Bias in Academia? Say it ain't so, Joe!

I have had the pleasure of late to read a blog written by a Dean at a community college on the east coast. He has requested his readers to provide inputs on what the ideal, or "utopian" community college would be like. I found much of the discussion interesting, often for what it did not include (expectations of performance of faculty, for instance--but I have a comment there about that...).

I also found a discussion about bias in academia to be interesting as well. It seems that academics do not believe that there is a liberal bias in academia. Now, one could comment about fish not perceiving water, pigs and mud, etc (the implication being, you do not notice that which surrounds you as being somehow "different.") I, though, was struck by the similarity between the liberal argument, and the conservatives they argue about.

So, without any further ado, here is my comment and the others, regarding stereotyping by liberals.

Kimmitt:

Do you not notice the stereotyping and bias you yourself introduce? By writing "the conservative movement as a whole has a very strong "know-nothing" component which is inimical to the very concept of education." you judge a whole group based on a pre-conception (and I doubt you can show research to support your view--besides anecdote.) Given this, you dismiss as "the exception" the few conservatives who point out they are in favor of critical thinking.

This really does sound as offensive to me as "well, you may be a smart woman, but most women..." or perhaps some other stereotype.

It is perhaps in our desire to descriminate, and stereotype, based on differences, that conservatives and liberals, pin-heads and enlightened, find their true common ground.

This is why my preference for "diversity" in education is not race or gender, or even age based--it's *idea* based. I want to encourage a diverse idea base, so that ideas can be freely exchanged, and debate encouraged, without stereotyping and dismissing from any group.

Just a thought.

More Questions Raised About Delay in Reporting Cheney Misfire

More Questions Raised About Delay in Reporting Cheney Misfire

It's not much of a surprise that people are wondering about the delay in the news, and finding a conspiracy in every line. I first heard the "breaking news" on the radio while driving back from the lake house on Sunday with my daughter. We actually laughed first, at how the "breaking news" was breaking about every 30 seconds--and the story was inevitably told each time to first lead you to believe Cheney was the one shot.

After that, we heard that the "breaking news" was 24 hours old, and yet the news station continued with the frequent updates. Go figure.

I was actually pleased that it was such a slow news day.

Now, on to the bit at hand-the delay in reporting the story. Sure--the Cheney office, and the White House, didn't immediately hold a press conference. Does that surprise anyone? When one does something that is somewhat embarrassing, do you usually rush out and tell everyone? I would think not. "Hey, you won't believe the really stupid thing *I* did today!" (okay, so SOMETIMES we tell the story--but usually not if it involves shooting someone!) It would be different if they had told a different story, or if they had at first denied it, or employed any number of other obfuscation techniques.

They didn't. They just said "yup."