Journalism teacher says conservatives are Dixie-loving hicks
Journalism grad student Dan Lawton has a new post over at his blog with responses to his recent ODE opinion piece on the lack of ideological diversity on campus. The responses are all very predictable (“There are no Republican professors because you have to be smart to be a professor. Hurr hurr hurr!”). But then you get to the comment from UO journalism teacher Dan Morrison, who is on the record as saying (emphasis added):
You may be very upset that the University of Oregon, which, I may point out, is funded by people who live in a liberal state, and therefore, no surprise, tends to be liberal, attracts professor applying for a job who tend to be liberal. But as a student you have a choice. You do not have to come here. You most certainly can choose to spend your money to go to school in Alabama, or Texas, or Mississippi, or Georgia, or Louisiana or South Carolina. And if you like conservatism, you can certainly attend the University of Texas, and you can walk past the statue of Jefferson Davis every day on your way to class.
Whoa, whoa, hold on. Full stop. Really? I don’t know where Morrison gets off, but the last time I checked, being conservative does not mean one is some sort of neo-Confederate. In fact, that’s a fairly disgusting and disingenuous statement to make. Way to really raise the level of discourse there, tiger. Of course, maybe Morrison has just been yukking it up with his UO colleagues so long that he doesn’t realize everyone’s not an effete, latte-sipping pinko. (Do you see how that works?)
Second, perhaps some of us can’t afford out-of-state tuition. Perhaps some of us simply want a decent education at the state’s supposed “flagship university.” And as a “flagship university” or a “hot brand” or whatever the UO’s touting itself as these days, maybe we’re upset because we’re paying to sit in class and listen to pious, liberal professors tell us how evil cars/Bush/guns are instead of trying to provide us with an actual education.
P.S. I forgot to mention: Lawton challenged Morrison to an open debate of the subject, which Morrison declined.
I do think lessons in history are one of the areas where more intellectual diversity could be valuable, especially in the treatment of politically-charged historical events or their casual relationship with past policies. This certainly does not suggest a litmus test, just that we consider it.
My concern is that to go as far as ensuring the tolerance for view of history asserting Jefferson Davis’s righteousness or denying the Holocaust, for example… I worry that you get to a point where you’re less introducing valuable perspectives and more wasting time, which seems to be, ironically, the case against George here – a possible example of how that might play out. George certainly has the right to whatever view of history he wants, and the right to passionately express that view. It’s also usually wise to hear it out and consider it among a large number of interesting ideas. But I don’t know if I would pay thousands of dollars to learn it instead of other things traditional history professors might teach.
As for Olly’s comments: you know, I respect that view. I’m just trying to suggest other possible factors to help explain the existing bias and examine them so that they too may be addressed. It seems you’re less interested in that than in cutting me down, which is totally fine. As a general note: it just doesn’t help me, or frankly anyone else, to further understand the complexity of the issue much by not engaging in an honest dialogue regarding the potentially relevant questions.
It’s not hard to profess the ‘other’ side…..if you’re not a dumbass.
Matt: “It seems you’re less interested in that than in cutting me down, which is totally fine.”
Yeah, because the article under discussion addresses the interesting near-dearth of registered Republicans in the departments of journalism, law, political science, sociology and economics, and your first impulse is to draw a parallel between the prospect of their presence on the faculty and putting creationism (which you describe as “the conservative worldview” in biology) on the curriculum – and, for the reductio, teaching physics students that the earth is flat.
This is why I mentioned confirmation bias. Frankly, I thought it was a fairly charitable response.
“As a general note: it just doesn’t help me, or frankly anyone else, to further understand the complexity of the issue much by not engaging in an honest dialogue regarding the potentially relevant questions.”
Quite.
Vincent,
If you want to discuss historical fact, I’ll do so. I refuse to be drawn into a never ending exchange of snide remarks and insults. If you have something real to add to the discussion, please feel free to do so.
If you want to discuss historical fact, I’ll do so.
Fair enough. Jefferson Davis: Defender of slavery – Yes [] No []
For someone not wanting to get into a never-ending exchange, you do spend a lot of time posting replies on this thread …. just sayin’….
Matt:
I definitely think there are some fields where it is much easier to inject personal bias into the curriculum. The sciences are fairly good at remaining neutral, with mathematics at the top of the chain. As George pointed out, no matter where you go, 2+2 will always = 4; there are no second opinions or other points of view, just different approaches to the same answer. This is partially why I don’t like your analogy of the biology or physics curriculum; people can believe the world is flat if they want, but it is an unequivocally proven fact that this belief is incorrect. The sciences remain neutral to bias because there is often a “black-white” divide between fact and non-fact, right and wrong answers; so, discussion of alternate view points, such as your example of “the earth is flat” in a biology class, is kinda bad.
The more you get into the liberal arts is where it is much easier to inject personal bias into the curriculum, because the curriculum is much more subjective. There is no black-white divide like you see in the sciences; everything is opaque, murky shades of Grey. There are only right answers, so long as you argue and make a case for them. Even something as simple (at least in my mind) as history: this is an entire study devoted to recording and studying stuff that actually happened. To me, there seems a pretty obvious line between the stuff that really happened (the truth), and what didn’t. And yet we still have people that deny recorded, observed events through history.
Creationism might not make for interesting fare in the sciences, but I know it certainly has its space in other areas of academia, like philosophy. Come to think of it, I remember a section of PHIL 101 devoted to this very idea of creationism; not through the Christian religion, but of the Upanishads, Atma, and Brahma.
I think a good rule of thumb: If you are involved in a major that hands out B.S.’s, just stick to the standard curriculum, and no body gets hurt (feelings). If B.A.’s, check your (political) baggage at the door, and give ideas your two cents: you will come out the better because of it.
Vincent:
You forgot the “Maybe/Both” box!!
Vincent,
I will not get into an never ending exchange of snide remarks and insults. Do you actually have something to add to this discussion?
Vincent,
Again slavery was legal in the United States in 1861. Lincoln had no problem with slavery, or in fact the removal of blacks from the United States.
Matt,
“As a general note: it just doesn’t help me, or frankly anyone else, to further understand the complexity of the issue much by not engaging in an honest dialogue regarding the potentially relevant questions.”
You make an excellent point, however you should know I did not come here to promote the righteousness of Davis or Lincoln for that matter. I came here because I was sent the article referring to conservatives as Dixie loving hicks. I was interested because I was wondering if the south was being portrayed as the Beverly Hillbillies or as something resembling Larry the Cable guy. Lo and behold Johnny is screaming about Davis and the political parties. I mean there is your failure of the education system there. Why on earth is anyone attacking Dixie and Davis, simply because it is easy to get an article out attacking the South, nothing more nothing less. Now we have Vincent whose only objective in this discussion is to make cute cutting remarks without posting any fact. This is just liberal bias at its best. In regards to my view of history, it is actually based on years of research and study. My view is history’s view. I didn’t pay for my education in history; I got it by reading and doing my own research. Consider this, why should I let a history pro tell me his view of history? I am capable of reading and have a good understanding of what I read
True you might say my view is one sided and closed minded, but the cause of that is my heritage and my section is under attack, what view would you expect me to have? What would be your view if our roles were revised? You see I can post something’s about Lincoln most people will never believe, but they are absolute fact.
Again slavery was legal in the United States in 1861.
Slavery was also a total abomination in 1861. What’s your point?
That is only your point of view of today, not the views of people living in that period. What’s your point?
Betz—-
Are you telling me I have no right to post? Why? Because I might not agree with the popular beliefs about the WBTS? You never considered that I may also defend the north against slanderous lies if the situation was reversed. What I said at least twice before I would not engage in an exchange of insults and snide remarks. Vincent wants scream that all Davis did was promote slavery, yet he does not acknowledge anything else that Davis may have done or the fact that Grant owned slaves. I wonder if he actually read the information in the link I posted. His stance is clearly one sided. What would attribute this stance to, education, and upbringing? Are you going to allow me to have the same consideration??? What if I told you Lincoln provoked the war or that Major Anderson made the first aggressive move? Am I promoting a one sided view or am I telling the truth? Either way can anyone prove that I am wrong using historical fact?
That is only your point of view of today, not the views of people living in that period. What’s your point?
My point is that slavery is and was an abomination, and Jefferson Davis was an ardent supporter of it.
Feel free to dither all you want and complain that everyone’s being unfair to the poor, misunderstood slaveholders. But you keep talking about Historical Fact ™ and the Historical Fact ™ is that Jefferson Davis, the guy you keep going to bat for, was a slave-owner and head of state of a short-lived country that based nearly its entire economy on plantation slave labor at the same time babbling about his supposed love for “liberty.”
As justification for this, you keep repeating that it was “legal at the time.” I hate to break it to you, chum, but that doesn’t matter. I tried to point out the absurdity of this argument by making reference to the prevalence and legality of anti-Semitism in pre-war Germany, but you were a bit too thick to pick up on even that incredibly obvious comparison.
I could just as easily have said that nothing Stalin did in the Soviet Union was “criminal”, since shooting kulaks in the head and deporting entire ethnic groups was “legal at the time”, but, as I said above, “what’s the use?”
Either way can anyone prove that I am wrong using historical fact?
Nobody here has questioned your assertions. They may very well be true, but they’re also all red herrings, which is why no one has bothered to address even one of them.
As far as I can tell, no one here is particularly interested in getting into a debate on Civil War history.
I gotta say, though, for a dude who’s apparently so worried about the “image” of Southerners, you’re not doing a particularly sterling job of breaking through those stereotypes, what with all the swooning over Jefferson Davis and all that.
Vincent,
That is only your point of view and not the view of people living in the in the period. That being the case I really don’t care about your point of view unless of course you can prove you lived during that period. Grant owned slaves to, so how does that make Davis worse than Grant? Heck Lincoln even admitted West Virginia as a slave state and of course he made his racist statements, so how is Lincoln better than Davis?
Oh I am not complaining one way or the other, I am fully in the context of this article and thread which is discussing one sided biased education and you are more than proving my point. True Davis did own slaves and true that he was the president of the Confederacy which was short lived, but as liberty was known in our early American history was for the white man and not all white men at that. Take children or the Irish in the northern cities for example.
I know what you were trying to do and any comparison of Nazi Germany to American history has no place in a discussion. Still slavery was legal in the ENTIRE United States and that is a fact. In fact the last slave ships sailed until 1859. I also knew it wouldn’t be long before the insults started, I said that in an earlier post thank you for making my point. That is typical of those who have a one sided, biased view of history.
Speaking of exporting complete ethic groups, here is something you should love –
HDQES. THIRTEENTH A. C., DEPT. OF THE TENN.,
Oxford, Miss., December 17, 1862.
HON. C. P. Wolcott, Assistant Secretary of War, Washington, D. C.:
I have long since believed that in spite of all vigilance that can be infused into post commanders, the specie regulations of the Treasury Department have been violated, and that mostly by Jews and other unprincipled traders. So well satisfied have I been of this that I instructed the commanding officer at Columbus to refuse all permits to Jews to come South, and I have frequently had them expelled from the department, but they come in with their carpet-sacks in spite of all that can be done to prevent it. The Jews seem to be a privileged class that can travel everywhere. They will land at any wood-yard on the river and make their way through the country. If not permitted to buy cotton themselves they will act as agents for someone else, who will be at a military post with a Treasury permit to receive cotton and pay for it in Treasury notes which the Jew will buy up at an agreed rate, paying gold.
There is but one way that I know of to reach this case; that is, for the Government to buy all the cotton at a fixed rate and send it to Cairo, Saint Louis, or some other point to be sold. Then all traders (they are a curse to the army) might be expelled.
U. S. GRANT,
Major-General
GENERAL ORDERS No. 11.
HDQRS. 13TH A. C., DEPT. OF THE TENN.,
Holly Springs, December 17, 1862.
The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled from the department within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order.
Post commanders will see that all of this class of people be furnished passes and required to leave, and any one returning after such notification will be arrested and held in confinement until an opportunity occurs of sending them out as prisoners, unless furnished with permit from headquarters
No passes will be given these people to visit headquarters for the purpose of making personal application for trade permits.
By order of Maj. Gen. U.S. Grant:
JNO. A. RAWLINS,
Assistant Adjutant-General. [2]
“Nobody here has questioned your assertions. They may very well be true, but they’re also all red herrings, which is why no one has bothered to address even one of them.” Exactly I gather the reason for that is most everyone here except for a couple of people has a pretty well rounded education or as Matt says I have the right to defend Davis and the south. I gather this is mostly an inclusive group who welcomes other people’s civil points of view.
“As far as I can tell, no one here is particularly interested in getting into a debate on Civil War history”
That would be nobody but you and Johnny who seemed to think his attack on Davis was somehow justified
Oh heck I am not worried about the “image” at all. You see I am just a backward, uneducated, low class, inbred, ignorant, stupid, slow, buck tooth, tobacco chewing, drawling redneck that is taking you to task, without insults and snide remarks I might add. You would think that you sitting on your throne of superiority you would be able to dispatch me fairly easy. I detect something is amiss.
That is only your point of view and not the view of people living in the in the period.
I’m not sure how much more plainly I can put this: just because they thought it was okay, doesn’t mean that it was okay. Anti-Semitism in Germany was wrong. Shooting kulaks in the Soviet Union was wrong. Slavery in the United States was wrong and incompatible with the idea of “liberty”. Jefferson Davis was a hypocrite. Period. Full-stop.
George:
I don’t care how often you post, nor am I saying that you don’t have the right to post. Go ahead, blog your brains out … I was just pointing out the hypocrisy in your statement.
That being the case I really don’t care about your point of view unless of course you can prove you lived during that period. Grant owned slaves to, so how does that make Davis worse than Grant? Heck Lincoln even admitted West Virginia as a slave state and of course he made his racist statements, so how is Lincoln better than Davis?
Go back at read the comments … no body made that statement.
True Davis did own slaves and true that he was the president of the Confederacy which was short lived, but as liberty was known in our early American history was for the white man and not all white men at that.
Check yourself before you wreck yourself. Do you think that it was OK that liberty was not truely for all, in the home of the brave? Sure it may have been permitted under law … but does that make it right? I don’t think so, and I can safely assume that most people who comment on this thread also think so. This is a libertarian publication, after all. In fact, I think you will find the majority of people think that slavery is, and was, wrong, regardless of historical fact.
Oh heck I am not worried about the “image” at all. You see I am just a backward, uneducated, low class, inbred, ignorant, stupid, slow, buck tooth, tobacco chewing, drawling redneck that is taking you to task, without insults and snide remarks I might add. You would think that you sitting on your throne of superiority you would be able to dispatch me fairly easy. I detect something is amiss.
Yes, because you’re not being insulting or snide at all … are you? You’re just a removed, aloof observer, merely pointing out “the truth”.
Look, its like this, George: Nobody is really debating whether or not slavery was permitted under law, or whether anti-antisemitism was permitted in Germany during WW2. We are all in agreement that it was legal at the time, but that still doesn’t make it right. Davis owned slaves: he was a racist, and a hypocrite. Abraham Lincoln, too, owned slaves: that was despicable, but this fact is shadowed by his legacy. As a history buff, you should know: History is written by the victors of war. The North won the war, so they got to be right, and the south was wrong. Jefferson Davis and General Lee got to be symbols of the Confederacy, which itself got painted to be a symbol of slavery and racism. This may be a gross exaggeration, but it is what it is.
Sorry, I meant that to say “land of the free”, not “home of the brave” …. I have baseball on my mind today.
How come there’s no edit feature?
Vincent,
I notice that in the absence of fact you want to present your opinion as if it actually means something in a factual debate. First thing you do is run back to your safety net of “slavery.” I never said slavery was right or wrong, I said our opinions today do not matter since it is a fact that slavery was a legal institution just like owning a car is legal today. That is fact we cannot change.
Why don’t you actually do some research on Davis. You might find he was a United States hero. “Stand Fast Mississippians”
Davis was no more a hypocrite than any other man living during that period and back to what I said originally, posted to Johnny; Davis did not hate the United States he gave many years of service to this country. That is a fact of history. Now it is period full stop.
I love you law-and-order guys. It was LEGAL! ZOMG! SHUT UP! It’s awesome.
Like I said, Davis just liked owning black people more than he liked America. Some folks liked America better than they liked owning black people. Those latter guys, they won. Everyone who isn’t some sort of fucking clown thinks that’s good.
George, on the other hand, ought just go buy a rainbow wig and some big floppy shoes.
I notice that in the absence of fact you want to present your opinion as if it actually means something in a factual debate.
I just can’t get over the fact that you molest children, George.
Betz,
You did say I was posting a lot to which I responded I would not get into an endless exchange of insults and snide remarks. I think I have stuck to that statement pretty good don’t you??? Show me where I have engaged in such postings. If you don’t care how much I post, then why make the comment.
“That being the case I really don’t care about your point of view unless of course you can prove you lived during that period. Grant owned slaves to, so how does that make Davis worse than Grant? Heck Lincoln even admitted West Virginia as a slave state and of course he made his racist statements, so how is Lincoln better than Davis?”
I never said anyone made that statement, show me where I did. That statement was made bas a true fact Vincent keeps yelling Davis and slavery, Davis was no different than Grant of Lincoln. Sorry you missed the point; I’ll try to be clearer next time.
“Check yourself before you wreck yourself. Do you think that it was OK that liberty was not truely for all, in the home of the brave? Sure it may have been permitted under law … but does that make it right? I don’t think so, and I can safely assume that most people who comment on this thread also think so. This is a libertarian publication, after all. In fact, I think you will find the majority of people think that slavery is, and was, wrong, regardless of historical fact.”
My opinion does not matter, history is what it is, you can either search for fact or you can post opinions and whitewash history. We must live with history the good and the bad and the ugly. Because Vincent, Johnny or anyone else doesn’t agree with history does not give then the right to change history or to attack Davis or anyone else armed with nothing more than their opinion. I am willing to bet neither of them has tried to find out anything about Davis, his views on slavery, or some of his accomplishments during his life. I am no Davis scholar but I do have a handle on some facts. Regardless of the publication, I seem to be within the boundaries set forth by the site master, I am posting educational fact and reading at the top education is of the conditions for posting. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but when you get into a historical discussion you should recognize the true facts and accept them for that reason. Slavery was legal Davis, Lincoln, Grant, Washington, Jefferson or anyone else had the legal rights to own slaves our opinion does not matter to these men at all.
“Yes, because you’re not being insulting or snide at all … are you? You’re just a removed, aloof observer, merely pointing out “the truth”. ”
Exactly, I think that is called sarcastic, but that is not really my intention. I suppose that due to so many insults being thrown at me, I have built up a rough exterior. I offer you my apologies. I am more than willing to read and discuss your historical fact if you post something. I haven’t insulted anyone at all, in fact the very title to this article is insulting Journalism teacher says conservatives are Dixie-loving hicks that is why I am here. I was curious.
“Look, its like this, George: Nobody is really debating whether or not slavery was permitted under law, or whether anti-antisemitism was permitted in Germany during WW2. We are all in agreement that it was legal at the time, but that still doesn’t make it right. Davis owned slaves: he was a racist, and a hypocrite. Abraham Lincoln, too, owned slaves: that was despicable, but this fact is shadowed by his legacy. As a history buff, you should know: History is written by the victors of war. The North won the war, so they got to be right, and the south was wrong. Jefferson Davis and General Lee got to be symbols of the Confederacy, which itself got painted to be a symbol of slavery and racism. This may be a gross exaggeration, but it is what it is. ”
I love this I absolutely love this!!! We cannot argue the right and wrong of slavery, we can express our opinions but we do not have the right to judge our ancestors. Oh how well I know history is written by the victors, thank you for pointing that out. I am sure Matt and a few others will be interested in reading how our written history is biased and one sided, which was my original point to begin with. That only lends more credibility to their argument about liberals in academia and the teachings of various subjects. I do understand your point, no that is not a gross exaggeration and you are right it is what it is… It is fact, or at least many people do take that stance and believe it is fact while in reality that know little to nothing about history. The Confederacy or South only became racist sometime in the last twenty years with the race based groups screaming at the top of their lungs it was all about slavery, the Confederate Flag is a racist symbol, attacking anything and everything that may even remotely connected to “Confederate” or white for that matter. They haven’t a clue about the makeup of the Confederate Army or any true historical events. It can be said these folks have less than a minimum understanding of history. Too if the south is so bad why are there more blacks in the South than the North —–?????
BTW would you mind telling me how you manage to get the italics to work? It would make it easier for me. I also wish to thank you for engaging in a civil discussion
LOL LOL LOL LOL
Tim and Vincent, great examples fellows thank you. Love it!!!!!
If someone had just noticed that your e-mail address contains the phrase ‘the last rebel’ a few hours ago, we all could’ve saved a bunch of time here. -ed
George: “The Confederacy … only became racist sometime in the last twenty years with the race based groups screaming at the top of their lungs it was all about slavery, the Confederate Flag is a racist symbol, attacking anything and everything that may even remotely connected to “Confederate” or white for that matter.” [emph added]
Stay classy, George.
[...] than trying to append this to the smoking, charred remains of the last post that dealt with intellectual diversity, I thought I’d give this piece from Kenneth Anderson [...]