To Anyone Who Thinks Universities Don't Indoctrinate

Economist

Great point! One interesting thing that Kors mentions in the speech is the backdoor and private way in which these things are done. He says, "If they really believe in these ideas, then advertise them on the front page of the brochure, tell your donors about them, and tell parents about them on campus visits."

Economist

Hardly a good read for conservatives because it does not support their position on immigration, farm subsidies, gay marriage, the war on drugs, etc.

You really need to see there is a big difference between libertarians and conservatives. It's irritating (but not suprising) that you seem to only see a liberal and non-liberal category.

jim mcnamara

Try this little quiz, opus. Then you can see a four-way political landscape. In reality the politcal landscape is more of a continuum. And not four-sided IMO.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

jim mcnamara

And while I'm at it I disagree with Economists characterization of central conservative values. I see them as:
1. rule of law
2. strong value system - not limited to Christian values
3. minimize government - not just taxation limits or subsidy limits.

And I'm more in the middle than anything, however, you gave Conservatives short shrift, I think.

Economist

I was just trying to point out the distinction between conservatives and libertarians, as people (especially liberals) get them confused. I wasn't trying to say that all conservatives are against immigration or drug laws, while being for farm subsidies. However, these things are generally consistent with conservatives, just like not all liberals are pro-choice, but it is generally consistent with liberals. I admit that in reality, individuals beliefs, ideas, and values are usually more diverse, but I was just speaking more generally.

Furthermore, I think it is somewhat inaccurate to say that modern republicans care that much about a limited role for government. Maybe they did in the past, but currently they don't seem to make it a key issue. Even George Dub has had huge spending, but this doesn't seem to bother most modern conservatives.

opus

Modern conservatism is neoliberalism. (economic issues - favour free market, minimal government) The only thing that differentiates conservatives from libertarians is that conservatives see the state as a "moral agent", that is, that they oppose things like gay marriage. Whereas libertarians would say "let the people do whatever they want, whether it be bestiality or illicit drugs", conservatives would say "we must uphold the values and virtues of our society". This is basic political science 101.

In fact, I think it is you that conflates conservatism with Republicans which irritates me more. Or rather, your accusations that Republicans are "liberal" (i.e. not conservative) and Democrats are "socialist" (i.e. more liberal than the liberals).

Case in point: "Furthermore, I think it is somewhat inaccurate to say that modern republicans care that much about a limited role for government."

That quiz is a bit too basic. A better one can be found here, http://www.politicalcompass.org/

I don't know what you mean by "continuum", because the left-right spectrum is heavily outdated. The political landscape is really four-sided (and more). It's not just "left vs right" anymore, though that is probably the biggest division.
Yes, those ignorant liberals don't know anything besides their liberalism

Thanks for the petty comments, but I would be surprised myself if currently enrolled in upper division political science courses without knowing the difference between a conservative and libertarian.

opus

Yes, I agree, but I'm arguing that these cases are isolated incidents are hardly indicative of an "indoctrination". Universities may be liberal, yes, but most are not "indoctrinating" students.

Your argument is a non-sequitur: universities are liberal. some universities have bad professors. therefore, all liberal universities have bad professors and it is our job to stop this indoctrination.

Yes, FIRE has a case against many universities with bad policies. But is another thing to say that they have a case against all universities because each and every one of them is a place of liberal indoctrination.

On the other side, I see no criticism about private Christian universities. Is that just a matter of "university policy" then, whereas a double standard is applied to the run-of-the-mill liberal college town? You want to see "unconstitutional university policies"? Go to Liberty University.
None of these examples have anything to do with politics or political ideology. Unless you're trying to conflate anti-patriotism with liberalism, anti-gun policies with liberalism, or anti-racism ("sensitivity training") with liberalism. In which case, you doing so clearly demonstrates a bias yourself.

Obviously the article that uses these examples as "liberal indoctrination" is biased in its own political regard if they're doing just exactly that.
Performativity in economics means that basically, economists are making what they are describing. If you want a more biased, blunt, to-the-point presentation of this, this adbusters article will do.
Definitely not. It is against academic freedom for universities to deny professors tenure or employment because of their views. It just so happens that most PhD's and higher academia are "liberal", whatever the reason may be.
Your rebuttal to my argument is "NO YOUR WRONG LOOK AT THE HALLS!!"??

Please, Vietnam War protests were in, around, over, under the universities. http://content.lib.washington.edu/pr...web/index.html

Even professors were participating in the protests. I don't know what selective history you've been reading.
"that people"? You can at least be upfront with your groundless accusations and at least say that it is me you're accusing of "ignoring the issue".

Students as academics can say whatever they please, and simply because most students and professors are liberal does not mean that there is somehow "indoctrination" going on against conservatives or some other kind of persecution complex.

DaleSpam

I agree with you here. Most professors in my experience are very deliberate about not requiring students to agree with their political views. There are obviously exceptions.

I would say this a little differently. I would apply the double standard between private and state universities. IMO, the state universities need to be very careful to not restrict the free speech rights of students. In particular they should allow "politically incorrect" and generally offensive discourse of any sort.

On the other hand a private university, regardless of "flavor", should be able to set its own standards including any restrictions on free speech or political action that a student must voluntarily accept in order to remain enrolled.

opus

I understand your argument, but the problem of allowing "politically incorrect" discourse is that it turns university from a place of tolerance into intolerance - that is, you're asking for universities to be tolerant of intolerance. To me, free speech is one thing, and hate speech is another. And as universities see it, many feel they have an obligation to protect minorities, such as homosexuals, against the "tyranny of the majority" (in certain circumstances). To be homosexual in public space where people are protesting and saying that you should go to hell is not very flattering. This becomes exceptionally serious given the history of bullying/hate and correlates of sexual orientation to suicide rates.

So to me, I do not support "absolute" free speech - there is a clear limit. Many Americans disagree with this notion, arguing that people can say anything from supporting the KKK to denying the holocaust and inciting hatred. I don't believe this, because I think words are powerful and they harm people. I am not saying there should be censorship, but rather punishment for those that do so. And this has sort of been the trend in legal discourse.

The problem is people criticize this notion as "liberal" because people believe it's going overboard with political correctness. While it may be true, the people that have issues with political correctness are often the ones that aren't affected by it. A male will be the one to claim the silliness of having to say "police officer" instead of "policeman". A Christian will be the one to claim the silliness of having to say "happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". In this regard, political correctness seems sensible.

DaleSpam

I disagree completely here. Political correctness is nothing more than ideological intolerance. When it is adopted as official policy then the university as an organization becomes intolerant. When free speech is the policy then the university is tolerant and the ideas and words of intolerant individuals can be dealt with as they should, with better ideas and words.

It is completely legal to hate.

That is probably true in general, but not in my case. My family and I are members of a religious minority and have been the target of intolerance for as long as I can remember. I still firmly support the right of those intolerant individuals to say the stupid things they said, to hate me and my religion, and to exclude me from their groups. I know what it is like, but I value freedom more.

Economist

I wish you were right, but I tend to disagree. I don't see many republicans getting that pissed at huge government spending by George Dub, but this would piss off libertarians. I also saw a public opinion poll recently that said something like 1/3 (or was it 2/3?) of republicans do not think free trade is good for America. It's not uncommon for republicans to support farm subisidies as well. I also saw a republican politician on TV the other day arguing with a libertarian (economic professor) about whether WalMart should be allowed to go into banking. If the republicans was so free market, why would he be skeptical and object to it, and why would there be any debate between the libertarian and the republican. These are not free market ideals, and they make me wonder how many similar ideas republicans hold. If you're saying that republicans generally favor free markets more than democrats do, then I agree with you. But I personally don't see modern republicans as that free market oriented.

No, I am not saying they are ignorant. I've just noticed that most people haven't heard of libertarian (or if they have, they don't know what it means). I also see that many liberals get libertarian ideas and republican ideas confused, and it makes me think they must see more of a liberal non-liberal category.

Economist

I'm suprised to hear you talk like this. Usually you're rambling on about society this, and society that, and how it's usually not individuals fault. I'm suprised that you don't think just because there are so many liberals in academia, that they'd use their "power" and "influence" which you always state is so important, to indoctrinate the students.

Well, it's generally different with public universities. When everyone pays for them with tax money, then tax payers have more of a claim on how they are run, etc.

Did you listen to the whole thing? He documents cases like these. Suprise, suprise, none of them had liberal ideas.

Economist

Part of Kors point was that they put in place very vague policies, so that they can use them to their advantage and easily pick and choose who to subject to the policies on a case by case basis. Furthermore, when you speak about protecting people from the "tyranny of the majority" in academia, this would also apply to people with conservative ideas, because on college campuses they are in the minority. However, academia would never care to protect them with these policies.

Kors also brings up a good point about how academia claims to care a lot about diversity, but mainly on race, sexual orientation, gender (even though women get more college degrees then men now), etc. He asks, "Is this the only kind of diversity?" and claims that they don't care about diversity of ideas. I think he's pretty accurate on this point.

Economist

Wow! You really practice what you preach when it comes to freedom and liberty. I greatly respect that.

Huckleberry

Any time a university uses it's authority to punish an individual because of their beliefs it is practicing a form of indoctrination. It uses the threat of punishment to control which beliefs may be expressed and which may not. An individual example, no matter how inconsequential it may appear, may be observed by everyone at that university, thus altering how they express their beliefs. That is indoctrination and it is also unconstitutional.

I'm not claiming that all liberal universities have bad professors or are trying to indoctrinate their students. Almost all of the professors I've had were people that I really liked and admired. Even most of the ones I didn't like I still admired. I'm only saying that when a person's rights are infringed upon it is important that some action be taken to correct the situation.

I have no control over the cases FIRE accepts. Fire may very well have a bias. It is my belief that constitutional rights overrule the authority of universities, and students and professors should not be coerced to believe in the ideals of those organizations. But in the example of a Christian university, I hardly see a point in attending if one is not Christian. I would personally give more leniency to private universities so long as their policies were forthcoming and not concealed, such as the case where students were made to believe attendance to sensitivity classes were required, or the one where a class was claimed to be available to any race when in fact it was not.

I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at here. I think you may be misunderstanding me. My intent was not to conflate anything. Many of the policies that FIRE is opposing are based on ideas that I believe in. My problem with those policies is that I think it is wrong to coerce people to believe anything. That supercedes my belief in those policies. I disagree with the methods of the universities in these particular cases, not necessarily the message. (though sometimes that is the case) Nor do I believe that these universities are poor places to receive an education, only that they made some poor decisions.

opus

Again thanks for some anecdotal evidence on how "liberal" the Republicans are, going against the free market. How about you give some evidence. It is fair knowledge that the Republicans are conservative. Maybe they're not conservative enough for you, but that's your neoliberal problem. Yes, they may support farm subsidies - but so do the Democrats.
Well thank you for more anecdotes that contribute nothing but garbage. Do you want me to go make personal attacks against neoliberal economists who seem to get many things "confused" and see the world as "pro-market" and "anti-market" too? I can do that just as well as you can.

opus

And I'm surprised to see that you're worried about academia at all, given your ramblings on the superiority of economics and the free market.
Yes, and part of taxpayers demands is a learning environment, not a protest zone so you can pitch the anti-hate vs the hate protests. (pro-life vs pro-choice, gay vs anti-gay, etc.)
Boo hoo denied tenure. I know people who blame not getting tenure on things like blogging. The fact of the matter is the entire process is arbitrary and it has more to do with the academic policies and structure in place than some grand liberal conspiracy theory.
Oh, so you're saying that academia should care about diversity, race, sexual orientation, and gender.. and at the same time, tolerate ideas such as anti-gay (homophobia), anti-black (racist), anti-female (misogyny) ones?

I love how you claim for "equality" of ideas, even when it's blatantly used to erode the equality set in place.