Jello wrote:
] I think it does. You can't get any republican street cred
] without doing something tremendously lucrative and capitalist.

I tend to agree. Conservatives just aren't interested in a career in history or philosophy. Conservatives prefer to teach engineering and economics.

What is going on in this article is more sinister, and its related to the liberal media discussion. The statistic quoted here says humanities and social sciences, but the author talks about academia in general. To the extent that conservatives can color academia in general as "liberal" they can ignore it. No one really cares whether the government listens to or ignores humanities professors. Law professors, Biologists, Economists, and Ecologists, however, frequently say things that conservatives don't like, and they are a bit harder to ignore. Republicans would prefer to brush these people off by claiming "Oh, all academics are biased and so we can safely ignore them when they reach a conclusion we don't like." This creates this insane litmus that says that if 50% of a given group doesn't agree with any given conclusion I come to, that group is liberally biased. Sometimes most people disagree with you because you're just flat wrong. This is a preemptive straw man debate that is occurring on a large scale. Its an attempt to discredit every source of knowledge in our society unless they step in line with these people's agenda.

] Thats because it is not possible for people of a variety of
] races, skin colors, ethnicities and sexual preference to
] converse in an open manner unless the spirit of liberalism
] dominates. Conservative thought is not tolerant of such a
] varied group of people.

I think its more complex then that. Our current administration is very ethnically diverse. While southern racists do vote Republican, most Republicans are not racist.

Jello wrote:
] Thats because it is not possible for people of a variety of
] races, skin colors, ethnicities and sexual preference to
] converse in an open manner unless the spirit of liberalism
] dominates. Conservative thought is not tolerant of such a
] varied group of people. In fact, the reason that colleges
] have been moving farther to the left, is that they have become
] so diverse. Exposure to diversity kills conservatism by
] dispelling the prejudices, stereotypes and myths that
] contemporary conservatism is founded on.

[ Wasn't it just the other day i read a quote on memestreams that essentially defined liberalism as the desire to think about issues, confront alternatives, and reason out a position, completely independent of political party or ideology? In this context, what you say makes a lot of sense... liberalism isn't leftist, it's the practice of thinking critically. So of course campuses are liberal... it's their nature. The problem is this conflation of "liberal" with "radical leftist" (i.e. socialism.) -k]

k wrote:
] Jello wrote:
] ] Thats because it is not possible for people of a variety of
] ] races, skin colors, ethnicities and sexual preference to
] ] converse in an open manner unless the spirit of liberalism
] ] dominates. Conservative thought is not tolerant of such a
] ] varied group of people. In fact, the reason that colleges
] ] have been moving farther to the left, is that they have
] become
] ] so diverse. Exposure to diversity kills conservatism by
] ] dispelling the prejudices, stereotypes and myths that
] ] contemporary conservatism is founded on.
]
] [ Wasn't it just the other day i read a quote on memestreams
] that essentially defined liberalism as the desire to think
] about issues, confront alternatives, and reason out a
] position, completely independent of political party or
] ideology? In this context, what you say makes a lot of
] sense... liberalism isn't leftist, it's the practice of
] thinking critically. So of course campuses are liberal...
] it's their nature. The problem is this conflation of
] "liberal" with "radical leftist" (i.e. socialism.) -k]

I agree completely. And yes, it was so posted. And yes, I thought of it as I spieled.