The Political Orientation of College Faculty

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, it doesn’t surprise me at all that a strong majority of young academics self-identify as “moderates.” The statement that “the road to tenure is probably not improved by being identified as a strong conservative” is just about half-right; the full truth is, the road to tenure is not improved by rocking the boat politically, either on the left or on the right. The safest path is to keep your head down and not make any enemies, and generally that means having your politics take a back seat so as not to generate controversy. In short, tack “moderate” until you get tenure.</p>

<p>As for the relatively higher levels of conservatism among the 65+ cohort, it may be partly the aging process—though the less charitable version of that is that older people are by and large more resistant to and uncomfortable with change. But I also suspect it’s partly a function of generational politics. The 65+ cohort includes everyone born before 1943: pre-boomers, who went to college and grad school in the 50s and early 60s, a generally more conservative era in American politics and cultural life. The left-most cohort is the 50-64 group, those born between 1944 and 1958: the high boomers who went to college and grad school in the late 60s and 70s. Think Vietnam era, the counterculture, the New Left, Earth Day, the rise of modern feminism. It will be interesting to see whether this group becomes more conservative as they age, or whether instead they continue to carry their generally left-ish political and cultural sensibilities with them, as they have into their 50s and 60s–long after many would have expected them to “outgrow it.”</p>

<p>“Bill”: I generally agree with your suppositions here, that laying low is the best path to tenure. But that also begs the question that was originally discussed…the fact that, aside from being politically correct or pragmatically wise, conservatives must always lay low or risk losing their jobs. I was born in the 50’s. I was fairly liberal before and up until the time I graduated from high school. Then military service intervened (Vietnam Era, though I was not sent to Vietnam, thank goodness) and I was “awakened to reality”. By the time 1976 rolled around, I was teetering to the right and by 1980, following Carter’s Presidency I was a card carrying Republican.<br>
But I also note that many people mellow after retirement and raising kids and often become more liberal and tolerant…as if the fight in them has gone away. My parents (both deceased) were certainly in that camp. I hope I dont get a set of dentures and a democrat voting card at the same time. LOL.</p>

<p>Interesting story on this, front page of today’s NY Times under the headline “On Campus, the 60’s Begin to Fade as Liberal Professors Retire”:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/arts/03camp.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/arts/03camp.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>They’re not taking about the 65+ cohort but the 50-65 cohort, the older members of which are just now reaching retirement age. It’s a typical journalistic account, nothing in the way of statistics, just anecdotal evidence from interviews of 3 or 4 people in the Wisconsin-Madison sociology department. But I guess the premise of the story is that if old lefties are retiring and being replaced by younger self-identified “moderates” even in Wisconsin’s sociology department, it must be a real trend.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think this is just flatly false. Tenure is tenure. It’s almost impossible to remove a tenured professor from his or her job for any reason other than criminal activity or gross malfeasance. I challenge you to cite a single instance of a tenured professor being ousted because of his or her conservative political views. It just doesn’t happen. On the faculties I’ve been on, conservatives have always been in the minority but there have always been some, and they’ve always been just as outspoken about their political views as any liberal member of the faculty, without fear of retribution, and certainly without fear for their jobs. Overwhelmingly, that’s the norm in American academia.</p>

<p>You have COMPLETELY misread my comment and taken it out of context. NOWHERE in my commentary did I suggest or state that tenured professors would be removed, though I would ring CHURCH bells if we could somehow “blow up” the tenured system and make these people accountable to students and parents who pay the bills, let alone the University.</p>

<p>In ALL tenured contracts they can be removed for cause which is usually defined as being convicted of a felony, or some sort of sexual deviancy.</p>

<p>What I WAS referring to, and it was CLEAR from my statement in context, was the INABILITY TO GAIN TENURE if you are too outspoken politically, notably for conservatives.</p>

<p>Before you state that I posted a falsehood, please check your facts.</p>

<p>^ Sorry, I just misunderstood what you were saying. I don’t think your import was all that clear from the context, but I take you at your word that you meant to refer only to non-tenured faculty, and admit it was my mistake in misreading you—an honest mistake, not a deliberate misrepresentation. </p>

<p>But that said, I just don’t see any evidence that outspokenly conservative political views are any more dangerous to a young faculty member’s prospects for tenure than outspokenly liberal or left-wing views. I’ve never run across a case of someone being denied tenure for holding or expressing conservative political views. As I said before, when there is a tenure denial, the denied candidate may want to attribute it to politics, but if there is politics involved it’s more typically in the nature of the usual petty personal politics of academia, not ideological disagreement. And to the extent there is any kind of ideological tinge to it, I think it happens at least as often on the left as on the right. Conservatives are underrepresented in academia because they come into academia in small numbers, not because they’re disproportionately denied tenure or disproportionately vulnerable to tenure denial for speaking out.</p>

<p>Okay, gotcha. Happy Fourth!</p>

<p>From today’s Inside Higher Ed…</p>

<p>[In</a> Defense of Ayers :: Inside Higher Ed :: Higher Education’s Source for News, Views and Jobs](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/10/14/ayers]In”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/10/14/ayers)</p>

<p>Your point being, Hawkette?</p>

<p>I love how we just celebrated yesterday a national holiday commemorating a man who killed tens of thousands of people, yet people get up in arms over a man who engaged in violent property damage forty years ago, a man who has since publicly regretted his violent actions.</p>

<p>Coincidentally, Ayers activities in the Weathermen were most assuredly not related to his later work as a scholar/teacher, the very work for which he was selected to serve on a Republican commissioned non-profit board. </p>

<p>Shall we bring up Sarah Palin’s much more explicit ties to a secessionist party? A party led by a man who has said, “The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government. … And I won’t be buried under their damn flag.”</p>

<p>We could, but we won’t. As none of this has anything to do with academic freedom, which is very much alive and well on American campuses, nor the election facing this country in three short weeks, which should be an election about issues and character, not about trivial and tenuous mudslinging.</p>

<p>cay,
Can you elaborate on your statement,</p>

<p>“a national holiday commemorating a man who killed tens of thousands of people”</p>

<p>Columbus was an international terrorist of the highest order.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Would you please provide the source of the passage above?</p>

<p>Hawkette, Christopher Columbus’ “discovery” of the New World led to its occupation, subjugation and ethnic cleansing.</p>

<p>Thanksgiving Day “celebrates” the beginning of a systematic European effort to conquer North America, and in so doing exterminate the “subhuman” native population.</p>

<p>You can wave your hands in protest or whatever, but the fact of the matter is, America is founded on a bedrock of violent conquest, suffering and slaughter.</p>

<p>We can’t turn back the clock (and nobody’s saying we should) but we can look at our own history and see more than our fair share of blemishes.</p>

<p>Besides, “terrorism” is in the eye of the beholder, pretty much.</p>

<p>From the British point of view, George Washington was a terrorist leader and traitor who violently overthrew the established government with a bloody rebellion.</p>

<p>Does that make what he did wrong? No.</p>

<p>From the Mexican point of view, the Mexican-American War was an unprovoked, bloodthirsty and brazen effort to seize half of its land by armed conquest, making James K. Polk little better than a predecessor to Hitler.</p>

<p>History is complex. There are no knights in shining armor.</p>

<p>More evidence on the political orientation of those in academe:</p>

<p>[Education</a> Election: Donors from Academe Favor Obama by a Wide Margin](<a href=“http://edelection.blogspot.com/2008/10/donors-from-academe-favor-obama-by-wide.html]Education”>Education Election: Donors from Academe Favor Obama by a Wide Margin)</p>

<p>I thought you’d let this thread die since you did not post the recent Chronicle article about politics in the classroom which cited the book “Closed Minds?” and research by the Woessners. </p>

<p>Together, those studies found that most professors do not divulge their views, although students in politically-oriented classes seem to have little trouble figuring them out. More to the point, their findings suggest that student views aren’t really swayed by their professors. They studied students in political science classes and found that their views didn’t change much. To the extent that the students become a little more liberal, that was just as likely to happen when the professor was a Republican as when the professor was Democrat.</p>

<p>This research seems pretty applicable to the topic.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>When conservatives like Colin Powell and Christopher Buckley are supporting Obama, maybe this says less about academe and more about John McCain.</p>

<p>Still having trouble digesting the fact that Columbus was a terrorist, Hawkette?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Except for Bush and his deputy, McCain.</p>

<p>that makes sense since democrats outnumber republicans by a suprisingly large number</p>

<p>Cayuga,
If you think that Colin Powell (or even John McCain) is a conservative, then I doubt that you have ever met any….</p>

<p>As for Columbus, it is clear that teaching interpretations/priorities have changed over the past several decades since I was in high school and college and your more recent experience. I think that Encyclopedia Brittanica sums up our varying perspectives well in the passage below. </p>

<p>“Numerous books about Columbus appeared in the 1990s, and the insights of archaeologists and anthropologists began to complement those of sailors and historians. This effort has given rise, as might be expected, to considerable debate. There was also a major shift in approach and interpretation; the older pro-European understanding has given way to one shaped from the perspective of the inhabitants of the Americas themselves. According to the older understanding, the “discovery” of the Americas was a great triumph, one in which Columbus played the part of hero in accomplishing the four voyages, in being the means of bringing great material profit to Spain and to other European countries, and in opening up the Americas to European settlement. The more recent perspective, however, has concentrated on the destructive side of the European conquest, emphasizing, for example, the disastrous impact of the slave trade and the ravages of imported disease on the indigenous peoples of the Caribbean region and the American continents. The sense of triumph has diminished accordingly, and the view of Columbus as hero has now been replaced, for many, by one of a man deeply flawed. While this second perception rarely doubts Columbus’s sincerity or abilities as a navigator, it emphatically removes him from his position of honour. Political activists of all kinds have intervened in the debate, further hindering the reconciliation of these disparate views.”</p>

<p>hoedown,
Here is the article that you referenced:</p>

<p>[The</a> Public View of Politics in the Classroom - Chronicle.com](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i30/30a02201.htm]The”>http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i30/30a02201.htm)</p>

<p>I don’t consider the work of Jeremy Mayer and the Brookings Institute as a balanced source. Unless you consider the work of David Horowitz to be a balanced source. </p>

<p>However, I do agree with the idea put forth by Matthew Woessner that there is a large part of America that believes that leftist politics/opinion, whether part of a political proselytizing action plan or not, are far too dominant among faculty on college campuses. And such perceptions are continually reinforced by reports like the one above that says that donations to Obama are EIGHT TIMES larger than donations to McCain.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Trust me. I’ve met many in my day. And if Christopher Buckley isn’t a conservative than why did the National Review publish his columns all these years? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Likening the centrist Brookings to David Horowitz is analogous to likening a fine California Pinot to the boxed stuff you can buy for $5 a liter.</p>

<p>Full disclosure: I used to be an employee of Brookings.</p>

<p>No, check your dates.</p>

<p>That article you just linked to was dated April. The article I discussed appeared in last week’s chronicle. Mayer was just one of three authors of the book it discussed. </p>

<p>Writing “eight times” in all caps doesn’t make the finding shocking to me. The article does a nice job outlining why faculty may be more likely to support a democratic candidate. The fact that they are more likely to be liberal (which hasn’t been news since before Ladd & Lipsett) is one part of it–just one. I wish they’d cut off their comparison in August, not September, given the change in McCain’s fundraising status, but I’m sure that’s a small matter.</p>

<p>I think it’s interesting that Woessners’ work suggests that increasing political “diversity” among faculty might not have any effect on students in terms of their political shifts.</p>