Calling All Hombres

OpinionJournal ^ | 3/4/2006 | NAOMI SCHAEFER RILEY

[Republicanprofessor]

What about post-tenure review? Do you have that? This is, I think, our second year of post-tenure review, and I am interested in what will happen to very weak professors. We know who they are: how they ignore kids, teach poorly, sign up for committees with no intention of attending meetings, do no research, etc., etc.

I fear the union has agreed to this soley so that they can demand more money. There is a provision for raises if the materials meet certain levels, and we all know how unions love to sue if the administration disagrees with the union stance. (As an aside, I think union leaders can be some of the most short-sighted, childish people imaginable....but that's another thread...)

Re hiring committees: I have been on many, probably because I do the work well. I like to see good people hired, regardless of politics. I expect many of them were liberals, but more moderate and certainly not ideologues. They have also proven to be good teachers and they do listen to my alternative ideas.

Having tenure and my final promotion as full professor helped to give me the power to speak out on FR.

I have to quibble with the definition of manliness: "confidence in a risky situation." I think women can show this too. But I have no problem with men and women being "defined" in ways that emphasize their inherent differences. As a woman, even a strong woman, I do see incredible sexism out there. I think the feminists try to be as strong as men, but what they also need to do is to value what women do very well: nurture their families, whether full-time or part-time. Feminists tend to dismiss traditional homemakers to their detriment. Young women nowadays thrive on their choices. My generation was told that careers were the only valid choice, with the result that some waited too long to have families and feel cheated.

Enough ranting for now.

[mcvey]

I certainly don't disagree with you. I would also suggest that, at least among my more radical colleagues, they have a feeling of superiority and they enjoy it. If they are working to "save" people that means they are capable of doing what the average person is not--or so they believe.

Like you, prices are subject to change. But: the US is so obviously functional and has worked for so many, that I have never understood the almost furious hatred so many in academe have toward the US.

McVey

[Mind-numbed Robot]

I agree about the elitism. It had slipped my mind but that is a definite part of it. They do like to preen in their faux morality.

Although it is hard for me to believe they truly believe what they say, I could be projecting. Maybe having transcended God gives them that superior feeling. They have stared down the fearful false image, in their minds.

The thing that makes me feel that way, and that the superior attitude is nothing more than a charade, is the history of Communism and the tactics they espouse. Lying and deception as standard fair would seem hard to support. Surely they can't think taking down the greatest, most militarily and economically powerful country and freest civilization in modern times and replacing it with a failed murderous system is "for out own good".

[Dashing Dasher]

I'm waiting for someone someday to say that the status and roles of men and women are equally important and equally treasured. :)

Don't hold your breath.

[RightWingAtheist]

I noticed a curious thing last year regarding the inconsitency of the anti-Summers brigade, even among scientists. Biologist and raving far-left moonbat PZ Myers (webmaster of the scientifically-sound but politically-boneheaded Pharyngula blog) called Summers a "moron" and an "ignoramus". Discrimination is 100% responsible for any sexual disparities in the sciences, bellowed Myers, and nurture thoroughly trumps nature in intelligence. He finished up by suggesting that women everywhere kick Summers in a certain part of his anatomy. Cosmologist and fellow far-left blogger Sean Carroll (formerly of Preposterous Universe, now at Cosmic Variance) said that Summers' statement was so stupid, that only an economist could make it, which says more about Carroll's ignorance of economics than Summers' knowledge of biology. But what happened when Paul Krugman said that that the reason most scientists are liberals is that conservatives are too stupid to be scientists? Hey, that's just the way it is, said Myers. Good academics are naturallyliberal, declared Carroll. Now, I don't any statistics immediately at hand, but what is the percentage of conservatives in science like compared to the percentage of women scientists? In all likehood, there are far more conservative scientists than there homosexual scientists, but would we ever see the likes of Myers or Carroll declare that gays and lesbians aren't naturally inclined towards science? (one curious thing I've noticed is that lesbian scientists seem to be more numerous than gay male scientists).