Why do liberal universities honor murderers?

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Nebe

So is anyone on the extreme right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

rimshot


I usually stay out of here but that just struck me funny even as heartbroken I am being upset about the bombing


It does seem like it's not very appropriate even if she "paid her debt to society" for someone like that to be given a job like that at such a higher education university


ok, go back to insulting each other now

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

It does seem like it's not very appropriate even if she "paid her debt to society" for someone like that to be given a job like that at such a higher education university

It is, actually, very appropriate. Radicals like her are a product of the universities. The sixties was a time of transition in the hallowed ivory halls of academe as well as the rest of society. But especially in academe. The sixties counter-culture demanded rapid change in what they saw as a backward immoral society that was moving too slowly, if at all, (in their eyes) toward social, racial, and gender equality and away from what they saw as imperialistic war. America, for them, was stuck in a very bad place. And the youth learned from the sociology and liberal arts instructors that we were a bad, oppressive, nation whose history was steeped in blood, slavery, and societal oppression that cried for liberation. And, though they were given examples of and instruction on more egalitarian solutions based, yes, on Marxian forms of socialism, they were told that change, revolution, could only come from within. But the schools were still halfway mired in the 1950's post war leave-it-to-Beaver-father-knows-best culture. So, the more serious students found liberation in action and expanded the radical move outside of academe into the society at large.

The radicals were, secretly by many, and openly by some, admired in academe as the darlings of a new age. They were the products of their teaching and the hopeful agents of change. And the universities liberal arts and sociology faculties grew with them and more openly approved what their radical progeny had done (with the insincere remonstrance against some violent but mostly harmless escapades). And they later welcomed them back into the fold as professors who had walked the walk to teach new generations the way to world peace and equality. To true social justice.

And now, they no longer had to resort to violence though they could proudly remember the glorious days of active revolution--and even teach methods that could still work to further transform the world. They could be more measured now, not so desperate, nor have to resort to violence, since they were now mainstream, the politically correct and righteous teachers.

Reformed and "forgiven" (as well as admired), they could devote their lives to positive public service. The progressive transformation of the educational and political institutions, which they helped to achieve, was the new melting pot that they sought which could combine various ideological notions of social justice and could co-opt, if not eradicate, the oppressive capitalistic, imperialistic mechanisms of the American past. And they could be at the vanguard of the continuing transformation--with the perks and comforts of acceptance and reward rather than the depravation (glorious none-the-less)of youthful radicals

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It is, actually, very appropriate. Radicals like her are a product of the universities. The sixties was a time ......................... And they could be at the vanguard of the continuing transformation--with the perks and comforts of acceptance and reward rather than the depravation (glorious none-the-less)of youthful radicals

there's your answer Jim...........

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

there's your answer Jim...........

Scott, Kathy Bowdin was planning to bomb the library at Columbia University. The same school where she now works. Had she been successful (and killed a few kids and staff), do you suppose the school still would have hired her? She tried to bomb the school, and the school makes her a professor. I don't think detbuch's post explains why the school would be so stupid as to hire someone that tried to commit mass murder on campus. You have to admit that's amazing, even for liberal academia, where anything goes.

I wonder how liberals would react, if one of these home-grown terrorists turns out to be an alumni of Columbia or University Of Chicago, and is thus inspired by the likes of Bill Ayers or Kathy Bowdin. Why is that a far-fetched scenario?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Scott, Kathy Bowdin was planning to bomb the library at Columbia University. The same school where she now works. Had she been successful (and killed a few kids and staff), do you suppose the school still would have hired her? She tried to bomb the school, and the school makes her a professor.

Is that a fact or a conjecture? Are you referring to the failed bombing plan that ended in the bombers blowing themselves up? Wasn't that supposed to be in preparation for a bombing at a U.S. Army dance at Fort Dix? I saw one article that says it might be about either the dance or Columbia U., but not definitive. The rest all pointed to the Army dance as target. And if the plan had succeeded, be it against the Army or against Columbia U., and with the botched robbery turned murder conviction, she would still be in prison. So Columbia would not be able to hire her, and your question would be moot. And, anyway, Columbia U. of 1970 was not the same as Columbia U. today. It was just beginning its travel to the present more open acceptance and admiration of radical 60's activists. Just as present day progressives don't accept the principles of America's founding and have no compunction about abandoning and disassociating from those principles, even revolting against them if necessary, so too would progressive administrators of Columbia U. not view the university's past, its founding principles, as something to uphold against hiring one who contributed to changing the culture to a more egalitarian and just one. Columbia of 1970 was still evolving toward the progressive transformation of society and the 60's radicals were children of that transformation. Why would they now be rejected when the transformation was happening apace? They would, more rationally, accept them if they believed in and aspired to the social justice promised by the progressive agenda. A promise certainly aided by the actions and continued dedication to that agenda by those very radicals?

I don't think detbuch's post explains why the school would be so stupid as to hire someone that tried to commit mass murder on campus.

No it wouldn't explain that since it was trying to explain something else. As Spence likes to say, "pay attention."

You have to admit that's amazing, even for liberal academia, where anything goes.

That's a teeny bit closer to what my post was explaining--the anything goes part, which is not really "anything" or "goes" but about why someone like Boudin would be hired by a prestigious university.

I wonder how liberals would react, if one of these home-grown terrorists turns out to be an alumni of Columbia or University Of Chicago, and is thus inspired by the likes of Bill Ayers or Kathy Bowdin. Why is that a far-fetched scenario?

This whole "liberals" and "conservative" bit is so misleading that your "wonder" cannot properly be addressed. Most present day Americans are "liberal" in one degree or another. The founding of this country was a "liberal" revolution. Yours is not a far-fetched scenario, but how liberals would react is so diverse, it would take a book to answer your question as to how they would react.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This whole "liberals" and "conservative" bit is so misleading that your "wonder" cannot properly be addressed. Most present day Americans are "liberal" in one degree or another. The founding of this country was a "liberal" revolution. Yours is not a far-fetched scenario, but how liberals would react is so diverse, it would take a book to answer your question as to how they would react.

In one of my links, I provided a link to a story...yes, I'm talking about the incident where the idiots blew themselves up (and almost killed their neighbor, Dustin Hoffman).

The police investigation indicated 2 possible targets - an army dance at Fort Dix, and the Columbia University library. Blueprints to buildings on the Columbia University campus, were found in the rubble.

"This whole "liberals" and "conservative" bit is so misleading that your "wonder" cannot properly be addressed. "

I agree that my wonder cannot be addressed. In my opinion, the reason for that has nothing to do with my labels of liberal vs conservative, but in how indefensible the liberal positions are on some issues.

There are obviously kooks on both sides. But on teh left, even the "middle of the pack" seems to surrender a huge amount of rationality and reasoning.

In this thread, Spence says the Weather Underground are not terrorists, and that Bill Ayers dedicated his life to positive public service.

Columbia University makes a professor out of a terrorist and accomplice to mass murdere.

The vast majority of liberals believe that conservatives don't care as much about the elderly and th epoor as they do...and their "evidence" is that we want to save the programs that serve the old and the poor, from bankruptcy.

That last one, is not a fringe liberal position. I hear that articulated by almost the entire group of elected Democrats in Washington, and certainly here in CT as well.

The liberals (and I mean the vast majority, not limited to the radical fringe) attack anyone who proposes cutting 3 cents from SS or Medicare. That necessarily means that they don't admit those programs need radical overhaul, which necessarily means that they are actively denying 4th grade arithmetic. I'm not talking about higher order statistics, I'm talking about addition and subtraction that can be done on a $5 calculator.

[scottw]

here's the simplest explanation for you Jim because you are giving me a headache.....

modern liberalism = better person
conservative = evil

Eben described a "liberal" perfectly and how "modern liberals" would tend to reflect on themselves politically, personally....better, smarter, more tolerant, independent and posessing great judgment, of course....but apparently lacking humility

Eben cites gay marriage as an example of liberal tolerance forgetting that Obama and Hillary only recently came around on this subject no doubt for political reasons otherwise, what took these smart tolerent people so long?......and that he lives in a state the cannot get gay marriage through a legislature that is overwhelmingly dominated by "liberals" in the modern and democrat sense.....France is extrmely "liberal"...but not when it comes to gay marriage apparently....

Eben referred to himself as fiscally conservative but socially liberal which is an impressive oxymoron.....tight with your own money while supporting unsustainable government programs that bankrupt your nation is what? or as a cartoon that I recently saw stated "I'm pro-chioce.....except for -insert lenghty list of issues"

on abortion.....I believe that most "liberals" simply punt on abortion....is it wrong?..most would say yes and not something that is for them...is it killing?.....there's really not much question about that....but for most "liberals" it's easiest to not render judgment and simply allow it..wrong morally but acceptable... .and for the some, ultimately fund it through government.....because many on the left understand that it is an important dividing issue on their tripod of political power and take full avantage of this unwillingness to render judgment by people that claim to 'separate the good the from the bad and weigh their judgments' better than the rest of us....

your frustration with "liberals" and why they do this or support that, is because you fail to understand that the dividing line that they draw in terms of rendering judgment is a political one rather than being based on any moral sense of right and wrong because right and wrong for many of them is relative and relative to their stance on a political issue as opposed to the dreaded "religious" type of moral judgment....have you noticed that virtually every "issue" these days is a political issue that the government must involve itself in or solve?

if you are counted among the self-described "liberals" you are part of their "independent" group think club and not subject to the rules of political correctness and behaviour that you may heap mercilessly on others.....you point these out on a reguar basis Jim...no shortage of examples

this just happens to be yet another.....


"Liberals are capable of independent thought and can see the big picture and separate the good from the bad and weigh their judgements. Liberals are mostly very educated and are in carreers that use their creative minds.

Conservatives tend to be more rigid in their thought process, are very good at being told what rules work and they follow them. That's why conservatives love religion and the military. . "

still trying to make sense of this....are these the same indpendent free thought "modern liberals" that seek to tax, regulate and administer control via a massive centralized bureaucracy over every aspect of American life with their big picture good judgments which I guess is to control those Conservatives who desperately yearn to be controlled as they complain about trivial things like freedom and liberty and personal responsibility?

must be a left/right brain thing

BTW Ayers was recognized and received some sort of award for reforming education in Chicago...which I guess is like giving Ted Kennedy a Lifesaving Medal or Obama a Nobel Peace Prize....but was coincidentally denied an award by the University of Chicago because he dedicated one of his written works to Sirhan Sirhan and the Kennedy son who was on the board and did not find it amusing....Ayers denies this of course......