<p>Scholarme, the administration did not rescind their invitation to Rice, Rice withdrew in the face of student protests. Rutgers is a huge school; it isn’t surprising that there would be a comparatively small but very vocal group ready to protest any speaker that didn’t toe its political party line. The high-publicized spate of (IMO, intolerant and ill-advised) commencement protests doesn’t imply that any of those schools are as a whole oppressively liberal, although some certainly may be. </p>
<p>Again, do your research, and you’ll be able to find some information on the climate of various colleges fairly easily. </p>
<p>No guarantee OP’s kid won’t be influenced by people on/off campus or more so, after graduation. </p>
<p>Incidentally, nearly all the practical shifts in political beliefs among people I’ve known happened well after college/grad school.</p>
<p>One example was a HS classmate who shifted from being prominent in our HS’s and his college’s young Republicans/Libertarians club to becoming almost as radically left as my college classmates after he started working as a attorney for a few years and saw how many ways employees and smaller firms got screwed/exploited by larger corporations and biglaw firms like the one he worked for. He also got an ugly glimpse into how discrimination even against EEOC protected classes is still a serious problem and how his first firm was defending such conduct by their large corporate clients. </p>
<p>^Most parents recognize that once their kids go off to college and definitely after they graduate and are out in the “real world,” that they don’t have much influence over their kid(s) choices. This parent, OTOH, seems to me to not be ready to give up being the primary influence on their student - so 4 more years living at home seems the only logical way for parents to 1) keep an eye on and 2) still exert their beliefs onto the student. </p>
<p>This thread has been way more interesting than I expected it to be. </p>
<p>I’m wondering if trying to avoid these pitfalls might be pretty tough … if some of the concerns correlate positively and some negatively. Some thoughts … .</p>
<p>Is it true, in general, that schools that are more apathetic politically tend to have more partying? </p>
<p>Is is true that schools that temper drinking and drugs come, in general, with a top down school political outlook?</p>
<p>Etc.</p>
<p>It seems to me controlling for the perceived biggest risk might be the best strategy.</p>
<p>PS - Schools like Chicago, Swathmore, and MIT have been raised as possibilities … however my experience at MIT (eons ago) was while there were not a lot of big protests there was a fair amount of activism on campus (food service, unions on campus, US foreign policy) … to me, for many, there seems to be a tie between engaged academic mind and engaged civic mind.</p>
<p>“Is it true, in general, that schools that are more apathetic politically tend to have more partying?”</p>
<p>I don’t think so. I can think of exceptions on both ends of the political spectrum. Washington & Lee and Berkeley both party pretty hard and are very politically engaged. Commuter schools are usually both apathetic politically and not party hearty, though both those qualities probably flow from the third factor of students having jobs and families.</p>
<p>Not sure about that considering some of the anti-war/OWS protestors I’ve talked with or known from prior acquaintance at some local public commuter oriented colleges were the very non-traditional older students who had jobs and/or families. Some were war veterans in Iraq and Afghanistan going to college for the first time or going back after serving. </p>
<p>This organization has red/yellow/green light indicator showing which schools have restrictive speech codes, tread on students individual rights (yes…the majority of the cases are conservative students who are being silenced or made to feel very unwelcome). Although not a direct measure of the political environment, it is an indicator of the administrations leanings.</p>
<p>I was not sheltered; my parents, my mom in particular, were two of the biggest radically hippie liberals I’ve ever known. I was truly a product of the 60s and the “anything goes” mentality…and anything did go in our family, believe me.</p>
<p>I was taught to question authority, yet after I became a Christian at one particular college and then transferred to a state uni, I was very naive and immature and questioned nothing that the profs or students were saying. Maybe it speaks to my own mediocre intelligence, but it was not until I became a parent and deepened my faith, that I really began to think more critically about issues.</p>
<p>Kuddos to all the thoughtful students represented on CC that can think critically and sift through propaganda on either side. That was not my experience. I have tried to bring my children up to think more critically than I did and I certainly can voice my opinion to them of what schools might be more of a fit for them than other schools. </p>
<p>Ultimately, it is their lives to live, but I’m glad they respect us and listen to our advise even if they chose to walk down a path that I might not think is the best for them.</p>
<p>dietz-
I’d caution anyone reading the thefire site to do so carefully. Don’t simply assume that a red, yellow or green rating is good or bad. For instance, out of curiosity I checked out the rating for my alma mater (which shall remain unnamed here). It lists the school’s harassment policy, which specifically bans harassment, intimidation, bullying and stalking as a red light policy, in that it restricts freedom of speech. It lists the school’s faculty handbook statement as a green light policy ("[School X] values the diversity of persons, perspectives, and convictions. Critical thinking, rigorous analysis, and open discussion of a full range of ideas lie at the heart of the College’s mission as an institution of higher learning. The College seeks to encourage inquiry and reasoned dialogue in a climate of mutual respect.")</p>
<p>I would like my child to attend a school where the free exchange of ideas is encouraged, but I wouldn’t extend that to stalking and bullying. What the site sees as positive in one case (the faculty handbook statement) I see as positive but what it sees as negative (the harassment policy) I see as positive as well.</p>
<p>I’m also not sure how the OP would read something like the faculty handbook statement. On one hand it allows faculty some pretty free range, which I think the OP would see as negative. On the other hand it encourages a multiplicity of views, which the OP could conceivably support in that it would lessen the chance that students would be bullied into parroting a professor’s narrow ideas.</p>
<p>Swarthmore is NOT apolitical by any stretch of the imagination. I don’t think they need to be influenced by professors to protest there – last year students commandeered the microphone at a Swat board meeting and took over the meeting to register various complaints they had.</p>
<p>I believe it is quite possible to have civil discourse on all those topics without the use of slurs. I would be appalled if a college allowed slurs to be used. </p>
<p>Nor is Bates code of conduct in violation of the 1st Amendment - which states: </p>
<p>“Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech.” </p>
<p>If one wants to use hate speech at Bates, they are perfectly free to do so - but that right does not come without consequences. </p>
<p>I would agree with previous posters about hate speech. And I would add that the Fortune 100 company I worked for had a similar prohibition. I take those “red lights” with a huge caution.</p>
<p>The most apolitical schools are usually the hardest-partying schools. Is that what the OP really wants? Wouldn’t she prefer a more intellectually engaged student body? If not, then party on!</p>
<p>In answer to the OP’s original question, I might suggest Drexel, Lehigh, Purdue, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Marquette, Bucknell, Butler, Worcester Polytechnic, and Stevens Institute.</p>
<p>@scholarme the big red flag in your post is your use of the term “charismatic professor” in describing your fear.
Your real fear is loss of control. You’ve likely had your daughter under your thumb your entire life and the thought of someone else “taking your place” is terrifying you.</p>
<p>You’ll need to get over it. It’s going to happen anyway as soon as she starts listening to her boyfriend(s) instead of you.</p>
<p>That is easy. Apply to PRIVATE SCHOOLS, that are non sectarian, and non-gender specific.
Avoid public’s as they are funded by the government which in part affects their political atmosphere based on the campus leadership.
However, a politically-free atmosphere might not be the best fit for your son/daughter, so look for best fit in all things, not just political.
Check out Carnegie, Berea College, College of the Atlantc (ME) etc.
Best of luck to you.</p>