Why is there a Liberal Bias in higher Ed.

[Jason_Martin]

I can't speak for the sciences...but there is definately a liberal bias in the arts...

 

I think that this is primarily due to the fact that the people who those in the arts study were liberals in their day. And I think it is because the people they study who are alive today tend to have a liberal bent to their work as well.

 

Aristophanes was arguing against wars like the one we're waging now 2,500 years ago. Nearly four hundred years ago, Shakespeare forced people to think differently about power and corruption in dozens of plays. Ibsen took on environmental issues and women's rights in the late eighteen hundreds. And in the 20th century luminaries like Samuel Beckett, Bertold Brecht, and Fredrico Garcia Lorca fought war mongers, dictators, and anyone else who was opposed to human rights...

 

Those in the arts look up to the people whom they study. They like the idea that artists stood up for what they thought was right even when they had to put their lives on the line. In addition to this, I believe that many academics wonder what their heros would think about current world situations. The artists and thinkers I've just listed would most likely fall into the liberal world view were they alive today. This definately has an influence on those who study them.

 

Jason

[selkirk]

Ok, so what about the Hard/Soft sciences and not just the Arts?

 

"I am become Shiva, the destroyer of worlds"

The Baghavad Gita, quoted by Robert Oppenheimer when the tested the first nuke.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I can't speak for the sciences...but there is definately a liberal bias in the arts...

 

I think that this is primarily due to the fact that the people who those in the arts study were liberals in their day. And I think it is because the people they study who are alive today tend to have a liberal bent to their work as well.

 

Aristophanes was arguing against wars like the one we're waging now 2,500 years ago. Nearly four hundred years ago, Shakespeare forced people to think differently about power and corruption in dozens of plays. Ibsen took on environmental issues and women's rights in the late eighteen hundreds. And in the 20th century luminaries like Samuel Beckett, Bertold Brecht, and Fredrico Garcia Lorca fought war mongers, dictators, and anyone else who might was opposed to human rights...

 

Those in the arts look up to the people whom they study. They like the idea that artists stood up for what they thought was right even when they had to put their lives on the line. In addition to this, I believe that many academics wonder what their heros would think about current world situations. The artists and thinkers I've just listed would most likely fall into the liberal world view were they alive today. This definately has an influence on those who study them.

 

Jason

 

I think it is a mistake to jump across cultures and centuries of history and apply modern American political standards. It just doesn't work. It's also a bit arrogant (ethno-culturo-politico-centric chauvinism of sorts).

[Jim]

Ok, so what about the Hard/Soft sciences and not just the Arts?

 

"I am become Shiva, the destroyer of worlds"

The Baghavad Gita, quoted by Robert Oppenheimer when the tested the first nuke.

 

Didn't seem to interfere with his quest. What a bunch of crap.

[Jason_Martin]

I think it is a mistake to jump across cultures and centuries of history and apply modern American political standards. It just doesn't work. It's also a bit arrogant (ethno-culturo-politico-centric chauvinism of sorts).

 

I think it does work. Most people agree that history repeats itself with minor riffs. As such, the lessons that have been taught throughout history are still apt today.

 

You argue against the value of the great thinkers if you cannot apply their thinking to modern issues. Academics, politicians, and artists apply ancient philosophy to modern problems all the time. And the radical right can't help but apply their interpretations of the Bible to everything they see...

 

It is arrogant to do this...but that fact doesn't make it any less true that people do this.

 

Culture is all about arrogance.

 

Modern Americans are as arrogant as ancient Greeks, the Roman Empire or Nazi Germans. We live in a culture where we have been told that we are better than other people. The problem is not that we're told that, but that we believe it.

 

Sure there is arrogance on the part of an academic because he or she believes that a given artist would have similar feelings as he or she does were the artist alive today. But there's also arrogance in the belief that Jesus Christ would support a war in Iraq.

 

Education is about learning how to think outside the box. And as you've pointed out, there is even arrogance to the belief that we can do that.

 

People who have spent their lives studying art, philosophy and history tend to be on the liberal side. My point is still apt. The people who have changed the world for the better throughout history have been liberals in their given societies. Academics who see this trend try very hard to think progressivly and to see outside the box. I'll state it again, I believe that academics want to be the kinds of liberals that they see as heros.

 

Like it or not, this is likely why there is a liberal bent to the humanities in higher education.

 

Jason

[DirtyHarry]

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I think it is a mistake to jump across cultures and centuries of history and apply modern American political standards. It just doesn't work. It's also a bit arrogant (ethno-culturo-politico-centric chauvinism of sorts).

 

I think it does work. Most people agree that history repeats itself with minor riffs. As such, the lessons that have been taught throughout history are still apt today.

 

You argue against the value of the great thinkers if you cannot apply their thinking to modern issues. Academics, politicians, and artists apply ancient philosophy to modern problems all the time. And the radical right can't help but apply their interpretations of the Bible to everything they see...

 

It is arrogant to do this...but that fact doesn't make it any less true that people do this.

 

Culture is all about arrogance.

 

Modern Americans are as arrogant as ancient Greeks, the Roman Empire or Nazi Germans. We live in a culture where we have been told that we are better than other people. The problem is not that we're told that, but that we believe it.

 

Sure there is arrogance on the part of an academic because he or she believes that a given artist would have similar feelings as he or she does were the artist alive today. But there's also arrogance in the belief that Jesus Christ would support a war in Iraq.

 

Education is about learning how to think outside the box. And as you've pointed out, there is even arrogance to the belief that we can do that.

 

People who have spent their lives studying art, philosophy and history tend to be on the liberal side. My point is still apt. The people who have changed the world for the better throughout history have been liberals in their given societies. Academics who see this trend try very hard to think progressivly and to see outside the box. I'll state it again, I believe that academics want to be the kinds of liberals that they see as heros.

 

Like it or not, this is likely why there is a liberal bent to the humanities in higher education.

 

Jason

 

When I read the writings of a great thinker I tend to marvel at the differences, the things that surprise me, the incongruencies w/r/t to modern culture - that which is utterly "foreign". I don't try to make the thinker/writer fit into a box that conforms to modern American characterizations. And this is more easily done by reading a work in the original - something fewer and fewer Americans are capable of.

 

I also note that intellectuals tend to put blinders on when discussing their field of interest. How many historians do you think are radical left-wingers who utterly oppose the war in Iraq, and yet lionize and glorify those who lived in empires and regimes that enslaved, killed, and dominated thousands. Why is Bush an evil imperialist, but Alexander 'the Great', someone who 'enlightened' and 'Hellenized'? How many feminist intellectuals overlook the misogyny or male chauvinism of their favorite artist, philosopher, or writer, while rabidly attacking the slightest hint of an offensive statement by those whose political affiliation is counter to theirs.

[Jason_Martin]

I'm not saying that everyone can think outside the box, just that academics strive too. Once again it doesn't mean that they do...or that you or I do for that matter.

 

Yes, when someone has abusive beliefs toward one's own beliefs we try to censor them. You point out that a liberal feminist might try to censor a conservative and anti-feminist idea, of course they will. As will a conservative who is being forced to listen to a liberal idea. Lets not forget about the bans on protests around Bush during his run for re-election. It's human nature to want to cut a person off with a different viewpoint and to stop them from getting to their point.

 

Conservatives and Liberals alike will say that they are for free speech as long as the free speech is agreeable. This is the real reason that free speech is so important. We have to be free to present ideas that are unpopular. And ultimately history and cultural movement will decide what is "right" and what is "wrong."

 

This attack on free speech which is a bilateral attack from both liberals and conservatives is part of the reason that college professors are given tenure. It's so that they are able to say things that are unpopular, but that will also -- hopefully -- give people the opportunity to critically think about a given issue.

 

Jason

[Peter_Puget]

Aristophanes was arguing against wars like the one we're waging now 2,500 years ago

Jason

 

Are you equating the Peloponnesian War and the second Iraq War?

[Jason_Martin]

Nope, just the arguements made against war in general in some of his plays. Maybe Euripides would have been a better playwright to have put into that particular spot...but Lysistrata is so pointed and funny in its attacks on war and war-mongoring, that I couldn't help myself.

 

Jason

[j_b]

How many historians do you think are radical left-wingers who utterly oppose the war in Iraq, and yet lionize and glorify those who lived in empires and regimes that enslaved, killed, and dominated thousands. Why is Bush an evil imperialist, but Alexander 'the Great', someone who 'enlightened' and 'Hellenized'? How many feminist intellectuals overlook the misogyny or male chauvinism of their favorite artist, philosopher, or writer, while rabidly attacking the slightest hint of an offensive statement by those whose political affiliation is counter to theirs.

 

so, how many do you know of who do that? or is it just another strawman argument?

[j_b]

Yes, when someone has abusive beliefs toward one's own beliefs we try to censor them. You point out that a liberal feminist might try to censor a conservative and anti-feminist idea, of course they will. As will a conservative who is being forced to listen to a liberal idea. Lets not forget about the bans on protests around Bush during his run for re-election. It's human nature to want to cut a person off with a different viewpoint and to stop them from getting to their point.

 

there is a difference between censoring and countering an argument (even if it means cutting someone off), no?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

so, how many do you know of who do that? or is it just another strawman argument?

 

Oh, but that would be just "anedoctal evidence". I'm well aware of your rhetorical modus operandi. Get lost.

[j_b]

so, how many do you know of who do that? or is it just another strawman argument?

 

Oh, but that would be just "anedoctal evidence". I'm well aware of your rhetorical modus operandi. Get lost.

 

your failure to substantiate your argument with facts is again duly noted.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

your failure to substantiate your argument with facts is again duly noted.

 

Note this, troll:

[TheJiggler]

your failure to substantiate your argument with facts is again duly noted.

 

Note this, troll:

Well that convinces me!

[Jason_Martin]

Yes, when someone has abusive beliefs toward one's own beliefs we try to censor them. You point out that a liberal feminist might try to censor a conservative and anti-feminist idea, of course they will. As will a conservative who is being forced to listen to a liberal idea. Lets not forget about the bans on protests around Bush during his run for re-election. It's human nature to want to cut a person off with a different viewpoint and to stop them from getting to their point.

 

there is a difference between censoring and countering an argument (even if it means cutting someone off), no?

 

Point taken. There is a difference.

 

Jason

[JayB]

I wish the word "liberal" was still used in its traditional, 18th and 19th century sense, as the principles espoused by many who consider themselves liberals would be anethema to men who coined the term.

 

If we are debating this question, it would be more accurate to use the terms "Left" and "Right." In the eyes of the classical liberal, both the contemporary left and the contemporary right share the same defects, in that they are both far too willing to use the machinery of the state to enforce their particular vision of society on others, and bring about the ends that they desire. For those on the contemporary left, that mostly means forcible redistribution of material weath and regulation of productive assets/the marketplace according to their vision of what is fair. For those on the right, it means using the apparatus of the state to enforce a particular vision of morality and to restrict social change out of a veneration for tradition and a desire to enshrine a social class that embodies the values that they esteem most highly at the top of the social order. Liberals, in the true sense, are interested in preserving liberty, and as such tend to be more aligned with the conservatives on the right in the United States, as our founding documents were conceived with that end in mind.

 

Another trait of true liberals which tends to align them with conservatives in this country is is a recognition that much of what we have received as tradition is the result of processes that were neither completely ordered nor can be perfectly understood by human beings - and thus when embarking on efforts to reshape society a bit of humility with respect to our ability to reshape both human nature and the society that evolved from it are in order if we wish to make changes that are constructive rather than destructive.

 

I have thought about the question of the correlation between education and leftism quite a bit, and I think that F.A. von Hayek had it right when he posited that people who are educated in fields in which the central hypothesis is that all phenomena are ultimately reducible to simplified models and thereby amenable to human control. People trained in such a manner are naturally prone to the temptation to apply this mode of thinking to the manner in which societies function, and to wish to reshape it along lines that seem rational and fair to them, by whatever means that they have at their disposal. This also explains the reluctance to trust forces that work, but were not part of any rational plan for society, and cannot be centrally controlled, such as the law of supply and demand.

[chucK]

"The chemical industry's position that this [bPA] is a weak chemical has been proven totally false. This is a phenomenally potent chemical as a sex hormone."

 

In their study, vom Saal and Hughes suggest an explanation for conflicting results of studies: 100 percent of the 11 funded by chemical companies found no risk, while 90 percent of the 104 government-funded, nonindustry studies reported harmful effects. "

 

link

 

 

Could it be that your supposition of a "liberal bias" is just a result of comparing the bulk of the scientific community with the industry shills?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

"The chemical industry's position that this [bPA] is a weak chemical has been proven totally false. This is a phenomenally potent chemical as a sex hormone."

 

In their study, vom Saal and Hughes suggest an explanation for conflicting results of studies: 100 percent of the 11 funded by chemical companies found no risk, while 90 percent of the 104 government-funded, nonindustry studies reported harmful effects. "

 

link

 

 

Could it be that your supposition of a "liberal bias" is just a result of comparing the bulk of the scientific community with the industry shills?

 

if you feed enough of any substance to a rat it will develop cancer

[olyclimber]

Today, the correct enunciation of the word "liberal" seems involves spitting it out like it is a dirty word. This has been mastered by the right wing talk show hosts. Just the label is enough to damn someone, as if they are the lowest of creatures. The antonym "conservative" doesn't have the same stigma...not because it isn't just as deserving...but because of the success the right wingers have had in selling the tag "liberal" as in somehow being negative. It is driven more by slanderous rumors than fact....talk show hosts jump on "rumors" and talk about them until they somehow are transformed into "facts" because of shear repetition, not because of any substantiation.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The antonym "conservative" doesn't have the same stigma..

 

I call bullshit. Democrats and the left-leaning media spout similarly loaded terms like mantras to demonize the right with just as much vitriol and contempt.

[olyclimber]

Call it if you want. I'll just repeat my message over and over until it becomes truth! Maybe I am inaccurate (how liberal of me! ), but I have never heard "conservative" used like a dirty word....and I heard the word "liberal" spat around almost every day. "Just another liberal from Massachusetts" etc...

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Call it if you want. I'll just repeat my message over and over until it becomes truth! Maybe I am inaccurate (how liberal of me! ), but I have never heard "conservative" used like a dirty word....and I heard the word "liberal" spat around almost every day. "Just another liberal from Massachusetts" etc...

 

the left prefers "radical right" and "neocon" as their way of applying broad-brush strokes to anyone who is to the right of Karl Marx.

[olyclimber]

Sure..."neocon" and "radical conservative" are used in a negative sense...but don't those tend to indicate the extreme right? One can be liberal, yet not extreme left. Is it just a right wing tendancy to throw the baby out with the bath water?