Indoctrination U

[Heather]

David Horowitz has a new book, entitled Indoctrination U. Its about American universities, and liberal professors who stiffle and punish students with differing opinions.

Quite an interesting topic.

In 2003, David Horowitz began a campaign to promote intellectual diversity and a return to academic standards in American universities. To achieve these goals he devised an Academic Bill of Rights and created a national student movement with chapters on 160 college campuses. Take No Prisoners is a riveting account of the reaction to Horowitz's campaign by professor unions and academic associations, whose leaderships have been taken over by the political left.


When I started college, I was a tad naive. I thought university was about the open and free exchange of ideas, and the rationale, that differing opinions made for a better learning experience.

I actually had a polisci professor give me a lower grade, because he didnt like my politics. It was on a paper I worked very hard on. I believe his exact words were, "You make an interesting argument, and make a nice point of proving your thesis. But you're political convictions leave me baffled."

Im sorry, I thought you were grading my writing, and ability to prove my thesis. Not my political beliefs.

And that is just one example of the bias I faced as a Conservative at a liberal campus.

Im glad this book is out there. People need to realize that even if you dont agree with someone politically, it doesnt mean they deserve your scorn. I had open minded liberal professors who were welcoming, and I love to this day (and still talk to). I also had liberal professors who used the classroom as a podium and rammed their beliefs down our throats. I find that disgusting.

An educator should leave their politics at the door, not judge students by whether or not they agree with an agenda.

[Webeh]

^ I went through something like that in high school, except the political beliefs were flipped. Went to a Catholic schools, which are generally seen to be more on the conservative side. So yes, I've had marks suffer because I'd write a paper touting a more liberal perspective. That definitely was not fair whenever it happened. (Oddly enough, some of my more open teachers were religion teachers. I was at least thankful for that.) I've eventually learned to imitate for the sake of marks.

Heather, I do see what you mean. Universities in general are a more liberal environment. Especially in the arts. So, it's bound to be harder to argue a conservative argument.

Many (if not most) TAs and professors hold liberal views. (Well, they do in my school.) As a result, they instinctively respond negatively to opposing viewpoints (as does everyone else). That definitely is not the way to mark essays/exams because it unfairly penalizes students with differing opinions. So, I think this needs to be addressed by having profs hire two TAs to do the marking. One is conservative and one is liberal. You divide the marking this way or have both mark everything.

[everwoodisfab]

^ my Dad is a uni professor and the university he teaches at has a policy where EVERYTHING is marked at least twice and an average grade is agreed on... really important pieces of work can even be marked three or four times.

[Ashlyn]

I've faced the same thing, except backwards, in high school.

My high school even paid for an assembly in which the speaker bashed gays, vegetarians, the media, people from other religions, and used a picture of a partial-birth abortion to represent all abortions. This same assembly was being shown to the junior high.

I walked out, with two friends, and we were the only ones in the entire student body who did. Afterwards, other students screamed at us, and some teachers did NOT hide there hatred.

In middle school, my history teacher told us that liberals didn't even believe we should be able to have an American flag.

... and now, in college, I have a professor who, for whatever reason, hates JFK and has labled his death as "the best thing to happen to civil rights."

So, needless to say, I'm against political bias in any direction, especially when it's aimed at very impressionable children.

That being said, I also feel that, in some subjects, there will be issues raised that are political in nature, but relevant and required. For intance, in my sociology class, when we spoke about stratification and inequalities, we addressed stratification against homosexuals, and the topic of gay marriage came up because it's the perfect example of stratification.

I know some of my conservative classmates got pissed off about this, seeing gay marriage as stratification, along with racist & anti women policies, but I really thing that arose more from them not understanding how to defend their point, rather than a liberal bias.

.... sorry if that last paragraph doesn't make a whole lot of sense. My point is just that there are some topics, like racism, sexism, etc., that do have a political nature that must be taught, and can sometimes NOT be taught objectively.

My high school history teacher didn't feel the need to quiet my classmates' opinions that African-American people should still be slaves, for instance, and if those same kids tried that stuff in a college classroom, I'm sure they would end up claiming the class had a "liberal bias."

PS. I'm not comparing your situation to the other, Heather. Your example is completely valid for the other direction!

[Kari]

well...actually I believe it does absolutely not matter whether those professors are liberal or conservative. To say anything else would be rubbish...it just depends on the perspective.

I agree absolutely with what you say, Heather, but being liberal myself and having experienced the opposite as well as many others, I would just like to remark that this issue is just as severe from the other side. Maybe some universities are more liberal and then it is appalling when conservative students have to suffer from it, but the opposite exists and is just as bad.

I have experienced extremely biased teachers, sometimes I profited from it, sometimes not.

The thing is neither should happen. Teachers are teachers and not politicians. if I want to be manipulated I watch FOX news..(kidding there).
They should be objective and judge your academic achievements not your opinions.

[Webeh]

.... sorry if that last paragraph doesn't make a whole lot of sense. My point is just that there are some topics, like racism, sexism, etc., that do have a political nature that must be taught, and can sometimes NOT be taught objectively.

I think this is true also. In these subjects, I think it would be irresponsible to teach in a manner that would encourage anything less than acceptance of diversity. Preaching hate would not be doing anyone favours.

However, on other subjects (such as capital punishment) I think professors should make an effort to try to portray arguments from both sides. This is the best way to encourage free-thinking.

[amberdawn]

Wow, interesting read.

Right now at my University, my Biology professor absolutely HATES when someone disagrees with Global Warming and the topic of God versus Science (I'm only bringing this up since a fair amount of conservatives, if not most, don't believe in Global Warming). He doesn't let anyone with a different belief speak out. It's rediculous.

I've had other problems with this professor too though. He openly dissed conservatives once.

[Bely]

Wow, interesting read.

Right now at my University, my Biology professor absolutely HATES when someone disagrees with Evolution and the topic of God versus Science (a fair amount of conservatives, if not most, don't believe Evolution). He doesn't let anyone with a different belief speak out. It's rediculous.


that's because evolution is science,the thing that you call intelligent design is not,saying that oh well,these things work so great that some great entity must be behind it all is not science,it's actually just religion,which is ok,i respect ppl's personal beliefs,but religion is not science and saying that it is,is just wrong

[Heather]

I just want to make it clear that I dont think all liberal professors do this, just like not all conservative professors do this. Whatever side you fall on, an educator should leave their politics at the door.

As a teacher, my students never knew what side of the political spectrum I fall on. I argued both sides, to further debate and the exchange of ideas.

[amberdawn]

that's because evolution is science,the thing that you call intelligent design is not,saying that oh well,these things work so great that some great entity must be behind it all is not science,it's actually just religion,which is ok,i respect ppl's personal beliefs,but religion is not science and saying that it is,is just wrong
OMG, I never said that religion is science. So please don't put words in my mouth, k? I was only talking about what goes on in my class, and you made it something completely different.

[Heather]

Personally, Ive always been a fan of Intellectual Design. It merges science and religion. After all, who are we to say what is absolute, and what isnt? A hundred years ago, Genesis was absolute, and Darwin was outlawed. I like the idea of a merging of both.

[Ashlyn]

I've never understood the belief that evolution & christianity were completely seperate, one or the other. Couldn't God have created the world through the process of evolution?

[Heather]

Yes, just like God could have inspired Man. :)

We're getting kind of off topic, though.... :lol:

[oclover24]

I wrote a conservative view for a paper earlier this year, and I got a few points marked off for no apparent reason...I know my teacher is a die-hard liberal, and maybe that could've been the reason...

Interesting factoid from Pyschology Today (a magazine): The more schooling people get, the more liberal they become, except in the fields of business and medicine.

[Ashlyn]

I'm sure the evolution debate could be a entirely seperate thread.

.. it's interesting to hear the education statistic skewed the other way. Generally I hear it as a positive note on liberals, meaning the more educated people are more liberal because they know more, not because they've been more indoctrinated. Interesting.

[Webeh]

Interesting factoid from Pyschology Today (a magazine): The more schooling people get, the more liberal they become, except in the fields of business and medicine.

This actually makes kind of sense considering that as you hit university, you generally experience more exposure to liberal views.

I'm not sure how in detail the magazine went into the study procedure. But, if you're a supporter of the "we're born with our beliefs" idea, the results could also controversially suggest that more liberals pursue higher levels of education than conservatives do. (I personally think people are socialized into certain political beliefs. However, it certainly is hard to get people to switch views. ;) )

[Heather]

Interesting factoid from Pyschology Today (a magazine): The more schooling people get, the more liberal they become, except in the fields of business and medicine.
I prefer this quote I heard in college...dont remember who said it. For some reason Churchill comes to mind.

"If you're a Conservative before you're 30, you know too much.
If you're a liberal after, you know too little."

No, Im not bashing liberals...just responding to the education comment posted. I, personally, like to think that I know too much, and have for my entire adult life.

[Webeh]

"If you're a Conservative before you're 30, you know too much.
If you're a liberal after, you know too little."

That's an interesting statement. You could easily interpret it to mean several different things. ;)

1. Conservatives know a lot and liberals don't.
2. Conservatives are satisfied with the knowledge they already have. Liberals ask a lot of questions and that's why they feel as if they don't know enough.
3. Conservatives know a lot. Liberals like to ask a lot of questions to know more.

[Heather]

I always just took it as a political turn on the Mark Twain quote.

[Kari]

Evolution and God are definitely not a contraditcion, however the idea that this earth is only 3,000 years old is.

[Ashlyn]

Isn't the 3000 years belief based on the assumption that each "day" in Genesis was an actual 24-hour day? If you throw that out, there is no reason the two can't agree.

[Webeh]

^ Totally random comment, but sometimes I wish the day was longer than 24 hours. ;)

I always just took it as a political turn on the Mark Twain quote.

What was the original?

[Heather]

"If you are a pessimist before you are 30, you know too much.
If you are an optomist after, you know too little"

[Webeh]

^ I find that statement absolutely hilarious because it's probably true. ;)

[Heather]

Mark Twain had the best quotes. Samuel Clemens rocked :lol:

[Kari]

I have known the other way around...

if you are not a socialist before 30 you have no heart,
if you are still a socialist after 30 you have no brain.

[Webeh]

I guess there's a variation of that quote for every political stance. ;)

[Heather]

Guess I have no heart, then. :lol:

[Kari]

:lol: well, it is just a saying and rather placative...

[Heather]

It didnt insult me, Kari. It made me laugh. :lol: