Help me battle my teacher's indoctrination

[Seether]

I am taking several political science classes this semester for my minor, and one man happens to teach two of my classes. During the classes he likes to ignore essentially all that is in the book and talk about current events which he leads into the propagation of his beliefs, which seem very socialistic. While I normally am relatively quiet in classes, the things this guy says forces me to be active just to try to cut some of the bs out and at least show another view point. Also, one class is a constitution study class which all teachers need to take so he is in a sense influencing many future teachers. So onto his points.

He consistently refers to Enron and the sub prime housing collapse as failures of the "unregulated free market".

My full knowledge of the Enron fall is limited so I have not been able to challenge him on that point at all, but I was thinking this.... The accounting of public companies is regulated, if someone lies on the financial sheets they are breaking the law, thus it is not a failure of regulation, it is a crime. Much in the way that the murder of people is regulated by laws although some choose to break them? Is this a decent argument?

Then he speaks of the sub-prime lenders and how they screwed over people (he also mentioned how lenders would help people set up fake jobs to get approved for the loans). My retort to this argument is that the transaction was based on free will and that the people getting these loans should have looked into the details before getting loans they can not afford.


He also advocates the redistribution of wealth from the "capitalist who harnesses the labor of society for his gain" and wants an increase in taxes. He named off a bunch of people making 20 million+ a year and said they should be paying more, and cited that the 95,000$ ceiling on social security tax is not fair. He also advocates the creation universal health care, and criticized Bush's veto by comparing it to iraq war spending. He has also asserted that with the government managing social security there is a 1% cost of handling the money, yet if it was done privately there would be a 20-30% fee.

When he was going on his rant of the need for more programs I made the following statement, which is slightly paraphrased.

"The largest social program instituted by the gov was social security, which there are now giant predicted short falls in the future, and it is likely that everyone in this classroom will have no chance of seeing a dollar from social security, how can the government be trusted to make socialized health care viable"

I feel like he kind of dodged the answer as he said there was 5 trillion in IOUs in social security from the government because they had spent the money and then he made some comment about military spending.

I stated that that shows that we can not trust the government with holding our money in to which he went into an anecdotal story of an old friend of his who never wanted to pay social security tax, dodged it, and is now being supported by his wife who is 70 and still has to teach to support her husband. A total dodge of my question.

Like many advocating massive social programs he mentions the Scandinavian countries such as Norway and Sweden as essentially Utopian societies which we should model our social programs.

A lot from what I have read on these boards has led me to believe that it works there due to having a smaller homogenous population, but he was saying they have a large amount of immigration like the US. (Although I have heard it is very hard to immigrate there).

I'm kind of lost on an argument here other than our countries demographics makes it not viable?

I'm sorry if this post doesn't come across the best but I just can't handle this guy's massively socialist arguments be given a pulpit to speak to hundreds of students and no one at least trying to address the other side of his arguments. Any comments/criticism on the arguments I have used is appreciated and any firepower to send back my teachers way is greatly appreciated. I'd like to address his foreign policy views as well but I'll see how this goes at first. Thanks for any contributions.

[saucyspade19]

well, google Ward Churchill for starters. Professors do not have the right to just spout rhetoric and propaganda in the guise of fact, and you are well within your rights to report him to the university.

There is some student equal unbiased rights or something that came up a lot during the Ward Churchill debacle, that would be another good place to start.

However, your best bet is to fly under the radar in the class. Don't peg yourself out as a nonbeliever in class discussion, but rather an "admitted lehman" on his topics. Act like you are interested and consider his thinking valid. Write your papers toward his bias even if you don't believe it, and get a good grade while trying to get him removed.

[iron81]

What is the other class he teaches? The OP has very little shot at getting the professor fired: if a professor is teaching a Poli Sci class, he may give his opinions on Poli Sci. Churchill was not fired for his radical views, but rather for plagiarism.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
The OP has very little shot at getting the professor fired: if a professor is teaching a Poli Sci class, he may give his opinions on Poli Sci.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he teaches his opinions as reality instead of as his opinions and fails to provide other opinions, he should be fired. Seriously, reporters strive to be biased and fail, but the need for impartiality in a reporter is absolutely nothing compared to the need for it in a political science teacher. Of any job anywhere, these are the people who should have the most neutrality! (or at least be capable of showing other points of view)

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The OP has very little shot at getting the professor fired: if a professor is teaching a Poli Sci class, he may give his opinions on Poli Sci.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he teaches his opinions as reality instead of as his opinions and fails to provide other opinions, he should be fired. Seriously, reporters strive to be biased and fail, but the need for impartiality in a reporter is absolutely nothing compared to the need for it in a political science teacher. Of any job anywhere, these are the people who should have the most neutrality! (or at least be capable of showing other points of view)

[/ QUOTE ]

Political science is one of the more fluid behavioral sciences, there are very few "right" answers so impartiality is going to be hard to come by.

By the way, others have said it but he's right on Enron, it's a failure in the market, but that happens. Nothing is perfect.

Cody

[Seether]

The other class he teaches is an introduction to foreign relations class. I am not trying to get him fired, but I would like for some of my classmates to understand that maybe they shouldn't take his words as gospel simply for the sake that he is a teacher (which I feel many do).

He happens to be Hungarian and immigrated many years ago, so I feel that his roots likely have a huge effect on his opinions.

[PLOlover]

SS is a good question.

can I answer this. first in dollars then in inflation adjusted dollars maybe.

a guy works and pays SS from 1960-90, retires and draws benefits from 1990-2005, then dies.

how much he pay in at max rate? min rate?
how much he draw out if he paid max? min?

single?married?

in actual dollar amounts? in inflation constant dollars?

[PLOlover]

not sure if this is in inflation adjusted dollars.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/feature...;CL_FIRSTTIME=1

[ QUOTE ]
You can expect to pay $290,392 in Social Security taxes over your working life for retirement and survivors benefits. For those taxes, you can expect to receive $2,088 a month in Social Security retirement benefits. Your rate of return under today's Social Security is 1.03%.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Customize your data for better results by clicking on the pencil icons in the "Your Information" box.
Information Value Edit
Age: 65 Edit
Gender: Male Edit
Zip Code: — Edit
Current Earnings: $100,000 Edit
Life Expectancy: 81.00 yrs Edit
Retirement Age: 66.00 Edit

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/feature...;CL_FIRSTTIME=1

[ QUOTE ]
You can expect to pay $61,931 in Social Security taxes over your working life for retirement and survivors benefits. For those taxes, you can expect to receive $855 a month in Social Security retirement benefits. Your rate of return under today's Social Security is 3.38%.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Customize your data for better results by clicking on the pencil icons in the "Your Information" box.
Information Value Edit
Age: 65 Edit
Gender: Male Edit
Zip Code: — Edit
Current Earnings: $15,000 Edit
Life Expectancy: 81.00 yrs Edit
Retirement Age: 66.00 Edit

[/ QUOTE ]

so 15 years retirement
paid in max min
290k 61k
15 year payout max min
376k 154k

so 10 years retirement
paid in max min
290k 61k
10 year payout max min
250k 103k

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
SS is a good question.

can I answer this. first in dollars then in inflation adjusted dollars maybe.

a guy works and pays SS from 1960-90, retires and draws benefits from 1990-2005, then dies.

how much he pay in at max rate? min rate?
how much he draw out if he paid max? min?

single?married?

in actual dollar amounts? in inflation constant dollars?

[/ QUOTE ]

Starts working at 20 and retires 30 years later at 50? That's some damned early retirement.

[Low Key]

..Zomg I went to college and they tried to show me a point of view I don't already belive in! ZONOES!! Quick, call Sean Hannity and get that kid who had to watch An Inconvenient Truth on the air with me!

[ QUOTE ]
He happens to be Hungarian and immigrated many years ago, so I feel that his roots likely have a huge effect on his opinions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just like yours do.

[ QUOTE ]
maybe they shouldn't take his words as gospel simply for the sake that he is a teacher (which I feel many do)

[/ QUOTE ]
If you really feel it's that important, why not just sit down with each of them and have that talk where you explain how one person can't possibly know everything.

My last PolSci class had a small hint of conservatives, a dab of liberals, a large cross section of people who really could care less what the teacher was talking about. (My teacher happened to be liberal, but he always pointed out when he was inserting his particular bias)