It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Education Bias

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 03:11 AM
Why do educators and college claim to have academic freedom and equality, but all you are ever fed is a liberal ideology? I was a history major in college and since I'm a dedicated historian I have read a lot of American history. I took American history classes and it seemed like almost everything was distorted.

For instance, in the civil war, the South was well known to be Democratic, but the class was taught that after the Civil War, the South were well received to the idea of ending slavery. They were simply men who were pro-state soveriegnty and that the war had nothing to do with their unnerving to end slavery.

Another example is how much the New Deal is supported while Reaganomics are detested. But that same economy, which helped out Clinton, is something totally different, which has been shown not to be true.

I could write other things from political science class, economics, sociology, philosophy. Professors were involved with the campus democrats, but you have to get someone from the community to advise the campus republicans.

I just wanted to know what you thought about the liberal bias in education?

posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 04:14 AM
I don't think there is a concerted effort to indoctriante liberal views. I had and have professors that were both left and right and few in between. There does seem to be more left than right, but I always felt (with a few exceptions) that history was presented in a neutral fashion vs. one tainted by idiology. That being said, tenured educators seemed to influence thier presentations than non.

posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 04:53 AM
well, if there's a problem with academia, you can tackle it from within. if you claim for example that reaganomics was responsible for the clinton boom, then go become a professor and write some papers supporting your belief and teach it to your students.

-koji K.

posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 08:00 AM
Why should I have to do all the work? The facts are out there already they just need to be taught and false facts need not be taught. It's not too hard.

I always believed it would be harder to work for CNN then one of the other cable news agencies, because while the others just report the stories, CNN has to rewrite the stories to fit their liberal view. The same thing can be said about the professors. It's easier just to teach the truth and more difficult to create false facts to indoctrinate.

posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 05:23 PM
Yeah even history taught to middle schoolers is biased. For the longest time I had thought of Columbus as a hero who discovered America. Then by reading some little known books I found out the vikings discovered America, I also found out about the numerous native americans he slaugtered. I hate how history books dont tell you the facts straight out but instead tell you who was a bad guy and what was bad. But the victor writes the history.

posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 12:21 AM
History is always in the eye of the beholder and taught by the Victors, so it will always be skewed one way or another. Take a class on History of the US from a Middle East Perspective, and you will be shocked at how we are pertrayed compared to an American History perspective in teh US

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 03:52 AM
I think it is because Conservatives generally are somewhat cynical and look to the past for answers. They like to exclude people from their visions. Liberals tend to be more idealistic and all inclusive, but are also often naive and not so common sensical. Both can tend to have pre-packaged notions about the future. Conservatives think about what CAN be done based on what has been done, it's only logical. Liberals think about what SHOULD be done, because it's the 'right' thing to do. Because Liberals are concerned with what should be done sometimes they are a little more open to different ways that things might be achieved. Because Liberals reach for bigger possiblilities they are more likely to be on the cutting edge of thought and ideas. But the arena of new ideas can be rather brutal and unpredictable. That is why over time many young Liberals turn into old Conservatives. But each new generation almost invariably, to get a sense of who they are, reject the notions of their elders and seek out new ideas and viewpoints. The people who best relate to those young people who are hungry for new ideas are educators who for whatever reason have not had their enthusiasm for the different, the unique, the creative worn down.
Neither view is better or worse, but in truth each would suffer, possibly fatally with out the other.
You can probably tell by my tone I will always lean to the Liberal progressive side (strictly speaking Libertarian, i am older after all).

The future is an unfolding flower, but sometimes it is a poisinously fatal bloom.

posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 10:30 AM
You say you are mean in the American sense? I know there are Canadians and British on here and their definition of libertarian may be more like what you are describing.

Libertarianism in America is no where close to a liberal ideology. If anything it is more conservative then anything. Libertarians do not want government involved with personal lives. Liberals, get involved with every aspect of the citizens life "because they think that's the right thing to do". Conservatives on the other hand, claim they want small government but don't always follow their tenants.

Liberals want to take from the rich and give to the poor. Libertarians feel that if we get off of everyone's back and stop unduly taxing then charity will pop up. It used to be that way until the income tax was imposed.

Maybe you could clarify your stance on Libertarianism.

posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 11:50 AM
I consider myself an ecological libertarian. Get rid of social welfare. Get rid of corporate welfare. Defend the nation. Protect the environment. Legalize suicide, drugs and prostitution. Let the free market prevail, but keep it clean.

In truth I probably would be hard pressed to eliminate all social welfare, but i would examine every dime spent. They would be only bare bones programs. Harsh enough to encourage people to get off of them.

The government is not a parent, it should not an enemy, it mostly should get out of the way and let people do as they see fit.

Less government is better government. Laws should be short elegant and precise, not weighed by the pound, not written by lobbyists for their special interests.

Government is not smarter than people, it should inform them of good clinical facts and let people make their own choices.

The government should be a science, not a dog and pony show of pompous windbags trying to out moralize one another.

posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 12:02 PM
I am a Libertarian too

We sound pretty close on beliefs but I would retain disability programs but would try to retrain the disabaled for other jobs where possible.

I have never had problems with part of my check going to those who were UNABLE to work, only to those who chose not to work. I have worked all my life and paid in to the programs and it looks like I may have to become a recepiant of them soon, but I would rather work if at all possible.

Sorry to get off the subject

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 04:33 AM
I thought education was about producing productive and willing citizens, not well informed or educated ones, definately NOT freethinking and dissenting ones.

I could (just about) read and write AND speak a foreign language BEFORE I started school. There a some poeple who LEAVE with less, this tells me its not about the learning process.
Just like machine said in his thread "My homeschooled daughter lacks socialization...or so they rant..."

new topics

top topics


log in