PrisonPlanet Forum

***THE MAIN BOARDS - Welcome to the Prison Planet Educational Forum and Library*** => CISPA, NDAA, SOPA, Rex84, removing citizenship, 'Authorized Assassinations,' Nazi Drones and Other Fake 'Laws' l => General Discussion for the Prison Planet Educational Forum and Library => 1st Amendment Violations are a Threat to National Security => Topic started by: squarepusher on March 09, 2011, 08:47:25 pm

Title: Academic Self-Censorship - Deceit - Brainwashing - 'Argument Culture'
Post by: squarepusher on March 09, 2011, 08:47:25 pm
This is a brilliant essay that goes some ways towards explaining why the Military-Industrial Academic institution is composed of such quacks and scam artists that try to sell the people on nice 'agendas'.

It also explains why academics feel more comfortable discussing frivolous 'same-sex laws' and 'gender/sexual orientation equality' than they are about speaking out against an ever-increasing encroachment of civil liberties and downright spying and monitoring of the public. Simply put - academics have turned their back on the 'truth' - they have done this some time ago, but the situation has just deteroriated to the point where every faculty nowadays has been reduced to a political brainwashing cult that aims to turn young potential would-be scholars into 'true believers' - the beliefs which of course they also like to mold in advance so the student doesn't run off with the wrong 'beliefs' and has a chance to add his own personal contribution to the 'belief'.

Think of the ramifications of this - that this is what most universities offering courses in the social sciences boil down to. You can train an entire generation of 'true believers' for any particular social agenda of any major significance - be it 'extreme austerity climate change enforcement officers', be it 'same sex/gender equality enforcement officers', be it even engineering 'flash mobs' or triggering people with an appetite to 'spark off a revolution'.

The university has become a 'factory' for social change - churning out identikit 'true believers' that all abide by certain dogmas and 'language' codes - and which will have no hesitation to use political rhetoric, manipulation, propaganda and activism to achieve their goals.

This is absolutely perfect from a power-holder/oligarchical perspective - you have ready-made factories of young believers all ready to be turned on your enemy (whatever the enemy might happen to be - whether from a social perspective or from a geopolitical perspective) at the flick of a button - who the hell needs armies anymore when you can engineer 'flash mobs' to this extent and just watch Rome burn in the ensuing fallout?

Anyways, onto the essay - I can't copy and paste the entire essay since it's far too long - so I guess I will just offer some quotes in the next post.

August 2010
The Illusion of Creative Scholarship in American
Universities and Law Schools

David Barnhizer *

The aim of this brief essay is to explore several of the dominant forms of scholarship in the university and in law schools. This is done by examining what are described as five sometimes incompatible ideals, those of development and pursuit of original knowledge for its own sake, preservation, refinement and transmission of the best forms of knowledge, objective social critique, individual activism and collective activism.  Tenure track positions in American universities and in law schools particularly are comfortable sinecures. In far too many instances these privileged and lifetime positions serve mainly the personal interests and agendas of the purported scholar and teacher who often produce what could be called “fugitive rubbish” in their intellectual work, or that possess the characteristics of largely technical reportage while proclaiming elevated intellectual merit.

Beyond those issues the situation has become considerably worse with the rise of an incredible array of special interest journals, many of which allow “scholars” to publish their analysis in journals whose editors share political agendas with the authors and whose pages are open only to analyses that fit the specific aims. A result is that perhaps a majority of American legal scholars are essentially “preaching to the choir” with little readership outside the ranks of the already converted and scant impact outside academia.

An American legal scholar’s reputation is too often generated not by the intellectual power of the work but by the name of the law school at which one is a faculty member and the choices made by third-year student law review editors. Of course there remain journals that accept scholarship of deep consequence but one is hard pressed to identify on a consistent basis what those enlightened journals are. This is a particular problem in American legal scholarship where the most prestigious journals (but not automatically the best) are law reviews run by law students who by definition are generally highly intelligent but lack the depth of knowledge, expertise and context of the kind required to evaluate the intellectual quality and significance of the pieces they select for publication.

A result is that the published writings of members of American law school faculties run a gamut in terms of quality, meaning and intellectual depth. Much of what is published is “useful” to a restricted group interested in the specific technical topic, or to members of a political “identity collective”. A fair amount of the scholarship can be seen as philosophical in that it attempts to join the principles contained (or claimed to be found in) the US Constitution or in the jurisprudential principles on which the Western Rule of Law is grounded.

Constitutional and jurisprudential analyses are in fact the closest sub-discipline where American legal scholarship seeks to formulate a philosophy and critique of government, power, rights and duties. Much of legal scholarship, however, is little more than technical explanation of a doctrine, rule or statute of the kind that might be better done by practitioners, or political polemic based on assumed facts and values held by activist scholars.

One challenge is sorting true scholarship from mediocrity and rubbish is that virtually anything a faculty member writes can find a home in print somewhere. The proliferation of narrow special interest journals has exacerbated the situation. The problem is that writing is not the same as scholarship. Yet it has increasingly become the case that since we lack the criteria, courage or political will to carefully evaluate and critique what is put forward as legitimate scholarship a great deal of what makes its way into print is of questionable merit when assessed against any traditional standards. This is so embedded in the academic system’s terms of operation at this point that it is unlikely to change. A result is that we will increasingly produce vast volumes of verbiage of limited merit and consequence outside the narrow limits of our personal and group agendas.

A Lack of Intellectual Integrity and Perspective

Universities and the scholars that inhabit their hallowed halls are part of flawed human institutions that “talk the talk” far better than they “walk the walk” of courage, independence, honesty and intellectual freedom. For both the more traditional orthodoxy and the challengers who have been successful in capturing a significant place for their own views, the most effective constraints on real intellectual freedom and quality of scholarship tend to be implicit rather than overt.1 Diekema, for example, suggests that there is a “chilling effect” that creates a climate in which scholars steer clear of controversial or unpopular topics, arguing: “Self-censorship is often a result of the “chilling effect.” [He adds] As one writer puts it: “It is not the iron fist of repression but the velvet glove of seduction that is the real problem.” 2 Diekema concludes that:  “Faculty simply do not always say what they believe, or what they know to be true, because they don’t want to deal with what may be the resulting hassle—peer alienation, negative student opinions, or the ire of a constituent community.”3

Within the university the person purporting to be a scholar is often something else. Too often, the person doing scholarship mixes the distinct role of independent scholar with those of rhetorician, ideologue, and even propagandist.4 Some scholars who fit loosely into the label postmodernist and others who are activist-scholars intent on achieving a specific political goal have challenged the pursuit of truth itself.  They argue that the claim to truth is an orientation that offers a false goal, that truth is relative or that the methods insisted on by what these scholars consider to be a repressive orthodoxy are simply tools to perpetuate discrimination and preserve power.5

In Propaganda, Ellul reminds us: “A stereotype is a seeming value judgment, acquired by belonging to a group, without any intellectual labor.... The stereotype arises from feelings one has for one’s own group, or against the “out-group”. Man attaches himself passionately to the values represented by his group and rejects the cliches of the out-groups .... The stereotype, ... helps man to avoid thinking, to take a personal position, to form his own opinion.”6 Maxine Greene warns further that slogans and propaganda have replaced real dialogue. She describes slogans as, “rallying symbols” that “in no sense describe what actually exists, yet they are taken—wishfully or desperately—to be or statements of fact.”7

Consider Camus’ observation about the need to keep sufficient distance from the heated conditions of society in order to retain a clear perspective. He writes: “t is not possible to be a militant in one’s spare time. And so the artist of today becomes unreal if he remains in his ivory tower or sterilized if he spends his time galloping around the political arena. .... [T]he writer must be fully aware of the dramas of his time and that he must take sides every time he can or knows how to do so. But he must also maintain or resume from time to time a certain distance in relation to our history.” 8

In this connection, Pinsker warns that “an increasing number of professors no longer believe in the ‘pursuit of truth’ because they no longer believe that truth exists.” 9 He adds: “They do, however, believe in politics - and most especially in identity politics.  Thus, efforts to equalize genders, races, and cultures become the value that academic freedom presumably protects, while the criteria of truthfulness (as argued through evidence and rational argument) is seen as that which continues to exploit women, people of color, homosexuals, the poor and other victimized groupings. Not surprisingly, the two conditions usually overlap; and the results [sic] so muddies the waters that defending academic freedom is harder now than at any time in this century.” 10

This is how we can put the pieces together on this, people - show the underlying organizational structures and institutions that FACILITATE flash mobs and 'color revolutions' rather than simply shouting that it was a color revolution - since that can easily be denigrated - and the term 'color revver' could easily be termed into a pejorative similiar to 'truther' or 'birther' - remember that this is memetic engineering - and they know perfectly well how to give a negative connotation to any particular choice of meme they wish.
Title: Re: Academic Self-Censorship - Deceit - Brainwashing - 'Argument Culture'
Post by: Scarbo on March 09, 2011, 08:51:11 pm
Thank God someone is finally saying this.
Title: Re: Academic Self-Censorship - Deceit - Brainwashing - 'Argument Culture'
Post by: squarepusher on March 09, 2011, 09:02:39 pm
The Demise of the "Free Floating" Individual - Argument Culture


Deborah Tannen describes a “culture of argument” that has emerged within academic and
political circles as one in which we approach public dialogue as if it were a fight,
concluding the “argument culture” causes us to be adversarial.

She describes the path she followed to her insight, revealing: “The answer crystallized when I put the question to a
writer who ... had misrepresented my work: [I asked] “Why do you need to make others
wrong for you to be right?” Her response: “It’s an argument!” Tannen realized the fact
that her critic perceived what was going on as argumentation rather than reasoned
discourse was the answer. She concludes: “[w]hen you’re having an argument with
someone, your goal is not to listen and understand. Instead, you use every tactic you can
think of—including distorting what your opponent just said—in order to win the
argument.” 32

Daphne Patai makes the point of how this political culture is working within the
university. She explains: “Forty-five years ago, [Walter] Metzger and [Richard]
Hofstadter argued that academic freedom hangs by a slender thread. Today, instead of
heeding their warning and giving serious thought to a tradition in danger of dissolution,
throughout the university people convinced of their political righteousness challenge the
very concepts of academic freedom and free speech, and they back that challenge with
the coercive power of rules, codes, and disciplinary tribunals.” 33

Now, isn't that the truth. Just look at most editorialized news nowadays - look at all the big talking heads on TV - this is ALL they do - it's all debate - attack - scream at each other - talk over each other - and on and on. Public dialogue are all FIGHTS in disguise - you think you're watching a poor man's Walter Lipmann when what you're really watching is a C-grade WWF. words and sentences are used as 'weapons' rather than to relay concepts or ideas. It's all about 'going for the kill' - defaming this other person, besmirch his character or just destroy his reputation.

This approach to dumbing down discourse has been so successful that people emulate it all the time in real-life - most discourse in modern families also boils down to 'fights' and people rattling off slogans to each other and trying to insult and denigrate the person at the end of the verbal exchange instead of exchanging ideas and concepts with him.


This is a fight, not a debate or even a discussion, on TV. Academics engage in their share of these fights too - just watch this video for an example of that:

This is all you have for opinion molding now - just two guys having a rowdy dow - watch them fight and try to figure out what little they yelled about pertained to the 'truth', and try to form your own opinion from there. Good luck. No wonder the public is dumbed-down - their brains have been more or less lulled to sleep or even abject apathy by the constant barrage of 'verbal fights' beamed onto their retinas that the average outsider would rather shy away from.

They instinctively make the association between 'having a big unpleasant fight' and 'talking about this stuff' - hence they just shut up about it altogether. The 'chilling effect', applied to open debate, specifically meant to stifle it.
Title: Re: Academic Self-Censorship - Deceit - Brainwashing - 'Argument Culture'
Post by: squarepusher on March 09, 2011, 09:30:32 pm
Cliques of scholars

The result is that we see the rise
of “cliques” of scholars in pursuit of particular political or intellectual agendas.
This by
itself is not inevitably bad but when the cliques constrain the full range of potential work
by their members something is lost in the trade offs between political outcomes and
intellectual merit. Similarly, the intensity of politics generates a deadening aura once
those who believe deeply in that mission achieve a significant present in the institution.
Others can easily be intimidated by the politics and assumptions of an intensely political
faculty group with what they claim to be “moral” leverage and begin to alter their own
work to avoid conflict.

This right here sums up the 'clique of scholars' that drummed up the books that justified the 'Global War on Terror' (AKA the Revolution in Military Affairs), 'Climate change' (AKA what they previously termed global warming - nice obfuscatory way of selling cybernetic governance to the flocks) and, of course, the impending 'Transhumanism' books that will no doubt be churned out en masse and find their way on the New York Times bestseller lists pretty soon - if Kevin Warwick, Nick Bostrom and the like can churn out many identikit 'scribblers' at the universities - pursuing them to write more crapola along the same lines).

Academics 'think the same, act the same'

The goals, methods and cultures are fundamentally different between the practitioners of
the competing ideals. Much of modern activist scholarship is self-consciously and
aggressively political in nature and is to a large extent highly subjective. It has been
argued that a political monoculture has come to dominate academia, one in which the
vast majority of academics think the same, share the same values, and collectively fail to
evaluate the foundations of their own assumptions while rejecting and denigrating others.

The figures on political diversity are in fact extreme.

Title: Re: Academic Self-Censorship - Deceit - Brainwashing - 'Argument Culture'
Post by: squarepusher on March 10, 2011, 06:18:35 am
A Chilling Of Discourse

David Barnhizer
Cleveland State University - Cleveland-Marshall College of Law

Culture of spin, lies and propaganda - change and opposition to this coming from outside the university
f we “pack” law school and university faculties with people who
think the same, write about the same issues in the same way and share the same
values then we have blinded ourselves to the intellectual richness and diversity of
American society and betrayed our fundamental mission.

Why be concerned about such things? Few would dispute that American society
seems to be increasingly trapped in a culture of spin, lies and propaganda—although
it is telling that the vast majority of the critiques of such behavior are coming from
outside the university. While our complex society needs citizens and leaders who
can be honest, principled, knowledgeable and clear in their missions as well as open
to diverse and competing positions of the kind inevitably generated by a complex
and diverse society, the reverse is occurring.

Multiculturalism/gender equality has led to illegimate suppression of independent thinking

The problem, however, is that tolerance for
gender, racial and ethnic diversity has not translated to tolerance for intellectual and
political diversity for positions incompatible with those advanced by the new
. One result has been the illegitimate suppression of independent thinking
and diverse intellectual analysis. This has been accompanied by a diminishing of the
willingness or ability to engage in the critique of fundamental political ideas and
ideals as well as any balanced assessment of the various “solutions” advanced by
members of the ideological monoculture or the offering of solutions that are seen as
potentially encroaching on the perquisites of the new orthodoxy. This political
monoculture operates within a cloud of diversity and has successfully cloned itself
through hiring and promotion practices to the extent that its base of power has
expanded and most likely is now unassailable.

Martha Nussbaum suggests that: “Under the label ‘multiculturalism’--which can
refer to the appropriate recognition of human diversity and cultural complexity--a
new antihumanist view has sometimes emerged, one that celebrates difference in an
uncritical way and denies the very possibility of common interests and
understandings, even of dialogue and debate, that take place outside one's own
group....” 8 She adds the vital point that: “This view denies the possibility of the task
[Harlan] Ellison set himself: ‘of revealing the human universals hidden within the
plight of one who was both black and American.’ ” 9
Russell Jacoby joins Nussbaum in criticizing the application of the phenomenon
of multiculturalism, observing: “The ideas of multiculturalism, cultural pluralism and
diversity turn sacrosanct. They become blank checks payable to anyone in any
amount, lacking meaning or content. They not only suggest a politics, but often
replace politics.” 10 He adds: “even with adjectives like radical or transformative
attached, what politics do they designate? Apart from the wish to include more
voices in the curriculum or different faces at the office, no vision drives
multiculturalism. .... The rise of multiculturalism correlates with the decline of
utopia, an index of the exhaustion of political thinking.” 11

Academics seek comfort, contentment and compensation, not conflict

The “soft” repression works because ordinary academic is a curious being, not a
courageous one. Academics seek comfort, contentment and compensation, not
conflict. Those political collectives willing to engage in condemnation and conflict
consequently represent a disproportionately powerful force fully capable of
intimidating and repressing the majority of academics who just want to be left alone
to enjoy the incredibly privileged job they have been fortunate to obtain. 6

Loss of objectivity and intellectual integrity

Intellectual life has become a strange domain made up of
propagandists and power-seekers who distort reality in the interest of a group
seeking to acquire or maintain power; of cultists who lead quasi-religious sects of
true-believers organized around impassioned issues; and prophets who seek to
challenge the decay and dishonesty they see all around them.

Within the world of the modern intellectual, both within and beyond the
university, our behavior is mimicking the “dogma day parade.” 19 Intellectuals have
prostituted themselves for economic and ego gains by serving others’ agendas, and
by joining political movements in which they surrender honesty and the pursuit of
truth for membership in a group to which they swear allegiance and from which they
receive identity, status and rewards. 20 For many academics, entering the service of
masters of one kind or another has been done at the price of intellectual balance,
honesty and integrity.

Nothing to do with wanting to 'help' society, but about accruing power for themselves in an utopia they helped engineer

University-based law schools and the “soft” or humane disciplines in universities
are now “owned” by political collectives striving to implement their particular
visions of the “good society.” 27 These new “scholars” have formed into aggressive
political collectives that are not looking at society from a distance and seeking to
offer objective insights and solutions, but are acting as advocates for predetermined
political positions that not surprisingly in a society that operates according to the
“looking out for Number One” principle, provides benefits to them and others who
share their dearest identity characteristic. In law schools the members of the identity
collectives are seeking to engineer their preferred vision of society through control of
law and the language of scholarly discourse, as well as hiring practices that mirror
their own values, preferences and identity affiliations.

Academics silent on the truth - think the truth no longer matters

Objectivity, discipline and evidence were formerly considered central
to serious academic work. Now those virtues have become suspect as alleged tools
of inappropriate subordination and discriminatory power. Reason, truth, evidence,
rigorous method, and even honesty are claimed to be devices of political control and

The fact of abuse and past discrimination does not invalidate the critical
principles on which the university ideal is grounded as opposed to imposing the
responsibility to expose the abuses, rectify the injustices that were created, and
ensure the system is regulated in such a way to prevent future abuses. Rejecting
principled methods, values and ideals, while substituting extreme subjectivity and
personal “voice” for disciplined inquiry, rejects the search for understanding through
replicable and shared methods. This demeans the ideal of the university and the
scholar’s search for truth. Ideology, passion, rage and the correctness of shaping
conditions into whatever politically constructed version of reality a particular
collective desires has replaced actual discourse. 30 And of course that is what will
inevitably happen in a politicized system because honesty and evidence are obstacles
to political outcome. 31

Hey, let's not discuss politics, an elite sitting at the top of society, Orwell, the cybernetic control grid, nah, let's not discuss any of that - no, let's discuss sexual preferences and sexual identity all day and tear each other apart over that - much more relevant - far safer area too

A lamentable result is that the integrity of the university is being consumed in the
fires of intolerant political collectives. 35 The intolerance operates in numerous areas
of concern but the conflict over sexual preference is by far the most personal and
heated. It is tearing friends and families apart. [n]Consider, for example, experiences
involving people I know that recently occurred over a period of only three weeks. In
one, a high school classmate sent around an e-mail that stated if anyone of his friends
on the circulation list didn’t support gay marriage they could no longer be his friend.
It was not an offer of discussion or education but an ultimatum throwing away
friendships of more than forty years. In another situation during a discussion among
colleagues at another law school, a lesbian faculty member—in fact an associate
dean--informed the others present that they were bigots if they didn’t affirmatively
support gay marriage and they wouldn’t be her friends if they didn’t do so.[/b] 36

The intensity of these impassioned judgments is such that if a person does not
support a political position on a fundamental issue the result is not honest discussion
but a “carpet bombing” campaign ruthlessly aimed at destroying relationships,
reputations, careers and even families
. This may or may not be acceptable political
or personal behavior in general society. But even if justifiable in a free society in the
sense it violates no law it is often vile, malicious and infantile. Regardless of how
one feels about its appropriateness in general society it is absolutely corrupt behavior
when brought into teaching and scholarship because it creates a powerful negative
force that inhibits academic and social discourse.

In this age of “instant phobias” if it is homophobic to ask people who are seeking
to alter the dimensions of a fundamental cultural and religious institution such as
marriage to actually discuss such issues and to consider the nature of their own
interactive obligations in a political community then I guess some people will choose
to label others who feel it necessary to engage in such a discourse as being
homophobic—unfortunately defining that term to mean anyone who does not
automatically and unquestioningly accept the dictates of those who seek to advance a
particular political agenda. In such a situation it is fair to ask where lie the deepest
bigotry and fanaticism. If that is in fact the state of “discourse” in American
universities and the society—and it is--then we do have a bit of a problem.

Chilling of truth through carrot and stick

The chilling of intellectual freedom through a combination of “carrot and stick”
is one in which the incentives and disincentives come from several sources. One, of
course, is that if a scholar is part of an identity-collective and accepts the “party line”
or set of issues and political “truths” that represent the dogma of the particular sect
then that person’s work is shaped by the allegiance or is a product of the closed
perspective. 4

New scholars have often succumbed to the lure of trendy or fad topics that
enhance the probability of having their work published in student-run journals even
if it contributes little of substance to intellectual discourse. Passionate and critical
language on compelling topics using big and seemingly intellectual words—
preferably ones of great opacity--has a seductive impact on neophyte scholars
struggling to identify an intellectual path. Of course there is also a hidden advantage
to opacity. If others cannot understand what you are saying it becomes less
important that you actually know what you are talking about.

One of my main concerns with chilling is that younger scholars may seek to hide
or suppress desired lines of inquiry because of the entirely realistic fear they will
offend a political collective. The collective may be one entrenched as the dominant
orthodoxy in the field or in the process of ascendance. Either way they fear their
career will come to an abrupt halt or advancement opportunities limited as a result of
ncurring disfavor with a powerful collection of interests. 46 This kind of intimidation
of legal scholars arises because scholars with views that differ from those of strong
political collectives avoid taking positions that will demonstrate the extent of their
alternative views. 47

Title: Re: Academic Self-Censorship - Deceit - Brainwashing - 'Argument Culture'
Post by: squarepusher on March 10, 2011, 07:47:53 am
European Union - criminalized forms of free speech

The rapidly expanding definition of what constitutes racism in the European
Union augurs forebodingly for freedom of expression. For those raised in America’s
system of freedom of expression it seems stunning to find out that our European
counterparts have criminalized speech we might consider insensitive but nonetheless
protected by our Constitutional commitment to free speech. 58 The critical distinction
is that we are no longer satisfied to look at boors and bigots and judge them deficient
and then go on with our lives. Instead we are seeking to engineer the new man or
woman so that he or she is no longer a bigot and, failing that, to intimidate dissonant
individuals into silence and conformity by the sticks, whips and stocks of the legal
order and by the tools of economic opprobrium and boycott
. I find racism, sexism
and most other isms repulsive. But I find repression and the silencing of members of
a political community that is purportedly based on freedom of expression and a vital
intellectual community grounded on free and independent thought to be an
unacceptable means of pursuing legitimate and even noble ends.

Title: Re: Academic Self-Censorship - Deceit - Brainwashing - 'Argument Culture'
Post by: Satyagraha on March 10, 2011, 10:46:48 am
On Tenure in Universities and Colleges...

It has also been suggested that tenure may have the effect of diminishing political and academic freedom among those seeking it - that they must appear to conform to the political or academic views of the field or the institution where they seek tenure.

For example, in The Trouble with Physics (, the theoretical physicist, Lee Smolin says "... it is practically career suicide for young theoretical physicists not to join the field of string theory. ...". It is certainly possible to view the tenure track as a long-term demonstration of the candidate's political and academic conformity.

Patrick J. Michaels, a controversial part-time research professor at the University of Virginia, wrote:
"...tenure has had the exact opposite effect as to its stated goal of diversifying free expression. Instead, it stifles free speech in the formative years of a scientist's academic career, and all but requires a track record in support of paradigms that might have outgrown their usefulness."[2]

======= Case in point using Patrick J. Michaels by example ============

Criticism and support for Patrick J. Michaels:

Office of Science and Technology Policy director, John Holdren,[8] told the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee,
"Michaels is another of the handful of U.S. climate-change contrarians …
He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature,
being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations
of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science."[9]

Michaels responded in a Washington Examiner Op-Ed, saying that the IPCC had subverted the peer review process, and adding the IPCC had "left out plenty of peer-reviewed science that it found inconveniently disagreeable."[10]

Climate scientist Tom Wigley,[11] a lead author of parts of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has stated that "Michaels' statements on the subject of computer models are a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation … Many of the supposedly factual statements made in Michaels' testimony are either inaccurate or are seriously misleading."[12]


So much for academic and political freedom. That's why Patrick J. Michaels is only a "part-time research professor" ... no tenure for you, Mr. Michaels, you are not playing by the rules. (And you pissed off John Holdren, who is a gatekeeper in the house of deception).

Title: Re: Academic Self-Censorship - Deceit - Brainwashing - 'Argument Culture'
Post by: zacherydtaylor on August 06, 2011, 11:51:51 am
The academic world hasn't been completely censored, as far as I can tell; or at least not yet. there are some people providing controversial views still out there but they are hard for many people to find. One good group of academics that have done some worthwhile work is the American Empire project. The most well known of which is probably Noam Chomsky but there are many other good authors.

Other examples include the researchers into child abuse and it's long term effects and those that research the marketing to children. These are out there if you look for them but most people don't know to look for them. They receive little or no promotion from the Mass Media and they're often demonized and they have a hard time getting funding since they don't support the corrupt corporate ideology but they're still there.

This is one of the reasons we need election reform that is controlled by the public!