Leftism in Academia

[WillJ]

This is in reference to an article included at the bottom.

72% of professors at American universities identify themselves as liberal, only 15% as conservative. Other statistics (on party registration, ideas on various issues, etc.) show similar imbalances.

Why do you think this is? Possible explanations (which ones you like will obviously depend on your political leaning):

Merit of the Left. Professors are obviously more educated than people in most other occupations. This education arguably demands intelligence and arguably translates into genuine knowledge and enlightenment with regard to politics. A liberal could point to leftist academia as a sign that liberalism is more, well, correct than conservatism.

Merit of the Right. Due to the tenure system, professors are in some ways sheltered from the harshness of the real world. They enjoy a degree of freedom (namely, “academic freedom&#8221 that most workers do not have. This lets academics live in their own little leftist dream worlds, while people in the private sector gain insights into human nature from actual experience (rather than books), and in the process perhaps become somewhat disillusioned with leftist ideals, and turn to the right.

Groupthink. Professors are liberal simply because other professors are liberal. Liberal culture has seeped so deeply into the academic world that no professor is immune to it; it’s a classic example of the snowball effect. Now that academia has shifted to the left, it’s unrealistic to expect it to ever shift back, regardless of how much sense it might make for it to do so, since any conservative who gets his degree will take one look at the university setting and decide he’d rather use his expertise in a place where he won’t get ostracized. (Note: It’d be interesting to look at the political views of people with Ph.D.s who are working in government or the private sector.)

Discrimination against conservatives. While it’d be almost unbelievable for this to be the case in the sciences, it’s not too hard to imagine a dissertation in the humanities or social sciences not getting respect (subconsciously so, for the most part) for political reasons, and the Ph.D. candidate being rejected at least partly for his political views—the same goes for the evaluation process for awarding tenure.

If we divide politics into social causes vs. economic issues, we can divide the first two explanations as so:

[social] Understanding breeding acceptance. Professors, at least in the humanities and social sciences, learn more about other people through their studies, and might begin to accept people of all different types, including blacks, Muslims, homosexuals, and people who like to have sex with horses.

[economic] People who are critical of capitalism will naturally want to avoid actively taking part in it, and becoming a professor is an attractive alternative to the private sector for such people.

[economic] Basically what I said in “Merit of the Right” about the economic cushiness of academia.

...Maybe there are other explanations. What do you think?

On an important side note, the article points out that perhaps none of this really matters, as students don't seem to be dramatically drawn by professors to liberalism. This could be taken as a good thing (if you're a conservative and/or you value intellectual diversity) or as a bad thing (if you're a liberal and/or you suspect that this means that students aren't paying attention in class).

ARTICLE: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html

College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 29, 2005; Page C01

College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

[photo caption] Harvard's faculty of arts and sciences hit President Lawrence Summers with a vote of no confidence after he privately wondered about the abilities of women in science and math. (Steven Senne -- AP) [/photo caption]

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

"What's most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field," said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. "There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It's a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you'd expect to be dominated by liberals."

Religious services take a back seat for many faculty members, with 51 percent saying they rarely or never attend church or synagogue and 31 percent calling themselves regular churchgoers. On the gender front, 72 percent of the full-time faculty are male and 28 percent female.

The findings, by Lichter and fellow political science professors Stanley Rothman of Smith College and Neil Nevitte of the University of Toronto, are based on a survey of 1,643 full-time faculty at 183 four-year schools. The researchers relied on 1999 data from the North American Academic Study Survey, the most recent comprehensive data available.

The study appears in the March issue of the Forum, an online political science journal. It was funded by the Randolph Foundation, a right-leaning group that has given grants to such conservative organizations as the Independent Women's Forum and Americans for Tax Reform.

Rothman sees the findings as evidence of "possible discrimination" against conservatives in hiring and promotion. Even after factoring in levels of achievement, as measured by published work and organization memberships, "the most likely conclusion" is that "being conservative counts against you," he said. "It doesn't surprise me, because I've observed it happening." The study, however, describes this finding as "preliminary."

When asked about the findings, Jonathan Knight, director of academic freedom and tenure for the American Association of University Professors, said, "The question is how this translates into what happens within the academic community on such issues as curriculum, admission of students, evaluation of students, evaluation of faculty for salary and promotion." Knight said he isn't aware of "any good evidence" that personal views are having an impact on campus policies.

"It's hard to see that these liberal views cut very deeply into the education of students. In fact, a number of studies show the core values that students bring into the university are not very much altered by being in college."

Rothman, Lichter and Nevitte find a leftward shift on campus over the past two decades. In the last major survey of college faculty, by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in 1984, 39 percent identified themselves as liberal.

In contrast with the finding that nearly three-quarters of college faculty are liberal, a Harris Poll of the general public last year found that 33 percent describe themselves as conservative and 18 percent as liberal.

The liberal label that a majority of the faculty members attached to themselves is reflected on a variety of issues. The professors and instructors surveyed are, strongly or somewhat, in favor of abortion rights (84 percent); believe homosexuality is acceptable (67 percent); and want more environmental protection "even if it raises prices or costs jobs" (88 percent). What's more, the study found, 65 percent want the government to ensure full employment, a stance to the left of the Democratic Party.

Recent campus controversies have reinforced the left-wing faculty image. The University of Colorado is reviewing its tenure system after one professor, Ward Churchill, created an uproar by likening World Trade Center victims to Nazis. Harvard's faculty of arts and sciences voted no confidence in the university's president, Lawrence Summers, after he privately wondered whether women had the same natural ability as men in science and math.

The study did not attempt to examine whether the political views of faculty members affect the content of their courses.

The researchers say that liberals, men and non-regular churchgoers are more likely to be teaching at top schools, while conservatives, women and more religious faculty are more likely to be relegated to lower-tier colleges and universities.

Top-tier schools, roughly a third of the total, are defined as highly ranked liberal arts colleges and research universities that grant PhDs.

The most liberal faculties are those devoted to the humanities (81 percent) and social sciences (75 percent), according to the study. But liberals outnumbered conservatives even among engineering faculty (51 percent to 19 percent) and business faculty (49 percent to 39 percent).

The most left-leaning departments are English literature, philosophy, political science and religious studies, where at least 80 percent of the faculty say they are liberal and no more than 5 percent call themselves conservative, the study says.

"In general," says Lichter, who also heads the nonprofit Center for Media and Public Affairs, "even broad-minded people gravitate toward other people like themselves. That's why you need diversity, not just of race and gender but also, maybe especially, of ideas and perspective.”

 

[pboily]

You know what is funny? I don't have a clue about the politics of my departmental colleagues. (Internal politics, now that's something else.)
I wonder if there is a more developped interest in these questions in certain parts of the world?


Also, I wonder how much these politics are determined by the city/region where the Universities are located. I mean, do New England professors tend to be more "liberal" than Texas professors?
=================

At any rate, I am not sure this is either a bad thing or a good thing. I mean, maybe most soldiers are conservative, and maybe most social workers are liberal, but as long as social workers help both conservatives and liberals, and as long as soldiers protect both conservatives and liberals, I don't see why professors couldn't teach both conservatives and liberals.

 

[Leatherneck]

Interesting, but I have no idea what it that way. It hasn't change since I went to college nearly 20 years ago. I think that maybe the professors opinons feed off of the students other professors, since most younger people are liberal as a rule and therefore the professors become liberal by osmosis. Theory only. I live near a college and know a few of the professors and they are raging liberals in conservative country.

 

[Israelite9191]

Your [social] combine with "other," the "other" being that people who are interested in becoming academics tend to also be people who tend to be liberal. I remember hearing a survey somewhere, although I am afraid that I can't give the source, that showed that starting with college dropout and moving up, as the amount of education moved up the tendency towards liberalism moved up. Although, I do seem to remember that highschool dropouts who voted were more likely to vote democratic, though this was most likely (at least in my mind) because of the unfortunate prevelance of African Americans among the number of highschool drop outs combined with the fact that African Americans are the most liberal-voting ethnic group in the US (Jews, surprisingly to me at least, come second).

EDIT: Also, professors tend to be older if I am not mistaken, and seniors (along with being the most likely to vote of any age group) are the most liberal of any age group, I believe college age people are second.

 

[pboily]

I think that maybe the professors opinons feed off of the students other professors, since most younger people are liberal as a rule and therefore the professors become liberal by osmosis.

Well, that makes more sense than anything I could think of.

 

[WillJ]

You know what is funny? I don't have a clue about the politics of my departmental colleagues.

Perhaps that's because you're a mathematician, which (I hope) is treated apolitically? Although of course, according to the article, it's like this in *all* departments, so...

Also, I wonder how much these politics are determined by the city/region where the Universities are located. I mean, do New England professors tend to be more "liberal" than Texas professors?

I doubt there's too much correlation, if at all. Even here in Alabama, most professors are liberal (from what I can gather).

At any rate, I am not sure this is either a bad thing or a good thing. I mean, maybe most soldiers are conservative, and maybe most social workers are liberal, but as long as social workers help both conservatives and liberals, and as long as soldiers protect both conservatives and liberals, I don't see why professors couldn't teach both conservatives and liberals.

The difference is that academia is intellectual, and politics is central to intellectualism ... to varying extents depending on the department, of course. Especially in fields like philosophy, political science, sociology, and economics*, having these fields saturated by any one ideology is NOT a good thing, in my book.

*although the article doesn't mention this, I'm sure economics professors are more diverse intellectually, since although they might be a bit "liberal" on average, they certainly tend to have a lot of respect for free markets

EDIT: Also, professors tend to be older if I am not mistaken, and seniors (along with being the most likely to vote of any age group) are the most liberal of any age group, I believe college age people are second.

Seniors, liberal? Really? Is that because of health care?

 

[Israelite9191]

All I know is that come election time, seniors vote for democrats. I guess seniors care about the economy, health care, and have been through too much to care about goverment getting involved in people's private lives.

 

[pboily]

Especially in fields like philosophy, political science, sociology, and economics, having these fields saturated by any one ideology is NOT a good thing, in my book.

Are the service courses in these fields (the first and second year general courses, the ones where you'd present the definitions and notions of each competing theories) not taught by random profs, independently of their political ideology?

I mean, we have algebrists teaching Calculus courses, and I've even taught a few Linear Algebra courses. Granted, the analyst-algebrist divide isn't anything like the liberal-conservative tug-of-war, but would the need for profs of different beliefs be felt before Graduate Studies if, as you and the article both noted, the politics of professors don't seem to affect the politics of students all that much?

I don't actually know.

 

[WillJ]

Are the service courses (the first and second year general courses, the ones where you'd present the definitions and notions of each competing theories) not taught by random profs, independently of their political ideology?

I mean, we have algebrists teaching Calculus courses, and I've even taught a few Linear Algebra courses. Granted, the analyst-algebrist divide isn't anything like the liberal-conservative tug-of-war, but would the need for profs of different beliefs be needed before Graduate Studies if, as you noted, the politics of professors don't seem to affect the politics of students all that much? I don't actually know.

I'm not sure what you're saying/asking here.

If I understand you correctly, I think you're a bit off here, because I don't think social science courses are siphoned off into different ideologies---it's supposed to be objective social science (keyword: science), after all. Social scientists have their expertise divided into different topics, not by viewpoints. The key is that when, say, an economics professor teaches his class about the merits (or lack of merits) of supply-side economics, he might be blinded by his own personal political views. When you say "random professors," this randomness is irrelevant if they all have roughly the same viewpoint.

For the record, I'm still a high school student, so my knowledge of this topic extends just to the quoted article, some other things I've read, and the fact that my brother's in college and my dad's an academic. No actual college experience, so I have only a small clue of what I'm talking about.

 

[CruddyLeper]

Could it be because academics are left alone in liberal societies and persecuted in totalitarian societies?

Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

 

[Ethics]

Originally Posted by pboily
You know what is funny? I don't have a clue about the politics of my departmental colleagues.

Perhaps that's because you're a mathematician, which (I hope) is treated apolitically? Although of course, according to the article, it's like this in *all* departments, so...

Well, I certainly saw through my friend (a former student working on his phd) a very politicized math department in Mississippi (you had a situation where the department supported all 3 big branches of mathematics... funding and direction fights... and then affirmative action policy and legislation determining admissions and very favorable preferential treatment to certain groups).

Strangely, going through a liberal arts degree in History, I really couldn't tell you my professors political leanings. They were all fairly moderate (I think I only saw a professor get into a politics fight with a student once). Now, some of the nonsense I saw as an outsider in some of the other departments was silly with infighting and political bickering.

Really, if anything, people are just as malicious and demeaning to one another in tenured academia as they are on the corporate ladder. Some people know how to get along with others and some need to go play with their dolly far far away.

 

[.Shane.]

It goes to the very heart of what it means to be conservative or liberal. And, by that, I mean in the most apolitical of senses.

Academics are, by nature, interested in progress, expanding knowledge, advancing intellect, etc... This is inherently at odds with conservatism.

Academics are more liberal for the same reason that bankers are more conservative. And that's the way it should be.

That said, most teachers I've come across can separate liberalism from Liberalism. Both the colleges I attended were "Liberal Arts" colleges, but the professors I interacted with were ALL OVER THE PLACE politically.

edit: 1 typo, 1 improved adjective

Furthermore...

As someone who teaches at the JC level, part-time, I can also tell you that, overwhelmingly, the people (teachers) I interact with are apolitical in regards to bringing it into the classroom. I think you'd be hardpressed to guess their political persuasion based on how and what they teach.

In other words, they are professional. What sucks is that for every 99 professionals, there's 1 idiot. And that 1 idiot is more than enough for the Rush Limbaugh's of the world to paint a completely distorted picture.

 

[garric]

It goes to the very heart of what it means to be conservative or liberal. And, by that, I mean in the most apolitical of senses.

Academics are, by nature, interesting in progress, expanding knowledge, acquiring intellect, etc... This is inherently at odds with conservatism.

Academics are more liberal for the same reason that bankers are more conservative. And that's the way it should be.

That said, most teachers I've come across can separate liberalism from Liberalism. Both the colleges I attended were "Liberal Arts" colleges, but the professors I interacted with were ALL OVER THE PLACE politically.

That's ridiculous. Yet again Shane is trying to paint conservatives as close minded hicks who hate acquiring intellect and knowledge, and the liberals are the ones who are the smart guys. Your analogy of the banker is wrong.

The liberal domination of college campuses is a curse and a plague. There are countless stories of crazy liberals spouting anti-American garbage and trying to brainwash students while they are in their most critical years, while the boards do nothing at all about this. Makes me sick to my stomach when I consider the subject! Pah!

Moderator Action:
Re the first paragraph - I don't think he is saying that - but you could explain why you think his analogy is wrong.

Debate the points - not the person. Secondly, you are developing quite a history here of liberal-bashing. Please note that we are running out of tolerance for the way you express you opinions.

Warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[CaptainF]

It goes to the very heart of what it means to be conservative or liberal. And, by that, I mean in the most apolitical of senses.

Academics are, by nature, interested in progress, expanding knowledge, advancing intellect, etc... This is inherently at odds with conservatism.

Academics are more liberal for the same reason that bankers are more conservative. And that's the way it should be.

That said, most teachers I've come across can separate liberalism from Liberalism. Both the colleges I attended were "Liberal Arts" colleges, but the professors I interacted with were ALL OVER THE PLACE politically.

edit: 1 typo, 1 improved adjective

Furthermore...

As someone who teaches at the JC level, part-time, I can also tell you that, overwhelmingly, the people (teachers) I interact with are apolitical in regards to bringing it into the classroom. I think you'd be hardpressed to guess their political persuasion based on how and what they teach.

In other words, they are professional. What sucks is that for every 99 professionals, there's 1 idiot. And that 1 idiot is more than enough for the Rush Limbaugh's of the world to paint a completely distorted picture.

Now thats what i'm talkin' bout.

 

[.Shane.]

That's ridiculous. Yet again Shane is trying to paint conservatives as close minded hicks who hate acquiring intellect and knowledge, and the liberals are the ones who are the smart guys. Your analogy of the banker is wrong.

As I said, I mean it in the apolitical sense of the word. Debate the points, not the person.

And, being conservative is not inherently bad, as per the point I made. In some cases, being liberal is bad and conservative is good. It just depends on what the issue is. I want the person who invests my money to have a conservative outlook. I want my daughter's teacher to have a liberal outlook.

Again, I'm speaking apolitically. I don't know how I can make it more clear.

If it helps, use other terms. Progressive and traditional, if you like. Whatever, the point is, if a person is capable of divorcing their political perception from the use of the term as an outlook toward the world, that person would see what I mean. Of course, at that level, they may agree or not, but I'd hope they can at least conduct themselves w/ some amount of respect for others.

 

[ainwood]

Academics are, by nature, interested in progress, expanding knowledge, advancing intellect, etc... This is inherently at odds with conservatism.

I disagree.

Capitalists are always interested in finding new ways to do things more cheaply to improve profits - there is no money to be made in sticking your head in the sand whilst the knowledge in the world expands, and you get left behind.

If anything, I would say that academics, by their nature, have an ideological view of the world - they rarely experience the 'real world', so they make judgements based on theories as to how they think things shouldwork, not what really happens. Those outside academia make decisions based on real-world experiences.

 

[Lotus49]

Those than can't do - teach. Thus if you are a failure in the capitalist market because of your dreamworld ideology, you might as well go 'commune' with the more impressionable youth... something that fits in line with the ideology as well (let's be 'social', and 'spread' the ideology).

This conclusion should be obvious.

But I could care less. By all means, convert the whole lot of them. The more ideological offspring you convert, the less competition I face, in the real world. And we hate competition. A true monopoly is the paramount ideal.

$$$

 

[Stylesjl]

That's ridiculous. Yet again Shane is trying to paint conservatives as close minded hicks who hate acquiring intellect and knowledge, and the liberals are the ones who are the smart guys. Your analogy of the banker is wrong.

The liberal domination of college campuses is a curse and a plague. There are countless stories of crazy liberals spouting anti-American garbage and trying to brainwash students while they are in their most critical years, while the boards do nothing at all about this. Makes me sick to my stomach when I consider the subject! Pah!

Liberals are not a plague on society and neither are conservatives. People who spout crap like you just did are plagues on society and must be destroyed with haste.
Moderator Action: WHen someone's commented have been the subject of a warning by a moderator, you DO NOT have the right to stir the pot and make comments like this.

Hard warning.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Anyway with that rant aside i think that perhaps the reason that in academics there are more liberals is because generally librelism is a "Smart People" kind of political view. Not saying conservatives are dribbling idiots but you generally find on average liberals tend to be in the higher education fields.

Of course i am not a liberal, and i don't plan on identifying myself as one

 

[luiz]

My pesonal theory has been for quite some time that academics, for obvious reasons specially those in the social sciences, like to think that they can shape society according to their grand vision. They publish books on it, give lectures, become travelling professors at Sorbonne and whatnot. In their view it all works perfectly, but most with a real world experience would feel doubtful about their ideas to the say the least.

 

[MamboJoel]

Conservatism and liberalism (as in the US) are irrelevant in French politics, but In fact it is said that a majority of teachers are leftists.
Personally I couldn't care less as long as they don't use their position as a "tribune" to spread their opinions should they be right/left or extremist on both sides.
I guess this tendency takes its roots in the end of the XIXth with the secular school of the Republic.