PDA

View Full Version : Obama Forced His Students to Read Bell at University of Chicago Law School



Odysseus
03-08-2012, 12:27 PM
Obama Forced His Students to Read Bell at University of Chicago Law Schoolhttp://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Homepage/Backgrounds/pg05.jpg








by Charles C. Johnson 1 hour ago 4 (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/Big-Government/2012/03/08/obama-made-bell-required-reading-chicago#disqus_thread)post a comment (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/Big-Government/2012/03/08/obama-made-bell-required-reading-chicago#comments)
Barack Obama made his own students at the University of Chicago Law School read some of Derrick Bell's most radical and racially inflammatory writings.In 1994, Barack Obama taught a course at the University of Chicago Law School entitled, "Current Issues in Racism and the Law." The reading list and syllabus for that class were made available (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/2008OBAMA_LAW/Obama_CoursePk.pdf) by the New York Times in 2008, though there seems to have been little analysis of its content by Jodi Kantor, the Times’s Obama correspondent.

Obama routinely assigned works by Bell as required reading, including Bell's racialist interpretations of seminal civil rights laws and cases. No other scholar’s work appears as often in the syllabus as Bell’s does.

Obama relied particularly heavily upon Bell’s major work, Race, Racism, and American Law (http://www.amazon.com/Race-Racism-American-Derrick-Bell/dp/0735575746) (1973). Now in its sixth edition, the book lays out Bell’s Critical Race Theory, which is based on the Alinskyite presumption that all of law is a construct--not of justice, but of power exercised by whites against blacks.

(Obama appears to be diagramming just such a presumption in a famous photo (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/05/03/us/politics/03obama.span.jpg) from his campaign that ran in The Times and accompanied a piece written by Kantor on Obama’s stint as a law lecturer. The title of the diagram, “relationships built on self-interest,” links corporations, banks, and utilities, as part of a "power analysis.")

Perhaps most interesting was Obama's decision to include and to require the introduction to Bell’s controversial 1992 book, Faces at the Bottom of the Well: The Permanence of Racism (http://www.amazon.com/Faces-At-Bottom-Well-Permanence/dp/0465068146), which relied on manufactured stories (or, as Bell called them, “allegories” or “fables”) meant to portray the allegedly structural racism of American society.

In a September 24, 1992 interview with C-Span’s Brian Lamb (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Bott), Lamb quoted this paragraph from Bell’s book and asked Bell for comment.

Black people will never gain full equality in this country. Even those Herculean efforts we hail as successful will produce no more than temporary peaks of progress, short-lived victories that slide into irrelevance as racial patterns adapt in ways that maintain white dominance. This is a hard-to-accept fact that all history verifies. We must acknowledge it, not as a sign of submission, but as an act of ultimate defiance. (p. 12, italics in original)
“That, if I had to put down my whole thirty five years working in this [field] is [my view] reflected… If you read nothing else, I think that reflects my experience,” Bell told Lamb.
That is what Obama wanted his fellow students at Harvard, and the students he taught at Chicago, to understand--and believe.Contrary to media spin, Obama did not encounter radical racialist professor Derrick Bell in a youthful flirtation with radicalism. Obama befriended Bell as an adult, and he used Bell's work to indoctrinate his own students about race and the law.

noonwitch
03-08-2012, 01:11 PM
Part of higher education is reading diverse theories and being able to either critique them or support them with your written arguments. That definitely applies to law school.

I had to read works by Lauffer in my econ classes, and theories in religion class that I didn't necessarily agree with when I was in college.

Odysseus
03-08-2012, 02:22 PM
Part of higher education is reading diverse theories and being able to either critique them or support them with your written arguments. That definitely applies to law school.

I had to read works by Lauffer in my econ classes, and theories in religion class that I didn't necessarily agree with when I was in college.

Yes, but you were a student, not a teacher. Obama used Bell's books as classroom texts, and far more often than any other source, presumably because he considered them valuable. The questions that should have been asked was whether Obama thought that Bell's theories on racial politics are accurate at the time, how Bell's theories influence his policy decisions, and whether he still sees them as accurate. The media didn't just fail to do its job, it prevented the job from being done by anyone else, by hiding facts.

NJCardFan
03-08-2012, 03:26 PM
Part of higher education is reading diverse theories and being able to either critique them or support them with your written arguments. That definitely applies to law school.

I had to read works by Lauffer in my econ classes, and theories in religion class that I didn't necessarily agree with when I was in college.
OK, if this is true, how often do professors have students read books written by conservative authors? Um, none probably? Funny how liberals always look to excuse their bad practices.

AmPat
03-08-2012, 03:45 PM
Part of higher education is reading diverse theories and being able to either critique them or support them with your written arguments. That definitely applies to law school.

I had to read works by Lauffer in my econ classes, and theories in religion class that I didn't necessarily agree with when I was in college.
I never had to read Mein Kampf as a text book to study Hitler. Your excuse for O Blah Blah is admirable from its loyalty aspect. It fails as an excuse for the Marxist miserably.

linda22003
03-08-2012, 03:48 PM
I never had to read Mein Kampf as a text book to study Hitler.

Wow. I sure did.

Rockntractor
03-08-2012, 03:53 PM
Wow. I sure did.

The grammar Nazi meme is making more sense now!http://gfxlovers.com/smilies/imgs/laughing/laughing014.gif (http://gfxlovers.com/smilies)

AmPat
03-08-2012, 04:54 PM
Wow. I sure did.
I see. I suppose you were forced to read it by a NAZI sympathizer too?

I tried to read that book on my own, twice! It was impossible to read so I put it down. O Blah Blah forcing his students to read his propaganda was not in the interest of "education" so much as "re-education."

linda22003
03-08-2012, 04:57 PM
The grammar Nazi meme is making more sense now!http://gfxlovers.com/smilies/imgs/laughing/laughing014.gif (http://gfxlovers.com/smilies)

Why do people think it's bad to read different points of view? I'll never understand that.

linda22003
03-08-2012, 04:58 PM
I see. I suppose you were forced to read it by a NAZI sympathizer too?

I tried to read that book on my own, twice! It was impossible to read so I put it down. O Blah Blah forcing his students to read his propaganda was not in the interest of "education" so much as "re-education."

No; he was German but of American birth. And yes, the book is pretty turgid stuff.

Janice
03-08-2012, 05:31 PM
Obama relied particularly heavily upon Bell’s major work, Race, Racism, and American Law (1973). Now in its sixth edition, the book lays out Bell’s Critical Race Theory, which is based on the Alinskyite presumption that all of law is a construct--not of justice, but of power exercised by whites against blacks. >>>

Obama did not encounter radical racialist professor Derrick Bell in a youthful flirtation with radicalism. Obama befriended Bell as an adult, and he used Bell's work to indoctrinate his own students about race and the law.


Some people are blinded by idealism and may embrace destructive ideas and rally around them and their proponents. Idealism based on -- dare I say it -- hope and change? Conservatives inherently argue facts using logic. Leftists simply take ideological positions. Hitler is only one example of an ideologue whos success is based on how they're seen, not how they are. Anyway the drones have already surrendered their freedom and free will to the all powerful State. The big story is still the total lack of investigative reporting by the media, you know, the same media who sent legions of reporters to Alaska to unearth everything about Sarah Palin, her family, and the family dog. The same media who within hours of Santorum's first win managed to find every controversial thing he had ever said starting in Junior High School. The same media who not being able to find much on GW Bush felt emboldened to make up stuff that fit their narrative.


Video: Footage shows a young Barack Obama leading a protest at Harvard Law School on behalf of Prof. Derrick Bell, a radical academic tied to Jeremiah Wright.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/07/Obama%20Video%20Harvard

CNN Implodes Over Breitbart's Obama/Bell Video:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/08/The%20Vetting%20CNN%20Implodes%20Over%20Obama%20Be ll%20Video

noonwitch
03-08-2012, 05:42 PM
OK, if this is true, how often do professors have students read books written by conservative authors? Um, none probably? Funny how liberals always look to excuse their bad practices.

As I pointed out, I had to read Lauffer (The Lauffer Curve), as in the guy who came up with the supply-side economic theory. That's pretty conservative. Higher levels of econ classes had to read other conservative economic writings by people like Milton Friedman. I also had a conservative history prof who had us read criticisms of the New Deal by conservative authors (I can't remember the names) and a book about the Vietnam War written by a conservative. In my religion class, we used a textbook that I sold back to the bookstore for beer money, unfortunately, after the class ended. It was liberal-biased, so the prof had us read CS Lewis' Mere Christianity for balance.

This was in a public university in the 80s. I don't remember all the books I read, and I majored in social work which doesn't really have many conservative textbook writers. I felt that most of my basic ed classes were balanced, though.

Odysseus
03-08-2012, 07:15 PM
Why do people think it's bad to read different points of view? I'll never understand that.

If you accept that a good book can improve people, why can't you accept that a bad book can ruin them?

Retread
03-08-2012, 08:41 PM
Read them all, try to understand them - Know thy enemy.

Rockntractor
03-08-2012, 08:49 PM
Read them all, try to understand them - Know thy enemy.

What Linda and others are not understanding is that Bell is being held up as a model for Obama's society and not as an enemy or the author of failure.

Janice
03-08-2012, 10:35 PM
What Linda and others are not understanding is that Bell is being held up as a model for Obama's society and not as an enemy or the author of failure.

Yes. The left now argues perversion and degeneracy is virtuous.

Whats next? 1984 anybody?

txradioguy
03-09-2012, 04:26 AM
What Linda and others are not understanding is that Bell is being held up as a model for Obama's society and not as an enemy or the author of failure.

Can we just start moving anything Linda #'s says to Mindless Moonbat Jibberish? It's where it belongs.

AmPat
03-09-2012, 09:34 AM
If you accept that a good book can improve people, why can't you accept that a bad book can ruin them?
She's a contrarian. I've noticed that she weighs in with her contrarian posts mainly against a Conservative post. Hmmmm! I'm keeping an :single_eye: on her.

noonwitch
03-09-2012, 09:42 AM
What Linda and others are not understanding is that Bell is being held up as a model for Obama's society and not as an enemy or the author of failure.

And you guys are talking like the class was for middle school students. We are talking about law school-graduate classes. Nobody in law school is a child, at least in the chronological sense. Every student already comes to the class with their ideological ideas already in place, since pretty much every student is at least 22-23 years old.

BadCat
03-09-2012, 09:55 AM
I looked at the reading list...it's as racist as can be.

He even allows the students to substitute Bell for Dred Scott.

AmPat
03-09-2012, 10:11 AM
And you guys are talking like the class was for middle school students. We are talking about law school-graduate classes. Nobody in law school is a child, at least in the chronological sense. Every student already comes to the class with their ideological ideas already in place, since pretty much every student is at least 22-23 years old.
Still ignoring the obvious? Nice try but O Blah Blah the Marxist radical is the real story. This isn't about just another idiot liberal college professor, it is about the POTUS who has gone unvetted and continues to elicit vacuous apathy from an entire media machine. We know more about potential threats to this leftist god than we do about the actual president. When we do find something, it is completely ignored at worst or marginalized and pooh-pooed as "nothing to see here" at best. The media is completely ignoring every single thing we find out about Mao-Bama from his ties to domestic terrorism and Marxist or invisible past, his Union Thuggery present, and his inept, incompetent present.

The REAL story here is:
1. Another damning case of a radical Marxist president.
2. The complete cover up of newsworthy material by an adoring leftist press.

Odysseus
03-09-2012, 10:58 AM
And you guys are talking like the class was for middle school students. We are talking about law school-graduate classes. Nobody in law school is a child, at least in the chronological sense. Every student already comes to the class with their ideological ideas already in place, since pretty much every student is at least 22-23 years old.

Two questions:

What was the subject of his class?

Did he include any other points of view?

noonwitch
03-09-2012, 02:55 PM
Still ignoring the obvious? Nice try but O Blah Blah the Marxist radical is the real story. This isn't about just another idiot liberal college professor, it is about the POTUS who has gone unvetted and continues to elicit vacuous apathy from an entire media machine. We know more about potential threats to this leftist god than we do about the actual president. When we do find something, it is completely ignored at worst or marginalized and pooh-pooed as "nothing to see here" at best. The media is completely ignoring every single thing we find out about Mao-Bama from his ties to domestic terrorism and Marxist or invisible past, his Union Thuggery present, and his inept, incompetent present.

The REAL story here is:
1. Another damning case of a radical Marxist president.
2. The complete cover up of newsworthy material by an adoring leftist press.


There is nothing to this story. It's about academic issues, in a society that finds Jersey Shore and Gucciman to be worthy of their time, money and minds. In addition, your side throws the word Marxist around so much that it really doesn't have much relevance anymore. The right tried it on Clinton, who was a pretty centrist president, and now the word has lost it's power when you try to use it on Obama.

The allegedly leftist media didn't cover it up. They just didn't cover it because they didn't think it was newsworthy. I know how frustrating that must be for you, but cheer up-I'm sure that the news outlet that considers Geraldo Rivera to be a legitimate journalist will cover the story.

Rockntractor
03-09-2012, 03:23 PM
There is nothing to this story. It's about academic issues, in a society that finds Jersey Shore and Gucciman to be worthy of their time, money and minds. In addition, your side throws the word Marxist around so much that it really doesn't have much relevance anymore. The right tried it on Clinton, who was a pretty centrist president, and now the word has lost it's power when you try to use it on Obama.

The allegedly leftist media didn't cover it up. They just didn't cover it because they didn't think it was newsworthy. I know how frustrating that must be for you, but cheer up-I'm sure that the news outlet that considers Geraldo Rivera to be a legitimate journalist will cover the story.

When you add this story to Reverend Wright add his own books whether written by William Ayers or not, also his friend ship with Ayers and than add the record of his last 3 years you have either a Marxist, a fascist or at the very least a hard core socialist.

Odysseus
03-09-2012, 03:40 PM
There is nothing to this story. It's about academic issues, in a society that finds Jersey Shore and Gucciman to be worthy of their time, money and minds. In addition, your side throws the word Marxist around so much that it really doesn't have much relevance anymore. The right tried it on Clinton, who was a pretty centrist president, and now the word has lost it's power when you try to use it on Obama.

The allegedly leftist media didn't cover it up. They just didn't cover it because they didn't think it was newsworthy. I know how frustrating that must be for you, but cheer up-I'm sure that the news outlet that considers Geraldo Rivera to be a legitimate journalist will cover the story.

On the contrary, there is a great deal to this story.

Derrick Bell's Critical Race Theory is meant to analyze "the way in which white supremacy and racial power are reproduced over time, and in particular, the role that law plays in this process." Think about that for a moment. It presumes that law is a tool of white supremacy, and that whites will never relinquish power willingly. It demands the manipulation of law to create desired racial outcomes, rather than the ideal of equal protection of the law. It stands our entire Constitutional order on its head. It sees law as a means to revolutionary power, not as a means of maintaining civil order and

Why is this important? Take a look at who is running the Justice Department. When Eric Holder refuses to prosecute members of the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation, but investigates the NYPD for surveillance of Muslims, prosecutes states for enforcing immigration law or does pro-bono work for terrorists, he is applying Critical Race Theory. This isn't academic anymore, it's being imposed upon us by Obama, and the implications are terrifying. Think of the worst excesses of the racial spoils system that goes by the name of Affirmative Action, the quotas, the lies, the deliberate dismissal of individuals as anything but representatives of perpetually warring racial and ethnic categories, and multiply it by four more years of this administration. It's the guarantee that our children will be judged, not by the content of their character, but by the color of their skin, the configuration of their genitals, their religions, their sexual orientation, anything and everything that is superficial, shallow and divisive. Think of the sheer volume of racial animosity in our culture and then look at the Balkans for our future.

This isn't an academic game, a faculty lounge thought experiment, this is real, and it's happening all around us. And it needs to stop.

AmPat
03-09-2012, 03:41 PM
There is nothing to this story.
That's right, bury that head up your butt a few more years. Nothing to see here.:rolleyes:

It's about academic issues, in a society that finds Jersey Shore and Gucciman to be worthy of their time, money and minds.
No, it's about a rpesident that got a complete pass on his MARXIST and radical ideology by the press and that same press acting as gate keepers of important knowledge and as O Blah Blah protectors.

In addition, your side throws the word Marxist around so much that it really doesn't have much relevance anymore. The right tried it on Clinton, who was a pretty centrist president, and now the word has lost it's power when you try to use it on Obama.
What can I say? Guilty! I call a Marxist a Marxist. Got a better and valid alternative to Marxist? Please do share.

The allegedly leftist media didn't cover it up. They just didn't cover it because they didn't think it was newsworthy.
Please shovel this excrement elsewhere, it doesn't work here. I suggest you try it out on the leftist drones until you perfect it.:rolleyes::bullshit:

I know how frustrating that must be for you, but cheer up-I'm sure that the news outlet that considers Geraldo Rivera to be a legitimate journalist will cover the story.
Not frustrating, enlightening. Not to me as I saw the hypocrisy of the liberal press years ago. It is enlightening to those delicate moderates that apparently are too sensitive to hear the truth. What I feel is complete disgust. When I see one of these Circus Barkers masquerading as "journalists," I experience something akin to greasy dog$*** on the bottom of my shoe.

Arroyo_Doble
03-09-2012, 04:27 PM
Part of higher education is reading diverse theories and being able to either critique them or support them with your written arguments. That definitely applies to law school.

I had to read works by Lauffer in my econ classes, and theories in religion class that I didn't necessarily agree with when I was in college.

My wife recently finished her masters degree. Some of the reading material was out there (I read much of what she was assigned so we could talk about it).

Check out bell hooks' work sometime.

Arroyo_Doble
03-09-2012, 04:29 PM
BTW, is this going to be the new scaryblackguy campaign?

noonwitch
03-09-2012, 04:47 PM
On the contrary, there is a great deal to this story.

Derrick Bell's Critical Race Theory is meant to analyze "the way in which white supremacy and racial power are reproduced over time, and in particular, the role that law plays in this process." Think about that for a moment. It presumes that law is a tool of white supremacy, and that whites will never relinquish power willingly. It demands the manipulation of law to create desired racial outcomes, rather than the ideal of equal protection of the law. It stands our entire Constitutional order on its head. It sees law as a means to revolutionary power, not as a means of maintaining civil order and

Why is this important? Take a look at who is running the Justice Department. When Eric Holder refuses to prosecute members of the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation, but investigates the NYPD for surveillance of Muslims, prosecutes states for enforcing immigration law or does pro-bono work for terrorists, he is applying Critical Race Theory. This isn't academic anymore, it's being imposed upon us by Obama, and the implications are terrifying. Think of the worst excesses of the racial spoils system that goes by the name of Affirmative Action, the quotas, the lies, the deliberate dismissal of individuals as anything but representatives of perpetually warring racial and ethnic categories, and multiply it by four more years of this administration. It's the guarantee that our children will be judged, not by the content of their character, but by the color of their skin, the configuration of their genitals, their religions, their sexual orientation, anything and everything that is superficial, shallow and divisive. Think of the sheer volume of racial animosity in our culture and then look at the Balkans for our future.

This isn't an academic game, a faculty lounge thought experiment, this is real, and it's happening all around us. And it needs to stop.


I don't disagree with everything expressed by Bell. White supremacy was intact as law in many states in this country until the Civil Rights Act was passed in the 1960s. Poll taxes, separate bathrooms and drinking fountains , denial of admission into schools like Ole Miss-all of those forms of discrimination were legally ended by the Civil Rights act, thank God. Sometimes legal reform is necessary. We had to fight a civil war to end race-based slavery in this country, at least legal reforms don't result in bloody wars.

None of those things would have been ended without legal steps, contrary to Barry Goldwater's belief that the american people themselves could end racial discrimination without changing the law/amending the constitution. It would have been nice if Barry had been correct, but there is no way in hell that the state of Mississippi (for example) would have ended legal racism without federal intervention.

txradioguy
03-09-2012, 05:07 PM
BTW, is this going to be the new scaryblackguy campaign?

And right on cue...fanboy channels his inner Jay Thomas and pathetically attempts to play the race card.

Rockntractor
03-09-2012, 05:27 PM
BTW, is this going to be the new scaryblackguy campaign?

Go be a race baiter somewhere else. one week vac on me.

Rockntractor
03-09-2012, 06:07 PM
Liberals like to make the blanket accusation of racism anytime they can't win an argument, it's done by the liberal dominated mainstream media all the time.
This is our backyard if you can't discuss without the race card than stay the fuck away.

Retread
03-09-2012, 06:38 PM
............... We had to fight a civil war to end race-based slavery in this country, at least legal reforms don't result in bloody wars.

.........................

An outright lie promulgated by dis-honest abe and his yankee businessmen friends. The federal troops invaded SC because the yankees wanted to pay less for the the southern agrarian products than the producrs could get in Europe, The war was to force the south to not export.
Lincoln and the federal guvmint had at least 5 other options to end slavery, none of which would have ended in the massacre of the young men of the south. But they would not have forced the farmers to do business with the yankess so they were all written off.

Adam Wood
03-10-2012, 02:02 AM
I, too, had to read Mein Kampf in history class. Actually, twice: once in high school and once again in college. And there were other such liberal texts that I had to read, mostly either in history or econ classes. I had to read the Communist Manifesto, for example, but I had to read all of the Federalist Papers, as well. We didn't read just Hamilton's Fedarlist Papers; we read them all, and we discussed what points Hamilton raised that were good ones, what points Madison raised that were good ones, and we had good arguments in class about which one was right on this issue or the other.

What's important here is not whether or not students had to read these things. What's important is whether or not students were taught that these books were right, in whole or in part. That was the #1 problem that I had with my sociology class: the moonbat that I had as a "professor" was hell-bent-for-leather that the most idiotic, radical sociological ideas were the right ones, and the only right ones. That silly dingbat got argued right out of the classroom on a regular basis, not only by me but also by about 75% of the rest of the class as well, but she was still absolutely insistant that if we didn't embrace her raging bullshit come time of exams, then we would fail her class. Needless to say, a lot of us just clammed up and recited the "right" answers, and some actually swallowed this drivel and actually believed it.

The fact alone that Obama pushed his students into reading Bell doesn't really tell us much out of an actual healthy college experience (meaning one in which the actual free flow of ideas is embraced, which is exceptionally rare in today's college environment, or even that of 20 or 30 years ago); the teaching behind those readings is what is the real meat to this story.

m00
03-11-2012, 02:33 PM
CNN Implodes Over Breitbart's Obama/Bell Video:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/08/The%20Vetting%20CNN%20Implodes%20Over%20Obama%20Be ll%20Video

I watched this last week, and it really pissed me off. There was no pretense that this CNN "journalist" was anything but a mouthpiece for the Democrats. She is an Obama surrogate. We live in a country where it's normal and accepted that the vast majority of the media openly back a single political party. You felt it too during the primaries -- the Republican debates were being moderated by individuals who were strong Obama supporters. The post-debate commentary... the pundits, analysts and talking heads. I refuse to believe a word of it.

m00
03-11-2012, 02:37 PM
BTW, is this going to be the new scaryblackguy campaign?

It shows that we've come a long way as a society finally being able to talk about these things without being labelled a racist.

Odysseus
03-12-2012, 02:46 AM
It shows that we've come a long way as a society finally being able to talk about these things without being labelled a racist.

Oh, we'll be labeled racists for it. That's where Arroyo was going with it. Liberals can't win this on the facts, but they can try to intimidate us into silence. Ultimately, they don't care if we disagree with them as long as we keep it to ourselves and let them do whatever they want. It's power, not persuasion, that motivates them.

m00
03-12-2012, 02:56 AM
Oh, we'll be labeled racists for it. That's where Arroyo was going with it. Liberals can't win this on the facts, but they can try to intimidate us into silence. Ultimately, they don't care if we disagree with them as long as we keep it to ourselves and let them do whatever they want. It's power, not persuasion, that motivates them.

I don't know. I think the "Obama has deep connections to black power radicals" ship has sailed in terms of it being meaningful in an election. Everybody kind of knows he has these connections. Don't get me wrong, the public needs to be informed of this stuff. I just don't see it hurting Obama's numbers.

txradioguy
03-12-2012, 04:41 AM
It shows that we've come a long way as a society finally being able to talk about these things without being labelled a racist.

Except that fanboy didn't get the memo.

AmPat
03-12-2012, 10:38 AM
I don't know. I think the "Obama has deep connections to black power radicals" ship has sailed in terms of it being meaningful in an election. Everybody kind of knows he has these connections. Don't get me wrong, the public needs to be informed of this stuff. I just don't see it hurting Obama's numbers.

No doubt you are correct. The Constitution loving, traditional values patriotic Americans, aka, Conservatives, are plastered as "radicals" by the propaganda wing (media) of the Marxist left. Meanwhile, the left, aided and abetted by the formerly free press, give a proven Marxist, anti-Constitution president, Chairman Mao-bama, as mainstream.

Odysseus
03-12-2012, 11:14 AM
I don't know. I think the "Obama has deep connections to black power radicals" ship has sailed in terms of it being meaningful in an election. Everybody kind of knows he has these connections. Don't get me wrong, the public needs to be informed of this stuff. I just don't see it hurting Obama's numbers.

Not necessarily. First, the media is tripping over themselves to try to portray Derrick Bell as some harmless academic, but he isn't. The harder that they work to obscure that, the harder we work to put out the facts, and there are a lot of videos of him making outrageous statements that can be juxtaposed with Obama calling for open hearts and minds. The second, and more important issue, is that this demonstrates just how hard the media worked to prevent any discovery of Obama's past. Whenever a media outlet goes out of its way to try to hide Obama's record this time around, the media bias card will be far more potent. It's not enough to run the video of Obama making the statement, we have to run the video of Soledad O'Brien desperately trying to downplay it. Maybe even using the James Earl Jones voiceover, "This is CNN" to make the point that they are highly partisan. This is her Dan Rather moment.

Wei Wu Wei
03-12-2012, 12:39 PM
I, too, had to read Mein Kampf in history class. Actually, twice: once in high school and once again in college. And there were other such liberal texts that I had to read, mostly either in history or econ classes. I had to read the Communist Manifesto, for example, but I had to read all of the Federalist Papers, as well. We didn't read just Hamilton's Fedarlist Papers; we read them all, and we discussed what points Hamilton raised that were good ones, what points Madison raised that were good ones, and we had good arguments in class about which one was right on this issue or the other.

What's important here is not whether or not students had to read these things. What's important is whether or not students were taught that these books were right, in whole or in part.

The students are adults! They should be able to take in various forms of information and decide for themselves. Even if you have a far-leaning ideologue leading the class, giving their own personal opinions, the students are still able to think for themselves. You can be a great teacher and still have an opinion, and even let that opinion be known.





That was the #1 problem that I had with my sociology class: the moonbat that I had as a "professor" was hell-bent-for-leather that the most idiotic, radical sociological ideas were the right ones, and the only right ones. That silly dingbat got argued right out of the classroom on a regular basis, not only by me but also by about 75% of the rest of the class as well, but she was still absolutely insistant that if we didn't embrace her raging bullshit come time of exams, then we would fail her class. Needless to say, a lot of us just clammed up and recited the "right" answers, and some actually swallowed this drivel and actually believed it.

This sounds hard to believe. I've seen instances where people are upset or refuse to believe something because it conflicts with their worldview, especially in sociology. Some students seem unwilling to accept the DATA on poverty, on prison, on social stratification. They don't like hearing those FACTS so they try to argue out of it.

Also, some students hate having to even recognize another point of view. I could teach a class on Marx's Capital and ask a question like "In what way does Marx compare the Value of a commodity to the effects of Gravity on an object? How is this significant?" A question like that doesn't require you to believe anything whatsoever, it only requires you to have an understanding of the text.

When I was in school, I had a class on Religion, specifically on Christianity. We would have small-group discussions with a Teachers Assistant about the topics in the class, that were very open to debate. The TA made it very clear and very open that he was a steadfast atheist, and often introduced his own arguments into the discussion but we never felt like it was a problem because we were all adults having a discussion and we could handle the person leading the discussion having an opinion of their own too.

Now I'm sure at some colleges there are some professors who are terrible professors and force their students to believe something, but I've heard this complaint more times than I can count and it's almost ALWAYS a case of a student simply not wanting to understand a point of view, not wanting to accept facts, or not wanting to accept anything from someone who they identify as disagreeing with them.

Hawkgirl
03-12-2012, 09:46 PM
Now I'm sure at some colleges there are some professors who are terrible professors and force their students to believe something, but I've heard this complaint more times than I can count and it's almost ALWAYS a case of a student simply not wanting to understand a point of view, not wanting to accept facts, or not wanting to accept anything from someone who they identify as disagreeing with them.

No, it's probably the student not wanting to drink the Kool Aid from it's obvious Liberal professors trying to impose their ideology on the class.

Hawkgirl
03-12-2012, 09:50 PM
BTW, is this going to be the new scaryblackguy campaign?


http://i40.tinypic.com/358xufp.jpg

Rockntractor
03-12-2012, 09:56 PM
http://i40.tinypic.com/358xufp.jpg

Isn't it odd how Wei who has been making about 1 post a week suddenly shows up full time when Dolby goes on vacation?http://gfxlovers.com/smilies/imgs/confused/confused007.gif (http://gfxlovers.com/smilies)

Hawkgirl
03-12-2012, 10:07 PM
Isn't it odd how Wei who has been making about 1 post a week suddenly shows up full time when Dolby goes on vacation?http://gfxlovers.com/smilies/imgs/confused/confused007.gif (http://gfxlovers.com/smilies)

No, not unusual at all. WW3 always shows up to defend his honor. :rolleyes:

Odysseus
03-13-2012, 12:50 AM
The students are adults! They should be able to take in various forms of information and decide for themselves. Even if you have a far-leaning ideologue leading the class, giving their own personal opinions, the students are still able to think for themselves. You can be a great teacher and still have an opinion, and even let that opinion be known.

But are they being allowed to decide for themselves? Are they taught to compare conflicting hypotheses, weigh the data and draw their own conclusions, or are they being indoctrinated by ideologues who seek ideological conformity? Obama's class appears to be a Critical Race Theory construct, which denies objective truth in favor of conflicting narratives. What happens when somebody argues against the teacher's narrative in that kind of situation? What happens when their conclusions conflict with the teacher's? Are the students browbeaten? Are they subjected to threat of failing grades? Are they accused of racism? Suspended? Subjected to sensitivity training?

We all know the game, Wei.


This sounds hard to believe. I've seen instances where people are upset or refuse to believe something because it conflicts with their worldview, especially in sociology. Some students seem unwilling to accept the DATA on poverty, on prison, on social stratification. They don't like hearing those FACTS so they try to argue out of it.

Oh, I believe it. We see it every time we discuss socialism with you. You argue against the facts, refuse to accept the DATA and cling to your worldview like a crack addict clings to his pipe.

Chuck58
03-13-2012, 01:14 AM
Interesting thread. I went to college a long, long time ago - Oklahoma St, Stillwater. Honestly I don't recall having a liberal professor, or one who even leaned slightly left.

We had classes where we disagreed on some things, but when test time arrived, we just answered what we thought he wanted to see and blew it off. Now, I was taking police science. I was a working cop and many others in the classes were already on the job, which may have been the difference.

No idea what the university is like now. I'd like to think that, being Oklahoma, it's still a fairly conservative school.

Adam Wood
03-13-2012, 02:25 PM
This sounds hard to believe. I've seen instances where people are upset or refuse to believe something because it conflicts with their worldview, especially in sociology. Some students seem unwilling to accept the DATA on poverty, on prison, on social stratification. They don't like hearing those FACTS so they try to argue out of it. No, the problem is that sociology is a bullshit pseudo-science. Phrenology has more credibility than sociology as a science.

Sociology is a bullshit veil of attempted credibility pulled over a pack of "facts" that Leftist bleeding hearts have dreamed up in an attempt to justify their failed worldview.

Odysseus
03-13-2012, 04:21 PM
No, the problem is that sociology is a bullshit pseudo-science. Phrenology has more credibility than sociology as a science.

Sociology is a bullshit veil of attempted credibility pulled over a pack of "facts" that Leftist bleeding hearts have dreamed up in an attempt to justify their failed worldview.

Since Bugs Bunny mastered phrenology, but didn't give sociology the time of day, I'd say that you're right about the relative credibility of the two. I also think that we'd learn a lot about Wei by reading the bumps on his head. :biggrin-new:

http://theness.com/roguesgallery/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/bugs-bunny.jpg