Search News


Browse Archives

News

Leaning to the Left

March 30, 2005

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

American professors are overwhelmingly liberal, according to a new report on faculty political attitudes.

Previous surveys have reached similar conclusions, but this one suggests that the ideological divide on campuses may be greater than has previously been thought. And the authors of this survey say that their evidence suggests say that conservatives, practicing Christians and women are less likely than others to get faculty jobs at top colleges.

The research, published in The Forum, is being praised as path-breaking by some scholars and as garbage by others. But since the study is being released at a time of heightened debate over charges of classroom bias, the report is likely to be closely examined and critiqued.

The findings are based on a survey of 1,643 faculty members at 183 four-year colleges and universities, and the results were analyzed by three political scientists: Stanley Rothman of Smith College, S. Robert Lichter of George Mason University and Neil Nevitte of the University of Toronto. In the abstract to their report, they say that the research "suggests that complaints of ideologically based discrimination in academic advancement deserve serious consideration and further study."

Rosemary G. Feal, executive director of the Modern Language Association, said that the implication that liberal faculty members were keeping conservative scholars out was "rubbish," and said that anyone who has been on dozens of search committees, as she has, knows that. "It boggles my mind the degree to which this is rubbish."

The Findings

Faculty members in the study were asked to place themselves on the political spectrum, and 72 percent identified as liberal while only 15 percent identified as conservative, with the remainder in the middle. The professors were also asked about party affiliation, and here the breakdown was 50 percent Democrats, 11 percent Republicans, and the rest independent and third parties.

The study also broke down the findings by academic discipline, and found that humanities faculty members were the most likely (81 percent) to be liberal. The liberal percentage was at its highest in English literature (88 percent), followed by performing arts and psychology (both 84 percent), fine arts (83 percent), political science (81 percent).

Other fields have more balance. The liberal-conservative split is 61-29 in education, 55-39 in economics, 53-47 in nursing, 51-19 in engineering, and 49-39 in business.

Beyond general political identification, the professors were asked for views on specific issues, and here too, the authors find faculty backing for positions associated with liberal politics. Of professors, 84 percent somewhat or strongly agree that women should have the right to have abortions, and 88 percent agree that policies should favor environmental protection even if those policies result in higher prices and fewer jobs.

The report's authors say that their findings suggest a "sharp shift to the left" from earlier studies, which found more ideological balance. But in fact numerous studies have made similar findings (although in many cases less detailed) in recent years.

"The American College Teacher" is a major study by the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California at Los Angeles that features some questions on politics. The last survey, in 2001, found that 5.3 percent of faculty members were far left, 42.3 percent were liberal, 34.3 percent were middle of the road, 17.7 percent were conservative, and 0.3 percent were far right. Those figures are only marginally different from the previous survey, in 1998.

Unlike the survey released this week, the UCLA survey includes faculty members at community colleges, and those faculty members are more evenly split than their four-year counterparts, with 33.3 percent identifying as liberal, 41.1 percent as middle of the road, and 22 percent as conservative.

The new study published in The Forum also attempts to look at the impact of the ideological split on college faculties.

So the authors devised an "academic achievement index" of  faculty members by looking at such factors as books written, journal articles and service on editorial boards. Then the authors looked at certain factors, such as political views, whether someone was religious (defined as attending services "at least once or twice a month"), and gender. The authors then tracked where scholars ended up to see whether there was a relationship between various factors in their backgrounds and whether they ended up at top colleges.

The authors report that among scholars with equivalent academic achievements, liberals are more likely than conservatives to be at top colleges. The scholars also found a negative correlation for being a practicing Christian to getting positions at top colleges (but not for observant Jews) and for women.

In the conclusion to the report, the authors acknowledge that their findings on possible discrimination against conservatives, Christians and women are "preliminary." But they go on to say that "these results suggest that conservative complaints of the presence and effects of liberal homogeneity in academia deserve to be taken seriously, despite their self-interested quality and the anecdotal nature of the evidence previously presented."

What It All Means

Stephen H. Balch, president of the National Association of Scholars, said that "the big news here is the first social science confirmation of the existence of discrimination in hiring and the personnel process." While previous studies have demonstrated the breadth of liberal support in the academy, he said, they have not made as direct a link to hiring and advancement.

Balch said there is now "very strong evidence" that there is bias in the hiring process against conservatives, whereas before this study, there was just "an enormous amount of anecdotal evidence."

College faculty members and presidents, "given their interest in diversity of all other kinds, and their professed desire to overcome discrimination, need to grapple with this."

Many academic leaders, however, say that the lopsided political identification totals are entirely predictable, and do not indicate discrimination of any kind. Feal, the MLA executive director, said that when humanities professors say that they are liberals, "the majority of us understand it to be not a narrow political ideology, but a conception of the world."

"We profess the liberal arts," she said. "That comes from freedom that we hold as a high value, from the pursuit of the truth, the pursuit of academic freedom, the belief that the learning and teaching of values will make us better citizens."

Prior to coming to the MLA, Feal was a professor and department chair  in modern languages at the State University of New York at Buffalo, and she says that searches never focused on questions of religion or politics. "These things are irrelevant in a search."

"When all was said and done, we had conservative Christians, we had liberal atheists, we had everyone," Feal said.

The study is part of a broader campaign, she said, to question the qualifications and rights of faculty members, especially in the humanities. "This is such a dangerous moment," she said. "We are facing the kind of scrutiny on politics and religion that truly signals danger."

Cary Nelson, author of Manifesto of a Tenured Radical, said that he wasn't surprised that some disciplines were largely liberal. Nelson, an English professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, said that in his field, "which has devoted itself significantly to expanding the canon over the last 25 years, it's most likely that the people who are coming into the disciplines are going to have a liberal sentiment rather than a reactionary sentiment."

Nelson said, however, that even if most professors in some fields are liberal, you wouldn't know it from what goes on in classrooms, where he said most scholars are "bloody cowards about letting their politics out." Nelson said that he always tells his students that he is a liberal, and that conservative students will do well in his class as long as they speak up and challenge him.

When it comes to hiring, he says that some departments do engage in "PC hiring," which he defined as the kind of hiring "where a search committee will say, 'We need more women so we're going to give this slot to a woman' or 'We don't have enough gay people so we've got to hire a gay person.' " Nelson said this kind of hiring was wrong -- and foolish in the humanities -- where there is enough diversity in the total pool that "if you go for the very best people, you'll still end up with diversity."

In his department, he said, hiring is quality based, and even though many of his colleagues focus on issues of race and gender, "we hire people who work only on traditional authors, most of whom are dead white men." The question in hiring, he says, is are you excited by a person's work and its potential, not do you agree with it.

In the Minority

Not all scholars accept the premise that the ideological split is necessarily hurting higher education -- or at least not in a black-and-white way.

Joel Carpenter, provost of Calvin College, said that many faculty members he hires are committed Christians who welcome the opportunity to work in an environment where they will not stand out. "People are always saying that they have finally found a place where they can be true to their beliefs," he said. While some people assume that a religious college like his is "less free" than other places, many of the scholars feel "more free" to talk about faith, he said, than they would at a secular university.

Carpenter said he would worry if religious faculty members felt that "they had been defined out of the realms of what's worth considering" at secular institutions. But he said he doesn't feel that is the situation yet. "I see a lot of strong, articulate, interesting voices at those institutions -- people who don't mind being in a minority, who have the courage of their convictions."

He speaks from some experience, having earned his Ph.D. in history from Johns Hopkins University, where he said he probably did stand out to his fellow students and to professors for his faith and views on some issues. "I think the fact that I really needed to defend my views to people who were originally skeptical helped make me stronger as a scholar," said Carpenter. But he also said that he saw "everyone have their ideas challenged -- no one got a pass."

"My own personal experience would say that yes, there is bias, but I haven't seen it to be a 'shut you down' kind of bias," he said. "I'm sure there were some who thought I was a little special, but I come from a Christian tradition that doesn't mind having a beer, so when the library closed, I went down to the grad club like everyone else."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments on Leaning to the Left

  • Reactions of denial are wholly revealing!
  • Posted by T J Olson , MSc student at University of London on May 24, 2005 at 7:35pm EDT
  • What's most amazingly consistent above are the denials of any bias in academe - most often revaling the most profound tendentiousness of all: denial itself.

    The rot is even deeper than Democrat's denial after sustained losses over a decade. And the above piece does not even include other recent studies, such as economist Daniel Klein's two findings of academic bias
    (see http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/8627.html).

    Apparently, Byron Janis' old thesis of "Groupthink" finds no application within academe. Maybe that's why they call it an "Ivory tower?" It strives to remain untested by real consequences and ignorant ("white," untainted) of the perfidy it perpetrates so easily.

  • Posted by Chuck Norton on July 25, 2008 at 7:50pm EDT
  • One commenter says that we should not take this study seriously and then presents ABC's John Stossel as "the mustachioed rightwing hustler". Stossel has always used the same standards when approaching an issue. When he was attacking companies and consumer issues he was given praise and awards from journalists, when he took the same style and approach against government he became a 'mustachioed rightwing hustler'.

    Thank you for demonstrating the entire point of this study.

  • Liberal, conservative
  • Posted by Rosemary G. Feal , Executive Director at Modern Language Association on March 30, 2005 at 10:35am EST
  • To expand a bit: liberal or conservative Christian, conservative or liberal atheist. . . all irrelevant to the hiring process. In fact, I have worked with many colleagues over the years whose political and religious affiliations remained unknown to me. When I recommended hiring candidates, I always did so based on their academic credentials. The only label that mattered was "superior scholar- teacher."

  • Posted by Louis Proyect on March 30, 2005 at 10:49am EST
  • I would be cautious about taking Robert Lichter too seriously. As director of The Center for Media and Public Affairs, he decided that the mustachioed rightwing hustler John Stossel deserved a $10,000 prize for his news reporting in 2003. The year before Stossel had to confess to his ABC audience that he lied when he said that organic produce is more dangerous than regular produce. Lichter is also a media analyst with Fox-TV, which is a little bit like being a nutrition adviser to McDonald's restaurants.

    Meanwhile, Stanley Rothman is co-author of "The IQ Controversy: The Media and Public Policy," which has as one of its goals the correction of the purportedly false perception that IQ tests are biased against minorities, primarily blacks and Hispanics, as well as against the poor--according to a review of the book by Linda S. Gottfredson in the March-April 1994 Society. Above all, the book appears to be a sophisticated attempt to salvage the reputation of the racist Arthur Jensen by painting his critics as liberal panty-waists.

    As a non-academic employee of Columbia University and a long-time observer of the culture wars, I read Chronicle of Higher Education. My perception has been that the Chronicle takes people like David Horowitz far too seriously. I would hope that Inside Higher Education does not make the same mistake.

  • Posted by Mark Lafer on March 30, 2005 at 12:27pm EST
  • The survey may well be a true portrait of the politics of the faculy today. But I see nothing in the data you cite to support a claim of systematic bias and discrimination in hiring.

    To make that causal leap,I would want to know what the candidate pool looks like and have some understanding of why some opted in and others out.

  • Clarify the question
  • Posted by John Martin on March 30, 2005 at 5:40pm EST
  • I think that a more thorough and unbiased study will reveal that far fewer conservative Christians opt to pursue academic careers (outside of religiously affiliated schools) than other groups. This, as I've noted previously, is because scholarship in prestigious research universities IMPLIES skepticism, questioning, challenging assumptions, revising traditions, and subverting dominant ideologies--goals that the most conservative scholars and students resist. It's disingenous, though, of liberal academics to claim that not knowing a candidates religious or political views somehow makes them free of "liberal bias," since all of these attitudes and positions are inherent in the scholarship itself. When you say that you look only at the "quality" of writing and teaching, what you mean is that you look to see that they are, in fact, skeptical, open-minded, and challenging, rather than orthodox, dogmatic, or otherwise ideologically restricted. The result is a "culling out" of the most conservative scholars and a preponderance of more liberal perspectives. The real dispute is whether or not this isn't the way that it's supposed to be. Just as the media must remain "liberal" enough to question and challenge political authority, universities are, in fact, one of the remaining bastions of liberal thinking. Conservative beliefs and attitudes already dominate the political, religious, and social spheres in America (not to mention public school boards around the country), and it's quite obvious that these recent attacks on "liberal academia" are an attempt to spread that dominant influence into our colleges and universities. So let's be clear on where and why the battle lines are being drawn.

  • Posted by David Merkowitz , Graduate Student at University of Cincinnati on March 30, 2005 at 5:41pm EST
  • It seems that real challenge is not that this individual conservative or that a specific practicing Christian is overlooked in the hiring process, but rather than the entire discourse of many disciplines have developed in such a way that a conservative or practicing Christian could not logically maintain both their political or religious views and those of their academic discipline. The humanities and social sciences have developed a totalizing world-view that is simply closed to and often explicitly anti-thetical to conservativism and practicing Christiantity. Therefore what these reports are showing, as many have mentioned before, is that these disciplines have become intellectually scelerotic particularly with respect to the challenges that intellectually grounded conservatism and religion might bring forth.

  • Posted by Sherman Dorn , Associate Professor at University of South Florida on March 30, 2005 at 5:42pm EST
  • The article pointed out the sampling problem (it focused on 4-year institutions), and other readers may poke holes in the survey methods. But let's focus on a few things in the article, assuming that the method was otherwise rigorous:

    1) There's no evidence of a one-party campus. Half of surveyed faculty were Democratic, which leaves half with either Republican, independent, or minor-party affiliations.

    2) The explanatory power in the multivariate analyses was fairly minimal—only about 20% of the variance in the institutional prestige index was accounted for with all of the independent variables, including faculty productivity, race, sex, religion, political inclinations, party affiliation, etc. That means around 80% appears to be unexplained statistical noise. (There's the other question about why institutional prestige is evidence of discrimination, but I'll leave the full debate on that to others.)

    3) Within the multivariate analyses, there are two individual variables with large raw coefficients: sex and political affiliation/inclinations. I expect those to be linked in future debates (i.e., if you believe that the institutional positions of women in academe are related to discrimination, people are going to ask you why you won't believe the same is true of political inclinations/affiliation based on the same evidence).

    4) Adjusting for the standard deviation in each variable (using beta coefficients), faculty productivity had a stronger association with institutional prestige than the political variables. I'm cautious about using betas, and I'm curious whether there's a restricted range for productivity in the same that may create that as an artifice.

    All of this also presupposes that a statistical association between political affiliation/inclination and institutional positions is evidence of discrimination. There's the literature on occupational segregation to provide alternative hypotheses, and maybe free-market conservatives are more likely to want to make money than spend time in grad school for the off chance of being hired on the tenure track? I'll hazard a serious prediction: if you conducted the same survey of doctoral students finishing up their degrees, you'd find that the doc students have either a similar political profile as faculty more generally or an even more liberal one.

  • Posted by Michael Bérubé on March 30, 2005 at 5:42pm EST
  • I'm still waiting to hear what's happened to all those tens of thousands of conservative graduate students who've been flooding Ph.D. programs in the arts and humanities lately. How is it that despite their overwhelming desires to pursue graduate study, and their stellar qualifications, they get weeded out so efficiently? Surely it can't always happen at the point of the job search.

  • Interesting findings.
  • Posted by William Siverson , Professor at University of Illinois on March 30, 2005 at 5:42pm EST
  • I noted first that the definition of achievement is publishing more, serving as journal referee and editorial boards. Liberals do more work? I don't quite get it. What this article tells me is that liberals are more likely to seek an academic career than conservatives and that they do more of the work of academics. Why?

    Well, why they do more work probably is related to career paths. At every university at which I have worked, liberals, at least those who are vocal, almost never are promoted to department heads, deans, program administrators, etc. Overwhelmingly these positions go to those conservatives who are relatively open about being conservative. Those who are openly liberal seem to remain among the ranks of the teaching and research professoriate. So of course the conservatives do less of the research and publishing (and probably teaching too). They are promoted to administrative slots that do not demand, and sometimes prevent, publication, research, etc.

    Academic conservatives also appear to make more, at least at so called "liberal universities" like mine. Administration everywhere pays itself more.

    Of course, there also is the issue of the pool for recruitment. Why are there no conservatives? Probably because conservatives tend to seek private sector jobs that pay more. In every field, the liberals are those paid the least. In physics or political science or english, teaching faculty are paid significantly less than those finding either private sector jobs or those in academic administration. So, the pool for junior faculty is more liberal because conservatives get higher paying positions in the private sector. Inside the university, conservatives become administrators (and again, are paid more).

    I know that this is the case at every university at which I have worked or am familiar. Exceptions probably include places like Calvin or BYU or Baylor; if conservatism is the norm it shouldn't be an asset for promotion to dean (etc). But at most larger state schools, the pay is insufficent to attract large numbers of bright young conservatives looking for big bucks.

    When asked about the liberal college professor problem, I almost always say that the answer is simple. Since highly paid persons are significantly more likely to be (or become) conservative, double our salaries or at least make them competitive with the private sector. (I often am offered private sector jobs at much more than double my pay. Tempting, but no. I like what I do. Guess that makes me a liberal? Actually, I probably am not!)

  • An easy solution
  • Posted by RA Shaw , Prof. on March 30, 2005 at 11:46pm EST
  • Go charter. Master your own fate. Face the (ugly) truth -- as long as you take public dollars, you will be under public control and public scruntiny. Once you go charter, no more intrusive public hearings and meddling politicians. Show some courage -- go charter. If you are as brilliant and charismatic as you claim, going charter will be easy. The young and idealistic will follow you.

  • Posted by David Merkowitz at University of Cincinnati on March 30, 2005 at 11:47pm EST
  • Grad schools aren't filled with lots of young conservatives just waiting to get jobs only to be turned down by search committees. I would argue it starts earlier, definitely in undergrad and for some probably in high school. It doesn't take much reading in the contemporary humanities and arts to realize that if you think Marx, Freud, and Foucault may not be the best sources for building disciplines upon then you may be less likely to avoid hearing the 'courtroom calling' as it were, to be a lawyer or some other profession that is open to those who find Hayek and Friedman rather more convincing.

  • Posted by Jacob T. Levy , Political Science at University of Chicago on March 31, 2005 at 9:38am EST
  • William Siverson misstates the results when he asks whether "liberals work harder." The study finds that, *controlling* for the productivity index, liberals are overplaced and conservatives underplaced in terms of *institution.*

    I'm always prone to skepticism about this kind of thing, and then always dismayed when I read the ractions of the debunkers.

    when humanities professors say that they are liberals, “the majority of us understand it to be not a narrow political ideology, but a conception of the world... We profess the liberal arts. That comes from freedom that we hold as a high value, from the pursuit of the truth, the pursuit of academic freedom, the belief that the learning and teaching of values will make us better citizens.”"

    Well, if-- when faced with a multiple choice "liberal-moderate-conservative" question (not, i.e., a "liberal arts-engineering-law" question) humanities professors choose liberal thinking of the word that way, then that's evidence that there's a problem. The "liberal" that contrasts with "conservative" is a particular political ideology, and it's the failure to recognize the particularity of one's own views that often leads to an inability to imagine that intelligent and reasonable people could disagree. If one's relationship to one's liberalism is that kind of "of course we're liberal, because liberal means all the good things" reaction, then there's a problem.

    Even worse: "it’s most likely that the people who are coming into the disciplines are going to have a liberal sentiment rather than a reactionary sentiment." If one goes around saying that the contrast concept for "liberal" is "reactionary" that's going to reasonably convince conservative students that they're not welcome in your discipline-- so undergraduates won't go to grad school or grad students won't stick around.

    The casual, offhanded, unthinking, joking dismissal of views other than one's own is perhaps the biggest danger. Most academics are intellectually honest enough that when they're really putting forward an argument they know that they have to make space for opposing arguments. But all the things that one thinks don't even require an argument, the casual little things like "liberal-reactionary," amount to serious discouragement to students.

  • Liberal Academics
  • Posted by Ernie on April 1, 2005 at 10:26am EST
  • No one with any integrity could possibly claim that our academic community is not biased against conservative scholars and conservative scholarship.

  • Balch should no better
  • Posted by Donald Heller , Associate Professor of Education at Penn State on April 1, 2005 at 10:27am EST
  • Stephen Balch of the NAS was quoted as saying “the big news here is the first social science confirmation of the existence of discrimination in hiring and the personnel process.” No, Stephen, the big news is to keep in mind the difference between correlation and causation. This is one of the first lessons we teach in research design courses. This study doesn't "confirm" discrimination against conservatives in faculty hiring.

  • Leaning to the Left
  • Posted by Larry Miller , Instructor at New England Institute of Art on April 1, 2005 at 12:37pm EST
  • In response to the comment that liberal academics don't seem to fare well in the private sector, the reason is fairly obvious. The private corporate sector is dominated by conservative pro-business Republicans. An exception is the SAS corporation http://www.sas.com/index.html, but such excpetions are few and far between.

    Given the anti-liberal/progressive bias in big business, it's not surprising that we head for the "heilegen hallen" of academia. It's not sao much that conservative academics are discriminated against; it's that they have better financial opportunities in the private sector.
    Call it the "Gekko Factor."

  • Liberal Academics
  • Posted by Lefty Larry , Instructor/lecturer at New England Institute of Art on April 1, 2005 at 12:37pm EST
  • Ernie, at 10:26 am EST on April 1, 2005 wrote:

    >No one with any integrity could possibly claim that our >academic community is not biased against conservative >scholars and conservative scholarship.

    Reply: Ernie- no one with any integrity could possibly claim that your corporate community is not biased against liberal businessmen and liberal leadership.

    Except maybe the SAS software corporation.

    LL

  • Educators are Liberal / Education Liberalizes
  • Posted by Donna Stanton , Instructor at New England Institute of Art on April 1, 2005 at 2:54pm EST
  • The intent of education is to encourage students to ask questions, to search for deeper meaning. This requires liberal thought. Students may, in their search, find their viewpoints leaning toward a liberal, centrist or conservative stance. Hopefully each student (and each educator) is free to choose their stance. This freedom of choice is the liberal component which must be inherent within education in order for education to truly educate. It's not the viewpoints or opinions that should be categorized in this discussion, rather it's the RECOGNITION OF THE ABILITY TO MAKE THE CHOICE that classifies education (thus educators) as 'Liberal.'

  • PC on cam;pus
  • Posted by Luke Lea on April 1, 2005 at 8:37pm EST
  • To the commenter who wrote: "sophisticated attempt to salvage the reputation of the racist Arthur Jensen" The last I checked, Jensen was not a racist. I suggest the commenter's remark illustrates the kind of PC bigotry that stifles free inquiry as to human difference, a problem most recently exemplfied by the Harvard faculty reaction to Larry Summers perfectly reasonable, and carefully qualified, remarks on the underrepresentation of women in engineering and science. In other words, the problem isn't liberalism so much as illiberalism.

  • Is being open-minded to be liberal--by definition?
  • Posted by Paul Bullen , Instructor of Critical Thinking at Center for Talent Development on April 2, 2005 at 5:58am EST
  • I think the suggestion that to think critically is by definition to think liberally is worth analyzing. We are presumably talking about the difference between being on the left or on the right politically. We are not talking about being liberal in the sense of liberal in the expressions liberal arts or liberal education, or for that matter liberal economics as that is meant in Europe. I don't think that to think critically is by definition to think like a person on the political left. It is an empirical question whether left-wingers in fact tend to be more open-minded or rational than right-wingers. My experience has been that although left-wingers (including 'liberals') tend to believe they are more open-minded than their opponents, they are much less open-minded than they think they are. To me it comes down to the question of whether someone is a true intellectual or not. A true intellectual is capable of loving the truth at least a little bit more than what is dear to him. I have been fortunate to find in my life both liberals and conservatives of that sort. And to them I am truly grateful. I would like to see an alliance of rational and humane people of both persuasions against irrationalists and intolerant people of any persuasion.

  • Louis Proyect comments
  • Posted by John Maass on April 2, 2005 at 8:30am EST
  • Louis Proyect comments above that John Stossell is a conservative-wow! Stossell supports legalized prostituion, is pro-abortion and favors legalized drugs (all this is from his own book!) If this is what Louis Proyect calls a conservative, I think readers can see how far into the deep end of the left Proyect is, and judge his comments accordingly. I suppose he'd even call NPR unbiased!

  • Posted by Tom Good on April 2, 2005 at 11:14am EST
  • The business community is dominated by economic paradigms that deny and suppress geophysical, environmental and social news not convenient to its worldview. Many of us have learned to open our eyes and seek out as many sides of every issue as possible. Therefore it is indeed learning that produces liberals. And no, we don't often feel at home in mainstream business where our ideas are often dismissed and ridiculed. In this light, academia, which must welcome and openly debate all extant idea systems, becomes an ideal home for all of us who value open inquiry.

    Thomas Good
    Instructor, New England Institute of Art

  • Leanings...
  • Posted by John Gostan , Instructor, Director of Faculty Development at New England Institute of Art on April 2, 2005 at 2:32pm EST
  • I am proud to be associated with my colleagues who have responded to this piece. Yes, Virginia, there is a Sanity Clause, and it comes with education and experience. I guess it is called wisdom.

  • Give the Right Incentives to Become Academics
  • Posted by Yoshie on April 2, 2005 at 8:44pm EST
  • While Rothman, Lichter, and Nevitte's research overstates the political gap between liberals and conservatives in academia today, it is true that liberals traditionally outnumber conservatives in the humanities and social sciences, particularly at research institutions that require a doctoral degree as a condition of employment. What should be conservatives' response to that? I submit that conservatives ought to congratulate themselves. Thinking like the proverbial Rational Economic Man weighing opportunity costs and maximizing utility, many conservatives made the economically correct choice of staying out of Ph.D. programs, especially academic sweatshops in the humanities and social sciences.

    Liberals and leftists, on the other hand, should proffer a left-wing remedy that addresses a right-wing grievance while solving at least some of the many problems that plague the life of mind: increase tenure-track jobs massively, and raise faculty salaries as well as teaching assistant wages dramatically, in order to make academic compensation packages competitive with what plastic surgeons, corporate lawyers, business executives, and politicians turned lobbyists would expect. In short, give conservatives what they do not have today: financial incentives to become academics. Turn the ivory tower into a field of conservative dreams of big money: if you build it, they will come.

  • Hiring Fewer Women a Sign of Liberal Politics?
  • Posted by Elza C. Tiner , Professor of English at Lynchburg College on April 2, 2005 at 8:44pm EST
  • Having read this article, I find it very strange that hiring fewer women than men at top academic institutions is juxtaposed with supposedly "liberal" leanings among the professoriate. What's going on here?