Rod-
Interesting. You post a link to highlight the plight of the conservative academic. When I question the validity of the information posted on Freburg's (or Feberg's - she doesn't seem to be sure how to spell her own name) site you offer no sources to support her contention but blandly contend that we should take her at her word. Let's look again at the part of the claim that I question: In the State of California which overwhelmingly eleceted & re-elected Ronald Reagan as Governor & President Freburg/Freberg states that textbooks in 1996 presented a picture of him in which, "the only thing worth noting about Ronald Reagan is that his father was an alcoholic." Surely, if true, this would be strong evidence of an anti-left bias on the part of state educators. However, when called to support this claim neither you nor Freburg/Freberg can offer a single source. So, let's do a little exercise in critical thinking: 1. Does this claim appear to be to be credible on the surface? 2. What evidence is there to support this claim? 3. Does the person making this claim appear to be unbiased? 4. Is there evidence that contradicts this claim? 5. Is there an alternative explanation for the evidence supporting this claim? I would suggest that the correct answers are: 1. No. 2. None provided. 3. No. 4. Yes. 5. Yes. I would therefore suggest that the Freburg/Freberg web site is just another unsubstantiated rant. I certainly wouldn't accept such a "source" from my students & I hope that you wouldn't either. If you, or any other Tipsters, have serious evidence of an organized conspiracy against Conservative/Christian types then I'd really like to see it. In the meantime I'll continue to assume that the academic community is more interested in the merits of an argument than in the political/religious affiliations of the arguer. -Don. On Mon, 29 Oct 2001, Rod Hetzel wrote: > Hi Don: > > I don't have access to the texts that are used in California, so I'm > accepting the authors comments at face value and taking it on faith > (hmmm, perhaps I should use another word) that her critique is accurate! > :) > > I really wasn't meaning to address the issue of how psychology is taught > in the classroom, the role of scientific inquiry, the validity of > competing worldviews or educational models, or how many TIPsters can > dance on the end of a pin or dance on the top of my head for that > matter! I was just sharing some of my own experiences about the work > environment in higher education and how academics sometimes get > along--or don't get along--with each other. > > Anyone know of any research looking at bias, prejudice, or > discrimination among academic psychologists based on political or > religious beliefs? I'm neither a social nor I/O psychologist and don't > even know if this has been studied. I would be interested to know, > however. > > Rod > > > > > > Rod & Others, > > I've tried to stay out of this one but I finally feel compelled to > respond. I think you may be confusing an atmosphere of open academic > enquiry (where students are challenged to explore ALL of their beliefs) > with selective derision of a particular world view. I encourage my > students to think long and hard about whether the data support (or > refute) their models of behaviour. I would challenge a fundamentalist > Christian student who rejected evolutionary explanations of behaviour > and I would challenge a "new age" student who felt that crystals could > channel "positive energy". Most importantly, I challenge my students > (and myself) to question all of the things that I teach them as "facts". > The risk of this approach is that students may feel that their > particular belief is being picked on. (Not so, I am an equal > opportunity challanger). However, I feel that the alternative is far > worse for it creates an environment that is counter to the basic > foundations of academia. I would not want to work in an environment > where I could only challenge some beliefs and not others. > > Re your "interesting" article by Laura Freburg. This article seems > "interesting" as an illustration of paranoid ideation. However, since > even paranoids can have real enemies I would like to put one of her > statements to a test. She states: "The history book currently in use > for middle school students in California concludes that Attila the Hun > was "tolerant" of other people's religions. If you think tolerant Huns > are a novel concept, read your senior high schooler's American history > text. There you will learn that Jimmy Carter was the great > "Environmental President," but the only thing worth noting about Ronald > Reagan is that his father was an alcoholic." > > Since I don't have access to these texts could you, or any other > Tipster, please provide us with the actual passages that relate to > Reagan. I am willing to bet big money that the text says a bit more > than "The only thing worth noting about Ronald Reagan is that his father > was an alcoholic." > > Looking forward to your response, > > -Don. > > Rod Hetzel wrote: > > > >In the article, "Confessions of a lonely atheist" (NYT, Jan 14, > > >2001), she makes this point, among other things citing the biologist > > >Richard Dawkins who said "If I say something offensive to religious > > >people, I'll be universally censured, including by many atheists. But > > > >if I say something insulting about Democrats or Republicans or the > > >Green Party, one is allowed to get away with that. Hiding behind the > > >smoke screen of untouchability is something religions have been > > >allowed to get away with for too long". > > > > My experience has been that it is *not* off-limits at all for academic > > > psychologists to make disparaging comments about religious people or > > those with conservative political beliefs. > > > > My experience as a doctoral student was that those students who > > professed conservative Jewish or Christian beliefs were more likely to > > > be talked about with condescension. Those students who professed > > beliefs more in line with New-Age spirituality were often seen as > > enlightened. I'll never forget one of my fellow students in my > > doctoral program who believed in reincarnation and the idea that we > > progressed from lower life forms to higher life forms. Specifically, > > she believed that in our first lives, we were all cats. She believed > > we came back in our second lives as dogs (granted, she was right in > > that dogs are a higher life form than cats...smile). Finally, she > > believed that in our third and final life we came back as humans. She > > > believed that when we died as humans we then just became part of the > > cosmic energy of the universe. It was really very funny--to the point > > > of being ridiculous--how people responded to her religious beliefs > > versus how they responded to more traditional Jewish and Christian > > beliefs. > > > > Several years later, I was teaching at a private, four-year university > > > (with no religious affiliation) during the Clinton impeachment > > hearings and then later during the Bush-Gore election controversy. It > > > was popular for many of my Democrat colleagues during this time to > > express considerable disdain against Republicans. My one Republican > > colleague, whom I had known from a different setting, told me that he > > had made a conscious decision to not discuss his political beliefs > > with anyone at the university. He stated that he was afraid of the > > discrimination he would face if others knew of his political beliefs. > > > I thought he was just being a bit melodramatic, if not paranoid, until > > > I came across an interesting published perspective on the bias in > > academia against those who hold conservative political beliefs. This > > article made me think a bit more seriously about bias in the academcy. > > > Check out the article entitled "Confessions of a Republican Academic" > > by Laura Freburg. Here is the link: > > > > http://www.frontpagemag.com/archives/academia/gopacad.htm > > > > It's a very interesting article. > > > > Controversially yours, > > > > Rod > > ______________________________________________ > > Roderick D. Hetzel, Ph.D. > > Department of Psychology > > LeTourneau University > > Post Office Box 7001 > > 2100 South Mobberly Avenue > > Longview, Texas 75607-7001 > > > > Office: Heath-Hardwick Hall 115 > > Phone: 903-233-3312 > > Fax: 903-233-3246 > > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Homepage: http://www.letu.edu/people/rodhetzel > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To > > unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To > > unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ******************************************************************** Don Allen email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dept. of Psychology voice: (604)-323-5871 Langara College fax: (604)-323-5555 100 W. 49th Ave. Vancouver, B.C. Canada, V5Y 2Z6 ******************************************************************** --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
