I'm wondering if all the individuals stating in various threads that conservatives and libertarian students who are concerned about whether they will be living and studying in a respectful environment should "get over it" would have the same attitude about someone who posted something like the following: "I live in the South and my 17 year old daughter's an outspoken feminist, and she's looking for a school not too far from home where she'll be treated by faculty and fellow students with respect, even if she's in the minority." Would they tell him to tell his daughter to "get over it" "suck it up" and just go the nearest intolerant right-wing religious college to hone her ideology? Even if she heard that feminists at that college get death threats, get downgraded by professors for their views, have the administration throw away the feminist paper, and otherwise suffer the indignities conservatives sometimes suffer at elite liberal arts colleges?
UPDATE: I've learned from the comments below that some posters apparently think that opposition to campus feminism inherently signifies hostility to women, that conservatives should never complain about any sort of mistreatment on campus because they control the three branches of the federal government, and that merely pointing out that conservatives are sometimes treated disrepectfully (and I haven't even given the most common example of the heckling of speakers) on certain campuses is "whining" and "hysteria about persecution."
Honestly, given this reaction arising from an initial innocuous question of which elite campuses are more or less open to conservative and libertarian views,* does one really have to wonder why a conservative or libertarian (or merely open-minded) prospective student would want to check out the campus environment before enrolling?
*More specifically, I asked which schools are "'safe'for politically active and or outspoken conservatives and libertarian students in the sense that students and faculty will generally treat them respectfully, even if they are a small minority."
Related Posts (on one page):
- The "Yale Taliban" and The Limits of Academic Tolerance:
- Choosing Higher Educational Institutions:
- One more Post on Respect for Conservative and Libertarian Students:
- Where Should Conservatives and Libertarians Go To School?:
- The Real Harm of Campus Political Correctness
- "Respect" for Conservative and Libertarian Students:
- College Thread:
(Except that even an outspoken conservative at Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Princeton, Cornell or Berkeley is most unlikely to receive death threats or anything close to it, but let's ignore the hyperbole.)
I would tell her to attend the best college she can get into. And if that turned out to be a George Mason or Hillsdale it would not change my view a bit. If it turned out to be a Bob Jones University or (shudder) a nuthouse like Pensacola Christian College (see the recent Chronicle of Higher Ed), I would tell her to go somewhere else. The difference is simply between conservative but rational versus fundamentalist religious and hence almost by definition irrational.
You can learn a lot from a smart and well-educated conservative who argues based on facts and empirical evidence, and even more so if you are a liberal yourself, but you are unlikely to learn anything useful from a conservative whose arguments are derived from a religious tome. Dogma is poison to education, whether the dogma comes from the right, the left, or a deity.
Even if she heard that feminists at that college get death threats, get downgraded by professors for their views, have the administration throw away the feminist paper, and otherwise suffer the indignities conservatives sometimes suffer at elite liberal arts colleges?
I once again state that any of these things, when and if they happen, are wrong. I think if a student is caught doing the first, he should be expelled and prosecuted, if a professor is done the second or third, he should be terminated regardless of tenure.
The problem is the first thing happens rarely, it happens to young political activists on both sides, and it usually happens to people who revel in it, not shy away from it. The second, as far as I can tell, happens once in a blue moon in some community colleges.
Many conservatives these days have so bought the bias screaming from on high that they overvalue their own intelligence. They have generally crappy arguments such as "support the troops or you're a traitor" that are crappy regardless of political views. A politcal science or philosophy professor must objectively grade papers, and if those papers are absolute crap, he has to give them a low grade even if they're also conservative. Conservatives have cried wolf so many times, many of us on the sidelines are wondering if there are any wolves at all.
That's right. We're all stupid. Or whiny babies. Or insane or have some sort of mental instability. Thus sayeth the latest liberal "science" studies.
That must be it. We are delusional in thinking that with 80% of poli-sci departments running Democrat/liberal we are somehow getting a raw deal and students don't ever get screwed.
I was desperately trying to come up with an example of "self-reinforcing" principle, and this was an easy one.
Thanks Justin!
So no, I would not counsel my feminist daughter to go to a school that attacks who she is as a person, in exactly the same way that I would not recommend my child go to a racist school if he was a minority or a school that believes homosexuality is an abomination if he were gay. All of these are examples of where my child's very identity would be attacked, a very different thing than having your beliefs about government challenged.
I didn't go to Dartmouth because I loathed the fraternity culture, not the conservative culture. At the school I did end up going to, which was about as left as one can get, I never saw the types of activities you describe though I was very openly libertarian. I did see black students called "niggers" on more than one occasion, though. But those were isolated incidents, not an institutional policy. Bob Jones on the other hand, until recently (at least I think this has changed) did not allow interracial dating. I would not advise a black student (or anyone else for that matter), to go there.
Harvard, Brown, Berkeley, are not monocultures. You can find like-minded students and faculty (though admittedly the latter are fewer). I knew plenty of conservatives at places like these. Do you really think you would find similar diversity at Liberty or Bob Jones? Would it make sense for, say, an aetheist to go to a school that objects to his views and an institutional level?
And do you really think conservatives regularly get death threats and bad grades at most schools? The one's I have know got great grades, even in poli sci, philosophy, and English classes where their views were not at all hidden.
O.K., I will. Though I don't think all differences between the sexes are socially constructed, I think that position (assuming you mean attributes like abilities, etc., and not physical attributes) is far less irrational than the idea that there is an all-powerful, all-knowing being who will punish me for putting some latex on my penis. Or eating pork and soft-shelled crabs. Or how about every single aspect of Creationism? Or that if I kill a bunch of people I'll be met by black-eyed virgins in Heaven? I could go on for hours. The fact that it is clear that many aspects of what we call gender are clearly socially constructed doesn't make the idea that all of them are true, but it certainly makes it less absurd than ideas that have absolutely no basis in physically discernable reality.
The idea is that it is unmanly to curtail one's ambitions to avoid psychological trauma.
Seriously: why is it that today, with conservative christians running the government and being the standard by which all others are judged in the media, that conservatives and christians are whining like a bunch of politically correct undergrads in a 1990 era Oppressed Persons Minor program? Oh poor us! Who shall we turn to if a professor says a bad word? We'd better turn tail and run, otherwise we'll be mocked and forced to defend ourselves!
Isn't it clear that at the hypothetical "intolerant right-wing religious college" from your question there would indeed be many who are hostile to the idea that women should have the same rights as men, equal opportunities, and be free to choose between family and career?
You can call this hostility to women or hostility to feminism or whatever else you like, but it clearly is hostility to the hypothetical daughter from your question as a person.
No One of Import - if you could read my post, you'd notice that I said "many conservatives" overvalue their intelligence - though I think that's true without conservatives. Most people overvalue their intelligence. But only a loud but small minority of conservatives, and almost never liberals, blame the C they receive for writing drivel on bias, rather than the fact that it is drivel (I should point out that on my first writing assignment at Michigan, in a 400 level class as a freshman, I received a D - and my pro-Rawls, anti-Nozick viewpoint had nothing to do with it. Rather than b**** about my professor hating me, I did a rewrite, worked on my writing, got an A on my final paper, and managed a B (a fair grade) for the course.
It's time something was done about this. I don't normally advocate harrassment, but someone needs to do something to these left-wing tyrants that are destroying our universities. Maybe lists need to be kept, maybe some of them need to be called out and held accountable.
Am I biased in this belief by the fact that conservatives seem inclined to whine about the slightest indignity (ironically, often in the midst of complaining about hypersensitive "PC" liberals). Perhaps. I'm certainly open to being persuaded otherwise. But I simply don't recall a single incident in either college or law school where a conservative received anything worse than a targeted eye-rolling.
Of course I don't think anyone should be expected to tolerate death threats, not in the slightest. But there is a substantial gap between an institution where one conservative out of thousands receives a death threat once in a blue moon, and one where conservatives are routinely hazed as though they were plebes at The Citadel.
And yes, things would be different as David implies. There would be none of this "suck it up" mentality, as it would be seen clearly as a violation of her basic freedom to be who she wants to be.
Also, the point isn't whether a particular type of harassment would be likely; David is painting an overall picture of ideological oppression where things like death threats do sometimes happen, even if not all that frequently.
What about the percentage who are presently college students? Or students at elite colleges. I'll bet it's a lot higher.
It is generally not considered feminism if a woman prefers to establish her career before having children, IF, she ever chooses the family life at all. Feminism is a larger worldview that seeks to completely erase traditional roles of man and woman in relationships, the workplace, parenting etc. This makes it very much a political ideology.
Come on! We have one anecdotal experience from David as proof that "death threats do sometimes happen"?? Can someone provide any number of these incidents that is actually statistically significant? I doubt it. When it happens, I'm sure it happens rarely and probably has little to do with the student's political viewpoint and more to do with clashing or deranged personalities. Were having a debate about scenarios that border on the imaginary.
From my own perspective, if anything the conservative leaning students and their groups were more vocal, more visible and better organized than their liberal counterparts.
David, putting the analogy aside, what kind of experience DO you think most outspoken feminists have in college? Do you think they might have anecdotal tales to recount that equal, or perhaps even exceed, the indignities you suffered as a conservative? Do you think the leader of the Black Student Alliance lives his student life in a pleasant liberal bubble, while conservatives take all the real grief?
It seems that this thread is devoted to focusing on a Kantian respect for all persons.
It is my contention that such a Kantian notion of respect is an ethical quality that colleges and universities should foster.
I have never encountered a professor at Cornell University Law School who attempted to "indoctrinate" his class (shamelessly or otherwise). If anything, they seem to be me to be excessively cautious about revealing their own views about anything.
I guess it was my proofreading abilities--or lack thereof--and not my moderate values that hurt me in my freshman composition class.
So pardon me if I read these stories about universal persecution of conservative viewpoints with more than a bit of skepticism. I don't doubt there are more left of center profs than right of center profs but hysterical hyperbole about persecution everywhere (or even just in the Ivy League) just throws away your crediblity.
BTW, it should be obvious that the analogy was not meant to draw a parallel between impoverished Jews and conservatives, but to illustrate the idea that it's absurd to tell someone that they should take solace in the fact that someone else in their group has much better circumstances than they do, .... If the issue is whether conservatives face disrespect on a particular campus, why would it make someone considering going to that campus, or who is at that campus now, feel better about life at that campus because conservatives control the federal government?
Seconded. Gawd, now he's dragging feminism into his complaints. And "death threats"? These students really should be pursuing their legal remedies, if this is happening so much out there in DB's world.
Even the conservative "feminazi" crowd hasn't voiced such opposition, far as I know. I think the good professor must be watching too many scary movies or crap t.v. Where does he get these "us and them" notions ??
I just wanted to reprint this earlier comment, in case the author is listening.
These are the people I have trouble taking seriously. And this is a double ivy kid.
Say Mr. B, can I get you some cheese with that whine?
Yeah, the one problem with working at the New York Times or ABC is the mandatory prayer meetings... but at least they don't require a baptismal certificate with job applications, like the Washington Post does.
You're still missing the point. David didn't focus on death threats. He used this as part of a larger hypothetical, and now in an attempt to win a debate, people are focusing only on the rarest kind of harrassment. If they can somehow prove that no death threats ever happen, then the logic follows that there is no ideological persecution of conservatives.
Kind of like blowing up his loose analogy of poor immigrant Jews. Obviously the point wasn't to liken the two experiences, but to draw a parallel of how illogical some of the posts have been. (That conservatives can't be persecuted on campus since a bible thumping republican is in the white house.)
No, these were small parts of the hypothetical that others are trying to derail the topic with.
All due respect, you're just so wrong with your interpretation of "facts".
"This all started" many many of your posts ago; their seems to be an underlying theme that many of us have noticed. Check out: "Moral Outrage at Yale Law School" and if readers have time, continue reading back through the DB threads.
Say, for fun, has the Conspiracy ever considered "voting off" a regular just to keep things fresh? Somebody might need either a vacation, or an eyeglass adjustment to see things as they really exist in our mutual world. That's not a personal attack; that's a sound piece of advice from someone who would like to see the bar raised and the audience interests here expanded, not culled.
When such negative actions as ones adumbrated in the original post are taken against anyone for their intellectual views, one is exiting the Holmesian "marketplace of ideas" and entering a different realm entirely.
While the "marketplace of ideas" concept has obvious limits, it perhaps is a fruitful concept to bring to bear on the subject.
Most importantly, respect for all persons seems like a good baseline for all of society. I hope that such a proposition is not controversial. Thank you.
At the left-wing colleges (I attended UC Santa Cruz, so I know whereof I speak) women are more respected (lionized, even), independently of what her opinions are. Plus, when a man and a woman disagree, the woman's opinion is considered superior.
I read this:
"Would they tell him to tell his daughter to "get over it" "suck it up" and just go the nearest intolerant right-wing religious college to hone her ideology? Even if she heard that feminists at that college get death threats..." in his original post here.
Don't blame others trying to derail the train.
I'm basing my analogy on something I have personal experience with. Again, with all respect, your credibility creeps downward with every 20-year-old remark to your girlfriend you recount as "evidence".
If your feminist friends have received death threats, please urge them to respond in the appropriate legal channels. If students contest a grade, urge them to reconsider that yes, they might just have more to learn and the professor may indeed be grading objectively -- they just failed to measure up to the task at hand.
and otherwise suffer the indignities Language like this makes me wonder where are all your posts on other topics, where humans truly are suffering "indignities". Chin up, my friend...
Ray:
Can you say... wolf?
If you're referring to my comments, I used the term "hysterical hyperbole" not in reference to your original post, which poses a reasonable question, but to some of the comments that people have posted here which undoubtedly do qualify as hysterical hyperbole.
The hypo went that would you send your daughter to such a place. The thread was subsequently hijacked as you and yours ignored the larger premise and focused on this particular apsect of it as if David was implying that conservatives regularly receive such threats. That wasn't the implication, that was the redirection of you and yours.
And David didn't even complain about the "supposed" persecution. His question was about attitude. Would it still be a matter of "whining" if the tables were turned?
From the comments posted, it seems that the attitudes would be different. Again, no complaints about the persecution, but why two different attitudes about the situations? This is where the whole canard about feminism not being an ideolgy came in, from a frustrated poster.
Point being that when conservatives complain, they're whining. When liberals complain, they're voicing concerns about their human rights.
convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you, perhaps reconsider
your presentation.
For example, in your update, you say:
I've learned from the comments below that some posters apparently think that opposition to campus feminism inherently signifies hostility to
women.
Actually, that was you who led the thread on the path:
Would they tell him to tell his daughter to "get over it" "suck it up" and just go the nearest intolerant right-wing religious college to hone her ideology?
Ooops.
I just read the update you put below your post.
These are some of the most intellectually dishonest paragraphs I have read on the Conspiracy.
Lol -- ah, the you and yours mentality, eh? Careful: Lumping together are generalizations that get ya in trouble... For the record, I didn't read any more than 3 or 4 of the comments above mine -- no time. Seems we all independently found troubling the "death threats" part of the original post. Or maybe I'm just unknowingly a part of the vast, left-wing liberal commenters' conspiracy??
"Would it still be a matter of "whining" if the tables were turned?" Yes. See that's our point. Cling to all the tales of liberal "whining" of yesteryear that "you and yours" seem to feed on.
For the record, I don't think questioning a teacher or professor's grade should be done, unless under super-super-extra-extra-ordinary circumstances. Suck it up, and take their advice: you either missed the boat on the assignment or still need to continue shaping your views.
I have been in the classroom as a student more recently than the professor here. In my honest opinion, (objective too, since you might be surprised at my political stances if you can get past pigeonholing folks like me) it is more the young, know-all conservative student (and of course I am not saying all or even the majority of young conservatives are like this) who comes into the classroom with a chip on his or her shoulder, bolstered by "facts" dissimulated by authorities like Prof.B -- still smarting over 20-yr.-old remarks to his gf -- that the professor is out to get them for their political views. Such a student will view unrelated topics through their personal political prism; will try to use anecdotes as "facts" to deny other students' and the professor's comments; and always deserve an "A" unless the professor is a "bleeding heart" liberal out to get them for being conservative. I haven't gone to ivy or elite schools though; maybe that's where all these whiny liberals hang, because like I say, most of those I know do "suck up" the rare instances where they suspect unfair play, and accept the occasional unfairness as part of life. They seem to be balanced and overall satisfied too. Don't sweat the small stuff and all that; pass the class and move on.
Death threats, as I wrote above, are another thing. (Say, are you Stevie Ray or are you Billy Ray or are you RaeRay...? Smile, it's just song lyrics.)
If you consider standing up to the liberals who run universities a form of working at being heckled, then I'm sure you're right. But I'm sure if Naomi Wolf or Lawrence Tribe got heckled the way Coulter or Horowitz do, they'd scream bloody murder.
If you consider standing up to the liberals who run universities a form of working at being heckled, then I'm sure you're right. But I'm sure if Naomi Wolf or Lawrence Tribe got heckled the way Coulter or Horowitz do, they'd scream bloody murder.
Justin--gasp--is exactly right. Ms. Coulter came to speak at my undergrad school a few years back, a speech which ended with the same result.
Here's her m.o.:
Show up 30 mins late. Have the organizers announce that those who interrupt will be escorted out by security. Do 20 minutes of you might be a liberal jokes. Open up the floor to questions. Don't answer the questions; instead belittling the questioner (in a few instances apparent supporters) by saying that Harvard students have better questions than your stupid queries. Then when people get upset at the mockery and general question evasiveness, leave and blame it on the audience for being uncooperative.
Total time: 35 mins ; Total take home: 15K ; Her nerve: Priceless
This audience, which was open to the public, was occupied by at least 25-30 percent conservatives/supporters, an inference I made after that portion of the audience gave her a standing ovation upon her introduction.
By the end, everyone was pretty upset with her.
After a 17-year old successfully does 10 reps of 225 pounds bench press - his views, no matter how unorthodox they are WILL be accepted and honorored.
To every prospective student out there, no matter the political affiliation - I urge - EMBRACE THE WEIGHTS and many problems that you considered insurmountable - will be simply lifted away
*now back to your regularly scheduled programming*
Finally, I'm not sure how much experience y'all have with 17 year olds, but I really doubt my daughter would let me "send her" anywhere. I'm from the types (no strong money ties b/w parent and child dictating life choices) that lets individuals -- including offspring -- make their own decisions and accept responsibility for their choices. One life to live, and all that.
(Nope, not lying here either. Such families do exist in many circles; you don't always proceed with familial "blessings" but it's pretty much accepted from the teen years on, that parents are not the ultimate controllers of their child's life. Freedom really is a blessing in itself, scary sometimes, but you get through. I wish more people were cut loose, so to speak, earlier to live a fuller richer life. Looking back, I've made mistakes yes, but absolutely no regrets. Like to think it's made me a better, more well-rounded person, and I don't mean physically. Also helps to keep things in perspective. How about a hypothetical -- "would you let your teen take two years after high school, before entering university, if they had a plan other than sleeping in 'til 10, drinking and hanging w/friends, and could do it on their own dime?" Not that this was me, but I sometimes think a little time off from academia to pursue their own interests might help students in the long run. Apologies for the run-on and personalness here, but it may just help advance discussions like this?? )
You're being facetious, of course, but there's some truth to that. It's the reason so many conservative blogs have had to moderate their comments. Liberals have become so aggressive, so belligerent, and so numerous on the internet, that they literally take over the comments section of blogs and turn them into 24 hour-a-day Bush-bashing sessions.
You mentioned, "If students contest a grade, urge them to reconsider that yes, they might just have more to learn and the professor may indeed be grading objectively -- they just failed to measure up to the task at hand."
Well, of course, just such an argument can be made to contest any claim of bias in grading. Speaking purely for one of my closest friends and myself - we are absolutely convinced of the value of a pretense of agreeing (at least in a general way) with liberal ideologies presented by professors. We have a total of 13 years undergraduate work (both of us have multiple undergraduate degrees) and four universities between us.
There is no question in my or his mind that the evaluation of our work is deeply influenced by the professor's perception of our ideological stance. As you might imagine, between the two of us we have written quite a few papers graded in big stacks by an instructor not perhaps giving them the deliberately impartial treatment graduate work may receive. It has been amply demonstrated over and over that although some instructors grade quite fairly, the ones that do not require adherence to at least a basic set of liberal/progressive ideological positions.
Interestingly, more challenging and rigorous classes tend to have less bias in grading; while the more mainstream 'core' courses are frequently profoundly influenced.
Take this for what it is worth, anecdotal evidence. Still, it has been gathered over hundreds and hundreds of credit hours and many years.
A real-world thought experiment: I was recently accepted to NYU Law School for the Fall of 06. I am an active duty officer in the military and will be attending as such. One requirement the program may have (it has not yet been determined) is that I attend classes at least one day a week in uniform. How do you imagine such a requirement will impact my education there? Not at all? Horrifically? I have to say that even among my committed liberal friends the very notion has them urging me to attend Vanderbilt instead. If I am not required to wear my uniform should I avoid volunteering my military affiliation even when discussing subjects directly connected?
I am also struggling with the extent to which I will have to engage in pretense. It seems so sad not to take advantage of the exciting possibilities for dialogue and writing about things I believe in while attending - but it directly conflicts with my experience of successful collegiate work to be forthright about my personal beliefs. If an instructor decided to grade me down sufficiently on an ideological basis, I could well lose my support from the military and be re-assigned (be unable to finish my degree). Considering the enormous power that even a single professor will wield over my current (not prospective) professional career, how would you folks advise me?
No offense, but what kind of conservative would teach a bunch of inner city 18-year olds for 35 grand a year? I am talking about high schools only, the universities are somewhat different, although the adjuncts don't get paid much anyway.
So you're saying conservatives only care about money? Just like all those conservatives who go to Africa as missionaries? They only care about money, right? Believe me -- a lot of conservatives would be happy to teach high school if they felt like their politics wouldn't be held against them.
And I agree with you completely on the subject of "questioning grades". I have never done it, and it is not easy to imagine when it might be appropriate. Conclusions on the impact of bias I refer to are purely observational - from taking a variety of approaches to frankness in my writing.
This is a very serious claim, especially that in NYC - where I am right now, most of the public schools are understaffed and overcrowded. Pardon me for disagreeing with you, but I am sure that most high schools in any major city - especially New York would be happy to take any warm body that came their way - liberal, conservative, or martian. However I just do not see it happening.
I don't want to completly hijack this thread so let us agree to disagree.
Also, in regard to the complaint that the blogosphere is overwhelmingly "liberal" it isn't really so, in my opinion. The wired community has always been on the whole a lot more libertarian than the offline world. When the Democrats were running the government, most mailing lists and discussion groups (this was really pre-blog era, but we had rough equivalents) were more aligned with Republicans. In the last few years, it's shifted, but not because there's been a change in the internet population, but because the Republicans and the Bush administration have set themselves as the main opponents of liberty.
And when Smithy gets a poor grade on his English Composition submissions, it's because he's a conservative, not because of his use of sentence fragments and his confusion of "they're" and "their".
So I imagine your answer is something like:
"How do you imagine such a requirement will impact my education there? Not at all? Horrifically?"
*Not at all
"If I am not required to wear my uniform should I avoid volunteering my military affiliation even when discussing subjects directly connected?"
*It won't matter.
Considering that JAG aspirants at NYU and Columbia affiliate with Manhattan College's detachment because of the ban on military presence there it seemed a reasonable to question the hostility of the environment. The 'piss-poor attitude' and 'martyr complex' personal attacks are not particularly reassuring if you consider yourself a typical member of the community.
I saw both Coulter and Horowitz in undergrad. They behaved in exactly that fashion. I saw Ward Churchill too. While he was positively looney, he actually took the time to substantively respond to questions from the audience, and he also ate lunch with my history class and dealt with criticism there. It's sad when Ward Churchill is, comparatively speaking, a stellar example of professionalism.
DB:
I've been reading the VC for two years now. This post--especially the update--is easily the most intellectually dishonest I've ever seen here. I'm disappointed.
"Well, of course, just such an argument can be made to contest any claim of bias in grading."
For related thoughts, please see my comment to Rod at 12:50am on COLLEGE THREAD. It's directly relevant here.
Considering the enormous power that even a single professor will wield over my current (not prospective) professional career, how would you folks advise me?
Hmm... I personally would go with "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." That is: Sometimes we spend so much time in the darkness, because we've heard of all the bad things that can happen to us in the light, and then when we do finally venture out, we see... light isn't all that bad. And perhaps we regret sitting in the darkness listening to others play on our feels -- "All the time, all the wasted time..." as the song goes.
Remember: you are not alone, but you do have some power over how you present yourself and the choices you make, even in military life, which I respect immensely. Don't keep quiet out of fear; again, you may be less alone than you think and it takes only one to lead change, a genuine change, not falling into the trap of responding to the imaginary "wolves" out there.
Take care and God bless.
feels should be "fears"
How about this: (1) Conservatives shoot minorities for sport; (2) Some liberals complain that particular conservatives shoot minorities for sport wrongly. Commentators are treating these propositions as mutually exclusive, but they are obviously not.
(I'm not saying no conservatives have ever been subject to a bad grade despite well articulated political beliefs. I am saying the number of conservatives who have been subject to such a grade is smaller than the number of blondes who have been subject to a bad grade espite well articulated political beliefs. In other words, its a phenomena that is so nonsubstantial that it might as well be zero. This is independant of the small but vocal minority of conservatives who whine about their grades on blogs.
Both useful insights, and I appreciate your second post Justin. I agree, I have very little concept of what the social environment is like at NYU/Columbia and have not had an opportunity to talk to military graduates about it. I am currently trying to find some sense of the place - and it seems largely reassuring.
It didn't help my apprehension that so many of my non-"right-wing blog reader" (i.e. liberal) friends seemed to make similar assumptions about the place. Considering the wide-spread (read unanimous) assumptions about the environment there from those I've spoken to with no personal experience, I'd say the perhaps manufactured concern over these issues is quite a bit more widespread than the right-wing blogsphere.
Despite what you may imagine, I am terribly excited about potentially living in NYC/Greenwich Village (and attending NYU) and have zero desire to be a figurative 'martyr' for any cause. In fact, my questions and concerns were largely driven by the opposite desire. I am trying to discover if my concerns are legitimate, not prove that they are. I am well aware of why the schools prohibit military, and I know that it does not neccessarily imply hostility. It certainly doesn't preclude it either, and it is nice to get some personal testimonies that my assumptions are incorrect.
It sounds like both of you feel that the concerns are largely manufactured or at least of too little consequence to govern my behavior. I appreciate your taking the time out to answer the post.
Individual professors may have been more or less receptive to this, and I've certainly been frustrated a few times by seemingly impenetrable orthodoxy, but I never let it worry me too much. I just took this as an opportunity to discuss my ideas with fellow students, and by the end of the semester there were usually at least a handful of us that were willing to challenge the orthodoxy.
You don't have any idea what goes on out there, Justin. To take one of several examples that happened to friends of mine, I know someone who took a law school school Criminal Procedure exam. It was an open book exam, and she had accurately anticipated one of the questions. She wrote out a very thoughtful, well articulated anwwer to the (purely policy) question before the exam, and then copied it to her exam book. The professor, who she knew took the opposite approach to the issue in question, wrote a huge X across her answer, and wrote something like "ridiculous", even though her policy solution was precisely what my own (somewhat more conservative) Criminal Procedure professor had advocated. He gave the answer a C, at a school where you get a B for breathing. The fact is, professors have largely unreviewable authority over grades, and some of them will abuse it for ideological, personal, or other reasons.
I also know students who have whined about bias when their papers/exams sucked.
DB: complaining about persecuted conservatives
Prof V: complaining about Scalia being misquoted
Prof V: complaining about Israeli election results
TZ: complaining about being misquoted in court opinion
I know a lot of posting is "complaining" in one form or another, but it all seemed a bit personal today. Was everyone just in a pissy mood today at the VC?
Like another poster mentioned, it sounds like you've been relying a bit too heavily on Bill O'Reilly and assorted right wing blogs for information about what life is like on campus. You could certainly attend class in uniform at Cornell Law School without any adverse reaction. There's even a chapter of the Federalist Society that seems to carry on like every other student group (i.e. hard to get anyone interested in it). Everyone knows who the members are and I have yet to hear any of them complain about being harassed because of their viewpoints. Go to NYU. Someone trained to deal with being shot at can presumably handle the occasional disapproving glance from a clueless student. Your job prospects will be immeasurably better than they would be at Vanderbilt.
But how about this for another starting point - these are just anecdotal: Dartmouth - if the conservative is outdoorsy this is a great area for bonding wth others both students and professors. Conservative tradition of several decades both good and bad. Recommend on this basis. Santa Cruz: no way if you have to wear a uniform or feel comfortable in a suit - hey you won't be dissed so much as think you are on another planet. Very laid back. If you are a vegan conservative you might have some common ground. Harvard: perhaps. There is quite a large amount of posturing and BS in this place now but there is a bright enough and diversified/quirky amount of students and there is no doubt that if you find the right mentor/s you can zoom. Not for the socially shy tho'. NYU - probably not. The admin has been unable to set any real standard for place. Perhaps becasue of the locale people "live" their politics more, which in a small but signicant minority (and even higher in poly sci/soc sci) gets brought into the classroom and is chilling to all but the boldest.
I started to type out my thoughts to the new face of Mr. Bernstein's shifting version of what we're talking about, but never mind. He doesn't deserve the armchair psychoanalysis some people were giving him, but I do think he's being whiny, just like most of the actual examples I've read at the VC about professorial bias resulting in unfair bad grades over the past few years have seemed to me like piles of horse puckey. Whatever. I doubt this is the height of intellectual dishonesty Mr. Bernstein has demonstrated over the years; the stakes are just too petty.
For non-poli sci majors, you should "get over it". Every elite school has sufficient diversity (in the non-P.C. sense) that you'll find like-minded friends and lovers. If you plan a poli sci-type major, have the credentials to choose among elite schools and don't know the relative liberal/conservative bent of the elite schools, maybe you ought to reconsider your major and take up something you're interested in.
DB - if your hypothetical feminist wants to study engineering, would you suggest that it's wise to steer away from MIT, Cal Poly or Stanford because they're notoriously unfriendly (or at least overly friendly in creepy, unwanted ways) toward women, or would you tell her to get over it?
[EDIT: Justin, how the hell do you know who my friends are, much less who I've sought out? DB]
From my experience at Stanford and in California generally, this is totally incorrect. Try going to Berkeley or Stanford sometime when there's a protest going on. Take a look at who's protesting (old burnt-out hippies who bought property in the area when it was cheap and are protected by CA's cap on property taxes and the handful of radical student chicks who don't shave their legs) versus who's just going to class. Attractive girls have more power in society as a starting point — so it shouldn't be a surprise they're not as angry and have better things to do.
I will also grant you that I did not go to college during the "politicized" era of the 1960s and 1970s. It is certainly possible that what you state is a problem actually was a problem. Also, I'm not disagreeing with at least two of your propositions - that professors are mostly liberal (tho I disagree with your reasons why) and that there's an element to subjective grading (tho at least today I think it benefits conservatives as much as it hurts - professors feel unwilling or unable to see weaknesses in policy they're unfamiliar with, and modern conservatives have gotten "simplify to the lowest common denomenator" down to a T as a theory).
But while there may have been "grade activists" in 1975, I haven't heard of ANY today at EITHER Columbia or Michigan (sure, you hear of a few junior professors who really like it if you parrot back their law review article, but that's not the same thing, at least in my view - they're looking for their answer to a niche question, and generally don't penalize for taking a contrary voice). While conservatives have been outraged over one professor at CLS, those conservatives who have done poorly in that class do poorly ON PRINCIPLE, by refusing to even engage the subject matter. It doesn't help your argument, of course, that the law review at Columbia is slightly more conservative than the overall student body, and that several of the last EICs were also conservative.
I will also grant you that I did not go to college during the "politicized" era of the 1960s and 1970s. It is certainly possible that what you state is a problem actually was a problem. Also, I'm not disagreeing with at least two of your propositions - that professors are mostly liberal (tho I disagree with your reasons why) and that there's an element to subjective grading (tho at least today I think it benefits conservatives as much as it hurts - professors feel unwilling or unable to see weaknesses in policy they're unfamiliar with, and modern conservatives have gotten "simplify to the lowest common denomenator" down to a T as a theory).
But while there may have been "grade activists" in 1975, I haven't heard of ANY today at EITHER Columbia or Michigan (sure, you hear of a few junior professors who really like it if you parrot back their law review article, but that's not the same thing, at least in my view - they're looking for their answer to a niche question, and generally don't penalize for taking a contrary voice). While conservatives have been outraged over one professor at CLS, those conservatives who have done poorly in that class do poorly ON PRINCIPLE, by refusing to even engage the subject matter. It doesn't help your argument, of course, that the law review at Columbia is slightly more conservative than the overall student body, and that several of the last EICs were also conservative.
I have no idea who you're quoting from what context - can't find that sentence in this thread - but are you implying that of the women on campus at Berkeley and Stanford the only left leaning ones are those who go to protests? And by your admission, there's only a handful of young women at these protests. So you're saying that there's only a handful of left leaning women at Berkeley and Stanford? Maybe all this "campuses overrun with liberals" stuff isn't true after all!
Milo and Opus visit a college campus to organize a anti-nuclear protest. They are promptly accosted by a bunch of frat boys who say "look, minature communists". Opus, slightly confused, reads from a magazine, "but it says here college campuses are hotbeds of liberalism". Milo responds, "Exactly how old is that issue of Life?"
Smithy, where's the evidence for this? My son, a sophomore at Harvard, is pretty apolitical -- or, I should say, he's pretty analytical, and is willing to listen to and analyze all kinds of arguments without consciously overlaying any ideology of his own. (I raised him well, doncha think?) Not once has he reported, at least to me, any instances of any professors' attempting to indoctrinate or intimidate any students. So where do you get your information? Can you cite any concrete examples? Or is this just (as it appears) a rant coming from a position of ignorance?
But of course the false implicit premise is that rude challenges happen more often to conservatives. This is another long thread in a long series of threads where the implicit or explicit claim is that colleges and universities are often/generally quite hostile/punitive to conservatives, in which no actual evidence is presented to support the claim beyond a few undocumented anecdotes, typically from long ago.
Give considerable credit to the moderate to conservative students who post on these threads words to the effect of "Um, actually it's really not like that where I go to school." Intellectual honesty and understanding that one must deal with actual facts -- even when they don't support the claims of some folks who are on "your side" -- are some of the most important things one can learn, in school or otherwise.
One is to conflate the prospect of having one's conservative views mocked, or being treated with some kind of hostility on campus in general with the concern for actual grades as a result of being conservative in a liberal world. Those are separate concerns.
The other is to tell prospective or hypothetical students to suck it up and get over it while stoutly insisting there is no "it" to get over.
I think those are two seperate arguments, and while they sound conflated, its just because DB has relied on one or the other in what appears to be goalpost shifting.
EDITED: [Justin, if you are paying attention to the thread you participated in, you brought up grading before I did. DB]