David Barton: Half Of Students In Christian Colleges Leave Church Due To Pagan Professors

During what is listed as Thursday’s broadcast on Kenneth Copeland’s Believer’s Voice of Victory program, David Barton said at 10:48 into the clip:

Those in authority include those in our education system, for example, in our universities. Last Friday, when we pointed out about education, now between 71-88% of our Christian kids who go to college are renouncing their faith at college, and that over 50% of our Christian kids who go to Christian colleges are renouncing their faith at Christian colleges because the professors in the Christian colleges were trained by the pagans in the secular colleges, and Jesus tells us in Luke 6:40 that every student when he is fully trained will be just like his teacher. So those Christian professors, “Christian” professors, are trained by those pagans and they think like the pagans. They’re living in Egypt and they think they’re Egyptians instead of Hebrews.

Barton recently told Westside Church in Omaha, NE the same thing (at 7:00 into this clip):

Right now between 71-88% of Christian youth raised in Christian homes, 71 to 88% of those kids with deny their faith in four years at the university. That is the most hostile place in America right now for Christian faith…The good news is that while we lose 71-88%  of kids to secular campuses, we do at least have Christian campuses we can send our kids to, and at Christian campuses only 50% of Christian kids deny their faith at Christian campuses. Woah, what’s going on here? Jesus told us what’s going on here. If you go back to what Jesus said in Luke 6, chapter 6 verse 40, Jesus said, every student when he is fully trained will be like his teacher. What happens is that so many of the professors we have in Christian university were trained by the pagans at other universities, they just happen to be a new pagan trained at a Christian university. I mean it’s extremely hostile now, even at Christian universities.

I was unable to find the exact percentages Barton cited regarded students at state schools, and I could find nothing regarding his claim about Christian colleges. Some survey may exist with these results but I have been unable as yet to find it (and of course, I am glad to have a look at any surveys which support Barton’s claim).  I assume he is referring to the work of the Barna Group which surveyed students between 2007 and 2011 regarding their relationship to the church while in college.

However, Barna’s conclusions are not the same as Barton’s. The situation is much more complex than is portrayed by Barton.

According to Barna’s website, the reality is that many students who stop attending church don’t actually leave the faith.  Barna’s David Kinnaman said:

The reality of the dropout problem is not about a huge exodus of young people from the Christian faith. In fact, it is about the various ways that young people become disconnected in their spiritual journey. Church leaders and parents cannot effectively help the next generation in their spiritual development without understanding these three primary patterns. The conclusion from the research is that most young people with a Christian background are dropping out of conventional church involvement, not losing their faith.

In fact, young adults often feel disillusioned with the institutional church even as they maintain a belief in God. According to Kinnaman’s earlier book unChristian, many young people distance themselves from the church because of what they perceive to be hypocrisy in the church, and not due to the influence of their so-called “pagan professors. (an example here)”

In fact, Barna says it is a myth that “college experiences are the key factor that cause people to drop out.” If anything, college experience expose problems already in place rather than create them. According to Kinnaman’s survey, there are six reasons why this generation is leaving the church:

  1. Churches seem overprotective.
  2. Teens’ and 20-somethings’ experience of Christianity is shallow.
  3. Churches come across as antagonistic to science.
  4. Church attitudes toward sexuality are often simplistic and judgmental.
  5. Christianity seems exclusive, which they wrestle with.
  6. The church feels unfriendly to those who doubt.

Since Christian academics have become more vocal about their concerns over his history, Barton has become more critical of Christian professors as a group. Rather than stick to the issues, Barton has gone on the offensive by slamming Christian scholars and devaluing their faith and their dedication to Christian vocation.  Now, contrary to evidence, he accuses us of contributing to the religious demise of half of our students.

I hope this effort becomes clear for what it is.

 

 

  • http://brucegerencser.net/ Bruce Gerencser

    As a father of six grown children, an Evangelical pastor for 25 years, and now an atheist, the Kinnaman survey is spot on. When my children went to secular state colleges and/or entered the secular workforce, they were forced to think about and rethink the Christianity they had been taught by their father. In talking with them, every one of the points in the Kinnaman survey were talked about. Over the past ten years, all of my children have left Evangelicalism. They found it intellectually shallow and stifling and out of touch with the values they consider important. Result? While several of my children still have a nominal connection to Christianity via their spouses, the rest of them are either agnostics, atheists, or what could best be described as spiritual.

    Growing up as pastor’s kids they were told what to believe and how to live. When Mom and Dad left Christianity they were then free to chart their own course. They are free to follow the path wherever it leads. I am proud of all of them.

    Evangelical churches are hemmoraging young people because they tell them what to think rather than teaching them how to think. With massive amounts of data available on the internet, young people are no longer willing to take their pastor’s or parents word for it.

  • Tom Van Dyke

    Barton is roughly correct: Our colleges have become “left-wing seminaries.” See
    “Mocking Kids into Leftism” [David French] and “Conservative Parents, Left Wing Children” [Dennis Prager], both recently published and easy to find on Google.

    David French:

    What’s actually there, however, is a toxic combination of decadence and scorn – the relentless labeling of conservatives (again, especially Christian conservatives) as bigots, haters, and idiots. Liberal students and professors who have no more knowledge of public policy or political philosophy than your average pile of dirt feel a bulletproof sense of intellectual, moral, and indeed even spiritual superiority over their conservative peers — and can relentlessly express that superiority. At the same time — for kids just as subject to temptation as anyone else — the considerable decadence of college life has its own appeals.

    I try to prepare my own kids not only for the intellectual challenges of our liberal culture (such as they are) but also for the moral and spiritual challenge from those who will view them as evil and stupid merely for their religious, cultural, and political beliefs. There is no good deed they can do that will cause the truly unreflective portions of the Left to like or respect them in any way, and the respect or affection of such people should not be their goal.

    Not my goal either, Warren, with all due respect.

    • Jimmy Dick

      David Barton is not correct at all, Tom. The reason why churches are losing the youth is cited via research. You may choose to believe anything you want, but reality doesn’t care. Ignoring factual evidence in favor of opinion doesn’t change the reality of the situation. Churches are failing to address the needs of their flocks. Those that continue to adopt a hard line will continue to bleed members.
      Preparing our children is something we all do for whatever reasons and purposes. However, we also have to understand that they have choices to make and we have to respect those choices because it is their choice to make, not ours.

      • Tom Van Dyke

        You deny our colleges have become “left wing seminaries?” You have a single survey and declare it’s uncontradictable gospel truth? Ah, epistemic closure, I believe you fellows so cleverly call it.

        http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/notes-on-epistemic-closure/?_r=0

        • Jimmy Dick

          Thanks for Paul’s blog. I think it proves what I say about conservatives ignoring facts and reality and choosing their erroneous opinions which are being rejected by youth.
          One survey? You didn’t really think there was only one survey into this issue did you? A hot button issue like why youth leave the faith they were brought up in and you think there is only one survey? How many do you want? What is the number that will satisfy you? Or is it infinite because you will choose to disagree with the assessment no matter what the numbers tell you?
          The bottom line here, Tom, is that you are part of the group that ignores reality for your own reasons. That is your choice and one which is perfectly acceptable. However, I choose not to live in your alternate reality.
          Generally speaking, colleges teach how to think, not what to think. They use things such as facts when presenting information to students. The end result is a student who leaves school using their intelligence to assess the world and those in it. If more of them choose to be liberal compared to being conservative, then that is their choice, not yours.

          • Tom Van Dyke

            I’m not even an evangelical. You don’t know anything about me, Jimmy, so quit the ad hom.

            What Prager and French are saying–and in this the typically clumsy Barton is “roughly” correct–is that the kids are intellectually and theologically unprepared for what’s waiting for them in college.

            You assert colleges know how to think, how to argue fairly? Not in evidence in your reply. You assert you know the truth and the other side doesn’t. Same difference.

            [As for the surveys, the students are asked to self-diagnose. Do you think they'll admit to being brainwashed into their current leftish beliefs? Not at all--they'll argue precisely as you just did, as Paul Krugman smugly bleats, that they have the "facts" and "reality."

            The very premise of the surveys is untenable if not absurd.]

            Those interested in a principled discussion will enjoy

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-liberals-war-on-science

            The Liberals’ War on Science
            How politics distorts science on both ends of the spectrum

            By Michael Shermer

            Believe it or not—and I suspect most readers will not—there’s a liberal war on science. Say what?

            We are well aware of the Republican war on science from the eponymous 2006 book (Basic Books) by Chris Mooney, and I have castigated conservatives myself in my 2006 book Why Darwin Matters (Henry Holt) for their erroneous belief that the theory of evolution leads to a breakdown of morality. A 2012 Gallup poll found that “58 percent of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,” compared with 41 percent of Democrats. A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 81 percent of Democrats but only 49 percent of Republicans believe that Earth is getting warmer. Many conservatives seem to grant early-stage embryos a moral standing that is higher than that of adults suffering from debilitating diseases potentially curable through stem cells. And most recently, Missouri Republican senatorial candidate Todd Akin gaffed on the ability of women’s bodies to avoid pregnancy in the event of a “legitimate rape.” It gets worse.

            The left’s war on science begins with the stats cited above: 41 percent of Democrats are young Earth creationists, and 19 percent doubt that Earth is getting warmer. These numbers do not exactly bolster the common belief that liberals are the people of the science book. In addition, consider “cognitive creationists”—whom I define as those who accept the theory of evolution for the human body but not the brain. As Harvard University psychologist Steven Pinker documents in his 2002 book The Blank Slate (Viking), belief in the mind as a tabula rasa shaped almost entirely by culture has been mostly the mantra of liberal intellectuals, who in the 1980s and 1990s led an all-out assault against evolutionary psychology via such Orwellian-named far-left groups as Science for the People, for proffering the now uncontroversial idea that human thought and behavior are at least partially the result of our evolutionary past.

            There is more, and recent, antiscience fare from far-left progressives, documented in the 2012 book Science Left Behind (PublicAffairs) by science journalists Alex B. Berezow and Hank Campbell, who note that “if it is true that conservatives have declared a war on science, then progressives have declared Armageddon.” On energy issues, for example, the authors contend that progressive liberals tend to be antinuclear because of the waste-disposal problem, anti–fossil fuels because of global warming, antihydroelectric because dams disrupt river ecosystems, and anti–wind power because of avian fatalities. The underlying current is “everything natural is good” and “everything unnatural is bad.”

            Whereas conservatives obsess over the purity and sanctity of sex, the left’s sacred values seem fixated on the environment, leading to an almost religious fervor over the purity and sanctity of air, water and especially food. Try having a conversation with a liberal progressive about GMOs—genetically modified organisms—in which the words “Monsanto” and “profit” are not dropped like syllogistic bombs. Comedian Bill Maher, for example, on his HBO Real Time show on October 19, 2012, asked Stonyfield Farm CEO Gary Hirshberg if he would rate Monsanto as a 10 (“evil”) or an 11 (“f—ing evil”)? The fact is that we’ve been genetically modifying organisms for 10,000 years through breeding and selection. It’s the only way to feed billions of people.

            &c.

          • Jimmy Dick

            Another post, another failure to impress me. For someone who claims not to be an evangelical you spend a lot of time defending the evangelical extremists and David Barton. You object to surveys when you don’t like the results. I’m not surprised. That’s your problem though. Ignore the facts at your own peril. That’s why the evangelical faiths are bleeding members. They don’t like the facts and neither do you.

          • Tom Van Dyke

            Jimmy, by responding to your personal attacks [and fact-free attacks on conservatives], I’m only helping you bury my original points. FTR, of course I defend “extremists.” Even you, if necessary. It’s the American way.

            As for the evangelicals [again, I am not one] “bleeding members,” the liberal Protestant mainline would love to have their numbers.

            To return to the subject, from Dennis Prager’s

            http://www.nationalreview.com/article/363082/conservative-parents-left-wing-children-dennis-prager

            Virtually every institution outside the home has been captured by people with left-wing values: specifically the media (television and movies) and the schools (first the universities and now high schools). In the 1960s and 1970s, American parents were blindsided. Their children came home from college with values that thoroughly opposed those of their parents.

            And the parents had no idea how to counteract this. Moreover, even if they did, after just one year at the left-wing seminaries we still call universities, it was often too late. As one of the founders of progressivism in America, Woodrow Wilson, who was president of Princeton University before he became president of the United States, said in a speech in 1914, “I have often said that the use of a university is to make young gentlemen as unlike their fathers as possible.” Eighty-eight years later, the president of Dartmouth College, James O. Freedman, echoed Wilson: “The purpose of a college education is to question your father’s values,” he told the graduating seniors of Dartmouth College.

            Even now, too few conservative parents realize how radical — and effective — the university agenda is. They are proud that their child has been accepted to whatever college he or she attends, not realizing that, values-wise, they are actually playing Russian roulette, except that only one chamber in the gun is not loaded with a bullet.

            And then the child comes home, often after only a year at college, a different person, values-wise, from the one whom the naïve parent so proudly sent off just a year earlier.

            What to do? I will answer that in a future column. But the first thing to do is to realize what is happening…

          • Jimmy Dick

            As a liberal Catholic I do not worry about the Protestants. I just laugh at how the hard line biblical literalists are killing their own faiths. The rightwing Catholics were doing a good job of that, but now they’re crying the blues.

          • ken

            “As for the surveys, the students are asked to self-diagnose. Do you
            think they’ll admit to being brainwashed into their current leftish
            beliefs?”

            Do you have any evidence that the people in these surveys were lying? or is this just wishful thinking on your part?

            And where is the evidence that colleges have become “left wing seminaries”? Is Grove City college a “left wing seminary”? What about Brigham Young University? or liberty university? Do you have any evidence that would even come close to being a representative sample of colleges and universities in the US or just a handful of anecdotes?

            btw, you never answered jimmy’s question about how many surveys it would take to convince you.

          • Tom Van Dyke

            After they leave college and have jobs and kids, they return to normal. Those who never leave college and stay to become part of the academic establishment remain in their left-wing fantasy world. There’s your proof.

            And you clearly don’t understand the “self-diagnosis” argument.

            Y’know, what with the utter failure of the Obamacare ideology being exposed, you leftpersons picked a really bad week to claim ownership of reality.

            Obama Admits That Obamacare is Unworkable

            The law was sold on the repeated presidential assurance that anyone who wanted to keep his or her existing health plan could do so. That promise was made so often and so forcefully because it was necessary to build enough support to pass the law, and—as we’ve seen in this week’s Democratic defections—to maintain sufficient political support for the law after it passed. Administration political aides rejected more nuanced, accurate language because they believed it wouldn’t help sell the law.

            But the result of keeping that promise is the destabilization of the law’s fundamental policy scheme, which requires healthy people on low-cost insurance to purchase more expansive, more expensive coverage in order to balance out the costs of sicker individuals.

            In other words, the law can’t work if it does live up to its presidential promises. But it can’t maintain political support if it doesn’t. The two are incompatible. Obama’s announcement today is an implicit acknowledgment of that incompatibility—an admission not only that the law doesn’t work, but that it can’t and won’t.

          • Jimmy Dick

            You still didn’t answer the question about the surveys. The Obamacare thing is laughable. We’re going to give it time and let it work. Of course had the single payer system been put in place then all of this would have been avoided, but then we know the conservatives and their funders wanted to avoid that at all costs.

          • ken

            “After they leave college and have jobs and kids, they return to normal. Those who never leave college and stay to become part of the academic establishment remain in their left-wing fantasy world. There’s your proof.”

            That’s not proof of anything , that is just you making an unsubstantiated claim. Do you have any followup survey’s showing the original responders religious beliefs had changed?

            I noticed you also ignored my questions about colleges being “left wing seminaries.”

          • Tom Van Dyke

            Having the disingenuous “what liberal bias” debate with a leftperson is the greatest waste of time conceivable.

          • ken

            So you don’t have anything to support your claims. Why am I not surprised. I can see why you admire Barton so much.

          • Tom Van Dyke

            OK, “Ken.” I didn’t want Dr. Throckmorton to censor the discussion as irrelevant, but:

            In its examinations of more than 150 departments and upper-level administrations at the 32 elite colleges and universities, the CSPC found that the overall ratio of registered Democrats to registered Republicans was more than 10 to 1 (1397 Democrats, 134 Republicans). Although in the nation at large, registered Democrats and Republicans were roughly equal in number, not a single department at any of the 32 schools managed to achieve anything even remotely approaching parity between the two. The closest any school came to parity was Northwestern University, where 80% of the faculty members were registered Democrats and 20% were registered Republicans. At other schools, the ratios of faculty Democrats to faculty Republicans were as follows:

            Brown University: 30 to 1

            Bowdoin College: 23 to 1

            Wellesley College: 23 to 1

            Swarthmore College: 21 to 1

            Amherst College: 18 to

            Bates College: 18 to 1

            Columbia University: 14 to 1

            Yale University: 14 to 1

            University of Pennsylvania: 12 to 1

            Tufts University: 12 to 1

            UCLA: 12 to 1

            UC Berkeley: 12 to 1

            Smith College: 11 to 1

            At four schools, the researchers could not identify a single Republican on the faculty:

            Williams College: 51 Democrats, 0 Republicans

            Oberlin College: 19 Democrats, 0 Republicans

            MIT: 17 Democrats, 0 Republicans

            Haverford College: 15 Democrats, 0 Republicans

            Faculty party-registration was just as unbalanced at major research universities as it was at small colleges. At Columbia University, for instance, the CSPC could identify only 6 faculty Republicans and could not locate a single Republican in the History, Political Science, or Sociology departments. Cornell University was just as left-leaning: the departments of English and History were entirely devoid of registered Republicans.

            It was found, moreover, that administrators at the 32 schools leaned just as far to the left as did the faculties: At schools like the University of Pennsylvania, Carnegie Melon, and Cornell, not a single Republican administrator could be found. In the entire Ivy League, the researchers were able to identify only 3 Republican administrators.

            These figures suggest that most students at these schools probably graduate without ever taking a class taught by a professor with a conservative viewpoint. The ratios themselves are impossible to understand in the absence of a political bias in the training and hiring of college instructors. They strongly suggest that the governance of American universities has fallen into the hands of a self-perpetuating political and cultural subset of the general population, which seems intent on perpetuating its control.

            Without further investigation it is not possible to establish with certainty why this state of affairs has come into existence, but there are many obvious factors that may be said to have contributed to it. Among them is the very exclusion of conservatives from faculty and administrative positions itself. This in itself creates a hostile environment for conservative students contemplating an academic career. This core hostility is amplified by practices that have been incorporated into academic life in the last several decades, including campus speech codes and politicized classrooms — both of which represent radical departures from the pre-Sixties academic environment. A comprehensive study by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education found that more than 90 percent of well-known college campuses have instituted speech codes intended to ban and punish politically incorrect, almost always conservative, speech. (For details, see TheFire.org. For student testimonies about in-classroom political indoctrination, see NoIndoctrination.org.)

            http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=217

            You keep harassing me, “Ken,” I’ll keep posting evidence. I have no problem with standing on your head as my soapbox.
            ______________________________
            For the record, Warren, I’m content to post a single comment, have my say on your posts, and be done with it. But as long as your supporters are permitted to respond by questioning my intellectual honesty or moral integrity, you do owe me the courtesy of the opportunity to defend my good name.

            Which you have accorded me, and for this you have my thanks and respect. Cheers—Tom

          • Jimmy Dick

            Tom,

            The fact of the matter is education is a democratic process. Facts are liberal. Generally speaking, the conservatives are being drowned out because they’re not using facts to present their beliefs a la David Barton, Glenn Beck, and Ted Cruz. Conservatives have failed to be present on college campuses for a lot of reasons besides politics. Don’t try to fault colleges for being left minded. Fault conservatives for not becoming teachers. http://chronicle.com/article/College-Makes-Students-More/64040/

            The bottom line is the difference in thinking. Conservatives generally try to control what people think. Liberals try to teach people how to think. There is a huge difference there and that is why college graduates skew to the liberal side. Until conservatives can realize they need to teach students how to think instead of what to think, this imbalance will not change.
            In about 20 years we’ll know more about how liberal and conservative schools stack up because we’ll be measuring the results of these schools via their graduates.

          • Tom Van Dyke

            Jimmy, “Facts are Liberal” is rant. You don’t want to debate the facts with me. Barton and Beck are not the facts. They’re a bad version of the facts, one you can beat.

            That’s the Straw Man Fallacy, or its corollary–debating the worst presentation [and presenters] of the facts, not the facts themselves.

            You want to debate me fair and square, brother, anywhere anytime. But this isn’t that. :-{

            ______
            Until conservatives can realize they need to teach students how to think instead of what to think, this imbalance will not change.

            I’ll give you that. “The scandal of the evangelical mind.” [There isn't much of one.]

            But the leftpersons “debating” here and elsewhere are no better–they just have numbers and the home field advantage.

            Like in our universities—my point, sir. Let’s look at you—I understand you’re an adjunct history instructor at the community college. This comes as the rule, not the exception.

            I don’t think it insults anyone’s intelligence to address you as an unapologetic gentleperson of the left. You’re even ready to defend Obamacare, godhelpyou.

            You are the establishment, not me, Jim.

          • Jimmy Dick

            You still run into the issue of reality. To put this into better perspective, I teach American history. It can be taught quite easily just presenting history as it occurred. The problem is that it did not occur as many conservatives wish it to have occurred. So thereforeanything I teach which is not in accordance with conservative rhetoric gets deemed as liberal by people who do not know their facts to begin with. There are quite a few instructors who are centrists. Unfortunately they get labelled as liberals for not adhering to conservative thinking. Again, we come back to teaching how to think versus what to think. Until conservatives change their ways of education they will continue to be a minority on college campuses. (Obvious religious schools excepted)

          • Tom Van Dyke

            The Obamacare you defend was wishful thinking, Jimmy, not grounded in reality. You claim to “know how to think” but the math–that we can get more for less, help millions of people without screwing millions more people–was ignored.

            There are quite a few instructors who are centrists. Unfortunately they get labelled as liberals for not adhering to conservative thinking.

            When you say “centrist,” Jimmy, surely you’re not referring to yourself. Let’s establish your baseline first as to what’s “centrist” if we’re to have a discussion and not a debate.

            Every side claims the center. Me, I’m a centrist.

          • Jimmy Dick

            I am definitely not the center and you are nowhere near it either. I’m a card carrying liberal and proud of it. However, I teach from the center because that is how to present the past to students so they can learn and make up their own minds. That’s how I became a liberal. It wasn’t the instructor. It was the people of the past. History doesn’t fit the conservative rhetoric no matter how hard they try to force it in.

            Go back to the beginning of this discussion. David Barton. Barton has to lie about history in order to make his ideology work. That’s pretty pathetic.

          • Tom Van Dyke

            Jimmy, can’t blame you for wanting to debate about David Barton instead of history. I would do the same if I were you. He’s so easy to beat, a fish in the barrel. Warren writes about him endlessly at this point. I don’t blame him either. It’s so much easier than defending Obamacare or even gay marriage.

            Good that you confess to being a left-winger, Jimmy, and thx. Your claim that you “teach from the center,” I wouldn’t know. That’s the claim you left-wingers make when confronted with the fact that the academic establishment is 10 times more Democrat than Republican.

            Uh huh.

          • Jimmy Dick

            It keeps going back to the approaches to education from liberals and conservatives. Conservatives prefer teaching what to think which is indoctrination. Liberals prefer teaching how to think which involves freedom of choice. A college education helps develop thinking skills. Therefore the people who teach how to think are going to be valued more than people who teach what to think.
            David Barton and others like him would prefer teaching people what to think. There is the fundamental problem. They have to lie to people in order to present their ideology and belief structure. Their teaching of what to think via indoctrination fails when people who have learned how to think start asking questions. Barton and his ilk don’t want people to think. No wonder he is being rejected by most people. Note the ones who do accept him continually reject factual evidence and prefer the what to think approach.
            I don’t want to argue the ACA right now because it is too early. I personally would have preferred a single payer system such as used in Europe, but that would be radical a shift for most people as of yet. Eventually that will happen when medical costs mandate it. This botched rollout is not helping anything, but many of the arguments used against the ACA were used against Medicare and Social Security and those arguments were ideological. Reality of course showed that those programs worked.
            If you want to argue over the ACA go right ahead. Find someone to do it with it. It is kind of pointless at the moment because it is just too early in the program.

          • Tom Van Dyke

            Jimmy, your generalizations and charges of conservative “indoctrination” cannot even be addressed, as there are so few conservatives in the academic establishment, controlling only a handful of schools.

            By seizing the premises of study [race, class, gender], the left academic establishment carpes the diem before the first word is even uttered. Then it silences its critics…

            Chronicle of Higher Education Capitulates to Mob, Fires Blogger

          • Jimmy Dick

            Can’t handle GCR studies can you? The right silences itself because it fails to utilize logic. Why? Because the right is stuck in its flawed mindset built around indoctrination. You won’t address it because you can’t dispute and prove it to be wrong.

            As for Riley, she should not have gotten canned, but she didn’t have the academic knowledge to criticize those dissertations. http://gawker.com/5908846/when-the-mob-has-a-point-the-firing-of-naomi-schaefer-riley
            She made a bad point and exposed her own lack of knowledge of the subject of black studies and history. I find the use of the term victimization ironic when that is how conservatives portray themselves today. Riley’s failure to understand how blacks and minorities were victims of white Americans is appalling.

          • Tom Van Dyke

            “By seizing the premises of study [race, class, gender], the left academic establishment carpes the diem before the first word is even uttered. ”

            This is true whether or not the left-wing race/class/gender premise is valid. My argument is formal, that the left-wing bias is being built in to the entire enterprise of higher education, and by defending “theory” [race/class/gender], you concede my argument.

            [That race/class/gender studies are moronic is a separate argument.]

            http://www.intercollegiatereview.com/index.php/2013/08/26/the-subhumanities-the-reductive-violence-of-race-class-and-gender-theory/

            If we are to know that human being, we should not begin with race or class or “gender,” that category invented by social critics who avert their eyes, prim and prying at once, from the frank and plain reality of sex. We certainly cannot end there. If I say, “Who is John?” you cannot answer me correctly by saying that he is six feet tall, 150 pounds, with Italian and Irish ancestry on his mother’s side and African American and Latino ancestry on his father’s side, with a family income of such and such a year, voting in such a pattern, living on Maple Street and selling insurance. These are all things about John, but they are not John, the man. It does violence to the man to reduce him to such categories. It is an act of contempt for his humanity. It reduces him, not so that we may get to know him, but so that we can manipulate facts about him while not getting to know him at all. It is a study in subhumanity.

            That is exactly what schoolteachers, professors, and critics do to John’s art when they cram it into the pigeonholes of race, class, and gender. It is an act of violence.*

            &c.

            As for your writing this

            “The right silences itself because it fails to utilize logic. Why? Because the right is stuck in its flawed mindset built around indoctrination. You won’t address it because you can’t dispute and prove it to be wrong.”

            That’s a rant. I just did prove my point, using your own words and their logical conclusion: The prism of race/class/gender studies are an inherent left-wing bias regardless of their content.

            ____
            *Anthony Esolen is a professor of English at Providence College. He is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization and Ten Ways to Destroy the Imagination of Your Child, among other books, and the translator and editor of the celebrated three-volume Modern Library edition of Dante’s Divine Comedy.

            When its critics speak of “the right,” they prefer easy targets and opponents such as David Barton. But their criticisms of “the right” are straw men unless they take on the best such as Dr. Esolen, no fish in a barrel he.

          • Jimmy Dick

            You rely on an assumption that has no validity regarding higher education. It is the nature of higher education that is not conducive to conservatism and conservative indoctrination. Your argument is not valid. You wish to deny reality because it does not suit your belief structure. This is the problem with the liberal/conservative debate. It is the problem with conservative thinking because you do not teach people how to think, only what to think. As a result your conclusions are flawed because your assumptions are flawed.
            Try as you may you only end up delivering your opinion which has no weight because you don’t have anything to back it up. You deplore GCR. I’m not surprised. GCR does not fit into a conservative worldview. GCR challenges conservative beliefs and the conservative worldview structure. Whether you like it or not, the world is changing and the current conservative worldview is going to vanish under the unstoppable forces of change as has always historically been the story.

          • Tom Van Dyke

            Jimmy, you keep confirming the inherent left-wing bias of race-class-gender “theory” that has taken over the educational establishment.

            GCR does not fit into a conservative worldview. GCR challenges conservative beliefs and the conservative worldview structure. Whether you like it or not, the world is changing and the current conservative worldview is going to vanish under the unstoppable forces of change as has always historically been the story.

            That last part is pretty creepy. We’ll see. More like the world you think you’re building is constructed on sand, and cannot sustain. History does not move in a straight line.

            You realize you pretty much just repeated Dennis Prager’s article and confirmed its truth and accuracy. I think we’ve closed the circle. Thank you for your time.

            http://www.nationalreview.com/article/363082/conservative-parents-left-wing-children-dennis-prager

            “Virtually every institution outside the home has been captured by people with left-wing values: specifically the media (television and movies) and the schools (first the universities and now high schools). In the 1960s and 1970s, American parents were blindsided. Their children came home from college with values that thoroughly opposed those of their parents.

            And the parents had no idea how to counteract this. Moreover, even if they did, after just one year at the left-wing seminaries we still call universities, it was often too late. As one of the founders of progressivism in America, Woodrow Wilson, who was president of Princeton University before he became president of the United States, said in a speech in 1914, “I have often said that the use of a university is to make young gentlemen as unlike their fathers as possible.” Eighty-eight years later, the president of Dartmouth College, James O. Freedman, echoed Wilson: “The purpose of a college education is to question your father’s values,” he told the graduating seniors of Dartmouth College.

            Even now, too few conservative parents realize how radical — and effective — the university agenda is. They are proud that their child has been accepted to whatever college he or she attends, not realizing that, values-wise, they are actually playing Russian roulette, except that only one chamber in the gun is not loaded with a bullet.”

          • Jimmy Dick

            You once again fail to address the difference in modes of thinking. Conservatism teaches what to think which limits their ability to progress and develop new ways to solve problems. Liberals teach how to think which is why liberalism is able to deal with changing situations. The institutions of higher education didn’t get captured by liberals. Conservatives failed to keep up with them because their way of thinking was anachronistic.
            The world has changed. Conservatives who accept that and embrace change will be part of it. Those that don’t will fall behind. We’ve seen this over and over again in history and here we are watching the cycle repeat itself. That shows the failure of conservative thinking.

          • Tom Van Dyke

            Race-class-gender isn’t “thinking,” it’s ideology; it is cant. If Aristotle, the Bible, Aquinas, the American Founders, Abraham Lincoln, and Jacques Maritain are “conservative” thinking, it sure beats the hell out of the current ideology that controls our universities.

            The problem is that the educational establishment doesn’t even understand The Great Tradition it’s rejecting. “Liberalism” is a lazy catchall for all human progress, “conservative” is a catchall for all the flaws in the human condition.

            But it was the Great Tradition of Aristotle and Judeo-Christianity, etc. that let us rise from the muck and mire in the first place, long before modernity and “theory” raised their puddin heads.

            As the “functional atheist” philosopher Jürgen Habermas conceded:

            “Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love.

            This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk.”

            (Jürgen Habermas – “Time of Transitions”, Polity Press, 2006, pp. 150-151, translation of an interview from 1999).

            Prager and French are quite right that our young victims of the educational establishment are ill-equipped to deal with its nonsense. They learn to spit on the Great Tradition, on “conservative thought,” by persons like yourself, before they are even taught what it is.

            What Mortimer Adler called “the great conversation” never even takes place. “Conservative thought” is shouted down from the first, as you have done here, Jimmy. You really couldn’t do a better job of illustrating the point if you were trying.
            _____________
            * Adler:

            http://www.thegreatideas.org/greatideas1.html

            Given the reality of the great conversation for us who have inherited the Western tradition, it is that discussion of the great ideas that determines how we draw the line between books and authors that deserve to be called “great” and those that do not. But, it may be asked, what tangible evidence can be given of the reality of the great conversation? ‘What shows us that such a conversation really has taken place from antiquity to the present day?

            These ideas were derived from an extremely close analysis of 44 works by 73 authors from Homer to the twentieth century. This analysis was performed by a staff of specialized indexers under my direction, and the works analyzed were later published as Great Books of the Western World. The editorial staff that I headed found a way of demonstrating the existence of the great conversation. They constructed two indices—one called “The Author-to-Author Index;” the other called “The Author-to-Idea Index.”

            The first of these indices listed, beginning with the Greek tragic poets and with Herodotus, who came chronologically after Homer, the authors they read and referred to or commented on. As we came down the chronological series of authors, the editorial staff listed all the preceding authors that any author in the series had obviously read and talked back to.

            Obviously, earlier authors could not refer explicitly to their successors, but often points that they made anticipated what would be considered and challenged later. This Author-to-Author Index shows the great conversation going on across the centuries.

            The fifty-four volumes of the first edition of Great Books of the Western World in 1952 ended with the works of such late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century authors as Herman Melville, William James, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud. Each of these authors was found to have read and commented on twenty-five or more of his predecessors. When six volumes of twentieth-century authors were added to the second edition of Great Books in 1990, fewer of these authors appear to have been as well read as their predecessors but for some, such as Alfred North Whitehead, Werner Heisenberg, Max Weber, Claude Lévi-Strauss, and James Joyce, their acquaintance with the works of their eminent predecessors is as clearly evident.

            The Author-to-Idea Index provided another demonstration of the reality of the great conversation. The editorial staff listed, from Homer up to the twentieth-century authors, the number of great ideas that each author could be found discussing, counting the appearance of citations of their work in the topics under each idea. Thus, for example, Homer appears in 51 of the 102 great ideas, Herodotus in 71, Plato in 100, Aristotle in all 102, Plutarch in 79, Augustine in 97, Aquinas in 102, Dante in 84, Shakespeare in 79, Montaigne in 90, Francis Bacon in 97, Spinoza in 79, Gibbon in 88, Locke in 98, J. S. Mill in 82, Hegel in 97, Tolstoy in 96, Darwin in 71, Marx in 71, Freud in 91. When we come to the twentieth-century authors, their works, for the most part, are cited in fewer than half of the 102 great ideas.

            In a sense, it is the Syntopicon itself—the topical index to discussions of the great ideas in the Great Books—with its almost 3,000 topics that provides the best evidence for the reality of the great conversation.

          • Jimmy Dick

            Nice try, Tom, but again it fails. You don’t factor time into the equation. Since ideas are built upon foundations it is natural for older works to be consulted more often. That does not make the works any less in stature.
            By the way, Abraham Lincoln and the Founders were liberals of their era. Don’t even presume to consider them to be conservatives. The American Revolution was a liberal event in world history working against British conservatism. The American Civil War was liberalism vs. conservatism when you boil it down.
            You’re still failing to address the flaw of your argument. Conservative thinking is rooted in indoctrination. It fails to yield advanced critical thinking.

          • Tom Van Dyke

            “Liberal” = what Jimmy likes

            “Conservative” = what he doesn’t

            You’re still failing to address the flaw of your argument. Conservative thinking is rooted in indoctrination. It fails to yield advanced critical thinking.

            The flaw is in the imprecision of your argument–like Humpty Dumpty, words only mean what Jimmy Dick says they mean, neither more nor less.

            “I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”
            “But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
            “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
            “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
            “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

            And when you control the academic establishment–as the left does–you are indeed the masters of all that is said and thought.

            You win.

          • David S.

            Conservative is holding to the old patterns. I don’t know how you can look at the American Revolution and call it conservative. The American founders threw aside the system of monarchy that had ruled their ancestors for centuries and instituted a new system like no other ever seen on Earth. That’s insanely liberal.

          • Tom Van Dyke

            “Conservative” is used here as a lazy catchall for what is historically bad. Conservatism has a proper respect and understanding of what is tried and true, and is best used as the opposite of radicalism, which privileges the “new” over the “old.”

            But there are very few good ideas, and an infinity of bad ones. For that reason, radicalism’s track record is a horror.

          • David S.

            Which is non-responsive; unless you claim that every idea that was successful was conservative (i.e. make it a lazy catchall for what was historically good), the fact stands that the American Founding Fathers threw away the old and seized upon the new.

            You’re guilty of equivocation here; you want to make the Republicans out to be the conservatives and the Democrats are not, and then redefine the lines. (Most) Democrats want change, but they don’t want revolution any more then (most of) the Republicans.

            Conservatism’s track record is pretty horrible; it may not have the low points of radicalism, but radical movements are always brief; conservative groups (like every government over a few decades old) can pound in injustice after injustice, for decades and centuries. The Waldensians may have been radicals, but they never hurt anyone, unlike the conservatives, who tried to exterminate them a couple times.

            (Yes, China’s government is very conservative, as is North Korea’s. Both of them are working on tried and true systems and oppose any change.)

          • Tom Van Dyke

            The Founders fought to keep the rights they already had as Englishmen. It was the French Revolution that was radical, that threw out the ancien regime and replaced it from scratch–even renaming the months of the year!

            Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France is directly relevant here, and you appear to have no knowledge or understanding of it.

            Which is my point about the modern education establishment, and the people who are products of it. You condemn things you do not understand, first of all “conservatism,” for which you can’t even give an honest definition.

            As for claiming the Commies of China and North Korea are “conservative,” playing the word game of calling radicals conservatives and calling black white is something I have no time for. It was always the American “conservatives” who opposed Communism, and the leftist intellectual establishment who hated McCarthy more than Stalin.

            http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-radosh17-2008sep17,0,1896707.story#axzz2l2ITufYy

            With these latest events, the end has arrived for the legions of the American left wing that have argued relentlessly for more than half a century that the Rosenbergs were victims, framed by a hostile, fear-mongering U.S. government. Since the couple’s trial, the left has portrayed them as martyrs for civil liberties, righteous dissenters whose chief crime was to express their constitutionally protected political beliefs. In the end, the left has argued, the two communists were put to death not for spying but for their unpopular opinions, at a time when the Truman and Eisenhower administrations were seeking to stem opposition to their anti-Soviet foreign policy during the Cold War.

            To this day, this received wisdom permeates our educational system. A recent study by historian Larry Schweikart of the University of Dayton has found that very few college history textbooks say simply that the Rosenbergs were guilty; according to Schweikart, most either state that the couple were innocent or that the trial was “controversial,” or they “excuse what [the Rosenbergs] did by saying, ‘It wasn’t that bad. What they provided wasn’t important.’ ”

            Indeed, Columbia University professor Eric Foner once wrote that the Rosenbergs were prosecuted out of a “determined effort to root out dissent,” part of a broader pattern of “shattered careers and suppressed civil liberties.” In other words, it was part of the postwar McCarthyite “witch hunt.”

            But, in fact, Schweikart is right, and Foner is wrong. The Rosenbergs were Soviet spies, and not minor ones either. Not only did they try their best to give the Soviets top atomic secrets from the Manhattan Project, they succeeded in handing over top military data on sonar and on radar that was used by the Russians to shoot down American planes in the Korean and Vietnam wars. That’s long been known, and Sobell confirmed it again last week.

          • David S.

            The American Founders were part of a monarchy. They ended up with no king and a constitution that forbid the giving out of noble titles. That’s not conservative.

            ‘It was always the American “conservatives” who opposed Communism, and the leftist intellectual establishment who hated McCarthy more than Stalin.’

            Spin, spin, spin. You have a different definition of conservative for each argument, don’t you? You said

            ‘Conservatism has a proper respect and understanding of what is tried and true, and is best used as the opposite of radicalism, which privileges the “new” over the “old.”‘

            That describes the current Chinese government to a tee; they want the tried and true ways, not new changes to Chinese society. What the Americans who supported Stalin were is irrelevant. (Doubly so, since I was talking about the current governments of China and North Korea, not Russia in times past.)

          • David S.

            One teacher I know worked for a hard-core Republican while still in school. The Republican told him, Son, you are an excellent worker; why would you want to waste your time getting paid the low wages of a professor when you could go into business?

            So long as that attitude is prevalent, of course Republicans are going to be poorly represented in professorial jobs; they’re going to go out and become business men.

          • Tom Van Dyke

            And two conservative PhDs on my old blog had to hide their identities out of fear for their careers. Several other academics have written me privately to the same effect.

            Regardless, here you concede the imbalance in academia. This is better than the usual blanket denials.

          • David S.

            Actually, I’ve been corrected by you upstream; as the distinction is conservatism versus radicalism, the imbalance is clear; there is very few radicals in academia, as is always the case in large old organizations. Their consistent stand behind tenure, for example, is an loud stance against radicalism.

          • Tom Van Dyke

            An honest and accurate definition of “conservative” is first necessary. As for radicalism in the academy, its arrogation of the premises of study for race/class/gender is radical enough when viewed through the Burkean lens.

            But first things first–this nonsense of making “conservative” the scapegoat for all the problems of the human condition–and “liberalism” the cure for them–is a false premise.

            “A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation,” said Edmund Burke, in Reflections on the Revolution in France, which he condemned. “Conservative” is not synonymous with “status quo.” It is synonymous with an education in the classics and an appreciation of how we got here, and a caution about throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

          • David S.

            There’s no such thing as an accurate definition; the only question is if people understand each other.

            You can’t use numbers for Republicans and Democrats in the academy as a proxy for conservative and liberal, and try to come up with a definition for conservative that’s anything besides “more or less what the Republicans are”.

            The premise you complain about is not one I hold or have expressed, so it’s a strawman. The thing is, when you say “an appreciation of how we got here, and a caution about throwing out the baby with the bathwater”, those are nigh universal; perhaps some extreme radicals pretty much miss that totally, but virtually all the academy, virtually all the Democrats, consider history and try not to behave overly rash. You’re defining “conservative” as reasonable, which is self-serving and contradicts how you’re actually using the word.

            I can’t actually recall any usage of conservative that has connection to “an education in the classics”. Karl Marx had a pretty good education in the classics; his doctoral thesis was “The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature”. I don’t know how you claim the academy is biased towards liberals and yet “an education in the classics”, virtually unheard of outside the academy, is conservative.

          • Tom Van Dyke

            So you’ve overturned the chessboard, David, and made every term meaningless. [Once you made "conservative" = North Korea, we were done anyway.]

            My argument is in Burke and the American Revolution vs. the French, of “conservatism” being a knowledge of how we got here and a caution against radical change [unlike Marx].

            The lesson of history is that those who say “things can’t get any worse” have no imagination. [See: Obamacare.]

            Those interested in the arguments and not the word games get it and I have no time to waste on the latter. Peace.

          • David S.

            In other words, your equivocation failed and now you want to blame me of playing word games.

            You accuse everyone else of calling liberal=good, conservative=bad, and then do the exact opposite. Labeling the American Revolution conservative and the French Revolution liberal is exactly that; both of them massive disruptive changes done with little respect for history. Your definition of conservative seems to reserve the right to call any change that worked conservative (in retrospect) and any change that failed not conservative.

            Yes, Marx proposed radical change. But modern-day China becoming a democracy would also be radical change, which is exactly why the Chinese government is a conservative one by the definitions you gave.

            And I still don’t get where respect for the Classics has anything to do with conservatism. It correlates with the academy, and hence by your claims liberalism.

          • Tom Van Dyke

            Your attack on “conservative” without an honest definition of it made this pointless.

            FTR, the French Revolution was radical, not “liberal.” Edmund Burke can also be fairly called a liberal as well for his support of the American colonists as well as the oppressed people of Ireland and India.

            We are all “liberal” in some respect. Kindly consult the difference between a “classical” liberal and a “modern” one. Google will be helpful.

            As for the English monarchy, look up the Glorious Revolution of 1688–Parliament seized primacy over the crown. Unfortunately, they do not teach history very well these days, but the internet makes it possible to rectify that.

            And I still don’t get where respect for the Classics has anything to do with conservatism.

            Clearly they don’t teach philosophy, either. The split between today’s left and right is largely accounted for by the split between classical and modern.

          • David S.

            I used the definition for conservative you gave me. If it is not an honest definition, it is still your definition.

            Searching Google for “British monarchy veto powers” turns up both the Telegraph and Guardian with articles on how in the 21st century the British monarchy is effectively exercising a veto power over legislation. Not to mention, also, that the House of Lords is hardly a democratic organization and it wasn’t until the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 that they didn’t have a veto power over anything the House of Commons did.

          • Tom Van Dyke

            The definitions game. Disingenuous. Put another way, David,

            “Or, when in a group of less educated persons, perhaps in a small-town barbershop, one of whom, let us say an ex-member of the Ku Klux Klan-who are not bad fellows actually, at least hereabouts, except when it comes to blacks, Jews, and Catholics-when one of them comes out with something like ‘The Catholic Church is a piece of shit’ then one feels entitled to a polite rebuttal in both cases, in the one with something like ‘Well, hold on, let us examine the terms, power, foreign, fascist-’ and so on, and in the case of the other, responding in the same tone of casual barbershop bonhomie with, say, ‘Truthfully, Lester, you’re something of a shit yourself, even for white trash-’ without in either case disrupting, necessarily, the general amiability.”—Walker Percy

            [The answer to your other question about the "classics" is here

            http://www.gerardmanleyhopkins.org/lectures_2003/walker_percy.html

            if you read it a few times, particularly the "The Fateful Rift: The San Andreas Fault in the Modern Mind" section. Good luck and catch you down the line when you've caught up.]

            Peace.

          • David S.

            Wow. You rant and rave about how people are defining conservative wrong, and then the instant someone calls you on it, is willing to discuss definitions, you call them disingenuous.

          • Tom Van Dyke

            Not ranting atall. You’re not defining “conservative” honestly when you attack it. If you want to know “conservative” thinking, it’s Aristotle, Aquinas, the Bible, Edmund Burke. Walker Percy.

            “Classics.” Not whatever it is you’ve been attacking as “old” ways of thinking. Now our readers know what the topic is, what Prager and French were talking about, at the very beginning of the discussion. and that’s just the tip of the iceberg, of course–a hostility to religion is often at the core of it. Of course, this discussion never got that far.

            Vanderbilt University Insults Our Intelligence

            By David French

            March 30, 2012 12:43 PM

            For some time now, I’ve been engaged in the fight for religious liberty at Vanderbilt University, where one of the South’s (formerly?) great educational institutions has decided to wage a rather strange war on “discrimination.” Like many universities before it, Vanderbilt is trying to open Christian student groups to leadership by non-Christians, and they’re doing so in the name of “nondiscrimination” and even “civil rights” — explicitly comparing Christian groups to segregationists.

            The reality, of course, is that Vanderbilt is trying to force the orthodox Christian viewpoint off campus.

          • ken

            Didn’t take you long to figure out Tom’s “debate” style.

          • David S.

            And really, would it be that hard to explain why and how being educated in the Classics has anything to do with being conservative? And how to reconcile that with the fact that most people educated in the Classics are part of that academic establishment you dislike?

          • ken

            See was that so hard Tom? Although you probably could have just posted the link (and maybe the summary table).

            So now lets examine your evidence (and what you’ve done with it).

            1st this data is from “32 elite colleges and universities”. So this is not a representative sampling at all.

            2nd, they equate Democrat == liberal (“left-wing” in your terminology), Republican == conservative. Which is a bit of an over-generalization.

            3rd, the data doesn’t include how many faculty they couldn’t get data for or how many were not registered to any party (or to a third party). Even though the study acknowledges such faculty exist: “Not all faculty are registered to vote and not all reside in the county or even state which we searched.”

            4th, the study did not attempt to assess how much (if any) political affiliation influenced teaching.

            Yet you still managed to determine: “colleges have become “left wing seminaries” that is apparently the real reason for younger people leaving the churches rather than those reported by these people themselves.

            And you wonder why I ask for sources?

          • Tom Van Dyke

            “A new study finds leftist bias all too real in academic hiring. Campus radicals not only run colleges but admit they discriminate against conservatives. So much for “tolerance.” Why should voters foot the bill for this?

            Looking at just one branch of social science, researchers at Tilburg University in the Netherlands found that almost a third of social psychologists — nearly all of whom are leftists — admitted in a survey they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring decisions and grant proposals.

            “The more liberal the respondents, the more likely they were to admit bias,” reported the Daily Caller, which came across the study.

            This isn’t exactly earth-shaking news, of course. Everyone knows leftists control universities with no accountability. It does raise questions, however, because higher education has grown bloated and the public is picking up an ever more onerous tab.

            Costs aside, the Heritage Foundation points out that an ideological monolith creates a contented atmosphere of groupthink.

            Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/082112-623047-at-universities-the-left-discriminates-against-the-right.htm#ixzz2l2kIFY8x
            Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

          • ken

            So now you try to shift the focus to colleges in the Netherlands (supplimented with a couple of anecdotes in the US).

            This is what passes as evidence for you Tom. At best you have shown is there are some cases of liberal bias, but that is nowhere close to what you have claimed. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your evidence turned out to be exactly what I thought it would be, you pointing to tiny little mole hills and claiming they are vast mountains.

          • Tom Van Dyke

            Since you refuse to look anything up for yourself, “Ken”:

            Mr. Inbar and Mr. Lammers found that conservatives fear that revealing their political identity will have negative consequences. This is why New York University-based psychologist Jonathan Haidt, a self-described centrist, has compared the experience of being a conservative graduate student to being a closeted gay student in the 1980s.

            In 2011, Mr. Haidt addressed this very issue at a meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology — the same group that Mr. Inbar and Mr. Lammer surveyed. Mr. Haidt’s talk, “The Bright Future of Post-Partisan Social Psychology,” caused a stir. The professor, whose new book “The Righteous Mind” examines the moral roots of our political positions, asked the nearly 1,000 academics and students in the room to raise their hands if they were liberals. Nearly 80 percent of the hands went up. When he asked whether there were any conservatives in the house, just three hands — 0.3 percent — went up.

            This is “a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Mr. Haidt said.

            Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/liberal-majority-on-campus-yes-were-biased/#ixzz2l4Dp0uks

            Follow us: @washtimes on Twitterhttp://chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2012/10/03/surviving-academes-liberal-bias/

          • ken

            Again Tom, you have taken a study and spun it to say something it doesn’t. The study this article references was for a very specific field (social–personality psychology), which you are inappropriately generalizing to all fields. As for the study itself there is a flaw, see if you can spot it:

            The first two questions asked whether, when a participant was reviewing a grant application or paper, a feeling that it took a “politically conservative perspective” would negatively influence the decision to award the grant or accept the paper for publication. The third asked whether the participant would be reluctant to invite “a colleague who is generally known to be politically quite conservative” to participate in a symposium (on an unspecified topic).

            This is from the actual paper:

            “Political Diversity in Social and Personality Psychology”, Inbar, Y.; Lammers, J. Perspectives on Psychological Science, September 2012, vol. 7 no. 5 496-503

            And to their credit the authors do point out this flaw. but I’m curious if you can spot it Tom.

            What you are doing Tom is taking surveys that say one thing then making tenuous connection to larger conclusion and using that to make a tenuous connection to another conclusion until you get to something so large it can possibly be supported by the research you cite.

            Specifically, you stated “Our colleges have become “left-wing seminaries” implying that this was the reason why the 20-somethings are leaving the churches.

            which you apparently based on some opinion pieces which in turn where based on surveys which were not representative samples of all colleges or all fields.
            The surveys don’t explain why the bias they found exists (you simply presume it is just that liberal are silencing conservatives in academia). Nor do they use any of the definitions of liberal/conservative that you have in this thread.

          • Tom Van Dyke

            You’re starting to get it. Do some honest research.

          • ken

            Get what, that you misstate what the evidence shows to make overblown accusations? I’ve known that for a while. why do you think I ask you for your “evidence”.

            I take it you couldn’t spot the flaw I was referring to in the original paper.

          • Tom Van Dyke

            “Ken,” I write for the reader who will investigate the issue further for himself. Good day, sir. There is more to any issue than fits into a comments box, and a hostile and immovable interlocutor makes it all the more unpleasant.

            As said from the first, the very arrogation of the study of the humanities by “Race-class-gender” studies is already structural evidence of the hegemony of the left.

          • ken

            “”Ken,” I write for the reader who will investigate the issue further for himself. ”

            No, Warren does that. And it is evident in his posts where, while he gives is own opinion, he directly links to other sources so the readers can see the details for themselves and form their own opinions (and engage him in a rational debate about the evidence).

            What you do is state your opinions as though they were facts (then tell people to go look them up for themselves when asked for references). Try to disrupt the conversation by nitpicking about the minutia, or drive the conversation off topic onto irrelevant tangents. Refer to others in diminutive and dismissive terms. Fail to respond to reasonable questions. Make inflammatory comments about others, designed more to irritate than inform. And then after all that (and more) have the nerve to complain about how people here don’t engage in honest conversation.

      • http://aebrain.blogspot.com Zoe_Brain

        Ignoring factual evidence in favor of opinion doesn’t change the reality of the situation.

        But that’s the central tenet of religion as usually practiced, surely?

        “Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”

        – Martin Luther

        You can never rely on factual evidence to tell you what your Faith tells you has to be true. It won’t infallibly tell you what you want to hear. It will only tell you an approximation of what is true, not what you want to be true.

        There is on earth among all dangers no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason… Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed.

        Martin Luther, quoted by Walter Kaufmann, The Faith of a Heretic, (Garden City, NY, Doubleday, 1963), p. 75

        Hence the need for Barton to make stuff up, so he only tells the faithful what they want to hear, nothing else.

  • Stogumber

    “Barton has gone on the offensive by slamming Christian scholars and devaluing their faith and their dedication to Christian vocation.”
    From what I’ve seen here, Christian scholars seem mostly dedicated to expose the faults of their co-Christians. (Now, you MAY perhaps maintain that that is just their Christian vocation: to expose the faults of their co-Christians. But wouldn’t that make them rather similar to those horrible over-censorious conservative Evangelicals which always find and expose faults in younger members of their community?)

    • ken

      “From what I’ve seen here, Christian scholars seem mostly dedicated to expose the faults of their co-Christians.”

      I would maintain that you are over-generalizing based on a biased sample. Of these christian scholars you refer too, how much of their work have you actually read (besides what Warren has linked to)?

  • Troy Hill

    I’m a graduate student studying media/communication theory this semester. Barton and the Dominionist movement are a very good example of how to use Agenda Setting, build a Frame for their communication, and use those to create Spirals of Silence to shame any Christian who doesn’t follow their agenda into silence. For this degree I don’t have to build research, but I do have some literature reviews to write. This is inspiring me to see if anyone has followed religious communication for study purposes, and perhaps write a literature review on that area.

  • http://faith-seeking-understanding.org/ Chuck Sigler

    I’d not heard of David Barton before reading a more recent blog post here on him and Kenneth Copeland applying Nu 32:22 to PTSD sufferers.

    Please Lord, help me to find a way to speak the truth in love with regard to this guy. I have the truth part down (he’s an idiot). I’m having trouble with the saying it in love part. Perhaps there is a more biblical term for the truth part: fool? His opinions and their rationale certainly seem foolish.

  • Tom Van Dyke

    “Ken”, meet google.com. Educate yourself on the issue if you seek the truth, as I hope the gentle readers will. I write for them; frankly, I don’t owe your hostile and anonymous self the time of day.

    • ken

      I prefer facts to “truth”. Experience has shown me that “truth” is far to subjective. And I also notice you seem to be long on opinion, but short on facts. Why should I be the one proving your claims? If you can’t substantiate them, you shouldn’t make the claims.

      • Tom Van Dyke

        “Ken,” in a good-faith discussion, the parties equally share the burden of proof. You don’t get to set yourself up as Immovable Object, saying that you are “unconvinced.” Nobody could convince The Immovable Object that the sky is blue, because at night it’s black. He’s always got some BS to spout.

        So it goes; our problems remain epistemological. Whoever succeeds in setting himself as The Immovable Object always wins. The academic establishment is 10-1 Democrat vs. Republican and this guy just attacks me saying I have no case.

        There’s your left winger and his “critical thinking” for you, Jimmy Dick. Sophistry, a game. The shoutdown, the harassment.

        http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/30/21251004-lecture-canceled-after-brown-university-protesters-shout-down-new-yorks-top-cop

        I give you credit, though, at least you bring something to the table.

        • ken

          “”Ken,” in a good-faith discussion, the parties equally share the burden of proof.”

          No, in a discussion, the person making the claims has the burden of proof, not the person who is skeptical of those claims.

          “The academic establishment is 10-1 Democrat vs. Republican and this guy just attacks me saying I have no case.”

          So now you’ve gone from “left-wing seminaries” to “10-1 Democrat vs. Republican”(still without any actual evidence). While it is generally true that democrats are more liberal than republicans, there are moderate, and even conservative democrats and moderate and liberal republicans. This change only helps confirm my initial suspicions that you have simply read anecdotal evidence and then fit that evidence to conform to your own biases. However, I recognize these suspicions may be my own biases. So rather than just assume my suspicions were true, I gave you the opportunity to disprove them and provide the data for your claims. A courtesy you failed to show Jimmy, I would add. Instead, just making presumptions about his information.

          • Tom Van Dyke

            That’s nonsense, “Ken.” Anyone can play epistemological Immovable Object. But as a litigant, you cannot arrogate the role of judge at the same time.

            There is voluminous discussion of the left-wingedness of the academic establishment easily found with a few keystrokes on Google. You are either ignorant or disingenuous on the issue and I have time for neither.

            And you do not seem to understand the difference between a discussion and a debate. In good-faith discussion, the parties are equals, including sharing the burden of proof.

  • Elise

    Please check David Barton’s wallet. He is a spokesman for CollegePlus, an online ‘resource’ for home-educating college students. He has a monetary interest in frightening parents into enrolling them in CollegePlus, which is also heavily endorsed by Doug Phillips, the Duggars, Vodie Baucham, et. al.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X