Discussion:
How Mowwisey was indoctrinated
(too old to reply)
Redbaiter
2003-12-06 11:57:15 UTC
Permalink
An article that outlines why most university students of today
only know half the story, and imagine against all the evidence,
that they are living in a world dominated by rightists, and
capitalist conspiracies..

Ever wondered how bimbos like Mowwisey can believe the garbage
they write? Why they are such absurd fantasisers? Read this
article in full, and it will become clear how and why such
uninformed misguided bigoted fools as Mowwisey and so many
others are around in such numbers-

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1035047/posts

Some excerpts-

This year, for example, a criminology class at a Colorado
university was given an assignment to write a paper on “Why
George Bush Is A War Criminal.” Bad enough. But a student who
chose to submit a paper on “Why Saddam Hussein Is A War
Criminal” received a failing grade (for political
incorrectness).

At Augustana University, a Lutheran private college, a student
was attacked by his own professor and called a “neo-fascist” in
front of his classmates for the sin of inviting a FoxNews
Channel host to speak on the campus.

At Metro State College in Denver, a student who was a Special
Forces instructor and had served his country in Panama, the Gulf
War, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq was told by his professor
that he was a “racist” and “violent” and that his uniform was an
“offense to the class.”

At Texas University, students complained about a professors who
used their classrooms as political soapboxes, including one
journalism professor who instead of teaching journalistic
methods lectured on racism, the war in Iraq and ruling class
control of the media.

I myself attended a class in “Modern Industrial Societies” at
Bates College a few years ago, in which the sole text was a 500-
page tract put together by the editors of New Left Review with a
range of authorities restricted to Marxists. When I asked the
professor about the educational appropriateness of so one-sided
a text, she replied “They get the other side from the
newspapers.”

Finally, 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.

The resistance of universities to the academic freedom
protections for students guaranteed in the bill is an expression
of the fundamental problem at the heart of this issue.
Universities have become so ideologically conformist – both in
their faculty and their administration -- that they have
undermined their public credibility on these matters.

If a prospective professor with politically left views has ten-
or thirty-to-one advantage of being hired over a conservative,
what does that say about the ability of faculties to judge in a
fair-minded manner what constitutes indoctrination versus what
constitutes education? How can faculties which have demonstrated
such bias in the selection of their academic peers be presumed
to be fair-minded in their treatment of students who are their
academic inferiors?
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
Tarla Star
2003-12-06 18:33:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Redbaiter
An article that outlines why most university students of today
only know half the story, and imagine against all the evidence,
that they are living in a world dominated by rightists, and
capitalist conspiracies..
Ever wondered how bimbos like Mowwisey can believe the garbage
they write? Why they are such absurd fantasisers? Read this
article in full, and it will become clear how and why such
uninformed misguided bigoted fools as Mowwisey and so many
others are around in such numbers-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1035047/posts
Some excerpts-
This year, for example, a criminology class at a Colorado
university was given an assignment to write a paper on “Why
George Bush Is A War Criminal.” Bad enough. But a student who
chose to submit a paper on “Why Saddam Hussein Is A War
Criminal” received a failing grade (for political
incorrectness).
If it was an international law class, then the assignment was
appropriate. The student failed not because of political incorrectness,
but because he didn't do the assignment.
Post by Redbaiter
At Augustana University, a Lutheran private college, a student
was attacked by his own professor and called a “neo-fascist” in
front of his classmates for the sin of inviting a FoxNews
Channel host to speak on the campus.
What? Now professors aren't allowed to have opinions and state them?
Post by Redbaiter
At Metro State College in Denver, a student who was a Special
Forces instructor and had served his country in Panama, the Gulf
War, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq was told by his professor
that he was a “racist” and “violent” and that his uniform was an
“offense to the class.”
Gee, a Junior College teacher lashes out. Yeah, this proves why Morrisey
and others are so fucking liberal, eh?
Post by Redbaiter
At Texas University, students complained about a professors who
used their classrooms as political soapboxes, including one
journalism professor who instead of teaching journalistic
methods lectured on racism, the war in Iraq and ruling class
control of the media.
There is no "Texas University". There are about a half dozen
Universities in Texas. Figure out which one this happened at and get
back to us.
Post by Redbaiter
I myself attended a class in “Modern Industrial Societies” at
Bates College a few years ago, in which the sole text was a 500-
page tract put together by the editors of New Left Review with a
range of authorities restricted to Marxists. When I asked the
professor about the educational appropriateness of so one-sided
a text, she replied “They get the other side from the
newspapers.”
So? Learn to learn. Of course what you consider Marxists, most of the
rest of us consider Middle of the road.
Post by Redbaiter
Finally, 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.
Well fucking DUH! A decent education will make you see the whole world,
not just your little niche. People who understand how the world works,
tend to be liberal.
Post by Redbaiter
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.
Open minded individuals go into teaching, and conservatives go into
politics. I bet the ratio of conservatives is just as skewed in politics.
Post by Redbaiter
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.
Why should they? Brown is doing quite well.
Post by Redbaiter
The resistance of universities to the academic freedom
protections for students guaranteed in the bill is an expression
of the fundamental problem at the heart of this issue.
Universities have become so ideologically conformist – both in
their faculty and their administration -- that they have
undermined their public credibility on these matters.
Only if they espouse positions which are contrary to fact. Matters of
opinion are just that.
Post by Redbaiter
If a prospective professor with politically left views has ten-
or thirty-to-one advantage of being hired over a conservative,
what does that say about the ability of faculties to judge in a
fair-minded manner what constitutes indoctrination versus what
constitutes education? How can faculties which have demonstrated
such bias in the selection of their academic peers be presumed
to be fair-minded in their treatment of students who are their
academic inferiors?
You obviously have no idea how faculty are chosen. Let me edify you
some. Bringing a new staff member into the faculty is like a marriage.
You don't marry people that you don't get along with. Candidates are
only originally chosen because of their academic background. The
interviews are what really determines the result. Imagine having to work
with someone who was at opposite ends of the socio-political spectrum
from yourself....for twenty years, 'cause that's what tenure means. Any
new staff member has a potential for being tenured.
Redbaiter
2003-12-06 20:35:20 UTC
Permalink
Tarla Star says

My guess was that most extreme leftists here would be too
ashamed to respond, but hell, silly me, I overlooked the total
lack of morality of communists again didn't I, and here we have
the most shallow and nauseating attempt to justify what is a
disgustingly immoral blot on the educational landscape.
Post by Tarla Star
Post by Redbaiter
This year, for example, a criminology class at a Colorado
university was given an assignment to write a paper on “Why
George Bush Is A War Criminal.” Bad enough. But a student who
chose to submit a paper on “Why Saddam Hussein Is A War
Criminal” received a failing grade (for political
incorrectness).
If it was an international law class, then the assignment was
appropriate. The student failed not because of political incorrectness,
but because he didn't do the assignment.
In your bigoted and totally unsubstantiated opinion. What is
there to say but crap. Or- how weak!
Post by Tarla Star
Post by Redbaiter
At Augustana University, a Lutheran private college, a student
was attacked by his own professor and called a “neo-fascist” in
front of his classmates for the sin of inviting a FoxNews
Channel host to speak on the campus.
What? Now professors aren't allowed to have opinions and state them?
Of course, but they are not immune from the consequences of such
bigotry.
Post by Tarla Star
Post by Redbaiter
At Metro State College in Denver, a student who was a Special
Forces instructor and had served his country in Panama, the Gulf
War, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq was told by his professor
that he was a “racist” and “violent” and that his uniform was an
“offense to the class.”
Gee, a Junior College teacher lashes out. Yeah, this proves why Morrisey
and others are so fucking liberal, eh?
Liberal? Hahaha. Don't make me laff. You sick ignorant
intolerant lying under educated commies don't know the meaning
of the word.
Post by Tarla Star
Post by Redbaiter
At Texas University, students complained about a professors who
used their classrooms as political soapboxes, including one
journalism professor who instead of teaching journalistic
methods lectured on racism, the war in Iraq and ruling class
control of the media.
There is no "Texas University". There are about a half dozen
Universities in Texas. Figure out which one this happened at and get
back to us.
Fuck off. I would trust David Horowitz infinitely before I would
trust a lying hate filled propaganda spreading commie stooge
like you.
Post by Tarla Star
Post by Redbaiter
I myself attended a class in “Modern Industrial Societies” at
Bates College a few years ago, in which the sole text was a 500-
page tract put together by the editors of New Left Review with a
range of authorities restricted to Marxists. When I asked the
professor about the educational appropriateness of so one-sided
a text, she replied “They get the other side from the
newspapers.”
So? Learn to learn. Of course what you consider Marxists, most of the
rest of us consider Middle of the road.
"Most of the rest of us" Another common transgression of
ignorant deluded commie elitists, assuming the right to speak
for others, and further assuming, in spite of all the historical
evidence to the contrary, that being part of an imaginary
majority makes them right. Not that there is evidence of any
majority support for the political indoctrination of students.
Clearly, you're one of the victims Tarla. How sad for you.
Post by Tarla Star
Post by Redbaiter
Finally, 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.
Well fucking DUH! A decent education will make you see the whole world,
not just your little niche. People who understand how the world works,
tend to be liberal.
"People who understand how the world works tend to be
liberal..???

?????????????????????????????????????

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH

What a great fucking argument. Good grief, what a sick
indoctrinated waste of time people like you are Tarla.
Post by Tarla Star
Post by Redbaiter
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.
Open minded individuals go into teaching,
That's just the point idiot. They are not opened minded, they
are intolerant bigots. Fuck, if I didn't know your education was
to blame, I would swear you were retarded, your comprehension is
so bad.
Post by Tarla Star
and conservatives go into
politics.
What utter unsubstantiated crap. Typical commie smoke screening
bullshit. Produce that stats when you make such claims or you
risk portraying yourself as an idiot. Woops, don't worry about
that. Far too late.
Post by Tarla Star
Post by Redbaiter
I bet the ratio of conservatives is just as skewed in politics.
What would you bet? And where is your substantiation for yet
another wild and baseless assertion. Good grief, you
bullshitting commies are so stark raving ignorant. I cannot
believe anyone could have the front to post so much
unsubstantiated opinion.
Post by Tarla Star
Post by Redbaiter
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.
Why should they? Brown is doing quite well.
Its not when its only telling students half the story, and the
wrong half at that.
Post by Tarla Star
Post by Redbaiter
The resistance of universities to the academic freedom
protections for students guaranteed in the bill is an expression
of the fundamental problem at the heart of this issue.
Universities have become so ideologically conformist – both in
their faculty and their administration -- that they have
undermined their public credibility on these matters.
Only if they espouse positions which are contrary to fact. Matters of
opinion are just that.
Not at all. Horowitz's complaint is sbout the lack of tolerance
for diversity of opinion, a circumstance which you echo so
accurately. Not a fucking commie lecturer are you?
Post by Tarla Star
Post by Redbaiter
If a prospective professor with politically left views has ten-
or thirty-to-one advantage of being hired over a conservative,
what does that say about the ability of faculties to judge in a
fair-minded manner what constitutes indoctrination versus what
constitutes education? How can faculties which have demonstrated
such bias in the selection of their academic peers be presumed
to be fair-minded in their treatment of students who are their
academic inferiors?
You obviously have no idea how faculty are chosen.
I can read tho, and make judgements about what I read.
Post by Tarla Star
Let me edify you some.
You couldn't, you're under educated, ignorant, but worst of all,
irrational and bigoted. You might be able to edify a spaniel
dog, but to any clear thinking adult, the words you post here
paint a portrait of a tired old commie propaganda stooge, a
complete joke, a social dinosaur now more often seen as an
object of humour or contempt rather than a source of
edification. Good grief, how out of touch can somebody be..
Post by Tarla Star
Bringing a new staff member into the faculty is like a marriage.
Bullshit. Faculties are there to educate students not
indoctrinate them. Marriage??? Fuck off with your gobsmackingly
stupid crap. I amazed you have the effrontery to post such
ignorant clap trap.
Post by Tarla Star
You don't marry people that you don't get along with. Candidates are
only originally chosen because of their academic background. The
interviews are what really determines the result. Imagine having to work
with someone who was at opposite ends of the socio-political spectrum
from yourself....for twenty years, 'cause that's what tenure means. Any
new staff member has a potential for being tenured.
The objective is to educate students, not indoctrinate them.
Whether you get along with your fellow staff members politically
or other wise is not even a secondary issue.

You disgust me with such transparent irrational propaganda, you
piece of commie filth. Leave our children alone. You are child
molesters of the mind.
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
janice
2003-12-06 22:10:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Redbaiter
Liberal? Hahaha. Don't make me laff. You sick ignorant
intolerant lying under educated commies don't know the meaning
of the word.
"3. It is accurate to call a member of a communist party a communist. For
short, he is often called a Red. Indiscriminate pinning of the label Red on
people and proposals which one opposes is a common political device. It is
a favorite trick of native as well as foreign fascists."

1945 US War Department Memorandum: Three Ways To Spot Facists

Andrew Bates uses the same political device used by fascists everywhere, he
calls everyone who disagrees with him a commie.
Tarla Star
2003-12-07 07:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Redbaiter
Tarla Star says
My guess was that most extreme leftists here would be too
ashamed to respond, but hell, silly me, I overlooked the total
lack of morality of communists again didn't I, and here we have
the most shallow and nauseating attempt to justify what is a
disgustingly immoral blot on the educational landscape.
Post by Tarla Star
Post by Redbaiter
This year, for example, a criminology class at a Colorado
university was given an assignment to write a paper on “Why
George Bush Is A War Criminal.” Bad enough. But a student who
chose to submit a paper on “Why Saddam Hussein Is A War
Criminal” received a failing grade (for political
incorrectness).
If it was an international law class, then the assignment was
appropriate. The student failed not because of political incorrectness,
but because he didn't do the assignment.
In your bigoted and totally unsubstantiated opinion. What is
there to say but crap. Or- how weak!
I'm sorry but you're full of crap, Sir. I've taught at a University. I
really doubt you have. He DIDN'T DO THE ASSIGNED WORK.
Post by Redbaiter
Post by Tarla Star
Post by Redbaiter
At Augustana University, a Lutheran private college, a student
was attacked by his own professor and called a “neo-fascist” in
front of his classmates for the sin of inviting a FoxNews
Channel host to speak on the campus.
What? Now professors aren't allowed to have opinions and state them?
Of course, but they are not immune from the consequences of such
bigotry.
Very few people are.
Post by Redbaiter
Post by Tarla Star
Post by Redbaiter
At Metro State College in Denver, a student who was a Special
Forces instructor and had served his country in Panama, the Gulf
War, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq was told by his professor
that he was a “racist” and “violent” and that his uniform was an
“offense to the class.”
Gee, a Junior College teacher lashes out. Yeah, this proves why Morrisey
and others are so fucking liberal, eh?
Liberal? Hahaha. Don't make me laff. You sick ignorant
intolerant lying under educated commies don't know the meaning
of the word.
Still, do you have any idea of how little influence a JC instructor has?
Post by Redbaiter
Post by Tarla Star
Post by Redbaiter
At Texas University, students complained about a professors who
used their classrooms as political soapboxes, including one
journalism professor who instead of teaching journalistic
methods lectured on racism, the war in Iraq and ruling class
control of the media.
There is no "Texas University". There are about a half dozen
Universities in Texas. Figure out which one this happened at and get
back to us.
Fuck off. I would trust David Horowitz infinitely before I would
trust a lying hate filled propaganda spreading commie stooge
like you.
You just can't stand to be wrong. There is NO Texas University. Look it
up, if you can't believe those better educated than yourself.
Post by Redbaiter
Post by Tarla Star
Post by Redbaiter
I myself attended a class in “Modern Industrial Societies” at
Bates College a few years ago, in which the sole text was a 500-
page tract put together by the editors of New Left Review with a
range of authorities restricted to Marxists. When I asked the
professor about the educational appropriateness of so one-sided
a text, she replied “They get the other side from the
newspapers.”
So? Learn to learn. Of course what you consider Marxists, most of the
rest of us consider Middle of the road.
"Most of the rest of us" Another common transgression of
ignorant deluded commie elitists, assuming the right to speak
for others, and further assuming, in spite of all the historical
evidence to the contrary, that being part of an imaginary
majority makes them right. Not that there is evidence of any
majority support for the political indoctrination of students.
Clearly, you're one of the victims Tarla. How sad for you.
I'm not a victim, you're a reactionary right wing troll.
Post by Redbaiter
Post by Tarla Star
Post by Redbaiter
Finally, 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.
Well fucking DUH! A decent education will make you see the whole world,
not just your little niche. People who understand how the world works,
tend to be liberal.
"People who understand how the world works tend to be
liberal..???
?????????????????????????????????????
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH
What a great fucking argument. Good grief, what a sick
indoctrinated waste of time people like you are Tarla.
Post by Tarla Star
Post by Redbaiter
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.
Open minded individuals go into teaching,
That's just the point idiot. They are not opened minded, they
are intolerant bigots. Fuck, if I didn't know your education was
to blame, I would swear you were retarded, your comprehension is
so bad.
If you had ANYTHING aside from your opinion to back you up, I guess you
would have used it by now.
Post by Redbaiter
Post by Tarla Star
and conservatives go into
politics.
What utter unsubstantiated crap. Typical commie smoke screening
bullshit. Produce that stats when you make such claims or you
risk portraying yourself as an idiot. Woops, don't worry about
that. Far too late.
Post by Tarla Star
Post by Redbaiter
I bet the ratio of conservatives is just as skewed in politics.
What would you bet? And where is your substantiation for yet
another wild and baseless assertion. Good grief, you
bullshitting commies are so stark raving ignorant. I cannot
believe anyone could have the front to post so much
unsubstantiated opinion.
Guess you didn't look at the results of the little test that was offered
for your amusement. Almost every political leader fits into the
conservative/authority areas of the grid.
Post by Redbaiter
Post by Tarla Star
Post by Redbaiter
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.
Why should they? Brown is doing quite well.
Its not when its only telling students half the story, and the
wrong half at that.
Post by Tarla Star
Post by Redbaiter
The resistance of universities to the academic freedom
protections for students guaranteed in the bill is an expression
of the fundamental problem at the heart of this issue.
Universities have become so ideologically conformist – both in
their faculty and their administration -- that they have
undermined their public credibility on these matters.
Only if they espouse positions which are contrary to fact. Matters of
opinion are just that.
Not at all. Horowitz's complaint is sbout the lack of tolerance
for diversity of opinion, a circumstance which you echo so
accurately. Not a fucking commie lecturer are you?
Nope. I'm a SubGenius. We tolerate amazing amounts of diversity. Haven't
you noticed that I'm still being polite to you despite your aggression
towards me?
Post by Redbaiter
Post by Tarla Star
Post by Redbaiter
If a prospective professor with politically left views has ten-
or thirty-to-one advantage of being hired over a conservative,
what does that say about the ability of faculties to judge in a
fair-minded manner what constitutes indoctrination versus what
constitutes education? How can faculties which have demonstrated
such bias in the selection of their academic peers be presumed
to be fair-minded in their treatment of students who are their
academic inferiors?
You obviously have no idea how faculty are chosen.
I can read tho, and make judgements about what I read.
Post by Tarla Star
Let me edify you some.
You couldn't, you're under educated, ignorant, but worst of all,
irrational and bigoted. You might be able to edify a spaniel
dog, but to any clear thinking adult, the words you post here
paint a portrait of a tired old commie propaganda stooge, a
complete joke, a social dinosaur now more often seen as an
object of humour or contempt rather than a source of
edification. Good grief, how out of touch can somebody be..
Post by Tarla Star
Bringing a new staff member into the faculty is like a marriage.
Bullshit. Faculties are there to educate students not
indoctrinate them. Marriage??? Fuck off with your gobsmackingly
stupid crap. I amazed you have the effrontery to post such
ignorant clap trap.
Actually, this was the exact explanation given to me by the selection
committee at the University of Oklahoma Anthropology Dept. Guess
what?...we hired a girl from Brown.
Post by Redbaiter
Post by Tarla Star
You don't marry people that you don't get along with. Candidates are
only originally chosen because of their academic background. The
interviews are what really determines the result. Imagine having to work
with someone who was at opposite ends of the socio-political spectrum
from yourself....for twenty years, 'cause that's what tenure means. Any
new staff member has a potential for being tenured.
The objective is to educate students, not indoctrinate them.
Whether you get along with your fellow staff members politically
or other wise is not even a secondary issue.
You can educate students and still be a decent person to get along with.
Post by Redbaiter
You disgust me with such transparent irrational propaganda, you
piece of commie filth. Leave our children alone. You are child
molesters of the mind.
And I'm sorry that you can't admit that many of my points are correct. I
do agree with you that linguistic political correctness is speech
control. I would rather stand on the street corner screaming NIGGER! at
the top of my lungs than see a law making such a thing illegal. I'm far
too direct to be politically correct.

Cheers,
Tarla
Redbaiter
2003-12-07 08:50:32 UTC
Permalink
Tarla Star says
Post by Tarla Star
Post by Redbaiter
In your bigoted and totally unsubstantiated opinion. What is
there to say but crap. Or- how weak!
I'm sorry but you're full of crap, Sir. I've taught at a University. I
really doubt you have. He DIDN'T DO THE ASSIGNED WORK.
And I would damn well believe that, in fact, you're probably one
of those to blame for Mowwisey's sick state of mind..
Post by Tarla Star
Post by Redbaiter
Post by Tarla Star
There is no "Texas University". There are about a half dozen
Universities in Texas. Figure out which one this happened at and get
back to us.
Fuck off. I would trust David Horowitz infinitely before I would
trust a lying hate filled propaganda spreading commie stooge
like you.
You just can't stand to be wrong. There is NO Texas University. Look it
up, if you can't believe those better educated than yourself.
Anyone with an education would know better than to write the
absolute bigoted unsubstantiated crap here that you do. You're
just the kind of half educated university end product that
Horowitz is talking about.

Texas University.

www.noindoctrination.org/cgibin/display_record.cgi?uid=247

No need to apologise for your ignorance.
Post by Tarla Star
If you had ANYTHING aside from your opinion to back you up, I guess you
would have used it by now.
You are a time wasting non comprehending uninformed idiot. There
is a surfeit of facts in the article you have responded to.
Here's another bunch of facts. Not that things ever matter with
such disgustingly bigoted leftist fuckwits as you. (I'd say
you've already seen them anyway.)


http://www.noindoctrination.org/

http://www.campus-watch.org/

http://www.cornelldailysun.com/articles/8183/

http://members.aol.com/bear317k/vvar-2.htm

http://www.academia.org/about.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz120202.asp

www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30763

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1030334/posts
Post by Tarla Star
Guess you didn't look at the results of the little test that was offered
for your amusement. Almost every political leader fits into the
conservative/authority areas of the grid.
***That**** is you evidence?

????????????????????????????????????????

Fuck off and stop wasting my time you fucking leftist moron. I
have heard better arguments from a twelve year old.
Post by Tarla Star
Nope. I'm a SubGenius.
No real need to point that out. To be totally honest tho, you'd
need to prefix a few hundred more "subs".
Post by Tarla Star
We tolerate amazing amounts of diversity.
Yep, that's of course the reason there are so many complaints.
Don't look at those web pages, such material obviously wouldn't
matter a fuck to such an incredibly deluded leftist subgenius as
yourself.
Post by Tarla Star
Haven't
you noticed that I'm still being polite to you despite your aggression
towards me?
Aggression? wrong. Its contempt, mixed with disgust. And be as
impolite as you like, you could hardly impress me less.
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
Tarla Star
2003-12-07 19:11:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Redbaiter
Tarla Star says
Post by Tarla Star
Post by Redbaiter
In your bigoted and totally unsubstantiated opinion. What is
there to say but crap. Or- how weak!
I'm sorry but you're full of crap, Sir. I've taught at a University. I
really doubt you have. He DIDN'T DO THE ASSIGNED WORK.
And I would damn well believe that, in fact, you're probably one
of those to blame for Mowwisey's sick state of mind..
Doubtful. You have two assumptions for which there is no evidence:
first, that Morrisey has a sick state of mind. Simply disagreeing with
you, doesn't make one sick. The second assumption is that I must have
taught in this country, since I am guessing that is where Mr. Morrisey
was educated. I taught Intro to Anthropology at the University of
Oklahoma. If I had been the above student's instructor, I might have
failed hir as well. To present a paper in defiance of the assignment
without the instructors' prior permission is openly defiant and
aggressive. It is also contrary to the instruction. Students are
students, they don't get to make the decisions on what they will and
will not do when they have been assigned a project.
Post by Redbaiter
Post by Tarla Star
Post by Redbaiter
Post by Tarla Star
There is no "Texas University". There are about a half dozen
Universities in Texas. Figure out which one this happened at and get
back to us.
Fuck off. I would trust David Horowitz infinitely before I would
trust a lying hate filled propaganda spreading commie stooge
like you.
You just can't stand to be wrong. There is NO Texas University. Look it
up, if you can't believe those better educated than yourself.
Anyone with an education would know better than to write the
absolute bigoted unsubstantiated crap here that you do. You're
just the kind of half educated university end product that
Horowitz is talking about.
Texas University.
www.noindoctrination.org/cgibin/display_record.cgi?uid=247
No need to apologise for your ignorance.
You can apologize for yours. Your link leads to the University of Texas
at San Antonio. No such thing as "Texas University".
Post by Redbaiter
Post by Tarla Star
Guess you didn't look at the results of the little test that was offered
for your amusement. Almost every political leader fits into the
conservative/authority areas of the grid.
***That**** is you evidence?
????????????????????????????????????????
Fuck off and stop wasting my time you fucking leftist moron. I
have heard better arguments from a twelve year old.
I reckon that's who you normally argue with since you set up straw men,
make logical errors constantly and seem to do little aside from name
calling. Yep, I'd guess 12 years old is just about your speed.
Post by Redbaiter
Post by Tarla Star
Nope. I'm a SubGenius.
No real need to point that out. To be totally honest tho, you'd
need to prefix a few hundred more "subs".
Fuck you if you can't take a joke.
Post by Redbaiter
Post by Tarla Star
We tolerate amazing amounts of diversity.
Yep, that's of course the reason there are so many complaints.
Don't look at those web pages, such material obviously wouldn't
matter a fuck to such an incredibly deluded leftist subgenius as
yourself.
I'm featured in those web pages. I have my own little section thank you.
Post by Redbaiter
Post by Tarla Star
Haven't
you noticed that I'm still being polite to you despite your aggression
towards me?
Aggression? wrong. Its contempt, mixed with disgust. And be as
impolite as you like, you could hardly impress me less.
You are a foil. My goal would never be to impress YOU.
Redbaiter
2003-12-09 09:11:57 UTC
Permalink
Tarla Star says
Post by Tarla Star
There is no "Texas University". There are about a half dozen
Universities in Texas. Figure out which one this happened at and get
back to us.
High Noon in Texas for Leftist Academics
By Steve Brown
CNSNews.com | November 10, 2003


Following Steve Brown's article, we include the Spring 2004 list
of professors UTYCT sent out, as well as a sample of
NoIndoctrination.org's professor listing. - The Editors.

Fed up with what it views as "an overwhelming liberal bias in
higher education," a group of conservative students at the
University of Texas has begun compiling a list of professors who
allegedly use their classes for the liberal indoctrination of
students.

"There's a lot of professors out there who don't just teach the
facts, but also mold the curriculum in a way that attempts to
produce a certain mindset in their students," said Austin
Kinghorn, chairman of the university's chapter of the Young
Conservatives of Texas. "These are the kinds of professors that
the Professor Watch List was designed to identify, and the idea
is that we can give a little bit of control back to students in
how they're going to determine their own education."

The group distributed the list at a table on campus last week as
students were registering for classes next spring. Students may
also find the list on the UTYCT's (University of Texas chapter
of Young Conservatives of Texas) website.

Kinghorn noted that students were already able to access
information about the level of difficulty in which a particular
professor taught his or her class. The Professor Watch List adds
another element to the mix, he said. UTYCT members provided the
information for the list from class visits or from taking the
classes themselves.

Sample entries include one for Robert Jensen, who teaches
"Critical Issues in Journalism." According to the Professor
Watch List, Jensen introduces the "unsuspecting" student to a
crash course in "socialism, white privilege, the truth about the
Persian Gulf War and the role of America as the world's
prominent sponsor of terrorism.

"Jensen half-heartedly attempts to tie his rants to 'critical
issues' in journalism, insisting his lessons are valid under the
guise of teaching potential journalists to 'think' about the
world around them. Jensen is also renowned for using class time
when he teaches Media Law and Ethics to 'come out' and analogize
gay rights with the civil rights movement," the list entry for
Jensen reads.

Speaking to the Austin American-Statesman, Jensen described
himself as "left-progressive" and said he wasn't surprised to be
on the list.

"There are students who thank me for bringing up these issues
and being straightforward. I've also had complaints and comments
from those who think I'm pushing a certain political agenda in
class," Jensen told the Statesman.

Jim Eltringham, public relations director for the Arlington,
Va.-based Leadership Institute's Campus Leadership Program,
which fosters conservative campus organizations nationwide, said
the watch list is "a fantastic idea." He said it would benefit
students who come to the realization after a couple of weeks in
class that "this isn't an educational experience, this is
indoctrination. This is someone telling you what their views are
and making that the course curriculum."

"That's not what college is supposed to be about. It's a gross
misuse of the opportunity a professor has to educate the next
generation," Eltringham told CNSNews.com.

Edmund T. Gordon, another professor profiled on the watch list,
teaches African and African-American Studies. The list notes
that a black student once asked Gordon in class what was wrong
with being black and conservative.

"Gordon implied that if you're black and conservative, you're
not black enough, and you're not doing what's in the best
interest of the black community," the watch list states.

But Kinghorn pointed out that far-left professors aren't the
only ones on the list.

"There's also an honor roll on there, and the idea is it's not
about your politics. If a professor runs an intellectually fair
class and deals with important subjects without letting their
politics get in the way, we think that's worth noting, and we
think there's a lot of students who'd be interested in knowing
who those professors are," Kinghorn said. "We're not out here to
target every liberal professor in the world."

Eltringham agreed, acknowledging that not all liberal professors
are bad.

"We're talking about the ones who turn their spot at the front
of the classroom into a bully pulpit...and letting ideology
affect grades," Eltringham said.

Larry Faulkner, president of the University of Texas, told the
Statesman that UTYCT members "have the right to make the list."
He said the school's 30-year-old academic freedom policy allows
professors "freedom to explore ideas on their own merits," so
long as they do not "give undue weight" to their own political
or moral judgments.

"The magic word there is 'undue,'" Faulkner told the Statesman.
"That's going to be, to some extent, in the eye of the
beholder."

While Kinghorn said his group's list was unique at the
University of Texas, he pointed to NoIndoctrination.org, a site
providing ratings on professors at campuses across the country.
The Texas list will continue to grow and is something UTYCT
plans to keep offering during fall and spring registration
periods, Kinghorn said.

"The professors seem to be taking the watch list seriously in
that they want to dedicate time to it in their classrooms, to
discuss it," Kinghorn said.



THE LIST YCT DISTRIBUTED:

Spring 2004 Watch List

Instructor: Robert Jensen
Department: Journalism
Course Evaluated: Critical Issues in Journalism
Spring 2004 courses: Critical Issues in Journalism

In a survey course about Journalism, one might expect to learn
about the industry, some basics about reporting and layout, the
history of journalism, the values of a free press and what
careers make the news machine function. Instead, Jensen
introduces the unsuspecting student to a crash course in
socialism, white privilege, the "truth"; about the Persian Gulf
War and the role of America as the world's prominent sponsor of
terrorism. Jensen half-heartedly attempts to tie his rants to
"critical issues" in journalism, insisting his lessons are valid
under the guise of teaching potential journalists to "think"
about the world around them. Jensen is also renowned for using
class time when he teaches Media Law and Ethics to "come out"
and analogize gay rights with the civil rights movement.
Ostensibly, this relates somehow to his course material.


----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

Instructor: Clement Henry
Department: Government
Course Evaluated: Arab-Israeli Politics
Spring 2004 courses: Unspecified GOV312 sections and
Globalization in Middle East and Africa

Both books that are required reading present a pro-Palestinian
bias. Dr. Henry could have required the class to read one Pro-
Palestinian and one Pro-Israeli book. He consistently employs a
negative tone when talking about the U.S. or Israel, and
attempts to belittle students who disagree with him. Dr. Henry
has been consistently critical of Israeli and American policies
while hardly mentioning the atrocities committed by Arab suicide
bombers and espouses ludicrous Jewish conspiracy theories.


----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

Instructor: David Edwards
Department: Government
Course Evaluated: International Relations
Spring 2004 courses: Politics and Reality, 310 American
Government

Dr. Edwards allows his hatred of conservatism and capitalism to
permeate his entire curriculum. His videos reflect the left-wing
viewpoint nine times out of 10. He teaches one side of the
story, and uses examples of Bush's policies for nearly every
criticism of political actors. The articles he highlights from
the New York Times are almost always criticisms of capitalism,
free trade organizations or the Iraq war.


----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

Instructor: Steve Bronars
Department: Economics
Course Evaluated: Introduction to Microeconomics
Spring 2004 courses:

Dr. Bronars acknowledges that one of the reasons he teaches
economics is to get more people to agree with his opinions on
it. He champions the free market system and believes in minimal
government intervention. Although he may try to offer a liberal
perspective on economics early on, he will admit that his class
focuses instead on efficiency. He is very good at teaching
economics, but sometimes his opinions are the main things that
shine through in his lectures. You probably wouldn't take a free
market economics class if you didn't already believe in
cap talism, but Dr. Bronars may try to do the thinking for his
students without challenging them to question why they feel the
way they do.


----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

Instructor: Edmund T. Gordon
Department: African and African-American Studies
Course evaluated: African-American Culture
Spring 2004 courses: Blacks and Resources

A black student in the class who held conservative politics
asked what was wrong with being black and conservative, and
Gordon implied that if you're black and conservative, you're not
black enough, and you're not doing what's in the best interest
of the black community. He's called himself a radical and
displayed a political agenda of changing students' minds toward
a far left ideology. Most of what's taught consists of how
blacks were and are oppressed, which would seem to deprive
students of other important elements of black culture.


----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

Instructor: Gretchen Webber
Department: Sociology
Course Evaluated: Introduction To The Study Of Society
Spring 2004 courses: Pending

This introductory sociology survey course is taught by Dr.
Webber primarily from a conflict theory perspective, although
Webber, the textbook and the readings do deal with competing
sociological perspectives such as functionalism, symbolic
interactionism and feminism [Yes, that IS considered a
sociological perspective.]. Webber and the readings’ emphasis on
conflict theory mean that a certain interrelated set of premises
are assumed at the outset of the course: A nation’s economic
wealth is finite; there is "conflict" over this finite wealth
along race, class, and gender lines; racial, class, and gender
oppression and exploitation result from the dominant group -
wealthy, white males - subjugating "subordinate" groups in an
effort to hold onto their finite wealth and "perpetuate the
status quo;" and finally, challenging racial, class, and gender
inequality should be America’s number one policy objective. None
of the readings advocate much of a role for an individual’s free
will; instead the readings postulate that economic and social
forces "determine" most people’s position in the "social
hierarchy."


----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

Instructor: Jennifer Suchland
Department: Government
Course: Race, Class, & Gender
Spring 2004 courses: Unspecified GOD 312 section

Since all GOV 312 courses fulfill the second half of the Texas
Legislative requirement for 6 college credit hours of U.S.
government, not all 49,000 UT students are required to take a
GOV 312 class that deals specifically with race, class, and
gender issues; there are other GOV 312 sections. However, since
GOV 312 is a required class, many UT students may enroll in this
section anyway, particularly if it fits their class schedule.
This class deals with race, class, and gender issues primarily
from a conflict theory or, more accurately, a historical-
materialist perspective, as originated by Hegel and Marx, not
from a classical liberal worldview. Although during class
discussions Suchland allows dissenting ideas, all of the course
readings greatly accentuate oppression and exploitation in the
U.S. along race, class, and gender lines. If you believe in the
American Dream and that the U.S. is a land of great opportunity,
nothing in the readings from this class will confirm that
belief.


----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

Instructor: Thomas Garza
Department: Slavic Languages and Literature College of Liberal
Arts
Course evaluated: The Vampire in Slavic Culture
Spring 2004 courses: Unavailable

Dr. Garza uses his position during lecture to make cheap verbal
attacks on American foreign policy and the Bush administration.
During one class session he made a vague, yet acidic remark,
stating that the past actions of certain moral conservatives are
hypocritical because the United States is a nation "that bombs
people from other countries for no other reason than the fact
that they look different than us." On another occasion, he
referred to President George H.W. Bush as "...you know, the
President Bush that was actually elected," thus making the
implication that the current President holds his office
illegitimately. None of these statements were relevant to the
subject material, nor did they come with any qualification
whatsoever-- he arrogantly offered these remarks as if they were
simply a matter of common knowledge.


----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

Instructor: Dr. Harry Cleaver
Department: Economics
Course evaluated:
Spring 2004 courses: Political Economics of International
Crisis, Political Economy of Education

While Dr. Cleaver tends to admit his bias occasionally
throughout the semester, he floods the course material with a
plethora of views from the postmodernist agenda. The former
1960's and 70's Marxist radical slightly refined his views
throughout the last few decades and now seems to promote a not
so left-wing agenda. He is still highly critical of most
political establishments in the country and oftentimes gives a
one-sided analysis that is more critical of free-market thinking
than the more authoritarian economic philosophies. He is,
however, a great lecturer and is well informed.


----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

Instructor: Penne Restad
Department: Liberal Arts Honors
Course evaluated: United States since 1865
Spring 2004 courses: United States since 1865, Myth/Construction
of American Identity

Dr. Restad's goal is not to encourage objective inquiry into the
history of this nation, but rather to indoctrinate students with
highly subjective, emotional reactions to historical events. The
class disposes of the concept of examining history from
different perspectives in order to reach our own conclusions in
favor of studying one side of the study in order to let someone
else make up students minds for them. The subject matter was
presented through texts that represent the same narrow and far
left interpretation of American history.





----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

Spring 2004 Honor Roll

Instructor: J. Budziszewski
Department: Government and Philosophy
Course Evaluated: Natural Law Theory
Spring 2004 courses: Religion in American Political Thought,
unspecified GOV 312 courses

The University is blessed to have one of the nation' most
prominent voices on Natural Law among its ranks, and
Budziszewski's (pronounced "BOO-jee-shef-ski") course is a
virtual prerequisite to fully understanding the philosophical
underpinnings of Western culture and American government. A
nihilist turned Christian, Budziszewski eloquently defends the
natural law through foundational thinkers of Western culture
including Aristotle, John Locke and St. Thomas Aquinas. He runs
an intellectually challenging yet fair classroom to students of
all ideologies.


----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

Instructor: Rhonda Evans Case
Department: Government
Course evaluated: Civil Rights Constitutional Law
Spring 2004 courses: Unspecified GOV 312 section

In a particularly difficult subject to treat in a fair and
balanced manner, Evans-Case, while personally liberal, doesn’t
let her politics get in the way of classroom discussion.
Dissenting opinion is welcome, and she presents herself as a
very respectable and professional lecturer. Evans-Case
successfully achieves a balance between her personal beliefs and
presenting the facts to allow students to decide for themselves.


----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

Instructor: Bruce Buchanan
Department: Government
Course Evaluated: The American Presidency
Spring 2004 courses: Leaders and Followers in American Politics,
unspecified GOV 312 courses

Dr. Buchanan is one of the rare professors who so well hides his
own beliefs from the classroom that one if forced to wonder if
he has any political leaning at all. While the value of complete
objectivism is debatable, Buchanan’s even-handed approach to
evaluating presidents is so disarming that even the most
hardened ideologue will take his criticisms of their favorite
politicians to heart. Rather than simply teaching history under
different presidents, Buchanan uses history to explore different
models of presidential leadership and behavior in a class that
makes students better participants in democracy without
persuading them to their educator’s personal views.

A LISTING ON NOINDOCTRINATION.ORG FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS-
SAN ANTONIO
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
LeftAintRight
2003-12-06 20:35:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tarla Star
You obviously have no idea how faculty are chosen. Let me edify you
some. Bringing a new staff member into the faculty is like a marriage.
You don't marry people that you don't get along with. Candidates are
only originally chosen because of their academic background. The
interviews are what really determines the result. Imagine having to work
with someone who was at opposite ends of the socio-political spectrum
from yourself....for twenty years, 'cause that's what tenure means. Any
new staff member has a potential for being tenured.
'Nuff said.
Redbaiter
2003-12-06 20:56:46 UTC
Permalink
LeftAintRight says
Post by LeftAintRight
Post by Tarla Star
You obviously have no idea how faculty are chosen. Let me edify you
some. Bringing a new staff member into the faculty is like a marriage.
You don't marry people that you don't get along with. Candidates are
only originally chosen because of their academic background. The
interviews are what really determines the result. Imagine having to work
with someone who was at opposite ends of the socio-political spectrum
from yourself....for twenty years, 'cause that's what tenure means. Any
new staff member has a potential for being tenured.
'Nuff said.
Absolutely bloody revolting isn't it?

However did such nauseating filth arise in out midst???
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
LeftAintRight
2003-12-06 21:48:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Redbaiter
LeftAintRight says
Post by LeftAintRight
Post by Tarla Star
You obviously have no idea how faculty are chosen. Let me edify you
some. Bringing a new staff member into the faculty is like a marriage.
You don't marry people that you don't get along with. Candidates are
only originally chosen because of their academic background. The
interviews are what really determines the result. Imagine having to work
with someone who was at opposite ends of the socio-political spectrum
from yourself....for twenty years, 'cause that's what tenure means. Any
new staff member has a potential for being tenured.
'Nuff said.
Absolutely bloody revolting isn't it?
However did such nauseating filth arise in out midst???
I'm surprised that anyone would admit so blatantly that they wouldn't
hire someone of opposite political views. Conservatives need not apply.
Redbaiter
2003-12-06 22:19:50 UTC
Permalink
LeftAintRight says
Post by LeftAintRight
Post by Redbaiter
LeftAintRight says
Post by LeftAintRight
Post by Tarla Star
You obviously have no idea how faculty are chosen. Let me edify you
some. Bringing a new staff member into the faculty is like a marriage.
You don't marry people that you don't get along with. Candidates are
only originally chosen because of their academic background. The
interviews are what really determines the result. Imagine having to work
with someone who was at opposite ends of the socio-political spectrum
from yourself....for twenty years, 'cause that's what tenure means. Any
new staff member has a potential for being tenured.
'Nuff said.
Absolutely bloody revolting isn't it?
However did such nauseating filth arise in out midst???
I'm surprised that anyone would admit so blatantly that they wouldn't
hire someone of opposite political views. Conservatives need not apply.
Yeah, on the basis that they "wouldn't get along with the other
staff"..!! I'm just gobsmacked that any thinking person can make
such an admission and advance such a bullshit argument.

What she says is that because the majority of the staff at any
given university at any given time, are so called "liberals',
then no conservatives should be hired because of potential
personality conflicts amongst the staff.

How fucking sick can you get??

This cretin patently considers this adequate justification for
filling kids head with one sided commie crap.

Leftists man, there is just no end to there sick mad depraved
insane thinking.

And this is the education of our children they're talking about
man. Talk about fucking nauseating..

Here's a description of the faculty staff that TS considers
should be in control of education- Would you want your children
taught by this kind of fuckwit??

"To truly be a leftist, one has to make conscious efforts
throughout adult life to ignore truth, common sense, and the
principles of Liberty and individual rights. Groupthink,
political correctness, and other quasi-socialist processes must
fill the void. This belief system is bereft of intellect and
reason; indeed, it is the refuge of the uninspired, and is the
polar opposite of the principles that any free nation is founded
upon."

And another good paragraph-

"In the '60s, student radicals, citing Marcuse's dictum that
the right has no rights, shouted down conservatives. Now
that these former students occupy the seats of cultural
power in America, they seem not to like the new rebellion.
What goes around comes around."
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
Tarla Star
2003-12-07 07:45:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Redbaiter
Yeah, on the basis that they "wouldn't get along with the other
staff"..!! I'm just gobsmacked that any thinking person can make
such an admission and advance such a bullshit argument.
What she says is that because the majority of the staff at any
given university at any given time, are so called "liberals',
then no conservatives should be hired because of potential
personality conflicts amongst the staff.
I didn't say that no conservatives should be hired. I said that tenured
professors tend to hire those that they will get along with...as long as
they have the credentials and are equal to or better than another candidate.
Post by Redbaiter
How fucking sick can you get??
This cretin patently considers this adequate justification for
filling kids head with one sided commie crap.
Why do I have this feeling that you're one of those people that
mispronounces "cretin?"
Post by Redbaiter
And this is the education of our children they're talking about
man. Talk about fucking nauseating..
Children? There were students in my classes ranging from 18 to 68. I
consider them adults.
Tarla Star
2003-12-07 07:41:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by LeftAintRight
Post by Redbaiter
LeftAintRight says
Post by LeftAintRight
Post by Tarla Star
You obviously have no idea how faculty are chosen. Let me edify you
some. Bringing a new staff member into the faculty is like a
marriage. You don't marry people that you don't get along with.
Candidates are only originally chosen because of their academic
background. The interviews are what really determines the result.
Imagine having to work with someone who was at opposite ends of the
socio-political spectrum from yourself....for twenty years, 'cause
that's what tenure means. Any new staff member has a potential for
being tenured.
'Nuff said.
Absolutely bloody revolting isn't it?
However did such nauseating filth arise in out midst???
I'm surprised that anyone would admit so blatantly that they wouldn't
hire someone of opposite political views. Conservatives need not apply.
And conservatives hire those of like mind as well. Get over it. That's
life. Hell, they even made up a saying, "birds of a feather..."
LeftAintRight
2003-12-07 08:44:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tarla Star
Post by LeftAintRight
Post by Redbaiter
LeftAintRight says
Post by LeftAintRight
Post by Tarla Star
You obviously have no idea how faculty are chosen. Let me edify you
some. Bringing a new staff member into the faculty is like a
marriage. You don't marry people that you don't get along with.
Candidates are only originally chosen because of their academic
background. The interviews are what really determines the result.
Imagine having to work with someone who was at opposite ends of the
socio-political spectrum from yourself....for twenty years, 'cause
that's what tenure means. Any new staff member has a potential for
being tenured.
'Nuff said.
Absolutely bloody revolting isn't it?
However did such nauseating filth arise in out midst???
I'm surprised that anyone would admit so blatantly that they wouldn't
hire someone of opposite political views. Conservatives need not apply.
And conservatives hire those of like mind as well. Get over it. That's
life. Hell, they even made up a saying, "birds of a feather..."
I don't see how a person's political views are relevant with regards to
whether or not you get along with them.
Redbaiter
2003-12-07 09:18:15 UTC
Permalink
LeftAintRight says
Post by LeftAintRight
Post by Tarla Star
Post by LeftAintRight
Post by Redbaiter
LeftAintRight says
Post by LeftAintRight
Post by Tarla Star
You obviously have no idea how faculty are chosen. Let me edify you
some. Bringing a new staff member into the faculty is like a
marriage. You don't marry people that you don't get along with.
Candidates are only originally chosen because of their academic
background. The interviews are what really determines the result.
Imagine having to work with someone who was at opposite ends of the
socio-political spectrum from yourself....for twenty years, 'cause
that's what tenure means. Any new staff member has a potential for
being tenured.
'Nuff said.
Absolutely bloody revolting isn't it?
However did such nauseating filth arise in out midst???
I'm surprised that anyone would admit so blatantly that they wouldn't
hire someone of opposite political views. Conservatives need not apply.
And conservatives hire those of like mind as well. Get over it. That's
life. Hell, they even made up a saying, "birds of a feather..."
I don't see how a person's political views are relevant with regards to
whether or not you get along with them.
Fucking mind boggling that the dumb bitch keeps rabbiting on as
if the many facts presented to her regarding the political bias
of University staff just don't exist.

How can anyone be so blind?

When they're indoctrinated I guess.
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
Tarla Star
2003-12-07 19:15:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Redbaiter
Fucking mind boggling that the dumb bitch keeps rabbiting on as
if the many facts presented to her regarding the political bias
of University staff just don't exist.
How can anyone be so blind?
When they're indoctrinated I guess.
Your problem with me is that I'm NOT a dumb bitch. I shit ignorant fucks
like you out in my stool without noticing.
Redbaiter
2003-12-07 19:43:35 UTC
Permalink
Tarla Star says
Post by Tarla Star
Post by Redbaiter
Fucking mind boggling that the dumb bitch keeps rabbiting on as
if the many facts presented to her regarding the political bias
of University staff just don't exist.
How can anyone be so blind?
When they're indoctrinated I guess.
Your problem with me is that I'm NOT a dumb bitch. I shit ignorant fucks
like you out in my stool without noticing.
Sorry, I make my decisions based on the evidence, not the loud
and hollow claims of a false named self absorbed egotist.

I have yet to see one thing written here of yours that supports
any claim whatever to superior intelligence. To me, it seems as
if you write the most mundane and predictable dated shit ala
Glenn Fletcher, another shit for brains with a totally misguided
view of his own worth.

If you want me to think of you as something else besides a
pathetic liberal dumbarse, you'll have to do a lot better than
your clapped out past its use by date boring and predictable
shit to date. And anyone trying to pass off a fake name as
genuine is always a neurotic. (I'll bet your probably Anne Brown
or something)

(BTW, no offence intended, just being economical with words.)
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
Tarla Star
2003-12-08 04:44:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Redbaiter
I have yet to see one thing written here of yours that supports
any claim whatever to superior intelligence. To me, it seems as
if you write the most mundane and predictable dated shit ala
Glenn Fletcher, another shit for brains with a totally misguided
view of his own worth.
Yes yes yes. Look up my writing on the net. There's nothing more boring
than having to read essays on a newsgroup. I'm easy to find, I've been
online since before the beginning and have always used this name other
than in my Netsurfer articles.
Post by Redbaiter
If you want me to think of you as something else besides a
pathetic liberal dumbarse, you'll have to do a lot better than
your clapped out past its use by date boring and predictable
shit to date. And anyone trying to pass off a fake name as
genuine is always a neurotic. (I'll bet your probably Anne Brown
or something)
When I came online, there were very few women and a shitload of dateless
geeks. It was standard practice to use a pseudonym. In fact, I made the
news when the dipshit Scientologists exposed my real name home address
and unlisted phone number. This is the name that most everyone online
has known me by for over eleven years. It is as legitimate as my human
name, since knowing that wouldn't make me any more credible in your mind.
Post by Redbaiter
(BTW, no offence intended, just being economical with words.)
None taken.
Tarla Star
2003-12-07 19:13:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by LeftAintRight
Post by Tarla Star
Post by LeftAintRight
I'm surprised that anyone would admit so blatantly that they wouldn't
hire someone of opposite political views. Conservatives need not apply.
And conservatives hire those of like mind as well. Get over it. That's
life. Hell, they even made up a saying, "birds of a feather..."
I don't see how a person's political views are relevant with regards to
whether or not you get along with them.
Really? Do you think faculty meetings would be smooth with say someone
like myself and (god forbid) Redbaiter on the same faculty? We'd never
get anything done because we'd be blocking each other all the time.
LeftAintRight
2003-12-08 07:33:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tarla Star
Post by LeftAintRight
Post by Tarla Star
Post by LeftAintRight
I'm surprised that anyone would admit so blatantly that they
wouldn't hire someone of opposite political views. Conservatives
need not apply.
And conservatives hire those of like mind as well. Get over it.
That's life. Hell, they even made up a saying, "birds of a feather..."
I don't see how a person's political views are relevant with regards
to whether or not you get along with them.
Really? Do you think faculty meetings would be smooth with say someone
like myself and (god forbid) Redbaiter on the same faculty? We'd never
get anything done because we'd be blocking each other all the time.
Do you think you could get along with someone of different political views?
Tarla Star
2003-12-08 08:56:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by LeftAintRight
Do you think you could get along with someone of different political views?
Under some circumstances. I can tolerate just about anything for a short
time.
LeftAintRight
2003-12-08 08:59:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tarla Star
Post by LeftAintRight
Do you think you could get along with someone of different political views?
Under some circumstances. I can tolerate just about anything for a short
time.
Do you think you could be friends with someone that has different
political views?
Tarla Star
2003-12-08 09:06:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by LeftAintRight
Post by Tarla Star
Post by LeftAintRight
Do you think you could get along with someone of different political views?
Under some circumstances. I can tolerate just about anything for a
short time.
Do you think you could be friends with someone that has different
political views?
Yes. I was very conservative at one point. I grew up in Goldwater
country. Then I met a friend who was at opposite points from me
politically. Her well reasoned arguments (without being argumentative)
changed my mind over time. It all depends upon the person. Some people
are so appealing that you can forgive the differences. For example, I
met a lady on Sat. that was just as
whole-earth-mother-goddess-and-bulgar that I just about laughed, but she
turned out to be a sweet open person and I invited her over to my home
in future.
LeftAintRight
2003-12-09 05:14:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tarla Star
Post by LeftAintRight
Post by Tarla Star
Post by LeftAintRight
Do you think you could get along with someone of different political views?
Under some circumstances. I can tolerate just about anything for a
short time.
Do you think you could be friends with someone that has different
political views?
Yes. I was very conservative at one point. I grew up in Goldwater
country. Then I met a friend who was at opposite points from me
politically. Her well reasoned arguments (without being argumentative)
changed my mind over time. It all depends upon the person. Some people
are so appealing that you can forgive the differences. For example, I
met a lady on Sat. that was just as
whole-earth-mother-goddess-and-bulgar that I just about laughed, but she
turned out to be a sweet open person and I invited her over to my home
in future.
Then you get my point - differences in political opinion does not
necessarily mean you won't get along with someone.
Tarla Star
2003-12-09 09:10:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by LeftAintRight
Post by Tarla Star
Post by LeftAintRight
Post by Tarla Star
Post by LeftAintRight
Do you think you could get along with someone of different
political views?
Under some circumstances. I can tolerate just about anything for a
short time.
Do you think you could be friends with someone that has different
political views?
Yes. I was very conservative at one point. I grew up in Goldwater
country. Then I met a friend who was at opposite points from me
politically. Her well reasoned arguments (without being argumentative)
changed my mind over time. It all depends upon the person. Some people
are so appealing that you can forgive the differences. For example, I
met a lady on Sat. that was just as
whole-earth-mother-goddess-and-bulgar that I just about laughed, but
she turned out to be a sweet open person and I invited her over to my
home in future.
Then you get my point - differences in political opinion does not
necessarily mean you won't get along with someone.
But you seem to have missed mine. I changed to be like my friend. The
second lady seems nice, but I don't know that I could take her day in
and day out. Many faculty departments are small, friction can be
destructive to the overall goal of the department. In larger
Universities, there may well be room for many differing opinions and
still enough people to get a quorum.
LeftAintRight
2003-12-10 05:50:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tarla Star
Post by LeftAintRight
Post by Tarla Star
Post by LeftAintRight
Post by Tarla Star
Post by LeftAintRight
Do you think you could get along with someone of different political views?
Under some circumstances. I can tolerate just about anything for a
short time.
Do you think you could be friends with someone that has different
political views?
Yes. I was very conservative at one point. I grew up in Goldwater
country. Then I met a friend who was at opposite points from me
politically. Her well reasoned arguments (without being
argumentative) changed my mind over time. It all depends upon the
person. Some people are so appealing that you can forgive the
differences. For example, I met a lady on Sat. that was just as
whole-earth-mother-goddess-and-bulgar that I just about laughed, but
she turned out to be a sweet open person and I invited her over to my
home in future.
Then you get my point - differences in political opinion does not
necessarily mean you won't get along with someone.
But you seem to have missed mine. I changed to be like my friend. The
second lady seems nice, but I don't know that I could take her day in
and day out. Many faculty departments are small, friction can be
destructive to the overall goal of the department. In larger
Universities, there may well be room for many differing opinions and
still enough people to get a quorum.
Yes but we're talking different political opinions not personality
clashes. I'd hire Chompsky as linguistic professor if I could,
regardless of his politics.

slunk
2003-12-06 19:10:34 UTC
Permalink
a handful of dubious examples from the very large US education system.

here's the otherside, written by someone in the system.

http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i15/15b00701.htm

Should I Have Asked John to Cool It? Standards of Reason in the Classroom

By MICHAEL BERUBE

The class started off innocuously enough. We were in our fifth week of an
undergraduate honors seminar, reading Ishmael Reed's 1972 novel, Mumbo
Jumbo, and I was starting to explain how the novel is built on a series of
deliberate anachronisms, on the way to asking what these tropes from the
1960s were doing in a novel ostensibly set during the Harlem Renaissance. I
began in an obvious (though always fun) place, with Abdul Hamid's encounter
with PaPa LaBas at a rent party, where Abdul delivers a tirade presaging the
rise of the Nation of Islam and protesting U.S. draft policy during the
Vietnam War:

This is the country where something is successful in direct proportion to
how it's put over; how it's gamed. Look at the Mormons. . . .The most
fundamental book of the Mormon Church, The Book of Mormon, is a fraud. If we
Blacks came up with something as corny as the Angel of Moroni, something as
trite and phony as their story that the book is the record of ancient
Americans who came here in 600 BC and perished by AD 400, they would deride
us with pejorative adjectival phrases like "so-called" and "would-be." They
would refuse to exempt our priests from the draft, a privilege extended to
every White hayseed's fruit stand which calls itself a Church. But
regardless of the put-on, the hype, the Mormons got Utah, didn't they?

Unfortunately, to most of my students, the passage was just so much mumbo
jumbo, so I explained briefly that Muhammad Ali's refusal to fight in
Vietnam had been incendiary in the mid-1960s but eventually led the United
States to reconsider its criteria for conscientious-objector status; that
the comparison between members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints and members of the Nation of Islam was a fairly common one at the
time; and that one nationalist group, the Republic of New Africa, had called
for the creation of a separate black nation based in five Southern states,
as partial reparation for slavery.

At that point, John, a large white student in the back of the room, snorted
loudly and derisively: "That's completely ridiculous!" he exclaimed. "It may
seem ridiculous to you, yes," I replied, "and, for the record, I don't
believe there was any possibility that the Republic of New Africa was going
to become a reality. I don't endorse it myself. But it was proposed, and
some black nationalists pointedly compared their relation with the U.S.
government to that of the Mormons."

But John was just getting started. These people are not Africans, he
insisted. They are African-Americans. The whole "Africa" thing is a charade;
racial separatism and identity politics are tearing this country apart;
people have to realize that if they live in this country, no matter how they
got here, they are Americans first, and something-Americans second.

Apparently, we had touched a nerve. I pointed out, gently but (I hoped) not
patronizingly, that whatever any of us might feel about the various projects
of black nationalism, we are, after all, dealing with a character in a
novel -- a character, I hastened to add, whose reductive brand of
nationalism is ultimately undermined in the course of the narrative. It only
makes sense to try to understand what he might be trying to say. And now
let's move on to another example of anachronism in Mumbo Jumbo. ...

The other students in the class -- of various colors and genders, some of
them born on other continents, some of them first-generation college kids
from rural Pennsylvania, none of them African-American -- didn't respond
directly to John's outburst. They were more interested in the novel's use of
anachronism, and uncertain (as so many other readers have been) about
whether to take seriously the novel's various conspiracy theories about
Warren Harding's death, about the demise of the Harlem Renaissance, about
the role of the Freemasons in American history, and about the rise of
Western culture itself. For the moment, the Republic of New Africa had been
forgotten once again -- but John simmered throughout the rest of the hour,
clearly upset that no one had addressed his comment.

Now, I've dealt with students like John before, and I'm sure I'll see them
again, no matter what class I'm teaching. But that semester was different;
it was the fall of 2001, and students' nerves and political opinions were
especially raw. I negotiated any number of delicate exchanges that semester,
and for the past two years I've wondered if I've "dealt with" students like
John in the best possible way.

After class that day, I talked to John at some length as we wandered through
the noontime campus swarms. He was insistent that membership in the American
community requires one to subordinate his or her ethnic-national origin, and
that he himself wanted to be understood not as an American of Russian or
Polish or German "extraction," but simply as an American among other
Americans. And he was just sick and tired of African-Americans refusing to
do the same.

I replied by telling John something like this: "Your position has a long and
distinguished history in debates over immigration and national identity.
It's part of the current critique of multiculturalism, of course, and to a
point I have some sympathy with it, because I don't think that social
contracts should be based on cultural homogeneity." Deep breath. "That
said," I went on, "I have to point out that the terms under which people of
African descent might be accepted as Americans, in 1820 or 1920 or whenever,
have been radically different from the terms under which your ancestors,
whoever they were, could be accepted as Americans. You're right to insist
that you shouldn't be defined by one's ancestry, but, unfortunately, most
African-Americans -- who, by the way, fought and died for integration for
many generations -- didn't have that option. And it shouldn't be all that
surprising that, when African-Americans finally did have the option of
integrating into the larger national community, some of them were profoundly
ambivalent about the prospect."

I didn't press the point that Reed's novel is itself profoundly ambivalent
about that profound ambivalence; I thought that we were now on terrain that
had little to do with the textual details of Mumbo Jumbo, and I was simply
trying to come to an understanding with a student who clearly felt very
strongly about one of the social issues raised in class. We parted amicably,
and I thought that though he wasn't about to agree with me on this one, we
had, at least, made our arguments intelligible to each other.

But the dynamic of the class had been changed. From that day forward, John
spoke up often, sometimes loudly, sometimes out of turn. He had begun to
conceive of himself as the only countervailing conservative voice in a
classroom full of liberal-left think-alikes, and he occasionally spoke as if
he were entitled to reply to every other student's comment -- in a class of
17. He was forceful, intelligent, and articulate. Sometimes he was witty,
and he was always knowledgeable about cyberpunk and postmodern science
fiction. Often, however, he was obstreperous and out of bounds.

His obstreperousness presented me with not one problem but two. It would
have been a relatively simple matter to put the brakes on -- to speak to
him, in class or afterward, in such a way as to let him know that he was
not, in fact, entitled to comment on every other student's comment. But I
did not want to contribute to his growing sense of lonely opposition.
Meanwhile, his 16 classmates were not, in fact, a unified left-liberal bloc;
some of them were recognizably left of center, but not all. Mere weeks after
September 11, my students had sounded off on an extraordinary range of
questions, including the question of whether that day marked the death of
postmodernism, an issue that The New York Times's Edward Rothstein had
raised. I knew my class contained a handful of people adamantly opposed to
military action against the Taliban in Afghanistan (that put them well to
the left of me), a handful of people who wanted to redraw the Middle East
from scratch in the manner of Paul Wolfowitz, and a handful of people who
called themselves libertarians but whose politics didn't go much beyond
keep-your-laws-off-my-bong.

Actually, some students agreed with John about one thing or another but were
simply annoyed that he was taking up so much class time. They began sending
me e-mail messages and speaking to me privately about how they did not want
John's remarks to set the parameters for class discussion. One student
complained that she was wasting time trying to think of things that John
wouldn't reply to; another said that he found anti-porn feminism obnoxious,
just as John did, but couldn't stand it when people dismissed feminism so
sweepingly as to render suspect other people's more careful critiques (his
own, for example). If I asked John to cool it, then, he would undoubtedly
feel silenced, and I would be in the position of validating what was
perhaps, for him, a stifling liberal hegemony over classroom speech; if I
failed to restrain him, I would in effect be allowing him to dominate the
class, thereby silencing the other students who'd taken the time to speak to
me about the problem.

For the remaining weeks of the semester, I tried to split the difference:
John spoke more often than any other student, but I did not recognize him
every time he asked; when students criticized his remarks, implicitly or
explicitly, I did not validate their criticisms, but I did try to let them
speak in rough proportion to their numbers. For a while, order was restored.

I've been watching the evolution of campus conservatism for more than 20
years now. I remember vividly the reaction of Accuracy in Academia, Reed
Irvine's slightly nutty group that tried to recruit vocal right-wing
students to report on and root out "liberal bias" in the classroom. Accuracy
in Academia has largely disappeared from public view, but conservative
activists have kept up the complaint about liberal campus "bias" all the
same, and after September 11 some of their efforts have taken an especially
nasty turn. The National Review's culture warrior Stanley Kurtz has recently
been instrumental in getting the U.S. House of Representatives to approve a
federal "advisory board" to oversee all of the Higher Education Act's Title
VI programs in international studies, on the paranoid logic that such
programs are spreading anti-Americanism through the works of the late Edward
Said; and the at-large culture warrior David Horowitz has begun a dramatic
campaign to urge alumni and state legislatures to initiate a "diversity"
hiring program to bring more conservative faculty members to the nation's
universities. Horowitz recently received a friendly welcome in Colorado,
where he met with Gov. Bill Owens and gave public speeches denouncing, among
other things, the liberal-leaning cartoons on the office doors of
political-science faculty members.

More interestingly, Horowitz has also circulated an "Academic Bill of
Rights" (he recently sent me a copy for comment via e-mail) that draws on
statements by the American Association of University Professors about
academic freedom that would, if followed closely, prevent precisely the kind
of right-wing hiring initiatives Horowitz is touting. By promoting his Bill
of Rights, he can then collect leftist denunciations of academic freedom and
make the case that the greatest threats to the free exchange of ideas are
... liberal and leftist faculty members.

Horowitz is exaggerating hysterically when he claims that campuses are
one-party states an that 99 percent of all commencement speakers are
Democrats, liberals, or Greens. But it's widely understood that English
departments are well stocked with liberals, and I've often wished we
leftists had less of a presence in literature departments and more of a
presence in state legislatures. (Perhaps it's not too late to engineer a
straight-up swap.)

Still, I have never seen a conservative student on any of the campuses I've
inhabited -- Penn State, the Universities of Illinois and Virginia, and
Columbia -- penalized by a professor for his or her beliefs. I have
sometimes seen conservative students made "uncomfortable" by the remarks of
their peers, and I can even imagine some particularly hypersensitive
conservative undergraduates might be intimidated by the forbidding presence
of liberal-leaning cartoons on faculty members' office doors. But I don't
believe that universities should be in the business of ensuring their
students' comfort in such matters.

I knew that Penn State had weathered an exceptionally unpleasant year in
2000-1, when dozens of students had received anonymous racist letters and
e-mail messages, and the leader of the Black Student Caucus had received
direct death threats. I knew also that my student John had had some kind of
run-in with one of the African-American campus demonstrators that year (in
which he told the demonstrator he was not a racist). I took all that into
consideration in trying to make John feel as if his remarks would always be
welcome in my class so long as he respected his peers' rights to contribute
as well -- and yet, I couldn't shake the feeling that, although John and
students like him might occasionally feel threatened or uncomfortable in
classes like mine, they aren't really in any danger at all. Occasionally the
local campus conservatives like to point to all the things they think the
Penn State administration does for black students: One recent flier
complained that there is now a Paul Robeson Center on the campus (and
Robeson was a Communist!), whereas the campus conservatives have to meet in
a classroom. After I finished shaking my head at the sheer foolishness of
the complaint -- did these kids really think that the Paul Robeson Center
was established as the headquarters of a black-activist organization? -- I
wondered just how many of my conservative white students, if given the
chance, would prefer to be black at Penn State, black in the United States.

In late November, we read Richard Powers's 1988 novel, Prisoner's Dilemma.
Part of it is set during World War II and involves a curious fantasia about
how Walt Disney turns out to be an American of Japanese Ancestry. Appalled
by the 1942 order to intern people of Japanese ancestry living in the United
States, Disney manages to get two of his employees out of the camps so that
they can help him work on a top-secret project, which will not only win this
war but prevent all future wars. I noted that Powers is asking whether it is
right to fight a totalitarian enemy by employing totalitarian tactics, and I
pointed to passages in which he adduces the internment camps as examples of
the game-theory problem known as the prisoner's dilemma, hence the title of
the novel. Two prisoners must decide whether to confess or trust each other
not to squeal. Almost invariably, prisoners choose to confess, even though
mutual trust in the other's steadfastness is clearly the way to go if they
want to (a) stay alive and (b) keep their jail time to a minimum. Powers's
point, of course, is that a world without mutual trust would be a world of
unending world war.

Because it was the fall of 2001, internment camps were hot topics. The two
previous times I had taught the novel, in 1995 and 1999, my students had
never heard about the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans during World War
II, or about the confiscation of their property. But after the debates about
the Patriot Act and the detainees in Guantánamo, everyone in the class had
heard about the World War II camps, and everyone knew the formerly obscure
name of Jeannette Rankin, the Montana representative who had cast the lone
vote against the war resolution after Pearl Harbor and who figures in
Powers's narrative for that reason. Realizing, then, that everything we said
in class about World War II would have sharp resonance for the world after
September 11, I mentioned that Powers has been criticized for apparently
establishing a kind of moral equivalence between Nazi concentration camps
and U.S. internment camps -- since the latter, however outrageous and
indefensible they were in a putatively democratic nation, were not part of a
program of genocide. I asked the class what they thought of that critique.

John wasn't having any of it. There's no moral equivalence here at all;
Powers is out of his mind; and even Powers's critics have gone wrong in
implicitly agreeing to parse out the different forms of moral wrong at
stake -- because, and let's get this much straight, the internment camps
were justified. Far from being "outrageous" and "indefensible," they were a
reasonable security precaution in a desperate time and, furthermore, the
detainees were treated quite well.

At that point, I have to admit, I was flummoxed. I rarely challenge students
directly in the course of class discussion, but I was so stunned that I
almost blurted out, "You've got to be kidding." Even if I had, though, I'm
not sure John would have heard me: The entire classroom was in a minor
uproar, everyone from the pacifists to the drug-law libertarians to the
undecideds chiming in at once to criticize; to say, collectively and
incoherently, OK, pal, this time you've gone too far. "You know nothing
about the Japanese who were imprisoned." "You know nothing about the
Constitution." "You're forgetting that the United States actually issued an
apology to the internees, as well as financial reparations," students said.
For a few seconds, it looked and sounded as if John's classmates wanted to
argue him right out of the room.

So, instead of blurting, I whistled. Loud. "All right. Wait a minute." The
following silence was punctuated by a few low murmurs. "The object here
isn't to pile on," I said over them. "This is, in fact, one of the things
the novel wants us to debate."

"But John," I added, turning to him, "I do want to remind you that you spoke
up quite forcefully, earlier this semester, on behalf of the belief that
we're all Americans first, and that our national and ethnic origins
shouldn't matter. Didn't the internment camps violate that principle?"

No, he said, because here we were dealing with the possibility of treason
during wartime, and some Japanese-Americans had, indeed, been in touch with
relatives in Japan in ways that threatened national security. Fine, I said,
I believe you're quite mistaken about that, and I will be happy to direct
you to sources that will challenge you, but suffice it to say for now that
you reject one of the premises of the novel, somewhat more emphatically than
Powers's harshest critics on this score. Now, let's take this to the rest of
the class. Does the prisoner's dilemma apply to the second world war in the
ways Powers suggests? John here says that the camps were justified. If you
disagree with him, how can you frame your disagreement by reference to the
terms Powers sets out?

We got through the novel, of course -- we didn't lose any lives, and no one
was injured. It was only literary criticism, after all. But the class had
been completely derailed. John was confirmed in his isolation and sense of
opposition, his classmates took to eye-rolling and head-shaking at his
remarks, and, by the time we got in December to Colson Whitehead's 1999 The
Intuitionist, a whimsical allegory about racial uplift and the history of
elevator inspection, John was complaining that there were no good white
characters in the novel. By that point, even I had had enough, and I told
him, via e-mail, that his complaint was not only unwarranted on its face but
thoroughly beside the point: In this class, I said, we are not in the
business of pursuing reductive identity-politics enterprises like looking
for "positive images" in literature, regardless of what group images we
might be talking about.

When the semester was over, I wondered whether John's story was the stuff of
which right-wing legends are made. Would he remember the seminar as the
class in which his right to free speech and debate was trampled by
politically correct groupthink (even though he spoke more often than any
other single student)? He couldn't possibly contend that I'd graded him on
the political content of his remarks, because he'd gotten an A for the
course. But there was no question that he felt embattled, that he didn't see
any contradictions in his argument about the internment camps, and that he
had begun to develop an aggressive/defensive "I'm not a racist, but these
people . . ." mode of speaking that would someday get him either in serious
trouble with some angry hyphenated-Americans or the job Dinesh D'Souza held
at the American Enterprise Institute. In the last couple of weeks of the
term, I found myself speaking to him almost solicitously, as if to say, "You
know, if you understand so little about how some of your remarks might be
taken by members of racial minorities, and yet you say so much about them,
you could be in for some rough times. You might want to read a manual on
tact, perhaps."

But who am I to say such things? For all I know, John might be able to craft
a life in which he can deride African-American ambivalence about integration
and defend Japanese-American internment camps without ever confronting
anyone who disagrees with him.

Reflecting on the course two years later, I've come to see that only a
small, intense class can produce the kind of dynamic we dealt with that
semester -- where I often felt compelled to restrain students from
criticizing someone whose arguments I myself found obnoxious, and where I
had to weigh carefully, seven days a week, what things I could say to
students in the public space of the classroom, and what things I should
reserve for private after-class discussions or follow-up e-mail messages.

And, of course, because of the syllabus, and because of September 11,
students wanted to talk after class, on off days, over the weekend, at
midnight on e-mail, with a professor who would converse with them on all
matters local and global. Few critics of academe -- and even fewer critics
of liberal-left professors -- have any idea what kind of work that entails,
which is one reason, surely, why headlines like "Conservative Student
Punished by Stalinist Campus Orthodoxy" strike those of us who teach as so
surreal.

Over my 20 years in teaching, I've had many conservatives in my classes. I
think I've even had a few Stalinists, too. I've had many intelligent,
articulate students who behaved as if they had a right to speak more often
and at greater length than anyone else in the room; I've had versions of
Reese Witherspoon in Election and Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter
series, who knew the answers to every question ever asked; I've had my share
of blurters with very little sense of social boundaries, a few of whom may
genuinely have had some degree of Asperger's syndrome, with various autistic
or antisocial symptoms. To all such students -- indeed, to all students,
those with disabilities and those without -- I try to apply the standard of
disability law: I make reasonable accommodation for them. The challenge,
though, lies in making reasonable accommodations for students whose
standards of "reasonableness" are significantly different from yours. Few
aspects of teaching are so difficult -- and, I think, so rarely acknowledged
by people who don't teach for a living.

Michael Bérubé is a professor of English at Pennsylvania State University at
University Park.
Redbaiter
2003-12-06 21:50:40 UTC
Permalink
slunk says
Post by slunk
Horowitz is exaggerating hysterically when he claims that campuses are
one-party states and that 99 percent of all commencement speakers are
Democrats, liberals, or Greens.
http://www.noindoctrination.org/

http://www.campus-watch.org/

http://www.cornelldailysun.com/articles/8183/

http://members.aol.com/bear317k/vvar-2.htm

http://www.academia.org/about.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz120202.asp

www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30763

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1030334/posts
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
janice
2003-12-06 22:51:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Redbaiter
slunk says
Post by slunk
Horowitz is exaggerating hysterically
Horowitz IS exaggerating. For example, the following
statement was issued after serious attacks were made on University
teaching staff in the wake of Sept 11. Such was the alarm
around the world about the repression of freedom of academic
expression in the US that even the combined churches of NZ issued
a warning statement calling for 'academic freedom in the
US to be respected.'


STATEMENT IN DEFENSE OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM-- REVISED TEXT

http://www.academicfreedomnow.org

In the crisis precipitated by the terrible events of September 11,
members of academic communities across the U.S. have
participated in teach-ins, colloquia, demonstrations, and other
events aimed at developing an informed critical understanding of
what happened and why. Now that the U.S. is waging war in
Afghanistan, such activities are continuing.

Unfortunately, some of those who have been critical of U.S.
policy have been threatened and attacked for speaking out.
Trustees of the City University of New York voted to condemn
faculty members who criticized U.S. foreign policy at a forum in
October. The president of the University of Texas at Austin
publicly denounced a prominent faculty critic of U.S. policy.
Efforts by pro-war students, alumni, and prominent media outlets
to silence criticism and dissent have been reported at the
University of New Mexico, Brown University, MIT, the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University of
Massachusetts at Amherst, and elsewhere.

Some faculty members have been suspended or threatened with
suspension, others have received death threats or have been
physically threatened. The American Council of Trustees and
Alumni, founded by Lynne Cheney (wife of U.S. vice-president
Dick Cheney), has issued a report listing faculty members it considers
insufficiently patriotic.


Attacks on faculty who have questioned or dissented from the
Bush administration's current war policy have coincided with
other ominous developments. Colleges and universities are being
pressured by agencies of the federal government to hand over
confidential information from student files. And there are moves in
Congress to limit visas for students from abroad.

We call on all members of the academic community to speak out
strongly in defense of academic freedom and civil liberties, not
just as an abstract principle but as a practical necessity. At a
moment such as this, we must make sure that all informed voices-
especially those that are critical and dissenting-are heard.


(http://www.academicfreedomnow.org).
janice
2003-12-06 22:21:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by slunk
Over my 20 years in teaching, I've had many conservatives in my classes. I
think I've even had a few Stalinists, too. I've had many intelligent,
articulate students who behaved as if they had a right to speak more often
and at greater length than anyone else in the room; I've had versions of
Reese Witherspoon in Election and Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter
series, who knew the answers to every question ever asked; I've had my
share of blurters with very little sense of social boundaries, a few of
whom may genuinely have had some degree of Asperger's syndrome, with
various autistic or antisocial symptoms. To all such students -- indeed,
to all students, those with disabilities and those without -- I try to
apply the standard of disability law: I make reasonable accommodation for
them. The challenge, though, lies in making reasonable accommodations for
students whose standards of "reasonableness" are significantly different
from yours.
Thanks for this excellent essay.

janice
Redbaiter
2003-12-07 01:28:09 UTC
Permalink
slunk says
Post by slunk
Still, I have never seen a conservative student on any of the campuses I've
inhabited -- Penn State, the Universities of Illinois and Virginia, and
Columbia -- penalized by a professor for his or her beliefs.
www.noindoctrination.org/cgibin/display_record.cgi?uid=89
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
Warwick
2003-12-06 22:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Redbaiter
An article that outlines why most university students of today
only know half the story, and imagine against all the evidence,
that they are living in a world dominated by rightists, and
capitalist conspiracies..
Ever wondered how bimbos like Mowwisey can believe the garbage
they write? Why they are such absurd fantasisers? Read this
article in full, and it will become clear how and why such
uninformed misguided bigoted fools as Mowwisey and so many
others are around in such numbers-
<snip>

Fascinating stuff.
Its easy to draw a concrete conclusion.
Rightists are largely uneducated.
Most people that extend their education with significant tertiary
study find the greatest sense and justice in the left side of the
political spectrum.

Seems obvious to me.

cheers :)
Warwick

btw subject changed for no particular reason other than I could not
resist.
Redbaiter
2003-12-06 22:32:15 UTC
Permalink
Warwick says
Post by Warwick
Most people that extend their education with significant tertiary
study find the greatest sense and justice in the left side of the
political spectrum.
Seems obvious to me.
Yes, it is quite clear that you think that way. What you think
has never been the argument.

It is the fact that you leftists never have any valid or logical
substantiation for such beliefs that causes people like myself
to regard you as idiots.

And at the same time as making these faith based declarations,
you have the nerve to put down people who have a religion.

So contradictory.
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
Warwick
2003-12-06 22:48:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Redbaiter
Warwick says
Post by Warwick
Most people that extend their education with significant tertiary
study find the greatest sense and justice in the left side of the
political spectrum.
Seems obvious to me.
Yes, it is quite clear that you think that way. What you think
has never been the argument.
It is the fact that you leftists never have any valid or logical
substantiation for such beliefs that causes people like myself
to regard you as idiots.
And at the same time as making these faith based declarations,
you have the nerve to put down people who have a religion.
So contradictory.
I never mentioned my own position or political belief.

It is the fact that rightists like you leap to misinformed and
presumptive conclusions that causes people like me to dismiss you as
raving lunatics (verbose lunatics at that).

cheers
Warwick
Redbaiter
2003-12-07 01:41:03 UTC
Permalink
Warwick says
Post by Warwick
Post by Redbaiter
Warwick says
Post by Warwick
Most people that extend their education with significant tertiary
study find the greatest sense and justice in the left side of the
political spectrum.
Seems obvious to me.
Yes, it is quite clear that you think that way. What you think
has never been the argument.
It is the fact that you leftists never have any valid or logical
substantiation for such beliefs that causes people like myself
to regard you as idiots.
And at the same time as making these faith based declarations,
you have the nerve to put down people who have a religion.
So contradictory.
I never mentioned my own position or political belief.
Damn sorry then Warwick. I thought that when you posted the
paragraph above, and wrote underneath it "seems obvious to me",
you were saying that you agreed with the viewpoint that the
referenced people shared.

Now, I don't really understand what it was you found "obvious",
but that's OK, I'm not really that anxious to find out.
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
EqX
2003-12-07 01:43:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Warwick
Fascinating stuff.
Its easy to draw a concrete conclusion.
Rightists are largely uneducated.
Statement (funniest) of the year. Being educated in life is not just about
having phD.
Post by Warwick
Most people that extend their education with significant tertiary
study find the greatest sense and justice in the left side of the
political spectrum.
Yes, very easy to draw conclusions eh and making sweeping generalisations
and attempt to group others with your way of thinking.
Most ? I've spent 5 years in a tertiary institute and am still trying to
find any sense or logic in the left side of the political spectrum.
Warwick
2003-12-07 02:32:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by EqX
Post by Warwick
Fascinating stuff.
Its easy to draw a concrete conclusion.
Rightists are largely uneducated.
Statement (funniest) of the year. Being educated in life is not just about
having phD.
Post by Warwick
Most people that extend their education with significant tertiary
study find the greatest sense and justice in the left side of the
political spectrum.
Yes, very easy to draw conclusions eh and making sweeping generalisations
and attempt to group others with your way of thinking.
Most ? I've spent 5 years in a tertiary institute and am still trying to
find any sense or logic in the left side of the political spectrum.
I was takin the piss mate.
Redbaiter posted an article in support of his assertations regarding
Mowwisey. Assertations of bigotry, bimboism and absurd fantasizing
among others.

I saw an opputunity to reinterpret the article, and did so in a
manner contrived to best irritate RedBaiter. To further antogonize him
I changed subject line also, as he himself does not hesitate to rename
subjects if he disagrees with the originals.

Redbaiter is not always easy to read, the odd gem of brillance is
usually hidden in a stream of invective. Also he does not hesitate to
indulge in personal attacks. As such I believe he is a perfect
candidate for taking the piss out of.

cheers :)
Warwick
Redbaiter
2003-12-07 02:56:55 UTC
Permalink
Warwick says
Post by Warwick
To further antogonize him
I changed subject line also, as he himself does not hesitate to rename
subjects if he disagrees with the originals.
Redbaiter is not always easy to read, the odd gem of brillance is
usually hidden in a stream of invective. Also he does not hesitate to
indulge in personal attacks. As such I believe he is a perfect
candidate for taking the piss out of.
I do not mind such as you trying to "take the piss".

Good luck.

I do tho take offence at lies.

The claim that I "do not hesitate to rename subjects if I
disagree with the originals" is an outright lie.

Please, by all means try and take the piss, but when doing so,
try not to lie.

I very seldom change any thread titles, and if I did so for the
reasons you claim, I would be changing them most frequently.

The only thread titles I have changed are those from posts made
by Steve Withers, and I have done this on only the odd occasion
and only in retaliation because Withers does it constantly.

By all means take the piss. Deep down, I've actually got a sense
of humour.

Where direct lies are concerned tho, I find it particularly
difficult to be amused. As far as I know Warwick, you were well
aware of the circumstances, which makes it hard for me to
believe you are only mistaken in the outrageous untruths you
have written above.
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
Warwick
2003-12-07 05:49:27 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 15:56:55 +1300, Redbaiter <don'***@email.me> wrote:

I prefer overstatement to lie :)
But you have a point I retract it.
It should instead read

"Also I am aware of at least one occasion where he has not hesitated
to change the subject line where he has not agreed with it."
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...