Posted on 12/03/2004 12:55:13 PM PST by Ramonan
In his column, "Campuses remain Democratic havens," George Will certainly tries hard to explain why faculty members at our prominent universities are overwhelmingly liberal. But as is often the case with Will, he fails to mention the obvious. These people are liberal because they are intelligent, thoughtful and well-educated. They know something of labor and social history and realize that for most people a return to conditions of the early 20th century would not be in their interest. Finally, they are unpersuaded by slogans like "compassionate conservative" and "ownership society," which are primarily a cover for the transfer of society's wealth into the pockets of the rich.
THOMAS ALDEN Borrego Springs
Demonstrating once again that you can be articulate, educated, powerful and connected yet still have no clue to what is actually going on, Will bemoans the lack of "conservative" thought on college campuses. The first thing that comes to my mind is thank God. If most professors' ideological rudders represented those of the current Republican Party, institutions of higher learning would be teaching creationism as the explanation of man's existence on Earth, ignoring more than a century of anthropological discoveries because they conflicted with biblical teachings. Government studies would renounce labor unions as pseudocommunist fronts, since businesses always do what is best for workers. Law schools would concern themselves primarily with property law, since only owners of property have rights.
CLIFF HANNA San Diego
(Excerpt) Read more at signonsandiego.com ...
talk about a transfer of wealth, just what was "the great society" but a 5 trillion dollar scam?
This bears repeating:
One of the biggest errors in conventional wisdom is to think academics are particularly intelligent.
One of the biggest errors in conventional wisdom is to think academics are particularly intelligent.
One of the biggest errors in conventional wisdom is to think academics are particularly intelligent.
One of the biggest errors in conventional wisdom is to think academics are particularly intelligent.
Some of the most ignorant, poorly raised, limited people I have known have been well educated. Think Nazi Think Stalin. The intellegenzia supported them...
If you consider depravity, and Marxism, intelligent then liberal professors certainly fill the bill.
Your argument would have held a lot more water had you not misspelled the word "professor". As it is, you make my case for me.
Touche. I misspelled a lot of words in my message because I sped through it due to other reasons. It really doesn't prove your point that the Humanities don't require rigor and precision. And in my experience, people with that background tend to be more readily adaptable to a task at hand as opposed to those who's training is rigidly prescribed in one technical field.
He's also obviously never read an FR crevo thread.
Why are so many university professors liberal?
These people are liberal because they are intelligent, thoughtful and well-educated.
This is the advice I would give the author of the above quote: Hitler and Chairman Mao were able to cultivate your kind of mental regurgitation and create your type of blind pseudo intellectual. My friend, do not assume that just because a person is “well-educated” that he is intelligent. You will find just the opposite. More so-called “well-educated” people lack the ability to think for themselves.
You want to be a liberal, right? Well then listen to what the former president of the National Organization for Woman [NOW] had to say about liberal speak:
1. Murdering your children isn’t murder if you’re a woman – it’s postpartum depression.
2. Sex addiction, compulsion and promiscuity aren’t problems if you’re gay – they’re part of an “alternate lifestyle.”
3. Murdering a police office isn’t murder if you’re black – it’s a “heroic” act.
4. Vandalizing, degrading or mocking the symbols of a religion is only a hate crime if the object is Islam or Judaism. If the target is Christianity, it’s “art.”
5. Murdering 3,000 American civilians isn’t terrorism if the murderers are Muslims – it’s the Freedom Fighter’s heroic last act against an oppressor.
Moral relativity results in confusion, contradiction, and chaos. How about your showing us poor, uneducated, easily led conservatives how to reconcile your liberal positions? Take murder. If someone murders a pregnant woman, it is a double murder, but if the mother kills her baby, it is not. Your professors will demonstrate their intelligence and caring by explaining to us ignorant, heartless conservatives that it is better to abort an unwanted child than cause him to suffer a life of poverty, sickness, or abuse. On the other hand, these same caring intellectuals opposed the liberation of millions in Iraq, many of whom were victims of rape, torture, and mass murders.
You are probably a socialist. I know you probably do not realize it, because your bright professors would not describe their political ideology in those terms, but socialists they are. Has not that form of government failed in every instance in the past century? Perhaps this will be news to you but your liberal professors want to redistribute the wealth. They desire high taxes on individuals with high incomes so that they can create welfare plans for those who either are unemployed, or are employed in low paying jobs. Sounds like a great incentive program does it not? Your professors believe that capitalism is evil. They say it enslaves labor. They probably did not teach you anything about how communist corruption, did they?
Have those “intelligent, thoughtful, and well-educated” professors taught you that homosexual sex is primarily responsible for the HIV pandemic? I doubt it because your professor’s malignant narcissism prevents them from having an open and honest discussion on that subject. Any one who suggests that of all sexual acts anal intercourse has the highest risk of transmitting the virus. If you were to raise that issue - and if you want a good grade, I recommend against it - your professor is likely to say that there is no proof to suggest that HIV is more prevalent among homosexuals. There is never enough proof to convince a liberal professor that he is wrong. On the other hand, he might reply that heterosexuals also have anal intercourse, which is not a denial, just moral relativism.
I thought you might benefit from the following article that I found on the Internet:
NAMBLA: Coming to a campus near you!
Mike S. Adams
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/ma20030929.shtml
Dear Director of Diversity:
I am writing today to apologize for recent derogatory statements I have made about the Office of Campus Diversity, and about the diversity movement in general. For example, I was very critical of the previous chancellor for his refusal to respond to my request to promote books that criticize the gay rights movement on the Office of Campus Diversity website. I thought it would promote diversity if we posted them next to all the references to books that support the gay rights movement from a religious perspective.
Recently, I also noticed that the university's Women's Center website provides a link to a gay website that is loaded with religious writings and advertisements for gay churches. One of the writings is called "Christ on a Rainbow." It is located just below another called "Love that is binding: The musings of a deep throated Pollyanna." One of the advertisements for a local gay church reads, "Whatever you believe, we embrace you!" All this, despite the center's refusal to provide a link to a crisis pregnancy center because it is, in the director's words, "overtly religious."
I must confess that for a long time, I considered your office, the Women's Center, and the diversity task force to be dominated by mendacious hypocrites. But now, I realize that this has all been a big misunderstanding. When the administration began to promote diversity, I thought that this included ideas predicated upon the existence of moral absolutes. That is why, for example, I thought that the campus diversity movement would be willing to work with groups who espouse the view that abortion is murder and that murder is simply objectively wrong.
I now realize that this movement really seeks to promote moral relativism. In fact, all of the speakers, organizations, programs, and readings your office promotes are geared towards abolishing the notion of absolute truth and any accompanying form of moral judgment.
While I accept full responsibility for the misunderstanding, I think it would be wise to consider renaming your office. Perhaps you could call it "The Office of Moral Relativism" and call yourself the "Director of Relativism." You may also want to ask the "Diversity Task Force" to change its name to the "Relativism Task Force."
Now that I have finally come to a better understanding of your mission, I plan to make some more realistic recommendations to the new Office of Moral Relativism. In fact, I'd like to start with one today.
Recently, I visited the website of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). I must confess that, at first, I didn't believe that such an organization could be easily located on the Internet. But the more I read about their purpose, the more I realized that they share the principle concerns and ultimate goals of both your office and our university.
For example, NAMBLA is geared towards:
1. Building understanding and support for man/boy relationships;
2. Educating the general public on the benevolent nature of man/boy love;
3. Cooperating with lesbian, gay, feminist, and other liberation movements; and
4. Supporting the liberation of persons of all ages from sexual prejudice and oppression.
In other words, NAMBLA doesn't claim that sex with children is the only legitimate sexual orientation or alternative lifestyle. It merely helps people to be understanding and supportive of those who have sex with children and, of course, to free them from unfair prejudice and persecution at the hands of an oppressive and judgmental criminal justice system.
Furthermore, NAMBLA's membership is open to everyone sympathetic to man/boy love and personal freedom. In fact, so strong is their dedication to personal freedom that they would eliminate age-of-consent laws altogether. Grown men who are attracted to 23 year olds, 13 year olds, and even 3 year olds could enjoy full equality and personal autonomy in a society embracing the policies of their organization.
On a recent trip to the Project B-Glad portion of the university website, I was pleased to see that our university already promotes books encouraging homosexuality among children. We should expand our recommended reading list by drawing upon some of NAMBLA's recommended readings. Some of their readings also deal with ageism and prison rape. I will, therefore, encourage the Gerontology and Criminal Justice Programs to consider incorporating some of these readings into their curriculum. Perhaps an entire course on man/boy love relationships would be an appropriate elective for the Gerontology program.
While some of these goals may take time, I think that we should immediately provide a link to NAMBLA's website on the university's home page. We should also invite a member of their organization to speak at the university. And maybe we could provide faculty and staff with bumper stickers, which read, "Pedophobia is a Social Disease." Could you imagine any more effective way to assist the university in carrying out its mission of eliminating moral judgment and promoting understanding and tolerance? Neither can I.
Hopefully, my suggestions will help our students understand that there really are no moral absolutes. Except, of course, for moral relativism.
Mike S. Adams (adams_mike@hotmail.com) is an associate professor of social satire at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington. He is frequently chastised by his colleagues for believing some things (such as having sex with children) are simply wrong regardless of one's cultural perspective. Some people who aren't Swift enough to understand satire also occasionally chastise him.
Any person whose life goal is to be a college professor and through tenure "not get fired," has no vision or even real ambition.
The old saying, I think, is this:
Those who Can, Do,
Those who Can't, Teach,
Those who Can't Teach, Teach Teachers!
Tenure does not necessarily protect one from being dismissed from a college (or other) teaching job. It merely affirms one's right to hire a lawyer to participate in a dismissal hearing. Without tenure, there is no right even to a lawyer or a hearing.
Actually, it's very simple...
Most college professors have never been outside of the academic world, so it's easy to assume that the "theoretical world" they inhabit is the "real world."
Let's not forget that Michael Dell and the guy who started Federal Express were both told by their professors that they'd be failures.
Mark
Actually, it's very simple...
Most college professors have never been outside of the academic world, so it's easy to assume that the "theoretical world" they inhabit is the "real world."
Let's not forget that Michael Dell and the guy who started Federal Express were both told by their professors that they'd be failures.
This is also why socialism is so popular in academia! Just because it doesn't work in the real world shouldn't keep it from being supported!
Mark
We've got Troll action! Must be a slow night at DU. Call the kitties.
When you mention statistics, it's usually a good idea to actually quote them and include sources.
Also, we do not share your socialistic "world view" here. I know what extreme liberalism is. I have a few of them in my family.
Also, you mentioned having a Masters Degree. Since you're in a sharing mood tonight, please tell us what your discipline is. We would love to know.
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.