Diversity of Everything but Thought

A question -- in what percentage of academic fields does liberal leaning have any affect on what is being taught? For example, Poli Sci, yes. Fine. Physics? Art? Engineering? Mythology? Nursing? Astronomy?

If a math professor is liberal, how does that translate? Does he say, no, I refuse to teach the Pythagorean theorem because Pythagoras was a warmonger? Math is math. Facts is facts.

Of the small percentage of classes that are actually affected by liberal viewpoints -- Poli Sci, History, whatever -- what is the actual percentage of liberal to conservative there? If it is still disproportionately liberal, that continues the discussion. It goes to things like whether empirical, peer-reviewed evidence is more likely to send you one direction or another.

But if it's roughly equal -- if the fields that are actually affected by liberal viewpoints have about as many conservatives as liberals -- I think that's the end of this discussion.

Many moons ago, after I referred to him as "her" and "she," Cyclops said ....

The entire discussion also notably leaves out the small colleges that proliferate in this nation, a good many of which are religious establishments. I wonder if our outraged fellow citizens here are also contending that the tendrils of this vile liberal conspiracy have also wound their way into the sacred halls of such institutions.

Yes, I've posted a number of times that folks worried about "librul" colleges should simply apply to Texas A&M. It is a fine institution, no matter how much we Longhorns like to make fun of it.

Also, I've stated that market forces would force an adjustment if there were pervasive problems with the quality of education.

The US auto manufacturers certainly went through such an adjustment.

I wonder if this whole thread isn't just a big excuse for the Right to demand that colleges hire more creationists in their biology departments to balance out all those left-leaning evolutionists, (an evolutionist being left-leaning by Right definition).

Nice point, KW, in another thread, the resident religious wacko continually refers to "left-wing hatemongers" . . .

kw

That is part of the story, but in a general way.

The demon targeted is 'liberalism'. Any number of quotes from the two relevant camps (religious right and the republican right) make this point fully transparent.

How 'liberalism' is/was defined by these folks has now become a very interesting study in black propaganda. And what is really delusion...the mental or ideological machinations behind all scapegoating and utopian fantasy.

Lash,

I am a he, thanks very much. And I agree with Blatham that you are taking the coward's way out of the argument.

Tico,

You may or may not have noticed that I did, in fact, change my Avatar after I made that comment to ya. Thanks to JPinMiliwauke for the great avatar!

And, my dear Fox,



That sums it up pretty well. You haven't proven anything even close to the proposition, b/c you don't understand what the word proof means.

I, along with others, also feel that you perhaps do not have a great understanding of what the actual college experience is like for students today, no matter how many anecdotes your friends and family have told you. I also feel that your, and others, accusations have much more to do with political motivation than any real concern for students.

The fact is that there hasn't been any huge shift in the leanings of our faculty in a long time. College and Universities have always been hotbeds of Liberalism, because the defintion of Liberalism is:



These are the qualities that you WANT for universities. That you WANT in professors. A good Liberal prof. teaches his students to think for themselves, not 'indoctrinating' them with his ideas. You can't get past this point, because you aren't being driven by an examination of the facts, but by your ideology.

Considering that the makeup of the countries' universities and teachers have not changed significantly in a long time,

and ALL THREE branches of Gov't are ran by Conservatives,

You've really got nothing to b!tch about, do you? This whole argument is based upon the real attempt of the right-wing to stamp out areas of thought which disagree with theirs. But instead of forwarding more proffessors, they seek to legislate the way things are taught. I thought conservatives were for LESS intervention by gov't into society! Apparently not anymore.

The moment you bring a single bit of proof (look it up), then I will change my story. Until then, there's nothing left to discuss except my general disdain for those who cannot see flaws in their own arguments and are incapable of admitting that they don't have any basis for their discussions other than blind ideology and the repetition of lies on winger websites.


Cycloptichorn

The right-wing assault on Liberal thought is reaching every area of our society.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/outrage?bid=6

Cycloptichorn

If the trend continues, it won't be long until programming with a liberal bias will have to survive on its merits in the free market.

Is that what scares you?

PBS was initially designed to be seperate from the 'free market,' which, btw, everyone doesn't consider to be the best solution to everything.


Cycloptichorn

Fence straddlers have no balls. In compensation, however, they enjoy a comfortable seat and can retreat swiftly, when danger threatens, to either
side of the fence. There is something to be said for every position.

Then why do they make millions every year marketing stuff to kids?
They make money in the private sector with their Sesame Street stuff,their Barney stuff,and all kinds of other stuff.

If they are supposed to be seperate from the "free market",please explain this contradiction.

What programming would that be?

The president gets the whole country worked up over the idea that we are in trouble from Saddam Husseins's WMD's, with damn little scrutiny from the mainstream press.

Where is this "liberal programming" that we keep hearing about?

You didn't read the blog post did you?

OK. Now you ARE actually being intentionally obtuse. Learning to argue from varying sieds of an issue--and being told the professor's opinion is the correct side,and that you must use it as correct answer on a test are different things, as you well know.


Blatham has already been told he was taking the coward's way out of this conversation, which he is. His creativity is lacking today--for him to cut and paste someone else's comments as his own. Of course, Cyclops has to then regurgitate Blatham.

Think for yourselves, if you can.

Blatham has been unable to respond to my responses to him a few pages back.

Cowardly.

Lash, the flaw in this "study" has been pointed out by myself and cyclo.

The study merely charts how many times conservative think tanks are quoted by media outlets as opposed to members of Congress.

But there is no objective measurement of how accurate or well thought out the product of these conservative think tanks is. And until there is, this study is simply meaningless.

YOu say the study proves the media outlets do not quote conservative think tanks enough.

Have you ever, even for a moment, considered the opposite conclusion?

Maybe the members of Congress quote the conservative think tanks too much?

Unless we can come up with some objective appraisal of the worth of the conservative think tanks' output, we can't know either way, can we?

Can we?

As an analogy, suppose we take a look at biological journals.

We are likely to find that these biological journals quote creationist sources much, much less than members of Congress quote creationist sources.

Does that mean that biologists deal with creationists too little?

Or that members of Congress deal with them too much?

Or how about the Twelve Tribes of Israel in the New World?

Mormons believe that the Native Americans are descended from one of the Twleve Tribes of Israel that came to the Americas.

Some members of Congress are Mormon, and doubtless have mentioned sources which hold this view of the origin of the Native Americans.

Yet, I think you will find that very few anthropological journals mention this view.

Does that mean that anthropological sources mention the Twelve Tribes Of Israel theory of Native American origins too little?

Or that the members of Congress mention it too much?