Posted on 04/05/2005 12:47:12 PM PDT by guitarist
Leave it to the Times to provide another unbalanced look at an issue.
This guy comes from the same cesspool as cynthia tucker--not worth reading or talking about.
College faculties are overwhelmingly liberal because conservatives and libertarians keep forking over money to send their kids to these places.
Krugmania.
But look at the bright side. He's now apparently arguing that wildly disparate outcomes are not evidence of discrimination. LOL
Well, this explains a question I've had for a long time:
Why is that most Birkenstock-wearing, pot-smoking, flag-burning, hybrid-driving, gun-fearing, crime-loving, freedom-hating, tax-increasing, atheistic, Darwinistic, pussies register Democrat while real men register Republican?
"Self-selection"
The NY Times fails to register the fact that most scientists, physicists, and biologists are conservative in their political affiliation. Conservative does not mean fundamentalist Christian. He has set up a strawman argument and then argues that the Republicans are trying to establish a theocracy by misrepresenting the views of one Congressman.
This article is unworthy of the title of journalism.
Isn't it the liberals that assert that if a minority group is not proportionally represented in a profession, it's the result of racial discrimination that must be remedied with affirmative action?
But to some extent, there may be a degree of 'self selection' in the field of academics. Liberals are inclined to make life miserable for those who don't rubber stamp their ideology. I couldn't imagine choosing academia where even mentioning that one is Christian results in nonstop hate and villification. I only succeeded in completing college by knowing enough to contain my viewpoints, and I couldn't wait to get out.
There is an old canard, "those who can...do, those who can't...teach". In that manner, the NY Times may be correct. Since the liberals "can't do" they "teach".
Keynes was right once and they crowned him god of economics. Ronald Reagan could show you on a cocktail napkin more about economics than John Maynard Keynes ever knew. Further, they should teach Hayek and von Mises over Keynes because Hayek and von Mises and Friedman and Sowell are the inheritors of Smith and Ferguson, and we are a capitalist nation. Let them teach Keynes and Marx in France.
Those that can, do...those that can't...well, you know.
ReallyGone:
You hit the nail on the head. Conservatives tend to have real jobs in the "dreaded private sector" (as talk show host Howie Carr here in MA likes to refer to it).
Liberals on the other hand tend to seek out sinecures in the foundations and academic worlds.
Bill
The simple fact is that fewer conservatives try to get PhDs than liberals. We abandoned that battlefield years ago and are now paying the price. If we want it back, we have to fight for it by getting those advanced degrees. Fortunately the number of Conservatives in the grad schools is increasing. We must continue if we want a voice in academia.
The trouble has to do with public funding.
Can a Republican in good conscience accept tax dollars as an employee of a state university?
Wow!!! Talk about incongruity!!
Krugman, NYT and Academic!!!!
Why is this surprising? Look it is also possible that a lower starting pay for college teaching does not match that of starting with corporations or lawyering. After all Republicans have better business heads and money does matter, so why should a smart Republican teach?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.