NationStates Jolt Archive

From the Indy Star, June 26, 2005


Yes, it's true. If you're a left wing professor with tenure, you can keep all the right wing males off the tenured list - forever. I've always wondered how people who insist that college is a place where you will see a wide variety of viewpoints and who say that there is nothing wrong with the current system can justify the following events. I'm sure that if right wing male professors were keeping left wing women out of position, there would be an uproar. But evidently, rules made by the left NEVER apply to it.

Professor enmeshed in flap over collegiality

William C. Bradford is a patriot, a veteran and an Apache Indian.

But is he "collegial"?

More on that in a bit. He fought in Desert Storm and Bosnia-Herzegovina, served as a major in the U.S. Army Special Forces and received the Silver Star.

Now the 39-year-old legal scholar is engaged in a battle on the home front -- political correctness in academia.

In 2001, Bradford was hired as an associate professor at Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis. His expertise is international law, federal Indian law and national security/foreign relations law. He has four degrees, including one from Harvard Law.

But he's under fire, he said, because his ideas about the war on terror do not conform to views held by Professors Mary Harter Mitchell, 52, and Florence Wagman Roisman, 66.

They are tenured, a status Bradford is seeking. Bradford said the two women have voted consistently to deny him tenure, despite good academic ratings.

In March 2004, he said, he was told during a review that someone described him as "uncollegial."

That's the new kiss-of-death buzzword. "Faculty seeking to get rid of others claim they are not collegial," Bradford said.

Bradford wrote a defense of the flag after 9/11 -- one that hung in the school lobby until some faculty objected.

He refused to sign a letter sent by Roisman defending Ward Churchill. He's the Colorado professor who called victims of 9/11 "little Eichmanns."

Roisman would not comment specifically on Bradford's collegiality or lack thereof. She denied his politics was the issue.

Professor Henry Karlson, a respected senior faculty member, finds Bradford collegial and more. "He's perhaps the finest young man we have recruited."

But, yes, there is a problem. "Some members of the faculty, for reasons I cannot ascertain, are trying, for lack of a better term, to drive him away."

Students have voted Bradford their favorite teacher.

Mitchell long has been an anti-war activist. She did not return three calls on Friday.

Roisman said she is a proud member of the left. "I am a person of very progressive politics," she said. "Everybody there would tell you I am the most to-the-left person (on the faculty.)"

In winter 2003, Roisman made news for objecting to a tree with ornaments in the school lobby. After it was removed, she successfully lobbied against a new display -- an Indiana winter scene.

Then-Dean Tony Tarr weathered that storm, then resigned in 2004.

The new, interim dean is Susanah Mead, a longtime faculty member.

On Friday, Mitchell and Roisman threw a party for Mead. Only women faculty and staff were invited. Mead acknowledged she heard some rumblings about sexism.

Bradford laughed. "If a male dean came in, and only male faculty held such an event, can you imagine the outrage?"

There he goes again -- being uncollegial.

Ruth Holladay's column appears Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday. You can reach her at (317) 444-6405 or via e-mail at ruth.holladay@indystar.com

I'm not one to lose my temper but....am I the only one outraged by this?

I'm not one to lose my temper but....am I the only one outraged by this?

No.

So you point to one university and say there aren't conservatives in academia? That's unfair, to say the least. There are plenty of them. And most universities don't take the same stance as this one does.

Not only that, but this article presents only circumstancial evidence in an attempt to portray an particular point of view. There has to be more evidence than there is in this article for the other side's point of view. Because academics just aren't that stupid.

Of course, Legs. Don't you get it? Conservatives are too practical and rascist for "intellectual" settings like College Campuses. There, we only want to talk about theories regarding the possibility of the Proletariat Revolution.
You silly conservatives need to go and do something unproducttive, like run a business or something.

:p

So you point to one university and say there aren't conservatives in academia?

No, that's not what I said. so it's not unfair.
And most universities don't take the same stance as this one does.
There are some who do.
Not only that, but this article presents only circumstancial evidence in an attempt to portray an particular point of view. There has to be more evidence than there is in this article for the other side's point of view. Because academics just aren't that stupid.
IMHO, most academics in non-science departments are that stupid, and more, on a regular basis.

So you point to one university and say there aren't conservatives in academia? That's unfair, to say the least. There are plenty of them. And most universities don't take the same stance as this one does.

Not only that, but this article presents only circumstancial evidence in an attempt to portray an particular point of view. There has to be more evidence than there is in this article for the other side's point of view. Because academics just aren't that stupid.



But there is increasing sentiment towards the virtual persecution of conservatives in academenia. This is not an isolated incident, I hear of things like this all the time. For me, this is the straw that has broken the camel's back.

So you point to one university and say there aren't conservatives in academia? That's unfair, to say the least. There are plenty of them. And most universities don't take the same stance as this one does.

Not only that, but this article presents only circumstancial evidence in an attempt to portray an particular point of view. There has to be more evidence than there is in this article for the other side's point of view. Because academics just aren't that stupid.

1. All people are stupid in that they sometimes make stupid mistakes. Academics are no exception to this. Neither am I.

2. Yes, the article is biased.

3. Yes, it is wrong to discriminate against people when hiring them because they are "uncollegial," whatever that bullshit is supposed to mean.

4. There is (generally) a leftist bias in academia. Most people in the US would call me a liberal, and I can still see it. It just doesn't bother me all that much because if people can recognize the bias (and they apparently can for the most part), then they can deal with it on their own by filtering for it.

This is a state school, is it not?

Can the state legislature (or governor) of Indiana do something about this horseshit... like fire the two objectionable professors if they have no valid, academics-related reasons for their dislike of the guy, or go over them to guarantee him tenure?

My opinion: I would be outraged if Whipsering Legs hadn't posted it, but since he did - disregard as partisan propaganda, true or not, and move on

healthy attitude

Ihatevacations']My opinion: I would be outraged if Whipsering Legs hadn't posted it, but since he did - disregard as partisan propaganda, true or not, and move on

That's right. If the Left ever does something to violate its own rules and edicts, we'll look away and say there's nothing to see.

I'm not one to lose my temper but....am I the only one outraged by this?
No! So much for "progressive" politics. As I have been at great pains to point out ever since I began posting on here, this sort of pseudo-intellectual snobbery is rife in the rarefied atmosphere of the elitist left. It's always been this way, and probably always will be this way until the self-styled "progressives" have all died and gone to wherever it is they go after shuffling off this mortal coil.

And people wonder why their children are being brainwashed by so-called institutions of "higher learning." :rolleyes:

And people wonder why their children are being brainwashed by so-called institutions of "higher learning." :rolleyes:

It's not just the fault of the elitist left. The parents who don't care to teach their kids to be independent thinkers are at fault as well.

I think in general there is not a bias at the universities I've been to. I am currently on exchange to Europe, and I"ve found this university to be extremely conservative.

In general though, there's assholes in all departments, and a lot of times faculty politics are pretty brutal. I know a proffessor, a gay man, who was hired into the women studies faculty at my home university, and then absolutely crucified by the other (radical feminist) proffessors. SO it does happen, on occasion. However, if this guy is good, and he publishes a bunch, he should have no problem finding another job. It's just office politics: sometimes you get screwed.

No, that's not what I said. so it's not unfair.
So is the point of this article just to have a pity fest for this one guy? Or is it to illustrate a greater point about academia? If it's the second, then my criticism applies. If it's the first, then there isn't much to discuss besides the fact that there's no non-circumstancial evidence in this article to prove that he's a victim of persecution.

There are some who do.
Some subsection of every group does bad things. That's not a revelation.

IMHO, most academics in non-science departments are that stupid, and more, on a regular basis.
Coming from someone who lives with academics every single day and discusses the community on a regular basis, I'd say I'm fairly qualified to say you're wrong. And need some evidence.

It's not just the fault of the elitist left. The parents who don't care to teach their kids to be independent thinkers are at fault as well.
Agreed.

Coming from someone who lives with academics every single day and discusses the community on a regular basis, I'd say I'm fairly qualified to say you're wrong. And need some evidence.

I spent time among academics between 1978 and 1983, and again from 1991 to 1994. That was enough for me (at University of Virginia, George Mason University, Marymount University, American University, George Mason Law, and George Washington University.

I can also say, that among the PhDs I've met in my current line of work, most of them are completely devoid of any common sense, and are as disconnected from reality as I can possibly imagine.

Presuming any of this article is correct, it is more evidence of a tenured proffesor with a stick up her ass than it is anything else. Left and right is just the dressing for this...unless you're making political hay, in which you'll blow an ancedotal situation into something bigger than it is...but no one would be that intellectually dishonest, now would they...

"William C. Bradford is a patriot, a veteran and an Apache Indian."

Two of those groups ( veterans and racial groups ) are protected by anti-discrimination law. If I were Professor Bradford, I would sue the university, the tenure board, and both of the individual professors involved for unlawful discrimination and raise the biggest stink since God was born!

Agreed.

Ah. Agreement on the forum. Something we don't see enough of these days. ;)

No.
Same here

No! So much for "progressive" politics. As I have been at great pains to point out ever since I began posting on here, this sort of pseudo-intellectual snobbery is rife in the rarefied atmosphere of the elitist left. It's always been this way, and probably always will be this way until the self-styled "progressives" have all died and gone to wherever it is they go after shuffling off this mortal coil.

And people wonder why their children are being brainwashed by so-called institutions of "higher learning." :rolleyes:
I want your evidence and/or first-hand experience. Because guess what? Most of the professors I deal with on an everyday basis are intelligent, open-minded people who listen to other persepectives, even if they come from people who are less qualified than they are. The people who aren't like that are annoying, granted, but they're outnumbered.

And children aren't being brainwashed. My opinions are entirely my own. The test for that is whether someone can provide credible evidence/make logical arguments and not just repeat assertions, just so you can judge in the future.

Not only that, but long before the myth you cite was originated, the percentage of people with the highest degree of education who were liberal was extremely high. Why? I won't outright say it, but the implication and the statistics are there.

Further, it's actually conservatives that support students with similar viewpoints rather than liberals. Conservative institutions spend over six times the amount of money on helping conservative students and grooming them politically then liberals do for like-minded students. There's a whole network where conservative students can meet the leaders of their movement. Liberals have nothing even comprable.

That's right. If the Left ever does something to violate its own rules and edicts, we'll look away and say there's nothing to see.
I disagree with this; however, sicne you posted it is is obviously a partisan attempt to villify people (specifically the left), not point out the problem itself. Here's an idea, next time, get some one that isn't so obviously partisan to post these topics for you (hint: not Eutrusca or Corneliu)

Not only that, but long before the myth you cite was originated, the percentage of people with the highest degree of education who were liberal was extremely high. Why? I won't outright say it, but the implication and the statistics are there.
Careful. Your elitism is beginning to show. :rolleyes:

I'm not one to lose my temper but....am I the only one outraged by this?

No. Damn, leftists piss me off!

Ah. Agreement on the forum. Something we don't see enough of these days. ;)
:D

I spent time among academics between 1978 and 1983, and again from 1991 to 1994. That was enough for me (at University of Virginia, George Mason University, Marymount University, American University, George Mason Law, and George Washington University.

I can also say, that among the PhDs I've met in my current line of work, most of them are completely devoid of any common sense, and are as disconnected from reality as I can possibly imagine.
A classroom atmosphere is different from talking to them as individuals, which where I'm coming from (and what's more relevent to the discussion of the article). You see them as aloof because that's what a lecture hall is, by definition. That's a problem with the system, not the individuals. Talk to them as people, not professors, even about the ideas, and you get a better idea of who they are.

As for your last paragraph, professors != PhDs. We're talking about professors. And the professors I see in situations where practical knowledge is supreme are just as comfortable there as they are in academic circles.

Careful. Your elitism is beginning to show. :rolleyes:

But it's a statistical fact: the more educated a person is, the more likely he is to be politically 'liberal'. It's not elitism, it's the truth.

Careful. Your elitism is beginning to show. :rolleyes:
So, someone provides evidence for a claim (then, admittedly, acts slightly snotty about it) and then you call them elitist? That doesn't make very much sense to me.

But it's a statistical fact: the more educated a person is, the more likely he is to be politically 'liberal'. It's not elitism, it's the truth.

Then let's hope we educate as few people as possible! :D

Careful. Your elitism is beginning to show. :rolleyes:
I'm sorry, this particular line of thought shouldn't be hard to grasp

Traditionally more education = more % liberalism. Hmm, so if we continue upon this line of thought we get to...

And people wonder why their children are being brainwashed by so-called institutions of "higher learning." :rolleyes:

And what about military and veteran being brainwashed by the army to be warmonger supporter? The social pressure that could influence your opinion is much bigger in the army than it could be on any campus.

Then let's hope we educate as few people as possible! :D
Think about the irony in that statement for a bit.

Education is the acquisition of knowledge and grasp of facts.
People with education tend to me more liberal.
People with more knowledge tend to be more liberal.
Therefore, people shouldn't have knowledge.

I want your evidence and/or first-hand experience. Because guess what? Most of the professors I deal with on an everyday basis are intelligent, open-minded people who listen to other persepectives, even if they come from people who are less qualified than they are. The people who aren't like that are annoying, granted, but they're outnumbered.

Open-minded? I'm sorry, but in my experience with all of humanity (thousands of people from all over the US and the rest of the world including many academics), I've met about two people I could truly call open-minded. Neither of them were academics, and only one was highly educated in the traditional sense. For the most part, people are close-minded regardless of politics or education.

And children aren't being brainwashed. My opinions are entirely my own. The test for that is whether someone can provide credible evidence/make logical arguments and not just repeat assertions, just so you can judge in the future.

Ah. Operating exclusively from a rationalistic framework. How incredibly open-minded.

Not only that, but long before the myth you cite was originated, the percentage of people with the highest degree of education who were liberal was extremely high. Why? I won't outright say it, but the implication and the statistics are there.

Yes they are. Whether they indicate what you seem to be implying they indicate is another matter. There are far too many factors involved for solid conclusions to be drawn from such statistics other than the fact that highly educated folks tend to be liberal, which certainly does nothing to counter the claims of liberal bias in academia.

Further, it's actually conservatives that support students with similar viewpoints rather than liberals. Conservative institutions spend over six times the amount of money on helping conservative students and grooming them politically then liberals do for like-minded students. There's a whole network where conservative students can meet the leaders of their movement. Liberals have nothing even comprable.

Ah. Reminds me of people claiming that since black people are the ones who have the most support organizations devoted to them they must be doing better than everybody else.

Think about the irony in that statement for a bit.

Education is the acquisition of knowledge and grasp of facts.
People with education tend to me more liberal.
People with more knowledge tend to be more liberal.
Therefore, people shouldn't have knowledge.

I was joking. ;)

Oh this is nothing. They actually have their process screened now to where a conservative cannot even get hired in the first place. That way they can make a phoney claim that if you are very intelligent you will automatically lean to the left.
Of course in their defense, they have to do something to make it appear as though they belong in their job. Affirmative action and hiding from the draft do not tend to lend credibility. They must create it. What they are about to accomplish is the same thing other teachers have to go through now to get or keep their jobs. They can pretty much kiss tenure goodbye in the next few years. They are sooo stupid, they just can't figure out when to leave well enough alone.

And what about military and veteran being brainwashed by the army to be warmonger supporter? The social pressure that could influence your opinion is much bigger in the army than it could be on any campus.
At least they're honest and up-front about it, and don't hide behind some specious "academic freedom" myth.

EDIT: And the military has to train soldiers, not social workers. That's not teaching them to be "warmongers," it's a purely practical matter of being self-disciplined and survival-oriented.

This doesn't add anything, but I tried to find out a little more about this and found that William C. Bradford is a oddly common name-

There is the one we're talking about (http://indylaw.indiana.edu/people/profile.cfm?Id=126). (Does anyone know how long it takes to get tenure normally? I would have thought it took more than 4 years, but thats based on almost nothing). There's the time he was a visiting prof. (http://www.wm.edu/law/facultyadmin/faculty/bradford-913.shtml) for William and Mary ("only" lists three degrees).

Nothing, including in Google news, on his tenure battle...

But then, there is this (http://www.kenyon.edu/x14451.xml) William C. Bradford who was also a vet and worked in education sort of at Mcgraw Hill.

This (http://www.americanwriters.org/writers/bradford.asp) William Bradford was a Puritan sepratist who helped formed the Mayflower. (there is irony there somewhere...maybe not...kinda a stretch...)

An OBGYN (http://lancaster.citysearch.com/profile/8797513/lancaster_pa/bradford_william_c_md_eden_park_ob_gyn_associates.html)

And, it looks like, and editor (http://textbook-authors.abebooks.co.uk/Author/543012/Thomas+L+Berger+William+C+Bradford+Sidney+L+Sondergard.html) for collections of plays.

So the real lesson, since I can't get any more information on this, is that if your last name is Bradford, name your kid William and he will have an interesting and accomplished life.

Remove the tax funding from the Universities and there is no longer a problem. Stuff like this doesn't happen at Devry.

No! So much for "progressive" politics. As I have been at great pains to point out ever since I began posting on here, this sort of pseudo-intellectual snobbery is rife in the rarefied atmosphere of the elitist left. It's always been this way, and probably always will be this way until the self-styled "progressives" have all died and gone to wherever it is they go after shuffling off this mortal coil.

And people wonder why their children are being brainwashed by so-called institutions of "higher learning." :rolleyes:

Actually that should be better referred to as, "Institutions of Lower Living"

This doesn't add anything, but I tried to find out a little more about this and found that William C. Bradford is a oddly common name-

There is the one we're talking about (http://indylaw.indiana.edu/people/profile.cfm?Id=126). (Does anyone know how long it takes to get tenure normally? I would have thought it took more than 4 years, but thats based on almost nothing). There's the time he was a visiting prof. (http://www.wm.edu/law/facultyadmin/faculty/bradford-913.shtml) for William and Mary ("only" lists three degrees).

Sometimes people can go up for tenure within three years, though to my knowledge that's very rare.

So the real lesson, since I can't get any more information on this, is that if your last name is Bradford, name your kid William and he will have an interesting and accomplished life.

You crack me up sometimes, man. :D

I read that letter and honestly, it didn't surprise me at all. I go to a university in California, csub if anyone doubts me, and I admittingly say the school is almost intollerably left. I say almost because my bio professor is perhaps the only democrat I respect politically. He is very much a dem, but he lets other people think what they want. In fact, right before the election, when someone tried to tell everyone that they needed to be a patriot and go see farenheit 911, he snapped at them and told them nobody has the right to tell anyone how to feel about politics. He's a great guy. However,

I remember one time when an islamic teacher I had was trying to chastize the American people for not tollerating islam. Yes, we were so intollerant we let him be a teacher at a university, and then took his class. Also, apparently muslims believe that muslims can't be American?

Also, although I don't have any problem with it, there are all sorts of posters during the end of the calendar year trying to get people to go to this filipino club's kabaigan (sp?) festival, which I guess is the filipino thanksgiving. However, we can't even wish people a merry Christmas. Honestly, who gets offended at being wished a merry Christmas?

Come to think of it, although I haven't had classes from every professor, I can't think of a single openly republican professor there. The democrat professors are allowed to post bumper stickers and comics making fun of the president, and there are a few campus republican clubs, but any posters or flyers about them or bush get vandalized. Let's be honest, college campuses and professors generally aren't conducive to someone thinking conservatively.

That professor should sue for discrimination. Normally, no judge would sympathize with him, but if I read right and he's native American, he can get heard based on that. He should say "first those professors take my land, now they take my tenure!" It's politically correct.

Open-minded? I'm sorry, but in my experience with all of humanity (thousands of people from all over the US and the rest of the world including many academics), I've met about two people I could truly call open-minded. Neither of them were academics, and only one was highly educated in the traditional sense. For the most part, people are close-minded regardless of politics or education.
Well, then you're being strict about the definition of open-minded. I think of it as people who listen to the opinions of others and don't just dismiss them out of hand because they're different. For example, someone who opposed the Iraq war, after the elections in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories said that "Bush may have been right." This person's profession? You guessed it; liberal academic.

Ah. Operating exclusively from a rationalistic framework. How incredibly open-minded.
Don't just try to be clever at the expense of argument. I'd be willing to listen to a defense of irrational argument. You're essentially arguing that any statement of opinion is close-minded. Guess that cuts into your credibility in the first thread.

Yes they are. Whether they indicate what you seem to be implying they indicate is another matter. There are far too many factors involved for solid conclusions to be drawn from such statistics other than the fact that highly educated folks tend to be liberal, which certainly does nothing to counter the claims of liberal bias in academia.
You missed the past tense. This statstic was true long before the current political age, where people just started accusing academia of having a liberal bias. It's not a bias.

Ah. Reminds me of people claiming that since black people are the ones who have the most support organizations devoted to them they must be doing better than everybody else.
The point is that conservatives are, in fact, a major part of academia. I didn't make the claim that there are more conservatives than liberals there. In fact, the crux of my argument depends on the facts being the other way around.

During the Vietnam war, college students were generally exempt from the draft ( I have mixed feelings on that, but whatever. ). So, many of our, shall we say "less socially responsible" citizens would stay in college as long as possible. Often this meant that they wound up not wanting to leave college at all. So they became professors, got tenure, stayed in their ivory towers, and now "teach" young, impressionable minds.

In one way this is a plus. At least it keeps them off the streets and out of trouble, mostly. It also gives academia a left-leaning bias, which provides a nice balance against the tendency of most Americans to be rather conservative ( especially when compared to most Europeans, for example ). Balance, generally speaking, is good. Where it fails us is when a vital portion of those who provide the balance are so unfamiliar with reality that they are only marginally functional as members of society.

But it's a statistical fact: the more educated a person is, the more likely he is to be politically 'liberal'. It's not elitism, it's the truth.

I am going to frame this one. It will come in handy later when they are whinning and sniveling, "but why."

For anyone interested in the latest liberal scam at our universities I highly recommend watching the movie called Brainwashing 101. It is of course free but quite large and almost a full length documentary exposing several of these institutions for what they really are.

http://academicbias.com/bw101.html

Well, then you're being strict about the definition of open-minded. I think of it as people who listen to the opinions of others and don't just dismiss them out of hand because they're different. For example, someone who opposed the Iraq war, after the elections in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories said that "Bush may have been right." This person's profession? You guessed it; liberal academic.

I did the same thing, and I'm not a liberal academic. I don't really see how either example really proves anything.

And yes, I do have a very strict definition of open-minded. :)

Don't just try to be clever at the expense of argument. I'd be willing to listen to a defense of irrational argument. You're essentially arguing that any statement of opinion is close-minded. Guess that cuts into your credibility in the first thread.

I'm not making an argument, just a point. No conclusions need to be drawn from my statements so that you can do a lovely reductio. Aside from which, hypocrisy is not a fallacy, and I wouldn't care even if it were.

Besides which, "first thread?" I'm not quite sure what that means. :confused:

You missed the past tense. This statstic was true long before the current political age, where people just started accusing academia of having a liberal bias. It's not a bias.

Hmmm. Though I don't think we can conclude bias from the statistics, I don't think you can legitimately exclude the possibility of bias either.

The point is that conservatives are, in fact, a major part of academia. I didn't make the claim that there are more conservatives than liberals there. In fact, the crux of my argument depends on the facts being the other way around.

And I never asserted that you made the claim that there are more conservatives. What bothered me was the suggestion that conservatives have some sort of special support system and thus must be doing just fine. The fact is that people don't usually set up support systems for those who don't need it (except perhaps in the case of government corruption).

It doesn't even bother me that I see a liberal bias in academia because quite frankly there's a conservative bias most other places and they need a healthy opposition. What bothers me more is the elitism and condescension I see in many (not all) professors and administrators, whether in personal or clasroom settings.

Sickening but I'm not surprised. Good post Whispering, that needed to be brought to attention here.

I did the same thing, and I'm not a liberal academic. I don't really see how either example really proves anything.

And yes, I do have a very strict definition of open-minded. :)
The point is that academics too have open minds.

Fair enough.

I'm not making an argument, just a point. No conclusions need to be drawn from my statements so that you can do a lovely reductio. Aside from which, hypocrisy is not a fallacy, and I wouldn't care even if it were.

Besides which, "first thread?" I'm not quite sure what that means. :confused:
First thread meant first paragraph. My bad.

I just don't think it's closeminded to state my opinion on a subject. To say that's the absolute, only way to do if someone brings up another one would be closeminded.

Hmmm. Though I don't think we can conclude bias from the statistics, I don't think you can legitimately exclude the possibility of bias either.
I tend to disagree, but that's not a really resolvable issue.

And I never asserted that you made the claim that there are more conservatives. What bothered me was the suggestion that conservatives have some sort of special support system and thus must be doing just fine. The fact is that people don't usually set up support systems for those who don't need it (except perhaps in the case of government corruption).
No, that makes sense.

It doesn't even bother me that I see a liberal bias in academia because quite frankly there's a conservative bias most other places and they need a healthy opposition. What bothers me more is the elitism and condescension I see in many (not all) professors and administrators, whether in personal or clasroom settings.
I tend not to get that condescension vibe, even when discussing academic matters, among more than a small percentage of academics I talk to. You may have had a different experience than I do. Which is fine.

The point is that academics too have open minds.

I never claimed that there were no academics who are open-minded (though I probably wasn't as clear as I should have been), so fair enough. :)

First thread meant first paragraph. My bad.

Heh. No biggie. I figured it was something like that, given that you usually make a lot of sense.

I just don't think it's closeminded to state my opinion on a subject. To say that's the absolute, only way to do if someone brings up another one would be closeminded.

It wasn't stating your opinion that I saw as closeminded. You could state that you like pink fluffy bunnies flying around your head and I wouldn't call you closeminded for it. It was the apparent asumption that correctness is based in logic/reason/evidence that seemed close-minded.

I tend to disagree, but that's not a really resolvable issue.

Fair enough.

No, that makes sense.

How so?

I tend not to get that condescension vibe, even when discussing academic matters, among more than a small percentage of academics I talk to. You may have had a different experience than I do. Which is fine.

Query: Why would you get the condescension vibe if you largely agree with their point of view?

And yes, I apparently have had different experiences. :)

Heh. No biggie. I figured it was something like that, given that you usually make a lot of sense.
Thanks :D!

It wasn't stating your opinion that I saw as closeminded. You could state that you like pink fluffy bunnies flying around your head and I wouldn't call you closeminded for it. It was the apparent asumption that correctness is based in logic/reason/evidence that seemed close-minded.
Yes, there was that assumption. I just think that believing that isn't inherently closeminded, and neither is stating that belief. It would be closeminded to assert that alternate viewpoints on the issue can never be correct. I would listen to an argument from that perspective. Perhaps there's a lot to it.

How so?
Oh, ha. I was agreeing with you. You were right.

Query: Why would you get the condescension vibe if you largely agree with their point of view?
Because we were arguing - about an arcane philosopher, no less.

And yes, I apparently have had different experiences. :)
Fair enough.

Thanks :D!

I like you. If this wasn't the internet I'd shake your hand. :)

I like you. If this wasn't the internet I'd shake your hand. :)
You too :p!

Not only that, but long before the myth you cite was originated, the percentage of people with the highest degree of education who were liberal was extremely high. Why? I won't outright say it, but the implication and the statistics are there.

Um... they're unable to apply their degrees in the open market, and therefore Academia is the only career possible for them besides flipping burgers and waiting tables? ISTR that a lot of people hid from the Draft by staying in college after getting their bachelor's, ("College Deferments") in the 1960's. This was particularly popular among the wealthier sort of spoilt-brats.

Lots of hours in class doesn't equate to intelligence or honour, it equates to lots of hours in class. Most conservatives (THat's "MOST") are in college to get the skills/certifications necessary to go out and make $$$ on the open market. Most IDEALISTS and such are in college to be in college.

I have just sent 2 kids through college, one private and one state. Colleges most certainly ARE left-leaning. If they lean any harder they are going to fall over.

But once in a while the leftward lean gets them in trouble:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Department_of_Defense_denies_federal_funding_to_schools_that_ban_military_recruiting

Okay.
1. Show me at least 2 Marxists on the same american university. Impossible, huh? But am i running around whining about how unfair that is? NO!
2. Uh, he fought in a war, now he can do everything, because he´s a hero. Hey, i killed people too, pass me that cup of coffee your holding. What, you´ve paid for it. But i want it, im a hero, i killed people!
3. I think his uncollegiality has nothing to do with political views.

But it's a statistical fact: the more educated a person is, the more likely he is to be politically 'liberal'. It's not elitism, it's the truth.



there's a certain degree of ideological malleability (lol) among students... so much so that if you start with liberal professors, some of their liberalness is bound to rub off on their students... some of those students will pursue and obtain PhDs.

so you see... they were made liberal by liberal professors and became liberal professors themselves.

in my case, the only professor who changed my mind about anything was my Criminology prof, who showed us how the death penalty makes no sense whatsoever.

that was undergrad... then I went and got an MBA, which had very little liberal bias (for obvious reasons).

But it's a statistical fact: the more educated a person is, the more likely he is to be politically 'liberal'. It's not elitism, it's the truth.

That works the other way, too, you know. The more uneducated they become, the more likely they are to have more liberal tendencies. And in Ohio, according to a poll - possibly inaccurate, as almost all polls are - by my local paper, which is generally more left-leaning, conservatism is more common among people that have received higher education until you get to the doctorate level.

that was undergrad... then I went and got an MBA, which had very little liberal bias (for obvious reasons).
That's really the unspoken key to just about all of it. Your Womens Studies or African American Literature proffesor is more than likely going to be liberal-are we really going to comb the country trying to find the 8 that aren't? Even the idea that those should be subjects is liberal. Business proffesors are going to be conservative.

But for all this yelling and screaming and what so far as been merely ancedotal evidence (worthless) when I went to college I learned about, uh, FILM. Because that's what I studied. And when I was a music major I learned about MUSIC. I don't know, maybe I'm silly looking at college as a place to learn rather than the political indoctrination factory. And conservatives playing the victim in all of this-seems to go against message.

My deli has a liberal bias, I'm forced to eat a liberal ham on rye....

That works the other way, too, you know. The more uneducated they become, the more likely they are to have more liberal tendencies. And in Ohio, according to a poll - possibly inaccurate, as almost all polls are - by my local paper, which is generally more left-leaning, conservatism is more common among people that have received higher education until you get to the doctorate level.
I remember people posting this crap all during the election, that it was a dip-MAs where conservative and high school/PhDs where liberal. That's what I remember people posting. I never checked the actual statistics or how they where gathered because the whole thing seemed kinda silly and I never wanted to get into it.

But it's a statistical fact: the more educated a person is, the more likely he is to be politically 'liberal'. It's not elitism, it's the truth.

For some reason, I wouldn't be supprised if you would be the same kind of person that, in a debate on racial "issues," would get pissed off at me when I said that, say, blacks are statistically more prone to crime than whites. You would say that I was a white supremacist. I could state countless scenarios.

**to the right-wingers here: am I the only one who noticed this?**

Not to mention the fact that the demographics from the last presidential election did not display a huge margine between voters, even up into the higher educational levels. There was definately not enough to justify your already hypocritcal elitism, anyways. This isn't even counting those who didn't got to college, but went into business. (This is much harder to measure, so i wont go into it)

I remember people posting this crap all during the election, that it was a dip-MAs where conservative and high school/PhDs where liberal. That's what I remember people posting. I never checked the actual statistics or how they where gathered because the whole thing seemed kinda silly and I never wanted to get into it.

I wasn't posting here back then, but the way it generally works, at least in Ohio, is as follows:

High School Drop-Out - more liberal
High School Graduate - about the same
College Graduate: Associate - more conservative
College Graduate: Bachelor - more conservative
College Graduate: Master - about the same
College Graduate: Doctorate - more liberal

Maybe the statistics have changed in the last couple years, but I would be suspicious of them swinging too strongly in either direction in such a short time.

I wasn't posting here back then, but the way it generally works, at least in Ohio, is as follows:

High School Drop-Out - more liberal
High School Graduate - about the same
College Graduate: Associate - more conservative
College Graduate: Bachelor - more conservative
College Graduate: Master - about the same
College Graduate: Doctorate - more liberal

Maybe the statistics have changed in the last couple years, but I would be suspicious of them swinging too strongly in either direction in such a short time.
Yeah, that looks familiar, including the vagueness and lack of original source. I never really got into it because as I said, I thought that line of argument was silly. (on both sides) I'm not entirely sure, even, what it's supposed to prove. Never is there any indication of how close those numbers are or a reflection of what those people studied or any of the number of other factors that could go into all of it. I just think it's a dead end.

Here's a 2004 Poll off of CNN, to back up what I said somewhat.

VOTE BY EDUCATION llllllllllllllllllllllllBUSHllllllKERRY NADER

No High School (4%)llllllllllllllllllllllllllll49%llllllll50%lllllllll0%

H.S. Graduate (22%)llllllllllllllllllllllllllll52%llllllll47%lllllllll0%

Some College (32%)llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll54%llllllll46%lllllllll0%

College Graduate (26%)lllllllllllllllllllllll52%lllllll46%lllll1%

Postgrad Study (16%)lllllllllllllllllllllllllll44%llllll55%lllllll1%

But it's a statistical fact: the more educated a person is, the more likely he is to be politically 'liberal'. It's not elitism, it's the truth.

liberal != left

Two seperate concepts.... Leftists are far from liberal...

Yeah, that looks familiar, including the vagueness and lack of original source. I never really got into it because as I said, I thought that line of argument was silly. (on both sides) I'm not entirely sure, even, what it's supposed to prove. Never is there any indication of how close those numbers are or a reflection of what those people studied or any of the number of other factors that could go into all of it. I just think it's a dead end.

See above, with respect to the quoted post... but, yes, I agree, it's pointless to argue. What you are politically has very little to do with your education, it has to do with how you were raised. Most people end up like their parents, unless they loathed their parents, in which case they sometimes turn out oppositely. Then there are the people like me, whose parents were political opposites, and turn out relatively centrist.

That's really the unspoken key to just about all of it. Your Womens Studies or African American Literature proffesor is more than likely going to be liberal-are we really going to comb the country trying to find the 8 that aren't? Even the idea that those should be subjects is liberal. Business proffesors are going to be conservative.

But for all this yelling and screaming and what so far as been merely ancedotal evidence (worthless) when I went to college I learned about, uh, FILM. Because that's what I studied. And when I was a music major I learned about MUSIC. I don't know, maybe I'm silly looking at college as a place to learn rather than the political indoctrination factory. And conservatives playing the victim in all of this-seems to go against message.

My deli has a liberal bias, I'm forced to eat a liberal ham on rye....

was that ham stolen from someone and given to someone else?

if yes, then yes, you are eating a liberal ham on rye. hehe

BTW
I was in UW's Concert Choir and our director was prolly liberal, coming from the northeast... but she was pretty cool so I let it slide. lol

Here's a 2004 Poll off of CNN, to back up what I said somewhat.

VOTE BY EDUCATION llllllllllllllllllllllllBUSHllllllKERRY NADER

No High School (4%)llllllllllllllllllllllllllll49%llllllll50%lllllllll0%

H.S. Graduate (22%)llllllllllllllllllllllllllll52%llllllll47%lllllllll0%

Some College (32%)llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll54%llllllll46%lllllllll0%

College Graduate (26%)lllllllllllllllllllllll52%lllllll46%lllll1%

Postgrad Study (16%)lllllllllllllllllllllllllll44%llllll55%lllllll1%
Now see? Those figures are too close for anything to be said, really. I mean if it was like 75% of Advanced degrees where one way or another that'd be one thing, but these are the kinds of numbers you'd get from flipping coins.

Now see? Those figures are too close for anything to be said, really. I mean if it was like 75% of Advanced degrees where one way or another that'd be one thing, but these are the kinds of numbers you'd get from flipping coins.

Yeah, I know, I agreed with you in the reply after that...

So, someone provides evidence for a claim (then, admittedly, acts slightly snotty about it) and then you call them elitist? That doesn't make very much sense to me.
No. It's your snotty, elitest "PhDs and professors tend to be liberal, so liberals are smarter" implications to which E was referring.

You can play all the "definition of IS" wordgames you want. You still show yourself to be of the elitest liberal mindset.

BTW...there IS something to the tennet of "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."... especially when it comes to liberal academics. If any of the majority of them had to get a real job in the real world, they'd shit themselves.

No. It's your snotty, elitest "PhDs and professors tend to be liberal, so liberals are smarter" implications to which E was referring.

You can play all the "definition of IS" wordgames you want. You still show yourself to be of the elitest liberal mindset.

BTW...there IS something to the tennet of "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."... especially when it comes to liberal academics. If any of the majority of them had to get a real job in the real world, they'd shit themselves.

Well said.

Yeah, I know, I agreed with you in the reply after that...
I just caught that. Sorry. But I did want to staple that conclusion to those numbers. I think we (you and I) made our point then..:D

No. It's your snotty, elitest "PhDs and professors tend to be liberal, so liberals are smarter" implications to which E was referring.

You can play all the "definition of IS" wordgames you want. You still show yourself to be of the elitest liberal mindset.

BTW...there IS something to the tennet of "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."... especially when it comes to liberal academics. If any of the majority of them had to get a real job in the real world, they'd shit themselves.
Hey, you try teaching sometime and come back and say that. It isn't easy.

(Besides, most of the teachers I've known have already worked for quite a long time and are now teaching either for research (eg, they have more freedom to research without monentary pressure) or just because they like doing it)

Yeah, that looks familiar, including the vagueness and lack of original source. I never really got into it because as I said, I thought that line of argument was silly. (on both sides) I'm not entirely sure, even, what it's supposed to prove. Never is there any indication of how close those numbers are or a reflection of what those people studied or any of the number of other factors that could go into all of it. I just think it's a dead end.
Just an interesting statistical bit. I heard about it on NPR, which is awfully hard to link to.

No. It's your snotty, elitest "PhDs and professors tend to be liberal, so liberals are smarter" implications to which E was referring.

You can play all the "definition of IS" wordgames you want. You still show yourself to be of the elitest liberal mindset.

BTW...there IS something to the tennet of "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."... especially when it comes to liberal academics. If any of the majority of them had to get a real job in the real world, they'd shit themselves.
An academic institution is the only way to support a lot of the studies that those proffesors do. Proffesors don't just teach classes, they do research and studies in their field, publish and speak at symposiums. There is not a private industry where this can get done. They are 'doing' and an academic institution is the only place to 'do' what they do. Anthropologists tend to work out of universities because Nike doesn't pay to find bones.

Hey, you try teaching sometime and come back and say that. It isn't easy.

(Besides, most of the teachers I've known have already worked for quite a long time and are now teaching either for research (eg, they have more freedom to research without monentary pressure) or just because they like doing it)

I do teach, it is easy. Granted, I tutor, so I only get the really stupid kids that the teachers can't even handle. Maybe that's why it's so easy. (sarcasm)

<snip>
If any of the majority of them had to get a real job in the real world, they'd shit themselves.

You could extend that thought a little farther:

if some of the ultra-liberal posters on NS had to get a real job, they'd shit themselves.

A lot of them seem to be living at home or having dad put them through school.

Hey, you try teaching sometime and come back and say that. It isn't easy.

(Besides, most of the teachers I've known have already worked for quite a long time and are now teaching either for research (eg, they have more freedom to research without monentary pressure) or just because they like doing it)
You will notice I didn't say "ALL" in my post. I fully recognize that there are a growing number of teachers that are coming into academia after years of working in the real world.

I was referring to the elitest (usually leftist/liberal) academics that have done nothing in the real world and went straight from high school to college to teaching/professorship. They tend to be some of the most out-of-touch idiots on the planet. Since they've had little or no dealings with the real world, they teach theories as fact, even though they could never work in the real world. Example: pure communism. Need I say more?

No. It's your snotty, elitest "PhDs and professors tend to be liberal, so liberals are smarter" implications to which E was referring.
You actually misunderstand what I implied. My implication was that people with more education tend to be liberal, thus when you learn more, your views swing left. It was an implication. It's debatable whether it's true.

You can play all the "definition of IS" wordgames you want. You still show yourself to be of the elitest liberal mindset.
No, I was stating a stastical fact. Read all you want into it - that doesn't change what I said.

BTW...there IS something to the tennet of "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."... especially when it comes to liberal academics. If any of the majority of them had to get a real job in the real world, they'd shit themselves.
What does "real job" and "real world" mean? Do you deny the value of higher education and academic research?

Further, I can come up jobs for most type of academics:
Humanities: Policy think tanks, business management, high school teaching, government jobs.

Sciences and Mathematics: Business R&D, Government R&D, etc.

I don't think anyone will argue about medical or law school teachers.

You will notice I didn't say "ALL" in my post. I fully recognize that there are a growing number of teachers that are coming into academia after years of working in the real world.

I was referring to the elitest (usually leftist/liberal) academics that have done nothing in the real world and went straight from high school to college to teaching/professorship. They tend to be some of the most out-of-touch idiots on the planet. Since they've had little or no dealings with the real world, they teach theories as fact, even though they could never work in the real world. Example: pure communism. Need I say more?

What I'm REALLY curious about is how many people who defend the staff in these cases of "liberal groupthink" in colleges actually know the situation?

My time at college helped me see the problem from 3 different schools; and yes, I belive there IS a problem.

There ARE professors at college that espose differing viewpoints than the consented norms in History and the like, but they are harder to find, more often considered "mavericks" in their own field, and are either closeted or openly defiant with their idealologies. That is a problem, those with "unpopular views" are passed over despite their merits!

However, at my all of my colleges there was a particularly strong republican youth organization, as well as the various radical and moderate political groups on both sides of the spectrum. There was representation, there was open exchanges of ideas. There was *ahem* free speech. Students PROFIT immensely from discouse of this kind, learned how to deal with opposing views, how to talk, discuss, fight, and come together.

And that's really what this is about. College is about the free exchange of ideas, some of which are radical, or even radically wrong. But its up to each student induvidually to make that judgement, to make their own mistakes, to come to their own conclusions. Its not the job of the staff. People have every right to offend others, and to be offended, but nobody has the right NOT to be offended. I cannot condone shutting out differing viewpoints on idealogical grounds.

I think the problem is that too many colleges are treating their students like simpletons, like children in need of direction, comfort, and conformity. That really needs to evolve into a deeper debate, a trust of knowledge, and the development of maturity in illtellectual discourse.

We need to trust our college students to do more than just drink and sleep through class.

What does "real job" and "real world" mean? Do you deny the value of higher education and academic research?

Further, I can come up jobs for most type of academics:
Humanities: Policy think tanks, business management, high school teaching, government jobs.

Sciences and Mathematics: Business R&D, Government R&D, etc.

I don't think anyone will argue about medical or law school teachers.
Being qualified for a job and being able to get along in the real world and do a job there are two VASTLY different things.

Most liberal academics are far too arrogant to be able to get along in a team environment unless they're playing mini-dictator over the whole project. They have pathetically underdeveloped people skills and tend to alienate anyone who doesn't tow the line for their particular views.

Being qualified for a job and being able to get along in the real world and do a job there are two VASTLY different things.

Most liberal academics are far too arrogant to be able to get along in a team environment unless they're playing mini-dictator over the whole project. They have pathetically underdeveloped people skills and tend to alienate anyone who doesn't tow the line for their particular views.
Where are you coming from on this one? From my personal experience with academics (which is extensive, particularly in a personal context where your criticism would apply the most), none of those stereotypes are true. Where are you coming from?

Where are you coming from on this one? From my personal experience with academics (which is extensive, particularly in a personal context where your criticism would apply the most), none of those stereotypes are true. Where are you coming from?
I assume he heard it from some other anti-liberal and is parroting it

Where are you coming from on this one? From my personal experience with academics (which is extensive, particularly in a personal context where your criticism would apply the most), none of those stereotypes are true. Where are you coming from?
I would assume he is coming from personal experience. Coming from my own personal experience I have seen those stereotypes from the academic elites.

It's all a matter of perspective.