Politics In Academia

Can’t say I’m shocked by this, but it seems Republicans are outnumbered in academia – at least as far as this study is concerned :

http://lsb.scu.edu/~dklein/

Here are a few interesting points:

  1. In the humanities and social sciences, Democrats outnumber Republicans by at least seven to one.

  2. For nonacademic practitioners, the numbers are not nearly so skewed. Either there is bias against Republicans, or Republicans prefer other options over academia more than Democrats do. I am more inclined to the latter option, but this requires investigation.

  3. Among anthropologists, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans is about thirty to one. For economists it is “only” three to one.

  4. Stanford and Berkeley have especially high ratios of Democrats to Republicans, about nine to one; this is taken from voter registration records, rather than the questionnaires.

Republicans Outnumbered in Academia, Studies Find
By JOHN TIERNEY

Published: November 18, 2004

BERKELEY, Calif. - At the birthplace of the free speech movement, campus radicals have a new target: the faculty that came of age in the 60’s. They say their professors have been preaching multiculturalism and diversity while creating a political monoculture on campus.

Conservatism is becoming more visible at the University of California here, where students put out a feisty magazine called The California Patriot and have made the Berkeley Republicans one of the largest groups on campus. But here, as at schools nationwide, the professors seem to be moving in the other direction, as evidenced by their campaign contributions and two studies being published on Nov. 18.

One of the studies, a national survey of more than 1,000 academics, shows that Democratic professors outnumber Republicans by at least seven to one in the humanities and social sciences. That ratio is more than twice as lopsided as it was three decades ago, and it seems quite likely to keep increasing, because the younger faculty members are more consistently Democratic than the ones nearing retirement, said Daniel Klein, an associate professor of economics at Santa Clara University and a co-author of the study.

In a separate study of voter registration records, Professor Klein found a nine-to-one ratio of Democrats to Republicans on the faculties of Berkeley and Stanford. That study, which included professors from the hard sciences, engineering and professional schools as well as the humanities and social sciences, also found the ratio especially lopsided among the younger professors of assistant or associate rank: 183 Democrats versus 6 Republicans.

The political imbalance on faculties has inspired a campaign to have state legislatures and Congress approve an “academic bill of rights” protecting students and faculty members from discrimination for their political beliefs. The campaign is being led by Students for Academic Freedom, a group with chapters at Berkeley and more than 135 other campuses. It was founded last year by the leftist-turned-conservative David Horowitz, who helped start the 1960’s antiwar movement while a graduate student at Berkeley.

“Our goal is not to have the government dictate who’s hired but to take politics out of the hiring process and the classroom,” said Mr. Horowitz, who called the new studies the most compelling evidence yet of hiring bias. “Right now, conservative students are discouraged from pursuing scholarly careers, because they see very clearly that their professors consider Republicans to be the enemy.”

Academic leaders have resisted his group’s legislative proposal, saying that discrimination is rare and already forbidden, and they dispute the accusations of faculty bias. Robert J. Birgeneau, the chancellor of Berkeley, said that he was not sure if the new study of his faculty accurately reflected the professors’ political leanings, and that these leanings were irrelevant anyway.

“The essence of a great university is developing and sharing new knowledge as well as questioning old dogma,” Dr. Birgeneau said. “We do this in an environment which prizes academic freedom and freedom of expression. These principles are respected by all of our faculty at U.C. Berkeley, no matter what their personal politics are.”

Professors at Berkeley and other universities provided unprecedented financial support for the Democratic Party this election. For the first time, universities were at the top of the list of organizations ranked by their employees’ contributions to a presidential candidate, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group.

In first and second place, ahead of Time Warner, Goldman Sachs and Microsoft, were the University of California system and Harvard, whose employees contributed $602,000 and $340,000, respectively, to Senator John Kerry. At both universities, employees gave about $19 to the Kerry campaign for every dollar for the Bush campaign.

One theory for the scarcity of Republican professors is that conservatives are simply not that interested in academic careers. A Democrat on the Berkeley faculty, George P. Lakoff, who teaches linguistics and is the author of “Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think,” said that liberals choose academic fields that fit their world views. “Unlike conservatives,” he said, “they believe in working for the public good and social justice, as well as knowledge and art for their own sake, which are what the humanities and social sciences are about.”

Some non-Democrats prefer to attribute the imbalance to the structure of academia, which allows hiring decisions and research agendas to be determined by small, independent groups of scholars. These fiefs, the critics say, suffer from a problem described in The Federalist Papers: an autonomous “small republic” is prone to be dominated by a cohesive faction that uses majority voting to “outnumber and oppress the rest,” in Madison’s words.

“Our colleges have become less marketplaces of ideas than churches in which you have to be a true believer to get a seat in the pews,” said Stephen H. Balch, a Republican and the president of the National Association of Scholars. “We’ve drifted to a secular version of 19th-century denominational colleges, in which the university’s mission is to crusade against sin and make the country a morally better place.”

Dr. Balch’s organization of what he calls traditional scholars is publishing the two new faculty studies in its journal, Academic Questions (online at www.nas.org). In one study, Professor Klein and Charlotta Stern, a sociologist at the Institute for Social Research in Sweden, asked the members of scholars’ professional associations which party’s candidates they had mostly voted for over the previous decade.

The ratio of Democratic to Republican professors ranged from 3 to 1 among economists to 30 to 1 among anthropologists. The researchers found a much higher share of Republicans among the nonacademic members of the scholars’ associations, which Professor Klein said belied the notion that nonleftists were uninterested in scholarly careers.

“Screened out, expelled or self-sorted, they tend to land outside of academia because the crucial decisions - awarding tenure and promotions, choosing which papers get published - are made by colleagues hostile to their political views,” said Professor Klein, who classifies himself as a libertarian.

Martin Trow, an emeritus professor of public policy at Berkeley who was chairman of the faculty senate and director of the Center for Studies in Higher Education, said that professors tried not to discriminate in hiring based on politics, but that their perspective could be warped because so many colleagues shared their ideology.

“Their view comes to be seen not as a political preference but what decent, intelligent human beings believe,” said Dr. Trow, who calls himself a conservative. “Debate is stifled, and conservatives either go in the closet or get to be seen as slightly kooky. So if a committee is trying to decide between three well-qualified candidates, it may exclude the conservative because he seems like someone who has poor judgment.”

The students’ magazine, The California Patriot, has frequently criticized Berkeley for the paucity of conservative views and for cases of what it has called discrimination against conservative students.

“I’m glad to get the liberal perspective, but it would be nice to get the other side, too,” said Kelly Coyne, the editor of the magazine and a senior majoring in political science. “I’m really having a hard time finding courses my last year. I don’t want to spend another semester listening to lectures about victims of American oppression.”

Hm, just a few musings:

The recruitment criteria in academia are supposed to be on the same standards than in industry - and political questions are a big no no in any application process. Hence, I find it quite hard to believe that such a massive bias really affects admissions and recruitment.

That the humanities and social sciences seem to be more leftleaning (if you can define the US Democrats as left-leaning), I can understand - I guess that’s somehow traditional; but especially for economics, I am quite surprised.

Could it be that studying in higher education in general tends to encourage developing more flexible viewpoints than a conservative worldview with a clear set of ideas might offer? Any thoughts?

I think it has a lot to do with faculty being on the committees that hire and grant tenure. People who hold conservative views can get blackballed, especially if those views are in controversial areas. I know that conservative academics who do weblogs often use psuedonyms if they are not tenured – and explicitly state that the reason why is that they are afraid they would be discriminated against for their views.

As for economics, I think it’s a matter of compensation – you get more money in the private sector, and people attracted to economics to begin with would also be more likely to take that into account.

This wouldn’t be the case with something like anthropology or literature – not too much of a private-sector market for those in any case.

Universities are supposed to be the bastion of the free thinker… perhaps an anethema to those with rigid and controlling world views?

Free thinkers who place limits on speech and endorse quotas…yep.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Universities are supposed to be the bastion of the free thinker… perhaps an anethema to those with rigid and controlling world views?[/quote]

I think “supposed to be” is the key – in actuality, they are places of conformity to a norm – it’s just a different norm. In fact, it often is a place of rigid and controlling world views – just ask any graduate student whose advisor doesn’t agree with his thesis.

In general, universities are very much a place where open expression is supported and expected.

I know there are examples where those with an axe to grind can get worked up about quotas or attempts to limit racism on campus. These issues are not representative and probably don’t warrant discussion if we want to seriously consider the issue Boston has raised.

Boston, as you probably well know by now, life is also partially about learning which battles to fight. Attempting to turn the academic world on its ear through some brilliant thesis is probably not the fight to take, unless you have someone who is willing to support your efforts.

Discussing your thesis with your advisor is certainly a wise thing. It is just another series of hoops to go through to get your piece of paper.

I don’t think it is fair to assume there is some type of widespread conspiracy in academic circles to stamp out reasoned lucid thought because it goes in the wrong direction.

However, as you probably know, if you are going against the generally accepted grain, whether in academia or science, you will face resistance and you will have to make your case well.

Honestly, I think most of the world chooses to ignore political issues most of the time. At least with respect to right vs left, the two parties available and the election of candidates from them. I mean, in my real life I don’t generally talk politics with anyone.

The fact that some of us, or some of you, might choose to highlight your politics in your personal or professional life is your own choosing, but it is certainly an area that is easy to keep out of ones work. It is also easy to keep it out of ones academic efforts as long as politics itself is not your field of study.

In short, what have you got other than some silly conspiracy theory or half baked claims concerning events you don’t like with respect to racism, quotas and similar matters?

Perhaps the numbers you quote simply show a dislike for digging into the finer details. It’s anecdotal, but I’m often slammed on these boards, by the right, for playing word games with issues. Heck, if you get into academia you will be forced to spend years of your life playing word games. Maybe it simply does not appeal?

I think you just simply feel the left is wrong, perhaps with a capital W. You want to find ways to eliminate it or remove the ability for people to develop these leanings. It’s time to realize the left and the right are both legitimate viewpoints.

There are nutbars at both ends of the spectrum of course, but in general both the left and right have a lot to offer. Take the best of both and stop thinking that only your worldview can solve the problems the world faces today. It just isn’t so.

I hate to offend anyone, but its a proven and studied fact that the higher your education (including world view, not just school based)the more likely you are to be liberal. I can testify that as a graduate student focused on the history of the Middle East, its hard to support many republican policy choices. Here is a sample question. Ask people what they think the US should do about Iraq. The average person who does not read a daily national paper and is poorly educated will say something like “bomb them”. Ask the same question to someone who is well read, including newpapers, and social studies, and they will look for root causes to the problem.

vroom:

I’m about to retire, but I wanted to take on one of your points – it’s not a conspiracy. Just like the theory about media bias isn’t a conspiracy. There’s no coordination.

It’s group-think. If you have a bunch of individuals who happen to have the same view, and are biased toward that view, their individual, uncoordinated actions will have a global effect. That effect will generally be the reflection of that worldview in their reporting, in the case of the media, or in the “consensus” ideas in the case of academia.

W/r/t politics, you obviously haven’t spent a lot of time taking social science or humanities classes at U.S. universities in the last decade. Those disciplines are very focused toward politics and the political, although the politics are expressed via “politically correct” academic theories about repression and whatnot.

If you want a very simple, verifiable example, just look at history departments, and see how many military, particularly, or even economic, historians are on faculty compared to “social” historians.

These people, just from their focus and what they think is important, will be biased against those who don’t agree with their views and theories, and the politicization of the disciplines has made it so disagreeing with the theory puts one almost irreconciably outside the “mainstream” in certain disciplines.

Anyway, I need to hit the hay. Just remember: It’s a whole bunch of biased individuals, not a conspiracy. There’s no broad agreement to keep conservatives out – it’s just the prevalence of the liberal viewpoint, combined with the structure of academia (tenure, faculty hiring committees, etc.) that leads to the ostracization of unpopular views.

Anyway, I need to sleep.

Free thinking. I think not. If you do not subscribe to Politcally Correct thought you will not last long in Academia. They are projecting the ideal rather then living the reality.

Spence- I have a graduate degree and have travelled extensively in the Middle East on business. What is the root cause of the problems in Iraq in your opinion?

I’m not setting you up. Just curious on the thoughts of someone who has studied the issues. How about Islam? Will it allow peace with the West or the Infidel in it’s present form or will it need to change?

BB, well stated!

[quote]MSpencer wrote:
I hate to offend anyone, but its a proven and studied fact that the higher your education (including world view, not just school based)the more likely you are to be liberal. I can testify that as a graduate student focused on the history of the Middle East, its hard to support many republican policy choices. Here is a sample question. Ask people what they think the US should do about Iraq. The average person who does not read a daily national paper and is poorly educated will say something like “bomb them”. Ask the same question to someone who is well read, including newpapers, and social studies, and they will look for root causes to the problem. [/quote]

I must be some sort of freak. I have a graduate degree, and I read at least one daily newspaper. I still say bomb them.

My best friend, who has a law degree and reads ALL the time, says bomb them.

I wonder why that is?

Is Joe Lieberman a dumbass-hick that can’t read?

[quote]MSpencer wrote:
I hate to offend anyone, but its a proven and studied fact that the higher your education (including world view, not just school based)the more likely you are to be liberal. I can testify that as a graduate student focused on the history of the Middle East, its hard to support many republican policy choices. Here is a sample question. Ask people what they think the US should do about Iraq. The average person who does not read a daily national paper and is poorly educated will say something like “bomb them”. Ask the same question to someone who is well read, including newpapers, and social studies, and they will look for root causes to the problem. [/quote]

It actually varies with the discipline in which the degree is attained. The complete domination in the liberal arts skews the sample.

BTW, I have a law degree, in case you couldn’t tell. I also qualify for MENSA, though I haven’t felt like paying dues or filling out the application as of yet. But I must be falling for the same stuff as the poorly educated average non-newspaper-reading normal folks…

Also, BTW, how would you define education by “world view”? I have a feeling this will be circular…

Basically, it’s just a lot of self-reinforcing group-think, and it’s kind of funny, because even if you have 90% of the “highly educated” supporting one side, that leaves 10% supporting the other – are they all stupid, or myopic? Why not argue the points, instead of trying to resort to the equivalent of ad populi?

I think you guys have a point here: Political correctness is utter crap.
Oops, I said - and that although I have humanities/social sciences degree and I am a lefty. Why? Because it creates limits to thought - and that is utterly unacademic and unscientific. I haven’t studied in the US, but some of the PC culture has spilt over to Europe - and it isn’t helpful. I give you that BB.

Interesting - state-regulated “old” European Universities seem to have a much more varied political spectrum. Shouldn’t the freer US education market naturally regulate itself towards a more balanced environment? Do I overlook something here?

It would also be interesting to see if the alleged bias is a new phenomenon as a reaction to a more conservative American establishment, and if in more liberal times the campuses tend to be more conservative.

I love this topic.

I spent about an hour on Saturday nite discussing this with a friend of mine who recently sold his business and decided to pursue a PhD in family studies with an emphasis on public policy. He is a Midwest boy currently living in Maryland. I would classify him as moderate to conservative. He is surrounded by liberals. He sits in his classes and listens to them all pat themselves, and each other, on the back for their empathy and compassion. They truly consider themselves to be intellectually superior to the masses.

The problem is there is not an independent thinker among them.

He has started to gently question some of the basic mantra and they can’t even respond in an articulate fashion. They tend to get emotional and stray significantly from his original question, or else parallel argue. The funny thing is, he enjoys this crap and is energized by it.

It is really quite amusing to live this out through his eyes.

They are in for an interesting couple of years with him.

to hedo: Thank you for asking. I am actually going to pursue a doctoral degree on that issue as soon as I finish up my Masters thesis. Now as for the root cause of the war in Iraq. I would guess it involves a few factors including the support of Israel, Bush family animosity, oil, and maybe a few other issues. The real question is why we are best friends with Saudi Arabia. Now thats a country that supports terrorism. The royal family of Saud beleives in Wahhabism. Its about the same as Puritans in the Chritsian religion. They support public beheadings and all other kinds of punishments direct from the most conservative interpretation of the Koran. Its the belief system that Bin Laden grew up under. Before we attacked Iraq, they were one of the most liberal countries in the Middle East. There were bars, women’s rights and even cities that required no dress codes other that cover up your privates like in America. Look at women walking around Baghdad before the war in western pants and shirts going to work, then compare it to Saudi Arabia. There, women still must keep their heads covered and face stonings if they disobey their husband. Saudi Arabia now has the worst human rights record in the Middle east now that the Taliban is out of Afganistan. Keep that in mind when you here Bush say “Sadam was a horrible dictator”. Then ask yourself why he was our best friend throughtout the 1980’s. It was the same man with the same record back then. He didn’t become a despot over night. As a student of Middle Eastern history with a background in Political science from undergrad, please listen when i say this. The real issue was not Iraq. Now its just a costly distraction keeping us away from Bin Laden and the nuclear problem developing in Iran.

to rainjack: You and your friend are allowed to think whatever you want. If you are well informed, I respect your opinion. I just disagree with it, and thats allowed. Whenever you talk about majorities and minorities, it means there will be execptions to the rule. Pick up any book on voter turnout and you can see that the the trend is when education goes up, usually so does the change from conservative to liberal. I did’nt do the study on it, don’t hate me.

All I can say to you on your response to “bomb them” is this. One noteworthy Ullema (an Islamic theologin) said before the war in Iraq. “There was one Bin Laden before the war, their will be hundreds after” There is a reason a portion of the Muslim world hates us. Simple statements like “bomb them” only result in more of a mess, more hate on both sides, and more death. What do you think happens when a person has his house blown up and his loved ones killed? It takes a person who was a-political and makes them extremists over night. I know if another country came over here and blew up my house and killed someone I love, that i would seek revenge. I hope you would too as a man. Study International Relations and understand that there are always results. Cause and effect. Its simple political game theory.

Spence

Interesting perspective. I think the support of Israel angers all Arab nations and most Muslims. So be it. It’s still the right thing to do and most Muslims fare better in Israel then they do in Arab countries. They need to face up to that fact.

Bush family animosity…can’t discount that didn’t happen. However, Bush 41 didn’t invade Kuwait…Saddaam did. He got his whooped over it. I think he deserved it. Saudi Arabia that’s a deal with the Devil but a necessary one. They have the Oil and the world runs on it.

Wahabiasm I will agree with you is a radical bastardism of Islamic Fundamentalism. I wouldn’t characterize it as Puratanical Christianity. I would compare it to the Inquisition of Christianity in the Middle Ages. Religions shouldn’t be judged by the amount of followers but by how they value human life. Islam falls far short in that regard. As ascholar I suggest you read the Qu’ran directly. The interpetations tend to be biased. Read the simple English translation. It is quiet frightening for an Infidel to read. I also suggest that you read the Hadith’s which are a recollection of the life of Mohammed. The Qu’ran cannot be understood without them. When you try to understand the actions Bin Laden is taking in the context of Wahabiasm you realize what we are up against and where they are heading.

Spence- What would you have us do to curtail Iran’s nuclear program and Bin-Laden’s impact on Islam.

I’ll disagree on Iraq being unnecessary. Just because they were less Secular does not give them a pass on what they were doing in the world and to their people. It was pre-emptive and necessary. Saddam was our friend in the 80’s because he was an enemy of our enemy. That’s the only reason.

Good luck in your studies. Your positions strike me as somewhat PC in nature so I would encourage critical thought. If it is the same afterwards well so be it.

When I was in college I was out to not be PC.

I took on feminism and affirmative action with a vengance.

I challegened all the theories my instructors taught. I only had one that punished me for it and gave me an undeserved C. The rest said they didn’t a agree, challenged certain premises and gave me my “As.”

College really taught me how to tangle with complexity. I learned to look at primary and secondary sources and contradicting views and then I was able to come up with my own conclusions.

So yes, I guess you could say my instructors were liberal in that they let me challenge their beliefs and did not punish me.

The Taliban were conservative. You want to get an education from them?

(I know I know, false analogy. Ha!)

I fully agree with BB on the current influx of “social” history professors in the place of military or otherwise more conservative professors. My freshman history professor was a self proclaimed marxist who had us read Howard Zinn’s The People’s History of the United States. BTW, Howard Zinn has some pretty radical theories, among them being that all the “rich and elite” conspired to oppress the poor throughout the history of the U.S., and that the Consitution was written to preserve the powers of the elite. Blatant prevarication if you ask me. Whoever mentioned above that the liberal academia. Also refer to hedo’s post. very true