The difference is that I am not advocating any legislation. I know there are groups out there that are, but I am not in support of those groups, or their goals.

Well, I appreciate that. But what's the point then? Just to discuss that there's a bias in universities? Great. No what?

Why does a debate have to lead to legislation?

I don't think debates always have to lead to legislation, but in this type of debate, I would assume that after identifying a problem, one would like to see the problem rectified. And finding a solution to the problem does not necessarily entail legislation (especially because I doubt many members of this board have any hand in drawing up and enacting legislation). However, if you advocate nothing be done about "liberal" universities, then I wonder what's the point of having a debate? If the problem is that universities are biased, should we just sit back and complain about it, but continue to send our kids to college?

For instance, I don't attend the same university that I had my experience that I shared earlier. I didn't leave because of that one incident, however word of mouth about oppressing dissenting thought doesn't do the university any good, now does it? There was not a question posed to the forum inquiring about solutions, simply asking what the consensus was, or if what seems to be the consensus among most talking heads was agreed upon by those that chose to participate in this debate. Fact finding seems to be a legitimate reason for debate to me.

It depends on how many word of mouths are trashing this particular university. It's not like it got on Rush Limbaugh and influenced millions of listners.

One lone disgruntled voice is like spitting in the ocean. To think otherwise is an illusion of grandeur.

You sure know how to be the optimist, don't you BoF? Why do you constantly bring Limbaugh into conversations? Do you honestly think that thought oppression only happens to one or two people? If I was one, odds are there are others. By the way, this particular university has a laundry list of problems, which is why I left. You can make your digs all you want, but that doesn't change the direction of the debate.

The laundry list of problems for the university in question is new to this thread. What are those problems and are they pertinent to this thread? What is the name of the university? How large is the student body? Is your new university a vast improvement?

Are there other people disgruntled with the University? If so, how many? Is it making a dent in the "problem" you seem to see?

The short answer, no the laundry list is not pertinent to this thread. However, I fail to see what your questions have to do with the questions for debate in this thread?

Looks like this thread got some life support from some folks voting in the polls there ST-

it was rather stale, but it seems a bit pertinent to the current anti-science movement in America.

I have to ask you- when you say "liberal slant"- I now have to ask- what does that mean anymore? A couple bushbots on this site has called DTOM and DR "liberals" as well- when they are pretty clearly old-school anarcho-libertarians for the most part.

They were called liberals simply because they don't toe the GW as a conservative ideology.

So, ST- if you wish to revive this thread- what do you mean about "liberal bias"?

Is being anti-Iraq war "liberal" now? How about being libertarian -is that considered liberal bias as well- on the social conservative side- such as wanting to legalize drugs or do away with a great deal many nanny-state goverment institutions like the DEA or ATF?

Care to elaborate as to what "liberal bias" is these days? Specifically as it applies to your college issues- I am about to start a thread on antiquated labels.

Jobius is on the money here. Left oriented professors cannot possible keep their personal opinions out of the classroom. I have three kids in school. One in high school and 2 in 7th grade – and in all the kids recognize the bias clearly esp in social sciences and politics.

Social Scientists Lean to the Left, Study Says
“Several studies this year — some disputed — have suggested a political tilt (toward Democrats) among professors. Now a new study is being released saying that social science professors are overwhelmingly Democratic, that Democratic professors in those disciplines are more homogeneous in their thinking than are Republicans, and that Republican scholars are more likely than Democrats in the field to end up working outside of academe.
The latest study is based on surveys conducted in 2003 of members of various disciplinary associations. On the question of political affiliation, the survey found the following breakdown of Democrats to Republicans:

Anthropologists and sociologists — 21.1:1
Political and legal philosophers — 9.1:1
Historians — 8.5:1
Political scientists — 5.6:1
Economists — 2.9:1

So what does this mean?
In an e-mail interview, Daniel Klein, one of the authors and a professor of economics at George Mason University, said that it demonstrated “solidly” that most social science professors are “leftist and statist, and that they have a narrow tent.” He also said that the data on scholars outside of academe backs up the claims made by conservative critics about ideological bias in the academy.

As for the variations by discipline, Klein said that he thinks “the study shows that the academics across the disciplines are more alike than different.” Even as an economist (and a libertarian), he said he found the results “depressing.” But he said that he was not surprised that economics had more political balance than other fields because the discipline “got its legs when (true) liberalism was ascendant.” In contrast, he said, “sociology got its legs later, and almost as a reaction to Smithian”
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/12/21/politics
http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/me...t-3246688.shtml

Well, I don't even know how a sociologist or Anthropologist could be conservative. A conservative by nature most likely wouldn't look at these fields as anything but immoral mumbo jumbo. Most American Republicans and conservatives don't believe we evolved from lower primates, so that kind of throws Anthropology out, and I don't really picture many conservative sociologists being able to equally discuss sexual and marriage practices of differing cultures in a way that applies the "sociological perspective". Conservatism scoffs at relativism, and that is basically the core of sociology.

You have to take into account what a conservative and liberal is to most people, certainly what conservative means to most non-conservatives. A conservative is a religious social conservative. Milton Friedman and Charles Krauthammer are not the face of conservatism to most people, Pat Robertson and James Dobson are far closer.

I remember a major Anthropological definition of religion being "a set of rituals, rationalized by myth, which mobilizes supernatural powers for the purpose of achieving or preventing transformations of state in man and nature"

This sort of conflicts with the conservative American definition of religion= "Worshipping God and Jesus".

In fact, I just pulled up one of my Anthropology textbooks (Haviland 10th edtion) and on Page 515 it shows two women hugging looking at a "Happy Anniversary" card with the caption underneath saying:

"In the United States, a gay or lesbian couple who wish to marry have met with considerable resistence, in spite of the fact that there is nothing unnatural, in any scientific sense, about such unions. In a number of other societies, same-sex marriages are regarded as perfectly appropriate."

Yeah, I don't imagine many conservatives would be that interested in such a field. I can imagine some right wing parent ripping their kid out of such an ungodly class and trying to start a lawsuit though.

The only number that surprises me actually is the economists one.

I imagine the students enrolled at seminary school are not overwhelmingly liberal. Narrow disciplinesl like that, that teach the correctness of one way....these probably appeal to conservatives more than the fields that require a detachment when teachin or relating.

I would absolutely not agree that High School teachers are the same way as college professors, and in the 3 colleges I have attended, I have never seen a teacher push ideology on anyone, I see open discussions for all, and if anything, a disgust with democrats and republicans.

In my High School, I had a history teacher who had a Bush sign on his podium during the 2000 elections. My algebra teacher was a republican, my American Government, constitution teacher was a republican (now he is principal), my freshman and sophmore year English and Lit teacher was a Republican. The only identified demcrat or liberal taught a lit class my junior year. None of these teachers (except maybe the history teacher with the Bush sign) pushed ideology on us, or let their personal philosophies dictate anything. Most teachers in High School, and certainly college......separate their politics from their course, and few opportunies even exist to influence peddle any set of political philosphies. It's always a topic discussed, open discussion and the teacher adding input.

I would say that the media has bias, MSNBC is liberal and Foxnews conservative sort of thing, but my own colege experiences (in the most conservative portions of illinois) had nothing approaching indoctrination, not from college professors, or High School teachers of either party or persuasion.

.

The data above is from Social Scientists and is broader than your description.
In my High School, I had a history teacher who had a Bush sign on his podium during the 2000 elections. My algebra teacher was a republican, my American Government, constitution teacher was a republican (now he is principal), my freshman and sophmore year English and Lit teacher was a Republican. The only identified demcrat or liberal taught a lit class my junior year.


You must live in a very conservative town. I have three kids in school – 2 in grammar school and one in High School. My kids say they have yet to identify more than one “conservative” teacher.

The numbers above are accurate. Education in general – all the way through college – is dominated by people who are somewhat left of center – sometimes very left.