What is the motive behind claims of liberal bias in university hiring?

[kcballer21]

I searched for a previous posting on this topic but found only the "media liberal bias" thread. Recent studies have shown what Bill O'Reilly has been complaining about all along, that University hirees on average are more liberal than conservative.

Judging from the typical conservative complaint, this bias is a result of some sort of conspiracy by the universities of the land to have liberals dominate academia. (otherwise, can someone please inform me of another motive?)

Well after reading the latest Krugman article I feel somewhat reaffirmed that this conspiracy is a load of bs. Here's an excerpt, I'm interested to hear what Krugman has missed.

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."

Consider the statements of Dennis Baxley, a Florida legislator who has sponsored a bill that - like similar bills introduced in almost a dozen states - would give students who think that their conservative views aren't respected the right to sue their professors. Mr. Baxley says that he is taking on "leftists" struggling against "mainstream society," professors who act as "dictators" and turn the classroom into a "totalitarian niche." His prime example of academic totalitarianism? When professors say that evolution is a fact.

http://pkarchive.org/column/040505.html

 

[cronxeh]

Because evolution is a fact, and because your Republican students are usually hanging out in frat houses drinking beer and majoring in Accounting. Do I have to justify the military aspect? I guess it doesn't come easier but to say that your IQ has a lot to do with it.

 

[russ_watters]

Judging from the typical conservative complaint, this bias is a result of some sort of conspiracy by the universities of the land to have liberals dominate academia. (otherwise, can someone please inform me of another motive?)

My take on it is that it just is what it is. Liberals gravitate to certain industries and conservatives gravitate to certain other industries. That in and of itself isn't bad or wrong, but what is bad/wrong is when a certain industry has an ethical responsibility to be unbiased politically in their work (both universities and the media have this responsibility) and fail to fulfil that responsibility.

I searched for a previous posting on this topic but found only the "media liberal bias" thread.

We have discussed this before, relating specifically to universities. I think it was in social sciences... [pause] HERE it is.

So:
Do universities lean left? Yes.
Is that the cause/result of some conspiracy to keep conservatives out? No.

 

[Rev Prez]

Because evolution is a fact...

Unlike your remarks here.

...and because your Republican students are usually hanging out in frat houses drinking beer and majoring in Accounting.

Really? Is there any data on that? Let's see, we have your stereotype versus a mountain of evidence that academia self-selects against openly conservative types. I'm sticking with the evidence.

Do I have to justify the military aspect? I guess it doesn't come easier but to say that your IQ has a lot to do with it.

Based on what data?

 

[Rev Prez]

Krugman's analysis is hollow. We have clear evidence that conservative participation in academia increases substantially in more technical fields. What we don't know is what happens to the far more evenly split college graduation population and their breakdown per field. A far more parsimonious explanation is that academic life for whatever reason doesn't appeal to conservatives; why waste time in an overwhelmingly liberal environment making $40,000 a year as a postgraduate fellow or associate professor when you can get half over that in the private sector? And if that's the case, why waste time pursuing an advanced degree?

Rev Prez

 

[BobG]

Do I have to justify the military aspect? I guess it doesn't come easier but to say that your IQ has a lot to do with it.

Does the average military member have a lower IQ or is that just your general impression?

The average ASVAB scores for career Air Force enlisted ranges from the mid-60th percentile to the low 70's (depending on the area of aptitude you're talking about). Average percentile is 50th (better than 50% of all individuals).
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v36n3/kraska.html

Average SAT's for those accepted into the Air Force Academy is about 1250. Average for the population overall is about 1000. Below a 3.0 GPA and a student can just about forget about getting into the Academy. It also takes getting an endorsement from a Congressman. http://www.airforceacademy.net/SatAct.htm

Additionally, per USNews, the AF Academy is ranked as the 2nd best Aeronautical/Aerospace Engineering College, West Point is ranked 3rd among Mechanical Engineering Colleges. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/rankengineering_brief.php

In general, the military (and the 'high tech' Navy and Air Force, especially) have folks with above average intelligence and quite a few are well above average (in the Space Operations career field, a 60th percentile would get you into fill a slot, but you really needed to be above the 85th to get the more exciting jobs that made a worthwhile career).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The average ASVAB scores for career Air Force enlisted ranges from the mid-60th percentile to the low 70's (depending on the area of aptitude you're talking about). Average percentile is 50th (better than 50% of all individuals).

Have you taken the ASVAB? I aced it with barely any effort and in about a third or a half or the time allowed. Frankly, it was a joke. Also, what percentage of those in the military attend West Point?

As a general comment not directed at you BobG, 50% of all individuals who take the ASVAB are some member's idea of educated people. To anyone who thinks that the level of education in this country is acceptable, I strongly urge you to get a copy of the ASVAB.

 

[kcballer21]

So:
Do universities lean left? Yes.
Is that the cause/result of some conspiracy to keep conservatives out? No.

What about this quote:

Think of the message this sends: today's Republican Party - increasingly dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research - doesn't respect science, or scholarship in general. It shouldn't be surprising that scholars have returned the favor by losing respect for the Republican Party.

I personally think that this is a fair quote, and that this has been the root of much of my disdain for the administration.

 

[BobG]

Have you taken the ASVAB? I aced it with barely any effort and in about a third or a half or the time allowed. Frankly, it was a joke. Also, what percentage of those in the military attend West Point?

As a general comment not directed at you BobG, 50% of all individuals who take the ASVAB are some member's idea of educated people. To anyone who thinks that the level of education in this country is acceptable, I strongly urge you to get a copy of the ASVAB.

It isn't designed to test a person's education. It's an aptitude test aimed at determining whether a person can be trained or not. Ideally, education would play no part in the test, but it's pretty hard to design a test that doesn't rely on some kind of educational floor (someone raised by wolves who never learned to read or do basic addition or subtraction would probably fail regardless of their intelligence).

But, yes, anyone with enough intelligence to pass high school classes (or raised by educated wolves) should qualify easily.

 

[loseyourname]

The concerns about a conspiracy to keep conservative views off of college campuses is probably off-base, at least for the most part. There is another concern that Krugman doesn't seem to address, however. Even if self-selected, the majority of professors, especially in humanities and social sciences, are liberals. They do present liberal viewpoints in their classes, often to the exclusion of all other points of view. Forget presenting evolution as a fact. There is nothing political about that. I have professors up here in the bay area presenting a Republican pattern of blatant poll and election fraud as fact. I have professors badly misrepresenting the Patriot Act and telling students flat out that the US is becoming a fascist police state under Bush. These are the kind of ridiculous assertions that being refuted daily on the physics forums being fed to students, most of whom never question it. I have no idea how widespread this is, but it is a problem. Krugman's article seems to be a classic strawman to me. Take your opponent's weakest argument, debunk it, and conclude that everything else he says must be wrong.

 

[1123581321]

Because evolution is a fact, and because your Republican students are usually hanging out in frat houses drinking beer and majoring in Accounting. Do I have to justify the military aspect? I guess it doesn't come easier but to say that your IQ has a lot to do with it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that dumb people are republicans and go into the millitary and drink beer? If that is what you are saying, then you are wrong wrong and wrong. Is it stupid to serve your country? Sure, not every soldier is 'smart', but they are fighting for your ass, are they not? Someone has to do it. Again, if I am wrong, i am sorry.

Fibonacci

 

[1123581321]

. Frankly, it was a joke. Also, what percentage of those in the military attend West Point?

Getting into west point is not all about intelligence, its mostly about leadership ability. You need a letter of recommendation from your senator, congressman, or vice president (i think) to even think about getting in. And, very few make it to West Point, you have a better chance of Harvard or MIT acceptance.

Fibonacci

 

[wasteofo2]

Something that I don't believe has been brought up is that as of now, the poorer areas in the country tend to be the more Republican areas. Your average kid growing up in California or Connecticut is going to be more likely to go to college than your average kid in Idaho or South Carolina it would seem, since in most cases, Liberal communities are very well off financially, and college can be quite expensive.

 

[kat]

erm, I think over all republicans trend to a higher income then democrats. Democrats tend to have a heavier rate of voters who fall below poverty levels and also have lower education, overall, then republicans...

 

[kcballer21]

Forget presenting evolution as a fact. There is nothing political about that.

I disagree. When the president of the United States declares that the 'jury is still out' on evolution, that becomes political. It seems as though Bush has no qualms about making a statement that is either a) a lie espoused to serve his herds of evangelicals, or b) a declaration of his ignorance that he apparently cares little to correct. How can this not trouble you on a political level?

 

[Moonbear]

Hmmm...when we interview people for new faculty positions, you know, there's just no box on the application for "liberal or conservative," nor does anyone ask during the interview. We discuss their research and teaching preferences, publication history, and funding track record, not their political views. There's no vast conspiracy to keep conservatives out.

Rev Prez, one earns considerably more than $40K as an associate professor. I'm not sure if your intent was to be factually accurate or to exaggerate to make a point, so I thought I'd just correct that. $40K is approximately what a post-doc earns though (give or take depending on experience). Nonetheless, I do agree with your point that it may simply be that more people with conservative views don't find academic life and/or pay scales appealing compared with those with liberal views.

 

[SOS2008]

Even in the humanities/social sciences, students soon will know which professors are liberal or conservative before taking the classes, and/or usually can switch if they don't like a professor. And, it is interesting how many religious institutions there are just off-campus, so I've always believed they are getting their fair shot at our youth.

...I personally think that this is a fair quote, and that this has been the root of much of my disdain for the administration.

Also the public, who detest academia, scholars, intellectuals... Why do I suspect these people often don't have much education themselves?

 

[loseyourname]

I disagree. When the president of the United States declares that the 'jury is still out' on evolution, that becomes political. It seems as though Bush has no qualms about making a statement that is either a) a lie espoused to serve his herds of evangelicals, or b) a declaration of his ignorance that he apparently cares little to correct. How can this not trouble you on a political level?

I meant that a biology professor proclaiming evolution as fact is not doing so because of political bias.

 

[russ_watters]

What about this quote:

I personally think that this is a fair quote, and that this has been the root of much of my disdain for the administration.

Yes, I think that's fair. But I don't think it has much to do with this topic - colleges have been liberal for...well, forever.

 

[Joel]

Yes, I think that's fair. But I don't think it has much to do with this topic - colleges have been liberal for...well, forever.

But are they more Liberal now (ie. in the change of the century)?

A comparison of the 1999 survey with previous surveys of American faculty indicates a substantial shift to the left in party identification and ideology since the mid-1980s, at a time when ideological and party identification among the general public has been relatively stable.

Rev Prez link

 

[Bladibla]

Bill O'reilly , imo, has nothing credible.

Note: Mods; if the link is too offensive to be on this site, i apologize and would remove it if you post to me..

 

[Joel]

First, I'd like to make a distinction between liberal/conservative values and democratic/republic values clear. The democratic/republic values are party-political values, while conservative/liberal values are more general values affecting one's view at the world at large. Of course, these values are mingled together in a person and are quite impossible to separate exactly, but it is an important distinction non the less because political values should have no place in the politically independent academic world.

While politically independent, the academic world is surely not a value free environment, it has academic values, ie. academic freedom and research ethics (and political independence!). But the important questions is, what does these academic values exactly consist of and how do they relate to liberal/conservative and democratic/republic values? This question was not asked by Rothman, Lichter and Nevitte and I think it is very important to determine who has moved away from who.

 

[kat]

http://www.cmpa.com/documents/05.03.29.Forum.Survey.pdf

"In addition, the regressions uncovered some relationships that clearly warrant
further research, principally the role of gender and religiosity in academic
advancement. The contemporary debate over discrimination against female
faculty in hiring and promotion is beyond the scope of this paper, although our
data seem to provide prima facie support for this allegation. We are not aware of
similar allegations of discrimination on the basis of religion, but this is clearly a
topic that demands greater scrutiny on the basis of our findings. We plan to
pursue some of these questions in forthcoming papers.
The analysis also suggests that being male confers a significant advantage.
However, no competitive advantage is conferred by being black or white, gay or
straight, married or single. Thus, when the logic of testing for differential
outcomes according to race, gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation is applied to
ideology and religion, being a conservative, a Republican or a practicing Christian
confers a disadvantage in professional advancement greater than any of these
other factors."

 

[russ_watters]

But are they more Liberal now (ie. in the change of the century)?

More liberal than in the 80's and 90's, maybe, but certainly not more liberal than the hippie '60s.

 

[Joel]

More liberal than in the 80's and 90's, maybe, but certainly not more liberal than the hippie '60s.

Okay, but could here be a similar situation? The hippie movement was in part a counter reaction to the polarization of the cold war, vietnam war and other nationalistic/conservative/right wing phenomenas supported by the government. The universities where prestigous institutions that had no immediate interest in taking sides and could afford to criticize the current policies.

Now, I think many agreed in another thread that america as a whole is moving right (first Bush and Iraq, a wee bit of Clinton and now the second Bush with war). So, isn't it possible that the academic world is in fact even more conservative (in the sense that they are not affected by societys fluctuations that fast) than the society at large and that the discussion about liberal/left/whatever biased universities is in fact 'just' a counter reaction to current political climate, just like in the 60'?

 

[russ_watters]

Okay, but could here be a similar situation? The hippie movement was in part a counter reaction to the polarization of the cold war, vietnam war and other nationalistic/conservative/right wing phenomenas supported by the government. The universities where prestigous institutions that had no immediate interest in taking sides and could afford to criticize the current policies.

Yes, I could see that parallel. Ironically, though, all the Vietnam war trouble was started by a Democrat.

 

[fourier jr]

all you people who think there's some liberal conspiracy to keep conservatives out of universities shold have a look at eric margolis' (sociology, u of arizona) book "hidden curriculum in higher education", especially the chapters on law faculties & business schools.

 

[1123581321]

Bill O'reilly , imo, has nothing credible.

Note: Mods; if the link is too offensive to be on this site, i apologize and would remove it if you post to me..

While there are some arguments against Bill, but i hope no one will read that and believe it. If it hadn't called him some of the nasty words it did, then it may seem more credible. It may be true, but is presented in a way that it seems biased, not third party. i am trying to not bias myself, but i think that was a whole bunch of horse ****, but that's just me.

No one else seems to have my view on life, but that's what freedom of speech is for. I think politics should be banned forever, it just makes people mad.

Fibonacci

 

[franznietzsche]

Have you taken the ASVAB? I aced it with barely any effort and in about a third or a half or the time allowed. Frankly, it was a joke.

So was the SAT.

So was the California High School Exit Exam (IIRC i missed 3 questions total), which the first year the majority of students statewide could not pass (I forget the exact number).

What is your point?

50th percentile is still the average score.

As a general comment not directed at you BobG, 50% of all individuals who take the ASVAB are some member's idea of educated people. To anyone who thinks that the level of education in this country is acceptable, I strongly urge you to get a copy of the ASVAB.

Non-sequitur. If, as i understand Bob's post, the average score for those in the military is 60%, then they are above the average of the general population. Period.

 

[franznietzsche]

Yes, I could see that parallel. Ironically, though, all the Vietnam war trouble was started by a Democrat.

Yeah, Kennedy's insistence on reciprocal response without escalation kinda screwed us in the arse on that one. The basis of Kennedy's foreign policy (i forget the term used) was to use the smallest amount of force necessary to deal with a conflict, and it to not unnecessarily escalate it by responding with greater force than we were confronted with. Granted, this probably saved 500 million lives during the cuban missile crisis. It also kept him, and Johnson from ever committing the troop numbers truly necessary to vietnam soon enough.

 

[Rev Prez]

Rev Prez, one earns considerably more than $40K as an associate professor.

That should be "assistant professor." And the number I looked at averaged full time and part time assistant professors and instructors together. Full time salaried assistant professors make on average $50K, or about five thousand dollars less than the average pay for a SB in EE or CS.

 

[Rev Prez]

Hmmm...when we interview people for new faculty positions, you know, there's just no box on the application for "liberal or conservative," nor does anyone ask during the interview. We discuss their research and teaching preferences, publication history, and funding track record, not their political views. There's no vast conspiracy to keep conservatives out.

No, there is no vast conspiracy. But I find it difficult to believe given the skew that you innocently focus entirely on their relevant track record. The participation rate of conservatives in the sciences and engineering is far higher than in the humanities; not surprising, publication choice and funding track record rarely is an indication of political affiliation in the technical fields. Then again, I also find it hard to believe that questions regarding general fitness, answered possibly in background checks, etc., do not contribute to some subtle discrimination. Add to that the fact that many of your accreditted faculty positions are in liberal arts schools, in hotbeds of liberalism, and you have to ask yourself why open conservatives would subject themselves to such a hostile atmosphere when the private sector offers better pay and comfort.

 

[Joel]

The participation rate of conservatives in the sciences and engineering is far higher than in the humanities; not surprising, publication choice and funding track record rarely is an indication of political affiliation in the technical fields.

Just to check (excuse the oversimplification), are you saying that it may affect negatively upon a social scientist's credentials if his research has been founded by the government?

 

[Rev Prez]

Just to check (excuse the oversimplification), are you saying that it may affect negatively upon a social scientist's credentials if his research has been founded by the government?

Or, say, a conservative thinktank. However, I think the subjects of research are more important. Middle Eastern Studies, for example, has gone overboard looking for gender and ethnic specialists, an area that might not attract as many conservatives because of its inherently left-leaning subject matter as much as strategic studies. And interdisciplinary MES and SS projects are rare as far as I know.

 

[ray b]

Yes, I could see that parallel. Ironically, though, all the Vietnam war trouble was started by a Democrat.

IKE was a Democrat ?? NO WAY