<p>Well, I’m not going to disagree with that. I think we all could learn how to speak to each other in a more civil tone about our opposing ideas. I don’t know exactly why the tone has become so disrespectful in our culture, except I do believe there was a study done recently which showed that internet communication tends to be less civil than face to face. I think of it as the way we treat people when we are in a traffic jam as opposed to when we are standing next to each other in a long line.</p>
<p>I’ll try to find the study.</p>
<p>Of course it’s not just the internet, but it may be that the internet is an extension of the media, and we all break down along those communicative lines?</p>
<p>And sometimes there’s no link. In libertarianism, there’s desire for fiscal conservatism and social liberalism: gov’t should stay out of people’s wallets and their bedrooms…</p>
<p>I am so sick of people equating extremely general ideas such as “hard work”, “family values” and “self-reliance” to conservative beliefs. These stereotypes are overplayed and irrelevant.</p>
<p>The highly debated political issues in our country are so complex that to say your political beliefs support something like “hard work” or “patriotism” is ridiculous.</p>
<p>with regard to universities and different points of view…</p>
<p>One of my kids took an undergraduate seminar where each student analyzed a work from a different critical perspective. One perspective was Marxism. No one had to “agree” with the perspective they were using. That was not the point of the exercise.</p>
<p>I would say a well-constructed argument is one that is truthful, logical, to-the-point, and supported by evidence. It should fairly address the alternatives under consideration. Is this a totally subjective set of standards? Would it be equally valid to say a well-argued position could be untruthful, illogical, off-topic, or unsupported by evidence? Could it selectively consider and misrepresent only part of an opposing argument, taken out of context? I don’t think so. It is possible to share standards for civil, rational argumentation despite very different viewpoints. If no such standards can be applied to a discussion, then chances are you are simply expressing opinions.</p>
<p>If we could evolve to a place where we can recognize and acknowledge that both liberals and conservatives have valuable perspectives to offer, it would be, to say the least, nice. As well as productive and beneficial to everyone.</p>
<p>Nice cover, mini. Despite your protestations, you read as an extreme liberal.</p>
<p>As much as I cannot stand your method of “argument,” I agree that (what I think is your point), liberalism and conservatism are relative concepts.</p>
<p>Nope. But that’s okay. You can believe what you will - free country. </p>
<p>And, no, I wasn’t making an argument about relative concepts, but rather that a bunch of smart people, hired by overwhelming conservative business people who are represented on the Board of Trustees, examining the evidence before them as they are trained to do, seem to fall overwhelming on one side of it.</p>
<p>Yes, I agree with you that they fall overwhelmingly on one side of it. Why that happens is unresolved. And whether it matters is unresolved. But it is what it is, and some people take note and care to discuss it.</p>
<p>Mini, if 90% of those seeking to attain professorship at a university are liberal, it would be a bit difficult to hire more conservatives regardless of the makeup of the colleges board of trustees. Additionally, please provide me the data that say the board of trustees at most colleges are “conservative business people”…</p>
<p>Well, I’ll speak for my alma mater (#1 LAC). I have no clue who occupies the boards of trustees at American’s 2,000+ colleges (some 600+ of which are Christian institutions.)</p>
<p>If 90% of those seeking to attain professorships are liberal, it may be because after examining the evidence as they are trained to do, that’s the way they lean. Nothing particularly mysterious about it, unless wants to posit some weird conspiracy theory. Last survey I saw said that the overwhelming majority of working scientists don’t believe in any kind of personal god; this doesn’t say there isn’t a god, just says that that’s where working scientists see the evidence as tending. </p>
<p>I wish more of them leaned my way, but they don’t.</p>
<p>Okay, I don’t think anyone would care how they “lean” if they knew how to teach more than one way of thinking on an issue. That is what seems to bother people. Maybe 90% of them are just bad teachers in the sense that they cannot acknowledge that other ways of looking at the world exist, and are incapable of conceptualizing and communicating outside of their own perceptions of reality. I don’t understand why some people talk about educators as though they are infallible.</p>
<p>I don’t think that’s the point. When one side has the lock on science-deniers and people who oppose critical thinking, it’s hard to understand where they fit in institutions devoted to intellectual development at a high level.</p>
<p>It is not hard for me to understand, sally305 (and I am an atheist). Human beings have many ways of looking at life, including spiritual ways, that exist. Anything that exists is worth knowing. Anything worth knowing is worth intellectualizing about. It is not hard to apply these concepts to university-level education.</p>
<p>Yes, it’s very common to analyze things from a Marxist perspective in classes. That doesn’t mean agreeing with Karl Marx, it means examining the matter in terms of the economy and its relation to workers in the economy. (I’m sure there are some college professors who do believe in the teachings of Marx, but most of the time if you hear people on a campus talking about “Marxism”, they are talking about analyzing something. Not being all “Rah rah, go Marx!”) You will also find professors who feel Marxist analysis is lacking, because it focuses so much on money and kind of ignores other factors–race and gender, for example.</p>