Bias in Academia

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That's an excellent point. And if you read some of the conservatives who write about this point, they come to the same conclusion. However, where they differ, is they say, why don't we set up our own stuff, rather then having to go through places like UC Berkeley and hoping to have a conservative prof come through.

That seems like a poor solution - the conservatives should be interested in balance, not the politicization of education. I think it would be bad for the country as a whole for "liberal" and "conservative" colleges to be created.

Additionally, it will take much, much more time, money, and effort to make a whole corresponding set of conservative institutions that can compete academically with existing institutions and have a national presence.

[Ben Kenobi]

Additionally, it will take much, much more time, money, and effort to make a whole corresponding set of conservative institutions that can compete academically with existing institutions and have a national presence.

No, not as much as you might think. If there is a demand, someone is going to try to fill this demand. I don't see anything wrong with giving folks more choices as to the type of education they can choose to receive. As for politicisation, education is already considerably politicised.

Secondly, I don't think conservatives care too much about 'national' presence. Don't need to be in an ivy league school to receive a top notch education.

[GePap]

Obviouslky there is a deep bias in the MIlitary vs Liberals, since there is a huge inbalance in it between liberals and conservatives. Those damned Biased General!

I have to actually agree with the diplomat. Academia encourages new thinking-by definition conservative thought is not encouraged.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No, not as much as you might think. If there is a demand, someone is going to try to fill this demand. I don't see anything wrong with giving folks more choices as to the type of education they can choose to receive. As for politicisation, education is already considerably politicised.

I consider the politization of education a bad thing, and thus more of it is worse. The last thing America needs is to widen the red-blue gap by giving each side their own university system. The conservative criticism of the present system is that students are influenced by professors; this, while it may be true and pervasive, is not systematic. If one starts to make "conservative" and "liberal" colleges, the influence will become systematic, and thus more restrictive of free and independent thought. College should be a place where you are exposed to new ideas, not indoctrinated - and making seperate conservative colleges would be a move towards indoctrination, full stop.

Secondly, I don't think conservatives care too much about 'national' presence. Don't need to be in an ivy league school to receive a top notch education.

I mean that, in order to thwart "liberal bias," such institutions would have to be present around the nation - which would be a lot of universities.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Sava


Yes, this is true.

Many times I can remember sitting in class... like say in Calculus or Biology or even Physics and the professor will all of a sudden stop talking about stuff relating to the class and start trying to get us involved in some RADICAL LIBRUL CAUSE.

"Today we are going to talk about differential equations, but first WE MUST DEFEND A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE!"

Sava, you really are one of a kind.

Of course a science prof isn't going to rant about abortion in a middle of a calculus class.

But you know, if you attended college, that students are encouraged to challenge traditional thinking especially in the social sciences like philosophy or sociology. Students are encouraged to think about new ideas, to think outside the box and push the envelop. That's an environment that is going to be conducive to liberalism and not conservatism because by definition, conservatism is about accepting the status quo and traditional values.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If that's what you meant sava, why not say this,

many conservatives have a deep commitment, etc..

I'm not going to sugarcoat the truth just to make you feel better.

[Sava]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Students are encouraged to think about new ideas, to think outside the box and push the envelop. That's an environment that is going to be conducive to liberalism and not conservatism because by definition, conservatism is about accepting the status quo and traditional values.

I agree.

But really what this means is that intelligent people are more likely to be liberal.

Because conservatives tend to accept what they are told and don't think critically.

It's not a bias at all. In fact, it's a lot like the free market system.

Those who want to, become educators. And they tend to be liberal thinking.

[Ben Kenobi]

I consider the politization of education a bad thing, and thus more of it is worse.

Rather then the polarisation in one direction only? I don't see how it is a bad thing to give people what they want, with respect to higher education.

The last thing America needs is to widen the red-blue gap by giving each side their own university system.

Who said anything about accessing public funds. I think that there are enough folks looking for these types of schools, that they will be able to pay for themselves. Granted they will be smaller in scope, but in terms of providing an education, will probably do a better job.

The conservative criticism of the present system is that students are influenced by professors; this, while it may be true and pervasive, is not systematic. If one starts to make "conservative" and "liberal" colleges, the influence will become systematic, and thus more restrictive of free and independent thought.

Why should a conservative college restrict the opinions on campus, the way in which liberal ones do? Wouldn't they argue that it is better to hear the arguments and be trained to spot their flaws? I don't see how offering competition for the public institutions lessens independent thought.

College should be a place where you are exposed to new ideas, not indoctrinated - and making seperate conservative colleges would be a move towards indoctrination, full stop.

Agreed, and don't you think if the other schools are losing students that they will adjust themselves to compete? The same with the conservative schools, wouldn't they change to meet the needs of their students if competition forces them?

I mean that, in order to thwart "liberal bias," such institutions would have to be present around the nation - which would be a lot of universities.

True, but again, if there is demand for alternatives, then they are going to flourish.

[Sava]

All the smart people are already going to the good universities.

And there are already other "special" schools for everyone else.

[Drake Tungsten]

Additionally, it will take much, much more time, money, and effort to make a whole corresponding set of conservative institutions that can compete academically with existing institutions and have a national presence.

It's already been done, to a certain extent. Just look at the plethora of private think-tanks that have done much to supplant the former role of academia as the source of analysis and recommendations for policy makers, particularly conservative ones.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

It's already been done, to a certain extent. Just look at the plethora of private think-tanks that have done much to supplant the former role of academia as the source of analysis and recommendations for policy makers, particularly conservative ones.

Oh yes!

Organizations such as the Lincoln Group, a Washington based think-tank that was been under contract with the Pentagon helping them plant stories in the Iraqi media!

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-infowar30nov30,0,5638790.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[...]

Though the articles are basically factual, they present only one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments, officials said. Records and interviews indicate that the U.S. has paid Iraqi newspapers to run dozens of such articles, with headlines such as "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism," since the effort began this year.

The operation is designed to mask any connection with the U.S. military. The Pentagon has a contract with a small Washington-based firm called Lincoln Group, which helps translate and place the stories. The Lincoln Group's Iraqi staff, or its subcontractors, sometimes pose as freelance reporters or advertising executives when they deliver the stories to Baghdad media outlets.
[...]

[Drake Tungsten]

The Lincoln Group isn't a think-tank. Seems to be an advertising and consulting firm...

If your need is to communicate, to inform, educate, and change perceptions and behaviors, we provide end to end solutions in advertising, public relations, marketing, media planning, and specialty services. If you require assistance in order to operate and succeed in a challenging foreign market, we provide the local and regional research, support, and strategic planning needed to penetrate, expand and solidify your position in emerging, transitional and conflict environments.

http://www.lincolngroup.com/

[Dr Strangelove]

I recall quite a number of conservatives professors at my college, but then I was a science major. You know, when you made your reputation inventing napalm and the DOD is using huge quantities of your brainchild in an Asian war you really can't dabble in radical politiics.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The Lincoln Group isn't a think-tank. Seems to be an advertising and consulting firm...

Uhhmmm. Then what is a think-tank?

Because I even search both Google and Yahoo and get tons of hits for "lincoln group" think tank... with lincoln group in quotes so it gives me relevant results

I get lots of news articles about the Iraq media controversy in which the Lincoln Group is described as a think tank.

[Drake Tungsten]

Marketing or public relations organizations, especially of an international character, sometimes refer to themselves as think tanks, for example

I guess the Lincoln Group might be called a "think tank" based on this usage of the term, but it's not a commonly accepted one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_tank