Anarcissie wrote:
> In article <4840F536.9040307@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Dan Clore <clore@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>>http://tinyurl.com/4zatta
>>The smog of academic consensus
>>By Crispin Sartwell
>>Special to the Los Angeles Times
>>Saturday, May 31, 2008
>>
>>That the University of Colorado is raising $9 million to endow a
>>professor of conservative studies is rather delicious in its ironies. It
>>smacks of affirmative action and casts conservatism in the syntax of
>>departments decried by conservatives for decades: women's studies, gay
>>studies, African-American studies, Chicano studies and so on.
>>
>>Furthermore, the idea of affirmative action for conservatives seems
>>gratuitous. These other groups may be oppressed, but conservatives run
>>whole wars, black site prisons, sprawling multinational cor****ations. In
>>fact, if these other groups are oppressed, it's conservatives who are
>>the oppressors, which may render faculty meetings a bit tense.
>>
>>But as an academic who is neither a liberal nor a conservative
>>(anarchism has its privileges), let me tell you why I think a "professor
>>of conservative thought and policy" in Colorado, or anywhere else, is
>>not such a bad idea.
>
> Conservatives and conservatism certainly ought to
> be studied,
Conservatives ought to be studied by the biology department - after
being humanely euthanized.
--Jeff
--
The trouble with the world is that the
stupid are cocksure and the intelligent
are full of doubt. --Bertrand Russell
|
