Jesus was NOT a liberal. This is not to say he was necessarily a conservative, either. "Liberal" and "conservative" are political identifications, not descriptions of personal qualities. I think the vast majority of Americans (especially educated ones), of ANY political identification, would agree that altruism and kindness are human values that should be be fostered. The difference between liberal and conservative ideology is that liberal ideology believes that it is the GOVERNMENT that should do all the "helping," through mandated taxation and social welfare programs. Conservative ideology, on the other hand, believes that acts of altruism should be practiced and encouraged in the PRIVATE sector (through community organizations, religious groups, charities, etc.). Please do not mistakenly equate "liberal ideology" with "altruism," and "conservative" with "selfishness" -- that is simply not true. The point of contention between the two ideologies is not the role of kindness (everyone agrees we should be kind), but the role of GOVERNMENT. --------------------------------------------- You're out of your mind if you think that no Liberals read the bible. "Love God above all things" by respecting his creation rather than drilling for oil in its most fragile places. "Love your neighbour" through healthcare for all. "The Christian who is pure and without fault, from God the Father's point of view, is the one who takes care of orphans and widows, and who remains true to the Lord -- not soiled and dirtied by his contacts with the world. Dear brothers, how can you claim that you belong to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, if you show favortism to rich people and look down on poor people?" {James 1:27} Jesus was a liberal Occupation: Catholic student Location: Penn Starting Penn Law Sep 2005, 5th Grade Teacher New York City bul1@columbia.edu

Of course academia is liberal... could the GOP have anything to do with it? I think this editorial from the UWisconsin-Madison paper sums it up better than anything I've read to date. Liberal bias result of GOP anti-intellectualism 4/5/05 Jake Herrera Not content with their monopoly atop the perches of power, conservatives have let loose their dogs of war into America's universities to both root out liberal bogeymen and relieve their besieged comrades. Conservatives have been quick to frame their aims at academia as not an attempt to expand their political holdings, but as an effort to rectify a grave injustice. Conservatives claim that liberal bias in higher education is so widespread that it amounts to a vast left wing conspiracy. In other words, our universities are turning the winners of seven of the last ten presidential elections into helpless victims. Someone please, cue the violins. In December, two national studies monitoring the voting preferences of professors were published. The results were predictable: On the high end, thirty times as many anthropologists and sociologists voted Democratic as voted Republican. On the low end were-you guessed it-economists! They favored Democrats by a mere three to one ratio. The national average among professors was a 15:1 Democratic advantage. Conservatives howled with delight, citing these studies as evidence of institutional discrimination against their cohorts. They demanded action, equity, and above all, more professors in cowboy boots. Suddenly, the ideologues who oppose affirmative action for underprivileged minorities in colleges are demanding it for themselves. To be sure, just by walking around the corridors of professor offices in Humanities you can see unflattering characterizations of the President hanging proudly on some doors. I can't imagine how off putting that could be for a devoutly conservative student. I had an eye doctor once who asked me if Jesus was my best friend; maybe it feels something like that. Some departments' departure into deep left field is partly to blame for the dearth of Republican-voting academics. But by no stretch of the imagination is it the whole problem. The study also shows that academics in the hard sciences voted for Democrats just as much their social studies colleagues. As Jonathon Chait observes, "Are we to believe that physics departments everywhere suppress conservative quantum theorists?" If it's not liberal bias that is preventing professors from voting with the GOP, what is it? I must admit the devil in me wants to agree with Robert Brandon of Duke's philosophy department, who says "We try to hire the best, smartest people available. If, as John Stuart Mill said, stupid people are generally conservative, then there are lots of conservatives we will never hire." Hyperbole aside, maybe Brandon's on to something here. Consider the anti-intellectualism that has become a campaign hallmark for the GOP during the last decade. It's a standard GOP political ploy that has been utilized with great effect, especially against some long-winded Democrats. In 2000, Bush publicly ridiculed Al Gore for using both big words and numbers. In 2004, when John Kerry stated that Bush was not recognizing all the intrinsic nuances of the Iraq war, Bush rebuked him with "We don't nuance in Texas." Irrespective of the larger question, this sentence at least illustrates why the majority of English departments voted for Kerry: They wanted complete sentences back in the White House. In last week's issue of The New Republic, GOP congressmen and probable 2008 presidential candidate Tom Tancredo said that "America needs saving from the cult of multi-culturalism." How is a professor who studies other cultures supposed to endorse this mantra of governance? Furthermore, the conservative voting bloc that is responsible for the Bush ascendancy has lost any connection with its once proud intellectual roots. Gone are the days when intellectual titans like Leo Strauss and William F. Buckley Jr. held sway over the American conservative movement. Today's GOP has abandoned the dialectic in favor of the theocratic dictates of "family values." In Ohio, a Republican state senator has introduced legislation that would monitor the curriculum of all Ohio's university courses. A Republican supporter of the bill recently explained why the bill was necessary: "Parents were tired of paying taxes for education and then finding out their kids are being taught things that do not reflect their family values." I'm sure intellectuals around the country will be thrilled to learn that the GOP will soon be replacing the liberal theories of John Locke and John Rawls with the cuddly conservatism of "VeggieTales." If this anti-intellectualism continues, in a few years any Republican who owns a thesaurus will qualify as an intellectual. The blame for the lack of Republicans on college campuses does not lie at the feet of America's academic institutions, but rather the real culprit is the conservative movement itself. Consider the following: Last year Alabama state representative Gerald Allen introduced a bill to "withhold taxpayer funding for books that promote homosexuality by featuring gay characters." So when a GOP leader suggested we take American classics like The Color Purple and "dig a hole and dump them in it," were fellow conservatives outraged? No. In fact, he was invited to the White House to discuss with the President ways in which to "defeat pro-homosexual propaganda." This sums up the lack of conservative intellectuals pretty well. When liberals come across a book they don't agree with they prefer to read it. Conservatives, on the other hand, want it burned and buried. And conservatives wonder why they're not in our universities. NYC Alumn '02

Ditto what NYC Alumn '02 said. In addition, my primary problem with this "debate" over liberal professors is this: students who attend college, particularly elite universities such as Penn, are supposed to be able to think for themselves (or, at the very least, learning to do so) If having a liberal professor really offends your sensibilities to the point that you honestly think you have nothing to gain or learn from their teachings, then I think you need to examine your own critical thinking abilities. Part of going to a school like Penn is being able to civilly disagree with people whose beliefs are different from your own. In other words, stop whining, or just transfer to BYU if it bothers you that much. NYC Alum

ItÃ?s commendable that Mr. Herrera was able to get this out the same day as Paul KrugmanÃ?s similar op-ed in the NY Times. Maybe later on IÃ?ll take a stab at some of his particular arguments, but for now, IÃ?ll just take issue with one of his ringing, concluding declarations. "When liberals come across a book they don't agree with they prefer to read it." How many liberals have read the bible? How many want it "burned and buried"? james, alum philly

James - as a liberal and a catholic, let me say you are an... nevermind. That would be unchristian thing to say. Let's just leave it at "thou shalt not bear false witness." The only person I've heard talking about a book being burned and buried lately was a conservative from Alabama (see my previous post). But keep making absurd assertions about liberals. The record shows they tend to stick whether they are true or not. I bet you can't show me one high-profile liberal talking about burning and burying the bible. The shallow Christianity of our leaders makes statements like yours appeal to a wide array of people looking for one-dimensional answers. Perhaps this is why you find the intellectual establishment so hostile. As long as you are defaming liberal christians, lets see what this Reverend had to say in an editorial in the Portland Press Herald. ----- Don't post commandments---live them If we took the Ten Commandments seriously, our way of life would be radically challenged--as it should be. Consider: Keep the Sabbath holy? In Maine, car dealerships have to fight public opinion to keep the day off. L.L. Bean never sleeps. Sports scheduling in the public schools often precludes attending church schools. Thou shalt not kill? Would you post that in the Pentagon? What about the embargo that killed 500,000 Iraqi children? Only the Quakers take nonviolence seriously. Thou shalt not steal? Should the government have posted that at Enron? Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor? What's that again about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction? From my perspective, I would not want the Ten Commandments placed in the public domain, posturing as the symbol of an unapplied faith, honored in the breach. I would rather they be proclaimed and nurtured by churches and synagogues who, exercising their religious freedom, take them seriously enough to call us to task. Rev. Glenn H. Turner 4/1/05 Portland Press Herald NYC Alumn '02

Liberal Administrators keeps out conservatives. Although liberals talk about diversity they respect no diversity of opinions. A good recent article about this is Confessions of a Politically Incorrect Professor, frontpagemag.com 4/6/05, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17622 Gamaliel Isaac, Penn Staff and Alum

Gosh guys, I was hoping for a better defense than what pretty much amounts to "well, conservatives don't get hired because they're too stupid!" Really very weak. What astounds me is that people have absolutely no issue with there being a huge lack of political diversity amongst professors. I'm not even going to talk about the fact that a way a teacher feels about the topic they are teaching affects how their students think of it (if only by what they teach and what they gloss over or leave out, and I'm talking about both sides, here). But at a university where every single sort of diversity is encouraged and hailed as "the only way to attain a truly good education" (race, gender, nationality, creed, upbringing, the list goes on), you would think that they would also highly encourage political and ideological diversity. But apparently those last two are the ONLY types of diversity that do NOT contribute to a person's education... Catherine, Student Philly

Conservatives used to be the majority. In a 1984 survey by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 39 percent of faculty said they were liberals. Conservatives administrators on the whole did not discriminate in their hiring whereas Liberal administrators did which is why we now have a liberal indoctrination centers instead of universities. According to the authors of this study this is the first study that statistically proves bias [against conservatives] in the hiring and promotion of faculty members." An outrageous example of that is the plight of Penn Professor Francisco Gil White who was hired as a liberal and then as he became more aware of world events changed his mind. His story can be seen online at http://www.psych.upenn.edu/~fjgil/ Karl Ericson

Oh, Gamaliel, I'm floored by the convincing case made by the annonymous author on the right wing blog (let's be honest about what frontpagemag really is, a blog). I checked out your other post though, and it seems like you are developing a trend of citing such authoritative sources (or at least cutting and pasting from them). And for the record, I never said GOP'ers were stupid, just anti-intellectual. There is a clear difference. Do you really think Universities are turning away massive amounts of would-be conservative professors? I'd say that sounds a bit paranoid to me... (your previous rant about John Kerry suggests this may be true). What do these turned away professors then do? Go to bible college? Were Michelle Malkin and Anne Coulter just cast away by liberal university administrators and forced to take thier lectures on the road and into the FoxNews studio? Don't conservatives believe in market forces? Then why aren't there more schools like Bob Jones University then? And how come these schools can't get accredited? Is the DOE stacked with bible hating liberals? NYC Alumn '02 matt_girgenti@yahoo.com

I'm all for diversity in life, but I'd rather not diversify higher education by including more right-wing fundamentalism. This campaign to promote conservative academics smacks of the same twisted logic as school boards who promote "diversity in science" with stories of gods and Creation. It all comes down to how much respect professors have for scientific inquiry vs. blind dogmatism. Topher Brown, Student Penn browncs@sas.upenn.edu

Gil White's website: I actually encourage everyone to look over the whole site and determine for themselves why you think this guy is having problems with the University. Here it is again: http://www.psych.upenn.edu/~fjgil/ I have to say, it doesn't seem to me like his conservatism has much to do with it, but then again, I'm only getting half the story. Reading his website that is. "I have charged that the University of Pennsylvania is attempting to fire me because I have documented US crimes of war in Yugoslavia, and because I have documented the Nazi origins of the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) [we are talking about a psychology professor her, right?]. Some months ago, a copy of the secret documents used by the psychology department during my reappointment process was delivered to my mailbox. The letter above demonstrates, linking to the relevant documents, that the Psychology Department is indeed attempting to fire me because I have documented the scandals of the US government and the PLO. It also demonstrates that the Psychology Department is doing this on orders from Pr. Ian Lustick, who does not teach in the psychology department, but who does work for US Intelligence. -- Francisco Gil-White NYC Alumn '02 matt_girgenti@yahoo.com

NYC Alum calls frontpagemag, one of the outstanding, courageous and honest online magazines of being a right wing blog and I think that's a great example of the mindset of liberals who attempt to discredit those with views that oppose there own. Liberals like NYC alum also have a penchant for calling anyone who exposes their misbehavior of paranoia. Nevermind that the statistics clearly show that academia has become overwhelmingly liberal. Nevermind the vast number of reports from colleges by students of intimidation by liberal professors. A friend of mine who is a Penn Graduate student used to be liberal and became conservative after as he says he started examining the facts told me a very revealing story. He said that before the last election he ran into a friend of his who was campaigning for Kerry and started arguing with her. He started his argument with the phrase, "These are the facts". She answered him, I don't care what the facts are, the facts aren't important what is important is that I have a superior morality to you. Liberals tend to see themselves as having a higher moral standing. They tend to see those who do not agree with their views as paranoid, or less moral, or stupid. With a viewpoint like that of course they keep our conservatives from academia and the press when they have the power to do so. They have no respect for diversity of opinion when that opinion comes from lower morality stupid people. They are totalitarian. Gamaliel Isaac

Topher labels all conservatives as extermists in order to justify keeping them out of academia but there are many people who are not fundamentalist and who have views that differ from Topher's views of the world. There are many liberals whose ideology is even more extreme and dangerous than those conservatives who are fundamentalists. Labeling those who disagree with you as extremist in order to suppress their freedoms is outrageous. No Topher you are not for diversity. You are for totalitarian control of academic hiring. Karl Ericson

Left-Wing hypocrisy and self-righteous arrogance floats to the surface of this board again. I personally am not for affirmative action for conservatives, but I believe there should be a welcoming environment and an outreach in terms of casting the net wide (NOT PREFERENCE). When academia is so tilted to the left, critical mainstream ideas are sometimes not taught nor presented in campus-wide debate. And I am not talking about creationism or some right-wing fluff (the fact is we have enough left-wing crapola "studies" and don't need any more...must we forget the far left's challenge of science in the 80s and 90s?). Take a look at Alan Kors (founded FIRE) and Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom (who dismantled the arguments for racial preferences in their book America in Black and White) if you think there are no conservative intellectuals. Discrimination against conservatives in academia should not be assumed but examined and studied and a bipartisan bloc of concerned individuals should get together and stress for diversity. One interesting point; a previous commentator said that maybe the conservatives do not the critical thinking skills necessary to handle left-wing professors. On the contrary, because our ideas are challenged every day, I believe a lot of us have very well developed critical thinking skills. The problem isn't with us. As evidenced by some of the simplistic arguments and assumptions posted here, it is the left who lacks adequate knowledge about conservative intellectualism. The fact that arguments over racial preferences are so one sided and that many still believe that opponents of these programs are racist--> thats a problem with critical thinking skills. The fact that people believe all opponents of same-sex marriage are homophobic bigots--> thatÃ?s an anti-intellectual problem on campus The fact that Larry Summers was castigated by being intellectually critical and a woman who was "intellectual" used her critical thinking skills to "nearly throw up and pass out." And finally, the bias many students have experienced in academia. Examples can be found at www.noindoctrination.org Why don't you guys actually view some postings on the site before you respond. It would really put some of your "intellectual critical thinking skills to use." Felix, student

Gil White: One more thing you failed to mention. There is nothing liberal/conservative about this at all. Did you notice that the ACLU is one of his supporters? In fact, the more I read, the more this guy sounds like a liberal (if not a bit of a nutty one). Now I admittedly don't know Mr. White, but I must say, it all seems a little bit fishy to me. I remember when Assistant Professor Stephanie Winters posted to a upenn newsgroup something titled: "Time for Palestinians to Die" and went on to say, "If every Muslim has to die, so be it," the post read. "If all Muslims die, then we can take over their lands." The university took no action against her, and she stayed on as a linguistics TA. I would hardly have classified her views as liberal, but how quickly we forget. NYC Alumn '02 matt_girgenti@yahoo.com

When the President says that the "jury is still out on evolution," is there any question as to why the current leadership of the conservatives does not have the support of academics? Unfortunately, the left's view of the right these days is often one of theology. As a "liberal" (whatever that means), I know many "conservatives" whose arguments (while different from mine) are scientific and rational. The reliance of the GOP on the theocratic types, however, likely contributes to the academic distaste of the entire party. What about the Ward Churchills, you say? Well, there are none of his type (that I've heard of)elected to a federal office. Conservatives- want better representation in academia? Then distance yourself from party leadership who make claims like "the jury is out on evolution." Likewise, I hope my fellow liberals and I distance ourselves from the Churchill types. Then, hopefully, we can resume some kind of intellectual discourse that is now absent in this country. As a side note: "At elite schools the imbalance is even larger -- 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative." Something seems off about this statistic to me. I know too many professors who would refuse to consider themselves "liberal" or "conservative." Are we to believe that not even one percent of professors refused such labeling? (Note: I am not questioning here the "overrepresentation" of liberals) Jon, student philly

It's been my observation that physicists from America and abroad are extremely likely to dislike Bush. They are occasionally liberal, but even conservative physicists typically can't stand the Republican party of today. A potential professor's political beliefs can't possibly be clear by any of their writing or job talks, and nowhere in the graduate school application process does anyone ask you your political opinions. So what's going on then? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that typical physicists make decisions after a careful evaluation of evidence. This couldn't be further from Bush-style "conservatives" who have contempt for "realists". Physicists understand that there isn't a limitless amount of oil on the planet, and we need to stop consuming as if there is. How could people who have such a view possibly think of voting Republican these days? Liberalism was born in Universities. Truly shocking and disturbing news would be if one day it wasn't prevalent in them. just another liberal physicist, grad student DRL

Frontpage Mag is fair and balanced. As is News Max, right? GOP USA too, I'm sure. You can try to paint me a nutso liberal, but it just feeds my beliefs about your intellectual dishonesty (or maybe your anti-intellectualism.) The assumptions you have made about me are astounding. You want to debate the facts then fine. I saw the "facts" wholeheartedly discarded during this election in favor of a label "flip-flopper". Your case is week. I will debate my views about this administration on the basis of FACTS with you any day, my friend. So far, I haven't heard a single one from you. Restricting free speech and turning away otherwise qualified professors is one thing, and I think it is wrong, but noone has addressed the points in any of my previous posts, save to accuse me of a) hating the bible, b) being devoid of fact and c) being a raving liberal, all three of which are entirely untrue. I'll bet I've voted for more Republicans than you ever will Democrats. (I am a indeed a liberal, but a pragmatic one who judges people on their own merits.) NYC Alumn '02 matt_girgenti@yahoo.com

The liberal Clinton administration went to war in Yugoslavia and Professor Gil White is criticising that policy. Liberals just love the PLO and he is criticizing the PLO as well. But NYC Alum says it has nothing to do with liberalism. As for labeling Professor Gil White a nut, that is consistent with liberal labeling of those whom they don't agree with and is what I'd expect from NYC alum. Professor Gil White is a very inciteful man, a lot more inciteful than many of the professors at Penn who parrot the PLO line. Karl Ericson

You're out of your mind if you think that no Liberals read the bible. "Love God above all things" by respecting his creation rather than drilling for oil in its most fragile places. "Love your neighbour" through healthcare for all. "The Christian who is pure and without fault, from God the Father's point of view, is the one who takes care of orphans and widows, and who remains true to the Lord -- not soiled and dirtied by his contacts with the world. Dear brothers, how can you claim that you belong to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, if you show favortism to rich people and look down on poor people?" {James 1:27} Jesus was a liberal, Catholic student Penn

The liberal physicist ignores that liberals prevent alternatives to oil from being used. Liberals prevent the one viable alternative to oil, nuclear power plants from being built by scaring the public with exaggerated tales and by stopping them with every environmental trick they can. The truth is that the danger to our environment of oil dependency is far greater than that of using nuclear power plants because oil dependency means money flows to regimes such as Iran which use it to develop nuclear weapons. If one of those goes off there goes the environment. Bush realizes that we can't depend on oil from the Arab countries and tries to use Alaskan oil and is thwarted every step of the way by liberals. So the liberal physicists arguments are plain absurd. gamaliel Isaac

NYC Alum 02, Just because frontpagemag doesn't promote your radical viewpoints doesn't mean it isn't fair and balanced. Gamaliel Isaac

I also called Gil White a liberal. Are there no jewish liberals? Is the ACLU, which supports him, a conservative organization? What's your point? Other than liberals liberals liberals.... NYC Alumn '02 matt_girgenti@yahoo.com

Karl and Gamaliel, you have both proven yourselves to be unfit for conversation. Karl- really? The liberals LOVE the PLO? Do Jews LOVE the PLO? Because Jews voted for the non-Bush guy 3:1. Show me popular Jewish support for the PLO and you have some kind of ground to stand on. (Please don't refer me to anecdotal evidence to support your claim). Not to say liberals probably show more support for the PLO than conservatives on the whole, but to accuse the entire liberal movement of loving the PLO is akin to me calling all conservatives homophobic religious nuts. Gamaliel- Drilling in Alaska will give us a whole extra year of energy independency. Does that solve anything? You may be for drilling regardless (which is your perogative) but to say it shows how much Bush understands the problem is a bit off. And yes, it is the liberals who do not control the House, Senate, or Presidency who are currently preventing this country from seeking energy alternatives. Real logic there. Can you also point me to when and where the "liberals" have prevented alternative energies? Not to say its not true, this is just the first I've heard of it. Jon, Student Philly

Frontpage Mag: Check it out everyone! I hereby encourage everyone reading this to check out www.frontpagemag.com and make your own opinion. If you still think I'm the radical, then so be it. This is what conservatives do: paint anyone who disagrees with them as a radical. Are the 48% of Americans who voted for John Kerry all radicals? Because I would say its a safe bet that 100% of those would find frontpagemag.com ridiculous. You have no credibility. This is like arguing with a child. Note, you still have not addressed as single one of the points my original post brought up. I sincerely hope you aren't a Penn student, as I expect a lot more from my fellow Quakers, conservative or liberal. I mean seriously Gamaliel -- just because Democratic Underground doesn't support your radical views doesn't mean it's not fair and balanced. (I'd use a site without the D word in its title, but liberal publications like The New Republic and The Nation are too respectable for the comparison--I mean, they actually byline thier authors! To think!) Sarcasm Alert. NYC Alumn '02