Florida Bill Would Allow Students To Sue Teachers

[Guest MikeSC]

You and those looking to create an enemy in the academic world have this tremendous belief that these people are incapable of keeping this from affecting their classrooms in a significant way.

They ARE incapable. They are, flat-out, incapable of doing so. Academia has become the haven for the burnt-out hippies of the 60's who have yet to have to actually mature and maintain the same idiotic beliefs they always had.

-=Mike

...Ward Churchill isn't exactly way out of the mainstream of college profs...

Great flip-out moment there, Mike. You hate college professors; we get it. As for Churchill, find me ten other professors in the entire country who've said the same things as him. You've turned a corner lately from staunch conservative to looney conspiracy-theory madman and it's making these threads impossible.

Am I allowed to use the drooling morons who populate such educational "disciplines" as African-American studies?

 

Do I even need to mention Noam Chomsky?

 

How about Michael Bessilles? Should I mention him?

 

Juan Cole is a biggie.

 

Nancy Hopkins of MIT is an embarrassment to women.

 

UMass-Amherst journalism professor Bill Israel stated that 9/11 was caused by Bush and the Supreme Court.

 

Chalmers Johnson said 9/11 was our fault.

 

Prof. Robert Jensen of U. of Texas-Austin stated that 9/11 was no worse than what we have done in his lifetime.

 

American University prof. Peter Kuznick stated that 9/11 was invented by our gov't because we "needed an enemy".

 

U. of N. Mexico prof Richard Berthold stated that "anybody who can blow up the Pentagon gets my vote"

 

Nicholas De Genova, associate prof. at Columbia, on March 26 stated his desire for "a million Mogadishus" and that the only patriotic citizen is one who tried to bring about the defeat on America.

 

Don't even get me started on college administrators, who are every inch as bad.

 

So, you want more? I have barely scratched the surface.

-=Mike

[Boon 0]

pwn3d!!!!!

[Guest Loss]

Yeah, like it will pass a Democratic-leaning Florida State Senate, much less the next 2 committees.

Even if it did pass, I'm sure that the ACTIVIST judges in the Florida courts would overturn it anyway.

What's an activist judge, anyway? Really ...

[Guest Loss]

Hey, here's a wacky idea....if you don't like the professors at your school, transfer somewhere else.

Surely you're not implying that it's that easy.

[Guest Loss]

If you're wondering why most professors are liberal, perhaps it's because being well-educated usually results in having an open mind. Education goes hand-in-hand with advancement and progression, two qualities liberals typically embrace.

[The Czech Republic 0]

If you're wondering why most professors are liberal, perhaps it's because being well-educated usually results in having an open mind. Education goes hand-in-hand with advancement and progression, two qualities liberals typically embrace.

Can't one be educated on the works of Adam Smith rather than Karl Marx, though? I think you can be intelligent and educated and still refrain from lamenting the fall of the Soviet Union as the stereotype so goes.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Hey, here's a wacky idea....if you don't like the professors at your school, transfer somewhere else.

Surely you're not implying that it's that easy.

Bingo. By the time I realized the truth about my commie professors, I would have had to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars to transfer, so I just decided to stick it out another year.

 

If you're wondering why most professors are liberal, perhaps it's because being well-educated usually results in having an open mind.

 

Ha. Not some of the ones I've come across. However, if you can't withstand a commie professor or two in academia, then you are not even close to being prepared to deal with assholes in the real world...

[Guest MikeSC]

If you're wondering why most professors are liberal, perhaps it's because being well-educated usually results in having an open mind. Education goes hand-in-hand with advancement and progression, two qualities liberals typically embrace.

That is, easily, the most idiotic justification for institituional bias against a particular point of view I've read. Libs have embraced anti-intellectualism since the 1960's.

-=Mike

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Has anyone done a study of the political leanings of professors of say, mathematics and hard sciences?

[Boon 0]

If you're wondering why most professors are liberal, perhaps it's because being well-educated usually results in having an open mind. Education goes hand-in-hand with advancement and progression, two qualities liberals typically embrace.

I didn't know Republicans were anti-education!! AND they oppose having an open mind?!

 

Well, I'm going to march right down to city hall and change my party ID, because that is just absurd!

 

[Guest Loss]

Religion being forced on an unreceptive audience is anti-intellectualism, Mike. There's only one side supporting that.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

no, it's strictly because of the subject matter, and who's paying for the class. Most students are liberal anyway.

 

I think the "institutional bias" is a sensationalized crock in the first place, because none of my profs (I was a chem major) was liberal at all. I went to a state school.

[Guest Loss]

If you're wondering why most professors are liberal, perhaps it's because being well-educated usually results in having an open mind. Education goes hand-in-hand with advancement and progression, two qualities liberals typically embrace.

I didn't know Republicans were anti-education!! AND they oppose having an open mind?!

 

Well, I'm going to march right down to city hall and change my party ID, because that is just absurd!

 

I never said Republicans were anti-education. I do think they're against having an open mind, in most cases, but I won't dispute that there are Republicans far more educated and capable than I am. But if you want to pretend that the anti-secular, anti-gay, anti-minority, anti-poor, anti-women, anti-choice party has an open mind, be my guest. The same could be argued for the Democratic party, which is often times anti-American, anti-life, anti-military, and anti-rich and middle class. The whole system is a mess.

[Guest MikeSC]

Religion being forced on an unreceptive audience is anti-intellectualism, Mike. There's only one side supporting that.

No, forcing non-science as science is anti-intellectualism. And the left is big on such idiotic fields as African-American studies, Women's studies, Environmentalism, etc.

no, it's strictly because of the subject matter, and who's paying for the class. Most students are liberal anyway.

That's impossible to say because the conservatives have to shut up and conform or else they'll fail the class.

I think the "institutional bias" is a sensationalized crock in the first place, because none of my profs (I was a chem major) was liberal at all. I went to a state school.

And I'm saying every single study of the issue has shown that your claim is not even close to being the case. It's laughably not the case. It's as insane as claiming that most journalists aren't liberal.

 

Do you want to go for a historical comparison of, say, campaign contributions to political parties for professors?

I never said Republicans were anti-education. I do think they're against having an open mind, in most cases, but I won't dispute that there are Republicans far more educated and capable than I am. But if you want to pretend that the anti-secular, anti-gay, anti-minority, anti-poor, anti-women, anti-choice party has an open mind, be my guest.

How the hell is one "anti-secular"? Has the GOP suddenly passed a bill stating that you have to be a Christian? I mean, if they have, feel free to post a link because that has not exactly made the news.

 

Anti-gay? Yes, because nobody can oppose the concept of gay marriage without hating gay people.

 

Anti-poor? Oh give me a fucking break. Liberal welfare MADE poverty a borderline epidemic. It took CONSERVATIVES forcing welfare reform down Clinton's throat to improve their lot in life.

 

Anti-choice? Well, I'd rather be "anti-choice" than "pro-infanticide", but that's just me.

 

Anti-minority? I suppose you have SOMETHING to back that up. I mean, no, you didn't INCLUDE it with this smear, but I'm sure it was just an oversight. I mean, you've heard conservatives referring to blacks as "puppets", "Uncle Toms","house niggers", and "Aunt Jemimas" lately right?

 

Right?

-=Mike

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

pwn3d!!!!!

Nah, not really. I'm familiar with all the things Mike is harping about except for the Kuznick guy, and maybe two of them compare. I don't agree with the views these people espouse, but in context I wouldn't say they're significantly harmful at all. If those people and those examples are the ones that he sees as representative examples of academic evil (and even if you think they're morons, they're not close to representative), then I'm not too concerned with this so-called apocalypse.

[Guest MikeSC]

pwn3d!!!!!

Nah, not really. I'm familiar with all the things Mike is harping about except for the Kuznick guy, and maybe two of them compare. I don't agree with the views these people espouse, but in context I wouldn't say they're significantly harmful at all. If those people and those examples are the ones that he sees as representative examples of academic evil (and even if you think they're morons, they're not close to representative), then I'm not too concerned with this so-called apocalypse.

The shit they spew is just as bad as somebody saying that creationism is fact.

 

It's anti-intellectual crap --- and academia has no problem with it, provided you are on the "correct" side of the political aisle.

-=Mike

[Boon 0]

Anti-gay? Yes, because nobody can oppose the concept of gay marriage without hating gay people.

 

Anti-poor? Oh give me a fucking break. Liberal welfare MADE poverty a borderline epidemic. It took CONSERVATIVES forcing welfare reform down Clinton's throat to improve their lot in life.

 

Anti-choice? Well, I'd rather be "anti-choice" than "pro-infanticide", but that's just me.

 

Anti-minority? I suppose you have SOMETHING to back that up. I mean, no, you didn't INCLUDE it with this smear, but I'm sure it was just an oversight. I mean, you've heard conservatives referring to blacks as "puppets", "Uncle Toms","house niggers", and "Aunt Jemimas" lately right?

 

Right?

          -=Mike

You beat me to it.

 

I had to go to class, but I'll be damned if I wasn't planning my response the whole time I was listening to my (liberal) prof lecture.

 

One thing- anti-woman? The 19th amendment has been in tact for 85 years, with little to no opposition. Show me an average Republican leading the charge to put women back in the kitchen, and I'll show you a moron who I'm sure most Republicans are ashamed of.

 

I don't have a problem with people disliking the Republican party or conservative ideology, but don't spread around outdated bullshit nonsense because of your own personal biases or struggles with the party.

 

P.S. My democrat friend thinks there's a difference between being an ignorant bigot and being a Republican- maybe you should adopt this school of thought like an intelligent, informed member of society.

[Special K 0]

What non-science are you referring to Mike?

 

I think the reason so many professors are liberal is that the majority of career students are liberal. In my school, most business students were conservative, and people in the sciences were split about 50/50 I'd say.

 

If you major in History or English, what are you going to do but become a career student/professor, journalist, or writer?

[Guest BDC]

I got a degree in political science and the ONLY way I pulled that off was by way of clamping my jaws shut for three and a half years. I learned that fighting all the time never got anything accomplished and actually adversely affected my grades.

 

I tried switching to a history/education major. It was EVEN WORSE, especially even in the realm of education.

 

By non-science, Mike is referring to things that are not proven sciences. Biology, geology and so on. That's a major problem: sociology, psychology, political science, history, education and so on are terribly subjective fields. It's no wonder that the patterns of professors is as we've seen.

 

If you're wondering why most professors are liberal, perhaps it's because being well-educated usually results in having an open mind. Education goes hand-in-hand with advancement and progression, two qualities liberals typically embrace.

 

Loss, by that ONE statement, you've proven the exact opposite.

[Special K 0]

How would you change Biology and Geology? Or Psychology for that matter? The psychology courses I took treated it as a science, no bullshit Freudian stuff.

[Guest Loss]

How the hell is one "anti-secular"? Has the GOP suddenly passed a bill stating that you have to be a Christian? I mean, if they have, feel free to post a link because that has not exactly made the news.

 

Faith based initiatives. Pushing for a ban on evolution in public schools. Opposing gay marriage and abortion, all for religious reasons. Repeat -- ALL FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

 

Anti-gay? Yes, because nobody can oppose the concept of gay marriage without hating gay people.

 

Opposing gay marriage isn't necessarily anti-gay. Opposing civil unions of any type is decidedly homophobic. Yes, Bush said he supports civil unions, but he went against the party line when he said that. He pushed for a constitutional amendment to define marriage that ended up passing in every state where it's on the ballot. That's fine. I've done a lot of research and talked to a lot of people recently, as I said I would months ago, and I no longer villify people who oppose gay marriage. Just as much as I think I'm morally in the right to support it, they believe in their heart of hearts that they're morally right to oppose it. It's a viewpoint I dislike, but I'll tolerate it. In most states, the amendments are extended to include civil unions. Imagine if the Schiavo case involved a gay couple, and it was the parents that wanted to kill Terry off but her lesbian lover of many years was fighting to keep her alive. There would be no protection. At all. Opposing gay marriage doesn't make someone a bad person. Opposing civil unions and any type of legal protection, which conservatives typically do, is deplorable.

 

Anti-poor? Oh give me a fucking break. Liberal welfare MADE poverty a borderline epidemic. It took CONSERVATIVES forcing welfare reform down Clinton's throat to improve their lot in life.

 

You don't think the majority of the soldiers dying in Iraq right now come from lower-middle class families? All the while, the Bush twins, who should be on the front lines with their father pushing this so aggressively, are getting pedicures in some salon or getting drunk and puking on themselves. Increasing gas prices, which only serves to put more money in his pockets and make it harder for people to transport back and forth to work. It's an interesting (and wrong) viewpoint that welfare reform was "forced" on Clinton. Do you really think a low income stretches further in 2005 than it did in 1995? Regulations on business have been loosened, and the number of jobs created since 2000, compared to the number of jobs created in the 1990s, doesn't compare. Corporate scandals with Bush's campaign financers are taking away the life savings of innocent people. And now, he's wanting to kill social security.

 

Anti-choice? Well, I'd rather be "anti-choice" than "pro-infanticide", but that's just me.

 

That would be a valid viewpoint if living infants were being killed. There's a difference between killing a fetus and killing a human being.

 

Anti-minority? I suppose you have SOMETHING to back that up.

 

Bush turned down an invitation to speak at an NAACP meeting. Bush opposes hate crime legislation.

 

I mean, no, you didn't INCLUDE it with this smear, but I'm sure it was just an oversight. I mean, you've heard conservatives referring to blacks as "puppets", "Uncle Toms","house niggers", and "Aunt Jemimas" lately right?

 

I disagreed with that myself, but the sentiment behind the (totally wrong) choice of words was lost on most people. Do you honestly believe that Condoleezza Rice is an independent woman who is willing to make the best decisions possible, or do you think she is someone passive Bush put in that position to promote his own agenda? And can you honestly say there's not even a small chance that she was put in that position because she was a black woman and therefore, she'd be an easy way to debunk the myth (if it is a myth) that conservatives are often racist or sexist. Hell, I'd prefer JANET RENO to be the secretary of state.

 

And you're the one who recently said that white people are afraid to befriend black people because they might get punished for saying something inappropriate.

[Guest Loss]

If you're wondering why most professors are liberal, perhaps it's because being well-educated usually results in having an open mind. Education goes hand-in-hand with advancement and progression, two qualities liberals typically embrace.

 

Loss, by that ONE statement, you've proven the exact opposite.

There's a whole lot of assuming going on in this thread. Somehow, saying that liberals typically embrace advancement and progression becomes a bad thing, considering that not once in that statement did I mention conservatives at all.

[Guest BDC]

If you're wondering why most professors are liberal, perhaps it's because being well-educated usually results in having an open mind. Education goes hand-in-hand with advancement and progression, two qualities liberals typically embrace.

 

Loss, by that ONE statement, you've proven the exact opposite.

There's a whole lot of assuming going on in this thread. Somehow, saying that liberals typically embrace advancement and progression becomes a bad thing, considering that not once in that statement did I mention conservatives at all.

You know very well what you did with that statement. Your implication could only be more clear if you added: "and that conservatives hate."

[Guest Loss]

I thought the very nature of conservatism was to keep things as they are. Is that incorrect?

[SuperJerk 0]

If you're wondering why most professors are liberal, perhaps it's because being well-educated usually results in having an open mind. Education goes hand-in-hand with advancement and progression, two qualities liberals typically embrace.

That is, easily, the most idiotic justification for institituional bias against a particular point of view I've read. Libs have embraced anti-intellectualism since the 1960's.

-=Mike

You refuted one idiotic justification with another just as idiotic.

Liberals are not the ones who openly embrace anti-intellectualism. Anti-intellectualism has been forcefully embraced by elements of the American right for decades. I'll refer you to the speeches of Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, and Spiro Agnew (not liberals).

 

Can't one be educated on the works of Adam Smith rather than Karl Marx, though? I think you can be intelligent and educated and still refrain from lamenting the fall of the Soviet Union as the stereotype so goes.

 

Now THAT'S how you refute a statement. He's exactly right. There is a conservative intelligencia which is typified by the study of Smith and various others who theorized and intellectually justified ideas embraced by the right. Neither side has a lock on intellectualism.

 

 

Off topic, but I couldn't let this statement go unchallenged.

 

Liberal welfare MADE poverty a borderline epidemic.

 

Poverty existed to greater degrees before the advent of liberal welfare than it does now. Welfare was a response to epidemic poverty, not the creator of it.

[SuperJerk 0]

I thought the very nature of conservatism was to keep things as they are. Is that incorrect?

Most people who call themselves "conservatives" are not conservative at all, but reactionary. They don't want things to stay the same, but to go back to the way they were.

[Boon 0]

Since when is Ann Coulter to be likened to Richard Nixon?

 

I resent that.

[Vyce 0]

Since when is Ann Coulter to be likened to Richard Nixon?

 

I resent that.

As do I.

 

If it wasn't for Watergate, Nixon would be remembered as one of the better presidents of the past 50 years.

[SuperJerk 0]

Vyce's assessment of his historical standing is probably quite accurate.

 

Before he became Vice President, though, Nixon made his reputation on the kind of "accuse everyone you don't like of being a commie" finger-pointing Coulter has based her entire writing career on. He was famously resentful of the East Coast-based liberal intelligencia of the time.

[Vyce 0]

Vyce's assessment of his historical standing is probably quite accurate.

 

Before he became Vice President, though, Nixon made his reputation on the kind of "accuse everyone you don't like of being a commie" finger-pointing Coulter has based her entire writing career on.  He was famously resentful of the East Coast-based liberal intelligencia of the time.

That's pretty fair.

 

Although I think he did that primarily because he was one incredibly paranoid son of a bitch.