Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Academic Bill of Rights
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 1 of 178 (215652)
06-09-2005 1:19 PM


In the last thread Should those of religious faith be allowed to run this country? we began a discussion of the Academic Bill of Rights.
CanadianSteve writes:
The bottom line is that the bill is neutral, and no one has good reason to object to a set of principles being legislated.
Unnecessary legislation is very dangerous and it is suprising that a conservative would be in support of such a thing. Maybe you could answer the question that Faith has yet to tackle starting here:
Message 238
It is not only a question of need but also of motive especially in the absence of evidenced need.
My opinion is that the govn't needs to recognize the importance of and keep its nose out of academia. That is how we have gotten where we are and why fix it if it ain't demonstrably broke.
Then again you and Faith might actually post some evidence. I know you said before that such statistics don't exist but isn't that in and of itself telling? Why should we be passing legislation without thinking about if there is really a problem? Should some studies be commissioned and we, God forbid, think about the issue carefully and logically before we call for a vote?
I don't think that any of the liberals here have any specific problem ONLY with the language of the bill. You need to look at it in the context in which it is being introduced, the reason it is being introduced, the people who are introducing it, and the speed and lack of objective information used to support it. Taken in this light, the legislation "fails the common sense test" as good ol'e Tal would put it.
----------------------------------------------------------------
We have come to the point where the critics of the bill are asking Faith and CanadianSteve to post some hard evidence that this legislation is actually needed.
In fact, when evidence was posted to the contrary in:
Chiroptera quotes writes:
But what about the UCLA survey of 35,000 professors cited by Robert Hughes in his book Culture of Complaint, which revealed that only 4.9 percent called themselves "far left," while 17.8 percent put down "conservative." Horowitz's voice rises to a shout. "Norman Podhoretz cannot retire and be a professor anywhere! Clancy Sigal, the novelist, is a fucking professor at USC! He has no degrees. He's written books that nobody reads, and he's got a sinecure."
No regard was given.
I want to continue the discussion and ask for confirming objective evidence that legislation is needed to fix bias in higher education. Also, a response to my original question of why a conservative and staunch anti-socialist would turn from his political philosophy to push a blatant socialist agenda.
What are his motives? Are they important while criticizing the bill?
Do we really need an Academic Bill of Rights?
This message has been edited by Jazzns, 06-09-2005 11:55 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Jazzns, posted 06-09-2005 1:54 PM Jazzns has not replied
 Message 4 by Jazzns, posted 06-09-2005 2:39 PM Jazzns has not replied
 Message 33 by CanadianSteve, posted 06-09-2005 10:20 PM Jazzns has replied
 Message 177 by rogerw1, posted 11-24-2005 8:44 AM Jazzns has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 2 of 178 (215658)
06-09-2005 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jazzns
06-09-2005 1:19 PM


Hot Topic - Bump for Admin
Just a little friendly constructive criticism.
Instead of just closing what was a very active topic, can you instead warn and give us a few posts to prepare a new thread. I am anxious to get the discussion moving again and it feels like we were just cut off pretty abruptly.
Thanks,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jazzns, posted 06-09-2005 1:19 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 3 of 178 (215665)
06-09-2005 2:36 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Jazzns, posted 06-09-2005 2:40 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 4 of 178 (215666)
06-09-2005 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jazzns
06-09-2005 1:19 PM


Evidence Bump for Faith and CanadianSteve
We left of with your claim to have provided evidence. This was challanged on the issue of bare links as evidence.
Also still open are the rest of the issues from the OP especially regarding the one about contradicting political philosophy.

FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jazzns, posted 06-09-2005 1:19 PM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 06-09-2005 3:06 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 5 of 178 (215668)
06-09-2005 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by AdminAsgara
06-09-2005 2:36 PM


Thanks Asgara! One more thing.
Can you post a link from the old thread to this one please?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by AdminAsgara, posted 06-09-2005 2:36 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 6 of 178 (215672)
06-09-2005 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Jazzns
06-09-2005 2:39 PM


Re: Evidence Bump for Faith and CanadianSteve
We left of with your claim to have provided evidence. This was challanged on the issue of bare links as evidence.
I have said that there is no statistical evidence that I could find and that the subject may not even lend itself to such statistical study, so that if that is insisted upon, forget it. However, plenty of valid evidence HAS been given. I think CS said something similar.
My last post that included the link explained that the way the site was laid out it was impossible to link to different sections of it and that copying out paragraphs and trying to give directions to them in that format didn't seem worth it in the atmosphere of this discussion. If you want to use that as an excuse to dismiss the topic I couldn't care less as that's all anybody here does anyway with the very best of evidence given them.
This message has been edited by Faith, 06-09-2005 03:07 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Jazzns, posted 06-09-2005 2:39 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Jazzns, posted 06-09-2005 3:15 PM Faith has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 7 of 178 (215674)
06-09-2005 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
06-09-2005 3:06 PM


Thanks for making that clear.
Would you be so kind as to repost the link in this tread so that posters don't have to searching for it.
With regards to the inability to find a broad study of the issue, don't you think one is needed? One might be able to list N number of examples of something bad but without context of how frequent that actually happens out the real world how can anyone make an objective opinion that the ABoR is needed?
Also, what about the blatant contradiction in political philosophy being displayed by both the conservative supporters in the forum and the sponsor of this bill? We are slowly approaching double digits in the number of times I have asked this question with no response.
No one is going to dismiss this based on your and CS's inability to support your assertions. My stance is pretty clear, I think this bill is full of crap until it can be objectivly shown that there is a major issue of liberal bias in universities. If you want to call that a dismissal then that is your perogative.

FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 06-09-2005 3:06 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 06-09-2005 3:29 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 8 of 178 (215676)
06-09-2005 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Jazzns
06-09-2005 3:15 PM


This links to the page, the post is #281
http://EvC Forum: Should those of religious faith be allowed to run this country? -->EvC Forum: Should those of religious faith be allowed to run this country?
About the political views of the promoters of this bill, of course it's a conservative effort, it's the conservatives who are getting tyrannized at the moment.
The wording of the bill makes it ABSOLUTELY clear that it will not favor ANY particular point of view so your concern about the originators of the bill is unwarranted.
And I am quite sure that if leftists had originated it nobody here would complain one bit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Jazzns, posted 06-09-2005 3:15 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Chiroptera, posted 06-09-2005 3:38 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 10 by Jazzns, posted 06-09-2005 3:46 PM Faith has replied
 Message 13 by jar, posted 06-09-2005 4:06 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 70 by Jazzns, posted 06-10-2005 11:08 AM Faith has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 178 (215679)
06-09-2005 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
06-09-2005 3:29 PM


quote:
And I am quite sure that if leftists had originated it nobody here would complain one bit.
I would.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 06-09-2005 3:29 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Jazzns, posted 06-09-2005 3:49 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 10 of 178 (215680)
06-09-2005 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
06-09-2005 3:29 PM


Thanks for the link. Since it is somehow difficult to gather information from there I will check it out on my own.
Regarding the political views. I don't feel like you understood the question. This goes way back to the message I linked in the OP.
Traditional conservatives like less government involvement in things. This bill does the opposite of that by installing more government regulations. This costs money and will tie up courts. It will put a strain on an enterprise system that is currently working.
The bill is anti-conservative so why are all the conservative or ultra-conservative people supporting it? There must be a reason.
My theory is that because their politics have been overshadowed by their ideology. Why do you think so many conservaties are broadly going against their political philosophy to support this bill?

FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 06-09-2005 3:29 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 06-09-2005 4:08 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 11 of 178 (215682)
06-09-2005 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Chiroptera
06-09-2005 3:38 PM


I second. Abstract law based on non objective need is bad no matter what party proposes it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Chiroptera, posted 06-09-2005 3:38 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 06-09-2005 8:09 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 12 of 178 (215686)
06-09-2005 3:58 PM


For EZscience from old thread
And to you he is what?A visionary leader of the student's rights movement who should one day be enshrined alongside the likes of the four students who died at Kent State ?
You obviously don't have a clue about Horowitz do you? "Little?" "Fascist?" He was raised by Communist parents in New York, a "red diaper baby," and grew up to be a leader of the New Left in the Sixties, editor of the radical Ramparts magazine. His autobiography Radical Son is a good read, especially for someone like me who was surrounded by Leftist craziness in the Sixties and needed it exorcised. After the murder of a friend by the Black Panthers, whose cause he had championed, he became disillusioned and exited the Left. He's written many books, (Amazon listing),
some that have won awards. He calls himself a liberal now and I think that fits him, although he attracts many conservatives to his cause.

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 13 of 178 (215688)
06-09-2005 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
06-09-2005 3:29 PM


I would.
It's stupid legislation based on a total misunderstanding of education.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 06-09-2005 3:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 14 of 178 (215690)
06-09-2005 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Jazzns
06-09-2005 3:46 PM


Traditional conservatives like less government involvement in things. This bill does the opposite of that by installing more government regulations. This costs money and will tie up courts. It will put a strain on an enterprise system that is currently working.
I do not follow your reasoning. This is a measure to protect students from intimidation about their religious and political beliefs by professors who should be teaching them the course curriculum instead. What's "working" if this is going on?
You seem to be anticipating a ton of lawsuits. Why? Because you can't see leftist professors giving up their harassment of conservative students? In that case the cost of the prosecution of these cases will be well worth it. But the optimum result will be that professors will stop doing this and there will be no lawsuits.
The bill is anti-conservative so why are all the conservative or ultra-conservative people supporting it? There must be a reason.
It ISN'T "anti-conservative!!" Who said that???? It's NEUTRAL. It's designed to prevent ALL kinds of intimidation of this sort in the classroom no matter who is the victim of it.
My theory is that because their politics have been overshadowed by their ideology. Why do you think so many conservaties are broadly going against their political philosophy to support this bill?
It is conservative and religious students who are suffering from this intimidation at the moment, which is a conservative cause. Nobody's going against anything. You just can't imagine that a conservative could draft a truly egalitarian bill, but that's what has been done here. The original motive is to stop the intimidation of conservative students, but the solution protects ALL students. Legislation to protect freedoms and rights is definitely a conservative cause and worth whatever it costs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Jazzns, posted 06-09-2005 3:46 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Asgara, posted 06-09-2005 4:25 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 16 by dsv, posted 06-09-2005 4:35 PM Faith has replied
 Message 19 by Jazzns, posted 06-09-2005 5:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 15 of 178 (215695)
06-09-2005 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Faith
06-09-2005 4:08 PM


I believe that what Jazzns is calling conservative isn't the bill per se, but the increase in government regulation that the bill will entail.
Conservative and Republican platforms have traditionally been about LESS government regulation.

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"
select * from USERS where CLUE > 0
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 06-09-2005 4:08 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Jazzns, posted 06-09-2005 4:59 PM Asgara has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024