It has now been over a month since the initial pepper-spraying incident that caught the attention of the region, the state, the nation and even the world. In the aftermath of that event, the Vanguard joined many others in calling for the chancellor to resign.
The reason we argued that the chancellor should resign is that (A) we believe the police acted wrongly on that day in November in violation of the university’s and UC’s use of force protocol and also, according to case law, we believe they acted in violation of the 4th Amendment, (B) the chancellor was too busy attending to other matters to address a critical precursor to the pepper-spraying event, and (C) in the aftermath of pepper spraying, the chancellor appeared to have first backed police action and then slowly changed her view – eventually both taking responsibility and shirking from it.
However, we now revisit our view, taking into account current dynamics and most recent information.
This past weekend, Nathan Brown, who has now become an outspoken critic of the university as well as an English Professor, wrote an op-ed which reviews the case for the chancellor’s resignation, after having written an open letter demanding that resignation immediately following the November 18 event.
He argues, “It is no small thing for the majority of the faculty in two of the largest and most important departments in the sciences and humanities, physics and English, to call for the resignation of a university chancellor.”
Professor Brown adds: “It is even more significant when this call is joined by other departments and by more than 100,000 people, including thousands of UCD students, faculty, staff and alumni, as well as residents of the city of Davis.”
He then examines some facts involved in her decision and argues, “Despite the chancellor’s efforts to sow ambiguity concerning her orders to police, these calls for her resignation are ultimately grounded in an irrefutable fact: One week after the chancellor of UC Berkeley ordered riot police to remove an encampment on that campus, and one week after student and faculty demonstrators were brutally beaten by those police, Chancellor Katehi made the same decision in the same circumstances at UC Davis. She also ordered riot police to remove an encampment, and the same result, followed: police violence against students.”
Professor Brown argues that this decision is not merely a mistake or oversight, but the repetition and, indeed, continuation of polices that failed elsewhere in the University of California, just over a week previously.
He argues, “The chancellor already had ample opportunity to learn the lesson of what happened at Berkeley, she either failed or refused to do so.”
Professor Brown then notes that she took “full responsibility” for the events of Nov. 18. He then agrees with her and argues resignation ought to be her acceptance of the consequences.
Toward that end, “Since Nov. 18, the inconsistency of the chancellor’s response to calls for her resignation has not alleviated but rather exacerbated her failure of leadership. On the one hand, she has accepted full responsibility; on the other, she has attempted to displace blame onto the vice chancellor and the police.”
He notes that the investigations that have been underway “are riddled with conflicts of interest that belie their supposed independence and objectivity.” Thus, they only provide cover by allowing “the chancellor to respond to direct questions concerning her decisions on Nov. 18 by saying she is no longer at liberty to speak about the matter.”
He adds to this point, noting that the chancellor has formed an advisory board with the CEOs of large multinational corporations. “In the midst of international condemnation concerning the suppression of free speech and political dissent through police violence on our campus, Chancellor Katehi has chosen to surround herself with university administrators who have also used riot police to quell student protest and who have resigned amid scandals concerning the inappropriate use of administrative power. She has chosen to surround herself with the CEOs of corporations tied to war profiteering and environmental catastrophes.”
He argues: “While the chancellor now pretends to support the efforts of students and faculty to defend the public mission of the UC system, the composition of her new Advisory Board exemplifies a different vision: a future in which the shared governance of the university is replaced by ties to corporate interests that hasten, rather than struggle against, the privatization of the UC system.”
Professor Brown concludes his case, arguing, “What these developments since Nov. 18 confirm is what many students and faculty already realized then: that the chancellor’s decision to deploy riot police against students demonstrating in defense of public education was no ‘mistake’ and had nothing to do with the ‘health and safety’ of the campus community.”
He adds, “Rather, it was the political content of the students’ protest that had to be suppressed due to the chancellor’s own political commitment and her own vision for the future of UC Davis: a commitment to the privatization of a great public university and a vision in which the interests of corporations and administrators take precedence over those of students.”
“Those of us calling for the chancellor’s resignation do not share that vision. There are many of us, and that is encouraging. For the good of the university, we continue to insist that the chancellor needs to step down,” writes Professor Brown.
While I do not disagree with what Professor Nathan Brown writes here or with his concerns over the future direction of the university, at the same time he seems to conflate issues. Is this call for resignation a call for her to step down over the mishandling of the pepper-spraying incident and its aftermath? Or is it more general discontent over the future of the university?
There is little doubt that Professor Brown and many of his supporters would argue that there is no distinction between the two, that they go together, part and parcel. However, I believe he makes a grave error connecting the two.
There are those who, for a variety of reasons, believe we ought to wait to decide the fate of Ms. Katehi.
UC Davis Law School Dean Kevin Johnson argues, “We must not be hurried into possibly ill-advised judgments.”
He believes that “immediate actions to ensure student safety have been taken.” Now, he argues for basic principles of due process and fairness.
He writes, “These investigations will proceed with the fundamental constitutional acknowledgment that students enjoy a robust right to free expression and peaceful protest – part of the proud history of the University of California. The students are demonstrating against drastic fee increases caused by the state’s budget crisis and a general – and accelerating – defunding of public education by the state of California. We all should applaud the students’ passion for ensuring that public education remains accessible to students from all walks of life.”
He then notes, “The university, of course, bears the responsibility of keeping students safe as they exercise their rights. University policy bars the placement of tents and other structures on the campus to protect students from violence, sexual assaults and sanitation issues, such as those that plague Occupy camps across the country.”
Dean Johnson was one of several to be principle signers of Walter Leal’s letter in support of Chancellor Katehi: “We strongly believe that Linda Katehi is well-qualified to lead our university through this difficult healing process and oppose the premature calls for her resignation; this is not in the best interest of our university,” wrote the distinguished entomology professor.
At the same time, the letter indicates, “We are appalled by the events of Friday, Nov. 18, on the Quad, but heartened by the chancellor’s apology and her commitment to listen to and work on the students’ concerns.”
The view of Kevin Johnson can be seen as quite reasonable: “I believe that the investigations should be allowed to run their courses before further action is taken.”
He concludes, “Ultimately, we should allow the investigations of the pepper-spraying incident to run their courses. Only then can we, as a community, decide what changes and actions are needed. Due process of law and the integrity of our university require no less.”
But it comes with some risks. The first risk is that if the immediate pressure and energy subsides, the chancellor can survive even if she mishandled this event.
Second, there are those who question the sincerity of William Bratton and the large multinational Kroll corporation he works for.
Was Mr. Bratton, the former LA Police Chief, brought in to find the truth or to clean up the mess? There is a risk there. President Yudof was very clever bringing in a man of Cruz Reynoso’s clout, even if many of the Occupy students have no idea who he is or what his legacy has brought.
But if Justice Reynoso is never presented with a real investigation with real findings, we have a problem.
The DA’s Office and Sheriff’s Department were asked to investigate criminal elements of this matter. They made a wise decision to acknowledge their own conflicted roles in all of this and push the matter to the Attorney General’s Office.
We have nothing but disappointment from learning that the AG’s Office has punted on this matter.
The bottom line is that, while we are inclined at this point to allow the investigation to go forward and bring forth results – we are skeptical that this will reveal much, and believe that they will hang this debacle on the lowest possible elements of the chain of command and hope for the best.
The one wild card in this is going to be whether the investors and donors in the university are moved by any of this. If Chancellor Katehi is seen as damaged goods, that could form the impetus to remove her.
But there is also a cautionary tale involved here, and it goes back to the comments of Nathan Brown. While I believe his argument is misplaced, I do not believe he is wrong.
The problem is that the people who named Linda Katehi are the same people who will name her replacement. Ultimately, I believe that Ms. Katehi is not the one to blame for the underlying problems, but rather the UC System, the President, the Board of Regents and even our legislature.
I do not have a good answer to any of this, but in the end, I suspect that Linda Katehi is less the kingmaker in this and more the court jester, playing the predictable, even comedic, part in this larger tragedy that has befallen higher education in this state and this nation.
At this point, I see no reason why Linda Katehi should remain on as chancellor, but I await the results of the inquiry to show if I err in this view.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Thanks for re-stating the patently obvious: [i]I do not have a good answer to any of this[/i]. No one does at this point.
I really don’t have a problem with people disagreeing with me, even in negative and condescending ways, but for some reason those kind of comments grate on me. It seems to make sense to revisit the issue a few weeks later, evaluate various opinions, and recast my own. We’ll see what happens, I’m skeptical that this is going to resolve itself cleanly.
$10,000,000 for a new art museum. If she continues to bring in this kind of money she is likely to survive even though her tenure will probably never recover. Will someone lower get fired? I doubt Meyer will go because of West Village although his portfolio will be changed. This leaves the cops to take the fall for gleefully executing the policies of the elite of California.
“This leaves the cops to take the fall for gleefully executing the policies of the elite of California.”
Oooooh, the big conspiracy. LOL
[quote]“While I do not disagree with what Professor Nathan Brown writes here and his concerns over the future direction of the university, at the same time he seems to conflate issues here. Is this call for resignation a call for her to step down over the mishandling of the pepper spraying incident and its aftermath? Or is it more general discontent over the future of the university.”[/quote]It’s quite clear by simply looking at Nathan Brown’s past writings and perusing his blog. He’s obviously [u]not[/u] the mild-mannered college instructor portrayed here (the man “who has now become an outspoken critic of the university as well as an English Professor….”).
This is at least the third time the [u]Vanguard[/u] has re-run Brown’s incendiary blabberings without taking the time to find out that he’s the closest thing to a bomb-throwing anarchist to show up on the UCD payroll in recent years. He’s got a long history demanding that we toss out all “authorities” from our universities, leaving the schools to his ilk and the students.
There is no question about whether his resignation demands evolve from the pepper-spray incident or “general discontent”–why do you even pose the question? He immediately demanded Katehi’s resignation. (Of course, you were right there too.)
So, in short, the obvious answer to your “question” is that Brown is an opportunist in the pepper-spray incident, using it as just another way of stirring up discontent with university authorities.
JustSaying, well said and I agree with everything you stated. In my opinion we don’t need professors like that on campus teaching our kids.
I think PepperSprayGate has been milked sufficiently for all its juice supporting anti-law enforcement activism. And, if the Occupy crowd is going to extract the maximum benefit from the media-fired manufactured moral outrage of the event, the debate should focus on their motivations for protesting and breaking the law in the first place. Should the chancellor step down because of this incident? I don’t know. One could argue that the attention by the national media has been free advertising for the university. I might be good to follow up with some controlled market studies of high school seniors as to their opinion of UCD before and after PepperSprayGate.
The decision for Katehi being replaced should come down to her performance, and projected performance, for achieving the goals of the university based on its mission. I question whether she is the right type of leader for these challenging and difficult times of shattered budgets. I also question whether her reputation, and hence her capability to lead, has been too damaged from the media circus surrounding PepperSprayGate.
I think UCD, and frankly many colleges across the country, are facing a need to completely reinvent their business model. This is going to be like pulling teeth for an industry steeped in tweedy tradition. However, it is clear that the decades of price inflation for a college education has reached a crucible. It is a new bubble about ready to pop. The return on investment for a $150,000 undergraduate degree is just not there. This is what is driving the campus protests… cost inflation without commensurate job opportunities. The job opportunities are not likely to catch up given the massive economic correction from all the fake housing bubble economic growth. Also, we are experiencing a global wage leveling with emerging economies. But UCD brass is doing nothing to address this growing problem of too high education costs in a changed economic picture. This more than anything else is the reasons students should be demanding the chancellor resign.
[quote]In my opinion we don’t need professors like that on campus teaching our kids. [/quote]I respectfully disagree… we, as a society, need people like Mr Brown to teach our future leaders that there are demagogues and liars in the world, purporting to have knowledge/wisdom, so the students will learn to use their own Knowles and judgment to come to conclusions… I learned so much over the years by having idiots spew their venom, allowing me to recognize it as such.
had a spell-check malfunction… Not ‘Knowles’, but ‘knowledge’… my bad…
Tahir Square…. UCD campuses. A difference in the degree of brutality but
otherwise,predictably, the same response to populist challenge to
entrenched power.
I see that many of the commenters on this website are resorting to unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks against Professor Brown in order to justify their own implied or stated position—that the police and other authority figures can do no wrong.
Let’s recap the pepper spray incident: students protesting the UC administration’s agenda of privatization and police brutality at UC Berkeley are brutalized by cops sent by a UC chancellor to suppress their protest.
To understand the events otherwise requires some incredible perversions of truth and logic, as well as distasteful victim blaming.
Professor Brown is not the only one calling for Katehi’s resignation, nor is he the only one calling for the removal of police from our campuses. But he is a convenient figurehead for the media (because he’s vocal) and for police apologists (because a google search reveals that his course readings include Marx—the horror!).
In the future, please dispense with the distracting commentary about Brown’s supposed anarchism and Katehi’s supposed fitness for the job and get straight to the heart of the matter. Here’s a sample template:
“I support [pepper spray / police brutality / militarized campus cops] because those students are [dirty hippies / commies / spoiled brats] and they’re lucky those cops showed restraint by not [breaking bones / killing them / throwing them all in jail for a month].”
hpierce: [i]”I learned so much over the years by having idiots spew their venom, allowing me to recognize it as such.”[/i]
I think you are the exception.
Kids at this age are still very impressionable and generally have not yet formed any solid view of the world before they attend college. I have spent plenty of time helping some of these young minds unwind from the brainwashing they have received from the likes of Professor Brown.
I think people like Professor Brown should not be allowed to teach unless he is, in fact, made to be clear and transparent in his beliefs and is compelled to allow challenges to these beliefs in his classes. He is a purveyor of extreme left ideology and I have the same opinion of anyone spewing extreme right ideology. If you wanted to create armies of ideologues to help you advance your political agenda, the colleges are the perfect venue.
“Kids at this age are still very impressionable and generally have not yet formed any solid view of the world before they attend college. I have spent plenty of time helping some of these young minds unwind from the brainwashing they have received from the likes of Professor Brown.”
Screw college, we’ll just send everyone to learn at the feet of Jeff Boone, purveyor of the blank slate theory of impressionable young minds.
crank: I think I like you!
[i]”This past weekend, [b]Nathan Brown,[/b] who has now become an outspoken critic of the university as well as an English Professor, wrote an op-ed which reviews the case for the chancellor’s resignation, after having written an open letter demanding that resignation immediately following the November 18 event.”[/i]
I think there is no good reason to listen to Nathan Brown. It’s not as if he is some very experienced or highly regarded academic. He just completed his PhD in 2008 and he has done nothing of note yet in his academic career.
Further, it’s not as if Nathan Brown’s political views are mainstream. He is extreme as it gets. Brown has the right to be a marxist. He has the right to advocate for government control and domination of all business. Universities are better off having a diversity of opinions, and his, on the extreme-far-out-left is important to the debate. (UCD would never allow anyone as far right to speak out as Brown is far left.) But just because Brown talks a lot does not mean Brown represents the mainstream of academia or UCD professors or even the left-wingers who make up the English Department. (Brown is wrongly in that department. He belongs in a political philosophy program. Stupidly, English Dept’s put people like Brown in their departments under some bass-ackwards theory of “critical thinking,” when all those “critical thinkers” are communists who only care about their misguided poltical and economic theories.)
crank, you’re such a grouch. Your template doesn’t fit for much of what’s being discussed here. I don’t yet know whether Katehi’s actions warrant firing. I do know I don’t want a repeat of the pepper-spray incident. How about waiting to see what we find out from these reviews?
I have no such doubts about judging Prof. Brown from his own actions following the event and from his own writings: http://bicyclebarricade.wordpress.com/
I’m concerned that the investigations already are being discredited by Brown and others, including David. So, you know the results will be totally unsatisfactory to these folks. What an insult this approach is to Justice Reynoso and the others deserve respect for taking on this thankless job! Oh, the unintended disrespect….
Rifkin, I like you, but you’re such a grouch. Happy Holidays to you all.
“He’s got a long history demanding that we toss out all “authorities” from our universities, leaving the schools to his ilk and the students.”
This may stun you, but I don’t really have a problem with that. I think it’s pretty clear what Nathan Brown is. There are advantages and disadvantages to him.
“I think there is no good reason to listen to Nathan Brown. “
I think there are lots of good reasons to listen to Nathan Brown – he’s both intelligent and perceptive. There are reasons not to, but I think you are sizing the guy up short if you simply ignore him.
“I support [pepper spray / police brutality / militarized campus cops] because those students are [dirty hippies / commies / spoiled brats] and they’re lucky those cops showed restraint by not [breaking bones / killing them / throwing them all in jail for a month].”
I think Crank is probably closer to being correct than some would like to admit.
Some of you seem to be under the impression that the Bicycle Barricade blog is written by Professor Nathan Brown. It is not. The blog is run by a group of current and former UCD students, including myself. The only thing on that blog written by Nathan Brown is his open letter to Katehi. So much for not jumping to conclusions. And you might be grouchy, too, if you’d seen cops pepper spray your friends in the face.
It’s obvious the UCD police chief and Lt. Pike should be fired, and
especially so in light of the fact that at least one other UCD police
officer made repeated written complaints about Pike’s aggressive behaviors prior to the pepper spray incident.
Investigation to look into other aspects of campus law enforcement is a
good idea.
“What an insult this approach is to Justice Reynoso and the others deserve respect for taking on this thankless job!”
I talked to Justice Reynoso about this very problem that he and his crew could have the best intentions in the world and because they are only reviewing the investigation, they may have nothing to work with. Fortunately, I think if Cruz things that, he’s going to raise all hell in his own way. But that’s a real problem that he acknowledges.
From the Washington Post…
[quote]Computer hackers are avenging the Occupy movement by exposing the personal information of police officers who evicted protesters and threatening family-values advocates who led a boycott of an American Muslim television show.
In three Internet postings last week, hackers from the loose online coalition called Anonymous published the email and physical addresses, phone numbers and, in some cases, salary details of thousands of law enforcement officers all over the country.
The hackers said they were retaliating for police violence during evictions of Occupy protest camps in cities around the country, but law enforcement advocates slammed the disclosures as dangerous.[/quote]
The Occupy Movement: Continuing their good work getting Republicans elected in 2012!
to the extent it matters, my opinion is as follows:
Pepper spray use, in this incident, was a gross and disportionate use of force. All should be apalled that it happened.
UCD and the community as a whole, should resolve that this should not recur.
An investigation is proceeding, and should be allowed to play itself out.
If disciplinary measures turn out to be appropriate, they should be instituted.
I believe that those who either used bad judgment, or who could have used better judgment, are likely to avoid the outcomes in the future, perhaps better than someone brought in “cold” to replace them.
We need to work for what is right and just, and avoid retribution/revenge just for the sake of “payback”. We should learn.
I agree with hpierce.
RIF: [i]”I think there is no good reason to listen to Nathan Brown.” [/i]
DAVE: [i]”I think there are lots of good reasons to listen to Nathan Brown – he’s both intelligent and perceptive.”[/i]
I need to clarify my position. I stated it too broadly above. I intended to say [i]I think there is no good reason to listen to Nathan Brown as if he represents the faculty or represents the point of view of longstanding academics or he represents the mainstream perspective on campus.[/i] My perception of Nathan Brown is that he is a short termer. He will be out of Davis in a few years. He does not care if he damages UC Davis. His interest is his marxist ideology, and that ideology is thankfully not widely held among those who care most about UC Davis.
Hemlock for Brown!
Some things never change.
As a pretty conservative person who has taught for 40 years, I agree with Don Shor and hdpierce. Students greatly benefit from the spectrum of ideas, opinions, points of view, and diverse characters that they come across at good universities like UCD. I know from experience that UCD students are discerning and arrive with pretty well formed opinions, ethics, and cultural orientations. Few if any are following pied piper NB. I do not find myself alone in the opinion that NB is a demagogue. It is worth noting that he exhibits similar sets of traits that we all have seen in the current presidential debates.
[quote]What an insult this approach is to Justice Reynoso and the others (who) deserve respect for taking on this thankless job!”
“I talked to Justice Reynoso about this very problem that he and his crew could have the best intentions in the world and because they are only reviewing the investigation, they may have nothing to work with.”[/quote]Are you reporting [u]his[/u] concerns or [u]yours[/u]? I think we should assume that his work will meet your standards, considering his role in the recent unofficial panel. Let’s avoid laying the groundwork to discredit some or all of the results.[quote]“So much for not jumping to conclusions. And you might be grouchy, too, if you’d seen cops pepper spray your friends in the face.” [/quote]I’m glad you’re here to correct the error. I made the assumption because Brown’s letter was “posted by…crank.” So, now I need to go back and determine how much of my impressions of Prof. Brown come from his own writings and speeches and how much I’ve added from the company he keeps. I even (mistakenly, it turns out) gave him extra credit for reprinting one of David’s reports.
Sorry about your friend’s pepper-spray misfortune, but don’t you think they knew that intentional law-breaking comes with some risks, including the risk of force? In the olden days, we were taught how to deal when engaged by the cops. Do you know Jerika Heinze? Can you identify her in the video as one of the targeted spray recipients?
“now I need to go back and determine how much of my impressions of Prof. Brown come from his own writings and speeches and how much I’ve added from the company he keeps”
I suspect you know very little about the company Professor Brown keeps. It’s great that you admit that you’ve been misattributing Bicycle Barricade posts to Brown, but it’s equally erroneous to make assumptions about his personal affiliations based on the fact that his open letter was reposted on a blog after appearing first on the Davis Faculty Association website.
“don’t you think they knew that intentional law-breaking comes with some risks?”
Acts of civil disobedience (I know, it sounds scarier to say “intentional law-breaking”) do not give police carte blanche to use excessive or unnecessary force. And blame doesn’t shift to the protesters just because they know how cops are likely to behave.
“Do you know Jerika Heinze?”
Your comments on a different article make it seem like you doubt Ms. Heinze’s involvement in the pepper spray incident. This article provides a great deal of information about her:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ostertag/uc-davis-pepper-spray_b_1161409.html
Note that this article, written by a UC Davis professor not named Nathan Brown, is very critical of Katehi. In fact, it catches her in a lie. So when she says that she’s committed to the transparency, integrity and independence of the task force investigations, we should perhaps exercise a degree of skepticism.
I agree with GreenandGolden who agrees with Don Shor and hdpierce.
Kids who show up at UCD are able to make up their own minds. Nobody needs to worry that the [u]ideas[/u] they run into here can cause them any long-term damage unless they make some really bad choices.
If something really bad results, we have to accept that as part of the price of having a sort of free and open society. Can’t be blaming our bad choices on other people, even if they’re jerks.
[quote]By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.
The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.
“What’s most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field,” said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. “There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It’s a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you’d expect to be dominated by liberals.”
Religious services take a back seat for many faculty members, with 51 percent saying they rarely or never attend church or synagogue and 31 percent calling themselves regular churchgoers. On the gender front, 72 percent of the full-time faculty are male and 28 percent female.
The findings, by Lichter and fellow political science professors Stanley Rothman of Smith College and Neil Nevitte of the University of Toronto, are based on a survey of 1,643 full-time faculty at 183 four-year schools. The researchers relied on 1999 data from the North American Academic Study Survey, the most recent comprehensive data available.
The study appears in the March issue of the Forum, an online political science journal. It was funded by the Randolph Foundation, a right-leaning group that has given grants to such conservative organizations as the Independent Women’s Forum and Americans for Tax Reform. [/quote]
[quote]Rothman sees the findings as evidence of “possible discrimination” against conservatives in hiring and promotion. Even after factoring in levels of achievement, as measured by published work and organization memberships, “the most likely conclusion” is that “being conservative counts against you,” he said. “It doesn’t surprise me, because I’ve observed it happening.” The study, however, describes this finding as “preliminary.”
When asked about the findings, Jonathan Knight, director of academic freedom and tenure for the American Association of University Professors, said, “The question is how this translates into what happens within the academic community on such issues as curriculum, admission of students, evaluation of students, evaluation of faculty for salary and promotion.” Knight said he isn’t aware of “any good evidence” that personal views are having an impact on campus policies.
“It’s hard to see that these liberal views cut very deeply into the education of students. In fact, a number of studies show the core values that students bring into the university are not very much altered by being in college.”
Rothman, Lichter and Nevitte find a leftward shift on campus over the past two decades. In the last major survey of college faculty, by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in 1984, 39 percent identified themselves as liberal.
In contrast with the finding that nearly three-quarters of college faculty are liberal, a Harris Poll of the general public last year found that 33 percent describe themselves as conservative and 18 percent as liberal.
The liberal label that a majority of the faculty members attached to themselves is reflected on a variety of issues. The professors and instructors surveyed are, strongly or somewhat, in favor of abortion rights (84 percent); believe homosexuality is acceptable (67 percent); and want more environmental protection “even if it raises prices or costs jobs” (88 percent). What’s more, the study found, 65 percent want the government to ensure full employment, a stance to the left of the Democratic Party. [/quote]
[i]”Kids who show up at UCD are able to make up their own minds.”[/i]
Their liberal brainwashing begins in grade school. Their liberal college professors (those that actually teach their classes) only reinforce the one-sided views they have had drilled into their heads.
Let’s count the number of programs that require reading Adam Smith, David Ricardo and Ayn Rand compared to the requirement to read Marx and all the modern definitions of liberal socialism masked to seem just a part of our existing governance structures.
All I know… the kids I get to spend time with and talk social, economic and political topics look at me with wide-eyed astonishment hearing things never before mentioned to them. These things are standard conservative values… things that their teachers do not believe in, and frankly, many do not understand. So how would we expect them to teach it to the students?
“‘possible discrimination’ against conservatives…”
When did this article or study get published? How do we know that the purported disparity isn’t due to self-selection? Are there just as many self-identifying “conservatives” with comparable credentials being passed over for more “liberal” academics?
For what it’s worth, I never felt inundated with a “liberal” or “conservative” ideology much at all in the course of my studies. It has happened to me once and the professor was, I suppose a “liberal,” and I dropped the class because I wasn’t interested in learning about her personal political philosophies and take on things not closely related to the subject matter.
“The liberal brainwashing begins in grade school…”
I don’t recall much brainwashing one way or the other. My recollection is that my primary school education was pretty apolitical and boring. I would’ve loved to have had a more in depth education with respect to the “liberal,” “centrist” and “conservative” schools of thought when applicable.
What ages are these kids you’ve spoken to? These students are all knowledge re: Marx or whoever else? Have you looked at grad school curriculums and seem the liberal indoctrination with your own two eyes?
edit second post:”grade school…”
[quote][b]”Confrontation Between Katehi and Pepper-Sprayed Student Steals Show At Capitol”[/b]
“While lawmakers and campuses leaders were offering little of substance, the show was stolen outside of the proceedings as Chancellor Katehi was confronted by Jerika Heinze, one of the students who was pepper sprayed back at the November protest.
Ms. Heinze told the chancellor, ‘I’ve been contacting you every single day, calling your office, sending you emails, and your assistants said they passed the messages along, and you’ve never responded to me’.
The chancellor responded that she had instructed her staff to set an appointment with her. But Ms. Heinze would not be denied on this day and she flat out denied that this had occurred.
Ms. Katehi’s chief of staff would pull her aside with more promises of an appointment.
But she would tell the media who had gathered to watch this spectacle, ‘It’s so frustrating. I just feel that I’m owed for her to look me in the face, look me in the eye and explain that she understands the position of the students … I mean, we’re not dangerous people, we’re students. I’m not a terrorist, I’m not an anarchist. I’m not any of those things. I’m just a college student doing research at the university’.”[/quote] So, crank… Upon first reading, I wonder why the Chancellor wouldn’t be giving special access and consideration to the row of people who got purposely sprayed in their faces. She’s a fool if she doesn’t have her staff seeking these people out, checking on their conditions, listening to their issues. Their law breaking/civil disobedience has earned them a special place in her management considerations, I say.
Given the attraction this international incident might have for publicity seekers, I want to know if Ms. Heinze really was Pike’s target or if she was sitting at The Graduate watching this unfold on the big-screen television. So, I ask David if he actually knows her involvement level–knowing that he’s reporting her as a pepper-sprayed student.
crank, I have no reason to question Ms. Heinze’s claims. David does, if he wants to be a credible source of information in our community. If someone claims to be something, it’s important to the integrity of one’s publication to determine the facts before “reporting” them.
I know by lengthy observation that David tends to “overlook facts” that don’t fit. Sometimes, this tendency gets buried in his reports. Other times (as in many Judicial Watch stories), they leap out. You’ll note )since you noticed my initial questioning about this) that David tends to ignore these inconvenient issues and that he fails to provide even a minimal response with research/information/corrections.
Truth told, I care more for David’s [u]Vanguard[/u] than I do for the college-level commotion we’re going through with these demonstrations. I’ve seen demonstrators come and go since covering MLK, Vietnam and Chicago-1968. There will be many more reasons for go after the university and other institutions and authority in the future.
But, if David’s enterprise doesn’t succeed, our little town will be much worse for his absence. Since I have only a few days left to help him correct this ongoing deficiency in his standards and practices, I do appreciate your help in providing more information about Ms. Heinze.
Yet, while you’ve been able to promptly satisfy my need for more facts, David either knows what you know and chose to hide it or didn’t care enough to find out what you know. As a journalism professor, Bob Ostertag would give David the same critique I do of his reporting.
On to Prof. Ostertag’s report…[quote]“Jerika was not one of the students who got a triple dose of pepper spray right in the face, but she was close enough to feel its effects.”[/quote]
[i]”Rothman sees the findings as evidence of “possible discrimination” against conservatives in hiring and promotion.”[/i]
If there is some discrimination against conservatives (in some departments), it would not surprise me. There is a human tendency–I doubt I am above it–to mistakenly think someone who thinks differently than you do is either stupid or blinded by his ideology. So when a faculty is overwhelmingly liberal and the subject is subjective, it would seem normal to discriminate in favor of those candidates whose world view causes them to reach the same conclusions you have and exclude those who reach different (wrong?) conclusions on the subject you care most about.
That said, I think the main reason colleges and universities are so overwhelmingly left-leaning is one of self-selection more than institutional prejudice. Smart people whose leanings are more conservative probably like the tangible business world more than the abstract idea world of universities. So those folks, if they finish a PhD, will tend to get a job in industry by choice. At the same time, if you are a liberal or a lefty and you really are turned off by the profit-motive of the business world, you are probably more likely to think of an academic life as most attractive.
I have a good number of doctors in my family, and one thing I have learned from them is that (they say) you can often tell a doctor’s politics by his specialization and his choice of employment. They say those who go into business, starting their own practice or joining an established practice as a business partner, are the most conservative of doctors. Those who work for large hospitals as employees tend to be the most liberals. The former likes the world of business and commerce. The latter does not. …. Some fields in medicine tend to pay extremely well; others less so. Doctors who go into radiology, orthopedic surgery and anesthesiology are more likely to be conservatives. Those who choose pediatrics; internal medicine; or public health tend to be liberals.
It doesn’t take institutional prejudice to make the insurance world or the world of commodities tradeers conservative, any more than it takes prejudice to make college campuses liberal. It’s more that birds of a feather flock together.
….JIMMY CARTER IS MY HERO….JIMMY CARTER IS MY HERO….JIMMY CARTER IS MY HERO….JIMMY CARTER IS MY HERO
DT Businessman aka Michael Bisch….grade school graduate
At some point, this story will become less about debating the actual pepper spraying, the merits of Nathan Brown, Occupiers and whatever else folks keep bringing up on this blog, and more about whether or not Linda Katehi and those working around her were, and continue to be honest about what they knew and when. That is the story.
Unfortunately I think it will take a whistleblower to find out exactly who knew what when, and whether the statements made after the incident are truthful. I don’t think the investigation is independent enough.
Rifkin: [i]”It doesn’t take institutional prejudice to make the insurance world or the world of commodities tradeers conservative, any more than it takes prejudice to make college campuses liberal. It’s more that birds of a feather flock together.”[/i]
First, I enjoyed reading your post. I think you make some good points. I agree that there has been some ideological filtering that has gone on. One I find fascinating is the large cities and coastal areas being blue and the rural areas being red. Did people gravitate there to be around like-thinkers, or become like-thinker after moving there? I think it is more of the former and much less of the latter. However, I still find it fascinating.
I think there are strong personality traits that seem to push a person to one ideology or another. I also see identity politics at play. For example, I know several people that call themselves liberal but then spout opinions about fiscal and social issues that are farther right than my beliefs. However, they could never vote Republican, because it would embarrass them at the cocktail parties. I find little equivalent to this with my conservative friends. They would just as soon pick a fight with their own ilk over the slightest difference of opinion. They are also more apt to vote for a person and not a party. My thinking on this… and this will probably piss some people off… is that people on the left being more secular, and humans actually needing a form of spirituality… some of them have adopted liberalism as their pseudo religion. They cling to their ideology like some conservatives cling to their religion. This then makes them even more prone to bias since nobody likes having their religion challenged.
Where we differ on this topic is the comparison of college campuses and business. First, I have never read any study that said there are more conservatives in any business industry. My experience is that there is a balanced mix. Also, I don’t see too much of connection in those starting a practice or business. Again, I see a pretty balanced mix. Regardless, with educators, we are talking about people trusted with the role of shaping young minds on a broad inventory of topics. Frankly, the arguments coming from insiders that say it does not matter cause me greater concern. I would be much more comfortable hearing something like: “Yeah, we talk about that all the time and have active programs to help identify and eliminate ideological bias in the teaching style or general message. We invite conservative guest speakers frequently to help provide balance.” What we get is a dismissive wave of the hand… and a message: “after all it is only the stupid conservative complaining it… we people with advanced degrees know better.”
Then I have a conversation with a young student or recent graduate and they only seem to know one side of the argument… the left side.
Maybe this is different with BYU students?
Related to the “employee retention” excuse for UC paying higher and higher compensation…
[url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2011/12/14/top-ten-reasons-why-large-companies-fail-to-keep-their-best-talent/2/[/url]
Jeff
“In contrast with the finding that nearly three-quarters of college faculty are liberal, a Harris Poll of the general public last year found that 33 percent describe themselves as conservative and 18 percent as liberal.
The liberal label that a majority of the faculty members attached to themselves is reflected on a variety of issues. The professors and instructors surveyed are, strongly or somewhat, in favor of abortion rights (84 percent); believe homosexuality is acceptable (67 percent); and want more environmental protection “even if it raises prices or costs jobs” (88 percent). What’s more, the study found, 65 percent want the government to ensure full employment, a stance to the left of the Democratic Party.”
If these polls are correctly representing the numbers of conservatives vs liberals in the general population, vs the numbers of faculty, I would come to a different conclusion than you seem to have reached. With such a preponderance
of conservatives in the general populace, it would seem that college students would have arrived on campus thoroughly exposed to conservative values and beliefs ( or brainwashing in your parlance for those who do not agree with you). So, to me it would seem that it would not be unreasonable to counterbalance this pre existing tendency towards the conservative viewpoint with a predominantly liberal one in order to expose students to ideas that have been under represented just by growing up in a conservative leaning society.
However, I do not think this is the case. I would tend to agree with Rifkin that value based self selection plays the biggest role in who ends up in academia and who ends up in business. I happen to value both points of view in our society. I fully recognize the value of business and generation of material wealth within our society. I also value the ideas of those who do not want their philosophy, goals, dreams and life’s work to be dominated by business and materialism. I do not find the promotion of one to the exclusion ( or denigration) of the other to be consistent with
the supposed freedom of thought and expression that some pay lip service to, but would actually like to suppress if given the chance.
Maybe its because conservatives don’t believe in evolution or human impacts on climate. You guys believe in evolution?
The Toad: “You guys believe in evolution?”
Yes I do, tadpoles evolve into toads.
[i]”Yes I do, tadpoles evolve into toads.[/i]
LOL!
I love that the secular, Godless and science types absolutely deny the concept of intelligent design, but accept as complete fact that all living things on this planet evolved from some tarry goo. From my perspective, it is just one theory of miracle over another.
I tend to believe some probability of both theories. It is clear from observation and evidence that generic traits are passed down from prior generations. Natural-selection/survival of the fittest also makes complete sense and is observable.
However, with respect to the theories of evolution, even though the Gazelle can run fast to escape the tiger, both have two eyes, two ears, one heart, and one tail. Darwin himself saw the hand of God in the design of much of the world. Scientists would be wise to at least entertain this premise as filler for all the things they cannot explain yet… unless of course they are just ideologues in a lab coat.
It is ironic to me that the secular left, clinging to their Godless science of evolution, seem to discount their own theories when it clashes with their politics. If evolution is such a power force, then certainly we should be concerned about how humans evolve. For example, if we grow the entitlement state, we evolve into more lazy and entitled animals that lose our self-determination and our ability to fend for ourselves. We also disrupt the survival-of-the-fittest mechanism; for example we encourage more reproduction from those lacking the developed capability to care for their family.
Humans seem to be almost infinitely trainable. The physical and bio-chemical mechanics of Neuroplasticity have been uncovered and well-documented. We would be wise to consider this as it relates to a sort of micro-evolution… the development of a single live during its lifespan. Then, if the theories of species macro evolution are correct, by advancing the development of a single lifespan, these developed traits should be passed to offspring… and hence, the entire species benefits with the advance in capabilities. Consider the generations of welfare families. This is an example of devolution, IMO.
Another devolution example I see is stress coping skills. Thinking back just a few generations ago for what we Americans could cope with in our day-to-day lives – and then noting the mass of maintenance therapists and counselors required today for so many people just to be able to function – it is indicative that we are devolving our capability to cope with the stress of life.
Humans seem to constantly reset to new-normal. Any effective leader knows this and uses it to advantage… setting the new normal to higher and higher achievement. Our nanny government is doing just the opposite. It is setting the new normal to lower and lower achievement. It is training the population that care and prosperity should be provided by others. It is reducing our will and self-determination to go do the things that make life better for us. As if this is not bad enough for a single lifespan, it is allowing the same traits to be passed on to future generations.
We should to start considering the need for higher human expectations and tought love, else we might we devolve to the apes we study.
[i]I love that the secular, Godless and science types absolutely deny the concept of intelligent design, but accept as complete fact that all living things on this planet evolved from some tarry goo….the secular left, clinging to their Godless science of evolution, seem to discount their own theories when it clashes with their politics.[/i]
Jeff, we’ve established in the fact that you know very little about evolutionary biology.
[i]I tend to believe some probability of both theories…. From my perspective, it is just one theory of miracle over another. [/i]
Right. Have you studied either of them? If you had, you would know that only one is a theory, and there is not the slightest equivalence.
Don, instead of discrediting me because I lack the formal education, let’s just have a conversation about what you agree with or not and why. I am certainly not a trained scientist on the subject of evolutionary biology; however, based on the averages, I am probably a very well-read layperson on this subject. If you, as a trained scientists, cannot have a conversation with a person like me because I lack education certification, then you might consider that the usefullness of what you know is limited as you can only talk to yourself about it.
Your denigration of those who accept the theory of evolution makes it hard to have that conversation, Jeff.
“Yes I do, tadpoles evolve into toads.”
No, they develop into toads, they do not evolve.
“however, based on the averages, I am probably a very well-read layperson on this subject…”
What averages?
The average non-scientist’s understanding of the topic.
Don, I don’t denigrate those that accept the theory of evolution. Otherwise I would denigrate myself. I denigrate those that believe in absolutes when the subject is fraught with profound complexity, conflict and gaps in understanding. The process of peer-review does not vet all potential errors, and in some cases only reinforces bias for excluding data and theories considered not in the scientific realm.
I love how Stephen Hawking explains that his goal is to peer into a parallel universe before he dies; but he is sure that God does not exist.
Don, what did I write that you feel denigrates? Maybe I need to grow some sensitivity to certain words or phrases… since this was not my intent.
JB,
“The average non-scientist’s understanding of the topic.”
Guess I don’t know how one determines this, but I suppose that doesn’t matter.
Without trying to insult anyone the responses make my point that the sort of lack of understanding and self righteousness about topics like evolution displayed here by some might explain why most academics fail to identify with certain ideologies.
SM, I think just by hanging around a lot of non-scientists and striking up a conversation on the topic and hearing what they know or do not know about it between sips of our cocktails.
I have been a subscriber to Discovery and Scientific American magazines for decades (although I admit to being frequently in over my head reading many of the articles in SA). I also read a lot of non-fiction on various scientific topics… more recently in the behavior science field. Much of my interest in this later topic has to do with my profession as a manager/leader of people in a business capacity… but also because I have always been fascinated in the mechanisms contributing to human motivation and behavior.
If I had the time, I would take some college courses. I’m sure there are many, many gaps in my understanding of the “evolved” theories of evolution. However, if those with science credentials cannot or will not have a conversation with me because I don’t know enough… I think I have to start questioning the value of their work. Most of their research is funded by tax moneys provided by non-scientists like me. I expect a return on that investment as information I can consume. It does not work if all we get is information only scientists can use to inflate the rarified air they seem to be more prone to float around in. AND, I absolutely will fight any use of science for political manipulation or gain.
The most amazing statistic on evolution to me is that half of all Americans do not believe in it. At the same time, 100% of all research scientists in the fields of biology, chemistry, pharmacology, zoology, medicine, genetics, public health, epidemiology, paleontology, etc., etc. not only believe in evolution of species, but evolution forms the basis for virtually all they know about their subject areas. In other words, we would not have had any developments over the last 120 years in genetics or biology or virology without understanding biological evolution.
Even in a subject where there is a concensus, like global warming theory, there are still 1% or 2% of climatologists who are heterodoxic, who think something fundamental about the theory or the theory of its consequences is wrong or overstated or in some way there is disagreement, even if it is a minor qualm.
By contrast, even at religious schools, where the dogma opposes evolution of species, there are no research scholars in the biological sciences who have any doubts at all about the theory of evolution. It’s not just certain fact to them. They could do no work without accepting it in full. There is simply no other scientific theory* which makes any sense to a biological researcher.
*Intelligent design and creationism and variants of god-directed evolution are not usable scientific theories. They are religion. If they were at all scientific, then we would surely have religious pharmacologists doing research on new drugs based on a creationist view of species. But that is impossible, because intelligent design or creationism is not science. Therefore no science can be based on it.
This is not a great analogy–so take it fwiw–but it makes me think of what an illusionist does: he chops a girl in half or he makes it look like he is levitating, when in fact he is doing neither. They are just illusions. But then imagine a medical doctor interested in a cleaner method of surgery basing his “studies” on the idea of the magician who cuts his assistant in half but leaves no scars and causes her no pain? You think that kind of “science” would get anywhere?
[i]”There is simply no other scientific theory* which makes any sense to a biological researcher.[/i]
Filling the gaps in understanding of particle physics has led to the theory the the Higgs Boson or the “God Particle” as some call it.
So, why then do evolutionary, and/or biologocal scientist reject similar outside theories for the some of the copious gaps in their formula and understanding?
There are none, Jeff. There are no “similar outside theories” and there are no “copious gaps in their formula and understanding.” Certainly nothing that calls into question the theory of evolution.
When you start a conversation with “secular Godless … science types” you are making generalizations that aren’t even statistically valid; when you then add “clinging” you are minimizing the nature of their beliefs. I know you like to use “clinging” because Obama did; you are using a rhetorical device of which you are aware — in effect, baiting people.
Evolutionary biology is not particle physics.
15% of Americans are secular. A tiny percentage are self-avowed atheists.
Not all secular people are whatever you might consider “Godless.”
Acceptance of the theory of evolution is so broad, as Rich describes, that your characterization simply isn’t accurate.
Getting back to your point, trying to apply principles of biological evolution to social trends is not very workable.
Mr Toad:
What I have proved here today is exactly the type of left-bias that is a lack of tolerance or acceptance of non-template thinking. This is prevalent in colleges today. What happens to the pious and/or conservative student attending a class expressing his opinions relative to these topics? The venom spit at me is an example of what I expect these kids would feel… plus they would also have their grades impacted.
Science has grown bolder over the years to agressively tackle topics that intertwine with religion and politics. With that, scientists have opened themselves to having to incorporate these other considerations into their research and conversations. However, what they do instead is a sort of jab and retreat strategy… a style of telling the rest of us we are stupid and wrong, but then refuse to talk to us because we don’t have the credentials. Talk about arrogance and classism!
Though some scientific fields are insular, non-template thinking is perfectly acceptable in science.
Jeff… I don’t doubt what you say, but beware of over-generalizing… I had an English prof who was clearly anti-God/religion, and especially against the Catholic church… we had a final where we had to do an essay… I wrote mine about an outreach a Mexican bishop did, to go out to the rural areas (that had no priests) to witness the sacrament of holy matrimony for hundreds (in some cases thousands) of couples… some of whom had even raised children and grandchildren together. I wrote about how important that was… one of my few A+’s…
[i]”secular Godless … science types”[/i]
Don, this was indended to focus on a minority. Stephen Hawking is an example. If the shoe does not fit, then please don’t assume I was trying to force it on your foot.
hpierce: I think as you describe your paper, your topic was targeting the liberal sentiment of altruism. Good move on your part!
I helped my son recently for directing him to research and then editing a term paper he had to write for an English class on the topic of Global Warming (this was the only topic given to the class). The topic he selected was frac drilling and increasing the use of natural gas to replace oil and coal as a way to lower our overall carbon footprint. He did a fantastic job and got a C+. As is often the case these days, he did not get his paper back with explanations. It was clear that his grade was punative (he explained how the teacher was prone to voicing her far left political opinions… something he said/says is very common in the classes he attends). I know a good paper when I read it/edit it. He got screwed… another example where the biased liberal education establishment works hard to extinguish the learning flame in students that do not fit their ideological template.
JB,
“SM, I think just by hanging around a lot of non-scientists and striking up a conversation on the topic and hearing what they know or do not know about it between sips of our cocktails”
Okay. You do base a lot of your opinions of others on your anecdotes, which isn’t always wrong or bad, but can be misleading.
I would like to ask you again about your anecdotes, speaking with grade school-aged children, that lead to your conclusion that “liberal brainwashing” begins in grade school. What in the curriculum supports your opinion? As I said, that was not my experience. I would have enjoyed more indepth analysis of issues, from whatever school of thought.
A lot of posters on here, which I think it’s safe to include you among, seem certain that our public schools, colleges and universities and virtually all media are “liberal,” thus inundating and indoctrinating our children and adults alike with this “liberal” ideology.
Given these “facts,” does it surprise you that there are not more “liberals” or registered democrats in this country relative to “conservatives” or republicans? Is this lifelong propaganda exposure not very effective?
JB,
“What I have proved here today is exactly the type of left-bias that is a lack of tolerance or acceptance of non-template thinking. This is prevalent in colleges today. What happens to the pious and/or conservative student attending a class expressing his opinions relative to these topics? “
I never really felt more “conservative” student opinions were discouraged or disregarded by my professors/fellow students. I think the vast majority of professors respect the opinions of their students and appreciate discussion regardless of their assumed political ideology. I would also assert that in many of the discussions, issues, readings, etc a clearly drawn political line cannot be drawn. IOW, oh, this is a right/left-leaning article, author, speaker, student opinion, etc. Didn’t seem like that to me anyway…Maybe it does if you’re looking for it?
I saw it all as knowledge which I would later be asked to discuss or write about.
This has evolved into one of the more fascinating off-topic diversions ever to develop in the [u]Vanguard[/u]. But, is it more appropriate for a campus seminar?
Let’s resolve the issue by appearing at Pepper Spray Square at high noon on Christmas Day. Limit weapons, however, out of respect for the season–anything sharp is great, but no gunpowder or exotic metal devices with moving parts.
JB,
” I think as you describe your paper, your topic was targeting the liberal sentiment of altruism. Good move on your part”
Do you think it’s helpful to label so many things as being “liberal” or “conservative?” I guess I don’t understand or see the purpose.
Merriam Webster definition for Altruism: “unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others”
Would the antonym be ascribed to the “conservative sentiment?”
With all this talk about the importance of religious teachings and God, you’d think selflessness, charity and in general looking out for the welfare of others would not be used as a snide against some perceived political philosophy or party.
JB,
“The topic he selected was frac drilling and increasing the use of natural gas to replace oil and coal as a way to lower our overall carbon footprint. He did a fantastic job and got a C+”
Was that an acceptable focus for the assignment? I don’t agree with teachers or professors whose personal political beliefs influence their grading at all. That’s incredibly unfair and unprofessional. That said, there are usually specific criteria and if that wasn’t followed that can hurt a students grade.
SM,
That was not my point. My point was that hpierce really did not have a good example writing on a topic that would have received punitive grading for spouting ideas outside the liberal ideological template expected and demanded by many educators.
Now, if he had written a paper on the altruistic effects of a church developing free markets, production – you know, the teach them to fish over feed them a fish concepts… or just the altruistic effects of teaching them the peaceful and forgiving religion of Christianity, he would make a much stronger point.
JB,
Since you seem so inclined to attach labels to people, ideas, behaviors, etc, do you consider Jesus to be a “liberal?”
SF,
Unlike me, Jesus was apolitical.
Attaching labels is only to help with classification of people owning like ideas/thinking. We are tribal like it or not. I sometimes laugh when people I know are far left of far right in their thinking claim they are “independent”.
I consider myself an independent thinker on many things, but I don’t mind being labeled conservative or even liberal by those that see my arguments as such.
Like Jesus, I love all people despite any label I might use.
JB,
“SM, That was not my point. My point was that hpierce really did not have a good example writing on a topic that would have received punitive grading for spouting ideas outside the liberal ideological template expected and demanded by many educators”
If memory serves, you’ve spoke of this “liberal ideology/sentiment,” altruism, in a not so favorable light before. Further, it seems ridiculous to cast altruism as a political sentiment as it is more of a Christ-like one than a political one, IMHO. My point wasn’t that hpeirce’s paper did or did not challenge whatever ideology you think would be expected and/or demanded of students.
Punitive grading for not having “liberal” ideas…not so sure about that.
JB,
“Unlike me, Jesus was apolitical”
So Jesus gets a pass? I suppose that when others share a similar altruistic posture as Jesus you label them the same? Are not any of his teachings and beliefs, if now adopted and expressed by people, apolitical or do you attempt to fit that into a “tribe?”
I’m not a religious scholar, but have you read some of the bible quotes concerning the poor and how they should be treated? I have a feeling if someone on here or at a party were to share similar sentiments with you, you’d likely call them a “liberal” based on your comments and responses on this website.
Do you think introducing poor school children to the janitorial trade is what he had in mind, for example?
Just two from the New Testament…
“Jesus answered, If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'” Matthew 19:21
“For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in.” Matthew 25:35
Does this sound like altruism or a “liberal sentiment/ideology” to you? Would you prefer the revision…”I was hungry and you offered to give me something to eat under the condition that I must first complete a job for you…”
Do you think some of that stuff boarders on socialism?
[i]”Unlike me, Jesus was apolitical.”[/i]
Jesus was a Jew. And the Jewish religion, which is based on the Mosaic Law and interpretations of it, is inherently political. Let me give an example of how the Gospels of Christ demonstrate the politics of Jesus in his day: [quote][b]Mark 11:15 …[/b] On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves.[/quote] Now why would a First Century Jew be upset with the money changers, who were also Jews? What did Jesus think those guys who worked outside of the Second Temple were doing which was wrong?
The answer had to do with the Romans, who ruled Judea at the time of Christ. Roman money had on it an engraved picture of the ruling Caesar. Touching that money was offensive to any religious Jew in Jesus’s day. It violated the Second Commandment (Exodus 20:4-6), “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image …”
The Jewish priests who ran the Second Temple required that when a Jew came to offer a sacrifice (literally a goat, or scapegoat) to pay penance for his sins, he could not use Roman coins to buy the scapegoat, which were the vulgar currency. They had to use instead Jewish shekels, which had no graven images on them.
So money changers set up shop outside the Temple and allowed those visiting the large temple complex to exchange their Roman coins for Jewish coins.
But that intermediary service–capitalism, if you will–pissed off Jesus, because it legitimized the use of Roman coinage, which was terribly offensive with its graven image of Caesar.
So like so many of the supposed deeds and actions of Jesus as told by Greek writers in the synoptic Gospels as well as in the Gospel of John, the context of Christ’s actions and sermons were in line with Jewish politics of his day.
P.S. If you are wondering how the hell Christians adopted the 10 Commandments but ignore that one (as well as most ignoring the Commandment to rest on Saturday), you have to understand that when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, the Roman Church accommodated itself to the Greco-Roman culture. That not only included massaging the words in their Bible which had to be massaged to fit their culture and their theology, it also included cutting out whole sections of texts (including getting rid of various books that people like the Apostle Paul considered Biblical), whenever those words made the message the Church wanted to get across less palatable. Yet the money changer scene did not get deleted. The Roman Church just tried to pretend it meant something other than what it was: an attack on Rome.
Here is an example of a graven image on a Roman coin from before Jesus’s time, when the Romans first captured Israel and Judea:
[img]http://www.oldandancientcoins.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Pompeius-Magnus-Roman-Coin.jpg[/img]
Here is an example of a graven image on a Roman coin from Jesus’s time, with the depiction of Tiberius as Emperor:
[img]http://www.thestoryofjesus.com/images/photos/political_photos/tiberius.jpg[/img]
SM, I said “destructive altruism”.
The small business I run has given away 4.6 million over the last 12 years to charities. I have no problem with altruism that is a hand up… Including periodic and/or temporary help. But only that which truly helps make improvements… Not that creates destructive dependency.
This, and people that give for their own ego, are my pet peeves with altruism.
What would Jesus say or do today? In the context of a modern society… Learning what the American system provides people compared to his time on earth… I think he would get the tragedy of people trapped in a mindset of helplessness and appreciate the tough love of compasionate conservatism.
So, no, I don’t think Chancellor Katehi should resign, at least not right now.
Jeff: [i]What would Jesús say or do today?[/i]
Jesús: En primer lugar, me gustaría que me llames Chuy. No veo ninguna necesidad de que ser formal. La Edad Media se han acabado, mi amigo. No es como si yo muriera en la cruz ayer. En segundo lugar, ¿qué pasa con los mormones que van de puerta a puerta? Eso es muy molesto. Y, por último, me encanta América tanto como cualquier otra deidad podía, pero ¿realmente necesitamos cuatro conciertos donde la gente se extraña oferta en armarios de almacenamiento?
Jeff
“The small business I run has given away 4.6 million over the last 12 years to charities. I have no problem with altruism that is a hand up… Including periodic and/or temporary help. But only that which truly helps make improvements… Not that creates destructive dependency. “
And could you define exactly the criteria that you use to differentiate a hand up from what you call “destructive dependency” ?
So, folks, I took this thread completely off topic, and I really should know better. Sorry, and mea culpa. It really would have been a good candidate for the bulletin board, but it’s definitely too late now.
I do happen to think that Chancellor Katehi may be uniquely positioned to deal with the aftermath of the pepper spray incident. Some people will never be satisfied with anything less than her resignation. But it is hard to imagine that she is not very shaken by this whole episode. I don’t know what purpose would be served by her resignation. I don’t know her, and didn’t have strong feelings about her before now; my preference in general, based on effectiveness of past chancellors, has been for UCD to hire into that position from within. IMO Meyer and Vanderhoef were better than Hullar and Katehi. But people who know her seem to think she has what it takes to deal with this.
JB,
“said ‘destructive altruism’.”
Where and what is that?
“The small business I run has given away 4.6 million over the last 12 years to charities. I have no problem with altruism that is a hand up… Including periodic and/or temporary help. But only that which truly helps make improvements… Not that creates destructive dependency.
This, and people that give for their own ego, are my pet peeves with altruism”
So when those giving do so for reasons or incentives other than wanting to help others exclusively, it’s no good?
So giving people money to pay the bills/clothe their children or food to feed their families would be a hand up or handout? Really helps or perpetuates an already bad situation?
Jesus would say:[quote]“Happy Holidays, and cut some slack for my good servant Katehi. I’ll watch her performance closely. And, P.S., don’t get the wrong idea–I’ve got nothing against los mormones or any other kind-hearted folks who at least try to do the right thing.”[/quote]
JB,
“What would Jesus say or do today? In the context of a modern society… Learning what the American system provides people compared to his time on earth…”
You think despite being a nation of great wealth, nearly 50 million live in poverty (28% of Hispanics, 25% of black Americans and 14% white Americans) and that would lead him to believe that it’s just here for the taking…everyone has the same chances…just need to try harder…? http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/census-bureau-report-more-americans-living-in-poverty/2011/11/07/gIQAAHm1wM_story.html
“I think he would get the tragedy of people trapped in a mindset of helplessness and appreciate the tough love of compasionate conservatism”
Not strict with the text I see, that’s an interesting interpretation which fits comfortably within your world view. A mindset or a reality, sadly, for too many? By the way, I thought Jesus was (would be now too, no?) apolitical?
Over the years I had a number of students who came to class with issues about evolution. I never disrespected them in any way. I always gave them opportunity to voice their opinions and saw my job as a mission to educate them and disabuse them of their misconceptions about evolution. I remember the last time this happened where I had a student who challenged me on evolution. I remember thinking to myself, here we go, this is going to be some hard work and I’m getting too old for this. Still I slogged on because I felt that even if a student’s view was so dogmatic that they could not accept the evidence I presented at least I would have given it my best and in doing so would have made the case for everyone to understand both the Theory of Evolution and its limits.
When evaluating students I never take their personal opinions into account. They are free to to disagree with me. They are always evaluated on their understanding of the principles not their acceptance of them.
I think that too many Biology teachers at the secondary level do their students a disservice by failing to teach evolution because they find the controversy draining or they find the Theory of Evolution to be in conflict with their own religious philosophy. The result, I believe, is the sad state of understanding about evolution by Americans in general. On the other side, teachers who are dismissive of students who challenge them on evolution, I believe, also fail to rise to the occasion.
Anyway, conservative dogma, especially that espoused by the religious right, might well explain why fewer academics identify themselves that way.
SM, Thanks for the link. That is very interesting and I am going to have to spend some time reviewing and analyzing it. I am very, very suspicious of any government-sponsored re-defining of “poor” or “poverty”. On the surface it appears that there is some balance to the criteria being considered. For example, when we read in the media or listen to Democrats crow about the income gap, it is always based on reported gross income. So, government payments to, and taxation from, families is not factored.
Think about this for a minute… so, if we were to increase taxation to the wealthy to 90% of their gross earnings and then distribute it to the poor, the income gap, as reported, would not change. We can keep demonizing the wealthy producers even as the last one disappears and the looters and moochers inherit the earth. What a scam for the socialists, huh?
Look at the reporting for the bank bonuses paid. These people living in New York… fully half of their bonus goes to the government. Also, payroll taxes are paid by the employer. So, the banks paying these bonuses are, in fact, making huge voluntary contributions to the government looters to distribute to the moochers. Yet, the envy still rages and the left and the media use the reports to continue class warfare.
Jesus would say that both greed and envy are sins and he would note plenty of both. He would note that there are jobs, but people do not want to do them… choosing instead to live off government assistance and complain about those that have more. He would note people already with more than they need… choosing to spend their time to acquire even more instead of using it to truly help those with greater need. However, he would also note wealthy business owners working 100 hour weeks to keep a business viable so employees have jobs. He would note the cycles of self-destructive behavior in many and wonder why they don’t embrace their god and savior for forgiveness of their own sins so they can move on from their past and develop greater happiness and prosperity. He would lament a people growing more secular and note, with irony, that they are also seem to be growing more lost.
The wealthy are not to blame for high unemployment. If you disagree, I would be interested to have it explained to me. But before you simply blame it on outsourcing, read up on how government policies forcing companies to keep manufacturing jobs local and to keep employees employed even when business declines is working for Japan. One thing it has done is to help China overtake Japan’s economy.
JB,
“He would note that there are jobs, but people do not want to do them… choosing instead to live off government assistance and complain about those that have more”
I wonder if that was said back in his time “there are jobs, why don’t these poor people get one?” What data is out there suggesting that people prefer to stay on assistance programs instead of work? Have you seen some of the lines for very undesirable and low wage jobs when a company is hiring? For those jobs and the more desirable jobs, which may require more advanced skills and education, there are literally hundreds of applicants for, at times, a single position. I don’t think it’s as simple as saying “there are jobs, so go get one.”
Depending on where the jobs are located and the persons family dynamic, some jobs may not be a feasible option if only for the logistics.
“He would note the cycles of self-destructive behavior in many and wonder why they don’t embrace their god and savior for forgiveness of their own sins so they can move on from their past and develop greater happiness and prosperity”
What percentage of the poor do you believe have not embraced God?
JB,
I am not here to blame the wealthy for anything so much as I am surprised to hear the rhetoric and sentiments toward our nation’s poor and less fortunate. Most surprised when such views towards these folks come from men and women, politician and voter alike, who state firmly that they are followers of the Christian faith. Jesus is a strong advocate for the poor, can we agree on that?
The biblical text is quite clear as to how he felt one should treat the poor, with unconditional openhands, selflessness and compassion. When I hear things like…”they are just lazy…don’t want to work…don’t know how to work…they’re taking my tax dollar (public assistance)…these people begging on the street are an eyesore and are annoying…I’ll help the poor if they’ll first do something for me, etc, etc, etc,….I don’t think that meshes well at all with his teachings. In fact I would say it is completely counter to them and I believe he specifically addresses those people embracing the aforementioned cold hearted sentiments.
I’m all for programs that help the poor become self-reliant and succeed without the kindness and generosity others or the help of government assistance programs that help feed, clothe and shelter people who would otherwise have had gone without. In the mean time, I’m not going to refuse to give just because they won’t “do anything to help themselves” (a common sentiment) or because my time/money will not “really improve anything.”
The issue of religion and politics is an interesting one, if only for the reason I mentioned above.
Senate Leader Harry Reid, a Mormon, stated “I think it is much easier to be a good member of the Church and a Democrat than a good member of the Church and a Republican.” He apparently feels that his party places a strong emphasis on helping others (such as the poor) and this mirrors his faith better than the other party. I’m sure you disagree, but thought I’d share.
Regarding helping the poor, the rich, etc…
Luke 14:12-14 “When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”
Mark 12:41-44: 1 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.
43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”
“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.”
-Proverbs 31:8-9
“No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.”
-Matthew 6:24
“Then Jesus said to his disciples, ‘I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'”
-Matthew 19:23-24
“Then Jesus said to his disciples, ‘I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'”
-Matthew 19:23-24
“There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.”
-Deuteronomy 15:11
he wealth of the rich is their fortified city; they imagine it an unscalable wall.”
-Proverbs 18:11
Does Jesus think the chancellor should resign?
Sorry Don, I realize we’ve derailed quite a bit.
Waaayy too late, Don, to get this back on track by conflating the interests of Linda and the Lord. This is a perfect example, however, of the futility (as well as the undesirableness) of trying to call “off-topic” on [u]Vanguard[/u] posters.
One could argue, in fact, that this conversation took a much more enlightening turn than David’s “should Katehi resign” rehash had intended. This is a good thing.
SM: [i]”Senate Leader Harry Reid, a Mormon, stated “I think it is much easier to be a good member of the Church and a Democrat than a good member of the Church and a Republican.”[/i]
I agree with this. Just because it is easier does not mean it is more right?
In general it is easier to be a liberal Democrat. What is not to like about Robin Hood and giving away free stuff? Even though capitalists have done more to make life better for all humanity, they are hard to defend with all their opulent displays of success. A good example would be someone like JP Morgan. He financed Edison to bring electricity into market. He was the first to have an electric light system in his Brownstone mansion. He would light the entire thing up from top to bottom for all to see.
By today’s standards, Harry Reid from within his smaller Yellowbellystone mansion would expoit JP Morgan’s displays of his wealth for political gain… saying “look at the greed! look at the waste! look at the large carbon foorprint! We should tax his income and his use of power at a higher rate! There are people without heat and he is using more than he needs! It is not fair!”
Liberalism, socialism and even communism feels so good and looks so good on paper. The problem is that none of it works.
Remember Al Gore? Do as I say, not as I do? Peons shouldn’t be allowed to drive an SUV, while Al Gore gets a pass to drive several SUVs and jet all over the world and waste energy to his heart’s content…
Bush had converted his Texas ranch green long before Gore was building his 24-room energy hogging Tennessee mansion and flying around in private jets to tell us to stop burning fossil fuels.
JB,
“I agree with this. Just because it is easier does not mean it is more right?”
I only mention Reid because it seems it unusual for these Godless liberals to state such a thing. Is it right? I don’t know? Does following one’s faith make it right, always? Does deviating from one’s faith make it wrong?
Fighting for the poor and needy, including such concepts as having openhandedness toward them, is something Jesus felt strongly about. The Biblical text states time and time again in which ways his followers should treat the poor and what way the actions and inactions of others, relative to the poor and needy, will be judged.
I don’t pretend to know exactly what Jesus would think regarding the poor and needy in America. However, you seem to think he, despite his teachings to the contrary, would embrace the “tough love” approach that you refer to as “compassionate conservatism.” Do you think that the sentiment you’ve embraced, with respect to the poor, deviates from the Biblical text concerning this matter? Do something for me poor person, aftwerwards I’ll help you? You said something to that effect, didn’t you?
I just don’t understand how some who are of the Christian faith, which serves as their moral compass, could have at best indifference towards the plight of their fellow brothers and sisters and at worst show complete disdain for them. Be it calling for the elimination of or drastic cuts to public assistance programs (feed, clothe and shelter those in need) or referring to their brothers and sisters in need as “moochers” (as you have), characterizing them as lazy or in some way deserve what they get due to what one thinks must have been a series of terrible life decisions that is directly related to their current plight. Jesus was emphatic about how we must treat the poor with openhands and fight for them.
Somehow, I find it difficult to believe those unkind words and lack of compassion was what Jesus had in mind based on what I’ve read, even today in America where anyone can make it if they just were to apply themselves…though I’m not so certain as you that that is an absolute truth.
Jeff, when you read Rifkin’s second to last post, did you think “Jesus was an Occupier!?!” I kid, but why stop with all the labeling of things and people when it comes to Jesus?
Anyway, I’ll leave you now with one last quote,
Luke 16:19-25 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man’s table; even the dogs would come and lick his sores. The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried.
In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side. He called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.’ But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony