Liberals in the Academy

[intextrovert]

Thought this article in the NY Times about why liberals become academics (not the other way around) was interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/arts/18liberal.html?em

I'm not totally sold on the idea that stereotyping is the most major factor. Or to put it another way, I think that the stereotype is fairly well-founded: "nerdy, longwinded, secular" - don't you kind of have to be like that to want to be a prof? I think it's more likely the latter explanation, that there are aspects of the job of "Professor," particularly humanities/social science professor, that correspond to aspects liberalism. You value certain things over other things as a liberal or conservative, and I think a lot of those things are strongly correlated with things you have to value to want to be a prof, or devalue to find it undesirable.

So, as you fine ladies and gents are the future of The Academy (I love the pretension of that term), it made me curious about the members of this board. Where do you self-identify on the political spectrum? What's your field? I think he's probably right that science/math/business people are more more likely to be more politically split, but who knows. What's your theory on why the Ivory Tower, like that notorious one of Pisa, leans so far to the left?

(By the way, if you couldn't guess from the fact that I read the New York Times, I define myself as a liberal. Not necessarily party-line or on every issue, but pretty darn liberal. And I'm in Literature - Humanities with a capital H.)

[LateAntique]

Thought this article in the NY Times about why liberals become academics (not the other way around) was interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/arts/18liberal.html?em

I'm not totally sold on the idea that stereotyping is the most major factor. Or to put it another way, I think that the stereotype is fairly well-founded: "nerdy, longwinded, secular" - don't you kind of have to be like that to want to be a prof? I think it's more likely the latter explanation, that there are aspects of the job of "Professor," particularly humanities/social science professor, that correspond to aspects liberalism. You value certain things over other things as a liberal or conservative, and I think a lot of those things are strongly correlated with things you have to value to want to be a prof, or devalue to find it undesirable.

So, as you fine ladies and gents are the future of The Academy (I love the pretension of that term), it made me curious about the members of this board. Where do you self-identify on the political spectrum? What's your field? I think he's probably right that science/math/business people are more more likely to be more politically split, but who knows. What's your theory on why the Ivory Tower, like that notorious one of Pisa, leans so far to the left?

(By the way, if you couldn't guess from the fact that I read the New York Times, I define myself as a liberal. Not necessarily party-line or on every issue, but pretty darn liberal. And I'm in Literature - Humanities with a capital H.)

Ask me after I have tenure.

[swisnieski]

I'm not altogether sold on the notion of typecasting, either. Within living memory there were large numbers of respectable conservative professors in fields as "soft" as English literature. There is no particularly compelling reason why conservatives would be disinclined to study the great books of the Western literary and philosophical canons. I've heard enough horror stories out of academia to believe that there is some kernel of truth to the idea of systemic discrimination against conservatives in hiring and tenure practices.

As for my own beliefs... well, see LateAntique's response.

[peppermint.beatnik]

I'm a small "l" liberal (to differentiate from the "Liberal" party in Canada).

I definitely lean to the left, but on some issue I'm merely centre left, while on others, such as the environment, I'm way left.

I think some disciplines nurture leanings more than others. For example, I don't know too many small c conservative sociologists.

[swisnieski]

I think some disciplines nurture leanings more than others. For example, I don't know too many small c conservative sociologists.

Agreed on this point. Sociology and virtually all of the identity studies fields are basically predicated on leftist ideas so it's not so surprising that they are as overwhelmingly left-leaning as they are.

[George]

My field is math. I definitely do not fit the ideas of one party or the other. I tend to be slightly conservative economically and am a fan of Ayn Rand's meritocracy even though I don't fully subscribe to her ideas about social interaction. In other areas I am very liberal: civil rights for anybody, severe penalties for trashing the environment, lots of spending toward public education.

[Roll Right]

While Im a leftist, profs dont exactly fit to that stereotype. I think it depends more on your field of study. I know a lot of conservative sociologists. I also know a lot of liberal sociologists. You cant type cast. Are liberals more likely to go to the academy? Perhaps....but then again...we have to consider socioeconomic status as well. Who can afford college in higher percentages? Libs or conservatives? And is there even any relationship? Also, consider the generation most professors grew up in...the 60s. Many of these individuals will be liberal because of that. Counter-culture! Probably more historical causality than some elective affinity.

Look at the snap shot of professors and political identity in 20 years. Youll probably see a different demographic.

[ColorlessGreen]

I'm a liberal, but, since that can be a complicated term, let's say that I'm mostly concerned with social justice, the environment, and fair trade. I don't know about the rest of my department at my current university, but I imagine Linguistics as a whole is filled with many liberals because of the large number of respected linguists today who got their degrees in the '60s and '70s. Many of these linguists didn't let their political beliefs affect their work, but believe you me, I could show you some very amusing papers on cursing and sex and the evils of the war in Vietnam. And, of course, whether they made clear their politics in their work or not, word got around, especially in the case of Noam Chomsky and his students at MIT. I think Noam Chomsky is still one of the most prominent liberal professors in any field.

I didn't join the field because of him or any other liberal professor, though. I didn't even know about the politics of these prominent linguists when I began studying, and I still don't know the politics of most of the professors at the schools where I am applying. I consider it irrelevant to my studies, and I imagine most of my generation would agree. So I don't think stereotyping was an issue for me in this case. However, I think that if my field had a reputation for conservative ideals, I might have been a great deal more choosy in applying to schools. I would have tried to find schools that either kept quiet on politics altogether or that had at least a few faculty members who agreed with me, particularly on social issues. I would have been very uncomfortable in a primarily conservative environment. As it is, as part of the liberal majority I had the luxury of ignoring politics in the application process, a luxury that some conservative applicants might not have felt they had.

[LifeIsGood]

I'm definitely a liberal (social issues, environment, foreign policy, church/state, etc.), but I swing center on financial issues. I'm the product of a very liberal family, so no surprise there. I've never cast a vote for anyone other than Dems, and it makes me nervous when some of my local elections (school board, judges, etc.) don't specify party affiliation. I Google like crazy until I have enough info to figure it out myself. My humanities profs have all been liberal as well, with the exception of the Latin Americanist -- a Cuban exile whom I believe has good reason to be conservative on some issues, such as foreign policy and the military.

[Roll Right]

I think we ought to look beyond our individual experiences when trying to get at a conclusion here. I mean, thats how typecasting and stereotypes come about...relying on individual subjective exepriences, then using those experiences to generalize to the greater world.

[ColorlessGreen]

I think we ought to look beyond our individual experiences when trying to get at a conclusion here. I mean, thats how typecasting and stereotypes come about...relying on individual subjective exepriences, then using those experiences to generalize to the greater world.

I don't think anyone here really expects to come to some kind of conclusion on the politics of the professorate as a whole, but discussing our own individual experiences can add to our collective knowledge. A group is a collection of individuals, after all, and when you have the experiences of enough individuals you can begin to make connections and generalizations about the group.

If not by survey, how would you suggest examining Gross and Fosse's hypothesis?

[coyabean]

I'm not in a position to source so forgive any mangling I do. But is there not a body of work about the correlation between the "big five" personality traits -- concietiousness, risk-taking, etc. -- and political affiliation? I can't be making that up; I've read it somewhere.

I think that it could be as simple as that the nature of modern academia is more attractive to a personality type that is more likely to be attracted to progressive political and social ideas. I'm thinking, right now, of openess to new experiences.

If, for a VERY broad example, a person who is very high on concietiousness respects rules and order over new ideas and experiences tends to be politically conservative and academia, as a career, is a good fit for people who question the status quo then it would figure that more liberal-leaning folks end up in academia. I bet we'd find the opposite in b-schools.

Edited January 19, 2010 by coyabean

[Roll Right]

I'm just not sold on the type casting idea. The survey data is indisputable, the GSS is the best representative sample of the American pop. But I think there may be a better theoretical explanation. Education itself has a way of liberalising individuals. I think the causality might be opposite, maybe higher educations lead to liberal attitudes. You can't tell from the survey, cause the GSS doesn't use panel data. I bet the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (might have then name wrong in sequence...) would yeild interesting results. Tracking political identity over time to see if there was political identity shifting during the education process. Interesting study that would be!

[jacib]

I'm just not sold on the type casting idea. The survey data is indisputable, the GSS is the best representative sample of the American pop. But I think there may be a better theoretical explanation. Education itself has a way of liberalising individuals. I think the causality might be opposite, maybe higher educations lead to liberal attitudes. You can't tell from the survey, cause the GSS doesn't use panel data. I bet the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (might have then name wrong in sequence...) would yeild interesting results. Tracking political identity over time to see if there was political identity shifting during the education process. Interesting study that would be!

1) Though well left of center politically, I do support many typical conservative "pet causes" such as Great Books programs. Furthermore, I often find myself opposed to separate "Ethnic studies" and "Global studies" programs, as well as to what I perceive as an over emphasis on sex/gender/race/whatever in theorizing. At the same time, I argue that much of the stuff that is read in sociology is too Ameri-Eurocentric and needs to take on a moral global perspective so...

2) Check out this sweet academic article on why so many (Islamic) terrorists are engineers (for the wimpy/those pressed for time, here's a non-academic summary from Slate.com).

3) I think while education has some liberalizing effect, I doubt it accounts for everything. Look how many neo-Cons have graduate degrees from Chicago. Clearly, some professions draw different types. Law and economics, for example, attract people who are will to work long hours for large pay (something which I am not willing to do). Apparently, engineering tends to draw people who like black/white distinctions. It is no surprise that the Academy in general favors shades of gray and are open to new ideas, traits highly corrolated with the left-wing politics. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if some historical areas (I am thinking of History and Classics in particular) might lean more towards the right than an "presentist" field like Sociology would (I really had a grad-student complain to me about the "America-centric and presentist biases in Sociology"... that dude was awesome). After all, I think Burke has a quotation that says something along the lines of "Conservatism is the democracy of the dead."

[Roll Right]

1) Though well left of center politically, I do support many typical conservative "pet causes" such as Great Books programs. Furthermore, I often find myself opposed to separate "Ethnic studies" and "Global studies" programs, as well as to what I perceive as an over emphasis on sex/gender/race/whatever in theorizing. At the same time, I argue that much of the stuff that is read in sociology is too Ameri-Eurocentric and needs to take on a moral global perspective so...

2) Check out this sweet academic article on why so many (Islamic) terrorists are engineers (for the wimpy/those pressed for time, here's a non-academic summary from Slate.com).

3) I think while education has some liberalizing effect, I doubt it accounts for everything. Look how many neo-Cons have graduate degrees from Chicago. Clearly, some professions draw different types. Law and economics, for example, attract people who are will to work long hours for large pay (something which I am not willing to do). Apparently, engineering tends to draw people who like black/white distinctions. It is no surprise that the Academy in general favors shades of gray and are open to new ideas, traits highly corrolated with the left-wing politics. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if some historical areas (I am thinking of History and Classics in particular) might lean more towards the right than an "presentist" field like Sociology would (I really had a grad-student complain to me about the "America-centric and presentist biases in Sociology"... that dude was awesome). After all, I think Burke has a quotation that says something along the lines of "Conservatism is the democracy of the dead."

I agree, it really couldnt account for everything. But I feel like it may have more significance than other social attributes. I dont want to seem like a purist though, causality is never completely controlled for in any scientific study. Im just really curious about political switching, whether the academy has a significant affect on converting to leftist or right wing politics.

Anyone looking for a thesis idea? LOL, there you go!

Edited January 21, 2010 by Roll Right

[JerryLandis]

Come on now, we all know that it's because conservatives are too stupid to make it in academia!

I'm being sarcastic here but wouldn't be surprised if some study established that it's the truth.

That said, it annoys me when professors get really political in their lectures, particularly when the subject they teach has nothing to do with modern politics. Usually I agree with the leftist views they espouse, but I just think it's pretty condescending to assume that students have no idea what is "really" going on in the world and that we need to be educated about it by someone from a supposedly more enlightened generation.

[jacib]

That said, it annoys me when professors get really political in their lectures, particularly when the subject they teach has nothing to do with modern politics. Usually I agree with the leftist views they espouse, but I just think it's pretty condescending to assume that students have no idea what is "really" going on in the world and that we need to be educated about it by someone from a supposedly more enlightened generation.

Does this actually happen frequently? I can not recall a single case of this happening in my undergrad (I can't say that it never did... I mean I'm sure so one must have done a random, brief anti-Bush shout out or two). The closest to getting political was when one polisci professor was like, "And this is why I wrote a paper advising Clinton to just sell tanks to the Bosniaks... the war would have been much better if he did and we wouldn't have had to get so involved" something like that. But it was pertinent.

[Roll Right]

No, I don't recall it too often. Well, lol...one professor constantly used Obama as an example of charismatic authority during discussions of Weberian ideal types of authority...but it was relevant. He talked him up a whole lot though. So I'm sure some people didn't like it, especially conservatives. People are extremely sensitive to this stuff. A conservative friend of mine complained about being assigned an article from the Huffington Post, cause it was a liberal news source .

[swisnieski]

I'm just not sold on the type casting idea. The survey data is indisputable, the GSS is the best representative sample of the American pop. But I think there may be a better theoretical explanation. Education itself has a way of liberalising individuals. I think the causality might be opposite, maybe higher educations lead to liberal attitudes. You can't tell from the survey, cause the GSS doesn't use panel data. I bet the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (might have then name wrong in sequence...) would yeild interesting results. Tracking political identity over time to see if there was political identity shifting during the education process. Interesting study that would be!

There are plenty of colleges (especially in the south and west) where there is no "liberalizing" effect (if you take liberalizing to mean shifting their political attitude to the left). And moreover that liberalizing effect, to the extent that people go to college stupid and come out Marxists, is a relatively recent historical phenomenon.

It's just as likely that the liberalizing one sees of students is a product of their exposure to a valueless vacuum bereft of consequences and characterized by loose sexual morals, egged on by weekly binge drinking.

[Roll Right]

The only people Ive found to be stupid are the ones who discount Marxism, yet they cant explain it to me. They just tell me the USSR never worked. Boy, that sure was Marxism . I just smile and shake my head. And you cant generalize loose sex to college campuses. And bereft of consequences? Come on now. This isnt one of these "just wait till you get to the real world!" arguments??? And youve basically just suggested that liberals are the product of a world without consequences and are loose with their sexual attitudes and probably drink in excess.

Is this Rush Limbaugh in disguise?!!

Edited January 22, 2010 by Roll Right

[swisnieski]

The only people Ive found to be stupid are the ones who discount Marxism, yet they cant explain it to me. They just tell me the USSR never worked. Boy, that sure was Marxism . I just smile and shake my head. And you cant generalize loose sex to college campuses. And bereft of consequences? Come on now. This isnt one of these "just wait till you get to the real world!" arguments??? And youve basically just suggested that liberals are the product of a world without consequences and are loose with their sexual attitudes and probably drink in excess.

Is this Rush Limbaugh in disguise?!!

The best argument against Marxism is that it is unable to accommodate itself to human nature -- hence its tendency to devolve into ugly tyrannies everywhere it's attempted. But that's beside the point. Leftism isn't the sole recourse of brainiacs, hence the reason universities functioned for generations in America without cranking out leftists in large numbers. Hence, liberalism among college students and professors cannot be said to be solely a function of education.

And no, I did not say that liberals are the product of such an environment. (Many don't go to college). I'm saying that liberalism is naturally going to thrive in such an environment. You don't really believe that students addled on free sex and frat parties will embrace a political ideology that frowns on free sex and frat parties, do you?

Edited January 22, 2010 by swisnieski

[Roll Right]

No, I wouldn't suggest that. But then you're assuming that liberalism smiles upon free sex and frat parties. I don't think we can make a distinction there. Liberalism isn't the free love counter culture that existed in the 60's. Nor is conservatism the ideology of morality.

I definately agree that liberalism isn't the main source of brainiacs. That's obviously not true. As I said before, I know plenty of conservative and liberal professors alike. I was merely suggesting that it would be interesting to see if there was a significant level of political switching to the left during a college education. The study that was posted originally was a time-series design using the General Social Survey, so there isn't much control over causality there. A panel study would be really cool!

[peppermint.beatnik]

Does this actually happen frequently? I can not recall a single case of this happening in my undergrad (I can't say that it never did... I mean I'm sure so one must have done a random, brief anti-Bush shout out or two). The closest to getting political was when one polisci professor was like, "And this is why I wrote a paper advising Clinton to just sell tanks to the Bosniaks... the war would have been much better if he did and we wouldn't have had to get so involved" something like that. But it was pertinent.

This happened on several occasions during my undergrad. That and dumping on the admin, but that's not unusual for faculty.

[intextrovert]

I like how I seem to have started a sociologist brawl.

I can't speak to the influence of binge drinking, casual encounters, and frat parties on the development of political ideology. But I can say that if you are one of those liberal academic wannabes, this week has been seriously depressing. Between whimpering about the Massachusetts election and dissolving in angst over the Supreme Court decision, I've barely had time for my regular what-if-I-don't-get-in mindgames.

[swisnieski]

The discussion inspired me to start mining the literature for info on the topic, and here's (some) of what I've found:

From W.J. Boldt and J.B. Stroud's study "Changes in the attitudes of college students":

In seven of the ten comparisons made the differences between

the means are more than four times the PE of the difference, and in

only one comparison is the difference less than three times its PE.

Since the test employed seems to possess satisfactory validity, we are

warranted in concluding that the sophomores are more liberal than

freshmen in their attitudes toward social, religious, and political

problems, and the like; and that each succeeding class is more liberal

than the preceding one. These results as they stand do not prove

that the increment in liberalism is the direct result of college training

since the students who are now upper classmen may have been more

liberal when they entered college than the present freshmen. However,

the probability that such selective factors would produce a

graded series of advancements for each of the five class levels is very

slight indeed. The authors are inclined to attribute the results to

the influence of college training.

This interpretation is supported by the fact that changes in attitudes,

as indicated by the test, are dependent upon the course of

study pursued. The results show that the students who are majoring

in the social sciences manifest a more liberal tendency than those

majoring in any other group of subjects. Furthermore, there is a

direct relationship between the number of semester hours of credit

obtained in the social sciences and the tendencies toward liberalism

as expressed in the test scores.

Worth noting is that the study DID NOT track students through school, hence the caution in interpreting the results.

Another study (no PDF, only an abstract available) by D. J. Hanson et al. (oddly enough, also entitled "Changes in the Attitudes of College Students") found that there was no "turnabout" from "radical attitudes of the late 1960s" but noted an increase in pessimism.