“Given I have written this column, I have reported for my semester of active duty. The battlefield will be the UW campus.”

seriously? you really have the gall to equate being a conservative in madison to active duty in the military? i’m sure you have your ‘support our troops’ button right next to your gw button. maybe instead of supporting the troops with a stupid button, you could support the troops by actually going on active duty. school will always be there when you get back, if you come back. yet, being the chicken-hawk that you are, you believe that spewing out the administration’s drivel equals service in iraq. but seriously, you have to understand why people might not be all gung-ho about being friends with someone who blindly listens and follows whatever bush says. it must be really hard to keep up with the lies, to flip-flop if you will. i have conservative friends who i can have discussions with because they have rationale, but you seem like the type of person who would spew out anything that you are told without even checking its authenticity.
who told you about air america; was it rush? your comments are beyond ignorant about the content of that station. i’m sure you haven’t even bothered to tune into any of the shows, especially the local ones because if you did, you’d know that progressives don’t just blindly follow the leaders of their party, they question everything and everyone. maybe you should try that.

It’s nice to see the liberals are back in town.

While the first comment goes a little overboard, I will agree that over the past few years, the conservative columnists from this paper have tended to get pretty whiny. So, people don’t like your beliefs. Well, try being a liberal anywhere besides Madison and other big cities. Same deal. There are plenty of people in this town to be friends with who aren’t in your department—if you don’t like the people in the department (vice versa), it’s not the end of your life.

There’s nothing ideological in my criticism of your metaphors, though—they could have been written by a thirteen year old English student. Dial down the drama, and try writing a column that 1) doesn’t paint you as a victim, and 2) doesn’t simply decry the liberal city in which you chose to make your home.

The true point is that if you want bona fide intellecutal diversity, universities need to do more to encourage diversity of political viewpoints.

"The true point is that if you want bona fide intellecutal diversity, universities need to do more to encourage diversity of political viewpoints." Exactly. It seems as though some sensitive liberals in this city just can't understand some satirical wit and humor.

Thank you. I agree. I enjoy her humor.

Hey liberals! Maybe you could try OBJECTIVELY reading the article instead
of automatically assuming the article is a PERSONAL attack against you. It’s not all about you! All she wanted to point out was that Madison is a highly liberal school, which mainly contains liberal students, which obviously makes it harder for conservative students to voice their (or even maintain) their viewpoints.

All I can hope is that when the semester starts, you all will focus your efforts on studying and actually doing something productive to further your education and careers rather than wasting your time crying and whining about something as insignificant as this.

P.S. That’s not how you’re going to win the Senate majority.

You know, I wouldn’t mind it when conservatives play the oppressed minority card if it weren’t for the fact that they chastize any socioeconomic group that claims oppressed minority status. Maybe the conservatives are just lazy and not willing to work.

FYI — Chastise is spelled with an “s” and not a “z.”

Are you sure you aren’t talking about liberals playing the oppressed card??? And you have the nerve to call conservatives lazy?? Wow…that’s almost as screwed up as calling Michael Jackson white! I mean, who hasn’t heard reference to the “lazy liberal”?!?

“I mean, who hasn’t heard reference to the “lazy liberal”?!?”

Everyone has. Hence the point, duh. The point was less that Republicans are lazy or oppressed (I think they’re neither), and more that they are very hypocritical with their rhetoric.

How one can claim to be oppressed when their party holds sway over Congress, the White House, and shortly the Supreme Court eludes me, but whatever. I’ll trade you lunch with the ‘cool’ kids if you’ll give me Russ Feingold for President.

“And you have the nerve to call conservatives lazy??”

Sorry, my rhetoric was a little unclear. A political moderate myself, I was using the same terms that many conservatives use to mock those who also perpetually claim oppressed status. Pot calling the kettle black, and all that.

And I apologize for my spelling error.

Many conservatives? That is oftly brazen for something I am sure you can not back up with evidence.

“awfully” you idiot, not “oftly”!

This is the second column you’ve written that I’ve read. I still have yet to hear something worth reading, discussing, and debating.

“Poor me, I like Bush and no one else here does.”

I won’t bother suggesting that you actually listen to the arguments against your dearly beloved C-I-C, because hell will sooner freeze over.

Nonetheless, my only suggestion is that you start writing a decent column. I’m pretty liberal, but I’ll be the first to admit that there is a decent case for many conservative stances.

So stop wasting our time and make them. You’d do much more good for your cause by using fact and reason instead of worthless rhetoric, Ken Mehlman talking points, and victimization that, I’m sorry, just isn’t there. Buzzwords and GOP memos are for writers who can’t make arguments for themselves, which leads me to ask:

Are you not part of the cool kids club because you’re conservative, or because you’re just a blindly partisan hack?

We’ll soon find out.

Wow…as I read all these comments, it’s becoming quite obvious that not only are the liberals the ones who post comments with this annoying “woah is me” attitude, but they’re also the ones who continually choose to use personal attacks. Get over it! Are you still crabby about John Kerry losing? By the way, anyone who is making the claim that the author of the column is claiming “victimization” is sorely wrong…take a reading comp class. And for the last time…nobody is claiming conservatives are oppressed! Superior status doesn’t exactly equal oppression.

“it’s becoming quite obvious that not only are the liberals the ones who post comments with this annoying “woah is me” attitude, but they’re also the ones who continually choose to use personal attacks.”

As opposed to the “woe is me” attitude of the column?

“By the way, anyone who is making the claim that the author of the column is claiming “victimization” is sorely wrong”

When someone writes that Conservatives are “heading into battle”, when someone writes that they don’t get to eat pudding with the cool kids, when someone writes that they feel they are being locked out of the car by a malicious older sibling, how can you NOT call that victimization?

It was meant to be light humor! Take a joke! And get a life while you’re at it!

Is it just me, or is Darryn’s picture the perfect meal ticket to neo-con pundit stardom? The vapid smile, the crazy look in her eyes, the clenched jaw — it’s like looking at a brunette Ann Coulter.

Your column would have carried a lot more weight if it had been intelligent, insightful, and provided good reasons for your choice to be conservative. Instead, it sounds like it was written by some bitter Ann Coulter wannabe.
Did it ever occur to you that the reason your fellow graduate students dislike you has less to do with your political views and more to do with your snide, judgemental, holier-than-thou demeanor?

Wow, another self-aggrandizing outlet for Darryn Beckstrom. This “graduate student” in political “science” is obviously longing for someone to take her Doogie Howser gimmick seriously.

I don’t doubt that she can memorize and work her way into being a good student, but this is exactly what happens when cognitive maturity doesn’t keep pace with academic achievement.

Wow, how ironic. This conservative hero wants an “armistice” where nobody has to feel “locked out of the car.”

It seems the main problem she’s cited so far is that she doesn’t get invited out to dinner often enough, and she has to eat her pudding alone.

As I recall, it’s the caricature of the feel-good bleeding-heart liberal who worries about socially isolated losers in school. Usually, though, I think these liberals stop caring by grad school.

I suggest the author go and try to make some friends rather than fighting the next war.

Perhaps you got taken off of the poli sci dinner list because you’re an irrational, unplesant, intellectually one-dimensional moron…

Ok, when somebody puts a word in quotes - it usually refers to SARCASM! Duh! The author of this article does not want to sit with the “cool” kids, who probably self-designate themselves as so anyway because these liberals need to flock together as a herd rather than standing up for something that they THEMSELVES believe. Stop assuming what the author of this article meant by their article and maybe you could actually argue with meaningful evidence rather than using personal attacks and crying and whining. Then you might actually win an argument in real life…heck, it might even help all you liberals win something in government sometime soon, too.

I couldn’t agree more!!!!!

You know, people only “attack” other people with angry comments when they’re unhappy with themselves…so either go running, or study some more, or go to church, but don’t take it out on everybody else!

Of course it’s a personal attack. I’m not interested in having a substantive discussion with this idiot; there’s nothing substantive in this piece.

“Is it just me, or is Darryn’s picture the perfect meal ticket to neo-con pundit stardom? The vapid smile, the crazy look in her eyes, the clenched jaw — it’s like looking at a brunette Ann Coulter.”

Are you seriously criticizing this writer based on her picture! I cannot believe that at a supposed institution of higher learning we have liberals that still must resort to immature, idiotic personal attacks instead of actually making an argument against her political views. Ridiculous.

But she doesn’t write anything substantive about her political views, or about substantive about anything, for that matter! This whole piece is a bunch of whiny blather, and the comments are apt.

Okay, I’m not going to comment on either the validity of Darryn’s remarks (I, as a moderate, exist without problem in the political science department) or on its style. I just think it’s unfortunate that people are resorting to attacking the author’s physical appearance in critiquing her opinions.

I am not a big fan of pudding and am a proud owner of a Dell computer, so I guess I am not one of the “cool” kids of the department - but I will sure go to “battle” for my “Macintosh-loving” friends. Have you ever even tried to eat in the grad lounge with your fellow students? Your name was dropped from the dinner list because you never came. Perhaps it’s not us who are excluding you, but you who is isolating yourself - probably because (as you’ve stated publicly) you don’t approve of many of our views and ways of life. In order to be able to whine about not being tolerated don’t you first have to tolerate others?

Even the MSM has reported on the Air America scandal.

Reporting for duty in Madison is good. The Viet Nam war was lost on the streets of US cities like Chicago and Madison, not in the jungles of SE Asia. The “peaceniks” even killed a man in Madison 35 years ago.

The outcome of the Iraq war will not be decided in Iraq.

This is just getting out of hand. I never meant for this to be a fighting match in the department. The latest post is just so factually incorrect and I just wanted to get the point across that there lacks political diversity at UW in my column. PLEASE GO BACK AND READ THE ARTICLE WITH AN OBJECTIVE MIND. I never refer to the Department as the "battlefield." I said that UW was the "battlefield." I can’t even respond to this post. I’m fine with people making fun of my looks or calling me stupid…but when they start writing things about my personal activities in the department that are so factually incorrect and turning this into a me vs. them match, then we need to reevaluate what we are even discussing. With all of these comments, it's no wonder more conservatives don't speak out on this campus. Unfortunately, this campus is devoid of any intellectual diversity. However, when anyone tries to point this out (as I tried to do in a satirical way), they are always confronted with severe criticism, admonishment, and personal attacks.

I really hope that many of the graduate students in the political science department would learn to be less sensitive. As you may know, graduate students can hold other political views other than those of the left. This column was never intended to create a hostile strife in the department. I would NEVER want that to happen. Please feel free to e-mail me if you feel that you would like to discuss this matter further. I am more than open to liberal points of view. However, universities need become better at encouraging intellectual diversity.

Sincerely, Darryn Beckstrom

No - universities encourage critical thought - flapping your mouth and whooping about hackneyed garbage like “lack of intellectual diversity” or “judicial activism” rate about on par with intelligent design and the geocentric solar system.

As I said earlier, this kind of confusion about what constitutes “intellectual diversity” and the inability to think critically is exactly what happens when cognitive maturity doesn’t keep pace with academic achievement, as is obviously the case with you

“inability to think critically is exactly what happens when cognitive maturity doesn’t keep pace with academic achievement”

I think this is exactly what she was trying to say…conservatives can’t say ANYTHING without being portrayed as unintelligent.

…but they always are unintelligent

NO! In my department, there are a number of staunch conservatives - in fact, some overt Bush supporters. They’d be hard-pressed to tell you that they’re unwelcome, stifled or even that they don’t get invited to play on the monkey bars with the rest of us.

However, none of them would write a piece this stupid and immature, nor do they make ideological demagoguery their raison d’etre for existing in the department.

…and what department is this?

Well, we get paid 150% of the average political “scientist”

UW has monkey bars? Please tell me where…

And I should be impressed that you get paid more than we do?? Like we are in this for the money? Come on…

so, obviously, the poster that has Bush supporters in their department is probably not in the social sciences or humanities (bastions of liberalism). Start comparing apples to apples and not apples to oranges.

As Ms. Beckstrom said, “With the outing of my support for the Republican Party, though, I am ignoring the advice gathered by The New York Times' David Brooks from several prominent professors regarding conservative students pursuing graduate study in the social sciences and humanities: keep your conservative views in the closet.”

The monkey bars are located at the meeting place of the Mendota Beacon staff. That makes it easier for the room-temperature IQ, disgruntled undergraduates (and our resident wannabe grad student) to construct pieces so reminiscent of apes incapable of distinguishing monkeying Republican tag lines from thoughtful analysis.

Nope - wrong! It’s a social science or humanity.

Darryn - I did go back and read the article with an objective mind, and I apologize, you are right. You did say UW (not the poli sci department) was the battlefield. I, however, firmly stand by the rest of my statements.

I am new to UW and I had no idea how HATEFUL and UGLY liberal students can be until reading the previous posts. I thought BULLYING stopped in junior high. What are you afraid of?

I would be embarrassed to call myself a liberal now. Congratulations. You really proved Ms. Beckstrom’s point of her column. No intellectual diversity allowed!!!

cough cough

Y’know, it’s hard to tell who’s more easily offended — the MCSC kids with a chip on their shoulder, or the conservative students with an even bigger chip on their shoulder.

TO D BECKSTROM BADGER HERALD FROM CINCGOP SUBJ NEXT COLUMN

YOU HAVE PROVEN YOURSELF A GOOD SOLDIER. WE NEED YOUR IMMEDIATE ACTION IN YOUR NEXT COLUMN. THE LIBERAL MEDIA ELITE IS QUESTIONING THE CONDUCT OF OUR COMMANDERINCHIEF IN THIS HURRICANE DISASTER.

YOUR COLUMN MUST CONTAIN AT LEAST TWO OF THESE POINTS

IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO RESPOND TO NATURAL DISASTERS, ANY CLAIM TO THE CONTRARY IS A LIBERAL INVENTION

THE GOVERNMENT ISNT RESPONSIBLE FOR HELPING THOSE WHO DONT PULL HARD ENOUGH ON THEIR BOOTSTRAPS, THOSE WHO WERE TOO POOR TO LEAVE NEW ORLEANS MADE BAD LIFE CHOICES

LOOK AT THE BRIGHT SIDE, LOUISIANA WILL BECOME EVEN MORE REPUBLICAN

DEMOCRAT FEARMONGERS ARE CRASSLY EXPLOITING A GREAT TRAGEDY

THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR LOOTING, NOT HUNGER, NOT THIRST, NOTHING

THE RESPONSE TO THE DISASTER HAS BEEN GREAT, PICTURES TO THE CONTRARY ARE A PRODUCT OF THE LIBERAL MEDIA ELITE

GET CRACKING.

MEHLMAN

well played…well played

“THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR LOOTING, NOT HUNGER, NOT THIRST, NOTHING”…and wasn’t CNN that reported people had the gall to actually try clothing on in the street? And prance around!!!!!

I agree with the previous poster that stopping such outrageous conduct must be a top priority - when there are 20,000 black people living in a detention camp knee-deep in their own sewage, the top priority is to make sure none of them get their grimy hands on any of whitey’s shoes

I think there are multiple issues going on here. Are there more liberals than conservatives in academia? Yep. But I don’t think we can state definitively which way the causality goes there - my guess is there’s a huge selection bias in terms of who decides to get a doctorate and who decides to, well, make money. In any case, we as academics should be open to the voicing of all points of view in the classroom - and I think there are very few grad students in the political science department who would disagree with that.

However, the more troubling issue is the fact that Darryn published personal attacks and incorrect information about the graduate students in the political science department, as almost anyone who is actually in that department can clearly see. It’s thus troubling that she states that “I never meant for this to be a fighting match in the department” - I don’t think you can expect people to be publicly and personally slammed and not react.

Say what you will about liberalism in academia (I think it’s entirely fair for you to air your views on that), but when you can pick out references to specific individuals and state that something is a “department” function when it’s not (the dinner group is entirely a social activity limited to a select group of students as far as I - a non-member of that group but a grad student in the department - know), that’s inappropriate, immature, and unprofessional.

I’m a liberal, PC-using, non-pudding-cup-eating (and thus not cool, I guess) grad student in the department, and I have friends who are more conservative than I am and, shockingly, some who vote Republican. Thus, it was pretty offensive to be told, publicly, that I’m apparently ostracizing conservatives. As others have less-tactfully stated (I agree that the rhetoric has gotten a bit out of hand here - personal attacks on Darryn don’t really get us anywhere), there may be reasons for not being involved socially that have nothing to do with one’s personal political views. As a social-scientist-in-training, Darryn should know better than to confuse correlation with causation.

Darren has pulled on the cat’s tail with her article and, as she should have expected, the results are not pretty. But as a political science grad student and colleage to Darren and some of the other posters, I’m getting queasy as I read the exchange above.

There needs to be an important clarification for the audience of all this squabbling. 99% of polisci grad students do not view the department or our classrooms as forums for partisan endorsement. We’re not liberals with a conspiracy to fool Wisconsin’s youth. For most of us, it is hard to see the claims of parties in the US (and elsewhere) outside the lens of our training. And those of you who think we’re tricking your classmates with sly liberal or conservative bias insult those same classmates by assuming they’re not smart enough to spot it themselves.

I must say I disagree with an assumption underlying Darren’s argument, that one must embrace a partisan position and that if you’re not one side, you must be on the other. That’s simply not true, although pundits would like you to believe otherwise. Saying that there needs to be “balance” in partisan leanings means neglecting our obligation to treat those viewpoints as analytical objects.

Because our work should be aimed at illuminating the political process, political scientists should prize their objectivity above all else. An endorsement of a partisan position in the public forum, whether Democratic or Republican, makes us polisci grad students look like a bunch of hacks. We’re not here to fight for the vision of one party or the other, and you’re in the wrong place if that’s your goal.

Because she doesn’t share that perspective, I can believe that Darren’s principle-driven work can make her feel isolated or feel treated as if she’s foolish. I do not deny that she is a minority in the department. Not for being conservative, as she would have you believe, but for openly using her work as a vehicle for a political party.

Finally, colleages, let’s keep our dirty laundry inside our little department. I don’t mind the fighting, but bring it to the lounge, alright?

RP

I suggest that you all (esp Ms. Beckstrom)read the NY Times article today titled “Allan Bloom and the Conservative Mind”.

If a professor that is an expert at any given topic comes to a conclusion through his expertise that supports a democratic principle is there really a bias or is just that the liberals agree with the smart people more often?

The fact of the matter is that while attending the university my greatest prof’s were just as critical of both political parties. The problem is that conservatives, believe it or not, love to play the victim card. When you accuse acadamia (or the media) of having a liberal bias then you never have to fully explain yourself. When occassionally someone comes to a more liberal conclusion then you can merely go “see, the liberals are out to get us, we can do nothing about it”. Then when they come to the occassional conservative stance then you can say “If even the evil liberal media agrees with us then that just shows how right we are”. If you are seeing a bias it is only because you are looking for one going into it.

All you liberal meanies better quit pickin’ on Darryn! Or I’ll come out there and pick my nose and wipe it off on your shirt! And then I’ll steal your Twinkies outta your lunch box! And then…and…and then I’ll beat you up after school! Oh yeah! And then I’ll rip off your bike and you’ll have to walk home, you big baby!

Ok liberals, you proved your point already. It’s common knowledge that people only make fun of and lash out at others when they feel threatened by them or feel insecure…thus, conservatives must be better. Awesome!

Several social scientists argue that social norms or mental models influence social interactions. An analytic formulation of R. George’s hypothesis is that individuals are more willing to accept individuals when the individuals have similar ideological or social values, holding constant all other factors. Darryn provides evidence of this hypothesis based on her interactions with her cohort in what can be described as participant observation. This type of discussion is useful for social scientists interested in the sociology of a department. Others have pointed out that the sociology in other departments differs (probably the commentator is referring to the economics department, where there is less of a vicious response partisan issues). This is, of course, based on Darryn’s own interaction with people in the department who have on numerous occassions derided her personal views. An implication of Darryn’s discussion is that a conservative may have a social or economic interest in conforming to the dominant ideological perspective of the university. This may not be accurate but it is a reasonable argument backed by the experience of a student.

There is no reason why a political scientist studying the political process cannot write about social norms in a department. These types of norms can have a large impact on outcomes (e.g. relative lack of women in the sciences has been related to social norms or unconscious discrimination). The possibility that these norms exist in the political science department but that they are based on ideology is not an outrageous statement. The only outrageous statements have been by the commentators who regrettably focus on irrelevant issues, unjustifiable inferences, or personal attacks. For example, there is nothing her to suggest Darryn’s uses her academic work to further partisan objectives. Nor did Darryn single out any individuals by name.

If Darryn wrote a piece about her experience with an “old boy’s network,” I doubt anyone would have given this a second thought. This leads me to believe that the reason for the response is based on her political perspective, a point that she adequately defended in the initial article. The comments simply validate an article that was both relevant and interesting.

Colleagues,

I am deeply disappointed to see the cowardly and unthoughtful responses to a courageous colleague’s willingness to discuss an issue of vital importance to the notions of free-speech and intellectual diversity in not just UW Polisci but also in broader academia. The majority of the above comments appear to soundly validate and strengthen Darryn’s arguments (note: her name is spelled Darryn not Darren or Darrin or something else). The majority of the responses speak from the same viewpoint that Darryn is inciting. It is the viewpoint of the majority on this campus and in academia: the left-liberal viewpoint. First, if you are in the department you probably know my political views. I am a classic libertarian with a few conservative views thrown in. I agree whole heartedly with Darryn’s views in the above essay because she is speaking from a different viewpoint from that of the majority. I will refrain from saying that I have been ostarcized etc etc in the department for my political views because I really don’t care much about my political views and I tend to ignore a lot of things when they begin to affect my work. If I wanted to rant about being ostarcized I would discuss something completely different and apolitical but that is another matter.

To understand her critiques you need to take a second to step out of your box and try to understand where she is coming from. Try the following:

Take a second and imagine yourself as a liberal at some extreme right wing school such as Bob Jones U. You might be one of a few people who are liberals or are atleast not extreme right and for that reason everyone around you calls you names or makes you feel outcast from the majority because you do not agree with them. As a result you tend to shut up and try not think about it. Try this mental exercise for a second. Or maybe think about a situation in your own life when you have been the absolute (not relative) minority on an issue of concern to you. It may be political, philosophical, moral, social, whatever you choose. Now, thinking about that same issue that you just thought of try to think about Darryn’s position. She’s is one of very few outspoken and active conservatives in our department. Now before you start reeling off about how political scientists must not disclose their partisan views just think about how many active liberals there are in our department. The TAA and all active members, people who work for liberal political coalitions and remember the arguments last year over emails about putting “Bush to pasture”. The great majority of people in our department and academia are very liberal. As a result the vast number of conservatives in our department are silent conservatives. Most of the above responses simply clarify her criticisms by talking about the silent inactive conservatives who claim to have no issues with the department. Put yourself in her shoes and try to think. Maybe you might understand her point. In academia there is a liberal bias and nobody can deny that.

People who are socially conservative, religious or just different from the mainstream are either forced to stay silent or attacked with senseless critiques when they choose to voice their views. Darryn is not the only person to feel outside the spectrum. I know of other individuals on this campus and several of them do not share Darryn’s political views. I will not disclose names here to protect their identities. But the truth is that the beautiful image of diversity we like to conjure up in our minds is simply not true. We do promote intellectual diversity, but we tend to promote it when it fits within one particular intellectual category. We need to promote more diversity but allowing individuals who we do not aggree with to voice their views. The conservatives on this campus are perceived as whiny because the liberals have developed a herd mentality with an excellent system of organized attack. Their sheer numbers allow them to do and say things that conservatives cannot imagine doing. Speech codes, viewpoint discrimination, you name it happens here. If we want intellectual diversity we need to discard these forms of formal and informal restrictions and allow people with different views to fearlessly voice their opinions.

Some of you have attacked Darryn’s intelligence and let me ask you something. How many of you have actually taken the time to sit down and have an intelligent conversation with her? She is far more intelligent than her age or your opinions of her give credit. I do not know her as well as I wish I did but having been in class with her and having discussed ideas with her she is far more intelligent than most people I know. I’ve met smart people in academia from five continents and she’s probably in the top 1% of people I have ever met. She’s accomplished more in her years than most of us did at that age and it is only fair that we give her the intellectual respect accorded to our peers.

Finally, she’s had the courage to publicly write this and sign her name to it. Why don’t all you anonymous critics get some courage and sign your names to your statements. Stop being cowards and engage her intellectual arguments on that position rather than using ad hominem attacks and stop cloaking your intellectual shallowness in statements about her grammar and choice of language.

Sincerely, Rajen Subramanian

PS: Don’t bother telling me that my writing in this note was not that great. I don’t give a fig about that instead think about what Darryn has written in her essay and where she is coming from.

To Rajen and Darryn:

The larger point I want to raise about her column is simple: part of being an academic and a graduate student is being a colleague, and collegial. I think you, and Darryn’s other defenders in the department, should ask yourselves: has she behaved as a colleague should? That is, has she shown any respect for the beliefs and motivations of those with whom she shares a profession and object of inquiry? I think the answer, based on what she wrote and how she wrote it, is no. You can argue that people are angry because they are biased or liberal or overly sensitive or can’t take jokes, but I’d ask you to consider the possibility that it may be due to being treated with very little collegiality.

Now, that goes for people posting the details of Darryn’s interactions with people in the department. If it is inappropriate to air the “dirty laundry” in her case, so it is in their case.

Last, I’d ask Darryn: did you honestly think this wouldn’t make North Hall a very nasty place this coming semester? Did you think that your colleagues would read a column in which you ridicule them (in more than just a few ways) in public and say, Tee hee! That was funny! I can’t imagine you really thought that would occur.

I’m not at UW anymore, and don’t particularly take any offense to what you wrote - I own a Dell and don’t particularly like pudding; but as to how you wrote it, I’m pretty shocked. And I think you should reconsider what it means to be a colleague, and ask yourself if your lack of respect for collegiality and your colleagues is the reason why people are reacting as they are. DK

Darryn was quite accurate in her description of the way several graduate students in our department act on a regular basis. I have seen how grad students react to her. This does not have anything to do with being a colleague. This is about the inability of some graduate students to have intelligent conversations with others about political issues without taking personal offense to some of the views of others. Come to the department and argue that the war in Iraq might be a good thing, or defend the conventional notion of marriage, criticize the TAA, or suggest Larry Summers might have been justified in his comments. In my experience, whenver someone has done this in the grad lounge, some students got all upset and stormed out of the grad lounge and ran up into the computer lab to compain to their friends. In other departments on campus, when these same issues are discusses, I have never seen the level of fury as I have seen evoked in the political science department. So in the end, I guess Darryn is not losing any friends or colleagues that are worth the trouble anyway. Any any worthwhile colleagues will look at what she wrote and take it for what it is: a statement about her personal experience in an environment that is often hostile to her personally. Maybe she could have discussed this with her colleagues in the department, but the response they have given demonstrates that they are unwilling to listen and very willing to engage in personal insults. Why would anyone want to nurture a relationship with these “colleagues”?

In the end, the ones in the department who will be upset or who are upset by Darryn’s comments are probably the ones who don’t like her anyway. In my view, the notion that she has a holier-than-thou attitude or is anything but nice to people is nonsense. She is usually nice to people and willing to discuss issues. I think writing this article clearly vindicates her points. A professor once told me not to think too much about the grad students. The faculty are the ones you need to get along with, and I’m sure Darryn has impressed the faculty with her work.

Finally, the overall tone of the article was not all that confrontational. I am certain that I would not have been able to be so nice had I written this type of an article, and I admire Darryn’s ability effort to make light of her situation in the department.

The only people I see having a problem with Darryn’s remarks are graduate students in her Department. Could it be that maybe they are maybe a little upset that a conservative who began her PhD when she was still a teenager is encroaching on their turf?

First of all, if I were a hard core liberal why in the world would I want to go to Bob Jones University? If for some reason I did find myself there, and was being called names and made into an outcast (which by the way has not to my knowledge happened here) my plan of action would NOT be to A)Write editorials about how religion is wrong B) Become the chairman of the editorial board and write an editorial where I describe how intolerant my department is and how individuals within that department exclude me becasue of my liberal views. Now if I were to first choose to go there, second distance myself from the majority of my fellow students, third, write editorials attacking their way of life, and fourth, write an editorial chastizing the department and its members; I would EXPECT nothing less than a harsh reaction.

Well, I’m not from her department, but my “turf” is scholarship and professionalism. I don’t see her encroaching on that any time soon.

I agree! And based on what I see, it is only a “handful” of graduate students in the department that have a “problem” with Ms. Beckstrom’s article. It reminds me of high school not grad school.

So now the student paper is the respository of scholarship and professionalism. The article is written as an editorial OPINION, not a scholarly journal article. Academic political scientists (and any other social scientists) have their academic work and their work that is meant for a wider audience. Now, if your standard for an opinion piece is this rigorous, I would imagine you will be spending the rest of the semster writing responses to all the opinion pieces because they lack a formal theory and an asymptotic sample to test their claims. But you won’t, primarily because the other ones are more consistent with your own personal views. As mentioned previously, this article has nothing to do with her scholarly work; this is an opinion piece, so keep the forum straight.

If anyone has suffered from unprofessionalism, that person is Darryn. The comments from her fellow grad students are evidence of that, and if she wanted to she could probably give you twenty more cases of unprofessionalism that she had encountered in the dept from a handful of grad students.

In my view, Darryn is simply stating that some grad students in the department do not take the following statement from the department seriously (specifically the section on ideology):

“The Department of Political Science is committed to creating a professional and welcoming workplace environment for men and women of every background, including race, ethnicity, creed, sexual orientation, and ideological perspective. The department is committed to promoting academic freedom and intellectual discourse. At the same time, the department expects an environment of mutual respect and consideration for colleagues.”

Good for her for calling them on it.

Darryn: While I rarely agree with your political views, I have always respected you. I learn from you precisely because I disagree with you about so much. I was under the impression that this was one of the main attributes of graduate education. While you write openly to undermine the mundane - those so sternly “opposed” merely write anonymously. DK - because Darryn has said things that will make her unpopular, should she have remained silent? By your applying your logic we should smile in the face of tyrannies so we don’t upset others around us? Why on earth would you speak to collegiality when the absence of it is precisely the point darryn bemoans. Bravo Darryn! J Brick

I think it’s very ironic that liberals uphold themselves as being very “accepting” of other groups’ opinions and ways of living, but anyone who disagrees with the liberal ideology is severely chastized, as the number of seemingly hateful comments posted here go to show. Kind of hypocritical it seems, am I right?

no, you are wrong.

As many of us have asserted repeatedly, I don’t care whether Darryn is a Democrat, Republican, Communist or a member of the Bull Moose party. If you’ve read the above comments and still don’t realize that the problem here has NOTHING to do with her political bent, then I’d advise a remedial course in reading comprehension.

Darryn,

While I may not agree with what you wrote, the public forum you chose, and perhaps with only a few of your political positions, I do appreciate that you’ve punctured the patina of polite agreement among the polisci grads. The Westerner in me much prefers a good fight to disingenuous politeness or juvenile insults.

But let’s all take a step back. While Darryn argues that her party advocacy is the reason for her dissociation, her issue seems to be fundamentally social. We don’t sit around rehashing partisan debates, after all, nor do we all go out trumpeting one party or another in class. Maybe what we all are dealing with is not partisan at all, but the matter of collegiality among grad students. That the lack of collegiality, it seems to me, isn’t a matter of our personalities - we’re quite a nice group of people when visitors come around.

While it might be easy to lay the burden for this at the generalized anxiety induced by grad school, I think we have a specific management problem in our department: a complete lack of effective communication between students and especially between grads and faculty. A positive work environment is highly dependent on effective communication among employees and, as a recent study in PS tells us, the greatest determinant of grad student satisfaction is encouragement, advocacy, and mentorship by faculty (that’s active mentorship, not passive).

Tell me, how do we usually find out about events and issues in the department? Is it through a weekly email newsletter? No. A town hall meeting with grads and faculty? No. Departmental governance meetings? No. The way we grads get our information is via rumor and speculation, and rumor tends to empower those people who are the most prone to gossip and intrigue. I suspect that it is the gossips who are alienating Darryn (Darryn, you can confirm/deny if this is true - don’t let me speak for you).

As a result, I think that the role poor communication plays in the department needs to be addressed in order to improve the social and professional environment. And I don’t think we all should sit and wait for the faculty to act on this. We grads might need to start a grad student association - not to hash out partisan, methodological or disciplinary issues, nor to make undue demands upon the faculty and staff, and certainly not as a social club. Instead, it could provide a reliable source of information (a ps-grads newsletter), help identify issues among students that we’d like to discuss with faculty (including governance and course issues), give awards to faculty who provide exceptional mentoring and advocacy for their advisees, host speakers, help new arrivals navigate the size and complexity of the UW-Madison, etc. And we could hold general “town hall” meetings to get some of these fights between us sorted out in private, not in front of our students and anyone else.

Yes, collective action is hard to do and we’re all very busy, but do you prefer the alternative?

RP

we are at war. some people take it personally that we have invaded and occupied a country that did not threaten us. there are people dying everyday because of the very policies you agree with and support. you should take it personally . it’s personal.

annie robbins

I wonder: can anyone on this thread talking about how evil or hypocritical liberals or conservatives are actually give a definition of liberal that a “liberal” would agree with or a definition of conservative that “conservative” would agree with? If you can’t (and I imagine most of the sniping posters can’t), please stop talking about liberals and conservatives and posting flames on the thread in general.

RP - try to use a few more big words next time you decide to type a book into this. And while your proposal was an effort to portray yourself as the “big peacemaker” I have no interest in it.

Fellow students,

I am currently a freshman undergrad, and I am unashamedly liberal or left-wing, if you will.

1. I am confused with the charges here. How students disliking the political views of another somehow “stops” them from having those views escapes me. It truly does. I am not from around here, either, but I do know that I can always find my own friends if other students dislike what I have to say. I disagree with Darryn’s point therefore, that there is no intellectual diversity at UW-Madison, or that it is lacking, simply due to the reactions of some students. I wonder, when I read that article, what should the aforementioned students have said that would’ve denoted intellectual diversity…Should they have told her that “it’s okay, you have your opinions, and I am accepting of that”? That’s not very realistic, I don’t think.

2. Also, I need to ask, why Darryn would post an article criticizing the liberal “majority” but feels she is ABOVE reproach herself.

Case in point: “However, when anyone tries to point this out (as I tried to do in a satirical way), they are always confronted with severe criticism, admonishment, and personal attacks.”

I am criticizing her right now, I wonder if this can be considered “severe”.

“I really hope that many of the graduate students in the political science department would learn to be less sensitive.”

Oh, okay. It makes sense…NOW…

1. “PS: Don’t bother telling me that my writing in this note was not that great. I don’t give a fig about that instead think about what Darryn has written in her essay and where she is coming from.”

To Rajen, I would like to ask that he/she please do not tell me what to and what not to speak about in my responses. That’s not very respectful to do, and it’s quite hypocritical, seeing as how they repeatedly asked for others to be empathetic and kinder toward their compatriots.

1. The one thing I do agree with is that more diversity is needed on this campus, though intellectual diversity isn’t what I mean. To say that we’d have to have a measurement for such a goal, and we cannot do that. Otherwise, what you’re asking for is not “diversity” but censorship, and that is not the place an institution of higher learning should go.

2. I take away from this not that one is a “soldier” if they have different views as the seeming majority on campus, but that some see themselves as being in a war, constantly, and that if they are not in the majority ideologically, they need to truly fight to get their ideas in the majority, and win the “war” by any means necessary, even if that means slandering the “enemy combatants”.

Sincerely, Colin A. Bowden

Here’s a question. What if I did dislike Darryn because of her political views and activities? What exactly would be wrong with that? She unashamedly supports the Bush agenda at practically every turn, and she is completely within her rights to do so. She openly champions a president whose policies are morally repugnant to me.

She believes in the man and the party who rabidly pursue tax cut after tax cut that overwhelmingly benefit those who are already the best off, even as the nation plunges farther into deficit than ever in history. She believes in the man and the party who take the country into war under what have now indisputably been demonstrated to have been false pretenses. She believes in the man and the party who support amending the constitution to single out gay people as singularly undeserving of having the right to marry each other. She believes in the man and the party whose performance in the wake of Katrina has been perhaps the most heinous dereliction of duty this country has ever seen.

I repeat: she is devoted to a cause, which she calls conservatism, that is morally repugnant to me. In what way would it be illegitimate of me to dislike her for it? If I honestly believe that her activities, however small a contribution they may make, support a morally reprehensible cause, isn’t that a good enough reason to say “No, I’ve heard your arguments, I’ve listened to your views, and I don’t agree with them. In fact, they turn my stomach. If you don’t mind, I think I would prefer to eat my pudding cup without you”? Do I need to wait until she personally attacks me physically or something before I gain the right to choose to avoid her presence? Or is honestly detesting her life’s work enough?

Sadly, even though you used numbered paragraphs, I still got lost searching for your points - pick a side young man. The fightin’s commenced, either get in the fight or get the hell out.

Kudos to you, it’s a good enough reason in my eyes, by all means eat your pudding cup without her.

I don’t have the benefit of knowing the atmosphere in the Political Science PhD program at Madison, but I am a second year PhD student at another university in the Midwest. I also attended the University of Minnesota with Darryn, so I think that I more or less understand where she is coming from.

I can’t, however, say that I much agree with Darryn’s overall argument. Most political science professors and graduate students are liberal, but this is hardly a sign of the pernicious liberal bias that Darryn and other conservatives suggest. Earning a PhD is a long process, and the financial rewards are less than stellar. The surplus of liberal professors, I would suggeest, is mainly the result of self-selection. Most economists are conservative, as are most bankers, priests, and professional military personnel. This isn’t because each profession has “older siblings” locking the doors from the inside of the automobile. It mainly has to do with the decisions that potential members of the profession make at various points.

Many conservatives argue that universities occupy a special position in our society, and therefore demand balanced viewpoints. While I agree that many universities would benefit from being more intellectually diverse, I think it’s a bit self-important to separate the academy for special treatment. The Pentagon is overwhelmingly conservative, and it has been during most presidencies. The same can be said for the banking industry. As someone on the left, I would prefer that this not be the case. But if I decided to drop out of graduate school tomorrow in order to join the Air Force, I wouldn’t spend my time whining that I’m in the intellectual minority of that institution.

The university is a place for openness and intellectual diversity, but that doesn’t mean that people have to like your opinions. And in a political science PhD program, people care a good deal about politics. That shouldn’t come as a surprise. In fact, they care so much that they’re devoting their entire lives to studying politics. So Darryn, when you come out in support of an administration that many of your colleagues view as killing many thousands of people in an illegal war, they may not want to be your friends any longer. That shouldn’t come as a surprise either, and it’s their right. And when you basically accuse these people of being biggots because they make this decision that they have every right to make—and you do so in a public forum, they tend to get very upset. This isn’t because you’re in a “liberal university,” but rather because you’re no longer an undergraduate and people judge you for your opinions in the real world. Welcome.

Rick Hay