[Zimphire]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...v=rss_politics

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.

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

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."

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.

[demograph68]

Is this for more liberal/conservative debate? Can't we just agree on something for once without picking sides?

[Zimphire]

Naw, just proving a point I made long ago.

Nothing to see here.

[demograph68]

It's likely to swing both ways.

[Stradlater]

"A new study finds that more high school dropouts than once thought are conservative!"

What's the point of this thread?

[Zimphire]

What study was that?
And if you read my post before yours, your second question would be answered.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

What study was that?

Maybe it was college dropouts...or maybe it was more democrats are college graduates. Anyways, it was a joke, mostly.

And if you read my post before yours, your second question would be answered.

"Naw, just proving a point I made long ago.

Nothing to see here." You mention a point...you don't answer my question by explaining it, though.

[Zimphire]

You asked me what the point of this thread was.

And as I said before, to prove something I said awhile back.

That is all.

You didn't even have to comment.

[Ω]

Was the point that Liberals are smarter?

[Zimphire]

You didn't read the article did you?

[nath]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

You didn't read the article did you?

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.

Actually he has a point. If there actually is a sliding scale as this quote suggests (with the ratio of 'liberalism' increasing in line with the level of intelligence) then that would appear to be true.

It's funny isn't it, that this trend is not only restricted to academia but extends to science and medicine as well. Seems like wherever there are large groups of intelligent people to be found, there is a visible paucity of right wingers.

[Ω]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

You didn't read the article did you?

That smart people are discriminating against stupid people?

[analogika]

It's a natural result of edumacation.

[von Wrangell]

It's no surprise that the more educated you become the more liberal you become. Thanks for proving that.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by nath

Actually he has a point. If there actually is a sliding scale as this quote suggests (with the ratio of 'liberalism' increasing in line with the level of intelligence) then that would appear to be true.

Oh puhlease. If colleges and universities hired strictly on the basis of blind IQ tests or another objective measure of intelligence, then maybe you would have a point. But they don't of course. They hire people they want to work with.

If this was a racial or gender imbalance of this magnitude rather than political, nobody would have any trouble seeing what is really to blame. It's most likely a combination of active discrimination, or its more passive cousin the hostile workplace.

For example, if out of a 50:50 applicant pool of men and women the hiring came out as 75/25 male to female, would you stand up and argue that means that men are smarter than women? Or would the imbalance suggest that perhaps an entrenched group was excluding applicants who aren't like them. I suggest the latter is more likely.

College faculties spend a great deal of time and effort arguing the importance of diversity. Their express position is that diversity adds viewpoints to the classroom, and enhances the eductional experience. Too bad the academy seems to have systematically stamped diversity of though out.

[nath]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Oh puhlease. If colleges and universities hired strictly on the basis of blind IQ tests or another objective measure of intelligence, then maybe you would have a point. But they don't of course. They hire people they want to work with.

If this was a racial or gender imbalance of this magnitude rather than political, nobody would have any trouble seeing what is really to blame. It's most likely a combination of active discrimination, or its more passive cousin the hostile workplace.

For example, if out of a 50:50 applicant pool of men and women the hiring came out as 75/25 male to female, would you stand up and argue that means that men are smarter than women? Or would the imbalance suggest that perhaps an entrenched group was excluding applicants who aren't like them. I suggest the latter is more likely.

College faculties spend a great deal of time and effort arguing the importance of diversity. Their express position is that diversity adds viewpoints to the classroom, and enhances the eductional experience. Too bad the academy seems to have systematically stamped diversity of though out.

Which is all very nice, but nothing to do with the portion of my post you kneejerked to.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

College faculties spend a great deal of time and effort arguing the importance of diversity. Their express position is that diversity adds viewpoints to the classroom, and enhances the eductional experience. Too bad the academy seems to have systematically stamped diversity of though out.

lib�er�al P Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.

Compared to:

con�ser�va�tive P Pronunciation Key (kn-s�rv-tv)
adj.
Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
Conservative Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
Conservative Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.
Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.

n.
One favoring traditional views and values.
A supporter of political conservatism.
Conservative A member or supporter of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
Archaic. A preservative agent or principle.


Liberalism is about diversity and new ideas while conservatism is about holding strictly to old ideas

[OldManMac]

This makes perfect sense. People who go to college realize that one doesn't stop learning new things, just because one graduates from high school, and that learning is a never ending process, as opposed to settling into a routine and clinging to what one learned in the past. Life is an evolving process, that involves change. Some people fear the unknown, so they travel a route that they consider safe, and defend conformity with more energy than they would expend if they simply tried something new.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by KarlG

Some people fear the unknown, so they travel a route that they consider safe, and defend conformity with more energy than they would expend if they simply tried something new.

You mean like staying in the cocoon of education for the rest of their lives protected by tenure and a clubby old boys network of like thinkers?

[demograph68]

http://www.alternet.org/story/21715/

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by demograph68

http://www.alternet.org/story/21715/

Interesting part of the article.

"In addition, a basic insecurity plagues conservatives today, a fear that their reign will be short or a gnawing doubt about their legitimacy. Dissenting voices cannot be tolerated, because they imply that a conservative future may not last forever. One Noam Chomsky is one too many. Angst besets the triumphant conservatives. Those who purge Darwin from America's schools must yell in order to drown out their own misgivings, the inchoate realization that they are barking at the moon."

[OreoCookie]

The majority in Congress, the Presidency, and many other political posts are in the firm hands of Conservatives right now. What does that say?

Assuming the statistics have any validity: does that also imply that the universities' professorships should be redistributed in accordance with the current proportion in Congress/State parliaments?

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by nath

Actually he has a point. If there actually is a sliding scale as this quote suggests (with the ratio of 'liberalism' increasing in line with the level of intelligence) then that would appear to be true.

It's funny isn't it, that this trend is not only restricted to academia but extends to science and medicine as well. Seems like wherever there are large groups of intelligent people to be found, there is a visible paucity of right wingers.

OR that they are being discriminated against. Which the article claims.

AGAIN, you didn't read the article.

You liberals in this thread surely aren't showing how smart you are.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

The majority in Congress, the Presidency, and many other political posts are in the firm hands of Conservatives right now. What does that say?

Assuming the statistics have any validity: does that also imply that the universities' professorships should be redistributed in accordance with the current proportion in Congress/State parliaments?

No, it would just be nice if universities (especially publicly funded ones) looked a bit more like America. Universities are supposed to be places where ideas are exchanged and debated, but that is hard to do when the ideas themselves have become ossified and balkanized from the rest of society.

A little more diversity on campus would go a long way toward reinvigorating higher education and making academic ideas more relevant to the rest of society. As it is right now, universities have lost a lot of their former influence and prestige precisely because they have become too polititicized. See here for an interesting op-ed on that point.

Another issue is that over politicization hurts students. It's very east to get caught up in the crap that passes for scholarship these days, but at some point you have to show your transcript to an employer who might very well be less inpressed by your A in "Feminism and the Law" and might instead pass you over in favor of someone who took a hard subject like "Federal Courts and the Federal System." Don't think I am making this up because I know people who interview students who do exactly that. Students with too many politicized fluffy courses don't get offers. The reputations of whole universities can tar their students in this way. Brown (which doesn't have a law school) or Berkely come to mind as schools with a reputation for fluffyness that employers don't necessarily like. Compare that to, say, Chicago, which has a general reputation for rigor.

Anyway, this is an issue that has been building for many years. At first there was denial. Now at least that seems to be breaking down. In another ten years maybe the cloistered and pampered academe will admit they have painted themselves into a tenured corner. In the mean time, I recommend withholding alumni gifts and returning the envelopes with a note asking for more diversity among the faculty. Professors and universities don't listen to their students, but they are remarkably attentive when it starts impacting their wallets.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

You mean like staying in the cocoon of education for the rest of their lives protected by tenure and a clubby old boys network of like thinkers?

Exactly. Left wing wackos like to gravitate towards jobs with tenure.

That way they can say compare people that died in the WTC attack to nazis and still keep their job.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

OR that they are being discriminated against. Which the article claims.

AGAIN, you didn't read the article.

You liberals in this thread surely aren't showing how smart you are.

I did read the article Zimmie. I just noticed that it also demonstrated something I thought you might have missed. Turns out I was right.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

The majority in Congress, the Presidency, and many other political posts are in the firm hands of Conservatives right now. What does that say?

It says more Republicans were voted in. Not that more righties deserved it or are smarter than the rest of the left.

But hey. I can admit it.

Unlike others here.

[kemuri]

We can now hope that the next generation of politicians might not be such evil bastards.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by nath

I did read the article Zimmie.

SO you were just being dishonest. Typical

I just noticed that it also demonstrated something I thought you might have missed.

No, I read the article.

Turns out I was right.

Nope. Not Even Close.

[kemuri]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

No, it would just be nice if universities (especially publicly funded ones) looked a bit more like America. Universities are supposed to be places where ideas are exchanged and debated, but that is hard to do when the ideas themselves have become ossified and balkanized from the rest of society.

I'd be interested in reading about any cases of discrimination. Not assumptions, or conjecture, but actual figures on this.

[Zimphire]

kemuri one would only have to look at the percentages of people that graduated with such degrees, and compare to who actually gets them.

It's not secret that left wing colleges (Which consists of most colleges now a days) hire left wing professors.

You are going to see a influx of people questioning this more and more as time goes by.

I know certain colleges that wont like this.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

No, I read the article.

So you'll know the data pool is six years old then?

[kemuri]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

kemuri one would only have to look at the percentages of people that graduated with such degrees, and compare to who actually gets them.

So you think this automatically means they are being discriminated against? Perhaps there is just a greater number of left-wing (sad how it must be either Dem. or Rep.) kids out there who choose to go into further education.

One other option to consider, is that the Rep. students just don't have the grades to graduate. Long shot, but that's a possibility.


Until you can demonstrate actual cases in which students are being denied entry, or graduation based on their politics, any theory is just as likely as the next.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by kemuri

I'd be interested in reading about any cases of discrimination. Not assumptions, or conjecture, but actual figures on this.

That's almost always impossible to prove. The decisions are not transparent. If someone isn't hired, they aren't hired. Employers don't have to report the reasons why to anyone (and if they did, they wouldn't say "we didn't hire him because we didn't like his politics").

The same thing goes for decisions not to promote or offer tenure. It's not a transparent system of the type that would produce statistics.

In other forms of discrimination such as race or gender, a massive disparity between the applicant pool and the employer's work force is taken as prima facie evidence of discrimination. It's not absolute proof, but it creates a presumption that has to be rebutted. Of course, that is importing concepts from discrimination law that don't apply here. But they are illustrations of how we get around the fact that the practical lack of statistics doesn't mean that all is well.

In this case, there is a massive disparity between society as a whole and the academe. It strains credulity to suppose it just happened by chance. That doesn't mean that it was part of a deliberate plot, but some conscious or unconscious mechanism is at work. In my opinion, most likely a combination of actual deliberate discrimination, and a hostile work place that more subtly discourages applicants who would upset the club.

Originally Posted by kemuri

Until you can demonstrate actual cases in which students are being denied entry, or graduation based on their politics, any theory is just as likely as the next.

Nobody is suggesting that. This is about faculty hiring, not student admissions or metriculation.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by nath

So you'll know the data pool is six years old then?

nath that is irrelevant.

Tell us, do you think things have changed any?

You keep coming up with these totally awesome posts that really have no relevance.

WAY TO GO!!11`1


U R TEH W1NN3R

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

In this case, there is a massive disparity between society as a whole and the academe. It strains credulity to suppose it just happened by chance. That doesn't mean that it was part of a deliberate plot, but some conscious or unconscious mechanism is at work. In my opinion, most likely a combination of actual deliberate discrimination, and a hostile work place that more subtly discourages applicants who would upset the club.

Indeed. There is something going on funky there.

Unless they can show that 70+ or so percentages of people that graduate with teaching degrees are liberal.

The newspaper I used to work tried it's best to hire people they new to be liberal.

It's biting them in the ass though. They had to fire two people over the last year because they kept adding highly subjective propaganda to stories to spread their left wing agenda.

Considering this is a pretty conservative town, it didn't go over very well, and now the Newspaper is having problems.

I am glad I got out of there when I did.

[kemuri]

This sounds like fear by the Republicans due to an actual decrease in their minions in higher ed. Or, that they can't get their heads round the fact that maybe, just maybe, the youth of today are turning to left-wing ideas and politics, and entering higher edu.

So, if that's the case, and if we can't show reasonable numbers in regards to discrimination. Should we then just allow people to enter higher edu. based on a quota system? That it's no longer on merit, but to just balance out the political spectrum?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

The newspaper I used to work tried it's best to hire people they new to be liberal.

You are a conservative, right?

If so the quote above might have something to do with it. You know such silly stuff as grammar and spelling.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

nath that is irrelevant.

Tell us, do you think things have changed any?

I don't know. But then neither do you, as the data is six years old. That's a long time in any working environment.

And I think you are being a little silly about this. The age of the data used in the report you posted is relevant to any conclusions you are attempting to draw from it. Only a fool would suggest otherwise.

Thanks for playing though.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by kemuri

This sounds like fear by the Republicans due to an actual decrease in their minions in higher ed. Or, that they can't get their heads round the fact that maybe, just maybe, the youth of today are turning to left-wing ideas and politics, and entering higher edu.

So, if that's the case, and if we can't show reasonable numbers in regards to discrimination. Should we then just allow people to enter higher edu. based on a quota system? That it's no longer on merit, but to just balance out the political spectrum?

No, it's always been like this. This isn't something new. This study isn't a recent one either.

So no.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

You are a conservative, right?

If so the quote above might have something to do with it. You know such silly stuff as grammar and spelling.

Yeah I didn't add a K, big woop.

Does suzy want a dress?

I am glad all lefty's are as petty.

[kemuri]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

That's almost always impossible to prove. The decisions are not transparent. If someone isn't hired, they aren't hired. Employers don't have to report the reasons why to anyone (and if they did, they wouldn't say "we didn't hire him because we didn't like his politics").

So, it's an assumption which is being touted as discrimination. Well, let's take into account the other situations which could account for the lack of a Rep. presence.

Nobody is suggesting that. This is about faculty hiring, not student admissions or metriculation.

My mistake. My thoughts can be applied to the hiring of faculty instead.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Yeah I didn't add a K, big woop.

Does suzy want a dress?

I am glad all lefty's are as petty.

I was joking man!

Why are you so uptight?

[kemuri]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

No, it's always been like this. This isn't something new. This study isn't a recent one either.

So no.

A study that notes a disparity in numbers. How is it automatically assumed to be discrimination? I'm not ruling it out, but there are other reasons for why this is the case. I'm just surprised not many here are pointing that out.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

No, it would just be nice if universities (especially publicly funded ones) looked a bit more like America. Universities are supposed to be places where ideas are exchanged and debated, but that is hard to do when the ideas themselves have become ossified and balkanized from the rest of society.

A little more diversity on campus would go a long way toward reinvigorating higher education and making academic ideas more relevant to the rest of society. As it is right now, universities have lost a lot of their former influence and prestige precisely because they have become too polititicized. See here for an interesting op-ed on that point.

Another issue is that over politicization hurts students. It's very east to get caught up in the crap that passes for scholarship these days, but at some point you have to show your transcript to an employer who might very well be less inpressed by your A in "Feminism and the Law" and might instead pass you over in favor of someone who took a hard subject like "Federal Courts and the Federal System." Don't think I am making this up because I know people who interview students who do exactly that. Students with too many politicized fluffy courses don't get offers. The reputations of whole universities can tar their students in this way. Brown (which doesn't have a law school) or Berkely come to mind as schools with a reputation for fluffyness that employers don't necessarily like. Compare that to, say, Chicago, which has a general reputation for rigor.

Anyway, this is an issue that has been building for many years. At first there was denial. Now at least that seems to be breaking down. In another ten years maybe the cloistered and pampered academe will admit they have painted themselves into a tenured corner. In the mean time, I recommend withholding alumni gifts and returning the envelopes with a note asking for more diversity among the faculty. Professors and universities don't listen to their students, but they are remarkably attentive when it starts impacting their wallets.

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.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by kemuri

So, it's an assumption which is being touted as discrimination. Well, let's take into account the other situations which could account for the lack of a Rep. presence.

Did you not read the article?

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Why are you so uptight?

I am not the one following people around being a grammer nazi.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

It says more Republicans were voted in. Not that more righties deserved it or are smarter than the rest of the left.

But hey. I can admit it.

Unlike others here.

You didn't answer my question.

[kemuri]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Did you not read the article?

I skimmed over what you posted at the top. I missed the part on this being about faculties.

Happens when you're reading the Net with a glass of wine in one hand.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by kemuri

A study that notes a disparity in numbers. How is it automatically assumed to be discrimination? I'm not ruling it out, but there are other reasons for why this is the case. I'm just surprised not many here are pointing that out.

I am not saying it is 100% discrimination.

I said signs point to yes.

There is no proof as Simey pointed out.

I would LOVE to be able to find out the percentages of college graduates that got a teaching degree that were Republican compared to Democrat.

While it does seem that liberals do tend to gravitate towards jobs with tenure,

I think there is something funny going on.

Or lets compare say Colleges with High Schools and Such.