Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

15507Re: [gaiapc] Higher Education’s Deeper Sickness

Expand Messages
  • Marjorie and Al
    17 Nov, 2017
      The real dilemma is how to balance individualism with co-operation.
      Large scale is the enemy.  Leads to over-centralisation.
      Too much power in too few hands kills any social system.
      Marjorie.

      On 11/17/2017 4:11 PM, Richard Balfour balfourarch@... [gaiapc] wrote:
       

      it is true that Marx is history   really

      but Marx did not fail, ....
      Stalin might have

      On 2017-11-17, at 12:57 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] wrote:

       

      Marx is history. It failed everywhere. Modern utopianism is taught in various guises in the social sciences imho.


      Steve

      On Nov 17, 2017, at 3:54 PM, 'Peter Venton' peter.venton@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


      Jada 

       

      Good point about Marxian economics and especially the history of economic thought.  Very very few graduate schools teach Keynes.    

      Peter 

       

      From: gaiapc@... [mailto:gaiapc@...] 
      Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 2:17 PM
      To: gaiapc@...
      Subject: Re: [gaiapc] Higher Education’s Deeper Sickness

       

        

      Me too. And red herrings. IMO, Stupidity does not correlate with political intolerance.
      Marjorie.

      On 11/17/2017 9:44 AM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@... [gaiapc] wrote:

        

      I don't know who this author is or what his agenda may be. But, on the strength of his argument, I am not inclined to believe the sky is falling because of liberal totalitarianism. Indeed, if you look up his one supporting reference, it does not substantiate the 10:1 left/right ratio he claims. 

       

      "Various studies document the rise of that ratio to 5 to 1 at the century’s end, and to 8 to 1 a decade later, until in 2016 Mitchell Langbert, Dan Klein, and Tony Quain find it in the region of 10 to 1 and still rising."

      Indeed, left/right was not directly measured. Only party affiliation was measured -- which is hardly the same thing. Langbert, Klein and Quain in fact found that only 50% of the faculty studied were registered voters; and those who were registered (in the departments/colleges they cherry-picked) tended to be registered Democrats by large margins. This does not substantiate the claim that US college faculty are universally 10 times more likely to be "leftists" -- or perhaps no more so than the likes of Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama. 

      If, for example, the author had looked up how many US colleges offer a single course in Marxian Economics, or even the history of economic thought -- both of which are practically nonexistent --- then he might have discovered how radically anti-left US higher education tends to be, regardless of relatively meaningless labels such as party affiliation.

       I sniff a rat here.

       

      Jada

       

      On Friday, November 17, 2017 7:02 AM, "Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:

       

        

      Jonathon Haidt's tweet alerted me to this. Note 10:1 left vs right leaning faculty.

       

      Steve

      Higher Education’s Deeper Sickness

      Political imbalance causes intellectual degradation. Riots against free speech are only a symptom.

      Nov. 13, 2017 6:19 p.m. ET

       

      The sheer public spectacle of near-riots has forced some college administrators to take a stand for free expression and provide massive police protection when controversial speakers like Ben Shapiro come to campus. But when Mr. Shapiro leaves, the conditions that necessitated those extraordinary measures are still there. Administrators will keep having to choose between censoring moderate-to-conservative speakers, exposing their students to the threat of violence, and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on every speaker. It’s an expensive treatment that provides only momentary relief from a symptom.

      What then is the disease? We are now close to the end of a half-century process by which the campuses have been emptied of centrist and right-of-center voices. Many scholars have studied the political allegiances of the faculty during this time. There have been some differences of opinion about methodology, but the main outline is not in doubt. In 1969 the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education found that there were overall about twice as many left-of-center as right-of-center faculty. Various studies document the rise of that ratio to 5 to 1 at the century’s end, and to 8 to 1 a decade later, until in 2016 Mitchell Langbert, Dan Klein, and Tony Quain find it in the region of 10 to 1 and still rising.

      Even these figures understate the matter. The overall campus figures include professional schools and science, technology, business and mathematics departments. In most humanities and social-science departments—especially those central to a liberal education, such as history, English and political science—the share of left-of-center faculty already approaches 100%.

      The imbalance is not only a question of numbers. Well-balanced opposing views act as a corrective for each other: The weaker arguments of one side are pounced on and picked off by the other. Both remain consequently healthier and more intellectually viable. But intellectual dominance promotes stupidity. As one side becomes numerically stronger, its discipline weakens. The greater the imbalance between the two sides, the more incoherent and irrational the majority will become. 

      What we are now seeing on the campuses illustrates this general principle perfectly. The nearly complete exclusion of one side has led to complete irrationality on the other. With almost no intellectual opponents remaining, campus radicals have lost the ability to engage with arguments and resort instead to the lazy alternative of name-calling: Opponents are all “fascists,” “racists” or “white supremacists.” 

      In a state of balance between the two sides, leadership flows naturally to those better able to make the case for their side against the other. That takes knowledge and skill. But when one side has the field to itself, leadership flows instead to those who make the most uncompromising and therefore intellectually least defensible case, one that rouses followers to enthusiasm but can’t stand up to scrutiny. Extremism and demagoguery win out. Physical violence is the endpoint of this intellectual

      (Message over 64 KB, truncated)

    • Show all 9 messages in this topic