Sign the Academic Bill of Rights

[Legion]

the Academic Bill of Rights

Here is a story that should really make your blood boil!


A student at Bowling Green University in Ohio had enrolled in the ROTC program and was planning on getting a commission in the Army upon graduation. In his last term, when he had completed all the credits he needed for graduation, he decided to take a lecture course on the Viet Nam War -- purely out of his interest in the subject.


The professor turned out to be a '60s leftist who regarded America as an imperialist monster and the Viet Nam War an expression of America's inherent racism and capitalist greed. Unfortunately for the student the course was on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and Thursday was also the day he attended his ROTC training class and was required to wear his military uniform.


Of course, a professor who regards his classroom as a political platform for indoctrination is not likely to respect the rights of students who disagree with his point of view and this professor was no exception. Having discovered a member of the military he hated sitting in his classroom, he could not resist the temptation to single out the uniform-clad student as a symbol of the imperialist enemy he was lecturing about. Naturally the student became very uncomfortable.


The student went to the professor and asked for permission to withdraw from the course.

Remember, he had completed all the courses required for his graduation; he didn't need the Viet Nam course credits. Permission was denied.


He stayed in the course but could not overcome the professor's hatred for someone who was defending this country and the freedoms we all enjoy. At the end of the term, the professor gave the student a failing grade.


What has happened to our colleges and universities when a person who decides to serve his country can be, in essence, blacklisted?

Sadly, there are hundreds of examples like this on campuses around our nation. That's because the most successful and pervasive blacklist in American history is the blacklist of conservatives on American college campuses, their marginalization in undergraduate life, and their virtual exclusion from liberal arts faculties, particularly those that deal with the study of society itself.


Over the last two years, I've spoken at more than 30 colleges and universities, and I've come to this powerful conclusion:


Our institutions of higher learning must have an Academic Bill of Rights that stresses intellectual diversity, that demands balance in reading lists, that recognizes that political partisanship by professors in the classroom is an abuse of students' academic freedom, that the inequity in funding of student organizations and visiting speakers is unacceptable, and that a learning environment hostile to conservatives is unacceptable.

Universities should not be indoctrination centers for the political left. It should not be a fight for young students to get a complete education, to learn more than half the story. It shouldn't be a battle for conservatives or Christians to gain teaching positions, to have their work seriously considered, and to be tenured.


Making our schools operate under the umbrella of the Academic Bill of Rights will change that. Every word in the Academic Bill of Rights goes the heart of ending the current crisis on our campuses. Here are some of the basic rights we're demanding:


Hiring, firing, promoting or granting tenure shall be on the basis of performance - not on the basis of political or religious beliefs. An absolute must to protect academic freedom!


Tenure, search and hiring committee meetings will be recorded and available to duly authorized authorities empowered to inquire into the integrity of the process. Once again, political philosophy or religious beliefs may not enter into the picture.


Students will be graded on their work … not their political beliefs or religion.


Course content and reading lists in humanities and social sciences will reflect diverse concepts and viewpoints - not just the overwhelmingly leftist content that is being fed to our college students today.


Selection of speakers, allocation of funds for speaker activities and other student activities will observe the principles of academic freedom and promote intellectual balance. A CSPC review of major university commencement speakers revealed that 99 percent were self-identified Democrats or liberals.


Academic institutions and professional societies should maintain a posture of organizational neutrality.
I am working right now to get legislatures and university boards to ratify the Academic Bill of Rights, and already I can report that Colorado, Georgia and Missouri lawmakers are on the verge of doing just that. Now I'm asking you to join me in this important work. Work that will change the learning atmosphere on our campuses, and make our schools more reflective of the citizens funding those colleges -- people like you and your friends and neighbors.

If you agree with this goal please take these steps with me now:


1. Sign the Academic Bill of Rights Endorsement. Our goal is to get more than 500,000 signatures -- 10,000 per state -- to present to lawmakers, alumni, regents and administrations across the nation! When they learn that Americans are angry about what has happened to our colleges they will take notice, I assure you.

2. Make a contribution of $20, $35, $50, $100 or even $1,000 if possible, to CSPC's CAMPAIGN FOR AMERICA'S CAMPUSES. Our budget for the fall is $325,000 to fund every element of this vital project.


Run ads detailing the Academic Bill of Rights in student newspapers across the nation.


Alert alumni and state legislators to precisely what is happening on our campuses. Alumni associations hold the purse strings to the largest private funds colleges receive, while state legislators hold the biggest financial bag - your tax dollars.


Publish and distribute 250,000 more copies of our new booklet, Unpatriotic University. The booklet gives a wealth of information about the bias in hiring, the anti-American rhetoric, and the shutting out of conservative points of view both in classrooms and on speakers' platforms. Unpatriotic University is a powerful weapon in our fight to get the truth out to education leaders, alumni, and legislators. I'm going to send it to the same legislators, community leaders, alumni and faculty and staff who will get the Academic Bill of Rights Endorsement.


And I must keep on traveling to campuses to deliver the truth about America, about the conservative principles this country was founded upon and the remarkable society shaped by those principles. Our campaign is steadily gathering momentum . . . and we don't want to lose it.
I know this is ambitious, but ask yourself: what options do we have? Do we just give up on our colleges and accept that the radical, anti-American left is in charge of teaching our nation's future leaders? No. We cannot do that.


But I cannot take this battle into the trenches without your financial support. Make a contribution of $25 or more today and I will send you CSPC's special booklet, Unpatriotic University FREE. The booklet details the crisis on our campuses and offers solutions.


Please help me take that step now. Endorse the Academic Bill of Rights and make a contribution to CSPC as soon as possible. Thank you.


Sincerely,

David Horowitz

P.S. A CSPC survey found that 99% of graduation day speakers called themselves liberals, Democrats, or Green Party Members. This is unacceptable. Please endorse our Academic Bill of Rights and make as generous a contribution as you can afford to CSPC today. Thanks again.

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/essays/blacklist.html

The Campus Blacklist
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 18, 2003

The most successful and pervasive blacklist in American history is the blacklist of conservatives on American college campuses, their marginalization in undergraduate life and their virtual exclusion from liberal arts faculties, particularly those that deal with the study of society itself. Because it is a blacklist enforced by academics, there has been no academic study of the problem. Consequently, the evidence regarding its mode of operation and the extent of its impact is anecdotal or confined to research that is incomplete. Nonetheless, its reality is undeniable.

This spring I have spoken at more than a dozen universities, while conducting my own inquiries into this problem. In my speeches, I always try to cover a broad menu of subjects, hoping in the hour or two available to jar students who may be seeing their first conservative speaker in the flesh into thinking in new ways about issues that confront them. These include the war, race relations, and the pervasive influence on campus of leftist viewpoints. In my speeches, I always make it a point to begin with the subject of the university blacklist, and open my remarks with these words: "You can’t get a good education, if they’re only telling you half the story --- even if you’re paying $30,000 a year." This is the slogan of the Campaign for Fairness and Inclusion in Higher Education, which I launched two years ago and which is beginning to gain traction on the campuses I have visited as conservative student groups take up the cause of intellectual diversity in their academic institutions.

Tulane Law School – one of the institutions I visited this spring -- has not a single Republican or conservative faculty member; the Duquesne Law School – where I also spoke -- has one. The students I met at the University of Michigan could not identify a single conservative on their faculty, although they could name several Marxists. At Bowling Green, conservative professors were isolated in a research center that has no teaching responsibilities. Out of 15 professors in the Department of Political Science at the University of Richmond, a private school with a decidedly conservative student body there is one Republican. The only school where there seemed to be even a handful (a literal handful) was at the University of South Dakota, a state which Bush carried in the 2000 election by 26 points.

The Center for the Study of Popular Culture is presently conducting a survey of the voting registrations of professors in the social sciences at 40 universities. The results already confirm the above impression as did the surveys by Frank Luntz and the American Enterprise magazine, which were initiated by the Center. An independent study of 20 law schools by John McGinnis and Matthew Schwartz also confirms the absurdly unbalanced ratio disclosed by our efforts (McGinnis and Schwartz published preliminary findings in a recent Wall Street Journal article.) At a recent lunch I had with the Dean of the Journalism School at the University of Southern California I asked him if he could name a single conservative on his faculty. He confessed he could not. You could throw a dart at a list of all American universities and be virtually certain of hitting one where Republican and conservative faculty members constitute less than a dozen members of a liberal arts faculty made up of hundreds.

At the beginning of April, after the United States and Great Britain had liberated Iraq, and after the streets of Baghdad were filled with Iraqis celebrating their freedom, the Academic Senate at UCLA voted to "condemn America’s invasion of Iraq" by a vote of 180-7. Such a politically partisan vote would itself have been regarded once as an abuse of the university, more appropriate to a political party than an institution devoted to scholarship and research. But the more extraordinary fact was that in a nation where 76% of the population support the war after the fact, 95% of the faculty senate at a state-funded academic institution were passionate enough in their opposition to "condemn" it.

The absurd under representation of conservative viewpoints on university faculties obviously does not happen by random process. It is the result of a systematic repression (and/or discouragement) of conservative thought and scholarship at so-called "liberal" institutions of higher learning.

In state universities the political bias against conservatives in the hiring process amounts to an illegal political patronage operation, which provides huge advantages to the Democratic Party and to the political left. Democratic and leftwing activists are subsidized and provided platforms at institutions with billion dollar budgets. Allegedly scholarly reports on capital punishment, racism, poverty and other volatile political issues that make their way into the national media are virtually guaranteed to have a leftwing spin. Leftwing political journalists are themselves provided sinecures in the form of university professorships, while politically left journals are often underwritten by university presses. Leftist journalism schools provide a steady stream of cadre to the nation’s media institutions. Campus funds available for political activities are inequitably distributed to student groups with leftwing agendas. (The ratio is normally in the neighborhood of 50-1.) These fees underwrite an army of radical speakers and agitators who operate nationally, while skewing the politics of the campus strongly to the left. Among its other effects is the spread of political hypocrisy. The same people who demand campaign finance reform in national politics enjoy the benefits of a system in which students are taxed to provide funds almost exclusively to one side of the political debate.

How has this monopoly of the academic campus come about? To begin with universities are feudal institutions whose organizational structures are hierarchical and collegial and thus closed to scrutiny and oversight. The dean at the aforesaid journalism school who agreed that a faculty without conservatives was antithetic to the idea of a university confessed that there was absolutely nothing he could do to alter the situation. Faculty hiring is controlled by senior members of the faculty itself, at the departmental level. Unless bound by greater scruples, they can hire – and do hire -- only people who agree with them and share their prejudices. Outside the hard sciences, there is no bottom line for bad ideas or discredited perspectives. Ideological prejudice is a self-perpetuating phenomenon.

That is why sociological flat-earthists -- Marxists, socialists, post-modernists and other intellectual radicals -- whose ideas of how societies work have been discredited by historical events can still dominate their academic fields. In the Sixties and Seventies centrist liberals controlled academic faculties. Because they were committed to pluralistic values, they opened the door to Marxists and other political ideologues. But as soon as the ideologues reached a critical mass on these faculties, they closed the doors behind them. The feudal hierarchies of the university made it relatively easy to create the closed system that is evident today.

Now it is virtually impossible for a vocal conservative to be hired for a tenure-track position on a faculty anywhere, or to receive tenure if so hired. The conservative faculty members I encounter who have achieved this feat, invariably tell me that they were forced to keep their political orientation to themselves until they achieved tenure. Alternatively, they were hired and tenured twenty years ago before the left secured its grip on the hiring process.

On the other hand, the blacklist really begins with the politicization of the undergraduate classroom (also a post—Sixties phenomenon) and the systematic political harassment of conservative students by their radical professors. The chief effect of this harassment is to discourage conservatives from pursuing academic careers. Leftist professors think nothing of intruding their political passions into the classroom in a manner that is inappropriate and abusive, and an unprofessional attempt to politically indoctrinate their charges. Professorial remarks denigrating conservative ideas and personalities – often in the most inappropriate context imaginable – powerfully convey the message that conservative ideas are unacceptable in the academic community. While reading lists are stripped of conservative texts, professorial expectations are defined as agreement with the ideology and political biases of the instructor. Grades often (but not always) are employed to make the bias stick.

In the informal interviews I conducted at the universities I visited, I talked with students who had been called "fascists" by their own professors (in one case for inviting Fox TV host Oliver North to campus). At the University of Oregon a student was labeled a "neo-Nazi" in class for expressing the view that former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott had been the victim of a political double standards. At the University of Richmond I encountered a student whose Spanish Language professor referred to the President as a "moron" in the classroom. At each of these venues I generally get to interview a dozen or more conservative students personally. I ask them whether they have been subjected to this kind of classroom abuse. Invariably the majority have. Far from being aggressive themselves, these students who come to my events in suits and ties, have a scrubbed, honor scout look and it is I who have to point out to them that they have been abused and should think about protesting the abuse.

Leftist professors think nothing of posting anti-Bush, or anti-Israel cartoons on their offices where students come for consultation and guidance; or of recruiting students to political demonstrations, or leading on campus political protests themselves, or voting in an academic context – as at UCLA – to take extreme positions on divisive issues. What does this communicate to the students in their class who do not share their political views? What adverse impact does this have on the responsibility of teachers to teach all their students and not just those who share their political prejudices?

And yet these outrages have only begun to elicit a remedial reaction from the public at large, and that largely because of the war. This is why I have undertaken the task of organizing conservative students myself and urging them to protest a situation that has become intolerable. I encourage them to use the language that the left has deployed so effectively in behalf of its own agendas. Radical professors have created a "hostile learning environment for conservative students. There is a lack of "intellectual diversity" on college faculties and in academic classrooms. The conservative viewpoint is "under-represented" in the curriculum and on its reading lists. The university should be an "inclusive" and intellectually "diverse" community.

I have encouraged students to demand that their schools adopt an "academic bill of rights" that stresses intellectual diversity, that demands balance in their reading lists, that recognizes that political partisanship by professors in the classroom is an abuse of students’ academic freedom, that the inequity in funding of student organizations and visiting speakers is unacceptable, and that a learning environment hostile to conservatives is unacceptable.

In my visits to college campuses I have found that conservative students respond to this message enthusiastically and that even liberal students are concerned when it is brought up. Fairness, equity and inclusion are American values, and will be supported by the American public whenever they are at issue. In my campus campaign I have begun to receive the kind of responses to these agendas that give me hope for the future.

My visit to the University of Missouri in Columbia is a case in point. Before I even arrived, the students informed me that a leftist biology professor named Miriam Golomb was offering her students credits to come and protest my speech. The normal bias on these occasions is that leftist professors provide students academic credits for attending leftist speeches, but withhold the same privilege from conservative speakers (and will even encourage boycotts of conservative speakers). Since there are virtually only leftist professors, this cuts down the audience for conservative speakers and creates the impression that there is something wrong with conservatives generally. They are "controversial," "extreme," "irrational" and worse.

One of Professor Golomb’s students asked if she would provide credit for attending my speech. Golomb replied, "No, why would I, since I don’t like what he has to say? He’s a racist." Then Professor Golomb had a second thought, "But I will give you twice as many credits if you go to protest." Golomb, who is white, then went to the black students association which at Missouri is called the "Legion of Black Collegians" to try to incite the group to protest my appearance. Her appeal backfired and several of the students reported what had happened to their friends among the College Republicans. Professor Golomb also sent an email to students urging them to protest, and a leaflet with my picture was created (my student sources are convinced that Professor Golomb was the creator) calling me "A Real Live Bigot" and accusing me of being "on the payroll of a rightwing foundation."

The immediate impact of this professorial agitation was to cause the university to beef up its security and assign seven armed guards to the event. I was thus transformed into a "controversial" speaker whose very appearance was a public danger. The left-wing college TV station ran promotional ads describing me as "an extreme rightwing conservative" to complete the effect.

As soon as I arrived in Columbia, I had the students take me to the university office of the Vice Chancellor of Administrative Affairs. I expressed my outrage at being slandered by Professor Golomb and wondered whether this treatment of a visiting speaker was appropriate to an institution that billed itself as one dedicated to the "higher learning." I pointed out that I was a nationally known and respected commentator, that my views were representative of at least half the political population, and that I had been a civil rights activist for fifty years. I said I would like an apology from Professor Golomb and a university statement deploring her actions.

These actions were harmful to the principle of academic freedom, to the free exchange of ideas and to the educational mission of the university. How could students feel free to express themselves in such an atmosphere? I was the ostensible target of these attacks, but the real victims would be the students who invited me. I would only be at the university a couple of hours. But the stigma the professor’s slander imprinted on this event would stay with the students throughout their college careers. They would be known as students who had invited a racist to campus, however false and malicious that accusation might be. The Vice Chancellor listened sympathetically to what I had to say and blandished me with typical bureaucratic assurances. I did not get the impression that any action would be taken. Since I was only there for a few hours, I was forced to content myself with having made the point and I urged the students who accompanied me to carry on the effort to see that something more was done.

My speech was delivered two hours later in the business school theater. When I walked into the room, it was packed to the rafters with 500 people who gave me a standing, cheering ovation. (It is my distinct impression that since the war began conservatives have become bolder in displaying their emotions.) I was introduced by the faculty adviser of the College Republicans, Richard Hardy. He waved the obscene attack leaflet and began to describe what Professor Golomb had done. It turned out that she herself was in the audience, and rose – according to her own account later -- to protest his "misrepresentation." According to this account, she said she had not offered the credits to her students to protest the event, but to attend it. This version was contradicted by her own students, but in any case neither Professor Hardy nor I were able to hear what she saying above the din from the audience. Professor Hardy thought she was apologizing for the slander and asked me if I accepted it. I said I did.

When I walked to the podium to speak, the audience again rose to its feet and gave me a second ovation (a third would come at the conclusion of the talk). I began by describing who I was -- how I had marched on my first civil rights demonstration for American blacks in 1948 when I was nine years old, and had continued my efforts for civil rights ever since. To put flesh on this statement, I told them how the previous week I had gone to San Diego to receive an award from an organization called Operation Hope, headed by a charismatic black leader named John Bryant. Bryant had formed Operation Hope in 1992, in the wake of the Los Angeles riots. Since then he had brought tens of millions of dollars in investments and loans into five inner cities, helped hundreds of poor black and Hispanic families to purchase their own homes and taught economic literacy skills to more than 100,000 inner city residents. I have been working with John Bryant since 1996, and the award recognized my efforts in behalf of Operation Hope. I have raised half a million dollars for the organization and have opened doors for John in Republican Washington after his Democratic patrons were turned out of office. As a result of these efforts John Bryant was welcomed at the Bush White House, where he extended an invitation to the President to come to South Central Los Angeles. The event took place on the 10th Anniversary of the Los Angles riots, and the President was given a warm welcome by community activists at an event hosted by John Bryant and Operation Hope.

In the past, I had been reticent to talk about these efforts, but Professor Golomb’s "protest" prompted me to break my silence. I wanted the students who invited me to have ammunition to defend themselves and those attending to see just how malicious the attacks on us were. After establishing my credentials, I launched into the opening set piece of every speech I give on college campuses. I said, "You can’t get a good education, if they’re only telling you half the story. Even if you’re paying $8,000 a year" (the tuition at Missouri). I talked about the longest, most successful blacklist ever conducted in America. I talked about the "political harassment" of conservative students, the creation of a "hostile learning environment," and the need to get representation for "under-represented viewpoints," on their campus. I talked about the need for "intellectual diversity."

I then related these observations to the war in Iraq. I talked about the role of the leftwing university role in undermining American self-respect and self-confidence at a time when the nation was facing enemies who were deadly. I showed them another way to look at American history using the history of black Americans as an example. I pointed out that slavery had existed and been accepted for thousands of years in black Africa and in every society until the end of the 18th Century when dead white Christian males in England and the United States concluded for the first time in human history that slavery was immoral and should be abolished. I reminded them how a white slave-owner named Thomas Jefferson put into the founding document of this nation the revolutionary idea that all men are created equal and how within a generation as a direct result of the efforts of England and America slavery had been abolished in the Western world.

I said that the proper way look at America is not just that it shared in the crimes of all nations, but – more importantly -- that it became the pioneer of human equality and freedom for all nations; that as a result of America’s efforts to realize the ideals of equality and freedom, blacks in America are now the freest and richest black people anywhere on the face of the earth including all of the nations that are ruled by blacks. I pointed out that our Islamo-fascist enemies are supporters of slavery in Libya and the Sudan, and of tyranny and oppression everywhere; that we are in a civil war which pits the forces of freedom led by the United States against the forces of social darkness and oppression who rallied to the defense of the regime in Iraq. I pointed out that it was important for them to learn to be proud of their country, because if they were not proud of their country they could not defend themselves.

This was the end of my speech and resulted in another ovation. The response – particularly after the attacks -- was immensely rewarding. But my greatest gratification came afterwards, as the conservative students were taking me back to my hotel. One of them had a roommate who was a member of the Legion of Black Collegians and who had attended my talk. As a black student in a leftwing educational system that extended back to the very first grade, she was the most focused target and most vulnerable victim of the left’s campaign of slander against America’s heritage, and thus against her heritage as an African American. What this black student told her roommate when my speech was concluded was how much she had learned by coming to the event. "Everything I have been told all my life," she said, "has been a lie."

 

[ByteMe]

I would of kicked that professors ass. Liberal logic just kills me.

 

[MfA]

I think the main problem is the fact that there are simply more "liberals" going into teaching ... the unfortunate already extremist bipolarity of American politics combined with the reinforcement by natural peer pressure makes the situation worse for you than most other countries.

Trying to combat it with laws will make the lawyers happy ... but I dont see it doing much good, and some parts of it I find questionable. The mention of religion is a direct red flag for obvious reasons. What constitutes right or left content is going to provide juries with endless fun Im sure, and what does intellectual balance mean anyway? (What of the fact that most available speakers happen to vote democrat in the first place?)

You Americans need proportional representation more than anything else IMO.

Seeing as even private universities dont want to touch the policy Id say the free market is not a solution BTW

 

[Fred]

Academia has always been leftish. Its not so hard to understand either, considering that they typically get funding from the government and hence keep their jobs.

It varies a lot per division as well.

In econ and poli sci you'll prolly find a decent representation of conservative thinking.

But all the womens studies, african american studies, language, philosophy, english etc are by and large monopolized by the left. -Shrug- not like they really matter anyway.

For sciences, you'll usually find more liberals as well, since they might have affinities for the environment, genetic research and of course funding, but they tend to not be as radical and you'll find a large diversity of thinking outside those personal issues.

It doesn't bother me really, I just stay away from the fluff classes that I consider unworthy of higher education (eg some of the womens studies and philosophy classes like 'alternate realities').

The only thing that irratates me, is the dumbing down of classes in order to allow certain people to pass college. That mindset just kills me.

Thats why I like requirements, I think its very important that everyone should have to take at least two or three 'serious' academic weed out classes.

 

[FatDrew]

There are more liberals on college campuses because they are naturally smarter. After graduation liberal college students normally sell out and become conservatives.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

There are more liberals on college campuses because they are naturally smarter. After graduation liberal college students normally sell out and become conservatives.

Hahaaahaa...oohhhh..... thanks for the laugh!

 

[Sxotty]

Actually Joe, I think that the more educatated an individual is the more chance that they will be a liberal. Not that it will necessarily change a persons view, but rather most poor uneducated people are more conservative...Of coursse it is different in different ethnic groups. I.e. poor white are more conservative, while poor blacks are more liberal. Oh sorry but being poor also has an extremely good coorelation with being uneducated. Which is whyI think we should kill off affirmative action, and simply give scholarships (that previously were for minorities) for economic need, some hillbilly in eastern tennessee that has no money (whatever color) has as much need of finacial aid as anyone. And since there are more poor blacks than poor whites as a percentage it will still accomplish what Affirmative action does, or what it should do rather. Many of the people that actually take advantage of the affirmative action programs for college that are still in place are rather well to do to begin with and thus know how to take advatnage of the syste.

I know this might really piss you off but it is not my intention.

On the topic I started on most educated people (those who know how to think, not just use formulas) at least are not closed minded and thus can understand a differing viewpoint instead of just thinking geez these liberals are morons. Fat is right about one thing though you can track political progress on many individuals based on how much money they have.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Actually Joe, I think that the more educatated an individual is the more chance that they will be a liberal. Not that it will necessarily change a persons view, but rather most poor uneducated people are more conservative...

Do you have any kind of statistics to back that up? I don't see it.

Oh sorry but being poor also has an extremely good coorelation with being uneducated.

I agree to a large extent there. In my experience, most "Have Nots" tend to be liberals, and most "haves" tend to be conservatives. I'd wager that there's probably a similar number of conservatives who are "have nots", compared to liberal elites who are "haves."

Which is whyI think we should kill off affirmative action, and simply give scholarships (that previously were for minorities) for economic need, some hillbilly in eastern tennessee that has no money (whatever color) has as much need of finacial aid as anyone.

Economic aid /assistance is one thing, and I don't have much of a problem with it. (Depends on the extent of the aid we're talking about...low interest loans? Or grants?) I would object to giving someone getting preferential admittance treatment at university on the basis of economic status.

I know this might really piss you off but it is not my intention.

Heh...I mostly agree with you (affirmative action does more harm than good), so I'm not sure what I'd be pissed about.

On the topic I started on most educated people (those who know how to think, not just use formulas) at least are not closed minded and thus can understand a differing viewpoint instead of just thinking geez these liberals are morons.

This goes both ways, doesn't it? Or are you saying that liberals don't accuse Conservatives as being closed minded and just money whoring meanies?

You seem to be pretty closed minded on this particular topic yourself. What does that make you? (Not intelligent? Or a conservative? Or both?)

Seriously, intelligence does not have much correlation to stubornness or closed mindedness in my observation. There's more a correlation between ignorance and closed mindedness. (And as you know, ignorance and intellect are not the same thing.)

 

[Sxotty]

On the topic I started on most educated people (those who know how to think, not just use formulas) at least are not closed minded and thus can understand a differing viewpoint instead of just thinking geez these liberals are morons.

This goes both ways, doesn't it? Or are you saying that liberals don't accuse Conservatives as being closed minded and just money whoring meanies?

You seem to be pretty closed minded on this particular topic yourself. What does that make you? (Not intelligent? Or a conservative? Or both?)

Seriously, intelligence does not have much correlation to stubornness or closed mindedness in my observation. There's more a correlation between ignorance and closed mindedness. (And as you know, ignorance and intellect are not the same thing.)

Joe what topic am I closed minded about? About education relating to liberal/conservative bias?

My point was that I think people who say liberlas/conservatives are stupid are closed minded, not that you cannot disagree. I think if you cannot see someone elses viewpoint then that is closed minded, not if you are too stuborn to agree, disagreeing does not mean one is dumb, lack of comprehension does. That is why I think people should not try to be so polarized because it just makes eveyone look silly if they cover their ears and say "I'm not going to listen to you, I'm not going to listen to you", or if they simply lack the cognitive ability to look at an issue from another angle.

If men were angels they would need no governement...or something like that is kind of how I see super right wingers, if they themselves were benevolent individuals all would be well (of course it would be well whatever political ideology they espoused I suppose).

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Joe what topic am I closed minded about? About education relating to liberal/conservative bias?

It appears to me you were closed minded about liberals being less closed minded.

You said: "Actually Joe, I think that the more educatated an individual is the more chance that they will be a liberal."

And you also said that the more eductaed, the more open minded people are.

In other words: open mindedness = liberal trait by default.

Is that what you believe? Are you open to the idea that conservatives (or conservatism) is just as "open minded" as liberalism?

My point was that I think people who say liberlas/conservatives are stupid are closed minded, not that you cannot disagree.

I agree.

Though there certainly are closed minded liberals and conservatives.

I think if you cannot see someone elses viewpoint then that is closed minded, not if you are too stuborn to agree, disagreeing does not mean one is dumb, lack of comprehension does.

Agreed!

If men were angels they would need no governement...or something like that is kind of how I see super right wingers, if they themselves were benevolent individuals all would be well (of course it would be well whatever political ideology they espoused I suppose).

Not really sure what you're getting at there....Are you saying that all it would take for "things to be well", is if "right wingers" would be more "benevolent?" Why do you assume being a right winger excludes the possibility of being benevolent?

 

[Legion]

Why do you assume being a right winger excludes the possibility of being benevolent?

Especially when considering the history of Horowitz and those aforementioned leftist professors. Infact i might be tempted to say the evidence points to the opposite.

 

[Sxotty]

Joe I don't assume being right or left makes you benevolent.

What I am saying is that basically right wingers want less power in government they want to take care of things the way they want on a local level. <-- I actually agree with that. I see how inefficient health care systems are and I wonder why couldn't towns just have an optional tax that would cover individuals if they wanted that way a large enough number could be on insurance to get good deals... of course it wouldn't work because towns with 200 people would be screwed.

I am saying that if people are jerks then being left wingers still works. If people are jerks being conservative doesn't work as well. It is rather complicated....(and it is only my opinion so...)


The other thing you have heard corelation does not mean causation, I am saying that over all liberals seem more open minded than conservatives. Althought certain liberals are more closed minded than certain conservatives. Because in my experience that is true and only makes sense since conservative means tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions. So resisting change usually in my mind means more closed minded.

This is all very off topic sorry.

 

[Legion]

I am saying that if people are jerks then being left wingers still works. If people are jerks being conservative doesn't work as well. It is rather complicated....(and it is only my opinion so...)

Interesting. So should we assume there are more or less more leftist jerks do to a natural state of attrition within conservative ranks ?

It may be so much easier to be a leftist jerk has the leftist, as history has well documented, have no moral compass.

 

[MfA]

Well there are also always libertarians of course.

 

[Sabastian]

Well there are also always libertarians of course.

To be Libertarian does not mean to be a libertine, though some seem to misconstrue that likeness. At the core of Libertarianism is self governance. (This falls in line with English styled Individualism and moral agency of the Judo/Christian heritage.) Mostly a libertarian is one whom hates taxes big government and governmental intervention in monetary and social affairs.

A libertine on the other hand is an out and out hedonist.

Just sayin.

 

[OpenGL guy]

Did it occur to these people that they are looking at liberal schools? The University of Michigan (one of their examples) is located in a very liberal town (Ann Arbor), is it any wonder that the school is liberal?

The argument they are making is "liberalism vs. conservatism" which is in very poor taste. They should be arguing for diversity, which is more desirable. I couldn't care less if someone is liberal or conservative, but if they are too close-minded then that's a real turn-off.

When I was in grad. school at Ohio State, I knew many conservatives... I think these people (the CSPC) are just trying to make something out of nothing.

 

[Legion]

it could be our area. I am in UC and i haven't seen what he is mentioning. Perhaps if we were farther west...

 

[Natoma]

Can someone please summarize? I sooooo don't feel like reading that behemoth of a post.

 

[OpenGL guy]

A rebuttal to Horowitz

From http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=13889

David Horowitz's campus cleansing
Former sixties radical launches 'National Campaign to Take Back Our Campuses'


You can't say "he's baaaack"... because he hasn't gone away. He's a (virtual) bomb thrower who pays little attention to casualties or collateral damage. His campaigns, as numerous as they are notorious, are long on launch and short on staying power. If his latest effort was a CD, it might be called the "Greatest Hits" album as he returns time and time again to one of his favorite targets -- campus "radicals."
Over the past few years, David Horowitz has made a number of appearances on college campuses. And he doesn't like what he's been seeing. These visits have triggered the launching of the National Campaign to Take Back Our Campuses. In a new booklet titled "Political Bias in America's Universities," Horowitz describes "what's wrong in academics today," and the "steps you and I can take to restore sanity to our colleges and universities."

Taking issue with "leftist professors" who question President Bush's "war on terrorism" and "liberal bias" on campus is nothing new for this former sixties radical turned right-winger. This time around, what's unique is Horowitz's intention to involve alumni and legislators -- the people, he says, control the purse strings at America's universities.

While the campaign is framed around silencing "blame America" academics, there is another, albeit larger agenda. It includes the future of collective bargaining on campuses, the nature of tenure, academic standards and curricula selection, government funding for university projects -- in short, the way universities are organized and governed.

Horowitz's latest academic assault

At his FrontPage website, Horowitz explained the reasons for his new campus-focused campaign: Since the mid-1960s, he writes, "the left made a concerted effort to take over our colleges and universities. The turmoil surrounding the Viet Nam war made our schools ripe for leftist pickings... As they've taken control, they've trampled free speech, virtually banished conservative professors, and turned our schools into little more than huge megaphones for anti-American rhetoric from coast to coast. Today you can do or say anything you want on our campuses -- provided it's laced with negative sentiment about our nation, our Bill of Rights, our Constitution, our culture."

Horowitz's plan calls for a "four-pronged information assault" which will:

1) "Investigate and expose the hiring practices and tenure selection criteria used at universities and colleges... A pattern of discrimination against conservatives is becoming more and more evident, and I'm going to make sure the American public knows about it.

2) "Publish and distribute 300,000 copies of my new booklet, 'Political Bias in America's Universities,' onto campuses in every state... This booklet is a powerful weapon in our fight to get the truth out to leaders, alumni and legislators!

3) "Conduct a NATIONAL SURVEY ON THE STATE OF AMERICA'S UNIVERSITIES, then compile and publish the results on our powerhouse Web magazine, FrontPage." Horowitz intends to "send the results to two groups that hold real power over our schools: school alumni and state legislators! Alumni associations hold the purse strings to the largest private contributions colleges receive. And state legislators hold the biggest financial bag -- your tax dollars!"

4) "Continue to travel onto campuses and deliver the truth about America, about the conservative principles this country was founded upon and the remarkable society shaped by those principles."

Horowitz claims he needs $325,500 to "enable us to build upon our success and fully fund the National Campaign to Take Back our Campuses." Before you rush to write a check, understand that between 1991 and 2001, according to Media Transparency, a website focusing on the money behind right-wing politics, Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC) received more than $10.2 million in support from conservative foundations. (According to the Center's 2000 tax return, from 1996 through 1999 the Center received nearly four times the amount of money from contributions and grants -- $8.7 million -- than from services performed, $2.2 million. Horowitz himself received $253,000 in compensation for 1999.)

Refresher: David Horowitz, and his writing partner Peter Collier, were well-known lefties in the 60s. Horowitz was a Black Panther supporter and editor of Ramparts magazine, the premier left-wing publication of the period. He and Collier, co-founder of the CSPC, came out as Reagan Republicans in a highly controversial 1985 Washington Post article called "Lefties for Reagan." Since then, Horowitz has blended Dr. Laura-like pomposity with an extraordinary ability to fund raise and self-promote.

Horowitz's Take Back Our College Campuses campaign will no doubt be part of the agenda at the Center for the Study of Popular Culture's upcoming Restoration Weekend scheduled for early November in Palm Beach, Florida. The list of confirmed speakers qualifies as a who's who on the Right and includes congressional representatives, conservative media personalities, former CIA Director, James Woolsey, terrorism expert Steven Emerson, The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol, and everyone's favorite best-selling author, Ann Coulter.

Most of David Horowitz's so-called organizing campaigns are not drawn from Alinsky 101. They don't have to be. Run out of the Los Angeles offices of the multi-million dollar CSPC, they aren't geared towards and aren't dependent upon mobilizing large numbers of people. They often consist of a Horowitz campus visit that turns contentious, controversial high-profile advertisements in college newspapers, a jumble of related pieces at FrontPage's highly visited website and the splashy release of a campaign-specific publication.

Over the years, Horowitz has perfected the art of the pre-emptive strike -- rhetorical drive-bys aimed at the quick hit. He nabs a few mainstream press headlines, attains the attention of the conservative media, delights his right-wing financial base and moves on to his next target. If he can bring veteran academic activist Lynne Cheney, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and William Bennett on board, this new campaign could have a great deal more staying power.

P.S. Don't take me as a supporter of either side (liberal vs. conservative), I'm just the messenger.