Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: The intolerate Left

  1. #1
    johnb is offline Verified 3-Star Forum General
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    3,203

    Default The intolerate Left

    It's a great story and it is repeating itself at university after university in America. There are a lot of Chapel Hill's, where certain departments are on an ideological jihad against conservatives, moderates, Libertarians, Republicans, Christians, et al.

    Submitting the Academic Bill of Rights is a stunt. Namely, everyone knows the left will never allow it to pass. However, it is useful to force the issue and make sure everyone sees and understands how intolerant and hate minded the left really is. Make the Donkeycrats publically vote on issues like that so that their vote may be used against them later, in future elections. Much like the Veterans Park matter on the Cary city council.


    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=13302

    Cornell Rejects Academic Freedom

    By Joe Sabia
    FrontPageMagazine.com | May 7, 2004

    After banning the press from videotaping its weekly meeting, the Cornell University Student Assembly (SA) rejected the Academic Bill of Rights. Citing the document’s objectives as “redundant,” “irrelevant,” “insulting,” and “objectionable,” the SA determined that academic freedom was unimportant to the Ivy League campus.

    The Resolution on Academic Freedom — based on David Horowitz’s Academic Bill of Rights — was introduced by a bipartisan coalition of Cornell students, including the editor-in-chief of The Cornell Daily Sun. The resolution stated that the “SA affirms [the] principles of academic freedom and intellectual diversity” and went on to cite six principles:

    (1) Students should be graded on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the disciplines they study.

    (2) Curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences should provide students with dissenting viewpoints where appropriate.

    (3) Faculty should not use their courses for the political, ideological, religious, or anti-religious indoctrination.

    (4) All faculty should be hired, fired, or promoted and granted tenure on the basis on their competence and appropriate knowledge in the field of their expertise.

    (5) Selection of speakers [and] allocation of funds should not discriminate on the basis of his or her political or ideological affiliation.

    (6) The obstruction of invited campus speakers, destruction of campus literature, or any other efforts to inhibit the civil exchange of ideas should not be tolerated.

    Any reasonable person, whatever his political philosophy, should agree with the abovementioned tenets if he is committed to intellectual diversity. Unfortunately, Cornell leftists will do anything — including censorship — to hold on to their monopoly of power.

    The debate on the Academic Bill of Rights got off to an auspicious start when SA representative Michelle Fernandes tried to eject Cornell American editor-in-chief Ryan Horn from the meeting. Horn, a well-known conservative journalist on campus, brought a digital camcorder to the event to record the debate. Fernandes raised an objection to Horn’s presence saying, “Point of privilege. I want [him] to stop videotaping.” Horn replied, “Respectfully, no.” Nick Linder, president of the SA, then ordered, “As chair, I have to ask you to leave the meeting. It’s my duty to uphold that. Turn that off or leave”

    Horn expressed outrage and cited his First Amendment rights. He defiantly ignored Linder’s decision, remained in his seat, and secretly videotaped the entire affair.

    Following the camcorder fiasco, Cornell Democrats president Tim Lim — thinking he was speaking off the record — slammed the Academic Bill of Rights as “a publicity stunt [by] neoconservatives such as David Horowitz.” Lim then went on to claim that promoting academic freedom was a part of a partisan conspiracy engineered by the College Republicans.

    The liberal Democrats controlled the entire tenor of the debate. Leftist Brennan Veys amended the resolution by removing two key phrases from the bill: (i) “students should be graded on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects” and (ii) “all faculty should be hired, fired, and promoted, and granted tenure on the basis of their competence.” He claimed that including these clauses in an Academic Bill of Rights was an “insult” to Cornell’s faculty.

    When Veys was confronted with certain facts — namely that 97 percent of Cornell’s faculty are Leftists and that 21 of 23 government department professors are registered Democrats — he shook his head dismissively. Ross Blankenship, a co-sponsor of the bill, asked Veys, “How comfortable do you think a Cornell student is in writing an essay in support of President Bush?” At this question, the Democrats laughed hysterically, indicating that Blankenship was paranoid.

    When the votes were tallied (8 in favor, 9 against), SA president Linder announced his final judgment, “The chair will cast a vote in, uh, the negative.” He then smirked at the co-sponsors of the bill, waved them off, and said, “Have a nice day.” And with that, the Academic Bill of Rights died at Cornell.

    Cornell University has a shameful record on intellectual diversity. There is no tolerance for conservative ideas among the faculty, the administration, or the student government. At every turn, the instinct of radical leftists is to censor those views with which they disagree. They have succeeded, in large part, because their totalitarian judgments are enacted under the cover of darkness. That is precisely why the Student Assembly tried to ban video coverage of its Politburo-style meeting.

    The debate (or lack thereof) over the Academic Bill of Rights at Cornell revealed precisely why this measure is so desperately needed here. And that is why Cornellians committed to intellectual diversity will continue to fight for it.

  2. #2
    johnb is offline Verified 3-Star Forum General
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    3,203

    Default

    It's pretty bad when a rabidly partisan rag like the San Fransisco Chronicle editorializes against a Donkeycrat for his hateful intolerance:

    http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...3/ED251350.DTL

    EDITORIAL
    Pete Stark's tiring tirades

    Wednesday, July 23, 2003


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    THERE WAS a time when Democrats were in control of the House and Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont, was well regarded for his command of health and tax issues.

    Today, the Republicans rule the House and Stark is mostly known as a back bencher who can't control his tongue.

    Stark, 71, added to his legend of buffoonery last week when he called Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Colo., "a little wimp" and a "little fruitcake" -- and suggested the two should step outside. Capitol police were called to the hearing.

    It was reminiscent of the 2001 debate when Stark made a reference to the children of Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Okla., all being "born out of wedlock." It was not only insulting, it was -- as Watts pointedly told Stark in a face-to-face confrontation -- not true.

    And there was the time he accused Rep. Nancy Johnson, R-Conn., of being a "whore for the insurance industry." Stark once brought up President Bush's personal battles with alcohol during a debate on federal funding of faith- based programs.

    Yes, this is the same Pete Stark who in 1990 suggested former Health and Human Services Director Louis Sullivan, an African American, was a "disgrace to his race."

    Only a politician who assumes he has a job for life could behave so badly on a semi-regular basis by spewing personalized invective that might get him punched in certain East Bay taverns. Would-be challengers sometimes sense a whiff of opportunity, but the reality of taking on a 16-term Democrat in solidly liberal terrain is nothing short of daunting.

    Surely there must be someone along the shoreline between Alameda and Fremont who could represent the good citizens of the district with class and dignity. It's not the case now.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    187

    Default

    Speaking as someone who finds significant value in a number of liberal principles, I think nothing does more harm to liberalism than academic inbreeding.

    Liberals who are incompetent at defending their ideas against conservative challenges or whose ideas are intellectually bankrupt in the first place have no business teaching in a competitive marketplace of ideas. Such a poor stock of liberals will produce lousier students. But if opportunity for debate is embraced, the students will be exposed to more critical thinking and logic. Far better that, than to have students self-selecting their classes based on a-priori agreement with the ideology to be taught. I predict that encouraging such debate will produce better liberal professors, as well as better conservative professors.

    If the conservatives only listen to conservative speakers, and the liberals only listen to liberal speakers, the quality of public debate will only get worse. The intellectual level of most public debate is currently so low, both in logic and civility, that most smart people are loathe to participate in it.

  4. #4
    Wuptdo's Avatar
    Wuptdo is offline Verified Five Year Club
    Site Supporter
    3-Star Forum General
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    North Cary, NC
    Posts
    4,803

    Default my 2 cents....

    As a part-time student at NCSU, I could go into a long rant about the "PC" attitude that runs through the professors, especially since Ms. Fox showed up. In several of my cases, I was only one, who would ever challenge these professors (whoops, starting to rant)......

    Whatever happened to "What is good for the Goose, is good for the Gander?"

    Wuptdo

  5. #5
    johnb is offline Verified 3-Star Forum General
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    3,203

    Default

    Steve,

    Excellent point. Although we must take care not to confuse the term liberal as it originally was defined with what it has come to mean.

    Political "liberals" today cannot be considered "liberal" in the classic sense of that word. They typically don't handle dissent within their own ranks well and have no tolerance from competing world views.

    I am reminded of the time Bob Casey, then governor of Pennsylvannia was denied a speaking slot at the 1988 Donkeycrat Convention because he was a pro-life Democrrat. The "liberals" fought like wildcats to keep him off the podium and off the air. Yet at the GOP Convention that year the "conservatives" allowed pro-life and pro-abortion politicians to speak from the podium.

  6. #6
    Cathy Guest

    Default

    You are right about the use of the terminology. Today's extreme leftists like to wrap themselves in the guise of liberalism in name only. They are not liberals in the true sense of the word.
    I do not want to alienate or offend those people who have been true liberals for quite a long time and don't understand the hostility toward the far left fascists who have hi-jacked the Democratic Party. I am for the most part a social liberal, just very conservative when it comes to giving any more power to governmental entities to interfere in the life, liberty, and property of citizens.

    Cathy

  7. #7
    johnb is offline Verified 3-Star Forum General
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    3,203

    Default

    This is a funny one. DePauw University has "Multicultural Affairs" office. The director is, much like the vast majority of leftists, an intolerant bigot.
    The College Republicans at DePauw put out this press release with her email at the bottom. I love how the left automatically starts with the default opinion that those who disagree with them are all racist, sexist, "homophobic", and worse and the burden is on those they stereotype to prove they're not horrible people. Gotta love the left!

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=13337

    Punishment For Horowitz Invite

    By DePauw University College Republicans
    FrontPageMagazine.com | May 11, 2004

    Below we've reproduced the press release from the DePauw University College Republicans on an e-mail sent by their university's Director of the Office of Multicultural Affairs that promises recriminations for inviting David Horowitz to campus. Below the press release is the original e-mail itself. -- The Editors.

    Jeanette Johnson-Licon, Director of the Office of Multicultural Affairs at DePauw University, publicly attacked the leadership of the College Republicans for inviting David Horowitz, a nationally known author and lifelong civil rights activist, to speak on campus. Mr. Horowitz has been a long-time defender of the rights of minorities and other groups under attack – including the rights of blacks, gays, women, Jews, Muslims, Christians and white males. Horowitz’s speech had been scheduled for Friday, May 7, but was postponed due to travel difficulties.


    In an e-mail addressed to numerous campus organizations at DePauw University, including the Association of African American Students and the Committee for Latino Concerns, but excluding College Republicans, Johnson-Licon chastised the College Republicans for Horowitz’s invitation. “I’m feeling anger and frustration that CR has chosen to end their programming year by writing a check to David Horowitz,” she stated. “It’s a waste of my precious time and energy to feel anything but irritation for hate-mongers like Horowitz. Stupidity bores me.”



    Johnson-Licon goes on to state that by inviting Horowitz, the College Republicans have jeopardized future cooperation from her office. “What I will do is remember this moment, especially the next time that (the College Republicans) expects me to be generous and accommodating.”



    “These appalling comments, made by an administrator whose focus should be on promoting a multitude of cultural and ideological perspectives on campus, illustrate the pervasive climate of hostility towards conservatives at DePauw University and demonstrate the urgent necessity for the school to adopt the Academic Bill of Rights to protect its students and faculty from further ideological discrimination,” said Carl Heck, State Chairman of the Indiana Federation of College Republicans. “As the Director of Multicultural Affairs, Ms. Johnson-Licon should take an active role in increasing intellectual diversity on campus. Instead, she has made it clear that conservative views are not welcome.”



    “I find it quite disturbing that an administrator is allowed to be intolerant of different groups on campus simply because of their political beliefs and I fear for the future of our educations at DePauw,” commented Jessica Beeson, the Student Body President of DePauw University, in response to Johnson-Lincon’s statement.



    According to DePauw University’s Website, www.depauw.edu, “The Office of Multicultural Affairs provides students with a sense of cultural identity and belonging through programming, services, and campus education and advocacy.”



    “With the comments Johnson-Licon has made as the Director of Multicultural Affairs, I do not feel that Ms. Johnson-Licon is adequately and effectively fulfilling the roles and duties laid out by the University,” concluded Heck. “I respectfully request a public apology from Ms. Johnson-Licon addressed to the student body of DePauw University, the DePauw University College Republicans, and to David Horowitz. I would also ask that the university look into the bias presented by the Office of Multicultural Affairs and consider adopting the Academic Bill of Rights.” The Academic Bill of Rights is available at www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org.

    The DePauw University College Republicans is a member of the Indiana Federation of College Republicans.


    ===========================================
    Email from DePauw Director of Multicultural Affairs, Jeanette Johnson-Licon to Campus Student Groups:

    To AAAS, CLC & UD:

    In the last few years, many of us have been generous of our time and energy with the the College Republicans student organization. My staff and I have been panelists for CR events, we've lent a hand with Conservative Awareness Week and we have provided support for them in other ways. In my experience, the identity/affinity organizations that OMA is closely affiliated with have also been generous with their support, attendence and co-sponsored of CR programs like Pizza & Politics.

    I'm not feeling particularly generous at this moment.

    In many of the conversations that I personally have had with some of the CR membership, they have talked about how they want to work more collaboratively with other student groups, especially members of historically under-represented groups, and how CR is actively trying to change the stereotype that conservatives are racist, classist, homophobic and just plain dumb.

    I'm not feeling particularly convinced of CR's sincerity at this moment, either.

    At this particular moment, I'm feeling anger and frustration that CR has chosen to end their programming year by writing a check to David Horowitz. Please notice that I'm frustrated with the leadership of CR.

    It's a waste of my precious time and energy to feel anything but irritation for hate-mongers like Horowitz. Stupidity bores me. I will not attend his talk; I will not be another warm body that CR can add to their count to convince themselves that this event was "successful." What I will do is remember this moment, especially the next time CR expects me to be generous and accomodating.

    I'd encourage all of you to work hard on your final papers and prepare for your exams. Eat right, get as much rest as you can and make good choices with your very valuable time.

    Good luck on finals, Jeannette (Director, Office of Multicultural Affairs)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •