http://swopec.hhs.se/ratioi/abs/ratioi0053.htm


Abstract: In Spring 2003, a large-scale survey of American academics was conducted using academic association membership lists from six fields: Anthropology, Economics, History, Philosophy (political and legal), Political Science, and Sociology. This paper focuses on one question: To which political party have the candidates you’ve voted for in the past ten years mostly belonged? The question was answered by 96.4 percent of academic respondents. The results show that the faculty is heavily skewed towards voting Democratic. The most lopsided fields surveyed are Anthropology with a D to R ratio of 30.2 to 1, and Sociology with 28.0 to 1. The least lopsided is Economics with 3.0 to 1. After Economics, the least lopsided is Political Science with 6.7 to 1. The average of the six ratios by field is about 15 to 1. Our analysis and related research suggest that for the the social sciences and humanities overall, a “one-big-pool” ratio of 7 to 1 is a safe lower-bound estimate, and 8 to 1 or 9 to 1 are reasonable point estimates. Thus, the social sciences and humanities are dominated by Democrats. There is little ideological diversity. We discuss Stephen Balch’s “property rights” proposal to help remedy the situation

[Edited on September 14, 2005 at 5:18 PM. Reason : edit]

9/14/2005 5:18:25 PM

I guess it depends on exactly which science courses and which humanities courses are in question. I didn't find the ZO classes I've taken to be any harder, on average, than history or English classes. Hell, there's at least one 400 level ZO class that's as easy as PSY 200.

Of course this is all anecdotal evidence, and the issues involved are very complicated. What easy for one person is hard for another, to name one problem. Socksie, for example, could easily pull his standard trick and convince us that there's no way to figure out anything on the subject.

9/14/2005 5:25:49 PM

Again, conservatives can put up or shut up. This is a non-issue if all they are going to do is bitch and sit around with their collective thumbs up their asses.

Gives Rush/Hannity/Savage something to blather about though so it's all-good in AM radio land.



/conservative talking here.

9/14/2005 5:26:14 PM

i'll buy that it's hard--if not impossible--to conclusively prove anything on that subject.

that said, though, i'm about as sure of my opinion on the matter as i can be of anything that can't be conclusively proved. i think that i, as you say, have it "figured out".

but that doesn't mean anything to anyone who doesn't share my opinion.

9/14/2005 5:28:37 PM

Cool. I figured a capable, assertive male like Keynes would be up to the task.

That paper doesn't cover any sciences, though. I wonder what the ratio would be like there...

EDIT: I can accept, perhaps, that some engineering courses are harder for the vast majority of people. I can't accept that any old science is harder than any old humanity. Especially not math. I find math to be extremely challenging, but some people breeze through it without even thinking. It depends...

[Edited on September 14, 2005 at 5:37 PM. Reason : d]

9/14/2005 5:29:49 PM

Quote :

"Again, conservatives can put up or shut up. This is a non-issue if all they are going to do is bitch and sit around with their collective thumbs up their asses."

Yet if someone says the same about women in the workforce, people like you break out the placards and petitions—in other words, organized bitching.

[Edited on September 14, 2005 at 6:01 PM. Reason : edit]

9/14/2005 5:56:12 PM

^

I don't see where you're coming from with this comparison to "women in the workforce." The premise behind the pro-women, anti-discrimination movement has always been the choice of the matter in who one is. It's not like women (for the most part) can choose not to be women; therefore, if they are discriminated against "en masse" for their gender, there's not much they can do about it.

That's not to advocate any one position on the "gender discrimination" issue, I'm just stating the logic behind the movement.

(on TWW, if you elaborate on a point, you are automatically assumed to have held that position since birth--speaking of "lax standards")

By contrast, political opinions are just that--fluid opinions that people hold.

I don't buy into the "political discrimination" meme that has floated about lately, especially with regards to "bias in academia." Holding a political viewpoint does not warrant any special treatment; nor is bias against a political viewpoint some particular sin. I don't think "conservatives" are a special protected class.

For example: I don't hear too many people complaining that there aren't enough Neo-Nazis in academia. Well, why not? Surely if it's wrong to discriminate against political viewpoints, that must be an unforgivable sin.

At any rate, public universities will be hard-pressed to find people willing to vote against their own interests. No matter what principles one holds, the simple fact is that Democrats are the party of big government, and public universities are a big government institution.

9/14/2005 6:18:38 PM

I'm always amused when I receive the standard "university liberal bias" lecture from people who've never set foot into a classroom without being legally compelled to do so.

9/14/2005 6:26:47 PM

the author of this thread is an idiot

9/14/2005 6:29:44 PM

Quote :

"[Edited on September 14, 2005 at 6:01 PM. Reason : edit]"

Thanks for clearing that up.

Quote :

"No matter what principles one holds, the simple fact is that Democrats are the party of big government, and public universities are a big government institution."

Do you think profs at private schools are more likely to vote for the GOP?

9/14/2005 6:39:45 PM

^

Quote :

"Do you think profs at private schools are more likely to vote for the GOP?"

It's hard to tell. I don't know that many private schools recieve little or no public funding.

9/14/2005 7:42:20 PM

^ Too simplistic. You'd be surprsed to see how many people, say, in EE genuinely favor reduction of the military budget. That being despite the fact that the military is the single largest funder of research in EE.

Basically, professor is an inherently "liberal" profession. You have to be preferring to go through hell to land a job in a more liberal (as in more freedom and independence) environment that pays significantly less than you could get with half your education if only you had different priorities. Many people incorrectly morph their honest and freely chosen disinterest in (large amounts of) money to a "right" to demand the same from everybody else. That's as far as economic liberalism is concerned.

Social liberalism is a result of college professors being generally smart.

[Edited on September 15, 2005 at 12:39 AM. Reason : .]

9/15/2005 12:38:32 AM

Social liberalism is a result of college professors being generally smart. somehow being able to have a "holier than thou" attitude about not having a "holier than thou" attitude.

9/15/2005 1:01:20 AM

those who can't "do", teach

and there's your answer

9/15/2005 1:30:33 AM

Quote :

"those who can't "do", teach"

Wins

9/15/2005 7:32:28 AM

^ Bullshit. I came back from private industry to get a PhD. Why? I want to teach others how not to fuck things up. I can be a hell of alot more effective doing this by combining teaching, research, and service in the field.

Again, go get a PhD and get back to me about how easy it is compared to the "real world."

9/15/2005 9:06:58 AM

I heard tenure is the only thing keeping dipshits like you know who off the streets.

9/15/2005 9:14:25 AM

^^ i don't think he is saying that getting a PhD isn't difficult with respect to the "real world." Rather, I think he's saying that teaching in a university/school setting is easier than the "real world."

9/15/2005 9:16:49 AM

Quote :

"Social liberalism is a result of college professors being generally smart. somehow being able to have a "holier than thou" attitude about not having a "holier than thou" attitude."

Wow, I think that would be a very smart remark if it weren't so fucking stupid. Liberals tend to let othets do what they want _in the social sphere_. The "holier than you attitude" is displayed by those who think their unusual number of teeth and a particular habit of starting words without actually finishing them gives them a right to tell me how to oganize my leisure time, who to marry etc.

9/15/2005 9:20:54 AM

Quote :

" i don't think he is saying that getting a PhD isn't difficult with respect to the "real world." Rather, I think he's saying that teaching in a university/school setting is easier than the "real world.""

And what do you know about "teaching in a University"?

9/15/2005 9:25:44 AM

Quote :

"Basically, professor is an inherently "liberal" profession. You have to be preferring to go through hell to land a job in a more liberal (as in more freedom and independence) environment that pays significantly less than you could get with half your education if only you had different priorities.Many people incorrectly morph their honest and freely chosen disinterest in (large amounts of) money to a "right" to demand the same from everybody else. That's as far as economic liberalism is concerned. Social liberalism is a result of college professors being generally smart. "

i think that there's a lot of truth in the part about fiscal liberalism, and some truth in the part about social liberalism.

9/15/2005 9:31:47 AM

Incidently, I would seriously question the very premise that the bias as far as views on economy is actually present or at least that it is as prominent as some would argue. The implication is that the country is evenly divided into fiscal conservatives and fiscal liberals. That is simply not true. You wouldn't seriously argue that rednecks from Mississippi whose road signs are routinely paid by the freedom haters from Massachusetts know anything about self-reliance, would you? Same applies to the "values" crowd from rural North Carolina. Would they be opposed to tobacco buy-outs? Really? Face it, the majority of the American population is "liberal" when it comes to economy, and it's no wonder this situation is reflected in colleges.

9/15/2005 10:43:30 AM

Teaching is an easy, cushy job with a ton of free time - thats why so many Democrats are teachers.

9/15/2005 11:03:10 AM

Have you ever taught?

9/15/2005 11:04:53 AM

No - but my dad was a high school teacher. He worked an average of 180 days per year.

9/15/2005 11:13:21 AM

Quote :

"GGMon:No - but my dadhero was a high school teacherTexas governor. He worked an average of 180 days per year."

9/15/2005 11:16:55 AM

^ pwnt

^^ I'm sure he was getting tons of money.

9/15/2005 11:34:50 AM

Quote :

"Basically, professor is an inherently "liberal" profession. You have to be preferring to go through hell to land a job in a more liberal (as in more freedom and independence) environment that pays significantly less than you could get with half your education if only you had different priorities. Many people incorrectly morph their honest and freely chosen disinterest in (large amounts of) money to a "right" to demand the same from everybody else. That's as far as economic liberalism is concerned."

well that is a rather positive view of it

I would argue that many professors view their positions as having much more value than what the market sets for them. They see their roles as far more important than that of CEOs and managers yet society rewards CEOs and managers far more in terms of both pay and prestige. As a result of this discrepancy they come to see market economies as inherantly unjust.

[Edited on September 15, 2005 at 11:51 AM. Reason : ]

9/15/2005 11:44:20 AM

pwnt? How the fuck was that pwnt?

Teaching is cushy - that’s why all you bleeding heart liberals take the position. It gives you more time to complain about President Bush and large, "evil" corporations. Also, it allows for high school teachers to brainwash, young and inexperienced children. After reading soap box - it seams they are somewhat successful.

9/15/2005 11:54:42 AM

GG,

Ask any of your profs at this research I institution how cushy their job is. Make a point to ask the tenure-track folks how much time they actually get off between research, writing, lesson planning, teaching, service, and various administrative duties.

Yes, there is flexibility in academe sometimes. That flexibility comes from working your ass off 95% of the other time though.

9/15/2005 12:08:07 PM

Being a former hardcore Republican, who intends to continue to the doctoral level, it becomes apparent that alot of capitalist ideas must be weighed with a bit of socialism. It has been shown that medecine, health care and energy do not have the means within the private sector to manage themselves for the common good. All are posting double digit percentage gains in costs every year, so that even middle class families cannot afford them, while at the same time vastly overcharging the government, who subsidize them.

Liberal policies I believe work more towards a sustainable future on all sides, whereas the Bush era Republicanism is only concerned with economics and consolidating wealth to the few at any price. I think that we have been lured in the past by tales of people who don't have to work because they are on welfare or what not. But the same policies that Republicans have used to hurt the poor are also hurting the middle class. And by cutting the taxes on the richest Americans, who waste ten times more than the rest of us use, we have put the economic burden squarely on our own shoulders. Its reverse Robin Hood, take from the poor and give to the rich. In '08 I'm voting Democrat.

9/15/2005 12:11:11 PM

Quote :

"those who can't "do", teach and there's your answer"

Those who have never taught, use that quote.

9/15/2005 12:57:11 PM

Quote :

"Social liberalism is a result of college professors being generally smart."

I don't think you could get any closer to "holier than thou' aka "we're better than you" statement without actually saying it.

Quote :

"Wow, I think that would be a very smart remark if it weren't so fucking stupid"

bravo!

[Edited on September 15, 2005 at 1:46 PM. Reason : .]

9/15/2005 1:37:51 PM

Quote :

"GG, Ask any of your profs at this research I institution how cushy their job is. Make a point to ask the tenure-track folks how much time they actually get off between research, writing, lesson planning, teaching, service, and various administrative duties. Yes, there is flexibility in academe sometimes. That flexibility comes from working your ass off 95% of the other time though."

Sure - and while I'm at it, I think I will ask the local teamsters union how hard their jobs are. I wonder what they will say??!?!?

9/15/2005 2:10:05 PM

^^^ That's the truth, the people who use this quote have no experience what so ever in teaching. I've never heard anyone that has taught, or that has say gone as far as student teaching in an ed. program, say that teaching was easy, or "those who can't do, teach". Teaching is what they are doing. Look at this university, how many people have teachers that have mastered their field but can't teach it very well? (Engineering students?) I say this university in particular because it's a research institution and there are many professors here that are only interested in research and can't teach very well, they just do it because they have to in order to get funding. If done right teaching is one of the most difficult jobs there are. Take a look at the retention rate in the field, it's one of the lowest over the first 3 years. Could it be because it's very difficult? Accompanied by the fact that teachers are poorly compensated? There are a lot of shitty teachers, could it be because teaching is hard? And/or that since teachers or poorly compensated Ed. programs lowers their standards for admission and except students who aren't so bright. (Not that there aren't smart students in Ed. programs). So now you have some people in the field that honestly aren't the best coupled with the difficulty, are they gonna bust their ass for shitty pay, or are they just gonna lay back and go through the motions (we've all had these teachers i'm sure). And of course since not many people want to teach, no one is going to fire them as long as the kids are passing right, doesn't mean they're learning much but they're passing so school boards are happy. Anyone that has no experience teaching and says "those who can't do teach" is speaking out of ignorance.

9/15/2005 2:11:42 PM

Academic research is hard, time consuming and often thankless work.

9/15/2005 2:12:21 PM

Quote :

"Sure - and while I'm at it, I think I will ask the local teamsters union how hard their jobs are. I wonder what they will say??!?!?"

Obviously most people are gonna defend their job, so why ask such a dumb ass question. Ask them specifics. Talk to some students who are currently student teaching or have. Ask them what happened to their social life, ask them how long their work days were, what time they were up in the morning, what time they went to bed, and what everything inbetween consisted of. And there are bad teachers... many of them. But try to find some good teachers and talk to them. Teachers have to have both their content, and the field of education mastered.

[Edited on September 15, 2005 at 2:19 PM. Reason : spelling]

9/15/2005 2:18:25 PM

Quote :

"Obviously most people are gonna defend their job, so why ask such a dumb ass question."

You got it.

9/15/2005 2:19:24 PM

Apparently, you didn't. You don't know shit about what the job of a University professor entails, yet you pretend to be the authority. How TGD of you!

9/15/2005 2:39:29 PM

Quote :

"Obviously most people are gonna defend their job"

So Mathfreak, how many classes are you teaching this year?

9/15/2005 2:41:57 PM

Quote :

"It has been shown that medecine, health care and energy do not have the means within the private sector to manage themselves for the common good. All are posting double digit percentage gains in costs every year, so that even middle class families cannot afford them, while at the same time vastly overcharging the government, who subsidize them."

Yes, regulation is helpful to prevent such problems as fleecing, but regulation is a FAR cry from gov't run medicine and energy. Because honestly, if they are overcharging the gov't right now, imagine how much worse it would be when the gov't with its big fat porky hand gets in there and runs it... The answer isn't "complete gov't control," but "more gov't 'oversight.'" And besides, you haven't proven two other important things: first that healthcare, medicine, and energy are inalienable rights, and second, that the increase in prices is the fault of conservative principles alone. At the very least, you must show the second in order to suggest that liberal policies are necessary, or even a possible solution.

Quote :

"Take a look at the retention rate in the field, it's one of the lowest over the first 3 years. Could it be because it's very difficult?"

Or, could it instead be that teachers are treated like CRAP? And then not paid well on top of it, as you pointed out... My mother, who has a huge passion for teaching, taught in the MD schools for around 10 years. Due to sexism, when she moved to greensboro, she couldn't get a teaching job, so she looked elsewhere and did other things. A few years ago she tried to get back into teaching, and she had NO trouble whatsoever getting recertified, but the children themselves were little monsters. AND, the administration didn't give a fuck. Thus, she quit after 2 years. And that case is the case of a qualified and excellent teacher. Imagine how much worse it would be for a new teacher fresh out of college? Thus, the retention rate is not low due to difficulty, but rather shitty working conditions.

Quote :

"Anyone that has no experience teaching and says "those who can't do teach" is speaking out of ignorance."

actually, you are right, but only because the saying needs to be updated to:
"Those who can't, teach, but only if they can stand little monsters"

Quote :

"But the same policies that Republicans have used to hurt the poor are also hurting the middle class."

The only thing about traditional conservative values that "hurts the poor" is that conservatives believe you out to fucking work for your money and actually earn an education. If that "hurts the poor," then thats too bad.

Quote :

"Have you ever taught?"

Why yes, yes I have. I've taught three classes here at NCSU, in fact, so that beats your other question about the "university." And it was EAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASY. Much easier than scrubbing toilets or painting the side of a house in the hot sun... Hell, professors hardly even do the HARD stuff of teaching anymore, namely grading papers. Hell, some of them don't even design the homework anymore either! The life of a university teacher is ten times easier than the life of a public school teacher, though, so I will give the public school teachers that...

Quote :

"Social liberalism is a result of college professors being generally smart."

WRONG. It is a correllation and nothing more. If I wanted to be a douche religious conservative, I would argue that since the universities are so liberally biased, and education makes you smart, that it makes sense that being "smart" would tend to make you liberal, because you were exposed to so much liberal brainwashing. Unfortunately, that argument assumes that universities must have always been liberal, and it fails to explain why they became liberal.

In fact, I think the correllation is more likely to be based on the fact that higher education, in general, requests students to do more critical thinking. Such a thing, then, might likely translate over into their political views, as they apply the notion of critical thinking to their opinions, whether intentionally or not... Only, I can't exactly see why critical thinking itself would lead someone to be more liberal. If anything, it should make someone move towards or away from the middle the political spectrum, after having chosen a "side." Certainly, critical thinking could influence someone to pick the other side, as well, but I don't see a reason for it to then make that person more liberal or less liberal within that side... I suppose that if, in the context of doing more critical thinking, someone was exposed to enough liberal ideology, that that could have an effect, as well, but still...

Of course, it also tends to depend on what you mean by "smart." If you mean "smart" as in "having higher degrees," then I'd have to say that the above statistics prove you wrong, as they are fairly balanced, if not swaying more to the conservative side... If by "smart" you mean "more critical thinking," then see my above reference to critical thinking in general. If by "smart" you mean "general intelligence," then I'd have to say there is little correllation between intelligence and liberality, so you can't be right on that, either...

9/15/2005 3:51:23 PM

Quote :

"Why yes, yes I have. I've taught three classes here at NCSU, in fact, so that beats your other question about the "university." And it was EAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASY. Much easier than scrubbing toilets or painting the side of a house in the hot sun... Hell, professors hardly even do the HARD stuff of teaching anymore, namely grading papers. Hell, some of them don't even design the homework anymore either! The life of a university teacher is ten times easier than the life of a public school teacher, though, so I will give the public school teachers that..."

Here's another question for you. When a professor goes up for a tenure review, what weight is assigned to teaching?

Quote :

"I don't think you could get any closer to "holier than thou' aka "we're better than you" statement without actually saying it."

Well, I'm sorry that I haven't taken the relativistic approach of saying: "Sure, somebody who went through a Ph.D. school, probably a couple of postdoctoral positions and got a job at a place with the average competition 1:200 last year is a moron for all we know."


Nah, I'm really not.

[Edited on September 15, 2005 at 4:41 PM. Reason : .]

9/15/2005 4:39:00 PM

What is GGMon's job?

9/15/2005 4:51:24 PM

Quote :

"You have to be preferring to go through hell to land a job in a more liberal (as in more freedom and independence) environment that pays significantly less than you could get with half your education if only you had different priorities."

You know, thats NOT economically liberal. It has NOTHING TO DO w/ economic principles. it has everything to do w/ social liberalism, as in "money isn't a concern." Whether or not money is important to you plays no part in economic liberalism. Or, maybe its that you have to be pretty fucking naive to look at economics with the principle that money doesn't matter...

And, ironically, you totally prove our point that teaching is easier when you say "more freedom and more independence." AKA, EASIER.

Quote :

"Sure, somebody who went through a Ph.D. school, probably a couple of postdoctoral positions and got a job at a place with the average competition 1:200 last year"

well, if the other 199 people are morons, what does that say about the person who got the job? and again, you are trying to say that there is something special about someone w/ a PhD as opposed to someone who doesn't. If that aint "holier than though," then I don't know what is!

9/15/2005 5:06:51 PM

Quote :

"And, ironically, you totally prove our point that teaching is easier when you say "more freedom and more independence." AKA, EASIER."

Ironically, you don't know shit. Oh, wait, it's the norm. It's not ironic.

Quote :

"Here's another question for you. When a professor goes up for a tenure review, what weight is assigned to teaching?"

Answer this or shut the fuck up.

P.S.

Quote :

" and again, you are trying to say that there is something special about someone w/ a PhD as opposed to someone who doesn't."

God, are you a moron! Yes, I am. What in the fucking fuck did you expect? That I would say that getting a Ph.D. results in a zero of added value? Is that what you are trying to say?

[Edited on September 15, 2005 at 5:13 PM. Reason : .]

9/15/2005 5:11:12 PM

why? That says nothing about the difficulty of TEACHING. it just says that the bullshit university policy doesn't value TEACHING in a TEACHER.

Quote :

"Ironically, you don't know shit."

wow, way to attack my claim instead of me...

9/15/2005 5:12:25 PM

Quote :

"why? That says nothing about the difficulty of TEACHING. it just says that the bullshit university policy doesn't value TEACHING in a TEACHER."

First of all, you still don't know shit about teaching.

Secondly, nobody was fucking talking about "the difficulty of teaching". The claim was that the life of "teachers" at a University is easy. Which you assumed was the same thing. Because you're a fucking moron. Because it isn't.

Quote :

"Ironically, you don't know shit. Oh, wait, it's the norm. It's not ironic."

9/15/2005 5:16:47 PM

Quote :

"Rather, I think he's saying that teaching in a university/school setting is easier than the "real world.""

and you mean to tell me that no one said that teaching is easy? CAUSE I'M PRETTY GOD DAMNED SURE I FUCKING SAID IT WAS!!!

even still, I'll play along with your "life of teachers is the argument" and say this:

if you are instead arguing that the "life is not easy," then tell me how that jives with your statement of "more freedom and independence." If that doesn't make the life easy, then I don't know what does! WHEEE! MORE FREEDOM! YAAAAAAAAY! No boss breathing down my neck every five minutes... WHEEEEEE! MAN that life is hard...

9/15/2005 5:20:33 PM

Quote :

"Social liberalism is a result of college professors being generally smart."

I hear this often, or at least something similar to it: in effect, if a professor is smart then he will probably be liberal (as if there is any difference between American liberalism and “Social liberalism”)

Naturally then, fields with fewer liberals should have fewer intelligent professors. Compare sociology (which is 3.4% conservative) to economics (which is 25% conservative). Sociologists should be smarter on average.

So let’s look at GRE Scores. As of 2002, the breakdown for sociology was: V-507, Q-540, A-566. For economics, it was: V-526, Q-698, A-633. That’s nearly 250 point difference. For total score, economics was greater than any other field in the humanities or social sciences. The same can be said for the quantitative and analytical portions of the test. The only fields with higher total scores were physics, mathematics, and computer science.

So oddly enough the field in the humanities and social sciences with the highest percentage of conservatives also tends to attract the brightest individuals.

http://www.econphd.net/guide.htm

Moreover, economics is currently the premier social science, regardless of how painful that is to admit. Whether it’s the statistical methods or decision theory, other social sciences borrow heavily from economics. So again we have it: the field in the humanities with the most conservatives also consists of the best and brightest.

Quote :

" I don't see where you're coming from with this comparison to "women in the workforce." The premise behind the pro-women, anti-discrimination movement has always been the choice of the matter in who one is. It's not like women (for the most part) can choose not to be women; therefore, if they are discriminated against "en masse" for their gender, there's not much they can do about it. "

I was speaking under the assumption that many women don’t achieve management positions for the same reason they don’t study science and math and for the same reason conservatives tend not to be anthropologists— they choose not to.

Quote :

" For example: I don't hear too many people complaining that there aren't enough Neo-Nazis in academia. Well, why not? Surely if it's wrong to discriminate against political viewpoints, that must be an unforgivable sin."

Speaking of Nazis…

As a funny tangent, it should be noted that Fascism was an intellectual movement, which came to prominence in the humanities departments of European universities. It was a product of European intellectuals. You’re right though; there aren’t many Nazis today in academia. But go back to a French university in the early 1900’s, and Fascists would be quite common—about as common as vocal liberals today. Being anti-democratic was en-vogue. The thinking was that warrior philosophers (the fascists) should rule and enlighten the masses. Some of the greatest minds of the day bought into this crap.

Then after Fascism revealed its depravity, communism became en vogue. European scholars lined up to defend socialism and proclaim the revolution. That ended in a predictable manner.

Despite all the time spent in university, the political philosophy offered by academics (particularly in the humanities) is often piss-poor—like marriage advice offered by an eight-year old. Liberalism isn’t some innate attribute of intellectuals in the humanities; it’s simply another intellectual fashion. In other times it was nationalism, socialism, or fascism. That’s the key word too: fashion—something whimsical and intellectually vacuous—something like a slap bracelet or maybe a hula-hoop.

[Edited on September 15, 2005 at 5:33 PM. Reason : edit]

9/15/2005 5:30:03 PM

Quote :

"For example: I don't hear too many people complaining that there aren't enough Neo-Nazis in academia. Well, why not? Surely if it's wrong to discriminate against political viewpoints, that must be an unforgivable sin."

Yay, I LOVE that logic. Its typical logic of one who argues for "diversity." WHAT? THERES NO BLACKS? OMFG GET MORE BLACKS IN THERE!!! In this case, its not that Neo-Nazis are being discriminated against, but rather that they don't exist in enough numbers to make themselves present in large numbers in academia. IF there were discrimination in academia against Neo-Nazis, then that would be wrong. Unfortunately, the only you have shown is that they don't exist in academia, not that they are prevented from existing in academia.

Plus, simple economics would also dictate why there are not many neo-nazis in teaching professions: their viewpoint is not in demand. Thus, it would not be sought by universities as a desirable quality in a professor. Thus, neo-nazis would exist in academia in a concentration at or below their concentration in the general public.

9/15/2005 5:40:28 PM