Republican co-optation of 9-11

What is it about September 11, 2001 that makes Republicans and conservatives want to co-opt it for political purposes? The terrorist actions that day will certainly be burned in the American conscience for decades to come, and rather than turning the memorial to victims killed at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, or in the crash of flight 93 in Pennsylvania into a moment of patriotism focused on civilian war casualties?

I don’t see the connections.

Dan, at 7:30 am EDT on August 1, 2006

Balance?

“Liberal hostility"? How often do these online furballs get ignited by attacks from the right? How is this not about some form of hostility when the paperwork is not called an “action plan” or some similar term, but the “Campus Conservative Battleplan”?

Not that being caught on one’s ideological heels is a good thing, but taking an approach that is not reactionary and that uses a “battleplan” sounds a great deal like preemptive war. Now, it’s a good thing there is so much “liberal hostility” out there for these students not to react to, huh?

People need to wake up and smell the language. Everyone’s language.

Andrew Purvis, at 8:20 am EDT on August 1, 2006

40:1 battleplan

” .. taking an approach that is not reactionary and that uses a “battleplan” sounds a great deal like preemptive war ..”

Holy good night .. numerous empirically-based studies that have *never* been significantly disproven about 40:1 political ratios in departments such as English and Sociology — and those departments think they are the victims?

Talk about chuzpah! It would be laughable, if so much time, money, and effort wasn’t being poured down the toilet. Even moderate Democrats find it hard to dispute 40:1 political ratios.

Bart J., at 9:00 am EDT on August 1, 2006

It’s always nice to see more ideological diversity on campuses, no matter what the viewpoint.

K.T., U.Va., at 9:15 am EDT on August 1, 2006

”.. What is it about September 11, 2001 that makes Republicans and conservatives want to co-opt it...”

The “teach-ins” on my campus, including only the left-of-center perspective, would be one reason. These events were more like indoctrination events than educational events.

K.T., at 9:15 am EDT on August 1, 2006

Mobilizing the Campus Right

Just because conservative students want to establish a forum or institution to counter the ideas with which they disagree does not make them dishonest or fascist! It only makes them like liberal students and faculty members who already have such vehicles to counter the ideas with which they disagree. So who actually feel threatened here?

Ben Morris, at 9:15 am EDT on August 1, 2006

Attacked by Liberals in Academe?

I am all for balance, but most campus speakers here at my university are not “liberal” or “conservative” If there is ever a politician, candidate or outspoken person, the campus tries to balance it.

Since the Fairness Doctrine has been overturned the mainstream media has been dominated by conservative and Republican Party paroting of the party line. Every one has a bias. So I am not afraid or concerned about the “liberal attack". Academe should be exposing students to all points of view and teaching critical thinking of all points of view. Society and students are already brainwashed by the right. It is the duty of the opposition to oppose. “Let a thousand flowers bloom.”

Paul Roden, Training Manager at La Salle University, at 9:25 am EDT on August 1, 2006

Conservatives

Patrick Coyle’s memory of Penn State not welcoming conservative speakers is not very accurate. Here is a list of conservative speakers who have appeared at Penn State in the past couple years — and the list for the years Coyle attended Penn State would be very similar.

* George H.W. Bush, president of the United States.

* George W. Bush, president of the United States.

* Linda Chavez, conservative columnist and author.

* Ward Connerly, president of the American Civil Rights Institute and chairman of California’s Proposition 209.

* Ann Coulter, best-selling author, commentator and lawyer.

* Dinesh D’Souza, renowned author and speaker, senior domestic policy analyst at the White House during the Reagan administration.

* Larry Elder, talk show host.

* M. Stanton Evans, author, syndicated columnist, and former editor of the Indianapolis News.

* Suzanne Fields, syndicated columnist.

* Mike Gallagher, nationally syndicated radio talk show host and Fox News Channel contributor.

* Bernard Goldberg, veteran CBS correspondent and best-selling author.

* David Horowitz, author of “The Professors: 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America.”

* Reginald Jones, entertainer and entrepreneur.

* Jeane Kirkpatrick, former U.S. representative to the United Nations and Reagan cabinet member.

* Alan Kors, University of Pennsylvania professor of history, editor-in-chief for Defense of Academic Freedom and Values.

* G. Gordon Liddy, former FBI agent and adviser to President Richard M. Nixon.

* John Lott, professor and author of “More Guns, Less Crime.”

* Michelle Malkin, syndicated columnist and Fox News Channel contributor.

* Oliver North, nationally syndicated radio talk show host, special assistant to President Ronald Reagan.

* Robert D. Novak, reporter, author and political commentator.

* Star Parker, president and founder of the Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education (CURE).

* Marci Rossell, former chief economist for CNBC.

* Rick Santorum, Republican U.S. senator from Pennsylvania.

* Phyllis Schlafly, columnist, radio commentator and opponent of the Equal Rights Amendment.

* Peter Schweizer, author of “Do As I Say (Not As I Do).”

* Ben Stein, speechwriter and lawyer for Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Gerald Ford.

* Walter E. Williams, the John M. Olin distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University and adjunct scholar at the Heritage Foundation and the CATO Institute.

Bill, at 9:50 am EDT on August 1, 2006

osmosis

My favorite line is the one about how students become liberal by “osmosis.” I guess it bothers conservatives that the more education one has, the more one is likely to reject conservative ideology. Hmmm... perhaps there’s an alternative reason — students may begin to reject rigid conservative views in college because they learn to think critically. I would hope they would also reject knee jerk ‘liberalism’ as well.

JCO, at 9:50 am EDT on August 1, 2006

When will the distortion end?

Bart, there is a difference between what a person believes personally and how a person acts professionally. Claims that no such difference exists are precisely the kinds of attacks I addressed earlier.

It is one thing to generate raw data, but don’t make leaps the data don’t support. I have seen legion studies that report on what the instructors and professors believe or to which parties they belong, but I have yet to see one that proves a corelation between any of that data and bias that affects students, regardless of political stripe.

Andrew Purvis, at 10:55 am EDT on August 1, 2006

“guess it bothers conservatives that the more education one has, the more one is likely to reject conservative ideology.”

As someone who has conducted similar studies with regard to student development and political affiliation, most of the studies I have seen that look to correlate educational levels with political ideology are faulty because of the lack of depth when defining political ideology. They are sound bite studies, another disturbing trend in academe.

More thoughtful studies that dive deeper into the nuances of political ideology show such correlations.

There is a surprising lack of specificity when we study political ideology on campuses. For example, I would not identify half of the individuals listed by Bill as conservative. For example, neo-conservatives are the old nationalistic hawkish liberals who just switched parties.

The more appropriate standard which I am now interested in researching is the dichotomy of power vs. choice. My guess is that there are more revealing correlations here since my own sense is that the true political dichotomy emerging is between these two opposites. Liberals and conservatives alike (particularly in the mainstream) are highly power oriented. It seems the mainstream of liberalism and conservativism believe in large government with highly concentrated national power. I am usually hard-pressed to find a “liberal” or “conservative” who can stick to a purely “power” or “choice” outlook.

Regardless, to lump everyone into one of two camps and draw some generalizations based on unrigorous scholarship is poor research.

K.T., U.Va., at 11:00 am EDT on August 1, 2006

I’m What???

Not only am I not “editor-in-chief for Defense of Academic Freedom and Values"—-I was editor in chief of the OUP Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment—-but I’m afraid to say that I never heard of it. I did speak, however, at Penn State.

Alan Charles Kors

Alan Charles Kors, Professor of History at University of Pennsylvania, at 11:00 am EDT on August 1, 2006

Thanks. . . and No Thanks

Thanks to Bill for posting the list of speakers at PSU. As a PA resident, I immediately questioned the accuracy of the statement about PSU’s “liberal bias,” and am glad somebody had enough energy to do the research.

Bart J. makes a good point in the first part of his post about conservatism not being a “monolith.” I have conservative colleagues who are appalled at the current administration on the grounds that it has betrayed long-held conservative values. But then, in the second part of his post, Bart J. commits the very same intellectual crime that he exposes in the first—by insinuating that all liberal academics are under the spell of Ward Churchill and his ilk. Evidently, critical thinking, which appropriately makes one skeptical about broad generalizations, has its limits.

Mark Graybill, at 11:15 am EDT on August 1, 2006

TT, I would not necessarily equate campus chaplains with a “conservative” viewpoint. (Chaplains can be of any religion or denomination.) Indeed, many people who want to know what “persuasion” a campus is will simply look at the written work of the chaplains to see if they appear “progressive” or “conservative.” Although nobody really cares to articulate a coherent ideology for “liberals” or “conservatives” I probably should not say note that I know a few chaplains who are active in amnesty international, and others who have been politically (or legally) active on behalf of human-rights-type causes. As a practical matter, I know that at just about every campus, anyone can say any dumb thing they want, and the above-mentioned conference was just hobnobbing and public whining. I don’t think that chaplains, most of whom are trying to do a difficult job the best they can, really need to be dragged into this.

KT, I am glad that someone is at least noticing that the study of campus politics isn’t taken nearly as seriously as the activity, itself. As you say, it is an embarrassment to academe that it can’t engage in rigorous discussion of its own politics, or the politics of its members.

Bart, You need to differentiate between peoples’ ideologies, peoples’ jobs, and peoples’ partisan interests. In the real world, it is quite common for someone to wear multiple hats and change them when they change positions and sometimes when they come home. For instance, there are many (probably tens of thousands) of prosecutors or government attorneys that disagree with statutes, but nevertheless argue for their enforcement, because it is their job. For example, most of the time, juries and judges have little idea that said actor, if he was a one-person legislature, would repeal all laws regarding controlled substances. This is the way of the world. Likewise, many biology professors go to church. They don’t see a conflict. Finally, many professors (and perhaps prosecutors) will be politically active simply for their self-interest (frequently they are both unionized). Their political “self-interest” might conflict with their own scholarship or positions in court, but it is necessary to ensure a comfortable retirement. Unless and until you can show that someone is incompetently litigating or studying something because of a political belief, you should probably re-evaluate your position.

Larry, at 11:20 am EDT on August 1, 2006

Larry — I think you do have to “drag” the campus’s faith community into this. If you’re going to accuse a campus of supporting a political bias than you need to take the full measure of what the campus supports. While it can be argued that there are “conservative” and “progressive” religious leaders on a campus, I think when you look at the wedge issues as defined by the republican party – abortion, stem cell research, homosexual marriage, etc., — you will find that the leaders of campus faith communities are coming down strongly on the conservative side of those issues. We can’t pretend that the students aren’t influenced by the sermonizing of the leaders in the campus’s faith community who they see and listen to on a very regular basis and at the same time argue that they are highly influenced by a speaker who make a single one hour speech.

TT, at 12:35 pm EDT on August 1, 2006

Larry,

Your response is confusing. Can you explain yourself better?

JD, at 12:50 pm EDT on August 1, 2006

response to JD

JD, Let me make it clear. While you say you “matured” into “conservatism” others say they “matured” into liberalism. Calling one set of beliefs (if such terms really make sense, anyway) more “mature” than another, is just a form of name-calling directed against those who don’t hold those beliefs.

Larry, at 1:40 pm EDT on August 1, 2006

Re: Quid Pro Quo

RC: In the IHE article you cite the leftist groups involved are not calling for purging the business schools of capitalists. If YAF was merely calling for conservative students to get involved in student government and the like, it would not be an issue. There are of course bullies on the left too; I have known people in groups that in the past organized efforts to physically block conservative speakers. But, at the present time intolerance is more of a problem on the campus right than it is on the left, IMHO.

An important exception would be certain animal rights groups that have engaged in real violence on campuses. Conservative groups have done nothing like this on campuses, although extremists among abortion opponents have used deadly violence — just not on college campuses.

Conscientious conservatives and liberals should both stand up against political bullies of any ideology.

Mike, Math Prof, at 2:45 pm EDT on August 1, 2006

Meanie

“Liberals are now the new ‘mean’ people.”

That bizarre post really made me giggle.

Meanie, at 5:30 pm EDT on August 1, 2006

Bill Facts Are Wrong

Bill’s “facts” are wrong. His list includes speakers that have appeared on campus since 1992 – some 14 years ago! Furthermore, 19 of the 27 speakers listed would not have appeared on campus if it wasn’t for Young America’s Foundation working with conservative students to make those events happen.

Since 1992, Penn State invited only four of these speakers! If left to Penn State, students would only have an opportunity to hear a conservative speaker ONCE during their four years of college.

PXC, at 8:55 am EDT on August 2, 2006

KT, Are you saying that academics just engage in self-promoting critiques of other’s partisan politics without even trying to recognize or apply any philosophical theories?

Quite frankly, I am would be embarrassed if any family member of mine was this “politically active.” These kids are just being used. The best they can do is get a job that pays very little. They are learning no real skills. What is even sadder is that professors are jumping on these bandwagons, too, and, in encouraging students to be politically active are screwing them them, too.

Larry, at 10:30 am EDT on August 2, 2006

mrjim, For what it is worth, I don’t think we will be able to come up with statistics on these issues, because, quite frankly, it is extremely difficult to quantify political AND religious leanings. (I can’t even imagine how one would go about setting up such a study.) My guess is that religious “communities” track the general attitudes of everyone else on campus. After all, since chaplains generally self-select, no clergy member wants to feel alienated from the people they deal with. Moreover, assuming that an individual clergy member holds views diametrically opposed to whatever the “orthodox” view is on campus (if there is one, and I doubt that there really is), he probably will temper it if asked, preferring to advise “prayer”and “contemplation” rather than “condemnation.”

Larry, at 2:15 pm EDT on August 2, 2006

Positive Thinking

At a time when most college students are disengaged and want nothing to do with politics, it is nice to see young people awake and participating in something — anything! Should we care if their actions are motivated by liberal causes or conservative ones? I think not. I am only glad that they are awake and paying attention to politics at all. This type of discourse is what deliberative democracy is all about. It is good for the students and it is good for the county.

Kelly232, at 4:45 am EDT on August 3, 2006

On Zero Sum Games

First, I never claimed that thinking skills are not important or that activism for its own sake is good. Nor did I claim that this is the best use of students’ time. I only said that, on a bright note, at least they are paying attention and engaged, which is more than I can say for most. Of course we all want them to be informed and read judicial opinions before commenting on them — this is a non-argument. What you fail to recognize is that interest in politics proceeds political knowledge and that students don’t automatically become engaged in politics after gaining an education — something has to spark an interest. If this is the spark, fine by me. Their methods of participation will mature in time, but even this unsophisticated form of participation may be beneficial — their interest in politics will expose them to new perspectives and viewpoints and this will help them to develop their critical thinking skills.

Second, while it is true that every hour spent at one activity is time not spent at another, you make some pretty big assumptions about the alternative uses of time in this game. There is no evidence that participating in political rallies takes time away from studies — it probably only takes time away from video games, “my space", online chat rooms, or something far worse. This is especially true since this “conference” took place over summer break. Let’s be realistic about how students would be spending their time if not here. And perhaps you can look at this activity in terms of “social capital” gained?

kelly232, at 11:10 am EDT on August 3, 2006