T Nation

Sexist PC on Campus?

Hey, I’m all for penises, but aren’t the guys on campus just being jerks? It seems like they’re just trying to demean women talking about their vaginas. If women want to talk about their vaginas I don’t really care. I don’t really want to be part of that conversation, but I’m not going to go say they’re ignoring penises or something. It’s like some woman coming to T-Nation and saying, “Hey, you don’t talk about female bodybuilding enough!” and then flaming everybody. They could just start their own site if they really cared, just like the guys in the article could start their own day sometime other than Valentine’s Day if they really cared.

Part of the point of the whole V-Day thing was to raise money to protect women from the cowardly men who are abusive to women. Unless you’re for abusing women and some kind of sicko, it’s hard be against that.

I hope people don’t think the National Review is an unbiased source, either. It’s a pretty conservative magazine.

That said, I’m not on a campus so I don’t really know. Those vagina posters sound pretty annoying.

[quote]alwyn96 wrote:
Hey, I’m all for penises, but aren’t the guys on campus just being jerks? It seems like they’re just trying to demean women talking about their vaginas. If women want to talk about their vaginas I don’t really care. I don’t really want to be part of that conversation, but I’m not going to go say they’re ignoring penises or something. It’s like some woman coming to T-Nation and saying, “Hey, you don’t talk about female bodybuilding enough!” and then flaming everybody. They could just start their own site if they really cared, just like the guys in the article could start their own day sometime other than Valentine’s Day if they really cared.
[/quote]

Umm…that’s what they did. And then they were punished for doing so. Did you actually read the article?

[quote]alwyn96 wrote:

Part of the point of the whole V-Day thing was to raise money to protect women from the cowardly men who are abusive to women. Unless you’re for abusing women and some kind of sicko, it’s hard be against that.

I hope people don’t think the National Review is an unbiased source, either. It’s a pretty conservative magazine.

That said, I’m not on a campus so I don’t really know. Those vagina posters sound pretty annoying. [/quote]

So by criticizing V-day, I’m for abusing women? Sorry, I don’t follow that logic.

They could just start their own site if they really cared, just like the guys in the article could start their own day sometime other than Valentine’s Day if they really cared.

Umm…that’s what they did. And then they were punished for doing so. Did you actually read the article?

They just made fun of the V-Day thing on Valentine’s Day. I guess you didn’t read what I wrote, even though you quoted it.

Look, I’m not saying V-Day isn’t ridiculous or annoying, but I don’t feel that threatened by it. You’re free to criticize it, obviously. I guess it just doesn’t bother me as much.

[quote]alwyn96 wrote:
Look, I’m not saying V-Day isn’t ridiculous or annoying, but I don’t feel that threatened by it. You’re free to criticize it, obviously. I guess it just doesn’t bother me as much.[/quote]

If you went through this thread and somehow saw that we are threatened by vaginas, I don’t know what to say about your comprehension. I could care less about V-day. I never knew it existed until this thread popped up. However, if some guys get together and decide to do the same with regards to their own genetalia and they get canned for it while the women on campus are promoting “Love my coochie” marathons with adjoining posters and visual aids, I see a problem there. I am not sure why you don’t.

This is crazy. If these feminazi freaks can hand out vagina-shaped lollipops and have inflatable 40 foot vaginas, then a bunch of guys from Animal House can have Testiclese wandering around handing out joke flyers.

And what’s with hijacking Valentine’s Day anyway? Bitches. That’s my second favorite holiday!

Prof, here’s more on liberal bias at uni’s:

By Howard KurtzWashington Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, March 29, 2005; Page C01
College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.
The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.
“What’s most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field,” said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of 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.”
Religious services take a back seat for many faculty members, with 51 percent saying they rarely or never attend church or synagogue and 31 percent calling themselves regular churchgoers. On the gender front, 72 percent of the full-time faculty are male and 28 percent female.
The findings, by Lichter and fellow political science professors Stanley Rothman of Smith College and Neil Nevitte of the University of Toronto, are based on a survey of 1,643 full-time faculty at 183 four-year schools. The researchers relied on 1999 data from the North American Academic Study Survey, the most recent comprehensive data available.
The study appears in the March issue of the Forum, an online political science journal. It was funded by the Randolph Foundation, a right-leaning group that has given grants to such conservative organizations as the Independent Women’s Forum and Americans for Tax Reform.
Rothman sees the findings as evidence of “possible discrimination” against conservatives in hiring and promotion. Even after factoring in levels of achievement, as measured by published work and organization memberships, “the most likely conclusion” is that “being conservative counts against you,” he said. “It doesn’t surprise me, because I’ve observed it happening.” The study, however, describes this finding as “preliminary.”
When asked about the findings, Jonathan Knight, director of academic freedom and tenure for the American Association of University Professors, said, “The question is how this translates into what happens within the academic community on such issues as curriculum, admission of students, evaluation of students, evaluation of faculty for salary and promotion.” Knight said he isn’t aware of “any good evidence” that personal views are having an impact on campus policies.
“It’s hard to see that these liberal views cut very deeply into the education of students. In fact, a number of studies show the core values that students bring into the university are not very much altered by being in college.”
Rothman, Lichter and Nevitte find a leftward shift on campus over the past two decades. In the last major survey of college faculty, by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in 1984, 39 percent identified themselves as liberal.
In contrast with the finding that nearly three-quarters of college faculty are liberal, a Harris Poll of the general public last year found that 33 percent describe themselves as conservative and 18 percent as liberal.
The liberal label that a majority of the faculty members attached to themselves is reflected on a variety of issues. The professors and instructors surveyed are, strongly or somewhat, in favor of abortion rights (84 percent); believe homosexuality is acceptable (67 percent); and want more environmental protection “even if it raises prices or costs jobs” (88 percent). What’s more, the study found, 65 percent want the government to ensure full employment, a stance to the left of the Democratic Party.
Recent campus controversies have reinforced the left-wing faculty image. The University of Colorado is reviewing its tenure system after one professor, Ward Churchill, created an uproar by likening World Trade Center victims to Nazis. Harvard’s faculty of arts and sciences voted no confidence in the university’s president, Lawrence Summers, after he privately wondered whether women had the same natural ability as men in science and math.
The study did not attempt to examine whether the political views of faculty members affect the content of their courses.
The researchers say that liberals, men and non-regular churchgoers are more likely to be teaching at top schools, while conservatives, women and more religious faculty are more likely to be relegated to lower-tier colleges and universities.
Top-tier schools, roughly a third of the total, are defined as highly ranked liberal arts colleges and research universities that grant PhDs.
The most liberal faculties are those devoted to the humanities (81 percent) and social sciences (75 percent), according to the study. But liberals outnumbered conservatives even among engineering faculty (51 percent to 19 percent) and business faculty (49 percent to 39 percent).
The most left-leaning departments are English literature, philosophy, political science and religious studies, where at least 80 percent of the faculty say they are liberal and no more than 5 percent call themselves conservative, the study says.
“In general,” says Lichter, who also heads the nonprofit Center for Media and Public Affairs, “even broad-minded people gravitate toward other people like themselves. That’s why you need diversity, not just of race and gender but also, maybe especially, of ideas and perspective.”

[quote]redswingline wrote:
The study did not attempt to examine whether the political views of faculty members affect the content of their courses. [/quote]

Well, doesns’t anyone else think that this should be the focus of any concern if people are going to start acting as if this is a problem? To then speculate is ridiculous without the facts to support it.

and this[quote]
The researchers say that liberals, men and non-regular churchgoers are more likely to be teaching at top schools, while conservatives, women and more religious faculty are more likely to be relegated to lower-tier colleges and universities.
[/quote]

…is troubling if people actually think that one’s faith in God is dependant on his church attendance. It isn’t.

Here is why I believe that political ideology plays a part in hiring at the university level.

I was on a studen board which interviewed prospective associate professors. The 2 most flagrent ideological hires we saw are the following:

  1. Interviewed a PhD.research chemist who had over 20 years research experience with a well known drug company. This drug company was bought out by a large oveseas pharmacia and in such he didnt want ot relocate to Europe. He had taught chemistry at 2 community colleges in the past. His recomendations were excellent.

The other candidate was just finishing his PhD. and had worked in the private sector for 2 years doing analytical work. No research. No leadership positions. No teaching except TA work. He displayed the fact that he had worked on a number of democratic campagnes in his resume, and actually his last job was in this field working for a presidential campagne.

Who got hired?

  1. This next hire was for a position as associate professor for the Physician Assistent program at the college.

Candidate number one had years of experience in family med, Ob/Gyn, and Internal Med. She had proctored numberous students and had experience teaching part time in both a physician assistent program and a nursing program. She was conservatively dressed and was very professional in her demeanor. Was about 20lbs overweight. Jewlery would be considered classic in taste. She answered our questions directly and was very polite.

Candidate number two was out of school for 3 years. Had one job at pregnancy resource center. Her hair was dyed black. You couldnt pierce her ears another time. Her left eyebrow had 2 piercings, her left nare once, and her lower lip once. Her choice of jewlery was gothic. She wore an all black shirt and pants with a heavily studded belt covering her over 100lbs extra weight. She made poor eye contact throughout the interview and chewed her gum loudly. None of her answers to our questions were to the point.

Who got hired?

When our student group asked about the hirings because they went against our recomendations we were told that the administration felt the candidate that was chosen for hire was a better interpersonal fit with staff.

Another case was when I was in physician assistent training. We were asked to interview candidtates for a position within the department.

One candidate was retiring from the navy. The other had been fired from his 2 year teaching position at a neighboring college for getting caught bangin a student on his office desk.

They didnt hire the retiring navy PA. Comments from administration where that they were trying to limit the military influence on the physician assistnet program on campus. We had one retired militaary PA on staff and he was very outspoken about how and what the program should be doing which often was aginst the ideas of the administration.

This is my personal experience in 2 different university settings dealing with the hiring practices which didnt hire the best candidate.

I always thought that universities were known as places where people were free to think outside the box.

Aren’t conservatives generally happy with rules and boundaries? Don’t they try to keep everything inside the box?

So, are universities supposed to free people from their preconceptions and get them to think about things without preconcieved notions or are they supposed to indoctrinate people to a certain way of thinking or a certain way of living?

Strange.

Again, as for chaining testacles, I can’t see what this has to do with liberalism in the campus. Sounds like some type of anti-male bias or some type of conservative knee-jerk.

[quote]vroom wrote:

Again, as for chaining testacles, I can’t see what this has to do with liberalism in the campus. Sounds like some type of anti-male bias or some type of conservative knee-jerk.[/quote]

That’s the way it sounded to me as well, some religious pre-mature ejaculated response to a large penis walking on campus. I am still wondering why it was believed toi be a liberal notion to have this removed. That seems odd that it was even a thought.

It has to be liberal because conservatives are too pussy to create V-day…

[quote]vroom wrote:
I always thought that universities were known as places where people were free to think outside the box.

Aren’t conservatives generally happy with rules and boundaries? Don’t they try to keep everything inside the box?

So, are universities supposed to free people from their preconceptions and get them to think about things without preconcieved notions or are they supposed to indoctrinate people to a certain way of thinking or a certain way of living?

.[/quote]

Vroom

I see it differently. Take the PC codes of speach that most universities have. This wassnt a conservative idea. The PC speach puts the very words we use to exchange ideas into a box and controles it. Limits it. Strangles it.

To think about a topic you need to know both sides of the issue. This allows you to think outside of the liberal or conservative box.

The University should be a place where all ideas can be discussed openly. Each then allowed to choose which is best for them ideologically from an educated standpoint. Debate of ideas was a foundation of education and it’s all but lost.

Look at the protestors and their behavior when a conservative speaker is invited to campus. What are they afraid of that they have to disrupt the lecture other than the ideas?

Why dont they ask constructive questions to get a better understanding of the positions taken instead of the inflamtory statements you can read in this thread or the other one on site pertaining the Austin visit of Coulter.

Does this let them think outside of the box, or does it pack them into the box tighter?

Why cant their be free debate of ideas?

[quote]Chewman wrote:
I see it differently. Take the PC codes of speach that most universities have. This wassnt a conservative idea. The PC speach puts the very words we use to exchange ideas into a box and controles it. Limits it. Strangles it.[/quote]

What are these “codes of speech”? I didn’t have any “codes” at my university so it leaves me wondering why you have been “coded” and exactly what that means.

During college, several of my “friends” (supposed “lesbians”…ahem, yeah right) were involved these pro-vag events. I personally find them to be crude and thus hilarious.
Campus administrators are, very often, liberal jackasses, but maybe their problem was the Giant Penis confronting an administrator. Vagina events are usually pretty low-key, girly (surprise), and non-confrontational. Some dude dressed up like a Penis harassing an administrator is a bit different in the eyes of an authority figure.

As to whether or not a liberal bias on exists on campuses, of course it does! Those who tend toward “conservative” ideologies are, as a group, oriented towards material success in the real world. Why would a pro-business Republican get a job working for a university when he could make more money in the private sector? The ivory tower is thus overrun by “liberals” because they seek jobs/ideologies that do not require quantifiable results, like the business world does. I’m not sure that I worded that well…but I have to go to sell stuff to dumb people.

Hmm, I’m guessing the fact that racist and sexist terms are frowned upon by society (in general, not just in universities) is the issue with respect to codes of speech?

I’ll continue to maintain that intelligent conversation of issues can be done without resorting to racist and sexist comments – no matter what the topic being discussed.

I don’t see “codes of speech” being restrictive except for those that have no facility to speak without use of these crutches of ignorance.

[quote]vroom wrote:
I always thought that universities were known as places where people were free to think outside the box.[/quote]

They’re supposed to be, but it seems that is only an idealistic portrayal at a lot of places. They may have their own unique environments, but views disfavored by the admin and faculty tend to be quashed.

As far as the 1st Amendment goes, it’s a classic example of viewpoint-based discrimination against disfavored views, accomplished by selectively applying facially neutral standards in a non-neutral fashion.

[quote]
Aren’t conservatives generally happy with rules and boundaries? Don’t they try to keep everything inside the box?[/quote]

Not new ones.

[quote]
So, are universities supposed to free people from their preconceptions and get them to think about things without preconcieved notions or are they supposed to indoctrinate people to a certain way of thinking or a certain way of living?

Strange.

Again, as for chaining testacles, I can’t see what this has to do with liberalism in the campus. Sounds like some type of anti-male bias or some type of conservative knee-jerk.[/quote]

It depends on how the admin was viewing it. Were they upset because they are against large phalli whereas they adore large cunni, or were they upset with the making fun of V-D, and its inherent hard-core feminist message? Hard to say just on the face of it, though I think one is more likely, but in either case it’s poor behavior from an institution that, as you pointed out, claims to idealize free expression and thought.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
alwyn96 wrote:
Look, I’m not saying V-Day isn’t ridiculous or annoying, but I don’t feel that threatened by it. You’re free to criticize it, obviously. I guess it just doesn’t bother me as much.

If you went through this thread and somehow saw that we are threatened by vaginas, I don’t know what to say about your comprehension. I could care less about V-day. I never knew it existed until this thread popped up. However, if some guys get together and decide to do the same with regards to their own genetalia and they get canned for it while the women on campus are promoting “Love my coochie” marathons with adjoining posters and visual aids, I see a problem there. I am not sure why you don’t. [/quote]

Amen, brother. This is a load of crap. If women can have their coochie celebrations, men should be able to have schlongfests if they want. It’s called Freedom of Speech.

I for one am a little tired of the feminist bias in this country; women have taken it to the point where they they can get away with just about anything (including touching, leering, making comments, etc), while men are being beaten into submission by all the PC and sexual harrassment bullshit. I’ll probably be blasted on this thread for being a “sexist pig”, but that’s exactly how they maintain the double standard.

That’s the exact point vroom

What the left defines as racist and sexist is oftentimes what the right views as the truth. -(spare me any blather about what’s right, left, liberal and conservative).

ex: harvard porez getting vilified by the left for mulling over genetic difference in the way men/women think universities now tend to be places of indocrtination, and not free thought and speech, etc.

ex: Tufts University, which threatened to shut down a conservative student paper because female students the paper satirized charged the paper with sexual harassmenColumbia professor Nicholas De Geneva’s wish for “a million Mogadishus” or University of New Mexico professor Richard Berthold’s praise of the September 11 murderers: “Anyone who can blow up the Pentagon gets my vote.”

ex: Take, for example, the list of classes from the University of California, Santa Barbara, for the academic year 2001-2. There are some 62 different courses listed under “Chicano Studies,” among them Introduction to Chicano Spanish; Methodology of the Oppressed; Barrio Popular Culture; Body, Culture, and Power; Chicana Feminism; History of the Chicano; History of the Chicano Movement; History of Chicano and Chicana Workers; Racism in American History; Chicano Political Organizing; Chicana Writers; De-colonizing Cyber-Cinema; and Dance of the Chicanos.

In the university world, any imbalance wealth, education, health, happiness, or almost anything is explicable only in terms of deliberate present discrimination and systematic past oppression.

Political correctness is the new manners(or snobbery). The higher the level of P.C. used, the more easily a person can be identified as part of the ingroup.If you aren’t p.c. and you don’t like p.c., you aren’t gonna get the job or be accepted by the ingroup or university or whatever the case may be.

The opposite is also true though. I’m prety straightforward, and don’t have much tolerance for p.c., and probably whon’t hire any one who is too p.c.

That may not seem fair, but since it goes both ways, at least it’s even.