Liberal brainwashing and indoctrination continues on our campuses funded by taxpayers

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
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.

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."
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
What are you saying the more educated the person the less to the right he seems to lean? Just trying to follow your logic here. So if the more learned person would lean more to the left than to the right, then it only stands to reason that the less learned person would tend to lean to the right. I would have to agree with that. LOL!!!!!
 
Last edited:

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
StevieD said:
What are you saying the more educated the person the less to the right he seems to lean? Just trying to follow your logic here. So if the more learned person would lean more to the left than to the right, then it only stands to reason that the less learned person would tend to lean to the right. I would have to agree with that. LOL!!!!!

Again you liberals do not know how to reason.

Academia is filled with liberals, so you assume that "educated" people are more liberal. Not sure how anyone with any kind of education could draw that conclusion.

You fail to realize that a post-secondary degree in the humanities will get you little more than zero jobs outside of academia.

These people usually have little experience outside of their textbooks thus one can probably assume that these are some of the least learned people in society. After all, most learn best from experience and not on how someone else indoctrinated them.

But whatever, draw your own conclusions I guess. The obvious will never be apparant to the oblivious.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,909
133
63
16
L.A.
Republicans continue to whine about liberals. You guys are as sad as those you criticize.

Relax, Freeze. Whatever brainwashing that accurs in college is quickly erased when students graduate and enter the "real world". Survival instinct and ambition put jobs, salaries, the American Dream at the forefront.

Anyway - what lasts longer - a few lectures by some nutty profs during a 4 year college carerr - OR - a lifetime of AM talk radio and sensationalist "news" channels. More than enough brainwashing coming form your side to keep things "fair and balanced".
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,909
133
63
16
L.A.
See.... and our lil' AR came up just fine. .....except for the hippie hair .....wsup wit dat?
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
smurphy quote:". .....except for the hippie hair .....wsup wit dat?"


(lol)...because the 60's aint dead...at least in my mind.....or what's left of it.
 

Nosigar

53%
Forum Member
Jul 5, 2000
2,487
9
0
Florida
Please, this has been going on in the Academia for decades. Brainwashing. You don't even have to go to the universities, it starts in public schools. You older guys just compare what you were taught in school when you were a kid to what is taught today and you'll see it's ridiculous. Save the whales, the forest, manatees, the gays, handicapped, minorities. Which is all well and good. But Johnny don't know how to spell, add, subtract, multiply or solve a potential real world problem.

People sometimes laugh, but there was a movement in the '50's and 60's to inundate higher education with leftist liberals. I can't remember where I read it because it was many, many years ago. If I find that article I'll post it.

Stevie, don't make one of your sarcastic remarks 'cause we'll know you're a product of the educational system... another zombie! ;)
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,909
133
63
16
L.A.
If Johnny donty know how to spell and do math when he enters college, then something else is going wrong apart from nutty profs. Might have something to do with inadequate public schools - but probably more about funding than Liberal high school teachers. I sure don't remember much of any LEFT-RIGHT pull in high school. Hell, I was even a Reagan clone myself back then.

Obviously Johnny became President. Dude can't balance a budget worth sh1t. Must have been because of Dubya's liberal teachers at his private schools. :mj07:

The far right must be really really bored right now. They've won all the important battles and instead of getting to work, fulfilling promises they made to achieve victory - it's off to the conspiracy thoeries. Please, get a life. The clock is ticking down. 3 years, 9 months, 3 weeks, 5 days and counting. GET SOMETHING WORTHWHILE DONE!
 
Last edited:

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
I think Nosigar insulted me. It was hard to tell through all the whining and crying. Funny, his party owns both houses of Congress and the Presidency as well as a bunch red states. You would have thought they could have gotten something done besides crying about it.
 

ocelot

Registered User
Forum Member
May 21, 2003
1,937
0
0
Mount Shasta
Nosigar insulted you by claiming you were a "product of the educational system". (Which apparently he may NOT be).

Anyway, why do you guys think they are called "Liberal Arts Colleges" and that they issue "Liberal Arts Degrees"?

smurphy, that was hilarious about our Johnny Prez not knowing how to spell and do math.
 

redsfann

ale connoisseur
Forum Member
Aug 3, 1999
9,090
295
83
60
Somewhere in Corn Country
Where do you find this drivel, Freeze? In the pages of Fascist Today? you are one to tell liberals about the ability to reason...Nazi Germany a liberal state? What a total fool you are....if this stupid crap that you posted was the least bit true, wouldn't it stand to reason that 75% of those that attended college be 'liberal'?
"You fail to realize that a post-secondary degree in the humanities will get you little more than zero jobs outside of academia"
what a joke this quote is....if you would bother to take a look at the college majors of the CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies in this country, the VAST majority of them have liberal arts degrees. And why is that? Because running a company takes critical thinking...something the vast majority of you clowns on the right have no concept of. you are a real piece of work, freeze...medical school, huh?
More like a delusional psychopath based on your posts here at Jacks....
And if I happened to be a conversative that attended a 'liberal' school with 'liberal' professors...er, Marxist professors according to freeze...I would welcome an opposing viewpoint, as my beliefs and value systems would be challenged and I would have something to compare them to instead of just blindly following the brainwashing that the REAL influences in your life are giving you...YOUR PARENTS...
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
Ha. No Redsfann the Red. You are a case in point.

You are unable to realize how things work in the real world.

"Humanities" and "Liberal Arts" are also not mutually inclusive categories.

Leftist Germany, the National Socialist Party, my red friend, was a totalitarian regime.

An anarchy is an extreme right wing regime.

See, you evidently are one of the blind minions who enter school expecting to learn from the wise old sages (left wing nuts) and take their indoctrination to core.

When things are explained to you differently, using reason, you can do nothing but scoff and regurgitate your marxist worldview.

Now, truth can be exposed and you have nothing left to do but scoff at the message bringer.

You do not know how to use logic, you think that if 75% of the instructors are liberal you think it follows that 75% of the students would be liberal. LMAO.

See your type cannot be reasoned with. You cannot think on your own, you cannot question your own beliefs which have been planted deep with in....yet you pride yourself on your "open mind".

I know these types, and I know what a sad state it truly is.

Redsfann the Red will never learn.

Sad deal.
 

redsfann

ale connoisseur
Forum Member
Aug 3, 1999
9,090
295
83
60
Somewhere in Corn Country
wow, world history 101 as taught by Freeze. Thank you, thank you, thank you for elightening me on the Nazi regime. Guess that A I recieved on my Masters Thesis about the Nazis and their far right politics would get an F from you, old wise one. Again, just because you are incapable of real world facts doesn't change the fact you are a moron..so in your brillance that is your tiny closed little mind, the fact that the Nazis called themselves the National 'Socialist' Party makes it a left-wing party? Phukin dumass....If you consider that 'reason' then go ahead and pat yourself on the back for being sooooo much smarter than I...the one that holds a Masters degree in Political Science....I know you won't read this, or if you do, you will dismiss it with a 'scoff' because it doesn't match up with your delusional outlook on life, but the others who read this thread may get a kick out of just how wrong a loser like you can be...

...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of?Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production....

Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State....

"Fascism, which was not afraid to call itself reactionary... does not hesitate to call itself illiberal and anti-liberal."
_Benito Mussolini

Technically, the word NAZI was the acronym for the National Socialist German Worker's Party. It was a fascist movement that had its roots in the European nationalist and socialist movements, and that developed a grotesque biologically-determinant view of so-called "Aryan" supremacy. (Here we use "national socialism" to refer to the early Nazi movement before Hitler came to power, sometimes termed the "Brownshirt" phase, and the term "Nazi" to refer to the movement after it had consolidated around ideological fascism.)

Fascism and Nazism as ideologies involve, to varying degrees, some of the following hallmarks:

*** Nationalism and super-patriotism with a sense of historic mission.

*** Aggressive militarism even to the extent of glorifying war as good for the national or individual spirit.

*** Use of violence or threats of violence to impose views on others (fascism and Nazism both employed street violence and state violence at different moments in their development).

*** Authoritarian reliance on a leader or elite not constitutionally responsible to an electorate.

*** Cult of personality around a charismatic leader.

*** Reaction against the values of Modernism, usually with emotional attacks against both liberalism and communism.

*** Exhortations for the homogeneous masses of common folk (Volkish in German, Populist in the U.S.) to join voluntarily in a heroic mission_often metaphysical and romanticized in character.

*** Dehumanization and scapegoating of the enemy_seeing the enemy as an inferior or subhuman force, perhaps involved in a conspiracy that justifies eradicating them.

*** The self image of being a superior form of social organization beyond socialism, capitalism and democracy.

*** Elements of national socialist ideological roots, for example, ostensible support for the industrial working class or farmers; but ultimately, the forging of an alliance with an elite sector of society.

*** Abandonment of any consistent ideology in a drive for state power.
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
LMAO of course your left wing professor gave you an A.

Conservatives have been anti-federalists since the Declaration of Independence.

Tell me how this has anything to do wtih a totalitarian regime.

My argument is and has been that the Nazi form of government in no way resembels conservatism/anti-federalism.

No one can dispute this.

How then , the political science people say its on the "far-right" is beyond me. As its centralization of power and monopoly of control over commerce, local governmnet, etc. is far more resembling Communism as we had in USSR, China, etc. etc.

The squashing and killing of any dissidents and mass murder of people resembles leftist regimes that we had in the former USSR and China.

An extreme right wing government is an anarchy!!

How anyone can say that NAZI Germany resides along an anarchy is beyond me.

Nationalism/force does not make something "right wing" just as the Soviets, Cubans, and Chinese and other similar left wing regimes use such techniques.

Thus, are the Chinese and Soviet communists fasciists? I would totally agree with a "yay" on that one.

Does that make them right wing? Heck no.

*** The self image of being a superior form of social organization beyond socialism, capitalism and democracy.** - uhhh...looks again like communism would fit this definition


*** Cult of personality around a charismatic leader -- Stalin qualify here again?

These traits have little to do with a "right wing" regime but instead with a totalitarian regime.

A "right wing regime" gives power back to the people as it decentralizes government and emphasizes state and local governors.
 

redsfann

ale connoisseur
Forum Member
Aug 3, 1999
9,090
295
83
60
Somewhere in Corn Country
"Fascism, which was not afraid to call itself reactionary... does not hesitate to call itself illiberal and anti-liberal."
_Benito Mussolini

An interesting quote, eh? Hummm...now who to believe? The acknowledged father of 20th century Fascism, which we all know is a far-right political belief; or the cluess and dense Freeze?

Thats OK, I don't expect you to admit you are wrong on this. It takes a real man to admit when he is wrong...heck, I'm wrong at least twice a day, just ask my wife...lol.
Here is some more reading for you, o clueless one...
Communists represent the bourgeoisie as an alien class, but this does not mean the aim is to kill them as people, but only their class, their relation of production. That is, communists aim to expropriate capitalists and convert members of the bourgoisie into wage-earners. While you can't, as Mao once put it, make an omlette without cracking a few eggs, a revolution is very likely to be violent. However, in its course you don't attack on people for what they intrinsically are (their culture or race), but on their social role, which can change withough destroying the person.

Communist movements can also be sectarian in terms of ideology, but I'd pursue a similar argument that while fascism attacks what people intrinsically are, communism attacks only their behavior. The difference is fundamental, for socialism seeks to develop everyone, while fascism excludes or eliminates all but a group that therefore ends being statically pure.

Fascism seems historically linked to a crisis of the bourgeoise middle class. Although support might come from some workers as well, the movement seems primarily to arise from a crisis of the middle class. Communism, on the other hand, can also attract members from other classes, such as peasants and middle-class intellectuals, but it is characteristic of the working class, being the only ideology specific to that class. So basically, the movements engage contradictory classes, and so they are socially opposite.

In short, while a narrow focus can find areas in which fascism and communism might share some similarities, a broader and deeper view suggests that they are quite the opposite. It is significant that in historical terms the two movements have been bitter enemies, and this confirms our impression that in terms of principle they are really opposite. differ.

It would be quite unfair to equate the two as being the same, Facism as such appealed to the backward elements of the working class movement in the guise of National Socialism, on the uther hand Social Democracy is bourgeois in nature, when it suits its cause it poses itself as a working class party, but in reality is anti-communist and bourgeouis in nature.
Facism appealed to the backwardness of the working class in the way of anti-semitism, somthing that Lennin had abolished. Facism also stood as an avowoved enemy of communism, besides jewish people, communists were the next in line for Hitler's death camps.

Certainly, when dealing with totalitarian regimes, you will find similarities between Socialism/Communism/Marxism/Maoism on the Left and Fascism on the right, but your failure to understand the differences between them never fails to amuse me, Freeze.
 

redsfann

ale connoisseur
Forum Member
Aug 3, 1999
9,090
295
83
60
Somewhere in Corn Country
Anarchy is the right-wing? You idiot...so that means all those protesters in Seattle at the WTO meetings a few years ago were right-wingers? er, NOPE!

"Anarchism does not mean bloodshed; it does not mean robbery, arson, etc. These monstrosities are, on the contrary, the characteristic features of capitalism. Anarchism means peace and tranquility to all."
--August Spies, Haymarket anarchist

http://www.infoshop.org/no2wto.html

you will like trying to find any links between these anarchists and the right wing, but I'm sure you will come up with something...

A nice site that places Anarchy and Facism in their correct contexts....that is OPPOSITES OF ONE ANOTHER....

http://www.anarchy.org/anarchy/a_e_p_m.html


damn, this is getting fun tearing you're "theories" apart....this one should really stick in your craw, knowing how much you love the Environmental movement...

http://www.greenanarchy.org/

In 1793 William Godwin published An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice, in which he presents his vision of a free society alongside a critique of government. Some consider this the first anarchist treatise, crediting Godwin with founding modern philosophical anarchism. He is also considered a forebear of utilitarianism. It wasn't until Pierre-Joseph Proudhon published What is Property? in 1840 that the term "anarchist" was adopted as a self-description. It is for this reason that some claim Proudhon as the founder of modern anarchist theory.

Individualists, taking much from the writings of Max Stirner, among others, demanded the utmost respect for the liberty of the individual.

Later in the 19th century, Anarchist communist theorists like Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin built on the Marxist critique of capitalism and synthesized it with their own critique of the state, emphasizing the importance of a communal perspective to maintain individual liberty in a social context, and the critical role of workers self-managed organs of production and creation.

The International Workingmen's Association, at its founding, was an alliance of socialist groups, including both anarchists and Marxists. Both sides had a common aim (stateless communism) and common political opponents (conservatives and other right-wing elements). But each was critical of the other, and the inherent conflict between the two groups soon embodied itself in an ongoing argument between Mikhail Bakunin, representative of anarchist ideas, and Karl Marx himself. Generally Marx wanted to work within the system, use hierarchal organizational structures, and run people in elections. Bakunin hated these ideas, and predicted that if a revolution was won under a Marxist revolutionary party, they would end up being as bad as the ruling class that they fought against. In 1872, the conflict in the First International climaxed with the expulsion of Bakunin and those who had become known as the "Bakuninists" when they were outvoted by the Marx party at the Hague Congress. This is often cited as the origins of the conflict between anarchists and Marxists.

Mikhail Bakunin saw a need to defend the working class against oppression and overthrow the ruling class as a means to dissolve the state. Peter Kropotkin's anarchist communism developed from his scientific theory based on evolution in which co-operation equaled or surpassed competition in importance, as illustrated in Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution (1897).

Some revolutionaries of this time encouraged acts of political violence such as bombings and the assassinations of heads of state to further anarchism. However, these actions were regarded by many anarchists as counter-productive or ineffective (see "Violence and non-violence", below).

In the late 19th century anarcho-syndicalism developed as the industrialized form of libertarian communism, emphasizing industrial actions, especially the general strike, as the primary strategy to achieve anarchist revolution, and "build the new society in the shell of the old".

Anarchists played a role in many of the labour movements, uprisings, and revolutions of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, including the Russian Revolution (1917). In the United States, many new immigrants were anarchists; an especially notable group was the large number of Jewish immigrants who had left Russia and Eastern Europe during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. These groups were disrupted by the Red Scare of 1919.

Emma Goldman was a very influential anarchist and feminist during this period. She traveled the country and the world spreading anarchist ideas and attempting to live an anarchist life.
(The clinic in Iowa City that provides womens reproductive services is called the Emma Goldman Clinic)
The anarcho-syndicalist orientation of many early American labor unions played a large part in the formation of the American political spectrum. The United States is the only industrialized former British colony to not have a labor-based political party. In Mexico, anarcho-syndicalists like Richard Flores-Magon led various revolts and uprisings, that would help overthrow the dictator Diaz, and lead the way for the growth of anarchism in Latin America, (and also go on to influence the modern day Zapatista rebellion).


I like this next paragraph a lot, just because it blows your "theory" about Anarchy full of huge holes...
Through the 20th century anarchists were actively involved in the labour, animal-rights, radical ecological, feminist movements, and later in the fight against fascism. The influence of this on anarchist thought is apparent, as most of the traditional anarchist philosophies emphasize the economic implications of anarchism, or arrive at anarchism from economic arguments. Since the mid-1960s, anarchists have been involved in student protest movements, peace movements, squatter movements, and the anti-globalization movement, among others.
WOW, that sounds a lot like what right-wingers do, doesn't it? NOT!!!!

In the latter part of the 20th century, and the start of the 21st century, anarchism, (or anti-authoritarianism), has been seen to have the same influence as Marxism did during the protest movements of the 1960's. With the uprising of anti-authoritarian movements in the Zapatista communities in Mexico, and the people's uprising starting in 2001 in Argentina, and the global growth and interest in non-statist, anti-capitalist beliefs and organizing have given anarchism a new life within various movements. Anarchists, (although generally against violence against people except in self-defense), have also been at the forefront of militant resistance against capital and the state, engaging in property destruction against various corporations, militant street battles with police, confronting neo-Nazi and far-right groups, and also having a strong militant presence at anti-globalization protests.


Thats enough fun for one day, don't you think?
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
i'm not the closed-minded, closet communist who can only regurgitate what his textbook tells him that brought this up

conservatives, or anti-federalists believe in the decentralization of power

a totalitarian state is 180 degrees on any spectrum from this ideology

that is my point, and that point is never addressed by anyone because it is not really debatable

but thats okay, the blind will always remain blind

that is something i have learned to deal with
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top