Featured Post

For What It’s Worth, I Kind of Hate All of Y’all

Apparently a University of Michigan Communications Professor wrote an essay on why it’s OK to hate Republicans. I say “apparently” because some people claim to have read it, and there is a URL with that title, but the actual post is either no longer there or no longer was. There are comments in response on the site where it’s not, so it seems likely that it once was. The person alleged to have written the essay is Susan Douglas. Here’s at least part of what she’s alleged to have written, as cadged from here and here and here. I have no idea if my organization of quotes reflects the original sequence of the alleged essay.

I hate Republicans. I can’t stand the thought of having to spend the next two years watching Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Ted Cruz, Darrell Issa or any of the legions of other blowhards denying climate change, thwarting immigration reform or championing fetal ‘personhood.’ …

What’s noteworthy ?is how entrenched this mutual animus is. It’s fine for me to use the word ‘hate’ when referring to Republicans and for them to use the same word about me, but you would never use the word ‘hate’ when referring to people of color, or women, or gays and lesbians. …

Today, marrying a Republican is unimaginable to me…

How did we come to this pass?” Douglas asks. “Obviously, my tendency is to blame the Republicans more than the Democrats, which may seem biased. But history and psychological research bear me out…

A brief review of Republican rhetoric and strategies since the 1980s shows an escalation of determined vilification (which has been amplified relentlessly on Fox News since 1996). From Spiro Agnew’s attack on intellectuals as an “effete corps of impudent snobs”; to Rush Limbaugh’s hate speech; to the GOP’s endless campaign to smear the Clintons over Whitewater, then bludgeon Bill over Monica Lewinsky; to the ceaseless denigration of President Obama (“socialist,” “Muslim”), the Republicans have crafted a political identity that rests on a complete repudiation of the idea that the opposing party and its followers have any legitimacy at all.

Why does this work? A series of studies has found that political conservatives tend toward certain psychological characteristics. What are they? Dogmatism, rigidity and intolerance of ambiguity; a need to avoid uncertainty; support for authoritarianism; a heightened sense of threat from others; and a personal need for structure. How do these qualities influence political thinking?

According to researchers, the two core dimensions of conservative thought are resistance to change and support for inequality. These, in turn, are core elements of social intolerance. The need for certainty, the need to manage fear of social change, lead to black-and-white thinking and an embrace of stereotypes. Which could certainly lead to a desire to deride those not like you—whether people of color, LGBT people or Democrats. And, especially since the early 1990s, Republican politicians and pundits have been feeding these needs with a single-minded, uncomplicated, good-vs.-evil worldview that vilifies Democrats…

So now we hate them back,” she explains. “And with good reason.

As much text as is here, without seeing the original, it still lacks context. Is the title “It’s OK to hate Republicans” tongue-in-cheek? (Did she even write the title?) Is she bemoaning that the political culture is such that she’s found herself actually hating them? Or is she actually encouraging and promoting hatred of Republicans?

I see the first two as legitimate, and the third as very problematic, especially in a college prof. At the University of Oregon, I knew conservative students who were afraid to speak up in class. In one of my classes, curious about how vocal liberal students were on the issue of censorship and the lack of any voices arguing censorship might sometimes be justified, I had the students complete an anonymous survey: nearly half of them supported censorship in some cases.

Students commonly believed faculty graded based on political agreement/disagreement, and while I can’t say whether that’s true or not, I was aware of a few faculty of whom it would no surprise me. During a series of anti-Nike protests, one Sociology prof offered students extra credit for participating in the protests. One the students in her class told me this and joked about whether he could get extra credit for participating in the counter–pro-Nike–protest. I encouraged him to ask her, but he was afraid just asking would get him penalized on his grade–he preferred simply to not be on her radar as someone with differing political views.

That’s problematic, even if the students are completely wrong. They should be able to have confidence that their prof isn’t grading them on a partisan basis. I know from evaluations that students have occasionally thought I was partisan, but in most cases I’ve had equal numbers accusing me of liberal and of conservative bias. I remember one day some years back when two students started arguing about it in class.

“Dr. Hanley, you’re so liberal.”

“What, are you kidding? He’s a total young Republican!”

[Note: I was about 40 at the time; my youthful good looks are a curse I’ve had to bear for many many years.]

It can be rough knowing your professor shares strong political views at odds with your own, given that they are in a position of power, but to some extent that’s just tough. That’s how life’s going to be, unless you’re a Young Republican who goes to work for the National Review. But professor should strive to not only be even-handed and non-partisan in the classroom, but to take reasonable steps to persuade students that they are so.

Against that, of course, faculty have free speech rights. It is possible to use those speech rights to criticize what the Republican Party has become without painting oneself as wholly politically opposed to them. I do it in my American Government class most terms. When talking about political parties I discuss how the major parties in America have changed not just over time, not just in my lifetime, but in the students’ own lifetime. In part this is to give them an awareness that our political system is not just a thing that it as it is, but a dynamic process that is changing–in substantive and important ways–right here, right now. Also, it is in part to discuss the dynamics of two-party systems, and the likely consequences of puritan purges in terms of squirreling together enough votes to win elections. That’s my implicit warning to right-wing and left-wing students, but what I don’t do is tell my tea party sympathizing students they’re bad people and I hate them.

But that’s in the classroom, and free speech rights apply more strongly outside the classroom than in, and Dr. Douglas has the right to be less objective outside the classroom than I am in the classroom. And keep in mind, we have no idea how she talks about such things, or even if she talks about them, in the classroom–she could be a consummate professional in class.

So in all the criticism of her essay, what I’m left not knowing is 1) whether she’s partisan or non-partisan in the classroom, and 2) whether her essay was as partisan as it’s being reported to be.

But the fact that it was apparently pulled from the website makes me suspect it might have been just as bad as described, and I think if so it was very unwise on her part. In her professional capacity she will have power over those she (allegedly) claims to hate, and that’s not good.

The response of UM Trustee Andrea Fischer Newman strikes the right tone, I think (again, assuming the original essay has been accurately described).

As a Republican and a Member of the Board of Regents, I find Professor Douglass’s column extremely troubling and offensive. The University of Michigan ommunity rightly supports and defends a wide variety of viewpoints and a diversity of opinion on all subjects. But this particular column, which expresses and condones hatred toward an entire segment of individuals in our society based solely on their political views, fails to observe an equally important value of our University — respect for the right of others to hold views contrary to our own. Professor Douglass’s column ill-serves the most basic values of a University community.

Kudos. That’s the way to represent the university.

Not so good–surprise, surprise–is the response of the chair of the state Republican Party, Bobby Schostak.

The piece by Professor Susan J. Douglas is ugly and full of hatred, and it should not be tolerated by the University of Michigan.

Not. Be. Tolerated. That’s a brilliant response to someone who says you’re intolerant, saying their words should not be tolerated. Way to walk right into the blindingly obvious trap, Mr. Schostak. And of course UM has to tolerate it–it’s a First Amendent issue. I teach at a private college, so my employer isn’t constitutionally required to tolerate what I might have to say, but UM is an organ of the state government. Mr. Schostak, like too many political types, might want to brush up on the First Amendment.

The University’s spokesperson also drew the lines properly.

The views expressed are those of the individual faculty member and not those of the University of Michigan. Faculty freedom of expression, including in the public sphere, is one of the core values of our institution.

At the same time, the university must and will work vigilantly to ensure students can express diverse ideas and perspectives in a respectful environment and without fear of reprisal. The university values viewpoint diversity and encourages a wide range of opinions.

In other words, “we don’t endorse her statement, but we respect her freedom of speech, but she’d better be fair in the classroom.” And all of that is exactly right.

Now, if only certain students would take their cues from the UM Trustee and spokesperson, instead of from the party leaders. This is UM’s president of Young Americans for Freedom, a group that in my experience tends to be filled with sloganeering types, rather than your more thoughtful conservatives. They come off to me as the right’s answer to campus Marxists.

This is blatant intolerance, and the University should take action on the behalf of intellectual diversity and all of the students who are intimidated into silence

There’s little irony more delicious than a person loudly announcing that they’re too intimidated to speak.

But to give credit where it’s due, the response of student Gabriel Leaf, former chair of the UM College Republicans, is measured and appropriate.

While students support Douglas’ right to express her opinion, “It’s kind of frustrating being on a college campus where we have teachers who are upfront about their hatred of certain views,” said Gabriel Leaf, 21, a senior and chairman of the College Republicans at the University of Michigan.

On a college campus where students from many backgrounds have a chance to share various views, he said, such a position could “push the parties away from each other and not really allow that open discussion to happen.

Based on that comment, at least, it’s kind of hard to hate that particular Republican. I hope Dr. Douglas thinks so, too.

Please do be so kind as to share this post.
Share

92 thoughts on “For What It’s Worth, I Kind of Hate All of Y’all

  1. Yeah she has a right to her dumb opinion but she is clueless as a prof. I’m guessing she hasn’t remotely thought through how her R students would take this. Talk about shooting your own cause in the foot. If she wants D’s to win then you don’t do it by making yourself look like a mirror image of what you dislike. Don’t like intolerance then show why intolerance is bad. Oy.

    Someone is a public leadership role with responsibility over other people should really be far more understanding of their own power and role. I would never openly discuss my political views when my clients might find out. They can think what they want but they shouldn’t fear my beliefs ( political, social, religous,etc) are stridently different from theirs.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  2. The first URL now apparently contains the original article, along with an editor’s note:

    Editor’s note: This article was originally titled “We Can’t All Just Get Along” in the print version of the magazine. The title was then changed, without the author’s knowledge or approval, to “It’s Okay to Hate Republicans.” The author rejects the online title as not representative of the piece or its main points. Her preferred title has been restored. We have also removed from the “Comments” section all threats to the author’s life and personal safety.

      Quote  Link

    Report

    • It is not well known that it is usually editors who come up with titles for pieces. But wow this really started a storm by a bad editorial choice. Well bad in that it made the writer look bad but generated a lot of clicks which is good for the mag.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • I’ve never understood that tradition. “We trust you to write the content for our publication, but we could never trust you to write the title!” I’ve lost count of the number of times a publication has chosen a title that misses the point of the article or incorrectly ascribes a viewpoint to the author. It seems like the author who writes the piece knows best how to distill the key takeaway of it into a fixed length. Why the extra cooks in the kitchen?

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • Comes from the print world where editors need to not only edit, but fit the piece into the space it’s slotted. Writers always give suggested heds but they’re rarely going to work visually. Editors usually start laying out pages for print long after reporters/writers have gone home.
        Once you’re out of the print world, keeping that mode makes zero sense to me since there’s ample opportunity to check with the writer on the headlines and avoid this. Of course, trolling for clicks is kind of a big deal, so . . .

          Quote  Link

        Report

    • Hmm, that happened in just the last couple of hours, because when I last looked at it while writing the OP, the essay was still down.

      Thanks much for adding that update. I’m inclined to accept without doubt that the title wasn’t the author’s.

      And notice the paragraph that wasn’t quoted in any of the sources I referenced.

      And now party identification and hatred shape a whole host of non-political decisions. Iyengar and Westwood asked participants in their study to review the resumés of graduating high school seniors to decide which ones should receive scholarships. Some resumés had cues about party affiliation (say, member of the Young Republicans Club) and some about racial identity (also through extracurricular activities, or via a stereotypical name). Race mattered, but not nearly as much as partisanship. An overwhelming 80 percent of partisans chose the student of their own party. And this held true even if the candidate from the opposite party had better credentials.

      That shifts this in the direction of more analysis and less screed. I still think her analysis of conservatives is simplistic and ill-considered, but she’s clearly not cheering the hatred.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • The weakest part of the piece is her analysis (to be generous. “insistence” might be a better word) of the asymmetry between Democrats and Republicans. I believe that there is one, and Tod’s “Sailing Away To Irrelevance” series has done an excellent job of documenting it, but she makes no case at all.

          Quote  Link

        Report

  3. I’m getting the article at that link, with the title “We Can’t All Just Get Along:
    In our era of polarization, one party is guiltier than the other.”

    There is then this note from the editor: “This article was originally titled “We Can’t All Just Get Along” in the print version of the magazine. The title was then changed, without the author’s knowledge or approval, to “It’s Okay to Hate Republicans.” The author rejects the online title as not representative of the piece or its main points. Her preferred title has been restored. We have also removed from the “Comments” section all threats to the author’s life and personal safety.”

    The article itself reads as simply another entry in the “Modern GOP is off the rails, and I can say that without including a BSDI shot at Democrats” genre. Which I happen to believe, though I suspect it won’t convince those who don’t.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  4. Nevermoor happened on some interesting points and I happen to agree with him.

    It is interesting to contrast this story with the rise of people like Charles Johnson. There is seemingly a never ending demand for gotcha stunts and this gotcha and make you look bad stuff seem to exist mainly in the Republican Party. I suppose liberals have the Daily Show and Colbert Report and most of the Gawker/Jezebel alliance but we don’t have people like James O’Keffe or Charles Johnson who do lots of ill-advised and often semi-criminal undercover investigations in a never ending game of gotcha. They seem to have a raison d’etre of doing anything they can to embarrass the Democratic Party and liberals.

    We are entering an age or are firmly in an age of hyperpartisanship. The old ideal of “reasonable people can disagree” is seemingly gone and there have been recent articles about how the bipartisanship presidency might have been a freak thing of the mid-20th century. Everyone wants to be outraged all the time.

    Slate just released a series of essays about how 2014 was The Year of Outrage.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  5. I completely agree with you about how professors should relate to students. But does that mean that they should never commit their political views to public view where students can find out they exist, even if they are partisan, or strongly partisan?

    This is unlikely, but what if this professor stands out for her lack of partisanship in all lectures, discussions, student meetings, and grading? Then what if students were to see that she wrote this as something she personally (and to some extent professionally via her research) believes wrt politics? Would she not then stand out to them as a model of someone who doesn’t peddle the facade of a professor in the social sciences who actually claims not to have political (and partisan) views, but who, while (not) doing that, successfully sets them aside and treats students nearly perfectly without bias according to their politics? This is a behavior that it’s potentially valuable for young people to see modeled, not just for future professors, but for all kinds students some of whom will grow up to have strong partisan political views, but whom we want to be able to treat people fairly regardless in whatever their workplace is without feeling it’s necessary to actually set aside those views.

    It’s unlikely she’s that professor based on this, I acknowledge. But I do think that a statement of her own views committed to public outside of her teaching isn’t proof positive that she can’t be. And if she happened to be, I would be the more impressed given these are her personal poetical views.

    I assume we can agree that substantive critique of her political views as political views that just any person might (not) be justified in holding is a different question from the issue of the affect on her teaching. maybe not, though.

      Quote  Link

    Report

    • does that mean that they should never commit their political views to public view where students can find out they exist,

      From the OP.

      But that’s in the classroom, and free speech rights apply more strongly outside the classroom than in, and Dr. Douglas has the right to be less objective outside the classroom than I am in the classroom. And keep in mind, we have no idea how she talks about such things, or even if she talks about them, in the classroom–she could be a consummate professional in class.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • Perhaps we come down in exactly the sam place, but I can’t really tell. She has stronger rights to free speech outside of the classroom, but that doesn’t speak to what you think she should do.

        This vaguely does,

        But professors should strive to not only be even-handed and non-partisan in the classroom, but to take reasonable steps to persuade students that they are so.

        But to persuade them that they are “so” …what? Evenhanded and non-partisan in the classroom? Reasonable steps toward that would be to beeven-handed and non-partisan in the classroom. Evenhanded and non-partisan as people? That might speak to whether she should write this even if she is evenhanded and non-partisan in the classroom, but then my question still stands.

        Fully restated, “But does that mean that they should never commit their political views to public view where students can find out they exist, even if [here I probably should have said “especially if,” or just “if”] they are partisan, or strongly partisan?”

        If those are in fact their views, I’m just wondering whether, if they can model evenhandedness and nonpartisanship in the classroom despite those views, it might not actually be such a bad thing to find out that some of their professors have strong partisan views (as many of them will), and that it’s their job as professionals to treat people fully fairly in professional settings despite them.

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • This is a classic Drew inquiry, niggling in and looking for whether there’s maybe a disagreement, rather than saying, ah, I think we’re not too far apart. It’s the kind I rail against.

        Look, if you want to ruminate on what kinds of public communications are proper/not proper for a university prof, I have no problem with that. It’s a legitimate line of inquiry. Just, please, treat it as a line of inquiry stimulated by what I wrote, and not as an attempt to get at what I really, precisely, mean. Knock yourself out, just don’t make it about me, please.

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • I led off with saying that we might very well be right next to each other on this.

        If you want me to do this-and-that in how I interact with you, don’t do things like just quote my quote and then quote your quote and just leave it at that, implying that I’m an idiot or inattentive for writing what I wrote. Go ahead and do that if that’s what you want to do, but I’m not going to pay any heed to how you’d like me to interact with you. If you want particular things out of me, though, show some respect for my intelligence.

          Quote  Link

        Report

  6. “But professor should strive to not only be even-handed and non-partisan in the classroom, but to take reasonable steps to persuade students that they are so.”

    I think a corollary to this is for the professor (or any teacher, really) to realize the places where he/she cannot be evenhanded or non-partisan — where ideological or some other form of bias is likely to poke through — and to be open and honest about this with students in an appropriate manner. For if we, as teachers, present ourselves as wholly even-handed and objective to students and convince themselves that we are, than we risk imprinting our very human biases on them as objective.

    But, yes, the goal should be as you state it in the quoted section.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  7. My world is full of people who make these blanket, broad-brush, stereotype-based pronouncements who really should know better. That they are on my general side of the political fence just makes it worse. Having spent the last 40 years wiping such phrases as “women are emotional” or “blacks are criminals” or “Indians are lazy” from my speech, you still see this sort of construct applied to groups that are seen as perpetrators – “men are rapists”, “republicans are nazis”, or “business leaders are greedy trolls”.

    The memo I got said that there was a principle about not deploying stereotypes to make your point, but it often seems as though the memo everyone else got was “it depends on which group you’re stereotyping”.

      Quote  Link

    Report


      • Most of my opinions haven’t changed (I am now at the place where I don’t want any gov’t involvement in heath care, a 180 from my former position) but from my stance the left has moved completely out of the center, while trying to tell me that they haven’t changed an iota. I still hang out with all the same people though

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • You honestly believe that, I take it? That the left has become ‘far left’?

        I mean, I guess so one a handful of specific issues: Gay marriage being the ONLY one to pop immediately to mind.

        I suppose if that’s your only issue, your sole issue, it’s true. If you include any other issue, then…haha. Hilarity.

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • Yes, when I think of the party of the far-left, , I think of the party that mostly continued George W. Bush’s foreign policy, passed John McCain’s cap ‘n’ trade bill, and put into law Mitt Romney’s health care bill (with some slight changes).

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • , I hope this doesn’t feel like piling on, but I have a hard time seeing “the left moved far left,” also. And you know I’m not coming from the left. I’d be interested in more explanation of what you’re seeing, if you feel like taking the risk of making yourself a target by sharing that.

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • @jesse-ewiak Etc,
        Well, I probably should have put moving towards…

        But like many of these things, it is always determined by where you stand. First of all, this is a moving target, as often expressed by people saying things such as “the right would not even have Reagan as a member any more” or some such. Well as of right now, the left wouldn’t have Kennedy as a member anymore either. Again, this is due to the needs of the party, and what contemporary society allows, always being in flux.

        As for foreign policy, I have always felt that a president is dealt a hand, and has to play that hand. In other words, yes Obama continued on with Bush II foreign policy, but I don’t think he really had a choice and every time he tried to move away from it, the world moved in a different direction.

        Now, as for domestic policy, I feel that there are concrete examples of the left moving farther left. One is placing healthcare over the economy. Every time they turned around on this, the American public was saying “no.” But they were just sure that if only they passed something, anything, the public would come over to their side. Two is speech. The left has made it abundantly clear, from Mozilla to Marquette, that saying the wrong things, giving money to the wrong campaigns, are punishable offenses. Couple that with the hatred of Citizens United and you have a group moving away from the domestic center.

        I am not saying that the right isn’t also moving away from the center, but I was never of the right.

        If you want what I would call proof, look at how many elected offices the left has lost over the last 4 years. They should have owned it for generations after Bush II.

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • aaron,
        Health Care is the economy. Detroit’s Big auto was pushing this, as was selected Chamber of Commerce (not the national but the folks in Nevada, and other red states).
        Health care means a level playing field with the rest of the world, with whom we increasingly compete.

          Quote  Link

        Report

  8. But professor should strive to not only be even-handed and non-partisan in the classroom, but to take reasonable steps to persuade students that they are so.

    The problem we face now is that one party finds that reality and truth are partisan. The only way to appear non-partisan to modern Republicans is to deny reality, which we know has a liberal bias.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  9. Aside from the topic of the article – from an outside-of-the-United-Staes perspective, the Republican Party of the last several years truly doesn’t come across as “reasonable people can disagree”. Claims about death panels? Trying to drive the country into bankruptcy to score political points, and claiming that doing so won’t matter? Basic civility towards other nations as appeasement? Openly advocating torture? A centre-right health care plan as looming socialist tyranny?

    They come across as deranged.

    The fact that the US has two major political parties doesn’t mean that the “centre” or reasonable position on any issue is right in the middle between the two parties’ opinions.

      Quote  Link

    Report

    • I’m inclined to distinguish between the national party and the state or local parties, and among those who are elected, those who serve in party positions, and those whose principal action in support for the party is usually only when they cast their vote. At the more local levels, the Republican party is not always as deranged as at the national level. And many of the people who end up voting Republican probably do so for pretty complex reasons even if they concede the party’s national stance is bonkers. (That last point, especially, is speculative, and probably reflects my biases. But I think it’s true.)

      None of what I just said proves the view from outside the US is different than it is, and the view from outside is important.

        Quote  Link

      Report

    • “Claims about death panels?”

      Search for “end-of-life care counseling”.

      “Trying to drive the country into bankruptcy to score political points”

      You mean like Elizabeth Warren just did over the spending bill?

      Sure, I see you sneering about “oh, Both Sides Do It, right, of course”, but if you’re trying to claim that one of the sides is actually mentally ill and give supporting examples, you must expect those examples to be challenged on their merits.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • Yeah those are some great merits you got there. The Death Panels were complete bull squat. Try to justify those lies. There were no DP’s involved in a offering payments for people to talk with docs about end of life care that was put up by a repub. Of the many lies about the ACA that was one of the most rank.

        WTF about Warren, she made some speaches and politicked. At what point was the gov shut down like the R’s did. Not even freckin close. Hell i could come up with better examples of what you are trying to prove.

          Quote  Link

        Report

    • They come across as deranged.

      That is understandable, from what dominates the news.
      But most of what you see is not the nuts-and-bolts of the machinery inside, but only the neon sign hanging in the window.

      For example, my former Congressman, an R, was a union official in two different unions before running for Congress.

      Much like where Tod is at, where I’m at, all you have to do is say, “Maxwell House,” when asked, “What kind of coffee would you like?” in order to be considered a conservative.

      In fact, I would say that roughly a quarter or less of the conservatives I know or associate with have any resemblance at all to any of the headline-grabbers.
      The vast majority of R’s are much like Dennis S., Mike D., and myself.

      As another commenter mentioned up-thread, I left the D’s when it felt like I had to buy in to every line they were selling, or my sincerity was in question.
      Being able to pick and choose which parts I buy in to is a big attraction to conservatism for me.
      I can maintain independence of thought. That’s important to me.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • I’m sure there are plenty of decent conservatives. More of you need to vote in primary elections for the Republican Party to be anything more than a cult focused on the elimination of anything good that happened after 1933.

          Quote  Link

        Report

  10. I honestly don’t know why a woman would hate a movement whose most popular spokesman calls people like her “feminazis”. I mean, when he started calling them sluts and whores, some of his cohort, instead of going along with him, said cautiously that they might not have used exactly those words themselves. It’s probably her time of the month.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  11. I’ve had professors with a range of political opinions, from strongly left-wing folks to hardline neoclassical economists, and I’ve never felt that any of them have marked me down for expressing dissenting political opinions (either in class or in my essays). Some people on both sides have definitely presented their own views as self-evidently true, though, to the point where it wouldn’t occur to a student to disagree (or they wouldn’t have the arguments and facts with which to present their disagreement effectively) unless they had done significant research on their own.

    Jumping from an undergrad degree where (at least in poli sci, as opposed to economics) the evils of neoliberal economics were regarded as self-evident, to a master’s degree where neoliberal economics were regarded as the plain truth and the One True Way to prosperity was jarring, but interesting.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  12. By the way, what appears to be the essay as written can be found here: http://inthesetimes.com/article/17426/we_cant_all_just_get_along

    I like the Editor’s Note, which begins by addressing Prof Hanley’s question about the title:

    This article was originally titled “We Can’t All Just Get Along” in the print version of the magazine. The title was then changed, without the author’s knowledge or approval, to “It’s Okay to Hate Republicans.” The author rejects the online title as not representative of the piece or its main points. Her preferred title has been restored. We have also removed from the “Comments” section all threats to the author’s life and personal safety.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  13. Probably off topic, so please pardon me…

    Note what happened in the media. The clearly leftward media imbalance created an opportunity for a right leaning alternative in first talk radio then Fox News.

    I hope the same DOES NOT occur to address the even more (substantially greater and easily empirically verifiable) tilt in academia. The reason I hope this does not develop is that I think skewed education is a disservice to the students.*

    The proper response is universities which promise and fulfill the potential for a balanced and diverse education. I suggest that universities and parents will eventually come to the value of this conclusion. I would prefer to send my grandson to a college which was independently certified as having a balanced faculty and range of curriculum.*

    My guess is half of America would agree. And the other half doesnt need to.

    * my son just took an introductory American literature class where the instructor insisted on looking at every single book from a Marxist class perspective. WTF?

    ** this would make conservative sociology professors the most in demand profession on earth, as the imbalance is 44 to 1 biased left.

      Quote  Link

    Report

    • This imbalance has already been addressed. They’re called “think tanks”, and they produce right-wing propaganda more efficiently since they’re not hobbled by any notion of doing non-goal-directed research.

        Quote  Link

      Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *