Just read this article, saw links on my facebooks to other sources saying the same thing.
Before my head explodes, would the resident conservatives please walk me off the cliff and explain this to me in a way I might understand.
Cause honestly, my initial reactions are that this is exactly why my nation won't ever be great again.
The flaw with your example is that the revolutionaries didn't have a problem with educated people; they had a problem with educated Tsarists. Marx, Lenin, Stalin (etc.) were all highly educated and they did not discourage education among non-Tsarists. In fact, many of them believed that the logical conclusion any truly educated person would come to is that communism and socialism were the best possible outcomes for society.
Bless your little heart, you do try
So the same thing as...
I don't have a problem with science, just these clown scientists running these biased experiments.
I don't have a problem with the media, just these clown journalists running these biased articles.
I actually agree completely. It's just like that. Glad you're on board. Disagreeing with the warped performance of individual practitioners of a discipline -- even a lot of them -- is not disagreement with the discipline itself.
It was said with all the mockery and disdain that I also have for the misguided belief of "hate the sin, love the sinner"
Why do you have a problem with that concept? I see it as the same basic concept as "disagree without being disagreeable".
Do you actually have a problem with the concept, or just with how poorly most people implement it?
If I have to be honest, it would be my "perception" on the implementation.
As a concept, it isn't that bad, but I think we could fill up a massive thread on things that as a concept sound good, but fall flat on implementation.
My experience has been that conservatives disdain higher learning because they get frustrated when academia doesn't bend to their political views.
It's not that academia is pushing a liberal agenda. My experience is that it doesn't have a coordinated agenda at all. Most professors can't coordinate their own clothes. Professors and researchers, particularly in the humanities, happen to be professionals more concerned with the small world of academic debates which they inhabit. Conservatives' problems seem to come in when such research doesn't prove conservative cultural talking points, because conservatives tend to politicize every area of life. So if academic research is apolitical, it represents a threat to such pan-politicization. Therefore that research, and those who carry it out, are cast as outsiders and un-American. It puts a damper on intellectual public discourse.
It's not that academia is pushing a liberal agenda. My experience is that it doesn't have a coordinated agenda at all. Most professors can't coordinate their own clothes.
And the Democrats can't coordinate their own Presidential campaign, but that doesn't mean that they don't have an agenda. Your post is 100% assertion with 0% facts or even examples.
Clearly, you're not especially well versed in "intersectionality" -- the overarching theory meant to unite the 'humanities', and professors thereof, in social liberal lockstep. It's so well enforced that some poor LIBERAL professor was literally threatened off campus for failing to abide by a "no white people" day.
This is a direct quote from a recent Harvard Divinity School Job Posting ...
It is understood that applicants will employ forms of analysis that address race, gender, sexuality, and/or other intersecting forms of social power, such as womanist, feminist, and/or queer approaches.
When that is an explicit part of the hiring criteria for a professor of Divinity at an elite school ... how is that not pushing a "liberal agenda"? I can't see a scenario where any non-liberal could be even considered for that job. In a Divinity school.
How could conservatives not have a "negative view" of that?
National Review ran an interesting column on the topic recently ...
'Here's How Anti-Conservative Academic Discrimination Works'