Conservatives don't accept anyone openly liberal as having any good rationale. It's the whole demonize the enemy attack. This whole argument seems to be moot. clarification edit: conservatives == David Horowitz, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and the like.
The reason I went to college was to learn. I prefer to be exposed to as many different views as possible. It is then up to me if I choose to agree or disagree with that point of view.
Hmm, maybe you are a tad pedantic in your interpretation of "THE" liberal point of view? Granted that there is no ONE liberal point of view, what the professor implies (from the poster's quote) is that whatever view(s) he intends to teach is/are liberal because he believes it's his duty to counter the prevalent conservative mainstream. In other words, he is not teaching the conservative views because he assumes that the students can get those from the society. Even if his motive is purely pedagogical (although I seriously doubt that he is not biased toward the left), I think that is a wrong methodology. Unless it is on the graduate level, it is not enough just to throw differring points of view to the students. That does not teach critical thinking--at least not for the majority of students. Most students simply get confused and some become cynical about any "truths." The teacher has the responsibility to teach them how to evaluate views. Train them to spot the strengths and weaknesses of arguments. Show them how to separate logic from rhetoric. Do the liberal professors actually "open-mindedly" teach the students how to objectively critique both liberal and conservative ideas? I doubt that many liberal teachers do. It's awfully hard to not let your own bias takeover.
The notion that one, as a young person, can freely choose to agree or disagree with whatever point of view is quite naive. I am not trying to sound patronizing. I say this as someone who have gone through that path. The vast magority of young people, when presented with several competing points of view, cannot choose competently without guidance. They are heavily influenced by their family, the media, and the teachers, who certainly have their own points of view. If they are not taught how to think critically, then they will either follow whoever/whatever have the most influence on them, or they will become cynical about any effort of finding out truths.
So the assumption here is that college freshpersons come in to college as conservatives?! Yeah, sure.
I had professors in college who would always play the devil's advocate -- if the students were really conservative, the prof would be overtly liberal (and vice versa). I can't speak for your professor, Zac D, but I think a prof's first responsibility is to challenge what students think they believe about the world. If a professor get get a student to ask "Why?" then he has done his job.
He hasn't done his job until he helps the student answer for herself "Because. . . " BTW, why was I sucked into the D&D? I made a New Year resolution NOT to visit this forum ever again. Oh, now a remember. . . the Chinaman thread that was originally in the GARM. Argh, Nomar, it's all your fault!
I think you need to give a little more credit to todays youth. Maybe I am the exception to the rule that I can handle more than one point of view.
First...History of Sport? Learn something new every day. Next, the professor is a tool. Cheap cop-out for trying to justify pushing his agenda. Depending on the level of the class, his job is to stand up there and condense vast amounts of knowledge into, essentially, superficial soundbites. His job is to give his students the "push" towards learning. In general, I have no idea why most academics are liberal. I have certainly known a decent amount of conservative, but I understand that, for some reason, I must have met all of them because Academia is pretty lop-sided. I think it is probably a simple matter of certain people gravitate to the field and just so happen to carry a "leftist gene" with them as well. Perhaps it is some kind of utopian idealism to think that it would be cool to go out in the world and mold young minds, teach the future, preserve your loved field. Being such a professional utopian would certainly translate well into utopian/idealist politics - "save humanity" type stuff. Again, though, I have no idea and am just having fun with wild conjecture. I, personally, get annoyed with raging Democrat professors more than those farther left. Part of it may be a concrete vs. abstract argument (Democrats have candidates and platforms while farther lefties generally just have ideas and ideals) and so it seems more "toe the line" and sloganeering type of drivel. Who knows. An interesting note - I have found (in my limited and biased experience) an interesting tendency among liberal vs conservative professors. Liberals will either ignore conservative positions in their teaching or bring it up and shun it, whil conservatives often change it up a bit and make odd statements such as "Karl Marx would love Walmart" (which, by the way, is a direct paraphrase from an actual political science professor). So, uh...where was I? Oh yeah, "Chinaman" is offensive.
I think you need to give a little more credit to todays youth. Maybe I am the exception to the rule that I can handle more than one point of view.
Well, maybe I'm wrong. I tend to believe that you are the exception. I know there are exceptionally bright young people.
Mr. Paige actually beat me to the question I want answered. For some strange reason I believe a History of Sports professor should teach...uh...the history of sports. I know, it's odd. Is this absolute truth? If so, why?
I wonder what it's like to have an extremely liberal professor, or go to a liberal college.. because as a student in Texas, my experiences have been that liberal professors often keep their personal feelings and agendas in check.. while the conservative professors often times let their idealogies dominate the way they conduct themselves and their class (discussion, grading, etc).
A lack of absolute truths is one way to think about the universe, oh moral relativist. Another (and my own personal view) is that there are absolute truths, but we don't necessarily know them, and may never know them.
StupidMoniker, You make a good point. To believe in the existence of absolute truth isn't the same as claiming to know the truth absolutely. I believe it's a point that's often overlooked.
