Advertisement
good comments on the lack of right wingnuts in academia
www.j-bradford-delong.net/movab...2.html
A few weeks ago, a pair of studies found that Democrats vastly outnumbered Republicans among professors at leading universities. Conservatives gleefully seized upon this to once again flagellate academia for its liberal bias. Am I the only person who fails to understand why conservatives see this finding as vindication? After all, these studies show that some of the best-educated, most-informed people in the country overwhelmingly reject the GOP. Why is this seen as an indictment of academia, rather than as an indictment of the Republican Party?
Conservatives have a ready answer. The only reason faculties lean so far to the left is that deans, administrators and entire university cultures systematically discriminate against conservatives. They don't, however, have much evidence to back this up. Mostly, they assume that the leftward tilt is prima facie evidence of anti-conservative discrimination. (Yet, when liberals hold up minority underrepresentation at some institutions as proof of discrimination, conservatives are justifiably skeptical.)...
But the rise of fashionable left-wing scholarship can be blamed for only a tiny part of the GOP's problem. The studies showing that academics prefer Democrats to Republicans also show that this preference holds in hard sciences as well as social sciences. Are we to believe that higher education has fallen prey to trendy multiculturalist engineering, or that physics departments everywhere suppress conservative quantum theorists?
www.j-bradford-delong.net/movab...2.html
A few weeks ago, a pair of studies found that Democrats vastly outnumbered Republicans among professors at leading universities. Conservatives gleefully seized upon this to once again flagellate academia for its liberal bias. Am I the only person who fails to understand why conservatives see this finding as vindication? After all, these studies show that some of the best-educated, most-informed people in the country overwhelmingly reject the GOP. Why is this seen as an indictment of academia, rather than as an indictment of the Republican Party?
Conservatives have a ready answer. The only reason faculties lean so far to the left is that deans, administrators and entire university cultures systematically discriminate against conservatives. They don't, however, have much evidence to back this up. Mostly, they assume that the leftward tilt is prima facie evidence of anti-conservative discrimination. (Yet, when liberals hold up minority underrepresentation at some institutions as proof of discrimination, conservatives are justifiably skeptical.)...
But the rise of fashionable left-wing scholarship can be blamed for only a tiny part of the GOP's problem. The studies showing that academics prefer Democrats to Republicans also show that this preference holds in hard sciences as well as social sciences. Are we to believe that higher education has fallen prey to trendy multiculturalist engineering, or that physics departments everywhere suppress conservative quantum theorists?
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: no conservatives in the academy
Tue, December 21, 2004 - 9:32 PMRepublicans would really have a problem with the concept of conservation of mass, seeing as they believe natural resources aren't finite. ;) -
-
Re: no conservatives in the academy
Tue, December 21, 2004 - 9:39 PMAnd the big bang, since the universe is, after all, 13.5 billion years old and not 6008 years old as the wack-jobs claim. -
-
Unsu...
Re: no conservatives in the academy
Tue, December 21, 2004 - 9:47 PMI started my own business last August, andas an old saying comes to mind.
those who can do, those who can't teach.
But really in the world of acdemia, the luxury of infinite forethought and infinite hindsite clouds their ( highbrow?) analyisis of of the decisions of doers working in the real world where decsisons are made by instinct and swift judgemental calculus. ( which for the most part , works). -
-
Re: no conservatives in the academy
Mon, December 27, 2004 - 3:34 PMBy that logic one could also say that those who aren't busy with other work find the time to really address the various issues involved and discover, through education, what *historically* makes for a better society, and conclude, on that basis, that the republican party is a terrible danger to the quality of the USA.
Education is something Bush is ruthlessly attacking. Funding for education and existing laws that afford parents the vital time and resources to educate their children are his targets. Wonder why?
-
Re: no conservatives in the academy
Tue, December 28, 2004 - 6:43 PMGood luck in your business Mathias, having been an entreprenuer myself the task of creating a viable business is greatly appreciated.
I do have to take issue with that comparison. Academia attacks the issues from a multitude of angles that may or may not yield a profitable business.
Companies have a hard time doing that in a competitive market. The processes for the efforts are very different also, there are two rules sets that can't be compared in a qualitative way. -
-
Re: no conservatives in the academy
Thu, December 30, 2004 - 3:25 PMAcademia produces a well rounded education which stimulates the imagination from a variety of sources. Businesses care about one and only one motive - profit. Everything else is overhead and must be thrown out, eventually. This is inherently a narrow minded approach to learning, and is suitable more for a trade school mentality than an educational environment. A well rounded college educated person who also has one trade mastered down pat will trump both a college educated person with no trade, and a trades-person with no well rounded education. But in a pinch a well rounded person will trump the trades-person once they get a hold of a single trade and start plying their imagination to the task.
To innovate you must learn how to approach things from a variety of perspectives, not just the perspective of the trade you're in.
Also, in the course of getting my CS degree I was taught by some professors who had businesses on the side.. so "those who can't, teach" is actually quite wrong.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: no conservatives in the academy
Tue, December 21, 2004 - 10:40 PMcDub,
One reason conservatives don't tend to go into academia is that they are more likely to, say, enter the business world than study art history. Another part of the reason that there are so many leftists in academia is that many academics are former anti-war activists who remained in graduate programs to avoid being drafted. Also, American academia is one of the last vestiges on earth where Marxism is still taken seriously.
As to your argument that the dominant of leftists in academia proves that being well educated leads one to the truth of leftist thought. Keep in mind that there is a curve in the correlation of one's education and one's voting patterns. The least educated tend to vote the most Democratic. As one gets more educated, one is more likely to vote Republican, up until the point of graduate school, where tendencies reverse radically to the left. This pattern repeats virtually every presidential election. See CNN's exit polls if you doubt this. So if being more educated tends to make one more likely leftist then why is being more educated prior to graduate school correlate to a greater likelihood to vote Republican?
Furthermore, just because one is in academia doesn't entail that one is more educated in politically relevant matters. For example, one of the most radically leftist disciplines in academia is literary theory, and I see no reason why having a doctorate in literary theory makes one any more wise or expert on political matters than Joe Sixpack who lives in the real world.
Finally, you claimed that there is no evidence of leftist discrimination against conservatives. Well, here's some:
Laura A. Freberg, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Psychology California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, was fired as department chair and subsequently repeatedly denied promotions after she was "outed" as a Republican. Her department colleagues told her "We would never have hired you if we'd known you were a Republican." She subsequently sued. Since the publishing of the following letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal from her, she won her court case against the school.
www.mugu.com/upstream-li...sg00511.html
Another case, as reported in the Cal State University Fullerton Daily Titan:
"Paul Sheldon Foote, professor of accounting at Cal State Fullerton, considers himself "one of the few out-of-the-closet Republicans" on this campus.
Foote's political position became public after he ran for the State Assembly in 1992.
An article published by The Los Angeles Times printed his views on various issues including gun control, welfare reform and healthcare.
Foote said his colleagues began circulating the publication and he became a target for dismissal. Foote said he was fired shortly after for reasons that were never clearly specified.
Foote received his undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan, his master's from Harvard Business School, his doctorate from Michigan State University and said he felt his credentials were comparable with those of his colleagues.
Almost a year later, Foote took his case before an arbitrator.
"Not only did I get my job back and get tenure, [the arbitrator] said I deserved early tenure.""
I spent a few years in academia, and I saw plenty of discriminatrion and bias against conservatives. It was hard to find an untenured conservative academic to sponsor anything resembling a conservative club for fear of professional retaliation. I have a friend who's a moderate/liberal professor of philosophy who was afraid to question leftist dogma while she was untenured. -
-
Unsu...
Re: no conservatives in the academy
Tue, December 21, 2004 - 10:54 PMI can only comment on the lack of conservatism in arts academia.
Conservatism is the death knell of any art form. Mozart, Picasso, Pollack, Elvis, Eminem--there's always a consrevative voice trying to exnay innovation. No wonder Bill Bennett is such a fan of The Canon; conservatives only like their art safely dead. -
-
Re: no conservatives in the academy
Tue, December 21, 2004 - 10:56 PMyeah conservatives don't make very good artists. next bennett and his ilk are going to start screaming about discrimination against conservative artists! lol -
-
Re: no conservatives in the academy
Mon, December 27, 2004 - 2:18 PM
-
-
Re: no conservatives in the academy
Tue, December 21, 2004 - 11:02 PMIan,
You're grossly conflating different kinds of conservatism. I fail to see how, say, being against abortion, for a tax cut, against affirmative action, for invading Iraq, against gun control, etc. in any way entails opposing innovation in the arts. -
-
Unsu...
Re: no conservatives in the academy
Tue, December 21, 2004 - 11:15 PMRon--I'm purposely conflating all manner of conservatism in regards to academia and the arts.
I've said I don't know what goes on in other academic areas.
On the surface level, sure--anti-abortion, tax cuts, affirmative action--no relation.
But life works in a holistic manner--everything effects something else.
No gun control? Lunatic in state without safeguards against unstable folks getting permits and such leads to ex-wife's brain blown out.
Conservatives cut arts funding because it's not important--strip bars swell with highly trained folks, streets fill with otherwise unqualified, hyper-educated people. Etc. (When Giuliani conducted one of his regular putsches of the arts, a certain strip bar in Tribeca became known as The NEA--women would go from tony shows attended by conservatives galore, then bend over for more from the steely gaze of the same.)
I live in a comparatively lower class part of Brooklyn. Cars have SUPPORT THE TROOPS stickers--these stickers are everywhere.
Walk over to Brooklyn Heights and the stickers dissapear as the rents engorge.
-
-
Unsu...
Re: no conservatives in the academy
Mon, December 27, 2004 - 1:05 PMGood lord people don't you remember who it was trying to censor music in the 80's???????
It was Tipper & Al Gore don't be fooled into believing that these monsters are different from one another.
They both have the same goal and that is a police state. wake up or kiss the boot that rules you.
-
-
Re: no conservatives in the academy
Tue, December 21, 2004 - 10:56 PMi can see that...but still you've gotta admit that the hard sciences aren't using lefty criteria for advancement - and they've still got a much higher percentage of liberals.
i don't think its any surprise that lit-crit and women's studies are liberal dominated. but what about business schools? these are blatant centers of conservative/business propaganda too. -
-
Unsu...
Re: no conservatives in the academy
Tue, December 21, 2004 - 11:18 PMAnd we'll be seeing a mass migration of hard science folks looking for nations friendly to, well, science. -
-
Re: no conservatives in the academy
Wed, December 22, 2004 - 6:22 AMthats already started actually.
-
-
-
no palestinians in the academy
Tue, December 21, 2004 - 11:32 PMwww.academicfreespeech.com/fea_....html
Professor denies terror ties, says freedom at stake
Florida university seeks firing in crucial post-Sept. 11 case
By Dan Chapman - Staff
Sunday, September 8, 2002
Sami al-Arian admits that he consorted with Islamic firebrands and Middle Eastern militants.
The Florida computer engineering professor doesn't deny that he once wrote a letter to a Kuwaiti friend encouraging violence against Israeli soldiers --- soon after at least 10 soldiers were killed. He acknowledges shouting, "Death to Israel," in a fiery 1988 speech.
Does all that make him a terrorist?
Though the U.S. government has not charged al-Arian with a crime, it continues to investigate him. But the University of South Florida is trying to fire the tenured professor for "illegal or improper activities."
Al-Arian, 44, brought his campaign for the right to speak freely and for the Palestinian cause to Atlanta on Saturday. He addressed 100 students, peace activists, Arab-American supporters and others gathered at a rally and workshop on the Georgia Tech campus. The appearance was sponsored by student and human rights groups.
Al-Arian, balding and bespectacled, has landed at the center of America's post-Sept. 11 struggle to balance free speech with national security. On one side of the wobbly constitutional fence sits al-Arian, arguing for academic and civil liberties. On the other side sits the U.S. government --- and an institute of higher learning --- edgy about who and what constitutes a terrorist threat.
Al-Arian's predicament is widely considered the most prominent academic freedom case since the late 1960s, when California Gov. Ronald Reagan fired leftist philosophy professor Angela Davis from UCLA.
To al-Arian and his supporters, the attempted censure of a Palestinian advocate is an example of guilt-by-association charges against Arab-Americans.
"In the U.S. system, it says you are presumed innocent until proven otherwise; the university and others [say] you are guilty until proven innocent," al-Arian said during an interview Saturday. "I will do my best to make sure free speech and academic freedom will win the day."
Two weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, al-Arian appeared on a Fox News show. Host Bill O'Reilly repeatedly accused the professor of supporting terrorist groups.
O'Reilly reminded al-Arian of the speech in which the professor proclaimed, "Death to Israel." O'Reilly also pressed al-Arian to explain his relationship with Tarik Hamdi, who was linked to Osama bin Laden.
Repercussions were swift. There were threats of bodily harm to al-Arian and of vandalism aimed at an Islamic school he founded in Tampa. USF President Judy Genshaft suspended al-Arian with pay, citing the safety of the university and its 37,000 students.
In December, Genshaft told al-Arian she intended to fire him because his public comments violated his contract and caused "disruptions" at the school. Most of the school's trustees voted to seek al-Arian's ouster. Florida Gov. Jeb Bush agreed that the professor should be fired.
Finally, on Aug. 21, USF filed the lawsuit, setting the stage for al-Arian's dismissal after 16 years' teaching.
"Dr. al-Arian has abused his position at the university and is using academic freedom as a shield to cover improper activities," wrote Genshaft, who wasn't available for comment Friday or Saturday. "Federal authorities have stated that Dr. al-Arian remains under active criminal investigation for alleged ties to terrorist activities."
Federal authorities have kept tabs on al-Arian and his brother-in-law, Mazen al-Najjar, since the late 1980s. Al-Najjar, also a teacher at USF, and al-Arian ran a charity called the Islamic Committee for Palestine. They also founded the World and Islam Studies Enterprises, a now defunct Islamic research center at the university.
The feds long have suspected that the two men --- under the guise of helping orphans --- funneled money through these groups to anti-Israeli militants linked to Islamic Jihad and Hamas. Al-Arian vehemently denied the charge Saturday.
Ramadan Abdullah Shallah, a former director of the center, later turned up as an Islamic Jihad commander. Al-Arian said he was surprised.
Two years earlier, the brothers-in-law met Sheik Omar Abdul-Rahman, the blind Egyptian cleric convicted of plotting the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Al-Arian said their meeting at an Islamic Committee for Palestine forum was happenstance.
The feds raided the brothers-in-law's offices in 1995 and froze their groups' assets. They confiscated, among other items, the letter encouraging violence against Israeli soldiers. Al-Arian said the letter was never sent.
Al-Najjar was imprisoned for three years, held on evidence that is still secret. Upon his release, a Miami judge ruled that al-Najjar's constitutional rights had been violated and found no merit in the charges.
Meanwhile, the university conducted its own investigation and placed al-Arian on paid leave for two years. He returned to work after no wrongdoing was found.
Al-Najjar was arrested again last year and held without criminal charges. He was deported in August for overstaying his visa.
Both men adamantly deny any links to terrorism. Al-Arian said he was being unfairly targeted by the university and others for associations and actions taken years ago. His plight has elicited strong support across the academic world.
"This case has national ramifications. People who have expressed views sympathetic to the Palestinian authorities have been branded as terrorists very quickly," said Jordan Kurland, associate general secretary for the American Association of University Professors.
"If academic freedom is indeed violated, its the AAUP's responsibility to act and to censure any administration that does it."
Likening his pro-Palestinian comments to those uttered by Patrick Henry more than 200 years ago, al-Arian said Saturday he would fight the university all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.
"Patriotism is the ability and the right to question a government's efforts and actions in times of crisis," he said. "But [today] we confuse zealotry with patriotism. This could not have happened if not for 9/11." -
-
Re: no palestinians in the academy
Tue, December 21, 2004 - 11:46 PMIf this guy goes down, then hell, the entire KKK and 99% of the people posting on Yahoo (esp. any time a race related article comes up) equally stand to go to prison... oh wait... they're white, nevermind!
(I'm not dissing white people, but rather the capricious enforcement of the law) -
-
Re: no palestinians in the academy
Wed, December 22, 2004 - 8:14 AMDissing white folks is fine with me. *I* think that white folks have a genetic predisposition to violence and greed, probably acquired during the last Ice Age, when some scientists have made a case that the "white" race was almost annihilated. The "race" may have been reduced to as few as 120 individuals.
While this seems to have created a people who are adaptive and adventuresome and creative, they too frequently use their skills in conquest and destruction. Hey, think about what kind of behaviors you would have had to develop to survive. Ugly, huh? The Aryans spread out of post glacial Eurasia and started taking over everything with their more adaptive weaponry and their blood lust. By contrast, can you think of any other peoples who have such a track record for conquest?
In a recent conversation, the only others the other side could come up with were the Mongols and the Aztecs. Alas, this only goes to support my beliefs, as the Mongols seem to have been heavily influenced by the Aryans--who it is now known were already a force in Asia all the way into Japan and possibly across the Bering Strait into N. America, if the Kennewick man is one of them and not just a really really lost Viking. Which would still make him one of them, just from a different direction. <chuckle> As for the Aztecs, new evidence is popping up all the time to show that the Asians were not the only ones to get to Meso America and, in fact, Thor Heyrdahl may have been right. In that case, the Aztecs were also "white" folks.
Scary, huh? There are no African conquerors of the caliber of Alexander, Attila or Hitler. What conquering went on was just to secure resources. There is absolutely no evidence that the Australian or the S. Pacifica people engage in conquest and subjugation. Other than the Aztecs, Native Americans mostly just indulged in battles over resources that ended when one side secured the resources--sometimes by annihilating the other side, but then it ended, the tribe didn't keep starting battles with all it's neighbors.
Okay. I'm rambled enough. <laugh>
-
-
Unsu...
Re: no palestinians in the academy
Tue, December 21, 2004 - 11:53 PMIt's a digression, but I just thought of the curious case of Phillip K Dick, once viewed as a silly purveyor of infantile genre pulp; now dead, a revered visionary slipping into the canon.
Dick suffered assorted mentally illnesses and was addicted to amphetimines.
But he wasn't crazy.
One thing that led to his most disasterous breakdown was a break-in to his home, where his manuscripts, notes and such were either stolen or ripped up.
For years, Dick--whose work is vehemently anti-corporate-control and sometimes left to a sometimes literal fault--claimed the break-in was orchestrated by the CIA.
He claimed to his death to be under investigation. The charges were denied--just crazy old Phil, what can you do?
Post mortem, turns out he was, indeed, under government survelleiance. (The cause of the break-in, to my knowledge, is still in dispute.)
The point: I wonder whose being watched now, with all this stealth gear, with all this human rights and Constitution shredding.
[Side thought, William S Burroughs: "A paranoid is a man who has all the facts."]
-
-
Re: no palestinians in the academy
Wed, December 22, 2004 - 6:46 AMNothing is worse than when conservatives start going after people who think differently. They are viscious and mean.
I have a website about 60s French music and have had it for several years. But when the war broke out and this Freedom Fries embarassment happened I all of a sudden started recieving anonymous emails saying things like "I hope you and your family all die of AIDs." It was only for the three months surrounding the war that I got emails like that.
At best, they are a bunch of terrorist pirates and should be treated as such. -
-
Re: no palestinians in the academy
Wed, December 22, 2004 - 11:03 AM" Nothing is worse than when conservatives start going after people who think differently. They are viscious and mean.
"
Oh, like when liberals and leftists call conservatives "racist", "sexist", "homophobe", "fascist", "nazi", etc. for no other reason than for having different political views than them? Like when leftists treat conservatives as moral lepers for disagreeing with their politics? Like when leftists accuse, without evidence, President Bush of starting a war that produces the deaths of thousands of people just to economically benefit his friends? Like when leftists shout down speakers they don't like? Like when leftists try to break up political rallies they don't like? Like when leftists drive off conservative speakers from college campuses? Like when leftists get Republican professors fired just for being Republican? Like when leftists steal and destroy entire runs of college newspapers that contain speech they don't like? Like when leftists punish students for trying to put up a flier advertising a black conservative speaker? Like when leftists call conservatives people of color "house negroes" and "Uncle Toms" for no other reason than that they are conservative? Like when leftists ridicule someone's religious faith because of a stereotyped and false assumption that religion equals conservatism?
I can provide documented examples of any and all of the above. Is the above your idea of the civility of the left? -
-
Unsu...
Re: no palestinians in the academy
Wed, December 22, 2004 - 11:33 AM>>ike when leftists accuse, without evidence, President Bush of starting a war >>that produces the deaths of thousands of people just to economically >>benefit his friends?
You just almost left the real world with that one. 'Almost' because one needs to add the caveat that the war was started with lies meant to enable the PNAC types access to beginning the five-front war they've been slavering for for years.
-
Re: no palestinians in the academy
Sun, December 26, 2004 - 3:26 PM"Oh, like when liberals and leftists call conservatives "racist", "sexist", "homophobe", "fascist", "nazi", etc. for no other reason than for having different political views than them"
uh, well if they are fascist and homophobic then what is the problem. If the different viewpoint is facism and homophobia that makes sense.
Conservatives and the right are FAR MORE VISCIOUS. You fuckers kill people and threaten their lives, wish that they die of AIDs, bomb doctors, bomb Government facilities. Burn crosses. No, you guys have far more policing to do on your end. Don't distract by bringing up rather, comparatively, infractions from the left.
Name calling is one thing. Violence is another.
-
-
Re: no palestinians in the academy
Tue, December 28, 2004 - 6:46 PMThere is a saying, "Not are conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives".
The article that started this and the actions mentioned in Pink's email make you wonder if this is true.
-
-
Re: no palestinians in the academy
Wed, December 22, 2004 - 12:26 PMIan,
Re "Cosntitution shredding". I hear that expression now and then from the left, as well as occasion propensities to use other hyperboles like calling Bush, et al nazis and fascists, calling people "racists" just for disagreeing with affirmative action, "sexist" just for believing that a fetus is an "unborn child" deserving of the same moral concern and legal protection as born children, etc.
It's really an odious reflex. The more such terms are overused, the less strength such terms have when applied to real fascists, racists, Nazis, etc. For example, the left's reflexive overuse of the term "racist" has virtually killed the power the term once had. If a leftist were to call someone a racist nowadays, all that means to many if not most people now is that the leftist doesn't like the racial politics of the object of his/her label. That's far from the power of moral condemnation the label used to have.
So what happens if real fascists and neo-Nazis take power and start rounding up minorities and political opponents for the slaughter?
"He's a Nazi!"
"But you previously called George Bush a Nazi. So he's like George Bush? Hey, I voted for Bush; he wasn't so bad. This new guy must not be either!"
That would be a very sad day when one has to explain the difference between " Well, he wasn't a Nazi in the sense that he promotes genocide and was trying to arrest or execute all political opponents, but this new guy is a REAL Nazi."
Chicken Little once again
As to the Constitution being "shredded". "Shredded" is an extreme term of obliteration. My paper shredder destroys documents entirely. It doesn't just temporarily delete or override parts of it. So it's not that the Constitution has been violated in part. It's that it has been "shredded". Well, that must mean that all the Constitution's rights have been obliterated. So please identify which of the following federal legal rights listed in the Constitution that you and all your fellow citizens no longer have:
- Can you still express your point of view without being legally punished for it?
- Can you still belong to any religion you want without legal punishment?
- Can you still attend political rallies?
- Can you still complain to the government?
- Can you legally be made a slave?
- Must the police still need a warrant or probable cause to search your person or things?
- can the government legally discriminate against you because of your race? (oh wait, if you're white, I guess they can - there's always affirmative action, but that's not this administration's fault of course)
- Can you be arrested and refused to be told of the charges against you?
- Can the government legally endorse a particular religion or establish a state religion?
- Do you still have a right to a trial? (I know, sopme people have been arguably denied that, but we're talking about the Constitution's shredding, not just limited cases)
- Do you still have the right to an attorney?
Etc.
The funniest case I heard of this "shredding the Constitution" hyperbole was when former President Clinton claimed that Ken Starr "shredded the Constitution". Funny how a single prosecutor had the power to eliminate the entire Constitution. I wonder why the courts didn't see it that way. I must have missed when that happened. I must have been too busy exercising my constitutional rights to free speech, free exercise of religion, etc.
Pardon the sarcasm, but hyperbole generates that in me. -
-
Unsu...
Re: no palestinians in the academy
Wed, December 22, 2004 - 12:40 PMIf hyperbole grates, I have no idea how you can listen to FOX, Zell, Rick 'man-on-dog' Santorum, O'Reilly, etc, etc.
The use of 'neo-Nazi' is intended to indicate a series of practices in that spirit, not the literal sense, as in 'neo-Nazi skinheads.'
That almost all of your Constitution shred questions need extreme qualifiers indicates what dire straights we're in.
Yes, dire. No hyperbole there.
-
Re: no palestinians in the academy
Mon, December 27, 2004 - 12:27 AM- Can you still express your point of view without being legally punished for it?
ok since we've still got freedom of speech we should shut up then right?
- Can you still belong to any religion you want without legal punishment?
yes but only christians get federal pork to help fund their religion.
- Can you still attend political rallies?
well ask some of the protesters in boston and new york how much freedom to protest they had.
- Can you still complain to the government?
sure but they are real good at not listening. whats your point?
- Can you legally be made a slave?
wow, bush didn't re-instate slavery! lawdy i'sa happy about that suh!
- Must the police still need a warrant or probable cause to search your person or things?
um, clearly you haven't heard about Section 218 of the "patriot" act.
- can the government legally discriminate against you because of your race? (oh wait, if you're white, I guess they can - there's always affirmative action, but that's not this administration's fault of course)
yes, white males sure do get the short end of the stick around here. how DO you guys deal with all this oppression?
- Can you be arrested and refused to be told of the charges against you?
sure - just ask all the peopel "detained" for months by the bush adminstration after 911 without being told what the charges were.
- Can the government legally endorse a particular religion or establish a state religion?
well clearly the republican right wants this to be a nation where christanity has "special rights". i've seen many prominent republican and christian right leaders state as much.
- Do you still have a right to a trial? (I know, sopme people have been arguably denied that, but we're talking about the Constitution's shredding, not just limited cases)
well you yourself admit it - the bush administration has asserted the right to hold US citizens in an offshore gulag indefinitely without facing trial. surely you must admit they've done this. the supreme court intervened partially. but its not settled yet and you're being massively disengenouous to thow THIS particular item out as an example of rights not being presently trampled on.
- Do you still have the right to an attorney?
Etc.
um again, please refer to the rights that the bush administration is now claiming. and refer to the leaked draft of Patriot Act II which included the ability to strip citizens of their citizenhood based on arbitratry support of "terrorist groups", along with other gross police-state powers.
you're exposing yourself as either ignorant (willfully or otherwise) of the present powers being claimed by our freedom-loving administration. they really ARE massively increasing t he powers of the state. and if you want to ignore it and instead sit around obsessing about leftist graudate students go right ahead but don't try to pass this kind of tripe off and expect it to go unchallenged.
-
Re: no palestinians in the academy
Mon, December 27, 2004 - 3:41 PM>>"But you previously called George Bush a Nazi. So he's like George Bush? Hey, I voted for Bush; he wasn't so bad. This new guy must not be either!" <<
This excellently sums up my mind's image of the average republican-voting thought process, Nice work!
-
-
-
-
Unsu...
Re: no conservatives in the academy
Wed, December 22, 2004 - 9:55 AMRE: the least educated voting democrat.
Actually, this is not true. The least educated tend to support republicans, especially in red states. The poorest and least educated tend to be hyperpatriotic and easily convinced by propaganda. This is not just true for the USA, but for most democracies in the 20th century.
It is the underclass that is first to sign up for the military, and it is the underclass who become cannon fodder first.
To them, leaders are not elected legislators, but supermen.
More educated people tend to vote democrat, people with a love of money and people who blindly trust leaders vote republican. -
-
Re: no conservatives in the academy
Wed, December 22, 2004 - 10:53 AMPinworm,
Frankly, all you're doing is reciting a condscending, self-serving left wing article of faith that's just not supported by the data. Short of graduate school, increased education correlates with an increased likelihood to vote Republican, as evidenced in the 2004 election, and by every previous presidential election that I've seen since I first became aware of the phenomena over 20 years ago. Take a look at the below CNN exit poll website and scroll down to see the data for yourself. Kerry won (though barely) among those with no high school diploma. Bush won among those with high school diplomas, among those with some college education, and among those with college degrees.
www.cnn.com/virtual/edit....exclude.html -
-
Re: no conservatives in the academy
Wed, December 22, 2004 - 11:48 AMin terms of dems becoming repubs, that's obvious. the older you get, the more money you accumulate. the family you create and need to look after. then you suddenly feel that issues such as tax cuts and faux family values actually matter to you. it's different when you have more than one mouth to feed.
there is an obvious reason conservativism doesn't exist wholly in arts and academia. intelligence is, arguably, an art in itself. it demands cultivation and practice and growth. that being, an "artist" would need to have an expandable mind. the "artist" would need to be of a certain understanding of the logical and reasonable world. from characteristics displayed by conservatives, those traits are not afforded them. the artistic mind searches for the beauty in reality. the artistic mind moves to transcend mental and ideological boundaries and break new ground.
for example: if artists such as Jimi Hendrix and The Beatles were conservative in their art, they'd have moved to "conserve" the status quo of their contemporary--or past--musicalities. instead of creating and breaking their boundaries. as we see it politically, conservatives do not move to expand or create new boundaries. instead, they seem to want to shrink present boundaries to a lesser form or to atleast "conserve" a present inferred status quo.
the intelligent mind needs to be able to grasp that level of understanding. to never stop thirsting for ways to expand, and become upon itself. therefore, it's completely against itself to want to enclose itself in a duality of "good vs. bad" or "strictly right vs. definately wrong". lastly, the intelligent mind does not afford itself opportunity to be one-dimensional or without reason of reality.
that is not to say all academics are of intelligent mind. as with most art, artistic intelligence is only experienced, executed and understood by the few, not the masses. -
-
Re: no conservatives in the academy
Wed, December 22, 2004 - 11:53 AMSearch Dictionary:
ac·a·dem·ic
ADJECTIVE:
Having no practical purpose or use.
NOUN:
A member of an institution of higher learning.
-
-
Re: no conservatives in the academy
Mon, December 27, 2004 - 12:11 AMum ok so you think research serves no purpose. ha ha ha. everything you have on is there because of some type of scientific or engineering breakthrough. -
-
Re: no conservatives in the academy
Mon, December 27, 2004 - 9:03 AMI know - i just find it interesting that a word has two completely different meanings - polar opposites almost in terms of our discussion
you would think that academics would have found a better word to describe what they do -
-
Re: no conservatives in the academy
Mon, December 27, 2004 - 9:09 AMactually they're not polar opposites. the point is that if you're doing RESEARCH its not _necessarily_ going to have practical applications. i would suspect that the adjective came after the noun. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: no conservatives in the academy
Mon, December 27, 2004 - 11:48 AMi see . . . good point . . . adj after the noun dammit :(
-
-
-
-
-
Re: no conservatives in the academy
Wed, December 22, 2004 - 11:57 AM...furthermore, are we to actually believe there is a republican majority in the government? i mean, literally?
these are some-what (for the most part) intelligent people. these are people that know right from wrong. these are people who've studied politics and sociology and have read the classics....
my point is, i think you'd be surprised how many moderate--if not totally left--leaning Repubs there are in D.C. i mean, its a city all about loyalty and doing what's right for your career. these are some Ivy League educated people who know cause and consequence and can see a picture on a much larger scale than most of us can. but like i said, it's a city of partisanship and loyalty. do i honestly think everyone Repub in there thinks gays shouldn't get married? no. i think most of them realize it's Constitutionally illegal to disallow it, based on past cases. the Supreme Justices knew it--that's why they denied the case to overturn MA's legality of such marriages.
we also have to remember that the only American city with more actors per square yard other than Hollywood, is D.C. these politicians are adept at playing their roles. Bush obviously isn't as dumb as he led most of us to believe. i think they know better, but being intelligent doesn't equate to being scrupulous.
-
Re: no conservatives in the academy
Wed, December 22, 2004 - 12:43 PMDerrick,
The reference was to a correlation between increased education (short of graduate school) and increased likelihood to vote Republican, not to increased age or wealth. By the way, I only introduced that fact to counter to OP's claim that the highly leftist slant of academia was a result of their superior education.
I spent some time in academia. Trust me, political views of any stripe had little to do with one's formal education. Politics is an emotion charged area of opinion, and the more emotionally committed one is to an opinion, the less rationally rigorous one is inclined to be in defending it. When dealing with emotionally charged political issues, I observed many occasions of normally brilliant academics resort to mindless and silly slogans containing a level of intelligence and thought that they would have destroyed if submitted by one of their students on an academic subject. I dubbed this phenomena "stupidification": The more emotionally committed one is to an opinion, the stupider the reasoning one is willing to employ to defend it. If you doubt this, look at your friends who have deeply emotional committments to particular political issues. Notice how they'll basically embrace virtually every argument that putatively supports their position, regardless of the dubiousness of the argument or the quality of reasoning employed in it.
I remember reading a book by liberal legal scholar (and normally intelligent) Lawrence Tribe on the issue of abortion. At one time or another he embraced every single publicized argument supporting a constitutional right to an abortion, no matter how ridiculous the argument. -
-
Re: no conservatives in the academy
Wed, December 22, 2004 - 2:59 PM>The reference was to a correlation between increased education (short of graduate school) and increased likelihood to vote Republican, not to increased age or wealth.<
However, there is a direct correlation between the amount of education one has and personal income. For example, from the US Census Bureau's website, in 2000, Americans with a bachelor degree earned 31% more than the median US income, and those with advanced degrees earned 69% more. (www.census.gov/hhes/incom...sboth.html)
-
Re: no conservatives in the academy
Wed, December 22, 2004 - 3:13 PM"By the way, I only introduced that fact to counter to OP's claim that the highly leftist slant of academia was a result of their superior education."
But Ron, since by your own argument, graduate-level education is associated with a propensity to vote Democratic, aren't you supporting the argument that superior education is associated with a left slant? Or are you arguing that those with bachelor's degrees are better educated than those with graduate or professional degrees?
-
-
Re: no conservatives in the academy
Mon, December 27, 2004 - 12:15 AMron's position is perfectly simple: since more people with bachelor's degrees are republicans then it proves that intelligent people tend to be more conservative, and since more people with graduate degress are democrats it proves absolutely nothing as they're all just washed up dope-smoking leftists who hate america anyway.
-
-
Re: no conservatives in the academy
Mon, December 27, 2004 - 12:13 AM>I remember reading a book by liberal legal scholar (and normally intelligent) Lawrence Tribe
yes ron and its a good thing that movement conservatives are much more intellectually consistent than libruls like tribe. snort.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: no conservatives in the academy
Mon, December 27, 2004 - 9:15 AMok first you're admitting the conservatives are more likely to go into business. good - so i'm right.
second, the fact that bachelor-educated voters tend to vote republican and people with higher degrees lean democratic should shut you up about "more education means you vote republican". just THINK about it.
i would agree that education doesn't make you any more of a political expert. politics is pretty goddamned simple to understand, any plumber or electrician without a college degree should be able to get it very well. so there, we agree on that.
as for all the whining about discrimination against conservatives i don't buy it. i've been in one of those dreaded P.C. academic environments, and yes there were plenty of right wing / republican faculty, especially in the business school. ok so theres isolated incidents. b.f.d. stop the whining, ok? the hypocrisy of horowitz and other idiots on this issue is that usually on say affirmative action conservatives will point to results and say -- tough luck, suckers! but on THIS issue you here them whining and saying "its not faaaair" and pushing schemes for affirmative action for conservatives. well, suck it up wingnuts - you're just not cut out for critical theory ok?
-
-
-My arrest by Nazi cops at FTAA protests Nov 2003-
Mon, December 27, 2004 - 1:53 AMthis is not a free country if you protest it
been arrested 4 times because of my politics,
twice for comparing the Tall Ships to slave ships
once for riding critical mass bike ride
and once in miami for walking down the street:
I went to Miami on the UPJ activist bus from New York City on 11/18. We arrived
on the 19th. I moved into the Riande Hotel just down the road from the
Intercontinental, the site of the FTAA meetings. Across the street was an
outdoor amphitheater which was the starting point for much of the weeks protest.
I saw Dead Prez play there the night I arrived. It all seemed so convenient.
The next day about 1500 of us woke up early for the 7am direct action with many
large puppets to confront the police guarding the trade ministers in the
Intercontinental. Reports were that people had been arrested for passing out
flyers near the fence the day before. We knew it would be rough. Chief Timoney
had used preemptive tactics in Philadelphia at the Republican convention in 2000
while he was Police Chief there.
We marched towards the fence, but the police outnumbered us and formed lines
with heavy riot gear in front of the fence. Most of the cops were in full riot
gear. Some squads had automatic rifles. We meandered back and forth for around
an hour with little happening but drumming, chanting and dancing. Suddenly the
police opened up a path to the fence. I was on the other side of the march, and
noticed that the open street behind us was being sealed by a line of riot cops,
closing our last escape. I didn't want to get arrested so I walked down the
sidewalk right up the line, said "excuse me", and walked through.
About 10 minutes later there was a scuffle, and out came 2 cops with huge
puppets. They smashed them up with their boots and went back to their lines.
(Maybe they were jealous). I didn't see much of what happened after that but I
heard two sound bombs which caused mild panic even outside the police lines
amongst protesters and bystanders. I was told by many later inside the police
box that many people did run when the sound bombs went off. Don't be scared of
these, they are designed to cause fear, not harm. They will be used again.
Things calmed down as the time for the main march drew near. The police woudlnt
let us move to the amphitheater until a large group of union members appeared.
Around 10,000 people were gathered, but only about half made it into the rally,
as some private security staff searched bags and used metal detectors on all
wanting to get in. The march started late and the end of the march route was cut
off by police. I went into the theater with maybe 1 thousand of the marchers to
hear Billy Bragg and other musicians and speakers. Around 4 the place was mostly
cleared out so I went outside,on the hill overlooking the street.
There was gas wafting in the air and the protesters who never left the street,
were being forced around the corner by waves of riot cops. A smallere line
marched up the hill. I thought nothing of it as i was behind a line of retired
afl-cio workers sitting in chairs. I was chatting with someone behind me, and
occasionally turned to look what was going on. One time when the cops were about
20 feet from me, I turned into a splash of pepper spray which filled my left
eye. (Ouch!) The retirees in front of me were awash in the stuff. The cops
matched on down the hill, never stopping. I waited a few hours, and crossed the
street to my Hotel.
Later I heard many awful stories of beatings and sprayings and rubber bullet
shootings. I even saw a very few of them on the news. I went to dinner. Went to
the convergence center. Talked to people, heard some more stories, watched some
films. Around 12:30 am I started walking back to our hotel with Jay Emerson who
from the NYC bus. There had been threats of a police raid of the center, but
everything seemed to be calm.
****************************************
***ARREST SECTION***********************
****************************************
After walking about two miles, we were two blocks from the hotel. Two cop cars
pulled around the corner from behind us and 8 riot cops got out and 1 ordered us
to stop. We stopped and he ordered us to stop again. The cop who was talking was
tall blond with a soul patch under his lower lip. This was the really bad cop.
All 8 were white, and they were all bad cops. They played bad cop, really bad
cop with us for the next 45 minutes.
The really bad cop, snarling, asked me what I was doing. I said I was going to
the Riande Hotel just down the street. He snarled louder, and asked what i was
doing in Miami. I said i was here to visit my friend Norma. He reached into my
pockets and found some "Bush lies, who dies?" stickers. He was really
mad threw them to the ground and went through all my pockets throwing my things
aside. I get out my wallet and asked if he wanted it. He grabbed it and threw
it. We had a tense conversation with the police asking why i came to destroy
Miami, and me saying i came to save it from the FTAA. They cuffed me tight, and
twisted my thumb around and held it there for 10 minutes. They forced me hard to
the ground and held me there tight. The really bad cop repeatedly threatened to
hit me in the mouth with his flashlight if he didn't like my answers to any
question. He said many awful things to me. The worst he whispered in my ear. He
said something like, tell the black block to get out of here and never come back
like the niggers they are.
Jay got it much worse than I. He had an upside down flag on his black shirt, and
had a black helmet and a black gas mask in his pack. He was roughed up harder.
The really bad cop told him that he wished he could take him in the alley and
shoot him in the brains and eat it for soup.
We spent about 15 mostly sleepless hours in jail. Eventually we were given a
copy our arrest report which told us we were charged with Loitering and
Prowling. We had to answer alot of questions asked by alot of people. There was
never any reading of any of our rights. I was put in a very cold cell, (maybe 55
degrees F). I was printed 3 times, had my picture taken 3 different times. Moved
from cell to cell 6 times. One of our questioners was from homeland security. We
were told we had to answer his questions, or it was a federal offense. There are
still terrorists here he explained.
Around 1:30pm we were brought into a holding room outside a makeshift court in
the jail. Some of the jailers suddenly started playing good cop. and tried to
convince us to be good like they were. I asked if they cared about us so, why
did we get put in that freezing room and never give us water when we asked. He
paused, pretended to be shocked, and said the freezing room was to prevent
germs. Later, our court appointed attorneys tried hard to convince everyone to
take a deal to pay $201 court costs if it was offered to us. He warned the John
and Jane Does they would be there all weekend if they didn't give their names. I
asked why i couldn't get my own attorney as i needed to organize help from the
outside as i was arrested with no cash. After my hearing he made it clear to me
he was offended that i would demand my rights.
My hearing was quick and sweet. The prosecutor repeated the lies of the cops,
(they said we ran). My attorney said even the report had no evidence of
prowling. The prosecutor said it was such a good argument he would drop the
charges. I was free!
I went back into the holding area all smiles, wishing good luck to the others
with more serious charges. Told Jay he was going to be free. They told me to
line up for the 14th time. I went up to the jailer and he said hold up your
hands.I asked, you are going to cuff me? I turned around and asked his superior,
(who was playing good cop before). He said "Of course."
The next two hours were spent locked up in another cell waiting to get out. I
never got my papers from the court. I did get my wallet back. I was warned by
the only officer who ever gave me his name to get back in before 7pm, because
the bad cops would be out looking for us again that night. Our people doing jail
solidarity outside cheered for us as we walked towards them at 4:30pm. It was
the nicest feeling. -
-
Re: -My arrest by Nazi cops at FTAA protests Nov 2003-
Mon, December 27, 2004 - 2:40 AMI see it as a pretty sorry state of affaires that the professors in this country have so little influence.
-
Re: -My arrest by Nazi cops at FTAA protests Nov 2003-
Mon, December 27, 2004 - 7:17 AMThank you common terry for that personal report from Miami. From attending many protest rallies I know the reality of the event is rarely the creature later reported in the general media. That is why I often go to these rallies, to see and learn from the people what is often not convenient to cut down to a brief soundbite on the corporate media.
It has been my experience that often the police do instigate violence and chaos to control and arrest those who attend these rallies. Here in Portland we've had bystanders clubbed and knocked down by Kevlarcops on horseback, babies in carriers pepper sprayed point blank while on their mother's back. Friends have been arrested for simply honking their car horn in support, or locking their bike on a sidewalk.
A few weeks back over 50 catholic extreamists picketed a local theater that was showing a movie that the catholic church feels should be censored called "Jesus has two mommies". They were yelling threats with bullhorns at people entering the theater, disrupting traffic, and there was not one officer dressed in Kevlar toting a machine gun! -
-
Unsu...
Re: -My arrest by Nazi cops at FTAA protests Nov 2003-
Mon, December 27, 2004 - 12:10 PMThe mere existance of "Free Speech Zones" has the attendant implication that everywhere else is a no free speech zone.
In NYC, a Free Speech Zone is a series of pens where demonstraters had better stay put and not get too noisy or risk arrest as described above.
During the RNC, millions of NYCers, pissed at the GOP for co-opting our local tragedy for duplicitous national gain, marched up Broadway. Others biked over the Brooklyn Bridge. Hundreds were jailed randomly and penned like dogs on the Chelsea pier in what came to be known as Abu Gharib on the Hudson.
As I marched past Madison Square Guardan, I was greeted with the sight of hundreds of Bush men, dressed in matching beige chinos and blue polo shirts, smirking down at us.
They were not guards or security or anything. Their job was to smirk, to remind us who was in charge, to intimidate. Musselini I trust looked up from Hell and smiled.
I don't hate cops at all. In NYC, they're just local guys. One cop gave me a thumbs up. Others just looked miserable having to work this idiot shift.
But the blue shirts were another matter, and for the only time during a demonstration, I lost it, hurling obscene invective at one of them.
Of course, he only smirked more intensely.
-
-
Re: -My arrest by Nazi cops at FTAA protests Nov 2003-
Mon, December 27, 2004 - 1:13 PMya i was in NYC for the RNC
i spent the week talking to republicans
i was threatened with arrest 50 times
often the republican asked the cop why?
(as we were always talking nicely)
when i went out with nice clothes and my hair tied back
and chanted RICH MEN RULE! trying to sell my
RICH MEN RULE stickers, ('if i sell a million ill be a millionaire!')
then the cops laffed and let me be...
read what the national lawyers guild has to say about the RNC:
nlgnyc.org/rnc/
-
Re: -My arrest by Nazi cops at FTAA protests Nov 2003-
Tue, December 28, 2004 - 8:59 PM"the blue shirts"
If Bush really were Hitler, his Brown Shirts would wear blue shirts and chinos.
-
-
-
-
Re: no conservatives in the academy
Mon, December 27, 2004 - 4:02 PMThe cops in Atlanta caused the so-called "riots" that took place in front of Spelman. They marched in from either side, circled the *completely* somber and nonviolent marchers with full riot gear, moved them slowly into a nearby street, and began attacking them. It was even reported - ONCE - on channel 11.
No outcry from the freedom-loving and America-cherishing "conservatives" was forthcoming, that I recall. Of course, a link to any kind of credible coverage of republican-backed protests against the illegal suspension of rights being perpetrated by the administration would give me serious pause.
That was a long time, ago, granted.
What's going on now is so much worse. Whatever you "conservatives" and/or "right wingers" like to call yourselves, seeing what you're advocating and ignoring has robbed me of the last vestiges of feelings of social responsibility with regard to your needs or rights. You've made it quite clear that you to harm and deprive me, you won't leave my way of life alone, and you will gleefully fork over my rights along with yours to the first dipshit power-parasite that yells "jesus" or "gay" or "war".
You're evil. I always knew you were stupid, but the fact of your malice reduces your importance to society, in my eyes, to "poisonous child-devouring snake". May you die, after prolonged crippling pain.
:) -
-
"Why the vitriol, man?" you may ask -
Mon, December 27, 2004 - 4:05 PM- because today, one of your youngest and brightest converts happily observed that fewer are dying in Iraq than were snuffed out by the earthquake.
I already hated you,it's just that now I actually think you shouldn't be on the topside of the ground. -
-
Re: "Why the vitriol, man?" you may ask -
Mon, December 27, 2004 - 4:38 PMA lot of my friends and relatives voted for Bush, and did so not because they are evil, but because they chose what they thought best for themselves and this country. I've made ideological shifts in my life, and I hope they have the chance also for change and hope, and don't wish them buried because I disagree with how they view the world at this time. -
-
Re: "Why the vitriol, man?" you may ask -
Mon, December 27, 2004 - 4:47 PMMy parents voted for Bush, and what was so frustrating is that they seem intent on believing the misinformation that the TV news spews out at them.
A conversation with Mom:
mom: "I voted for bush."
me: "what did you do that for"
mom: "he will protect us from terrorists"
me: "Doesn't it bother you that he lied about the war in Iraq, and now thousands of people are beign killed in that mess, and there's more terrorists because even more Muslims hate Americans now?"
mom: "but we have to fight the terrorists"
me:"there was no connection between the terrorists who attacked us and Saddam"
mom: "let's just have a nice time together and we won't talk about politics"
I give up. -
-
Re: "Why the vitriol, man?" you may ask -
Mon, December 27, 2004 - 8:07 PMbut...do you blame Bush or the media for that? -
-
Most republican voters probably aren't evil, but criminally and dangerously stupid is worse
Tue, December 28, 2004 - 6:04 AMI blame the voters themselves; it's entirely their responsibility. The earnest prayers for a speedy Rapture are motivated by rhetoric, though. In this bizarre case, it's what they've said over what what they've done - mainly because of the way it so keenly resembles what drivel duped populaces through history have gurgled right before their despot went on the killer rampage. Though I haven't clicked the threads, I'm sure someone in here is making the parallel between nazis and the current administration.
If you have the stomach for it, look up the history of the nazis - Godwin notwithstanding - and just read up on it. Or, look at the history of Rome, if you prefer, or really just
READ SOME GODDAMN HISTORY.
Whatever your stance on Democrats, *reading history* will likely make you anti-'republican', barring psychopathic tendencies.
-
-
Re: Most republican voters probably aren't evil, but criminally and dangerously stupid is worse
Tue, December 28, 2004 - 5:48 PMi agree, voters need to get more educated. its not that hard...
-
-
-
-
-
-