Cornell prof.: hiring Republicans would decrease faculty quality

[UK2K]

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6893


In a recent Cornell Sun article covering faculty political donations, of which 96% have gone to Democrats in the past four years, several Cornell professors were quoted on their thoughts about the lack of political diversity on campus.

Some quotes from the professors:


According to the Sun, government professor Andrew Little suggested hiring Republicans would compromise the quality of Cornell’s professors. He was quoted saying, “Placing more emphasis on diversity of political beliefs when hiring [would] almost certainly require sacrificing on general quality or other dimensions of diversity.”

“Our job is not to mold the minds of young students — they’ll go out into the world and do that for themselves… Cornell does not have to be a banquet that offers every viewpoint.”

Bensel echoed this claim, saying that recent Republican debates have illustrated the deviation of “mainstream conservatives” from views that are widely accepted by intellectuals at reputable universities.

I am posting this for two reasons....

First, because it was, I believe, Nick Young, who repeated the claim that liberal professors are abound and abundant on college campuses. As have I. Their 'teachings' teach that Democrats are awesome and Republicans are stupid. I must admit, bravo to the Democrats for being able to mold viewpoints at such a young and impressionable age. That is how you get a society to think YOUR way. What exactly does political party matter when it comes to teaching finance? Or English? Or chemistry? Or mathematics?

Secondly, because if this was the other way around, you would hear an UPROAR from liberals and their army of special interest groups who claim this as unfair hiring practices. Diversity is what the left spews, but they only want diversity when it agrees with their opinion. Where is the uproar? All of a sudden, the left doesn't welcome different points of view? In this case, they are openly backing the viewpoint that if someone is in a different political party, they don't want them to be hired.

More sheep lining up to be taught what to think and who to vote for.

Amazing, how the narrative changes when the 'discriminated' side is flip-flopped, right?

[TheMan]

We all know conservatives are idiots.

What's your point again?

[RidonKs]

i don't think there is any question as to the accuracy of his statement

not to say blue dog democrats are much better... but they are better

to buy into the republican platform you have to buy into a lot of bogus science

[UK2K]

i don't think there is any question as to the accuracy of his statement

not to say blue dog democrats are much better... but they are better

to buy into the republican platform you have to buy into a lot of bogus science
What exactly does political party matter when it comes to teaching finance? Or English? Or chemistry? Or mathematics?

Copy and pasted from my OP.

Is there liberal algebra and conservative algebra? Liberal FIFO and conservative FIFO? Is there not a curriculum you follow?

[UK2K]

We all know conservatives are idiots.

What's your point again?

Exhibit A.

You are my point. :applause:

[BoutPractice]

I'm a liberal. This is really concerning, and it should be most of all to liberals, who by definition are supposed to believe in an open society where all beliefs can be challenged and the widest possible range of ideas can be exchanged.

Don't be fooled, though: if 96% of university faculty political donations went to Republicans, they too would use the same argument to exclude liberals. The problem is artificially engineered unanimity wherever it comes from. In the past the censors happened to be conservative. Today in countries like the US they happen to be "liberal".

One thing is sure: contemporary university systems need a massive shakeup.

[ISHGoat]

Look at the first two replies as examples of what happens when education has failed a nation. The self-claimed "open minded liberals" spew the same generalizing bullshit that they themselves condem when not favoring their agenda.

UK2K keep fighting the good fight brother :cheers:

[RidonKs]

What exactly does political party matter when it comes to teaching finance? Or English? Or chemistry? Or mathematics?

Copy and pasted from my OP.

Is there liberal algebra and conservative algebra? Liberal FIFO and conservative FIFO? Is there not a curriculum you follow?
no you're right

partisan discrimination makes no sense on virtually any level

least of all occupation



this guy is a jackass. but it depends if you want to talk about the issue or the jackass saying dumb things about it. hiring and firing based on party membership is, unless i'm very much mistaken, illegal. maybe it's on a state by state basis. regardless everybody disagrees with that practise. why bring it up?

though i'm happy you noted that 96% of cornell professors are democrats. i'm sure you think its some sort of conspiracy... but its not.

[UK2K]

no you're right

partisan discrimination makes no sense on virtually any level

least of all occupation



this guy is a jackass. but it depends if you want to talk about the issue or the jackass saying dumb things about it. hiring and firing based on party membership is, unless i'm very much mistaken, illegal. everybody disagrees with it.

I mean, its one thing to argue teaching a conservative who believes in Creationism (I don't) shouldn't be able to teach an evolution or archaeology class. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

But it's no different then Notre Dame saying you must be a Catholic to work there, because if you're not, your views will interfere with the course curriculum.

Is that fair? Or right? Only Mormons are allowed to teach at BYU now? Is that the road we are going down?

And the best part is, The Man blows it off because its HIS side that is discriminating. Now it's okay, and acceptable, according to him.


though i'm happy you noted that 96% of cornell professors are democrats. i'm sure you think its some sort of conspiracy... but its not.

Just happened to work out that way, eh? Luck of the draw? Had nothing to do with the fact they don't want to hire or work with Conservative professors or anything.

[TheMan]

Exhibit A.

You are my point. :applause:
Sarcasm too deep for you, bud?

[Dresta]

Kirk wrote years ago about the despotic nature of American University faculties, and their complete unwillingness to hear opposing viewpoints (or to even allow them to be given voice). This is not new at all, and is sadly, rather representative of the intelligentsia, and their disgraceful conceitedness. He had an example of a faculty (i forget where), refusing to promote an individual, because he had said some mean things about that ignoramus John Dewey (the intellectual hero of the poorly educated). Thus academic freedom now means the freedom to agree with John Dewey.

Eric Voegelin was also persecuted by these academic fanatics, who felt the need to brand the man a fascist (among other things), when he had been forced to give up his career and flee nazi Germany because of how hated his ideas were there. Examples abound of this kind of disgraceful behaviour, so i am not surprised in the slightest.

I had a professor not long ago (who called himself 'of the left'), saying how much it irritated him that there were so few conservatives in academia, largely because there is an intentional effort to discredit them and to keep them out. So that it's largely become a bit of a circle-jerk. Honestly, the intelligentsia is now largely composed of left-wing people who've carved out an easy life for themselves, luckily for them, because most of them couldn't do much more than write bad english in journals nobody cares about or bothers to read (this is especially applicable to the social sciences).


If you want a good education these days, you'd do well to look outside of the University structure, which has become little more than a racket in recent years, and a good means of hiding youth unemployment by giving them subsidised holidays.

[RidonKs]

I mean, its one thing to argue teaching a conservative who believes in Creationism (I don't) shouldn't be able to teach an evolution or archaeology class. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

But it's no different then Notre Dame saying you must be a Catholic to work there, because if you're not, your views will interfere with the course curriculum.

Is that fair? Or right? Only Mormons are allowed to teach at BYU now? Is that the road we are going down?

And the best part is, The Man blows it off because its HIS side that is discriminating. Now it's okay, and acceptable, according to him.


Just happened to work out that way, eh? Luck of the draw? Had nothing to do with the fact they don't want to hire or work with Conservative professors or anything.
there are plenty of conservative professors. just not very many republican professors.

it's not a forged plan, it's an accident of history that academia is better served by democrats than republicans... same way it was better served by the conservative party in england 100 years ago

[Kblaze8855]

Bensel echoed this claim, saying that recent Republican debates have illustrated the deviation of “mainstream conservatives” from views that are widely accepted by intellectuals at reputable universities.

I can see how that makes sense....

Most of the flat out "Are you serious...." level denials of scientific fact I deal with come from republicans. And its quite a few....from great flood supporters(its come up during recent flooding down here) to deniers of evolution and global warming...

In general when someone is telling me something that flies in the face of education they tend to be republican. But I may have a skewed look being in the bible belt. These people are just....mind boggling at times.

That said.....you can find rational republicans. But if its democrats looking to teach....

Are we assuming republicans are about half the applicants and are overlooked just because of that?

Id like numbers on who gets turned away.

[BoutPractice]

This notion that conservatives are somehow inherently stupid is so self-evidently wrong, I'm ashamed that so people who agree with me on most other issues seem to sincerely believe it.

First of all, just because you think they are wrong or have an unthinking approach to politics doesn't mean they can't be right about other (often more important) things. I might think Ben Carson would make a terrible president, but I would be very comfortable with him performing a surgical operation on someone I loved, and I would never dream of calling him stupid. Many brilliant scientists and mathematicians that have tremendously benefitted mankind were politically conservative.

Secondly, even in the realm of politics, there are thinking and unthinking conservatives just as there are thinking and unthinking liberals. If you want to get truly deep into things, you will find there are real arguments on both sides. Plato, who was something of a conservative, obviously had a more impressive intellect, and examined every side of his own ideas more deeply than your average college freshman. Nietzsche, not anyone's idea of a leftist, would probably win a political argument against Ben Affleck. And you may disagree with Friedman's economics, but chances are they're better thought out than your own.

I love Dewey, by the way. Overrated in American academia, but underrated everywhere else.

kblaze > Not that I don't believe in evolution or global warming, but if someone of impressive intellect and genuine scientific background had a heretical theory grounded in evidence he claimed disproved both I'd want to hear him out (if only for the entertainment).

[Dresta]

This notion that conservatives are somehow inherently stupid is so self-evidently wrong, I'm ashamed that so people who agree with me on most other issues seem to sincerely believe it.

First of all, just because you think they are wrong or have an unthinking approach to politics doesn't mean they can't be right about other (often more important) things. I might think Ben Carson would make a terrible president, but I would be very comfortable with him performing a surgical operation on someone I loved, and I would never dream of calling him stupid. Many brilliant scientists and mathematicians that have tremendously benefitted mankind were politically conservative.

Secondly, even in the realm of politics, there are thinking and unthinking conservatives just as there are thinking and unthinking liberals. If you want to get truly deep into things, you will find there are real arguments on both sides. Plato, who was something of a conservative, obviously had a more impressive intellect, and examined every side of his own ideas more deeply than your average college freshman. Nietzsche, not anyone's idea of a leftist, would probably win a political argument against Ben Affleck. And you may disagree with Friedman's economics, but chances are they're better thought out than your own.

I love Dewey, by the way. Overrated in American academia, but underrated everywhere else.
This is a good post, so i'm amazed you like Dewey. I came to Dewey with a good impression also, him having had a section to himself in Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy. After i'd read him for a few hours i couldn't believe he'd been included - so much of what he says is inane to the extreme, and his sympathy for the Soviet system really cannot be excused (even going so far as to say we should learn from their more advanced methods). Nor can the fact that his mistaken ideas about education have been a large factor in the general decline of academic standards in America.

There was something impressive about Marx and Rousseau and Keynes, as much as i disagree with the bulk of their ideas - the latter two had a supreme mastery of prose also, which is to their credit. Yet to me, Dewey seems borderline juvenile, the most simple-minded proponent of unfeeling pragmatism i have yet seen (i don't like William James either, but he is 100x better than Dewey). I think i've got a few quotes stored in my email for their absurdity:


Habits may be profitably compared to physiological functions, like breathing, digesting. The latter are, to be sure, involuntary, while habits are acquired. But important as is this difference for many purposes it should not conceal the fact that habits are like functions in many respects, and especially in requiring the cooperation of organism and environment. Breathing is an affair of the air as truly as of the lungs; digesting an affair of food as truly as of tissues of stomach. Seeing involves light just as certainly as it does the eye and optic nerve. Walking implicates the ground as well as the legs; speech demands physical air and human companionship and audience as well as vocal organs. We may shift from the biological to the mathematical use of the word function, and say that natural operations like breathing and digesting, acquired ones like speech and honesty, are functions of the surroundings as truly as of a person. They are things done by the environment by means of organic structures or acquired dispositions. The same air that under certain conditions ruffles the pool or wrecks buildings, [pg 015] under other conditions purifies the blood and conveys thought. The outcome depends upon what air acts upon. The social environment acts through native impulses and speech and moral habitudes manifest themselves. There are specific good reasons for the usual attribution of acts to the person from whom they immediately proceed. But to convert this special reference into a belief of exclusive ownership is as misleading as to suppose that breathing and digesting are complete within the human body. To get a rational basis for moral discussion we must begin with recognizing that functions and habits are ways of using and incorporating the environment in which the latter has its say as surely as the former.

Dewey, John (2015-04-08). The Collected Works of John Dewey: The Complete Works PergamonMedia (Kindle Locations 13808-13823). PergamonMedia. Kindle Edition.


Taste for flowers may be the initial step in building reservoirs and irrigation canals.

Dewey, John (2015-04-08). The Collected Works of John Dewey: The Complete Works PergamonMedia (Kindle Location 13906). PergamonMedia. Kindle Edition.


A genuine appreciation of the beauty of flowers is not generated within a self-enclosed consciousness. It reflects a world in which beautiful flowers have already grown and been enjoyed. Taste and desire represent a prior objective fact recurring in action to secure perpetuation and extension. Desire for flowers comes after actual enjoyment of flowers. But it comes [pg 023] before the work that makes the desert blossom, it comes before cultivation of plants. Every ideal is preceded by an actuality; but the ideal is more than a repetition in inner image of the actual. It projects in securer and wider and fuller form some good which has been previously experienced in a precarious, accidental, fleeting way.

Dewey, John (2015-04-08). The Collected Works of John Dewey: The Complete Works PergamonMedia (Kindle Locations 13910-13916). PergamonMedia. Kindle Edition.

So many ways of saying nothing and conveying no real information. Not to mention his tiresome style of writing.

[QUOTE]'

[nathanjizzle]

Threads like these bore me. zzzzZZzzz

[Kblaze8855]

This notion that conservatives are somehow inherently stupid is so self-evidently wrong, I'm ashamed that so people who agree with me on most other issues seem to sincerely believe it.

Id like to think that anyone who puts some thought into it knows that it isnt that simple.

Its true that most people in my life who have ever just flat out denied scientific truths....are republicans. But I dont think they do so because they are...

Plus...some of them arent literally stupid. Guy id call a friend...he was in the navy 20 years...hes a solid carpenter..he has skills ill never approach. He clearly knows his shit on some subjects...

He also believes humans lived with dinosaurs on a world a few thousand years old.

I dont know what to label such a thing. He isnt...stupid. What would you call it?

I guess its case by case. Rick Perry doesnt believe in evolution at all. I...wouldnt be shocked if he were actually stupid.

Ron Paul doesnt either though....he...is not an idiot.

Republican ideals often seem to coincide with beliefs I just know...are absurd.

That doesnt make republicans stupid. It makes the question...complicated.

[Dresta]

Id like to think that anyone who puts some thought into it knows that it isnt that simple.

Its true that most people in my life who have ever just flat out denied scientific truths....are republicans. But I dont think they do so because they are...

Plus...some of them arent literally stupid. Guy id call a friend...he was in the navy 20 years...hes a solid carpenter..he has skills ill never approach. He clearly knows his shit on some subjects...

He also believes humans lived with dinosaurs on a world a few thousand years old.

I dont know what to label such a thing. He isnt...stupid. What would you call it?

I guess its case by case. Rick Perry doesnt believe in evolution at all. I...wouldnt be shocked if he were actually stupid.

Ron Paul doesnt either though....he...is not an idiot.

Republican ideals often seem to coincide with beliefs I just know...are absurd.

That doesnt make republicans stupid. It makes the question...complicated.
The fact is that most Republicans aren't conservative at all. Free-market economics is not conservative at all: unfettered capitalism is the most radical force the world has ever seen. No actual conservative would argue for an

Conservatism is largely an impulse, one that favours old things to new things, and stability and order to novelty and change. But in the modern world, when rampant change itself has become the status quo, where does that leave the definition of a conservative? Do conservatives not uphold the status quo?

I prefer the term anti-modern modernism myself - it is the only type of modernism worth its salt.

edit: Ron Paul is also a bit of an idiot to be honest, a chirping sectary he is.

[UK2K]

Id like to think that anyone who puts some thought into it knows that it isnt that simple.

Its true that most people in my life who have ever just flat out denied scientific truths....are republicans. But I dont think they do so because they are...

Plus...some of them arent literally stupid. Guy id call a friend...he was in the navy 20 years...hes a solid carpenter..he has skills ill never approach. He clearly knows his shit on some subjects...

He also believes humans lived with dinosaurs on a world a few thousand years old.

I dont know what to label such a thing. He isnt...stupid. What would you call it?

I guess its case by case. Rick Perry doesnt believe in evolution at all. I...wouldnt be shocked if he were actually stupid.

Ron Paul doesnt either though....he...is not an idiot.

Republican ideals often seem to coincide with beliefs I just know...are absurd.

That doesnt make republicans stupid. It makes the question...complicated.

Well, let's make this really simple....

The teachers need to teach, from professors all the way down to elementary school, what the curriculum says. The fact that the professor in the OP even has an opinion about what 'views' can be taught at Cornell tells me he floods his students with liberal viewpoints and arguments enough to think hiring a conservative may dampen the 'thought' at that school.

[Kblaze8855]

What would you consider a liberal viewpoint that wouldnt be taught in an openly political class?

I wonder about that at times. What people are worried these adults are being told.

[HitandRun Reggie]

Nothing new in the "liberal" world. When conservative speakers plan to go to "liberal" colleges, it is extremely common that they face protests against allowing them to speak. Most "liberals" these days are in reality just leftists.

[Akrazotile]

Tbh, the professor did not say exactly what was implied in the OP. He said that emphasizing diversity of political philosophy in hiring would detract from the strict focus on merit hiring. Now Im not saying that in practice all these professors have much merit, but in theory he is right. Diversity quotas in general dilute the hiring process.

Ofc, imagine some corporate kind of business being honest and saying that theyre only filling diversity quotas bc it makes people happy and its actually not productive for their business. Theyd be skewered.

[UK2K]

What would you consider a liberal viewpoint that wouldnt be taught in an openly political class?

I wonder about that at times. What people are worried these adults are being told.

That Republicans hate the poor and hate immigrants. That is a liberal view point. I cited two examples in ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS in the other thread.

You can have a viewpoint on ANY topic. There's always claims, counter-claims, bias, slant. Look at the way news is reported. Case in point, the way the stabbing sprees have been reported in Israel by Palestine.

[QUOTE]"He did not look to be particularly armed," correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin said of a suspected terrorist shot dead by Israeli police, contradicting the network's own video.

[B]The reporter, Ayman Mohyeldin, spent several minutes insinuating that a man who rushed a security check point in the Old City of Jerusalem didn

[UK2K]

Tbh, the professor did not say exactly what was implied in the OP. He said that emphasizing diversity of political philosophy in hiring would detract from the strict focus on merit hiring. Now Im not saying that in practice all these professors have much merit, but in theory he is right. Diversity quotas in general dilute the hiring process.

Ofc, imagine some corporate kind of business being honest and saying that theyre only filling diversity quotas bc it makes people happy and its actually not productive for their business. Theyd be skewered.


[QUOTE]According to the Sun, [B][I][SIZE="4"]government professor Andrew Little suggested hiring Republicans would compromise the quality of Cornell

[Akrazotile]

Maybe I misinterpreted what he said there. Maybe.



Imagine, an HR director saying 'putting more emphasis on diversity of racial makeup would certainly require sacrificing on general quality.'

Is that still cool, or no? Just trying to get what you're trying to say here.


The idea that the professor is singling out Republicans with his statement is an opinion of the article's editor, and also probably accurate. However the professor did not actually say that, and the way it was reported attempted to put specific words into his mouth, which were never actually stated. That's all I'm pointing out.

What the professor said in general is actually quite true. If you're focused on adding more of any particular group, instead of hiring the best people for the job regardless of diversity, that's a dilution of the process.

And I fully agree that the same problem occurs with ethnic hiring quotas in the corporate world, and such comments would be received much more harshly in that context by the liberal left.

[UK2K]

The idea that the professor is singling out Republicans with his statement is an opinion of the article's editor, and also probably accurate. However the professor did not actually say that, and the way it was reported attempted to put specific words into his mouth, which were never actually stated. That's all I'm pointing out.

What the professor said in general is actually quite true. If you're focused on adding more of any particular group, instead of hiring the best people for the job regardless of diversity, that's a dilution of the process.

And I fully agree that the same problem occurs with ethnic hiring quotas in the corporate world, and such comments would be received much more harshly in that context by the liberal left.

The title says a Cornell professor said that 'hiring Republicans would decrease faculty quality'.

The professor said, word for word:

[BoutPractice]

kblaze > Yeah, that carpenter example was my point about Ben Carson.

But to tell the truth, I think it's even more complicated than that.

Basically, what imo separates the average liberal from the kind of religious conservatives you're referring to is not that the liberal understands science better... it's that they tend to believe whatever has the label "science" attached to it over anything else... whereas conservatives - while not against science per se - will not easily change their mind about something their religion has taught them to believe, even if "science" disagrees with it.

In other words, it ultimately has more to do with value systems than intelligence. If you talked to them on the street, most liberals wouldn't be able to really explain how global warming or evolution works without saying something embarrassing or wrong along the way. (At worst it'd probably look similar to that sketch about technology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVxOb8-d7Ic) But it's "science", and they don't want to be seen by their liberal peers as science deniers...

The average person, conservative or liberal, doesn't know a lot about science, nor do they care. But the average liberal finds it more socially difficult to deny established "science".

Edit:

[DonDadda59]

This screams 'non story'. Is this just one random professor's personal feelings and opinions or is there any proof that Cornell University is systematically discriminating against Republican/Conservative teacher applicants? If the latter is the case then it is shameful, for the most part. I think one of the main focuses of 'higher education' should be fostering critical thinking in students and you don't accomplish that by censoring opposing viewpoints (that are at least somewhat sensible).

But like KBlaze pointed out, certain Conservatives/Republicans, even some prominent ones in positions of power, hold viewpoints that fly in the face of educated fact. I mean would you really want your kids learning molecular biology from someone who thinks the Flintstones was a documentary? :confusedshrug:

[DeuceWallaces]

Shouldnt and wouldnt are two very different things.
My sociology class I took a while ago slowly morphed into a class about marxism and the upcoming revolution. Not really very informative about anything real...

I highly doubt it. Any professor, even one teaching social inequality or marxism, would not be allowed to carry on like that unless they were really old with tenure and even then they would come under fire.

[UK2K]

This screams 'non story'. Is this just one random professor's personal feelings and opinions or is there any proof that Cornell University is systematically discriminating against Republican/Conservative teacher applicants? If the latter is the case then it is shameful, for the most part. I think one of the main focuses of 'higher education' should be fostering critical thinking in students and you don't accomplish that by censoring opposing viewpoints (that are at least somewhat sensible).

But like KBlaze pointed out, certain Conservatives/Republicans, even some prominent ones in positions of power, hold viewpoints that fly in the face of educated fact. I mean would you really want your kids learning molecular biology from someone who thinks the Flintstones was a documentary? :confusedshrug:

Your post reeks of bias. But I will do you a solid because I want you to acknowledge it:

To the bolded above, when Ben Carson stated he didn't want a Muslim in the White House, it was the end of the ****ing world!!!! Like, holy ****, shit is about to go down. Something tells me you didn't see what he said (one person's opinion) and immediately stop everyone and say 'wait a minute, this is one guys opinion, and not indicative of the Republican party'. Am I right? It's one man's opinion when its YOUR side saying something discriminatory, to which you try to brush off as no big deal. If the professor didn't want to work with blacks or Muslims, would you still try and defend it?

As for your second paragraph, nice little quip there about the Flinstones. Whats his beliefs matter if he teaches the curriculum? I don't believe in God, but I could teach a religion class if I was given what needs to be instructed.

Can a creationist not teach managerial finance? How can Democrats teach capitalist economics when they don't believe in it? How do liberals teach the Holocaust when they think it's fake? How do Muslims teach the Constitution when it clashes with their belief in Sharia Law?

Deflect, deflect, deflect. Deflect some more, make a joke, and then drop the mic because you think you successfully defended discrimination. Well done.

[DonDadda59]

Your post reeks of bias. But I will do you a solid because I want you to acknowledge it:

To the bolded above, when Ben Carson stated he didn't want a Muslim in the White House, it was the end of the ****ing world!!!! Like, holy ****, shit is about to go down. Something tells me you didn't see what he said (one person's opinion) and immediately stop everyone and say 'wait a minute, this is one guys opinion, and not indicative of the Republican party'. Am I right? It's one man's opinion when its YOUR side saying something discriminatory, to which you try to brush off as no big deal. If the professor didn't want to work with blacks or Muslims, would you still try and defend it?

Why are you getting so emotional about this? What 'sides' are you even talking about. I already said that if there is any proof of institutional discrimination against Republican/Conservative professor candidates then it would be absolutely shameful. I like how you glossed over that part. Also, there is a big difference between the thoughts of a random professor who most likely has no input on Cornell's hiring process and a candidate for the highest and most powerful office in the country, probably the entire planet. One can only give an opinion, while the other can potentially affect policy.



As for your second paragraph, nice little quip there about the Flinstones. Whats his beliefs matter if he teaches the curriculum? I don't believe in God, but I could teach a religion class if I was given what needs to be instructed.

Anyone who denies certain scientific facts should not be allowed to teach certain subjects and pass off Biblical myth as fact. It's not that complicated.


Can a creationist not teach managerial finance?

I don't see why not.



How can Democrats teach capitalist economics when they don't believe in it?

You're confusing Democrat and socialist. Bernie Sanders is a socialist, Hilary Clinton is not. Plus, does any socialist deny capitalism's existence? :confusedshrug:


How do liberals teach the Holocaust when they think it's fake?

Da fuq? :biggums:



How do Muslims teach the Constitution when it clashes with their belief in Sharia Law?

Again, do these hypothetical Muslim teachers deny the existence of the Constitution?


Deflect, deflect, deflect. Deflect some more, make a joke, and then drop the mic because you think you successfully defended discrimination. Well done.

:lol

Were you part of the group here who were arguing that private institutions like bakeries and florists should have the right to deny service to same sex couples?

Just wondering.

[Nanners]

so the guy is against affirmative action for republicans in academia... whats the problem?

[Akrazotile]

Why are you getting so emotional about this? What 'sides' are you even talking about. I already said that if there is any proof of institutional discrimination against Republican/Conservative professor candidates then it would be absolutely shameful. I like how you glossed over that part. Also, there is a big difference between the thoughts of a random professor who most likely has no input on Cornell's hiring process and a candidate for the highest and most powerful office in the country, probably the entire planet. One can only give an opinion, while the other can potentially affect policy.




Anyone who denies certain scientific facts should not be allowed to teach certain subjects and pass off Biblical myth as fact. It's not that complicated.



I don't see why not.




You're confusing Democrat and socialist. Bernie Sanders is a socialist, Hilary Clinton is not. Plus, does any socialist deny capitalism's existence? :confusedshrug:



Da fuq? :biggums:




Again, do these hypothetical Muslim teachers deny the existence of the Constitution?



:lol

Were you part of the group here who were arguing that private institutions like bakeries and florists should have the right to deny service to same sex couples?

Just wondering.


I dont know bout UK2K but I was part of that group and this is a fair point. Private schools can hire whomever they want to teach. If Liberal Democrat Socialists are their primary targets for professors, let them have at it. Smart kids will avoid those schools, while sheep who wanna pay money for dogma are free to do so. The market can sort the whole thing out on its own.

I see nothin wrong with it.

[I<3NBA]

so the guy is against affirmative action for republicans in academia... whats the problem?
he's not against it. Akrazotile just cleared up the entire matter.

the Cornell Professor stated hiring based on political views would decrease quality because that would discard hiring based on merit.

the article then proceeded to put words in his mouth by making it seem like the professor said hiring republicans would decrease quality.

the simple truth is, you hire based on merit. regardless of diversity quotas.

[Nick Young]

Universities promote "open-mindedness" and preach "diversity". Except when they don't want to.

[Nick Young]

I highly doubt it. Any professor, even one teaching social inequality or marxism, would not be allowed to carry on like that unless they were really old with tenure and even then they would come under fire.
You don't know what university is like these days. it seems like half the professors are Marxists and they turn any topic in to a pro-socialism message if they have half an opportunity too.

The kids don't have a chance with these bozos guiding them.

[Akrazotile]

You don't know what university is like these days. it seems like half the professors are Marxists and they turn any topic in to a pro-socialism message if they have half an opportunity too.

The kids don't have a chance with these bozos guiding them.


This is absolutely true especially when it comes to any humanities/liberal arts elective type classes. Most of them have no actual cirriculum. Theyre just large, hour-long discussion groups where a teacher waxes liberal, students take turns sharing their nascent liberal views to the approval of the rest of the class with some "yeah, totally!" and "good point!" circle jerking along the way, the teachers make their money and the students move closer to their degree. It's silly to the point of absurdity, and I know this personally from having made the mistake of taking some of these classes.

It might not come up as often in plant biology class, but it DEFINITELY happens all the time in social science degree classes like "Communications" or "Gender studies" and "Sociology".

But again, if thats what people wanna invest their money into four years of, that's fine. But we dont need to invest tax payer money into that shit. You wanna take thise BS classes, pay your own tuition.

[DeuceWallaces]

You don't know what university is like these days. it seems like half the professors are Marxists and they turn any topic in to a pro-socialism message if they have half an opportunity too.

The kids don't have a chance with these bozos guiding them.

I don't need a bunch of college dropouts telling me about the inner workings of academia. I know more about it than anyone posting on this shithole. You can't operate a college course like that.

[UK2K]

he's not against it. Akrazotile just cleared up the entire matter.

the Cornell Professor stated hiring based on political views would decrease quality because that would discard hiring based on merit.

the article then proceeded to put words in his mouth by making it seem like the professor said hiring republicans would decrease quality.

the simple truth is, you SHOULD hire based on merit. regardless of diversity quotas.

That, I agree with.

Are you saying the professor thinks Affirmative Action is bullshit then? As in, for all groups and all positions? No more quotas for any job?

[Akrazotile]

I don't need a bunch of college dropouts telling me about the inner workings of academia. I know more about it than anyone posting on this shithole. You can't operate a college course like that.


We're all aware that as a social reject freakshow, academia is the one bastion of tolerance and hypersensitivity where you can feel reasonably comfortable despite your enormous lack of masculinity. God knows the corporate world would cause you a nervous breakdown on your first day.

However, your personal experience with professors does not reflect the entire spectrum of experiences had by millions of other students. You are a forest gnome specialist and you dont know anything about... Well anything else at all really :confusedshrug:

[Nick Young]

I don't need a bunch of college dropouts telling me about the inner workings of academia. I know more about it than anyone posting on this shithole. You can't operate a college course like that.
I passed college, dumbass. I got a degree in 3 years, and I worked in the UK education sector for a year after as an elected student representative. I know what is going on the scenes in universities these days. I've seen it first hand as a student, and in meetings with VCGs, board of governors, HR department and other shit. You must have graduated atleast 10-15 years ago by now.


You shouldn't be able to operate a college course in the way I described. It happens anyways.

Non-STEM fields are impossible to regulate due to the very nature of the subjective material being taught in them. They lend themselves to Professors slathering their personal opinions over everything, and by god do they love the power it gives them. Some professors try to teach in a non-biased manner. Most have no qualms about inserting their personal politics in to everything.

I have already spoken about Psychology course leaders being told to pass kids through who refuse to learn Evolutionary Psychology. This is just one of many examples I have witnessed of the bullshit currently going on in modern academia. The times have changed old man. University ain't what it used to be.

[DeuceWallaces]

I passed college, dumbass. I got a degree in 3 years, and I worked in the UK education sector for a year after as an elected student representative. I know what is going on the scenes in universities these days. I've seen it first hand as a student, and in meetings with VCGs, board of governors, HR department and other shit. You must have graduated atleast 10-15 years ago by now.


You shouldn't be able to operate a college course in the way I described. It happens anyways.

Non-STEM fields are impossible to regulate due to the very nature of the subjective material being taught in them. They lend themselves to Professors slathering their personal opinions over everything, and by god do they love the power it gives them. Some professors try to teach in a non-biased manner. Most have no qualms about inserting their personal politics in to everything.

I have already spoken about Psychology course leaders being told to pass kids through who refuse to learn Evolutionary Psychology. This is just one of many examples I have witnessed of the bullshit currently going on in modern academia. The times have changed old man. University ain't what it used to be.

No, you don't know. You don't know shit. Undergrads are not part of staff meetings or search committees.

Everything you've ever said about your experiences in college is clearly bullshit. I've never seen someone make up so many stories about their experiences and try so hard to come off as some sort of free thinking rebel in the liberal education system. It's comical. Almost worse than Lensanity pretending to do mushrooms.

You're incredibly phony and absolutely terrified of having your real life collide with your fake internet persona.

[RidonKs]

kblaze > Yeah, that carpenter example was my point about Ben Carson.

But to tell the truth, I think it's even more complicated than that.

Basically, what imo separates the average liberal from the kind of religious conservatives you're referring to is not that the liberal understands science better... it's that they tend to believe whatever has the label "science" attached to it over anything else... whereas conservatives - while not against science per se - will not easily change their mind about something their religion has taught them to believe, even if "science" disagrees with it.

In other words, it ultimately has more to do with value systems than intelligence. If you talked to them on the street, most liberals wouldn't be able to really explain how global warming or evolution works without saying something embarrassing or wrong along the way. (At worst it'd probably look similar to that sketch about technology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVxOb8-d7Ic) But it's "science", and they don't want to be seen by their liberal peers as science deniers...

The average person, conservative or liberal, doesn't know a lot about science, nor do they care. But the average liberal finds it more socially difficult to deny established "science".

Edit:
well said

[UK2K]

well said

Yup, agree with that.

[Nick Young]

I highly doubt it. Any professor, even one teaching social inequality or marxism, would not be allowed to carry on like that unless they were really old with tenure and even then they would come under fire.
Too bad the world doesn't operate like it does in a Disney movie.

[Nick Young]

No, you don't know. You don't know shit. Undergrads are not part of staff meetings or search committees.

Elected student representatives are, bitch. I actually worked in the Education sector from the inside looking out, sat in on minuted meetings with the Board of Governors, the Vice Chancellors Office, HR, Ethics and Diversity, and several other committees.

You are speaking from a naive, idealistic perspective that doesn't accurately represent reality.

You attended university 10-15 years ago. The time's have changed old man. Keep up or get out of the conversation.

[Monta Ellis MVP]

Conservatives don't hold positions at colleges because the students are still too childish to fully understand their concepts.

[oarabbus]

If there is actually a case of job discrimination against Republicans at Cornell, that is ****ing absurd.

[Goro]

The professor is right :applause:

[NumberSix]

Conservatives don't hold positions at colleges because the students are still too childish to fully understand their concepts.
Well, that's probably true. College age students are probably mostly too young to understand nuance. That's why the left's endless pandering to emotion generally works. Not to say it doesn't happen at all on the right. You do have your pandering to "they're tryna take muh free-dum" sentiment.

There's a reason why the phase goes "if you're not a liberal at 25, you don't have a heart. If you're not a conservative at 35, you don't have a brain."

At 25, I don't really blame you if your political depth is "hey, don't be mean to people" and very surface level. If at 35 you haven't dug deeper to understand that politics goes beyond "being mean", then you're honestly a lost cause.

At its core, the "left" wants there to be a "correct answer" for everything, even on matters of preference or opinion.

[longtime lurker]

Makes sense. Republicans are against any type of progressive thinking, not to mention Conservatives are complete ****ing morons. Probably for the best considering the inherent racial, gender and sexual orientation bias that's a prerequisite to being a Republican.

[Dresta]

Why are you getting so emotional about this? What 'sides' are you even talking about. I already said that if there is any proof of institutional discrimination against Republican/Conservative professor candidates then it would be absolutely shameful. I like how you glossed over that part. Also, there is a big difference between the thoughts of a random professor who most likely has no input on Cornell's hiring process and a candidate for the highest and most powerful office in the country, probably the entire planet. One can only give an opinion, while the other can potentially affect policy.




Anyone who denies certain scientific facts should not be allowed to teach certain subjects and pass off Biblical myth as fact. It's not that complicated.



I don't see why not.




You're confusing Democrat and socialist. Bernie Sanders is a socialist, Hilary Clinton is not. Plus, does any socialist deny capitalism's existence? :confusedshrug:



Da fuq? :biggums:


Again, do these hypothetical Muslim teachers deny the existence of the Constitution?



:lol

Were you part of the group here who were arguing that private institutions like bakeries and florists should have the right to deny service to same sex couples?

Just wondering.
fyi 'capitalism' is already an ideologically loaded term, one coined by Marx in fact (which says everything about its origins) - and it seeks to turn a practical reality (the tendency of human beings to acquire things, to trade, barter, and the like), and turn it into an abstract concept which can be repudiated and railed against by the unthinking multitudes (i.e. creating a simple enemy which can be blamed, but doesn't really exist). It has no correlation to practical circumstances, much like its supposed opposite 'socialism' can never be anything other than a chimera.

Saying one wants to get rid of capitalism is as pointless as saying one wants to get rid of the air itself - you cannot get rid of something that is merely an outgrowth of human nature, its wants and needs, and so on.

Anyone who teaches Marxism (or that socialism is a viable concept in anything other than a tiny, self-governed community) is teaching a palpable falsehood, and yet Marxist and socialist adherents litter University campuses, whether they know their intellectual antecedents or not. And i see little complaint about that from ISHs resident Christian-bashers.

[Dresta]

Well, that's probably true. College age students are probably mostly too young to understand nuance. That's why the left's endless pandering to emotion generally works. Not to say it doesn't happen at all on the right. You do have your pandering to "they're tryna take muh free-dum" sentiment.

There's a reason why the phase goes "if you're not a liberal at 25, you don't have a heart. If you're not a conservative at 35, you don't have a brain."

At 25, I don't really blame you if your political depth is "hey, don't be mean to people" and very surface level. If at 35 you haven't dug deeper to understand that politics goes beyond "being mean", then you're honestly a lost cause.

At its core, the "left" wants there to be a "correct answer" for everything, even on matters of preference or opinion.At the same time as being thoroughgoing relativists, philosophically at least :oldlol:

Moral relativism when it suits us; moral absolutism when it suits us - which is funny, because they tend to admit the existence of no absolutes at the same time, and fail to notice the gross inconsistency of their position.

[KyrieTheFuture]

Regardless of what you think about this, the professor saying it isn't his job to mold young minds is a ****ing moron

Edit: Despite being a leftist technically, I will share with you all my greatest example of ridiculous liberal professors. I took a magic and religion course (gotta love liberal arts requirements), I thought it was gonna be about paganism vs modern religions and wars and shit but no, super ****ing boring. So, every single lesson she started off saying "now, since we don't live in this society, we can't criticize ANYTHING they do". It was absurd, I had to sit there and say there was nothing wrong with female genital mutilation, or tribal warriors raping young boys, or the fake psychics who charge people to talk to their dead loved ones. What makes it even better, is when we arrive at the white supremacy lesson. "Now class, I know I have forbidden you from criticizing the people we've talked about in the past, but these racists are so disgusting I can't even defend them so go ahead and talk about how evil they are". My mind was blown. She couldn't stick to her one god damn rule in the class.

[Dresta]

Regardless of what you think about this, the professor saying it isn't his job to mold young minds is a ****ing moron

Edit: Despite being a leftist technically, I will share with you all my greatest example of ridiculous liberal professors. I took a magic and religion course (gotta love liberal arts requirements), I thought it was gonna be about paganism vs modern religions and wars and shit but no, super ****ing boring. So, every single lesson she started off saying "now, since we don't live in this society, we can't criticize ANYTHING they do". It was absurd, I had to sit there and say there was nothing wrong with female genital mutilation, or tribal warriors raping young boys, or the fake psychics who charge people to talk to their dead loved ones. What makes it even better, is when we arrive at the white supremacy lesson. "Now class, I know I have forbidden you from criticizing the people we've talked about in the past, but these racists are so disgusting I can't even defend them so go ahead and talk about how evil they are". My mind was blown. She couldn't stick to her one god damn rule in the class.
:roll:

That sort of professor is hilarious: they will preach moral relativity as if it were their [I]id

[dunksby]

The saddest part here is that Cornell basically admits to being aware of current and prospective employees' view points. A professor is there to teach what he is supposed to, no respectable professor in any respectable institute of higher education should let his bias affect his teaching. That goes for the process of hiring the said professors.

[KyrieTheFuture]

[QUOTE=Dresta]:roll:

That sort of professor is hilarious: they will preach moral relativity as if it were their [I]id