Florida Bill Would Allow Students To Sue Teachers

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

^

What he said.

[BUTT 0]

So wait.............RobotJerk tried to prove that welfare reduces poverty by writing a skit about MikeSC wanting to fuck another dude up the ass?!

[Guest MikeSC]

So wait.............RobotJerk tried to prove that welfare reduces poverty by writing a skit about MikeSC wanting to fuck another dude up the ass?!

It was a different methodolgy.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

So wait.............RobotJerk tried to prove that welfare reduces poverty by writing a skit about MikeSC wanting to fuck another dude up the ass?!

No....

 

I was trying to prove that welfare had no effect on poverty rates. The gay sex skit was just my way of making fun of the way Mike argues.

[Guest MikeSC]

So wait.............RobotJerk tried to prove that welfare reduces poverty by writing a skit about MikeSC wanting to fuck another dude up the ass?!

No....

 

I was trying to prove that welfare had no effect on poverty rates. The gay sex skit was just my way of making fun of the way Mike argues.

Fortunately, your style of arguing is a joke in and of itself.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

So wait.............RobotJerk tried to prove that welfare reduces poverty by writing a skit about MikeSC wanting to fuck another dude up the ass?!

No....

 

I was trying to prove that welfare had no effect on poverty rates. The gay sex skit was just my way of making fun of the way Mike argues.

Fortunately, your style of arguing is a joke in and of itself.

**rimshot**

[Guest MikeSC]

So wait.............RobotJerk tried to prove that welfare reduces poverty by writing a skit about MikeSC wanting to fuck another dude up the ass?!

No....

 

I was trying to prove that welfare had no effect on poverty rates. The gay sex skit was just my way of making fun of the way Mike argues.

Fortunately, your style of arguing is a joke in and of itself.

**rimshot**

After your gay sex post, refrain from using anything involving the word "rim".

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

So wait.............RobotJerk tried to prove that welfare reduces poverty by writing a skit about MikeSC wanting to fuck another dude up the ass?!

No....

 

I was trying to prove that welfare had no effect on poverty rates. The gay sex skit was just my way of making fun of the way Mike argues.

Fortunately, your style of arguing is a joke in and of itself.

**rimshot**

After your gay sex post, refrain from using anything involving the word "rim".

-=Mike

Zing~!

[Vyce 0]

ROBOTJERK THEATER

..........

 

..........the CE folder really took a weird turn very abruptly.

 

I guess I'd better say goodbye to my dream of writing humorous gay porn.

 

My friend, you couldn't even qualify to write Star Trek slash fics.

[Guest MikeSC]

College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds

 

By Howard Kurtz

Washington Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, March 29, 2005; Page C01

 

College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

 

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

 

Harvard's faculty of arts and sciences hit President Lawrence Summers with a vote of no confidence after he privately wondered about the abilities of women in science and math. (Steven Senne -- AP)

 

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

 

"What's most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field," said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. "There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It's a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you'd expect to be dominated by liberals."

 

Religious services take a back seat for many faculty members, with 51 percent saying they rarely or never attend church or synagogue and 31 percent calling themselves regular churchgoers. On the gender front, 72 percent of the full-time faculty are male and 28 percent female.

 

The findings, by Lichter and fellow political science professors Stanley Rothman of Smith College and Neil Nevitte of the University of Toronto, are based on a survey of 1,643 full-time faculty at 183 four-year schools. The researchers relied on 1999 data from the North American Academic Study Survey, the most recent comprehensive data available.

 

The study appears in the March issue of the Forum, an online political science journal. It was funded by the Randolph Foundation, a right-leaning group that has given grants to such conservative organizations as the Independent Women's Forum and Americans for Tax Reform.

 

Rothman sees the findings as evidence of "possible discrimination" against conservatives in hiring and promotion. Even after factoring in levels of achievement, as measured by published work and organization memberships, "the most likely conclusion" is that "being conservative counts against you," he said. "It doesn't surprise me, because I've observed it happening." The study, however, describes this finding as "preliminary."

 

When asked about the findings, Jonathan Knight, director of academic freedom and tenure for the American Association of University Professors, said, "The question is how this translates into what happens within the academic community on such issues as curriculum, admission of students, evaluation of students, evaluation of faculty for salary and promotion." Knight said he isn't aware of "any good evidence" that personal views are having an impact on campus policies.

 

"It's hard to see that these liberal views cut very deeply into the education of students. In fact, a number of studies show the core values that students bring into the university are not very much altered by being in college."

 

Rothman, Lichter and Nevitte find a leftward shift on campus over the past two decades. In the last major survey of college faculty, by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in 1984, 39 percent identified themselves as liberal.

 

In contrast with the finding that nearly three-quarters of college faculty are liberal, a Harris Poll of the general public last year found that 33 percent describe themselves as conservative and 18 percent as liberal.

 

The liberal label that a majority of the faculty members attached to themselves is reflected on a variety of issues. The professors and instructors surveyed are, strongly or somewhat, in favor of abortion rights (84 percent); believe homosexuality is acceptable (67 percent); and want more environmental protection "even if it raises prices or costs jobs" (88 percent). What's more, the study found, 65 percent want the government to ensure full employment, a stance to the left of the Democratic Party.

 

Recent campus controversies have reinforced the left-wing faculty image. The University of Colorado is reviewing its tenure system after one professor, Ward Churchill, created an uproar by likening World Trade Center victims to Nazis. Harvard's faculty of arts and sciences voted no confidence in the university's president, Lawrence Summers, after he privately wondered whether women had the same natural ability as men in science and math.

 

The study did not attempt to examine whether the political views of faculty members affect the content of their courses.

 

The researchers say that liberals, men and non-regular churchgoers are more likely to be teaching at top schools, while conservatives, women and more religious faculty are more likely to be relegated to lower-tier colleges and universities.

 

Top-tier schools, roughly a third of the total, are defined as highly ranked liberal arts colleges and research universities that grant PhDs.

 

The most liberal faculties are those devoted to the humanities (81 percent) and social sciences (75 percent), according to the study. But liberals outnumbered conservatives even among engineering faculty (51 percent to 19 percent) and business faculty (49 percent to 39 percent).

 

The most left-leaning departments are English literature, philosophy, political science and religious studies, where at least 80 percent of the faculty say they are liberal and no more than 5 percent call themselves conservative, the study says.

 

"In general," says Lichter, who also heads the nonprofit Center for Media and Public Affairs, "even broad-minded people gravitate toward other people like themselves. That's why you need diversity, not just of race and gender but also, maybe especially, of ideas and perspective."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...av=rss_politics

Just for those who claim that faculties really aren't THAT liberal.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

ROBOTJERK THEATER

..........

 

..........the CE folder really took a weird turn very abruptly.

 

I guess I'd better say goodbye to my dream of writing humorous gay porn.

 

My friend, you couldn't even qualify to write Star Trek slash fics.

I guess I'd better stick to my fucking awesome political rants.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

The question isn't whether faculties self-identify as liberal; the question is whether that affects the education college students are getting. This study makes no presumption of determining that, by its own admission. We're still in the same place, where some people anecdotally believe that it does and others anecdotally think otherwise.

[BUTT 0]

In my four semesters of college so far, I think pretty much every one of my professors have been liberal. Some of them are VERY liberal (my public relations professor had us watch TV Nation in class a few weeks back) while some just make passing references to being anti-war. I think I've only had one professor who may have been conservative, and he was an economics professor. It's great.

[Guest MikeSC]

The question isn't whether faculties self-identify as liberal; the question is whether that affects the education college students are getting. This study makes no presumption of determining that, by its own admission. We're still in the same place, where some people anecdotally believe that it does and others anecdotally think otherwise.

And I'm saying that all of the anecdotal evidence of liberal bias in college combined with the overwhelming statistical evidence of a liberal slant shows a problem.

 

Shouldn't universities seek REAL diversity? Not just different races who all believe the exact same thing?

-=Mike

[EricMM 0]

and again

 

if 80% of the applicants for the job are liberal, how are they supposed to get a 50/50 split in their faculty?

[SuperJerk 0]

Shouldn't universities seek REAL diversity? Not just different races who all believe the exact same thing?

Yes, by all means, let's add quotas measuring political affiliation to college hiring practices.

 

 

It seems to me like conservatives dominate departments for fields that conservatives tend to go into (i.e. business and economics), whereas liberals dominate departments that liberals tend to go into (i.e. sociology, education, social work). That's just kind of the way it worked out.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

The question isn't whether faculties self-identify as liberal; the question is whether that affects the education college students are getting.  This study makes no presumption of determining that, by its own admission.  We're still in the same place, where some people anecdotally believe that it does and others anecdotally think otherwise.

And I'm saying that all of the anecdotal evidence of liberal bias in college combined with the overwhelming statistical evidence of a liberal slant shows a problem.

But, as much as we've all pretty much relied on anecdotal evidence in this thread, we've got to admit that anecdotal evidence is an almost entirely unreliable determinant of an actual trend. You can present tales of the assholes you may have had at USC, and of the ten-odd profs you listed back on page 2 or 3, and I can present tales of professors I've had or have read about who haven't put slanted politics into the classroom. It's a wash. To be frank, none of us using this method are really proving anything, as much as we might like. Anecdotal evidence is thus just pretty weak support for any beliefs we already hold, unfounded or well-founded, until someone releases a study regarding actual educational impacts of political self-identification as corollary to classroom policy.

 

Shouldn't universities seek REAL diversity? Not just different races who all believe the exact same thing?

Certainly. And I also believe that even if you grab two college professors--or two humans--liberal or not, they're going to have different views on different issues. They're also going to have substantially different degrees to which these issues enter their interactions with others. If you're implying quotas, I don't think it's the way to go.

[Guest MikeSC]

and again

 

if 80% of the applicants for the job are liberal, how are they supposed to get a 50/50 split in their faculty?

They're not. It is asinine to even assume that they cannot find conservative applicants. Conservatives learn, early on, that if they're conservative, they don't get far in the world of academia.

 

For all of the bitching and whining involved, I'd bet that most applicants for, say, NFL or NBA coaching jobs are white. Doesn't make people less "concerned" about the lack of racial diversity.

It seems to me like conservatives dominate departments for fields that conservatives tend to go into (i.e. business and economics), whereas liberals dominate departments that liberals tend to go into (i.e. sociology, education, social work). That's just kind of the way it worked out.

Did you read the column I posted?

 

Conservatives don't dominate ANY field in academia. Not business. Not economics. THOSE are ALSO liberal dominated. Less so than liberal arts, but still liberal-dominated.

But, as much as we've all pretty much relied on anecdotal evidence in this thread, we've got to admit that anecdotal evidence is an almost entirely unreliable determinant of an actual trend. You can present tales of the assholes you may have had at USC, and of the ten-odd profs you listed back on page 2 or 3, and I can present tales of professors I've had or have read about who haven't put slanted politics into the classroom. It's a wash. To be frank, none of us using this method are really proving anything, as much as we might like. Anecdotal evidence is thus just pretty weak support for any beliefs we already hold, unfounded or well-founded, until someone releases a study regarding actual educational impacts of political self-identification as corollary to classroom policy.

We CAN say, definitively, that students are not being presented a multitude of viewpoints in their education.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

We CAN say, definitively, that students are not being presented a multitude of viewpoints in their education.

Yeah, but they'll only have the opportunity to be taught commie left-wing views for 4-5 years in college. These kiddies will have the rest of their life to learn about real-world education...

[Guest MikeSC]

We CAN say, definitively, that students are not being presented a multitude of viewpoints in their education.

Yeah, but they'll only have the opportunity to be taught commie left-wing views for 4-5 years in college. These kiddies will have the rest of their life to learn about real-world education...

But who knows what will stick in that pot-infested, booze-addled gelatinous mess between their ears?

-=Mike

[BUTT 0]

We CAN say, definitively, that students are not being presented a multitude of viewpoints in their education.

          -=Mike

Who needs a multitude of viewpoints at college? That's what I have TSM for.........

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

But, as much as we've all pretty much relied on anecdotal evidence in this thread, we've got to admit that anecdotal evidence is an almost entirely unreliable determinant of an actual trend. You can present tales of the assholes you may have had at USC, and of the ten-odd profs you listed back on page 2 or 3, and I can present tales of professors I've had or have read about who haven't put slanted politics into the classroom. It's a wash. To be frank, none of us using this method are really proving anything, as much as we might like. Anecdotal evidence is thus just pretty weak support for any beliefs we already hold, unfounded or well-founded, until someone releases a study regarding actual educational impacts of political self-identification as corollary to classroom policy.

We CAN say, definitively, that students are not being presented a multitude of viewpoints in their education.

-=Mike

We absolutely cannot. We can say that they're being taught by a faculty that dominantly identifies itself as liberal or Democratic, but that certainty in no way precludes a "multitude of viewpoints." How do you draw your conclusion? I'm following your assumptions, but not your logic.

[Guest MikeSC]

But, as much as we've all pretty much relied on anecdotal evidence in this thread, we've got to admit that anecdotal evidence is an almost entirely unreliable determinant of an actual trend. You can present tales of the assholes you may have had at USC, and of the ten-odd profs you listed back on page 2 or 3, and I can present tales of professors I've had or have read about who haven't put slanted politics into the classroom. It's a wash. To be frank, none of us using this method are really proving anything, as much as we might like. Anecdotal evidence is thus just pretty weak support for any beliefs we already hold, unfounded or well-founded, until someone releases a study regarding actual educational impacts of political self-identification as corollary to classroom policy.

We CAN say, definitively, that students are not being presented a multitude of viewpoints in their education.

-=Mike

We absolutely cannot. We can say that they're being taught by a faculty that dominantly identifies itself as liberal or Democratic, but that certainty in no way precludes a "multitude of viewpoints." How do you draw your conclusion? I'm following your assumptions, but not your logic.

When the professorship is lacking a viewpoint held by a huge chunk of Americans, YES, you're not being presented all viewpoints. Liberals are insanely bad at presenting a conservative viewpoint.

We can say that they're being taught by a faculty that dominantly identifies itself as liberal or Democratic, but that certainty in no way precludes a "multitude of viewpoints." How do you draw your conclusion? I'm following your assumptions, but not your logic.

The professors are liberal. OVERWHELMINGLY liberal. Liberals cannot understand conservative ideology any better than conservatives can comprehend liberal ideology. Thus the students are getting, at best, an incredibly skewed and flawed view of the world, due to the worldview of the person teaching it.

 

People cannot check their biases and beliefs at the door. They believe what they believe and nothing can change that. So, colleges need to make it a point to have INTELLECTUAL diversity so campuses stop being, well, the whiny pussy factories they have become.

-=Mike

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

We CAN say, definitively, that students are not being presented a multitude of viewpoints in their education.

          -=Mike

We absolutely cannot. We can say that they're being taught by a faculty that dominantly identifies itself as liberal or Democratic, but that certainty in no way precludes a "multitude of viewpoints." How do you draw your conclusion? I'm following your assumptions, but not your logic.

When the professorship is lacking a viewpoint held by a huge chunk of Americans, YES, you're not being presented all viewpoints. Liberals are insanely bad at presenting a conservative viewpoint.

First off, an observation: the question of political ideology really isn't as important as you make it out to be for many disciplines. Political leanings are tertiary in English, anthropology, physics, chemistry, biology, foreign language study, and several more social sciences. I think the only places where your concerns might be significantly valid are history, political science, and to a lesser extent, economics (which, admittedly, are three sizable disciplines nationwide).

 

The professors are liberal. OVERWHELMINGLY liberal. Liberals cannot understand conservative ideology any better than conservatives can comprehend liberal ideology. Thus the students are getting, at best, an incredibly skewed and flawed view of the world, due to the worldview of the person teaching it.

 

People cannot check their biases and beliefs at the door. They believe what they believe and nothing can change that. So, colleges need to make it a point to have INTELLECTUAL diversity so campuses stop being, well, the whiny pussy factories they have become.

 

Even "checking biases and beliefs at the door" has little to do with being a college professor. The issue is in whether you're teaching with a political slant. We're back in anecdotal evidence again with your assertions about how people are unable to understand or convey opposition ideology (which, as a sidenote, I firmly disagree with; a few rounds of Parliamentary debate and anyone can do it), and you're still not operating outside of that, so I'm not sure why you think this is a winning argument.

[Guest MikeSC]

We CAN say, definitively, that students are not being presented a multitude of viewpoints in their education.

          -=Mike

We absolutely cannot. We can say that they're being taught by a faculty that dominantly identifies itself as liberal or Democratic, but that certainty in no way precludes a "multitude of viewpoints." How do you draw your conclusion? I'm following your assumptions, but not your logic.

When the professorship is lacking a viewpoint held by a huge chunk of Americans, YES, you're not being presented all viewpoints. Liberals are insanely bad at presenting a conservative viewpoint.

First off, an observation: the question of political ideology really isn't as important as you make it out to be for many disciplines. Political leanings are tertiary in English, anthropology, physics, chemistry, biology, foreign language study, and several more social sciences. I think the only places where your concerns might be significantly valid are history, political science, and to a lesser extent, economics (which, admittedly, are three sizable disciplines nationwide).

Political ideaology plays a LARGE role in ANY study of ANY foreign culture (which is why there is no outcry when Che Guevera appears on a T-shirt) and the history of any culture.

 

Again, why do people hold a double standard for Communism and Naziism? Nazism is viewed as being evil by everybody --- but Communism, which was even more destructive, is not. Why is Hitler the standard for evil and not Stalin or Pol Pot?

 

Because academia refuses to deal with the unmitigated evil that Communism was and still is. Kids learn that Hitler was evil, but Communism was simply a system that didn't work.

The professors are liberal. OVERWHELMINGLY liberal. Liberals cannot understand conservative ideology any better than conservatives can comprehend liberal ideology. Thus the students are getting, at best, an incredibly skewed and flawed view of the world, due to the worldview of the person teaching it.

 

People cannot check their biases and beliefs at the door. They believe what they believe and nothing can change that. So, colleges need to make it a point to have INTELLECTUAL diversity so campuses stop being, well, the whiny pussy factories they have become.

Even "checking biases and beliefs at the door" has little to do with being a college professor. The issue is in whether you're teaching with a political slant.

They are. How you teach anything will be based on your political ideology. Again, Communism killed far more people than Nazism did. Yet, it's never been taught by liberal profs as being an unmitigated, unending evil. The impact of Communism has been downplayed on college campuses and, thus, in the society as a whole.

 

Go back and re-read the column I posted about recycling and see how much they indoctrinate little kids. That doesn't stop in college.

We're back in anecdotal evidence again with your assertions about how people are unable to understand or convey opposition ideology (which, as a sidenote, I firmly disagree with; a few rounds of Parliamentary debate and anyone can do it), and you're still not operating outside of that, so I'm not sure why you think this is a winning argument.

I've heard debates and if you do not believe in a side, you CANNOT effectively debate it. William F. Buckley is a great debator. One of the best there has ever been. He'd be incapable of teaching a good, balanced view of liberal ideology.

-=Mike

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Political ideaology plays a LARGE role in ANY study of ANY foreign culture (which is why there is no outcry when Che Guevera appears on a T-shirt) and the history of any culture.

Never said politics don't apply to study of foreign cultures, but the stuff I listed doesn't have to with foreign cultures. Anthropology, sure, but that's a few miles away from history. The majority of study done at colleges nationwide doesn't depend on political ideology.

 

How you teach anything will be based on your political ideology. Again, Communism killed far more people than Nazism did. Yet, it's never been taught by liberal profs as being an unmitigated, unending evil. The impact of Communism has been downplayed on college campuses and, thus, in the society as a whole.

The other stuff you say is basically condensed here, so this is where I'll respond. I haven't studied enough on the history of communist ideologies myself to debate its historical merits and flaws, but I will say that there are a pile of social theorists, generally starting with Marx, passing through Weber, and so on, who developed systems that formed the roots for Communism. There's a lot more foundation and suggestion for the productive possibilities of Marxism and its many socialist offspring than there are for the more strictly fascist lineage of Nazism, which may serve as an explanation as to why it receives less overt criticism. Moreover, the run of the Nazi party is a much briefer one in time, and it's over. Communism existed massively until little more than a decade ago, and it still exists in very significant amounts today. Historians are still getting perspective and without finite ends, history is still being written.

 

Additionally, I don't think replacing liberal professors with conservative professors is going to change the level of study tremendously; the same function of history-writing and publication can come out of the think-tank environment, and there are plenty of conservative groups in that vein who, going by your line, should be responsible for illuminating this. Unless you also want to assess a massive conspiracy in the realm of journal publication that's kept this off-limits, I still don't think the harms you attribute to self-identifying liberals in academia are nearly as vast as you make them out to be.

 

I've heard debates and if you do not believe in a side, you CANNOT effectively debate it. William F. Buckley is a great debator. One of the best there has ever been. He'd be incapable of teaching a good, balanced view of liberal ideology.

How false is that. Here's how a round of parli debate works. One team of two debaters presents a case or resolution they've designed--they're the government. Another team of two debaters responds to that case extemporaneously, with no prep time beyond the length of the government's speeches--they're called the opposition. They can't say "we don't agree with the side we have to take"; they just debate it. And they win. Thousands of high schoolers and college kids do this every week. I debate parli every few weeks, and I judge 2 or 3 huge tournaments annually. Statistically, opp wins about 3 out of 5 times. If college and high school kids can do it effectively, I'm sure William F. Buckley and any other intellectual can do it effectively too.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

Nazism is viewed as being evil by everybody --- but Communism, which was even more destructive, is not. Why is Hitler the standard for evil and not Stalin or Pol Pot?

 

Because Hitler's crimes were based on race. While Stalin did kill more people, most of those deaths were, if I'm not mistaken, due to his immense paranoia and probably some starvings too.

 

Bottom line, Hitler wanted to kill all the Jews, so he tried to do just that. Stalin really just wanted the USSR to be the best nation there was (which is a much better reason then just wanting people to die) but in order to do that, in his mind, it took lots and lots of killing.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

While Stalin did kill more people, most of those deaths were, if I'm not mistaken, due to his immense paranoia and probably some starvings too.

Well then Stalin should be praised -- especially if the people he starved got to lie in bed holding a teddy bear and listening to music.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*runs...*

[Guest MikeSC]

Nazism is viewed as being evil by everybody --- but Communism, which was even more destructive, is not. Why is Hitler the standard for evil and not Stalin or Pol Pot?

 

Because Hitler's crimes were based on race. While Stalin did kill more people, most of those deaths were, if I'm not mistaken, due to his immense paranoia and probably some starvings too.

 

Bottom line, Hitler wanted to kill all the Jews, so he tried to do just that. Stalin really just wanted the USSR to be the best nation there was (which is a much better reason then just wanting people to die) but in order to do that, in his mind, it took lots and lots of killing.

Or, Hitler targeted one race --- but Stalin just offed ANYBODY.

 

That's better?

 

BTW, Stalin didn't want to make the USSR a better place. He wanted to make sure nobody would ever challenge him. Remember, he had no problem signing a pact with Hitler.

-=Mike

[The Metal Maniac 0]

I'd argue that in order for Stalin to be completely unchallengable, the USSR would have HAD to have been the best nation on earth (at least in terms of arms), unless you're talking about challenges from within the USSR. And in order for them to reach that goal, they had a hell of a long way to go, so I think it would be necessary to make the country a better place (at least in some respects) in order for Stalin to achieve his goals.

 

And yeah, in the eyes of much of the world, killing people because of their race is worse then killing people because they're people. I don't think that's right (because killing is killing, and killing is wrong) but that IS why much of the world think Hitler was more evil.