Has higher education in the U.S. become too politically one-sided?
I do see where you're coming from, but I would tend to argue that point #2 is true of all leaders and all parties. As an example, I teach biology, so I have to instruct students on the chromosomal basis for biological sex, but there are students (and left-wing leaders) who would reject any notion of this material. As for point #3, I think that's true up to a point. Where I run into issues is when an opinion is labeled as hate speech and therefore not valid to be considered among others. It troubles me on the basis of determining who gets to label something or declare it invalid, even if I don't agree with that opinion.
Comment has been collapsed.
As an example, I teach biology, so I have to instruct students on the chromosomal basis for biological sex, but there are students (and left-wing leaders) who would reject any notion of this material.
Why? We can't change our genetics, we are either XX, XY, XXX, XXY (don't remember if other combinations are possible). People with Y will always be biologically men. Even when they don't feel like it (and vice versa, lack of Y makes you biologically female). That's unchangeable fact.
Entirely other thing is if you'd try to force your belief that someone with Y is male all the way down. Disregarding all this:
Comment has been collapsed.
See, that may seem obvious to you, but there are people who would vehemently reject that notion. There are also people who would use XXY, XXX, and other combinations apart from XX or XY to describe intersex or transexual individuals, but that's not actually accurate. Someone who is XXY, for example, has what is called Klinefelter's syndrome. They have male sex organs, female breast development, are very tall and lanky, have wide hips, and lack facial hair. It comes about through nondisjunction, the same way as Down syndrome does, but people want to believe that it is a regularly-occurring combination of chromosomes that can account for intersex and transexual individuals.
Comment has been collapsed.
"being conservative is not really a bad thing 'per se' but conservative leaders these days have a tendency to view facts as opinions. if you see where i am going"
I would say the opposite, viewing opinions as facts, is just as bad, and tends to be the problem of liberals. There is an over reliance from people on the left of subjective feelings, impressions, etc. as well as reliance on soft "sciences" like psychology and sociology. Not only do the trends in these "sciences" change with the decade with studies often being revealed years later to have been horribly run (can't count the times I've seen macro studies highlighting how poorly handled psychology research is done), but they rely ultimately on the judgement and conclusions of the researchers themselves who are a product of their times and have their own agendas.
While less victim of this, the hard sciences do "suffer" from the necessity of drawing conclusions from data, and there again opinions do enter into fact. And this is without getting into the political game present within the scientific community that one must play in order to have an academic or research position and/or get published.
So, yes, conservatives shouldn't mislabel facts as opinions, but I also believe that many people do not realize the inherent weakness of many things they think of as facts. And of course, my original point, much that is opinion is being made to be unquestionable fact. Both hard and soft sciences change over time because people question the "facts". But, as the OP is pointing out, the amount of politics in the sciences and academia in general is making things even more dogmatic than ever (or at least for hundreds of years).
"finally, it is a left wing tendency to consider every opinion as equal. in fact, you (or the )could be all wrong in your (their) opinions and vice versa.
This is true, though few if any on the left realize or acknowledge that that idea (that every opinion is equal) is itself an opinion. It is taken for granted and imposed with an iron fist in many situations. And of course, if an opinion is unpalatable to the left, then it is suddenly unwelcome and very much unequal.
For example, it's not unusual for philosophers to posit the possibility that the world as we know it is some kind of illusion. Perhaps it is a simulation or a dream or it is in some other way not as it seems. It is hard to disprove this, though there is debate back and forth in the philosophical community. Some people understandably find this idea a reasonable explanation for life as they know it and it is their working view of the universe. That is an acceptable opinion of the left (albeit one many would still find fantastic). Less acceptable to the left is the opinion that there is a God who has given humans instructions on the best way to live. That is frequently mocked and derided, and people who hold to those opinions (e.g. that marriage is between a man and a woman) are treated as bigots for not getting in line with the "right" opinion.
Comment has been collapsed.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about..
Comment has been collapsed.
Always hard to form an opinion if you aren't in such country, let alone such a position.
As for the whole if you aren't left, you must be a nazi thing, that's in the netherlands too, but i am guessing at even more places.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, from everything that I have heard, Europe is far more polarized, but like you said, I can't really say for sure if I'm not there.
Comment has been collapsed.
For example for decades we (and Belgium) got Sinterklaas, basically a dutch Santa Clause but with black helpers (from the chimney) for the last 10 years, months before it even starts, certain groups are yelling it's racism, and they even hold protests in the middle of children when Sinterklaas is at a certain place.
And alot of dutch actors/singers or anyone "famous" (that are mostly left winged) are suddenly signing petitions etc to ban the black helpers, while some even played one themselves in a past.
Anyone voting for Geert Wilders are also considered a racist. He sometimes goes to the States and speak there.
About 15 years ago another dutch politician with similar views and party, got killed (and the killer is already walking the streets again).
But as most political discussions here tend to go sour, not gonna say anything more.
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course he, other populists and right wing parties like FN, AFD etc. aren't only receiving votes by racists, but also by people who want to protest against the established parties or feel forsaken with their problems. Calling them out as racists leads to more exclusion and therefore doesn't help.
But pointing out where he's wrong is as necessary as solving the issues why people are voting him. The political right wing has to be tolerated, intolerance not.
Comment has been collapsed.
And that's why i shy away from political discussion (in essence they are all just the same opinions from everyone anyway, each time the left people vs the right ones).
Where did i ever "defend" Wilders as whatever? As Myrsan said it best, anyone voting for him, even the ones just wanting a change (because the alternatives aren't bringing them) is also automatically classified as a racist, that's my point. And if you got examples, show them.
Comment has been collapsed.
He was the second most voted party in our country (dunno how the hell vvd ever got first, and got my questions about that, especially after the aardgas problems), note that's over 2 million people, so our country is full of xenophobes is what you are implying with that. No offcourse not.
He can't do anything with those votes because the rest doesn't want to work with him but he also ruled out some (he is not just anti left).
Any other party out there, aren't there for solving our problems, but only making them worse, that's why alot voted for Wilders, despite him having solutions or not, still implying everyone that votes for him is a xenophone, is just utter nonsense and very shortsighted. But we were talking about how certain left winged people are easy in throwing that racist card, but that's exactly what are you doing here.
Not defending Wilders at all as you implied, just that there are the extremes on both sides, left and right.
Even our goverment when working together vvd (right) and pvda (left) they stick to pushing their own agenda's, leaving one of the groups that voted for the other in the cold, there is no middle, there usually just never is in politics, just as there are no middle parties (here).
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe i confused 2 million with 20 zetels, probably, but still he remains the second most voted party, and 1.3 million in such a small country as ours, is still alot. I still don't think many voted for him because of muslims or not muslims, i know from people in my surrounding, what i watched on tv, and what their reasons were and it was not about that.
Regardless if he has solutions or not people just want the change.
Yeah i know he was in VVD, but they hate him now and he hates them.
People keep leaving it voluntary and not voluntary all the time, because alot of them are just corrupt and i wouldn't be suprised if such things happened with the elections too.
We lack the alternatives (yes we have many parties but many so small they can do nothing).
Since the last elections i just stopped reading the news, just because not to get depressed about what plans they got all now, cuts everywhere as usual etc.
Comment has been collapsed.
And I would still vote for him just to prove a point... democracy, fuck yeah!
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know what you are complaining about. You don't even have a democracy. Nothing of value will be lost.
That's what that other guy in here so aptly observed..
Comment has been collapsed.
That's the funny thing about populism. The PVV comes up with a one-liner to build their entire party around, then adds a few more one-liners to fill a sheet of paper. Most other parties react by yelling "POPULIST! RACIST! WE WILL NEVER WORK WITH YOU!"
A few years later, closer to the elections, those one-liners are the basis of lots of "new" ideas by other parties, and suddenly it's no longer populism, now it's called immigration reform :P
Most populist ideas are based on real problems, but they are oversimplified and tend to not offer real solutions. Wilders is a very very light version of Fortuyn, he could hear the bell but has no idea where the clapper is. Now another guy is running away with his one-liners.
(it'll be like Apple reinventing old ideas and calling them original :P)
Comment has been collapsed.
Your post is full of generalities. With one specific: your own faculty making assumptions concerning social justice on campus. In that particular example, you did not say whether you spoke up to suggest that the assumptions be made explicit and then discussed before building on them. Doing so seems to me to be your job as a member of the faculty.
Later in the post, you say that you no longer feel free to express your dissenting opinion. Why don't you feel free to dissent? Have you received threats? If you are silent because you fear criticism or disagreement, then you are letting down your profession.
If you are receiving threats, state that so that you story makes more sense. If you are choosing to be silent because of stuff you read on the internet and because of assumptions you are making about the response of people on your own faculty, then it is your problem. It will remain your own personal problem until you speak out and find that you are silenced by threat or coercion or other form of duress. Speaking up and being disagreed with is not duress or discrimination.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're right that I'm being very general, but that's intentional. I'd rather not give away too much about myself when my goal is to just get the opinions of others on this. There's a degree of truth to what you say, but it's hard to be the one to stand up and speak when your pay is already garbage, you've got your first baby on the way, and you can't afford to lose your job. I do speak out to an extent, and most of my colleagues and students know about where I stand at this point, but I have to pick my battles carefully. It's clear that my opinions are unwelcome, and you can hear students and professors both openly denouncing and insulting people with my opinions as you walk around campus.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you don't speak up because you imagine bad things will happen, then it is your fault. If you don't speak up because bad things are done to you or you are threatened with bad things, then it is someone else's fault.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry, you'll probably hate me for this, but I can't resist: with a better employment protection and unemployment insurance you might feel safer to say what you want. :D
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd agree with you, if only I supported labor unions. :)
I think the larger issue is the argument that people make now that "hateful" or "dangerous" speech isn't protected as free speech, which has been used as grounds to fire or pressure professors to resign.
Comment has been collapsed.
I suppose as a professor you should be eloquent enough to get your point through without using hatespeech?!
Comment has been collapsed.
John McAdams (Marquette University) was a tenured professor (supposedly protects from termination for matters relating to academic freedom) who was terminated after blogging a critique of a colleague who ordered a student to keep silent about his political views against same-sex marriage.
Keith Fink (UCLA) was a lecturer whose contract was not reviewed due to not meeting the university's "standard of excellence" in spite of a positive track record and student reviews following his teaching of a course that supported the protection of free speech (ostensibly because of the lengths to which it supported free speech).
Tomas Koleck (DePaul University) was suspended without a hearing following a debate with pro-Palestinian students when they complained to the administration about being offended by him.
Michael Rectenwald (NYU) was pressured into going on paid leave for the remainder of a semester following tweets that were against concepts of safe spaces and trigger warnings on the basis that freedom of speech does not need a protected space or caveats.
You're welcome to disagree in your interpretation of these events, but there are a few for you.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I do disagree with the interpretation of at least three of those. But, thanks. At least now I know what you're talking about. Cheers.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sure thing. I appreciate your input and the civility with which you've given it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Freedom of speech does not give you freedom to be a dick though. You do not need a degree to understand that.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would amend that a bit and say that freedom of speech does not absolve you of consequences for what you say. Just keep in mind that it was written into the U.S. Constitution by people who were plotting treason and a violent uprising against their government. Speech that is harmless and pleasant doesn't need any protecting.
Comment has been collapsed.
Speech that is harmless and pleasant cannot be deemed hate speech.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's really kind of my point. If labeling something as hate speech is enough to deem it as not protected under free speech, then the only speech that is consistently free is speech that can never cause offense. That kind of speech needs no protection. If labeling something as hate speech is enough to remove its protection as free speech, then who gets to make the call as to what is hateful? Does the government get to label speech against its ideals as hate speech and remove its protection? Do special interest groups get to label speech against their agenda as hate speech and remove its protection? As soon as you make exceptions to free speech for things that are deemed hateful or offensive, you leave the door wide open for how we decide what is under that category. Many of the most important literary accomplishments of the past 200 years would automatically be banned by the government because of a message that was deemed hateful or offensive to certain groups of people (and I am talking about very important works with a liberal message, as well, which have brought about change in their own time). This is why "hate speech" has to be protected under "free speech."
Comment has been collapsed.
On what basis do you say that? Because I disagree with you? I understand your argument perfectly well. Your case is that having a freedom does not entitle somebody to abuse it. You would say that free speech does not extend to the point of things that would conceivably threaten or infringe upon others.
That sounds nice, but I don't believe it is an accurate interpretation. Can we agree that freedom of speech in Nazi Germany would be the freedom to speak out against the actions of Nazis? Can we agree that movies, plays, books, and rhetoric that have upset the status quo in the past have been important and even necessary to bring about change? These are things that single out and offend groups of people based on their actions or beliefs, aren't they? So is the difference between "hate speech" and things of this nature, which we view as just, simply a value judgment between who is okay to offend or condemn? Are there some groups that are inherently okay to target, and others that are inherently not? If so, then who gets to decide? Either ALL divisive and hateful speech has to be free, or there needs to be a measure of what groups are okay to offend. If the government is allowed to decide this, then we start to resemble Nazi Germany, with the only difference being whether you believe the government is moral enough to decide on the RIGHT groups.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I don't know how much you know about freedom of speech in other countries, but e.g. here (Germany) it's limited. Insulting and discrimination aren't allowed. Demagoguery isn't allowed. Using signs or gestures connected to Nazi Germany isn't allowed (except of art context).
Freedom of speech is important, but other fundamental rights like human dignity and religious, political, ethnical or sexual expression aren't less important.
And not the government should decide if it's a case of freedom of speech, but the courts.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nice ranting assumption on things I neither said nor inferred.
Comment has been collapsed.
I dont really see the point in an expanded discourse now.
You have long ago devolved into a set of self interested monologues about how you cannot express yourself as you wish at work because its considered hate speech, while willfully ignoring the fundamentals of free speech, the PRIVALEGE you hold with it and skittering about the actual foundations and legality of it within your own country.
Hence why I have only left short replies to allow you to expose yourself with your own spiel. Frame that with the fact none of my short replies really required such a grotesquely oversized response from you. The only response you gave that opened any form of discourse with you, was your final, and this is mine.
You have inadvertently done well on showing your true character and the actual underlaying issues for you regarding your OP. It is nothign to do with free speech, it is entirely to do with you. Goodnight and goodbye!
Comment has been collapsed.
Fair enough. What you call "grotesquely oversized" is my tendency to try to explain things with analogy, but you're welcome to call them what you will. However, it's easy to be smug about holding opinions beyond my understanding if you are unwilling to explain them, and it's easy to condemn the views of others if you are unwilling to lay out and defend your own. Nevertheless, I wish you a lovely weekend.
Comment has been collapsed.
And many would consider firing off one-liners implying someone else is a dick without giving any explanation to be rather dickish itself.
Not to mention that what is "being a dick" is entirely subjective, and thus a really poor gauge for what is and is not legally protected. This is especially so in today's time when any form of questioning of certain assumptions made is labelled as "being a dick", no matter how innocent or academic.
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course it does... oh my.. don't they teach civics anymore?
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, I would, if they served their originally-intended purpose. Way back during the depression and earlier, the unions fought for safer working conditions, wages and benefits that were appropriate for the work being done, and protections against being fired for unjust reasons. However, I feel like they have outlived their usefulness. Compensation and safety are both much better than they were at that time, and I would say that societal standards and the past work of unions have made the U.S. a better place to work. The present-day unions still fight for those things on paper, but provide financial support to political parties that their members may not support, even though they mandate membership. So, let's say you're a conservative who works as a machinist in a steel mill. Your employer is not allowed to hire you unless you are a union member. You join a union, pay part of your salary to them, and they then use that money to support the very candidate you are voting against.
Comment has been collapsed.
Speaking up and being disagreed with is not duress or discrimination.
How about speaking up and getting fired?
there are professors who are losing their jobs in response to voicing unpopular opinions
There's a general consensus that it's okay for liberals to get conservatives fired by all means (harassing their employer on Twitter or Facebook usually works nicely) while the opposite is Evil Oppressionā¢.
https://www.dangerous.com/41119/subnautica-game-developer-fired-conservative-views/
https://nypost.com/2016/10/30/nyu-professor-who-opposed-pc-culture-gets-booted-from-classroom/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/like-peter-thiel-others-feel-alienated-by-silicon-valley-groupthink-1518962400
http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/11/technology/business/james-damore-google-op-ed/index.html
Also some other PC bullshit getting people (not necessarily conservative this time) fired:
https://www.dangerous.com/41805/nyu-student-complains-about-racist-black-history-month-food-menu-gets-workers-fired/
Comment has been collapsed.
Being able to freely express your thoughts is a wonderful thing, but unfortunately there will always be people that try and create an echo chamber around them by yelling their opinions the loudest. The real problems come when such people start encouraging physical or social violence towards those with dissenting thoughts.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's probably prudent to label yourself as an independent conservative for now if you don't want to get swept up on the wrong side of whatever is going on. The reason it's hard for you to say anything, like wth do we mean by "social justice" in the first place before you waste your time at a stupid meeting, is you are unnecessarily carrying your party's dirty laundry, which has really been piling up. Maybe simply dropping that label until they're back from crazytown will make you more free to speak your mind reasonably in the meantime? Put some distance between yourself and the worst elements -- a lot of right-wingers I know have done this because the party won't stop embarrassing them.
Comment has been collapsed.
There's some validity to that, but some things that don't need to be considered hateful and radical are being labeled as such, and there is no amount of distance that will help if you share that opinion. For example, I grew up in Texas, which catches a lot of flack for opinions on border issues. However, the amount of resources required to support people coming into the country illegally is starting to outpace the tax revenue being collected. If you say that we need to moderate things because there is not enough money to aid everyone coming in, then you are labeled as a crazy racist. It's a bit like saying that parents who decide to stop having kids because they can't afford any more hate children.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you say that we need to moderate things because there is not enough money to aid everyone coming in, then you are labeled as a crazy racist.
Probably depends on the people your are talking with. We have similar discussions here for years now and throwing in thoughts how to fund immigration in a bigger scale is realistic, not racism. But if you put it like "We can't afford this!", you're misunderstood ofc. If you ask how it should be funded, it's open-minded and marks the start of discussion. The base for this discussion is yet if your society wants to be an immigration country (and history so far proves this) and if so what it is willing to spend.
From a humanistic view you'd have to say "all in, we have plenty of space, we're wealthier than your home country", but if there is already social injustice with many people working hard and barely being able to afford their own living it's difficult to promote this. Only few start pointing out the increasing gap between richest and poorest then, since it's easier to see that there are new people incoming who don't look like you or don't believe in the same god and virtues and therefore should be sent home.
Of course it would already help to immigrate fewer people than none. But if you really want to stop mass immigration, you should also think about the reasons for it. And one of them the is the globalism and the prosperity NA and Europe gained from the 3rd world countries. Changing this needs investment, too.
Comment has been collapsed.
The budget for displacing people in other countries is bigger than the budget to facilitate immigration, someone needs a class in Accounting 101....for a few decades now. When war is your biggest export, and "defense" your biggest employer, you will never be able to balance your books.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know not everybody that is conservative is like this, but the GOP is currently being taken over by conspiracy nuts, religious zealots and other dishonest scum. I would even argue the GOP currently has nothing to do with conservatism. The run up the debt, get rid of environmental protections and increase military spending like there is no tomorrow.
This is why people see conservatism as bad.
The 'democrats' however run their party like a controlled opposition. The have no spine and only claim to be for certain issues. The never put their money where their mouth is and always give the republicans their way.
Politics in the US is not being ruined by polarization, it's being ruined because both parties don't give a damn about the citizens and are bought by big corporations and lobbyists. The US has already been functioning as an oligarchy since at least the eighties.
That's the real problem.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm sorry, you clearly shouldn't have to feel this way. You shouldn't have to fear losing your job over your opinion on fiscal policy, particularly not in an institution of higher education, and you shouldn't be called a Nazi just for being a Republican.
I would argue that the underlying problem is that there has been a dramatic shift in the US Republican party over the past few decades. They used to be a party of fiscal conservatives, but that has become less and less of a defining trait as the party has embraced increasingly conservative social views. The Republican party has, though its actions, made it hard for well educated people to be Republican.
The Republicans just passed a huge tax cut that will add a trillion dollars to the national debt - a decision unanimously criticized by independent economic experts - while passing a budget that increases spending, and while Trump - the current head of the party - is looking to waste millions on a military parade and billions on a useless border wall. Where is the fiscal conservatism?
Pennsylvania saw some fiscal conservatism under the last Republican governor, but that resulted in a 10% cut in the state education budget, and an additional 20% cut from the Philadelphia educational budget. These budget cuts just so happen to disproportionately affect poorer students and students of color. There are currently students in Philadelphia who race to class not because they're eager to learn, but because the school has un-insulated metal walls and the teacher hands out blankets on a first-come, first-served basis. These are frankly deplorable conditions, but the alternative proposed by many Republican politicians is Virtual Charter Schools - a money making enterprise that is consistently failing its students.
Then you look at the social issues. Republicans now stand for marriage inequality, bathroom bills for trans people, a Muslim travel ban, a border wall, and have the Republican president complaining about people wanting to come to the US from "shit-hole countries". The Republican legislature in Florida just voted 2:1 to kill a bill proposing a ban on assault rifles in the wake of another mass shooting (the 18th US mass shooting so far this year?), but they did declare pornography a public health risk. Saying that you're a Republican now implies that you're homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic, and care more about protecting children from seeing pornography than from being shot. It's shocking and depressing that white supremacists and Neo-Nazis are now running for office under the Republican banner.
And let's not forget about the environment. The Republicans have become a party of climate change deniers. The EPA under Republican control has removed their Climate Change webpage, put a freeze on scientific grants, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy has removed "science" from their mission statement and removed references to "science-based standards".
The Republican party has embraced a platform of criticizing what they call the "liberal elite", a label that seems to encompass most, if not all, of higher education. When the CDC is being briefed not to use "evidence-based", "science-based", "vulnerable", "diversity", "transgender", or "fetus" in their budget proposal, and is told to replace "science-based" with "science in consideration with community standards and wishes", it kind of feels like Science itself is being attacked.
So I would say that it's not you, it's your party. Republican leadership have allowed the party to switch from being a party of fiscal conservatives, to a party of climate-change deniers, homophobes, Islamophobes, and xenophobes that seem to be attacking Science and Facts. Republican politicians have struggled to denounce Nazis, Neo-Nazis, and white supremacists - and those that support them - because they fear upsetting their base. Given that, is it really surprising that there are so few Republicans in higher education? I'm sure you could find people that would share your views on fiscal conservatism, or at least engage you in an informative and enjoyable debate over fiscal policy, but who would admit to being a Republican when that label now carries such awful baggage? While you were standing still, happy in your fiscally conservative zone, your party has been running away from you and pushing most everyone in higher education out.
Anyway, I hope everything turns out okay for you, and congratulations on the coming baby!
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for your words. I have been encouraged by the civility that has been expressed in this thread. I would only pause to challenge the view that social policies of the right are generally steeped in _____phobia of some description. I view rights and liberties as something that can't exist without a compromise elsewhere, usually in someone else's rights and liberties. So many of these questions are things where I might agree with the Republican stance, but on the basis of deciding whose rights are compromised. I would put this out there as an illustration:
There's the example that people go back to over and over of the baker who was sued because they were unwilling to bake a cake specifically for a homosexual wedding. This person had served the individual several times in the past, so it was not the person's sexual orientation, but the wedding itself that was the issue for this baker. So here is the question: do you compromise the customer's rights by ruling that they may be denied service because of the baker's beliefs, or do you compromise the baker's rights by ruling that they must do something against their religious beliefs for the sake of the customer? I would err on the side of giving the baker their rights for the same reason that I would not force a Jewish or Muslim Community Center to host a pig roast. I wouldn't outlaw pig roasts. I would just say that I don't have the right to force them to do something against their beliefs, and I will have my pig roast somewhere else, where it is welcomed and celebrated. My own cousin is gay, and he is family, but I would disapprove if he asked someone to give up their own beliefs for how they want to live their lives in order to accommodate how he lives his. I don't think that makes me homophobic, but I know that there are many who would disagree. Thank you again for your civility in expressing your views.
Comment has been collapsed.
I get your point about not forcing people to do something against their beliefs, and I agree. I think that's a sensible stance, with a few exceptions.
For your particular example, I totally agree. Unless they're the only baker, just go somewhere else. Why force them to make a cake if they don't want to? That's ridiculous. A baker refusing to bake a cake is not a big deal. It's nothing comparing to the State telling you that you can't marry, even though marriage is a civil institution as well as a religious one, and you can get married in a court room or a restaurant without setting foot in a church (and isn't small government for keeping the government from telling people who they can and can't marry?).
But going back to your example, what is against the baker's beliefs, baking a cake? The baker isn't being asked to marry someone of the same sex, nor officiate such a wedding, nor host such a wedding in their bakery. The baker refusing is equally stupid. I've attended events that conflict with my religious beliefs without making a big deal of it, I think the baker could suck it up and bake a cake. But then I also wouldn't want to patronize a baker who thinks I'm living in sin or going to hell or something.
And it's not quite the same as asking a Jewish Community Center to host a pig roast, more like asking a Jewish deli to put together a deli platter to celebrate a Communion . And if the Jewish deli refused to make a platter on account of not approving of the "goyim celebration", I think that would be stupid of them and there would be justifiable uproar in the local area.
But, again, it's really a non-issue. A baker or caterer is meaningless, it's the government telling people who they can marry that I have an issue with - partly because I think the government shouldn't be telling people who they can marry, and partly because I find opposing such marriages to be homophobic. If you said that your religious beliefs are against people of color being married, you would rightly be labeled a racist. I don't see gay marriage as any different, except for being more recent. Gay marriages aren't invalidating or threatening heterosexual marriages, and divorces do more to threaten the institution of marriage in my opinion (but divorce is just fine, just look at Trump).
And I don't think that the social policies of the right are necessarily steeped in phobias, but they seem to court those people who are. The right wing pundits play on these phobias, and the party ends up moving farther right as a result. I'm hard pressed to look at the current Republican party and not see its social policies as being steeped in phobias. The Muslim travel ban flies in the face of all the existing evidence about terrorist attacks in the US. The border wall is not going to put a dent in either drugs or immigrants crossing the border. The bathroom bills just seem to be taking away people's rights and liberties because of paranoia and hysteria.
Trumps campaign fanned the flames of fear and hatred, letting the bigots crawl out of the shadows, and he hasn't done anything to change that since taking office. So, while you're obviously not a bigot for being a Republican, the Republican party has been embraced by the bigots, and so you're lumping yourself in with them. You would think it would cause the party to do some soul searching, and it seemed to be trying to do so under Michael Steele, but that all took a drastic turn a couple years ago. Sorry if that sounds judgmental and depressing, I just think the Republican party has allowed itself to become poisoned in recent years, forgetting what they stood for in search of more votes.
And I think being civil towards one another is the least we can do. :) If only more people would remember that. So with that, I hope you have a great day!
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for your input. If you would like examples other than the baker, there has also been litigation and coercion against churches that decline to perform or host same-sex marriages on religious grounds. And yes, it is generally something involving Christian churches, but Judaism and Islam do not allow same-sex marriage, either. I understand that you view this as a homophobic religious view, but I think we get into some dangerous territory if we decide to make value judgments on which religious freedoms are okay to uphold. It may not be the role of the government to mandate who may or may not get married, but I don't believe that one person's liberties should be allowed to infringe upon another's rights. Even if people don't like the religious views of a group, that group is guaranteed the freedom to practice their religion (note: not "believe," which is what you hold in your head, but "practice," which is what you do) in the U.S. Thank you again for your involvement here.
Comment has been collapsed.
And there I think we can again find common ground. I'm obviously of the opinion that people should be free to marry who they want and not have that right taken away from them, but I also don't think that churches should be forced to perform or host same-sex marriages. If the couple want to marry in a church, it should be up to them to find a church that will allow them to do so. I think the government should neither prevent the couple from marrying, nor force a church to marry them.
And you mentioned that Judaism does not allow same-sex marriage, but that is not accurate. The views of Judaism are complicated, and depend on the denomination.
Reformed Jews began accepting gay rabbis in 1990 and have endorsed same sex marriage since 1996.
Conservative Jews decided in 2006 that rabbis may individually choose whether to reject homosexual relationships, or to adopt a strict interpretation of the Torah - which only prohibits male anal sex, but not other forms of same-sex sexual intimacy, and thus allow for same-sex marriage and homosexual rabbis. The main Conservative seminary began accepting gay rabbi students in 2007.
Orthodox Jews still reject homosexual relationships. Though since 2010, many Orthodox communities have begun welcoming gay Jews while maintaining a prohibition on gay sex and same-sex marriage. The Orthodox stance is kind of like, "It's okay to be gay! Just don't have sex with, or marry each other, okay?" Orthodox seminaries do not accept openly gay students, but an Orthodox rabbi may come out as gay after being ordained.
You are correct about Islam, though. In fact, Islam goes much further, with homosexual acts being illegal in many countries, and even carrying the death penalty in many countries like Afghanistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Although there have been talks about legalizing same-sex marriage in a few progressive countries, like Albania and Turkey. And I think it's telling that in the US, the opinion of Muslims towards homosexuality has changed radically over the past decade - from only 27% accepting homosexuality 10 years ago, to 52% accepting and only 33% opposing as of last year. (Don't tell anyone, but I think that makes the US Muslims "radical Muslims.") ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
If you use the power of the government as a cudgel to force people to act against their beliefs and faith, you're already going down a dangerous road. And you would call this a "non-issue"? Seriously? What the fuck is wrong with some people...
Comment has been collapsed.
I can't wait for the religion thread someone is bound to create next :P
Comment has been collapsed.
I think you misread what I wrote.
I said that a baker refusing to bake a cake for a wedding was a non-issue. I never advocated for using government to force people to act against their faith and belief, and in fact said the exact opposite.
Comment has been collapsed.
Okay, seems I misinterpreted that specific point. I was just skimming the posts here. And being drunk does not help either..
But still, this is a very critical issue, and it seems that many try to find some sort of middle ground here - including you - but I'm afraid that will not work in this case. At some point a decision has to be made because you cannot have it both ways. Fundamental rights are conflicting in a way that will put the system to a test and I think that will ultimately force a lot of people to show their true colors. This could get interesting.
And I believe that you're well aware of the people who believe that religious freedom in general, and Christianity specifically, are under assault. Should the US of A really move down that road those people will finally be proven right.
And please, don't push this silly comparison with discrimination on grounds of skin color etc. because that is a painfully obvious straw man. Such a religion does not exist.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hey, so I started thinking about this last night while I couldn't sleep (I don't know why), and I think I see the issue now, and why it's such a big deal.
The issue is not about a baker refusing to bake a cake, the issue is a business refusing to serve a customer because of their sexual orientation under the defense of religious freedom. This is why the couple filed a complaint, because Colorado law bans discrimination by companies offering their services to the public. And you can't argue that the reason for refusal was the wedding and not the sexual orientation of the customer, because the business doesn't have an issue serving other customers' weddings - only this customer because of their sexual orientation. If it was a straight customer asking for a wedding cake, there would be no issue, so clearly the sexual orientation of the customer is intrinsically connected to the refusal.
And if the baker is able to refuse service, you create a precedent where a business is able to refuse service based on the sexual orientation of their customer. Businesses can now discriminate based on sexual orientation. No big deal when it's a bakery, but what if it's a gas station, or a grocery store, or a hospital. Where such discrimination is most likely to happen - in small town, rural America - there may only be one of each. What if you were that customer, and were told that you couldn't buy gas, or food, or receive medical treatment because of your sexual orientation? It may sound ridiculous, but this is how legal precedent is set - if you allow one business to do it, you allow every business to do it.
And if a business is able to refuse service based on sexual orientation, why not based on religion?
And the baker's argument was that making the cake was a violation of his First Amendment right, and that by being forced to make a cake (by Colorado) he was being forced to express a view, though his cake, that is counter to his religious beliefs. Now, I'm a strong supporter of freedom of speech, but does a cake qualify as speech? Is a cake a means of expression? And if it is, what about flowers, or the invitation, or the menu, or the make-up or hairdressing? Where do you draw the line on what qualifies as "speech"?
And if it is, is it expression for the baker or the client? If you buy a cake that says "Happy Birthday", no one thinks that it's the baker personally wishing the person happy birthday, they think it's from the person who bought the cake.
Now, I'm obviously biased, but I struggle to see how baking a cake is a free speech violation. I struggle to see how it is the baker expressing a view. Where as, on the other hand, I can easily understand how ruling for the baker can set all sorts of dangerous precedents - from defining speech too broadly, to undermining civil rights laws and opening the door for widespread discrimination in the name of religious freedom.
Comment has been collapsed.
My sister is a college professor in Arkansas. She leans pretty heavily to the left...but she is dealing with some of the same issues that you've described. So it's not just that you're conservative and most academicians are liberal. I think the biggest issue is that as a society, we've sort of forgotten how to communicate.
Also, I am curious -- why do you describe yourself based on a political party (Republican) rather than a political ideology (conservative)? I am legitimately curious about this. I tend to lean to the left, but I would never describe myself as a Democrat.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, conservatism and liberalism tend to be philosophical views, but political parties have specific views on how things should be enacted. I would describe myself as both, since I hold a conservative view, but tend to view the best course of action (in my opinion) as policies associated specifically with the Republican party, rather than a Libertarian party (or something else).
Comment has been collapsed.
I think the problematic thing is people choosing sides because they offer easy pre-conceived answers for the hard questions of life. We shouldn't depend on a political label to have opinions about every single aspect of life/reality/social problems. We can be better than that. We don't need to embrace a political position like a football team. We have enough intelligence to analyze topics independently.
Other problematic thing is that those very same people really think there are only two sides. That's why people tend to be so polarized and fear that "the other side will brainwash our people!".
Just take it easy: there are stupid people in both sides, insulting in both sides, and both sides think they know what's better for the world and that the other side is winning, building a kind of ideological dictatorship and destroying their values.
That paranoia is collective.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with this a lot, and I think there is definitely a goal to divide us by grouping us into different "tribes", liberal vs. conservative, rich vs. poor, white vs. black.. but as you said, in reality the lines are not so cleanly drawn. We can accomplish so much more by getting together and having an honest conversation, rather than succumbing to the "us vs. them" mentality. For that reason, I've started to move away from using labels when discussing my views, because often times it can shut down a discussion before it even begins.
Comment has been collapsed.
Best answer so far. I see people bitch all the time how everything is political, while being political. Maybe there are answers in between in all walks of life and if people weren't so quick to polarize on any issue depending on who they vote for, things wouldn't be so political and we could find compromises.
I'm not talking about the OP, just in general but I agree with your sentiment here.
Even politics are not politics anymore, they're just tribal wars.
Comment has been collapsed.
The conflation of everything into "Left" and "Right" forces people to pick a side. Even if that side also has positions they don't agree with. Usually because there's one issue they feel strongly on, or are afraid of.
Comment has been collapsed.
"The biggest dividing line now is age with the overwhelming majority of younger people being left-wing and the overwhelming majority of older people being right-wing."
Thats been the case for a very long time.
Comment has been collapsed.
āIf a person is not a liberal when he is twenty, he has no heart; if he is not a conservative when he is forty, he has no head."
John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Winston Churchill, etc. pp.
The actual quote is much older, obviously..
Please don't tell me you've never heard that before..
Comment has been collapsed.
If someone does not realize the simple truth within this sentence it usually means that they are still young and callow themselves.
But don't worry, we've all been there, we've all been young and dumb once..
Comment has been collapsed.
It's hard for someone like me in the outside to accurately guess what's going on inside your country but it is obvious that you have some problems going on right now by the observable symptoms. My guess would be that your bipartisan system has polarized your society to a boiling point at which the "us vs them" mentality is running rampant, it's a problem that can happen anywhere. In my country the previous governing party managed to antagonize the entire country against itself, people hated those on the other side of a discussion, but since then the volatile nature of our political alliances kicked in and the whole thing is restructuring itself again. But I guess that doesn't happen in a more stable country like yours where crisis aren't an expected part of life, you can't just wait and hope for the problem to solve itself by imploding then.
About the college ideological thing, in my experience it depends a lot in the career. I've been in architecture and engineering and I can tell you that people there discuss political stuff but ultimately they don't give a f*ck about it, other more important things (as far as their outlook on life is concerned) superseed the whole issue sooner or later. People from humanistic careers on the other side seem a lot more concerned and treat the problem like it's the most important thing ever. So my suggestion is to talk with people with math or art stuff in their minds, they couldn't care less about politics.
Comment has been collapsed.
"So my suggestion is to talk with people with math or art stuff in their minds, they couldn't care less about politics. "
guess you dont know many artists, writers, thespians etc then?
Comment has been collapsed.
I think that it is natural for a university to be more liberal than the general public because were talking about smart people here.
Comment has been collapsed.
Most people aren't intellectually prepared to discuss politics, yet anyone can vote. At this point it becomes a popularity contest. So when people are worried on what the ''popular'' thing to say/be is you get modern politics. Basically people just repeat what someone else said, and few really take the time to analyze what it is being said, their implications, benefits and consequenses. Most people still think there is ''good'' and there is ''bad''.
Short answer, people are sheep and they fear anything outside the ''flock''. This is why the world is actually ruled by a ''few''; and by few i mean comparing to the total world population.
Democracy is a failure, yet it is the best we have. Go figure.
Comment has been collapsed.
Democracy is a failure, yet it is the best we have. Go figure.
We don't have a democracy. No nation does. Switzerland is the only one that comes close.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you bend every definition beyond sanity, nothing is ever true.. or real. or both. or whatever.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hitting the nail on the head pretty hard here actually.. not bad.
Comment has been collapsed.
Interesting thread! And it's good to see this can be discussed without descending into an all-out insult slinging match.
Here's something that I always try and consider when having political discussions of left vs right:
Neither side are necessarily bad - both edges of the spectrum believe that their policies would lead to a better future. It's simply a belief in different policies to get us there. The biggest difference, and OP, correct me if I am completely wrong, but in my opinion, the left are more inclusive of those less fortunate, and the right are more concerned with immediate family, people of similar heritage or culture, and wish to preserve that.
So... whilst I get the desire to preserve (conserve!) ones culture, I always have to fight the voice in my head, that says the right seem to be a little selfish. OP - please tell me why I'm wrong to think that! The left, by definition, want better social policies to bridge wealth gaps - and you cannot deny that the rich have been getting richer for many years now? You know I don't have to provide evidence for that. Surely it's time for the pendulum to swing back, even if it's just a little? The left voices are getting louder as the gap keeps getting bigger.
The left are more tolerant of foreign cultures, more accepting of alternative life styles and life choices. I battle to understand why anyone would find the trait of being tolerant undesirable.
Rayune, having said all that, I fully respect your beliefs - it's not something you choose, it's what you believe. Just because you are swimming against the current, it's right that you stand up for it, and I don't think you should ever hide it.
...faculty meeting at my institution to discuss how we can enact social justice on campus, without really discussing first what we mean by that..
As a leftie, I'd also have a problem with that, and would be by your side on this!
Strangely enough, I have the opposite problem where I am. I'm a middle aged white man (originally from the UK) living (for many years) in South Africa. Judging by people I interact with or gleamed from local news comments sections, a vast majority of white guys my age here, are very conservative. Many love Trump... and it's so odd, as we live in a "shithole" and it's "America 1st". Occasionally I'll meet someone who knows who Jeremy Corbyn is, and they are gobsmacked when I tell them that the world needs more people like him.
I never hold back with my left believes and have shocked many. I get insulted a lot. My black male friends laugh at me, saying I'm more socialist than they are! I'm against bankers, big monopolistic greedy companies, I believe mines should be nationalised, national health care etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYi9ZxZM6WQ <- can the right and left relate to this clip?
Edit:
Full version here - perhaps the left would enjoy this one more ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iRM1iN-3a4
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for your input, C4pM. I would say that helping out your fellow man is a noble endeavor. I just don't think that is the primary role of the government, but rather the community itself. Charitable giving actually tends to be higher among conservatives (although you could argue that it is the tendency of the rich, who can afford to give charitably, to vote conservative). So, when I look at how bad our government is at... well, everything... I can't help but feel that it is better for us to take care of ourselves and each other than to ask the government to take care of us. I would much rather pick a needy family or charitable organization to support than to hand over all of that to the government and watch them waste most of it.
There is a truth to wanting to protect heritage and whatnot, but maybe to think of it like this: in a perfect world, the full gambit of all rights could be extended to all people. However, the rights of some people often conflict with the rights of others, and there's a difference in how liberals and conservatives resolve this. It is the priority of liberals to see to it that people who do not have as many rights are awarded more, whereas it is my view that one person's rights end where someone else's begin, and that granting resources or rights to one group by taking them away from another is immoral. Many would say that allowing others to go without when some have plenty is also immoral, but that's where the duty of community and charity come into play, at least in my book. Thank you for your approach to this.
Comment has been collapsed.
whereas it is my view that one person's rights end where someone else's begin, and that granting resources or rights to one group by taking them away from another is immoral
Any example where rights of someone was taken awat, to give to other? As I really can't think of single example. Sure, it's true to resources like government money, where giving in one place (like military) means cuts in others (healthcare or education). But rights?
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, I just finished replying elsewhere in the thread about this as it relates to same-sex marriage. The U.S. constitution guarantees the right of a group to practice their religion freely. This isn't belief, which is what you hold in your head and your heart, but practice, which is a matter of action and obedience to its tenants. Many would argue that a place of worship (whether Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, all of which have religious objections) ought to be required to perform a same-sex marriage (and indeed, there have been lawsuits that have come about to this tune), but it would be requiring them to act in contradiction to their religion. You may find that belief to be reprehensible, but it is still protected by the constitution. That isn't to say that the government should ban same-sex marriages, but if the courts were to rule in favor of a same-sex couple, they would be granting them the right to marry by compromising someone else's right to practice their religion. This doesn't mean the government should ban all same-sex marriages, which can easily take place outside of a church, but that extending this right to the point of requiring others to compromise theirs is something that I don't think is right.
Comment has been collapsed.
Many would argue that a place of worship (whether Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, all of which have religious objections) ought to be required to perform a same-sex marriage (and indeed, there have been lawsuits that have come about to this tune), but it would be requiring them to act in contradiction to their religion.
Speaking as a gay man who has been reading politics in the LGBT community for 30+ years, I've never heard any serious discussion of what you mentioned and always seen the idea shot down within the community if it was ever brought up (usually by someone completely ignorant of how US anti-discrimination law works). If churches can refuse to perform any kind of wedding they don't agree with (interfaith, members not adhering to code of conduct, etc.) on First Amendment grounds, there seems to be precious little legal standing upon which you can claim that forcing churches to perform same-sex marriage against their belief system is a real threat.
Yours is a pretty extraordinary statement that needs to be backed up by extraordinary proof.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not saying that this is something in which there have been court cases that have ruled in favor of same-sex couples-- to the contrary, the only litigation that I know of thus far has ruled against them-- but rather that there are plenty of people I have encountered on the left who want this to change. Maybe I am not getting a sample of liberals in general, but many that I have spoken with on the subject seem to take the opinion that, because the belief is something that they view as hateful or discriminatory, churches should not be allowed to deny a same-sex couple the right to marry in their church. Saying that much really isn't an extraordinary statement. I maybe should have clarified that I intended this as an example where people push for granting rights that would infringe upon other rights, rather than an example of where rights have been granted by the courts that infringe upon other rights. It may be your opinion that there is too much in place to protect a place of worship from anti-discrimination laws for this to be a threat, but from my perspective, the first amendment is something that also covers freedom of speech. I bring that up because there has been a shift to ban speech that is viewed as hateful and discriminatory as something that is not free speech. With both being part of the first amendment, I don't think it's a big logical leap for many to want to ban religious practices that are viewed as hateful and discriminatory. If you and others within your community are not part of this push, then I think that it is commendable. I have still encountered plenty of people who are.
Comment has been collapsed.
First, it may not seem like "a big logical leap for many to want to ban religious practices that are viewed as hateful and discriminatory", but it's a MASSIVE legal leap to do so. And you don't even need to bring gay rights into that discussion.
Second, "plenty of people" is anecdotal. There's no organized gay rights advocacy groups in the US of any notoriety or history that are pushing for churches to perform same-sex marriage in violation of their will to do so. In fact, when same-sex marriage was being debated, freedom of religion was exactly what gay rights groups fired back with to answer conservative fear-mongering that churches would be in legal trouble for not allowing it.
Third, if you really want an example of the clash of First vs Fourteen Amendment legal principles, the wedding cake case is a perfect storm of this kind. While both sides have passionate personal opinions, only one is arguing to carve out an exemption to equal protection under the law based on freedom of religion. That's a dangerous precedent to argue in favor of because it cracks the door open for the next carve-out that might be refusal to serve people based on their religion, sex, race, etc. because of their beliefs. That begs the question of how you test if such beliefs are sincere or being used as a cover to otherwise unlawfully discriminate. Simply taking someone at their word allows for flagrant abuse, and making the state the arbiter of someone's religious sincerity is morally indefensible. I think a lot of conservatives would agree with that.
Comment has been collapsed.
To the first point, a change doesn't need to happen all at once. Smaller legal precedents over the course of decades are more the concern. You can chalk that up to paranoia if you like, though.
As far as the rest of this goes, I will grant your more intimate knowledge of some of these issues, and you make an interesting point: both sides of that debate have concerns for the same thing: if we grant certain rights up to this line in the sand, then will that create a precedent for moving the line further? Really that was the reason that I brought up this issue in the first place-- MSKOTOR asked for an example of how granting rights to one group could infringe upon the rights of another. It seems that both sides of that particular issue have concerns over that exact thing, so there's the example. You may not be able to change my mind, but you've been a stand-up, respectful person in making your points. Thank you.
Comment has been collapsed.
this actually shows great ignorance.
It is not illegal for a pastor/priest/rabbi/imam to refuse to marry anyone. just a few years ago, one refused to marry an interracial couple. There was a bit of a media furor, but that's about it.
The legal ruling is that the state cannot discriminate, meaning that the state must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and a state-employed justice of the peace must marry a same-sex couple upon request, but there is no such requirement for any clergy.
Comment has been collapsed.
There is definitely a double-standard when it comes to any sort of discourse on and off campuses these days. People are encouraged to question and challenge everything. However, that seemingly does not apply if the thing being questioned or challenge is a liberal assumption or opinion, or a psychological or philosophical idea that underpins one of those. Then your questioning or your opinion is socially taboo at best, and "hate speech" at worst.
It is all the more shameful that this is the case on college campuses where the free exchange of ideas, including constant testing and questioning of those assumptions, is paramount. It is in academia where people in college and afterward look for guidance and inspiration oft times (especially as religious belief has fallen off). Diversity and critical thinking should be tools for working towards a richer understanding of reality, rather than a means to subvert certain beliefs only to enshrine your own as sacrosanct.
Edit:
Just noticed that I've already received 1 blacklist for the three thoughtful posts I've made in this thread in the last 15ish minutes. No replies mind you, just a blacklist.
All too typical these days. If you don't conform, then you will be beaten (socially speaking) into conformation (or at least they will try).
Comment has been collapsed.
Yep. Three blacklists here. I have a pretty good guess as to one of them, but the other two have no explanation. I would guess these are just users who just read the thread and don't like what I'm saying, as most people who have been interacting with each other on this thread actively have been very respectful to one another.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think the issue is political, in all honesty.
I think it just shows that people won't be actually intelligent when coming out of university. The best skill when it comes to talking about politics is to actually learn to analyze something and make up your mind then. That's not what's happening there. You need to show students the different viewpoints, teach them to analyze them and teach them to make up their own mind.
Universities need to discourage 2 party politics. It is one of the most retarded (yes, in the literal meaning) and the most harmful thing to exist in the modern world.
People coming from universities tend to have their set ideals and the real problem is when they never got to it on their own. People need to see what their own moral values are and then they should decide what they want. Also, they need to actually research everything. Wanting everything to be perfect is cute and all, but it won't solve your problems because it'd never work. It shows a lack of mental maturity when someone says: "That's the left for you!" or "All of the right is evil". It shows that they are genuine idiots that should never speak about anything political. They're an actual harm for the whole conversation. I have serious contempt for people like that.
I hope that universities get their act together. I've seen it happen in my university too in Estonia. You have people who have authority making political statements and waiting for people to agree with them. Luckily my coursemates aren't as gullible. They all have their own ideals and morals, yet even if the professors say something that might be the same as their world view, they never encourage it. I have respect for them because of it.
So, yes. Universities should be non-partisan and neutral. Even if the leadership/authorities have their own certain political viewpoints. You're paid to teach, not to spread propaganda. Thank you to those that actually do it. Shame to those that don't. You're intellectually weak if you do that. You might be smart, but you're not wise. And to be a teacher, you need to be wise, not just smart.
Comment has been collapsed.
And to be a teacher, you need to be wise, not just smart.
and for that to happen, we need to actually incentivize teaching as a career.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm becoming one and I would say that the biggest incentivization is just the passion. For us, the pay will increase for teachers over time and that's probably the least important thing for me. For one, I have the passion, but two, I know that my job will be secure for my whole life. We won't be running short on teaching positions anytime soon and we won't be having an issue with there being a new robot teacher or something. At least in the near future.
But of course, I'd never say no to more money ;D
Comment has been collapsed.
This. Very much this.
Teaching biology to non-biology majors, we have to cover topics like climate change, genetics (including biological sex) and reproductive health, so you can't avoid the politics. However, I admit to my students that I have my own bias, what that bias is, and if that slips out, they won't ever be graded on whether or not they agree with me. I try to reliably give more than just my own perspective so that students can form their own opinions, but even if I fall short, I've got a lot of students who are happy just to know that they can openly disagree with me without it impacting their grade.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Are politics in the US higher education becoming problematic?"
Enormously. The steady march of hyper-partisanism and the inevitable death of discourse left in its wake have devastated the political landscape. Seems that 90% on both sides can't discuss their ideas like adults.
But that's all the more reason for you to speak up. To show your students that mutual respect isn't so hard. To show them you can present your ideas without refusing to listen to others, and defend them without attacking those of others.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know. I debate a lot with my friends or mere acquaintances, and I am sometimes on the more liberal side or the more conservative side. It sucks if you feel like your job is on the line if you express your opinion, but I feel in many cases, it is how you express your opinion that causes a problem.
I know there are a lot of cases where a body of people would be outraged and rise up even if how you express your opinion is not a problem, but they just disagree with you. But at least you can justify and fight it. Also, they have the freedom to be outraged, but they don't have the right to persecute you, harass you, or get you fired unless the contract says otherwise; and I believe if you are unjustly persecuted by a group of people and the school, many academics would still side with you even if they disagree with your opinion. Is that not what happened after a professor said 9/11 was America's fault? Anyway, if people harass you, then they are acting against what they supposedly stand for.
Anyways, I hate self righteous bigots and hypocrites on both sides, and there are plenty. Although we may try to educate people and foster progress (whatever you define it as) it is unavoidable that a mass chunk of the population are not going to be thoughtful. A lot of times it is because they want to feel better or are high on the tide they are riding.
Also that biology anecdote is bullshit. I'm not saying it is fake. There are plenty of people who understand biology regardless of political opinion, and what you said has nothing to do with the political debate of sexual orientation. And taking stupid peoples' opinion as a representative opinion would be wrong. There are plenty of opinions and stupid beliefs I can pluck from any camp.
Higher education is good. Expecting too much of people regardless of setting is setting yourself up for failure (although ideally you shouldn't give up on improvement).
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for coming. Correct me if I'm misinterpreting what you mean by the anecdote being BS, but I think what you're getting at is that this can't be used to accurately represent an entire party because of these outliers, right? I'd actually agree with you in that-- my fear in these regards is that it seems that the stupid ones are often the loudest (yes, on both sides), and we've become very permissive in letting the loudest ones call for action without a proper discussion. I wouldn't suppose that all or even most liberals are not educated or intelligent enough to have an informed opinion (though that has certainly been said often enough about conservatives).
Comment has been collapsed.
Labeling is def done by both sides. You keep on trying to sell conservatives as a victim in general, but Iām not too sure about that. I just find it is human nature at work, and not a specific side at fault, because extremes of both sides are acting the same, just saying different things. And I while I agree with you that opinions should mostly be respected, I unfortunately keep on running into your replies that portray only conservatives as the victim.
Comment has been collapsed.
From outside US, I can't understand why in such a huge country you an only choose between 2 political parties (which are similar in many ways), that doesn't look very democratic to me. Hell, there must be room for at last 30 parties to represent the opinions of all. And why the most important thing to become the leader of US is not the political opinion, but the money and who has the coolest baloons and confetti in election events. At least thats the impression that I get as a european.
Comment has been collapsed.
There have been several third parties that have tried to gain traction in our history, but unfortunately they have been steamrolled into the ground one by one. Instead of being third parties that cater to individuals who have been alienated by the other two, they wind up splitting from one, and the balance of power shifts to the party that has remained united. Then it mostly disbands, and people go back to their corners. It kinda sucks.
Comment has been collapsed.
because it's a winner-take-all system. There's no second-place. Which means that it's a waste to vote for a 3rd party that's less likely to win.
Comment has been collapsed.
Zizek, and so on and so on
https://youtu.be/k6pyufzQs4I
Comment has been collapsed.
For example, we recently had a faculty meeting at my institution to discuss how we can enact social justice on campus, without really discussing first what we mean by that and whether we can all agree that the goals of doing so are in line with our role as an institution and as professors.
I don't see why you couldn't have brought up your concerns while you were there. The meeting was designed to hammer out that exact issue and if it's a new policy I would imagine creating a substantive list of regulations of how far it goes and to where would be expected.
Not really interested in debating/addressing the rest of your post because of how vague it is, but that one part jumped out at me.
Comment has been collapsed.
Do you know what it is? Turn on the television, and have a good long hard look at the people who are republicans that they portray on television, hell the sane people at Fox News and there are sane people on Fox news who are Republican, are ignored because Sean Hannity says stupid shit. Fox does actually have a news department, and then they have on-air personalities.When that's what you see, the people who defend alleged child-predators, the people who claim to be about family-values, while they tied a woman up and then blackmailed her. The people who ignore the fact that you have a mass shooting problem, and you refuse to take a legitimate look at the means. Yes cars kill people, yes knives kill people, but nothing really is as effective apparently as a semi-automatic rifle. At this point I'm sure you can look at the science, and be like yeah, more guns equal more gun deaths.
This really started post Sarah Palin, and there's a reason for that. When that's what people see on television, when they see your president who is a Republican surround himself with White Supremacists, who talks to insane people on the right, who is as divisive as he is, this situation is like a nasty boil. It's going to come to ahead sooner or later.
Even the moderates are crazy loonish people in the senate, who lack empathy. Turned on the television, and the Republican in the room starts implying that it's George Soros funded plot, to take away your guns. I mean come on. I get that most politicians in the US are bought, but no one quite like the Republicans. Both sides need to start wearing who sponsors them on their jackets like NASCAR racers.
So you know why you feel like you do? Look at the leaders that Republicans have put in power, you can say it's for the economic policies, but I mean CPAC just literally invited Marion Le Pen to have a discussion. Which considering who the Le Pen's are, this isn't a surprise considering that the Republicans are still employing the southern strategy.
If facts are thrown there way it's screamed at as Fake news. So when you say you're a republican, and people cringe at you or treat you differently, it's not a you thing, it's a what they see portrayed to them, and they lump you in with the crazies. And quite frankly, there are racists in both parties, but only one party is actively courting them.
BTW I could go on an equally lengthy rant about the left, but we're talking about why you as a Republican feel it's not okay to express your opinion. Personally I think it's because you're not an idiot and you can see that the Republican party at least it's leadership is filled with a bunch of loons, and even if you have an intelligent point, you feel it's a guilt by association. So stop associating with them.
Comment has been collapsed.
ya media sticks freedom of press needs to be redone to at least make both sides covered the same
Comment has been collapsed.
When Trump tweets about how is button is bigger than Kim Jung Un's or that we should arm teachers, that's not fake news. That's just a fact. You can argue semantics, it's just the way it is. Is there any democratic leader, doing the same? No. Is their any democratic leader foaming at the mouth, and talking about how Jesus talks to him? Probably not. Both sides are covered the same. One side's leaders say and do crazy shit the other side is as about as interesting as a wet blanket.
Comment has been collapsed.
as long as its not a personal attack you should be able to say what you want unforchantly both sides are guilty of not letting this happen
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, everyone, I think I am going to bow out at this point. It's been a very refreshing group of people here. We've been able to disagree with one another respectfully, and that's a really rare thing. However, I've been trying to juggle these discussions with about a dozen different people, and I'm getting a little exhausted. I'll leave it open for anyone who wants to keep it up, though. Thanks to everyone who has contributed here!
Comment has been collapsed.
In Europe the Democrats would be considered central, the Republicans right, as far as we are concern the American left consists of about 3 people, and one ran with the democrats cos the left is dead in the water.
There is your real problem, a 2 party system. In my country we have 4 big parties, 4 smaller parties, and a whole lot of minority parties that fight over some scraps. A lot of it is still the illusion of choice, but it's 10x better than a country split down the middle and people signing up for a party they only agree for 30% with on a few populist topics.
Comment has been collapsed.
So, I will go ahead and paint the target on my back for you: I am a U.S. Republican. There is a childish tendency in our country (from both sides) to attribute motive to someone's political stance (e.g. that someone believes in certain tax policies because they hate other groups to which they don't belong, rather than because of a differing stance of the role of the government in our lives), but let's try not to do that here. Inevitably some people will, but let's give it a try.
Here's the other part of my background that is relevant: I am a college professor. I've been at several different universities (public and private) at different stages of my career, but it's pretty consistent that there are far more professors on the political left than on the political right. Now, we are all free and welcome to hold our own political opinions, but there are some problems that I have run into with this recently. Generally, for a given issue in any group of people, there is debate or discussion as to whether we can come to a common ground in our standpoint, then decide on what policies to enact based on a common understanding. However, there has recently been an assumption that we are all on the same page in what we believe, and things skip straight to how we achieve goals that serve these purposes. For example, we recently had a faculty meeting at my institution to discuss how we can enact social justice on campus, without really discussing first what we mean by that and whether we can all agree that the goals of doing so are in line with our role as an institution and as professors. In my interactions with my colleagues (and don't get me wrong here-- I love my colleagues dearly as fellow people), I have only run across one other Republican who is currently at my institution. I personally feel that being a professor does mean freedom to express ideas, but that it is an abuse of power for me to make students feel like I am pushing my agenda and that their grade depends on agreeing with me, regardless of what side of the fence I lean.
However, it seems to me that higher education is celebrating increasing diversity of demographics, but decreasing diversity of thought. I no longer feel like I am able to freely express my dissenting opinion. Even if they are just outliers, there are professors who are losing their jobs in response to voicing unpopular opinions. There are protests going on all over the place, and it can be scary to make your opinions public when there are groups of people assembling and shouting that you are a Nazi for having a different opinion and that violence against you is justified. I apologize if I am just s***posting or starting fires, but I thought I might see how this community views higher education. Do you think it has gotten out of hand, or am I fighting windmills and chasing shadows? I'd like to hear what people outside of the institution think.
Comment has been collapsed.