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

Higher Education’s Deeper Sickness

Expand Messages
  • Steve Kurtz
    Jonathon Haidt s tweet alerted me to this. Note 10:1 left vs right leaning faculty. Steve ... ————————————— Doubt is not a pleasant
    Message 1 of 8 , 17 Nov, 2017
      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.


      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 likeBen Shapirocome 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 2016Mitchell Langbert,Dan Klein,andTony Quainfind 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 decay—the stage at which academic thought and indeed higher education have ceased to exist.

      That is the condition that remains after Mr. Shapiro and the legions of police have left campus: More than half of the spectrum of political and social ideas has been banished from the classrooms, and what remains has degenerated as a result. The treatment of visiting speakers calls attention to that condition but is not itself the problem. No matter how much money is spent on security, no matter how many statements supporting free speech are released, the underlying disease continues to metastasize.

      During the long period in which the campus radical left was cleansing the campuses of opposition, it insisted that wasn’t what it was doing. Those denials have suddenly been reversed. The exclusion of any last trace of contrary opinion is not only acknowledged but affirmed. Students and faculty even demand “safe spaces” where there is no danger that they will be exposed to any contrary beliefs.

      It is important to understand why the radical left cleared the campuses of opposing voices. It was not to advance higher education, for that must involve learning to evaluate competing ideas, to analyze the pros and cons of rival arguments and concepts. Shutting down all but one viewpoint is done to achieve the opposite: to pre-empt analysis and understanding. Only in the absence of competing ideas can the radical sect that now controls so much of the campuses hope to thrive and increase its numbers, because it can’t survive open debate and analysis, and its adherents know it.

      Given that treating only symptoms is ultimately pointless, is there any cure for the disease? The radical left won’t voluntarily give up the stranglehold on higher education that it has worked unrelentingly to gain. But that can’t be the end of the matter: The public pays huge sums, both through tuition and taxation, to educate young people, and except in STEM subjects most of that money is being wasted. Those who pay the bills have the power to stop this abuse of higher education if they organize themselves effectively.

      Colleges need to be accredited; state universities answer to governing boards. Accrediting agencies and governing boards are created through a political process. What if voters were to insist that those agencies demand answers to some elementary questions? For example: How can a department of political science that excludes half the spectrum of viable political ideas be competent to offer degrees in the field? How can a history curriculum be taught competently when only one extremist attitude to social and political questions is present in a department? How can a campus humanities faculty with the same limitation teach competently? How can these extraordinary deficiencies deserve either accreditation, or support by state and federal funds?

      The campus radical monopoly on political ideas amounts to the shutting down of liberal higher education as we have known it. That, not the increasingly frequent violent flare-ups, is the real crisis.

      Mr. Ellis is a professor emeritus of German literature at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and chairman of the California Association of Scholars.



      —————————————
      Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
      Voltaire (1770)

    • Jada Thacker
      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
      Message 2 of 8 , 17 Nov, 2017
        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.


        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 likeBen Shapirocome 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 2016Mitchell Langbert,Dan Klein,andTony Quainfind 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 decay—the stage at which academic thought and indeed higher education have ceased to exist.
        That is the condition that remains after Mr. Shapiro and the legions of police have left campus: More than half of the spectrum of political and social ideas has been banished from the classrooms, and what remains has degenerated as a result. The treatment of visiting speakers calls attention to that condition but is not itself the problem. No matter how much money is spent on security, no matter how many statements supporting free speech are released, the underlying disease continues to metastasize.
        During the long period in which the campus radical left was cleansing the campuses of opposition, it insisted that wasn’t what it was doing. Those denials have suddenly been reversed. The exclusion of any last trace of contrary opinion is not only acknowledged but affirmed. Students and faculty even demand “safe spaces” where there is no danger that they will be exposed to any contrary beliefs.
        It is important to understand why the radical left cleared the campuses of opposing voices. It was not to advance higher education, for that must involve learning to evaluate competing ideas, to analyze the pros and cons of rival arguments and concepts. Shutting down all but one viewpoint is done to achieve the opposite: to pre-empt analysis and understanding. Only in the absence of competing ideas can the radical sect that now controls so much of the campuses hope to thrive and increase its numbers, because it can’t survive open debate and analysis, and its adherents know it.
        Given that treating only symptoms is ultimately pointless, is there any cure for the disease? The radical left won’t voluntarily give up the stranglehold on higher education that it has worked unrelentingly to gain. But that can’t be the end of the matter: The public pays huge sums, both through tuition and taxation, to educate young people, and except in STEM subjects most of that money is being wasted. Those who pay the bills have the power to stop this abuse of higher education if they organize themselves effectively.
        Colleges need to be accredited; state universities answer to governing boards. Accrediting agencies and governing boards are created through a political process. What if voters were to insist that those agencies demand answers to some elementary questions? For example: How can a department of political science that excludes half the spectrum of viable political ideas be competent to offer degrees in the field? How can a history curriculum be taught competently when only one extremist attitude to social and political questions is present in a department? How can a campus humanities faculty with the same limitation teach competently? How can these extraordinary deficiencies deserve either accreditation, or support by state and federal funds?
        The campus radical monopoly on political ideas amounts to the shutting down of liberal higher education as we have known it. That, not the increasingly frequent violent flare-ups, is the real crisis.
        Mr. Ellis is a professor emeritus of German literature at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and chairman of the California Association of Scholars.


        —————————————
        Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
        Voltaire (1770)



      • Marjorie and Al
        Me too. And red herrings. IMO, Stupidity does not correlate with political intolerance. Marjorie. On 11/17/2017 9:44 AM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@sbcglobal.net
        Message 3 of 8 , 17 Nov, 2017
          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.


          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 decay—the stage at which academic thought and indeed higher education have ceased to exist.
          That is the condition that remains after Mr. Shapiro and the legions of police have left campus: More than half of the spectrum of political and social ideas has been banished from the classrooms, and what remains has degenerated as a result. The treatment of visiting speakers calls attention to that condition but is not itself the problem. No matter how much money is spent on security, no matter how many statements supporting free speech are released, the underlying disease continues to metastasize.
          During the long period in which the campus radical left was cleansing the campuses of opposition, it insisted that wasn’t what it was doing. Those denials have suddenly been reversed. The exclusion of any last trace of contrary opinion is not only acknowledged but affirmed. Students and faculty even demand “safe spaces” where there is no danger that they will be exposed to any contrary beliefs.
          It is important to understand why the radical left cleared the campuses of opposing voices. It was not to advance higher education, for that must involve learning to evaluate competing ideas, to analyze the pros and cons of rival arguments and concepts. Shutting down all but one viewpoint is done to achieve the opposite: to pre-empt analysis and understanding. Only in the absence of competing ideas can the radical sect that now controls so much of the campuses hope to thrive and increase its numbers, because it can’t survive open debate and analysis, and its adherents know it.
          Given that treating only symptoms is ultimately pointless, is there any cure for the disease? The radical left won’t voluntarily give up the stranglehold on higher education that it has worked unrelentingly to gain. But that can’t be the end of the matter: The public pays huge sums, both through tuition and taxation, to educate young people, and except in STEM subjects most of that money is being wasted. Those who pay the bills have the power to stop this abuse of higher education if they organize themselves effectively.
          Colleges need to be accredited; state universities answer to governing boards. Accrediting agencies and governing boards are created through a political process. What if voters were to insist that those agencies demand answers to some elementary questions? For example: How can a department of political science that excludes half the spectrum of viable political ideas be competent to offer degrees in the field? How can a history curriculum be taught competently when only one extremist attitude to social and political questions is present in a department? How can a campus humanities faculty with the same limitation teach competently? How can these extraordinary deficiencies deserve either accreditation, or support by state and federal funds?
          The campus radical monopoly on political ideas amounts to the shutting down of liberal higher education as we have known it. That, not the increasingly frequent violent flare-ups, is the real crisis.
          Mr. Ellis is a professor emeritus of German literature at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and chairman of the California Association of Scholars.


          —————————————
          Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
          Voltaire (1770)




          Virus-free. www.avg.com

          -- 
          Marjorie and Al Stewart
          250-390-3363
        • Peter Venton
          Jada Good point about Marxian economics and especially the history of economic thought. Very very few graduate schools teach Keynes. Peter From:
          Message 4 of 8 , 17 Nov, 2017

            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 decay—the stage at which academic thought and indeed higher education have ceased to exist.

            That is the condition that remains after Mr. Shapiro and the legions of police have left campus: More than half of the spectrum of political and social ideas has been banished from the classrooms, and what remains has degenerated as a result. The treatment of visiting speakers calls attention to that condition but is not itself the problem. No matter how much money is spent on security, no matter how many statements supporting free speech are released, the underlying disease continues to metastasize.

            During the long period in which the campus radical left was cleansing the campuses of opposition, it insisted that wasn’t what it was doing. Those denials have suddenly been reversed. The exclusion of any last trace of contrary opinion is not only acknowledged but affirmed. Students and faculty even demand “safe spaces” where there is no danger that they will be exposed to any contrary beliefs.

            It is important to understand why the radical left cleared the campuses of opposing voices. It was not to advance higher education, for that must involve learning to evaluate competing ideas, to analyze the pros and cons of rival arguments and concepts. Shutting down all but one viewpoint is done to achieve the opposite: to pre-empt analysis and understanding. Only in the absence of competing ideas can the radical sect that now controls so much of the campuses hope to thrive and increase its numbers, because it can’t survive open debate and analysis, and its adherents know it.

            Given that treating only symptoms is ultimately pointless, is there any cure for the disease? The radical left won’t voluntarily give up the stranglehold on higher education that it has worked unrelentingly to gain. But that can’t be the end of the matter: The public pays huge sums, both through tuition and taxation, to educate young people, and except in STEM subjects most of that money is being wasted. Those who pay the bills have the power to stop this abuse of higher education if they organize themselves effectively.

            Colleges need to be accredited; state universities answer to governing boards. Accrediting agencies and governing boards are created through a political process. What if voters were to insist that those agencies demand answers to some elementary questions? For example: How can a department of political science that excludes half the spectrum of viable political ideas be competent to offer degrees in the field? How can a history curriculum be taught competently when only one extremist attitude to social and political questions is present in a department? How can a campus humanities faculty with the same limitation teach competently? How can these extraordinary deficiencies deserve either accreditation, or support by state and federal funds?

            The campus radical monopoly on political ideas amounts to the shutting down of liberal higher education as we have known it. That, not the increasingly frequent violent flare-ups, is the real crisis.

            Mr. Ellis is a professor emeritus of German literature at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and chairman of the California Association of Scholars.

             

            —————————————

            Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
            Voltaire (1770)

             

             

             

            Image removed by sender.

            Virus-free. www.avg.com



            -- 
            Marjorie and Al Stewart
            250-390-3363

          • Steve Kurtz
            Marx is history. It failed everywhere. Modern utopianism is taught in various guises in the social sciences imho. Steve ...
            Message 5 of 8 , 17 Nov, 2017
              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 decay—the stage at which academic thought and indeed higher education have ceased to exist.

              That is the condition that remains after Mr. Shapiro and the legions of police have left campus: More than half of the spectrum of political and social ideas has been banished from the classrooms, and what remains has degenerated as a result. The treatment of visiting speakers calls attention to that condition but is not itself the problem. No matter how much money is spent on security, no matter how many statements supporting free speech are released, the underlying disease continues to metastasize.

              During the long period in which the campus radical left was cleansing the campuses of opposition, it insisted that wasn’t what it was doing. Those denials have suddenly been reversed. The exclusion of any last trace of contrary opinion is not only acknowledged but affirmed. Students and faculty even demand “safe spaces” where there is no danger that they will be exposed to any contrary beliefs.

              It is important to understand why the radical left cleared the campuses of opposing voices. It was not to advance higher education, for that must involve learning to evaluate competing ideas, to analyze the pros and cons of rival arguments and concepts. Shutting down all but one viewpoint is done to achieve the opposite: to pre-empt analysis and understanding. Only in the absence of competing ideas can the radical sect that now controls so much of the campuses hope to thrive and increase its numbers, because it can’t survive open debate and analysis, and its adherents know it.

              Given that treating only symptoms is ultimately pointless, is there any cure for the disease? The radical left won’t voluntarily give up the stranglehold on higher education that it has worked unrelentingly to gain. But that can’t be the end of the matter: The public pays huge sums, both through tuition and taxation, to educate young people, and except in STEM subjects most of that money is being wasted. Those who pay the bills have the power to stop this abuse of higher education if they organize themselves effectively. 

              Colleges need to be accredited; state universities answer to governing boards. Accrediting agencies and governing boards are created through a political process. What if voters were to insist that those agencies demand answers to some elementary questions? For example: How can a department of political science that excludes half the spectrum of viable political ideas be competent to offer degrees in the field? How can a history curriculum be taught competently when only one extremist attitude to social and political questions is present in a department? How can a campus humanities faculty with the same limitation teach competently? How can these extraordinary deficiencies deserve either accreditation, or support by state and federal funds?

              The campus radical monopoly on political ideas amounts to the shutting down of liberal higher education as we have known it. That, not the increasingly frequent violent flare-ups, is the real crisis.

              Mr. Ellis is a professor emeritus of German literature at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and chairman of the California Association of Scholars.

               

              —————————————

              Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
              Voltaire (1770)

               

               



              -- 
              Marjorie and Al Stewart
              250-390-3363


              <image003.jpg><image002.jpg>

              —————————————
              Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
              Voltaire (1770)

            • Jada Thacker
              Steve, While the statement Marx is history, is true, it is also irrelevant. What is relevant is that it is history that practically has been banned from
              Message 6 of 8 , 17 Nov, 2017
                Steve,

                While the statement "Marx is history," is true, it is also irrelevant. What is relevant is that it is history that practically has been banned from higher education. Are we then to believe, as Mr. Ellis would have it, that it has been banished by the leftist professors that outnumber the right 10:1?

                As for your statement that "[Marx] has failed everywhere," I cannot imagine what you mean. Marx, as a critic of capitalism, succeeded spectacularly. Although modern Marxism as a prescriptive socioeconomic system has had mixed success, it has also been under heavy and continuous assault -- educationally, philosophically, and militarily -- by its capitalist enemies wherever and whenever it has been attempted.

                With regard to Utopianism, the only evidence I see today are Libertarians assuring us we could live in the best of all possible worlds --- so long as they owned every square inch of it and could set the rent without the bother of democratic government.

                Jada 


                On Friday, November 17, 2017 2:57 PM, "Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc]" <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 decay—the stage at which academic thought and indeed higher education have ceased to exist.
                That is the condition that remains after Mr. Shapiro and the legions of police have left campus: More than half of the spectrum of political and social ideas has been banished from the classrooms, and what remains has degenerated as a result. The treatment of visiting speakers calls attention to that condition but is not itself the problem. No matter how much money is spent on security, no matter how many statements supporting free speech are released, the underlying disease continues to metastasize.
                During the long period in which the campus radical left was cleansing the campuses of opposition, it insisted that wasn’t what it was doing. Those denials have suddenly been reversed. The exclusion of any last trace of contrary opinion is not only acknowledged but affirmed. Students and faculty even demand “safe spaces” where there is no danger that they will be exposed to any contrary beliefs.
                It is important to understand why the radical left cleared the campuses of opposing voices. It was not to advance higher education, for that must involve learning to evaluate competing ideas, to analyze the pros and cons of rival arguments and concepts. Shutting down all but one viewpoint is done to achieve the opposite: to pre-empt analysis and understanding. Only in the absence of competing ideas can the radical sect that now controls so much of the campuses hope to thrive and increase its numbers, because it can’t survive open debate and analysis, and its adherents know it.
                Given that treating only symptoms is ultimately pointless, is there any cure for the disease? The radical left won’t voluntarily give up the stranglehold on higher education that it has worked unrelentingly to gain. But that can’t be the end of the matter: The public pays huge sums, both through tuition and taxation, to educate young people, and except in STEM subjects most of that money is being wasted. Those who pay the bills have the power to stop this abuse of higher education if they organize themselves effectively. 
                Colleges need to be accredited; state universities answer to governing boards. Accrediting agencies and governing boards are created through a political process. What if voters were to insist that those agencies demand answers to some elementary questions? For example: How can a department of political science that excludes half the spectrum of viable political ideas be competent to offer degrees in the field? How can a history curriculum be taught competently when only one extremist attitude to social and political questions is present in a department? How can a campus humanities faculty with the same limitation teach competently? How can these extraordinary deficiencies deserve either accreditation, or support by state and federal funds?
                The campus radical monopoly on political ideas amounts to the shutting down of liberal higher education as we have known it. That, not the increasingly frequent violent flare-ups, is the real crisis.
                Mr. Ellis is a professor emeritus of German literature at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and chairman of the California Association of Scholars.
                 
                —————————————
                Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
                Voltaire (1770)
                 
                 


                -- 
                Marjorie and Al Stewart
                250-390-3363

                <image003.jpg><image002.jpg>

                —————————————
                Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
                Voltaire (1770)



              • Steve Kurtz
                ... Capitalism is in the genes, Jada, otherwise it would be the failed system and socialism (Marxism is but one variety) has largely failed. Cuba, Russia, the
                Message 7 of 8 , 17 Nov, 2017


                  On Nov 17, 2017, at 5:18 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                  Steve,

                  While the statement "Marx is history," is true, it is also irrelevant. What is relevant is that it is history that practically has been banned from higher education. Are we then to believe, as Mr. Ellis would have it, that it has been banished by the leftist professors that outnumber the right 10:1?

                  As for your statement that "[Marx] has failed everywhere," I cannot imagine what you mean. Marx, as a critic of capitalism, succeeded spectacularly.

                  Capitalism is in the genes, Jada, otherwise it would be the failed system and socialism (Marxism is but one variety) has largely failed. Cuba, Russia, the whole Eastern Bloc all gravitated to forms of capitalism. The Berlin Wall fell in the process.

                  Although modern Marxism as a prescriptive socioeconomic system has had mixed success, it has also been under heavy and continuous assault -- educationally, philosophically, and militarily -- by its capitalist enemies wherever and whenever it has been attempted.

                  Mainly from within, in USSR, Eastern bloc, Cuba…Your history needs rose lenses removed! ;-)

                  With regard to Utopianism, the only evidence I see

                  That’s due to your lenses! PC BS is rampant in US and Canadian academia. Rants replace debate. You blame libertarians, and they are a tiny % of academics. How about calling the Utopians Idealists? Do you still have the same answer?

                  today are Libertarians assuring us we could live in the best of all possible worlds --- so long as they owned every square inch of it and could set the rent without the bother of democratic government.

                  I see that the boat you occupy has water pouring in from the port side. ;-)

                  Steve

                  Jada 


                  On Friday, November 17, 2017 2:57 PM, "Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc]" <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 decay—the stage at which academic thought and indeed higher education have ceased to exist.
                  That is the condition that remains after Mr. Shapiro and the legions of police have left campus: More than half of the spectrum of political and social ideas has been banished from the classrooms, and what remains has degenerated as a result. The treatment of visiting speakers calls attention to that condition but is not itself the problem. No matter how much money is spent on security, no matter how many statements supporting free speech are released, the underlying disease continues to metastasize.
                  During the long period in which the campus radical left was cleansing the campuses of opposition, it insisted that wasn’t what it was doing. Those denials have suddenly been reversed. The exclusion of any last trace of contrary opinion is not only acknowledged but affirmed. Students and faculty even demand “safe spaces” where there is no danger that they will be exposed to any contrary beliefs.
                  It is important to understand why the radical left cleared the campuses of opposing voices. It was not to advance higher education, for that must involve learning to evaluate competing ideas, to analyze the pros and cons of rival arguments and concepts. Shutting down all but one viewpoint is done to achieve the opposite: to pre-empt analysis and understanding. Only in the absence of competing ideas can the radical sect that now controls so much of the campuses hope to thrive and increase its numbers, because it can’t survive open debate and analysis, and its adherents know it.
                  Given that treating only symptoms is ultimately pointless, is there any cure for the disease? The radical left won’t voluntarily give up the stranglehold on higher education that it has worked unrelentingly to gain. But that can’t be the end of the matter: The public pays huge sums, both through tuition and taxation, to educate young people, and except in STEM subjects most of that money is being wasted. Those who pay the bills have the power to stop this abuse of higher education if they organize themselves effectively. 
                  Colleges need to be accredited; state universities answer to governing boards. Accrediting agencies and governing boards are created through a political process. What if voters were to insist that those agencies demand answers to some elementary questions? For example: How can a department of political science that excludes half the spectrum of viable political ideas be competent to offer degrees in the field? How can a history curriculum be taught competently when only one extremist attitude to social and political questions is present in a department? How can a campus humanities faculty with the same limitation teach competently? How can these extraordinary deficiencies deserve either accreditation, or support by state and federal funds?
                  The campus radical monopoly on political ideas amounts to the shutting down of liberal higher education as we have known it. That, not the increasingly frequent violent flare-ups, is the real crisis.
                  Mr. Ellis is a professor emeritus of German literature at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and chairman of the California Association of Scholars.
                   
                  —————————————
                  Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
                  Voltaire (1770)
                   
                   


                  -- 
                  Marjorie and Al Stewart
                  250-390-3363

                  <image003.jpg><image002.jpg>

                  —————————————
                  Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
                  Voltaire (1770)





                  —————————————
                  Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
                  Voltaire (1770)

                • narguimbau@earthlink.net
                  Interestingarticle.  It seems as if the radical right would generally agree with it, just as if you substituted right and left throughout, the radical
                  Message 8 of 8 , 20 Nov, 2017

                    Interestingarticle.  It seems as if the radical right would generally agree with it, just as if you substituted "right" and "left" throughout, the radical left would generally agree with it. That suggests that the radical right are quite as ignorant of the state of the educational system  and the state of their own ignorance as are the radical left.  I carried on an occasional dialog for years with my cousin, a former Marine who alluded to Jane Fonda as a "communist traitor" who should receive the death penalty, and to both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama as "extreme radical socialists."  I had him pinpointed as "radical right"until he permitted me to listen in on his on-line conversations with other ex-Marines, making it clear that among them he was a "moderate."


                    On 11/17/2017 8:02 AM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [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.


                    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 decay—the stage at which academic thought and indeed higher education have ceased to exist.

                    That is the condition that remains after Mr. Shapiro and the legions of police have left campus: More than half of the spectrum of political and social ideas has been banished from the classrooms, and what remains has degenerated as a result. The treatment of visiting speakers calls attention to that condition but is not itself the problem. No matter how much money is spent on security, no matter how many statements supporting free speech are released, the underlying disease continues to metastasize.

                    During the long period in which the campus radical left was cleansing the campuses of opposition, it insisted that wasn’t what it was doing. Those denials have suddenly been reversed. The exclusion of any last trace of contrary opinion is not only acknowledged but affirmed. Students and faculty even demand “safe spaces” where there is no danger that they will be exposed to any contrary beliefs.

                    It is important to understand why the radical left cleared the campuses of opposing voices. It was not to advance higher education, for that must involve learning to evaluate competing ideas, to analyze the pros and cons of rival arguments and concepts. Shutting down all but one viewpoint is done to achieve the opposite: to pre-empt analysis and understanding. Only in the absence of competing ideas can the radical sect that now controls so much of the campuses hope to thrive and increase its numbers, because it can’t survive open debate and analysis, and its adherents know it.

                    Given that treating only symptoms is ultimately pointless, is there any cure for the disease? The radical left won’t voluntarily give up the stranglehold on higher education that it has worked unrelentingly to gain. But that can’t be the end of the matter: The public pays huge sums, both through tuition and taxation, to educate young people, and except in STEM subjects most of that money is being wasted. Those who pay the bills have the power to stop this abuse of higher education if they organize themselves effectively.

                    Colleges need to be accredited; state universities answer to governing boards. Accrediting agencies and governing boards are created through a political process. What if voters were to insist that those agencies demand answers to some elementary questions? For example: How can a department of political science that excludes half the spectrum of viable political ideas be competent to offer degrees in the field? How can a history curriculum be taught competently when only one extremist attitude to social and political questions is present in a department? How can a campus humanities faculty with the same limitation teach competently? How can these extraordinary deficiencies deserve either accreditation, or support by state and federal funds?

                    The campus radical monopoly on political ideas amounts to the shutting down of liberal higher education as we have known it. That, not the increasingly frequent violent flare-ups, is the real crisis.

                    Mr. Ellis is a professor emeritus of German literature at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and chairman of the California Association of Scholars.



                    —————————————
                    Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
                    Voltaire (1770)


                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.