This is the blog of Brendan Steinhauser, author of The Conservative Revolution: How to Win the Battle for College Campuses.
You go GIRL!
I bet you the CR didn't ask for permission to take this picture either...so much for "individual rights"...
Dont you need her permission to use this picture online?
No, I do not need anyone's permission to use a photo online.When you are in the public eye (think paparazzi) you impliedly agree to have your likeness photographed.You obviously have no understanding of "individual rights" if this is your best argument.If you are trying to pick an intellectual battle, this is the last place you want to be. I'll eat you alive.B
"If you are trying to pick an intellectual battle, this is the last place you want to be. I'll eat you alive."--BI am so glad you wrote this. This comment shows you "true colors." How do you think the tone of "I'll eat you alive" sounds? DO really think that encourages debate? I think it is meant to silence people who disagree with you. And let me tell you, WE WILL NOT BE SILENCED!Although you all have made a great effort to intimidate us into silence, I want you to know that there are many of us who think you are fools. So stop the charade. You don't want debate, you want YOUR way, and you don't care who you destroy to get it.
Okay, so what do you want to argue about? Let's talk issues.I'll pose the first question. Should professors be allowed to indoctrinate their students by presenting ONLY one side of an issue in class?
It really depends on the context. Let's assume we are talking about Perspectives on Gender.I assume the issue most of you are upset about is homosexuality, which makes up only a small portion of the course.The Perspectives on Gender class is a combination of study of natural science, social science, and humanities. So ask yourself, is one interpretation of the Biblical story of Sodom and Gommorah appropriate for discussion in a scientific, social scientific, or humanitarian context? I don't personally think it is, and understandably it's not part of assigned curriculum. Yet, that didn't stop people from openly discussing it in class. I have no problem with that.What about statistics? I've personally looked into just about every statistic that Ryan Sorba has published about homosexuality. Each and every one I've found to be false, misleading, or misinterpreted. If you want to talk specifics about how these studies were specifically chosen and interpreted to fit HIS agenda, I can go into detail.In a science course, there's a reasonable expectation that the ideas presented are both relevant to topics being covered and can be backed up by educated analysis. If any student is saying things that aren't backed up by science, the teacher should be able to say that that student is incorrect. Otherwise, how would anyone learn from their mistakes? If this student is told that a source cited is erroneous, misinterpreted, or misleading, he/she should find another source which is not. The Internet is a good example. Anyone can post anything on the Internet, so one must be cautious in citing an Internet source for a paper.I don't know specifically what Ms. Rodriguez wrote, but if she was citing anything like what Ryan Sorba was citing (and misinterpreting) she deserves an F. There's a reasonable expectation to cite credible sources in every class. The decision of what's credible and what is not is made by common sense, not political bias. In my Perspectives on Gender class, many students presented conservative viewpoints of gender and sexuality, backed by good sources, and many of them got good grades.The irony about your whole entire movement is that you are boycotting a specific class where controversial (even offensive) issues are brought up, debated, and discussed. In addition, you are blacklisting (punishing) professors that teach these kinds of courses. Your movement is actually doing more to stifle free debate and free speech than anything you claim these "biased" professors do. Doesn't this go against your club's purpose, that is, to bring balance to debate?I have a Republican friend. He presents his case in a polite, clear manner. He never has tried to overpower me with his voice. He has always respected my opinion, and I in turn, have always respected his. Not suprisingly, I began to side with him on a few issues. I think reaching out and promoting balance and dialogue (as opposed to one-sided, angry tirades) will actually do more for your club in the long run. Listen to what other people have to say, even if it offends you. Try to understand. Make a gesture that proves to all of us that you genuinely want to hear both sides of the debate, not just hear people repeat your own.
By its very nature, "Perspectives on Gender" classes are Marxist. Those classes, along with "Ethnic Studies" and "Minority Studies" always end up being nothing more than an excuse to slip Marxist class critiques into the curriculum. These classes could be taught in a fair and balanced way, but inevitably they are not. I have not attended your class, so I will not be able to comment directly on it.My own experience: I was discussing the war in Iraq and the professor didn't like what I had to say. So, he cut me off by turning a video on. I was humiliated. There were 100 witnesses who can corroborate the story. I published an article about the incident, and the prof never denied it publicly. This is my one example of bias and discrimination. There are many others.B
Furthermore, going by your "statistics" analysis, which I agree to be valid in theory, why should professors be allowed to teach failed Marxist economic policies? No other economic system has caused (and still causes) as much poverty, misery and stagnation. Yet, college professors sit in their ivory towers and encourage their students to understand things through a Marxist vessel. At CSUSB, one student asked me "What's so bad about communism?" When supposedly educated people ask these kinds of questions, our society is in trouble.
The reason why we study Marxism is because we still have socalist institutions in our capitalist government. Free education is a socalist idea, along with subsidized or free health care, subsidized housing and government services such as welfare. So you see, Marxism is far from a failed economic policy, because some elements of Marxism are present in our US economy.Besides, we study capitalism too. As a student, I've had to analyze both socalism and capitalism quite a bit. It's far from being one-sided. Teachers I've had have talked about the importance of free enterprise, and others have talked about the importance of social change. It really depends on the class.Why shouldn't a student be able to ask "What's so bad about communism?" What REALLY puts our society in trouble is when people ask no questions at all. We should NEVER assume that one side is right, we should always challenge the way we think. Asking questions is part of the learning experience. You should be promoting discussion and debate about why you feel Marxist ideology is harmful. Responding politely to a question like the one the student asked you is one way to do it. Make sure you are open enough to understand the argument from both sides, and you'll always learn something in the process.I personally think a lot of captalistic ideology can be just as harmful as socialist ideology. Consider how our current economy puts a huge income gap between the rich and poor. The middle class is slowly disappearing. Unrestricted corporations are merging to the point of creating oligopolies and monopolies, stifling competition and preventing entrepeneurship.I think the ideal economic system would be a balance between the two. I don't want pure socialism just like I don't want pure, unrestricted captalism.As for the issue of being stopped in class for talking about the Iraq War, I'm sorry if that's happened to you. The only suggestion I can give is be patient and polite in presenting your argument. Remember what Brian Levin said, that he believed that conservative people have a hard time on college campuses getting their points across. He didn't say it was impossible. I honestly think that if you say anything in class that's well thought out, politely presented, and relevant to the discussion, the teacher will listen to what you have to say.
Free education, welfare and free health care are indeed socialist policies. We see how the quality of "free government-run" benefits turns out, don't we?
My beef is with the professors who do not allow "dissent" in their classrooms.Pointing out the good Profs like Levins is only a smokescreen over the real problem. Far too many profs are the exact opposite, and stifle debate in their classes.All of the profs should be like Levins, and if they are not, then CR and YC's across America will call them out on it. All we are doing is letting the public know about the bad profs. Why don't you guys support this?
Well, until Ryan emails me the paper, I can't say for sure. I'll take a neutral position until I can determine for myself that this student did or did not deserve the grade she got.But for now, let's just say that I don't approve of Ryan's methods. He's within his rights of free speech (as long as no libel is involved), but I think there are far more tactful ways to present one's case. I feel his methods are attempts to silence people, rather than encourage healthy debate.
There are as many teaching styles as there are teachers. To say that there is an one way of teaching a subject "right" is bull. I have had teachers silence me for expressing feminist, Buddhist, and anti-capitalist views in their classes. According to the CRs, I should put their names on a watch list and slander their professional reputation. My solution? I got through these classes and simply never took classes with these professors again. I would never dream of trying to tell anyone how or what to teach in their classes. Their ACADEMIC FREEDOM as an educated professional in their field allows them to teach the class as they see fit according to current research trends and current dialogues taking place within any discipline. I feel like the CRs believe that when they are themselves "censored," (i.e., not allowed to dominate the conversation) it is an "injustice." But for some curious reason, their efforts to censor differing points of view are somehow justified in their minds. Very interesting.
Post a Comment