Anti-American, Foreign Donors Are Paying Off Our Profs. Shouldn’t We Address This?
When educators who are identified as professors from prestigious universities testify before Congress, write op-eds, and appear on public or media sponsored panels, most readers and listeners value their words more than those of others less credentialed. Perhaps this is especially the case when the subject is foreign affairs, which — without warrant — is generally treated as an arcane subject requiring considerable specialized study to fully comprehend.
For this reason, concern is growing that our universities, especially those highly regarded, have been receiving very large sums of cash from abroad, often from countries or citizens of countries which hold positions antithetical to our interests or engage in conduct shocking to our values. This matter is receiving critical attention from both sides of the political spectrum.
The fact of these large gifts is no secret. 20 USC 1011-Sec. 1011f requires colleges and universities to disclose foreign donations and contracts valued at $250,000 or more, and the Department of Education annually posts them online on its website.
Today, the Chronicle of Higher Education published an article by Scott Carlson on the subject (subscription only). Reviewing the latest such report from the DOE (the next is due next month), he notes:
Over the past 10 years, gifts from and contracts with governments, companies, and individuals [in the Middle East] have amounted to more than $600 million.
Qatar is the largest contributor, donating almost half of the total. It is followed by Saudi Arabia, which donated $77 million. I suspect that with the downturn in the American economy these large foreign gifts are being more aggressively sought out and constitute a larger and larger portion of university revenues.
How much of this is known to alumni and students is unclear. If you recall, the videos of the NPR fundraisers (both former university fundraisers) and the make-believe Arabs revealed that they were very willing to do what they could to keep the proposed gift anonymous. They said they had done this before, and even mentioned an $80 million dollar gift — apparently from a domestic giver with a feminist bent — to a number of universities which had successfully been kept under wraps by all the schools concerned. I suspect that a great deal of the foreign funding, though reported as the law requires to the federal government, may not be fully known in university communities.
In any event, word is getting out. As Carlson observes, the initial complaints came from conservatives and those who support Israel, but now the left — which is expressing concern about human rights issues — has joined in. Some of the most well-publicized of these disputes here and in the UK involve unseemly conduct on the part of university officials, but incidents which undermine scholarship are not as well-known.
We may know of Lawrence Tech’s grant of a doctorate to Bahrain’s prime minister, who in turn donated $3 million to the university; or we may know of the scandal at the London School of Economics — the university trained Libyan officials and granted an apparently unearned doctorate to one of the dictator’s sons. (Subsequently, it was learned that Michigan State was also training Gaddafi’s men, and prominent Harvard professors — through a public relations firm of their creation, Monitor — were hiring professors in part to burnish the dictator’s image.) However, although these incidents have had higher profiles, I believe these acts are far less insidious and detrimental to our interests and to the universities’ basic functions than is so much else that this largesse creates on a regular, lower-profile basis.
First, these gifts cannot but distort the research and classroom work of a university. Professors, universities, and the entire university food chain (graduate students, assistant professors, students) all know who has money, and naturally gravitate to those studies and projects for which there is funding. If there is no money to support research in a given area, there can be no fellowships or grants to sustain the scholarship. So teachers read, teach, and write about topics for which funding is available, and students make such topics the object of their study. Time is a scarce resource even in the groves of academe, and smart people do not wish to waste theirs pursuing subjects for which there will be no ability to finance and publicize their endeavors.
And Saudi Arabia gifted Princeton Univ. several billion dollars a few years ago.
That same Saudi Arabia is also the largest shareholder of Fox “News”, after Murdoch.
Prove it.
http://www.forbes.com/2005/09/06/alwaleed-murdoch-billionaires-cx_gl_0906autofacescan02.html
So Saudi Arabia is founding an alternative to Communist Comrades News and defending Israel
Actually, it’s more like SA is funding a “News” network that is supportive of it’s business interests. And just like the Tea Partiers were duped by the Koch brothers, SA is duping Fox “News” viewers.
Actually, it’s more like Saudia Arabia increased their holdings to a little over 5% in non-voting shares. Perhaps you should be more concerned about the number of Democrat politicians who owe their seats to the contributions of George Soros, through his “nonprofit, nonpartisan” tax-free organizations. But, of course, he is a progressive communist, so his motives are pure!
Please explain how the Koch brothers “duped” the Tea Party patriots, and why their contribution to causes they support was against the law.
I know what SA’s stake in Fox “News” is. In case you’ve forgotten, I was the one who informed you what those numbers are.
Concerning George Soros, I am concerned about his influence in American politics. However, it is disingenuous to equate Soros with the Koch brothers. For all intents and purposes, the Koch brothers created the Tea Party “movement”. Soros (although I’m sure he’s tried) has done nothing remotely similar. Comparing Soros to the Kochs, is like comparing Fox to MSNBC. Both are propaganda channels, both shill for their respective parties, and neither are real news organizations. But Fox is an order of magnitude more successful at pushing it’s (and the GOP/Wingnut) agenda.
On how the Koch brothers duped millions of American “Tea Partiers“, the answer is simple: they financed that movement through their organizations (like “Americans for Prosperity”), and duped all those millions into supporting their political goals. All while conning those same people into believing that they were part of a “grass roots movement”.
Finally, I never stated that what the Koch brothers are doing is illegal. Stating so was a lie on your part. Just because you get your talking points from Fox, doesn’t mean you have to mimic their dishonesty.
A 5% non-voting interest is hardly a controlling interest, so stating that SA is the “largest shareholder” after Murdoch is disingenuous at best. It implies a degree of control that is not warranted by the facts.
Mentioning Soros and his influence in progressive American and international politics is entirely appropriate to your attack on the Koch brothers. The Tea Party movement is a collection of small, independent, regional movements that have no overarching organizational structure, just a set of common beliefs. The Americans for Prosperity do not dictate policy to the local Tea Party movement groups; they organize educational events and citizen action events to promote an economic agenda that is the polar opposite of Moveon.org, one (of many) organizations financed by Soros. Many members of the Tea Party movement also support the economic agenda of Americans for Prosperity and participate in their events, but the Tea Party movement is not run by Americans for Prosperity or by the Koch brothers. If you don’t believe that the Tea Party is a grass-roots movement, then you know nothing about it and are just repeating your MoveOn.org talking points. As nearly as I know, the Koch brothers contribute to political activity in the U.S., while Soros is an international, progressive communist who spreads his activities around the world. The fact that you want to downplay his involvement in one-world politics indicates that you are willing to mimic their dishonesty.
Nice try, though!
Once again you’ve lied about what I’ve written. I find that particularly amusing and pathetic on your part; especially since the proof of your dishonesty is in the posts that you have written. Case in point, I never stated that SA has “a controlling interest” in Fox ‘News’. You stated that I did in your last post. That was a lie. Additionally your comment “stating that SA is the ‘largest shareholder’ after Murdoch is disingenuous at best” in completely false. According to Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/2005/09/06/alwaleed-murdoch-billionaires-cx_gl_0906autofacescan02.html), SA is the largest shareholder of Fox after Murdoch. My previous statements are ones of fact, your comment are provable lies. Q.E.D.
Concerning the political activities of the Koch brothers and Soros, you’re just repeating yourself. I know that is how things are done on Fox “News” but repeating the same nonsense over and over again, doesn’t make what you are writing any less false. Additionally, you stated another lie when you wrote “is entirely appropriate to your attack on the Koch brothers”. I never attacked the Koch brothers in my posts. My previous comments were in response a question YOU asked me.
Furthermore, your comments about the “Tea Party” very comically demonstrate that you’re one of the more naïve dupes that the Koch brother have conned. I have attended “Tea Party rallies” in over a dozen states. The smallest had several hundred people attending; the largest had tens of thousands of people attending. The suggestion that “The Tea Party movement is a collection of small, independent, regional movements” is absurd. Ask yourself where did the original financing for the umbrella groups of the Tea Party come from. Almost all of those trails lead back to the Koch brothers.
Now all of that is perfectly legal. But that doesn’t change the fact that the Koch brothers and SA are financing conservative political movements and their propaganda wings in this country. And while Soros has (and is) attempting to do the same on the far left, he hasn’t come anywhere close to what the Koch brothers have done. Again the comparison of Fox and MSNBC is appropriate.
On a different note, I’ve been told that mimicry is the highest from of flattery. I must say that I am very flattered that in your last post you basically just repeated your previous talking points from Fox “News” and then just repeated my comments about you. I recall that type of behavior in grade school but do not normally observe that in adults. In retrospect I shouldn’t be surprised; after all you do not seem to have an adult relationship with the truth. Look you’re obviously a talk radio and Fox “News” fan. And I’m sure it must be embarrassing to have that faith in those institutions make you sound like a fool. But look at the bright side, now that you know that you don’t know everything, maybe now you can start to learn something.
Thanks for the link. From the same site you reference… The Prince doesn’t sound so bad on the surface. Of course he could just be a business man first and terrorist second. Your comment about the Tea party is fairly stupid. Why would you assume all those people were led around by some pied piper?
Profile from Forbes:
“This savvy global investor and nephew of the Saudi king continues to thrive on deal-making—in addition to a dash of pro-American political crusading. His fortune, anchored by a $10 billion stake in Citigroup, was lifted in part by a 116% rise in the Saudi stock market in 2004. Last year he unloaded his half of New York’s Plaza Hotel and plowed the profits into buying stakes in London’s Savoy Hotel and Monaco’s Monte Carlo Grand. In January he helped bail out an ailing Disneyland-Paris with a $30 million cash injection. A vocal supporter of women’s rights, he hired the first female airplane pilot in Saudi Arabia, a country where women still can’t legally drive. Clearly pleased with his stock picking prowess, he took out ads on CNN touting his holdings. “We’re telling the market all these companies are number one in their field,” crows Alwaleed.”
Mr Independent.
You dont sound like an independent to me, you sound like a moveon.org leftist.
SA has 5% non-voting shares in Fox News. So what. Non-voting means they dont dictate any policy there. Have you considered they invested because Fox news is very a profitable investment?
So the Koch brothers donated a lot of money to the Tea Party. That does not make Tea Party members dupes. There are lots of people in this country with libertarian/conservative beleifs, including me, and I support the Tea Party for that reason. I had my libertarian beleifs long before I heard of the Tea Party. I suspect most Tea Partiers were the same.
That many people dont volunteer their time to a movement because they are astroturfed dupes, but because they beleive in the positions of the movement. And I suspect if the Koch brothers ever really did try to dictate policy to the Tea Party, where the members didn’t already beleive in those positions, given what I know about the independent and anti authority streak of many libertarians, they would desert in droves. And given the record of the Tea Party in 2010, lots of non Tea Party members appear to beleive in their goals as well. If you want a real example of astroturfing, look at the Coffee Party.
I know leftists like you cannot beleive that lots of americans sincerely beleive in less government, control of spending, less regulation, more personal freedom, and other goals, and so you have to set up this Koch Brothers dupes straw man.
Personally, I consider Soros, and Koch to be about the same. I like Koch because I agree with their goals and positions, and hate Soros because I dont. You beleive the opposite. But stop this dupes nonsense. I could just as easily say that you are a dupe of Soros, but I wont. It is possible for people to oppose leftist big gov without being dupes. I know Marxists like to talk about the proletariat being mystified by the capitalists or the church, and voting against their class interests. But I found most americans have more sense, and they oppose socialism because they have seen it constantly fail, and prefer individual freedom, to collectivism. They value freedon more than they value sticking it to rich people. What you are basically saying is anybody who disagrees with you must be a stupid dupe. This leftist condesention is one reason why leftism is failing today.
We should note that this off-topic comment was straight out of the box for Mr. Independent, 2nd one on the thread. Looks very much like lying in wait for “you clowns don’t know that Saudi owns much of Fox News, and I’m going to cherry pick that data to make you look foolish. And kick the Koch Brothers while I’m at it, because that’s fashionable these days.”
The various Fox branches are part of Murdoch’s News Corporation, which also owns about fifty newspapers, twenty magazines, Harper Collins, and 20th C Fox movies. Fox news is less than 5% of the total holding. Murdoch owns 29% of the whole deal, Alwaleed 7% non-voting. If you want to paint that as dire, go right ahead, but I don’t think it’s a strong case.
Other commenters be alert for this. People who threadjack are usually trying to set you up with some factoid, often trivial, which they can spring on you and make sound more dramatic than it is. They are attempting to move you to fight on different ground on purpose, because they cannot compete on the original field. For some reason not known to me, they are disproportionately young, unmarried males.
ez,
My point about the Saudi Prince is that many foreign governments and organizations are financing various institution in the U.S. Including American universities and Fox “News”.
As far as my comments about the so-called Tea Party being stupid, I noticed that you didn’t cite any specific reasons why. Was that an oversight? That lack of logical reasoning is typical of Fox “News” commentators. Apparently, you’re comfortable with other people thinking (i.e. duping) for you. I prefer to think for my self. Concerning my specific comments about the so-called Tea Party, it is undisputable that the Koch brothers group ‘Americans for Prosperity’ was responsible for starting the so-called Tea Party “movement”. You cannot say that you are a “grass roots movement” if you were financed by the Koch brothers. That would be like http://www.moveon.org stating that the are a grass roots movement. That’s absurd and so is the position that the so-called Tea Party is either.
richard40,
Your first comment illustrates how you’ve been duped into believing in the false religion of libertarianism. Talk radio and Fox “News” constantly repeat the talking point that anyone who disagrees with their ideology, is a leftist. As my handle indicates, I’m an Independent. If it’s within your intellectual means, consider if it make sense for a leftist to criticize moveon.org or Soros in general? Since I have and you obviously didn’t consider that fact, perhaps you should take a movement to try and think for yourself. You don’t have to let talk radio, Fox “News”, or the Koch brothers think for you.
Concerning SA’s ownership of Fox, you obviously didn’t read the article that I linked to. It stated “The billionaire aristocrat’s office on Tuesday announced he upped his stake in the media and entertainment colossus to 5.46% of voting shares”. In case English is not your first language, voting shares in not the same thing as non-voting shares. You would have known that if you read the article. I suspect you didn’t because you were just relying on what someone else wrote. Are you noticing a pattern about yourself?
The motives about that particular Saudi Prince were not the point of my original post. I could point out that
the same profit motive is probably part of the reason various foreign individuals and organizations “donate” money to American universities. According to various sources, roughly 75% of all scientific discoveries in the world (that do not involve archeology or the arts) are made at U.S. research facilities. There is a financial incentive to support American universities and Fox “News”. My point was that questionable people are not just supporting those universities but also Fox “News”.
As I stated earlier, my point about the Koch brothers is that they financed and started the Tea Party. That being the case, you cannot say that the Tea Party is a grass roots movement.
What wingnuts like you don’t seem to understand, is that I represent a growing minority (25% by many estimates) that believes in better government, balanced budgets, better regulation, and more personal freedom. By your own comments, it’s never occurred to you to deviate from the talking points of Fox “News”; let alone think for yourself and form your own opinions. BTW, every REB administration in the history of the party has increased the size of government and the only administrations that have balanced budgets and reduced the size of government has been the DEMs. And while I support neither party, I do support the truth. If you ever learn to think for yourself, you might start to appreciate that.
On your comments about the Koch brothers and Soros, I’ve already stated that it is disingenuous to compare the two. Yes they are basically doing the same thing for their respective sides but the Koch brothers have their tentacles much deeper than Soros. Again, the comparison of Fox and MSNBC is appropriate.
If you fully understand the English language (and I have my doubts) you would know that one cannot be a dupe of something if he apposes that thing. Since I oppose Soros and the Koch brothers I can’t be a dupe of either.
Finally, I never stated that “anybody who disagrees with you must be a stupid dupe”. That was a lie on your part. What I have stated is that if you believe that the so-called Tea Party is a grass roots movement, then you have been duped. The proof of that is the undisputable fact that the Koch brothers financed and started the “Tea Party”. Q.E.D.
Assistant Village Idiot,
Actually, my comment was on topic. Since you obviously did not understand the concept of that comment, let me further explain it to you. Questionable individuals and organizations from abroad financially support many institutions in the U.S. I was simply pointing out that those people and groups fund not just universities but also organizations like Fox “News”.
In case you didn’t read the article, Forbes.com stated that Alwaleed increases his ownership to 5.46% of voting shares not 7% of non-voting shares as you stated. I guess you’re one of those people who never let facts get in the way of their beliefs. Furthermore I never stated “If you want to paint that as dire”. That was a lie on your part. All was doing was simply illustrating that questionable individuals and organizations from abroad financially support many institutions in the U.S; including Fox “News”. That is not ‘attempting to move anyone to fight on different grounds’. It is in fact debating on the original field.
Finally, your childish comments at the end of your last post demonstrates that you too have been duped by the Koch brothers. In prefect sequence you’re following their playbook. Refuse to answer all questions, change the subject, and engage in personal attacks. How pathetic that you cannot think for yourself.
Mr. Independent –
Here’s a little personal and Tea Party experience.
After Obama won the election, I was horrified. And horrified especially that he was elected because so many people seemed to be in an emotional trance — saw him as some sort of almost religious “savior” — and voted for him on the basis of his his race, his cool manner, his oratory skills, his supposed super-intelligence — and any other wishes and dreams they projected onto him — and because he was supposedly the “un-Bush” — rather than his background, principles, ideology or experience.
I did a lot — a lot — of reading about Obama. And there was a lot of information about him on the Internet — at many blogs, various magazine websites, in-depth articles in the Wall St. Journal, etc. — there were excellently researched books written.
But, Fox News, although they tried, and their intentions were good, didn’t come close to reporting on the amount of facts that were out there, and I found Fox to be highly inadequate. Another horror was the way most of the press joined the mindless bandwagon (photos with “halos” around his head, ugh! — like North Korea!), dishonestly covered for the so much negative about him, and refused to treat him in any realistic way.
I wrote a lot of posts anywhere I could, predicting the harmful, destructive decisions he was likely to make as president, and the bad influence his beliefs, behavior, and ideology would be for us and the world — and I was about 98% correct. That was my opinion. (There were many, many people around who felt and thought just the same way as I did.)
But, I was impressed with a big part of his campaign strategy — which had a lot to do with community organizing — and very impressed with the organizational and outreach abilities of the likes of Move-on, etc. My next thought was … if the press cannot be counted on to even come close to being honest — the only chance — the only way to prevent a 2012 re-election of this man and his administration, to defeat his ideological plans, to educate more people — and offer them an alternate viewpoint — was to get some community organizing going.
So, I started to email my friends. I found many of them had been thinking and doing just what I was — and we all were emailing our friends and those who were interested in hearing what we had to say. Quite a few started their own blogs. This went on all over the country. There was no need of any “manipulation” or “astro-turfing.”
My friends and I thought about names for this loosely knit, burgeoning community, or rather communities — but none stuck. Nevertheless, the movement was happening.
Yes, there was Fox — but it wasn’t nearly enough — and the rest of the press just wasn’t covering our point of view — we weren’t being heard or represented — not at all. If there was any “manipulation” — it was in reverse. We were “manipulated” into doing it ourselves because no one else was doing it for us.
And — if there’s any evil manipulative conspiracy out there — worse than the currency destroying “global” manipulator, George Soros — the professionally and ethically challenged, dishonest and malignant Jour-no-listas and their likes take the prize. They’re the ones we rely (no more!) — relied — on to do their job as the “fourth estate.”
At first, there wasn’t any money needed because this was all happening on the Internet — in email and the many, many writers on blogs, PJTV, and Internet magazines that we were in agreement with, and which provided a great deal of information and encouragement.
But the real momentum took off after CNBC’s Rick Santelli’s spontaneous outburst — outcry! — in response to the rapacious “Stimulous” — calling for a Tea Party! — And a return to the principles of our Founding Fathers — with an in-person demonstration of how many we were. And that’s when it all started to really pull together. (I don’t think the Koch’s paid off Santelli — do you?) He was mirroring the frustration of many millions of us — out there without our voices being heard — and even if heard, brushed off and dismissed as irrelevant.
Rick Santelli’s Rave — February 19, 2009.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853&play=1
Now, I’m no leader of any Tea Party group. I don’t agree with everything they all stand for — (they don’t all agree with each other 100%) — but they all want us to be fiscally responsible, diminish the size and scope of government, and are the last real “hope” of this country — liberty — and maybe the world.
I never heard of the Koch brothers until the recent uproar about them. I know from my own experience that neither I, nor my many friends, were influenced by anything but our own beliefs. “They” never found a way into my brain through nefarious means. My beliefs were long-standing — and it was clear to me way before the Tea Party existed, that our country was in for a great deal of economic and political trouble that would be exasperated to a dangerous degree by the Obama administration — and all that spending! If the Koch brothers contributed money to us — to this — and helped influence it — more power to them! And to any other wealthy contributors!
You’ve said nothing, absolutely nothing of substance about any trail that proves anything realistic about Koch brothers maniacally manipulating the extremely valid opinions of the Tea Party. You just keep repeating that you know. You say, “…where did the original financing for the umbrella groups of the Tea Party come from. All those trails lead back to the Koch brothers.” Really. All? (Do you mean me? I’m not a Koch brother.) Show me the “trail.”
Certainly nobody ever gave me any money for my emails. And if they gave money to help organize meetings — (not much money was needed for several hundred or tens of thousands — people paid their own transport and expenses (did someone pay your way when you attended?))(don’t you think many of those tens of thousands and more made contributions?) — that’s no proof of manipulation — the ideas — they were already there.
Well, I happen to know your theory of Koch brothers manipulation of the “dupes” is not true because of my own, personal experience of the very beginnings of this very grassroots movement. In a way, it was my idea! (As it was the idea of millions of others.)
If the left just honestly debated the issues and ideology they propose, and admitted their real goals — the vast majority of those who support them now — would abandon them.
The Evil Koch Brothers! — it’s a fabrication of the left. What else do they have to do but make these ridiculous and unfounded attacks — and character assassination.
They do it because it’s their most used, best loved and effective weapon. It worked on you. Who’s the dupe?
Mr. “Inependent” (which you are clearly not):
Anything you say here has been completely discredited because of your Koch brothers remark in this thread.
The Arabs\muslims receive over a trillion dollars a year in oil revenue every year.
1. They buy up western companies.
2. They fund anti-western groups (MAS, CAIR etc.) and ‘protesters’.
3. They build mosques and madrassas that broadcast and teach anti-western propaganda.
4. They buy up western media outlets.
5. They ‘buy’ journalists and other writers.
5. They fund lobbyists to influence policy.
6. They buy politicians.
One must be extraordinarily naive to assume that this money is not also used to buy:
6. Educational institutes.
8. ‘Professors” and other ‘educators’.
In a sick way, all this prostitution from our presidents on down reinforces the idea among our wealthy Muslim enemies that the West is little more than a corrupt, decadent, failing civilization of whores and sycophants and servile scum. And as you point out, they’re paying for it with money they’ve received from the oil, an accident of nature which the Muslims have little use for, and didnt even know existed until we discovered it. To extract it the Muslims exploit machines which we invented, operated by engineers which we educated, using techniques we developed and paid for, while they sit on their ample asses entertained by blond whores which they’ve imported from the West into their ultra-private, ultra-secure obscene pleasure palaces throughout the ME. A more undeserving, indolent, lazy dogs you’ll never meet, yet through our stupidity and insanity these smelly pigs have situated themselves very well to maintain us as their servile dogs and slaves.
Transparency is usually doing a two-step with a clear conscience. And as you say, should be encouraged.
Wanna bet these professors will whine, moan and act outraged over this suggestion?
They will not wish to disclose they sold the intellectual brain into slavery for coin.
Hey, why should labor unions be the only ones allowed to bribe left wing (but, I repeat myself) professors?
What with honoraria, publishing for self-aggrandizement, conferences/professional associations for self-aggrandizement, consulting and income from grants, there is no other profession than “professor” that allows and employee relationship with an institution and, at the same time, allows/permits/encourages an individual to add to personal wealth!
Geez, wern’t these the same people hanging out in academe thirty and forty years ago in their bell bottoms and Gaucho boots crying about higher education being a front for the CIA and taking money from “the establishment?” I guess they’re the establishment now. Maybe we shouldn’t trust anyone over thirty and have a revolution for the hell of it! It works for the Arabs. They’re having a reformation, getting back to their Muslim brotherhood roots. We can call it the Tea Party Spring. No matter where you were born and the color of the stretch marks on your face, we’re all Yankees now. “Why not the best? (the Carter campaign slogan)” Let’s send Jimmy Carter to Libya, he can make the peace.
Right on Brother, Peace, Love, and Rock and Roll. Of course, since “they” and “their children” are now in charge no such though that anything that is being done is improper is taking place has crossed any of these folks minds. And you would be regarded as some low pig for having even suggested that these folks have sullied their hands or their hearts. Most of these people are part of the “Hate America Crowd”.
I wish this information could be more widely shared.
“So teachers read, teach, and write about topics for which funding is available, and students make such topics the object of their study.”
Some 30+ years ago, I sat before a committee at a major university to review whether I was suitable for their Ph.D. program in Political Science. In the middle of that review I interjected exactly this notion – I called it the “sociology of research”. They looked at me like I was delusional, but the phenomenon seemed obvious. (Yes, maybe I could have called it something else.) They accepted me into the program, but without enthusiasm. I left it a year later, never to return.
But Raymond, have you not regretted that you could have easily been another Bill Clinton by echoing their philosophy to gain the prestige of a Fulbright scholarship at Georgetown, attend Oxford with a Rhodes scholarship , then Yale to acquire a Hillary for public relations in your baptism in the public service cesspool? What with a Teresa handling damage control in the deaths of numerous risks incurred in real estate, CIA contractor and banking fraud in your rise through the democrat’s party’s stench in Arkansas the media white washed elevator to POTUS level impeachment atrocities could have been breeze. Appointment of Janet to oversee Ruby Ridge, Waco and Oklahoma City abuse and witness exclusion exhibitions would have been quite a high ride to the squelched flight 800 investigation climax leading to another followup 9/11 event for your credit.
Exposing the malfeasance of the upper house in their failing impeachment trial for high crimes and misdemeanors via your own private definitions could have been the subject of your epitaph after enjoying unlimited reparation for every word that came from your purgerous mouth with complete exoneration of all charges involving whatever got past your zipper.
Considering all the “friends” that you could have made would you really not ever look back? You could have been a needed informant if only able to escape their atmosphere of neurosis. Finding a safe place to “blow the whistle” remains entirely another issue of dire consideration.
Dictators, money and PR control through bribes. They treat our colleges like they treat their own countries – and it works.
If somebody gave me 50 grand I’d go in front of congress and tell ‘em Louis Farrakhan was a misunderstood man due to an inability to think and that therefore nothing he said can ever be said to be an accurate quote and that he should get the Medal of Honor.
As a lowly adjunct I have only one question: am I not important enough to get something?
As a lowly adjunct for 20 years, I can tell you the answer: No.
Imagine that. No wonder Lefty wants to prevent us from drilling for our own oil % gas. Follow the money and you will understand why the left pushes so many seemingly ridiculous ideas. They aren’t stupid, they are corrupted. Maybe this explains Obama’s inability to make good choices for our country much of the time.
Glad to see PJM addressing a subject many of us from the conservative side of the US academia have been pointing out: that petrodollars from the Middle East have been corrupting the academic world, the media and politics for at least two decades now.
That’s the strategy islam is using to expand: buying off the West. They have already bought off the UK and half of continental Europe. They have almost totally corrupted our system here, as well.
I’m afraid it’s now almost too late to do anything about it: just take a look as to who’s occupying the oval Office. You get the picture loud and clear.
There are Traitor’s and there are traitor’s. They used to hang or shoot them !!
When is speech sedition? Can speech be sedition? If several people get together to rob a bank, and do so, part of their crime, and the evidence for it, will be their conversations. Conversation is speech, but, in certain contexts, it is not necessarily protected.
If Francis Fox Piven hatches a plan to bankrupt local governments by flooding their welfare roles,isn’t that sedition? Does Francis Fox Piven really have the right to organize, meet and speak, for the purpose of bankrupting, lets say, a city in Colorado – or, lets say, New York City. Who gave Francis Fox Piven the right to try to bankrupt New York City.
Same for some of the profs here. Who or what gives them the right to attempt to unfavorably influence American Sovereignty and do harm to American interests? If you want to change policy run a candidate.
It’s, supposedly, the so-called “academic freedom of expression” policy prevailing within academia. The only trouble with this is that the policy is applied by the academic establishment only to the extent that the leftist causes are protected. It doesn’t seem to apply when conservative issues are debated, whereby “hate speech” provisions are called in, and the PC police intervenes.
The usual leftist “double standard.”
Clarice: Why shouldn’t the profs be required to register as agents of a foreign government?
http://www.fara.gov/
That act requires that you be “under the control” of the foreign government, among other things. There is no reason to suppose that any of the professors or institutions who receive this money fir that description. It’s far more subtle.
Indiana University. Egypt. Saudi. Entire program which exists for the express purpose of flouting immigration law. Hundreds of brain-damaged Arab PhD students getting a free pass. You have no idea.
Great article!There are many talks about “Muslim money”.We see as the Muslim money are pouring into the brain centers of the country and how these money influence the political views of their addressies.This explaines the existance of big number of leftist anti-American and anti-Israel scholars in the West including Israel.I think that there must be the other key areas of Muslim money applications probably military.
Shocked. Shocked. You mean to say that all those Middle East Study centers
funded by Arab and George Soros money and are hot beds for anti-Semitism
have sold their souls to the devil and greed? What amazes me is the presence
of Jewish professors acting as useful idiots to these anti-Semites. It
reminds me of the German Jews who thought that Hitler could not mean them but those other ones over there.
These college professors have Phd.’s. They are smarter than you! They have been studying all their life. What gives you the right question their integrity. Leftest causes are good because smart people believe in them.
They certainly must be smarter than you; they know how to spell and write. And being smarter than you, they certainly know what they’re doing to you and the rest of America – ‘screw’ them both.
You also forgot to add, ‘Sarc off’, at the end.
“What gives you the right question their integrity.”
Maybe you and your friends should write to the DOJ to officially forbid the ‘questioning the integrity of academics’.
Just re-interpret the first amendment.
The current administration is re-writing (Sorry, re-interpreting) most of the US constitution at the moment anyway so that would fit in nicely.
You could call it ‘hate speech, and prosecute those who dare to criticize the official party line.
Imagine the plebs daring to criticize academics……unbelievable.
When educators who are identified as professors from prestigious universities testify before Congress, write op-eds, and appear on public or media sponsored panels, most readers and listeners value their words more than those of others less credentialed.
Really? Well, certainly not I. I’m afraid I don’t hold professors in very high regard these days, especially those from “prestigious” universities.
These days it’s getting easier to pick them out isn’t it. The prestigous ones of course.
Any institution that accepts Federal funding should be required to force its faculty disclose all sources of funding. I have no issue with privately funded research, as long as I know of the funding. It is equally important to know which professors are being bought, and by whom. My wording is a bit harsh, deliberately so. The status quo is corrupt.
If the professors have gone into business for themselves, what is the point of tenure?
Remember Stephen Mosher? He’s the Stanford University researcher who was thrown out of China and then expelled from Stanford University in the 1980s.
His crime? He reported the barbaric Chinese practice of forced abortions, whereby pregnant women were grabbed off the street, driven to an ad hoc clinic, and subjected to an immediate abortion.
Chinese money + American university = Deep kowtow toward Beijing
I have an idea! Maybe all these great professors should be required to work an 8 hour day 5 days a week all year. Seems reasonable but some may think I’m another evil Tea Partier.
I don’t know about profs. of “studies” programs, but the science and engineering profs I know all work WAY in excess of 40 hours/week (I’d say 60-ish is the norm). Typically, half to 2/3 of that time is spent on research/running their research group/mentoring graduate students/… while the rest is spent on undergraduate teaching, preparation for same, exam preparation, student office hours,…
Having adjuncts do the actual undergraduate teaching is much rarer than in the humanities. TAs are typically used for student lab sessions, grading homework, and the like – rarely for frontal instruction.
The few teaching-only science lecturers I know have unenviable statuses similar to those of adjuncts in the humanities.
On the more general topic: The type of intellectual prostitution described in the article is a very distressing phenomenon.
In the STEM disciplines, there are periodic research bandwagons/gravy trains that everybody jumps on — often just dressing their ongoing research up as the fashionable subjects du jour. These may be PC ones (like AGW today) or utterly non-PC ones (like SDI in the 1980s). Often they take the shape of something best described by paraphrasing a crude Russian joke (via Prof. Mark Perakh):
The Ministry of Science and Technology offers funding for discovering a technique for turning sh*t into butter. A team of scientists submits a proposal. Their fellows declare them nuts, but they get the grant money.
A year later they submit an interim report. They have made substantial progress: they have figured out how to spread it on bread. Now they request more funding for trying to figure out how to make it taste like butter.
And finally, the institution of tenure historically had two purposes:
(a) To protect academics from getting fired for expressing unpopular views or researching “forbidden” subjects. (If you can imagine, dissecting an actual human corpse to learn about anatomy — rather than blindly believe what Galen wrote in antiquity — once was something that needed such protection.)
(b) To allow scientists to work on risky subjects with potentially high payoffs but low probability of success, rather than continually face “publish or perish” pressures.
Keep in mind that the fact that prominent AGW skeptics like Richard Lindzen have been able to keep their jobs — rather than being fired to placate the howling mob of the alarmists — is ALSO thanks to tenure protection. Likewise, I know a few outspoken conservatives in academia who, absent tenure, would have been railroaded by their colleagues in a heartbeat. The “law of unintended consequences” applies outside economics as well.
I got a laugh while reading Mr. “Independant”s comments regarding the success of the Koch Brothers vs. George Soros. I took a minute or two to look at all the lefty organizations Soros is supporting through his Open Society Institute, and wondered if Mr. “Independant” was either a crass liar, or perhaps he works for one of the many vile groups bankrolled by Soros. Either way, Mr. Propaganda would be a more fitting profile for him. He earned it.
Mr. Independent:
Your comments about the Koch Brother’s “creating/controlling” the Tea Parties is total BS. In my town of several hundred thousand, this is the only large protest that has ever occured. After the election of Obama, the dishonesty of the MSM in covering for his butt and the portent of a vastly expanded state apparatus, virtually every Conservative in the country felt like tearing their hair out. I watched the Santelli rant and felt a nearly instant sense of epiphany – a kind of, “yeees, of course, that’s what a Tea Party is! This is what it’s for!” I began seeing multiple posts in Instapundit about other large gatherings across the country, found the date and time of a local one, and took the initiative myself to show up. The people who came were obviously divorced from any previous political “protests” – they had to have been, since we never have any. They weren’t on anybody’s e-mail list. It was quite literally a Quickening that brought us together, not an astro-turfed appeal for support.
Continued:
“. . . Your comments about the Koch Brother’s “creating/controlling” the Tea Parties is total BS.”
Just to clarify – the inital gatherings that I attended were largely spontaneous with some assist from the local GOP. Since then, I have no doubt that larger organisations and funding mechanisms have been created and/or refocused around the idea – but surely that’s to be expected.
Ms. Feldman, re: “Over the past 10 years, gifts from and contracts with governments, companies, and individuals [in the Middle East] have amounted to more than $600 million.”
Very well-made point; influence-buying on American college campuses by sovereign wealth interests is an extremely dangerous development not only for the future of our education system, but for national security reasons. Worse yet, the problem is fairly far advanced; some of our most prestigious universities have already been co-opted. Example: Georgetown University has a new peace and security studies center and program, funded by wealthy ME Muslims. Having pumped so much wealth into the dept., the Islamic patrons, one can be certain, will not allow content shall we say “critical” of Islam to be taught there without turning off the money tap. Georgetown has for years sent graduates into the foreign service, military, Dept. of State and other govt. agencies. Do we really want our govt. staffed by personnel indoctrinated in this manner? Congress shold immediately outlaw donations of this sort to American colleges and universities; no foreign interest or government should be permitted to buy influence into the education of our youth. No exceptions.