Choose One: University or Free Speech

[Greenbeard]

Interesting study here:

• The overall ratio of Democrats to Republicans we were able to identify at the 32 schools was more than 10 to 1 (1397 Democrats, 134 Republicans).

• Although in the nation at large registered Democrats and Republicans are roughly equal in number, not a single department at a single one of the 32 schools managed to achieve a reasonable parity between the two. The closest any school came to parity was Northwestern University where 80% of the faculty members we identified were registered Democrats who outnumbered registered Republicans by a ratio of 4-1.

• At other schools we found these representations of registered faculty Democrats to Republicans:

• 
  Brown 30-1
  Bowdoin, Wellesley 23-1
  Swarthmore 21-1
  Amherst, Bates 18-1
  Columbia, Yale 14-1
  Pennsylvania, Tufts, UCLA and Berkeley 12-1
  Smith 11-1

• At no less than four elite schools we could not identify a single Republican on the faculty:
  Williams 51 Democrats, 0 Republicans
  Oberlin 19 Democrats, 0 Republicans
  MIT 17 Democrats, 0 Republicans
  Haverford 15 Democrats, 0 Republicans

Conflating partisan affiliation with ideology is silly. I look at his list and see my alma mater is listed as having 8 Republicans. And yet it's known historically (and presently) for its contributions to conservative thinking. Horowitz worries that Hayekians and Straussians are getting shafted--yet Hayek and Strauss both taught there! Moreover, almost a quarter of the undergrads there choose a major that brings them through the most conservative department (no word on how many Republicans are among the faculty).

The ratio of registered Democrats to registered Republicans tells me nothing about ideological persuasions, teaching style, ideas introduced (is the high D:R ratio supposed to tell me that undergrads don't read Hayek next to Marx? because I know for a fact that there they do), or really anything interesting for that matter. But I do know that at my alma mater that kind of lazy scholarship and overreaching to justify pre-conceived conclusions wouldn't fly.

 

[daveman]

Conflating partisan affiliation with ideology is silly. I look at his list and see my alma mater is listed as having 8 Republicans. And yet it's known historically (and presently) for its contributions to conservative thinking. Horowitz worries that Hayekians and Straussians are getting shafted--yet Hayek and Strauss both taught there! Moreover, almost a quarter of the undergrads there choose a major that brings them through the most conservative department (no word on how many Republicans are among the faculty).

The ratio of registered Democrats to registered Republicans tells me nothing about ideological persuasions, teaching style, ideas introduced (is the high D:R ratio supposed to tell me that undergrads don't read Hayek next to Marx? because I know for a fact that there they do), or really anything interesting for that matter. But I do know that at my alma mater that kind of lazy scholarship and overreaching to justify pre-conceived conclusions wouldn't fly.

Is believing that your anecdotal evidence holds true universally the kind of "thinking" they teach you?

 

[Greenbeard]

Since I'm not arguing that, I'm not sure what the relevance of your question is.

The point, since apparently it wasn't clear, is that the thinking used to justify their conclusions doesn't follow. See: a counterexample. That doesn't mean many schools don't have ideological biases, it means they haven't shown that.

 

[Annie]

Since I'm not arguing that, I'm not sure what the relevance of your question is.

The point, since apparently it wasn't clear, is that the thinking used to justify their conclusions doesn't follow. See: a counterexample. That doesn't mean many schools don't have ideological biases, it means they haven't shown that.

Schools are unable to have ideological bias, haven't you learned that lesson? Faculty on the other hand undoubtedly do. The real issue is whether the preach or teach. Teaching involves bringing in conflicting points of view, persuasively. Whether through the instructor or guests/students. It's really not that difficult, but is necessary.

 

[daveman]

Since I'm not arguing that, I'm not sure what the relevance of your question is.

The point, since apparently it wasn't clear, is that the thinking used to justify their conclusions doesn't follow. See: a counterexample. That doesn't mean many schools don't have ideological biases, it means they haven't shown that.

Because you agree with the bias doesn't mean it's not there.

 

[Woyzeck]

Saying they're a registered Democrat or Republican, doesn't really mean much. You can assume a lot from it, but based on what the party affiliation alone, doesn't confirm or deny bias from any political spectrum. It tells you what they are perhaps likely to lean, but you cannot objectively confirm without asking more than party affiliation.

Simply put, there are conservative Democrats, and liberal Republicans, and simply pointing out party affiliation doesn't tell us which way they lean when it comes to politics. Assuming all Democrats are liberal can be dangerous, since there are those who buck such a stereotype. Same with Republicans.

 

[Modbert]

I suppose Daveman has never heard of the blue dogs. A group of Conservative Democrats in Congress. However, under Dave's close minded thinking, they must be Liberals.

Still waiting for those examples of "inaccurate" history davey. You can't even give one example.

 

[Annie]

Saying they're a registered Democrat or Republican, doesn't really mean much. You can assume a lot from it, but based on what the party affiliation alone, doesn't confirm or deny bias from any political spectrum. It tells you what they are perhaps likely to lean, but you cannot objectively confirm without asking more than party affiliation.

Simply put, there are conservative Democrats, and liberal Republicans, and simply pointing out party affiliation doesn't tell us which way they lean when it comes to politics. Assuming all Democrats are liberal can be dangerous, since there are those who buck such a stereotype. Same with Republicans.

Exactly. I'm all for a professor 'putting out his point of view,' then sitting back and waiting for the regurgitation from his students. Then hit them with, "But what if or In this case, what?" Deadly silence from those unable to pick up that ball...

 

[Woyzeck]

I'm curious on this subject of bias in colleges, so I'll throw out a question.

What subjects do you think political biases creep up on to the point of preaching? English? History? Math? Science? Anthropology?

 

[daveman]

Saying they're a registered Democrat or Republican, doesn't really mean much. You can assume a lot from it, but based on what the party affiliation alone, doesn't confirm or deny bias from any political spectrum. It tells you what they are perhaps likely to lean, but you cannot objectively confirm without asking more than party affiliation.

Simply put, there are conservative Democrats, and liberal Republicans, and simply pointing out party affiliation doesn't tell us which way they lean when it comes to politics. Assuming all Democrats are liberal can be dangerous, since there are those who buck such a stereotype. Same with Republicans.

Again: Because you agree with the bias doesn't mean it's not there.

 

[Woyzeck]

Saying they're a registered Democrat or Republican, doesn't really mean much. You can assume a lot from it, but based on what the party affiliation alone, doesn't confirm or deny bias from any political spectrum. It tells you what they are perhaps likely to lean, but you cannot objectively confirm without asking more than party affiliation.

Simply put, there are conservative Democrats, and liberal Republicans, and simply pointing out party affiliation doesn't tell us which way they lean when it comes to politics. Assuming all Democrats are liberal can be dangerous, since there are those who buck such a stereotype. Same with Republicans.

Again: Because you agree with the bias doesn't mean it's not there.

I never claimed there wasn't bias, I just said you can't assume bias on party lines, since there is the distinct possibility that they might not follow their party's line toe and heel and so on.

 

[daveman]

I suppose Daveman has never heard of the blue dogs. A group of Conservative Democrats in Congress. However, under Dave's close minded thinking, they must be Liberals.

Still waiting for those examples of "inaccurate" history davey. You can't even give one example.

Sure I can. But I bet you won't agree it's inaccurate.

"A Peoples’ History of the United States" has been my signature text for every one of my history courses since the day I began teaching at The Pilot School. That was 1981 and Howie’s book had just been published. My choice was a no-brainer. My first year of teaching in DC transformed me into a militant teacher activist. Howard is one of the earliest historians of the civil rights movement in the South in the 60’s. His book SNCC: The New Abolitionists is a classic. I was in DC SNCC. Howard Zinn gave new political understanding and legitimacy to our social justice movement. I considered myself to be a progressive educator. I was a history teacher that promoted the importance of social justice in the history of American Democracy as my Over-Arching Understanding goal. Howard’s book provided the revisionist approach to teaching and understanding the struggle of the American people that built our democracy.

Any teacher who has ever used this book as a textbook has taught inaccurate history.

 

[Coyote]

Interesting study here:

• The overall ratio of Democrats to Republicans we were able to identify at the 32 schools was more than 10 to 1 (1397 Democrats, 134 Republicans).

• Although in the nation at large registered Democrats and Republicans are roughly equal in number, not a single department at a single one of the 32 schools managed to achieve a reasonable parity between the two. The closest any school came to parity was Northwestern University where 80% of the faculty members we identified were registered Democrats who outnumbered registered Republicans by a ratio of 4-1.

• At other schools we found these representations of registered faculty Democrats to Republicans:

• 
  Brown 30-1
  Bowdoin, Wellesley 23-1
  Swarthmore 21-1
  Amherst, Bates 18-1
  Columbia, Yale 14-1
  Pennsylvania, Tufts, UCLA and Berkeley 12-1
  Smith 11-1

• At no less than four elite schools we could not identify a single Republican on the faculty:
  Williams 51 Democrats, 0 Republicans
  Oberlin 19 Democrats, 0 Republicans
  MIT 17 Democrats, 0 Republicans
  Haverford 15 Democrats, 0 Republicans

Certain professions tend to be self-selecting. Liberals tend to be drawn more towards academia and journalism, for example. Conservatives outnumber liberals however in the spheres of business and finance.

But I don't see anyone bitching about that.

 

[Woyzeck]

I suppose Daveman has never heard of the blue dogs. A group of Conservative Democrats in Congress. However, under Dave's close minded thinking, they must be Liberals.

Still waiting for those examples of "inaccurate" history davey. You can't even give one example.

Sure I can. But I bet you won't agree it's inaccurate.

"A Peoples’ History of the United States" has been my signature text for every one of my history courses since the day I began teaching at The Pilot School. That was 1981 and Howie’s book had just been published. My choice was a no-brainer. My first year of teaching in DC transformed me into a militant teacher activist. Howard is one of the earliest historians of the civil rights movement in the South in the 60’s. His book SNCC: The New Abolitionists is a classic. I was in DC SNCC. Howard Zinn gave new political understanding and legitimacy to our social justice movement. I considered myself to be a progressive educator. I was a history teacher that promoted the importance of social justice in the history of American Democracy as my Over-Arching Understanding goal. Howard’s book provided the revisionist approach to teaching and understanding the struggle of the American people that built our democracy.

Any teacher who has ever used this book as a textbook has taught inaccurate history.

Why is it 'inaccurate' history? Does he not cite properly? Misuse sources? What makes the book 'inaccurate?'

Keep in mind, revisionism means something entirely different in the history field.

 

[Coyote]

Interesting how the assumption always seems to be "anti-free-speech" liberals against beleagured "pro-free-speech" conservatives.

Let's see how "pro-free-speech" these faux-victems really are?

Teacher Fired For Calling Adam and Eve a Fairy Tale

A community college instructor in Red Oak claims he was fired after he told his students that the biblical story of Adam and Eve should not be literally interpreted. Steve Bitterman, 60, said officials at Southwestern Community College sided with a handful of students who threatened legal action over his remarks in a western civilization class Tuesday. He said he was fired Thursday…

Bitterman said he called the story of Adam and Eve a “fairy tale” in a conversation with a student after the class and was told the students had threatened to see an attorney. He declined to identify any of the students in the class.

“I just thought there was such a thing as academic freedom here,” he said. “From my point of view, what they’re doing is essentially teaching their students very well to function in the eighth century.”

Hector Avalos, an atheist religion professor at Iowa State University, said Bitterman’s free-speech rights were violated if he was fired simply because he took an academic approach to a Bible story.

“I don’t know the circumstances, but if he’s teaching something about the Bible and says it is a myth, he shouldn’t be fired for that because most academic scholars do believe this is a myth, the story of Adam and Eve,” Avalos said.

“So it’d be no different than saying the world was not created in six days in science class.

“You don’t fire professors for giving you a scientific answer.”

 

[Old Rocks]

Poor, poor Conservatives. Just to dumb to make it in academia.

Seems to me to be just another thread in which the Conservatives are venting their dislike of education and science. As opposed to conservatives, I might add.

 

[Modbert]

Certain professions tend to be self-selecting. Liberals tend to be drawn more towards academia and journalism, for example. Conservatives outnumber liberals however in the spheres of business and finance.

But I don't see anyone bitching about that.

According to Daveman, I'd be a Conservative then.

 

[manifold]

If a restaurant owner should have the right to not serve *******, then a university should have the right to not employ preachers.

I'm sure Rand Paul would agree.

 

[daveman]

Interesting study here:

• The overall ratio of Democrats to Republicans we were able to identify at the 32 schools was more than 10 to 1 (1397 Democrats, 134 Republicans).

• Although in the nation at large registered Democrats and Republicans are roughly equal in number, not a single department at a single one of the 32 schools managed to achieve a reasonable parity between the two. The closest any school came to parity was Northwestern University where 80% of the faculty members we identified were registered Democrats who outnumbered registered Republicans by a ratio of 4-1.

• At other schools we found these representations of registered faculty Democrats to Republicans:

• 
  Brown 30-1
  Bowdoin, Wellesley 23-1
  Swarthmore 21-1
  Amherst, Bates 18-1
  Columbia, Yale 14-1
  Pennsylvania, Tufts, UCLA and Berkeley 12-1
  Smith 11-1

• At no less than four elite schools we could not identify a single Republican on the faculty:
  Williams 51 Democrats, 0 Republicans
  Oberlin 19 Democrats, 0 Republicans
  MIT 17 Democrats, 0 Republicans
  Haverford 15 Democrats, 0 Republicans

Certain professions tend to be self-selecting. Liberals tend to be drawn more towards academia and journalism, for example. Conservatives outnumber liberals however in the spheres of business and finance.

But I don't see anyone bitching about that.

Really? What about all the liberals bitching about rich conservatives, while giving rich liberals a pass?

 

[daveman]

I suppose Daveman has never heard of the blue dogs. A group of Conservative Democrats in Congress. However, under Dave's close minded thinking, they must be Liberals.

Still waiting for those examples of "inaccurate" history davey. You can't even give one example.

Sure I can. But I bet you won't agree it's inaccurate.

"A Peoples’ History of the United States" has been my signature text for every one of my history courses since the day I began teaching at The Pilot School. That was 1981 and Howie’s book had just been published. My choice was a no-brainer. My first year of teaching in DC transformed me into a militant teacher activist. Howard is one of the earliest historians of the civil rights movement in the South in the 60’s. His book SNCC: The New Abolitionists is a classic. I was in DC SNCC. Howard Zinn gave new political understanding and legitimacy to our social justice movement. I considered myself to be a progressive educator. I was a history teacher that promoted the importance of social justice in the history of American Democracy as my Over-Arching Understanding goal. Howard’s book provided the revisionist approach to teaching and understanding the struggle of the American people that built our democracy.

Any teacher who has ever used this book as a textbook has taught inaccurate history.

Why is it 'inaccurate' history? Does he not cite properly? Misuse sources? What makes the book 'inaccurate?'

Keep in mind, revisionism means something entirely different in the history field.

Big list of Zinn's lies and inaccuracies here.