Skip to comments.When Academic Snobs Attack
Posted on 02/25/2005 9:02:58 AM PST by MikeEdwards
Some may say its nothing to laugh about but I cant help but find humor when the snobs of the academic elite find themselves mired in paradoxical hypocrisy. One can almost smell the heat from their cerebral wheels, the publicly funded oil burning away, as they try to come up with an explanation of why they are between such a rock and a hard place. It reminds me of the old Bill Cosby bit about the student who asked his Catholic teacher the hypothetical question, Father, if God can do anything, can He Himself make a rock so big that He cant move it? All the priest could say was Sit down, Don.
If, for the sake of analogy, our liberally slanted education community is a ship that ship is listing so hard to port all it can do is sail to the left. An image of a disabled vessel constantly drifting to port, doomed to an eternity of increasing insignificance comes to mind. Within one of these seven circles of Dantesque liberal hell is the paradox of Lawrence Summers and Ward Churchill.
Unless you have been too caught up in the non-reporting of the facts by the mainstream media, you know that liberal activists on our college campuses are in an uproar over two of their own; Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard University, and Ward Churchill, a professor from the University of Colorado. Both of these men having made controversial statements find themselves engaged in battles involving their First Amendment free speech rights. . . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at therant.us ...
"liberally slanted education community is a ship that ship is listing so hard to port all it can do is sail to the left."
haha great comment.... Ship of Fools is more like it
port wine is red.... a clensing of the American Academia is in order.
George Carlin, not Cosby, did the bit about the rock.
it used to be prior to ww2 that college instructors were not as visible in american life. no one cared much what they did, nor interacted with them. colleges were islands.
college graduates went into business, government the military, etc. and those from "normal schools" or teaching colleges went on to teach at public schools. the latter had more interactions with the public than the former.
the post-ww2 economic boom changed that. in the 1960s a college education increasingly became a necessity, as our reliance on manufacturing lessened and our dependence on information began and steadily increased.
a college degree promoted social mobility. the degreed became consumers of various levels, some higher up on the food chain than others. successful graduates shopped at up-scale clothiers, shopped for imported autos (rebelling against their parents' cadillacs and lincolns), and shopped for organic food. it's no accident that ads for trader joe's sound like npr.
what one ate became an indicator of social class. those at the top of the food chain drank french wines and ate french cheeses.
meanwhile, colleges promoted the idea that those associated with them were better than others.
now for the mind-blowing idea--mostly democrats, college faculties promoted themselves as "for the working classes" and "for the po'".
i grew up on a dairy farm. my college friends used to come out and look at the cows and laugh at the smell of the manure. this fact dictated that i never stray too far from my origins.
Before World War II, college professors weren't visible (I guess you mean important)? Huh? Woodrow Wilson might disagree with that.
You've also confused the college educated who laugh at those of us who do real work with the faculty who work at colleges. The former are, I suspect, by and large, the children of pretty wealthy folks who're in college to get a degree to make some more money. The later are people who're interested in educating the next generation and are (relatively) modestly paid. The faculty are working pretty hard to keep bread on the table, just like a lot of other folks. They're not laughing at others who're working, too.
you didn't read or comprehend what i said.
There is a lot of truth in what you are saying. Most college professors are still invisible. The mainstream media promote the radicals. Tenure favors the radicals. It gives them a bullet-proof career while they try to destroy America. The worst of it started during Viet Nam. The hippies of that era are often tenured professors now.
Tenure is a major problem and should be abolished.
College professors vary according to profession. A physiology professor is going to be much more conservative than the average psychiatry professor. Business professors are more conservative and saner than art history instructors.
There are many who jeer at farming but I cannot imagine a more demanding and difficult job, combining the meddling of government, the whims of nature, and the power of the major food cartels.
But then, they dont fire teachers for not teaching these days, now do they.
Absolutely LOVE it.
Salvato makes a good point about the conundrum of the left. They want Summers' head and they want protection for Churchill.
But do conservatives have the same problems?
I don't understand how the university can justify keeping Churchill on board. He is teaching lunacy. Yes, he can be dismissed for lying on his job application, for violating nepotism rules, and other infractions. But his real offense is his uselessness as a teacher or a thinker. He has resided outside the bounds of propriety. There is no intellectual justification for his teachings, and he should be dismissed.
Summers, on the other hand, made a logical supposition based on empirical observations. The left is attacking him because his deductions do not agree with their religious beliefs. Their priests are persecuting him because he has come to logical conclusions that are heresy.
Ken21, you wrote "prior to ww2 that college instructors were not as visible in american life. no one cared much what they did." Woodrow Wilson was a college professor, then college president, then president of these United States of America. I'd say that he was visible and he mattered. What didn't I understand?
Summers' comments are abominably stupid.
There is no evidence that any differential in innate ability "trumps" socialization or discrimination at the highest levels of math of physics. He presented that as true and described tenured female physics/math hires as "marginal" -- marginal! Only 4 of the 55 tenured faculty members in math and physics at Harvard are women, and even then they get to be called marginal?
Conservatives should be for equality of opportunity. We're not talking about affirmative action here, we're talking about equality of opportunity. The controversial part of Summers speech -- and it's rightfully controversial -- isn't the mere suggestion that there may be a gender-based innate differential (there's surely some science to suggest that for math and physics and fields that use spacial imagery), but his further suggestion that socialization / discrimination weren't much factors in the academy at the top tenure level!!
2.4 percent of all Asian American women score about 750 on the SAT
1.2 percent of all white males do
There is *no* -- repeat *no* -- science to suggest that Asian Americans have an innate differential ability in math. They are socialized/brought up to study and focus on such things. That socialization "trumps" gender when comparing Asian women to white guys -- indicating that socialization remains a potent force in lagging female math performance.
In fact, to reach the conclusion Summers did, he had to walk on and ignore some very basic science. Women were 4 percent of all Math/Physics PhDs in 1970 and they are 18 percent now. Does nature change that fast? Or are women in the process -- in this great country, which advocates equality of opportunity -- of overcoming historically discriminatory attitudes in these fields? How exactly does Larry Summers explain this 14 percent shift in 30 years? Surely nature/evolution doesn't work that fast? How is he so certain there's no more discrimination in math and physics at places at Harvard -- for there surely is, both when it comes to women and race.
I'm ashamed at the many comments I've read about this at this website, labelling all who criticize Summers as radical feminists. You only have to be for equality of opportunity to pick the right side on this one, and it's not Summers.
My boyfriend says that conservatives are better for women's rights than democrats because we don't treat people as "groups" but as individuals.
Prove it. Give a moment's thought for the individuals who are female in the scenario and stop labelling them all radical feminists. I've got news for you: women who do graduate-level work in math and physics are more likely to be Republicans. Y'all are just hanging them out to dry -- and in defense of a Clintonista -- and it's really, really disappointing to me.
I do worry about the attitude of many here towards women. Especially, frankly, talented women.
cc: Some talented women
Skipping over the fact that your one piece of anecdotal evidence is hardly "proof" that Ken21's point (which I agree with) is invalid, I wonder why you conveniently left out the fact that Wilson served as governor of New Jersey prior to becoming President. He was also PRESIDENT of Princeton for many years in between being POTUS and a simple college professor.
Somehow I would think his presidency at Princeton and, more importantly, being governor of NJ raised his visibility on the national level much more than his being a simple teaching professor - which he hadn't done for years prior to entering the White House anyway.
From reading your (anecdotal) point, one would think Wilson was teaching PoliSci 101 one day and then taking the oath of office as POTUS the next.
Need to be a little better than that around here newbie.
P.S. Tolerance Does Not Suck Rocks. Tolerance for people who are different from you and just as smart is a good indicator of civilized behavior. Really people.
Oh spare us the sermons! As used around here, the above criticism of "tolerance" clearly relates to that word's current usage by the PC crowd to mean acceptance and even advocacy of any and all positions, as opposed to its more specific meaning. This PC usage also usually carries with it the labels of bigot, homophobe, racist, etc. for anyone who doesn't exhibit this "tolerance".
And pray tell, do you actually believe that, if not for the influence of "the patriarchy" there would actually be an equal split between men and women in ALL profesions? If so, how long have you been a radical feminist?
You write: "This PC usage also usually carries with it the labels of bigot, homophobe, racist, etc. for anyone who doesn't exhibit this "tolerance".
Then you suggest: That I am a radical feminist.
I repeat: tolerance does not suck rocks. You should try some, label-guy.
"now for the mind-blowing idea--mostly democrats, college faculties promoted themselves as "for the working classes" and "for the po'"
Straight up! That's a really good analysis. And most college professors really do think they are "of the people" and they are some of the most smug, insular, leftist elitists around.
P.S. Oh, and by the way, some of these smug elitists in the math and physics departments *do* treat women as members of groups rather than as individuals and don't provide equality of opportunity. Little fact. I think *that's* elitist too.
So please, just answer the question. Do you believe this also?
"I appears you are one of the many with reading comprehension problems."
I just thought I'd repeat your post. It's just reflective of the tenor of debate of conservatives on this one.
And no, I won't answer your silly "test" for you to determine whether I'm a radical feminist. Pshaw -- I kinda assume that just by suggesting that conservatives should rush to defend a Clintonista who is speaking out against *equality of opportunity* and speaking contrary to raw facts such as the SAT stats that show socialization is still a potent force in math and physics -- that you've already made your call.
Well, no matter. America is a great country. 30 years ago we were discussing whether women should major in math at elite schools. 15 years ago, it was whether they could go to graduate school in math and physics. now it's whether they can get tenure at elite universities at anything other than a drip-drip rate. always, the concern raised by elitist, democratic men has been treating women as "groups" and ignoring individual female performance. one would hope better of conservative men, but you guys aren't delivering.
ultimately, I'm with Ken21 -- Harvard's just one school, and seriously why should anyone care just because the Harvard-educated elite thinks Harvard's important. best math and physics isn't happening at Harvard anyway
oh, and sweetie, next time you such that I have intellectual limitations which prevent me from grasping your point, you might want to be forewarned that you have no idea who you're talking to. It might -- gasp!! -- be a female who's a whole lot smarter than you.
there's a frightening thought. go lose sleep over it
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.