Why Professors are Predominantly ‘leftist.’

[Truthmatters]

Post numbers?

 

[Truthmatters]

If you actually had examples you would happily repost the information over and over to solidify your point.

 

[Ravi]

No one is stopping cons from being teachers except themselves.

I can only interpret this comment as either naivete or dishonesty, and I'll let you decide which it is.

From "The Death of Feminism," by Chesler:

"Academic feminists who received tenure, promotion, and funding, tended to be pro-abortion, pro-pornography (anti-censorship), pro-prostitution (pro-sex workers), pro-surrogacy, and anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti-American…proponents of simplistic gender-neutrality (women and men are exactly the same) or essentialist: men and women are completely different, and women are better. They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth. [In their writing, they] have pretended that brilliance and originality can best be conveyed in a secret, Mandarin language that absolutely no one, including themselves, can possibly understand…and this obfuscation of language has been employed to hide a considerable lack of brilliance and originality and to avoid the consequences of making oneself clear."

Um...no.

This is the funniest part of your wingnut C&P: They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth

You are not loyal to the truth and in fact I doubt you have any interest in it. Nice slam of women teachers though, I'll give you that.

 

[Truthmatters]

nope , none in this thread

 

[Truthmatters]

Dude slides into the ether

 

[Dr Gregg]

Why are professors progressive?
For the same reason Journalists are primarily a bit left of center, both professors and journalists have IQ's generally 120 and above.

Yup, journalist report the facts, hence they have a "liberal bias". Universities teach the facts, hence they have a "liberal bias"

Let's just see how your post computes in the real world...

I heard the original interview and found this excerpt on the net. Here is one of your journalists, or, as I like to call them, stenographers, 'reporting the facts.'

"November 11, 2008
Historian Michael Beschloss was interviewed Monday on Don Imus’ radio show and he made the claim that President-elect Obama’s IQ is off the charts and that he is the smartest president we have ever had. Here is the meat of the conversation:
Quote:
Historian Michael Beschloss: Yeah. Even aside from the fact of electing the first African American President and whatever one’s partisan views this is a guy whose IQ is off the charts — I mean you cannot say that he is anything but a very serious and capable leader and — you know — You and I have talked about this for years …

Imus: Well. What is his IQ?

Historian Michael Beschloss: … our system doesn’t allow those people to become President, those people meaning people THAT smart and THAT capable

Imus: What is his IQ?

Historian Michael Beschloss: Pardon?

Imus: What is his IQ?

Historian Michael Beschloss: Uh. I would say it’s probably - he’s probably the smartest guy ever to become President.

You can find the full audio on the show here. WTKK - Imus In The Morning, 96.9 WTKK, Boston*-*Imus in the Morning guest: Michael Beschloss 11/10/08

You have to fast forward to about 13 minutes in to get the good stuff. So I’m thinking that I would like to know the historian’s IQ. I’m thinking that it’s somewhere around catatonic or idiot. Too much Kool-Aid. How can someone claim that an IQ is off the charts when they don’t even know what that person’s IQ is and for that matter, where the hell are Obama’s school records period? Did he even have good grades? Did he have good grades when he was snorting cocaine? He’s hiding all his transcripts in his bid to be transparent, so we’ll never know. And what is even more laughable - does this Beschloss guy even know the IQs of any of the presidents. You know that Reagan sure was an idiot. And how about that Jefferson guy, all he could do was write a Declaration of Independence.

Washington sure was stupid, he was just a military genius. And Madison, don’t even get me started. Obama hasn’t done a damn thing yet and he is already a genius and I heard some poll today that has a 60%+ approval rating for him. Never mind that he only got 52% of the vote."

Umm, in the real world picking one example and thinking it applies to all is NOT REALITY

 

[Oddball]

Dude slides into the ether

I slid into nothing, dingbat.

I provided examples , yet your reading comprehension skills appear to rank just behind your spelling.

Either keep up or shut up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No one is stopping cons from being teachers except themselves.

I can only interpret this comment as either naivete or dishonesty, and I'll let you decide which it is.

From "The Death of Feminism," by Chesler:

"Academic feminists who received tenure, promotion, and funding, tended to be pro-abortion, pro-pornography (anti-censorship), pro-prostitution (pro-sex workers), pro-surrogacy, and anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti-American…proponents of simplistic gender-neutrality (women and men are exactly the same) or essentialist: men and women are completely different, and women are better. They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth. [In their writing, they] have pretended that brilliance and originality can best be conveyed in a secret, Mandarin language that absolutely no one, including themselves, can possibly understand…and this obfuscation of language has been employed to hide a considerable lack of brilliance and originality and to avoid the consequences of making oneself clear."

Um...no.

This is the funniest part of your wingnut C&P: They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth

You are not loyal to the truth and in fact I doubt you have any interest in it. Nice slam of women teachers though, I'll give you that.

Nice deflection.

The quote, from an feminist tome, and I recommend it to either gender...

speaks directly to your misstatement.

It casts the lie to your suggestion that conservatives have an equal chance at positions, tenure, advancement, as compared to progressives in academia.

Surprised you failed to understand that, as it was written quite simply by Ms. Chesler.

You must be having a bad day, as none of your post comes close to true: 'You are not loyal to the truth,' 'slam of women teachers'...


And "wingnut" !!!! Wow, so clever, so original, creative, even innovative. I'm so surprised others haven't thought to use it, as it is so dispositive!


I suggest more good reading, as it has been know to aid one's writing...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yup, journalist report the facts, hence they have a "liberal bias". Universities teach the facts, hence they have a "liberal bias"

Let's just see how your post computes in the real world...

I heard the original interview and found this excerpt on the net. Here is one of your journalists, or, as I like to call them, stenographers, 'reporting the facts.'

"November 11, 2008
Historian Michael Beschloss was interviewed Monday on Don Imus’ radio show and he made the claim that President-elect Obama’s IQ is off the charts and that he is the smartest president we have ever had. Here is the meat of the conversation:
Quote:
Historian Michael Beschloss: Yeah. Even aside from the fact of electing the first African American President and whatever one’s partisan views this is a guy whose IQ is off the charts — I mean you cannot say that he is anything but a very serious and capable leader and — you know — You and I have talked about this for years …

Imus: Well. What is his IQ?

Historian Michael Beschloss: … our system doesn’t allow those people to become President, those people meaning people THAT smart and THAT capable

Imus: What is his IQ?

Historian Michael Beschloss: Pardon?

Imus: What is his IQ?

Historian Michael Beschloss: Uh. I would say it’s probably - he’s probably the smartest guy ever to become President.

You can find the full audio on the show here. WTKK - Imus In The Morning, 96.9 WTKK, Boston*-*Imus in the Morning guest: Michael Beschloss 11/10/08

You have to fast forward to about 13 minutes in to get the good stuff. So I’m thinking that I would like to know the historian’s IQ. I’m thinking that it’s somewhere around catatonic or idiot. Too much Kool-Aid. How can someone claim that an IQ is off the charts when they don’t even know what that person’s IQ is and for that matter, where the hell are Obama’s school records period? Did he even have good grades? Did he have good grades when he was snorting cocaine? He’s hiding all his transcripts in his bid to be transparent, so we’ll never know. And what is even more laughable - does this Beschloss guy even know the IQs of any of the presidents. You know that Reagan sure was an idiot. And how about that Jefferson guy, all he could do was write a Declaration of Independence.

Washington sure was stupid, he was just a military genius. And Madison, don’t even get me started. Obama hasn’t done a damn thing yet and he is already a genius and I heard some poll today that has a 60%+ approval rating for him. Never mind that he only got 52% of the vote."

Umm, in the real world picking one example and thinking it applies to all is NOT REALITY

Not that I would accuse you of dishonesty, but would a correct reading of your post be that if I were to provide two, or three such examples, say, of a journalist claiming that listening to President Obama speak sent chills up his leg, or say, the President spoke so well that the journalist 'forgot he was black'...

would you then be genuflecting, shouting 'huzzah' and telling all your friends, or friend if that is the limit, how I have convinced you that your original point was absurd?

Or is the post simply a way of dissociating my point from your post? In other words, that you had no good answer...is that it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

 

[geauxtohell]

I have not read the OP, but my bet is that the theory will be something along the lines of: "they can't get a job in the real world where conservative ideals rule the day."

Now let me see if I am right.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

Damn I am good. Though, there was significantly more psychobabble than I expected to justify an asinine position.

 

[rdean]

FROM PC:

"Polls and studies have shown consistently that professors, especially in the humanities and social sciences, side with the Left in political and cultural matters.

If that's true, then the mere 6% of scientists that are Republican are the largest conservative group among the "educated"?

So you are saying Republicans lack the educated in the humanities and social sciences, as well as physics, mathematics, biology, physiology, botany, geology, paleontology, astronomy, plate tectonics....

What about literature, music, art, do they also lack eduction in those?

Perhaps this is why the white wing believes Obama wants "death panels" and to "kill grandma"? Why they believe he wants to take over America. Why they think they suddenly have less rights? In other words, the white wing is uneducated and stupid?

Because to believe all these ridiculous notions, you would have to be both, "Stupid and uneducated." To know they are ridiculous, and to say them anyway has just one word, "Treason".

 

[KissMy]

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.

 

[beowolfe]

One day you guys will realize that you're making arguments out of both sides of your mouths.

In a thread about state salaries, you complain about college professors making too much money. On this thread you're cheering the idea that professors are underpaid and can't afford private schools for their children. Make up your minds. It can't be both.

And BTW, Reeves is one of those he's describing. And I've got to tell you, that if, as a PhD, a first year pharmacist earns more, he's is probably not a quality PhD, or his contract negotiation skilss are sorely lacking.

 

[rdean]

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.

You're worse than a dumbass. because you are laughable. Obviously, you don't know any scientists, and I suspect, never will. Which is probably good. As soon as you start to talk, the room would become quiet. Then it would erupt into laughter. You would become extremely agitated for being laughed at. Then you would stomp out, angry and
embarrassed.

When a new medicine is invented or a new process or a better way of making something, who do you think is behind it? Not Republicans. For sure.

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

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%).

 

[Dr.Traveler]

[
Not at all.

The freest of markets tend toward what's known as the rule of threes. That being in any free marketplace, the big players will generally winnow themselves down or merge up to three big players (i.e. McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's or Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Target), with the smaller players more generally tending toward regional, local and/or niche markets.

Conversely, without gubmint granted rights-of-way and mineral rights to be bought off, people like the Rockefellers could never amassed their monopoly powers over the railroad and oil markets.

Ok, I follow where you're coming from. Let's assume you're correct. Even in this scenario, from what I've seen the "Big Three" have a tendancy to do their best to sabotage the Free Market as quick as possible by keeping down competitors through price fixing, or turning economic resources into political resources they can then use to gain an advantage in the market place.

In the end, the result is the same. the Free Market undermined unless you have a referee to keep competition free. That's why I assert you can't find a truly "Free Market." It consolidates to 1 or 3, and then undermines the Market at the first opportunity.

Care to provide some real world examples of that flight of fancy?

The Automobile industry for starters.

 

[Dr Gregg]

FROM PC:

"Polls and studies have shown consistently that professors, especially in the humanities and social sciences, side with the Left in political and cultural matters.

If that's true, then the mere 6% of scientists that are Republican are the largest conservative group among the "educated"?

So you are saying Republicans lack the educated in the humanities and social sciences, as well as physics, mathematics, biology, physiology, botany, geology, paleontology, astronomy, plate tectonics....

What about literature, music, art, do they also lack eduction in those?

Perhaps this is why the white wing believes Obama wants "death panels" and to "kill grandma"? Why they believe he wants to take over America. Why they think they suddenly have less rights? In other words, the white wing is uneducated and stupid?

Because to believe all these ridiculous notions, you would have to be both, "Stupid and uneducated." To know they are ridiculous, and to say them anyway has just one word, "Treason".

Not that I dont' agree with you on many topics, but even I'm getting sick of the "6% of scientist" stuff.

 

[rdean]

FROM PC:

"Polls and studies have shown consistently that professors, especially in the humanities and social sciences, side with the Left in political and cultural matters.

If that's true, then the mere 6% of scientists that are Republican are the largest conservative group among the "educated"?

So you are saying Republicans lack the educated in the humanities and social sciences, as well as physics, mathematics, biology, physiology, botany, geology, paleontology, astronomy, plate tectonics....

What about literature, music, art, do they also lack eduction in those?

Perhaps this is why the white wing believes Obama wants "death panels" and to "kill grandma"? Why they believe he wants to take over America. Why they think they suddenly have less rights? In other words, the white wing is uneducated and stupid?

Because to believe all these ridiculous notions, you would have to be both, "Stupid and uneducated." To know they are ridiculous, and to say them anyway has just one word, "Treason".

Not that I dont' agree with you on many topics, but even I'm getting sick of the "6% of scientist" stuff.

It's only three words out of a hundred.