<p>Momof2inCa, the article on energy was very good.</p>
<p>Momofinca,</p>
<p>Im happy to hear that you were moved by the poem. It has always moved me. </p>
<p>I am not shocked, on the other hand, to find that a person of liberal sensibilities does not care for the Dartmouth Review. It is the first conservative college newspaper in the countrythere are now many more across the country largely patterned on the Review. For years, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have had a running feud over the Review. With articles and counter articlescondemning and supporting free speech on campus. The Review is for free speechthe NYT, is lukewarm about it. </p>
<p>I am an associate editor at the Review. As a writer of a number of articles in the Review, I rather favor it. I think you would be hard pressed to find a college publications with a more widely considered reputation. It would be unfair to compare the Review to any other college publicationit would always be apples and oranges. </p>
<p>I thought the writing was just fine in smartass, though I dont share their perspective, it is what it is and I am for as many perspectives as possible (I prefer an actual liberal education)</p>
<p>Actually, FountainSiren, I haven’t read enough of the Dartmouth Review to form a first-hand impression of it, so I can’t say that I don’t care for it. I’ve been trying off and on since yesterday morning to access its website and/or blog with no luck. My impressions are limited for now to the article link you provided and the wikipedia information. I do think that any student newspaper that has survived 26 years without a university purse behind it is to be congratulated since there are many, many publications in the marketplace that fold after months or a year, usually due to funding issues.</p>
<p>I’m not sure I follow your point about it being unfair to compare the Review to any other college publication when you also state that there are many more conservative college newspapers in the country patterned on the Review. That would be apples to apples, right? </p>
<p>Comparing Smart Ass to the Dartmouth Review is apples to oranges, though, on that we agree. Aside from their obvious political differences, one is a bi-weekly newspaper and the other a bi-monthly magazine. One draws its content (seemingly) from campus events, the other from world or national events. And obviously the reputation of the two cannot even be compared in terms of national consideration; DR is well known, SA is not. </p>
<p>One other difference: it appears the DR seeks to push conservative opinion toward the fringes while SA tries to pull back from the edge. Both SA articles I linked above, which I chose completely at random from the last issue, seem to be attempting to gain centrist footing (the energy article gives a considered opinion about the benefits of nuclear sources, while the cartoon story warns of the dangers of denying free speech in the name of fighting intolerance). Like I said, it’s an observation based on limited reading of both publications, but I wonder if you observe this as well?</p>
<p>I’m glad you said you liked a liberal education, FS. There are conservative educations available. </p>
<p>As a moderate liberal paying huge taxes to a progressive socialist state where I have to burn wood in the winter to keep warm because the government doesn’t believe in nuclear anything, I highly recommend a stint in another country to ‘polish’ your political beliefs with friction. In my lifetime, I have also paid huge tax to an authoritarian government (which is why I don’t consider the US an authoritarian government). </p>
<p>FS, why do you suppose the highest ranked universities in America are extremely liberal? The liberal powers who control those universities have an iron grip on their dominant position, wouldn’t you agree? Why can’t the conservative movement gain a toehold–even from their present power base? Does the corresponding question, why can’t the liberals gain a meaningful toe hold in current US politics, have any relevance?</p>
<p>As far as being a minority and getting hurt–tell me about it! At least your minority status is not visible until you open your mouth or sign your name. I am a big walking sign board every time I go into a meeting or walk onto the jobsite as the single female. My day to day working life is spent as the overwhelmed minority. Nearly thirty years on, I hardly notice–it’s so far buried in a rear compartment of my mind. </p>
<p>Through trial and error, I have worked out strategies to maintain and accelerate my opportunities despite the incongruity of my status. After living in a country where I was the extreme racial minority as well as the extreme gender minority in the office, I learned to check myself against de-personalizing the majority. Through regretable errors, I learned not to frame ‘them’ as my polar enemies. I avoid conversations generalizing ‘their’ habits. When I do vent, I try to put those feelings of hostility where they belong–mostly in my camp of responsiblity. </p>
<p>FWIW, that self-discipline makes my life as an old ex-pat glass-ceiling-breaker a whole lot easier. It has also lowered the frequency of my poorer ‘flight or fight’ choices.</p>
<p>
Cheers, </p>
<p>I believe there is something of a tautology at work in the question. That is, it may be better to ask why the historically great universities in America are <em>now</em> ideologically liberal when universities have been historically defined by moderation, the equilibrium of pragmatism and the preserving of the great Western Liberal Tradition (as classically defined) even if it meant reigning in the genius-ideologues (whether or not the then current custodians be politically liberal or the politically conservative)?</p>
<p>My first answer would have to do with the unchecked current unchecked dominance of ideology in pedagogy. I do not mean to say mere political ideology but rather ideology per se. I suppose it has something to do with the generation of students who graduated in the 1960’s, but I think it goes beyond that; what were once chickens are now foxes in the hen house. Ideology is now the crucible for all but the hard sciences (clearly ideology has its way in the soft sciences as this thread coyly demonstrates, re: “fascist psychologies” and “brain-imaging,” oy!).</p>
<p>Moreover, it seems to me that tradition and conservation have been the historical antidote to ideology: from Marxism to Fascism; from phrenology to Freudianism; from logical positivism to postmodernism and beyond. Unfortunately, this also occurs, from time to time, to necessary innovations–but it is always only a matter of time; useful innovations inevitably, through truth seeking and fortune, find their own civilized level—from Galileo to Darwin to Sojourner Truth. The inability to distinguish ideology (as a soft science, as in “The Science of Marxism” or the “Science of Freud” or “Feminist Criticism” or “Marxist Criticism,” or the “Science of Fascism”–the last of these having long since fallen out of favor with the ignominious passing of the Nazis—has confounded the earnest ideologue in his effort to “reform” the dull-normals amongst us; thus we lay bare the difference between the Promethean-academic and so-called “red-state” mentality of cultural dominance). </p>
<p>Such ideologies always demand our attention but professors and the pedagogues who favor them also have the option of simply fancying them in their private lives, research and published work or replacing or circumventing the current pedagogy, as they found it, with them—for our own good, to be sure: our ignorance is their business. </p>
<p>As to being in a socialist country, I was raised in Quebec and have only returned from a one week summer vacation there yesterday (took my little brother to hockey camp—he’s a star!). Though I have not lived under Mao or Julius Nyere, I have yet had some experience with civil-socialism. </p>
<p>As to looking different, I look Iranian—I don’t know if that counts. Still, as an ethnic/female/conservative attending Dartmouth and writing for the Review I often fail to meet people’s stereo-typical expectations and often spend some time disabusing those who hold them, of them—as here on cc…all too often.</p>
<p>As to gaining a toe-hold in the academy: if the liberal Larry Summers cannot bed down to sleep and dream well amongst the ideological ghouls who haunt the halls of Cambridge it does not bode well for freshman and sophomores of a conservative disposition at Dartmouth, Brown, Swarthmore and Vassar. I suggest the book “The Dartmouth Review Pleads Innocent” for a singular view of the working end of the ideological pedagogue’s cane. <a href=“http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1932236937/ref=sr_11_1/103-2559433-4907056?ie=UTF8[/url]”>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1932236937/ref=sr_11_1/103-2559433-4907056?ie=UTF8</a></p>
<p>
I suppose it has something to do with the difference between the real world as it is lived and the god-like fantasia of academia. </p>
<p>To that effect, I believe there is something of an academic leveling occurring amongst the very elite and the very good colleges. The elite are losing some of their ‘iron-grip,’ as you say. In part inadvertently, as more and more students are simply bypassing the liberal arts in favor of a career in technology or finance—even amongst the Ivies one can graduate without having read Shakespeare or Plato. I do not know if this is an absolute good or bad thing—I am biased in favor of the Bard and his ilk. But the current climate is “different,” and in today’s ideological climate, “difference,” “change” and faux-“diversity” are always necessarily and unassailably good. </p>
<p>The diversity that the traditionalists or conservatives may afford the elite campus, such as it is, does not “fit” the pre-fab and synthetic tapestry now favored by the ideologues…becoming the intellectual equivalent of “The GAP” or “Old Navy”—lots of dull fashion…little actual content.</p>
<p>Would one rather them teacher history the way they are going to in Florida? No anaylsis really, and just the “facts”</p>
<p>And “facts” without question…that’s what we want in our college freshman, regurgitation without knowledge</p>
<p>I didn’t get the sense that FF advocates “regurgitation without knowledge”. Rather that she champions fair and open debate/analysis of all socio/political ideologies within the rubric of “classical liberal arts” education. </p>
<p>But I could be wrong…</p>
<p>Am I, Fountain?;)</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>I prefer a good analysis of facts and a sense of humor
(and, regrettably, a modicum of good English—sorry CGM).</p>
<p>To be clear, I would prefer the humanities (literature, history, philosophy etc) to find their way clear away from the methods and practices of the physical sciences they anxiously crave, envy and emulate; science needs innovation, the humanities do not, they need rigorous analysis and passion (catch that, miss-manners). </p>
<p>The point being, innovation in the humanities is almost always ideological, whereas in pure science it is not. Moreover, I’m of the opinion that most of the trouble caused within the sciences themselves are-- in the first instance-- instigated by our fidgety-meddlers in the humanities talking-trash way back in the cheap seats–they needle the hoi-polloi, amongst the many other malcontents now much alarmed by our intellectuals-in-drag harrumphing away on scientific theory, into becoming anti-evolutionaries in particular and anti-science in general. </p>
<p>It is for this reason–I believe–that we end up with a knuckle-headed resistance to “science” and even more, the concomitant gerrymandering of the humanities with such cherry-pop novelties as semiotics, structuralism, post-structuralism, the genealogical method, deconstruction, feminist criticism, Marxist criticism…the whole self-important, self-righteous lot of them. It’s enough to make you want to be a computer science major!</p>
<p>As it is, our captains of the humanities are not only encumbered with the need to publish, they are encumbered with the need to innovate as if their beloved humanities were technologies or worse, ideologies to be invented and sold. </p>
<p>So there!</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>A childhood in Canada does explain the unusual strength of your youthful conservatism but I’m confused, FS. Are you Iranian-Canadian? How does one ‘look’ Iranian?</p>
<p>I don’t agree with your assessment regarding liberals and their grip on top academic institutions. On the contrary, the wild popularity of this ‘Ivy Bound!’ website and the increasing numbers of international applications to top 25 US univeristies, points to the immense and increasing strength of those liberal academic ‘brands’. </p>
<p>While I don’t know the history of liberal education, I believe a ‘Classical education’, one which would automatically include Plato and Shakespeare, has not been a prominent feature of American universities for at least four generations. I say that because both my grandfathers went to university neither did a Classical degree. Also, while my mother has a BA in English, my father and father-in-law have BAs in business dating back to the early 50s.</p>
<p>Also, my sense, from listening to my son and his friends and living next to a a couple of top 25 universities, off and on for 40 years, is that the political climate of American universities is largely unchanged from the 60s. Mind you, there was a visible wrench that happened to AMerican universities in the mid to late sixties. As a kid, I watched a ROTC building go up in flames. I remember the community shock when students started wearing blue jeans everywhere. I remember how many drugs were suddenly on the scene–even drifting down to our private elementary school. </p>
<p>The current liberal atmosphere is nearly as old as I am; ie decrepit. Short of two World Wars and a depression, I don’t see that atmosphere changing much. ‘Faux-diversity’, may have tiresome restrictions, but accerating ‘diversity’ is still a novel concept, still has merit for the creative and innovative side of American life, in my opinion, and is still a favorite of academia from primary through university years. </p>
<p>FWIW, my son reports that the majority of under-25 interns working on Capital Hill are, in fact, declared Democrats. Once again, clever Republicans, hiring up fresh and diverse university talent and making friends with impressionable ‘enemies’. Grrrrrrr.</p>
<p>Are you Iranian-Canadian? How does one ‘look’ Iranian?
[Miss World Canada](<a href=“Miss World Canada - Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramona_Amiri</a>)
Oh you know, dark hair, skin that tans… wait that describes my daughter and she is scandinavian with some italian-</p>
<p>They are hot, thats for sure.</p>
<p><a href=“Latest Stills - IMDb”>Latest Stills - IMDb;
<p>FS- are you aware of what was decided in Florida? How they want to teach the social sciences?</p>
<p>It was something decided a few months ago, and is pretty interesting…</p>
<p>I agree with Fountainsiren’s beginning and ending observations, The need to come up with something “new” when working with the humanities is bound to result in a lot of ideas that are “new” because sensible people brushed them aside previously, not because we all got more brilliant lately.</p>
<p>The midsection of that post, which, after a lot of sweaty machete work seems to boil down to “Joe Sixpack believes in creationism because those pointy-headed intellectuals are annoying” is less well thought out, though. I think we are seeing a resurgence in know-nothingism because it is politically advantageous for some agile elements in our society to have Joe Sixpack be leery of science. The tobacco industry was tremendously successful for years in selling the concept that there was no “scientific proof” that tobacco caused cancer (and also that “personal responsibility” means exclusively the responsibility of the users of their products, with no responsibility left over for the corporate pushers of the product, as a fall-back position.) Similarly, opposition to global warming science is lead by corporate interests which face revenue loss if any meaningful response to the problem is actually implemented - and their affilaited politicians. There’s a well funded website called “junk science” in which a long-time tobacco/petrochemical company lobbyist named Steven Milloy pitches the theory that anything that’s bad for business is “junk science” and anything that might lead to an uptick in Exxon’s stock prices is “sound science.” (Of course, he doesn’t state it quite that overtly.) Milloy also works for Fox News.</p>
<p>In order to be able to sell whatever scientific fraud is good for business the first step is to de-legitimize genuine science in the eyes of the public. Then “science” just becomes another area where whoever has the most money to spend on PR can define the terms of the debate. That de-legitimization isn’t done all in one fell swoop - it’s more the death of a thousand cuts. And it’s not the “intellectuals-in-drag” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) but the corporate PR firms, their phony “grass-roots” organizations, and the politicians they support which are doing the cutting.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t agree about Junkscience. Milloy supports DDT. How does that even relate to oil/tobacco? I think its convinient for some to dismiss ideas by name calling and
labeling “industry funded!!lol!!”. Every study is funded by somebody. Doesn’t always mean ther science is bogus. As for Junkscience, their battle against global warming and
DDT lies seem to be a good cause.</p>
<p>
Yea. I am sure that college professors like Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, this guy named Landsea, Tad Murty and a thousand other serious academics are in the pockets of Exxon. As I said, its more fun to smear genuine scientists with innuendo when you don’t have any science to back you up.</p>
<p>Do tell me, what happened to the global cooling scare? Surely you remember THAT? Time and Newsweek, along with the NAS were warning us about the next Ice Age!</p>
<p>“Miss World Canada”</p>
<p>EK4, that is a great find. </p>
<p>FS, because of the depth and complexity of her posts, tends to send me scurrying for the online dictionaries or the forty volumes encyclopedia on the shelve. Now, I’ll have a visual departure from the abstract.</p>
<p>But the humanites have to evolve because soceity is ever-changing. Granted, there was much universal truth in the “classics”, but not much guidance as to how some of the big new changes in our lives. Change occurs and we deal with it after the fact. Sometimes, we deal with it WAY after the fact.</p>
<p>For example, consider the ramifications of what we are on the verge of with the changes in cellular biology. We’ve mapped out the cell; now we are beginning to delve into stem-cell research. No one planned this all out, we didn’t take a vote and we’re not necessarily prepared to deal with all this. </p>
<p>Can we or should we this knowledge to construct a better human (a sort of eugenics)? Is it wise to cure all disease? What will it be like to have a bunch of 150-year olds running around? (I mean besides the fact that the express line at the market is going to take even longer. :))</p>
<p>This isn’t like a math problem where there is only one answer, but the liberal arts can help us focus on the issues and prepare for the future.</p>
<p>DadG,</p>
<p>The humanities dont have to evolve, as you say, they simply need to be applied to varying circumstances with specific insights. Some of those circumstances and insights may be time sensitive, some culturally sensitive, some politically sensitive. As such sensitivities go it is the last of these that is of course the controlling paradigm: political sensitivities. The ideology du jour. Usually European in origin. France specifically. </p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>Well, Iranians look Iranian I guess (on sight, often confused with Arab, but rarely Irish). In either case, it is not an issue to me. I would rather be defined by what I do and believe to be true even as a work in progress.</p>
<p>As to the popularity of the Ivies, I dont doubt it and have <em>some</em> experience with the process, myself. Nonetheless, there are countless threads here that debate the point and my view is ill-formed and only one amongst them.
As to your sires, are you saying that didnt read Shakespeare in college? I assume that there were requirements in English literature wherever they went; I would guess that they were unable to dodge the bard for long in those days. </p>
<p>Whereas, at a number of Ivies and LACs it would require no effort at all, on occasion quite the opposite would be true.
I agree. In fact, I think I said as much above.
My only qualification is that there was certainly a remarkable change coming around the bend of the twentieth centuryBakunin, Marx, Freud et al. Moreover, a radical change of perspective in the arts that would, on the surface, seem tied to the same revolutionary impulse: from serialism in music, to expressionism in art, to logical positivism in philosophy, to Finnegans Wake in literature. I believe it would have to do with what we would call the rising tide of the intellectuals. </p>
<p>The new priesthood, so to speak; with the difference being, the new clergy believed they could form the world out of their virgin intellects (an immaculate conception to be sure)–unbound by convention, tradition, practicality or their fellow citizens lives, customs and beliefs–that is, their acknowledged purpose and meaning in life. It was, perhaps a disconnect that laid the ground work for what came out of the 60s and persists now.</p>
<p>What…?</p>
<p>The humanities are always evolving unless you think the Sumerians were the height of civilization and everything after it was poppycock.</p>
<p>Sometimes when you are trying to get ideas out in a hurry, you resort to a codespeak that everyone in your circle understands but most of the rest of us do not. This is a discussion board so just try to discuss something, rather than these mini-editorials or some other punditry.</p>
<p>Being in a technical field but having clients who are not techinical, the most challenging part of my job is to make the technical parts accessible to a wider audience. That is something for you to consider, lest you are satisfied just preaching to the choir.</p>
<p>Well said, Dadguy.</p>