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
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Walter E. Williams :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Shame of Higher Education
by Walter E. Williams
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?


Many of our nation's colleges and universities have become cesspools of indoctrination, intolerance, academic dishonesty and the new racism. In a March 1991 speech, Yale President Benno Schmidt warned, "The most serious problems of freedom of expression in our society today exist on our campuses.. . . The assumption seems to be that the purpose of education is to induce correct opinion rather than to search for wisdom and to liberate the mind."

Writing in the fall 2006 issue of Academic Questions, Luann Wright, in her article titled "Pernicious Politicization in Academe," documents academic dishonesty and indoctrination all too common today. Here are some of her findings:

-- An ethnic studies professor, at Cal State Northridge and Pasadena City College, teaches that "the role of students and teachers in ethnic studies is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."

-- UC Santa Barbara's School of Education e-mailed its faculty asking them to consider classroom options concerning the Iraq War, suggesting they excuse students from class to attend anti-war events and give them extra credit to write about it.

-- An English professor at Montclair State University in New Jersey tells his students, "Conservatism champions racism, exploitation and imperialist war."

Other instances of academic dishonesty include professors having their students write letters to state representatives protesting budget cuts. Students enrolled in cell biology, math and art classes must sit through lectures listening to professorial rants about unrelated topics such as globalism, U.S. exploitation of the Middle East and President Bush.

Wright is also the founder of NoIndoctrination.org, a website containing hundreds of reports of similar academic bias and dishonesty.

Anne D. Neal, president of The American Council of Trustees and Alumni, wrote a companion article titled "Advocacy in the College Classroom." She says that campuses across the nation have cultivated an atmosphere that permits the disinviting of politically incorrect speakers; politicized instruction; reprisals against or intimidation of students who speak their mind; political discrimination in college hiring and retention; and campus speech codes.

On most college campuses, there's the worship of diversity. The universities of Harvard, Texas A&M, UC Berkeley, Virginia and many others boast of officers, deans and vice presidents of diversity. Many academics make the mindless argument, with absolutely no evidence to back it up, that racial representation is necessary for academic excellence. For them, getting the right racial mix requires racial discrimination.

Diversity wasn't the buzzword back in the 1970s, '80s and '90s. Diversity is the response by universities, as well as corporations, to various court decisions holding racial quotas, goals and timetables unconstitutional. Offices of diversity and inclusion are simply substitutes for yesterday's offices of equity or affirmative action. It's simply a matter of old wine in new bottles, but it's racism just the same.

In an open letter titled "To the President of My University," Carl Cohen, professor of philosophy at the University of Michigan, summarizes, "Diversity is a good thing -- but the claim that the need for diversity is so compelling that it overrides the constitutional guarantee of civic equality is one we swallow only because, by holding our nose and gulping it down, we can go on doing what our feeling of guilt demands."

Until parents, donors and taxpayers shed their unwillingness to investigate what's sold to them as higher education, what we see today will continue and get worse. Just as important is the recognition of the fact that boards of trustees at our colleges and universities bear the ultimate responsibility, and it is they who've been grossly derelict in their duty.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Walter Williams' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Jack
First, we have some common ground. I agree that discussion can be good, when there is critical analysis and the allowance for opposing views.

However, that wasn't the case of Omatsu's class that my wife attended.

Mush for brains was hyperbole derived from the quote from "The Paper Chase". Law classes consist of both the attainment of knowledge of the law as well as an involved critical analysis of the material.

Knowledge and critical thought is required here, too. Any knowledge or discussion in the class in question consisted of reinforcing his opinion, not analyzing different positions. Maybe a better description is that of William's main thesis; the instructor, without a healthy examination of the subject, indoctrinates malleable minds.

Anyone who knows my wife knows that there is no mush in her brain.

In reference to class fairness, the Asian, Afro-American and Latino studies classes at Pasadena City College were oriented to pump up the self-esteem, for lack of a better word, of the subject minority. There were by far a majority of Asians in the Asian studies course. There were far more African-Americans in the Afro-American studies class and Latinos in the Latino studies course.

They original purpose for these minority courses was to educate the _other_ minorities about the subject minority. Knowledge and understanding reduces ignorance and discrimination, a worthy objective.

However, this class was used to further alienate groups. There was no pretense of objectivity.

My problem with Omatsu rejecting my "reasonable" question is because he intended to incite rather than to raise consciousness. He meant that the Chinese were responsible for Stanford University, not anyone else.

Which is more factually accurate and better portrays the conflict? Which one glosses over the real conflict to in order to claim ownership? What ideas do each statement transmit?

Instead of the word “fairness” describing my desire for class balance, I would substitute “objectivity”. I do not expect that each and every class should agree with my beliefs. That would be boring. However, I do expect objectivity. If objectivity is not possible, I would settle for the polite consideration of differing ideas. Is that “fair”?

Do I think about Leland Stanford and the Chinese laborers more after this discussion? Obviously, the answer is yes. That is true for every other discussion. I will think about Charlie Brown more after a discussion of the comic strip Peanuts than before.

Do I need to constantly re-examine everything in order to maintain objectivity? No.

In the specific case of Stanford, I have been exposed to both sides of the issue. I can explore multiple sides and integrate them into a whole. If I haven't, I recognize that I shouldn't come to a conclusion. If I happen to be mistaken, I am big enough to accept the new information and modify my views.

There's the rub. This Omatsu's class was designed to push one side of an issue and then set the students forth into the world to promote change.

You may think that I'm exaggerating. However, I am not. You may believe that this is just a different “point of view”, rather than propaganda. I would agree if he had used the statement as an attention grabber to get people to think. However, that was not the case. This class was a textbook (oops, sorry) case supporting Walter William’s thesis.

You have presented a thoughtful position, which includes principles that are true for the vast majority of classes. I would agree whole-heartedly with your positions for normal classes. This was true for my college experience. The problem is that this was not a normal class.

I appreciate thoughtful discussions like this.

Peter
I disagree with little of what you say. But you have yet to make the jump between a compilation of articles, which you admit contains opposing viewpoints, to the claim that humanities professors are "largely and self admittedly Marxists."

I only ask because I know a number of them and none of them are Marxists. They are quite aware that Marxist and post marxist criticism exists, but are equally conversant with more traditional views.

Again, proving a phenomenon exists is a far cry from proving that it is ubiquitous and/or problematic.

wjriii
I respectfully disagree with your perspective, but I don't deny your perspective exists.

Just a few points.

Using students to teach other students has a long and well documented history of success. It's a strategy I have had to be part of and it is a strategy I have used. Having to impart a concept to others forces the "teacher" to make sure he or she understands and can explain that concept. There are few better ways to make sure students understand something than by requiring them to explain it to others. The very concept of the seminar is central to a great deal of advanced education, and that is what we are talking about here.

I find it very peculiar that you conceive of students having nothing but mush for brains. By your lights, a conservative student in a course led by a radical leftist would not have the acuity or perspective to make a counterargument. A professor would be correct, according to you, to tell a conservative, "sit down and shut up you don't know what you are talking about." Likewise, if your wife had a brain of mush, how can her evaluation of the class carry any weight? I am sorry you think of her that way.

Your conclusion regarding Stanford is really quite to my point. You posit what you consider a "reasonable" question. It is indeed reasonable. Omatsu apparently thinks his position is reasonable as well. (Though I suggest a formulation like his is created precisely to challenge students' existing paradigms.) You think it is unfair that he does not agree with your definition of reasonable. Right? I find it unfair that you do not agree with his definition of reasonable. It comes down to him saying things with which you do not agree. I am sorry, but you do not necessarily get to have an education that only says things with which you agree or even things which you think are reasonable.

I am struck by the peculiar idea that each and every course should somehow be a model of fairness. As I said, there is no shortage of instruction, material and propaganda that extolls the virtues of Leland Stanford. What seems to gall people, down deep, is that there is even one course, even one person who disagrees. Omatsu's point of view is perfectly legitimate. So are others, but those points of view might well be expressed in other classes.

And finally, there is a long standing tradition, which I would be glad to document, that a great deal of learning comes from having to work through periods of cognitive dissonance. People learn by having to make sense of things that don't seem to make sense at first. Teaching can often be a function of creating that cognitive dissonance.

Tell the exact honest to God truth. Did you think about Leland Stanford and his workers more AFTER this issue came up or BEFORE.

Punish the Best
A high school French teacher told me of the classroom challenges posed by the wide spread of abilities among her students.

Her solution was to enlist the best students to help the slowest ones. She thought that the ego boost of doing her job (unpaid) would compensate for being denied instruction at their level.

Response to Jack and Proof
Richter's collection actually consists of excerpts from leading books by the major players in the field. I should have made that clearer. If I had more time, I would cull the exact quotes for you, but the arguments have a tendency to be a bit long-winded. It's also not entirely fair to say the literary criticism is merely "one field," especially given the interdisciplinary drive of the humanities and the countless cultural studies programs that have spawned out of the (post)Marxist hybridization of literary studies and other fields.

Jack - Omatsu and Stanford
It's clear. Williams _did not_ quote Omatsu. He quoted from Wright. I gave you the trail of quotes. The best that you can say is that he quoted Omatsu indirectly.

You suggest that William's point, that a great many teachers indoctrinate instead of teach by using the quote "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" is weakened because he didn't consider the other four points Omatsu made regarding his "valuable legacy for pedagogy".

Let's assume for now that Omatsu's quote does not stand by itself, which I do not believe.

First, read the first part of the paragraph:

"Until four years ago, all I knew about teaching was what I gained from my participation in social movements, including the struggle for ethnic studies. For me, this is a valuable legacy for pedagogy, which can be summarized in five points."

Omatsu stated directly that he developed all five points through his participation in social movements. All five.

But, let's look at each one:

1. "learning in the classroom must be linked to community movements".

To which movements is he referring? Asian-American protests. Do the students get to choose which protests in which to be involved? No.

2. "knowledge is something to be shared, and any student taking a class in ethnic studies has a responsibility to find ways to share that knowledge with others."

Students share knowledge? Where is the presentation of history? Where is the critical analysis of these events and their impact? Instead, students automatically are assumed to have knowledge.

Here's a rough analogy. I remember the notable quote from the show "The Paper Chase", where the law professor played by John Houseman says something close to this. "You come into my class with a head full of mush. You will leave this class thinking like a lawyer." Applying the analogy, the students exchange their mush.

This is not teaching facts and developing critical reasoning skills. This is merely an exchange of unexamined questionable ideas.

3. "every student is a teacher and every teacher is a student.."

Ditto

4. "knowledge must be used to confront those with power in society .."

This is the point from which the "affliction" quote comes. See point one. The instructor determines the direction of the confrontation.

5. "students armed with knowledge from ethnic studies can become agents of social change when they join with community movements."

It sounds good. However, who is he sending out to the world to affect social change? He is sending students who have spent the semester preaching to the choir.

In actuality, Omatsu didn't closely follow his own five points. Remember, my wife was in his class. I have second hand experience from my wife's real first hand experience.

Omatsu closely controlled the flow of the course. He paid lip service to being just a "facilitator". There were almost no opposing views discussed. There was no critical analysis. Articles from students from other schools were distributed as supplemental class texts. Any discussion amounted to blind acceptance of the conclusions.

He did not take students to protests. Maybe it was a slow semester. Maybe did so in his classes at other schools, UCLA and CSUN Northridge.


Regarding the founding of Stanford University, there is a truism of all capitalism. SUCCESSFUL EMPLOYERS ALWAYS PROFIT FROM EMPLOYEE'S LABOR. The only question is whether the profits were ill gotten.

Stanford didn’t just write a check. There was no credit given for his vision, drive and know-how.

Instead of flatly stating that Chinese labor was solely responsible for Stanford University, a reasonable discussion question would be, was Stanford University founded with blood money?

This question clearly presents the all of the issues that you have raised. Omatsu’s discussion did not leave room for this question.

It was that bad. My wife was there.


thanks dr. williams
sigh... and many thanks to those still willing to spend their time responding to the lilly moonbats. Some very sharp analytical knifing to enjoy.

Kudos mr.right, too. Take the goofballs to task.

Cheers


Pamela
Literature is a sort of filter. In it we find a distillation of human emotion, experience and wisdom. Rather than validating literature by finding support for its ideas in psychological of sociological scholarship, I validate that scholarship by whether it can be found in literature. So yes, we can understand relationships, war, economics, and the rest by reading literature as much as by reading academic work.




What good literature can teach us
If you want to know about the psychology of men at war, you can read a sociology or a psychology textbook, or you can--
1) read "The Iliad," and struggle with the proud and volatile Achilles; or
2) read the poetry of Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen.

The textbooks may be more technically "correct," but Homer, Sassoon, and Owen are more stimulating, more interesting, and (let's put it bluntly) more beautiful.

If you want to know a little bit about how and why people fall in love, again, you can read a psych textbook or one of those dry, superficial how-to-hold-your-mate or Men-Are-From-Mars-Women-Are-From-Venus; or
You can read "Romeo and Juliet" or "As You Like It" by William Shakespeare. Better still, you can SEE "Romeo and Juliet" and "As You Like It" by William Shakespeare.

If you want to know more about the struggles of mothers and fathers as they grow old and feel their powers and faculties slipping away from them, you can read a psych textbook on "senility" or a health textbook on geriatric ailments; or
You can read (and see) "King Lear," possibly the most heart-rending tragedy Shakespeare ever wrote.

What does the literature have that the clinical textbooks don't? Chiefly, the power of EMPATHY -- the ability to put the readers in the shoes of people different from themselves and to lead those readers to share their experiences. An eighteen-year-old can BECOME the aging King Lear. A homemaker can BECOME the soldier Achilles. A forty-five year old white man from rural Georgia can BECOME the passionate, maddened General Othello. Wisdom and understanding can pass from individual to individual.

But if you want to know what will happen if the fiction-bashers had their way, try reading "Hard Times" by Charles Dickens.
Not a pretty picture.

God Bless Conservative children!
My daughter is a sophomore journalism student (and an editor of the college paper) at an elite liberal New England university. When forced to read Noam Chomsky for a class with no opposing view presented, she complained to her professor. He told her "I don't care if you agree I just want you to understand it." At semesters end she presented him with a copy of Ann Coulter's Treason with a note that said "I don't care if you agree I just want you to understand it."

Her favorite hoodie proclaims "my professor is a pansy liberal".

Pamela

There are risks to the literary minded on all sides. The risk from the conservative side is an open and pervasive anti-intellectualism: great works are just so much worthless verbiage. The risk from the left is that great works can be rendered impotent by ridiculous anlaysis and lack of differentiation.

But that is why we teach this stuff in the first place. My beloved ma, a librarian, was adamant about quality emerging over time. Read, consider, read again, discuss, and read some more. The works of true quality will emerge every time.

wriii

Hope this can be followed.

you startt with:

“First of all, Williams _did not_ cite Omatsu. Luann quoted Omatsu.”

Williams reproduces Omatsu’s exact words, in quotes. Whether he took them from Wright or not, this is still a reference to Omatsu. If he took the quote from Wright without verifying her use of it, then he should be called on it.

“Here is Luann Wright's quote: 'An ethnic studies professor who teaches at Cal State Northridge and Pasadena City College declares, “…the role of students and teachers in ethnic studies is to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable.”'

Here is Omatsu's quote from the LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW Vol.32:791 page 792 paragraph 1, cited by Luann Wright: 'To adapt one slogan from early journalism: the role of students and teachers in ethnic studies is to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable.'

Before responding, please get your facts straight.”

The fact is that Omatsu was placing his pedagogical technique in a larger perspective by knowingly adapting a reference to journalism. By leaving that out it changed the point of the discussion.

“Williams was making the point that these study programs indoctrinate, not teach. His use of Luann's quote supports his thesis.”

But her approach, and by extension Williams’ approach, ignores the other four aspects of Omatsu’s pedagogical approach, which are very sound. It is but one more case of cherry picking, which is at the core of this entire discussion. Regardless, the quote does not suggest anyone is being indoctrinated, it suggests that the professor has an intellectual and philosophical position on his subject matter. What a shock.


*** "Wjriii may not want to hear that while Leland Stanford was getting rich an awful lot of Chinese laborers were getting dead. But wjriii absolutely needs to hear that, because it is very real." ***

“Your bias is showing. I never said that Stanford _did not_ get rich from his company which used Chinese labor. I stipulate that he did profit from Chinese labor. It is a completely separate discussion to debate whether he profited fairly or unfairly.”

That might well be your position on the question. But it is certainly not the only way to look at it. You might want to separate those discussions, but it is perfectly appropriate to join them as well. It is exactly the point that while most people consider Stanford to be a glorious bequest from old Leland , looking at it from a different perspective leads you to a somewhat different conclusion. Likewise, for many years people considered the settling of the American West a grand and glorious adventure. Looking at it from the point of view of the American Indian leads you to a different conclusion. For an ethnic studies professor to consider the founding of Stanford from the perspective of exploited Chinese labor is perfectly reasonable.

“My point is that the Omatsu tried to claim that THE CHINESE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR STANFORD UNIVERSITY, which is far different than saying Stanford was able to found and endow Stanford University with money earned (fairly or unfairly) from Chinese labor.

Which group of his Chinese laborers had the vision to create Stanford? Who negotiated to get approval for the project?

If you cannot see the difference, you have been indoctrinated”

I doubt very much that Omatsu’s literal point was that the money really came from thousands of Chinese wills. He is asking his students to reconsider their understanding of an event and take a different point of view. It is very realistic to say that the blood, death, and broken bones of the Chinese laborers are responsible for the creation of Stanford University. This is not twisted logic: this is a legitimate alternative view. Once again it becomes clear the problem is simply that you don’t want to hear a story that challenges your beliefs.


Waste of Space Checking In Again
wjriii,
Thank you for your words of encouragement. I needed them, and still need them. I, for my part, wish that more conservatives agreed with YOU, and understood that what I do for a living (i.e. guide students toward a greater appreciation and understanding of language and literature) has some value.

Unfortunately, there aren't many like me OR like you.

I believe in individual responsibility, in limited government, in educational choice, in property rights, and in dignity and self-control. I am a conservative. But how easy is it to be a conservative when you have "Trevors" perpetually telling you that the very things you prize most highly in your personal life -- good books, good stories, the opportunity to experience life beyond my own back-yard and to see the world through the eyes of another -- are just so much worthless trash?

Just as we can't let Leftists pervert literature to serve their own ends, we can't let the fiction-bashers, the uber-literalists who cannot conceive of the value of Story and who dismiss Charles Dickens right along with George Clooney, co-opt the conservative movement. We must take care that we don't let disgust with Leftist profs turn us against literature itself, or disgust with Leftist "artists" turn us against the very idea of Art.

I would be very sad to live in a world run by fiction-bashers. For interesting depictions of such a world, check out Bradbury's classic "Fahrenheit 451" as well as the aforementioned "Reading Lolita in Tehran." The former paints a fictional dystopia; the dystopia depicted in the latter is all too real.

Do these books present a world we'd like our children or grandchildren to grow up in? If so, let's just shrug our shoulders and let the fiction-bashers win.

But if not, let us unite and TAKE BACK LITERATURE!

Peter
You are making the same rhetorical error as Williams. I do not disagree that there is such a field as Marxist criticism. I do not disagree that there are even Marxist professors. But, allowing for my own emphasis here, you claimed that HUMANITIES professors are LARGELY and SELF ADMITTEDLY Marxist.

Your evidence is ONE text from ONE field which you claim is FAIRLY STANDARD.

In any course there will be multiple texts which will be presented and dicussed. The mere existence of one on a reading list is meaningless.

I have no idea what "fairly standard" means. Can you tell me?

There are many fields in the Humanities.

The techniques of literary criticism taught in a course do not tell you whether a particular person is a Marxist.

To generalize, the existence of a phenomenon does not indicate anything about its impact or its ubiquity.


To Jack: Your Empirical Proof of Marxism
Skim through a copy of David H. Richter's "Falling into Theory." It's a fairly standard book for teaching English majors about critical theory and theoretical approaches as well as the state of the field. While Richter does attempt to provide critics with conflicting views, most of them are explicitly about how to best implement Marxist and post-Marxist ideologies. Harold Bloom is one of the only voices to appear in the book to say it's a bunch of hogwash (and I give Richter credit for including him). Most other critics in the book directly argue that the Reagan administration's economic policies are directly at fault for the decline of the English majors, overtly call for more government intervention, tell students that their mission is to question and subvert the dominant capitalist ideologies of their culture, suggest that globalization is key to dissolving the evil of national identity, and claim that the modern teacher must use literature as a means of undermining conservative and capitalist forces that oppress the victimized Other. You can read it yourself.

Wanda Gag - So?
wanda gag writes: Wednesday, April, 04, 2007 10:36 PM
"where is it better?
Which country has the best higher education system in the world?"
----

Is that your proof that there is no problem?

Pamela - It's not the subject
Pamela writes: Wednesday, April, 04, 2007 11:33 PM
"It's a rotten job...
but surely some body's got to do it. What do we do -- throw out the precious baby of education with the bathwater of profs whose ideology we disagree with?"
-------------------

I'm glad that you are out there in academia. Congratulations and thank you. We need many more like you.

Nobody said that all teachers, including literature teachers, are moonbat, left-wing commie sympathizers. The problem is the higher educational system which allows left-wing bias to seep into the classroom and spread out into the whole campus environment (e.g. club discrimination, speech codes, heckling conservative speakers, etc).

Just yesterday, Karl Rove was pelted with rocks after speaking at American University. How big a story was that? What would have happened if it had been College Republicans pelting Ted Kennedy or John Kerry?

Do you remember how Larry Summers was drummed out of Harvard?

I also recognize that not all left-wing professors push their ideology in the classroom. I had a social science class with a professor who announced in the first class meeting that she was a socialist. She went around the room, asking everyone to give their name and something about themself. When it was my turn, I gave my name and told her that I was on the County's Republican Central Committee, which I was. She gave out only 2 A's, one of which was mine.

No one wants to close down universities. I would very much like to shine the light on these institutions and expose the bias. We need public opinion with us to have any chance at reforming the system.

Ooops there's one of those words that the liberals like to throw around: progress, change and reform. They may not like this kind of reform.

lgm

I am surprised there are ANY conservatives on your faculty. How did they get hired: by mistake?

It's a rotten job...
but surely somebody's got to do it. What do we do -- throw out the precious baby of education with the bathwater of profs whose ideology we disagree with?

Because that's essentially what you're doing if you assert that nobody with any talent, ability, common sense, or skill would bother to become a teacher. This is the notion proposed by Trevor and doubtless agreed with by many. But you guys are making a serious mistake: you're confusing the messenger with the message. You're assuming that because the messenger often doesn't know what the h-e-double-toothpicks he is doing, the message itself must be worthless. If literature teachers are mostly "moonbats," then there must be something inherently wrong in the literature itself, right?

Wrong. Wrong! WRONG!

For proof positive that it's possible to be a lover of literature, and Heaven forfend, even a TEACHER of literature, and still be a conservative, take a look at Harold Bloom. Nowhere will advocates of the best of literature (most of which was written by dead white males) find a more vehement and articulate spokesman than Professor Bloom. I disagree with his anti-Harry Potter vendetta, but I agree strongly with his determination to protect great literature (particularly Shakespeare) from the desecration of political correctness.

Surely someone must be willing to speak for Homer, Sophocles, Euripides, Virgil, Dante, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Swift, Pope, Austen, Wordsworth, Keats, Dickens, and Twain, all of whom have come under fire for expressing viewpoints incompatible with collectivist liberal ideologies. These writers eschew collectivism; they are individuals, speaking to individuals. The stories they tell both enlighten and ennoble. They MATTER -- and they will continue to matter, however much the PC police would like to twist or pervert them to make them mean something other than what they say (as they do with Austen) or expunge them altogether (as they would do with Twain).

Someone has to step up and be an advocate for literature itself, not some PC's misguided idea of "literature." Since I love to read, and since I think language and Story are important, why shouldn't it be I, even though I'm a conservative?
What's more, I'm not alone. Dr. Elizabeth Kantor's "The Politically Incorrect Guide to English and American Literature" is well worth a read; she too is a conservative who believes literature is important enough to rescue it from the liberals who would turn highly individualistic art into absurd, hollow collectivist indoctrination. Trevor, please read her book. Please.

Another book well worth reading by conservatives who value literature: "Reading Lolita in Tehran" by Azar Nafisi. Nafisi's work has been praised by a lot of liberal critics, but don't be quick to dismiss it on those grounds. It's actually a moving work which illustrates the Power of Story, and shows (rather than merely tells) why literature matters in a society where political indoctrinators seek to grind down individuals into cookie-cutter collective shapes. Plus, it shows what's at stake in the war against Islamic terrorism.

Don't dismiss literature just because you don't like a lot of literature teachers. And beware of assuming all teachers and lovers of literature are liberal "moonbats." It's not true. Case in point: ME.

Moonbats at work
I passed the shining halls of an esteemed colleague of mine at our mutual community college while he intoned of some poll that showed 73-74% of Dems. in DC believe global warming is caused by human activity but only 23% of elected Reps. believe so. This poll was not being used to "prove" global warming by man-made means because even lib. nutcase profs know you can't prove science by pol. polls. No, the educational point was to prove how stupid Reps. are. A very imp. point to teach on any college campus. I will be teaching, however, that cosmologists now report the entire solar system is warming: Mars' poles are melting, Venus is hotter than ever, poles on Saturn are warming (at least one pole), Jupiter has new storm spots, and even little planetoid Pluto stuck so very far away on the outer limits of our little planetary community is feeling a warming glow from its very distance sun. Al Gore will not then become the energy-rationing csar of dictating who can buy gas and when but just another scaredy cat wondering how to cool things off.

where is it better?
Which country has the best higher education system in the world?

Not so
"Yes, colleges and universities are liberal. Anyone who says they are not is either ignorant or blatantly dishonest." -- Sort of OK. A majority of faculty and students are liberal, but the college is not institutionally liberal the way some places are institutionally Christian.

"If you are conservative and try to speak up, you are shouted down as racist, sexist, homophobic, or some other form of apparent evil." -- I have been teaching at an elite university in a liberal city for 20 years. I have never heard a conservative faculty member shouted down. There are conservatives in my department. We discuss politics over lunch -- sometimes heatedly. Then we go back to work, together, pushing the frontier of knowledge.

Partisan Professors are child molesters!
Those Professors have betrayed a sacred trust from the parents of children they cheat of chances to learn.
Partisan Politics closes a student's mind and turns them into Partisan Parrots just like the Libs we see around here.

The teachers job is to prepare a student's mind to absorb knowledge and direct them toward knowledge. All of life is a gigantic learning process.
Each thing a person learns becomes a permanent part of the person and makes that person more than he was before.
It shapes his character and determines what he is.
You are only as much as you know.
You can be less but never more!
In depriving the students of knowledge by wasting learning time on partisan politics, the teacher steals a little part of what each studend could have become with an honest teacher.
They are CHILD MOLESTERS!

Lilly - part 2
(Sorry, the submit button got pressed accidentally)

Your response to those objecting to those pushing their agenda is to choose another school. I cannot believe that if the roles were reversed and the preiminent colleges and universities in the US indoctrinated students in Supply-side economics, self-reliance and small government in totally unrelated classes, that you wouldn't be screaming your head off in anger.

Lilly
lilly writes: Wednesday, April, 04, 2007 11:12 AM
To wjriii
Gosh, I don't know. Maybe because they're smarter? Or because they think that child labor and twelve-hour days and lousy compensation are morally wrong? Or maybe they believe that when business doesn't look out for its labor force, it's up to labor to look out for itself, which it does by collectively organizing?

I don't see what the problem is. I googled and found all kinds of conservative schools---Bob Jones University, Liberty University, Patrick Henry University et al---if you don't like Harvard and Princeton and the University of Chicago, send your kids wherever you want. It's a free country.

-------------
I see. You have no problem with espousing anti-capitalistic, socialistic and communistic ideology. No one said to white wash the past. The problem is using past injustices to indoctrinate students to embrace socialism and communism while rejecting capitalism in a vastly different situation today. How can you call this indoctrination History?

YOU CAN'T.

Your response to

Jack - Wrong on quotes and Stanford
Jack writes: Wednesday, April, 04, 2007 11:02 AM
"One of the Few...
who call this hooey.
.
.
*** "When Williams cites Omatsu, he gets the quote wrong and then tells only half the story. Omatsu cites a number of principles for teaching his courses, and Williams leaves the rest out entirely." ***

First of all, Williams _did not_ cite Omatsu. Luann quoted Omatsu.

Here is Luann Wright's quote: 'An ethnic studies professor who teaches at Cal State Northridge and Pasadena City College declares, “…the role of students and teachers in ethnic studies is to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable.”'

Here is Omatsu's quote from the LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW Vol.32:791 page 792 paragraph 1, cited by Luann Wright: 'To adapt one slogan from early journalism: the role of students and teachers in ethnic studies is to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable.'

Before responding, please get your facts straight.

Williams was making the point that these study programs indoctrinate, not teach. His use of Luann's quote supports his thesis.


*** "Wjriii may not want to hear that while Leland Stanford was getting rich an awful lot of Chinese laborers were getting dead. But wjriii absolutely needs to hear that, because it is very real." ***

Your bias is showing. I never said that Stanford _did not_ get rich from his company which used Chinese labor. I stipulate that he did profit from Chinese labor. It is a completely separate discussion to debate whether he profited fairly or unfairly.

My point is that the Omatsu tried to claim that THE CHINESE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR STANFORD UNIVERSITY, which is far different than saying Stanford was able to found and endow Stanford University with money earned (fairly or unfairly) from Chinese labor.

Which group of his Chinese laborers had the vision to create Stanford? Who negotiated to get approval for the project?

If you cannot see the difference, you have been indoctrinated.

Shaduan,
You've got to understand- any criticism of, or any failure to bow down & worship at the altar of Darwinian Evolution means the uneducated hicks who believe in the Bible are shoving their beliefs down the throats of these poor kids.

Suggested reading:
Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel
Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe
Nature's Destiny by Michael J Denton
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, also by Denton
Priveleged Planet by Guillermo Gonzaelz & Jay Richards


Web search
There are plenty of examples of liberals not wanting to listen to, shouting down, physically assaulting speakers, or administratively taking action against. I have included a few I found in only minutes of web searching.
Taproot

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v19n2/chamberlain_conservative.html

http://www.frontpagemag.com/blog/index.asp

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/

http://www.thefire.org/index.php

two more examples
1. Here at the University of Arizona in 2004, Audience members were shouted down and shoved as they tried to enter the venue where Ann Coulter was to speak. This is the time she was also attacked by a pie throwing activist.
2. Karl Rove was ganged up on in his vehicle just today, as he was leaving a speech venue. Various projectiles were hurled at his car and several arrests were made.

A factual correction
Lilly,

In one of your previous comments, you noted as evidence of the conservative takeover of education the decision by the Kanas Board of Education to get "...rid of evolutionary biology so that Bible Creationism may be substituted for science." You need to check your facts. Kansas did no such thing. Kansas simply made an allowance permitting science teachers to present information in the classroom critical of the Theory of Evolution. That's it. Present Information Critical Of. Be assured that the Theory of Evolution is alive and well in Kansas and being taught. Scientific criticism of the Theory is also being taught (in some, few classrooms). Some students are actually being allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to buy Darwin's theory and are being allowed to decide if the critics of evolution have any merit. I suppose that scares some people, but it hardly marks a conservative takeover of academia.

Complaints, complaints, complaints
Okay, so what is anyone doing about it? I intend to participate in an alumni luncheon next week that will enable me to speak with the president of my alma mater. I intend to ask him about Horowitz's book, The Professors and find out whether this is reprentative of my former university. I intend to ask him specifically about professors like Ward Churchill. I intend to ask him whether my university promotes diversity in a political sense and what kind of balance exists among the ranks of professors who teach today's students. Okay, so what is everyone else planning to do about it?

oops, my bad
I thought Roanoke colony was later -
it was 1585!
Maybe patriot11c, has ties to members
of the lost colony!?! This will be
the history story of the year!

Jack DOES Know
Right is its Own Defense is actually right on. I have never claimed that higher ed isn't liberal. Anyone who did wouldn't be honest. I also agree that most of the people who complain about higher ed really have no idea of how it works or what happens. (He assumes I am NOT in higher education)

But I submit that the vast, vast majority of folks who teach do it just as he describes. Where faculty have an ideological ax to grind, the grind it, but as he says, students are usually far too bright to be overly influenced by any one position. In other words, anyone too far to any side of a question is rightly perceived as an outlier by the great majority of students.

The complaints do lead to a few real misconceptions though. One is that students ought to get all sides of a question IN EACH AND EVERY CLASS. In someo classes this might be true, but in most cases students need to get the whole picture from their entire experience and, most importantly, their own efforts.

The key is that no one on any side of a question ought to feel comfortable staking out a position without a legitimate, well supported argument. "Opinions," as the man said, "are like buttholes. Everybody has one." To which I add that exposing them in public generally doesn't help the debate.





Love the leftist claim
I often see leftists here post "well, educated people are left-wing because reality is left-wing" or some such nonsense.

this gives lie to that theory. Educated people are left wing because colleges try to indoctrinate students in the leftist ideology and many are not strong enough to resist that indoctrination.

In short, many "educated" leftists are leftists because their will was too weak to resist the propaganda of their university professors.

Sorry, but it is the truth.

Did the Google
I did the google search recommmended.

The only case I found (in the first couple pages of references)which extended beyond legitimate protest was the Gilchrist event at Columbia. Those students were reprimanded and I have found no commentator who supports what they did.

Now, because no one else seems to have been able to do it, I did find an article from 2001 that actually listed some events in a way that could be considered useful. Search for Dan Flynn from 2001.

So far, nothing provided can justify Williams characterization that "Many of our nation's colleges and universities have become cesspools of indoctrination, intolerance, academic dishonesty"




some replies to posts
Mr. Right (2nd post), the examples of the
US imperialism are numerous, especially
if you include Indian nations, but the
most famous of course is the Spanish-American
War.

patriot11C, who emigrated here in 1585?
Do you have that date right?
This is years before Roanoke.

Bluebustard, I have to say I side with
the National Labor Committee on child
labor. The article you site is arguing
for economic development based on a 19th
century model. Having a poorly educated
populace is not going to bode well for
these countries. Having a global minimum
wage for products traded on the international
market of say $3 a day (yes, a day!) with
7% yearly increases would do a lot more than
having them zoned for slavery:
http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=244

Jack doesn't know Jack
I am an economics professor at a state university and it always amuses me how people who are not in academia try to make claims about what's wrong with academia, while others say all those claims are anecdotal.

Yes, colleges and universities are liberal. Anyone who says they are not is either ignorant or blatantly dishonest. If you are conservative and try to speak up, you are shouted down as racist, sexist, homophobic, or some other form of apparent evil. But some of us don't care whether people try to label us unfairly, or use ad hominem attacks when they can't rebut our logic and facts. Because if those of us who are conservative give up and give in to their arguments that are often devoid of facts, it will only get worse.

When I teach macroeconomics, it involves a lot of politics, so I have students tell me anonymously whether they consider themselves closer to Republican or Democrat. It almost always comes out about 50-50. I try to teach as straight as possible, criticizing both sides of the aisle when they deserve it. The students often thank me for not trying to change their minds, but trying to give them the knowledge necessary to make up their own minds based on facts. But I have good news for my fellow TownHall readers: most of the students know that the liberal moonbat professors trying to indoctrinate them are doing exactly that. They're smart enough to figure things out on their own, provided they get an occasional conservative professor to balance things out. They know when they're being sold something that isn't true. It's sad that they have to repeat the party line and spit back what the teacher wants to hear, but they don't fall for it any more than the rest of us fall for it when Jack or Lilly make their specious arguments here.

Jeff
This will be fun. You make a few interesting points. For example you ask, "What if the best teachers in high schools around the country earned $100k?" I suggest that conservatives, who regularly complain about teacher salaries, would freak out! I would be all for that pay level myself, but I doubt your fellow conservatives would approve.


You suggest parents should open their mouths. Here's the opportunity for MY anecdote. When I taught high school English, a parent complained about "Of Mice and Men". and to why students were being asked to analyze any literature at all. When I explained that, like your own mother, I was teaching critical thinking skills, I was told, verbatim, "you don't need to teach my daughter to think: I will tell her what to think." I thought that was interesting.

But mostly I was amused by your anecdote. You've "heard stories" about something. No evidence. Not even any first hand experience, which would be amusing at best. Nothing but some stories you've "heard." This is too typical of the discussion on this topic.

Jack ? Do the google !!
Instead of me posting a bunch of urls to new articles of the left shouting out non-PC speech, simply do a google search on ""speaker interupted, university", or sustitute interupted with "shouted down", with no mention of left or right in the search and what do you find? Articles from media all over the world and the overwhelming common thread is lefties censoring people they disagree with. Columbia finally repremanded some students for what they did back in 2006 when the Minutemen went to speak there. Horowitz is routinely interupted, as are Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, Larry Elder, to name just a few. The right does not as a rule behave this way, one of the reasons I quit identifying with the left back in the late 80's - I simply got tired of the behavior. As an aside, I just opened my 5 yr old's paperwork from his elementary and on the front page of the school newspaper is "Everyone Agrees - the Science is Settled. Man is responsible for Global Warming". Global warming and it's causes are still very much in dispute, just not to the left.

Do the google !!! Don't be afraid.

Jack
You made some good points and did it rationally (something kinda rare in the 21st century).

One minor point: The left generally is extremely vocal in public. The right generally isn't. You rarely see large vociferous groups of right wingers protesting/advocating some issue.

The media thrive on conflict and contention, anger and angst (if it bleeds . . .), so the left will always get the lead. A right-wing group may get 3 seconds of air time, but, hey, they aren't screaming and yelling.

The left sees yelling, screaming and shouting as an effective tactic and thus drowns out the right, regardless of the merits of either group.

Is the left's message that good or are they merely louder?

Rebut vs. refute
Jack, you have disagreed, but you have proven nothing except that you disagree. BTW, I got a 404 Error (Page not available) at the Gitlin link you provided.

If you want to pursue this, run a search on the following keywords: "conservative speaker shouted down."

Meanwhile, I do think you demonstrate beautifully your proposition that people just do not like to hear things with which they disagree.

Is it possible...
That the reason so many liberals are in education is because of the pay?
What if the best teachers in high schools around the country earned $100k?
What if full Professors earned $250k a year?
How many liberals would stay liberals?
Not many.
I wonder if the indoctrination occurs at such high levels is a direct result of the limited pay offered.
Allow me to explain (I'm really not a dum-dum)...
I have friends that are teachers in Chicago that started out earnign $35k a year. Three years later, they were still earning sub $45k a year.
On the other hand, I also know people who went to medical or law school who make well into the six figure range.
The teachers are exclusively liberals and the doctors/lawyers are exclusively conservative.
I think the attraction to education many liberals have is to the power to shape and mold young minds to think as they do, perceive as they do, and do as they do.
My mother was a teacher for 30 years in the public school system. She refused to indoctrinate students with patterns of thought and chose to teach people to think for themselves using reason, logic, and knowledge.
I was always told as a child that school was to train a mind how to think critically, not what to think. Perhaps it is time for parents to open their mouths and say something....
Perhaps the best thing that could come of this is to install camera's in the classrooms and have periodic reviews by educational supervisors whose job it is to detail occurences when teachers stray from education and begin indoctrination. I've heard stories of liberal teachers failing students based on research papers that had a conservative viewpoint. The student brought the same paper, submitted for an english class, to a Professor that also taught english, but wasn't a lib, and that teacher gave him an A. The student brought the paper back to the original professor who stated that he would not consider changing the grade. The student brought it to a dean, who met with both professors, and forced the original professor to change the grade.
Politics has no place in the classroom.
This is supposed to be an institution that frees young minds, not one that closes them off.

dyerje
A couple of points refuted:

"1. Gitlin objecting to being included in Horowitz' list is hardly "evidence" that Horowitz is in error."

Of course not. And I did not say it was. I said that the reasons and examples Gitlin provided were enough to show that Horowitz was in error.

"Shouting someone down is the opposite of academic freedom, the whole point of which is that differing views should get a hearing."

I agree completely

"Like lynching black men and blowing others up for religious reasons, the fact that is happens at all, without redress, is the problem -- not whether it has crossed some arbitrary threshold of occurrence in ratio to opportunity."

This is NOT true. A. No information regarding lack of redress has been presented. B. If one is to argue that there is a systematic problem, one has to present information regarding a system wide issue. Frequency DOES matter. For example, I would not suggest the religious right has a problem with crazy bombers because Eric Rudolph set off a bomb in Atlanta. But I would argue that Islamic Wahabbism does have that problem.

Likewise, oen can argue that American culture did have a lynching problem, to say the least, becuase the number of such deaths ran into the thousands.

In short, Horowitz, Willams, and others here mistake the part for the whole. I claim that the real issue is not an overhwelming systematic problem: it is that people just do not like to hear things with which they disagree.







sorry
Sorry for any misspellings folks.Just one of those days I guess...

Lilly
Your a prime example of indoctrination. I'm so glad you posted here. Your dribble proves everyone's point. Hawii was actually on the verge of civil war. It was the Hawiians themselves who locked up their queen and voted for statehood. You left that little tidbit out. You also left out the little tidbit how home schooling while it increased slightly in the 1960's, not the 1950's, it became almost non existant in the 1970's and has since been resurging since the 1990's. Not only have you been indoctrinated, you are doing a great job of indoctrination.

Dr. Williams wrote,
" Many academics make the mindless argument, with absolutely no evidence to back it up, that racial representation is necessary for academic excellence. For them, getting the right racial mix requires racial discrimination."



I often wonder what would happen if next semester, no one applied to Texas A&M, Harvard, etc. except black women . . .




Not to change the subject - Lilly
But the home-schooling myth ticks me off. I can trace my family's history back to 1585, which is when they migrated from Europe to this country.

Listen closely, THERE WERE NO SCHOOLS in Delaware in 1585. EVERY child was home schooled.

So actually, you're wrong Lilly.

Amen
Amen and it's our fault. This is what you get when you totally turn over the education of your children to other people. Everyone should be asking questions and paying attention to the dribble coming out of our schools. Here is a sample of what I have had to fight.

English teacher trying to suspend my child because he insisted that we were allied with the Germans in WWI. Child corrected him. He didn't much appreciate it.

History teacher, teaching Henry VIII had eight wives and beheaded six.

History book printing in black and white that we did not discover the existance of Africa until the 1880's. That's just one sample of gross inaccuracies in this book.

English teacher teaching Kurt Vonnegaut's "Cat's Cradle" instead of "Grapes of Wrath", stating "Grapes" has no academic value, along with Mark Twain.

English teacher dumping an entire curriculum because it was mostly made up of white western males and teaching instead Buddhism, Humanism, Daoism, Schintoism, and Existentialism. Then went on to teach those incorrectly.

I could print pages and pages of this, but I think you get the idea.

Self Righteous Liberals

Who smuggly rail against child labour do much more harm than good. Read about it yourself here:

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=45&sortorder=articledate

i didn't find it that way
Having just finished grad school in
history I have to say that although
most professors were sympathetic to
Democratic beliefs, all were open
to debate based on evidence and that
when they talked of politics most
were showing how historiographical
debates are largely political.

If I had to characterize the department
I would say they ran the spectrum from
several slightly to the right of center
to full blown communist (one teacher).

I feel sorry for most on this board if
there experiences have been typical for
them, for me they would be highly atypical.

Lilly
Your arguments are goofy. It's a typical liberal ploy to plead "I don't understand". What do you have... brain farts or something?

The schools in America are in a shambles. It is fortunate indeed that although many of us graduated from liberal schools, we still managed to think for ourselves and not succumb to the peer pressure of liberal dogma.

Liberals may write the school books and dominate the school house chain of command, but they don't own the hearts and minds of free men and women.

All the kids of America need is one good parent or adult who can impart upon them the ideals and the history of our great Republic and cement in their minds the idea that God is the source of our liberty, not the ACLU or some liberal teacher.

We can celebrate the contributions made by the Code Talkers and still respect the struggles of
the early settlers, who strove mightily to build this land.

You can knock the Founding Fathers for owning slaves all you want. But you never talk about their most brilliant contribution: The Constitution. And why if they were so bad, did they put provisions in our Constitution that ultimately freed the slaves and ended the Jim Crow society.

And why is it that the Republicans are always painted by you libs as the Southern Racist Party?

It was a republican who freed the slaves. It was the Republican minority that sided with Johnson to pass the 64 and 65 Civil Rights Acts when Southern Blue Dog Democrats like Sen Byrd voted against Johnson's ammendments.

You libs need a History class. Or a bonk on the head....

Science is suppose to be about critical thinking, not political dogma. Thank goodness guys like Einstein didn't goose-step to today's university thinking. That's because he like other great scientists before him realized that consensus is not science...it is bull crap.

Like the man said, "a good education doesn't guarantee that you won't graduate an idiot."

Diversity is all about putting ALL ideas on the table and giving ALL ideas equal access and equal weight.

Kids are not ducks and they shouldn't be forced to waddle in a straight line behind the liberal mother duck professors.

Present ALL ideas equally, and let the kids decide what they want to accept. And do this without prejudice one way or another...about one idea or another; and you will give today's kids the ability to reason and think for themselves.

Then, you will have real diversity...instead of the crap that is the education system in this country today.

PS: I don't give a damn how some think that home schooling got started. For your information, at one time in America many rural students lived too far away from a school. If their parents were lucky enough to read and write, the children were taught at home.

Today, parents are taking their kids out of the school system, because of the problems cited by Dr Williams.

You libs are really good at pointing fingers and enumerating past errors. But you always throw the baby out with the bath water.

For every problem you cite, there are many more great things that you don't cite about this country.

Instead of being a critic, why don't you become a patriot. The motto is E Pluribus Unum.
It's not out of many, many more!!!!!!

Verita Vos Liberabit




Jack
A couple of points:

1. Gitlin objecting to being included in Horowitz' list is hardly "evidence" that Horowitz is in error.

2. Shouting someone down is the opposite of academic freedom, the whole point of which is that differing views should get a hearing. Like lynching black men and blowing others up for religious reasons, the fact that is happens at all, without redress, is the problem -- not whether it has crossed some arbitrary threshold of occurrence in ratio to opportunity.

It's a problem even if it only happens once (although SkiMan offers a search method for finding as many incidents as you'd like) -- but it merits a response proportional to its significance. Most conservatives would propose to withdraw funding from institutions where it happens. No one is proposing torches and pitchforks -- that would be the academic left you're thinking of.

Lilly
Go to the Mises Institute http://www.mises.org/

and educate yourself - especially regarding child labor, the rise of labor unions, etc.

You - and other liberals who post here, thus exposing their misconceptions - reinforce the truth of what Ronaldus Maximus said, "It isn't that our liberal friends are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Quoted For Truth
Rock Strongo writes: Wednesday, April, 04, 2007 11:34 AM
Lilly
Another tactic of the Left: construct a bizzare hypothetical with little resemblance to reality, and consider it analogous to the situation at hand.
===================
You nailed lilly perfectly. She has proven herself to be exactly what she accuses conservatives of being: a bigoted liar.

RE: liberalgoodman
Except for professors from the University of Chicago, name JUST ONE "conservative" economics professor.

Second of all, Dr. Lidzen is not a "denier" of global warming. You are a liar by repeating this. He is just honorable enough to put his career on the line to state the FACT that there is exactly ZERO evidence that human activity is the biggest contributor to the global climate. Oh, and contrary to your insinuation, he's FAR from alone. In fact, every day, as you global warming liars are being exposed, more and more are coming to the realization that lying is not so profitable any more, and are coming forward and admitting the lie of human caused global warming.

Ski Man and Joisy
I repeat,

Provide some real information.

Horowitz' work suffers from the same faults as Williams' article. It does not take into account the scope of higher education. It relies almost entirely on anecdote. And it cherrypicks.

Check Gitlin's response to being included in Horowitz' diatribe. http://www.nyu.edu/classes/siva/archives/002808.html. Gitlin believes that "democracy and the American way had the best potential to maximize freedom and dignity,: but Horowitz concludes he's a Marxist anyway. These are just more examples of someone expressing things that Horowitz doesn't want to hear.

While I recoil at anyone being "shouted down," before you claim that it is routine, you had better provide some real infornmation. That something happens at all is not an indication that it is routine. Count up the lectures delivered and then tell me what percent were "shouted down."










THE STATE OF EDUCATION
IF YOU WANT TO LEARN ABOUT THE SPECIFICS OF POLITIC AND PRACTICE THAT SUBJECT THEN I SUPPOSE IT WOULD REQUIRE YOU ATTEND A COLLEGE OF POLITICK, THE KENNDY SCHOOL OR SOME SUCH ENTITY.

IF YOU WANT AN EDUCATION THEN YOUR OUT OF LUCK, COLLEGES HAVE NO LONGER CONSIDERED AN EDUCATION THAT IS NEEDED TO SURVIVE WITHOUT WHINING FOR A LIVING WORTHWHILE. WHILE IN HIGH SCHOOL AND BELOW, AMERICAN HISTORY, CIVICS, ENGLISH LANGUAGE, PRACTICAL MATH AND REAL SCIENCE IS NOW OF LITTLE MATTER. SO YOU ENTER A COLLEGE TO CONTINUE YOUR POLITICAL INDOCTRINATION AND GRADUATE A FULL FLEDGED PARASITICAL LEECH ON SOCIETY'S DOORSTEP, BARELY ABLE TO READ, RITE OR FIGGER BUT YOU SURE CAN WHINE TO AND PICKET THE GOVERNMENT.

Sawdust and Liberty make good points
...which I have pasted at the bottom here.

If you were to write a manual on how to take over the USA, it would include a 50 year plan to win control of the leverage points of our society: the schools, the media, a major political party, large private foundations, Hollywood, and so on.

During the height of the Cold War, countries were falling under the communist sphere of influence like raindrops. Are people really so naive that they think there was never any effort to control these leverage points of American society? Conservatives can take back the media just by spreading the word that it is biased, but we'll have to fight to force out the Hard Left from the Universities. First, people have to become aware. Then they need to hear that it is NOT A GOOD IDEA to allow one (extreme) side of the political spectrum to so completely dominate higher education.

The first step is to break the government monopoly on education at the elementary and high-school levels. If they can't indoctrinate everybody, they will not succeed.

...

From sawdust:
"A lot of readers are doubtless too young to remember, but one of the goals of the Communist Party was to infiltrate the schools, especially the schools that taught teachers. Along with infiltrating the State Department, media, etc., this would result in our falling "like a rotten apple falls from the tree", all without firing a shot. They failed to conquer us, but we still suffer from their efforts."

From Liberty:
"First we will take Eastern Europe, then the masses of Asia. We will encircle the last bastion of capitalism, the United States of America. We will not need to fight. It will fall as a ripe fruit into our hands." -- Lenin

"We cannot expect Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find out they have Communism.'' -- Kruschev

Jack's funny
I went to UCLA in the 80's and everyone of my professors lectured us on how evil Reagan was and how imperialistic the US was (fast forward 20 years). Conservative speakers are routinely shouted down and prevented from speaking. This is a matter of record - google "speaker interupted, university" and you will get all kinds of hits. I recently attended a course at a community college and got lectured by some snot-nosed 20 something about how all americans are too stupid to understand the greatness of socialism and communism. My take on it is, most professors have never actually left school and therefore know very little about the outside world. They went to college, got their first degree, then their maters, then the PhD, then a position teaching. They know nothing of the reality of life.

To Jack
You can start by reading David Horowitz' book "The ProFessors", which documents the WORST 101 marxists infesting our universities. As his book makes clear, these are not the entire list, but merely representative of the rank and file occupying the humanities departments, where they militantly keep any non-marxists or fellow travellers from getting hired.

AudiR10
No prob with the extra post... two times the fun.

While I do agree the barn door was ripped off years ago, I also think it has gotten worse -- predictably -- over the 40 years. Probably more like 45.

When I was in college (1977-81) I remember most liberal arts professors being largely opinionated hippie types. They liked to express themselves by walking the campus in Earth-brand sandals in the snow, etc, and were absolutely certain that city-subsidized mass transit represented a subsidy of the rich by the poor. They called Reagan "Ronnie Ray-Gun," and regularly showed up at whatever social protest thing was going on on the Quad in front of the library.

The student body was, on average, more conservative than they were, but you could still have a robust, idea-parsing class discussion on virtually anything, and the professors acknowledged hard work, professionalism, sound logic, and integrity in essay answers and research papers -- even if a student's conclusions were more conservative than liberal.

Their idea on "diversity" was not that all things emanating from European men were worthless, but that they should be supplemented with offerings from other cultures in the core curriculum, and not just in specialized academic concentrations. This was great. The professor who had us do a comparative reading of Plato's Republic and Kautilya's Arthashastra (just one example) contributed to a long line of teachers in my life who broadened my understanding of the world well beyond America's European heritage -- and all before the "diversity" stormtroopers broke upon campuses.

No liberal arts professor I had would have lowered a student's grade merely because he didn't agree with the student's conclusion. Ability to learn material and argue effectively were the criteria for grading. (Of course, in math and the hard sciences, if you got it wrong, you got it wrong. Different story -- then.)

Now we hear report after report of the surreal opposite: students being flunked on assignments for not coming to politically correct conclusions -- and students who couldn't find a statistical mean to save their lives being "passed" because they "care" about climate change and the environment.

It's important to note that the problem is exactly what you say it is: spinelessness on the part of those in authority. Merely having leftist ideas presented to college students isn't the problem. My generation survived that just fine. But leftist ideas tend to be unconvincing when they have to compete with the actual ideas of the right, and not just with the left's Twilight Zone interpretation of the ideas of the right. (See lilly and others here for what the untutored left imagines the right to believe.)

Instead of enforcing true freedom in the marketplace of ideas, spineless university authorities have gradually allowed the academic left to demonize and impose sanctions on the ideas and proponents of the right, to the point of making students' grades and professors' tenure contingent on ideological conformity.

If merely having a classical Western curriculum could have prevented this, it would have -- because universities all used to have them. Ideas are only as strong as the characters of the people who walk the earth. Maybe it's all Dr. Spock's fault. The same element of spine is what's needed to reopen the academic mind, and get all those overgrown toddlers to pull their pants back up.

To Sharkie
Yes, we are keeping tabs of the "top ten" conservative colleges, and Hillsdale is always on the list! :)

Joisey - I agree!
There are choices that are available. $40,000 is the tuition charged currently for the schools considered the creaam of the crop - but for whom many have opted out because of the very problems cited here. Hillsdale College is but one of them. I was not exposed to them at the Naval Academy - and I suspect the other military schools are an option as well. My son received a very good education without the political correction that seems to permiate all the top tier schools - at the University of the South - and professors still teach at this institution.

Warding off te Evil Eye
All of this diversity crap is for the purpose of fending off the Evil Eye of Jealosy. We have got to stop worrying about the jealosy of others. Ayn Rand expressed this best in her writings. She did not call it jealosy - but rather the positive desire for individualism. I think Ayn Rand ought to be offered as a philosophy in schools. Capitalism has no room for worrying about the Evil Eye.

Unsupported Claims
I challenge Peter to provide any documentation that supports his claim that humanities professors are "largely and self admittedly Marxist."

There is a lot of accusation and innuendo here, but not a whole lot of actual information. Perhaps what distresses conservatives so much is the idea that Universities favor constructing an actual case rather than just saying what you feel like.


It's the Marxism, duh
Since our humanities professors are largely and self-admittedly Marxist (or perhaps I should say post-Marxist), it only makes sense that they would make indoctrination their mission. According to a Marxist worldview, you are either indoctrinating others with your ideology or your are being indoctrinated by someone else's (or both, as the case more frequently is). It's a paranoid and defensive position which the Marxist believes justifies his or her actions. If the survival of your ideology is on the line, you feel as though all actions are merely self-defense against oppression...even if that means oppressing someone else in the process.

The real problem is that the universities often advertise themselves as fair and open and truly liberal minded (as opposed to left-minded), when in practice their individual teachers are often surreptitiously imposing narrow-minded views upon students in an effort to politically reprogram them. That is, universities are one of the biggest false-advertising scams in the country.

Lilly
Another tactic of the Left: construct a bizzare hypothetical with little resemblance to reality, and consider it analogous to the situation at hand.

Indoctrination goes beyond the classroom
It isn't just in the college classroom that stusdents have political correctness/"progressive" ideology rammed down their throats. At my alma mater, University of Illinois, a fraternity and sorority were placed on a year's social probation. The "crime"? They jointly hosted a PRIVATE party where some of the participants wore costumes satirizing the " 'hood culture" and illegal immigrants. The black and latino activists on campus, supported by the usual list of "progressive" supporters got wind of it, held a big campus protest and the frat and sorority had the wrath of God rain down upon them. Yes, it is hard to sympathize with spoiled Greek-system types, but the issue was as pure a First Amendment one as could be. I won't even digress into the exercise of politically correct hyprocricy that led to the doing away of Chief Illiniwek. However, it is safe to say that the Urbana-Champaign campus of the U. of I. is now firmly in the hands of the diversity/multiculturalism brownshirts - and pity any caucasian student who disagrees with the new "wisdom."

consider the demographics

I agree with much that's been said about academia being rife with leftist claptrap, but you should consider the audience, too. Why wouldn't an institution crammed with 19-year olds be full of dopey ideas? Being shocked by that is like being shocked that prisons are unpleasant. Prisons are full of criminals. What do you expect?

Yea, though we strive mightily to enlighten, sophomores persist in acting, er, uh. . . sophomoric. Gee whiz! How did that happen?

Never underestimate the ability of youth to disrespect their elders. If they're getting pumped full of idiocy now, they may still rebel, grow up and learn to think for themselves some day. I went to Berkeley (which we called "Berserkeley?) in the 1960's and I came out all right.

Once I got a regular job and had to manage my own affairs, sanity began to return.

The rebellion has already begun!
1: Look at what your average college has for law enforcement and student conduct (dean staff, etc.) versus what it had 20-30 years ago.

Compare this to what your average municipality (in the area but NOT the college town)had then and has now.

Why is it that - against the baseline of society in general - colleges are hiring a whole lot more cops and a whole lot more admin to deal with student troublemakers?

2: Why is it that every college I know of has out of control student riots? Call them sports team riots, spring season riots, alcohol riots or whatever, this stuff started in the late '90s and gets expedentially worse each year.

3: Why has cheating gotten pandemic in academia? Sure the internet helps, but it is beyond that as there is an increasing amount of the old stuff as well.

My belief: we are circa 1969 on the converse of the '60s -- college students today are rejecting academia as much as they did then, an unpopular election has created a government doing things that the admin favors but students despise, and what have been sparks will soon become a conflagration.

If the left wins and the troop *are* brought home, most will wind up in college the next semester. A critical mass of battle-hardened veterans confronting the clowns who caused their buddies to get blown up for no reason - that could become interesting...

To Lilly
"and unless they force a woman against her will, they are unlikely to be accused of rape."

Tell that to the Duke LaCrosse Team, Lily. And the fact that they were presumed guilty, until proven innocent? Standard Operating Procedure in today's twisted academy.

As to tuition costs, I'm talking about college. While it is a while off yet, my wife and I are already thinking about it.

If you deny that men's sports in college is being drastically cutback by the radical egalitarianism imposed by Title IX, then you aren't paying attention. It's a well known fact of life. Here at Rutgers, the Men's swim team is just the latest to go to the chopping block, so that spending on women's sports will be exactly the same, dime for dime, as men's. It is fundamentally unfair, since there will NEVER be as many women interested in sports as men. But I think the Radical Feminazis behind this legislation know this and don't care: They are more interested in hurting the males, any males, they can.

Finally, you attack homeschooling and religious school attendance as just a symptom of racism. Gee, a liberal tarring those she disagrees with as racist. Playing the race card is SOOO unoriginal, so cliche, that guess what? It has no effect anymore. Your comment does not even merit a response.

To wjriii
Gosh, I don't know. Maybe because they're smarter? Or because they think that child labor and twelve-hour days and lousy compensation are morally wrong? Or maybe they believe that when business doesn't look out for its labor force, it's up to labor to look out for itself, which it does by collectively organizing?

I don't see what the problem is. I googled and found all kinds of conservative schools---Bob Jones University, Liberty University, Patrick Henry University et al---if you don't like Harvard and Princeton and the University of Chicago, send your kids wherever you want. It's a free country.

To Rock Strongo
Re your comments about the democratic process: Suppose, for the sake of discussion, there is a community in which a significant portion of the funding for the local hospital is taken from taxes. Suppose that community is a deeply religious one that believes prayer is a more efficacious treatment than surgery or medicine for acute appendicitis, broken bones, and cancer. On this basis, the community votes to defund the hospital (which must then close) and, instead, to give the money to churches. Is there a point can you say that informed professional judgment is superior to the democratic process?

And your last paragraph is dead-on, as we saw when the people of Kansas voted not to ditch teaching science, after all, in favor of teaching Bible.

One of the Few...
who call this hooey.

First, I visited noindoctrination.org as recommended and read Luann Wright's article. I was less than impressed. Specifically, it is worth noting that the organization and website specifically designed to report leftist indoctrination has exactly ONE entry for the 2006-2007 year. The National Center for Educational Statistics says there are about 4200 degree granting institutions. And there is a report on ONE?

Even worse, the organization will not provide the names of the complainants, even though it will provide the names of the instructors who are the target ofthe complaint.

But the most serious failings of Williams and his ilk are the use of bad samples and half truth in making their case.

In the 4200+ institutions, I estimate about 2 million different course offerings. There appear to be complaints about maybe 20. for the sake of argument lets expand that by a factor of ten, to 200. It takes a really peculiar mind to take a sample of 1/100 of 1 % and conclude that "Many of our nation's colleges and universities have become cesspools of indoctrination, intolerance, academic dishonesty". This does not even take into consideration the actual time consideration at work. A complaint about a single hour in a classroom ignores that the hour is about 2% of the total seat time.

Worse yet is the use of half truth. For example, there are thousands of Business Schools across the country. I can guarantee that just about every single course in every single one touts the value of capitalism. Why no complaints about that indoctrination? The number of Marxists in Econ departments across the country is pretty small. Why no cries for more balance there? Stay tuned, the answer is at the end.

When Williams cites Omatsu, he gets the quote wrong and then tells only half the story. Omatsu cites a number of principles for teaching his courses, and Williams leaves the rest out entirely. WHy would he do that? I will explain.

The complaints about the so called leftist bent of Universities are complaints from right wingers who simply do not want to hear things with which they disagree. That's the nut of it. They don't complain about capitalist business schools because they like capitalism. They don't demand more Marxists in Econ because they don't like Marxism.

Finally, the Stanford case is a perfect example of what I am talking about. There is no shortage of material in California that glorifies that family. It's EVERYWHERE. But, let one person express a different and perfectly legitimate view, i.e. that the transcontinetal railway and the Stanford fortune were born in fraud, schemes, lies, and inhumane working conditions, and suddenly he is indoctrinating the youth.

Wjriii may not want to hear that while Leland Stanford was getting rich an awful lot of Chinese laborers were getting dead. But wjriii absolutely needs to hear that, because it is very real.

The truth is that the right wingers simply do not want to hear anything with which they disagree.

To Joisey
Actually, the move toward Christian schools and homeschooling can be traced to desegregation in the late 1950's and early 1960's. Many white people, primarily in the South but not exclusively so, refused to have their kids in school with blacks and so made other arrangements. Much in the present conservative movement has its roots in white opposition to desegregation.

I don't follow your reasoning about the $40,000. If that's private school tuition, surely nobody would expect you to choose a private school you disapprove of. And that figure can't possibly represent your school tax.

Your arguments are kind of extreme. I have been associated with many levels of education for seventy years and have never encountered the kind of hate-oriented curriculum you describe. Your sons will not be denied the opportunity to excel in sports if they are good athletes---have women replaced men in all sports?---and unless they force a woman against her will, they are unlikely to be accused of rape. However, if you raise them with the attitude that they are persecuted and can do no wrong because everything bad is somebody else's fault---liberals' fault, black people's fault, the government's fault---you will do them irreparable harm.

Why Bother?
I have two young sons. Why should I bother to pay $40,000 a year just to expose my sons to radical marxists who will indoctrinate them to hate themselves, hate their parents, hate their families, hate their church, hate their God, and hate their country?

Why would I allow anyone to pour such poison into their souls?

And because they are boys, why would I bother to expose them to a radical feminist cadre that will treat them like rapists, deny them any opportunity for extracurricular sports under a twisted application of Title IX, and deny them any due process if they are falsely accused of sexual assault?

Folks vote with their wallets and their feet, and there's a very good reason why male enrollment is plummeting at these Islands of Marxist Tyranny.

Lilly
Your first post betrays one of the hallmarks of liberalism--a deep distrust of the democratic process. The inherent wisdom and virtue of liberalism should not be subject to a vote of the great unwashed.

"Here is one poster who clearly remembers when right-wing conservative activists began infiltrating our public schools by getting their members elected to local school boards so that they could control policy and curriculum."

I suppose the elections were rigged? Voter intimidation? Diebold Co. perfidy? Probably just that the benighted masses were not wise enough to elect their liberal betters to save them from themselves.

And if "right-wing conservative activists" are controlling policy and curriculum, they are doing a poor job of it.

Hey, lilly
No matter what sins the U.S. committed in Hawaii, they are nothing in comparison with the sins committed by leftists during the 20th century.

Wow youth questioning Authority
Walter you've stumbled on a gold mine!!! Never have we had the youth of our society question the actions of the old guard!

How were you able to figure out this rare occurance???


lilly - What do you want, actually?
It's a history course, right?

Why not just relate history? Talk about the deplorable labor conditions, the long hours, child labor, etc. Then talk about the rise of labor unions, the conflict between companies and labor unions. Talk about the resulting change in labor conditions because of the rise of labor unions.

You don't need to insert "unions good, capitalism bad" messages, or the reverse.

Your example of a right-wing professor extolling the virtues of cheap child labor, long hours and dangerous working conditions is clearly an extreme and not believable. However, It is much more believable for a left-wing professor to use this as a platform to espouse anti-capitalistic philosophies, like socialism or communism. Why is that?

Liberalgoodman - Ideas vs. dogma
liberalgoodman writes: Wednesday, April, 04, 2007 9:02 AM
"Bash away
You want American universities to have a diversity of ideas and you got it. If all ideas are expressed, lots of them are going to be ones you don't like."

You don't get it. There is a big difference between exploring and analyzing different ideas versus suffering through a "Bush is a traitor" rant in an English class, or worrying that disagreeing with the professor's politics will get you a lower grade.

Teach students HOW to think and analyze for themselves, yes. Teach students WHAT to think, no.

What Do You Want, Actually?
Forty years ago a university professor introduced into class the subject of why she disapproved of my husband's profession (he was a biological scientist); naming both him and me, she held forth on this topic for ten or fifteen minutes. It was totally irrelevant to the class or course (18th Century literature). My point here is that some teachers, at all levels of education, use their classrooms inappropriately, but this is done equally by left and right, as you can see from my example.

I read this article, I read this forum: I don't know what you-all are talking about. I remember taking an undergraduate-level American history course with a professor who described the dreadful conditions of labor in the late 19th century and taught why organized labor unions grew out of that. I am sitting here trying to imagine what the right-wing professor of your dreams would have said: "Child labor was good because it enabled business owners to pay lower wages, and it kept children usefully busy rather than just wasting their time in leftist-run schools. The twelve-hour work day was also a good idea because it maximized profit. If a workman was injured on the job because of old broken-down equipment, tough. The Triangle Waist Factory Fire was not the fault of the factory owners, who had every right to chain the doors shut, and if a hundred young women burned to death, that was their own fault for working in such a place---if they had been virtuous, they would have been born rich and wouldn't have had to be there at all. Praise the Lord."

Indoctrination on the Campus
Dr. Williams comments ring too true...a relative of mine was taking a French language major at a large mid-western University. A tenured professor of wisdom on Frano-American relations taught his class that George Washington was a racist who owned slaves and thus explains why the enlightened French have gone in a different direction than the racist Americans who can trace such an attitute to their "founding Father"-which in itself is a sexist term.
Needless to say, my relative's head is filled with mush...and the professor indoctinates on...

Bash away
You want American universities to have a diversity of ideas and you got it. If all ideas are expressed, lots of them are going to be ones you don't like. There are conservative economists and liberal English professors. MIT has a scientist who denies global warming. This site quites him all the time.

Glenn Omatsu
Here is a link to Luann Wright's article referred to by Walter Williams.

http://www.noindoctrination.org/NoIndocCombined.pdf

Glenn Omatsu is the name of the ethnic studies professor who is responsible for the quote "the role of students and teachers in ethnic studies is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" which Luann cites in her article.

Reading the following by Omatsu is enlightening.

http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v32-issue3/omatsu.pdf

My wife went back to school at Pasadena City College. She was required to take a minority studies course. She happened to take the Asian studies course by, guess who, Glenn Omatsu.

The best thing my wife could say about Glenn Omatsu was that he didn't whip up the students into a frenzy like the instructors of the Afro-American and Latin studies instructors.

The twisted logic presented in the class left us scratching our heads. For example, according to Glenn Omatsu, if I were to ask you who was responsible for the existence of Stanford University, you would probably answer Leland Stanford, but you would be WRONG.

According to Glenn Omatsu, who is responsible for Stanford University? The Chinese workers who built the Central Pacific Railroad, of which Leland Stanford was a co-founder and president are responsible for the existence of Stanford University.

To Glenn Omatsu, Stanford University is a contribution to the United States from Chinese laborers.

There were two main thrusts of the course, to amplify the importance of Asian influence on the US, and to establish Asian victim hood from real or perceived past injustices.

To lilly
University academic intelligentsia is chock-full of left-over ‘60s radicals like Ward Churchill, who use their classrooms as bully-pulpits for neo-bolshevism. Their idea of intellectual "diversity" is to berate and ostracize student apostates who don’t share the same political deformities. Boy, those Ivory Tower Bohemians are sure smarter and more deserving than the “flyover” states, huh? "Freedom of speech for me but not for thee"....

SFC Cheryl McElroy
US ARMY (RET)


To Sawdust
You fear that the Communists have infiltrated our public schools and wonder whether other posters may be too young to remember that happening. Here is one poster who clearly remembers when right-wing conservative activists began infiltrating our public schools by getting their members elected to local school boards so that they could control policy and curriculum. Since then I have seen not a single example of Communist doctrine being taught in our schools, but I have seen plenty about teaching religion, praying in class, allowing Christian displays, not allowing any sex education but Abstinence Only, and getting rid of evolutionary biology so that Bible Creationism may be substituted for science.

Audir
said "The university culture won't change until the last hippie in charge is dead, and replaced by a conservative who was once a conservative student who had enough and stood up and attracted a following and took the place back. That's the way it works."

Sorry, buddy, but that's NOT the way it works.
Because conservatives, by preference, don't get involved in teaching. It has been said that "those who can't do, teach", and I believe that 100%. Liberals perform poorly in the real world, so they favor the much safer environment of college campi. They hang around on campus for as long as they can as students, then they stick around as professors. Meanwhile, conservatives get their degrees as quickly as possible and get the hell out of college. Then they go on to become productive members of society, DOING all the things that the liberals can only TEACH.

So, in short, for your scenario to play out, first you need to get a conservative into a professorial position at a university. But, even if you can find a conservative so inclined, he's going to face stiff opposition from his peers, department head, dean, president, and board. He's going to receive consistently bad performance appraisals, will probably never obtain tenure, and may even be dismissed before tenure even becomes an issue.

A point I would like to make here is that, though liberalism is rampant among university professors in all (or most) disciplines, it tends to be even more highly concentrated, and more often indoctrinated, in the schools of law, journalism, education, humanities (especially English), and social sciences (with the exception of Economics). The law schools, of course, are where all of our lawyers and judges, and most of our politicians, come from. So the liberals have control of our government.

The journalism students end up controlling all of our news outlets, explaining the rampant liberal bias in the press. The education departments produce all of our elemantary, middle, and high school teachers, so they can indoctrinate even the kids that don't go to college. Many social scientists end up government service, allowing the liberals to control the beaurocratic(sp?) levels of government. And I don't want to totally discount the liberal indoctrination of economics students - there are communists in every econ department - but they are usually outnumbered by the capitalists. Liberals started shunning economics when Friedman proved Keynes was full of sh!t.

Of the five, humanities is the only one to have ZERO purpose in the real world. Therefore, people who expect to eventually inhabit the real world will not, if given a choice, take such classes. But that's okay, because the university officials make sure that every degree program includes 15 credit-hours of humanities. That's to make sure the liberals get their shot at the business, science, engineering, statistics, medical, agriculture, home-economics, and athletics majors who they otherwise might not get a chance to indoctrinate. Has anyone besides me noticed that much of the most aggressive student indoctrination going on on college campi today comes from the English departments? That's because more and more college students are steering clear of those disciplines that are rampant with liberal professors.

Note that I did not include "disciplines" such as "women's studies", "ethnic studies", or "environmental studies" on my list. Obviously, these departments are all ate up with liberals. But I ignored them because these "disciplines" were INVENTED for the sole purpose of liberal indoctrination (as opposed to the gradual takeover of the already-existing traditional areas of study). Unfortunately, many universities now require all degree programs to include a minimum course load in one or more of these bogus "disciplines".

Regards,
Trevor

oops
sorry for the redundant post, I thought the TH servers ate the first one.

sawdust
The Commie influence in academia goes back to the 1930's when many professors decided it was fashionable to declare their allegience to Communism. Since that time, university profs have been predominantly leftist. It's no surprise that the influence has permeated lower levels of the education establishment, since its members were indoctrinated in colleges of education(an oxymoron if ever there was one) which are staffed by mainly moonbats. By my college days in late 60's, early 70's the leftist agenda was clearly in control, particularly in warm, fuzzy social sciences and unanimous in the academic abomination called "minority/womens studies". I went to a fairly traditionalist university, but the leftist/anti-war,capitalism,etc philosophy was in virtual control of any dialogue on campus.

Mr. Right
You are quite correct. The communists infilrated the educational system in the 1930s (my mother had to deal with a pro-communist high school teacher in the early 40s). Having worked in a public school for a few years, I witnessed the communists indoctrinating students - attempting to create a student body of "useful idiots", spreading hate for the constitutional republic of the USA.

sawdust
The Commie influence in academia goes back to the 1930's when many professors decided it was fashionable to declare their allegience to Communism. Since that time, university profs have been predominantly leftist. It's no surprise that the influence has permeated lower levels of the education establishment, since its members were indoctrinated in colleges of education(an oxymoron if ever there was one) which are staffed by mainly moonbats. By my college days in late 60's, early 70's the leftist agenda was clearly in control, particularly in warm, fuzzy social sciences and unanimous in the academic abomination called "minority/womens studies". I went to a fairly traditionalist university, but the leftist/anti-war,capitalism,etc philosophy was in virtual control of any dialogue on campus.

To Mr Right
How astonishing that not a single member of an academic panel writing your state proficiency test could give an example of United States imperialism: apparently none of them knew the history of Hawaii where we destroyed the native culture, introduced new diseases that devastated the population, subverted the monarchy, subverted the indigenous religion, introduced racism, discouraged the language, and exploited the economy---all so we could turn a profit.

Who says religion isn't taught in school
The secular religion is, and definately the worship of mother earth.
Kids are constantly exposed to all sorts of enviro propaganda from elementary school on. Those who are taught differently at home are given a very bad time by the teachers when they try to point out some of the errors theya re being taught.

This does begin in elementary school
My kids got in trouble all the time for countering the elementary school teachers' liberal rants.
I was not liked because I did things like point out the Hatch Amendment when they tried to hold group sessions with my 5th grader behind closed doors with the social worker and guidance counselor and told them to share secrets from their families. Thankfully my kid was sharp and told them we visited Puerto Rico. The schools do things like this on a regular basis still. You can't get tired of the fight and give up.
It gets worse with the higher grades up into colleges.
All of this indoctrination into intolerance and socialist think and speak gets worse as tuitions go up. Tuitions go up every time the feds provide more money to the colleges and universities.
Unfortunately, most parents and students pick colleges according to what they can get for money.
Get the newest ISI guide to choosing colleges. That tells you which accept govt. money and which do not. It also tells you which have more conservatives and which are liberal he** holes.

The New Name?
The New World Order

sawdust
I was a kid, but I remember. Don't be so sure that they it is all over. I personally am not so sure it's not still going on, but has a new name.

What did we do to get them all out of our government, schools and our media? The House on Unamerican Activities was shut down long ago. Heck, we recently had someone in our State dept. that is going around advocating world government. His name is Richard Haas and he is currently the President of the Council on Foreign Relations.

"First we will take Eastern Europe, then the masses of Asia. We will encircle the last bastion of capitalism, the United States of America. We will not need to fight. It will fall as a ripe fruit into our hands." -- Lenin

"We cannot expect Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find out they have Communism.'' -- Kruschev


Commie influence
A lot of readers are doubtless too young to remember, but one of the goals of the Communist Party was to infiltrate the schools, especially the schools that taught teachers. Along with infiltrating the State Department, media, etc., this would result in our falling "like a rotten apple falls from the tree", all without firing a shot. They failed to conquer us, but we still suffer from their efforts.

Anti-Jihad Crusader's Bonus Article
Thank you Crusader. You and Dr. Williams are like book ends this morning.

You probably remember the student loon at Berkley that carried that emblazened "f-word" poster across campus to champion "freedom of speech". Now, instead of "fire" it is popular to yell "bomb" in a crowed theatre, if one is so disposed.

Now we have public school students in Illinois that are told to sign confidentuality agreements not to tell their parents about sexual diversity propoganda being covertly infused into classroom agendas.

Dr. William's "Cesspool" is too kind of a term to paint most campus conditions today. The obnoxious loon that carried the "f-word" is now the tenured professor, and frankly Virgina, 'he/she don't give a "f"!'

Yes parents, by all means, send your children off to college while there's room in these toilets of higher(?) academia.

Sorry -- didn't mean to post twice
Computer lag. Strike that. ignore it.

This happened forty years ago
Where have you been?

The situation won't change until the last hippie professor has died off, or the current generation produces charismatic leaders with spines to run them out of power -- just like the Sixties -- over the feeble objection of spineless administrators.

As for trying to alert the parents to the mess -- the parents CAUSED the mess.

Now that you've beaten that horse that's been dead for forty years, how about taking up another thing you've just noticed, like the decline of polite language in kindergartens or the sale of training bras and thongs in the toddler departments of Macys?

Absolutely true
The horse was let out of the barn forty years ago, and here comes the last man to the party shouting THE BARN DOOR IS OPEN!

You know who it was that caused the current atmosphere in the schools? Those who allowed brats to run wild under the impression that Toddler Liberation (pull down your pants, stuff things in your mouth, and shout 'poo pooo head') would free us all. Now you're tired of it and you want it to go away. Well, it's going to go away the same way it arrived -- students are going to change the culture and drag the whining, protesting, spineless administration along with them.

The university culture won't change until the last hippie in charge is dead, and replaced by a conservative who was once a conservative student who had enough and stood up and attracted a following and took the place back. That's the way it works.

As for expecting the parents to do anything -- forget about it. The parents are the people who caused the mess to begin with, either by rioting and smashing things and chanting instead of studying, or by demanding that 'free speech' not be abridged and education be made 'relevant' to the world in which the teenagers were already steeped...and that everyone was entitled to feel good about herself and 'do her own thing' even if that meant she came out of school after 4 years having learned nothing at all.

Nope, this culture will only change when the people in charge have died off or been run off the campus by the next generation who Just Won't Take It Anymore.

Now that you've beaten this forty year old dead horse, maybe you'd like to write an indignant column on the fact that young girls are dressing like tarts and children in kindergarten are cursing their teachers.

They don't wait until college
Great article Dr. Williams, but the leftists don't wait until college. They start in grade school with the indocrination on all things leftist. It seems to be as rare to find a conservative school teacher as college professor. I was attending a conference in a hotel and down the hall from our meeting rooms was as conference of academicians who were engaged in writing the state proficiency tests. Their door was open and as I walked by (on a break) I overheard them arguing about exactly when the U.S. had become imperialist and how they should phrase the questions regarding U.S. imperialism. I don't know if I affected any change in the outcome of the exam but I did miss my next session while I engaged them in a somewhat spirited argument during which I was called several names but during which not a single member of their distinguished panel could point to a single instance of imperialism. They, of course, questioned my credentials. I informed them that my chief credential was that I was a taxpayer fuding this nonsense and that I wanted the names and titles of everyone in the room so that I could complain to the governor's office and the State Board of Education about the misinformation they were pushing in their testing. Not surprisingly, they needed to take a break and threatened to call security to have me removed from their proceedings. I went back to my conference. And, not surprisingly, my letters to the state board of education went unanswered.

Become???
"Many of our nation's colleges and universities have become cesspools of indoctrination, intolerance, academic dishonesty and the new racism."

So...the colleges have "become" centers of indoctrination. I seem to remember, in the early nineties the college I went to being one of the most leftist "utopias" with which I've ever had the displeasure to be associated. After 10 years in the Army most schools would have seemed a bit leftist, I chose a traditionally "Ag" school to try and counter this. It didn't work, the moonbattery had infiltrated so deeply that they are, even today, unassailable.

The moonbats invaded the colleges and universities in the sixties and are hanging on tooth and nail to the usurped power they've stolen. Just look at all the times colleges are in the news. Its always because of some crackpot like Ward Churchill or the kook at William and Mary who had a cross removed from the chapel for fear it would offend non-Christian students.
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.