Monday
December 1, 2008
Advertisement
News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
Nov. 14, 2007
Professors and Politics (Again)
A month after the release of a study hailed by many as a definitive examination of faculty members’ political views, a slew of new research on the topic — some of it updated versions of previous research — will be released today finding (not surprisingly) that professors lean to the left.
Related stories
- The Liberal (and Moderating) Professoriate, Oct. 8, 2007
- Old Boy Networked, Feb. 19, 2007
- Bias Seen in Bias Studies, Jan. 22, 2007
- So ... What Do You Study?, Jan. 12, 2007
- Political Shocker: Faculty Moderates, Sept. 19, 2006
Today’s research will be released as part of a day-long conference, “Reforming the Politically Correct University,” being held at the American Enterprise Institute. Two of the papers were released in advance and (judging from paper titles) they appear consistent with the theme of the conference that ideological diversity is in short supply in academe. The papers argue that the political imbalance in humanities and social sciences departments is large, growing and inappropriate. And one paper charges that “groupthink” is at work in ways that limit the opportunities for those who don’t share the leftist views of many other professors.
In finding that Democrats outnumber Republicans or that liberals outnumber conservatives, the new studies don’t break new ground. There is general agreement, even among the many academics who question the value of these studies of political inclinations, that the professoriate is more liberal than the public at large.
The data and analysis released last month at Harvard University found that while professors are liberal, they may be less liberal than is widely assumed, even if conservatives are correctly assumed to be in a distinct minority. The study also found evidence of a growing centrist wing in academe that appears to be becoming larger than the liberal wing, and the study found evidence of a significant decline by age group in faculty radicalism, with younger faculty members less likely than their older counterparts to identify as radical or activist. At the same time, the study found that on certain issues (and which presidential candidates were backed) academe marches to its own tune — and it may not be a tune that the rest of the country hears.
That study was praised (including by some who see ideological imbalance as a problem in academe) for including community colleges (whose faculty members are significantly less liberal than are those at four-year institutions) and for a generally nuanced approach. At least some of the data being released today is just about four-year universities and emphasis is on the dangers posed by imbalance in political perspectives.
The press materials promoting the conference, for example, say that another study (which AEI declined to release) will show “how the field of linguistics has departed from its original mission — a nonpartisan investigation of how languages and dialects differ among groups-to become dominated by a leftist-driven advocacy for the downtrodden, as the controversy over Ebonics, or ‘Black English,’ shows.”
While that paper was not released, the conclusions announced surprised Stephen R. Anderson, who is chair of linguistics and professor of psychology and cognitive science at Yale University, and who is president of the Linguistic Society of America.
Stressing that he was speaking for himself and not the society, he said that Ebonics “is a non-issue as far as virtually all linguistics departments I know are concerned.” He said that some linguistics professors spoke on the issue when it was in the news in the 1990s. Generally, he said, linguists believe that “non-standard varieties of language,” such as Ebonics, should “be regarded as interesting and consistent systems in their own right, rather than merely as incorrect approximations to the standard language.”
And as a result of this view, many linguists believe that teachers may want to “understand enough of that system to know what their kids are saying, not just to condemn the way they say it.” But he added that “no one doubts that kids have to learn to speak and understand the standard, too, to function well in the larger society.” Since the issue captured attention a decade ago, Anderson said, there has been “little or no general involvement in these matters on the part of linguists.”
Anderson said he didn’t know why linguists would be seen as pushing “advocacy for the downtrodden,” except perhaps that they are worried about languages dying out. But he said he didn’t think there was anything “visibly leftist” about that. He speculated that the view of linguists as leftists may come from association with prominent scholars like Noam Chomsky. But he said that linguists’ views of Chomsky’s work in the discipline are largely “independent” of their views of his politics. Efforts to connect Chomsky’s linguistic and political work, he said, “have been recurrent failures.”
One paper that was released — by Daniel B. Klein of George Mason University and Charlotta Stern of the Swedish Institute for Social Research — looked at many of the studies on faculty members’ political leanings and found remarkable and left-leaning consistency. “Survey evidence and voter registration studies support the view that Democratic voters greatly outnumber Republican voters in academe. The estimate of 7 or 8:1 in the humanities and social sciences continues to hold up,” they write.
Klein and Stern write that they find encouraging data that suggest that the younger a professor is, the less likely he is to support government intervention. And they express hope that “a growing pragmatism” in academe will produce “better discourse about public policy” and more academics “who favor individual liberty.” Currently, however, they find that “very few” conservatives or libertarians in the humanities or social sciences — with the exception of economics, where they find those numbers to “small but non-miniscule.”
A second paper by Klein and Stern — “Groupthink in Academia: Majoratarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid” — looks at how departmental dynamics may influence hiring and other decisions. They apply social science research on “groupthink” to show how its characteristics may overlap with the way departments are set up. In particular, the authors write that in academe, “beliefs are deep-seated sensibilities, matters of selfhood and identity.” This results in departments associating “high personal stakes” in the outcome of a decision. As a result, departments with a slight majority with shared views will hire more with those shared views and eventually be dominated by those views, the authors write.
Klein and Stern note that some believe that there is an option for those who don’t share the dominant and leftist views of others in the humanities: keep quiet until tenure. But they reject this as unrealistic. “Imagine building a career through graduate school and pre-tenure employment (about 11 years) just to be able to be yourself. You find you are no longer yourself — not that your ideological views change much, but that any ideological motivation has likely receded,” they write. “You ‘go native,’ as they say.... [E]ven after tenure, you depend on department colleagues for pay raises, resources, teaching assignments, scheduling, promotions, recognition, and consideration.”
What do these findings mean? Craig Smith, of Free Exchange on Campus, said that the studies struck him as “more of the same.” Free Exchange is a coalition of academic and civil liberties groups that has been sharply critical of many of the studies of political bias (including Klein’s previous work on the subject). Smith said that in addition to problems with methodology, there is “faulty logic” in assuming that the imbalance “says anything about what goes on in the classroom.” While such studies “play well with the general public,” Smith said that they prove next to nothing.
Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors and a professor of English at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, said he agreed with one of the points made by Klein and Stern (that many departments do have considerable political uniformity), but he said that they overstated the way this plays out in higher education. “It’s a mistake to generalize from disciplinarity to the campus as a whole, because campus positions are the result of the conflict among disciplines,” he said. “Whatever kind of conformity there is in English or history or business or veterinary medicine, those conformities come into conflict with one another.”
And even if there are departments that overwhelmingly lean left, he said that Klein and Stern overstate the idea that all of their professors then think alike. He said he’s visited way too many English departments — departments where professors are presumably based on the research voting the same way on Election Day — where professors are bitterly divided over whom to hire, what the curriculum should look like and so forth. “The idea of lockstep conformity seems rather amusing.”
As to why humanities departments have so few Republicans, Nelson said it’s not weeding out, but appears to be self-selection. He said that he is unusually public about sharing his political views with colleagues and students, but that most professors don’t do so. In hiring, he said, it may be true that some sub-fields of English — like feminist theory or work to broaden the canon of literature — may be seen as “progressive.” But he said he wouldn’t know the politics of a candidate in 18th century literature and that so many dissertations these days are so specialized that it would be impossible to predict politics.
Maybe the reason Republicans don’t enter the field, he said, is “the low salaries of humanities professors.”
Nelson said that the reason some scholars focus attention on the political leanings of humanities professors is in fact political. “It’s about the future. It’s about our students. It’s about the kind of country that higher education can help shape. It’s about the desire to establish the 1,000 year Republican reich,” he said. “It’s an effort to create in the public mind the notion that one should properly ask a candidate for a professorship: Are you now or have you ever been a registered Democrat?”
Others, however, say that these studies serve a valuable purpose. Peter W. Wood, executive director of the National Association of Scholars and one of the speakers at today’s meeting, said he would never favor an ideological test or conservative affirmative action in faculty hiring. But Wood said that he hopes the studies prompt “a shiver of self-recognition” in academics who somehow manage to keep hiring people who think like themselves.
Wood said that he has seen too many talented, conservative academics who have been left in the “depths of despair” after they applied for job after job, only to be “denied at every turn.” He said he knows dozens of such scholars and feels that there is an informal blacklist on them, and on others. In his own career, Wood said, he believes that he has been passed over because he worked for and admired John Silber, the former president of Boston University who had many a political clash in his career there. And Wood cited recent reports about accomplished scholars who are passed over in ways that raise questions to him and others about fairness.
“There’s something real there,” Wood said of the studies showing political imbalance.
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
Comments
Diversity
I eagerly await AEI’s study of the lack of political diversity in the banking, finance, and real estate industries. The prevalence of laisse fare capitalist groupthink presents clear and present risks to the American and world economies. I assume we can expect a conference that will present papers arguing that more liberal economists are needed at Citicorp, Merrill-Lynch, and Countrywide mortgage in order to create the intellectual diversity necessary to the nation’s prosperity. After all, their recent losses indicate that there is clearly a problem with groupthink among American capitalist institutions.
Joseph Duemer, Professor at Clarkson University, at 6:40 am EST on November 14, 2007
Larry Beat Me to It, As Usual
“Right-Wingers Prove Right-Wingers Correct! Film at 11.”
Unapologetically Tenured, at 7:00 am EST on November 14, 2007
Beyond the Obvious
Beyond the obvious, including as Dr. Duemer indicates, that the conference will likely fail to “present papers arguing that more liberal economists are needed at Citicorp, Merrill-Lynch, and Countrywide mortgage in order to create the intellectual diversity necessary to the nation’s prosperity” — or for that matter, more leftist anti-colonialists in the military, or even just a few left-wing scholars at the AEI (truly not a research organization at all — research implies the ability to be surprised by findings — AEI is no more a “research institute” than Move-On in.) — there is the much larger issue -
A decent university faculty is not there to agree with students pre-conceived notions. It is there to challenge those notions, thus stimulating thought. In the most politically and economically conservative “developed” nation it is neither a surprise, nor in any imaginable way a bad thing, for university faculties to point out to students that other societies are making other choices. Just as it would have been good if university faculty in Falangist Spain could have slanted left or university faculty in the Soviet Union could have slanted right.
That said, US Higher Education remains full of “Chicago School” leaning economics departments, education departments which rarely challenge the status quo, and English departments which retain a barely-diversified canon of works. And, more importantly, US schools and colleges fail to train students in the art of active and learned disagreement, or in the art of debate so essential to free thought.
So, whether a university faculty member leans left or right is not a problem. That students come to US universities from secondary schools where agreement and conformity and “right answers” are prized above all else is the problem. That US students increasingly come from monocultural suburbs where diversity and disagreement are unknown is the problem. That US parents increasingly lead homes where divergent opinions are considered heresy is the problem.
Ira Socol, Michigan State University, at 7:15 am EST on November 14, 2007
AEI:
Where the conclusions predate the research!
At least that’s transparent!
Diogenes, at 8:20 am EST on November 14, 2007
monocultural suburbs ?
“That US students increasingly come from monocultural suburbs where diversity and disagreement are unknown is the problem.”
The AEI study is silly, but I wonder if this quote is really true? Is there really less disagreement and less cultural diversity in the US now, then 20 years ago? I mean, I live in the suburbs, and, in looking at newspapers, phone books, and public records from 30 years ago, it would seem that there is MORE diversity. We have a far greater range of houses of worship. Local politicians have names that indicate that they came from all parts of the world, and there are stores and newspapers catering to just about every group you can imagine. Although local politics seems to care more about traffic lights then the war in Iraq, the political balance between “Democrats” and “Republicans” is pretty even. (There are more unaffiliated politicians then in national elections, however.) There is far more diversity in family-owned restaurants than ever!
No, Mr. Socol, living in the suburbs is a prize for having hard-working parents. In the US, anyone with enough money can live in the suburbs.
Anyway, Mr. Socoal, it might be sort of fun to do a study which shows that everyone in the suburbs agrees about everything: from the nature of god to the delay on traffic lights.
Maybe this is why these kinds of studies are so silly. (And yes, AEI seems them as political ploy and bid to appease donors, not scholarship.) Students will come to schools with preconceived notions. But everyone has preconceived notions. With a little luck, people re-evaluate those notions. That is the nature of an intellectual life. AEI seems to want to blame people for being a part of the process.
Larry, at 8:20 am EST on November 14, 2007
Closed Minds Are Dangerous Minds
Aren’t linguists those people who always correct people’s grammar, syntax and usage mid-conversation?
I have little use for that NAS, pushing a one-way agenda. In fact, I have very little use for anyone (political) with a one-way agenda.
Yes, hopefully our younger generation will get away from radical, us vs. them thinking. It’s a waste of time, money, and resources. Of course, older generations are welcome to join in this movement, and many are already in it. This isn’t about age. It’s about opening the mind.
kgotthardt, at 8:20 am EST on November 14, 2007
Yet another example of the fallacy of the necessity of diversity, racial, ethnic, political or otherwise.
Can’t we just leave the trainwreck of diversity in the trash heap of history?
K.T., at 8:20 am EST on November 14, 2007
I am often bemused when this charge that the liberal professoriate is somehow corrupting or limiting discourse in colleges and universities reemerges. The logic of these charges escapes me. If the liberal professors were in fact successful, we would now enjoy a populace clearly leaning to the left politically. That this hasn’t happened, suggests that if we use political affiliation as an outcome, higher education is failing miserably. Let’s throw this failure into the national accountability debate.
Ellen Stevens, University of Colorado Denver, at 8:35 am EST on November 14, 2007
Merci pour les rire
Jerry Seinfeld should visit academia; it needs the humor.
” .. I eagerly await AEI’s study of the lack of political diversity in the banking .. the prevalence of laisse fare capitalist groupthink ..”
Yeah — let’s bring back the USSR. U.S. academia isn’t big enough.
So the “I’m God, and non-Democrats are liars” crowd — mostly on the public dime — is upset when it gets hoisted on its own “diversity” petard. Ooh — how awful!
[Insert 5,000-word, cognitively-dense, and unreadable polemic here.]
Sorry, gang — with the Hillary/GWB-recession around the corner (bye-bye Starbucks, hello McDonald’s), the coffee-bars are closing and the money-nipples will be going dry. Get used to it.
Buh-bye! Have fun, clipping coupons! Hey — the USSR didn’t have coupons!
Buzz, at 8:45 am EST on November 14, 2007
Re-segregation
Larry:
I know that “the resegregation of America” is one of those Harvard/Jonathan Kozol/Left-Wing arguments — http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/features/orfielddeseg06081999.html — but I don’t think you successfully argue against that by counting Taco Bells or the number of “Asian-inspired” dishes at Appleby’s.
I think the number of “competitive” congressional districts in the US documents part of this (what’s the count? 50?), as does the consistency of “red state/blue state” voting, but the biggest evidence lies in the spread of exurbs where almost all students come from the same economic class, and the number of media outlets devoted to a single political view.
This is not just an issue of walled communities for the wealthy, or of parents choosing (certain commercial) charter schools to avoid diversity, or distant suburbs which require parental involvement in the simple visiting of a friend from outside “the neighborhood.” It is a mindset that moved Americans away from conversation with those different from ourselves.
We see this in battles of all kinds re: schools — “my son should not have to read that book,” “my daughter need not listen to this professor,” “my child should not have to write a paper about that!” — always couched in “we believe differently.” In other words — the notion that education is there to confirm rather than challenge.
Ira Socol, Michigan State University, at 8:45 am EST on November 14, 2007
Godwin’s Law
Godwin’s Law claims that as the length of a political argument increases, the probability of one party to it calling the other a Nazi approaches 1. Cary Nelson, president of the AAUP, seems to have reached that point immediately by commenting on the study by the American Enterprise Institute, “It’s about the desire to establish the 1,000 year Republican reich.”
For that matter, he seems to have surpassed that point by accusing them of McCarthyism: “It’s an effort to create in the public mind that one should properly ask a candidate for a professorship: Are you now or have you ever been a registered Democrat?” The AEI study, at least as reported on Inside Higher Education, said no such thing.
Calling the authors of the AEI study Nazis (you know, the ones who actually wanted a 1,000 year Reich) is hardly an intellectual argument. Yet, that is what the president of the AAUP did, thus hastily demonstrating Godwin’s law.
Jack Olson, at 8:50 am EST on November 14, 2007
Ostrich-heads in the sand
It should not surprise anyone to find evidence of in-group / out-group bias in HE hiring over time. Faculty find working with “folks like us” easier, as would the rest of us.
This social process, however, can become a problem – a BIG problem.
Earlier this year, IHE reported on University of Florida graduate students of Sociology being pressured by professors “not to rock the boat.” http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/03/19/ufl
“I want to get my degree so I won’t say anything,” the students at Florida’s most prestigious University said. “Unless people come forth and martyr themselves, nothing can be done.”
This is evidence of a crippling social dynamic, one which goes far beyond that lack of lively departmental discussions about curriculum and what textbook to use.
You see, it’s not just students that should “know their place.” Group conformity processes extend to faculty and personnel as well. The key job qualification for a teaching position, it seems, is not to “rock the boat.” (At least this is what I was told when I first started teaching.) And retaliation for disagreement is common place.
That is how we end up where we are today:“US Higher Education remains full of … departments which rarely challenge the status quo …” This, of course, is the reason for the viability and metaphoric power of the “Ivory Tower.” To ignore this problem, to deny that it exists, is to have ones ostrich-head in the sand.
Glen S. McGhee, Dir., at Florida Higher Education Accountabilty Project, at 9:15 am EST on November 14, 2007
I do not understand why anyone has ever been shocked that professors tend to be more liberal. You go to college...get one, two, maybe three degrees. All the time you are learning, becoming more informed about the world around you. With all of that new knowledge, that learning, that insight...of course you become more liberal...more caring...more understanding...more tolerate! Jeez!
Richard Baker, Associate Professor at Kansas State University, at 9:15 am EST on November 14, 2007
Could it be that in a place where the foundational premise is to challenge thought and expand knowledge via research-based works that those most educated have discovered that the positions of right-leaning neo-conservative are indefensible?
Small Wonder, at 9:15 am EST on November 14, 2007
No principle exempts academic psychologies from normal pathologies that set in when everyone thinks the same thing. Similar people flock together, exclude the dissimilar, and then to stand out and gain attention within that uniformity, people adopt increasingly extreme forms of prevailing group ideology, thus pushing the group further and further to extremes. There’s nothing surprising or controversial about this: It’s human nature. It would just be nice if people could think beyond self-interest and groupthink to see the destruction they’ve done to education.
I won’t be holding my breath on that though.
JBM, at 9:15 am EST on November 14, 2007
Joseph Duemer wrote, “I eagerly await AEI’s study of the lack of political diversity in the banking, finance, and real estate industries. The prevalence of laisse fare capitalist groupthink presents clear and present risks to the American and world economies.”
You are sadly misinformed. All of those industries are full of regulatory-minded liberals. Business long ago grasped the dangers of groupthink. Without benefit of tenure, where results actually count for something, businesses actively struggle agianst the effects of groupthink.
Besides, aren’t liberal professors always telling us that the “the university is not a business,” so why do you assume the same standards should be applied to both?
I think this is just another sorry example of academic hypocrisy. Universities and professors can’t accept criticism. Instead of teaching us “how to think,” they want to tell us how it is.
Pffft.
Jeff, at 10:20 am EST on November 14, 2007
We can never have too few “rightists” in universities
This article uncritically adopts the dishonest vocabulary of the far Right.
It’s nonsense, for example, to call the Democratic Party “leftist” or “the Left". That’s not what the Democratic Party calls itself.
It’s as though IHE were to call the Republican Party not “conservative” but, say, “crypto-Fascist.” A pretty accurate term!
Then the results of the studies cited here would be:
“Among college faculty Democrats outnumber supporters of crypto-Fascism by 8 to 1.”
Is this formulation misleading? Far less misleading than saying “Leftists outnumber Rightists", when what is meant is “registered or declared Democrats outnumber registered or declared Republicans.”
Now, if declared socialists and communists “outnumbered Rightists 8 to 1″, then it would be accurate to say “Leftists outnumber Rightists.”
Furthermore, it would be a very good state of affairs! A goal to aim for, certainly.
For another thing, the article uncritically accepts the phony notion of “balance” as desirable. As though “balance” were somehow such a positive value in itself that “good” should be balanced out by “evil” whenever possible.
The Republican Party is evil if the term means anything at all. For example, it has long been the party of overt racism, eagerly assuming this role from the Democrats as a result of the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s. Reagan anointed it in this role by opening his campaign in Philadelphia, MS.
The “solid South", once racist Democrat, has long since become racist Republican. Without racism, Republicans could not be elected dogcatcher in most of the country.
Even if one accepts the notion that the USA is a democracy, it’s clear that the Republican Party opposes democracy. In most industrial countries, and many others too — for example, Peru — voting is either compulsory, or far more widespread than in the USA.
Does the Republican Party support expanding voting? On the contrary! Most of those who do not vote, or who are legally disenfranchised, would never vote Republican. So the Republican Party supports restricting voting rights as much as possible. It’s well known that the current Republican president would never have been elected otherwise.
And this is just one example of the moral evil of the Republican Party.
The Republican Party is a far greater danger to us Americans than all the Osama bin Laden-type terrorists in the world.
For example, the Republican Party has done virtually incalculable harm to the vast majority of Americans. Gutting our civil rights and the rights of working people, transferring the wealth of the working majority to fatuously rich exploiters, spending our treasure on mass murder imperialism in the Middle East while killing thousands of our young soldiers and making a great many of them into war criminals.
And that’s just a sample. It’s actually far worse than that. Who needs “balance” with a gang of thugs like this?
“Conservative” ideas are all wrong in any case. All of them, all the time.
They should be taught, of course — but for purposes of refutation only, to arm students against the lies that pass largely uncriticized in the narrow spectrum of political debate permitted in the American mass media.
I wrote a short piece on this same subject a few years ago here: http://tinyurl.com/c4zlj It understates the problem, however.
We can never have too few Republicans, conservatives, “rightists,” in universities — or anywhere else.
Grover Furr, at 10:20 am EST on November 14, 2007
Educational Millennialism
Jack neglects to mention education’s own millennial past:
“Schools will be found to be the way God has chosen for the reformation of the world.”—- Horace Mann in a letter to Rev. Samuel May
And many folks still believe this!
But there is a down side, as a famous bank clerk reminds us:
“Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy.” —- Franz Kafka
Glen S. McGhee, FHEAP, at 10:25 am EST on November 14, 2007
Richard Baker wrote, “I do not understand why anyone has ever been shocked that professors tend to be more liberal...With all of that new knowledge, that learning, that insight...of course you become more liberal...more caring...more understanding...more tolerate! Jeez!”
You are the poster child for the groupthink problem.
One might agree that students become more caring and more understanding through university study, but why more liberal?
Oh. You think liberals only are caring and understanding. Thus, you demonstrate the lack of care and lack of understanding so common among professors. You demonstrate the pernicious prejudices created by academic groupthink.
Jeff, at 10:25 am EST on November 14, 2007
J. Duemer says “I eagerly await AEI’s study of the lack of political diversity in the banking, finance, and real estate industries".
What is this supposed to point out? Private industries don’t claim to be on a quest for truth. Right-of-center critics are concerned that subjective subjects such as history and sociolosy can be taught by the whims of the professor. The academy must prove they can be trusted to teach fairly.
Richard Baker tells us becoming liberal is just a by-product of education. He writes, “With all of that new knowledge, that learning, that insight...of course you become more liberal...more caring...more understanding...more tolerate!"Every rocket scientist, surgeon, or economist who voted Republican must have been an aberration. This claim of an intellectual monopoly displays the self-righteous rot of the campus left.
Small Wonder must hangout with Mr. Baker on weekends, “Could it be that in a place where the foundational premise is to challenge thought and expand knowledge via research-based works that those most educated have discovered that the positions of right-leaning neo-conservative are indefensible?” Do you really have politics down to a science?
The academy is the only place left for radical leftists to find comrades. There’s not a successful country on this planet that either doesn’t follow leftist economics or isn’t backing away from it at light speed (China, Ireland, France). The campus left is so upset by charges of bias because it’s working. Their party will soon be over.
Unapologetically Tedious, Math teacher, at 10:25 am EST on November 14, 2007
a working test
Before going to specific comments, I should probably indulge the AEI. Normally I don’t take them seriously. They are doing what they do to generate donor money. Nothing wrong with that. But, I started thinking how one could really gage ideology.
Asking people political party membership doesn’t help matters. Political party membership in the US is fluid. You can join one. Quit one. Join another. You don’t even need to belong to one. You are under no obligation to vote for members of your party. Moreover, there are massive disagreements wihin political parties, and many times people have more in common with another party than they do their own.
Most policy questions are loaded. Questions like “Should judges make law” or “Should wealth be reallocated” really have a political basis, and they are next to useless. Perhaps, the only way to truly measure ideology would be to subject individuals to four years of experiences and see how they come out.
Mr. Socol, Since I don’t go to Taco Bell or Applebees, I was referring actually to non-large-chain restaurants. I really don’t know where you get your ideas about people all having the same beliefs in the suburbs. This simply is not true. (If you want to see an example of libertarian economists cataloguing restaurants in my area see http://www.tylercowensethnicdiningguide.com/. No Taco Bells, there.) The truth is, that the US is getting MORE diverse. Not only is the makeup of the suburbs changing, but so is the makeup of political parties. So, you need to do a lot more than just declare that everyone thinks alike.
Sure, people might agree on one thing. Sure, you and I might agree on many things. But that doesn’t mean that we agree on all things, or that we even agree on the reasons for the things we agree about.
Mr. McGhee, I should remind everyone that you are the only employee of your institution. I would urge you to expand your institution. As to the specifics of your argument (which seem to be lacking) you seem to have identified some disagreeable bits of department politics (which are present in every institution), but you have been unable to identify any bits of partisan politics.
Larry, at 10:25 am EST on November 14, 2007
Linguistics
As someone who knows a little about the field of linguistics, this description of the field of linguistics is problematic:
“the field of linguistics has departed from its original mission — a nonpartisan investigation of how languages and dialects differ among groups-to become dominated by a leftist-driven advocacy for the downtrodden, as the controversy over Ebonics, or ‘Black English,’ shows.”
Before Chomsky, linguistics was interested in how to understand the differences across languages. Of course, in determining how languages and dialects vary, it is difficult to argue that one kind of difference is necessarily superior to another kind of difference. Hence, for those who believe that one version of a language is superior to all others, a refusal to claim one version is superior to another is necessarily political.
However, Chomsky was important in turning this investigation into trying to understand the principles in all languages that make it possible for universal successful first language acquisition. I have never been able to figure out the political implications for determining whether such principles exist or not.
Bob Yates, at 10:25 am EST on November 14, 2007
Well Said, JBM. . .
You’ve hit the nail on the head, JBM. It seems that so many in academia appear to think that they are so much smarter than others (see Small Wonder’s comments) that they fail to realize that — guess what? — they really are just as fallible as. . . neo-cons! (gasp!)
Two more comments: Duemer — I wonder how much political diversity is actually lacking in banking, finance, and real estate? No doubt those fields aren’t perfectly diverse, but I would doubt that they are less diverse than college and university faculties.
Socal: no, a “decent university faculty” is not there challenge students’ preconceived notions. A decent university faculty is there (among other things) to educate students to think critically, so that they can challenge notions on their own. I see far, far too many students with almost no critical thinking skills but who do have the ability to spout off, mantra-like, what some professor told them was the “truth.”
PA Man, at 10:25 am EST on November 14, 2007
The truth behind the vast left-wing conspiracy...
The reason we don’t let conservatives into academe is that once they get their foot in the door here, they’ll demand equal representation in business, government, and the military industrial complex.
cacambo, at 10:25 am EST on November 14, 2007
Liberal is not the danger — groupthink is
It’s almost as if this discussion thread were an exercise in proving the point of the conference.
The liberal issue is not the real danger to the academy — groupthink is. To me there is a very real problem if qualified people cannot apply or advance their careers due to their political beliefs.
Are all the people dismissing the AEI conference unconcerned with repeated evidence of our own McCarthyism?
Phil, at 10:25 am EST on November 14, 2007
Cause and Effect?
OK, as a group, faculty are liberal. But, as a group, military officers are conservative. Does that bias put military effectiveness at risk? Are they indoctrinating the troops? Could that put the country’s security at risk, if, say we had a Democratic commander-in-chief?
The debate needs to move off of the issue of who is what: we need to know if there is an effect of these biases. Do the political beliefs of military officers effect the performance of the military? No -they are well-trained, well-educated professionals and carry out their duties in that manner. Do the political beliefs of the professoriate effect their ability to teach their students across a wide range of subjects? No — they are well-trained, wel-educated professionals. Plus, look at the data; the political orientation of students coming out college reflect the orientation of the population-at-large. If they were being indoctrinated, they would reflect the orientation of the professoriate.
Gordon, at 10:35 am EST on November 14, 2007
A “liberal” professoriate?
“I do not understand why anyone has ever been shocked that professors tend to be more liberal. You go to college...get one, two, maybe three degrees. All the time you are learning, becoming more informed about the world around you. With all of that new knowledge, that learning, that insight...of course you become more liberal...more caring...more understanding...more tolerate! [sic] Jeez!”
I find myself wondering whether the posted comment, above, was satirical in intent, since it so perfectly illustrates what is wrong with the present pre-eminence of a certain kind of “liberalism” among the professoriate. Incidentally, I put that word in scare-quotes because I am not certain that their political philosophy is worthy of that once-noble name. I have not found that most American or Canadian professors are genuinely liberal in their views (much less radical or revolutionary, which are not of course the same as liberal) merely “Democrats” or “social democrats".
I do not object that many or even most professors in the humanities should be liberal in any sense of the word. I do object that, first of all, they seem to take it for granted (as the comment I cite does) that anyone who does not share these views is necessarily stupid, ill-informed, or a poor scholar. I object when their committees hire professors based on this assumption. I object when they instruct students (and grade their papers) based on this assumption. Finally, I object when, in certain cases, the strong political bias in their views mean that not only do they dismiss conservative viewpoints, they do not even give them a hearing in the classroom, if only for the sake of argument.
In fairness, the last two — the overt classroom biases — are perhaps the least common tendencies among the liberal or left-leaning professors I have known. The others, unfortunately, are growing more common as the culture wars become more heated.
Lise Legault, Phd, History, at 11:40 am EST on November 14, 2007
AEI doing great work
I look forward to more coverage of the AEI conference, particularly the papers by Anne Neal (Am. Council of Trustees and Alumni) and others on the matter of what can be done to change the situation.
A riposte to Ellen who is ‘bemused’ because liberal professors in academe have not yielded a liberal population. Precisely the point! There is a disconnect between left-leaning faculty and the many parents who just want their kids to get a real liberal arts college education without the political correctness and the leftist indoctrination.
And, as a former linguistics Phd candidate at CUNY Grad Center in the late 70’s, I can attest to the fact that to be young and a Chomskyite also meant being a Socialist and a moral relativist. As students, we routinely threw out data if it didn’t support our quest for the holy grail—Chomsky’s Universal Grammar.Ebonics was Black English then, and it was considered the language born of oppression. It was amazing and disappointing to have a rich field of inquiry distorted by politics.
Amy, at 11:40 am EST on November 14, 2007
OMG! The truth slips out!
” .. I see far, far too many students with almost no critical thinking skills but who do have the ability to spout off, mantra-like, what some professor told them was the “truth.”
OMG! The secret is out! Students are going to college, just to get their tickets punched! Thanks to Griggs v. Duke Power! OMG!
So even if the bitter old-fogey in the front says “Stalin was misunderstood” and “Bush and Cheney are Nazis” (what’s a Nazi? Is that on the final?) —
Bro, just cram it into short-term memory and barf-it on the exam! There’s a toga party Thursday night and ESPN Classic this weekend! And Mom’s birthday is next month!
Ideological diversity? Sure — hearing about Stalin and Nazis (???) all the time is dull as heck. A debate might be interesting, or different, or .. whatever ..
Pass me a greenie, would ya, bro? Thanks!
Buzz, at 11:40 am EST on November 14, 2007
Flawed premise
Gordon, you’re premise is flawed. I have a son at West Point and there is very little political indoctrination there of any variety. Cadets have a wide range of political views as does the faculty not all of whom are military. Rather, I suspect it is your own stereotype of the military as conservative that occasions your remarks.
As for the effects of these Leftist biases, of course there are effects. Do you have a son or daughter in college? Have you taken a look at a look at the curriculum of any of the top 25 or so colleges in the U.S.?
amy, at 11:40 am EST on November 14, 2007
groupthink? indoctrination? wisdom?
Richard Baker and Gordon raise interesting points. Is groupthink the reason professors and officers lean left and right? Does it matter if students and soldiers come away with their own views?
It’s interesting to note that the Supreme Court becomes more liberal over time as each Justice gains time on the bench. Is this groupthink? Or simply the wisdom of experience?
I submit that there are many variables at play, but that professors move to the left from wherever they started in part due to the experiences and new ideas and environment of thought and debate — the hallmarks of progressivism.
Have any of these studies looked at shifts in individual attitudes over time?
Eric Grant, Futurist at KnowledgeWorks Foundation, at 11:40 am EST on November 14, 2007
Professors & Politics
Should anyone be surprised at the results of a study by the American Enterprise Institute? What kind of influence would they have on the study? Are they proceeding from preconcieved ideas?Maybe professors seem to be more liberal than this group because they look at all sides of issues instead of proceeding from a a confirmed position. What we don’t want in academia are people to make the data fit their preconceived ideas or ideology and who are unwilling to look at the impact of policies on all elements of society not just economic growth, free enterprise, or Conservative Christian values. There is room for a difference of opinion as long as we all have the freedom to look at the data and its impact all groups in society.
Mary.buinger, Instructor of History, at 11:40 am EST on November 14, 2007
Institutional Groupthink
Phil is right to draw attention to groupthink as a major problem in American higher education, one that is NOT simply limited political persuasion.
Nor is *groupthink* the exclusive territory of social psychologists (Irving Janis, Barry Staw, Marc D Street, see wiki).
Although slow to identify the cognitive deficits brought about through institutionalization, sociologists have now caught up with and moved beyond the social psychologists. For those not familiar with it, I just want to point out that neo-institutional perspectives include a basic understanding of such things as structural inertia, path dependence, and the negative cognitive dimensions of closed social systems and networks (see wiki, new institutionalism).
All these are conducive of the kinds of groupthink mentioned by the commentors here.
The big question is when will the new institutionalists have the courage to apply their methods to their own institutional environment, academia? A recent effort, I am afraid fails to take up the challenge (Heinz-Dieter Meyer, Brian Rowan, New Institutionalism and Education, 2006).
Glen McGhee, FHEAP, at 11:45 am EST on November 14, 2007
A Little Dialogue
Look, son, there is no groupthink in the world of banking and finance because those business must answer to the real world forces of economics. Unlike those poi nty-headed academics in their ivory towers, I might add.
But, Dad, what about the subprime mortgage crisis?
Hey, Look over there! It’s a sasquatch!
Hunh?
Now, what were we talking about, my boy?
Well, I was wondering why the guys who made those deals think the government ought to bail them out? Isn’t that counter to the free-market, risk-taking and all that?
Hey! Over there! A Yeti!
Yeah, right, Dad. See you later.
Joseph Duemer, at 1:10 pm EST on November 14, 2007
Professors and Politics
I see a transition occurring in academe. The political fervor of the 1960s gave way to institutionalized “groupthink” in the decades that followed. If we are truly feeling deep cognitive disturbance, not just amusing topics of parlor chat, why doesn’t academe convene conferences and special issues of journals to commit “scolarly” investigation to the subject. Then, follow the debate with an agenda for change like what Alexander Astin has done!
Wayne Montgomery, Engineering Librarian at Cal Poly University, at 2:10 pm EST on November 14, 2007
Richard Baker
Prof. Baker writes that more education leads to progressive, liberal thinking.
I can’t tell whether he writes in jest or if he really believes this. I suppose the tendency of the academy to weed out conservatives (via friendly counselling to non-conformists to the effect that “you won’t really have a future in the field, maybe you should do something else") might lead those left behind to conclude that prolonged exposure to the liberal arts makes one more liberal.
What is it with liberals? I am forced to conclude that their repeated insistence that conservatives must be stupid and uneducated can only be a mechanism to compensate for the ineffectiveness and weakness of liberalism in the US and a resultant lack of self-esteem.
DBL, at 2:10 pm EST on November 14, 2007
The Same Old Studies
The first of the Klein and Stern essays http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.27103/pub_detail.aspis simply a restatement, with a little more historical data and qualifications, of their previous studies.
The second of Klein and Stern’s essays, on groupthink, http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.27102/pub_detail.aspis rather ironic for a conference where essentially only conservatives were invited to participate. Klein and Stern’s argument has no real evidence, except to say that Klein’s George Mason University’s economics department is dominated by classical liberals and engages in ideological hiring to maintain this, so therefore all other economics departments, which in his view do not adequately represent classical liberalism, must also be engaging in ideological hiring. But there’s no actually evidence to support this.
Peter Wood of the NAS claims that all of these studies prove discrimination. But they don’t. According to Wood, there are “dozens” of “talented, conservative academics” denied academic jobs. Only dozens? I bet we could find hundreds of talented, liberal academics denied academic jobs. Welcome to the job market, and it sucks for everyone. Whether conservatives or liberals face more job discrimination requires studies far beyond bean-counting, and there simply isn’t any evidence beyond anecdotes to support either position (except, of course, that atheists such as myself are banned from jobs at hundreds of religious colleges, while no fundamentalist Christians are banned by any college).
John K. Wilson, collegefreedom.org, at 2:10 pm EST on November 14, 2007
I want to give a big shout out to Grover Furr, who never — and I mean *never* — fails to disappoint. If Grover did not exist, he would have to be invented.
Thanks for help demonstrating my earlier remarks.
JBM, at 2:30 pm EST on November 14, 2007
fair is fair
I’m actually in favor of affirmative action for conservatives (as that seems to be what the AEI is really asking for). They have a point, specifically as regards underrepresentation. And it would make academic life much more fun if a broader spectrum of political views were present at, say, department meetings. (Then again, the meetings would probably run longer, which can’t be a good thing.)
No, really: some of my best friends are conservatives. And if we did this, the really unfriendly ones like David Horowitz would have to find other stuff to harp upon and maybe even go away, go bother the State Department or some other egregiously left-leaning institution.
But of course, the greatest payoff would be these supposed conservatives’ tacit affirmation of the justness of affirmative action. Tacit? Nay, explicit! At the very least, the fancy-dancing neocons would have to do some fancy explaining to their more principled peers before taking advantage of it.
The Professor of Uncertainty, at 3:30 pm EST on November 14, 2007
The problem with groupthink becomes clear when you are an outsider in the institution. Those of us who have experienced it don’t need a study to tell us it exists (though perhaps not everywhere). If you have a more leftist perspective, you will probably never notice it. I attended grad. school at a large public research university and I recall dozens of instances when left-leaning views were espoused by professors or fellow grad students AS IF it was assumed that the entire audience would be in agreement with whatever point or joke was being made at the time. The guardedness or diplomacy that would come with someone speaking to a diverse population just wasn’t there. I heard many, many publicly stated opinions from the left, but the only conservative opinions that I ever heard were privately shared. The two other conservative students in the department both indicated to me that speaking their opinions would be a professional liability.
John, Jon, at 3:30 pm EST on November 14, 2007
Ostrichs of the Left
Many of the commentaries posted here wonderfully re-confirm the criticisms of ideological imbalance among university faculty as delineated by the AEI speakers.
I suspect many people off-campus would worry far less about the leftist bias on-campus if only we would read more faculty criticisms of the grotesque license enjoyed by the left.
Where was the leftist concern about Ward Churchill’s fraud and fabrications?
Where were the left’s criticisms and condemnation of the rush to judgment by leftist faculty in the Duke lacrosse scandal?
Where was the leftist outrage at the residence hall indoctrination process underway at U. of Delaware?
Why don’t campus leftists ever utter a peep at the brownshirt style thuggery of the goons from BAMN who threaten anyone who dares challenge their fading demands for racial preferences and gender double standards?
If we compare the campus left’s eerie silence about those real life abominations with their near apoplexy whenever a conservative criticizes university bias and imbalance........ well you get the picture.
Chuck, at 4:35 pm EST on November 14, 2007
Grover Furr? Really?
My sides are still aching from laughter! I read, “The Republican Party is evil if the term means anything at all. For example, it has long been the party of overt racism, eagerly assuming this role from the Democrats as a result of the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s. Reagan anointed it in this role by opening his campaign in Philadelphia, MS. The “solid South", once racist Democrat, has long since become racist Republican. Without racism, Republicans could not be elected dogcatcher in most of the country. Even if one accepts the notion that the USA is a democracy, it’s clear that the Republican Party opposes democracy. In most industrial countries, and many others too — for example, Peru — voting is either compulsory, or far more widespread than in the USA. Does the Republican Party support expanding voting? On the contrary! Most of those who do not vote, or who are legally disenfranchised, would never vote Republican. So the Republican Party supports restricting voting rights as much as possible. It’s well known that the current Republican president would never have been elected otherwise. And this is just one example of the moral evil of the Republican Party. The Republican Party is a far greater danger to us Americans than all the Osama bin Laden-type terrorists in the world."Grover, who pays you to write this comedy?
Kevin, Lecturer at The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, at 5:15 pm EST on November 14, 2007
Just a few late notes
John: really? a professional liability? how so? Seems like it might have guaranteed you a Justice Department job or any job you wanted in Iraq’s Green Zone. Seems like someone espousing conservative economic theories just might be employable in the US? Basically, whenever I hear ranking professors speak they seem to speak as if everyone in the room agrees, and if I, like you, were silent, that is my fault. For example, I know that 95% of what was said in my US undergrad economics courses — described as fact — was either untrue or completely debatable. My choice was to argue. Some of those right-wing profs were polite, some were not. You pays your money and you takes your chance. Or you hide like a coward.
As for anyone who equates the US Democratic Party with being “left-wing” — well, that can only demonstrate a complete lack of world knowledge. The US Democratic Party is far to the right of the governing “right-wing” parties in, say, Germany and France. Again, American students do deserve to know where the US stands on global “left-right” spectrum.
And for groupthink, I think that if you see that as the problem, again, you are missing the point. What is missing is a culture in which the challenge to authority is celebrated, and for that, the flag-waving right is heavily responsible. After all, if getting up in the face of the US President and telling him he is wrong is perceived as either unpatriotic or is (and it is) impossible, then we are not teaching students how to argue. (If the US President regularly faced Congressional “Question Time” we’d be modeling a better set of behaviors.) If a student knows that if his parent challenged the boss he might lose his family’s health care and his home it teaches a passivity of response and reaction. If a student is told by his church that other opinions are invalid, he will be unable to argue in any persuasive form.
Ira Socol, Michigan State University, at 5:30 pm EST on November 14, 2007
“What is missing is a culture in which the challenge to authority is celebrated”
Yes, this is the first casualty of having virtually all college faculty in cognitive lockstep.
JBM, at 7:55 pm EST on November 14, 2007
Mom Amy is correct
My neighbor went to West Point. Contrary to the ignorant and incorrect stereotypes portrayed by a few here, the military academies have some of the most controversial speakers in the world address students, either in person or via educational media.
Events such as Hiroshima and Sherman’s march to the sea are debated from moral, legal, ethical, military, political, and other standpoints. In an environment that expects only total maximum effort — where female students physically punch other female students in the face as part of combat training — authentic rigorous intellectual development is as important as military tactics, strategy, and weapons.
To compare the ideological diversity in the military academies to that of public liberal arts academia is so stupefyingly laughable, it is beyond Goofy City. And the public has started to notice big-time, seriously wonders what it is getting for all those tax dollars, and thoughtfully considers cutting tax funds to “encourage and enhance” developmental processes.
L.L., at 7:55 pm EST on November 14, 2007
No great angst here. I’ve had conservative and liberal professors and most did not try to indoctrinate me to a noticeable degree. A few did, and they were always the liberal professors. I attributed the effort to a lack of professionalism rather than to any ill intent. I’m not sure the issue can be fully resolved. Being paid through tax revenue may inherently attract a different kind of person than being, say, an entrepreneur. Enough exceptions exist to spoil the purity of any single argument, including mine.
Marvin McConoughey, at 10:25 pm EST on November 14, 2007
Anybody here who’s arguing that the financial and banking industries are as monolithically conservative as academia is liberal really doesn’t have a clue what they’re talking about.
There’s a general belief in the free market, but every major investment bank is loaded with Democrats at all levels of its organization. Citigroup is currently being run by Robert Rubin. One of (if not “the") most prominent hedge fund managers of the past couple decades is George Soros. The former head of Goldman Sachs was Jon Corzine. John Mack (the head of Morgan Stanley) was arguably the most prominent Republican among this group in past elections—though he recently held a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton.
Now, all of those companies have a greater percentage of Republicans than academia does, but the idea that they’re a bastion of conservatives who hold their political opposition in the same regard that a few faculty members here seem to view the right is completely ridiculous.
The same goes for departments in schools. A finance department and an economics department are definitely more conservative-friendly than some other areas of a university, but that’s not really saying much. The highest I’ve seen any study put as the avg. for Republicans among economics professors is 40-45%.
It’s also find it interesting that a few people here are deeming laissez faire as the monopoly of conservatives. Do you really want to argue that? If I wanted to say that you can’t be a true liberal while supporting laissez faire economics, isn’t that at least heading in the direction of me saying everybody on the left is a commie?
It’s also irrelevant to bring this up unless you want to make a credible argument that all these other institutions are discriminating against you.
The fact that some institutions have wound up being more conservative than liberal does not give the left a birthright justification to get back at conservatives by keeping academia liberal. I’d have more confidence in believing you came to your political views through reasoned analysis if I thought you had even a clear idea of what your opposition’s arguments were. Reading a few comments here — I seriously doubt that.
AD, at 10:25 pm EST on November 14, 2007
Hmmm
It seems odd to me that efforts intended to bring diversity to the student population are shouted down by the right, yet those same people cry bloody murder if their numbers are not equally represented in the professorate.
I have yet to see, despite the explosion of studies in this vein, one that shows how more qualified candidates of one persuasion are less likely, statistically, to be hired than less qualified candidates of another. Does the ratio of qualified applicants for these positions have a statistically significant variation from those who are hired to these jobs? I ask about applicant and hire cohort groups within a narrow time frame, not about the total professorate, as people raised in different times may reflect different beliefs from other cohort groups, and as definitions of “liberal” and “conservative” have changed radically in the last 40 years (Barry Goldwater is the usual marker people bring up to make this point).
Of course, I anticipate the usual, “Conservatives don’t go into education because they know they won’t get hired,” kind of reply, but then again I have yet to see a study backing that one.
OK, folks, get to works studying the real issues. Complaining about how things are without understanding how they came to be that way (please stay on point, people; we don’t need to bring, say, the climate change debate into this as a red herring) is rather pointless in the end.
Andrew Purvis, at 10:30 pm EST on November 14, 2007
Hi Buzz and LL
Hope those checks from Horowitz don’t bounce. Every time you post your paid for right wing nonsense, we man the pumps. It’s getting too thin to shovel!
Diogenes, at 10:30 pm EST on November 14, 2007
Those asking whether Richard Baker is being satirical or not seem to have missed the lesson on satire where it’s described as using humor to describe larger truths that people might be uncomfortable with if they were presented straight (i.e., the British were metaphorically cannibalizing the Irish). It doesn’t really matter whether he intends it satirically or not, you see, for there is too much underlying truth to the assertion. It’s less and less possible to call people who are concerned about global warming “liberal crazies,” for example, because the scientific consensus for quite some time has been that it is a real phenomenon and a serious concern.
If you have to have it clearly sugar-coated as satire, though, reference Stephen Colbert—"Reality has a well-known left-wing bias.”
Thane Doss, at 10:30 pm EST on November 14, 2007
“It seems odd to me that efforts intended to bring diversity to the student population are shouted down by the right, yet those same people cry bloody murder if their numbers are not equally represented in the professorate.”
If conservatives actually believed the efforts were being used in this manner, you’d find a lot less opposition.
The talk about wanting to expose students to different viewpoints, many ideas, many arguments is a great justification—the problem is that that’s all we think it really is — a justification, with a lot less bearing on actual practice.
To the extent that conservatives complain about these measures, it’s that the diversity is skin deep. To the extent schools want to use race as a proxy for a person’s viewpoints (and the way they think) I would argue they’re misguided — if you look at the backgrounds of people admitted through affirmative action, at least at prestigious schools, it’s really not very different at all from the rest of the student body.
More importantly, I’d oppose schools discriminating against liberals in hiring merely for the sake of diversity. The problem conservatives have is not just the lack of conservatives, but, as you mentioned, that we think it will show up in hiring/grading (even if we don’t have a study at hand to back it up).
I’d assume you’d be against taking into account a student’s religion, ideology, politics, etc. in an undergraduate application and discriminating against some on the basis of that for the sake of diversity. Likewise, I’m against using race—something that’s a lot less of a direct indicator of real ideological diversity than any of those.
AD, at 12:25 am EST on November 15, 2007
AD is right
AD is right, schools, banks, the military, and just about everywhere else are a lot more politically diverse than political operatives and pundits tell you they are. Moreover, within political groupings there different views on issues. But this is too much nuance for the AEI or most commentators on this board, who would prefer to talk about Ward Churchill.
Larry, at 7:20 am EST on November 15, 2007
Prejudging?
Has anyone actually read the conference papers? I hope that we are not prejudging people’s claims because we know who they are, how they think, or that we have disagreed with them in the past. If professors do the same to student papers, perhaps the critics of the academy are correct. Should those on the right automatically disregard the writings of those associated with the more liberal universities? This exchange appears to be a good example of “group think".
kelly232, at 8:10 am EST on November 15, 2007
Richard Baker:“I do not understand why anyone has ever been shocked that professors tend to be more liberal...With all of that new knowledge, that learning, that insight...of course you become more liberal...more caring...more understanding...more tolerate! Jeez!”
Here’s the problem. Again, the word “liberal” has taken on more connotations than denotations. When we say “liberal,” because of the current political climate, we automatically think “head in the sand Democrat,” “bleeding hearts with bleeding wallets” and/or “illogical left-wingers.” Of course, we would like to think that knowledge equals wisdom, but that doesn’t always prove to be true in any sector. Pride, greed, and lust for power get in the way. Forgive the “seven deadly sins” wording, but there’s truth AND wisdom in those terms, no matter what religion you might or might not adhere to.
KT: “Yet another example of the fallacy of the necessity of diversity, racial, ethnic, political or otherwise.”
KT, when we don’t recognize the diversity that has become our nation and our learning institutions, we leave huge groups of people unrepresentative and unprotected. Furthermore, we ignore the entire rest of the world, certainly a logical problem in a global economy and ever increasing mixed culture.
When we see the word “conservative” we automatically think “business-not people-centric” “right wingers” and “Christian bullies.”
When we see words like “compassionate conservatives,” we laugh because we don’t exactly see our current administration as “compassionate.” Many of us see warmongers who threaten the middle and lower classes, who care about big business, and have abandoned the hopes of the largest populations in the country.
Now...when we mix all these terms together, as a culture, we get lack of logical thinking. Certainly, for example, many Christians against abortion are compassionate. But certainly, Christians who don’t provide alternatives to abortion are neither compassionate nor realistic. Neither are liberals who offer no real, practical solutions.
Here’s what it comes down to: offering solutions that don’t help the masses renders you useless in office and in higher ed, no matter what you want to label each other and yourselves.
Jeff: All of those industries are full of regulatory-minded liberals.
LOL That’s just laughable, considering industries that rip off students, home buyers, and general consumers. Based on my experiences and research, you just can’t prove to me, with the number of foreclosures and amount of student debt, that there is any regulatory anything in business. It has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives. It has to do with greed.
Finally, thanks to the poster who clarified perceptions of “linguists” to me. Apparently, my own perception didn’t match the crowd’s. Huh. Wonder of wonders. My socks don’t even match.
kgotthardt, at 8:55 am EST on November 15, 2007
Just another symptom
I am not suprised by the findings. I do hope that someone will take the time however to examine the impact of the administrative arm of the university on not only the leanings of the faculty but also the education of the students. In a nutshell, the values and beliefs of the president/chancellor become the mantra for the university or system and sometimes may stiffle the crativity and innovativeness of the downline administrators and faculty because they fear falling out of favor with the administration. In the end, personal/professional survival becomes more important than the creation of a dynamic learning environment for our students and peers.
Dr. G. E. Murray, at 9:30 am EST on November 15, 2007
Academia != Business
The analogy between Higher Education and certain companies in the business world does not pass closer inspection. First, there is not much evidence that ideological conservatives are favored more or less in the business world than ideological liberals (at least, not favored as heavily as 20:1). Second, in the business world, political discussions amongst employees are generally left for coffee-machine banter... the primary goal of a business is to please its investors, and they do not exist to provide an overarching guide for Western civilization. Finally, and most poignantly, businesses generally do not serve as guides for hundreds of thousands of young people.
Even if there were a comparable bias in the business world as there is in academia (which there isn’t), they are two completely different industries that serve entirely different purposes... and that matters.
Michael Murray, Coordinator of O at Assumption College, at 10:00 am EST on November 15, 2007
Odd evidence?
“Of course, I anticipate the usual, “Conservatives don’t go into education because they know they won’t get hired” .. but .. I have yet to see a study ..”
For those capable of understanding hard-data research studies —
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.27102/pub_detail.asp
My, my. Non-Democrats in public liberal arts academia have much heavy workloads than Democrats. How did that happen?
“It seems odd to me that efforts intended to bring diversity to the student population are shouted down by the right ..”
http://youtube.com/watch?v=VAtUz7JM7TI
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PuNXmy0e5fc
Of course. All those shouting are dastardly, no-good Republicans.
H.J., at 11:05 am EST on November 15, 2007
Students Acting Up and College Neglect
just watched one of the videos. Always refreshing to see people on their worst behavior, isn’t it?
I am repeating myself here, but why do colleges ALLOW this kind of behavior on campus? We are supposed to teach students professionalism, communication skills, critical thinking skills. When we permit students to rampage at a public event, we are encouraging rudeness and counter-productive behavior, never mind the potential for violence.
Would we allow kids to do this in middle school or high school or at home? I think/hope not. Unfortunately, too many college students, no matter what their age, have not progressed beyond a substandard high school mentality that encourages following the crowd. And too many colleges let it go unchecked.
I wouldn’t accept behavior like this in ANY setting, regardless of who is representing what side. Freedom of speech doesn’t give anyone the right to act like a mob.
kgotthardt, at 12:15 pm EST on November 15, 2007
Videos
I just reviewed both videos and have to say the students were disrespectful in both cases. What does poor parenting have to do with this issue, however?
The subtext of H.J.’s comment is that the behavior of the students in these videos, selected for their depictions of anti-conservative rudeness, is a direct result of the political leanings of the professorate (let’s ask, just for simplicity, what the breakdown is at MSU...anyone know?)
Of course, because, as PA Man has pointed out, the purpose of higher education is “to educate students to think critically” (I agree), I should expect those who wish to build arguments to demonstrate such capacity in building a case here.
Sadly, both sides—please pardon my binary oversimplification—are finding that in short supply here.
Andrew Purvis, at 10:25 pm EST on November 15, 2007
PLEASE
This whole debate is just idiotic. I can tell you that when a professor is interviewed for a job, they are not asked “Who did you vote for last election?” I think there are fairly simple explanations for the underrepresentation of conservatives which have been stated above. As as for the student protests — God Bless ‘em. Political discourse in our society is so scripted and subdued. I can tell you, as a “student activist,” even if professors agree that $1 trillion dollars can be spent on better things than invading Iraq, they dont have the time or the interest to go marching around campus, especially with groups like the AEI breathing down their necks. Besides, you need some diversity of opinion, including “radical” ones which would make such a huge logical leap as to assume that the Minutemen Project is predicated upon racism (old white men with way to much time on their hands).
This issue has become another Red Herring, concocted by the right-wing political machine in this country. It is largely a myth, and its a disingenuous and underhanded attempt to use “diversity” against the left. They’ll complain till Doomsday that Evolution isn’t taught in science class, or that one would dare question the “self-evident truth” of Milton Freidman’s economic thought, but at the same time disregard (or worse) claims by women and minorities that they are discriminated against.
Even IF academia was biased against conservatism, its well known that conservatives dominate the military, corporate America, and two branches of the federal government at the moment — and they should be happy with that. Who holds more power in our society? — the people with money and guns; or the people with who read books and speak in fancy words. Please
Steve Pieragastini, at 3:35 pm EST on November 17, 2007
“We can never have too few Republicans, conservatives, “rightists,” in universities — or anywhere else.” Wow, did Grover Furr just threaten to kill me? Cool!
Lester Hunt, at 5:25 am EST on November 19, 2007
Advertisement
Jobs Related to Professors and Politics (Again)
or search for jobs directly.
Faculty — Speech, Tenure Track (9 1/2 Mths), Harrisburg Campus — Fall, 2009
Harrisburg Area Community College
HACC, a leader in education in Central PA, is a comprehensive, multi-campus community college, providing quality instruction ... see job
Professor & Chair
East Carolina University
East Carolina University, a constituent institution of the University of North Carolina, is a doctoral institution with an ... see job
Blanket Posting Lecturers (9753) and Teaching Specialists (9754)
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
2008/09 Teaching Specialist or Lecturer-Arabic-African American & African Studies
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Leo Block Chair (Full Professor)
University of Denver
The Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver is an interdisciplinary professional school of ... see job
Faculty-Reading, Tenure Track (9 1/2 Mths.), York Campus — Fall 2009
Harrisburg Area Community College
HACC, a leader in education in Central PA, is a comprehensive, multi-campus community college, providing quality instruction ... see job
Adjunct Faculty Credit — Astronomy
Harper College
Job Description: Teach Astronomy classes
Duties of Position:
see job
Chair, Liberal Studies
Southeastern University, DC
Southeastern University PERSONAL PROFESSIONAL PRACTICAL The Department of Liberal Studies invites nominations and ... see job
Tenure Track High Incidence Disabilities, Special Education
Central Michigan University
Central Michigan University, a Carnegie Foundation doctoral/research university, is in the Lower Peninsula in a tourist ... see job
Human Development Adjunct Faculty Pool
Howard Community College
TheSocial Science department at Howard Community College is seeking individuals to be included in a pool to hire adjunct ... see job
Home
| Sign up | Log in
| About us
| Work for Us
| Press Releases
| Rights and permissions
| Contact us
| Advertise
| Partners
| RSS 
| Podcasts
| Links
| Privacy
| My Account
© Copyright 2008 Inside Higher Ed
why does AEI bother?
I am shocked – shocked – that AEI would come out with such a study!
Larry, at 6:10 am EST on November 14, 2007