<p>what is a "19th century continental liberal"? does it mean "generous" like Mr. Darcy was called liberal?...:)<em>lost</em></p>
<p>ca. libertarian or far-left "leave us alone"</p>
<p>Check the wikipedia entry on 'liberalism'. It's quite decent.</p>
<p>"Classic liberals" are now called Libetarians. "Modern liberals" are now called Liberals.</p>
<p>Think John Stuart Mill for the former and John Rawls for the latter.</p>
<p>er... just be careful in equating 19th century 'classical liberals' to our libertarians. The former are much more moderate and reasonable than many (albeit not all) of the latter</p>
<p>just thought i'd say that stanford is definitely not conservative. it's 30 min away from san fran. i mean, how conservative can it get? seriously, my experience here has been one of little conservatism. people aren't raging liberals, but def not conservative. people hate the Stanford Review (conservative paper) and Testimony (the religious acapella)...or i do anyway. i don't hate them b/c they sing about God, i hate them because they sing...horribly.</p>
<p>Yes, current_student is right - testimony sucks. That's the review's problem too - there just aren't that many people interested in it.</p>
<p>Of course, the Stanford Progressive is even worse than the Review, and I imagine that an atheist a capella wouldn't be all too great.</p>
<p>And remember that sucking is only in the context of the amazing everything else that is stanfodrd</p>
<p>word.........</p>
<p>lki, you made an egregious error concerning the Progressive.</p>
<p>I demand an apology.</p>
<p>I stand by it. You publish once a quarter. Your writing is even more sophomoric than ours. You fail to cover campus events.</p>
<p>Wrong wrong wrong.</p>
<p>We don't feel the need to prove that we too can pregame!</p>
<p>Sophomoric, indeed!</p>
<p>Perhaps, but at least we're not so young and inexperienced to be but an assembly of woebegone freshmen. And we actually fight and stand up for our ideals of free speech and discourse while you stick your tail between your legs and limp prostrate to the assu asking for your annual student fees handout.
Big government patronage indeed.</p>
<p>And yours is the same organization that has 50-year-old writers living off of John Rawls' trust fund writing for it! Student publication, indeed!</p>
<p>Do you also fight for the right to pregame?</p>
<p>We don't censor the viewpoints of our writers (though I admit this can be a professional issue and that we are working on this). We believe in a wide umbrella that incorporates the whole range of people disillusioned with the left, from august neocons to raw right-wingers. We've also been around long enough to actually have alumni who might write for us.</p>
<p>And yes, we have written on the arbitrary and capricious nature of US alcohol laws - an issue you have yet to touch. We can call our pregaming a sublime act of civil disobedience. Can you statist fascists do the same?</p>
<p>That's a tough charge to pin on the happy-go-lucky Stanford left, lki. Statist-fascist? </p>
<p>You really used the adjective "august" in front of neocons? Alumni or not, it ceases to be a student publication when you have people older than my father writing for the publication. </p>
<p>The pregaming spread was much more about "conservatives can pregame too!" than alcohol laws. We don't bother to relentlessly attack things for no reason, just because we can.</p>
<p>Any opinions about Larry Summers?</p>
<p>The pregaming article was but a manifestation of an issue we've tackled in the abstract previously. I think I can pin that charge on the Stanford left, or at least much of it. And I admit we have problems with certain contributors - something you're clearly unable to.</p>
<p>I hope it's clear to everyone that Stuart and I carry this joust on in good jest. We live in the same dorm and are actually decent friends. Perhaps if anything this conversation shows that no-one at Stanford takes politics that seriously.</p>
<p>Viz Larry Summers - poor man, though it's not fair to say he was dismissed soleley for his performance on women. He's been a feather-ruffler since the start of his tenure, challenging the core curriculum, political correctness, all sorts of entrenched interests at Harvard, and he's made lots of enemies.
While he certainly did alienate himself from an orthodoxy, it was as much an institutional orthodoxy as an ideological one.</p>
<p>Stanford's presidents has far more power vis-a-vis the faculty. This kind of situation is simply unimaginable at Stanford, the presidents and board of trustees would not cave to such a coup d'etat by the faculty. Otherwise the Casper/Rice team, beneficial as they have been to our institution (think massive building campaigns, large advances in fundraising, and the Campaign for Undergraduate education that has brought things like intro sems) would ne'er have happened.
It's too bad Harvard has missed out on its chance for a similar bout of reform.</p>
<p>Summers' fall is good for Stanford and bad for Harvard. Summers was doing all the right things to reform Harvard and put it in a position to compete with Stanford's rapid growth and academic excellence.</p>
<p>Maybe this is rumor was generated becuase condoleeza rice used to be in the administration there? Anyway, a Bay Area news station found numbers like 6:1 liberal to conservative at stanford. Berkeley, on the other hand, was found to be around 13:1 liberal to conservative. So compared to Cal, Stanford's the White House West.</p>
<p>Er, not true. A survey of facebook done by the daily - i mentioned it earlier in this thread, I believe, shows that 90% or so of S. students mark themselves as liberal on facebook. Abd that's no misrepresentation. Very few here like Bush (I don't like Bush, and I'm one of the evil conservative review people), just as few on the faculty liked rice when she was provost</p>