<p>Naturally: given that conservatives donate more money to charity than do liberals, how is “care for the poor” a liberal issue? Do you not only get there by swallowing the progressive party line that anyone who disagrees with you on the best method to accomplish a goal also disagrees with you about the value of that goal? Have you read conservative economic theory about how well intentioned, big government, anti poverty initiatives are counterproductive in the long term? </p>
<p>What about the application of subsidiarity to poverty fighting initiatives?</p>
<p>What about the decay of the family as a driver of poverty, and one bat creates a cycle of poverty?</p>
<p>Is this issue not more nuanced than you give it credit for?)</p>
<p>Just because you heard people on campus disagreeing with you does not make the campus “anti-conservative”. I often walk by a group that has a big poster of Obama with a Hitler mustache drawn on, who are trying to convince people that Obama is like Hitler or something. I don’t take this as evidence that the university itself is “anti-liberal.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, let me make this a bit simpler. I think that many of the issues that the Republican party embraces would make Pope John Paul II roll his eyes and go, “Hoo boy.” (And the same would be true for some of the issues the Democratic party embraces.)</p>
<p>More specifically, I do not think he was a fan of the Republican attitude towards social programs. You brought up your opinions of social programs, but I am not talking about your opinions of social programs. I am talking about the opinions of Pope John Paul II, because you brought him up.</p>
<p>In general I would categorize PJPII as being a mix of liberal and conservative IF we are talking about US political definitions. If we are talking about Catholic church politics instead, I would say he was definitely liberal overall, though not on every issue (i.e., AIDS in Africa).</p>
<p>I wasn’t going to reply to your collection of “things heard on campus that displeased you,” but I could not let this sit unremarked upon.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I take it that the above is your belief, rather than something you heard. While this statement may be correct in a very limited sense, it totally mischaracterizes the positions of both abolitionists and advocates of slavery. Yes, advocates of slavery wanted slaves to count as “whole people” for the purpose of determining representation in Congress. To clarify, they wanted them to count as “whole people” who would not be allowed to vote. Their position had nothing to do with their views on racial equality; it was all about having enough seats in the House to determine the outcome of legislation. Abolitionists who did not want slaves to count at all wanted to deny the slave states extra votes in the House based on the size of their disenfranchised population. Their position had nothing to do with their views on racial equality. Your statement is a rather frightening (to me) example of using the “facts” to hide the truth.</p>
<p>I was politically ignorant for UG. Maybe I was subjected to slurs against conservatives and liberals and libertarians and unitarians and catholics and evangelicals and atheists and agnostics and gays and bi’s and the like … but being ignorant of such things I just didn’t notice. (For Grad School I chose Computer Science for Graduate School, and there were LOTS of political discussions there: Mainframes vs. distributed computing, Connection Machines, LISP stations, etc. etc. etc. And there was bigotry too, mostly against COBOL affectionados.)</p>
<p>Giving to charity does not necessarily mean giving anything to the poor. For example, the donation could go to a well-funded gold-plated church to be mostly spent by a preacher with a taste for expensive living.</p>
<p>We need more data on exactly the type of charities to which liberals and conservatives give.</p>
<p>Roman, your statement, " My econ prof is ridiculously right winged as is the textbook. He’s still a good prof though, if annoying," tells it all. What, you aren’t “tolerant” of your professors views because they differ from yours? Is that what is “annoying” to you? Are his views wrong or do you simply not want to hear a “diversity” of thought? Hmm…</p>
<p>It’s annoying when ANYONE injects politics in to discussions. I’m equal opportunity. I call out both liberals and conservatives on here and in class. </p>
<p>He’s annoying because it interferes with the way he teaches a lot of concepts. It would annoy me if it was liberal, too. It’s annoying when he, instead of just teaching the lesson, injects small snides against the president in his lectures. </p>
<p>If you would have asked, I would have responded. There is no need to jump to conclusions.</p>
<p>ETA: Oh and FWIW, I actually agree with some of what he mumbles. Still annoys me. I am actually pretty moderate fiscally, it’s only socially that I am extremely liberal.</p>
<p>Very good list. Also pro-choice and athiest. Quite close to what I feel compared to most in office that I know of. I’ll add legal immigration to this mix. Probably disagree with you a bit on the free market, regulations & perhaps freedom of religion.<br>
When you run for the white house, I’ll send you a check and vote for you.</p>
<p>Not sure where poster aries obtained her facts about abolitionists and slaves but I do note a few of her comments closely echo a conservative writer/philosophist named Jeremy Pierce though I could be wrong. </p>
<p>However, your explanation, albeit brief, was straight and to the point and on the mark.</p>
<p>Is it possible to teach (or study) economics, history or literature in an unbiased manner? Isn’t there always some sort of school of thought referenced? Isn’t it always interpretive? Isn’t the point of an undergraduate education to understand how to interpret using different methods of criticism? How to examine the same subject matter from widely different points of view?</p>
<p>It is possible to inject overtly political statements in though. </p>
<p>I’m in a history of medicine class right now with a prof where I couldn’t even begin to tell you his political beliefs. He gives us the argument from both sides of history (for example, both sides of the universal vs non-universal health insurance battles for the last century). His biases might be different than ours as he’s from the UK and not America, but he does a darn good job of hiding them. I’m one of the few liberals in the class and we’ve had discussions about what way we think he leans. No consensus.</p>
<p>Roman, again, your latest statement, “He’s annoying because it interferes with the way he teaches a lot of concepts. It would annoy me if it was liberal, too. It’s annoying when he, instead of just teaching the lesson, injects small snides against the president in his lectures,” is exactly what this thread is about. I believe your professor is simply inserting his bias into lectures, which teachers, broadcasters and of course, ourselves, do at times. So, the question posed on this thread is are those professors who interject their political beliefs into their teaching process (whether it’s a lecture or if their bias flows over into how they grade an individual based on their beliefs) more left/liberal leaning or right/conservative leaning?</p>
<p>Based on a recent study out of UCLA ([Survey</a> finds that professors, already liberal, have moved further to the left | Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/24/survey-finds-professors-already-liberal-have-moved-further-left]Survey”>Survey finds that professors, already liberal, have moved further to the left)) it appears few identify themselves as “conservative” or “far right” (only 12%) while a preponderance (62%) call themselves 'liberal" or “far left.” So, I guess it wouldn’t take one majoring in statistics to come to the conclusion that if any given number of professors interject their politics into their profession the majority of those would be liberal/far left. Guessing that is what the original poster was getting at…</p>
<p>The best thing is just to know your bias and state it up front, if you are a prof. Try to be objective and not reject opposing ideas as lesser grades, as long as they are well -argued.</p>
<p>I can tell you what most of your political biases are on this thread and most regular posters on CC. It comes through unavoidably.</p>
<p>I agree that it is impossible to avoid viewing the world through our own lenses. That is why I appreciate it when professors and experts are explicit about their beliefs. I think it’s useful to be told, “I’m a staunch Democrat and long time backer of universal health care,” or “I was a speech writer for two Republican administrations and often found myself disappointed by how moderate the Bush (1) administration was.” A professor or expert may appear to present all sides of an issue fairly and you may not be able to guess her position, but this does not mean that her beliefs did not slant her presentation. For me, the goal should not be the appearance of neutrality but the disclosure of bias.</p>
<p>Poet, while your statement “Try to be objective and not reject opposing ideas as lesser grades, as long as they are well -argued” is what we’d all like to see. The “well-argued” is totally subjective and at the whims, or bias, of the professor. What I would consider a good or great professor would certainly grade on that basis, but, as we all know, as in any profession, not all of those “practicing” fall into the “good or great” category. And I won’t go into tenure, as I know that’s one of your favorite subjects :)</p>
<p>There is a link between social and fiscal conservatism. When almost half of all children are born out of wedlock, and many of their fathers do not work hard to support them, many people become dependent on the government rather than self-reliant.</p>
<p>*Naturally: given that conservatives donate more money to charity than do liberals, how is “care for the poor” a liberal issue? *
Do you want to pay for the mans fish or teach him to fish?</p>
<p>Donating time/money to a group that you receive benefits from like your church or your child’s classroom is all warm and fuzzy but not how I see charitable giving.
I give my time and money to groups that don’t benefit me, which I admit not everybody is able to do.</p>
<p>My observation is, lately, civility is not being granted to hear opposing arguments. The immediate reaction to an opposing viewpoint is to resort to eye-rolling & name calling. </p>
<p>Scroll thru this entire thread and see who has offered calm commentary and who has resorted to knee-jerk denegration of other posters.</p>