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 ...
You mean to tell me that academia is rife with corruption?! I refuse to believe it! (/sarcasm)
That demographic will change as the old Liberals die off and their equally intelligent, but Conservative, offspring begin to fill the posts at university. It is changing already as the old Liberals look for any up and coming lights from the student body, sparse though they are. They would rather the torch of intellect pass to Conservative thinkers than go out altogether.
I work for an extremely highly ranked public university. I'm in the life sciences. Recently (prior to the election), I attended a dinner to honor a top California academic who spoke at one of our endowed lectureships in immunology.
Interestingly enough, the talk quickly turned to politics, and this highly distinguished speaker, against the popular talk at the table, proceeded to say that while he thinks Bush is a moron (ok, so he's not a complete genius), went on to say that he thought that Bush would do a far superior job to Kerry in protecting the US from terrorism. He is a Jew. He began to talk of the threats to Israel and it became clear that he is a definitve hawk.
My colleagues, who are incredible scientists and who may one day be elected into the National Academy of Science (quite an accomplishment, for those who might not be aware of this particular honor) were silenced. They clearly did not agree with this distinguished scientist once he veered from the Bush-bashing. As the only true conservative Republican at the table, I found myself supporting the speaker, wholeheartedly (once we left the Bush - bashing). We winked at each other when we talked about the Islamofacist obsession with the destruction of both Israel and the United States.
What started as the typical academic Bush-bashing evening ended as a very educational experience for my colleagues.
While I doubt any of them were swayed to vote for Bush, we all now know the outcome of the Nov 2nd election.
Not everyone in academia - the highest levels of academia, supports the leftists, hook, line and sinker. Just wanted you to know this.
I used to laugh regularly at the majority of the drivel my liberal arts professors were espousing as practically law.
=======
Brainwashed...those whose total scope of life is a text book, most likely rewritten to suit the leftist agenda...utopians that really warp our kids. I would never do a government school again for my kids --- private all the way, even if I had to work three jobs to do it.
** OUT WITH TEACHING -- IN WITH INDOCTRINATION **
'These people are liberal because they are intelligent, thoughtful and well-educated."
Must be true. They have to be REAL smart to believe ideas that are so stupid.
Brilliant in many ways, but almost without exception lacking in one major area: COMMON SENSE
Proving what? I taught Biology for 7 years, and it was a very rewarding job, but the pay scale made it impossible to raise my family, so I went into the private sector and own my own business.
I'm not defending 'academics' but a portion of the people in the 'teaching profession' do it for the personal reward. Not all teachers are liberal. I certainly wasn't.
"These people are liberal because they are intelligent, thoughtful and well-educated. "
I work in the educational field...nothing could be further from the truth. they are willful, ignorant, and self-absorbed.
The title is self-explanitory. Adding either alert would serve only to repeat what is already extremely obvious.
"Paul, PAUL! You're great learning has driven you mad!"
Liberalism has nothing to do with intelligence, it has to do with arrogance.
I am a faculty member of a University. The reason most faculty are liberal is because the faculty that has been liberal for generations are the ones who pick new faculty. Hence it is self-perpetuating. Now when did this liberal 'take over' take place? I suggest it took place in the 1800's. Up until that point you had a good conservative voice on campus. But when Darwin came up with his explanation of origins, the pressure was on to conform to a non-created beginning to all things and a non-designed human nature. This became popular in the materialistic view of some top scientists and it became fashionable for faculty to toe the line. This resulted in people who believed in a designer being eyed with suspicion. Notice the writer's statement:
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
Do you see that believing in a Creator and Designer is considered STUPID by this ignoramous.
He either hasn't read Behe and other top scientists of our age who see that there is a scientific basis for hypothesizing there was a designer.
Here is a letter I wrote to Dear Abby and it could be well directed to this writer and to all faculty who think design theory is stupid:
Dear Abby,
Biomachines bubbled up from below?
Shedding scales and gills, acquiring strange skulls?
Craniums mounting backbones spinely wired?
Convoluted conscious cerebrums coincidentally conjoined?
Once upon a nothing something blew apart?
Swirling molecules of matter mindlessly amassed?
At random-assembling atoms split at the start?
Explosions are, despite the mess they make, mothers of us all?
Confused
academic - [adj] hypothetical or theoretical and not expected to produce an immediate or practical result; "an academic discussion"; "an academic question"
And here I thought it was Jack Black in "School of Rock."
Then why do most people who have post-graduate degrees who AREN'T teachers or professors vote Republican?
Professors of Geology are somehow smarter than corporate geologists?
And those who cannot become newspaper reporters work for the NY Times.
The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Thanks for your comments.
"That demographic will change as the old Liberals die off and their equally intelligent, but Conservative, offspring begin to fill the posts at university"
Actually, short of a revolution, it NEVER WILL HAPPEN. Because in educational institutions, the old dogs hire the new dogs...and self-perpetuate their biases.
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.