Diversity of Everything but Thought

OK. I, for one, will give you that


OK. Now, define "many." Is the ratio greater or less than that of the general population? By how much? Does it meet the criteria for significance? Does the ratio change based on location, size of institution, socio-economic status, ethnicity?

You have not provided any measurements.

Drewdad, you are correct. "Many" is subjective and would not suffice if we were doing a comparison. I think it does suffice when applied to the examples used in this thread and experience cited by the conservatives in this thread, but I'll concede it is not measurable.

As to the definition of "diversity" I will refer you to George Will's essay that started the thread since he was the one to apply that particular word to the issue. His thesis was that major universities, dominated by liberals, demand and/or highly value diversity in race, ethnicity, gender, multiculturalism, etc.; but neither value nor easily tolerate diversity in ideology/point of view that in any way challenges their own.

You mean that geology departments should have more professors in them who think there are no rocks older than 6,000 years old, because that's how old the Earth is?

Were Mr. Will's dubious contention true, the significance of such a condition would likely be meaningless any place other than in a political science context. I don't imagine this is going to have an appreciable influence on the livestock out at the university farms.

I just suggest you read the essay gentlemen, and if you take issue with it, present your own reasoned argument as to what a different reality is. Otherwise all the ridicule, prejudice, and insulting innuendo in the world doesn't cast any doubts that Mr. Will did his homework before writing that piece.

Lovey was absolutely correct. She said you'd wait about an hour or so, and then come in to post some nonsense, in the belief that making the last post, having the last word, would somehow vindicate you.


heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .

By the by, can you point out the "ridicule, prejudice adn insulting innuendo" which one is to find in those last two posts before you attempted (unsuccessfully, as it now turns out) to have the last word? Or have you just gotten to the point where you make such allegations automatically, in an attempt to flatter yourself that your position in any debate is much the more morally superior?

"It's just a scratch." (pump, pump, pump) "Come back and fight like a man."

Fox was absolutely correct.

She said that after four hours, Set would post something inane in an attempt to distract everyone from the fact that he is wrong.

Geez. Since when is somneone criticized for nothing more than responding to a post?

Look, if you want more research into how conservatives are treated on college campuses, then fine.

But until you can quantify it, all you have is an accusation.






I will also say that "correcting" this perceived oppression through legislation is like trying to swat flies with a cannon.

The elapsed time was slightly more than five hours in fact. There is nothing at all inane in making the observation that my Sweetiepie and others here have made, that Fox always attempts to get the last post in a thread such as this, as though that somehow vindicates her position.

Nor is it inane to ask her to point out in what regard the two posts to which she referred can be reasonably characterized as containing: " . . . ridicule, prejudice, and insulting innuendo . . . "

Do you suggest, Lash, that it is inanity for me to ask someone to back up an accusation made against me?



Once again, one is left to despair for the understanding of irony in this country. So, Lash, are you criticizing me for resonding to Fox's post?

Could you please demonstrate how Fox has established as fact that i am wrong?

I find the statement: "Fox was absolutely correct." to be oxymoronic on the face of it.

I was goading you. It was my turn.

I thought you were mean to criticize her for merely responding.

Having the last word...? How would one know on an open thread, which word may be last? This is puzzling.

(Um, "after four hours" includes everything after four hours. Five hours would fall into this category.)

I can't speak for her, but this has been disgusting--with denials of facts presented from several sources. Perhaps every point asserted hasn't been proven with statistics--though several have--and a preponderance of evidence on all points should satisfy unbiased people-- I lost interest in talking to closed minds. Seems like a waste of time.

I'm sure we've all felt this at one time or another. I am interested in this discussion, but not as it is currently.

No one has denied facts, because what have been presented as facts have been without qualification and quatification, and therefore cannot be said to support the premise adduced. Not a single one of your "facts" have been supported statistically. Once again, as i pointed out to Fox, for evidence to be preponderant, it must be proven and compelling. None of what you allege to be facts here meets that test.

In the first place, no proof has been provided that Mr. Will's contention is valid which has not been reasonably questioned here. In the second place, were Mr. Will's contention valid, no one here has shown how this is detrimental to the campuses in question, apart from making unsupported allegations about excluding persons from employment at those campuses. Those who are ranting on about a chimerical liberal plot consistently ignore that major universities, with but a few exceptions, are funded by state governments. All of the largest universities, without exception, received huge subsidies from business and industry. Their hiring and retention practices are subject to civil sevice regulation. I know these things because in my twenties and thirties, i worked for the State Universities Civil Service System in Illinois, a state which supports more institutions of high learning than any other states with the exception of California and New York. No "liberal" applicant who cannot meet the base qualifications for a position can be hired under a civil service system. No "conservative" applicant who meets those base qualifications can be denied employment under a civil service system. The suggestion that the deck is stacked implies that state governments in this country knowingly fund such a situation--despite most of those state governments being in the hands of Republicans. The suggestion also implies that the business and industry entities, the very entities which underwrite conservative politicians to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, routinely fund institutions and employees of those institutions who are engaged in some kind of ill-defined liberal plot to undermine diversity of thought. These are both preposterous allegations.

In the third place, even were Mr. Will's contention taken at face value, those ranting here against this alleged "liberal" plot have failed to demonstrate what harm would arise in those universities, given that the great majority of areas of instruction, and especially those with scientific, industrial or agricultural applications, are politically neutral areas of instruction and research. Hence my remark about the livestock out at the university farms.

In the fourth place, as i have pointed out already--and the conservatives here have never responded--the sample is selected to support the thesis, and is statistically meaningless, because it does not take into account small liberal arts and religious establishments of higher education.

One could as easily find neighborhoods in which the volume of complaints of domestic violence are high, and in which the demographics of voting allow said neighborhood to be characterized as Republican--and come to the conclusion that all Republicans are wife-beaters.

Unless and until all institutions of higher education are scrutinized, any amount of "evidence" as to the political points of view of the faculty are statistically meaningless. Unless and until a clear and present danger of harm to the students or the polity at large is demonstrated, even the successful establishment of the core premise does not warrant the Chicken Little response to this allegation that conservatives have been ranting on about for years now.

The sky is falling ! ! ! The sky is falling ! ! !

-- C. Little, date of attribution unknown

Yes, i'm sure the thread loses its charm for you when you can't have it all your own way.

The thread loses its charm when members add nothing constructive to the process but spend their time in insult and innuendo and refuse to even consider, much less accept the facts that are preented.

It is amazing that a member is even excoriated for not responding for a number of hours. News flash: the conservatives on the forum actually have real lives in the real world to lead. Perhaps some on the left do as well?

One more time and then I will debate only with those who are interested in discussing the issue(s) instead of trying to make themselves look important or intelligent or informed by belittling or insulting others.

1) We have provided unbiased and scientific polling date showing a strong leftish ideology on mainstream college campuses.

2) We have provided opinion from a number of educators stating that this can and has prevented diversity of thought from being either encouraged or accepted on those same college campuses.
Complaints come from conservative students and faculty. We are not seeing similar complaints from liberal students and faculty.

3) We have had several accounts posted from conservative members who have encountered liberal bias as it has been described. We have also had several accounts posted from members who have not encountered any bias as cited, and all these have been our more liberal members.

I have challenged the members on this thread to state whether they would find it acceptable if American Universities were mostly conservative and liberal faculty and students were complaining that they were being discriminated against for their views. So far nobody has chosen to take that on.

Now those on the left can continue to stick their heads in the sand and pretend there is no issue here. I will accept that you do not see the issue as a problem and that the conservative argument has failed to convince you. But it is completely specious and indefensible to say we have not proved any 'proof' for the thesis of the thread.

It is not an insult to deny that you have provided facts, when you have not proven your evidence. You sing this song constantly now, that any disagreement with you constitutes insult. It is tiresome, and it is childishly facile.

Drewdad writes


I think the research on this is just beginning through the efforts of Horowitz and others. Apparently in today's ideologically poisonous climate, you have to make a LOT of noise to be taken seriously.

I do disagree that you have to quantify a perception before it can be considered as truth. You see that the sky is blue. You like the warmth of the sun on your shoulders on a spring day. You appreciate and are inspired to be better by the encouragement of a boss, a spouse, a friend. You feel angry and/or discouraged when you are insulted or belittled by a boss, a spouse, or a friend. Do these things have to be quantified to be truth for you?

When almost all of us who identify ourselves as conservative and who have recent experience on University campuses have felt our views are not acceptable by the faculty and we have had to hide our personal beliefs in order to receive a respectable grade, I think that identifies at least the suspicion of a trend.

When none of the students who identify themselves as liberal or Democrat report the same phenomenon, it further indicates a trend.

When our personal observations are backed up with scientific studies and observations of credentialed conservative educators, only the most ideologically blind would not have to see the strong possibility that there is a strong influence of liberal thought and that conservative thought is discouraged or disallowed on mainstream American universities.

I do agree with you that trying to correct such disparity with legislation is ill advised and I further believe a successful effort toward that end could have unexpected and unwanted negative results. I otherwise fully understand and agree with Horowitz's campaign however. I just think he's taking the wrong approach to the problem.

I've never doubted that in your perception there is a severe problem on college campuses.

Can you agree that in my perception there is not a severe problem on college campuses?

Perhaps my perception is wrong... perhaps your perception is wrong. I've certainly pointed to what I believe is evidence that the problem is nowhere near as severe as you seem to believe.

You keep coming back to the idea that if we do not find your evidence persuasive then we must be refusing to look at it. That idea is false.

Set nails it again



This is the part that Fox et Lash fail to understand; it's not the premise of the argument that is bad, it's the failure of the logic used in said argument.



This is the problem, here, Fox: you actually believe that you have presented scientific studies, but you haven't.

You've presented studies which puport to show that there are a large number of liberal profs on campus. This is fine. But then you rely upon opinion to interpret those studies and decide that there IS a bias which affects students, and that it needs correcting. Once again, AGAIN, for the fiftieth f*cking time, this is the break in your logic.

Fix it, or dump the argument, or say each and every time that this is nothing more than your biased opinion, based upon your ideology and not your real-life experience (because we all know it's been a long time since you've had the 'college experience,' Fox; you may not remember things that you've written in the past, but I certainly do).

Don't believe me, listen to Drew:


You now have Set, Drew, and I, all telling you the exact same thing, and you keep claiming that we aren't telling you this at all. Head in the sand, no?

Cycloptichorn

Drewdad writes


I think in my most two recent summaries of the thread, I was pretty clear about the last point. The theory that has been presented is that liberals would not see a problem because their point of view is affirmed and is not challenged. Neither would those who do not have an opinion likely see a problem.



You have been consistent that no data is posted showing that a heavy leftist tilt is harmful to the education process. And you are right about that. Do you consider that the 'evidence'?

Would you be comfortable attending a university where the faculty is conservative by a very large majority and where you would likely not ever encounter a liberal professor? Would you want your children to attend a university like that? Would you think you or your kids would receive a satisfactory education receiving only the conservative point of view? Why or why not?



No, not at all. I have no problem with anybody providing a rationale for why they think the evidence is not compelling or sufficient. Such is constructive to the debate and helps us all broaden our perpective and perception. I have and do encourage that though it would be unreasonable to expect the conservatives to just accept the liberal point of view without question or rebuttal. You certainly would agree it would be unreasonable for conservatives to expect the liberals to just accept the conservative point of view without question or rebuttal. My only problem is with those who say we haven't provided any evidence especially when they are snotty, insulting, condescending, patronizing, and/or arrogant when doing it.

Having said that, I include you among those capable of making a reasonable and constructive argument, Drewdad, and I appreciate it.