Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Dec 2, 2005 13:52:27 GMT -5
I get the point, professors are too liberal, and someone should probably do something about it, like maybe finding a conservative intellectual who is actually qualified to teach something. But the title seems a bit loaded, and perhaps open for misinterpretation. www.tbgd.org
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Dec 3, 2005 2:45:20 GMT -5
Conservative students getting together to remake Georgetown like the conservative University it should be and making contacts with influential conservative demagogues/ideologues ... when did the Stewards go public?
|
|
|
Post by fsohoya on Dec 3, 2005 9:43:51 GMT -5
Ah, Jack and St. Pete! Thanks for reminding us all of the liberal arrogance in academia that disgusts so many Americans.
A conservative intellectual who's actually qualified to teach something? If anything, they're much more qualified because they actually have to defend their views from constant attack. Liberals? Well, not so much. They're all too happy to sit around patting each other on the backs at student unions and faculty meetings for being so darned enlightened, not like the icky, dumb, unqualified conservatives to whom they'd never give tenure.
By the way, need some evidence of the mindset I'm talking about? Re-read your posts.
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper2000 on Dec 3, 2005 10:10:51 GMT -5
Jack's absolutely right. The vast majority of graduate students in most disciplines are liberal. I know few people in academe who wouldn't want more conservatives, but the pool of those qualified to teach at an institution like GU is very small. I love intellectual diversity and GU could certainly use more conservatives on faculty but we shouldn't lower our standards.
|
|
|
Post by fsohoya on Dec 3, 2005 11:07:35 GMT -5
Unfortunately, few conservatives try to become professors because the environment in academia is so hostile to them. Notice the dominance of liberal ideas in most of the humanities in social science, for instance. And before you say the dominance is simply a result of better ideas among liberals, take a look at the think tank world. Powerful conservative and libertarian thought is out there, it has just had to go somewhere else.
And, by the way, if so many more liberals would like conservatives among there ranks, they had better tone down the constant and pathetic ad-hominem attacks against conservatives' values and intelligence and actually undertake the intellectual debate they talk about so much, but participate in so little. I refer you again to Jack and St. Pete's posts above for just two minor examples, or to most undergrad experiences at GU, where conservative and libertarian thought was typically just dismissed by the left as "closed-minded," rather than actually debated, for a broader view.
|
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on Dec 3, 2005 11:38:25 GMT -5
Can we get some examples of conservatives at GU who were denied tenure because of their politics?
You don't have to be a liberal to see that the GOP is basically hostile to intellectuals and the sciences generally. I had several professors who were basically libertarian in outlook, but since W has done more to propogate big government than Clinton by several multiples, they weren't really fans.
There was a good article in the Times a couple weeks ago about the difficulty the White House is having filling slots on the Council of Economic Advisors with qualified economists. And that's a discipline with a far more conservative group than others.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Dec 3, 2005 11:43:41 GMT -5
Unfortunately, few conservatives try to become professors because the environment in academia is so hostile to them. Notice the dominance of liberal ideas in most of the humanities in social science, for instance. And before you say the dominance is simply a result of better ideas among liberals, take a look at the think tank world. Powerful conservative and libertarian thought is out there, it has just had to go somewhere else. And, by the way, if so many more liberals would like conservatives among there ranks, they had better tone down the constant and pathetic ad-hominem attacks against conservatives' values and intelligence and actually undertake the intellectual debate they talk about so much, but participate in so little. I refer you again to Jack and St. Pete's posts above for just two minor examples, or to most undergrad experiences at GU, where conservative and libertarian thought was typically just dismissed by the left as "closed-minded," rather than actually debated, for a broader view. Where does it end this moaning about inequality between liberal and conservative representation? Here are some other areas we should lobby for more balanced representation: More liberal cops and soldiers. More conservative musicians and artists. More liberal ceos and bond traders. More conservative environmentalists. More liberal NRA members. More conservative union members. More liberal WASPS. More conservative preschool teachers. More liberal gym teachers. After we solve the problem in academia and these other totally fantastical prefabricated, intentionally politically divisive and substance-free problems, maybe we can get down to business like say, any of the myriad of legitimate socio and economic problems that plague our nation.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Dec 3, 2005 11:45:27 GMT -5
Bridge, you forgot that we need more liberal clergy in corporate churches and the Bible Belt.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Dec 3, 2005 11:48:25 GMT -5
Bridge, you forgot that we need more liberal clergy in corporate churches and the Bible Belt. Seriously, it's like you're crying about how unfair the teams are in a pickup basketball game when your team has the 7 footer (Wall Street), three hot shooting guards (all three branches of the government) and God's coaching on the sidelines...just because we have some dude on our team who used to play big time ball like 50 years ago but has two bad knees (academia) and a bunch of scrubs (treehuggers, bleeding hearts, etc). Honestly, you sound silly and no one wants to play pickup with you anymore because you call too many cheap fouls.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Dec 3, 2005 14:04:34 GMT -5
Um, FSO, what I wrote was a JOKE. I re-read my post and its still a JOKE. I don't disagree that the professoriate at GU is liberal, but I don't think its more liberal than the professoriate at any other of our pier instituions.
|
|
|
Post by fsohoya on Dec 3, 2005 14:53:40 GMT -5
St. Pete: I just re-read your post and still can't see the joke. I mean, I can see you are making fun of conservatives (Hah! - the Stewards - I never see them invoked as the hilarious rhetorical representatives of GU conservatives!) but I'm still not sure I see what's funny. Of course, it is also no doubt a joke at the expense of conservatives, which I think reinforces the point I was trying to make originally. But then, maybe like most conservative-types I'm just not intellectual enough to understand what you wrote.
NYC: I can't give you any examples of GU professors denied tenure because they were conservatives or libertarians because the very few I knew at GU were old-timers. Everyone else was a liberal (many of whom, by the way, I liked). It is also hard to get national data on the subject because no one reports tenure denials as based on the candidates' ideology.
As far as hositility to intellectuals, Bush is hardly representative of all conservatives or libertarians. As a libertarian myself, I can say that with complete certainty. Moreover, what Bush does neither speaks for the whole GOP, or more importantly, all conservatives or libertarians, many of whom are themselves intellectuals. Moreover, just because people might want to deny federal funding to the sciences (which Washington has not done even under Bush - check out the NIH budget over the last five years for proof) that does not necessarily make them anti-science. In general, it's a reflection of their being anti-federal government.
'Bridge: Ah, the old deflection technique -- Ignore the question at hand and complain about other inequalities. OK. I'll get to that in a second. But before I do, I should point out that since the tbgd people's concern is with academia (the College Republicans are students, after all, and COLLEGE is in their name) the fact that other areas may or may not be dominated by liberals or conservatives is irrelevant. (I also note that the discussion we're having right now is on a university-related board.) Plus, teaching about politics is rather unique to academia, especially compared to some of the professions you mentioned. And now to those professions. I'll deal just with the ones that are disproportionately conservative to save time and space:
More liberal cops and soldiers.
Where is the tenure system that keeps liberals from being cops or soldiers? Having been a soldier, I assure you at least in the military there isn't one.
More liberal ceos and bond traders.
Tenure system?
More liberal NRA members.
Tenu...oh wait. I'm not even sure why I should care about this one.
More liberal WASPS.
Maybe if liberalism had something to offer.
More liberal gym teachers.
Is there really a shortage? I never knew.
Oh, and 'Bridge, conservatives and libertarians are happy to deal with the substantive issues you mention. But do I need to repeat that too often liberals respond by attacking their opposition's intelligence or common decency rather than dealing with the merits of conservative's arguments? So far on this thread, for example, only nychoya has responded to what I wrote with a substantive response, which was at least to ask which conservatives were denied tenure at GU.
Finally, 'Bridge, thanks for the hoops analogy. That actually was funny (sorry St. Pete.) But I don't think conservatives ought to give up trying to make their voices heard in academia anymore than liberals ought to when running for office, working on Wall Street, or in religion. And reading this board, I know liberals won't. I just wish they'd actually play the game against libertarians and conservatives instead of just talkin' trash.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Dec 3, 2005 17:27:03 GMT -5
St. Pete: I just re-read your post and still can't see the joke. I mean, I can see you are making fun of conservatives (Hah! - the Stewards - I never see them invoked as the hilarious rhetorical representatives of GU conservatives!) but I'm still not sure I see what's funny. Of course, it is also no doubt a joke at the expense of conservatives, which I think reinforces the point I was trying to make originally. But then, maybe like most conservative-types I'm just not intellectual enough to understand what you wrote. NYC: I can't give you any examples of GU professors denied tenure because they were conservatives or libertarians because the very few I knew at GU were old-timers. Everyone else was a liberal (many of whom, by the way, I liked). It is also hard to get national data on the subject because no one reports tenure denials as based on the candidates' ideology. As far as hositility to intellectuals, Bush is hardly representative of all conservatives or libertarians. As a libertarian myself, I can say that with complete certainty. Moreover, what Bush does neither speaks for the whole GOP, or more importantly, all conservatives or libertarians, many of whom are themselves intellectuals. Moreover, just because people might want to deny federal funding to the sciences (which Washington has not done even under Bush - check out the NIH budget over the last five years for proof) that does not necessarily make them anti-science. In general, it's a reflection of their being anti-federal government. 'Bridge: Ah, the old deflection technique -- Ignore the question at hand and complain about other inequalities. OK. I'll get to that in a second. But before I do, I should point out that since the tbgd people's concern is with academia (the College Republicans are students, after all, and COLLEGE is in their name) the fact that other areas may or may not be dominated by liberals or conservatives is irrelevant. (I also note that the discussion we're having right now is on a university-related board.) Plus, teaching about politics is rather unique to academia, especially compared to some of the professions you mentioned. And now to those professions. I'll deal just with the ones that are disproportionately conservative to save time and space: More liberal cops and soldiers. Where is the tenure system that keeps liberals from being cops or soldiers? Having been a soldier, I assure you at least in the military there isn't one. More liberal ceos and bond traders. Tenure system? More liberal NRA members. Tenu...oh wait. I'm not even sure why I should care about this one. More liberal WASPS. Maybe if liberalism had something to offer. More liberal gym teachers. Is there really a shortage? I never knew. Oh, and 'Bridge, conservatives and libertarians are happy to deal with the substantive issues you mention. But do I need to repeat that too often liberals respond by attacking their opposition's intelligence or common decency rather than dealing with the merits of conservative's arguments? So far on this thread, for example, only nychoya has responded to what I wrote with a substantive response, which was at least to ask which conservatives were denied tenure at GU. Finally, 'Bridge, thanks for the hoops analogy. That actually was funny (sorry St. Pete.) But I don't think conservatives ought to give up trying to make their voices heard in academia anymore than liberals ought to when running for office, working on Wall Street, or in religion. And reading this board, I know liberals won't. I just wish they'd actually play the game against libertarians and conservatives instead of just talkin' trash. Sorry FSO, but I obviously think this issue is a nonstarter and you have to admit its a funny one. I mean the only reason people are complaining about academia is b/c the conservatives have won every other arena in american society. Who wants academia? What does it do? Nothing...that's what. Leave those codoroy clad, bespeckled beatniks alone...they don't want you around just like you don't want them stinking up your upper east side clubs with the cheap stench of pituli oil and galloise. I mean come on, it's ridiculuously transparent. The right gets tired of always being on the wrong end of discrimination disputes...so they fabricate a new issue "discrimination in academia" to take the focus away from legitimate complaints. Comparing discrimination against conservatives to that of minorities and women is just plain disturbing...bordering on offensive. As to my suggestions of other areas of inbalance...they were a joke. I couldn't care less.
|
|
|
Post by fsohoya on Dec 3, 2005 18:33:57 GMT -5
Ha-ha! Oh, now I see why it's funny! Except, of course, a lot of conservatives and libertarians pay a lot of money to send their kids to college. Oh, and they pay even more in taxes to support the ivory tower. So, I guess in a way, it's not funny.
As for the right "being on the wrong end of discrimination," well, there you go again. One lovely baseless attack on the character of your enemies, and you're done. That sort of thing, 'Bridge, is exactly why the left doesn't control much of anything but academia anymore. Too many people are tired of being smeared as racists, or exploiters, or whatever, by "cordoroy clad, bespeckled beatniks" whose arrogance is too often topped only by their demands for government grants.
Oh, and one more thing: Who the heck either on this board or on the tbgd site compared discrimination against them in academia to historical discirmination against minorities or women? Maybe someone has at some time, but it sure hasn't been anyone in our discussion.
So how many more times are you guys going to prove me right about the myth of liberal intellectual superiority?
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Dec 4, 2005 11:49:34 GMT -5
I'm just young and naive but are people really not getting jobs or not getting tenure for their beliefs cause if they are it's definetly a problem.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Dec 4, 2005 12:09:51 GMT -5
Ha-ha! Oh, now I see why it's funny! Except, of course, a lot of conservatives and libertarians pay a lot of money to send their kids to college. Oh, and they pay even more in taxes to support the ivory tower. So, I guess in a way, it's not funny. As for the right "being on the wrong end of discrimination," well, there you go again. One lovely baseless attack on the character of your enemies, and you're done. That sort of thing, 'Bridge, is exactly why the left doesn't control much of anything but academia anymore. Too many people are tired of being smeared as racists, or exploiters, or whatever, by "cordoroy clad, bespeckled beatniks" whose arrogance is too often topped only by their demands for government grants. Oh, and one more thing: Who the heck either on this board or on the tbgd site compared discrimination against them in academia to historical discirmination against minorities or women? Maybe someone has at some time, but it sure hasn't been anyone in our discussion. So how many more times are you guys going to prove me right about the myth of liberal intellectual superiority? Perhaps I'm wrong but isn't it being trumpetted as "Afirmative Action for Conservatives" by many think tanks.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Dec 4, 2005 12:12:11 GMT -5
I pay a lot of taxes to a lot of things that are run by people I don't agree with politically. However, I don't see much problem in the fact that certain areas of our society draw certain types of people. That's just the way it is...rather than push the University to hire more conservatives why not push more conservatives to go into academia. Just seems like a backwards approach.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Dec 4, 2005 19:29:13 GMT -5
I pay a lot of taxes to a lot of things that are run by people I don't agree with politically. However, I don't see much problem in the fact that certain areas of our society draw certain types of people. That's just the way it is...rather than push the University to hire more conservatives why not push more conservatives to go into academia. Just seems like a backwards approach. A backwards approach? They are they same thing- for a university to hire more conservatives, they would have to being trying to "push" more conservatives into academia. I'm not catching your distinction here at all. Its pretty clear to me that some conservatives are pushed out of academia before they get into it because they realize that there will be a whole lot of uphill battles on top of the already difficult rigors of graduate work and so they "choose" careers where the vast majority of their coworkers may not hold their views in contempt or ridicule. It’s the kind of thing that is pretty hard to prove, except that the numbers speak for themselves. When 95% of faculty members of social science departments don't vote for one of the two mainstream parties - there is your proof right there of at least indirect discrimination. The argument that conservatives "choose" not to go into academia and so there is nothing that can or should be done about it has always really irked me, particularly coming as it always does from people who think schools should continue to do everything possible, including implementing massively disproportionate standards of admission, to increase racial and ethnic diversity. If conservatives choose not to go into academia-can we apply that lazy rationale to eliminate all AA programs then across the board? I’ll take that tradeoff I guess- that at least seems somewhat consistent. It seems like the vast majority of blacks just choose not to go to medical school guys- so just let it go. Is that how it works? Why is one situation acceptable and the other is not? There are most certainly conservative points of view in say history or political science- is it really enough to have one or two token crazy conservatives per social science department (where this sort of thing really matters rather than in the pre-prefessional departments like engineering or business) of the elite universities across the nation? I don't think anyone gains from that kind of stultifying conformity, not least left-leaning students and professors themselves. I would posit that it is far more important for a academic community to bend over backwards to get intellectual diversity in their social science programs than to strive for diversity of pigmentation. The fact is conservatives don't go into academic careers often because they choose not to select lives of isolation and conflict where the overwhelming majority of their colleagues (and their bosses of course and tenure committees) are at best mildly hostile to the ideas that are their life work.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Dec 4, 2005 20:22:27 GMT -5
I can see the benifits off providing multiple view points amoung the faculty, but it's really up to the institution they'll hire whoever they want. i suppose some sort of faculty quota could be imposed on State schools.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Dec 4, 2005 20:59:50 GMT -5
8:58 EST - I read my post a third time and its still a joke.
|
|
HoyaNCCT
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
We will remind them.
Posts: 685
|
Post by HoyaNCCT on Dec 4, 2005 21:20:26 GMT -5
There will always be more Conservatives in the real world while Liberals sit on the sideline and critique. The ideal venue will always be at a university...
|
|