8 thoughts on “Stanford McCarthyism Follow Up”

  1. This is no surprise to anyone who talks to any of the people teaching today. And that’s regardless of the age of the students. Stanford is just typical at the college age level.

    At a time when both HS and University Graduates are dumber than EVER upon graduation, the profs and teachers are arrogant about the great job they are doing. They are also arrogant in their attitudes toward NON-teachers, regardless of what that other person does.

    And God forbid you disagree with them openly over politics in or out of the classroom!! Mr. Hanson had the effrontery to do so.

  3. Thomas Matula: You are right about the increased emphasis on engineering, science and business in this economic environment. I’m not sure I would describe all three as “objective” fields of study, though. Science should be objective, but in the age of the great global warming hoax, we can see how quickly the vaunted “peer-review” process can be taken over and misdirected by ideologues. And as for business, in many colleges, economics departments are housed in business schools, and far too many economics faculty members are still committed leftists who follow the lead of hacks like Paul Krugman (a Nobel laureate, no less) in calling for more expansion of government and more deficit spending. Beyond that, though, many business schools these days teach a vision of business which has been infiltrated with a bunch of talk about “social justice” and “sustainability,” which is mostly a cover for promoting leftist ideology through other avenues.

  4. You raise good points, Kurt. I wonder how many of these leftist leanings would evaporate if the universities did not have federal dollars spoiling the free market.

    Certainly the global warming science was not approached with the attitude of “let’s see where the data leads us”; rather, it was more along the lines of “how can we cherry pick the data to support our predefined goals?”

  5. Science should be objective, but in the age of the great global warming hoax, we can see how quickly the vaunted “peer-review” process can be taken over and misdirected by ideologues.

    And if we were truly rational, instead of rationalizing creatures, this fact would be more addressed and more front paged than any AGW hysteria, because it’s far more dangerous to civilized life on earth than CO2.

  6. There are several schools that I am aware of that are cutting back on their hard sciences because the departments have not achieved “proper” levels of minorities and women.

  7. Gee, and I wonder what the reaction will be when I challenge the knee-jerk programmed view that climate change is somehow a ‘hoax’, when it’s actually quite real?
    The PC conformity of conservatives can be as brutal as anything that people complain about from the left. From a scandal-which-really-was-nothing-big at East Anglia Univ., regarding a paper which was later published elsewhere, and so NOT suppressed at all, we have bloggers across the nation assuming that “this proves that AGW is a hoax” when it actually “proved” nothing of the sort.

    Don: if you can cite any specific colleges which are cutting their own economic throats by cutting back on the hard sciences, please post those names. Tom Matula is correct, the payoff majors are those which lead to tangible incomes these days and the students (and their parents) know it.

    As for Stanford, well if they are being stupid again down on the Farm, it’s no surprise to me. Go Bears!

  8. Gee, and I wonder what the reaction will be when I challenge the knee-jerk programmed view that climate change is somehow a ‘hoax’, when it’s actually quite real?

    Why don’t you try that in a relevant thread and find out?

    From a scandal-which-really-was-nothing-big at East Anglia Univ., regarding a paper which was later published elsewhere, and so NOT suppressed at all

    If this is a taste of your debate style, then you might want to go back to the Little League for a while. First, it’s only part of the problems revealed by the Climate Research Unit (CRU) computer code and emails. Why do you dwell on only one problem when there were several? Second, even if the email was in jest, which I doubt, it shows poor judgment on the part of Phil Jones, former head of the CRU. The problem remains even if Jones failed (or didn’t try) to block the paper in question. The fact that you don’t get this just means that you’ll be cut to pieces by sharper people than yourself.

    we have bloggers across the nation assuming that “this proves that AGW is a hoax” when it actually “proved” nothing of the sort.

    I’m sure we have bloggers who think this is more evidence that lizard aliens have taken over Earth. Are we not allowed to consider what’s being shown here just because someone else takes it farther than we would?

Comments are closed.