Oops, 7 Days. Hey look I don't update on weekends.

More Liberal "Free Speech"

In liberal crazy-land, it's okay for whack jobs like Ward Churchill to offend all of us "little Eichmanns" - and to draw a $90,000 salary at the public teat for doing it. But God forbid a Republican tries to exercise a little of that free speech the liberals are always on about:

http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1111765600148610.xml
Permalink Godless Visigoth 
March 25th, 2005
Because, as we've already discussed many times on this board, "Liberals" are all actually just one person with one personality, and hence are a singular, singly accountable entity.
Permalink muppet 
March 25th, 2005
In conservative crazy-land, it's okay for whack jobs like George W. Bush to offend all of us "terrorists" - and to draw a $150,000 salary at the public teat for doing it. But God forbid a Democrate tries to exercise a little of that free speech the conservatives are always on about:
Permalink somebody else 
March 25th, 2005
LOL!

Geez, I don't see the big offense here (except to white people who had to pay two bucks for a cupcake). If you're a minority, then you get a great deal on a cup cake and get a chance to stick it to whitey! What's the big deal?

Those single-enitity LIBERALS just love to look for reasons to be offended. They're so hyper-sensitive!
Permalink Steve-O 
March 25th, 2005
I guess offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder. It sounded to me like they were giving people a break on the price, based on their race.

Sure, their point was to be offensive, but they sure went about it in a strange way. It sounds like our society's 'offense-sensitivity' kicked in.

I find it amazing that Mr. Rush Limbaugh can say the most hateful things, yet still criticize our "liberal" media while he's talking ON our "liberal" media. Doesn't he have any sense of irony at all?
Permalink AllanL5 
March 25th, 2005
Hateful is also in the eye of the beholder...
Permalink Steve-O 
March 25th, 2005
Exactly to whom was this offensive?
Permalink Ian Boys 
March 25th, 2005
>> "But God forbid a Democrat tries to exercise a little of that free speech the conservatives are always on about"

Oh, I know!!! The Academy is so overwhelmingly Republican that nary a poor socialist lib can get his thoughts out before being ostracized and perhaps expelled. When you take a walk through the Freedom Studies department, or the Women's Studies department, you see nothing but three-piece-suit-Republicans trying to oppress the little Marxists trying to eek by in an academic environment hostile to the poor little libs.
Permalink Godless Visigoth 
March 25th, 2005
My people where enslaved for 300 years and all I got was a $1.25 discount on a $2.00 cupcake!

Of course, they were actually discriminating against the minorities by encouraging them, with the lower price, to eat unheathy junk food.
Permalink somebody else 
March 25th, 2005
Oh, I know!!! The Government is so overwhelmingly Democratic that nary a poor conservative can get his thoughts out before being ostracized and perhaps expelled. When you take a walk through the Harvard Business School or Wharton, you see nothing but tied-died Democrats trying to oppress the little Capitalists trying to eek by in an academic environment hostile to the poor little cons.
Permalink somebody else 
March 25th, 2005
>> "Oh, I know!!! The Government is so overwhelmingly [...]"

The government isn't overwhelmingly anything. This is a country divided down the middle. The Republicans have a *slim* majority. And take a look at the news. There is certainly no freakin' dearth of free speech from politicians! Look at me; I'm a politician. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah!" I think the public in this country could use a little freedom *from* speech from these bloated windbags.

>> "When you take a walk through the Harvard Business School or Wharton, you see nothing but tied-died Democrats trying to oppress the little Capitalists trying to eek by in an academic environment hostile to the poor little cons."

So, let me get this straight, your thesis is that Harvard Business School and Wharton are representative of the Academy in general. Okaaayyyy.
Permalink Godless Visigoth 
March 25th, 2005
"So, let me get this straight, your thesis is that a FEW examples of unreasonable liberals are representative of the Academy in general. Okaaayyyy."

BOTH sides of the argument are silly. But I'm kidding! You, apparently, are serious.

Where is the proof that "academia" is "overwhelmingly" liberal?

The only "evidence" to support this conclusion that I have seen are cherry-picked, anecdotal, and biased stories.

Anyway, I'd venture to guess that B-school graduates have much more power/influence than a few long-haired hippy freak liberal professors.
Permalink somebody else 
March 25th, 2005
"
Where is the proof that "academia" is "overwhelmingly" liberal"

I am sure there is. Let me search about it...
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 25th, 2005
I'm offended at the notion that _anybody_ would be charged $2 just for a cupcake.
Permalink Kyralessa 
March 25th, 2005
it amazes me how both sides are so desperate to claim 'victim' status.

republicans and democrats alike seem to want to be seen as powerless people, oppressed at every turn by the other party.

bunch of fucking losers the lot of you.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 25th, 2005
It does seem that universities and their silly tribunals may be heavy-handed when it comes to free speech. And humorless, worst of all.

This allows these republicans to exploit this problem with guerilla tactics; lure the college to come down on them, then scream about being oppressed by the tie-dyed Man.
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
March 25th, 2005
"Where is the proof that "academia" is "overwhelmingly" liberal?"

So here's my weathervane on this subject:
Conservatives generally think academia is overly liberal.
Liberals generally think academia is well-balanced.

I honestly consider that pretty much proof positive. :)

Philo
Permalink Philo 
March 25th, 2005
Here's the study that's been quoted frequently as of late:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Content/read.asp?ID=55

Front Page Magazine is a conservative rag, but the numbers they present are based on voter registration.
Permalink Cowboy coder 
March 25th, 2005
thats pretty convincing. there must be something in the conservative genetic makeup that means they are (generally speaking) unable to cope with advanced study and/or professorship.

seems like the elephant in the room to me, everyone is blaming the *system* because they are too politically correct to state the obvious: republican voters no longer represent the elite voting core, they now represent the drooling moron/bush voters segment of the population.

Instead of looking to the government to make special laws to protect and artifically push the republican presence in universities up, republicans should look to themselves and ask what is causing them to underperform.

to me at least, preferential treatment for republicans on campus is no more acceptable than preferential treatment for anyone else.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 25th, 2005
> republican voters no longer represent the elite voting core, they now represent the drooling moron/bush voters segment of the population

I wouldn't say that all republicans are morons; perhaps clever people who vote republican choose not to take PhDs and embark on the tenure track to become university professors: for example because people with that combination of smarts and politics prefer to be in the private sector, making money.
Permalink Christopher Wells 
March 25th, 2005
thats an interesting argument, but not really borne out by the statistics. I found sometime ago (am looking for it again now) some statistics that show that the number of democrat and republican entrepreneurs are about proportionate to the number in the greater population.

I wish I could find the stats again though, I found it particularly interesting because it runs directly against 'known wisdom' as it has existed in my household for a surprising number of generations.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 25th, 2005
Hm. I could not find anything from relatively unbiased source.

But I saw these stats before...

You could always argue about what is 'overwheming'
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 25th, 2005
No doubt somewhere there exists a breakdown of each party by profession: "x% are accountants; y% are shopkeepers; z% are lawyers; etc.".
Permalink Christopher Wells 
March 25th, 2005
Hmmm lot of noise, no light, nothing new here.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
March 26th, 2005
Light?

Maybe the issue to think about is whether a group success or failure depends more, on the performance of the group members or the influnce of people outside the group.
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 26th, 2005
I think it's interesting that FullName's immediate and definite conclusion is that "Republicans" are somehow suffering from some handicap.

"thats pretty convincing. there must be something in the conservative genetic makeup that means they are (generally speaking) unable to cope with advanced study and/or professorship."

Perhaps the problem is that those who seek academia aren't capable of dealing with the stress and pressure of the real world? I don't believe that.

Why is the military predominantly Republican? Is it because Democrats are afraid of the hard work and dedication required? Is it because they don't have the bravery necessary to bear arms in support their nation? I don't believe that either.

I will observe that academia is populated with a very high-IQ group that has little contact with people unlike themselves; while the military is generally more populated with a broad cross-section of "working man." Does that have an effect? It's possible.

What's really interesting is to examine some of the tenets associated with the parties with which these groups identify. I would venture (pure guesswork here) that academia generally feels that it is government's place to help those "less fortunate than themselves," and that to some degree they identify themselves with government. In other words, they believe in philosopher kings, and consider themselves among that class.

On the other hand, the "working man" in the military feels that they don't need anyone to tell them how to run their lives, and that if they can support their family, anyone can. They see the philosopher kings, think they're arrogant assholes who have no business running anything, and the "poor" can get jobs just like they did.

A *really* interesting observation is that most academicians are paid from either commercial money or state money, while of course all military members get a US Treasury paycheck.

The elephant in the tent is that the joke is on the self-proclaimed Republicans, who don't realize they've elected a liberal into office who is putting more government control on their lives than Gore or Kerry could've dreamed.

No answers. Just more questions, I guess.

Philo
Permalink Philo 
March 26th, 2005
Philo -

One minor difference I'd like to take with that is that academicians have plenty of contact with people different from themselves, it's just that it's not really *interaction* - most of it is one-way. The profs lecture to students, people very different from themselves, and don't have either the time or the inclination (in many cases) to listen to what the students have to say.
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
March 26th, 2005
Good catch, Aaron!

That would be a fascinating study - observe professor's classroooms, rate the profs based on the interaction with their students (1=lecture only <----> 9=respectful two-way discourse with the class) then have the profs take that political spectrum quiz. See if there's any relationship between teaching style and where they fall on the radar...

Philo
Permalink Philo 
March 26th, 2005
I was taking a freshman psych class once, and the prof relayed a story about a different psych prof who had lectured about behaviourism. The students privately decided to test it - they wanted him to lecture with his foot *in* the trash can. So they were all more attentive the closer he got to the trash can, and less so the further away. By the end of two weeks he was spending most of the lecture on one half of the room, not even using the blackboard on the other half. After a couple more weeks the jig was up because the class as a whole burst out laughing when he finally put his foot on top of the trash can. (Not in it, mind you.) When he confronted them on it, they had to fess up. Needless to say, the prof was pissed.

But it was working.

I guess the point is that there is some interaction, and students do have more power than they think, but it tends to be very subtle.

I was one of those students who answered rhetorical questions and engaged profs in discussions. Most other students just sat there dumbfounded. Profs can be quite intimidating without meaning to, and when they do it on purpose, most students break.
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
March 26th, 2005
"I think it's interesting that FullName's immediate and definite conclusion is that "Republicans" are somehow suffering from some handicap."

<g> Ill admit to being a little tongue in cheek, it was driven by two memories, the first is of various republicans protesting *against* 'positive action' on campus, their point; surprisingly enough; was that things should be done on merit alone, and specifically ignored any part that built-in injustices in the system might be playing.
the second is another memory of the view of many republicans that the poor are; fundamentally but with the odd exception; poor through their own inadequacies.

Although a republican voter for a godo few years; I entirely disagree with both those points as they are made and I believe that life is somewhat more complex than that.

<g> therefore the recent fever amongst republicans to rail against built-in injustices within universities feels just a little rich....taken with the 'media hates us' victim mentality they increasingly seem to ascribe to Im frankly getting more and more disaffected with the republican viewpoint.


"Perhaps the problem is that those who seek academia aren't capable of dealing with the stress and pressure of the real world? I don't believe that."

interesting, broadly speaking I suspect that there may be some truth to it....studies have shown that certain types of people do better under different conditions. Certainly I know of many perfectly bright people who have done extremely badly under the school system so its not a huge step to think that there may be people who tend to do well under the school and campus systems regardless of their IQ....that maybe some people thrive under the specific conditions that a university or college represents while others do not.




"Why is the military predominantly Republican? Is it because Democrats are afraid of the hard work and dedication required?"

<g> I could argue this as well :) Joining the army requires a willingness to commit yourself in a way that requires you surrender a part of yourself to the army (and indirectly the country)
If republicans really *do* now represent the drooling bush voters then clearly they literally do not have the imagination or the intellectual capacity to understand the tradeoffs.

"Is it because they don't have the bravery necessary to bear arms in support their nation? I don't believe that either. "
nah, me either.



"I will observe that academia is populated with a very high-IQ group that has little contact with people unlike themselves; while the military is generally more populated with a broad cross-section of "working man." Does that have an effect? It's possible. "

its bound to....most people in the university system are trained in various forms of critical thinking, and as pointed out elsewhere tend to only come into real contact with other academiacs (sp?) which presumably means that they all spout their theories at each other and become...whats the term? abstraction astronauts...

Whereas normal people dont see a problem with giving up final responsibility over their actions by committing themselves to obey and serve others in exchange for money...we all do it everyday at work.


"What's really interesting is to examine some of the tenets associated with the parties with which these groups identify"

<g> forgive me but actually I think you are reaching a bit with that lot.


"A *really* interesting observation is that most academicians are paid from either commercial money or state money, while of course all military members get a US Treasury paycheck. "

which presumably means that academicians are more in touch with economic realities than the troops who live off of federal funded charity? <g> Im sure thats not the point you were trying to make...


"The elephant in the tent is that the joke is on the self-proclaimed Republicans, who don't realize they've elected a liberal into office who is putting more government control on their lives than Gore or Kerry could've dreamed."

the meme "liberals are about more government controls" is an interesting one and it was maybe true at one point, but these days its just plain not, maybe its time to put it to bed.


"No answers. Just more questions, I guess. "

<g> I prefer my more adamant, pigheaded and certain approach to discussion...I may not be sure what Im talking about but at least I dont end with lame comments like "...I dont really know..."

who was it said "you dont have to be right; just certain."?


we *really* need a new party, one without the current ties and deal making history of the democrats and the republicans.

Im increasingly envious of the political system here in New Zealand, they have a form of proportional representation that means that its pretty rare for any one big party to get and maintain power by itself, they mostly need smaller third parties to sign up.

makes for a lot more compromises and a lot fewer laws being passed.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 26th, 2005
"things should be done on merit alone"

I think that's fair isn't it? Or it should be the goal? I really hope by the time of university most unfair impacts from personal background have already been compensated in elementary school and highschool.
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 26th, 2005
"I think that's fair isn't it? Or it should be the goal?

heh, kind of misspoke myself there didn't I :)

of course it should be the goal, the question is kind of along the lines of how you *judge* the relative merits.

If you stick strictly to the gpa then surprisingly enough the statistics get wildly skewed to people from certain sociological (sp?) backgrounds.


"I really hope by the time of university most unfair impacts from personal background have already been compensated in elementary school and highschool"

they dont tend to be, largely because the most unfair impacts mean that perfectly able and capable students dont make it through elementary school and high school.

try learning to read whilst living in a home environment with literally no books. Its rather more difficult than you might imagine.

<g> or studying in an environment where both parents work, and you are relied on to look after your younger siblings after school.
just
..or even paying for your university fees when you come from a background that is poor but frowns strongly on the idea of borrowing money.

...etc etc etc, at one level obviously life is a bitch and you just have to deal with whatever difficulties it throws at you, OTOH IMO its worthwhile trying to ensure that as many intelligent people get to attend university as want to.

..so there are two areas of interest, the first is the disadvantages that people from poorer backgrounds suffer from, the second is the additional advantages that people from richer backgrounds have...combined with the zero-sum game approach to university entrance this tends to mean that thigns get strongly skewed.

all of which means that I believe that measuring merit is rather more complicated than looking entirely at the grade.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 26th, 2005
"If you stick strictly to the gpa then surprisingly enough the statistics get wildly skewed to people from certain sociological (sp?) backgrounds."

Hmmm...

If that is your basis, then I agree 100% that sociological background should be a consideration in college admissions; at some level a 3.5 from an inner city school should get some extra credit over a 3.6 from Beverly Hills High. (Of course, you have to also examine the transcript to ensure the student has the educational grounding to survive college)

However...

As far as I can tell, "affirmative action" almost never mentions socio or economic background. There's one word I see used an awful lot when talking about "affirmative action" or "diversity." That word is "minority" (which translates to "race"

Thus the "Bill Cosby situation": that Bill Cosby's kids don't have to do as well in high school as a kid from Closed Down Steel Mill High to get into college.

Also the origin of the phrase "checked the box"

Again, I have no problem with giving extra consideration to underprivileged kids or kids from "bad" socioeconomic conditions. But I don't think there needs to be any indication of a person's race on a college application. (IMHO college applications should be blind - no name, address, or race; just their academic and extracurricular accomplishments)

Philo
Permalink Philo 
March 26th, 2005
No Name? Then how do we give an extra hand for the girls?

Just kidding ... But I am still not convinced. If you say we should tax the rich to support the inner city schools -- building better school libraries for example, then I am all for it.

Or tax the rich to support science promotion programs for women.

It is a failure of our education system to say after 12 - 13 years of schooling our personal background is still the biggest single influence for our quality in life.

Where do we end? Should our police recruitment program gives extra credit to people with disadvantaged background?

When I apply for a job, I don't want I am given any extra credit, say, for my ESL and immigration background.

Plus, I don't want to give extra bullets to racists, sexists supporting their prejudice.

It is not a big problem to give some extra credit to some students. I am just feeling there must be some better ways.
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 26th, 2005
It is a failure of our education system to say after 12 - "13 years of schooling our personal background is still the biggest single influence for our quality in life."

how so exactly? Im 33 years old and my background is *still* the single biggest influence for my quality in life.

I run my own business, as does my sister and her partner (together), another sisters partner( sister works, partner owns business), my father, my uncle, my other uncle, my cousin, my partners father.

<g> and thats just in the bits of the family Ive kept track of.

so...is it all coincidence? or is there something in the upbringing and culture of my family that creates (and seeks out!) entrepreneurs?

buggered if I know, but its an interesting question.

"Where do we end? Should our police recruitment program gives extra credit to people with disadvantaged background?"

why not? so long as they go through the same training and testing as everyone else, and are expected to acheive to the same level, wheres the harm?

"When I apply for a job, I don't want I am given any extra credit, say, for my ESL and immigration background."

great. good for you. neither do many others. OTOH many *others* are stuck and desperately need a way out of their current circumstances, and are perfectly willing to accept whatever help they are offered to find their way forward.

"Plus, I don't want to give extra bullets to racists, sexists supporting their prejudice."

<shrug> racists and sexists dont need any extra bullets. they will always be there and will always hate whoever for whatever...why should you base *any* of your decisions on them?

"It is not a big problem to give some extra credit to some students. I am just feeling there must be some better ways."

yeah, so do I on the whole. I like philos idea of blind selecting, although I suspect practically it would be hard to achieve.

OTOH I *firmly* believe in helping people up....from there its just a matter of deciding which people need a hand, so we are merely quibbling over which types of people to give an 'unfair' advantage to.
Why not base selection on minorities? its as good as any other method and better than some.

<g> presidential selection is at least partially based on the quantity and quality of the mans hair these days, so maybe arbitary and unfair distinctions are the name of the game.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 27th, 2005
"As far as I can tell, "affirmative action" almost never mentions socio or economic background. <snip> That word is "minority" (which translates to "race")"

"Thus the "Bill Cosby situation": that Bill Cosby's kids don't have to do as well in high school as a kid from Closed Down Steel Mill High to get into college."

heh.

yesish, but also noish.

Clearly ideally selection would be totally merit based, and if one year or the next numbers of any particular minority shrank or grew no one would care, because that would just be the way the minority cookies crumbled.

Unfortunately lifes not like that, people (even well educated ones) tend unconsciously to like people they identify more strongly with.

Which means that, on the whole, once one group has achieved numerical dominance in an area, and has the power to select who else will be allowed to join, surprisingly enough preference tends to be given to those they like, ie, those they identify most strongly with, ie those with similar backgrounds/similar racial markings/any tags that identify them as belonging to a sub-group within society that the selectees identify with.

gods what an awful sentence.

given this we have two choices,
(a) close our eyes to reality and declare that from now on all selections will be 'merit based' and declare any inequality in numbers by minorities to be simply because the minorities tend not to do so well for <whatever reason>.

(b) contort the law of averages and ensure that a certain % of each minority makes it in regardless.

oh, or (c) use philos idea of blind selection...that would get my vote but I suspect that practically it would be too hard to achieve, things like the names of schools attended, the areas you lived in, the sound of your voice, even your name can all give clues about your background.
...but IMO its the best idea yet and could be made to work if sufficient thought was put into it....the only problem then is that we are denying colleges and universities the ability to choose who they will accept, and thats removing rights from them.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 27th, 2005
Ok, I think we have to agree to disagree then.

Assistance should be need based, but selection should ideally be 'merit alone' and attention should be made to remove selector bias.

The american situation is a little bit different, with its history of slavery. Still...

"many *others* are stuck and desperately need a way out of their current circumstances, and are perfectly willing to accept whatever help they are offered to find their way forward."

Well, people with any background could be stuck for whatever reason. Perhaps we should give more points to students with single parent? Divorced parents? Orphans? Disabled?

And quota is a really bad idea.
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 27th, 2005
"Assistance should be need based, but selection should ideally&#160; be 'merit alone' and attention should be made to remove selector bias."

absolutely.
How would you achieve an entirely 'merit based' system? would it take into account systemic and/or background differences to ensure it truly *is* merit based? or would you just ignore the problem entirely and assume it doesn't exist?


"Well, people with any background could be stuck for whatever reason. Perhaps we should give more points to students with single parent? Divorced parents? Orphans? Disabled?"

yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. personaly I believe that we should build sufficient universities to ensure that anyone who wants to; and has at least the slightest chance of succeeding; can do advanced studies and be credited with that success.


"And quota is a really bad idea."

yes, it is. The trouble is that every other possible solution is *also* a bad idea...ignore the problem and pretend it doesn't exist? thats just stupid. require quotas so that a specific number of people get in regardless of their ability? thats also stupid.

the best solution; as philo said; is to force a blind selection method based on nothing except academic achievement.


Finally, as I said earlier:

"...etc etc etc, at one level obviously life is a bitch and you just have to deal with whatever difficulties it throws at you, OTOH IMO its worthwhile trying to ensure that as many intelligent people get to attend university as want to."

I really believe that, there are huge benefits for society in providing everyone; who can possible learn and has the interest; with a good education.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 27th, 2005
Assistance. That is spend more resources early on before you have to select. I am all for spend resouce to education, especially to support students from poor background.
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 27th, 2005
> the best solution; as philo said; is to force a blind selection method based on nothing except academic achievement.

The tutor who interviewed me when I applied to university said to me, "OK, so you have good exam results. But is it fair we let you in, given that you went to a good school?"

"Merit-based" is a bit ambiguous: someone who went to a good school will arguably have been better-prepared, acedemically; someone else, who didn't go to a good school, may be smarter, or harder-working.
Permalink Christopher Wells 
March 27th, 2005
"there must be something in the conservative genetic makeup that means they are (generally speaking) unable to cope with advanced study and/or professorship"

Likewise, blacks and mexicans are underrepresented among university professors. Do you believe that this is because they are unable to cope with advanced study? Or do you think it is because the few republican professors that exist are managing to oppress them?
Permalink Bonny Able 
March 27th, 2005
"Do you believe&#160; that this is because they are unable to cope with advanced study?"

I know republicans who believe that :)
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 27th, 2005
"Again, I have no problem with giving extra consideration to underprivileged kids or kids from "bad" socioeconomic conditions. But I don't think there needs to be any indication of a person's race on a college application. (IMHO college applications should be blind - no name, address, or race; just their academic and extracurricular accomplishments)" -- Philo

There may be a bit of a contradiction in this. How do you give "extra concideration" if the application is "blind"?

Anyway, if the applciation was truely blind, there would be a strong effect of preferring students from wealthier school systems. Thus, even "blind" isn't fair.

Other things to concider:

* What percentage of "republicans" (or anything) in academia is "natural" (i.e., not the result of an artificial "bias"?

* It would seem that people generally think a 50/50 split in a population is "natural".

* Is a deviation from 50/50 evidence of bias?

* What percentage do republicans complaining about "liberal bias" want to see?

* "Fair and balanced" doesn't mean anything.

* If academics (supposedly) trained in "critcal thinking" choose to be democrats, what does that say about republican ideans?

* Should universities be required to have affirmative action for republicans?

* Since (it appears) that republicans make the most noise about contrary "bias", why can't the inherent value of their ideas overcome the supposed bias and win in the market place?
Permalink somebody else 
March 28th, 2005
The "train the Psychology professor to stand in a corner" story that Aaron mentions is one of those legends that are not rural nor suburban.

http://www.snopes.com/college/pranks/trained.asp
Permalink moron 
March 28th, 2005
"I know republicans who believe that :)"

I notice you didn't answer the question.
Permalink Jim Rankin 
March 29th, 2005
In all these posts, something that has been overlooked is the diversity of IDEAS in academia. Is humanity truly best served by an academic establishment that totally ignore certain ideas because they are ideologically disagreeable?

With speech codes and political homogeneity among faculty, what important ideas will be left unexplored? That, I believe, is a more important question than the right/privilege of certain groups to education or employment at a university.
Permalink Jim Rankin 
March 29th, 2005
"I notice you didn't answer the question."

wow, congratulations Jim!

Did you also notice the post where I said:

"<g> Ill admit to being a little tongue in cheek,"

Im not going to answer the question because it was a *stupid* question. I do not seriously believe that people who continue to vote republican are genetically deficient.
Anyone who was unable to grasp that from what I posted is, frankly, something of a moron.


"Is humanity truly best served by an academic establishment that totally ignore certain ideas because they are ideologically disagreeable?"

Is it the job of academic institutions to serve humanity? that seems a rather lofty ambition.

"With speech codes and political homogeneity among faculty, what important ideas will be left unexplored?"

Its interesting that you bundle those two iteas together, if you read the 'speech codes' that people have pointed to in this thread I dont believe for a second that that are barring 'important ideas' from being discussed.

go on, go read them and then get back to me with a few concrete examples of how it could happen.

As for "political homogeneity", how do you suggest we solve this problem? by instituting quotas of republicans who must be hired? what do you suggest we do about the absence of libertarians, greens or metal workers in those same institutions?

"That, I believe, is a more important question than the right/privilege of certain groups to education or employment at a university."

do you really? I think that actually says a great deal more about your priorities than you realise.

To me the rights people have to education are *far* more important than whether educators are republicans or democrats.

Universities are about teaching critical thinking, logic, and as much as possible knowledge in the form of interesting ideas passed along by others.

It is up to each individual student to take that knowledge and decide what conclusions to draw from it.

If students are being stupid and arrogant enough to stand up in the middle of classes and disagree with the conclusions drawn by the far better educated and more knowledgable professors then they deserve everything they get.
<g> ...and whether or not the students are actually correct is *entirely* irrelevant to that point.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 29th, 2005
"To me the rights people have to education are *far* more important than whether educators are republicans or democrats."

What good is an "education" if certain ideas are taken off the table before they are even examined? I believe the word you are looking for is "indoctrination".

And, yes, whether educators or students are Republicans, Martians or Leprechauns, I don't care. The point is there must be a wide range of ideas and opinions being studied, researched and debated to make the whole thing worthwhile.
Permalink Jim Rankin 
March 29th, 2005
"Is it the job of academic institutions to serve humanity?"

Who, then, should they serve? Frogs? Antelope? Rocks?
Permalink Jim Rankin 
March 29th, 2005
"What good is an "education" if certain ideas are taken off the table before they are even examined?&#160; I believe the word you are looking for is "indoctrination"."

not at all (or maybe I mean exactly right!). certain ideas are *always* taken off the table before they are even examined, they have to be or the biggest question in education today would be how to *stop* teaching subjects.
So either its not reasonable to call this process 'indoctrination, or it is *only* reasonable to call this process 'indoctrination'....either way it has always happened in the past and it always will happen in the future.

What you are disagreeing with is the selection of ideas that the university/professors/curriculum is choosing to teach, thats perfectly reasonable of course, but AFAIK everyone *always* disagree with the specific selection of ideas (except maybe the specific individuals who make the choices), so you are hardly saying anything new or interesting :)

I assume that the best approach in this situation is to bring your opinions to the attention of those who make the decision on the curriculum and see whether they agree..if they do not then AFAIK the only solution is to start your own university.

Basically those who decide on the curriculum select specific ideas to teach based on what they believe has been most influential and/or most interesting on the subject as a whole, given how subjective such a decision has to be its hardly surprising that its difficult to find agreement.

"And, yes, whether educators or students are Republicans, Martians or Leprechauns, I don't care.&#160;"

zactly.

"The point is there must be a wide range of ideas and opinions being studied, researched and debated to make the whole thing worthwhile."

yep, thats exactly the point. *everyone* agrees with that point AFAIK, they just disagree on what constitutes a good range,

out of interest which specific ideas did you find lacking when you attended university?
what ideas would you like to see being more thoroughly explored?
(I actually missed the entire university experience myself)
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 29th, 2005
"Who, then, should they serve?&#160; Frogs?&#160; Antelope?&#160; Rocks?"

I dont really know, these days in america at least I thought they were profit driven companies/institutions?

<g> unless by 'serve' you mean 'derive profit from'?
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 29th, 2005
"There may be a bit of a contradiction in this. How do you give "extra concideration" if the application is "blind"?"

By what school they went to. A 3.5 in Calculus at Inner City High gets a little bit more consideration than a 3.6 in Trig from Beverly Hills High.

"Anyway, if the applciation was truely blind, there would be a strong effect of preferring students from wealthier school systems. Thus, even "blind" isn't fair."

Whereas a race-based system penalizes kids who are white. That is generally referred to as "racism," which is illegal. However, there is no law against preferential treatment based on socioeconomic background. ;)

"* What percentage of "republicans" (or anything) in academia is "natural" (i.e., not the result of an artificial "bias"?"

Looking at the last two elections, I'd think we should be looking for something along the lines of 50/50.

"* It would seem that people generally think a 50/50 split in a population is "natural"."

Recent elections certainly seem to indicate this.

"* Is a deviation from 50/50 evidence of bias?"

How would you explain it?

"* What percentage do republicans complaining about "liberal bias" want to see?"

Something on the order of "more than zero"

"* If academics (supposedly) trained in "critcal thinking" choose to be democrats, what does that say about republican ideans?"

If Democrats tend to choose professions with minimal conflict and labor, what does that say about Democrats?

That's a crap argument. The issue is that academics is insular and incestuous. You've got liberal Presidents and liberal department heads selecting professors they know and whose politics they approve of. There's no "trained in critical thinking" about it - all you need to be a college professor is a PhD. There's no "university teaching certificate"

Maybe the issue is that while liberals are studying, conservatives are actually working? ;)

No, I think this is about hiring processes and lack of tolerance in the workplace, not any kind of "superiority of will" thing.

"* Should universities be required to have affirmative action for republicans?"

No, not at all. One would think someone trained in critical thinking would value all ideologies, not just their own.

"* Since (it appears) that republicans make the most noise about contrary "bias", why can't the inherent value of their ideas overcome the supposed bias and win in the market place?"

Bah - lawnmower handle. Republicans are complaining because they're the ones slighted; just as there are a lot of liberals who complain about talk radio.

I'll be happy when the "Students punished for hate speech" stories are equalled in number by "Students punished for antipatriotic publication" stories, and when the women posting the "Potential rapist" posters are as maligned as the potential rapists themselves.

Philo
Permalink Philo 
March 29th, 2005
"By what school they went to. A 3.5 in Calculus at Inner City High gets a little bit more consideration than a 3.6 in Trig from Beverly Hills High."

Means black in the first case and white in the second to a high degree of probability. Therefore, selection by school is selection by race. Therefore, racist too.

It's the "poll tax" issue all over again.
Permalink someone else 
March 29th, 2005
"If Democrats tend to choose professions with minimal conflict and labor, what does that say about Democrats?"

No cushy jobs in industry?

At least in science, many academics/researchers work much harder than many in industry with much less benefit (i.e., salary).

How much conflict really exists in industry?
Permalink someone else 
March 29th, 2005
"No, not at all. One would think someone trained in critical thinking would value all ideologies, not just their own."

The problem is I don't see republicans "valuing all ideologies" either.
Permalink someone else 
March 29th, 2005
"At least in science, many academics/researchers work much harder than many in industry with much less benefit (i.e., salary)."

We don't have much idea the split of political affiliation among Science professor.

I guess it is closer to 50/50.
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 29th, 2005
"out of interest which specific ideas did you find lacking when you attended university?"

Fair question.

Well, my undergrad experience ended in 1992, so things have probably changed since then. From my literature classes, I remember an obsession with homosexuality. Like trying to convince everyone that Shakespeare was gay. I don't know, maybe he was. But the "evidence" seemed flimsy to me at the time, and even if he was, I didn't understand why that was more important than actually reading, pondering and discussing all the great stuff he wrote. Another teacher took offense at a student saying he didn't like watching gay guys kiss on film. The student pointed out that watching someone eat Brussels sprouts would give him the same reaction.

There seemed to be a fair amount of disdain for Christians and Christian culture. Some professors seemed to get their back up if you presented ideas that seemed to come from a religious viewpoint.

Computer science, math, and logic classes, of course, were much less controversial. There's a lot less to debate once a theorem's been proven or an algorithm has been shown to conform to a certain big-O notation.

Overall, I found it more fun to be the contrarian voice in class. Not always, but at opportune moments. Generally I found that professors respected the ability to think critically about things, even things they happened to be teaching.

Being exposed to ideas different from the ones I arrived with was a great experience, and gave me a deeper understanding of what I believe and why I believe it. I suppose I'm just wishing that students with a more "liberal" world view entering a university get the same opportunity to have their ideas challenged that I did.
Permalink Jim Rankin 
March 29th, 2005
""By what school they went to. A 3.5 in Calculus at Inner City High gets a little bit more consideration than a 3.6 in Trig from Beverly Hills High."

Means black in the first case and white in the second to a high degree of probability. Therefore, selection by school is selection by race. Therefore, racist too."

There is actually a legal difference between "racial intent" and "racial effect"

Selecting students based on skin color shows "racial intent". Selecting students based on membership in NAACP would also be considered by the courts to be thinly veiled racial intent.
Selecting students based on high school, income, or population density will most likely be judged "racial effect" - while yes, applicants from particular high schools, income brackets, or the inner city may be disproportionately minorities, we are using those guidelines in a race-blind attempt to give benefit to those children who have overcome adversity to achieve academic breakthroughs.

""No, not at all. One would think someone trained in critical thinking would value all ideologies, not just their own."

The problem is I don't see republicans "valuing all ideologies" either."

Maybe not, but neither to they make false profession to respecting diversity, either. [grin]

Philo
Permalink Philo 
March 29th, 2005
Jim, I am curious, what university did you go to?

Don't like gay guys kissing? Nah. 40 years people didn't like white guy kisses a black girl and vice versa.

You haven't read those alternative family children book, have you?
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 29th, 2005
Carnegie Mellon.

And it was someone else who likened watching gay guys kiss to eating Brussels sprouts, for what its worth.
Permalink Jim Rankin 
March 29th, 2005
"I suppose I'm just wishing that students with a more "liberal" world view entering a university get the same opportunity to have their ideas challenged that I did."

interesting. FWIW I suspect you will find that they did.


Ive always had trouble watching gay men kiss as well, prejudices can be hard to shake.


So, out of interest, how would you go about changing the current system to ensure that those peple who agree with you on political matters get a greater presence amongst university educators?

would you also attempt to achieve the same level of parity in other types of personal beliefs?
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 29th, 2005
I don't think we should try to balance the scales in university; I think we should just try to marginalize college. A lot of it is "high school plus" now, anyway, and a waste of money for most people.

Philo
Permalink Philo 
March 29th, 2005
"would you also attempt to achieve the same level of parity in other types of personal beliefs?"

I don't think it will make much difference if, say, more political conservatives are hired as CS profs, or Linux zealots in the humanities are replaced by Windows zealots.

But it would be a good idea to maybe have both Marxists and supply-siders in the economics department. Whatever the competing theories are in a discipline, a serious university should make an effort to recruit faculty in a way that leads to robust debate among those theories.

The tendency is for a university to recruit faculty belonging to a particular school of thought, and for potential faculty to be drawn towards a department espousing the school of thought to which they ascribe themselves.

In general, a search for a new faculty member should always be an attempt to bring in ideas, competencies and viewpoints not already present in the department. That would be the ideal.
Permalink Jim Rankin 
March 30th, 2005
-----"And it was someone else who likened watching gay guys kiss to eating Brussels sprouts, for what its worth."----

So he was prejudiced against Brussels sprouts?
Permalink Stephen Jones 
March 30th, 2005
Ack! You mean I agree with Republicans? /spit /spit /spit

Hehe... I like what they did. I think affirmative action sucks. It's nothing more than shrouded racism.

That said, what they did wasn't simply a matter of free speech. They were setting prices based on race...

It would have gotten even more reaction if they had offered very lucrative 'cupcake distribution' positions to CAUCASIANS and varying shoddy ones to others. A mirror image of affirmative action is obviously racism, so why is it not seen as such?
Permalink I am Jack's cupcake caption 
March 30th, 2005
What's the percentage of democrats in the military?

ANY occurance of a student being "punished" for not being "PC" is ridiculous. Once is too often (and I have no real doubt that it has happened "numerous" times).

There is no evidence that notion that such "punishment" is common or held to be reasonable by a large fraction of the general academic population.

It may be that only a small percentage of "liberals" think this is reasonable.
Permalink someone else 
March 30th, 2005
> So he was prejudiced against Brussels sprouts?

You must try one, before you say you don't them.
Permalink Our mother 
March 31st, 2005
"I don't think it will make much difference if, say, more political conservatives are hired as CS profs, or Linux zealots in the humanities are replaced by Windows zealots."

interesting, OSS people think it would make a great deal of difference....and Im sure I remember a press release from the RIAA or some such body talking about the importance of pushing the 'copying is piracy' meme from an early age.

So you only want universities to balance out those beliefs that *you feel are important*?

think about that for a moment.


"But it would be a good idea to maybe have both Marxists and supply-siders in the economics department."

but not OSS/Microsofties in the CS department? greenies/oil drillers in the environmental studies? religious nutcases/athiest/islamic fundies in the...well..whatever the department is called that teaches and studies different religions and cultures? how about pro-drug legalisation vs"arrest them all" people in the law department?

where do you stop? how do we define a particular belief/anti-opposite belief as being 'important enough' to warrant always trying to hire opposites? maybe we could make a list of those subjects that are sufficiently important? who should we get to make the list?


"Whatever the competing theories are in a discipline, a serious university should make an effort to recruit faculty in a way that leads to robust debate among those theories."

A serious university is expected to perform research and explore ideas....that tends to work more effectively if its people can work together and dont engage in constant squabbling.


"The tendency is for a university to recruit faculty belonging to a particular school of thought, and for potential faculty to be drawn towards a department espousing the school of thought to which they ascribe themselves."

exactly, this provides different universities with different areas of expertise and ensures that the research they carry out is as focused as possible.

"In general, a search for a new faculty member should always be an attempt to bring in ideas, competencies and viewpoints not already present in the department.&#160; That would be the ideal."

I think it depends on what you believe the purpose of a university is?
In a normal school, I would tend to agree with you...but in a university there are different goals, one of the most important thing that universities are about is research and study.....by allowing different universities to focus in on different areas, the coverage given by all the universities in america is very broad, with each university being able to go into depth in their own area.

OTOH if universities were all required to give time to specific ideas then all the professors would fuck off to places where they could actually carry out research and teach stuff that actually interested them and our students would be taught by people to whom teaching the same things in the same ways to different students over and over again with no outlet for their own geeky tendency to learn new things felt like an interesting challenge.


Basically IMO schools have been pushed further and further down the 'you really should teach them this, and give equal time to all sides, and teach them this, and this' and so on and it has weakened the educational value overall, if the government goes down this same route with universities then the same thing will happen.

Fundamentally I believe that the government should stay the fuck out of what universities teach and let them do their thing, if a university chooses to hire nothing but gay marxist morris dancers and to study only the positive effects of smoking soap powder then so be it.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 31st, 2005
"A serious university is expected to perform research and explore ideas....that tends to work more effectively if its people can work together and dont engage in constant squabbling."

Whoa. People with opposing viewpoints are incapable of working together without "squabbling"?

I think it is academically dishonest to refuse the opportunity to put opponents of a particular point of view on a study. Sure, it may be difficult to fill the position, but if you have the chance (or can encourage it without going on a massive manhunt), go for it - nothing will really produce a thorough, complete study than having a detractor on the study team - someone who questions findings and pokes holes in theories.

Philo
Permalink Philo 
March 31st, 2005
"Whoa. People with opposing viewpoints are incapable of working together without "squabbling"?"

...Im pretty sure thats not what I said.

"...tends to work more effectively..."

is what I said.

<shrug> who knows whether Im right of course, but lets assume that professor A has a deep interest in marxist theory and how it would resolve the tradeoffs between the paying for/avoiding damage to the environment and encouraging productivity to increase.
(or whatever, I have no idea whatsoever what these people actually do)

Lets assume that he gets a chair at a university and manages to get support for his study.

Lets further assume that Professor B has focused instead on....oh I doubt know, the economic theories of the neoconservatives and how they impact on the economy of the United States in the 21st century.

Now, lets assume that Professor B has an opportunity to join the study of Professor A.

how much interest do you think he will have?


"I think it is academically dishonest to refuse the opportunity to put opponents of a particular point of view on a study."

actually so do I, and that is not what I am suggesting...all I said was that maybe studies are more effective when the people involved can work together without squabbling...surely you can agree wit hthat statement as it stands?

"Sure, it may be difficult to fill the position, but if you have the chance (or can encourage it without going on a massive manhunt), go for it - nothing will really produce a thorough, complete study than having a detractor on the study team - someone who questions findings and pokes holes in theories. "

Absolutely. I am certainly not suggesting that universities be disallowed from doing exactly that, like you I think it could make for some really interesting studies.
All I am saying is that the decision on employment practices should be left up to the sodding university, and that so-called 'republicans' like our good friend Jim should be thinking twice before they try and suggest that universities should be forced into hiring people just because they happen to agree with their political/economic ideas.


...although I will say that if you are trying to investigate point B and your research partner insists on reproving point A because it doesn't really make sense to them or they dont believe it....frustration could ensure...


Seriously, it *must* be left up to universities and professors to decide what they teach, how they teach it, who it is taught by, what they study, how they study it and who is hired to do so...they have done a bloody good job over hundreds of years of advancing our knowledge in all kinds of directions and the last thing they need now is a government determined to reduce all them down to the lowest common denominator.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 31st, 2005
> how much interest do you think he will have?

Yes, if Professor B writes a book which says "Professor A's theories are full of holes", perhaps in the end this isn't as good (creative, constructive) a book as a book which says "Professor B has some really interesting aand useful theories of his own".
Permalink Christopher Wells 
March 31st, 2005
<g> disagreeing with each other is the least that could happen...even worse would be a total lack of interest in each others area of study. I believe I know all I want to know about....say...programming in VB, so when someone comes to me and offers me a chance to find out even more Im just not interested.

Basically its not the governments place to mandate special areas of interest to universities in anything except a loose, unenforced way...but it *is* and has been traditionally the role of universities to form beliefs and theories regardless (and often contrary to) of the surrounding accepted truths.

I have very little doubt that in a democratic communist state with open universities they would become little islands of capitalist beliefs and study.

<g> and remember that whatever laws you pass now to direct their funding and their activities will still be in place when the communist islamic lesbians have been elected to power in the whitehouse.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
April 1st, 2005
FNR,

I think we have great potential to be a professor.

You never give up :)
Permalink Rick Tsang 
April 1st, 2005
"You never give up :)"

<g> the truth is it drives me particularly mad when people like Jim claim to be republican then spout victim mentality-crap and talk about passing laws to control things like universities.

Hes a particular type of 'smart' republican I see a lot of these days, they have the brains to think for themselves but prefer to get their soundbytes from elsewhere and prattle on about issues others have told them are important without really thinking through what they are saying.

I left the republican party because these kind of brain-dead smart people have taken it over....they give lip service to things like smaller government but then the first answer they come up with when something isn't going exactly the way they want is to legislate.

Bush is a classic case of this, and guys like Jim are clearly intelligent based on the arguments they make when you push them to it, but just haven't managed to develop even the vestiges of critical thinking skills when it comes to parsing the babbling of their gurus.

So you end up with an intelligent republican like Jim using his intelligence to push the case to legislate to force universities to hire certain types of people, based on nothing more than what he personally thinks they should be interested in.

bloody bizarre, but more than that it pisses me off.

<g> philo is more liberal anyway and I *expect* those people to be a little lulu.


but Jim, theres no bloody excuse for not engaging your brain before opening your mouth.....next time you read something that talks about how republicans are the victims of liberals, or need to pass laws to control judges or the universities, just think *really* hard about the long term effects of doing so, they are almost always negative.

I dont know why the republicans have developed into a brainless group of moronic lemmings, but Im against it.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
April 1st, 2005
"So you end up with an intelligent republican like Jim using his intelligence to push the case to legislate to force universities to hire certain types of people, based on nothing more than what he personally thinks they should be interested in."

This is in your imagination. Jim never agrees with forcing universities to hire certain types of people.

I don't think the Democrats are any better.
Permalink Rick Tsang 
April 1st, 2005
"This is in your imagination. Jim never agrees with forcing universities to hire certain types of people."

passing some kind of legislation to control either who they hire or what they teach is the only possible solution to the 'problem' that he was raising.

if thats not the solution he intended then he *really* needed to think through what he was saying a little more...which is exactly the point I made above.


"I don't think the Democrats are any better."

wtf? for fucks sake this is exactly the kind of blindness and stupidity Im talking about, who the hell suggested democrats were any better? I have no doubt that there are morons within the Democrats who also want to pass similar legislation.

Focusing on the whole republican/democrat division instead of actually looking at the issues involved is precisely the problem...jim is pushing the idea that universities are bastions of unfairness toward republicans *because* he sees it as a way to take cheap, pointless swipes at democrats/liberals.

Whether someone is democrat or republicans is *entirely* irrelevant compared to the ideas they come up with and push....Jim is not a moronic lemming in my eyes because he is republican, he is a moronic lemming because he is pushing ideas that someone else came up with, that are clearly stupid with obvious long-term problems and that dont solve any *real* problem.

There are very real issues that america faces today, from an approaching energy crisis, to increasing opposition overseas, to poverty within our borders, to a lost drug war, education and health institutions are in crisis, the religious right is exercising increasing power over what can and cannot be shown in theatres and taught in schools, and on and on and on.

yet our man Jim (and a bunch of other moronic lemmings posing as republicans) is haunted by the idea that universities might be hiring people who disagree with his ideas on economics, and that this will somehow cause students to fail to understand..something...

Universities are capable of making their own decisions, and students are capable of voting with their feet...thats the joy of a capitalist system.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
April 1st, 2005
"yet our man Jim (and a bunch of other moronic lemmings posing as republicans) is haunted by the idea that universities might be hiring people who disagree with his ideas on economics, and that this will somehow cause students to fail to understand..something..."

A) Jim never says he is Republican.

B) It is not about whether universities might be hiring people who disagree with his ideas -- he just brought this up as an example -- but whether universities might only present very limited range of ideas.

C) It is better for everyone if more ideas are explored.

D) No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Bringing up the idea is the first step to recognize the problem (if it is). And public universities that receive govenment funding should be responsible to the public.

E) You are disrespectful of other individuals. You always think through ideas and never makde mistakes? So Jim has some different ideas from yours. And OBVIOUSLY he blindly accepts the idea from others and not use his brain.

F) Spend your time and read ideas and arguements from thoughtful republicans. I am sure you could find some.

G) Really you have great potential to be professors. You have the exact thought process for those arrogant professors, judges, journalists and other 'intelletuals'.
Permalink Rick Tsang 
April 2nd, 2005
"A) Jim never says he is Republican."

yes, he has stated his political leanings in other posts.

Its not relevant which specific party he belongs to of course, just that as a former republican myself I stopped supporting them precisely because of the moronic lemming tendencies that the party was showing over and over again...it genuinely offends me that people like this pretend to be republican when really they are pretty much just anti-democrat, anti-intellectual and too lazy to think for themselves.

<g> actually I stopped voting republican when bush first appeared, I was horrified that such an obvious moronic lemming would actually make it into power.


"B) It is not about whether universities might be hiring people who disagree with his ideas -- he just brought this up as an example -- but whether universities might only present very limited range of ideas."

uh-huh.

"C) It is better for everyone if more ideas are explored."

yep, whats that statement of the blindingly obvious got to do with anything?
no one here is advocating limiting ideas in anyway..oh, except maybe for those who want to try to force 'diversity' onto universities by ensuring that they study and teach only in specific directions.

"D) No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Bringing up the idea is the first step to recognize the problem (if it is). And public universities that receive govenment funding should be responsible to the public."

LOL. oh my aching head. yes, thats the logic they use...and so by passing legislation to ensure that they teach only subjects that are acceptable to the public; under the guise of 'making universities responsible to the public' they hope to ensure 'diversity' in university ideas.

you. are. a. fucking. moron.



"E) You are disrespectful of other individuals. You always think through ideas and never makde mistakes?"

yes, I always think ideas through, yes I often make mistakes. whats your point? or was that just another statement of the blinding obvious?

"So Jim has some different ideas from yours. And OBVIOUSLY he blindly accepts the idea from others and not use his brain."

he cannot be using his brain, because as a republican encouraging government interference in universities would be anathema to him if he was.
He is using other peoples ideas because this is a common meme amongst the moronic lemming areas of the republican party...it comes in 2 or 3 forms..."the liberal media is unfair to us", "the liberal universities are unfair to us" and "*gasp* the liberal universities dont reflect 'public opinion' as I see it in their studies"

notice how they slot themselves into the victim mentality, *and* try to grab the high ground for their "lets legislate universities into doing what we believe they should"

in an open society no one except the universities themselves should have any say whatsoever in what they study and teach.


"F) Spend your time and read ideas and arguements from thoughtful republicans. I am sure you could find some."

of course, there are a bunch out there. unfortunately the moronic lemmings seem to find it boring the way they pontificate on about things like smaller government, responsible fiscal policy etc etc etc

...hence my total frustration...

"G) Really you have great potential to be professors. You have the exact thought process for those arrogant professors, judges, journalists and other 'intelletuals'."

LOL. yeah, because intellectuals are bad; presumably because they spend all their time 'thinking'

notice how all the groups you have identified...journalists, judges, professors etc, are exactly those groups with the responsibilty of dissembling information, educating the populace and interpreting the laws? some of the most important functions in a functioning democracy and you consider them to be arrogant intellectuals.

says more about you then it does about them.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
April 2nd, 2005
I don't know, I think just because I hold a belief that is similar to a group of idiots does not mean my idea is invalid or I have not think it through.

Yes, you are disrespectful of others presuming others could not make up their own mind.
Permalink Rick Tsang 
April 2nd, 2005
" I think just because I hold a belief that is similar to a group of idiots does not mean my idea is invalid or I have not think it through."

*identical* to that held and propagated by a group of idiots, and expressed by the idiots first.

I am not sure what it even means for an idea to be 'invalid'? clearly it is *valid*, it just also happens to be *stupid*

If you *did* think it through then I would love to hear your logic expressed in full? the trouble with discussing/arguing things in this fashion is that you rarely get to hear the full expression of the ideas of the other person.

So, if you would like to...express the idea and the logic behind it, tell me what you see as the positive run on effects and the long term results.


"Yes, you are disrespectful of others presuming others could not make up their own mind."

no, Im not. I have no doubt these people have made up their own mind. They heard the original babbling idiots spouting this crap and they decided it made total sense, and that it was a good idea which would have positive short and long term resuts.

*that* is why I call them moronic lemmings.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
April 2nd, 2005
:) I haven't think it through.

All I know is many conservatives student who went to university have those kind of experiences. It is not heresay.

What could be done? Very simple. Encourage the students to use their critical thinking skill to make up their own decisions. Encourage republicans to pursue academic careers even though there are many 'lefties' in the field. After two or three decades the acadamy would be more balanced.
Permalink Rick Tsang 
April 2nd, 2005
"All I know is many conservatives student who went to university have those kind of experiences. It is not heresay."

well, yes it is. but who cares, as Jim (the moronic lemming) clearly stated all this does is increase the opportunities for learning....people learn far more from differences in opinion than they do from similarities.

"What could be done? Very simple. Encourage the students to use their critical thinking skill to make up their own decisions."

thats what universities are teaching :) (at least, the good ones)

"Encourage republicans to pursue academic careers even though there are many 'lefties' in the field. After two or three decades the acadamy would be more balanced."

sounds good, go...do it.

Im in favour of encouraging *everyone* to pursue academic careers, doing so is always a good thing.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
April 2nd, 2005

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: March, 2005 Other topics: March, 2005 Recent topics Recent topics