Carson Wants to Put Washington in Charge of Monitoring University Bias?

Dr. Ben Carson (photo credit: Gage Skidmore)

Ben Carson just suggested on Glenn Beck’s show that the answer to the free speech police on college campuses is to put Washington D.C. and the Department of Education in charge of monitoring college campuses:

I actually have something I would use the Department of Education to do. It would be to monitor our institutions of higher education for extreme political bias and deny federal funding if it exists.

Excuse me, he wants to “monitor” free speech? Instead of completely eliminating of the Dept. of Ed. altogether, Dr. Carson wants it to keep an eye on federally funded universities to make sure they are not too politically biased? Universities, especially public universities are known for their left-leaning tendencies. It’s almost impossible to find a conservative public university, and it sounds like Dr. Carson might be looking for just that. I’m certainly not pleased with the general trend of education in our country, especially in higher institutions, but taking money away from educational institutions because of the bias of their professors is going too far.

The tragedy of the contemporary public university is a simple one: bright and intelligent students walk in and relativistic, liberal drones walk out. But this is the responsibility of the university, not of the federal government. Regardless of this bias, our country was founded on the freedom of speech. The protection of the First Amendment is something that the GOP has been fighting for, especially during this campaign. I’m eager to see what comes from these comments, and especially what other candidates will say and how they will work to better our education system. Continue Reading

Cops’ Lives Matter, Too

Deputy Darren Goforth of the Harris County, Texas, Sheriff’s office, was gunned down Friday night in what can only be described as an assassination. Goforth was shot in the back by Shannon Miles, who then stood over his body and pumped more shots into him.

Investigators believe Deputy Goforth was targeted simply “because he wore a uniform.” Harris County Sheriff Ron Hickman condemned the killing as “a cold-blooded execution,” adding, “We found no other motive or indication that it was anything other than that.”

At a press conference, Sheriff Hickman and the Harris County district attorney lashed out at the left and the rhetoric of the “black lives matter” crowd.

“We’ve heard ‘Black Lives Matter,’ ‘All lives matter,'” Sheriff Hickman said. “Well, cops’ lives matter too. So why don’t we just drop the qualifier, and just say ‘Lives Matter.'” He is right. But, sadly, I predict there won’t be any marches a year from now for Deputy Goforth like there were for Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

By the way, another shooting has predictably fallen off the radar screen. The shootings by Vester Flanagan, a black, homosexual radical who gunned down two Virginia journalists, is quickly being forgotten because the shooting doesn’t follow the left’s preferred narrative.

The shootings in Virginia and Texas indict the left, and media are making sure that such a narrative doesn’t gain any traction. For example, ABC News reportedly has a 23-page manifesto from Vester Flanagan, but it won’t release whole thing. Why not? Presumably because it is full of left-wing rantings and cannot be used to embarrass conservatives. Continue Reading

Why Don’t Liberals Recognize Their Own Bias?

A pair of truly enterprising social scientists, Jussim and Crawford, have been investigating bias against science among conservatives and liberals. Jussim reports the results of their study published in a peer-reviewed journal that showed in this sample, liberals are “far more biased” than conservatives:

Liberals viewed the articles reporting ‘liberal’ results (affirmative action and same sex relationships are good) as truer and reflecting less author bias than the articles reporting ‘conservative’ results.  Conservatives, in contrast, viewed the truthfulness and bias in the articles as nearly identical, regardless of their results.

That is not the most interesting part however.  When they tried to publish their findings that in this one study at least biases were larger for liberals, “We could not get this published.  It was rejected at two separate journals.”

So they rewrote it keeping the data in the tables, but never mentioning in the text the major new finding that liberals’ bias was greater in this sample:

This time, it was accepted.  Now, even though the text does not mention finding that liberals were more biased than conservatives, the pattern is right there, in the data reported in tables and figures, for anyone to see.  The paper shows that liberals are more biased than conservatives, at least when and how we studied it.  Neither I nor Jarret would or did claim that such a pattern is always necessarily true.  But it was true in our data.  We were just not permitted to say so.

Social science is extremely vulnerable to liberal groupthink. Continue Reading