To Anyone Who Thinks Universities Don't Indoctrinate

[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.

 

[opus]

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[Economist]

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.

Maybe you didn't know this, but public opinion polls are not anecdotal evidence (actually they are data).

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.

You already do make personal attacks, in fact, it seems to be the only way you know how to argue. I guess I wouldn't expect anything different from someone as emotionally driven as yourself.

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.

Well, I do think that colleges would be a lot better if it was completely (or at least mostly) privatized, but that is beside the point. I'm actually going to get a PhD, so I do care about academia. Luckily for me, most economic professors care mostly about teaching students how to do high caliber research as opposed to teaching them what to think. My personal views have come mostly through reading for pleasure.

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.)

Not a protest zone? Weren't you the one earlier talking about protests during the Vietnam War? Also, would you support academic policy that students wouldn't be allowed to protest? Policies that would not allow students to protest things like globalization, supreme court decisions on gay marriage, Iraq War, etc? It seems you'd only like to protect the kinds of protests, you're personally against. Haven't you ever heard that free speech is supposed to protect the speech you disagree with, not the things you agree with?

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.

Denied tenure is a pretty big deal, especially if it was based on political ideology as opposed to research productivity. I doubt you would say "Boo hoo, that person was denied tenure because they were a minority, a women, etc." You would take those things very seriously. You're inconsistency on issues makes you look even more biased. I may have a radical ideology, but at least I generally keep it logically consistent.

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?

Yeah, as if there is no ground in between. In case you haven't noticed, being more tolerant of conservative views would not have to mean they tolerate anti-gay, anti-black, or anti-female things. There you go again exaggerating the original claim I was making.

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

First of all, I am not saying that all ideas are created equal. Actually far from it, which is exactly why I have critized many of the fallacious arguments you've made in regards to economics.

What I am saying is that it's interesting that academia tends to discriminate based on ideas they disagree with.

And how can you say that excepting more view points will erode equality? If someone has a different view point, it doesn't really effect you. It's not like we're saying that people's behaviors can be whatever they want. But rather that people are allowed the freedom and liberty to have ideas that they want. There are many more reasons to regulate and restrict behavior, than there are reasons to regulate and restrict speech and ideas.

 

[opus]

Maybe you didn't know this, but public opinion polls are not anecdotal evidence (actually they are data).

I don't see a single link or evidence you refer to in your post. I can just make up numbers and stories when making my posts too, you know.

You already do make personal attacks, in fact, it seems to be the only way you know how to argue. I guess I wouldn't expect anything different from someone as emotionally driven as yourself.

Says that guy who anguishes over liberals being "supposedly" unable to differentiate with libertarians and conservatives, and the guy who discredits an entire field of social science because they "look too hard for evidence" in the private sector.

Well, I do think that colleges would be a lot better if it was completely (or at least mostly) privatized, but that is beside the point. I'm actually going to get a PhD, so I do care about academia. Luckily for me, most economic professors care mostly about teaching students how to do high caliber research as opposed to teaching them what to think. My personal views have come mostly through reading for pleasure.

Oh, so now non-economics professors as indoctrinating their students? These economics professors must be angels, then, compared to the rest of academia. Thanks for another implicit ungrounded accusation.

Not a protest zone? Weren't you the one earlier talking about protests during the Vietnam War? Also, would you support academic policy that students wouldn't be allowed to protest? Policies that would not allow students to protest things like globalization, supreme court decisions on gay marriage, Iraq War, etc? It seems you'd only like to protect the kinds of protests, you're personally against. Haven't you ever heard that free speech is supposed to protect the speech you disagree with, not the things you agree with?

Free speech is protecting hate speech? I criticize hate speech, and you somehow put up a strawman saying that I am anti-free speech against whatever I disagree with.

And university is not a protest zone, and I never said anything about supporting Vietnam War protests in academia. I said how academia has changed in comparison to those days.

But again, putting more words in my mouth, not that I expected more.

Denied tenure is a pretty big deal, especially if it was based on political ideology as opposed to research productivity. I doubt you would say "Boo hoo, that person was denied tenure because they were a minority, a women, etc." You would take those things very seriously. You're inconsistency on issues makes you look even more biased. I may have a radical ideology, but at least I generally keep it logically consistent.

Well guess what, tenure is an arbitrary process if you haven't noticed. People can be denied tenure for any reason. And you somehow make another assumption that I support the tenure process as it stands, which I do not. I said that people have been denied tenure for speculated reasons such as spending too much time blogging. And for some reason, you think that I'm accepting of this, in so far to accuse me of saying that I would support someone being denied tenure because of their race or gender. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about to accuse me of doing that.

Yeah, as if there is no ground in between. In case you haven't noticed, being more tolerant of conservative views would not have to mean they tolerate anti-gay, anti-black, or anti-female things. There you go again exaggerating the original claim I was making.

I never said anything bad about conservative views, or being intolerant of different views of the political spectrum. I said I was against hate speech, and here you are twisting my words once more.

What I am saying is that it's interesting that academia tends to discriminate based on ideas they disagree with.

"interesting"? It's terrible to discriminate against dissenting ideas. Luckily, however, it is not prevalent and there is no liberal conspiracy theory that runs universities. Otherwise, every economics department would have been abolished ages ago.

And how can you say that excepting more view points will erode equality? If someone has a different view point, it doesn't really effect you. It's not like we're saying that people's behaviors can be whatever they want. But rather that people are allowed the freedom and liberty to have ideas that they want. There are many more reasons to regulate and restrict behavior, than there are reasons to regulate and restrict speech and ideas.

So you're saying then, that the Germans were okay when they accepted Nazi views about antisemitism? After all, it doesn't "affect them", and their "behavior can be whatever they want." It's for freedom and liberty that Nazis can have whatever ideas that they want, and they should not restrict nor regulate such speech and ideas.

 

[Economist]

Oh, so now non-economics professors as indoctrinating their students? These economics professors must be angels, then, compared to the rest of academia. Thanks for another implicit ungrounded accusation.

I don't have time to respond to everything, but I just wanted to respond to this because I don't want anyone believing this misrepresentation of me above.

All I was claiming is that some fields, are more oriented on teaching tools, such as accounting, economics, engineering, nursing, etc. Other fields are more likely to focus on specific people and specific ideas, which may lead to a little bit different views. I'm just saying that in certain fields you're less likely to have a professors political ideas be as expressed and out in the open.

 

[opus]

All I was claiming is that some fields, are more oriented on teaching tools, such as accounting, economics, engineering, nursing, etc. Other fields are more likely to focus on specific people and specific ideas, which may lead to a little bit different views. I'm just saying that in certain fields you're less likely to have a professors political ideas be as expressed and out in the open.

Accounting, engineering, nursing, yes.

Economics, no. And as far as I'm concerned, neither is any other social science and humanities. Accounting deals with numbers, engineering deals with design, nursing with health.. but social sciences deal with people, so no matter how well you dress it up in numbers, there is a clear representation of specific school(s) of thought.

 

[Economist]

but social sciences deal with people, so no matter how well you dress it up in numbers, there is a clear representation of specific school(s) of thought.

I don't completely disagree that even in Econ you have different schools of thought. However, this is mostly in Macro were there is still a lot more debate over things, as opposed to Micro which there is more consensus. However, these "specific schools of thought" are not usually that linked to political ideology, but rather consist of different models, methods, etc. For example, the subfield of Econometrics has no real ideology tied to it, but the subfield Austrian Economics is much more linked to a certain ideology (namely pro-market).

Maybe the best way to understand people, is through mathematics and statistics? If this is the case, then maybe social science can advance by becoming more technical and mathematical.

My original claim (which I am still sticking with) is that Economics teaches more tools than most people realize. In my Psychology classes (which is the only other Social Science I've taken many classes in) it was much more about discussing research, and saying "concept/theory/hypothesis XXX says that people will act in XXX way, and shows support through experiment XXX." In Economics classes past intro Micro/Macro you usually spend much more time discussing and learning models and tools of analysis. I know of an Nobel Prize winning Economist who said, "I was a Physics major, and when I took my first Econ class, I thought, this looks a lot like Physics." My point is that in Economics, much time is spent learning the technical aspects of the field. I think professors think that anybody can go out on their own and learn about Economic thought/philosophy by reading, so instead they teach the tools of Economics. Besides, most professors think the tools are the most important part so that's what they stress. I was also stating that public opinion polls have shown that there is much more diversity in terms of political ideology for Economists (meaning people with graduate degrees in Econ). You'll find that a slight majority are self-described democrats, but there are also a good number of republicans, and also a good number of libertarians. I always figured this had to do with the way studying Economics changes your understanding of the world. An Economist is critiqued on his ability to do high level research, regardless of his/her political ideology, and regardless of the political implications that his/her research draws. I don't know that you would find the same thing in Sociology (where you mentioned that the Association of Sociologists or whatever took a stance on the war).

 

[opus]

I don't know that you would find the same thing in Sociology (where you mentioned that the Association of Sociologists or whatever took a stance on the war).

If you don't know about other social science fields, then why do you make the assumption that economics is the only one that is "value-free" like the natural sciences (which none of them are, actually)? You're arguing from ignorance, that you don't know what non-psychology and non-economics fields are like, and then you argue that economists are the only one able to do "high level research".

"Well, I don't know about other fields, but I hear economics is pretty technical, fancy-schmancy, and us economists have compared it to physics a million times"

 

[opus]

I'm going to further go on a limb here against your claim that economics is "diverse" in terms of political ideology. Diversity in political positions does not make a discipline "diverse". This excerpt is from a working paper that I've been reading by an economic sociologist:

These general issues are compounded for sociology. It is the most heterogeneous
social science, which is perhaps another way of saying that it has been less
successful at institutionalizing itself as a discipline than its close relatives. Unlike
economics, it does not have a core kit of analytical tools and models codified in textbooks and widely accepted as legitimate both inside and outside the field.
Economics is unique amongst the social sciences in this respect. After WorldWar
II, it acquired the gate-keeping features of professions like medicine or engineering,
and also developed the imperial ambitions of fields like physics, all the while
becoming incorporated into policy-making in an unprecedented way (Fourcade-
Gourinchas ). Unlike political science, on the other hand, sociology does not
have a well-defined empirical core to unify it, either. Theoretical and methodological
disputes are common in political science, of course, but a shared focus on
the mechanisms and institutions of government has helped integrate the field. In
sociology, by comparison, social life as such is too general to serve as a basis for
unification.

This is a field whereby some its scientists don't even think it should be a field, or agree on methodological tools to investigate. Thus, sociology has the most diverse tools of inquiry, the largest scope of research, and massive in-fighting. Anthropology is almost just as "diverse", except they arguably have emphasized qualitative research. So yes, the strengths you describe of economics (as well as the paper describes) of being close to professions is not due to its "diversity" or "complexity", but rather its simplicity and "mainstream" models. That is, people are convinced economics is "real" when you can model an economic activity and make predictions. Obviously whether this is true or not is irrelevant to this discussion, but is by no means due to what you call "diversity" in the field and rather the opposite.

So likewise, your claim that economics is so superior with its technical analysis making it superior to all other social sciences holds no water. Nor does your claim that economists being diverse in political ideology makes the field "diverse" for having both Democrats and Republicans (between right-wing and more right-wing) equally.

And your suggestion that the best way to understand people through numbers and statistics is outdated. This was something that has been around since the Enlightenment with the emphasis on "rationality" and "positivism" hoping that the natural sciences would not explain just nature, but humans as well. That is, they sought a "universality" of methodology and truth-claims.

Of course, I dare say it was a complete failure because quantitative analysis alone cannot explain humans. Though, economists like yourself, may opt to disagree and instead argue that everything should become more "technical", "mathematical", and thus, "scientific".

 

[DrClapeyron]

Everybody has their agenda, but I fail to see the evidence put forth by the PhD in the video. He talks a good rhetoric but has no solid example of indoctrination and then further fails to make the moral argument for or against.

 

[Economist]

This is a field whereby some its scientists don't even think it should be a field, or agree on methodological tools to investigate. Thus, sociology has the most diverse tools of inquiry, the largest scope of research, and massive in-fighting. Anthropology is almost just as "diverse", except they arguably have emphasized qualitative research. So yes, the strengths you describe of economics (as well as the paper describes) of being close to professions is not due to its "diversity" or "complexity", but rather its simplicity and "mainstream" models.

I have heard that before, that sociology has a more diverse set of tools. However, originally we were talking about political ideology, and I was stating that in my opinion economists tend to have a more diverse array of political views. You are also forgeting that there are economists who have very different tools of inquiry, such as the Austrian School of Economics.

That is, people are convinced economics is "real" when you can model an economic activity and make predictions. Obviously whether this is true or not is irrelevant to this discussion, but is by no means due to what you call "diversity" in the field and rather the opposite.

I disagree that this is irrelevant to our discussion. Making and testing predictions is what social science is all about. Economics has great predictive power, precisely because it tries to mathematical model real world phenomenon, and precisely because economists are well trained in statistics in order to test their predictions. This is why Gary Becker, Roland Fryer Jr, etc are able to study things that was referred to as sociology in the past (discrimination, families, education, peer effects, etc) because they have very useful tools of analysis.

So likewise, your claim that economics is so superior with its technical analysis making it superior to all other social sciences holds no water. Nor does your claim that economists being diverse in political ideology makes the field "diverse" for having both Democrats and Republicans (between right-wing and more right-wing) equally.

I'm not saying it's superior because of technical analysis. I do believe that social sciences will have to adapt in the future and become increasingly mathematical and statistical in order to rigourously and accurately test hyptheses and measure effects. Social sciences have to take advantage of both the philosophical ideas and views, as well as the mathematical and statistical tools.

You also make it sound as though sociologists are completely unique from one another in their world view (which is not even what I've been claiming about economists). Don't you think if you ask a sociologist about the role discrimination and racism plays for minorities in the US, you'll get a fairly similar answer?

And your suggestion that the best way to understand people through numbers and statistics is outdated. This was something that has been around since the Enlightenment with the emphasis on "rationality" and "positivism" hoping that the natural sciences would not explain just nature, but humans as well. That is, they sought a "universality" of methodology and truth-claims.

I didn't say it's the best way, rather that it is part of what it takes to have a social science and understand people. Essentially, I believe that quantitative analysis is necessary but not sufficient for a social science.

Of course, I dare say it was a complete failure because quantitative analysis alone cannot explain humans. Though, economists like yourself, may opt to disagree and instead argue that everything should become more "technical", "mathematical", and thus, "scientific".

Exactly! Quantitative analysis cannot completely explain humans, however you may not be able to understand humans without it. As I alluded to above, it may be necessary but not sufficient. If humans could be totally understood through quantitative analysis alone, you probably wouldn't need social scientists because mathematicians would do it instead. Luckily for me, this is not the case, as I've stressed before that social science is about both philosophical ideas/theories and quantitative testing/analysis (as much as possible) of these ideas.

If you don't know about other social science fields, then why do you make the assumption that economics is the only one that is "value-free" like the natural sciences (which none of them are, actually)? You're arguing from ignorance, that you don't know what non-psychology and non-economics fields are like, and then you argue that economists are the only one able to do "high level research".

I never said econ was value-free. And just for your info, I have taken a sociology class. I am by no means an expert, but I may not be as ignorant as you seem to think. I wish I would have taken more, just to understand their perspective more, but it's all good because I will just pick up sociology textbooks in the future.

 

[opus]

I have heard that before, that sociology has a more diverse set of tools. However, originally we were talking about political ideology, and I was stating that in my opinion economists tend to have a more diverse array of political views. You are also forgeting that there are economists who have very different tools of inquiry, such as the Austrian School of Economics.

"Praxaeology" is not empirical, and it is quite laughable that you are regarding this as a "tool of inquiry". As far as I'm concerned, not even their studies of "human action" would get published in the orthodox economic journals.

Also, political views != tools of inquiry, and if you're putting high value on the diversity of inquiry tools, I suggest you research other academic disciplines before putting your money on economics.

I disagree that this is irrelevant to our discussion. Making and testing predictions is what social science is all about. Economics has great predictive power, precisely because it tries to mathematical model real world phenomenon, and precisely because economists are well trained in statistics in order to test their predictions. This is why Gary Becker, Roland Fryer Jr, etc are able to study things that was referred to as sociology in the past (discrimination, families, education, peer effects, etc) because they have very useful tools of analysis.

Yes, quantitative data analysis is indeed useful but it is by no means exclusive property of the economics paradigm. Economists that study non-traditional subjects, and topics often related to sociology, are more likely than not employing statistical analysis that sociologists conventionally use commonly. For example, Freakonomics.

I'm not saying it's superior because of technical analysis. I do believe that social sciences will have to adapt in the future and become increasingly mathematical and statistical in order to rigourously and accurately test hyptheses and measure effects. Social sciences have to take advantage of both the philosophical ideas and views, as well as the mathematical and statistical tools.

Yes, but mathematical and statistical work done without knowledge of its philosophical assumptions ("axioms", if you would) is poor data and poor analysis. This is not the natural sciences, you cannot "skip" philosophy and somehow come up with "objective" facts that are forever real. Humans are complicated, and technical analysis will help, but it will not make philosophy irrelevant. In fact, it would only make it more relevant.

You also make it sound as though sociologists are completely unique from one another in their world view (which is not even what I've been claiming about economists). Don't you think if you ask a sociologist about the role discrimination and racism plays for minorities in the US, you'll get a fairly similar answer?

Sociologists are unique in that their studies are very broad, if you do not take into consideration their general "left-wing" orientation.

If sociologists could come up with a similar answer, we wouldn't have this issue of sociology questioning itself and sociologists would actually be able to agree on something for once. Of course, that has not happened and I don't see it happening for a while. Sociology is far from economics being centralized with a core set of tools, ideology, and beliefs. It is much more ambiguous and more inquisitive than deductive.

I didn't say it's the best way, rather that it is part of what it takes to have a social science and understand people. Essentially, I believe that quantitative analysis is necessary but not sufficient for a social science.

Yes, I agree with you. Quantitative analysis has a very important place in research. However, by itself alone, it is useless, like all other levels of analysis.

Exactly! Quantitative analysis cannot completely explain humans, however you may not be able to understand humans without it. As I alluded to above, it may be necessary but not sufficient. If humans could be totally understood through quantitative analysis alone, you probably wouldn't need social scientists because mathematicians would do it instead. Luckily for me, this is not the case, as I've stressed before that social science is about both philosophical ideas/theories and quantitative testing/analysis (as much as possible) of these ideas.

Indeed, however, as a general rule qualitative research is much more effective at "breaking into" a field. Quantitative data is much more effective at precision and predictability. In terms of data gathering, qualitative research also plays an important role in recording things that quantitative data misses - and variables that quantitative research often unknowingly miss.

I never said econ was value-free. And just for your info, I have taken a sociology class. I am by no means an expert, but I may not be as ignorant as you seem to think. I wish I would have taken more, just to understand their perspective more, but it's all good because I will just pick up sociology textbooks in the future.

That's good, here are some textbooks that might peak your interest:
Wikinomics
The Starfish and the Spider
The Tipping Point

 

[Economist]

"Praxaeology" is not empirical, and it is quite laughable that you are regarding this as a "tool of inquiry". As far as I'm concerned, not even their studies of "human action" would get published in the orthodox economic journals.

Don't quote me on this, but I think that modern Austrian economists are actually a bit different. I think a lot of them are highly trained in mathematics (economic theory) and statistics/empirical work (econometrics) because they have to take the 1st year core theory classes with everyone else in their PhD program, and they have to pass the prelim exams like everyone else. I was listening to a podcast about Austrian economics with a modern Austrian (Pete Boettke) and he was making it sound like modern Austrians utilize their knowledge of Econometrics in their research. However, I do agree that Austrian economists are probably unlikely to publish in many of the top/mainstream economic journals.

Yes, quantitative data analysis is indeed useful but it is by no means exclusive property of the economics paradigm. Economists that study non-traditional subjects, and topics often related to sociology, are more likely than not employing statistical analysis that sociologists conventionally use commonly. For example, Freakonomics.

Yes, quantitative analysis is not in anyway the be all end all of economics. If it were, economists probably wouldn't have a job, as statisticians could do everything that we can do. The main two things one needs to know to be an economist is the theory as well has how to do empirical work.

I'm not sure I agree with the Freakonomics comment though. Freakonomics is a based on numerous papers that Levitt wrote which were published in mainstream economics journals, and they all depend heavily on econometrics (data analysis, statistics, etc).

Yes, but mathematical and statistical work done without knowledge of its philosophical assumptions ("axioms", if you would) is poor data and poor analysis. This is not the natural sciences, you cannot "skip" philosophy and somehow come up with "objective" facts that are forever real. Humans are complicated, and technical analysis will help, but it will not make philosophy irrelevant. In fact, it would only make it more relevant.

I totally agree. You haven't really made a profound point though because all (or at least most) economists seem to know this. I may not be that informed about it, but that's because I am still just an undergrad. I'm even taking an econ course this quarter which discussed these things heavily in the first chapter.

Believe me, economists seem to know the limitations of their mathematical and empirical work (which partly results from the "axioms" you mentioned above). Essentially, economists use mathematics in order to derive refutable propositions, then statistics is used to test those refutable propositions. But their is always much debate between economists about because of their awareness of the limitations you alluded to above.

Yes, I agree with you. Quantitative analysis has a very important place in research. However, by itself alone, it is useless, like all other levels of analysis.

Yes, stats alone will get you nowhere (which is why theory is so important). And yes, in science you need many different types of analysis because each one independently is insufficient. It seems to me though, that out of all the social sciences, economics stresses knowledge of statistics the most, but maybe you disagree.

 

[opus]

While yes, we finally agree on something, you still have a strong perceivable bias because you're again giving economists the benefit of the doubt (par usual). If this was the case, there would be little criticism against orthodox (or "autistic") economics as a whole. This of course, is not true, and even I would never give trust to fellow sociologists as you would to fellow economists by default.

 

[TVP45]

All I can say is that, if all ideas are equally good, I want phlogiston put back in thermodynamics.

 

[John Creighto]

I think the nature of a true academic is to question but given some funding is amid at "proving a pree conceived bias" then it is inevitable that universities will attract some people that are more interested in advocacy then academics.

For instance in Canada the government use to give money to an advocacy group called the status of woman which would then in turn give the money to fund university research on "womans issues". The best way to reduce the bias in research is to give the money to universities directly with no strings attached.

When governments funnel money to universities through advocacy groups they are clearly trying in some respect to subvert academic freedom.

 

[John Creighto]

On another note if a department in a university is full of to much political B.S. then why not switch departments or universities?

 

[CloudStrife]

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.

So! You are a Marxist professor. I despise thee.

 

[CloudStrife]

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. :rofl: 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. :rofl:

Another one!