How come right wing people don't have their own Harvards?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, you're not going to convince me right-wing politicians are in favor of open and tolerant intellectual inquiry.

Ironic, isn't it. Pot/kettle...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, you're not going to convince me right-wing politicians are in favor of open and tolerant intellectual inquiry.

Ironic, isn't it. Pot/kettle...

?

Give me examples of right-wing politicians welcoming open and vigorous intellectual inquiry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, you're not going to convince me right-wing politicians are in favor of open and tolerant intellectual inquiry.

Ironic, isn't it. Pot/kettle...

?

Give me examples of right-wing politicians welcoming open and vigorous intellectual inquiry.

I would point to conservative thinkers like Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, Majid Nawaaz, the Weinstein brothers, Ben Shapiro, etc. who often debate intellectuals and activists with beliefs that are diametrically opposed to their own. There is a long tradition of this open dialog amongst conservatives.....Dawkins, Hitchens, Buckley, etc. As I sit here I can't think of any intellectuals that are comparable on the left, can you? And whilst you're at it, can you think of any incidents where conservatives have barred liberals from speaking in an open forum?

[Anonymous]

I'd bet 50-70% of Dartmouth and Penn are republicans. My daughter said "everyone" in Wharton is a right winger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd bet 50-70% of Dartmouth and Penn are republicans. My daughter said "everyone" in Wharton is a right winger.

Biased. Business men tend to lean right

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, you're not going to convince me right-wing politicians are in favor of open and tolerant intellectual inquiry.

Ironic, isn't it. Pot/kettle...

?

Give me examples of right-wing politicians welcoming open and vigorous intellectual inquiry.

I would point to conservative thinkers like Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, Majid Nawaaz, the Weinstein brothers, Ben Shapiro, etc. who often debate intellectuals and activists with beliefs that are diametrically opposed to their own. There is a long tradition of this open dialog amongst conservatives.....Dawkins, Hitchens, Buckley, etc. As I sit here I can't think of any intellectuals that are comparable on the left, can you? And whilst you're at it, can you think of any incidents where conservatives have barred liberals from speaking in an open forum?

Can you substantiate that any of those people consider themselves part of the "right wing" as it's currently conceived in the US? Do they support Trump?

Again, there's a huge difference between conservative and right wing. My guess is Hitchens, for example, would despise Trump, not least because of his strident atheism. I'm NOT arguing conservatism has no place in universities; I'm arguing right wing politics (Trump and his supporters) is incompatible with elite university culture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, you're not going to convince me right-wing politicians are in favor of open and tolerant intellectual inquiry.

Ironic, isn't it. Pot/kettle...

?

Give me examples of right-wing politicians welcoming open and vigorous intellectual inquiry.

I would point to conservative thinkers like Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, Majid Nawaaz, the Weinstein brothers, Ben Shapiro, etc. who often debate intellectuals and activists with beliefs that are diametrically opposed to their own. There is a long tradition of this open dialog amongst conservatives.....Dawkins, Hitchens, Buckley, etc. As I sit here I can't think of any intellectuals that are comparable on the left, can you? And whilst you're at it, can you think of any incidents where conservatives have barred liberals from speaking in an open forum?

Neither Harris, Nawaz, Dawkins, or Hitchens are conservatives, especially in the American sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, you're not going to convince me right-wing politicians are in favor of open and tolerant intellectual inquiry.

Ironic, isn't it. Pot/kettle...

?

Give me examples of right-wing politicians welcoming open and vigorous intellectual inquiry.

I would point to conservative thinkers like Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, Majid Nawaaz, the Weinstein brothers, Ben Shapiro, etc. who often debate intellectuals and activists with beliefs that are diametrically opposed to their own. There is a long tradition of this open dialog amongst conservatives.....Dawkins, Hitchens, Buckley, etc. As I sit here I can't think of any intellectuals that are comparable on the left, can you? And whilst you're at it, can you think of any incidents where conservatives have barred liberals from speaking in an open forum?

Neither Harris, Nawaz, Dawkins, or Hitchens are conservatives, especially in the American sense.

Yeah, it's hilarious that PP claims Hitchens was part of the right wing. He was a self-described socialist and Marxist for pete's sake!

[Anonymous]

My class at wharton was entirely republican. Maybe not trumpian, but certainly right of center. Penn itself seemed pretty conservative also.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My class at wharton was entirely republican. Maybe not trumpian, but certainly right of center. Penn itself seemed pretty conservative also.

Can we PLEASE try to agree that conservative and even Republican does NOT mean Trumpian? OP is asking about "right wing" politics, which is NOT at all equivalent to conservatism or much of the Republican party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally hilarious when people think schools like Stanford, Duke, UChicago, etc. are rooted in right-wing politics...

Use this website to look up various schools: https://www.crowdpac.com/games/lookup/universities?name=Stanford%20University The ranking goes from 10L to 10C with 10L being exclusively liberal professors and vice versa. Stanford is ranked a 7.6L- as in highly liberal. It may be 234/446 out of the schools analyzed, but that's just testament to the reality that most colleges and universities are heavily liberal.

uhh hoover institution is at stanford. it's the most high profile conservative university affiliated think tank.

stanford is very conservative/liberterian.

You really need to take a class or read a book about political ideologies and the difference between contemporary "right-wing" politics--Trump, the Tea Party, etc.--and conservatism. They are very different.

The Hoover Institution is actually a good example. They support Trump's deregulation and tax cuts because those are classically fiscally conservative moves; they hate the tariffs because they are diametrically opposed to free trade. The guys at Hoover are conservatives; they aren't "right wing" in the sense OP is talking about.

https://www.hoover.org/research/donald-trumps-trade-travesty

Oh and libertarians despite much of what Trump is doing because it involves increasing the size and authority of the federal government.

They support the tax cuts even with its impact on the deficit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oxford/Cambridge. They don't believe in AA.

And Oxbridge > HPY, Stanford.

Actually, Harvard has taken over in terms of reputation. In the last 15 years, those schools (Oxbridge) have lost a ton of money in terms of endowment. Also, no longer the desirable schools for world leaders.

Isn’t, literally, Malala at Oxford

Oxbridge have something which no Harvard can give. Oxbridge students acquire their British accent from Day 1. Harvard women of the flock to Oxbridge grads the way the Markles of the world flock to Prince Harry. The same way flies flock to cow dung.

Harvard and Oxbridge. No comparison.

Was your misogyny learned from your parents or from the f*ckwads at Liberty U?

Truth bombs sting, don't they?

I'll let you know when we hear one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally hilarious when people think schools like Stanford, Duke, UChicago, etc. are rooted in right-wing politics...

Use this website to look up various schools: https://www.crowdpac.com/games/lookup/universities?name=Stanford%20University The ranking goes from 10L to 10C with 10L being exclusively liberal professors and vice versa. Stanford is ranked a 7.6L- as in highly liberal. It may be 234/446 out of the schools analyzed, but that's just testament to the reality that most colleges and universities are heavily liberal.

uhh hoover institution is at stanford. it's the most high profile conservative university affiliated think tank.

stanford is very conservative/liberterian.

You really need to take a class or read a book about political ideologies and the difference between contemporary "right-wing" politics--Trump, the Tea Party, etc.--and conservatism. They are very different.

The Hoover Institution is actually a good example. They support Trump's deregulation and tax cuts because those are classically fiscally conservative moves; they hate the tariffs because they are diametrically opposed to free trade. The guys at Hoover are conservatives; they aren't "right wing" in the sense OP is talking about.

https://www.hoover.org/research/donald-trumps-trade-travesty

Oh and libertarians despite much of what Trump is doing because it involves increasing the size and authority of the federal government.

They support the tax cuts even with its impact on the deficit?

They likely would tell you the right thing to do is to offset tax cuts by reducing government spending through cutting the size of the federal government. Generally they want less government involvement in everyday life (and certainly in the economy), and cutting taxes and minimizing the size of the government are two big ways of doing that, in their view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here the reason I ask is that the right seems to be fixated on admissions to schools like HYP and affirmative action. Why do they even want to be there? Why not just have right wing school with stellar academics, envy of everyone, plus no affirmative action? My theory is that they are simply incapable of duplicating the same caliber of school. They are loud, but not very patient or hard working.

As it's already been pointed out, academics with no real-life experience tend to gravitate to political liberals. It has more to do with the type of people who gravitate to the life of the university - and nothing to do with the silly idea that political conservatives have no financial means of supporting a university.

Do you have experience at elite universities? You couldn't be more wrong.

Also, PP wasn't saying conservatives don't have the financial means to support a university; the issue is that right-wing politics (contemporarily conceived -- not right wing in the traditional sense, such as fiscal conservatism) are essentially incompatible with the culture of intellectual inquiry elite universities try to cultivate.

Not sure of your point. Conservatism is incompatible with the intellectual inquiry? Generally the conservatives are the ones trying to carry on the Western culture which gave rise to the culture of intellectual inquiry you are speaking of.

You aren't understanding the point.

In contemporary US political parlance, "trying to carry on Western culture" means espousing a version of nationalism that rejects the introduction of other cultural influences (anything that isn't steeped in Christianity and those with Western European backgrounds). It has nothing to do with supporting Enlightenment thinking, which I think is what you're implying when you say "Western culture which gave rise to the culture of intellectual inquiry." People who reject the existence of climate change and want to defund the NIH cannot possibly be said to be carrying on the Western tradition of science-based rational thinking, ala Francis Bacon.

By "Western culture" I am referring to the amalgam of hellenistic Greek, the Romans, and the principles of judeochristianity that's been passed down to the present. This is the bedrock of the Western culture. The world has the right to change its face - and no thinking conservatives are denying this. Certain postmodernist thinkers like the Frankfurt school thinkers, Derrida, Foucault focus on certain paradoxes to the science-based Enlightenment thinking that was raised as early as Berkeley, Hume, and Kant to point out what has gone on prior in history is totally compatible with any number of ways of continuing - that there is no special need to continue the Western culture as we know it, that non-Western ways of life are just as valid as the western ones. Again, I don't know any conservative who denies change - or the need to change- and will freely acknowledge that the world has the right to change its face. What conservatives, going back to Edumund Burke, are saying is that the wholesale cultural change need not happen in next month, next week, or tomorrow because there is a certain structure to changes to avoid the chaos that we saw in the French revolution.

Not steep in the politicizing of the climate change and NIH debates. However, I recall the Y2K problem which turned out to be a huge nothing. People who raise these issues are are not necessarily science-based rational thinkers. It was a huge business for the industry that was getting millions, possibly billions, of dollars to "fix" the problem that didn't exist. You can't rule out the business interest in generating the climate change hysteria.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here the reason I ask is that the right seems to be fixated on admissions to schools like HYP and affirmative action. Why do they even want to be there? Why not just have right wing school with stellar academics, envy of everyone, plus no affirmative action? My theory is that they are simply incapable of duplicating the same caliber of school. They are loud, but not very patient or hard working.

As it's already been pointed out, academics with no real-life experience tend to gravitate to political liberals. It has more to do with the type of people who gravitate to the life of the university - and nothing to do with the silly idea that political conservatives have no financial means of supporting a university.

Do you have experience at elite universities? You couldn't be more wrong.

Also, PP wasn't saying conservatives don't have the financial means to support a university; the issue is that right-wing politics (contemporarily conceived -- not right wing in the traditional sense, such as fiscal conservatism) are essentially incompatible with the culture of intellectual inquiry elite universities try to cultivate.

Not sure of your point. Conservatism is incompatible with the intellectual inquiry? Generally the conservatives are the ones trying to carry on the Western culture which gave rise to the culture of intellectual inquiry you are speaking of.

You aren't understanding the point.

In contemporary US political parlance, "trying to carry on Western culture" means espousing a version of nationalism that rejects the introduction of other cultural influences (anything that isn't steeped in Christianity and those with Western European backgrounds). It has nothing to do with supporting Enlightenment thinking, which I think is what you're implying when you say "Western culture which gave rise to the culture of intellectual inquiry." People who reject the existence of climate change and want to defund the NIH cannot possibly be said to be carrying on the Western tradition of science-based rational thinking, ala Francis Bacon.

By "Western culture" I am referring to the amalgam of hellenistic Greek, the Romans, and the principles of judeochristianity that's been passed down to the present. This is the bedrock of the Western culture. The world has the right to change its face - and no thinking conservatives are denying this. Certain postmodernist thinkers like the Frankfurt school thinkers, Derrida, Foucault focus on certain paradoxes to the science-based Enlightenment thinking that was raised as early as Berkeley, Hume, and Kant to point out what has gone on prior in history is totally compatible with any number of ways of continuing - that there is no special need to continue the Western culture as we know it, that non-Western ways of life are just as valid as the western ones. Again, I don't know any conservative who denies change - or the need to change- and will freely acknowledge that the world has the right to change its face. What conservatives, going back to Edumund Burke, are saying is that the wholesale cultural change need not happen in next month, next week, or tomorrow because there is a certain structure to changes to avoid the chaos that we saw in the French revolution.

Not steep in the politicizing of the climate change and NIH debates. However, I recall the Y2K problem which turned out to be a huge nothing. People who raise these issues are are not necessarily science-based rational thinkers. It was a huge business for the industry that was getting millions, possibly billions, of dollars to "fix" the problem that didn't exist. You can't rule out the business interest in generating the climate change hysteria.

While we all appreciate your little treatise on the origins of Western rational thought, it's irrelevant to OP's question.

Once again: OP--and I--are discussing RIGHT WING POLITICS (NOT conservatism). I'm sure you recognize the difference between those two movements. So you can talk about traditional conservative thinkers all you want, but they are not the subjects of this conversation.