<p>lotsofquests</p>
<p>That quote is often famously attributed to Winston Churchill, and he may have actually used it. I looked it up once. I don’t remember the details, but what I recall is that it originally came from a Frenchman well before Churchill. A statesman maybe? Philosopher? I’m not sure. I’m sure a quick Google search would answer that question.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed, and I think that’s condescending. You assume “the liberals here” have never discussed “where many conservative are coming from” with conservatives before.</p>
<p>I understand that there are many people who consider marriage to be only between one man and one woman, and they want to preserve that. I get that.</p>
<p>That doesn’t mean I agree with it, however; I can understand their deep attachment to that view and their reasons for that view, and still reject that view.</p>
<p>I see the denial of same-sex marriages as a case of sex discrimination – THAT person, a man, could marry me, but THIS person, a woman, can’t… solely because THIS person is a woman. The state is discriminating against this woman for her gender; were this woman a man, this person could marry me.</p>
<p>All of this is off-topic, however.</p>
<p>I am pretty sure I’ve already asked this, but as I’m not certain, I would like to know if the OP’s son would be okay with professors pushing a conservative agenda in class. Would that also upset this high school freshman?</p>
<p>morandi</p>
<p>Fair enough. Maybe, rather than “defeating him” I should have said “getting what you want.” </p>
<p>I think the co-existing thing is what the OP is looking for.</p>
<p>owlice, I made no such assumption. I simply offered my two cent’s worth to that discussion. </p>
<p>I’m open to discussion on the marriage thing. Freedom. That’s the ticket. But practically speaking, realize what you’re up against. It’s a powerful tide you’re trying to reverse. Patience and perseverence may yet win out.</p>
<p>I’m using the general or collective “you” here. I don’t mean “you” personally.</p>
<p>winchester—you’re alright. i may not always be convinced, but i will certainly (always) listen to you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good luck, Owlice. The OP has not, unless I’ve missed something, answered a single direct question on any specific point, although many have been put to him or her.</p>
<p>FWIW, Burke was no revolutionary. He supported the American colonies because they were “American Englishmen” whose rights were extended through the Magna Carta, a technicality that alas could not be used by the French when it came time for their revolution.</p>
<p>“Good luck, Owlice. The OP has not, unless I’ve missed something, answered a single direct question on any specific point, although many have been put to him or her.”</p>
<p>I’ve answered all questions…I’m sorry if you have a problem comprehending. Why you keep feeling the need to stoke the fire is beyond me.</p>
<p>As to owlice’s question.
" I would like to know if the OP’s son would be okay with professors pushing a conservative agenda in class. ".I didn’t respond because it was a ridiculous question. </p>
<p>How would I know…my son is the only one that could answer that question, and probably not until he is faced with the situation. Or I could play your game and asked what a “conservative agenda is”…but I think it’s obvious, just like my question was, so no need to act like a child as so many have.</p>
<p>Winchester – </p>
<p>If you think I was arguing that conservatism itself is un-intellectual, you were not reading very carefully. My posts to which you were responding were making a much more limited argument, in response to some cliches that others had sponsored. I was pointing out that national “conservative” (i.e., Republican) Presidential candidates had by and large used anti-intellectual rhetoric, and did not really conform to the model of conservative “doers” and liberal “talkers”, or conservative pragmatists and liberal idealists. Neither national party’s leaders are necessarily its intellectuals, of course, but the Democrats have tended to choose policy wonks as their candidates, and the Republicans not. I don’t agree with you that Ronald Reagan was anything like an intellectual conservative, although I would readily concede that he had an army of intellectual conservatives riding on his train and sometimes shaping his policies.</p>
<p>As for my own political education, it is pretty amusing that you are lecturing me on learning about conservatism from conservatives. I grew up mainly among Republicans. I had four significant academic mentors in college and law school, and three of them were politically conservative. I took courses with some well-known conservative thinkers, and had friends/classmates who have gone on to very visible careers as conservative leaders. Some liberals, too, of course. I get most of my news from the Wall St. Journal and The Economist (OK, and the Sunday Times, too). I don’t have cable, and I have never, not once, even seen MSNBC or listened to Air America. If I got mugged by Keith Olbermann and Rachel Madow, I wouldn’t be able to identify them; I don’t know what either looks like. So if I am parroting what “liberals” say, it’s not because I have any idea what that is on a day-to-day basis.</p>
<p>I am a corporate lawyer. My clients are generally successful entrepreneurs in their 40s-70s. Some of them are very conservative – a deceased mentor/partner was a life-long Ayn Rand devotee, and many of his clients shared his philosophy – some are mildish Republicans, while others probably qualify as New Democrat types (which is more or less what I am, too). My experience, by the way, is that people’s political views have little to do with their intelligence, age, or economic success (at least 3/4ths of the most economically successful people I know, both with inherited wealth and the do-it-yourself kind, are primarily Democratic voters).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So ask him. You first stated your concern about a teacher/professor pushing his/her beliefs, without stating what the beliefs were that your son was objecting to. Of course, the title of the thread makes it obvious that your kid likely didn’t want to hear ideas that oppose yours… er… his. It’s not whether a professor pushes his/her beliefs that is objectionable, however – it’s only if those beliefs are not conservative ones that are the issue.</p>
<p>So it’s not correct to claim that your kid doesn’t want to hear a professor’s political beliefs in a classroom discussion. Your kid just doesn’t want to hear liberal ideas.</p>
<p>And yes, I agree that “conservative agenda” is a silly phrase, but I obviously used it because you have consistently used “liberal agenda” without defining what that agenda is.</p>
<p>In my earlier post, I had intended to thank winchester for the thought and passion he or she put into his long post about conservatism. I would quarrel with a good bit of it – while I agree that the Founders were hardly revolutionaries in the mode of the Jacobins or anarchists, I think it’s a little disingenuous to characterize them as simply picking and choosing the tried-and-true (not to mention that the very idea of a written constitution was novel and somewhat radical). I worry a little that the same impassioned argument could be (and was) used to defend things like slavery and race segregation – all the best empires of Antiquity had 'em! – but it’s certainly a strong strain in my own thinking.</p>
<p>Geeps20: “I’ve answered all questions…”</p>
<p>No. You haven’t. For example, since I don’t understand what would count in your mind as pushing a political agenda, in post 457 I gave several specific examples of professors saying things and asked if they would count. You decline to answer. I’d still like to know the answer.</p>
<p>And that is not the only question you’ve avoided. You’ve avoided other questioned that sought to clarify what you are searching for and what you object to.</p>
<p>JHS</p>
<p>Thanks for your recent posts.</p>
<p>I understand what you mean about being “a little disingenuous.” </p>
<p>An earlier post, from whom, I don’t know, also criticized me for not recognizing that ideas about marriage (among other things) have evolved through history.</p>
<p>I agree with both of those posts. My post was indeed long, but even at that it was paraphrasing and summarizing various books, articles, papers, etc. that I’ve read over a period of many years, heavily influenced by my own interpretation of what they all mean. And as such, I did not cover every nuance of every idea that I presented. </p>
<p>Also, I agree that impassioned arguments have been used to support heinous things like segregation and slavery. Reasonable people like you and me 
can have reasonable debates. But sometimes people are just not reasonable, and misrepresent or misinterpret some arguments to their own ends. </p>
<p>I dont see myself as lecturing you personally, though it certainly can be seen that way. Rather, Im arguing with the larger, collective, you of liberalism. You happen to be the one who said some things I happen to take issue with, thats all. Im arguing with the message, really, not the messenger.</p>
<p>And thanks for the background about yourself. That helps the discussion, I think. </p>
<p>There’s certainly room for debate on just about any topic. Probably no position, whether it’s liberalism or conservatism in general or any particular topic of the day, can be properly expressed in even a long post like mine. I mean, for heavens sake, bookstores and libraries are stocked with row upon row of books on politics, some dedicated entirely to exploring every aspect of just one of the many ideas on this thread, and most of them much better written than anything I can come up with.</p>
<p>A book I recently finished reading is Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution (Paperback) by Forrest McDonald. I’m currently reading Libertys Blueprint: How Madison and Hamilton Wrote The Federalist, Defined the Constitution, and Made Democracy Safe for the World by Michael Meyerson.</p>
<p>From both of those books, and from many other sources as well, the conclusion that I’ve come to is that the conservative/liberal debate is an artifact of human nature. Some of the exact same conflicts that we’re grappling with today were debated at length during the writing of the Constitution. In “Blueprint,” Meyerson points out that Hamilton and Madison, the authors of most of the Federalist Papers, were at one point fast friends, but became estranged over such issues as whether the power of the Government is exactly what is granted by the Constitution and no more (Madison), or whether the Government can do whatever it wants (paraphrasing again) in order to achieve it’s greater goals (Hamilton.)</p>
<p>I think most would agree that lines have to be drawn somewhere, and at the risk of oversimplifying (again) my view is that much of the human debate is over where to place the lines.</p>
<p>I happen to agree with Burke’s sentiment that it is nearly impossible to distill a country’s institutions (i.e., laws, traditions, etc.) down to “first principles,” and as well, that even the Constitution was very much a product of its political times. Compromises were made, and the founders’ energy kind of tailed off at the end so the last section they were working on (Judiciary maybe?) didn’t get the level of attention that the other sections got and is thus not as clearly thought out are as thorough as the other sections.</p>
<p>Yet, in much of our debate we’re searching for those very “first principles.” So, there you go, we’re human. Nothings perfect, though we strive for it.</p>
<p>Back to the original question. morandi asked me to provide a quote, which I did. But there are many more than just that one. After reading several college guide books essentially cover-to-cover I developed a “sense” of the situation on college campuses that supports the OP’s original concern. Since that’s the main jumping off point for this thread I thought I’d do a little homework and offer a few more. </p>
<p>I flipped through my copy of Fiske Guide to Colleges 2009 by Edward B Fiske (Paperback - Jul 1, 2008). I looked only at the bold, highlighted text boxes for comments that include the words conservative, liberal, Democrat, or Republican. I went page by page through the first 200 pages of the book. This is not a thorough survey by any stretch of the imagination, but I can say that if politics is mentioned at all, in my estimation the percentage of the comments that are conservative/Republican vs. liberal/Democrat is typical of most college guide books. I included all-girl Bryn Mawr for completeness even though I know the OP is asking on behalf of a son.</p>
<p>Albion College, Albion MI, page 7:
Next to evangelical Hope and Calvin, and out-there Kalamazoo, Albion is Michigans middle-of-the road liberal arts college. Think Gerald Ford, the moderate Republican president who is the namesake of Albions signature Institute for Public Service.</p>
<p>Alverno College, Milwaukee, WI, page 18:
This is a very liberal campus with lots of open-minded people.</p>
<p>Babson College, Babson Park, MA, page 41:
The one college in Massachusetts where it is possible to be a Republican with head held high.</p>
<p>Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson, NY, page 45:
If youre a Republican or conservative, please come and add some dimension to our conversation. Im sick of agreeing with everyone.</p>
<p>Beloit College, Beloit, WI, page 54:
The joke around campus is you can be anything but a Republican.</p>
<p>Brown University, Providence, RI, page 76:
Bashed by conservatives as a hotbed of political correctness.</p>
<p>Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, PA, page 79:
Politics range from liberal to radical.</p>
<p>Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA, page 82:
Bucknell, Colgate, Hamilton, Lafayette all a little more conservative than the Ivy schools and nipping at their heels.
People debate fair trade and debt relief, and liberal versus conservative economic policies.</p>
<p>UC-Irvine, Irvine, CA, page 91:
Irvine sits in the midst of one of the nations biggest suburbs, combining funky modern architecture with perhaps the most conservative student body in the UC system.
UCI and the city of Irvine seem like completely different entities; the form is slightly liberal while the latter is ultraconservative.</p>
<p>Carelton College, Northfield, MN, page 111:
Predominantly liberal, but not to the extremes of its more antiestablishment cousins.
(NOTE: The cousins are Amherst, Williams, and Swarthmore. - Winchester.)</p>
<p>University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, page 131:
The conservative voice is allowed a presence on campus the effect is to enliven debate and save us liberals from easy self-assurance. </p>
<p>Clark University, Worcester, MA, page 146:
Clark is liberal, tolerant, and world-renowned in psychology and geography.</p>
<p>Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, page 186:
Traditionally the most conservative member of the Ivy League, it has been steered leftward in recent years.</p>
<p>Denison University, Granville, OH, page 199:
Denison has a middle-of-the-road to conservative student body and one of the most beautiful campuses anywhere.</p>
<p>The following quotes from Choosing the Right College: 2008-2009: The Whole Truth about America’s Top Schools by John Zmirak and Walter E. Williams (Paperback - Jun 15, 2007) are longer so rather than marching through the book page-by-page as I did with the Fiske guide Ive been selective in choosing which ones to include. I selected quotes about New England schools because thats what the OP asked about, especially ones that were covered by quotes from the Fiske Guide in my earlier note. This book doesnt cover as many schools as the Fiske Guide some that are covered there are not available here. </p>
<p>This book is written by conservatives. Ill say that right up front. So take the things it says literally, with a grain of salt, or discount them entirely as you are want to do depending on your own political persuasion. We dont really know the persuasion of the folks who write all the other books. Theyre not as up front with their agendas, if any, as the folks from Right College are, so take those books also, with the proverbial grain of salt, put it all into a blender, and come up with your own sense of the situation.</p>
<p>Amherst College, page 8:
The dominant political ideology at Amherst is evident in the classroom and in every department, although bias varies by class and professor. Reports one student: Many courses in English and history are hotbeds or post colonialism, feminism, cultural relativism, revisionist history and other post-modern fads, though there are certain gem courses that can be found in each department. My worst experience at Amherst was with an American studies professor. In the course of a semester-long freshman seminar, rather than reading Plato and Locke to discuss eternal questions as addressed in legendary works, we learned about growing up in America. Over the these three months, we discussed racial identity (after which the professor concluded that Clarence Thomas was denying his blackness), heard that guns were destroying America, and read a book titled Aint No Makin It in a Low Income Neighborhood. The thesis of the book is that hard work is futile for low-income minorities.</p>
<p>Bates College, page 14:
The Bates Republican Club has become much more active in recent years, in 2005 helping to pass an Academic Bill of Rights, which declared that political and religious beliefs should not be singled out for ridicule, that students should not be forced to express a certain point of view in assignments, and that university funds should not be used for one-sided conferences. However, Bates students of all political persuasions agree on one thing, and that is that the campus leans decidedly to the left. As one student says, Bates is definitely left-leaning, and that is putting it mildly. But most teachers conduct classes with a fairly high level of political balance. Faculty have been known to inject political opinions into classes like Cellular and Molecular Biology and to have Trim the Bushes posters on office doors. On issues of religion, a student says, Very few professors openly talk about their faith, buy many are glad to talk about their lack of it.</p>
<p>Brown University, page 52:
In a blow to free speech, the university has passed regulations banning verbal behavior that produces feelings of impotence, anger, or disenfranchisement, whether intentional or unintentional. There is really no other word but totalitarian to describe such a vague, potentially all-encompassing rule. As the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) points out, such regulations, if applied strictly, could prohibit nearly all satire, political debate, or even constitutionally protected electoral activism. If applied arbitrarily (as usually happens at universities), they will simply be used to quash unpopular opinions.</p>
<p>Dartmouth College, page 74:
One Dartmouth Review contributor recounts a sociology professor telling his class that even his young children know who the enemy is: the Republican Party. A government professors syllabus includes a list of terms students should know, such as, left: favoring a greater degree of equality (social, economic, political),: and Right: favoring a greater degree of inequality, believing that a select few should have power based on birth or merit. And in 2003, the Spanish and Portuguese department joined the sociology department to subsidize a student trip to an antiwar protest with department funds.
Vocal conservatives have had some success in publicizing the gradual encroachment of political correctness into the colleges academic and student life. The Review, with its constant calls for free speech, plays a large part in bringing unsavory issues to light, and the school administration does not always appreciate the favor. Reporters from the Review have been arrested, suspended (this was later overruled), denied access to public records, and even bitten by an angry professor. For its part, the paper has published occasional juvenile, genuinely offensive things. Still, the Review has had a positive impact on the campus as a strident conservative voice and appears to be resurgent after a short period of decline. In fact, demand for conservative news must be increasing; in late 2004, rival journalists started Dartmouth Beacon, which bills itself as the compassionate conservative voice on campus.</p>
<p>Smith College, page 129:
(NOTE: A girls school, which the OP is not interested in, but relevant to the greater discussion. -winchester)</p>
<p>This all-women school tends to be overwhelmingly Democratic and liberal, states a longtime professor. The April 2004 issue of FrontPage magazine recalled that when the U.S. invasion of Iraq began, Things became so bad as Smith College that students had American flags ripped off their dormitory doors and shredded. In October, 2006, a flier for the Smith Republican Club as found defaced with a swastika. One professor sighs, A liberal arts college should maintain a diversity of opinion. Instead, we have become a PC country club. Despite this pressure, a student conservative paper, the Right View, continues publication. Students at Smith tell as that it is a decent place where people respect each other.</p>
<p>Tufts University, page 143:
Tufts is a challenging place for conservative students. A student sums up the political atmosphere at Tufts by saying Were a northeastern liberal campus. Thats no secret. Another says, I can see how it would be difficult to be conservative here, because most people are liberal. If youre actively conservative people will actively dislike you and will try to engage you in an antagonistic dialogue. Another student says, For the average student who just wants to have his own opinion without being assailed for it I feel bad for that kid.
The campus has become more activist over the years. For instance, in 2004, Voices for Choice, a division of Planned Parenthood, turned the Tufts Campus Center into a carnival of carnality at the first annual Sex Fair. Some of the items ostensibly illustrating the issue of choice were vagina shaped cookies and lollipops, posters prominently displaying the c-word, a lubricant taste-testing, male/female genitalia shaped masks in which you could have your photo taken, and the ever-popular free condoms. They could present themselves in a mature way but they choose to be juvenile, one student says. They want to see how much they can shock you, not educate you.</p>
<p>Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA page 152
(NOTE: Another girls school, which the OP is not interested in, but relevant to the greater discussion. -winchester)
Abortion and gay marriage are hot issues on campus. One pro-lifer found herself accused of hating women and of hypocrisy since she had not adopted a child. This student says, Gay marriage isnt even discussed. Its assumed that everyone is on board with it, and I cant even imagine the maelstrom that would come if someone publicly said otherwise. Sure, you can be pro-life and pro-traditional family
but dont speak out in public. The 2004 election was very difficult for Republican students. One student remembers, I has Bush posters ripped off my door and threats written on my white-board. Other College Republicans experienced similar things. Pro-life posters are torn down and replaced with Planned Parenthood information. Conservatives are not much appreciated by some faculty. A history professor spoke of an exceptionally bright student in his class that he felt he had failed because, at the end of the class, she was still conservative.
The head researcher for the Wellesley Center for Women (which is supported in part by donations and tuition) claimed in a speech that conservative women should be pitied because theyve been used by men to work against their own interests. She was quotes as saying (referring to Wellesley conservatives): And to think these women are highly educated! One person who attended a speech recalls that the speaker went on to lament failure of higher education to weed out or change traditional women.</p>
<p>thanks morandi, for saying I’m alright. You too.</p>
<p>I love the University of Chicago quote. The conservative voice is <em>allowed</em> on campus.</p>
<p>Sheesh.</p>
<p>I included the Wellesley quote from “Right Colleges” even though it is an all-girl’s school because it contains another of my favorites, about the professor who “failed” because one of his students was “still conservative.”</p>
<p>Sheesh again.</p>
<p>W/re University of Chicago, that “allowed” is perhaps a little sarcastic. A very large number of the star-quality academics at Chicago are thoroughly conservative, both in the past (Leo Strauss, Allan Bloom, Saul Bellow, Milton Friedman, Richard Posner, Antonin Scalia) and in the present (Gary Becker, Richard Epstein). It has a core curriculum, attracts a large number of conservative students, and respectful debate is encouraged. The conservative viewpoint, if not a majority, is very well represented at all levels.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The only C paper I ever received in college was from a Women’s Studies teacher who didn’t like the fact that I wrote a paper defending stay at home mothers. After that, I just played the game
and stomached the liberal agenda. Didn’t like it, but I tolerated it. </p>
<p>Frankly, being on a mostly liberal campus did NOTHING to “enlighten” my views, it actually made me MORE CONVINCED about my beliefs due to the outrageousness of the liberal lunatic fringe on campus. It quite possible made me MORE conservative than I would have been otherwise at that early age.</p>
<p>To JHS, post #518 </p>
<p>Granted. * All * of these quotes are anecdotal. And the political climate on campus is probably not in the top 3, 4, or more, criteria that most people consider when applying to college. </p>
<p>To all:</p>
<p>But let’s step back and look at the larger picture. </p>
<p>It is an established fact that college professors are overwhelmingly liberal.</p>
<p>From the Washington Post, March 29, 2005.
By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.</p>
<p>From the News-Record, Greensboro, NC, January 25, 2009
A survey of “1,417 full-time professors at 927 institutions” conducted in 2007 “confirmed what most objective observers already knew: that the university campus is a bastion of left-wing thought. According to the study, 62 percent of professors are liberal, and only 19 percent are conservative. In 2004, 78 percent voted for John Kerry, only 20 percent for Bush.”</p>
<p>If that were as far as it went it wouldn’t be a big deal. But it goes much farther than that. Quotes like the ones I posted about the difficulties of conservative students on college campuses are pervasive. Do liberals have similar problems on college campuses? Not so much.</p>
<p>[College</a> Faculties A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds (washingtonpost.com)](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html]College”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html)</p>
<p>[Charles</a> Davenport Jr.: An episode of intolerance at Elon : News-Record.com : Greensboro, North Carolina](<a href=“http://www.news-record.com/content/2009/01/22/article/charles_davenport_jr_an_episode_of_intolerance_at_elon]Charles”>http://www.news-record.com/content/2009/01/22/article/charles_davenport_jr_an_episode_of_intolerance_at_elon)</p>
<p>The American Association of University Professors repudiates a 90-year tradition of academic freedom and endorses indoctrination.
[The</a> End of the University As We Know It - News - Students For Academic Freedom](<a href=“http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/2556/the-end-of-the-university-as-we-know-it]The”>http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/2556/the-end-of-the-university-as-we-know-it)</p>
<p>I try to be fair and all…mostly. But really, how does one not conclude that the so-called “tolerance” of liberalism and the so-called “diversity” on college campuses is anything but? </p>
<p>I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. Diversity of race, religion, color, and socioeconomic status but not of political thought is no diversity at all.</p>
<p>This is a very real problem.</p>
<p>Morandi, if you’re out there, this next bit might be one of those things that you see as an attack on liberals, sorry about that.</p>
<p>We can debate the merits of liberalism vs. conservatism but it’s all beside the point.</p>
<p>It seems to me to be the height of hypocrisy for liberals to claim to fight for “tolerance” and “inclusion” and then so often do the exact opposite, and to do it, no less, on the college campus - the one place which should best exemplify the freedom of expression.</p>
<p>If liberalism actually were the philosophy of tolerance and inclusion then one would expect college professors and faculty to be working to foster and encourage diversity of political thought on campus. But sadly, much more often than not, it appears, the opposite is true.</p>
<p>Liberals everywhere should be ashamed and embarrassed.</p>