Search News


Browse Archives

News

The Conservative Pipeline Problem

November 16, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Colleges have been increasingly competing to offer "family friendly" policies -- in the hopes of attracting the best academic talent from a pool of Ph.D.'s that includes both more women than ever before as well as many men who take parenting responsibilities seriously. A new study suggests that such policies may be important for another group that believes its needs aren't fully addressed in academe: conservatives.

The study -- "Left Pipeline: Why Conservatives Don't Get Doctorates" -- argues that the much debated minority status for conservatives in higher education may be the result of differing priorities of graduating college seniors of different political persuasions. The study presents evidence that conservatives are significantly more likely than liberals -- at the point when college students decide whether to apply to graduate school -- to value raising a family and having money. In contrast, liberals at that point in their lives are significantly more likely to value writing original works.

The authors of the study do not dispute that conservatives are a distinct minority in academe and that the imbalance is problematic. They also hold open the possibility -- much proclaimed by other authors at the conference of the American Enterprise Institute where all of the work was presented -- that there may be bias against conservatives (although they question whether this has been proven). But the authors of the work on the pipeline say there is considerable evidence that could show conservative self-selection out of academic careers.

"We're not suggesting causality," said Matthew Woessner, an assistant professor of public policy at Pennsylvania State University at Harrisburg. "There's much more work that needs to be done." But he said that the evidence in the paper pointed away from any one explanation for the ideological imbalance. "There's a lot of nuance in the findings. What we are showing is that there are a lot of little pieces that contribute to the overall imbalance, not one single thing," he said. Woessner wrote the paper with April Kelly-Woessner, an associate professor of political science at Elizabethtown College.

The husband-and-wife social science team based their findings on analysis they did from national surveys of freshmen and seniors conducted by the University of California at Los Angeles's Higher Education Research Institute. They found that in both choices of majors and in personal values, conservatives seem to be taking themselves off the track for academic careers well before graduate school. The authors did not find evidence of statistically significant differences in grades or measures of academic performance, so most of the report is based on the premise that interests and experiences are at play, not aptitude.

For starters, the paper finds that conservatives are much more likely to pick majors in professional fields -- areas that tend to put students on the fast track for an M.B.A. (or for a job) more than a Ph.D. Only 9 percent of students on the far left and 18 percent of liberals major in professional fields, compared to 33 percent of conservatives and 37 percent of those who identify as being on the far right.

Further, the study finds that not only (as has been reported many times previously) do students who identify as liberal outnumber those who identify as conservative, but that those who are liberal are much more likely to consider a Ph.D. The UCLA survey of seniors found that only 13 percent of all students were considering a Ph.D. But the numbers were significantly higher for those on the left (24 percent of the far left and 18 percent of liberals) than on the right (11 percent of the far right and 9 percent of conservatives).

The study also finds significant differences among colleges seniors in values that they care about -- including values that might make someone more or less likely to enter a Ph.D. program. For instance, in a values study, the seniors were asked to rank certain experiences on a four-point scale (with 1 as not important, 2 as somewhat important, 3 as very important, and 4 as essential). The results show a divide.

Student Values and Ideology

  Raising a Family Being Well Off Financially Writing Original Works Developing Meaningful Philosophy of Life
Far left 2.58 2.05 2.19 3.03
Liberal 2.98 2.50 1.81 2.75
Moderate 3.22 2.73 1.60 2.51
Conservative 3.40 2.55 1.53 2.55
Far right 3.39 2.79 1.63 2.53

It's not that conservatives don't care about philosophy or that liberals don't like kids, the paper suggests, but different underlying values that may frame decisions.

"Conservatives appear to be very practically oriented," said Woessner.

Kelly-Woessner said that for many who want to raise a family, academic life may be daunting -- what with both graduate school's relative poverty and the long hours and stress of the tenure track. "The path up to tenure is perceived as very hostile to family," she said, adding that colleges would do well -- for all kinds of reasons -- to become more family friendly.

In keeping with the overall paper, Kelly-Woessner suggested that a cumulative effect may be visible in explaining lopsidedly liberal departments. "You are just starting with the choice of majors," she said, and then go on to what students value at the point of graduation.

In terms of suggestions, the paper argues both for family-friendly policies and for less politics in the classroom, expressing hope that the latter might attract more conservatives to the social sciences and humanities.

But the authors stress that -- to the extent liberals and conservatives finishing colleges have different values -- imbalances among college faculties may be permanent.

"Ideology represents far more than a collection of abstract political values," they write. "Liberalism is more closely associated with a desire for excitement, an interest in creative outlets and an aversion to a structured work environment. Conservatives express greater interest in financial success and strong desires to raise families. From this perspective, the ideological imbalance that permeates much of academia may be somewhat intractable."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on The Conservative Pipeline Problem

  • Framing the question
  • Posted by Russ on November 16, 2007 at 6:35am EST
  • A number of popular books have cited issue-framing, near-autonomic reaction to issue frames, and focus on objective realism as optimizing solutions to difficult problems (e.g., medical errors, wasteful spending).

    The study reviewed is refreshing, in that it acknowledges that faculties close to, or at, 100% officially-registered to only one political party raise serious questions of selection bias (e.g., 100% in political science v. 50-50 in engineering). Also, those faculty whose strident bias on political issues *may* deter open, honest, and frank discussions.

    As to the issue of "family-friendly" -- that is such a highly complex matter with social, cultural, psychological, economic, and other factors, the amount of research required is staggering. For instance: why do some students marry immediately after graduation, while others do not? Time of child-birth(s)? Two working parents or one? Trend lines changing?

    Further -- even if "family-friendly" policies were adopted, as well as programs to promote intellectual diversity (i.e., in journalism) -- there is the objective realism of one faculty job posting drawing up to 400 applicants (50 of whom are well-qualified).

    Reasonable people would wonder if given today's academic employment structure, federal court orders would be required would be required to break through that kind of obvious barrier.

    Institutions, including those funded by the public, that implicitly reject the values and beliefs of large numbers of the public have an unsustainable position. Houses divided against themselves rarely stand for long, to paraphrase Lincoln.

  • Posted by Wesley on November 16, 2007 at 7:30am EST
  • This article makes a great deal of sense. But if the article were about women self selecting out of the number of hours it takes to become a CEO or African Americans self selecting out of Michigan Law schools the reaction would not be the same. How do we recruit, how do we convince them that this is what they really want, not the choice they made for themselves.

  • SUGGESTIONS?
  • Posted by Comm Prof on November 16, 2007 at 7:40am EST
  • I'm not sure what the creation of a politically diverse faculty that would satify Russ would take, but it seems he wants something like 1) make lots more jobs available at state universities so the 50 'well-qualified' applicants will be hired. OK, I'll go for that. 2) Triple starting tenure-track salaries at publics. OK, that's got my support, too. And 3)Tenure everybody, no publications required, after about two years. Um, no, I don't think so. But we needn't worry, none of that is ever going to happen anyway, so the mix we have isn't going to change unless the attitudes of the grad school-bound change first.

  • You are kidding me, right?
  • Posted by Sam Hampton on November 16, 2007 at 7:55am EST
  • I appreciate the study, but I rather suspect how it will be interpreted--conservatives "self select" because they do not value writing original works, value making money too much, and are not willing to sacrifice what it takes to make it in the world of academe.

    Pity them.

    Yet as someone who is a conservative libertarian "in stealth" at a major research university, I could share many examples of how conservative, religious, and (ugh) Republican undergrads have looked around them, have seen the very liberal-leaning liberal arts professors around them, have acted "liberal" in order to get good grades, and have just concluded that it is not worth it. And I can also share a number of examples of conservative, even moderate, graduate students and faculty who have been edged out of academe because of their conservative leanings. They may have the research, teaching, and service records worthy of tenure or tenure-track hire, but they just "are not a good fit" or have not published "in the mainstream." And behind closed doors, excluding them is "for the good of the cause." Groupthink, I am afraid, abounds in academe.

    So, let's continue with these studies. I am only afraid that they will be interpreted through the same old lenses that fail to give us a fuller view of our own biases, and our own discriminatory impulses.

  • Plums?
  • Posted by feudi pandola on November 16, 2007 at 8:20am EST
  • Funny, very funny study. I know it was not intended to be, but I found it hilarious. I know many teachers who are blue in public and in the classroom, but who turn red when they have a beer at the local pub. Gotta find a fruit that's blue on the outside, but red on the inside.

    The study makes me wonder, once more, about the validity of the soft sciences. Navel gazing ain't my cup of tea, I guess.

  • It's the most obvious thing in the world!
  • Posted by Rich on November 16, 2007 at 8:20am EST
  • Of course conservatives are more inclined to go into business than liberals--one of the defining characteristics of modern US conservatism is affinity for private enterprise--and since you can't do it all, every conservative in business is one lost to academia, the civil service, etc. The attempts to fine anything more sinister in liberals' overrepresentation in academia are tendentious--to demonstrate this, it's enough to point out that nobody cares about conservatives' overrepresentation in business! This issue is a crock, from start to finish.

  • Posted by justaguy , parent & taxpayer on November 16, 2007 at 8:50am EST
  • Regarding the Values and Ideology table, it is hardly surprising that those who deem raising a family as essential or very important would place an emphasis on financial well being.

    Also, I do find it interesting that the responses by moderates are more closely aligned with conservatives than liberals.

  • It's Not Your Mother's English Department
  • Posted by Jane Shaw , Executive VP at Pope Center for Higher Education on November 16, 2007 at 8:50am EST
  • Defining conservatives very broadly to include those who have at least a shred of respect for the writers and thinkers of the past, I venture that few would even consider entering graduate school in English literature or other humanities. After the postmodernist sweep of English departments, who is left to teach Shakespeare, Chaucer or Milton? And who in these departments is left to care?

  • Different strokes . . .
  • Posted by Debsailor on November 16, 2007 at 9:40am EST
  • . . . for different folks. I agree with Rich about this all being rather obvious, and I'd like to add another question. Has anyone investigated the role that critical thinking and asking difficult questions might play in supporting the involvement of more liberal students in graduate study?

  • the water we swim in
  • Posted by Martin on November 16, 2007 at 9:45am EST
  • Pretty funny stuff, actually. When Lawrence Summers suggested a market choice account of the disproportion of women in the sciences people were fainting in the aisles.

    Still, it seems to me that market choice is not a helpful here as in the case of race and gender. After all, remember the old saying "if you're not a liberal when you're twenty you don't have a heart; if you're not a conservative when you're forty you don't have a brain." Setting aside the specific characterizations of liberals and conservatives contained in that familiar aphorism, the relevant point is that being "conservative" isn't an ascriptive state. Heaven knows, even Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater Girl. Apparently she stayed a woman but not a conservative. So a study that treats conservatism as a steady state has got to be misleading at best.

    The other point has to do with the oft-heard casual observation that "it hasn't been proven" that higher education is biased to the left." When everybody's everyday experience is ruled inadmissible as "anecdotal", and professors and deans are careful about public presentation, it would be – to say the least – difficult to scientifically prove that the water we all swim in is wet. One is left to wonder the level of disingenuousness needed challenge fish on that fact.

    Anyway when no one is looking, or no one is thought to be looking, the fish frolic happily. At the community college where I have taught for several decades we have developed a cute little stand-in for left-bias: "Appropriateness for our students", or "having the right affect to deal with our students." And this is over and above the left bias which automatically accompanies our massive 'affirmative action' initiatives. None of this is in any way hidden; indeed everyone from the Board of Trustees on down to department heads and hiring committees don't even see themselves as ideologically driven.

    Of course when things have gotten to the point where higher education is so thoroughly drenched in a particular political ideology, there are going to be several factors at work. Of course hiring commitees are ideologically biased – at my college they don't even try to hide it, and indeed are quite proud of it. Of course conservatives know that and select away from academics as a career. Of course the disciplines in the liberal arts characteristically pursue scholarship from within left-traditions, thereby making non-conforming or dissenting scholarship seem non-academic or non-rigorous. And so on. It may even be true that people who self-declare as conservatives at age twenty really put themselves on a mommy or big-money track, and self select on that basis.

  • False premise
  • Posted by Bob on November 16, 2007 at 10:20am EST
  • OK, after much research, it has been concluded that the function of a main door is to allow entrance to and exist from a building. Now the question is how do we make sure that certain kind of people enter the building and others exit the building. So far, people have been entering and exiting voluntarily, unless the building is a prison.

    Now, some want to engineer the door in such a way that those who enter represent in equal numbers all ideological persuasions. So, how do we design the door to accomplish this goal?

    And if we succeed in designing such a door, will it be different from a prison?

    Then we will need to design entrance tests to differentiate ideological persuasions, and periodically test chanages in peoples' ideolgical commitment, because people may change their mind as a result of more learning and experience.

    Let us now extend the door analogy to other institutions as well: For example, banks, manufacturing companies, retail companies, wall-street establishments, churches, and also our prisons. (I bet there are more conservatives than liberals serving time in prisons.) So, let us balance all our institutions based on ideolgical commitments.

    What does such a system remind you of? Would that be a conservative or liberal system?

  • Why public support lags
  • Posted by Russ on November 16, 2007 at 10:25am EST
  • " .. I’m not sure what the creation of a politically diverse faculty that would satify (sic) Russ would take, but it seems he wants something like 1) make lots more jobs available .."

    Why public support for higher education is lagging -- (1) Poor quality work; (2) inability to comprehend coherently; and (3) silly, absurd and ridiculous economics.

    Why anyone would pay for sloppy, slovenly and over-priced work is beyond rational understanding.

  • It IS an English Dept. Nonetheless
  • Posted by A. Cacicedo , Prof. of English at Albright College on November 16, 2007 at 10:25am EST
  • I'm one of those people in an English Department that Jane Shaw refers to. What do I teach on a regular basis? Shakespeare and Milton. What does my colleague down the hall teach? Chaucer, Anglo-Saxon lit, classical lit. Who cares? The many many students who take the classes, some because they are required by the Commonwealth of PA (which in its infinite wisdom has decreed that all secondary school teachers of English must have had a course in Shakespeare, for instance), but most because they are genuinely interested. How does that interest express itself in the profession? One suggestion: check out the number of books and articles published yearly on Shakespeare and Milton. Perhaps Ms. Shaw will dismiss that work, and no doubt much of it is dismissible. But the fact that the work exists suggests at least a little residual interest in literature of the past, no?

    Having said all that, let me also point out the obvious: my mother's English Department was organized sometime before the Great War, and its offerings finalized sometime before the Great Depression. Since then, there's been quite a bit of literature written. Does Ms. Shaw suggest that my English Dept. ignore all of that literature? If so, on what grounds? And, not to be too tendentious about it, would she want to consider those grounds theoretical, or not?

  • Par for the course
  • Posted by Michael on November 16, 2007 at 10:30am EST
  • This study is yet another occasion for academics to flout their hypocrisy. Any other underrepresented group, other than Christians of course, would be labeled as victims and require immediate support through quotas, centers for studies created, and mandatory indoctrination for all students. That this isn’t occurring reminds us that hypocrisy is the core value of academics and their institutions. Shouldn’t expect less of a group that discriminates on race, sex, and religion constantly all in worship at the altar of Diversity.

  • Posted by One of the few? on November 16, 2007 at 10:45am EST
  • Speaking as a libertarian PhD candidate in a true blue English department, I'm not sure why this is 1) surprising, and, 2) disconcerting.

    Aren't there more interesting things to think about than the numbers, ratios, percentages, and polemics that are so frequently associated with breathless reports of the political biases of faculty?

    (And not all faculty, it's worth remembering, but a myopic view that only registers those lucky enough to win a tenure track position at a highly ranked Baccalaureate, Masters, or Doctoral institution.

    I don't see much impassioned discussion over the politics, real or imagined, of adjuncts, of community college professors, or your grad student TAs. Or, for that matter, of faculty outside the USA.)

    I've found my experience unmarked by the isolation or segregation this discussion suggests I'm supposed to feel. If I want those feelings, I'll work on my dissertation.

    In seminars, at coffee shops and bars, and various reading groups, lectures, and conferences, I've found receptive and stimulating interlocutors and reaped tremendous benefits from intellectual conversation of any orientation.

    If non-Democratic Party students aren't going to graduate school for fear of being in the minority, they're missing out on one of the great experiences available in this country. And that's a real shame.

  • ...nor my father's Oldsmobile
  • Posted by an English Ph.D. on November 16, 2007 at 11:10am EST
  • Jane,

    I don't know the Medieval and Renaissance professors you know, but just because somebody cares about Shakespeare, Chaucer, or Milton, doesn't mean that they are "conservative" politically. Conservative, sure, in the sense of caring about something old, but the conversation about these dead white men has moved beyond praise (and blame). I mean, what is Chaucer's attitude towards the Wife of Bath? At least the way I teach it, the question can make for great classroom discussion that pushes the buttons of political conservatives and liberals alike. And appropriately so.

  • Officer Corps
  • Posted by el viejo on November 16, 2007 at 11:10am EST
  • Why is anyone surprised at self-selection? One only has to look at the officer corp of the U.S. military to understand that it is a self-selected career favored by conservatives.

    Simply put, the officer corps, in all branches, is overwhelmingly conservative. Why no concern here?

    If we are to worry about the "indoctrination" of impressionable younbg people, I would be far more concerned about what happens to 18-year-old men and women who enter the military. the officer corps has far more control over every aspect of their lives, including how they think, than any professor at institutions where I have worked.

    But I really do not care about this political bias in our officer corps. I respect and honor those who have chosen to serve, independent of their political and ideological leanings.

    Let's get on to deal with real issues in hi9gher education, rather than focus on trivia such as bias infecting the academy.

  • Posted by Ken on November 16, 2007 at 11:15am EST
  • The comments by some on this thread mocking the study and reactively falling into the "crazy liberal academe just cannot see the heavy bias it swims in" meme demonstrate why it will probably be impossible for academe to ever, ever please many of its critics. This study was presented at an American Enterprise Institute conference for pete's sake, it is not some Marxist postmodernist group trying to pull one over on the ideologically naive in order to indoctrinate new leftist hordes. There are many thoughtful conservatives, and liberals, who are dismayed by knee-jerk liberalism in academe (faculty and administration). But there is a segment of the critics who simply want to impose their own ideological blinders and will be angry whenever the "right" (no pun intended) answer is not given regardless of how the answer was derived. Everyone needs to be careful to make sure that open inquiry and disinterested scholarship are the ideals in academe, which will mean ingoring the "canons to the left of us, the canons to the right of us" ;)

  • Supposed liberal bias in higher education
  • Posted by Erik , Doctor at University of Illinois at Springfield on November 16, 2007 at 11:45am EST
  • As someone of decidedly leftist persuasion, I would note that I’ve always been an admirer of what might be considered core-Republican/conservative values related to the notion of taking individual responsibility for one’s own situation. So when did Republican-types become such a whiny bunch? I see all kinds of assertions of biases in various supposedly liberal-dominated disciplines without the provision of a shred of evidence to that effect (e.g., that Milton and Shakespeare are somehow not taught in English departments, that linguistic departments have an agenda against standard English, etc.). It seems often enough that a closer examination of the way these disciplines are taught would suggest that such assertions are little more than hearsay. Strangely enough, they are nonetheless presented as somehow obvious truths. And all the while, ridiculing any serious attempt to consider the problem of bias as somehow a smokescreen designed to obscure an obvious truth.

    On the subject of supposed leftist bias in the classroom, I would note that, when teaching on the topic of the Middle East, I’ve noticed a general tendency for those students with what might be considered conservative views (the clear majority) as pertain to the topic (however you define that) to generally have the least foreknowledge of the region upon entering the class. I would note that we do consider all kinds of arguments and certainly all views are welcome in my class. Indeed, we often hold debates regarding some of the topical issues of the day (the status of Muslim women, American policy in Iraq, etc.) where if necessary, I’ve made a point of playing devil’s advocate to ensure that what might be termed the more ‘conservative view’ gets a fair shake (inasmuch as at times more conservative students have perhaps had trouble articulating their perspective in a manner that did it justice). Having said that, I can’t help noticing that by the end of the class, after becoming more familiar with the history and culture of the region, the majority of students’ views have tended to shift to the left (defined here as a view more sympathetic to what might be termed a ‘Middle Eastern’ perspective on various issues; granted, a rather vague category). Another way to put it is that the more ‘liberal’ view would often seem to be a more ‘nuanced’ view. So is it so surprising that learning more about a subject should see one adopt a more ‘nuanced’ (i.e., ‘liberal’) view? At least in the area of the humanities, I suspect that there is perhaps a link between this supposed liberal bias and a greater knowledge of the region, a willingness to challenge one’s assumptions, to ask difficult questions, etc.

    Related to this, on the question of self-selection, it makes sense that those most intrigued by the discipline in question (thus more willing to explore the nuances of the topic, to ask difficult questions, etc.) will continue in the discipline. Coming back to my experience of teaching on the Middle East, I’ve also noticed that those students with the strongest conservative views (in the sense of being entirely dismissive of any argument/evidence running contrary to their views) seem to desire nothing more than to be done with the subject and move on to greener pastures (as they might define it). The point being, they have little interest in the subject. I would add here that I have seen no indication that they felt somehow badgered or discriminated in the class; quite the contrary, my student evaluations would suggest quite the opposite (likewise the record of their grade-performance in the class). It just simply isn’t their cup of tea.

    I would come back here to this other question of whether the views in the university reflect those of the public at large. Quite frankly, the public at large very often has a limited knowledge of the subject in question, to some degree quite justifiably in the sense that said subject might have little pertinence to their lives, at least in any obvious sense. So why is it expected that my understanding of the Middle East—an area I’ve devoted a good deal of my life to trying to understand—should conform to popular perceptions? I would add that, in many cases, I’ve no doubt that if John Q. Public took the time to consider the subject of record in greater depth (say, for instance, the Middle East), they would find the supposed ‘liberal’ views of the university to be a good deal more reasonable than they had been led to believe by the media. I may have ideas about economics and physics for instance that reflect my core values such as they are, but I’m not clamoring for those seriously engaged in the disciplines to consciously make their understandings of their respective disciplines conform to them!

    Finally, coming back to this idea of bias and discrimination… well, as far as personal experiences go—of the “skulking-around-in-private-offices-because-my-colleagues-won’t-accept-me” variety—for Pete’s sake, get a backbone! My point being I can’t help wondering if it is indeed the case that such individuals are so fearful of some kind of backlash if they dare express their views, or rather that they just can’t cope with the fact that their colleagues might genuinely disagree with them; likewise, that their arguments might just might simply not stand up to closer scrutiny.

    Erik

  • Good coverage . .and by the way to 'el viejo'
  • Posted by amy on November 16, 2007 at 11:45am EST
  • First, thanks for continuing coverage of the AEI conference on reforming the university.

    And to el viejo, my son is a yearling (2nd year)at West Point, and I can tell you first hand that your comments about political indoctrination are erroneous. West Point educates as to how to be a warrior and a leader in the Army, but there is no political indoctrination. No one controls the minds of the cadets and the cadets are free to have any opinions they like--and they do. Period.

    As for enlisted troops, of course the officers have control over their troops, but 'mind control'? What are you talking about? The military is a fighting force not a political organization, open to any citizen regardless of political affiliation. A more accurate observation, I think, is that many Liberals are anti-military.

  • The Problem
  • Posted by Ira Socol at Michigan State University on November 16, 2007 at 11:50am EST
  • Ahhh, where US Conservative Philosophy crashes into US Conservative Intent.

    Perhaps in a culture that prized families and the supports they need more, and which prized education more, people would not always be forced into a choice between earning a living (and having health insurance and enough money to support children) and performing societally valuable and creative work.

    So, if health insurance in the US were universal, if universities in the US were free, if parenting time-off was guaranteed to new American parents - all those hallmarks of the European Democratic Socialist State so despised by those of political action groups like AEI - their young conservatives might find themselves willing to make different choices.

    American conservatives endlessly defend a system that makes "bookies" - stockbrokers and hedge-fund managers - the highest paid "workers" with the lowest tax rates. And they constantly bash teachers and academics and complain that they are 'overpaid' 'do-nothings' 'living off the public dole' (see just the previous AEI post's comments). And now they express surprise at their children's career choices. Hmmmm...

  • Hold on There, El Viejo
  • Posted by PA Man on November 16, 2007 at 11:55am EST
  • El Viejo . . . come on, now, anyone with any experience in the military knows that the members of the officer corps have very little impact on young soldiers (unless they mess up and come under the auspices of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which Officers do administer). These soldiers' NCOs (sergeants) -- older, more experienced enlisted soldiers -- do indeed have a great deal of impact on young soldiers (an overwhelming impact, it could be said). A stereotypical description of a sergeant (forgive me for stereotyping!) is that he or she is more or less what one would describe as "working class," with all the political and other implications that might be associated with that. NCOs are an extraordinarily proud group of professional people (thank goodness!), and are indeed the backbone of our military, and they care far more about what other NCOs think of them than they do about the political opinions of a bunch of "fancy pants" officers. Yes, NCOs are probably more "conservative" than most Americans (probably because they are more stereotypically "patriotic"), but not as much as some would think. As for officers themselves, studies have shown that yes, indeed, they are more conservative and tend to vote more Republican than most Americans -- but not overwhelmingly. But don't think that these officers are out there indoctrinating impressionable young soldiers, because it just isn't happening.

    Thank you for your nice comments about our soldiers and their service, and let me return the compliment. I'm an administrator, and on my campus I always address professors as "Doctor" (if they have a PhD, or "Professor," if they don't) because they've earned it and the respect that goes with it. Almost all professors that I've ever met do indeed care about teaching and want to impart their love of learning to their students. Respect and civility -- we need more of it.

  • Posted by rufus on November 16, 2007 at 12:35pm EST
  • Prof. of English- “What do I teach on a regular basis? Shakespeare and Milton. What does my colleague down the hall teach? Chaucer, Anglo-Saxon lit, classical lit.”

    Yeah, I was thrown by that comment too. Our university's English department has three courses on Shakespeare, two on Milton, and one on Chaucer. I think that's pretty normal. And, as someone who's doing a PhD in 19th century intellectual history, I'd say I personally have great respect for the writers and thinkers of the past.

    But, I think the trouble with some of these comments is their tone. People will post something like, “Academics all think that Stalin was a great guy”, and it's hard to tell if they really believe that nonsense, or if they're just being hyperbolic. And, if it's just empty calumny, do they think they're really contributing to the conversation? And the same goes for comments along the lines of “Republicans don't do well in academia because they're dumb.” Should we maybe just ignore the comments that seem unserious?

  • Kudos, and George R. Stewart
  • Posted by Donald M. Scott , Independent Scholar on November 16, 2007 at 12:40pm EST
  • Kudos to those who posted very fine comments, which described the real world, not the created world of contention which is exploited for the benefits of those who would divide and conquer. I was especially impressed by the words of "Bob" and "One of the Few?"

    As to English Departments, I suggest you read (if you can find a copy) George R. Stewart's The Department of English at the University of California, Berkeley. In the final chapters Stewart takes a good look at why traditional English curricula are so important. Also, look at his Year Of The Oath to see how some people who call themselves conservatives have tried to crush academic freedom in Universities. Today, sad to say, some people who call themselves "liberals" are the ones who are working very hard and with some success to restrict freedom of thought and discussion in the university, as Summers of Harvard discovered.

    Finally, following the lead of Professor Stewart, I'd like to encourage clarification in this on-going debate about "intellectual diversity" and that is the use of the word "liberal." What liberal MEANS, from the dictionary, is "1. Favoring individual freedom and nonrevolutionary reform. 2. Broad-minded or tolerant. 3. Generous."

    That is how the word should be used. It should not be used as a pejorative replacement for "leftist" or "progressive" or anti-American. And, if it is used properly, it will exclude those who fainted at Summer's temperate remarks, their political kin, and many of the neocons of the Cheney era. It will include both "Bob" and "One of the few?"

  • Alternative hypothesis on PhD programs
  • Posted by Buzz on November 16, 2007 at 12:55pm EST
  • Inconvenient hypothesis:

    Many students, having borrowed beyond a Starbucks wage to be lectured about what a lousy country the U.S. is, decide to stay in college to prevent start-up of student loan repayment?

    And/or perhaps they didn't get accepted to an Ivy League law school?

    Of course, in Europe, they'd already know where their places were in the social hierarchy (e.g., government office supervisor or craft fore-person).

  • further on the officer corps
  • Posted by el jovene on November 16, 2007 at 1:50pm EST
  • I don't think el viejo was saying that students are indoctrinated at West Point.

    Rather, he was making the important point that the US officer corps, once a bipartisan institution (yes, its true!), has become overwhelmingly dominated by conservatives and Republicans in the last 25 years. A phenomenom entirely parallel, in reverse, to what has happened to our universities. And yet no one perceives this as a problem or complains -- certainly not the conservatives who complain about our universities as biased. Yet surely it is just important to our republic to have an officer corps which is representative and diverse as it is to have a university faculty that is representative and diverse, arguably more so.

    Right on el viejo!

  • I am sure you will discount any study.
  • Posted by MB on November 16, 2007 at 1:50pm EST
  • For those of you who declare the subject a joke, I suggest that you obtain a copy of "Political Beliefs & Behavior of College Faculty" by Gary A. Tobin & Aryeh K.Weinberg. When I am out of higher education, I most certainly intend to write on the topic.

    Regarding anecdotal evidence, it is only because faculty willingness to participate in studies is rivaled only by their willingness to engage in true debate with those having apposing views without name calling. Just look at the comments thus far.

    You can get a copy from the Institute for Jewish & Community Research
    San Francisco
    www.JewishResearch.org
    http://www.jewishresearch.org/PDFs2/FacultySurvey_Web.pdf

  • Stop. Stop ... No More Comments Please
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on November 16, 2007 at 1:50pm EST
  • Disclaimer: I am assuming that since Inside Higher Ed has not only written an article about the Woessner’s report, but has also provided a URL for it, it is quite appropriate for me to assume that is tantamount to having the authors’ permission to cite and quote from the study report ... and despite the authors’ warnings to the contrary.

    I also assume I am like every other respondent to an Inside Higher Ed article, fearing that Larry will weigh in immediately after I do and accuse me of failing to read the background material. I have, therefore, read – nay, studied – the Woessner’s report of their data analysis ... and it is an intellectual mine field. I wish I had space here to go into detail, but I do not.

    Let me add that, on the surface – and I will not claim to have definitive proof of this – the report has every appearance of being a collection of preconceived notions frantically searching for (and neither finding nor being dissuaded by) data that support those notions. That the report was prepared for presentation at an American Enterprise Institute conference only suggests ... well, you read it ...

    First, and despite Matthew Woessner false claim that “We’re not suggesting causality,” the report reeks with causal statements. Indeed, had he not been defensive about it in the IHE interview, I would have guessed he had forgotten everything he learned about correlation and causality in his research methods courses. In the report you will read that liberals do this and conservatives do that, ad infinitum.

    In fact, it is not at all clear to me that we have the faintest notion of what a liberal or a conservative is, except that it must be a remarkably nebulous “construct” patched together by self-identification. “Conservative” is the intersection (or is it the union?) of all traits and characteristics shared by those who identified themselves as being conservative when they filled out the 2004 UCLA Higher Education Research Institute survey ... pretty much in the same manner that Ward Churchill is part Indian because he identified himself as one-sixteenth Indian on University of Colorado employment documents. You are what you think you are ... or at least what you say you think you are. Profound!

    In that light, you can take the Woessner’s “liberals do this” and “conservatives do that” statements and throw them in the trash. Not only do we not know (or apparently care) what a conservative is, I can assure you the UCLA survey captures very little about “their” behavior. I will admit there is, indeed, a collection of young college students – each characterized by a bundle of traits – who seem to fall into this category or that, but the explanations – the root causes if you will – for why they happen to be in a given category is a mystery not touched upon even very, very lightly by the Woessners.

    If there were ever a time to appreciate Winston Churchill’s clever retort, “He who is not liberal at 18 has no heart; he who is not conservative at 40 has no brain,” it is now and in the context of this discussion ... not that British conservatives in Churchill’s day weren’t almost as far left as American liberals are today. I think Churchill’s remark is relevant because, in my opinion, there are so many factors driving human attitudes and behavior, it’s almost mind boggling. And you may be certain it is not one’s liberal/conservative proclivity that drives the other attitudes and behaviors; it’s the other way around.

    I will not go on with this, but there is much, much more that could be said about it.

    There are a series of eight charts appended to the Woessner’s report that apparently form the evidence for their thesis. In the future I will be using several of them in my courses as new examples of “how to lie with statistics.” Figures 4 and 6, for example, demonstrate non-zero slopes of their curves (suggesting differences between “liberals” and “conservatives”) by lopping off most of the vertical axes. Display the relationships with the entire response set displayed and the graphs are essentially “horizontal” lines across the categories of liberal and conservative.

    Even the “Personal Priorities and Ideology” graphs from which IHE got its table (see above) is misleading. Yes, there is a difference between the importance young people place on raising a family and writing original works, for example – and who would be the least bit surprised by that – but display any individual questionnaire item in a chart by itself, and with the entire range of responses included, and you will essentially see a horizontal line (no differences between liberals and conservatives).

    My favorite is their analysis of grades. It turns out that liberals and conservatives have essentially the same grades, on the average (what happened to all of that faculty hostility and discrimination that is apparently directed toward conservative students?), but moderates have somewhat lower grades.

    In the face of all this, the Woessner’s state (among other things) ...

    “A lack of ideological diversity within academia is arguably a serious problem.”

    “Universities should adopt a more family-friendly approach to recruiting both prospective doctoral students and young faculty.”

    “Even accounting for grades, mentoring, personal choice, and a host of other factors; ideology remains the second best predictor of a student’s intent to pursue a doctorate.”

    “If critics of the academy are correct, the liberal enclave provides a chilly environment for conservatives.”

    “This is not to say that they [conservative students] do not experience some hostility in individual courses or among certain disciplines.”

    The Woessner’s concluding statement in the IHE article reveals just how upside-down their perspective is. They say, “Liberalism is more closely associated with a desire for excitement, an interest in creative outlets and an aversion to a structured work environment. Conservatives express greater interest in financial success and strong desires to raise families. From this perspective, the ideological imbalance that permeates much of academia may be somewhat intractable.”

    Forgetting just how nonsensical that statement is, they seem to see two classes of individuals, liberals and conservatives, and their notion of diversity requires that whatever happens to be true for liberals should be equally true for conservatives ... it’s some sort of within-group diversity that depends on, among other things, a structurally sound definition of political ideology. The flip side of this picture is that we have all of these wonderful young people ... and among the entire population of them, we see many differences. including how they perceive themselves and report that accordingly in surveys (and ain’t political ideology diversity grand?). Among other things, we see that a few of them think it would be great to pursue a Ph.D. (whether it’s to become university professors or to be more marketable, make more money, and be able to work on more interesting problems when they go to work for Microsoft neither I ... nor the Woessners ... nor the folks at UCLA know). You've got to love that kind of diversity.

    Damn, I hate this shit!

    P.S. Lest anyone attempt to refute my arguments by quoting statistics from hypothesis tests, I must remind you that with sample sizes as large as those from the UCLA survey (n = 15,569), every difference in sight will be statistically significant; i.e., statistical significance will not translate into substantive significance.

  • wait a minute...
  • Posted by ABD mom at a UC on November 16, 2007 at 2:00pm EST
  • While I think the study is interesting, what I don't quite understand is this underlying assumption that contributing to original scholarship and parenthood are somehow mutually exclusive. Since when has being a parent robbed anyone of intellectual ability (beyond those first sleepless months, at any rate)?

    Sure, parents may take a bit longer to finish, and they may not be able to fly off to archives or conferences at the drop of a hat, but with a little planning, both good parenting and good scholarship, and at the same time, are quite possible.

  • The Myth of English Departments
  • Posted by Tenure Year Prof , Dr at Land Grant on November 16, 2007 at 2:45pm EST
  • Chaucer, Milton, Shakespeare... not to mention Joyce, Woolf, Eliot and Pound, all on the syllabus here, too. True to say we're all a bunch of lefties in my English Department (with a great deal of variety of opinions), but I'm not sure what people are talking about when it comes to that whole myth of the "postmodernist sweep of the canon" from the syllabus. We teach a wide variety of authors here, a wide variety of analytical approaches, and every school I know does the same thing. What is it with this persistent myth? What is it that "they" (conservatives? Republicans? Who are they?) think we are really teaching? Or doesn't it matter what the truth is; the myth serves their purposes just fine?

    If only they'd scrap NCLB so we'd get undergrads with some analytical ability, some ability to THINK... then they'd see what I can really do with the "classics." They (them again) gut education across the board and then wonder that students are dissatisfied with college? Come on. I have a tough time with these students once they hit my classes because they have literally never learned how to do anything except prep for tests through rote memorization. I have students coming out of high school having NEVER read a novel as part of a required English assignment. I really don't think the problem lies with us (soon to be) Tenured Radicals here in the University.

  • Mom Amy is correct -- again
  • Posted by L.L. on November 16, 2007 at 2:45pm EST
  • 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.

  • Not So, El Jovene
  • Posted by PA Man on November 16, 2007 at 4:00pm EST
  • There are so many comments in this thread (didn't we all know that there would be?!) that you probably didn't get to read my previous comment. Bottom line: the US military officer corps is not nearly as lop-sidedly (how's that for a word?) "conservative" as academia is lop-sidely "liberal." More conservative than America as a whole, most certainly, but not as out of whack with America as academia is. Then again, there is no particular reason for academia to necessarily reflect America as a whole . . . in other words, so what? [well, a "so what" could be if it's important to enjoy more support from society, etc..., but that might be where academic freedom comes into play] One final (I hope!) comment: perhaps America's officer corps would not be so predominantly "conservative" if the predominantly "liberal" academy were more welcoming to military students on its campuses.

  • Posted by Raoul on November 16, 2007 at 4:35pm EST
  • As a 60 year old, I have seen the left wing nuts fade away (good riddance), the mainstream relabeled the left, and the right wing nuts claim to be the center and demand their views be represented everywhere (bummer).

  • Worried?
  • Posted by Kevin on November 16, 2007 at 4:35pm EST
  • “If we are to worry about the ‘indoctrination’ of impressionable young people, I would be far more concerned about what happens to 18-year-old men and women who enter the military.”

    Do you mean things like espirit de corps, teamwork, honor, duty, country, sacrifice for others, patriotism, leadership, etc.?

    My God, I’m shaking in my jump boots at just the thought…

  • Values clarification
  • Posted by Fred Flener , Retired on November 16, 2007 at 4:40pm EST
  • The differences in how we preceive education may be at the root of this discussion. Go back 150 years to the early work of John Dewey, and his view of educational reform. He viewed the works of people like Huxley and Perkins who saw values that evolved through the intersection of an organism and the environment. Most of his detractors saw values as absolute, passed from one generation to another. The latter group leaned heavily on texts like the Bible to tell us what is evil or good. Today such groups argue against Roe vs. Wade because it violates religious convictions. Acceptance of change is usually slow and with a great deal of skepticism. They still have trouble with evolution and global warming is something fashioned by the "tree huggers." Good old fashioned "common sense" (whether common or sensible is irrelevant) is the basis for making decisions. As a mathematics educator I see these people emphasizing teaching as "showing" the students the way to perform tasks instead of engaging them in problem solving taking a "risk" at having them learn something different. Unless I am way off base most of the so-called conservative fall into this category.

    Dewey on the other hand was an existentialist who saw the classroom environment as one of reflective thinking and opening doors to new ideas. In terms of scholarship, the conservative historian wants the world to know what Lincoln said as he pursued the Civil War, the liberal historian may want to investigate the environmental factors which may have mitigated in Lincoln decisions (and of course such an analysis may be completely wrong). In science, many doctors follow the "tried and true" protocols to treat cancer patients, while another may be more libertine in searching for factors that may (or may not) be the basis for why cancer evolves. Obviously, there is a need for both conservative and liberal minds in education. The problem is that much of the pre-college education is from a conservative approach, and to a lesser extent, but still somewhat true at the undergraduate level. It is at the graduate level that the investigative philosophy becomes dominant. It is difficult for many who have been successful in a tradition program. This is probably why about half the Ph.D. candidates become ABD's.

    I don't know if anyone buys my argument, but I think it is a hypothesis which explains why there are more "liberals" who complete their doctorates and end up as productive faculty in tenured positions.

  • Definition of Liberal?
  • Posted by ConservHE on November 16, 2007 at 5:25pm EST
  • "I’d like to encourage clarification in this on-going debate about “intellectual diversity” and that is the use of the word “liberal.” What liberal MEANS, from the dictionary, is “1. Favoring individual freedom and nonrevolutionary reform. 2. Broad-minded or tolerant. 3. Generous.”

    Professors and Higher Education in general, are the least tolerant (and for the one that thinks you get conservatively taught kids, read NCATE Accreditation requirements to become a K-12 teacher). If someone does not hold to their view point, they accuse them of crushing your "academic freedom" and not giving them the respect they claim they deserve, yet in the classroom you expect your students to listen to historical revisionism and declare it as "fact" rather than opinion, because we have advance degrees from "exceptional institutions." Having this degree does not make it any truer and does not give us the right to teach our ideology as being "factual." One simply has to look at Aristotle to know this, he taught Spontaneous Generation.

  • Actually more like rats in a maze
  • Posted by Buzz on November 16, 2007 at 9:35pm EST
  • " .. It is at the graduate level that the investigative philosophy becomes dominant .. It is difficult .. This is probably why about half the Ph.D. candidates become ABD’s."

    Gee .. sort of like the bold scientific thinkers who can't get published in peer-reviewed pubs because they challenge the status quo.

    Then, 20 years later, they're awarded the Nobel Prize. Somehow, they managed to keep enough $$$ coming in, to have kept themselves going.

    Closed minds and narrow-minded thinking in the always-political world of academia can be costly in terms of time, money and effort.

  • Defining "Liberal" and "Conservative"
  • Posted by Apologetically Inured at Rutgers on November 16, 2007 at 9:40pm EST
  • In this thread we've seen "liberal" defined. We've seen the definition made ironic on the basis of "liberal" hypocrisy. I have also wondered this: At any given moment in history, just what is it that a "conservative" is trying to conserve?

  • Some data might help
  • Posted by Ken on November 16, 2007 at 9:40pm EST
  • Quick points:
    1. I think those posters who say "conservatives should stop whining" are wrong and intolerant. There is a coherent and respectable intellectual heritage to conservatism, and as long as they are willing to play by the rules of academe (fair mindedness, open inquiry, peer review, etc, and mind you I am aware that there are many conservatives who are not so willing) to not include them and these views is to be willingly obtuse and intolerant. Likewise, the fact that conservatives outnumber liberals in other institutions does not mean that perhaps academe needs to examine itself to make sure there are no things going on to produce the imbalance that are a discredit to academic values.
    2. On the other hand it is valuable to point out to conservative critics that other institutions have ideological leanings and to wonder why they ignore this fact. I'm sure that the educational institutions of our armed services are high quality and try to foster political and ideological neutrality and diversity in a number of ways. However, it is undeniable that there is a skew towards conservatism among the large majority of military personnel and officers that is indeed reflective of, if not greater than, the leftward skew in academe (a skew also undeniable in my opinion and, more importantly, one found consistently in the research).

    Some data might help here:
    http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006poll_politics.php

    Both institutions are public and both serve critical functions in our society, and both would be doing their charges a disservice if those in power in those institutions are somehow 'rigging the game' to foster the imbalances we see. It is telling that many conservative critics ignore the imbalance in other public (or simply important) institutions. Perhaps it is simply out of ignorance (not meant in a pejorative sense, but in the sense of not knowing, attested to by the several posters here who insist the imbalance is not nearly as bad), but sadly I suspect that among some of the more vocal and organized critics on the right such an imbalance in other institutions, to the right, is perfectly fine, since after all the "right" values are being pushed...

  • Vindication
  • Posted by Andrew Purvis on November 16, 2007 at 9:40pm EST
  • In response to the article on the AEI conference, earlier this week here at IHE, I noted that we don't seem to be getting a lot of studies indicating how the (qualified) applicant pools broke down. For that I was not treated well, though certainly not as poorly as in times past.

    Now we have the interim work starting to suggest answers, though it suggests other problems. Let's look at one:

    The English department is either #1 or #2 in faculty size, simply because, well, we want our graduates to be able to read, write, research, formulate arguments, and perform other activities of borderline value. That English departments skew left of center is not terribly surprising, but that they are so large points to why higher education, as a whole, starts to get skewed. After all, these English departments make the largest poopulation segment, right?

    The problem with this issue, as discussed here—and the issue has depths as yet unexamined—is that there are too many jerks at every extreme, and each jerk has two knees with which to react.

  • Conservatives do exist!
  • Posted by Robert , PhD Student at University of Wisconsin-Madison on November 16, 2007 at 9:40pm EST
  • I'm one of those rare conservative PhD students at a famously liberal campus. Aside from the rather common protests and occasional professor longing for the Madison of yore, I haven't seen too much of a bias against students of any political bent.

    Conservatives, come on in (the vast majority of departments). The water's fine!

  • Liberal Bias?
  • Posted by Rob on November 17, 2007 at 9:35am EST
  • I have noticed as a student and as an educatior, that certain parts of a campus tends to be more "conservative" or "liberal" than others. At my graducate school, departments like Religion, Philosophy and Sociology were relatively liberal.
    Schools of engineering and business were much more conservative. And I got the impression that the sciences were somewhere in between.
    But the conservative departments were also staffed by professors with doctoral degrees. And this suggests that conservatives do not self-select themselves out of graduate school altogeher, but only out of certain departments.
    And since the school of religion was the most liberal of all depts at my school, I wonder why Michael implicitly equates Christian with conservative as an underrepresnted group? There are a lot of left of center Christians.

  • Excuse me -- that was already tried
  • Posted by Russ on November 17, 2007 at 9:40am EST
  • " .. Perhaps in a culture that prized families and the supports they need more, and which prized education more, people would not always be forced into a choice .."

    That was tried in the USSR -- went bankrupt and collapsed.

    Also tried by Mao -- google "a thousand flowers bloom" and "Cultural Revolution." Attempt to understand, if possible.

    Read news accounts on why England, France, Germany, Canada, Sweden, China, and other countries are cutting-back socialist-state services. Attempt to understand, if possible.

    As for the cheap shot at bankers, et al --

    I've worked with a variety of academics and professionals. Some of the most modest and decent were bankers. Some of the most vile and unpleasant were from Ethnic Studies, Education, English, and the BMW-driving MD class. Euro-Socialists are not immune from de-humanizing psuedo-elitism.

  • More liberals please!
  • Posted by Math Prof on November 17, 2007 at 9:40am EST
  • I think we need more liberal MBA's and CEO's. We can archive this by reducing their pay and requiring them to write something original.

  • Momming and Leanings
  • Posted by kgotthardt on November 17, 2007 at 9:40am EST
  • ABD Mom, right on target! Are mothers supposed to dismiss their creative and intellectual lives because they choose to have children? That seems like an illogical, culturally biased assumption.

    Furthermore, as someone who identifies more with being "moderate," I value original writing (even if it never gets off my hard drive). The creative process is too often dismissed as an important facet of education, life, AND parenting.

    Finally, as to valuing money, it stands to reason that if you have a family, money becomes more important, not because you want an SUV (though that seems to be the norm in some areas) but because you need to support your children. Ultra liberals who don't have children don't need to worry about things like affording braces for a nine-year-old.

  • Business schools not that conservative.
  • Posted by Business Prof on November 17, 2007 at 3:35pm EST
  • I always hear people talking about how the social sciences are "balanced" by business and engineering, but that doesn't match my experience. While there is generally less of a tendency to make a big deal out of politics, nevertheless, I am the only conservative on my faculty of 28, and where I got my degree, the only Republican was not a tenure track faculty, but a special lecturer.

  • Political Bias in the Professoriate
  • Posted by Stanley N Cornett on November 18, 2007 at 6:20am EST
  • I am amazed (again) at the level of denial from so many intelligent and highly educated people. The studies I'm aware of have not been equivocal in describing the wildly overbalanced political left in most university faculties. Many will admit the reported proportions are about right in their own experience. If we substituted "political left" for "white" or "black" would it be so difficult to recognize racial bias at work?

    The "self-selection" premise is almost laughable but, admittedly, well stated. It suggests that the thesis of the work is built around a stereotype of conservatives being focused on money and family. An earlier commentary proposed a far more likely premise. Conservative thinkers in most universities are simply ignored or shouted down so often that "cooperate and graduate" becomes a defense. Why would anyone in such a clear minority even consider returning to academia when the scorn and outright hostility associated with the politics of the institution say very clearly that their thinking and they personally are not welcome?

    I've experienced a few of these nearly visceral reactions to any comment or written thought that does not conform to the canons of liberalism. One of my conclusions was that I wanted nothing to do with the varieties of intellectual bigotry and "not like me" principles in advancement.

    Liberal political thought is so pervasive in academia that I seriously doubt many professors have even made the effort to listen seriously to conservative or even politically moderate thought longer than it takes to dismiss something that doesn't fit their personal beliefs.

    One might conclude that, whatever political liberalism is on campus, it must be so fragile that it cannot live in the proximity of anyone who thinks and believes even slightly differently.

    It is astonishing to me that so many in academia do not see that their political and intellectual biases put their claims of "academic freedom" and "freedom of inquiry" into deep question.

    I believe a teacher's actual responsibility is to cultivate the intellect of students and allow the result to take its own political or social course; not to lead or manipulate a doctrinal political position from every student.

    In the current state of affairs, it appears to me that "diversity" is only desirable in racial or ethnic terms. Intellectual diversity, if it still exists, appears to be something that lives in shadows.

  • Your Post Is A Non-Sequitur.
  • Posted by John Marshall , Non-Sequitur on November 18, 2007 at 3:00pm EST
  • The question of left-wing bias in higher education has nothing to do with who goes into higher education as a field. The question has to do with how right-wingers and non-leftists are treated in higher education. They are treated as if they have the plague or worse. So, non-left-wing professors are mistreated and all students are mistreated because they have no exposure to a range of ideas. They are fed political correctness from dawn to dusk to when women's work is done.

  • Priorities
  • Posted by Aprile on November 19, 2007 at 11:25am EST
  • I agree with the article in that many conservatives value money and family more than higher education pursuits. If they are under represented in the higher education career field because thier priorities are different, than so be it. However, in addition to this, I think that the liberal atmosphere of many college campuses creates an atmoshphere that is hostile towards conservatives. Why would anyone want to seek a career in a field where they are ostracized for having different political leanings? Are there any conservatives reading this who would like to offer a different rationale for the lack of conservatives in the higher ed. setting?

  • conservative pipeline
  • Posted by Elaine on November 19, 2007 at 5:15pm EST
  • I had to laugh out loud at the earlier comment "Coming back to my experience of teaching on the Middle East, I’ve also noticed that those students with the strongest conservative views (in the sense of being entirely dismissive of any argument/evidence running contrary to their views)"
    As a Closet Conservative at a private institution, I think that says it all...

  • Posted by Jeannie on November 20, 2007 at 1:05pm EST
  • What about the socio-economic variable? Scholarships aside, who is able to go to college in the first place? One could at least hypothesize that wealthier kids have the leisure and family economic security to play with ideas, challenge the status quo, and select non-lucrative careers if they so choose. On the other hand, poorer kids, once they are in college, are probably holding a part-time job, have less leisure to banter with friends about ideas or anything else, and are most likely worried about what they will do to earn a living when they get out as they have no financial cushion.

    Now to the work force. Some poor kids who excel academically do slog through grad school and become college professors. Many more probably seek immediate financial gratification in business, the military, etc. Of course one's political persuasion is fluid and changeable over time, but to what extent? Perhaps the estrangement felt by some conservatives within academe has to do with the subtleties of class prejudice.

  • Very funny, thanks
  • Posted by Margaret W on November 27, 2007 at 10:05am EST
  • And when will someone decry the clearly anti-left bias in business training? When will someone take steps to equalize the number of liberals represented in capitalist enterprises? Won't somebody think of the children??

    Since when does there need to be equal representation of political affiliations across all domains? This paper was a shill for right wingers who desire total domination of public conversations (and, given that our phones are tapped, our private conversations as well).

  • Posted by Rick , Lecturer on February 21, 2008 at 7:10am EST
  • To a large extent, self-selection in career choice and personal priorities has led to the ideological imbalance in American academia, as the study's authors conclude. What remains to be seen in their forthcoming study is whether that self-selection process has been coerced by the current academic learning climate.

    However, what should also be kept in mind is that even when partisan academics avoid indoctrination in class discussion, far too often the materials they assign to their students in effect do likewise. This reality needs to be addressed too.

  • Posted by Virginia , Librarian on February 25, 2008 at 4:10pm EST
  • I wonder if the same are people going to investigate biases that favor conservatives in the corporate world and the exclusion of liberals in high ranking positions in corporate America? After having received my undergrad in business from a conservative catholic college, I was pleased to be in "friendly company" once I got to grad school. I hope my tax dollars didn't pay for this study.

  • liberals v conservatives in academia
  • Posted by mel wahl on August 23, 2008 at 3:50pm EDT
  • The reason that universities are dominated by liberals is not that conservatives have no desire to "be creative"
    , they do but they have no desire to just "puc" out a creative impulse that has no real meaning. Conservatives are more concerned with creating results that will last and be ultimately seen not just as an example of some "movement" that is no longer in vogue. Liberals love academia, especially the non math/science areas because there is no absolute measure of their ignorance.

    My hats are off to the liberal mathematicians (true mathematicians)/scientists. A very creative group that creates truth that lives forever.

    By the way the Liberal to Conservative ration in the sciences is 9/1 to 4/1 as opposed to 41/1 in some other areas.