Conservative Hatred for Academia

[Pepsi Classic]

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]

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]

It's because academia has lost touch with the world of reality, I think.

[pervert]

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]

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.

[sailor]

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]

A bit more seriously though, where do you get "hatred".

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

[John Mace]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. <insert something about brushes, pots and kettles.>

[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.

[Michael Ellis]

Originally posted by Milum
some of them don't like the Waltons.

What, the TV show?

[SnoopyFan]

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]

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, 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. 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]

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)?

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

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]

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]

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]

stupidly phrased OP

[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.

[PatriotX]

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-cons

[PatriotX]

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

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by Michael Ellis
Yep. That's the Alpha and Omega of it.

Who are "they"?

[PatriotX]

Originally posted by lekatt
Who are "they"?

The context of seems to clearly imply conservatives. YMMV.

[PatriotX]

Err. No of. Should read as follows

The context seems to clearly imply conservatives. YMMV.

[Priam]

*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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by elfkin477
Of course they do. Just like all the conservatives do in the OP. <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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Conservatives hate social freedom, though they're all for letting corporations rape the country.

And thus the perception that "liberals hate business."

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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