<p>You beat me to the question, xiggi. The poster referred to “very, very” right-wing, however, not just “very”.</p>
<p>I’m wondering, is the prof a national socialist, a fascist, or does he/she wear a white robe with a pointy hood to class? </p>
<p>Or, maybe, the prof just professes confidence in markets and incentives. That’s all it takes to be labeled right-wing by many.</p>
<p>jessiehl, my apologies for using you as an example. I have no doubts about your intelligence. When I finished my undergraduate years, I was waaaaay to the left of where I now stand on some issues; I wasn’t less intelligent then, but I certainly had not been exposed to a variety of positions in many of my classes. My observations tell me the situation is no better now.</p>
<p>As for Horowitz at Columbia, I doubt that he was sponsored by the University, and it’s a wonder that he wasn’t prevented from speaking like the Minutemen founder.</p>
<p>right-winger, left-winger, brainwashing, indoctrination camps…these are terms that end debates and start arguments. Not only are they button-pushers, they aren’t very meaningful.</p>
<p>When AEI publishes whatever results it comes up with, I hope people take a very careful look at their methodology and make their critiques on that basis.</p>
<p>with all due respect, what about economics can be abhorrent to anyone? The teacher could be to the right of Milton Friedman (altho that would be a challenge), but what is the prof’s philosophy (libertarian?) that creates such a strong reaction? IMO, that’s a mighty strong word to decribe a standard college class. But, the fact that your Son is able to discuss the issues and defend his positions is what college is all about, isn’t it?</p>
<p>^^^Milton Friedman hated being called a conservative. He referred to himself as a “classical liberal”. It would be very easy to be to the “right” of Friedman on many social issues.</p>
<p>I’m not an economist, but I know a lot of them, in academics, in government service, in think tanks, and in non-profits. Those whom others would call “conservatives” are, in my opinion, far more likely to give air time to opposing positions than those who call themselves liberals.</p>
<p>Heh. I grew up in dyed-in-the-wool red states. No difficulty being exposed to points of view not my own in that environment.</p>
<p>It would be sort of interesting if all students went to colleges whose majority political philosophies were on the other side from those of the environment they were raised in, but thoroughly infeasible of course.</p>
<p>How do you enforce this? Require that universities that receive government money have quotas for professors and admittees based on political belief? What about in departments where politics just don’t come up in class?..I mean, I don’t actually care if my analog design prof agrees or disagrees with me about the Iraq War, or the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, or tax policy.</p>
<p>I find it really fascinating that anyone could actually try to argue that liberalism is not the overwhelming mindset on college campuses. Oral Roberts U? Yea - those guys really run the discourse in the ivory tower. HYP really has its hand full fending off those philosophical attacks!</p>
<p>Every time I see a thread where a high school kid (or parent of) is trying to locate a college with a political philosophy identical to the one the kid already has, I cringe. There is no better opportunity to broaden one’s horizons and sharpen one’s debating skills than during the undergraduate years. Why would anyone want to eliminate half the fun by going to school with only those who already agree with you?</p>
<p>Sometimes, to meet other like-minded folks, especially if they haven’t had the chance before college.</p>
<p>We live in a very conservative area - Dana Rohrabacher has been our congressman for years, and he’s still going strong. My kids grew up with very few friends- maybe one each- from liberal families. I think my son had one male friend who would take his positions in high school. The other kids were either non-political or from very strong Republican families. He found no liberal friends in his primary outside of school EC (Boy Scouts) either, and some of the adults involved winced when he mentioned he would apply to UCB.</p>
<p>He didn’t use the political litmus test when applying, but it is nice not to be the only one for a change. In a field like environmental analysis, one is likely to find a few save-the-world, causes for the common good, types.</p>
<p>Xiggi!
LOL! I was a republican until 4 years ago, so, yes, I am a centrist, although I think was is called a centrist is quite different than it used to be under the first President Bush’s term!!</p>
<p>And throwing around that old “socialist” term is so old. The big, bad bogeyman of “socialized” medicine is looking pretty good to about 47 million uninsured Americans, and lots of others who know how easily they can lose their health insurance. </p>
<p>bluebayou,
The economics of complete and total free markets, with no protections for workers, and no consideration of environmental consequences is what I call abhorrent. Libertarian is just a way to make “let the fittest survive” acceptable to a number of Americans. It is Darwinian economics. </p>
<p>Do you disagree that the economics of England in the time of Dickens was abhorrent?? The economics that led to the French Revolution? The economics in which the upper classes clean up, while the lower classes starve, you know - the Darwinian mindset that has invaded our country since about 1980? How do you pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you don’t have any boots? (quote from John Edwards) I find those policies abhorrent.</p>
<p>ag54,
I would like to see the link for those policies to the Univ of Delaware website. Where did that article come from? The American Enterprise Institute???</p>
<p>“ag54,
I would like to see the link for those policies to the Univ of Delaware website. Where did that article come from? The American Enterprise Institute???”</p>
<p>It’s been all over the news for days and there was a press release issued by the University. Surprised you didn’t see it.</p>
<p>My feeling on being surrounded by like-minded people is that it’s like drinking alcohol. A moderate amount of it can be relaxing and de-stressing, especially after a hard day (or 18 years) of feeling put-upon. An excessive amount can be dangerous, distort your perception…and make you want to throw up. :D</p>
<p>When I first came to Massachusetts from Kentucky for college, being in a place where most were liberal and I was far from the most liberal around was balm to my soul, given the political climate in Kentucky at the time, which was not only conservative but pretty hostile to liberals (I knew someone, a high school classmate, who got threatened with a gun while campaigning for a liberal candidate, among other interesting stories). It was so nice to be around people who actually agreed with me, and not feel like I constantly needed to defend myself!</p>
<p>A little over four years later, it’s still nice to not be in a hostile environment, and I’m still quite a solid liberal, but now I’m complaining pretty often about the wacko liberals who make me look bad by association, the more-enlightened-than-thou blue state liberal smugness and disdain of so many towards “backwards” areas of the country, the complacence of those who have grown too used to the liberal climate, and the pernicious effects that living in an echo chamber of political belief has on the quality of debate and on people’s reasoning skills (note that I’m talking about the local non-college environment, not academia). I don’t think I’d want to go back to being in a small minority, but a little more balance would be nice, and might get fellow liberals to be more active instead of sitting around congratulating themselves on how liberal their town is.</p>
<p>Edited to add: I don’t mean to say that being around people who agree with you for a long time WILL be pernicious. It doesn’t have to be. It just takes extra effort to not fall into typical traps. :)</p>
<p>I will admit I’m not much of a history buff, but if I recall it wasn’t ‘economics’ that led to the French revolution, but the French’s absolutist monarchy – which is quite different, IMO, in that the monarchy attempted to controll and effect economic performance. But, if my recollection is incorrect, which is highly likely, I’m sure that the more knowledgeable will correct it. :)</p>
<p>Interesting where this conversation wound up - with the granddaddy of the 18th century revolutions - political movements that, including the American Revolution, dealt with dissent, political voice, and freedom of expression. Even back then, people did not live by bread alone or even cake for that matter and diversity of opinion was highly prized and fought for. </p>
<p>“French revolutionary legacies: politics and political culture in France (1789-1799)”</p>
<p>
[quote]
Much of the interminable debate, as acrimonious as it is inconclusive, centers on the dual experience and heritage of idealism and hate, generated by the transformations of French society and political culture under the Revolution. The explosions of popular violence, the institutionalized use of the guillotine, the mass murders of the Vend</p>
<p>I’m assuming that my kids will be getting an overdose of liberalism on whatever college campus they end up on (as I did) but reality will smack them in the face once they leave their Ivory Tower. I’ll just wait for them to get their first paycheck, and then we’ll talk.</p>
<p>^If the costs and responsibilities of living in a community, be that community their town, their country, and/or their world, are evaluated through the lens of “what do I get to keep”, then, for me, the education I strive to give my kids, both at home and at college, will have failed.</p>