By Professor Doom
I’ve
often been told that college campuses are hotbeds of leftist thinking. That’s
what I’ve been told. What I’ve seen with my own eyes?
Well,
certainly, multiculturalism, the demon-spawn of leftism, sure is popular. I
never really attributed it to leftism, however. The courses are brain-dead
simple, and even roadkill can pass the course (students that don’t even know
they’re enrolled in the course still have a good chance of getting an A,
according to the registrar at one institution I was at).
When
it came to outright political views, yes, I noticed that people with leftist
views tended to get promotions, and people that didn’t drink the Kool-Aid were
ever consigned to dark corners of campus. Again, I just assumed it was because
leftists taught brain-dead courses, and had no trouble winning the student
popularity awards that administrators believe are the best way to determine if
the teacher is any good.
I’ve
seen many administrators spout leftist beliefs. I’ve never seen one openly
state anything that would be particularly conservative (although a few
accounting types have been known to whisper that they’ve listened to Limbaugh
for reasons other than amusement). Again, it meant little to me; administrators
aren’t trained to think, I can hardly expect them to question what they were
trained as children in our publics schools to believe. The indoctrination
starts there, and I’d be remiss if I didn’t admit that I, too, believed the
things I was told as a child…at least when I was a child.
The
fact still remains: I’ve never seen anyone say non-leftist things and advance
in higher education. I guess it’s happened, mind you, but it’s not something
I’ve seen with my own eyes.
Only
in my most paranoid, suspicious moments did I think that conservative faculty
were being left behind simply because of their political or religious views. A
recent article leads me to believe it isn’t mere paranoid suspicion on my part:
“…his case represents the kind of bias many on the right say
they experience in academe (typically without a verdict like this one).”
---I’m not exactly on the
right, but I’ve been on the business end of some pretty extreme hate from
colleagues, too…could it be I opened my mouth once or twice?
In
short: a professor was passed up for promotion. He claimed his conservative
political views were responsible, while admin said “nope, we just don’t think
you’re good enough.” The jury disagreed, saying the evidence was clear that his
conservative views were, unfairly, the reason he was not given a promotion.
(I come to yet another
meeting where admin will bloviate about their plans for growth. In preparation,
I bring a sandwich):
Marxist Faculty: “You
know, under the Marxist model, that sandwich you brought to the meeting would
be shared with everyone.”
Me: “No. Under communism,
I’d know I’d have to share, so I wouldn’t bring a sandwich. We’d all starve.
That would model communism better.”
--I’m no conservative,
but I’m certainly not a leftist. I had fun with the Marxist history professor, though.
He laughed, denying that Marxism and communism were the same thing…I politely
ceded the point. They are different words, after all.
Now
some will cite this victory as proof of academic freedom, and that this was an
isolated incident of discrimination that really isn’t representative of higher
education today. I feel the need to point out just what it took to get this
verdict:
“Adams sued in 2007…”
First:
it took seven frickin’ years. This is enough time for a new faculty to join the
institution as an instructor, and work all the way up the ranks to full
professor. Meanwhile, the victim here
had to fight 7 years to just get one promotion. How many people, when wronged,
have the strength of will to argue for 7 years over a promotion that might only
mean a couple of thousand dollars a year? This guy might have paid half a
million dollars in legal fees in order to get $14,000 in lost wages.
“He cited emails and
statements from faculty colleagues taking issue with his views, which are
outspoken and conservative. (You can find a selection of his columns here.) The Adams case was
of particular interest to many who charge political bias in the academy because
he is a political
(and religious) convert. He presented evidence that his faculty colleagues
liked him when he was an atheist Democrat, but started to have concerns when he
became a Christian Republican.”
Second:
the evidence had to be overwhelming and unquestionable. To win this type of
case, the victim clearly must first be leftist, and must save documentation
that he’s treated decently as a leftist. He must establish leftist cred, and
befriend the leftists. Then, only then, can he espouse conservative or
religious views, and then he must save his documentation to show that he’s
treated differently once his views and beliefs have changed.
Goodness, what an abusive standard of proof.
Someone who came on campus as a conservative
would have no way to win this type of case, and should be prepared for unfair
treatment indefinitely; promotions should be considered out of the question for
people who come to campus as conservatives.
You
must literally convert from left to right, and save your documentation, and be
willing to fight for seven years, to even have a chance in this system.
While
having that documentation was a lucky break, conversions from left to right are
hardly rare. I’ve seen it many a time. In my experience, as soon as a leftist
earns something, the whole “government should take from the people that earned
something and give it to the people that didn’t” philosophy doesn’t seem nearly
as fair as when the leftist hadn’t earned anything. Go figure.
It’s
funny, I’ve never seen a convert from right to left. I guess it happens,
somewhere? Any volunteers?
Next
time, we’ll go over the rest of what is needed for a conservative to show bias,
because crushing evidence and the willingness to fight for 7 years isn’t nearly
enough. I’ll have some information on how unscrupulous admin was willing to be
to block this promotion…it’s pretty amazing stuff.
What you're referring to -- multiculti, feminist studies, gender studies, race studies, and assorted such crud -- is called "left" in the USA by abuse of language. It's merely "radical chic," and doesn't pose a serious challenge to the establishment (which is why it's allowed). These campus nazis and thought police do not threaten the prevailing economic and social system. There's no left worth the name in the USA -- it got bludgeoned out of existence over a period of decades. That's why, for example, there's no-one willing to take up the fight for adjunct faculty, their starvation pay, lack of benefits, and heavy workloads.
ReplyDeleteOh, I concede I'm using a pretty broad brush stroke for "left" here, but the fact remains, the right views such topics as foolishness, whereas the "progressive" (if that word fits better) believers actually buy into those topics as something besides a joke. I'll be focusing on adjuncts again in a few posts, fwiw.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, in department I was in while I was teaching, not being wildly supportive of the robber baron party which comprised the government could be hazardous to one's career. Because I frequently poked fun at the buffoons in power, I was accused of being a radical leftist, even though my politics tend towards conservative libertarianism.
ReplyDeleteGo figure.
It's funny how the labels fly when you dare speak truth to, or about, power.
ReplyDelete