I started this post on March 3 and got--well, a little interrupted since then. So the links may be a little old, but check 'em out anyway. It's still important. It's all still out there.
So--you know the people who talk about the "blame America first crowd," or the "America-haters," or the "guilt-ridden liberal navel-gazers"? I wonder what they think when they hear coverage of our little torture habit. Seems like they probably dismiss it as America-hating propaganda. But this same crowd claims to have--heck, let me be nice--has a very strong moral code. They're the first to condemn immoral behavior, especially if it involves sex.
In the last few days, I've been reading a few things about torture. A harrowing op-ed in the LA Times describes the situation faced by several Guantanamo Bay prisoners from Kuwait. Now, I would be the last to argue that the 9/11 hijackers, or those who want to do more of the same, don't deserve some pretty--shall we say firm?--treatment. But it's so, so easy to imagine that--as the author argues--some warlords in Afghanistan see our terrorist-hunting program as the perfect opportunity to get rid of inconvenient competitors (or just to sell out a few poor schlubs for some reward money). And then the schlubs end up being beaten, shocked, force-fed, and left tied to chairs, forced to crap themselves.
What bothers me, really, is that we are the ones doing this. It is in our name. This is what it means to be an American now. I am American, and my country is doing this, and it's supposed to be what's necessary to protect me, and it's OK to treat a human being this way even though you don't have an ironclad way to affirm that he is evil.
If you talk to most of my fellow citizens, I believe, they will protest that there is no reason to be concerned about Guantanamo Bay because anyone there must deserve what they get. And besides, whatever it takes to prevent another attack, we should do.
Really? So it's not more important to be able to wake up in 10 years and be proud of how we conducted ourselves. It's not more important to have another "good war" like WWII, and not another My Lai. It's not more important to be Caesar than Caligula. (That one's debatable, I know, but take it.)
***
The other thing I read was a piece about the genocide in Darfur. (Link is still not available as of 4/3.) The article was about a student at San Diego State. He grew up in Sudan and watched his family die around him as the genocide developed. He spoke at a high school in Manhattan Beach, telling stories of his simple childhood (well--if you call "having all the kids called inside because lions were roaming around" simple) and its abrupt end. The stories were, of course, chilling. Shortly thereafter, the TV show ER aired an episode in which characters volunteered to give medical care in Darfur. Equally chilling scenes were depicted.
I'm not trying to tell the story here--I couldn't do it justice. But just as I'm disgusted that my nation can commit evil, I am disgusted that we so willingly and obliviously allow others' horrendous evil to continue. Our nation has so much power. We could save human beings in Darfur. Instead, we torture human beings in Cuba.
Sigh.
Friday, March 03, 2006
Thursday, February 23, 2006
More to say today
The LA Times carries an op-ed today about the Winter Olympics, complaining (as echoed by Stephen Colbert--note: that link may not stay current) that the US team isn't serious about winning. My first impulse was to dismiss this as more of the "we deserve to be number one no matter what" tripe that I first heard in the "Japan is beating us" 80s.
The author, Kevin Drum, makes two interesting points, though. First, he mentions that snowboarding outfits, with their baggy pants and hanging clothing, aren't exactly engineered to increase speed for what are ostensibly racing events. Second, he points out that one snowboarder is competing with her iPod in her ears, and another lost the gold when she decided, instead of gunning for the win, to make a cute, bad-ass pose at the end of her race.
It occurred to me that this is the generation raised on Little League games in which no one was declared a winner and everyone got a trophy. It's the generation put through the rat-maze of the "self esteem" movement, in which if you couldn't understand basic math, you got promoted to algebra and beyond anyway. (I know--I taught the kids 10 years older than these when I worked at a residential treatment center in the early 90s. They were in Algebra II and couldn't do basic multiplication. But it would have made them feel bad to be flunked, right? Let's not think of how bad they felt once they got to me.)
As a culture, we teach our kids that there is no reason to work or try. Why should the Olympics be any different? In the end, I thought that Drum was probably right to complain. Only it's not the athletes he should be scolding. It's the rest of us.
The author, Kevin Drum, makes two interesting points, though. First, he mentions that snowboarding outfits, with their baggy pants and hanging clothing, aren't exactly engineered to increase speed for what are ostensibly racing events. Second, he points out that one snowboarder is competing with her iPod in her ears, and another lost the gold when she decided, instead of gunning for the win, to make a cute, bad-ass pose at the end of her race.
It occurred to me that this is the generation raised on Little League games in which no one was declared a winner and everyone got a trophy. It's the generation put through the rat-maze of the "self esteem" movement, in which if you couldn't understand basic math, you got promoted to algebra and beyond anyway. (I know--I taught the kids 10 years older than these when I worked at a residential treatment center in the early 90s. They were in Algebra II and couldn't do basic multiplication. But it would have made them feel bad to be flunked, right? Let's not think of how bad they felt once they got to me.)
As a culture, we teach our kids that there is no reason to work or try. Why should the Olympics be any different? In the end, I thought that Drum was probably right to complain. Only it's not the athletes he should be scolding. It's the rest of us.
In case you thought I was paranoid...
The Nation gives me fodder again today. In an article about Princeton University's conservative beachhead, Max Blumenthal writes:
So--yes--and let's see, we're just 6 years away from the end goal. I'm happy to report that the overthrow seems much farther away than that, at least.
For decades conservatives have viewed America's university system as a dangerous cradle of radicalism. Frank Chodorov, founder of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), was among the first to propose a campaign to assert right-wing influence over universities as a central tactic in the conservative movement's grand strategy.
"What the socialists have done can be undone, if there is a will for it," Chodorov wrote in his 1962 autobiography, Out of Step. "Individualism can be revived by implanting the ideas in the minds of the coming generations.... It is, in short, a fifty-year project."
Under the guidance of former Nixon Treasury Secretary William Simon, who once compared universities to insane asylums, industrial chieftains like John Olin, Harry and Lynde Bradley, and Richard Mellon Scaife bankrolled the fifty-year project, funneling whopping grants to outfits like Accuracy in Academia and ISI. While Accuracy in Academia hyped and, on occasion, manufactured supposed "campus political correctness atrocities," ISI provided a support structure for right-wing academics while grooming a cadre of student activists to, in the group's own words, "battle the radicals and PC types on campuses."
So--yes--and let's see, we're just 6 years away from the end goal. I'm happy to report that the overthrow seems much farther away than that, at least.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Some folks left their brains in San Francisco
Well, I'm back already. Didn't expect this, but I checked SF Gate.com right after I published the last post, and discovered this gem.
Apparently a city near San Bernardino has passed a resolution withholding payment for travel to, or attending workshops held by, San Francisco. The City by the Bay has offended their delicate sensibilities in its government's anti-war stance, and many in Highland (the SB city) see SF as a bunch of freaks that should just be wiped off the face of the earth. Nice.
There's one quote I particularly like:
Apparently a city near San Bernardino has passed a resolution withholding payment for travel to, or attending workshops held by, San Francisco. The City by the Bay has offended their delicate sensibilities in its government's anti-war stance, and many in Highland (the SB city) see SF as a bunch of freaks that should just be wiped off the face of the earth. Nice.
There's one quote I particularly like:
The outspoken McCallon was not willing to cut San Francisco any slack, especially after Sandoval's statement.
"It's a beautiful city," he acknowledged, "but I subscribe that to God, not to anyone up in San Francisco.
Hmmmm. Interesting perspective. The fact that SF is beautiful isn't credited to the foresight of its citizens (and zoning boards), and the fact that much of Red-state Middle America is gross and ugly is totally not its own fault. So if Highland isn't beautiful (I've never been there--but that seems a safe bet), then that's 'cause God decided it should just suck?
And we won't even go into the use of "subscribe"...
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Rocky Mountain highs and lows
What a couple of weeks. We were in Colorado from Feb 9 through 15. A great trip. A little work thrown in, but primarily a real winter getaway. We stayed in Frisco, up in Summit County, just a 15-minute drive from Copper Mountain, where we skiied for 4 days. At first, I thought we were just extra wimpy after getting LA-spoiled by temperate weather; but in fact, our local friends (Sudie, and her boyfriend Tony) were shivering just as much. It was 3 degrees the first day we skiied. Seriously! And the next morning, when we all got up, the car thermometers read -19. It was insanely cold.
Of course, while skiing, the cold was not so noticeable--only going up the lifts did my fingers turn numb inside my heavy-duty, Gore-Tex mittens (with liners and disposable heat-packs tucked in the open space). As long as my hat covered my hair and forehead, goggles covered my eyes, and neck gaiter covered the rest of my face...I was OK! Noah cursed his clothing the first day (yes, literally), and it was understandable. Winter really does encumber.
The 3rd and 4th days were much better. Temps were in the 30s and 40s, which felt downright balmy when we had to walk around the mountain's base. It helped me to remember how I could have felt that Colorado winters were so tolerable, even comfortable. That seems ludicrous every time we complain about 60-degree days. On campus yesterday, for example, every time an exterior door opened, I heard loud laments about how "freezing" it was. I think the high was 58.
We had a terrific time visiting with my Dad and Mark, who came up for most of the time to share the condo and enjoy their own winter getaway. They went snowshoeing, (dog) sledding, skiing, and shopping--the 4 Ss--and it seemed like a lot of fun. I think next time I'll take one day off from skiing (oh, the sore quads!!) and try some of those alternatives. Sudie and Tony snowshoed one day, too, and then skiied with us for two days. Actually, not with me--I was sticking to the easier slopes, as my legs complained loudly every time I tried to carve a turn. But Noah divided his time between them and me, and I think he got more skiing in than any of us. Mark turns out to be quite a good skiier for not having hit the slopes in 15 years. And Dad gave it a try for the first time ever, at 65. Impressive. He looked pretty comfortable during the brief time I watched. Hopefully he'll go again before too long.
Though we all went out to dinner the first night, it was a bit exhausting, and I think none of us was really excited about the noise and crowds of the apres-ski scene in Breckenridge. So we tended to have quieter meals after that--spaghetti and meatballs (fake & real) one night, a sort of scrounge-for-yourself the next. We got to bed at around 8 or 9pm and slept about 12 hours a night. Even so, on our way home, I got the cold that Sudie was battling during the whole trip. She was a trooper; I, less so.
We spent some time in Boulder on both ends (including my time meeting up with folks from CU). On the 14th, Noah and I celebrated our 10th "dating" anniversary. On that date 10 years ago, I showed up at his apartment ready to declare my feelings, and instead stammered in a corner to get him to declare his. It worked out. And how nice that we were back in the same place, 10 years later, for one night only. We had Valentine's Day dinner at Chautauqua Dining Hall, just the two of us--the same place where we had our wedding reception. It was a very nice symmetry and, despite our fatigue, a romantic dinner.
Of course, right afterward, we high-tailed it to Denver, to check into our airport hotel for about 4 hours of sleep before getting on a 6am flight the next morning. I had to teach that next day at 3:30, and we planned our flights to allow for any mishaps. Good thing, as we missed our connection in Phoenix (well, actually we didn't--the airline just said we did--that's a whole 'nother story) and had to spend some stressful hours waiting to catch up with the planning. In the end, I made it to class, delivered two lectures (sore throat and all), and we settled back into our lives very smoothly. I taught my other class on Thursday, taught one makeup class on Friday, and today we have been relaxing.
Kibble had his first stay at a kennel. He came back a bit shell-shocked, but intact. He has also settled back into his life, and has remembered our family relationships and our affection for him with no trouble. Once Noah gave him a bath and made him bearable to smell (kennels do lead to stench, don't they?), he's been a joy to cuddle.
That's it for now. No politics or philosophy today, just the update. More soon, I hope.
Of course, while skiing, the cold was not so noticeable--only going up the lifts did my fingers turn numb inside my heavy-duty, Gore-Tex mittens (with liners and disposable heat-packs tucked in the open space). As long as my hat covered my hair and forehead, goggles covered my eyes, and neck gaiter covered the rest of my face...I was OK! Noah cursed his clothing the first day (yes, literally), and it was understandable. Winter really does encumber.
The 3rd and 4th days were much better. Temps were in the 30s and 40s, which felt downright balmy when we had to walk around the mountain's base. It helped me to remember how I could have felt that Colorado winters were so tolerable, even comfortable. That seems ludicrous every time we complain about 60-degree days. On campus yesterday, for example, every time an exterior door opened, I heard loud laments about how "freezing" it was. I think the high was 58.
We had a terrific time visiting with my Dad and Mark, who came up for most of the time to share the condo and enjoy their own winter getaway. They went snowshoeing, (dog) sledding, skiing, and shopping--the 4 Ss--and it seemed like a lot of fun. I think next time I'll take one day off from skiing (oh, the sore quads!!) and try some of those alternatives. Sudie and Tony snowshoed one day, too, and then skiied with us for two days. Actually, not with me--I was sticking to the easier slopes, as my legs complained loudly every time I tried to carve a turn. But Noah divided his time between them and me, and I think he got more skiing in than any of us. Mark turns out to be quite a good skiier for not having hit the slopes in 15 years. And Dad gave it a try for the first time ever, at 65. Impressive. He looked pretty comfortable during the brief time I watched. Hopefully he'll go again before too long.
Though we all went out to dinner the first night, it was a bit exhausting, and I think none of us was really excited about the noise and crowds of the apres-ski scene in Breckenridge. So we tended to have quieter meals after that--spaghetti and meatballs (fake & real) one night, a sort of scrounge-for-yourself the next. We got to bed at around 8 or 9pm and slept about 12 hours a night. Even so, on our way home, I got the cold that Sudie was battling during the whole trip. She was a trooper; I, less so.
We spent some time in Boulder on both ends (including my time meeting up with folks from CU). On the 14th, Noah and I celebrated our 10th "dating" anniversary. On that date 10 years ago, I showed up at his apartment ready to declare my feelings, and instead stammered in a corner to get him to declare his. It worked out. And how nice that we were back in the same place, 10 years later, for one night only. We had Valentine's Day dinner at Chautauqua Dining Hall, just the two of us--the same place where we had our wedding reception. It was a very nice symmetry and, despite our fatigue, a romantic dinner.
Of course, right afterward, we high-tailed it to Denver, to check into our airport hotel for about 4 hours of sleep before getting on a 6am flight the next morning. I had to teach that next day at 3:30, and we planned our flights to allow for any mishaps. Good thing, as we missed our connection in Phoenix (well, actually we didn't--the airline just said we did--that's a whole 'nother story) and had to spend some stressful hours waiting to catch up with the planning. In the end, I made it to class, delivered two lectures (sore throat and all), and we settled back into our lives very smoothly. I taught my other class on Thursday, taught one makeup class on Friday, and today we have been relaxing.
Kibble had his first stay at a kennel. He came back a bit shell-shocked, but intact. He has also settled back into his life, and has remembered our family relationships and our affection for him with no trouble. Once Noah gave him a bath and made him bearable to smell (kennels do lead to stench, don't they?), he's been a joy to cuddle.
That's it for now. No politics or philosophy today, just the update. More soon, I hope.
Friday, February 03, 2006
And another birthday...
My dad's birthday was yesterday. Happy birthday, Dad! Hope it was a great 65!
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Wishes
My mom's birthday was Friday, January 27th. (Everybody say it with me now...)
Happy birthday, Mom!!
Happy birthday, Mom!!
Monday, January 23, 2006
They're coming for me next
The next target in the vast right-wing conspiracy is me.
Well, me and everyone like me.
As I understand the conservative "revolution," about 30 or 40 years ago there was a broad movement to start getting Republicans elected to school boards and other local offices, in order to cultivate a hothouse of new seedling candidates ready to advance up the trellis of state and local government. (Metaphor too heavy-handed?) It was enormously successful. Eisenhower railed against the creation of the military-industrial complex; even Nixon was one of the most environmentally-progressive presidents we've ever had. And yet these views would seem far left today, when the Republican party is dominated by ultra-conservatives. More important, the (federal) government is dominated by the Republican party, with the executive and both houses of Congress in conservative hands. Even the Supreme Court is being pushed toward the conservative.
I think we can call their governmental strategy a success.
During this period, conservatives began to organize think tanks that could package their ideas into parsimonious visions to guide the movement. This gave them intellectual traction.
In the late 80s, we saw the first incursion into the media, as hard-right blowhards started to occupy the radio dial and create a following of folks concerned about the country and previously confounded by the complexity of political discussion. That early presence, of course, exploded in the 90s, reaching its zenith with the ascendance of Fox News and other networks' rush (no pun) to install imitators.
A crucial element of the conservative strategy in media has been its vociferous complaint that the media are stridently and unswervingly leftist. Books have been written and advocacy groups founded to highlight the instances of "liberal bias." And this has been phenomenally effective in two ways: first, of course, it creates public skepticism about anything reported by media that didn't bear the seal of approval. No longer should we believe what's told to us by NBC or CNN or (gasp!) the New York Times. So we are left rudderless in the effort to gauge truth, or even reliable reporting.
More insidiously, it caused members of the media themselves to second-guess their coverage and to bend over backwards to demonstrate a lack of liberal bias. As such, I contend, it facilitated the rise in conservative bias. The run-up to the Iraq War was perhaps the most vivid (and egregious) example of the media's failure to do anything resembling their job, as they tumbled over themselves to avoid seeming to challenge the president and his conservative views.
I will acknowledge that the media have recently shown signs of life again. But it's really too late. We now have a vast populace of people who do not evaluate news or knowledge based on science, fact, quality of reporting, or even their own independent investigation of what is reported. Instead, we have people who identify with a particular opinionist, and accept everything he says without question. This means that any dissenting view is immediately rejected, and it is rejected as a matter of rejecting the source--the person offering it--rather than the content of what is said. There is no weighing the relative merits of different views. Instead, if Rush says I shouldn't believe it, well hell, I don't.
Doesn't this seem a fantastic argument? I am literally suggesting that people do not think at all in any critical manner, but instead could be manipulated as blatantly as in 1984. Yes, I am saying that. I see this in my students. I have these people among my own family and closer acquaintances. And I know of others who have them, as well.
OK, I'm getting there. Now that government and the media are all sewn up (and I don't think we needed to question whether "the church" would climb on board--what's shocking is how much the conservatives even court churches with traditionally unsympathetic congregants), it is time to move to...
...the universities. David Horowitz, oddly appealing-looking for someone for whom I have great antipathy, is releasing a book guaranteed to make my job title the new slander against Liberal Elites: The Professors. (Think "the trial attorneys," "the media"... .)
I first became aware of the new targeting of universities last year, with the coincidence of the Ward Churchill story and a bill in the Colorado Legislature to impose sanctions on professors who were keeping conservative viewpoints out of the classroom. News coverage at the time (will link when possible) quoted students saying that they were disturbed by having to listen to material that they did not like in semi-required classes. (Rejoinder: if you don't like hearing it and I say it, that is not bias. If there is science and reason to back up statements made in a classroom setting, that is not necessarily bias. Too many conservatives want to create a Fox News-like cocoon around their entire lives, and not be threatened by mere exposure to a different worldview. Here's an example of the type.)
Horowitz is energetic. His fingerprints are all over this movement. And his latest touch came in the LA Times, which published his opinion piece promoting bills for "academic freedom"--which, essentially, establish the legislative foundation for taking outside control of universities through legal action.
As evidence that there is a problem requiring such legal redress, he offers the following:
These are the only actual data provided. So we are to assume that the imbalance in numbers is sufficient to create raging bias in classrooms. First, this presumes that no one can identify with a political orientation and not suffuse all their activities with that orientation. Second, this presumes that the professors in question were politically identified first, and then went into academia to proselytize. What about the alternative hypothesis that academic work, with its emphasis on empiricism and logic, tends to lead to conclusions more associated with liberal politics? In psychology, certainly, the field is ruled by the scientific method. And while individual politics may, I agree, influence the questions studied and the methods chosen for the study, we simply see over and over that the results of our studies do not comport with an ideologically conservative view of the world. Many of us identify as "liberal" simply because that is the political group that recognizes what our science suggests is more accurate.
(Of course, science itself is so under attack now that I recognize why this is no defense in the eyes of conservatives.)
The same week that Horowitz's piece appeared, we saw an article about a new organization that is looking for examples of leftist teaching at UCLA. (A targeted professor responds here.) The group was paying current students to turn in taped lectures and incriminating information about professors seen as too liberal, and these were in turn posted on the group's website. (I won't link to it here because I don't want to increase its impact counts, but the group name is "Bruin Alumni Association" for those who want to google.) nb, the kid heading this venture used to work with--you guessed it--David Horowitz.
In short, the conservatives have done an exceptional job of shaping and maintaining the American public's view of reality. The government and right-wing media provide a seamless story about truth. Unfortunately, science and education have continued to emphasize empirical inquiry and the ascendancy of reliability and validity, not ideology, as tests of truth. So now science and education must be brought in line. That's why I am the next target.
Well, me and everyone like me.
As I understand the conservative "revolution," about 30 or 40 years ago there was a broad movement to start getting Republicans elected to school boards and other local offices, in order to cultivate a hothouse of new seedling candidates ready to advance up the trellis of state and local government. (Metaphor too heavy-handed?) It was enormously successful. Eisenhower railed against the creation of the military-industrial complex; even Nixon was one of the most environmentally-progressive presidents we've ever had. And yet these views would seem far left today, when the Republican party is dominated by ultra-conservatives. More important, the (federal) government is dominated by the Republican party, with the executive and both houses of Congress in conservative hands. Even the Supreme Court is being pushed toward the conservative.
I think we can call their governmental strategy a success.
During this period, conservatives began to organize think tanks that could package their ideas into parsimonious visions to guide the movement. This gave them intellectual traction.
In the late 80s, we saw the first incursion into the media, as hard-right blowhards started to occupy the radio dial and create a following of folks concerned about the country and previously confounded by the complexity of political discussion. That early presence, of course, exploded in the 90s, reaching its zenith with the ascendance of Fox News and other networks' rush (no pun) to install imitators.
A crucial element of the conservative strategy in media has been its vociferous complaint that the media are stridently and unswervingly leftist. Books have been written and advocacy groups founded to highlight the instances of "liberal bias." And this has been phenomenally effective in two ways: first, of course, it creates public skepticism about anything reported by media that didn't bear the seal of approval. No longer should we believe what's told to us by NBC or CNN or (gasp!) the New York Times. So we are left rudderless in the effort to gauge truth, or even reliable reporting.
More insidiously, it caused members of the media themselves to second-guess their coverage and to bend over backwards to demonstrate a lack of liberal bias. As such, I contend, it facilitated the rise in conservative bias. The run-up to the Iraq War was perhaps the most vivid (and egregious) example of the media's failure to do anything resembling their job, as they tumbled over themselves to avoid seeming to challenge the president and his conservative views.
I will acknowledge that the media have recently shown signs of life again. But it's really too late. We now have a vast populace of people who do not evaluate news or knowledge based on science, fact, quality of reporting, or even their own independent investigation of what is reported. Instead, we have people who identify with a particular opinionist, and accept everything he says without question. This means that any dissenting view is immediately rejected, and it is rejected as a matter of rejecting the source--the person offering it--rather than the content of what is said. There is no weighing the relative merits of different views. Instead, if Rush says I shouldn't believe it, well hell, I don't.
Doesn't this seem a fantastic argument? I am literally suggesting that people do not think at all in any critical manner, but instead could be manipulated as blatantly as in 1984. Yes, I am saying that. I see this in my students. I have these people among my own family and closer acquaintances. And I know of others who have them, as well.
OK, I'm getting there. Now that government and the media are all sewn up (and I don't think we needed to question whether "the church" would climb on board--what's shocking is how much the conservatives even court churches with traditionally unsympathetic congregants), it is time to move to...
...the universities. David Horowitz, oddly appealing-looking for someone for whom I have great antipathy, is releasing a book guaranteed to make my job title the new slander against Liberal Elites: The Professors. (Think "the trial attorneys," "the media"... .)
I first became aware of the new targeting of universities last year, with the coincidence of the Ward Churchill story and a bill in the Colorado Legislature to impose sanctions on professors who were keeping conservative viewpoints out of the classroom. News coverage at the time (will link when possible) quoted students saying that they were disturbed by having to listen to material that they did not like in semi-required classes. (Rejoinder: if you don't like hearing it and I say it, that is not bias. If there is science and reason to back up statements made in a classroom setting, that is not necessarily bias. Too many conservatives want to create a Fox News-like cocoon around their entire lives, and not be threatened by mere exposure to a different worldview. Here's an example of the type.)
Horowitz is energetic. His fingerprints are all over this movement. And his latest touch came in the LA Times, which published his opinion piece promoting bills for "academic freedom"--which, essentially, establish the legislative foundation for taking outside control of universities through legal action.
As evidence that there is a problem requiring such legal redress, he offers the following:
...the one-sided nature of university faculties has now been the subject of several academic studies. A 2003 study by professor Daniel Klein of Santa Clara University, for instance, found that around the country Democrats outnumbered Republicans about 30 to 1 in the field of anthropology, about 28 to 1 in sociology, and about 7 to 1 in political science.
Another study, conducted by professors at Smith College, the University of Toronto and George Mason University, looked at data from a large national sample of professors and found that professors of English who identified themselves as leaning left outnumbered their conservative-leaning colleagues by 30 to 1; professors of political science by 40 to 1; and professors of history by 8 to 1.
These are the only actual data provided. So we are to assume that the imbalance in numbers is sufficient to create raging bias in classrooms. First, this presumes that no one can identify with a political orientation and not suffuse all their activities with that orientation. Second, this presumes that the professors in question were politically identified first, and then went into academia to proselytize. What about the alternative hypothesis that academic work, with its emphasis on empiricism and logic, tends to lead to conclusions more associated with liberal politics? In psychology, certainly, the field is ruled by the scientific method. And while individual politics may, I agree, influence the questions studied and the methods chosen for the study, we simply see over and over that the results of our studies do not comport with an ideologically conservative view of the world. Many of us identify as "liberal" simply because that is the political group that recognizes what our science suggests is more accurate.
(Of course, science itself is so under attack now that I recognize why this is no defense in the eyes of conservatives.)
The same week that Horowitz's piece appeared, we saw an article about a new organization that is looking for examples of leftist teaching at UCLA. (A targeted professor responds here.) The group was paying current students to turn in taped lectures and incriminating information about professors seen as too liberal, and these were in turn posted on the group's website. (I won't link to it here because I don't want to increase its impact counts, but the group name is "Bruin Alumni Association" for those who want to google.) nb, the kid heading this venture used to work with--you guessed it--David Horowitz.
In short, the conservatives have done an exceptional job of shaping and maintaining the American public's view of reality. The government and right-wing media provide a seamless story about truth. Unfortunately, science and education have continued to emphasize empirical inquiry and the ascendancy of reliability and validity, not ideology, as tests of truth. So now science and education must be brought in line. That's why I am the next target.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Thought of the day (er, week)
1. I was about to distance myself from Katha Pollitt (because, you know, everyone just associates us so closely with one another) for being kind of a nutjob. But then it turned out I was confusing her with Susan Estrich. And when I googled "Katha Pollitt" and "Michael Kinsley" to be sure I had the story right (note: I didn't), I found this piece by Pollitt that I really like too. So forget the distance--Yay Katha Pollitt!!
2. The actual thought of the day, which is really the thought of the week since now that I'm teaching and trying to write two papers (or portions thereof), I am apparently just posting on Thursdays. (Before I get to the thought itself, I'll just mention that the Thursday-posting pattern must be because I feel self-indulgent after teaching negotiation on Wednesdays and graduate methods on Thursday afternoons, and can sit down and think my own thoughts for a while!)
Anyway, no links for this one. I heard an interesting quote on the radio the other day (sorry, forgot when/where) about how retirement will be particularly difficult for many boomer-ish executives because they do not realize how much their expense accounts have been subsidizing their lifestyles. True, isn't it? Even for me, I get to eat in fancy restaurants because I am part of the recruiting committee; to stay in high-priced hotels because it's just "expected" of b-school types when we go to conferences; and to travel around the world in ways I couldn't afford because I can arrange to present my research in Spain and Hawaii and Prague.
If a decent-sized chunk of the populace wants to continue reaping these kinds of benefits, then perhaps it's no wonder that we tolerate the privileging of corporate interests over people's interests, of company health over labor vitality.
But isn't it a bit perverse that, while the folks at the top (yes, I too) are being subsidized by the company, the pattern at the bottom goes in reverse. People in hourly jobs are often forced to work off the clock--so they give up the one exchangeable resource they have (their time) for free. Companies continually cut the health coverage of their low-level workers in the name of the bottom line. These workers pay for coverage themselves, or just go uninsured. But the company has all those dollars now! All those millions of low-level, uneducated, powerless workers just happy they are holding on to minimum wage--they are subsidizing the company.
Hierarchical systems work, and are stable, because the folks at the bottom apply their muscle, follow orders, and work hard to keep things running; and the folks at the top are better equipped to plan and direct. In all hierarchies, benefits accrue to the top. They get lots of privileges and, well, stuff. But the key is that they also have to take care of the folks at the bottom--the hierarchy is all about keeping the whole group going strong together. And these guys are ridiculously easy to please. Thank them, act like you really owe them, and be sure they aren't paralyzed with fear because they can't pay the grocery bill, or the heating bill, or the bill for their cancer treatment. It's called noblesse oblige, and it's been around forever.
When the privileged forget about noblesse oblige, bad things happen. Think Marie Antoinette. It takes a while for people to realize they're getting screwed, but once they do--look out.
And so here we are, a society in which we not only blow off taking care of the people at the bottom, but we require them to subsidize our companies, and then the companies subsidize those of us who think it's normal to just eat cake.
The kicker? Having said all of this, I should be running to the dean to ask that my salary be cut and the surplus reallocated to one of the janitors. Guess how fast I'm doing that?
Edited to add: GREAT related post here.
And then...AHA! :The Magic Number"--Found it.
2. The actual thought of the day, which is really the thought of the week since now that I'm teaching and trying to write two papers (or portions thereof), I am apparently just posting on Thursdays. (Before I get to the thought itself, I'll just mention that the Thursday-posting pattern must be because I feel self-indulgent after teaching negotiation on Wednesdays and graduate methods on Thursday afternoons, and can sit down and think my own thoughts for a while!)
Anyway, no links for this one. I heard an interesting quote on the radio the other day (sorry, forgot when/where) about how retirement will be particularly difficult for many boomer-ish executives because they do not realize how much their expense accounts have been subsidizing their lifestyles. True, isn't it? Even for me, I get to eat in fancy restaurants because I am part of the recruiting committee; to stay in high-priced hotels because it's just "expected" of b-school types when we go to conferences; and to travel around the world in ways I couldn't afford because I can arrange to present my research in Spain and Hawaii and Prague.
If a decent-sized chunk of the populace wants to continue reaping these kinds of benefits, then perhaps it's no wonder that we tolerate the privileging of corporate interests over people's interests, of company health over labor vitality.
But isn't it a bit perverse that, while the folks at the top (yes, I too) are being subsidized by the company, the pattern at the bottom goes in reverse. People in hourly jobs are often forced to work off the clock--so they give up the one exchangeable resource they have (their time) for free. Companies continually cut the health coverage of their low-level workers in the name of the bottom line. These workers pay for coverage themselves, or just go uninsured. But the company has all those dollars now! All those millions of low-level, uneducated, powerless workers just happy they are holding on to minimum wage--they are subsidizing the company.
Hierarchical systems work, and are stable, because the folks at the bottom apply their muscle, follow orders, and work hard to keep things running; and the folks at the top are better equipped to plan and direct. In all hierarchies, benefits accrue to the top. They get lots of privileges and, well, stuff. But the key is that they also have to take care of the folks at the bottom--the hierarchy is all about keeping the whole group going strong together. And these guys are ridiculously easy to please. Thank them, act like you really owe them, and be sure they aren't paralyzed with fear because they can't pay the grocery bill, or the heating bill, or the bill for their cancer treatment. It's called noblesse oblige, and it's been around forever.
When the privileged forget about noblesse oblige, bad things happen. Think Marie Antoinette. It takes a while for people to realize they're getting screwed, but once they do--look out.
And so here we are, a society in which we not only blow off taking care of the people at the bottom, but we require them to subsidize our companies, and then the companies subsidize those of us who think it's normal to just eat cake.
The kicker? Having said all of this, I should be running to the dean to ask that my salary be cut and the surplus reallocated to one of the janitors. Guess how fast I'm doing that?
Edited to add: GREAT related post here.
And then...AHA! :The Magic Number"--Found it.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Girls & Boys
I found this opinion piece from the Nation quite interesting. Katha Pollitt is countering the arguments of conservatives who say that gender bias in schools has now reversed. She recounts anecdotes from her own child's schooling, and from facebook.com, to argue that the charge of "feminization" of education is a myth.
I agree. This is the War on Christmas transferred to schools. The core complaint cited by Pollitt is that elementary and high schools have
In short? Pplllllllllllllllfff. Another maelstrom that's just so much hot air.
In other news, dear readers, classes started this week. I'm teaching (2 sections with MBAs, one with PhDs) and so my blogging time and attention have taken a hit. Sorry for the longer times between updates!
Edited to add: I just realized that I'm part of the problem! Here I am talking about feminization of education, and then I, a mere slip of a girl, toddle off in my kitten heels to dare to teach business to graduate students! The horror!
I agree. This is the War on Christmas transferred to schools. The core complaint cited by Pollitt is that elementary and high schools have
too many female teachers, too much sitting quietly, not enough sports and a feminist-friendly curriculum that forces boys to read--oh no!--books by women.Pollitt's own arguments aside, do conservatives really know so little about the times to which they harken so longingly? They should leaf through a Little Colonel book once in a while (The Little Colonel in Arizona has some relevant scenes). These tomes--paragons of the way things used to be circa 1910, when girls stayed out of politics and Blacks stayed in the servants' quarters--include some fascinating schoolhouse anthropology. Female teachers? Plenty of them. Sitting quietly? Much more quietly, and much more motionlessly, than anyone would accept today. (And the girls were just as fidgety as the boys.) Sports and extracurriculars? Little suggestion that they existed. Books by women? Hard to say, but I suspect the conservatives are right on that one.
In short? Pplllllllllllllllfff. Another maelstrom that's just so much hot air.
In other news, dear readers, classes started this week. I'm teaching (2 sections with MBAs, one with PhDs) and so my blogging time and attention have taken a hit. Sorry for the longer times between updates!
Edited to add: I just realized that I'm part of the problem! Here I am talking about feminization of education, and then I, a mere slip of a girl, toddle off in my kitten heels to dare to teach business to graduate students! The horror!
But just to keep score. Among tenured faculty in my program: Male, 8; Female, 1. And she's been living in Ireland for the past five years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)