Republicans are well known for criticizing / condemning academe for liberalism.

Republicans are well known for criticizing / condemning academe for disproportionate liberalism.

a) Are academics excessively or disproportionately liberal?

b) If so, why?

c) If not, why the inaccurate reputation?

Here in liberal land we are better than you and we know it!

sear said:

Republicans are well known for criticizing / condemning academe for disproportionate liberalism.

a) Are academics excessively or disproportionately liberal?

b) If so, why?

c) If not, why the inaccurate reputation?

Click to expand...

I've worked in academia for several years and with the exception of Business/Accounting/Engineering areas of study, I have yet to meet one that is not liberal. I do not know why, but I believe it's a culture that has been around for years and liberal minded are attracted to the profession.

holbritter said:

I've worked in academia for several years and with the exception of Business/Accounting/Engineering areas of study, I have yet to meet one that is not liberal. I do not know why, but I believe it's a culture that has been around for years and liberal minded are attracted to the profession.

Click to expand...

I haven't worked in Academia, but all my Finance cohorts laugh at the Gender studies students.

sear said:

Republicans are well known for criticizing / condemning academe for disproportionate liberalism.

a) Are academics excessively or disproportionately liberal?

b) If so, why?

c) If not, why the inaccurate reputation?

Click to expand...

There have been studys that show academics overwhelmingly self identify as liberal. Which is not to say that their ideology always influences their teaching. I can only guess WHY they choose academia over industry.

Perhaps they see it as the best way to shape others to their thinking.
Perhaps its viewed as easier work, where they dont have produce results, and they can get tenure.
Perhaps they have no real world skills (those who cant do, teach).
Perhaps they become liberalized after becoming academics, by their peers, or while in school themselves.
Perhaps they gravitate to an echo chamber full of similar thinkers.
Maybe they like the power of deciding others futures.

Thanks for the constructive insights ...

"I've worked in academia for several years and with the exception of Business/Accounting/Engineering areas of study, I have yet to meet one that is not liberal. I do not know why, but I believe it's a culture that has been around for years and liberal minded are attracted to the profession." hb #3

Click to expand...

I presume the attraction you mention is part of it, perhaps half of it.

I suspect the other half is, Republicans are repelled.

Why?

Perhaps because liberals as a class factor in job satisfaction by different criteria than Republicans.
And yes. If liberals dominate academe, perhaps Republicans dominate industry.
Republicans may be quantification oriented, seeking the largest paycheck they can find *.

" I can only guess WHY they choose academia over industry. " j5 #5

Click to expand...

I appreciate your impressive attempt.

I've long suspected it was in many cases utilitarian; that an academic can proliferate their inspiration the way the alpha male proliferates his genes.

* Actress Tia Leone tells the family anecdote of discussing her college academic performance with her father.
Ms Leone recounts that she referred to the courses of study she was getting the best grades in, and of them said:
- I guess that's what I'll devote my career to.
As she tells the story her father's reply to her was:
the secret to happiness in life is not doing what you're good at.
The secret to happiness in life is finding something you like to do, and getting good at it.
And now she's a celebrity actress (I don't get cable, so I wouldn't know).

sear said:

Thanks for the constructive insights ...

I presume the attraction you mention is part of it, perhaps half of it.

I suspect the other half is, Republicans are repelled.

Why?

Perhaps because liberals as a class factor in job satisfaction by different criteria than Republicans.
And yes. If liberals dominate academe, perhaps Republicans dominate industry.
Republicans may be quantification oriented, seeking the largest paycheck they can find *.

I appreciate your impressive attempt.

I've long suspected it was in many cases utilitarian; that an academic can proliferate their inspiration the way the alpha male proliferates his genes.

* Actress Tia Leone tells the family anecdote of discussing her college academic performance with her father.
Ms Leone recounts that she referred to the courses of study she was getting the best grades in, and of them said:
- I guess that's what I'll devote my career to.
As she tells the story her father's reply to her was:
the secret to happiness in life is not doing what you're good at.
The secret to happiness in life is finding something you like to do, and getting good at it.
And now she's a celebrity actress (I don't get cable, so I wouldn't know).

Click to expand...

I don't know if they are repelled as much as the fields of study they are interested in is not as available. IMO, any sociology connected areas of study are predominantly areas liberals are attracted to and there are far more area of study in these fields in many colleges and universities. The more linear areas of study/thought seem to be predominantly republican. This fits with the academia vs industry reference you made.

"I don't know if they are repelled as much as the fields of study they are interested in is not as available." hb #7

Click to expand...

Is that circular?

Why would the categories of interest to "liberals" be available? And the others not?

Because the "liberals" got there first, and set the rules we're now all stuck with?

It's not purely a hypothetical question.

Please bear in mind it's not merely a question of faculty composition (ideology ratio).
If the picture you paint is accurate, it's the course availability.

IF YOU ARE RIGHT, "liberal" professors may teach more liberal courses ...

... and thus may be producing more "liberal" voters;

creating whole new generations of "liberal" professors, to teach yet more "liberal" courses ...

I don't think it's liberals being attracted to academia so much as its academia shaping people into liberals. I think it's done through intimidation and indoctrination. Academia is filled with people who think a certain way, and it demands that all new members also believe that way, or else be at risk for ostracization, bullying, or even career and character assassination.

When you consider how susceptible people are to groupthink and peer pressure, anyway, and then add in the repercussions of not giving into it, it's not surprising that academia is so monocultural when it comes to politics.

" Most areas being indifferent or resistant to change are rather more open to someone living a conservative outlook. " C #9

Click to expand...

Top tier talent comes to mind:
- Steve Jobs
- Warren Buffet
- Bill Gates
The innovators of our industry and economy, these are leaders that do not color within the lines.
"Conservative" by definition implies indulging tradition. So the concept of a conservative innovator is intrinsically oxymoronic.

"As such there is a concentration of liberals in these areas all then whom develop over time a natural defensiveness which makes it more and more inhospitable to conservative types and more and more welcoming to liberal types." C #9

Click to expand...

Harvard President Larry Summers (served as Tres. Sec. @ Clinton 2nd Term) raised deliberately provocative but un-PC questions about biological ( intellectual) differences between men & women. A minor fluff-up resulted. Summers has apologized 3 times so far. ABC-TV's George Will responds:

"Summers simply forgot where he was. He thought he was at a place where there was free intellectual inquiry. He wasn't. He was at Harvard. He was on an American campus, where certain ideas simply can't be thought. The idea that there might be innate, which is to say genetically based cognitive differences between the sexes is not a radical thought. There's a huge body of science investigating it. By mentioning it, he induced in that poor woman [MIT Professor Nancy Hopkins] something like a clinical description of Freudian hysteria. She was going to fall down on the carpet and swoon with vapors and muss up her crinolines. This is what feminism has produced? This frail flower who can't stand to be in the presence of an idea like that."
"This major grovel's ridiculous. All he's done is dramatize that Harvard like most American campuses believes in diversity in everything but thought." Will

Click to expand...

C #9 adds:

Republicans may be quantification oriented, seeking the largest pay-check they can find.

"No, I say that is human nature and true of both." C #9

Click to expand...

Actress Tia Leoni tells an interesting anecdote about a conversation between herself and her father.
They were discussing her academic grades. She said to him that the course she got the best grades in was the obvious career choice for her.

Her father's reply changed her life. His guidance to her:
Your career choice need not necessarily be what you are good at it.
It's better to find something you enjoy, and get good at it.
So she became a successful actress.

On a personal note, before I graduated high school I got a job pumping gasoline for $1.65 per hour.
I worked there until I found a better job at a combination gasoline station car wash, where the pay was $2.oo per hour.

What might seem an exception is government service.
Blackwater mercenaries earned many times what our uniformed troops earned.
Many of our congressmen, even President Trump take a pay cut for public service.

BUT !!

These positions of political power can be leveraged, both while in office, and afterward. Many of our most wealthy lobbyists are former MOC.

PS
T #10

"I don't think it's liberals being attracted to academia so much as its academia shaping people into liberals." T #10

Click to expand...

This is a statistical analysis.
It's not a single monolith.
It's a population of individual decisions.

Therefore you are almost certainly correct
to some degree.

BUT !!

Among populations the question is not which of the two, but rather which of them prevails, which of them dominates.

If the mechanism you describe prevails, but in only 2% of cases, it barely rises to the level of a rounding error.

The issue is not what happens, but the prevailing trend.

"I think it's done through intimidation and indoctrination." T #10

Click to expand...

I extremely doubt it.
That's the mode in the Soviet Union, Castro's Cuba, and North Korea.
And those each are places people risk their own lives to flee.

If it was intimidation the ostensible victims could simply flee; and report the conspiracy to great acclaim as the heroes of righteousness, the whistle-blowers of a vast conspiracy.

NOPE !!

Persuasion is the Ockham's Razor explanation.

888888888888888 PS 88888888888888888

PLEASE do not infer more than I imply. I am absolutely NOT advocating communism / socialism here.

BUT !!

Do you deny the superficial appeal of the communist principle: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

COMMUNISM WORKS !! AND WORKS WELL !! in family sized groups, and small church groups.
It may even work in the U.S. military, a little.

But due to the tragedy of the commons, communism has never been demonstrated a viable model for nation-sized units.

The contrast that comes to my mind are:

a) The garment industry sweat-shop model, where reward (salary) is on basis of piece-work. Produce more, get paid more. VS

b) The team model (NHL Stan Cup Final Game #5 broadcast on NBC tonight starting 8M/ET) known in both spectator sports, and military units. "Never let your buddies down."

I suspect if garment sweat-shop owners thought they could increase total output / production (& thus profit) by switching to the team model, meaning:
- instead of compensating workers on basis of their INDIVIDUAL contribution,

- the proceeds of the output of the entire enterprise are evenly divided among workers

in the latter scenario I suspect total output would drop.

Different models.
Different objectives.
Different results.

Each seems suited to the tasks set for them, matched to the needs of the organization.

++++++++++++++++++++

To wind it back to academe:

The best teachers I've ever had displayed certain characteristics.

I had an algebra teacher named Janet that not only knew the course material; but was also a brilliant enough communicator to figure out what the student didn't know, and answer / correct.

I had a philosophy teacher (the head of the department) that simply loved philosophy, and was eager to devote his professional life to it.

If it is not these motives that weed the conservatives out; what other dynamic concentrates "liberals" in academe?

sear said:

Republicans are well known for criticizing / condemning academe for disproportionate liberalism.


b) If so, why?

Click to expand...

Academicians are liberal by education. That may sound circular to some people here but it is what happens when you study liberal arts in say, "excess".
Philosophy, literature, music, art, language, mathematics, psychology, religion, social sciences are just a few of the areas of extra study required for a Masters in Teaching, a PhD or an EdD
If you study these subjects in depth they will logically bend your thinking left as you follow common threads in all disciplines. It is not propaganda, it is the result of years of forced critical thinking.
This does not discount the possibility that many left leaning thinkers enter their higher education programs with a left bias but the education mentioned will turn many without a bias to the left.

Thanks for allowing me to express myself.

Hello t #13 !

Welcome to DP.

And thank you for contributing so constructively to my thread.

Please help me better understand your perspective.

I view the ideological distribution as a bell-curve.

Why should the ideological bell-curve in academe not mirror the ideological bell-curve in our broader nation? Is not the former a subset of the latter?

a) I presume academic bell-curve distribution of liberalism does not match that of our broader population, the election of such presidents as Reagan, Bush (younger) and Trump.

b) Anecdotal divergence from the statistical trend is understandable.

But at issue here are representative populations; where statistical trends can be observed.

So why the mismatch?

What active process prefers liberalism in academe?

There are smart conservatives. William F. Buckley Jr., George Will, William Kristol, etc.

Why are they so vastly outnumbered, not only in academe, but perhaps in the "liberal media" as well?

Thanks for joining us here @DP tex.
Visit often.
Post a lot.

sear said:

Hello t #13 !

Welcome to DP.

And thank you for contributing so constructively to my thread.

Please help me better understand your perspective.

I view the ideological distribution as a bell-curve.

Why should the ideological bell-curve in academe not mirror the ideological bell-curve in our broader nation? Is not the former a subset of the latter?

a) I presume academic bell-curve distribution of liberalism does not match that of our broader population, the election of such presidents as Reagan, Bush (younger) and Trump.

b) Anecdotal divergence from the statistical trend is understandable.

But at issue here are representative populations; where statistical trends can be observed.

So why the mismatch?

What active process prefers liberalism in academe?

There are smart conservatives. William F. Buckley Jr., George Will, William Kristol, etc.

Why are they so vastly outnumbered, not only in academe, but perhaps in the "liberal media" as well?

Thanks for joining us here @DP tex.
Visit often.
Post a lot.

Click to expand...

I cannot reply to this with anymore clarity than I attempted in #13 however my view on this subject is jaded as I worked for 25+ years in industry before stepping into academia to teach for another 15 years with an EdD. I was a right leaner going into my academic education career and a left leaner after advanced study. I can compare the two worlds in my mind with clarity and can understand why academia gets the elite rep... because they feel themselves so.

sear said:

Republicans are well known for criticizing / condemning academe for disproportionate liberalism.

a) Are academics excessively or disproportionately liberal?

b) If so, why?

c) If not, why the inaccurate reputation?

Click to expand...

Of course education and science are liberal by nature. Discovering reality has been a liberal pursuit for centuries. Dealing with and adapting to that discovered reality is anathema to conservatives. There is a reason only 6% of American scientists self identify as politically conservative. There is a reason conservatives seek to label education and science as liberal indoctrination.....because it is....our discovered reality puts to bed many old ideas cherished by conservatives.

Many in the public believe in ghosts and deny human caused global warming and climate change, deny biological evolution and distrust science in general....they tend to be predominately the conservatives among us. Sadly their representatives have taken control of our government for the time being.

sear said:

Republicans are well known for criticizing / condemning academe for disproportionate liberalism.

a) Are academics excessively or disproportionately liberal?

b) If so, why?

c) If not, why the inaccurate reputation?

Click to expand...

It's a)
and b) because it was one of several ways (and a very good one) to influence skulls full of mush to a particular way of thinking so it's one of the career paths the dedicated proselytizers choose. It then resulted in generations drawn to the same career path until we arrive where we are now.

First one must contrast some industrial fields which are known to be disproportionately left-leaning (liberal, socialist, progressive) verses right-leaning (conservative, libertarian, neoconservative).

On the Left:
1. Media & the Arts (totality of enertianment including news media)
2. Academia & Primary/Secondary education
3. Social work & Political Activism

On the Right:
1. Agriculture
2. Oil, Gas, Mining, energy & construction (infrastructure)
3. Banking / Finance / Insurance


Interesting if we look at the education requirements in terms of barriers to entry and need for expert training verses natural proclivity we find:

Low “educational” requirements, high “proclivity” requirements:
Agriculture/Artisans verses Arts/Entertainment

Medium “educational” and proclivity requirements:
Infrastructure/sales verses social work/activism

High “educational” requirements, low “proclivity” requirements:
Academia/teaching verses Finance/business

There is no doubt in all of these fields there exists self propelling feedback’s loops which make the polarization worse over time, also interesting that the areas where we find the highest conflicts are the last contrast: business interests & academics, both full of highly diverse, highly intelligent and highly influential people.

Now, where I think we are starting to hear a great deal more from the right in terms of criticism of leftwing gatekeeping is due to a power shift that's been slowing taking places since 60s...traditionally I think the power structure was reversed and the harping mostly from the left-leaning fields concerned their right wing competitors were corrupting their institutions…

in modern times however:

Academics have began successfully strong arming business orientated intellectuals. Academic credentials have replaced and in many cases been legally mandated as the only acceptable form of hiring discrimination radically shifting power structures and rewards. Diversity quotas are becoming normed based on "academic" guidance. And intellectual property developed by academics is being valued more than business acumen etc. and book numbers...Were find more and more regulation more than market force often dictate price, quality, competitors, interest rates, hiring rates, etc.

Social work and political activities have began to affect infrastructure industries more than vice versa. Currently zoning difficulties, environmental regulations, labour and pricing regulation often make legal & HR have more say than marketing or engineering in the final product/service or who is hired or fired….

Finally our entertainment has no doubt expanded to shape our understanding of agriculture/artisans as they dominate the media landscape in non subtle ways. Driven perhaps more by corporate than political interest this industry as a whole has undeniably formed a narrative which discourages agriculture and artisan career paths in favour of artistic pursuits…Do you hear it encouraged to put ones creativity in a trade? Not school -> intern -> work or art? Look at our stories, shows, plays....