Diversity of Everything but Thought

dlowan wrote:

Hmm - of course, like you Blatham, I discount a lot of what Lash (and, it seems Fox?) are saying, because of their extreme right positions - (as they do our comments - shrugs - eg when we laugh at their perception that the media is left-dominated ) but there certainly have, in the past, in my experience here, been times when left bias (and I suspect a great deal more radical than the "liberals" which people seem to consider the left in the US!) has been very strong in some areas.

Of course, I have no idea what the situation is where Lash is studying - (it would be good to hear from a solid and sceptical centrist point of view) - but at one of my city's universities in the 70's and 80's, in both politics and political philosophy, woe betide anyone (unless they were truly brilliant and could argue their opponents to a standstill) who was not at least a Marxist - preferably a Maoist.

I do not think it went as far as affecting marks - as long as the knowledge and argument were very good - but it was certainly a very uncomfortable experience for the less able students, unless they toed the line - and socially very difficult for the non-Marxist higher degree students, since they were ostracized socially - (academe is a small world at those levels, where I live) - not, I think, especially intentionally - but the experience was awful for a couple of my friends, for instance. Pack stuff is pretty awful when the pack is a big part of your life, and you are not of it.

I used to experience some of the same stuff from the same folk when we met socially - for being a wishy-washy social democrat - (not to mention, horror of horrors - a therapist!) - but 'twas no problem for me, I did not inhabit their circles day after day. I used to kind of enjoy teasing them.

Part of the problem was a highly charismatic professor - who tended to gather acolytes. (He was a great guy to argue with, though - albeit kind of nuts!)

A couple of friends of mine - doing Phd's - refugeed either to one of the other universities, or to sociology - meaning they took longer to complete their degrees.

So - it CAN happen. I would think the ravages of the extremes of deconstructionism/constructivism etc etc more of note in academe of late than left-ness - but hey, I am way out of date.

I guess what I am saying, Blatham, is there may be something in what Lash is saying - and it can be hard to stand up when you hope for bread and butter and a career out of what you are doing.

I know when I was doing my final post grad work in social work, the way I was actually working was very out of favour at the university - and I could not be bothered challenging them (I do now, as a student supervisor - to almost zilch effect - sigh) - I just wanted to bloody well graduate and start earning some goddamn MONEY after 9 years!

So - I did all my practice essays and recordings and such-like crap by translating what I was doing into their dumb, useless, theory bases - and pretending I was doing what they wanted. My field supervisor understood and happily co-operated... (I gave her cheat sheets on the useless twaddle they were insisting we pretend to use - 'twas like being on the stage)

One has only so much investment in these things.

deb

How a discussion/conversation such as this one might go depends a lot of whom one is talking with. If I'm discussing black culture with a white supremicist, I won't approach that discussion in the same manner I would with someone else.

Earlier here, I brought up the famous hoax piece by Sokal as a perfect example of how academics (and academic trends) can go quite off the mark and even fall into what looks very much like the dogmatism of faith - unquestioning acceptance of authority. University personnel are not exempt from all the human failings, and university procedures (at any particular school) won't be exempt from habitual and unreflective tendencies either. Clearly, certain disciplines are more susceptible to social values ideas, or political ideas than other disciplines (the humanities vs the hard sciences) but phrenology and other pursuits point out how plastic things can get anywhere.

My career in university was marked by a number of conflicts of this sort, some of which I've spoken of on this thread. In those situations, I found myself arguing as finn or lash might. I was an adult, so such conflicts didn't bother me and I set to them with some zest in the classroom, with professors in private (two instances) and with letters to department heads (again, two occasions - one a postive appraisal and the other a very negative appraisal with written complaint to four professors, dept head, and dean). I did not, frankly, give a **** about my GPA. I recognize that not all folks have such the luxury of a lack of prudence.

But it wasn't imprudent. My marks never suffered no matter how much I argued or no matter how confrontational I was in class or out of class. It certainly never mattered what my political position on any question was, or what anyone else's position was. Professors - and this was almost one for one, including a lot of professors and TAs - lit up when confronted. They loved their subject areas and loved the dilemmas and uncertainties of knowledge. Engagement with sparks made for the best classes and almost all of them knew that and cherished it, inviting students to engage. The necessary criteria were:
-that students had read the materials
-that the students had thought about the materials
-that the students were careful and orderly in presentation of argument
-that all was done with an open mind and a lack of prejudiced notions

I do not exaggerate. That is an accurate description of my time in college and university. The rest of the folks here who have attended many years cumulatively of university all - and that does mean all - have experiences far more similar to mine than to what fox, jw, lash and finn suggest - and they have attended no university, or comparatively little. In each case, they draw their information from extremist political sources - particularly Horowitz. Their arguments are uncareful, their data suspect, and they are unswayable in their views because they already KNOW the truth of things. Their proposal for remedy - following Horowitz - amounts to a partisan politicization of universities with something like an equality of Republican and Democrat in teaching positions mandated or enforced. Green Party or Marxist Leninist or Scientologist or Muslim theocrats need not apply however. Just more Republicans (here and there, Horowitz writes 'Republicans', not 'conservatives' which ought to clue in even the slower folks among us.)

Universities or academic spheres, can be too slow in self-correcting. But they do manage it and arguably, manage it well. The arrival of the notion that a single poltical party ought to determine what constitutes proper curricula and procedure and personnel is a deeply dangerous idea. And in this case, it can be seen to be a purposeful strategy aligned with other strategies towards a common goal. The four folks I mention earlier won't find that credible, but there are very clear and evident causes as to why they won't.

Okay you say you only express opinion--that Lash and I are liars, you don't believe us or our kids for one minute, we have presented no facts but present opinion as facts, etc.

The above statement is presented as a fact. Could you please cite the specific attacks you have in mind over the last 20 years, citing quotes and links bearing in mind that I will put the quotes within their full context?

My above statement is presented as opinion. You are free to disagree with it; if I wanted to state it as a categorical fact, I would have provided supporting evidence, which I didn't care to do.

ps Horowitz is nothing but a politically motivated, right-wing hack. He hasn't done anything but criticize the Left for twenty years, and this latest attack is no different.

blatham wrote:

EXACTLY the book you three need. And by all means, continue to stay away from anything remotely scientific or academic (obviously). Life is a complicated thing and there is no sense at all in doing anything which might further discomfit.

There you go again.

"You three."

I have no real problem with being cast within the same "ilk" as foxfyre, but I'm afraid that mysteryman and I are not on the same wavelength.

Nevertheless, "you three" is a rhetorical device of dismissiveness which I've already called you on, and yet you seem to return to it as the babe returns to his mother's teat.

Now we know! It is a scientific and/or academic theorem that there is not a material Liberal bias in today's US Academia. Thank you Prof. Blatham.

Dlowan--

You are saying Brandy lied when she said her professor told her she should have included the 'justifiable anger' the terrorists felt toward the US in her paper,

or that the terrorists were in fact justified, and Brandy should have known well enough to include it?

blatham wrote:

The first target of the autocrat or tyrant is, almost always, the universities.

Tyrants: Foxfyre, mysteyman, finn

Tools of Tyrants: Fox, MMan, finn.

Just when I thought I could not wince more (see "Sigh") I find myself confronted with this ridiculous rhetoric.

It simply will not do, in the view of such political animals, to have ideas running about or discourse engaged in which might work at odds to their political power. It is a pretty sure way to spot the bad guys (along with their desire to control, through intimidation or ownership, the news media, and with their desire to wrestle independent institutions such as the courts under their thumb). Singularity of viewpoint - with authority vested only the themselves - is the goal.

Blatham challenged Finn to read up on Horowitz with implications he would otherwise not be worthy to continue in this discussion. It seems by virtue of Blatham's comments, he (Blatham) has not read either Horowitz's background, considered his credentials, nor read what he has written.

Yeah - that was pretty much my experience, too.

As I said - my impression would be that, in the "soft" sciences, that over enthusiastic love of folk like Foucault, Derrida etc would have been - until, perhaps very recently, the thought du jour, if you were going to have to take a stance against anything (mine would have been against disappearing up me own bum with relativism!) rather than the bogey man of the left - but hey, I am not where Lash et al are. I have already stated my doubts about that situation.

The folk I know at uni now report the same experiences I had - so I dunno - certainly no demand to think in a certain way - shrugs.

I haven't read this whole thread but it goes along like the other thread on this subject. I'm just beginning to get the hang of this. Do all people on message boards take a lot of angry pills?

I posted my anecdotal evidence on the other thread but will repeat it here. This past year I enrolled in a post graduate class on government that I very much wanted to take. The first week our assignment was to write a paper on appropriate government response to 9/11. I had been advised by an acquaintance who had taken the class that the professor had no strong bias. I turned in what I know was a very good paper. I got a very marginal grade and some comments. When I asked the professor why my paper was naive and simplistic, I was told something about not addressing the justifiable anger of the terrorists or the greed and corruption that drove them to desperate acts. I dropped the class. That was painful because I wanted the class. There was no alternative at that time.

This is not the only instance of strong bias I have encountered, but it was the most blatant.

I think in the 60's, 70's, and early 80's when my parents were teaching college, there was a good balance between left and right ideology on college campuses. They are retired now as are almost all of their colleagues. The faculty on most big college campuses now are a very different breed.

Dlowan--

You are saying Brandy lied when she said her professor told her she should have included the 'justifiable anger' the terrorists felt toward the US in her paper,....or that the terrorists were in fact justified, and Brandy should have known well enough to include it?

Premise: tyrannical governments will, predictably, attack universities

Premise: such attacks on universities ("their politics are WRONG and UNPATRIOTIC!", "they fight against the state!", "they are corrupting our young!", etc) have as a goal the dismantling of ideas and speech which do not conform with the desires of those who hold power.

Quote:

Let me help:

PREMISE-- Encroaching or unsatisfactory monopolies and tyrannies will not stand in the US.

Therefore: a fine tool to establish who in the community has tyrannical propensities/goals is to check who is attacking independent (from state control and state ideology) universities. (side note: they'll almost universally be attacking independent media too).

Quote:

Therefore: You will note the dissolution of encroaching and unsatisfactory monopolies and tyrannies by the people.

Or perhaps you are just protesting my suggestion that jw, lash, and fox are 'tools' of such a dynamic. Well, how might that be established?

We could predict, if the thesis holds water, that the three of them draw frequently, if not nearly absolutely, from ideological sources which are predominantly, if not nearly absolutely, pro-government. Check.

Quote:

This is utter bullshit. It shows the extreme limitations of liberals of Blatham's ilk, who consistently fall back on such tired, false, groupthink accuations. I do not read or view any differently than most people here. When I Google for a story, it may lead to sources I've never read. Such as Frontpage. Why the desperate need to categorize people in safe little disposable repositories? So you won't have to engage your brain to the issues? Stereotyping--enemy of thought! CHECK!

That their utterances can will be predominantly, if not nearly absolutely, in alignment with the utterances of government officials. Check.

Quote:

Doesn't it pose you the tiniest problem--that our government is elected by a majority of the citizens? Orwell set up some kind of totalitarian state for his fantasy. Don't you admit you'd have to have one to make your fantasy seem even remotely possible? It just doesn't carry much weight when elections are every four years...CHECK!

That their indictments of other viewpoints will very often suggest that oponents to their position (the government position) are unpatriotic. Check.

Quote:

A dismal, uncreative lie! I'm sure all of us have posted here about the patriotism of peaceful dissent. Blatham lied. CHECK!!!!

So let me know precisely where I have it wrong...

Quote:

CHECK!!!