Talk:Professor values

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

There are several things about this page that damage its credibility. It says that no professor who opposed abortion can get tenure, which is plainly not true since many have. One example is the famous conservative blogge Glen Reynolds of Instapundit.

Now professors do have faults -- they can be selfish and even commit murder from time to time (especially Professor Faust). For every possible character flaw there is a professor with it. But as a group professors are more opposed to censorship than any other group in the world (except possibly pornographers?).

And "liberal grading" does not mean giving liberals high grades and conservatives low ones. It means giving everyone a high grade without regard to political orientation or work quality level.

As for evolution: it would be hard for a biologist who doesn't believe in evolution to get tenure because it is impossible to do first rate research in biology without believing in evolution. For example, suppose you're trying to figure out how molecular motors work. If you believe in intelligent design, you consider all kinds of mechanisms that have no evolutionary pathway.

Then there's calling my edit "inappropriate" without saying what about it is inappropriate-- lgm


I think that it is inappropriate to have "crimes by professors" and "immoral, unethical, and bizarre behavior" in this entry. Either have a separate entry, or remove it entirely. Professors have good values too, they are not all completely immoral people who are self-centered and ignorant. -- Aaronp


Why do my edits keep getting reverted? I made factual edits, removing the absolutes that simply aren't true from the article. I have no problem not editing the rest, because obviously removing "Crimes committed by professors" and "Immoral and Unethical Behavior" from an article on professor values is just wrong, but the edits I made about tenure are factually correct. I have helped multiple tenure boards, and I know for a fact that not every single academic institution in the United states, let alone the world, completely dismisses a candidate based on their views on feminism, abortion, and homosexuality. Mind you, tenure confers essentially complete protection from being prosecuted for any sort of indiscretion, so keeping people with strong biases out of tenure is a good thing. I once saw a review board reject a man for tenure because he accidentally blurted out that "all those kids protesting the war should be forced into service" because they "aren't contributing to society". This was an obvious bias he had, and because it was an extreme one he was rejected for tenure. At the same time, however, I've seen a woman who was criticizing feminist values receive tenure, because she presented her thoughts in a clear, precise, and very educated way. Anyone who criticizes a set of values or an action in a biased or bigoted manner obviously isn't going to receive tenure.

Also, the reason that people who criticize evolution often don't receive tenure is because evolution has almost reached dogma-like acceptance in the scientific community. I don't want to get into a debate about evolution, but because it is so accepted, anyone seen criticizing it without scientific proof is generally regarded as not following scientific method. History may vindicate those people who do criticize evolution now, but until then, people will continue to not receive tenure based on their criticisms.

All I want for this page is to remove the absolutes. Not every institution will outright reject a person for their views on feminism, abortion, or homosexuality. It simply is not true. And because this is supposed to be an educational encyclopedia with conservative values, I believe that the information contained within should be accurate. -- Aaronp


..does Dawkins fall into this category as well? For example, "Liberal politicians are routinely given high-ranking academic positions despite a lack of a doctorate." Feebasfactor 13:03, 8 March 2008 (EST)

No, because he's not a politician, and he does have a doctorate (two, actually, I think). And since you bring it up...Gary Hart also has a doctorate. And, while Dukakis only has a Harvard law degree, his academic work has been in fields where he can most reasonably be considered an expert (public policy). The same can be said of Al Gore (and his have hardly been "high-ranking academic positions"--"visiting" professorships, and non-credit courses). And, finally, Kerrey is an administrator, not an academic.--RossC 20:35, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
He's not a politician, but he is an atheistic (and liberal) figurehead. And I wouldn't be too certain about those doctorates; it's debatable whether Dawkins is even a real professor. Feebasfactor 00:10, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
I removed Hart and Kerrey as examples of "liberal politicians (who) are routinely given high-ranking academic positions despite a lack of a doctorate", because (as noted above), Hart has a doctorate, and Kerrey is an administrator (not an academic).--RossC 22:18, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
I don't know enough about those politicians in particular to confirm your edits, but your reasoning sounds legitimate. Feebasfactor 22:33, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
Alternately, I suppose, one could add Hart/Kerrey back to the list and change the wording of the defining phrase to something like, "...given university positions over better-qualified candidates."--RossC 22:46, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
Actually, yes, I agree with that. These examples certainly shouldn't be removed on a technicality or a meaningless distinction when the point still stands; changing the wording of the phrase is a much better idea. Feebasfactor 20:56, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Contents

What is this about?

What? Another article based on an unheard-of phrase plucked out of the air? This certainly does not look like an encyclopedia article - cf. Hollywood values, Liberal friendship, Second generation atheist, Liberal grading, Embraced deceit, etc. None of these belongs in an encyclopedia. Apart from anything else, who on earth is likely to look up a phrase like "professor values"? Shouldn't an encyclopedia consist of articles on topics that users are likely to look for, not on opinion pieces by its editor-in-chief? What point are you trying to make, exactly? Who is the target of this latest attack? This is the sort of thing I would expect from a blog or a hate-based website, not from a family-friendly and trustworthy encyclopedia. This sort of thing is making Conservapedia look ridiculous. Or would you like articles on Doctor values, Taxi-driver values and Lawyer values as well? If so, I'd be happy to draft them for you! There must be lots to be said about the misdemeanors of all sorts of groups. Humblpi 17:15, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree that this kind of article could bring legitimate criticism against CP. The major premises are not documented. While some contributers to this article, including those who have made those assertions, say that it is a work in progress and welcome others to document the supposed many examples, there are a pitiful few, some old, some from other countries, and some for extremely prevalent crimes of marijuana possession. I took a long time to find the best possible supporting source for educational stats, and my guess is that the more than 1,200,000 professors currently working in colleges and universities are responsible for a disproportionately SMALL number of crimes. Until I find statistical support for that statement, I won't post it in the article.
For a collaborative resource like this, I believe it is imperative that any contributor making an assertion, especially critical ones (as opposed to trivia, added dates, etc. -- which ideally should be supported, too), document them appropriately. If not, that sends a poor message to other contributors, editors, and sysops -- to say nothing of users, potential users, and CP critics. It is hardly the kind of example to provide for home-schooled kids learning about proper scholarship. I have looked and looked and find no reliable studies that support the argument that professors are more likely than anybody else to do bad things. Also, no evidence that liberal professors are worse than conservative ones. There are news and blog reports that repeat certain cases, but unless one does an exhaustive search, no conclusions can be drawn. If this article remains, then there should be additional coverage for politicians, clergy, other professions, etc. and they should include misdeeds by conservatives and liberals alike, according to the actual data. Leaving out crimes by conservatives does no one a service. I understand that this is a conservative encyclopedia, but some traits of it purportedly include truthfulness (I'd argue that it is dishonest to tell only partial truths), and to avoid misrepresentation and sensationalism. CPlantin 8:26, 27 March 2008 (CDT)

Yes, this is a catalog of every bad thing a worker in higher education has done. I suppose one could make a similar list of crimes committed by plumbers to attack the plumbing profession. Yes, there are academics with a strident left-wing agenda, especially in the humanities, but there is (to use a well-worn phrase) a "silent majority" of professors in math, engineering, or health science whose main agenda is seeing to it that their graduates are competent in their profession. Even in a discipline such as history (where I have worked), for every 'activist' who gets attention in the local press, there is also a professor or two who is mainly concerned with improving the skills of prospective social studies teachers and preserving historical sites and archives. Believe it or not, there are conservative professors, especially outside of the humanities and education.Tafticus

This is certainly not "a catalog of every bad thing a worker in higher education has done," but is only a small fraction. And, no, the values of plumbers are not nearly as bad.
There probably are a few good professors somewhere, but they are typically silent, outnumbered, and rarely stand up against the terrible values of many of their colleagues.--Andy Schlafly 15:06, 27 December 2013 (EST)

Head's up - this isn't as simple as it may seem

As I was doing some admittedly "Google-esque" research, I did find that there are well over 4000 colleges and universities and probably many more than 1,250,000 current faculty. If we work backwards a generation or two, the number increases, of course, which makes it difficult to substantiate the claim that professors are disproportionately likely to commit crimes or other misdeeds, especially if all we cite are fewer than 20 examples of such misdeeds. Looking at campus statistics, many more campus crimes (by far) were committed by students, to say nothing about the many thousands of crimes committed by the general public. So I started doing some informal Google searches for crimes committed by different professions, using -- for lack of a more efficient search method -- "professor arrested," "faculty arrested," etc. along with other professional categories. Combining "faculty" or "professor" and "crime" didn't work well (too many useless hits). The highest, in that combination alone, was "teacher" (over 190,000 hits), but "mayor" still had more hits (over 27,000) than "faculty" or "professor" (about 14,000). Unfortunately, hits for "pastor," "minister," and "priest," added up to an uncomfortably high number, over 100,000, but then again, if we don't know how many pastors, etc. are out there, we have no percentage to compare them with faculty or other groups. My methodology is rudimentary, but I didn't see any demographic or statistical reports that covered this topic. So, unless we can document this so-called high rate of crime among faculty, perhaps the article should remain mute on the number, relative to other professions. After seeing some statistics about the correlation between educational level and prison population, it also seems like the prison population is much more likely to have no or little education. There are very few PhDs in prisons. Likewise, after seeing these figures, I would guess that the more one is educated, the less likely one is to get felonies or misdemeanors.

So, my question is: do any other contributors to this article have any data at all on this? Is it only anecdotal? If facts can't be documented, then they don't belong in these articles. Especially if the article is questioning the integrity of professors, including their intellectual integrity (like the Korean scientist who established his reputation on cooked data - about which I can find documentation), this article's information should be sound. It is still full of undocumented assertions and sensationalism. CPlantin 8:01, 27 March 2008 (CDT)

Tony Blair

Huh? How is this not relevant to the article? He has no doctorate, he has been appointed to teach at Yale and he is a liberal politician. --KimSell 10:19, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

That appears simply to be a guest lecture appointment.--Aschlafly 10:42, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
You mean just like Al Gore?--KimSell 10:54, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Since you don't seem to mind guest lecturers being added to this list, I will put Tony Blair back.
Maybe it was Blair's suppoort for the Iraq War that got him his lecturing position. Daphnea 19:46, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Really?

I just did a google search, and the first few pages of the 735 results don't have any signinifigance to subject at hand. So, here's my question: Did you just make this term up Andy? DLerner 12:07, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

There's a great deal of bias out there, DLerner. That's a reason why we're here.--Aschlafly 12:10, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Yes, Andy. But the problem is, there's a great deal of bias here too. Are there any articles critical of conservatives on this site? Believe me conservatives aren't perfect. You didn't answer my question, where is the term "Professor values" from? I know there are a lot of stupid people/policies on colleges (just watch the Penn & Teller episode on censorship) but that isn't the point. Where is the term from? DLerner 12:16, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Why are you critical of a neologism which points out a legitimate area of concern, DLerner? Examine the case studies, and perhaps you will appreciate why this article is a necessary one. Koba 12:34, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Koba, the problem with making up a phrase like this is that it's really not meaningful, unless backed up by statistically valid evidence to justify it. Do Charlton Heston and John Wayne fit the profile of "Hollywood Values" as defined here? The examples mentioned in this article are as representative of professors as a category (i.e. a few out of thousands around the world), as they are of males. If this is the encyclopedic standard CP holds to, then I can create a page called "Right-handed values", describing the bad traits of right-handed people and backed by examples of the criminal behavior of some cherry-picked right-handed people, and it would pass muster based on examples like this page that ASchafly endorses.--DinsdaleP 17:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

The phrase Professor values refers to the lack of morals and values in the culture of college faculties, which is characterized by atheism, censorship, socialism, unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge, advocacy of liberal beliefs, liberal grading, liberal bias, anti-patriotism, plagiarism, false claims of credentials, lack of productivity, and promotion of sexual immorality.

Has anyone else seen this "phrase" before? I looked for it. If it's a study, it belongs in an essay not in a article. Personally, I think Andy made it up. (It's a nice slogan though...)

If anyone can make up a term then write an article about it, how's this? "The phrase Criminal values refers to the lack of respect for the law..." DLerner 12:59, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Indeed - see my comment under "What is this about?", above - which nobody has seen fit to reply to. The proliferation of these flimsy articles is making a mockery of Conservapedia. The latest such nonsense is Liberal drivel, which I assume is a parody - but it's getting harder and harder to distinguish parody from real content. Humblpi 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Um...

This article serves no purpose... It should be an essay or opinion at the very most --Helps 11:14, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

What statistical evidence is there in this article of atheism, plagiarism, socialism , censorship etc. This article makes unfounded claims. Angband 13:18, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Help find the support for those observations. It's not difficult to find. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 13:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
That is the wrong way to answer a legitimate question, and does a disservice to the students you want using Conservapedia as a legitimate reference source. When a so-called encyclopedic article makes irrational assertions and offers no cited evidence to support them, people are going to question its validity. Your response, "The supporting evidence is out there, help us to find it.", is basically an endorsement of unacademic postings by biased individuals as long as the bias is conservative, and an insult to the moderates who want a Conservative Encyclopedia to be, well, encyclopedic.
My suggestion is that if it's not that hard to find the supporting evidence, then the page should be removed until the author can find it him/herself and post it.
I'm sure I'll be accused of "Liberal Denial" or "Liberal Apology", or some other "Liberal ---" behavior that's used in place of an academic response, but fair-minded people need to speak up about this.--DinsdaleP 17:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
I've never been to College in my long life but I must agree. This article is sensationalist tabloidism at its very best. LeaningRight 13:49, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

First paragraph of article is not adequately supported

I do think the listing of the growing problem of professors misdeeds section in the latter part of the article was very informative.

However, I don't think the footnote in the first paragraph adequately supports the first paragraphs contentions. Is plagiarism truly a professor value? If it is, there is absolutely no support for the contention. I don't think that plagiarism is a common value of professor although there may be certainly instances of it. I have read the scientific fraud in the way of fudging experimental results is a significant problem but I have not heard the same regarding plagiarism. I do know that puffing up ones resume is a significant problem in the USA, however, the contention that professors often do it was not supported.

In short, I think the initial paragraph does not follow the conservapedia commandments in regards to proper citation and support. I don't think it is reasonable to ask the reader to do the research for that is getting the cart before the horse. It is the writers job to support the material.

I do recommend the following conservative website in order to help provide adequate support for the article: Accuracy in Academia at http://www.academia.org/

In the meantime, I suggest the article to be pulled from the popular articles at Conservapedia until adequate support is given and that the article have a citation template put on it. Conservative 16:16, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

This is a work-in-progress with 24 references already. There have been numerous instances of plagiarism by professors without any punishment, and those citations will be easy to fill in, and I welcome assistance. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 16:57, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
It does appear as if liberals are over represented in academia with 90% of professors describing themselves as being liberals or moderates. [1] Therefore, there does appear to be less conservatives in academia. So one would expect there to be more atheist in academia. At the same time , atheism is not a professor value as about 25% of philosophy professors are theist. [2] In the business and engineering departments the percentage of professors being theist is probably higher given that they are more conservative. In regards to plagiarism being a professor value, many instances of professors committing this act does not necessarily constitute it being a professor value. There are a lot of professors in the USA and abroad so the real question what percentage of professors have engaged in plagiarism. In other words, you can can find many instances of men beating their wives in the United States but is wife beating a "male value"? I don't think it is. Again, it comes down to the percentage issue. So to sum up, I think the opening paragraph needs to be less expansive in its claims or provide additional support. Conservative 17:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
Even if 25% of philosophy professors were theists, wouldn't this still be lower than the rate of theism in the population as a whole? I do agree with your post in that it should be examined by specific departments. At least at my school, some departments, such as Economics and Geography, do not seem particularly liberal, while a number of others clearly are. DanH 18:03, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
DanH, thank you for your polite and kind reply. I do think that liberal ideology and liberals are over represented in academia. However, to call something a "professor value" or "male value" while a significant portion of the population in question does not share a particular value would be over reaching in my estimation. And I do think, for example, that 25% of a given population not sharing a value would be a significant amount of people and be justification for saying a given characteristic was not a value of the population as a whole. However, you can fairly say that a certain value is over represented in a population as a whole if in fact it is. Conservative 18:14, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
Good cites, Conservative. I've added them. This entry is ranked #1 on Google and is emerging as a significant insight. Professors share a common value system, not unanimously, but in higher percentages of agreement than even some churches. It's enlightening to described the professor values and note the harm caused by them. Ideas obviously do have consequences.--Aschlafly 19:38, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
I have a feeling that the majority of the professors at Liberty University might take exception to this article, since by definition these descriptors apply to them. Also, being ranked #1 in this case has more to do with the topic not being recognized as a commonly-used term. If I wrote an article titled "Liberal Klingon Values" it would rank #1 for that search in no time, without being any more relevant.--DinsdaleP 12:29, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

What constitutes "a relatively high" number of instances of crimes or other misdeeds? Compared to other professions? If so, then we'd need to document those comparisons. If there are over 1,200,000 professors currently active in the US alone, then the total cited cases here is an extremely small 0.00125% of that population, about 1.25 evildoers per 100,000 faculty -- and some cited were from former generations or from other countries. Given stats from the National Center for Educational Statistics, the total population of professors would easily be in the multiple millions (depending how far back we'd want to go), making the percentage of the population amazingly miniscule. Some of the crimes or other behavior in the list refers to things that the general public is probably even more likely to do, including stalking family, drug possession, etc. -- in other words, not things that are unique to professors at all. I'd say the % of pastors and other religious leaders who have gotten themselves into hot water is embarrassingly high (sexual immorality, misuse of church funds, etc.) and perhaps higher than that of the professoriate. Maybe comparing the professors to the general population would show that professors are more or less likely than the general population to commit crimes. Also, to be fair and honest according to the Commandments, this article should report the academic/moral/financial misdeeds -- some very high profile -- of conservative academics, including events at several Christian colleges and universities, indluding former faculty and university presidents. Making unfounded statements in an encyclopedia article, especially if the statements are inflammatory, is antithetical to the whole idea of honest scholarship -- which is ironic, considering the topic of this article! CPlantin 09:25, 26 March 2008 (CDT)

Title of the article should be "liberals and academia" and not "professor values"

I do believe upon sound research that people are not going to find this article based on a search of "professor values".

Here are the Google results of "professor values" and you will notice that all 715 results have nothing to do with the article we have: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Professor+Values%22&hl=en&start=10&sa=N

On the other hand if you do a search on "liberals in academia" you will get 8,450 results and all are related to our article: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22liberals+in+academia%22&btnG=Search

While I do think it is great to have a #1 Google entry in terms of getting exposure to Conservapedia I do think you have to begin with the end in mind and bring people to Conservapedia who are interested in a particular issue. I do realize that it is sometimes beneficial to pursue long tail marketing and dominate less competitive search queries over a long period of time, however, it does not appear as if anyone is typing in "professor values" to find the subject material of our article. Conservative 22:33, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

I hesitate to point this out again (I mentioned it above), but what of crimes and other misdeeds committed by conservative academics? A number of leaders of Christian colleges and universities have, for example, abused authority, horribly misused funds for private -- and sometimes extravagant -- entertainment, travel, or shopping, or have had immoral sexual affairs. Not including information about these instances, or even acknowleding their existence, is a serious and dishonest error of omission. CPlantin 09:28, 25 March 2008 (CDT)

Professor Values on Wikipedia

Seems the article was put up on Wikipedia and is now up for deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Values

This thing really doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. LeaningRight 07:18, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Not on wikipedia, maybe (not least, because it was plagiarized from here!) - but it seems perfectly at home in this encyclopedia. Humblpi 12:21, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
I bet you think Hollywood values should be censored also!--Aschlafly 14:12, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
Actually, yeah, that's a dumb article too. --DJBlair 14:20, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I think any article that is just 'made up' is neither trustworthy or encyclopedic. I wouldn't let my kids near this site (or Wikipedia for that matter, but thats a story for another day) LeaningRight 20:20, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
In a strange bout of irony the WP Professor Values article now ranks higher than the CP version. TheGySom 08:24, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
It didn't take long for the liberals on Wikipedia to delete its entry! It's gone.--Aschlafly 20:03, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Catholic schools

Should abuse by priests in catholic schools deserve its own article entitles, Priest Values? Of course not, because the abuse committed by some priests is not indicative of the entire group. LeaningRight 20:42, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

You're making a big mistake, you think this "encyclopedia" is governed by logic and reason, it isn't. -- D L e r n e r Articulate 20:48, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
DLerner was blocked for his repeated derogatory comments, and "LeaningRight" you should be blocked for your 90/10 rule violation against talk, talk, talk.
This professor values lists the commonly held values and consequences of those values. Your suggestion does not fit that model, and your suggestion is ludicrous.--Aschlafly 13:17, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
Whatever. By the way, check my contributions, specifically to the India article. I have not broken any rules that I know of. LeaningRight 13:31, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
This is a link to my mainspace contributions: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=LeaningRight&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=0 LeaningRight 13:33, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
LeaningRight, you wrote, "I have not broken any rules that I know of." That is known as deliberate ignorance, and it's not an excuse. Your last ten contributions have been all talk, and that violates the 90/10 rule.--Aschlafly 14:32, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
Please have a little respect and don't talk to me like a child. I'm a middle aged man with children and I find that highly disrespectful. Have a glance at my contributions. I wasn't even aware of this 90/10 rule until you brought it up so its ignorance, but not 'deliberate'. LeaningRight 15:26, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
You responded to my citation to our very simple set of rules with "Whatever" and "I have not broken any rules that I know of." Your response was after I directed you to the very simple set of rules.--Aschlafly 16:10, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
Go and meet someone who doesn't agree with what you believe. I can guarantee you it will be quite refreshing. I'm taking a week off before I lose any faith I have ever had in the American people. LeaningRight 16:15, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
You really ought to watch how you talk to good editors, Andy. Your attitude isn't helping Conservapedia one bit. ShaggerNorris 18:30, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Andy, if you hope to gain the respect of the mainstream, and avoid being an object of ridicule at RW and everywhere else, provide a solid case instead of anecdotes Innsmouth1 19:09, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

What's RW? Alberti 10:19, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Removal of bias

The bias that was removed should have been kept in. It was a fair point and was correct. AdenJ 17:55, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

But it wasn't conservative. This isn't liberalpedia. Why is that so hard for you to understand? --FrankRingo 17:59, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Are you kidding? A fact is a fact. A fair and correct point is not aligned with politcal leanings. Why is that so hard to understand? AdenJ 18:01, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

What specifically do you think was fair? The stuff I removed was unjustified liberal bias.--Aschlafly 18:02, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

"However, because the professoriate is so large and varied (more than 1,200,000 in the United States alone, in public and private institutions) it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than others groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeed" Its not bias, it is fact. It is not valid that professors are more likely to commit crimes (at least the validity has not been proven here) and by removing this section it sounds more and more like opinion as opposed to an encyclopedia entry. I know you wont budge on this though and any attempt in me to argue or revert will be meet with an arbitary block so I'll turn my attention to less volitile entries. AdenJ 18:09, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Aden, something is not a fact just because it is written down somewhere. Liberal journalists that quote liberal studies that are furnished by liberal organizations do not produce fact - they produce nonsense. Please keep your gibberish out of this site. Perhaps you would feel more comfortable talking about your "facts" over at Wikipedia. --FrankRingo 18:12, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

AdenJ, people sharing common values do tend to act in similar ways. Ideas do matter. Surely you don't think all the problems in Hollywood are purely coincidental with Hollywood values!--Aschlafly 18:26, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

My quibble was not whether ideas or shared values matter, it was that factual and relevant material was removed as bias. AdenJ 18:45, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Aden, your "facts" were discussed already. We know you can read, so quit playing stupid. --FrankRingo 18:50, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks Frank. AdenJ 18:52, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

AdenJ, people who disrespect the law are more likely to commit crimes. That's logic, and does not require a citation. Professor values include a disrespect for rule of law, among other things.--Aschlafly 20:02, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Again, and for the last time before I slam my head on the table, I was querying why good stats were removed from this article which show that crime amoung professors is not disproportionate. Apparently its not factual, according to you and Frank. End of discussion. AdenJ 20:08, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

What statistics are you describing? Merely an estimate of the total number of professors? That doesn't demonstrate anything about proportionate crime.--Aschlafly 20:14, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
The stats I cited, which were removed by you, were from a standard statistical source (see the original citation) and the very high number of professors that exist make the isolated examples provided in the article statistically insignificant. It would be interesting to compare relative crime rates for various professions -- then we'd be able to say that professors are more likely or less likely to commit crimes. I spent a lot of time tracking down those stats and was surprised that you removed them because of "liberal" bias. As my contributions to this Talk page show, I felt uncomfortable seeing ungrounded assertions about professors being disproportionately likely to commit crimes. The few examples are incidental and anecdotal -- they are not statistically significant and one cannot use them to justify the conclusion that professors are more likely to commit crimes than others. Plenty of crimes are committed by teachers, pastors, politicians, business people, and so on -- but no evidence has been supplied to show that they commit crimes less often than professors. I believe my statement was taken away not because it is inherently liberal -- it is attitude neutral -- but rather because the data seriously challenged the validity of the premise of the whole article. After a lot of reading on this in support of my since-removed contributions, I would imagine that, taken as a group, professors are much less likely to commit crimes than many other professions. To prove that, I'd have to do more research and document it well, which I don't have the time to do. The same should be done if one wanted to document that they are MORE likely to commit crimes, but for now those assertions in the article remain unsupported except by isolated examples. That is a very bad example to set for any students, home-schooled or not. My contributions attempted to raise the research standard of the article and I believe the data I supplied were inappropriately removed. [[User:CPlantin|Cplantin] 20:48, 21 April 2008 (CDT)
I looked for, but could not find, the edit you're describing above. But note that the frequency of crime is not the only issue; the nature of the crimes also matters. Also, it's meaningless to compare wealthy, pampered, highly educated professors to the general population in terms of crime. Any comparison would have to factor in demographic, privilege, and background info.--Aschlafly 14:56, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
If it is, as you say, "meaningless to compare wealthy... professors to the general population in terms of crime," then we should remove the entire block of "Crimes by Professors." The number cited is incredibly small, compared with the total number of professors out there, and unless you are positing that they commit crimes with disproportionate frequency (which the article seems to be implying), then it really doesn't have a purpose. We might as well start sections with anecdotal evidence about crimes for several professions. Actually, crime would be the easiest of the categories mentioned in the article to prove. Bullying, etc. may well take place, and some professors are true jerks, but there is not official documentation about instances of promoting immorality, bias against conservatives in classrooms, etc. Anyway, the problem I see with this article is that readers may notice that there is no support of the major assertions except for a handful of examples, some from other countries, one more than 25 years old, and one about a professor being fined $50 for mooning a child. I would suggest that we find documentation to support this article's assertions, call the article an editorial, or delete it entirely. If we look at the nature of the crimes, as you suggest, there are some murders, but also marijuana possession, mooning, attempting to defraud a hospital trust, stalking, possession of child porn, and others -- but not even close to what happens in one major city in one day. Attempting to smear an entire profession based on these examples and no real data is not scholarship. Conservapedia can do better and it should, if it is to be taken seriously. [[User:CPlantin|Cplantin] 1:48, 22 April 2008 (CDT).
You didn't respond to my points. The nature of the crimes is as important as their volume, perhaps more so. And, no, we're not going to limit ourselves here to what is recognized by liberal newspapers and censored journals. Conservapedia reaches beyond what is already widely available, and we're not going to fall for the deliberate ignorance that plagues less useful resources.
Finally, your statement that "some professors are true jerks" obviously misses the point. The problem is not the "jerks", but the "values".--Aschlafly 14:56, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
I thought I'd addressed the main points you'd asked about, but I'll try again. Frequency of crime is indeed an issue if this article is trying to assert that professors commit crimes proportionally more than those in other specific professions, other professions in general, the general public -- you name it. To prove that they commit more crimes than other groups based on the tiny number of examples is ridiculous. Yes, frequency is not the only issue and the nature of the crimes also matters. But as my comment above shows, the crimes cited in the article, as bad as they are, are not all as bad as, say, murder. Besides murder, there is pot possession, the mooning of a child, stalking, possession of child porn, attempting to defraud a hospital trust. So, to the extent that all crime is bad, then all of those are bad things and I trust that the perps got their just desserts. But are those crimes any more heinous than those committed by any number of people of all kinds of professions, by the rich, by the poor, by politicians, etc. If we do factor in "demographic... and other background info," how would the picture look? Well, we don't really know, do we, because we know of no such studies, if there are any out there. So until we have some kind of actual data to go on, this article should remain silent on the issue (or not exist) or else it will look to readers more like an editorial rather than an encyclopedia article based on factual sources. You'd also asked about the source for my stats. I searched for a long time to find good, reliable numbers regarding professors and other employees in colleges and universities in the United States. Here is the quote you removed, along with the citation:
"However, because the professoriate is so large and varied (more than 1,200,000 in the United States alone, in public and private institutions) it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than others groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeeds.[3]
Looking at it again, I should have been clearer by adding something to the effect that "because the professoriate is so large, it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than other groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeeds based on a small sample of reported crimes unless the group and its crime rates are compared with those of other professionals or the general public." I also should have place the stats citation right after I mentioned the number of professors. The source supports that information and not the rest of the sentence. While I could have been clearer, the statement should not have been removed because you were "cleaning out liberal bias." What is liberal about that statement? I was trying to make the article more substantial and accurate. There are clearly claims in the article that are unsupported and therefore in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments, and I was doing research to find accurate data about the population under discussion. It was only a start and I was enjoying the research, but having my contribution yanked was like getting an unwarranted suckerpunch. In a sense, you did what you accuse professors of doing: you bullied someone you thought had an opposing point of view. Trying to verify facts and add documentation is neither liberal nor conservative - it is research. [[User:CPlantin|Cplantin] 22:51:48, 23 April 2008 (CDT)

Liberal professor PZ Myers just linked to this article

Here. Be on the watch for vandals. Jinxmchue 13:20, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

this article is ridiculous

it's kind of funny actually NRupert 13:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Liberal fluff

The statement that "it appears that intelligent people sometimes hold these values" is liberal fluff. It's meaningless. Intelligent people "sometimes" hold almost any value, no matter how wanton or absurd.--Aschlafly 07:57, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Recent edit

As much as I dislike this entire article, I restrained myself and only removed a section lacking a citation. The citations are generally well groomed in this article, so let's keep up the same standards on the whole thing. IMHO, this is and should remain a highly opinionated essay ONLY, though, not an article. What will the liberals say to us next if they see this? I'm an ashamed conservative to have to read this.Bender2982 18:13, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Invoking "shame" is trademark liberal style, Bender. I doubt you're fooling anyone here by claiming you're a conservative. By the way, I added a reference for the material you removed, a reference that took me less than one minute to find. You could have done likewise. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
Actually, you added only One reference to One of the points. But in doing so you went from saying, "Some" boards "have been known to", to the more unequivocal, "Faculty boards block the granting of a tenured professorship to candidates for tenure who:" Unless you are going to once again provide the word, "Some", as a moderate you are going to need to provide more than one reference to make a blanket and unqualified statement. Oh, and the reference you used said that they took his position into consideration for their decision. A far cry from stating that faculty boards block the granting, etc. as if it was a written policy. A phrase more in line with your example would be, "Some faculty boards have used the following criteria in blocking the granting of a tenured professorship..." --Jareddr 18:24, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Blatant factual error

In the article, Alexander Downer is quoted as being a 'liberal' politician who received an academic position. Unfortunately, despite being a previously prominent member of the Liberal Party of Australia, in Australia this means something quite different. Alexander Downer was one of the most conservative politicians in Australia in the last decade. As a matter of personal opinion, I'd say he'd be the 5th-most conservative mainstream politican in Australia.

What are his positions on abortion, gay rights and gun control? The way you phrase your comment, I'd guess he is a liberal.--Aschlafly 10:32, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly, the Liberal Party in Australia is actually a conservative party. Liberal in this case means free-market liberal. HSpalding 20:15, 16 November 2008 (EST)
If someone is for government funding of abortion, then he's a liberal. The entry makes no assertion about a particular party name.--Aschlafly 20:17, 16 November 2008 (EST)
The problem is, Aschlafly, that conservative in the USA doesn't mean the same as conservative elsewhere, not least other English-speaking countries. In the USA, largely the same set of people are conservative in both social and economic views. In the UK, Australia and New Zealand, however, the two things are pretty much independent. Taking your anti-abortion example, there are MPs opposed to abortion in all three main parties in the UK - their views on that subject are completely unconnected to their economic views. Likewise, civil partnerships and other social issues.
As far as the text in the article goes, the sensible thing is just to delete the word liberal. You can't call someone like Alexander Downer or Tony Blair liberal. Downer was very much a conservative in economic policy and Blair was socially conservative, bringing in a great many laws to restrict perfectly harmless activities. HSpalding 16:53, 17 November 2008 (EST)
HSpalding, your assumptions are both offensive and based on the untruth that Mr Schlafly is unaware of conditions in the UK. He is very much aware of differences between our two countries, and his insights on these are extremely instructive. You would be well advised not to jump to conclusions, on this and other matters. Bugler 17:25, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Doctor values?

Please could someone explain in what way the long list of crimes committed by people who happen to be professors has any connection at all to the values of the huge majority of professors who are decent people?

If you want to be consistent, why not start a page called Doctor Values, headed by Harold Shipman. HSpalding 19:49, 16 November 2008 (EST)

see my page [Value Systems] for similar articles , add Doctor Values by all means Markr 17:04, 17 November 2008 (EST)

David Ross liberal parody/hoax?

The most recent addition about some Dr. David Ross might be a hoax. Since he supposedly has appeared on BBC several times I should be able to find something about him. I have not. Unless someone can verify it, I think it should be removed as liberal parody/hoax. --RickD 07:05, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Very well spotted, Rick. Also 'Dav Ross' (no-one called David is nicknamed 'Dav') - there is a character in the BBC sci-fio series 'Dr Who' called Davros. Bugler 08:07, 23 December 2008 (EST)


100 German Professors Accused of Accepting Bribes For Degrees

[4]

An appropriate inclusion for the article? --Benp 14:47, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

Absolutely. What a story that is!--Andy Schlafly 15:06, 23 August 2009 (EDT)
It is shocking, isn't it? Added. --Benp 15:14, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

Lenski

The entries on Lenski are basically the author's opinions.--SBosell 21:39, 17 May 2010 (EDT)


Crimes and Unusual Behaviors

Considering that there are over 2 million people employed in post-secondary education, it is not at all shocking that one can dredge up a couple dozen instances of illegal or bizarre behavior. Both sections in the article ought to be removed. There may be statistics for people in academia having the values that this article purports them to have, but there definitely are not statistics mentioned on this page showing that they are prone to criminal behavior, but merely misleading anecdotes.

[5]

Suggested move

This article should be moved to "Professorial values". The current title is bad grammar. You would talk of "Judicial values" rather than "Judge values", of "Political values" rather than "Politician values", of "Janitorial values" rather than "Janitor values" and of "Arboreal values" rather than "Tree values" (although I am not sure that trees could be said to have values). Does anyone oppose such a move? --KimbaTWL 18:55, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

I'm not sure if I agree. For example I take issue with your political values vs politician values example. I'm not an expert on grammar by any means, but if I were to hear "political values" - i would think you'd be talking about someone's political ideology. Whereas politician values would specifically talk about politicians' values. Also the article title is a play off "Hollywood values" - which is a compound noun (I think. maybe? Well ... it's two nouns) just like this article, whereas political values would by adjective noun.--IDuan 21:22, 10 May 2011 (EDT)
You make a good point about "Political values". I think that if one was writing about values held by politicians the best title would probably be "Politicians' values". Likewise, another option for this article would be "Professors' values" (although I prefer "Professorial values" because I think it is slightly more accurate). --KimbaTWL 23:26, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

"Bestiality" section

There are deviants in every profession. I would say that in six years of college, I have yet to encounter a professor who endorses bestiality. Due to the inherent risk of zoonotic infection, most of the professors in my field would probably be pretty strongly opposed to bestiality. As such, I have removed the "bestiality" section.

Furthermore, part of a professor's job is to say provocative things and investigate (and even defend) controversial positions--it encourages students to think critically about their own assumptions. --RudrickBoucher 23:00, 6 December 2011 (EST)

Peter Singer is an example. NickP 23:48, 6 December 2011 (EST)
There are outliers in any group. By that same logic Newt Gingrich could be used as evidence that conservative values support adultery. --RudrickBoucher 18:57, 12 December 2011 (EST)

RudrickBoucher, Professor PZ Myers has said that in certain circumstances (which he failed to say what they are) that bestiality is acceptable.

Second, there are outliers in any group? Please give me the names of the Orthodox Rabbis who say that bestiality is an acceptable practice. Given that the Torah expressly forbids bestiality, your statement is easily proven wrong. Also, please give me the name of a Mennonite minister who had indicated that bestiality is an acceptable practice. Conservative 21:51, 27 December 2013 (EST)

Milton Friedman was not a conservative.

"At the University of Chicago, more than one hundred professors signed a letter to protest a proposal to honor conservative-leaning Nobel Prize-winning colleague Milton Friedman." This is very inaccurate because Milton Friedman was a libertarian. Nashhinton

Personal tools