Every one of the named board members of the "Bruin Alumni Association" carries a degree from UCLA. Andrew Jones earned his in political science, of all things.
Former California governor Pete Wilson graduated from Berkeley. George Bush, it is well known, graduated from Yale and Harvard.
For your argument to work, every one of these prominent conservative figures would have had to have been drummed out of the university, for political reasons made entirely personal, by their liberal professors. They weren't. They were graduated, instead.
Your comments provide a textbook example of what I mean. The situation is, so far as there can be an "objective" one, is that a culture of "liberalism" permeates most American university campuses. You, I and however many people have ever visited more than two universities can agree on this. I say this culture of "liberalism" serves to support the purpose of what most accredited universities do: provide a rigouous education based on openness to all defensible lines of inquiry. It should not, and in most cases does not matter if student "a" or professor "b" are either conservative or liberal; it's not like any (good) professor would let any (good) student get away with one-sided political rants.
Anyone's lack of ability to present sophisticated arguments does not mean that person is a shut-out genius, conservative or otherwise. Liberal intellectual projects are essentially intolerant, rigid, and just plain inhospitable to half-baked ideas.
But then again, who knows how many more prominent conservatives we would have if only more liberal professors would lower their standards? I for one am convinced this is the only way Bush could have gotten out of Yale and Harvard, however his essays undoubtably were marked down for their pearls of conservative wisdom. After all, isn't the "liberal media," by doing their job, forever castigating this guy in the very act of reporting what he says?
i think that the spirit of open intellectual inquiry can only florish in environments that are essentially permissive, that is, in liberal environments that foster freedom of inquiry or intellectual freedom.
What most conservative commentators fail to grasp regarding "liberalism in academia" is that the spirit of open intellectual inquiry can only florish in environments that are essentially permissive, that is, in environments designed to foster freedom of inquiry or intellectual freedom. Social liberalism in the universities supports the practice of rational scientific inquiry in that both are set up around the practice of questioning the apparant boundaries, or tnatural laws, that construct both human societies and the operations of the natural world.
What today's right wing zealots want to create is an environment wherein standards of truth are not determined in this spirit of permissive, that is, liberal intellectual inquiry but instead are restricted by whatever social and religious conventions seem to be operating on their own lives... effecting, from the standpoint of their would-be populist activists, an atmosphere reminiscent of the intellectual and ideological repression in Germany under Hitler, the Solviet Union under Stalin, the United States in the MyCarthy era and China today.
Slashdot Mirror
Every one of the named board members of the "Bruin Alumni Association" carries a degree from UCLA. Andrew Jones earned his in political science, of all things.
Former California governor Pete Wilson graduated from Berkeley. George Bush, it is well known, graduated from Yale and Harvard.
For your argument to work, every one of these prominent conservative figures would have had to have been drummed out of the university, for political reasons made entirely personal, by their liberal professors. They weren't. They were graduated, instead.
Your comments provide a textbook example of what I mean. The situation is, so far as there can be an "objective" one, is that a culture of "liberalism" permeates most American university campuses. You, I and however many people have ever visited more than two universities can agree on this. I say this culture of "liberalism" serves to support the purpose of what most accredited universities do: provide a rigouous education based on openness to all defensible lines of inquiry. It should not, and in most cases does not matter if student "a" or professor "b" are either conservative or liberal; it's not like any (good) professor would let any (good) student get away with one-sided political rants.
Anyone's lack of ability to present sophisticated arguments does not mean that person is a shut-out genius, conservative or otherwise. Liberal intellectual projects are essentially intolerant, rigid, and just plain inhospitable to half-baked ideas.
But then again, who knows how many more prominent conservatives we would have if only more liberal professors would lower their standards? I for one am convinced this is the only way Bush could have gotten out of Yale and Harvard, however his essays undoubtably were marked down for their pearls of conservative wisdom. After all, isn't the "liberal media," by doing their job, forever castigating this guy in the very act of reporting what he says?
i think that the spirit of open intellectual inquiry can only florish in environments that are essentially permissive, that is, in liberal environments that foster freedom of inquiry or intellectual freedom.
What today's right wing zealots want to create is an environment wherein standards of truth are not determined in this spirit of permissive, that is, liberal intellectual inquiry but instead are restricted by whatever social and religious conventions seem to be operating on their own lives... effecting, from the standpoint of their would-be populist activists, an atmosphere reminiscent of the intellectual and ideological repression in Germany under Hitler, the Solviet Union under Stalin, the United States in the MyCarthy era and China today.