The Academic Bill of Rights

In Canada there are more female law students and med students. If you want to use stats and quotas, fine: Every faculty from here on in must have a 50/50 ratio of leftist to conservative. Every discipline must have a 50/50 ratio of men to women. That means, in Canada anyhow, all law and med schools must accept more men. Here and in your country, that means so must nursing programs and social work programs and ed programs. In fact, university entrance everywhere needs more men to create a 50/50 ratio. (I think the discrimination against males begins in grade schools, where the female teachers favour girls and misunderstand boys. This carries over, adversely affecting boys and education until we see higher drop out rates for boys than girls in high school, and now more girls than boys entering university. Yup, stats prove this, and only quotas will solve it, unlike, for example, changing teaching methods, incorporating the results of studies that are determining why boys do more poorly than girls, and so on.)All ethnic groups must be accepted into university in proportion to their population. I'd suggest that even those who are half of whatever should constitute their own group, their proportion to population be assessed (preferably by an interest group of their own, motivated to skew stats and invent stories of obstruction). Yes, we'll have all sorts of groups at each other's throats fighting for their quota, but nothing that more subdivision of quotas can't solve. After all, once we've accepted that statistical inequality proves inequality, we must do something about it.Or, maybe, afterall, equal opportunity is a whole lot easier to create, despite any subjective doubts as to precise justice.

I think my response may come across as sarcasm aimed at you. It wasn't meant. Rather it was meant to be somewhat sarcastic with respect to the notion of quotas to redress statistically measured inequality. All sorts of variables come into play, most not considered. Each group claims stats prove them to be wronged. Certainly, as i wrote, there is no reason men can't come up with arguments that stats prove they're coming up on the short end in education these days. The question becomes: Should those stats be the basis of some sort of affirmative action? I say that if such is a valid argument for women (especially minority women) or Blacks, or whomever, then such is a valid argument for men (especially minority Black men). But, in fact, such is not a valid argument, not for women, men or minorities - even if, once, there was some validity to it, following eras of objective, regulatory, legislated discrimination.It's a mug's game to determine objective truth. Worse, attempts to redress statistical inequality inevitably means not only quotas (carried out through euphemistically named programs, like affirmative action), but reverse justice. It is unfair that my sons need higher marks than my daughters to get into various programs. My daughters have had every encouragement that my sons have had. Their mom is a lawyer. They do not need, nor deserve any advantage over their brothers. In fact, given that one of their brothers has ADHD, maybe he should be given sone advantage to ameliorate his lower marks that resulted. Or my other son needs an advantage, not because he has ADHD - he hasn't - but because he is the classic case of a boy being bored to death sitting at his desk all day long when he craves much more experiential learning (than girls seem to need). These arguments, in the vein of those used by other groups, are valid once one accepts that principle. But I do not. Universities should accept the best students as proved by the most objective measures they can come up with. If my son with ADHD is disadvantaged, so be it. It is up to him and his parents to help him overcome that illness with respect to academic performance. If my other son gets poorer marks than his sisters, despite having a genius IQ - and he does - and if that is because he is so bored by classrooms that he fails to pay attention, and would rather play hockey or paintball than do homework, then so be it. That is an issue that he and, maybe, his parents need to work through. Maybe schools also need to address that problem, so that their boys are no less successful at qualifying for university acceptance than their girls. But, again, that is not universities' concern. Theirs is to accept the best students through the best objective measures they have, however the stats turn out.Each of us is, as an individual in a liberal democratic society, responsible for his success or failure. That is so despite that there might be mitigating personal and social factors, like coming from a broken home, being fatherless, having a learning disability, etc. But universities, employers, and whomever else should not be burdened. They shoul, maintain their objective standards, applied on an equal basis.If women insist that there is a glass ceiling (and I doubt it) then they should not look to legislation, aside from principles of equality. Instead, they should establish their own businesses, and let men complain if women rise more than men within those companies.If women insist that universities make it easier for men to climb (and I doubt it), then let them establish new universities, or get on the boards of existing ones. But they must not create quotas or differing standards of judgment for themselves as opposed to men. Statistical inequality be damned.The foregoing is the best we can do is to ensure equal opportunity. Conservatives believe, generally, in such reasoning. That is why, when confronted with an overwhelming statistical bias of leftist profs to conservative, their answer is not a demand for quotas or other such affirmative action prgrams. The ABOR, as an example, assiduously avoids quotas as a solution to anything, favouring, instead, principles of equality.

There was a time when there was deep, instutionalized injustice. It was in segregation laws, Jim Crowe, and went to the heart of American society. It created a huge imbalance of opportunity, one that could rightfully and objectively be seen. To redress all that historical and pervasive wrong, affirmative action made sense. But a society cannot maintain affirmative action forever, as, by definition, it favours one group over others...and it generalized to women and virtually all groups excluding white men.It is now 50 years since the civil rights movement. Affirmative action has now, itself, become institutionalized, and has institutionalized injustice against all those whom it does not target for help - mainly white men. No longer does it ensure equal opportunity, but an advantage to its target groups. Societies based on porinciples of fairness and equality cannot sustain new forms of injustice. In so doing, they sap liberal democracy of its foundational principles.

As, it would appear, you are a hostile and antagonistic, I see no reason to respond any further to you.

The meaning of left, liberal, right and conservative have changed over the years. Today's left believes not only in socialist economics, but socialist social measures too, like affirmative action, greater government regulation, and so on. They also tend to see American military force as motivated by selfish purpose (like oil in Iraq), rather than as the world's primary defender of democracy and freedom. Thus I call all that movement left. Classical liberalism is represented today by those we call conservative, who have nothing to do with teh right wing of yesteryear.

In some ways, I agree. But today's conservatism is still closer to classical liberalism than is today's liberalism - which is why I call the left the left, and not liberals.

On the whole, the Republicans are for less, much less, government than the left, which would ever increase government programs, regulation, and social engineer. Consider how different the left of today is compared to the left of JFK's era. He'd be a Republican now, and a conservative one at that. Where would the left stop going further left? I don't know, but I suspect it's close to democratic Marxism, certainly socialism.As for your specific points:"So when the republicans are inside my friend's homosexual relationship"Being opposed to gay marriage is not the same thing as denying civil unions and all the rights that go with that. Yes, some Republicans oppose gay relationships, period. But they are, probably, in the minority of Republicans and, nonetheless, even the majority of that group does not suggest making homsexuality illegal again.You wrote: "So when the republicans are inside my wife's uterus."
I accept the reality of abortion, and that it isn't going away. But it is entirely a valid moral position to be against it. A living being, no matter how early its existence, is killed. And, as you know, so often it is killed when several months old, nearly able to survive on its own in todays medically advanced wards. In other words, protecting a baby over a mother's right to kill it is a legitimate moral position, whetehr you or I agree or disagree.You wrote: "So when the republicans are inside my my cable/satilite connection, my radio, my "news"
Unless there's something I do not understand, that seems silly. It's free market broadcasting. Conservative radio is simply the market rebelling against leftist bias in the MSM.Yoy wrote: "So when the republicans are inside my the majority of higher government..."
Are you objecting to democracy?And so on.
But you add, about Republican influence, "That's LESS government regulation? If that's less government regulation, I'd hate to see what your vision of this horrible liberal government is."The above has nothing to do with more government. And yet, I will agree that the republicans have got the deficity out of control, and have not done enough to lim it government. There's almost leftist lite, rather than real conservatives.You commneted: "If you voted for Bush (which, I assume you're from Canada so I don't know), you did not vote for a "classical liberalism represented today by those we call conservative."
True, as a Canadian I could not vote. And, as suggested above, it is true that today's Republicans are not nearly conservative enough. But they're still a whiole lot closer to classical liberalism (individual responsibility, emphasis on the individual and rights therein, rather than on the collective and its privileges, etc.)than is the left, which is moving farther and farther away from that.

That's an American issue I am unfamilair with. I suspect that since men's sports draws ticket purchases more than women's sports, there's a market issue in play.But, regardless, affirmative action, at this point, is another form of big government, subjective, institutionalized bias. That is not to say that prejudice does not continue to exist, and probably always will. It is to say that the best way for a liberal democratic soxciety to deal with it is not through affirmative action, i.e., create other forms of prejudice and regulatory bias. That is inimical to the very foundational principles of liberal democracy, and undermines them. Rather, such matters need to be dealt with through, first and foremost, principles of equality, such as represented by the ABOR's means of dealing with leftist bias on campus. There are other ways, too, such as moral suasion, appeals to good will, political pressure (women are more than half the vote), money (alumni - male and female - can withhold donations, for one example), and so on.

I'm not saying that stats should always be rejected. But I am saying two things:1) They can be very misleading. As an example, i mentioned - and there are studies that make these points - women, far more than men, refuse to work overtime, leave for maternity, decline promotions because of the time demands they mean. All that, of course, is because women are, generally speaking, the primary caregivers of children - despite that fathers tend to be more involved these days. You can argue that that is ubnfair, that society creates this pressure on women. And, maybe, you'd be right (although i think natural predispositions are a bigger factor at this point). Regardless, it offers an explanation aside from ione of corporate bias, for why women are less likely to reach higher levels in corporations.However, to whatever degree stats do accurately reflect a bias against women - if at all - the question becomes: How do we deal with it?The truth is that society has already moved hugely to change that. As I mentioned earlier, more than half of university students today are women. That means that both families and society have encouraged women academically, and women are availing themselves of that opportunity. I nentioned that in Canada - and I woudl be surprised if the numbers aren't comparable in the US - more than half of Med and Law school students are female. That shows women will study whatever they have an interest in. (I don't believe for a moment that fewer women in engineering and hard sciences reflects anything other than natural disinterest relative to men.)Women represent just over half the vote. There is no obstacle to women entering politics. (I hope Rice becomes the next president.)If there truly is a glass ceiling, and i doubt it beyond minimally, nothing stops women from establishing their own enterprises - and more and more are.If we use stats as reasons to regulate, then, as I also said before, we eneter a mug's game, one where we institutionalize other biases, and one where, at this point in time, men can also claim prejudice against them.No society will ever eliminate all prejudice. That is, sadly, a part of human nature - although it probably derives from a survival factor in evolutionary times. What we can do is establish principles of equality, and legislate them only as such, like the American adn Canadian bills of rights. That means we can ensure that law does not discriminate, which, of course, was a major accomplishment of the civil rights era. To institutionalize and legalize other biases, we merely trade one injustice for another. In fact, we do worse than that, because we undermine the very basis of equality.

The deficit is dumb.The dept of Homeland Security is necessary, and was supported by many on the left, who would have accused Bush of doing nothing to stop islamist terror had he not established this dept.The republicans are practising social engineering? What do you mean?

This is no longer on topic. Please do not respond or thread will have to take a rest. ANWhen you suggest the Dept of Homeland Security is a waste, that, i believe, betrays you do not see terrroism as a significant threat.The MSM has, I believe, portrayed terrorism as the work of a few rogue groups, like al Qaeda. If one accepts that view, then one will not see a major threat. But it is entirely wrong. Al Qaeda is a window on a huge, worldwide, islamist movement. This is a movement that controls nation states (Iran, Sudan, formerly Afghanistan), is a powerful 5th column throughout the Arab world especially, but elsewhere in the islamic world. In fact, it was a hair breath's away from Pakistan's nuclear bomb. This movement believes that Allah has ordered muslims to conquer and subjugate and convert all the world. If you read the koran's War Verses, you will see why (frankly, it is shocking). This movement believes democracy is evil, because it is rule of people by people, instead of by Allah, who intends Sharia Law to be the law of all people. It is a facist movement, that glorifies in death for Allah. It is a movement that was on the march. Iran and Afghanistan and Sudan were only the beginning. It was about to take over many Arab nations and spread from there, pakistan being on the brink. It even threatens Turkey's democracy, the only true islamic democracy.It was, in effect, the early 1930's all over, when churchill's warnings thjat naziism was a looming epochal threat were ignored. Bush realized that islamism represnted, and still represents, exactly this. In some ways, they're even worse than the Nazis, because they are annihilists. A nuclear armegeddon would, in some perverse way, appeal to them.Gievn all this, we understand why Bush felt compelled to invade Iraq. It was not only about Hussein re-acquiring nuclear power, as would happen as soon as sanctions were lifted - as was about to happen given that the french, Germans and Rudssians were undermining them (little did we know why at the time: oil for food, and secret billion dollar deals). It was not only about Hussein wanting to commit a genocide against the Iraqi Kurds, as soon as the Americans and brits were out of the way. And it is not about hussein being an islamist - he is not, although he and they were playing an enemy of my enemy alliance game.Rather, Bush intended to inject democracy in the heart of the Arab and Muslim world, believing that it is the only ideology that can replace islamist ideology, and save us from a nuclear WW lll.And thus, the Dept of Homeland Security is not just about protecting Americans from a few rogue terrorist organizations. It is about protecting Americans from a huge, powerful ideological islamist movement that is doing its best to infiltrate the US at every level (including US university Middle East Studies depts, government, and taking/maintaining control of American mosques and ISlamic organizations, like CAIR).There 's so much more that can be said, but this is the gist.This is no longer on topic. Please do not respond or thread will have to take a rest. ANThis message has been edited by AdminNosy, 06-12-2005 12:11 PM

There's no point getting into the abortion debate. All i say is that both sides have their points, and the anti-abortion movemnt assuredly has a legitimate moral position, whether one agrees or not.

universities need money. Sports brings in revenue.

In reading your info, I do not see affirmative action legislation. Rather, i see legislation outlawing discrimination. That I support; affirmative action I do not.