<p>mimk6: It is good to know your son is happy at his LAC. Does he feel free to express his perhaps less-than-popular conservative opinions? Are there any repercussions if he does? Is he respected by his classmates and professors when he disagrees with them? Was Ken Starr graciously received by the students and faculty of the school? If this is true, then that is good news.</p>
<p>Was Ken Starr graciously received by the students and faculty of the school? If this is true, then that is good news.</p>
<p>Why?
Im curious, are conservative schools/organizations hosting debates with outspoken liberals?</p>
<p>mimK6, thanks for your post. glad to hear that son is comfortable and well adjusted with regard to his ungrad experience thus far. You provide a fresh voice here. It’s funny, my son is in a NE LAC as well and while he is neither extreme of the political spectrum, he is different than most of his class mates in other ways and subject to possible ridicule. But he just let’s it run off his shoulders with a chuckle. Now he’s beginning to change classmates thoughts, and rather than being ridiculed he’s changing their awareness. Not by his words, but by his actions.</p>
<p>A good reminder to trust yourself and your ability to navigate in an environment which may seem hostile or intimidating.</p>
<p>I’m so sorry, mimk6. Now I recall that you said exactly that. My apologies.</p>
<p>I’m not saying the conservative Christian schools are wrong to have Statements of Faith. As you say, Senior’s Dad, they make it clear what kind of schools they are and what beliefs they expect from students, and that’s of considerable benefit. But an institution can’t be called “open-minded” if it blatantly prohibits religious disagreement.</p>
<p>Other religious schools do not have the same attitude toward unbelievers. Parents looking for LACs welcoming conservatives might consider Jesuit schools or other schools affiliated with what used to be mainstream Protestant denominations.</p>
<p>“mimk6: It is good to know your son is happy at his LAC. Does he feel free to express his perhaps less-than-popular conservative opinions? Are there any repercussions if he does? Is he respected by his classmates and professors when he disagrees with them? Was Ken Starr graciously received by the students and faculty of the school? If this is true, then that is good news.”</p>
<p>Well, I’ve never really known my son to hold back his opinions on any subject, lol. He did once mention that a couple of girls on his floor are extremely liberal and he just kind of gives them a wider berth. I’m pretty sure Ken Starr was graciously received. My son went up to meet Chermerinsky but said the line to talk to Ken Starr was longer than he wanted to wait in. I’m not sure that the classes he’s taken this year were subjects where a lot of political discussion would take place, but he’s coming home for spring break tomorrow and I will pose these questions to him and get back to you.</p>
<p>Correction – one class was a class with a lot of political overtones – Contemporary Israeli Film and Fiction which was an intro writing class – all students take a topical writing class first semester. But I doubt the class had too much controversy as it seemed to attract mostly Jewish students. Of course, the conflicts in the Middle East, the tension between Israel and Palestinians, etc. were a big part of the class. He ran into no problems in there.</p>
<p>mimk6: Truly glad your son is having a positive experience at his LAC. You should think about saying which school it is so future students/parents would consider it.
Cardinal Fang: Son 2 is very interested in at least 2 Jesuit schools - he is a senior in HS -
I will admit to being relieved that we are not going the LAC route this time. He prefers a small university with health science programs.</p>
<p>“mimk6: It is good to know your son is happy at his LAC. Does he feel free to express his perhaps less-than-popular conservative opinions? Are there any repercussions if he does? Is he respected by his classmates and professors when he disagrees with them?”</p>
<p>OK, I had an eye-opening conversation with my son tonight. I told him about this thread. So, no, he does not feel completely free to express his less-than-popular opinions. He says, for example, that if you are interviewing to be an RA (or sponsor) or for another on-campus position, you wouldn’t disclose being a conservative because it might be held against you and you’d be thought to be backward-thinking but of course it would be fine (and good) to say you were liberal. He hasn’t had issues in the classroom but hasn’t really taken the kind of classes where you would. He says there are lots of people who say incredibly militant liberal statements and no one bats an eye, but if you said something that was moderately conservative, there would be a huge reaction. He said the issue with an LAC is that, unlike a place like Berkeley, you are in a small group that will judge you long-term whereas at a large campus you could say something and the following semester never see any of those people. Not so at an LAC. He says he’s learned to guard his tongue but that knowing when to guard your tongue is a useful life skill and that, in life, you’d best know when and where to air your opinions. I asked him if someone could be successful and happy in an LAC if they are conservative and he said yes - he is. He said this issue is not at the top of the list of what he would complain about – that the impact of budget cuts on the dining hall are nearer and dearer to his heart - that’s my boy! And it’s not because politics isn’t important to him – he’s applying to conservative think tanks for a summer position. I wish I could remember everything he said because what he said was useful to the OP but I have that middle-aged brain. Maybe when he’s home in a couple of days, I’ll let him post here or get a firmer grasp of what he’s saying.</p>
<p>Jesterbouy, I can’t answer you right now. I’ll try to find out more in a few days. But why do you assume that it’s how he talks about it that would turn people off? Don’t you think content alone, not matter how well said, can turn people off who have strong opinions? It certainly seems to happen often enough in this forum.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Says Jdjaguar</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Says Jdjaguar, apparently without introspection or irony.</p>
<p>Don’t you think content alone, not matter how well said, can turn people off who have strong opinions? It certainly seems to happen often enough in this forum.</p>
<p>I think that when someone expresses an opinion, doesn’t attack with an attitude that " if you don’t agree with me you are an idiot". and can support their reasoning when asked, contributes to thoughtful discussion whether on message boards or a campus.</p>
<p>There certainly are those who dismiss any rational argument, with what they apparently think is a bon mot, but usually comes off crudely, the adult equivalent of " I know you are, but what am I ? ".</p>
<p>However I don’t place them in the same category as someone that can intelligently defend their position.</p>
<p>One-Party Classroom: How Radical Professors at America’s Top Colleges Indoctrinate Students and Undermine Our Democracy, by David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin. Published by Crown Forum (March 10, 2009) </p>
<p>From Random House web site:
[One-Party</a> Classroom by David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin - Hardcover - Random House](<a href=“http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780307452559&ref=banner_onepartyclassroomTownhall]One-Party”>http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780307452559&ref=banner_onepartyclassroomTownhall)</p>
<p>David Horowitz and coauthor Jacob Laksin take us inside twelve major universities where radical agendas have been institutionalized and scholarly standards abandoned. The schools they examine are not the easily avoided bottom of the barrel. Rather, they are an all-too-representative sampling of American higher education today.
Horowitz and Laksin have conducted the first comprehensive, in-depth, multiyear investigation of what is being taught in colleges and universities across the countrypublic to private, from large state schools to elite Ivy League institutions. They have systematically scrutinized course catalogs, reading lists, professors biographies, scholarly records, and the first-person testimonies of students, administrators, and faculty. Citing more than 150 specific courses, they reveal how academic standards have been violated and demonstrate beyond dispute that systematic indoctrination in radical politics is now an integral part of the liberal arts curriculum of Americas colleges. The extreme ideological cant that todays students are being fed includes:</p>
<p> Promoting Marxist approaches as keys to understanding human societieswith no mention of the bloody legacy of these doctrines and total collapse in the real world of the societies they created
Instilling the idea that racism, brutally enforced by a white male patriarchy to oppress people of color and other marginalized groups, has been the organizing principle of American society throughout its history and into the present
Requiring students to believe that gender is not a biological characteristic but a socially created aspect of human behavior designed by men to oppress women
Persuading students that America and Israel are imperialistic and racist states and that the latter has no more right to exist than the South African regime in the days of apartheid</p>
<p>In page after shocking page, Horowitz and Laksin demonstrate that Americas colleges and universities are platforms for a virulent orthodoxy that threatens academic ideals and academic freedom. In place of scholarship and the dispassionate pursuit of truth that have long been the hallmarks of higher learning, the new militancy embraces activist zealotry and ideological fervor. In disturbingly large segments of todays universities, students are no longer taught how to think but are told what to think.</p>
<p>From Amazon.com web site:
[Amazon.com:</a> One-Party Classroom: How Radical Professors at America’s Top Colleges Indoctrinate Students and Undermine Our Democracy: David Horowitz, Jacob Laksin: Books](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0307452557/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books]Amazon.com:”>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0307452557/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books)</p>
<p>Review
A professors job is not to tell students what to think; it is to help them to think carefully, critically, and for themselves. There is a legitimate place for the catechist, the preacher, the social activist, and the community organizer; but that place is not the university classroom. Professors who seek to indoctrinate their students violate a sacred trust. They should be forcefully challenged and publicly held to account. In One-Party Classroom, David Horowitz does just that. The book should provoke a discussion of the ethics of classroom instruction that is long overdue.
Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program
in American Ideals and Institutions, Princeton University</p>
<p>Definitive proof that, whether they succeed or not, thousands of professors go to work every day with the intention of indoctrinating their students in their personal political prejudices.
Candace de Russy, former trustee, State University of New York</p>
<p>One-Party Classroom shows how far American universities have drifted from academic principles. The politicized courses described here are indeed among the worst cases. What is truly shocking is the unwillingness of university authorities to do anything about them.
Stephen H. Balch, founder and president, National Association of Scholars</p>
<p>Reveals how political activists masquerading as academics dominate our liberal arts colleges. Regents and trustees need to become engaged in this important battle to restore academic rigor, standards, and accountability to our institutions of higher learning.
Tom Lucero, regent, University of Colorado</p>
<p>There is not a university leader in this country who would not be better for confronting the well-reported case studies in David Horowitzs book.
Frederick Mohs, former trustee, Univers… --This text refers to the Kindle Edition edition. </p>
<p>Review
A professors job is not to tell students what to think; it is to help them to think carefully, critically, and for themselves. There is a legitimate place for the catechist, the preacher, the social activist, and the community organizer; but that place is not the university classroom. Professors who seek to indoctrinate their students violate a sacred trust. They should be forcefully challenged and publicly held to account. In One-Party Classroom, David Horowitz does just that. The book should provoke a discussion of the ethics of classroom instruction that is long overdue.
Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program
in American Ideals and Institutions, Princeton University</p>
<p>Definitive proof that, whether they succeed or not, thousands of professors go to work every day with the intention of indoctrinating their students in their personal political prejudices.
Candace de Russy, former trustee, State University of New York</p>
<p>One-Party Classroom shows how far American universities have drifted from academic principles. The politicized courses described here are indeed among the worst cases. What is truly shocking is the unwillingness of university authorities to do anything about them.
Stephen H. Balch, founder and president, National Association of Scholars</p>
<p>Reveals how political activists masquerading as academics dominate our liberal arts colleges. Regents and trustees need to become engaged in this important battle to restore academic rigor, standards, and accountability to our institutions of higher learning.
Tom Lucero, regent, University of Colorado</p>
<p>There is not a university leader in this country who would not be better for confronting the well-reported case studies in David Horowitzs book.
Frederick Mohs, former trustee, University of Wisconsin</p>
<p>I missed the debate at Reed with Dave Horowitz and his change in stance is interesting, but it reminds me a little of Octomom complaining she was an only child.</p>
<p>There’s no need to go off the deep end, I say ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Horowitz was on Hannity Monday night, March 9</p>
<p>See the interview here:</p>
<p>[Breaking</a> News | Latest News | Current News - FOXNews.com](<a href=“Latest Breaking News Videos | Fox News Video”>Latest Breaking News Videos | Fox News Video)</p>
<p>Horowitz blogging about the book:</p>
<p>[Doc’s</a> Talk: One-Party Classroom](<a href=“http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2009/03/one-party-classroom.html]Doc’s”>Doc's Talk: One-Party Classroom)</p>
<p>The Introduction to the book is posted on FrontPageMag.com, “A cutting edge magazine of politics and culture from David Horowitz and The Center for the Study of Popular Culture.”</p>
<p>[FrontPage</a> Magazine](<a href=“http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=81456ECA-7595-4464-AD4B-5E56EFE599C9]FrontPage”>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=81456ECA-7595-4464-AD4B-5E56EFE599C9)</p>
<p>The link provided here is to the Introduction of the book, not the Home page of the web site as one might deduce from the title of the link.</p>
<p>An excerpt from the Introduction:</p>
<p>"One Party Classroom analyzes courses at a dozen major universities whose curricula are designed not to educate students in critical thinking but to instill doctrines that are “politically correct.” This is not a claim that professors are “biased.” Bias is another term for “point of view,” which every professor naturally possesses and has a right to express. For the purposes of this study, professors whose courses follow traditional academic standards do not pose a problem regardless of their individual point of view. What concerns us is whether their courses adhere to the principles of scientific method and observe professional standards.</p>
<p>Thus, One Party Classroom does not propose to hold professors responsible for their idiosyncratic opinions on controversial matters but focuses instead whether they understand and observe the academic standards of the modern research university and the principles of a professional education. The concern of this study is the growing number of activist instructors who routinely present their students with only one side of controversial issues in an effort to convert them to a sectarian perspective."</p>
<p>Another excerpt:</p>
<p>“In forming our judgments, we have systematically scrutinized course catalogs, syllabi, reading lists, professors’ biographies, scholarly records, and testimonies. The outcome of our research leaves no doubt that the failure to enforce academic standards is a problem endemic to institutions of higher learning. An alarming number of university courses violate existing academic regulations that have been designed to ensure that students receive professional instruction and a modern education. Once the widespread nature of the abuses are appreciated it becomes impossible to argue that the problem is limited to a few aberrant instructors, or to off-hand professorial comments, or to an occasional assignment of materials designed to sway students’ judgments on controversial matters.”</p>
<p>“what are his conservative views that he voices. This word, conservaitive gets batted around as does liberal”</p>
<p>I don’t think that is the point. I think the point he was making – and he was not being defensive but evenhanded in trying to convey the culture of his campus – is that there exists among students an intolerance for non-liberal views. A college campus should be a place that tolerates different views if they are thought out and reasoned. That is just not always the case. I think what he was saying is that no liberals on his campus would feel a need to stop themselves from expressing their views, because the majority agree with their views. The fact that a conservative student would feel the need to be more discreet than a liberal is unsettling, because a campus should be a place that encourages a free exchange of ideas. If you can defend a position – and I know he can – you should be treated with respect and tolerance.</p>
<p>jesterbouy</p>
<p>“all this talk about being afraid to share “conservative” views is just hooey without specifics”</p>
<p>This thread contains tons of specifics. There are quotes from books, magazine and newspaper articles, and rigorously conducted surveys; much of it provided with references and hyperlinks.</p>
<p>I think Horowitz has an ax to grind - and thus does adopt a perspective that to my mind is narrow. </p>
<p>But what academe appears to fail to realize is just how much low hanging fruit that they put out there for Horowitz to grab. To academics that complain about Horowitz - I would ask why so many make it so easy for him to ply his trade. </p>
<p>I used to chuckle - except that it wasn’t funny - when the dominant liberal academic paradigm of the 80’s was that Soviet Union was benign, a creature feeling its way to collectivist nirvana, and that in no event should Stalin be compared to Hitler. I mean, c’mon, the Soviet Union had free health care! </p>
<p>When it was pointed out to these types that well, there were differences - Hitler killed his victims rather quickly in contrast to Stalin - who enslaved (and then killed) up to 70 million or more - Stalin killed them more slowly in the Gulag after exploiting their labor more fully - but that really, the differences were minor because both were societies built on unfathomably evil doings - all in the 20th century no less - well the apparatchiks looked at me like I was crazy. And then when I pointed out that nowhere in the world was environmental degradation so awful as in the Soviet Union (soon to become former Soviet Union), they also looked at me like I was nuts - even though the statement was undoubtedly accurate - because the apparatchiks are so ingrained to look at market and capitalist based entities as inherently evil they could not grasp the simple paradigm that a political structure that protects property rights and supports markets is far more susceptible to imposing costs and prohibiting environmental degradation than a collectivist society - if only because the costs of these negative externalities can imposed upon violators and thus estop the harmful activity. I might as well have been talking to the wall. Bright people, to be sure, but so wedded to group think it impaired their worldview and thinking. Little wonder Horowitz finds it easy to find material.</p>