 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
| 0 user currently in World Affairs / Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - Academic Bill of Rights |
 |  |  |
| Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
MathOnNapkins Math n' Hacks Level: 67  Posts: 1719/2189 EXP: 2495887 For next: 96985 Since: 03-18-04 From: Base Tourian Since last post: 1 hour Last activity: 32 min. |
| ||
| I don't know how many of you have been keeping up with this, but I attended a "lecture" by David Horowitz the other day. His vitriol toward liberal radicals as Marxists and Fascists left me wondering how many people were actually of the sort he described. The main thrust of his argument is thus: On American university campuses, liberal professors rule with an iron first. Conservative professors are allegedly blacklisted, making it virtually impossible for them to get hired, let alone get tenure. There needs to be a sweeping law to prevent such discimination, as it goes against the principles of free academic pursuit that universities are supposed to espouse. In further notes, he claims there is a wave of violence against conservatives on campuses across the nation. Conservative students are given lower grades for expressing their opposing views, or even outright failed. Conservative speakers are barred by "liberals" from giving lectures and talks they are invited by administrations to give. Extra credit is given by professors for attending liberal lecturers (which I can sort of verify but only in one instance in my four years at IU.) feel free to share your opinions on the above. They are not my opinions, but those of Horowitz, as I took some notes during his lecture. Some liberal morons* were ejected from his talk in the first 5 minutes for haranguing him endlessly. And the very day before he gave the same talk at Butler, and someone ran up and hit him in the face with a pie. Though I sort of chuckle at that when I think about it, it is also a pretty disrespectful and immature display, as the above. So I say: what is wrong with ultraliberals that they have to behave with such a lack of style, and what is wrong with the conservatives in this country that they have to mudsling and backlash at every liberal and accuse them of being nazis and fascists? I'm sure there are blacklists at major corporations keeping liberals from getting and retirement benefits, so why is the academic arena a big deal? *though I sympathize with liberalism on many fronts, the way they acted was immature and idiotic. |
|||
Arwon Zora Level: 35  Posts: 269/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| *engages "liberal doesn't mean centrist/centre-right individualists to Americans" filter* People get way too hysterical and uptight about OMFG BIAS, be it in the media or in academics. America seems to be particularly bad with this, and particularly eager to divide everyone into two diametrically opposed camps to the exclusion of all nuance and diversity. I suspect this is related to the American style of political discourse, which is much the same, full of hyperbole, florid rhetoric, and very black and white, us and them, views of the world. The impression that academia slants to the left is widespread in the western world, but it's only in America that people get so worked up about it. It's only in America where the existance of a persecution complex, based on which mainstream "camp" you're in, is a significant belief in the political punditry establishment. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On a more philosophical level, I'm extremely skeptical of people who hold objectivity up as this great holy grail. First there's the obvious bloody point that gets overlooked, which is that there's no NEUTRAL perspective in, well, anything... so firstly it's impossible. If you doubt me about the lack of any absolute-neutral-universal-correct-objective viewpoint, do what I do and apply the "What would 12th Centruy Mongol horsemen think of all this?" test. There, see? The differences between the modern Left and the modern Right looks pretty small now, eh? So firstly the idea of Objectivity as a desirable ideal is IMPOSSIBLE. More than that though, it is actively degrading and handicapping to decent discourse. The idea that intellectual analysis of the world can ever be "objective" seems pretty futile and damaging... it obscures things. This applies to the media as well as academics - the situations of each are quite similar and I am going to use the media to make my point: The media (by which I mean TV news in America or Australia, and to a limited extent also newspapers), in their obsession with appearing "objective" has found itself totally neutered, unable to report with any insight or depth. The number of times mainstream media finds themselves totally outreported and outclassed by FUCKING SATIRE pretty much shows how bad "objectivity" (ie, reporting what everyone says, with no analysis or reference to history) can be at showing What Is Actually Happening in the world. The way Hunter S Thompson offers one of the more compelling records of life in the 1960s, shows that subjective, personal, even passionate views have their place, even if "subjectity" has become a bad word in the current objectivity obsessed climate. To me, holding up "objectivity" as a virtue in itself implies shallowness and simplicity, and I don't see why we hold it in such high virtue in either media or academics. Hell, taking it further, it implies the active imposition of an orthodox view on people that is anathema to free and vigorous discourse. Or in less fancy language: when people howl about bias and lack of objectivity in teh media or academics, it seems like they are going THIS IS RIGHT, THIS IS NEUTRAL AND OBJECTIVE, AND IF YOU DON'T AGREE YOU'RE BIASED and WRONG and BAD! Sure, they (the media, academics, radio talk show hosts, whatever) shouldn't make shit up, and the idea of the impartial dispassionate analyist has its place... but a little fucking subjective analysis is GOOD, too. As Hunter S Thompson pointed out, the objective media let Nixon sneak under their radar, you needed to get subjective to understand why he was so bad. ~~~~~~~~~ I'd like to also point out that the Right Wing think-tank set, the noise machine they have going, is its own "Ivory Tower" and that they're just as guilty of insular bias and absurdity as any university faculty. Let me put that in big letters. RIGHT WING INTELLECTUALS ARE IRRELEVANT IVORY TOWER ELITISTS TOO. ~~~~~~~~~ Finally, let me say I'm not an uncritical fan of academics despite the fact this post kinda makes me look like I am defending them. Many academics are dull, pedantic, petty, obsessive, remarkably lacking in common sense, etcetera. George Orwell has the right idea here... he was a big proponent of common sense, said the duty of intelligent and aware people is to sometimes restate the fucking obvious that's been forgotten, and also once said with great insight "there's some things only an intellectual will believe". However, the problems and quirks of 21st century Western academia has very little to do with anything so facile and transitory as "political bias". Political differences, especially between mainstream camps in a given society, really aren't that deep or fundamental. No, the problems in academia that I outlined above, are more like an inherent flaw in the structures... academics have these inherent problems and stupidness, just as politicians are pretty inherently amoral liars, union leaders are basically corrupt hacks, church officials are anti-human hypocrites, or whatever. It's just part of what they are, and these problems will exist long after the present spectrum of LIBRULS VERSUS CONSERVUTIVES has vanished into obscurity. PS: Also, wasn't Horowitz a howling cold-war revisonist? What's he doing attacking "liberals" now? Or has he changed his views since 1967? PPS: Just as a counterpoint to the usual idea that Universities are hotbeds of radical leftist sentiment... at my University in Sydney, the christian groups are far bigger, more numerous, and more aggressive in their evangelism, than any of the Socialst groups. I've barely even seen any Radical Left groups about the place at all. (edited by Arwon on 04-08-05 11:53 PM) (edited by Arwon on 04-08-05 11:54 PM) (edited by Arwon on 04-08-05 11:56 PM) (edited by Arwon on 04-08-05 11:57 PM) |
|||
|
MathOnNapkins Math n' Hacks Level: 67 Posts: 1720/2189 EXP: 2495887 For next: 96985 Since: 03-18-04 From: Base Tourian Since last post: 1 hour Last activity: 32 min. |
| ||
| Okay, hmmm, interesting post Arwon, but let's keep the subject a little more focused, though I appreciate your input. The main issue at hand is, are political views in the classroom getting out of control, or are they isolated incidents resulting in way too much backlash, including this bill? Horowitz claims his views have in fact changed since 1967, as he claims he was a liberal in the past. But that's just an aside. He claims a college biology professor used one or more class periods to show Michael Moore's documentary "Fahrenheit 911". Now he argues that this is inappropriate usage of class time, and I think it is. However, I don't think it is worthy of a crime. If you don't like the bio professor, get a different one. Complain to the administration. Students have a lot of power they don't realize they have. In my opinion, all the points on the points in the link below should be handled on a university level by the administrators, not in terms of law enforcement. But Horowitz claims that "leftist indoctrination" is the goal of modern academia, not the pursuit of academic fairness, or whatever that is supposed to mean. Here is a link to the literature in question http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/abor.html. Now I'm not sure if this is actually intended to be a piece of legislation, as it doesn't really look anything like legislation. Horowitz said that this is either taken from a document designed by the American Society of Professors (excuse me I don't have a transcript of his speech available so I don't know all the exact names of some entities), or a revised version thereof. He said that said organization claims to espouse these ideals, but has reneged on them. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 271/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| If that story is true as you report it, it's dumb. Did he actually do it during a scheduled lecture, or at some other time, in a free lecture hall or something? If the former students, through their student union, should have been complaining to the admin to get him to do his job. That's why we have student organisations (and the Student Unionism issue is a WHOLE other rant). But really, this just proves my argument. This sort of shit happens because that's how academics are, not because of OMG LEFTIST CONSPIRACY. It'd be far more productive for people to focus on actual education standards, and not go on political witchhunts and try and pretend they're a fucking persecuted minority. Look, people talk about politics at uni. Smart people tend to be interested in the world and want to express their views. People talk about all sorts of random non-academic things. My International Relations tutor talks about cars and football. Universities are the sort of places where random off-topic discussions WILL occur. So it follows from these things that politics WILL be discussed. Many academic disciplines are predisposed to certain views. For example, you'd be hard pressed to be an anthropologist WITHOUT being a moral relativist leftist hack. And of course it varies by subject. You'd be hard pressed to tell me economics or mathematics lecturers are all howling lefties, and history lecturers can hold just about any perspective... It just so happens that most people who attend or work at universities hold vaguely leftist views. If I can resort to ranting "they" style simplicity for a little while: What do "they" want, bloody political-based affirmative action? It seems to me they're essentially upset because most people around them in this one particular section of society disagree with them. As I said, it just so happens that at the moment, universities and leftish views sort of dovetail together. Cry cry, wank wank, go join the military if you wanna be surrounded by likeminded people. I really don't think "are these people being over-sensitive idiots?" is a point worth arguing. Neither is "do these people blow shit out of all proportion cos they're BITTER and love to be OUTRAGED?" The fact that they STILL think there's a conspiracy against them, when they just convincingly won a federal election, control Congress and the Executive, and the fact that want to make it a CRIME to be OMFG BIASED kind of speaks for itself. Honestly I think people need better things to do with their time. *"They" ranting hat off* Another random thought: America has so many universities, it has to expect that some of its lecturers will be idiots and hacks. Random anecdote: Here in Australia, the right-most faction of the National Union of Students, the Young Liberals (sort of like Young Repuiblicans, in that they're mostly obnoxious fucking dorks or bitter borderline fascists), also behave like a persecuted minority. They use this self-perception to justify acting like dickheads. Case in point: At the national Union conference this year there was an aboriginal speaker... the Young Liberal contingent stood up and started singing 'God Save The Queen' and the Australian National Anthem while he was talking, until they got kicked out. this is standard behaviour for the Young Liberal. I suppose my point is that, basically, these are the sorts of pointyheaded goons who're apparently, in your country, trying to make it a criminal offense to be both smarter than them and hold different views than they do. (edited by Arwon on 04-09-05 01:00 AM) |
|||
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99  Posts: 3541/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| I was talking to a sociology prof. up here in Canada who recentely spoke to his colleagues down south. He told me that they are shitting themselves laughing, and partly in fear. The problem with a LOT of super-cons is that they are less respectful than radical leftist elements. He related to me a story about how his friend's job was jeopardized in the states when the prof. had to fail a conservative student's essay for a complete and utter lack of evidence. The student lodged a complaint, and there was a lot of crap flying around. I can't remember WHICH campus he said, but I think it was a smaller college. Horowitz wants a Cultural Revolution to occur across the campuses of America. People familiar with history should not be too welcoming of these "reforms" he sees to impliment. Up here in Soviet Canuckistan various environmental groups and clubs are being outlawed from certain schools and actually operate underground now. Why? Because con-students claim that they infringe on their rights...or something like that. |
|||
|
Steak Zora Level: 35  Posts: 411/507 EXP: 278751 For next: 1185 Since: 03-16-04 From: Ohio University Since last post: 195 days Last activity: 195 days |
| ||
| I remember one of m' dad's colleagues talking about people claiming this...the man said if you don't want to change the way you think, don't go to school. Sounds a bit harsh, but the point stands: we go to college to get new ideas and new facts...and if we don't change the way we think about things, we will not understand. We can still disagree with the new ideas if we have comprehension. My literary theory class has been an example of this: that words have meaning only in relation to other words, and that the author's (or scriptor's, as they like to call it) intentions, background, etc., have no impact on the text's meaning. Very quickly, the question was brought up "what about the first word? We had to create one of those some time ago." I'm not gonna get any further into this, else it'll consume the entire post. I'll be honest: there is a shift towards the left in academy. This should not be surprising. These are the people who spend their time trying to figure out themselves, society, the world, etc., and pass on this information to those who come to class. They are the ones trying to find the best explanation, 'cuz nothing is fully nailed down yet (well...maybe a few things, but all-in-all, not very much). I've noticed that the religious right (doesn't matter which religion; the bulk, if indeed not all of them, are guilty of this) have a strong enough faith and certainty about their creed that they feel they have the truth, the answers, and thus don't need to go look. This is where people butt heads. This is the trigger of the Creationism vs. Evolution debate, and likely a number of other things. |
| Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - Academic Bill of Rights |
| | |
