Any schools that are NOT liberal-left biased?

Question 1: It seems to me that Mike's whole argument revolves around a perceived loss of "traditional-Americanism". What is this concept? Is there some sort of "bottom-line" Americanism that can be identified? (One indicator that there is is the very high level of domestic support for US military action in Afganistan. One could assume that the values being fought for there are common "Americanisms".)

Question2: If these "traditional-Americanisms" can be established, are they worth keeping? Is there something better? How do you go about protecting them?

Again, just interested in how you Yanks think.


------------------
Peter Tucker
Australia

 

Try University of Phoenix (SF), National University (SJ), Santa Clara University, San Jose State, U of San Francisco. You could choose courses from these schools to complete academic requirements of Excelsior U.

If you are looking for a degree to help your career then consider switching to a business related degree -- it should give you better earning power.

 

If what is desired is a "right wing" ideologoy, then the church schools would be the best bet. Some have been mentioned in this thread. However, the church schools will have a "political correctness" of their own for students to accept/cope with.
I guess we have to sort out whether we are looking for education or validation.
When Kepler observed the earth traveled in an oval, not a cirlce. Would you be on the side of punishing him as a radical, or would you be on the side of trying to sort out this new information.
The Soviet Union had many wheat crops fail, trying to prove the inheritance of acquired characteristics.
I understand the position that opinions which are dogmatic are hard. I spent an entire semester in a class with a "politically correct" instructor who would show videos of MD's from the 1950's talking about "mongloids". An old term used for "Downs Syndrom". The politically correct instructor would lambast this "insensitive" dolt for his language. Yes, in 50 years the use of language in science and education has changed. That does not make an MD in 1950 insensitive because he could not predict what words would be fashionable in 2000. Was the instructor out of bounds. In my opinion, in this case yes. However, I could still learn her point, that words can be used to degrade individuals and that no one likes to be labeled. Could I learn about her evidence on the nature of special education? Absolutely! Do I have to agree with it? No!
It seems to me a simple choice. Do you want to part of a rational process, that looks at evidence and says that Galileo can state his evidence, and we can interpret it. Or demand that he be locked up for disagreeing with "established belief".
Would you be on the side that says, if the government believes in the inheritance of acquired characteristics, that's good enough for me. Or on the side that looks at the evidence and comes to its own judgement.
Judgement, evidence, reason, theory, seem to me to be the things make up education.
We can read any "old" idea in a library. The cutting edge of research, thought and interpretation is a university.
Good luck!

 

Ok Mike. You asked for responses and you got em, Now you say you don't Like them. Hmmm. I guess I see why you have a hard time taking classes and learning. You mentioned you'll get back to us when you have the time. Don't bother. It is clear your posts are about being right and validating that "rightness". Your stated question has been clearly answered and your underlying question is not about getting answers but forcing them on others. Good luck in your journey I hope at some point your view might be broadened.

------------------
Best Regards,
Dave Hayden

 

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/guestcolumnists2002/ivyleagueprofpressrelease01-09-02.htm

The above is an article in reference to a survey conducted by Frank Luntz Research Co.

CSPC PRESIDENT DAVID HOROWITZ SAYS POLL SHOWS THE EXISTENCE OF POLITICAL
BIAS ON IVY LEAGUE FACULTIES, CALLS FOR INTELLECTUAL DIVERSITY IN ACADEMIC
HIRING PRACTICES.

LOS ANGELES, CA – David Horowitz, President of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture
today released a poll taken on the beliefs and attitudes of Ivy League professors.

The survey, conducted by the Luntz Research Companies, reveals a
disturbing lack of intellectual diversity among the Ivy League professors
polled, and raises questions about political bias in the hiring of faculty at
schools training America’s future elites. The survey was conducted among
professors on the social science and liberal arts faculties at the schools.

David Horowitz said, “This survey confirms what I have been saying for years -- that our universities
are less intellectually free than they were even in the McCarthy era, when I was an Ivy League
undergraduate myself.”

Horowitz stated, “For all the Ivy League’s talk of diversity, it is painfully evident from this survey that
there is no real diversity when it comes to the political attitudes and social values of Ivy League
professors. Not only is there an alarming uniformity among liberal arts professors at our elite
universities, but this uniformity bears the clear stamp of the Democratic Party and the political left.”

(click the above link for the second half of article, as well as an additional link to the actual survey and poll results).

 

(Lo and behold, just today on 1/15/02 the Washington Times also printed an article on the matter of democrat-liberalism infecting the vast array of acedemia and intelligentsia.)
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020115-49046500.htm

Clips from article:
Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster whose firm
conducted the survey, said he was "disappointed" to find such
political conformity.
"I think if parents saw the political leanings of these
professors, they'd be upset," he said. "I think universities
should insist on the same diversity in their faculty that they
look for in their students . I have a problem when these
faculties have no Republican or conservative representation at
all."
"Issue by issue, the faculty is so out of touch with the
American people," Mr. Luntz said.
(click on above link for entire long article)

 

The Washington Times? Farther right than the WSJ.

Rich Douglas, living and working in the DC area.

 

Come on Rich don't confuse Mike with the facts. They can be soooo misleading.

------------------
Best Regards,
Dave Hayden

 

Anyone who's spent any time in a college classroom knows that the great majority of professors are left-leaning. It's so obvious that it's not even worth discussing.


Bruce

 

So, this huge collection of relatively smart people is also relatively liberal? Sounds good to me. I've no problem with liberal thinking, and would expect this of people who conduct research, teach others, etc. Who wants close-minded people in that role?

Maybe there's a reason why college professors are liberal. Maybe they're right.

Balance isn't balance if once side is wrong.

Rich Douglas

 

By the way, I prefer taking each issue/question individually, rather than dealing in labels. Part of liberal thinking is trying to seek out the truth, not just that part of it that fits your particular dogma. This flexibility allows one to find the best side of any issue. (Not that it's a guarantee against being wrong, of course.)

Rich Douglas

 

No, what I said was they are left-leaning. And, typical of the lefties I've encountered, they're not interested in any viewpoints that aren't in lockstep with their own.

There is a reason why college professors are left-leaning, and it isn't because they're right. It's because they live & operate in the hermetically sealed environment of academia, and seem to have little idea how the real world operates. That's the main reason my favorite teachers were adjuncts who lived the subject they taught.

Steve Levicoff has said it several times, "conservatives" are FAR more tolerant than "liberals".


Bruce

 

Aren't you confusing at least three different senses of the word 'liberal'?

There's a generic sense of 'liberal' that refers those that prefer change in distinction to 'conservatives' who prefer things as they are. Whether or not the liberal is correct obviously depends on the nature of the change that is being proposed.

And there is a more stereotyped political sense of 'liberal', where it refers to those that embrace a whole set of political positions on things like the government's role in the economy, personal vs. communal responsibility, hostility towards the market system, distrust of corporations, race/class/gender identity politics, attitudes towards law enforcement and the military, and so on.

And just to confuse things, 'liberal' in Britain doesn't mean precisely what it does in America.

It's a fundamental mistake to sweep both of those senses of 'liberal' together, and then to suggest that they both are synonymous with 'open minded'.

That's always possible. But in order to decide what's right, one would have to deal with each of a hundred issues in depth. And that would reveal that each side has good arguments at its disposal and that each side is often working from different philosophical presuppositions. What had once seemed so clear is suddenly hazy and indistinct.

I think that more credible reasons why professors so often tend to be on the left can be found elsewhere.

One reason is that higher education was expanding rapidly in the sixties and seventies. Many people who had been swept up in the student movements of the time remained on campus because they liked the atmosphere and excitement. That meant that they went on to graduate school, and then into teaching. Soon after that, the "baby bust" hit, enrollments started falling, and that happened most quickly in those humanities and social sciences departments (like sociology) that had been the sixties bastions. So the politicized baby boomers got tenure, and then there were few new hires after them for decades. That cohort is now stamping its mark on entire disciplines.

And another reason may be more fundamental. Lots of people pursue higher education in search of greater social standing. In applied fields, that success is found outside the academy. But in the traditional academic fields, success is found within. So countless people pursued "titles" (that word itself is revealing) like Ph.D.s. Along with the doctorate came status as an authority, as an intellectual.

But unfortunately, the payoff for possessing one of these titles isn't what many feel that it should be. Pay is too low. And most gallingly, the influence of intellectuals over affairs is limited to say the least. Nobody really listens to professors of comparative literature.

So you have a lot of people that chose this alternative ladder to success and then failed to land themselves in the ruling class as they had hoped. I think that there is a pervasive sense of alienation in the academy, a sense of having been shunted aside, a sense that they should rightfully be the ones calling the shots and running society.

That leads naturally to social and cultural criticism, to attacks on established social elites and to all kinds of utopian proposals that always seem to require expert management reshaping society from the top down.

 

Quite true, and I'm a liberal. I'd rather engage in dialogue with a conservative, even a right-winger, any day. Granted, some of them fit the constipation stereotype, but the ones that do their research are far better natural critical thinkers than the liberals who allegedly espouse critical thinking. Perhaps that's why U.C. Berkeley allows courses like The Films of Keanu Reeves while conservative liberal arts scholars still have a head for Greek and Latin.

Besides (speaking of head and Greek), I've met some conservative guys that are really hot in bed.

But I digress . . .

(Couldn't resist.)

 

And he is right. My friends go berserk when I tell them that I am republican leaning. They believe that a black man who votes for republican candidates is crazy. They are not even prepared to listen to my reasons for voting for some republican candidates.

 

[
Besides (speaking of head and Greek), I've met some conservative guys that are really hot in bed.

But I digress . . .

(Couldn't resist.)[/B][/QUOTE]



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

 

Actually that was Levicoff's post. Struck submit before typing..feeling today dislexic think I. Anywho what I wanted to say was conservatives know how to push the "right" button.


[/B][/QUOTE]

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A189-2002Jan18.html

 

Michael Kinsley's comments are not even laughable. His driveling is an indicator of the mishmash most liberals are perplexed with in thinking and speaking, and his falsehood, fraud and delusions show the full-blown corruption and disarray which America cannot sustain. We also notice that when liberals try to make serious statements they simultaneously become giddy, frivolous, and feel the impulse to show false humor & misleading amiability while in the same breath speaking of those in their aim with mentally ill wickedness.

Kinsley's opinionated editorial is proof that liberals are growingly classifiable as no longer listen-to-able, are over and beyond the edge of irrationality and well into the phase of dementia, and are falling into death by their own mistakes. Basically every description he makes of those scary conservatives is false lies. Kinsley is proof that Democrat's have highly evolved the concept of "spin:" to intentionally alter the truth, which has "spun" out of control.

His attempt to bash the numerous conservative-oriented books which rightfully made the recent bestseller list reek of the same anti-competitive suppressive behavior that would make leaders in Beijing do hi-fives. His reasoning of 'how' the books made the bestseller list are fabricated theories indicative of his jealousy; his suggestion that they made the list due to many open-minded liberals generously buying such books because they are more willing to read a vast array of ideology is again far from the truth, and perhaps is warranted a gasp by the reader not out of happiness but as an exhaust from holding in one's air in the face of filth.

Kinsley tells so many lies in his editorial that he should be fired: "liberals don't have a network of lavishly funded propaganda machines passing as foundations," and, "Liberals don't have a pet publisher like Regnery to publish tracts masquerading as tomes," are two of many examples, as the book publishing industry is far biased towards liberals. Pat Buchanan and many other best sellers made their spots on three accounts: hard work, risk, and banking on the truth to publish what America wants and needs -- the kind of capitalism that drives control-freak, manipulative liberals into discomforted rage.

 

What, no more discussion? I have to reply to my own post from several days past?
What, liberals no longer consider it fun anymore when you throw reality into the discussion and weed out blasphemy?

Here's an update on the cancerous liberal front.
Today was watching local San Francisco channel #27, they had a CCSF-made news report from the community college. They featured a report about a mass congregation of students making speeches to denounce the "INSTITUTIONAL RACISM" which they feel is pervasive at the city college. Their main points time & again was that the racism at CCSF was greatly limiting minorities in an array of college aspects. The emotion-filled festival was replete with raggae music in the background by way of a stereo system, and the speech was followed by alot of booty-shaking, dancing, male crotch grabbing, and men-on-women bump & grind. Not to mention a fashion show like event where men compared the length of their dreadlock hairstyles and taught each other the latest snazzy gangsta style handshakes.

Yes, liberals do wonders for modern day academia. And these events go on at our top universities, like liberal-infested Stanford which is just down the road, where you can earn 3 of your core credits by taking a linguistics class on modern day hip hop music, analyzing the music of Shaun "Puffy" Combs and Tupac Shakur.

So when you interject a little reality, liberals no longer want to talk?