Return to the Latest on No Left Turns
|
Faculty bias revisited
Mary Eberstadt raises a few questions about this review of the evidence. I’m more or less with Eberstadt on this. The studies reviewed in the report may have their flaws, but the report is simply a brief for the opposition, arguing, for example, that one of the problems with the studies is that they didn’t focus on enough disciplines, didn’t look at faculty at less prestigious institutions, or at part-time faculty. Those folks may indeed present a somewhat different picture, but if you’re looking for opinion leaders, you’d probably look at high prestige places (or at least at place that are currently high prestige; come the revolution, things could be different). But my favorite argument from the review is this hardy perennial: Suggesting that the higher education establishment actively excludes conservatives overlooks the possibility that people with different values and interests sort themselves into different professions. An illustration of the relationship between political values and occupation is evident in the predominance of Republicans in the military. A survey of active members of the military found that 57 percent indicated they were Republicans, compared with 13 percent who said they were Democrats.... Given the American tradition of a politically neutral military, this is a worrisome finding.The important point is that the nature of military or academic occupations may each attract individuals who share common beliefs. It is no more plausible to believe that the hiring process for the military tries to screen out Democrats or retard their promotion than to believe that higher education discriminates against Republicans. On the narrow question of partisan affiliation, he’s probably right. I doubt that anyone asks about party affiliation in a job interview. And I’m willing to agree also that party affiliation doesn’t imply political bias in the hiring process or in the classroom. I know people who are willing to call themselves Democrats and who are entirely fair-minded in their approach to students, colleagues, and potential colleagues. But there is an important difference between the military and higher education. In the former, there is strong support for adherence to professional norms. In the latter, the old norms have been under assault for at least a generation. This doesn’t mean that every self-professed academic leftist is willing to subordinate everything to his or her political ends, but there has been a sustained questioning of notions like objectivity and fairness, which makes them weaker than we’d like them to be. If we should worry about the distribution of party affiliation in the military, then we should also worry about the relative paucity of conservatives on high-prestige college campuses. That’s not a reason, as I’ve said many times in the past, to support the passage of an "Academic Bill of Rights," but it is a reason for good people to support the creation of centers like Ashbrook, the Tocqueville Forum at Georgetown, and others. It’s also a reason for good people to support organizations like the Association for Core Texts and Courses, which is honestly focused on teaching good books well, without any political agenda.
Posted by Joseph Knippenberg | Link to this Entry | Comments [5] | 4/2/2007 4:34 PM
|
|
Lightweight Feminists Never More Apparent
Or so says Jennifer Roback Morse in this interesting column. Follow the links within it too if you want a full picture of her argument.
Posted by Julie Ponzi | Link to this Entry | Comments | 4/2/2007 2:57 PM
|
|
Russian birthrate and male mortality
The birthrate in Russia has gone up a notch or two, according to this BBC report, but the adult male mortality rate is still very high. Life expectancy for males is 59, for females it is 74.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 4/2/2007 1:27 PM
|
|
Bob Novak on Fred Thompson
Fred is surging; Rudy is declining; Romney’s supporters, suffering from buyer’s remorse, are switching. Finally the conservative void is being filled by a candidate conservatives actually like. I agree that these facts are for real. I’m less clear on how for real Law-and-Order Fred himself is. (Thanks to Ivan the K.)
Posted by Peter Lawler | Link to this Entry | Comments [2] | 4/2/2007 10:24 AM
|
|
Fred and Now Tommy...Two Thompsons and Counting
Tommy Thompson will focus on Iowa and health care. He certainly was a good governor, but where’s he been?
Posted by Peter Lawler | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 4/2/2007 10:19 AM
|
|
Abolish the Electoral College?
E.J. Dionne, Jr. is happy that his home state, Maryland, is on the brink of passing a law that commits its ten electors to the winner of the national popular vote, should states with 270 electoral votes agree to do so. This is an end run around the constitutional amendment process, which is, of course, much more cumbersome and in which small states, "overrepresented" in the E.C., are likely to pose barriers. For Dionne, it’s all about democracy. Not federalism. Not republicanism. Next thing you know, he’ll propose abolishing judicial review and the Bill of Rights. Other countries get along just fine without them too.
Posted by Joseph Knippenberg | Link to this Entry | Comments [12] | 4/2/2007 6:12 AM
|
|
Hillary the Hawk
The NEW REPUBLIC provides a surprising amount of evidence that Ms. Clinton is more realistic and more bellicose when it comes to our country’s responsibilities than her husband. Amazingly enough, her foreign policy opinions seem to be about the same as those of the NEW REPUBLIC. One particularly amazing fact: Law Professor Hillary Clinton actually tried to enlist in the Marines. (It turns out the Marines weren’t looking for women law professors with really bad vision,) As far as I know, Bill didn’t. If you think, as I do, that it’s going to be pretty difficult for any Republican to get elected president in 2008, this article does show why, however eloquent and cool we think Obama is, we ought to hope that the Democrats make the more responsible choice.
Posted by Peter Lawler | Link to this Entry | Comments [17] | 4/1/2007 6:34 PM
|
|
Back home
From Williamsburg, where, among other things, my wife and kids enjoyed a public reading of the Declaration of Independence. My wife says that she wants to work for Colonial Williamsburg at some point in the future and compared the experience (in terms of the quality of the presentation, the professionalism of the cast, and the emphasis on customer service) to Disney World, which is our book is high praise indeed. Obviously, the subject is a bit more serious (of course). I presented a paper (on "’Family Values’ in Livy’s Rome"), chaired a panel on leadership and core texts, enjoyed a number of conversations in a remarkably collegial conference, and caught up with a number of old friends. The single most impressive and entertaining speaker was Paul Cantor, who spoke about Homer and other "productions" as examples of a kind of "spontaneous order." I also found these two books and glanced at the galleys of this one. Schall and Lawler must just bleed ink.
Posted by Joseph Knippenberg | Link to this Entry | Comments [4] | 4/1/2007 6:19 PM
|
|
Reagan first
Maybe a real conversation about Lincoln is a good idea. Maybe. Maybe it is a good idea to relive the political fights between Jefferson and Hamilton, between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, the Northwest Ordinance, the difference between the American and French revolutions, the politics of the 1790’s, the meaning of the election of 1800, the constitutionality of the Lousiana Purchase, the value of the Missouri Compromise, the debate between Andy Jackson and Henry Clay, the nullification crisis, as well as the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott decision. Maybe.
In the meantime, on perhaps a smaller point, I think some who are so especially concerned with defining conservatism (that is, try to articulate its nature, if it has one) may want to listen to a few of Reagan’s speeches to see how conservatism manifested itself politically victorious for the first time since Progressivism’s political victory was revealed in the New Deal and the Great Society. There are 14 speeches between 1964 and 1989. Enjoy!
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [9] | 3/31/2007 6:57 PM
|
|
I have an idea...let’s talk about Lincoln!
I’m not going to be the first one on NLT to respond to dain’s call for a positive defense of Lincoln, or an explanation of why conservatives should appreciate him. That, I think, belongs in the realm of normative political theory, and I’m but a simple historian. What I will do is offer the historian’s perspective, which is that the question of whether or not Lincoln violated the Constitution in using force to keep the South in the Union is ultimately irrelevant. Show me the president who, when faced with the choice between the Constitution and political survival, chose the former over the latter. Jefferson ignored the Constitution in making the Louisiana Purchase; Jackson ignored it whenever he felt like he had to; Teddy Roosevelt ignored it in seizing Colombian territory to build the Panama Canal; FDR ignored it in implementing the New Deal. As I’ve written elsewhere, the overwhelming sentiment--in Congress and in the public at large--was that the Union had to be preserved at all costs. Had Lincoln refused to coerce the South he would have been impeached. It would have been the same had he tried to surrender Fort Sumter. Hannibal Hamlin, Lincoln’s first vice president, was a lot more radical than Lincoln was--imagine what would have happened if he had ended up in the White House. Lincoln did what he had to do--what any rational politician would have done in similar circumstances. He did it in the face of an independent-minded Congress, a defiant Cabinet, and a public that was screaming for blood--and in the end he did it rather well. That’s what I admire about him. Now excuse me, I’m off to write a biography of Howard Cosell.
Posted by John Moser | Link to this Entry | Comments [119] | 3/31/2007 3:00 PM
|
|
Fred Barnes on THE Question About McCain
Why is the most conservative candidate most dislked by conservatives? Fred’s answer: He’s unable to resist "the maverick temptation." In my opinion, he’s tempted too often to project the impression that he’s too smart and/or too moral to be consistently conservative, and the technique that gets him good press loses him conservative votes. The genuine maverick wouldn’t be as image-conscious as McCain seems to be. Fred encourages us to remember that John best embodies the combination of conservatism and electability.
Posted by Peter Lawler | Link to this Entry | Comments [4] | 3/31/2007 11:53 AM
|
|
Final Four Ethics: The Moral Imperative to Root for Georgetown
The other three schools are anonymous, government-run, techno-industrial warehouses with massive athletic budgets. Georgetown is a relatively small private school with a tiny gym. If you value educational diversity and/or the little guy, you won’t root for the uttlerly indistinguishable Florida, UCLA, or Ohio State.
Posted by Peter Lawler | Link to this Entry | Comments [14] | 3/31/2007 11:35 AM
|
|
The Political Theory of AMERICAN IDOL
Will the masterful strategy of Sanjaya’s hair-based campaign rob the show of its illusion of meritocratic innocence? Has the show become all about winning votes and building coalitions for reasons having nothing to do with actual singing? (I truly don’t care about this, but I thought it would divert us from re-fighting the Civil War.)
Posted by Peter Lawler | Link to this Entry | Comments [3] | 3/31/2007 11:23 AM
|
|
Students Talking
As the students were talking I became more aware of them. This was their second larger than life guest within the week. The ancient mind Jaffa first, then the ram-rod straight Bunting. Each speaker had both the age and the authority to make the young think twice before trying to question anything being said. Yet they questioned, opined, talked, even pushed. They were at home with it, the authority, the power, the subjects all. The guests at first are always surprised , and then come to know this great fact and they like it. They feel at home among those that trust the mind.
Such students are dangerous. Ordinary professors are afraid of them because, well, they can’t just talk at them. The lecture they prefer is closed and time bound. They approach all topics as if they know them and if they just had enough time they could explain them to everyone who is listening. They talk to fill in time, as if they are paid by the word. But they don’t know that real students aren’t note-takers and ciphers, but participants and friends in the conversation. The students insist on knowing, and discovering, and they want to be thinking in public. If a professor is not courageous enough to think aloud, they come to ignore him. If he is merely ignorant, they make a great attempt to help him. If he can’t do any better, they leave him and do something serious.
I had a class yesterday in which we considered a heavy thought. How is ruling reason affected by the thing it is trying to govern? My always limited—and then especially tired—mind was sinking in deep waters. I couldn’t get anywhere with any word. I couldn’t breathe. I perceived my inability, the weight pulling me down. And then someone to my left said a few words that were unclear to me. I asked him to repeat. He did and things became clearer. And then a yellow haired woman spoke with more clarity, and then the shy man came into it, then another. Then a new student was born, one who had yet said nothing in public during the whole term. Although his voice was hesitant, the thought was clear. I asked for repetition and clarity and kept getting it. An hour later I realized that I was no longer sinking. My mind was fresh and I was thinking with my students. We were back in the breathing world.
I have been a teacher for almost thirty years and I have had some very good students. I have seen some fine students. Many have become friends and we stay students together. I am lucky. Yet I have to say the students here at Ashbrook and Ashland are the best students I have ever encountered, anywhere. They are always interesting, thoughtful and mature. Even when I know they approach a thought not for the first time, they talk as if they do. They speak in fresh and enlivened terms and tones and are always surprised by their discoveries. Yet they keep their balance, and if one of us sinks he is pulled up by their reason and their generosity. Their eyes sparkle and their laugh is deep and honest. And everyone with them and around them is made into something better and finer. And even old authorities visiting who remain teachers know this. I am also aware of this and am deeply in their debt and am grateful to them all. I am happy in their company and their conversation.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [2] | 3/31/2007 9:03 AM
|
|
Civility
It is too bad that some who comment on NLT are uncivil and rude. While I call for civility (as has Joe), I am inclined to think that my call will not be heeded. I believe the reason for that is clear: It is the purpose of such people to make war, rather than talk. Well, that is not our purpose on this blog. Our purpose is to have a conversation and that is what we will have. In that conversation, even if we disagree, we provide a great boon to one another, and I am grateful for it. Over this weekend I will be in touch with my patient friends who take the time to blog on NLT and we will decide what we should do. My guess is that we will end the "Comments" section as it has existed for all these years. Either we will have no comments, or we will allow only those to comment (through magic codes and such) who are willing to be civil. In the meantime I suggest that Joe, Julie, Peter, Steve, John, et al, do not respond to any comments. In fact, don’t even bother to read them. Give the shouters no satisfaction. We will act by Monday. In the meantime I ask everyone to accept my apologies, my sincere apologies. Thank you.
Update: Thanks for your comments on this issues (yes, I do read them). The issue is not a "spirited exchange" It is civility. It is certainly not wanting to end conversation or disagreement. After all, none of the contributors at NLT are made of cotton candy. I am interested in moderating my own passions, as well as those of others, for the sake of a good conversation. As some on the thread say, we do learn from disagreements. Of course. But "spirited exchange" is different from rude, corse, intentionally ill mannered statements whose design, by definition, is not to encourage conversation over disagreements, but rather to make others angry. Let us all moderate our own passions, please. That has to do with civility, citizenship. That is what we are asking. I am still open on all this, decisions have not yet been made. Again, I thank you kindly.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [232] | 3/30/2007 7:44 PM
|
|
A very minimalist definition of conservatism
Civility. Which hasn’t been displayed by some of the self-professed "conservatives" who have been calling folks names and accusing them of treason in the comments section here in recent days.
Posted by Joseph Knippenberg | Link to this Entry | Comments [10] | 3/30/2007 6:36 PM
|
|
