The majority of colleges tend to be liberal, and they often take a great deal of criticism from the right for being so.

Other than jealousy and frustration over the left's control of reality (education, science and news, can't get more real than that, can you?), I'm not sure I understand why this upsets them.
Most colleges are private enterprises. They sell a service, and consumers are free to buy it or not. The fact that so many colleges are on the left speaks more to what consumers want, rather than what's being supplied.

When education becomes commercialized and subject to the power of the free market, we see education tailored to the consumer.
So suck it up, republicans, or get fascist.

Except that MOST LARGE colleges and universities AREN'T private... they are public (or publicly funded) and therefore should respect some sort of balance in their educational approach. Though... I went to a private college and never understood what all the fuss was. I just saw a liberal professor for what he/she was... liberal, and went on my merry way.

Conservatives whining about the libral control of colleges is like liberals whining about conservative domination of the radio. It's all a big red herring. Boths sides have pleanty ways (and use them wantonly) to get their ideas out.

~String

The political leaning of state institutions depend on the state, which depends on who votes.

Not really. The only state run college that has SERIOUS conservative leanings (that I can think of) is Utah State University... and even that university has a pretty balanced staff of professors. Can you name any seriously conservative public universities?

~String

Not really. The only state run college that has SERIOUS conservative leanings (that I can think of) is Utah State University... and even that university has a pretty balanced staff of professors. Can you name any seriously conservative public universities?

~String

A lot of southern state schools have both a conservative student body and policies, from what I hear.

A lot of southern state schools have both a conservative student body and policies, from what I hear.

Hmmmm. You're gona have to do better than that. O'l Miss (Mississippi State) is known for it's strong liberal leanings and it's pretty big and southern... it also sets the benchmark for southern universities. I'm still not convinced. Look-- I'm not saying that there aren't conservative universities, they sure do exist, but most of them are private. The public ones are all liberal my friend.

~String

By numbers of students and geographical distribution, most colleges are pretty right authoritarian on the scale. There are some lefty colleges, not many but some, which is indeed unusual in the US, and worthy of note.

But the real problem comes from the disproportionate influence of more libertarian and left voices, some with tenure that you can't shut up easily, at almost all colleges. They stand out, not because of their overwhelming majority but because you don't find them elsewhere in US society.

And trying to reduce that influence runs into an even less malleable factor than tenure: reality has developed a liberal bias, lately. In a world in which being a "centrist" or "moderate" requires that one adopt a compromising, middle of the road position on whether the Biblical story of Noah is literal historical fact, in which one must consider both sides equivalent in the argument over whether Reagonomics was sound policy and Star Wars ABM systems were feasible, in which the homosexuals have an agenda and the CEOs do not, in which a steady erosion of wages is characteristic of an economic boom, in which support for foolish and destructive war is a patriotic duty,

most collections of educated, expert, observant, learned, and independent (there's that tenure again) people are going to appear to be "liberal" overall.

The universities of the United States are world famous, world renowned, and magnets for the best and the brightest of six continents. Or they were, until recent problems developed. Like just about everything that anyone else finds attractive about the US, they appear "liberal" to the regular American. Enjoy 'em while they last - they're socialist entities, and threatened accordingly.

Yeah, alright, so there are no hyperconservative state schools. I wonder if that has anything to do with first amendment rights.

[edit]
A distinction should be made between leftist faculty and who's actually running the schools. What's appropriate is determined by who's in charge, which the professors are not.

The political leaning of state institutions depend on the state, which depends on who votes.
Bull. They're pretty much all left wing regardless of what the voters want. Voting for "education" is like voting for apple pie. If the voters knew what trash was being pushed down their children's throats, they'd cut off funding immediately. Why do you think some profs don't allow tape recordings of their lectures?

Or they were, until recent problems developed.

Well, other than Oxford, Cambridge, Tata Institute, and Tokyo University, NOT ONE university outside the USA ranks in the top FIFTY. This statistic is based on numerous factors including numbers of Nobel Prizes, development of numerous original works (scientific, industrial and artistic) and who's alumni hold sway in world politics and comes from the Jiao Tong university, Shanghai at the request of several international media organizations and is considered to be THE gold stardard by which universities are judged. The good news is, that although many universities in the east are catching up, American universities still are running laps around the rest because of their (GASP!) capatilistic approach to education.

~String

Great point madanthony.

Yeah, alright, so there are no hyperconservative state schools. I wonder if that has anything to do with first amendment rights.

[edit]
A distinction should be made between leftist faculty and who's actually running the schools. What's appropriate is determined by who's in charge, which the professors are not.

I won't deny that becoming an educator tends to have a liberalizing effect on people (not "education" but a propensity to teach) and thus, most professors will end up liberal.

You'll never hear me whine about this. The only thing that aggravates me is when a liberal professor tries to indoctrinate their students (in my history with education, really, I only ran across one... and he was French [Canadian]... hmmmm... conincidence?)

~String

Bull. They're pretty much all left wing regardless of what the voters want. Voting for "education" is like voting for apple pie. If the voters knew what trash was being pushed down their children's throats, they'd cut off funding immediately. Why do you think some profs don't allow tape recordings of their lectures?

The board of governors, regents, visitors, etc oversee the institution and make sure it's performing acceptably for the state.


[edit]
There's a big difference between departments. Hispanic studies professors tend to be left going on socialist, while the econ profs are mostly conservative, at least economically. Most professors are liberal in the "sure, you can butt fuck people, we don't need any constitutional amendments on that" way, but I think that has to do with something inherent in wanting to teach (vs. preach or beat offendors with your nightstick).
On the other hand, college policies can be quite conservative, despite liberal faculty. Compare a Virginia Board of Visitors with an Alaskan Board of Governors.

The majority of colleges tend to be liberal.
What do you mean by that? College has become a monolytic being to be something? College is an abstraction which consists of few lesser abstractions.

1) Board of directors (a.k.a trustees) - misterious, unaccountable to anything or anybody, body of business/establisment friendly individuals, preservers of status quo and watchers over the degree of acceptable freethinking. Polytically speaking, those people are mostly "liberal" in the old fashioned "dog eat dog" sense.

2) Administration, administrators can be liberal or conservative or whatever, but they will stick its tongue/opinion/consciousness (if any left) in the arse to fulfill silent desires of group #1. Lack of any kind of sincerity is #1 precondition for breaking into a management.

3) Staff - it's so underpaid and easily disposed. I'm afraid those people have no time to become a lib or a con. They have more urgent needs.

4) Faculty, bitches will sell their soul for tenure and funding. The most spineless group. No space for freethinking there. Extremely rare tenured and otherwise secure prof will speak his mind, frequently, to regret it.

5) Grad Students - slaves. Need I say more.

6) Students. Will sell their mother for a good paying job. College is not about letting your brain free, it's to have a shot (more and more slim) at a good paying job. Training in the keeping mouth shut is extremely useful for success in the business world. That's what college experience is about. Today's students will not rock the boat, hell no, if there is slightest chance to win a rat race they will run.

BTW, there is only minor differences between libs and cons.

BTW, there is only minor differences between libs and cons.

That depends on your paradigm.

~String

People speak about the "indoctrination" that goes on in colleges by those evil liberal professors. My own experience in college showed no hint of that. I went to a public state university, and at different times majored in various subjects ranging from English to chemistry (i.e. took a large variety of courses including arts and social sciences, which you might think would be liberal strongholds). With the exception of one single professor who was a libertarian (and one who never mentioned it in class), I couldn't tell you the political leanings of ANY of the other numerous professors I had contact with. So much for indoctrination.

Conservatives whining about the libral control of colleges is like liberals whining about conservative domination of the radio.

Really? Name the top 10 political radioshows. How many are liberal?

Hint: none...

I could have asked for the top 20....

That depends on your paradigm.

~String

Both libs and cons are quite at ease with the established state of things, both are elitist and want to rule stupid masses, both are proestablishment, except that libs call for cosmetic repairs of the facade (as long as they don't need to pay for it themselves). Their differences are greatly amplified by the dependent media. Personally, I value sinserity too much to appreciate a lib, they are mostly phoney and, yes, cons are right, they are spineless. Cons, in are much more consistent in their worship of jungle.

Liege, maybe you were already a liberal.

Conservatives whining about the libral control of colleges is like liberals whining about conservative domination of the radio.

Really? Name the top 10 political radioshows. How many are liberal?

Hint: none...

I could have asked for the top 20....

Here, get a little education: Franken doesn't make the top 30...

http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=34

Liege, maybe you were already a liberal.

Colleges strike you as liberal because they dismiss your bible bullshit out of hand as the delusion of any other dead mythology.

For the obvious reasons, foreign faculty is in majority at many eng/sci. schools. Gee, those people are mostly afraid to sneeze not speaking of indoctrinating anyone into whatever they believe. Sometimes, I wondered if they had any believes except tenure, funding and publications.

Colleges strike you as liberal because they dismiss your bible bullshit out of hand as the delusion of any other dead mythology.

Negative. Bible bullshit (and, you are right, it is bullshit-- at least to me) never comes into it (at least, it never did for me)... it was always politics (socialism) and whatnot.

~String

Roman, you sound threatened, and millions of people believe as I do, so maybe you feel threatened for good reason.

Colleges strike you as liberal because they dismiss your bible bullshit out of hand as the delusion of any other dead mythology.

Crusade for Christ, etc. doesn't feel itself prosecuted in colleges. Au contre, they are most likely given some kind of assistance. Many college profs (in hard sciences too) are vehement biblethumpers.

Oh no, Roman's head just collapsed!

Really? Name the top 10 political radioshows. How many are liberal?

Hint: none...

I could have asked for the top 20....

Here, get a little education: Franken doesn't make the top 30...

http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=34


Most people don't listen talk show. The crippled ones need constant radio assurance that they are on the right holy path.

Really? Name the top 10 political radioshows. How many are liberal?

Hint: none...

I could have asked for the top 20....

Here, get a little education: Franken doesn't make the top 30...

http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=34

Uh... Syzygys what are you ranting about? I never implied that the top radio stations were NOT conservative. In fact, my point supported that claim... The POINT I was making (and god, you are a pro at totally misinterpreting the point) was that there are some information institutions which are liberal dominated (national TV media and newspapers) and some that are conservative dominated (radio, and... that's pretty much it)... but BOTH find the way to get their ideas out. So whining about it means nothing. Neither side is in any way stiffled.

Get it. Whatever personal chip you have on your shoulder is all well and good, then start a "I hate String" thread and get the word out. You like to posture yourself as some hyper intellectual, but you sure do a fantastic job of getting sophomoric really quickly whenever I post something and always do a fantastic job of totally misinterpreting the point I was making.

~String

Oh, and there's a reason why the Frankin radio show isn't in the top 20... it sucks. I know... I've heard it. And thus... no one listens.

Tom Leykis has turned con too? I've heard him 8 years ago, he was an atheist at the time. Was he born again?

Crusade for Christ, etc. doesn't feel itself prosecuted in colleges. Au contre, they are most likely given some kind of assistance. Many college profs (in hard sciences too) are vehement biblethumpers.

Depends, again, on the college.
Campus Crusade for Cthulhu doesn't feel prosecuted, either. Nor does it feel persecuted. If worshipping dark elder gods of death and nihilism isn't a liberal, laconic exercise in mockery of Christianity, I don't know what is.

That made no sense Roman, you're spinning out of control!

That made no sense Roman, you're spinning out of control!

Nah, you're just stupid.

Nah, you're just stupid.

Roman... your normally eloquent rhetoric didn't make much sense to me either. Spare me the "you're stupid too" rejoinder and feel free to explain that jibberish.

~String

Oh, and there's a reason why the Frankin radio show isn't in the top 20... it sucks. I know... I've heard it. And thus... no one listens.

I thought Air America was a bad idea at the time it launched, and its pathetic, wallowing lack of utility has proven only that the cancerous ways of American conservatives ought not be imitated for any price. If it means liberals lose elections and have to fight as a proper opposition party, it also means the Democrats will actually have to act like Democrats are supposed to. But no more of this imitation-brand spew. Please.

I raise this point because in all the jabber about liberals and Hollywood elitism, in addition to the point that the GOP has more prominent entertainers-cum-politicians in its electoral history than the Democrats, and in addition to the liberal inability to lockstep, period, it should be noted that liberals don't lockstep to what they're not paying attention to.

Hell, that's one of the reasons I'm a liberal.

Roman... your normally eloquent rhetoric didn't make much sense to me either. Spare me the "you're stupid too" rejoinder and feel free to explain that jibberish.

~String

Cthulhu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu).

Campus Crusade for Cthulhu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_Crusade_for_Cthulhu)


My point?
How is 'feeling persecuted' evidence of whether or not a college is liberal? Wouldn't not feeling persecuted be a sign of liberal, godless, tolerance? Even if tolerance of religious organizations is an indicator of the political-ness of the school, wouldn't the tolerance of an organization that openly embraces, paganism, witchcraft, and the darkest, most foul necromantic magics of the occult mean the college wasn't conservative?

The good news is, that although many universities in the east are catching up, American universities still are running laps around the rest because of their (GASP!) capatilistic approach to education.
Another possibility is that they are running on past socialistic investment, living off a social capital that is not being renewed. The great land grant universities were hardly "capitalistic", after all. The GI Bill was not "capitalistic".

That socialistic innovation, peasants at university on the government tab, was the Amercian key - borrowed from the Scots, maybe, but implemented by the US.

And it's going away.

Liege, maybe you were already a liberal.


You wouldn't be the first person to say that (even though it's not accurate; on some issues my opinions coincide with the liberal view, on others the conservative view, and in either case come from a basic libertarian perspective).

My point was that some of those professors may have been card-carrying die-hard liberals, but there was no way to know because it never came up in classes at all. Maybe I just got lucky and had extremely professional instructors who stuck to the relevant subject of the class. In any case, I never saw any sign of that much-talked-about indoctrination.

Another possibility is that they are running on past socialistic investment, living off a social capital that is not being renewed. The great land grant universities were hardly "capitalistic", after all. The GI Bill was not "capitalistic".

That socialistic innovation, peasants at university on the government tab, was the Amercian key - borrowed from the Scots, maybe, but implemented by the US.

And it's going away.


You are going to have to do better than that. The key to the dominance of American universities always was their independence, re-investment in research and development and the ability to attract the best minds on earth through a guarentee of supported research... something they have not abandoned by any degree. The flip side to the coin was what has led to the downfall of European universities (and what is making them rethink their approach). In Europe the rule is: educate as many as possible, admit as many as possible, control cost and let the goverment pay the tab. It's a failed scheme that, to their credit, many institutions in Europe are abandoning.

How have universities in the East begun to catch up? Simple: emulate the Americans.

~String

Really, what do you people expect?

When was the last time you heard of the "conservative arts"?

For that matter, when was the last time you heard of the "religious Left"?

Liberal Arts means wide variety of arts, it doesn't mean Dem.

The religious left are those which fall under the World Council of Churches.

For that matter, when was the last time you heard of the "religious Left"?


There is such a thing, but it gets drowned out by the loudness of the religious right.

=When was the last time you heard of the "conservative arts"?

Uhhh... "liberal" in the sense of "liberal arts" is not a political reference any more than the "general" in Surgeon General is a military title**. The "liberal" in this case means the breath and scope of the "arts" encompassed. In the catholic [lower case] sense, liberal means "generous in portions" or "covering a wide variety".

~String
__________________________________________________ __
**The "general" in Surgeon General (and also "Attourney General") means "in general" or "over all others in said field" and does not earn the title bearer stars on his/her lapel. Thus when speaking of them in the plural one says "Attourneys General or "Surgeons General".

So, a "Liberal Arts College" has nothing to do with a non-conservative bias, then.

Correct. The term is older than the "conservative bias" which, undeniably exists. :)

It just happens that most public liberal arts colleges are politically liberal.

It just happens that most public liberal arts colleges are politically liberal.

LOL. Right.

~String

Seriously, I don't have a crusade against you, I just don't like inaccuracy and ignorance...

Uh... Syzygys what are you ranting about?

Your ignorance...

I never implied that the top radio stations were NOT conservative.

Sorry, you did. You used an analogy saying liberals bitching about conservatives dominating radio as an icorrect thing. They have the right to bitch, since radio (and TV) IS dominated by them...

..there are some information institutions which are liberal dominated (national TV media and newspapers)

You are INCORRECT again. It is a myth. TV is specially not liberal, name the top 10 political shows, none of them is liberal. (unless you start to count Comedy Central, which probably still doesn't make the top 10)

I actually had a thread about it, look it up. hell, even CNN has now Glen Back, not an incredibly liberal person...(actually among the top 5 conservative radio talkshows)

So talking about liberal media domination just shows your ignorance...

Oh, and there's a reason why the Frankin radio show isn't in the top 20... it sucks. I know... I've heard it.

1. Irrelevant.
2. Just shows how far they still have to go for total domination...

Sorry, you did. You used an analogy saying liberals bitching about conservatives dominating radio as an icorrect thing. They have the right to bitch, since radio (and TV) IS dominated by them...


No brainiac... I didn't. What said that it was a bunch of nonsens to bitch about it, (again, this is three times now) because BOTH sides had pleanty of ways to get the word out. But wait. Allow me to quote what I said, since you don't how to navigate your browser very well:

"Conservatives whining about the libral control of colleges is like liberals whining about conservative domination of the radio. It's all a big red herring. Boths sides have pleanty ways (and use them wantonly) to get their ideas out." (note: how I never denied the fact, just invalidated the whining)

"The POINT I was making... was that there are some information institutions which are liberal dominated (national TV media and newspapers) and some that are conservative dominated (radio, and... that's pretty much it)... but BOTH find the way to get their ideas out. So whining about it means nothing. Neither side is in any way stiffled." Sounds pretty specific... doesn't it? OH... I forgot, your highness ruled that the liberal domination of the PRINT media and BIG THREE news media was a myth. Should I translate it into another language... perhaps you'd have a better chance at understanding it in Spanish?

I won't deny conservative domination of talk shows in general. I don't know what has caused that. Perhaps it's the fact that people just don't want to sit and listen to liberal issues. I can't say. But to act like ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC aren't liberal dominated news institutions, shows your ignorance. And just because you touted examples that highlight your liberal oppinion doesn't make the opposing one ignorant.

So Syzygyz has spoken... the great issue is settled. I can talk at end how CBS news cooked up numerous stories, one in particular which cost its much vaunted anchor his career (oh, yeah... he "retired" sure). But, it doesn't matter what anybody says, Sysygyz. It doesn't exist. I'm not going to sit here and exchange "no, your stupider" insults. But to me, it's pretty obvious that (a) you deny the relality of the situation quite conveniently and (b) no matter what is said by a person who is not of like mind with you you're going to throw one of your typical infantile tantrums and call the person igorant... throw your doll down and march home and cry to mommy. Good for you. Way to prove your point.

~String

You know, I was ready to acknowledge that I might have missread your original comment. My bad.

But then you come with this:

But to act like ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC aren't liberal dominated news institutions, shows your ignorance.

This is put up or shut up time.

Name the liberal shows on those networks! And not a retired guy, please!!!

I will name the conservative ones:

CNN: Glen Beck
MSNBC: Scarborough county, Imus (OK, "retired")
CNBC: anybody

I don't watch the rest as politics go, but I am curious what you think of as "liberal" shows. So I easily showed conservative shows on half of your listed networks. You are very easy to beat.... :eek:

P.S.: It is really easy to see why those networks CAN NOT be liberals. They are OWNED by big American corporations. They are NEVER liberal.

The greatest trick of the devil... applies. Hello????

You're kidding, right? You're telling me that Disney Cap-Cities isn't liberal? Do you KNOW who the president of that company is? Do you know who the last president of that company was? Ugh. You claim that I'm ignorant. How about CBS Viacom? Sumner Redstone is one of America's TOP liberal. But, you're right, Syzygys! He's a conservative because he heads a big corporation (just curious, who is Katzenberg? Geffen? Turner? Are they ALSO conservative CEO's? How about Fiorina? Kenneth Chenault (interestingly enough, a black man... and VERY liberal) of American Express? OH, and Jeff Zucher PRESIDENT and CEO of NBC Universal is also a very liberal member of the Democratic party. (oddyl enough, all the white dudes are also Jewish... hmmmm I smell a conspiracy).

Beyond that, Syzygys, I was referring to the political leanings of their news reporting. Naming a "show" describes ONE show. Of course they have conservative "shows" now-- it's been obvious for a decade now that liberal talk shows hemmorage viewers from the first episode on (again, not debating the merits). Since, at the end of the day, news organizations have to pay the lighting bills, it pays to have conservative talk shows on. Meet the Press, 60 Minutes, Face the Nation, Dateline are all shows (though not "talk shows" per se) that have (and I guess, this is my oppinion) liberal slant to the way they report the news (do I see it? Yeah. Do you see it? No. Again, a matter of perspective, and I can't find one conservative who sees it as anything but, and one liberal who sees the same thing). Even the Nightly News as broadcast by the "big three" edits thier speech (using the term "illegal alien" ist verbotten, even though it is the official term of the US government; using the term "Muslim Terrorist" also is not allowed, instead the term "extreemist" and "revolutionary" must be substituted, leaving OUT the "muslim" part, even though, to wit, there haven't been too many Hindu's or Shintoists flying airplanes into buildings). The big three all have presidents and/or newscasters that have championed liberal causes-- ABC- David Westin who was a top attourney for Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, which is a major law firm noted for it's notable Democratic support, and NUMEROUS pro bono work done to champion liberal causes. NBC- Steve Capus- who is a well known liberal and supporter of liberal causes and has been a leading voice criticizing every "non liberal" personality from Hannity to [the borring] Don Imus (and played a leading roll in championing his termination). The only "semi-neutral" voice in the lot is Betsy Morgan, who joined CBS from Sky News in 2005 in order to clear up... what else... a news reporting scandal that was caused by the left leaning CBS news.

Again, I'm not worried about the left leaning nature of the big three, nor do I care. There's pleanty of balance out there. But to claim that a "talk" show is news is rubbish. Fox News is conservative-- THAT'S fair! But the talk shows aren't "news" organizations (and cannot claim as such by FCC rules) they are just that: TALK SHOWS. It's the news reporting that counts. And when you have FIVE major news institutions that are left leaning: ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN (the most liberal of them all), all headed by liberal infrastructures, staffed by liberal reporters and hosted by liberal personalities, how is it that you can claim the contrary and call ME ignorant. How about you do a little reasearch into the names who head the organizations and check their political activity. You may not have access to Lexis-Nexis, but you do have Google.

~String

Oh, for your information, I use the NNDB from Rotten.com as a good starting point when doing my research. I have a slight obsession with tracking corporate executives.

~String

You're kidding, right?

Of course not. I take it you were UNABLE to name just one liberal show from those networks.

I also think you confuse objective (or trying to be objective) shows/news with liberalism....

Liberalism is virtually inseperable from modernity, infact id argue theyre one in the same thing.
So not being happy with liberal colleges is like saying youre not happy with the modern world, or anything past the enlightenment.

Liberalism isnt really just political correctness and arbitary bits of legislation, its an open-ended framework for rational, and level-headed enquiry and debate to take place outside of overly authoritarian restrictions and state/religious supression.

But yeah If proffesors are putting go-obama stickers on lockers and pushing their niche political agendas thats another matter of course.
Although ive never heard anything like that going on, almost all western colleges are commited to the even-handed approach, you cant simply go around pushing your political agenda on your students, id imagine it would be your job.

Today's Liberalism is politically correct, so honest debate is not allowed on those campuses, is dissent against Darwinism allowed?

Of course, its not like as soon as you throw up a few inconsistancies in evolutionary theory youre going to be rushed out of the room to be dealt with by the darwinian-inquisition.
The western world is a free speech society, noone will necessarily stop you, although they will call you out if youve got nothing to back up your assertions.

Then why do not universities offer fora to discuss the origins issue, since open intellectual discourse is supposedly encouraged?

Because a discussion on the "origins issue" is not an intellectual discourse when there's no evidence to back it up and it's overridden by a vast quantity of contradictory evidence. Also the issue is routinely used as a gateway to further brainwashing, leading to wars and other bloodshed.

I agree with heliocentric. Liberalism = smart & modern & open-minded. Conservatism = dumb & brainwashed & believe whatever you're told. You can't expect colleges to entertain ignorance. That's for talk radio and churches.

Dems smart, Repubs stupid.

Today's Liberalism is politically correct, so honest debate is not allowed on those campuses, is dissent against Darwinism allowed?


Why do you and others constantly use the term "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" for people who believe evolution? We don't call people who believe gravity "Newtonians." We don't call people who believe relativity "Einsteinians."

Then why do not universities offer fora to discuss the origins issue, since open intellectual discourse is supposedly encouraged?


Some universities DO have courses which discuss such issues. Just don't expect them to be science courses, which stick to the science of the issue (i.e. evolution).

Also, though, there are people with all sorts of dissenting views. There are people who deny the Holocaust, the link between HIV and AIDS, the roundness of the Earth. And they are free to discuss their views in the appropriate setting. That doesn't mean universities must provide them with a specific forum to do so.

As the Darwinian Monolith comes crumbling down.

Going back to topic, I would say there are more conservative colleges then truly liberal ones.

Maybe not a good evidence, but here are the top 10 liberal colleges:

http://encarta.msn.com/college_article_LiberalColleges/Top_10_Politically_Liberal_Colleges.html

Quite honestly, they are pretty obscure and most people never heard of them.

Now let's compare it to the top 10 conservative colleges:

http://encarta.msn.com/college_article_ConservativeColleges/Top_10_Politically_Conservative_Colleges.html

The giant BYU is on the list with the Air Force, Naval Acadamy and Marine Academy. I am guessing the University of Dallas isn't small either.

So just a guess, but I would say the top 10 conservative colleges have at least 3 times as many students as the top 10 liberal ones...

Wow, there you have it.

As the Darwinian Monolith comes crumbling down.


People have been saying that since the latter part of the nineteenth century and it hasn't happened yet. On the contrary, the evidence in support of the theory mounts year by year. Really, how do you deal with the intense embarrassment that must go along with such pronouncements?

The Darwinists are on the run.

What has evolution got to do with liberal colleges?

IAC, you have a one-track mind. Try to diversify your interests a little.

Meet the Press, 60 Minutes, Face the Nation, Dateline are all shows (though not "talk shows" per se) that have (and I guess, this is my oppinion) liberal slant to the way they report the news (do I see it? Yeah. Do you see it? No. Again, a matter of perspective, Not just "perspective" or "opinion". You can do things like analyze the guests and their relative importance, vocabulary and emphasis, etc.
They are biased right authoritarian. All of them.
And when you have FIVE major news institutions that are left leaning: ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN (the most liberal of them all), all headed by liberal infrastructures, staffed by liberal reporters and hosted by liberal personalities, how is it that you can claim the contrary and call ME ignorant Because you are arguing backwards. You are judging their news bias by your prior labeling of the news delilverers. It makes more sense to go the other way: evaluate the effects of the newscasts, use that to label the bias of the newscasters.

People who get their news from those five sources all show more tendency to believe "conservative" falsehoods in big news issues than "liberal" ones. They believe in high percentages, for example, that the US has suffered more casualties in Iraq than it has killed civilians. They believed the Rove line on Kerry in large percentages. They believed Saddam had WMDs, without serious doubt. They believed - still believe, in large percentages - Saddam was behind 9/11. They believe that most of the people sent to Gitmo had been captured by Anericans, and shown guilty of terrorism. And so forth.

Compare with "liberal" nonsense of the same kind. W planned 9/11, demolished WTC - large percentages believe that? No. Israelis planned 9/11? No. Katrina was steered into New Orleans' black neighborhoods by weather modification satellites? No. Wellstone was assassinated? No. (That one isn't fair, because it's not so nonsensical, but still the direction of bias is clear).

Compare characteristic causes. Righty: criminals, stock market, gun and media sex regulation; Lefty: labor, wages, corporate and media violence regulation. Which get more face time, more sympathetic or informative or repetitive or sensationalized treatment? What do you see treated most often and in most detail: corporate issues and problems (airlines in trouble, stock market behavior, etc) or labor issues and problems (the biggest economic story of the past thirty years, the serious decline in median hourly wages, seldom rates a mention, let alone a special investigation).

Compare vocabulary: Any allies of the US ever called "terrorists" or "gangs" ? Enemies of the US called "resistance" or "nationalists" ? Political speeches ever analyzed for their corporate influences ? The career corporate entanglements and prospects of visiting "experts" made explicit in the introductions ?

We have much righty, little lefty, bias.

Regardless of who's responsible, or why, the predominantg news bias on the major networks is obvious. It's right-authoritarian.

If righties are too backward to deal with college then let them study in christian fundie camps. Stay out of our schools if you don't like them. It's simple really. Hate college? Hate science? Want a fundamentalist 'madrassa' education in college OR public school? Then get the fuck out! We have kids and young people to educate.
You don't see atheists and lefties signing up for bible school doya?

But but Genji, Christians are U.S. citizens too!

But but Genji, Christians are U.S. citizens too!But christians are one group of citizens. You have your own schools and your churches. Stay There.

"Public education."

"Public education."
You have your tax free political movements called churches. You have your tax free religious schools. The LEAST you nuts can do is chip in to normal education. Tax evasion is a talent of the self righteous bible beaters.

You can have wacko Atheist private schools if you want.

You can have wacko Atheist private schools if you want.My taxes pay for your christian war on Islam and that sucks but I still have to fund christian jihad. So suck it up and keep funding public schools, just keep your kids out. Thaaaaaanx.:)

Yes Heir Trotsky.

What has evolution got to do with liberal colleges?



Evolutionism stains the syllabus in biology. In effect, it amounts to religious dogmatism crammed down the throats of the unsuspecting students.

Please lobby your Congressman for the separation of "science" (i.e., natural philosophy) and state. The well-being of future generations depends on this.

People speak about the "indoctrination" that goes on in colleges by those evil liberal professors. My own experience in college showed no hint of that. I went to a public state university, and at different times majored in various subjects ranging from English to chemistry (i.e. took a large variety of courses including arts and social sciences, which you might think would be liberal strongholds). With the exception of one single professor who was a libertarian (and one who never mentioned it in class), I couldn't tell you the political leanings of ANY of the other numerous professors I had contact with. So much for indoctrination.
Where did you go to school? I also went to a large public university and took a wide variety of classes. Almost every time I took classes outside the hard sciences, the prof was a leftist if not an outright communist.

PS Libertarians aren't generally considered liberal, except for that jackass Bill Maher.

Where did you go to school? I also went to a large public university and took a wide variety of classes. Almost every time I took classes outside the hard sciences, the prof was a leftist if not an outright communist.

PS Libertarians aren't generally considered liberal, except for that jackass Bill Maher.

I know this might be hard for a rightist to understand but one has to be a bit leftist just to maintain a degree of objectivity or fairness. I know that it is difficult to comprehend for a brain so ingrainly hardwired for deep abysmmal prejudice. I too went to a public university and even though some professors I knew to be christian, they knew they were not to use it to preach though one's political leanings is hard to hide, it's about the education and I'd rather have a liberal professor any day of the week than a conservative one because the liberal one is more apt to give others the room to breathe, think and decide for themselves. So who cares about your so-called complaint about the liberal leanings of schools. If you don't like it, try a religious college that will snap your brain in two with no hesitation to fit thier political agendas.

I know this might be hard for a rightist to understand but one has to be a bit leftist just to maintain a degree of objectivity or fairness. I know that it is difficult to comprehend for a brain so ingrainly hardwired for deep abysmmal prejudice. I too went to a public university and even though some professors I knew to be christian, they knew they were not to use it to preach though one's political leanings is hard to hide, it's about the education and I'd rather have a liberal professor any day of the week than a conservative one because the liberal one is more apt to give others the room to breathe, think and decide for themselves. So who cares about your so-called complaint about the liberal leanings of schools. If you don't like it, try a religious college that will snap your brain in two with no hesitation to fit thier political agendas.
This is a perfect illustration of the arrogance of the left engendered by the hothouse enviroments of our college campuses. Liberals think they hold a monopoly on being open minded while they are shouting down conservative speakers and stealing every edition of a conservative newspaper on campus.

College campuses always talk about the importance of diversity. Of course they define diversity by the amount of melanin in your skin or whether your genetals are inside or outside of your body cavity. Heaven forbid there should ever be true diversity on our college campuses. A diversity of thought. An enviroment where all opinions are welcome and discussed objectively. Not dismissed out of hand if not coming from the hard left.

I have no problem with liberal profs, but there should also be conservative profs. 99% of profs should not be voting for one particular polical party. It stinks of Soviet style indoctrination.

Again, there atmosphere is so tilted that Peta here doesn't even realize the absurdity of her statements. It reminds me of the communist activist handing out pamplets I stopped to debate on campus one day. She considered herself open minded despite the fact that she would not even consider or discuss any point I brought up. I said, "How can you call yourself open minded with that attitude?" She said, "Of course I'm open minded, I'm a communist aren't I?"

This is a perfect illustration of the arrogance of the left engendered by the hothouse enviroments of our college campuses. Liberals think they hold a monopoly on being open minded while they are shouting down conservative speakers and stealing every edition of a conservative newspaper on campus.

College campuses always talk about the importance of diversity. Of course they define diversity by the amount of melanin in your skin or whether your genetals are inside or outside of your body cavity. Heaven forbid there should ever be true diversity on our college campuses. A diversity of thought. An enviroment where all opinions are welcome and discussed objectively. Not dismissed out of hand if not coming from the hard left.

I have no problem with liberal profs, but there should also be conservative profs. 99% of profs should not be voting for one particular polical party. It stinks of Soviet style indoctrination.

Again, there atmosphere is so tilted that Peta here doesn't even realize the absurdity of her statements. It reminds me of the communist activist handing out pamplets I stopped to debate on campus one day. She considered herself open minded despite the fact that she would not even consider or discuss any point I brought up. I said, "How can you call yourself open minded with that attitude?" She said, "Of course I'm open minded, I'm a communist aren't I?"

ha, you're a perfect example of the conservative trying to weasel your closed-minded agenda through appealing to guilt or obligation of fairness and openmindedness of the other party when you yourself would not give the same when you get your foot in the door, the hypocritical indignation is quite classic actually. This reminds me of the time when I was out in the woods and my brother who was scared of the dark asked me to go with him to the outhouse and promised he would wait for me too when but he just took advantage of my fairness and lied to me as he ran off as soon as he was done.

Stop whining righty and start whining about openmindedness at conservative colleges and see how far you get. If you don't like it why don't you just go to a conservative school as they exist. What makes you think that you should be able to push your way beyond your own territory and expect tolerance when you don't give the same.

Classic rightist building a strawman and creating a false drama of wrongdoing while holding deeply to their own prejudices.

You are going to have to do better than that. The key to the dominance of American universities always was their independence, re-investment in research and development and the ability to attract the best minds on earth through a guarentee of supported research... something they have not abandoned by any degree. Those are all government's doings. But the dominance thereby gained is changing - it is not based on educating Americans, but rather employing foreigners. And the doing is changing - the corporations are moving in, and the independence cannot survive too much of that.
In Europe the rule is: educate as many as possible, admit as many as possible, control cost and let the goverment pay the tab. It's a failed scheme that, to their credit, many institutions in Europe are abandoning. That was the US setup, under the GI bill. It did not fail. The European setup was, before that, pay as you go, with private charity for a few merit-qualified poor - and of course the children of the upper classes had a great advantage. That also failed. That is what the US is now beginning to emulate.

Nothing of this is capitalistic, and since any attempt at setting up a market in education is doomed by the absence of basic features (information, trade, payment to deliverer, delivery to payer, fungibility of good, etc) any pretension to market efficiency is laughable. No university system can attract peasants if the students have to pay their own way. Students do not garner the majority of the benefits of educating the educatable, and if they have to pay the majority of the costs and take the majority of the risks (as well as devote the time and effort) that market distortion will guarantee undersupply of educated people..

It will also track the students into lower risk endeavors. No one even somewhat unsure of their abilities and borrowing such large sums can afford to attempt mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc - safer income streams await in less challenging fields. Few undertaking the more expensive regimes can afford to forego income later - the general practitioner or rural doctor vanishes into the more highly paid specialties.

But that's OK, we can import our intellectuals and pad our middle management and bureaucracies.
I have no problem with liberal profs, but there should also be conservative profs. 99% of profs should not be voting for one particular polical party. It stinks of Soviet style indoctrination. That depends. When the best informed people around, and the safest ones (with tenure, no paycheck at risk) seem to agree on something, there is the possibility that they are right, no? I know very few well-educated people who take my local House rep, a Republican, seriously - she's a nutcase, and very ill-informed, and people who pay attention to issues see this. So they all vote against her, or abstain if the other candidate is as bad or worse. That isn't indoctrination: it's political maturity and responsible competence. If you want intellectuals to vote Republican, put up a candidate that someone with a brain in their head can vote for.

[COLOR="Navy"]Evolutionism stains the syllabus in biology.

But nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution.

I guess you haven't studied much biology.

In effect, it amounts to religious dogmatism crammed down the throats of the unsuspecting students.

Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism is the religious one. Check which theory's supporters usually wave the bible in defence of their argument. It shouldn't be too hard to learn the difference, even for you.

Please lobby your Congressman for the separation of "science" (i.e., natural philosophy) and state.

There's really no need. Politicians generally ignore scientists at their whim anyway. This is especially evidence with the current administration.

Where did you go to school? I also went to a large public university and took a wide variety of classes. Almost every time I took classes outside the hard sciences, the prof was a leftist if not an outright communist.

Smart people just tend to develop more liberal views over time, I find. It's probably all the thinking that does it. ;)

I guess people get dumber with age James R, 'cause most people get more conservative (wise) with age, so what does that do to your theory?

Where did you go to school? I also went to a large public university and took a wide variety of classes. Almost every time I took classes outside the hard sciences, the prof was a leftist if not an outright communist.


I don't deny that others may have had a different experience than I did. I can only relate my own experience.

I'm honestly curious: concerning those profs you viewed as leftist or communist, how did you know? Did they discuss it in class? And if so, did they make some active attempt to indoctrinate you, to influence you into sharing their views?

Oh, to answer your question, I went to Southern Illinois University.

Walt Frazier's alma mater, what a player.

James R

Please explain all the missing links in evolution? I cannot find any direct decedents of one species morphing into another spices? There are no common ancestors, the missing links are still missing.

Buffalo Roam, are you a creationist?

Walt Frazier's alma mater, what a player.


Actor Dennis Franz's as well. :cool:

Please explain all the missing links in evolution? Only in the fossil record is anything missing. And almost everything is missing from the fossil record - fossilization isn't frequent, or statistically random among species and "links".

Neither the past nor the current theories of evolution (neo-Darwinian) were derived from the fossil record, nor do they depend on it. The fossil record provides instead an arena for test of the theory - predictions of what will and will not be found in the fossils of various rocks and circumstances can be tested by looking. So far, not a single contradiction to current evolutionary theory has been found in the thousands of fossil beds explored and the tens of thousands of fossils examined. Despite the many advances in technology and wide expansion of paleotological effort since the current theory was proposed, it remains uncontradicted.

The notable feature of the fossil record is not what's missing, but what's there: exactly what should be, according to the standard theory of evolution.

"Only in the fossil record is anything missing," well now, that really helps your argument, doesn't it?

The idea of a missing link is an outdated concept. Fossils with characteristics partly human and partly what we would think of as ape have already been found. I think the important point is that evolutionary theory doesn't only rely on fossil evidence, especially with the discovery of the mechanism for inheritence- DNA.

Yeh, to show that whales used to have legs.

One of the advantages of a liberal arts education is the development of the ability to follow an argument.

That ability is common among professors and such, and leads to their reputation as "liberals".

Mere attendance at such colleges, however, does not by osmosis inculcate that ability. As we see.

They certainly did. They have a common ancestor with the hippo, which is amphibious, with intricate nasal valves and infrasound communication, both characteristics of whales.

Anyway, please take it to the biology subforum.

Please, can we have at least one thread that IAC doesn't take over with his anti-evolution delusions? Don't encourage him.

ha, you're a perfect example of the conservative trying to weasel your closed-minded agenda through appealing to guilt or obligation of fairness and openmindedness of the other party when you yourself would not give the same when you get your foot in the door, the hypocritical indignation is quite classic actually. This reminds me of the time when I was out in the woods and my brother who was scared of the dark asked me to go with him to the outhouse and promised he would wait for me too when but he just took advantage of my fairness and lied to me as he ran off as soon as he was done.

Stop whining righty and start whining about openmindedness at conservative colleges and see how far you get. If you don't like it why don't you just go to a conservative school as they exist. What makes you think that you should be able to push your way beyond your own territory and expect tolerance when you don't give the same.

Classic rightist building a strawman and creating a false drama of wrongdoing while holding deeply to their own prejudices.Supremely Well Said Peta9

Please explain all the missing links in evolution? I cannot find any direct decedents of one species morphing into another spices? There are no common ancestors, the missing links are still missing.

I thought this thread was about liberal colleges.

The problem with so-called "missing links" is that every time one is filled, that just creates two more "missing links" as far as Creationists are concerned.

The usual Creationist modus operandi is to demand a "transitional" fossil between fossil A and fossil B. When a scientist eventually finds an appropriate candidate C, the Creationist doesn't then change his mind and start supporting evolution. No, instead he now demands two more transitional fossils - this time between A and C and between C and B.

C?

Roman, you sound threatened, and millions of people believe as I do, so maybe you feel threatened for good reason.

i feel threanted that so many people belive that something that clearly is not literal as the literal trurth

Then why do not universities offer fora to discuss the origins issue, since open intellectual discourse is supposedly encouraged?

so your complaint is that scientists don't want an unscientific thing being taught as a scintific alternative to a highly supported scinttific theory. I'm in awe of the ignorance of the rules of scientific discourse and your detachment from reality. bravo bravo it been while since anyones been able to do that to me

Going back to topic, I would say there are more conservative colleges then truly liberal ones.

Maybe not a good evidence, but here are the top 10 liberal colleges:

http://encarta.msn.com/college_article_LiberalColleges/Top_10_Politically_Liberal_Colleges.html

Quite honestly, they are pretty obscure and most people never heard of them.

Now let's compare it to the top 10 conservative colleges:

http://encarta.msn.com/college_article_ConservativeColleges/Top_10_Politically_Conservative_Colleges.html

The giant BYU is on the list with the Air Force, Naval Acadamy and Marine Academy. I am guessing the University of Dallas isn't small either.

So just a guess, but I would say the top 10 conservative colleges have at least 3 times as many students as the top 10 liberal ones...

iwouldn't truely put the milatary colleges on the list because though they probably have a conservative slant they aren't all that political.

iwouldn't truely put the milatary colleges on the list because though they probably have a conservative slant they aren't all that political. They have become increasingly dominated by the Christian right, which is politically very influential through the various churches and pressure organizations.