Liberal hegemony/dogma on college campuses? What's been your experience?

Hard to say, not finding the dichotomy & labels conservative/liberal too reflective both of my own views, and of others. We’re a lot less politically diverse than many developed nations, yet we’re still unquestionably diverse enough that the assumption of those labels being the primary way to understand/classify political views distorts our reality and even harms our democracy.

There are a variety of views, though many findings of disciplines support certain types of so-called liberal views. But that’s not always the case; for instance, my first class today was mostly spent discussing (the teacher brought the subject up and fostered it’s motion in that direction) how bad abortion was – not that i disagreed with the views, just that other views were pushed to the side & not considered. [must go asap, will try to elaborate later]

No point of view needs to be restricted. However, the entire concept of the conservative ideology non-progressive thought. Universities wish to encourage their students to be inclusive, tolerant, and worldly. They teach students to see issues from all different sides and to think through things in a logical and scientific fashion. This tends to lead to progressive thought, and thus liberalism. Certainly this is merely a trend, not a rule, but a trend nonetheless.

I think it’s important to consider that the majority of people from conservative backgrounds are from cultures that dominate the United States in wealth, power, and in history. I always think it is a bit funny when conservatives say their voice is being pushed down because they have run the country for hundreds of years. So needless to say I don’t believe the conservative voice is subject to any overwhelming oppression in the University system.

I don’t think college campuses actively restrict conservative thought. I think college professors try to restrict their material to that which is useful and correct, and the overlap between “conservative” and “useful and correct” is virtually nonexistent.

@Ivan

What Ivan sounds like is a Dark Age monk, defending the suffocating principles of conservative dogma. I attended Uconn and the forced political ideology was almost hard to believe. I was given an F on a sociology paper for suggesting that the post-Rodney King L.A. riots were not entirely the fault of a corrupt, white power structure.

What is ironic is that Universities tended toward the conservative side until the 1930’s. Conservative allowed in liberals on the pretense of allowing every voice a say. Since than, liberals have effectively pushed out any dissenting voices and turned universities into distilleries of a particular political point of view.

@kevbo do you think conservative points of view contribute to or detract from a university education? Need they be restricted?

My grandfather didn’t pay large sums of money for me to listen to conservative drivel. I think what we have now is sorta the right way to go.

We have our liberal universities(Columbia, Harvard(to some extent), UC Berkeley, etc.) and conservatives have theirs (Oral Roberts, Liberty, Brigham Young ,etc)

It’s no coincidence that ours are listed among the best in the world, while many conservative institutions are not even accredited.

I have not experienced what you are describing. There were plenty of conservative student groups of all stripes on campus when I was in college. They were not intimidated or bothered in any way.

In some cases, they ran a lot of student affairs.

I think there are a lot of things at work, and I don’t think it’s as simple as a conservative/liberal dichotomy.

Universities are big businesses. The administration wants the appearance of a place that has a diversity of thought and opinion, as long as it doesn’t inconvenience the core functions of the university (feeding students and entertaining them on weekends, primarily). The faculty have worked in a very strange apprenticeship structure that has very little touch with reality for their entire lives, and so are likely to be unfamiliar with pragmatic reality. Both of these lead not necessarily towards liberal viewpoints but towards fantasy viewpoints.

And I think that, unless you take significant steps to control the situation, the environment of universities is incompatible with naive conservativism. What I mean by this is that there’s a certain style of conservativism that’s based on the notion that the entire world is just like you, and that anyone who is not like you is a deviant and wrong. It’s very difficult to spend four years at a university like Harvard and come out of the experience still believing that. You can refine your views after a while towards a more libertarian conservativism that is still compatible with a live and let live approach, but healthy diversity and authoritarian conservativism and neoconservativism do not really coexist happily.

In my admittedly narrow experiences the professors don’t talk about politics all that much, and more of the people I know here are conservatives than liberals. (And I don’t think I know a single person who is neither here, which is disconcerting. I’d settle for a classical liberal at this point, jeez.)

@HarmonyAlexandria, well now you’ve got me thinking (and I’m not a conservative, by the way), because one of my more influential professors was a product of Brown U, and she taught this semi-southern, white boy about the patriarchy, cultural hegemony, and Marxist politics. Also influential was a class on third (as in third world) cinema, which was highly influential in my thinking. So, I suppose despite the conservative setting, I gravitated toward liberal views, although there were plenty of conservatives to go around (being that Notre Dame is the mecca of Catholic education in America).

Maybe what bothers me about this is more the “dogma” than the “liberal.” Teaching what to think vs. how to think. Also, the tendency for faculty departments to become academic lynch mobs to their conservative colleagues (that was part of the documentary).

So to answer your question, I don’t know.

@Kevbo: I think one of the nuances that a lot of people don’t get on both sides is that universities are the marketplace of ideas. You need to learn about the patriarchy, cultural hegemony, Marxist politics, and the like, not because they are right (although they may be), but because they show you other ways of looking at and understanding the world.

And I think faculty departments, from what I have seen, are lynch mobs when they see any sort of weakness or difference. Honest to God, I have seen tenured orchestral instrument professors turn on an untenured voice professor before, and it was bloody. Academic politics are horrifically nasty, and liberal/conservative is just one of the issues on which you’re likely to see majority-on-minority nastiness.

@kevbo

You’ve hit the nail on the head with “lynch mobs.” Liberal Arts departments have become backwater, quasi-religious distilleries of nonsense in the last 100 years and that is exactly why. While Medicine, Engineering, Nursing and science departments at Universities have literally changed humanity with their research, as well as the students they produce, the liberal arts departments of colleges, both here in America and in Europe have become jokes. Sociology, Anthropology and English departments have become exactly like religious institutions…....spewing out stuff that has been repeatedly disproven, so that they may get their students thinking the “correct,” way. This is why there are so few great writers, critical thinkers and artists relative to 100 years ago

@TheIowaCynic: there are so few great writers, critical thinkers, and artists now compared to 100 years ago because the public prefers television, celebrity scandal, and manufactured pop music to great writing, great commentary, and great art.

Except that, you know, there are actually more great writers working now than there were a century ago. Perhaps if you’d paid attention in your English courses you’d have heard of a few of them.

@kevbo Teaching what to think vs. how to think. Also, the tendency for faculty departments to become academic lynch mobs to their conservative colleagues

It’s a very old, dirty trick – only those towing the “party” line are allowed to participative in the process.If you want to graduate…or get a teaching/research position you must think like us. Being authoritarian left I love it as it benefits me as my points of view are the ones being propagated more often than not.

You do raise some good points about liberal instructors at conservative institutions and vice versa, those could become extinct.

There is a sociologist by the name of Robert Cushing who has recently written a book on the phenomena titled “The Big Sort”, basically it boils down to people prefer to live, work, and associate with people who think and believe just like them so that their views are never challenged.

Cushing’s collaborator, Bill Bishop says the differences will rip us a part, unlike him I think that’s a good thing…No more comprising or learning to relate to people who are nothing like me.

@HarmonyAlexandria, it sounds like a good book and makes me think of the electoral map. I’ll check it out someday. I can’t say that I agree completely with your take, though. That’s how many wars and ghettos are justified.

@HarmonyAlexandria

Harmony has beautifully detailed the problem. Harmony and I have gone back and fourth on another website and she perfectly embodies the lefty authoritarian. Real scholarship requires an airing of opposing points of view. Once that is lost, things become dumbed down, as is happening at Liberal Arts departments throughout America.

In this world, Boazian Anthropology will thrive because it is comforting and self-affirming to folks like Harmony. Perpetuating silly ideas, such as that white people who don’t live in cities, tend to live in trailer parks or barns with their animals, are ideas that will go unchallenged at liberal universities. Art departments at places like Yale will continue to produce students making sculptures and paintings that look like meaningless nothing. Political philosophies that are empirically disprovable, such as the idea that urban schools are under-funded and would produce scholars if we corrected that problem, will continue to proliferate.

There is a great deal of danger to that type of intellectual isolation. When Universities become big, lets-all-tell-each-other-stuff-that-we-think-we-already-know circle jerks, scholarship will suffer.

They will become, and have become, much like seminaries – attracting those who wish to perpetuate a particular point of view and barring those who disagree.

@TheIowaCynic

Seriously, most leftists are not like her.

You’re just making a blanket judgment of everyone who disagrees with you, because it makes it easier to support your own position.

My favorite anthropology professor lives in the country, and is a war veteran. But, you know, he probably thinks that he is a redneck, because that’s what all anthropologists believe?

Seriously, even if the distinction you people make between “liberal” and “conservative” were as meaningful as you like to think, universities aren’t anywhere near as liberal dominated as you think.

They just aren’t.

@Lefty_the_space_monkey: it’s a beautiful irony—he’s accusing academics of thinking everyone is a stereotype, while revealing that his own view of academics is just as stereotypical as what he’s decrying.

@cwilbur

I’m not perpetrating a stereotype at all. The facts, back me up. Let’s take a look

http://spartacus.blogs.com/spartacus/2004/01/measuring_liber.html

“Professors and staff at the three big, elite universities (or the “Big 3”) made a total of 455 individually reported political donations during the first nine months of 2003 for a total of $362,867. Fully 85% of the donations and 86% of the money went to Democratic candidates, party organizations or affiliated PACs, versus 11% of donations to Republicans accounting for 12% of the cash. (Nonpartisan groups like occupational PACs (e.g. the American Hospital Association PAC with 3 donations) or ideologically neutral groups like the Human Rights Campaign PAC (1 donation) which split their donations between Republican and Democratic candidates accounted for 4% of the contributions and 2% of the funding.)”

or as reported by the New York Times

http://weblog.theviewfromthecore.com/2004_11/ind_004352.html

“The ratio of Democratic to Republican professors ranged from 3 to 1 among economists to 30 to 1 among anthropologists”

If you’re not convinced of a liberal bias in Academia, there’s a literal mountain of evidence to suggest that you’re wrong…....hard, empirical evidence. I’m not in any way perpetrating a mindless stereotype but addressing a very real issue suggested by this question and its implications….....so, nice try.

@Lefty_the_space_monkey

See the attachment I gave to cwilbur. There’s nothing imagined about the very real, very hard-left bias at academies.

What’s funny about that is those dupes probably don’t realize their supporting corporate-controlled candidates.

This is really good discussion, by the way. Thanks to everyone.

When a political party privileges faith over science and it is widely known that it prefers to support research that reinforces its own biases—when it’s not defunding universities as part of the culture wars—is it any surprise that people who have invested 10+ years of their life and whose careers depend on research according to the scientific method and the continued existence of universities should support the other party?

Your mistake is in thinking that the Democrats and the Republicans have equally valid political philosophies, and thus a random sample of educated people should produce a 50/50 split. But that just isn’t the case, especially with the neoconservatives and the attempt by the Republicans to portray themselves as just plain folks instead of as robber barons.

@TheIowaCynic If those statistics are accurate then my professors have done an excellent job of not letting their bias show.

Fuck, I don’t even know how you think anthropologists could show so much bias in their lessons “Now the conservatives want you to think that denticulate tools were produced by lazy craftsmen and shoddy work, but the truth is that they are every bit as sophisticated as those fancy Mousterian tools.”

And seriously, while I have know idea what most of my profs’ political views are, at least two thirds of my peers that have let me know their political views are conservatives.

@cwilbur You have completely left the realm of this conversation and gone off on a tangent. There is NOBODY at any serious university attempting to promote Creationism as a legitimate science. Also, the idea that conservatives are attempting to defund Universities is stupid and without a shred of supporting evidence. You’re creating a straw argument. This is a great illustration of a limited point-of-view. It sounds good to say those kinds of things, doesn’t it? To imagine that neo-cons are trying to teach creationism and defund universities. I have no doubt you say this often and, on an intellectually monolithic campus, you would be able to say these incorrect things without being questioned…...that’s exactly the problem

The point of this question, is that lefties are crowding out opposing points of view. I have, in my earlier thread, shown detailed examples of how problematic this can be…...of how false ideas can proliferate when allowed to go unchecked.

That’s the point we’re making here. in order for good scholarship to thrive, one requires a variety of opinion and much of what takes place on Universities is an attempt to squash this free-debate/

Not exactly your points, but another example from the documentary is the tension around allowing military recruiters on campus. Most student bodies (and faculty, I’m sure) are dead against it, but also the federal government has threatened to withdraw funding from universities that won’t allow recruiters on campus.

@Lefty_the_space_monkey If two-thirds of your anthropology major fellows are conservative, you are in the most conservative anthropology department on the planet. Anthropology departments have become universally Boasians and work from a very fixed perspective. One of those perspectives would be that race does not influence culture. This is an axiomatic point of modern anthropology and a highly debatable one. It is the only point that is allowed in anthropology departments….....that would be one example

@kevbo Agreed. But personally, am finding the dichotomy of liberal or conservative – one or the other, not both, not anything else rather limiting.

Like, what about how much more economically & politically critical – of both parties, of our cuwhose party lines should not define our views of ourselves or of others whose views are known; of our whole current political system, of how resources and power are way too entwined right now to be just in even the view of most non-biased-by-wealth conservatives – academia could be? That’s relevant to all of us.

Also, obviously there’s apt to be a culture – to whatever degree of influence – in colleges which support some certain type of ‘liberalism’. Yet, seems pertinent to consider if there’s something at play here also about the nature of studying various parts of reality as best we understand it that currently makes a quote unquote liberal viewpoint more sensible to many. Both influences are apt to feed into each other, rather than one just causing the other and that’s that.

Perhaps the party line, if that’s what we seem to currently be discussing, of conservatives spoke more to those who study certain things, or who are intellectual, maybe there would be some difference. But it seems more important to all of us to be concerned about how critical academic culture tends to be in its view on our current social/political/economic conditions, and how academia itself is very deeply connected to those in ways that aren’t at all ideal, regardless of whatever ‘side’ one takes – if one takes any at all – in our binary party/ideological system.

@TheIowaCynic The view that race doesn’t influence culture is the polar opposite from the view i’ve gathered in every sociology class i’ve taken, just f.y.i.

Not sure if this may factor in, but perhaps some more biologically-focused anthropology discounts race – but that makes sense, considering it’s well-confirmed that it’s biologically meaningless. In fact, when we did an overview on that biology in a soc class, the material drew very heavily from a wonderful website made by whatever the [inter?]national anthropological association is.

@TheIowaCynic Well aside from the fact that it is obvious that the physical differences between human beings do influence their cultures (and that cultures influence the physical differences between human beings) and the related fact that those differences are sometimes genetic, the fact that you disagree with this commonly held position that was arrived at originally by biological anthropologists (who are just biologists who focus specifically on human biology, and variation, and the effects of these things on human cultures) doesn’t mean that anthropologists are dogmatic.

It means they disagree with you.

That’s it.

@resmc

Actually, that is a FAR from correct and universally understood point of view. It is highly controversial and highly debated. Much biological research from the past 20 years would specifically counter that, and herein lies the point. This (and this is one of many, many examples) is exactly the type of thing that anthro deparments should be discussing and arguing. What happens instead, is that the point of view simply isn’t allowed, or there is some kind of “Let’s watch a video where this idiot promotes an idea we all know is dumb and you should also think is dumb,” and that’s it.

I use this as one example, but your statement “it’s well-confirmed that it’s biologically meaningless” is not universally agreed upon at all.

@TheIowaCynic: I said nothing about creationism.

The Bush administration showed quite convincingly that it privileged faith over science, that it preferred to fund only those scientific projects that would support their views, and the Republicans have tried to defund Columbia University for allowing Ahmadinejad to speak, and if you look you can find all kinds of places where university funding was cut: Arizona, Wisconsin

(You’d think that if the conservatives embraced your notion that universities are for a diversity of thoughts, that they’d support hearing Ahmadinejad’s point of view, if only to better debunk it. But no, no, hearing a diversity of opinions is only good if the opinions mostly agree with you.)

And I’m not that liberal, either. I’m just a member of the reality-based majority.

@Lefty_the_space_monkey

Here is the point that I’m making. If one was studying anthropology, the question of “do ideas and culture evolve and effect those they come into contact with?” or “do you humans themselves evolve and subgroup and this evolution is at least partly responsible for their culture?” would seem to be a fundamental question at the root of understanding humans and their interaction. In anthro departments…...only one point of view is allowed and it is a highly unproven point of view….......but, back to the question, this would be one of many many many many examples of legitimate debate being squashed in favor of dogmatic indoctrination.

@TheIowaCynic The problem is that races as they are commonly understood are not as homogeneous as we act like they are.

The idea that you have races like “black,” “white,” and “Asian” is ludicrous. Those groups are enormous.

Genetic variation is great within human beings, and it has effects on their cultures, but it doesn’t divide itself along the lines of skin color.

Various genetic groups within human beings do exist, but that doesn’t mean that those groups are “races” as races are commonly understood.

@cwilbur

You have, again…....gone so far off the base of this question, I don’t know how to begin responding.

Let’s try to regroup here. Universities are OVERWHELMINGLY left of center. They often dictate what their students can say and will not allow opposing points of view in the classroom, even those with a scientific basis.

What you saw at Columbia was a very specific group of neo-con Jews attempting to ban Ahmadenijad. The opposing instances of lefties attempting to ban speakers is remarkable. William F. Buckley was often denied the ability to speak when invited. Jared Taylor has been banned from many university campuses….....

If you think this point boils down to examples of political censorship on universities or attempts thereof, you will lose…....I assure you that you will.

@TheIowaCynic Also, beliefs within the anthropological community aren’t nearly so unanimous as you paint them.

There is a lot of variation in thought, and the discipline is much difference than it was fifty years ago.

@Lefty_the_space_monkey

First off…...the point I’m making, is that the racial debate is legitimate and should be allowed and it is not.

Secondly….as you’ll see above, anthropology departments are the most intellectually monolithic of any departments there are…...with a 30–1 democrat to republican ratio…...30–1. That’s not “variation in thought”

@TheIowaCynic Well, I’m sorry, but your statistics don’t line up with my first hand experience.

So I don’t see a reason to trust them.

I mean honestly, I don’t want to study archaeology because I’m a leftist. And I didn’t become a leftist due to being indoctrinated by professors.

The idea that anyone who wants to study the remains of past human cultures is automatically some Democrat robot is ridiculous.

Also, as I said, they haven’t talked politics during class once. I don’t give a damn who they vote for in their free time. Both parties are owned by giant corporations anyways, they don’t have any real values.

@Lefty_the_space_monkey

These statistics were compiled by the New York times. I’m sorry if they differ from your personal experience. They’re facts.

I don’t suggest that people decide to become anthropologists and then become leftists. What I’m suggesting is the field is closed to everybody BUT leftists. Hence, much of the groundbreaking anthropological work of the last 20 years has been done outside of anthropology departments. “The Bell Curve,” was a great example of a ground-breaking, scientific study.

Conversely, what one will see in any given anthropology department at any major university is “study,” after “study,” telling us rehashed versions of things like “why poverty is cyclical,” looked at from a single point of view.

@TheIowaCynic

No reason to be sorry.

I just seem to have experiences that contradict what they found. There are any number of reason that that could occur.

I’ve noticed that when you say “anthropology” what you really mean is “ethnography” though.

Hm, did you know that Noam Chomsky, noted leftist and self-proclaimed anarchist (but really something of a statist apologist) pissed off a lot of leftists when he released his findings concerning the way humans learn languages? (Basically his findings suggested that most languages are similar because human beings didn’t create languages from scratch, rather they are based on universal principles that have to do with the way our minds work. Leftists tend to promote tabula rasa sort of ideas, so they didn’t like this.)

Does the fact that a very high profile anthropologist (linguist specifically) would release a study that flies in the face of general leftist ideology?

Maybe that means, that anthropologists, are, you know, anthropologists first, and whatever else second?

@Lefty_the_space_monkey

What I am suggesting is that anthropology is a closed shop. Ethnography, as you pointed out, should be a intricate part of anthropology. They go together like peas and carrots.

One cannot get anywhere in anthro departments without a hard left perspective and this is bad for anthropology as a discipline.

@TheIowaCynic Um, what about the fact that there’s more genetic variation within a single ethnic group (say Europeans) than between two ethnic groups commonly thought of as races (Africans and Europeans)? Sure, there’s obviously differences between peoples, but the genes that cause them are a tiny fraction of our whole DNA, and those variations are best understood as having to do with geography (climate, lattitude… or maybe the other one, never was able to get those straight, but you know what i mean :-) and sexual selection.

And, if i’m not mistaken, the Bell Curve is so well and widely refuted it’s like beating a dead horse to do so again. In fact, that was the example a professor used in explaining bad and misleading research, lol. Not that the point you were trying to make with that example isn’t potentially valid…

@TheIowaCynic But I just gave an example of someone who is a very successful anthropologist saying something that pissed off leftists. And he’s still a successful anthropologist.

And ethnography is an intricate part of anthropology. By definition, since it’s a sub-discipline of anthropology.

My point is that you seem to be focusing exclusively on it in your critique of anthropology as a whole.

Why do linguists, archaeologists and biological anthropologists have to show leftist bias? Can you give even one example of them being forced to do so?

@resmc

You’re actually 100% wrong. It was absolutely not “refuted” It has been greatly attacked, primarily so as to prevent people from reading it.

As to the rest of what you say, the point I’m making is that there SHOULD be this type of debate allowed and there is not….......that’s the point. The specifics are far less important but let me indulge anyway.

There is more variation between individual men and individual woman than there are between the two groups….....this does not mean that there are not men and not women.

We are over 98% similar to chimps and apes. You’ve touched on something else that is very important and verbotten to be discussed. What these statistics tell us is that it is extremely tiny differences in DNA that cause enormous differences in physical and mental characteristics.

Every animal on the planet, when separated by thousands of years and thousands of miles, develops unique physical and mental characteristics. Assuming that humans would be the only group to have escaped this fate is silly.

@Lefty_the_space_monkey

You’re not seeing the broad outline of what I am saying. First off, suggesting the Noam Chomsky is some great slayer of lefty ideals is…..well…...silly.

The point I’m making is that in anthropology and sociology departments, people are generally forbidden from advancement if they do not tow the party line.

It’s become no different than an Islamist not being able to get very far at Dallas Theological Seminary.

@TheIowaCynic

I understand that he isn’t a right wing activist.

But his actions directly refute your claim that one has to “tow the party line” to advance as an anthropologist.

Something happened that you claimed never happens.

That makes you wrong, at least here.

@Lefty_the_space_monkey

The example of a far-lefty going against conventional wisdom by taking a more Kantian view of the human mind (we are born with certain innate “file cabinets” in our brain) to describe language is hardly a refutation of the gargantuan, left-wing tilt of these departments.

@TheIowaCynic

Well, this argument is going no where. (That sounds snarky, but I don’t mean it to.)

Obviously neither of us is going to be swayed, and I’m hungry, so I think I’m going to go.

@ThelowaCynic Am not interested in this specific example too much, however, could you just answer 2 questions? Why have many who’ve not only read, but checked out that book’s references, claim that all the research it’s based upon is at least ridiculously insubstantial in light of the weight of the arguments they’re meant to support?

And (please excuse my ignorance if i’m mistaken) what moral grounds are there to support the brand of Social Darwinism the book has at least been taken to promote – as well as the and social/human effects of those, if there are any; am not sure how influential the book was on that level – whether or not supporting that ideology was (if only partly) the intentions of the author.

Further, it’s vital to understand the role in culture/history/beliefs in terms of defining those groups – whatever ones you choose (‘race’/gender/&tc.) – and in deeply shaping the socialization of those born into what we define as one or the other of those categories. Moreso, we need to look at how culture&tc. affects us, and the way we look at this. It’s literally impossible to for anyone not to be deeply affected by those influences, thus the importance of learning what those influences are, and then re-evaluting our habits/assumptions, our whole upbringing, all our opportunities, our interactions with others… if we’re going to be able to view this with as much objectivity as we can.

The nature of racial categories – or even our use of human categories in the first place… their history, what shaped what them – something we inherited needs to examined most, and that’s the easiest, compared to examining ourselves that deeply. The importance ‘race’ has, not just in terms of inequality, but the centrality to influential elements of our society on maintaining an assumption that there’s a biological basis in race & hence all the inequalities a part of that. Sure, even if we all understood how little basis there is in proportion to its role in society, racism would still exist… but it doesn’t help for the default assumption of an educated person to be that there must be a significant biological basis, and thus to say otherwise leads us to find research which is – by default, based on our inheritance of these categories and the significance placed on them – based at least partly on all the assumptions underlying those very categories, and then by default argue against anything said to the contrary.

@resmc

The first part of your argument is “how do you explain that some people disagree?” Anytime there is something controversial, people will disagree. The basis of their complaint is that IQ tests are culturally biased, to which Murray and Lowenstien showed that on every cognative test ever created, including those that attempt to factor for cultural bias, racial and ethnic groups score differently at the same rates.

Their point was to suggest that when, for instance, one sees urban schools with 85% black and hispanic populations producing a poorer quality of student with higher dropout rates and lower literacy…....we should not assume that this is the result of institutional racism, but something that we should expect and that attempting to correct this would be like trying to make the earth move backwards.

Murray has since pointed to D.C. schools as a great example, where $24,000/per kid/per year is spent on education, with 12% 8th grade literacy rates and 60% plus dropout rates.

We’re way off topic. The point I’m making is that these types of things should be given open, healthy debate in academic institutions.

Actually, was referring to statistical issues. Am a dense layman when it comes to stats, but after much explanation from the prof, he showed how the aspects of the test which were the basis for most of the book were somehow not representative of the whole set of results from the test, but took a few examples which were outliers (i believe) and then

A study gave an identical test to kids of color and to white students, but passed it off as measuring either something inconsequential in terms of its economic value, or something that comes easily to most people. In another group, they gave the same test, but this time said it’s measuring intelligence. In the first test, the results were about equal, in the second, kids of color did significantly worse… not just than the white kids, but the kids of color who were told the test wasn’t that significant.

So even if we assume (which i’d seriously question) tests are still economically and culturally inclusive, and not just geared to test white middle class kids taught in middle class schools (and one has to be pretty dense to argue that there’s no major difference between the education allowed by middle class neighborhoods and middle class schools and that of inner city schools filled mostly with those both without as much economic stability and without much chance of being able to work hard for such, especially relative to the middle and upper classes), there’s cultural, economic and social factors to consider before deciding what causes what, or even before analysing those. And, though it’s not the forte of some, just like it’s not my forte to be a statistician, or perhaps yours not to be a geologist, doesn’t mean we’re not trying to move the earth backwards, though sometimes, despite understanding those forces, it certainly feels like it’d take that to do something about it. But even if it feel like that, it’s worth trying, if not for you, or possibly me, for someone else… and assuming it’s impossible when obscure if difficult & uncertain paths out are visible to some, including myself further compounds the severity of the social headwinds against that effort.

These are debated, though not as much as i’d like. However, debate’s no so important in and of itself, inho. Sure, some enjoy it as a sort of intellectual fencing, but that’s an usual form of recreation, not inherently functional – though people will find value in it and pay to promote it (which could be better than putting such economic value in sports). As long as there’s more critical introspection both fostered in students as well as those teaching them, and more questioning of the curriculum in the same light… which debate should be a part of. So many of the topics of common debate, while they may be important, tend to lead at least the mainstream press & those influenced by it to ignore equally vital debates or areas of study or legitimate moral/social contention, and legitimize it by the value placed on those common debates… not that that’s intentional, or the only way to view debate. Actually, what i’d like to do if i can, to some degree, is to help further the process of critical self & social analysis that’s developed in an obscure corner of a commonly overlooked branch of studies. (But boxing that goal, or the process of fulfilling it, into a category of liberal or conservative and hence judging it based on our view of that category isn’t going to help anyone, except perhaps pundits into promoting a rigid dichotomy between people and 2 major perspectives they’re given the option of choosing.)

“debate’s no so important in and of itself, inho. Sure, some enjoy it as a sort of intellectual fencing, but that’s an usual form of recreation, not inherently functional – though people will find value in it and pay to promote it (which could be better than putting such economic value in sports). As long as there’s more critical introspection both fostered in students as well as those teaching them, and more questioning of the curriculum in the same light… which debate should be a part of. So many of the topics of common debate, while they may be important, tend to lead at least the mainstream press & those influenced by it to ignore equally vital debates or areas of study or legitimate moral/social contention, and legitimize it by the value placed on those common debates… not that that’s intentional, or the only way to view debate”

What you just suggested was that open debate causes people to IGNORE statistics. That’s a little silly. I would really encourage you to READ the Bell Curve as opposed to thinking you understand it by what a professor said about it.

Let me also offer you some personal advice, and I mean this in the best way possible. You’re obviously not stupid but you need to learn to use language more densely. You come across as somebody that will prefer to use 5,000 words to state a point that could be stated with 20. It’s very easy to get lost in your writing.

Never suggested debate causes us to ignore statistics. It can mislead us into interpreting statistics in a way which grants legitimacy to the biases of the culture it’s conducted within and hence those who developed the basis of those numbers, as usually statistics are taken at face value, or if questioned, tend to be about how accurate they are based on the premises of what they’re measuring, which goes unquestioned.

Am not inclined to read it, especially without even a mention of anything that suggested the main concerns i had with its argument’s validity. Having zillions of other books to read and work to do, i’m not going to justify my not wanting to read it merely because it’d allow me to continue a debate it with some person on the internet when there’s been nothing said which questions my own personally-unresearched assumptions about it. You’re point’s of course valid that we need to be critical of what we’re taught, though.

And yeah, i need to work on that, and am well aware of that… though you’re either wonderful at condensing stuff without leaving out (subjectively and perhaps intersubjectively) important viewpoints/details, or you exaggerate a bit (-:

JC my head hurts, but I’m impressed.

@resmc Again, here is a gargantuan, run on sentence that sounds like it came from an extremely verbose 13 year old and runs back on itself 10 different ways

“It (open debate) can mislead us into interpreting statistics in a way which grants legitimacy to the biases of the culture it’s conducted within and hence those who developed the basis of those numbers, as usually statistics are taken at face value, or if questioned, tend to be about how accurate they are based on the premises of what they’re measuring, which goes unquestioned.”

If there was an award given for people who say the least, using the most amount of words, you would win it, hands down.

The rest of what you say, completely invalidates your entire argument. If you’re willing to use somebody else’s critique of a book as fact, or as an excuse not to read it…......you’re a stooge and tool and are not in a position to be having a substantive debate with somebody who has read it.

You’re the one who brought it up. I have no inclination to debate the book, but that’s where the discussion went, and you’re insulting me for it?

If you don’t like how i write, then please ignore everything i have to say and privately think of yourself as superior for doing so.

I agree with the swntiment of this author
I have experience such indoctrination.
As an independent with a human need for belonging
I grudgingly supported the ‘agenda’ initially
until I simply coulnd not accept the hypocricy and intolerance of the alleged ‘open mined’ liberal view
and arrived at ny current center-right position.

Just saw Indoctrinate U. Very interesting…I would definitely recommend it.

Regarding the author’s question, yes. I have experienced this type of indoctrination as an undergraduate, then more intensely as a graduate student; today I teach at a college where the political correctness is so absolutely thick with communism that I often feel compelled to warn my community. I would if I only could think of an effective way to do it—that wouldn’t simply open me up to the complete character assassination that would follow. There is no easy way to describe just how pervasive the indoctrination has become. Part of the success comes from the duplicitous nature of “political correctness” and its cousin “Critical Theory”. There is no randomness to the subversion of students.

My doctoral studies allowed me to focus precisely on the root of this issue: The Frankfurt School founders (all Zionist purveyors of Marxism) worked ceaselessly to develop a type of sociological “virus” of sorts that they could insert into European and American cultures—a virus that would slowly, but utterly destroy them. It was important that the mechanism not be detected by the majority class for what it was: Cultural Marxism. Of this, they were very much aware, for it would have sent up red flags to the nations under “attack”.

They deduced that the easiest breach that they could make into the cultural underpinnings of any nation was by means of its least content: its minority classes. This is sad enough, due to the fact that the minority classes are appealed to as “victims”. The subversion (indoctrination) begins with a feigned appeal of compassion for the minority (group’s) feelings of inferiority—to the degree that they are guided (with surprise extra funding) to host events that will focus attention on the most extreme examples of social anxiety in order to expand the range and emotional impact on the members of that minority group. The point is to cause any wounds discovered to fester, and to deepen the sense of victimhood that will replace other healthier bonds the minority group might otherwise share. The most vocal members are often selected (and promoted/given grants/raised to higher public positions) in order to lead the rally cry and to deflect group and public attention from the source of funding.

This type of segregation of groups from the mainstream cultural perspective is a powerful move, especially since it will take place as often and widely as possible; think ethnicity, sexuality, gender, age, weight, etc. Any benefit that any one of these groups might gain is also intrinsically unimportant if it does not—at the same time—create a stronger voice of victimhood and urgency to fight the local and national social structure. Anger and violence toward other groups and members of the society is seen as productive to the cause of breaking the social fabric. Unfortunately utopias don’t exist. There is no perfect nation, state, county, city, neighborhood or family. The truth is that no one is without difficulties and we all have weaknesses that can be appealed to, and that, in criminal hands, can become our own Achilles’ heels. We can all be made into self-perceiving victims. But Marxists only require a sufficient number of us to speak up, act out, violently oppose, quietly ignore, or simply become baffled at the entire culture that the general public transforms into the confused masses.

This would not be the first time in history that this same (simple but repulsive) trick has been used. Historians of the French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Germany as it teetered toward communism immediately prior to WWII, and many other coups d’état would be rather familiar with this tactic. That it was codified by founders of the Frankfurt School does not mean that insights weren’t gleaned earlier practices. If you don’t believe that this is in fact taking place in the here (United States) and now (as in the second decade of the 21st millennium), please, I beg you, think again. I work on a daily basis in contemporary academia. I’ve witnessed the slow fall throughout my education. Poke your head into nearly any classroom today. I personally see the transformation, the subversion of students is happening continuously. This is not a test run. There is no other U.S.A. to go home to if this one self-destructs. If you love America as I do, be bold enough to talk to your family and friends about this.

By all means, please research the Frankfurt School yourself. Look into the Bolshevik Revolution while you are at it. Also take a look at what eventually happens to the minority groups once a Marxist leader takes control. It isn’t pretty. If you are a member of minority group, look deeply into who is actually editing and overseeing your trusted newspapers, journals, radio stations. They could be legitimate members of society looking to benefit you—but just don’t bet on it.