Florida to end "leftist totalitarianism" by "dictator profs"

blatham wrote:

Previously, if I can go off for a bit, we have argued regarding press diversity, your position being that market forces are most likely to encourage the greater degree of diversity. I've just found out that The Washington Times and the Weekly Standard (along with townhall and newsmax and many other rightwing outlets) are all losing money and have been since inception...each is subsidized. I won't bore you with who is doing the subsidizing...ok, I will... you've seen the names Olin, Scaife, etc before.

I know, the National Review too. (Fox however, is wildly profitable as best I know, and so is the bulk of conservative talk radio.) The only consolation I have is that Olin, Scaife, etc, are spending their own money, and that of voluntary donors to their foundation. The people who finance junk science in women's studies spend mine without my consent.

0 Replies

From chiczaira

Quote:

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?"

That's a really interesting point. Academia censors itself. Given that I'm willing to accept that some academics will terrorise students who don't share their political view of the world.

But not always. My experience of university (as a mature age student) is that some professors terrorise you if you don't put up a good argument, whatever the political position. Anyway that comment speaks volumes to me (the quote I mean).

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

blatham wrote:
Previously, if I can go off for a bit, we have argued regarding press diversity, your position being that market forces are most likely to encourage the greater degree of diversity. I've just found out that The Washington Times and the Weekly Standard (along with townhall and newsmax and many other rightwing outlets) are all losing money and have been since inception...each is subsidized. I won't bore you with who is doing the subsidizing...ok, I will... you've seen the names Olin, Scaife, etc before.

I know, the National Review too. (Fox however, is wildly profitable as best I know, and so is the bulk of conservative talk radio.) The only consolation I have is that Olin, Scaife, etc, are spending their own money, and that of voluntary donors to their foundation. The people who finance junk science in women's studies spend mine without my consent.

thomas

I understand. Hard to see a way around this though. I might have mentioned earlier a wonderful paper I read for a Canadian history course. From elementary school on up, we learn aspects of the early history of Canada (applies to US as well) where much of the continent was "opened up" (how's that for a euro-centric conception) by the rough and tumble fur-traders. This paper, a consequence of feminist historical study, showed how the native females that the fur-traders hooked up with provided an absolutely essential liason function between the white folks looking for productive areas and the local native people who knew where those areas were. Previously, this part of the history was completely invisible because women (particularly native women) were simply not conceived as being significant agents in human affairs.

Elsewhere here, though possibly not in conversations with you, I've argued that a lot of "feminist' ideology is driven by assumptions or conclusions which are really just points of faith, as in the posited earlier matriarchal period. Betty Friedan's writing on this point are a good example. She convinces herself, but the evidence is simply not there and one can't imagine how it ever could be established other than as a possibility. But it is an interesting possibility. And even though I think it unlikely to have been the case, merely that it has been posited and investigated demonstrates a openness to learning and new ideas. And to a greater acceptance of females as profoundly important historical agents. As in scientific investigations that turn out to be dead-ends, this is how we advance our knowledge. And advances in social justice for those who have been marginalized in community affairs is a nice side benefit. How does one know where time and resources will be wasted - in science or humanities - until the research and debate wends along?

Liberal arts/humanities will always, in an industrialized society, be somewhat under attack I suspect. The content of these study areas and the products of such studies don't easily fit into an 'education' system favored by Ford or GE in the manner that a technical or engineering school's graduates will fit. That isn't so in a non-industrialized culture such as the Balinese where arts are, or at least were, regarded as the most important sort of educational achievement. And I suppose we ought to note that in Western culture, the upper or ruling classes have traditionally recieved liberal arts/humanities educations. There is an absolutely wonderful longditudinal study/documentary film from England called (I think it is) "7 Up" where a large group of children in both private school and public school were studied at seven year increments over at least 28 years (it is possibly still on-going). The difference in study content is quite remarkable. Also remarkable is how separate these classes remain. The viewer is not much compelled to conclude that meritocracy is the model in which we live.

And liberal arts/humanities studies face a second counter-force as well, I believe, aside from the "no practical application" notions above. I think that, for example, the executives of Walmart would prefer it if their employees and potential employees remained unacquainted with the details of the union movement in America. I believe that many corporate executives would prefer it if their product consumers remained unaware of working conditions in their thirdworld operations and remained unaware of environmental consequences of those operations. I believe that levels of compensation for CEOs are kept secret because broad knowledge of such would present pretty certain trouble for them - that many folks would wonder what they are actually doing or risking such that they take home 1000X or 10,000X or 100,000X what the fellow sweating in the factory takes home. Well educated populations can present real problems for some at the top.

Thirdly, a traditional opponent to a broad liberal arts/humanities education has been the elements of the faith community - some less so, and some moreso. Puritans, for all the bad-mouthing they get (some well deserved) set up the first universities in America. Jesuit education can be very good indeed (and sometimes, very cruel and sadistic indeed). You know all that. The dynamic is the same in Saudi Arabia as it is in Texas as in Tel Aviv. Where 'truth' is revealed in a scripture or in a charismatic leader, intellecutal investigations that might lead elsewhere or might contradict such 'truths' are commonly perceived as dangerous and sacriligeous. It is a correct perception, in fact. America is something of an exceptional case here. The evangelical protestant tradition in America is uniquely anti-intellectual compared to Catholicism or English/European protestantism. It is also, particularly right now, uniquely powerful in the politics of the the Republican Party and the US. And there is a real threat to open inquiry in this even, as Krugman and many in the science and science education communities point out, to scientific inquiry. Tom Delay and George Bush, to name just two when many more could be included as well, hold evolution to be false or dubious because it contradicts scripture which cannot be false.

0 Replies

The sorts of claims that get made, then forwarded by a lot of the folks here and elsewhere on this topic are commonly marked by sloppy thinking, worse research, and in a lot of cases, outright lies.

Let's take, for example, Robert Novak's claim on Crossfire yesterday that...

Quote:

"[t]hey only have left-wing speakers on campuses like Berkeley and Harvard."

A lot of the folks on this thread will just gobble that down and repeat it. There are already a ton of examples preceding.

What's true? A year earlier, on April 8, 2004, Novak himself spoke at Harvard University's Institute of Politics.

What else is true? A partial speaker list...

- Former executive director of the Christian Coalition and Southeast regional chairman for the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign Ralph Reed (Harvard, 3/23/05)
-Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith (Harvard, 3/3/05)
-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (Harvard, 9/28/04)
-Former U.S. Education Secretary Rod Paige (Harvard, 4/22/04)
-Bush-Cheney '04 campaign manager Ken Mehlman (Harvard, 4/13/04)
-Former Club for Growth president Stephen Moore (Harvard, 3/11/04)
-Students for Academic Freedom president David Horowitz (UC Berkeley, 2/3/05)
-Former U.S. Senate candidate Bill Jones (UC Berkeley, 10/6/04)
-Weekly Standard editor William Kristol (UC Berkeley, 10/4/04)
-Conservative columnist and author Michelle Malkin (UC Berkeley, 9/7/04)

0 Replies

I think that's a new concept here blatham - evidence. Hmmmm, it might even catch on :wink:

0 Replies

no way it will catch on.

0 Replies

Well, to be fair, these folks here have advanced two types of 'evidence' for their thesis:

- personal experiences and that of family/friends

- experiences they have read about

The first category has been almost completely non-existent. In most cases that's because the folks in question haven't been anywhere near a university, or have briefly attended. Where incidents have been related to us, they can be counted on one or two hands, and the nature of them has often been questionable.

Contradicting these incidents and the thesis forwarded are the very many people who have attended (cumulatively) many years of university and find the thesis false.

Also contradicting the thesis (pervasive bias and inhibited conservative speech/ideas) are the experience of those complaining - they note/describe an incident but ignore the thousands of interactions they've had on campus where the thesis did not hold true. Which makes the claim the same sort as 'I was cheated once by a jew, therefore all jews are pervasively cheaters'.

The second sort of 'evidence' advanced has been what they have read about. Many of these cases do constitute evidence of bias of the sort alleged. Many others do not as they have been shown to be false in critical details or misreported.

But the error has been to draw a certain conclusion - widespread and pervasive bias - when no such conclusion is warranted or even close to being warranted. They believe the thesis claim for whatever set of personal reasons they each might have - trust in a particular group of 'authority' figures, dislike towards higher education, partisan membership, a need for simple answers, a worldview that puts 'liberalism' as a handmaiden to Satan's agenda - whatever.

It's a dangerous movement because the folks who are behind it are pushing for something quite other than what they insist is their goal (other than in unguarded moments). And because it draws upon a fairly deep anti-intellectualism in American culture (though it is not alone) and the regretable human tendency in many to shy away from complexity and reach for the simple answer.

0 Replies

That's a nice summation of the problems I have with the "evidence" that has been presented.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Which makes the claim the same sort as 'I was cheated once by a jew, therefore all jews are pervasively cheaters'.

You are misrepresenting the logic of the people you are arguing against. To stay with the example you have chosen, their reasoning is, "I was cheated once by a jew. We don't currently have a law against jews cheating me, so it's good a good thing Florida's congress is enacting one against them -- and against anybody else cheating too." This looks like valid reasoning to me, and the only invalid thing about it is your innuendo about antisemitic instincts among your opponents. Now, let me reciprocate with a metaphor for describing your logic, blatham. Alice sells a horse to Bob. The next day, the horse dies; Bob goes back to Alice and wants his money back. Replies Alice: "Oh come on -- I've been owning it for fifteen years, and it never did that to me!"

blatham wrote:

And because it draws upon a fairly deep anti-intellectualism in American culture (though it is not alone) and the regretable human tendency in many to shy away from complexity and reach for the simple answer.

Sure, but what's wrong with deep American anti-intellectualism, and why is it dangerous? I understand that intellectuals don't like it, but frankly I don't think we are as important as we think we are, and it's a good thing that non-intellectual Americans see that.

0 Replies

Quote:

You are misrepresenting the logic of the people you are arguing against. To stay with the example you have chosen, their reasoning is, "I was cheated once by a jew. We don't currently have a law against jews cheating me, so it's good a good thing Florida's congress is enacting one against them -- and against anybody else cheating too." This looks like valid reasoning to me, and the only invalid thing about it is your innuendo about antisemitic instincts among your opponents. Now, let me reciprocate with a metaphor for describing your logic, blatham. Alice sells a horse to Bob. The next day, the horse dies; Bob goes back to Alice and wants his money back. Replies Alice: "Oh come on -- I've been owning it for fifteen years, and it never did that to me!"

First...there was/is no suggestion of anti-semitism. I could have used a classroom example where a teacher has experienced a spitball in the back of the head on October 12 and concludes that there is "pervasive criminal behavior in American schools." The function of that analogy was to put the argument into a context where it is pretty easily seen as illogical.

You wish to stick to the proposed Florida legislation. That's a mistake in itself here (but I will get back to it specifically, and your analogies) because the arguments/claims advanced on this thread are precisely the same as those on all of the other threads that have arisen. The incidents related and the sources referred to and the conclusions drawn are common. So it is not about Florida at all. These same folks would be making the same arguments had Florida fallen into the ocean a month ago.

But this legislation IS uniquely ugly and dangerous. It isn't cotton candy thomas. It surely is not if the following is the case legally...

Quote:

The bill sets a statewide standard that students cannot be punished for professing beliefs with which their professors disagree. Professors would also be advised to teach alternative "serious academic theories" that may disagree with their personal views.

According to a legislative staff analysis of the bill, the law would give students who think their beliefs are not being respected legal standing to sue professors and universities.

You ignore (you choose to) the impetus or motivation behind this bill and that is simply foolish. I'll quote again the fellow responsible:

Quote:

It's not every politician who keeps the Bible and an Experiencing God devotional book on his desk in the State Capitol. But Dennis K. Baxley is not just a politician. He is a man on a mission.

Elected to the Florida House of Representatives last year to represent District 24, this 48-year-old father of five from Belleview, Florida, feels it's God's plan for him to be in Tallahassee. When Baxley came to the Capital last year, he left behind his elderly parents, his children, six businesses, 65 employees and a godly, supportive spouse named Ginette.

"I'm here for Him," Baxley said, explaining his commitment to honor the Lord. "What I do must glorify and please Him. I see this job as a calling and believe my opportunity to serve here was providentially arranged."

Quote:

So we know where he wishes this legislation to lead. We know where Horowitz wishes such a campaign to lead. Bias-free is not the goal. More Republicans and more believers in Christ as the sole savior of the world and spirit are the goals (and the bible as literally true). You really ought, thomas, to be a bit more honest about this.

You separate goal and consequence. That's naive. Where the goal IS a particular set of consequences do you think Baxley and his type will be satisfied according to your criteria? Do you think Baxley will be satisfied by a professor claiming that 'though religious groups view this differently, the weight of evidence argues for evolution as the fundamental principle of biology'? Do you think, under this legislation, such a claim will not gain legal challenge by some young college Republican or evangelical backed by a team of lawyers? Do you think this won't have serious consequences on a university's staff and research and function? Do you think that a professor who mandates readings on evolution and, not design or creationism, but satanism won't feel the full weight of these folks out for 'intellectual freedom'?

As to your analogies...

Quote:

their reasoning is, "I was cheated once by a jew. We don't currently have a law against jews cheating me, so it's good a good thing Florida's congress is enacting one against them -- and against anybody else cheating too." This looks like valid reasoning to me,

No, that's badly inaccurate. In almost all cases here on a2k (which is what and who I was referring to) it is "I have heard that jews cheat regularly all over the place, so let's fix that problem which certainly exists."

Quote:

Now, let me reciprocate with a metaphor for describing your logic, blatham. Alice sells a horse to Bob. The next day, the horse dies; Bob goes back to Alice and wants his money back. Replies Alice: "Oh come on -- I've been owning it for fifteen years, and it never did that to me!"

thomas, that is really the worst analogy I've ever seen you make and you shouldn't have let it slip past your keyboard.

The correct analogy to my logic would be this: a girl gets thrown by a horse on a pack ride. It is one pack ride among thousands going on at that moment, and which have been going on for a century. There are other instances on record. The ratio of such instances to rides with no such event is on the order of a million to one.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

You separate goal and consequence. That's naive.

No, because 1) it isn't the goal but the words of the bill that get enacted into law, and the wording of the bill is soft as sugar candy -- as you will see when you read the bill itself. 2) The lawbooks are full of statutes that have produced consequences dramatically different from the intentions of the framers. I find it naive not to seperate goals from consequences, and to assume that a laws will generally have the consequences their sponsors expect. (Which is what I think you're assuming.)

blatham wrote:

Where the goal IS a particular set of consequences do you think Baxley and his type will be satisfied according to your criteria? Do you think Baxley will be satisfied by a professor claiming that 'though religious groups view this differently, the weight of evidence argues for evolution as the fundamental principle of biology'? Do you think, under this legislation, such a claim will not gain legal challenge by some young college Republican or evangelical backed by a team of lawyers? Do you think this won't have serious consequences on a university's staff and research and function? Do you think that a professor who mandates readings on evolution and, not design or creationism, but satanism won't feel the full weight of these folks out for 'intellectual freedom'?

No, they will not be satisfied, Yes, some college creationist will complain, yes it will get a legal challenge, yes a team of conservative lawyers will back it. No, I don't think it will have serious consequences, because universities will ask students to waive their rights under this law as a precondition for joining, and because a hard-line interpretation of the law won't pass the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (Which I think is why the bill is worded so softly.) There may be a picketed professor or two, a few shouting matches with conservative activists, a conservative rerun of the 1965 Berkeley "Free Speech Movement". You decide whether that's serious or not. My own take is that I don't like it, but evolutionary biology will survive, and has survived worse.

0 Replies

forgot this bit...

Quote:

Sure, but what's wrong with deep American anti-intellectualism, and why is it dangerous? I understand that intellectuals don't like it, but frankly I don't think we are as important as we think we are, and it's a good thing that non-intellectual Americans see that.

You really ought to go out on a limb and answer this question yourself, thomas.

I can do a few things as regards a malfunctioning automobile...change a radiator, put in a new U-joint on a Spitfire (though never again will I own a British car), etc. I'm a pretty competent carpenter and can set to laying tile or adding a wall or changing wiring about the house. I can scurry about a roof-edge or up/down a three story ladder with no particular qualms. But in each of these amateur-level abilities, I'm very well aware that other folks exhibit pure genius. I have some musical talents gifted to me at birth which my twin, for example, arrived without. But I'm in absolute awe of more musicians than I could possibly even count. I would love to be able to say that I could dig around in the midday african sun for twenty years before finding the cranial remains I theorized would be somewhere (Louis Leakey) but I know I am far far more lazy than that.

There are very many sorts of 'intelligence' or 'ability' which we humans display and which are not susceptible to comparable value-measurement in any objective way. My father was formost a 'practical' man. My mother was more of an 'intellectual'. They were not in opposition, but complimentary.

Anti-intellectualism, in the way I mean that term here is a rejection of open-minded pursuit of knowledge because the pursuit may lead to unwelcome conclusions. Or it may lead to children moving away from traditional ideas and practices held by their parents to be important. It is not a good thing. It is not wise. It isn't even practical. It is ideological and constricting for that. It is regressive.

0 Replies

Quote:

No, because 1) it isn't the goal but the words of the bill that get enacted into law, and the wording of the bill is soft as sugar candy -- as you will see when you read the bill itself.

I have read it. I have also noted the potential legal consequences in my last post. Which you have yet to address.

Quote:

No, they will not be satisfied, Yes, some college creationist will complain, yes it will get a legal challenge, yes a team of conservative lawyers will back it. No, I don't think it will have serious consequences, because universities will ask students to waive their rights under this law as a precondition for joining, and because a hard-line interpretation of the law won't pass the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (Which I think is why the bill is worded so softly.) There may be a picketed professor or two, a few shouting matches with conservative activists, a conservative rerun of the 1965 Berkeley "Free Speech Movement". You decide whether that's serious or not. My own take is that I don't like it, but evolutionary biology will survive, and has survived worse.

I'm afraid, thomas, that your personal suppositions and optimisms regarding humans in community here do not compel me.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

I'm afraid, thomas, that your personal suppositions and optimisms regarding humans in community here do not compel me.

"Where two people agree, one of them is superfluous." (Winston Churchill) How nice that neither of us is superfluous. Let's just revisit this thread in 10 years and see who was right.

0 Replies

"rejection of open-minded pursuit of knowledge because the pursuit may lead to unwelcome conclusions = Anti-intellectualism" says Mr. Blatham.

Yes, I agree. But what exactly is open-minded pursuit? Is if found only in the writings of Noam Chomsky? Or is it found also in books written by Murray like "The Bell Curve"?

Some people seem to feel that they have a lock on "good sources." Galbraith is fine but Hayek is full of misconceptions.

After reading Mr. Blatham's post, I think he should nominate himself as Renassiance Man of the year. He left out his expertise in sculpture however.

0 Replies

chiczaira wrote:

"rejection of open-minded pursuit of knowledge because the pursuit may lead to unwelcome conclusions = Anti-intellectualism" says Mr. Blatham.

Yes, I agree. But what exactly is open-minded pursuit? Is if found only in the writings of Noam Chomsky? Or is it found also in books written by Murray like "The Bell Curve"?

Some people seem to feel that they have a lock on "good sources." Galbraith is fine but Hayek is full of misconceptions.

After reading Mr. Blatham's post, I think he should nominate himself as Renassiance Man of the year. He left out his expertise in sculpture however.

Who here has advocated one-sided learning? Not "Mr. Blatham." I leave it to you to work out of whom I am speaking....

0 Replies

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

candidone1 wrote:
he he, you said lick 'er. :wink:

and poker.

Yum-me.........he he

0 Replies

chiczaira wrote:

"rejection of open-minded pursuit of knowledge because the pursuit may lead to unwelcome conclusions = Anti-intellectualism" says Mr. Blatham.

Yes, I agree. But what exactly is open-minded pursuit? Is if found only in the writings of Noam Chomsky? Or is it found also in books written by Murray like "The Bell Curve"?

Some people seem to feel that they have a lock on "good sources." Galbraith is fine but Hayek is full of misconceptions.

After reading Mr. Blatham's post, I think he should nominate himself as Renassiance Man of the year. He left out his expertise in sculpture however.

Oh it's Italgato again. Recognized him right away. The "Mr. Blatham" is the thing. I wonder how long you'll last this time.

0 Replies

Mr. Blatham states that the posts made by some represent the experiences picked up by people or from their friends. He also indicates that some tell about experiences they have "read about". I believe he cotghat ncludes this is not serious evidence.

When a fact is stated, is it an experience that one has read about or is it a fact?

Fact----Dr. Lefkowitz found that there was a whole literature that denied that the Greeks were the inventors of democracy, philosophy and science and that there were books in circulation that claimed that Socrates and Cleopatra were of African descent, and that Greek philosophy had been stolen from Egypt.

Is it a fact or an experience that one has read about that the University of Michigan had their policy regarding racial etiquette and penalties for speech that violated it? Is it a fact or an experience that one has read about that a US District Judge struck down Michigan University's policy as Unconstitutional.

Is it a fact or an experience that one has read about that the President of Penn University indicated that a speaker at Penn, Louis Farrakhan made statements in his speech which were racist and anti-Semitic but that "in an academic community, open expression is the most important value?

Of course, if one relies on anecdotal evidence, as Mr. Blatham suggests some do, then that evidence could be called an experience one has read about. I suggest that the above are not experiences one has read about but are facts.

Perhaps I do not realize that I fall under Mr. Blatham's definition of an unserious scholar. Mr. Blatham said: "My considered conclusion is that your sources of information are so narrow and that your personal dedication to careful scholarship is so minimal that further discussion with you isn't likely to be worthwhile"

What can one do against such a definitive and scathing denunciation? It is clear that truth belongs only to a select few.

DrewDad has indicated that no one has advocated one sided learning but he must be mistaken. How can learning be any more than one sided when one side clearly has "no dedication to careful scholarship" and/or "narrow sources of information"?

0 Replies

What, I don't get to be "Mr. DrewDad?"

chiczaira wrote:

DrewDad has indicated that no one has advocated one sided learning but he must be mistaken.

You are mistaken. I asked "Who here has advocated one-sided learning?" Then I stated it was not Blatham.

However, I will leave you with this thought:

'Ninety-nine percent of the people in the world are fools, and the rest of us are in great danger of contagion.' -Thornton Wilder

Again, I will leave it as an exercise for you to determine in which group I believe you to belong.

0 Replies

Florida to end "leftist totalitarianism" by "dictator profs"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know