Posted on 10/15/2007 8:04:06 AM PDT by shrinkermd
Indoctrinate U”’s thesis is contained in its title. You may think that universities are places where ideas are explored and evaluated in a spirit of objective inquiry. But in fact, Maloney tells us, they are places of indoctrination where a left-leaning faculty teaches every subject, including chemistry and horticulture, through the prism of race, class and gender; where minorities and women are taught that they are victims of oppression; where admissions policies are racially gerrymandered; where identity-based programs reproduce the patterns of segregation that the left supposedly abhors; where students and faculty who speak against the prevailing orthodoxy are ostracized, disciplined and subjected to sensitivity training; where conservative speakers like Ward Connerly are shouted down; where radical speakers like Ward Churchill are welcomed; where speech codes mandate speech that offends no one; where the faculty preaches diversity but is itself starkly homogeneous with respect to political affiliation; where professors regularly use the classroom as a platform for their political views; where students parrot back the views they know their instructors to hold; where course reading lists are heavy on radical texts and light on texts celebrating the Western tradition; where the American flag is held in suspicion; where military recruiting personnel are either treated rudely or barred from campus; where the default assumption is that anything the United States and Israel do is evil.
This is a large bill of particulars – but hardly a new one; Alan Bloom, Dinesh D’Souza, Roger Kimball, Charles Sykes, Lynne Cheney, Alan Kors, Anne Neal and David Horowitz, among others, precede Maloney – and while each of the complaints is presented as equally weighty, some are more significant than others and a few are red herrings.
(Excerpt) Read more at fish.blogs.nytimes.com ...
280 words in this excerpt and no sign of a point anywhere on the horizon.
Fish would argue that the meaning of the text is clear only to the author . . . as a reader, you are incapable of discerning it, so don’t bother.
Think so?
Perhaps Pinch's & his boyz' motivation's (more) rooted in economics than actually serving the interest(s) of those who remain their paying subscribers? :o)
If one's even remotely savvy on the American political scene --from a conservative POV-- just try contemplating what it'd take for this ilk to break away from THEIR usual *&* continual Liberal-Sociliast-Communist orthodoxy they've spewed for decades.
While if there's actually been a shift, it has a perfectly logical reason but most assuredly has nothing to do with anything they'll ever say.
"Political correctness as a litmus test for academics is under fire and increasingly so. So much so, even liberals are abandoning it."
~huh.
They are?
...pray-tell, where?
On the NYT in respect to “political correctness.” Changes in attitudes are not ordinarily sudden, but, rather, very gradual and hesitating.
I would suggest you steel yourself and read the article. Basically, it is a review of an impending movie release. As such it is hard to excerpt. If you can do better, please do so.
Stanely Fish is the father of PC. He brought the whole deconstructionist view of the world to Duke University when he headed the English Department. It is sheer duplicity to pretend to believe that he is against “Indoctrination U” since he helped create it. He’s just trying to wipe away the layers of tarnish on his sordid image as a ideological hack.
Did you write the article? Or did Stanley Fish?
Are you taking credit for his inability to come to a point? Or are you just looking for an excuse to be offended?
Are you Stanley Fish? If so, congratulations on your decision to bail out of Duke when you did. I'm glad you moved further south, as it took you farther away from me.
Suggest you keep moving in that direction. South America beckons!
Got'cha, Doc.
Read it in a totally different context.
Mybad.
While you're absolutely correct [it] is weird this would appear in the rag, nonetheless I can't help but being skeptical of their motive.
Leopards, spots and all that. (g)
"Changes in attitudes are not ordinarily sudden, but, rather, very gradual and hesitating."
Amen to that.
Still Doc I've followed things political for years and I never heard of anything leading to a right-wing ideological mindset as happening incrementally, either.
*That* kind of xformation usually happens in a polar opposite way like a bolt of lightening.
...right outa the blue. ;^)
One of the best episodes EVAR.
Burgess Meredith was a true treasure.
Yes, a very good point. I had forgotten who he was. Even more of a hint that political correctness will soon no longer be seen as proof positive of moral superiority.
Rats leaving a sinking ship and all of that.
Good post. Thank you.
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.