Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

"Lets Give Up On Academic Freedom In Favor Of Justice"

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Lets Give Up On Academic Freedom In Favor Of Justice"

    If Sandra Korn a senior at Harvard and columnist for the Harvard Crimson, got her way, free speech on campus would be abolished and professors with dissenting views fired, because radical leftism is the only permissible political philosophy and the First Amendment is a barrier preventing modern colleges from fulfilling their proper role as indoctrination camps.

    She writes:

    In its oft-cited Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the American Association of University Professors declares that Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results. In principle, this policy seems sound: It would not do for academics to have their research restricted by the political whims of the moment.

    Yet the liberal obsession with academic freedom seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has full freedom in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever free from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of academic freedom?
    Politics above all else? Sandra says, yes...

    In this case, discourse about academic freedom obscures what should fundamentally be a political argument.
    Can anyone here defend this? Anybody want to? How long do you think this will take to go 'main stream'?

    http://www.thecrimson.com/column/the.../?page=single#

  • #2
    Re: &quot;Lets Give Up On Academic Freedom In Favor Of Justice&quot;



    Not much more to say beyond that. The suppression of free speech on US university campuses has been going on for a long time.



    Yup. Pretty much. Same goes on US campuses. The instances and examples of it are too many to count. All during formative years of our youth.

    Liberal Fascism at it's finest. Will the people of the US reject it in time before it roots itself too deeply?

    ?


    • #3
      Re: &quot;Lets Give Up On Academic Freedom In Favor Of Justice&quot;

      Is it any wonder that student loan debt exceeds both car loans and personal credit car debt?

      And for what?

      ?


      • #4
        Re: &quot;Lets Give Up On Academic Freedom In Favor Of Justice&quot;

        To have their heads filled with liberal mush?

        ?


        • #5
          Re: &quot;Lets Give Up On Academic Freedom In Favor Of Justice&quot;

          As an academic working in a higher education institution, I feel I have a duty to comment on this. Some comments addressing points made by Korn in the article.

          Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities
          In the case of research grants, she is correct - to a point. If the grant is coming from public funds, then yes the grant will be determined based on political priorities, but if the grant is coming from private funds, then the grant will be determined on what the organisation is wanting the funds to be used for. There may be some political aspect to it, but not always.

          In terms of publications - she is wrong. The most common publication tool used in academia is journals. The criteria used by academic journals to determine if a paper is to be accepted is whether or not the paper fits the criteria of the journal. For example, if I was going to submit a paper on "Partisanship on USPOL Online: An Examination of Contemporary Congress As Reflected in an Online Community", and I submitted that paper to The Journal of Comparative American Politics, then it would not be accepted. This would have nothing to do with "politics", but because the paper doesn't reflect the academic requirements of the journal. Such a paper might be better served being submitted to The Journal of Political Science, or even The Journal of Social Science. The Journal of Comparative American Politics features articles that are more about comparing American politics with other aspects, or areas, not reflecting. In academic circles, there's a BIG difference.

          When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.
          I could not disagree more vehemently! Who gets to define what is promoting or justifying oppression? Who gets to define what oppression is? Who gets to say that one academics' research is not of social value? Let me give an example. Imagine there is a PhD student doing their doctoral thesis on political power in Nazi Germany, and the assertions of that thesis were that Hitler was a master politician, and that modern politicians could learn from Hitler's use and manipulation of information and people to obtain, and maintain power. That thesis is not offering support for Nazisim, but in essence that thesis meets Korn's criteria as supporting one of the most vile men in history. Instead, such a thesis would give a greater insight into a nation's sociology, the political science used at the time, etc. In short, it would be a very valuable piece of research (which has been done, countless times), which would benefit numerous social institutions.

          In short, I do not agree with Korn. Freedom, whether it be academic or other, means just that, freedom. You can't put limits on it, because then it's not freedom. The assence of academic peer review is to present your research and argument, and have others - your academic peers - pull it apart, and you defend it. If your argument and research is sound, then you'll be able to defend it, and address every query raised in relation to it. If you can't, then you need to go back and review your work, and continue working on it. That is the essence of what peer review is. It's exactly what happens when submitting drafts of paper's to peer reviewed journals for publication.

          University's have long been the bastion of free-thinking, and have long suffered pseduo-oppression for daring to challenge the common political thinking of the day. That's their role. If we wanted to churn out people who all thought the same way, then we'd close down every university and send everyone to a military academy. The very basis of higher education is to develop free and independent thinking, that may - indeed should - challenge the norm. It's how individuals, and society, grows.

          ?


          • #6
            Re: &quot;Lets Give Up On Academic Freedom In Favor Of Justice&quot;

            Originally posted by tsquare View Post
            If Sandra Korn a senior at Harvard and columnist for the Harvard Crimson, got her way, free speech on campus would be abolished and professors with dissenting views fired, because radical leftism is the only permissible political philosophy and the First Amendment is a barrier preventing modern colleges from fulfilling their proper role as indoctrination camps.
            ....
            Supposing her mother were just like her, Sandra will have the same level of success; small to none. She is just playing out the last of the left wing momentum on the pendulum's political correctness path.
            That pendulum swung right in the past....
            ...eras of religious persecution such as Elizabethan England, has shown many of the characteristics of modern political correctness, and often went far further by enforcing its intolerance with violence (as does Islam in parts of the world today). Darwin became the victim of a Victorian form of political correctness, when he was lampooned and shunned for saying that our ancestors swung from branches.
            ...Before Darwin's oppression, it swung left.
            The eighteenth-century Franco-Swiss philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau popularised the vilification of Western civilisation with his romanticising of the noble savage.
            http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs47-3.pdf

            I took University classes with the likes of Sandra's hypothetical mother back in the day. She had already compromised her lack of scientific method and other illiberal claims to academic discipline. A woman's studies professor had to nearly bite her tongue when my fellow student -a neo Marxist- stated she supported a GOP senator because he had been good to her and her family. That didn't match the argument she made for matriarchy as a replacement for patriarchy. Hence, my paper on gender-free, relatively flat hierarchy (based on merit in practice) got a much better grade than her tripe. Apparently the prof was a proper liberal. Way back then. Neo Marxists are kept on campus as relics and because it is still cool to attack one's own culture as Rousseau did. As far as a practical academic resource for people with serious career plans, they faded long ago.

            ?


            • #7
              Re: &quot;Lets Give Up On Academic Freedom In Favor Of Justice&quot;

              Originally posted by radcentr View Post
              Supposing her mother were just like her, Sandra will have the same level of success; small to none. She is just playing out the last of the left wing momentum on the pendulum's political correctness path.
              That pendulum swung right in the past....

              ...Before Darwin's oppression, it swung left.

              http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs47-3.pdf

              I took University classes with the likes of Sandra's hypothetical mother back in the day. She had already compromised her lack of scientific method and other illiberal claims to academic discipline. A woman's studies professor had to nearly bite her tongue when my fellow student -a neo Marxist- stated she supported a GOP senator because he had been good to her and her family. That didn't match the argument she made for matriarchy as a replacement for patriarchy. Hence, my paper on gender-free, relatively flat hierarchy (based on merit in practice) got a much better grade than her tripe. Apparently the prof was a proper liberal. Way back then. Neo Marxists are kept on campus as relics and because it is still cool to attack one's own culture as Rousseau did. As far as a practical academic resource for people with serious career plans, they faded long ago.
              Then you would have thought that Harvard would have kept Obama.

              ?


              • #8
                Re: &quot;Lets Give Up On Academic Freedom In Favor Of Justice&quot;

                Originally posted by noahath View Post
                As an academic working in a higher education institution, I feel I have a duty to comment on this. Some comments addressing points made by Korn in the article.



                In the case of research grants, she is correct - to a point. If the grant is coming from public funds, then yes the grant will be determined based on political priorities, but if the grant is coming from private funds, then the grant will be determined on what the organisation is wanting the funds to be used for. There may be some political aspect to it, but not always.

                In terms of publications - she is wrong. The most common publication tool used in academia is journals. The criteria used by academic journals to determine if a paper is to be accepted is whether or not the paper fits the criteria of the journal. For example, if I was going to submit a paper on "Partisanship on USPOL Online: An Examination of Contemporary Congress As Reflected in an Online Community", and I submitted that paper to The Journal of Comparative American Politics, then it would not be accepted. This would have nothing to do with "politics", but because the paper doesn't reflect the academic requirements of the journal. Such a paper might be better served being submitted to The Journal of Political Science, or even The Journal of Social Science. The Journal of Comparative American Politics features articles that are more about comparing American politics with other aspects, or areas, not reflecting. In academic circles, there's a BIG difference.



                I could not disagree more vehemently! Who gets to define what is promoting or justifying oppression? Who gets to define what oppression is? Who gets to say that one academics' research is not of social value? Let me give an example. Imagine there is a PhD student doing their doctoral thesis on political power in Nazi Germany, and the assertions of that thesis were that Hitler was a master politician, and that modern politicians could learn from Hitler's use and manipulation of information and people to obtain, and maintain power. That thesis is not offering support for Nazisim, but in essence that thesis meets Korn's criteria as supporting one of the most vile men in history. Instead, such a thesis would give a greater insight into a nation's sociology, the political science used at the time, etc. In short, it would be a very valuable piece of research (which has been done, countless times), which would benefit numerous social institutions.

                In short, I do not agree with Korn. Freedom, whether it be academic or other, means just that, freedom. You can't put limits on it, because then it's not freedom. The assence of academic peer review is to present your research and argument, and have others - your academic peers - pull it apart, and you defend it. If your argument and research is sound, then you'll be able to defend it, and address every query raised in relation to it. If you can't, then you need to go back and review your work, and continue working on it. That is the essence of what peer review is. It's exactly what happens when submitting drafts of paper's to peer reviewed journals for publication.

                University's have long been the bastion of free-thinking, and have long suffered pseduo-oppression for daring to challenge the common political thinking of the day. That's their role. If we wanted to churn out people who all thought the same way, then we'd close down every university and send everyone to a military academy. The very basis of higher education is to develop free and independent thinking, that may - indeed should - challenge the norm. It's how individuals, and society, grows.
                Yes sir, I am with you. Well said.

                ?


                • #9
                  Re: &quot;Lets Give Up On Academic Freedom In Favor Of Justice&quot;

                  Originally posted by noahath View Post
                  As an academic working in a higher education institution, I feel I have a duty to comment on this. Some comments addressing points made by Korn in the article.



                  In the case of research grants, she is correct - to a point. If the grant is coming from public funds, then yes the grant will be determined based on political priorities, but if the grant is coming from private funds, then the grant will be determined on what the organisation is wanting the funds to be used for. There may be some political aspect to it, but not always.

                  In terms of publications - she is wrong. The most common publication tool used in academia is journals. The criteria used by academic journals to determine if a paper is to be accepted is whether or not the paper fits the criteria of the journal. For example, if I was going to submit a paper on "Partisanship on USPOL Online: An Examination of Contemporary Congress As Reflected in an Online Community", and I submitted that paper to The Journal of Comparative American Politics, then it would not be accepted. This would have nothing to do with "politics", but because the paper doesn't reflect the academic requirements of the journal. Such a paper might be better served being submitted to The Journal of Political Science, or even The Journal of Social Science. The Journal of Comparative American Politics features articles that are more about comparing American politics with other aspects, or areas, not reflecting. In academic circles, there's a BIG difference.



                  I could not disagree more vehemently! Who gets to define what is promoting or justifying oppression? Who gets to define what oppression is? Who gets to say that one academics' research is not of social value? Let me give an example. Imagine there is a PhD student doing their doctoral thesis on political power in Nazi Germany, and the assertions of that thesis were that Hitler was a master politician, and that modern politicians could learn from Hitler's use and manipulation of information and people to obtain, and maintain power. That thesis is not offering support for Nazisim, but in essence that thesis meets Korn's criteria as supporting one of the most vile men in history. Instead, such a thesis would give a greater insight into a nation's sociology, the political science used at the time, etc. In short, it would be a very valuable piece of research (which has been done, countless times), which would benefit numerous social institutions.

                  In short, I do not agree with Korn. Freedom, whether it be academic or other, means just that, freedom. You can't put limits on it, because then it's not freedom. The assence of academic peer review is to present your research and argument, and have others - your academic peers - pull it apart, and you defend it. If your argument and research is sound, then you'll be able to defend it, and address every query raised in relation to it. If you can't, then you need to go back and review your work, and continue working on it. That is the essence of what peer review is. It's exactly what happens when submitting drafts of paper's to peer reviewed journals for publication.


                  University's have long been the bastion of free-thinking, and have long suffered pseduo-oppression for daring to challenge the common political thinking of the day. That's their role. If we wanted to churn out people who all thought the same way, then we'd close down every university and send everyone to a military academy. The very basis of higher education is to develop free and independent thinking, that may - indeed should - challenge the norm. It's how individuals, and society, grows.
                  Noah, You claim that 'University's have long been the bastion of free-thinking' but what has come to light in recent years is the oppression of opposing conservative views, the shouting down of conservative speakers being the prime example, people supporting the military as well as military recruiting being banned from campuses. Seems to me that the Universities are in fact churn out people who all thought the same way, namely the liberal / progressive way, as supported by the nearly universal progressive / liberal positions and beliefs of the academicians as represented by the professorial populations as well as the administrations.

                  Now I'm not saying that Universities should aim to produce an equal number of liberals / progressives graduates (unlike the liberal / progressive idea of minorities based quota systems), how about just allowing the conservative point of view to be heard? How about just allowing the conservative point of view not to be denigrated, marginalized, or punished?

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Re: &quot;Lets Give Up On Academic Freedom In Favor Of Justice&quot;

                    Where is the universities duty to stand for timeless truth come into play?

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Re: &quot;Lets Give Up On Academic Freedom In Favor Of Justice&quot;

                      Originally posted by Commodore View Post
                      Where is the universities duty to stand for timeless truth come into play?
                      I think they are mostly concerned with facts, not truth, unless you are talking about the Philosophy Department.

                      I think many universities are of a liberal bent because it is seen as more intellectually respectable than conservatism, at least what passes for it these days. Conservatism is in part grounded in tradition, and traditions are always questioned, and should be questioned, if one gets a real education.

                      You know, it would be hard for a liberal prof, an atheist, to find a job at an institution that is conservative. The same probably goes on with institutions that lean left. Neither would fit with the idea of an education from the respective institutions.

                      If parents want their kids to get a conservative education, they would send them to a university owned and run by a religious group. You know what sort of education would be found at Yale or Harvard. Or at Berkely.

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Re: &quot;Lets Give Up On Academic Freedom In Favor Of Justice&quot;

                        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                        I think they are mostly concerned with facts, not truth, unless you are talking about the Philosophy Department.

                        I think many universities are of a liberal bent because it is seen as more intellectually respectable than conservatism, at least what passes for it these days. Conservatism is in part grounded in tradition, and traditions are always questioned, and should be questioned, if one gets a real education.
                        It's all fine and good to question tradition, so long as one of the acceptable outcomes at the end of your questioning is that the truth is true.

                        Do you know the difference between knowledge and wisdom?

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Re: &quot;Lets Give Up On Academic Freedom In Favor Of Justice&quot;

                          Originally posted by noahath View Post
                          As an academic working in a higher education institution, I feel I have a duty to comment on this.
                          I thought of you at once when I saw this...


                          Originally posted by noahath View Post
                          In the case of research grants, she is correct - to a point. If the grant is coming from public funds, then yes the grant will be determined based on political priorities, but if the grant is coming from private funds, then the grant will be determined on what the organisation is wanting the funds to be used for. There may be some political aspect to it, but not always.
                          I've got a small problem with that. Now I don't think that public funds should be used for anything other than hard science, but I understand that they are. By your reasoning then political ' priorities' should be used for that research. Then some government might give a grant that says 'study poor people and tell us how much they like our programs' or some such 'politically approved' outcome.

                          Private money... yeah they can do what they want.

                          Originally posted by noahath View Post
                          For example, if I was going to submit a paper on "Partisanship on USPOL Online: An Examination of Contemporary Congress As Reflected in an Online Community"
                          If I find out that this is the working title of your dissertation... I demand an acknowledgement!


                          Originally posted by noahath View Post
                          I could not disagree more vehemently! Who gets to define what is promoting or justifying oppression? Who gets to define what oppression is? Who gets to say that one academics' research is not of social value?
                          Therein lay her point... 'they' get to define all that. This is political correctness run amuck.

                          As far as research goes we see the beginning of this happening right now... The science is settled' on AGW. The liberal orthodoxy holds that no other research is permitted, that their position is the only one that can and should be taken. They have taken steps to limit peered review papers and publishing. They have been and are today doing as Korn is advocating.

                          And as you said, it's wrong.

                          ?


                          • #14
                            Re: &quot;Lets Give Up On Academic Freedom In Favor Of Justice&quot;

                            Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                            Noah, You claim that 'University's have long been the bastion of free-thinking' but what has come to light in recent years is the oppression of opposing conservative views, the shouting down of conservative speakers being the prime example, people supporting the military as well as military recruiting being banned from campuses. Seems to me that the Universities are in fact churn out people who all thought the same way, namely the liberal / progressive way, as supported by the nearly universal progressive / liberal positions and beliefs of the academicians as represented by the professorial populations as well as the administrations.

                            Now I'm not saying that Universities should aim to produce an equal number of liberals / progressives graduates (unlike the liberal / progressive idea of minorities based quota systems), how about just allowing the conservative point of view to be heard? How about just allowing the conservative point of view not to be denigrated, marginalized, or punished?
                            Continuing the discussion, another fine example of the conservative point of view being suppressed by universities:
                            FRESNO, Calif., February 25, 2014Yesterday evening, Californias Modesto Junior College (MJC) agreed to settle a First Amendment lawsuit filed last October by student Robert Van Tuinen, whom the college prevented from handing out copies of the Constitution on Constitution Day. The videotaped incident drew national media attention.

                            As part of the settlement, MJC has revised its policies to allow free speech in open areas across campus and has agreed to pay Van Tuinen $50,000. Van Tuinen was represented by the firm of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP in Washington, D.C., and assisted by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).
                            Victory: Modesto Junior College Settles Students First Amendment Lawsuit

                            Why on Earth would the university object to someone handing out copies of the constitution?

                            Because: 'MJC has revised its policies to allow free speech in open areas across campus', assuming of course that previous versions of their policy didn't allow free speech in open areas across campus. Rather, umm, academic of them not allow so.

                            Also flies in the face of your assertion, Noah, that 'University's have long been the bastion of free-thinking', clearly not, or at least clearly only when compliant with the liberal / progressive point of view.

                            ?


                            • #15
                              Re: &quot;Lets Give Up On Academic Freedom In Favor Of Justice&quot;

                              Originally posted by Commodore View Post
                              It's all fine and good to question tradition, so long as one of the acceptable outcomes at the end of your questioning is that the truth is true.

                              Do you know the difference between knowledge and wisdom?
                              Knowledge is the product of stored memory. Wisdom is the product of insight. So you can have a man who has less stored data, but is very wise. DC has many who have lots of stored knowledge(and even that knowledge might not be the truth, it is just accepted) but lacking in wisdom which is a product of insight.





                              Sometimes tradition has nothing to do with facts. Sometimes tradition is little more than habit and never concerned itself with facts, much less truth.

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X