Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds

College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Zimphire  (op)
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2005, 12:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
You didn't answer my question.
Yes, yes I did. You asked me "What does that tell you"

I gave my answer as to what I thought it told me.

Now if you didn't like the way I answered it, I apologize.

Let someone else answer it. You might get the answer you want that time around.
     
Zimphire  (op)
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2005, 12:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by kemuri
Happens when you're reading the Net with a glass of wine in one hand.
What kind?? (And you better not make me jealous )
     
kemuri
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 51st State of America (D�n Eideann).
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2005, 12:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Zimphire
I am not saying it is 100% discrimination.

I said signs point to yes.
You're reading into it what you want. You can equally point to other reasons why there is a disparity here, but, it seems like some don't want to consider that.

There is no proof as Simey pointed out.

Exactly. So before people make emphatic statements that it must mean discrimination, perhaps we should investigate all possibilities first.
Will you be voting in liars and murderers come May 5th? The US screwed up by voting in their very own little genocidal maniac. Will you? If Labour's own members are in disarray about the Iraq war, what does that tell you?
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2005, 12:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
I don't necessarily think universities bear less resemblance (relative to the rest) than they did before. Universities have always been an melting pot for new ideas. This apparently doesn't hurt the conservatives, so I really don't see why this is something new or outrageous.
Absolutely. In fact 'new ideas' such as the campaigns proposing equal rights for groups such as gays and racial minorities were fermented in these universities. Many of the early battles with the conservative establishment were fought on that ground, by these liberal academics. They were certainly heroes to those that followed them in the UK.

I wonder if there are any conservatives around here whose rights and freedoms have benefited from those struggles?
     
kemuri
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 51st State of America (D�n Eideann).
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2005, 12:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Zimphire
What kind?? (And you better not make me jealous )

It's a cheap bottle of Jacob's Creek, wife's choice (she holds the keys to the money, lol)

Come on over and sup with us.

Edit: Forgot to mention it's a white wine. Not bad, and went well with dinner.
( Last edited by kemuri; Apr 17, 2005 at 01:04 PM. )
Will you be voting in liars and murderers come May 5th? The US screwed up by voting in their very own little genocidal maniac. Will you? If Labour's own members are in disarray about the Iraq war, what does that tell you?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2005, 12:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Zimphire
Yes, yes I did. You asked me "What does that tell you"

I gave my answer as to what I thought it told me.

Now if you didn't like the way I answered it, I apologize.

Let someone else answer it. You might get the answer you want that time around.
Nope, my question was: Does that also imply that the universities' professorships should be redistributed in accordance with the current proportion in Congress/State parliaments?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
nath
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2005, 01:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by kemuri
It's a cheap bottle of Jacob's Creek, wife's choice (she holds the keys to the money, lol)

Come on over and sup with us.

Edit: Forgot to mention it's a white wine. Not bad, and went well with dinner.
Steal those keys and get down to Sainsbury's. Very nice Rioja down from �7.99 to �3.50.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2005, 01:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
I don't necessarily think universities bear less resemblance (relative to the rest) than they did before. Universities have always been an melting pot for new ideas. This apparently doesn't hurt the conservatives, so I really don't see why this is something new or outrageous.
It's not new, but it is outrageous. The reason is that universities, far from being a "melting place for new ideas" have become a refuge for old ideas.

You are falling into the trap that a lot on the left fall into of automatically equating the ideas of the left are "new" ideas, and that other ideas are "old" ideas. Or worse, that discussions between and among the left to the exclusion of everyone else is any kind of a melting pot where ideas are really being exchanged. Speaking to yourself is not communication, preaching to the converted is not conversation.

That should be something that ought to concern everyone no matter what their political point of view. Universities that have ceased to consider new or alternative ideas and that in fact actively work to suppress or drive out other ideas are not serving society. They are certainly not serving the students, about half of whom sit in cynical silence pretending to respect points of view they disagree with, but often do not dare challenge. That's also a concern because remember, an educational setting is one that comes with an inevitable power imbalance.


Originally Posted by kemuri
Exactly. So before people make emphatic statements that it must mean discrimination, perhaps we should investigate all possibilities first.
No, the burden is on the universities to come up with a plausible explanation of how they came to be so out of step and one sided that isn't simply admitting that the faculty lounge is almost a leftist club. I have yet to see such a plausible explanation -- or even an attempt at one. The only one I have see so far is the hopelessly self-congratulatory one about liberals being smarter.

Again: if the population was 50:50 male/female, and a major employer that you know hires each candidate on the basis of subjective assessments had a workforce that was 87:13 male/female, would you suspect discrimination or not? What if in a pool of 50% African Americans "mysteriously" only 13% of a workplace was black? Is not discrimination or a hostile workplace that discourages people from even applying something you should be concerned about?
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Apr 17, 2005 at 01:55 PM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2005, 02:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
It's not new, but it is outrageous. The reason is that universities, far from being a "melting place for new ideas" have become a refuge for old ideas.

You are falling into the trap that a lot on the left fall into of automatically equating the ideas of the left are "new" ideas, and that other ideas are "old" ideas. Or worse, that discussions between and among the left to the exclusion of everyone else is any kind of a melting pot where ideas are really being exchanged. Speaking to yourself is not communication, preaching to the converted is not conversation.

That should be something that ought to concern everyone no matter what their political point of view. Universities that have ceased to consider new or alternative ideas and that in fact actively work to suppress or drive out other ideas are not serving society. They are certainly not serving the students, about half of whom sit in cynical silence pretending to respect points of view they disagree with, but often do not dare challenge. That's also a concern because remember, an educational setting is one that comes with an inevitable power imbalance.
No, it's not as bad as you make it seem. Preaching is something I dislike on both sides, because it inevitably includes bigotry.

But in a way, the other ideas are always old ideas. Every generation has `new' ideas which consists of `old' ideas, too, obviously. I speak of things in a way that my parents' wouldn't have done. I talk about Jews, guilt, ww2, and all this in a very different manner, because we (= my generation) weren't involved and not directly touched by the consequences.

To call it outrageous is akin as to call the Bush's current administration outrageous, just because it don't adhere to what I believe in. In that way, you are exactly like what you accuse the universities to be: you are not open and you don't really accept other opinions. Whereas you consider `their' points of views a melange of old-fashioned ideas, things that have been proven wrong, those people will likely consider your attitude to be the same.

And I'd like to stress one more point: it doesn't seem to affect the voting behavior. There is no huge wave of liberals threatening to drown all those poor conservatives. On the contrary.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
SVass
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Washington state
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2005, 02:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
It's not new, but it is outrageous. The reason is that universities, far from being a "melting place for new ideas" have become a refuge for old ideas.

No, the burden is on the universities to come up with a plausible explanation of how they came to be so out of step and one sided that isn't simply admitting that the faculty lounge is almost a leftist club. I have yet to see such a plausible explanation -- or even an attempt at one. The only one I have see so far is the hopelessly self-congratulatory one about liberals being smarter.

Again: if the population was 50:50 male/female, and a major employer that you know hires each candidate on the basis of subjective assessments had a workforce that was 87:13 male/female, would you suspect discrimination or not?
Universities have always been the bastion of old ideas. The LEFT doesn't even exist as a cohesive group and certainly not as described by opponents of some of their ideas. With my engineering eduction, I only once heard a political thought expressed in a class and that was from an ex Hungarian cabinet minister who supported the Palestinian cause. The best explanation to the statistics above is that desire for advanced education comes from cultural backgrounds that are driven by religion, ethnicity, etc. Some groups have denigrated science (evolution theory) and literature (too much sex) and history (my sect/country invented/discovered everything). This leads to their progeny being under represented in the field of higher education. Anyway, conservatives stand for the "new ideas" of more privileges for the aristocracy and less education for the masses. Statistics-Why do taller people earn more money? sam
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2005, 02:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
In that way, you are exactly like what you accuse the universities to be: you are not open and you don't really accept other opinions.
Huh? I'm not arguing that individuals should change their opinions, or adopt different opinions in order to be balanced. I'm saying that universities as employers of large numbers of individuals should be careful to have a faculty that includes a wider range of opinions.

You are right about one thing: this doesn't seem to affect voting behavior. That's not a good sign for academics. It means that people have tuned them out.

* * *


Btw Nath: gay rights had very little to do with the universities in this country. That's just not where any of the advances took place. To take a couple of examples, one of the early pioneers, Dr. Frank Kameny (a friend of a friend as it happens) was a government scientist, not an academic. To take another example, the Stonewall Riots was something that started quite spontaneously among some prostitutes and transvestites at a sleazy bar in New York. I doubt there was a college educated person among them. In fact, I can't think of any major scholars who have had any impact on the issue whatsoever, not even Camille Paglia.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Apr 17, 2005 at 02:58 PM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2005, 03:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
Huh? I'm not arguing that individuals should change their opinions, or adopt different opinions in order to be balanced. I'm saying that universities as employers of large numbers of individuals should be careful to have a faculty that includes a wider range of opinions.

You are right about one thing: this doesn't seem to affect voting behavior. That's not a good sign for academics. It means that people have tuned them out.
I don't think so. When young people leave university/college, they are obviously not knowledge personified. Opinions and ideas begin to change, but even though some attitudes will be adjusted to reality, so to speak, it will have an influence. It's not something you will see now, it's something you can start to judge in 20, maybe 30 years. Then those college grads will have climbed all the rungs on the ladders in politics and economy, this will be the time you could judge success/failure to implement some of the values they had when they were students.

And so in this way, they are not tuned out at all.

So if you expect that colleges should/do reflect the world of today, no. They lay the groundwork of the world of tomorrow. And despite the wild 60s and 70s, the world doesn't look like it's rules by a bunch of hippies with long hair
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2005, 03:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
I don't think so. When young people leave university/college, they are obviously not knowledge personified. Opinions and ideas begin to change, but even though some attitudes will be adjusted to reality, so to speak, it will have an influence. It's not something you will see now, it's something you can start to judge in 20, maybe 30 years. Then those college grads will have climbed all the rungs on the ladders in politics and economy, this will be the time you could judge success/failure to implement some of the values they had when they were students.

And so in this way, they are not tuned out at all.

So if you expect that colleges should/do reflect the world of today, no. They lay the groundwork of the world of tomorrow. And despite the wild 60s and 70s, the world doesn't look like it's rules by a bunch of hippies with long hair
I'm not sure what it is exactly that you are arguing here. The subject we are discussing is the extent to which the political makeup of university faculty is seriously out of alignment with the country as a whole. 87% self-described liberals to 13% self-described conservatives compared to a country which in the last election voted 52% to 48% Republican verses Democrat. That's not a small disparity.

Somehow you seem to have done one of two things, and I am not quite sure which it is. Either you are justifying the disparity on the grounds that "it can have an influence" in 20 or 30 years. In which case, that sounds to me to be dangerously close to arguing for political indoctrination. I don't believe that even many university professors would openly admit to that as a legitimate goal of higher education.

Alternatively, you are perhaps shifting the issue to college students -- perhaps on the assumption that college students are as overwhelmingly left wing as their professors. That's off topic, but if that is your argument, I think it is wrong. The young are probably a litte to the left of the general population (18 to 29 year olds, for example, were the only age group that John Kerry won in the election). But the disparity is nowhere near as big as the disparity among college faculty. 18 to 29 year olds voted Democrat 54% to 45%, not 87% to 13%. Link

So, if you are trying to go off topic by discussing students rather than their faculty, it still seems to be the case that the faculty are far to the left of their students. The questions are therefore still A. Why? And B. How is this good for academic discourse and the goal of education?
     
budster101
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Illinois might be cold and flat, but at least it's ugly.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2005, 04:21 PM
 
It is NOT 'good for academic discourse and the goal of education'.

It is a key reason as to why our educational system is failing in the USA. Too many liberal teachers being kept on by their corrupt unions who are in the pocket of the democrats.

It's really quite pathetic, as I have seen through my many years of education and retribution from my professors and teachers because of my right leanings and oppinions.

They will grade liberal students and reward them based on this over other conservative students. If you are not taking a standardized test, it is most difficult to excel in school, hence the reason that most liberal teachers despise standardized exams...
     
SVass
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Washington state
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2005, 05:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by budster101
It is a key reason as to why our educational system is failing in the USA. Too many liberal teachers being kept on by their corrupt unions who are in the pocket of the democrats.

They will grade liberal students and reward them based on this over other conservative students. If you are not taking a standardized test, it is most difficult to excel in school, hence the reason that most liberal teachers despise standardized exams...
The unions are in grammar and high schools, not universities. Unions were a natural response to the criminal activity of corporate bosses and corrupt REPUBLICAN judges. (It was a criminal conspiracy to withhold labor.) Standardized exams mean that Euclidean geometry (a course in LOGIC) is taught as memorization of rote S**T. Our educational system is publically failing as people can not compute the Future Value of investments on their own and rely on our president to tell us the ANSWER. sam
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2005, 07:29 PM
 
Does it really matter?

A good teacher, whether they're liberal or conservative, will encourage the students to explore all sides of an issue. A teacher that lets their own views dominate the classroom and stifles exploration and experimentation is simply a bad teacher, regardless.

I went to a pretty damned liberal school. Carleton College, in case you're curious. Most of my friends from college I simply can't discuss politics with because they're so rabidly liberal that it always just turns into a fight and everyone leaves upset. Most of my four years there were like that, serious discussion of politics were generally impossible as no one was interested in anything other than patting each other on the back and proselytizing the ignorant conservatives.

Never the less I don't think it had a negative impact on me. I don't think it was a bad thing at all. Annoying at times, but not bad. If anything I think it was more counter-productive for the liberal students who never had their beliefs challenged and were never really given the opportunity to examine other possibilities.

As I was saying before, the teachers are very important in a situation like this. For the most part politics weren't really relevant in the classes I took, but when they were the professors were usually pretty good about making sure everyone didn't stay in their �ber-liberal comfort zone. And in PoliSci classes they were always sure to encourage alternative viewpoints and actual discussion (which generally involved me taking on the whole rest of the class... but damnit, I got an A).

Any way, the only way I see this being a problem is if the teachers are trying to force their views on the students. And that would be bad regardless of their politics.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2005, 07:37 PM
 
Also, it's worth considering that perhaps a liberal philosophy is one which more often leads people to want to be teachers. Maybe the reason that conservatives are so under-represented is that there simply aren't as many conservatives applying for the jobs.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2005, 07:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman
Also, it's worth considering that perhaps a liberal philosophy is one which more often leads people to want to be teachers. Maybe the reason that conservatives are so under-represented is that there simply aren't as many conservatives applying for the jobs.
That's possible. I doubt it is responsible for a 73% to 13% imbalance.

However, the "not applying" part could be true. Once a workplace becomes imbalanced to a certain degree, it begins to give off subtle and not-so-subtle signals about who is likely to run into career problems. Remember, it isn't just a matter of being hired. The road from being hired to becoming a tenured professor is long and subject to many deeply subjective tests. Being the outsider there wouldn't be fun. I can understand why people would be put off and dissuaded from subjecting themselves to that degree of career risk.

You ask "does it matter?" Yes, it matters. It matters for all the reasons that diversity in education is promoted. You cannot have diversity where opinions aren't challenged. You also can't have a vibrant discussion of ideas where one perspective is entrenched, and the other feels itself to be marginalized. You say that good professors will look beyond their poltics, and I agree with you -- up to a point.

Even a good professor is still the Lord of the Grading Pen, not to mention Creator of the Syllabus. The professor's politics is bound to influence the way the class unfolds, and how the students interact. Individually, that doesn't matter. But when it is in effect entire departments, and practically the whole university that is all thinking the same, the result is an education that is warped and stunted. It's one that revels in and promotes groupthink even if that isn't the deliberate intent. It's an inevitable effect of eliminating any challenge to their worldview.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Apr 17, 2005 at 08:10 PM. )
     
zerostar
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2005, 08:11 PM
 
Lets see if 87% of the teaching staff at the most prestigous schools define themselves as LIBERAL, then surely the influence they have on the students factor in to thier owen personal label.

These studenst are, for the most part, the ones who get hired for the new teaching jobs.

As a graduate from one of the so-called 87%ers I can say that the viewpoints of the teaching staff weren't always well known and I had several social professors, who were admired, turn out to be much further from what the students had pegged them to be.
     
zerostar
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2005, 08:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
You ask "does it matter?" Yes, it matters. It matters for all the reasons that diversity in education is promoted. You cannot have diversity where opinions aren't challenged. You also can't have a vibrant discussion of ideas where one perspective is entrenched, and the other feels itself to be marginalized.
From 22 years of in-class experience with professors of all walks of life, I don't agree one bit that one perspective in entrenched. Many of the students I went to school with were very much privelages rich white republicans. Trust me they had hearty debate and thier views were very much heard in the class setting. This is my experience from Secondary School to Columbia University to Harvard.

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
You say that good professors will look beyond their poltics, and I agree with you -- up to a point.
I guess have missed it so-far with professors I would define as "good".

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
It's an inevitable effect of eliminating any challenge to their worldview.
When is the last time you were in one of the surveyed shools? ANY oposing view is never eliminated and in fact may be debated MORE in the class setting.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2005, 08:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by zerostar
From 22 years of in-class experience with professors of all walks of life, I don't agree one bit that one perspective in entrenched. Many of the students I went to school with were very much privelages rich white republicans. Trust me they had hearty debate and thier views were very much heard in the class setting. This is my experience from Secondary School to Columbia University to Harvard.[/b]
I know liberals never seem to get this, so let's ask it as a question. How does a near monopoly of one political point of view improve higher education?

When is the last time you were in one of the surveyed shools? ANY oposing view is never eliminated and in fact may be debated MORE in the class setting.
I'm currently a law student at Georgetown. I assume it was one of the schools surveyed. And yes, liberals are entrenched, and free debate is stifled. Not always, of course, but often enough. Of course, I avoid the very political classes.

I did have some fun last semester. I took a class on labor law and there were two professors. One was from the NLRB and the other was a blunt spoken employer's lawyer. Every now and again he'd say something that had the liberals up in arms, but they didn't say anything to his face. They'd just quietly seethe. I was behind two of the students who seemed particularly upset (they both worked for unions). They'd scribble angry notes to each other.

After my many years as a student, I sympathized, but it was nice to see the shoe on the other foot for a change.

Oh, by the way, I believe it is spelt Hahvahrd. Did you think I'd be impressed?
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2005, 08:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
I took a class on labor law and there were two professors. One was from the NLRB and the other was a blunt spoken employer's lawyer.
I think that's the way to go. Otherwise we'd just be replacing narrow-minded liberals with narrow-minded conservatives. Anyone who thinks we can populate the English departments of our universities with conservatives (or, for that matter, populate the business schools with liberals) is dreaming anyway.

I think the quality of the teaching - the ability to foster critical and independent thinking - is more important than the particular leanings of the teacher. We need better teachers, not necessarily more conservative ones. But if there were a way to create more balance without simply substituting one form of group-think for another, I would be in favor of it.
     
zerostar
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2005, 08:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
I know liberals never seem to get this, so let's ask it as a question. How does a near monopoly of one political point of view improve higher education?
I am not a liberal, or were you referring to someone else?

I don't see it improving or hindering higher education. We are still talking about good professors here, are we not?

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
I avoid the very political classes.
I don't have any first hand information about Georgetown, but perhaps you should sit in on a political class and conclude form there.

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
They'd just quietly seethe.
Oh the hindrance!

Oh, by the way, I believe it is spelt Hahvahrd. Did you think I'd be impressed?
Are you trying to be funny or is that the tact an education in DC gets you. ;p
     
Krusty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Always within bluetooth range
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2005, 09:12 PM
 
Hmmm .. isn't the stereotypical liberal a tree-hugger and the stereotypical conservative a greedy, self-serving, bast#ard ? So maybe conservatives are just much more prone to want to go into private enterprise and make $$$ rather than doing the touchy-feely (and less lucrative) work of academic research and teaching??

Also, remember that the 52/48 ratio of the last election is rather an anomaly in the last 50 years. Even when we've had conservative Presidents we had liberal congressional representation up until very recently. Do we expect the breakup of college professors to instantly change to match voting patterns with every election ?

Additionally, think about what really goes on at Universities. The are generally NOT profit-centered institutions (though budget balancing, grants etc. are hugely important). The mission and funding of Universities is completely different than your standard for-profit corporation. Doesn't it seem like a type of endeavor that would be more attractive to liberals ?? Conversely, if you were to look at corporations the way that this study looked at Universities and polled their executive officers, wouldn't you expect the results to be roughly flip flopped?

Person 1: Isn't horribly concerned with money, just want to be comfortable. Is horribly curious about, say, the sex lives of butterflies. Thinks that finding out about the sex life of butterflies is wonderful occupation and that gaining and sharing that knowledge is its own reward.

Person 2: Things like NSF grants to study the sex lives of butterflies is just a waste ... the knowledge gained really isn't of much value if the knowledge can't be used for profit. Doesn't like the idea of tax dollars being taken out of his pocket to pay for butterfly studies.

Tell me ... which person's philosophy would you think to be more inline with academia as a profession ? Honestly, it seems odd to me that someone could be a conservative and work in a profession that relies so heavily on public funding.
     
SVass
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Washington state
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2005, 09:14 PM
 
<<I know liberals never seem to get this, so let's ask it as a question. How does a near monopoly of one political point of view improve higher education?>>

Maybe he was referring to me! Actually, I consider myself a libertarian and I dislike all governments immensely. Republicans keep trying to eliminate the right to SUE the b***tards. They can't read the tenth amendment. Also, my time at MIT taught me that Hahvahd was not a great school, just well known. I also note that once they had a "reverse" quota system. Jews were limited to less than a specific percentage of the student body. I am a Democrat only because they are the only choice. I've been in dc and know a few other libertarians who are at the other extreme from me and they are nice people. Those wedded to the powerful don't understand that real people in this country think that those seeking power and money are all crooks. sam
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2005, 09:31 PM
 
I've never met a Republican history teacher. Conservative, but never Republican.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2005, 10:34 PM
 
"Study finds hillbillies to lean further to the right than even the most conspiratorial liberals might have imagined"
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 05:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
I'm not sure what it is exactly that you are arguing here. The subject we are discussing is the extent to which the political makeup of university faculty is seriously out of alignment with the country as a whole. 87% self-described liberals to 13% self-described conservatives compared to a country which in the last election voted 52% to 48% Republican verses Democrat. That's not a small disparity.

Somehow you seem to have done one of two things, and I am not quite sure which it is. Either you are justifying the disparity on the grounds that "it can have an influence" in 20 or 30 years. In which case, that sounds to me to be dangerously close to arguing for political indoctrination. I don't believe that even many university professors would openly admit to that as a legitimate goal of higher education.

Alternatively, you are perhaps shifting the issue to college students -- perhaps on the assumption that college students are as overwhelmingly left wing as their professors. That's off topic, but if that is your argument, I think it is wrong. The young are probably a litte to the left of the general population (18 to 29 year olds, for example, were the only age group that John Kerry won in the election). But the disparity is nowhere near as big as the disparity among college faculty. 18 to 29 year olds voted Democrat 54% to 45%, not 87% to 13%. Link

So, if you are trying to go off topic by discussing students rather than their faculty, it still seems to be the case that the faculty are far to the left of their students. The questions are therefore still A. Why? And B. How is this good for academic discourse and the goal of education?
Again: I'm saying that the (be it perceived or not) disparity of employment of liberals vs. conservatives does not seem to have negative side effects that you assume it does (this is a conclusion of the voting behavior and the figures you mentioned support that claim beautifully). Furthermore, universities are supposedly a lot more liberal for decades now, hence, if there were any side-effects, as you claim there are, the generation that went to universities and colleges 30 years ago (i. e. the generation that is in power now) should show `symptoms' of tree hugging and outbreaks of leftism. That is not the case. Just look at your statistics.

And lastly, I do think it has an influence on students, but in a different way than you imagine. What was considered conservative 30 years ago is not what is conservative now. The same is true for liberalism, of course. In many ways, especially when it comes to rights for minorities (or women which are technically not a minority), the US (and most other countries in the world) are far more advanced.

So, I don't see that your fears about indoctrination of students to have any (measurable) effect on society. Since I am in natural sciences/math, politics have very little/no influence whatsoever. If you are studying law or business, the situation might be different, but a liberal math professor probably won't hurt a conservative students with bad grades in spectral theory
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 05:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
Even a good professor is still the Lord of the Grading Pen, not to mention Creator of the Syllabus. The professor's politics is bound to influence the way the class unfolds, and how the students interact. Individually, that doesn't matter. But when it is in effect entire departments, and practically the whole university that is all thinking the same, the result is an education that is warped and stunted. It's one that revels in and promotes groupthink even if that isn't the deliberate intent. It's an inevitable effect of eliminating any challenge to their worldview.
Well, but what classes do involve political points of views as part of the course? You studied law, so the answer is different than for many other students who study something technical. In any case I think you overestimate the effect is has on grades.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 06:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by zigzag
I think that's the way to go. Otherwise we'd just be replacing narrow-minded liberals with narrow-minded conservatives. Anyone who thinks we can populate the English departments of our universities with conservatives (or, for that matter, populate the business schools with liberals) is dreaming anyway.

I think the quality of the teaching - the ability to foster critical and independent thinking - is more important than the particular leanings of the teacher. We need better teachers, not necessarily more conservative ones. But if there were a way to create more balance without simply substituting one form of group-think for another, I would be in favor of it.
Sure, ideally the two professor model is the way to go. But it is also a very expensive way to go -- unless as in my example we use adjuncts who are paid a pittance. Failing that universities should try to do something to overcome the absurd disparity that exists now. I'm not talking about replacing the entire faculty with conservatives overnight (or indeed at all). Just 1. admit there is a problem with political balance, and 2. work to overcome it.

More broadly than responding to your post alone:

There seem to be some assumptions I'd like to challenge. One is that I'm suggesting that students are graded according to their political philosophy. I'm sure that does happen occasionally, but I don't think it is usually that overt. In my experience most professors are like cats. They purr when you stroke them the way they like. The really good ones are most happy when they meet a genuine independent thinker, and in those cases it can be an advantage to disagree with them politically. But in most cases it is wise to pretty much agree (whether or not you do genuinely). The primary effect is that students bite their tongues and parrot, so the question of whether the teacher would grade them differently if they didn't is never reached. Actually, I think most professors wouldn't consciously grade differently. But it's their subconscious that students with incompatible views fear.

Secondly, when everyone in a faculty has the same worldview, that worldview becomes entrenched in other ways to do with curriculum, etc. The professor's influence doesn't end at the classroom. Further, it affects what scholarship the professors look at, and what they publish over. In too many departments the hot academic debates are between the left and the further left. Liberal scholars are entrenched in universities where conservatives have long since been pushed out. Conservative scholars (and dispite some assertions in this thread, they do exist) are mostly out in foundation land. That's partly why conservative think tanks are so influential compared to liberal ones. Their contribution is therefore lost to the universities, and the universities are therefore the poorer for it. A genuine academic debate is replaced with something less vigorous, and weak ideas go unchallenged. The ideas themselves are the losers.

I think liberals are mostly in denial about this simply because they are in the position of being in the massive majority on campus, and they happen to like that. If it was 87% conservatives on campus, I am sure they would find an issue here. But 87% conservatives would be a problem too. It should be somewhat closer to 50%.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Apr 18, 2005 at 06:54 AM. )
     
Zimphire  (op)
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2005, 07:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by kemuri
You're reading into it what you want. You can equally point to other reasons why there is a disparity here, but, it seems like some don't want to consider that.
You are assuming. I considered many other reasons FIRST. Then after reading a bit more, and reading simey's post, I have an OPINION.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2005, 10:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Zimphire
You are assuming. I considered many other reasons FIRST. Then after reading a bit more, and reading simey's post, I have an OPINION.
Your opinion is always the same. Whatever's happening, it's the Democrats' fault.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2005, 11:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
Liberalism is about diversity and new ideas while conservatism is about holding strictly to old ideas
Maybe by definition, but not in reality when one actually pays attention to what is going on in the world.

Witness conservatives pushing for reform of the Middle East, Social Security, Meducare, Education, the tax code, etc.

Meanwhile, the liberal left does everything to obstruct such reforms to maintain the inefficient, bloated, ineffective status quo.
     
SVass
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Washington state
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2005, 01:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by spacefreak
Maybe by definition, but not in reality when one actually pays attention to what is going on in the world.

Witness conservatives pushing for reform of the Middle East, Social Security, Meducare, Education, the tax code, etc.

Meanwhile, the liberal left does everything to obstruct such reforms to maintain the inefficient, bloated, ineffective status quo.
The conservatives installed the kings in the Middle East and have supported their governments. Even now, they want elections but not constitutional protections such as trial by jury. Social Security, Medicare, and Education reforms are attempts to steal money while tax "reform" is an attempt to expand taxes for the lower/middle class while eliminating them for the wealthy.

As an example, why don't conservatives support a flat tax on ALL income instead of "earned" income which allows them to redefine their personal income out of the available pool. (capital gains, dividends, IRAs, employee benefits, etc.) By the way, the biggest bloat is in the private sector-30% of health care cost is administrative and 21% of manufactured product cost is "management" sam
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:16 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,