Sept. 19, 2006

Political Shocker: Faculty Moderates

To read the reports that have appeared for a few years now, it’s easier to find an ivory-billed woodpecker than a Republican on a college campus. Studies have compared party registrations of various college faculties, views of members of various disciplines, and political leanings generally. Conservative pundits and David Horowitz have had a field day with these studies, saying that they show a major problem with ideological imbalance in higher education.

Looking for a job?

See all 208 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 3,375
Administrative: 1,315
Executive: 170
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

The journal Public Opinion Quarterly has just published an analysis of professorial politics that offers a dramatically different picture. To be sure, this study does say that there are more liberals than conservatives on college faculties, although the propoportions (while still significant) aren’t as large as those found in some other reports. But most significant, the new study suggests that the most dramatic trend among the professoriate in recent years has been a shift toward the middle of the road. And the trend is particularly pronounced in some of the disciplines that enroll the greatest numbers of students.

“There are disciplines where conservatives are in the majority, and there is a healthy middle overall,” said John F. Zipp, chair of sociology at the University of Akron, and the author of the study, with Rudy Fenwick, associate professor of sociology at Akron.

Zipp and Fenwick based their analysis on two broad studies of the American professoriate by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. The studies — in 1989 and 1997 — found a shift toward the middle, while conservative professors — a distinct minority — did not lose ground.

Political Ideology of Professors

Ideology	1989	1997
Liberal	24.6%	23.3%
Moderately liberal	31.0%	32.6%
Middle of the road	16.5%	19.6%
Moderately conservative	21.2%	17.7%
Conservative	6.7%	6.7%

Then the authors looked at changes within disciplines. As they expected, humanities faculty members are liberal and don’t show signs of changing. From 1989 to 1997, the percentage of humanities faculty members who classify themselves as liberal increased to 40.9 percent, from 40.3 percent.

But many other disciplines — including those that attract some of the largest enrollments these days — showed decreases in the percentages identifying themselves as liberal and increases in the percentages identifying themselves as middle of the road:

Allied health: The liberal percentage fell from 22.6 percent to 8.4 percent, while the centrist percentage increased from 14.3 percent to 26.0 percent.
Biological sciences: A liberal drop from 24.3 percent to 17.9 percent and a centrist gain from 17.0 to 20.9 percent.
Business: A liberal drop from 13.7 percent to 8.7 percent and a centrist gain from 17.8 percent to 19.6. (Business and technical/vocational fields ended up with larger conservative shares — 48.7 percent and 49.6 percent, respectively — than any other disciplines.)
Computer science: A liberal drop from 13.3 percent to 8.7 percent and a centrist gain from 24.4 percent to 44.6 percent.
Psychology: A liberal drop from 28.2 percent to 25.6 percent and a centrist gain from 15.4 percent to 26.7 percent.

Zipp — who describes himself as liberal — said he wasn’t trying to deny that more faculty members are liberal than conservative, and that some disciplines are quite lopsided. But he said that when one looks at the disciplines, it becomes impossible to accept the conservative critique of higher education as one that is dominated by some sort of fringe left.

“If one says, ‘look at all those liberal humanities professors,’ well that’s inevitable. It’s been that way for a long time,” he said. “But look at the relative position of the humanities in the university over the last 20 or 30 years.” The departments into which resources are flowing, he said, are ideologically diverse. And anyone taking a range of courses in a range of departments is going to be exposed to diverse views — however liberal one department or area may be, he said.

Zipp said that he hoped his analysis would prompt people to recognize the current attack on alleged liberal bias as part of a historic pattern. As his paper says, “hunting for subversives in the academy has been a favorite sport of conservatives for at least a century.”

Some of the scholars who have noted ideological imbalance in the academy said that they were not impressed with the new study.

Daniel Klein, a professor of economics at George Mason University, has studied ideological leanings in the social sciences, and published his research in Critical Review. His research was not based on asking people if they are liberal or conservative, but about party registration and stands on a variety of issues. He was critical of the Carnegie surveys for relying on general descriptions that people selected. Terms like “middle of the road” and “liberal” can “mean very different things to different people,” he said.

In contrast, his questions about party registration yielded clear evidence about lopsided ratios and the questions he asked about various policy questions identified “generally statist views” in many disciplines.

Klein identifies himself as “a small-l libertarian,” and said that he opposes the Academic Bill of Rights and other efforts to apply outside force to changing the make-up of faculties. He’d like to see change from within. The new study, he said, “leaves unchallenged” the evidence he and others have produced about imbalance in humanities and social science departments.

Anne Colby, a senior scholar at the Carnegie foundation (who didn’t work on the analysis published in Public Opinion Quarterly), is currently working on a book about political engagement in higher education. She said the new article had much more perspective — about disciplines as a whole, about the disciplines where students are taking the most courses, and about trends over time — than the studies that have alleged liberal bias. “I think this article is very much on target and the earlier ones were not,” she said.

“If you look at the number of students who go to different institutional types, and their majors, the great majority of students are going to the most conservative kinds of institutions and the more conservative majors,” she said. Further, she said that more research is finding that peer influence more than professorial influence results in shifts in students’ political views, making the emphasis on professorial politics misplaced.

Colby said she hoped the new analysis would get people off the issue of ideological bias. “I hope this gets a lot of attention,” she said. “I think this changes the picture.”

— Scott Jaschik

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

Still about money

The greatest threat to freedom is concentration of power — political, social, economic. So a bunch of liberals “smoothed” their self-constructed data to claim only a 4:1 political bias. Heck — the FTC starts monopoly investigations when a market-domination ratio rises near 2.2:1.

Well, if there is really no political-bias problem in the Public Education Monopoly (PEM) — then there should be no problem with charters and vouchers, should there? The PEM is doing such a great job, not hectoring non-Democrats, it should make it on its own, shouldn’t it?

Of course the PEM can’t. A majority of the PEM cannot support themselves financially. They don’t have the street-smarts, personal drive, and initiative.

Yet, that segment insults and ridicules those who are funding it. How long is that kind of behavior sustainable? In today’s world?

“We need to develop students’ critical thinking.” Right — and students don’t ridicule far-out professors in campus bars. And Teddy Kennedy and GWB made it on their own. Gimme a break, please.

L.L., at 6:00 am EDT on September 19, 2006

I have always declared myself to be a “moderate.” I don’t know what this means, because I don’t follow politics. People on here have accused me of not being a “moderate.” They are obviously and clearly wrong because I say so.

LL, As many have stated and litigated, in many circumstances there are constitutional problems with charter schools. Unfortunately, the constitutional arguments are too complex for most political debate, so peoples’ constitutional concerns won’t register in any survey of beliefs. Academics, of course, endeavor to understand these constitutional issues, and there isn’t a single one out there who has a simple political opinion on charter schools.

Larry, at 7:25 am EDT on September 19, 2006

The end of the article is telling. If students are going to more conservative institutions and choosing more conservative disciplines in which to study, ‘liberal’ humanities professors (and I might argue, social science professors) ARE having less and less influence — if only because of contact. I also noticed that business and other technical/vocational (’professional’?) areas are home to the highest proportion of conservative profs. The consumer-model of higher ed, coupled with the increasingly noticeable expectation that college=job training will only make it more likely that students encounter a conservative position as the core of their experience.

MG, at 8:30 am EDT on September 19, 2006

Party affiliation?

Did the authors examine party affiliation as well as ideology? I would guess that an examination of party affiliation would still show the overwhelming imbalance. It is of little surprise that, given the criticism of liberal bias, many college professors would label themselves more moderate. In fact, the differences between the 1989 and 1997 data don’t appear to be that large — barely outside the margin of error I would guess. It may be too early to speak of shifts or trends based on these two moments in time. I also think that faculty would be more likely to call themselves liberals now that Bush is in office and there is such anti-Bush, anti-conservative sentiment. If you looked at actual policy positions, party affiliation, or vote choice, I doubt most outside the academe would agree on their moderation.

kelly232, at 8:30 am EDT on September 19, 2006

Ok, let’s now see a similar study on major players in corporate america! If the Horowitz crowd demands proportionality then they’d better be redy to implement it consistently...

yet another atheist, at 8:35 am EDT on September 19, 2006

Political Affiliation?

Kelly232, you are working under an untenable assumption—that all Democrats are liberal, a false equivalency if there ever was one.

Zell Miller, a liberal?

The Republican party, today, certainly is predominately conservative, but the Democrats continue to be much more of a large tent. Sure, there are plenty of liberals in the party—but there are as many (probably many, many more) moderates. And there are still quite a number of conservative Democrats—probably more than there are extreme-left Democrats (many on the extreme left, after all, will have nothing to do with the Democratic party).

Aaron Barlow, at 8:50 am EDT on September 19, 2006

Interview with Zipp and Fenwick

Free Exchange just posted a long interview with the authors:

http://www.freeexchangeoncampus.o...p;task=view&id=291&Itemid=55

cps, at 9:35 am EDT on September 19, 2006

The core personality of a “liberal” is most comfortable with uncertainty, ambiguity, and shades of gray. The core personality of “conservative” is most comfortable with clarity, certainty, and right & wrong answers. Thus, given that it is the job of academics, particularly in the humanities and social sciences, to explore and to force students to challenge assumptions and look at issues in unconventional and critical ways, it is not surprising that most of them tend to have a liberal personality — the job they do naturally fits their liberal personality. Just as unsurprising is that those who populate the halls of the corporate world and the military (where an authoritarian hierarchy is essential to efficiency and effectiveness) tend to have a conservative personality. Just as there is nothing inherently wrong or conspiratorial about military and corporate leaders tending to be conservative and overwhelmingly Republican, there is nothing wrong or conspiratorial about academics tending to be liberal and overwhelmingly Democrat. It’s natural self-selection, and academia, the business world, and the military are all better for it.

Gary, Tulane, at 9:55 am EDT on September 19, 2006

Party Affiliation vs Political Leaning

Liberal & Conservative are directional. Asking if someone is to the left or to the right of the middle will depend on where that person thinks the middle is.

Party Affiliation is a better defined variable, and judging from recent elections, it splits the american political body just about in two.

Since the democrat to republican ratios of college faculty is a great deal more extreme than the responses measured here, its clear that the liberal ascendancy in higher education is coloring people’s response to this survey.

The authors of the survey realize this and attempt to argue that the democrats a greater portion of the ideological spectrum than they actually do — granting them the left, the middle, and the moderate portion of the right. But this apportionment is totally unfounded. If you are not basing your convention of “left,middle,right” on the voting population, what are you basing it on?? Do a study of any group, like the floor of the stock exchange or the military, and you’ll find a left, a middle, and a right. But that doesn’t tell you whether that group is liberal or conservative. You’ve got to compare it to the general population.

This survey shows a pervasive liberal bias in higher education more than any other that I’m aware of. We already knew college faculties were liberal. Now we know they’re so insulated from the real world that they don’t even realise they are liberal.

Samwise, at 10:25 am EDT on September 19, 2006

shades of grey

Gary, Where do you get these ideas from? It might be interesting to perform psychological testing on Democrats and Republicans, but I think that you are sorely mislead by the popular press.

Being able to detect a “shade of grey” an intellectual skill. Being able to detect why it is grey, how grey it is, and understand the greyness requires more skill. If you can’t do that, you simply won’t be able to formulate arguments for a policy position, and you might as well give up being a lawyer. In the “business world” if everyone understood everything in terms in “black and white” then there would be little risk-taking on such shades of grey.

However, none of this has anything to do with “liberal” or “conservative.”

I should note that “shades of grey” has been the argument in favor of torture of foreigners offered by the current administration. Is this a liberal argument?

Larry, at 10:40 am EDT on September 19, 2006

Larry. First, gray is spelled with an “a,” not an “e.” But honestly, I don’t understand much of what you have said. (e.g., “Shades of grey [sic]” is not an argument, so how can it be Bush’s argument for torturing people? As I understand his argument, he can’t tolerate the uncertainty of having ambiguous words in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, so he wants to give it specific definition (his, of course) — that is a classic conservative reaction, namely that he is uncomfortable with ambiguity and wants to have it clarified. But beyond all that, you missed my point. I didn’t say that conservatives are stupid or incapable of recognizing shades of gray — that is obviously not true and many conservatives are brilliantly able to recognize subtle distinctions and argue nuances and shades of gray. My point is that conservatives are at their core uncomfortable with and thus react negatively to relativism and what they perceive as wishy-washy or lack of clarity. It’s not that they aren’t smart enough to recognize or appreciate ambiguity, it’s that they are uncomfortable with it and would prefer that we more clearly define good and bad, right and wrong, beautiful and ugly, etc. Obviously, this is a gross generalization, but I am convinced an accurate one. Conservatives tend to know God’s will more clearly. They know what’s right and wrong more clearly. They condemn moral relativism and contextualism. Liberals, on the other hand, are much more uncomfortable with being so definitive and are thus more tolerant of widely divergent ideas. They see bad behavior and explain it with complicated theories — conservatives see bad behavior and declare it bad. I could go on and on — but I’d be interested to know what your theory is as to what is the fundamental or core difference in the personalities or psychologies of liberals and conservatives. And why more liberals tend to become law, humanities, and social science academics while more conservatives tend to be military officers.

Gary, at 11:35 am EDT on September 19, 2006

Gary,

1) Both spellings are acceptable. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/grey

2) You are the first person on here to declare my argument to be unintelligible. Therefore, I don’t take it as an insult.

3) While the current political argument regarding “redefining” the US’s interpretation of the GC is based on an argument that it is too vague for US personnel to understand, I was referring to the now-infamous “Torture Memo” of (now) Judge Bybee who used “gray” (or “grey”) areas to argue, in essence, that unless actual damage is willfully done to someone it isn’t torture. (I note for purposes of your other argument that Bybee was not a military officer when he wrote the memo, nor did he ever serve.) http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/doj/bybee80102ltr.html

4) Now, as a practical matter, I think that the political argument regarding vagueness is sort of ridiculous, since military lawyers never complained of ambiguity, and the similar prohibitions in the US Code as applied to domestic policemen violating the somewhat vague constitutional provisions regarding “cruel” punishment are routinely applied and never held to be unconstitutionally vague. (Though the defense of qualified immunity does help matters somewhat in this areas.)

4) Since you admit that some conservatives can see grey (and gray, too) and that you are overgeneralizing, I think we might agree that our perceptions of people are just that – perceptions. I am not sure that liberals are necessarily more “comfortable” with shades of grey and conservatives with “black and white.” Instead, I think that it is all a matter of what question you ask them.

Let me give a few examples:

Q: Are you comfortable with an agent of your government ripping someone’s fingernails out in the course of criminal or military activities. Stereotypical political Liberal: No. This is a violation of basic concepts of human dignity.Stereotypical political Conservative: Perhaps. There may be situations where it is necessary to ensure a greater good for the rest of the country.

Q: Are you comfortable with courts voiding contracts whose terms are disproportionate to similar commercial transactions Stereotypical political Liberal: Yes. Loans that appear to be predatory should be voided or modified by courts, because their terms indicate that the parties did not actually enter voluntarily into the transaction.Stereotypical political Conservative: No. So long as a valid non-forged signature appears at the bottom of the instrument, the courts must respect it, and the lender should be able to enforce the contract to its fullest terms. The debtor was not forced to sign it.

As to fundamental or core differences, I am at a loss. Of the true intellectuals out there, most of them don’t map on the common political concepts of liberal and conservative. Their views are quite nuanced on all subjects, and therefore, most surveys are simply inadequate to take into account the way intellectuals think about complex issues.

Whether more conservatives are “military officers” is a strange question. As a former officer, myself, I can’t detect any specific bias one way or the other, because, as the saying goes, “everyone is different.” There are some loudmouths, but for the most part when it comes to legal or political issues, most common values instilled in the armed forces don’t necessarily map on to one political view or the other. Unfortunately, some people invoke military creeds (or whatever) for political gain, but I think this is unhelpful. Strangely enough, after years of listing to the mantra of “military people support the administration” the past few weeks have opened up some very deep conflicts between “political conservatism” and values that have been held very deeply in the military for quite some time.

Larry, at 12:25 pm EDT on September 19, 2006

Bi-Partisan Puke

“Conservatives tend to know God’s will more clearly.”

Really? I didn’t know God had such a direct line of communication with followers of one politically based ideology. Wouldn’t this put conservatives on the same wave-length as Muslim extremists? They think they have a direct link to God, too.

I would like to see a similar study done on the military. It would be interesting. Do more conservatives really enlist? And are we defining conservative by behavior or belief? Because I am sure we all can cite stories of ultra-liberal behavior by members of the armed forces. Likewise, I am sure we can cite the same in academia...and in politics and in business and..... See how it gets when we start to judge people according to notions of liberal and conservative?

Maybe we should stop wasting our time trying to pigeonhole people and spend more time trying to understand each other so we can work together amicably.

Stupid idea, huh?

kgotthardt, at 1:55 pm EDT on September 19, 2006

The “liberal” agenda

So far the comments have been abstract in the extreme, and do not address the differences today between “liberals” and “conservatives” in the humanities, where it is acknowledged that “liberals” (not “moderates") prevail. The academic left has nothing to do with the radical liberals of the eighteenth century, yet they use that word to claim the field of “tolerance” for themselves. The academic left opposes the legitimacy of the United States from its founding to its capitalist character to the projection of American power in the world. It is powerful today not because of a post-60s offensive to take over the command posts of academe but because there was already an anticapitalist, anti-imperialist body of professors (holding to populist-progressive principles) that was initiated by upper-class reformers attempting to coopt the looming specter of working-class revolt. This professoriate believed that all conflict could be harmonized with proper state management, redistribution, and arbitration/mediation of disputes with foreign powers; i.e. there were and are no irreconcilable antagonisms. The universalist ethics of the eighteenth-century liberals had to do with the value of the individual, recognized in civil liberties as an inalienable human right. This universalism was not the same as that imposed by conservative religions. Today’s moral relativism (on the left) is a reflection of collectivism and multiculturalism, with no relation to the libertarian ethos of the classical liberals. In conclusion, the academic left, as criticized by libertarians, has designs upon the students, that is, to turn them against the Enlightenment and its democratic potential.

clare spark, Independent Scholar, at 1:55 pm EDT on September 19, 2006

Moderation? Please define

Is “moderate” a question of tone or substance?

Is it a question of the sociology of opinion polls, or is there another criterion for what counts as moderate and what counts as liberal?

Is it moderate, or not, to oppose launching a war on a country that has not threatened us, as many did back in 2003? (Again, does the tone of the opposition count, or just the content?)

Is it moderate, or not, to oppose large federal deficits?

Is it moderate, or not, to oppose tax cuts during a “war to save our civilization” or whatever kind of war it’s supposed to be?

Is it moderate, or not, to think that entitlement programs that are 40-70 years old should be Conserved?

Is it moderate, or not, to support the teaching of evolution?

Is it Leftist to vote for the Democratic Party that gave us NAFTA, “the end of welfare as we know it,” and pro-capital punishment presidential candidates? (If so, how right wing is a Democrat allowed to get before she stops being called a Leftist?)

Is there a huge pool of unemployed Burkean English prof wannabes who have evidence that it’s their politics that sunk their career prospects?

And why on earth would any intelligent person begin with the presumption that highly educated people should have the same range of beliefs as less educated people? For good or bad, right or wrong, haven’t the highly educated had different views from the less educated, on a variety of issues, in EVERY historical society about which we have knowledge? What, then, could be more “conservative” than to honor and preserve the ancient tradition that intellectuals and “do-ers” don’t see eye to eye on everything?

Fred, at 2:40 pm EDT on September 19, 2006

kgotthardt, Not to disagree with you, but one other comment about the armed forces: will people be judging pre-service political positions or post-service political positions. I don’t know the answer to this, but it is quite possible that after four years one’s view might change, especially as the subject is faced with various challenges, exposed to different types of people, often faced with the challenge of carrying out political decisions, and given opportunities to learn about new subjects.

Mr. Spark, The reason why the comments have been abstract is that most people realize how vague the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are, and realize that there are differences between ideologies and partisan positions.

Secondly, I think that your use of the term “academic left” needs some clarification. Are you referring to a large political body which is centered in academe? If so, what power does it wield? Does it maintain a majority in a legislature. Must the “academic left” be consulted before going to war?

I am a little confused by what you mean by “moral relativism.” In particular, how does one know that their morals are “static” or whether they are, themselves, changing in relation to other peoples’ morals. I suspect that the use of this term is only for political gain, and not meant to explore the issue. Naturally, I call everyone who disagrees with me a “moral relativist” but there isn’t any way of proving that it is not I that is the relativist.

Larry, at 5:05 pm EDT on September 19, 2006

Moderation

“...there were and are no irreconcilable antagonisms.” Yes, Clare, as you acknowledge, there are very many irreconcilable antagonisms out and about, in academia and otherwise. The key is to “agree to disagree” to facilitate decision-making and progress. The philosophy of individualism tempered with tolerance facilitates this kind of dynamic (which is why if I professed to be any “religion,” I would call myself a Transcendentalist). If each side meets somewhere in the middle, progress is made. But negotiations of this kind demand a certain willingness and patience from both parties.

“For good or bad, right or wrong, haven’t the highly educated had different views from the less educated, on a variety of issues, in EVERY historical society about which we have knowledge?” The less educated hold as many if not more opinions as those who are educated. And yes, some of them may be different, but others are decidedly NOT. As human beings, we hold basic needs and wants. For example, all human beings need to eat. All human beings need shelter of some kind. And all human beings, on some level, want (and deserve) respect. Therefore, all human beings deserve to be heard.

The difference is in how these opinions are expressed, Fred. More educated people sometimes flail when it comes to self-expression. They talk in abstracts or they unwittingly offend. In other cases, it may be that the less educated express opinions in ways that the more educated find distasteful. I am of the opinion that if you are educated, you should choose to overcome intellectual prejudice (if any exists), that in fact, you are obligated to make the extra effort to understand communications like these. What does it hurt to try to go the extra mile to understand someone, especially when we believe that person has something important and worthwhile to say?

English teachers, in particular, are obligated to help the less educated express those opinions in ways that assist in bettering communications, not out of a sense of supremacy, but out of respect that EVERYONE has something important to say, that everyone deserves a voice. A good English teacher will WANT to teach self expression, even though that process is sometimes painful. How else will the less-educated become educated if we do not let them speak?? And how else will we foster understanding of one another?

I used to wonder where I was in the spectrum of right and left wing. I thought I was perhaps a moderate liberal, but that term is relative. “Moderation” is as subjective and fluid as “liberal” and “conservative.” No one actually knows what these terms mean outside of self-labeling, so why even use them?

kgotthardt, at 5:10 pm EDT on September 19, 2006

Fred, you missed the point.

Obviously people have a lot of different opinions about what sort of ideas OUGHT to be held by academics. That’s almost too broad a topic to be worth debating.

What is being discussed, at least by myself and those I’m responding to, is whether the common characterization of Academia as overwhelmingly liberal is an accurate description of the state of affairs.

In fact your rhetoric about what should be considered moderate is a good example of the hopeless arbitrariness of redefining the political center as something untied to the (in this case American) body politic. You’ve tried to deny that academia is liberal by detailing your disagreements with the those on the other side of the aisle. I could just as easily argue that the “moderate” position is the one a little to the right of Ann Coulter, because that’s what is most REASONABLE. (I don’t actually believe this, of course.) We’d both be making a hopelessly arbitrary polemic.

Samwise, at 5:10 pm EDT on September 19, 2006

what is the academic left and what is moral relativism?

One of the other posters asked me to locate the academic left, as if everyone does not already know this. Moral relativism too. I am concerned with the humanities, where the author of the article in question locates non-moderate leftists. They may be left-wing Democrats, Marxist-Leninists, the cultural studies professors, cultural anthropologists, sociologists, or American Studies professors. Many are postmodernists/multiculturalists who frown upon imposing “Western” morality (generally viewed as hypocritical) upon “imperialist’s victims.” It is not for us, it is argued to criticize the treatment of women and their bodies, to give just one example. Just as furious is the attack on Western science as another plot against non-whites. I cannot believe that every person reading this didn’t already know what I meant. Who would disagree that “moderation” is a good? The question is whether or not the “extremists” are rationally defending their interests or have been swept away by demonic emotions. A lot of history is written with the assumption that the arbitrators/mediators of conflict are rational, while the fighters are crazies lusting for power.

clare spark, independent scholar, at 4:35 am EDT on September 20, 2006

western morality?

Ms. Spark, Thank you for your interesting response. However, I asked for a definition of “moral relativism” and an explanation of how one can tell that they are not a moral relativist. But, your ideas intrigue me even more: what is “western morality”?

You seem to include a large number of disciplines in the category of the “academic left” without explaining how they share politics.

Also, you probably need to give your definition of “postmodernism” as it seems to conflict with every mainstream definition of the term. I realize that you are an independent scholar, and therefore spend quite a bit of time studying these subjects, so perhaps you can explain your terms before using them.

Larry, at 7:00 am EDT on September 20, 2006

Simply, a genuine, Independent

Republician=Democrat=Libertarian=Same ol’-Same ol’=In decending order.

It is so good, to be an Independent.

Regards,

Paul Douglas Hale

Paul Douglas Hale, Alumni Editor-in-chief at Clayton State University, at 9:55 am EDT on September 20, 2006

Crazies and the Immoderate Left

‘The question is whether or not the “extremists” are rationally defending their interests or have been swept away by demonic emotions.’

I had a class in which the (seriously brilliant)instructor explained liberal and conservative not as a linear measurement, but as a circular one. On the continuum, if liberal is on one side and conservative on the other, the more extreme the belief, the further you go around the circle. Eventually, both ultra-liberals and ultra-conservatives end up in the same place—as radicals.

I would suggest further that not only do both end in radicalism, both end in violent radicalism. For example, a Middle Eastern conservative extremist might pilot a jet into a building in the name of a god. An American liberal extremist might encourage practices like female circumcision by excusing the behavior as a multicultural practice. The extremists and their behaviors have something in common: they ignore the common grounds upon which every human being has rights. These “common grounds” provide a basis for belief and a safe harbor against what some might term “moral relativism.”

I am not sure demonic emotions contribute to these violent behaviors or not. I tend to think it’s a combination of culturally reinforced belief and permission to act as opposed to pure emotion. But then, I am not an extremist, so who knows.

kgotthardt, at 10:05 am EDT on September 20, 2006

What Moderates? Ornery, maybe. But Moderate? Bah!

As someone who has been called a Eustonian, Neocon, Bleeding Heart Liberal, War Monger, and countless other monikers on my politics (most to all of which have been meant to be derogatory), I can’t fairly call myself a moderate. I’m too opinionated with non-off-the-shelf opinions to be called a one (and I have to admit enjoying the confusion it causes). I prefer to be called ornery. I know I’m a square peg, and I like it.

But I DO have to raise an eyebrow at clear campus partisans who claim to be “Moderates.” Conservatives DO stick out like a sore thumb, as do other contrarians. But most so-called-Mod-Squadders are (no offense) Lite-Liberals (socially liberal D/RINOs?) when viewed from outside of campus. To be honest, I may be in that category myself if you average all of my screedy goodness. But Moderates in terms of the general population? Nah. Either they are so sheltered in their campus community that they honestly believe that they *are* moderates having never sat at a truck stop diner’s table, or they are so self-absorbed that they believe they are the center of the world. For the latter, “Moderate” is not a political stance, but a matter of geography.

Nope. I suspect that that the actual number of genuine wishy-washy moderates is inflated in this study. Profs are paid to have strong opinions. I don’t buy that there are those out there who are pansies with theirs. Those of us who are unclassifiable as “Liberal” or “Conservative” are either cranky like me, sheltered whining babes in the woods, or narcissistic gits. And I imagine that goes for some of the other “moderate” commenters on this thread based on what I’m reading. But just call us all a bunch of nonconforming jerks who don’t play nice with the others at the faculty lunch table.

But the... name calling is so much fun.

Bill, at 10:25 am EDT on September 20, 2006

The study uses self definition, right? So someone could say he is “moderately conservative” because he favored Kerry rather than Howard Dean. I bet that’s what’s happening.

In a study like this, it is better to use objective questions like “Who did you vote for in 2000?” or “Have you ever voted for a Republican for President” or “Do you consider the Democratic Party liberal, conservative, or middle of the road?”

Eric Rasmusen, at 12:45 pm EDT on September 20, 2006

Wishy Washy Wimps

Oh. I didn’t know being called a “moderate” was like being labeled “wishy washy.” I would never call myself a “wishy-washy-liberal.” See? Once again, the labels do not work, and like you Bill, I am rather proud of that....until I am asked a silly question like, “Are you liberal, conservative, or moderate?” Then I have to go into a really annoying, long explanation that probably will not be understood anyway.

As an aside, in a conversation about dogs’ idiosyncrasies, I once had an espoused conservative refer to my pet as “a wimpy, liberal dog.” I laugh about that almost every time I walk her. But the comment made me wonder if liberals are considered “wimpy” compared to conservatives.

In any event, “cranky” is just fine with me, especially if I bark at the person who wants to know what category I fit into. Just keep in mind that term is also relative. Certainly, there are people who are both more and less cranky than we are!

kgotthardt, at 12:50 pm EDT on September 20, 2006

If ya can’t call ‘em Wishy Washy, then what can you call ‘em?!

Well, KG...

Most people would rather avoid calling themselves “wishy washy” (I mean come on!) so *someone* has to do it! After all. If we are all going to be “Moderates” then we had best start dividing us all up between the truly wishy washy who never say anything “interesting,” those who are just pretending or mistake themselves to be moderate but have clearly distinct “overall” opinons, and those of us who just LOVE to stir the pudding just to ruin the days of surveyors, poll takers and more importantly, those on both wings who take these types of studies seriously. (Evil Laughter)

I for one am finding all the posing and posturing of some people here to establish their “bona fides” to be terribly funny. They just want to be loved or hated by the appropriate people. I just want to be left alone in these fights so I can get a good view. And I’m getting a pretty good view right now.

Bill, at 2:55 pm EDT on September 20, 2006

Bill, You Rock

LOL You know, there is lot to be said about people who have no pretenses whatsoever. I wish my sense of empathy would allow me to merely sit and enjoy this political spectator’s sport a little more often, Bill, but I guess that is what at least partially makes me a “bleeding heart liberal.” I like peace, love and justice too much to just sit back and watch the fights, though admittedly this is why I have gotten punched once or twice.

Here is another thought adapted from Margaret Thather: “If you sit in the middle of the road, you get hit by both sides.” Some people are afraid of getting hit. Others of us are less cautious. We see a squirrel about to be run over, and our first response is to jump in front of the car and grab the poor beast. I’ve tried to avoid fast moving vehicles of late, but that doesn’t mean I will give up my right to walk openly on the sidewalk.

kgotthardt, at 5:20 pm EDT on September 20, 2006

Academia as “Liberals”

Gary of Tulane seems to come closest to the “truth” to me. Liberals do seem to have trouble realizing that “truth” is seen differently by conservatives than they see. But it is reality. I used to be a “liberal” back when it meant to be able to look at all sides of an issue (and not be able to make a decision about the topic, therefore). And then came PC that seemed to be the mantra of people who were liberal. So I became a “moderate” and the “fence sitting” enemy of both sides! I learned that the “truth” could be compared to a one room school-house with many windows. Truth sits in the middle with different people looking in different windows at it and each coming away with a different idea of it depending on personal perspective (the idea stolen from Henry James, I think. And Jesus’ “there are many rooms in my mansion..."). But my point: “Moderates” do not like to be called “fence sitters” so they pick a side and because they do look at many sides of an issue and they do worry about others and are, thusly (IMHO), more attuned to the needs of others rather than the self that their side comes out being “liberal". They seem to have forgotten that one of the great tenets of democracy (and a free market) is that everyone is supposed to look out for their own interests and to be allowed this freedom. (I won’t go into what I see as the “failures” of this doctrine).In conclusion: I have the comfort that no one reads this far down in the comments and, therefore, won’t be I won’t be flamed and have my tender moderate ego attacked.

Jim Blyler, Director at SEEdSAM, at 9:25 am EST on November 16, 2006

Jobs Related to Political Shocker: Faculty Moderates

or search for jobs directly.

Dean, College of Graduate Studies
Angelo State University

Angelo State University is an equal opportunity employer and seeks to build a diverse workforce community. see job

Faculty, English/First-Year Writing, Full-Time, Tenure-Track, Fall 2009
Salem State College, MA

Salem State College is an equal opportunity / affirmative action employer. Persons of color, women and persons with ... see job

Associate Director: Academic Programs (112167)
Northeastern University

Northeastern University, founded in 1898 and located in Boston, is a private research university that is a leader in ... see job

Faculty, Environmental Science
Community College of Baltimore County

Job Responsibilities: Applications are currently being accepted for a full time ten-month Environmental ... see job

Library Assistant
Howard Community College

Responsibilities will include working as a reference/circulation library assistand and will include evening and weekend ... see job

Head of Reference, University Library
Governors State University

Governors State University is seeking applications for a tenure-track position that coordinates the library’s reference ... see job

Director of Staff and Workplace Development
NC State University

Join the Pack! A community with nearly 8,000 faculty and staff, and 30,000 students. NC State is one of the largest employers ... see job

Instructional Faculty/Assistant Professor, Imaging & Color Science, IRC27116
Rochester Institute of Technology

Rochester Institute of Technology, College of Science, 54 Lomb Memorial Drive, Rochester, NY 14623 JOB TITLE/RANK: ... see job

Neurologist — Rank to Be Determined
University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center-Downtown Denver

Posting Description: The Department of Neurology has an opening for a full time faculty member in the ... see job

Research Assistant Professor
University of South Carolina

A leader in academe, the University of South Carolina holds the Carnegie Foundation’s highest research designation and is ... see job