This is in response to the article located here.
This is a response that I wrote for a class bulletin board.
Personally I think liberalism and conservatism are both perversions of truth... and I could talk about how both are relatively equal perversions, but that's not really what I wanted to say. Before I critically comment on parts of the article that stuck out to me, I wanted to clarify my stance. I believe that this IS wrong, state legislation should not be enacted to penalize scholarship, but to increase it in state sponsored institutions of higher learning. To this end, I would say that Professor Marcus is half right in her statments implicating the inconsistency of conservatism, but as per my previous statements about liberalism being an equal perversion of truth, I would also say she is half wrong.
I question and wonder if Professor Marcus would deem an academic conservative "an idiot" or hurl other ad hominems; though I hope not, I fear she would have such a yearning. I suspect this would be for the same reason she believes the conservatives are out to get her, "they were raging mad at me for pointing out the contradiction," likewise I would expect her to be raging mad for the contradictions the conservatives (or others) might point out. Perhaps this article is a venting of anger, and perhaps one would argue that she has a right to do so. I would agree, but then I would say such a venting would question her "academic scholarship" as unbiased. Which seems a point of pride for Professor Marcus.
The problem with liberal academics today is not going to be solved by legislation openning up venues for suing a professor, as this would mean that academics has no place in helping deterimine what is true... only the state would have such a place, and what is true under one adminstration might not be true under the next... a nebulous situation that anyone should be fearful of. If one wants to start resolving this problem and not fall into the opposing vice (conservative academics) one should legislate what one has authority over... state schools. Private institutions are private, and most if not all are biased in some manner, but considering the cost of such institutions, one could not argue that they were academically forced to go there. State institutions though, I believe, should strive to be centers of multi-biased academic discussion and research. I say multi-biased as I do not believe that one can create an unbiased state school (I could discuss what this means, but I won't).
I believe the closest that we can come to is something akin to a balance of power, how this would practically occur I know not, though most basically, it would be having a diverse faculty. If for example there were only such beasts as conservative and liberal, then have half and half. Ideally, such a faculty would be able within their ranks to have both a proponent of x philosophy and an antagonist of x philosophy... though some might view this as creating a conflict ridden faculty, one would hope that the faculty would see this as a great chance to enrich each other and the students, creating a true universitas, a true whole of academic knowledge.
How would you legislate this? I don't know if you even could, but this seems an appropriate and fruitful place for academic legislation if one is concerned of academic skewing. Now for some critique.
Quotes will be italicised.
And that is how this movement began—with the absurd notion that students’ opinions, no matter how stupid or wrong those opinions may be, have as much validity as academic scholarship.Agreed, but many of these "opinions" have some truth value in them, and if a professor does not help the class develop the truth, can the professor be said to be doing anything other than giving their own opinions about what is truth?
Considering the lecture on Plato, you’d think that conservatives would be on Plato’s side since Plato is a Moral Absolutist. Plato argued that “Justice does not entail harming others.” Oh, oh, that doesn’t sit well with war-monger conservatives. Regarding categorical imperatives, I equated Plato’s definition of Justice with the Biblical Commandment, Thou Shall Not Kill. What’s all the fuss about? Alas, conservative Christians talk big on the Ten Commandments, but do they really accept moral absolutism?this goes with these next two quotes:
Given the brouhaha last election over conservative “moral values,” I brought up the obvious contradiction between the pro-life position against abortion on the one hand, and on the other hand, unquestionable support for an unjustifiable invasion of Iraq that has led to over 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, mostly children. Moral Absolutism, I argued, calls for CONSISTENCY. Otherwise, if you allow for exceptions, it’s no longer absolute. Make up your minds. Either you adhere to the moral imperative or you’re a relativist.A conservative student actually tried to push me aside at the beginning of class, dressed for the occasion in his tie and suit, with a digital camera, to deliver his Thou SHALL Kill presentation. It never occurred to him to discuss his proposal with me after class or during my office hours. He simply presumed that he was at equal status with the teacher, and that he has the “Academic Freedom” to take up precious class time with his flaky opinions on interpreting the word “kill” in the 6th Commandment.First, I find the behaviour of the conservative student disrespectful and presumptuous amongst other things. However, the author seems to forget or fail to acknowledge genuine academic research and speculation into these areas. One of the things she fails to acknowledge is that there is a discussion on what the world "kill" in the commandments really means... a rough aproximation of one view holds that "kill" refers to unjust killing, something akin to murder. And as I doubt that this author is ignorant of the academic discussions that have occured on the commandments (based upon her attempt to convey self-mastery of the subject) I would say she must be guilty of one of the following fallacies: straw man, false dilemma, or failure to acknowledge relevant premises.
