I see. Which explains why most people become more conservative as they get older, right?
This is just another way of saying, “Liberals are smarter and/or more educated.” Nonsense.
And, of course, you can prove both of those statements.
Do so.
Interesting link, Sam. Especially the comments section, which notes that a couple of conservatives were misidentified as liberals, that Princeton – the #1 school in the U.S. News list – was excluded from the press release despite having a conservative speaker, notes some conservative speakers at other prestigious colleges, and has one comment that equates “moderates” with “liberals.” Sounds like spin to me.
I attended a small, private liberal-arts school in the Midwest. And there was certainly no shortage of liberal groups – the Black Student Alliance, GLAD/Allies, etc. But there was also large, active memberships in right-to-life groups, Campus Crusade for Christ, and the College Republicans. (In fact, the Republicans group was far larger than the Campus Democrats group.) I think a lot of it is a question of selective perception.
I also think people have overlooked Kimstu’s points about self-selection bias on the part of the people who are applying for jobs in higher education, about people whose qualities may legitimately clash with the stated mission of an institution, and about the extremely conservative colleges like Bob Jones. Surely you must be in favor of liberalizing Bob Jones in the name of balance. Right?
As long as the vast majority of colleges have a liberal bias, then no, I would not be in favor of necessarily seeking ‘balance’ at Bob Jones university, because the existence of that university is helping to provide balance amongst the university system as a whole.
I just think it is destructive to society to have an educational system that is biased far away from the mainstream. I don’t think that situation serves democracy well. It also feeds into this ridiculous myth that educated people are liberal and ignoramuses are conservative.
Well, then, how did this perilous situation come about? What massive source of power did the perfidious liberals leverage in order to pack the Universities with thier own kind?
If you state that the academic positions in colleges are mostly liberals, well then, aren’t you obligated to explain how it got that way?
The obvious first assumption must be that the majority of persons reaching that level of education are liberals, and that is a result of that educational experience. You contend that this is not so, that as many persons who pass to higher academic standing are conservative, but by some mechanism as yet unspecified, they are not equally represented.
Well, then, if we are to be dissuaded from the obvioius explanation, what is the true explanation? Dark skullduggery from the Comintern? Satanism? Flouride in the water supply? An unwholesome alliance with the Liberal Media?
If they aren’t smarter than you, how come they outsmarted you?
It was certainly my personal experience that the liberal arts departments of the university were overstocked with (stereo-) typical “liberal types” as instructors. That was quite a few years ago. But it’s the only personal experience I’ve got.
And it was annoying and, in retrospect, detrimental to learning. One might think it would be provocative; perhaps that’s so for grad students. But undergrads usually lack the personal resources to challenge “the teacher,” who holds so much of his/her fate in their hands. And few have the guts to be skewered (often with erudite wit) in front of a classroom trained to laugh. So–silent pretended acceptance, and cynicism.
Do I need to explain what I mean by “liberal types”? Not loyal Democrats, per se, nor environmentalists, gay-rights supporters, universal health-care advocates, or pro-choicers–PER SE. I refer, rather, to those who not only tend toward positions like these, but who are also fanatical about every detail thereof, and scornful of those who even suggest the possibility of dubitability.
My point being–December et al–that the problem you are reacting to is indeed a real problem, but needs a somewhat different definition. It’s not “liberalism” that needs to be balanced, but rather fanaticism–the loss of some reasonable degree of academic tolerance and openness to calm discussion.
No doubt there are fanatical right-wing professors here and there as well.
I’m afraid the villain here is the too-convenient and self-serving interpretation of “academic freedom” made by the faculties on their own behalf. And especially the way this interpretation has been codified into university rules and procedures. It ought not be virtually impossible to dismiss, or deny tenure to, those who lack “academic temperament.” Can of worms? Subject to abuse? Of course. But let’s work on fine-tuning those problems, not use the possibility of them as an excuse to do nothing.
As to Horowitz: Proposed solution or fund-raising mechanism? You be the judge.
And if it matters, I’m a flaming liberal…some would say, a liberal flamer.
This entire conversation thus far can only be had by those who are not philosophically educated or inclined. Every post in this thread is collapsable. To ask a philosopher if they are liberal or conservative is beyond ignorant; that a philosopher would affirm one of these ‘views’ as their own belief, only reveals that the selection process for these institutions has a logical virus integrated into all the available source text. A philosopher that represents philosophy at an educational level, will at an extreme minimum have all available counter-intelligence routines and sub-routines memorized. It is impossible for anyone who has these memorized; to be this way, as eluded to in this thread - conservative or liberal. I can’t imagine a mathematics professor not having the multiplication tables 1-10 in base 10 memorized. It is counter-defined from our available evidence; to suggest that anyone who does not have these memorized, is a mathematics professor. It is philosophic ignorance that would cause anyone to believe that someone who calls themselves conservative or liberal is a philosophy professor; it’s just not possible. Calling them a philosophy professor in a prestigious school, still does not make them a representative of the very basics of philosophical representation if they answer this question about political affiliation, as has been discussed so far.
-Justhink
What I can’t figure out is, if this liberal bias at our nation’s colleges is so pervasive, so influential and so all-encompassing, where are conservatives coming from? According to the U.S. Census, about 25% of Americans aged 25 and older are college graduates. That’s 45,496,160 people. Assuming that the nearly 50-50 split in Presidential voting between Bush and Gore holds true for the population of college graduates, are we to assume that 22 million of these college graduates all went to those few schools that conservatives are willing to acknowledge as either conservative or balances? Baloney. Or are we to assume that all 45 million of those college graduates coming from these infernally imbalanced liberal institutions voted for Gore, and the 50 million who voted for Bush were non-college graduates? I don’t think anyone wants to go down that road, because it plays right into the “liberals are more educated” thesis.
If anything, the only reasonable assumption to make is that the presence of this horribly biased faculty has little to no effect on the political opinions of the graduates.
I was speaking generally, and accept that there are exceptions to what I stated.
However, in answer to your query about the Civil Rights movement, I would distinguish between:
-
The portion of the Civil Rights movement that was (and is)
aimed at obtaining equal rights for all Americans (this would
include Martin Luther King, Morris Dees, et al); and -
The portion that has gravitated into an opportunistic grab for
political ground (which would include Al Sharpton, et al).
I wholeheartedly honor and support the first of these, and wholeheartedly indict the second.
Although I assumed your question meant civil rights as regards race, I also believe a similar bifurcation is possible with respect to gay rights.
December, for the record, may I assume you object just as strenuously to the conservative bias of the military? And if so, what do you propose should be done about it?
Pldennison: I don’t know how much of an effect this stuff has on people in terms of converting them. I would suspect that not that many people who enter college as conservatives wind up as liberals because of it. Most people have a political leaning well established before going off to college. But certainly some are influenced, and given the skew in political leaning I have to believe that colleges are a source for producing more new liberals than new conservatives. Whether that’s bad or not is another issue.
But I can think of lots of other pernacious effects: For one thing, it may cause the left to become increasingly radicalized. If the right’s viewpoints are not presented reasonably in university debates, then people who are already on the left when they enter may come out with everything they believed justified, and with a sense that the right has no logic or other valid reasons for believing as they do.
And I think this is exactly the effect that is happening. College takes people on the left and radicalizes them. And people on the right may come out of the experience somewhat embittered and convinced that the left won’t give their ideas a fair shake. Certainly I felt that way - I was literally kicked out of a class for correcting a prof who said something that was blatantly, demonstrably wrong. And it sure is enjoyable to sit in a class and listen to a professor tell students that people like you are stupid or ignorant. Yeah, I really enjoyed that.
There could be other bad effects as well. For example, it may keep conservative youth from going to college in the first place, either because they don’t want to put up with the crap, or because their conservative parents could say, “There’s no way I’m sending you to some school that’s going to fill your head with a bunch of liberal claptrap”. That’s another way in which this imbalance could damage healthy political debate.
And don’t get me wrong - don’t translate my awareness that a bias exists with a belief that something should be ‘done’ about it. But if the bias is there, then it should be recognized if for no other reason that it gives students and parents a more informed understanding of what’s going on so they can make better decisions.
But how’d they do it, Sam? These dastardly, sinister lefties, by what machination did they hollow out the right-thinking, clear eyed traditionalists, and replaced them with Comintern automatons! Pods, perhaps?
Or did the political nature of the academic world evolve from the political changes that the student world underwent. As the academics are retired and replaced, if the crop of students rising to replace them is decidedly more progressive, well, then…
And so I nominate for prime reponsibility for the Decline of Am. Civ. to…[drum roll] the GI Bill!
Before, college education was, as you know, primarily an upper class privilege. It was part of the ruling class pedigree. An executive job (entry level) was open to the college grad.
When a surge of students from the working class were financed for thier educations, the nature of the student population changed, well, radically. A veteran who’s father is a Union pipefitter from Poughkeepsie likely has a different view than a white bread twit from, oh, let’s say, Kennebunkport.
Naturally, as the student world progresses into the Limbo of Post-Grad and onto the Academic World, more of those “new” class of student become professors. With results that I regard as perfectly spendid, and you greet with dismay.
Next week: The Comintern, the hippies and the Trotskyists: A Plot Revealed!
FU, if military promotions are based in any degree on someone’s political beliefs, then I certainly would object just as strenuously. Do you have evidence that this is the case?
elucidator, this situation came about because departments dominated by liberal professors chose to maintain their political advantage through hiring and promotion decisions. I have offered some evidence that this is the case. From my POV, if the departments were more balanced in their personnel decisions and were still a majority liberal, I wouldn’t mind. It’s the almost total exclusion that’s so problematic.
As to your idea that college liberalizes one’s POV, that’s the very point we’re discussing. A college dominated by just one side does a poor job of liberalizing one’s political POV because it leaves out half of the spectrum.
pldennison, you ask where the conservatives come from. In my case, it took quite a few years after college to switch loyalties. I think it’s pretty common for people to become more conservative as they grow older. For many of ur, our world view changes when we start raising children.
I can’t claim it as evidence, but I know quite a few enlisted military personnel and junior officers who vote Democrat, favor affirmative action, etc. (FWIW, I have worked for the DOD for 16 years.)
I have no personal knowledge of any flag-rank officers (generals or admirals) who do so. (Via the flagrantly liberal media, I do know that Colin Powell does, sort of).
Admittedly, this is a skewed data set: there are a lot more enlisted people and junior officers than generals, and my job is more likely to place me in contact with one of them. Also, my prejudices make it more likely that I will remember instances that that support them. (Remember this kind of thing when you get the impression that no conservatives speak at commencements).
I was thinking more of the pernicious effect that a conservative culture would have on patriotic liberals who would love to enlist, but are discouraged from doing so (a drill sergeant is allowed to get a little meaner than an English lit prof.)
My heart bleeds for them, just like it does for all those wide-eyed, would-be, conservative liberal arts majors.
I’d say you’ve done neither, Kimstu. What you’ve done is of course not discriminating against conservatives in general, but it is making a false assumption that “Bob identifies as a conservative Christian” implies “Bob will act in a religiously intolerant way and make life uncomfortable for everyone not a conservative Christian.”
This is odd, as earlier, you’d rightly noted that “Joe identifies as a liberal” does not imply that “Joe will act in a politically intolerant way and make life uncomfortable for everyone not a liberal.”
Now, I’ll freely grant that we associate, typically, religious intolerance with conservative Christians to a much greater extent than we associate political intolerance with liberals, since conservative Christians believe that those who disagree with them religiously will burn in hell for all eternity and liberals tend to believe that those who disagree with them will merely send the country to hell in a handbasket.
That said, both still believe that those who disagree with them are quite wrong. Yet it we are willing to assume that Joe the Liberal will be tolerant of conservatives, why are we assuming that Bob the Fundamentalist will be intolerant of non-fundamentalists?
Skipping on to elucidator briefly, I want to note a few things. In general, I agree that obviously, the liberalization of the student body leads to the liberalization of the faculty. This is fine as far as it goes, but it’s obviously insufficent by itself to explain the massive imbalances that december cited.
I do want to point out, as has been noted several times in this thread already, that we’re discussing humanities here, that other areas of higher education (i.e. engineers) aren’t so liberalized, and that one could equally look only at fields dominated by conservatives and conclude that conservatives tend to be smarter and better educated. Or I could look at the situation 40 years ago and conclude the same. In other words, can we drop the fairly silly “liberal = smart and well educated person, conservative = drooling moron” crap?
And lastly, december, I must have missed the evidence that liberal faculty maintains this liberalism by unfair hiring and promoting practices. Could you remind me of what it was?
There were a couple of points. (I hope they were in this thread.)
One was a comment made in a book by Robert Bork about a colleague at Yale Law School (IIRC) telling Bork that he was voting against a candidate because the candidate was conservative.
Another was a comparison test. Two job candidates with comparable records, except for political leaning, were treated differently, with the liberal preferred to the conservative.
There’s also indirect evidence: the imbalance is arguably so great as to create a likelihood that job discrimination played a role. Of course, this isn’t conclusive, but OTOH it’s an argument we routinely accept with respect to other groups, such as women or African Americans.
Okay, I caught the comment from Bork, but I would like to point out that while this is appalling, a single anecdote is, as we all know, hardly conclusive evidence. There were comments from a few others (Professors George and Stout, at Princeton) to the effect that bias does occur (and in the case of the former, that this bias affects hiring), but there were also quotes in the same article that denied this. Who are we to believe?[sup]1[/sup]
The indirect evidence is of course interesting, but likewise inconclusive and liable, presumably, to alternative explanations.
The one thing that’s somewhat convincing is the comparison test, but unfortunately, the difference wasn’t just political leaning, but that one applicant was a conservative Christian. Is this evidence of bias against fundamentalists? In my opinion (without, granted, having seen the study), it probably is. But of course, as you well know, conservative and conservative Christian are two rather different beasts.
I guess my view is that the cited imbalance is far too large to be explained by random chance, but that I’d need more convincing to believe that this is due to job discrimination and that this imbalance is actually a significant problem, since all but perhaps a scant handful of the professors I’ve known are, even if quite liberal, fair and do not seek to either indoctrinate their students or belittle conservatives.
[sup]1[/sup]Personally, my own anecdotal experience suggests that conservative professors tend to some extent to be made uncomfortable, but not being part of the hiring process, I have no idea if this shows up as bias in hiring or not, and in any event I’m in the sciences, not the humanities, so the imbalance in my department doesn’t seem to be as bad.