This is the price we pay for Stewart and Colbert taking vacations.PannicAtack

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]This is the price we pay for Stewart and Colbert taking vacations.Danm_999

Well, he's 50% right. For the 50% of kids who go there as conservatives, it is a re-education camp, since the extreme left controls almost all of academia and constantly tries to indoctrinate anybody who doesn't feel the same way.

For the 50% who are already misguided, it's not a re-education camp, so he's also 50% wrong.

While the statement re-education camps is exteremely ridiculous, I can see where he got the idea. It isn't any seceret thata lotcolleges support a liberal agenda. Matter fact a few years ago I had a business ethics teacher of all things teach a class on how Communism was the way to go (irony anyone?). As a matter of fact she had some of the class convinced that anyone or familymaking over $60,000 a year should give the rest of their income to chairity because they didnt need that much to live off of. She wasnt the only teacher like that...

I had an macro economics teacher a semester later on the FIRST day of class that said "if you drive a truck or SUV I would suggest signing up for a different class, because I strongly disagree with the notion of living beyond social means, and I cannot garauntee you opinions will be fairly graded." He was tenured so he couldnt get into trouble, so any complaints wouldn't do anything. Long of the short I came to class the next day witha shirt that says "Damn Dirty Hippies" and sat in the front row.. he ACTUALLY complained to the dean to trying to get me into trouble for "making a political statement about his beliefs and becoming a disruption to class." LOOOOLLL Needless to say I was kicked out of that class.

A teacher at Colorado University was teaching that the US deserved 9/11 and compared Bush to Hitler anyone who opposed him in calss was ridiculed and graded unfairler and many times expelled from class. My point is that this happens at a lot of Universities and people turn a blind eye to it because that is what is expected, and there is a double standard.

The way I see it is that most people in college are smart enough to look through the BS like I did. Having Beck get up there and say outrageous comments makes me laugh cause he only does it for attention, and attention makes him money.

And on a final note the people that take Beck really seriously are just as bad as the people that believe everything said and taughtby college professors....

Well, he's 50% right. For the 50% of kids who go there as conservatives, it is a re-education camp, since the extreme left controls almost all of academia and constantly tries to indoctrinate anybody who doesn't feel the same way.

For the 50% who are already misguided, it's not a re-education camp, so he's also 50% wrong.

Elephant_Couple

Beck says a lack of god is wrong with America, no people like him are what's wrong with America. How is America supposed to move forward when you villify higher learning? How is America supposed to maintain or recapture exceptionalism when we give in to wild sensationalism and revisionism instead of objective learning? It's no wonder Beck is so popular when learning how to construct cohesive arguments, point out fallacies, form complex opinions, and many other things that universities teach are villified, and Beck wants MORE of that. I heard a good summary of this on the radio today, Beck wants more idiots because idiots make him profitable and relevant.

Ughh he is correct though regardless of his comparisons and stupid analogies. Radicalism starts in universities.

Goddammit, if I'm going to be attending a 'reeducation camp', I at LEAST deserve to yell at Patrick Swayze through a chainlink fence to avenge me.

Ughh he is correct though regardless of his comparisons and stupid analogies. Radicalism starts in universities.

Espada12

Yes, that makes perfect sense, radicalism starts in a place that tries to teach logic and objective learning, not, say, on a show that masquerades as an etnertainment show as a way to deflect objections despite clearly being a platform from which to spread political views that are often radically charged and completely sensational. Statements like that demonstrate the need for universities in the first place.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Ughh he is correct though regardless of his comparisons and stupid analogies. Radicalism starts in universities.

theone86

Yes, that makes perfect sense, radicalism starts in a place that tries to teach logic and objective learning, not, say, on a show that masquerades as an etnertainment show as a way to deflect objections despite clearly being a platform from which to spread political views that are often radically charged and completely sensational. Statements like that demonstrate the need for universities in the first place.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3295369.ece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/russianow/society/7975826/Russian-government-funds-select-Islamic-schools-to-stem-radicalism.html

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/08/26/radicalism-persists-schools-despite-moderation-efforts.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n5_v9/ai_13462289/

That's all I'm going to do for you sir.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Ughh he is correct though regardless of his comparisons and stupid analogies. Radicalism starts in universities.

Espada12

Yes, that makes perfect sense, radicalism starts in a place that tries to teach logic and objective learning, not, say, on a show that masquerades as an etnertainment show as a way to deflect objections despite clearly being a platform from which to spread political views that are often radically charged and completely sensational. Statements like that demonstrate the need for universities in the first place.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3295369.ece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/russianow/society/7975826/Russian-government-funds-select-Islamic-schools-to-stem-radicalism.html

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/08/26/radicalism-persists-schools-despite-moderation-efforts.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n5_v9/ai_13462289/

That's all I'm going to do for you sir.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Ughh he is correct though regardless of his comparisons and stupid analogies. Radicalism starts in universities.

theone86

Yes, that makes perfect sense, radicalism starts in a place that tries to teach logic and objective learning, not, say, on a show that masquerades as an etnertainment show as a way to deflect objections despite clearly being a platform from which to spread political views that are often radically charged and completely sensational. Statements like that demonstrate the need for universities in the first place.

No. While some Universities try to teach objectively that is far from the norm. Everyone I have known that has gone to college has had a handful of whacked out professors sit up there and preach their political agenda. While every professor isnt like that, there are a lot that do. To reitterate my last post I had a business ethics teacher that used the class to preach Communism. I had an economics teacher tell people if you drove a certain car not to come back. People tend to forget the CU professor that preached in his classes that America was evil and that we deserved 9/11. It isnt any secret that a lot of colleges have a liberal agenda, and thats just an accepted fact...

With that said, to say that they are "re-education" camps is absured, but beck feeds off the attention comments like that gives him.

Honestly, I believe that most intelligent people will not sit there and listen and believe everything that is regurgitated from a professors mouth, and if they do then they really shouldnt be in college, McDonalds would be a better fit. The people that do sit there and believe whatever they are told are just as bad as the hardcore Beck followers.

Well, he's 50% right. For the 50% of kids who go there as conservatives, it is a re-education camp, since the extreme left controls almost all of academia and constantly tries to indoctrinate anybody who doesn't feel the same way.

For the 50% who are already misguided, it's not a re-education camp, so he's also 50% wrong.

Elephant_Couple

Your first link describes how universities are fighting radicalism. Your second link is about Russian funded universities outside the West. Your third link is about Indonesia. Your fourth link describes how radicalism is atypical of students. That doesn't exactly paint the picture American universities are hotbeds of radicalism.Danm_999

I said radicalism starts in universities, he said no, I provided evidence. If countries are going so far as to FUND anti-radical programs then you know it's a problem.

Why are conservatives so anti-intellectual? Our smartest people are all communist because they believe in science and facts?wstfld

Uhhh.. ummm. hmm... lol????

I said radicalism starts in universities, he said no, I provided evidence. If countries are going so far as to FUND anti-radical programs then you know it's a problem.

Espada12

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Ughh he is correct though regardless of his comparisons and stupid analogies. Radicalism starts in universities.

Espada12

Yes, that makes perfect sense, radicalism starts in a place that tries to teach logic and objective learning, not, say, on a show that masquerades as an etnertainment show as a way to deflect objections despite clearly being a platform from which to spread political views that are often radically charged and completely sensational. Statements like that demonstrate the need for universities in the first place.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3295369.ece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/russianow/society/7975826/Russian-government-funds-select-Islamic-schools-to-stem-radicalism.html

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/08/26/radicalism-persists-schools-despite-moderation-efforts.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n5_v9/ai_13462289/

That's all I'm going to do for you sir.

Yeah, you could use a university because your interpretation is lacking a real understanding. The first article did not say that British universities spawned radicalism, it was an attempt to highlight similarities between students in different cultures, to show that radicalism is not INHERENT in the ideas taught at a university but rather an effect of agenda-driven extremists within a cla$$oom. It's to show that British students and Pakistani students learn the same things, but the METHODS by which those things are taught produce two different reactions. Your use of this article is a complete misrepresentation of its point.

The second article, are you completely ignoring the title or what? I mean, that's just atrocious, the big words in bold at the top of the page are, "Rusiian government funds SELECT Islamic school to STEM radicalism." STEM radicalism, not encourage it. Besides, you're comparing universities run by extrmists to universities all over the industrialized world, that's a complete fallacy.

You're doing the same in the third article, you can't prove that American and European schools promote extremism by proving that schools run by jihadists promote extremism.

The views on Columbus are not radical, he WAS a very violent figure who enslaved and killed Native Americans and allowed for rape and pillaging to occur. You can debate whether or not the opinion that the world would have been better off without him is valid or not, but it is certainly not a radical idea and it is not unsubstantiated.

Your argument is poor, you've offered no substantial proof and are relying on your own subjective interpretation of articles to prove your point objectively.

Your argument is poor, you've offered no substantial proof and are relying on your own subjective interpretation of articles to prove your point objectively.

theone86

Yeah, you could use a university because your interpretation is lacking a real understanding. The first article did not say that British universities spawned radicalism, it was an attempt to highlight similarities between students in different cultures, to show that radicalism is not INHERENT in the ideas taught at a university but rather an effect of agenda-driven extremists within a cla$$oom. It's to show that British students and Pakistani students learn the same things, but the METHODS by which those things are taught produce two different reactions. Your use of this article is a complete misrepresentation of its point.

The second article, are you completely ignoring the title or what? I mean, that's just atrocious, the big words in bold at the top of the page are, "Rusiian government funds SELECT Islamic school to STEM radicalism." STEM radicalism, not encourage it. Besides, you're comparing universities run by extrmists to universities all over the industrialized world, that's a complete fallacy.

You're doing the same in the third article, you can't prove that American and European schools promote extremism by proving that schools run by jihadists promote extremism.

The views on Columbus are not radical, he WAS a very violent figure who enslaved and killed Native Americans and allowed for rape and pillaging to occur. You can debate whether or not the opinion that the world would have been better off without him is valid or not, but it is certainly not a radical idea and it is not unsubstantiated.

Your argument is poor, you've offered no substantial proof and are relying on your own subjective interpretation of articles to prove your point objectively.

theone86

Where did I try to prove American or British schools? Making stuff up to fit your argument is really unnecessary. Just admit you were wrong and move along.

I merely proved that radicalism can start in universities. I never said American, European, British or any of the above.

Article 1- The British Council is to put £6m into linking British schools with ****ooms in countries where children may be at risk of being groomed by Muslim extremists. The programme will operate in Afghanistan, Iraq, Indonesia and Pakistan, including the largely lawless North West Frontier Province, regarded as a stronghold for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Radicalism stemming from a school

Article 2 - The title is self explanatory. Again Radicalism stemming from a school.

Article 3 - Again another self explanatory title. Radicalism stemming from schools.

Article 4 - The testimonials speak for themselves. Radicalism being preached in their school. Do you really believe this is the only incident of this? Majority of the time it's also a liberal agenda to.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Ughh he is correct though regardless of his comparisons and stupid analogies. Radicalism starts in universities.

Chrypt22

Yes, that makes perfect sense, radicalism starts in a place that tries to teach logic and objective learning, not, say, on a show that masquerades as an etnertainment show as a way to deflect objections despite clearly being a platform from which to spread political views that are often radically charged and completely sensational. Statements like that demonstrate the need for universities in the first place.

No. While some Universities try to teach objectively that is far from the norm. Everyone I have known that has gone to college has had a handful of whacked out professors sit up there and preach their political agenda. While every professor isnt like that, there are a lot that do. To reitterate my last post I had a business ethics teacher that used the class to preach Communism. I had an economics teacher tell people if you drove a certain car not to come back. People tend to forget the CU professor that preached in his classes that America was evil and that we deserved 9/11. It isnt any secret that a lot of colleges have a liberal agenda, and thats just an accepted fact...

With that said, to say that they are "re-education" camps is absured, but beck feeds off the attention comments like that gives him.

Honestly, I believe that most intelligent people will not sit there and listen and believe everything that is regurgitated from a professors mouth, and if they do then they really shouldnt be in college, McDonalds would be a better fit. The people that do sit there and believe whatever they are told are just as bad as the hardcore Beck followers.

Frankly, I pretty much disregard people who SAY there professors were preaching because they often never are ACTUALLY preaching. You can have a professor who advocates communism and will tell the class he advocates communism without him actually being biased in his teaching. What I find when people say that professors preach is actually what I described, professors state their personal views independent of the actual teaching and because the student is opposed to those views they get angry and indignant and accuse the professor of preaching when, in fact, that's not what's happening at all.

Universities do NOT have a liberal agenda, that's not a fact and it's intellectually dishonest to portray it as such. In fact, universities have thics guidelines that prohibit the integration of bias into a cirriculum. The profossor who told someone not to come back because they drove that car, if he seriously forbade that student from coming back to class he could be fired and then some.

As to the professor that said that America is evil, I'd require direct quotes because I find that a lot of times the argument that America's actions played a significant role in driving Muslims to radicalism, which IS a subtantiated argument advocated by many respected thinkers around the world, is often condensed by opponents into America is evil, and that's a fallacy.

Furthermore, if you're arguing that a position shouldn't be stated in a classroom because it makes some people uncomfortable then you're missing the point of university entirely. If you're simply listening to everything the professor regurgitates then you're missing the point of university. The point of university is to learn to think critically, every professor I have known would welcome a student who challenged their position in a logical and susbtantiated manner over a student who blindly followed anything they said. It's not eh people in university who are missing the point of university, it's typically the people who throw out accusations of universities having a liberal bias that are missing the point of universities.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Yeah, you could use a university because your interpretation is lacking a real understanding. The first article did not say that British universities spawned radicalism, it was an attempt to highlight similarities between students in different cultures, to show that radicalism is not INHERENT in the ideas taught at a university but rather an effect of agenda-driven extremists within a cla$$oom. It's to show that British students and Pakistani students learn the same things, but the METHODS by which those things are taught produce two different reactions. Your use of this article is a complete misrepresentation of its point.

The second article, are you completely ignoring the title or what? I mean, that's just atrocious, the big words in bold at the top of the page are, "Rusiian government funds SELECT Islamic school to STEM radicalism." STEM radicalism, not encourage it. Besides, you're comparing universities run by extrmists to universities all over the industrialized world, that's a complete fallacy.

You're doing the same in the third article, you can't prove that American and European schools promote extremism by proving that schools run by jihadists promote extremism.

The views on Columbus are not radical, he WAS a very violent figure who enslaved and killed Native Americans and allowed for rape and pillaging to occur. You can debate whether or not the opinion that the world would have been better off without him is valid or not, but it is certainly not a radical idea and it is not unsubstantiated.

Your argument is poor, you've offered no substantial proof and are relying on your own subjective interpretation of articles to prove your point objectively.

Espada12

Where did I try to prove American or British schools? Making stuff up to fit your argument is really unnecessary. Just admit you were wrong and move along.

I merely proved that radicalism can start in universities. I never said American, European, British or any of the above.

Article 1- The British Council is to put £6m into linking British schools with ****ooms in countries where children may be at risk of being groomed by Muslim extremists. The programme will operate in Afghanistan, Iraq, Indonesia and Pakistan, including the largely lawless North West Frontier Province, regarded as a stronghold for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Radicalism stemming from a school

Article 2 - The title is self explanatory. Again Radicalism stemming from a school.

Article 3 - Again another self explanatory title. Radicalism stemming from schools.

Article 4 - The testimonials speak for themselves. Radicalism being preached in their school. Do you really believe this is the only incident of this? Majority of the time it's also a liberal agenda to.

The original point of this thread was what Beck said, was that specifically American universities promote radicalism. You came in and sai you agree, radicalism starts in universities. The implication of your argument is that because universities exist that support radicalism, all universities support radicalism. If you don't support that insinuation then leave the thread, because we're not talking about universities run by jihadists in the middle east, and using them as examples introduces a fallacy by way of the implication it brings with it called poisoning the well.

As to the rest, you didn't respond at all, my points still stand.

Why are conservatives so anti-intellectual? Our smartest people are all communist because they believe in science and facts?wstfld

The conservative movement has been hijacked and redefined by conservatives themselves. It's not that conservatism itself is anti-intellectual, it's that the conservative movement is anti-intellectual. They have decided that they will operate on a core philosophy of mutual exclusivism, anything that falls outside of their conservative paradigm is not conservative and anything that supports an idea that falls outside of that paradigm has a liberal bias. For instance, if you support tax breaks, but only for certain businesses and not for individuals then you are not at all conservative, according to them. In fact, unless you believe in the modern form of libertarianism you are not conservative (with an exception made on social issues, can't be libertarian on those). I also say the modern form because libertarianism, in its earlier forms, does not fit in to this modern conservative paradigm due to the fact that the market manipulation it was rebelling against is different in form than the market manipulation modern conservatism opposes (mercantilism=/=social democracy). Therefore, anything that may lead you to anything falling outside their mutually exclusive sphere has a liberal bias by their own definition, and intellectualism is defined by questioning ideas. Because the questioning of their own ideas falls outside of their self-constructed sphere (again, conservatism is not anti-intellectual, this conservative paradigm that dominates the U.S. is) due to the fact that questioning these ideas could conceivably undermine them, they set the questioning of these ideas up as pejorative and therefore self-define as anti-intellectual. Conservativism doesn't have to be anti-intellectual, conserrvatives are the ones who make it so.

Where did I try to prove American or British schools? Making stuff up to fit your argument is really unnecessary. Just admit you were wrong and move along.

Espada12

Well considering that Glenn Beck was saying that American universities are re-education camps, and considering that you said "he is correct"...

Seems like a double-boner on his part. Not only is his comment completely asinine he is also alienating hisfollowers that have gone to/are going to college. What a noob.

[size=11]People like Beck give a bad name to the rational conservatives out there. [/size]msudude211

Unfortunately, he along with Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh, are the reasons why the Republican Party has become more popular. Instead of being popular for supporting policies that limit government size and encourage individualism, we're simply using the fears of the public while spouting a bunch of nonsense.

I'm convinced that Beck doesn't actually believe anything he says at this point. :PNinja-Hippo

Indeed... unfortunately, some people don't realize that, and some actually agree with what he says...

Seems like a double-boner on his part. Not only is his comment completely asinine he is also alienating hisfollowers that have gone to/are going to college. What a noob.

BreakTheseLinks

So in other words he's alienated no one. :P

[QUOTE="BreakTheseLinks"]

Seems like a double-boner on his part. Not only is his comment completely asinine he is also alienating hisfollowers that have gone to/are going to college. What a noob.

So in other words he's alienated no one. :P

[QUOTE="BreakTheseLinks"]

Seems like a double-boner on his part. Not only is his comment completely asinine he is also alienating hisfollowers that have gone to/are going to college. What a noob.

So in other words he's alienated no one. :P

[QUOTE="msudude211"][size=11]People like Beck give a bad name to the rational conservatives out there. [/size]leviathan91

Unfortunately, he along with Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh, are the reasons why the Republican Party has become more popular. Instead of being popular for supporting policies that limit government size and encourage individualism, we're simply using the fears of the public while spouting a bunch of nonsense.

The irony I see is this.. Republicans who preach such things seem to be far less individualistic then the opposing party..

I'm convinced that Beck doesn't actually believe anything he says at this point. :PNinja-Hippo

He's a strong believer of the paper that our founding fathers... are printed on.

I can see why Beck wouldn't like universities. They promote critical thinking and critical thinking makes people more resistance to his shenanigans.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Where did I try to prove American or British schools? Making stuff up to fit your argument is really unnecessary. Just admit you were wrong and move along.

GabuEx

Well considering that Glenn Beck was saying that American universities are re-education camps, and considering that you said "he is correct"...

I meant he was correct with his point that re-education does occur in universities. Regardless of what people think many lecturers give their own personal opinion in universities, especially in political science and law departments, and they go on in a biased manner in doing so.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Ughh he is correct though regardless of his comparisons and stupid analogies. Radicalism starts in universities.

Chrypt22

Yes, that makes perfect sense, radicalism starts in a place that tries to teach logic and objective learning, not, say, on a show that masquerades as an etnertainment show as a way to deflect objections despite clearly being a platform from which to spread political views that are often radically charged and completely sensational. Statements like that demonstrate the need for universities in the first place.

No. While some Universities try to teach objectively that is far from the norm. Everyone I have known that has gone to college has had a handful of whacked out professors sit up there and preach their political agenda. While every professor isnt like that, there are a lot that do. To reitterate my last post I had a business ethics teacher that used the class to preach Communism. I had an economics teacher tell people if you drove a certain car not to come back. People tend to forget the CU professor that preached in his classes that America was evil and that we deserved 9/11. It isnt any secret that a lot of colleges have a liberal agenda, and thats just an accepted fact...

With that said, to say that they are "re-education" camps is absured, but beck feeds off the attention comments like that gives him.

Honestly, I believe that most intelligent people will not sit there and listen and believe everything that is regurgitated from a professors mouth, and if they do then they really shouldnt be in college, McDonalds would be a better fit. The people that do sit there and believe whatever they are told are just as bad as the hardcore Beck followers.

It's a good argument that the tenure system has to be re-evaluated, I've heard too many cases of students being penalized for the wrong reasons.

I meant he was correct with his point that re-education does occur in universities. Regardless of what people think many lecturers give their own personal opinion in universities, especially in political science and law departments, and they go on in a biased manner in doing so.

Espada12

There's a slight difference between educators allowing their personal beliefs to influence their work and 're-education'.

There is some validity in his statement. Most college campuses in the US tend to have a fairly prominent liberal slant to them. But then again, most young people tend to be more liberal minded. Most of my college professors were more left leaning, but that's really not their fault per se. If you want more moderate and conservative representation on campuses, then perhaps more of those people should become college professors. I think most universities are fine and that Beck may be worrying much about nothing.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

I meant he was correct with his point that re-education does occur in universities. Regardless of what people think many lecturers give their own personal opinion in universities, especially in political science and law departments, and they go on in a biased manner in doing so.

PBSnipes

There's a slight difference between educators allowing their personal beliefs to influence their work and 're-education'.

The way some of them handle it is just absurd though, for instance I have a teacher who keeps trying to drill it in my head the death penalty is bad, everytime it's brought up or there's a case involving it he keeps throwing remarks about how barbaric and what not it is. As though he is trying to sway my opinion on the matter (I am for the death penalty)

Well its because most professors are liberal. Some of them preach their political opinions to the students. And I think its old new that he doesn't like Liberals.

[QUOTE="wstfld"]Why are conservatives so anti-intellectual? Our smartest people are all communist because they believe in science and facts?theone86

The conservative movement has been hijacked and redefined by conservatives themselves. It's not that conservatism itself is anti-intellectual, it's that the conservative movement is anti-intellectual. They have decided that they will operate on a core philosophy of mutual exclusivism, anything that falls outside of their conservative paradigm is not conservative and anything that supports an idea that falls outside of that paradigm has a liberal bias. For instance, if you support tax breaks, but only for certain businesses and not for individuals then you are not at all conservative, according to them. In fact, unless you believe in the modern form of libertarianism you are not conservative (with an exception made on social issues, can't be libertarian on those). I also say the modern form because libertarianism, in its earlier forms, does not fit in to this modern conservative paradigm due to the fact that the market manipulation it was rebelling against is different in form than the market manipulation modern conservatism opposes (mercantilism=/=social democracy). Therefore, anything that may lead you to anything falling outside their mutually exclusive sphere has a liberal bias by their own definition, and intellectualism is defined by questioning ideas. Because the questioning of their own ideas falls outside of their self-constructed sphere (again, conservatism is not anti-intellectual, this conservative paradigm that dominates the U.S. is) due to the fact that questioning these ideas could conceivably undermine them, they set the questioning of these ideas up as pejorative and therefore self-define as anti-intellectual. Conservativism doesn't have to be anti-intellectual, conserrvatives are the ones who make it so.

I don't think conservativism has to be blatantly anti-intellectual, but I don't think it's ever going to be all that intellectual either. It's WAY too black and white. I don't think there's enough open-mindedness or sociological exploration of the causes of certain economic circumstances in conservatism to make it academic.

No. While some Universities try to teach objectively that is far from the norm. Everyone I have known that has gone to college has had a handful of whacked out professors sit up there and preach their political agenda. While every professor isnt like that, there are a lot that do. To reitterate my last post I had a business ethics teacher that used the class to preach Communism. I had an economics teacher tell people if you drove a certain car not to come back. People tend to forget the CU professor that preached in his classes that America was evil and that we deserved 9/11. It isnt any secret that a lot of colleges have a liberal agenda, and thats just an accepted fact...Chrypt22

This is absolute nonsense.

First of all, whether a college has a liberal agenda is an opinion at best, not a fact.

Secondly, just because there are some professors that are brazen about their beliefs doesn't mean the school itself has a liberal agenda.