New Study shows radicals rule at UC schools

<p>The California Association of Scholars, a division of the National Association of Scholars, has just released an incendiary report showing that all nine of the University of California’s campuses have been compromised by too many politicized courses and radical faculty members. CAS’s president John Ellis, a professor emeritus of German Literature from UC Santa Cruz states, “The quality of education at the University of California has been jeopardized by political activism. Dogmatism is rapidly displacing open-minded inquiry, especially in the social sciences and humanities, to the severe disadvantage of students.”</p>

<p>Here is a link to the full report, titled "A Crisis in Competence: The Corrupting Influence of Political Activism in the University of California"</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nas.org/images/documents/A_Crisis_of_Competence.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nas.org/images/documents/A_Crisis_of_Competence.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I'd be interested in your comments, especially those of you who have, or will have, children in the UC system.</p>

<p>Just as a point of information, according to Wikipedia,

</p>

<p>I can hardly think of a more close-minded organization. It’s 'interesting" (to say the least) to look at their list of funders.</p>

<p>I don’t have any experience with the UC’s, but when I see a headline like that I figure it’s wise to consider the source. A little research shows that the parent entity, The National Association of Scholars, is a right wing organization funded by politically conservative organizations and espousing very conservative principles. So while there may or may not be valid elements to the study, the assessment of the UC’s is based on a political agenda and should be read in that context.</p>

<p>That’s quite amusing considering there was a college classmate who transferred to my LAC(Oberlin) from Berkeley in the late '90s because “It has become way too conservative and pre-professional” for him and he wanted a school more congenial with his radical left political leanings.</p>

<p>wow haha. I thought checking sources was something you’re supposed to be taught in college?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Consider the source.</p>

<p>wow, lots of people here blasting the messenger… “consider the source” is valuable advice. “Dismiss the source because it doesn’t line up with some of my beliefs” is very poor advice, and that seems to be what the OP is getting in this thread.</p>

<p>is there really surprise in this thread that college professors and administrations lean to the left?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[Political</a> donations from educators: a few surprises | Nought 101](<a href=“Burlington Free Press: Latest News in Burlington, VT”>Burlington Free Press: Latest News in Burlington, VT)</p>

<p>maybe you can try this website isntead: <a href=“http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.php[/url]”>http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>It’s funny, see… if you choose “University of California” as the employer, and choose the 2008 election, and give “Obama” as the donation recipient, you get this message:

</p>

<p>On the other hand, if you flip “Obama” for “McCain”, you get one page of results (31 donors, in fact).</p>

<p>I’m sure this is just more biased information…</p>

<p>There’s also something going on at the law school of U Iowa (I think), where someone is suing the school for not hiring him/her because of political beliefs.</p>

<p>to dismiss this reality does not favor to students or the school systems… it’s part of the reason you hear the majority of the academic lawyers all saying it’s blatantly obvious which way the Supreme Court decision on healthcare should go. They just completely dismiss viable arguments from the contrary position. It’s not beneficial to engage in discussion that concludes “my point of view is obviously right, and if you have another point of view, you are obviously just uneducated and need to be enlightened.”</p>

<p>This mindset has real world ramifications, like “no rational person would ever fly an airplane into buildings” and “obviously the Soviets agree with the theory of mutually assured destruction and that missile defense is destabilizing, that’s why they signed the ABM treaty” and “the Soviets would never launch nuclear missiles at the US from Cuba”…</p>

<p>It’s a terrible mindset to adopt, and schools of “higher education” should be aware of what they are consciously and unconsciously teaching their students.</p>

<p>As a mom of 2 at UCs, I’ve heard stories about some of the dumb things professors say. It is just not fashionable to view the U. S. as a great country, I suppose. My kids are sophisticated enough to know what the game is. They just roll their eyes when talking about classes like this.</p>

<p>This is a one-man flat-earth outfit which opposes diversity and multiculturalism on college campuses, civil rights, climate science, and student activism. </p>

<p>From sourcewatch.org:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And yes, the donor list tells you all you need to know about the scientific credibility of NAS.</p>

<p>Maybe academia would be different if more conservatives decided to stay in school for many years, get their PhDs, apply to zillions of jobs to get – if they’re extremely lucky – one offer, then teach/do service/publish or perish, and then finally, live on a professor’s salary often in very expensive cities. </p>

<p>For reasons that escape me, most conservatives would just as soon do something else. </p>

<p>Which is why academia is and always will be liberal.</p>

<p>CAS’s president John Ellis, a professor emeritus of German Literature from UC Santa Cruz states, “The quality of education at the University of California has been jeopardized by political activism. Dogmatism is rapidly displacing open-minded inquiry, especially in the social sciences and humanities, to the severe disadvantage of students.”</p>

<p>OMG UC professors are libs!</p>

<p>[Five</a> myths about liberal academia](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/25/AR2011022503169.html]Five”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/25/AR2011022503169.html)</p>

<p>I think the question might be, what is it about reading , writing & research that makes people more open minded .& tolerant?</p>

<p><a href=“Political beliefs of academics - RationalWiki”>Political beliefs of academics - RationalWiki;

<p>All academia is more liberal, not just the UCs. Without bashing conservatives, I think we can just say that more people with a liberal bent are attracted to academia. Like breeds like. That’s just the way society is. </p>

<p>If universities had traditionally been conservative, then we might find more conservative folks attracted to academia. People like to be around others like themselves.</p>

<p>Of course, the exception might be religious institutions. </p>

<p>All I’m saying is that we don’t have to ridicule conservatives to believe that academia is traditionally liberal.</p>

<p>Thanks for a more reasoned response soccerguy. </p>

<p>forum |ˈf</p>

<p>If by liberalism you mean an open minded yet skeptical approach to learning and a belief in the scientific method–as opposed to rigid dogmatism–then sign me up.</p>

<p>What political activism? People rarely even put bumper stickers on their cars anymore. Complacency is the problem. </p>

<p>The key phrases should revolve around “critical thinking” skills, not whether or not a professor holds a personal political view opposite yours- or religious or social or (as sometimes gets argued on CC,) ascribes to different economic theories, national or international. </p>

<p>At different times of year (corresponding to the different admissions cycles,) some of us just get tired of this thing about flinging down the gauntlet and calling it polite conversation. For a while it was mean old admissions depts misleading kids. About now it’s complaints about financial aid. And “cleverly” worded rants against affirmative action. </p>

<p>I did read the link and find it to be opinion, not substance.</p>

<p>Actually I found that most of my professors who self-identified as liberal/radical were extremely dogmatic, if you define dogmatism as “inclined to lay down principals as incontrovertibly true”. The concept of “social construction” was very big with all of them. They claimed that there is no objective reality because everything is socially constructed. I guess it makes life easier when you operate from the assumption that everything is relative.</p>

<p>CASmom, it’s clear you share different principles from a lot of people on this forum. However, this place isn’t for you to complain about people who share different opinions than you. I know I hate it when I hear conservatives complain how liberals are close-minded and intolerant, when they’re just as bad themselves. And vice-versa, I guess.</p>