BTW, I also understand the rest of what you're saying, Chris. Teachers pretending to be open-minded but not acting open-minded. From your perspective, anyway. I'm not being entirely disrespectful. I know you believe you have a valid point, and I do not dismiss that. But I just think I have an idea of where you're coming from. Based on this thread, and other posts by you.

You would not have felt successful in Dr. Seaman's class. You would not have been permitted to instruct the teacher, or the other students. Your grade would have reflected how well you listened to Dr. Seaman, and how well you could restate his instruction. You would have greatly preferred Dr. Geier's class. In that class you would have been praised for independent thought. You might find it interesting that Dr. Geier was a young professor who was as liberal as the day is long. Dr. Seaman was just to the right of Attila the Hun.

If you didn't understand it the first time, saying it again would be a waste of bandwidth. SmileWavy

Aw c'mon. I LOVE that story. And the one about how we're going to scare the terrorists into not hating us any more. I never get tired of those.

HAHAHAHAHA.

QUOTE: "One of my degrees is in Philosophy.......As you might expect, philosophy courses attract people who think they are brilliant. People who think they are brilliant also believe that demonstrating their brilliance is a service to the community."
_________________________

Ahhhhh ...now I understand! So many postings ...so little time.

That about sums up Supe. He thinks he is brilliant and he thinks merely by talking he is doing us all a favor...

I haven't read through all of this thread, but I had this Yahoo, Ward Churchill:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill

He stood up there and pressed his ideas down your throat. Some of them were pretty rediculous too, for example he insisted that Human life began in South America and went West across the land bridge between from Alaska to Russia. With no proof to support these claims.

That was before his comments on 9-11 got him into hot water.

This arrogance assumption, this is the "shoot the messenger" response that is part of the conservatives' discussion training? It's intersting in light of what I'm trying to tell you. We would have been opposite kinds of students, you and I. Had you been in Dr. Seaman's class, I would have enjoyed watching him dress you down. That is, it would have been amusing. I watched it several times. There seemed to always be a smartass in his class, and he tolerated them for just a little bit. Watching people try to outsmart professors is like watching someone sitting at the testimony table before a legislative committee and trying to argue with the chairman. Not pretty. This, I think, may be the source of your experiences in these higher education institutions. Taking on a college professor in front of the class is fraught with peril. At least, it should be anyway. One can occasionally, get the upper hand. At least until grades are posted, if you know what I mean. You won't get the last laugh. Maybe not the first, either.

And conspicuously absent from your tirade is any mention of "truth", "right", or "wrong". When a professor is forcing blatantly untruthful garbage upon students, why should he be able to punish those that refuse his lies? The fact is, people like Larry Summers get fired immediately for challenging the PC establishment. People like Ward Churchill get tenure, and might reluctantly get fired after three years of publicly bringing controversey on himself and decades of pushing lies on his students.

Of course you probably fail to see the difference. College should be about learning, not about pleasing professors. Learning facts, building a knowledge base, and learning how to deconstruct an argument; not regurgitating some self-important egotist's truthisms.

And an institution should not profess to be about the free exploration of ideas if some ideas are off limits.

I dunno...

ALthough I do not often agree with Supe (or anyone else for that matter), I do find his posts rather civil, compared with some of the responses of a few.

As Confuseus said "Is far easier to puncture balloon than to repair same".

I learn from everyone since everyone has a slightly different slant on things.

The world is just so unfair! :)

There is no truth, right or wrong when discussion matters of belief (i.e. anything really that can be placed on the left-right political spectrum). That's why both sides are populated with intelligent, thoughtful, critically-thinking people. Of course, it's the loudmouth whackos that get all the press...

Caution: I went to college during the Crusades:cool:

My experience has been some of both...I went to Cal in the late 70's and graduated with a BS in Economics and a BA in PoliSci, both non-engineering or science-based. I needed a lot of math, but stats came easy since there were $ signs attached to the answer.;)

Contrary to many of the posts, there was little, "indoctrination" and a tolerance for debate, especially with the econ profs. The PS profs were a little more crunchy, but the mix was about even: my favorite prof was a Cuban exile who was absolutely the most passionate, true conservative I have ever met. I ended up doing my econ thesis on the Cuban economy during and after Batista. The impact of Castro was profound, right down to causing a change in traditional diets.

I ran into one prof who had a world view that was fixed and not about to be changed by mere students...and he was not above awkward, thinly veiled threats. I don't know if he ever followed though, but he was the exception.

If the tide has ebbed in the right mix of conservative and liberal professors we should all feel saddened: I was challenged to think by both and would have felt cheated had I not had the exposure.

I have been amused by many of the, "opened minded" references in other threads followed quickly by a, "Sig Hiel" if other poster disagree. I can tell you that that type of discourse would have not been tolerated by ANY professor I had. If that is not so today, mores the pity.

Note that sig heil was followed by a question mark and was in response to what I took to be a rather authoritarian condemnation of diversity (if we Americans are not a diverse bunch, what are we?).

I wouldn't have hesitated to ask the same question had the same scenario been in a college classroom during the Crusades (when I went to college as well :)).

Here's the post from the thread:

Originally Posted by snowman
me to. Diversity sucks. Only a cohesive culture, a modern culture need exist. Diversity is code for liberal crap, thats spelled, CRAP. NO value there, only division, hate and contempt.

My response/question was;

Sig heil?

Here you go again...you disagree with a post and, rather that refute or state your opinions on diversity, you quote arguably the worst chant (Hail Victory) ever?

Lame is lame, even during the Crusades...

Hmmm...I communicated poorly, I see now. My intent was to contrast a free society to a dictatorship, which doesn't accomodate diversity. I should have contemplated the incendiary nature of the phrase (not used it) and gone on at greater length. Oh well, next time.

Which I look forward to.:cool:

Moral-relativist says what? ;)

Huh? :confused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism