The Fruits of Political Correctness.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 14 2007, 01:07 AM) [snapback]512412[/snapback]</div>

I heard a bit about this ... the theory is that a large contributor to the new law school didn't like Prof. Chermerinsky's views. But as a governmental body, the UC system has absolutely no right to deny employment to someone based on their political views. Some of Prof. Chemerinsky's greatest supporters in this are conservatives ... like Hugh Hewitt at his blog.

Chermerinsky is an unabashed liberal, but he is absolutely loved by most of his students, liberal or conservative. In his weekly radio debates with John Eastman, the conservative dean of Chapman Law School, Chermerinsky is reasoned, dispassionate and everything you would look for in a worthy adversary. His beliefs are on the left, but he is not out of the mainstream of American political thought, and he doesn't deserve this shameful treatment.

UCI, the school of continuing scandals, should reverse its decision. We do not have a "philosophical means test" that prohibits liberal or conservative profs in government funded institutions.

 

I don't see why you feel this was political correctness biting the hand that fed it. According to your citations, apparently the professor was denied the job, after signing the contract, because a big contributor objected to his opposition politics. The chancellor claims he didn't fire the prof because of his politics, but because there would have been a fight among the regents, but apparently that fight was due to pressure being put on them by a big contributor who opposed his politics.

This has nothing to do with political correctness. This is all about squelching academic freedom through economic pressure from outside the academic community, and the chancellor and regents kowtowing to the big contributor.

This would not have happened if we used public money to fund our educational institutions. Our corrupt lawmakers are happy to allocate money for war without ever asking where the money is to come from, but when it comes to education, they cut schools loose and force them to prostitute themselves to private donors.

 

“The two pillars of 'political correctness' are:

a.) willful ignorance

b.) a steadfast refusal to face the truthâ€

--George MacDonald

The whole political correctness movement is a joke because it implies censorship and endangers free speech by limiting what is in public discourse, especially in universities and political forums. The quickest way to end political correctness would be to start calling women 'Vaginal Americans'.

 

"start calling women 'Vaginal Americans'."

Yeah, that'd go over like a pregnant highjumper.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Sep 14 2007, 11:27 AM) [snapback]512509[/snapback]</div>

I had to take this too, right after I was hired into the dept.. They called it "Human Diversity Training".
9hrs of lecturing followed by a test. (pass or fail) if you failed you would hqave to retake it... :blink: <_<

 

universities are very much driven by their contributors. especially private ones like where i am. conservative donors make for quite the conservative university. the uni is afraid to piss anyone off for fear of that money going elsewhere.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Sep 14 2007, 11:35 AM) [snapback]512519[/snapback]</div>

I think the correct term is "Vaginally Challenged Americans."

Tom

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Sep 14 2007, 12:01 PM) [snapback]512528[/snapback]</div>

Which is exactly why academic freedom at a private university is a complete farce.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ 2007 09 14 09:01) [snapback]512528[/snapback]</div>

So much for developing independent thought in a supportive environment. Money is the only God now.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Sep 14 2007, 12:09 PM) [snapback]512534[/snapback]</div>

In a March 1991 speech, Yale President Benno Schmidt warned, "The most serious problems of freedom of expression in our society today exist on our campuses. . . . The assumption seems to be that the purpose of education is to induce correct opinion rather than to search for wisdom and to liberate the mind."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 14 2007, 07:24 AM) [snapback]512479[/snapback]</div>

Douglas W. Kmiec, a noted conservative Pepperdine University law professor, wrote a terrific op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times. Here are some excerpts:

 

I've always thought the purpose of education was to teach people how to think, not what to think.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Sep 14 2007, 12:35 PM) [snapback]512551[/snapback]</div>

Yes, that is always what I thought as well, but seeing that I have two graduate degrees, I can certainly say that is not how things are today. Many colleges and universities have become cesspools of indoctrination, intolerance, academic dishonesty and the new racism. While costs are rising, education quality is in precipitous decline, particularly at the undergraduate level. In 1993, a Department of Education survey found that, among college graduates, 50 percent of whites and more than 80 percent of blacks couldn't state in writing the argument made in a newspaper column or use a bus schedule to get on the right bus, 56 percent could not calculate the right tip, 57 percent could not figure out how much change they should get back after putting down $3 to pay for a 60-cent bowl of soup and a $1.95 sandwich, and over 90 percent could not use a calculator to find the cost of carpeting a room. But not to worry. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni's 1999 survey of seniors at the nation's top 55 liberal arts colleges and universities found that 98 percent could identify rap artist Snoop Doggy Dogg and Beavis and Butt-Head, but only 34 percent knew George Washington was the general at the battle of Yorktown.

Part of the reason is the political climate on college campuses, where professors use their classrooms for proselytizing and indoctrination and teach classes that have little or no academic content.The boards of trustees at our colleges and universities bear the ultimate responsibility, and it is they who've been grossly derelict in their duty. Americans as donors and taxpayers have been exceedingly generous to our universities. Given our universities' gross betrayal of trust, Americans should rethink their generosity as well as rethink who serves on boards of trustees that, in dereliction of duty, permit universities to become hotbeds of political activism and academic fraud.

 

i thought private universities were most susceptible to this, but surprisingly, we're talking about a california state school.

given the context, i'd imagine this ends up being a discipline-specific issue. from my current perspective, i see it as hard to teach a student WHAT to think in science. the basis of all my instruction has been that the literature is the true body of science, which is up to interpretation by the individual.

 

In the Los Angeles Times:

UCI reportedly working on a deal to rehire Chemerinsky
[Excerpts]

 

In the Los Angeles Times:

[Excerpts]

 

It was bound to happen:

[Excerpts]