Why are Universities dominated by the Left?

[Makalakumu]

Check out this website and let us know if you agree or disagree. Why?

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1077342/posts

My quick opinion is that the site looks like a guy who is whining about why he doesn't have any smart conservative friends.

upnorthkyosa

 

[TonyM.]

He's obviously never been to Dartmouth where the men are men and the livestock are frightened.
A sample school song presented to the dean at Dartmouth med school graduation dinner.
"We're super phalic facist racist sexist h o m o phobics, our daddies are all millionaires our mommies take aerobics. Super phalic facist racist sexist h o m o phobics.)

 

[Touch Of Death]

Check out this website and let us know if you agree or disagree. Why?

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1077342/posts

My quick opinion is that the site looks like a guy who is whining about why he doesn't have any smart conservative friends.

upnorthkyosa

Didn't Hitler start out spouting crap like this? This guy sounds like a man who grew up as a kid listening to his parents tell him his teachers were stupid. The whole thesis is loaded with terms that drip with hate. In fact the whole thing stinks.

A couple of points he made has proven to me that this guy is a few bricks short: punishment detours crime. That is a crock; because we have more prisons than any nation and will be sporting the prison system as our largest gross national product in the very near future. With all the people we are punishing, you would think crime would be non-existant. One man's punishment is another man's oppression, it just depends on who's holding the whip.
Intellectuals are nerds who couldn't play sports or find social acceptance. Again this sounds hatefull to say the least. Sounds a lot like saying femenism is for ugly chicks; which, I am sure he will say in his next dissertation.

Sean

 

[heretic888]

Well, it *is* true that most Western (not just American) universities are, on the whole, predominantly liberal-oriented. Now, this isn't necessarily a bad thing --- but it is true.

My guess is due to the nature of the institution (higher education generally promotes free-thinking and questioning accepted ways of doing things), as well as the idealism (some would say narcissism) of the young.

Hey, but this is nothing new. We all know these "factions" have their own little "cliques" in various parts of the culture: conservatives have talk radio, Fox News, and most of the governmental positions of import.... liberals have most other news networks (i.e., "the media") and most of the schools.

*shrugs* Watchah gonna do??

I'll admit though that that article was full of half-minded idiocy, polemic, and aggression. Biased, to say the very least.

Laterz.

 

[someguy]

Why do so many people use theory when hypothesis is a better word. Never mind thats just a little thing thats beginning to drive me crazy.
He must not be livin down here in the bible belt. I go to a LIBERAL arts college. Most people here are christians and do not think that"traditional religious belief, especially of the Christian sort, rests on ignorance of modern scientific advances, cannot today be rationally justified, and persists on nothing more than wishful thinking"
"Western civilization is uniquely oppressive, especially to women and "people of color," and that its products are spiritually inferior to those of non-Western cultures" eh sort of not really.
AS for captialism and socialism yeah right how many of my classes here have basically said capitalism good socialism bad. Politics and society, Phillosophy, are the only two this semster.
My experience probably are different than some peoples.

 

[heretic888]

Hrmmmm.... well, ultimately, it does depend on what school you go to (with the region of the country being a BIG factor here).

But, it is more or less correct --- as a *generalization* --- that the majority of public universities in the West are liberally-oriented. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is a common trend.

Then again, it also depends on what kind of educational program you go into: the liberal "bias" might be more readily apparent in a humanities program than in a "hard science" program.

 

[Ender]

*L...well I can't say what the guy is saying is completely wrong. But it's easy to try to label someone who doesn't agree with you as a whacko or "Hitler in training". Yes the colleges and universities have become increasing liberal since the mid to late 60's. So much of the "General Ed" classes I had to take were more based on opinion or point of view. And I can truly say the none of these classes actully took "cause and effect" in account when the lecture was presented.

I've had several professors blame all the worlds ills on the United States or on male dominance. Poverty, Greed, War, Hunger, Disease in even the remotest parts of the world are the fault of the US. No logic, No analysis or no look at the real causes of these problems, just blame the US. Any classes that don't involve math or the hard sciences should really be taken with a good dose of skepticism or with the full knowledge that the material is open to interpretation.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, are there such things as poor teachers in colleges? Sure, and in my considerable experience they come from all parts of the political spectrum.

I wish that colleges and universties were indeed, "dominated by the left." They are not, and never have been. If they're dominated by anything today, it is by business, by money, and (to some extent) by the military. You could look that up, but nah, why bother?

The problem that a lot of people have is that for all their problems, colleges and universities very often do a good job of exactly vhat they're zupposed to be doing, which is to educate students. Often--not enough, in my professional opinion, but often--this means that students learn something about the silly blindness, bias and stupidity they were taught from childhood.

For example, some historians actually teach Western history/American history. All of it. Since these involved a lot of murdering, pillaging, looting and assorted crappy behavior on the parts of white guys and Christians, since the victims were often what are euphemistically called, "people of color," some folks get upset. I guess reality isn't very fashionable.

Are there irresponsible--and worse, dumb and uneducated--leftists in colleges and universities? Sure. Are there irresponsible--and worse, dumb and uneducated--rightists in colleges and universities? Sure.

Most of this nonsense comes out of Republican political campaigns, like Reagan's running for governor in California. For other right-wing politicking on the subject, see: D'Souza, "Ill-Liberal Education," and Charles what's-'is-name's, "Profscam," or George Gilder's hilarious books, or any issue of, "American Spectator."

But for a good book on the subject, I recommend Richard Ohmann, "English in America." Much better scholarship and discussion.

 

[heretic888]

While there is a great deal of truth to what Robert says, particularly in regards to the Republican politicking tactics, the truth still remains that many (perhaps most) public universities in the West (not just America, folks) are indeed "dominated" by "the Left".

Sure, its a generalization. Never said otherwise.

And, sure, it ultimately depends on what school you go to, where said school is located, and even the program you get yourself into. Never said otherwise.

But, as before, its just a generalization --- an observable trend. Nothing more.

I believe the basis for a lot of these claims come from the "cultural elite" in the West --- you know, the guys (and gals) writing and speaking about stuff like politics, philosophy, ideology, culture, social theory, interracial issues, literature, art, history, and so on.

In other words, the humanities (you're not gonna hear too many engineering or biology professors ranting about social issues or the like). The humanities of the West are, without doubt, liberally oriented. Not saying that's necessarily a bad thing (nor am I saying its a good thing, either). But, that is the way it is. Right now, anyways.

For a really good exposition on such trends (not just in universities, but in the culture at large), written in an entertaining (and pseudo-fictional) format, I would suggest Ken Wilber's "Boomeritis". A real eye-opener.

Laterz.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Ah. You really mean to say that colleges and universities are presently dominated by middle-class baby-boomers. Pretty much true. Problem is, you're associating their class-and-history based---elitism?--with a left-wing political view.

Only on the surface, only on the surface. It's like Buddhism lite---all the maundering, and no meat beneath the skin....they might teach Marx, but they still won't see why the janitors should go out on strike for decent health care when their office needs cleaning.

Problem is, too, that these, "leftists," share something fundamental with their opposition: privilege.

 

[bdparsons]

Problem is, too, that these, "leftists," share something fundamental with their opposition: privilege.

Ah Robert... my left-leaning Kenpo brother! I do believe you've hit the proverbial nail on the head. Those that haven't got want, and those that have want to keep.

There once was speculation that a conservative was just a liberal who had gotten mugged. Wonder if there's any truth to that?? :boing2:

Have a terrific weekend.

Respects,
Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute

 

[rmcrobertson]

Ey, I believe that's, "Dr. Communist Rat-Bastard," to you.

Thanks, and have a great Easter holiday, Mr. Parsons.

 

[heretic888]

Ah. You really mean to say that colleges and universities are presently dominated by middle-class baby-boomers.

Errr.... sorta. The title to Wilber's book is, in a sense, a little misleading as 'boomeritis' refers more to certain cultural/social trends in the West rather than strict generationalism.

You honestly would have to read the book. It explains the issue much better than I ever could.

Problem is, you're associating their class-and-history based---elitism?--

I said "cultural elite". I did not say their views were "elitist".

The "cultural elite" are the cultural policy-makers, the ones that greatly influence not only how the current generation sees the world, but trends in music, art, historical criticism, literature, politics, and the like.

Only on the surface, only on the surface. It's like Buddhism lite---all the maundering, and no meat beneath the skin....they might teach Marx, but they still won't see why the janitors should go out on strike for decent health care when their office needs cleaning.

What you are saying sounds more like a lack of extremism or, if you want to be mean, a lack of conviction. These sounds like differences of degree rather than type, and don't seem to really contradict anything I said.

After all, Foucalt and Derrida are as "liberal" as they come, writing extensively about the virtues of postmodernism, relativism, and deconstructionism --- yet, neither of them ever refused the paychecks that their ethnocentric, patriarchal, imperialistic society gave to them. :asian:

Then again, I suppose it ultimately depends on what your definition of "liberalism" is in the first place (although I realize with this rather relativistic statement, I myself am being quite "liberal" :uhyeah: ).

Laterz.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, that post further reinforces my point: y'awl got capitalism and ideology tangled up together. And neither Foucault (dead, now) nor Derrida are classifiable as "liberal," in any meaningful sense. Nor are, "post-modernism," and, "deconstruction," liberal philosophies, nor strictly speaking philosophies at all: the former, where it is not chic style, refers to a discussion of the collapse of the history that legitimated terms such as, "liberal," and the latter involves a particular approach to language and the underlying assumptions of Western philosophy. Want the references?

Again: much of the complaining about universities being full of libs and lefties is a translation of class-based ressentiment.

 

[heretic888]

Well, that post further reinforces my point: y'awl got capitalism and ideology tangled up together. And neither Foucault (dead, now) nor Derrida are classifiable as "liberal," in any meaningful sense. Nor are, "post-modernism," and, "deconstruction," liberal philosophies, nor strictly speaking philosophies at all: the former, where it is not chic style, refers to a discussion of the collapse of the history that legitimated terms such as, "liberal," and the latter involves a particular approach to language and the underlying assumptions of Western philosophy.

Heh. Depends on your definition of "liberal". :uhyeah:

One of the interesting things that Wilber acknowledges in his books are the dilineation between what could be called "vertical liberalism" (seen in a developmental process model) and "horizontal liberalism" (seen more as a different emphasis of the same 'level' of development).

'Vertical liberalism' seems to refer to the levels of development regarded as the formal-operational and post-formal modes of consciousness within developmental psychology (in Clare and Graves' Spiral Dynamics system, these are associated with the orange and green memes) --- with 'vertical conservatism' being more associated with the concrete-operational mode. 'Horizontal liberalism' seems to refer to the emphasis (or overemphasis as some would say) of external factors as the cause and solution of human problems (i.e., its society's fault not yours, so we need affirmative action, medicare, external social reforms, etc), with 'horizontal conservatism' associated with a focus on internal factors (i.e., you're poor because you're lazy and need to work harder, borgeouis values, good work ethic, personal conviction, etc).

Just some things to think about. :uhyeah:

In general, however, things like relativism, multiculturalism, pluralism, and the like (all generally associated with postmoderism and deconstructionism) are usually identified with "liberal" philosophies. That's the popular understanding, anyway.

Laterz. :asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, in response: nope. Indeed, fiddlesticks.

In the first place, the source you're using has confused needlessly-complex terminology with intellectual discussion. "Spiral Dynamics?" The, "orange and green memes?"

Moreover, at least as you've cited it, this is simply a ripoff of Cornel West's arguments about liberals and conservatives in "Race Matters," translated into far more-tortured terms.

Yep, I agree, all them pointy-head intellectuals look alike. To people who aren't familiar with the real deals. But since I assume you actually know what you're talking about, I'm not sure I understand why you're collapsing very different sets of ideas together in such a fashion.

I looked up this Ken Wilber guy....you're not taking that stuff seriously, are you? I mean, c'mahn: "Ken Wilber is the author of over a dozen books, including Sex, Ecology, Spirituality; The Spectrum of Consciousness; Up from Eden; and Grace and Grit. The Spectrum of Consciousness, written when he was twenty-three years old, established him as perhaps the most comprehensive philosophical thinker of our times. Credited with developing a unified field theory of consciousness—a synthesis and interpretation of the world's great psychological, philosophical, and spiritual traditions—Ken Wilber is the most cogent and penetrating voice in the recent emergence of a uniquely American wisdom."

Looks like the intellectual equivalent of Ashida Kim to me.

 

[heretic888]

Well, in response: nope. Indeed, fiddlesticks.

Ummm..... ok. :idunno:

In the first place, the source you're using has confused needlessly-complex terminology with intellectual discussion. "Spiral Dynamics?" The, "orange and green memes?"

It was an example of one of the several theoretical models found within developmental psychology. And, its not very complex at all (nor "intellectually deprived" as you somewhat ignorantly implied) if you bother to listen to what the theorists (Clare and Graves) have to say.

Then again, based on your later condemnation of Ken Wilber also (another theorist you seem to know practically nothing about yet feel perfectly authorized into labeling as the "intellectual Ashida Kim"), you seem to have some personal problem with varying viewpoints. A shame, really.

Moreover, at least as you've cited it, this is simply a ripoff of Cornel West's arguments about liberals and conservatives in "Race Matters," translated into far more-tortured terms.

I'm unfamiliar with the source you cited, so I can't really comment on that (some advice you may want to take into account when discussing Wilber and Clare/Graves in the future).

The particular terms were my own, although the definitions are used within Wilber's books from time to time. And, by no means does he ever claim they are original to him --- he in fact cites various theorists and writers that use similar definitions of conservatism and liberalism.

Yep, I agree, all them pointy-head intellectuals look alike. To people who aren't familiar with the real deals. But since I assume you actually know what you're talking about, I'm not sure I understand why you're collapsing very different sets of ideas together in such a fashion.

You would have to be a little less vague here for me to answer your querry.

I looked up this Ken Wilber guy....you're not taking that stuff seriously, are you? I mean, c'mahn: "Ken Wilber is the author of over a dozen books, including Sex, Ecology, Spirituality; The Spectrum of Consciousness; Up from Eden; and Grace and Grit. The Spectrum of Consciousness, written when he was twenty-three years old, established him as perhaps the most comprehensive philosophical thinker of our times. Credited with developing a unified field theory of consciousness—a synthesis and interpretation of the world's great psychological, philosophical, and spiritual traditions—Ken Wilber is the most cogent and penetrating voice in the recent emergence of a uniquely American wisdom."

Looks like the intellectual equivalent of Ashida Kim to me.

Yes, I do take his work seriously. Namely, because I -- unlike yourself --- have bothered to actually read his works and make an informed opinion about what he writes. You know, as opposed to making somewhat ignorant generalizations based on nothing more than a paragraph that he did not write and the names of some of his book titles (most of which have a very specific context).

I'm sorry, Robert, but your willingness to condemn writers whom you are *completely* unfamiliar with is rather repugnant behavior in my opinion. It is somewhat reminiscent of many fundamentlist arguments against the theory of evolution --- in which they condemn the conclusion as completely in error, but know (and say) nothing about the evidence from which said conclusions arise.

A shame. :shrug:

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, I confess being so put off by your initial quotes that I posted, checked some websites just in case, and edited the original a coupla minutes later. So be as repugnated as you like: it's still pseudo-intellectual quackery.

For those who aren't familiar (because out of good sense or good taste they don't bother with this stuff) genuine intellectuals simply don't write this way, and they also simply don't have these sorts of silly pufferies written about them, accompanied by steely-eyed publicity stills of the, "most cogent and penetrating voice," his own self.

Similarly, beware of martial artists with twenty-eleven black belts, who have been enlightened gifts to the rest of us since they were twenty-three, or eleven, or six or whatever. But I strongly recommend checking out the various websites devoted to this Ken Wilber character, and deciding for yourself.

"Developmental psychology," my left...ear. If you want to read reputable stuff in developmental, my advice is go back to Piaget, or try somebody recent such as Elizabeth Bates, who's very smart. But don't settle for this sort of guff.

It's funny that you're unacquainted with Cornel West, who's really very well known, and whose "Race Matters"--the book that Mr. Wilber appears to be ripping off for his account of the libs vs. conservatives dead-end discussion--was on the "Times," and other best-seller lists about, oh, six or seven years ago now. He's probably as well known an intellectual commentator on such issues as there is--you know, "Nightline," "Charlie Rose," etc. etc. etc. Beyond his considerable writing on such subjects and his work on Bill-Bradley's ill-fated Presidential campaign, he can be seen as, "Councellor West," on the disastrous last, "Matrix," movie. Still, he's pretty smart, and he certainly is the real deal, even if I personally find his writing a bit pontifical for my taste.

I agree that it would be better if I slowly--and it would be slowly--waded through all of Mr. Wilber's books. But I 've seen this sort of stuff before, and well, life is short. I admit I'll probably look up his essay on Habermas--always fun to see someone wade in completely over their head--but that's it. Hell, I still haven't gotten around to Hobsbawm's, "Age of Revolution," and it's sitting about 18 inches from my keyboard.

"The most cogent and penetrating voice in the recent emergence of a uniquely American wisdom," my foot. My advice is run screaming from such, "wisdom," and for that matter from anybody who comes at you with such a phrase...and especially avoid taking any Kool-Aid from them....but hey, your privilege, I'll pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Given the theme of this thread, what was Mr. Wilber's university affiliation again?

 

[8253]

the guy in that link sounds like a nazi or a communist BAD MONKEY NO BANNANA

 

[heretic888]

So be as repugnated as you like: it's still pseudo-intellectual quackery.

According to someone who has yet to read a single Ken Wilber book, and is clearly completely unfamiliar with his writings. I doubt you could tell me a single major component of Ken Wilber's entire theoretical system. Not a one.

Ok, so you went to a couple of websites and went by what other people told you about Ken Wilber's writings. Secondary source, anyone??

Uninformed opinions are always that --- uninformed.

For those who aren't familiar (because out of good sense or good taste they don't bother with this stuff) genuine intellectuals simply don't write this way, and they also simply don't have these sorts of silly pufferies written about them, accompanied by steely-eyed publicity stills of the, "most cogent and penetrating voice," his own self.

Once again, Ken Wilber didn't write any of that. An editor from Shambala Publications did.

But this still brings to light your major problem here, Robert. Namely, that you feel authorized and justified to make condemning generalizations about Wilber based on nothing more than a publication blurb (which, again, he did not write) and the names of some of his book titles --- while being completely ignorant about any of the elements of his theoretical system.

In other words, your major (and only) argument against Wilber is his book company's means of self-publication --- and absolutely nothing to do with his theoretical system (which you are apparently completely ignorant of).

"Real intellectuals"?? Gawd, this smells of such elitism... I would think a "real intellectual" would be rational and look at the man's theories and not making ignorant generalizations based on a publication blurb.

Uninformed opinions are always that --- uninformed.

But I strongly recommend checking out the various websites devoted to this Ken Wilber character, and deciding for yourself.

I did something better --- I actually read his books. You know, instead of listening to what secondary sources had to say about him, I went to the source itself.

You know, I developed.... an informed opinion?? :uhyeah:

"Developmental psychology," my left...ear. If you want to read reputable stuff in developmental, my advice is go back to Piaget

This might be a shock, oh uninformed one, but Wilber references and cites Piaget numerous times throughout his works --- as well as various other developmental psychologists, such as Abraham Maslow and Carol Gilligan (even mentions Freud every now and then).

But don't settle for this sort of guff.

Oh, but do settle for uninformed opinions derived from secondary sources. Please do. :shrug:

It's funny that you're unacquainted with Cornel West, who's really very well known, and whose "Race Matters"--the book that Mr. Wilber appears to be ripping off for his account of the libs vs. conservatives dead-end discussion

"Ripping off" implies that Wilber claims the ideas are original to him. He does not. Of course, you wouldn't know that as you haven't bothered to read anything he's written.

And, as a side note, Wilber has been positing the externalist vs internalist position on liberals/conservatives since 1981, with "Up From Eden." Of course, once again, you wouldn't know that as you haven't bothered to read anything he's written.

An uninformed opinion is just that --- uninformed.

I agree that it would be better if I slowly--and it would be slowly--waded through all of Mr. Wilber's books. But I 've seen this sort of stuff before, and well, life is short.

Its funny how someone so utterly ignorant of the man's entire theoretical system can conveniently label him in a group, as with the title "this sort of stuff". Then again, I guess this group is "everything Robert doesn't like even though he hasn't read it yet --- but still KNOWS he doesn't like it anyway".

An uninformed opinion is always that --- uninformed.

"The most cogent and penetrating voice in the recent emergence of a uniquely American wisdom," my foot. My advice is run screaming from such, "wisdom," and for that matter from anybody who comes at you with such a phrase...and especially avoid taking any Kool-Aid from them....but hey, your privilege, I'll pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Once again, not a single utterance of a single factor found withing the man's theoretical system. Only more secondary-source polemic derived from nothing more than a publication blurb.

An uninformed opinion is always that --- uninformed.

Given the theme of this thread, what was Mr. Wilber's university affiliation again?

None that I'm aware of. He's a writer, not a professor, and his books are (usually) published by Shambala. He did, however, help found some institute or some such thing --- but the name eludes me at the moment.

Well, we've waded through Robert's entire post here. And, as expected, he has not once presented a critique of any facet of Wilber's theoretical system --- only referencing the same publication blurb over and over (such blurbs are fairly common among Shambala Publications).

To all others interested in Wilber, I would suggest actually reading one or more of his books (or essays, which are available online). Don't settle for secondary sources and hearsay.

Because, after all, an uninformed opinion is just that --- uninformed. Laterz.