ROSEN: Incubators for progressives

Posted by Michael on February 8, 2008 at 6:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Excellent critique of excessive political correctness, American left-leaning higher education run amok, and diversity demanded at the expense of excellence. It also shows the twisted desire of some to demand their version of a perfect society be accepted by those who they have been charged with educating not brainwashing. Not to mention that these people are paying for this. And the radical left thinks that the USA is fast becoming a theocracy?? Hardly. There are far more instances of this type of brainwashing and intolerance for individual thought being driven from the liberal left than there are from the conservative right or from the Christian fundamentalists.

Posted by Tom on February 8, 2008 at 6:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sorry, Mr. Rosen, but this kind of aren't-I-clever dissection of a well-intended code of conduct can be applied to any oath or pledge without much effort or particular brilliance.

Colleges and universities exist for more than "instruction and a certification of academic achievement in the form of a degree". That which truly inspires must also challenge and cause a broadening of the mind and a reorientation of one's worldview. The life experience and subjective view of any particular professor is essential to a rewarding college experience. It is something with which the students can agree, challenge, or vehemently oppose. It's what makes any college experience worthwhile at all, whether than professor be liberal or conservative.

And, if I may also indulge in the silly stunt you committed against the school's pledge, here's another little "pledge" dissected with an observation or two to take into account (with my critique in brackets):

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag [Uh, no. I pledge allegiance to the nation that bore me, not its flag.] of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands [I don’t know...too often, the nation, the government, etc., has worked terribly hard to exclude many of its citizens whom it deemed “less than” from enjoying all the rights and privileges of the white, male, Christian, heterosexual majority.], one Nation [see previous critique], under God [Which God? There is more than one belief system at work and supposedly protected by the Constitution, even a belief system which touts NO God.], with Liberty and Justice [Again, I hate to point out the obvious, but torturous interrogation without trial or charge, official attempts to codify marriage inequality for gays and lesbians, racial profiling, attacks on reproductive rights for women, etc., cast some doubt on this phrase.] for all [see previous critique].”

Posted by Mike_In_Hartsel on February 8, 2008 at 6:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Challange? Not when something is mandatory. One cannot challange the thought police. After the oath comes enforcement. Think about Germany and the Soviet Union 70 years ago. Relatives, friends, and neighbors reporting you for being a bad boy. College is for education; not indoctrination.

Posted by Gene on February 8, 2008 at 6:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Imagine if this set of rules was coming out of a conservative institution (I know, there isn't such a thing) but the left including Jesse Jackson would be marching in the street against this infringement of liberty.

Posted by Spencer on February 8, 2008 at 7:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You should see the code of conduct for anyone attending BYU. There are very strict rules for off campus as well as very strict rules for any company that wants to do business with students. As an example, if you run an off campus apartment complex, no drinking alcohol (isn't this legal?) this rule applies to all residents students or not.

Posted by Gene on February 8, 2008 at 7:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Spencer,
My college of 40,000 students on campus was in a "dry" town. But we could do any of the 5 sins listed in Mikes' column, and look how good I turned out!

Posted by SASQUATCH on February 8, 2008 at 7:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

PC running wild. Funny that the very same crowd screams how their individual rights and freedoms are being squashed by our government's attempts to combat terrorism. I always thought that the purpose of educational institutions is VERITAS. How did the SOCIAL ENGINEERING NAZIS ever grab control?

Posted by Lowtaxequalsfreedom on February 8, 2008 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mike,

Good article. The colleges have become the breeding ground for the collective agenda. Research all conspiracy theories and one theory rises to the top. The death or more accurately the murder of the individual in an attempt to make room for the collective. This is the ultimate goal of the left. The hive is alive and well and patiently works to indoctrinate all. Welcome to the Borg.

Posted by smith on February 8, 2008 at 7:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Spencer,

BYU is a private school. Bergen CC is a state school.

Posted by John_II on February 8, 2008 at 8:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Rosen,

I have a few critiques of your critiques.

* "... I am freely willing [Uh, no, if this is mandated, it's certainly not free will.] "

Are the students forced to enroll at the school? If the school requires the pledge, prospective students can freely decide not to attend the college.

* "I promise to respect each and every member of the college community without regard to race, creed, political ideology [Really? Even Nazism, white supremacy, totalitarianism, etc.?] "

This is a badly needed pledge in colleges across America. It's interesting that you mention Nazism and white supremacy because those are common epithets that college lefties hurl at conservatives. By saying respect each member, I simply take that as saying let's have respectful, civil discourse without shouting down those whose views you may find abhorrent.

"1. Honesty, integrity and respect for all will guide my personal conduct. [Sorry, too broad. I reserve the right to withhold my respect for those whose behavior is unworthy of respect.]"

So, what does that mean? You would shout down, shove, intimidate or slander those you don't respect? Of course not. In other words, you show respect even to those you do not respect.

"5. ... [I don't believe anyone should be someone else's "servant," especially not the servant of some collective "community." Our Constitution guarantees individual rights and protects them from the tyranny of the majority. My civic engagement will be voluntary and in the manner of my own choosing.]"

That was an especially interesting (and disappointing) statement by you, Mr. Rosen. Are you saying you don't believe in public service? Yes, the Constitution grants us individual rights. I'm not sure how that point is relevant to public service. The college is obviously trying to instill the value of service to one's community. If you don't agree with that principle, don't volunteer yourself to enroll at the college.

"Colleges should be centers of learning, not indoctrination."

I disagree. Learning at college implies that one is being taught. Teaching implies the existence of a teaching plan; the college must decide what it will and won't teach. I see nothing wrong with a college that strives to turn out a certain type of student. For example, Hillsdale College has the following honor code:

"A Hillsdale College student is honorable in conduct, honest in word and deed, dutiful in study and service and respectful of the rights of others. Through education the student rises to self-government."

Obviously, Hillsdale College wants the notion of self-government and honesty to be associated with it's graduates. The real problem is not that too many colleges are indoctrinating their students, but that they are indoctrinating their students with liberalism. But, you have used the term indoctrination like Obama uses the word change; both words do not mean much unless we know the direct object of the verbs.

Posted by Gene on February 8, 2008 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey, John_II,
We are done with the English lesson.

Posted by ItsJustme on February 8, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

John_II Hillsdale may not be the best example for you to use. It is a private college. In addition IT TAKES NO FEDERAL MONIES AT ALL, NOT EVEN FEDERAL STUDENT FINANCIAL AID. If ever there was a college where the students know exactly what to expect and have the freedom to decide whether to go there or not, it's Hillsdale.

Posted by John_II on February 8, 2008 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ItsJustme,

You mean students have no choice in regards to attending community college. I don't see why whether or not a college is private or not matters. If local government is going to create an institution such as community college, we must expect the institution to set rules and guidelines and goals.

No one is forced to attend community college. If the college violates your essential core beliefs, don't attend it.

My point was that it is not wrong for a college to indoctrinate it's students. Indoctrination is not wrong; liberal indoctrination is. But, again, community college attendance is not mandatory.

Posted by Jimminy on February 8, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

All of the above make a powerful and persuasive argument in favor of defunding higher education,with the exception of hard science and ROTC.

Posted by irisman on February 8, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Once again Mike Rosen is employing his favorite tactic, citing an extreme example, and by inference using it to flog an entire institution or class of people. Most of us agree that the president of Bergen Community College was way out of line when he composed this pledge, but am I to believe that all the colleges and universities in this country are just like that? For instance, should Ted Haggard's misdeeds be used to condemn every pastor? Smearing a whole group of people for the offenses of one individual is lynch mob mentality.

Posted by Bookem on February 8, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have to agree with Mr. Rosen on the point that "Colleges should be centers of learning, not indoctrination."

Centers of learning should teach HOW to think. Centers of indoctrination will teach WHAT to think. There is a big difference.

Posted by Nick_in_Virginia on February 8, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

People sometimes wonder why the liberals (especially Hollywood types) are so infatuated with people such as Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. It is because the libs secretly (and sometimes, openly) wish THEY could be the tyrannical, petty dictator, and this guy Ryan is obviously trying to become one himself.

Posted by John_II on February 8, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bookem said,
"Centers of learning should teach HOW to think. Centers of indoctrination will teach WHAT to think. There is a big difference."

Then what distinguishes one college from another? The quality of professors? Sure, that's one aspect. But, what about the type of values a college wants to instill in its students?

Teaching someone how to think involves teaching someone certain preferred methods of thinking. Is there only one way to think?

Different colleges may want to specialize in instilling different values. Hillsdale College tries to instill self-government. Bergen Community apparently wants to instill a sense of "can't we all just get along?"

This is a good thing. Schools are supposed to compete in offering the best graduates. When one meets a graduate from Hillsdale College, one should be able to infer certain values in that graduate. The same goes for meeting a graduate from Bergen Community.

The problem is that colleges and universities are overwhelmingly teaching the wrong values (liberalism). In the long run, I believe this hurts colleges. At some point, the value of a college degree will seem much less than it is now. Colleges will be associated with turning out fools rather than wise individuals.

Posted by Apologist on February 8, 2008 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hilarious,

I agree with Rosen on almost ZERO. Moreover, if you’ve ever listened to the man, he’s arrogant, rude and so obnoxiously condescending it’s agonizing to hear. But boy, reading Tom’s, I hate USA rant, in these comments would suggest maybe there’s some truth to what he’s saying.

Lemme guess, TOM you’re a teacher, right???

Posted by spencerr on February 8, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John,

Your point well taken as long as opinions from both sides of the isle are taught. Public school means public money, and I don't want my kid (or any other) going to a school paid for with my money where the youth are indoctrinated with liberalism (or anything for that matter). It's bad enough that public secondary schools do it. Public schools paid for with public funds have no business manufactoring liberals (or conservatives). Your argument holds up only for private schools.

Just because the public facility is a product of socialist thinking does not mean that it has a duty to teach socialism (and its environmental, social, and foreign policy counterparts) as the correct choice.

Although, in retrospect, if someone who has a strong enough mind comes through it unphased, he or she is that much better for it. I went to UNC, and while the educating was good, the liberal indoctrination was shamelessly off the charts. Not where I want my tax money going. And yes, it was my choice to put my money (after taxes) into it.

Posted by Spencer on February 8, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

is it only public colleges that should be "centers of learning, not indoctrination"?

Posted by John_II on February 8, 2008 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

spencerr,

I agree with your outrage about your tax dollars going towards public schools that are improperly teaching the students.

But, I find it hard to believe that it's possible for a government run (or funded) school to separate indoctrination (I would like a clearer definition of this word) from purely objective teaching. Is pure objective teaching possible considering teaching requires a human teacher?

For example, I disagree with your statement:
"Just because the public facility is a product of socialist thinking does not mean that it has a duty to teach socialism (and its environmental, social, and foreign policy counterparts) as the correct choice."

How can you separate the parent from the child: Birds beget birds; dogs beget dogs; snakes beget snakes; humans beget humans; socialism begets socialism. Just as you do not expect a bird from a human, you should not expect anything other than socialism from socialism.

The true outrage is that we are forced to pay for someone else's college education.

Posted by Sean on February 8, 2008 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let us all thank John II for pointing out that we are forced to pay for someone else's college education. That comes as news to me and millions of other college graduates who received tuition bills.
But I am sure that John II has never taken nor will take any drug or medical procedure that was developed at a state university. Because that would be socialism. Why should I indirectly pay for a medical procedure that might one day save John II's life or limb or simply improve his quality of life.
And I am sure John II cringes every time he uses the Internet, which was funded through tax payer money.

Posted by John_II on February 8, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sean,

Those tuition bills are subsidized by taxpayers. The subsidy causes schools to keep increasing their tuitions which eventually causes liberals to cry for even more school subsidies.

You are confusing inventions with wisdom and character. I have no doubt that a public college can invent some useful products. But, the topic of discussion is not things, it's people. It is entirely possible for student to become a genius mathematician yet still remain a fool.

Your reference to the Internet is flawed. I do not oppose the use of taxpayer money for self-defense. Remember, the Internet was created by the military in order for our country to survive a nuclear attack. Taxpayer funding for the Internet was entirely acceptable (and Constitutional).

Posted by Sean on February 8, 2008 at 4:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

But you do oppose tax payer money for education the populace. How weird.

Posted by Sean on February 8, 2008 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I meant to say educating - educating the populace.

Posted by Castle on February 8, 2008 at 7:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Right on Mr. Rosen, very good column. I see by reading the comments that there are a number of liberial, socialists who do in fact believe in the thought police. The fact that our public screwl systems are turning out brain dead kids who can't think, or reason and can't make change, they are prime targets for liberial college professors. Students are in screwel to get an education, not be told that they have to like everyone, agree with everyone, or that they can't be better then someone else. Students, or anyone else do not have to embrace anyone elses culture, religion, or ideas. If you want to celabrate yours, go for it. It's not required that everyone comes to your party though. College used to be a place for students to LEARN how to think and reason, now most of them are re-education camps, very expensive ones at that. I don't see how or why parents pay money to make their kids dumber.

Posted by Tom on February 8, 2008 at 7:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Apologist... why would it matter whether or not I was a teacher? Why were my comments "I hate USA"? (I most certainly do not, by the way.) In the USA, views contrary to the established nationalism are not only welcome but REQUIRED to foster open dialogue and debate. The founding fathers welcomed open debate, welcomed challenging the status quo. It all makes us stronger. My use of the Pledge of Allegiance was simply to make a point about the language of well-intended pledges.

Posted by Sean on February 8, 2008 at 8:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is the thing Tom. Republicans have nothing left to run on or serve as a counter-argument because their political philosophy is simply unworkable and their political leaders are incompetent. So all that they have left is to call those who disagree with them anti-American socialists even though the majority of the base cannot define the word socialism.

Posted by Jimminy on February 9, 2008 at 1:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well,Sean,if you're just now learning the realities of post-secondary funding,you'll be equally as surprised to find that the anti-traditional,flip-off-anyone-not-a-college-student mindset that so pervades your environment is regarded in the real world as more sophomoric than sophisticated,and the Marxist world view that surrounds you as the water surrounds the fish causes those of us who must pay for all of this thinking of great thoughts to perhaps doubt that we're getting our money's worth.With the exceptions,as I said earlier,of the hard science and ROTC curricula.

Posted by RLaitres on February 9, 2008 at 6:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

One has to wonder where Mr. Rosen went to college, and for what purpose. He wants "conservatives" in several areas. What is he advocating, that they "teach conservatism? That is not what colleges or universities are for. Whether a college professor is a conservative or liberal (they are not opposites), is immaterial. A college professor, unless he is an ideologue and therefore worthless, is supposed to teach everything without bias, and allow the students to consider all points of view. Mr. Rosen's "approach" appears to be nothing more than exactly what he accuses others of doing, indoctrinating the students. This has apparently become an objective of the "right", if one looks carefully at an opinion piece by the past Republican president of the Senate Mr. Andrews, who wants to get into the curricula of our colleges and dictate what "He" believes should be taught. Most people do not know it but the deepest "support" for Hitler and the NAZI Party came from college campuses. They are the ones who gave him his platform and "intellectual" base. Maybe, just maybe, the "right" should keep their hands off of the college and university curricula. We have enough problems now without their getting involved in what they know nothhing about, nor do they know what they are really advocating, or maybe they do.

Posted by John_II on February 9, 2008 at 8:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

RLaitres said:

"Most people do not know it but the deepest "support" for Hitler and the NAZI Party came from college campuses."

And therefore what? Besides, I don't think that statement is accurate. His "deepest" support was from ruffians and the military.

"Maybe, just maybe, the "right" should keep their hands off of the college and university curricula."

Perhaps. But, is that really the big problem here? Has conservative indoctrination infected colleges all across America? The fact that you scolded the "right" and not the "left" in that statement disproves your other statement:

"A college professor, unless he is an ideologue and therefore worthless, is supposed to teach everything without bias, and allow the students to consider all points of view."

You are biased in the same paragraph in which you call for the elimination of bias. You don't have to be a worthless ideologue (why are they worthless?) to have a bias towards a certain way of thinking.

Mr. Rosen was not calling for some conservative teachers in order to teach conservatism. He was simply expressing his desire for more teachers with a different perspective. If a college is overloaded with liberal professors, wouldn't you agree that it would be helpful to bring in more conservative teachers to balance things out?

Posted by jgd on February 9, 2008 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

RLaitres

***A college professor, unless he is an ideologue and therefore worthless, is supposed to teach everything without bias, and allow the students to consider all points of view.***

This statement should be the bottom line of this issue and the one I think Rosen was talking about. We have too many of these liberal ideologues in our higher education. What they are teaching is bias and as you have stated, they are worthless. The students are unable to consider all points of views because they are only being "taught" the liberal view.

Posted by kathyM on February 10, 2008 at 12:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

For anyone who is appalled about this idiocy, check out the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) at www.thefire.org. College students have been flunked, expelled, and even ordered to take to "thought rehab" classes for exercising their right to free speech. Faculty have been denied tenure or fired for excercising their right to free speech. FIRE as successfully challenged this idiocy on behalf of students and faculty regardless of their ideological, political, or religious beliefs. Most students or faculty getting help from FIRE have been punished for things like criticizing the building of a parking garage or refusing to sign on to a college-dictated philosophy as a requirement for graduation. What this college did is not the exception--it's the NORM in American higher education, and it's scary.

Posted by greenleaf on February 10, 2008 at 7:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jgd,

I could speak to my own university experience, but I graduated in 1974. I imagine that most would consider that a little stale. In my day, humanities classes taught critical thinking. We weren't spoon fed anybodies personal political agenda. I should qualify that by saying: " that I can remember"!

My daughter, however, will graduate from college THIS year. We have had many conversations about history and politics. She has, obviously, been exposed to many schools of thought and philosophy. In fact, before she went to college, she couldn't converse on many subjects or be considered a well informed voter. That has now changed: she comes home ready for a serious debate; she isn't always on my side of the argument ( I can be considered liberal, conservative or somewhere in between depending upon the subject and, now, so can she.

I know this is anecdotal, but at least it is an unbiased account of the state of critical thought in one college ( we'll leave my ancient history and experiences out of it).

As for Mr. Rosen, he has a long history of picking extreme examples and then writing a tirade about them. I believe it is unfair to the majority to single out the one and present that as the norm. It is poor science but excellent propaganda!

Posted by kathyM on February 10, 2008 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Greenleaf, the example Rosen picked out is NOT extreme; it's TYPICAL. Hundreds of colleges have similar "speech/thought codes." I'm glad your daughter had a great learning experience at her college. But that doesn't mean her or her classmates' or her professors' rights to free speech were not hampered.

Posted by greenleaf on February 10, 2008 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kathyM

I suspect that your knowledge of this subject is more thorough and current than my own, I briefly examined your link to FIRE. I noticed that the ACLU participated jointly with FIRE in one action. I also looked at the board of directors, which doesn't appear to be totally stocked with partisans. All to the good!

I will have to examine this more thoroughly, and your point is well taken! Thanks!

Posted by anderson on February 10, 2008 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Rosen's column is typical of what he and other talk radio pimps do. Here is their formula (in his case used in two mediums):

--Identify a villain (usually the less specific the better);
--Present a loose set of facts that demean the villain and which represent (always) a *singular* point of view. In other words, there is one way and one way only to look at the issue--
--in order to stir up the emotions (not reason, never reason) of your audience. Negative emotions like fear and hate are the easiest to stir.

It's funny to see some of the responses here. The people who actually listen to talk radio on a regular basis are easiest to identify. They respond on cue, with negative emotions and with a singular point of view. Good consumers, conditioned to think alike, who are even knashing and gritting their teeth at all the villains of the world who oppose them.

When I went to college in recent decades, same as greenleaf's 70s, we were taught to think critically, which means, amongst other things, considering ideas in different ways. That's the whole point of going to college.

Posted by anderson on February 10, 2008 at 3:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

FIRE is more fodder for the fools who buy everything uncritically from any source that identifies itself as being on the right, and opposing something on the left. Poor, poor, persecuted me. Clue: they make money this way.

What really galls me is their anti-intellectualism and their misrepresentation as to what goes on on campuses.

Most of the way through my long college career at two midwestern liberal arts colleges, I thought of myself as a staunch conservative (well, of the Ayn Rand school). Once in a while I upset some other students but I was never berated for my views and to my knowledge never suffered for a grade. Of course, I never tried to disrupt a class or insisted that I held the only view on any given matter.

I remember asking one of my professors in an indirect way to validate one of my views on something (I don't remember what specifically)--asking what others would say about such a view, and he kindly told me they would call it naive. I was indeed naive, but it took me awhile to come to that conclusion and I came to it on my own.

Of course I am not a well funded web-site asking for contributions. I'm just a real person offering a perspective.

Posted by greenleaf on February 10, 2008 at 5:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hello again anderson,

I guess I'm going to have to take more than a minute to examine FIRE. What a complex world we live in when all sides to an argument have their supporting think tanks and activist groups. As you know anderson, I am an environmentalist. You can't throw a stick without hitting an environmental non profit! Many of them are passionate but stay within the bounds of science and logic. Others, unfortunately, get carried away with their rhetoric and employ strategies similar to Rosen type conservatives (maybe that's where they learned it)!

It leaves those who consider ourselves independent, critical thinkers an endless supply of material to sift through. Propaganda is propaganda whether liberal or conservative. Regardless of your political persuasion: " Let the buyer beware"!

Posted by anderson on February 10, 2008 at 5:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

greenleaf, you persuaded me to look again, and in greater depth, at their website, and maybe some of my initial criticism (anti-intellectualism) was unfair. I thought at first glance they looked like a David Horowitz clone organization (what you call Rosen style conservative) but maybe not. Still, I am highly skeptical of of their mission statement that talks about colleges being places of indoctrination. That is not like any college experience (directly or indirectly) I've ever had. Indoctrination is a 3-year old (or 13 year old, or 20 year old) sitting in front of a TV set.

Posted by kathyM on February 10, 2008 at 5:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, anderson, I also spent beaucoup time at a Midwestern college, and I also studied Ayn Rand's philosophy and literature--and I WAS censored. One professor in particular prohibited me from writing a paper on one of Rand's novels. My choice fell well within the assignment (write about any American novel of the 19th or 20th centuries). I would have accepted a legitimate academic reason for his rejection of my proposal. Here was his reason: "She's too selfish!" I had no other recourse than to withdraw from the class. I sure wish FIRE was around back then to defend my right to free speech.

FIRE is neither right nor left. It has defended students and/or faculty who are Muslims, Christians, homosexuals, followers of many philosophies (including Objectivism)--and yes, FIRE even spoke out on behalf of Ward Churchill.

In a very few years, my daughter will be entering college. I'm grateful FIRE will be there to help defend her, her classmates, and her professors from censors and thought police.

Posted by greenleaf on February 10, 2008 at 6:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

anderson,

I, too, looked a little deeper and picked up on the same comment in the mission statement. Obviously some schools by their nature have a bias: I guess we can't expect Oral Roberts University not to have a religious bias for example. The question here is does FIRE have a bias to one political philosophy or another? If they don't, are they just a specialized version of the ACLU?

The answer to that question would probably take time I don't have at the moment. The fact that it isn't transparent means I'll probably give it the benefit of my doubts.

As for TV, I used to love sitting with kids to watch Sesame Street and to see how it affected their play and moods. Even TV has it's value when mixed with parental involvement and supervision. The problem is when it's used as a baby sitter to the 3 year old or a mindless pastime for the rest of us! But I guess that's a matter for another forum.

Later my friend!

Posted by greenleaf on February 10, 2008 at 6:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kathyM, I saw your latest post when I submitted mine. Again, your point is well taken! I wish I had been your professor. Rand's celebration of individuality has influenced me to the present day! Your daughter will benefit greatly from what you have learned.

Posted by anderson on February 10, 2008 at 6:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

greenleaf, I think there's a huge problem at the start when we frame the college experience as competing political philosophies, as in liberal v. conservative. Most who do so typically represent those terms anyway. As someone else correctly pointed out, they are not opposites.

Good example, with the religious schools. I expect that graduates of Oral Roberts are able to go forth into the world as critical thinkers (far more than their non-college educated counterparts)--even if they, typically by choice, came from a somewhat insular environment having to do with their religion. I'm certain they teach science at Oral Roberts.

When I made my TV reference I was thinking specifically of commercials and the form of intentional indoctrination (to 3 year olds: fast food), to 13 year olds: (ATVs!), to 20 year olds: 4 wheelers!

KathyM: sorry to hear about your experience. I remember in a class on Literary Theory specifically presenting ideas taken from Ayn Rand about what made a good novel (plot, character, theme etc.), and my professor telling me how unpopular those ideas might be. She did not criticize my views. I got an A in the class. In another class, I presented a paper on Frederick Hayek's economic views (akin to Rand's) and upset an older student (who probably could be me today). I got a B in that class. In yet another class on Literacy Studies my prof (who I knew was a Marxist) included Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness in our readings. So, not only did he not exclude, he actively brought in different ideas to the table (as virtually all my prof's did).

Posted by John_II on February 10, 2008 at 6:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Indoctrinate U
http://indoctrinate-u.com/pages/welco...

Posted by anderson on February 10, 2008 at 6:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Given the RMN's frequent critism of CU, and sites like idioctrinate U and the us v. them types who foist such stupidities upon us, maybe we should just close our universities. Who needs to engage in any higher level thinking? We can all go to vocational schools, make some money, kill those who are different than us, and buy, buy, buy as we're all conditioned to do.

Posted by John_II on February 10, 2008 at 7:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That's a great question, anderson. I think universities have already become vocational schools. Few people go to college for "higher level thinking". They go to college to learn a valuable skill and get a well paying job. They are not going to college to acquire wisdom.

The result is the rise of a vacuous presidential candidate such as Barack Obama. I listened to his speech last week after the Super Tuesday results. It was brilliant. He is a superb orator. The people cheered and clapped and screamed and woo-hooed him. And, when he was finished, I couldn't figure out what he had just said. It was the oratorical version of a Twinkie: tastes good but what's in it? Empty calories; plenty of sugar but little nutrients. And that seems to suit people just find. In fact, the Obama slogan is "Change you can believe in." It's not even necessary to say what the change actually is. When a waitress asks him what he would like to order, does he simply reply that he wants eat?

At some level, we need more of the bourgeoisie and less philosopher wannabes. After all, we need more workers and consumers than pensive thinkers. But, we should not forget that universities do not have a monopoly on wisdom. Wisdom is wisdom whether or not it was acquired by a community college, a university, or by an auto-didactic perseverance.

Posted by greenleaf on February 10, 2008 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

anderson,

Don't despair, my friend, my daughter's experience proves to me that critical thinking exists, even thrives in our colleges and universities! Perhaps, in some, one has to find the right instructors! Who knows, maybe in all institutions that is the case.

I don't know about you, but I had what I considered to be dreadful and wonderful professors - sometimes in the same semester. Call it luck of the draw, serendipity, karma - whatever.

You think critically and independently, so do I, so does kathyM and probably more importantly - my daughter(a current experience). KathyM will see to it that HER daughter is a critical thinker and YOU will do the same for your children! The sun will rise tomorrow in spite of us and because of us!

Let it be!

Posted by SpongeBob on February 11, 2008 at 6:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

While I agree that this is silly, it should be duly noted that Bergen Community College is hardly an incubator for progressives. It's hardly a college at all. It is a commuter school for retards destined for (or already in) the fast paced worlds of air-conditioner/refrigerator repair, landscaping and the beauty industry. There is no campus life to speak of. Being from the area I can easily picture the President's reasoning here -- It is a very affluent county where the norm is for children to aspire to attend elite universities and Bergen Comedy College (as most here derisively call it) is so beneath the realm of possible outcomes for students who merely underperform in high school that it is looked upon as a college for people who really shouldn't bother with college at all -- and yet you have a president, with the requisite academic's pomposity and it must really frost his shorts that nobody in his daily life takes him or his job seriously. Clearly this is just an attempt to put lipstick on a pig. Yes it is foolishness on parade but if it makes him feel as though he is at a real college, with a real mission, with students worth molding or who even care to be molded, then let him have his little code. It is, after all, good comedy.

Posted by kathyM on February 11, 2008 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

SpongeBob--My, aren't we feeling a tad elitist today!!!

Posted by Charles_B on February 11, 2008 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John_II:

Putting aside your other comments (some of which I agree with) I'm particularly interested in finding out how to avoid what you term "liberal indoctrination" in colleges.

People who have a liberal mindset will teach from that perspective. If you and others desire to change that and have a different perspective taught, then more people with a conservative mindset need to step up and get teaching jobs. That's really the only solution to the problem you perceive.

Otherwise the complaints are just sour-grapes.

Posted by spencerr on February 11, 2008 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No, John,

I believe that education is the backbone of both our society and our economy. I believe there are better ways to do it than the current paradigm of our public post secondary education system though.

The socialist egg (the leftist preaching institution) born from socialist ideology that is our public school system is certainly proof of what you are preaching, but I argue that it should not be. I also disagree with you about what a college should be (liberal arts colleges do and should yield critical thinkers who learn arguments to both political sides of any subject (from global warming to creation vs. evolution to economics.) Engineers should be engineers)).

With the exception (sometimes) of economists and business professors, faculty is predominantly left-leaning. I would say that the real crux of the problem and what we perhaps define as indoctrination is when either the professor teaches the student that the left-leaning argument is a fact (vietnam bad and pointless, socialism and environmentalism right and good and more importantly, infallable) or the professor teaches that the left-leaning position is the good antithesis of a right-leaning conventional method. It does not go both ways usually. They don't give both arguments, though they know them well. They conveniently leave out the other side. So when I send my kid to a public university, I can expect him to come back voting for Obama because he was taught nothing else. That was my experience. When I did my undergraduate in history, I took a hard left turn politically (though I was still right of center). When I did my graduate school in economics and found exposure to minority conservative views in parts of the media, I took an even harder turn back to the right.

The problem is that there are two sides to every story, and facts can be construed. Public colleges (their professors) ignore one side and construe facts, or at the very least ignore opposing facts, in order to "indoctrinate" the masses of youth that come through. I believe with my heart that this is the reason that most young voters vote liberal and that after they have been out of school for ten or twenty years, they return to the right. It is, in most instances, completely intentional.

Posted by greenleaf on February 11, 2008 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

spencerr.

I'm certain that someone has studied the reasons for the left-turn, right turn behavior that you describe. Personally I think many things ultimately decide a person's political beliefs. Family influence has to be huge. My father was a die hard Republican. I rebelled against him and was extremely liberal in my youth. I, however, remember having discussions in college history and philosophy classes where the professor would have us present both sides of the argument. Most of my other classes were in Biology, Chemistry and Geology where everything was objective.

It is my belief that life experiences make some individuals more conservative, but I have also seen movement to a more liberal philosophy in others. In my own case, becoming a businessman led me to fiscal conservatism. That fiscal conservatism led me to reject what most conservatives call the "welfare state". It didn't lead me to believe in the " if it's good for business it must be good for everybody concept" . I still believe that some people need protection by the government from predatory forces in society. I also believe in racial equality and equal access to education. I am still suspicious of chicken hawks who lead us into wars that nobody understands. I am also pro choice and pro environment.

I guess this makes me an independent voter and a critical thinker.

My bottom line: It is too easy to blame colleges for this process. I think that anyone with half a mind and life experience will figure out who they are and what they believe regardless of where they went to school.

Posted by John_II on February 11, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Charles B.,

The complaints are sour grapes. I propose doing nothing about liberal indoctrination other than observing and commenting on it.

Ultimately, parents and students must decide on whether the cost of a college degree is worth the results.

So, the way to void liberal indoctrination at college is to not go to a college that attempts to indoctrinate you into liberalism. Use that $30k you might have spent on college tuition and hire private tutors.

Posted by John_II on February 11, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

greenleaf said:
"My bottom line: It is too easy to blame colleges for this process. I think that anyone with half a mind and life experience will figure out who they are and what they believe regardless of where they went to school."

We are talking about teenagers. They barely have half a mind and no life experience. That is what's most troubling about liberal indoctrination at colleges.

Posted by anderson on February 11, 2008 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Spencerr, the crux of this problem is people who buy this simple-minded view that the world is divided into left and right. Did you really go to college? I see you write well, and know how to make arguments, but you perpetuate this drivel about both sides. Is that something you learned in college, or something you picked up from Fox/CNN/MSNBC? Did your college experience teach you there are only two sides to any view? I see you are careful not to admit that YOU suffered any sort of indoctrination in college (although you were influenced by something--we don't know), yet you freely speculate that professors today don't reveal "the other side". Based on...? Excuse me for saying what a crock that is. You've apparently bought the US. News version of college and forgot your own. You insult our faculties (btw I am not associated with any) and you insult our students. As an economist you were presumably exposed to the ideas of Karl Marx, maybe even Theodore Verblen, but how you possibly escaped from your indoctrination wihtout becoming a flaming radical today is beyond me.

Finally, no an engineer is not simply an engineer. If that were so, we could simply send her to trade school.

Posted by anderson on February 11, 2008 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John II, if nothing else, is consistent. He has his (you name it; in this case, an education) but he will forever begrudge anyone else who doesn't have theres.

Posted by greenleaf on February 11, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John_11
Actually John I am saying AS ADULTS we figure out who we are. Teenagers are all works in progress anyway! This gives me a chance to add one other factor that shapes beliefs: peer pressure ( friends, relatives, spouses, neighbors) !

Consider this John: You speak against liberal bias, but do you really think that there aren't literally hundreds of schools that have a conservative bias, or a religious bis, or a bias in favour of conservative economics and business and what of schools that teach trades of applied sciences? Bias is bias and propaganda is propaganda whether it comes from right or left. As I said earlier: " let the buyer beware! ".

Posted by John_II on February 11, 2008 at 3:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

anderson,

What are you referring to? Whom have I begrudged? It's also an odd thing to say considering how you just questioned Specerr's education ("Did you really go to college?")

My education was not handed down to me. Nor do I wish to deny anyone their own education. I am a self taught man. Rather, I should say, I am a self learned man; my teachers were folks like Epictetus, Socrates, Plato, Emerson, Smith, Burke, Friedman, and many others. No college degree for me.

Posted by anderson on February 11, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What's really false about the whole premise is that colleges are one of the few places in the world, that I know of, where kids are actively encouraged to think on their own.

By contrast, unless we live in the wilderness, we are all inundated by propaganda (advertisements for example)--actively encouraging us *not* to think, but simply to buy a certain point of view. Whose doing the indoctrination here?

Posted by anderson on February 11, 2008 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, self-educated man, as far as I can see, you're attacking our tradition of a liberal (in the classic sense) education--a curiously conservative thought now that I mention it--supporting the anti-intellectuals and pikers who falsely frame it as us v. them.

Curious, too, if you didn't go to college, how do you profess to know what's going on there?

Posted by John_II on February 11, 2008 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

greenleaf,

Read my previous comments on this thread from a few days ago. I already acknowledged that bias exists in all forms. I even cited Hillsdale College as a college with a non liberal bias. In fact, as I've already said, I believe it is impossible to remove bias from teaching since teaching implies having a human teacher.

I'm not sure what your point is about adults figuring out who we are. The topic is college and college students (who usually start college at 18). Sure, maybe in 10 or 20 years these former students will be wiser. But, in the meantime, most of these youngsters vote for ideology they became loyal to in college.

Posted by greenleaf on February 11, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

anderson,

I, too, use the terms "left" and "right" partly out of convenience and partly because it seems to be the idiom of the day. You have to admit we are bathed in it. After a while, it just soaks in.

You have recently read enough of my politics and philosophy to know that my beliefs and values are too complex to label as being totally to the left or to the right, as we use or misuse these terms.

I can't speak for anyone who considers themselves on one pole or another in life. That's mostly because I don't understand how anyone can ALWAYS be a conservative or ALWAYS be a liberal on every controversy we encounter over the years! It boggles my mind!

Posted by John_II on February 11, 2008 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I never said I didn't go to college. I said I have no degree. I briefly attended and was bored to no end.

As for knowing what goes on there now, I rely on many things: first hand experience speaking with college grads, reading stories such as the one Mr. Rosen just wrote, observing college protests, listening to the types of questions college students ask politicians, reading columns by college professors such as Paul Campos, conversing with PhD's at dinner parties (my wife has a PhD), comparing degree friends with none degree friends, and noticing that conservative speakers at college usually get booed off the stage and sometimes have pies thrown in their faces.

Posted by anderson on February 11, 2008 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

greenleaf, as you mention, there are perfectly legitimate reasons for using these terms. But they've become bastardized and so I rail against those who use them in the context in which they imply (as you say) someone is always a liberal or conversative (if we even know what those terms mean--Those who haven't been to college probably don't know their meaning except in the sense of "to oppose").

Posted by greenleaf on February 11, 2008 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John_11,

I am attempting to make the point that all of the bias, opinions, reading and commentary that we encounter in life shape us. Authority figures whether they are parents,teachers, professors, ministers, politicians and, of course, syndicated columnists such as Mr. Rosen, all get their shot at our "hearts and minds". Add to this complex mix the effect of personal experience and the changing times and technology. Whatever bias one encounters in that short part of a person's life is buffered by all the other people and influences.

I agree that bias, conservative and liberal as well as religious can be found in college. But isn't that the current reality for all of us from the time we are children to the time we die?

Posted by John_II on February 11, 2008 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think we are in agreement on your 3:46 post, greenleaf. The things we encounter in life can shape our bias and opinions. So, imagine an 18 year old leaving home and living with other 18 year olds. They are at their most vulnerable. Liberal indoctrination is much more effective on them than on an older individual.

Posted by FL_transplant on February 11, 2008 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This article is silly. This guy Rosen is just making biased implications about a code of conduct.. How is this code "liberal"?

Its not saying anything about reading Karl Marx or campaigning for national health care. These are ideals that are preached in the bible.. the one and only instruction manual for conservatives.

Mr. Rosen, would prefer to have a university with a bunch of lemmings that reject anything that mentions the word community or diversity for the fear of the encroachment of liberalism?

Posted by greenleaf on February 11, 2008 at 5:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John_11,

We're getting closer with this, but I need to provide one clarification.

I believe that the concerns are, largely, overblown. I contend that as we go through stages in life we undergo opinion shifts based upon new knowledge, greater exposure to the world and rapidly accumulating experiences. I think that the effects of any agendas pushed by professors and administrators is rapidly diluted and buffered by the factors I mentioned previously. Additionally, I believe that many students encounter a conservative bias. It simply depends upon the school chosen and all the dynamic forces affecting that institution and that community at that given time.

Does that make sense to you John?

Posted by John_II on February 11, 2008 at 5:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sure, it makes sense. I think we just disagree on how "rapidly diluted" opinions become over time. Wouldn't you agree that a teenager is much easier to impress with an ideology than, let's say, a 30 year old? So, certain values are implanted into teenagers that stick with them throughout their 20's.

Of course, over time, many of our old thoughts and opinions change. But, to what extent and what time range is this change of thought brought about. Does it take five years to shed those implanted college values? 10 years? 20 years? Why even go to college if we must wait so many years to unlearn what we've learned there? I would expect that for tens of thousands of dollars and many years of student loan debt, that a college would teach us what we need to know while we're attending it rather than waiting for the wisdom that life would eventually (or hopefully) bring us anyway.

Admittedly, we are arguing semantics and pedantry. This is not something that keeps me up at night. But, it's better than talking about which candidate is leading in the polls.

Posted by greenleaf on February 11, 2008 at 5:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As I said in an earlier posting: somewhere out there someone has done this research.

Neither of us has hard data to support his argument, so I agree it's more an intellectual exercise. I guess there is some value in that, especially at my age!

Yes, this is definitely better than talking about polling and the seemingly endless election process! Thanks for the discussion!

Posted by EastVail on February 11, 2008 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Rosen is so clever. Er, Rosen thinks he is so clever.

Fortunately, he has made a positive contribution to the world in that his daughters are hot, and fortunately get away with a lot that Dad doesn't know about.

Posted by jay on February 12, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why is it that the far right always pouts about the fact that the more education one has, the more likely they are to be less religious and democratic?

Posted by spencerr on February 12, 2008 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Anderson, when I said an engineer is an engineer, I spoke truly. Look at the curriculums of either CU or School of Mines, and you will see a massive amount of math, computer, science and specific engineering classes. There is an element of general writing and an element of technical writing. There is relatively little exposure to the arts. They get some of the same experiences that some of us who indulge in the arts receive, but it is nearly insignificant in comparison.

More importantly, you insult me and insult my education. Of course there are not merely two sides to everything. In general, however, there is a spectrum with the far left and the far right on either end. The far left and the far right, if you exclude the real wackos, embrace views and ideas that are radical and polar opposites but that are not considered completely atrocious (like Hitler's fascism or Stalin's Communism). Most people hang out somewhere in between.

My point is that my experience at University of Northern Colorado in the history department are rich with liberal experiences and points of view. I got both sides of the basic story; I know about Adam Smith and Karl Marx, Keynes and Friedman, Voltaire, etc.. My issue with the education system is that the professors show preference for one set of values being taught over the others. I had a lot of openly leftist professors, and they took no shame in shepherding one toward their points of view.

They attempted to indoctrinate me, and for awhile, I bought into the idea that the Vietnam War was absolutely bad and that we should mind our own business. My problem with the system is that it takes minds that do not know yet how to think for themselves, and they shepherd them toward their own beliefs, which, generally speaking, are Left leaning.

That being said, there were a few responsible professors who would qualify their own political leanings with rhetoric from the other side so as to make their classes neutral. I believe that it unfortunate that all do not do that. Furthermore, you are right in that some views are neutral. The Crebs cycle does not have a political Left or Right, and so no "other side" needs to be given. I'd say that classes that are neutral make up 50% or more of the curriculum. The ones that are biased to either side are not the majority, but they stand out more.

There is no need for personal attacks. I am proud that I graduated from UNC, and I believe that the other public organizations are fine places in which to attend school. That being said, there is a general "bias", which I believe needs to go away.

Posted by spencerr on February 12, 2008 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jay, your statement is completely boneheaded. Look at the way education correlates with political views, and you will see that there is no bias either way, and that despite the fact that public universities tend (being the operative word) to herd their students to the Left.

Posted by spencerr on February 12, 2008 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Greenleaf,

Your experience is your own. You see the world through your eyes, and I through mine. I was merely pointing out that young people tend to vote liberal or independant, while election turnout, at least in the presidential races, usually turn out to be about 50/50. The logical conclusion is that more people age rightward than leftward, at least until they reach retirement age.

Posted by spencerr on February 12, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Also, everybody, I think the main point of contention between us all is that some think that the university should exist in the tradition of what it has been through time, a place where we can move society leftward and progress knowledge (which are sometimes dependant of each other, sometimes independant).

You guys bashing Rosen seem to think that the traditional mold of liberal arts is what our universities should profess. It used to be that liberalism was absolutely a good thing...compared to the monarchies that existed before the French Revolution and the atrocities of our own government murdering organized labor around the turn of the last century...there are a lot of (non)-issues that almost everyone of today would be considered liberal on.

I think that some of the people that would buy into Rosen's line of thinking believe that university is a place in which to advance one's skills. Doing such a thing makes it possible for many of us to function in jobs in which high school grads are not qualified to perform. They are jobs on which our economy depends and that could not be performed by mere high school grads or history majors (like me) without serious reforms in our current education system. Engineers get very little exposure to liberal arts because the knowledge they require in order to do their jobs requires that they have a very specified knowledge in applied math and science. In this way, perhaps you can consider universities technical schools or vocational schools. For those of us who chose the arts, we receive more exposure to Liberal Arts (both in the traditional sense and in the modern sense), and unfortunately, those liberal arts tend to be more liberal than conservative or neutral.

I don't think that critical thinking has to be limited to the proliferation of leftist rhetoric that overwhelms right wing rhetoric and somewhat overshadows neutral thinking.

Anderson, I can make arguments because I can and do think. What business of it is yours that I am radically for free markets. From a more neutral point-of-view (when I was an undergraduate), the attempted indoctrination took place. I had an over-the-hill hippy bash men in general and force a plethora of Emily Dickenson and "The Robber Bride" (contemporary book with a title that is a play on words on "The Robber Bridegroom) in a class that was titled "contemporary American Literature." I was supposed to learn about Twain. Instead I learned about Marxism and Feminism and had it force fed down my throat. Contrarilly, I have never had an Oliver North clone push his agenda down my throat. That is one exampl. Want more? I am an independant thinker. I sit where I do because I chose to based on my own reasoned arguments. It just so happens that I agree with Rosen.

If you want to get into specific arguments, I will argue with you all day, but not here and only if you are willing to be a little more civil.

Posted by anderson on February 12, 2008 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

spencerr, you acknowledge there are more than two sides to an issue, yet you go on to continue to argue within that framework. That's what I vehemently object to. I was never taught in college to think that the world was made up of two sides and (only) two ways of thinking.

There's a difference between indoctrination (loosely defined for argument's sake: a single view (absence of other views) fed to a captive, vulnerable audience) and your required exposure to different ideas as part of a liberal arts education. Again, I say, you're supposed indoctrination did not turn you into a radical. In fact, your political views are apparently at odds with all that indoctrination that you say goes on in our universities. How do you explain this?

I totally disagree with your comments about engineers. They, like every other college graduate gets a liberal arts education. That's the difference between a college and a trade school. Moreover, I argue that liberal arts education is critical in the development of their professional lives.

Posted by jay on February 12, 2008 at 2:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

spencerr....there are no smoke and mirrors at work here...the more education one receives, the more intelligent a person is...the less likely to be religious and the less likely to vote republican. you can look for the boogeymen and black helicopters in that stat....or you can simply acknowledge a politically inconvenient fact.

rosen has better things to write about than tinfoil hat conspiracy theories based on this moonbat ideas about "indoctrination"

Posted by spencerr on February 12, 2008 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Anderon,

Below is the link to a mines flowchart for one of their degrees. I count twelve elective credits and two PE credits. That is fourteen credits. In contrast, ninety percent of my 120 credits came from liberal arts, mostly English and history classes. Tell me how their exposure to liberal arts is at the same level as mine. That being said, they are smart people, and the ones that are politically motivated may certainly have knowledge in liberal arts subjects that equals or exceeds mine.

My political ideology runs contrary to the attempted indoctrination because I think independantly. I draw on reason and logic that run contrary to the rhetoric force-fed me. That is how come I preach the opposite of what I was supposedly indoctrinated with. I do not give that much credit to the average student, nor in fact, do I give that much credit to myself. It took taking graduate level classes in economics and some independant thinking to drive me away from what I was taught as an undergraduate.

I argue in absolutes because I am a radical conservative who sees everything to the left of center as socialism or a foot in the door of socialism, and stuff that is a little more slightly to the left of the way I think as a "gateway drug" as it were. The analogy stops there of course, because some of my best friends and the smartest people I know are liberals (and some are conservative). I am conservative on other issues besides economics as well, but I am not as radical about them and they are merely peripheral issues to me.

http://www.mines.edu/academic/chemeng...

Posted by John_II on February 12, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jay, to what do you attribute that fact (or supposed fact)?

Posted by anderson on February 12, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

spencerr, I know every college has core requirements involving the liberal arts (including engineers), and that's why it is college and not a trade school. Any college grad know this. If you want to dance around this simple feature of college life, or want to dispute it for god knows what reason, have at it.

Let me see if I understand what you're telling us: college students are indoctrinated (force-fed!) some flawed ideology, but you were able to rise above this because you have reason and logic (presumably lacking in the typical college grad) and because you are an independent thinker. We-ell, aren't you special? And a radical, no less.

Posted by jay on February 12, 2008 at 5:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

i'd be happy to tutor you john, but you can educate yourself easily enough on this one. google religiosity and intelligence for starters and then we'll chat about any questions you have

Posted by John_II on February 12, 2008 at 5:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jay, I do have a question. I asked it at 3:12pm today.

I'm not even asking you to back your assertion with references. I'm simply asking you why you believe the results are what they are? This is not a trick question. I just wanted your opinion on why those vote Republican have less education.

Posted by anderson on February 12, 2008 at 6 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jay, there is no honest way to correlate intelligence with views on religion or political preference. It cannot be proven. It's about as useless as the claim made in la-la, I mean, talk radio land that there is a liberal bias in media. It's the sort of claim that cannot be accurately measured, much less proven (although some have tried).

Posted by John_II on February 13, 2008 at 7:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jay? I see you still do your famous disappearing act when you are questioned.

Posted by spencerr on February 13, 2008 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Anderson, I am not claiming to be special. I qualified my comments by placing comments about myself in parenthesis. I took a leftward turn during college, and now I am back.

Much of the rhetoric that is taught in liberal arts classes is biased left, much more than is biased right. That is my point. It is also my point that it has at least the temporary effect of turning its graduates leftward, with the exception of those who have strong convictions attained from elsewhere.

If I were a teacher in the system (and some liberal and conservative professors do this), I would lay out both sides of the argument and urge the students to write papers, engage in discussions, etc. backing up their own biased points. Being force fed the rhetoric from one side doesn't create good thinking minds. It creates biased minds who are ignorant of the other side until they are exposed to it later.

I don't care if you are a Democrat; all I care about is that as long as you have college exposure, you have made your political choices based on all the facts.

If I were a liberal, I feel that my arguments would be made much stronger if I actually understood and could debunk the other side's point of view or weight my own opinion with facts that make the conservative point of view seem moot. People raising leftist, uneducated rants like jay are worth ignoring. If he understood and even conceded conservative points and then debunked them or trivialized them based on facts, he would be a much more effective
arguer.

I think it is in the best interest of the intellectual health of everyone from both sides if the college professors would take a more neutral approach to teaching.

Rosen can get a little inflammatory about his points, but I think he makes a strong point. Maybe, if he wanted to convince you, he could tone it down a little bit??? I don't know.

I am radically right of center. I admit it.

However, I am also having difficulty understanding your point that some of us on the right make arguments that are absolute, and that not everything is absolute. Throw out an example like abortion, economic system, or another issue that you are interested in.

Again, you don't have to be so nasty with me.

I am arguing, answering your points of contention, etc.. It seems to me that you have to throw in a "screw you you stupid republican baby killer" at the end of anything you write.

Posted by spencerr on February 13, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, and Anderson, I have never debated you that engineering students get no exposure to the liberal arts. My main point there is that it is nearly insignificant. They do not get the exposure that we do, and because of that, it is much closer to a vocational school than to the up-in-the-air assumed definition of a liberal arts education. They might get three credits of Spanish, Geography, English, etc., and I would still argue that, without eighteen to forty credits of Political Science, Economics, Social Studies, to name a few, they do not have the same type of exposure.

I think that the comparison that we on the right think it should become a vocational school is horrible. I was humoring you with my choice of speech. I have been through the equivalent of a vocational school (in the Air Force) and then worked alongside people who graduated university with the same type of training. Their math and science was almost infinitely more extensive than mine. Their level of technical and theoretical understanding, while not necessarily more practical, was more complete. That is the main thing that separates engineers, scientists, and other technical graduates from people with two-year degrees from community colleges and vocational schools, not the presence or absence of the arts.

Posted by spencerr on February 13, 2008 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Also, Anderson,

Here is a great article about dissenters in the (absence of a) debate on global warming. It also makes mention of the media's failure to report on the dissenting side.

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci...

Posted by spencerr on February 13, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Liberal bias in the media, written from a relatively neutral point of view. Enjoy.

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/u...

Posted by jay on February 13, 2008 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think it's pretty clear john. the more education/intelligence one has...the more likely to base their decisions/stances on intelligent, well-reasoned information rather than "gut" choices or belief in the supernatural.

why do you think the smarter among us trend away from conservatism and religion?

Posted by spencerr on February 13, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey, jay,

The retail industry did well last month, and the stock market has been up all week. We're having a good month so far.

Here is an anti-jayism for everyone (sarcastically meant to be as ludicrous as most of the jibberish that comes from jay's own mouth):

Because a republican is in office and the economy has been in an upturn for a week, I am declaring that the recession is over and the republicans are due the credit (in contrast to an argument several weeks ago between jay and Eli where jay stated that the economy is either in or near a recession. The best evidence he could come up with were a handful of articles saying that the chances of a recession were getting higher, not that it was actually here or inevitable.)

Posted by jay on February 13, 2008 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lol...yes....the economy is doing great, spencerrr...evidence to the contrary is just part of the great liberal conspiracy.

the tinfoil hat is a little tight today my friend.

Posted by spencerr on February 13, 2008 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's funny, jay, that you consider yourself in your own definition of smart.

Contrary to anything you have ever written or any (lack of) evidence on which you have ever based one of your assertions, there is intellectual, educated, and informed debate that crosses back and forth between the isles.

Reason is utilized on both sides, and there are just as many people who are Republicans with PhDs as Democrats. Republicans tend to enter the private sector with their knowledge (which does not necessarily equal intelligence) while Democrats tend to stay in academia.

A recent study did come out showing that Democrats read more books for the sake of self-education, but neither does that necessarily mean that Democrats are more intelligent or more educated. It could simply mean that they have more spare time.

Posted by jay on February 13, 2008 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

spencerr...politically/theologically inconvenient facts are still facts. it's like watching a small child on a merry-go-round...we see you constantly coming back to the same dilemna

Posted by spencerr on February 13, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And, jay, you prove my point with your response. You poo poo any evidence (no matter how incomplete) that runs contrary to your views, while you throw your own incomplete evidence in the face of your more intellectual opponents.

You are even arguing right now with a couple of people who are much more liberal than me, and they are proving my point just as well as I am. I get from Anderson that he is probably a little left of center, and greenleaf has mixed beliefs. Anyway, either seems to have beliefs that are more similar to yours than mine, but at least they back up their stuff and make coherent arguments based on something substantial.

Posted by jay on February 13, 2008 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

you've given no evidence whatsoever to support your conspiracy theories, spencerr...and furthermore, i'm not "arguing" with anyone...let alone someone "left of center".

rove would be proud...he's on board with you...

" I think the economy — the media has been beating the drum for years and years and years that the economy stinks. And after a while, that begins to color people’s attitudes."

Posted by spencerr on February 13, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How does your last retribution have anything to do with any of my posts? You just fall back on insults, assuming that everything that comes from that little pea sitting on top of your neck is true. You can't back any of it up. It is simply fact (according to jay).

Posted by spencerr on February 13, 2008 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Read both of my posts on which I included links. Furthermore, how can you simply ignore the positive news today about our economy in the mainstream media after using similar news a month and a half ago to "prove" your point that the economy stinks.

Posted by jay on February 13, 2008 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

again spencerr....it is a fact that the more education or intelligence one possesses the less likely they are to be republican or religious

do you have any questions about that? any confusion about that at all?

Posted by spencerr on February 13, 2008 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I started ignoring you the last time I argued with you. If we were talking in person, you would have your fingers in your ears, yelling "lalalalalalalalalalala" as loud as you can. You just reverted back to a point you failed to defend against Anderson and