PDA

View Full Version : Conservative Students Target Liberal Profs



SnakebyteXX
12-25-2004, 04:21 PM
By JUSTIN POPE
ASSOCIATED PRESS

Traditionally, clashes over academic freedom have pitted politicians or administrators against instructors who wanted to express their opinions and teach as they saw fit. But increasingly, it is students who are invoking academic freedom, claiming biased professors are violating their right to a classroom free from indoctrination.

For example, at the University of North Carolina, three incoming freshmen sued over a reading assignment they said offended their Christian beliefs.

In Colorado and Indiana, a national conservative group publicized student allegations of left-wing bias by professors. Faculty received hate mail and were pictured in mock "wanted" posters; at least one college said teacher received a death threat.

And at Columbia University in New York, a documentary film alleging that teachers intimidate students who support Israel drew the attention of administrators.

The three episodes differ in important ways, but all touch on an issue of growing prominence on college campuses.

In many ways, the trend echoes past campus conflicts - but turns them around. Once, it was liberal campus activists who cited the importance of "diversity" in pressing their agendas for curriculum change. Now, conservatives have adopted much of the same language in calling for a greater openness to their viewpoints.

Similarly, academic freedom guidelines have traditionally been cited to protect left-leaning students from punishment for disagreeing with teachers about such issues as American neutrality before World War II and U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Now, those same guidelines are being invoked by conservative students who support the war in Iraq.

To many professors, there's a new and deeply troubling aspect to this latest chapter in the debate over academic freedom: students trying to dictate what they don't want to be taught.

"Even the most contentious or disaffected of students in the '60s or early '70s never really pressed this kind of issue," said Robert O'Neil, former president of the University of Virginia and now director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression.

Those behind the trend call it an antidote to the overwhelming liberal dominance of university faculties. But many educators, while agreeing students should never feel bullied, worry that they just want to avoid exposure to ideas that challenge their core beliefs - an essential part of education.

Some also fear teachers will shy away from sensitive topics, or fend off criticism by "balancing" their syllabuses with opposing viewpoints, even if they represent inferior scholarship.

"Faculty retrench. They are less willing to discuss contemporary problems and I think everyone loses out," said Joe Losco, a professor of political science at Ball State University in Indiana who has supported two colleagues targeted for alleged bias. "It puts a chill in the air."

Conservatives say a chill is in order.

A recent study by Santa Clara University researcher Daniel Klein estimated that among social science and humanities faculty members nationwide, Democrats outnumber Republicans by at least seven to one; in some fields it's as high as 30 to one. And in the last election, the two employers whose workers contributed the most to Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign were the University of California system and Harvard University.

Many teachers insist personal politics don't affect teaching. But in a recent survey of students at 50 top schools by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a group that has argued there is too little intellectual diversity on campuses, 49 percent reported at least some professors frequently commented on politics in class even if it was outside the subject matter.

Thirty-one percent said they felt there were some courses in which they needed to agree with a professor's political or social views to get a good grade.

Leading the movement is the group Students for Academic Freedom, with chapters on 135 campuses and close ties to David Horowitz, a one-time liberal campus activist turned conservative commentator. The group posts student complaints on its Web site about alleged episodes of grading bias and unbalanced, anti-American propaganda by professors - often in classes, such as literature, in which it's off-topic.

Instructors "need to make students aware of the spectrum of scholarly opinion," Horowitz said. "You can't get a good education if you're only getting half the story."

Conservatives claim they are discouraged from expressing their views in class, and are even blackballed from graduate school slots and jobs.

"I feel like (faculty) are so disconnected from students that they do these things and they can just get away with them," said Kris Wampler, who recently publicly identified himself as one of the students who sued the University of North Carolina. Now a junior, he objected when all incoming students were assigned to read a book about the Quran before they got to campus.

"A lot of students feel like they're being discriminated against," he said.

So far, his and other efforts are having mixed results. At UNC, the students lost their legal case, but the university no longer uses the word "required" in describing the reading program for incoming students (the plaintiffs' main objection).

In Colorado, conservatives withdrew a legislative proposal for an "academic bill of rights" backed by Horowitz, but only after state universities agreed to adopt its principles.

At Ball State, the school's provost sided with Professor George Wolfe after a student published complaints about Wolfe's peace studies course, but the episode has attracted local attention. Horowitz and backers of the academic bill of rights plan to introduce it in the Indiana legislature - as well as in up to 20 other states.

At Columbia, anguished debate followed the screening of a film by an advocacy group called The David Project that alleges some faculty violate students' rights by using the classroom as a platform for anti-Israeli political propaganda (one Israeli student claims a professor taunted him by asking, "How many Palestinians did you kill?"). Administrators responded this month by setting up a new committee to investigate students complaints.

In the wider debate, both sides cite the guidelines on academic freedom first set out in 1915 by the American Association of University Professors.

The objecting students emphasize the portion calling on teachers to "set forth justly ... the divergent opinions of other investigators." But many teachers note the guidelines also say instructors need not "hide (their) own opinions under a mountain of equivocal verbiage," and that their job is teaching students "to think for themselves."

Horowitz believes the AAUP, which opposes his bill of rights, and liberals in general are now the establishment and have abandoned their commitment to real diversity and student rights.

But critics say Horowitz is pushing a political agenda, not an academic one.

"It's often phrased in the language of academic freedom. That's what's so strange about it," said Ellen Schrecker, a Yeshiva University historian who has written about academic freedom during the McCarthy area. "What they're saying is, 'We want people to reflect our point of view.'"

Horowitz's critics also insist his campaign is getting more attention than it deserves, riling conservative bloggers but attracting little alarm from most students. They insist even most liberal professors give fair grades to conservative students who work hard and support their arguments.

Often, the facts of particular cases are disputed. At Ball State, senior Brett Mock published a detailed account accusing Wolfe of anti-Americanism in a peace studies class and of refusing to tolerate the view that the U.S. invasion of Iraq might have been justified. In a telephone interview, Wolfe vigorously disputed Mock's allegations. He provided copies of a letter of support from other students in the class, and from the provost saying she had found nothing wrong with the course.

Horowitz, who has also criticized Ball State's program, had little sympathy when asked if Wolfe deserved to get hate e-mails from strangers.

"These people are such sissies," he said. "I get hate mail every single day. What can I do about it? It's called the Internet."

----

On the Net:

Students for Academic Freedom: http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org

American Association of University Professors: http://www.aaup.org/


link (http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2004/dec/25/122504240.html)

pooltchr
12-26-2004, 05:21 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SnakebyteXX:</font><hr>
By JUSTIN POPE
ASSOCIATED PRESS

"I feel like (faculty) are so disconnected from students that they do these things and they can just get away with them," said Kris Wampler, who recently publicly identified himself as one of the students who sued the University of North Carolina. Now a junior, he objected when all incoming students were assigned to read a book about the Quran before they got to campus.

<hr /></blockquote>

I can only imagine the liberal outcry if it had been the Bible rather than the Quran that had been required reading.

Steve

nhp
12-27-2004, 01:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote SnakebyteXX:</font><hr>
By JUSTIN POPE
ASSOCIATED PRESS

"I feel like (faculty) are so disconnected from students that they do these things and they can just get away with them," said Kris Wampler, who recently publicly identified himself as one of the students who sued the University of North Carolina. Now a junior, he objected when all incoming students were assigned to read a book about the Quran before they got to campus.

<hr /></blockquote>

I can only imagine the liberal outcry if it had been the Bible rather than the Quran that had been required reading.

Steve <hr /></blockquote>

Yeah, because all liberals are terrorists, and muslims, and none of them believe in Jesus, except for me. Brilliant.

Wally_in_Cincy
12-27-2004, 02:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>Yeah, because all liberals are terrorists, and muslims, and none of them believe in Jesus, except for me. Brilliant. <hr /></blockquote>

nhp, please don't take offense, but your post is a bit incoherent. I would be more than happy to argue your point if I knew the meaning.

highsea
12-27-2004, 02:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr>...I would be more than happy to argue your point if I knew the meaning. <hr /></blockquote>
I think he's saying that he is the only liberal muslim terrorist that believes in Jesus. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

nhp
12-27-2004, 05:28 PM
Oops sorry I'll be more clear.

Pooltchr said " can only imagine the liberal outcry if it had been the Bible rather than the Quran that had been required reading."

I don't know how YOU interpret this, but my interpretation of Pooltchr's remark was that most liberals are athiests who turn to stone at the sight of the bible/ and the rest of them are terrorists who wish to rid the world of Christianity. So I remembered what Wally does to express sarcasm sometimes, when someone who makes a remark about conservatives in a certain manner, Wally replies with something along the lines of "Yeah because conservatives want people to starve" where you can easily sense the sarcasm. So I decided to follow suit, focusing on what Pooltchr said as an over-exaggeration about liberals and Christianity. So basically, in a nutshell, I was trying to express sarcasm to the notion that some silly conservatives have that all liberals are athiests/terrorists who are on a mission to rid the world of the bible and elect Taliban officials into the government of the United States. At the end of my post, when I said "except for me", this was the toughest part to understand. Believe it or not, "except for me" actually means 'but not including myself', rather than 'but not including myself, with the exception of being a muslim terrorist'. I apologize if you misinterpreted what I said, I can understand how hard it must have been. I now make a solemn oath to never try to make conservatives understand anything again. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

pooltchr
12-27-2004, 07:52 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> my interpretation of Pooltchr's remark was that most liberals are athiests who turn to stone at the sight of the bible/ and the rest of them are terrorists who wish to rid the world of Christianity. <hr /></blockquote>

If you have read any of my posts, you know better than that. Even ROSS knows better than that! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

The comment was made because we have seen some of the activities of extreme liberal groups (The ACLU comes to mind here) that scream bloody murder if someone wants to put a nativity scene in a public place, offer a prayer before a high school ball game, or mention creationism as an alternative to evolution in the public schools. Why aren't they the ones jumping up and down about forcing students at UNC to read a religeous book????????????

That was my only point. I didn't say liberals are terrorists or athiests. Just wondering why the double standard? It's ok to require reading of one religeous book, but not ok to even bring up another one. I don't get it!
Steve

SnakebyteXX
12-27-2004, 10:42 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Why aren't they the ones jumping up and down about forcing students at UNC to read a religeous book???????????? <hr /></blockquote>

Pooltchr,

I didn't get that they were trying to get the students to read the Quran - only a book about the Quran. Maybe I'm splitting hairs here but it seems to me that there would also be an important academic difference between asking students to read a book about the Bible and actually requiring them to read the Bible itself. In both cases the latter might be considered to be of a religious nature while the former might not.


[ QUOTE ]
Kris Wampler, who recently publicly identified himself as one of the students who sued the University of North Carolina. Now a junior, he objected when all incoming students were assigned to read a book about the Quran before they got to campus.
<hr /></blockquote>

nhp
12-27-2004, 10:54 PM
Sorry. In all honesty, I tend to take things a little too serious sometimes, in case you haven't noticed before.

nhp
12-27-2004, 10:58 PM
Oh, and highsea, Wally, Eg8r, etc, even though I get a little heated sometimes, you all know that I think you guys are some cool dudes. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

pooltchr
12-28-2004, 05:29 AM
Snake,
I may have missed the word about in the story, and although I agree that is somewhat less severe, the principle remains. I would still bet if students were required to read a book ABOUT the bible, there would still be quite a stink raised.
Steve

Wally_in_Cincy
12-28-2004, 06:51 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>
...my interpretation of Pooltchr's remark was that most liberals are athiests who turn to stone at the sight of the bible...
<hr /></blockquote>

Actually they turn into a pillar of salt but yeah, same idea /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

buddha162
12-28-2004, 10:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>
...my interpretation of Pooltchr's remark was that most liberals are athiests who turn to stone at the sight of the bible...
<hr /></blockquote>

Actually they turn into a pillar of salt but yeah, same idea /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Just a little innocent mix-up of mythology, no harm done.

-Roger

buddha162
12-28-2004, 10:30 AM
The attitude expressed by those conservative students are precisely the reason why conservatives are outnumbered in academia 7 to 1. It's a faithful allegiance to dogma that renders them fundamentally indifferent to the pursuit of knowledge.

This really is remarkable, that these students don't want their beliefs/viewpoints challenged in college. That seems to be the antithesis of higher learning, but I guess that's just the liberal in me speaking.

-Roger

eg8r
12-28-2004, 07:08 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and highsea, Wally, Eg8r, etc, even though I get a little heated sometimes, you all know that I think you guys are some cool dudes. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, no problem. Sometimes we egg you on. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

SecaucusFats
12-28-2004, 11:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote buddha162:</font><hr> The attitude expressed by those conservative students are precisely the reason why conservatives are outnumbered in academia 7 to 1. It's a faithful allegiance to dogma that renders them fundamentally indifferent to the pursuit of knowledge. <font color="blue"> I bet you couldn't keep a straight face when you wrote that! Liberals embrace their ideology with a religious fervor, and like all zealots they are convinced that they and they alone have been enlightened to the truth. Anyone who dares to question the liberal canon is a blasphemous heretic. But liberals aren't dogmatic, right? </font color>

This really is remarkable, that these students don't want their beliefs/viewpoints challenged in college.
<font color="blue"> It's the leftist intelligentsia which cannot tolerate any divergence. Why should conservative ideology be banished from our universities? Liberals talk a good game about embracing diversity and being open minded but I suppose it only applies to leftist and radicals. </font color>
That seems to be the antithesis of higher learning, but I guess that's just the liberal in me speaking.

-Roger <hr /></blockquote>
http://hometown.aol.com/raveloman/images/question.gif

http://hometown.aol.com/raveloman/images/chebush.gif
SF

SecaucusFats
12-29-2004, 12:41 AM
Defending the Campus Thought Police
FPM ^ | December 13, 2004 | Don Feder

Ellen Goodman is a lot like conservative pundit Ann Coulter – except that she lacks Coulter’s wit, style and discernment.

Okay, the liberal columnist is nothing like Coulter. Still, Goodman is among the best the opposition has to offer. And, if nothing else, her misconceptions usually make an amusing starting point for an exploration of reality.

On December 5, Goodman warned her readers of a dangerous development: Conservatives have turned their fanatical gaze on the college campus.

"While many of us assume that the right is busily targeting the highest court as their last unoccupied power base, a whole subset of conservatives is after higher education," Goodman cautions." Every year conservative groups put some $20 million into campus politics and publications." On the other hand, liberals simply spend the endowments of colleges and universities to advance their cause.

Conservatives have co-opted our rhetoric, Goodman complains. They’re calling for "diversity" and "playing victim politics."

Goodman admits that faculties are politically homogenous: "Two new studies point to campuses as oases of blue. The first, a survey of 1,000 academics, shows that there are seven Democrats for every Republican in the humanities and social scientists… The second study of voter registration records shows that Democrats outnumber Republicans 9 to 1 on the faculties of Berkeley and Stanford."

But, so what, says Goodman – who, based at The Boston Globe, writes from the heart of darkest Kerry country. After all, faculties are still 87 percent white and 77 percent male. Good liberal that she is, Goodman thinks everything comes down to race and gender, rather than ideas. Party registration reflects ideology, race and gender do not – witness Kerry and Edwards, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich and Ted Kennedy – all melanin-deficient, testosterone-rich, and dogmatically leftist.

Goodman’s contends: "These surveys don’t actually prove that one-party faculties color classrooms blue. Nor do they prove that students are being wooded leftward." Of course, it’s just a coincidence that those with post-graduate degrees are overwhelmingly left of center. They’re probably the product of random selection.

Goodman’s most preposterous claim is this: Maybe the lack of conservative faculty is a matter of "personal choice," rather than discrimination. "No one is suggesting that Republican Ph.D.'s might rather work in the free market than teach the free market."

In other words, conservatives are a bunch of crass, money-grubbers. Liberals are willing to sacrifice personal gain to spread knowledge. (Certainly not because they’re too incompetent to hold a position in the corporate world and like the security that comes with tenure.)

Professor George P. Lakoff, who teaches linguistics at Berkeley, made a similar argument in his self-congratulatory book Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think.

"Unlike conservatives," Lakoff writes, liberals "believe in working for the public good and social justice, as well as knowledge and art for their own sake, which are what the humanities and social sciences are about."

Rather than an indictment of academic Stalinism, the dearth of conservative faculty becomes another way for liberals to feel superior: We’re self-sacrificing and have a higher calling. Conservatives are selfish philistines.

The college campus is a hermetically sealed environment where alien ideas rarely intrude. When they do, the academic immune system attacks them with a ferocity rarely seen outside the Islamic world.

Typical of the worldview of the higher-ed elite is Brandeis Peace Studies Professor Gordie Fellman, who is quoted as saying that "If [the War on Terror] is about terrorism, and terrorism is the killing of innocent civilians, then the United States is also a terrorist."

Or consider the carefully nuanced comments of Cornell Professor John Pilger, who calls Guantanamo a "concentration camp," Israel a "terrorist state" with a "policy of state murder" and (three days after 9/11) indicted America as "the greatest source of terrorism on Earth." In 2001, Pilger claimed Israel was capable of using nuclear weapons against Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. (Wonder what he thinks Israelis would do with the fallout.)

Then, of course, there’s Columbia anthropology Professor Nicholas De Genova, who told a post-9/11 teach-in, "The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military." Thus, De Genova said he wished for "a million Mogadishus," in reference to the Somali city where 18 U.S. soldiers were ambushed and killed in 1993. As cartoonist Al Capp said of Harvard back in the ‘60s, the inmates are running the asylum.

Brainwashing, intimidation, exclusion and retaliation for unorthodox ideas are standard collegiate fare. In George Orwell's novel 1984, Big Brother cautions, "Right thinking will be rewarded, wrong thinking punished." He would have made the perfect instructor at PCU.

The aforementioned Fellman reportedly told one of his classes that a third of their grade would be based on "personal evolution" during the semester – in other words, their ability to assimilate and parrot his ideas. In a Cal State Long Beach freshman English class, the assignment was to write an essay about some aspect of Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. In her paper, student Marissa Freimanis argued against Moore’s thesis that Bush rushed to war with Saddam Hussein. Her essay was marked with the comment "You miss the point of the film." Needless to say, Freimanis received the lowest grade in the class (after getting nothing but A’s on previous papers). What she missed was the point of the exercise – to reach Moore’s and the professor’s conclusions. At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a sophomore English class was assigned an essay on the subject "Why do heterosexual men feel threatened by homosexuals?" In his paper, a student, named Tim said that while he wasn’t intimidated by gays, "Being a Christian, I would feel uncomfortable having to explain to my son at a baseball game why two homosexual men are kissing." Poor Tim. Someone forgot to tell him that he was expected to reflect his professor’s views. In a mass e-mail, his instructor, Dr. Elyse Crystall, said Tim’s observations constituted "hate speech that created a hostile environment in class," while Tim himself was "an example of privilege: a white, heterosexual, Christian male who feels entitled to make violent, heterosexist comments and not feel marked or threatened or vulnerable." Rest assured, after Dr. Crystall’s public pronouncement, Tim felt marked, threatened and vulnerable. Most academics treat dissent as a social disease. When asked why he didn’t assign the works of conservative thinkers, Ithaca College Government Professor Charles Santiago replied, "I am teaching Hitler." If conservative equals Holocaust, how do you suppose Prof. Santiago treats students who express right-of-center views in his class? Like the Nuremberg war criminals? Stephen H. Balch, president of the National Association of Scholars (an alliance of iconoclastic academics) observes: "Our colleges have become less marketplaces of ideas than churches in which you have to be a true believer to get a seat in the pews. We’ve drifted to a secular version of the 19th-century denominational colleges, in which the university’s mission is to crusade against sin and make the country a morally better place."

Daniel Klein, an associate professor of economics at Santa Clara University, explains how heretics (conservatives) are excluded from the priesthood (professorate): "Screened out, expelled or self-sorted, they tend to land outside of academia because the crucial decisions – awarding tenure and promotions, choosing which papers get published – are made by colleagues hostile to their political views."

Dr. Mike Adams (author of Welcometo the Ivory Tower of Babel: Confessions of a Conservative Professor), who teaches criminology at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, discloses: "I served on several hiring committees in my time at UNCW. I saw an applicant’s file denied because his writing a piece for a conservative publication made him ‘too conservative’…. In 2001, an applicant was asked whom he voted for in 2000." But the reason college faculties are blue through and through (a la Goodman) is because conservative Ph.D.'s – with no love of teaching or dedication to truth and beauty – would rather get rich in the private sector.

Perhaps the classic illustration of how the churches are kept heresy-free is my friend Gene, who asked me not to use his last name for fear of retribution.

One of the gentlest and most unassuming men I know, Gene (who has a Ph.D. in English) taught that subject at a Massachusetts state college for five years. Evaluations by his students were uniformly excellent. Unlike his liberal colleagues, he was never accused of using his classes as a showcase for his politics.

Gene’s problems began when he started writing an opinion column for a local newspaper. One of his colleagues (doubtless a champion of the First Amendment) ordered him to stop writing articles critical of feminism.

He heard from a faculty friend that every time he wrote something un-PC, colleagues would go to the chairman of his department demanding: "Look at what he’s writing now! Can you believe it? You’ve got to get rid of him." This they eventually did.

Gene, who didn’t have tenure, was replaced by a die-hard feminist who used her classes to cram her views down students’ throats. Gene struggles to get by teaching adult education courses.

Since we all live in the same area, I could introduce Goodman to Gene. But, like academic leftists, Ellen Goodman is anxious to keep the real world from disturbing on her carefully constructed universe.

SF

SecaucusFats
12-29-2004, 01:09 AM
Los Altos Hills, CA (PRWEB) December 10, 2004 -- On Tuesday, December 7th, in an ongoing controversy at Foothill College, Political-Science Professor Joseph Woolcock filed a grievance against student Ahmad Al-Qloushi for mentioning Woolcock's name in the media. Don Dorsey, Dean of Student Affairs, summarized the grievance as, "Professor Woolcock feels harrased by your (Al-Qloushi) having mentioned his name to the media."

On Wednesday December 1st, Foothill College Political-Science Professor Joseph Woolcock tried to intimidate student Ahmad Al-Qloushi into seeing a therapist because of a Pro-American essay he wrote in Woolcock's class. The thesis of Al-Qloushi's essay is that the US constitution was a very progressive document, which has contributed to freedom beyond America's borders.
Al-Qloushi and the Foothill College Republicans defended that intellectual diversity must be respected on campus, and are lobbying to have the "Academic Bill of Rights" adopted as official policy by the college"s elected Board of Trustees. Professor Woolcock's name was mentioned on numerous websites including www.townhall.com/clog (http://www.townhall.com/clog) and www.davidlimbaugh.com. (http://www.davidlimbaugh.com.)

"This (Woolcock"s) grievance will not detour us from our goal," said Cori Jenab, Vice-President of Foothill College Republicans. "This grievance ignited a First Amendment rights outrage from the kindling of existing controversy at Foothill College."

"Intellectual diversity must be respected at Foothill College," said Ahmad Al-Qloushi. "This grievance will not detour us from our goal of having Foothill's Board of Trustees pass the "Academic Bill of Rights" as official school policy."

SF
http://hometown.aol.com/raveloman/images/question.gif

SecaucusFats
12-29-2004, 01:20 AM
Academic Bill of Rights:

1. All faculty shall be hired, fired, promoted and granted tenure on the basis of their competence and appropriate knowledge in the field of their expertise and, in the humanities, the social sciences, and the arts, with a view toward fostering a plurality of methodologies and perspectives. No faculty shall be hired or fired or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of his or her political or religious beliefs.

2. No faculty member will be excluded from tenure, search and hiring committees on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.

3. Students will be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects and disciplines they study, not on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.

4. Curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences should reflect the uncertainty and unsettled character of all human knowledge in these areas by providing students with dissenting sources and viewpoints where appropriate. While teachers are and should be free to pursue their own findings and perspectives in presenting their views, they should consider and make their students aware of other viewpoints. Academic disciplines should welcome a diversity of approaches to unsettled questions.

5. Exposing students to the spectrum of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects examined in their courses is a major responsibility of faculty. Faculty will not use their courses for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination.

6. Selection of speakers, allocation of funds for speakers programs and other student activities will observe the principles of academic freedom and promote intellectual pluralism.

7. An environment conducive to the civil exchange of ideas being an essential component of a free university, the obstruction of invited campus speakers, destruction of campus literature or other effort to obstruct this exchange will not be tolerated.

8. Knowledge advances when individual scholars are left free to reach their own conclusions about which methods, facts, and theories have been validated by research. Academic institutions and professional societies formed to advance knowledge within an area of research, maintain the integrity of the research process, and organize the professional lives of related researchers serve as indispensable venues within which scholars circulate research findings and debate their interpretation. To perform these functions adequately, academic institutions and professional societies should maintain a posture of organizational neutrality with respect to the substantive disagreements that divide researchers on questions within, or outside, their fields of inquiry.
END

If liberals believe in equality, respect diversity, and champion freedom of thought / speech, why then are they so vehemently opposed to the above? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

SF

http://hometown.aol.com/raveloman/images/question.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
12-29-2004, 06:54 AM
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16448

since the fall of the Berlin Wall, many have had to seek an alternative to the communist ideal. And many have found that alternative at the American university. Of course, when Marxists become professors, they do have to work for several years to get tenure. While it may not be perfect, they know that things will be better after tenure. Paychecks, pensions, and health benefits will be provided, regardless of productivity.

Many of those who are unfit for any job besides that of a tenured professor would be unemployed and homeless if we abolished tenure tomorrow. Without tenure, these people would not be such an irritation at work, although they would probably be just as irritating as panhandlers once their unemployment checks ran out.

Tenure is supposed to foster academic freedom on our nation’s campuses. Instead, it fosters socialism, laziness, and incivility. I would enjoy my job a lot more without it. And, more importantly, our children would get a much better education.

<font color="blue">LOL /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif </font color>

buddha162
12-29-2004, 10:02 AM
Please, explain the liberal ideology, name the canon that runs through liberal dogma.

I'll limit the scope of my remarks to "Christian" conservatives, who are really the crux of the debate here. This is a group of people who want creationism taught in public schools; I cannot take them seriously, and I have no problem understanding why they are not prominent members of academia.

Will any respected institution of higher learning, anywhere in the world, accept a "creationist" into their science department? Someone who ignores the undeniable preponderance of evidence in support of evolution, and conclude that Genesis is a historically accurate document to be taken literally?

No. So that's roughly 30% of every college/university faculty closed to Christian conservatives. And rightly so, imo. Pursuit of knowledge, scientific or otherwise, is not a faith-based endeavor. Your mind is made up only after the evidence is examined, and not the other way around (look for evidence to support an unyielding belief). Christian conservatives lack the intellectual curiousity to tackle serious academic questions, that is why their numbers are statistically insignificant in university faculties, not because of any conspiracy to hold down the right wing.

-Roger

Wally_in_Cincy
12-29-2004, 10:30 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote buddha162:</font><hr>

...Christian conservatives lack the intellectual curiousity to tackle serious academic questions...
<hr /></blockquote>

I believe you are painting with a rather broad brush there mate. There are plenty of brilliant people throughout history who were Christians, not just us knuckle-draggers /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

buddha162
12-29-2004, 10:45 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote buddha162:</font><hr>

...Christian conservatives lack the intellectual curiousity to tackle serious academic questions...
<hr /></blockquote>

I believe you are painting with a rather broad brush there mate. There are plenty of brilliant people throughout history who were Christians, not just us knuckle-draggers /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Well that's the problem with these discussions, you tend to generalize/catergorize in order to make your point.

By "Christian Conservatives," I refer to christians who are politically active in conservative areas (homosexuality-abortion-creationism in public schools). Obviously still a pidgeon-hole, but I'm trying here =)

-Roger

buddha162
12-29-2004, 10:47 AM
Oh and btw, not all Christians are conservatives. Christ himself was considered a dangerous revolutionary in his time, and if he were alive today he wouldn't be part of the "christian" right, that's for sure.

-Roger

highsea
12-29-2004, 02:04 PM
Buddha, I have seen no push by the conservative students for creationism to be taught as a science. No university would do that anyway, so it's a straw man argument, imo.

The objections are against things like anti-semitism in the courses, calling the US a terrorist state, etc. Look at the examples cited, the law class whose assignment was to write a paper on "why George Bush is a war ciminal"...when one student chose to write on "why Saddam Hussein was a war criminal", she received a failing grade.

These stories are repeated over and over. Add that to the evidence of hiring bias, the disproportionate ratios of liberals to conservatives, the hostile reaction by faculty to conservative students and perspectives, the one-sided argument of the Palestinian issue, and so on.

It's not a question of religion, it's a question of balance in education. It's about the need for universities to be apolitical entities, to concentrate on teaching and research, not indoctrinating the student into a political mindset.

I consider myself fortunate, when I was in college (25 years ago), things were better balanced and more focused on the education process. Classes were actually about the subject matter, and profs stuck to the topic most of the time. But even then, there was a strong liberal bias in the humanities (which didn't really affect me, as my focus was on hard sciences). Also, I was too young to really notice it at the time, as my political positions were largely unformed at 18. It's safe to say I was pretty naive (politically) at that age. It really wasn't until years later that I realized how one-sided those courses were (referring to the humanities, sociology, political science, etc).

One of my nieces just transferred out of her school because of this. Her school (Evergreen State College) is so freaking liberal that it was literally making her ill. She was unable to speak her mind in her classes, because she was immediately beat down by the rest of the class and the professors. Not a very pleasant environment for a student that doesn't have the conformist view.

Personally, I think people need to disconnect the "Christian" from the "conservative". One is a religious belief, while the other is a political/socio-economic position. They exist perfectly well on their own, and do not need each other for support. As you mentioned, there are liberal and conservative Christians, just as there are liberal and conservative atheists. Being conservative or appealing for a more balanced education system (especially in universities), does not equate to the desire to teach creationism as science.

SecaucusFats
12-29-2004, 11:45 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote buddha162:</font><hr>

By "Christian Conservatives," I refer to christians who are politically active in conservative areas (homosexuality-abortion-creationism in public schools). Obviously still a pidgeon-hole, but I'm trying here =)

-Roger <hr /></blockquote>

So as I understand it, you are saying that being a Christian disqualifies, or should, disqualify one from participation in the political process.

What about atheists, and agnostics (like myself) who could care less about whether or not the next door couple are straight or gay but who still personally feel that homosexuality is aberrant behavior, or who feel that abortion is wrong from a moral viewpoint, because it is in our eyes tantamount to homicide?

Your comments on creationism constitute a spurious attempt to categorize all Christians as believers in creationism. The vast majority of Christians do not in fact believe in creationism, so why even go there?

BTW, why is it always the Christians that make you guys so uncomfortable? There are lots of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and others who do not agree with the liberal views on abortion and homosexuality so why single out Christians?

When nothing else works, throw out the "religious fanatic" card, right?

SF

SecaucusFats
12-29-2004, 11:51 PM
Highsea,

Thank you for your eloquent and well thought response to Buddha. I could not have said it better!

SF

SecaucusFats
12-30-2004, 12:21 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote buddha162:</font><hr> Please, explain the liberal ideology, name the canon that runs through liberal dogma.

<font color="blue">No problem: socialism and the eventual revolutionary triumph of socialism over capitalism, and its eventual (presumably less revolutionary) transformation into communism. (See also Marxist, Marxist-Leninism.)
</font color>

-Roger <hr /></blockquote>

SF

buddha162
12-30-2004, 12:13 PM
Hey Fats,

I never said that all Christians should not enter politics; just the ones that ignore the separation of Church and State, and try to impose their Christian values on the rest of us.

This is a holy can of worms, but again I'll try to define my statement as applying to a group of christians who want this country's laws to reflect their CHRISTIAN beliefs, and are largely succeeding at it.

I don't really care where your homophobia stems from, but you have to recognize that non-religious sources are in the minority. You have every right to feel that homosexuality is abberant, and every right to teach that (hateful, imo) value to your children and preach it to whoever will listen. But you DON'T have the right to force your views onto the general public via legislation.

And btw (the worms keep coming), I would not consider most of the politically active christians christians. Jesus was not an exclusionary force, and if he were alive today, he would not be part of the Christian right. I firmly believe this, but hey, that's just my opinion.

-Roger

PS. read my reponse to highsea for why I included creationism in my post.

buddha162
12-30-2004, 12:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SecaucusFats:</font><hr>
<font color="blue">No problem: socialism and the eventual revolutionary triumph of socialism over capitalism, and its eventual (presumably less revolutionary) transformation into communism. (See also Marxist, Marxist-Leninism.)
</font color>

SF <hr /></blockquote>

And you call us the conspiracy theorists. Lol.

-Roger

buddha162
12-30-2004, 12:31 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> Personally, I think people need to disconnect the "Christian" from the "conservative". One is a religious belief, while the other is a political/socio-economic position. They exist perfectly well on their own, and do not need each other for support. <hr /></blockquote>

I agree with most of what you wrote, especially the excerpt included above. Political conservatism and religous conservatism are separate entities, and it helps that both sides recognize the distinction.

Now, the reason I singled out "christian conservatives" in my post is because I focused mainly on the UNC lawsuite posted in the news article ("For example, at the University of North Carolina, three incoming freshmen sued over a reading assignment they said offended their Christian beliefs.")

It is my assumption that the forces behind creationism in public schools are at work here as well, but I could be wrong. I didn't think public schools would even consider teaching creationism, or "intelligent design" but I was wrong there.

I used Creationism to illustrate the mindset of many political christian conservatives, the same group that complains about there not being enough "conservative" profs at universities. To me, it is simply oxymoronic to support a fantasy theory of origin and bitch about why there aren't more of their own kind in academic positions.

-Roger (left the safe haven of CCB and ventured into the waters of NPR)

highsea
12-30-2004, 01:35 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote buddha162:</font><hr>...read my reponse to highsea for why I included creationism in my post.<hr /></blockquote>
I think your response was to Wally, not me.

I find it interesting that you are confortable calling SF as a "homophobe" because he (personally) considers it aberrant behavior, you make statements like this one; "Christian conservatives lack the intellectual curiousity to tackle serious academic questions, that is why their numbers are statistically insignificant in university faculties".

In other words, conservatives are a bunch of dumb homophobes. (SF is agnostic, in case you missed that part of his comments)I have to say, these are very narrow minded comments, you seem to live in a rather small box. Should I presume that all liberals are marxists, just because Noam Chomsky is their poster boy?

Tell me, what part of the Academic Bill of Rights do you find offensive? I see nothing in there about creationism, or anything else that would indicate the desire to dictate any curriculum. In fact, it specifically prohibits that. All it is trying to do is remove politics from the education system. Are liberals so insecure in their viewpoints that they cannot stand up to honest inquiry/critique?

Frankly, there is a lot of narcissism in college professors. Any honest, objective professor would agree with this. It comes from surrounding yourself with impressionable and eager to please young kids, who often go to great lengths to please someone who may be the first real authority figure (ouside their family), that they have ever known. What professor has never had a student suck up to them, flatter them, etc. in an attempt to gain favor?

The risk is that this can manifest itself as a "God complex". Given enough support and flattery, any person can become intolerant of an opposing viewpoint. I have known college professors who were completely unwilling to be challenged in their views by someone outside their own little world of academia. They just weren't equipped to defend their views, and it caused them too much frustration. So they just avoid it. And if a student is foolish enough to oppose his or her prof, likely they will suffer the consequences.

I'm not saying all professors are like this. I had some very good ones when I was in school. But I think it is the prevailing condition in the liberal arts. Much less so in engineering and science schools.

These profs hold a great deal of influence on the futures of these kids, and they owe it to them to do their jobs in an impartial manner. Should a student pay thousands of dollars per year for tuition, or alumni, the Gov't. or private businesses support a university that does not guarantee it's students an impartial education?

The college years are the most formative years for a person politically, and universities understand this. If a university presents only one side of the picture, the student leaves with a distorted view of the world. This is indoctrination, not education.

SecaucusFats
12-30-2004, 02:22 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote buddha162:</font><hr> Hey Fats,

I never said that all Christians should not enter politics; just the ones that ignore the separation of Church and State, and try to impose their Christian values on the rest of us.

<font color="blue">Again they are not just "Christian" values, they are part of the Judeo-Christian tradition which also includes Muslims. All social groups within society have interests which they seek to promote via the political process. Why should Christians be any different? I don't recall any part of the constitution which assigns to liberals the position of gatekeepers and arbiters with the power to decide who gets to participate in political activity based on their ideological bent.
</font color>
This is a holy can of worms, but again I'll try to define my statement as applying to a group of christians who want this country's laws to reflect their CHRISTIAN beliefs, and are largely succeeding at it.

<font color="blue">If you feel that strongly about it then become a political activist for your cause. If you get enough like-minded people together you can effect a change, that is the nature of our democratic process.
</font color>
I don't really care where your homophobia stems from, but you have to recognize that non-religious sources are in the minority. You have every right to feel that homosexuality is abberant, and every right to teach that (hateful, imo) value to your children and preach it to whoever will listen. But you DON'T have the right to force your views onto the general public via legislation.

<font color="blue">Ah! I was waiting for you to throw out the "homophobia" thing. Let's examine your use of the word, but first:

Main Entry: -phobia
Function: noun combining form
Etymology: New Latin, from Late Latin, from Greek, from -phobos fearing, from phobos fear, flight, from phebesthai to flee; akin to Lithuanian begti to flee, Old Church Slavonic bezati
1 : exaggerated fear of &lt;acrophobia&gt;
2 : intolerance or aversion for &lt;photophobia&gt;

So as I understand it, you are saying that I have an exaggerated fear of homosexuals, and that I am intolerant of, and display aversion towards homosexuals. Are you with me so far?

Here's the thing, you have no evidence to prove that I fear, hate, or would deny homosexuals their right to live as they see fit.

Do I personally feel that homosexual sex is repugnant? Yes. Then again, I also feel that certain practices partaken in by some heterosexuals (i.e golden showers, brown showers, violent sadomasochism) are pretty darned repugnant as well. That is a far cry from being "homophobic".
</font color>
And btw (the worms keep coming), I would not consider most of the politically active christians christians. Jesus was not an exclusionary force, and if he were alive today, he would not be part of the Christian right. I firmly believe this, but hey, that's just my opinion.

<font color="blue">You have every right to your opinion and every right to preach it on every street corner, or to shout it from the rooftops. I think you're wrong, but that's just my opinion.
</font color>
-Roger

PS. read my reponse to highsea for why I included creationism in my post. <hr /></blockquote>

SF