WP, Kurtz: College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds

[DeepModem Mom]

College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds

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


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

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

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

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

***

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


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



ON EDIT: Adding Spazito's observation in post #5 that the study "was funded by the Randolph Foundation, a right-leaning group that has given grants to such conservative organizations as the Independent Women's Forum and Americans for Tax Reform." Just a guess: Howie's winger wife referred him to the study. (That's not to say that most of those very smart people who teach at colleges are not liberals!)

[madhat]

1. Conservatives can't teach, that's way.

Opening young minds? Teaching students how to question? Against conservative dogma.

[Postmanx]

3. Diversity for me, but not for thee

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

[renaissanceguy]

61. Which is why those who never learn better

are conservatives. Rinse and repeat.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/466053

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. That's because that's who enters the teaching profession largely

People with a commitment to empowerment through education, which happens to be a liberal ideal.

[Caria]

10. YES!

And those who "make it" in academia work long hours for low pay. Most neo-cons feel contempt for those who willingly do that. A conservative relative of mine regularly asks me, "If you're so smart, why aren't you in a job that pays better?"

[skip fox]

16. There's also another mechanism. Those who undergo prolongued

study, tend to interrogate their own beliefs and stances. The tenets of the right wing collapse under such scrutiny. (Especially as those tenets are clearly associated, as they have been over the last 20 years--a timeframe built into the study--with the Biblical literalists.)

[Protagoras]

29. Amazing how being informed and educated

appears to, through some mysterious mechanism, drive people away from fundamentalist beliefs...

People who go to college tend to be more progressive and liberal in their thinking than those who don't spend their time learning about the world, or history, or philosophy?

Shocker. Thanks for clearing that up WP!

[VegasWolf]

43. And they have an IQ above room temp unlike conservatives. n/t

[Hand]

4. (Sigh) Howie... Howie... Howie...

STFU!!!!!!!!!!!

[Art_from_Ark]

59. I know how you feel

Kurtz is a PUTZ

[Spazito]

5. This paragraph is all I need to know about the objectivity of

the study:

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

Edited to add: I see Howie is doing his usual sychophantic ass-kissing for the right, at least he is consistent.

[SaveElmer]

6. Says to me liberals are better educated

No surprise there!

[XemaSab]

38. It's actually a feedback loop

Liberalism -> Education -> Liberalism -> Education -> Liberalism -> Education -> Liberalism -> Education -> Liberalism -> Education -> Liberalism -> Education

(and so on)

While the conservative loop looks like

Ignorance -> Conservatism -> Ignorance -> Conservatism -> Ignorance -> Conservatism -> Ignorance -> Conservatism -> Ignorance -> Conservatism -> Ignorance -> Conservatism -> Ignorance -> Conservatism

(etc)

[democrat in Tallahassee]

7. actually it has to do with shades of grey. Conservatives see

things in black and white, right and wrong. Being a scholar and a professor requires a much more nuanced view of life and the universe. Because you a liberal doesn't necessarily mean that you espouse that philosophy in your classes; I'm betting a lot of liberal professors are more likely to show two sides of an issue instead of just one--it's called critical thinking.

[Postmanx]

11. Shades of grey?

Shades of grey = conservatives see things in black and white?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

18. made sense to me...what's your issue with the statement?

The point the poster was making is that liberal professors will encourage thinking. Conservatives tend to tell you what to think. It certainly jibes with my educational experiences.

[Postmanx]

27. My issue is with the hypocrisy of the statement

The poster states that liberals see in shades of grey; then, presumably from the shades of grey perspective, claims that conservatives see things only in absolutive terms.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

32. But that statement is true for the most part, no?

Is it not conservatives that rail against moral relativism in favor of moral absolutism?

Is it not conservatives that promote a "you're either with us or against us" mentality?

I find no hypocrisy with statements that are GENERALLY true.

[Postmanx]

46. No, it is SOME conservatives who see the world that way

To paint all conservatives with the same brush is narrow minded and reflects poorly on the one making such a generalization.

[Toots]

56. How about ALL conservatives are conservative

Wide enough brush for you?? What does being conservative mean. It means you see things in less shades of grey. It means you are more rigid in your thoughts and less likely to see the broader picture. It means you are not progressive which means rigid thinking with little expansion of thought.See things in black and white no shades of grey..

[Demeter]

35. Actually, Liberals See Things In A Rainbow of Colors and Shades

with intensities from the unbearable to the subltest. And the music! It's indescribable, and not dependent on drugs, fasting, hallucinations or sleep deprivation! Keen sense of smell, too, especially for bullshit!

[warrens]

8. Education and liberalism tend to go together

The more educated you are, the more likely you are to be tolerant and able to understand nuanced situations.

[ixion]

9. hmmm... could it be because 'conservatives' hate intellects

intellectualism, academia and enlightenment? hmmmmm? :eyes:

This gets the 'gee, go figure' award. :dunce:

[mike_c]

12. I don't care who funded this study or what their agenda is....

In my experience it is essentially correct. That's one of the things that makes my working environment pleasant-- hardly any conservatives around, at least among my colleagues. Students are also a liberal lot, although not as universally so as faculty. We're still working on that.... :evilgrin:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

13. The LAST poll Kurtz talked about...

many months ago that supposedly showed the political leanings of faculty members as being overwhelmingly "liberal" was ridiculous when looked at further.

The actually numbers were something like 13% conservative, 20% liberal and the rest were self-identified as moderates - but Kurtz never mentioned that and kept claiming a liberal majority.

[Igel]

45. That's usually true.

Very seldom do you get a group saying they're all tilted one way or the other. In any group, most are going to be around average; average is taken to be moderate.

The fundamentalist church I was years back in had many members far to the right of Reagan. Most of them called themselves "moderate."

[spooky3]

55. one problem is the labels used

Who's defining what a "liberal" is in this "study"? The conservative sponsors. I would like to see the definition given to the study participants.

My hypothesis is that the definition given was probably a lot more moderate (e.g., are you pro-choice?) than most people think of as "liberal", because the sponsors wanted to get findings showing higher proportions of liberals than actually exist on campuses, as part of the "woe is us" victimization mentality.

There is no way that the majority of faculty in business schools is "liberal" as most here would define the term.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. Well, for one thing, in academic research, you're expected to

know and understand all sides of an issue, whether you agree with it or not.

Every academic paper or book that I've ever seen, whether in the humanities, social sciences, or natural sciences, starts with a "literature review" on the topic. You go back and read what other people have written on your topic and summarize these views. Only then do you start your own investigations.

Once you submit a paper or book for publication, the journal or publisher sends it around to other people in the field, who check your facts and try to poke holes in your argument. If they find that your arguments are largely sound, you get published.

Furthermore, in science, an experimental result has to be replicable, i.e., other scientists following the same procedure have to get the same results.

You can't, as Bill Maher memorably said to Ann Coulter, "just make shit up."

Conservatives find this frustrating and bail out of academia early.

[Tux]

22. True

If they review the literature, they'll find new ideas and that is a sin against god. Everyone knows that thinking, education, and diversity is the devil's work.

Considering how conservatives are fundies that complain about evolution or some libertarian nut that wants "free trade" and promote outsourcing, they would have a problem not only with people disagreeing with them but actually thinking things through and read what others have done on similar topics.

[primavera]

23. Conservativism is inherently anti-intellectual

It favors unthinking moralistic imperatives over reason which tends to undermine such black and white interpretations of reality. It's hardly surprising then that conservatives avoid intellectual rigor and those who do enter into academics are soon brought round to the defects in their simplistic demagoguery and become more liberal as a result.

[bunkerbuster1]

15. Corporate Boardrooms A Most Conservative Lot, Study Finds

Experts agree: Sun predictably rises in East, Sets in West

[Karmadillo]

17. Study shows conservatives dominate business. Right wing "think" tank

demands parity for liberals. Not.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/21/opinion/main682046.shtml

Crybaby Conservatives
(The Nation) This column was written by Russell Jacoby.

<edit>

Conservatives complain relentlessly that they do not get a fair shake in the university, and they want parity -- that is, more conservatives on faculties. Conservatives are lonely on American campuses as well as beleaguered and misunderstood. News that tenured poets vote Democratic or that Kerry received far more money from professors than Bush pains them. They want America's faculties to reflect America's political composition. Of course, they do not address such imbalances in the police force, Pentagon, FBI, CIA and other government outfits where the stakes seem far higher and where, presumably, followers of Michael Moore are in short supply. If life were a big game of Monopoly, one might suggest a trade to these conservatives: You give us one Pentagon, one Department of State, Justice and Education, plus throw in the Supreme Court, and we will give you every damned English department you want.

Conservatives claim that studies show an outrageous number of liberals on university faculties and increasing political indoctrination or harassment of conservative students. In fact, only a very few studies have been made, and each is transparently limited or flawed. The most publicized investigations amateurishly correlate faculty departmental directories with local voter registration lists to show a heavy preponderance of Democrats. What this demonstrates about campus life and politics is unclear. Yet these findings are endlessly cited and cross-referenced as if by now they confirm a tiresome truth: leftist domination of the universities. A column by George Will affects a world-weariness in commenting on a recent report. "The great secret is out: Liberals dominate campuses. Coming soon: 'Moon Implicated in Tides, Studies Find.'"

The most careful study is "How Politically Diverse Are the Social Sciences and Humanities?" Conducted by California economist Daniel Klein and Swedish social scientist Charlotta Stern, it has been trumpeted by many conservatives as a corrective to the hit-and-miss efforts of previous inquiries by going directly to the source. The researchers sent out almost 5,500 questionnaires to professors in six disciplines in order to tabulate their political orientation. A whopping 70 percent of the recipients did what any normal person would do when receiving an unsolicited fourteen-page survey over the signature of an assistant dean at a small California business school: They tossed it. With just 17 percent of their initial pool remaining after the researchers made additional exclusions, some unastounding findings emerged. Thirty times as many anthropologists voted Democratic as voted Republican; for sociologists the ratio was almost the same. For economists, however, it sank to three to one. On average these professors voted Democratic over Republican fifteen to one.

What does it show that fifty-four philosophy professors admitted to voting Democratic regularly and only four to voting Republican? Does a Democratic vote reveal a dangerous philosophical or campus leftism? Are Democrats more likely to deceive students? Proselytize them? Harass them? Steal library books? Must they be neutralized by Republican professors, who are free of these vices? This study opens by quoting the conservative "New York Times" columnist David Brooks on the loneliness of campus conservatives and closes by bemoaning the "one-party system" of faculties. Nonleftist voices are "muffled and fearful," the researchers say. They do not, however, present a scintilla of information to confirm this. It is not a minor point. No matter how well tuned, studies of professorial voting habits reveal nothing of campus policies or practices.

more...

[skip fox]

19. The study (funded by RW) may well be one in a series intended to push

toward a Academic Bill of Rights. (I.e., the erasure of free speech on campus.)

[Spazito]

24. I agree, that is exactly the intent.

*

[high density]

20. I can't say I ever had a college professor preaching liberalism to me

All of the courses I had which touched on politics in some way were either taught in a non-partisan or bi-partisan way.

[tigereye]

26. of course just because more are liberal

doesn't mean that students are being "indoctrinated" either, just taught to think.

On the other hand, it is interesting that there are probably a lot more Marxist-style academics in some departments than there are in the general population, just based on what friends have said, their own academic experiences, and my own experiences. This is not necessarily a negative, but the way some academic thinking tends to run in some disciplines.

[AngryAmish]

21. Conservatives are too stupid to teach college

You don't see too many educated people waddling into Wal-Mart and watching Fox News with their mouths open.

[skip fox]

25. Hell, I'm a liberal professo rin an English Department and have been for

24 years. I lecture on literature in a professional manner and mention right-wing ideas as I mention left-wing ideas as I mention libertarion ideas as I mention barbaric ideas, etc. I teach the author's ideas in the work and when appropriate apply the ideas to the current educational. political, theological, and scientific realms since the ideas gain a current relevance. I also like to show the origin of ideas (like determinism or free will) when I know of the scholarly debate from the ancients to the moderns. They know I'm liberal (I tell them as part of "truth in advertising") but do not neglect to show the strength, viability, intelligence, etc. of ALL views, never spending more time on ones I agree with than any other.

I think that's probably true for most professors who wish to be professional and do a good job.

[annabanana]

28. all that edumacation might give you "the big picture".....

That makes it harder for the imperialists to get away with their crap...

end. of. story.

[Q]

30. More conservatives would teach if they offered million dollar salaries...

The plain truth is that conservatives won't accept the kind of pay that teaching offers and thus prefer to work in the corporate world after graduation.

[w4rma]

31. If they want more conservatives they had better raise the pay and benefits

Conservatives' priority is money, then money and money.

[LeftHander]

33. COnservatives in general too greedy....early in life to

put in the time and sacrifice to gain a PhD and continue in acedemia.


when they start offering Phd's in "Jackass" or "Fear Mongering" then we'll see more conservatives with PhD teaching in more little private hate factories.

[Demeter]

34. University Faculties an EDUCATED Lot

with world views that encompass something larger than the local Chamber of Commerce and the corner Evangelical church.

[oasis]

36. Truth and knowledge are embraced by the left. That is no surprise.

Conservative, right wing fascists are the ones who burn the books.

[Triana]

37. I don't see the problem here...

:evilgrin:

SO - where is the connection to David Horowitz in this? I'm certain there is one....that Nazi bastard.

[Yavin4]

39. Dogmatic Beliefs and Intellectualism Are Opposite Ideals

You cannot have dogmatic beliefs about the world around you and be an intellectual. An intellectual requires you to challenge your theories and your thinking. People in academia think. They don't react.

[Psephos]

50. From my study of history, intellectuals tend to be the worst dogmatists

Generally, intellectuals form a theory of the world, then begin to promote and defend that abstraction. They become emotionally invested in their ideas, which leads to all sorts of chicanery when the ideas are challenged. They profess deep love for Humanity but can be notoriously inhumane to actual humans (see Marx, Sartre, Rousseau, Brecht, Lenin, et al.).

I stated this a bit provocatively, I know - but for a reason. "Intellectual" is a fuzzy word, to which most people vaguely ascribe good qualities. However, when you look at what real intellectuals - those who create powerful ideas and try to apply them to the world - have actually wrought, you see guillotines chopping off heads, gulags unloading cattle cars full of new inmates, and killing fields filling up with the bones of the machine-gunned.

I hold no regard, and a fair bit of animosity, toward intellectuals. They are more often than not dismissive of those whose ideas don't fit their own, they believe ideas are more important than people, and they feel that because they make their living with words instead of their hands, they deserve privileges.

I think the word we should truly pay homage to is "liberal." The definition of the word is "Not limited to or bound 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." (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.)

To hell with being an intellectual. I aspire to be a liberal.

As regards all the theories in this thread about the disparity between left and right on university faculties: this profound shift has largely occurred in the last fifty years. If all these theories were true (and how flattering that they all point out how much better thinkers we on the left are compared to those on the right), then how does one account for the previous century when it wasn't true? Just a thought.

Evolution has maintained genes across time dictating that some of us tend to the left, and some to the right, because both views are necessary for the survival fitness of a collaborative and communicative species like us. If they weren't, then some of those genes would have been edited out long ago through the process of natural selection. If you truly do believe in evolution, then our political homogeneity is proof that there is a time and a place for both kinds of thinking.

There's another, simpler reason for the disparity in political preference in universities. It's the same reason for the disparity in political preference in corporate boardrooms. In both places we'd be better served by a more equal distribution.

These are, of course, only my opinions.

Peace.

[alarcojon]

58. While I disagree with you

I'll defend to the death your right to express your views. That's what intellectuals do. :-)

More substantively, I believe you make a valid point but stretch it too far. Many of the intellectuals that have made an impact of history were/are as you describe. But the vast majority of intellectuals, particularly those of us in the academy, live in relative obscurity, far from the levers of power. We do not tend to be dismissive of ideas that don't fit into our own - we encourage engagement and critique of all ideas. If some ideas (such as, say, creationism) don't stand up to critical scrutiny, peer review, etc., then those ideas will be rejected, but not because the professor is liberal - rather because they are weak ideas. If you want to see weak ideas that fall apart instantly upon the most cursory inspection, just follow the right-wing spew machine for a while.

As for your suggestion that because we make our living with words instead of with our hands, we think we deserve privileges, I believe that is a class issue. I and the other professors from a working-class background I know would heartily disagree with you. And, of course, the other side of the issue is that intellectually lazy conservative zillionaires like Hannity, with his $70,000 speaking fee, think they deserve all the privileges in the world. I know you're not defending assholes like him, but, again, it is a class issue.

As regards all the theories in this thread about the disparity between left and right on university faculties: this profound shift has largely occurred in the last fifty years. If all these theories were true (and how flattering that they all point out how much better thinkers we on the left are compared to those on the right), then how does one account for the previous century when it wasn't true? Just a thought.

You are absolutely right to challenge us to question those assumptions which just so happen to flatter us. I have two thoughts:

1. Can you substantiate your assertion that the disparity between left and right in the academy is a recent phenomenon? I am not questioning it, just asking for a source I can look at and evaluate.

2. If such a shift has indeed occurred, could it have something to do with the relative opening up of the academy to the poor, to women, and to minorities and other historically disenfranchised groups over that time period?

Peace also unto you,

A proud liberal intellectual

[Plaid Adder]

40. Yeah. I'll tell you why that is.

1) In order to be a college professor, you need a PhD.
2) If you're getting your PhD in the humanities, this is going to mean at least 6 years of subsistence living while you work toward a job that is liable to pay less well than most professional jobs and may very well not even be there when you get out. You're only doing that for one reason, and that's because you love the work. If you're primarily interested in making money, there's much easier ways to do that.
3) Who loves the work? Well, people who enjoy taking some kind of complicated and puzzling phenomenon and trying to understand it, and then teaching other people how to do the same. If you believe that the answer is always going to be "Because God wants it that way," then you're liable to write a pretty short dissertation. Also, your classes are going to become a tetch repetitive.
4) The more you learn, the more bullshit you begin to see through, and that is more liable to push you to the left than the right...unless you decide that the solution to the fact that the world is a chaotic and insane place run by the mad and the cruel is to BECOME the mad and the cruel who run the chaos and the insanity.
5) Education is more engaging when the instructor encourages independent thinking and is open to other points of view. If being "conservative" means "refusing to tolerate dissent," as it increasingly seems to, then that's not gonna work too well, will it.

Look, it's not the liberals' fault that the conservatives would all rather be making hundreds of thousands of dollars on Wall Street or in law firms. It's not an easy job and compared to the amount of education and investment it requires, it's not particularly well rewarded.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[skip fox]

42. sweet

But the point of the exercise (the study) might be the desire to put another nail in the coffin of free speech . . . that is, another study to be cited by those pushing for an "Academic Bill of Rights." As a liberal prof. (who presents material in a bi-partisan manner, and often showing some of the weaknesses of my own liberalism--like the issue of evil), it behoves me to mention this in terms of its potential anti-intellectual intent.

But it IS good to note how many on this board recognize the love of learning and thinking and studying that is the background of what many professors do.


:toast:

[oasis]

44. "The more you learn, the more bullshit you begin to see through". That

explanation works for me. :hi:

[Cocoa]

41. I wonder what Kurtz is getting for his work for the RW?

it's money, of course, but I wonder in what form, and how much, and when we'll find out.

[CarlWoodward]

47. The scary thing here is

that the conservative response isn't to attempt to get more of their own ilk interested in academia and work as professors, in an attempt to "balance" the supposed liberal majority on campuses and get their righ-wing views presented. Instead, they want to pressure universities to stifle liberal speech, to gag liberal professors and force teachers to spout right-wing nonsense.

I'll agree that there's a problem with universities when conservatives admit that there aren't enough liberals as large corporate CEOs.

[ewagner]

48. Liberal Values vs Conservative Values

One point sticks out like a sore thumb here.....

In liberal households and in liberal institutions in general, the highest value is ALWAYS education (or the pursuit of knowledge)

In Conservative households or conservative institutions, the highest value is ALWAY money! or financial issues in general.

So .....

if you took a poll of Wall street investment bankers or stock traders wouldn't 85% of them be conservatives ?

[Mr_Spock]

49. They are supposed to be liberal

That's what a university in a free country is all about. Educate - liberal - one in the same.

[NewJeffCT]

51. But, how can that be?

According to conservatives who support school choice at all levels, our colleges & universities are among the best in the world because we can choose which college we want to apply to and attend. But now you're telling me that our colleges & universities are bastions of liberal elitism? How can conservatives reconcile these two things?

(sarcasm off)

[slor]

52. How many conservatives are planning...

to leave their well-paid positions, lying for other right-wingers, to teach? This is such bs, and howie is full of fecal matter.

[illflem]

53. A better title for the Post article would have been

Conservatives, only interested in money and intellectually inferior, refuse to work in academia

[Charon]

54. Liberal Lot

Does anyone know how the liberal vs. conservative spread breaks down when compared to the disciplines the respondents taught?

[rodeodance]

57. Kerry is an intelectual-Bush is a pragmatist--wants 'results"--without

thniking things through.

[Stuckinthebush]

60. Simple formula

Increase in education = increase in critical thinking skills = increase in "liberal" thought

[GOPBasher]

62. Of course. When people get educated, they become liberals.

Smart people become liberals. Stupid morons become right wingers. It's no surprise that the most educated people are liberals.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

63. Disparity is due to the fact that conservatives tend towards idiocy?

I'm sure there are plenty of conservative professors at piece-of-shit religious 2-year joke schools.

What do these ignorant conservatives expect when they deride science and willfully ignore FACTUAL EVIDENCE contrary to their pet theories?

Fuck'em.

JB