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

Journalism teacher says conservatives are Dixie-loving hicks

Journalism grad student Dan Lawton has a new post over at his blog with responses to his recent ODE opinion piece on the lack of ideological diversity on campus. The  responses are all very predictable (“There are no Republican professors because you have to be smart to be a professor. Hurr hurr hurr!”). But then you get to the comment from UO journalism teacher Dan Morrison, who is on the record as saying (emphasis added):

You may be very upset that the University of Oregon, which, I may point out, is funded by people who live in a liberal state, and therefore, no surprise, tends to be liberal, attracts professor applying for a job who tend to be liberal. But as a student you have a choice. You do not have to come here. You most certainly can choose to spend your money to go to school in Alabama, or Texas, or Mississippi, or Georgia, or Louisiana or South Carolina.  And if you like conservatism, you can certainly attend the University of Texas, and you can walk past the statue of Jefferson Davis every day on your way to class.

Whoa, whoa, hold on. Full stop. Really? I don’t know where Morrison gets off, but the last time I checked, being conservative does not mean one is some sort of neo-Confederate. In fact, that’s a fairly disgusting and disingenuous statement to make. Way to really raise the level of discourse there, tiger. Of course, maybe Morrison has just been yukking it up with his UO colleagues so long that he doesn’t realize everyone’s not an effete, latte-sipping pinko. (Do you see how that works?)

Second, perhaps some of us can’t afford out-of-state tuition. Perhaps some of us simply want a decent education at the state’s supposed “flagship university.” And as a “flagship university” or a “hot brand” or whatever the UO’s touting itself as these days, maybe we’re upset because we’re paying to sit in class and listen to pious, liberal professors tell us how evil cars/Bush/guns are instead of trying to provide us with an actual education.

P.S. I forgot to mention: Lawton challenged Morrison to an open debate of the subject, which Morrison declined.

  1. […] than trying to append this to the smoking, charred remains of the last post that dealt with intellectual diversity, I thought I’d give this piece from Kenneth Anderson […]

  2. olly says:

    George: “The Confederacy … only became racist sometime in the last twenty years with the race based groups screaming at the top of their lungs it was all about slavery, the Confederate Flag is a racist symbol, attacking anything and everything that may even remotely connected to

  3. George says:


    Tim and Vincent, great examples fellows thank you. Love it!!!!!

    If someone had just noticed that your e-mail address contains the phrase ‘the last rebel’ a few hours ago, we all could’ve saved a bunch of time here. -ed

  4. George says:


    You did say I was posting a lot to which I responded I would not get into an endless exchange of insults and snide remarks. I think I have stuck to that statement pretty good don

  5. Vincent says:

    I notice that in the absence of fact you want to present your opinion as if it actually means something in a factual debate.

    I just can’t get over the fact that you molest children, George.

  6. Timothy says:

    I love you law-and-order guys. It was LEGAL! ZOMG! SHUT UP! It’s awesome.

    Like I said, Davis just liked owning black people more than he liked America. Some folks liked America better than they liked owning black people. Those latter guys, they won. Everyone who isn’t some sort of fucking clown thinks that’s good.

    George, on the other hand, ought just go buy a rainbow wig and some big floppy shoes.

  7. George says:


    I notice that in the absence of fact you want to present your opinion as if it actually means something in a factual debate. First thing you do is run back to your safety net of

  8. Betz says:

    Sorry, I meant that to say “land of the free”, not “home of the brave” …. I have baseball on my mind today.

    How come there’s no edit feature?

  9. Betz says:

    I don’t care how often you post, nor am I saying that you don’t have the right to post. Go ahead, blog your brains out … I was just pointing out the hypocrisy in your statement.

    That being the case I really don

  10. Vincent says:

    That is only your point of view and not the view of people living in the in the period.

    I’m not sure how much more plainly I can put this: just because they thought it was okay, doesn’t mean that it was okay. Anti-Semitism in Germany was wrong. Shooting kulaks in the Soviet Union was wrong. Slavery in the United States was wrong and incompatible with the idea of “liberty”. Jefferson Davis was a hypocrite. Period. Full-stop.

  11. George says:


    That is only your point of view and not the view of people living in the in the period. That being the case I really don

  12. Vincent says:

    That is only your point of view of today, not the views of people living in that period. What

  13. George says:


    Are you telling me I have no right to post? Why? Because I might not agree with the popular beliefs about the WBTS? You never considered that I may also defend the north against slanderous lies if the situation was reversed. What I said at least twice before I would not engage in an exchange of insults and snide remarks. Vincent wants scream that all Davis did was promote slavery, yet he does not acknowledge anything else that Davis may have done or the fact that Grant owned slaves. I wonder if he actually read the information in the link I posted. His stance is clearly one sided. What would attribute this stance to, education, and upbringing? Are you going to allow me to have the same consideration??? What if I told you Lincoln provoked the war or that Major Anderson made the first aggressive move? Am I promoting a one sided view or am I telling the truth? Either way can anyone prove that I am wrong using historical fact?

  14. George says:

    That is only your point of view of today, not the views of people living in that period. What’s your point?

  15. Vincent says:

    Again slavery was legal in the United States in 1861.

    Slavery was also a total abomination in 1861. What’s your point?

  16. George says:


    “As a general note: it just doesn

  17. George says:


    Again slavery was legal in the United States in 1861. Lincoln had no problem with slavery, or in fact the removal of blacks from the United States.

  18. George says:


    I will not get into an never ending exchange of snide remarks and insults. Do you actually have something to add to this discussion?

  19. Betz says:

    You forgot the “Maybe/Both” box!!

  20. Betz says:

    For someone not wanting to get into a never-ending exchange, you do spend a lot of time posting replies on this thread …. just sayin’….

    I definitely think there are some fields where it is much easier to inject personal bias into the curriculum. The sciences are fairly good at remaining neutral, with mathematics at the top of the chain. As George pointed out, no matter where you go, 2+2 will always = 4; there are no second opinions or other points of view, just different approaches to the same answer. This is partially why I don’t like your analogy of the biology or physics curriculum; people can believe the world is flat if they want, but it is an unequivocally proven fact that this belief is incorrect. The sciences remain neutral to bias because there is often a “black-white” divide between fact and non-fact, right and wrong answers; so, discussion of alternate view points, such as your example of “the earth is flat” in a biology class, is kinda bad.

    The more you get into the liberal arts is where it is much easier to inject personal bias into the curriculum, because the curriculum is much more subjective. There is no black-white divide like you see in the sciences; everything is opaque, murky shades of Grey. There are only right answers, so long as you argue and make a case for them. Even something as simple (at least in my mind) as history: this is an entire study devoted to recording and studying stuff that actually happened. To me, there seems a pretty obvious line between the stuff that really happened (the truth), and what didn’t. And yet we still have people that deny recorded, observed events through history.

    Creationism might not make for interesting fare in the sciences, but I know it certainly has its space in other areas of academia, like philosophy. Come to think of it, I remember a section of PHIL 101 devoted to this very idea of creationism; not through the Christian religion, but of the Upanishads, Atma, and Brahma.

    I think a good rule of thumb: If you are involved in a major that hands out B.S.’s, just stick to the standard curriculum, and no body gets hurt (feelings). If B.A.’s, check your (political) baggage at the door, and give ideas your two cents: you will come out the better because of it.

  21. Vincent says:

    If you want to discuss historical fact, I

  22. George says:


    If you want to discuss historical fact, I’ll do so. I refuse to be drawn into a never ending exchange of snide remarks and insults. If you have something real to add to the discussion, please feel free to do so.

  23. Olly says:

    Matt: “It seems you

  24. C.T. Behemoth says:

    It’s not hard to profess the ‘other’ side…..if you’re not a dumbass.

  25. Matt says:

    I do think lessons in history are one of the areas where more intellectual diversity could be valuable, especially in the treatment of politically-charged historical events or their casual relationship with past policies. This certainly does not suggest a litmus test, just that we consider it.

    My concern is that to go as far as ensuring the tolerance for view of history asserting Jefferson Davis’s righteousness or denying the Holocaust, for example… I worry that you get to a point where you’re less introducing valuable perspectives and more wasting time, which seems to be, ironically, the case against George here – a possible example of how that might play out. George certainly has the right to whatever view of history he wants, and the right to passionately express that view. It’s also usually wise to hear it out and consider it among a large number of interesting ideas. But I don’t know if I would pay thousands of dollars to learn it instead of other things traditional history professors might teach.

    As for Olly’s comments: you know, I respect that view. I’m just trying to suggest other possible factors to help explain the existing bias and examine them so that they too may be addressed. It seems you’re less interested in that than in cutting me down, which is totally fine. As a general note: it just doesn’t help me, or frankly anyone else, to further understand the complexity of the issue much by not engaging in an honest dialogue regarding the potentially relevant questions.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.