UCLA Students Urged to Expose 'Radical' Professors 1229
rts008 writes to tell us Reuters is reporting that a conservative alumni group is working hard to expose 'radical professors'. The group is a creation of 2003 UCLA graduate, Andrew Jones, who stated that he runs the organization on his own with $22,000 in private donations. From the article: "Jones told Reuters he is out to 'restore an atmosphere of respectful political discourse on campus' and says his efforts are aimed at academics who proselytize students from either side of the ideological spectrum, conservative or liberal. 'We are concerned solely with indoctrination, one-sided presentation of ideological controversies and unprofessional classroom behavior,' Jones said on his Web site." The tactics used by Jones and his group are raising quite a few questions, however, offering to pay students for recordings or teaching materials that could provide 'evidence' against professors in question.
Re:Sorry, I'm old school (Score:1, Informative)
This is just a part of a campaign started a while ago by David Horowitz to purge democrats from universities and replace them with right wing professors.
Re:This sounds less like (Score:1, Informative)
Link (Score:3, Informative)
http://uclaprofs.com/ [uclaprofs.com]
Not to be confused with the professor review site at http://uclaprofessors.com/ [uclaprofessors.com]
Re:Bias in academia (Score:1, Informative)
Granted, the majority of those in the liberal arts are, well, liberal, but I've found many (if not most) students in science and engineering tend to be libertarian. I'm wondering what that tells us about the divide between those who pontificate about the future compared to those who actually create it.
My Rights Online? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Good. (Score:5, Informative)
You'd think a "conservative" would follow the rules.
Re:Bias in academia (Score:3, Informative)
Most students take both examples as illustrating a statistical point. However, each year I get a few students who foam at the mouth when presented with one or the other of the examples. Interestingly (to me), the students who get bent out of shape when told about one of the cases always love hearing about the other one.
All of us are subject to perception bias - when you're sitting on the right side of the theater, everything on the screen looks tilted left to you, and vice versa. The same principle applies to political views. Most people aren't so extreme that they can't accomodate some variance in views, but there's always going to be a group who don't like to hear anything that contradicts their preconceptions, and if you tell them concepts they don't want to hear they view it as proof that you are unfairly biased. As an extreme example, I had one student tell me flat out that he would rather toss out all of the math we had worked through than believe statistics "if statistics claimed that Democrats had gotten it right and Republicans had gotten it wrong 40 years ago."
Emma Goldman too radical for 2003 (Score:4, Informative)
Nonsense! (I'm sorry, is that belittling?) (Score:5, Informative)
If I had no integrity and chose to reward people for agreeing with me and punish those who didn't, there are institutional procedures and protocols set up by which students could appeal their grades. If this happened often, my grading practices would be placed under close scrutiny by the administration. I wouldn't last very long. Harrassment and belittlement are indeed more difficult to prove for the aggrieved student, but there are still ways.
What groups like the one mentioned in this article have thus far failed to do is to provide any credible evidence of such malfeasance. What they do instead is to present evidence of professors' political leanings on the basis of those professors' public statements and activities. Unfortunately, people like you, Anonymous Coward (and you do live up to your name here), take that as evidence that a conservative can't get a fair shake. All it actually proves is that profs have opinions, which I believe they are still allowed to do here in the U.S.
Re:Hey, the right to speek freely... (Score:5, Informative)
Good point. Unfortunately, vouchers seem to have stalled, thanks to the teachers union. Woohoo. Shame I can't dismantle the teachers' union on my own.
As for the "blacklist", it's a free country, and they can do what they want.
Very true. But you're forgetting the context in which this is taking place. This stunt is about as transparent as it gets. See the link posted by Doormat in this thread.
It's no surprise the profs are playing the "poor victim" card - why can't they just stand up and being proud of their beliefs?
If you'd read the statements of the professors involved instead of just assuming what they're saying, you might be surprised to find out that that's exactly the stance they're displaying. Most of them know that they're not exactly mainstream, and are quite proud of it.
Just discarding the idea that students are discriminated against because of their political views (which have nothing to do with class) is naive, and reeks of some bias on your side.
You're right, I have not offered any evidence that people are not being discriminated against based on their political beliefs. That's because no one has yet offered any evidence other than "My grades are too low! Bias! Waah!" in support of the discrimination. Do you also expect me to prove the non-existence of white crows before continuing this discussion?
As long as they're fair, and include discrimination from all sides, not just the left, I think it's a good idea.
You seem to not have read the article: "The Web site of the Bruin Alumni Association also includes a "Dirty Thirty" list of professors considered by the group to be the most extreme left-wing members of the UCLA faculty, as well as profiles on their political activities and writings."
There is no similar "Dirty Thirty" list for extreme right-wing professors.
Re:Problems and Solutions (Score:3, Informative)
You seem to assume that economics professors tend to be conservative. I read an article in The Economist a year or two back (can't seem to find it now), that showed that economics professors tended to be left-of-center in their views on average.
I guess it also depends on what you mean by "liberal". Professors can be socially liberal while fiscally "conservative", in the sense they favor free trade and other libertarian viewpoints.
The more common stereotype (I don't know if I've ever seen a survey to back it up) is a more conservative leaning amongst professors in business schools. I really couldn't say one way or the other.
I'm an economics PhD student and an econ and math major as an undergrad. I can't recall a situation where being either strongly conservative or strongly liberal would have significantly impacted one's grade, so long as one's arguments were supported reasonably. In fact, I had few occasions as an undergrad to really debate (at least for a grade) controversial topics in economics courses, since they tended to be based around some simple models and their implications.
Often, the professors would make clear how the models don't match reality well in one way or another, but political leanings did not play a substantial role. Part of this, I think, is because economics deliberately tries to avoid moral decisions about "fairness" as much as possible. In a trade class, for example, the models they discuss provide an overall welfare benefit from free trade, but everyone acknowledges that certain industries will not benefit from trade.
Re:Hey, the right to speek freely... (Score:4, Informative)
Woz (Score:1, Informative)
Re:This sounds less like (Score:3, Informative)
What a beautiful world it would be if criticism could be separated from harassment.
Re:Hey, the right to speek freely... (Score:2, Informative)
Well, "f*ck freedom of speech" isn't really a good public slogan. Frankly, I don't even see how teachers could impose political beliefs on students.
If professor fails you because of your politics and you actually do know the subject well enough - you could always go to the department chair, or to the dean and prove your case.
If professor spends too much time talking about things not related to teaching the subject - there's teacher evaluation, again you could go talk to department or dean.
If you think everyone in department is corrupt - there's quite a number of student organizations on campus that will help you.
Of course if you don't know the course material and fail the course "because of politics"
Well, from the article that we all are supposed to read before making comments
Jones' site describes his campaign as "dedicated to exposing UCLA's most radical professors" and his list of the university's "worst of the worst" singles out only professors he says hold left-wing views.
Then what is a purpose of this blacklist ? Why not, I don't know, try to argue your view point using facts and logic, instead of personally targeting everyone who opposes your viewpoint ?
Re:Hey, the right to speek freely... (Score:1, Informative)
Marxism 101 (Score:1, Informative)
No, what you've described more like some kind of environmentalism.
Marxism has to do with the idea that there is a historical pattern of class struggle between the wage-slaves (a.k.a. the proletariat) and the owners of the means of production (a.k.a. the bourgeoisie). "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." In these struggles, the proletariat seek higher wages while the bourgeoisie seek to go on oppressing the proletariat.
Every so often the struggle breaks out into open revolution, in which the bourgeoisie generally string up a few of their oppressors from lamp-posts and consequently gain a few more privileges. However, revolutions need not be violent. They can also take the form of a peaceful, but radical change in government. Extrapolating from this, one may claim that it is inevitable that eventually the bourgeoisie, as a class, will gain full control of the means of production, and so the distinction between the classes will gradually melt away. A classless society, the communist ideal, will (according to this theory) eventually result.
[Caution: This is meant only as a very basic outline. Plus, I'm no expert in Marxism, and I'm generally unsympathetic to its ideas in general.]
Or was it really, really bad?
This viewpoint is a very limited and biased way of looking at capitalism. It is extremely factory-oriented, and so needs nontrivial updating to apply to today's economy. Furthermore, this method of extrapolating historical patterns is rather unscientific.
Personally, my real problem with this is not so much Marxism as a way of looking at things. It is that many academic Marxists get bored with studying society from a Marxist perspective, and become determined to agitate to create the socialist paradise. If they want to do that, they should get into politics, or at least become an honest, full-time revolutionary. Sociology should be about studying society, not remaking it. Furthermore, calling for the downfall of the capitalist pigs while at the same time hiding from criticism behind the protection of your well-paid professorship is not cool.
Yes, but... (Score:3, Informative)
The trouble with vouchers as they are implemented in the US is that usually voucher schools are not forced to meet the same standards as public schools. So you have egregious abuse, like schools where kids watch movies all day and play Monopoly and this only breaks for Bible Study. And some of the advocates for vouchers are familiar faces in places where white-only academies popped up as an alternative to mandated busing. And the voucher movement is very strongly wedded to the Religious Right.
A "funding follows the student" approach would be an interesting thing to try. I also think that the Charter Schools and "small schools/learning communities" movements have some possibilities. But there must be academic standards that all schools must measure up to. Even if those academic standards upset people who believe that Gawd created Life, the Universe and Everything in 6 literal days and that fossils are either remnants of the Flood or Satan's attempt to fool those of insufficient faith.
Nothing New Here (Score:1, Informative)
The pattern I see here is a movement where conservatives (in the current sense of the word) are starting to be whiny bitches, a traditionally liberal occupation (and believe me, at Columbia, there is no shortage of whiny liberal bitches). Conservatives now don't want to hear opinions other than their own, and are using their new power to make it happen. I have honestly never been so disgusted with the state of American education, where special interest groups are allowed to interfere with private universities.
Students have a right to a respectful classroom environment, but this is not a question of intimidation. This is a question of students being bitches when they hear things they don't like. In my opinion, the solution is for those students who are uncomfortable hearing things they don't like to either grow a pair or get out. No one is forcing them to attend a certain college, and a private university is not required to heed students' demands concerning curricula or ideological presentation.
Before the Nazis took over ... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:What A Mess (Score:2, Informative)
"Give one example?"
Only one?
Suicide:
"On Feb. 9, 1950, in Wheeling, W.Va., McCarthy claimed that there were 205 known communists in the State Department. Later on the Senate floor, he reduced this number to 57. That led to the House Un-American Activities Committee hearings and McCarthy's continued attacks.
In 1951, Hunt noted that "there have been many suicides due to the smearing received either in Committee hearings or from remarks made in the United States Congress." He introduced a bill providing for lawsuits against the United States for those who were defamed by members of Congress. The bill did not receive enough support."
http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2004/11
Lost Jobs:
"Yale Law School professor Ralph Brown, who conducted the most systematic survey of the economic damage of the McCarthy era, estimated that roughly ten thousand people lost their jobs. Such a figure may be low, as even Brown admits, for it does not include rejected applicants, people who resigned under duress, and the men and women who were ostensibly dismissed for other reasons. Still, it does suggest the scope of the economic sanctions."
http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schrec
Frightened Students:
"In the late 1950s a group of graduate students at the University of Chicago wanted to have a coffee vending machine installed outside the Physics Department for the convenience of people who worked there late at night. They started to circulate a petition to the Buildings and Grounds Department, but their colleagues refused to sign. They did not want to be associated with the allegedly radical students whose names were already on the document."
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/mccarthy/schreck
More:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccarthyi
Not convinced?
Do a google search on McCarthism + Blacklist
Re:Hey, the right to speek freely... (Score:3, Informative)
- Their publication record. Have they extensively published in mainstream peer reviewed journals? Incidentally, if there is an ideological criterion, this is it. If the journals are not mainstream journals, the candidate is either shown to be deficient in this area or out in left field.
- Do they earn their department funding (perhaps THE most important at some schools!)
- Can they collaborate either interdepartmentally or between institutions (now a big one)?
- Are they able to teach? Most candidates have to give a seminar and/or teach an undergraduate class to show their qualifications
- Do they have a record of service to the universities they have worked at and to the community at large?
- Do they have people skills? Can they get along with the undergraduates, graduates, and professors who interview them?
Do some of us at university disagree on matters of abortion, economics, ID, and other issues. Sure, but except where the class explicitly calls for dealing with such issues, it's considered a bit gauche to bring it up (see below). Have I had conversations with students about such things? Yes, but only when they bring it up or when they are no longer my students.I have also seen intentional baiting of professors in class. A religious student takes a class on evolutionary biology (which may happen to be the professor's bread and butter) and then spends classes trying to get the professor to debate ID. Or a student takes a class on climatology and when the hockey stick graph showing a recent change in climate is brought up and its origins (dozens of studies dating from the 1950s onwards) explained, they will say "but isn't that a political move by the left to try to justify opposition to big oil?" Hint: Most scientists who teach the Big Bang, or evolution or climatology are making their statements based on their professional opinion and research, not specifically because of their political viewpoints (though often their research in the area they teach has lended to such viewpoints). In many cases such students are attempting to create heat and not light. They have a personal issue that detracts from the point of the class - and which they should be debating in the appropriate arena, and not wasting the rest of the class' time.
Most universities already allow for such debate where it is constructive. One can debate religion in religion classes, politics in political science classes, philosophy in philosophy classes, and science in science classes. This whole monitoring of classes for ideology is a bit frightening when mechanisms are already in place to deal with inappropriate professors. Put it in the context of the recently republished It Can't Happen Here [boston.com] by Sinclair Lewis, and you'll understand why there is such a hue and cry about paying students to monitor professors.
It's Not Just About the Classroom (Score:2, Informative)
And I'm not sure who here actually looked up his website, but you might want to consider something. He claims to only be going after Professors who bring their strong ideology to the classroom and push it onto their students. Even though that's the claim, you're forced to wonder why his site has posted a page [uclaprofs.com] with a listing of what "radical" petitions various professors have signed. (Of course signing a petition against impeaching Clinton means you're a pinko!) So now professors' private actions outside of the lecture hall are subject to scrutiny as well?
Jones' claim that he just wants more ideological equality in the classroom is completely transparent. He wants to merely subject professors whose views he doesn't agree with to scrutiny and hopefully silencing.
Re:WTF??? (Score:3, Informative)
In our state of Indiana we have a college called IUPUI, and it offered a class for a relative of mine that discussed sexuality. The prof has very liberal views and promotes this in class. To be specific he has pushed students to have homosexual relations. I could give many other examples... Now he does not allow any recording equipment in the class and will never allow anyone to debate him on what or why he does. The issue is that he has tenure and the way the school system is setup he is "almost" untouchable.
I say "almost" because people in the area here are starting to realize that a degree from any social program at IUPUI isn't worth much, as my relative who has an outstanding GPA can attest to. So unlike most professions these teachers can't be fired and because of that they start to push the agenda on their students. However, at the end of the day when these kids can't get a job, and parents stop sending their kids to that school, things will change.
What would help fix the problem is to do away with tenure. Allow teachers to compete like everyone else in the workplace.
You've been taken in (Score:3, Informative)
I'm afrid you've been taken in. Here is some enlightening commentary by Mr. Horowitz:
What I Told Pennsylvania's Academic Freedom Hearings [frontpagemag.com]
The Strange Dishonest Campaign Against Academic Freedom [frontpagemag.com]: