Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

The eye of the Firestorm...
kurohyou Posted: Sun Feb 6 15:30:03 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  So I don't know if this story has actually made it outside of Colorado, but it is causing quite the stir around here. Actually more like a firestorm.

A short history...

One of the links below is to an essay written by Ward Churchill, a professor at the University of Colorado. Since this essay became public, (how it actually came out I don't know) there has been an insane amount of critizism about this man and what he allegedly put forth in this article.

The media, as per the unforchunate norm, took what he said, and skewed it so that it was taken out of context.

The resulting fallout is that our governor, Bill Owens has called for Churchill's resignation. Even the Colorado state Sentate has now come forward, joined forces with the CU Board of Regents and are trying to force Churchill's resignation.

Why? Because of what he said? They seem to be taking a hard line on free speech. Which is odd considering that CU has a strong liberal arts program and is based in one of the most liberal parts of Colorado, Boulder. (Or the People's Republic of Boulder for those of us here...)

I don't want to intrepret what he said, I want to know other's opinons based off Churchill's actual words, not my paraphrasing of them.

I have read the entire essay (12 Pages or so) as well as a response Churchill issued after this firestorm broke out.

My initial response is that despite the abrasive, insulting and over the top nature of the essay, and an overall lack of balance in his view--the core of what he is trying to say seems to have some validity.

Actions have consequences. Regardless of what arena it is played out in, be it personal relationships, work environments or the game of chess called foreign affairs.

I guess one of the big problems I have with this current situation is not so much whether his essay was right or wrong, but whether it is right to force this man to resign for exercising his right to free speech?

I think on principle and in theory everyone will be saying he has his right to freedom of speech. And if that is the case, why go after his job? Why try to force him to resign? As my wife put it, our universities are suppose to be safe and appropriate places to put forth new ideas, even if they are unpopular.

This does not seem to be an action which would make anyone feel safe in voicing an opinion which might fall into the realm of "unpopular" with those who hold the power.

I am also having trouble with the fact that the CO senate seems to be jumping into the fray to try to get this man's job. What does it matter to them? Its very unnerving and irritating to me that my state government is focusing on a witch hunt instead of dealing with what I pay my taxes for them to do. If Churchill wants to go off and rant about this or that let him, what do I care, its america he can say it, and anyone who doesn't like it has a right not to listen.

My wife wrote the president of the CO senate, Joan Fitzgerald, after she made a comment that Churchill's behavior was giving CU a bad name. My wife pointed out that the Football Recuiting Sex Scandal gave CU just as much of a bad name 4 months ago, and we didn't see the State senate jumping into to get Coach Barnett fired.

Frankly if Churchill is forced to resign I will feel that freedom of speech has taken a black eye.

I know a lot of these names and whatnot are hebrew to most of you, but I just was seeking some input and thought this would be fun conversation here.

The Links

Actual Essay:

http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=cfee1069-0abe-421a-00d6-36463de43888&TEMPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf

Churchill's Response:

http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=cf45af15-0abe-421a-018d-4eaeb0e8b2a2&TEMPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf

For what it's worth...


 
DanSRose Posted: Sun Feb 6 16:43:12 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  While I am grossly offended at what Churchill said, especially as he is accpeting and expecting violence of this magnitude as natural, I do agree his being fired would be a serious injury what is left of the First Amendment.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Feb 6 16:49:12 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I has nothing to do with free speech.
He is protected from prosecution by the government by the first amendment, not a guarantee of employment.



 
kurohyou Posted: Sun Feb 6 23:45:47 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>I has nothing to do with free speech.
>He is protected from prosecution by the government by the first amendment, not a guarantee of employment.
>

You know I keep hearing people claim that this has nothing to do with free speech. The head of the CO Senate, Joan Fitzgerald wrote my wife back saying the same thing.

I guess I don't see exactly how its not about free speech. Here you have a professor who stated his point of view, albeit in a crass manner, who is now being demonized as a result.

If it were just the university getting involved, and the students of the school that would be one thing. But when the CO state senate gets involved, I think that dances far to close to the line to feel comfortable.

If the aim of the first amendment is to only protect you from legal prosecution, then you can say whatever you want and the government won't prosecute you. Good. But that doesn't extend to them attempting to silence you, or otherwise punish you for your views. In this case, get you removed from your job as a professor. Is that an acceptable manner of dealing with a person who says something which is contrary to popular opinion?

The CU President made a comment also about the responsibilities which are associated with free speech...and what I ask are those responsibilities?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that what he said was right, frankly some of his comments were so far out there they left me conjuring their visual image more than their actual merit. (Specifically the comment about Madaline Albright being a Malignant toad)

And I do believe that you have to think about how what you say is going to affect others. A greater degree of tact would have gone a long way for Professor Churchill in this essay.

However, that is a personal line that I draw. And America is full of people who don't draw the same line. And that is their right to do. I guess then the question which arises in my mind about the responsibility associated with free speech is this... are you're welcome to have freedom of speech as long as you don't rub people the wrong way. As long as you don't offend someone in any way shape or form?

In my mind the colo. senate, and the governer have no right to try to get this man removed. If the CU Board of Regents decided that on a professional level Churchill violated some university policy then great. Fine. But I don't like the idea of the government getting involved with the punishment, if any is warranted.

And what would the reprocussion of this be? If Churchill is removed then that could set a precedent for the handling any university professor who publishes views contrary to the norm. What would happen to our university systems, or the very idea of expanding thoughts if our thinkers, if the professors in our universities are afraid to put forth their idea for fear of reprucussions like this. What would happen if our university professors are turned into a bunch of yes men out?

Not sure...in my mind something just doesn't set well in this sitaution. Though I'm still mulling it over...we shall see.

For what it's worth...


 
andariel Posted: Tue Feb 8 18:33:24 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  this essay came out 3 or so years ago, i read it on it's original release. Churchill has always written in such a way, its really very shocking that this is the first that we're hearing about the uprisings he's caused.

While the board was pushing for his resignation it was the resignation for his post of honor as chair of... international studies I want to say, not so much his job at least at first thats how it was. Someone offered up the idea that money be cut from the college and taken straight from his program as a from of punishment, to keep him from speaking again.

Now, if you liked this essay or it got you thinking or whatever I really recommend you read some more of them, most are book length and sold in all bookstores sometimes you can find them online if not in print you can find his works recorded and sold online, spoken word style.

I live in Colorado and go to college in Durango so every class today has been talking about this and everyone ('cause we're all pot smokin', Bush hatin', rallyin', protesting hippies) is up in arms about how wrong it is that the voice of one should be stifled. Me, I think that there was a line that was crossed in that essay. Maybe not one that warrants the involvement of the CO senate and, having been written outside of CU and their walls and thus power, not the loss of a job. I feel theres nothing that should be done about it other that say we don't like nor agree with whats being said, or rising up and writing an essay to converse with or counter his. The school should step back and say something like "the views expressed by this man do not represent the views of the school..." That'd take care of the bad image, kinda.

I think that everyone's worry is that he's teaching his students to think this way, not that he thinks that way. He's not really, but thats the thought (i got to hear him speak a year or two ago) If everyone is that worried about what he's saying that might be brain washing students have someone sit in on classes and record whats being taught (with out interfering with the class.) Once it's been proven that he's not force feeding views to students (or that he is) take the right action.

I dunno, my views today are messed up from hearing and talking about it so much (not to mention cold medication, a mild hangover and the normal 4:20 high.) and I relly don't like how big of a thing it's been blown into. Shit like this goes down every day it's just that Churchill has a name for himself and the school knows people read what he writes.

I just don't know.

I don't like it at all, the whole thing leaves a funny taste in my mouth.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Feb 9 06:43:45 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  By David Horowitz
Rocky Mountain News | February 9, 2005

RMN Editor's note: In an interview that appeared in Saturday's Rocky Mountain News, University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill said "It's been announced in pretty clear terms by both David Horowitz and Newt Gingrich that I am just the kickoff for a general purge they have in mind." In the following column, Horowitz, who is editor-in-chief of FrontPageMagazine.com and president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture in Los Angeles, explains what his actual position is in the debate over whether Churchill should be fired for his inflammatory statements.

It will probably come as a surprise to many people, both friend and foe alike, that I am opposed to any attempt to fire Ward Churchill for the essay (now part of a book) that has become notorious in which he denounces his own country as a genocidal empire, supports America's terrorist enemies, and says that 9/11 was a case of the "chickens coming home to roost."

We live in country whose cornerstone document is a Bill of Rights that guarantees Americans a right to make fools of themselves if they so desire. State institutions like the University of Colorado are forbidden by our Constitution from firing people for expressing opinions, however offensive, idiotic or evil (and Churchill's comments on 9/11 qualify as all three). If, on the other hand, as some have charged, Churchill is not really a Native American as he claims, then of course he should be fired for fraud.

Yes, Churchill is a self-declared ally of our enemies in the terrorist war against us. But so are many academic leftists, including those now rallying to his defense. A decent university system with serious academic standards would probably not have hired Churchill in the first place, let alone promoted him to a position of responsibility and honor as the chair of the Ethnic Studies Department. But that does not give the regents of the university the right to fire him because he has embarrassed them now.

The real question is why wasn't anybody embarrassed before? In 1998, to cite one example, Churchill published a book - Pacificism as Pathology - which was essentially an argument for violent revolution to overthrow America's democracy. It was dedicated to an American terrorist who blew herself up while making a bomb intended to kill Army recruits and their dates at a social dance at Fort Dix. Why weren't any of his colleagues or superiors upset about this?

Churchill is most widely known, in fact, for his academic writings in defense of the Black Panthers, a leftist gang that murdered a dozen people, and for his academic treatises accusing America of plotting and carrying out genocide against minorities throughout its history.

Those who marvel at the current spectacle should keep in mind the fact that there is absolutely nothing new here, nothing that has not been not publicly known for years. The offending essay itself was published three years ago. No, whatever sin he has committed has not only been a matter of public record for more than 30 years, it has been reviewed over and over by duly constituted academic authorities at CU. The opinions that have suddenly catapulted this professor into the limelight have been examined and applauded by his university professors, the search-and-hiring committees that put him on the faculty of CU-Boulder, the promotion-and-tenure committees that made him a full professor, and the department that elected him chair.

In sum, Churchill's views, which are both hateful and ignorant, represent the views a substantial segment of the academic community at Boulder and on campuses generally. Robert Jensen, a leftist professor at the University of Texas whom I have debated on TV over the Churchill matter, fully shares Churchill's views that America should lose the war on terror and that the terrorists are in fact "resistance" fighters opposing the American empire. A well-known required text for "Peace Studies" programs authored by two professors at well-known universities teaches students that the word "terrorist" describes the American Founders, that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" and that America is the world's "most terrorist state." Churchill's new book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, which contains his offending essay, is up for a Gustavus Myers Award, a "civil rights" award administered by academics.

The Churchill affair is an expression of the degenerate state of American social science and humanities faculties. It illuminates the political subversion of the academic enterprise by tenured radicals who have made universities like Boulder political institutions of the left, and in the process so diminished the presence of conservative, libertarian and even centrist thought from university faculties that hate-America radicals like Churchill are now pillars of the profession.

The remedy for this situation is not to purge the Ward Churchills from academic faculties. Their ideas are by now entrenched in the university curriculum and cannot be stamped out by firing an individual even if that were advisable (which it is not). They need to be confronted intellectually. Their scholarly incompetence needs to be exposed, and students need to be presented with an alternative view of history that is closer to reality.

The remedy for the Churchill problem is first of all to embrace the idea of intellectual diversity as a primary university value. This will insulate the university from attempts by legislators to remedy the situation themselves. The American public will accept the presence of an extremist like Churchill on a university faculty if they are convinced that the university is a true marketplace of ideas and that Churchill's perverse views will be answered by his peers.

The real problem is that there is no such diversity at the University of Colorado at Boulder today. In the present academic system, conservatives are as rare as unicorns, and have an almost impossible barrier to overcome in order to get hired. That is because search and hiring committees are composed of professors like Ward Churchill. That is the problem that the regents of the University of Colorado (and similar institutions) need to begin to address, now.





 
addi Posted: Wed Feb 9 08:22:44 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>In the present academic system, conservatives are as rare as unicorns, and have an almost impossible barrier to overcome in order to get hired.

Hmm...One needs to stop and think about this statement by Horowitz. Why is this the case in our institutions of higher learning?
Horowitz is bombastic here (there's a shocker!), but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and agree that the majority of professors in America probably lean to the left in their political views.
Is it because, as he states, that those in charge of faculty hiring at colleges all across the country are part of a leftist liberal system dead set against hiring anyone with a conservative view?
I find that difficult to swallow, and a little ignorant to be honest.
How about this as a reason:
Maybe the majority of applying, having completed years of higher education, ALREADY lean to the left in their political views. Maybe the majority of applicants interviewing for these positions have some liberal viewpoints in the first place.
This would mean that it's not really some "system", controlled by the extremist liberal faculty of colleges all across the nation, but that the reason for the majority of America's universities having liberal viewpoints is simply because the majority of applicants for these positions have more liberal viewpoints. Maybe Horowitz's complaint about "conservatives are as rare as unicorns" is because conservative applicants for these postions are in a minority. Hmm...
Which begs this question;
Why would that be the case?

My very unscientific (and controversial)view is that this is the case because the more a person is educated the more they tend to reject many of the main conservative tenets.
Yes, there are plenty of examples of highly educated conservatives you could throw back at me and say "Hogwash!". I'm speaking in generalities here. It's just my belief that the primary reason rightists distain the educated elete may be due to the fact that the majority of people having a higher degree of education also tend to reject the neo-conservative platform. They have learned to see through the propaganda of their message.
And I don't think this is uniquely American either. The majority of political "troublemakers" in undeveloped countries, or in countries controlled by a despotic or theisitic goverments are also the educated ones. They have been taught to think for themselves, and that's a dangerous weapon in many areas of the world. This is why totalitarian regimes throughout history have tried to keep the masses ignorant..they're easier to manipulate.

Now that i have some of your feathers all ruffled I should point out that I don't agree with Churchill's views. There are plenty of wacko leftists out there too. I turn the channel when i hear Bush speaking. I turn the channel when I hear Ted Kennedy speaking.

Over and over again i find that the problem with so much of the crap that comes out of right wing conservative opinions is that it's way too oversimplified. It's too easy...too black and white. Horowitz thinks that all of our institutions of higher education are run by a bunch of extreme leftists that are hell bent on keeping anyone with a conservative viewpoint unemployed. It's just too easy of an explanation.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Feb 9 08:32:25 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Horowitz has evidence to support his views, what do you have ?


 
addi Posted: Wed Feb 9 08:43:33 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Horowitz has evidence to support his views, what do you have ?

lol
Oh, If I had only known he had real and factual evidence to support his views before i took the time to type my opinions out. I retract everything i wrote. I feel so foolish.


*now please excuse me while I go rearrange my penis. It's leaning to the left.

: )


 
libra Posted: Wed Feb 9 12:12:49 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Exit poll results for the last election show 55% of Postgrad Educated people voting for Kerry. To George Bush's 44%.
Every category in the less education categories (high school, some college, college grad) are in Bush's favor except for Kerry's 1% lead in the no high school area.

If you have to go to Grad School or get your PhD to teach at the university level, then statistically, there'd be more liberal teachers.
And, this is just my own little addition: If one is a republican, I would guess one would be more likely to try for a higher paying job rather than be a lowely teacher. Of course teachers are mostly liberal...who else in the world would be willing to be paid shit to educate future generations?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Feb 9 16:17:58 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>*now please excuse me while I go rearrange my penis. It's leaning to the left.
>
You're in luck, that's just the way Monica likes them !


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Feb 9 16:19:00 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>Exit poll results for the last election show 55% of Postgrad Educated people voting for Kerry. To George Bush's 44%.
>Every category in the less education categories (high school, some college, college grad) are in Bush's favor except for Kerry's 1% lead in the no high school area.
>
>If you have to go to Grad School or get your PhD to teach at the university level, then statistically, there'd be more liberal teachers.
>And, this is just my own little addition: If one is a republican, I would guess one would be more likely to try for a higher paying job rather than be a lowely teacher. Of course teachers are mostly liberal...who else in the world would be willing to be paid shit to educate future generations?
>
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15066


 
FN Posted: Wed Feb 9 16:59:40 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I don't have the time to read it now and to get involved in this (I'll probably will, but not right now) but all I have to say about it at the moment is that I couldn't supress a cocky smile when I saw the ads on that site where you get the article from hif.

No offense, ofcourse, but when I see stuff like that there's already a serious dent in it's credibility for me. At least it raises suspicion.


 
Mesh Posted: Wed Feb 9 17:27:22 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Tehehehe.


 
libra Posted: Wed Feb 9 17:35:21 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>libra said:
>>
>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15066

"A study conducted in 2002 by the American Enterprise Magazine at the request of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture showed that of 394 faculty members whose party registrations could be identified at four University of California campuses (Berkeley, UCLA, San Diego and Santa Barbara), 371 were registered Democrats or Greens, as compared to only 23 Republicans or Libertarians. This was true not only for sociology, a traditionally leftwing field, but political science where 94% of party registrations were also on the left.

Such extreme lack of intellectual diversity suggests a problem in the hiring process throughout the U.C. system. There is no possibility that in a nation as evenly divided between liberals and conservatives such a distribution would be statistically possible if there were no bias in the hiring process itself."



Why the fuck is it impossible for Republicans to use the scientific method.

Sure, the hiring process might be a reason for the divide. But as he does not state any sort of factual evidence on why this is so, then I will not believe it until studies are done and there is a definite correlation. It is simply a hypothesis, just like MY hypothesis that liberals are more likely to want to teach. That more liberals are APPLYING for the jobs.

In order to claim this bias in the hiring of professors as a reason for the lack of republican instructors, one would have to conduct some sort of survey of teaching applicants that has them state their political persuasion and then looks at the results of the hiring, taking into account, of course, the people's specific qualifications for the job. (For example, if a liberal had a higher degree, more experience, etc. than a republican, it wouldn't be descrimination for a school to hire a liberal.)

David Horowitz took one look at the stats and fabricated some reason behind them without doing any sort of research into WHY. That's like Steven Jay Gould letting people know about every idea he had before he did testing and research. Or, what if a scientist speculated that saying the word "nuclear" pronounced "nuc-u-lar" caused brain cells to die. You wouldn't accept it until the scientist had done research and valid testing on the topic.


 
addi Posted: Wed Feb 9 18:02:49 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:

>Why the fuck is it impossible for Republicans to use the scientific method.

Big smile

because interjecting reason into your belief system is dangerous?






 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Feb 9 20:09:15 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>David Horowitz took one look at the stats and fabricated some reason behind them without doing any sort of research into WHY.
>
And you took one look at the stats and ignored them.
You don't know the first thing about Mr. Horowitz and you accuse him of fabricating lies.
Even the most left of center idealogue that knows Horowitz wouldn't call him a liar.
The stats bear this:
a series of recent studies by independent researchers has shown that on any given university faculty in America, professors to the left of the political center outnumber professors to the right of the political center by a factor of 10-1 and more. At some elite schools like Brown and Wesleyan the ratio rises to 28-1 and 30-1. Even assuming a skew resulting from the career choices of individuals who share certain values along this spectrum, a 10-1 ratio indicates a greater bias than any random process would lead one to expect. But even if one were to accept the 10-1 ratio as indication of a fair hiring process, how would one then explain the 30-1 figure at Brown, without reference to hiring bias? Yet neither the Brown Administration nor the American Association of University Professors, nor any academic association has thus far indicated the slightest interest in -- let alone concern about -- these troubling facts.



 
libra Posted: Wed Feb 9 20:33:13 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>libra said:
>>David Horowitz took one look at the stats and fabricated some reason behind them without doing any sort of research into WHY.
>>
>And you took one look at the stats and ignored them.

I understand them 'hif. That's why I even bothered to make any mention of them. Because I understand that they do not MEAN that the school system has some evil plot to take over the world with liberalism, even if they really are planning that. The first thing one learns in statistics is that proving cause and effect takes a huge amount of research and exploration. Most of the time, the only thing one can prove is a correlation between two things.


>You don't know the first thing about Mr. Horowitz and you accuse him of fabricating lies.
>Even the most left of center idealogue that knows Horowitz wouldn't call him a liar.

I don't have to know him to realize that he's jumping (a very long distance) to conclusions on this one. He's using some statistics that only slightly relate to his argument to make him sound like he has the facts, but if someone actually thinks about it, the only thing the stats are telling us is the political ideas of the teachers at these three universities. It is not telling us WHY those people are teachers. Bending statistics is one of the first things the media does, and I'm not going to sit back like the rest of the US and let them throw numbers at me without thinking about what they mean.

>The stats bear this:
>a series of recent studies by independent researchers has shown that on any given university faculty in America, professors to the left of the political center outnumber professors to the right of the political center by a factor of 10-1 and more. At some elite schools like Brown and Wesleyan the ratio rises to 28-1 and 30-1. Even assuming a skew resulting from the career choices of individuals who share certain values along this spectrum, a 10-1 ratio indicates a greater bias than any random process would lead one to expect. But even if one were to accept the 10-1 ratio as indication of a fair hiring process, how would one then explain the 30-1 figure at Brown, without reference to hiring bias? Yet neither the Brown Administration nor the American Association of University Professors, nor any academic association has thus far indicated the slightest interest in -- let alone concern about -- these troubling facts.
>
Like I said before, hiring bias is one of many possible factors in this situation, but I think there are a lot of other factors that could be more or just as important when deciding what the reasons are behind this.
There's the fact that people with postgraduate education are more likely to vote liberally.
There's the hypothesis (that i'd be willing to put a lot of money on) that more liberals apply for teaching jobs (especially at the schools under consideration).
There's also the fact that the statistics they have here were taken at schools that are already known to be pretty liberal. Berkeley? are you kidding me?
Wesleyan and Brown are also very liberal schools (student-wise). That's likely to be reflected in the faculty. I bet liberals could do a similar study focusing on some universities in the south, and places like BYU or very religious schools and find the opposite information. It just depends on who you decide to survey.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Feb 9 20:42:37 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>libra said:
>>>David Horowitz took one look at the stats and fabricated some reason behind them without doing any sort of research into WHY.
>>>
>>And you took one look at the stats and ignored them.
>
>I understand them 'hif. That's why I even bothered to make any mention of them. Because I understand that they do not MEAN that the school system has some evil plot to take over the world with liberalism, even if they really are planning that. The first thing one learns in statistics is that proving cause and effect takes a huge amount of research and exploration. Most of the time, the only thing one can prove is a correlation between two things.
>
>
>>You don't know the first thing about Mr. Horowitz and you accuse him of fabricating lies.
>>Even the most left of center idealogue that knows Horowitz wouldn't call him a liar.
>
>I don't have to know him to realize that he's jumping (a very long distance) to conclusions on this one. He's using some statistics that only slightly relate to his argument to make him sound like he has the facts, but if someone actually thinks about it, the only thing the stats are telling us is the political ideas of the teachers at these three universities. It is not telling us WHY those people are teachers. Bending statistics is one of the first things the media does, and I'm not going to sit back like the rest of the US and let them throw numbers at me without thinking about what they mean.
>
>>The stats bear this:
>>a series of recent studies by independent researchers has shown that on any given university faculty in America, professors to the left of the political center outnumber professors to the right of the political center by a factor of 10-1 and more. At some elite schools like Brown and Wesleyan the ratio rises to 28-1 and 30-1. Even assuming a skew resulting from the career choices of individuals who share certain values along this spectrum, a 10-1 ratio indicates a greater bias than any random process would lead one to expect. But even if one were to accept the 10-1 ratio as indication of a fair hiring process, how would one then explain the 30-1 figure at Brown, without reference to hiring bias? Yet neither the Brown Administration nor the American Association of University Professors, nor any academic association has thus far indicated the slightest interest in -- let alone concern about -- these troubling facts.
>>
>Like I said before, hiring bias is one of many possible factors in this situation, but I think there are a lot of other factors that could be more or just as important when deciding what the reasons are behind this.
>There's the fact that people with postgraduate education are more likely to vote liberally.
>There's the hypothesis (that i'd be willing to put a lot of money on) that more liberals apply for teaching jobs (especially at the schools under consideration).
>There's also the fact that the statistics they have here were taken at schools that are already known to be pretty liberal. Berkeley? are you kidding me?
>Wesleyan and Brown are also very liberal schools (student-wise). That's likely to be reflected in the faculty. I bet liberals could do a similar study focusing on some universities in the south, and places like BYU or very religious schools and find the opposite information. It just depends on who you decide to survey.
>
I guess you chose to ignore the passage that said "any given university in America".


 
libra Posted: Wed Feb 9 20:53:36 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Oh, really? They did this study at every University in the United states? Every single one?

where are the results?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Feb 9 21:02:33 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>Oh, really? They did this study at every University in the United states? Every single one?
>
>where are the results?
>
Once again you see something that is not there. I did not say EVERY university.
This study was done 3 years ago at a dozen major universities and since then their findings have been proven to be the norm across America. Here are but a few:
• At the University of Colorado—a public university in a Republican state—94% of the liberal arts faculty whose party registrations could be established were Democrats and only 4% percent Republicans. Out of 85 professors of English who registered to vote, zero were Republicans. Out of 39 professors of history—one. Out of 28 political scientists—two.

How Republican is Colorado? Its governor, two Senators and four out of six congressmen are Republican. There are 200,000 more registered Republicans in Colorado than there are Democrats. But at the state-funded, University of Colorado, Republicans are a fringe group.

• At Brown University, 94.7% of the professors whose political affiliations showed up in primary registrations last year were Democrats, only 5.3% were Republicans. Only three Republicans could be found on the Brown liberal arts faculty. Zero in the English Department, zero in the History Department, zero in the Political Science Department, zero in the Africana Studies Department, and zero in the Sociology Department.

• At the University of New Mexico, 89% of the professors were Democrats, 7% Republicans and 4% Greens. Of 200 professors, ten were Republicans, but zero in the Political Science Department, zero in the History Department, zero in the Journalism Department and only one each in the Sociology, English, Women’s Studies and African American Studies Departments.

• At the University of California, Santa Barbara, 97% of the professors were Democrats. 1.5% Greens and an equal 1.5% Republicans. Only one Republican professor could be found.

• At the University of California, Berkeley, of the 195 professors whose affiliations showed up, 85% were Democrats, 8% Republicans, 4% Greens and 3% American Independent Party, Peace and Freedom Party and Reform Party voters. Out of 54 professors in the History Department, only one Republican could be found, out of 28 Sociology professors zero, out of 57 English professors zero, out of 16 Women’s Studies professors zero, out of nine African American Studies professors zero, out of six Journalism professors zero.

• At the University of California, Los Angeles, of the 157 professors whose political affiliations showed up 93% were Democrats, only 6.5% were Republicans.

• At the University of North Carolina, the Daily Tar Heel conducted its own survey of eight departments and found that, of the professors registered with a major political party, 91% were Democrats while only 9% were Republicans.

Your theory cannot possibly support these numbers.




 
libra Posted: Wed Feb 9 21:44:49 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>libra said:
>
>Your theory cannot possibly support these numbers.
>

Not without some serious research. But neither can Horowitz's be supported until he comes up with some sort of serious evidence.

What I'd like to see (but i know Horowitz wouldn't do it because he already has his little fans in his pockets knodding their heads and agreeing without thinking) is some research done about the applicants for the jobs, and whether or not there really is an army of republicans out there just waiting for their chance to teach.

Now I understand why people can be republicans. Because this is the sort of thing they're being fed. They see numbers, and they go OH FACTS! They get fed a reason and they say OK.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 10 06:41:11 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>libra said:
>>
>>Your theory cannot possibly support these numbers.
>>
>
>Not without some serious research. But neither can Horowitz's be supported until he comes up with some sort of serious evidence.
>
>What I'd like to see (but i know Horowitz wouldn't do it because he already has his little fans in his pockets knodding their heads and agreeing without thinking) is some research done about the applicants for the jobs, and whether or not there really is an army of republicans out there just waiting for their chance to teach.
>
>Now I understand why people can be republicans. Because this is the sort of thing they're being fed. They see numbers, and they go OH FACTS! They get fed a reason and they say OK.
>
Oh, that's just brilliant Libra, and so typical of the "election liberals today".
Talk about being spoonfed your ideology.
You guys keep referring to us conservatives as stupid and uneducated, and then wonder why most of the country won't get behind you.
I'm satisfied that when a university in Colorado has upwards of 95 percent liberal professors in a state that is controlled by conservatives at virtually every elected office at the state level, something needs to be looked at.
Even giving you the benefit of the doubt, don't you think these numbers at least bear looking at ?
Of course you don't, because you don't believe both sides of any issue bear looking at.


 
addi Posted: Thu Feb 10 07:43:45 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>You guys keep referring to us conservatives as stupid and uneducated, and then wonder why most of the country won't get behind you.

I'm a liberal and I don't think conservatives are stupid and uneducated. I do think the majority of them are gullible, dangerously misguided, religiously judgmental, shallow, and smugly hypocritical.



>I'm satisfied that when a university in Colorado has upwards of 95 percent liberal professors in a state that is controlled by conservatives at virtually every elected office at the state level, something needs to be looked at.

I went to college in Minnesota. It was at that time a very democratic state. The professors at my college were 98% conservative republicans (the other 2% literally kept their mouths shut for fear of being fired). I thought something needed to be looked at there.

>Of course you don't, because you don't believe both sides of any issue bear looking at.

I actually smiled reading this comment. A conservative lecturing a liberal for the need to look at both sides of an issue. My, my....hell hath just frozen over.
: )


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 10 08:30:12 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>I'm a liberal and I don't think conservatives are stupid and uneducated. I do think the majority of them are gullible, dangerously misguided, religiously judgmental, shallow, and smugly hypocritical.
>
True some conservatives fit all of your descriptions, but I feel the same holds true for liberals. I don't think the majority of either party fits all of your descriptions.
>
>I went to college in Minnesota. It was at that time a very democratic state. The professors at my college were 98% conservative republicans (the other 2% literally kept their mouths shut for fear of being fired). I thought something needed to be looked at there.
>
I don't doubt that it was conservatively controlled but I would like to see where you got your actual numbers.
But if you take the time to look at Horowitz's findings, the liberal takeover of our universities has taken place over the last 30yrs or so, probably starting about the time you were in college (pa-paw).
>
>>Of course you don't, because you don't believe both sides of any issue bear looking at.
>
>I actually smiled reading this comment. A conservative lecturing a liberal for the need to look at both sides of an issue. My, my....hell hath just frozen over.
>: )
I'll just give you a few examples, when Clinton was elected and then re-elected, there was no threat of a mass exodus to leave the country.
Most conservatives were content to have let the people decide and work from within to change things. There were no "Not my President" tee shirts with Clinton's picture on them, and he was Never heckled while giving a state of the union address.


 
Mesh Posted: Thu Feb 10 10:03:05 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'll just say one thing, which adds absolutley nothing to the debate.

Ward Churchill is one goofy looking mother fucker.


 
libra Posted: Thu Feb 10 10:36:38 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>I'll just give you a few examples, when Clinton was elected and then re-elected, there was no threat of a mass exodus to leave the country.
>Most conservatives were content to have let the people decide and work from within to change things. There were no "Not my President" tee shirts with Clinton's picture on them, and he was Never heckled while giving a state of the union address.

Awww. I bet it hurt Bush's feelings that we all want to go to canada and wear shirts that speak out against him. Poor rich little boy. I bet he has a lot of emotional issues stemming from this. I bet he cries at night telling laura that "They don't like me"

It's called the First Amendment 'hif.
And if it hurts bush's feelings, or any other Republican, perhaps they should think about the way they're hurting us.



 
Mouse Posted: Thu Feb 10 10:44:27 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  This thread is too wide, I can't read it.
Mouse


 
libra Posted: Thu Feb 10 10:53:37 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>>
>Oh, that's just brilliant Libra, and so typical of the "election liberals today".
>Talk about being spoonfed your ideology.

That's me. Not any goddamn ideology. Ever since I was about 11 I didn't understand why people could be republicans. How people could be so conservative. It is simply my realization of why. Because it always seemed so unthinkable. I feel the same way about people who are religious, and certain other groups.

>You guys keep referring to us conservatives as stupid and uneducated, and then wonder why most of the country won't get behind you.

Did i say stupid and uneducated?
Like I said, I'm not a politician, it was purely a personal thought. I'm not working to bring together republicans and democrats at the moment. I'm just making an observation.

>I'm satisfied that when a university in Colorado has upwards of 95 percent liberal professors in a state that is controlled by conservatives at virtually every elected office at the state level, something needs to be looked at.
>Even giving you the benefit of the doubt, don't you think these numbers at least bear looking at ?
>Of course you don't, because you don't believe both sides of any issue bear looking at.

Sweet of you to answer the question for me. But what you're saying isn't true. Didn't I already say in a few different posts that there are things that should be looked at. Wasn't I the one that suggested ANOTHER study be done about the applicants? Because I want more solid evidence before I come to a conclusion about something. Whether it's a conclusion I like or not.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 10 14:19:50 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>
>Awww. I bet it hurt Bush's feelings that we all want to go to canada and wear shirts that speak out against him. Poor rich little boy. I bet he has a lot of emotional issues stemming from this. I bet he cries at night telling laura that "They don't like me"
>
>It's called the First Amendment 'hif.
>And if it hurts bush's feelings, or any other Republican, perhaps they should think about the way they're hurting us.
>
Apparently you missed my point completely, I never said you didn't have the right to do those things.
I was merely comparing your (liberals) reaction to Dubya's election to the conservative's reaction to Clinton being elected for his second term.
The conservative element merely went to work getting their message out, while your guys said "fuck it, I'm leaving", much like the proverbial child on the playground who "takes his toys and goes home" because he isn't getting his way.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 10 14:24:15 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>
>. Poor rich little boy.
>
You used this term to denigrate Dubya.
I don't get it.
Your guy (Kerry) is worth at least 6 times more than Bush.
He was born into money and then married it two more times.
How is "poor little rich boy" a term of degradation in this case ?


 
addi Posted: Thu Feb 10 15:13:03 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  hif,
I think i need to clarify something here.
I know I can come off as a very arrogant cocky SOB when it comes to our political discussions. I just want to make it very clear that I don't equate a person being "smarter than" to that person being "better than" another human.
I'll give you a real life example from my past. Back when I was teaching I got to be good buds with the school janiter, Robert. Robert wasn't real on the ball, if you get my drift. If he and I were pitted against each other in a series of academic or intelligence tests I would blow him away.
But Robert was a good man with a good heart and he genuinely worked hard at his "meaningless" job, loved the children, and went out of his way to help teachers and students whenever they needed him.
If there is a supreme being, and we face a judgement day, I have no doubt that Robert could be way ahead of me in the line of goodness. By most moral standards I think he is a better person than I am.
So when I get on my rants about "stupid republicans and conservatives" it's SOLELY my opinion that I am wiser than the majority of them regarding politics, and what's the best direction for the American people to head in. Right or wrong, I do believe that. However, I would never ever say that I am therefore a better person than them; that the value of my life is more than the value of their life because i think I'm more intelligent.
So before you break out your 12 guage and shoot me off my pedistal, remember that the one you're standing on is the same height as mine.

: )



 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 10 15:45:51 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>hif,
>I think i need to clarify something here.
>I know I can come off as a very arrogant cocky SOB when it comes to our political discussions. I just want to make it very clear that I don't equate a person being "smarter than" to that person being "better than" another human.
>I'll give you a real life example from my past. Back when I was teaching I got to be good buds with the school janiter, Robert. Robert wasn't real on the ball, if you get my drift. If he and I were pitted against each other in a series of academic or intelligence tests I would blow him away.
>But Robert was a good man with a good heart and he genuinely worked hard at his "meaningless" job, loved the children, and went out of his way to help teachers and students whenever they needed him.
>If there is a supreme being, and we face a judgement day, I have no doubt that Robert could be way ahead of me in the line of goodness. By most moral standards I think he is a better person than I am.
>So when I get on my rants about "stupid republicans and conservatives" it's SOLELY my opinion that I am wiser than the majority of them regarding politics, and what's the best direction for the American people to head in. Right or wrong, I do believe that. However, I would never ever say that I am therefore a better person than them; that the value of my life is more than the value of their life because i think I'm more intelligent.
>So before you break out your 12 guage and shoot me off my pedistal, remember that the one you're standing on is the same height as mine.
>
>: )
I already knew that Addie, but not all liberals feel the same as you.
Also, I don't own a gun, but I did my time in the military to make sure you could own one if you so desired.
I also do not equate wisdom to what passes for a formal education these days.
And I may be splitting hairs here, because you were only using it to make a point, but I don't regard the school janitor position as a meaningless job.


 
FN Posted: Thu Feb 10 15:53:31 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  A question that comes to mind when reading the previous few posts:

How many of all the presidents in democraticly supreme america (again, I truly think that americans are the only ones who see it that way, 2 party system and all, but let's not get into that again) were non-millionaires or non-filthy rich (10$ was worth a lot more 50 years ago than 10$ now) at the time that they were president?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Feb 10 16:37:15 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>A question that comes to mind when reading the previous few posts:
>
>How many of all the presidents in democraticly supreme america (again, I truly think that americans are the only ones who see it that way, 2 party system and all, but let's not get into that again) were non-millionaires or non-filthy rich (10$ was worth a lot more 50 years ago than 10$ now) at the time that they were president?
>
Probably more than you think.
With very few exceptions, almost all of our presidents were either state governors, senators, or congressmen, before ascending to the presidency, so that would at the very least make them fincically comfortable.
Eisenhower was a general in the army.
Nixon was rich when he got there, but not born into money.
Carter was a governor, but a peanut farmer before that.
Reagan was governor of California, but a B-list movie actor before that.
Beyond Eisenhower, I would have to do some research to find out, but it's not really that important to me.


 
kurohyou Posted: Fri Feb 11 00:50:08 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>libra said:
>
>>Why the fuck is it impossible for Republicans to use the scientific method.
>
>Big smile
>
>because interjecting reason into your belief system is dangerous?
>
>
>
>
I've heard the same thing about balance in your thinking as well...dangerous, very dangerous...

For what its worth...


 
kurohyou Posted: Fri Feb 11 01:26:56 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I can't say that I agree with Horowitz's conspiracy theory type approach. And I would have to agree with Libra on that fact that there are very easily more than one factor playing into the high number of Liberal teachers in our colleges.

What I think it intriguing is that inspite of these liberal run colleges, they still manage to crank out a lot of right wing thinkers. Specifically from their business and economic departments.

Here's the thing...a lot of these numbers are talking about liberal arts colleges...

I don't doubt that you would find a lot of liberal professors in the social sciences departments of colleges, that is where they are best suited. As Libra pointed out, they're your teachers, your social workers, your humanitrians. Not to say that there aren't any conservatives in these professions, but I would be willing to bet that their numbers are not as high in these professions.

And while I could be wrong, the political leanings of the professors wouldn't play a terribly large role in the math and science departments. While I have no proof for this...I think that the numbers which we are looking at would change if you took a look at the these colleges on a whole, and didn't isolate your findings to their liberal arts department. Expand your findings to the econmomic and business deparments, the capitalist parts of the college and see what is found then-before you go off and accuse the whole school of being part of a left wing conspiracy.

Take a look at your economic and business departments, the departments which push capitalism over humanitarism, and you are liable to see the same numbers in reverse. That to me would seem to be the indication of a balanced univeristy system. And if that were indeed the case, where are these professors being hired from? the same board of regents who are trying to keep the conservatives from holding teaching positions?

My brother went to Colorado College in Colorado Springs. It is a very liberal arts college. He got a degree in economics and came out one of the strongest republicans I've seen. Granted that is only one example of the millions of college graduates this country cranks out each year, but with that in mind it doesn't appear as thought these colleges are brainwashing the youth of america to be leftwing thinkers.

I have heard the statements that the more educated that a person is the more to the left that they tend to lean. That may be true, depending on what they are educated in. I believe that those who are more educated in the humanities, those who look beyond the money matters of life, and those who see the plight of people of different walks of life, those people will tend to lean away from conservative points of view.

However, if you look at people who are educated in economics and business, the keys to capitalism, I think you see them leaning more conservative. There are two sides to the coin of education.

I'm not saying that conservatives are only money hungry, bigots who could give a rip about the plight of humanity. However, when I look at those who I have known who have been of conservative leanings tended to focus more on the money side of the world than the human side of it.

I will leave this with one final thought on education...

When I began college I was under the impression that it was to make me more intelligent, to make me a thinker. My freshman year in college I ran across this quote and have held onto it as I have made my way through college and life...seeking balance along the way...

"The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."

-F. Scott Fitzgerald

For what its worth...


 
addi Posted: Fri Feb 11 07:14:28 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  kurohyou said:
>I have heard the statements that the more educated that a person is the more to the left that they tend to lean. That may be true, depending on what they are educated in. I believe that those who are more educated in the humanities, those who look beyond the money matters of life, and those who see the plight of people of different walks of life, those people will tend to lean away from conservative points of view.

>However, if you look at people who are educated in economics and business, the keys to capitalism, I think you see them leaning more conservative. There are two sides to the coin of education.

Very good points. I didn't dig deep enough to think of that. The major you choose I'm sure plays a role in your political leanings (even though the only person i know right now majoring in finance would lean to the left in politics).


*and hif...you were splitting hairs. that's why I put "meaningless" in quotes.


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]