Intellectual Incest in Academia
~Published in the Daily Illini on April 24th, 2006.
Editor's Note: This is the first of a two-part series by columnist Billy Joe Mills on accusations of liberal professor bias on campus.
There is a danger to the vitality of intellectual life at American universities. It lies within the overwhelming domination of campus by liberal thought. This problem exists, although many believe it does not. Many professors at our University earnestly see the majority of their colleagues as conservative. Surprisingly, my solution rejects David Horowitz and others who wish to legislate political equality, which I will develop next week.
The donation ratio for University employees during the 2004 elections was 90.2 percent for Democratic coffers and eight percent for Republicans. Out of all employee groups in any sector of our economy, the University of California and Harvard were the top two donors to John Kerry, as published by Opensecrets.org.
An academic study done by Professor Daniel Klein at Santa Clara University surveyed six major academic societies. The average of all six societies was a ratio of 15 Democrats to one Republican. The largest disparities exist in history, anthropology, sociology, and philosophy.
A recent study published by the Berkeley Press entitled "Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty," (a quick and free registration is needed to view the article) found institutionalized discrimination that prevented certain groups from rising the academic ranks. Through regression analysis of large data sets, the researchers found that conservatives, Christians, and most notably, women, are less likely to be promoted and to work at higher quality universities.
The original charter set forth by the American Association of University Professors in its 1915 Declaration of Principles says, "The university teacher's … business is not to provide his students with ready-made conclusions, but to train them to think for themselves. The teacher ought also to be especially on his guard against taking unfair advantage of the student's immaturity by indoctrinating him with the teacher's own opinions."
And from the association's 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom, "Teachers … should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject." Academics Stanley Fish and Benno Schmidt have recently echoed this view. These association documents are universally accepted and defended by professors as their foundation. Perhaps they have not read them.
Anecdotal testimony on our campus supports the data. I have personally been in a biological anthropology class where, in front of 500 students, the professor found it relevant to say, "Republicans are in general racist." Perhaps he meant that conservatives have a biological basis to be racist. Another professor called me a "racist" and a "bigot" simply for believing that affirmative action should be economically based.
Many of my conservative friends have dropped classes because they worried that the professor's political bias would consciously or subconsciously influence the way they graded essays with political subjects.
A 2004 survey commissioned by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a group created by Sen. Joe Lieberman and other notables, investigated the effects of liberal academia upon students. It found that 49 percent of students say professors' state primarily liberal political opinions in class, even if they have nothing to do with the subject and 29 percent feel they have to concur with the professor's political opinions to earn a high grade.
Few speakers invited to campus are conservative. The Illini Union Board recently rejected a proposal from its own Lectures Committee to invite Bill O'Reilly to speak because apparently they felt he's not the kind of person we want to speak here. Their lineup consistently has people like Ralph Nader, Patch Adams and Spike Lee.
The University YMCA, Allen Hall, Gender and Women's Studies Department, and many other campus groups are dedicated to inviting exclusively liberal speakers. Panel debates purporting to present diverse opinions on issues like the Iraq war usually have a panel of professors with differing reasons why it is an evil war by evil men.
We should not legislate political equality, but we should not pretend the problem is benign. Intellect has never been served by fearing diversity and examining only half of an argument. The continued domination of thought on campus by liberal intellectual faculty is the most illiberal and anti-intellectual sentiment available.
Billy Joe Mills is a senior in LAS. His columns appear on Monday. He loves being challenged by liberal arguments and he wishes campus liberals had the same opportunity. He can be reached at opinions@dailyillini.com.
posted by Billy Joe Mills at 12:01 AM
31 Comments:
Billy,
This manufactured controversy is the new "War on Christmas".
I am sorry, however, that you are so oppressed here. It must be really, really tough having a friend who has a friend who has a cousin who was once told by a liberal professor that intelligent design is wrong and that woman have the right to choose their own health care options. Perhaps a transfer to Bob Jones University might be a solution? At Bob Jones University you might be able to get the conservative education that you so desire.
Wally
Wally,
Excellent factual rebuttal to Billy's overwhelming statistical data that universities are riddled with liberal biases. In light of all the evidence you cited demonstrating how he is wrong, I look back at his column and am utterly amazed he could ever believe what he was saying.
Well done.
Love,
Brian
(a liberal who is confident enough in his liberal values that he welcomes an environment that will challenge his ideas)
Wally,
Wow, Wally, you just proved Billy's point better than he could in the limited space of the column. What a tremendous, diverse, education you yourself received on campus.
Once again, your comment comes no where near talking about the issue presented.
Soon, you must leave the cocoon, even liberals can't stay forever (unless they become professors).
Get ready for a look at the real world. Outside, Billy Joe will have much more support.
Be afraid.
So in your article you complain about the liberal bias in higher education. Did you think to look at high school, middle school, or elementary school data. Perhaps the desire teach is part of a liberal personality. I find it hard to believe that qualified conservative indiviuals are systematically denied jobs and promotions. Furhtermore regression analysis does not imply causality. It can reveal trends which may be caused by a variety of factors. Perhaps its that conservatives dont like the university environment (Im guessing you dont either) so they dont want to become professors. If as you say in your own article "that we should not legislate politcal equality" then your article amounts to nothing more than another conservative rant about liberals ruling the world. Which Im pretty sure they dont given the current administration in the white house. Maybe you are just uncomfortable with having your conservative views challenged. If you want change things propose something, become a professor, write to the university. But why do that when the DI is the ideal soapbox for you and fellow conservatives to push your agenda under the guise of being a student news paper. I'd like to see some data on the political bias of the DI. I cant count how many times friends of mine (liberal and conservative) have complained about the overly biased and offensive nature of editorials published in the DI.
Alex
(This is me, Billy, posting an email response sent by George Peternel, a researcher at Northwestern)
Hi Billy,
Your column on Monday made a strong case that there's a bias on
college campuses in favor of politically liberal faculty members and politically liberal speakers. But that might not be the bias behind the bias. One could also argue that there's also a bias on college campuses in favor of faculty members and speakers who have superior
intellects. And that given that bias, its no surprise to many of us that the inbalance exists.
You cited evidence showing the political liberalism of the employees at Harvard University and University of California at Berkeley. Neither university hires intellectual lightweights. Go back to your source. Identify the universities with more of a liberal-conservative balance, or with the liberal-conservative balance reversed, if possible. My guess is that those institutions aren't known for attracting the best and brightest minds.
My hunch is that the universities known for having best and brightest minds will always be considerably more politically liberal. If you want the University of Illinois, or any other university, to reverse
the bias, then that university should hire dumber faculty. Which is a policy consideration no university aspiring to be among the best in the world would ever seriously consider.
George
Well, as a stark raving contented liberal/leftist, I must say that on its face I have very little problem with a rampantly liberal academia. But the problems I do have with it are not the same problems you have, namely that liberal academics are by no stretch "leftist" (it seems the extremes are balanced out) and tend to be closed-minded hacks who don't pay attention to anything left of themselves. But that sounds like my own personal problem.
In terms of what you mention, I think there is something to be sai for the correlation, and much like Brian I agree that I am strong enough in my beliefs to support an intellectually diverse university. However, you seem to be suggesting (not explicitly) that there should maybe be ideologically-based recruiting, which I think is as wrong as race-based affirmative action for obvious reasons. The answer is making the university internally more welcoming to conservatives (don't ask me how, I need to think about it, but it's possible) and then perhaps conservatives won't be so repulsed by the prospect of university instruction.
On another personal note, I feel like there aren't enough sane conservative people on campus for me to belittle undeservedly. Everyone mostly deserves it.
Wally,
My good friends Brian and Mugs have dealt with you in as kind a matter as possible considering the idiocy of your comments. First, I give two examples of many personal experiences, but you insist on saying "a friend who has a friend who has a cousin who was once told by a liberal professor that intelligent design is wrong..." ahhahahha...its almost laughable really. But ok, I'll try to take you seriously. The other thing is that I don't at all believe in Intelligent Design, I can't recall the last time I went to church and my religious views play no role in my political views. I would prefer to attend a 90% liberal university, like our own, than attend Bob Jones. My reasons are precisely the opposite of what you accuse me of. I absolutely love to be challenged. Formally and informally debating professors and checking their arguments has made my arguments stronger, sharper, and more refined than yours. I would guess that part of the reason we all think you are so silly is that you have never had to be challenged by conservative intellectual thought. I don't entirely blame you for this since your University has failed to provide you with an open and balanced marketplace of ideas. I don't want a conservative education, but I wouldn't mind conservative intellectuals who could encourage and buttress my instincts. I would also like partners in the numerous debates I have done so it isn't Billy Joe Mills vs. 2 or 3 liberal PhD's, which has happened about 5 or so times. But even more important, liberal students need someone to challenge them, to clash with their ideas, to anger them. A boxer who rarely gets in the ring grows soft, slow, and clumsy...so too with the arguments of any person, liberal or conservative.
Anyways Wally, as Mugs already said, thank you for helping me to prove my point.
Billy -
As usual, good column. Although a strong progressive myself, I do enjoy reading your articles and find that your logic and argument are both often stronger than a number of professional conservative columnists (such as Victor Davis Hanson or Charles Krauthammer.)
At the same time, is it possible that these proportions could indicate something else? Heavily liberal proportions could indicate numerous things:
1) Liberals are more drawn to work in academia than conservatives. This argument sounds reasonable to me without making any judgments about intelligence - it's quite possible that conservative graduates from any of a number of fields (political science and economics spring most readily to mind) tend to prefer working in the private sphere over pushing through theses and the like.
2) Many of these sciences operate on concepts that, though apolitical in and of themselves, are currently understood primarily within a liberal frame. This argument holds the most water when employed for anthropology and sociology - far and away the most proportionately liberal employee groups listed. This does not necessarily owe to the fundamental liberal positions encompass by the two sciences, but rather, perhaps, to their relative youth. Diversity in schools of thought in an academic discipline is the sort of thing that comes with age: the earliest economic thought was, by nature, conservative (simply by virtue of existing in times before unions or progressive tax rates). Likewise, in its earlier days, psychology was heavily affected by social assumptions of the time, and so it could be said that the politics of the time affected its study. In this case, age will balance out fields such as these.
3) Politically outspoken professors discourage the further academic growth of conservatives. I can't make any excuses for this, which leads me to a concession:
I agree that universities are a place to have your underlying views about the world challenged. However, I don't feel it's particularly pertinent to a class for a professor to make unnecessary (and potentially intimidating) political statements, no matter what affiliation they may have. This setup only stifles your views, rather than challenging them.
Overall, I'd say I agree with the main thrust of your ideas here, but I don't feel the scientific data necessarily supports your assertion. I am curious to see how you feel about proposed solutions, though.
Alex Rein,
Thanks for your comments.
You said, "Perhaps its that conservatives dont like the university environment (Im guessing you dont either) so they dont want to become professors." First, I love the University environment precisely because it does constantly challenge my beliefs. Second, this is your key line because it summons my solution. Conservatives don't feel welcome at universities because it is well known they are not places for them. Professors hire grads who have done research that mirrors their own, or at least that they agree with. Even on issues that would seem politically-benign, some underlying premise or thesis about the world always shows through. Perhaps subconsciously, established professors or editors who decide what gets published in academic journals choose the type of research that they deem "relevant" or "high-quality." It is inevitable that conservative universities will be biased against research coming from liberals and vice versa.
You say, "If you want change things propose something, become a professor, write to the university."
Uhhh, isn't that precisely what I am doing by publishing this data and my thoughts in the Daily Illini? uhhh yea, I think so. Also, I would love to become a professor someday, but who knows if I will be welcome.
You said, "But why do that when the DI is the ideal soapbox for you and fellow conservatives to push your agenda under the guise of being a student news paper. I'd like to see some data on the political bias of the DI."
This is when you become funny, unintentional comedians are the best kinds. First, in the past the DI editorial page has been overwhelmingly liberal. This is the first year where, guess what!, its actually balanced quite evenly!!! Yay! But oh how terrible that even when things become balanced you see them as CONSERVATIVE. Perhaps its because you are so unused to seeing decent conservative thought that when it pops up you take special note of it and emphasize its prevalence. There are two gay liberal columnists, one black liberal, one female liberal, our editor is on the mailing list for the Green Party, and the new EIC is a liberal who was a columnist earlier in the semester. By my count is almost exactly split in the number of columnists, and the editors push things in favor of the liberals. Your problem is that you would prefer to remain in your nice, safe, and warm Tupperware (trademark) container rather than allowing your ideas to be openly assaulted at least one day a week.
You said, "I cant count how many times friends of mine (liberal and conservative) have complained about the overly biased and offensive nature of editorials published in the DI."
Uhhh, hahahhaha, uhhh, well sir, the entire point of an OPINIONS PAGE is to be BIASED by providing OPINIONS, which are by defintion BIASED. I know for a fact that the majority of the editorial board is liberal, but that is only a slight majority and so staff editorials have been incredibly reasonable this year, but just ridiculous in the past... hahahhaha...sorry...I can't help but laugh.
Great column.
Many of the other commenters have noted that liberals are drawn to academia, happen to become professors, etc. I'm not sure this is true. I visited several conservative Christian colleges before coming here and I think such colleges might be siphoning off some of the really good conservative professors. This seems to have the greatest effect in areas of study where the secular departments are openly hostile to conservatives, such as in philosophy or anthropology. Christian colleges have some excellent liberal arts faculty, but lack in the sciences. Why? A chemist or physicist really doesn't have to worry about not getting tenure because of ideology. One of the more conservative departments I've been involved with here is chemistry, which seems to be immune from a lot of ideology for very obvious reasons (polymers know no politics).
The departments where I've had a lot of conservative professors, seem to be those where quantitative ability outweighs ideology. I can say that I really like philosophy, but I have absolutely no desire to be a professor of philosophy because I would never get tenure in a million years. In economics I can always rely on my actual abilities and innovation to garner respect.
BTW for all this blather about intellectual diversity, I'm more than happy to learn about liberal ideas, but most liberal bias in the classroom isn't about intellect, it's more like "LOL BUSH Sucks LOL"
Melissa has a great point.
Your bar chart has no engineering or hard sciences listed in it. I'm a little miffed, Billy Joe, that you'd consider LAS representative of the University world--there are Chemists, Physicists and Engineers here, too.
As a chemistry instructor, I'd have to say that we only "appear" to be more conservative because we, for the most part, don't spend a lot of time in class discussing politics. The head of my particular division is a raving (and proud) progressive, and one of the P-chem professors *does* speak about political issues in lectures, another is very big in the Green Chemistry field.
I'd say that as a whole, Chemistry is pretty much balanced across the spectrum, as is physics and the College of Engineering is tilted heavily towards the Conservative/Libertarian part of the spectrum.
I would also take exception to George P's veiled insult that the propensity to liberalism can be equated with intelligence.
I find that it is a lot more likely that a conservative will debate on facts and logic than on faith and emotion. (Let's leave Bill O'Reilly and Rush out of this for now, eh? I don't consider them to be more than highly-paid actors.)
I'd put William Buckley, the late Karl Hess, PJ O'Rourke and Walter Williams up against about anyone in a debate. No lack of intelligence there.
Tom
Billy,
Your mistake is that you assume that there is only a spurious relationship between professors and researchers who make it into top-notch universities and their political beliefs. Just by chance, you assume that the best and brightest minds in our country are liberal. Wow, what an amazing coincidence!
Universities are institutions that strive for truth. Conservative are individuals who often ignore the truth. For example, a conservative might believe that things in Iraq are going just great when in fact they are not, or a conservative might believe that God created the world in 7 days when in fact, he did not. A conservative might believe that stem-cell research is evil because it destroys life, when in fact it has great potential to save life. So how can individuals who consistently ignore the truth be part of an institution with the opposite goal?
What is your solution? You want people who actively ignore the truth to be teaching us their bias and ignorance? How is that ever to work?
Wally
Wally,
I don't think that you realize that the fundamentalist Christian Right Wing in this country makes up probably only 1/3 of the Republican party. I do not believe that God created the world in 7 days and I do believe in stem cell research and I do believe in Gay Marriage very very strongly. Part of the problem is exemplified by your response, you think that all conservatives are religious nuts, this is because you haven't been exposed to any conservative intellectuals who absolutely chase after truth...people like, oh I don't know, myself...plus the great folks that TC just listed. Conservative intellectuals reside at the Think Tanks and in some numbers at places like the Univ. of Chicago, where far fewer liberal nutcases exist precisely because their arguments are refined through interaction and debate with the still small minority of conservative colleagues...
Billy,
Your response has stretch marks all over it. The fact is, the very
best and brightest minds tend to be political liberals. That doesn't mean that political conservatives can't be among the best and brightest and thereby position themselves in America's top universities; its just that they (we) are outnumbered. So the bias you reported is no surprise to me.
Venture out of academia into the business world. Check out the
political leanings of Fortune 500 CEO's. I strongly suspect that
you'll find the bias there to be the reverse of what you reported for academia. Are these CEO's the best and brightest? Probably not, at least as compared to their academic brethren. They tend to be above average in intelligence, but it is their focus, drive, spirit of entrepeneurship, and other qualities that have enabled them to rise to the top of the corporate world, not simply their raw intelligence. And yes, some of them are among the best and brightest. Are there political liberals running large American corporations. Certainly,
but they are outnumbered.
What does surprise me, is what appears to be a growing number of
politically conservative students on college campuses. College
students are traditionally supposed to be liberal, not necessarily because of, but in spite of their having liberal-minded professors, and only as they get older and become more vested in things like earning a living, family and property and learn to appreciate and
respect conservative viewpoints do they change.
Folks like me support traditions like Chief Illiniwek. We expect
liberal U of I professors (like that Kaufman fellow) to stir up
trouble regarding the Chief Illiniwek issue. But we are also
pleasantly surprised when the students defy their liberal professors and overwhelmingly support a traditional custom (and thereby labelled ("conservative") like Chief Illiniwek. So maybe all this conservative vs liberal stuff is mostly balderdash that keeps political columnists/pundits like yourself and readers like myself alive and kicking. More and more, what I see these days in places like Washington and Springfield is greed, opportunism, ineptness,
dishonesty and arrogance, qualities that are neither conservative or liberal.
George
George,
Ok, well you have proposed some interesting things. Your belief that liberals are more academically intelligent insinuates some sort of genetic
proclivity towards intelligence and that the opposite is true for
conservatives. If it is not genetic then it would have to be cultural and societal influences which motivate conservatives to be less academically inclined, or something like this. This might be true to some extent and if
you polled Fortune 500 CEO's it is possible the split would favor
Republicans. However, that split would be something like 60:40 at the most, not 90:10 as it is in academia. The business world doesn't give a damn about a person's politics, I believe that the academic world sometimes
consciously and sometimes subconsciously does care. Plus we should consider that CEO's have no public obligation, namely to educate young Americans.
Professors and universities do have that obligation and by failing to present both sides they abdicated and spit on their duty to educate in the name of "Academic Freedom." By the way, the same source they gain their academic freedom from, is the same source I quote which strongly and unequivocally advocates teachers not discussing irrelevant subjects and when
they do have political subjects that they present both sides. I might not even agree with the latter.
It's true that conservatives seem to be growing on campuses. I would posit this is because they come from mainstream America to places where some professors are nearly nutty...they see just how nutty the far left is and
they rebel from it...the same way a son rebels from the political views of his father on occasion.
Responding to your initial comments...You said, "One could also argue that there's also a bias on college campuses in favor of faculty members and speakers who have superior intellects. And that given that bias, its no
surprise to many of us that the imbalance exists." Initially when I heard this argument from professors a few years ago I was shocked. I no longer am. It is predicated on an insidious belief, which TC has rightly noticed,
that conservatives are incapable of academic and intellectual pursuit. More simply, that conservatives are dumb. If this is true then liberal ideas
will conquer conservative ideas in the marketplace and torture them from existence. This has not happened in the real world (real being the opposite of a university). Plus, it's simply false. If I have to prove to a
conservative that conservatives have equal intellects then I'm not certain I'll be able to get anywhere...I actually quite enjoy when this argument is made by Wally and yourself. I honestly believe the claim has roots in the
fact that we don't get the opportunity to interact with conservative intellectuals. But they exist in droves in D.C. at the think tanks and they
are people like Buckley, Richard Posner, Ira Carmen, David Brooks, George Will, etc...But we do not welcome them here.
Thanks again for your comments and for reading my column.
Best,
Billy Joe Mills
Jon O.
I appreciate your comments very much as they are an eminently reasonable critique of what I posit.
1) You said, "Liberals are more drawn to work in academia than conservatives." I agree this is true, but possibly for different reasons. You suggest that conservatives have a profit bias in the job they choose. While I'm not sure how to empirically support this claim, I am in slight agreement that conservatives tend to be more pragmatic, thus would seek higher returns per hour. However, professor pay is often more than enough to satiate even the most lustful conservative, some professors get paid 200-300 and more if they are a Harvardvark. I don't think that intellectuals at think tanks like AEI or Cato or Heritage or those at Brookings (which is more politically split) get paid anymore than a professor, at least not significantly more.
Regardless, as I said I agree with your original comment but for different reasons. I believe that liberals are more drawn to academia because its a comfortable and welcoming place for them and its hostile towards conservative thought. Thus when I get my J.D. I do have desires to work at a university law school, but I might not be welcome and I would be much more excited to go if universities were places of hot intellectual fervor and combat. How much more beautiful would this place be if intellectuals on both sides frequently grappled? And if students could just sit and watch two intellectual giants attempt to logically punish each other? To me, that's an amazing prospect, one that I sincerely wish to see someday.
2) I think this is a fair point, however, it is unprovable and even if it were true, I do not think the impact of this phenomenon would be significant enough to account for the huge disparities. The fields are as liberal as they are because they disdain conservative contributions, perhaps consciously or subconsciously. By the way, this point of yours is very well thought out and a very unique point that I had not considered. In fact, its probably the most original argument presented here for either side. Still, I think it might be a stretch.
3) You said, "Politically outspoken professors discourage the further academic growth of conservatives." I actually disagree with this in an unexpected manner. The non-existence of conservative intellectuals on campus does impede my ability to look up to them as conservative giants and heroes. But the overwhelming existence of liberal professors has the exact opposite effect upon me. The danger comes in the form that liberal students are not presented the opportunity to hone their thoughts and substantiate their beliefs. This is part of the reason I call it incest, because incestuous breeding produces an inferior product, so too intellectually.
Thanks again for your contribution, a first time poster here and certainly worthy of response.
Melissa M.,
I agree with most of what you say, I won't go on a tireless rant. Just wanted to say thank you for posting your thoughts.
General response to all,
Often during the tenure of an institution its mission becomes lost, obscured, or forgotten. I think that great Universities, such as this one, were built upon an intriguing and a rebellious idea. That education ought to occur in a plural and a diverse community - a community which would exist in a state of tireless debate, and yet friendship. We have always understood that the education of man is best progressed when he is surrounded by thoughts he knows not of. When he is invaded by intrusive and alarming thoughts. When his logic must exist under constant peril of life. When the thoughts of his neighbor force him to devise a more clever argument. Such are the most fertile conditions for our mental prosperity and inquiry. Constant and tireless conflict, tension, and battle. Without these challenges ideas grow soft and stale, and without competition they are assumed thoroughly true by their possessors. If a University strays from its original mission it endangers the intellectual vitality of all in the community, not just those who are excluded.
Billy,
Methinks that you are defensive about the notion that more eggheads are liberals than conservatives. Your own evidence supports that notion. On the other hand, your evidence or any other evidence that I know of does NOT support the notion that more dummies are conservatives, or that there is something genetic here. So I haven't gone there, deliberately, and any insinuation you have perceived is imaginary. Probably because you get deluged with all sorts of e-mails
after a column and it becomes hard to keep them straight.
I will suggest to you, however, that CEO's have much more influence on their employees than college professors have on their students. Students seem to me to be at an age and stage of their lives when they naturally question whatever wisdom or foolishness is spewed out by their professors, especially if it sounds like political rubbish unrelated to the course content. Unless they already agree with the professor, in which case they'll stand up and cheer. Rebelling, as you pointed out, is the norm.
I would further posit that CEO's establish a corporate culture, which has a more profound influence on the attitudes and behaviors of their employees, usually over a longer period of time than a one-semester
course. Perhaps we are in disagreement here, but once you join the world of work for a few years, you might change your mind. Rebelling is not the norm in most corporate cultures, if one wants to get ahead. And those attitudes and behaviors influenced by the corporate culture may not be directly political in the sense of Republican or Democrat, but they are very political in terms of aligning one's values and preferences which usually translate into political
decisions.
Enuf. You've touched on an important topic. I agree that some of these wacko liberal professors ought not bring their political biases into their classrooms. But in the greater scheme of things, it doesn't mean squat. Just a temporary annoyance for students like yourself.
George
George,
I wasn't insinuating that much since you said directly, "One could also argue that there's also a bias on college campuses in favor of faculty members and speakers who have superior intellects. And that given that bias, its no surprise to many of us that the imbalance exists."
I understand and agree with your points about CEO's and their influence. However, they are not public educators, they don't have obligations to the public and the advancement of its collective intellect. Professors, particularly ones paid by the State and Federal governments, do have that duty to society and to me as a student who also funds their comfortable life. I feel that is the main refutation to your points.
Overwhelming bias is a temporary annoyance for some, but a permanent influence on the molding of others. I think that younger students are more malleable than older corporate employees. Furthermore, corporate employees presumably enter that world with a given mindset, one that has already accepted the corporate mentality. Students enter the University wanting to learn and their education has been stifled by the dramatically unequal weight of influences.
Thanks again,
Billy
Billy,
"Part of the problem is exemplified by your response, you think that all conservatives are religious nuts"
You are even worse than these religious nuts. You don't even have religious doctrine to back up your nutty beliefs. They're all your own. You are actually thinking about these issues, but you draw the wrong conclusions anyway (compared to the large number of conservative who turn to scripture rather than thinking).
"this is because you haven't been exposed to any conservative intellectuals "
You're right. Maybe you can convince the DI to hire one.
Thanks,
Wally
(This is Billy posting an email I received from David Horowitz.)
Dear Billy,
You wrote a thoughtful column about the problems of unprofessional politicking in the classroom by professors. However, you are mistaken in suggesting that I advocate legislating equality in the classroom. First I have never called for "balance" or "equal" time for opposing views. I have said that professors should not bring their political agendas into the classroom. If you look at my legislation and what I have written about it you will see that all the legislation is in the form of resolutions with no enforcement mechanisms and that its purpose is to get university administrators to enforce their own rules which already say that professors should not use their classrooms as political soap boxes. I would be happy to send you a copy of my book The Professors which makes this clear.
David Horowitz
Mr. Horowitz,
Thank you for your response. I apologize if I mischaracterized your views. I do a lot of research for my columns, but often I fail to fact check everything. I am writing a follow-up for next week where perhaps I will make note of a more accurate interpretation of your views.
I appreciate very much your attempts to reform the liberal stranglehold on higher education. In many ways it is relieving to me that you have taken such a bold and aggressive stand against a clear wrong. We agree on the problem and that it should be fixed. However, your approach seems to be forceful and belligerent, rather than persuasive. I believe that education, and the manner it is advanced, is universally appreciated by all those who chase it until fatigue. The best way to educate students is by exposing them to both conservative and liberal intellectuals. In some ways, professors who speak their political minds in class are very valuable since they challenge our preconceptions and force us to attain a heightened awareness of our arguments. Plus, professors are so obsessed with their "academic freedom" that they are absurdly opposed to your ideas. My tactics with extreme liberals is to get them off their guard first, which is why I began my article by distancing myself from you a little bit. I suggest that you take a different route. One which attempts to persuade rather than impose. This revolution must occur gradually. Cultures always change gradually. Professors will not relinquish their obsession with the right to say whatever they want in class, especially when they have tenure. So a different approach, one that is creative, tactful, respectful, and persuasive must be pursued.
My column next Monday will deliver my philosophical reasons for why its important for universities to encourage the application of and the recruitment of conservative intellectuals. I hope that you have the time to read it.
Best,
Billy Joe Mills
Billy,
Regarding your column yesterday, there is in place at least a partial market solution. If they have the proper information about faculty member behaviors such as you describe, students can elect not to take that instructor's course(s). As long as the univesity and departments are big enough to offer lots of alternative courses taught by other instructors, then this option exists. Of course, if a particular department is dominated by like-minded faculty, then there may be little or no escape. In a system with tenure, there is still an intra-organizational management problem if few students sign up to take a course taught by certain faculty.
I have always favored the full disclosure of all information related to courses and faculty, including ICES ratings of the course and faculty member, all requirements of the course, etc. Students need lots of information to make course choices. There have been some partial efforts here in this regard, but I believe it is done much better at, for example, the University of Chicago.
Keep at it!
Professor Lynge
Well Billy I was exaggerating (perhaps comically) to make my point. Maybe my words were too strong in deeming the DI a soapbox for conservatives. Although I still think it leans right of center and definitely far to the right of the average student here. I do apprecate seeing who makes up the editorial staff. And it does seem reasonably balanced.
However maybe the bias I am preceiving is due partly to fact that I usually read the DI on certain days (I realize now these day tend to feature the conservative columnists). It also owes to the fact that the liberal columnists aren't too liberal in my opinion and often dont make a very compelling case for their argument. I believe the definition of political center depends on the observer so please don't define it for me. Meanwhile there are plenty of over the top and not well thought out conservative articles. The article last year about quarantining everyone with AIDS comes to mind. Or Tom Amenta's "Defending Rummy" article, does anyone else see how hippocritical that article was? Tom has just as much right to run his mouth as do those retired generals.
Duh, of course the opinions page contains opinions which I may or may not agree with it. You dont need to talk down to me explain that. It just seems that sometimes the articles go for shock value rather than provoking discussion or thought. I dont try to respond to those articles because you might as well argue with a wall. Billy you on the other hand seemed pretty reasonable. Thats why I wrote in. I do like having my ideas challenged or I wouldn't be reading the editorial page at all or writing in response. Please don't brand me as just another liberal off in la-la land where all conservative ideas are assumed to come from satan himself. But you were quick to do so and wrote your reply in a very condescending manner. Which is very revealing of what you think of liberals or those who strongly disagree with you. So I doubt I will write in again.
Alex,
I apologize if I insulted you. That was poor of me. But please see that your original post was somewhat belligerent. Plus I am used to responding to people like Wally, who are not reasonable and not willing to listen. I realize now that you're far more reasonable and open that most. So I encourage you to continue to post here and to challenge arguments that I posit into the mindstream of the University.
Also now that you have rephrased what you meant by bias on the opinions page I actually agree with you...and strongly. That is precisely why I so often crowd my articles with facts and data and then link to those sources on my blog. Otherwise we are just a bunch of moronic post-teens ranting about our unfounded personal opinions.
Anyways, I appreciate your posts here and I again apologize for be unnecessarily antagonistic...it's easy to get irrationally defensive when under public scrutiny.
Hey Billy,
The "academic study" by Professor Daniel Klein you mention...it was published in Academic Questions, the National Association of Scholars' own "journal". The NAS is a right-wing organization with an agenda to wipe out multiculturalism and affirmative-action. In fact, pretty much all the articles you cite are from dubious right-wing sources by authors with clear agendas who publish in non peer-reviewed journals (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1972 for info about Rothman and Lichter, authors of the other large "academic study" that you cite).
Thanks for playing!
Wally
Wally,
First of all, donation information is not collected by conservatives and that shows a 90-10% split or so.
Second, so let me get this straight, you don't trust the academic research a conservative professor does, but you do trust the research a liberal professor does? I happen to trust both, especially when they're credible.
NAS simply posted links to Klein's work, they didn't actually fund the guy's study, he did it on his own. If he wasn't a credible academic he wouldn't have been a professor at Santa Clara and George Mason.
But to restate...you don't trust the academic research a conservative professor does, but you do trust the research a liberal professor does? ahhahah oh that's rich and illustrates the apex of your lack of understanding on this issue.
Billy
"NAS simply posted links to Klein's work, they didn't actually fund the guy's study"
The work was published in NAS's vanity press, non-peer reviewed "journal", Academic Questions.
"But to restate...you don't trust the academic research a conservative professor does, but you do trust the research a liberal professor does?"
If it were published in a real journal, I might be more inclined to accept it. The NAS has a clear agenda and they will publish whatever fits with that agenda.
"ahhahah oh that's rich and illustrates the apex of your lack of understanding on this issue. "
So are you actually going to respond to any of my comments or not?
Wally
Ok, you don't seem to be understanding. I agree that NAS published the study, but they did not commission it. They did not pay for it. They did not fund it. If they had, then you could claim bias. But Klein did this study, NAS happened to like it, so they published it in their journal.
By the way, part of the professor bias thing is the fact that "real journals" are less likely publish research that supports conservative causes...This effect might even be subconscious.
Billy,
"By the way, part of the professor bias thing is the fact that "real journals" are less likely publish research that supports conservative causes"
It’s funny that you choose to make this argument. It is the same argument that pro-Intelligent Design "researchers" make as to why they can't get their ideas published in real journals.
It seems like you're grasping at straws here.
Wally
you should have also mentioned IUB bringing michael moore
Post a Comment
<< Home