Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Why Professors are Predominantly leftist.
Thomas C. Reeves
"Polls and studies have shown consistently that professors, especially in the humanities and social sciences, side with the Left in political and cultural matters. So do public schoolteachers, whose unions are major contributors to the Democratic Party. This bias contrasts sharply, of course, with the dispassionate search for truth that scholars and teachers claim to revere. There are many reasons, no doubt, for the bent shown by professors in the humanities and social sciences, but the most obvious, it seems to me, is envy.
1. Take the issue of money--always a good place to begin with things American. Academics outside business and the sciences often labor for many long years in college and graduate school in order to obtain a doctorate. More than a few collect their diplomas sporting some gray in their hair along with a briefcase full of debts. If we are lucky enough to land a tenure-track position in higher education, a large "if" over the last four decades, we frequently start at a salary that a skilled blue collar worker might expect a few years out of high school. Don't think about salaries at Harvard; consult the data on most academics published in the Chronicle of Higher Education. A friend's son, a brand new pharmacist, recently started work at a local drug store with a salary that exceeded my University of Wisconsin System salary when I retired as a full professor.
2. And so many of us move into older, deteriorating, often dangerous areas, telling all who listen that we made the choice deliberately and that we, being humanists, have a natural desire to live among the poor and oppressed. In my experience, some English and anthropology professors actually believe this nonsense, and enjoy dressing as factory workers and displaying furniture obviously purchased at a rummage sale.
3. The education of the professor's children is another sticky point. Good private schools are out of reach financially, and religious schools are, well, religious. That leaves the public schools, which all good humanists officially champion. Those who know better feel obligated to remind colleagues and neighbors that young people learn a lot about "real life" while evading bullies, drug dealers, and gangs, and being instructed by teachers whose true calling in life was employment at Wal-Mart.
4. Many academics not only envy people with money, but also those who enjoy political authority. Professors are more confident than most that they have the truth and are convinced that, if given the opportunity, they would rule with intelligence, justice, and compassion. The trouble is that few Americans, at least since the time of Andrew Jackson, will vote for intellectuals. (The widespread assumption that Presidents who have Ivy League degrees are intellectuals is highly debatable. The Left declared consistently that George W. Bush, who had diplomas from Yale and Harvard, was mentally challenged. Barak Obama, who was not really a professor, has sealed his academic records.)
5. (To see how intelligently and objectively academics use the authority they have, examine the political correctness that suffocates the employment practices and intellectual lives of almost all American campuses. Aberlour's Fifth Law: "Political correctness is totalitarianism with a diploma.")
6. Thirdly, there is the issue of occupational mobility and professional advancement. High income neighborhoods have constant turnover because of promotions and advancement. Professors, on the other hand, are more often than not (especially the white males) stuck on a campus for many years without a prayer of moving up or outWatching their former students scale the heights of prosperity and power can cause considerable chagrin.
7. One way to compensate for this bleak and futureless existence is to become involved in left-wing causes. They give us a sense of identity in a world seemingly owned and operated by Rotarians. And they provide us with hope. In big government we trust, for with the election of sufficiently enlightened officials, we might gain full medical coverage, employment for our children, and good pensions. These same leftist leaders might redistribute income "fairly," by taking wealth from the "greedy" and giving it to those of us who want more of everything. A "just" world might be created in which sociologists, political scientists, botanists, and romance language professors would achieve the greatness that should be theirs."
MercatorNet: What do professors want?
Dang! I thought for a moment this might be your opinion, instead of a cut and paste.
lol, no actually, I didn't.
Actually, it was both.
Dang! I thought for a moment this might be your opinion, instead of a cut and paste.
lol, no actually, I didn't.
Actually, it was both.
Which part was yours?
Can someone give me the gist of this, I'd rather not read through the massive wall of text.
From skimming it, it seems like it's saying "they're just jealous of people with money so they become leftists"
That can't be right though.
Can someone give me the gist of this, I'd rather not read through the massive wall of text.
From skimming it, it seems like it's saying "they're just jealous of people with money so they become leftists"
That can't be right though.
Communist always post surveys showing Big Government beneficiaries (ie: scientist) support Big Government Democrats. SHOCKING!!!
Also proving, the more effective Government educational indoctrination has on a student the more likely that student will continue on to higher levels of educational indoctrination. Again SHOCKING!!!
Thus proving, the more Government educational indoctrination one has the more they support Big Communist Government Democrats. Utterly SHOCKING!!!
They put total faith in scientist who dream up crazy theories that are popular & political yet are continuously proven totally wrong. The more popular the theory the more funding & theories are build upon these wrong theories. When experiments prove the prevailing popular theory wrong it is dismissed & more experiments are designed until one agrees with the theory in order to get more funding.
Lets see a list of wrong Conservative Scientific Theories vs a list of wrong Democratic Scientific Theories. There would be no comparison. Conservatives deal with more facts & less fiction.
Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans. When the leanings of independents are considered, fully 81% identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 12% who either identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. Among the public, there are far fewer self-described Democrats (35%) and far more Republicans (23%). Overall, 52% of the public identifies as Democratic or leans Democratic, while 35% identifies as Republican or leans Republican.
Majorities of scientists working in academia (60%), for non-profits (55%) and in government (52%) call themselves Democrats, as do nearly half of those working in private industry (47%).
What point is that? That you are dumbass hack?Communist always post surveys showing Big Government beneficiaries (ie: scientist) support Big Government Democrats. SHOCKING!!!
Also proving, the more effective Government educational indoctrination has on a student the more likely that student will continue on to higher levels of educational indoctrination. Again SHOCKING!!!
Thus proving, the more Government educational indoctrination one has the more they support Big Communist Government Democrats. Utterly SHOCKING!!!
They put total faith in scientist who dream up crazy theories that are popular & political yet are continuously proven totally wrong. The more popular the theory the more funding & theories are build upon these wrong theories. When experiments prove the prevailing popular theory wrong it is dismissed & more experiments are designed until one agrees with the theory in order to get more funding.
Lets see a list of wrong Conservative Scientific Theories vs a list of wrong Democratic Scientific Theories. There would be no comparison. Conservatives deal with more facts & less fiction.
Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans. When the leanings of independents are considered, fully 81% identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 12% who either identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. Among the public, there are far fewer self-described Democrats (35%) and far more Republicans (23%). Overall, 52% of the public identifies as Democratic or leans Democratic, while 35% identifies as Republican or leans Republican.
Majorities of scientists working in academia (60%), for non-profits (55%) and in government (52%) call themselves Democrats, as do nearly half of those working in private industry (47%).
Thanks for proving my point once again you Dumb-ass Communist.
Actually, it was both.
Which part was yours?
You can't be that dense, so this post must be your version of 'clever.'
1. I posted the article.
2. As a general truth, one posts articles that are a) interesting, and/or b) find some resonance with one's opinion.
3. From time to time a poster who disagrees, but is less than articulate in terms of having the ability to explain their disagreement, will write "Which part was yours?"
Did I sum it up pretty well?
The long and the short of it is that academe is pretty much a country club, with screening criteria of a much more highly politicized nature.Can someone give me the gist of this, I'd rather not read through the massive wall of text.
From skimming it, it seems like it's saying "they're just jealous of people with money so they become leftists"
That can't be right though.
What point is that? That you are dumbass hack?Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans. When the leanings of independents are considered, fully 81% identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 12% who either identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. Among the public, there are far fewer self-described Democrats (35%) and far more Republicans (23%). Overall, 52% of the public identifies as Democratic or leans Democratic, while 35% identifies as Republican or leans Republican.
Majorities of scientists working in academia (60%), for non-profits (55%) and in government (52%) call themselves Democrats, as do nearly half of those working in private industry (47%).
Thanks for proving my point once again you Dumb-ass Communist.
Can someone give me the gist of this, I'd rather not read through the massive wall of text.
From skimming it, it seems like it's saying "they're just jealous of people with money so they become leftists"
That can't be right though.
The rest of your post makes me skeptical of the highlighted claimRight... jealous of a self aggrandized global disaster cargo cultist leftwing nutter.You really shouldn't post while looking in the mirror "Dr.".
and you wonder why people complain about elitists when they think responses like this are intelligent responsesTHey know they are lacking in intelligence and are jealous
What's not to love? Do you have to check your ego with your luggage when you travel or is it better to ship it by rail because it's too heavy to fly?
Note, I'm not the one with an inferiority complex
What''s preventing the right-wingers from starting their own schools? Oh yeah, the market, where people want a real degree and not the meaningless crap Ken Ham received.The long and the short of it is that academe is pretty much a country club, with screening criteria of a much more highly politicized nature.Can someone give me the gist of this, I'd rather not read through the massive wall of text.
From skimming it, it seems like it's saying "they're just jealous of people with money so they become leftists"
That can't be right though.
Which part was yours?
You can't be that dense, so this post must be your version of 'clever.'
1. I posted the article.
2. As a general truth, one posts articles that are a) interesting, and/or b) find some resonance with one's opinion.
3. From time to time a poster who disagrees, but is less than articulate in terms of having the ability to explain their disagreement, will write "Which part was yours?"
Did I sum it up pretty well?
If only you summarized everything so well, my dahlink.
Why Professors are Predominantly ‘leftist.’
What''s preventing the right-wingers from starting their own schools? Oh yeah, the market, where people want a real degree and not the meaningless crap Ken Ham received.The long and the short of it is that academe is pretty much a country club, with screening criteria of a much more highly politicized nature.Can someone give me the gist of this, I'd rather not read through the massive wall of text.
From skimming it, it seems like it's saying "they're just jealous of people with money so they become leftists"
That can't be right though.
More lib lies. Conservatives don't despise higher education. We despise liberals.
Particularly dishonest ones who lie.
