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

[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?

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.

I've never claimed that any of these people are right-wing....I don't think that term is relevant to a discussion of intellectual exploration on college campuses. And I'm quite sure that most all of the individuals mentioned despise Trump....again, not clear how that is relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

I've never claimed that any of these people are right-wing....I don't think that term is relevant to a discussion of intellectual exploration on college campuses. And I'm quite sure that most all of the individuals mentioned despise Trump....again, not clear how that is relevant.

Do you understand what this conversation is about? OP asked why right-wing people don't have an elite university that supports their viewpoint. Several posters and I argued this is because right-wing politics in the US right now are not compatible with open and vigorous intellectual debate and inquiry.

That's why it's relevant whether these people you bring up are right wing and support Trump. This is not just a general conversation about intellectual exploration on college campuses; it's about why a specific political movement in America does not have support at elite universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not surprised by your totally dismissive tone. If you had anything of substance to say, you would have said it.

How is it that colleges and universities that are supposed to be in the business of educating the people be so consistently to the political left? There is an enormous social cost to being a political conservative in this country, especially in colleges and universities. Are the colleges and the universities in the business of politics? I can see some vocal political types in the political science/government departments. But what can explain the fact that colleges and universities are generally the left? If we go back to the Y2K, we know that was a total bogus issue that brought millions/billions of dollars to the people in the right place at the time. Do you seriously think college professors who question the climate change, in the process defunding the climate change "research," can survive in research institutions that depend on millions/billions of dollars in research grants?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1

Anonymous wrote:Do you understand what this conversation is about? OP asked why right-wing people don't have an elite university that supports their viewpoint. Several posters and I argued this is because right-wing politics in the US right now are not compatible with open and vigorous intellectual debate and inquiry.

That's why it's relevant whether these people you bring up are right wing and support Trump. This is not just a general conversation about intellectual exploration on college campuses; it's about why a specific political movement in America does not have support at elite universities.

It depends on how "right wing" is being used in this conversation. If "right wing" is defined as some small, extreme subset that doesn't include most conservatives and/or Republicans, then it should be obvious why there is no "right wing" elite university.

[Anonymous]

Because they're too stupid OP and don't believe in education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1

Anonymous wrote:Do you understand what this conversation is about? OP asked why right-wing people don't have an elite university that supports their viewpoint. Several posters and I argued this is because right-wing politics in the US right now are not compatible with open and vigorous intellectual debate and inquiry.

That's why it's relevant whether these people you bring up are right wing and support Trump. This is not just a general conversation about intellectual exploration on college campuses; it's about why a specific political movement in America does not have support at elite universities.

It depends on how "right wing" is being used in this conversation. If "right wing" is defined as some small, extreme subset that doesn't include most conservatives and/or Republicans, then it should be obvious why there is no "right wing" elite university.

+1. OP has never defined "right wing" despite using the term dozens of times in this thread. Apparently, to the OP "right wing" excludes conservatives and Republicans. So who exactly is left on the "right" if you exclude conservatives and Republicans ? And why would you expect that tiny remaining slice of the population -- as defined by OP -- to have their own elite colleges ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because they're too stupid OP and don't believe in education.

Because they like to hoard all of their money and to continue to milk others & profit off others? Where would creating a university and supporting it financially fit in with that?
Trump has never parted with much of his fortune at all. Instead he created pseudo universities that financially benefit him and offer no marketable skills.

[Anonymous]

Trump University

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

I've never claimed that any of these people are right-wing....I don't think that term is relevant to a discussion of intellectual exploration on college campuses. And I'm quite sure that most all of the individuals mentioned despise Trump....again, not clear how that is relevant.

Do you understand what this conversation is about? OP asked why right-wing people don't have an elite university that supports their viewpoint. Several posters and I argued this is because right-wing politics in the US right now are not compatible with open and vigorous intellectual debate and inquiry.

That's why it's relevant whether these people you bring up are right wing and support Trump. This is not just a general conversation about intellectual exploration on college campuses; it's about why a specific political movement in America does not have support at elite universities.

Firstly. you come across as a douche. Secondly. the OP is an obvious imbecile posting an absurdist question that merits no answer. Thirdly, you too are an imbecile because you're hewing to the OP's idiotic question. Fourthly, you're a pedantic bore. Fifthly, I don't care what your inconsequential point is, I'll make whatever point I care to make. Sixthly, you're very good at stating the patently obvious.....of course right wing (and I think that term is misleading) students will be chased off campus by masked antifa thugs so yes, they have no standing on campus in today's intolerant, leftist-driven academic environs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

I've never claimed that any of these people are right-wing....I don't think that term is relevant to a discussion of intellectual exploration on college campuses. And I'm quite sure that most all of the individuals mentioned despise Trump....again, not clear how that is relevant.

Do you understand what this conversation is about? OP asked why right-wing people don't have an elite university that supports their viewpoint. Several posters and I argued this is because right-wing politics in the US right now are not compatible with open and vigorous intellectual debate and inquiry.

That's why it's relevant whether these people you bring up are right wing and support Trump. This is not just a general conversation about intellectual exploration on college campuses; it's about why a specific political movement in America does not have support at elite universities.

Firstly. you come across as a douche. Secondly. the OP is an obvious imbecile posting an absurdist question that merits no answer. Thirdly, you too are an imbecile because you're hewing to the OP's idiotic question. Fourthly, you're a pedantic bore. Fifthly, I don't care what your inconsequential point is, I'll make whatever point I care to make. Sixthly, you're very good at stating the patently obvious.....of course right wing (and I think that term is misleading) students will be chased off campus by masked antifa thugs so yes, they have no standing on campus in today's intolerant, leftist-driven academic environs.

RWNJs are so whiny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conservatives study science, technology, engineering, medicine, etc. That's why we make all the money. We don't need your kind of schools, thank you.

Then why do conservatives eschew climate change, science and evolution?

I believe in climate change. It's been going on for millions of years. I just don't believe I'm causing it.

It doesn't really matter what you believe though. Human impact on global climate is a scientific fact, like gravity. -NP

Nope. Human impact on global climate change is a theory. A strongly supported theory, but a theory, nonetheless.

From the IPCC report for Policymakers (emphasis added):

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven
largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in
at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers,
have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been
the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {1.2, 1.3.1}

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

[Anonymous]

OK, let's call it Trump University.
I know that there are enough right wing economists, mathematicians, chemists, writers, and so on, all with advanced degrees to set up a right wing school. But they won't.
However, they attack and criticize academia as liberal lefties. Now they attack their admissions criteria and hiring of professorial staff. No one is saying that the right can't have their own admissions and hiring criteria. Heck, even do a personality test.
Why can't they put such a school together instead of lambasting the schools that exist and are "too liberal".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conservatives study science, technology, engineering, medicine, etc. That's why we make all the money. We don't need your kind of schools, thank you.

Then why do conservatives eschew climate change, science and evolution?

I believe in climate change. It's been going on for millions of years. I just don't believe I'm causing it.

It doesn't really matter what you believe though. Human impact on global climate is a scientific fact, like gravity. -NP

Nope. Human impact on global climate change is a theory. A strongly supported theory, but a theory, nonetheless.

From the IPCC report for Policymakers (emphasis added):

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven
largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in
at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers,
have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been
the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {1.2, 1.3.1}

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

This should be relatively easy to verify. Global warm scientists should be able to provide before and after temperature data from the mid-20th century to show the rise in temperature. If the temperature has been rising long before the mid-20th century, long before the carbon dioxide concentration, then we may know the temperature rise is due to factors other than anthropogenic drivers.

Global warm scientists are asking for millions - billions - of dollars for research. Let them provide the data. The Y2K fear cost more than 300 BILLION dollars worldwide. Turned out to be totally bogus. The fear created more than 300 billion dollar windfall to the whiners and fear mongers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, let's call it Trump University.
I know that there are enough right wing economists, mathematicians, chemists, writers, and so on, all with advanced degrees to set up a right wing school. But they won't.
However, they attack and criticize academia as liberal lefties. Now they attack their admissions criteria and hiring of professorial staff. No one is saying that the right can't have their own admissions and hiring criteria. Heck, even do a personality test.
Why can't they put such a school together instead of lambasting the schools that exist and are "too liberal".

Because they hoard resources. It’s ‘every man for himself’.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump University

I'd add to that: Liberty University, Oral Roberts University, and Bob Jones University. Degrees from these places aren't particularly well-regarded, but probably 75+% of the student body voted for Trump. Wheaton College, Loma Linda University, and BYU are also known for their conservative students and faculty, although I'm not sure most BYU students or faculty support Trump.