The Promptings of Thought

I went to one of those Assembly Series lectures this morning (for ye non-Wash U people, that's just a series of lectures they give in the Graham Chapel on campus, with a speaker invited in every Wednesday at 11:00 am to speak for about an hour. They speak about all kinds of things-- we had the Cardinals' manager last week, which I didn't go to, and there are some upcoming lectures about poverty, science, medicine, and religion, prisons, and even Holocaust denial)-- and it was definitely worthwhile. Since I don't have class from 11:00-12:00 (or even until 1:00, should they run longer-- which apparently they do, sometimes says Carol, who went to the Tony La Russa one, though mine went perfectly on time today), I will definitely get to attending the other interesting-looking ones. This is what is awesome about college, guys, lol . . .

Anyway, the speaker today was David Horowitz, who grew up in a very Communist-affiliated household and was very, very left-wing through most of his youth until he renounced it all (and is probably reacting too far, if you ask me-- but I'll get to that), speaking on academic bias in universities today.

That was supposed to be the point of the lecture, anyway. I confess, it was a very interesting topic, and one I agree with. Even as a liberal, I would go crazy were there no conservative challenges against me throughout my college career. I WANT to argue, people . . . lol . . . it's one of the reasons I didn't go to Earlham. I figured with more students and less Quakers, there might be at least a chance I'd find someone to push my limits on my political views (for, believe me, there is nothing more fulfilling and energizing than holding your own against someone who disagrees with you-- or, even, realizing that you're both right and the whole concept is just a matter of taste, which happens an awful lot more often than you might think). So he was campaigning the cause of his Academic Bill of Rights, an unbiased code (much as he would have perhaps liked to simply have had a conservative reaction, he still said "unbiased") he believes all universities should adopt, which went over very well, really. No one can really disagree with that, unless they're a liberal who likes the status quo-- which, really, is a bit of an oxymoron, lol . . .

Yet then he got to the second part of his speech. I believe he was trying to give us examples of all that liberal bias had done to us, by provoking our standards and pointing out other "facts" from the conservative side that we ought to know but don't, thanks to our liberal universities (and schooling everywhere, apparently, lol . . . )-- but it came off more like conservative gadfly-ism. You'll see why, in a moment.

He started off with the Red Scare of the 1920s, pointing out that there were indeed several attempted murders by Communist-affiliated immigrants, and that they were justified in being sent back-- even if more were sent back than were necessary (they were, after all, immigrants). No one has much to say about the 1920s. Then he talked about slavery, and how no one seems to know that everyone else in the history of the world has been a slave at some point, and so that neither justifies nor warrants repercussions to enslaved (or, rather, the great-great-great-great-great grandchildren of enslaved) African Americans (which I agree with).

Then he started hitting the hard stuff. He said that school systems are corrupt and complacent as the result of Democratic leadership. He also said-- and this made the room grow cold-- that the crisis in New Orleans was the direct result of black Democratic leadership, and that no one was holding that mayor to the standards of any white mayor in a similar circumstance (heh, if there ever were one . . . ) in the entire country. One boy actually screamed out, "YOU'RE A LIAR!!!" Everyone else was dead silent. You could just feel the tenseness in the room. Everyone was silently staring at the man, a few people with their hands tensely to their foreheads. A few people walked out. On and on he goes, waving his hands about flamboyantly like the bespectacled Reform candidate and KKK Grand Dragon of "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" just before he was rode out on a rail . . .

So now I pity him. His cause is undermined by the promptings of his gadfly conservatism. Ought he have done the second half first? Ought he have DIVIDED THE SPEECHES? He spoke on two different topics. One was Why To Have Academic Freedom. One was Why Democrats Suck.

Now, I'm all for having some conservative gadfly-ism. It gives me a rush to hear opposing views, and sorting them out in my mind and seeing the logic, and the merits of some and the foolishness of others. Yet I do that for entertainment. If he wants to champion his Academic Unbiasedness cause, he ought to keep that seperate, so as not to taint it with the harsh words of his conservative rhetoric.

He needs some tact. Anyway . . .

I feel energized. Tenseness and the ferocity of debate, however far it crosses the lines, is the greatest thrill for me . . .

The Promptings of Thought

I went to one of those Assembly Series lectures this morning (for ye non-Wash U people, that's just a series of lectures they give in the Graham Chapel on campus, with a speaker invited in every Wednesday at 11:00 am to speak for about an hour. They speak about all kinds of things-- we had the Cardinals' manager last week, which I didn't go to, and there are some upcoming lectures about poverty, science, medicine, and religion, prisons, and even Holocaust denial)-- and it was definitely worthwhile. Since I don't have class from 11:00-12:00 (or even until 1:00, should they run longer-- which apparently they do, sometimes says Carol, who went to the Tony La Russa one, though mine went perfectly on time today), I will definitely get to attending the other interesting-looking ones. This is what is awesome about college, guys, lol . . .

Anyway, the speaker today was David Horowitz, who grew up in a very Communist-affiliated household and was very, very left-wing through most of his youth until he renounced it all (and is probably reacting too far, if you ask me-- but I'll get to that), speaking on academic bias in universities today.

That was supposed to be the point of the lecture, anyway. I confess, it was a very interesting topic, and one I agree with. Even as a liberal, I would go crazy were there no conservative challenges against me throughout my college career. I WANT to argue, people . . . lol . . . it's one of the reasons I didn't go to Earlham. I figured with more students and less Quakers, there might be at least a chance I'd find someone to push my limits on my political views (for, believe me, there is nothing more fulfilling and energizing than holding your own against someone who disagrees with you-- or, even, realizing that you're both right and the whole concept is just a matter of taste, which happens an awful lot more often than you might think). So he was campaigning the cause of his Academic Bill of Rights, an unbiased code (much as he would have perhaps liked to simply have had a conservative reaction, he still said "unbiased") he believes all universities should adopt, which went over very well, really. No one can really disagree with that, unless they're a liberal who likes the status quo-- which, really, is a bit of an oxymoron, lol . . .

Yet then he got to the second part of his speech. I believe he was trying to give us examples of all that liberal bias had done to us, by provoking our standards and pointing out other "facts" from the conservative side that we ought to know but don't, thanks to our liberal universities (and schooling everywhere, apparently, lol . . . )-- but it came off more like conservative gadfly-ism. You'll see why, in a moment.

He started off with the Red Scare of the 1920s, pointing out that there were indeed several attempted murders by Communist-affiliated immigrants, and that they were justified in being sent back-- even if more were sent back than were necessary (they were, after all, immigrants). No one has much to say about the 1920s. Then he talked about slavery, and how no one seems to know that everyone else in the history of the world has been a slave at some point, and so that neither justifies nor warrants repercussions to enslaved (or, rather, the great-great-great-great-great grandchildren of enslaved) African Americans (which I agree with).

Then he started hitting the hard stuff. He said that school systems are corrupt and complacent as the result of Democratic leadership. He also said-- and this made the room grow cold-- that the crisis in New Orleans was the direct result of black Democratic leadership, and that no one was holding that mayor to the standards of any white mayor in a similar circumstance (heh, if there ever were one . . . ) in the entire country. One boy actually screamed out, "YOU'RE A LIAR!!!" Everyone else was dead silent. You could just feel the tenseness in the room. Everyone was silently staring at the man, a few people with their hands tensely to their foreheads. A few people walked out. On and on he goes, waving his hands about flamboyantly like the bespectacled Reform candidate and KKK Grand Dragon of "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" just before he was rode out on a rail . . .

So now I pity him. His cause is undermined by the promptings of his gadfly conservatism. Ought he have done the second half first? Ought he have DIVIDED THE SPEECHES? He spoke on two different topics. One was Why To Have Academic Freedom. One was Why Democrats Suck.

Now, I'm all for having some conservative gadfly-ism. It gives me a rush to hear opposing views, and sorting them out in my mind and seeing the logic, and the merits of some and the foolishness of others. Yet I do that for entertainment. If he wants to champion his Academic Unbiasedness cause, he ought to keep that seperate, so as not to taint it with the harsh words of his conservative rhetoric.

He needs some tact. Anyway . . .

I feel energized. Tenseness and the ferocity of debate, however far it crosses the lines, is the greatest thrill for me . . .