I was hoping for more. Why are college faculty 80+% left-leaning was the bait. I didn't hear any explanation.
I'm all for studying humanity, the more data the better. The question is why do 80% of college faculty interpret that data to fit into current progressive policies? Over time, I have concluded that progressives (the original ones from the late 1800s and early 1900s) and today's progressives identify real problems in society. Those are problems conservatives would never bother with. Progressives have true value in this sense. It is when progressives attempt to solve problems, things go awry.
Every progressive solution to those excellent observations that I have studied has been a great disappointment if not a complete failure. Included in that list is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Indian Health Services, the VA, the welfare trap, Head Start, Certificate of Need, and many more.
It would be great if progressives and problem solvers could work together to create solutions that don't depend on "profit" for a third party. (By "profit" I mean the gathering of money and the gathering of power -- the greed for money, the greed for power).
I challenge anyone to come up with an American health care system that is better than any in the world today. (That is how it was in the 1950s and 1960s). Let's stop bemoaning the present and start creating an excellent future. Here is a wild card in for your thoughts. America has won 60% of the Nobel Prizes in Medicine since 1950. We know how to solve problems. Will we?
It’s funny. As a student in the early 90s I was definitely on the conservative side of the equation. Looking back I was always more moderate than most of my conservative friends, but the college I attended had a faculty that ran the spectrum from left to hard left. I knew that reputation going in.
I was always polite and respectful to my professors. I found that they were polite and respectful back. Not only that, they loved having me. No one else spoke up for a right of center viewpoint. They challenged and debated me. I learned how to prepare and to defend my ideas. I was confronted with new ideas. I never changed my core values, but I learned to see many things in new lights. Those professors helped grind out the dull edges and they made me sharper. Like a whetstone to a blade.
I’ve always felt sorry for my friends on the left. They never had the privilege that I did. They could just go along to get along. They never had to defend their most cherished beliefs in a room full of people who were either opposed or silent. They never had to read the material with an eagle eye and ponder it to work out the strengths and weaknesses.
Mindset has a lot to do with it. I remember making a similar point about being a diplomat overseas. No, I’m not a critic only of your country but of everywhere I go. I see the problems, abuses, and shortcomings clearest of all. Of course, now that I’ve been back in my own country for almost a decade now, that’s about all I do see. Is it me? 😳
“You can either be somebody or do something. You can’t be both.” Colonel John Boyd, creator of the energy maneuverability theory. The theory that revolutionized the Air Force. So is it to be or to do?
Sorry for not being clearer. It comes from a book I was reading a biography about John Boyd. And he was talking about life in the military. He said there are careerists (the people who want to be somebody) which according to Boyd conform to the norm and betray friends then there are people who want to do something (the idealists) who don’t raise up in the military because they actually want to accomplish something. As a civilian I never know that there were people in the military who think like punks rockers.
Ahh, I thought this is was the intended meaning of the quote. This trade-off makes a lot of sense to me. I suspect the theme holds true across a diverse range of organizations.
Yes, I was reading this article in last week’s New York Times Sunday magazine about academic freedom and the author cited this interesting example regarding Bertrand Russell. In 1940 he got fired from the city university of New York as a professor because of his views regarding sex and sexuality.
I think your definition of reviewer is fascinating and have been thinking the same thing because of the recent Michael B. Jordan movie called Sinner. Ever critic, nearly everyone generally rave about how great it is; however, while it has so many great aspects woven into it, I think as a movie it is not very good at all because the screenplay isn’t written well, doesn’t match the historical references made throughout it, etc. It could have been much better with better focus. If you’ve never seen it, you could probably skim through at double time and read the dialogue to quickly understand my point. As always, I enjoy reading your material!
I would venture that many of the science faculty lean left as well. Those with doctorates in the sciences can usually make a great deal of money working in the private sector. So those who work at Universities have dedicated themselves to teaching and research that might not be as lucrative.
I've often wondered why conservatives don't confront the leftish culture of most screenwriters, publishers, and musicians by simply producing better cultural products that have widespread appeal (eg, not meant just for conservative consumption). This doesn't seem to happen or am I missing something? Is it because many conservatives gravitate to more traditional private sector roles?
I was hoping for more. Why are college faculty 80+% left-leaning was the bait. I didn't hear any explanation.
I'm all for studying humanity, the more data the better. The question is why do 80% of college faculty interpret that data to fit into current progressive policies? Over time, I have concluded that progressives (the original ones from the late 1800s and early 1900s) and today's progressives identify real problems in society. Those are problems conservatives would never bother with. Progressives have true value in this sense. It is when progressives attempt to solve problems, things go awry.
Every progressive solution to those excellent observations that I have studied has been a great disappointment if not a complete failure. Included in that list is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Indian Health Services, the VA, the welfare trap, Head Start, Certificate of Need, and many more.
It would be great if progressives and problem solvers could work together to create solutions that don't depend on "profit" for a third party. (By "profit" I mean the gathering of money and the gathering of power -- the greed for money, the greed for power).
I challenge anyone to come up with an American health care system that is better than any in the world today. (That is how it was in the 1950s and 1960s). Let's stop bemoaning the present and start creating an excellent future. Here is a wild card in for your thoughts. America has won 60% of the Nobel Prizes in Medicine since 1950. We know how to solve problems. Will we?
It’s funny. As a student in the early 90s I was definitely on the conservative side of the equation. Looking back I was always more moderate than most of my conservative friends, but the college I attended had a faculty that ran the spectrum from left to hard left. I knew that reputation going in.
I was always polite and respectful to my professors. I found that they were polite and respectful back. Not only that, they loved having me. No one else spoke up for a right of center viewpoint. They challenged and debated me. I learned how to prepare and to defend my ideas. I was confronted with new ideas. I never changed my core values, but I learned to see many things in new lights. Those professors helped grind out the dull edges and they made me sharper. Like a whetstone to a blade.
I’ve always felt sorry for my friends on the left. They never had the privilege that I did. They could just go along to get along. They never had to defend their most cherished beliefs in a room full of people who were either opposed or silent. They never had to read the material with an eagle eye and ponder it to work out the strengths and weaknesses.
Mindset has a lot to do with it. I remember making a similar point about being a diplomat overseas. No, I’m not a critic only of your country but of everywhere I go. I see the problems, abuses, and shortcomings clearest of all. Of course, now that I’ve been back in my own country for almost a decade now, that’s about all I do see. Is it me? 😳
“You can either be somebody or do something. You can’t be both.” Colonel John Boyd, creator of the energy maneuverability theory. The theory that revolutionized the Air Force. So is it to be or to do?
Dumb question but what exactly does this quote mean? I think there is something here but not sure exactly what
Sorry for not being clearer. It comes from a book I was reading a biography about John Boyd. And he was talking about life in the military. He said there are careerists (the people who want to be somebody) which according to Boyd conform to the norm and betray friends then there are people who want to do something (the idealists) who don’t raise up in the military because they actually want to accomplish something. As a civilian I never know that there were people in the military who think like punks rockers.
Ahh, I thought this is was the intended meaning of the quote. This trade-off makes a lot of sense to me. I suspect the theme holds true across a diverse range of organizations.
Yes, I was reading this article in last week’s New York Times Sunday magazine about academic freedom and the author cited this interesting example regarding Bertrand Russell. In 1940 he got fired from the city university of New York as a professor because of his views regarding sex and sexuality.
I don’t know many conservatives who are against teaching about slavery. It would be absurd not to.
I think your definition of reviewer is fascinating and have been thinking the same thing because of the recent Michael B. Jordan movie called Sinner. Ever critic, nearly everyone generally rave about how great it is; however, while it has so many great aspects woven into it, I think as a movie it is not very good at all because the screenplay isn’t written well, doesn’t match the historical references made throughout it, etc. It could have been much better with better focus. If you’ve never seen it, you could probably skim through at double time and read the dialogue to quickly understand my point. As always, I enjoy reading your material!
I would venture that many of the science faculty lean left as well. Those with doctorates in the sciences can usually make a great deal of money working in the private sector. So those who work at Universities have dedicated themselves to teaching and research that might not be as lucrative.
I've often wondered why conservatives don't confront the leftish culture of most screenwriters, publishers, and musicians by simply producing better cultural products that have widespread appeal (eg, not meant just for conservative consumption). This doesn't seem to happen or am I missing something? Is it because many conservatives gravitate to more traditional private sector roles?