Higher education leans left: why?

ultrafilter writes:

> It’s not necessarily quite as simple as that. If you look at a map of the 2004 US
> election results broken up by district, you’ll note that the bluest parts of the
> map are nearest the major cities, where you have (on average) wealthier
> people.
>
> Of course, it’s also not necessarily as simple as saying that the Republicans are
> conservative and the Democrats are liberal…

This post was in reply to Richard Parker, who said that wealth correlates with conservatism. It’s in fact even more complicated that this. On the average, wealth correlates with conservatism, but it’s only a modest correlation. There’s also a correlation between liberalism and coming from urban areas rather than a rural one, but again it’s more complicated. Suburbs don’t tend to be particularly liberal. Big cities tend to more clearly be liberal. In general, predicting whether someone will be liberal or conservative based on how close they live to a big city, how much money they make, how much education they have, what part of the country they live in, what racial and ethnic ancestry they have, whether they are male or female, how religious they are, etc., is very complicated. If you asked someone about all of these things and probably a few more such things, you could reasonably well predict someone’s liberalism/conservatism, but it would take all of these things.

I think it’s interesting that no one has given any real statistics on the liberalism/conservatism of academics. Does anyone know of such statistics? Is there any correlation with the academic field in which they teach? Is there any correlation with the academic quality of the university or of the department? Are there any accurate, comprehensive statistics about this? The only surveys I’ve seen in articles about this subject are surveys of half a dozen departments in half a dozen universities, deliberately chosen I think to be the most liberal departments in the most liberal universities. I’d like to see far more comprehensive statistics.

My memories of college and grad school were that the opportunities that you had to be affected by the political beliefs of your professors were actually fairly small. I was much more affected by the bull sessions with my fellow students than my interactions with my professors when I was an undergraduate. Grad school I mostly remember as being years of never getting enough sleep, never having enough money, working like crazy to get through the material, and not even being that much affected by fellow students, let alone my professors.

I did most of my undergrad work at a college that was very liberal. On average, I suspect, most of the students are still moderately liberal. There was hardly any consensus even in that, though. The only two alumni of the college that might be recognized in national politics are moderate Republicans.

One of the most accurate things I’ve read about college students being affected by liberal professors was an article in The Weekly Standard, a moderately conservative magazine, several years ago. One of the editors spent a semester teaching at a well known university generally considered fairly liberal. This editor’s conclusions were that, first, the students were no more liberal on graduating from the university than when they arrived. They were slightly more liberal than the average American, perhaps, but so were their parents. The sort of parents who wanted to send their children to this university are somewhat liberal on average. The editor’s other conclusion was that students are not nearly so easily swayed by professors’ opinions as people think. The students would discuss among themselves which professors were weirdly liberal (or weirdly conservative, I presume) and warn other students about them. They would joke about them, not be persuaded by them. Again, students are more affected by other students than by professors.

As I mentioned before, HERI would probably end up being the best source. I was hoping someone had their mitts on a more recent copy, because our resource room has an OLD one–1989.

They surveyed over 35,000 faculty at 2- and 4-yr institutions. Faculty at 4-year institutions self-identified as follows:

Far left 5.7%
Liberal 39.5%
Moderate 38.8%
Conservative 15.7%
Far Right .4%

Thay also asked about things like agreement with the death penalty, views on taxes, abortion, etc. Good stuff. The report I have is just straight percentages. They did not break it down by the things you ask about (beyond 2-yr/4-yr, public/private, University vs. LAC) but they could, and I’ll bet they have. My resources on faculty just aren’t very comprehensive, alas.

I’ve also got similary dated results (published the same year) from The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching , a report called “The Condition of the Professoriate.” Perhaps they’ve redone this more recently? Anyway, they asked it slightly differently. 5,000 faculty surveyed at 2- and 4-yr institutions. Faculty at 4-year institutions self-identified as follows:

Liberal - 29%
Moderately Liberal - 33%
Middle-of-the-Road – 15%
Mod. Conservative – 18%
Conservative – 5%

They provide a breakdown by academic area, but this includes all faculty again (not just those at 4-yr schools), too bad I’m a lazy government employee/academic who doesn’t want to type it all out. Engineering and business (the latter weirdly combined with communications) depart from this most (Engineering 36% Cons or Mod Cons; Business & Comm 39% Cons. or Mod. Cons.) Social sciences and humanities leaned most liberal. Research institutions leaned the most liberal, as did faculty under 40.

AFAIK, the previously big comprehensive study on political attitudes of faculty was done by Ladd & Lipsett in the late 1960s. Their book is still pretty good reading, even though the times they have a-changed in higher ed.

Incidentally, HERI also does (and is better known for) a big survey of incoming freshmen each year. Most notably for your second quoted paragraph, they do some follow-ups of seniors. The findings bear out what you’re reporting. Generally the change in self-reported political leanings isn’t very great. Conservative freshmen stay conservative, liberal freshmen stay liberal. The ‘extremist’ on both sides tend to get less extreme, but otherwise, not notable change.

Errmm . . . no. The New Republic is a moderately conservative (formerly moderately liberal) magazine. The Weekly Standard is a way-over-the-top neocon magazine.

I would consider The American Spectator to be a wildly over-the-top conservative publication. The National Review seems to me to be a solidly, but not wildly over-the-top, conservative publication. The Weekly Standard seems to be a definitely conservative publication, but not quite so much so as The National Review. The New Republic seems to shift back and forth between being slightly liberal to being slightly conservative. I’m no expert on any of these magazines, though, so it’s possible I’m out of date on them. My reading consists of magazines like The New York Review of Books, Harper’s, and The Atlantic.

Out of curiousity, how would you describe those in terms of ideology?

Is this the same guy who keeps suggesting that academia leans left simply because they’re smarter? Why not apply the same logic: if all the top economists are capitalists…

Exactly the opposite. Conservatism dictates that economics is NOT a zero sum game.

When it suits their purposes…i.e., when they want to justify giving more tax breaks to the wealthy.

However, if it comes to programs to help the poor, conservatives generally seem to believe it is a zero-sum game (e.g., they don’t see any inherent advantage to controlling the explosion of inequality). And, conservatives also tend to see a zero sum game when it comes to the environment and the economy.

That’s crazy talk! :smiley:

Everyone spends all their time thinking about stuff.

What do you think people that run the world’s top companies are doing? Thinking about how to get richer, how to increase their market share, how to increase efficiency, how to increase their benefits package.

And then you have entire accounting departments all “thinking about stuff” and many businesses have economists on staff who “think about stuff” in a very similar manner that academics do.

Also, progressive != liberal in my opinion, the most progressive Presidents in the United States were all staunch conservatives. Of course you’ve ill-defined what you really mean when you say progressive. And you also seem to misunderstand what conservatism is. Conservatism doesn’t believe in not changing, it believes in changing incrementally after careful consideration and when it is necessary, and in a manner that does not upset society. One definition of “progressive” is to change incrementally, and that’s precisely synonymous with how conservatives (philosophical conservatives not the swathe of religious conservatives that are actually more appropriately labelled reactionaries) this idea that conservatism is about not-changing is stupid. Burke realized that change isn’t something you can stop, nor is it smart to try and do so. Conservatism and liberalism differ on how they promote and react to change, not in that one believes in remaining static and the other believes in moving forward.

To move away from your post, a lot of the generalizations in this thread are, in my opinion, off-base.

Some I think that are way off base:

  1. Religion = distrust of higher education = less conservatives in higher education.

This is patently not true in the light of historical fact. Catholicism has a long history of promoting higher education, and several catholic institutions are considered to be top universities in the world (Notre Dame, Georgetown etc.) And throughout the history of catholicism some of our greatest thinkers have been people who deeply analyze their religious ideology and critique it, it’s very inaccurate to portray religion as a whole to be purely based on unconditional acceptance.

Protestant fundamentalists are of course a different bag entirely. But because of how anathema they are to the SDMB I think fundamentalists are considered to be a much large group than they actually are. Christian fundamentalists are small enough that statistically I don’t think using them to explain an entire trend makes sense at all.

  1. Academia is synonymous with having higher intellect than other fields

This is also a poor generalization. Tenured Ph.D. professors are at the top of their field, and even the dumbest ones have a very high degree of proficiency and “intelligence” when it comes to their given specialty. Comparing the upper-tier of academia to the entire business community for example isn’t very intuitive. Ph.D. professors should be prepared to the top-tier business people that have innovated and revolutionized business, and through shrewd intellect have created an enormous amount of wealth.

There’s a lot of people in “academia” that don’t have Ph.D’s, many lecturers have master’s degrees only. Many people in academia aren’t tenured professors. Many people in academia actually have a wide variety of other obligations that make it hard to classify them as “ivory tower” types.

Both soldiers and tenured professors produce economic value. They may not produce something of “monetary” value but that’s in and of itself not really accurate either.

Also, to a lot of degree top-executives are fairly shielded from day-to-day market pressures.

Bill Gates, S. Robson Walton, Rupert Murdoch, Warren Buffet, these guys are so entrenched in their corporations and have enough power via ownership of shares that removing effective control from them would be all but impossible. Eventhough Gates is just the chairman now, and no longer the CEO he is still so entrenched the idea of him being fired, no matter what Microsoft’s economic situation, is ludicrous.

Ted Turner used to be in a similar position, but he gave that power up himself with his merger.

What do you mean by “progressive”?

I was using it to mean “increment social/political change.” But my use of it is basically dependant on what the person whom I was quoting intended when he posted, until that’s clarified I’m not sure if my comments in regards to progressivism had anything to do with what he was talking about.

Absolutely untrue. A great many charities (soup kitchens, homeless shelters, crisis counseling centers, and so forth) have been established, funded and controlled by conservatives. Conservatives uphold the moral and sociological value of such charities. They believe that these charitable efforts will not only benefit the needy, but will ultimately be good for society as a whole.

Conservatives also recognize the value of letting more impoverished nations (such as China, India and the Philippines) compete with US workers for labor and job contracts. The belief is that providing these people with further employment opportunities will ultimately benefit everyone.

Of course, cynics will continue to insist that conservatives see no value in balancing out inequity. That is simply false. Conservatives differ from liberals in the MANNER by which inequity should be combatted, not in the principle itself.

Again, untrue. As Sam Stone already pointed out, conservative economic philosophy is **predicated ** on the fact that the economy is not a zero-sum game! This is why conservatives offer less opposition to immigration, for example; they believe that letting foreigners compete for US jobs (within limits) will ultimately benefit everyone.

As for the environment, in what manner does conservativism treat it as a zero-sum game? I’m not at all clear on what you mean by that. It’s certainly true that conservatives would strike a different balance between the environment and, say, the economy or technological progress, but that is hardly the same as treating it to be a zero-sum game.

I think it’s the same reason why people in cities tend to lean towards the left.

College is the first time a lot of people are around a diverse group of people. I started school knowing a guy who was of the “love the sinner, hate the sin” attitude about gays. He happened to get placed with the most amazingly fabulous fur-coat wearing french-speaking lisping president of the LGBT club. His attitudes changed pretty quickly. It’s hard to rail against illegal immigrants when you are talking about barring your neighbor from hospitals. It’s hard to say the poor should just work harder when you know your scholarship housemate spends her weekends working to send money back home while you party.

In short, exposure to a large variety of different people has a liberalizing effect.

Hmm? Many, probably most, conservatives take just the opposite view!

Which is also how you defined “conservative.”

“You keep using that word . . . I don’t think it means what you think it does . . .”

Not sure what you mean by that. It’s common knowledge that conservatives tend to support the H-1B work visa program, for example, which allows skilled foreigners to compete with US citizens for high-tech jobs.

It’s the liberals that complain about allowing relatively impoverished foreigners to compete on these grounds. As the article that I cited complains, “[Conservatives] employ the myth that there are not enough highly skilled technical workers with new skills coming along in the U.S. to accommodate the needs of industry. It is a convenient myth for the Republican establishment to cling to.”

Conservatives believe that there should be certain restrictions on immigration, true. However, they do not generally oppose immigration per se, despite popular caricatures of their positions.

Depends on how you define “conservative.” Pat Buchanan and his America First Party certainly identify themselves as conservatives and would object violently to any other characterization. And they’re anti-immigration. Just read their magazine, The American Conservative.

Sam Stone writes:

> Out of curiousity, how would you describe those in terms of ideology?

This has nothing to do with my point, but I would say that The New York Review of Books and The Atlantic are moderately liberal. Harper’s is somewhat more liberal, so perhaps solidly liberal would be a good description. But I hate this kind of wandering off the point. My original point was that an editor at The Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine, wrote the article I was quoting. Whether The Weekly Standard is moderately conservative or wildly conservative is irrelevant to the point that I was making.