<p>Im starting to lean away from Brown largely over this issue and would like to hear some opinions (particularly from those who are not uber-liberal, PC enforcers/apoligists). </p>
<p>Ive seen so many threads in this forum bashing non-PC thinking; is it this forum alone or is this forum representative of what you should expect to find on campus?</p>
<p>People are PC at all New England schools, esp top schools. I don't think its overly PC at Brown at all. People write editorials ranging from the uber left to the right in the newspapers, etc. We get incredibly diverse speakers, D'Nesh Desouza just spoke here and was very popular and was incredibly well-attended. Check out <a href="http://www.browndailysqueal.com%5B/url%5D">www.browndailysqueal.com</a> to get a sense of the diversity of opinions at brown (its brown's blog). That being said, it is a north east college. There are far more liberals than conservatives (its never cool to be a conservative when you're young). If that upsets you, you might want to consider a southern school. though even there, it will be mostly liberal.</p>
<p>I wonder the same thing. It's not the liberalism (I am liberal) , but it's just that it gets an especially bad rep for being PC. It seems to be something totally overwhelming to the academic/social experience, though most people I've met her on this forum are very open individuals</p>
<p>I just visited, and the students I talked to made fun of the PC-ness. They were like, "Brown doesn't care if you drink until you pass out, but if you don't recycle the cans in the morning, you're done." Or actually, I think my favorite was, "You're going to end up with a gay midget roommate who's native american and has one leg." That was random, but really funny.</p>
<p>would you agree with quote from the Princeton Review on Brown:
hough there is "more interracial and inter-class mixing than in the 'real world,' " the "liberal and agnostic" majority sometimes shows disdain for "the following categories: varsity athletes, Christians, conservatives, frat boys, rich students, midwesterners, or southerners." But in an "activist" place where "everyone wants to change the world," broader acceptance may be the next step toward "unparalleled social consciousness."</p>
<p>I think everyone has different definitions of PC, and that is clouding everyone's opinion of it. My PC philosophy is simple: give everyone the same respect society has perpetually given to upper class white hetrosexual Christian men.</p>
<p>lets just say when I tried to argue pro-Larry Summers at dinner at ADOCH it did NOT go over well...</p>
<p>It's good you weren't sitting at my table...it wouldn't have been any better.</p>
<p>To the original poster, meltingsnow: Before you decide against any school based on its reputation as PC you might consider looking through the book, "The Myth of Political Correctness."</p>
<p>I attended a university with a reputation for being at least as politically correct as Brown, but saw that PCness manifested in tangible ways only twice: once when the student body failed to rally around a football star convicted of rape, and the other when the administration formally rebuked a frat house that chose to dress up in blackface and mimic African American stereotypes during a public performance. Those were the only two incidents in three years, and I can't say that either of them was unreasonable. Reputations for "PC," whatever that means (valuing social justice? being aware of how one's actions impact the environment and other people?), is always exaggerated.</p>
<p>I think it is more open at Brown, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but practiced somewhat equally among these institutions. A list was recently published showing the ratio of political contributions given by faculty members of universities to the Democrat vs. Republican Presidential candidates. Not surprisingly, at least to me, the average was approximately 7:1, Dartmouth being the only school where the ratio was 1:0 (that was surprising).</p>
<p>larry summers is the man... i like how 99% of the people who jumped at him know nothing about biology and genetics. Do women naturally lag in science and math? I dont know but i bet none of you know either.</p>
<p>Free thought and the key to progress should not be shot down and villified becuase it offends some sissies</p>
<p>when you don't know something, it's sometimes best to just keep your mouth shut--particularly when you are a prominent academic in a position to pertpetuate a stereotype that is already pervasive in academia, to the great detriment of many hard-working, intelligent females.</p>
<p>we also don't "know" if africans are inherently less capable. or if nuclear holocaust is the solution to world problems. doesn't make you any less of an ass for saying so though. </p>
<p>my fiance is an aerospace engineer at MIT, a field entirely dominated by white males. every day she has to fight the stereotype larry summers attempted to legitimize--people just look at her and judge her intelligence before she even has a chance to prove her worth. to get taken seriously and be given the same recognition as her male peers she often has to perform at a much higher level than them.</p>
<p>incidentally, some of those "sissies" that are offended include the presidents of Princeton and MIT--both highly accomplished female scientists. anyone who has actually experienced science in an academic setting knows that larry summer's comments were both asinine and highly irresponsible.</p>
<p>the fact that plenty of stereotypes about women scientist exist is not a reason but a consequence of them being less common among the sceintific ranks. </p>
<p>First of all i wasnt there but if what i read is true then Summers referred to "innate differences" as a possible reason for the scarcity of women scientists. I personally see nothing wrong with this statement as it is only a possible reason to explore, one of many (as he pointed out). </p>
<p>And all those other things you said about africans being less capable and nuclear holocaust being a solution to world problems; suggesting those things is incredibly politically incorrect and offensive but you know what? If youre dealing with a problem relating to the acheivement gap then thats a possibility. Am i saying that Africans are less capable? No, there are many many man factors that determine achievement in different cultures/races/sexes. Declining to consider and explore some of these makes sure that noone's offended, but if you're trying to address a problem, then it is wrong to pick out the possible causes that could offend people. </p>
<p>I almost shed a tear for your fiance, but please dont use her to make me or summers look evil. I am not denying the problem, rather i am being open-minded as to the possible cause of the acheivement gap. I would much rather be politically incorect and offend someone than hide myself from all the possibilities. </p>
<p>Who cares if the presidents of MIT and Princeton are offended? If i say that Chinese-Americans are generally shorter in stature than African Americans, should Yao Ming get offended?</p>
<p>My AP English class has 20 girls and 4 guys by the way. 1 of the guys has a grade above a C if im not mistaken. The vast majority of the girls have A's</p>
<p>does this offend me? no because i am not a whiny whore. I am also of the opinion that Political Correctness is damaging to free thought and expression.</p>
<p>thanks for informing us that you're not a "whiny whore". it reiterates your point and demonstrates quite clearly that, indeed, being offensive is of no concern for you.</p>
<p>"political correctness" is an arbitrary term and different people have different opinions about where to draw the lines. but FYI, lines do exist. free speech is not an all-inclusive liberty. it's a priviledge to be used responsibly. as a result, slander, hate-speech, and many other forms of "free speech" are not protected as such. as most people realize after elementary school, irresponsible use of words can do more than hurt people's feelings--contrary to the age old addage about sticks and stones. irresponsible words, particularly from those in power, can have incredibly dire consequences. (i encourage you to read up on hitler's use of rhetoric--unless of course you're also willing to entertain the notion of jewish inferiority)</p>
<p>i'd like to think that your opinions are motivated by what you perceive as a noble pursuit for truth, as opposed to a callous disregard for others. your post suggests otherwise to me though. regardless, these are your issues to contend with. good luck with wherever your opinions may lead you.</p>
<p>If by politically correct you mean that Brown students generally tend to oppose blatant forms of oppression, prejudice, and discrimination, I'd bet that the "politically correct" atmosphere at Brown is pretty intense. And I'd say that's a good thing, too.</p>
<p>fids....by blatantly oppressing and discriminating against those who they disagree with? Give me a break....</p>
<p>oh ok because we all know that women in science has a huge connection with jewish inferiority and nazis. Gee thanks for that.</p>
<p>There is a very good difference between using free spech for the solution and understanding of a problem and hate-motivated slander. </p>
<p>And you are right that there are limits, propaganda encouraging violence and hateful slander are damaging to democracy and society as a whole with no gain for any party involved. Saying that ONE POSSIBLE reason women are less involved in science is "innate differences" is attempting and hypothesizing on a possible reason for this problem, something that should be celebrated. </p>
<p>I also fail to comprehend how that offends people; there are great scholars of both sexes, being offended because someone was open-minded enough to suggest that statistically, as a whole the female sex might possibly be slightly less scientifically able is pathetic and unworthy of a true scientist. </p>
<p>There is nothing offending in that my ethnicity is full of hairy mofos, that men are "pigs" more often so than women are and that Muslims are more often close-minded to other religions.</p>
<p>We're talking about percentages and odds either way, noone is generalizing. </p>
<p>Its the truth and we know it because someday, someone was brave enough to say it even if it offended some.</p>
<p>Thank you BullMoose...
IMHO, PC-ness gets problematic when fawning avoidance of ANY controversy obscures the truth...tip toeing around people's egos can too easily let you tip toe right around reality; political correctness as the opiet of the masses. I am an aspiring female scientist, but I do see a grain (or more?) of truth in Summers' provocation to investigate the clear gender inequalities in science. There is DEFINTELY something causing the disparity. Though the problem is probably multifactorial, it is known that the male and female brains are different. As I see it, the only reason Summers was possibly wrong is that many people cant handle truth that is not pretty; the opiet has been witheld.</p>
<p>That being said, I do believe that political correctness is necessary and even salutary in our society, despite the pejorative connotation the term is accruing. On a one hundred point scale of PC-ness, 50 being perfectly apropriate PC-ness, 100 being totally excessive, id call brown a 60, definitely no that bad in my limited experience.</p>
<p>Even though I think whatever apparent differences in math and science vs. English can most likely be traced back to socialization, I'll certainly respect Larry Summers' right to voice his opinion, just as long as you conservatives respect Ward Churchill's right to voice his (wow, have I opened up a can of worms). Although this is a somewhat extreme example, it's the same concept as allowing Nazis to march on Skokie, IL. Free speech, in order to be truly free, cannot be subject to the approval of society.</p>
<p>GDWilner, social developments affect neural structure (and vice versa); neither can be totally isolated as the cause.</p>