OT: Students complain about liberal faculty bias ...

[Redwolf]

Mmmmh... Strikes me that if most university staff members are "liberal", perhaps it is because they are people who think?...
Anyway, the media is also supposed to be liberal, right? Another myth conservatives like to perpetuate.

I submit that those who are conservative are also people who think...and who have arrived at a totally different conclusion than those who are "liberal" (many of whom are only parroting what THEY'VE been taught). It's a liberal fallacy to assume that if others would only "think" and "have an open mind," they would naturally arrive at the same conclusion as oneself. I have yet to meet a "liberal" who had an open mind toward the conservative viewpoint, so what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Redwolf

[DCrom]

Mmmmh... Strikes me that if most university staff members are "liberal", perhaps it is because they are people who think?...
Anyway, the media is also supposed to be liberal, right? Another myth conservatives like to perpetuate.

The belief that people who don't buy your worldview must not be thinking seems to be a conceit peculiar to the left; it seems they are unable to accept the idea that a thoughtful person, aware of all the facts of the case, might draw a different conclusion seems to evade them.

Admittedly, the far right has it own set of insults to throw at those who disagree with them (my thumbnail impression is the left insults your intelligence and honesty, while the right insults your moral fiber and honesty) but I find it rather counterproductive in either case - "if you can't bring someone to agree with you - insult them" doesn't seem to be a good way to build a consensus.

Given that reporters, as a group, are much more likely to self-identify as Democrats than Republicans it's hard to deny that the media as a whole leans somewhat left of center. But the complaints of both sides are correct, in a way: they are to the right of much of the left, and are to the left of most of the right.

But the real divide between the two extremes seems to be that neither one quite understands, at a gut level, that their opponents really don't care about their own core values. Outside of the religious right, most of us don't spend much time thinking about God, nor do we measure our actions against a religious standard. Nor do most of us, outside of the left, believe that private ownership, capitalism, and the freedom to fail (as an incentive to, instead, succeed) are a bad thing. And arguments that depend upon a shared understanding of your own core values will be utterly unconvincing to those who don't share them.

As a rationalistic, capitalistic, small-l-libertarian sort of guy I often find myself in this sort of situation: I know what I believe, and I can tell you why I believe it. And you can do the same for me. But as long as we are arguing from different premises, we're really not talking about the same thing - in most cases it's not the quality of the other's reasoning, but the foundation upon which which it rests, that we find unconvincing.

In light of all that, I'll shut up now - I think I've gone over the limit on political posts, lately. Best to all of you -

Dana

[Bloomfield]

You only get worried if its rightist thinking, Bloomfield, imo.

Your opinion? It's not an opinion. He does.

You don't argue with the liberal youngsters here, ever.

Does he pretend otherwise? Who would argue with those who're on one's own side?

I resent you guys trying to stuff me in a box like this. And what is this talking about "sides"? I don't care about your conception of sides, and I am much more interested in how people reason and why, than aligning myself with one political camp or another.

[pthouron]

Mmmmh... Strikes me that if most university staff members are "liberal", perhaps it is because they are people who think?...
Anyway, the media is also supposed to be liberal, right? Another myth conservatives like to perpetuate.

I submit that those who are conservative are also people who think...and who have arrived at a totally different conclusion than those who are "liberal" (many of whom are only parroting what THEY'VE been taught). It's a liberal fallacy to assume that if others would only "think" and "have an open mind," they would naturally arrive at the same conclusion as oneself. I have yet to meet a "liberal" who had an open mind toward the conservative viewpoint, so what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Redwolf

Redwolf,
I submit that I was trying to be funny (obviously, I must reconsider my career as a comedian, but I thought the emoticon was a clue...).
Parroting is not the sole province of "liberals", judging by the heartland reactions to the last State of theUnion Address.
When it comes to fallacies, please grant me the right to chuckle: the last three years have been almost entirely based in fallacy. And it doesn't matter what kind and how many spins you put on it, sometimes facts are just that.
I don't consider myself a liberal (sometimes I am less, sometimes more), but show me a conservative viewpoint that makes sense and I won't discount it out of hand just because it is conservative.

[jim stone]

Liberalism flows significantly, but not entirely, from intellectual
and moral elitism. The idea is that we, a certain bunch
which defines itself by subscribing to a certain menu
of views, are smarter and more caring than those
who disagree. It's natural that highly educated people,
who are competing to be smarter than other highly
educated people, won't want to be grouped with
their intellectual inferiors. Ergo there is a great deal
of liberalism among intellectual elites, which means
highly educated people.

Because it's driven by elitism, which involves the
conviction that there are no arguments worth
considering on the other side,
liberalism has a tendency not to reality test
and people often subscribe to views because
otherwise they'll be ranked among the dodos.
As I've moved about, I found people's political
and social views becoming odder as I moved to
better universities; by the time I got to Harvard
and MIT, people were virtually psycho. If one is
detemined to define oneself as smarter than
everybody else, one must hold remarkable views
on important issues. As ordinary folks have scouted
out the sane positions, little remains but to
hold bizarre views, easy enough to do
if one routinely dismisses the other side
as stupid and corrupt.

This egoism goes some distance toward explaining
the great attraction of Marxism for intellectuals.
The intellectual, through sheer brilliance
and penetrating insight, discerns the laws of history
which enables him to lead the working class
to the new millenium. Way cool!

I think this helps explain why university faculty
are mostly left-wing, and also why the political
track record of intellectuals in the last century
was so very poor. Of course it hardly follows that
liberal positions are mistaken--these must be
judged on their merits. Or that liberals never
see the truth on some issue better than anybody else.

If I may zig to the hiring thing, a true story:
a senior colleague of mine, a woman philosopher of
considerable accomplishment, was retiring.
The last person we interviewed to take her place
was a woman, a feminist philosopher of science.
We asked all sorts of questions; she seemed not bad
to me. Two of my male colleagues are feminist philosophers,
so the Chair asked them what they thought of her.

'Dreadful! The worst!' they exclaimed. 'She doesn't know
feminism, she doesn't know philosophy of science!'
'Very well,' the Chair said. 'To whom shall we offer the job?'

'Her! Her!' they said. 'We need to hire a woman. It doesn't
matter that she's incompetent.'

We almost hired her. I wouldn't have been able to stop them,
and the Chair was also a feminist. What saved us
was my retiring colleague; she argued that she wanted
to be replaced by somebody good at philosophy,
somebody who could contribute to the intellectual
life of the university. They listened to her; she was,
after all, a woman.

By the way, Wombat, respect for arguments, the idea
that we grade for the ability to clearly present and
then support a view, whatever it is, doesn't necessarily
extend beyond philosophy departments. Certainly
there are people in American universities who think the goal
of education is political transformation, and that
there are no objective standards: what matters
is results. Best

[antstastegood]

I am always happy to disagree with you Ants, but I think in this particular instance we were speaking about different things.

Perhaps it is time to consider that liberal isn't liberal. And it isn't equivalent with proponents of PC in the perjorative sense. I find the liberal types annoying who regard education (and pratically every aspect of public life) as an opportunity to change society by changing the way people think or speak. I find this equally annoying in the moral majority and Christian fundamentalist types.

On the other hand, I don't think it reflects on the teacher's ability or legitimacy if he or she believes that there should be comprehensive public medical insurance or not; if he or she believes that the invasion of Iraq was morally and legally justifyable or not, and so forth.

Finally, I get worried when I meet someone in their teens or early twenties whose mind is made up, one way or another.

Good morning!

It is one of the flaws in modern English that "liberal" has vastly different meanings, even in the context of education. There's the Liberal Left, which is the bias I refer to in education. Then there's the idea of liberal education, designed to give students a well rounded education. I do not intend to take issue with the latter, rather I support it, with the only caveat that I believe career education should take priority when time is at a premium. Not everyone has the luxury of being able to study that which does not get them a job.

I completely share your annoyance with those who want to change how people believe and think. And I really do not find that having a moral relativist / economic socialist for a professor is a problem in and of itself. I see a problem when the said professor decides to become openly hostile, both in grading and in classroom discussions. This has happened. Not every left-wing professor does this, in fact most do not, but those that do should be identified and confronted for it.

As to those who seem to have their minds made up at earlier ages, there's a few things I could say. First off, these people vote. Wouldn't it be best if they went into that booth knowing exactly for whom and why they were voting? Secondly, I surmise that the problem you are seeing is actually a problem of closed-mindedness rather than the fact that they take a position. Taking a position and being able to stand in defense of it is not the same thing as having a closed mind.

There are two kinds of people that come to our C.R. meetings. One group consists of those whose parents were Republican, so they just followed suit. They come for the pizza, and if asked, they probably couldn't name all the US presidents since WW2. Then there are those with a genuine interest in politics. They listen to what is said by their professors, by the leftist student groups on campus, and they read news of all biases. They listen carefully to all of this, they are not afraid to take issue with certain policies of our President. Through this process they refine, clarify, modify, and strengthen their own opinions, and when they hear an argument that they can't find a flaw in, they believe it. The people in the second category also encourage those in the first category to give it more serious thought.

I promise you, Bloom, that if I ever hear an argument that successfully changes my philosophy from the right to the left, you will be the first to know about it!

All the best,

ants

[Redwolf]

Mmmmh... Strikes me that if most university staff members are "liberal", perhaps it is because they are people who think?...
Anyway, the media is also supposed to be liberal, right? Another myth conservatives like to perpetuate.

I submit that those who are conservative are also people who think...and who have arrived at a totally different conclusion than those who are "liberal" (many of whom are only parroting what THEY'VE been taught). It's a liberal fallacy to assume that if others would only "think" and "have an open mind," they would naturally arrive at the same conclusion as oneself. I have yet to meet a "liberal" who had an open mind toward the conservative viewpoint, so what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Redwolf

Redwolf,
I submit that I was trying to be funny (obviously, I must reconsider my career as a comedian, but I thought the emoticon was a clue...).
Parroting is not the sole province of "liberals", judging by the heartland reactions to the last State of theUnion Address.
When it comes to fallacies, please grant me the right to chuckle: the last three years have been almost entirely based in fallacy. And it doesn't matter what kind and how many spins you put on it, sometimes facts are just that.
I don't consider myself a liberal (sometimes I am less, sometimes more), but show me a conservative viewpoint that makes sense and I won't discount it out of hand just because it is conservative.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your intention. The sentiment (that conservatives would be liberals if they would only throw off their conditioning and actually THINK) is one that I see thrown around every day (this being an excessively liberal community)...on bumper stickers, in our local paper, in my daughter's classroom, even in my church...so it rankles. In my particular case, I've had it thrown at me again and again recently over a crisis in our church community, so I am, perhaps, hyper-sensitive. Pax?

Redwolf

[Rando7]

Mmmmh... Strikes me that if most university staff members are "liberal", perhaps it is because they are people who think?...

Although I don't agree with you, I've wondered why the left doesn't apply the same reasoning to defend liberal media bias, ie, the reporters are covering politics and politicians day in and day out and have decided based on this experience to vote Democrat, therefore the tendency of reporters to vote Democrat does not reflect underlying bias but rather insight based on close observation. As an example, an informal poll of reporters following GW Bush in the 2000 campaign showed that the majority eventually voted for Gore - does this mean that the media is biased, or does it mean based on close observation of Bush that Gore was a better candidate?

I have also read the opinion that liberals are more likely to seek academic careers due to the relative safety and stability of academics matching their pre-existing political and social tendencies. Speaking broadly, the liberal academics are less likely to be risk-takers and entrepeneurs therefore migrate towards careers that are "safe". Once someone has tenure or has been in the school system for a while they are pretty much set. Teachers often comment they want to be treated and compensated as "professionals" like physicians and lawyers yet tend to resist the competition and risk-taking that other "professionals" face. This is not a slam on teachers and I'm sure there are numerous exceptions, what I'm saying is that people who are already tending liberal and socialist are attracted to certain careers, one of which is academia.

[pthouron]

Pax?

Redwolf

Absolutely!

[TelegramSam]

I'm a little teapot, short and stout.
Here is my handle; here is my spout.
When I get all steamed up, then I shout,
"Tip me over and pour me out!"

[Tres]

Mmmmh... Strikes me that if most university staff members are "liberal", perhaps it is because they are people who think?...
Anyway, the media is also supposed to be liberal, right? Another myth conservatives like to perpetuate.

I see a dirth of actual critical thinking from the liberal camp on most issues. What I hear instead is emotion without facts to support their position.

It also seems apparant that many of the the left wing's shiboleth-like ideas about communism, capitalism, and disarmament have turned out to be wrong while history has vindicated many of the actions (heavily criticized by the left at the time) of Republicans like Ronald Reagan.

Tres

[Tres]

I've heard allegations of personal bias levelled against colleagues (very rarely) but not accusations of political bias...

I've heard from sources that would know that some professors at my alma mater The University of Georgia Law School put the kibosh on the employment application of an extremely well qualified candidate for a professor position for the sole reason that he clerked for Justice Thomas on the US Supreme Court. Normally, a Supreme Court clerkship is your ticket to a professor's job as it is the single most impressive resume item any law student can have. However, these persons proclaimed that they would never hire anyone who clerked for a conservative justice.

Long story short, this student was snapped up by an Ivy League school. Georgia's loss.

Tres

[jim stone]

I think Wombat was thinking about grading students.
As to bias in the retention of faculty, so
that it can be dangerous for the untenured conservative
to come out of the closet, no doubt about it--at
least in the USA.

[Tres]

I just have to say that, regardless of whether or not one agrees with the positions set forth in this thread, these posts are, by and large, well thought-out and extremely well-written. Maybe there is something about the tin whistle that naturally attracts big brained people? wink: )

Tres

[pthouron]

Mmmmh... Strikes me that if most university staff members are "liberal", perhaps it is because they are people who think?...
Anyway, the media is also supposed to be liberal, right? Another myth conservatives like to perpetuate.

I see a dirth of actual critical thinking from the liberal camp on most issues. What I hear instead is emotion without facts to support their position.

It also seems apparant that many of the the left wing's shiboleth-like ideas about communism, capitalism, and disarmament have turned out to be wrong while history has vindicated many of the actions (heavily criticized by the left at the time) of Republicans like Ronald Reagan.

Tres

Please don't insult my intelligence. And don't make generalizations that put yours in doubt.
A lot of what I hear these days (and I am not saying this is true of ALL conservatives: just those in power right now), is merely a severe spin on alleged facts to fit an agenda. Most politicians do it, but the current crop turns it into an art. Let's see, 20 years from now, what history thinks. Unless of course, whatever mess is created right now is blamed on the Democrat who follows Bush and inherits the job of cleaning it up.
By then, I'll be living on Mars anyway...