I'm sorry, that sounded worse than I meant it. What I mean is that I do understand what's going on. I have my opinions and what I feel is the right (correct) view, which is completely open to discussion and change. What I don't care for is being told things. If a professor is taking a whole class to talk about why so-and-so is wrong, it isn't an open discussion, it's a lecture, which I have every right not to listen to, just as I would if it were coming from a family member or some random guy off the street. That's why I chose the apple cider reference. Homer was at the apple cider factory and while willing to be part of the cider tour, wasn't willing to be part of Flander's lecture, so his brain took off (with quite the funny slide whistle effect, if I remember correctly). I apologize again for sounding ignorant in the whole matter.

yeah, i know. i was just being snarky. my problem is with people who in general find politics to be too "icky" or whatever. in my experience, those are the sort of people who go out and vote.

on the other hand, i do feel that a calc class is not quite the appropriate place for a political discussion.

Denver is a Democratic city, and Boulder a town full of yuppies and stoner hippies

So according to your logic, if a professor effectively communicates the course material to the students, then whatever political views they also happen to hold shouldn't matter in the least, right?

Horowitz makes a lot of claims, but few, if any of them are actually substantiated by statistically significant evidence. Sure, he cherry picks an anecdotal example here and there, but I could just as easily make a (completely false) case that liberals are persecuted in universities by citing whatever rare examples there are of students blasting professors who espoused anti-Iraq war messages in the build up towards war. It still wouldn't represent a complete picture of what's going on, but then that isn't what Horowitz is interested in, is it?

so, how are you deciding whether or not a professor is "delivering"? if they turn out little mindless drones then they're doing a good job? your example is quite applicable to academia: if the professor is a good one, why should his politics matter?

What is "the university"? I think most are pretty different. But North Carolina's excellent public university system might have spoiled me. But if you don't like where you are going to school, transfer. It is as easy as not being poor! I mean get a job you damn homeless man! Who cares if you were turned out by the mental health system to live on the streets? If I can do it so can you!

Bob Jones University is a fun place. I've always wanted to have a field trip of interracial GBLT couples visit thier campus. I've always wanted to call and ask about thier Gender Studies or Queer Theory programs.

hell yeah!
ORU is an option too!

This is entirely correct. And it's the perfect example of how a situation where it would be completely appropriate for reprimanding a professor - because he or she would be entirely negligent in his duties as a teacher if they spent the entire class doing nothing but ranting about politics and not actually teaching calculus. However, if a capable math professor finishes his lecture with a joke that makes fun of Kerry or Bush, or says something like "please make you sure get out and vote" I hardly think that's inappropriate - and yet that's exactly what passage of Horowitz's idiotic manifesto (just the most recent in a long line of poorly conceived ones by him) will make sure is banned in the interest of being "fair and balanced."

i'll take that you said i had good points as some kind of victory

but to respond...

re: corporations and responsibility. you're right, a university isn't EXACTLY a corporation (though - most private schools actually ARE technically). yes, corporations are answering to things like the bottom line and shareholders - where in a lot of ways personal politics doesn't matter. BUT, original corporate charters *did* involve some notion that the corporation was serving the 'public good.' and, huge corporations have a huge impact on daily life - by dumping (or not dumping) toxic waste in the river, by hiring (or not hiring) women & minorities, by investing (or not) in other companies, and so on. it seems that those choices would not only impact all of us in a big way - raising legitimate questions about accountability - but would also be choices where politics/ethics/morals *would* matter.

second, as to conservative persecution in the academy ... people keep saying that it exists. but i'm not sure that it's established at all. at best, there is a tenuous argument that "college classrooms are not welcoming to conservatives HENCE they do not pursue graduate degrees." but is that really the case? honestly, i've *never* seen a conservative student get a beat down in class. i've seen plenty of conservative students challenged in class .... but i've seen lots of liberal students challenged too. i mean, that's the point of that space isn't it? to challenge you? make you think? if they were just there to reassure you were right .. what would be the point of higher ed?

if i had to float a theory ... i would suggest that graduate programs are hard for people that are *dogmatic.* there are a few kooky hardcore marxists still running around. there ARE faculty that are ideologues absolutely - on both sides of the fence (but probably more on the left, just b/c more lefties seem attracted to these kinds of jobs). but a lot of folks in graduate school are more moderate than folks argue. they are vocal critics (and to be fair - that is incorporated into the job. a good academic never likes ANYTHING). but that same critical eye means they are rarely dogmatic. so, they sound outlandish - b/c they're always pursuing some original critique - but they are also thoughtful and careful, which balances that out. i know that graduate education has mellowed *my* politican stances - and thinking of my colleagues, i'd have to say i'm not the exception.

those conservatives that get beat up? i'm willing to bet 90% (or more) of them make outlandish claims that have nothing to do with realistic policy and that they cannot back up with good argumentation or meaningful evidence (and no, what your sister/cousin/grandfather said happened to his friend 30 years ago is *not* systemic evidnece of anything). [and the same goes for those on the left] dogamtic statemnts get stripped down in classrooms (as well they should - again that's the point of college]... and thus domatic types don't stick around for graduate education. just as true on the left i would bet (b/c they're convinced everyone is a sellout not doing enough to fight the cause - so they become activists & lobbyists).

are there more conservative dogmatics than liberal ones? prolly not. BUT they are making a bigger stink about it right now. why? if i had to guess ... it's about making a fuss to get attention for political power. it's the kind of thing that floats with constituents. it's some remanent of the passe culture war.

i go to school with conservative types ... in a ph.d program at a major university. there are conservatives who do this job. not as many of them as liberals .. but that seems to be by choice. there are a few random claims of people getting denied this or that b/c of ideology .... but i just find it really hard to believe. nothing has really been established by any kind of reputable source - no trend of behavior, at least so far as i know (this doesn't mean that this HASN'T happened ever - i'm sure it has. but people get fired/punished for shitty reasons in every fields. a few extreme cases a trend does not make). professors are judged - primarily - on their publishing (which is determined by quality of method, original/interesting thinking, and substantive findings - subjective, but more objective than people assume). that mostly speaks for itself. either people are doing sound work or they are not. i'm tired of pundits who know nothing about how academics works explaining how we're opppressing people. they should just go back to covering britney spears.

Haha... it's all good. And don't worry, unless I'm informed, I don't vote.

nail on the head. student republicans here at UCI tried to use the same sort of "research" with voter registration of half of 3 departments to imply causality in hiring practices for the whole school. right-wingers only apply functionalist arguments when it works in their favor: "people want to be poor." I've got no doubt that conservatives favor the private sector because it pays better.

Boulder also has a pair of Nobel prize winners,a boatload of world class endurance athletes, some damn good winter athletes and a whole host of pretty innovative technology companies.

Fuck, I sound like the chamber of commerce.

i dont want to go to any university that censors its professors on a level like that.

on the other hand, if i feel a professor is abusing their position and is straying too far from the objectives of the class, i can make a complaint about it & it will be heard.
come on, do we have put bumpers on everything? people are supposed to be exposed to different opinions when they are in a higher education setting. so they can investigate their own and learn how to deal with others.

If republicans want to try to 'unite' this country then they're not doing a very good job of it!

Yes, politics should be kept out of discussions when politics has no bearing on the subject. However, few subjects are completely politic free. While I'll concede that say, mathematics or engineering generally aren't too political, sociology, anthropology, history, political science, biology, economics, literature, Judaic studies, all regional studies programs, public administration (just to name a random few), are.

Professors gather data, form opinions from that data and then share those opinions, that's their job, it's what we pay them for. Prohibiting professors from expressing their learned opinions in the class room both neuters their profession and abolishes any possibility of a student receiving a higher education.

In short, fuck Horowtiz.