<p>Get over myself? Are you kidding? It is not about me. William Ayers participated in setting bombs at NYC Police headquarters, the US Capitol and the Pentagon in the early 70’s as a member of the Weather Underground. How is setting bombs a “statement” but no intent to hurt anyone?</p>
<p>Quotes from William Ayers: “I don’t feel guilty about setting the bombs…I feel as if we did not do enough” “Free as a bird and guilty as hell…is this a great country or what?”</p>
<p>anyone who tries to defend the slimeball terrorist Ayers has zero credibility in my book…Their views are so whacked that they are a disgrace to all rational Americans.</p>
<p>“I thought of two more good schools that should probably be on that list: Trinity and Fairfield, both in CT.”</p>
<p>LOL …I was just researching Fairfield…anyone have any opinions on this school?</p>
<p>OP, if you have genuine interest in finding schools that your S would be comfortable attending as a conservative there have been several suggestions made that I hope have been useful. I have to say, though, that if your intent was to start a “Hurray for our side!!” useless thread you have succeeded remarkably well. </p>
<p>As a liberal who attended a conservative school I have to say it was “impacting” but in a positive way. As a noted philosopher always said, “I y’am what I y’am.” For a weaker personality, maybe not so much.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Views vs opinions doesn’t really make a difference, IMHO. And it wasn’t “clear enough.” There’s a big difference between “express” and “push.” </p>
<p>Frankly, from your rather extreme responses here–gay kids ought to be sent to missionary schools, as an example–I have the strong impression that if a literature professor were simply to draw attention to issues of class in a work, you would find this to be “pushing” a liberal opinion. As JHS said up-thread, such controversial issues as class, gender, sexual identity and the like are integral to full understanding of many literary works.</p>
<p>Have you ever read Robert Lowell’s poem “Waking in the Blue”? Do you think that it is possible to discuss that poem in any detail without addressing class and snobbery? How about Middlemarch?</p>
<p>" from your rather extreme responses here–gay kids ought to be sent to missionary schools, as an example"</p>
<p>never said that and I don’t think I posted anything extreme.</p>
<p>Again, I’m looking for schools were professors do not express their personal beliefs in classes were they are not needed…that’s all.</p>
<p>Example…a teacher discussing man made global warming as fact, when it is not. It appears many liberal professors just don’t have enough self control to keep their personal opinions out of the class room.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but this is an Alice through the looking glass logic. It is ridiculous to say that refusing to tolerate unreasoning, institutionalized prejudice directed at fellow citizens in public, tax-supported institutions is “intolerant.”</p>
<p>By that logic, refusing to tolerate Jim Crow laws was “intolerant.”</p>
<p>And some of you don’t seem to realize that DADT was a LIBERALIZATION of the existing military policy, which involved periodic attempts to actually hunt out and expel gay members of the military. Read Randy Shilts’ exhaustive work on the subject.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Afadad, I have chosen not to reply to your numerous long and insulting screeds in this thread, because why bother to argue with an ideologue, but on this one point I will say that a) I personally disagree strongly with “hate crimes” legislation because I do not think people should be prosecuted for thought crimes, but b) in most places it is perfectly legal to discriminate against people in employment, housing, loans, and so forth on the grounds of sexuality. They are two different things.</p>
<p>Given the turn this thread has taken, I think it should be moved to the politics forum.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My sincerest apologies: you did not in fact make that statement. I was mistakenly attributing some statements made by geek_mom to you.</p>
<p>BTW, I attended one of the women’s colleges given a “red light” by the authors of “Choosing the Right College.” At no time during any class I had there did a professor “push” their personal political opinions on anyone. Not even in the (excellent, I might add) class “American Political Parties and Interest Groups.” People I know took that class with the daughters of Central American dictators, Cuban exiles, Iranian oil ministers, executives, teachers, lawyers, psychologists, the wealthy, the middle class, the poor, the left, the right. I never heard of anyone being insulted, and that was in the Viet Nam era when there were plenty of opportunities for controversy to wound. (One thing that the class illustrated is that we are ALL members of various “interest groups,” despite the attempts of sound-bite artists to convince us all that it is always the other guy.)</p>
<p>“Example…a teacher discussing man made global warming as fact, when it is not. It appears many liberal professors just don’t have enough self control to keep their personal opinions out of the class room.”</p>
<p>There’s consensus among the world’s scientists about man-made global warming. There’s no reason that things that are viewed as settled in the scientific community couldn’t be presented in science class.</p>
<p>BTW, “tolerance” doesn’t need to extend to “tolerance for things that are factual untruths.” If a professor discusses the events of the Holocaust in history class, and the Holocaust denier student says “But that really didn’t happen,” does his viewpoint need to be tolerated in the classroom?</p>
<p>there is no such consensus in the scientific community re: “global warming”.</p>
<p>In fact, there is growing discussion that the entire theory is myth, and unsubstantiated
by scientific proof.</p>
<p>“no consensus in the scientific community re: global warming”</p>
<p>jdjaguar, you kip using those words. I do no’ theenk they mean what you theenk they mean.</p>
<p>^^^i don’t care if there is a consensus or not. if someone has done valid, peer-reviewed research in that area, why shouldn’t they be able “push” their own hypothesis in their own classroom?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Tell that to the Antarctic ice shelf.</p>
<p>Of course there’s “growing discussion.” In the great right wing echo chamber. On Limbaugh and Hannity et al. Among crackpots. That’s about it.</p>
<p>Alice in Wonderland logic is right. Opposition to bigotry by the objects of that bigotry = intolerance. Oy vay ist meer.</p>
<p>If the conservative kid of the original poster is also an anti-science ignoramus who believes, somehow, that there is no scientific consensus on global warming, and who further believes that freedom of speech requires his science professors to listen to and accept his foolish beliefs, then yea, he should stay away from top LACs, with their pesky reliance on “science” and “reality.” Those LACs might well require science courses, or public policy courses, or other courses that assumed the student could distinguish between reality and fairy tales.</p>
<p>I’m assuming that the original poster’s kid is not such a crackpot, however, merely a young person with conservative political beliefs, in which case visits to a few candidate schools might serve to let him find out whether he could be happy in a group of students most of whom were more politically liberal than he.</p>
<p>Some here should do a little research on global warming and not just go with what the media is saying. Start with C02 admissions…</p>
<p>Cardinal Fang…try not to get personal…I know you don’t like to hear opposing views…I guess you are one of the “open minded” ones…lol</p>
<p>I call an end to this thread…some people just can’t help themselves…I guess just like some liberal LACS professors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This from someone who doesn’t want her kid to hear any liberal opinions…</p>
<p>How… ummm… interesting.</p>
<p>"BTW, “tolerance” doesn’t need to extend to “tolerance for things that are factual untruths”</p>
<p>I agree…but if you really believe man made global warming is a fact, you are misinformed</p>