Commentary: Academics As Advocates...
Written by David Greenwald Monday, 28 May 2012 06:17
Or Advocacy Masquerading As Research?
Last week John Ellis and Charles Geshekter, part of the California Association of Scholars who you might remember published a report that attempts to warn us against a rising tide political activism at the University California, wrote an Op-Ed published by the LA Times.
They argue that political advocacy corrupts academic institution because it promotes a mindset of conformity rather than independent thought and analytic skills.
The authors argue, "A bias to the left is now accepted as a routine part of a University of California education."
But, as before, their evidence is both thin and fleeting as they cite the ratio of Democrats to Republicans at UC Berkeley as evidence of activism.
"The visible signs of activism at work are shocking," they argue. "Why should the mission statement of the sociology department at UC Santa Cruz claim that a 'just, free and equal society' may require 'fundamental social change?' Sociology classes should help students understand how societies work, but at Santa Cruz, the mission seems to be enlisting students in activism."
They have a litany of examples (you can read them here) and argue, "UC administrators protest that these are isolated examples, but research shows they are not. A recent study found that at UC Berkeley and UCLA, 49% of students reported that they had had a course on a controversial subject where the readings were completely one-sided. This is a deeply and dangerously politicized system."
They add, "Real academics would consider a department of political science, or of sociology, that lacks one-half of the spectrum of ideas as incompetent. Today's campus proselytizers think it's just fine for the objective they have in mind, which is not educational but ideological."
They note a meeting at the Chico Chamber of Commererce, "One of us asked UC President Mark Yudof for his views on classroom politicization. Yudof admitted that it aggravated him. 'Professors are there to educate,' he said, 'not to rouse the troops for a cause.' "
They add: "If he felt this way, he was asked, why wouldn't he say so in a memo to his campus chancellors, telling them to take appropriate action? Somewhat shaken, Yudof could only say: 'I could do that. I don't know that it would do much good.' "
"Taxpayers are annoyed by excessive salaries for administrators; they ought to be even more annoyed at how little they do to earn those salaries," they write. "As the cost of a college education skyrockets, quality sinks. Numerous studies show that an alarming proportion of recent college graduates have not learned to reason, to write, or to read complex material, and know little about American history and our political and socioeconomic institutions."
The authors conclude, "That happens when radical activism replaces academic knowledge in campus classrooms. The politicized university is an intellectually bankrupt one."
UCLA Chancellor Gene Block and Andrew Leuchter, a professor of psychology who chairs UCLA's Academic Senate, are quick to respond.
They write, "It's regrettable that John M. Ellis and Charles L. Geshekter of the California Assn. of Scholars, which produced a report purporting to show a liberal bias in University of California instruction, have so little faith in our students' ability to reason and develop their own political opinions based on strong personal values."
They agree that faculty ought not to inject political views into the classroom, but they argue that "Ellis and Geshekter have merely strung together anecdotes from handpicked courses across our system to try to prove a crisis."
They argue, "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data,' however, and they cite no meaningful evidence. In fact, credible studies have shown that left leanings are typical of young Americans, and college does not make them any more liberal."
Moreover, they add, "The real crisis in California public universities now is whether we will have the resources in the future to continue preparing our students - who are sharpening their independent, critical thinking skills at our campuses - to serve as the leaders of tomorrow."
As we noted back in April when the study first came out, the authors have actually engaged in the same type of behavior they deplore.
Writes a scathing LA Times editorial: "When the group shows its work, things aren't that clear. 'A Crisis of Competence: The Corrupting Effect of Political Activism in the University of California' is a mélange of anecdotes, second-hand studies (some of them national surveys that may not reflect the situation at the UCs), leaps of logic and ideological hyperventilation."
As the LA Times notes, it is not that UC or any system in California is beyond reproach. "Clearly," they argue, "some UC professors and programs have on some occasions transgressed the line between education and indoctrination." But overall, they argue, "the report fails to establish the existence of either a 'cancer' or a 'crisis' requiring urgent action by the Regents to restore a 'rigorous marketplace of ideas.' "
But anecdotes are easy to find. The real question is whether, on a systemic level, there exists some sort of problem that has impacted the quality of education more than years of lack of prioritization of funding by the state legislature and the voters.
'The report cites a national study suggesting that a majority of teachers in the U.S. believe it is important to teach students to effect social change. "But is that sort of politicization pervasive at UC?" the LA Times asks, but the study never conclusively answers.
Instead, they cite the overwhelming discrepancy between Democrats and Republicans in social science departments. Writes the Times, "Imbalances like that are eye-opening, but they don't prove that professors are pressing their politics on their students or are incapable of exploring other points of view." Part of the problem is a self-selective process that leads to career choices, but again, this hardly proves the point that they are making.
Writes the LA Times, "In fact, the report is short of proof of any kind that UC suffers from a 'cancer of politicization.' Anecdotes abound, but quantification is elusive."
In fact, it is this lack of quantification that leads me to believe that this report really commits the same sort of errors that they accuse professors of doing.
The LA Times adds, "Anticipating assertions that most teachers conduct their classes responsibly and without politicization, the report notes that 'the word "most" is consistent with the existence of a huge problem. If even 10% of classrooms are corrupted, that would be horrendous, and yet the word "most" would allow far more than that.' "
But as the Times points out, even the 10% figure lacks quantification and backing. The report instead asserts, without much more than scattered anecdotal evidence, that indoctrination is "so widespread, and so open, that it is now clear that politicization is acceptable both to faculty and administration."
Furthermore, the Times hammers the report for failing to "justify its apocalyptic title by documenting a link between politicization and declining standards."
Concludes the LA Times, "Anyone who has been to college knows that a minority of professors, liberal and conservative, succumb to the occupational hazard of inflicting their political (and other) views on their students without allowing any dissent."
They add, "When that occurs, at UC or elsewhere, administrators need to remind faculty of the importance of open and uninhibited discussion. But the California Assn. of Scholars insists that more must be done to address the 'crisis.' It suggests that the Regents require 'annual campus reports of progress in returning the campus to intellectual health, making it clear that administrations that have not achieved substantial progress will be replaced.' Before instituting such an intrusive policy, the Regents should demand more proof of a problem than is contained in this report."
It is not shockomg that Mr. Ellis and Mr. Geshekter are telling us that the UC system is getting more liberal and that this is the cause of its downfall.
Indeed, the organization they lead was founded to prove that the universities of California serve as liberal indoctrination camps.
They ignore the rising costs of education, the cuts to the budget, and other factors that are far more likely to bring down the system than a few scattered incidents that they can cite.
There is nothing in their writings that would suggest that these are more than a few scattered anecdotes.
In short, they have performed bold conclusions without having done the research to back it up - exactly what they accuse UC of doing.
---David M. Greenwald reporting
They agree that faculty ought not to inject political views into the classroom...
"Clearly," they argue, "some UC professors and programs have on some occasions transgressed the line between education and indoctrination." "...
Instead, they cite the overwhelming discrepancy between Democrats and Republicans in social science departments. Writes the Times, "Imbalances like that are eye-opening...
It is pretty clear that some UC professors are engaging in behavior that is inappropriate. I suspect this is going on at campuses all over the country. College professors need to understand it is their job to foster creative/critical thinking, not to sway students to their point of view. I know all three of my children were ridiculed for their more conservative views by both their high school teachers and college professors. They learned the hard way to keep their mouths shut, so their grades would not suffer...
you also can get a sense of this from the types of things that occur on campus on a regular basis. what is the ratio of conservative to left leaning cause celeb protests on campus?
political organizations fostering specific political causes? you only need walk around campus...
uc davis has its own LGBT building.....
class subjects like "multcultural history".....
uc davis has its own LGBT building.....
Wrong. UC Davis has a new "Student Community Center" that houses a number of facilities, which include the LGBT Resource Center. Other offices that are housed in this buidling include: Student Recruitment and Retention Center, Women’s Resources and Research Center outreach office, Undergraduate Research Center, the Ethnic Studies and Community Outreach satellite office and the UC Davis McNair Scholars Program office.
class subjects like "multcultural history"
The horror! Like it or not, the US is a multicultural nation, and has a multicultural history. I see nothing controversial about teaching the contributions that non-WASPies have made to this country.
91,
those sorts of classes [multicultural history] are ripe for WASP bashing, amercia bashing, and all things western bashing. I was in one of those classes.
How so? Certainly you must agree that America has, historically, treated other races and cultures quite terribly. Discussing those issues is important.
Rather than read DMG's attempt to divert attention from this important study, take a look for yourself.
It's available at
http://www.nas.org/images/docu...etence.pdf
For those who are familiar with UC, either because they are students, employees or have kids attending one of the campuses, and who are not idealogical, there will be little surprising, though much that is distrurbing, in this study. .
On the other hand, there are those who want you not to read the study. Reminds me of the City Council members who wanted the Ombudsmen study not to be read.
I will read this study with great interest.
From David's summary it sounds like it will confirm what many conservatives already know; that institutions of higher-learning are infested with liberal bias and have been increasingly brainwashing young people to adopt a left-leaning worldview. This in and of itself would not be so alarming given the propensity for young people – who are still lacking experience for completely supporting themselves, raising families and paying middle-class income tax rates – to be socially and fiscally idealistic.
However, there are two things making it alarming:
1.The scarcity of conservative instructors, topics and instruction to balance an explosion of liberal instructors, topics and instruction.
2.The demonstrated level of academic disrespect for conservative ideas and opinions.
I would care if the trend was reversed. For example, I would absolutely insist that blatant conservative bias in our public universities be rigorously combated to be replaced with a balanced approach and offering. I would absolutely not tolerate disrespect for liberal ideas in ANY education entity.
David,
Good article, long overdue.
In my experience (and those of relatives and friends) there is no question that in the United States, many of the humanities departments--mainly sociology and political science, but also to some extent even anthropology and history departments--have had a very strong liberal bias, with a tendency toward strong critique of traditional institutions and cultural norms, and embracing of the latest liberal ideas.
Although critical examination and critique of the dominant culture and history is healthy; it is often not balanced with pointing out the positive aspects of the dominant culture and history, and seems in many cases it goes beyond critiquing to that of activism.
As K. Smith says above; "Like it or not, the US is a multicultural nation, and has a multicultural history. I see nothing controversial about teaching the contributions that non-WASPies have made to this country."
However too often what happens is that only the bad points of the dominant culture are examined, and only the good points of the minority cultures (a student that strays from this agenda may find themselves in deep doo-doo). A dispassionate balance that shows the good and bad of both the dominant and the minority cultures and how they interact seems rarely to be sought in the classroom; which then becomes an excercise in propaganda rather than a critical examination of our cultures and history; the good, bad, and ugly.
Jeff--I'm a researcher at one of the science departments in the university, and most of the students there are not brainwashed by liberal bias. Most of the science professors and staff, even in environmental sciences, are politically moderate; with a large percentage of independents.
Even within the humanities departments, I would say most of the students who take classes such as sociology are well-aware that many of the classes are being taught in a biased manner, and it does not sway their thinking to a large degree. There are probably a small percentage of humanities majors who are taken in or 'captivated' by this bias. I suspect that it is true that if you are seeking a profession as a sociology professor; expression of certain 'progressive' viewpoints are going to help out quite a bit as compared with expression of more traditional viewpoints!
Superflous: "How so? Certainly you must agree that America has, historically, treated other races and cultures quite terribly. Discussing those issues is important."
In other words, America (translation: white America) has baggage so therefore it justifies bashing in a classroom - (as if other cultures are perfect historically.) which sort of proves the main thrust of the LA times article.
I want to say that my experiences in college completely mirror what the guy in the LA times is saying.
one professor's leftist rants in my class would have made for some great youtube theater.
some were less extreme, but leftist nonetheless.
another homosexual professor let it be known to us that "he better not find out that any of us voted in favor of proposition 8." (yes it definitely felt like an open threat)
another one made the comment in class after the reelection of president bush the following: "four more years of being disrespected by the rest of the world."
another: "bush sucks."
another: "I just don't understand why the (US) supreme court stopped the recounts in florida."
I could have listed a lot more. This is only a small sampling of the crap I got.
jimt: "most of the students there are not brainwashed by liberal bias."
First, thanks for the excellent post at 3:04 AM (do you have trouble sleeping too?)
While I appreciate the point that different academic disciplines may trend more moderate; I think we have to agree that there is a dearth of conservative people working in academia.
The 2001 Gallup poll on this subject found that the largest group of Americans identify as conservative, at 40 percent. Another 35 percent identify as moderate, while 21 percent identify as liberal.
In a 2005 study co-authored Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University, 72% of the people teaching in American universities identified themselves as politically liberal.
From the study:
"There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It's a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you'd expect to be dominated by liberals."
So, in the real world we have 21% liberals; but in academia we have 72% liberals.
The brainwashing that occurs happens over a student's full university experience. I have had to deprogram several of my friends' kids who would usually say something like: "Why didn't any of my professors explain it that way?"
In recent years it hasn't helped that some common conservative stances have often opposed Darwinian evolution and conventionally observed trends in global climate change on the basis of things other than science. I think it has pushed a lot of scientists away from conservative political positions that might otherwise be more comfortable to adopt.
Science is a means of establishing agreement on objectively observed evidence. To reject the process of science is like rejecting objective reality.
I have been watching to see how Romney's views "evolve" on global climate change and evolution. To me it seems a little more promising on the issue of evolution than with climate change, but there are still a few months to go.
JB: The brainwashing that occurs happens over a student's full university experience.
I don't think brainwashing occurs to individuals who genuinely have the ability to think critically. I also think critical thinking skills develop over a timeline longer than an undergraduate career.
wdf1: Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought it was the responsibility of a college to teach and develop critical thinking skills. If an overhelming political or social bent (72% liberal) does not cause you concern, then why are you so against vouchers on the primary bases that K-12 public money would go to schools with a different political or social bent (e.g., religious schools?)
A new Gallup poll, released Dec. 17, (2010) reveals that 40 percent of Americans still believe that humans were created by God within the last 10,000 years. This number is slightly down from a previous high of 47 percent in 1993 and 1999.
Another 38 percent of respondents believe that humans have evolved from more basic organisms but with God playing a role in the process.
A mere 16 percent of respondents subscribed to the belief of "secular evolution": that humans have evolved with no divine guidance. However, this number has nearly doubled from nine percent of respondents in a poll from 1982.
Even an objective secular mind understanding the theories of evolution should find the theory of Intelligent Design no more fantastic than the still unproven notion that humans evolved from some billion-year old tarry goo.
This all makes one ponder the potential close-mindedness of the scientific community. You and others seem to defend theories of evolution and global warming with zest and emotional fervor reminiscent of those protecting their religious beliefs. It demonstrates that the ideology of modern liberalism has become the secular resting-place to satiate a basic human need for spirituality.
Meanwhile, our education system has been dominated by the church of liberalism even while the majority of the population do not subscribe its scripture.
JB: This all makes one ponder the potential close-mindedness of the scientific community.
The possibilities of scientific inquiry, including intelligent design, are endlessly available as hypotheses. The evidence does not favor advancing intelligent design in front of all other possiblities. Working in a scientific context does not preclude one from having a rich religious or spiritual (whatever terminology you choose to use) life. It just means that you are likelier to use certain narratives metaphorically rather than literally.
It is the difference between saying, "I love you" to your wife, or instead giving a blow by blow narrative account of the hormonal biochemical changes going on inside when you contemplate your wife. Your wife wants to hear the first alternative. A neurologist finds the second alternative more interesting. Both exist within the appropriate lens of knowledge.
Those wielding the sword of science to disprove the existence of God, are transferring godlike qualities to science and themselves.
Most believers are smart enough to know they cannot prove the existence of god. Belief rests in faith and hope, not in proof.
The First Amendment is used by the secularists to prevent religious expression and belief in our society... that is exactly the opposite of the intent of our founders who were more concerned about government suppressing or prosecuting religious belief and practice.
JB: Those wielding the sword of science to disprove the existence of God, are transferring godlike qualities to science and themselves.
It is not an issue of disproving God. It is an issue of objectively proving God that's the issue. Part of the problem is even agreeing on what God is.
And finding words to talk about it. Is it Zeus? Allah? Yahweh? The Pope's God? Fred Phelps' God? Pat Robertson's God? A Hindu deity? Fine if you have a personal belief. Then it's subjective; nothing wrong subjectivity as long as you recognize it for what it is. But try to go out and get large numbers of people to agree with you, then you start having problems finding enough clear agreement.
JB: Most believers are smart enough to know they cannot prove the existence of god. Belief rests in faith and hope, not in proof.
Agreed. I'm with you on that. I'm not sure where you're looking for disagreement.
vanguard: "They note a meeting at the Chico Chamber of Commererce, "One of us asked UC President Mark Yudof for his views on classroom politicization. Yudof admitted that it aggravated him. 'Professors are there to educate,' he said, 'not to rouse the troops for a cause.' "
They add: "If he felt this way, he was asked, why wouldn't he say so in a memo to his campus chancellors, telling them to take appropriate action? Somewhat shaken, Yudof could only say: 'I could do that. I don't know that it would do much good.' "
This statement by Yudof is particularly revealing as Yudof is President of the CA UC system. So for the vanguard to criticize these people as if they don't have anything substantive to back up their claims is little more than bluster from the vanguard.
JB: Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought it was the responsibility of a college to teach and develop critical thinking skills.
Sure. But are you thinking that critical thinking is a finitely achieved skill? Like taking apart and putting together an M-16 rifle? I think I developed critical thinking skills in college, but I don't think I was as good at it then as I think I am now.
"In a 2005 study co-authored Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University, 72% of the people teaching in American universities identified themselves as politically liberal.
From the study:
"There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It's a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you'd expect to be dominated by liberals."
So, in the real world we have 21% liberals; but in academia we have 72% liberals.
The brainwashing that occurs happens over a student's full university experience. I have had to deprogram several of my friends' kids who would usually say something like: "Why didn't any of my professors explain it that way?"
I read your statistics and interpret them entirely differently. Since the majority of Americans identify themselves as conservatives, this is the bacground in which most Americans are raised and which they perceive, uncritically, to be "the truth". It is with this basic indoctrination of patriotism and religion that they arrive at our universities. Since it is the job of the university to promote independent critical thinking, a bias towards questioning the precepts with which most Americans have been raised would seem in order to me. How does it promote critical thinking to merely reassure someone that the ideas that he has grown up with are indeed correct without ever having them challenged in a meaning ful way? Also, you belie your statement about promoting a fair hearing for all sides when you speak of any idea which is left leaning "brainwashing".
medwoman: Probably without knowing it, you just disparaged the parents and the upbringing of the majority of Americans that attend college as being ignorant and patriotic country bumpkins in need of the sophisticated, and righteous lessons of elite college professors before they “get it”.
You also confirmed my point about liberal bias and brainwashing as defined: “any method of controlled systematic indoctrination.”
You and I and everyone else with half a brain knows that no effective teacher can prevent passing on her beliefs and views to her students. Effective teaching requires trust and a relationship between teacher and student. It requires that both get to know each other. Good teaching requires the context of personal perspective. You cannot just point to textbooks as proof that liberal bias does not exist.
If 72% of the teachers are liberal (and a higher percentage teaches certain subjects) you can bet that there is around 72% more liberal worldview influence promulgated within the student population.
How about a little conservative affirmative action to round out the diversity of the teaching staff? Oh wait… liberals’ definition of diversity only pertains to superficial representation of certain protected groups… not real ideas or views.
Jeff,
Wow, very interesting statistic that 72% of college teachers identify themselves as liberal.
This does surprise me, I would have guessed (incorrectly) around 40%.
UC Davis is slightly more conservative than other UC Schools (e.g. Berkeley, UCLA), but is likely close to the national average; so perhaps around 70% of UC Davis professors are liberal! Yikes!
I can say that in the sciences, a liberal slant is not manifest in the classroom (as it often is in the humanities).
Jeff
"medwoman: Probably without knowing it, you just disparaged the parents and the upbringing of the majority of Americans that attend college as being ignorant and patriotic country bumpkins in need of the sophisticated, and righteous lessons of elite college professors before they “get it."
What I wrote was intentional and deliberate, and the pejoraties are all yours, not mine I respect the beliefs of my parents even while disagreeing with them..I know exactly how the beliefs of small town conservative communitities are taught since I grew up in a very conservative town of 2000. You will note that I did not make any reference to "bumpkins"or "ignorance" in my statement. Although I will now. I believe that you are trying to imply that I see "ignorance" as a pejorative. Ignorance means a lack of knowledge of something. In the town in which I was raised, there was certainly a lack of knowledge of any liberal ideas. From first hand experience I can tell you that Elaine's stories of her kids being "brought into line" for voicing minority views are not limited to one political philosophy or the other. I was bullied for presenting the possibility of considering a more liberal viewpoint. Using the definition of "any method of controlled systematic indoctrination", I cannot imagine a better description than this for the rural conservative town in which I was raised.
Moving to California presented me with a set of ideas that simply did not exist for me previously outside the library. I am quite sure that given your statistics, I am not the only one who has first encountered a completely new set of ideas at college. So by your numbers, with the vast majority of students arriving having been taught from birth conservative principles, I would say that beginning an introduction to liberal thinking at age 18 or so is just beginning to introduce some balance in presentation of ideas. Unless of course, you are asserting that instruction in critical thinking only begins when one arrives at college. I believe that it should be being taught throughout one's life, should be demonstrated through example by one's parents, in day care, through elementary, secondary and high school . I do not think that there needs to be a war between faith on one side and secular thought processes on the other, between conservative ideology and liberal ideology. These are two different ways of viewing the world. I do not believe that it is necessary to demonize or belittle the beliefs of the other side to make your own perception known.
but that is what I see you doing consistently in calling the teaching of liberal ideas "brain washing" or ""superficial representation of certain protected groups.....not real ideas or views". From your own statistics it is very hard to see conservatives in the country as a whole as a minority group in need of any kind of protection. Could it be that you only perceive as "real ideas or views" those that conform to your own ?
Medwoman:
Thanks. I understand your point and perspectives better. I apologize for my accusatory tone.
"Could it be that you only perceive as "real ideas or views" those that conform to your own ?"
Not at all. If you haven't yet noticed about me, I like to debate. I think, and I have always thought, that all the good stuff is wrapped up in a conflict of ideas. I get agitated and worried when groups of people agree with each other on complex issues. In fact, I often play devil’s advocate just to stir the pot and make sure the topic is well vetted.
Your experience growing up in a small conservative town and in a conservative family must have been different than mine. My immediate and extended family is filled with under-educated intellectuals that also love to debate. I say under-educated, because many of them have only a high-school education or a few years at a junior college. There are only a couple of Masters, and no PHDs. However, get them together with any liberal academic type and they will more than hold their own. What they lack in ability to name-drop and quote, they make up in practical experience and common sense.
However, there are a lot of kids that grow up like you did – in more of a small town conservative cocoon. A place where you did not challenge the status quo unless you wanted to be teased and possibly abused by the ignorant, insecure nimrods that want to control everything. So then you go to college and get to feel the glow of a mind expanding. Your teachers actually encourage critical thinking and welcome thoughtful debate. You feel energized, motivated, appreciated… you start to adopt and emulate the views of the teachers you look up to.
The problem here is that there is another cocoon of liberalism that has enveloped higher learning. It is more expansive than the small town conservative cocoon, but because of the role of a college or university, it is much more socially damaging. You don’t easily challenge this liberal status quo for different reasons:
One – those in control are highly-trained to corral your thoughts and lead you to their way of thinking.
Two – you would be challenging and ideology that has been adopted as a replacement for a spiritual identity.
Three – you would be made to feel like you don’t belong (conservatives are the yucky people on campus)… originating from all those ignorant small towns.
Four – and this is the most important one… there are few conservative teachers that help you develop ideas and views that challenge the status quo.
All of us should be concerned about the HUGE disparity in liberal-versus-conservative teachers on our campuses. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Liberals comfortable in their power to prevent challenges to their ideas and views are half blind… just as conservatives would be if the roles were reversed.
We need demand that colleges recruit more conservative teachers to match the campus rhetoric about the need for diversity.
JB: "Most believers are smart enough to know they cannot prove the existence of god. Belief rests in faith and hope, not in proof."
wdf1: "Agreed. I'm with you on that. I'm not sure where you're looking for disagreement."
When you have dudes like Stephen Hawking saying there he is sure there is no God, but then saying he wants to peek into a parallel universe before he dies...
Science has a growing problem in that it has become aligned with, or has been coopted by, the secular left for political purpose. This has damaged the brand of science (guilt by association), and has caused a deeper division in our culture war of traditional values versus secular-progressive values. Comments like Mr. Hawking made only serve to increase the division.
Politicized science is a dangerous force that warrants resistance no matter the level of objectivity or subjectivity for the conflicting position. Since liberalism and science combine to deal with many topics that impact religious beliefs, I'm of the mind that we should consider liberal ideology and the science exploited by it as another form of religion that warrants consideration for separation from state.
Politicized science is a dangerous force that warrants resistance no matter the level of objectivity or subjectivity for the conflicting position. Since liberalism and science combine to deal with many topics that impact religious beliefs, I'm of the mind that we should consider liberal ideology and the science exploited by it as another form of religion that warrants consideration for separation from state.
So, because science questions religion, it should itself be considered a "religion" under the constitution? I'm not following the line of argument here.
And, I don't see how Hawking's comment is any more inflammatory (and probably quite a deal less so) than any of the religionists out there who want to ram their beliefs down everyone's throats. Particularly all of the religiously-based legislative actions recently that want to limit actions that should be decided in consultation only with a person and his/her physician.
From the vast majority of recent evidence, it is the religious right who has been causing deeper divisions and amping up the culture war, and not "scientists."
I'm not understanding what appears to me a kind of schizophrenia in your philosophy. For example, you have many times pointed out the danger of "statist" systems, and how change is good, and yet you continually defend leaving "traditional religion" alone as if it were sacrosanct and free from any agents of change in the culture.
