PDA

View Full Version : Conservative Hatred for Academia


Pepsi Classic
01-01-2004, 08:59 PM
Why do conservatives hate academia so much? Referring to someone as an Ivy League Scholar is considered an insult. People who have excelled in an academic position are referred to as elites living in an ivory tower who are not in touch with America. Why is it conservatives have such a hatred of the best and brightest at America's premier universities??

Evil Captor
01-01-2004, 09:00 PM
Because they can't control academia with money the way they can control most every other major American institution.

But they're working on that.

lekatt
01-01-2004, 09:08 PM
It's because academia has lost touch with the world of reality, I think.

pervert
01-01-2004, 09:13 PM
It may also be because there is a perception that acedemia is disproportionately liberal. I'm not sure if this is really true, but it does seem that way some times.

Michael Ellis
01-01-2004, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by Evil Captor
Because they can't control academia with money the way they can control most every other major American institution.

But they're working on that.

Yep. That's the Alpha and Omega of it. :rolleyes:

sailor
01-01-2004, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by Pepsi Classic
Why is it conservatives have such a hatred of the best and brightest at America's premier universities?? No, the best and the brightest of the universities went out into the real world of business, science, etc. Those who can, do; those who can't, teach.

A bit more seriously though, where do you get "hatred". i do not think conservatives have any more hatred of academia than academia has of conservatives. Both worlds complement each other and both tend to have different views of the world and, therefore, think the other side is wrong. It is mutual.

Academia has given us many great ideas and many which were not so great. The thing is that great ideas are only proved great once they are proven in the real world. Great ideas that don't work are a dime a dozen and nobody needs them.

Pepsi Classic
01-01-2004, 09:44 PM
A bit more seriously though, where do you get "hatred".

Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter.

John Mace
01-01-2004, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by lekatt
It's because academia has lost touch with the world of reality, I think.
Please don't take offense at this, but I have to say that your post gave me one really nice New Year's chuckle. Peace.:)

elfkin477
01-01-2004, 10:12 PM
Yeah, we conservatives hate education. It's the reason why I dropped out of school after 8th grade. I couldn't take the risk of being indoctrinated by liberal educators. Pedagogy and politics should never mix, that's what I say. Just give all the kids a bible, and they'll learn to read by themselves, by God!

Milum
01-01-2004, 10:22 PM
Pepsi Classic : Conservative Hatred for Academia
Why do conservatives hate academia so much? Referring to someone as an Ivy League Scholar is considered an insult. People who have excelled in an academic position are referred to as elites living in an ivory tower who are not in touch with America. Why is it conservatives have such a hatred of the best and brightest at America's premier universities? My, my, Pepsi Classic, what value would it be to hate academians merely because they are weak-kneed clatterfarts that are out-of-touch with the mores and traditions of their own culture.

Conseratives don't hate anygroup, they just don't pander to the self-aggrandizing ideas of academic pimps. :)

Sampiro
01-01-2004, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by sailor
No, the best and the brightest of the universities went out into the real world of business, science, etc. Those who can, do; those who can't, teach.

A few of the many many many people who, according to that analogy, couldn't: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Albert Einstein, T.S. Eliot, John Houseman, George C. Scott, Hannah Arendt, Stephen King, Isaac Asimov, C.S. Lewis, W.E.B. Dubois, Annie Sullivan, Golde Meir, J.R.R. Tolkien, LBJ, Woodrow Wilson, Laura Ingalls Wilder, Oliver Wendell Holmes and Frank McCourt. Think how productive they'd have been if they could have.

Sampiro
01-01-2004, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by Milum
My, my, Pepsi Classic, what value would it be to hate academians merely because they are weak-kneed clatterfarts that are out-of-touch with the mores and traditions of their own culture.


Yes, it's quite well established that all academians share the same views on practically everything and have no experience in the real world due to their incredibly bloated paychecks and the assignment to them of eunuchs and scribes to handle all matters quotidian. My academic co-workers include such candy ass Mama's boyz and girlz as a former NASA physicist, a former Israeli paratrooper/intelligence officer, several ex American military personnel, lawyers and prison guards, none of whom have evidently seen "the real America" as seen on The Waltons.

elfkin477
01-01-2004, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by Sampiro
Yes, it's quite well established that all academians share the same views on practically everything .

Of course they do. Just like all the conservatives do in the OP. :rolleyes: <insert something about brushes, pots and kettles.>

Milum
01-01-2004, 11:36 PM
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Another reason that Conservatives don't much cotton up to academians is that some academians can be real snitty and some of them don't like the Waltons.

Michael Ellis
01-01-2004, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by Milum
some of them don't like the Waltons.

What, the TV show?

SnoopyFan
01-02-2004, 12:13 AM
Referring to someone as an Ivy League Scholar is considered an insult.

It is? I must have missed that article in my "Down With Academia" newsletter.

People who have excelled in an academic position are referred to as elites living in an ivory tower who are not in touch with America.

Not in touch with America? Ya think?

When is the last time you saw a professor from an Ivy League school chillin' with a McDonald's cashier? I submit that the people in academia you are talking about do not have one friend that doesn't share their politics. These types generally do not hang around the "little people," (or know any of them personally) they just like to cry crocodile tears about them in class.

Why is it conservatives have such a hatred of the best and brightest at America's premier universities??

Just how smart do you have to be to be a professor? I'm not saying that there aren't some smart ones out there, but puhleze. Getting a Ph.D. is more about determination and the ability to be bored out of your skull for 5-7 years than it is about smarts (in most areas, anyway, I'm sure there are some areas that require a big dose of intelligence as well). If you can read and write, you can get a doctorate if you're willing to put in the time. After that it's all about tenure -- managing not to piss someone off until that magical day that they declare you tenured and then you never have to actually work again.

Sampiro
01-02-2004, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by Milum
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Another reason that Conservatives don't much cotton up to academians is that some academians can be real snitty and some of them don't like the Waltons.

Ah, a Milum special: begin accusing others of rudeness rather than making an argument. (Incidentally, not only do I love "The Waltons" (the series, not the godawful reunion movies that completely lost track of the timeline) but I made the trek to the .museum (http://www.waltonmuseum.org/), which I heartily endorse. My ex was closely related to the Hamner family through Earl's mother's side [her family was Italian, btw, descendants of Tuscans brought over by Thomas Jefferson to develop Virginia's wine industry], though the genealogy isn't why we dated.)

In fairness, it's not just conservatives. In Alabama the most detrimental effect on academia in recent years hasn't been one of the Republican governors as much as ardent Clintonian Bobby Lowder, the man who singlehandedly got Auburn placed on probation (http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/1071829007277890.xml). Having worked for him for years I can honestly endorse him as one of the biggest micromanaging megalomaniacal bastards to traipse through Central Alabama since Hernando de Soto.

Sampiro
01-02-2004, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by SnoopyFan
When is the last time you saw a professor from an Ivy League school chillin' with a McDonald's cashier?

When was the last time you saw your dentist or your tax accountant or your lawyer chillin' with a McDonald's cashier (unless said McDonald's cashier was a really hot redhead)?

I submit that the people in academia you are talking about do not have one friend that doesn't share their politics.

Cite? If this is based on a hunch, you're wrong. I'm a professor and my close friends range from dyed-in-the-wool socialists to cutthroat freemarketeers.

These types generally do not hang around the "little people," (or know any of them personally) they just like to cry crocodile tears about them in class.

One of my colleagues literally worked in a leper colony. I've volunteered on more AIDS wards and worked in mental hospitals that would make you puke. It's not totally a world of theory. The professors you mention do exist (just like lazy welfare mothers, young black guys who only care about crack and p*ssy, and snake handlin' rednecks with yards full of old Plymouths on blocks, but they're the exception.


Getting a Ph.D. is more about determination and the ability to be bored out of your skull for 5-7 years than it is about smarts

Agreed (particularly in the liberal arts). My one word advice for students interested in pursuing a doctorate in English, history or philosophy is, without exception, "don't".

'possum stalker
01-02-2004, 12:31 AM
Just how smart do you have to be to be a professor? I'm not saying that there aren't some smart ones out there, but puhleze. Getting a Ph.D. is more about determination and the ability to be bored out of your skull for 5-7 years than it is about smarts (in most areas, anyway, I'm sure there are some areas that require a big dose of intelligence as well). If you can read and write, you can get a doctorate if you're willing to put in the time. After that it's all about tenure -- managing not to piss someone off until that magical day that they declare you tenured and then you never have to actually work again.


That's rich. So, tell us about your experience with academic world! Clearly, you know ALL about it.

rjung
01-02-2004, 01:04 AM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

Conservatism is about maintaining the status quo, about keeping things the way they are and not making changes.
Education (and academia) is about challenging your beliefs, to be exposed to new ideas and to grow as a result.

Ergo, conservatives dislike academia because its very nature is a challenge to conservatism.

PatriotX
01-02-2004, 05:49 AM
stupidly phrased OP

An Arky
01-02-2004, 06:00 AM
I agree with rjung, but I'd also like to add that nearly any group that aims to achieve political power through manipulation of the masses is threatened by academia because they are smart enough not to buy into their demagogery and could potentially blow their cover.

PatriotX
01-02-2004, 06:00 AM
To parahrase a certain other poster:

"That's a december tactic, I hardly think it is fair to smear conservatives in general with his behaviour."

There's a great quote by David Skinner, assistant managing editor
of the nototriuosly Liberal Weekly Standard to this effect,

"...Coulterization of the American right. Conservatism as partisan sport--the opposite of principled, ideological debate--has become major entertainment and helped debase much right-aisle political debate into an undifferentiated noise of team-rooting. "


The case has been made that you're actually discussing pop (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=227229)-con (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=4117869&highlight=popcon#post4117869)s

PatriotX
01-02-2004, 06:05 AM
Originally posted by An Arky
I agree with rjung, but I'd also like to add that nearly any group that aims to achieve political power through manipulation of the masses is threatened by academia because they are smart enough not to buy into their demagogery and could potentially blow their cover.

Ahhh. the neo-Cons (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp)


...one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.
Because religious conservatism is so feeble in Europe, the neoconservative potential there is correspondingly weak.


The gov. big business and the church in bed together again.

Quartz
01-02-2004, 06:19 AM
I'd suggest that it's the other way around: academia hates The Real World, because their fancy social theories (like Communism)simply don't work in The Real World.

adaher
01-02-2004, 06:23 AM
Conservatives don't hate academia. Heck, the most prominent libertarian blogger, Glenn Reynolds, is a professor of law. Thomas Sowell was an economics professor, Newt Gingrich was a history professor.

What conservatives have no patience for is academics who place theory above practicality and agitate for government to impose said theories. Conservatives also have no patience for speech codes, which are mainly supported by the leftist academia.

Shodan
01-02-2004, 07:03 AM
Originally posted by rjung
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

Conservatism is about maintaining the status quo, about keeping things the way they are and not making changes.
Education (and academia) is about challenging your beliefs, to be exposed to new ideas and to grow as a result.

Ergo, conservatives dislike academia because its very nature is a challenge to conservatism.
And you were wrong when you said it before, and you are wrong now.

Liberalism is about challenging the status quo only when the status quo does not agree with their ideas, and only challenging conservative beliefs. Name me a liberal professor who argues that the status quo of Roe v. Wade (for instance) ought to be challenged, or who is interested in exploring the new idea of school vouchers, or wants people to grow out of the idea that all the problems of blacks in America are caused by the white establishment.

Liberals are just as hide-bound and inflexible when it comes to their sacred cows as conservatives - or more so. The only academia liberals like is liberal academia, and there is an unfortunate amount of it.

Regards,
Shodan

chappachula
01-02-2004, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by Shodan

The only academia liberals like is liberal academia, and there is an unfortunate amount of it.


On a related note--one reason conservatives,( and anybody with an open mind) dislikes academia, is that it was academic liberals who invented the sacred phrase "politically correct" .When McCarthy demanded that everyone be "politically correct" in the 1950's, it was a disgusting concept , but now,it's okay because a liberal suggests it.

What they really mean is that censorship is okay, as long as you only demean anything American, white or western. But if you support, say, the human shields in Iraq, or support blaming white society for the social problems in black ghettos, then it's okay to be a McCarthyite

lekatt
01-02-2004, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by Michael Ellis
Yep. That's the Alpha and Omega of it. :rolleyes:


Who are "they"?

PatriotX
01-02-2004, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by lekatt
Who are "they"?
The context of seems to clearly imply conservatives. YMMV.

PatriotX
01-02-2004, 07:59 AM
Err. No of. Should read as follows


The context seems to clearly imply conservatives. YMMV.

Priam
01-02-2004, 08:41 AM
*scratches his head*

All this back and forth of "conservatives hate academia!" "no! liberals hate true academia" "no! academia is a waste of time and effort perpetually out of step with reality" strikes me as pointless. The OP is nearly pure conjecture, citing only one particular section of one particular brand of conservatism which nowhere near all conservatives agree about. As usual this has, per regulation, broken down into a shouting war about who is actually evilererer and stole so-and-so's toy.

While amusing, this hardly becomes a great debate and more The Great Whine which permeates every thread. The truth (only as I see it) is that there are liberal professors and conservative professors, ivory tower and hands-on people, those who profess and those who do. And neither side has a lock on any of those traits because first and foremost Professors are People! I know several who dine at McDonalds because they quite like the food and in fact can't afford much better on a regular basis. I know several who had practical, hands-on experience in applying the theories they teach (hardly Communism) and then came to academia as a sort of retirement. Some of them are liberal, some not but they all seem to derive great respect from their students.

So how about we put down the respective partisan axes and actually converse in a civil fashion although I'd have no clue about what since the start of this thread is extremely divisive and ridiculous. No? Thats pretty much what I thought.

hroeder
01-02-2004, 09:24 AM
This discussion could be summarized"

Why do cows hate platypi?

(Well I'm not sure whether the plural of patapus is platypi or platypusses. But Platypusses sounds like a James Bond heroine. Or is that a James Joyce pun?)

Kimstu
01-02-2004, 09:31 AM
Priam's right: what a train wreck of a thread. Here's one undisputedly liberal academician (and part-time IT professional) who hangs with some working-class people and with some conservative academicians, and I say all these generalizations are silly.

I think it makes no more sense to say "conservatives hate academia" than to say "liberals hate business" or that sort of thing. Yes, overall the academic world probably has a higher percentage of liberals than the corporate world, and vice versa for conservatives. And silly people on both sides may like to warp this into an "us versus them" worldview. But I think the vast majority of people on both sides recognize that it's much more complex than that, and are aware of the crucial contributions made in both spheres.

As for "hatred" for academics expressed by the likes of Limbaugh and Coulter: see my above remark about silly people. I think it's totally unfair to tar conservatives as a group with that brush. (The ones who proudly proclaim their general allegiance to the likes of Limbaugh and Coulter, of course, get whatever's coming to them in the way of guilt by association. But IMO most conservatives just find them an embarrassment.)

Evil Captor
01-02-2004, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by elfkin477
Of course they do. Just like all the conservatives do in the OP. :rolleyes: <insert something about brushes, pots and kettles.>

I think if the OP is taken to mean "there's a widespread meme of disdain for academics among conservatives" it's probably true and you'd have very little trouble googling a truckload of cites to prove it. So you accusation of painting with too broad a brush doesn't work, though I'll concede that some conservatives don't disparage academics -- in fact, I believe the neocons infesting the White House at present were inspired by a REALLY woolly-headed academic.

Lissa
01-02-2004, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by SnoopyFan
When is the last time you saw a professor from an Ivy League school chillin' with a McDonald's cashier?

Actually, one of my husband's favorite sociology professors (a man highly respected in academic circles, I'm told) spent three years with the Hell's Angels, doing a comprehensive study of the social structure of biker gangs.

My husband, who teaches sociology at our local college, also works in what is arguably the most "real" world there is: in a prison.

I submit that the people in academia you are talking about do not have one friend that doesn't share their politics.

My husband has many friends in academia, and they vary widely over the political spectrum, conservatives, liberals and moderates. We have a hell of a lot of fun at gatherings because of the lenghty political debates. (Thankfully, because these are all very intelligent people, the debate never becomes heated, or insulting.)

These types generally do not hang around the "little people," (or know any of them personally) they just like to cry crocodile tears about them in class.

Strangely enough, I don't know a single person in academia which fits this description. Every single professor I have ever known has friends who come from all sorts of backgrounds. Some of them come from poor backgrounds themselves. I've been at parties with professors which were attended by "ivy league scholars" and auto mechanics.

After all, "these types" have families, and those relatives sometimes marry "little people." They also have neighbors, and people they met while they were working their way through college.

The snobby, upper-class, liberal professor may be the stereotype, but it certainly isn't the norm.

RickJay
01-02-2004, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Evil Captor
I think if the OP is taken to mean "there's a widespread meme of disdain for academics among conservatives" it's probably true and you'd have very little trouble googling a truckload of cites to prove it. So you accusation of painting with too broad a brush doesn't work, though I'll concede that some conservatives don't disparage academics -- in fact, I believe the neocons infesting the White House at present were inspired by a REALLY woolly-headed academic.
Then your claim that conservatives have a widespread disdain of academics is sort of shot to hell, n'est-ce pas? Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are A) hardly a representative sample and B) at least in the case of Coulter, she holds a law degree, and actions do speak louder than words. Do you think either person would tell their kids "don't go to university"?

Many conservatives seems to practically worship Milton Friedman, an academic, and his acolytes. The Bush administration is rife with conservative academics. There are conservative think tanks at various schools. I studied under a number of conservative professors myself - my education had a fairly even mix of conservatives, moderates and liberals, actually. Aside from the rantings of a few talk show hosts does anyone have any evidence of this "conservatives hate academia" claim?

lout
01-02-2004, 10:15 AM
Why is it conservatives have such a hatred of the best and brightest at America's premier universities??

Same reason conservatives work to undermine public education in general:

An educated populace could not be relied on to support policies that benefit the wealthy few at the expense of the relatively impoverished masses.

The conservative's worst fear is that the unwashed masses will actually vote in their own interests.

elfkin477
01-02-2004, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Evil Captor
[B]I think if the OP is taken to mean "there's a widespread meme of disdain for academics among conservatives" it's probably true and you'd have very little trouble googling a truckload of cites to prove it. [B]

Fair enough.

Googling " academics bad say conservatives" gets 17,300 hits.

Googling " abortion good as population control say liberals" gets 21,900 hits.

Since liberals are for the ones pro-abortion rights, not conservatives, I guess it's safe to conclude that all liberals are in favor of using abortion as a method of population control, right? What do you mean "no"? It got more hits!

kidchameleon
01-02-2004, 10:33 AM
Well, cows hate platypi(?) because they are jealous of the lack of nipples on a platypus, keeping them from being milked. And heck, they just lay eggs rather than lugging a calf around in them for months.

As a conservative who's working on his masters in chemistry, I'm more afraid of getting a C from acadamia than I am hateful of anyone. :)

Mr. Moto
01-02-2004, 10:40 AM
Lout, that answer is, quite simply, a load of bull.

Conservatives in general, myself included, want to strengthen public education for all, not just those that happen to live in good neighborhoods.

We can argue over the best methods to do so, but to state that conservatives are maliciously and intentionally harming education is a blatant falsehood.

sqweels
01-02-2004, 11:14 AM
qts:
I'd suggest that it's the other way around: academia hates The Real World, because their fancy social theories (like Communism)simply don't work in The Real World.

So all academics are a all bunch of communists, is that it?

If conservatives hate academia it's because it doesn't buy into their black-and-white thinking and instead struggles to understand the Real World in all its complexity.

How many conservatives embrace a Biblical world wiew and how does that square with the Real World?

chappachula:
it was academic liberals who invented the sacred phrase "politically correct". When McCarthy demanded that everyone be "politically correct" in the 1950's, it was a disgusting concept , but now, it's okay because a liberal suggests it.

Huh? I've never seen the phrase "politically correct" used other than in a negative sense. I submit that it's synonymous with "conservative".

Shodan:
Liberalism is about challenging the status quo only when the status quo does not agree with their ideas, and only challenging conservative beliefs.

Whadaya mean, "Liberalism...[/i]their[/i]..."? Liberalism is a philosophy or an attitude, not a group of people.

Name me a liberal professor who argues that the status quo of Roe v. Wade (for instance) ought to be challenged, or who is interested in exploring the new idea of school vouchers, or wants people to grow out of the idea that all the problems of blacks in America are caused by the white establishment.

On what grounds would you label such hypothetical individuals as "liberal"? I for one am flexible and open-minded on these (cherry-picked) issues.

Liberals are just as hide-bound and inflexible when it comes to their sacred cows as conservatives - or more so.

First of all, the only people more hide-bound and inflexible than Christian fundamentalists are Muslim fundamentalists. Being hide-bound and inflexible is the opposite of being liberal, so anyone like that has no business calling himself a liberal.

Don't confues liberalism with leftism. If your views stop evolving, you stop being liberal. When the Left becomes the establishment, liberalism opposes the Left. Remember, in Russia the conservatives were the Communists and the liberals were the right-leaning reformers under Yeltsin.

spectrum
01-02-2004, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by adaher
Conservatives don't hate academia. Heck, the most prominent libertarian blogger, Glenn Reynolds, is a professor of law.

Libertarians and conservatives are two very different creatures. Libertarians believe in freedom on both social and economic matters. Conservatives hate social freedom, though they're all for letting corporations rape the country.

sqweels
01-02-2004, 11:41 AM
Mr. Moto, I don't think we're talking about the running of elementary schools here. I think it's about the tendancy of conservatives to dismiss their critics from better-educated circles (i.e. academia) as "elitists".

Azael
01-02-2004, 11:44 AM
Conservatives hate social freedom, though they're all for letting corporations rape the country.

And thus the perception that "liberals hate business." :rolleyes:

It would be easier to steer away from these asinine generalizations if there weren't always some knee-jerk partisan out there more than ready to reinforce the stereotypes.

spectrum
01-02-2004, 11:52 AM
Azael, I should have smilied that comment, it was typed with tongue planted in cheek. However, the underlying point is true: conservatives, as a rule, don't care about social liberty as much as they do economic (with liberals as that reversed) while libertarians are typically hardliners on both social and economic liberty, making them completely different creatures than conservatives or liberals.

Governor Quinn
01-02-2004, 12:01 PM
In an effort to seriously analyze this question:

The only conservatives I've ever dealt with that hate academia (and it's only been a handful) tend to be of the populist streak.

There is a long-running tradition, within populism, to denounce certain institutions, that are regarded (by the populists, at any rate) as being dominated by "the elites", as opposed to "the people".

Azael
01-02-2004, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by spectrum
Azael, I should have smilied that comment, it was typed with tongue planted in cheek. However, the underlying point is true: conservatives, as a rule, don't care about social liberty as much as they do economic (with liberals as that reversed) while libertarians are typically hardliners on both social and economic liberty, making them completely different creatures than conservatives or liberals.

Ah I see. :smack:

And I do appreciate the distinction, as I am somewhat of a libertarian bent myself. After a while you start getting used to being lumped in with the conservatives by liberals and being dismissed as liberal by conservatives.

Mr. Moto
01-02-2004, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by sqweels
Mr. Moto, I don't think we're talking about the running of elementary schools here. I think it's about the tendancy of conservatives to dismiss their critics from better-educated circles (i.e. academia) as "elitists".

I was specifically referring to lout comments on public education, which is commonly understood in America to refer to k-12 levels.

But since we're at it, let's address some of these tendencies you're referring to.

Do you have evidence that these critics of conservatives are better educated just because they're in academia? If so, kindly provide it.

Academia has a role to play in our society, and a vital one. But these institutions and the people who make them run don't function well without oversight, examination and criticism. Without this, the academy becomes insular and disconnected.

This examination can come from without and within, from liberals and conservatives both. There is a rich tradition of this. The classic conservative examination of the academy, God and Man at Yale, was written by William F. Buckley Jr. in the 1950's.

I don't think anybody here would argue that it's a good thing that the liberal arts were freed from an unhealthy preoccupation with Classicism and Christianity in the early part of the 20th century. Why should it be so threatening if conservatives warn that a similar preoccupation with deconstructionism and feminism is holding real scholarship back?

MFitz
01-02-2004, 01:12 PM
Acedemia generally means liberal (Socialist, Communist, Progressive, whatever name they are presently hiding under)

It's not only conservatives that have a problem with the left in universities, but so too do Libertarians and Constitutionalists. These self-proclaimed, intellectually elite espouse their radical left-wing opinions and treat those opinions as fact. Lies abound in universities across the U.S. (and world) and dissident views are met with censure, firing, failing students, and even expelling them.

The root of the problem is hypocracy. Universities are typically incubators and insulators for socialist propaganda where evidence their radical views is ignored, not open forums where alternate or even traditional views are allowed.

Most universities are essentially run as they would have Government do; absolute power for its leaders, intolerance of dissident views, while feeding off of the liberty of the individual.

MFitz

Priam
01-02-2004, 01:18 PM
raises an eyebrow at MFitz

And what university are you going to? Berkeley (I know I typoed that somehow)? It sure as heck isn't my college where a slightly trippy, extremely conservative creationist philosopher is on the board of Ethics and tenured. It isn't my university where the College Republicans rule Student Government and quite a bit of public opinion. What precise University are you even speaking of? Or are you just referring to the conveniently Silent Majority?

spectrum
01-02-2004, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by MFitz
Acedemia generally means liberal (Socialist, Communist, Progressive, whatever name they are presently hiding under)

It's not only conservatives that have a problem with the left in universities, but so too do Libertarians and Constitutionalists. These self-proclaimed, intellectually elite espouse their radical left-wing opinions and treat those opinions as fact. Lies abound in universities across the U.S. (and world) and dissident views are met with censure, firing, failing students, and even expelling them.

The root of the problem is hypocracy. Universities are typically incubators and insulators for socialist propaganda where evidence their radical views is ignored, not open forums where alternate or even traditional views are allowed.

Most universities are essentially run as they would have Government do; absolute power for its leaders, intolerance of dissident views, while feeding off of the liberty of the individual.

MFitz

Ladies and gentlemen, SDMB's newest poster: Pat Buchanan! Give the people a wave Pat! Wait, no Pat, don't just stick your hand in the air like that....

smiling bandit
01-02-2004, 01:31 PM
Personally, being a Strong 'Publican sympathizer, I think a lot of it comes from the desperate love affair many academics had for Soviet Russia, and somewhat later, Red China. There was some very major support and, shall I say, "blind" admiration for the Marxist totalitarian systems in many academic circles, and Conservatives utterly despise certain intellectuals for this betrayal.

hroeder
01-02-2004, 01:48 PM
Karl Marx is dead.

The argument that academics were Communists was presented by that senator from Wisconsin, McCarthy and his lackey attorney Richard M. Nixon.

The House UnAmerican Activities Committee got started that way. And they hosed down Berkley, which meant Berkeley got the reputation for being non-Conservative.

Then we had black balls.

All of this went away for almost three decades. I mean Richard Milhouse did resign in disgrace. He was not beatified by the current Pope, who would beatify just about anyone, it seems.

But now we have Homeland Security. Which is somehow reminiscent of the Reichstadt. And Agent Orange has been morphed into Security Risk Orange.

Dear Dick Chaney, please rebuild my city instead of Iraq? Please!

msmith537
01-02-2004, 02:08 PM
In my experience, people who hate academia are usually ignorami who associate higher education with authority, arrogance, or privlidge.

-Poor people who view "college boys" as spoiled rich kids on a 4 year vacation.

-Stupids who are bitter because their peak years ended at high-school graduation while the "nerds" went on to college and careers.

-And of course people who view anyone who went to a better college as an arrogant elitist.




Other than that, all I see here is the usual SDMBL bullshit where everyone who isn't a placard waving hippy is a Neo Nazi.

Sofa King
01-02-2004, 02:18 PM
While I think it's true that academia is battered about by some conservative entertainers, it's entirely worth pointing out for the millionth time that American foreign policy now turns almost entirely on the theories of the Neo-cons, including:

Irving Kristol (http://www.pbs.org/arguing/nyintellectuals_krystol.html), Professor of Social Thought at the NYU Graduate School of Business Administration.

Peter Rodman (http://www.defenselink.mil/policy/isa/bios/peter_w_rodman.html), Fellow at the Johns Hopkins Foreign Policy Institute.

Francis Fukuyama (http://www.ml.com/woml/forum/fukuyama.htm), Professor of Public Policy at the Institute of Public Policy at George Mason University.

Jeffrey Bergner (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/bergner/bergner.html), professor of political science at Georgetown, U Penn and Michigan St.

Paul Wolfowitz (http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/depsecdef_bio.html), Dean and Professor of International Relations at Johns Hopkins University.

And of course, the neoconservative bible is Thucydides' History of the Peleponnesian War as dissected by Leo Strauss (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031212.html) and Donald Kagan, whose son (or is it grandson?) is a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm). Most of the folks named above--or their offspring--signed the now-famous 1998 PNAC letter to President Clinton on Iraq.

In fact, you could say that this most conservative Presidential administration has its foreign policy firmly based upon the theories of a group whose roots trace directly back to Trotskyite academia (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=214820&highlight=trotskyite).

That's why I also chuckled when I read lekatt's comment about reality.

Spectre of Pithecanthropus
01-02-2004, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by sailor
No, the best and the brightest of the universities went out into the real world of business, science, etc. Those who can, do; those who can't, teach.


:rolleyes:

"The real world of science"? Where do you think most research in the physical sciences takes place? The real world of science is academia.

Seriously, though, I think the mistrust of conservatives toward academia is that one frequently does encounter very leftist professors, especially in the liberal arts. There aren't very many places besides academia where radicals and far leftists are accepted on a professional level. The bad thing about this is that leftist thought is effectively isolated within the culture, The good thing is that students are given some new ideas to think about.

When I started college I was fairly conservative, and I was annoyed at times when I saw the leftist slant of many assigned readings. But I told myself, "It's another world view. I don't have to agree with it. Learning to look at something in a new light makes me wiser."

MFitz
01-02-2004, 03:23 PM
I'm always amazed at how naiive Americans are becoming. So many uninformed liberals believing in government authority, true democracy, global warming, the U.N., etc. etc. Ad Naudseum. Please stop watching television, people! Read! And read opinions that are against your own! THAT is education, not

1. Government does only a couple of things well; the rest, they screw up. Only 15 cents of every dollar that is stolen from you by government goes to what it's supposed to. The rest is to fund an ever-expanding system.

2. Look at the type of people who go into politics. These are the last people who should have ANY authority. The best government is a small, localised one.

I just hope the lefties here grow out of it when they start paying taxes like most of the 60s hippies did.

MFitz

rjung
01-02-2004, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by msmith537
Other than that, all I see here is the usual SDMBL bullshit where everyone who isn't a placard waving hippy is a Neo Nazi.
Funny, all I see is the usual SDMBC bullshit where everyone who isn't a flag-waving American is a filthy communist. :rolleyes:

Sofa King
01-02-2004, 03:58 PM
MFitz, it doesn't count when Gordon Liddy reads the newspaper on the air.

That is where you got that 15 cents of every dollar cite, isn't it?

MFitz
01-02-2004, 03:58 PM
Just one more thing, it's both political parties that are detroying the US and implementing anti-Constitutional laws and policies.

Both extremes think they "fix" things with new laws. It's all a matter of States' rights. Government = tyranny.

For example, the Cold War was won by Conservatives. The Liberals were wrong on that and many other things. We should be in Iraq, but not without a Congressional act of war. Being anti- socialism does not a Conservative make. Both parties are finding common ground on the Patriot Act. Liberals are hated for their lies; their gross and intentional misinterpretation of the Constitution.

Cya in a few days. I need to fire a few rounds off and then come down with some Thomas Jefferson writings.

I'll leave (some of) you to your WWF and Turner TV.

MFitz

Sofa King
01-02-2004, 04:04 PM
Oooh, Thomas Jefferson! Well, that certainly should be edifying to those of us whose parents potty-trained us by spreading out yesterday's Pravda on the kitchen floor. I look forward to your lectures.

Ad Naudseum.

magog
01-02-2004, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by Spectre of Pithecanthropus
"The real world of science"? Where do you think most research in the physical sciences takes place? The real world of science is academia.

To expand on this, it's amusing that people say on one hand "Why aren't professors teaching more courses" and complain about class sizes, and then say that professors aren't in touch with the real world. It's as bad as the boss that says "Everything is top priority."

This person says it better than I could: http://chronicle.com/jobs/2003/11/2003112601c.htm

Governor Quinn
01-02-2004, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by rjung
Funny, all I see is the usual SDMBC bullshit where everyone who isn't a flag-waving American is a filthy communist. :rolleyes:

Funny, all I see here is the usual SDMB bullshit where anyone who doesn't agree with you is evil.

(Yes, that's aimed at the both of you.)

adaher
01-03-2004, 12:22 AM
Libertarians and conservatives are two very different creatures. Libertarians believe in freedom on both social and economic matters. Conservatives hate social freedom, though they're all for letting corporations rape the country.

I only mentioned it because nowadays the left considers libertarians to be far-right maniacs.

The battles in this country over civil liberties has mostly been won, and what few battles remain conservatives are pretty much toast and they know it. The battleground over the next century is going to be over economic right and property rights. Since libertarians disagree strongly with the left on these issues, and these rights are more in question than civil liberties, they get lumped in with the right wing, and the far right at that.

msmith537
01-03-2004, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by Governor Quinn
Funny, all I see here is the usual SDMB bullshit where anyone who doesn't agree with you is evil.

(Yes, that's aimed at the both of you.) [/B]


Not evil. Simply ignorant and misinformed. I see a lot of generalities here regarding conservatives, liberals, academics and other groups that makes any meaningful discussion of the OP impossible:

"Why do conservatives hate academia so much?"

Which conservatives? What aspect of academia? My college was a extremely conservative North East university. Mostly white, rich fraternity and sorority kids in Abercromie clothes and baseball hats studying to be engineers and businesspeople. Hardly a bastion of socialist thinking. Are you refering to some meathead anchor on Fox News? Real educated conservative leaders?


"Referring to someone as an Ivy League Scholar is considered an insult."

By who? Some uneducated redneck? Are there educated conservatives who think there is no value in an Ivy League education? G W Bush was a Yale grad after all and last time I checked, Yale was in the Ivy League.


"People who have excelled in an academic position are referred to as elites living in an ivory tower who are not in touch with America."

Yes, but this is a trait shared by liberals and conservatives alike. Academia allows a certait flexibilty in thinking that may not work when practiced in the real world. You can see that here in the SDMB. Ideas are easy. Implementing ideas that work without making millions miserable is hard. If conservatives feel an idea is "ivory tower" it may be because their practical experience tells them that such an idea would cause more harm then good.


"Why is it conservatives have such a hatred of the best and brightest at America's premier universities??"

Again..is it hatred or is it simply disagreement?

Governor Quinn
01-03-2004, 10:35 AM
Oh, msmith537, I wasn't aiming that at you- just the two "gentlemen" that were trying to hijack this thread.

spectrum
01-03-2004, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by adaher
The battles in this country over civil liberties has mostly been won, and what few battles remain conservatives are pretty much toast and they know it.

As a gay male living in George Bush's America, with the Federal Marriage Amendment (the We-Hate-Gay-People Amendment, it should be called) now before Congress, I find that statement to be painfully simplistic and inaccurate.

MFitz
01-03-2004, 05:10 PM
Adaher, excellent post. I agree with you on much of what you said, but I disagree when you wrote, "The battles in this country over civil liberties has mostly been won, and what few battles remain conservatives are pretty much toast and they know it.".

In regards to the original post,
Why do Conservatives hate academia?

Academia are generally Liberals and think themselves some kind of self-appointed aristocracy.

The First Amendment clearly means freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution suggests seperation of Church and State. It is, however, in the Russian Constitution, and a lie created by the left-wing academia.

All over the Nation, 2nd Amendment cases are being won by gun-right advocates. Many cities have had to drop their suits against gun manufacturers, conceal-carry permits are becoming more available, sales of pistols (mostly by women) has tripled since 9-11, statistics on gun-control demonstrate that crime increases (like in England... 300%) and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban is going to sunset this year. The academia have been anti-gun forever.

The (Communist-formed... that is fact) ACLU's agenda is becoming widely publicized for being radically left-wing, etc. The academia are running scared , having their political candidates losing elections, and their favorite organizations becoming exposed for what they are.

The academia in CA that created Affirmative Action admitted last year that it doesn't work and the S.C. ruled it is as Unconstitutional. The list goes on.

The Constitutionalists are, in fact, winning ground, and the academia are frightened, and they should be. And the rift between the Left and Right is becoming a Grand Canyon.

"Aristocrats... fear the people, and wish to transfer all power to the higher classes of society." --Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1825.

MFitz

msmith537
01-03-2004, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by MFitz
The First Amendment clearly means freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution suggests seperation of Church and State. It is, however, in the Russian Constitution, and a lie created by the left-wing academia.
[/B]


U.S. Constitution, Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

What I read is that the government won't will not recognize any religeon, however it will not prevent you from following whatever religeon you choose to practice. This is important because people who believe in a religeon very strongly tend to view anyone who does not follow their religeon as a misguided outsider at best and a dangerous infidel at worse.

What people also seem to forget that you are allowed to disagree strongly with what far right or left wing nut-jobs are saying but you can't, infringe on their rights to say it. Hey, I think communism is as ridiculous as the next capitalist oppressor does, but as long as I don't have to support their social experiment and they don't break any laws, they can commie it up all they want.

Since we are making sweeping generalizations here, conservatives don't seem to like anyone questioning their beliefs and liberals question those beliefs by posing stupid questions.

MFitz
01-03-2004, 07:01 PM
True, but the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law...". Congress is not the individual States' Governments. The First Amendment applies ONLY to the Federal Government. The Aetheist agenda was never intended by the First Amendment. (I can back that up with scores of quotations from almost all of the Founding Fathers)

This simple fact is often denied and simply lied about by the academia, or they take the recent (>1950) radical left-wing view that the Unconstitutional 14th Amendment (No, it was not passed Constitutionally) over rides the 10th Amendment. Incidentally, they are attempting to apply this lie to gay marriage; that if Mass allows it, ALL states must. It is wrong, and damn right threat to the Constitution and our Bill of Rights.

MFitz

msmith537
01-03-2004, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by MFitz
True, but the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law...". Congress is not the individual States' Governments. The First Amendment applies ONLY to the Federal Government. The Aetheist agenda was never intended by the First Amendment. (I can back that up with scores of quotations from almost all of the Founding Fathers)


Well that's what they wrote so too bad for them. Most of it didn't apply to blacks or women either but times change.

I don't know what you mean by "Aethiest agenda" (IMHO, people who refer to large demographic groups (ie Jewish, Black, Aethiest) with "agendas" or "conspiracies" tend to be kinda nuts). But it is not unreasonible for someone who does not believe in God or even believes in many gods to be free from persecution. So I don't know what special rights and privlidges you believe Aethiests feel they are entitled to.



Amendment X
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."


Amendment XIV
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."



Originally posted by MFitz
This simple fact is often denied and simply lied about by the academia, or they take the recent (>1950) radical left-wing view that the Unconstitutional 14th Amendment (No, it was not passed Constitutionally) over rides the 10th Amendment. Incidentally, they are attempting to apply this lie to gay marriage; that if Mass allows it, ALL states must. It is wrong, and damn right threat to the Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
MFitz [/B]

I don't know anyone feels that one States law must apply to all. Certainly many an ultra-conservative Southern state has kept backward laws.

My interpretation of the relevant parts of X and XIV is that the state cannot make any law to override Federal laws (what's the point of having Federal laws then?). What that has to do with gay marriage (which I assume you are against and I am ambivalent towards) I don't know.

Regardless of your OPINION that the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional, it is on the books and is therefore the law of the land until the Supreme Court decides otherwise.

Pepsi Classic
01-03-2004, 08:03 PM
This simple fact is often denied and simply lied about by the academia, or they take the recent (>1950) radical left-wing view that the Unconstitutional 14th Amendment (No, it was not passed Constitutionally)

How was its passing Unconstitional?

MFitz
01-03-2004, 11:42 PM
That question is actually worthy of its own thread. Here's an excellent writing on its inception:

THE "INFAMOUS" 14TH AMENDMENT! (http://www.etherzone.com/2002/burn110802.shtml)

Please confirm these facts for yourself. You WILL be amazed.

MFitz

RickJay
01-03-2004, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by MFitz
True, but the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law...". Congress is not the individual States' Governments. The First Amendment applies ONLY to the Federal Government. The Aetheist agenda was never intended by the First Amendment. (I can back that up with scores of quotations from almost all of the Founding Fathers)
Regrettably for your position, the Constitution also appoints the Supreme Court as the arbiter of Constitutional metters, does it not? That is in Article III, is it not?

And their opinion is at variance with yours. So, sad to say, the absolute fact of the matter is that the legal and legitimate interpretation of the Constitution isn't what you say it is.

As to the general issue, it seems brutally obvious to me that the Bill of Rights would be worthless if it DIDN'T apply to state governments. Of what value are freedoms if state governments don't have to respect them?

adaher
01-04-2004, 12:11 AM
As a gay male living in George Bush's America, with the Federal Marriage Amendment (the We-Hate-Gay-People Amendment, it should be called) now before Congress, I find that statement to be painfully simplistic and inaccurate.

You will win. FMA stands no chance. And every year, more and more people recognize that gays are just like everybody else.

msmith537
01-04-2004, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by adaher
You will win. FMA stands no chance. And every year, more and more people recognize that gays are just like everybody else. [/B]

Only more fabulous.

Rene
01-04-2004, 02:19 PM
Sampiro, sampiro. . . Hmm. . . Is that Japanese for Simpleton?

Hey, Professor, is it my imagination, or have you spent an inordinate amount of time here defending your dubious means of employment?

And who was the lamebrain who listed all those people, foolishly attempting to insinuate that those people were teachers and not doers? The citizens of Hiroshima in 1945 would be interested to learn that Einstein never made it out of the classroom.

Rene

Gaudere
01-04-2004, 02:37 PM
[Moderator Hat ON]

Rene, do not call your fellow posters a "simpleton" or "lamebrain" while in this forum. This forum is for debates, not flaming.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

Kempis
01-04-2004, 06:19 PM
While it's only anecdotal evidence, in the university I graduated from in California, it was ok for liberal professors to fly their colors, but not conservatives. Walking through the halls of the professors' offices, there were a plenty of left and far-left political cartoons on the corkboards on the walls, but none for right or far-right.

If you wanted to express your fondness for smaller government, free trade, or anti-abortion sentiments, you didn't. :( I was on the University Diversity Committee too, and I tried to introduce the idea that diversity includes political ideas, but I was shut down. Oh well... I suppose socialist ideas were treated the same way 50 or 60 years ago, so the pendulum has swung the other way now that the hippies are tenured.

I'm also annoyed when people say that the liberal point of view in universities acts as a new, alternative point of view for the students. Most students are coming from having their whole lives focused on television, movies, and other general popular entertainment so they are a blank slate when it comes to politics.

-k

sqweels
01-04-2004, 08:57 PM
Do you have evidence that these critics of conservatives are better educated just because they're in academia?

Actually, Mr. Moto, with this bit of incredulity you answer the question of the OP:

"BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY'RE SMARTER THAN US"

rjung
01-05-2004, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by Kempis
While it's only anecdotal evidence, in the university I graduated from in California, it was ok for liberal professors to fly their colors, but not conservatives. Walking through the halls of the professors' offices, there were a plenty of left and far-left political cartoons on the corkboards on the walls, but none for right or far-right.
Similarly anecdotal, in the university I graduated from in California, it was okay for conservative professors and students to fly their colors, but not liberals. Walking through the campus, you'd routinely see posters and booths for conservative causes, while flyers for liberal causes were often defaced or vandalized by conservatives (the Young Americans For Freedom were particulary enthusiastic about their purification campaign ;) ). Oddly enough, such vandalism never resulted in any sort of disciplinary action AFAIK, even though it was obviously an action that warranted disciplinary action.

Kempis
01-05-2004, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by rjung
Similarly anecdotal, in the university I graduated from in California, it was okay for conservative professors and students to fly their colors, but not liberals. Walking through the campus, you'd routinely see posters and booths for conservative causes, while flyers for liberal causes were often defaced or vandalized by conservatives (the Young Americans For Freedom were particulary enthusiastic about their purification campaign ;) ). Oddly enough, such vandalism never resulted in any sort of disciplinary action AFAIK, even though it was obviously an action that warranted disciplinary action.

That's interesting, though I wonder if there's every been a survey of how students feel their universities leaned politically.

Such "civil disobedience" stated above doesn't really bother me, the far-leaning people are what will get me riled up... preaching hate against Jews, rich people, white people, not white people, intellectuals, etc.

-k

Rene
01-05-2004, 08:43 PM
I apologize to any lamebrain I may have offended.

Morgs
01-05-2004, 09:35 PM
I would generally have thought that if a university is politicised, it's cack. Sure, people have their beliefs, but at a uniersity aren't we supposed to be challenging them constantly?

That is, rather than choosing what to think, and only then looking for evidence to back it up. Oh yeah - and to the topic I say this: To noobdy in particular: please try not to simply select the more left-leaning party in their two-party political system then say 'they're so totally left and liberal, just goes to show being liberal is garbage'. The Democrats, like the ALP and whoever else you mention... they're not exactly left-wing any more, despite their beginnings.

I mean, it's not as if the political spectrum simply migrates towards the right wing, leaving truly socialist political parties in the realm of impossibility. Socialism et al are still viable as political philosophies, even IF the most progressive party available to you is legislating to make homosexuality illegal.

I say that if you're a lefty, try to go to a conservative University (see me at Melbourne Uni).... then try to convince people in your classes to take your views. I once had a tutor who advised us to not take a particular subject if we 'didn't like Marx'. What the hell is that supposed to do to us? You decided before you've read any of the guy's work whether or not you agree with him, then on this basis avoid a subject that covers it. Not exactly the sort of behaviour people expect at a university.

smiling bandit
01-06-2004, 10:33 AM
But now we have Homeland Security. Which is somehow reminiscent of the Reichstadt.

Though your lametnable lack of knowledge leaves me little choice but to consider you a historical ignoramous. Perhaps you should look up a book on german history. Hitler never used the Reichstag (and don't try to claim that wasn't your comparison!) and hated it as a symbol of decadent bourgouis democracy. It burned out, albeit not down, and though the cause has never been positively ID'd, more than a few people believe Hitler did it. I don't share the opinion, but its something he would have done.

Do you have any idea what the Reichstag is?

PS: Did he just pull a Godwin?

And Agent Orange has been morphed into Security Risk Orange.

:rolleyes

Chicago Faucet
01-06-2004, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by Evil Captor
Because they can't control academia with money the way they can control most every other major American institution.

But they're working on that.

Wait. Are you talking about Conservatives, or Liberals here?

Chicago Faucet
01-06-2004, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by sqweels
Actually, Mr. Moto, with this bit of incredulity you answer the question of the OP:

"BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY'RE SMARTER THAN US"

Strawman.

rjung
01-06-2004, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Chicago Faucet
Wait. Are you talking about Conservatives, or Liberals here?
Conservatives, of course. Liberals don't have money, remember?

sqweels
01-06-2004, 04:29 PM
CF:
Strawman.

Wait a sec. Am I guilty of strawmanning conservatives for thinking that they think that academics think that they're smarter than they are?

Rene
01-06-2004, 08:59 PM
CONSERVATIVES, n. : generally a little slow on the upbeat, these people have a cantankerous propensity for believing in anything that opposes innovation unless it involves the exploitation of the poor, the pillaging of natural resources, or the widening of tax law loopholes; favorite topic of discussion among LIBERALS


LIBERALS, n. : in spite of all your evidence and experience, these are the people who know whatís best for you; the other favorite topic of discussion among LIBERALS

STRAWMAN, n. : A dummy stuffed Liberal; No, wait. A stuffed shirt Conservative; No, wait. A cop-out. Yeah, that's it.

Gaudere
01-07-2004, 11:28 AM
Rene:
I apologize to any lamebrain I may have offended.

[Moderator Hat ON]

While you are posting on this messageboard you will obey the rules set by the admins and mods. If you do not you will shortly find yourself unable to post. Understood?

[Moderator Hat OFF]

Rene
01-07-2004, 08:37 PM
Dear Sir, or Mister or Ms. Gaudere,

So, lemme get this straight. It is not permissible to infer that someone is a lamebrain. It IS, however, permissible to "consider" one an "historical ignoramus." Do you understand? Please enlighten me.

I of course sense a certain element of smugness about this place, but I've always known that peculiar habit to be sacrosanct with uppity white people. The realization then is, shall we say, less than revelatory.

I'd just simply be oh so distressed to think I was being singled out. Such is so, um, incongruous to erudite thinkers. (I only mention it because I see you have not succeeded in your role as esteemed Administrator to reprimand the "historical ignoramus" fellow poster.)

As I offer my sublime thankfulness for any help you think you might offer in resolving my apparent quandary, I am,


Rene

Larry Borgia
01-08-2004, 01:21 AM
Rene,

Just read the G**dmn rules. They're posted in a sticky on the top of the forum. If anyone personally insulted you, you have a right to complain, but that doesn't mean you can insult others.

Not trying to be a "junior mod," just trying to relieve Gaudere from the duty of stating the obvious.

Gaudere
01-08-2004, 11:14 AM
[Moderator Hat ON]

Rene:

smiling bandit should not have called you an ignoramus; I didn't see that that and that's why I didn't warn him before. He can consider himself officially warned as of now.

However, *you* have managed to aquire two warnings in five posts and now violate the rules yet again by questioning moderator/admin actions outside the Pit and/or email, giving you a remarkable 3 to 2 ratio of offending posts to acceptable ones. Go read the ALL the FAQs and stickies and , 'cause I gotta tell you one more violation in the near future and you're out of here.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

Brad the Impaler
01-08-2004, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by SnoopyFan


When is the last time you saw a professor from an Ivy League school chillin' with a McDonald's cashier? I submit that the people in academia you are talking about do not have one friend that doesn't share their politics. These types generally do not hang around the "little people," (or know any of them personally) they just like to cry crocodile tears about them in class.



I saw one today. I'll probably go out and drink some beers with some later on tonight. Of course, I work in an Ivy League town, so I'd expect to see that. I don't know what "types" you are talking about.

Milum
01-08-2004, 10:54 PM
The only "academicians" that describe themselves as "academicans" are in my experience, ugh, "liberals".

Also...

It has been my experience that "liberals" are not liberal in their examinations of reality.
But evenso liberals pursue their trade with great dogmas and dark deceptions that would shame even a latter-day foot-washing Babtist, charlatan Pope.

Why is this?

The need to prove ideas by the use of lofty titles and adherence to the shallow view of the moment can only be found among those who are without merit and original thought.

What? Aren't any of you imbued with any original thought?

:)