The OC Blog Back Issues Our Mission Contact Us Masthead
Sudsy Wants You to Join the Oregon Commentator

It Took Them This Long to Catch On?

Republicans Outnumbered In Academia, Studies Find
George Will, Washington Post, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and Observer of the Obvious Extraordinaire, says:
“Oh, well, if studies say so. The great secret is out: Liberals dominate campuses. Coming soon: “Moon Implicated in Tides, Studies Find.”

He goes on to point out,

…”American campuses have more insistently proclaimed their commitment to diversity as they have become more intellectually monochrome.
They do indeed cultivate diversity — in race, skin color, ethnicity, sexual preference. In everything but thought.”

Kind of nullifies those bumper stickers in the faculty parking lot that so delightfully read: “Dissent is Patriotic”

I know, there are those of you out there who do not like the Washington Post. But as one of conservative mind, who attends a sometimes violently liberal university, Will is dead on with his views of liberal-dominated acadamia.
It is not to say that all liberals in acadamia are hideous swap creatures of the night. Most are very nice. But Will brings up an excellent point:

“Bauerlein says that various academic fields now have regnant premises that embed political orientations in their very definitions of scholarship:
‘Schools of education, for instance, take constructivist theories of learning as definitive, excluding realists (in matters of knowledge) on principle, while the quasi-Marxist outlook of cultural studies rules out those who espouse capitalism. If you disapprove of affirmative action, forget pursuing a degree in African-American studies. If you think that the nuclear family proves the best unit of social well-being, stay away from women’s studies.'”

Also, note to self: do not send any future offspring to Berkeley:

“…George Lakoff, a linguistics professor at Berkeley, denies that academic institutions are biased against conservatives. The disparity in hiring, he explains, occurs because conservatives are not as interested as liberals in academic careers. Why does he think liberals are like that? “Unlike conservatives, they believe in working for the public good and social justice.” That clears that up.”

Now, someone tell me that this Lakoff man is not rotten, biased, discirminatory, and completely full of shit. I dare you.

  1. Timothy says:

    AD: I like the scare quotes. Nice touch. My spelling is terrible, usually, but I agree with you. As for Andy, well, he’s out like gout.

    Others: I apologize for being too goddamned stupid and stressed to get the joke. In all seriousness, my bad, especially Tyler. Sorry buddy. But, also, fear no more because Andy has a static IP and, gee, it seems to be banned now.

    Tyler/Olly/Mel/AD/Danimal/Shoseph: I will be in The Euge in January, other friends of mine are definitely having a party, I will get y’all details. Also, we should hit Rennie’s in the afternoon once.

  2. AD says:

    Sorry. I’m going to have to chime in here. I figure the conversation has pretty much come to this level anyway.

    -Melissa- I dare say that I may believe that Lakoff is not discirminatory because I don’t know what the hell discirminatory means.

    -Jan- “Jesus Christ, the man is probably making 100 grand a year.” Actually Jan, I know for a fact that Jesus (or at least persons working for him) pull in a lot more than 100 grand a year.

    -Andy D.- “Maybe if you educate yourself a little more on what socialism really is you’d understand what idiocy it is.” Andy, please replace the word “socialism” with the word “spelling”. That’s why “were the best.”

    -Various-“safty” “pidegon” “abosolute” “im” “gonig” “propaganidic” “ligitimate” GAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH! Yes Andy, there may be a reason why someone thinks “were morons”.

    -Please stop putting so many “damned things” in quotes. Far too many “non-quotables” in quotes. It is really “pissing me off”. Of course, I can never remember if the “quote” comes before or after the “period” so don’t listen to “me”.

    -Timbo- I like the way you spell behaviour. So classy.

    -Olly-I really like your hair.

    -WWB-Let’s dance this Christmas!

    -Danimal- No more Vadge Badge Yay. Only now I have no boss to catch me viewing the Vadge Badge. Boo. Thanks.

    Marla- I concur.

    Tyler- Are there any openings at Quiznos?

    P.S. The Gwar concerts are not as “good” as they used to be. Far too little “fake blood” and the “dead animals” they bring on stage aren’t even “real”.

  3. Jan says:

    I vote Andy gets spell check. And a caps lock that doesn’t “stick.” Then goes bye-bye.

  4. Melissa says:

    Bye, Andy!

  5. Timothy says:

    I apologize for the inconvienience. This is what happens when you get old, you lose your sense of humor. Damn kids, get off my lawn. Speaking of which, you know, I’m sick of this shit. New poll: Does Andy go bye-bye?

  6. Aunt Mel says:

    “Melissa, I went to the single most conservative school in CA, 1/3 engineering, 1/3 ag. So quit ‘cher whining…
    Later kids. Go start a war or something.”
    Dear PJohn,
    May I offer you some cheese to go with your whine?
    That was a backhanded comment about the war thing, dear. Let me illustrate for you what has probably already been pointed out:
    Republicans are different than conservatives. Conservatives are different than fundamentalists. Just because people support Bush doesn’t mean they all love war. You can’t pidegon hole people like that. It doesn’t work. Blondes are not all stupid, liberals aren’t all tree-hugging wackos, Iraqis aren’t all terrorists, etc. etc. But it must be nice to live in the world you’ve created for yourself where everything is so black and white.

    “As a relative newcomer, I wonder how this blog and its readers deal with contrary opinions?”
    Judging from the comments flying around this blog, I’d say we’re pretty tolerant of just about every viewpoint.
    Oh my gosh, wait, I’ve overstepped the boundries Little Conservative Cage! I’m being tolerant! Conservatives aren’t tolerant!

    Props to Tyler for the fake Andy D comment that I never got to read. Repost?

    Andy D: for christsakes, use your html code for links, man. Not that I’m cutting/pasting/viewing anything at your suggestion, anyway.

  7. Marla says:

    Yeah Tim…what the hell??? You let Andy D and his “eat my stinky poo/eat a dick, dry-heaving bitch” comments slide. The least you could do is let those of us who’ve suffered through this thread have a laugh at his expense!

  8. Tyler says:

    Do I need to propogate fake andy_D posts (read above).

    No, Dan, I was posting under “Mandy_D”. It’s shame that Tim had to delete the damn message; it was golden.

  9. Andy D says:

    Has anyone seen GWAR? I went to thier show at the roseland on saturday….my my was it sweet.

  10. Andy D says:

    “no societal will qua entity, but there is without question an observable societal will qua aggregation.”

    i meant to say that, but just couldn’t find the right words 😉

  11. Andy D says:

    Okay, you can stop the lie about tax cuts for the rich!

  12. Danimal says:

    JS: we deal with contrary opinions by engaging and discussing them. Contentious and even flippant or irreverent discussion does not equal reflexive or closed-minded rejection. Some of our commenters might engage in the latter, but you’ll only get the former from me.

    I envy you your jesuitical education, I suppose. Many professors here lead the echo chamber rather than disrupting it. It is commonplace for classroom discussions to go forward from a sort of “presumption of liberality;” I have yet to see any class show a converse presumption, even classes which should have a high potential for such, like, say, Commercial Law.

    Tyler: are you now propagating fake Andy comments? You bastard!

  13. Olly says:

    As a relative newcomer, I wonder how this blog and its readers deal with contrary opinions?We have our ups and downs, JS, but it’s always good to have some reasonable, respectful argument. (NB: I am going to adopt a slightly narrow definition of “reasonable” and “respectful” that excludes the phrase “You can eat my big stink poo for lunch.”)

  14. Tyler says:

    Ummm … Tim, I wrote that. I wrote it from Olly’s computer, too. Please don’t ban this IP.

    Dammit. Why do the best jokes have to disintegrate into the ether.

  15. Timothy says:

    See Also: The Tim will not be participating in discussions on this matter because his blood preassure is already high enough from his New Adventures In Working For A Living. Final comment:

    Pussies for all! HUZZAH!

  16. Timothy says:

    Well, in the main, by deleting abusive comments. Consider yourself warned [M]andy any more crap like that and It’s IP bannin’ time.

  17. JS says:


    I’m sympathetic to your fear/dislike of the echo-chamber, intellectual or otherwise. After all, I’m here amongst people who disagree with or object to much of what I believe in.

    That said, the left-leaning political science professors I had at a generally conservative Jesuit university did a great job of disrupting any liberal echo-chambers that emerged in their classes.

    As a relative newcomer, I wonder how this blog and its readers deal with contrary opinions?

  18. Timbo says:

    “We must stop encouraging mediocrity and progress.” That is: We must stop encouraging mediocrity. We must progress.

    “Do I feel I have a moral obligation to helpless kids?”
    For God’s sake, don’t! Obligation displaces desire. The more you feel you have to do something, the less you want to do it. Hence, what I call “God’s dilemma”: how to encourage desire without removing choice.

    On the topic of societal will: I recommend researching the concept of emergence. Emergence is the study of complex phenomena as it emerges from a multiplicity of simple behaviors.

    Reference a flock of birds – they fly in tremendously complex, yet recognizable, patterns, but individual birds choose their own flight paths based on simple factors like “I’m tired” or “Hey, that bird’s cute.”

    I saw an interesting simulation using red & blue dots ‘living’ in grid cells. The dots are not particularly discriminatory: each is completely happy if just one of it’s four neighbors is the same color. With this encoded behavior, some simple rules for ‘moving’, and several dozen iterations, obvious borders and ghettos emerge.

    If simple behaviours in multitude can give rise to complex visible meta-patterns, imagine the incredible nuances possible when complex minds gather. Perhaps there is no societal will qua entity, but there is without question an observable societal will qua aggregation.

  19. JS says:


    I was referring to the following two questions…

    Will conservatives now demand affirmative action in universities for themselves?


    Would it be surprising to find mostly Republicans among oil company executives?

    Also, the letter I copied from didn’t single out any specific Republican leader, but rather referred to “Republican leadership.” Republican’s control all three branchs of government yet there’s been little effort to implement common-sense conservative policy. The driving force behind the current Republican policy-making machine is ideology.

    What solves all economic ills? Tax cuts for wealthier Americans.

    Who are the best stewards of our environment and our energy policy? Coal, oil, and chemical companies.

    Who should help shape health policy in this country? Pharmaceutical and insurance companies.

    The current Republican leadership is driven by an ideology that says big business has all the answers, even if the facts on the ground disagree. And, if by some odd chance, big business isn’t available to take your call, consult your “higher father”.

  20. Danimal says:

    Timbo: regarding “progressive v. conservative,” I don’t think it would be fair to suggest that only one side of the spectrum is interested in trying new things. Many (but not all) “liberals” who would like to think of themselves as “progressive” may actually be clinging to old ideas and institutions, while a lot of “conservatives” are proposing new solutions and should thus fairly be called “progressive.” So either we have everyone join new camps (stodgy New Dealers and Pat Buchanan get to be “conservative” together) or we stick with the categories we’ve got.

    Addendum to JS: My last comment was finished before your last comment. I’m afraid I went and attributed even more unstated meaning to your points. Sorry about that. And thanks for working with Andy D. He’s a good lad but he needs a coach.

  21. Pacific John says:

    One last salient point, then I’m gone.

    “Was your schooling free john?”

    It was very close to free. k-12 was free (Wasn’t your’s?). I borrowed about $1,500 per year from the now-defunct GSL program. The rest of my college education was “free,” … grants and subsidized tuition.

    For background you need to understand the history of higher education, and CA education. For approximately 20 years, California higher education was essentially free. UC had no tuition for quite a while – at the best public system in the world. The result was a highly skilled workforce and a broad, booming economy. The high tech firms like Intel, HP, Siemens, Apple, etc. came to the Bay Area becuase of the high calibre of the workforce, and the world has WWII era CA tax payers to thank.

    In the 80s, state and federal public policy changes choked off funding for univesities. It’s so bad, that this year, seats in all three branches of the CA state system actually shrunk. How do you shrink the size of the university system and hope to compete globally?

    While the damage to the economy of fewer educated workers may be invisible, there was a visible difference is in the parking lots: the new, endless lots full of cars, not bikes, not old cars. Daddy’s cars. We saw the end of working class kids at UC and CSU. Now, the price barrier mostly allows upper middle class kids in. Those missing kids used to get in based on grades and SATs, so we traded merit for economic ability. I’m worried that an American caste system will come to bite us in the ass, but it’s unforgivable that we have not found a way for the most talented kids to get in, just because they don’t have enough money.

    Later kids. Go start a war or something.

  22. Timbo says:

    Standardized tests are a fabulous thing, if your goal is standardized children. If on the other hand you seek a nation of individuals, perhaps individual education is a good choice.

    All members of society should be enabled and encouraged to teach/mentor our children, and each other. The power of the web is exponentially greater than the power of the heirarchical pyramid.

    The right’s name for the left is liberal. The left’s name for itself is progressive. Liberal evokes images of permissiveness, laxity, extravagance. Progressive evokes, well, progress — learning, improvement, even transcendence. More accurate name or crafty marketing ploy?

    Personally, I think progressive vs. conservative offers a better pair of complements than liberal vs. conservative. None of the highly visible politicians are particularly liberal or conservative in a save vs. spend or help everyone vs. help yourself context. It’s much easier to place them on a progressive-conservative axis in terms of evolution vs. status quo.

    One thing is for sure: we won’t get anywhere by throwing more money at systems that don’t work. We must stop encouraging mediocrity and progress.

  23. Danimal says:

    And, JS, regarding your Point #2 (although I had trouble sorting out what it was, exactly) . . .

    1. Leaders have to lead; academics get to question. Our president, whoever he is, has to make snap decisions about grave questions of life and death every single day. It is then left to the academics to write thousands of pages for decades to come about whether the president did the right thing on any given day.

    If you think this disconnect between academics and politics is somehow unique to this time and this president, you must not be working too hard at this, er, how did your expert letter-writer put it — this reasoning using logic, questioning evidence and considering and evaluating several possible interpretations of events.

    No liberal academic will ever be fully happy with the decisions of a Democratic president, any more than a conservative academic is happy with Bush. Lord knows I’d have hated most of what John Kerry would have done, and I voted for him. Politicians are always flawed creatures; academics have the luxury of demanding perfection.

    2. Your point, again, is not clear, but you seem to imply that the academic practice lends itself to a liberal political worldview — that more liberals are in critical areas of academia because only liberals are inclined “to reason using logic, to question evidence and to consider and evaluate several possible interpretations of events.”

    This would lead us to: “conservatives do not think critically, therefore their views and interpretations are of no value to us as we consider and evaluate possible interpretations of events.” Which is an attitude I have seen demonstrated in classes time and again for years. After awhile, this attitude comes to reinforce itself:

    Why are there so few conservatives in academia? Because conservatives are not academics. How do we know conservatives are not academics? Because there are so few conservatives in academia.

    After awhile, the snake will eat so much of its tail that the supposedly critical-thinking academy will become an echo chamber. Debate will become consensus. Remember, the whole point of academia is for those involved in it to debate each other. Instead we’re approaching a point where a unified academy simply debates the rest of the world. The trouble is, they may not get a rebuttal…

    50 Professors in unison: “Bush is dumb!”
    50 Professors in unison: “Bush is mean!”
    50 Professors in unison: “Bush is evil!”

  24. JS says:

    Andy D:

    I’m not sure what you’re getting at, but your statement that “There is no society reasoning or will” flies in the face of some very astute philosophers whose writings were read and implemented by many of the Founding Fathers of our country.

    You scold Pacific John for “not educating himself” yet your statements indicate that you’re completely unfamiliar with Locke, Rousseau, and the concept of the Social Contract, an essential concept to the founding of the United States of America.

    I’ve included a link for you. Please note the section entitled: “Individual Wills and the General Will”

    I think your comments would also make more sense if you could tie them back in with the original post. Thanks.

  25. Olly says:

    Good lord. This has turned into an actual discussion.

    John, hello and welcome and thanks for your comments. I’d like to chime in in support of WWB’s earlier remark: Nobody thinks people who “work hard and play by the rules” shouldn’t be able to afford education and health care. There is simply a disagreement over what’s the desirable way to achieve it.I think this is exactly the point. It’s a policy dispute. We agree on the things that are problems; we disagree on whether having the feds pick up the tab is, in the long term, actually going to benefit people. It’s not a cut-and-dried issue. I think Pell grants are (probably) a good thing; however, I think the No Child bill should be chopped into pieces with an ax. I’m not an economist, nor am I (thank God) a sociologist, and I’m open to argument on what constitutes good policy and appropriate governmental role in various spheres. But “compassion” is no more the exclusive province of the Dems than “moral values” are of the Repubs.

    Not being terribly good at expressing these things, I am left pointing to this, which I mostly agree with. (“Mostly” meaning “except for the final two sentences”.)

  26. Andy D says:

    JS, your last post was complete propaganidic shit. Were not morons here, we understand when you say, “the current admin doesn’t believe in logic,” that YOU are admitting that your a retard. How could an administration disregard logic? Are you saying that the American people are even stupider than they are accepting them as ligitimate? Or that we are so stupid that we dont know were being “tricked” or whatever?

    I think the only moron is you in this case.

  27. JS says:

    Danimal: careful about attributing unstated meaning to posts.

    I simply posted two points that I thought raised relvant questions that had not been discussed.

    “Do you believe that conservatives have nothing valuable to contribute to the study of history, or that conservative feminists don’t exist?”

    In short: NO. However, “conservative” is a very broad term and many who self-identify as “conservative” have very little to contribute to intellectual study. It can be argued that there is very little that is “conservative” about George W. Bush.

    Again, those who self-identify as “feminists” don’t necessarily believe in, nor live their lives according to, the tenets of feminism (radical or liberal). I would bet that the vast majority of people who call themselves “conservative feminists” only embrace very surface, over-simplified elements of feminism.

    There are two questions I posted in Point #2. Would love to read your thoughts on both…

  28. Andy D says:

    It’s funny that whenever you question “liberal progressive social justice goodness,” you’re immediatly branded a Bush supporter and that somehow you worship his every act. What a great way to fill the little comment box.

    “Im gonig to go find some propaganda about bush and then question these people as it was thier own arguments.”

    Public schools got more funding under bush than clinton, medicare and medicade spending is the highest ever in its history, AIDS money is being sent to africa, welfare rolls are up, social justice is gettin the most it’s ever had under Bush.

    All academics always use logic? Please, that is pure fucking comedy. They may use logic AFTER the thier “facts” are conjured up from bong hits.

    What is also comical about you liberals is you belive that NGO’s and other “treaties” are somehow fair and respectful to all parties involved. WHAT A LOAD OF SHIT the kyoto, land mine, and the ICC and united nation treaties are!!
    I can’t even have a serious conversation with people that think those groups/treaties have any sort of legitimacy!

  29. Anonymous says:

    When half the federal budget goes to welfare programs

    Cite, please.

  30. Andy D says:

    Im not for killing the “safty net” per say, but i think deep reforms are needed. When half the federal budget goes to welfare programs, there is seriously something very wrong.

    btw, I meant to say, “big stinky poo.”

  31. Andy D says:

    How do you think you’re able to be an entrepreneur john? Don’t you think a 70% tax would hold back your investment a bit?

    You preach socialism but yet you are a “champion” of capitalism? Was your schooling free john? or did you just take loans to pay it back? There is a difference between forcing people to pay taxes from the point of a gun and charity.

    Do I feel I have a moral obligation to helpless kids? sure. but should we use laws to legislate our morality? Gee, I think you’d find some problems with that J.

    Make college free to people with the grades huh….well it was kind of hard for me to do my homework when I was working 12 hour shifts at the gas station to FEED my self, ohh yea, that’s why I wasn’t acting like a little bitch “dry heaving.”

    And for your competetor? You seem to think that he is somehow his employee’s provider and that if he goes under all those people should be taken care of by the state. BULLSHIT. Those people need to go get another job.

    You can eat my stinky poo for lunch john, because you know why were the best? Its not becuase we have an extensive welfare system i’ll tell ya that much. It’s becuase peoples merit are based on thier ability already john. It takes ability to survive and get through HS and into college and start a business. You’re not given a right by God to have food and be warm at night, or even to live for that much. It is your responsibility to provide for yourself and family while you lease the body God gave you.

    We as a society have no fucking obligation to anything. There is no “society reasoning” or “will.” There is only the individual john. A society is an abstract that comes about when individuals co-exist. In America, we still have personal freedoms, and morons like you will espouse that everyone should be forced to do whatever YOU think is right. Maybe if you educate yourself a little more on what socialism really is you’d understand what idiocy it is.

    You can eat my big stink poo for lunch john, you wish you were like me at my age. Start a scholarship if you feel so “compassionate.”

  32. Pacific John says:

    I really should have highlighted this:

    “In all these cases, majorities of Bush supporters favor the positions they impute to Bush.”

    This really is cause for optimism. Most Republicans, though misinfirmed, are better people than the people they vote for.

  33. Casey says:

    Man, I leave town for a few days and the OC site becomes a reader board for the left. What a country! Don’t get me wrong PJ and JS, I agree with most of what you’re saying, but I come to the OC to get my dose of conservative input. Andy D, shouldn’t you be pulling quotes from “Altas Shrugged” by now, or was that just name dropping.

  34. Danimal says:

    To JS, regarding your Point #1:

    That this is significant to you indicates that you have no problem with History or Women’s Studies departments being overwhelmingly liberal. Why is that? Do you believe that conservatives have nothing valuable to contribute to the study of history, or that conservative feminists don’t exist? The study may be flawed, but so is your thinking.

  35. JS says:

    Point #2: Will conservatives now demand affirmative action in universities for themselves?

    Excerpt from a letter to the editor from the NY Times…

    Would it be surprising to find mostly Republicans among oil company executives? Simply ask what the population in question is trained and paid to do.

    Academics are trained to reason using logic, to question evidence and to consider and evaluate several possible interpretations of events. All these activities are discouraged and indeed ridiculed by the present Republican leadership.

    Academic Republicans must indeed suffer from this cognitive dissonance.

  36. Pacific John says:


    “Nobody thinks people who “work hard and play by the rules” shouldn’t be able to afford education and health care. There is simply a disagreement over what’s the desirable way to achieve it.”

    You have not been paying attention to the policies that are being made in your name. There is a movement in the GOP to “starve the beast,” and bankrupt (“drown”) the states. The new budget cuts insurance for poor children by approximately 200,000. Heating subsidies are being cut in real terms. The already under-funded No Child Left Behind will see an acceleration in under-funding; when combined with the mandated testing, there will be a real cut in services, primarily to the poor and disabled. From the NYT link, “nearly 100,000 fewer students will receive Pell grants.”

    WWB, I’d suggest you ask yourself why so many Bush supporters are misinformed about actual facts and policies. For example, Gallup recently found that 62% of all Bush voters are still under the misconception that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks. This gross disconnect also applies to all manner of policy:

    Majorities incorrectly assume that Bush supports multilateral approaches to various international issues–the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the treaty banning land mines (72%)–and for addressing the problem of global warming: 51% incorrectly assume he favors US participation in the Kyoto treaty. After he denounced the International Criminal Court in the debates, the perception that he favored it dropped from 66%, but still 53% continue to believe that he favors it. An overwhelming 74% incorrectly assumes that he favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements. In all these cases, majorities of Bush supporters favor the positions they impute to Bush. Kerry supporters are much more accurate in their perceptions of his positions on these issues.

    Why do you think this is? Is it that grassroots conservatives are better people than their leaders? Are they willingly ignorant?

    I believe you when you say you, and people like you are compassionate. But why the disconnect with actual policy?

  37. JS says:

    Point #1: Columnist Will cited flawed American Enterprise Institute study on “liberal” college professors

    “…those conducting the study selectively chose the academic disciplines they examined. The study therefore included a disproportionate number of professors from history and women’s studies departments, while virtually ignoring other departments where professors may trend more conservative, such as engineering, business, law, and medicine.”

  38. Anonymous says:

    Well put, John…thank you!

  39. Pacific John says:

    Melissa, I went to the single most conservative school in CA, 1/3 engineering, 1/3 ag. So quit ‘cher whining.

    To the oh so polite Andy D:

    Find your own way in life you liberal pussies.

    The thing is, I eat people like you for lunch. I’ve run my company since, likely, before you developed your daddie complex. That does not excuse either of us from being compassionate to people who are down on their luck, especially kids. If parents don’t have their shit together, we, as a society, have the moral obligation to provide their kids a shot at life. That’s what the essence of public education is, an equalizer that allows people to succeed on merit, not birth. You want meritocracy? Make college absolutely free to anyone with the grades, and make sure they have food and a safe place to live until they are old enough to graduate from high school.

    You know, this might be seen as public good and social justice.

    …speaking of my lunch diet, nothing pisses me off more than a couple of my competitors who can only survive our regular ass kickings by taking it out on their employees. One company pays no benefits, close to minimum wage, and still has to break unemployment insurance laws to keep up with our products. What a pussy. Imagine the “family values” his employees go home to. Imagine the costs to the social services system you will pay in taxes because this little wuss isn’t man enough to play on a level playing field.

    They say that people who go though hard times either emerge bitter or compassionate. I didnt have a home when I was in high school, and often had the dry heaves from hunger. Thanks to the finest university system in the world, I was able to get an education, become an entrepreneur, and provide a healthy, successful workplace that supports many families.

    Im glad I didnt come out like you. Pussy.

  40. Andy D says:

    Hey feminine john, every read atlas shrugged? I suppose that book isn’t entirely conservative, but i believe most of the people here believe in her message. The whole point of libertainism is that everybody can win. Imagine a “class room” at a “university.” There is nothing stopping everyone in that class from getting an A+ right? It just happens that some get a’s and some get f’s. I believe that its wrong to take the points of the a people, and give them to the f people so everyone gets a c. Of course in that setting there is no real world consequences, but money is the representation of time spent laboring for that money. You may think its some fanciful abstract, but its not. Libertarians have no problem with everyone working together, but for those that dont want to, they shouldn’t be forced.

    My counter proposal? Find your own way in life you liberal pussies. I haven’t had any help in life, especially from my parents, so you can eat a fat dick if you don’t put in the work I did. I’m not holding anyone down by going to college, and im not letting anyone hold me down. I hate to say it, but these professors are abosolute social retards.

  41. “Kind of nullifies those bumper stickers in the faculty parking lot that so delightfully read: “Dissent is Patriotic”.”
    Ummm… Since when has the University been about patriotism? Now if the sticker said, “To Dissent is to be a Duck” THEN you have an argument!

  42. WWB says:

    Pacific John offers a few possible scenarios where conservative answers to education might be found wanting. The “facts are not on [conservatives’] side,” he writes. Well, I would like to point out that labor in the form of the teachers’ unions has wreaked havoc upon public education. So have said teachers’ left-wing biases. No Child was a good step toward accountability (and if I hear one more time that it was “underfunded” I am going to scream).

    As for health care, one may not approve of the President’s personal accounts, but it’s disingenuous to say he doesn’t care about people’s well-being. Fact of the matter is, it’s difficult to find a conservative working in policy today who seriously thinks it advisable to strike down the entire social safety net (think tankers and the very few conservative academics are another story).

    Nobody thinks people who “work hard and play by the rules” shouldn’t be able to afford education and health care. There is simply a disagreement over what’s the desirable way to achieve it.

  43. Jan says:

    Social justice? Jesus Christ, the man is probably making 100 grand a year. In fact, a 2002 study by the American Association of University Professors concluded that Berkeley profs are the highest paid of any public university in the nation — an average of $115,900 per year. Not exactly sacrificing himself for the “public good.”

  44. Timothy says:

    See also: the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. The latter is, well, socialism and we’ve all seen how well that worked out. I could try to explain the principles, but Oh-So-Sensitive-And-Understanding John will likely just call me a fascist, a racist, and perhaps a moron, so fuck it.

  45. Melissa says:

    I’m a conservative. And I’m pro-choice. And I work in the anthropological medical field. so don’t even start to take me up on the public good and social justice. I see it, I help it, every day. Simply put, people should not be judged for what good they can do the world based on their politcal values. That kind of thinking leads to witch hunts and discrimination. And your poor liberal self wouldn’t want discrimination on any level, now, would you? If you found yourself on a rabid conservative campus, you would raise hellfire and brimstone about it, no doubt…when it’s turned in your favor, however, you could care less for the minority.

  46. Pacific John says:

    Timothy: that’s a very relevant point. Not only is Chomsky nuts, but he was on the other side of the linguistics battle from the pragmatists like Lakoff…sort of a mirror of the Kissinger/Huntington rift at Harvard.

  47. Pacific John says:

    Now, someone tell me that this Lakoff man is not rotten, biased, discirminatory [sic], and completely full of shit. I dare you.

    Dare accepted. It’s a chicken-egg thing about ideology and education. Gallup regularly shows that highly educated people, not just university profs, tend to be liberal. This goes for such apolitical disciplines as math and science.

    As to the public good, social justice stuff, this goes with the ideological territory. Conservatism is based on the idea that the world is a dangerous place where there can be no winners unless there are losers, and that only by internal discipline does one succeed. The world is a jungle where only the strong survive. Liberals believe that success is based on mutual responsibility and compassion. The world is a garden, where each plant should be nurtured so it can live to its full potential. (This, by the way is the model that has been adopted by the armed forces, where the weakest link is brought up to speed by the other members of the team.)

    Because most highly educated people lean left, they also have a mutually nurturant world view. Its not like party registration shows up on physicists c.v.s so the nerds who head the depts. can screen out Republicans.

    It’s this gulf in values that creates the debate over justice and common good. It turns out that the evidence is not on Will’s side. When have conservatives guaranteed that poor schools had a reasonable number of qualified teachers? (Hint: the market might require higher wages at a poor school.) When have conservatives put clean air above profits? (Ans: Nixon was ages ago, ideologically.) When have conservatives thought that people who work hard and play by the rules should have such things as healthcare and food for their kids?) (Ans: Nixon is looking smaller in the rear view mirror all the time.)

    Now, you may not think that the government should guarantee adequate schools, clean air and water, healthcare or food for families that work full time, but it’s fair to say that unless you offer an effective counter-proposal, you have no business acting indignant when you are called on it.

  48. Timothy says:

    He teaches linguistics, gee, do we know any other nut-job whacko leftists who teach linguistics? Nahhh…there’d never be any of those about.

  49. Andy D says:

    Well I can attest to Professor Lakoff’s comments because I personally hate societal justice and I wish society would just end. I spend every waking moment trying to steal peoples money legally and assulting homosexuals in hope that society will be worse off with out them. I’m a conservative hate-monger, what can I say?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.