University Political Bias In Hiring

[Annie]

http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2005/08/26/johnson

So much more, this is a beginning...

Proving the Critics’ Case

By KC Johnson

Inside Higher Ed recently reported on four University of Pittsburgh professors critiquing the latest survey suggesting ideological one-sidedness in the academy. According to the Pitt quartet, self-selection accounts for findings that the faculty of elite disproportionately tilts to the Left. “Many conservatives,” the Pitt professors mused, “may deliberately choose not to seek employment at top-tier research universities because they object, on philosophical grounds, to one of the fundamental tenets undergirding such institutions: the scientific method.”

Imagine the appropriate outrage that would have occurred had the above critique referred to feminists, minorities, or Socialists. Yet the Pitt quartet’s line of reasoning — that faculty ideological imbalance reflects the academy functioning as it should — has appeared with regularity, and has been, unintentionally, most revealing. Indeed, the very defense offered by the academic Establishment, rather than the statistical surveys themselves, has gone a long way toward proving the case of critics who say that the academy lacks sufficient intellectual diversity.

In theory, ideology should have no bearing on how a professor teaches, say, physics. Even so, should responsible administrators worry that the overwhelming partisan disparity is worthy of further inquiry? And, in theory, parents who make their money in traditionally conservative professions such as investment banking or corporate law probably do not encourage their children to enter academe. Yet, as money-making fields have always been attractive to conservatives, why has the proportion of self-professed liberals or Leftists in the academy nearly doubled in the last generation?

Had members of the academic Establishment confined themselves to such arguments (or had they ignored the partisan-breakdown studies altogether), the intellectual diversity issue would have received little attention. Instead, the last two years have seen proud, often inflammatory, defenses of the professoriate’s ideological imbalance. These arguments, which have fallen into three categories, raise grave concerns about the academy’s overall direction.

1. The cultural left is, simply, more intelligent than anyone else. As SUNY-Albany’s Ron McClamrock reasoned, “Lefties are overrepresented in academia because on average, we’re just f-ing smarter.” The first recent survey came in early 2004, when the Duke Conservative Union disclosed that Duke’s humanities departments contained 142 registered Democrats and 8 registered Republicans. Philosophy Department chairman Robert Brandon considered the results unsurprising: “If, as John Stuart Mill said, stupid people are generally conservative, then there are lots of conservatives we will never hire.”

In a slightly different vein, UCLA professor John McCumber informed The New York Times that “a successful career in academia, after all, requires willingness to be critical of yourself and to learn from experience,” qualities “antithetical to Republicanism as it has recently come to be.” In another Times article, Berkeley professor George Lakoff asserted that Leftists predominate in the academy because, “unlike conservatives, they believe in working for the public good and social justice, as well as knowledge and art for their own sake.” Again, imagine the appropriate outcry if prominent academics employed such sweeping generalizations to dismiss statistical disparities suggesting underrepresentation of women, gays, or minorities.

These arguments become even more disturbing given the remarkably broad definition of “conservative” employed in many academic quarters. Take the case of Yeshiva University’s Ellen Schrecker, recently elected to a term on the AAUP’s general council. This past spring, Schrecker denounced Columbia students who wanted to broaden instruction about the Middle East for “trying to impose orthodoxy at this university.” The issue, she lamented, amounted to “right wing propaganda.”

The leaders of the Columbia student group, who ranged from registered Republicans to backers of Ralph Nader’s 2000 presidential bid, were united only in their belief that matters relating to Israel should be treated objectively in the classroom. Probably 98 percent of the U.S. Congress and all of the nation’s governors would fit under such a definition of “right wing.”

Indeed, it seems as if the academic Establishment considers anyone who does not accept the primacy of a race/class/gender interpretation to be “conservative.” To most outside of the academy, such a definition would suggest that professors are using stereotypes to abuse the inherently subjective nature of the hiring process.

2. A left-leaning tilt in the faculty is a pedagogical necessity, because professors must expose gender, racial, and class bias while promoting peace, “diversity” and “cultural competence.” According to Montclair State’s Grover Furr, “colleges and universities do not need a single additional ‘conservative’ .... What they do need, and would much benefit from, is more Marxists, radicals, leftists — all terms conventionally applied to those who fight against exploitation, racism, sexism, and capitalism. We can never have too many of these, just as we can never have too few ‘conservatives.’”

Furr’s remarks echoed those of Connecticut College’s Rhonda Garelick, who decried student “disgruntlement” when she used her French class to discuss her opposition to the war in Iraq and teach “‘wakeful’ political literacy.” Rashid Khalidi, meanwhile, rationalized anti-Israel instruction as necessary to undo the false impressions held by all incoming Columbia students except for “Arab-Americans, who know that the ideas spouted by the major newspapers, television stations, and politicians are completely at odds with everything they know to be true.”

To John Burness, Duke’s senior vice president for public affairs, such statements reflect a proper professorial role. The “creativity” in humanities and social science disciplines, he noted, addresses issues of race, class, and gender, leading to a “perfectly logical criticism of the current society” in the classroom...

 

[Avatar4321]

To think, these are the people teaching our children.

And the Irony of it is that they are teaching nothing but hate.

 

[Annie]

To think, these are the people teaching our children.

And the Irony of it is that they are teaching nothing but hate.

If these people were teaching 'our children' I wouldn't be as concerned. When my kids were in grade school or high school, even with teen angst, I knew they reflected my beliefs. I could influence with words like 'misguided but meaning well' and why.

However these folks are getting our young adults, not quite out of teen angst, but certain they know more than their parents and very susceptible to 'better educated and authoratative' professors. I have a couple of friends, who I'm pretty sure are democrats for the most part. An MD and lawyer, they are concerned at what their daughter came home discussing politically from Northwestern, not a 'hotbed' of liberalism, but still quite far to the left.

 

[Abbey Normal]

According to Montclair State’s Grover Furr, “colleges and universities do not need a single additional ‘conservative’ .... What they do need, and would much benefit from, is more Marxists, radicals, leftists — all terms conventionally applied to those who fight against exploitation, racism, sexism, and capitalism. We can never have too many of these, just as we can never have too few ‘conservatives'...

And I can't think of a reason to have a single Marxist professor. Anyone who believes in a failed system doesn't have the brains or judgement to teach my child anything.

Also, after four years of being treated unfairly and like a pariah as students, why would Conservatives be drawn to higher academia?

You know, I give up one these ass-clowns.

(Sorry for the crudeness, but it is one of my favorite phrases from the movie Office Space, and it fits these people so well...)

 

[KarlMarx]

The Left not only dominates our college campuses, but the psychological and legal professions as well.

When you consider that, the current state of affairs shouldn't surprise anyone. I once read that 85% of married couples who go into marriage counselling get divorced, if that statement is true, it's astonishing. That is, until you consider the attitude that many in the psychological profession have concerning marriage. To them, marriage is an institution that helps to oppress women. So, if you believe that, why bother saving marriages?

Considering the legal profession, it is no wonder that divorce and litigation are so common. Both are used by that profession, not only to benefit itself, but to achieve that social ideal of the Left --- the redistribution of wealth in society.

Of course, then why not indoctrinate the educated masses to accept, without question, that western society is inherently evil, that oppression exists in every married household, that "the rich" are hording wealth and that poverty can be eliminated by taking it from them and giving it to the historically oppressed e.g. blacks, women and others? That is the job of the intelligenzia of this country.

Of course, other professions are also being targeted by the Left. For instance, many corporations now have "diversity councils" and teach "diversity". What is the purpose of that? Discrimination on the basis of race, sex and, unofficially, sexual orientation are already illegal. Blacks no longer sit in the back of the bus, women have achieved equal opportunity, our society has become tolerant of homosexuals. So what purpose does this push for diversity serve? Again, to advance the agenda of the Left. It isn't enough for the Left that our society has already achieved equality under the law and equal opportunity for all (as if the Left actually cares about such things).... people in all professions must now be indoctrinated into believing that oppression exists in every office, that women, blacks and gays are routinely oppressed, even now. And of course, that the only salvation to this is through liberal (i.e. socialist) ideology.

And how is this social utopia to be achieved? Through socialism! By increasing the role of government in peoples' lives, by increasing taxation in order to ensure that no one becomes "too rich" and that wealth is redistributed.

Furthermore, one has to consider that no democracy is possible without the existence of a middle class. However, if socialism is the aim of the Left, then there shouldn't be ANY class of people, except one homogeneous proletariat. So dismantling the middle class through the abolition of its value system is also important to the Left. Marriage, the acquisition and accumulation of wealth through the "work ethic" and self reliance are cornerstone values of the middle class. And, as we see on a daily basis, all are under attack by the Left.

However, when countries that practice socialism achieve their aim of abolishing the middle class, all that remains is a small, exclusive group of the party elite while the rest of society is impoverished (North Korea and Cuba come to mind). No country or society that has practiced socialism has ever been able to do it successfully. That is not because they didn't "try hard enough", or because capitalists conspired to undermine their efforts. No, socialism is a bad idea.... period. It does not work, and any society that takes up the socialist mantle does so at its own peril. Yet, the Left, like that old chestnut says, refuse to learn from history and, by doing so, are condemned to repeat it, again and again.

 

[William Joyce]

“Many conservatives,” the Pitt professors mused, “may deliberately choose not to seek employment at top-tier research universities because they object, on philosophical grounds, to one of the fundamental tenets undergirding such institutions: the scientific method.”

Yeah, 'cause if there's one thing I attribute to liberals, it's unrelenting adherence to facts. Who are these guys kidding? If we genuinely came up with theories and tested them -- regardless of what the outcome was -- free market economies would beat controlled economies, traditional families would beat "alternative" families, military strength would beat military weakness, and so on down the road. So "the scientific method" ain't really what liberals are after. It's the hate-whitey method. Liberalism is about jealousy of the smart, the strong and the beautiful. It's about pushy, ugly, obnoxious people who just can't freakin' stand the idea that some are taller and some will make more money.