Join The Debate!

All Students

Ten suggestions equally applicable to all college students, liberal as well as conservative. And, like LMAO said, a student who implemented all ten suggestions more likely to be a liberal than a conservative.

Can I add #11? Learn to reason for yourself, rather than just absorb sponge-like received wisdom from others.

LMAO

You too, Georgia Gal.

True Rebels

I live on the Central Coast of California and believe me, it takes a true rebel to be a conservative in this part of the country. I can relate to a college conservative.

Tattoos come to mind. They used to be the mark of an outsider, a rebel. But nowadays I notice that everybody gets a tattoo - so they can be rebels, just like everyone else.

My point is that the truly independent thinker probably has no tattoos - or unsightly piercings.

Number nine

can't be done on most campuses. Regurgitation of the leftist mantra is required to get a decent grade. Any opposition is doomed to 'academic' failure.

That is the real dilemma facing the students. The proffesorial weenies hold that power over the kid's heads and use it. A real problem when daddy has mortgaged the farm to send junior to the college cesspool. The kid can't fail and then face his/her parents. No honorable way out.

WoodButcher38 writes:

"My point is that the truly independent thinker probably has no tattoos -"

So let me get this straight, since I chose to have a tattoo, I'm not an independant thinker? So I guess, since I don't read what you do, watch what you do, wear the same clothes as you, I guess I'm not an indepedant thinker. Do you guys ever stop to think how many people you are disparaging by your asinine comments? I would say that probably alot of people on this site have tattoos like myself. How does this make me any less of an independant thinker? Please elaborate. Dali was considered a great painter by alot of people(I don't happen to be one of them) So by using your reasoning, since they disagree with me, they are not independant thinkers. As I said, asinine. Now onto the topic, good article, but I don't think it's very realistic. Colleges have been a bastion of far left thinking for many years, I don't know if we can chip through that armor.

Hear-hear!

Re: "... 10 things...."
******
Doug writes: "I just want you to brace for the liberal Kool-Aid crunch that is coming soon to a classroom near you."

I write: Kool Aid has no nutritional value and is fattening, so lay off the Kool Aid and pizza -- or you'll put on the dreaded "Freshman 15" pounds.

It's all relative...

...to time and place.Many years ago I got a small tatoo when in high school,at a carnival that came to town.Today,if I wanted to rebel,I wouldn't get a tatoo.

Flying under the radar

Several years ago, I was acquainted with a young woman in her senior year at a prestigious university. Her soft-spoken, pretty blonde demeanor marked her as easy meat for her liberal professors, unaware that her looks concealed a formidable intellect.

She gleefully recounted the times she'd ask a question in class and be given a doctrinaire answer, which she'd then ruthlessly pick apart--all the while maintaining a look of wide-eyed innocence.

It can be done.

Hal?

Yes Hal you are right, liberalism is reality... if your reality is FAILURE!!!!

Liberalism is an ideological parasite the US has to put up with because we are a free country. In only one way does liberalism resemble real life. In real life everyone experiences failure of some sort, thats what liberalism is to any thinking human being.

Liberalism is a vast wasteland of failures as the 20th century bears out. Lets take some of those wonderful liberal ideas and see what has really happened.

Welfare, great example, instead of providing a hand up it bred 5 generations of welfare dependent slugs and aided in the dissolution of the nuclear family among the poor. Welfare kept the poor poor.

Social Security, wonderful idea for a socialist country, it started as a trust fund for retirement purposes. Then a Democrat controlled congress and a Democrat president voted to place those trust funds in the general fund. What has happened to SS since then is painfully apparent, 40 years of a leftist controlled Congress systematically robbed the contributors and left behind worthless IOU's.

Political correctness, this is one of the more stupid ones, this idea as demonstrated in our colleges and universities has single-handedly done more to damage scholastic achievement than anything else. It purports to re-write history and present it as radicalized facts. It undermines our heritage and culture and overall has placed the US in the middle of the pack in academic achievement. In fact since another wonderful liberal institution the DOE, along with it's partner in crime the NEA, have been in charge of our liberal schools US students have continuously scored lower in the important areas of math and science than their international counter-parts.

Multi-culturalism, my "F'd up" favorite, is responsible for the problems Europe and the US are facing now. Europe will, in the next ten years, become unrecognizable as muslims continue their invasion and the traditional cultures of Europe are displaced. Or the US, with it's own invasion from south of the border, whole towns over-run by illegal immigrants while the leftists in CA and elsewhere continue to hand them freebies on the taxpayers dime. Spanish in schools and on government paperwork, thanks to our liberal brethren.

Environmental radicals, another favorite, new ice-age anyone (70s)? Global warming, whose "science" falls apart under the harsh reality of real science... objective, unradicalized, non-agenda based science. The DDT ban, an environmental "victory" responsible for the death of over 11 million Africans. How about those tire reefs we were told about, great habitat for fish! Now those millions of tires have to be hauled back out of the ocean. Funny how those tires are now poisoning the ocean, maybe because leftist pseudo-science and pseudo-intelectualism go hand in hand? The enviro-whacko left is just so full of good news, too bad all of it results in us becoming poor or dead.

How about politics, Clinton the most corrupt president in history (DNA sample anyone? or maybe a disbarrment). Gerry Stubbs the gay congress-critter pedophile who gets discovered with a boy, gets re-elected for an additional 10 years,then eventually dies of AIDs (wonder if the kid he was with has it?). How about the esteemed Bob Byrd a former KKK grand dragon who gets a free pass becaused he apologized!?!?! At least the Pubbies get rid of their miscreants the Dims keep theirs. Need we go on?

What is the coalition of the left one might ask? Gays, lesbians, generational welfare recipients, socialists, communists, anarchists, NAMBLA, elitist pseudo-intellectuals, illegal immigrants, convicted felons (to whom you have all promised to restore their votes), and those who believe that liberals are enlightened Robin Hoods. Thats who you are as liberals, a quite unflattering collection of the gullible, the degenerate, and the evil.

What has liberalism, and it's attendant leftist ideologies, really done for humanity? It is estimated that somewhere between 90-150 million people have been murdered by the practice of leftist ideologies in the 20th century. Murdered for nothing more than disagreement with the left. Even today we see the Owellian attempt at stifling free speech with the "Fairness Doctrine". The left wants to shut up the right even though the left has a vast advantage in the media. The left as authoritarian dictators, yes that is what they want! You may not disagree with the left or this is what you get... dead or gagged! Every economy touched by leftist thought fails, look at Europe and more specifically Airbus/EADS, a multinational European consortium run on a European socialist business model. The business is failing!

Liberalism as reality, if your reality is nothing more than continuous failure then maybe so! Even your own liberal professors can't re-write history fast enough to cover what a dismal mistake liberalism is. Liberalism and all of its leftist ideas have historically resulted in mass murder, social upheaval, instability, and economic failure. NOTHING GOOD HAS EVER EMERGED FROM THE LEFT SIDE OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM!


As far as the article goes, the young adults I am sending to college have already been told what to expect and how to handle it. They know that present day academics is a fantasy land of leftist creation and bears no resmeblance to reality. I am proud to say that my first son has successfully weathered the leftist academic storm and come out unscathed. His reality, Hal, is success and he's a conservative. Top of his class, offered his present position in his junior year. See Hal the nice thing about raising your kids with the tools to succeed, they get to run the lives of small leftist followers like you. Cheers!

Something Like This,Maybe?

In about 1967 or 1968 a professor with whom I was taking a course at the University of Maryland asked me what kind of work my husband did. I told her he worked for the Food and Drug Administration providing scientific review of pharmaceutical companies' applications to market new drugs. Shortly thereafter one day in class she announced to the class what my husband's job was and followed this announcement with her opinion that the government should not be deciding what drugs a business can market and that they should be free to market anything they want. Now I bring this story up because the course she was supposedly teaching us happened to be a survey of Eighteenth Century English Literature: her political views were totally irrelevant to the task she was being paid to do by the State of Maryland.

I believe this is an example of the inappropriate use of a classroom forum. But, conservatives, she was on your side. Your tirades are always about liberal professors doing this. Is something wrong here with the math?

To Norm

Re "What has liberalism...really done for humanity?", you may have missed the townhall post put up the other day (7-27) by religioiuslib. Time doesn't allow me to write a long post just now but here are some high points he/she mentioned:

1. Social Security (what supports your grandparents?)
2) Medicare (ditto)
3) Medicaid (or do you want epidemics radiating from the slums as in olden days?)
4) The GI Bill (which many older conservatives used to go to college and thus join the middle class)
5) Labor laws (child labor, safe workplace, 40-hour week, right to collective bargaining and overtime pay)
6) Marshall Plan (rebuilt Europe after WWII)
7) Environmental laws (or do you like drinking contaminants with your drinking water?)
8) Food safety laws (China, anyone?)
9) Workplace safety laws (google "Triangle Waist Company Fire")
10) Peace Corps
11) Space Program
12) Civil Rights laws (oops, sorry: I realize conservatives preferred segregation)
13) Internet (which was originally limited to the military and which our federal government gave to the people---and most conservatives don't distinguish between "government gave" and "liberal government")
14) TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority gave electricity to much of the rural South)
15) Female Suffrage (that means women get to vot now)
16) National Weather Service (which Bush II has tried to privatize, by the way)
17) Product labeling laws (any diabetics or cardiacs among us, that need those lists now required on every grocery item sold in the US?)
18) Public universities and colleges
19) Federal insurance on our bank deposits
20) Family & Medical Leave Act
21) Public Broadcasting (Sesame Street teaches basic literacy to millions of young children)
22) Americans With Disabilities Act (try getting around town on an electric scooter if there aren't any curb cuts)
23) Consumer Product Safety Commissio (when we buy something, we have protection that it actually does what the manufacturer says it does, like protect your head when you fall off your motorcycle)
24) Center for Disease Control (Atlanta GA)
25) And may I mention one religiouslib left out---it was liberals, not conservatives, who moved this country toward the repeal of slavery---slavery was great for business, which is generally the only thing conservatives care about.

Lilly

What an incredibly simple-minded person you are. Conservatives believe in less government, therefore they believe in no government.

As for your little college story, I find it amusing that you believe that this is an example of conservative thought.

Dangerous drugs and chemical-laden water for everyone!! Viva conervatism!!

I have some better advice

1. Do your work.
2. Come to class on time.
3. Get enough sleep.
4. If you're having trouble, get help. That's what office hours are for.
5. Don't be disruptive.
6. Don't ask for special favors.

If students want to be firebrand promoters of whatever ideology, they can do so on there own time. If they real feel like they need an outlet for their misunderstood conservatism, they can join the editorial staff of the most right-wing student newspaper they can find. If there isn't one right-wing enough to suit them, they can start one. But please keep it out of the classroom. Political grandstanding in math class is not brave, it is a nuisance, and it is showing off.

Maloula

It is campus liberals that interject politics into every subject, not conservatives. Most of us (I include myself because I am in a master's program, in spite of my age) would be happy to have mathematics taight in math classes, literature taught in lit, etc. I get propagandized in nearly every class I take.
As for your six suggestions, good advice- all of which are far more likely to be followed by young conservatives.

As a recent college graduate . . .

and a libertarian, I was often embarrassed by the stupid opinions taken by conservatives when they spoke in classes. "To get a sense of humor" is the important piece of advise this condescending article gives. Also, the arguments by conservatives were either of the "ultra-nationalist America has never done any wrong in the world ever" kind or the "idiotic worship of an invisible ghost religious" kind, both of which make any moderate college student cringe. Also, beginning your opinion with "I served in the army for X number of years" is not an argument that lends credibility to your opinion.

To summarize, there are many times when a conservative can make a great point in class, but he has to be smart (which disqualifies most college students, even conservatives" ) and know when to fight. While taking a class about World War II, a student should ask: "Why is the national socialist German worker's party (NAZI) often labeled a right wing party? The name of the party seems to suggest it is a socialist and therefore left wing party." Or "Wouldn't a national health care system result in the government knowing every personal detail about people and being more intrusive than even the Patriot Act?"

There are smart ways to challenge your professors. Being a loud mouthed religious nationalist is not one of them.

lilly

"What an incredibly simple-minded person you are. Conservatives believe in less government, therefore they believe in no government."

With reasoning like this, I can tell you didn't go to college. Conservatives love the government almost as much as liberals. One might be able to come to the conclusion that some libertarians want anarchy, but one cannot come to that conclusion about conservatives. By the way, after reading your posts I can see you're quite ignorant and a fine product of socialized education. Where did you go to school? I want to avoid sending my own children there.

Same Ol Same Ol

This is nothing but the same old crap from a right winger who needed to fill copy space.
And it's generally bad advice.

In the first place, The vast majority of all college classes are devoid of political/social content of any sort. Math is Math. Physics is Physics. Biology is Biology. Large portions of every college campus are almost officially conservative American bastions. Students who take Econ are quite unlikely to get any thing but a free market point of view. Schools of Business are self evidently capitalist in nature.

The last thing you want to send your kid off to college thinking is that he or she knows more than the faculty.

Campus Republicans detest CR Establishme

> lostGOP writes: Sunday, July, 29, 2007 5:37 AM
> Con's are DEAD to college students
> Republicans Collapse Among Young Americans

First, there is variance in any survey of college students - twofold. First, motivation and time to be motivated, if the conservatives are working at their 2nd job they aren't answering their cellphones. Second, any unpopular viewpoint is going to be underreported in a college survey.

Second, the baby boomlet is NOT bigger than the baby boom generation - or there wouldn't be a problem with Social Security looming.

Third, look at the structure of the CR establishment and Abramhoff. Enough said?

And fourth, never forget that the membership of most CR chapters really don't like the national CR *or* the GOP. Most are far more conservative than the grownups. MORE conservative....

My personal favorite are truly objective surveys over specific things, like pulling troops out of Iraq. NOT an "are you happy with the war" because even Rush Limbaugh isn't - those who support taking the gloves off are lumped in with the not happy folk.

That was then, this is now....

lilly writes: Sunday, July, 29, 2007 9:08 AM
Something Like This,Maybe?
In about 1967 or 1968 a professor with whom I was taking a course at the University of Maryland asked me what kind of work my husband did.
===========

The divide between the students and the faculty today is about where it was in 1968 or so. Back then it was conservative faculty/staff trying to indoctrinate left-leaning students -- now those so-called "tenured radicals" try to idoctrinate a far more conservative student body.

It still is indoctrination and still is wrong.
And has similar bad consequences. Has anyone noticed how just about every college in the country has increasingly serious problems with out of control student rioting? Like in 1969?

History repeats itself, just with different players.

There Ought to be a law

..... that conservatives must keep their precious offspring at home until their 25th birthday. After all we wouldn't want to poison those already closed up young minds with vile ideas like -- gasp -- global warming taught by those commie pinko liberal professors. Just stay home, please!!!!!

Why Are There College Republicans?

How can there even be any college Republicans? They all should have enlisted to fight in Iraq by this time. I don't get it. Wait...maybe there will be a new generation of Dick "5 deferment" Cheneys.

University campuses

What is Wrong on our University Campuses?

In the interest of full disclosure, I am presently a part-time teacher of English as a Second Language at a major California university. (UC Irvine). I must admit that I enjoy working at UCI. After a first career of working for DEA, this new life is pretty relaxing. The students are congenial (coming from mostly Asian countries, where teachers are respected) and my colleagues are likewise. Some even share my conservative world view. However, one always has to consider what university department is involved. ESL teachers tend to be people who have traveled, lived in other countries, learned other languages, and , in many cases, have married foreign-born spouses. So they tend to spread out along the idealogical spectrum. Likewise, teachers in the physical sciences and economics also tend to be more ideologically varied. It is in the humanities that you find an overwhelming presence of not just liberals, but far-out lefties who don't much care for their country. Unfortunately, these characters make the most noise, and thus, bring a lot of bad publicity to their schools. Add that to adminstrators who either sympathize with radical professors or are afraid to confront them, and you have a pretty sorry state of affairs on our campuses.

So where do I start? How about Ward Churchhill, of the University of Colorado? He's the guy who called the victims of 9-11 "little Eichmann's". How about the character who teaches at the University of Wisconsin who swears that the Bush Administration conducted 9-11? What about Duke, where the university, urged on by a letter signed by 88 professors, expelled the three Lacrosse players (who were later exonerated.) Then there is San Francisco State, where military recruiters were driven off campus by a mob of students, just part of a long tradition of student unrest at that "institution". Let's don't forget Harvard, the "most prestigious university in America", where the president, Larry Summers, was driven to resignation by his own faculty after he had the temerity to question whether women were as adapt at science as men. (Oh the outrage!) At my own school, UCI, each quarter is marred by anti-Israel events sponsored by the Muslim Student Union, a group that has a regular team of radical Muslim imam speakers who spout hatred not only for Israel, but America and Jews in general. Numerous other campuses, such as UCLA, also have activists Muslim Student Unions that warrant the attention of the FBI. Meanwhile, other universities, Like the University of Michigan at Dearborn, are busy installing foot baths for Muslim students.

In addition, while radical left speakers appear and speak freely on campuses across the nation, conservative speakers are met with protests, disruption and sometimes violence. Examples? How about former Justice Department official, John Yoo, when he spoke at UC Irvine a couple of years ago? Ditto for pro-Israel Middle East expert, Daniel Pipes at UCI a few months back. How about Ann Coulter, who had pies thrown at her at one university in Arizona? When President Bush was invited to speak recently at St Vincent's College in Latrobe, students and professors alike cried like spoiled children. In the free marketplace of ideas, pay attention to those who want to silence the other side. That will tell you much about who is right and who is wrong.

I could go on for the next 100 pages with anecdotal examples of far-left, anti-American activity going on at American universities, but you read these stories every day just like me. The question is why? How did you get to this point? I guess one reason is that many of these professors were university students during my generation-the good old 60s. Many of them never left that sad decade. Another reason could be that moderates and conservatives tend to get their bachelor's degrees and go out into the world to make a living and get some real life experience. They tend to become even more conservative during life. Meanwhile, what happens to the student who goes from a BS degree to a masters degree to a PHD and then enters teaching? By the time they have gotton their doctorate, they have been educated out of the last shred of common sense they were born with. They are still stuck in that cocoon of liberal university propaganda. They then take all that "learning" into their classroom and regurgitate the same stuff that they learned. However, where is their life experience, other than maybe getting married and having kids?

In my own case, after getting my BS in 1970 (interrupted by a 3 year stint in the Army), I went into federal law enforcement, first with Customs, then DEA. That job took me all over the world, including assignments in Thailand and Italy for a total of 8 years. In my final assignmnet at the Office of Training at Quantico, Virginia, I took advantage of a program run by the University of Virginia, where I was able to get a master's degree in Education, paid for by the government. This enabled me to qualify as an ESL teacher at the college level, further enabling me to retire at 50. I mention this only because I think that it allowed me to bring life experience to the classroom.

That does not mean however, that I was about to walk into a classroom and indoctrinate my students with my conservative philosophy. I think it is wrong. My job is to help young students improve their English, not to teach them what they should think about the world. Unfortunately, most leftist professors feel it is their mission to turn out a new generation of leftists. Not content to preach their doctrine in the classroom, many of them engage in protests against this or that outside the classroom, oblivious to any principle of free speech. Even more outrageously, many professors give poor grades to any student who strays from the professor's point of view. Sadly, many young students, concerned about graduating, have succumbed, remaining silent in the classroom and turning in papers in agreement with the professor's philosophy.

In contrast, my master's program was more of an example of adult education. The coordinator, from the University of Virginia, was able to relate to us since we were made up of DEA, FBI and Marines. He knew he was dealing with adults who had life experience and were not liable to be liberal. Where the fun happened is when he brought up young teaching assistants from Charlottesville to give lectures. On one occasion, a young lady in her 20s made the off-hand comment in class that she didn't think it was unpatriotic to burn the American flag! We let her know in no uncertain terms how we felt about that remark. The lady was nearly in a state of shock when she left-and never returned.

So what to do about this situation? Do we conservatives go to court or the Congress to demand a "fairness doctrine" for the universities? Tempting, but I say no. What I think is necessary here is the light of day. We need to make sure the public is aware of what is happening in our universities (and secondary schools as well). We also need to send emails or letters to the heads of these institutions when these outrages occur. They need to know the public is watching. If your alma mater is guilty of far-left bias, refuse to send contributions when solicited-and let them know why. If you are going to foot the bill for your kid's tuition, make sure that he or she doesn't go to one of the offending schools. (Unfortunately, that takes care of most state-run universities-you might have to look at a small private or faith-based school). Eventually, some of these schools will start paying attention to the bottom line.

You also need to counsel your children that it is up to them to decide what they think about the world, that they will be subjected to this indoctrination, and that they should never accept at face value what a professor says in the classroom. There is a bumper sticker that liberals are fond of that reads: "Question Authority". Why not question professors as well?

gary fouse
fousesquawk

ANY intelligent person can see that its

the democrats that are trying to increasingly take over every facet of your lives - through the global warming hoax, nationalized/socialized health care, earmarks and subsidies, tariffs and taxes, eminent domain, increased government regulations and red tape, etc... ad nauseum. Oh sure, they cloak it in superficially seeming noble objectives to insidiously hide their true intent, but any independent thinker can understand what is happening. One sees the dullest students disproportionately represented in the easiest curriculums as predominantly demtards - journalism, education, social services, the humanities, etc... These sheeple are ready to be led by a ring through their nose. Their lackadaisical study habits (enforced by the dems) and lower IQs are an albatross around their neck which the dems exploit. There is nothing more apt to turn-off intelligent, young adults like the erosion and outright seizure of their rights. As long as there are intelligent people in America, there will be a vibrant Republican Party.

Lily the effen idiot

The government has NEVER created anything and given it to anybody. They have confiscated items from one group of people and redistributed them (inefficiently) to other parties. To assume that there would be no clean environment, food and medicine standards, etc... is libtard thinking at its dullest. These things have come about SLOWER and less efficiently because of government. The entitlements that you crow about are some of the most inefficient distributions any intelligent person can think of. Take one party's money, churn it trough inefficient government destroying about 75% or more of its value and give it to some one else - yeah, I'd be real proud of that. If you look at ANY private program, say health care, the most inefficient parts are those with gov't intervention. There is virtually almost nothing that the gov't does which would not be done better in the private sector - that's just a fact. I recommend a copy of Freedomnomics for you - if you can read. You also might want to bone up on which party was responsible for civil rights and the elimination of slavery by the way. I realize that all of this will go right through your little pin head - that's what makes you a good little libtard.

Victimhood

These articles about conservatives being the victim at colleges and universities is getting a little old isn't it??

I want to be better

The campus radicals of the sixties shouted, made a spectacle, occupied buildings, and generally refused to engage in reasoned debate. Opposition was shouted down.

I hope that Mr. Giles is not proposing that his version of campus radicals do the same thing. So far, it has been more common on the left side of the fence. When it occurs on the right side of the fence, it is rightfully ridiculed.


I have no desire to be part of a screaming, shouting mob.

I see that Bad Moon on Fire...

Moionfire writes: "These articles about conservatives being the victim at colleges and universities is getting a little old isn't it??"

No. Next question?

Tattoo YOU, Jimbo

jim writes: "in the Merchant Marine we found the most stupid, most worthless sailors were the ones with a Tattoo. And I still believe a Tattoo, of any kind, is a permanent obscenity."

There are a legions of soldiers, NAVY sailors, fighter pilots and Marines (those who are living and those who perished fighting non-tattooed enemies) who would take issue with your idiotic prejudice, Jimbo.

Then again, you were in the "merchant marine" so I suppose the legions of tattooed dead who bled and died fighting for their nation will take the insult whence it came.

Rest in peace, Uncle Carl.

Pish Posh, Pirate

Pirate writes: "The divide between the students and the faculty today is about where it was in 1968 or so. Back then it was conservative faculty/staff trying to indoctrinate left-leaning students..."

Indoctrinate? Pish posh. They were trying to TEACH these spoiled, self-centered baby-boomer brats. These days, the lunatics are now running the asylum.

We-ell

We-ell, Conservativism crumbles when faced with Real Life? I think not. Conservatism, to me , means conserving what is best and improving upon it. Real life is a continuum, not a new world every morning. These are my opinions, and seventy years of participation in Real Life bears them out. Now, anyone can call himself a Conservative, but many who do are not. (Same goes for us Christians.)

I think a student rebel should be constructively disruptive in party politics. No Conservative student rebel should stand still for the machinations of today's Republican organization. He or she should become active in College YR's.
This Fall will be more fateful for our Party and for the Nation than any Fall since 1941. Hillary is a sure thing, UNLESS we field a Real Life candidate. there is only one, and the prospective Student Rebel can check him out during the dog days of early August. He is not an elitist.

The plebian Duncan Hunter is the real deal. Campus support can change things. ( I was a student during the Sixties, so I know.)
Duncan Hunter can get the same fervid support of collegians that Eugene McCarthy engendered. But he will turn it to better account. Check out his official website. He is a solid conservative, intrepid, articulate and not subject to needing a makeover of Image. Invite him to your campus.
Check out Sarah Palin, too. She should be his running mate, in my opinion. I envy you the chance to help make a good difference. Hunter/Palin 2008

Agree with sentiment

Though I agree with the sentiment of the article, I do not see any validation of why you are presenting this article at this time. Liberalism is a disease and a curse. It is rampant at our campuses as is communism. If find it interesting that when you suggest something that challenges a liberal professor that you are totally berated and treated as a fool. The best thing is that most of the time they cannot even correctly argue a position. I had a teach actually go to my academic counselor to get me to stop with my opinion. Apparently, the challenging argument I presented was beyond her capabilities and since she could not provide a reasonable response she shut me up in another way. My counselor actually told me that I could be kicked out of my class due to my views being expressed. this is not uncommon as proven by David Horowitz.

It will not work.

"You and your concurring buddies can get prepped and be a conservative crew that enters campus life and joyfully, earnestly and courageously challenges the purveyors of the anti-American propaganda."

Nothing the left is saying now was not said in the seventies. They are not ignorant, thhey are evil. they have studied their play book well and will continue to inflict themselves upon society for as long as society exists.

Just read the previous postings on this topic and you will see the ages old leftist pattern. The cure for leftists is not found on campus, is found in the real world an thru the implimentation of their beliefs.

The proof of evil is how accuRATly they track the speck in the eyes of others and ignore the plank in their own.

Go for it, Granpa Jim!

jim writes: "I bet you have a ring in your nose right?"

You lose.

"And I still believe a Tattoo, of any kind, is a permanent obscenity, but then so is your sign-in name."

Steady there, old man. Time for your medication.

Invasion? c'mon

The Evil Republican writes: "And who can defend the invasion of a sovereign country without colorable cause or justification?"

Here's a question of similar importance for you Evil Republican: "Have you stopped diddling little boys yet?"

Fact 1: Saddam invaded Iraq, we pushed him back in Gulf War I.
Fact 2. Saddam violated the terms of the Gulf War I cease fire.
Fact 3. The UN authorized military action if Saddam did not comply with the Security Council's ultimatum.
Fact 4: Saddam did not comply with the Security Council Ultimatum.
Fact 5: The US had only one alternative, follow through or risk the destruction of the country's reputation as the world's superpower.

This is all an intelligent person needs to know about how we got into Iraq.. We didn't "invade" Iraq, nor did we even enter the country without "probably cause" or "justification".

Any person who claims otherwise is either lying or selling something.

_________________________________


Read the entire text of UN Resolution 1441 to refresh your memory ER:

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2002/res1441e.pdf

To anowrast

You barked up the wrong tree. The lines you quoted were not mine but were addressed to me by one "minky". Check minky's post.

lilly

I apologize for that. Minky's the fool.

The Grapes of Wrath

lilly writes: "Now, conservatives, tell me what I should do: 1) Not teach Steinbeck at all. 2) Teach the novel, but from the point of view that he was wrong. Because Option 3, which would involve explaining what Steinbeck was trying to say, and why, and how, would apparently be seen by you as proselytizing for Socialism. You would want me to say "Steinbeck was wrong." Am I right? (Thank God, I am retired.)"


Dear Miss Lilly,

I loved The Grapes of Wrath. As an aspiring but likely never-will-be writer, I never cease to sigh when I read anything written by Steinbeck. This man could write and when he wrote, he wrote for the ages, not for some pop-culture audience.

I do not say this lightly when I say I envy him his talent and wish to God that I had but a tenth of it long enough to complete just one novel.

You are a teacher, Miss Lilly, I am not - nor have I the arrogant presumption to advise you how to teach what you know so well.

That said, tell them to read Steinbeck's book in the historical context it was written. It was a wretched time, one bereft of earthly hope or reasonable expectation and utterly void of any promise of better days that seemed so easily attainable the decade before.

Steinbeck dared to dream of a world governed by the better angels of human nature, where the demons of past prejudice and oppression were forever banished to shadowlands forever unnamed.

More than anything, The Grapes of Wrath is a story of hope for a better future. How can that ever cease to be relevant as long as sinful men share the same summer sun and winter snows with saints?

Rather a shame you are retired. I wonder how many of today's so-called English teachers ever bothered to read Steinbeck.

Sincerely yours,

Nemo Particularis

Chimpanzee Minky

minky writes: "Lilly As usual, a moronic post.
Why would you feel that you had to take a stand on Steinbeck's opinion...It is extremely disturbing to know that there are teachers with no real understanding of their role."

Read my response to Lilly, just before your post. Learn from it. Consider yourself chastised and, hopefully, humbled.

Well! What are they?

DarkMessiah writes: Sunday, July, 29, 2007 6:40 AM
Townhall.com needs rebels too.
"It needs people to stand up to the neo-con crackpots who put Israeli interests before American interests."

The "interests", not Neocons.

For every proposal why must there be an opposition?

Why just Israel? Why not oppose our interest in the security of every country we aid.

Worse than the assumption that you are right is the assumption that anyone knows what your talking about.

lilly! The proper question...

from a person who claims to be a teacher would be nice.

"how you would have me proceed in order to be politically correct in your eyes. Suppose I were teaching a survey course of the 20th century novel and I wanted to include John Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath". Steinbeck believed that Capitalism had failed society and that Socialism would be a better option."

The proper question is how would a leftist grade a paper that disagreed with Steinbeck. If the paper claimed he was wrong and the theory of capitalism never failed anyone. That governments failed in proactive and regresive legislation. That individuals failed thru avoracious behavior and failure to fulfill the commitments implied in the formation of corporations.

The economic principles and political concepts behind capitalism whould not be a subject graded in english class. And it is the left which seeks to enforce PC standards.

Lilly

Yes, and I too am glad you have hung up your chalk and eraser. You can still teach Steinbeck and factually tell students the thrust of the material, just knock off the liberal editorializing. Just because you give an assignment, that does not imply, you have to take a side--let the students read and learn without your attempt at persuasion.

A Talking Minky

minky writes: "Why would I be humbled by by your post."

A good question answered less eloquently by your words than by your arrogance.

"I learned nothing from your post...you don't "teach a novel". The novel stands on its own. You don't teach your students whether the viewpoint of the author is correct or not."

I never suggested that. Reread my post. This time concentrate on the words.

"Not unless you're a liberal."

That's funny. You might want to peruse the craters left by some the bombs I've dropped. Go to Ann Coulter's column and then Hugh Hewitt's. Take notes. You might learn a thing or two.

"And the "chimpanzee" reference?"

Inspector Clouseau. It was too rich to pass up.

Hey Nemo

You have me really confused now!!

My comment "you don't teach your students whether the viewpoint of the author is correct or not", was directed entirely at Lilly and her confusion over the proper way to "teach" Steinbeck. At no time did I imply that you had an opinion, one way or another, on that statement.

My statement, "Not unless you're a liberal", was my followup to the "you don't teach your students........" quote. I admit that it is an extremely gratuitous generalization but, if I'm reading you correctly, you thought that i was again referring to you. Not so.

I'll admit that when I referred to Lilly's post as moronic, that was a little over the top. I guess I, also, reserve the right to leave a few "craters" behind. Hopefully I won't do so with such arrogance in the future!!

Ohhh!! "minky" ...."Clousseau". Now I get it. Geez. I was beginning to take it personally.

Teaching Steinbeck

Having taught Steinbeck at a number of different levels, let me share my experience.

One can hardly teach Steinbeck without addressing the historical context, even with 9th graders. How people react to their circumstances and either overcome or are overcome can be addressed universally.

Interestingly, the only two issues I ever had in teaching Steinbeck were brought to me by conservatives. I had to weather a firestorm of conservative anger becuase I actually taught the non-expurgated ending to The Grapes of Wrath to college bound seniors.

More interstingly, I also had to confront a parent in regards to Of Mice and Men. The book contains oblique references to possible sexual encounters between a man and a wife. The conservative parent wanted to know why that had to be in the book. WHy were we teaching such trash?

I made the "mistake" of talking about the need to teach students how to think. And I received the archetypal conservative response: "You don't need to teach my daughter how to think. I will tell her what to think." That's a direct quote, and it is really what this is all about.

Conservatives sinmply cannot handle the idea that their kids are going to be exposed to ideas with which they disagree. All the bluster about leftists in the University is justy a smokescreen. What you guys hate is the idea that someone, somewhere sees the world differently than you do and that you will lose control over your children's thoughts.

You can see that as a reality all over this conversation. Anytime a conservative writes about how liberalism has done nothing or that liberals are "evil", you know for sure that you are readign a conservative who finds teh world too complex and who simply can't tolerate anything which challenges his or her own narrow view of the world.

Yet more Jack(off) Logic...

Jack: "Conservatives sinmply cannot handle the idea that their kids are going to be exposed to ideas with which they disagree. All the bluster about leftists in the University is justy a smokescreen. What you guys hate is the idea that someone, somewhere sees the world differently than you do and that you will lose control over your children's thoughts."

If your thoughts did not have to pass through the compost heap that is your liberal prejudice, they might - MIGHT - have some merit.

For decades conservatives have had to deal with their children being exposed to all kinds of ideas with which we disagree at the hands of their liberal instructors, at the hands of liberal Hollywood, at the hands of liberal network television, at the hands of the liberal MSM and on and on.

What we hate is the idea that liberal teachers do not so much teach as they indoctrinate.

"Anytime a conservative writes about how liberalism has done nothing or that liberals are "evil", you know for sure that you are readign a conservative who finds teh world too complex and who simply can't tolerate anything which challenges his or her own narrow view of the world."

Do much projecting, Jack?

Warrior

Back to "Grapes of Wrath": if the teacher says "Steinbeck thinks that Socialism beats Capitalism", that's not the same thing as the teacher saying, "I think that Socialism beats Capitalism". Don't you see the difference?

The Lilly White Truth

lilly writes: "It must happen about every five seconds that somewhere in the world a student gets a paper back with a grader lower than he likes and blames the teacher for penalizing his opinion."

So very true. A good teacher will prepare her students' minds to properly assimilate information and properly process it to form opinions based not so much on the expression "I feel that..." as they are on the expression "I think that..."

Opinion is no substiture for either facts or factual analysis.

Mea Minky Culpa

Minky writes: "I would like to apologize to Lilly and the rest of the Townhall crew for my boorish behavior. Oh and, Nemo, it wasn't bourbon. It was a very nice Kolsch ale. Mea culpa."

Don't dwell. Take two aspirin and post again in the morning.

And if the students already were IN Iraq

Jack writes: Sunday, July, 29, 2007 1:12 PM
Why Are There College Republicans?
How can there even be any college Republicans? They all should have enlisted to fight in Iraq by this time.
==========

The current president of the UMass Republican Club and the immediate past president of the UMass Republican Club are both Iraq War Vets. Another was commissioned as a 2LT (or the UMRC equiv) upon graduation last spring and currently is in theater. As are a few other graduates.

Remember three things - first you gotta have a college degree to be an officer so many graduate with a ROTC (Army/Airforce) commission, or are going through summer trainings so that they can get a Marine commision upon graduation.

Second, a lot of people have already been to war and are coming home. We are getting kids coming back who have 2 years and combat experience who aren't even 21 yet, which raises lots of interesting issues. And if one enlisted in 2001, that was six years ago and there are vets in their mid 20s (and 30s) who are now coming back to get thier college degrees. These folks are quiet but not quite happy about all of the foolishness. And then there are those who are in guard/reserve units who might be called up and might not - and that isn't their decision.

And third, not everyone can enlist. One has to have 20/200 uncorrected vision, most conservative girls (correctly) realize that they don't have the body for combat, et al.

Vietnam was different. When you look at who is fighting over there, it truly is our best and brightest, boys we can be proud of.

why be politically correct?

> lilly writes: if I were teaching today and
> had brave young conservatives as my students,
> I would need guidance as to how you would
> have me proceed in order to be politically
> correct in your eyes.

Why would you need to be politically correct, or politically ANYTHING?

You teach Stienbeck as follows:

Stienbeck was writing in the midst of the Depression when people thought X, Y and Z because of A, B & C. He was a socialist who believed X, Y and Z. He did/didn't write the book to advance his political views - and you cite your research to defend your perspective.

Notwithstanding the political views, there are specific literature type things in Grapes of Wrath and you can point these out. Development of characters, narration, that sort of stuff. And you point this out.

Then you point out the historical impact of this work, the author, and perhaps the socalists as authors on American history.

This is all perfectly legitimate - and I would rather have this than some of the garbage I have had. Stienbeck makes more sense to a conservative IF you know that he was a socalist. And these things are all facts and there is nothing wrong with teaching that.

But what you have to be careful of is how you evaluate the student who writes that Stienbeck lived in an era prior to the Great Society and when the four-generation welfare family was unknown. The student who argues either that Stienbeck would have voted for Ronald Reagan, or that Stienbeck's political views led him to misinterpert what was going on around him.

Even better, the student who compares Stienbeck's reality to that of Solgylsniztion and argues that as bad as America ever was, it had no gulags...

Conservative students don't mind leftist viewpoints as long as we aren't forced to agree with them...

Pirate

Pirate,

In order for what you say to have any meaning at all, you have to provide some sort of evisdence that conservatives who write well thought out, supported papers with conservative themes are being graded differently than others.

If what you say is true, i.e."Conservative students don't mind leftist viewpoints as long as we aren't forced to agree with them" and you are definitely not forced to agree with anything, then isn't this whole point a tale told by an idiot, etc.

Effective teaching: one good technique

I've taught in a university for 35 years. I'm regarded as an effective teacher, based on enrollments and recognitio by my peers. I teach political science, and this means I'm likely to have a lot of ideological variety among my students. I teach about different political viewpoints by trying to get across what the world looks like to believers in whatever ideology I happen to be covering. If I'm teaching the major political philosophers, from the Greeks to today, I try to do the same thing.

In more innocent times, I used to offer a sixpack at the end of the semester to the student or students who came closest to guessing my own political views. We've had an alcohol-free campus for a long time, but I'm proud of the fact that I had to make good on my promise very rarely.

Here's a handy little formula I came up with to do what I described: Consider the following (which you can do with an ideology or the writings of some major political philosopher)

1. Presuppositions: what does the viewopint take for granted about human nature, societ, government, etc.?

2. Intentions: what are the works or bodies of writing produced by an ideological movement or by an individual thinker trying to do? Or, what are the aims of the products of an ideological movement?

3. Arguments: what do the believers in an ideology or some great political thinker actually claim? How are these arguments supported?

4. Implications: if we accept the perspective that is found in the writings of an ideological tradition, or the viewpoint of some great political thinker, what follows from that?

The point, of course, is not to do this sort of analysis mechanically, but it does lie in back of what I try to do in the classroom.

lily - anent Steinbeck et al

--
Sorry for having come late to the party, but my jaundiced eye was caught by your earlier statement regarding 20th Century mainstream fiction, to wit:

"Suppose I were teaching a survey course of the 20th century novel and I wanted to include John Steinbeck's *The Grapes of Wrath*. Steinbeck believed that Capitalism had failed society and that Socialism would be a better option. "The Grapes of Wrath" delivers this message through plot, characterization, and narrative interchapters. Now, conservatives, tell me what I should do: 1) Not teach Steinbeck at all. 2) Teach the novel, but from the point of view that he was wrong. Because Option 3, which would involve explaining what Steinbeck was trying to say, and why, and how, would apparently be seen by you as proselytizing for Socialism. You would want me to say 'Steinbeck was wrong.' Am I right? (Thank God, I am retired.)"

Yes, "Steinbeck was wrong" might be the proper caveat. I'd make the point far more forcefully, but then I'm a retired professor of medicine, not English Literature.

One of the many problems with those who structure and teach survey courses on American 20th Century literature is that they are (1) without unbiased historical or praxeological knowledge of the times in which these authors wrote for a living (and therefore incapable of giving their students any insight into *why* a writer such as Steinbeck was wrong when he wrote the "great novel" which the course participants are being obliged to read-and-regurgitate; (2) unaware of their courses' peculiar prejudices - absolutely and irrevocably supportive of the command economy (socialism) and hostile toward the free market (capitalism).

One of the tests that best serve to evaluate the bigotries of the typical English Literature instructor is to ask his/her opinion of H.L. Mencken, who - in addition to establishing the philology of *The American Language* - was perhaps the single most influential critic and editor of popular American literature during the first three decades of the 20th Century.

To my amusement, I've done so quite a number of times since my undergraduate days, and I've found the response almost uniformly humorless, hateful, and hostile.

And spectacularly ignorant of the facts of Mencken's life and corpus.

Mencken, y'see, was a staunch opponent of socialism (and anything else reeking of meliorism directed and enforced by government goons), and just natcherly bound to go against the English Department member's unthinking baseline predispositions in that area.

--
Mencken's Creed

I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind - that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking.

I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholly useless to the race, and that no trumpeting of falsehood, however virtuous in intent, can be anything but vicious.

I believe that all government is evil, in that all government must necessarily make war upon liberty...

I believe that the evidence for immortality is no better than the evidence of witches, and deserves no more respect.

I believe in the complete freedom of thought and speech...

I believe in the capacity of man to conquer his world, and to find out what it is made of, and how it is run.

I believe in the reality of progress.

I - But the whole thing, after all, may be put very simply. I believe that it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is better to know than be ignorant.
--

Jack,

...you stated that "Conservatives have decided a priori that teachers and instructors are proselytizing". I have no doubt that there are some very reactionary conservative parents. Considering the incidences of liberal students and INSTRUCTORS taking part in shouting down, throwing pies or other objects, and generally trying to squelch conservative voices on campus, I'm surprised that there isn't more of backlash than what there has been.

I guess that the liberals have decided "a priori" that the conservative voice is not worth hearing.

Capt Nemo

A very interesting response, notable for its references to works which may or may not exist and may or may not make a legitimate supportive case. In other words, my point was that your charges are pretty much baseless runmor and your response is to provide NOTHING.

It's a handy but transparent tool to suggest I would not accept your "evidence", given that it relieves you of the responsibility for providing any.

Thus far, you have exemplified exactly what I was saying about conservatives: rumor, anecdote and spin constitute an "argument."

SJ-Doc

I like Mencken as well as anyone, but he has his limitations. Not being thoroghly familiar with or a big fan of Mencken is no great sin. AS a linguist he's tops. As a literary figure, he's not. Chalk that up to the lack of significant fiction.

That said, his creed sounds likee would find the modern conservative miovement pretty distressing.

Jack

Sorry, pal, but I disagree with your "pre-determined truth"

SJdoc

If the teacher tells the class "Steinbeck was wrong" then that statement imposes the teacher's opinion on the students, who should be free to decide whether THEY think Steinbeck was wrong. In any case, whether or not Steinbeck was wrong is irrelevant to teaching his novel. All that is relevant is that the novel's context be presented. Did Steinbeck do a competent job of presenting his argument? Do his characters illustrate the message he intends? How? Given the intended message, does the plot make sense?

This isn't about opinion: whether you admire Ma Joad or think Tom is a Christ figure is not the point of the exercise. And, yes, it is very much the teacher's job to know the historical, social, and personal context of any novel he or she undertakes to teach. In spite of the oft-stated townhall opinion that colleges should be trade schools, there is actually a valid argument for literature and history to be taught and preserved, and those who teach it do, in fact, perform work and possess knowledge.

The Humanities are not science and not medicine. In your shop, surgical technique is either aseptic or it is not---no middle ground, and that's as it should be. But in literature, "right" and "wrong" are not absolutes. And it's just as inappropriate for a conservative teacher to say "Steinbeck was wrong" as for a liberal one to say "Steinbeck was right".

Name Game: Jack-Jack-Bo-Back...

Jack writes: "A very interesting response, notable for its references to works which may or may not exist and may or may not make a legitimate supportive case."

Nice try, but I'm not taking the bait, Jack. We both know they are out there and odds are we are both thinking of the same books. I make it a point never to get into a crapping contest with a liberal because he is way more full of it than I will ever be.

Besides, all we'll end up doing is going on and on and on exchanging excerpts in much the same manner that the Monitor and Virginia exchanged cannon salvos and with similar effect.

"In other words, my point was that your charges are pretty much baseless runmor and your response is to provide NOTHING."

Actually, my charges are grounded in empirical reality. Trouble is, your reality is not my reality and vice-versa.

"It's a handy but transparent tool to suggest I would not accept your "evidence", given that it relieves you of the responsibility for providing any."

I offered no evidence, Jacko...I merely indicated that plenty of evidence exists. I try not to waste my time proving that which is, for the most part, self-evident.

It would be like trying to convince Rosie O'Donnell that, mirabile dictu, it really WAS a pair of jet aircraft that brought down the Twin Towers and not a government conspiracy of massive proportions and Byzantine convolutions that somehow managed to circumvent everything we understand about the gregarity of human nature.

"Thus far, you have exemplified exactly what I was saying about conservatives: rumor, anecdote and spin constitute an "argument."

And thus far you have done what liberals do best: accuse others of committing the sins they commit so often, cast their perceived adversaries as ignorant and boorish, then scurry for the high ground to claim victory.

True, you have asked for a presentation of the facts. But I've dealt with your kind before and I'm a veteran of just the sort of factual trench warfare you are suggesting. It's a long, boring, drawn out slog that, like the trench warfare of the First World War, accomplishes nothing while leaving all the participants drained and spent.

As for me I've done enough just pointing out who and what you really are. I leave it to other, much younger conservatives who have the time, the moxi and the patience to engage you in a Monitor versus Virginia duel that we all know will only end in a stalemate.

No mo' please...

Give it up, Nemo.

No amount of spin can hide the fact that you were asked to provide some kind of evidence and your response to that requwst has been utter bull****.

Remember, my contention is that conservatives tend to argue from the position that what they say is already known to be true, as you claim that the truth of your position is "self-evident." All you have done is posit that you are correct and then refuse to provide any support for your contention. It's a fundamental intellectual failing, amplified by the fact that you are exhibiting a fundamental intellectual failing in a conversation about fundamental intellectual failings.

If younger conservatives are going to take up this fight, as you suggest, then I certainly hope that they do a better job. If they enter a University with your attitude, they are bound to think the deck is stacked against them.

Approximately 1.7 million courses are taught in America each semester. Even if there have been 1000 legitimate complaints, which I challenge you to find, that is 6 one-thousandths of one percent. How does a number of that magnitude support your contention?

Only a crater remains of our Miss Lilly

SJ_Doc writes: "Either you're an idiot without any critical sense whatsoever (and therefore can maintain a "diminished capacity" defense), or you're trying to doublespeak your way out of a situation in which you've been caught in the light and can't cover your butt any other way. In which case, you're just a lying weasel."

Holy smoke. I tip my hat in salute to you, sir, partly out of fear but mostly out of respect. Compared to you I am nothing more than a neophyte.

Speaking of education, there are some here who maintain that a liberal bias on present day college campuses is an illusion of simple-minded, anti-intellectual conservatives. I won't name names-Jack-but I will say that I'm pretty sure he's mistaken.

What say you, SJDoc?

What SAy You, Nemish?

WHy are you running to someone else Nemo?

Jack Squat

Jack writes: "Approximately 1.7 million courses are taught in America each semester. Even if there have been 1000 legitimate complaints, which I challenge you to find, that is 6 one-thousandths of one percent. How does a number of that magnitude support your contention?"

Bingo...right on the money, just as I predicted. All I had to do was refuse to take the bait and sooner or later you'd tip your hand.

In effect, you are setting up the argument with an insurmountable standard of proof - nevermind the fact that you arrived at the number of courses taught every year by basing the calculations not on hard, empirical evidence but rather by numbers you pulled out of your arse.

You liberals are nothing if not predictable.

Jack - I'm a conservative?

--
Jeez, that's news to me. Given that I've always been four-square in favor of unrestricted economic exchange among consenting adults (including the trafficking of "controlled" substances, the production and conveyance of pornography, and the complete abolition of professional licensing [in accord with the recommendations of the late Milton Friedman]), the very *LAST* description to which I'm entitled is the term "conservative."

our contention that I'm in favor of replacing "Liberal" (there's no such thing as a real liberal any more; the word is used in the sociopolitical sense only as a weasel-word for "socialist") bigotries in academia with their conservative equivalents, is, therefore, pretty damned puzzling.

To continue drawing upon Mencken:

"The fundamental purpose of education, in college as in the high-school and so on down to the kindergarten, is to set the young mind upon a track, and keep it running there in all decorum. The task of a pedagogue, in other words, is not to turn out anarchists, but to turn out correct and respectable citizens."

(Editorial in *The American Mercury*)

And by "correct and respectable," Mencken most certainly meant "dull and unthinking." Consider Ritalin and its congeners as he modern educationalist's prime and most prized tools for gaining and keeping the power "to set the young mind upon a track, and keep it running there in all decorum."

The objective of the educationalist (as with all other practitioners of propaganda) is to squelch critical thinking, almost invariably in the guise of inculcating critical thought.

But the *proper* mode of critical thought only, of course. Nothing that questions the fundamental assumptions, nothing substantive, and - above all else - nothing truly representing a departure from the prejudices of the professoriate.

Oh, a delicious hint of the heretical, a puppy's feeble wriggle of opposition, a safe play-pen grab at the illusion of critical thinking, but *never* anything that challenges the precepts or threatens to tread new ground. Something cute, something upon which the Department Chair can smile indulgently, something that gives the senior faculty cause to remind one another about the kinds of serious, silly idealism that struck them as fevers in their youth, and passed - as fevers will - with time.

Instructors in the various military courses - whether technical or combat courses - have a "moral obligation" to teach their students to think and function in such fashions as are required for the accomplishment of the mission, the survival of their fellow soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, and their own well-being.

Under what "moral obligation" do the instructors in high school and college courses - in English literature and otherwise - have?

Not their *FUNCTIONAL* obligation, which is to keep the animals quiet and tractable while making them jump through the hoops like good little performing seals, but their *MORAL* obligation to each student as an individual human being?

If the teacher does *NOT* "...have an obligation to point out the folly in even selecting the book [i.e., *The Grapes of Wrath*, a slice of popular socialist propaganda from the dark and horrible days of FDR's four-in-one Great Depression]," then what *is* that teacher's professional responsibility with regard to explaining why that well-written but fundamentally evil work is on the "read-and-regurgitate" list?

I mean, if a biology instructor were to oblige his/her students to swallow a pile of fantasy about "creation science" without forewarning the kids about *WHY* they were wasting classroom time and pupil effort with what the Roman Catholic parochial schools teach - more openly and honestly - in theology courses, wouldn't that biology teacher be defaulting upon his/her "moral obligation" to put that creationist crapola into proper perspective?

So give forth, why don'tcha? Does the teacher of English literature have as much of a "moral obligation" to educate his/her students on the methods of critical thinking needed to get through the intellectual minefields of socialist propaganda as the BUDS instructor has to get his SEAL trainees prepared to fight their way out of a mujahideen ambush?
--

Jack - Tsk. Hardly "erratic"

--
...but rather fastidiously consistent.

You remind me of a guy at the township Republican Club twenty-five years ago, who blanched and boggled, gasping:

"My gawd, you're pro-choice on *EVERYTHING*!"

Yep.
--

College is too late

If you don't want your child to be "indoctrinated" into a liberal mindset, waiting until they are going to college is too late. This is not to say I am brainwashing my children to be a conservative. When I saw my son beginning to just parrot my opinions, I began playing "devil's advocate" with him. This is how my father taught me and it is very effective. It keeps them from being outspoken in public and getting embarassed by not being able to think on their feet.

My son began arguing politics with teachers in middle school. He had a history teacher who would make vague references against the war and against the President. Most students ignored him (because, let's face it, kids that age really don't care one way or the other), but my son argued for the war.

NemoParticularis - on the higher level..

--
Beyond the opinion "...that EVERY teacher of young minds has a moral obligation to educate his/her students on the methods of critical thinking needed to get through ANY intellectual minefield, be it socialist, capitalist, secularist, deist, etc.," there's the uniquely American problem that the educationalists control the curricula and certification criteria that determine the qualifications by which their Union compatriots (what, you think that the NEA is an association of independent small business professionals, like the AMA?) gain and keep employment in the government indoctrination camps -

- Er, make that "public school systems" -

...are in any way prepared (or to any extent whatsoever personally predisposed) to teach kids anything resembling critical assessment and analysis under any circumstances whatsoever?

I live a few miles away from what was once known as Glassboro State Normal, and thus I'd had the opportunity to meet Professor Richard Mitchell of that institution's English Department. If you're unfamiliar with his name or the history of his running gunfight with the educationalists, permit me the opportunity to introduce to you the pleasure of reading his work from the long-running publication he'd uttered, *The Underground Grammarian* (see http://www.sourcetext.com/grammarian/).

In Mitchell there is at least one example (though, alas, he is now silenced by mortality) of what an instructor in the English language and English literature is capable, even if Dr. Mitchell's example to his colleagues and successors is honored *far* more thoroughly in the breach than in the observance.

Y'see, the ex-Education majors (who teach *every* subject in the grade school/middle school levels, and thus begin the poisoning process at the very most thoroughly teratogenic point in a child's intellectual life) don't know what the hell is the differnce between terms like "socialism" and "capitalism" -

- or the fact that "capitalism" is a pejorative term cobbled up by a couple of "scientific socialists" in order to demonize what was known at the time as the advocacy of "the free market" - y'know, the arguments of people like John Locke, Frederic Bastiat, Cobden, Bright, Adam Smith, the French physiocrats - who argued for individual liberty and the abolition of government practices of "legal plunder" that had been in force for so many thousands of blighted and horrible years.

Expecting the educationalists to teach critical thinking is rather too much like expecting a blind, deaf, and dumb quadriplegic to teach bicycle racing.

Please consider, therefore, that my previous stipulations of the moral obligations which are by rights incumbent upon teachers at every level of the educational process to have been uttered purely for the sake of *Gedankenexperiment*, inasmuch as there is little prospect of the qualified ex-Education major having the ability to instruct students in the subjects of history & moral philosophy, and absolutely no possibility that he/she might ever be permitted to do so in an "educational" institution run by a government anywhere in these United States.
--

NemoParticularis - anent Mitchell

--
Sorry for the broken link. They're not "test-able" in this never-to-be-sufficiently damned Comments" box. I'll try a bit more:

(1) http://www.sourcetext.com/grammarian/

(2) http://www.sourcetext.com/grammarian/mainframe.html

(3) http://www.sourcetext.com/grammarian/newslettersv01/index.html

I do thoroughly despise a Website constructed with "frames." If I want a smaller functional display area on the monitor, I'll buy a smaller CRT.

Regarding Mencken, you're fortunate in that there's a great deal more of Mencken's stuff (as well as scholarship *on* Mencken) in print now than there was when I ran across him in high school and college, lo these many decades ago.

Truth to tell, the teachers avoided mentioning him as fastidiously as they could in the '60s. I came at him on the recommendation of one of the many journalists and essayists who idolized him, specifically H. Allen Smith (writer of one of the better humorous novels of baseball in his work entitled *Rhubarb* [1946]).

Check out the first *Chrestomathy* (the second is not quite as good), and *A Carnival of Buncombe* *Minority Report* may prove a bit more difficult (I found my copy a few decades ago in a Baltimore used bookstore - and, no, you can't borrow it).

*The Vintage Mencken* is still in print (and likely will remain so indefinitely), but it's cut to Alistair Cooke's taste, and rather less to my own.

My own e-mail addresses being by no means as disposable as yours at AOL (I have to use them for business purposes), I'll take the measure of contacting you directly.

Unlike the ghodawful remnants of the culture in the blighted and blasted counties raddled with Mets and Yankees fans to the north of the Wharton Tract, the diners of South Jersey are in many cases decent and civilized places in which to entertain.

--
The imbeciles who have printed acres of comment on my books have seldom noticed the chief character of my style. It is that I write with almost scientific precision - that my meaning is never obscure. The ignorant have often complained that my vocabulary is beyond them, but that is
simply because my ideas cover a wider range than theirs do. Once they have consulted the dictionary they always know exactly what I intend to say."

...--H.L. Mencken, *Minority Report* (1956)

Neem, Three Strikes

So,

For the third time you refuse to actually produce any evidence.

It appeares you are either unwilling or unable to differentiate between anecdote and meaningful support. You seem to think that saying "There is plenty of evidence from all over the country of a pervasive liberal bias in academia" is a substitute for actuially providing that evidence. One would think if there were plenty of evidence, you could readily provide it.

Don't you think it is ironic that the topic is really the teaching of critical thinking? You are suggesting certain people don't or won't teach ctitical thinking while you yourself are exhibiting utter ignorance of the process.

This may be one reason conservatives feel baffled by a campus environment. If they are indeed expected to think critically and adhere to basic principles of argumentation, such as the responsibility to provide support for an affirmative claim, then it makes sense that they would feel oppressed.

But neither I nor America's universities are to blame for their incapacity, or yours, in this regard.

hiJACKing the truth

Jack writes: "For the third time you refuse to actually produce any evidence."

What I refuse to do is jump through your hoops.

Jack: "It appeares you are either unwilling or unable to differentiate between anecdote and meaningful support."

It may appear that way to you, but then, your perception of reality is distorted by your bias. I am both willing and able to differentiate between anecdote and evidence. What I am unwilling to do is engage in a tit-for-tat pissing contest, which is what the debate would quickly become, as any I evidence I offered would be dismissed out of hand as either anecdotal or statistically insufficient. Like I said earlier, I played that trite little liberals' game once before. It, like you, is both tedious and boring.What bothers you is that I figured you out so quickly and so completely.

Jack: "You seem to think that saying "There is plenty of evidence from all over the country of a pervasive liberal bias in academia" is a substitute for actuially providing that evidence. One would think if there were plenty of evidence, you could readily provide it."

One would think so. Enough with the kabuki theatre, Jack. You know it's there, you know where to find it - chances are you have probably examined it already and dismissed it. All I did was save myself a lot of trouble at the expense of your opportunity to crow.

Jack: "You are suggesting certain people don't or won't teach ctitical thinking while you yourself are exhibiting utter ignorance of the process."

On the contrary, you are the one who leveled that accusation against conservatives. If it is anyone who has demonstrated ignorance in the course of this thread, it has been you.

Jack: "This may be one reason conservatives feel baffled by a campus environment."

Baffled? Nah. Frustrated by the pervasive liberal bias? Absolutely.

Unfortunately, you don't recognize the bias, Jack - indeed, you are in complete denial, much like those in the mainstream media who steadfastly maintain that they are objective and unbiased.

Much like your MSM counterparts,you are unable to comprehend the need for a solution because you cannot come to terms with the fact that you are part of the problem.

Where's the beef?

Jack writes: “This is what passes for argumentation in conservative circles.”

Tut, tut, Jack-Jack. The conversation actually goes like this:

Rational person: "The higher education system in this country suffers from a liberal bias."

Doctrinaire liberal: “Do you have any evidence? And I don’t mean anecdotes, hearsay, books or magazine articles written by right-wing nut-jobs, because I will dismiss these as biased, skewed and ultimately insignificant.

I demand, hard statistical data based on a sampling drawn from the courses taught in the colleges and universities throughout the U.S. I want a sizable sampling, but, of course, I won’t define what ‘sizable’ is and if I do define it, it will be an absurdly high figure.

Rational Person: There is no point in spending a lot of time to gather whatever data is available. You’ll only dismiss it out of hand.

Doctrinaire liberal: But you must show me the evidence of your claim or I will not believe you.

Rational person: You don’t believe me anyway and no amount of evidence will change your mind because your mind is already made up. Why should I waste my time?

Doctrinaire liberal: See? You are a typical closed minded conservative, incapable of critical thought, who cannot defend your assertion.

By stating that my response is indicative of all conservatives, you engage in the very thing you accuse conservatives of doing. Where is your evidence for this assertion?

At least 100 million Americans consider themselves to be conservative or very conservative. What evidence have you gleaned to substantiate YOUR claim, Jack? I demand hard statistical data – not anecdotal hearsay. I don’t want you to ply me with one or two books written by liberal moonbats or the typically biased articles from the liberal mainstream media. I want had, cold data.

C’mon Jack, you can do it…you have the mainstream media and the entire university system on your side.

Go for it, Jack

Jack writes: "But you made the claim. Now you support it."

Okeedokee then. Time to see if you are half as predictable as I predicted.

Let's start with "Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty" a survey conducted by Stanley Rothman, S. Robert Lichter and Neil Nevitte. You can find a copy of it in PDF here:

http://www.cwu.edu/~manwellerm/academic%20bias.pdf

I predict that you will challenge the validity of the survey method.

The Rothman Study

Jack writes: "The study suggests that there are more liberals than conservatives in the ranks of the professoriate."

It doesn't 'suggest' it, Jack. It flat out states it; moreover, the liberals vastly outnumber the conservatives.

Jack: "It would be highly unusual for a far right wing conservative to be on a biology faculty, given the interplay between evolution and religion and conservatism. Ditto Physics: why would a highly educated physics professor consider himself or herself aligned with Young Earth Creationists?"

What a nonsensical and absurd generalization. Have you conducted a survey of conservative biology and physics students and teachers on which you could base this assessment? Or is it nothing more than your own uninformed prejudice? I can just as easily argue that, because liberalism dominates academia (as solidly as it dominates the MSM) there is a hive mentality that excludes those who do not conform to the party line.

And there are plenty of accounts out there of otherwise eminently qualified academics who were denied acceptance into a faculty, denied tenure or dismissed before acquiring tenure because they were either perceived as or actually were conservative. Yes, they are anecdotal. Nevertheless, they happened.

Jack: The point is whether there is anying outside of anecdote which supports the contention that there is a problem in the classroom? Got anything?"

The fact that the majority of the professoriate is liberal pretty much tells us there is a problem. As for anecdote: a single brick is not much in the scheme of a masonry ediface. Multiply it many times over and add a little portland cement and suddenly a wall starts to form.

Liberals don't know Jack

Jack writes: "A physics geek...would find little to recommend YEC."

While most, if not all, YECers are conservative, not all conservatives are YECers - especially conservatives who dedicate their careers to science.

"What you apparently do not recognize in the discussion is that I was presentating an alternative to your claim..."

Your alternative is just the opposite of what actually exists. That is to be expected, given the parochial, close-minded and often dogmatic mindset of the present-day liberal.

"Being on a college faculty holds little allure to conservatives."

No small wonder, given the poisonous liberal atmosphere that exists there.

"Conservatives...are committed to the idea of absolute, objective values...Such a commitment is the antithesis of the academic process."

It is the antithesis of the LIBERAL academic process, in which there is no truth or objective standard for anything. Hence Ward Churchill and the academic lynching of Lawrence Summers - to name but two of myriad instances of liberal lunacy.

"Your claim that "majority of the professoriate is liberal pretty much tells us there is a problem" is absurd in an academic sense. If conservatives think like you do, no wonder they don't thrive in academia."

It is no surprise you come to this conclusion. You are liberal and in your mind liberalism = reality. Unfortunately it is not reality; you labor under a delusionally hostile perception of conservatives as ignorant knuck-draggers. By your own admission the majority of the college professoriate is liberal. If the liberals on campuses are anything like you, then I rest my case. Now you can stop blathering.