America's Marxist Campuses - Why & How?

I had a longer response, but that got lost in cyberspace...

The "shorter" versionr:

As a high school graduate of 2002, I have almost no clue what you are talking about [MSM's Bill O'Reilly has kept me informed of the massive far-far left liberal bias in Universities] Maybe I took the wrong history, geography, economics, and logic classes [I actually did take all those]. Maybe its that the Bowling Green State University has very few actual "professors" and most classes are run by "instructors."

"In America, virtually no matter where one attends school, students don't get that China [funds the]...genocide in Darfur"
LeBron James already knows that, he is teaching the kids.

They aren't familiar with the Koranic verses such as "the Infidel is your inveterate enemy... " But they keep searching for the root causes of Muslim hatred, and they are certain that terrorism is the result of what the United States, obviously the worst country on the planet, does or does not do.

There are nearly Two Billion Muslims in the world, I'm guessing most aren't killing the infidel. Just keep people away from Saudi funded Mosque.

Instead, they blame the "greedy" U.S. oil companies, whose "obscene" profit margins are actually not as healthy as many other industries despite $4.00 a gallon gas.

Comparing profit margins across industries is like comparing apples to oranges. Comparing profit margins for companies in the same field and of the similar size can be like comparing Cooking Apples to Eating Apples.
And I think most people were complaining about the "obscene after tax profit" of the oil companies.[I'm not sure how the oil industries net sales compares to other industries, but I'm guessing the "relatively" low margin is made up by massive sales volume that is mostly inelastic]

A class that directly falls under history, the study of spacial distribution of things, or economics aren't generally required elective courses across the board.

An aside ["know nothing" was mentioned, that sparked memories]:
Know Nothing
----The Know Nothing movement was a "nativist" American political movement of the 1850s. It was empowered by popular fears that the country was being overwhelmed by Irish Catholic immigrants, who were often regarded as hostile to US values and controlled by the Pope in Rome.

In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,

First, I agree with Brutus's assessment. I graduated in 2007. I had the semi-infamous (and late) Dr. Robert Sumser for a history class. He was certainly an unabashed leftist but didn't attempt to manipulate his students in any way. He gave high marks for critical thought, not regurgitating his ideology.

His foil, Dr. Martin Arbagi, was also very fair, and I had him for a different history class.

I found no political bias in any classes I had nor did I ever hear of any political bias from other students.

Second, if indeed what you say is true, what is the remedy to the situation? David Horowitz demanded an "affirmative action" program to require universities to hire conservative professors.

Liberals and other left-wing types self-select for the university life. Professorships simply don't appeal to most conservatives. This is not a bias in hiring, but a bias in who applies to open positions.

I could make the same charge about the military since about 1/2 the military are Republicans or conservatives. Is the military trying to keep liberals out of uniform? No. Liberals just aren't as likely as conservatives to want to be in the military. Not only does that situation not require a remedy, it isn't even a problem.

I never broke the law; I am the law! -- George W. Bush Judge Dredd
I'm listening to...

and although I finished the Core Curriculum in 2002, I don't remember too much leftist attitude. Probably because I was just focused on getting the good grade and regurgitation. I don't think I learned any conservative thoughts though--however, now that I think about it, when I took Black history the professor thought I was a bit too conservative for her tastes, but whatever.

Ultimately, I think students will make up their own minds or continue to shape their ideologies as they leave college and see how their learned theories have played out in practice, whether that be the Tax Cuts Solve Everything School of Economics or the Rich People Don't Pay Enough School of Socioeconomic Equality. People will generally move towards where they feel most comfortable and what they've seen work.

At least that's how I'd approach it.

http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678
Brawl: 2277-7051-2186

But no links, no evidence.  I already know the stereotype of the academic as the out-of-touch, politically correct, bleeding heart liberal, but how am I to know if the stereotype is true or not?  More to the point, how do you know that this stereotype is the truth?  Is it by your own independent first-hand observations?  Empirical findings from carefully conducted research on the matter?  Anecdote at least?

You've got to do a little better than this.  This is just a screed; you back up none of your broad-brush assertions.

skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...

First, I think Taloc made a spot-on description:

We can even go further and break down universities into various
component schools. Humanities tend to skew very left. Business and
economics usually skew right. Hard and computer sciences skew a little
left. Engineering tends to skew a little right. And so on. This
reflects the interests, prejudices, and values of the students and
faculty who are attracted to these fields. That's not a bad thing so long as it doesn't threaten the intellectual rigor of the field.

So, let's reiterate that we're just talking about the humanities here (as being far leftist).

Second, I'm not even sure that "Marxist" is an appropriate description. Marx was a 19th century materialist--much of contemporary leftist academia post-modernist or something. Really, there are a lot of differences in how they view the world and society. Perhaps the only big association between the two is the emphasis on the plight of hte oppressed--but that is also found in classical liberalism and Christianity (and probably many other traditions/ideologies). On top of that, I don't think that modern schools of humanities have much/anything to do with the Soviet Union. One glaring problem with that association is that the USSR was just as racist/imperialist as any western country (as was recognized by commies such as Guevara). For example, consider the ethnic resettlement policies of the USSR, where they required non-Russian nationalities to adopt Russian and encouraged Russians to settle in the other republics. 

Third, we have the issue of how the left came to dominate certain fields of academia. Was it some big conspiracy? If they got these professorships by default, we have to wonder why conservatives weren't seeking these positions. This idea that a bunch of pathetic losers just willed their way into positions of power is a bit implausible.

Finally, having admitted that these extreme leftists are limited to the humanities, we can ask whether that really gives them any influence. Humanities professors are beggars in academia--they don't bring in the research money that science and engineering do.  They do control some of the classic disciplines in academia, but do they have much influence over people who go on to exercise power? (It seems that George W. Bush was a history major) If their brainwashed minions are moving into positions of power, then perhaps the problem is in how we place people into positions of power.

"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas

teaches that there are no evil people, only
misunderstood and oppressed people. American academia is now a very
intolerant place...

Did you re-read what you wrote?

 Deficient in history, geography, and economics,
our university goers do not get that the main reasons for high gasoline
prices are the speculation in oil futures....
Instead, they blame the "greedy" U.S. oil companies

This self-contradiction isn't nearly as bad, but it's still pretty striking. Aside from the fact that many laymen (but not many economists, who tend to be conservative) are blaming speculators, you've basically wrote "the problem isn't that people are being greedy, it's that people are being greedy!" For most Americans, the two above issues (futures speculation and oil company greed) are basically the same thing. Most Americans don't have the economic sophistication to differentiate among the exact actors and exact mechanisms behind the price changes.

"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas