Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Dennis Prager :: Townhall.com Columnist
Before Sending Your Child to a College, Ask these Questions
by Dennis Prager
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Before you take out a second mortgage or otherwise deplete your savings in order to pay for your child's college education, you might want to ask the colleges to which your child is applying some questions.

1. Can one obtain a Bachelor of Arts degree at your college without having read a single Shakespeare play, one Federalist Paper or one book of the Bible?

If so, why attend such a college?

2. Does the college allow military recruiters on its campus?

Before being threatened by Congress with a cutoff of federal funds, many colleges denied military recruiters access to their campus. They did so either because of their hostility to military in general or specific hostility to the war in Iraq, or because of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gays. If you believe, as reason and history argue, that the American military has done more to preserve liberty on earth than all the professors in all the universities combined, you might not want to send your child to a university that is hostile to the military.

3. In the political science, English, sociology, anthropology and history departments -- or any other liberal arts department -- what is the ratio of Democrats to Republicans among the professors?

Over 10 years ago, the Rocky Mountain News reported that registered Democrats on the faculty of the University of Colorado at Boulder outnumbered registered Republicans 31-1. If such a ratio exists in the social science departments of your child's prospective college, why would you want your child to attend such an institution?

4. What are the names of the speakers invited and paid with college funds to speak last year at the college?

Just ask to see the previous year's speakers list. Colleges set aside funds for visiting speakers. One would assume that a good college seeks to encourage thinking and to that end invites speakers throughout the political spectrum. If your prospective college has a speakers list that is balanced 10 to one in favor of speakers from the political left, that will help you decide whether indoctrination rather than exposure to great ideas is the university's real agenda.

5. Can my child live in a same-sex dorm and are the bathrooms co-ed?

One generation ago and for all of American history, the university acted in loco parentis, in the place of the parent. You could send your daughter to college more or less assured that the college would act on behalf of her welfare as you would -- meaning, for example, that boys had to leave girls dorms by a certain hour. Now, most colleges have no boys or girls dorms and do everything they can to enable boys and girls to fraternize in each other's rooms at any hour of the night and even share bathrooms.

6. Is Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" the most widely assigned American history book?

If the answer is yes, you should consider sending your son or daughter to another university or at least be aware that you will be paying a lot of hard-earned money for your child to be manipulated into believing that America is a bad country, certainly no better than others, as he or she reads what is essentially a proctologist's view of American history. Zinn believes, as he told me in an interview on my radio show, that America has done "probably more harm than good in its history."

7. Would a typical graduate of your university be able to say anything intelligent about Josef Stalin, Louis Armstrong, Pope John XXIII or Pope John Paul II, differences between Protestantism and Catholicism, Cain and Abel, the Gulag Archipelago, Franz Josef Haydn, Pol Pot, Martin Luther, Darfur, how interest rates affect the dollar, dark matter, and "Crime and Punishment"; explain what the Korean War was about and when it was fought; identify India on a map; and know the difference between the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council?

If not, why not? How could someone be considered in any way educated and not be able to intelligently answer all or nearly all of those questions? If they don't know about such essential and basic things, what do they know? Movies? The supposed dangers of global warming? The importance of race, gender and class? The meaning of menage a trois (or "threesomes")? Great gay writers?

Unfortunately, the chances are that if you receive any response at all to these questions, it will be a discouraging one. Outside of the natural sciences, colleges are either more interested in liberal indoctrination than in a liberal arts education, or they enable students to take courses that are so narrowly focused that your child graduate will likely graduate as a cultural and historical illiterate. Why so many Americans go into debt paying so much money to such failed institutions is one of the riddles of the universe.

It is time to demand that universities teach. Forcing them to answer the above seven questions is a good way to begin. Because granting a Bachelor of Arts degree on someone who never heard of Cain and Abel and never heard a Haydn symphony is a fraud.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Dennis Prager is a radio show host, contributing columnist for Townhall.com, and author of 4 books including Happiness Is a Serious Problem: A Human Nature Repair Manual.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Dennis Prager's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
What college should teach...
Why does Dennis claim that the hard sciences are the exception to his proscription against college? I believe he would say it's because science is based on FACTS that are empirically verifiable and the social studies (as taught in most colleges) are based largely on OPINIONS driven by political agendas. For an eye-opener on a subject that most people are willing to put in the first category; the 'rule of law', read this little paper from the Wisconsin Law Review:

http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm

I dare you....

Robert
You are living proof that "brain dead" is an actual condition.
You put down fantasy as fact.

Zinn
One of the best historians with one of the best books. If your college or university is avoiding this book, they are most likely also teaching Creation Science instead of real science, and teaching only the "rah rah, the US rocks" portion of our history while ignoring the rest.

What is it about facts that make the Right cringe? It is not surprising that most Bush appointees are poorly educated from barely-accredited "universities" (note legal appointees) and are an embarrassment to the US when they cannot do the simplest of jobs.

bob
I would rephrase my third paragraph sentence:

But I also agree with you that most of them are overall left-leaning.


bob
Yeah, I agree it is not as complex as I have made it out to be. The point that I was trying to make (in an oblique sort of way) was that it is not as cut-and-dried as it seems either.

I like to watch as many of the hosts on the networks as I can. There are definitely left-leaning and right-leaning hosts on all of them. And there are some who are hard to figure out, just because of their clumsy attempts to appear centrist (like Chris Matthews).

But I also agree with you that it intuitively seems that many of them are overall left-leaning.

The other comment I made was that there is probably a reason for the left-leaning -> Because it works for them in terms of profit. Apparently, that is what the people want, or they wouldn't watch, listen or read.

Thanks for your civil discourse.

dreamer
I will not push this beyond this post, since you are growing weary of the topic. But some things are not as complex as others. I do not believe the make-up of most news organizations is nearly as complex as you think.

Frankly I would love to see some fresh data on this, since most studies are a few years out of date now. I stand my position however, that news organizations are-on balance-liberal. I believe this is quantifiable, and not something that is hard to determine. That said, I won't drag you off your original topic anymore today.

Norman, sorry for the diversions
You know there are two ways to make yourself bigger: Be bigger yourself, or make the other guy look smaller. You can take that as you may.

My orginal point was to say that conservatives and liberals should spend more time getting bigger by fortifying their own positions with reality. But no, they try to make the other guy look smaller by complaining about some perceived unfair tactics, or by straw man arguments, or by just plain old lies and other underhanded tactics. Why not just quit complaining about 'media bias' and clean up your own front porch? Like I said before, a good idea will stand on its own merit.

Your original obfuscation regarding the 'absurdum' argument led to several back-and-forth diversions. What say we get back to the original points? How about some good old fashioned 'fiscal conservatism'? Or is it just too easy to complain about 'tax and spend liberals'? How about the 'borrow and spend conservatives'? Let's get serious. The 'media bias' is just a cover for the conervatives' shortcomings.

The low ratings for Bush and the Iraq War indicate that there are a lot of conservatives who don't believe that this war is a conservative agenda. Why don't you get your pal Bush to abandon this war instead of complaining that the liberals want to 'retreat and defeat', which you must admit is ridiculous. It's just trying to make the other guy look small.

These are just a couple ideas to have conservatives get some balls and start standing up for real conservatism! John McCain said it best when he said "the Republican Party has lost its way". Part of the reason is they are too busy complaining about Democrats (and the media and academia and hollywood and activist judges and smear web sites and George Soros and Bill Clinton and Mexicans and Iranians and Al Gore and Al Qaeda, ad infinitum). They are too busy giving credence to knuckleheads like Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, yadda yadda yadda. Gimme a break!

Norman
Your arguments are all old news. I have heard them all many times in my past 13 years of forum posting. I don't need to be told how to debate. Thanks for another lecture.

Your relativist student,
dreamer

dreamer
There was no anger in my posts. There is quite a bit in yours. I tried to be polite. You have gone out of your way to be rude. I could have resented having my argument dismissed as just an opinion, but I didn't.

I kept on, and tried my make my points as politely as I knew how. I never attacked you personally, nor did I ever twist anything you said. I did my very best to read you fairly and honestly, and to point out as courteously as I knew how what I felt were flaws in your arguments.

That's what debate is. I do regret that you were offended, but you own that. If I was condescending (which, again, I never meant to be), call me on it and push me back. I would probably have apologized. If I treated you with disrespect, make your case and tell me why I'm in the wrong.

You haven't done that, even now. I respectfully submit that you do not know the difference between a conversation and a debate. In a debate, you don't get to take offense when someone attacks your beliefs, or fails to concede points that you think should be conceded.

Frustrated? Sure. Offended? No.

I made you angry because I refused to budge from what I believe without being giving a good reason. You call that rigid.

You also refused to budge from what you believed, even though I tried (however feebly, in your view), to give good reasons.

So, if I'm "rigid," you are at least as much so.

I am open to being proven wrong with a persuasive argument. Anger is not persuasion, however. You should certainly not be ashamed of your own feelings, but you should also not expect others to accommodate you, simply because you "feel" that they should. That is unreasonable.

Norman the Rigid
Once again, not one iota of conciliation. Oh, you MAY have been conciliatory, if I had given you the chance.

I am 61 years old, and am not one of your students to be lectured to regarding logic. You do not use logic, you use intimidation and condescension to belittle my points.

What I have heard from you in this last several posts is "I am correct, you are completely wrong, and there is no wiggle room for compromise or conciliation of any sort. Your 'identity' idea is not even worth discussion. You merely need to search your brain to discover that I was completely correct from the start. You are a 'relativist' (said in a pejorative manner) because you erroneously think that your ideas can even come close to my superior logic. Your underdeveloped brain may someday realize that your logic is flawed in many ways. Etc."

Seriously. I didn't even need to interpret. Much of it is almost word-for-word. Rigidity indeed. I would think you would be proud to be called rigid because it is binary, black-or-white with no room for compromise.

I guess I sound paranoid or whiny. So be it. I guess I am attacking you. So be it. It isn't fun to be treated like a child and be told to effectively 'grow up'. I also started out 'civil', but soon realized that I was being surreptitiously attacked with intimidation and insults to my intelligence. As a former member of Mensa, I resent that. But so be it. I own my feelings and am not ashamed of them.


Bob and dreamer
Please forgive the intrusion, which will be brief.

Here is a report on a study of media bias from that right-wing bastion, UCLA.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Fin ds-UCLA-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664

Alternatively, you can type "Studies of Media Bias" in Google, and it should come up as the first or second item.

So, it's not just "intuition," dreamer. You can take issue with the study, of course, but that will involve refuting the substance of it--not simply dismissing it, for whatever reason.

For you consideration.

Mike/dreamer

You have taken offense where none was given. I stressed that we could learn from each other. I was sincere in writing that.

Since you believe that I was being condescending, though, why not just point that out, in the spirit of respectful debate that had prevailed up to that time? That would have given me a chance to consider your complaint, and perhaps apologize if the complaint had merit. By remaining civil, you could have taught me something.

Regarding the nature of civil discussion, no one is under any obligation to recognize the truth of anyone's points. It’s like playing “cops and robbers.” An honest player will not say “you missed” when shot at point-blank range, but the same honest player may well say “you missed,” with a perfectly clear conscience, if shot at from the other side of yard. That was the point I was trying to make about logic. You kept insisting on the difference between “parallel” and “identity,” instead of saying “Okay, I see your point, but I don’t agree with how you’ve swapped terms.” That would have been productive, but that’s not what you did.

So there we were saying to each other “I got you!” “No, you didn’t” over and over. Pointless.

I think that what you see as “rigidity” is nothing of the sort. Many things are gray, but some are not. Logic is one that is not. I am philosopher, not a scientist, so I am not meaningfully conversant in the truths of natural science, but in logic I am. Relativists hate logic. That’s one of the items in your mental attic that I’ve been encouraging you to take a look at (at the risk of appearing condescending).

I wish you well, and you will either believe or not when I tell you what I have done my utmost to respect your person, without shying from attacking what I consider seriously flawed positions. You have a good mind, and I hope you’ll keep developing it, and also tend to that fine attic of yours.


Best Wishes,

Norman the Rigid

Norman
"I sincerely hope that you'll do some exploring."
and
"You should never be afraid of losing an honest argument. In fact, you should thank the other person for teaching you something."

Condescension is not a very good way to conduct a discussion.

The presumption of course, is that you are correct and that arrogance is justified. I maintain that 'identity' is relevant, and that puts all of your eclectic arguments into question. Whether I am right or wrong, it brings up one more point.

Conducting a discussion without one shred of conciliation on one side is not conducive to continuance of a thread. Agreement is usually arrived at with recognition of one or more points on both sides.

I do respect your intelligence and presentations. I also have been a teacher on 3 different occasions in my career. My students learn that if they have a good argument for their answers, they will receive credit for them. This enabled me to refine my test questions, so it was worth it to me and to the student to be flexible in order for us both to succeed. Rigidity, as I see your position, was usually destructive to the learning environment.

IMHO, it was you who effectively ended this thread.

Respectfully, Mike

bob, one more thing
Your examples of the lock-step positions are too binary, and that is my exact point. For example, what about a person who has voted democrat only 90% of the time? What about supporting only 75% of social programs? Higher taxes may be one thing, but ‘taxes = spending’ is another thing. I call it conscience. Is that liberal or conservative? Smaller military is one thing, but pulling out of Iraq is another. Suppose a person wants to pull out of Iraq only to save the billions of dollars spent there? I would call that person a fiscal conservative. Contempt for Christian Conservatives and contempt for Christian Liberals (yes, there are many of them) are related, but how would you quantify the rightness/leftness of a person who exhibits varying degrees of contempt for both or either one? Also, shouldn't some of these issues have more weight that the others to determine a 'bias factor'? And who gets to determine which ones are more important and by how much? Another good example is abortion. You could support any of the following positions:

No abortion ever
Abortion only if the mother's life is in danger
Abortion only before the first (or second) trimester
Abortion only if agreed to by the father
Abortion only if agreed to by the family, the doctor and the pastor
Abortion only before viability
Abortion only if the woman is mentally retarded
Abortion at any point before birth
Then remove 'only' in each of the previous and include one or more of the other positions

I would say that each of the many positions a person could make in the previous, could deliver a different 'bias rating'.

The only point I am trying to make is that there are many variables and many variations of each. IMHO, degree of ‘media bias’ is an inexact science. Intuitive perception is not enough for me to accept the opinion of one who is offended by certain media outlets.

dreamer
I agree the the thread has become tired, but with all due respect that has happened because you have placed your preconceptions before the evidence. I see this a lot, actually. I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong; it's happened quite a bit, and every time I have become a better, wiser person as a result. I'm sorry that you're walking away at precisely the point we could have taught each other something, but it is of course boorish in the extreme to force conversation on an unwilling interlocutor.

As I told my students when I was a college professor, "You should never be afraid of losing an honest argument. In fact, you should thank the other person for teaching you something."

The relativist's response to an unpleasant truth is to find some way, any way, not to acknowledge it. I'm sorry to say that that you have done just that. We could have debated the nature of the parallel, of course, but instead you wrote it off because it was not an "identity" (which is true, of course, but not relevant to the discussion). That impasse effectively ended the discussion.

To your credit, you did not take the relativist's usual tack, which is to call the other person names. I thank and respect you for that.

Even so, and again with all due respect, you've got some big, unacknowledged presuppositions in that fine mental attic of yours.

I sincerely hope that you'll do some exploring.

Best to you in all things.


Norman

Hello again Norman
I have given you the parallel, but not the identity. An analogy only goes so far. Continuing to hammer the same so-called 'fact' again and again does not make it so. Like I said, my opinion is just as valid.

This thread has strayed too far. I thank you for the chance to grow my understandings. Good Luck.


bob
Thanks for your curiosity. I believe you missed the point of the 'neutral' comment, and you missed the point of the entire post.

As a neutral (ie, one who dislikes the right and the left equally), I believe I could help Norman in his quest for sympathy. I understand why he could possibly see quantifiable bias, which I said would be very difficult to measure and calculate. I could offer that sympathy because of my understanding.

The point of the post was to illustrate the futility of trying to quantify the leftness/rightness of an entire news organization, not the leftness/rightness of an individual. However, as I pointed out, the bias of an individual can also be difficult to quantify, given the large number of issues that each can have a stance. Prager would say that if there are 29 issues and the person falls on the left side (by his standards) on 15 of them, then that person is a liberal. In fact, he has said as much on his program. Even by the simplest calculations (which shouldn’t be used anyway), I‘d say that person is about a 45 on a scale of 1 to 100, but without a formula, even that is a guess.

If you take a hundred employees who have each their own 'bias rating' and try to make a calculation of the entire organization's bias, well you can see where I am going. Your hypothetical example is overly simplified, because employees in any organization do not march in lock-step as you suggest (also some of them should be counted more heavily). The formula used for calculation is not just 'averaging them out' as you seem to think. I would say that 'vagueness' is not the correct description, but more just complexity, with multiplied margins of error.

I am getting tired of this thread, because it is straying and getting too large. I am not trying to dodge your questions and if you have one more comment, I'll try to respond. Thanks for your participation.

dreamer
Following up on Bob's astute post, since only neutral parties should voice complaints, will you criticize Jesse Jackson for “whining” the next time he makes an allegation of anti-black racism?

Hmm . . .

Back to the same point I made earlier, the Reductio ad absurdum argument I presented it not "my" argument. Socrates was beating the Sophists over the head with it hundreds of years before the birth of Christ, and even then it was already well-established. Aristotle wrote about it in his Anterior and Posterior Analytics, not too long after Socrates' death.

So, no, resorting to the relativist's dodge--"that's just your opinion"--won't do.

The argument is deductive and valid. This is a fact. It is not “just” my opinion. That means that if the truth of the premises is granted, there is no way of denying the truth of the conclusion—except by denying logic itself.

All I contributed to the argument were the specific substitutions. So, unless you can show a failure in the application of the substitutions ("blacks" for "conservatives" and so forth), there’s no way around it. You can deny logic, of course, but that’s an admission that you're simply not willing to follow your own train of thought to it logical conclusions.

I respectfully suggest that you still have some thinking to do. There are a lot of presuppositions in your mental attic that I don’t think you’re aware of. I think you'll find them, but only if someone challenges you to look.

So keep thinking, my friend.


Best,

Norman


P.S. Regarding "futility," what you have said to an Abolitionist in the 1840's? Just wondering.


Some truth
As an unrepentant so called liberal, I rarely agree with Mr Prager. But this time I have to say that there is some truth in what he says. I want my chlidren to be aware of the whole spectrum of political ideologies, so they can at least argue and defend their point, or make a well founded decision. For the same reason I always come here and read Mr. prager, i thiink you have to know your adversaries way of thinking.

dreamer
Just wanted to jump in to the discussion you and Norman are having if I could.

You seem to suggest that such things a bias are too vague and mutable to be pinned down with any real certainty. But then you go on to say a neutral observer's opinion would be the most reliable. Correct me if I misread your post.

Do you not see the irony in your position? It is not possible to determine bias, but is IS possible to determine neutrality? How does that work exactly?

You are right, that nothing is ever one hundred percent, but it is fairly easy to determine liberal from conservative as a whole. We do it every day. If 8 out of ten people have never voted republican, support more social programs, higher taxation, and a smaller military, while speaking with contempt about Christian Conservatives, it is safe to say that group as a whole, is liberal.

Norman
Parallel is entirely different than identical. While you can claim air-tight parallel, they are hardly the same. My argument showed that point very well. At this point, I believe we only differ in opinion.

Believe me, I have thought this through and discussed it ad infinitum with people from all sides. You have an opinion and you believe it is air-tight. However, it is still only an opinion, which is no more valid than mine, regardless of the amount of surety (or arrogance) on either side.

Your 'academic studies with sound methods' are also opinion - as though 'degree of bias' is measurable on a scale of 1 to 100. Also a particular media outlet has many areas of 'bias' to measure, such as fiscal, military, corporate, political favoritism, socialism, racism, etc, each with its own degree of bias. Makes for kind of a complex formula, eh? Then you add in the many different pundits, columnists, journalists and newscasters on the outlet, each with his/her own measure of bias on each of the subjects. Wow, the margin of error is adding up!

I think the 'sound methods' are just educated guesses. And those who calculate the degree of bias probably have a certain bias of their own.

In theory, the merit of the complaint may be important, but the reality is that a media outlet will not change its course if it is already profitable. So the complaints are then pointless, as I have said, and they then become 'complaints for the sake of complaining', such that someone in a blog may hear them and join in commiseration. I feel that the quest for sympathy would be more successful if it were posited by a neutral source, rather than by one of the offended. Then an outsider such as myself would be more inclined to consider the merit. However, I still believe that complaining about 'media bias' is an exercise in futility. But that does not preclude you from performing this exercise, and it also does not mean it is without merit. Good Luck.

Hello again, dreamer
The argument form itself (Reductio ad absurdum) IS air-tight. Unless I have erred in the application of the argument form, there is no denying that the instances are indeed parallel.

Truth is hard (and often unwelcome).

Liberal media bias has been well-documented in a number of academic studies with sound methodology. FoxNews comes out anywhere between middle-right to center-left (I kid you not), whereas CNN, MSNBC, etc. come out middle-left to far-left (depending on the study). So there is a lot more liberal media than conservative. Your "market" argument here fails, though, for much the same reason it fails in re Academia. Discrimination against conservatives has distorted the labor market in both Academia and the media. Try putting "Townhall columnist" on your resume when applying as a reporter for the New York Times (or a Harvard professorship), and see how that turns out.

So, conservative complaints about media bias may be annoying, but so what? All that’s relevant is whether or not the complaints have merit. I'm all for debates on substance, but the left isn’t. The “whining” charge is just a way of shutting us up without addressing the substance of the complaint.

I agree with you, though, that "whining" happens. Complaining without making a substantive case is indeed “whining.” If you ever catch me doing that, feel free to call me a “whiner.” ?

“Bigotry" is having a negative point of view toward a person, group, or viewpoint without providing rationally compelling reasons for that negative point of view. So, the “stop whining” trope is indeed a form of bigotry, however unintentional. Archie Bunker didn’t think he was a racist, but he was.

(For what it’s worth, I don’t think you’re a bigot; I do, however, believe that you have not thought a few things through.)

Thanks again for the interesting exchange.

Norman
OK, I'll remove 'whining' if you remove 'bigotry'. Both are perhaps a little strong.

Of course my wiggling seems like spin if you have already predetermined that your argument is air-tight.

"The media" is a pretty broad stroke. There are plenty of right-leaning media outlets. And the media are privately owned, so lodging complaints seems pretty pointless. Like I said, they all do what they do to make money. Sure, some will find a niche, and make their money that way. If there are more niches for liberals, then obviously there is more money to be made by being liberal. And therefore, more people must desire liberal media. Otherwise, more people would be lodging complaints.


Dreamer
No offense, but your "wiggling" strikes me as just spin.

I can see a legitimate distinction between "caviling" (i.e. complaining for the sake of complaining, which is what I take you to mean by "whining") and lodging a complaint.

The fact is the media is biased toward liberalism, all the while claiming not to be so. To point that out is not "whining," any more than a black man who had been complaining about the poll tax for year and years back in the bad ol' days of southern Democrats would have been "whining."

In other words, I am claiming that it is a form of bigotry to dismiss a complaint without regard to its merit. That's what you did. That is, if not outright bigotry, absolutely an example of intellectual intolerance.

I'm glad to have "met" you, too. Nice to have a respectful debate (for a change)!

Cheers.

Norman
I'll answer your first note later. It is more complex and I want to be fair.

I hope I am not unconsciously bigoted, because I do hold some conservative principles closely. It is just that I don't consider many of today's conservatives to be what conservatism is all about.

Your 'nuance' paragraph seems to be an attempt to validate your incorrect comparison. I believe there is wiggle room. Racism is a personal attack, while conservative whining is political differences. Political parties can absorb much criticism and continue to operate and compete (albeit clumsily), while personal attacks can have devastating effects on the persons attacked. But now that you brought it up, I think Al Sharpton is a self-serving opportunist and does not represent black people in an altruistic manner. His intrusion into the Imus affair was self-aggrandizing and his final result was to ensure another generation of 'victims'. I do not consider myself a bigot because I oppose Sharpton. I could do a much better job (even as a white) representing blacks. Accordingly, I believe I could do a much better job of representing conservatives than the whiners. Like I said, a good idea stands on its own, there is no need to whine about the other guy. While you can certainly point out the fallacies of the other side, I feel that it is unproductive to whine.

For instance, I think that conservatives should act upon 'fiscal conservatism' and quit complaining about Democrats 'increasing taxes' and 'increasing spending'. The last seven years were the largest spending years this country has ever had, with 6 of them having a Republican Congress and a Republican President (and they cut taxes! ... and borrowed more to make up the difference). Conservatives should have cut the deficit and the National Debt.

Thanks for the compliments (and the carefully chosen disagreements. I appreciate that). I am happy to have met you.

sam allen writes:
Tuesday, March, 04, 2008 10:00 AM
Still know the answers...
=====
Great answers, SA, but I must add to your #10, Darfur. After that young "college-educated" Ms. South Carolina's rambling, nonsensical answer to her question, "DIraq" has stuck in my mind and won't let go ;-) She knew it was somewhere "over there" and politically correct to be concerned with those poor children...

Correction, dreamer
I'm making too many corrections. . . . I need an editor. :-(

That should be "Reductio ad Absurdum"--somehow that "r" just snuck in.

Dreamer ("Whining") (2 of 2)
I'm afraid that you have also fallen prey to the same (I'm confident, in your case, unconscious) bigotry as Donald.

You wrote that you "criticize conservatives who whine about 'liberal bias' in various venues, such as education, media, hollywood, etc."


So what would you say about someone who "criticizes blacks who whine about "racism" in various venues, such as hiring, access to public services (like bathrooms, buses, and water fountains), schools, etc."

I would call that person a racist and a bigot. I imagine that you would do the same.

The logic and grammar are parallel. The substitutions are precise. The argument form, Reductior ad Absurdum, is ancient, time-tested, and universally recognized as legitimate by logicians and rhetoricians. There's no wiggle room or "nuance."

So, what's the difference between you and that hypothetical bigot? (I already know the answer, but I wonder if you do. I'm not mocking you--just trying to get you to see your own presuppositions, of which you may well be unaware).

You give every evidence of being a smart person, and you don't seem stuck on yourself, so there's hope. :-)

Cheers.

Dreamer (Universities) (1 of 2)
Universities are "private enterprise"? I'm really not trying to crack wise with you, but are you serious or is this just some argumentative trope or meme?

Universities are effectively insulted from market forces by the uniformity of the "product" (political liberalism, which has formed a de facto monopoly in "higher" education), are subsidized via direct payments from both the state and federal levels of government, and indirectly via non-market-driven, government backed student loans. (More money chasing the same service (education) = higher prices and thus more income for the same service.)

Where are the market forces, dreamer? Seriously, where are they? Please show me. Students' and parents' choosing from among different versions of political liberalism is not a meaningful choice. Political liberalism has come to dominate the Academy, not by the free exchange of ideas, but by its antipode--intolerance and indeed anathemizing the opinions of conservatives (almost without exception) and Christians (usually).

Tenured professors are completely protected from market forces (though not from "collegial" arm-twisting--here I speak from extensive personal experience). A lousy and/or extremely biased tenured professor can keep playing in the same ideological sandbox indefinitely.

Maybe that's okay (although I don't think so), but it eviserates your argument about market forces in the Academy. You really do strike me as intelligent and thoughtful, so please believe me when I give all due respect to you personally, while declaring your argument to be utter nonsense.


Norman
Thanks for the opportunity to tell my own position. I see Donald (from the minimal information given) as very similar to me. I personally don't care much for liberals, and he is probably the same. But we both have a tendency to criticize conservatives who whine about 'liberal bias' in various venues, such as education, media, hollywood, etc. I reiterate what I have said both times: private enterprises are either conservative or liberal because it works for them (ie, they make money). The idea that a private enterprise would purposely pursue an ideology that loses money for them is ludicrous.

So Donald and I take the position that any conservative (such as the predictable black-or-white Prager) who whines about 'liberal bias' does not understand private enterprise. We like to make fun of those types of conservatives. Most of my positions tend to be conservative, but I hate the ones who belly-ache about liberals. A good idea stands on its own, and it's not necessary to whine about the other guy. I am sure that Prager does it because he has a 'shtick' (ie, all liberal ideas are bad, all conservative ideas are good).

Donald: I hope I am not grossly misrepresenting your position.

Dreamer
Do you consider Donald (see his post, above) a liberal? If so, does her seem "open-minded" and "tolerant" to you?

Just wondering.

Ken
From Dictionary.com
liberal: open-minded or tolerant, not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, not strict or rigorous, etc.
conservative: tending to oppose change, traditional or restrained in style, resistant to new ideas, etc.

Of course, I cherry-picked from the many entries, but these are the ones I see that apply to this discussion. You are free to find your own definitions. The main thrust of these are that liberals can go in many directions, conservatives in very few (my way or the highway). And my point still stands, that there are more liberal schools than conservative because it works for them (ie, they make money).


Correction, Donald
I wrote one of my paragraphs like a typically ignorant, knuckle-dragging conservative. The corrected version follows:

"One of the grand puzzles of contemporary liberalism is how most liberals take their pathological self-assurance of moral superiority to all other forms of life so to heart that--paradoxically--they do not shrink from the lowest kind of bigotry against anyone who dares to disagree with their "enlightened" worldview."


Sorry, Donald. Thanks ooodles for your understanding.

Donald
Let's do some relevant substitutions in your post, and see what we come up with:

"It is funny how those BLACKS just can't seem to compete very well with those damn WHITES to become professors!"

The results are in. Egads! You're a bigot!

The really "funny" thing is that you can't see it (like most of my former liberal professor colleagues).

You have used an argument whose "logic" is parallel to that used by Bull Connor and the boys (and dogs) of Birmingham.

Still scratching your head, wondering what this moronic conservative knuckle-dragger is talking about? It may help to look up "reductio ad absurdum," which is the type of argument I just used. (Ain't knowledge grand!?)


One of the grand puzzles of contemporary liberalism is how most liberals take their pathological self-assurance of moral superiority to all other forms of life that--paradoxically--they do shrink from the lowest kind of bigotry against anyone who dares to disagree with their "enlightened" worldview.


Buy you . . . just . . . can't . . . see it, can you? I might as well be chirping, or speaking Pashto. I've run into this so many times with liberals that it no longer surprises me. When presented with evidence of their bigotry, liberals are suddenly unable to appreciate the logic of even the simplest parallel logical constructions. I seem to recall that Orwell called this "protective stupidity."

Liberals use logic about as well as pigs use spoons (and I used to teach that particular subject--"logic," not "spoons"!).

Who said liberals aren't hilarious(ly blind to their own bigotry)?

dreamer
"At liberal universities, kids learn that there is more than one answer for many questions."

If you really believe that, no wonder you call yourself "dreamer."

"At conservative schools, it's my way or the highway"

No, that's the approach they take at liberal schools. They call it "political correctness", but it's really liberal brainwashing.

There is a reason
... why there are 10 times as many liberal schools than conservative schools. That is because it works. They make money at it, presumably because there are that many more students (and their parents) who would rather attend a liberal school. Prager is only addressing conservative families in this article. The only trouble is, the University of Virginia and others have a better placement record than Liberty University, for instance. At liberal universities, kids learn that there is more than one answer for many questions. At conservative schools, it's my way or the highway, and by the way, don't hold hands with the opposite sex. And unfortunately, the almighty sheepskin is a lot more valuable than what is learned at school.

Only a civil war...
...can reverse the tide of Socialism. You think the Left will ever give up the power it as arrogated to itself, willingly? Do you really think that the liberal elites will ever change their minds? No, of course not. They are so much smarter than the rest of us, and they cannot live, knowing that there are others who do not agree with them. They want, ultimately, to set the tune to which we all must dance. That kind of worldview can only be stopped with force.

Hillary delenda est.

Hilarious
It is funny how those conservative professors just can't seem to compete very well with those damn libruls to become professors!

I guess Affirmative Action is OK for those poor unfortunate rich white guys, but pretty awful for those lucky duck blacks.

Who said republicans aren't hilarious?

ROTFLOL

Ironic
It's ironic that schools claiming to promote diversity are only interested in selected diversity. Diversity based on a person's sex or color of their skin is considered good (except when a department is overwhelmingly female, then sex doesn't matter), but hiring faculty based on their political beliefs is considered taboo.

Many of the comments above demonstrate the hypocrisy and intolerance of liberals. Liberals are the type of people that have "Don't Pollute" bumper stickers on the backs of their SUV's.

Excellent article.

lilly
You are in denial. Your personal anecdote from 41 years ago does not a trend make. There have been numerous polls done on this subject. Most college professors today are liberal. That is not to say there are no conservative profs. Of course there are. But they are in the minority.

Tell you what: find the staff room of any college and casually bring up George Bush, or better yet, ask flat out who is voting for a republican next election. Not evidence enough? Ask then when the last time was they voted for a republican. If more than one hand goes up in a room of ten proffessors I will be surprised.

Norman,
I thank God I received my college education before the thought control Lefties took over. My life was enriched by professors like you who cherished and fostered the free exchange of opinion and ideas.

I'm astounded by the atrocities I hear about coming from the front lines of contemporary academia. It bodes ill for the future of our nation.

But bully for you, you've moved on and are able to reap some well-deserved happiness. Still, those students who did not have the opportunity to experience classical liberalism in your classroom have had their education diminished without their even realizing it. Best of luck to you.

Thanks, Fightr4right
I appreciate the post. I just didn't see the point after a while, but sometimes I think I shoiuld have "stuck it out." I really do miss teaching. It sounds corny, but it really is a wonderful thing to "reach" young minds, and them as they take a little spark of insight or wisdom from the grand Western philosophical tradition and stoke it into a blaze.

It's also a great comfort that some of my former students have become close friends. So, maybe I should have stayed. I dunno. I just got tired of "venting" to my wife about the latest idiocy that the college was sponsoring. I think she got tired of it, too.

Anyway, I've a better paying (non-teaching) job now, and now my wife and talk about pleasant things in the evening, rather than the annual Vagina Monologues nonsense or Guillermo Gómez Peña's pornographic and anti-Christian "Mexotica"--featured a naked woman strapped to a cross while wearing a strap-on d**do."

I kid you not.

The college actually sponsored and endorsed this event, and a lot of students (mostly from Art and English) were forced to attend. This was about five years ago, or so.

I objected like hell, being professional but otherwise mincing few words. My relations with my colleagues immediately ceased being very "collegial."

It was kind of fun being the token "leper," though--for a while.

At any rate, Mr. Prager is right. Parents beware . . .

Norman
I'm sorry to hear that the illiberal American academy has lost one of its few remaining conservatives. It seems "diversity" is the buzzword of higher education. Diversity of everything but thought and expression. How tragic.

I Recently Resigned . . .
. . . my position as a tenured philosophy professor at a "certified" COPLAC ("Council of Public Liberal Arts Colleges) "liberal arts" college.

I had some fine colleagues, but out of nearly 200 faculty, I was only one of four who publicly identified themselves as "conservatives." The University sponsored graphically sexual and anti-Christian works of "performance art," which students were forced to attend.

Those who spoke out were told to shut up. Those who didn't shut up were told to stop "whining." I was called a "facist" and "fundamentalist" by the enlighted liberal elites who ran the show.

I quit a guaranteed job-for-life with only about 170 working days per year (and even those were usually only about 4-6 hours long). That's how bad it was.

I pitied my students, who thought they were going to get an education, and were instead forced to submit to mandatory indoctrination.

I commend Mr. Prager for his article. Any parents out there would do well to pay it heed.

Hal and generalizations
You assert that liberalism comes with more life experience, education and travel. I disagree.

I live in Alaska where the percentage of college graduates is among the highest in the states. Our college graduates are usually older than graduates in other states, most having worked for some years prior to going to college (or completing their degree during the winter when construction jobs are scarce), which takes care of the experience factor. Alaskans also are among some of the most well-traveled, the Orient being just across the "lake" so to speak and Europe being just over the pole. Plus, almost no Alaskan is actually born here and lives their whole life here, so we've almost always lived somewhere else during a portion of our life.

Yet Alaska is one of the most conservative states. The Republican Party wins by a landslide in our elections for national office (unless there's nepotism involved, which we hate more than liberalism) and even the Democrats who win inside the state quickly adopt conservative attitudes or find themselves out of office (unless they're Alaskan Native, because of the hand-out mentality). Maybe it's because our university system is geared toward hard sciences like engineering and geophysics, but I tend to think it has to do with Alaskans putting themselves through college while working really hard jobs and being well-traveled. Being real-world experienced, well-traveled and educated allows us a longer view of the world and a recognition that conservative values tend to be healthier for society long-term. Look at history, look at the world, look at economics. Conservativism just makes sense.

Just my observation.

*Great* "Patriot"
In your case both occur where the sun don't shine.

Oh yeah
I would ask your child's teachers from grade 1 through 8 that question.

Why are these the criteria?
Why are Haydn, dark matter, Cain and Abel and The Korean War the sine qua non of a good education? Why not photosynthesis, Freud's theory of the unconscious, the identifying features of M'ing vases, and the sonnets of Petrarch? Why not South Park, The Simpsons, The Family Guy, and American Dad? Why not 101 uses for your own feces?

there's really only one question
What is more important, Indivdualism or Collectivism? And why?

Wilson54
When your children leave for college they are young adults, not little kids. I have known parents who told their college children "Don't come home for a weekend unless you plan to attend church with us". I have known parents who refused to pay the next semester's college tuition unless the son or daughter stopped dating a specific person they disliked. I have known women with married pregnant daughters who called the daughter's OB demanding medical information and becoming furious when the doctor refused to give it to anyone but the patient. I have know people with married adult children who kept a key to the children's house and went in while the "children" were at work and rearranged the furniture. Some people never get the point that an adult child should be respected. A college student at 18 or 19 is not a full adult yet but is well on the way. Nowadays we hear of hovering parents who behave toward the college just as they behaved toward the high school---demanding and interfering with school staff. AT some point the healthy parent is able to let go and remain available on a consultant basis without the daily mixing in.

college expense
I attended 3 colleges in my quest to find what I wanted to do. The first, Colorado State University, was the typical flagship school and pretty good for my geology major. Lots of partying, etc. Out floor wasn't co-ed, but there were no rules against boys as long as you didn't kick your roommate out. The second, University of Northern Colorado was also a good school for my major - music education - and I had a full scholarship. I did run into the Women's Studies type of courses but wasn't easily brain-washed. I don't know about the party atmosphere, I went home every weekend to work and lived in an off-campus apt with an older, working student.

The 3rd school was the Metropolitan State College of Denver, a community college in downtown Denver, for business mgmt. It was by far the best school. Almost all of my teachers were also involved in their industries so weren't sitting in an "ivory tower". They actually were practicing what they were preaching. The students were far more serious, mostly working their way through school, many of them were adults. Classes were smaller too, none of the large lecture halls with 300+ students.

Metro was a fraction of the cost of the other two schools and the best for my money. There was no housing on campus, all students commuted. I think this helped keep it from being a "party school". I think it also helped to have teachers living in the real world and not on campus. I don't remember any of the leftist preaching my kids hear today in their high school classes.

It's not necessary to go into debt for an education. Pick what you can afford and the school that's best for your area of study.

The Great Patriot

"If liberalism is a mental disorder, then conservatism is a form of extreme mental retardation (no offense to the mentally retarded).

Least we still have brains...yours fell out becuase of your Open-mindeness.



Mountain Rose
LOL

Comparing sex to smoking?

If liberalism is a mental disorder, then conservatism is a form of extreme mental retardation (no offense to the mentally retarded).


Lilly
Post at 12:58 PM

You are either disingenuous or dillusional, I am not sure which. Of course there are professors of all stripes, but the VAST majority are ardent leftists. So, you come upon one professor who you view as right wing and that validates your whole argument that there is no tilt? Facts are hard to dispute and 31 to 1 is pretty telling.

Your posts always wage arguments this way. You dispute the whole content of an article by quoting one contrary source (usually you as the source).

Silly Lilly
Since I was taking Algebra in order to actually LEARN MATH, so that I could do well in advanced math classes, it would have been an enormous waste of time to talk about politics myself, especially when the teacher had already wasted 1/2 - 3/4 hour on her excursion into corporate bashing.

I do not smoke myself, and have no interest in doing so. I do not mind reasonable restrictions on where people are allowed to smoke.

However, there is more at work than just public health going on here.

This is another example of the Lefties attempts to deconstruct American society, brick by brick. As usual, they disguise it as some kind of concern for the good of the people, when the real goal is to tear down the very fabric of the United States.

Why pick on the Tobacco industry? Because they were at one time very successful. But with the yammering and biting from the Leftie Jackels, and the passive reaction of the conservatives, the Left is succeeding, and moving on to other institutions.

Why else pick on the Tobacco Industry? Because they know that conservatives are not very invested in keeping afloat a nasty habit that is associated with rebellion and a sinful lifestyle.

However, the Left is not jumping of the bandwagon to stop people from promiscious sex, which is causing women to die from cervical cancer, and young gay men to die of AIDS. In this case, they lobby for medications that permit them to continue with THAT nasty habit.

Interesting, I have never heard ONE SINGLE Leftie lobbying for medications that will permit smokers to continue with their nasty habit.

Just another example of the hypocracy of the activist Left.

Lilly post of 10:24am
It is telling that you define parenting as mind control. It is obvious that you think parents should not try to instill values and certain culture in their children but should somehow just let them drift and pick up what they will. I will agree that some parents want to clone themselves in their kids which is a bad idea since each person is an individual and no one comes out the same. But to teach your children no values means they will probably pick up the worst. You are probably one of these liberals who think that colleges and society in general should have primary influence over children and parents are only good for giving birth and turning them loose. I am sorry but I think my responsibility as a parent is more than that.

I attended University of MIchigan...
...and I hold a secret hope my son will too. Nestled deep in the People's Republic of Ann Arbor, you likely have to hit a coast to find more liberal.

I came out of the thing with very little statist taint, here's how:

1. I was also working at Merrill Lynch and getting my real education there. So grades meant nothing to me, as long as I passed the course, and maintained an overall 2.5+. No instructor could bully or intimidate me, and my 'heroes' were the folks busting their hump back at the office 45-60 hours a week. Not the sheltered git who mistook his/her appeals to counter-intuition as a sign of higher intellect.

2. I was not lacking self-confidence. I had managed to gain entry into a top university AND land a plumb job w/o anybody's influence. (Except for the great lessons on life my parents used to prepare me.)

Bottom line, hanging out with real adults and having that self assurance that only comes from being a real doer/earner in this world will make a young adult too mentally strong to be indoctrinated.

Lolo1-LJ7392
Number of TH’ers who have challenged Wobbie to Put up or SHUT UP!: 6 and counting.

Number of challenges Wobbie has accepted: ZERO!

Companies HQ’ed in Arkansas Wobbie is qualified to work for: Wal-Mart and Tyson CHICKEN

Glad to live in Idaho
Where my children have experienced most aspects of school choice (public school, year-round, charter, homeschool, online) in elementary through high school, as well as having children in public and private colleges. While my children may not have been as socially active as their traditional counterparts because of frequent school shifts, the four oldest have been able to either complete college credits before graduation or graduate early, and they have been able to tailor an education that fits with their skills and interests. For example, my high schooler who has been ill for several weeks has dropped out of the traditional school in favor of online courses that he can complete at his own pace and over the summer, so he can be back on track to take another couple of AP courses as a junior.
There is even a college in Idaho that has not only single sex dorms, but also requires that unmarried students live in single sex apartments that have very strict requirements (no members of the opposite sex in the apt. except kitchen and living room) including curfews and an honor code. I don't know if the general education courses teach what the author wants, but at least I know that the campus doesn't put on The Vagina Monologues or have sex workers shows. It even requires each student to have real work experience in their field of study to graduate. For education, I am firmly pro-choice!

LeftRudyRight
"....this idea of not paying for your kids' college education, if you have the means. Why would you burden your children with additional work during school or debt after it? You can call me spoiled if you want to, but my parents paid for my Ivy League education and I never took it for granted."

It goes to the basic never pay for anything creed of these folks. Kid? they don't care look at the debt from the Iraq War...

We paid for our kids undergraduate; graduate degrees they paid for...

LeftRudyRight
I will concede that it depends on the kid. In my case, I wish I had encouraged my son to stand on his own with less help from us. I guess a stronger work-ethic would help, and a hand-up in his case didn't encourage that growth. It was either that or the decidedly ideological left-turn he took while a student.

PhD JD
I have long assumed that your username is composed of wishful thinking.

Sorry you didn't care for school.

A little trouble understanding...
this idea of not paying for your kids' college education, if you have the means. Why would you burden your children with additional work during school or debt after it? You can call me spoiled if you want to, but my parents paid for my Ivy League education and I never took it for granted. They covered tuition, books, room and board. I had to work for spending money, which I did all 4 years. Are you worried that your kids are going to take for granted the free clothes they've been wearing, the rent-free roof over their heads, or the meals you've provided them for the first 18 years of their lives? I understand that not everyone is cut out for college, but if they are, and you have the ability to secure it for your children, why wouldn't you?

PS- Maybe the third attempt to post this comment will be the charm. What is wrong with this site?

To Mountain Rose, re Algebra Class
But what a challenge you let pass. Why didn't you set up a math problem proving that smoking is beneficial and the tobacco companies work on behalf of the public health?

To pandm
I have posted this before but can't resist doing it again whenever somebody makes the stupid statement that colleges are all about liberal professors preaching Socialism. In about 1967 I had a professor at the University of Maryland who, one day in conference in her office, asked me what kind of work my husband did. I told her he worked for the Food and Drug Administration and briefly described his job. The next day in class she held forth for fifteen or twenty minutes on the evils of federal regulation, specifically targeting my husband (and me, of course). I had given this woman no sort of grief and was a straight-A student in her class; she had no call at all to do what she did. Her social point of view was extremely conservative. The course, by the way, was a survey of Eighteenth Century English Literature.

There are teachers of all stripe who use their classrooms inappropriately; they're not just liberals.

To amperro
If you had majored in English at the University of Alabama, or had gotten a graduate degree in English there, you would not have been assigned any book by a homosexual author or having a homosexual character. Then, if asked, you could have grunted, "Truman Capote, Edward Albee, Tennessee Williams, Gore Vidal, Alice Walker...me not knowing who them are". Not sure how they ended up handling Shakespeare...one of the sponsors of the new no-gay-lit law said "we might have to tone Shakespeare down".

mlund- even in the Math department
Since I am back in college, and took a couple of years of College Algebra recently, I can tell you that the activist Left are alive and well in that department too.

I was looking for an Algebra class as a prerequisite for a more advanced course, and sat in on a class I was hoping to add.

The teacher, rather than use the examples in the books brought in a "reality based" math problem that she made up herself.

Dhe wanted to prove to the kids that the Tobacco Industry is evil, so she brought in tables that showed that when the Camel cartoon was employed, the incidence of kids smoking went up. Then she launched into a long-winded tirade.

The problem was written out by hand, in an indecipherable scrawl, yet this woman had the gall to tell the students that neatness counts.

A wide-eyed girl sitting next to me asked in a horified voice why the company would do such a thing and the teacher, with an obsessed gleam in her eye, launched into an anti-capitalist lecture.

Needless to say, I left at the break and found another class to add.

The scariest part was when I mentioned the class to the teacher who ran the Math Lab, she talked about the offensive teacher in glowing terms, and asked me if I didn't think she was great? I found some bland thing to say and changed the subject, valuing my grade.

Gestell- I agree with most of your post
"...4. Or, just forget about college altogether. As parents, you don't want your kids ever, ever, ever to have any ideas you haven't approved of, as Prager would doubtless tell you."
**********************************************

I agree that exposing your kids to Leftie ideas is dangerous, but they are going to eventually be confronted with them in the popular culture. This nonsense is everywhere you turn.

You can't lock your kids in a tower like Rapunzel to protect them from the world: it will backfire, making them curious or perhaps even rebellious.

It is much better to innoculate them against Leftist thought in advanced, so that when they encounter a Leftist professor (they are even taking over Christian colleges- remember they are on a Marxist mission), they will not be surprised by their ideas. If they have heard the notions of the Left before and know the arguments against them, they will be prepared and will not be brainwashed.

Conservatives have retreated for too many years, and it is high time we took back the culture, including the institutions of higher learning.

NUTNFINR
Thank you for the compliments. My second boy is now in university studying math and physics and trying to find out what Tesla left out, so he can invent time travel. He is making honours grades in a co-op program and just recently took on a part time job at Starbucks "just to get to know the people who live around here." Although he has always been a genius, he is finding university mathematics a challenge and he loves it. "Mom," he said, "Calculus is another language and all I know how to say so far is Hi There and Where's the bathroom." Once he caused our answering machine to answer in Japanese. And he explained to a friend why he did not care for NA$CAR: "James Bond," he said, "does not drive a NA$CAR."

Who wants boring kids?

Leftist Group Think
It killed critical thinking in colleges and universities.

Conservatives don't teach anymore because critical thinking is something that occasionally trotted out for the STUDENTS, but never the faculty. This is true from college professors all the way down to kindergarten teachers. Ideology and popularity dictate the office-politics of the work environment. Ergo, the leftist bigots that control the bulk of the administration, faculty, or union in question simply run off those they disagree with. Also, the more female-dominated the department, the more hostile the work environment towards dissenting females (as my wife discovered first-hand).

I'm sorry, but critical thinkers don't turn a blind eye to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot; spend their time as cheerleaders for Che Guevara and Fidel Castro; or pass off the works of Michael Moore as factual documentaries.

If you want critical thinking, go talk to the long-forgotten Philosophy or Mathematics Departments, you'll scrape up a couple of traditional skeptics and rational thinkers - likely treading water among liberal True Believers. If you want to find the dogma driving the unthinking rhetoric of the collegiate work environment, go visit the sociology and minority-studies departments.

Mountain Rose
"...My industry disappeared, due to Globalism and changing technology, and I found myself barely able to make a living. Every decently paying job I felt qualifed for, with just a little retraining, was closed to me because I didn't have a Bachelor's Degree."

If nothing else a college degree shows that you can set a gaol and achieve it. No degree then what have you been doing....

"The Universities have become self-perpetuating, turning out Business Majors who have been indoctrinated in Leftist thought and then taught that people without degrees are inferior employees."

Many are because they lacked the discipline to accomplish that task or what have they been doing - a good answer gets you hired

"...An experienced worker is a much more valuable employee than a green college grad, but try to tell that to a bureaucrat with an MBA."

Green college grad is a LOT cheaper than the worker. Which differential works best for the company


Lumberjack7392
You are correct I should have said the industrializing North but if you look a large number of northern troops were from cities i.e. like the coal miners from my neck of PA or the immigrants from NYC.. The south was crushed as much because of industrial production as manpower

So glad Dennis is talking about this
Sometimes Dennis suggests that one need not go to college in order to succeed in life. For many this may be true: some of the most successful entrepreneurs never went to college.

When I was young, I never completed college, though I attended for several years. I had no trouble finding a decent professional career, in which I rose to the top and was making six figures for years.

But today is different.

My industry disappeared, due to Globalism and changing technology, and I found myself barely able to make a living.

Every decently paying job I felt qualifed for, with just a little retraining, was closed to me because I didn't have a Bachelor's Degree.

The Human Resources departments have changed: become more mechanized, and are designed to screen out applicants without any letters after their names.

The Universities have become self-perpetuating, turning out Business Majors who have been indoctrinated in Leftist thought and then taught that people without degrees are inferior employees.

Nothing could be further from the truth: I learned more in one week on the job than I did in all the years in school. An experienced worker is a much more valuable employee than a green college grad, but try to tell that to a bureaucrat with an MBA.

Get a degree in ANYTHING, even in advanced basketweaving, and it will look better to a modern prospective employer, who has been brainwashed by the totalitarian Universities.

Hal Doofus writes:
Actually it was the liberal North and the city folk over the rural, conservative south.

Actually most of the Northern troops were farm boys in civilian life. The country both North and South was predominantly agrarian in nature. Try learning a little history. The nation did not become majority urban until after 1900

See:http://www2.wwnorton.com/college/history/eamerica/site_maps.htm#

Your questions to ask BEFORE
Dennis, that was nothing short of MAGNIFICENT.

I'd also suggest that people who have already attended colleges that behave the way you cite, start educating themselves in things like the Federalist Papers and the Bible and great writers writing about constant human themes that written about in the past are as fresh and true today as they were then.

I first heard about the Federalist Papers in grammar school, but never read them until I heard Patrick Buchanan and WFB on TALK RADIO in Boston.

I'd also suggest they go to Town Hall and watch Book TV on C-SPAN2 every weekend. They'll find a plethora of books that support and weaken ideas they hold, that they can read and decide for themselves if they wish to hold those ideas or pick up new ones.

Great article, Dennis.

pandm
"My boy you are just a stupid person."

Exactly the reply I expected thanks

ModMark
Wish I had some do-overs. One thing we did do was make our eldest pay for his last year of school....We were on the 4 year plan, and he decided to go for 5....in retrospect, I wish we'd not funded the first 4....Someone earlier on this thread made an excellent point of how much he appreciated his degree because he earned it himself...in every respect....Good advice.

More idiocy
Mrs. Paddy at least raises some relevant and interesting points. Why don't more Conservatives teach? Probably because the whole idea of higher education is to encourage discourse, intellectual examination and develop a greater capacity for critical thinking . These pursuits have largely been associated with Progressive educational philosophies because the whole idea is to challenge existing or prevailing concepts. Conservatism is about the retrenchment of discourse to fall within conventional parameters. I want a conservative accountant but I'd like a progressive professor. It is also ridiculous to look at this and say that college is a waste of time given it's progressive or liberal bent. Gee, it didn't seem to hurt the Wm. F. Buckleys, George Wills and other erudite ideologues who seemed to benefit nicely from their Ivy League educations.
Unfortunately it starts with intelligence and I doubt that an Ivy League education would have stopped Prager from still being an idiot.
The responses from all those who are obviously threatened by differing points of view show just how sad the situation has become. They would prefer it if we all just overlooked a thousand years of scientific advancements and went back to teaching fairy tales about the garden of Eden.

Mrs. Paddy
"...It isn't always the best choice, and there is nothing wrong with technical schools or manual labor either. "

There is a lot right with technical schools and we need more of them. I do think a bit of liberal arts should be included in the course instruction though

Hal
My boy you are just a stupid person.

Get some child to read history to you.
You are not a mature person.

ModMark
I guess my point is that college should be available to all who can cut it. Some are just not right for college beit lack of motivation, ambition, intelligence, maturity or whatever.

I don't agree with lowering the minimum standards to accomodate all who apply, that's all.

I often regret pushing my youngest son to go to college right after high school...he didn't really want to go, his grades reflected it, and he probably would have been better off working a while and finding a direction. It wasn't lack of intelligence, just lack of motivation and desire.

He is doing okay now, but he has a long row to hoe to get his education finished up since his GPA is in the crapper. A few years working a real job made all the difference for him.

I projected my own regret at not going to college right away (I got my BS when I was 36). It isn't always the best choice, and there is nothing wrong with technical schools or manual labor either.

High School
But for a few exceptions, kids learn all this in public school. You should be asking this of your highschool and grade school. I think college will be to late except for more of the same.

pandm
"We did have a winner in the last civil war & it was Republicans over the Democratic south, so you could be right, but don't bet on it."

Actually it was the liberal North and the city folk over the rural, conservative south.

"On intelligence: Republicans have an 8pt (iq) advantage over Socialists."

Socialists? Who is talking socialists. What is it between the lunatic right wing and moderate America?


A very good Question
What is a Great Conservative Christian College? Does one even exist? Do we have 10 world class conservative colleges based on Prager's negatives. Is "Great Conservative Christian College" an inherent oxymoron?

Just about any of us can whip out a list of 10 nationally known and internationally recognized colleges slammed by Dennis and social conservatives, but can you name 10 THers would want to send their kids to? If they don't exist, why not. Surely there are enough of their ilk to support a world class institution.

Making sure your kids think right
A couple of suggestions to consevatives who are worried about the minds of their kids being corrupted by all those nasty liberal professors:

1. Consider the University of Phoenix. Your kids are already Internet savvy; they'll love online education, and the University of Phoenix isn't about to criticize capitalism.

2. Consider the Christian colleges. Your kids will never have to be exposed to any religious or anti-religious doctrines that might upset them. See "Christian Colleges, Universities, & Bible Colleges" at:

http://www.college-scholarships.com/christian_colleges.htm

3.For other approaches to traditional education, consider the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), a venerable conservative organization. It's College Guide is quite comprehensive.

http://www.isi.org/

4. Or, just forget about college altogether. As parents, you don't want your kids ever, ever, ever to have any ideas you haven't approved of, as Prager would doubtless tell you.

Hal
We did have a winner in the last civil war & it was Republicans over the Democratic south, so you could be right, but don't bet on it.

On intelligence: Republicans have an 8pt (iq) advantage over Socialists.

ModMark
Sounds like your kids are doing well. GREAT!

Mine is doing well but that is because her father and I took the time and money to supplement her education and fill in the gaps.

One difference I do see is that it varies from state to state. California spends more money per student yet is ranked on the bottom of education. Universities often complain here that even the top students are not college ready. So kudos to New York for having their act together.

Neal
"..Surely, Mr. WFB was well informed, experienced, and traveled. But he was not a LIBERAL. "

No he was not but he at least could intelligently discuss topics and know when he was going off a cliff

Why doesn't Dennis get off his
Conservative high horse and actually identify colleges he thinks you should send your kids to.

Slamming a straw dog is easy to do, but to actually put your esteemed judgment in the spot light is another. Were he to do so, I have the feeling he would be relegated to the kook bin.

reasonable questions among many possible
It is not clear exactly what Prager has against technical universities. America's science oriented universities remain the best in the world, but obviously would fail many of his criteria.

Certainly students going to college should look into the features of a college that are important to them, and choose where to go accordingly. If parents feel they have not raised their children well enough to make such decisions intelligently, then I suppose they might resort to refusing to pay for college unless they get to make the choice of college. But that suggests a failure of parenting somewhere along the line. (Although having something to say about the cost when you are paying seems to me to be a different matter).

If the list above is the list that seems most important to you, then you can probably find a school that fits those criteria. Shakespeare remains the most assigned author on college campuses (despite being the most assigned author in high schools). Of course insisting that a University covers a wide range of topics as a core curriculum, means leaving little room for specializing in an area which one could turn into a career. So I am not sure everyone would favor such a path. But then there is no reason that everyone should try to follow the same path. And many Universities are large enough to allow different of their students to follow different paths. (And if you don't think you have raised your children to be mature enough to make choices for themselves, you should probably discourage their attendence at such Universities.

lilly not so
No, I am not interested in "training" my children. I want them to learn correct principles so they can grow, develop and find lasting happiness in life (as opposed to the pursuit of temporary pleasure which dominates the world today). What are some of these correct principles? 1. You are free to make choices, but all choices have consequences. 2. You are accountable for your choices, despite what lawyers and politicians may say. 3. Morality matters; hedonism is a dead (or deadly) end. 4. Look for ways to serve and help others throughout your lives. 5. Families are not a social construct - they are a divine institution with eternal potential. Thus, gender is not a social choice but a divine attribute. 6. America is not an accident. While plainly imperfect, overall we have been a tremendous force for good in the world. There are others, but you get the gist. As I review history, the primary sources of indoctrination camps have been leftist totalitarian regimes. Why is that?

How true.

Excellent commentary, Dennis.

Our intitutions of "higher" learning have indeed become the modern gulags of destructive liberal indoctrination. Disguisting.

First step; abolish all tenure... forever.

And parents, beware. Then get off your posteriors and work to protect your kid's future.

Did I mention disguisting? Thought so.

Hal Donahue

“Another thing that I have noticed is the more information, experience and travel a person has done the more liberal they tend to be”.

A generality for sure; but I would posse MORE information (one-sided), experience (at what…learning to tie one’s shoes before first grade), and travel (to where…and how was this travel paid for). Surely, Mr. WFB was well informed, experienced, and traveled. But he was not a LIBERAL.

ModMark
Your kids do sound like they have a great foundation. Unfortunately, I haven't seen that to be the rule. Congratulations on providing them a great education.

AudiR10....
Your post about teaching your kids self reliance early is the most intelligent and loving thing I have read in a long time. Please continue to post!

These days we have automatic this and appliances for nearly everything. Kids are not taught by their parents (oops, many children have only one, and that one may be drunk or drugged) that they are contributing parts of the family. Small things like making their bed, cleaning their room, taking out the garbage, mowing the lawn, washing the car, and such are ways kids can and should contribute. Alas, the "self esteem" thing prevails when parents think their children will hate them for requiring anything that doesn't deal with a cell phone or computer game.

Fortunately, we have AudiR10 who is raising kids who will have their heads screwed on good and tight, and hopefully will emulate her parenting.

God Bless them.

Observation
Many of the college readings suggested by Mr Prager come under the general heading of "Humanities". I would suggest that any parent seriously interested in having his/her child study the Humanities would run a hundred miles fast to get away from a school where the administration keeps tabs on whether history books are being "widely assigned" that present the United States as "a bad country". Parents wanting a right-wing indoctrination for their sons and daughters can easily find one: Bob Jones University, Liberty University, Patrick Henry College, and an infinity of Christian colleges...just consult google.

In any case, my impression from reading hundreds of townhall posts is that conservative parents do not want their children educated (a condition which historically has sometimes produced children who escape from their parents' mind control). Instead, they want them trained. Their hope is to produce a young adult who will not venture from the limitations of his parents. Townhall posts frequently state parental preference (rather than a liberal arts education) for having a grown child enter the business world under the guidance of a business manager or mentor who, indeed, operates in loco parentis. Raising a son so that he will run the local U-Haul franchise is infinitely safer for such a parent than, perish the thought, raising a scholar.

pandm/THRadio
"..The Socialists are playing a very very dangerous game & if it lasts to much longer, we will , with certainty, find our country in another civil war."

What is this another NRA sissy having an online fantasy? LMOA

"And keep in mind there will not be a winner among US. "

Oh yes there will just like last time...

What is left out in Major Universities
Excellent article. I have wondered why these questions have not been addressed before.
I suggest that University students take a general quiz before graduation, on knowledge of History in U.S., & general economics & literature; for comparsion of knowledge in these areas. I think this would show that American Universities, lack TEACHING of basic knowledge in above areas. TOO MANY EMPTHY COURSES.
To bad, these facts are entirely left out when the magazine rates the best colleges. Too many professor's think their OPINION, rates higher than BASIC KNOWLEDGE.

The University Mind and Pablum
I have a male relative who spent six-or was it seven?-years at a well known mid-west liberal arts university. What he has taken from this education seems to be the following three points:
1. George Washington was a white racist who owned slaves
2. Believes in the French model of employment-not more than 35 hours a week, and that only if he can't find someone to live with who will help subsidize his life style and physical needs.
3. Plays acoustic guitar
If you would like to become acquainted with this now no longer young man, please let me know and I'll send you his last known address!!!

Lolo1
Wow, that is sad. No, they do not do the other students any favors....only get the administration off their backs for holding too high a bar.

I had a friend who taught science in a public school and was always in hot water with the other teachers because she expected (and got) her students to perform. The students loved her, and the other teachers hated her because she raised the bar.

She's now working in a private academy and LOVES it. Her gifts and desire to teach are appreciated now.

Rob - touche'
"Republicans Party taken over by creationists, the greedy and anti-gays???? Put down your braod brush and make some sense "

Thru absurdity I was trying to show that the extremist fringe really has "put off" if you will rational people and discussion. The result is that when many folks hear that someone is a Republican they immediately assume that person is one of the above. Exactly how the Ds were identified as fringe back in the McGovern days. Another thing that I have noticed is the more information, experience and travel a person has done the more liberal they tend to be. A generality of course but in my experience that is the usual trend

Robert....
Poor thing, laboring mightly under delusions of mental competency.

Try to light one candle
The colleges and universities have devised a complex system that serves the forces that are internal to the system well. The parents, students, the tax payers and society in general come a very distant second in their considerations.

Thomas Sowell, has written a detailed chapter in his new book, "Economic Facts and Fallacies", that addresses all of these issues in great detail. I would strongly suggest that any parent or prospecitve student who has gotten this far in the comments section spend the time to read his chapter 4, "Academic Facts and Fallacies". It is well worth the time.

THRadio
Your 9:42 post hit it right on the head=thanks.

The Socialists are playing a very very dangerous game & if it lasts to much longer, we will , with certainty, find our country in another civil war.
And keep in mind there will not be a winner among US.

Mrs. Paddy
Mediocrity is fostered because they can't blow their self esteem don't you know.

As the bell curve what the teachers do is take my kid out of it because she frequently blows the curve. They grade her separate, but are they really do the other kids any favors?

As to choices. There aren't any. Now it is English I, II, III, IV. Where as, when I was in school we had choices for English class like a class devoted to Shakespeare, or Mythology, or Public Speaking, or Short Stories, or Creative Writing. I could go on and on, and that is just English! Don't get me started on the other subjects.

Still know the answers
Sorry got interrupted last time.

2. Louis Armstrong - he walked on the moon right?
3. Pope John XXIII or Pope John Paul II aren't popes catholic priests? So they must be pedophiles.
4. differences between Protestantism and Catholicism - let's see Protestantism is a bunch of sexually repressed, war mongering fundamentalist, and Catholics are also sexual repressed, and their leaders are pedophiles
5. Cain and Abel - isn't this some kind of 60's folk group?
6. the Gulag Archipelago - Didn't get this one, because I never took French.
7. Franz Josef Haydn - Didn't he play the sandman in Spiderman 3
8. Pol Pot - I'm not sure if I've heard of him, but I think he was some kind of great leader too (like Stalin).
9. Martin Luther - wasn't he that civil right guy's dad?
10. Darfur - isn't this the place Muslims are getting pushed around by US lackey's?
11. how interest rates affect the dollar - all I know about interest rates is that I cannot understand them. I don't even open my credit card bills anymore, because they are too depressing. Good thing other companies still send me new cards so I can go on living.
12. dark matter - was he a bad guy or a good guy in the DC comics?
13. "Crime and Punishment" - I didn't really watch that many episodes of this Law and Order series.
14. explain what the Korean War was about and when it was fought - I am not sure when it was, but I am sure it was a war of American imperialism.
15. identify India on a map - isn't this where we killed all the Indians or is it the place where the Hoosiers play?
16.know the difference between the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council? The general assembly is when all the kids of the different countries come to the gym, and the security council is the soldiers.

See with a good education you can know lots.

Canoe U
Now that was a cheap shot...most young Republicans are not seeking officer commissions etc...Had I 20/20 vision I would have tried for the Naval Academy (BUD/S or Marine Option) and had I been able to throw a basketball far enough on my knees, West Point. I attended a state supported university for two years and enrolled in the ROTC program. Because I guess I am, and no bones about it, dorky (can't throw a basketball off my knees) I was influenced toward a military specialty of AG, Finance or Quartermaster...instead I dropped out and enlisted for four years as an 11B Airborne Infantryman. I made it through jump school, Ranger school and Pathfinder school no matter how dorky I was. When I returned to finish my degree, my qualifications basically shut up the ROTC instructors who forgot to check if I wobbled a bit while marching and I was commissioned into the Infantry...

oklahoma baptist university
sent my kids to obu, first rate education well grounded in the classics taught them to think not how to think also it is not a bible college check out their curriculim and decide for yourself blue collar hammer swinging dad not a rich guy

Lolo1
I don't know about here in California, but when I was a grad student I was appalled at the lack of basic grammer, spelling and punctuation evidenced in the papers I had to grade. Forget even stringing two coherent thoughts together.

No wonder they can't offer half of what you were...the colleges are too busy trying to bring the students up to a level that should have been covered in the public schools.

Mediocrity is also fostered. Too difficult to explain a high rate of failure, so many professors just lower the curve. There's no incentive to work hard for the lazy students as they are carried along anyhow, and there is no incentive for the motivated students to push harder as they blow the curve anyhow.

I know the answers
Josef Stalin, Louis Armstrong, Pope John XXIII or Pope John Paul II, differences between Protestantism and Catholicism, Cain and Abel, the Gulag Archipelago, Franz Josef Haydn, Pol Pot, Martin Luther, Darfur, how interest rates affect the dollar, dark matter, and "Crime and Punishment"; explain what the Korean War was about and when it was fought; identify India on a map; and know the difference between the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council?

I went to college so I can know most of those things this guy was talking about.

1. Joseph Stalin - wasn't he some kind of hero of WW2 fighting fascists and stuff. Also, I think I heard that his economic plans were really great too.
2.

Phylo is Wrong, again.
Many liberal colleges are NOT free markets of ideas. That is the whole point. They have been taken over by liberal pinheads who openly proclaim that no diversity of thought is welcome or tolerated, dear comrade.

Stories are legion of liberal suppression of conservative ideas, students and professors on college campuses. If you think otherwise, you are profoundly ignorant. There are many books on the subject. Try reading "Brainwashed" by B. Shapiro, or "God and Man at Yale" by W. F. Buckley.

Another huge irony is that colleges used to be predominantly conservative in the 40's and 50's. To promote diversity of thought, these conservatives welcomed and hired liberal professors. But over time, the liberals took over, forced out the conservatives, and now refuse to let them back in. "Open-minded liberal" is an oxymoron.

Mrs. Paddy
On the money!

Just so you know they now require at least three but four years is better for college at the university level.

What is ironic, at least here in the People's Republik of Kalifornia is they scream about diversity but there is no longer any diversity in education. The children aren't even offered half of what I had. Despite the fact the the college system is bemoaning how many kids are no longer ready for college.

Robert
As usual you lack reading comprehension.

To clarify
Yup, perhaps I am the victim of a poor college peopled by poor students. No wonder I graduated with honors....no competition.

Whose idea was it to make a college education available to everyone, regardless of ability?

A college degree used to mean something, but it doesn't anymore. What happened to the college-track that I remember when I was in High School? Those who chose to pursue higher education took math (through at least solid geometry, if not calculus), English, science (ususally Chemistry and Physics) and a two years of a foreign language...that used to be the minimum requirement for admission to college.

Today it is all about the dollar. Colleges are like puppy mills....only it is our youth (future) that is being short changed.

The dumbing down of America is apparent everywhere if you just look. What a shame.


Question
Why do pundits like Prager constantly bash colleges and universities?

I suspect it's that they want fewer people to be exposed to anything other than traditional values. That way they can be assured that their propaganda will work (i.e., America good, everything else bad)

But colleges and universities are basically a free market. Yes they are subsidized, but how is it different from what you guys want to do with vouchers in elementary schools and high schools. In other words, how would vouchers make the whole system better? Can anyone explain that from a right wing point of view?

Concord 2123 - It was Columbia
If memory serves me, Prager attended Columbia. And he routinely bashes the school on his radio show for being one of the worst, most expensive liberal indoctrination camps (oops . . . schools) in America.

One reason why so few conservatives are college professors is that the liberals conspire to keep them out. I have a close friend who is a college professor and the stories he reports are amazing. Conservatives applying for jobs at these schools don't stand a chance. They are routinely blackballed and openly condemned. It is so ironic - the "open-minded" liberal elite are among the most vicious bigots in the country. Most liberal colleges have a huge sign over the front gates that reads: "Diversity of Thought is Not Welcome Here."

Good article
This indoctrination has been going on for over two decades. Which is why the majority of teachers in grade school and up are liberal and seek to destroy parental authority by 2nd grade.

It is all purposefully designed to brainwash a child away from biblical principles and teach the religion of secularism.

Thankfully, parents, and life in general usually allows the student to see through the lies and fluff fairly early in life.

In short, despite all the efforts, some students overcome the brainwashing to lead reasonable and intelligent conservative lives.

Robert
Shut up! Do not post to me. Speak to me or comment on my posts. You give new meaning to loser and I don't need parenting advice from the likes of you.

I also notice that you neglected to mention my previous post because it doesn't feed your over bloated unearned ego.


If Hal wants to tolerate you that is his business. It is a free country and he can do what he likes.

I, however have no such compunction.

pandm/Mrs. Paddy
"People wanting to be professors are investigated, and if the belong to the American Patriot Party(Republican), they will not be hired.'

Oh dear not only are the nasty old moderates controlling mainstream media but now all the good colleges oh you poor picked on rightwing extremists. Does this mean you want a fairness doctrine for colleges if not radio? LMAO Think about it you claim the left can't compete on AM then admit you cannot compete in the real world of ideas - the universities

Why so few conservatives?
As a professor at a liberal arts college, I once attended a lecture about liberal (in the modern sense) influence in America. The British speaker asserted there was little liberal influence here. I prefaced my retort with "as a conservative." A liberal colleague prefaced her own response to me with "first of all, I want to thank you for coming out of the closet." There is blatant hostility to those who dare take on the overwhelmingly dominant leftist viewpoint. When I requested support from colleagues to bring in a speaker who had a doctorate in economics and who had escaped from Cuba, one colleague,an ardent supporter of communism, admitted she feared he might bring a "biased viewpoint" about communism because he used the word "freedom" in the title of his book. I have used some of the Federalist Papers in a senior level course about liberty, in most semesters, not one of the students has ever been exposed to them. There is a better chance they have read Toni Morrison than Shakespeare; Barbara Ehrenreich than Hayek. My daughter attends a liberal arts college. In the freshman indoctrination course, she wrote a paper in which she asserted (factually) that much of the "wage gap" betweeen men and women is explained by rational discrimination and the choices women make. The instructor wrote on her paper that she was wrong and to "do the research." My daughter asked me what to do and I told her if she didn't want four years of headaches she should let it ride.

Hal Donohue
No Hal what he is advocating is diversity over indoctrination.

You know what you liberals have been screaming for a long time.

Mrs. Paddy
The reason more conservatives do not teach in colleges is because the Socialist Party has control. And they teach Socialism.

People wanting to be professors are investigated, and if the belong to the American Patriot Party(Republican), they will not be hired.
* 97% of professors belong to the Socialist Party.
* 3% American Party

Mrs. Paddy's Bright Idea
Mrs. Paddy brought up another good question to consider: the student body. Obviously if the study body is comprised of morons, then the school might not be very good.

Good point Mrs. Paddy.

[The questions that I brought up and the questions that Mrs. Paddy brought up in posts of just a few sentences are not intended to be a comprehensive list of things to consider. Many other factors including cost and location among others should be considered]

As in all professions
there are some good ones and some bad ones. Do your own homework before you drop your kid off at school.
As a parent you should always be the primary educator in their life.

Only the weak can be indoctrinated.

I have had both conservative and liberal teachers and professors. There have been some absolutely great ones on both sides of the aisle as well as some bad ones.

Texas A&M
I have 3 sons presently (ouch!$$) going to Texas A&M and I am proud to say that it is one of the few university where being American is still seen as a good thing.

AudiR10
Your 6:46 AM post nailed it.

Is Dennis advocating for set asides for Republican professors? Special slots? They started to become an endangered species as the Republican party was taken over by creationists, many who believe the earth is 8,000 years old, and the greedy who would not pay for anything they used or received and then the anti gays because who knew professors could be next. etc.. Colleges are meant o be places for the exchange of ideas and the discussing the great questions of the ages as well as teaching a trade like medicine

Never Fear
Obama or Hillary will save the day. Feel good courses of yesterday will be the only history learned after 2008. New feel goods will be everything is free and you deserve it and are entitled to it. The new "I Have a dream" will be that everything important will be yours whether you want it or not. No wars -- except that if Obama is elected, there might be a new one resulting from his bombing along the Paki border. Trading one idiot for another is easy, go vote.

Choose your career first
Before enrolling in college students need to figure out what they want to do first. My son spent 4 years in college got a degree in advertising and worked in the field for all of 6 months. He is now a fireman. He went back to the community college and got his certificate in firefighting and EMT. Had he done that first he would have saved me a lot of money and himself a lot of time. As of the liberal bias most kids shake that off when they leave school and get into the real working world.

Total ripoff re education
I certainly don't have all the answers and would like to throw out my questions/gripes concerning our current state of higher education. Maybe some of you can enlighten me as to why some things have to be as they are:

1. Why aren't colleges/universities made to use their endowments of cash and property for the use for which they were (presumeably) given? Even though a great number of our palaces of higher learning have portfolios in the billions of dollars, tuition goes up every year by 8 to 12 percent. These are not corporations where dividends are being paid out, these are private entities amassing tons of loot.

2. Why are professors, tenured professors in particular, not required to teach? A great number of them barely see classes (other than graduate), leaving the primary work and molding of student minds up to graduate students - an additional cost for the student to bare ... both financially and in quality of education.

3. Why do text books have to be changed in each course, each year? It is still the same course material, and generally almost word for word from last year's book (Maslow is still Maslow, and Hirachy of Need is still just that). Could it be that the respective department head/indivual professor is getting a kickback from the book publisher? At the price of books these days, this is no small matter.

I could go on for quite some time about this subject, especially getting into the right/left, honest/deceitful aspects of our current state of highter education - but the above are my main economic questions. Help me out folks - tell me why things are like this and why we allow them to be so.

Universities
College is all about making money on the indecision of the student. Adding useless classes
in subjects that don't mean anything but you have to take them to get your degree.
Make your son or daughter pay for their own education. It will help them see through all the college BS .

YES! This is spot on target
Great column. College ed today sucks. I've spent more years in school than most readers here and have taught. Do you know how they choose college professors? It is by (1) minority status and/or (2) political correctness.

These faculty are freakin' morons, folks. We've been wasting billions on higher ed (loans, etc.) so some Marxist fools can take the summer off and laught at YOU for being so damned dumb as to adhere to a philosophical belief like conservatism or religion while sending THEM your tax dollars and tuition payments.

Yet so many still fall at their feet. "Dean" this, "Professor" that. It is a small, petty world and these freaks love their ability to mess with your kids' minds and spend your money.

Dave
I think you miss the point of Mr. Prager's article. I took it to mean that a balanced university would be better than a biased one.

Would you be similarly outraged if the numbers had been reversed and 'Republicans' outnumbered 'Democrats' 31 to one?

Good question above on why more Conservatives don't teach. Don't know the answer to that, but it would be an interesting study.

My experience in college and Grad School was to see institutionalized mediocrity. There were students there who I question how they even graduated high school as they had no critical thinking skills and even poorer language skills (both written and oral).


Teach your kids to bloom
where they are planted, and you will be suiting them for life. College is not injected; it is experienced.

Do not permit your kids to associate ONLY with people in their own age group and social class. Do not take them only to places your grandmother took your mother. Do not travel Five Star and do not teach them to expect that the world was created with a cookie cutter. Your kids should be able to stumble out of a bomb shelter, a cheap non-chain hotel, a tent, or the Intercontinental and deal with whatever they find. (My kids could both pitch a tent before the rain started and order room service, pay the server and calculate a tip by the time they started second grade.)

Teach your kids to read, and give them classical literature without telling them its classical literature. Answer their questions about what they read. Expose them to the admiring glances of people who are impressed that a five year old can read Edgar Allen Poe aloud.

And from the time they are tiny, challenge them. Daddy never allowed us to say *It will be a nice day tomorrow* without asking us *How do you know that?* This helped me a lot when I got to university and discovered that I was the only conservative in my Freshman Class (about 150 students).

But most of all teach your kids that they can have anything they want out of life -- but not everything.

Then send them anywhere and tell them to survive.

IN OTHER WORDS . . . .
Why don't parents take a consumer attitude toward college, just as they do in almost all other aspects of life? Most parents buy the cheapest consumer products and do their homework before buying any big ticket item. A "snob appeal" college education is not necessarily an advantage in the job market.

Nothing will change in academia until the majority of alumni decide to quit giving to their alma maters and taxpayers demand accountability and value for their money.

CA Governor Pat Brown's pet program was the "Master Plan for Higher Education", which was intended to make tuition-free college education available to every qualified high school senior. Where many of us come from, that means a middle class entitlement program.

Californians saw their tax money go to what became hotbeds of leftist activism and thought, not world class talent pools. The Berkeley mess contributed to the election of Ronald Reagan as Governor. Governor Reagan faced down Berkeley leftists and succeeded in getting tuition imposed in the UC and CSC systems.

Two Reagan quotes: "There is no such thing as free education. The question is who pays" and "The state has no business subsidizing intellectual curiosity".



All the Important Stuff
No need to inquire about the quality of engineering teachers (or accounting or whatever your kid's major), no need to inquire about the school's efforts at post-graduate job placement assistance, that's not important. What's really important is that they have enough Republicans on staff.

Are There Other Options Altogether?
"Before you take out a second mortgage or otherwise deplete your savings in order to pay for your child's college education, you might want to ask the colleges to which your child is applying some questions."

Is it possible to get a degree much less expensively? Yes.

So why not do it. These inflated figures of 160K for four years are unnecessary.

"It is time to demand that universities teach. Forcing them to answer the above seven questions is a good way to begin. Because granting a Bachelor of Arts degree on someone who never heard of Cain and Abel and never heard a Haydn symphony is a fraud."

Is it time to abandon the collegiate syatem altogether?

Why not just "get a degree" in the quickest and least expensive manner possible and then educate yourself both along the way and afterwards in your area of interest independently in addition?

Isn't that "how it used to be done?"

The current system is half defunct outside of certain disciplines. It is not at all uncommon these days to see a liberal arts major in a business field or other similar things.

If that's possible then so is self-instruction and independent learning or apprenticeship type of learning.





sorry for the double post
There is a delay in the server. I posted once, didn't see it show up, reduced the word count, and posted again.

Guess I should have been more patient.


An even more fundamental question...
Why are mommy and daddy so certain they are doing their children a favor by footing the entire bill for college?

The BEST thing my parents did for me was let me do it myself. In fact, they provided only $5,000, and that came only in my senior year. Both worked as professionals and could have underwritten my education 100%. But they understood that what is given on a platter is rarely appreciated.

My wife and I both worked very hard. I married at 23, only 2 years into a 5-year engineering degree. I bagged groceries, mowed lawns, and worked on-air at a local radio station. She cut hair. We split the housework largely down the middle, along with grocery shopping and meal preparation. We sub-let one room in our apartment to help with expenses. We rarely ate out and learned to enjoy the free things in life. I stayed up all night doing homework an average of 1-2 nights per week.

And let me tell you: when I walked that aisle to receive my degree after 3 years of sacrifice, it was like planting a flag atop Everest. It was the proudest and most satisfying day of my life.

Maybe today it is unreasonable to expect kids pay for college all by themselves. But if we don't let them experience any of the sacrifice requisite in achieving something worthwhile, we rob them of the very best life has to offer.

Will I help my child with college expenses? You bet. Will I employ some type of matching mechanism where for every dollar he earns, I contribute a proportional amount? Yup.

But will I foot the whole thing as an expected obligation of parenting? Absolutely not.

I'd be robbing my child of one of the most incredible experiences in life.

A more fundamental question...
Why are mommy and daddy so certain they are doing their children a favor by footing the entire bill for college?

The BEST thing my parents did for me was let me do it myself. In fact, they provided only $5,000, and that came only in my senior year. Both worked as professionals and could have underwritten my education 100%. But they understood that what is given on a platter is rarely appreciated. My cousins were given a free ride for their undergraduate years. One never graduated at all. The other didn't get serious until it was time to pursue her Master's, at which time her mom and dad wisely told her the ATM machine would be filled by her - not them.

She got serious in a hurry.

My wife and I both worked very hard. I married at 23, only 2 years into a 5-year engineering degree. I bagged groceries, mowed lawns, and worked on-air at a local radio station. She cut hair. We split the housework largely down the middle, along with grocery shopping and meal preparation. We sub-let one room in our apartment to help with expenses. We rarely ate out and learned to enjoy the free things in life. I stayed up all night doing homework an average of 1-2 nights per week.

And let me tell you: when I walked that aisle to receive my degree after 3 years of sacrifice, it was like planting a flag atop Everest. It was the proudest and most satisfying day of my life.

Maybe today it is unreasonable to expect kids pay for college all by themselves. But if we don't let them experience any of the sacrifice requisite in achieving something worthwhile, we rob them of the very best life has to offer.

Will I help my child with college expenses? You bet. Will I employ some type of matching mechanism where for every dollar he earns, I contribute a proportional amount? Yup.

But will I foot the whole thing as an expected obligation of parenting? Absolutely not.

I'd be robbing my child of one of the most incredible experiences in life.

Real question
Did Dennis Prager go to the college your son/daughter is considering? If so, look elsewhere. Another classic from the blast from the past.

School offerings
A balanced education is very important. I have to ask why is it that conservative thinkers do not want to teach?

I'm sure there are some out there, but the statics you cite obviously show an imbalance in an interest in teaching between the liberal and conservative, not just that college administrations are bias to hire liberals.

The male/female co-ed problem would seem more important depending on whether you have a son, or a daughter. Either way, it's an obvious distraction, if not a danger.

I don't want to switch from a liberal education, to a conservative education. We should get back to teaching facts, not an ideology, or opinions.

Schools should reflect the current culture; and you have to face the fact that our current culture is far more liberal than the time you grew up in.

Colleges should invite speakers of ALL different ideologies. One can only learn through exposure. Yes, that includes people from the far right to the far left, no matter how controversial.

Sorry, I don't agree that funding of any kind should be withheld because the school may, or may not accept military recruitment. Although I believe the military should be allowed to have a presence on campus to educate people on its lifestyle and importance.

Narrowly focused courses, are the demand of the corporations hiring now, and in the future. Trying to get a degree in a field of the future, requires specialization. Human resource administrators for technology, medical, etc., etc....could care less what one might know about Stalin, Pol Pot, or even Darfur.

Whatever happened to a little curiosity on a students part? It's not possible to have the time, or money to study everything.

One of the most important things schools can do is to teach people how to study, research, and educate themselves, so they can teach themselves more than what the schools can teach them.

Real Question:Will you get an education?
I went to a "college" that specialized in engineering and did not award Bachelor of Arts degrees. I majored in biology. This "school" did not offer a single laboratory course in cell culture, microbiology, biochemistry, molecular biology, or flow cytometry. These are FUNDAMENTAL COURSES. To use an analogy, imagine majoring in English at a university that does not even OFFER courses in Shakespeare, Dante, Dickens, Milton, or Poe. Political correctness and indoctrination did not exist where I attended. But I still got a rotten education.
I wish Mr. Prager would realize that even the hardcore science schools can fail in their duties.

These Questions Are So Important!
Thank you for this article. It is shocking what is being taught or should I say what is not being taught. It would be great if graduates could walk away with the knowledge mentioned and more. Not to mention-- what is up with the co-ed bathrooms and dorms? I don't think so!!!

Why go to college?

By the time kids graduate High School... They will have an advanced Degree in Global Warming.

What else do we need?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.