The Academic Bill of Rights

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

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize calling a spade a spade was "hostile and antagonistic."Well, respond or not. Doesn't really matter - you've put your selfish nihilism on display for everyone.

Oh, us poor white men. So underprivleged. Except for the "equal work, more pay" thing. Oh, and we live longer and get better health care than men of other races.Oh, and we're less likely to be pulled over just because we're behind the wheel of a nice car. Of course, we're more likely to be behind that nice wheel in the first place, because, on average, a white family pulls in twice that of a black family. (Assuming the black family even has an income; unemployment among black people is twice that among whites.)But hey, it's all "equal opportunity", right? Except when it's not:

quote:

---

Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination

​

We perform a field experiment to measure racial discrimination in the labor market. We respond with fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate perception of race, each resume is assigned either a very African American sounding name or a very White sounding name. The results show significant discrimination against African-American names: White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. We also find that race affects the benefits of a better resume. For White names, a higher quality resume elicits 30 percent more callbacks whereas for African Americans, it elicits a far smaller increase. Applicants living in better neighborhoods receive more callbacks but, interestingly, this effect does not differ by race. The amount of discrimination is uniform across occupations and industries. Federal contractors and employers who list Equal Opportunity Employer' in their ad discriminate as much as other employers. We find little evidence that our results are driven by employers inferring something other than race, such as social class, from the names. These results suggest that racial discrimination is still a prominent feature of the labor market.

---

Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination | NBERHey, that's the "equal opportunity" offered by those like CanadianSteve. It's the equal opportunity for people to discriminate agaist minorities. Selfish, shameless nihilism.

You're confusing leftism with liberalism.The Left-Right axis refers to position on economic issues. Left is communism, Right is capitalism.The liberal-conservative axis refers to position on social issues.You are comparing apples to oranges, and your point is entirely irrelevant.

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.

So when the republicans are inside my friend's homosexual relationship, my wife's uterus, my cable/satilite connection, my radio, my "news", the majority of higher government, my downloads folder, my church, my internet (US-based), my laboratory, etc. etc.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.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."

quote:

---

Classical liberalism is represented today by those we call conservative....

---

Actually, "classical liberalism" is closer to what we call libertarians today.

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.

Absolutely erroneous. Today's conservatism is marked by an ideology that will flinch at no government expenditure or intrusive legislation to advance their religious social agenda; an ideology that will shy from no application of military force to promote American empire.The so-called "right" is far more socialist than the left has ever been; they're absolutely ruthless in their application of socialist means to theocratic ends.It is the Democratic party, with it's platform of limited federal government, eliminating profligate spending, and reducing government interference in people's personal lives, that most approximates the classical liberalism to which you refer.

Your rant had nothing to do with any of the facts I provided or the points I raised or the questions I asked.So, try again.

Did female collegiate athletes have equal access before or after Title 9?

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.

So the question is, Steve, if you reject statistics, then how do you determine if discrimination is still going on or not? Gut feeling? You think what you want to think? What objective criterion do you use?Just because men aren't telling women "get out and let a man have your job" to their faces any more doesn't mean that more subtle means aren't being used to acheive the same ends.I have provided some pretty broad statistics to you regarding the gender differences at all levels of education and hiring in the US medical field. I have also provided information regarding women in science, and women leaving science.Why do you refuse to address this information? By all means, pick it apart if it is wrong, but to simply ignore it belies a possible preference for believing a comfortable lie over an uncomfortable truth.

quote:

---

On the whole, the Republicans are for less, much less, government than the left, which would ever increase government programs, regulation, and social engineer.

---

You have got to be kidding me!The cirrent Neocon government in the US is ALL ABOUT larger government (Department of Fatherland Security), huge deficit spending, and intrusive, Authoritarian social engineering.In fact, we have a very expensive nation-building enterprise going on in Iraq right now.