next »

[concerned grad student]

I certainly agree with Randy that administrators should not allow activities that disrupt academic discourse on campus to proceed; free speech must mean free speech for those with whom we disagree.  However, unfortunately Randy's entry is deeply flawed, because disruptive behavior is only a small part of the current problems at our universities.

Randy hopes to abolish talk of partisanship from the debate about appropriate expression on campuses, writing, "In regard to political activity on campuses, we should not even be talking republican/ democrat, etc."  This formulation fails to understand the serious problem of politicization that already exists on our campuses.    

Recent statistics have shown that faculty members in the arts and sciences on U.S. campuses are overwhelmingly on the left of the political spectrum.  I would argue that the effects of this imbalance are very harmful and concern even many of us who are liberal. Many classes and institutionally sponsored panel events on campuses across the country are presenting partisan perspectives when current political issues are raised.  In addition, as many students have testified, some faculty members are using the classroom for political persuasion.  Those who raise policy issues for discussion are sometimes constricting the range of views discussed in a partisan manner.  Institutionally sponsored campus panel events often skew to the left or far-left, meaning that students are being denied a chance to hear the full range of reasonable arguments on a number of important issues; frequently omitted views include conservative and pro-Israel ones.

Randy's solution is ultimately no solution at all, for by forbidding the discussison of "conservative" and "liberal" on campus, he would take away the means of conservatives to complain about their exclusion from the campus discourse.  The 50% of the U.S. population who are Republicans have reason to be concerned that institutions are often not presenting their good arguments when political debates are raised.  Not only is the campus marketplace of ideas impoverished at present by the exclusion of good conservative arguments, but I believe that conservative graduate students are at a strong disadvantage in many fields.  In my experience they often won't find like-minded professors with whom to work.  I also think that the current faculty imbalance affects graduate admission and funding decisions.  And as Mark Bauerlein has recently argued, some classes and sub-fields are grounded on partisan (left or far-left) assumptions, and so some classes will appeal almost entirely to those on the left.  

I wonder if Randy has met any of the many conservatives who speak of having had their academic careers cut short by the political bias of their academic colleagues.  For such people, Randy's effort to allow academic "politics as usual" to proceed with no serious changes would be both superficial and grossly unjust.  

It is becoming increasingly clear that intellectual diversity is needed on our campuses to include worthy people and ideas who are currently excluded from campuses.

[Randy]

I am certain you missed the point.    The point is that
university administrators (or other leaders) should be
not allow public political displays at games, performances, etc.

As to Republican/Liberal/Conservative/Democrat, I still
favor having a bi-party system composed of two not so
surely distinct units that intend to field good candidates
with plans to address public issues and that are capable
of cooperating with others to insure ongoing government
operations.  Would you rather have extreme factions
divided into groupings of like behaviors that are easily
manipulated by the truly insensitive selfish who have
no actual committment (other than financial) to anything?

For they K.C. reporter who wants to know if public schools
are being stolen to become private schools, I offer that
it seems syndicates of schemers are trying to convert
anything they can into whatever they can dream up
regardless of the insult or expense to others.  Why not
colleges or universities?  However, the swing will surely
turn the other way after the schools are built up and
then ripped off.   Usually, at that point, states step in
and acquire schools on the publics behalf.

[%sig%]

[John Garner]

QUOTE....
"I am certain you missed the point. The point is that
university administrators (or other leaders) should be
not allow public political displays at games, performances, etc."

Surely you are not suggesting that leaders in colleges and universities not be allowed to lead.

In the article the question of funding of post-secondary institutions raises it's ugly head.

The public schools in our country are supported by property taxes and state taxes. In areas that have low property values the tax revenues for schools are lower. To maintain equity, the state must send funds collected from income taxes to make up the difference. However, the tendency of states to cut this equalizing cash flow has created a two-tiered system in public education of the haves vs. the have nots. The regressive tax system tends to over-tax low value property, also. That does not play well on election day. Politicians are aware of this, for the most part.

You say that...

"However, the swing will surely turn the other way after the schools are built up and then ripped off. Usually, at that point, states step in and acquire schools on the publics behalf."

With the system that is called public education and it's current situation you should perhaps re-think the desirability of your state acquiring your school in the public's behalf.

I can tell you now that for different reasons higher education funded mostly by public means is in for a very bumpy road financially for the forseeable future. Remember, usually education must balance its books and not accumulate debt.

The only exception could be community colleges, but in most states even examples of this will be few and far between.

My point is that you will probably soon start seeing the closure of some post-secondary institutions that have to be acquired by states. There is simply not enough money to go around and raising tuition will soon put the public college and universities on a par tuition-wise with more prestegious private institutions, especially those that have considerable private support. This will cause enrollment declines that will worsen the impending doward spiral.

Property taxpayers and those controlling the state educational dollars will always foot the bill for public school systems before they will universities and colleges. For the most part preferencial treatment is built into the taxing structures. However, even public school systems in some states are looking at significant cuts in funding that will have to be made p by creative taxing scenarios other than property taxes because property taxpayers are not happy, especially the poorer ones.

Otherwise, states will face the very real possibilty of the Supreme Court declaring their entire taxing and funding structure for their public education structures unconstitutional.

If this happens in your state you may want to consider moving to another. However, choose carefully the state to which you move.

[Randy (misunderstood person)]

Sir:

Both you and the previous person that responded
to me seem to have read something into my writing
that I did not intend. There have been women in
my life that would use their end of the telephone,
during phone calls with me, to create an incorrect
perception of whatever our conversation was about
to others that were  in their "physical" presence. Yall's
remarks seem to mirror that tact. Can you say
"casting aspersions?"

Maybe then, in the text of my remarks,  I "hit" on something  that needed to be masked by a damage control effort .  I did note that I am of the opinion that unscrupulous, dastardly syndicates of  people were
trying to take over any type of organisation that could allow diversion of resources to those that take over the organisation. Is this new? NO! Is it currently the bandwagon the blighters in western civilization are
riding? YES!

Leader's lead. They don't gouge. They don't allow
resources of the institution that pays them to be
drained. They don't allow "actual" unfairness or
injustice to prevail. They do not allow the few to
mislead the many. They do not allow the many to
abuse the few. Leader's lead!


 
 
 

      Forum List  |  Go to Top  |  Search  
 
 New Topic
 Name, Title/Institution:

[%sig%]

[Prof-O-Matic]

And the silent majority centrist taxpayers are paying the salaries of the so-far-right-they're-horizontal-String-
up-the-Dixie-Chicks-for-daring-to-exercise-free-speech-while-
grandstanding-that-Iraqis-and-Afghanis-now-have-the-freedom-to-
criticize-their-governments-little-orange-stickers-on-textbooks-
and-waste-time-legislating-freedom-fries public servants.
It all balances, out, doesn't it?

[Another concerned grad]

I second the comments by concerned grad student: Being politically to the right myself and currently working toward a PhD, I am concerned about the kind of negativity and hostility I may have to face for some of my positions and interests, which I *will* voice from time to time, in the most kind, articulate way I can.  I'm afraid that even with that I may be isolated from potential mentors and fellow students.  

Maybe one should try the "change starts with me" idea.  If you define yourself as politically to the left, at least try being more sensitive to the fact that your more conservative students and colleagues might have a valid point about something, and don't automatically assume they are evil knuckle-draggers.  Maybe then those who are more conservative-minded will feel more at home in the university environment, and we can have *evidence* to show the public that things are more balanced.  Sure its going to take years and a ton of work, but let it start on the individual level.

[another oregon faculty]

Mark, you are exactly why so many people believe the academy has become so radically leftist and outside the mainstream.
Here's the last sentence of your entry:

Mark Lusk-faculty-Oregon State wrote:


> A key
> element of contemporary American conservatism is its deep
> anti-intellectualism.
>

It is the arrogant, holier-than-thou attitude you display that people are getting sick and tired of. People in the mainstream---yes, that's contemporay American conservatism---are fed up with having their country denigrated and trashed by the oh-so-enlighted-academic-elite.

Well oregon is the place for you. We have a democrat controlled state with a govenor who is out to lunch. We have "the ladies (used sarcastically) of hawthorne" who tried to jam gay marriage down the throats of the state citizens. We haven't had a Republican govenor in this state since jimmy carter was in the white house. The legislature is getting more and more tax-and-spend liberal and the faculty at OSU, UO and PSU are positively giddy with delight.

You people make me sick.