All your children belong to us!

[Phatscotty]

okay, yall are in for a treat. I found reviews of one of my brainwashing professor from other students. Just know there is at least 1 professor like this at the overwhelming majority of colleges in America. This guy was 100% full throttle INDOCTRINATION. Look upon his methods! Lootifer, Mets, do you think any of this was in the syllabus for English Comp?

I took English 1021 with him, yet he had no teaching method. He did not explain the principles or guidelines to college writing. Class discussions felt like his personal time to rant and would hammer on you if you disagreed with him. I went to him several times for help/advise and he'd just shrug his shoulders. he didn't "have time" to answer me.

Professor xyz is very opinionated, and pushes his views onto his students to the point where they feel uncomfortable. He grades according to how similar the student's opinion is to his own, making it more difficult to get an A if you disagree with him. The course was Composition, but we never studied anything having to do with the subject.

DO NOT TAKE THIS CLASS!!!! I came the first day and took one class.... that was enough for a lifetime. We spent the class discussing alien invasions and perverse torture techniques. I thought the lecture (if you can call it that) was crude, inappropriate, nonsensical, and completely unrelated to english composition. STAY AWAY!

3 open note tests, 1 group project = your final grade. Take good notes in class. Go into the class with an open mind. xyz has a very strong view points on Af American perspectives. You may not agree with everything he says. Not very helpful and doesn't get to know who you are. Keep your opinions to yourself if you don't agree with him.

Absolute idiot. He is very biased and opionionated. Not to mention he is very liberal in his teachings and opinions. The guy thinks that drugs were illegalized so that "the white males" leading government did not have to worry about "white women" having relations with minorites, for real? Class is ridiculous and in my opinion I wasted my money.

This insturctor is very bias! He bashes your beliefs and offends other people in the class very easily! If you offer your opinion he will not agree with it even if you are right. He picks people out to add to discussion but then only talks about his beliefs and really tries to show off his own unaccurate knowledge. Dont take class to learn!

One of those teachers that if you want to do good-say what he wants to hear. Tests are open note but specific. Content is interesting-but definately biased on his opinion. Doesn't care if youre there or don't talk-he doesnt know who you are. Very laid back, almost too much. The class is interesting and easy. WARNING-Final project is a group project

Worst class. He loves to bash Christians, conservatives and whites. Assigned a group project - 16 people in my group (worth 250 points). He is always on his cell phone right before class. Has no interest in student's opinions, only in his own.

Doesn't teach like an English Teacher should. He pushes his views/beliefs on you. Due dates get pushed back. You watch YouTube vids & if you give your opinion every so often you'll do fine. Write 10 paragraphs (7 are graded), essay & have to spend 9.5 hrs in the Writing Center. It's an easy A/B. If you want to learn something pick another teacher.

This is the worst English course I have ever taken. He does not cover anything relating to composition or writing. He talks about his bizarre political beliefs and presents them as far. We watched Loose Change 9/11, Alex Jones in class as serious things. He rips apart the Bible. Harmon's Belief's 101. Avoid if possible. He needs a tinfoil hat.

He is not an English teacher. The entire class focuses on his rather unrealistic beliefs. For example, "The SAT and IQ test were designed by Nazis". He has also implied that 9/11 was caused by Bush. He uses this class as a soapbox. Do not take it if possible. He provides absolutely no instruction in composition, instead, we watch YouTube.

You never have to be there and you don't learn a thing about English or writing. He stands on a soap box the entire time of every class. Sometimes he will show up to turn on the lights and then leave us in the room to use the internet. Poor teacher. Should be teaching something about politics or conspiracy theories.

I was very offended actually. Some conspiracy theories are obviously false when evidence proves them wrong. For example the September 11th conspiracy. Harmon dicriminated against the Bible numerous times but never brought up points against any other religion. Christianity was targeted. He should be careful when discussing such controvercial topics.

He takes the littlest bits out of the Bible and blows them out of proportion and out of context. He thinks that every issue in America boils down to race. I happen to be black, but I don't think the cops are out to get me, and despite what he claims, I'm treated with respect when I walk into stores and other public areas.

i'm glad that some people have the guts in class to stand up to him. somehow i cant bring myself to say what i feel because I'm afraid my grade will be lowered. he is a nice guy, but incredibly misguided in what he believes. his perspective ISN'T the only african american perspective -- mine is DIFFERENT than his, but he presents his like fact.

Today I called into the Laura Ingraham show, a nationwide radio show, to get advice on how to deal with what this professor deals out. Her take was to not stand for left-thinking professors to completely stomp over people's opinions. NOT EVERYTHING HE SAYS IS FACT! People hang on to his every word like sheep! Take the class with a grain of salt.

Only interested in his own ideas but nobody else. The only things that you'll get out of this class (which are based on his biased opinion) is that Republicans are corrupt, whites are complete ****s, and that successful blacks (like Bill Cosby or Condoleeza Rice) are white and share no part in the African American Perspective. All bias, no fact.

very egotistic. spends most of the class time speaking of how evil white people are. the main problem is that he focuses to much on the problem and not how to solve it.

This professor spends much of the class talking about inaccuracies in the bible, and refusing to listen to class member's opinions... he usually cuts people off when they are asking or talking to him. Trashed Professor Epps for no good reason. He's friendly enough, but looks at everything on far too simple of a level.

[oVo]

In that environment, you will find that redistributing the wealth is pretty popular, and Republicans are evil and greedy. And that metriculates through the system. I guess it's possible that all teachers follow all rules and leave the politics in the personal conversations. However, I know and have known plenty of Liberals. I know how they are. And being quiet and respectful and tolerant of other ideas is NOT the M.O. Trying to 'fix' republicans or teasing and mocking them if they don't get on board with their way of thinking IS their M.O..

Are you confusing being "open minded" with the term Liberal? In such a context how do you define conservative and why do you equate it so heavily towards Republicans?

You claim to have known plenty of liberals and "know how they are?" What does that mean? Quiet, tolerant & respectful is not a common trait among any contemporary person these days with an opinion they want to express. General labels and stereotypes are still not a one size fits all and stubborn assholes come in every race, nationality, age group, gender and political persuasion.

My personal preference isn't liberal or conservative, but simply those who don't feel a need to impose their will, morals or pompous attitude on others.

[thegreekdog]

btw Greek. I thought 30% of Americans are Independent? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
See Met's, how a study is done and the questions asked make a ton of difference. I would bet a million dollars that data Greekdog posted did not include an independent option, and if it did the results would be turned completely upsidedown.

It was exit polling. For president. In the last presidential election. What in the f*ck are you talking about? Did you even click the link I provided? So 55% of post-graduates polled voted for Obama. 42% of post-graduates polled voted for Romney. The remaining 3% voted for someone other than those two.

What are you getting at here? Here's the deal:

(1) Phatscotty thinks liberal college professors make students liberal (purposefully, by the way).
(2) No studies that Phatscotty has posted show that liberal college professors make students liberal (purposefully or not). He has shown a conclusion (not a study) stating that students may be somewhat more liberal as seniors than freshmen.
(3) The first study that Phatscotty posted shows that more college professors are liberal than conservative, but most are somewhere in the middle, which further invalidates his theory.
(4) After not being able to find any evidence, he relies on anecdotal evidence and "logic."

No one takes anecdotal evidence seriously, so we can ignore that.
Phatscotty's "logic" is tremendously flawed because college graduates don't just vote for Democrats; it doesn't even really make sense.

I've typed it before, and I'll type it again dude. You need to stop with this crazy theory and concentrate on something else.

[tzor]

(1) Phatscotty thinks liberal college professors make students liberal (purposefully, by the way).

I think there is a natural tendency of young people to favor the liberal side. This can be multiplied by the fact that any institution that has a significant number of professors of any one side and only a few (if any) of the other will never be an environment where the majority of students will be fairly exposed to the other side. Thus by lack of balance the students will move to the majority side.

Mind you it all depends on the institution.

[Phatscotty]

btw Greek. I thought 30% of Americans are Independent? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
See Met's, how a study is done and the questions asked make a ton of difference. I would bet a million dollars that data Greekdog posted did not include an independent option, and if it did the results would be turned completely upsidedown.

It was exit polling. For president. In the last presidential election. What in the f*ck are you talking about? Did you even click the link I provided? So 55% of post-graduates polled voted for Obama. 42% of post-graduates polled voted for Romney. The remaining 3% voted for someone other than those two.

What are you getting at here? Here's the deal:

(1) Phatscotty thinks liberal college professors make students liberal (purposefully, by the way).
(2) No studies that Phatscotty has posted show that liberal college professors make students liberal (purposefully or not). He has shown a conclusion (not a study) stating that students may be somewhat more liberal as seniors than freshmen.
(3) The first study that Phatscotty posted shows that more college professors are liberal than conservative, but most are somewhere in the middle, which further invalidates his theory.
(4) After not being able to find any evidence, he relies on anecdotal evidence and "logic."

No one takes anecdotal evidence seriously, so we can ignore that.
Phatscotty's "logic" is tremendously flawed because college graduates don't just vote for Democrats; it doesn't even really make sense.

I've typed it before, and I'll type it again dude. You need to stop with this crazy theory and concentrate on something else.

Sorry man, but it's obvious to me. It may be impossible to prove scientifically, or maybe I have not found the right sources, or maybe the right sources don't exist but will someday or perhaps never will.

I guess all I have for now is first hand examples of a crazy theory. Maybe I will just shut up with my opinions on how it is done, and just show that it is being done.



Jake Goldwasser is a Columbia College senior majoring in Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African studies.
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2013/1 ... ght-answer

There's no right answer

I am not conservative by any stretch of the imagination. Every fall break I have gone to campaign for liberal causes, and as an underclassman I was on the board of the Columbia University Democrats. But the more time I spend in class the more sympathy I have for conservatives, not necessarily for their beliefs, but for the position they have in public discourse at Columbia. My perspective may be skewed since I am a Middle Eastern studies major, but in my classes it is taken for granted that the set of liberal positions is a list of objective truths. I don’t think it is funny when professors crack jokes about the IQs of Republicans. It makes it more difficult to have genuine political discussions at best, and it perpetuates the stereotype of the Ivy League as a circle-jerk of liberalism at worst.

In Leo Schwartz’s last column, he talks about how once we leave Columbia we will leave the domain of constant self-congratulation and enter a world that is skeptical of our institution. It is not that professors collect empirical evidence to support liberal claims that makes the world sneer at places like Columbia. It is the self-righteous attitude, the certainty of conviction that comes from an institution whose purpose is to foster doubt and balanced discourse and critical thinking. I find myself writing papers in which I haven’t even had time to consider whether I agree with my thesis, because all of the reading is on one side of the political spectrum. In fact, in many cases, I am not really sure what the spectrum of opinion on a topic is, because I have only been exposed to a single part of it. I understand that universities are places where professors can espouse their beliefs. I recognize that tenure is meant to protect professors’ ability to maintain opinion. But it should not be the case that students feel uncomfortable voicing dissent because of the tone a professor has set.

In one of my classes, the token conservative occasionally responds to the professor’s matter-of-fact claims by rehashing basic tenets of conservative ideology. Everyone in the class rolls his or her eyes, but I have come to appreciate it because it is nice to at least be aware that there are differing opinions. Opinions really aren’t of much value without at least the pretense of deviation from them. In my classes almost nobody makes conservative comments, which leads me to wonder whether Columbia actually has no conservatives or whether they don’t feel comfortable enough discussing their opinions in public. I don’t know which is more disturbing. I think we should respect whatever diversity of opinion we have on campus instead of making jokes about how President Bush couldn’t pronounce “nuclear” properly.

I don’t mind listening to lectures about the military industrial complex or the destruction that capitalism has caused. I do mind realizing in the first lecture that my professor has an agenda so apparent that it stifles the ability of the student to make judgments or suppresses his or her comfort when it comes to bringing up issues.

That being said, I have had some professors whose lectures manage to communicate opinion without condescension. I have had classes with respectful discussions where everyone felt comfortable sharing opinions, so long as they were supported by evidence—it is possible. I am not saying professors cannot have opinions. I am not saying that an objective truth within a field is unimaginable, but I do think it is the responsibility of academics to foster a tone that is conducive to learning and—just as important—to debate.

[Metsfanmax]

(1) Phatscotty thinks liberal college professors make students liberal (purposefully, by the way).

I think there is a natural tendency of young people to favor the liberal side. This can be multiplied by the fact that any institution that has a significant number of professors of any one side and only a few (if any) of the other will never be an environment where the majority of students will be fairly exposed to the other side. Thus by lack of balance the students will move to the majority side.

Mind you it all depends on the institution.

As we've been discussing in this thread, this is a nice theory. But the data doesn't match up. In fact, I'm surprised the data doesn't match up -- my natural intuition was that Phatscotty would be right, and with a measurable left-leaning university faculty there would be a measurable left-leaning student population (relative to the population as a whole). But there's not, so something else is going on here (and I haven't been able to find a satisfactory explanation other than the obvious -- that teachers are, as a rule, good at keeping their politics out of the classroom). You have to keep in mind that the type of professor that Phatscotty has been showing us examples of -- the crazy hardcore bullying professor -- are not the type of people who are likely to change anyone's minds. No one really listens when they're being yelled at -- they tend to dig in to what they already think (notice how he's never linked any examples of people who interacted with these professors and then admitted to changing their minds). Rather, if there is any indoctrination, it's going to be of the much more subtle variety (such as the style and content of the lectures being subtly biased by the professor's political views).

[thegreekdog]

Mets makes a good point and one that is lost here. I also would agree with Phatscotty given my anecdotal experiences in college and law school. My professors who taught politically-related subject matter (with one or two exceptions) trended to the liberal side of things (including, sadly, constitutional law professors). However, two things made me skeptical of Phatscotty's theory (apart from the lack of available evidence): (1) Even though I had liberal professors and my non-liberal friends had liberal professors, our political views did not change; (2) The voters who graduated college do not appear to favor Democrats or liberals in any significant way as compared to other groups. For (2), I keep turning to the idea that if Phatscotty is right, then there would be 60% or more college graduates voting Democrat; but there isn't. So it must not have a great effect, if any.

Further, I really dislike any conservative (or liberal) arguments that involve this type of thing. In my opinion, ideas should stand on their own merit and complaining about potential indoctrination or swaying minds for political purposes is not something that should be discussed. Rather, if someone's mind has been swayed by a liberal professor who bashed conservatives, the goal should be to get that student to accept a different idea and not worry about changing how the professor conducts his or her class.

[Metsfanmax]

I think Phatscotty overestimates the ability of people to be converted in their political views by contradictory evidence that is presented to them (which is slightly ironic; Phatscotty has never shown much of a tendency to really listen to what others believe). I am reminded of this recent study. Researchers presented people with a series of math questions to test their numerical ability. They then split people into two groups. They were both presented with the same data. In one group the data was allegedly used to determine the effectiveness of a skin cream, and in another the data was allegedly used to determine the effectiveness of gun control laws. The end result was that people who were good at math correctly assessed whether the data supported the view that the skin cream was or was not effective -- but very significantly got wrong whether the gun control law was effective, and it was in good agreement with their political views (e.g. liberals who were good at math tended to think the data supported the view that gun control laws are effective even if the data said the opposite).

[oVo]

The theory is flawed right from the start. I will concede that young minds are easier to sway or influence, as their development and willingness to absorb new ideas is part of the learning experience. BUT... an initial glitch that warps scotty's entire concept is the conservative/liberal labels. Neither are nut case, all inclusive groups that fit comfortably into a well defined parameter. There may be bastions of religious conservatives, military conservatives, liberal think tanks or socially conscious agendas established or known at specific institutions of higher learning, but all those places also contain significant numbers enrolled/employed that maintain an alternative point of view.

Universities certainly have an affect on how young people see the world, but they are not liberal indoctrination facilities.

I basically take slight umbrage at the derogatory use of the word LIBERAL and find it's use as some crazy socialist left agenda that should be feared absurd. In fact the continuous use of conservative/liberal, republican/democrat, gay/straight, citizen/illegal alien, black/white/hispanic, male/female, hawk/dove etc. divisions by drawing lines in the sand to maintain a basic human conflict of separate (confuse) and conquer drives me nuts. A nation of hyper sensitive attention deficit enabled citizens needs to chill out, back off and get some perspective. Once they realize the Sky Isn't Falling and that the majority of people all want the same thing, maybe American Voters can vote the bums out of Washington, figure out some genuine priorities and move in a positive direction for everybody.

[luns101]

When I took political science, the professor was the head of the Democratic Party of Riverside County, CA. He was constantly quoting people like Mao, Lenin, and Patricia Schroeder to make his points about inequality. There were signs around the area which read, First Baptist Church [of wherever] or United Church Of Christ (or other denominations) "welcome you". He would spend about 5-10 minutes lecturing about how destructive such people and institutions were to society..."those people start wars!!" He literally would play and replay the Vice-Presidential debate between Dan Quayle & Lloyd Bentson where Bentson claimed he was a friend of Jack Kennedy, and piously looked down on Quayle as being no Jack Kennedy. He would then pause the tape (yeah, VHS back then) and remark how the country was so stupid to not have elected Dukakis. His office door had a poster which read, "Russia got rid of all their nukes - why don't we?" He called me into his office near the end of the semester to ask me why I felt it necessary to quote Charles Colson in my term paper..."couldn't you find a legitimate source?"

One of the great things in life was when my friend, Mark, later got hired at that same college to teach in that same classroom around 20 years later. Mark has muscular dystrophy, so sometimes he could not physically make it to class, and I would sub for him. I literally got to stand in the same spot where comrade professor used to teach, and talk about Natural Law, and its implications. Some people told me the guy committed suicide, but I never was able to confirm it.

[Baron Von PWN]

I think Phatscotty overestimates the ability of people to be converted in their political views by contradictory evidence that is presented to them (which is slightly ironic; Phatscotty has never shown much of a tendency to really listen to what others believe). I am reminded of this recent study. Researchers presented people with a series of math questions to test their numerical ability. They then split people into two groups. They were both presented with the same data. In one group the data was allegedly used to determine the effectiveness of a skin cream, and in another the data was allegedly used to determine the effectiveness of gun control laws. The end result was that people who were good at math correctly assessed whether the data supported the view that the skin cream was or was not effective -- but very significantly got wrong whether the gun control law was effective, and it was in good agreement with their political views (e.g. liberals who were good at math tended to think the data supported the view that gun control laws are effective even if the data said the opposite).

That is really cool.

[oVo]

When I took political science, the professor was the head of the Democratic Party of Riverside County, CA. He was constantly quoting people like Mao, Lenin, and Patricia Schroeder to make his points about inequality. There were signs around the area which read, First Baptist Church [of wherever] or United Church Of Christ (or other denominations) "welcome you". He would spend about 5-10 minutes lecturing about how destructive such people and institutions were to society..."those people start wars!!" He literally would play and replay the Vice-Presidential debate between Dan Quayle & Lloyd Bentson where Bentson claimed he was a friend of Jack Kennedy, and piously looked down on Quayle as being no Jack Kennedy. He would then pause the tape (yeah, VHS back then) and remark how the country was so stupid to not have elected Dukakis. His office door had a poster which read, "Russia got rid of all their nukes - why don't we?" He called me into his office near the end of the semester to ask me why I felt it necessary to quote Charles Colson in my term paper..."couldn't you find a legitimate source?"

Something more common --than a young person's pov being highjacked by their elders-- is all people's appreciation of being agreed with, the old school like before Facebook & social media. This comfort zone in people actually covers all the bases and not just politics.

One of the great things in life was when my friend, Mark, later got hired at that same college to teach in that same classroom around 20 years later. Mark has muscular dystrophy, so sometimes he could not physically make it to class, and I would sub for him. I literally got to stand in the same spot where comrade professor used to teach, and talk about Natural Law, and its implications.

Pretty cool, life is always full of interesting twists.

[Lootifer]

So you are unable to communicate your point. However, your articles do prove some of my previous points, and this is how I track my success on this topic. Ya see, 6 months ago, people were laughing at me and tearing me a new one for suggesting something as stupid as there are more Liberals than Conservative professors, FAR more. But now it seems like everyone has come around, and they granted me that point, but blow it off and move to the next one. Now it's 'well duh we all know Liberal professors outnumber Conservatives, but that doesn't mean students become more Liberal' and then i got my ass ripped and yelled at and called mean names, but now everyone has come around to 'well duh students come out of college more Liberal, but not substantially'...one day soon we will be at the next point, and eventually we can come around full circle to indoctrination techniques.

Yeah, thats not gonna happen.

I dont think anyone has doubted the prevalance of "liberal" professors ever since you brought evidence to the table. I personally was surprised by it, but after a little thought I wasn't bothered (and I certainly dont remember laughing at you in the Education in the USA thread).

I havent adjusted my position since you started ranting about it a while ago. You have come up with some interesting points, but nowhere along the line have you made a particularly good case for indoctrination. Your flat out misinterpret the statement "They found that on average, students shifted somewhat to the left — but that these changes were in line with shifts experienced by most Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 during the same period of time" doesnt help your case.

[Phatscotty]

that's why we aren't talking about indoctrination now. Remember, it took a few months just to get people to admit just how out numbered Conservatives are on campus, and a few more months just to get to a consensus about "more Liberal, but not substantially Liberal", and now we are starting to get into the grit of how certain hereditary environments impact students, or not

one step at a time.

[mrswdk]

I had a professor who told us that if her son wanted to live off welfare instead of getting a job then that was cool, and that biology was a right wing science used to justify racism.

[oVo]

admit just how out numbered Conservatives are on campus

You need to work on this some more, as I'm not convinced
there are facts that back up this statement.

[Phatscotty]

admit just how out numbered Conservatives are on campus

You need to work on this some more, as I'm not convinced
there are facts that back up this statement.

The work had already been done.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/educa ... d=all&_r=0

Why are conservatives such a minority at so many graduate schools? Conservatives like to blame liberal bias. Liberals like other explanations.

One — the most tactful hypothesis — is that conservatives just aren’t interested in academic careers. Another — the most smug hypothesis — is that conservatives are just too close-minded and dimwitted.

Now, fortunately, we have something beyond hypotheses, courtesy of scholars who have been taking a close look at their colleagues. Some even conducted a small sting operation that they believe is the first field experiment on political bias in academia. The perpetrators include Neil Gross, a professor of sociology at the University of British Columbia, whose previous work showed that Democrats outnumber Republicans by about 4 to 1 among professors, by at least 6 to 1 at elite universities, and by still higher ratios in departments of the humanities and social sciences. I've already posted other studies that showed 33-1 and even 49-1 in certain department and fields

[Metsfanmax]

admit just how out numbered Conservatives are on campus

You need to work on this some more, as I'm not convinced
there are facts that back up this statement.

The work had already been done.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/educa ... d=all&_r=0

Why are conservatives such a minority at so many graduate schools? Conservatives like to blame liberal bias. Liberals like other explanations.

One — the most tactful hypothesis — is that conservatives just aren’t interested in academic careers. Another — the most smug hypothesis — is that conservatives are just too close-minded and dimwitted.

Now, fortunately, we have something beyond hypotheses, courtesy of scholars who have been taking a close look at their colleagues. Some even conducted a small sting operation that they believe is the first field experiment on political bias in academia. The perpetrators include Neil Gross, a professor of sociology at the University of British Columbia, whose previous work showed that Democrats outnumber Republicans by about 4 to 1 among professors, by at least 6 to 1 at elite universities, and by still higher ratios in departments of the humanities and social sciences. I've already posted other studies that showed 33-1 and even 49-1 in certain department and fields

Faculty are the vast minority of the people on a university campus. You really have to consider the political beliefs of the students before you can make a statement like conservatives are out numbered on campus. And if Phatscotty had looked into the Mariani and Hewett paper that was discussed extensively before, he would have found that there are actually more conservatives than liberals in the typical incoming freshman college class. So there is not some vast liberal dominance at the average university.

[mrswdk]

Are you talking about social liberalism? Because even then, I thought Republicans were the ones who favor retrenching the government and refraining from interfering in society. How are you defining 'liberal' and 'conservative'? Are those just euphemisms for 'Democrat' and 'Republican'?

[Metsfanmax]

Are you talking about social liberalism? Because even then, I thought Republicans were the ones who favor retrenching the government and refraining from interfering in society. How are you defining 'liberal' and 'conservative'? Are those just euphemisms for 'Democrat' and 'Republican'?

For the purposes of this discussion, the distinction is not so important. The studies in question have looked at both the political opinions of faculty on the standard liberal/conservative spectrum discussed in the U.S., and also at their voting tendencies when it comes to Democrat/Republican parties, and found that there is a significant/measurable leaning towards liberal and voting Democrat.

[mrswdk]

Which distinction is not important? The distinction between liberal and conservative or the distinction between liberal and Democrat?

What exactly is a 'liberal' in this context? What are their core beliefs? Libertarianism, as defined by someone like Night Strike?

[Metsfanmax]

The distinction between liberal and Democrat. In the U.S. those two are often used interchangeably when it comes to social beliefs (e.g. an American "liberal" or "Democrat" is much more likely to think that abortion is acceptable than an American "conservative" or "Republican"). In our parlance, and in that used by the study, liberal is closer to socialist than libertarian when it comes to the role of government.

[BigBallinStalin]

Which distinction is not important? The distinction between liberal and conservative or the distinction between liberal and Democrat?

What exactly is a 'liberal' in this context? What are their core beliefs? Libertarianism, as defined by someone like Night Strike?

It depends on the study. One is 'liberal' if they support further state intervention (redistribution, essentially). One is liberal if they uphold certain freedoms for others (e.g. freedom of choice concerning marriage partner).

It's a distinction which should be clarified, but if people keep it vague then it's self-rewarding. "Oh, look at how many liberals there are! Go us!" OR "INODCTRINASHUN!!!!!"

[thegreekdog]

When I took political science, the professor was the head of the Democratic Party of Riverside County, CA. He was constantly quoting people like Mao, Lenin, and Patricia Schroeder to make his points about inequality. There were signs around the area which read, First Baptist Church [of wherever] or United Church Of Christ (or other denominations) "welcome you". He would spend about 5-10 minutes lecturing about how destructive such people and institutions were to society..."those people start wars!!" He literally would play and replay the Vice-Presidential debate between Dan Quayle & Lloyd Bentson where Bentson claimed he was a friend of Jack Kennedy, and piously looked down on Quayle as being no Jack Kennedy. He would then pause the tape (yeah, VHS back then) and remark how the country was so stupid to not have elected Dukakis. His office door had a poster which read, "Russia got rid of all their nukes - why don't we?" He called me into his office near the end of the semester to ask me why I felt it necessary to quote Charles Colson in my term paper..."couldn't you find a legitimate source?"

One of the great things in life was when my friend, Mark, later got hired at that same college to teach in that same classroom around 20 years later. Mark has muscular dystrophy, so sometimes he could not physically make it to class, and I would sub for him. I literally got to stand in the same spot where comrade professor used to teach, and talk about Natural Law, and its implications. Some people told me the guy committed suicide, but I never was able to confirm it.

So Phatscotty would conclude that the professor successfully swayed you to the liberal side of things.