NationStates Jolt Archive

Many Conservative politicians as well as students have expressed that college professors in American universities have a strong liberal bias, which influences their students. They charge academia with "indoctrination." This idea of indoctrination is rather silly to me because Communism was accused of the same principle and, really, indoctrination is not brainwashing, but rather, telling the facts from a certain viewpoint. Psychology proves that we're all biased. Both America and Britain describe the Revolutionary War with radically different view. So, in this way, all professors are going to be biased and whenever anyone speaks, especially in a formal classroom, in a church, or on television, there is going to be what could be defined as "indoctrination."

Since American universities have a shortage of professors right now, firing liberal professors is not an option. Even if it's done, more will come through. Some neutral (or Conservative) professors are not going to magically appear out of nowhere. And so, in my opinion, allowing students to sue is not a valid option, when it comes to grades influenced due to bias. A further reason is because, as commonly known in psychology, humans have a strong tendency to rationalize their mistakes. There are many examples, but to restate the most common one: A man is rejected by a woman he's strongly attracted to, but after being rejected, he convinces himself he doesn't like her, that he's too good for her, or that she's a lesbian.

However, despite the fact that the indoctrination argument is poor, I don't doubt that there are some people being discriminated against in colleges. This is a problem. But for every one legitimate case of discrimination, there will be at least a dozen other false claims. The reason lawsuits are not an option are the same reason it would be unrealistic to make it illegal for employers to discriminate against someone's appearance or personality. In principle, it's ethical and a very good idea. In practice, it costs businesses as well as the government a great deal of money, due to frivolous lawsuits, which waste time as well as the taxpayers' money (which we should all recognize, within both sides of the political spectrum).

But, as I said, this is a problem which must be dealt with. So, I propose that major universities which face more than one or two complaints must be legally required to have an ethics committee made up of professors of a variety of political backgrounds, to review appeals on grades, if the person feels they were treated differently because of their beliefs, whether political, scientific, religious, or otherwise. It may be a good idea, however, to limit the ability for students to file complaints to a few select fields of study, to further limit frivolous claims. In other words, hard sciences (biology, mathematics, etc) generally do not have any room for disagreement. However, in fields where prejudice is likely more common, soft sciences or humanities, such as Journalism, Political Science, Philosophy, Theology, etc, these groups should be specifically listed within any such law.

The reason I support the idea of an ethics commitee made up of professors is because it entitles the college to run itself independently, but with just government regulations, rather than requiring a court to make decisions for it. Plus, if a large number of professors review a certain test (or series of tests), it can be fairly clear whether or not there was bias, as although most professors are liberal, a great deal of them are moderate. I'd even go as far to say that most college professors are centrists, constantly using extremely two-sided arguments and dialectic thought to make their points.

Nahh. No more laws and regulations, especially on the issue of "academic bias." Those who oppose you are your best teachers. They make you think and learn.

Why not employ a balance so that young people are exposed to all points of view. Or, hold on here is an idea, allow a slight left bias in colleges to begin to counterbalance the overwhelmingly right wing bias of US media.

Why not employ a balance so that young people are exposed to all points of view. Or, hold on here is an idea, allow a slight left bias in colleges to begin to counterbalance the overwhelmingly right wing bias of US media.
Oh, GROAN! Heh!

A left bias! That's nothing...until a few years ago my college had under its employ a statistics teacher (male) who thought women couldn't do math and he would never give them a grade above a C, no matter how well they did. Doesn't that make you sick. They never fired him because he had tenure. I'm so glad he was gone before I got there because I would have unleashed hell.

Why not employ a balance so that young people are exposed to all points of view. Or, hold on here is an idea, allow a slight left bias in colleges to begin to counterbalance the overwhelmingly right wing bias of US media.

Yeah, CBS is right wing. That's hilarious. The network that ran with a story their internal people knew to be fake - fake Bush memos.

US news media is NOT overwhelmingly right wing.

I don't think universities, in the US or elsewhere, have a problem with left leaning lecturers. Does it matter if the lecturer is to the right or the left of your viewpoint? The lecturers are there to give you the basic facts and it is up to the students how they use that information, whether they take it at face value or use it as a basis to learn more.
US media, as with the political spectrum within the country, does tend to have a right leaning position and any left leaning teaching tends to get leaped on in much the same way that many in other countries leap on extreme right-wing views. Perhaps you should worry less about the leanings of the educator and concern yourselves more with the direction you wish to take yourself and your Country (this idea is not just for the US and should probably be thought of for the rest of the world).

I don't think universities, in the US or elsewhere, have a problem with left leaning lecturers. Does it matter if the lecturer is to the right or the left of your viewpoint? The lecturers are there to give you the basic facts and it is up to the students how they use that information, whether they take it at face value or use it as a basis to learn more.
US media, as with the political spectrum within the country, does tend to have a right leaning position and any left leaning teaching tends to get leaped on in much the same way that many in other countries leap on extreme right-wing views. Perhaps you should worry less about the leanings of the educator and concern yourselves more with the direction you wish to take yourself and your Country (this idea is not just for the US and should probably be thought of for the rest of the world).


A left or right leaning lecturer is not "giving the basic facts". They are preaching their bias. I've had good professors - who will present a variety of points of view - and some who were so caught up in a single idea that they never presented anything else. It's not as though *all* professors were single-minded - but quite a few are.

What would you think of a professor who taught a general course on Western Philosophy, but only taught about John Stuart Mill? And no one else? You couldn't say he had a right or left wing bias, but you might wonder why he wasn't teaching about anyone else. And, if you're dumb enough to rely only on professors to spoon feed "facts" to you, you're too dumb to go to university. Anyone with the brain to know that they could go to the library could discover, on their own, that the single-minded professor is very probably an idiot who has the teaching job only because they can't function in the real world.

Treasure your time with the teachers who show you as much variety as they can. And you're free to check "the facts" yourself.

Learn how to think and reason, instead of trusting what the professor says.

They have tenor. Nothing.

Learn how to think and reason, instead of trusting what the professor says.
Isn't that what I said?

Oh, GROAN! Heh!
*seconds that groan*

perhaps it says something about the liberal belief system that the people educated anough to be educators all follow through on it.

just a thought

Isn't that what I said?
Yes. The problem is that the majority of people believe what they hear, especially from someone who is ostensibly an authority figure.

Nothing should be done. Why would you want to start discriminating against people based on their political point of view in your hiring practices?

Yeah, CBS is right wing. That's hilarious. The network that ran with a story their internal people knew to be fake - fake Bush memos.

US news media is NOT overwhelmingly right wing.
I wouldn't say it's 'overwhelmingly' right-wing, but it is, for the most part, slanted to the right.

CNN - Generally moderate on most issues, although they have a habit of not reporting news, and it benefits Conservatives. FAIR.ORG has criticized CNN of reporting Israeli deaths more than Palestinians. One example is a story where several Palestinian children were shot for being outside after curfew and it went unreported. Statistically, this, is true. CNN's also kept quiet about vote fraud. And while they've highlighted Iraqi prison abuse, they've called it 'abuse' rather than 'torture', and never mention the unsubstantiated claims, such as Iraqi civilians claiming U.S. uses napalm or white phosphorus. If they truly had a strong liberal bias, they'd have mentioned these things, which, although ridiculous, would influence the public.

CBS - Fairly liberal-bias, undeniably. Sometimes, the liberal-bias is obvious. A lot of times, though, in unimportant news, they're fairly neutral. Like most news, they don't make false claims, but they use emotionally-charged terms and the studies or quotes they publish are handselected to prove a point.

Fox News - Fairly Conservative-bias, undeniable. Fox News hasn't always been so Conservative. It used be a great deal more neutral. But in recent years, lines have been drawn along the media and Fox happens to stand on the right. One Conservative politician was caught admitting claiming liberal bias in the media has been a GOP tactic for years. Fox, like CBS, is neutral on unimportant news, but in the key, Conservative issues of immigration, freedom of religion, gun control, welfare, Fox is extremely biased. For example, CNN didn't mention at all that the Red Lake incident was on a Native American reservation. (Fox has a tendency to always call them "Indians", by the way). Well, not only did Fox mention it, but they also noted that a certain tribe on the reservation is the poorest in the state. This is an irrelevant fact, but mentioned, anyway. On the environment, Fox has posted articles which directly contradict the EPA.gov's website on DDT.

MSNBC - Moderate bias, sometimes Conservative, but often liberal. This is one of the better newsmedias, in my opinion. Their March 25th article on Terri Schiavo was very sympathetic, even going into the grotesque details of her appearance as she starved. On March 24th, they also posted an article suggesting that Michael Schiavo might be of questionable character. But then, just today, they've posted articles which blast Bush, over refusing to respond over the "Native American" school shooting (The term "Native American" shows the liberal bias. As stated before, Conservatives use "Indian"). So, the pendulum of bias in MSNBC tends to swing back and forth.

But the absolute best sources of American news, in my opinion, isthe BBC. Any reports the Guardian puts out on America are fairly good as well. Being from foreign countries (but not Arab ones), they offer fairly unbiased reports. Generally, the British are condescending towards all Americans, liberal or conservative, and truly pity them. So I wouldn't say they have as many preset notions one way or the other as Americans do, just as American newsmedias probably give less biased coverage of Britain.

i would suggest that the conservative start encouraging their young followers to get phds and become professors so as to balance things out

having strong political opinions isnt a big problem. not being able to get rid of crappy professors who cant be bothered to teach anymore is a problem.

you forgot ABC.

but then again, their parent company (sinclair broadcast group) is the same one that owns FOX.

Yes. The problem is that the majority of people believe what they hear, especially from someone who is ostensibly an authority figure.
So, why is a college professor more dangerous than a priest or a journalist? Scientifically, it's been proven that a college education tends to increase dialectical thought, the highest form of logic (arguing with yourself, over two seemingly contradictory ideas). So, scientifically-speaking, this "indoctrination" argument doesn't hold. College education tends towards centrism and moderation, not extremist liberal indoctrination.

I suppose I made my point in a fairly flippant way but still. My point was that bias is in the eye of the beholder. You might believe that the US education system is staffed by disturbingly left wing teachers. I might believe that US media has an extreme right bias. It is a matter of subjective opinion. Proposing to police something subjective is an extemely dangerous route to take.

Thought police anyone?

So, why is a college professor more dangerous than a priest or a journalist? Scientifically, it's been proven that a college education tends to increase dialectical thought, the highest form of logic (arguing with yourself, over two seemingly contradictory ideas). So, scientifically-speaking, this "indoctrination" argument doesn't hold. College education tends towards centrism and moderation, not extremist liberal indoctrination.

If you were a person with a weak mind who believed most things without question (like most people), and you had professors with a single-minded bias, you would be punished (through grades) to believe what you were told.

The left-wing bias (or right wing, depending on your university or college) is more apparent in the humanities (history, philosophy, sociology, etc). I've been to some campuses that make a joke of "centrism and moderation". Liberty Baptist is not centrist - it's mandatory to have your left arm surgically removed there. And a lot of "mainstream" universities have radically left humanities departments.

For anyone with a brain, it does no harm to study in either place. I think what people fear will make the single-mindedness stick is the punishment aspect of education.

I say we eat their souls. :D

If you were a person with a weak mind who believed most things without question (like most people), and you had professors with a single-minded bias, you would be punished (through grades) to believe what you were told.

[snip]
.

Such weakminded people do not belong in college. Any university worth its salt would filter them out by failing them.

You might believe that the US education system is staffed by disturbingly left wing teachers.
No, it's staffed by a disturbingly disproportionate amount of people who don't use English as a primary (or secondary) language. ;) But seriously, look at the professor roster in subjects such as math, sciences, and English. I know. I can't even pronounce some of their names.

If a student truly feels they are being made to suffer at the hands of an ideologue, there usually are recourses for dealing with the situation. What if a professor is being made to suffer at the hands of classrooms comprised of ideologues? What recourse is there in that situation?

Such weakminded people do not belong in college. Any university worth its salt would filter them out by failing them.

I've met too many people when I was in university who believe whatever the professor says - because the professor says so - and because you'll get an F if you question some professors.

I got an F from a professor with whom I disagreed. The disagreement was political. I didn't feel the need to sue. I talked to the dean, and they dropped the grade from my transcript.

If you were a person with a weak mind who believed most things without question (like most people), and you had professors with a single-minded bias, you would be punished (through grades) to believe what you were told.

The left-wing bias (or right wing, depending on your university or college) is more apparent in the humanities (history, philosophy, sociology, etc). I've been to some campuses that make a joke of "centrism and moderation". Liberty Baptist is not centrist - it's mandatory to have your left arm surgically removed there. And a lot of "mainstream" universities have radically left humanities departments.

For anyone with a brain, it does no harm to study in either place. I think what people fear will make the single-mindedness stick is the punishment aspect of education.
I agree, which is why I propose mandatory comittee oversight, for problematic universities. Lawsuits is not an option, though, for the numerous reasons previously stated. It'd be a waste of time and tax money.

I've met too many people when I was in university who believe whatever the professor says - because the professor says so - and because you'll get an F if you question some professors.

I got an F from a professor with whom I disagreed. The disagreement was political. I didn't feel the need to sue. I talked to the dean, and they dropped the grade from my transcript.

I assume those people didnt make it through university. If they did then I really have no respect for the quality of the institution you studied in. How could a university allow such people to enroll and then not filter them out?

There is a word for what happens when academic recruitment policy is formally placed on an ideological footing: Communism. Didn't realise there were so many sympathisers out there.

I assume those people didnt make it through university. If they did then I really have no respect for the quality of the institution you studied in. How could a university allow such people to enroll and then not filter them out?
It's simple. Few schools have the system for filtering out people who are not critical thinkers. The system filters out people who are non-conformist. If you don't conform, you get bad grades. Do it often enough, and you get kicked out.

Richard Feynman, the famous physicist, noted this problem. He was critical of science teaching that promoted the unquestioning memorization of physics concepts - which is what most physics teaching is in most schools, at least at the undergraduate level. He urged students to question what they are told - show me, prove it to me, show me the math, let me repeat the experiment, let me work out the math...

For areas of learning that are not as provable as physics or math, the problem is much, much harder to deal with. For some classes, just having a different opinion from the professor is legitimate grounds to get a failing grade. You would need to address that problem first.

I've met far, far too many highly educated people who can't think their way out of a wet paper bag.

There is a word for what happens when academic recruitment policy is formally placed on an ideological footing: Communism. Didn't realise there were so many sympathisers out there.
Don't remember reading that in the Communist Manifesto though :confused:

Don't remember reading that in the Communist Manifesto though :confused:

The communist manifesto is but one document on communism. Communist ideology existed before and after the manifesto and has various branches. Trotski did not agree with everything Marx said, Lenin didnt agree with everything Trotski said, etc.

The communist manifesto is but one document on communism. Communist ideology existed before and after the manifesto and has various branches. Trotski did not agree with everything Marx said, Lenin didnt agree with everything Trotski said, etc.

That's why Trotsky got axed.

Many Conservative politicians as well as students have expressed that college professors in American universities have a strong liberal bias, which influences their students.
Then fight back - I'll happily challenge any one of the leftist professors in the event I ever have one of them.

i would suggest that the conservative start encouraging their young followers to get phds and become professors so as to balance things out

having strong political opinions isnt a big problem. not being able to get rid of crappy professors who cant be bothered to teach anymore is a problem.
But that would require more than a business degree..

That's why Trotsky got axed.

Trotsky was banished because he disagreed with Stalin, however Lenin liked Trotsky's views. So, which is true communism that which Lenin and Trotsky believed or what Stalin implemented? The answer is that both are branches of communism. Communism is not the communist manifesto, the communist manifesto is but one document on communism and was written long after communism began, in fact the opening paragraph describes how communism has been spreading. How could communism have been spreading before it was invented? It couldnt have been spreading before it was invented, therefore we know that the communist manifesto is not the first or final word on communism. It is simply one of many documents on the subject.

Trotsky was banished because he disagreed with Stalin, however Lenin liked Trotsky's views. So, which is true communism that which Lenin and Trotsky believed or what Stalin implemented? The answer is that both are branches of communism. Communism is not the communist manifesto, the communist manifesto is but one document on communism and was written long after communism began, in fact the opening paragraph describes how communism has been spreading. How could communism have been spreading before it was invented? It couldnt have been spreading before it was invented, therefore we know that the communist manifesto is not the first or final word on communism. It is simply one of many documents on the subject.

What Stalin thought could hardly matter now. I could say the same thing about Lenin and Trotsky.

Any remaining Communist governments are their own variants of Communism. The rest is on the ash heap of history.

What Should We Do About Biased College Professors?

We should do as I have always suggested:

Affirmative Action for Republicans!!!

:D

Yeah, CBS is right wing. That's hilarious. The network that ran with a story their internal people knew to be fake - fake Bush memos.

US news media is NOT overwhelmingly right wing.
Going after Bush doesn't mean that they're not right-wing.

(The term "Native American" shows the liberal bias. As stated before, Conservatives use "Indian")
I highly doubt that the use of these terms shows a bias either way. Please explain.

Why not employ a balance so that young people are exposed to all points of view. Or, hold on here is an idea, allow a slight left bias in colleges to begin to counterbalance the overwhelmingly right wing bias of US media.

The same problem with "Affirmative Action" is going to happen if you try to hire on the basis of political ideology. You're assuming that the truth is right in the middle of the two extremes. You're also assuming that professors ARE in fact biased towards liberalism.

Don't forget that conservative politics are going through a very well organized push right now. Five years ago the idea of the average college student being conservative was down right laughable, now if you go to a college you'll see conservative literature, and flyers for conservative events all over the place, and students are STILL overwhelmingly liberal. Conservative views are far and away over represented relative to their population. Pushing for conservatism on campus is not pushing for balance any more than trying to make the fire dept. exactly 50% male and 50% female.

Besides, only certain disciplines are especially liberal, and for damn good reasons.

History professors know what the results of conservative politics have historicaly been. Not very good, so they lean towards the left of center. Not the extreme left, but certainly very left of the current Neo-cons.

Humanities professors are usually quite liberal only partially because conservative politicians tend to be more business oriented, but first up on the chopping block when conservative politicians want to cut spending is humanities funding like music in schools. If you can find a humanities professor who favors reduced funding for the humanities then you might want to encourage them to find another line of work.

Business professors tend to be more conservative in their politics, because their the ones who best know how to benifit from a conservative political climate.

Economics professors are something of a mixed bunch. They all tend to agree that neither side knows a damn about economics, including the conservatives. They tend to be well aware that if you want the economic system to improve you should take it out of the hands of politicians altogether, which is not to say that you should put it into the hands of conservatives, whatever the conservatives tell you about small government.

Professors of hard sciences tend to lean left only because there's a dim awareness that liberals tend to be more in favor of academic freedom.


Trying to get a balance just by looking at the statistics is going to give you a lousy academic climate.
If you find conservative (by modern standards) history professors they'll tend to be... Well, two words Ann Coulter.

A conservative humanities teacher is practically a contradiction in terms. If you find a professor who walk into the classroom and says "I don't know why they're giving me a pay check, they should level this department and put up a pay parking lot" well, I'd head to the registrar's office for a "Drop/Add" form.

As far as I know there isn't anyone pushing for more conservative business professors, if such a push ever comes I'd recommend rioting, bacause you don't want your education influenced by the type of person who thinks that business dept's are being run by liberals.

Trying to make hard sciences more conservative? All I'll say on this is "global warming is just a theory :rolleyes: "

People of a particular ideology are drawn to perticular disciplines. The professor population is going to reflect that. If it doesn't you are guaranteed to be removing the best candidates for the job. In fact, you'll be indoctrinating.

We should do as I have always suggested:

Affirmative Action for Republicans!!!

:D

I'd like to make Republicans more affirmative, but will they all consent to the necessary brain surgery?

(The term "Native American" shows the liberal bias. As stated before, Conservatives use "Indian")

Ya, damn liberal press. It's not native american, it injun. And it's not "African American" it's N***er" (Damned censorship software). [/sarcasm]

Nahh. No more laws and regulations, especially on the issue of "academic bias." Those who oppose you are your best teachers. They make you think and learn.

Words of wisdom.

Ya, damn liberal press. It's not native american, it injun. And it's not "African American" it's N***er" (Damned censorship software). [/sarcasm]

"The People Who Got Here First, And Now All They Have Is A Damn Reservation"

perhaps it says something about the liberal belief system that the people educated anough to be educators all follow through on it.
just a thought


Those who can - do, those who can't - teach. Makes sense to me.

Frankly I'm of the opinion that by college age a person should be able to seperate fact from opinion. Most young people tend toward liberal anyway. Any college professor or student who is brave enough not to conform deserves respect, not alienation. Sadly there are many liberal in our university system who are closed minded about ideas other than their own.

(The term "Native American" shows the liberal bias. As stated before, Conservatives use "Indian").

I'm sorry, but this error is indicative of the lack of intellectual rigor you've shown throughout this topic.

Pinning labels on things as "liberal" or "conservative" is neither as easy nor helpful as it may appear.

Indian may be used in an offensive or ignorant manner, but is a valid term used in anthropology, law, and by Indians themselves. Try Google for "Indian" or "American Indian."

Native American is an acceptable term to many, but many Indians object to it.

Neither is a "liberal" or a "conservative" term.

As to the topic in general, you are mistaken in many respects. Academic freedom should be sacrosanct. Students do not need to be protected against opinions they disagree with. To the contrary, they should be exposed to such views. Students should have open but questioning minds--be willing to accept new facts but also willing to question what is and is not accurate. It's called learning. If students merely want more of what they already think they "know," they clearly do not want education.

"The People Who Got Here First, And Now All They Have Is A Damn Reservation"

:D

Those who can - do, those who can't - teach. Makes sense to me.

Frankly I'm of the opinion that by college age a person should be able to seperate fact from opinion. Most young people tend toward liberal anyway. Any college professor or student who is brave enough not to conform deserves respect, not alienation.

You had me going "right on bradda" up until "Sadly there are many liberal in our university system who are closed minded about ideas other than their own."

Many conservatives full under that label as well.

This whole thing of "there aren't enough conservative professors" is pretty lame. If you think College is going to teach you all you will ever know, then you are pretty hopeless.

The one rule of life is to question everything you read or hear.

Make your own opinions rather then parrot others.

Words of wisdom.
Thank you! I was wondering if anyone even read that. :)

Many Conservative politicians as well as students have expressed that college professors in American universities have a strong liberal bias, which influences their students. They charge academia with "indoctrination." This idea of indoctrination is rather silly to me because Communism was accused of the same principle and, really, indoctrination is not brainwashing, but rather, telling the facts from a certain viewpoint. Psychology proves that we're all biased. Both America and Britain describe the Revolutionary War with radically different view. So, in this way, all professors are going to be biased and whenever anyone speaks, especially in a formal classroom, in a church, or on television, there is going to be what could be defined as "indoctrination."

Since American universities have a shortage of professors right now, firing liberal professors is not an option. Even if it's done, more will come through. Some neutral (or Conservative) professors are not going to magically appear out of nowhere. And so, in my opinion, allowing students to sue is not a valid option, when it comes to grades influenced due to bias. A further reason is because, as commonly known in psychology, humans have a strong tendency to rationalize their mistakes. There are many examples, but to restate the most common one: A man is rejected by a woman he's strongly attracted to, but after being rejected, he convinces himself he doesn't like her, that he's too good for her, or that she's a lesbian.

However, despite the fact that the indoctrination argument is poor, I don't doubt that there are some people being discriminated against in colleges. This is a problem. But for every one legitimate case of discrimination, there will be at least a dozen other false claims. The reason lawsuits are not an option are the same reason it would be unrealistic to make it illegal for employers to discriminate against someone's appearance or personality. In principle, it's ethical and a very good idea. In practice, it costs businesses as well as the government a great deal of money, due to frivolous lawsuits, which waste time as well as the taxpayers' money (which we should all recognize, within both sides of the political spectrum).

But, as I said, this is a problem which must be dealt with. So, I propose that major universities which face more than one or two complaints must be legally required to have an ethics committee made up of professors of a variety of political backgrounds, to review appeals on grades, if the person feels they were treated differently because of their beliefs, whether political, scientific, religious, or otherwise. It may be a good idea, however, to limit the ability for students to file complaints to a few select fields of study, to further limit frivolous claims. In other words, hard sciences (biology, mathematics, etc) generally do not have any room for disagreement. However, in fields where prejudice is likely more common, soft sciences or humanities, such as Journalism, Political Science, Philosophy, Theology, etc, these groups should be specifically listed within any such law.

The reason I support the idea of an ethics commitee made up of professors is because it entitles the college to run itself independently, but with just government regulations, rather than requiring a court to make decisions for it. Plus, if a large number of professors review a certain test (or series of tests), it can be fairly clear whether or not there was bias, as although most professors are liberal, a great deal of them are moderate. I'd even go as far to say that most college professors are centrists, constantly using extremely two-sided arguments and dialectic thought to make their points.


Your problem is a complex one, most Universities already have Ethics comittees. This does not stop people like Ward Churchill or Dr. Thomas Mann from getting tenured, secure, and unassailable positions in Academia.
I think the Florida Legislature really screwed the pooch on what they did, but I understand why they did it.

The thing is, you're right-in-one about there being little to no chance of Conservative or Moderate Professors "Popping up", outside of the History department, or Philosophy, you're looking at a significant difference in base philosophy between the type of people that are attracted to the backstabbing rats-nest of Academia, versus the backstabbing rat's nest of Private Sector.

I'll give you a quick reference: Most Conservatives willing to put in that much time (the time to become accredited enough to even apply for the job of a professorship) are more inclined to head out into the private sector (this is especially true in the hard-science fields, but applies in fields like Law, Medicine, etc.)
Liberals and those who tend toward Leftist viewpoints tend to focus on Civil-Service and Academic careers, this is a natural evolution of things. It results in a strong bias to the left, and results in some freaky shit getting into the classroom that probably shouldn't have been let in the door.
(Ward Churchill again... along with some other glaring examples of shoddy workmanship getting a Tenured job.)

The problem really arises from the difference in why someone might choose to go to college in the first place. Liberals go, because they are idealistic, they want to help... Conservatives go because they want to make great big piles of money without busting their bodies apart like dad did.

It creates a very "Echo Chamber" environment at the higher levels. A bit like how most Air Force Generals are Fighter-Jocks, while most pilots who go into the Air Force want to fly airliners for forty grand a year to start.
In both cases, they tend to hear exactly the same things they tend to say, which may or may not reflect either the reality, or the reality as experienced by those outside the echo-chamber.

Conservatives often sniff, and call this 'Navel-Gazing" or "Bias". It is, but it's a bias that almost MUST happen given the conditions found in the Academic field-the Right just tends not to gravitate that way, so you're left with a Left bias that is far larger than the surrounding area. You're also left with a Professorship that is deeply separated from the conditions of the rest of the country, and a lot of impressive, but ultimately meaningless, PhD's commenting on things they have no experience in, or little practical knowledge of, to classrooms full of earnest students who desperately want to pass the class-even at the point of compromising their own beliefs to do so.

(Note: this happens at the Community college level too-I have experienced it, having to repeat something I emphatically did not believe in to avoid very-real examples of biased grading by an untouchable Tenured individual. In that case, it was an Atmospheric Sciences teacher who was catastrophically ignorant of the impact of geological events like Volcanism, as well as historical examples of warmer global climates such as the Medieval Optimum, when Greenland was suitable for large-scale farming and wine grapes were a british export item, around 700 AD to 1250, in case you were wondering.)

This tends to enhance the Echo-Chamber of the same ideas being circulated without question or challenge. But, you can't exactly compel people who don't want to teach at University to do so, and you can't compel Private Industries to hire navel-gazers who happen to have degrees.
Thus, it's likely to continue onward until you have enough of a backlash to radically change how Colleges operate their hiring/firing/tenure processes, greivance procedures, etc. etc.

I have NO idea how to extract the Political from the Academic, in fact, I would venture to say that any suggested method of doing so will fail to deliver desirable results in the long-term. Florida may, in fact, have just destroyed the credibility of their Science Institutions by passing that boneheaded law.

I highly doubt that the use of these terms shows a bias either way. Please explain.
"Native American" is the more politically-correct. Liberals tend to support minorities and Conservatives are biased against them. So, Fox and other Conservative newsmedias always use the slightly-offensive "Indian." That's due to the racist attitude of a large number of Conservatives. Just look at the posts by Domici and Whispering Legs. Plus, the Conservatives that aren't racists hate Native Americans anyway, because they see reparations as massive amounts of welfare, and they see reservations as Federally-funded ghettos (which, to some extent, they are-but Conservatives don't feel pity for the people, but rather, disgust and disapproval).

But it works both ways. Liberals will call a lot of Christians Fundamentalists, but Conservatives like Fox will just call them Christian.

It'd be hard to prove this with Fox News' shitty search engine, but it's not hard to see. Look at the stories on the shooter. CNN and CBS, it's "Native American." In Fox, the term "Indian" is used much more often, if not always.

Thank you! I was wondering if anyone even read that. :)

Nah! It might make you old people feel like you contributed! :p

But you are right, some of the people I learned a great deal were ones I really hated at the time. :)

"Native American" is the more politically-correct. Liberals tend to support minorities and Conservatives are biased against them. So, Fox and other Conservative newsmedias always use the slightly-offensive "Indian."

But it works both ways. Liberals will call a lot of Christians Fundamentalists, but Conservatives like Fox will just call them Christian.

It'd be hard to prove this with Fox News' shitty search engine, but it's not hard to see. Look at the stories on the shooter. CNN and CBS, it's "Native American." In Fox, the term "Indian" is used much more often, if not always.

I understand your point and you are vaguely, vaguely correct. (Note: my vague agreement was prior to the edit of the original post).

But "Indian" is a bad example that you clearly know little about. Try telling a member of the American Indian Movement (http://www.aimovement.org/) about how conservatively biased and offensive "Indian" is.

On the original topic: I am curious: what level of education have you achieved so far?

A left bias! That's nothing...until a few years ago my college had under its employ a statistics teacher (male) who thought women couldn't do math and he would never give them a grade above a C, no matter how well they did. Doesn't that make you sick. They never fired him because he had tenure. I'm so glad he was gone before I got there because I would have unleashed hell.

We had a professor that was exactly the opposite. She was a raving feminist and it was almost impossible for any male to get above a 'b' in her class, while females frequently aced the course with ease. This kinda biased shit needs to end. As for a left-leaning bias, I've picked up a little liberalism on my radar, but I think most of my professors manage to restrain themselves fairly well. The worst thing I've seen was a study we did on unjust wars in Honors Forum. The prof. continually kept dropping innuendoes about the war in Iraq, but I didn't really bug me.

Being the vile conservative I am, I just ate his children. :p

"Native American" is the more politically-correct. Liberals tend to support minorities and Conservatives are biased against them. So, Fox and other Conservative newsmedias always use the slightly-offensive "Indian." That's due to the racist attitude of a large number of Conservatives. Just look at the posts by Domici and Whispering Legs. Plus, the Conservatives that aren't racists hate Native Americans anyway, because they see reparations as massive amounts of welfare, and they see reservations as Federally-funded ghettos (which, to some extent, they are-but Conservatives don't feel pity for the people, but rather, disgust and disapproval).

But it works both ways. Liberals will call a lot of Christians Fundamentalists, but Conservatives like Fox will just call them Christian.

It'd be hard to prove this with Fox News' shitty search engine, but it's not hard to see. Look at the stories on the shooter. CNN and CBS, it's "Native American." In Fox, the term "Indian" is used much more often, if not always.

I have to admit, I call them Indians amongst my friends, but in speaking to or around them, I always refer to them as Native Americans.

[QUOTE=Plutophobia]Many Conservative politicians as well as students have expressed that college professors in American universities have a strong liberal bias, which influences their students. They charge academia with "indoctrination." This idea of indoctrination is rather silly to me because Communism was accused of the same principle and, really, indoctrination is not brainwashing, but rather, telling the facts from a certain viewpoint. Psychology proves that we're all biased. Both America and Britain describe the Revolutionary War with radically different view. So, in this way, all professors are going to be biased and whenever anyone speaks, especially in a formal classroom, in a church, or on television, there is going to be what could be defined as "indoctrination."



Treat them as the fascists they are-or aspire to be.

Many Conservative politicians as well as students have expressed that college professors in American universities have a strong liberal bias, which influences their students. They charge academia with "indoctrination." This idea of indoctrination is rather silly to me because Communism was accused of the same principle and, really, indoctrination is not brainwashing, but rather, telling the facts from a certain viewpoint. Psychology proves that we're all biased. Both America and Britain describe the Revolutionary War with radically different view. So, in this way, all professors are going to be biased and whenever anyone speaks, especially in a formal classroom, in a church, or on television, there is going to be what could be defined as "indoctrination."....

How unfortunate that people are so weak-minded, or believe that others are, that they are threatened by the idea of actually having to listen to opinions they do not agree with.

College is SUPPOSED to expose you to differing opinions. How else can you figure out for yourself what you believe in if you are not given the tools to understand different arguments? How can you refute other people's arguments if you don't understand them or don't even know what they are?

Willful ignorance is merely sad -- but imposing it on others is criminal.

Fire the biased ones!!!! :mad:

What?

But if you fire all the righties who want to get rid of the lefties, there will be even less of a political spectrum, Roach-Busters.... :-p


Seriously though -- has anyone given thought the the idea that perhaps the reason there may be more liberals on the faculty in colleges (Liberal Arts, remember?) may be because Conservatives tend to go where the money is -- the private sector, not academia.

;) Capitalism in action.

How unfortunate that people are so weak-minded, or believe that others are, that they are threatened by the idea of actually having to listen to opinions they do not agree with.

College is SUPPOSED to expose you to differing opinions. How else can you figure out for yourself what you believe in if you are not given the tools to understand different arguments? How can you refute other people's arguments if you don't understand them or don't even know what they are?

Willful ignorance is merely sad -- but imposing it on others is criminal.

No conversation is held in a vacuum, and no debate can occur without a common starting point, a common ground which both sides agree is fundamentally correct.

Take a situation in a classroom, where you have one person at the Lectern, stating what he or she percieves as "Common knowledge" based "Facts". The Student, in that situation, has to pretend agreement with the Professor's base-point-of-view, just to get a hearing at all.

It's one thing if there is an honest give-and-take of ideas, it's entirely different when one's grade may be destroyed, not because of one's work, but because one challenged (or, god-forbid, destroyed) the Professor's assertions in public, and made him look the fool.

(Don't think this doesn't happen.)

The problem here, is that some Profs are honest, and will openly confront challenges to their perceptions and assumptions, and others are little tin gods who use their postions as a soapbox and their power over a student's future to stroke and stoke their egoes at the expense of those whom are paying for them to be up there in the first place. I've had both, and the second type is a disgrace to the profession, and far more common than you or I would wish.

No conversation is held in a vacuum, and no debate can occur without a common starting point, a common ground which both sides agree is fundamentally correct.

Take a situation in a classroom, where you have one person at the Lectern, stating what he or she percieves as "Common knowledge" based "Facts". The Student, in that situation, has to pretend agreement with the Professor's base-point-of-view, just to get a hearing at all.

It's one thing if there is an honest give-and-take of ideas, it's entirely different when one's grade may be destroyed, not because of one's work, but because one challenged (or, god-forbid, destroyed) the Professor's assertions in public, and made him look the fool.

(Don't think this doesn't happen.)

The problem here, is that some Profs are honest, and will openly confront challenges to their perceptions and assumptions, and others are little tin gods who use their postions as a soapbox and their power over a student's future to stroke and stoke their egoes at the expense of those whom are paying for them to be up there in the first place. I've had both, and the second type is a disgrace to the profession, and far more common than you or I would wish.

Heh -- I suggest then that when one is making up one's schedule, check www.RatemyProfessor.com -- a good tool.

You can always protest a grade if it is unfair -- keep all your notes and grades.

Many Conservative politicians as well as students have expressed that college professors in American universities have a strong liberal bias, which influences their students. They charge academia with "indoctrination." This idea of indoctrination is rather silly to me because Communism was accused of the same principle and, really, indoctrination is not brainwashing, but rather, telling the facts from a certain viewpoint. Psychology proves that we're all biased. Both America and Britain describe the Revolutionary War with radically different view. So, in this way, all professors are going to be biased and whenever anyone speaks, especially in a formal classroom, in a church, or on television, there is going to be what could be defined as "indoctrination."

Since American universities have a shortage of professors right now, firing liberal professors is not an option. Even if it's done, more will come through. Some neutral (or Conservative) professors are not going to magically appear out of nowhere. And so, in my opinion, allowing students to sue is not a valid option, when it comes to grades influenced due to bias. A further reason is because, as commonly known in psychology, humans have a strong tendency to rationalize their mistakes. There are many examples, but to restate the most common one: A man is rejected by a woman he's strongly attracted to, but after being rejected, he convinces himself he doesn't like her, that he's too good for her, or that she's a lesbian.

However, despite the fact that the indoctrination argument is poor, I don't doubt that there are some people being discriminated against in colleges. This is a problem. But for every one legitimate case of discrimination, there will be at least a dozen other false claims. The reason lawsuits are not an option are the same reason it would be unrealistic to make it illegal for employers to discriminate against someone's appearance or personality. In principle, it's ethical and a very good idea. In practice, it costs businesses as well as the government a great deal of money, due to frivolous lawsuits, which waste time as well as the taxpayers' money (which we should all recognize, within both sides of the political spectrum).

But, as I said, this is a problem which must be dealt with. So, I propose that major universities which face more than one or two complaints must be legally required to have an ethics committee made up of professors of a variety of political backgrounds, to review appeals on grades, if the person feels they were treated differently because of their beliefs, whether political, scientific, religious, or otherwise. It may be a good idea, however, to limit the ability for students to file complaints to a few select fields of study, to further limit frivolous claims. In other words, hard sciences (biology, mathematics, etc) generally do not have any room for disagreement. However, in fields where prejudice is likely more common, soft sciences or humanities, such as Journalism, Political Science, Philosophy, Theology, etc, these groups should be specifically listed within any such law.

The reason I support the idea of an ethics commitee made up of professors is because it entitles the college to run itself independently, but with just government regulations, rather than requiring a court to make decisions for it. Plus, if a large number of professors review a certain test (or series of tests), it can be fairly clear whether or not there was bias, as although most professors are liberal, a great deal of them are moderate. I'd even go as far to say that most college professors are centrists, constantly using extremely two-sided arguments and dialectic thought to make their points.

Ha. Sounds like your getting angry at intellectuals. If they're professors they have a right to be where they are and their opinions are what got them there degree. You wanna go be a conservative professor go do it. Maybe degree's and such just aren't as popular in the conservative spectrum? Maybe easier things like, demolishing buildings are? Who knows.

Anyway, here in Australia all our teachers are liberals and we sit in class paying out the government everyday, so far it hasn't helped change the government as we can't vote anyway. And I'm sure by uni people have made up they're mind. Also I think it would have to be many complaints. One or two would be easy, you could just go to your mate "That professors a leftist barstard, lets get him fired." and if it were anything like the high courts, someone could easily manipulate it to fill it with republicans, unqualified or not.

So basically, I think your idea is rediculous. If your in Uni you write essays yourself, if you disagree with the teacher use your own brain to construct an appropriate argument, don't just bitch and winge, thats what I did when they forced me to go to scripture classes *shudder*. Professors are professors, if there are more liberals maybe that's making a point?

Those who can - do, those who can't - teach. Makes sense to me.
What, have you never had a good teacher? You are only saying that teachers are incompetent because it is politically convenient for your partisan ass - seriously you are one of the most partisan people on this board, it's disgusting.

"Native American" is the more politically-correct. Liberals tend to support minorities and Conservatives are biased against them.

So, Fox and other Conservative newsmedias always use the slightly-offensive "Indian." That's due to the racist attitude of a large number of Conservatives. Just look at the posts by Domici and Whispering Legs.

---Plus, the Conservatives that aren't racists hate Native Americans anyway, because they see reparations as massive amounts of welfare, and they see reservations as Federally-funded ghettos (which, to some extent, they are-but Conservatives don't feel pity for the people, but rather, disgust and disapproval).---

But it works both ways. Liberals will call a lot of Christians Fundamentalists, but Conservatives like Fox will just call them Christian.

It'd be hard to prove this with Fox News' shitty search engine, but it's not hard to see. Look at the stories on the shooter. CNN and CBS, it's "Native American." In Fox, the term "Indian" is used much more often, if not always.
Bullshit. How are conservatives biased against minorities? They just don't want to give them welfare. The only minority conservatives are largely biased against is homosexuals.

So now conservatives are racists who want to deliberately offend minorities?

---I am uninformed about this topic---

More BS. Liberals are not against Christians, and few call them fundamentalists just for being Christian. What about the liberal Christians?

What?

But if you fire all the righties who want to get rid of the lefties, there will be even less of a political spectrum, Roach-Busters....

As I said, fire ALL biased ones, be they leftist or rightist.

As I said, fire ALL biased ones, be they leftist or rightist.
Brilliant conclusion, my friend. Do you know what kind of shortage of teachers and teaching professionals we have as it is? People with Ph.D's and to a lesser extent, MS degrees, don't grow on trees. It's a proven fact that Americans are far less likely to achieve degrees above a BS, the statitistics are there, you just have to find it. Then only Dr. Aziz and the diehard academics will become teachers. In order to become a professor (at least on my campus) you must obtain AT LEAST a MS, and that is only to teach the lower level courses (2000 level and below).

Ha. Sounds like your getting angry at intellectuals. If they're professors they have a right to be where they are and their opinions are what got them there degree. You wanna go be a conservative professor go do it. Maybe degree's and such just aren't as popular in the conservative spectrum? Maybe easier things like, demolishing buildings are? Who knows.

Anyway, here in Australia all our teachers are liberals and we sit in class paying out the government everyday, so far it hasn't helped change the government as we can't vote anyway. And I'm sure by uni people have made up they're mind. Also I think it would have to be many complaints. One or two would be easy, you could just go to your mate "That professors a leftist barstard, lets get him fired." and if it were anything like the high courts, someone could easily manipulate it to fill it with republicans, unqualified or not.

So basically, I think your idea is rediculous. If your in Uni you write essays yourself, if you disagree with the teacher use your own brain to construct an appropriate argument, don't just bitch and winge, thats what I did when they forced me to go to scripture classes *shudder*. Professors are professors, if there are more liberals maybe that's making a point?
I don't know how common it is, but it would be unfair. I suspect that you've never been discriminated against, for your beliefs. If a Conservative is majoring in many literary fields, they claim it's very difficult, due to professor bias. The "indoctrination" argument is bull, but I don't want people discriminated against for their beliefs. Many schools already have a committee to review grades. Making it a legal requirement and placing government regulations on it is not unreasonable.

Bullshit. How are conservatives biased against minorities? They just don't want to give them welfare. The only minority conservatives are largely biased against is homosexuals.
And the disdain for minorities being on welfare leads to racism. The Nazis didn't start out hating the Jews. The Jews controlled the majority of wealth in Germany and they felt unfairly treated, and that they were manipulating the government. So, it turned to racism. On this same subject, Neo-Nazis and the KKK tend to support Conservatives, because of Democrats' singling out minority issues. I never said all Conservatives are racist. I said that "a large number of them" have a "racist attitude." By that same measure, "a large number" of liberals have an anti-Christian attitude. You can't say eeither Conservatives or Liberals are totally free of prejudice.

Conservative newsmedias tend to focus more on immigrants than Liberal newsmedias do, and they call them "illegals", which many consider a derogatory term. But here's some proof for you:

The demographics of one of the top online Conservative websites, FreeRepublic.com:
http://truth.fapfap.org/demographics.html

So now conservatives are racists who want to deliberately offend minorities?

---I am uninformed about this topic---

[QUOTE=Swimmingpool]More BS. Liberals are not against Christians, and few call them fundamentalists just for being Christian. What about the liberal Christians?
Not all. Come on, put the straw man away. You're attacking a gross exaggeration of what I said. I make a point about some of them and you attack me for saying they're "all" a certain way. It doesn't work.

I spend time on liberal, political forums and there's a fair amount of rude comments about Christians. Even here, someone's talking about the "Bible-Bashers." Do you think the Bible-Bashers are mostly Bush supporters? ;)

(EDIT: Fixed the last two quotes. I had the wrong name.)

Why not employ a balance so that young people are exposed to all points of view. Or, hold on here is an idea, allow a slight left bias in colleges to begin to counterbalance the overwhelmingly right wing bias of US media.
The problem is that both forms of bais are the stupid kind, so those trying to learn from them get a double dose of stupid.

I don't know how common it is, but it would be unfair. I suspect that you've never been discriminated against, for your beliefs. If a Conservative is majoring in many literary fields, they claim it's very difficult, due to professor bias. The "indoctrination" argument is bull, but I don't want people discriminated against for their beliefs. Many schools already have a committee to review grades. Making it a legal requirement and placing government regulations on it is not unreasonable. *snip*

Consevatives (and individuals of all political stripes) "claim" lots of things that are not true. In my experience most of those who claim they get a bad grade because their political views disagree with a professor (a) are wrong and/or (b) let their own political view get in the way of the class requirements.

As a liberal that grew up in conservative schools, I have been discriminated against for my beliefs. I fought back. Quit whining.

In college and graduate programs, people should expect their views to be challenged. Tough. If they actually get an unfair grade, their a mechanism to complain. We need not have government infringing academic freedom.

You've never answered what level of education you have achieved. If you would rather not answer, that is fine.

I find it somehow interesting that we have a conservative movement with the US that is actively calling for a brand "Politically Correct speech" and "Politically Correct curriculums" in Universities. Does anyone else see the irony in this? Didn't we just get over our left-wing PC nonsense?

We should only take on "biased" college professors on an iduvidual basis, dealing with each within the appropriate context and through the proper channels. Are these "biased" professors doing something wrong? If yes, deal with it properly. If not, quit trying to enforce political ideals on acidemics, why decry this very behavior when we witness it in the USSR and Comunist China, yet condone it at home? Pathetic, juvenile behavior.

Declaring some foolish crusade against left-wing thought in college will do nothing but hurt the US.

I don't know how common it is, but it would be unfair. I suspect that you've never been discriminated against, for your beliefs. If a Conservative is majoring in many literary fields, they claim it's very difficult, due to professor bias. The "indoctrination" argument is bull, but I don't want people discriminated against for their beliefs. Many schools already have a committee to review grades. Making it a legal requirement and placing government regulations on it is not unreasonable.


And the disdain for minorities being on welfare leads to racism. The Nazis didn't start out hating the Jews. The Jews controlled the majority of wealth in Germany and they felt unfairly treated, and that they were manipulating the government. So, it turned to racism. On this same subject, Neo-Nazis and the KKK tend to support Conservatives, because of Democrats' singling out minority issues. I never said all Conservatives are racist. I said that "a large number of them" have a "racist attitude." By that same measure, "a large number" of liberals have an anti-Christian attitude. You can't say eeither Conservatives or Liberals are totally free of prejudice.

Conservative newsmedias tend to focus more on immigrants than Liberal newsmedias do, and they call them "illegals", which many consider a derogatory term. But here's some proof for you:

The demographics of one of the top online Conservative websites, FreeRepublic.com:
http://truth.fapfap.org/demographics.html

[QUOTE=Glinde Nessroe]So now conservatives are racists who want to deliberately offend minorities?

---I am uninformed about this topic---


Not all. Come on, put the straw man away. You're attacking a gross exaggeration of what I said. I make a point about some of them and you attack me for saying they're "all" a certain way. It doesn't work.

I spend time on liberal, political forums and there's a fair amount of rude comments about Christians. Even here, someone's talking about the "Bible-Bashers." Do you think the Bible-Bashers are mostly Bush supporters? ;)

Never been discriminated against? Honey I'm homosexual so BZZZT.

So your saying professors are gonna be against christians. You know you can be christian and liberal...you can even be those a a professor! But I don't think you really replied to my post. If you did, I think you got the wrong message because your post seems detached from mine.

Not many real liberals around here, not even in academia. A lot of them may be less conservative than the average Okie, but even my philosophy prof was more a libertarian. My archeology prof was extremely conservative. He went on and on about how the evil Assyrians and Egyptians persecuted the Hebrews and how archeology proved the whole Bible was true. I don't know if my C in the class was the result of me asking him if he was teaching theology or archeology. Probably more like my annoyance caused my to blow off half the class.

University isn't about being fed facts and spewing them out again-sometime in the middle you have to think about them or your not going to do well. Everyone (except for the existing few prodegies) at university is an adult, old enough to vote and make other decisions by themselves. They should all be able to listen to the ideas they have chalenged, to be shown another point of view, possibly changing their mind on the issue, possibly enforcing the opinions they already have. (If your beiefs can't stand a challenge they weren't that strong t begin with). The idea of a review board is good in that it would only punish proffesors that can't mark subjectively and eliminate a good just proffesor with radical ideas being targetted because some student that can't write and disagrees with him thinks he's being discriminated against. But it could also lead to a lot of work for the committee from students who use whenever they don't get marks they like.

Note-I haven't read through the entire thread yet

Not many real liberals around here, not even in academia. A lot of them may be less conservative than the average Okie, but even my philosophy prof was more a libertarian. My archeology prof was extremely conservative. He went on and on about how the evil Assyrians and Egyptians persecuted the Hebrews and how archeology proved the whole Bible was true. I don't know if my C in the class was the result of me asking him if he was teaching theology or archeology. Probably more like my annoyance caused my to blow off half the class.

I would've dropped that bastard's class. But before that, I'dve gotten into a nice, big argument with him.

I would've dropped that bastard's class. But before that, I'dve gotten into a nice, big argument with him.
It was a requirement for my History/Museum Studies degree. And I did make my comment about him teaching theology in front of the class.

It was a requirement for my History/Museum Studies degree. And I did make my comment about him teaching theology in front of the class.

Bah, that sucks. But it's goot that you did that in front of the class! The man must've been pissed.

Consevatives (and individuals of all political stripes) "claim" lots of things that are not true. In my experience most of those who claim they get a bad grade because their political views disagree with a professor (a) are wrong and/or (b) let their own political view get in the way of the class requirements.

As a liberal that grew up in conservative schools, I have been discriminated against for my beliefs. I fought back. Quit whining.

In college and graduate programs, people should expect their views to be challenged. Tough. If they actually get an unfair grade, their a mechanism to complain. We need not have government infringing academic freedom.

You've never answered what level of education you have achieved. If you would rather not answer, that is fine.
I've almost finished my first year of college. But anyway, yes, but about their "claims." Conservatives see discrimination against minorities, homosexuals, and women as just "claims." Certainly, the idea could apply to liberals as well. I don't believe either groups are without bias. And my proposal would not only protect Conservatives, but even Liberals in any Christian universities.

Remember: This is not about indoctrination. It's about protecting civil rights. What I propose can prevent discrimination (which obviously happens, although no one knows how common), but at the same time, it's not going to raise tuition, waste our time or taxpayers' money, force colleges to start hiring Conservative professors, or teach creationism. It's not what Jeb's proposing, with lawsuits, which is absolutely ridiculous.

So your saying professors are gonna be against christians. You know you can be christian and liberal...you can even be those a a professor! But I don't think you really replied to my post. If you did, I think you got the wrong message because your post seems detached from mine.
I fixed the quotes.

Another straw man. SOME, NOT ALL.

But anyway, if you disagree with the general tendency, I could prove you wrong, scientifically. All I'd need to do is a poll, asking people their political stance, if they dislike immigrants, and if they dislike Christians. You'd find that the vast majority of people who hate Christians are liberals, and the vast majority of racists are Conservatives. Because truly, open opposition to Christianity is a secular value and racism is an old-fashioned value.

And even those who don't claim to be (or aren't) racist or belligerent towards Christians [i]still[i/] carry the general attitude of apathy to their suffering, skepticism, disdain, and condescension.

A lot of this thread has people talking about having your views challenged etc... That’s frankly a bunch of bullshit had has nothing to do with Bias. Of course your views are supposed to be challenged when you attend University, that is a given. However that line of reasoning would lead to the the conclusion that we should be actively recruiting more Conservative professors so as to actually challenge the views of the majority of the Student body. Right now we’ve got a situation where we have a bunch of Liberal professors who are challenging the views of the minority of the Student body.

So anyway then. Bias is not simply the Teacher and the Student having different views. Bias is allowing that difference in views to affect the Student’s grades. No Professor should ever be allowed to let his personal views affect Students grades. Hell at no point should politics even get brought up in any class outside of history. Yet somehow I get statistics professors who decide that every single statistic they're going to use is going to be accompanied by a 15-20 minute speech about how that statistic shows that Democrats are right and Conservatives are wrong. Should that really be allowed? No. She is supposed to be using her class time to teach statistics, not as a promo for the Democrats. Oh and I did issue a complaint about that issue. Anything get done? Nope I was told that as long as the teacher was still teaching the class itself it didn’t matter if she opted to use biased examples and present them as fact.

Likewise whenever a Professor establishes a track record of being biased in their grading they should simply be canned. Period. Set a number, say 3, 4 or 5 and if they exceed that many cases of "The Teacher is biased and has been proven so" the Teacher should simply be unceremoniously fired. Tenure or otherwise the Professor should be fired. Having a shortage of Professors is not an excuse to keep on Professors who jeopardize the future of Students who are paying the College for an education.

Bein a conservative and a 16yrold i feel what is even more of an issue is the blind liberalism of almost all teenagers. Most people I challenge have no idea why they are/vote liberal, they just insist that i'm old fashioned.

Educating young voters is a very important issue, making sure that they actually look into policies and the points of view of the political parties, instead of just trying to "fight the man", which in New Zealand is especially odd seeing as currently "the man" is a liberal government.

Bein a conservative and a 16yrold i feel what is even more of an issue is the blind liberalism of almost all teenagers. Most people I challenge have no idea why they are/vote liberal, they just insist that i'm old fashioned.

Educating young voters is a very important issue, making sure that they actually look into policies and the points of view of the political parties, instead of just trying to "fight the man", which in New Zealand is especially odd seeing as currently "the man" is a liberal government.
Depends on where you live. Go live in the deep south and you'll find the exact opposite.

Why not employ a balance so that young people are exposed to all points of view. Or, hold on here is an idea, allow a slight left bias in colleges to begin to counterbalance the overwhelmingly right wing bias of US media.

http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/MediaBiasBasics.html

Conservatives believe the mass media, predominantly television news programs, slant reports in favor of the liberal position on issues. Most Americans agree, as the data below indicate. Yet many members of the media continue to deny a liberal bias.

Evidence of how hard journalists lean to the left was provided by S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, in his groundbreaking 1980 survey of the media elite. Lichter's findings were authoritatively confirmed by the American Association of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) in 1988 and 1997 surveys. The most recent ASNE study surveyed 1,037 newspaper reporters found 61 percent identified themselves as/leaning "liberal/Democratic" compared to only 15 percent who identified themselves as/leaning "conservative/Republican."

With the political preferences of the press no longer secret, members of the media argued while personally liberal, they are professionally neutral. They argued their opinions do not matter because as professional journalists, they report what they observe without letting their opinions affect their judgment. But being a journalist is not like being a surveillance camera at an ATM, faithfully recording every scene for future playback. Journalists make subjective decisions every minute of their professional lives. They choose what to cover and what not to cover, which sources are credible and which are not, which quotes to use in a story and which to toss out.

Liberal bias in the news media is a reality. It is not the result of a vast left-wing conspiracy; journalists do not meet secretly to plot how to slant their news reports. But everyday pack journalism often creates an unconscious "groupthink" mentality that taints news coverage and allows only one side of a debate to receive a fair hearing. When that happens, the truth suffers. That is why it is so important news media reports be politically balanced, not biased.

The Media Research Center regularly documents the national media's ongoing liberal bias — and has since 1987. For a look at media bias in the last decade, the last year or even last night, check the MRC homepage.

Bein a conservative and a 16yrold i feel what is even more of an issue is the blind liberalism of almost all teenagers. Most people I challenge have no idea why they are/vote liberal, they just insist that i'm old fashioned.

Educating young voters is a very important issue, making sure that they actually look into policies and the points of view of the political parties, instead of just trying to "fight the man", which in New Zealand is especially odd seeing as currently "the man" is a liberal government.
The man is also a woman. It is important we educate young voters, but if young voters beleive that conservatism suppresses their yearning for expression etc (which is basically the definition of the word in a round about way) then you'll find that young voters will continue to vote liberal. Youth means more interest in social welfare, social funding, not business balances which is what right wings focus on. But the same can be said for those who simply grow up in a conservative family, or a patriotic family who beleives the prez is right no matter what, which you can find a fair few of.

I would have to say having teachers who have viewpoints that are different from yours can be a good thing. This bias provides the best conditions in which a person can grow. I do agree with Salvondia that many teachers have biased grading and that it should be a basis to fire a professor. Since grades allow people to measure us, inaccurate and biased grades are dangerous to students. As far as liberal teachers go, it makes quite a bit of sense. I can't recall ever having a conservative history teacher. In subjects like history, it is important that the teacher be subjective because the student is supposed to understand the objective of the material.

Strange, most of mine have been moderate to conservative.


Well, except this year's. He's a former hippie.

As far as liberal teachers go, it makes quite a bit of sense. I can't recall ever having a conservative history teacher. In subjects like history, it is important that the teacher be subjective because the student is supposed to understand the objective of the material.

Are you trying to suggest that Liberals are more apt to be objective than Conservatives?

Regards,
Gaar

A lot of this thread has people talking about having your views challenged etc... That’s frankly a bunch of bullshit had has nothing to do with Bias. Of course your views are supposed to be challenged when you attend University, that is a given. However that line of reasoning would lead to the the conclusion that we should be actively recruiting more Conservative professors so as to actually challenge the views of the majority of the Student body. Right now we’ve got a situation where we have a bunch of Liberal professors who are challenging the views of the minority of the Student body.

So anyway then. Bias is not simply the Teacher and the Student having different views. Bias is allowing that difference in views to affect the Student’s grades. No Professor should ever be allowed to let his personal views affect Students grades. Hell at no point should politics even get brought up in any class outside of history. Yet somehow I get statistics professors who decide that every single statistic they're going to use is going to be accompanied by a 15-20 minute speech about how that statistic shows that Democrats are right and Conservatives are wrong. Should that really be allowed? No. She is supposed to be using her class time to teach statistics, not as a promo for the Democrats. Oh and I did issue a complaint about that issue. Anything get done? Nope I was told that as long as the teacher was still teaching the class itself it didn’t matter if she opted to use biased examples and present them as fact.

Likewise whenever a Professor establishes a track record of being biased in their grading they should simply be canned. Period. Set a number, say 3, 4 or 5 and if they exceed that many cases of "The Teacher is biased and has been proven so" the Teacher should simply be unceremoniously fired. Tenure or otherwise the Professor should be fired. Having a shortage of Professors is not an excuse to keep on Professors who jeopardize the future of Students who are paying the College for an education.

So your statistics Professor uses examples you don't like? Tough. Sounds like she is teaching the class. The fact that you think her examples are biased is irrelevant.

And politics shouldn't be brought up outside history classes? Do any of these ring a bell: political science, sociology, philosophy?

That you even think something should have gotten "done" is Exhibit A as to why these complaints are frivolous.

And, guess what? You are going to get lots of grades you disagree with. You are going to get grades that are unfair that have nothing to do with political bias. You'll get job evaluations you disagree with too. That's life. Sometimes it is not what you agree with. Sometimes it is unfair. Get over it.

EDIT: To clarify, I do not think it is appropriate for anyone to get a poor grade because of bias. I do think it is easy to blame a poor grade on political bias when they grade may be deserved or, fair or not, given for unrelated reasons. Much grading is subjective. As are job evaluations.

Many Conservative politicians as well as students have expressed that college professors in American universities have a strong liberal bias, which influences their students. They charge academia with "indoctrination." This idea of indoctrination is rather silly to me because Communism was accused of the same principle and, really, indoctrination is not brainwashing, but rather, telling the facts from a certain viewpoint. Psychology proves that we're all biased. Both America and Britain describe the Revolutionary War with radically different view. So, in this way, all professors are going to be biased and whenever anyone speaks, especially in a formal classroom, in a church, or on television, there is going to be what could be defined as "indoctrination."

Since American universities have a shortage of professors right now, firing liberal professors is not an option. Even if it's done, more will come through. Some neutral (or Conservative) professors are not going to magically appear out of nowhere. And so, in my opinion, allowing students to sue is not a valid option, when it comes to grades influenced due to bias. A further reason is because, as commonly known in psychology, humans have a strong tendency to rationalize their mistakes. There are many examples, but to restate the most common one: A man is rejected by a woman he's strongly attracted to, but after being rejected, he convinces himself he doesn't like her, that he's too good for her, or that she's a lesbian.

However, despite the fact that the indoctrination argument is poor, I don't doubt that there are some people being discriminated against in colleges. This is a problem. But for every one legitimate case of discrimination, there will be at least a dozen other false claims. The reason lawsuits are not an option are the same reason it would be unrealistic to make it illegal for employers to discriminate against someone's appearance or personality. In principle, it's ethical and a very good idea. In practice, it costs businesses as well as the government a great deal of money, due to frivolous lawsuits, which waste time as well as the taxpayers' money (which we should all recognize, within both sides of the political spectrum).

But, as I said, this is a problem which must be dealt with. So, I propose that major universities which face more than one or two complaints must be legally required to have an ethics committee made up of professors of a variety of political backgrounds, to review appeals on grades, if the person feels they were treated differently because of their beliefs, whether political, scientific, religious, or otherwise. It may be a good idea, however, to limit the ability for students to file complaints to a few select fields of study, to further limit frivolous claims. In other words, hard sciences (biology, mathematics, etc) generally do not have any room for disagreement. However, in fields where prejudice is likely more common, soft sciences or humanities, such as Journalism, Political Science, Philosophy, Theology, etc, these groups should be specifically listed within any such law.

The reason I support the idea of an ethics commitee made up of professors is because it entitles the college to run itself independently, but with just government regulations, rather than requiring a court to make decisions for it. Plus, if a large number of professors review a certain test (or series of tests), it can be fairly clear whether or not there was bias, as although most professors are liberal, a great deal of them are moderate. I'd even go as far to say that most college professors are centrists, constantly using extremely two-sided arguments and dialectic thought to make their points.



AHAHAHAHAH LIBERAL BIAS, that’s a contradiction in terms, in other words these professors, after all that’s no easy job to get i would know my uncle being one, i think it involves a least sitting a PhD. But i digress you generally become a professor after seeing and examine all the points of view finding the true one, and well then teaching that.

This is just the religious right trying to stamp its jackboot on the face on the intellectual community, hell knowing them they’d burn them all down and replace them with theology collages sending us well 700 years back in time.

So your statistics Professor uses examples you don't like? Tough. Sounds like she is teaching the class. The fact that you think her examples are biased is irrelevant.

That you even think something should have gotten "done" is Exhibit A as to why these complaints are frivilous.

And, guess what, your going to get lots of grades you disagree with. You'll get job evaluations you disagree with too. That's life. Get over it.

Funny, I didn't see you address a couple of the questions there.

Would you mind clarifying your position by answering them, because at this point it seems you are ok with teachers lecturing about Liberal values trumping Conservative ones and that it is ok for them to give a biased grade based on those biases...

Is that your position?

Regards,
Gaar

AHAHAHAHAH LIBERAL BIAS, that’s a contradiction in terms, in other words these professors, after all that’s no easy job to get i would know my uncle being one, i think it involves a least sitting a PhD. But i digress you generally become a professor after seeing and examine all the points of view finding the true one, and well then teaching that.

This is just the religious right trying to stamp its jackboot on the face on the intellectual community, hell knowing them they’d burn them all down and replace them with theology collages sending us well 700 years back in time.

That may be all well and good for the "exact Sciences" (i.e. Math, History, Physics, Medicine) but it is another matter entirely for Political and Social Sciences, is it not?

Regards,
Gaar

Funny, I didn't see you address a couple of the questions there.

Would you mind clarifying your position by answering them, because at this point it seems you are ok with teachers lecturing about Liberal values trumping Conservative ones and that it is ok for them to give a biased grade based on those biases...

Is that your position?

Regards,
Gaar

<sigh>

There is no point explaining my position -- which is crystal clear -- to you.

It would be nice if you would not hijack another thread with inanity, but I know that is hopeless.

<sigh>

There is no point explaining my position -- which is crystal clear -- to you.

It would be nice if you would not hijack another thread with inanity, but I know that is hopeless.

Asking you to make a cogent argument to support your position is "hijacking" a Thread?

Asking you to clarify your position on biased Professors giving biased grades in a Forum about Biased College Professors is "Off-Topic", in what manner exactly?

Regards,
Gaar

That may be all well and good for the "exact Sciences" (i.e. Math, History, Physics, Medicine) but it is another matter entirely for Political and Social Sciences, is it not?

Regards,
Gaar

Yes but i seriously doubt thats what their talking about, i imagine what pisses the black shirts off is natural sciences, and all thouse bias evolutionists.

As for political sciences and philosophy and the like professors being bias is a large factor in choosing what university you want to go to, for example pro eu economists and political scientists over here tend to go to LSE (London school of economics) because that’s heavily pro eu (last time i checked) where as others will go to places with Bristol or Durham because its anti - eu (last time i checked)

How about you just learn to think for yourselves?

'unbiased' does not mean 'showing every side of the argument'

there are many, many cases where one side is just dead wrong.

if i raised accusations during the election that john kerry wore a fishbowl on his head regularly, it would not be accepted anywhere.

is that bias, for not showing 'both sides' of the argument?

you claim it is, because all the media is only showing the side of the argument that says he does not wear a fishbowl.



look: creationist/intelligent design has no business in an academic setting unless it can be substatiated with facts.

if you feel insulted enough about having to provide a defense for yourself that you must sue, well, you can't be believing something worth believing anyway. not if you can't back it up.

Nah! It might make you old people feel like you contributed! :p

But you are right, some of the people I learned a great deal were ones I really hated at the time. :)
Kewl. Sometimes your "worst adversary" can be your best teacher. I'll just ignore the first comment. :p

Show me just one bit of worthwhile evidence for Creationism or ID or anything else that you say that liberal proffessors are ignoring, and I will admit it should allowed in schools.


I've been making that challenge for 2 years.


No one has won.


EDIT: Clarification.

I have always had teachers who I didn't agree with on both sides, and I only really argued with them when I wanted to. The best thing a person could do when confronted with this kind of "bias" is listen to what they have to say, compare it with what you believe, research it, and make a decision based upon what you find. After all, if your convictions are strong enough you should be able to look at both sides of the issue rather than flaring up whenever a different opinion than your own, and it might even result in a change for the better.

I've never experienced an issue where I've been graded worse for not agreeing with a professor In fact, most professors (worth learning from) would encourage you to argue with them and present your ideas in a meaningful fashion. This is especially true in liberal arts where there is often no right or wrong answer. Rather, the best answer is one which shows you both understand the material being taught, and then are able to competently (with well-written prose and coherent thesis) argue your point based upon the material taught, and if necessary supplemental research material. If you can win teh argument against the professor while basing it upon real material, most students are rewarded (unless the argument is full of holes or blatant lack of research).

You had me going "right on bradda" up until "Sadly there are many liberal in our university system who are closed minded about ideas other than their own."


You were mistaken into thinking that non-conforming meant adopting liberal values instead of conservative ones - revealing your subconcious political bias. In fact if everyone is liberal and it is widely accepted, and conservative values and opinions are trashed, then the conservative becomes the non-conformist and is to be commended for their bravery in a hostile environment.



Many conservatives full under that label as well.
Agreed, but very few of them are teaching at the university level. Most that do are much more open-minded than their liberal peers out of necessity - double standards which apply to conservatives which do not apply to liberals.


This whole thing of "there aren't enough conservative professors" is pretty lame. If you think College is going to teach you all you will ever know, then you are pretty hopeless.
Two completely different subjects somehow linked in your mind. You are correct however that college is not the end-all be-all of any person's learning experience. Many people do just fine without it.

The one rule of life is to question everything you read or hear.
why? :cool:


.

What, have you never had a good teacher? You are only saying that teachers are incompetent because it is politically convenient for your partisan ass - seriously you are one of the most partisan people on this board, it's disgusting.


Then you freely admit you know nothing about me or my opinions. You take a tongue-in-cheek quote and attempt to attack me with it, disregarding completely the context of my message. Your loathful attack on me displays your sad little hatred of anyone willing to publicly disagree with you - particularly if they are effectively able to demonstrate the fallacy of your weak arguments - as I obviously have judging by your hostility.

You can kiss the most 'partisan' part of my anantomy.

.

I don't see how this is a relevant question. All my professors have said, if you disagree with something and your response is "fuckin' republican," "bleeding heart liberal," or other derogatory political statement, they'll throw you out of class and give you an F for the day/semester. Arguing over something as pathetic as politics is a waste of time. Stop being jingoistic, rhetoric-spewing assholes and analyze information before you label people.

So your statistics Professor uses examples you don't like? Tough. Sounds like she is teaching the class. The fact that you think her examples are biased is irrelevant.

A 20 minute lecture about why Democrats are Right and Republicans are wrong is not "teaching the class." Especially if she refuses to allow the matter be debated. Eh, I finished the class a year ago with an A. She can be as liberal as she wants but you can not do much to affect grades in a math class, though she did try. There was a distinct lack of partial credit on my tests and homework compared to other students.

And politics shouldn't be brought up outside history classes? Do any of these ring a bell: political science, sociology, philosophy?

I'll lump them all together for you. I apologize o so deeply for not listing every single possible class where it could matter :rolleyes:

That you even think something should have gotten "done" is Exhibit A as to why these complaints are frivolous.

You don't think something should be done? Consider a physics class. For 20 minutes your professor decides to lecture on art history when they are supposed to be covering physics. You really think that nothing should be done to fix the situation?

And, guess what? You are going to get lots of grades you disagree with.

Disagreeing with your grade and earning your grade and seperate things.

You are going to get grades that are unfair that have nothing to do with political bias. You'll get job evaluations you disagree with too. That's life. Sometimes it is not what you agree with. Sometimes it is unfair. Get over it.

LOL. "life is unfair, deal with it." What a lovely sentiment. Is that what you would have told blacks during the 50s? "life is unfair, deal with it." No no, you reserve that attitude for people you don't like. You do not pay for a job evulation. You do pay for your education in America. You are entitled to recieving a quality education that is judged fairly.

AHAHAHAHAH LIBERAL BIAS, that’s a contradiction in terms, in other words these professors, after all that’s no easy job to get i would know my uncle being one, i think it involves a least sitting a PhD. But i digress you generally become a professor after seeing and examine all the points of view finding the true one, and well then teaching that.

This is just the religious right trying to stamp its jackboot on the face on the intellectual community, hell knowing them they’d burn them all down and replace them with theology collages sending us well 700 years back in time.

LOL. And Liberals wonder why Conservatives think that people get brainwashed by Professors.

A 20 minute lecture about why Democrats are Right and Republicans are wrong is not "teaching the class." Especially if she refuses to allow the matter be debated. Eh, I finished the class a year ago with an A. She can be as liberal as she wants but you can not do much to affect grades in a math class, though she did try. There was a distinct lack of partial credit on my tests and homework compared to other students.

*snip*

LOL. "life is unfair, deal with it." What a lovely sentiment. Is that what you would have told blacks during the 50s? "life is unfair, deal with it." No no, you reserve that attitude for people you don't like. You do not pay for a job evulation. You do pay for your education in America. You are entitled to recieving a quality education that is judged fairly.

Let's see, you got an A (although you got a "distinct lack of partial credit"). You learned the material. You just don't like the way the class was taught. You complained to the administration and they didn't do what you wanted.

That you would compare your "plight" with that of blacks under segregation says all that needs be said about the validity of your complaint.

Let's see, you got an A (although you got a "distinct lack of partial credit"). You learned the material.

In spite of and not with the aid of the teacher. That is wrong.

That you would compare your "plight" with that of blacks under segregation says all that needs be said about the validity of your complaint.

Its a useful comparison. That you decide to cast it aside and simultaneously ignore other examples says all that needs to be said about the validity of your argument.

If this were middle school or high school teachers we were talking about, then Id say something needs to be done. But this is college we are talking about. College kids are old enough to understand the difference between fact and opinion and that the professors arent always right about everything. Obviously, if they are discriminating against students in their grading schemes due to differences of opinion, something needs to be done, but this rarely happens.

http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/MediaBiasBasics.html

Conservatives believe the mass media, predominantly television news programs, slant reports in favor of the liberal position on issues. Most Americans agree, as the data below indicate. Yet many members of the media continue to deny a liberal bias.

Evidence of how hard journalists lean to the left was provided by S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, in his groundbreaking 1980 survey of the media elite. Lichter's findings were authoritatively confirmed by the American Association of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) in 1988 and 1997 surveys. The most recent ASNE study surveyed 1,037 newspaper reporters found 61 percent identified themselves as/leaning "liberal/Democratic" compared to only 15 percent who identified themselves as/leaning "conservative/Republican."

With the political preferences of the press no longer secret, members of the media argued while personally liberal, they are professionally neutral. They argued their opinions do not matter because as professional journalists, they report what they observe without letting their opinions affect their judgment. But being a journalist is not like being a surveillance camera at an ATM, faithfully recording every scene for future playback. Journalists make subjective decisions every minute of their professional lives. They choose what to cover and what not to cover, which sources are credible and which are not, which quotes to use in a story and which to toss out.

Liberal bias in the news media is a reality. It is not the result of a vast left-wing conspiracy; journalists do not meet secretly to plot how to slant their news reports. But everyday pack journalism often creates an unconscious "groupthink" mentality that taints news coverage and allows only one side of a debate to receive a fair hearing. When that happens, the truth suffers. That is why it is so important news media reports be politically balanced, not biased.

The Media Research Center regularly documents the national media's ongoing liberal bias — and has since 1987. For a look at media bias in the last decade, the last year or even last night, check the MRC homepage.
The majoring of that research was done in the 60's and 70's, which is, by no means, the same as today. It was also more quantitative than qualitative. More liberals may lean left, but how far left? It outright ignores moderates and centrists. Technically, an advocate of classical liberalism (libertarianism) or Ayn Rand's objectivism could've called said they slanted to the left. Even as your signature says, a simple "left-right" scale does not work. I don't dispute that there's liberal bias in the media, but groups like FAIR.ORG have identified the Conservative bias as well. And it seems to me that lines have been drawn recently, on the media, which has highlighted and strengthened this bias. Five years ago, Fox said "Happy Holidays" during December. Last year, they didn't say it once, but instead, "Merry Christmas" every 5 minutes, and they continue to repeatedly run Christian-related program, such as the new documentary on Christ. In the documentary, Bush's brain, one ex-Republican was quoted as saying that Conservatives have accused the media of being liberal for a long time. This makes sense because it allows them to convince their constituents to totally disregard all negative facts about them and their political party.

And regardless, the amount of Conservative Christians telling children homosexuals are evil, that there's a demon that wants to kill them, that Harry Potter is evil, and that they're going to magically disappear during the Rapture within the next 10 years, are far more decieving than the journalists who merely put an ocassional slant in their news. After all, children are far easily fooled than adults, who can think for ourselves. But assuming we're intelligent enough to not be fooled by priests, businesses, or Wall Street, you'd think we'd be intelligent enough to go to college or watch the news without being 'indoctrinated.'

That you would compare your "plight" with that of blacks under segregation says all that needs be said about the validity of your complaint.

Actually, I believe it is a fair question, Authority stepping beyond it's bounds is just that, no matter how it is applied...

What interests me is how, yet again, you dismiss someone’s argument out of hand as if you are some authority on what should be considered in a discussion rather than addressing the question.

We even seem to have some of that around here at times.

Regards,
Gaar

In spite of and not with the aid of the teacher. That is wrong.



Its a useful comparison. That you decide to cast it aside and simultaneously ignore other examples says all that needs to be said about the validity of your argument.

When they start lynching students, sicking the dogs on you, or using the firehouses, you'll start to be in same ballpark. You are not second-class citizens. The comparison is absurd and disgusting.

I recognize there may be bias encountered from time to time. When it effects grades it is a serious issue that universities should deal with. When it is simply a Professor that students disagree with, that is a small price to pay for academic freedom. And none of the examples given in this thread come anywhere close to requiring government intervention.

When they start lynching students, sicking the dogs on you, or using the firehouses, you'll start to be in same ballpark. You are not second-class citizens. The comparison is absurd and disgusting.

I recognize there may be bias encountered from time to time. When it effects grades it is a serious issue that universities should deal with. When it is simply a Professor that students disagree with, that is a small price to pay for academic freedom. And none of the examples given in this thread come anywhere close to requiring government intervention.

Except that I did not make any mention about second-class citizen or government intervention. Never mind that Liberal students have attacked and injured Conservative students in the past and probably still do.

However the point was drawn considering your attitude. There is no excuse to say "sucks that you won't get the fair education that you are paying for, tough, suck it up".

I'm oh so positive that you would be saying that if 90% of your teachers were Conservative and 10% were liberal and you actually had to worry about what you say in Class. Indeed you've ignored the point that given the current climate and the apparent desire and goodness of having your views put in question would call for an active effort to replace Liberal teachers with Conservative teachers.

Except that I did not make any mention about second-class citizen or government intervention. Never mind that Liberal students have attacked and injured Conservative students in the past and probably still do.

However the point was drawn considering your attitude. There is no excuse to say "sucks that you won't get the fair education that you are paying for, tough, suck it up".

I'm oh so positive that you would be saying that if 90% of your teachers were Conservative and 10% were liberal and you actually had to worry about what you say in Class. Indeed you've ignored the point that given the current climate and the apparent desire and goodness of having your views put in question would call for an active effort to replace Liberal teachers with Conservative teachers.

I tried to show some sympathy in my last post. Apparently you'd rather have a pissing contest.

Wake up call, skippy. I am a flaming liberal who went to school in one of the most conservative states in the nation.

Every high school teacher I had that was male was a Bishop in the LDS Church.

I had copies of the Communist Manifesto and (irony) Locke's Second Treatise confiscated by teachers.

I went to an extremely conservative law school. The Con Law professor that the other students all complained was the most liberal prof and unfair was the founder of the local chapter of The Federalist Society. He regularly appeared at other schools as the voice of conservatism.

But I give as good as I get. F**k 'em. I argued all the time. And I graduated top of my class.

There is no comparison whatsoever between being a conservative at a liberal school to like being black in the 1950s. The comparison shows astonishing ignorance about US history, unbelievable self-importance, and despicable callousness.

Learn a little perspective.

(And, BTW, your whining about how tough it is for you stands in sharp contrast for your utter lack of sympathy for others in another thread.)

I'm done discussing this with you, as I'm biting my tongue as is.

Write your Congressman. Maybe she'll hold your hand and walk you to class.

There is no comparison whatsoever between being a conservative at a liberal school to like being black in the 1950s. The comparison shows astonishing ignorance about US history, unbelievable self-importance, and despicable callousness.

Learn a little perspective.

You are the one who needs to learn some perspective I'm afraid. At not point did anyony say the two were directly the same. Only that it questions your concept of "life is not fair, tough it up, you're not entitled to what your paying for."

(And, BTW, your whining about how tough it is for you stands in sharp contrast for your utter lack of sympathy for others in another thread.)

At not point have I "whined about how tough it is for me."

I'm done discussing this with you, as I'm biting my tongue as is.

Oh feel free to un-bite your tongue. It will just make you look like more of an over-reacting fool than you've already done.

Eh, I finished the class a year ago with an A. She can be as liberal as she wants but you can not do much to affect grades in a math class, though she did try. There was a distinct lack of partial credit on my tests and homework compared to other students.
Did other students review your paper, and mention this? Because you, reviewing your own paper, there's a clear bias. Lots of students get questions absolutely wrong, but think it's the teachers fault. Even in high school, where this isn't an issue, students constantly say, "The teacher didn't like me, so he failed me." This is often just the college-version of that.

Except that I did not make any mention about second-class citizen or government intervention. Never mind that Liberal students have attacked and injured Conservative students in the past and probably still do.
I don't think society breaks down college students into 'liberal' or 'conservative', as many of them are still deciding their political stance. That's a very small aspect, defining them. As for the violence bit, in the entire time I've lived in America (born here in '84, that's 20 years), I've never once even heard about acts of violence against Conservatives, by liberals. Please, tell me, what do you base your delusions on?

Are you talkg about the Waco massacre? FBI under clinton = liberals and Christian cults = Conservative?

I mean, you don't see Christians being dragged by pickup trucks, being beat up for being "Sodomites", having crosses set ablaze on their front lawns, or having their offices bombed or shot up, because of the work they do, with abortion. Your persecution complex on Conservatives is unfounded, irrational, and ridiculous. Even Fox News would not make such an outrageous claim.

However the point was drawn considering your attitude. There is no excuse to say "sucks that you won't get the fair education that you are paying for, tough, suck it up".

I'm oh so positive that you would be saying that if 90% of your teachers were Conservative and 10% were liberal and you actually had to worry about what you say in Class. Indeed you've ignored the point that given the current climate and the apparent desire and goodness of having your views put in question would call for an active effort to replace Liberal teachers with Conservative teachers.
I agree there's a lot of bias and this could be a problem, which is why I proposed what I did. But it seems to me that Conservatives aren't even willing to have their grades reviewed by a committee of students and teachers, because, apparently, not only are professors liberal, but so are most college students and there's some huge liberal conspiracy, to take over academia. Pick up a Bible, smack yourself in the head with it, and use some common sense.

If most college students and professors are liberal, doesn't that mean most liberals are more educated? :confused:

And if most liberals are educated, couldn't that mean that liberals' opinions are based more on knowledge and fact, than ignorance and religious bullshit? :confused:

It's a logical trap. Either we're mostly all liberals and you're highly ignorant overall, or we're not mostly all liberals and you're ignorant on this issue. Pick one

(Oh and the fact that Liberals tend to take jobs in humanities fields goes to show you liberals care more about his fellow man. Humanities is, after all, a movement for appreciation for and love of humanity. Whereas, Conservatives tend to become business majors, which shows you that they tend to measure success in dollar signs.)

Did other students review your paper, and mention this? Because you, reviewing your own paper, there's a clear bias. Lots of students get questions absolutely wrong, but think it's the teachers fault. Even in high school, where this isn't an issue, students constantly say, "The teacher didn't like me, so he failed me." This is often just the college-version of that.

Statistics doesn't write papers lol. By simply looking at how I solved the math problem and noting that my only mistake was forgetting a negative which results in the entire problem marked counted as a 0/5 points for the problem. Then by comparing my test to another person who made the same mistake with a different number in the same problem and that student getting 3/5 pts for the problem leads me to consider that the teacher was actively biased.

I don't think society breaks down college students into 'liberal' or 'conservative', as many of them are still deciding their political stance. That's a very small aspect, defining them. As for the violence bit, in the entire time I've lived in America (born here in '84, that's 20 years), I've never once even heard about acts of violence against Conservatives, by liberals. Please, tell me, what do you base your delusions on?

And you weren't paying attention to or experiencing anything really until you were at least 10. Certainly not paying attention to anything about violence between political parties till you were 16-18. In any case on occasion a protest will get violent, or a counter-protest will incite violence against. The people over at protestwarrior have been attacked a few times IIRC.

Are you talkg about the Waco massacre? FBI under clinton = liberals and Christian cults = Conservative?

I mean, you don't see Christians being dragged by pickup trucks, being beat up for being "Sodomites", having crosses set ablaze on their front lawns, or having their offices bombed or shot up, because of the work they do, with abortion. Your persecution complex on Conservatives is unfounded, irrational, and ridiculous. Even Fox News would not make such an outrageous claim.

You need to chill out man.

I agree there's a lot of bias and this could be a problem, which is why I proposed what I did. But it seems to me that Conservatives aren't even willing to have their grades reviewed by a committee of students and teachers, because, apparently, not only are professors liberal, but so are most college students and there's some huge liberal conspiracy, to take over academia. Pick up a Bible, smack yourself in the head with it, and use some common sense.

I'll assume you're talking about the students who don't believe in having a committee reviewing grades. Seeing as I've done that before, with positive results actually.

If most college students and professors are liberal, doesn't that mean most liberals are more educated? :confused:

In terms of academia yes. In terms of understanding of the world? Not really.

And if most liberals are educated, couldn't that mean that liberals' opinions are based more on knowledge and fact, than ignorance and religious bullshit? :confused:

Nope. Ignorance and a lack of facts exist just as much in Academia as it does in the rest of the world. An English degree doesn't mean you are any more likely to base your political views on facts. Nor does an Engineering degree make you an expert on Economic policy and a degree Philosophy doesn't do much but give you good quotes to use on your cardboard sign while you beg for money.

It's a logical trap. Either we're mostly all liberals and you're highly ignorant overall, or we're not mostly all liberals and you're ignorant on this issue. Pick one

I'll take the other option I presented.

(Oh and the fact that Liberals tend to take jobs in humanities fields goes to show you liberals care more about his fellow man. Humanities is, after all, a movement for appreciation for and love of humanity. Whereas, Conservatives tend to become business majors, which shows you that they tend to measure success in dollar signs.)

Measuring success in terms of cash means you're not compassionate? Meanwhile taking journalism or English makes you compassionate? Hogwash.

Yeah, CBS is right wing.If if compare it to the rest of the News Organizations, yes it is.

and their coverage of the Afghan and Iraq war was poor(to say the least).

If they are biased liberal professors we should tar and feather them and run them out of town. If they are biased conservative professors we should hold them up for praise and then fall down in worship of their greatness. This kind of hypocrisy should be accepted by everyone. I have absolutely no facts or evidence to support this postion and it is obviously rediculous.

*sits back and waits for people to post indignant replies*

If they are biased liberal professors we should tar and feather them and run them out of town. If they are biased conservative professors we should hold them up for praise and then fall down in worship of their greatness. This kind of hypocrisy should be accepted by everyone. I have absolutely no facts or evidence to support this postion and it is obviously rediculous.

*sits back and waits for people to post indignant replies*
Isn't it funny that "preaching" and "indoctrinating" are the same action, but we percieve them totally differently?

(Oh and the fact that Liberals tend to take jobs in humanities fields goes to show you liberals care more about his fellow man. Humanities is, after all, a movement for appreciation for and love of humanity. Whereas, Conservatives tend to become business majors, which shows you that they tend to measure success in dollar signs.)

Wake up, little boy. This is capitalism. In a capitalist system, value is measured in currency. What makes a Ferrari better than say, a Honda Civic? Price. Ferraris breakdown far more often, get far worse gas mileage, are a bitch to repair and find parts for, aren't necessarily as well built, require lots of maintenence and upkeep, and don't last nearly as long as the Civic, but are regarded MUCH higher because they cost more. Same as a house, when you hear that a house costs a million dollars, you think, "wow, that's a nice house!" And you haven't even seen it or been in it. Or how about a job? No one here wants to aspire to become a fast food worker as a career. You want a high-tier job. Why? To rake in that six-or-seven figure job salary. So boo-hoo, cry me a river, build me a bridge.

Christ... we trust our Government to teach stuff to our kids for 12 years, then we have the gall to get into a snit when the private education sector has some manner of bias? Why is it so few people in these arenas fail to mention that the state government babysits us from ages 6 to 18?

At any rate, suggesting that we as a whole "do something" about "biased professors" seems to imply to me that the central notion here is that we should somehow change the way these people think or teach. Bollocks to that, let them do their job: its your own goddamn responsibility to formulate your ideas an opinions about the world; not the professor's. Don't come whining the me because you're an incurable liberal, whining about how your college prof tormented your fragile conservative sensibilities with his bleeding heart BS. Grow a skin. Learn how to defend your point of view. Don't let other people decide what you think.

Wake up, little boy. This is capitalism. In a capitalist system, value is measured in currency.
Are a CEO's opinions more "valuable", because he gets paid more?

Is a rich person's life more "valuable", then, because they have more wealth?

No, money is measured in currency. "Value" is measured by the things we care about and appreciate. Many of those things can't be measured in currency.

What makes a Ferrari better than say, a Honda Civic? Price. Ferraris breakdown far more often, get far worse gas mileage, are a bitch to repair and find parts for, aren't necessarily as well built, require lots of maintenence and upkeep, and don't last nearly as long as the Civic, but are regarded MUCH higher because they cost more.
Can you buy me looove?

Are a CEO's opinions more "valuable", because he gets paid more?

Is a rich person's life more "valuable", then, because they have more wealth?

No, money is measured in currency. "Value" is measured by the things we care about and appreciate. Many of those things can't be measured in currency.

No, but he/she is held in a higher position in life because of their status/income. Don't we look down on the homeless and downtrodden? Why, because they have no job, they don't produce, thusly they don't have value. If they died, it would have no repercussions, but if you kill off a Manager or high-ranking person, serious repercussions would result. They have much VALUE to a company. All goods are measured in money, that's how they have value. Everything from food and water to a 60'' Plasma television has value. It is measured quantitatively in currency.

Can you buy me looove?
I could easily make a sarcastic reference involving diamonds, a woman, and a man, but I won't ;) If you have a love for fine wine, the way to fulfill it is to BUY it with currency. The wine's value is whatever you are willing to fork over for the dramatically overinflated grapes.

But also, aren't a professional's opinions on things better and worth more than a high school dropout's? Obviously so, since companies and businesses PAY them more for their opinions. Wouldn't you rather have a doctor that went through college and is certified doing work on you than Dr. Quack? They difference is he PAYED to go to college. You value him because of it, and his salary reflects it. But he has a higher standpoint because he is licensed.

If they are biased liberal professors we should tar and feather them and run them out of town. If they are biased conservative professors we should hold them up for praise and then fall down in worship of their greatness. This kind of hypocrisy should be accepted by everyone. I have absolutely no facts or evidence to support this postion and it is obviously rediculous.

You're right it is. Because so far all we've got is people saying that professors who allow their bias to affect their students grades should be fired. That would include Professors who are biased towards either end of the spectrum.

Measuring success in terms of cash means you're not compassionate? Meanwhile taking journalism or English makes you compassionate? Hogwash.


Measuring success in cash makes you need compassion. I'm afraid I'd feel incredibly empty and alienated living that way.
At least people studying journalism and English tend to have connections with other human beings. I prefer speaking to people who are interested in people than to speaking to someone interested in just things or money. Just me.

Measuring success in cash makes you need compassion. I'm afraid I'd feel incredibly empty and alienated living that way.
At least people studying journalism and English tend to have connections with other human beings. I prefer speaking to people who are interested in people than to speaking to someone interested in just things or money. Just me.

Huh? A Business degree isn't in the Letters of Arts and Sciences anymore? It is not in the Humanities either? Huh? A Business degree is the study of people and how they interact. Measuring success in terms of cash doesn't make you "need compassion" seeing as you can measure success in terms of Cash and be very compassionate. Meanwhile you can measure success in terms of your family and your happiness and be a cold as ice asshole who isn't the least bit compassionate.

Measuring success in cash makes you need compassion. I'm afraid I'd feel incredibly empty and alienated living that way.
At least people studying journalism and English tend to have connections with other human beings. I prefer speaking to people who are interested in people than to speaking to someone interested in just things or money. Just me.

So what you study determines what you personal interests are?

There aren't people who are compassionate that have money?

Hmmmm....

I wonder why they donate large portions of their money to Charities then? Or is that not "real" compassion, in your eyes, because they simply provided someone with sustenance rather than a shoulder to cry on?

Give me a break...

That's a pretty broad brush you use to paint people you don't agree with.

Regards,
Gaar

What makes a Ferrari better than say, a Honda Civic? Price. Ferraris breakdown far more often, get far worse gas mileage, are a bitch to repair and find parts for, aren't necessarily as well built, require lots of maintenence and upkeep, and don't last nearly as long as the Civic, but are regarded MUCH higher because they cost more.

Not all of us are interested in a Ferrari. Id rather have a Honda Civic myself.


Same as a house, when you hear that a house costs a million dollars, you think, "wow, that's a nice house!" And you haven't even seen it or been in it.

Again, speak for yourself. Alot of us are knowledgable enough to know that the price of a house includes factors such as location. A really crappy house in the vicinity of Bel-Air or Silicon valley is way overpriced. Alot of us would reserve an opinion until we've seen it.


Or how about a job? No one here wants to aspire to become a fast food worker as a career. You want a high-tier job. Why? To rake in that six-or-seven figure job salary. So boo-hoo, cry me a river, build me a bridge.

Again, speak for yourself. What makes you think that everyone aspires to have a job with a six figure salary? We dont. If that were the case, no one would study to be a school teacher or social worker. But NEWSFLASH! lots of people do.

Hmm....it seems like not all of us value money as much huh?

A left bias! That's nothing...until a few years ago my college had under its employ a statistics teacher (male) who thought women couldn't do math and he would never give them a grade above a C, no matter how well they did. Doesn't that make you sick. They never fired him because he had tenure. I'm so glad he was gone before I got there because I would have unleashed hell.

Haha damn I wish my girlfriend would've gotten to him.... 100% in grade 11 math... that would've been funny, she would've been proving him wrong!

Now, back on the subject, I agree with one of the first posters that this cancels out the right-wing bias in the media, therefore this liberal bias is good.

And for thoes of you who want a reason for it? Colleges attract intelligent people, who are naturally liberals! :p

Do Nothing. Keep an open mind as to what they are saying, but don't just believe the words of professors are law. In worst case scenarios, tell them what they want to hear and don't argue. Luckily, in a business college I have a few Republican professors.

Haha damn I wish my girlfriend would've gotten to him.... 100% in grade 11 math... that would've been funny, she would've been proving him wrong!

Now, back on the subject, I agree with one of the first posters that this cancels out the right-wing bias in the media, therefore this liberal bias is good.

And for thoes of you who want a reason for it? Colleges attract intelligent people, who are naturally liberals! :p

And thus, you show your own biases (as well as a rather strange and bewildering process of comparison...) I suppose, compared with, say, The Seattle Weekly or Pravda, the mainstream media has a Conservative bias... (If you don't get the Weekly, you could try The Rocket, or the Stranger... or, if you're one of those sad folks who don't live in the Crapital Hill District of Seattle, you could just substitute any of a number of extreem-Leftist rags with the hooker ads in the back pages, where the most moderate Column in the whole thing is Dan Savage giving sex advice, or the reviews by the much-abused Heavy Metal editor)

But... To the rest of us, the Mainstream media is quite liberal in slant.
More than the average, most of the time.

Back on subject:

Lemme put it this way: I'm not paying Rush Limbaugh to teach Chemistry or Statistics... I shouldn't have to pay someone who wants to be the Rush of the Left to teach Chemistry or Statistics unless that's what they're Actually going to DO. sitting in a Prerequisite Class (that's a Class you MUST take for a given Degree programme) and spending half of it listening to Professor Stridently rant about the 2000 Presidential Election when the subject-title and Syllabus says we're supposed to be doing something utterly unrelated in any way to the 2000 Presidential Election, That's a ripoff. It would be the same with a Right-Winger pulling the same crap. Difference is, Right-Wingers can't get away with it-but Lefties can.

Special-Interest Lib is uninteresting, it's off-topic, it does not belong in the classroom, unless the subject of the Class is special-interest lib.

The problem here, and the subject here, is when a Professor brings his or her brand of advocacy (right OR left) into classrooms where it does not belong, and where said prof. uses the power of their position to decide who gets a grade, and who does not-not based on classroom or homework performance, but on how well said student can parrot Professor Stridently's particular brand of special-interest advocacy.

Haha damn I wish my girlfriend would've gotten to him.... 100% in grade 11 math... that would've been funny, she would've been proving him wrong!

Eh? Grade 11 math? What subject is that anyway?

Now, back on the subject, I agree with one of the first posters that this cancels out the right-wing bias in the media, therefore this liberal bias is good.

Right-whuhw bias in the Media? hehehehe. Joke, right? Fox = right wing. Virtually everyone else = Left wing. The Media is biased, depending on the station, in both directions.

And for thoes of you who want a reason for it? Colleges attract intelligent people, who are naturally liberals! :p

Congratulations. You've proved yourself to be an idiot.

I suppose our good capitalists could go to the private college of their choice with conservative professors.

Now, back on the subject, I agree with one of the first posters that this cancels out the right-wing bias in the media, therefore this liberal bias is good.

And for thoes of you who want a reason for it? Colleges attract intelligent people, who are naturally liberals! :p

Right-wing bias in the Media... ROTFLMFAO!!!!

I'm pretty sure we have already dispelled that myth.

And for those who believe they are being taught by the "best and brightest" might I suggest that you are merely getting those who couldn't "make-it" in the "real-world"...

You know what they say... Those that can, do... Those that can't, teach.

Now I don't really believe such nonsense, just as I don't believe that Colleges only attract the best and brightest. Just pointing out the "fallacies" that reside on both sides of the Issue.

Regards,
Gaar

All education is biased by virtue of the fact that human beings teach it. You cannot police bias out of education unless you do it by robot then it is not educating anyone merely training them to repeat facts. Bias is part of human society and cannot be irradicated. Even babies show bias. We can however make the score more even in terms of how marks are awarded by having anonymous submition. All work is in print with an indipendently allocated number instead of a name and marked blind by the Professors/teachers that may illiminate some bias but you will always get the professor who hates the number 7 for instance :D

No, but he/she is held in a higher position in life because of their status/income. Don't we look down on the homeless and downtrodden? Why, because they have no job, they don't produce, thusly they don't have value If they died, it would have no repercussions, but if you kill off a Manager or high-ranking person, serious repercussions would result. They have much VALUE to a company. All goods are measured in money, that's how they have value. Everything from food and water to a 60'' Plasma television has value. It is measured quantitatively in currency.
Well then, Ayn Rand, you cannot produce anything for me and neither can most people I meet, really, so, because of that, are all people worthless to me? Are your parents only valuable because they've taken care of you and will eventually give you inheritance? No.

There is a major problem with the "capitalization" of humanity. Because it's okay in the economy, but it tends to grow beyond that to where we treat eachother according to gain\loss, rather than with trust and kindness. An old lady gets mugged, we just keep walking. A woman gets stabbed multiple times outside of an apartment building, several dozen people watch, and no one even bothers to call the police (this was in the news, actually). This apathy is truly damaging to society. It rips society apart more than any non-Christian religion ever could. And then, the only issues we truly care about, are the arbitrary matters concerning others, that we're convinced to believe, from political propaganda. Isn't it odd how most liberals and conservatives tend to think along partisan lines? If we're all so unique, why do stay within such strict borders? We are ideologically brainwashed, whether intended or not.

This same philosophy of Hedonism and Objectivism is the worst thing to ever happen to the world, worse than any holocaust, massacre, or crime there's ever been. Because it isn't just a crime within itself, but it re-writes the rules to promote narcissistic, selfish behavior. It teaches that you don't need to be kind, when you have nothing to gain. That's something all religious leaders of the world would disagree with. Because money does not bring happiness or fulfillment. Kindness and purpose do.

Money does not bring purpose. I suggest any fool who believe this to read the Christian Gospels, "A Christmas Carol", or the story of the life of Buddha. Money has no value. Yes, it brings pleasure within the moments that we live--but when you're close to death, what value does money have? You can give it to your children, yes, but would that benefit you? Even assuming it benefits you, eventually, those children will die. They'll consume what you'd given them and your geneological line would most likely be lost. Or.. even worse.. If you have no children, how can a Hedonist have any meaning at all? No tribute to the world and no love. You see, you can't expect to change the rule of the universe which states that everything can and will change. The only thing permanent in this world is that nothing is permanent, especially money.

"A Christmas Carol" by Charles Dickens might be a better example, though. He gathered up treasures and found people worthless, if he could not gain wealth from them. So, he grew old, cast aside the love of his life, and was miserable. No, Ayn Rand's philosophy (very similar to yours) of the virtue of independence is wrong. Money only has worth if you have someone worthy of sharing it with. As the Beatles and many people have said, and as it should be obvious, you can't buy love. And although it takes many forms, that's truly the only thing which gives life meaning.

And enjoying the taste of wine is not love. If that's your definition of love, I pity you, just as I'd pity anyone who has no appreciation of their fellow man. People who act like Oliver Twist's foreman disgust me--how they can look down on others, not seeing that could be them or someone they know, someday, is senseless. In psychology, there's something called, "belief in a just world", which explains this irrational thinking. When we see someone in pain, we don't like to think that life is unfair, because then it might be unfair to us. So, instead, we delude ourselves into thinking it is. When a woman is raped, the jury is convinced that she wore a provocative dress, so she invited it. A homeless man is on the street, so you automatically assume he deserves it. Prisoners are tortured and we think, "Well.. They're all terrorists that deserve it." And it's not always true.

[snip]
Isn't it odd how most liberals and conservatives tend to think along partisan lines? If we're all so unique, why do stay within such strict borders? We are ideologically brainwashed, whether intended or not.
[snip]


I agree with the rest of your post, but it happens to be a pet peeve of mine when people make over generalized statements and then cannot back them up. Prove to me that most liberals and conservatives tend to think along partisan lines.

Then, prove to me that this is the result of ideological brainwashing, and not the result of the parties adjusting to fit the views of its members.

Demographics. A large majority of people of certain religions, races, or financial status, tend to consistently vote for one party. And also, although there's no specific data to back this up, it's my observation that whenever there's a debate over an issue in the media, there's always two extremes. CBS practically asks for Schiavo's head on a plate, whereas Fox thinks she should be proclaimed a martyred saint.

There's very, very little disagreement. It seems almost like if Republicans proclaim, "A IS B!", then Liberals would proclaim, "No! A is NOT B!", and vice-versa. The only thing close to actual complete agreement they've had, is the Patriot Act, both when they passed it and now that they want to not renew it.

Demographics. A large majority of people of certain religions, races, or financial status, tend to consistently vote for one party.


So? Your statement was that they agree with everything the party believes, not that they vote for people of a particular party. Of course they vote for people whose party most represents their point of view, this does not mean they agree with everything that party says.


And also, although there's no specific data to back this up, it's my observation that whenever there's a debate over an issue in the media, there's always two extremes. CBS practically asks for Schiavo's head on a plate, whereas Fox thinks she should be proclaimed a martyred saint.

There's very, very little disagreement. It seems almost like if Republicans proclaim, "A IS B!", then Liberals would proclaim, "No! A is NOT B!", and vice-versa. The only thing close to actual complete agreement they've had, is the Patriot Act, both when they passed it and now that they want to not renew it.

Well, duh. Of course you arent seeing any disagreement from the media pundits. Thats because they hire people to take a particular perspective and they expect them to project those views. Thats why Tucker Carlson left crossfire, he wanted the ability to disagree with the party he was hired to represent.

Not only have you failed to give any evidence whatsoever that your statement might be true, but you also have not addressed the other possibility. That people agree with the parties that represent them because the parties adjust to the views of its members.

So? Your statement was that they agree with everything the party believes, not that they vote for people of a particular party. Of course they vote for people whose party most represents their point of view, this does not mean they agree with everything that party says.



Well, duh. Of course you arent seeing any disagreement from the media pundits. Thats because they hire people to take a particular perspective and they expect them to project those views. Thats why Tucker Carlson left crossfire, he wanted the ability to disagree with the party he was hired to represent.

Not only have you failed to give any evidence whatsoever that your statement might be true, but you also have not addressed the other possibility. That people agree with the parties that represent them because the parties adjust to the views of its members.
I think you're somewhat right. But it's a bit of both. People have a tendency to conform, even with the ways that they think. Psychology proved this with the Asch line study. If everyone agrees that something obviously false is true, then any small, undecided minorites also agree it's true. So, I think partially we're led to follow either one flock or the other, although it doesn't completely remove independent thought and they do, somewhat, pander to their constitutents.

But at the same time, I wonder why they constantly just contradict eachother. I only wish we had three major parties in the United States, instead of two.

Well then, Ayn Rand, you cannot produce anything for me and neither can most people I meet, really, so, because of that, are all people worthless to me? Are your parents only valuable because they've taken care of you and will eventually give you inheritance? No.

Well, Hippie, unlike you, I produce. And just because I don't produce anything for you, doesn't mean I don't produce. So, if someone works at an auto plant, but you don't buy cars from there, they are too worthless? I work for a business that truly needs me, that's why they hired me. I provide an invaluable service to them. If I didn't, they'd throw me out. And to say my parents are only valuable because they've taken care of me is UTTER bullshit. They work, to this day. They are desperately needed people who go to work every day they are needed and work overtime if needed. They BOTH provide services that make them imperative for the smooth running of business and personal relationships. Both of them are complimented for their work, not only by fellow workers, but the customers themselves. THEY produce, not for you, but most of the city in which they live in. So, fuck off with derogatory personal statements. You don't know me, nor my parents.

An old lady gets mugged, we just keep walking. A woman gets stabbed multiple times outside of an apartment building, several dozen people watch, and no one even bothers to call the police (this was in the news, actually). This apathy is truly damaging to society. It rips society apart more than any non-Christian religion ever could. And then, the only issues we truly care about, are the arbitrary matters concerning others, that we're convinced to believe, from political propaganda. Isn't it odd how most liberals and conservatives tend to think along partisan lines? If we're all so unique, why do stay within such strict borders? We are ideologically brainwashed, whether intended or not.

Why do you think this happens? Because there's a chance if we get involved, we could suddenly become a suspect. It's the idealogies of unwashed, unemployed, worthless hippies that ruin society. Look at any country that doesn't "value" money. The women are treated as little more than a trade commodity, the mothers are illiterate, pop out many times as many children, and are starving to death. Who do they cry for? US! The "rich-but-socially-poor-modernized countries."

\
US news media is NOT overwhelmingly right wing.

No, it's just overwhelmingly crappy.

Well, Hippie, unlike you, I produce. And just because I don't produce anything for you, doesn't mean I don't produce.
Well then, mentally-challenged people don't produce anything. Should we euthanize them, then?

So, if someone works at an auto plant, but you don't buy cars from there, they are too worthless? I work for a business that truly needs me, that's why they hired me. I provide an invaluable service to them. If I didn't, they'd throw me out.
Okay, so are monopolies worth more than a family's small business? Let's say one corporation dominated every industry that exists--would their owner's life be worth more than anyone in the world?

And to say my parents are only valuable because they've taken care of me is UTTER bullshit. They work, to this day. They are desperately needed people who go to work every day they are needed and work overtime if needed. They BOTH provide services that make them imperative for the smooth running of business and personal relationships. Both of them are complimented for their work, not only by fellow workers, but the customers themselves. THEY produce, not for you, but most of the city in which they live in. So, fuck off with derogatory personal statements. You don't know me, nor my parents.
It was an attack on your philosophy, not your person. You asserted that people should be judged according to their currency value. I attacked that (and still am) by showing how there are people who have little or no currency value, but still have worth. After your parents can no longer produce, should they be 'disposed' of, because they're worthless? No. Every human being has value.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal."
-Declaration of Independence

If you feel that corporate CEOs should have the right to be political dictators and that the wealthy's lives are worth more than others then, by all means--move to Saudi Arabia and have fun with your oppressive greed.

Another thing I'd like to say is that when you use the word 'produce', there are many things which cannot be quantified, but that human beings still 'produce.' Kindness, compassion, friendship, trust. These are all things mankind produces and are required for society to remain stable, but they can't be bought or quantified.

And your Objectivism view of wealth is flawed. People used to have the incorrect view that all wealth is distributed. Ayn Rand, however, stated that all wealth is produced, because wealth is simply usage of resources. The truth, though, is a balance between both. Resources are distributed (precious metals, oil, etc), wealth is produced from that, and then it is distributed. To say wealth is just this magical thing that you can constantly produce is idiotic. When you look at any industry, every industry depends on certain raw materials and they're connected almost like an ecosystem. Think: How many businesses use paper or steel? Quite a lot.

Well, if you use up all the resources within a specific industry, that industry collapses. In turn, other businesses struggle from it as well. There is absolutely no industry which has "unlimited resources", just some that would take a long time to use. But when you look at things like oil--if we aren't intelligent enough to have renewable resources, then the industry-collapse mentioned above is inevitable. While it's true that a free-market economy, without welfare or a minimum wage, is definitely the strongest, that doesn't make it the most ethical. Sure, sweatshops are very efficient places. They "produce" quite a lot. That doesn't make them humane.

Why do you think this happens? Because there's a chance if we get involved, we could suddenly become a suspect. It's the idealogies of unwashed, unemployed, worthless hippies that ruin society. Look at any country that doesn't "value" money. The women are treated as little more than a trade commodity, the mothers are illiterate, pop out many times as many children, and are starving to death. Who do they cry for? US! The "rich-but-socially-poor-modernized countries."
During the Feudal period, a time of a truly "free-market economy", the rich were oppressive and corrupt, and anyone who wasn't rich was treated as nothing short of a commodity. A "producer", as you might say. Before governments were formed to regulate business and society, we were just as uncivilized as those people in foreign countries are, today. Those countries you're talking about, those people aren't poor by choice and they certainly aren't lazy. In a story I'd read, south american immigrants built a makeshift boat to sneak into America through Puerto Rico, into Florida. It takes a lot of guts and hardwork to sail that far. Well, during the voyage, they got lost and over half of them starved to death. These people aren't lazy, they aren't coddled like the American youth or the wealthy. They are human beings in suffering, being ignored by a decadent, apathetic nation.

Okay, so are monopolies worth more than a family's small business? Let's say one corporation dominated every industry that exists--would their owner's life be worth more than anyone in the world?

Even through gross extrapolation, how did you manage to conclude with that answer? There is NO factory that is a monopoly. Capitalism ensures this. When the invisible hands of demand and competition don't exist, it's no longer capitalism. Would you rather live in a 1984-style life? Everyone there is EQUAL, you all get wealth and goods equally. There is no such thing as consumerism, commercial products, and if you step out of line, you disappear, removing the modern-day problems of crime. But hey, everyone is equal and just. No one worries about wealth. A "utopia," right? No crime, no social statification, nothing.

You asserted that people should be judged according to their currency value.

Show me a line where I explicitly said people are judged only by currency.

If you feel that corporate CEOs should have the right to be political dictators and that the wealthy's lives are worth more than others then, by all means--move to Saudi Arabia and have fun with your oppressive greed.

As I said one quote up, show me where I said that.

During the Feudal period, a time of a truly "free-market economy", the rich were oppressive and corrupt, and anyone who wasn't rich was treated as nothing short of a commodity.

Get your facts straight. How could you possibly say that that was a free market economy? Feudal lords charged whatever price they wanted for goods. That was little more than slavery. It didnt matter what the demand was, or what socioeconomic situations were. There is no capitalism there. Therefore, it is completely irrelevant.

And do you know why those Cubans, or Latin descent people, come to America? For a better life and standard of living. How do you increase standards of living? Income, which buys medicines, goods, food, etc. We give them that. Their standard of living is unfathomably higher in the US than their former country. They are the most hard working people of all. Look at how much they produce. Just check the statistics on how much pink/blue collared workers contribute to the country's GNP. If you don't like it, move to the middle of Africa or Southeast Asia, I'll bet you'll feel great there. :rolleyes:

Before governments were formed to regulate business and society, we were just as uncivilized as those people in foreign countries are, today.
Did I say explicitly that governments should approach a completely leissez-faire approach to business? NO. Humans ARE and WILL always be "uncivilized."
Stop putting words in my mouth.

The topic of this is about biased college professors. How about we return to that? College professors have the right to teach how they please. They have the credentials, in the form of a MS or Ph.D. in the field they are teaching.

Then you freely admit you know nothing about me or my opinions. You take a tongue-in-cheek quote and attempt to attack me with it, disregarding completely the context of my message. Your loathful attack on me displays your sad little hatred of anyone willing to publicly disagree with you - particularly if they are effectively able to demonstrate the fallacy of your weak arguments - as I obviously have judging by your hostility.

All your posts are "the left this, bastard liberals that", even where it is not called for. I've seen your other posts and i know that you are an extremely partisan person. If I'm hostile maybe it's because of the hypocrisy that you relentlessly display?

Back to the subject, care to explain why teachers are useless? I found your assertion that "those who can't, teach" to be both offensive and flat-out wrong.

There's very, very little disagreement. It seems almost like if Republicans proclaim, "A IS B!", then Liberals would proclaim, "No! A is NOT B!", and vice-versa. The only thing close to actual complete agreement they've had, is the Patriot Act, both when they passed it and now that they want to not renew it.
Why do you say Liberals instead of Democrats? Why do you capitalise the L in liberals?

The topic of this is about biased college professors. How about we return to that? College professors have the right to teach how they please. They have the credentials, in the form of a MS or Ph.D. in the field they are teaching.

And if you don't like the professor, drop the course. That's what everyone does.