A colleague of mine (a poli sci prof) and I were chatting in the hallway yesterday, talking about last week’s election. She and I are both solid liberals, and we expressed our satisfaction and relief at the national and local results. And then she said something interesting: "You know, as much as it pains me to admit it, some of my best and brightest students are the most politically conservative. They often seem more articulate and passionate than the others." I agreed that all things considered, my experience in recent years had been the same.
No, I’m not going to make the argument that the most intelligent and insightful of students are natural conservatives. Rather, I’m convinced that most young people are, at heart, naturally rebellious against authority. Though Pasadena was once a reliably Republican town, it is so no longer. And I know full well that with a few exceptions, my colleagues on this campus are reliably and nearly uniformly left-wing. Oh, there’s the odd Libertarian or two, and I have one colleague who still hasn’t outgrown his fascination with Ayn Rand. (This is a sign, mind you, of developmental disability. When you’re 19, you are permitted to find the Fountainhead inspiring and brilliant. If you still find it so when you’re 39, instead of seeing it correctly as turgid, overwrought garbage, then you are experiencing some form of mild intellectual retardation.) Many of my senior colleagues are veterans of the civil rights or "brown power" movements. We sit around sometimes and swap stories of various protests we’ve been involved in over the years. I know of only one tenured member of my department who voted for Bush in ‘04; he was not only outnumbered by the Kerry voters but by the Nader voters as well.
Bottom line: it’s tough to rebel on this campus by moving to the left. On the other hand, "coming out" as a young conservative allows you the wonderful thrill of tweaking the noses of your elders, a temptation that many of the young find difficult to exist. In my childhood, lefties drove around with bumper stickers that said "Question Authority." Well, their children and grandchildren are doing just that — except that in order to do so in a truly satisfying way, they’ve got to challenge their mostly left-wing teachers and professors. Not for one second will I concede the intellectual superiority of conservative ideas or values; I merely acknowledge that on campuses like my own, it’s "more fun" to be a young Republican thanks to the cachet of counter-cultural rebelliousness that it carries. Trust me, I’m not going to spoil the fun for these lil’ right-wing whipper-snappers; if they like, I’ll happily play the liberal foil for them.
Of course, there’s another kind of student whom I often see drawn to conservatism. Often, these are kids who come from turbulent and impoverished backgrounds. Stereotypically, they "ought" to be reliable Democrats (if they have any politics at all.) But many of these kids become infatuated with the Republican gospel of stern self-reliance and the "up by your bootstraps" mentality. They see family members and friends who seem stuck in poverty, and they have come to believe that that poverty is less a result of racism or social structures and more a consequence of poor personal choices. Filled with ambition and eager to transcend their class, these boys and girls see themselves as "exceptions to the rule." Many of them, frankly, are also filled with a strange mix of hunger and anger: the hunger is to succeed, the anger is at those around them who have not taken advantage of what these kids believe are myriad opportunities for self-improvement.
These young conservatives aren’t just rebelling. Rather, what appeals to them about conservatism is the notion that people ought not to be insulated from the consequences of poor behavior. (Pace, my fellow liberals, we all know damn well organized Republicanism inoculates the wealthy from that very thing.) While conventional liberal ideas encourage them to see culture through the lens of race and class, conservative thinking encourages them to see themselves as bold individuals bravely pursuing their private destinies. Thus, in an odd way, conservatism can become an expression of hostility towards their own race and class. Sometimes, I’m convinced these young folks are saying to their families:
We’re not poor because we’re black/Latino/what-have-you, we’re poor because you (mom, dad, etc.) made bad decisions. Well, I’m going to show you! I’m going to make something of myself, not merely to make you proud but also to show you that I am different from you and not defined by the same things that you allowed yourself to be defined by!
Seeing poverty and despair as the result of individual decisions rather than as the result of massive social forces allows the young conservative from a poor background to create an immensely flattering personal narrative: in his or her own mind, he or she becomes the "special one", clever and brave and ambitious enough to transcend the self-created, self-reinforced adversity that grips everyone else in the family and culture. While there may be some small grains of truth in this worldview, the insistence that most suffering is self-imposed and the consequence of bad decision-making is a convenient excuse to avoid the obligation to be profoundly compassionate.
Do I think we pick our politics primarily for psychological reasons? For the most part, yes, though I’m not enough of a reductionist to insist that’s the only reason. My liberalism comes partly from my mother, partly from my own life experience. On one level, it comes from a reflexive desire not to have my private behavior scrutinized and judged. On another level, it may indeed be rooted in a sense of "white guilt". Those who have ought to share with those who don’t, and I still believe that government is best prepared to serve as the primary instrument through which that sharing takes place. And of course, I’m desperately eager to protect the environment and to protect animal life, but those are not high priorities in either of the major parties.
Bottom line: I love me my young conservatives. One of my best students this semester wore a "Tommy Girl" t-shirt to class on election day; she loves ultra-right-wing politician Tom McClintock, who narrowly lost the Lt. Governor’s battle last week. For her, conservatism is about creating the ideal mix of freedom and responsibility; she sees it as the best vehicle for achieving her dreams. And she loves tweaking her fellow students (generally either apathetic or left-wing) and her liberal professors. She comes to argue with me a lot. I’m an indulgent old guy; rather than quarrel or allow myself to be provoked, I listen to her seriously, challenge her from time to time, but in the end, I always finish with a warm "Bless your heart. You’re right where you oughta be." And that’s what I generally say to my earnest, passionate, young right-wingers.
Just get your papers in on time, kids.
Hmm… my alma mater is pretty liberal, but I didn’t feel like the best students were conservative, as would follow if they were rebelling.
OTOH, as a student, perhaps I didn’t mark it.
Back when I was in high school, wearing my “Bush ‘04″ stickers was pretty amusing. Many of my teachers were liberal, but they were rather cool about it. I even yelled, “VOTE BUSH!” to my English teacher and all he said was, “Hey! That’s bad grammar!” with a smile. My high school newspaper advisor was a lesbian (and I was firmly anti-gay marriage), so it was interesting dicussing certain political topics with her. We’re still good friends, and I’m still a social conservative. I just don’t get in everyone’s face about it anymore - at least not in public and with stickers. I might have worn that Tommy Girl shirt though. Cute!
Your comments on developmental disabilities and retardation are a bit offensive, especially being that they are used to insult fans of a particular author…
But I did agree with this part: “Seeing poverty and despair as the result of individual decisions rather than as the result of massive social forces allows the young conservative from a poor background to create an immensely flattering personal narrative: in his or her own mind, he or she becomes the “special one”, clever and brave and ambitious enough to transcend the self-created, self-reinforced adversity that grips everyone else in the family and culture.”
If you appear to have pulled yourself up by your bootstraps, giving validity to the theory allows you to implictly commend yourself for your accomplishments. Admitting that larger social forces are to blame for success or lack of it takes power away from the individual’s acts
While you may think it, I hope you don’t actually tell your students “Bless your heart. You’re right where you oughta be.” In my experience, condescension is the last thing a serious young intellectual–of whatever political inclination–wants.
Not exactly the larger point to this post, but I have to respond to this…
“Those who have ought to share with those who don’t, and I still believe that government is best prepared to serve as the primary instrument through which that sharing takes place.”
The government doesn’t “share” anything. The government takes from a position of power, a power ultimately backed up by the power to arrest, imprison, execute. I know of lots of people who would love to share more with charities of their own choosing–including the charities that begin at home–instead of being “forced to share” (a contradictory phrase if ever there were one) with people they don’t know, and whose lifestyles may well have at least contributed to their poverty to begin with.
Hugo,
Last week’s election was not a rejection of conservative principles so much, as it was a rejection of corrupt, complacent and incompetent government. The Democrats who won or who ran competitive races sounded more like Ronald Reagan than Lyndon Johnson. This election does not show that voters have abandoned their belief in limited government; it shows that the Republican Party has abandoned them. These results represent the total failure of big government Republicanism. The Republican Party now has an opportunity to rediscover its identity as a party for limited government, free enterprise and individual responsibility. Most Americans still believe in these ideals, which reflect not merely the spirit of 1994, or the Reagan Revolution, but the vision of our founders.
Signed,
An “earnest, passionate,” slightly older “right-winger” conservative :-)
The interesting thing is that conservatism tends to be situational (except for religous conservatism), meaning that conservatives over here would come accross as liberal compared withconservatives over there (and religous conservatives over here are often quite big on government intervention in things like child poverty and abuse which means they ally with our centre-left government on some things).
I think this post gets the daily award for the most pompous, condescending, out-to-lunch crap I’ve read so far. But just today. You’re going to have to work harder to win the weekly award.
When I was in high school, I was a fervent social and economic conservative. I was thoroughly convinced that everything that happens to people is a result of their own good or bad choices, and that abortion was killing babies. (I never read Ayn Rand though, couldn’t get through the first chapter.)
One of the guidance counselors was a fairly liberal fellow, and he used to argue with me sometimes. Now, the main reason I was so conservative was because my parents were (and are) very conservative, and I knew that back then, but I also believed that I had other good reasons to back up my beliefs. Maybe I did. In college all those conservative views stopped making so much sense. I went back to visit my high school a couple of years ago, and went to see the counselor. I think this was right after the 04 election, and he said I must be very happy. I told him I’d had a change of heart in the last 10 years, and he seemed surprised. I think he thought I was one of those people who would rather be stubbornly wrong than change my mind and be right.
The thing is that, obviously, the notion of conservativism being somehow countercultural or rebellious within the larger context of American society is just ridiculous. Your students’ notion that they are showing mettle in being Republican is pretty naive. Makes me think of this cartoon (note: may require you to click through an ad).
This is a sign, mind you, of developmental disability. When you’re 19, you are permitted to find the Fountainhead inspiring and brilliant. If you still find it so when you’re 39, instead of seeing it correctly as turgid, overwrought garbage, then you are experiencing some form of mild intellectual retardation.
Oh man. Wait until the Randian libertarians find you. You think the ranty MRA’s cause problems? Whew.
Well put, Hugo. Plus, it made me laugh. Of course, I feel the same way about the Bible…
Jeff, I have found that of all the various political and philosophical points of view on the great spectrum, none rub me as badly as do the Randians. Give me a totalitarian, a Christian Reconstructionist, an anarchist, any day over the Randians. And I’ve read Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and the rest of that nasty, nasty stuff. It’s a blind spot, I suppose — it’s the closest to a genuinely evil philosophical position I know.
But no thread drift here… ;-)
I am careful with my “bless your hearts”; I use them with students I know well and whom I trust will take it in a loving spirit. At the same time, I think that our emotional development and our politics are linked. We grow and change over time in a number of ways, and if it’s condescending to suggest that one’s ideas are a function of where one is developmentally, then I happily plead guilty to being a condescending lout.
My grandfather was an immigrant construction worker and a firm union man who thought that FDR was the best thing that ever happened to this country. My father, while starting out a Democrat, eventually became a Republican. In that way, your students remind me of him. However, the hostility that you see in your students towards their ethnicity and class is unfamiliar to me since my father was always proud to be Finnish-American.
However, regarding the rest of your post, I’d like to suggest that your profession and workplace are part of the “problem” (if you want to view it as such). The whole emphasis in higher education is individualistic. Even for those who don’t seem to reject their ethnicity or background, what does that matter in the classroom? What matters in the classroom is individual performance. Those who focus on that the most are going to come out ahead. It’s the way the system is set up. In modern-day academia, communal action will get you nowhere - not academically* (And I emphasize “modern-day” - the academic changes resulting from 60’s activism are decades old at this point). You may get some sort of affirmative action, ethnic scholarships, or ethnic student unions, but in the classroom, it’s only your individual achievement that counts.
*Case in point - unionizing graduate students? That one dies a quick death every time it raises its head - even though the days of the traditional mentoring academy are long over.
I find it interesting that liberal minded individuals will use novels, films, and other forms of expression to be legit when they carry an anti-conservative, anti-war, and pro socialistic message. However, it is “retardation” when an author like Ayn Rand provides a contrasting point of view. A point of view that should not be considered according to Hugo.
“I am careful with my “bless your hearts”; I use them with students I know well and whom I trust will take it in a loving spirit. At the same time, I think that our emotional development and our politics are linked. We grow and change over time in a number of ways, and if it’s condescending to suggest that one’s ideas are a function of where one is developmentally, then I happily plead guilty to being a condescending lout.”
I think there’s an important difference between saying that a person’s ideas are related to his or her social and emotional development, and that they’re entirely a function of psychology. Similarly, I’m more comfortable saying “your positions seem to make sense for you right now, and I see that I’m not going to win this argument” than “you’re right where you oughta be.” The second feels intellectually dismissive to me in a way that the first does not.
(I’ve wanted to be treated as someone whose ideas are worth taking seriously since I learned to speak, and even in adulthood I’m oversensitive about anything that might be construed as condescension from older men. So I’m well aware that I’m projecting my own anxieties onto your students here. Still, I know that I loved talking politics with older teachers and mentors in high school and college–and that a “bless your heart” from someone with whom I was engaged in serious argument would have made me angry beyond words.)
Kate, gosh, I guess you’d have to know me in person to hear how “Bless your heart” would come from me in that context. I really don’t think most of my students feel patronized.
(Of course, in Southern California, most folks don’t say “Aw, bless your heart”; its slightly derogatory insinuation is lost on most people out here.)
Amen on Ayn Rand, but I think the prevalence of divorce (the majority of college students are from homes in which parents are divorced or never-married) is an important shaping factor that you have overlooked.
There’s a wonderful saying that’s been around a long time, that I’m mighty fond of, and I believe it applies perfectly here: “If you’re not liberal when you’re younger you don’t have a heart, and if you’re not conservative when you’re older you don’t have a brain.”
Hugo, what you observe in your students tells me that apparently, unlike you, they have managed to mature as they’ve grown older and thus understand things like personal responsibility, the benefits of hard work, etc. In general career academics (i.e., ones who have never done anything else than hang out in the academy with the kids) are notorious for experiencing arrested development and thus are stuck emotionally and maturity-wise in their lit school years. From my experience the exception to this tends to be those academics who enter the system after a significant time in the ‘real world,’ and not surprisingly, they tend to be conservatives (when they can afford to be “out” vis-a-vis the pervasive political correctness in academia these days).
Hugo, what I get from this missive is that you need to get out into the real world at least for a little while and get a life. Try doing some real work instead of women’s studies navel-gazing; perhaps then you’d appreciate the value of real work a bit more. It sounds like your conservative students have a lot better grasp on the real world than you do, probably because they had to sling hash or wait tables - or do some other equally crappy job - just to get by in high school and/or college.
However, this post has made me decide that I most definitely need to read Ayn Rand again; anything that you loathe so completely has got to be really good!
So if Hugo says he hates the Holocaust you’re going to assume that was a good idea too? Heil Hitler! That’s a brilliant plan.
Mr. Bad–
Speaking as a liberal who has had to do ‘real work’ (as you call it), I’d say that you will *love* Ayn Rand.
I agree with Mr. Bad above, but would extend it a bit: All of this is the kind of stuff I sat around talking about late night in dorms in college anyway. While majoring in a subject where I also learned something real.
You can get all of this from message boards and reading - in fact, you can get a broad grasp of all sides of the issue instead of hearing people who are literally brainwashed and indoctrinated on one side of things.
Even more disturbing is the fact that tax dollars go towards these subjects (”gender studies”).
Mr Bad
That saying often applies because society has trended more liberal in the mean time (not quite so many conservatives opose voting for women these days).
Mr. Bad- As someone training to make my career as an academic, I find it exceedingly condescending (and all too common) when anyone suggests that academics don’t understand the “real world” (WTF is the real world? people under 18 are told they don’t live in the real world, now academics, who else can we add to this list?). Most academics have spent time working in non-academic jobs at some point, and funny enough, there is not a huge difference. Everyone still has to deal with office politics, following certain ‘rules of the game’, working hard to try and earn promotions. Out of curiosity, just what makes the “real world” so different than employment at a university (and please don’t resort to the tenure strawman).
“(WTF is the real world? people under 18 are told they don’t live in the real world, now academics, who else can we add to this list?)”
……………
That pretty much covers the list. Maybe you could add cosmonauts who spend months on a space station, hermits on a desert island and housewives lolling on the couch watching Oprah.
The problem is that you are being provided with an artificial environment - and in the case of gender studies, it’s due to spineless university administrators who would rather spend the tax dollars than have feminists protest against them. It’s certainly not related to any need for it in the real world. If you haven’t experienced the real world, then you are not going to understand the concept. Just like a person under 18 may not understand certain concepts about the world that adults understand and deal with.
Rick- You make some awfully big assumptions about me for knowing nothing about me. I have spent ten years in the “real world”- I have to because I refused to take out loans for school and grad packages are not that lucrative at most universities- though I spent two years TAing as well. I am speaking from personal experience being in both the “real world” and the “artificial” academic world. So again, what makes the “real world” so different (because, honestly, I can’t see it) and in what way is the university “artificial” (and more so than, say, working for the government?). I’ve never heard a satisfactory response to this before, so I’m curious if anyone can come up with something more concrete to prove that academics are so divorced from reality they cannot comprehend that there is a disconnect.
I don’t know you, history mom, and I’m not discussing you personally. I’m discussing what you said in combination with what Mr. Bad said.
People who have spent their whole lives in academia have a different outlook on things. If that’s not you, it’s not you. I’m not discussing your personal situation.
All I can point to is a certain naive outlook on life - like sheltered people get - and an odd inclination towards not wanting to know what REALLY happens and what life really consists of, but instead to only think in terms of theories you read in books or that are passed around by other academic people, even if they don’t match things you observe.
The last one is a bigee. I’ve seen some feminists in academia make pronouncements about “men do this” and “women do that”, and I really wonder what planet they’re on. And they just pass it all around among themselves, regardless of whether it’s “real” or not. It’s real to them, I guess.
Folks, cool it. You’re drifting. Stay on the topic of the post.
I think I would define “the Real World” as having a job where you could possibly be fired, where you have to be at least minimally productive in order to keep that paycheck coming regularly. Teenagers don’t live in the Real World because they can’t be fired from being their parent’s children (except by abandonment by abusive parents, but I’m talking the rule here, not the exception). Certain unionized workers don’t really live in the Real World. Tenured professors don’t live in the Real World.
In partial defense of Hugo he presumably wasn’t born on tenure, but I believe I remember reading a post awhile back where he said he entered the academic world in preschool at the age of 3 and never left. It undoubtedly had an influence, and it may have narrowed his views.
On the other hand mild, affection condescenscion is not the worst way to treat somebody you disagree with. Read Michelle Malkin’s “Unhinged” to be appalled at the way some truly wacked out lefties have treated conservatives.
I realize this is drifting, and I’ll knock it off, but I wanted to add this one concrete example of what I was saying above:
Some universities have a branch of psychology that specializes in parapsychology. There have been instances of university professors in that subject being easily, easily, fooled by people who want to pretend that they have extraordinary powers, like being able to guess a card that will be put down in advance.
On the other hand, there is a magician named James Randi (”real world” he worked in the trenches with fooling people) who has effortlessly exposed these people. HE has the real knowledge, and there is a huge mass of knowledge that you can only gain by being in a real environment, not an environment in which you are pondering things.
In that case, the university professors assumed that they know the most about a subject. They didn’t. And don’t. And they also seem to have no awareness of how much knowledge really exists in the world that is not being shared with them. And in the case described above, who is the more useful person?
“Everyone still has to deal with office politics, following certain ‘rules of the game’, working hard to try and earn promotions.”
What if there were no “office” in which to conduct your office politics? What if you had to go out EVERY DAY and sell your product or service so you could pay your company’s bills and your employees at the end of the month and survive to fight another day?
What if you were in a competitive industry where your competitors (domestic and across the world) were trying to drive your company into bankruptcy, and even if you mastered office politics and did a good job, your company might fail, sending you and dozens/hundreds/thousands of people with your skillset into a flooded job market?
What if the “rules of the game” were unclear? What if there were no promotions, since the organization was small, flat, and/or family-owned?
I don’t mean to minimize the work of some academics, but even aside from tenure, many universities have a no-layoff policy, and universities are second only to federal government in terms of having guaranteed long-term survival. Your post indicates no awareness of these issues.
While I’m politically ambivalent, many big-government types have an assumption that private companies, like universities, operate in an environment of stability and guaranteed profitability. While universities simply pass on the costs of something like domestic partner benefits, to students who have no choice but to suck it up and take out ever larger loans, a small mandate like that could be the difference between survival and failure of a small dry cleaners, engineering firm, or T-shirt printer.
Please delete the comma between “benefits” and “to.”
And to continue my point: many regulations in terms of HR recordkeeping, diversity quotas, etc., may be reasonable for a multi-billion dollar university with thousands of employees may be impossible for, say, a dentist’s office to fulfill…it’s hard to ensure a 6.3% Elbonian-American workforce when your staff consists of a dentist, 1 staff hygienist, 1 part-time contract hygienist, and a 3/4 time receptionist who was a high school friend of the dentist’s wife’s former hairstylist.
While we’re excluding people fromt he “real world” let’s not forget subsidised uncompetative American farmers, “pundits” (conservative or otherwise), the scions of the wealthy, guaranteed a position in the family firm and of course CEOs who get a bonus no matter how their company performs.
Looks like the real world is shrinking all the time…
I disagree on pundits (they have to bring in readers/viewers/listeners or ultimately they’ll be looking for a new job) and on most CEOs (other than the members of the Lucky Sperm Club who inherited their position most CEOs have to work damn hard to get where they are, even if they do get handed a nice golden parachute once they finally arrive), but on the whole, yeah, I agree. We may be making progress with you Anna…;)
CEOs also get fired. I agree, though, about the CEOs of small companies who are there because pappy did all the work.
A lot of CEOs in big companies work their butts off for 40 years for demanding bosses, day in and day out, taking on larger positions of responsibility with the accompanying stress. At the end of all that, they know how to do something (most of them anyway).
It’s nothing I want, but I don’t begrudge them the money. I wouldn’t quite call them “out of the loop” or “not in the real world”. Quite the opposite.
Yes pundits can be fired but they so frequently, misuse, misquote or just blatanly mistake science and statistics that I must either conclude that they have no contact with the real world or are inherently dishonest.
The odd thing is that most of the academics I know have either worked in a business prior to joining academia, have outside business interests or must deal frequently with the so-called real world in the course of their work.
My grandfather for example was a lecturer in geography and over time aquired nearly a million dollars worth of comercial real-estate, my aunt who lectures in education studies created a educational game that sells quite well and the history lecturers I know tend to specialise in some of the bloodier and less savoury aspects of history (both recent and classical).
I was in academia until I was nearly 40 (in a “hard” not a “soft” science, though). I’m starting to flip around quite heavily on my former “elitist” thoughts. There is a lot of information out there that seems to be ignored by academia.
Maybe my moment of realization came when I saw the letterhead of a colleague - it literally took up about a third of the page with his titles and degrees and major publications, kind of like a mini C.V. on every letter he wrote. And the guy was kind of a bonehead in a lot of ways. That was just too much pomposity from a person who didn’t really deserve it.
The arrogance is sometimes out of proportion with the ability/skill/real knowledge.
Something else I noticed in academia was the huge skew with regard to hard/soft sciences.
When I saw a women’s studies professor not even being able to add two fractions - or even get close to guessing - and then making what I thought to be sexist assumptions (her own field!) - I started wondering why on earth she was getting paid money, why she had a Dr. title and why (or even what) she was teaching students.
I mean, good, that was that particular woman. And I guess fractions (or for that matter logic and critical thinking) don’t matter for women’s studies. But still … I used to think important perfessers were supposed to be smart.
“Maybe my moment of realization came when I saw the letterhead of a colleague - it literally took up about a third of the page with his titles and degrees and major publications, kind of like a mini C.V. on every letter he wrote. And the guy was kind of a bonehead in a lot of ways. That was just too much pomposity from a person who didn’t really deserve it.”
Umm have you ever met a corporate middle manager?
“Umm have you ever met a corporate middle manager?”
-
Also trouble, LOL, but they turn to Jello when a corporate bigger-than-them manager gets around them.
And yes, I really find that pathetic. Bullying people below you and bootlicking of people above you.
I can only recommend self-employment for any sane people left on this planet.
So I get some vague attack on feminism and women’s studies (can we get some specific examples of what profs have said that don’t jibe with reality), a complaint that someone in a field that does not require mathematical aptitude is, shockingly, not necessarily good at math (I’ve had quite a few “hard” science and math students that stink at history- are they also of diminished intelligence too?)and an example of parapsychology (which is controversial even within the university)in answer to my above question, and yet, curiously I am unsatisfied ;)
Of course someone had to bring out the tenure strawman. You know what, in every non-academic job I have ever worked not one employee was fired for not being productive. I always worked my butt off no matter how menial the job, but I had plenty of co-workers who showed up late, called in sick because they didn’t feel like showing up, and did the minimum (and often less) expected in their job title. The ones who were charming loafers usually were friendly with management, wound up with the best raises and occasionally promotions. The rest were 1) left alone if they weren’t personally repugnant, 2) coerced into quitting by essentially making their jobs impossible to perform (I saw this most often with minorities), or 3) given a wide berth because they had a documented disability (corporations are quite risk averse to potential lawsuits, not to say that the disabilities act is the problem). Most of these people eventually quit on their own. The ones who were fired, were fired for things like theft. Sounds like a de facto tenure system to me. Small businesses may be different (never worked for one), but corporations have just as much difficulty culling out the “deadwood” as academia and tolerate a fairly high level of inefficiency. I will not even go into upper level management and the power of “networking” over actual talent(Barbara Ehrenreich’s blog had a wonderful post on this about a month ago).
And you know what else, the “rules of the game” in academia are no more spelled out than in most work settings. You learn as you go and hope you can stay ahead of the curve.
Those who think academics are disconnected from the “real world” act like all professors live in a hermetically sealed university where they make no contact with the outside world (though I admit there are some professors who seem woefully out of touch- but I’d argue they are a minority). Sorry, no vacuum in my university environment. Academics have families and friends outside of academia, they live in diverse communities, many have diverse work backgrounds. Their education may enable them to see the world from a different perspective, but then, how is that sufficient to conclude that they do not live in the “real world” because they interpret it differently? Rich people are going to see the world different than someone living in poverty; white people see the world different than those of other races, women often see the world different than men (especially when it comes to walking alone at night) etc. ad nauseum. So the question is, whose perception do we privilege as the one that reflects the “real world”?
Sorry Hugo for the threadjack. I promise this is my last post on the topic.
“Academics have families and friends outside of academia, they live in diverse communities, many have diverse work backgrounds.”
—-
I think that’s kind of proof that hard science / soft science people just kind of come from different universes.
I don’t really give a frig if someone lives in a “diverse” community. Maybe a bit more with diverse work backgrounds, but I can almost guess the “diversity” with regard to soft fields at a university. Information and knowledge seem to be less important in the soft fields, just talking and current paradigms and sensitivity to diverse cultures are important. Or something. But if you stare real hard at the “matrix” released in the University of Michigan affirmative-action lawsuit, you will see that Czech saxaphone players and Japanese whale-cutting experts and Polish chess grandmasters get absolutely NO points for diversity. Blacks get a lot. Period.
Why don’t the “diversity” proponents just say straight out what they are doing?
Here is an interesting story:
A history type (probably not unlike history mom) wanted to put together a symposium that related humanities with science in the university. Her idea was that history people are weak in hard sciences and hard-science types are naturally weak in history. So she got some physics-type people and was looking around for someone really intelligent to represent the history and humanities side.
She finally dug up a guy who had written a great deal on Mayan culture. He seemed to be VERY knowledgeable about history in general, and Mayan culture specifically, from his writings.
So she invited him. His name was Richard Feynman, winner of the 1965 Nobel Prize in physics and also professor of physics. She honestly didn’t know that until after she invited him. The details are either available in a recent biography on him or also via a Google search.
“It’s a blind spot, I suppose — it’s the closest to a genuinely evil philosophical position I know.” - Hugo
Even in comparison to the philosophical stance in Thomas Hobbes’ “Leviathan?”
I honestly have nothing against academic people retaining their plumage. You can rest easy, history mom.
Sometimes I’m a dick at social functions when a guy insists that other people call him “Doctor” when he couldn’t do CPR to save his own life, or cure his dog of worms. Ummm, kind of. I don’t bother to tell him that I’m also kind of a doctor.
What I propose is that the general public be made more aware of the plumage, or the Emperor’s New Clothes, as the case may be. Certain brands of “Doctors” aren’t very smart, not at all. So let’s, please, cut the crap in the general public. And maybe also cut out the deadwood at universities.
Folks, I’m serious: back on topic (narrowly defined) or your posts will be deleted.
I’m still wondering what you consider as conservatism in a nutshell. I’m assuming it’s Necon Republicanism, if you will.
“Rather, what appeals to them about conservatism is the notion that people ought not to be insulated from the consequences of poor behavior. (Pace, my fellow liberals, we all know damn well organized Republicanism inoculates the wealthy from that very thing.)” -Hugo
Well, if you’re saying that the filthy rich have the ability eschew self-responsibility—and they should not—then roughly speaking you and I are in basic agreement.
M Light: *Case in point - unionizing graduate students? That one dies a quick death every time it raises its head - even though the days of the traditional mentoring academy are long over.
Except for when it doesn’t. When I went to grad school, (in a hard science, for Rick up there) I had health care, paid for by the University. (And thank G-d for that, because I quickly came down with more stress-related illnesses than I care to remember.) How did I get that health care? Because grad students before me had unionized and said, “We’re sitting on one of the biggest and best medical universities in America, and we’re working ourselves into sickness that is treatable if we have access to doctors and nurses?
It wasn’t the best health care in the world, but it wasn’t the worst, and it was gotten by unionized grad students.
Yeah, this is anecdotal, but I’ve got something to back up my assertions. You?
Folks, I’m specifically referring the case of Hugo and people like him, i.e., people who are career academics. Those of you (us) who have spent decades in the private sector and then work in academia are not the same. Hugo has boasted on a number of occasions re. his privileged upbringing and his unbroken tenure in academia, so that’s what I’m calling ‘out of touch with the real world of hash-slingers, shit-shovelers, et. al.’ And I maintain that those types of academics tend to be 1) left-leaning, and 2) relatively immature for their age.
Also, it’s just fine to cite chapter and verse of personal anecdote/experience, but it really means nothing re. generalizing to the public at large. As for history, IMO for the most part it’s not even close to being on the same level as math, science and engineering. Math, science and engineering require the same skills as a historian, however, it also requires more; people like Newton are a great example. When Newton couldn’t figure out how to describe the world he saw using contemporary mathematics he invented a new type: Caculus. You just don’t find that level of genius in the humanities.
And yeah, Feynman rocks!
Mr Bad -
Or you just don’t value the level of genius that exists in the humanities because it’s not “concrete” enough for you. Being stuck in an adolescent intellectual resistance to all ambiguity, you only value things that you think are “provable.” Unless you can touch it and measure it, there can be no objective value to it. Come on, that’s about as accurate as your rampant generalizations about the personal/intellectual maturity of academia. If you don’t value it, it obviously has no value? Sure, that’s in line with your admiration of the “hard” sciences.
I think anyone who gets a job based solely on connections and an education that was provided for by their parents is “out of touch” with the experience of the majority of America, but I wouldn’t say they are “out of touch” with the “real world” - like it or not, that is a part of the real world.
Also, Socio -
I think Hugo was saying conservatives claim to value personal responsibility but Republicans (who claim to be the conservative party) tend to favor wealthy individuals and turn a blind eye to the repercussions of their actions: they refuse to hold people they are beholden to responsible for their actions. I think that’s what he was saying, anyway.
agh, end italics. Sorry, all! Only meant to italicize “you”
Rebellion, schmebellion. When I was that age I rebelled against my liberal Democrat parents the old-fashioned way, by lurching even further to their left than they were from society’s. There’s a reason why your best students, not the most rebellious ones, that tend toward conservative views: conservative positions are, by and large, coherent and well thought out. Liberal positions are, for the most part, a series of unfulfillable promises and catchy slogans that sound great to those who don’t think about them too much, but sound ridiculous to those who take the time to put two and two together. If it were really about rebellion, you’d find more conservatism among your worst students, and more still among college aged kids who “rebel” even more about avoiding college altogether.
The fact of the matter is, most 18-year-olds, myself included when I was that age, simply don’t have the knowledge or depth necessary to understand the difference between coherent thought and feel-good slogans - nor even to understand that the guy who objects to feel-good slogans is arguing in good faith, and not just from the position of a big meanie who doesn’t want all these wonderful fantasies to come true. As the ladies might say in my part of the country, “bless their hearts.”
Trying to land somewhere near the topic…
I grew up in a conservative, choices-and-bootstraps, WASPy environment that also included a comfortable amount of money. Unlike most teenagers, I tended to be more like my parents than rebelling against them… up until I graduated from college.
Because of various situations, I’m earning considerably less than my parents and have come to a very visceral realization that “there, but by the grace of God, go I” when it comes to poverty. I know quite well that choices and bootstraps can be trumped by bad luck and forces outside your control.
And so yes, I’m more liberal than my parents although I believe that bad luck and greater forces do not invalidate choices and bootstraps. There’s an implied helplessness to the “traditional liberal” approach to poverty that hits a nerve of mine. Maybe conservatives seem too egotistical to some, but liberals have always seemed too patronizing to me.
So, Xrlq, according to you rebellion is an intellectual devoid position. In order for that assertion to be true, you have to agree with the premise that the status quo is just hunky-dory, and that’s the best way for things to be.
Interesting how the “soft” sciences are the ones that clearly state why you are racist and sexist.
I used to be one of those rebelliously conservative college students. Who’da thunk it?
There is a lot of information out there that seems to be ignored by academia.–Rick
Ignoring information isn’t the purview of academia, though it is true there as well. It happens all the time in various arenas.
The arrogance is sometimes out of proportion with the ability/skill/real knowledge.–Rick
Again, those of us who work ‘real world’ (in quotes because it really is a false dichotomy, if’n you don’t give more details on what it means to you) know that this isn’t limited to academia, either.