When is the word "diversity" not tolerated on campus?

[Aristotle]

When is the word "diversity" not tolerated on campus?


Answer: When someone tries to put the word "intellectual" in front of it.

Great article about efforts to improve intellectual diversity on college campuses.

[Lokrian]

[If you want to discuss China, please make a separate thread. There is NOTHING wrong with that topic, it is just highly tangential here.]

[Edited by Aristotle]

[Enosekel]

[Same deal as above regarding the China tangent. ]

[Edited by Aristotle]

-----------

Anyway back to the thread topic...

I am so far from an expert in such matters that I probably shouldn't even be posting here but it seems to me it's always been the most educated people who tend to be the most "radical" thinkers or liberal or whatever we are calling it at this particular moment. Our founding fathers for example. So is it really a surprise or a terrible shock or a bad thing if this is the case?

Maybe that's always been the case at institutions of higher learning or maybe I'm wrong and for the first time things have flip-flopped in the world of the academe and the conservatives are all upset and whiney about it. *shrugs* Either way, I think the idea that TENURED professors who can never be fired or intimidated, and thus have no need to worry about their colleagues' politics, no matter how vocal they supposedly are (and I'd bet it's overblown, knowing as I do the petty bickering that goes on amongst faculty) is just silly.
To hear that a professor thinks they can't get their work done or are threatened because their colleagues are all democratic to the extreme of making the work environment impossible to be in just cracks me up. Oh, the horrible obstacles they have to face in their struggle to ensure a free-thinking, unbiased learning environment! Which of course is their concern...*lol*

At my own university I noticed exactly the "problems" described in this article (though the majority of the student population views them as positives, not negatives, so perhaps the university is just responding to student needs). When I was in college most of us had endured 12 years of grade school learning about HIStory (ugh, hate that word, it's a peeve of mine) and we were glad to finally get a chance to learn about other people and places, and I cherish the opportunity I had to view the world from other perspectives. Where else are we supposed to experience these things if not in college?

In any case the courses that people seem to be concerned about particularly in the humanities, are all electives. You don't have to take them if you don't like being exposed to different viewpoints than those you're bombarded with every day just by virtue of living in the U.S. I feel much more well-rounded as a result of the education I received and I think that is after all the purpose of a liberal arts education is it not? I've had employers tell me they hired me because I had a liberal arts degree even though it had nothing to do with the skill set required for the position.

Two other things about my university (I keep talking about mine because I don't know about any others really) are that you can get just as much "propaganda" or biased teaching from a conservative point of view as liberal, depending on the school. For example the humanities may be liberally-biased (and I would dispute that anyway but for the sake of argument let's say the accusations in the article are valid) but the business school, law school, med school, and engineering schools on our campus are all heavily biased in favor of conservatives and the teaching style of faculty and content of courses definitely reflects that. I work with the business school faculty all the time on my job, and their conservative bias is really quite outrageous, there's nothing even remotely as blatant in the "liberal dominated" humanities area.

It might not matter so much for engineering or humanities but the values pressed on the students in all these other areas certainly influence our society a great deal, given the importance that business, law and politics have.

In any case, I don't think we have to worry about our university system being overrun by the big bad liberals. Look at funding and profits for a university. While students might be paying the tuition, research and corporate giving is where the real money is. Most wealthy alumni and corporate donors are pumping their funds into the "conservative" schools at my university such as the business and med schools. The humanities on the other hand are happy even to get a single scholarship and rely much more heavily on title 6, 11, etc. funding for research. Now there are lots of reasons for this which are probably unrelated to the topic but the result is that these "conservative" departments of the university have a lot more power than the "liberal" departments, and I'm sure that if there is a real threat from left wing crazies in the humanities departments then something will be done to put them back in their place.

Whatever the case may be, it really doesn't bother me. The liberal-minded or conservative-minded student can learn just as much if not more from a teacher with an opposite stance to them and they should appreciate the opportunity to experience the opposite viewpoint/different kinds of intellectual reasoning for once, not bitch about it.

[Grantref]

Whenever conservatives start complaining about liberal bias in the media or in academics, I wonder if they're just peeved that there are a few areas that Big Business doesn't yet completely dominate life.

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Enosekel
Whatever the case may be, it really doesn't bother me. The liberal-minded or conservative-minded student can learn just as much if not more from a teacher with an opposite stance to them and they should appreciate the opportunity to experience the opposite viewpoint/different kinds of intellectual reasoning for once, not bitch about it.

But that's the point isn't it? The liberal minded student is not exposed to that much in the way of the opposite viewpoint if the statistics presented in the article are true. I didn't see a hole lot of die hard conservatism in the engineering college. If anything, the subject matter sort of makes political affiliation rather moot. Things work how they work and costs are what they are with very little recourse to anyone's oppinions about politics. IThis is even more true with math. I mean, one could argue "costs" are based on values that stem from moral/political interactions, but math is all about taking a set of assumptions and then adhering to them in strict fashion.

I'm not familiar with business colleges. Still, 90% would seem to indicate that most business and engineering profs were democratic, if not necessarily strictly "liberal".

If I understand your response correctly on the other matter, you are saying the examination system seems to have nothing to do with communism. It's not the examination system itself I am talking about though, but the centralized government making selections of folk for the beaurocracy from an official scholastic program. I don't guess it's any big mystery why Mao would be preferable to the Guomindang, but given even that opportunity to break free from oppression, it seems instead an only slightly different totalitiarianism has errected itself and the window of opportunity that the whole revolution represented for freedom was quickly passed over in favor of yet another centralized beaurocracy. I mean, it's a sad state of affairs for a people if your great crusading revolutionary turns out to be just another in a long line of totalitarians.

It just seems the entire population is habituated to centralized powers making policy, and those centralized powers being almost inexplicably habituated to micromanaging through strict beaurocracy rather than letting any hint of freedom within the nation for people to just do what they see needs doing despite the fact that it would be easier and ultimately better for the nation as a whole. You seem to be in a position to correct me if I am wrong, but to this day is not the rural population more or less forbiden to look for work in the cities as it would upset the delicate islands of "modernism" that have been constructed there if they did? And it's not as if the model of the west presents for their elites any signs of their being a danger such freedoms would damage their situations at the top. Point is, all that human potential and they still just don't seem to get it, from top to bottom. Properly set in motion, the nation could blossom icredibly. What stops them? This tradition of relying on an official line institutionally layed out through official education it seems to me. It's not as if Chinese intellectuals have not rebelled against it either, it's just that no one listens to them.

I've heard people try to blame Confucionism for this sort of thing but to me that's not enough of an explanation. I think it is that the system itself has been structured this way for so long. You could plug almost any philosophical or moral teaching into that structure and it would still be an unyielding beaurocracy based on adherence to establishes codes handed down through official educational insitutions rather than response to emerging problems in real time.

There's a fundamental difference between governing by decree and regulating. Look at the structure of educational institutions. Which do they favor? Look at the more succesfull economies. Which do they favor?

[Enosekel]

But that's the point isn't it? The liberal minded student is not exposed to that much in the way of the opposite viewpoint if the statistics presented in the article are true.

I thought the article was really more about conservatives (or just faculty and students in general who like to complain about non-issues because they take it for granted they live in a "free" country and can choose what they want to raise a stink about) expressing how they felt threatened rather than anything else. I would have to agree with Jabriol's comment with regard to the "liberal" students not receiving the benefit of opposite viewpoints - maybe is is the first time in their lives they're hearing someone who believes the same things they do, and they've already heard the opposing side of the story.

That being said I do agree with you, and if the facts of this article were true (which I highly doubt, given that they came from a) David Horowitz; b) some conservative students group whose 'statistics' --and we all know how easy those are to manipulate-- I am almost positive would not hold up under close scrutiny; and c) are published in a biased news source interested only in drawing in readers by use of shock value and deception) then I feel so very sorry for all those white, middle class liberal kiddies languishing in colleges across the nation, because they're missing out on hearing the conservative viewpoint that has been forced down their throats by business and government and the public school system for all of their earlier years. *waits for the flame *

However if I felt like it I'm sure I could find within five minutes a news article from just as reputable a source claiming the exact opposite is true on college campuses, and they're all overrun by evil conservative bastards.

-----------------

(off-topic stuff/response to Lokrian)

...but given even that opportunity to break free from oppression, it seems instead an only slightly different totalitiarianism has errected itself and the window of opportunity that the whole revolution represented for freedom was quickly passed over in favor of yet another centralized beaurocracy. I mean, it's a sad state of affairs for a people if your great crusading revolutionary turns out to be just another in a long line of totalitarians...It just seems the entire population is habituated to centralized powers making policy, and those centralized powers being almost inexplicably habituated to micromanaging through strict beaurocracy rather than letting any hint of freedom within the nation for people to just do what they see needs doing despite the fact that it would be easier and ultimately better for the nation as a whole.

***Take a look at the history of communism the world over. It didn't quite work out as "they" envisioned/promised it would anywhere in the world Some claim that this is because communist revolution was only supposed to happen in first world, industrialized nations and this is why. True, your average peasant just trying to get a few bites of food they can chew without hurting that awful toothache they've had for the last three years isn't going to have the time or the know-how to keep revolutionaries and totalitarians from taking advantage of them. Just like in other places where they experimented with communism the government just became corrupted and full of greedy bastards.

I agree with you, it is totalitarian. Why? China is an incredibly diverse nation. We talk about the U.S. being a "melting pot" but China is all that and more, especially because the majority of people in China didn't immigrate with the goal to "make it" in the new world, they are all natives and being Chinese is not exactly their own choice. The people who live in cities live in an alternate universe compared to those who live in the countryside. There are villages in China within walking distance that speak completely different native languages. There are at least 150 different -native- languages and dialects inside China. Every major world religion is represented in the nation and has been firmly established there for centuries, and there are hundreds and hundreds of different ethnic groups that, throughout the centuries, have been oppressed and in some cases at least attempted to be genocided by the Chinese government.

Confucianism, a centralized empire and strong bureaucracy, forced learning of the Mandarin language, Buddhism and other religions, and many other things we take for granted as "Chinese" are not representative of a significant portion of the native population of China, rather things which have been forced on the people of China.

The majority of people in quite a few areas of China are a part of China against their will and have been for over a thousand years if not twice as long in some cases. A totalitarian system is (imho) one of the few forms of government that would actually keep such a diverse nation together. They've no loyalty to a central government nor has it been ingrained into their culture over the centuries to think in terms of centralized bureaucracy, that's just the way they've been forced to exist.

to this day is not the rural population more or less forbiden to look for work in the cities as it would upset the delicate islands of "modernism" that have been constructed there if they did?

To my knowledge most people are not allowed to move about the country freely, you have to have a work or moving permit that would establish your residence in a city (or anywhere) in order to be able to move there. This does not stop peasants from flooding into the cities in droves looking for any kind of livlihood, even being a homeless beggar which is the case for too many of them. However since the government still assigns a good portion of the jobs someone without a permit to live or work in a city such as a peasant coming to the city will never get a legal job there.

I think I can sympathize with the government and the city folk not wanting the cities flooded with peasants looking for work. Last I checked there were around a million transient/homeless people in Shanghai alone and mostly all of that due to the small percent of peasants who did dare to try their luck there as beggars/street vendors/laborers/whatever they could find. Imagine if there were no restrictions, the promises of the city lifestyle would be almost irresistable and the cities would be overrun.

And it's not as if the model of the west presents for their elites any signs of their being a danger such freedoms would damage their situations at the top.

This I would disagree with simply because most elites are only there due to the deeply ingrained corruption present in the system. They didn't get their positions through merit but through personal connections. If they were voted into position or held accountable for the corruption they encourage/are embroiled in, they would not be in their privileged positions today.

Point is, all that human potential and they still just don't seem to get it, from top to bottom. Properly set in motion, the nation could blossom icredibly. What stops them? This tradition of relying on an official line institutionally layed out through official education it seems to me. It's not as if Chinese intellectuals have not rebelled against it either, it's just that no one listens to them.

It's not that they "don't seem to get it". I've never seen people more ambitious, resilient and entrepreneurial than the average Chinese citizen. I think these things are more ingrained than relying on official institutions, etc. The problem is, China is a third world country! That's what's stopping them, combined with some of the negative effects of globalization and competing/staying afloat with industrialized nations such as the U.S. Especially as a communist nation trying to compete in a capitalist world.

Even before western imperialists plundered their country for...over a hundred years or so before the commies took over, the emperors of China were no better, not much more than a foreign entity in some distant place forcing themselves upon the locals. Sure, China accomplished some fantastic things. Amazing things, over the past 3000 years.

Nevertheless up till recently over 75% of those living within the political boundaries of China were impoverished, illiterate, uneducated, and often hungry peasants...who came from endless generations of people just like them. I don't know what the percent is today but I think the majority of the people are still rural and poor. You can't just change all that in a matter of 50 years. China is blossoming but too much change too fast (as happened with the Communist takeover) only leads to more disaster and hardship.

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Enosekel
[B]
It's not that they "don't seem to get it". I've never seen people more ambitious, resilient and entrepreneurial than the average Chinese citizen. I think these things are more ingrained than relying on official institutions, etc. The problem is, China is a third world country! That's what's stopping them, combined with some of the negative effects of globalization and competing/staying afloat with industrialized nations such as the U.S. Especially as a communist nation trying to compete in a capitalist world.

Yeah, here I strongly disagree. It's not as if western nobility were any better than the rulers of the far east. And pity them for the evil west coming and plundering their resources? I tell you the truth, if China, being possibly the first civilization ever, finds itself in the position of being picked on by the wild men from the north so to speak, something is deeply and intrinsically wrong with that.

I don't see this as off topic because your point seems to be, "so what the moderate view is never heard in colleges, much less anything conservative?" Because I don't want a generation of Americans to become inured to being spoon fed propaganda just as the Chinese seem to be inured to taking it and taking it from -their- elites. Universities are not poor, beset poverty stricken people. They are powerful institutions. Your argument just assumes that what is heard elsewhere is conservative, but more or less by definition, the majority opinion is "moderate". Now, sometimes the middle is wrong. There's nothing wrong with taking issue with the consensus. But taking a cohesive and extreme political outlook and spewing it constantly at people as a requirement for getting an education most of them really want, which are the aforementioned business/engineering types of degrees or something to lead to a profession, is flatly unfair and damaging to any real system of freedom of thought and expression.

Having one world view constantly enforced and having no recourse to the law to change it is -precisely- what I am saying about China. And here it is right under our noses growing and breeding in our university systems, and you see no corelation and actually think it is a good thing? Truly?

Oh and let me go back and flame you! *flames outrageously*

Seriously, do you not see where the concern comes from?

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Jabriol
Whenever conservatives start complaining about liberal bias in the media or in academics, I wonder if they're just peeved that there are a few areas that Big Business doesn't yet completely dominate life.

No, I think the reason for the complain is the fact that universities are 90% dominated by the left and unethically use this power.

Nice attempt at redirection, but I'll stick with Occam's Razor here.

In a similar story, Lehigh University currently has a painting of George W. Bush hanging out at a diner with his hand down a woman's cocktail dress on her right tit. They keep this painting in the lobby of the political science building.

That is unacceptable.

That kind of behavior creates a "chilling effect" where people with conservative opinions are afraid to voice their opinions. That is not the way a college campus should be- period.

Finally, Jabriol, there is a huge difference between conservatives and republicans. People who believe in liberty and small government do not think corporate control is acceptable either.

Be careful with your labels.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Enosekel
I would have to agree with Jabriol's comment with regard to the "liberal" students not receiving the benefit of opposite viewpoints - maybe is is the first time in their lives they're hearing someone who believes the same things they do, and they've already heard the opposing side of the story.

Huh?

Every major network news outlet, every major news magazine except the National Review, and every major newspaper (with the sole exception of the Wall Street Journal) leans WAY to the left. There is absolutely no shortage of the liberal perspective and there hasn't been for about 40 years.

They haven't heard the opposing side at all because the only major sources of the "opposing side" are the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, talk radio, and the National Review. None of these things are popular amount people under 25 years old.

Originally posted by Enosekel
However if I felt like it I'm sure I could find within five minutes a news article from just as reputable a source claiming the exact opposite is true on college campuses, and they're all overrun by evil conservative bastards.

Try.

You won't find it because it is not true.