<p>
That’s good to hear. And it sounds much better than one prof one of my D’s had who started the class by stating he was a communist and went on to say that all republicans are racist.</p>
<p>I’m glad that the type of diversity we keep focusing on in academia is the “people that look different” kind.</p>
<p>epiphany: Very well said. I have also generally had a hard time figuring out the political orientations of professors here - they seem, to a one, to try and present their ideas in a non-partisan way.</p>
<p>Vyse: In what world should political ideology be a criteria in hiring professors? What, for example, would the fact that a physics prof supports Obama have anything to do with why he or she should or should not be hired?</p>
<p>More pertinently, so long as material is taught in a non-partisan way, why should any prof’s political views be relevant to anything?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And why is that? While I’m not exactly a Democratic partisan, I don’t find it surprising or concerning that professors are mainly financially supporting Democrats right now. I think it reflects the general apathy many Republicans feel towards their candidates, and the additional enthusiasm of many Democrats at finally being able to be part of a change from the disastrous Bush administration.</p>
<p>There are a fair few Republicans on campus here (prominent professors among them), and as the president of the College Republicans here said, there is no reason to think that the professors’ ideologies have impacted their teaching. So why is it a shame, again?</p>
<p>“There are a fair few Republicans on campus here (prominent professors among them), and as the president of the College Republicans here said, there is no reason to think that the professors’ ideologies have impacted their teaching. So why is it a shame, again?”</p>
<p>I do not for one minute believe that professors’ ideologies don’t impact their teaching. Just as I don’t believe that the overwhelming tilt toward democrats among journalists is a neutral in terms of their coverage. There may be some professors who can mask their own positions, but in an institution that tips that far in one direction or the other, I think it would be impossible for even most professors to be fair. I wouldn’t want my kids attending a hardcore republican institution, either. Balance is a good thing, although I think the point about republican apathy is an excellent one. I am a republican in NYC who has worked in top law firms for decades. Those law firms are populated by brilliant, accomplished attorneys who have attended the most prestigious undergraduate and law schools. Almost to a one, they would tell you that they are open-minded and respectful, but I would tell you as an outsider that that is rarely the case. When there’s little or no pull back to the center, it’s almost impossible for actual human beings to realize how closed-minded and judgmental they can be, because they don’t have to be anything else. As I’ve always said, if I lived in a red state, I’d probably be a democrat because I just can’t sing in the choir.</p>
<p>Obviously there was already a strong tendency. But look at the GOP candidates and name anyone who really would appeal to someone who has devoted their life to furthering knowledge.</p>
<p>Also, for this particular cycle, the GOP is kind of blase about the field and has not been donating as much to candidates as the Dems have.</p>
<p>And btw what’s the difference between Republican and Democratic politicians? Their views are pretty much the same.</p>
<p>well let us see, the current fed chairman was a prof at Princeton. I am sure I can find many Princeton Profs who were appointed by Republican administration over the year. Bill Frist went to Princeton. They have named a building after him or his dad.</p>
<p>Universities spend a small fortune trying to get a diverse student body, yet they do nothing to make sure there is diversity of thought on campus.</p>
<p>Razorsharp, U-U-Dad - if you were a science or math professor, which party would you support? The one which blatantly subordinates science to politics, as the Bush Administration does, and which harbors the “creation science” branch of the body politic, or the one which has shown the most support for education - including funding same? And how, exactly, would an entirely rational scientist’s support for the party which is least likely to censor or defund his work for ideological or religious purposes make that professors work in his or her field less “diverse?” In a bad way, I mean?</p>
<p>I have lots of friends who are Republicans - but none of them are academics. This fact fails to surprise me.</p>
<p>Just 8 people based on this article, made 40% of the required reported contribution. How can one make an extrapolation based on these numbers?</p>
<p>kluge: That’s a valid point. Imagine if you were an evolutionary biologist! ;)</p>
<p>zm, razorsharp: The donation numbers in the primaries are not necessarily indicative of overall statistics - they are a biased sample of the most politically-active faculty members. In this primary season, is it any surprise that they’re mostly Democrats, with so many Republicans un-enthused about their primary choices? The only surprise I see here is that Paul has so few supporters - with such an active grassroots fundraising campaign, I would think he would’ve snapped up more than 2 people.</p>
<p>But even if the faculty body is overwhelmingly Democratic, how is that such a horrible thing? It is not ideal, to be sure. But in classes where politics is really not relevant (math, hard sciences, engineering), how could it possibly make a difference?</p>
<p>In the areas where political orientation is important, there is in fact a great variety of thought at Princeton. Robert George, the jurisprudence professor, is an excellent example.</p>
<p>However, would any of the Republicans in this thread care to provide a refutation to kluge’s point? Though I hadn’t looked at it that way before, it seems clear to me that a party of which so many members harbor anti-scientific views, and a party in which those members are openly and often courted by the party leadership, would be a tougher sell for a scientist than another party, before one even looks at their non-science policies.</p>
<p>Obviously not all Republicans harbor anti-scientific views, and many are highly intelligent and open-minded. But it is undeniable that some do, and in light of that there is probably an a priori barrier for academics in terms of supporting the Republicans.</p>
<p>I would honestly wonder why a science professor may not want to support a party that denies evolution and global warming. <em>NOT</em> That’s basically flies in the face of Biology which is based on evolution. Global warming which is also based on chem, physics, and atmospheric sciences also supports global warming.
Also keep in mind that eighty percent of economists favor some forms of income distribution. </p>
<hr>
<p>And regardless, let’s say that professors are more liberal than the American population. Does that mean we should accuse them of not being able to do their job properly?
How would those that make that criticism like it If used the same kind of reasoning on a different matter. Just as we know professors tend to be more liberal than average Americans it’s also been a fact that military personnel tend to be more conservative than average Americans. Should liberals or Democrats then not trust soldiers to properly handle nuclear weapons or to obey the Geneva Treaty and other human rights accords?<br>
When we start trying to assume people can’t do their job properly based on their political opinions, we are running down a slippery slope.</p>
<p>[Indoctrinate</a> U - Our Education. Their Politics.](<a href=“http://indoctrinate-u.com/pages/welcome.html]Indoctrinate”>http://indoctrinate-u.com/pages/welcome.html)</p>
<p>Watch the trailer - hope the sound quality improves.
I’ve seen the movie - it’s very thought-provoking.</p>
<p>It is unfortunate that there is so little political diversity in academia, and equally unfortunate that the same thing occurs elsewhere.</p>
<p>I’m going to hypothesize (sp?) that the balance was put off during the '60s and '70s. That might explain the “Academia=Democrat, Military=Republican” stereortype.</p>
<p>
I’m sure it is - good propaganda always grabs you. But before you get too convinced, check out the people behind the slick media presentation - Thor Halvorssen, Frayda Levy - and their organization, the “Moving Picture Institute” (nice vague name, eh?), which describes itself thus:
Hmmm. Why do you suppose that is?</p>
<p>“even some Republicans aren’t supporting the Republican candidates this time around.”</p>
<p>That’s the first thing that occurred to me when I saw the thread. I know MANY Republicans who have basically withdrawn from the political scene in the last six years because they feel they can’t support either party.</p>
<p>Also, the most loyal party members often do not donate during primary season. This is the first time I’ve done so in my life.</p>
<p>Regarding the ‘creationists’ comments - I don’t know any republican who’s a creationist although I suppose there are some out there. I know the dems like to think of all republicans as evangelical creationists but they’re not any more than all dems are staunch socialists/atheists. </p>
<p>Regarding scientists - I think some scientists might be justifiably concerned about a candidate’s views on topics that could directly affect their funding - like stem cell research. I also think the ‘Global Warming’ hoopla is opening up a bunch of research funding opportunities whether justified or not and I’m not surprised to see researchers clamoring for the bucks. If they’re single issue voters or this is important to their livelihood then they might not want a candidate who could negatively impact them. OTOH, there are also researchers/scientists who can gain from other views of certain candidates in areas such as anti-terrorist research, missile defense, border integrity, stem cell research without the use of embryonic stem cells, and many other areas. One party doesn’t have a monopoly on funding research. </p>
<p>Regarding liberal professors in the classroom - fortunately my Ds are both in engineering and the engineering/math/science professors tend not to use their post as a pulpit for their personal political beliefs so they’ve not had too many issues relating to the prof’s political viewpoint as well they shouldn’t. I felt the prof of a humanities class who went on about being a communist and denigrating a huge portion of the people in this country went far overboard though. Luckily, there haven’t been too many like him. Hopefully, regardless of a profs personal political views, they’ll attempt to ensure a balanced presentation in the classroom and allow the student to think and make their own determinations rather than trying to simply impose their personal political views on the students. Unfortunately I’ve heard of too many who practice the latter.</p>
<p>Regarding lack of great choices in candidates - I agree but I think it’s true the time for both parties.</p>
<p>"Regarding liberal professors in the classroom - fortunately my Ds are both in engineering and the engineering/math/science professors tend not to use their post as a pulpit for their personal political beliefs so they’ve not had too many issues relating to the prof’s political viewpoint as well they shouldn’t. "</p>
<p>Lucky them. My son is also an engineer. He was taking an engineering class during the last election cycle and every day the prof would start off her lecture with how evil George Bush was.</p>
<p>Kluge,</p>
<p>My DD is no slouch in science – straight 800s in SAT II subject tests in chem, physics, biology, math II – and her passion is evolutionary biology. Read the entire Origin of the Species in middle school. Here’s the thing – she’s way more religious than her parents. In fact she’s lectured us a few times on our very spotty church attendance. When I ask her how she reconciles evolution with religion, she rolls her eyes as if I’ve asked something idiotic. </p>
<p>Your stereotypes of all religious people as red neck uneducated rubes are really off key. You may wish that were so. Everyone wishes their opponents in an argument would be stupid cartoon characters. But it just ain’t so. I live in the South and I really don’t think the type of character you seem to think exists by the millions in our society exists at all. Part of what drove me away from being a democrat was the snobbery – the contempt for Walmart and polyester and the military and church going. Those aren’t things I’m big on either, but I really take umbrage at contempt.</p>
<p>Guys - you projected your stereotypes on me, not me on you. I didn’t call anyone a redneck or a rube. Your projection of the stereotypical views you assume I hold because I’m a liberal democrat only reflects your own narrow-mindedness. I have lots of friends who are Republicans, as I’ve noted. Mammall - if you take umbrage at snobbery and contempt, whatever you do, don’t look in the mirror!</p>
<p>But the fact is, the politicians who pander to the lowest level of anti-scientific mindlessness are almost all Republicans. The Republican party is the place where the creationists send their money. You want the government to distribute literature containing medical falsehoods to pregnant girls because your religion is opposed to abortion? Your chances are a lot better with a Republican administration. You want the language of a governmental report on climate change “softened” because official recognition of global warming is frowned on by your big money backers? GOP’s your party. The Republican party - as a political institution, under the guidance of the current head of the party - GWB - is anti-science whenever science gets in the way of votes or money for the big-bucks guys in the back room. That doesn’t mean my friends, or you, or your kids are anti-science - but it does mean your party is. So I repeat: why would a scientist contribute money to a party which subordinates science to profits and politics? I can understand why an investor might, or a businessman, but a scientist? Wouldn’t that be just a little bit - hypocritical?</p>