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

Re: [gaiapc] Higher Education’s Deeper Sickness

Expand Messages
  • Richard Balfour
    it is true that Marx is history really but Marx did not fail, .... Stalin might have ... Richard Balfour Strategic Planner ò SPORPORI Strategic Planning for
    Message 1 of 9 , 17 Nov, 2017
      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 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)



      Richard Balfour  
      Strategic Planner
      • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

      7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
      Balfour Strategic Planning
      www.plancanada.com

      • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www.vancouverpeakoil.org

      balfourarch@...











    • Richard Balfour
      folks who criticize marx without actually reading him, but rely on cold war rhetoric, are sure to repeat it. r ... Richard Balfour Strategic Planner ò
      Message 2 of 9 , 17 Nov, 2017
        folks who criticize marx without actually reading him, but rely on cold war rhetoric, are sure to repeat it.
        r
        On 2017-11-17, at 2:18 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@... [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. 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)





        Richard Balfour  
        Strategic Planner
        • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

        7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
        Balfour Strategic Planning
        www.plancanada.com

        • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www.vancouverpeakoil.org

        balfourarch@...











      • Marjorie and Al
        The real dilemma is how to balance individualism with co-operation. Large scale is the enemy.á Leads to over-centralisation. Too much power in too few hands
        Message 3 of 9 , 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)

        • Steve Kurtz
          I read Marx at age 17, and again in my early 20s. So, I “repeated it!” And I didn’t bring up Marx. The issue here is the % of far left, overly PC,
          Message 4 of 9 , 18 Nov, 2017
            I read Marx at age 17, and again in my early 20s. So, I “repeated it!” And I didn’t bring up Marx. The issue here is the % of far left, overly PC, ideologues in US & Canadian Academia. (much of Europe, Australia, and NZ are similar in my opinion)

            Steve

            On Nov 17, 2017, at 7:13 PM, Richard Balfour balfourarch@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:

            folks who criticize marx without actually reading him, but rely on cold war rhetoric, are sure to repeat it.

            r
            On 2017-11-17, at 2:18 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@... [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. 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)





            Richard Balfour  
            Strategic Planner
            • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

            7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
            Balfour Strategic Planning
            www.plancanada.com

            • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www.vancouverpeakoil.org

            balfourarch@...













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

          • Helmut L
            Thanks, Jada, Richard. I have little knowledge of Political Correctness in the USofA. In Germany (and other countries) intolerance is rife on Facebook, with
            Message 5 of 9 , 19 Nov, 2017

              Thanks, Jada, Richard.

              I have little knowledge of Political Correctness in the USofA.
              In Germany (and other countries) intolerance is rife on Facebook, with horrible (sexist) hatespeech). In everyday life it's mainly the pro-Erdogan Turks who are very intolerant. Turkish-descend politicians and media people need and get police protection. A horror. Why not boycott Erdogan dictatorial country, close the borders? The anti-immigrantion party  in former GDR laender are pretty violent as well.
              In Switzerland, Germany, The Netherlands, and other West-European countries freedom of speech is a given. There's no police at universities. Campuses are  few. Often university departments are spread ouf over the city. Haven't heard of free speech problems in NZ and Australia.
              In Poland andHungary the regimes arelibertycidal. The EU threatened to cut funding if anti-democratic laws are not repealed.

              Marjorie, the enemy *is* "large scale", and *capitalism*. Marx was very successful indeed, albeit not the various communist (*not* socialist) countries.

              Cuba is/was certainly no holy land from a human rights' perspective, but socially they did remarkably well, despite USAmerican bullying with docile W.-Europen compliance.

              HL
              www.ecoglobe.ch/scenarios
              www.ecoglobe.ch/requiem

              Le 18 nov. 2017 07:46, "Marjorie and Al marjorieandalstewart@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> a écrit :
               

              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@... [m ailto: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@sbcglobal. net [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

              (Message over 64 KB, truncated)

            • Steve Kurtz
              This has been going on in NZ for some years. I can find evidence from other countries if there are other doubters. ... Steve ...
              Message 6 of 9 , 19 Nov, 2017

                This has been going on in NZ for some years. I can find evidence from other countries if there are other doubters.

                Steve


                On Nov 19, 2017, at 2:16 PM, Helmut L helmut.lubbers@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                Thanks, Jada, Richard.

                I have little knowledge of Political Correctness in the USofA.
                In Germany (and other countries) intolerance is rife on Facebook, with horrible (sexist) hatespeech). In everyday life it's mainly the pro-Erdogan Turks who are very intolerant. Turkish-descend politicians and media people need and get police protection. A horror. Why not boycott Erdogan dictatorial country, close the borders? The anti-immigrantion party  in former GDR laender are pretty violent as well.
                In Switzerland, Germany, The Netherlands, and other West-European countries freedom of speech is a given. There's no police at universities. Campuses are  few. Often university departments are spread ouf over the city. Haven't heard of free speech problems in NZ and Australia.
                In Poland andHungary the regimes arelibertycidal. The EU threatened to cut funding if anti-democratic laws are not repealed.

                Marjorie, the enemy *is* "large scale", and *capitalism*. Marx was very successful indeed, albeit not the various communist (*not* socialist) countries.

                Cuba is/was certainly no holy land from a human rights' perspective, but socially they did remarkably well, despite USAmerican bullying with docile W.-Europen compliance.

                HL
                www.ecoglobe.ch/scenarios
                www.ecoglobe.ch/requiem


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

              • Helmut L
                Thanks, Steve. A very interesting article containing a variety of quotes and opinions. I understand that the Moon statement is not supported by a majority.
                Message 7 of 9 , 21 Nov, 2017

                  Thanks, Steve.
                  A very interesting article containing a variety of quotes and opinions.
                  I understand that the "Moon" statement is not supported by a majority.
                  Also people seem to object to the introduction of a hate speech law.

                  HL
                  www.ecoglobe.ch/scenarios
                  www.ecoglobe.ch/requiem

                  Le 19 nov. 2017 21:01, "Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> a écrit :
                   


                  This has been going on in NZ for some years. I can find evidence from other countries if there are other doubters.

                  Steve


                  On Nov 19, 2017, at 2:16 PM, Helmut L helmut.lubbers@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                  Thanks, Jada, Richard.

                  I have little knowledge of Political Correctness in the USofA.
                  In Germany (and other countries) intolerance is rife on Facebook, with horrible (sexist) hatespeech). In everyday life it's mainly the pro-Erdogan Turks who are very intolerant. Turkish-descend politicians and media people need and get police protection. A horror. Why not boycott Erdogan dictatorial country, close the borders? The anti-immigrantion party  in former GDR laender are pretty violent as well.
                  In Switzerland, Germany, The Netherlands, and other West-European countries freedom of speech is a given. There's no police at universities. Campuses are  few. Often university departments are spread ouf over the city. Haven't heard of free speech problems in NZ and Australia.
                  In Poland andHungary the regimes arelibertycidal. The EU threatened to cut funding if anti-democratic laws are not repealed.

                  Marjorie, the enemy *is* "large scale", and *capitalism*. Marx was very successful indeed, albeit not the various communist (*not* socialist) countries.

                  Cuba is/was certainly no holy land from a human rights' perspective, but socially they did remarkably well, despite USAmerican bullying with docile W.-Europen compliance.

                  HL
                  www.ecoglobe.ch/scenarios
                  www.ecoglobe.ch/requiem


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

                • Helmut L
                  Steve, gaiapc list, I asked a good NZ friend, who is a very experienced, senior journalist at the NZHerald. Further down is his noteworthy reply. I don t
                  Message 8 of 9 , 21 Nov, 2017

                    Steve, gaiapc list,

                    I asked a good NZ friend, who is a very experienced, senior journalist at the NZHerald.
                    Further down is his noteworthy reply.

                    I don't intend making a study of political correctness in other countries. I lived in NZ for almost seven years intermittantly between 1987 and 2000.

                    I wrote about my knowledge of European countries. Anglo-Saxons are different, in my view and experience.

                    Helmut L

                    <<< mail copy >>>
                    Thanks for your email; it’s always good to hear from you!

                    There is some truth in what Paul Moon and others say about the pressure to conform to liberal orthodoxies in the university system. Certainly I was appalled at the Auckland University students’ vote to deregister an anti-abortion group on campus, although they did subsequently rescind that decision and allow the group to continue. I think the more worrying pressures in universities are around not upsetting the authorities who control the research grants – I have seen examples where academics decided not to criticise university policies publicly for that reason. There are also pressures to pass students for financial reasons – so that the universities get their fees again the next year. We do need to be constantly vigilant about all these things because they are in the nature of big bureaucratic systems.

                    This is a story which may be relevant about “hate speech” laws concerning a pastor who said homosexual people who marry should be shot:

                    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11905557

                    Personally I think even such extreme speech should be tolerated in a free society, and I’m glad that no party has picked up the calls for a specific law against hate speech.

                    With best wishes, keep up the good work,

                    [A quote from the article: " Police have decided not to take any action against a West Auckland pastor who said gay people should be shot "through their head the moment they kiss".]

                    <<< my question: >>>
                    Hello ...,

                    Is this really a problem in NZ or is it jumping on the band wagon of trend news (USA)?

                    Kia ora ... Helmut
                    <<< === >>>
                    <<<===>>>

                    On 19/11/2017, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > This has been going on in NZ for some years. I can find evidence from other
                    > countries if there are other doubters.
                    >
                    >> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11838436
                    >> <http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11838436>
                    > Steve
                    >
                    >
                    >> On Nov 19, 2017, at 2:16 PM, Helmut L helmut.lubbers@... [gaiapc]
                    >> <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                    >>
                    >>
                    >> Thanks, Jada, Richard.
                    >>
                    >> I have little knowledge of Political Correctness in the USofA.
                    >> In Germany (and other countries) intolerance is rife on Facebook, with
                    >> horrible (sexist) hatespeech). In everyday life it's mainly the
                    >> pro-Erdogan Turks who are very intolerant. Turkish-descend politicians and
                    >> media people need and get police protection. A horror. Why not boycott
                    >> Erdogan dictatorial country, close the borders? The anti-immigrantion
                    >> party in former GDR laender are pretty violent as well.
                    >> In Switzerland, Germany, The Netherlands, and other West-European
                    >> countries freedom of speech is a given. There's no police at universities.
                    >> Campuses are few. Often university departments are spread ouf over the
                    >> city. Haven't heard of free speech problems in NZ and Australia.
                    >> In Poland andHungary the regimes arelibertycidal. The EU threatened to cut
                    >> funding if anti-democratic laws are not repealed.
                    >>
                    >> Marjorie, the enemy *is* "large scale", and *capitalism*. Marx was very
                    >> successful indeed, albeit not the various communist (*not* socialist)
                    >> countries.
                    >>
                    >> Cuba is/was certainly no holy land from a human rights' perspective, but
                    >> socially they did remarkably well, despite USAmerican bullying with docile
                    >> W.-Europen compliance.
                    >>
                    >> HL
                    >> www.ecoglobe.ch/scenarios <http://www.ecoglobe.ch/scenarios>
                    >> www.ecoglobe.ch/requiem <http://www.ecoglobe.ch/requiem>
                    >>
                    >
                    > —————————————
                    > Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
                    > Voltaire (1770)
                    >
                    >

                    --
                    HLubbers www.ecoglobe.ch/requiem

                  • Steve Kurtz
                    Thanks for sharing the response, Helmut. He seems balanced and his criticism re grants is legitimate. In the US most pressures re research grants are from
                    Message 9 of 9 , 23 Nov, 2017
                      Thanks for sharing the response, Helmut. He seems balanced and his criticism re grants is legitimate. In the US most pressures re research grants are from corporations and industry group associations. (not the US govt)

                      Steve

                      On Nov 21, 2017, at 5:03 PM, Helmut L helmut.lubbers@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                      Steve, gaiapc list,

                      I asked a good NZ friend, who is a very experienced, senior journalist at the NZHerald.
                      Further down is his noteworthy reply.

                      I don't intend making a study of political correctness in other countries. I lived in NZ for almost seven years intermittantly between 1987 and 2000. 

                      I wrote about my knowledge of European countries. Anglo-Saxons are different, in my view and experience.

                      Helmut L

                      <<< mail copy >>>
                      Thanks for your email; it’s always good to hear from you!

                      There is some truth in what Paul Moon and others say about the pressure to conform to liberal orthodoxies in the university system. Certainly I was appalled at the Auckland University students’ vote to deregister an anti-abortion group on campus, although they did subsequently rescind that decision and allow the group to continue. I think the more worrying pressures in universities are around not upsetting the authorities who control the research grants – I have seen examples where academics decided not to criticise university policies publicly for that reason. There are also pressures to pass students for financial reasons – so that the universities get their fees again the next year. We do need to be constantly vigilant about all these things because they are in the nature of big bureaucratic systems.

                      This is a story which may be relevant about “hate speech” laws concerning a pastor who said homosexual people who marry should be shot:

                      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11905557

                      Personally I think even such extreme speech should be tolerated in a free society, and I’m glad that no party has picked up the calls for a specific law against hate speech.

                      With best wishes, keep up the good work,

                      [A quote from the article: " Police have decided not to take any action against a West Auckland pastor who said gay people should be shot "through their head the moment they kiss".]

                      <<< my question: >>>
                      Hello ...,

                      Is this really a problem in NZ or is it jumping on the band wagon of trend news (USA)?

                      Kia ora ... Helmut
                      <<< === >>>
                      <<<===>>>

                      On 19/11/2017, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                      > 
                      > This has been going on in NZ for some years. I can find evidence from other
                      > countries if there are other doubters.
                      > 
                      >> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11838436
                      >> <http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11838436>
                      > Steve
                      > 
                      > 
                      >> On Nov 19, 2017, at 2:16 PM, Helmut L helmut.lubbers@... [gaiapc]
                      >> <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                      >> 
                      >> 
                      >> Thanks, Jada, Richard.
                      >> 
                      >> I have little knowledge of Political Correctness in the USofA.
                      >> In Germany (and other countries) intolerance is rife on Facebook, with
                      >> horrible (sexist) hatespeech). In everyday life it's mainly the
                      >> pro-Erdogan Turks who are very intolerant. Turkish-descend politicians and
                      >> media people need and get police protection. A horror. Why not boycott
                      >> Erdogan dictatorial country, close the borders? The anti-immigrantion
                      >> party in former GDR laender are pretty violent as well.
                      >> In Switzerland, Germany, The Netherlands, and other West-European
                      >> countries freedom of speech is a given. There's no police at universities.
                      >> Campuses are few. Often university departments are spread ouf over the
                      >> city. Haven't heard of free speech problems in NZ and Australia.
                      >> In Poland andHungary the regimes arelibertycidal. The EU threatened to cut
                      >> funding if anti-democratic laws are not repealed.
                      >> 
                      >> Marjorie, the enemy *is* "large scale", and *capitalism*. Marx was very
                      >> successful indeed, albeit not the various communist (*not* socialist)
                      >> countries.
                      >> 
                      >> Cuba is/was certainly no holy land from a human rights' perspective, but
                      >> socially they did remarkably well, despite USAmerican bullying with docile
                      >> W.-Europen compliance.
                      >> 
                      >> HL
                      >> www.ecoglobe.ch/scenarios <http://www.ecoglobe.ch/scenarios>
                      >> www.ecoglobe.ch/requiem <http://www.ecoglobe.ch/requiem>
                      >> 
                      > 
                      > —————————————
                      > Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
                      > Voltaire (1770)
                      > 
                      >

                      -- 
                      HLubbers www.ecoglobe.ch/requiem



                      —————————————
                      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.