SMU faculty and Bush

[MustangStealth]

I loved being called a racist by my professor when I disagreed with her position that a certain phone book cover was racist. It was a great example of civil debate and discussion.

I find your avatar racist.

[smupony94]

Bea Arthur is hot

[couch 'em]

I loved being called a racist by my professor when I disagreed with her position that a certain phone book cover was racist. It was a great example of civil debate and discussion.

Satz?

I see I wasn't the only one.

[abezontar]

Actually, a good college is one where the professers encourage debate over controversial subject matter in my opinion. Carry on, profs!

I think you know what I mean. You and I were in enough classes to know that "encouraging debate" would be for them to frame the argument to their point of view and put those on the opposite side on the defensive. That's a fact.

When I was here, there was a professor Niewyk (sp?) who called the late UN ambassador Jean Kirkpatrick, "a shrill biotch" And when I was addressed in Political Science classes, my conservative viewpoints were attacked by the profs with complete disdain. I know that because I was there.

Or how about Macalester College in Minneapolis which sponsored a trip to Cuba a couple of years. Using tuition payments and other monies garnered to visit a country the United States has no relations with. Think some of the folks who paid that tuition were fired up about where their $$ was going?

Now, if anyone wants to call that a subject to debate, then I guess our points of view differ. I for one, am sick of these professor who use their classrooms as their platforms to marshall their agenda. Rarely do they foster debate. The frame the argument the way they want to and put the opponents in a corner.

THAT'S A FACT. And if some of us don't believe that, then we're living in a fantasy world.


And Mr. Recruiting, you can take your Hitler youth comment and go blow it out your saddlebag.

There is bias at our university to the other side as well, and if you would like I can give you examples. If you fail to see that those in power will almost always press there viewpoint as the "correct" viewpoint, and if you fail to see that there is just as much conservative bias as there is liberal then I bet you thought Jerry Springer was real.

[mrydel]

Jerry Springer is not real??!! I bet the people of Cincinatti would be surprised to hear that they elected an aberation as mayor.

[abezontar]

please forgive the miscommunication, I meant the bisexual midget that was dumping his boyfriend so he could marry his normal sized girlfriend, who then got dumped by the boyfriend for his normal sized brother who got gay married wasn't real.

[mrydel]

I think I was mentioned in there somewhere and on occasion I am real. But at times I am not.

[smu diamond m]

Actually, a good college is one where the professers encourage debate over controversial subject matter in my opinion. Carry on, profs!

There is an obvious difference between encouraging controversial debate and FORCING your opinions on a class full of unsuspecting people. When you get a professor that attempts to revoke your right to speak during a "debate over controversial subject matter" and proceeds to call people stupid based on their beliefs, it is no longer a legitimate, intelligent. debate. No one is encouraging closed-mindedness, but just because your tenured doesn't mean you are infallible (as some might believe).

[EastStang]

First, if SMU professor's practiced socratic teaching that would be fine. Having graduated 30 years ago, I can't speak for the current crop of academe' since only two professors are still there whose classes I attended. Assuming that not much has changed since those heady days in the early 70's my view was the vast majority professors liked to pontificate and lecture. Some did like to have socratic discussions but those were the rare ones. On the other hand, if you took a position in a paper which disagreed with their world view, you usually paid a severe academic price. You see they wanted to see that you absorbed the things that they pontificated about in class. I would love to see Condoleeza Rice running a Neocon policy think tank out of the Bush Library. A few years ago, some YR's did a fund raiser which was incredibly politically incorrect, and they were ordered to stop by the Administration at SMU. I wrote to President Turner and told him that it should have been used as a teaching opportunity and not just a cut it out sort of thing. He wrote me back to his credit and defended what he did and allowed as how it could have been handled better. I guess my view is that balance is important. SMU's liberal bias did challenge my conservative upbringing and forced me to learn to defend those views. I think I hardly qualify for Hitler Youth status because remember, AH wanted to overthrow years of regal dominance and move to socialism. I don't think any true conservative would endorse socialism. But hmmm, a liberal might.

[Longtime]

East Stang, you had me until the end when your use of misleading labels makes you come off as an unenlightened conservative. Trying to connect the dots between Nazis and liberals through the use of the word "socialist" is really unsporting, my good man.

First, the "Hitler Youth" reference: Any reasonable person knows this term means a class of young people brainwashed to be in lockstep with a particular doctrine. Unless referring to the actual paramilitary group started in Nazi Germany, it's a generalized term. To be called a Hitler Youth nowadays doesn't mean you have been taught to follow Hitler's teachings.

Second, to say Hitler was a socialist displays shallow thinking. Just because the word "Socialist" is in the full name of the Nazi Party (National Socialist German Workers' Party) doesn't mean they were socialists. They certainly weren't ruled by workers, either. It's like saying the German Democratic Republic was a democracy. It wasn't. It was a communist state better known as East Germany. These are political labels designed to appeal to the masses. The socialist aspects of the early versions of the Nazi party were meant to rally the people under a common, nationalist movement, not to have common ownership of the means of production as in classic socialism. The Nazi party under Hitler was right-wing in its beliefs and actions, but one would never make the leap from Nazis to right-wing U.S. Republicans, would they?

Maybe you're trying to be clever, but ignorant people have used these false labels to try to present legitimate arguments. It's easy enough to make fun of liberals - and conservatives - without stooping to twisting words and using misapplied labels.

[couch 'em]

East Stang, you had me until the end when your use of misleading labels makes you come off as an unenlightened conservative. Trying to connect the dots between Nazis and liberals through the use of the word "socialist" is really unsporting, my good man.

First, the "Hitler Youth" reference: Any reasonable person knows this term means a class of young people brainwashed to be in lockstep with a particular doctrine. Unless referring to the actual paramilitary group started in Nazi Germany, it's a generalized term. To be called a Hitler Youth nowadays doesn't mean you have been taught to follow Hitler's teachings.

Second, to say Hitler was a socialist displays shallow thinking. Just because the word "Socialist" is in the full name of the Nazi Party (National Socialist German Workers' Party) doesn't mean they were socialists. They certainly weren't ruled by workers, either. It's like saying the German Democratic Republic was a democracy. It wasn't. It was a communist state better known as East Germany. These are political labels designed to appeal to the masses. The socialist aspects of the early versions of the Nazi party were meant to rally the people under a common, nationalist movement, not to have common ownership of the means of production as in classic socialism. The Nazi party under Hitler was right-wing in its beliefs and actions, but one would never make the leap from Nazis to right-wing U.S. Republicans, would they?

Maybe you're trying to be clever, but ignorant people have used these false labels to try to present legitimate arguments. It's easy enough to make fun of liberals - and conservatives - without stooping to twisting words and using misapplied labels.

It's like when the Republican party claims to be anything but the "Religious Right" party. I'd kill to have an actual Republican to support.

[mrydel]

Maybe the potentailly good one were aborted.

Sorry for getting the thread deleted.

[mr. pony]

[quote="smu diamond m"]
There is an obvious difference between encouraging controversial debate and FORCING your opinions on a class full of unsuspecting people. When you get a professor that attempts to revoke your right to speak during a "debate over controversial subject matter" and proceeds to call people stupid based on their beliefs, it is no longer a legitimate, intelligent. debate. No one is encouraging closed-mindedness, but just because your tenured doesn't mean you are infallible (as some might believe).[/quote]

Amen and right on.

[mr. pony]

[quote="EastStang"]First, if SMU professor's practiced socratic teaching that would be fine. Having graduated 30 years ago, I can't speak for the current crop of academe' since only two professors are still there whose classes I attended. Assuming that not much has changed since those heady days in the early 70's my view was the vast majority professors liked to pontificate and lecture. Some did like to have socratic discussions but those were the rare ones. On the other hand, if you took a position in a paper which disagreed with their world view, you usually paid a severe academic price. You see they wanted to see that you absorbed the things that they pontificated about in class. I would love to see Condoleeza Rice running a Neocon policy think tank out of the Bush Library. A few years ago, some YR's did a fund raiser which was incredibly politically incorrect, and they were ordered to stop by the Administration at SMU. I wrote to President Turner and told him that it should have been used as a teaching opportunity and not just a cut it out sort of thing. He wrote me back to his credit and defended what he did and allowed as how it could have been handled better. I guess my view is that balance is important. SMU's liberal bias did challenge my conservative upbringing and forced me to learn to defend those views. I think I hardly qualify for Hitler Youth status because remember, AH wanted to overthrow years of regal dominance and move to socialism. I don't think any true conservative would endorse socialism. But hmmm, a liberal might.[/quote]

Amen, and right on. REALLY like to see the Rice think tank. woo-hoo, what a hoot! Libs would sh*t the bed.

They already are. Read the DMN Letters to the Editor lately?

[EastStang]

Hitler was elected promising socialism to the masses. He instituted what could be termed a socialist government in that all property rights were ceded to the government and individualism was taken away for the collective good. That is textbook socialism. The problem with socialism is that once the government controls everything, those in charge of the government control everything and everyone. Their will becomes your will. In order to keep that power, they then destroy all freedoms. There are few socialist governments that ever maintained democratic machinery and most became tyrannical (like Germany under Hitler and Russia under Stalin). Thus endeth todays history lesson. Yes, "Hitler Youth" is a perjorative term which has taken on expanded meanings and yes I agee with your meaning that it applies to people who mindlessly follow a particular leader or idiology. It is entirely misplaced when it is applied to conservatives who believe in free enterprise and limited government since they do not attempt to deny you the right to do whatever you want to do, except maybe have an abortion or have same sex marriages, but that gets into religion and that's a whole different topic.