[John Whitworth]

People in Education, particularly Higher Education, vote for the status quo every time. Why? Because they are well paid (in the UK at least) and the job (in Higher Education at least) is not very onerous Why should they want change?

And of course they know sweet fanny adams about life outside the education bubble. In general of course.

[Nigel Mace]

I am aware that the measured tones of Julie urge us to sweetly discourse with literary reason on even these incendiary matters.... but there are surely limits.

I cannot speak for the representative nature of Charlie's apprehensions - which seem to me neither rational nor humane - but I can deal with John's unrepresentative rants. Academics in the UK are pitifully rewarded compared with our colleagues in Europe - yes, the EU, John. When I last conducted a comparison with Dutch and Danish colleagues with comparable roles and responsibilities (in the early 90s), their emoluments, in vastly better socially supportive socieities, were c. 250% to 300% higher. Quite why John believes that his ill-informed notions of academic pay relate directly (or even at all) to a recognirion of barbarous policy intentions I cannot tell. What remains certain is that Presidents who support torture and those who act as their apologists are beyond the civilised pale - whatever their repsective levels of remuneration.

Meanwhile, can I note that with reference to my earlier literature focussed (prose and poetry) suggestion re reprintings of appropriate works - 1984, The Plot Against America and Quake, Quake, Quake - that the first of these has just become a best selling paperback in the UK - all over again.

[James Brancheau]

John, I dunno how it works in the UK, but those teachers in the States, higher education or not, certainly do not vote for the status quo.

[James Brancheau]

They may, however, like any sensible person, just vote to avoid a disaster.

[Jim Moonan]

Charlie: "Andrew M. gave a list out by Dan Rather, who ran with the false story of Bush some years ago. How can anyone trust what Rather has to say?"

Charlie, my friend, Dan Rather has been an outstanding journalist for over 50 years. His news coverage of the Viet Nam war and Watergate was invaluable. Then he messed up on a story about George W. Bush and his entire career is now in doubt? I would gladly buy into that logic if we could also apply it to Trump.

[Charlie Southerland]

Hey Jim, Trump is a business man and an entertainer trying to become a politician. Rather, and Brian Williams and other journalists were hired to tell the new and what they saw, not editorialize. It is a fact that most journalists lean far to the left when it comes to politics. A good many of them were in the tank for Obama and Hillary. How can one who is fair-minded trust them with the truth? That's all I'm saying.

As for Nigel's suppositions about my humanity, I can directly and with great confidence say that I have experienced the issue of asylum and the notions of snowflakes who have them (refugees) in their homes. I have witnesses, two, in fact to an encounter with a couple from Little Rock who sheltered a Muslim boy and his mother back about three years ago. The conversation got really ugly real quick in a restaurant on a Friday night. It was unbelievable. SO, I actually do know what I'm talking about.
The funny thing is; the two people who were giving them shelter were teachers and former clergy. John is right. Perhaps I'll write about the incident one of these days. Of course, it'll be from a Presbyterian POV.

[James Brancheau]

Yes, more and more it seems facts are left-leaning. Facts are biased and divisive.

[John Whitworth]

What do you mean by that, James. Left-leaning I get, but what do you mean by facts?

[Julie Steiner]

Andrew M., I don't consider critiques of religious beliefs themselves (rather than critiques of the people who hold them) to be pot shots--particularly when some participants in a discussion are voluntarily bringing their personal religious views into that discussion.

If people don't want their religious views to get paintballed, they shouldn't wave them about while playing paintball.

To me, though, there's a significant difference between saying "Your belief system is flawed, because..." and "You are stupid, because..." The first is a discussion of an idea, and the second is an insult. The first has at least some--however slight--chance of convincing someone to concede a point or two. The second doesn't. No one has ever said, "Oh, yes, I see now--I really am stupid. Thanks for bringing it to my attention."

[Gregory Palmerino]

Originally Posted by John Whitworth

People in Education, particularly Higher Education, vote for the status quo every time. Why? Because they are well paid (in the UK at least) and the job (in Higher Education at least) is not very onerous Why should they want change?

And of course they know sweet fanny adams about life outside the education bubble. In general of course.

John,

How I wish you were correct on both points. Sadly, the opposite is much too true. Over 70% percent of faculty in the US is part time or non-tenured, and I can tell you from direct experience that part time faculty are nowhere near "well paid." In fact, 25% of part time faculty receive some sort of public assistance. The situation in higher education in the United States is actually dire when it comes to pay.

On your second point, there was a time (maybe when you went to university, but maybe even earlier) that education was a retreat from the so-called "real world." When students sat in classrooms in front of an intelligent expert who knew nothing else in this world except his subject and no one in the classroom knew more than him. It was a time when education endeavored to educate the human as human. That quaint notion also is sadly no longer the case. Educators now have to be IT professionals, public officials, babysitters, admission counselors, advisors, politicians. And we have to listen to students tell us that we don't know what we are talking about because we sit in an ivory tower all day reading books and playing with words.

Which brings me back to the point of this thread. The great refrain from many of the Trump supporters that I have heard from in this country is that he is a businessman and that's what the US needs...

someone who can get this country working again. What kind of a voter would believe that a politician would be a good leader? We need someone outside of the establishment. Shake things up. Knock some heads.

Donald Trump became president in many ways because Higher Education is not the way you describe it, John.

As William Blake once famously said, "To generalize is to be an idiot." We are all generalist now, John.

Sincerely,
Greg