-
Dust Up
4 CommentsOr skepticism for you but not for me.
Over at the LA Times, noted Skeptic Michael Shermer and F.I.R.E. president Greg Lukianoff are battling each other over the scourge of Left Wing Indoctrinators ruling the classrooms in modern academia.
It’s not exactly the battle I expected. After all, F.I.R.E.’s notoriety comes largely from defending the conservatives in academia against the liberals. And the publisher of Skeptic Magazine and a Sci Am column ought to be pretty level headed about evaluating evidence and making arguments.
But Shermer opens thusly:
Students should complain about professorial indoctrination, because it is real and it is loaded heavily on the left, most notably in the social sciences and the humanities.
[What do you think, Bob, does he still fit under your tent?]
And Lukianoff responds with:
I think you make a lot of important points in your post, but you tend to conflate the evidence of bias in academia with indoctrination. [...] But is having an opinionated professor really the same as indoctrination?
The answer is “of course not.”
The week long back and forth may not be as exciting as promised, since they both seem sympathetic to the idea that there are left-wing inspired abuses on campus. (Lukianoff prefers to blame administrators for stupidity on campus, and it’s hard not to be sympathetic in principle. How much do you really expect from administrators?)
I did find this following statistic of Lukianoff’s really interesting:
A better statistic can be found in a recent Chronicle of Higher Education-Gallup Poll. According to this poll, 29% of 25- to 34-year-olds, 41% of 45- and 54-year-olds, and 60% of those over age 65 responded that professors “often” use their classrooms to espouse their own political views.
Think about what that means. Those over 65 were in college in the early 60′s. Apparently those days were the worst. (Presumably that’s their only direct experience of the problem.) Whereas of the 25 year olds, graduated a mere 4 years ago, only half as many think it is a problem. (Can we extrapolate that number down to current students?) So the battle is being won!
4 Responses to “Dust Up”
-
Rev. Bob said on April 15th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Gee, a libertarian spouting a bunch of goofy right-wing shit? What a shock!
Tell us how there really are left-libertarians and how the libertarian movement hasn’t been dutifully marching along, brooms in hand, behind the elephants.
I don’t see how modern libertarianism is different from BDS&M. Except for the sex part. And the having fun part.
-
Justin said on April 15th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
I think it’s time for you to break out the libertarian ice cream quote again, Bob.
-
tim said on April 15th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Wait a sec., is Shermer a libertarian? I thought he was a part of that non-theist and humanist camp. Wikipedia (it must be true, it’s on the internet) says “Shermer is now a professed atheist, but prefers to use nontheist, and an advocate for humanist philosophy.” Sounds a lot like our host. And Lukianoff calls himself a pro-choice liberal. Also sounds a lot like our host….
Or were you referring to my commentary and not theirs?
-
Rev. Bob said on April 16th, 2008 at 10:12 am
What do you think, Bob, does he still fit under your tent?
Actually, I had way too much fun on my original answer.
So if you’re asking whether a given source is always to be trusted, my put is no.
I’d rather ask, is a given statement sensible and (better still) verifiable.
I might go with my experience some. But, for instance, after nearly 20 years that I know of of being bloody-minded, you might say something sensible. It would surprise the hell out of me, but you could.
