Inside the Iron Tower: The Life of Conservatives in Academia

Last week, the president of Emory University, James W. Wagner, was censured by faculty members, and may even be forced to resign when faculty reconvene later this month to decide his fate.

Wagner’s great sin, you see, is that in an article in his school’s magazine, he cited “the three-fifths compromise over slavery” as a paradigmatic illustration of the art of political comprise.

In response to the backlash against this act of his, Wagner issued the obligatory mea culpa and deplored the “clumsiness and insensitivity” of his piece.

Still, the enlightened professoriate at Emory has thus far withheld its mercy.

This week, Kurt Schlichter published an article that appeared at Townhall.com.  It had the catchy title: “Let’s Help Academia Destroy Itself.”  In addition to arguing that the contemporary university is a parasite on society—a “liberal tick,” is how he describes it—Schlichter welcomes the demise of academia on the grounds that it is a tax-payer subsidized “reservoir of leftism” that produces little except for an endless supply of unemployed and underemployed Democratic voters.

This episode at Emory is not at all atypical of life behind the iron tower.  And while Schlichter is guilty of oversimplifying matters here and there, the essence of his analysis is spot on.  As an academic who also happens to be a conservative, it brings me no joy to assure the reader that I know that of which I speak.

Another person who is just as painfully aware of the grim realities of the contemporary university setting is Mary Grabar.

Hot off of the presses is Grabar’s “Exiled: Stories from Conservative and Moderate Professors Who Have Been Ridiculed, Ostracized, Marginalized, Demonized, and Frozen Out.” Grabar and six other academics, including yours truly, contributed to this anthology of insiders’ accounts of daily existence in the academic world.  Short, readable, and inexpensive, it is the ideal primer for parents preparing to march their children off for four or more years of college.

Since I participated in this project, I will not review it.  I would, however, like to elaborate upon some of the themes that I sounded in my essay (and elsewhere).

The treasure that parents of college students and/or the students themselves can plan on pledging to the academic institution of their choice promises to be staggering enough.  At least as costly, though, is the intellectual toll that academia is guaranteed to extract from them.

To put it simply, as things stand at present, the ideal of a free marketplace of ideas to which academia is ostensibly committed to promoting is a fiction. Between this ideal and the current reality, there exists a chasm that is as unbridgeable as it is glaring.  Only the self-delusional, the ignorant, and the deceitful can say otherwise.  For the rest of us, it requires spending all but five minutes in any given liberal arts or humanities department in the country to grasp the painful, ugly truth.

And the truth is that for many academics, not only is there no such thing as “the disinterested pursuit of truth.”  There is no such thing as truth.  I’m not kidding.  Truth, along with such related concepts as “reason,” “fact,” “logic,” and “objectivity,” are routinely treated as Eurocentric social constructions by which white men have traditionally oppressed women, non-whites, homosexuals, non-Christians, and the environment.

World famous “post-modernist” philosophers, like Jacques Derrida, make it their task in life to “deconstruct” Western civilization so as to convict it of “logocentrism”—its faith in reason to access reality.

Far from challenging the prevailing status quo for no other reason but that it is the status quo, the average academic is an avowed apologist for it.  Yet even this way of characterizing matters grossly understates the extent to which academia suffers from a poverty of vision.

It is more accurate to think of academia as a quasi-religious cult of a sort.  This is no hyperbole. Intellectual life in the university has been constrained by the straightjacket of the creed.

Formally, of course, there is no such thing.  But, in practice, the creed is almost everywhere affirmed.  If it had to be summed up, it boils down to contempt—contempt for Western civilization generally, and America in particular.

More specifically, the creed demands that the entire history of the West be viewed through the narrowest—and most cartoonish—of lens: white, heterosexual, Christian men are villains, and everyone—and everything—else are their victims.  It isn’t just racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, Islamophobia, and any and every other conceivable crime against humanity for which Western civilization stands condemned.  Western (white) Man is also convicted by academics of specieism, bias against non-humans, and homocentrism, bias against the environment.

To be clear, the widely held belief among academia’s critics on the right that the university is a bastion of “moral relativism” is wide off the mark.  There are no real relativists among academics.  The latter are absolutists of the worst sort, crusaders or jihadists forever vigilant against deviations from the creed.  And those who style themselves as relativists tend to be the most committed of its guardians.

The creed is more or less pronounced, depending on the institution. But aspiring college students and their parents should know that, with all too few exceptions, regardless of where they are in the academic world, the creed is impossible to avoid.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Chezwick

    My daughter came home last year and told me that she was taught in – get this – her 'Environmental Science' class, that gender was a social construct. She's a sharp cookie and summed it up better than I could by saying, "Dad, no prevailing attitude, no amount of surgery…can change a man's chromosomes from XY to XX."

    We shared our little chuckle, but I cringed for all those students who are sufficiently malleable to buy into this nonsense.

    • Rita

      Those in the "ivory" towers obviously have dreams of a time when it will finally be recognised that their little poodles are also a social construct and they will be able to "marry" them.

    • JoJoJams

      It's amazing, really, The same people who scream about evolution and how we humans are merely animals (which, to an extent, I do agree with), completely ignore evolution and the animal kingdoms specific roles of "male" and "female" that nearly every species has, when it comes to us humans. Only with humankind do they spout the obvious foolishness that "gender is a social construct", and that we humans are somehow exempt from an evolution in which each species is divided in to specific roles of "male" and "female", and each of those roles have prescribed abilities and "duties" that they perform. It's truly sad that the "intellectuals" can't see this simple observation to the fallacy of their "gender is a social construct" meme. Certainly, there can be a case for the reasons we've evolved certain social functions<i/> for male and female of our species, but there is a definite reason, ingrained in the DNA (XY vs XX), as to why most little girls like dolls, and most little boys like sports and such.

      • bob

        Good you agree that humans are more like animals (merely??) than like plants or rocks or the like. Many things in nature are on a continuum and are not simply binary. Within the animal kingdom, there are species that can actually change their sex based on environmental circumstances…..where does that fit in your binary world?

    • Mary Sue

      so her "Environmental Science" teacher was an Identity Politics nut job eh?

      This should also give you a hint that "environmental science" is simply a playground for whacko enviro-leftists that also believe the Identity Politics nonsense.

      • Chezwick

        Yes indeed Mary Sue….the politicization of higher education is no longer confined to the humanities.

      • bob

        Yes, Mary Sue…and the environment is completely irrelevant to human existence, right?

    • guest

      speaking of a little chuckle, your sharp cookie apparently doesn't know the difference between sex and gender.

      • Chezwick

        From the American college dictionary…

        GENDER: "….often the classification correlates to sex…"

        (chuckle, chuckle)

        • Chezwick

          PS – Hey Sherlock, in your opinion, if a man has surgery and takes female hormones, does that change his sex?….(admit it, you wouldn't dare say no in front of your left-wing comrades).

        • guest

          "Often" being the operative word here. Gender is something people do and is not the same as sex. This isn't complicated and isn't a left/right thing at all.

          • Chezwick

            "Gender is something people do."

            You cast aspirations on my daughter's intelligence….and then expose your own ignorance with the statement above. Gender is a noun, not a verb. It's NOT something you "do", it's something you are. It's apparently too "complicated" for you.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            gender (n.)
            c.1300, "kind, sort, class," from Old French gendre (12c., Modern French genre), from stem of Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, family; kind, rank, order; species," also (male or female) "sex" (see genus) and used to translate Aristotle's Greek grammatical term genos.

            The grammatical sense is attested in English from late 14c.; the male-or-female sense from early 15c. As sex took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the common word used for "sex of a human being," often in feminist writing with reference to social attributes as much as biological qualities; this sense first attested 1963. Gender-bender is first attested 1980, with reference to pop star David Bowie.

            gender (v.)
            "to bring forth," late 14c., from Old French gendrer, from Latin generare "to engender" (see generation). Related: Gendered; gendering.

            To bring forth fantasies that can't possibly be true? What is a "gender bender" if gender is determined only by behavior?

            Watch out, some dictionaries have been rendered PC by activists stating that gender is (see 2B):

            GENDER

            1a : a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms
            b : membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass
            c : an inflectional form showing membership in such a subclass
            2a : sex <the feminine gender>
            b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

            In absolute terms, humans are born one gender or another and can never choose which. Period. They can exhibit traits of the other gender, but that doesn't change their absolute gender.

            She's right about the chromosomes. It just pisses off leftists.

          • guest

            Who's casting aspersions?

            I don't know anything about your daughter. Gender is something you do–not a verb, but a predicate. One can perform gender (noun). Gender can be said to a performance (noun). Sex, in the biological sense, is of course not something you do, it's something you have. Wouldn't you acknowledge that "manhood" has had different definitions over time or across cultures?

            Again, not complicated. Besides, English has a long history of using nouns as verbs and verbs as nouns.

          • Gee

            You were "speaking of a little chuckle, your sharp cookie apparently doesn't know the difference between sex and gender."

            Might want to consult your own postings.

          • Chezwick

            You continue to argue the specious differentiation between "sex" and "gender".

            So I ask again, if a man has a "sex-change" operation, is his SEX thereafter male or female? If you answer female, you are contradicting yourself and affirming that there is no difference between sex and gender (chromosomes be damned). If you answer male, you'd be crucified by your liberal comrades by denying someone their "identity".

          • Guest

            That wasn't me. There may be more than one guest after all.

            Biologically that person would still be male. That would also be occupying a female gender. No contradiction.

          • Chezwick

            "Biologically that person would still be male. That would also be occupying a female gender. No contradiction."

            Orwellian newspeak….gobbledygook….utter nonsense. You'd do quite well in the halls of academe.

          • bob

            Complex answers tend to confuse simple minds….

          • guest

            No newspeak here. Nor, apparently, any counterargument.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "No newspeak here. Nor, apparently, any counterargument."

            Actually your use is new and furthermore you failed to show evidence for your original statement that "speaking of a little chuckle, your sharp cookie apparently doesn't know the difference between sex and gender."

            Can you support your original statement?

            Or was that a 'different guest?"

            Read the whole thread again if you can't find the counterarguments. You may prefer using "sex" but until recently, gender would be clear enough to anyone what is being said. Now it's only unclear to a subset of leftists because they want to "evolve" language to insert their position, that rational people reject.

          • guest

            Rational people can understand a distinction from the biological sex of a person and the behaviors associated with the biological sex, behaviors which change over time and bear looser relationships with the the biology than you want to allow.

            This isn't a complicated or crazy position.

          • Chezwick

            My counter argument is simple….gender is defined as male and female. A male pretending to be female is still a male….just a very confused male.

          • guest

            And that's politics or culture, not only nature.

            Definitions are things people make, like gender.

          • Chezwick

            Ethnicity and race are also "definitions that people make". So I can claim any ethnicity and/or race that I want, eh?

          • Mary Sue

            no, sex is something people do. Gender is something people be.

          • onepornqueen

            Ta da! Ask any competent English teacher.

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    Indeed, the western academy must implode, and a new academy – of free thought – should be built from scratch. This is the only way, simply because its parasitic host is too toxic. Deadly.

    Here are additional proofs – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/08/21/the-paradox-p
    http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/11/26/the-death-of-

    Case closed.

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

    • Drakken

      Put retired Military folks in charge of the whacademic world and then you will see some change.

  • Adam

    First the tenure system has to go, where the elites vote their colleagues in on everything except merit and then can never be fired. The few conservatives are typically adjuncts or never promoted. The second part of the solution is to stop any kind of government funding. if colleges had to survive on their own and run like a real business there may be a chance of weeding out the ridiculous classes. President and Mrs. Obama went through the 'special' multicultural / black studies 'programs' which explains their ideology and the mess we are in.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "First the tenure system has to go…"

      Eradicate all teachers unions at the same time and then I'm with you.

    • guest

      LOL. Clearly, you have never been anywhere close to an actual tenure decision. Politics has never come into it at any point in any case I've ever voted on. No one asks that question because it is irrelevant.

      This notion of some kind of conspiracy against "conservatives" is a fantasy.

      • Gee

        Right that is why most conservative folks are never given tenure. Newt Gingrich is a perfect example.

        Try again with a fact

        • Guest

          Show me a factual account showing that conservatives never get tenure.

          • Mary Sue

            he said most, not all.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Show me a factual account showing that conservatives never get tenure."

            Here we go again. The straw is about to go flying around, all for nothing. Show me the quote you derived your paraphrase from.

          • guest

            So, "most" then. Any factual accounts showing this or any disparity? I doubt you can find something that shows that conservatives gain tenure at a significantly lower rate than non-conservatives.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "LOL. Clearly, you have never been anywhere close to an actual tenure decision. Politics has never come into it at any point in any case I've ever voted on. No one asks that question because it is irrelevant."

        That's funny. Nobody asked about politics at that point. Therefore politics don't enter in to it.

        "This notion of some kind of conspiracy against "conservatives" is a fantasy."

        You called it a conspiracy. I didn't see anyone else use that word. It's the result of cultures corrupted by Marxist derived ideas.

        • guest

          You didn't use the word conservative, true enough. Still, to argue that no conservatives get tenure in a response to a piece which is peddling what amounts to a conspiracy theory, aside from being false, smacks of conspiracy theory.

          • Mary Sue

            nobody said no conservatives get tenure. THey said MOST conservatives don't get tenure, relative to their liberal leftie moonbat colleagues.

            And many of the moon bat lefties are not deserving of tenure at all.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You didn't use the word conservative, true enough."

            You didn't answer the question. I'm trying to illustrate something for you.

            "Still, to argue that no conservatives get tenure"

            Please quote the passage you refer to.

            "in a response to a piece which is peddling what amounts to a conspiracy theory"

            It is your comprehension and analysis that failed.

            "aside from being false, smacks of conspiracy theory."

            In your mind.

          • Guest

            "most never get tenure": I'll concede the all, sure. Nevertheless, I stand by the general contention here. This is a claim without merit because it is not based in evidence. And that is why it smacks of conspiracy theory, well in evidence in much of the Right's attacks on higher education. Witness the essay above.

      • bob

        I agree, objectivefactsmatter (LOL) has not clue about what goes into a tenure decision….

        • objectivefactsmatter

          No clues at all. Ho ho ho. Politics are never a factor at all. Leftist cultural hegemony can't possibly affect any tenure decisions. It just can't happen.

          Then again, the whole "leftist" accusation is just a conspiracy theory. There are no leftists. There are optimistic realists and conservatives whores who just want to exploit non-whites.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          No clues at all. Ho ho ho. Politics are never a factor at all. Leftist cultural hegemony can't possibly affect any tenure decisions. It just can't happen.

          Then again, the whole "leftist" accusation is just a conspiracy theory. There are no leftists. There are optimistic realists (on the left) and greedy selfish conservatives who just want to exploit non-whites.

          • bob

            Have you ever been involved in tenure decisions?

  • dickymo johnston

    One of my posts on my college's electronic discussion board was met with a "who gets to decide what the truth is?" from a colleague. Imagine a college that welcomes terrorist Bill Ayers three times yet successfully snuffs having Condoleezza RIce as a commencement speaker. Does a college ask the LBT<insert thirty other letters here>organization to "maintain a low profile" in respect to different opinions towards the issue of homosexuality? No. That treatment is reserved for the ROTC! We'd hope the good news is that graduates are eventually mugged by reality. Unfortunately, before the mugging is complete they have voted many times for people who accelerate our once-great country down the road to serfdom.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "One of my posts on my college's electronic discussion board was met with a "who gets to decide what the truth is?" from a colleague. Imagine a college that welcomes terrorist Bill Ayers three times yet successfully snuffs having Condoleezza RIce as a commencement speaker."

      And it's not like this is not consistent. Examples like this can be found almost without end.

  • Gamaliel

    Interestingly moral relativism and absolutism are two sides of the same coin. To understand this consider Einsteins theory of relativity from which a lot of mistaken social relativistic ideas were inspired by. All motion is relative to an absolute the speed of light. If everything is relative it has to be relative to some absolute. Just because the University is full of absolutists does not imply that it is not a bastion of moral relativism, on the contrary.

    • D Watson

      Interesting spin off discussion started by clarespark. The terms moral relativism and absolutism are damaged and should be avoided for clear thinking. The popular animus that many in our Universities bear toward Western Civilization has left them in a philosophical no mans land. Everything is upside down and sideways. The only way to understand it is understand their hatred. They don't have a rational philosophy; good, bad or otherwise.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Interesting spin off discussion started by clarespark. The terms moral relativism and absolutism are damaged and should be avoided for clear thinking. The popular animus that many in our Universities bear toward Western Civilization has left them in a philosophical no mans land. Everything is upside down and sideways. The only way to understand it is understand their hatred. They don't have a rational philosophy; good, bad or otherwise."

        Whether they know it or not, they're fighting against anyone that resists their ideas and tactics developed by the Soviets and other communists.

  • http://www.clarespark.com clarespark

    Cultural relativism is poorly understood by many writers and readers of this magazine. I explained it here, with respect to the religious conception of "human nature." See http://clarespark.com/2012/09/28/bibi-and-the-hum…. "Bibi and the Human Nature Debate." Societies differ in their views of morality depending on their particular histories and material resources. To condemn all non-Christians is ignorant and bigoted and betrays the ethical universalism that most Christians believe in.

    • LINO

      Your article explains absolutely nothing about what you mean by 'cultural relativism'. As far as I can tell the concept pretty much boils down to 'Non-self-hating-White-Christian-heterosexual-males are a bunch of bigots'.

    • LINO

      And if you believe in 'ethical universalism' then call yourself an ethical universalist, don't go around calling yourself a Christian.

      • http://www.clarespark.com clarespark

        I never pretended to be a Christian, but only to define what most Christians have in common, which comes from Judaism and the Ten Commandments. I am a scholar, and in private life am a secular person of Jewish descent. Racists will call me a Jew in spite of my materialist outlook, a matter which is beyond my control. As a scholar, I serve the truth and no deity.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "I never pretended to be a Christian, but only to define what most Christians have in common, which comes from Judaism and the Ten Commandments. I am a scholar, and in private life am a secular person of Jewish descent. Racists will call me a Jew in spite of my materialist outlook, a matter which is beyond my control. As a scholar, I serve the truth and no deity."

          What is your position on lying?

          • http://www.clarespark.com clarespark

            I try not to lie. A real scholar is tentative and not dogmatic. A real scholar revises her work in the light of new facts. A real scholar does not pretend to know facts that are really opinions.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I try not to lie. A real scholar is tentative and not dogmatic. A real scholar revises her work in the light of new facts. A real scholar does not pretend to know facts that are really opinions."

            That's great but not what I was looking for. Is lying amoral or immoral?

          • http://www.clarespark.com clarespark

            If it were clear to everyone what is true and what is a lie, there would be no drama and no literature and much less conflict. Herman Melville once said that “the world is soaked in lies.” It is true that confidence-men litter our world with self-serving propositions, but most of us probably do our best, if for no other reason than survival. Personally, I do my best to be objective, but would be the first to admit that I am not perfectly objective. What did Socrates say about the unexamined life?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "If it were clear to everyone what is true and what is a lie, there would be no drama and no literature and much less conflict. "

            You can't answer the question? Furthermore I don't agree but that's another subject. Having a disagreement is not lying. And I'm not talking about what the world would be like without lying. I asked you simply if it was amoral or immoral. Since you say you try not to lie, it seems you're leaning towards the position that it's immoral. Why can't you commit to answering such a simple question?

            "Is lying amoral or immoral?"

            If the answer is that you're afraid to even consider that there is a definitive answer, you need to spend more time thinking about the fundamentals of life.

            "Personally, I do my best to be objective, but would be the first to admit that I am not perfectly objective. What did Socrates say about the unexamined life?"

            That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about whether ANY standard for objective morality exists. I say it does. Lying is immoral. Being "wrong" is not necessarily immoral so please don't conflate to avoid answering the question to discover of any objective morality exists.

            Example: I took something that another person is looking for. The other person asks me about it and rather than answer honestly, I lie for the sake of avoiding the uncomfortable conversation. That's immoral. I might find an excuse, but lying would still be immoral.

          • http://www.clarespark.com clarespark

            You are not a subtle thinker are you? Obviously I believe in the morality of telling the truth. That we are imperfect and often irrational human beings should be obvious. You perhaps conflate lying with being mistaken. Are you a Randian? I admire her as a novelist, but reject her lack of self-examination.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You are not a subtle thinker are you? Obviously I believe in the morality of telling the truth. That we are imperfect and often irrational human beings should be obvious. You perhaps conflate lying with being mistaken. Are you a Randian? I admire her as a novelist, but reject her lack of self-examination."

            Till now I thought you were a lot smarter. You're a non-coercive leftist.

          • http://www.clarespark.com clarespark
          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You left out the Freudian part"

            I was confident that you had it covered and that you have no use for dialog. You can continue our "conversation' indefinitely without any input on my part.

        • Looking4Sanity

          If you don't even adhere to your own religion, what do you feel gives you the right to define someone else's religion? I say "feel" instead of "think" because you obviously lack the capacity for legitimate thought. Some "scholar" you are! You are the poster child for liberal academia.

          Apparently, what you think you know about Christianity wouldn't fill an index card (on one side).

          • http://www.clarespark.com clarespark

            Such are the culture wars, which I do not control. You won’t like this blog, but might learn something about history anyway: <a href="http://clarespark.com/2009/07/04/unfinished-revolutions-and-contested-notions-of-identity/.http://clarespark.com/2009/07/04/unfinished-revol… />

          • Looking4Sanity

            Arrogant little biddy, aren't you? I guarantee you I know more about American history than you ever will…but that is beside the point. Until you confront your own hypocrisy any conversation with you would be beyond pointless.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Apparently, what you think you know about Christianity wouldn't fill an index card (on one side)."

            She's commenting on Christian culture without being able to discern more discretely than that other than what mainstream scholars agree on. For example, pre-Catholic, Catholic, reformation, and so forth. Without being able to discern who is following the actual texts as a whole, it's difficult to ask that of non-Christians.

            Just change "religion" to "culture" in most discourse.

          • Looking4Sanity

            Anyone who's ever taken so much as a survey course of world religions knows those two words have distinct and different definitions. And any American who isn't still sleeping or totally in the tank for Marxism should know that what is wrong with American culture today is a total lack of religion.

            Also, she erroneously states, "…what most Christians have in common, which comes from Judaism and the Ten Commandments". The common foundation of ALL Christian denominations is Christ Jesus, who is reviled in Judaism and not even mentioned in the Ten Commandments. How she gets something that is that basic wrong and still has the nerve to call herself a "scholar" is beyond me.

          • onegaltfanboi

            The emptiest heads are the ones most easily held high. :o)

          • Looking4Sanity

            The emptiest posts are the ones that insult others with no reason or justification. Get a life you little drunken tool.

          • onegaltfanboi

            Ow! It's the antiGalt, Amigo. I was referring to Clare.

            BTW, is it 0900 already? :o)

          • Looking4Sanity

            Any avatar with that gag worthy moniker included in it is suspect. also, it is time to turn your clock forward an hour this morning.

          • onegaltfanboi

            Arizona doesn't change. Daylight Savings Time changes are harrrddd…

            "Tweaker" handle, if ya' know what I mean.

          • 4_Constitution

            Morning. Is this who I think it is? :o)

          • onegaltfanboi

            'Tis and good morning to you. :o)

          • 4_Constitution

            Morning. Your avi is funny and so appropriate.

            My oldest turned 16 this past week. I had a house filled with teenagers and one sick son which led to not much sleep last night. *yawns. I'll be needing a nap soon and it's only 11 am!

          • onegaltfanboi

            Ha ha. Kids are a gift to see to it that we don't sleep too much and wives are a gift designed to see to it that men are humble.

          • 4_Constitution

            Did you see my new avi too?

            Don't tell Moochelle but I'm having a Klondike bar for dessert.

          • OneGaltFanBoi

            sbj1964 and Alinsky Hero are gettin' their hate on this morning. Sundays must be pretty hard on them.

            Cool and appropriate pic. Lawdy, dem peepulz iz insufferable.

            I thought Michele was a Klondyke.

          • 4_Constitution

            Mooches manlike hermaphrodite appearance was prolly a plus for Obama since he's attracted to men in the first place.

            Yeah. I think those two you mentioned can't wait for Obama to outlaw church so they can convert those buildings into Mosques.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Anyone who's ever taken so much as a survey course of world religions knows those two words have distinct and different definitions."

            How often do you hear or read the phrase "Christian culture?" I don't know anyone other than myself who uses it regularly or at all.

            "Also, she erroneously states, "…what most Christians have in common, which comes from Judaism and the Ten Commandments"."

            I assume she meant the Hebrew prophetic texts. You could be right though.

            "The common foundation of ALL Christian denominations is Christ Jesus, who is reviled in Judaism and not even mentioned in the Ten Commandments."

            He reviled anyone who tried to speak for God or as a religious authority without actually quoting prophets correctly.

            "How she gets something that is that basic wrong and still has the nerve to call herself a "scholar" is beyond me."

            Because she meets or exceeds the standards of a typical scholar. Seriously.

          • Looking4Sanity

            “Because she meets or exceeds the standards of a typical scholar. Seriously.”How ironic. Scholarly pursuits used to be an honorable endeavor. Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "How ironic. Scholarly pursuits used to be an honorable endeavor. Oh, how the mighty have fallen."

            That's part of the theme of the article. Of course I agree with it and with you.

    • Gee

      Right that is why most conservative folks are never given tenure. Newt Gingrich is a perfect example.

      • http://www.clarespark.com clarespark

        “Traditionalists” sure get mad at me. Would you prefer a theocracy or a republic based on merit and modern ideas and discoveries?

        • Mary Sue

          many moon bat lefties get tenure despite not fulfilling the barest of qualifications other than, they're moon bat leftist indoctrinators.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Would you prefer a theocracy or a republic based on merit and modern ideas and discoveries?"

          Merit should trump all else. It doesn't. Modern ideas and discoveries have value when they have merit, not because they're modern.

          • http://www.clarespark.com clarespark

            At least we have found common ground. No problem with your clear statement.

  • Mrs. Pharaoh

    Super article. We have seen this in play having college educated six daughters. Yes most of our universities are cesspools of liberalism that disrespect anyone that thinks for themselves and disagrees with the cult but really teaching our children to think comes from the home. As scripture tells us, raise them up in the way they should go and they will not stray from it when they are older. I have seen my kids temporarily flirt with some crazy liberal ideas while in college but all have come to their senses as they have stepped into the real world to earn their way. Parents must be vigulent to not allow these idiots to infect the mind of our children. Stress them that education is about teaching you how to think not what to think. Take the time to talk with them about their classes and the ideas that are presented to them. Educate yourself and do a little reading and research so you are ready to have some thoughtful discussions. This tactic earned my kids repect and many an email asking me to read and edit their papers before submitting to their professors. We had many a hot debate as I challenged them to challenge their professors and stand up for their beliefs and don't be a wimp. It made them uncomfortable but they were surprised at how quickly many professors backed down when they had their facts correct. Better to earn the A as a free thinker than a parrot!

    facts correct. Better to earn the A as a free thinker than a parrot!

    • Drakken

      The best part of college was watching a prof have a complete meltdown trying to explain his/her position when the facts were in complete opposite of what they were spewing as fact. I even had a prof throw a lecturn at me in complete frustration. The fact is, I learned more in the USMC than I ever did at UMD or St. Thomas.

      • Mary Sue

        they threw an entire lecturn at you? a big azz PODIUM stick thing? That wasn't a meltdown, that was "HULK SMAAAAAAAASH!"

  • Permreader

    After Yury Andropov came to power the old Stalin`s time professor the head of the laboratory suddenly cried at the sitting: We all as the every human swear not to publish any open (not the secret one ) article !
    He was had been scared but enthusiastic!

  • JCampbell

    Arts professor / feminist Camile Paglia (no conservative) summed it up well a few years ago: "Liberal arts education has become a soggy boondoggle, obscenely expensive, and diluted with propaganda and group-think."

  • BLJ

    The most expensive form of brainwashing there is. The Left has hijacked all levels of the education system in this country. The creep we have in the WH is a perfect symbol of what they desire.

    • http://www.clarespark.com clarespark

      There was no hijacking but a carefully arranged takeover by highly educated New Leftists who had sharp internal disagreements with each other, but in the end all hated capitalism, so supported each other's hires, even when sectarian disagreements divided them. That was solidarity of a kind I rarely see on the so-called Right or Middle. There is a lesson to be learned from their success. I should add that wishy washy liberals let the Leftists get away with it, and many of these liberals had been radicals during the 1930s.

      • Maxie

        In our capitalist society these "highly educated New Leftists" teach the soft subjects and get paid what they're worth which isn't much. Thus they are a bunch of sullen thumb-suckers getting revenge by whining and brainwashing their hapless student charges. It's materialism not lofty idealism. Go to engineering and science departments for a whole different story.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "In our capitalist society these "highly educated New Leftists" teach the soft subjects and get paid what they're worth which isn't much. Thus they are a bunch of sullen thumb-suckers getting revenge by whining and brainwashing their hapless student charges. It's materialism not lofty idealism. Go to engineering and science departments for a whole different story."

          It's still a huge problem because it empowers leftist politicians and their schemes. See how long our capitalist society lasts if this keeps up.

          • http://www.clarespark.com clarespark

            By "highly educated" I didn't mean that they were indeed educated well, but that they got Ph.D.s in soft subjects like sociology or Ameican Studies with professors who were themselves some kind of activist scholar. I agree with you about science and engineering. The humanities have been trying to nail science as a swindle for a very long time, and the anti-science crowd is sometimes conservative.

      • bob

        Conspiracy theories are apparently alive and well….

        • http://www.clarespark.com clarespark

          You are accusing me of conspiracy theorizing? That was my life experience I presented, as well as I understand it.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Conspiracy theories are apparently alive and well…."

          Is racial bigotry a "conspiracy theory?"

          • bob

            Nope, racial bigotry is alive and well, and is readily observable; just look at the attacks on Obama in the two most recent elections.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Nope, racial bigotry is alive and well, and is readily observable; just look at the attacks on Obama in the two most recent elections."

            Great example for a false conspiracy theory. There certainly are examples of true bigotry though.

            In your theory, would you characterize this as a conspiracy or rather as cultural ideological reactions?

      • Mary Sue

        hijacking, carefully arranged takeover, potato, pohtahto, six of one, half-a-dozen of the other.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "hijacking, carefully arranged takeover, potato, pohtahto, six of one, half-a-dozen of the other."

          There were many conspiracies but most of the work was done by the dupes after they swallowed the ideas. Not everyone was acting from a single coherent central plan. The result is still the same though. Get the Western capitalists to attack each other and promote ideas about a communist or socialist Utopian future.

    • bob

      No, the most expensive form of brainwashing would be religion….

      • Mary Sue

        no that's the cheapest

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "No, the most expensive form of brainwashing would be religion…."

        Just say anything bob.

  • jerome

    Eventually students, as they always do, will rebel against being force fed this endless stream of left wing drivel that continuously, like a cancer , is rotting the free western thought body from within.
    This ugly turning in on itself like some kind of deadly microbe that hates its own existence and denounces the freedoms won in past battles with closed minds, is shutting down any and all dissent because it cannot debate the facts and withstand the scrutiny of debate.
    ideas imposed are now verboten and the goose stepping deans are on the rampage against conservatism.

  • Blue Willow

    I'm so lucky that I only teach math. It is non-political.

    • Chris

      I always thought that's part of the reason why Russians and East Europeans were so good at math during the Cold War.

      If you were honest, talented and inquisitive, only math and the hard sciences would keep you out of trouble.

      Perhaps we are coming to that situation.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "If you were honest, talented and inquisitive, only math and the hard sciences would keep you out of trouble."

        Interesting comment.

    • Skeptic2000

      Math can be very political. Please see: http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/danieljmit

  • Ghostwriter

    At college,I ran into a few professors who are like what is described in the article. I didn't really speak up all that often. I just wanted to learn what I needed to and nothing more.

    • Drakken

      That is the problem right there, not being of an inquisitive mind and just going along to get along.

  • ArmyAviator

    Academia has sunk to all time lows. But, this is not difficult to understand if you know what the Liberal Socialist agenda consists of and their goals. In the 1960's Liberal Socialists took over academia and in the ensuing decades have extended the tentacles to all levels of education, from Univerity to Kindergarten. Liberal Socilalism also has invaded even non-political education, such as engineering and the sciences. The Liberal Socialist doctrine that gender is a social construct, is what's drinving the Women Infantry, in the Army and Marines. However, to achieve the LS goal of INFANTRYWOMEN, opposed to Infantrymen, the physical standards for upper-body strength, endurance in a long run, ability to carry heavy loads for days on end, will simply have to be reduced. The results will be disastrous. A future battlefield littered with the corpses of dead Infantrywomen overcome by MEN far more physically superior to the task. A lost battle, a lost war! But, Hillary Clinton and Sandra Flake will be happy campers, even though their theories of equality will be proven incorrect, dangerous as well as disastrous.

  • http://www.atlantarofters.blogspot.com SanityInspector

    I'd love to one day observe an academic conference, where they all declare that reality is a social construct and meaning is an illusion, and then watch them bicker over the bill in a restaurant afterwards.

    • OneGaltFanBoi

      Ha ha. Good 'un.

  • guest

    This whole idea that somehow the academy holds to some kind of anti-West, anti-American creed is just bunk. The article presents a rehashing of poor readings of thinkers like Derrida and a critique of a multiculturalism that just doesn't exist. It's not surprising, of course, that David Horowitz's site would host such an essay, given his long history of misinformed attacks on imaginary boogey men in the academy.

    This is not to say that there are not real problems with American universities, but they are not the problems that this piece imagines.

    • ericcs

      How lovely… the typical name-calling and unfounded assertions of the left, with the associated rhetorical connotations that anyone who dares critique hallowed leftist icons must surely not have the intellectual prowess to have understood them in the first place.

      Have you ever heard of the word "rationalization"? How about "excuses"? Although I realize in your world definitions are passe, nonetheless I suggest you try inserting such concepts into the shifting sands of your thinking. What is fixed? What is otherwise allowed to be amorphous? Where does one leave off and the other begin, or instead is there no permanent boundary? And if at the end of such peregrinations, you insist that subjectivity is all, then please tell me why I or anyone else should therefore pay any attention whatsoever to your thoughts and speech at this moment in time. In effect, you have declared yourself to be my enemy, and if might makes right, then my side just needs to conduct an effective war in order to relegate you to the ashheap of history. I do believe that will be a lovely day.

      • guest

        What name-calling? It's not name-calling to call attention to David Horowitz's history, is it? It's not name-calling to point out that this piece's representation of deconstruction isn't accurate. Nor do I think that it's rude to call a bad reading a bad reading–adults can disagree. And, note, that I'm not in particular sympathy with deconstruction anyway.

        Definitions are not ever passe, but it's not a radical position to recognize that they change over time. No serious person says that subjectivity is all, as you claim.

        I'm not declaring myself an enemy, just staking out a position that seems to threaten you.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "No serious person says that subjectivity is all, as you claim. "

          We generally claim leftists follow this idea, not serious people. Unless of course you're a serious leftist. They do exist and prove your statement to be incorrect.

          • guest

            Nice dodging into ad hominem.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Nice dodging into ad hominem."

            Is that so? I think not. It's not even clear you know what that means. Try sticking to English.

          • Guest

            How have I misunderstood the ad hominem here?

            You turned to the person here by asserting that leftists aren't serious people.

            No attention to the claim.

    • bob

      Intelligent reply….

    • Lady_Dr

      And could you enlighten us as to what those problems are in your opinion?

      • guest

        Adjunctification.

        Administrative bloat.

        It's not the disciplines or the faculty.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "And could you enlighten us as to what those problems are in your opinion?"

        The problem is that his blood saturation level of grape Kool Aid never drops low enough for him to open his eyes to the truth. Funny how drinking purple Kool Aid makes your glasses turn rose-colored.

    • Mary Sue

      Ward Churchill. That is all.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "This whole idea that somehow the academy holds to some kind of anti-West, anti-American creed is just bunk."

      If only it were not true.

      Start here:

      scholar.harvard.edu/martinkramer/files/IvoryTowers.pdf

      "This is not to say that there are not real problems with American universities, but they are not the problems that this piece imagines."

      Bill Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, I could go on…

      If you can't find the evidence, the evidence must not exist. I've heard that before. After you finish reading that piece, I'll meet you at UCB for a tour. Leave your nukes at home, they're against the law there.

  • ericcs

    Perhaps conservatives need to take a page from Alinsky.

    Ridicule is the most potent weapon that conservatives have against the leftist educational establishment. First and foremost, leftist academics are blindly wedded to a Manichean group-think that presupposes the West is automagically to blame for all the world's ills. Next on the list is the Marxist assumption that everything can be described in strictly economic terms.

    And where does ridicule come in? Its entre is the fact that this is all just intellectual laziness. Don't ever try the hypocrisy angle, instead smear these self-righteous clones with the label of intellectual sloth, and don't ever let up. Your audience is the rest of the class and the student body in general. They are young, and they can still be shaken awake.

    • Looking4Sanity

      That's an interesting theory, and it is not without its merits. However, I think that intellectual sloth is only a by-product of the real problems…intellectual bigotry and willful ignorance. These Marxists are seldom lazy when it comes to foisting their bankrupt ideologies off on America's children.

  • bob

    For all of you who criticize education, may all your physicians (lawyers, etc.) have only a second grade education.

    • Looking4Sanity

      For all of you who defend Marxist indoctrination disguised as "education", may you be lucky enough to have your taxes done by them! "Bob" on THAT, Bob.

      • bob

        So, by your logic, your physician is marxist?

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "So, by your logic, your physician is marxist?"

          Some are. Why? How many Marxists actually reject capitalism in practice? I've never met any.

          What am I saying? You clearly know nothing about Marx's ideas or the derivatives.

          Marx was a guy who would today be expecting the government to hide all of those machines that could produce infinite green energy and "zero carbon footprint" products to the public but the ruling elite capitalists won't allow it because they'd lose all of their power over the victimized masses.

          If someone envies your wealth, you're a thief. If you envy someone else. you're a victim of the wealthy ruling class.

          • bob

            You really can't follow a logical line of argument, can you?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You really can't follow a logical line of argument, can you?"

            When the logic is worth following, I do. Look in the mirror and worry about your own abilities. But don't let anyone stop you from explaining to the world at large what you think your point is. Go for it.

            Smart people would rather have an accountant that believes wholly in capitalism. Marxist-tainted doctors are usually fine performing medical services.

            That's my logic. Now unpack yours for the world to read please.

        • Looking4Sanity

          Oh. I see. Bob wants to play logic! Well, Bob, do I get to choose my physician? Why, yes I do! Now…do I get to choose my educators in a public school system? Gee, it really doesn't work that way, does it? Even in college, my choices are severely restricted.Bob. You shouldn't play with things you don't understand the workings of…like logic. You don't have the skills.

          • bob

            You get to choose your physician, and what process did you use to do that? Did you examine his/her undergraduate courses to see if any of them had been tainted by marxism? Dld you look at all of the syllabi of his/her neuroanatomy courses to make sure the instructor didn't provide a maxist interpretation for the function of the amygdala? Did you provide your physician with a careful survey to make sure s/he was free of all marxist influences? Does s/he watch any of the mainstream media? Maybe, at some point, your physician, without you knowing it, might have even read a book that had the letter "M" in it, which, as your good buddy Glenn Beck will tell you, means it has Marxist overtones. You can never be too careful you know.

          • Looking4Sanity

            Oh, Bobby. Is that the best defense you can muster? I ought to just accept it because it's everywhere? What a sad little life you must lead.

      • bob

        So, when I teach that the nucleus reticularis thalami has an inhibitory effect on thalamocortical projections, you are telling me this is marxist? Please explain, and how would you interpret this in a non-marxist manner? Enlighten me.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "So, when I teach that the nucleus reticularis thalami has an inhibitory effect on thalamocortical projections, you are telling me this is marxist?"

          It's your denial that marks you as one. There is no such thing as a pure Marxist. Try to follow the conversation based on what is actually said.

          You're tainted by Marxism. That doesn't make you his clone. Most Marxists are dupes. Many will denounce Marxism sincerely even as they accept socialist and communist ideas.

          • bob

            How am I tainted by Marxism? You don't know me or anything about me, and yet you make such a claim. In the same way, I doubt you or many others on her have the slightest clue about what goes on in a college or university, yet that doesn't stop you from suggesting (without any data beyond the simplest of anecdotes) that higher education in the U.S. is tainted by Marxism. The paranoia of the right is out of control.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "So, when I teach that the nucleus reticularis thalami has an inhibitory effect on thalamocortical projections, you are telling me this is marxist?"

          Based on what I've read from you so far, chances are that you do taint everything you say and write due to your indoctrination. That's what we're talking about in the first place. We don't accuse you of having a "Marxism is awesome" bumper sticker or lapel pin if that's what you think the point is.

          • bob

            So, how is that statement tainted?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "So, how is that statement tainted?"

            That one isn't on its own, but your motive and use is to defend corrupted institutions from legitimate criticism in the name of critical thinking. Therefore it is tainted.

            I said: "Based on what I've read from you so far, chances are that you do taint everything you say and write due to your indoctrination."

            It's theoretically possible that some of your statements or even some of your ideas are not tainted. I just haven't seen any.

          • bob

            Wait, you just said above that "everything" I say is tainted by Marxism, but now you're saying that my original statement isn't?

            Then you said: ""It's theoretically possible that some of your statements or even some of your ideas are not tainted. I just haven't seen any." right after saying "That one isn't on its own."

            My goodness, you're the humpty dumpty of logic, aren't you? Talk about contradictions!

            My point is that those very educational institutions (liberal indoctrination centers–what a joke) you criticize are the very ones who educate the doctors, lawyers, etc. that you and society depend on.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "My point is that those very educational institutions (liberal indoctrination centers–what a joke) you criticize are the very ones who educate the doctors, lawyers, etc. that you and society depend on."

            If we weren't aware of this bob, we would care a lot less.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            bob: Wait, you just said above that "everything" I say is tainted by Marxism, but now you're saying that my original statement isn't?

            Then you said: ""It's theoretically possible that some of your statements or even some of your ideas are not tainted. I just haven't seen any." right after saying "That one isn't on its own."

            My goodness, you're the humpty dumpty of logic, aren't you? Talk about contradictions!
            —-

            bob is easily confused. Noted. Anyone can read what I wrote and when they understand what I said, you lose.

          • bob

            Like I said, Humpty Dumpty…

    • Mary Sue

      we don't criticize actual education.

      However, bringing in Critical Race THeory, Women's Studies, Identity Politics, Marxist Dialectic, and other trash into the classroom, particularly in subjects where it has ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCE OR BEARING, is not education, and we do criticize that.

      • bob

        Well good, I'm glad we have YOU to determine what curricula all universities should follow…you must have an awesome consulting service!

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Well good, I'm glad we have YOU to determine what curricula all universities should follow…you must have an awesome consulting service!"

          No, just exclude any ideas that hurt your feelings. Don't examine them critically because all criticism is bad. Follow your feelings. You should try to improve your reading comprehension though.

          • bob

            Huh? You really don't make much sense.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Huh? You really don't make much sense."

            That's really too bad for you bob.

            Keep cursing people you disagree with. It reveals a lot about you.

          • bob

            There was no cursing–look up the word in your dictionary. And where did my feelings come into this? You can have any position on any topic you want, as long as you support is with actual data.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "For all of you who criticize education, may all your physicians (lawyers, etc.) have only a second grade education."

      Education is supposed to teach, hear and analyze criticism, not reject and curse it. I can only hope you're not directly involved in any education program.

      • bob

        You've clearly avoided any and all education….congratulations!

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "For all of you who criticize education"

      We're criticizing political and cultural trends that affect the institutions. You reject criticism here and then talk about valuing critical thinking.

      You're evidently not too bright.

      • bob

        If the criticism has no basis, then it deserves to be rejected.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "If the criticism has no basis, then it deserves to be rejected."

          You have to refute it before you reject it. Otherwise you're a hypocrite promoting your ability to think critically while denying it to people who you disagree with based on your emotional reactions to their ideas.
          http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-cr

          • bob

            I suppose you think you can falsify a hypothesis, or prove a negative assertion? You really have no idea how science works, do you?

  • Jim

    The left wing cultists at the universities make the Taliban Look like free thinkers.

    • bob

      Must be difficult being uneducated and conservative…no, wait, that's redundant. Indeed, the data show a positive correlation between education level and liberalism. I guess, one can think critically, there isn't much left in the myopic world of conservatism.

      • bob

        Meant to say: “IF one can think critically…..”

      • Mary Sue

        NO, it shows a positive correlation between liberalism and indoctrination and the absolute inability to think critically.

        BTW, critical thinking does NOT mean "accept whatever left wing idea as the Gospel Sent From ON HIGH™, without Question, and my that purple koolaid is tasty"

        • bob

          The main goal of a liberal arts education is to teach students to think critically–regardless of major. Period. This is why educated individuals tend not to follow Fox news and the like. This is why educated individuals tended to believe fivethirtyeight.com (data) over republican prognosticators (opinion) when it came to the presidential elections.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "The main goal of a liberal arts education is to teach students to think critically–regardless of major. Period. "

            The stated main goal of a liberal arts education is to teach students to think critically–regardless of major. Islam is a religion of peace too. People always do what they say they will.

            "This is why educated individuals tended to believe fivethirtyeight.com (data) over republican prognosticators (opinion) when it came to the presidential elections."

            Correlation is not cause. Not that I take your claims at face value. They're just pointless. If you're providing accurate examples of critical thinking as taught in the institutions you defend, then the article's thesis is well-served by your comments.

            Don't forget that only leftists-in-denial like you are even allowed to utter criticism without being cursed.

          • bob

            You need to learn what a correlation is…….

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You need to learn what a correlation is……."

            My statement is wrong then? Why not show everyone?
            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/correla

            cor·re·la·tion noun ˌkȯr-ə-ˈlā-shən, ˌkär-

            Definition of CORRELATION

            1
            : the state or relation of being correlated; specifically : a relation existing between phenomena or things or between mathematical or statistical variables which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone &lt;the obviously high positive correlation between scholastic aptitude and college entrance — J. B. Conant&gt;
            2
            : the act of correlating

          • bob

            You're hilarious–you continually go to a dictionary definition to justify whatever you want to justify. With regards to fivethirtyeight.com, you immediately told me that correlation does not mean causation. Generally that is true, though there are types of complex correlations that to imply causation. However, fivethirtyeight.com did not rely on correlation, so your criticism is moot.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "fivethirtyeight.com" does not support your stated thesis.

          • bob

            And you have two glial cells looking for something to do…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "And you have two glial cells looking for something to do…"

            I guess by that you mean to say that you can in fact state comprehensively what your thesis is and then we'll measure that against the references you indicated. That should be fun.

            Yeah, my brain cells are looking for something to do. It *might* even take more than 2 to deal with you. But you're probably right that 2 is enough.

            See, we can agree on some things when we're civil.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You're hilarious–you continually go to a dictionary definition to justify whatever you want to justify."

            Those are definitions bob. Nothing more and nothing less. If you want to argue about definitions, present your case. If not, move on unless you want to cry on and on like the super-intelligent atheist being you've imagined yourself to be.
            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crybaby

            Definition of CRYBABY

            : one who cries or complains easily or often

            "However, fivethirtyeight.com did not rely on correlation, so your criticism is moot."

            They didn't but you did.

        • bob

          So, you've seen the research? If not, you're making stuff up; if so, then you're incapable of interpreting it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "So, you've seen the research? If not, you're making stuff up; if so, then you're incapable of interpreting it."

            Which research supports your statements? Line it up for us bob. We're stupid conservatives.

          • bob

            "We're stupid conservatives. " You said it. Glad you finally got the point. My job here is done.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            ""We're stupid conservatives. " You said it. Glad you finally got the point. My job here is done."

            I see what you're so sensitive about in the article. You live entirely in the world of the leftist and can't even see it's limited connections with reality. You're job will never be done because it's founded on delusion.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            We're stupid and you have a bad memory.

            Which research supports your statements? Line it up for us bob. We're stupid conservatives.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Must be difficult being uneducated and conservative…no, wait, that's redundant. "

        Speaking of education bob:
        http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=conserva

        conservative (adj.)
        late 14c., conservatyf, from Middle French conservatif, from Late Latin conservativus, from Latin conservatus, pp. of conservare (see conserve).

        As a modern political tradition, conservatism traces to Edmund Burke's opposition to the French Revolution (1790), but the word conservative is not found in his writing. It was coined by his French disciples, (e.g. Chateaubriand, who titled his journal defending clerical and political restoration "Le Conservateur").

        Conservative as the name of a British political faction first appeared in an 1830 issue of the "Quarterly Review," in an unsigned article sometimes attributed to John Wilson Croker. It replaced Tory (q.v.) by 1843, reflecting both a change from the pejorative name (in use for 150 years) and repudiation of some reactionary policies. Extended to similar spirits in other parties from 1845.
        Strictly speaking, conservatism is not a political system, but rather a way of looking at the civil order. The conservative of Peru … will differ greatly from those of Australia, for though they may share a preference for things established, the institutions and customs which they desire to preserve are not identical. [Russell Kirk (1918-1994)]
        Phrases such as a conservative estimate make no sense etymologically. The noun is attested from 1831, originally in the British political sense.

        conserve (v.)
        late 14c., from Old French conserver (9c.), from Latin conservare "to keep, preserve, keep intact, guard," from com-, intensive prefix (see com-), + servare "keep watch, maintain" (see observe). Related: Conserved; conserving. As a noun (often conserves) from late 14c.

        Bob: "Out with the old, in with the new. We've got to build Utopia already! Weee!"

        Conservatives don't reject ideas because they're new. They reject new ideas that are not proven to be superior to the established ways. In the USA most conservatives rally around the US constitution. But leftists don't see much value in conserving even that. In their minds, the US constitution is something born in sin and impeding the perfect socialist or communist Utopia.

        "Indeed, the data show a positive correlation between education level and liberalism. I guess, one can think critically, there isn't much left in the myopic world of conservatism."

        It's funny to hear an indoctrinated person acknowledge the point of the article this way.

        "I guess, one can think critically, there isn't much left in the myopic world of conservatism."

        Now you're for critical thinking? Not too consistent bob. As long as the criticism doesn't hurt your religious feelings, then it's OK with you.

        • bob

          The data remain: the more educated one is, the less likely one is to hold conservative beliefs. Look at the data instead of the fantasy inside your lissencephalic brain.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            " Look at the data "

            You provided zero evidence ("data") for your vague claims. And if we look at statistics for college grads in the USA, and you are correct, it would support the thesis of this article.

          • bob

            Here you go….knock yourself out–now you will tell me you don't trust the source because it is from a peer reviewed journal…..

            Social Psychology Quarterly
            Vol. 73, No. 1, 33–57 Ó American Sociological Association 2010 DOI: 10.1177/0190272510361602 http://spq.sagepub.com
            Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent SATOSHI KANAZAWA

          • bob

            And if you want a neuro basis for the assertions, here you go:

            Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism
            David M Amodio1, John T Jost1, Sarah L Master2 & Cindy M Yee2
            Nature Neuroscience, VOLUME 10 [ NUMBER 10 [ OCTOBER 2007

          • objectivefactsmatter
          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Here you go….knock yourself out–now you will tell me you don't trust the source because it is from a peer reviewed journal….. "

            And you're supposed to do that when you make your wild claims, not someone points out your failure to do so.

            Peer reviewed is generally better than not. But if you think that makes it a closed question, you've lost the whole argument. Start from the top of the article bob.

            Either conservatives are all a bunch of idiotic conspiracy theorists, or some of the criticism is worth investigating. You haven't actually done that, have you bob?

          • bob

            Well, where is YOUR data? All I've seen from the original article and from you are anecdotes and, your favorite, dictionary definitions.

            As for your closing sentence…go with option one.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Well, where is YOUR data?"

            Supporting what point? I'm in agreement with the article. If you asked me for supporting evidence and I missed it, I apologize. I'll try to review. These long threads don't always load well on the system I'm stuck with right now.

            But seriously, just because something is peer-reviewed doesn't make it a closed case and doesn't entitle you to make unqualified statements that sound similar before you even reference the silly thing. That's not professional if that's how you want to portray yourself bob.

            Are you a professional, a troll, or something in between? Make up your mind if you don't want this to drag on forever.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Well, where is YOUR data?"

            So let's return to your data bob. Which statements did you make that are supported by the articles? I think you made some unqualified remarks and then when challenged you provided some data that doesn't live up to your words. Something like "conservatives are stupid and uneducated." That's paraphrasing because I don't feel like reviewing all of your comments and if you're civilized maybe I'll let you rephrase and then we can teach you how to show a little respect when it's due.

            I haven't completed my review, but it's not very persuasive unless you already want to believe the silly title. And you must know it's not exactly widely respected even among atheistic psychologists.

        • bob

          Do I have religious feelings? How do you know? Talk about presumption!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Do I have religious feelings? How do you know? Talk about presumption!"

            You are so dense. Your religion is leftism.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You turned out to be more fun than I actually expected.

          • bob

            You turned out denser than I expected….which is surprising since I didn't expect much to begin with.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You don't believe any dogmas, right bob?

            "Do I have religious feelings? How do you know? Talk about presumption!"

            Still crying bob?

  • Shelly

    As a conservative professor of English at an extremely liberal institution (and 'outed', btw), this article is spot on. Some days I'm so disgusted I feel like quitting, but then I see the tide SLOWLY changing as conservative educators are finding each other via social media. I'll stick it out and see where we are once this administration has finished it's assault on our liberties.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      Thank you Shelly.