who lied?

[NCAces]

I looked around and didn't see the post I thought I had made with the empirical evidence that you want. Must not have posted it by accident. So, here you go ... empirical evidence you want, empirical evidenc you shall get (that proves the anecdotal evidence):

Survey

Intellectual Takeout - make sure to read references at the end of article

WallStreet Journal

The Harvard Crimson

NCAces

[kickabuck]

[ QUOTE ]
I looked around and didn't see the post I thought I had made with the empirical evidence that you want. Must not have posted it by accident. So, here you go ... empirical evidence you want, empirical evidenc you shall get (that proves the anecdotal evidence):

Survey

Intellectual Takeout - make sure to read references at the end of article

WallStreet Journal

The Harvard Crimson

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the links. Appreciate your reasoned argument, learned something. I think one could reasonably refute the 'conservatives oppressed' assertion, however Devaut's approach smacks of a kid who just learned a new concept who unfortunately is not much of a critical thinker. His rantings only enforce this opinion. I enjoy getting the Left's perspective on this forum, but I think I won't waste my time with this guy.

[Copernicus]

You can post our 7 sources and 50 more, thats just 60+ "anecdotal" experiences that "arent factual". At this point Devaut is just trolling. He cant possibly have made his last post and been sirios. (pun itended)

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I looked around and didn't see the post I thought I had made with the empirical evidence that you want. Must not have posted it by accident. So, here you go ... empirical evidence you want, empirical evidenc you shall get (that proves the anecdotal evidence):

Survey

Intellectual Takeout - make sure to read references at the end of article

WallStreet Journal

The Harvard Crimson

NCAces


[/ QUOTE ]


First, let’s begin by noting that all 4 links you provide rely heavily on a single survey (the one cited in the first link) – the ACTA commissioned ‘College Students Survey’, performed at the University of Connecticut.

Allow me to first dismiss the last two links off-hand; they contain nothing but descriptive reporting of ACTA Survey (in other words, they’re nothing but redundant repetition of the same information presented in the first link) – the WSJ editorial (the third link) accompanies some selective reporting of the ACTA College Student Survey, followed by commentary from ACTA president – along with more anecdotal evidence in the form of quotes from anonymous students. The fourth link (an article published in the Harvard Crimson) is similar – it contains some results found in the survey, along (similar to the WSJ editorial) with commentary from the ACTA president. The Harvard Crimson article also contains some anecdotal quotes from students at Harvard (this time, most of the quotes involve students disavowing that their professors interject their biases into the classroom).

What’s important to note here is not that the survey is flawed; in fact, it seems as if the survey was done professionally and adheres to the strict standards and methods of scientific polling. I think some of the questions are poorly worded, and don’t specifically address typical claims of biases (that is, many of the questions don’t get at the heart of whether or not they face ideological discrimination) – but having said all that, the survey accomplishes what it was designed to do.

What I do believe is flawed, however, is how the results of the survey were framed by ACTA’s president, Anne Neal – which, when coupled with the gross mischaracterization of the survey by the WSJ editor, combined to make a highly misleading case. Specifically, Neal claims in the WSJ editorial: “"One case of political intolerance is too many…But the fact that half the students are reporting [some] abuses is simply unacceptable.” As I note below, none of the questions in the survey would lead us to claim ‘half the students report abuses’ – using the word ‘abuses’ purposefully implies that students were somehow actively aggrieved or aggressively mistreated. The survey does not ask it’s respondents if such incidents occurred – although that doesn’t stop Neal from subtly implying that it did. The sub-title of the editorial, “Liberal Professors Routinely Harass Conservative Students” is wretchedly disingenuous. The ACTA survey (which was at the heart of the editorial) in no way, shape, or form asked respondents if they had been harassed by professors, be they liberal or conservative! Not surprisingly, the claim that ‘liberal professors routinely harass conservative students’ is only substantiated by a litany of anonymous quotes and similar anecdotal evidence.

It’s also important to note that ACTA is not a partial, bipartisan, agenda-less organization; it was created by Lynne Cheney in the 1990s with the stated goal of “ending multi-culturalism and affirmative action on American campuses”. A publication which focuses on news in American higher education, InsideHigherEd profiled the funding sources and agenda behind ACTA:

---------------------------

“The degree of interconnectedness within this network of organizations is considerable but almost invisible to the casual observer. For example, when ACTA’s president, Anne Neal, introduced herself to the Select Committee on Academic Freedom in Higher Education in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, she presented ACTA as “a bipartisan network of college and university trustees and alumni across the country dedicated to academic freedom.”
Full disclosure should have required some mention of the fact that ACTA (see funding sources above), which changed its name from the National Alumni Forum in 1998, was established by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute in 1994. The Intercollegiate Studies Institute in turn evolved from William Bennett’s Madison Center for Educational Affairs and the Institute for Educational Affairs founded by Irving Kristol, Michael Joyce’s mentor, and William Simon, the first president of the John M. Olin Foundation. Bennett and Kristol also sit on ACTA’s Board of Directors. The remarkably consistent record of funding across all of the incarnations of this organization and the high degree of redundancy with Horowitz’s own, highly partisan Center for the Study of Popular Culture is not consistent with Neal’s definition of ACTA as an independent, non-partisan organization.

Another example illustrative of the quietly incestuous nature of this network is presented by an article by the Boston Globe columnist Cathy Young. The article is entitled “Liberal bias in the ivory tower” and by all appearances is an independent opinion piece written by a regular Globe columnist. At the end of the article Young identifies herself as “a contributing editor at Reason Magazine.” What is undisclosed in the article is that Reason Magazine is the publication of the Reason Foundation, whose funding sources are virtually the same as those funding Horowitz’s “Academic Bill of Rights” project and Neal’s ACTA.

Young’s premise for the article is stated in her opening sentence: “Yet another study has come out documenting what most conservatives consider to be blindingly obvious: the leftwing tilt of the American professoriate.” The study that she references was conducted by Stanley Rothman, now emeritus professor at Smith College; S. Robert Lichter, emeritus professor at George Mason University; and Neil Nevitte of the University of Toronto, and was published in the online journal Forum. This study was also cited by Neal in her testimony in Pennsylvania. Young does not inform her readers that Rothman is director of the Center for the Study of Social and Political Change, a center with funding sources that are remarkably redundant with Horowitz’s Center for the Study of Popular Culture. Lichter is also president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, which again has funding sources that are redundant with those referenced earlier.

In addition, a recent article in Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting is highly critical of Lichter’s research methodology. Another example of such conflicted interests is provided by Professor Thomas Reeves. When Reeves writes in strong support of Horowitz’s proposals on the History News Network, he fails to note that he is a spokesman for the California Association of Scholars, a branch of the National Association of Scholars (see funding sources above) and that he is director of the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, which was, again, brought into being by the Olin and Bradley Foundations.

This manufactured drumbeat against “academic bias” is amplified by Stanley Kurtz of the Hoover Institution (see funding sources above), Heather MacDonald, a John M. Olin fellow at the Manhattan Institute (see funding sources above), and Brian C. Anderson, editor of the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal and a former research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (see funding sources above).”

---------------------------

In other words, ACTA is indeed one of the many right-wing propaganda organs ‘astroturfing’ as an ostensibly non-partisan organization with non-existant grassroots support; that isn’t to say their survey methodology is flawed in the “College Students Survey”, which is presented in the first link – in fact, the survey is relatively simple, and wasn’t conducted by ACTA at all – but certainly, the conclusions reached by ACTA (and its president Anne Neal, who is cited in both ) should certainly be questioned as originating from a non-objective position.

Lastly, and this is vitally important in the midst of this discussion: while polling can often be informative (in that is allows us to gauge what perceptions are) – frequently popular perceptions are faulty and subject to the same problems of ‘observer bias’ that anecdotal evidence from lone observers presents – that is, merely citing that “this is popular perception” STILL fails to demonstrate empirical realities – in the same way that claiming the Democrats policy for the future of Social Security is great because “polling shows that people love the Democrats’ Social Security plan” doesn’t mean that Democrats’ Social Security policy is necessarily prudent or objectively beneficial to the same populace that wants its adoption.

On that note, let’s begin investigating the survey:

[ QUOTE ]
Survey

[/ QUOTE ]

"On my campus, some professors frequently comment on politics in class even though it has nothing to do with the course."

First, this question doesn't necessarily apply to whether or not students feel bullied in class. It merely asks if politics are discussed in classes where it might be out of scope. It's certainly not indicative of any kind of bias, other than professors perhaps enjoy making political comments. The respondents aren't asked if they feel their professors are biased. Regardless, here are the results:

Strongly Agree - 14%
Somewhat Agree - 35%
Somewhat Disagree - 26%
Strongly Disagree - 24%

I'm not really sure what this is meant to demonstrate; it appears as if 50% of students feel as though their professors make irrelevant political comments in class. That may be interesting, but it hardly indicates biases or ideological discrimination.

“On my campus, there are courses in which students feel they have to agree with the professor’s political or social views in order to get a good grade.”

Strongly agree - 7%
Somewhat agree - 22%
Somewhat disagree - 22%
Strongly disagree - 46%

Looking at the results, almost 70% of respondents disagree (with nearly half strongly disagreeing) that they must concur with their professors’ political views to receive a good grade. Again, I’m not sure that is indicates widespread ‘bullying’ by professors, particularly since so many student disagree that they must adhere to ideological homogeneity.

"On my campus, some panel discussions and presentations on political issues seem totally one-sided."

Again, this question doesn't queue the respondent to take into account which biases are being overly-represented in panel discussions and presentations. Having said that, many panel discussions and presentation on campuses are funded and organized by groups with political agendas (both right and left wing). This question has little to do with the biases or 'pressure' asserted by the faculty on the student body. Having said ALL that, only half of the student body feel as if the political content they're exposed to in panel discussions and presentation (which again, may be organized by student groups with political agendas who are under absolutely no obligation to present 'both sides'). Here are the results:

Strongly Agree - 15%
Somewhat Agree - 33%
Somewhat Disagree - 24%
Strongly Disagree - 23%

"On my campus, some professors use the classroom to present their personal political views."

Again, this question doesn't ask the respondent what kind of views their professors are presenting; are they right-wing sentiments? Are they left-wing views? This question doesn't approach that. Even so, only 1 in 10 students feel strongly that professors behave this way (which hardly suggests a climate of ideological fear and repression on campus); more than half of students polled report that their professors don't behave this way -- 3 times as many students feel strongly this doesn't occur as those who feel it does:

Strongly Agree - 10%
Somewhat Agree - 36%
Somewhat Disagree - 24%
Strongly Disagree - 29%

" On my campus, some courses have readings which present only one side of a controversial issue. "

This is a relatively poorly worded question. The way the question is framed suggests that the some of the course material only presents one side of an issue, not that the all of the course material assigned presents one side of an issue. In other words, it suggests that works which are perfectly acceptable to assign in a classroom, such as Friedman's A Monetary History of the United States, fail to present 'both sides of the issue'. This is not indicative of bias or ideological 'bullying'. It merely states (which should be obvious) that many of the works which form the foundation of knowledge in the Western world have a strong point of view.

Even if we examine the question as the surveyors probably intended for it to be asked (which I believe is something along the lines of "courses assign reading material that only presents one side of a controversial issue, and fails to assign reading material that addresses the other side the issue" -- even then, more than half of the respondents fail to acknowledge such a phenomenon exists (where again, the number of students who strongly disagree almost triples those who strongly agree -- which I think would fall well short of 'systemic ideological discrimination' by any impassioned observer):

Strongly Agree - 12%
Somewhat Agree - 30%
Somewhat Disagree - 26%
Strongly Disagree - 28%

The next set of questions are all related, and strike more closely at the heart of whether or not there is 'ideological discrimination' or 'liberal professors bullying conservatives', but certainly don’t come close to approaching those claims:

“ On my campus, some professors make negative comments about President Bush in class.”

Strongly Agree - 26%
Somewhat Agree - 42%
Somewhat Disagree - 16%
Strongly Disagree - 14%

“ On my campus, some professors make positive comments about President Bush in class.

Strongly Agree - 3%
Somewhat Agree - 24%
Somewhat Disagree - 34%
Strongly Disagree - 34%

“ On my campus, some professors make negative comments about Senator Kerry in class.”

Strongly Agree - 1%
Somewhat Agree - 16%
Somewhat Disagree - 32%
Strongly Disagree - 47%

“ On my campus, some professors make positive comments about Senator Kerry in class. ”

Strongly Agree - 16%
Somewhat Agree - 46%
Somewhat Disagree - 19%
Strongly Disagree - 13%

“ On my campus, some professors make positive comments in class about liberals.”

Strongly Agree - 27%
Somewhat Agree - 47%
Somewhat Disagree - 13%
Strongly Disagree - 10%

“ On my campus, some professors make negative comments in class about liberals.”

Strongly Agree - 1%
Somewhat Agree - 14%
Somewhat Disagree - 34%
Strongly Disagree - 49%

“ On my campus, some professors make negative comments in class about conservatives.”

Strongly agree - 11%
Somewhat agree - 36%
Somewhat disagree - 29%
Strongly disagree - 22%

“ On my campus, some professors make positive comments in class about conservatives.”

Strongly agree - 3%
Somewhat agree - 31%
Somewhat disagree - 38%
Strongly disagree - 23%

“ Do the student evaluation forms of the faculty ask about a professor’s social, political, or religious bias?”

Yes - 3%
No - 83%
Don’t know - 14%

So what kind of picture do we have drawn for us here? 68% of students feel their professors have made negative comments about President Bush – but almost 30% report having their professors make positive comments about President Bush; and nearly 20% of students report hearing their professors make negative comments about Senator Kerry while in class – another question, “On my campus, some professors make positive comments in class about liberals/conservatives”, produces similar results. More than 70% of students report hearing positive things about liberals – but 35% of students report hearing positive things about conservatives. 45% of students claim to have heard negative things about conservatives in class, but 15% report hearing negative things about liberals.

What this survey does, at best, is legitimize the notion that students feel as if there is a liberal bias on campus (specifically, we can narrow it down even further; using the disparities between the results of the last set of questions that ask specific questions about political bias – namely, that somewhere between 3 to 4 of every 10 students perceive there to be a liberal bias on campuses). That’s a far cry from claims about systemic abuse and harassment at the hands of liberal professors against conservative students. The questions asked in the survey mention NOTHING about ‘bullying’, ‘abuse’, ‘harassment’, etc. – and ask only about the perceptions of biases that exist among student bodies. To claim that this survey indicates widespread persecution or ideological discrimination is the demagogic exaggeration at its worst. That the WSJ editorial board took this survey and concluded liberal professors are ‘harassing’ conservatives is patently obvious misrepresentation of what conclusions we can take away from this survey.

Let’s now turn to the second link you post:

http://www.intellectualtakeout.com/a...tent.asp?id=19

‘Intellectual Takeout’ is a project of the Center for American Experiment (http://www.amexp.org/), which is a right-wing Minnesota think-tank. ‘Intellectual Takeout’ is a project of CAE, and its goals are as follows (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:grhiyMhq0KUJ:http://www.startribune.com/dynamic/story.php%3Ftemplate%3Dprint_a%26story%3D5552104+" the+latest+crusade+for+the+center"&hl=en&i e=UTF-8):

“When classes resume at Minnesota colleges in September, the Center of the American Experiment, Minnesota's newly recharged 15-year-old conservative think tank, will roll out an ambitious project called Foundations for Active Conservative Thinking (FACT), an assault against the perceived leftist domination inside the ivy walls.

The primary weapon will be a website called Intellectual Takeout, an arsenal of policy arguments designed to help conservative students challenge the alleged liberal orthodoxy in academia on issues ranging from global warming to globalization to the global war on terror.”

Now, when this entire debate began, I specifically said:

“By all means, cite some non-right-wing-propaganda organ”

…and yet here we are. You cited 4 links. Two of the links are clearly information provided by right-wing propaganda organs, while the other two links are merely narrative reports that detail the information found in one of the aforementioned right-wing propaganda pieces.

I made the caveat ‘don’t cite a right-wing propaganda organ’ because right-wingers have this strange and inexplicable habit of only managing to cite information from right-wing propaganda organs. It’s almost as if you guys are purposefully tying to create some kind of ‘echo-chamber’, in which a relatively small quantity of information and research produced by openly-biased researches is repeated and cited ad nauseum by other openly-biased commentators, pundits, observers, etc.

But I digress.

Let’s inspect the site:

“STUDIES SHOW COLLEGE FACULTIES ARE PREDOMINANTLY LIBERAL

Empirical studies of faculty ideology and political orientation show not only that college faculty are predominantly liberal, but also that the imbalance is only growing worse. One 1984 study estimated the proportion of self-identified liberal professors at 39 percent, well above the general population’s rate of 17 percent (Rothman 2005). A 2005 study, published in The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics, estimated 72 percent of faculty identify as liberal—a remarkable shift since 1984 (Rothman 2005).”

First, and I must reiterate this, because it seems as if red-herring have slowly crept into this debate: but none of this is indicative of conservative students being ‘bullied’ or ‘harassed’ by liberal professors.

Second, Rothman’s study has been sternly critiqued by other scholars as being of flawed methodology, and for Rothman’s refusal to submit his data to the rest of the scientific community:

http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss2/art7/

“Do conservatives suffer discrimination in academe? In “Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty,” Rothman, Lichter, and Nevitte argue that “conservatives and Republicans teach at lower quality schools than do liberals and Democrats.” Using a survey of 1643 faculty members from 183 four-year colleges and universities, they conclude that their results are “consistent with the hypothesis that political conservatism confers a disadvantage in the competition for political advancement.” In this response, we show that Rothman, Lichter, and Nevitte’s work is plagued by theoretical and methodological problems that render their conclusions unsustainable by the available evidence. Furthermore, we offer an alternative hypothesis theoretically consistent with their findings. Unfortunately, we were unable to subject our alternative hypothesis to empirical assessment (or even to replicate the initial results of Rothman, Lichter and Nevitte) since they have refused to make their data available to the scientific community.”

Specifically:

“The 1984 Carnegie study used a three-point spectrum to classify faculty: liberal, moderate, conservative. In that study, already 39 percent of respondents classified themselves as “liberal,” but since Rothman-Licther-Nevitte used a five-point political spectrum, it is possible that many of those who classified themselves as “moderates” in the 1984 Carnegie study (25 percent in total) were actually “liberal moderates” who have now been numbered among the “liberal/left” in the five-point 1999 study. This means that the shift to the left over the past 15 years may not have been as sharp as Rothman et. al. propose.”

Rothman even admits the un-compelling nature of his work here (http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss2/art8/), in a response to the critics of his study:

“…liberals have a statistically greater chance of reaching the top tiers of the profession, but this could easily occur on the basis of a widely distributed pattern of occasional instances, without there being either a conscious intention to discriminate or a strong pattern in the hires or promotions of any individual department.”

While I think Rothman’s study certainly has some value, it’s fair to say its value is highly questionable, given that Rothman himself drastically downplays the results of his own work.

Next come 15 bullet points from ‘Intellectual Takeout’ that imply large-scale liberal biases on college campuses, but do little to support the claim that liberal faculty actively harass or bully conservative students. Let’s examine the bullet points:

“Professors who use class time to present politically biased information. In a survey of students at 50 top U.S. colleges, 49 percent said professors “frequently comment on politics in class even though it has nothing to do with the course,” 48 percent said some “presentations on political issues seem totally one-sided,” and 46 percent said that “professors use the classroom to present their personal political views” (American Council of Trustees and Alumni 2004).”

Again, this is merely citing the information found in your first link. I think it’s clear the conclusions drawn here (that “professors use class time to present politically biased information”) is highly dubious and doesn’t withstand any kind of rigorous scrutiny (for the reasons outlined above).

“Professors who require students to agree with their political or social point of view in order to get a good grade. A survey of students at 50 top U.S. colleges found 29 percent of respondents believed their school had courses where grades depended on agreeing with the professor (American Council of Trustees and Alumni 2004).”

Once more, we have another citation of the same survey (commissioned by ACTA) – and once again, we see that the conclusions implied (“YOU MUST BE LIBERAL TO GET A GOOD GRADE!!!”) are drastically overstated and doesn’t come anywhere close to corresponding to what objective observers would conclude from that the survey question and the respondents answers.

“Students silenced in the classroom by professors who openly mock and intimidate them. Students at Columbia University charge they have been intimidated by anti-Israel professors (Gershman 2004).”

This is a highly contentious claim; that is to say, this incident has been much documented in various mainstream media outlets (and I say incident, because ‘Intellectual Takeout’ claims students have been intimidated by anti-Israel ‘professors’, despite the fact that only one such incident has ever been reported and investigated). In fact, the New York Times editorial board and Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner were the two loudest voices criticizing Professor Massad (the professor in question) – with Weiner going as far to say Massad should be summarily fired for being ‘anti-Israeli’. Having said all that, it’s erroneous to claim this is somehow an instance of a ‘liberal’ professor ‘attacking’ a conservative student, given that there’s no indication the students in question were in anyway conservative (in fact, it’s apparently an open question as to whether or not the ‘students’ were even registered at Columbia). Also, it was a Democratic Congressman and an ostensibly left-leaning news outlet (which the NYT is, at least according to the right’s narrative) that led the charge against Massad.

Nevertheless, Columbia performed an independent investigation of the incident (with help from noted First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams) and concluded that Massad had committed no wrongdoing:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/05/0...ee_report.html

“Professors unfairly criticize and joke about conservatives and Republicans (Hebel 2004; The Yale Free Press 2004).”

Here is the story behind what ‘Intellectual Takeout’ claims constitutes ‘intimidation’:

http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i23/23a01801.htm

“Gerald Wilson, a history professor at Duke University, says a student's question on the first day of class last semester caught him off guard: "Do you have any prejudices?" Unsure what the young man meant, Mr. Wilson decided to reply with a joke. "Yeah, Republicans," he recalls saying. (He found out later that the student was asking about writing styles.) "Everybody laughed," the professor says. Well, not quite everybody.
Matt Bettis, a senior in the class, thought the comment among others was inappropriate and sent an e-mail message to Mr. Wilson telling him so. The professor apologized to Mr. Bettis”

Yes, clearly very intimidating, and indicative of widespread bullying. [/sarcasm]

“Faculty denied career advancement due to biased hiring and promotion policies. Applicants may not be hired if they appear “too religious” or “too conservative” (Adams 2004).”
The evidence for this is merely an editorial at TownHall.com, which details various anecdotal stories collected by the author:

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu.../02/11878.html

I don’t think it necessary for me to reiterate the meaninglessness of such tripe.

“Conservative professors are denied promotions, tenure, grants, and fellowships (Jacobson 2004; Lee 2002).”
The first of these articles cited is the following (Jacobson):

http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i05/05a00801.htm

This is, again, another article ripe with anecdotal evidence and low on anything resembling empiricism. Even Jacobson, the author, admits that empirical evidence on the subject of bias on campus is limited at best:

“The numbers of conservatives and liberals in academe are hard to come by.”

The second citation is merely a commentary from the right-wing American Enterprise Magazine, which is full of nothing but more anecdotal evidence:

http://www.taemag.com/issues/article...cle_detail.asp

“One study analyzing survey data of professors found that Republican and conservative professors with academic credentials equal to those of their more liberal colleagues were less likely to teach at prestigious colleges. The study also found that women and religiously observant Christians are also disadvantaged (Rothman 2005).”
The Rothman study has been critiqued above; as I noted, even Rothman doesn’t stand-by the far-reaching generalizations that some commentators (like the WSJ editorial page and ‘Intellectual Takeout’) have attributed to his study.

“Professors and administrators demeaned and ostracized by peers for expressing alternative viewpoints. Conservative professors can feel like social outcasts and often believe their peers perceive them as "evil" simply because they are conservative (Jacobson 2004).”

This is the same article cited earlier. Again, nothing but a collection of anecdotal evidence from a few professors. This bullet point is more or less a redundant declaration of some other bullet points (specifically the last one). Given that ‘Intellectual Takeout’ cites the same article (which, as noted, has a relatively dearth of empirical evidence), I’m not exactly sure we can take anything away from this.

“In 2005, the Harvard faculty denounced and berated their president, Larry Summers, because he dared to posit that gender differences, caused by socialization and biology, might explain the scarcity of female professors in the sciences, as opposed to hiring discrimination (Thernstrom 2005; Wisse 2005).”

Another well reported incident that deals little with ‘liberal’ professors bullying conservative students. Intellectual Takeout acts if Harvard faculty moved to universally ‘denounce and berate’ Summers, despite the fact that one segment of the Harvard faculty (Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences) had an extremely close vote (218-185) to support a motion that states a “lack of confidence” in Summers (which amounts to nothing more than a non-binding slap-on-the-wrist). Given that the Harvard faculty was highly divided on even issuing a non-binding vote of ‘lack of confidence’, I think it’s (again) terribly disingenuous to claim “THE Harvard faculty” (as if it’s some monolithic body that acted in a unified manner) ‘berated and denounced’ President Summers.

Lastly, there’s nothing that indicates this involves a situation of ‘liberals berating conservatives on campus’, since President Summers was a former Clinton cabinet member and is ostensibly a ‘liberal’.

“Professors restricted from publishing papers and research based on politics and ideology. In a nationwide survey of college faculty, only 40 percent believed politics and ideology did not restrict what a scholar may publish (Huber 1997).”

Here is the study Huber presents:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/ncpi/d...yattitudes.pdf, Table 145

...it must be noted, also, that while this is a nationwide suvery of ‘college faculty’, the study was limited only to community college professors:

“In this country, there are no political or ideological restrictions on what a scholar may publish”:

Strongly Agree – 13%
Somewhat Agree – 27%
Neutral – 19%
Somewhat Disagree – 34%
Strongly Disagree – 7%”

First, the survey responses were somewhat inaccurately framed; namely, while 40% believe politics and ideology DID NOT restrict what a scholar may publish, only 40% believed politics and ideology DO restrict what a scholar may publish, as 20% were neutral on the question.
Only 7% of respondents believe ‘strongly’ that there is ideological restriction on what may be published; having said that, the question doesn’t probe what kind of perceived ideological restriction is placed on scholars; it merely asks ‘ideological restriction’. We can certainly imagine that many university publishers will likely refuse to publish some papers and research; consider that many of universities are rely upon the generosity of its alumni and the community at large to receive funding, it’s not surprising that they will refuse to publish some research (that is, even universities who embrace the spirit of intellectual openness are still subject to market forces, and are therefore obliged to respond to some parts of their ‘market’, namely large donors); this doesn’t mean they censor conservative speech, however (as Intellectual Takeout subtly implies).

What this question leaves the door open for (and what I’m sure many of the respondents to the surveys were imaging when they answered the question) are professors and researchers who produce papers and research that may reflect so poorly on the university that they (they = the university) may be hesitant to publish it – namely, vehemently anti-Semitic or otherwise ‘race’ studies that advocate eugenics, or papers titled “In Support of Chattel Slavery”, etc.

The survey doesn’t ask what kind of political or ideological restrictions 40% of scholars feel are placed on them, so we’re only left to guess.

“Student and faculty speech censored through speech codes (Marklein 2003). The University of Connecticut censors “stereotyping” and “inappropriately directed laughter;” Colby College censors speech that causes a loss of self esteem (SpeechCodes.org).”

Speech codes are highly controversial within the academic community, and again have little to do with a conservative/liberal divide, or with ‘conservatives being bullied by liberal professors’, since speech codes apply to everyone on campus, not merely conservatives. Second, groups that are considered highly liberal by the right (the ACLU, for instance) have vehemently opposed the creation of speech codes on campus. Third, overly-broad speech codes have been struck down as unconstitutional (including a famous case involving a speech code at my alma mater, the University of Michigan). I certainly have my own personal disagreements with speech codes, but they can hardly be claimed to burden conservatives anymore than they burden leftists on campus.

“Annual issue-based student conferences that promote only one side of an issue. Examples include the racist White Privilege Conference held annually at Central College in Pella, Iowa, and the peacenik-dominated Nobel Peace Prize Forum held annually by an association of Lutheran colleges in the Midwest (Nelson 2005).”

First, the article cited is merely an editorial that appeared on IntellectualTakeout.com; that is, Intellectual Takeout CITED ITSELF. Second, as noted, it’s merely an editorial. There are no citations. There is no empirical evidence. It’s merely a diatribe by one of the editors. Not only is it patently ridiculous for Intellectual Takeout to cite itself, but for Intellectual Takeout to cite an editorial that contains little to no verifiable information is the height of dishonest information peddling.
Third, the White Privilege Conference is a private conference that is sponsored by a local, private high school in Seattle – universities around the country have agreed to host the conference in the 7 years of its existence. It’s in no way part of any student’s curriculum, and students are under no obligation to attend (the host college in 2005, Central College in Iowa, wasn’t affiliated with the conference and merely provided facilities). There are thousands of such private events held at colleges and universities every year. They in no way relate to whether or not conservatives are ‘bullied’ on campus by liberal professors. In fact, aside from the fact that the event is held on a college campus (and some professors choose to attend and speak), this event has relatively little to do with bias on campus.

For instance, the University College Republicans, with co-sponsorship from the DC Federation of College Republicans and the Young America's Foundation hosted ‘Take Back Georgetown Day’ (http://www.tbgd.org/home.html) , where (gasp!) only right-wing speakers like The Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes, National Review’s Jonah Goldberg, and Republican Majority Whip Roy Blunt were invited to talk! Completely one sided! And it was hosted at “the Intercultural Center on the Georgetown University Campus” !!!! ZOMFG liberals were harassed, abused, and bullied, I’m sure!!!! This proves right-wing bias on campus without a shadow of a doubt! It’s a completely one-sided event! [/sarcasm]

Please. This is how college campuses operate. Campus facilities are frequently used by private groups (particularly student organizations) to host all kind of events, where blatantly partisan and ideological groups are allowed to control who gets to speak and who doesn’t. Again, no students are obliged to attend, and certainly no one is ‘bullied’ by faculty.

Lastly, A peacenik-dominated forum about peace? Does Intellectual Takeout expect them to invite warmongers to balance out the peace message of the “Nobel Peace Prize Forum”? I don’t even understand this one.

“Teach-ins orchestrated by professors to influence students to adopt their viewpoints. At a six-hour anti-war teach-in, with about 30 professors speaking, Columbia University anthropology professor Nicholas De Genova said he would like to see “a million more Mogadishus,” referencing the 1993 deaths of 18 American soldiers in the Somali capital (CNN 2003).

Again, another highly-publicized event that has little to do with ‘liberal professors bullying conservative students’ on campus:

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/North...essor.somalia/

First, one the event’s organizer completely disavowed himself of De Genova after the event:

“Eric Foner, a history professor at Columbia who helped organize the teach-in, said Genova's statements were "reprehensible" and represented neither the views of the event's organizers nor the antiwar movement as a whole.”
As did Columbia University:

“The university issued a statement saying De Genova "was speaking as an individual at a teach-in. He was exercising his right to free speech. His statement does not in any way represent the views of Columbia University."

Speaking of the University administration, the aggrieved parties appear to be liberals who couldn’t receive a hearing with Columbia University President Lee Bollinger:

“The next day, Cartelli and a group of approximately students 50 students tried to deliver a letter to Lee C. Bollinger, Columbia's president, asking him to issue an official statement opposing the U.S.-led war in Iraq.
The students at that time were denied access to the Low Library building, which houses the offices of the president, but were permitted to later meet with Robert Kasdin, senior vice president at the university.”

Later, Bollinger issued a statement about De Genova’s comments:

“Lee C. Bollinger, sayd he is "appalled" by the anthropology professor's "outrageous comments.”
Again, this is another incident of an event held on campus but outside of the classroom. While the anti-war event was organized by Columbia’s faculty, only 30 professors attended (which is a miniscule portion of Columbia’s faculty) – and again, no students were obliged to attend, and certainly, no students were ‘bullied’ or ‘harassed’. Given that the President of the University and even the other professors who attended the event immediately rebuked De Genova, this can hardly be claimed to be indicative of typical behavior of college faculty (especially since faculty that went to the lengths of organizing the event derided De Genova).

Intellectual Takeout’s characterization of the incident: “At a six-hour anti-war teach-in, with about 30 professors speaking, Columbia University anthropology professor Nicholas De Genova said he would like to see “a million more Mogadishus,” referencing the 1993 deaths of 18 American soldiers in the Somali capital” – by claiming ’30 professors were speaking’ but failing to note that the professors who organized the event strongly criticized De Genova, Intellectual Takeout implies that De Genova’s position was held by all of the faculty who spoke, which is, yet again, terribly disingenuous at best and abjectly dishonest at worst.

“ROTC programs banned from campuses by faculties who disagree with U.S. military policy. ROTC bans discriminate against students who agree with U.S. military policy and who wish to pursue ROTC. Most recently, Columbia University faculty voted to maintain their longstanding ban of ROTC (Wall Street Journal 2005).”

Many universities have non-discrimination policies; the ROTC operates under the Defense Department's rules prohibiting homosexuals from participating in the armed forces. Ergo, such rules prohibit gay and lesbian students from joining Army, Navy, and Air Force ROTC programs – and violate many universities’ non-discrimination policies, therefore they prohibit ROTC programs on campus. This certainly doesn’t ‘discriminate against students who agree with US military policy’.

Again, another highly-publicized controversy that seems almost gleefully misrepresented by Intellectual Takeout.

I'll address the last 5 bullet points later. I'm tired right now. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I apologize in advance for any typos, incoherent diction, awful grammar, etc.

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll address the last 5 bullet points later. I'm tired right now. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I apologize in advance for any typos, incoherent diction, awful grammar, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good, God, man ... don't bother, it really doesn't matter that much to me. It took me all of 2 minutes to find the survey and sites ... I didn't expect you to spend hours digesting them. Take a break and go play some poker, or something.

NCAces

[Your Mom]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes I know what anecdotal means thank you, you want to dismiss it precisely because of the nature of anecdotal evidence. So it is not in the realm of possibility because there hasn't been a 20 year study on the subject?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, how [censored] dare I ask for something more than anecdotal evidence? Empirics are for suckers.

[/ QUOTE ]

A bunch of liberal profs aren't going to do a study showing their own biases. That's why you won't get something empirical.