Krugman: An Academic Question (Liberal Bias in Universities)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/opinion/05krugman.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=

It's a fact, documented by two recent studies, that registered Republicans and self-proclaimed conservatives make up only a small minority of professors at elite universities. But what should we conclude from that?

Conservatives see it as compelling evidence of liberal bias in university hiring and promotion. And they say that new "academic freedom" laws will simply mitigate the effects of that bias, promoting a diversity of views. But a closer look both at the universities and at the motives of those who would police them suggests a quite different story.

Claims that liberal bias keeps conservatives off college faculties almost always focus on the humanities and social sciences, where judgments about what constitutes good scholarship can seem subjective to an outsider. But studies that find registered Republicans in the minority at elite universities show that Republicans are almost as rare in hard sciences like physics and in engineering departments as in softer fields. Why?

One answer is self-selection - the same sort of self-selection that leads Republicans to outnumber Democrats four to one in the military. The sort of person who prefers an academic career to the private sector is likely to be somewhat more liberal than average, even in engineering.

But there's also, crucially, a values issue. In the 1970's, even Democrats like Daniel Patrick Moynihan conceded that the Republican Party was the "party of ideas." Today, even Republicans like Representative Chris Shays concede that it has become the "party of theocracy."

[TaleWgnDg]

1. My take on this . . . has always been the same . . . always . . .

.
My take on this . . . has always been the same . . . always . . . and I quote:

"As people do better, they start
voting like Republicans ... unless
they have too much education and
vote Democratic, which proves there
can be too much of a good thing."
- Karl Rove (GWBush's chief
political strategist)

I rarely agree w/ Karl Rove; however, here, Rove hits the nail directly on the head. Academia is predominantly liberal because intelligent people understand that conversative politics and policies, overall, do not work.

[JDPriestly]

2. He is right and should add,

as I posted before, that the upper echelons of the business profession consist almost entirely of Republicans. Prediliction, not prejudice.

I take it this study did not include Bible colleges -- or business departments.

[kenny blankenship]

3. Party of Ideas - feh!

"...even Democrats like Daniel Patrick Moynihan conceded that the Republican Party was the "party of ideas."

Party of Ideas?
Just cause some dead guy said it doesn't make it intelligent.
Party of ideas --oh sure, WHiggish ideas suitable for 18th century problems of counterbalancing monarchy, and suitable for 18th century political-economy. Put those ideas, which may have seemed hot stuff or "timeless" in the late 1970s into practice in the 1990s and in this decade, AND -tada!- YOU GET 1930s FASCISM.

[barb162]

4. Republicans with education don't go into teaching; they

go straight in to daddy's business as VPs.

[Lindacooks]

5. There's also the intelligence issue.

One of my favorite quotes - not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative.

[Judi Lynn]

11. Yes they are! Easily swayed emotionally, easily led.

Too stupid to think things through, or conduct independent questioning, research, or further consideration: hate-filled, and gullible, with low attention spans. They need constant reinforcement, stimulation. If it gets too quiet, they go to sleep!

A real bunch of winners.

[Lisa]

6. most of the neo-conservatives I've met have mocked me openly ...

... about having an ultra-low-paying "loser job" in the public sector (I'm a lecturer at the equivalent of a state university in Canada). Not that it stops them from turning around later and accusing me of being a "limo liberal" who doesn't really know what it's like to be poor. (Actually, my parents are both working-class.) I met a few people like this even in grad school, who complained bitterly about the lack of opportunity, disparaged anyone who was thinking of going for a doctorate, and bolted for the private sector as soon as (or even before) they'd finished their degrees. After being laid off, one of them recently came around looking for work in our old department ... the "lousy public sector" was looking pretty good after a few months of unemployment, I guess.

I've noticed that the traditional old-school conservatives don't do this as much (for them, a teacher or prof is still "respectable").

[applegrove]

7. I'm thinking there is a Repuke bias in corporate culture. I think that

should be next.

[nightfire]

8. What a liberal in academe is can be a very tricky thing

One notable scholar long ago liked to say he was liberal in social policy, conservative in economic policy and moderate in most other matters - but overall (somehow) a liberal. That about sizes up the majority, even in liberal arts and social sciences. When an enthusiastic supporter of Clinton, who ripped up the welfare system to "triangulate" himself into the good graces of conservatives, is portrayed as a liberal then the word is running seriously amok. Those studies need a closer look before anyone buys their conclusions.

[Skittles]

9. Clinton has mostly been described as a Moderate

that's what I usually read, including here in the DU

[applegrove]

10. Did Clinton rip of welfare? Wasn't it a reform. I mean Clinton was not

Bush. And USA is in such a tight pickle because it will not get rid of oil and promoted elites in the Middle East for so long that that now its tax code has to mirror Saudi Arabia's or all the rich in the USA will leave. And then, most of American assets will be owned by Saudis. And then America is not American.

I don't think Clinton had any choice but to run a tight ship. Even the liberals in Canada had to be fiscal conservatives. We simply have no choice.

Once America gets rid of its dependence on Oil and the Saudi Royal family is forced into democratic reform (spreading the wealth), well then there will be more policy options in terms of going into debt (either by trade, current account, etc.).

Right now, all leaders are hog tied by the huge amount of imported Oil that is imported, burnt away every day, makes for more Saudi investment in the USA which makes America more dependent on pleasing its own entrenched wealthy or else.. the Saudis will own the country.

It is like an alcoholic cycle. And the devastation that will occur when she blows is huge.

So no President can afford to add to the deficits. And only if the oil consumption can be hugely reduced, the oil oligarchy booted out of control of the Presidency, the investments within the USA become more international will the crisis be over.

So there is simply nothing to be done but institute things universal health care (which saves money) or Kyoto protocols (which would force big Oil to back down) or welfare reform - which Clinton did.. only once the country has gotten back its sobriety from oil and the games rich people play.. only then can you be very, very generous. At this point - and when Clinton was elected - the Oil posse had been so powerful for so long that they warped the whole country.

So for anyone who does not want to live in the dark ages.. conservative fiscal policy is a necessity. Canadians are the same way. You just cannot get away with generous give-aways unless there is some direct benefit. USA is in big debt. Some day there will be a reckoning. Probably better that it happens sooner rather than later. Likely why Rove wants 1/3 of SS money in the stock-market. To buy some time.. so Bush can pretend he had nothing to do with the crisis. The Crisis caused by Oil money and dirty USA Policy to deal only with elites and skip over democracy.

Not allowing democracy to happen in the Middle East over 50 years will turn out to be the end of the American Empire.

[nightfire]

14. Okay, but wasn't Clinton's time the bragged-about boom years?

(Certainly beats Bush's reign anyway.) If Dems weren't planning to be generous then, just when were they planning to do so? The US, compared to other nations of our economic level, always has been quite stingy in dishing out cash to the poor, though much less so to those who can afford lobbyists.

Anyway below is a link to an interestng article By Frances Piven and Barbara Ehrenreich on the Clinton welfare reform and its unhappy aftermath.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2002/05/without_safety.html

[applegrove]

16. Read the article on American Thermadore. It does not say why

Bill Clinton failed.. but the whole high tech bubble was an attempt to correct corporate concentration in the USA.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/040305A.shtml

Someone posted this the other day. It was great.

[doubleplusgood]

12. so, are the Republicans demanding "quotas"

...for more right-wingers in academia ? Oh, the irony.

[GOPFighter]

13. Flash: smart people tend to be liberals!

Wow, what a shock!

[mandyky]

17. That and GOPers have to make more money

than professors make. That and they can't do OR teach.. they can only dittohead their way through life. They'd never make tenure.

[struggle4progress]

15. Want more Republicans in academia? Then raise academic pay.