Libertarian Librarian

Right. Bruce Pearl is principled--that's why the NCAA couldn't find anything--zero, zilch, NADA--to back up his spurious, lying claims. He's a RAT. Obviously the rest of the coaching fraternity realized this, as he was locked out of D-I for nine years.

The real story is here.

Pop quiz-- can anyone spot the bias here? Good work, good work. At least with this much bias it's not hard to see it, understand it, and factor it into your evaluation of what the person is saying. Clearly, this guy's feelings for the University of Illinois are strong, and he took what happened fifteen years ago very personally. Which I can understand to a point, I'm an avid fan myself and I'm no doubt biased in favor of UWM and Pearl, but the problem here is that his bias is making him believe that all that was wrong with the Illinois program was Pearl's fault. He has rationalized away any culpability for Illinois, its coaches and AD, and transferred that guilt to Pearl. Never underestimate the power of rationalization-- the human brain is quite adept at finding excuses and rationales when the subject is one the person cares deeply about.

As to the specifics, such as they are, of the comment. The NCAA did not specifically sanction Illinois regarding the taped conversation with Deon Thomas, true, but that does not mean there was nothing to be found there, nor that they were innocent. Just that it was insufficient to punish Illinois based on the tape. Rather like someone being charged with a crime and then not going to trial based on insufficient probable cause. It does not indicate guilt or innocence, merely lack of sufficient evidence. And the fact remains that Illinois WAS busted for a variety of violations separate from the Thomas affair. Violations that might never have come to light if Pearl's tape hadn't picqued the NCAA's curiousity. The fact also remains that Pearl was just a new assistant at Iowa at that time, and it was his bosses that asked him to tape the recruit. It was also his bosses that got him the equipment for the taping. But do Tom Davis or any of the others at Iowa in 1989 catch any flak? Not really, because Pearl was the guy with the recorder.

Okay, now onto the comment regarding direct bias. A reader turned my post on bias in academia on its head by inserting "military" and "conservative" for the words "faculty" and "liberal." The result is this interesting commentary:

The second problem is that many ranking officers don't realize, or don't acknowledge, that they have this bias. This causes them to present their slanted viewpoints as "balanced and fair." Thus, any views that are more liberal than the ranking officer’s come to be seen as far-left or extreme. The whole spectrum of opinion winds up skewed way to the right, so that centrist positions seem radical, and extreme right-wing positions seem run-of-the-mill.

Which is a reasonable point, I think, and certainly somewhat true. I have little doubt that the military is skewed to the right, and articles like this October 21, 2004, one from the NY Times do lend it credence. Which is of concern. Yet, there is at least one difference between the two situations, and it's a pretty big one.

To my knowledge, and I feel pretty safe with this one, the military has never, ever claimed to be an institution dedicated to the free and open exchange of ideas. Quite to the contrary, those going into the military should have a pretty fair idea of what sort of culture to expect-- regimented, topdown structure with limited opportunities for those at the bottom to express themselves. This is one reason why, though I admire those who serve, I did not opt for joining the military. I do not believe that this is a good thing, nor do I believe that the military should be the near exclusive province of republicans (if it is), but there are no pretensions to the contrary.

U.S. universities, by contrast, pride themselves on their diversity, their openness, and their dedication to the quest for knowledge of all types. Except when it comes to conservative thought and priniciple. It's an important distinction from my perspective, because I think the biggest danger of biased reporting/viewpoints/discussions or whatever is when it purports to be absent any bias, fair and representative. As an example, when Ward Churchill spoke at UW-Whitewater not long ago, many complained and Whitewater chancellor Jack Miller responded:

"Regardless of the opinions of others, I believe that the academy is at its best when it serves as a forum to exchange ideas," Miller said. "I do not share the same fear of words that has apparently become more prevalent in today’s society."

Which is fine, except that Whitewater is only serving as an exchange for liberal ideas, based on their line-up of speakers. Now, I have nothing against any of these folks individually, but would anybody seriously consider any of them to be a conservative? Not a chance. Why not invite Sean Hannity, or David Horowitz or any of those other members of the vast right-wing conspiracy? Let the students compare and contrast. Instead, the university continues to present itself as an institution that advocates the free exchange of all viewpoints while clearly presenting only one perspective. I don't mean to pick on UW-Whitewater, which is a fine school (I worked there briefly), but it does illustrate the point, I think.

What was that point again? Oh yeah. Beware of bias, and particularly of folks who like to be pundits but claim to be impartial or neutral. To my mind, the biggest offenders in this area are the mainstream media and academia. I do not claim to be impartial, but I do try to examine issues from both sides. For whatever that's worth.

Keep the comments coming, folks. This is fun!

Labels: Politics

Posted by: Nick W. / 11:07 AM