Blatham,
I think you're off the mark on asking folks for personal (anecdotal) experiences.
We've been over the "evidence" of a left-wing effort to stifle conservative speech in the "freedom of everything but thought" thread, but the evidence just isn't there. Nor is there evidence that a liberal bias on college campuses has decreased the quality of the education that they provide.
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."
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."
I am very much afraid that the man from Canada, Mr. Blatham, does not know a great deal about Universities in the USA and thier unabashed liberalism which punishes and hoots down the expression of any conservative values.
Perfect example of sloppy thinking/writing..."hoots down ANY..." Clearly, that cannot be factual, so why say it?
Mr.Blatham seems to feel that one must list his own experiences in order to make a case that Liberalism is running rampant and is most intolerant of any other approach in the US Universities, so he says, in effect,--"Yeah, what did you experience"? I love the 'running rampant' bit. Here's an objective and careful voice, for certain.
Very well- I will recount my experiences and the experiences of my children along with the contentions of very respected observers and professors.
l. I attended De Paul University, The University of Illinois and the University of Chicago. BA, MA and all but Dissertation.
2. MY son went to Harvard and Yale.
3. My daughter to Northwestern.
All of us can report that you actually are punished and excoriated by professors and other students if you manifest any conservative leanings.
My experiences at the University of Chicago taught me that African-Americans do not committ crimes, or if they do, that fact is not to be mentioned in a Sociology or History class. Frankly, you are either lying outright or exaggerating events to such a degree as to achieve the same end. Within two minutes, anyone of us here could find fifty links to academic work on crime/incarceration related to the black community.
My son, who was eager to replicate his experiences as a columnist for his high school magazine, found that the LARGE MAJORITY of student publications on campus were very far left. The publication he ended up writing for had most of its copies stolen when it dared to include an article which was essentially Anti-Abortion. What, exactly, does "very far left" mean? What, in contrast, identifies "very far right"? On what evidence, other than your intutions, do you attribute the theft as you do? Even if your attribution is taken as reasonable, what would it tell us? That some student or students disagreed and acted to prevent dissemination of an idea (that would be, by the way, a bad thing in this case just as it would be where speech acts opposing the war in Iraq might be prevented).
My daughter found that there was to be no commentary of any kind which did not encourage the expression of the homosexual agenda in all of its manifestations on campus. Again, this is either a lie or an exaggeration of such magnitude as to make it an effective lie. You couch your terms in absolutes and there is probably no better indicator of sloppy and uncareful thinking/speech than this. And just what the hell might "homosexuality in all its manifestations" mean? Profs have up bright neon posters demonstrating how to engage in anal sex? Her comment that the homosexual life style was one best kept in the closet was met with extreme disdain by her sociology professor. She never commented again in that class. Then her lack of courage is to be faulted. Universities are not playschool.
Mr.Blatham is apparently unaware of the horrors committed in the name of Liberalism on College campuses in the USA.
Has Mr.Blatham ever heard of "ageism"? or "lookism"? These were strictures disseminated by the left wing administation at the University of Wisconsin. It was not PC to comment on a person's age or looks in any way. 1984 had arrived at Wisconsin under the leadership of Donna Shalala. Yes, I have heard of both those terms. They refer to discrimination based on criteria which may be inappropriate, and unjust. You have, say, a neighbor whose daughter is very beautiful but your daughter is very fat and ugly. The beautiful girl is not terribly bright and a bit irresponsible. Your daughter, on the other hand, is both responsible and multi-talented. Who do you think is more likely to land jobs in any number of professional capacities even where appearance (eg receptionist, modern news anchor, etc) has no relevance whatsoever?
Mr. Blatham is obviously unaware that the left wing liberals in our Universities in the USA teach all kinds of twaddle which is designed for the purposes of Political Correctness but, in reality, is nothing but the perversion of History. Am I not? The term "political correctness" entered American palance where? Do you know? In Dinesh D'Souza's "Illiberal Education", first excerpted in Esquire magazine (I read the excerps when published, and later, the book). He drew upon what academic mainly for his thesis? Do you know that? I do, and I read that book as well. There are things Bloom got quite right, and I've spoken of them on this site before. There is very little that D'Souza gets right however.
Professor Lefkowitz, an expert in ancient civilizations, reports that the spurious and frantic attempts to prove that Socrates and Cleopatra were black were part of the writings used in many classes in American Universities. How many? The curricula there also included what other materials? Artistotle was said to have stolen books( and therefore the material for his philosophy) from the Library at Alexandria which was, however built only after Aristotle's death. Do you expect to avoid, even identify, bad ideas before they gain visibility and the airing of debate and discussion? How? Do you consider that Western Civilization (or any cultural group) has all the right answers already and that therefore our assumptions ought not to be bothered with contest? Here's a question for you personally...do you think it a valid thesis that humankind evolved in the African continent and from there moved out to populate the globe? I'd like you to answer that question and I'll look for your reply.
Mr. Blatham is obviously unaware that Liberalism in our Universities expressed as Political Correctness has eroded any real measure of merit as expressed in grades. Yes, I am unaware of this and would very much like you to offer up peer-reviewed studies (as opposed to something you've read on Townhall) which demonstrate your claim to be valid. Grade inflation is obviously on the rise. The noted professor, Harvey Mansfield, at Harvard, has suggested that grade inflation has come about largely because of the need for liberal professors to pass minorities who were not really ready for a difficult curriculum. According to Mansfield, this resulted in a great many students being given A grades when they would have gotten B or even C grades in the past--room had to be made for those who could not be failed. Again, thank you for forwarding one man's opinion. Does it become invalid if I now post an opposing opinion from another Harvard professor?
Mr.Blatham is evidently unaware that the curriculum has been been taken over by liberals. At Stanford( one of our "great" Universities), a new course focusing on the works of blacks, Hispanics, feminists, and homosexuals REQUIRED to be taken by all entering freshmen. If true, why would this be problematic? Are only white writers producing good work? Are new ideas dangerous? What does "learning" mean and entail? Consider a university in Saudi Arabia. Would it be a good thing to encourage, even mandate, that some portion of the students' studies there include ideas and works from Western culture? Would it be a bad thing there for students to learn about the ideas related to womens' equality?
Mr. Blatham apparently does not know that the University of Michigan created a policy which adopted as punishable:
"Any behavior, verbal or physical, that stigmatizes an individual on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, creed, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, handicap, or Vietnam-era veteran status" Yes, and the problem is what, exactly? Would you advocate that it is just fine - an expression of free speech - to post a large banner across the drive into Michigan U which said "Fags and Viet Nam Vets are NOT WELCOME HERE"?
This idiocy and violation of the First Amendment was struck down in Federal Court. The US District Judge Avern Cohn declared that "The Supreme Court has consistently held that states punishing speech or conduct on the grounds that they are unseemly or offensive are unconstitutionally overbroad. And what if that banner also said, "Christian Bigots not welcome either". There is a valid legal and constitutional debate here as regards speech. In Canada, we have it somewhat differently than you do in America. Here, 'hate speech' is constrained (though carefully defined). Thus, for example, certain anti-semitic statements can be found to be illegal.
It would appear that Mr. Blatham knows little about the liberalism in American Universities which does not allow the expression of conservative ideas to any great extent.
There are, I can assure you, many more egregrious examples of the liberal political correctness run amok.
I write damn good papers. So upon receiving a less than passing grade and 'naive and incomplete" written on the cover page, I went to the professor for an explanation. I was advised something to the effect that I had failed to list programs that would identify and assuage the anger that drove the terrorists to do their deed. I was told that I failed to address the greed and squandering of resources that must be corrected to avoid more such attacks in the future. And I was chastised for the naive belief that a military response is ever indicated.
I dropped the class on the theory I was not going to learn much that was useful about government from this professor.
Of course, this and your personal experience with your professor isn't mutually exclusive. It is a good guess that in the humanities, where hard checks on theories are absent, it is hard to keep socialist theology from perpetuating itself.
But let's look at the significance of this event. How many interactions have you had with professors at your 'liberal' university? Hundreds? Thousands?
Oh come on thomas. Why not 'fascist theology'? Or even 'Hayekian theology'?
Or take archaeology. What can one predict regarding, or be at all certain regarding, when finding a bone that has been carved with little holes? Calendar? Musical instrument? Doodles?
Well, some 100 years back, Schliemann predicted the location of Troy, and academic archeologists dismissed him as a crank for doing so. Somehow he came up with some money, started digging, and found it. But in any case, my point wasn't to hold the lack of hard tests against the disciplines who don't have them. The point was that this lack makes ideological prejudices more long-lived than they would be in the hard sciences.
In your opinion, how many instances of enforced professorial bias would it take to make it significant? Significant enough to allow students to make their case to a judge, rather than to a committee of professors judging their colleagues?
One thing you and I do certainly share is our three cheers for disagreements
You understand how propaganda works...lying isn't necessary, if common, merely distortion and repetition, and an audience prepared or predisposed to accept the distortions.
Where I think you fall down on this matter is in what I consider a deficient study of who is promoting this campaign (that word is appropriate) and why they do so. These are not bias-free individuals and agencies, not by a very long shot. What they hope to gain is not intellectual liberty or diversity. Krugman has this right.
I am very much afraid that Mr. Blatham obfuscates and twists my post. He either does not read carefully or is eager to leave out or ignore important facts.
First of all, I mentioned that MY experiences at the University of Chicago were such that I did not hear that African-Americans did not committ crimes OR IF THEY DID, that fact was not to be mentioned in a HIstory or Sociology Class. Yes, you did not hear that. Thank you for clearing this up.
Mr. Blatham's referral to studies which named African-Americans as criminals were not brought up in any of MY classes. Easy enough to find with a quick google check. What classes relevant to this subject did you attend, by the way?
I am afraid no need to continue being afraid that Mr. Blatham has not attended classes in which someone dared to speak of African-Americans committing criminal acts. Actually, yes I have. It was a Poli Sci course and related to a group of incidents in the Toronto area. A perpipheral discussion involved First Nations questions too. Nothing was verbotten as discussion grist. He would find that at the University of Chicago, at least, he would be silenced and shamed immediately by a phalanx of apologists who would, of course, blame slavery as the cause for the crimes. Sorry, but you provide nothing credible to suggest that claim is accurate even in a single instance. And anyway, why so cowardly that you would allow yourself to be silenced?
Mr. Blatham does not, evidently, watch Television or go to the Movies. If he did he would find that African-Americans are depicted as brilliant thoracic surgeons, hard hitting policemen of unquestioned integrity and University professors who display real genius.
Ahhh...and how would you portray real black people? I'll wait for this answer as well.
Mr.Blatham has not heard that Political Correctness has spawned the "Morgan Freeman" syndrome. Blacks are to be depicted as wise, peaceloving and invariably decent citizens.
True, I have not heard of the Morgan Freeman syndrome. Who do you think is responsible for it? The drift of your argument is being more clear though.
I think Mr. Blatham has twisted some of my words. He appears to know about publications at Harvard. He does not. If he know about those publications, he would be aware that there are, at the most, two conservative monthly magazines and, at least, six liberal ones. Anyone who has been at Harvard is aware that The Daily Maroon is not only the premier publication which influences most of the rest but is also very liberal in its editorial stances. So get off your ass and start up another conservative paper.
That one of the most outstanding, if not the best, Universities in the USA would continue to derogate any thinking that can be described as conservative you continue to be so sloppy in the phrasing of your claims, and therefore in your thinking, that I suspect the chance you've actually attended Harvard to be close to zero. is a prime example of the spread of Political Correctness.
The paucity of conservative media on campus and the fact that studentgs are innundated with a constant stream of local media which stresses ideas on the left, is a scandal in an atmosphere in which all thought and expression should be allowed to flourish.
I really think Mr. Blatham must be living in a cave. If he does not know that no one on campuses like the Big Ten campus is allowed to espress ideas contrary to the homosexual agenda, he is really quite naive.
Again, I will quote from Mr. Nat Hentoff( a fierce defender of freedom of speech.
Mr. Hentoff tells of a NYU class which was not allowed to cover a case used for a moot court competition because a sizeable number of law students said it was too offensive and would hurt the feelings of gay and lesbian students. The case? A divorced father's attempt to gain custody of his children on the grounds that their mother had become a lesbian.
Nat Hentoff says it was against PC to represent the father.
If one of the major law schools--a law school--cannot present such a case in a moot court, then Political Correctness has truly damaged our Universities.
Some Administrators shamelessly cater to the prevailing Political Correctness. When Louis Farrakhan spoke at Penn in 1988 over the protests of several Jewish organizations, the president of the University conceded that Farrakhan's statments were "racist, anti-Semitic and amount to scapegoating, but concluded, "In an academic community, open expression is the most important value. We can't have free speech only some of the time, for only some people> Either we have it or we don't"
Yet, Mr. Blatham ignored the fact that the following attempt to "raise consciousness"
"Any behavior, verbal or physical, that stigmatizes or victimizes an individual on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, creed, national origin, ancestry, age. marital status, handicap, or Vietnam-era veteran status"
which was promulgated by the University of Michagan was struck down by a US District Court Judge who said that the Supreme Court has consistently held hat states punishing speech or conduct solely on the grounds they are unseemly or offensive are UNCONSTITUTIONALLY OVERBROAD.
No kidding. So you might want to reread what I wrote. And how is it I'm not surprised you are reading Nat Hentoff?
In the USA, there is an attempt to follow the rule of law.
I am very much afraid that in the absence of any proof from Mr. Blatham that Dinesh D'Sousa "invented" the term "Political Correctness" I must go along with Ruth Perry, A professor in the Women's Studies Program at MIT who said in her essay, "A Short History of the Term Political Correct" that: Except I didn't say he 'invented' the term. I said it gained parlance after his articles/book were published.
"The phrase seems to have gained currency in the US in the mid to late 1960's within the Black Power Movement and the New Left."
I will, of course, accept Mr. Blatham's claim about D"Sousa, if Mr. Blatham can document it.
Now, it is clear to me that Mr. Blatham is unfamiliar with the writings of the learned Professor of humanities and Classical Studies, Dr. Mary Lefkowitz at Wellesley. Mr. Blatham attempts to downplay the commentary concerning Aristotle and Black Studies. Dr. Lewfkowitz claims that her book "Not Out of Africa" came from her discovery that "there was in existence a WHOLE LITERATURE that denied tha the ancient Greeks were the inventors of democracy, philosophy and science. There were books in circulation that claimed that Socrates and Cleopatra were of African descent and that Greek philosophy had actually been stolen from Egypt. NOT ONLY WERE THESE BOOKS BEING READ AND WIDELY DISTRIBUTED;SOME OF THESE IDEAS WERE BEING TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES.I SOON DISCOVERED THAT SOME OF THE STUDENTS BEING TAUGHT THESE STRANGE STORIES ABOUT ANCIENT GREECE WERE IN MY OWN UNIVERSITY"
I am ujnaware that Dr. Lefkowitz's critique has been rebutted and shown to be incorrect. If Mr. Blatham has evidence, I will certainly consider it.
Much of what was being taught in Afro-centric studies at a number of universities was clearly deserving of criticism. Folks like West were guilty of lousy scholarship, and of a political agenda. Her book was a response to these trends That's the way universities work, it is the way ideas and learning work.
Mr. Blatham attempted to mute Dr. Lefkowitz's critique by mentioning that the "human race" began in Africa. Nah, I was just checking to find out precisely what sort of critter you might be. I'd guess, for example, that Stormfront might be on your favorites list.
Given the state of knowledge at this time, Mr.Blatham is probably correct, although the genesis of the human race in Africa has absolutely nothing to do with the attempt by many teachers of BlackStudies to claim that Aristotle stole his philosophy from the library at Alexandria;that Socrates and Cleopatra were black. No, it doesn't.
Dr. Lefkowitz went to a lecture by Dr. Yosef ben-Jochannan, a scholar she terms an extremist Afrocentrist. Her experience was enlightening to say the least.
When Dr. ben-Jochannan described how Greek Civilization was stolen from Africa, how Aristotle had robbed the library at Alexandria and how the "true Jews" are Africans like himself, Dr.Lefkowitz asked him for evidence particulary since the library at Alexandria was built after Aristotle's death. Dr. ben-Jochannan was unable to answer the question and said he resented the tone of the inquiry.
Dr.Lefkowitz commented:"A lecture at which serious questions could not be asked, and which, in fact, were greeted with hostility--the occasion seemed more like a political rally than an academic event. AS IF THAT WERE NOT DISTURBING ENOUGH IN ITSELF,THRE WAS ALSO THE STRANGE SILENCE ON THE PART OF MANY OF MY FACULTY COLLEAGUES. SEVERAL OF THEM WERE WELL AWARE THAT WHAT DR. BEN-JOCHANNAN WAS FACTUALLY WRONG. WERE THEY AFRAID OF BEING CALLED RACISTS?"
Political Correctness won again. I am sure that Mr Blatham would call this a typical "scattered incident". Yes, and the Nazis called "Krystalnacht" scattered incidents also.
Mr. Blatham objected to my mention of Dr. Harvey Mansfield, a professor at Harvard saying that he could get a quote from another professor countering Dr. Mansfield. Perhaps. But Dr., Mansfield, to the best of my knowledge, is the only Professor at Harvard who gives out two grades--his grade(the grade he says the student would get if grade inflation was not rampant) and the official grade.
Dr.Mansfield holds that professors at Harvard have engaged in grade inflation as a device to protect themselves. Grade Inflation has been widely documented. Dr. Mansfield states that professors are terrified of failing minority student so they jack up their grades. This,of course,means that the better students must be given even higher grades.
That is why the average grade at Harvard is around A minus.
Mansfield comments:
"White students must admit their guilt so that minority students do not have to admit their incapcity" ah, yes...poor white students of capacity and blacks without it...we saw this one coming a mile away
Evidence? In 1994 there were aove 120 students( out of about 1600 graduates at Harvard) who were named to PHI BETA KAPPA. Not one was black. There were many East Indians and Asians, but no African-Americans included in the Phi Beta Kappa number.
I am sure that Mr. Blatham will be able to factually refute some of the above. He will, I hope, use evidence and documenation and not utilize the intellectual sleight of hand he has done in the previous posts. I hope that Mr;. Blatham will not select just a part of an argument as he has already done but will consider the entire set of evidence.
My considered conclusion is that your sources of information are so narrow and biased, and that your personal dedication to careful scholarship is so minimal that further discourse with you isn't likely to be very valuable.
blatham wrote:My considered conclusion is that your sources of information are so narrow and biased, and that your personal dedication to careful scholarship is so minimal that further discourse with you isn't likely to be very valuable.
Translation: "I don't like what you have to say. I'm taking my ball and going home now."
My considered conclusion is that your sources of information are so narrow and biased, and that your personal dedication to careful scholarship is so minimal that further discourse with you isn't likely to be very valuable.
I understand. But in this case, lying isn't necessary to establish that general academic opinion is pretty (and I think rightfully) hostile to right-wing nonsense, such as John Irvings thesis that Jews were a nation from Hitler's point of view, so it made sense to put them in concentration camps. By contrast, while academic opinion doesn't endorse the corresponding left-wing nonsense, but It is pretty indulgent of it. (The corresponding left wing nonsense being: "Breznev saw the cold war as a life-or-death issue for communism, so it made sense for him to keep the Gulag going.")
And where I think you fall down on this matter is when you judge political initiatives by the intentions of their proponents, rather than the expected consequences. I don't believe that the government has a legitimate business enforcing diversity in anything, so I oppose this bill as much as I oppose the kind of programs which are deceptively labeled "affirmative action". But if, for the sake of the discussion, we assume that I did believe that enforcing diversity was a legitimate government business, I would find it much more important for universities to enforce diversity of opinion than diversity of race, ethnicity, and gender. The law isn't promoting diversity when it ends up making a university hire a white female Democrat, a white male Democrat, a black female Democrat, a black male Democrat, a Hispanic female Democrat, a Hispanic male Democrat, and a Republican.
(PS: If you look at the actual Florida Statute, you will find that its language is soft as cotton candy. It does nothing remotely as pushy as Affirmative Action.)
blatham wrote:My considered conclusion is that your sources of information are so narrow and biased, and that your personal dedication to careful scholarship is so minimal that further discourse with you isn't likely to be very valuable.
Translation: "I don't like what you have to say. I'm taking my ball and going home now."
Ticomaya wrote:blatham wrote:My considered conclusion is that your sources of information are so narrow and biased, and that your personal dedication to careful scholarship is so minimal that further discourse with you isn't likely to be very valuable.
Translation: "I don't like what you have to say. I'm taking my ball and going home now."
You may or may not be brighter than this post indicates.
