<p>In my opinion, the answer is an emphatic "yes." Being culturally sensitive and aware is one thing, but political correctness to the extreme violates objectivity in order to produce a so-called diverse environment and satisfy pseudo-intellectual "diversity initiatives" such as Afro-Centrism. For the sake of "creating diversity" and "preserving unity," quite a few in colleges and universities have gone over the line between respectful speech/cultural tolerance and totally disregarding the truth, fact, and objectivity for the sake of said diversity. </p>
<p>I can understand the reluctance of the school's overseers to respond to the authors (because of anonymity), but the violations of this Diversity speaker go FAR beyond any acceptable limits. Plagiarized work was apparently presented to the entire student body and yet the college makes no attempt to reprimand the speaker nor correct the errors. There are many other incidents like this occurring in colleges/universities across the countries, but I was surprised to find one so obvious where the factual arguments presented were so completely ignored. Thoughts?</p>
<p>could you summarize the article?</p>
<p>What it destroys is intellectual/ideological diversity. If you aren't a liberal/leftist, you are denied a voice.</p>
<p>Political correctness at colleges=censorship for people who don't fall in line with the leftist-Marxist-anti freedom-egalitarian-anti capitalist- anti Western crowd. Also look up "Newspeak".</p>
<p>Must say in my experience I have not found that all academia has a liberal bias. At my university, I had at least one very conservative professor and many who were neither identifiably liberal or conservative. </p>
<p>Also, as an uberliberal, especially by American standards, I resent being told I am anti-freedom.</p>
<p>"Must say in my experience I have not found that all academia has a liberal bias."</p>
<p>It seems that liberals never do.</p>
<p>I wrote a paper on how apartheid was great and how South Africa is now crap (for English 102) because of how the liberal propaganda stormed through the Western world that led to the destruction of that country; anyway I read it in front of the whole class and got an A. Take that liberal guilt ridden White self-hating liberal sons of *****es.</p>
<p>The RSA is not better off under the ANC than it was under the previous regime.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I resent being told I am anti-freedom.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But you are darling. As an uber liberal you support:</p>
<p>Gun control
High taxes
Welfare
Publicly funded education
Speech codes
'Hate speech' laws
SEC and anti trust laws
Palestine
smoking bans
affirmative action</p>
<p>etc etc</p>
<p>
[quote]
The RSA is not better off under the ANC than it was under the previous regime.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you really want to debate that with me you need to provide some proof because I can tear that argument to pieces. Have a look at this blog to see some of the realities under the ANC regime - <a href="http://southafricaiscrap.blogspot.com/%5B/url%5D">http://southafricaiscrap.blogspot.com/</a></p>
<p>Edit: Wait after rereading your statement again, do you mean that under the National Party the RSA was better off?</p>
<p>I am no supporter of the ANC by the way. Crime rates are up under the ANC due to their anti gun politics. What part of my statement do you disagree with?</p>
<p>I'm sorry, I misread and thought you said that South Africa was better off under the ANC. Not only has violent crime skyrocketed out of control, but also economic problems (failing infrastructure), personal security, affirmative action (BEE policy), educational standards are horrible low, population growth is out of control from illegal immigration, AIDS is out of control, health services are almost totally destroyed, language and culture rights for Afrikaans is being destroyed, farm murders (which target Whites specifically) are out of control with a genocide claim to them since nothing is stolen, housing is also horrible, city centers are dangerously unsafe, hell I could go on and on and on. People are crazy to think South Africa will have the FIFA World Cup. Not only will the stadiums never be completed, but also where the hell are all these people going to stay? South Africa is dangerously unsafe, it isnt apartheid anymore, 30,000 people a year are murdered, more people are raped here than all other countries combined, hell I could go on and on.</p>
<p>But hell the liberal media will never say a word about this because its politically incorrect when Whites are being slaughtered under Black rule. They did everything they could to spread hateful propaganda on apartheid and doing so they made lives not only for Whites horrible, but also especially for Blacks, they destroyed the lives of so many people. South Africa never threaten anybody and was treated as some horrible Nazi regime whereas Iran and North Korea walk around saying they are going to attack blah blah blah and no one says crap. Hypocrisy is the liberal agenda.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But you are darling. As an uber liberal you support:</p>
<p>Gun control
High taxes
Welfare
Publicly funded education
Speech codes
'Hate speech' laws
SEC and anti trust laws
Palestine
smoking bans
affirmative action</p>
<p>etc etc
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sorry if I'm wrong, but don't conservatives support</p>
<p>Keeping marriage between a man and a woman
Anti-abortion laws
Banning stem cell research
Banning flag burning
Patriot Act
The NSA spying on us
Guantanimo Bay</p>
<p>?</p>
<p>It just seems that people just pick and choose which freedoms they want people to have, and which ones they don't.</p>
<p>The "liberal" media will never say a word about South Africa because it's in Africa. When was the last time you heard a major news station in the 'West' cover anything substanial in Africa? It doesn't matter whether it's the recent Islamist takeover of Mogadishu, the peace talks in the Congo or the white farmers of South Africa. It's not a black-white thing, it's just that it's African. and ABC is too busy dealing with another celebrity murder trial. To paraphrase a quote in the movie Hotel Rwanda, Africans aren't even n_____ers to us. </p>
<p>As for labelling left of centres as anti-freedom, it seems to me that by bringing up the current problems of South Africa and how it was better under apartheid that you're implying that it was better when the government was telling people where they could live, who they could marry and what kind of jobs they could get. It was safer, but was it freer? I don't know, I haven't put the many grueling minutes of research on the internet over this such as yourself. It might be worth looking into though.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Keeping marriage between a man and a woman
Anti-abortion laws
Banning stem cell research
Banning flag burning
Patriot Act
The NSA spying on us
Guantanimo Bay
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Lets see.. I don't care if two fags marry..its their life. I am pro abortion and pro stem cell research. I am against any bill that prohibits flag burning. I am anti Patriot Act and anti 'domestic spying'. You could almost say I am against Guantanamo- I believe if you capture an enemy who is not in uniform, you should execute him right then and there. Its what we used to do to German soldliers captured without uniforms. Got any more 'points' , shravas?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The "liberal" media will never say a word about South Africa because it's in Africa. When was the last time you heard a major news station in the 'West' cover anything substanial in Africa? It doesn't matter whether it's the recent Islamist takeover of Mogadishu, the peace talks in the Congo or the white farmers of South Africa. It's not a black-white thing, it's just that it's African. and ABC is too busy dealing with another celebrity murder trial. To paraphrase a quote in the movie Hotel Rwanda, Africans aren't even n_____ers to us.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Really? Then why when South Africa was under apartheid it had full media coverage non-stop from the West? Explain that one.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As for labelling left of centres as anti-freedom, it seems to me that by bringing up the current problems of South Africa and how it was better under apartheid that you're implying that it was better when the government was telling people where they could live, who they could marry and what kind of jobs they could get. It was safer, but was it freer? I don't know, I haven't put the many grueling minutes of research on the internet over this such as yourself. It might be worth looking into though.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You dont know much about South African history or even African culture, do you? This is a totally different culture; African culture doesnt go together with Western culture. Yes it was safe (under apartheid for all races) but you want to know if its freer? Well one of the leading anti-apartheid South African Jews Helen Suzman seems to think so
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F05%2F16%2Fwsuz16.xml%5B/url%5D">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F05%2F16%2Fwsuz16.xml</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
Helen Suzman, for years the lone anti-apartheid voice in the South African parliament, has turned her fire on the country's ANC government for being "anti-white" and for abandoning the country's poorest blacks.</p>
<p>As South Africa celebrates the passing of a decade since its first free elections, Mrs Suzman has cast an unexpected shadow over the party - declaring that parliamentary democracy was healthier under the apartheid regime.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I was wary of getting drawn into this discussion but since I already have been...</p>
<p>Fides et Ratio, I probably should have worded my statement differently. I have ample evidence from my own experience that while more academics may be liberal than conservative, not ALL academics are. I have had a number of professors who certainly weren't liberal in any way, shape, or form. I know many more, I work for one. I also work for a think tank full of academics, which happens to be conservative, like any one of many such institutions. Second, I have never experienced the, much cited, situation in which conservative opinions were suppressed in class. No professor I know or have studied with would do that, whatever his or her political persuasion. </p>
<p>shravas, thank you for responding before I had a chance.
iloveagoodbrew, let's dispense with the 'darling' please, it is condescending. Yes, I do believe in some of the things on your list...but not all of them. For instance, my family is Jewish (and liberal) and if I ever said I supported Palestine I would have my head bitten off. And may I ask whether by putting publicly funded education on the list of things liberals support you are implying that there should be no public schools at all? Not everyone can afford private school.</p>
<p>Of course I don't know much about South Africa. I pretty much implied it by post didn't I? Judging by how you lumped all of just lumped the many diverse cultures of Africa into a singular entity, you probably don't know much more than I do.</p>
<p>"Really? Then why when South Africa was under apartheid it had full media coverage non-stop from the West? Explain that one."</p>
<p>I don't know how well South African Apartheid was covered actually. I wasn't old enough during the 80's to make that judgement and unless you're a child genius I don't think you were either. Again, might be interesting to looking into this to see how many hours of coverage was dedicated to the issue over a period of many months to see whether or not it was one of those token foreign issues that the media covers for a little bit then forgets about or an actual issue that the media took seriously. Also, Helen Suzman didn't say anything about South Africa being "freer", just voicing concerns about the future of South Africa which seem completely legitimate to me. I didn't read anything that was like "Apartheid is good!", more like "Government was better run in some cases and the current regime needs improvement."</p>