you spoke with him? Did you ask him to re-examine his positions, give him examples of books to read, offer to have an interview with him to increase his knowledge? Were you obstinate, angry, or interrupting the flow of the class?

I'm not trying to say that you are wrong, merely stating that like EVERY story, there are undoubtedly two sides to this one. And I believe in the vast majority of the anecdotal cases posted here, this is the case.

Fox,

As I thought; you don't have evidence of any 'brainwashing' going on at all. None. Zero. This is an opinion of yours. Until you can provide some, your argument has failed completely.

I just spent the last, oh, 30 minutes going back and reading the sources you've linked, Fox, and not a single one provides clear evidence of what you are talking about; merely anecdotal stories and tripe from Conservative pundits. If you can't do better, stay away from the argument or face ridicule for your clear lack of skill. Final warning.

Cycloptichorn

As I said Cyclop, those who are successfully indoctrinated whether it be on the left or the right have a particular world view that makes them incaable of seeing, much less understanding, any other point of view. Further they more often than not tend to think anyone holding any point of view other than theirs to be evil, muddle headed, unconvincing, brainwashed, or whatever. You can easily spot them because they are unable to articulate a reasoned rationale for their own point of view but tend to resort to insulting and/or trying to tear down the other guy.

I have not been the only one posting here in support of my point of view but if you think every single one of us, including MM who just gave an excellent explanation of his personal experience as have others, and because you feel no need or inclination to support your own point of view, wouldn't it follow that you have been pretty well convinced of the rightness of your cause and that you are unable to appreciate any other?

And couldn't that be in part a result of your education experience?

I do not intend to get into a circular argument or insult fest with you here. But I do think you make my ooint beautifully.

Cyclop is clearly a legend in his own eye.

So are the Silicon Valley rednecks, it would seem...



And we have. Numerous times. And your specious claims of "indoctrination" and "brainwashing" reverberate the same as always.



I don't know about you, but ALL of my friends on the left DO read both sides of the stories and ARE capable of seeing the world in a more objective viewpoint. That's because they TRAVEL. They SEE the rest of the world, and the way the rest of the world sees us. We also watch Fox News, CNN, listen to Rush sometimes, in order to listen to what the other side is saying.

Thanx to the neoconservative idiocy of the Bush Administration, much of the world looks at America much less favorably then during the Clinton years. Christ, Bush was booed at the Vatican, while Italians and other nationals were lining up to meet Clinton. And so we hear the neoconservative screed of "indoctrination," and "brainwashing," when most haven't traveled enough to get a sense of what the rest of the world is actually like OUTSIDE the U.S. A global perspective is utterly crucial if one wishes to get a very good sense of their own inner character. I learned, from my mostly "liberal" professors, to look at all issues and angles, and I learned to think INDEPENDENTLY from them. You seem to assume that we are all being brainwashed. My guess is that you neocons don't give a crap about the rest of the world, and that is egregiously dangerous IMO...

As your own idiot savant in the oval office cannot "articulate" himself out of a Iraqi Presidential hole in the ground, I'd say we on the left can easily spot the muddled, unconvincing, brainwashed mumblings of a lunatic mind.

I'd love to hear the details of mysteryman's predicament. Amazing how he conveniently left all that out, huh? :wink:

Well at some point it becomes quite unsatisfying to respond to those who call me an idiot who has failed to support my thesis by those who feel no need to present or support their own. And that's why I usually don't.

E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E, Foxfyre. Look it up.

It seems to me that if a proffessor REFUSES to allow any dissenting opinions in his class,then that is a form of brainwashing.
By only allowing one side to be heard,that causes students to accept that side.
Its really quite simple...if someone says that the sky is green,and you are not allowed ANY evidence to the contrary,then you will eventually believe it,because you dont know any better.


Cyclo,
I DID provide evidence to support my claim of being there,I provided photo's documents,and official USMC reports that showed him he was wrong,and yes I did it both during AND after class.
He refused to listen because he didnt want to accept the truth about him being wrong.

It seems to me that if a proffessor REFUSES to allow any dissenting opinions in his class,then that is a form of brainwashing.
By only allowing one side to be heard,that causes students to accept that side.
Its really quite simple...if someone says that the sky is green,and you are not allowed ANY evidence to the contrary,then you will eventually believe it,because you dont know any better.


Cyclo,
I DID provide evidence to support my claim of being there,I provided photo's documents,and official USMC reports that showed him he was wrong,and yes I did it both during AND after class.
He refused to listen because he didnt want to accept the truth about him being wrong.

Those who believe there is heavy liberal bias on college campuses and that it is detrimental to a good education have presented their own reasoning and experience, have posted the reasoned experience from others, have provided statistics and conclusions supporting those statistics from both liberal and conservative sources.

Those who think that a) there is no liberal bias and/or b) there is no problem even if there is no liberal bias have provided insults and statments that the opposition have not made their case. And they have offered little other than their own opinion.

By the sheer preponderance of the evidence, my side is way ahead at this time, and I think I shall not waste my time in trying to find even more until the other side has something other than a lot of insults and hot air to offer to the debate.

Ever notice that dookie and cyclop are apparently the same person? Even if they aren't, it validates the title of this thread quite effectively, doesn't it?

You could just as easily argue, Fox that you make your own point.

In an attempt to put a new foot forward between us, I'll write a long post on why I feel the way I do.

It's not that I think the concept behind your argument is completely without merit, Fox; just that the evidence that you and others have presented does not support the argument, as it is missing a few critical links. I suspect you realize this as well.

Now, you are suggesting that I, personally, have been 'brainwashed' by my college experience, but I find that hard to believe.

Why?

In the four (okay, five) years that I took classes I had maybe 8 professors who said anything, ever, about any political subject. Three or four of these were in political science classes and a few were in science ethics, and a few scattered. Two of my profs obviously were conservative (economics, hah) but the rest were pretty liberal. None of them went on at any great length but were likely to interject things from time to time during lectures.

By far the most politically active and outspoken prof of mine was actually my Calc 2 prof, who was a greenie if there ever was one. Renewable energy was his thing and he hated all politicians alike with a passion. One day he asked us if it was cool to cancel class so he could protest McDonalds in our Student Union. We were cool with it. Did this guy brainwash me? Hell no, I thought he was a nut!

I had about 50 Profs (switched majors) and 15% of them had overt political leanings at all, so I hardly think that my experience with politically minded profs has 'brainwashed' me in any way. It's far more likely that the gigantic body of studying I did in the vast majority of my other classes, 85% of them, had more to do with my way of thinking than this small minority.

No, there was another event that changed my way of thinking; I'll get to that at the end.

There have been three kinds of evidence posted here by you and others, Fox:

1. Anecdotal
2. Scientific studies (surveys, reports, etc)
3. Pundit Opinion

1st, the Anecdotal evidence. There are two types of Liberal Bias in college according to your argument: Inherent bias in the content of the course itself, and teachers who interject their bias where it has no place (like another topic). As the second is by far the most prevalent out of the cited complaints, I will address it first.

I've said in this thread earlier: any prof who spends an appreciable amount of time discussing a topic other than the one that the class is supposed to be about is literally stealing from the students. I have no support whatsoever for professors who steal time from the people who are paying for it, and they should be fired or at least reprimanded if this is found to be the case.

Many, if not Most, of the examples and anecdotal evidence that has been presented by you and others is exactly this in nature: bad teaching. This unfortunately doesn't support your argument that there is an inherent bias towards liberals in college either in hiring practices or in the content of the courses themselves; rather, if you chose to make a different argument, such as 'Bad teachers tend to be liberal, etc.' then these examples would uphold your argument much better.

Okay, now for Inherent Bias in the content of the course itself. You may have much more of an argument from this angle, in my opinion, as it is quite difficult for most people to present information in a truly neutral fashion. But, most of the evidence that you have presented does not show that the bias is, in fact, inherent to the nature of the material presented.

I'm not sure when it comes to the content of the courses if it is so easy to talk about a 'liberal' and a 'conservative' bias, as there are many biases that could be applied. For example, four profs each teaching the course "History of the American South":

Prof 1 is a Liberal who loves the South
Prof 2 is a Conservative who loves the South
Prof 3 is a Liberal who hates the South
Prof 4 is a Conservative who hates the South

All of these are quite possible and real combinations, and all four Profs would teach the class with a different bias or slant. And each one of them could be a Good, discussion-encouraging teacher, or a Bad, opinion-imposing teacher. So it's tough to say which one is worse or better, when, without attempting to codify how we all should feel about, well, everything.

This is what I mean when I say that I understand where your argument is coming from, but don't think the evidence has supported what you are trying to argue yet.

2nd, Scientific studies. I'll be quite brief on this one, as I believe my objection to the usage of them as evidence is as follows:

The studies do show, without a doubt, that those who chose to respond to the studies were overwhelmingly liberal in some fields. They do not show that harm is done to the minds/opinions of students, nor do they show any 'brainwashing.'

It's a problem of causality. You have the studies that show there are a lot of liberals in acedmic positions nowdays; but there is a logical jump betwen that, and showing that harm is done to the students by Liberal profs instead of just plain bad profs. In fact, I don't believe that a single one of them is a study of 'brainwashing' done to students or injury done to students.

This part is great for holding up the leg of your argument that Acedemia has a preponderance of liberals, but is not helpful to the argument that there is any reason to change that.

3rd, Pundit opinion. You probably don't need me to restate my opinion of Horowitz and his ilk. There is little doubt in my mind the reason behind their push for this issue, and it doesn't have anything to do with concern over the poor, poor students...

----

Earlier, I stated that there was a completely seperate reason for me to think and feel the way that I do, and I'll tell ya now in this shocking expose:

I was a Bush supporter in '00.

sigh

I didn't know anything about politics then, and he was the governor of the state, in the town I lived in. I had seen him a couple of times. And even though I liked Bill Clinton, I didn't like Al Gore. So I was a Bush supporter, I remember sitting up all night waiting to see who would win that Tuesday and being pretty frustrated the next morning, as I'm sure many of you do.

When I was younger my introduction to politics was Rush Limbaugh. I used to watch his TV show in the mornings while I waited for the bus to come; I always considered myself lucky that I could see the bus coming up the street. By the tenth grade I was a complete Dittohead, though I didn't talk about it much with other people.

I kept telling my friends to give Bush some time, that he was doing pretty well for his first several months in office but a lot of people I knew were unhappy with him.

By 9/11, I wasn't a College Republican or anything like that, but I certainly wasn't a Democrat. I was shocked, deeply, to say the least when 9/11 happened; there was personal tragedy for my family, though not my especially close family who took the subway there every day(thank god), and it was difficult to remain unemotional for a long time.

I started reading politics on the internet that year; I haven't stopped for a single day since. The more I read, the more I study, the more and more I depart from my previous opinions. I did a complete 180 on Bush and his crew. I can remember reading the PNAC site a few weeks before they attacked Iraq, and when they finally attacked I thought, holy ****, they went and did it, exactly like they said they would in '97 and '98.

I thought, what about Osama Bin Laden? He's not in Iraq.

The Iraq war changed me. It was Bush's actions which have turned a supporter into an opponent. It had nothing to do with my Professors in College whatsoever.

Cheers and thanks for reading,

Cycloptichorn

Cjhsa,

Why don't you go polish your guns and let those who know what they speak of converse?

Cycloptichorn

Converse? Is that what you call cutting and pasting?

Ever notice how that Silicon Valley redneck mentality dishes up the conspiracy theories like it's candy for children?

"Apparently?" You might want to look that word up in the dictionary before using it again.

I'd copy and paste the image of some conspiracy lunatic with a tin foil hat, but I try not to stoop nearly as low as most neocons who just LOVE to make fun of their own idiocy.

Better to listen to Cyclops' suggestion and go polish those guns, as there seems to be no telling as to how much damage you might do to your foot...

My God, Cyclop actually did a reasoned post with a minimum of sniping. I'm major impressed. I was sure he had it in him but I wasn't sure I would live long enough to see it.

Am I convinced that your education had nothing to do with your transformation from a normal conservative kid to a rabidly liberal adult? No I am not. (I am fairly safe in classifying you as liberal as you consistently take the liberal point of view on virutally every issue and hold the conservative points of view in virtually complete contempt.)

I will be charitable re your allegience to PNAC and your admission that you have been swayed by the heavily one-sided and frequently incomplete information there. That in itself would suggest other influences at work and I continue to suspect that your recent college experience is a factor. (Many of us explored that site extensively when it first went on line and pretty much have rejected it as being so partisan as to be unreliable.) But I would also be remiss in not acknowledging that there are a great many conservatives who also oppose the war in Iraq and other initiatives of the current administration; however, most conservatives are willing to acknowledge the positive along with the negative and do check out all credible sources. The dedicated 'brain washed' liberal or the right wingnut wacko seem to be incapable of that and accept only that which meshes with his/her chosen ideology.

Now to the issue of whether students are being harmed by a decidedly liberal bias on campus, of course they are. You state the anecdotal experience related here (and included in many postings of various columnists etc who have researched this subject) is not so much a result of liberal bias but of 'bad teaching'. My rationale is that one cannot be so biased as to present only one side of any issue and not be a bad teacher.

You cited a word picture:
Prof 1 is a Liberal who loves the South
Prof 2 is a Conservative who loves the South
Prof 3 is a Liberal who hates the South
Prof 4 is a Conservative who hates the South

The problem with your word picture is in a group of four, given the statistics indicated by the various polls, there would likely be no conservative at all. And the four liberals would most likely mostly hold one point of view and that is what the students would hear.

Once we agree that a more balanced approach would be conducive to complete and better education, then the solution could be debated and hopefully there would be no need for a Horowitz who is using the sledge hammer approach. But in fairness to Horowitz, many other inequities have been corrected with such sledge hammer approaches in the history of our country. (The equal rights amendment, affirmative action, hate crimes legislation, Roe v Wade, etc.)

I just keep hoping we will mature as a people enough to get to the point that we can reason together and look for win win solutions instead of the one side wins, one side loses mentality that prevails now.

Cycloptichorn:

That's very telling, and it seems to reveal a pattern with actual, intelligent conservatives who have been so horribly disillusioned with their party, either switching over or becoming independents.

I've never seen the Democrats so unified against the ruling party. It seems as though the egregious acts by the Republican neocons as of late have done a splendid job of empowering the opposition party, and they may finally be showing some strategic backbone, especially after the Terri Shiavo mess. Bush's poll numbers are the lowest of ANY second term president in modern, American history, and the Christian conservative movement is beginning to show it's true colors in so many ways. Americans are seeing how firmly situated these religious zealots are within the Republican ranks, and they don't seem to like it.

I, also, didn't get into politics until the Clinton impeachment fiasco, and realized that the Republican party had no policies to offer except for demonstrating their utter distaste for anything Clinton, and they went to great lengths to try and get rid of him. It sickened me, and to this day, I STILL have yet to hear a neocon explain why we spent over $40 million on Whitewater and Monica, and only $11 on the 9/11 commission.

Amazing set of priorites, those neocons...

The 9/11 commission cost a little more then $11.
I think you need to check your numbers on that.

I also got the Whitewater cost wrong. It was actually close to $70 million:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-15-clintons-whitewater_x.htm