And I am going to have to voice my opposition to that assertion, though I would have agreed with it 3 years ago.

Perhaps it is just my campus, but I find it entirely void of what I would consider innovative perspectives, particularly in the context of politics but History and Philosophy as well. Most students tiredly adhere to the default liberal ideals shared by their demographic, the rest are typically walking "neo-con" caricatures. In my experience liberal viewpoints are reinforced by left leaning professors, students then fall victim to "group think" behavior where they refuse to voice real dissent (interesting considering most of my peers believe they are revolutionaries or rebellious for espousing anti-war sentiment). The conservatives on the other hand are so indoctrinated by this point that the expression of different viewpoints causes anxiety and fear. Hell, I am not even certain where I would fall on this dynamic anymore. I might just be a cynical person, but I am geniunely disturbed by the stagnant nature of our educational system at the moment. Who thinks it might be time for a new Progressive movement?

Yeah, I wasn't totally on board with that "leading edge" thing either. Good split off, DBF--let's see what kind of discussion this elicits.

I would love to hear an innovative perspective from a conservative. Unfortunately I have never heard any.

I would normally hesitate to label you inept but in this case I feel it is justified. Do not attempt to derail what could be an insightful discussion with juvenile, baseless, and unsubstantiated opinions.

Uhh. We are all acutually giving our opinions. Dont like mine? So be it. However, conservatives invented the groupthink. Not to big on change because they are very "conservative".

Conservatives are kind of like Montana, eventually the changes that have already hit the rest of the world make there way to Montana, but even then they don't always accept them. Evolution?

I'd have a couple responses, since it was my labelling that we're working with here.

The first thing is that I'd agree that for the most part, the vast majority of college professors are not breaking much new ground in any social science fields, and are merely teaching the accepted theories that are being taught at campuses all over the country. This is not to say that there isn't some really progressive thinking and writing being done around the country, but it is by a very few exceptionally talented minds. Their ideas, if validated, will be the next generation of what the average college professor will be teaching his students.

But the point I was trying to make was in response to the idea that right wing ideas might someday become fashionable on college campuses to which I say it will never be, at least not naturally. Unlike in Congress or other political spheres, there isn't really an academic "pendulum" that swings to and fro over time. Academia is always progressive, sometimes slower and sometimes faster, but always ahead of the curve of the general population, be it in science or social theory. Conservatism by definition is the opposite of progressivism. This is not to say that there aren't new ideas that many would consider conservative, especially in economics, political science, and even history. But it will never be "in vogue" because knowledge is driven by radicalism. Most radical ideas are shot down in one way or another by the more consevative of peers (who would probably still be liberal by general standards), but those ideas that pass academic scrutiny end up changing paradigms for those in their field, and often beyond.

"No one ever built a statue to a conservative". It may not be 100% true, but the point is that it is the new and radical ideas that change the world, not the safe ones.

I don't get how his opinion is unsubstantiated if that's his personal experience.

It was a blanket statement that lacked any actual evidence, and there are no absolutes.

Students aren't the ones with this problem persae, the entire nation has this problem.

When the news agencies of this country do nothing but NOT report information objectively, and instead fight and argue and name call and get over excited and over analytical about everything including but not limited to what f*cking shoes Paris Hilton is wearing today, it is no wonder that everyone finds it easier to fall into an apathetic lemming state, focusing only on themselves and their immediate surroundings, doing nothing but over consuming comfort-food, comfort-electronics, comfort-cars, etc.

The only information we have coming out of the five major companies owning 90% of all broadcast and paper news media, (in my humble opinion, and I could be totally wrong....) are certain portions of The Wall Street Journal, certain PBS reports via Frontline and Nova, and BBC "America".

All too few and far between for my taste.

Teachers and Professors are paid to teach - they convey information. If they believe that the best way to convey some set of information is to put some sort of angle on it, then its their call, as long as some portion of the FACTUAL data exists - Its up to each of us to learn the meaning of OBJECTIVITY, to teach our children what it means, to be able to differenciate between fact and fiction, to sift through the "spin" and the "emotion" and the "hyperbolie", etc. and get to the root cause or root information for any given subject.

If people are concerned about what is being taught in school, they should sit down with their children and discuss what material they are covering. If people are concerned on a college level what is being taught, aren't they a bit late with their concern? And assuming that is a weak question, how about: discuss it in a forum specific to the school with the appropriate officials, 1:1, rather than suddenly announcing there is a need for some sort of "action" on someone's part across the board - I'm pretty sure that is censorship and is unconstitutional anyway.

Labels on CD-s and Books as to explicit content, limitations on what kids can check out from the library relative to video and dvd, and now we need limits on what colleges are allowed to teach?

Socialism anyone? or is it Communism? or Facism? WTF.
It's not Democracy, that's for sure.

I would asert that the same type of people who are being critical of professors in the news this week are those same tyhpe of people who actually believe that dinosaurs never existed, men never landed on the moon, JFK was shot by only one guy with one bullet, and that "Area 51" contains alien life forms.

I'm sick of extremest in all their forms running amok screaming that the f*ing sky is falling, and everyone jumping into a parade formation behind them arguing all the way, until they all fly over the cliff together and take the rest of us down with them.

What bullshit agenda is being pushed this week with the attack on professors, and from what OTHER issue are they looking to distract our attention, is my question.

c-

sorry, but I see it as an anecdotal relaying of his personal experience, in which case, he can be absolute up to the point in time when he made his statement.

I've come to the (tentative) conclusion that the leading edge of ideas almost comes from the school of thought which challenges the status quo.

Who that happens to be will depend on what the status quo is.

Generally, conservatism, which by definition defends the status quo will not usually innovate, because innovation is not its call for existence. Liberalism on the other hand, is constantly in the position which challenges the status quo.

At the same time, I can't see why a situation can't come up where liberalism is the norm, and conservatism is more cutting edge (in a less is more kind of way).

Apologies for the vagueness... I haven't had coffee yet.