To Anyone Who Thinks Universities Don't Indoctrinate

[Economist]

Please listen to this. You may not agree with it, but he makes some good points, and I wish you will listen and just think about it. Just for the record, he is an academic with a PhD in History from Harvard and is a Professor at Univesity of Pennsylvania. I would love to hear your opinions on the presentation.

http://www.fee.org/events/detail.asp?id=6241

 

[fourier jr]

I didn't bother hitting that link but this sounds a bit like the hidden curriculum, which is a real academic subject that is studied by serious sociologists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_curriculum

 

[DrClapeyron]

Another PhD and another wiki article with no references, where do I begin?

 

[Economist]

Another PhD and another wiki article with no references, where do I begin?

What do you mean? Are you implying that you shouldn't be persuading by a PhD and a wiki article? If so, I definitely agree. All I am asking is that some people listen to this (the whole thing) and then respond with whatever comments or reactions they have.

 

[devil-fire]

"brown university banned quote verbal behavior i love that one verbal behavior that produces feelings of impotence, anger or disenfranchisement intentional or unintentional well that code produces feelings of impotence, anger and disenfranchisement in me but i don't think that's what they had in mind. Cobbie college outlawed speech that causes a quote a vague sense of danger or quote a loss of self esteem close quote. I've had reviews of my books that have caused me extraordinary loss of self esteem, it never occurred to me that those could be outlawed."

he also mentions that a person urinated on a crucifix and was awarded for it because they called it art, but he raises a good point that if a person were to urinate on a picture of Martin Luther King and parade it around as art, there would be hell to pay.

has it really gotten this bad?

 

[Mk]

Reminds me of this Independent documentary: http://www.indoctrinate-u.com/intro/

Also, the link and this aren't exactly like the Hidden curriculum idea.

 

[Economist]

Reminds me of this Independent documentary: http://www.indoctrinate-u.com/intro/

Also, the link and this aren't exactly like the Hidden curriculum idea.

I want to watch Indoctrinate U. Is there any where online one can buy or watch the whole thing? I haven't seen it playing in any near by theatres.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Please listen to this. You may not agree with it, but he makes some good points, and I wish you will listen and just think about it. Just for the record, he is an academic with a PhD in History from Harvard and is a Professor at Univesity of Pennsylvania. I would love to hear your opinions on the presentation.

http://www.fee.org/events/detail.asp?id=6241

I have to say that the political slant he is describing has been my experience in many undergrad humanities and social science classes. I think I've always (perhaps mistakenly) attributed this phenomenon to a liberal bias in my state, and my region of the state, and not to American universities in general.

He reminded me of a news story I heard not too long ago about "the new PC curriculuum" that is available:

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/projects/ge/LAT071Phallus101.htm

THE "DIRTY DOZEN" list of "America's Most Bizarre and Politically Correct College Courses" is out — and Los Angeles-area institutions of higher learning have walked away with one-fourth of the ranked honors (or dishonors). Occidental College, an 1,800-student liberal arts school in Eagle Rock, is the only college on the list to collect not one but two citations for excellence at offering trendy theories of gender, skin color and white-male oppression at the expense of actual academic content.

And here they are:

"The Phallus"
Occidental College. A seminar in critical theory and social justice, this class examines Sigmund Freud, phallologocentrism and the lesbian phallus.
"Queer Musicology"
UCLA. This course welcomes students from all disciplines to study what it calls an "unruly discourse" on the subject, understood through the works of Cole Porter, kitty Tourette and John Cage.
"Taking Marx Seriously"
Amherst College. This advanced seminar for 15 students examines whether Karl Marx still matters despite the countless interpretations and applications of his ideas, or whether the world has entered a post-Marxist era.
"Adultery Novel"
University of Pennsylvania. Falling in the newly named "gender, culture and society" major, this course examines novels and films of adultery such as "Madame Bovary" and "The Graduate" through Marxist, Freudian and feminist lenses.
"Blackness"
Occidental College. Critical race theory and the idea of "post-blackness" are among the topics covered in this seminar course examining racial identity. A course on whiteness is a prerequisite.
"Border Crossings, Borderlands: Transnational Feminist Perspectives on Immigration"
University of Washington. This women studies department offering takes a new look at recent immigration debates in the U.S., integrating questions of race and gender while also looking at the role of the war on terror.
"Whiteness: The Other Side of Racism"
Mount Holyoke College. The educational studies department offers this first-year, writing-intensive seminar asking whether whiteness is "an identity, an ideology, a racialized social system," and how it relates to racism.
"Native American Feminisms"
University of Michigan. The women's studies and American culture departments offer this course on contemporary Native American feminism, including its development and its relation to struggles for land.
"'Mail Order Brides?' Understanding the Philippines in Southeast Asian Context"
Johns Hopkins University. This history course — cross-listed with anthropology, political science and studies of women, gender and sexuality — is limited to 35 students and asks for an anthropology course as a prerequisite.
"Cyberfeminism"
Cornell University. Cornell's art history department offers this seminar looking at art produced under the influence of feminism, post-feminism and the Internet.
"American Dreams/American Realities"
Duke University. Part of Duke's Hart Leadership Program that prepares students for public service, this history course looks at American myths, from "city on the hill" to "foreign devil," in shaping American history.
"Nonviolent Responses to Terrorism"
Swarthmore College. Swarthmore's "peace and conflict studies" program offers this course that "will deconstruct 'terrorism' " and "study the dynamics of cultural marginalization" while seeking alternatives to violence.

 

[mgb_phys]

(just to stir up things!)
You could take the view that almost all art courses are a waste of time anyway - so what's the difference between studying the "The Phallus" and researching the importance of pumpernickel in the politics of 16th Westphalia?

 

[Moonbear]

I listened to about 20 min of it, and that was enough. His examples are from private universities, not public ones. I'm sure he could go to the private, religious-based universities and find examples where the conservative view prevails over the liberal one. His bias is evident. I've worked entirely at public universities and have never seen any such examples of bias as he's describing, and likely, they're isolated incidents at the universities he's naming as well. In fact, he complains about his own department, yes strangely enough, he's a full professor who got through the tenure process and is allowed to teach his course every year...and when his students ask why they have never heard of those other authors before, why isn't his answer that it's because they learn about them in HIS course? The very fact that he teaches his course, and exposes the students to an alternative view, and that course counts toward their major, indicates that there is NOT a bias preventing the teaching of those subjects there. Academic freedom also means that he doesn't get to tell his colleagues what they should be teaching or studying either.

 

[turbo]

There are always people who get upset when their particular world-view doesn't get center-stage in the courses at their universities, and there are professors that encourage such reactions. That doesn't mean that the college is deliberately trying to indoctrinate their students in a particular world-view. If you're a student, and you've got half a brain, you can detect bias, and come out of the experience with a good education. If you lean very hard to the left or the right, and you paint your profs and their courses with you preconceptions with your expectations, you'll often perceive "bias" and "indoctrination" where none is intended or attempted.

There are a lot of people who are painted as right-wing capitalists (Warren Buffet is a good example) who think that the US's income tax system is unfairly regressive and punishes low-income people while rewarding billionaires like himself. If an economics professor echoes that opinion, does that make him into a liberal-leaning (or even socialist) kook? I don't think so.

 

[Mk]

There are always people who get upset when their particular world-view doesn't get center-stage in the courses at their universities, and there are professors that encourage such reactions.

The talk wasn't about this him getting upset when a particular world-view doesn't get center stage, he was talking about professors losing tenure, campus freedoms, and the idea of a perhaps unintentionally taught ideology embracing collectivism, as a few main points.

 

[Economist]

I listened to about 20 min of it, and that was enough.

That's a shame. You should have kept a little bit more of an open mind and listened to the whole thing, even if you think it's bs.

His examples are from private universities, not public ones.

Not true. He is chairman of an organization called FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education). Go to their website and look up universities and you will find many violations of free speech among public universities.

http://www.thefire.org/

I'm sure he could go to the private, religious-based universities and find examples where the conservative view prevails over the liberal one.

Not likely. Even at most of these universities, I imagine you will find most faculty are left leaning. In all fairness, I would say private universities have more of a right to push various ideologies considering that they are funded with tax payer funds to a much lower degree.

I've worked entirely at public universities and have never seen any such examples of bias as he's describing, and likely, they're isolated incidents at the universities he's naming as well.

Well, I've went to public schools my whole life. And more importantly, I am at a large public state university right now, and I think a lot of what he says hits very close to home. It's hard to deny the extreme left leaning ideology at public universities.

and when his students ask why they have never heard of those other authors before, why isn't his answer that it's because they learn about them in HIS course?

It's still a very valid question. Most students spend their whole college experience and have never heard of the great champions of freedom, such as Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek. What's more important is not that they haven't heard of these particular people, but rather that they've never heard any well constructed and intelligent view points that are not liberal. These views make them think rigorously and question their current beliefs, which is a good thing whether they agree or disagree with them. As Thomas Sowell has said about the current goals of public schools (especially universities), "They're generally more interested in teaching students what to think instead of how to think."

The very fact that he teaches his course, and exposes the students to an alternative view, and that course counts toward their major, indicates that there is NOT a bias preventing the teaching of those subjects there.

It doesn't count toward their major, I think it's just an elective. Besides, that does not prove that there is no bias. The point is that he is the only person at the UPenn who teaches anything even remotely similar to this class. Meanwhile, you'll probably find hundreds of courses each year which discuss Marx or other half baked socialist ideas.

Academic freedom also means that he doesn't get to tell his colleagues what they should be teaching or studying either.

He doesn't want to tell his colleagues what to think. If you would have listened to the whole speech you defnitely would have understood his position better. I urgue you to go back and listen to the whole thing. What he says, is that professors should not be telling students what to think, but rather exposing them to many ideas, and personally allowing them to choose which ideas and viewpoints they like best.

 

[turbo]

What he says, is that professors should not be telling students what to think, but rather exposing them to many ideas, and personally allowing them to choose which ideas and viewpoints they like best.

This attitude is shared by the creationists, who want creationism to be taught alongside evolution, as if there were no discernible differences in the values of either view.

 

[Evo]

What he says, is that professors should not be telling students what to think, but rather exposing them to many ideas, and personally allowing them to choose which ideas and viewpoints they like best.

In what subjects? Literature? Pottery making? Certainly not any of the sciences, well maybe social or political science, but those can arguably be separated from sciences like physics, math, chemistry, biology, geology, cosmology, etc...

He's a history teacher.

 

[Moonbear]

That's a shame. You should have kept a little bit more of an open mind and listened to the whole thing, even if you think it's bs.

Nothing to do with having an open mind...I put up with 20 min of redundancy, and simply wasn't going to waste more of my time...the entire lecture was an hour long!

Not likely. Even at most of these universities, I imagine you will find most faculty are left leaning. In all fairness, I would say private universities have more of a right to push various ideologies considering that they are funded with tax payer funds to a much lower degree.

You have no evidence to support that claim, do you? You're just guessing there. It's not consistent with my experience. Nor is it consistent with my experience at public institutions.

Well, I've went to public schools my whole life. And more importantly, I am at a large public state university right now, and I think a lot of what he says hits very close to home. It's hard to deny the extreme left leaning ideology at public universities.

And I'm a professor at a public university right now. I know what the ideology of the faculty is like, and I can tell you it's quite well balanced. We have people from both extremes. It may differ in some of the liberal arts departments, due to the nature of those people who choose liberal arts as a discipline of study, but there's no indoctrination.

It's still a very valid question. Most students spend their whole college experience and have never heard of the great champions of freedom, such as Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek.

Then they should learn to open their eyes and do some independent reading. It's not all about spoon-feeding.

What's more important is not that they haven't heard of these particular people, but rather that they've never heard any well constructed and intelligent view points that are not liberal.

Then they are not listening.

These views make them think rigorously and question their current beliefs, which is a good thing whether they agree or disagree with them. As Thomas Sowell has said about the current goals of public schools (especially universities), "They're generally more interested in teaching students what to think instead of how to think."

Your own bias is showing here. Is this what you think you're getting out of your education?

It doesn't count toward their major, I think it's just an elective.

Electives count toward one's major. In fact, for most degrees, once one takes a few basic requirements, everything is electives within the department. You sound like someone who isn't very familiar with how a university education is provided.

And, since you obviously haven't bothered to look for yourself, this is in UPenn's History Major requirements:

C Upper-level Seminars

All majors must take at least two upper level (200+) History seminars. All seminars are designated SEM in the registrar's time table and on the department's web site.
http://www.history.upenn.edu/ug_major3.html

Note that Kors' course is #212, and falls within this requirement.
http://www.history.upenn.edu/faculty/kors.htm

So, no, it's not something that doesn't even count toward the major, it is in fact among the seminars REQUIRED for the major.

Besides, that does not prove that there is no bias.

But it disproves that they're preventing alternative views from being taught, which is the entire premise of his argument.

The point is that he is the only person at the UPenn who teaches anything even remotely similar to this class.

Have you check the UPenn catalog?

Meanwhile, you'll probably find hundreds of courses each year which discuss Marx or other half baked socialist ideas.

Or not...I notice you're using words here like "probably," which tells me you're just making up these claims without even researching them for yourself. Come back when you have some evidence to support your claims.
Here, I'll help you...take a look at the UPenn History course listing and see if you still believe your own claims.
http://www.history.upenn.edu/course.html

These things aren't so hard to look up for yourself.

He doesn't want to tell his colleagues what to think. If you would have listened to the whole speech you defnitely would have understood his position better. I urgue you to go back and listen to the whole thing. What he says, is that professors should not be telling students what to think, but rather exposing them to many ideas, and personally allowing them to choose which ideas and viewpoints they like best.

And that is precisely what university faculty do. We provide information, and it is up to the students to process it and learn what to do with it.

 

[Astronuc]

Kors is full of himself. His diatribe, a verbal polemic filled with unsubstantiated claims and invective, begins with a poor joke, and goes downhill from there. His claim, "American leftists seek to control the whole of student life," is ludicrous. I'm sure Kors is speaking to a sympathetic audience, who shares his delusions.

My experience has been that no faculty member has ever tried to influence my thoughts or understanding, nor those of any other classmate. The student bodies of which I've been a part, and which I encounter since then and today, reflect a spectrum of ideas, perspectives, beliefs, indeed as varied as one finds at PF. The faculties of the institutions I attended also exhibited a broad spectrum of beliefs, ideas, understanding, and perspective.

Cherry picking his evidence does not support the broad generalization of Kors's claims.

Kors is not persuasive. I guess I failed Kors's indoctrination.

 

[Moonbear]

The talk wasn't about this him getting upset when a particular world-view doesn't get center stage, he was talking about professors losing tenure, campus freedoms, and the idea of a perhaps unintentionally taught ideology embracing collectivism, as a few main points.

That's the guise he was using to try to get his views to center stage. Tenure decisions have pretty well defined criteria, so when he says someone doesn't get tenure because they don't agree with the prevailing view, you have to seriously question if that's all there is to it. Are they getting lousy teaching evaluations, not publishing adequately, not bringing in funding for their work, refusing to sit on committees? Those are the criteria by which tenure decisions are made.

 

[russ_watters]

I listened to about 20 min of it, and that was enough. His examples are from private universities, not public ones. I'm sure he could go to the private, religious-based universities and find examples where the conservative view prevails over the liberal one.

True, but the schools he lists are pretty major bastions of higher education in the US, not obscure little cults. Penn is an Ivy League school with 20,000 students. And he speaks mainly from experience, which is primarily Penn and Harvard.

He also cited an example of a Penn State violation of religious free association in denying a club charter.

And maybe he didn't talk about Cal, but examples of this sort of thing at Cal, the home of liberal censorship (an ironic oxymoron) abound. http://www.thefire.org/index.php/case/12.html?PHPSESSID=
(Actually, heh - that's his organization, so he does have examples from public schools)

In fact, he complains about his own department, yes strangely enough, he's a full professor who got through the tenure process and is allowed to teach his course every year...and when his students ask why they have never heard of those other authors before, why isn't his answer that it's because they learn about them in HIS course? The very fact that he teaches his course, and exposes the students to an alternative view, and that course counts toward their major, indicates that there is NOT a bias preventing the teaching of those subjects there.

Well, he did give some examples of people who were denied tenure for nonconformist views.

Anyway, he does give several examples that are about rights being given by God and that does seem to be part of his slant.

 

[seycyrus]

I encourage everyone who attends or works at a university to walk down the halls of their respective depts. and note the large number of political cartoons on the doors of the faculty.

Note the trends, and remember that students are faced with this deluge on a daily basis whenever they have to approach their teachers/advisors/mentors.

Indoctrination? Perhaps not. Ideological pressure? Definitely.

Note the confident assurance I have of the outcome of this little experiment. From my experiences at public institutions and "conservative" private universities, I have found that pro-conservative ideology publicly displayed causes *outrage* whereas the contrary is not the case.

 

[Astronuc]

I was in an engineering program. It was before Dilbert, but that would be the kind of cartoon engineers would likely display.

I don't remember political cartoons displayed in our department. Professors and grad students usually did not post paper on their doors, and the bullentin boards were mostly university policy papers (which most of us ignored) and announcements.

 

[seycyrus]

Before Dilbert? I'm assuming that would mean more than 10 years ago?

I think a comparative study beween departments now and then would also be informative and would reinforce the concept I discussed.

I've been at many a pre-colloquia gathering and have witnessed large groups of faculty and like minded students) jibbing and jabbing with anti-conservative jests. While grad students who did not share their views were standing meekly in the corner.

 

[seycyrus]

Err ahem. "Comparative study" is a bit too official sounding of course :)

I'm not saying that anyone should take the time or resources to study this. Just that people might want to take a look around the various depts. at their universites as they take shortcuts through new building and such.

As an aside, I have also noticed a trend during the past 10 years at the APS meeting science policy talks to start out at least every third session with a joke that is at a conservatives expense. And no, the other two aren't poking fun at the liberals ...

Just saying that maybe we could start paying attention and realize that throwing down political views shouldn't take place at a scientific meeting.

 

[Huckleberry]

Looking at some case files that FIRE has supported I agree with their general viewpoint, and I'm glad that there is an organization willing to defend individual's constitutional rights on college campuses. Take a look at the http://thefire.org/index.php/case/" and decide for yourself.

Schools, especially public schools, should not have an [political] agenda. By practicing a policy that restricts one type of thought or promotes another, colleges only limit the ability of the students to choose and act upon their own value judgements. I would think by now people would realize that belief is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

FIRE obviously has an agenda and a bias. It's existence is based on those things, and it's rights are protected by law. When the agenda of schools shifts from teaching higher education to personal beliefs, FIRE's bias is justified. This is especially true when schools feel they have the authority to violate the constitutional rights of their students.

 

[Economist]

FIRE obviously has an agenda and a bias. It's existence is based on those things, and it's rights are protected by law. When the agenda of schools shifts from teaching higher education to personal beliefs, FIRE's bias is justified. This is especially true when schools feel they have the authority to violate the constitutional rights of their students.

I don't know exactly what you mean by they have a bias. It seems to me they're mainly interested in protecting freedom in a university setting.

Anyway, he does give several examples that are about rights being given by God and that does seem to be part of his slant.

I doubt he means what you think he means by that. By God given rights, people are generally referring to rights that all people have. It's an old term.

For example, Fredrich Bastiat says that all people have God given rights to life, liberty, and property. And therefore, they have the right to protect those rights, if anyone tries to infringe upon their life, liberty, or property. He says, that because individuals have the right to protect these rights, they can delegate them to government. For example, if someone comes on your property and tries to take some of your property (such as money) you have a right to defend with force. Therefore, if you choose, you can allow government to protect those rights through having a police department. However, in Bastiat's view, you can not delegate something to government that isn't a God given right in the first place. In his view, you can't have government rob certain people through taxation for certain programs they disagree with, because you do not have the right to do that in the first place (and therefore you can't delegate that right to government). In Bastiat's view, if you want to know whether the government has crossed a line, all you have to ask yourself is "Would it be ok for an individual to do the same thing?" If the answer is no, then government has overstepped it's proper bounds. Is it ok for an individual to take money from the top 1% and give it to the poor? Most people would say no. But when asked if we should be able to do so by a majority vote? Most people would say yes. In Bastiat's view, the fact that the first answer is no, means that the second answser should also be no.

 

[falc39]

For example, Fredrich Bastiat says that all people have God given rights to life, liberty, and property. And therefore, they have the right to protect those rights, if anyone tries to infringe upon their life, liberty, or property. He says, that because individuals have the right to protect these rights, they can delegate them to government. For example, if someone comes on your property and tries to take some of your property (such as money) you have a right to defend with force. Therefore, if you choose, you can allow government to protect those rights through having a police department. However, in Bastiat's view, you can not delegate something to government that isn't a God given right in the first place. In his view, you can't have government rob certain people through taxation for certain programs they disagree with, because you do not have the right to do that in the first place (and therefore you can't delegate that right to government). In Bastiat's view, if you want to know whether the government has crossed a line, all you have to ask yourself is "Would it be ok for an individual to do the same thing?" If the answer is no, then government has overstepped it's proper bounds. Is it ok for an individual to take money from the top 1% and give it to the poor? Most people would say no. But when asked if we should be able to do so by a majority vote? Most people would say yes. In Bastiat's view, the fact that the first answer is no, means that the second answser should also be no.

I just read The Law. One of the best books I've read in my life, I wish I was given it in High School. His term for what you said is 'legal plunder'. If any honest American reads this book, you will realize how messed up America has gotten.

 

[opus]

Oh boo hoo, liberal agendas in the ivory towers. On the other side of the debate, you have this: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8442.html

There is always media over hype about "indoctrination" among the universities because they're oh-so-critical of the status quo living in the Foucaldian social analysis and Marxist thought. To be honest, this is completely bull****, because part of critical thinking is being critical of "what is" -- and somehow people think professors criticizing American popular culture is somehow "indoctrination" of the student mass populace? It is really irony, because people who buy into the "liberal agenda" ruckus are the ones just buying into narratives that support their own political views of university.

Regardless, university has been changing for the last three decades to begin with. People can cry foul all they want about "liberals" telling "what their students to think", but academia has transformed itself (for better or worse) into a place of vocation more so than academic thought. Undergraduate education is now a business, and alongside universities are business schools, law schools, and medical schools. While it may be amusing to focus on that one teacher in the humanities that says silly things and talks about how evil Bush is, but it is another to proclaim that this evidence of an "indoctrination agenda" and ignore how academia has changed itself. It's hardly the place of violent student protests as seen from the Vietnam era, or the postmodern abyss from post-Vietnam. People are just trying to stir up things that don't exist.

 

[Economist]

I just read The Law. One of the best books I've read in my life, I wish I was given it in High School. His term for what you said is 'legal plunder'. If any honest American reads this book, you will realize how messed up America has gotten.

I read it about 6 months ago, and it definitely was a life changing book. Whether you agree with it or not, it is definitely a good read. It's also tough to argue against his position in my opinion, as it's hard to defend "legal plunder" and "tyranny of the majority."

 

[seycyrus]

There is always media over hype about "indoctrination" among the universities because they're oh-so-critical of the status quo living in the Foucaldian social analysis and Marxist thought. To be honest, this is completely bull****,

Does the strawman get bigger when it is built with bigger words?

The link you gave does not show any contrary case of pro-conservatism.

"complete bull" Hardly.

Do the experiments listed yourself. And ask yourself whether that is how it should be. Try to be honest.

 

[opus]

What experiments? Seeing an association make fun of a political view and calling it endemic indoctrination?

The link was specifically for the Economist because he's knowledgeable about that area.

You know, liberalism is correlated with level of education. I'm saying it's no surprise. But whether students and professors are liberal are hardly of the matter given the changing face of university. You don't see war protests in the ivory tower anymore, thanks. These complaints are really just whiny and full of QQ

EDIT:

Having read the first 16/33 pages of The Law, I see it nothing more than classical liberal spew defending methodological individualism. Any libertarian or conservative (classical liberal, neoliberal) would find this a good read.

 

[Dale]

Just thought I would throw my 2 cents into the mix. I will admit up front that my political bias is very strongly libertarian.

First, I think on average that professors do lean to the left. However, in my personal experience most professors make a very contientious effort to "agree to disagree" with students with opposing political views. Most of the rest of the professors are not deliberately trying to suppress opposing views, they are just unaware of their own bias and not terribly careful about how it impacts their students. Exceptions can certainly be found.

Second, although I appreciate the fact that most professors are so contientious, I think it is acceptable for a professor to deliberately set out to indoctrinate his students to his political views. The relationship between teacher and student is not a relationship of equals, but it is a voluntary one on the part of the student. If the student doesn't want to be exposed to liberal politics then they probably should not take a class called "The Phallus" where that will be central to the coursework. If the student is taking a physics course then I don't see the relevance of the professor's politics.

Third, the only thing mentioned on this thread that I think is unacceptable is state-sponsored censorship of its students in the form of political correctness policies (at private universities I think it is ok). Students should be able say things that hurt others' "self-esteem", etc. They should be able to voice anti-religious, pro-religious, anti-racism, pro-racism, etc. ideas with equal impunity. Political correctness is censorship which is an attempt at thought control which does not belong in a public university.

 

[Huckleberry]

People are just trying to stir up things that don't exist.

Obviously something exists, or FIRE would have no case. They have scores of cases documented that have protected the rights of thousands of people from unconstitutional university policies. It hardly matters if the policies are liberal or conservative.

For example,

One college demanded that all patriotic symbols be removed from its dormitories. The students were told to remove them because other students might find them offensive.

Another college restricted free speech to a small area, approximately 1% of the campus, and limited the times that those areas may be used for that purpose.

A student is subjected to mandatory psychological evaluation by a university employee for writing an unthreatening e-mail to university officials criticizing their anti-gun policies.

A student is expelled after a hearing where the alleged victim is allowed to sit in judgement of the accused.

Another college forced prospective teachers to write a statement pledging their commitment to campus diversity and other ideals. Violation of their statement is grounds for dismissal.

A public college had regular "required" racial sensitivity training for all students. Students were expected to attend floor meetings and one-on-one counceling sessions.


How can someone not see the Orwellian nature of these illegal transgressions? We can't have a free country if some beliefs are punished by authority while others are encouraged, and sometimes enforced. For freedom to exist people must be allowed to not only choose their own beliefs, but express them in public without fear of retribution from authority. Regardless of how offensive one individual may find the beliefs of another, both are guaranteed equally their liberty to express those beliefs. How can universities preach diversity and yet endeavor to influence a homogenous system of belief? If no problem exists, then how does one explain so many documented cases? Should we ignore the disenfranchized until it is our turn to cry foul, or should the one follow blindly behind the many.

It seems often that the cases FIRE pursues are remedied as soon as they threaten to make the university policies and practices public or bring them to court. How righteous can these policies be if they deteriorate when exposed to public scrutiny? How righteous is any policy or practice that coerces belief upon the disident.

 

[seycyrus]

What experiments? Seeing an association make fun of a political view and calling it endemic indoctrination?

Walk down the hall and count the number of political statements. as I stated before, calling it endemic indoctrination is a stretch, but calling it ideological pressure is not.

The link was specifically for the Economist because he's knowledgeable about that area.

I don't see how

*The book's case studies--including financial derivatives markets, telecommunications-frequency auctions, and individual transferable quotas in fisheries*

Has much to do with political agendas on campus. Perhaps you could elucidate?

You know, liberalism is correlated with level of education. I'm saying it's no surprise. But whether students and professors are liberal are hardly of the matter given the changing face of university. You don't see war protests in the ivory tower anymore, thanks. These complaints are really just whiny and full of QQ

I agree that most Universities are liberal. I do not agree that the dept. halls should be subjected to political pressure. Regardless of the political views of the faculty.

I don't think I've ever heard of any vietnam war protests having taken place INSIDE the a University. So, your *anymore* argument is fallacious, thanks.

Political ideology is MORE prevalent *inside* the university now than ever before.

Take the walk down the halls and count.

Why is it that people are willing to ignore this issue, just because their personal ideology is in agreement with that being tacked onto almost every door and bulletin board in some universities?

 

[Huckleberry]

I don't know exactly what you mean by they have a bias. It seems to me they're mainly interested in protecting freedom in a university setting.

Well, mostly I notice that the dude in the video was often talking about liberal policies. I came away from that video thinking that was what he was fighting against in universities. I was skeptical of what function that would serve. Having a liberal viewpoint is no crime.

Then I read some of their cases and their mission statement and noted that their purpose was to protect the rights of any individual's viewpoint at universities. It said nothing about any political leaning in their statement, yet the video gave me the distinct impression of that. This suggests to me that the organization, or at least its spokesman, does have a political bias. I may have been a bit ambitious to say any bias was obvious, but I do believe it is there.

It's rare for people to put large amounts of effort to champion against a viewpoint that they themselves believe.

[Can someone champion againt something, or is that term only for advocation?]

 

[Economist]

How righteous can these policies be if they deteriorate when exposed to public scrutiny? How righteous is any policy or practice that coerces belief upon the disident.

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]

Any libertarian or conservative (classical liberal, neoliberal) would find this a good read.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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."

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

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.

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.

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]

Obviously something exists, or FIRE would have no case. They have scores of cases documented that have protected the rights of thousands of people from unconstitutional university policies. It hardly matters if the policies are liberal or conservative.

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.

One college demanded that all patriotic symbols be removed from its dormitories. The students were told to remove them because other students might find them offensive.

Another college restricted free speech to a small area, approximately 1% of the campus, and limited the times that those areas may be used for that purpose.

A student is subjected to mandatory psychological evaluation by a university employee for writing an unthreatening e-mail to university officials criticizing their anti-gun policies.

A student is expelled after a hearing where the alleged victim is allowed to sit in judgement of the accused.

Another college forced prospective teachers to write a statement pledging their commitment to campus diversity and other ideals. Violation of their statement is grounds for dismissal.

A public college had regular "required" racial sensitivity training for all students. Students were expected to attend floor meetings and one-on-one counceling sessions.

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.

I don't see how

*The book's case studies--including financial derivatives markets, telecommunications-frequency auctions, and individual transferable quotas in fisheries*

Has much to do with political agendas on campus. Perhaps you could elucidate?

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 http://adbusters.org/the_magazine/75/Economic_Indoctrination.html will do.

I agree that most Universities are liberal. I do not agree that the dept. halls should be subjected to political pressure. Regardless of the political views of the faculty.

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.

I don't think I've ever heard of any vietnam war protests having taken place INSIDE the a University. So, your *anymore* argument is fallacious, thanks.

Political ideology is MORE prevalent *inside* the university now than ever before.

Take the walk down the halls and count.

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/protestsweb/index.html

Even professors were participating in the protests. I don't know what selective history you've been reading.

Why is it that people are willing to ignore this issue, just because their personal ideology is in agreement with that being tacked onto almost every door and bulletin board in some universities?

"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.

 

[Dale]

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

 

[Dale]

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.

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.

To me, free speech is one thing, and hate speech is another.

It is completely legal to hate.

While it may be true, the people that have issues with political correctness are often the ones that aren't affected by it.

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]

Modern conservatism[/url] is neoliberalism. (economic issues - favour free market, minimal government)

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.

Yes, those ignorant liberals don't know anything besides their liberalism

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[Economist]

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.

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]

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.

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

 

[Huckleberry]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.