How many of those who were polled had actually gone to college?

Skeptical, at 7:30 am EDT on July 12, 2007

Since a majority of faculty at American colleges and universities are on contingent contracts, tenure and bias are irrelevant issues. Job security is not a possibility, and even a handful of complaints concerningbias leads immediately to silence, if not to termination.

John Zeugner, at 8:20 am EDT on July 12, 2007

The Perils of Polls

Of course, measuring public opinion has nothing to do with the reality on college campuses (proven by the fact that the closer you are to “college age,” the less likely you are to see a bias problem). But it does reflect the impact of two decades of propaganda slamming higher education.

A cautionary note: Zogby Interactive’s polling system is questionable. Unlike traditional polling (which Zogby also does), this interactive poll is not a random sample. Instead, people volunteer to receive online polls, and Zogby picks 9400 people deemed “representative” of the entire population to respond. But they’re not randomly selected, and who knows what kind of bias exists among the people who choose to get polled and feel committed enough to respond.

John K. Wilson, at 8:20 am EDT on July 12, 2007

The survey should have conducted among the college students randomly selected from a large area.The implication of the ‘finding’is that Professors have to be impartial to the happenings that have crucial influences on the society at large.My opinion is that academicians should raise critical questions on the desirability of adopting anti-people policies favoring the elite class.

RAJEEV BHARATHAN, READER IN ECONOMICS at GOVERNMENT COLLEGE,THRISSUR,INDIA, at 8:35 am EDT on July 12, 2007

Zogby Lays an Egg

As Skeptical points out above, there is no mention in this article of how the results break down in terms of education. Surely, I thought, Zogby must have included education among the demographic variables measured in this poll. So I went to the Zogby home page and found this write-up:

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1334

Strangely enough, there is no mention of the education level of respondents in the Zogby report, either. Perhaps this means that Zogby opted not to measure education on a survey that deals with, well, education. But that’s hard to believe. More likely, they didn’t discuss it in their brief review for one of two reasons: either 1) because respondents’ educational achievement had no impact on poll results; or 2) because reporting the impact of education would have diminished the “sexiness” of the findings.

Given the demos that were reported (belief in faculty bias is higher among older people, born again Christians, and Wal-Mart shoppers), it seems likely that the correlation between the two variables is negative. That is, the people most likely to believe that professors are biased are the ones least likely ever to have encountered an actual professor. I could be wrong, of course, but it’s still curious that Zogby leave this information out of their report.

But all we really see here is the right-wing noise machine in full flower. Groups like ACTA get their money from conservative foundations, bring on a few real academics to shill for them, and then pass the word up the line to talk radio, which, in turns, provides the talking points to Bill O’Reilly and his ilk. Eventually, the mainstream media is suckered into reporting on what is, for the most part, a manufactured controversy.

Meanwhile, the AAUP spokesperson provides the necessary corrective to the ACTA-friendly interpretation of these data. People ignorant about tenure are passing judgment on it, with Zogby neglecting to provide filter questions to weed out what we in the biz call “non-attitudes". AAUP also correctly points out that there is no information here about the salience of the issue (i.e., where it ranks relative to other concerns about higher education). There is no evidence that this is a matter about which the average American cares deeply.

AAUP might have also said a word or two about the controversy surrounding Zogby’s use of “interactive” polling. See this from the Columbia Journalism Review:

http://www.cjr.org/politics/how_reliable_is_the_zogbyjourn.php

So what do we have here? We have confirmation that talk radio’s core demographic (older, white, male, conservative, and ignorant) has bought into the right-wing meme that dirty-hippie-commie professors are corrupting the minds of our impressionable young Eagle Scouts. Given the other likely methodological flaws, we don’t have too much more than that. But I guess if it weren’t for junk science, ACTA would have no science at all.

Meanwhile, I look forward to the desperate rantings of our basement-bound trolls, who will pounce on this as evidence that the public is finally ready to rise up, privatize higher ed, and force the tenured professioriate from their ivory towers into the unemployment lines.

As for me, I’m not too worried. Sure, we’ll have to keep fighting the right-wing noise machine and its lies, but this controversy will remain unresolved long after my membership changes from AAUP to AARP.

And you know why? Because the people who actually know anything about higher education know that the overwhelming majority of professors work hard, do their best, and provide real value for their students. We have nothing to apologize for, and much of which to be proud.

Unapologetically Tenured, at 9:00 am EDT on July 12, 2007

Let’s cool the Rhetoric

Criticism of professors and tenure always seems to provoke a polarized, angry response by those criticized, as the responses here indicate. The proposed “fix” for the problem is inevitably to fight back with an aggressive public relations campaign and more effective counter-propaganda.

How about, instead, cooling the rhetoric and taking an honest look at some of the public concerns about tenure? As a long-time tenured faculty member, tenure has been great for me. I can come and go to work as I please, can tell my department chair or dean to kiss off, am accountable to nobody, so long as I show up for my clases, and expect to be consulted on all major decisions at my university. Who wouldn’t want that?

But isn’t it just possible that there is a downside to giving me all this freedom and sense of entitlement? Are not there real costs to my insitution, and are not my students paying for these costs? Is it just possible that the growing number of temporary and adjunct faculty in my school is driven by the pricetag associated with my guaranteed lifetime contract?

Let me respectfully suggest that less defensiveness and more objective scrutiny of some of academia’s employment practices may be called for. Times are changing, and circling the wagons may not always be the most effective strategy for dealing with those changes.

Jim, at 9:45 am EDT on July 12, 2007

There will always be questions about how a survey was conducted, so I will add my “two cents” from personal experience. After returning to complete my Masters at a major university, I am still in shock over how far to the “Left” of the political spectrum most college professors are. Eleven out of twelve professors I worked with were very far left (anti-capitalism, redistribute wealth, etc.) and one was neutral. I suspect the “neutral” professor was actually a conservative, however unlike Liberal Professors, he just went about his business (teaching history)and never really spoke about politics or trashed the United States....his contract was not renewed this year! Just like members of the so-called mainstream media, college professors lean very far to the left on politics. Please...you only look foolish when you deny this fact. If you are still in denial...then do your own survey in your dept. I would be willing to bet that over 90% of your colleagues are liberals.

RJ Lash, Colleges are Liberal!, at 10:10 am EDT on July 12, 2007

The heart of the matter

The heart of the matter is not the soundness of the polling methodology, nor whether most academics are liberals. The heart of the matter is whether liberalism in academe is seen by the public as a problem.

Damon Hickey, at 11:10 am EDT on July 12, 2007

shorter RJ Lash: I’m peeved my professors don’t share my politics.

The last 2 Popes have been critics of capitalism. The U.S. tax system is wealth-redistributing, so advocacy of that in is hardly “far” anything. Sloppy use of “liberal” and “left” suggest RJ has been a poor student of history.

a, at 11:10 am EDT on July 12, 2007

In the recent issue of Newsweek a former clerk of Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy says that liberals don’t like Kennedy because he is a conservative, and conservatives don’t like him because he does not vote conservative all the time. This strikes me as sadly an all too accurate picture of the modern conservative movement, a movement that demands orthodoxy around a small range of talking points, and sadly a range that is quite frankly narrow and small in its current partisan aims and implications. I think it is true that most professors are well to the left of the general public. I think it is true the leaning towards leftism in academe often results in propaganda passing as research/teaching and the proliferation of some downright silly ideas that are given a pass because their “orientation” is “right.” It’s a tiresome thing for us empirically minded professors. At the same time the conservative voices I see calling for change, the Horowtiz’s, the FIRE’s, the ACTA’s, the NAS, etc., seem to be examples of mindsets far, far worse than the problem they propose to address. Rife with hypocrisy and double standards and without even a stated commitment to academic ideals of free inquiry, diversity of thought and critical examination of ideas (notice how hard it is to read a defense of academic freedom from these folks that doesn’t within a couple paragraphs turn into a polemic on academic responsibility, or notice the either passive acceptance of or passionate defense of dogmatic, non-diverse and openly censorious conservative religious colleges). As noted, these groups, organized often with Trotskyite efficiency and organization (not surprising since many of their leaders are from that background), work tirelessly with support from wealthy foundations to get the message across: professors and tenure bad. Their target audience (conservative, non-college educated, religious) finds their message receptive, little surprise there. However, I think we should not ignore the real gains they have made within these groups. I know that I work everyday to make in my classroom and in my work, while never compromising my right and duty to deliver empirically grounded critiques of any ideologically position, to be especially fair minded and respectful of the fact that many folks adhere to a conservative tradition, one that does have a respectful intellectual pedigree and addresses serious concerns, one that is too often dismissed haughtily out of hand by leftist “academics” thereby giving our professions enemies more fodder...We need to actively address the obvious flaws in the conservative critique but also police our own house of leftist foolishness if we want to repair our image. As we are fighting against an often unscrupulous and well-organized/well funded campaign to silence us it will be hard. But much is at stake and we can do it.

Ken, at 11:30 am EDT on July 12, 2007

Zogby’s website

I went to Zogby’s website to get more information and was immediately confronted by a pop-up ad. That makes me wonder how serious an organization Zogby’s is. And I also wonder how an online sample is a representative sample.

math prof, at 12:05 pm EDT on July 12, 2007

The point of tenure is not job security but to protect a professor in the exercise of academic pursuit of knowledge. It protects those with unpopular theories or controversial findings. It is not to get people to work harder or be more productive. Further, anyone who has worked for 6-7 years has the presumption of continued employment and can assume they will not be fired without cause.

Zogby does not inform people of the real protections offered by tenure but presents it as something it is not intended to be, both in the definition they give and in the wording of the question.

Once they have tenure, most people work hard because they wish to be promoted to Full Professor. Once they attain that rank, they probably work as hard as anyone does in a long-time job with no prospect for further promotion. Tenure isn’t to motivate productivity. It is to protect academic researchers from controversy.

I think the source of the idea that professors do not work hard is the media, not David Horowitz. Every novel or movie about professors shows them as lazy, drunk, cynical, and adulterous (usually with students), if not drug abusers or incompetents. Think of Wonder Boys, or David Sutherland in Animal House, or Michael Caine in Educating Rita, or the many novels about academics written by academics. The reality of academic life and work would probably bore an audience, but there is no mystery why the public thinks of us as biased slackers.

Perry, at 12:10 pm EDT on July 12, 2007

Stan, I’m afraid your comments could not be more illustrative of why non-ideological, much less leftist, faculty members cannot take conservative critiques of academe seriously. In typical blogger fashion you mention the “MSM” or mainstream media and its role as leftist imams. How can we take such an incredibly un-nuanced view seriously (is not the Wall Stree Journal the best selling newspaper and FoxNews the top rated cable news channel? Even if this were not the case, have you not seen the many studies suggesting that while, yes, a majority of journalists vote Democratic and have views left of center on social issues, that they have views right of center on economic issues?). Do you realize how damaging it is to raise as your illustrative issue academic leftists supposedly un-reflective views on global warming? Conservative “thinkers” took and still take a view on global warming that is more in line with vested interests (that often fund their “think tanks” and magazines) than with the consensus of non-ideologically oriented hard scientists. Who is acting more like an imam here? The same could be said about an issue like evolution (where the % of PhD experts that deny it is equivalent to the % of historians that deny the holocaust, yet this is a very popular view among conservatives). It is true that too many leftists in academe are dismissive of some fine conservative thought, but can you not see that the conservative movement is working overtime to justify the viewpoint of them as anti-intellectual? Physician heal thyself.

Ken, at 12:20 pm EDT on July 12, 2007

poll info

OK, I’m going to go back and read the rest of the comments in a minute. First-I am on the Zogby poll roster and education level is one of the basic questions in every poll. I would like to the see the figures pulled out for college graduates, and I think they would be available. My guess it would be pretty much the same group who does not shop at Wal-Mart.

viejita del oeste, at 12:40 pm EDT on July 12, 2007

Sartor-I have seen this “defense” of organizations like FIRE, ACTA, et al before, that “people are just naturally full of hypocrisy,” and I find it wanting. Well, perhaps we should understand their resorting to hypocrisy, but should we applaud and endorse it? I mean, even the hypocrites in question don’t do that (they pay homage to virtue while living in vice, to paraphrase Voltaire on the subject). Let’s be big enough to say that their critique, to the extent that it is rife with hypocrisy, is unhelpful. I think the empirical data shows that their message is most effective on the groups I mentioned; politically conservative, religious (measured in traditional orthodoxy terms) and un-educated (by which I meant having little actual experience or success in academe, a matter that may likely have some bearing on the esteem with which one holds academe I think you would agree) and so while I agree that many people may find this as automatically dismissive, I was merely attempting to describe matters as they are. Are there not a class of folks that are “non-college educated?” Lastly, I would argue that part of “doing our job” (I agree with you here that this is paramount) is to give little sanction and credence to leftist (or for that matter rightist) nonsense masquerading as scholarship.

Ken, at 12:55 pm EDT on July 12, 2007

Matthew-your comment is the epitome of what gives the conservative critique its staying power. More than that, it is reprehensible. You casually dismiss the concerns of this “disappearing” group of “older white folks” as if they do not matter or are self-evidently bogus. What a smug, borderline racist and ageist thing to say. I geuss you comfort yourself with thinking you align with the “disadvantaged” who are victimized by the “older white folks” without realizing that those “older white folks” are people too, and people that while not perfect spent a large time laying the foundations for social justice that other groups capitalized on (you think social gains were made DESPITE this group which is was a numerical majority???).

Ken, at 1:20 pm EDT on July 12, 2007

Make me laugh

“Further, anyone who has worked for 6-7 years has the presumption of continued employment and can assume they will not be fired without cause.”

Are you kidding me Perry?!?! Only, let me repeat, ONLY in academia. I was released from my previous employer after 7+ years of good and faithful service. No one I worked with understood why or how my job would be done in my absence. I was not led out by security. I was given the option to finish my day’s work or leave immediately with a full day’s pay. My boss actually took me to an expensive lunch – on the company dollar – as a farewell. And instead of leaving, I stuck around to finish what I had started that day and collect my things. I had done nothing wrong. It was a matter of cost. My job functions could be performed more cheaply through outsourcing and I was perceived as an unnecessary expense. So, wake up and join the real world. Number of years of service means NOTHING. If you still don’t believe me, go talk to someone employed (or previously employed) in the airline industry for more than the past 10 years.

People aren’t upset about tenure itself; it’s the attitude that comes with it much of the time that gets them all fired up. No one, I mean NO ONE else has that kind of job security (save justices on the Supreme Court) and many – not most – abuse that privilege. Is it any wonder why people get upset about it? They have to pay the tens of thousands of dollars it costs their children to attend college and what do they get in return? Many Instructors haven’t a clue what customer service is. Oopppss, I said the taboo word in higher education, customer. Hello! They pay, you receive money and the “goods and services” are exchanged. I call that a customer. Not every Professor is as described, but then not every CEO is like Kenneth Lay either.

Befuddled, at 1:25 pm EDT on July 12, 2007

If You’re not Al, You Can Skip This

Memo to Al, who is evidently a slow learner: I have no interest in participating in the culture wars. But I will defend my career and my colleagues against an unwarranted attack from any quarter. So once again, Al, as long as the cultural conversation sticks to Terry Schiavo, Janet Jackson’s breast, the fluoridization of water, mysterious black helicopters, and all the rest, you can count me out. When the insatiable culture warriors and their ignorant yapping acolytes start messing with my workplace, however, I’ll stand my ground. (OK? Got it this time?)

Unapologetically Tenured, at 1:55 pm EDT on July 12, 2007

To Ken

Ken: Incidentally, I suspect that we find ourselves disagreeing over minor (but important) points; this very discussion places me and I suspect you in the muddled center. I wasn’t trying to defend FIRE, ACTA etc. (much less defend hypocrisy); nor am I convinced that they need defense. Wasn’t it Oscar Wilde who said that hypocrisy is the homage virtue pays to vice? Your strident claim that these are “Trotskyite” hardly warrants a rebuttal; I have an idiosyncratic aversion to all those shouting ‘Hypocrisy!’ For the reasons why, see Hannah Arendt’s ‘On Revolution’ and the terrifying function of ‘Hypocrisy!’ in the French Revolution.

I fully grant that “non-college educated” is a genuine class; “people wearing hats, while smoking cigars and riding bikes in Kansas” is a genuine class. I’m not sure either is very helpful as an explanatory tool. The former, however, is very helpful for academics to pick out their opponents as people incapable of and hence unworthy of genuine argument. The tendency of left-leaning academics (not necessarily including yourself, but many in this discussion) to see legitimate disagreement over important values as “culture wars” and to dismiss anyone disagreeing with them as either A) corrupt or B) ignorant is a deep problem that keeps us from “doing our jobs.” If you or others believe that FIRE, ACTA are wrong, fine; let’s argue over this. But you’ve given almost no indication that you are even interested in arguing for your views about FIRE. The principle of charity demands that you assume that those working for FIRE, ACTA, etc. at least believe they are not hypocrites and believe they have good reasons for asserting what they do. It is shocking and scandalous that so many people paid to think (i.e., academics) so quickly abandon the real give and take of rational discourse, in favor of “changing public opinion.” In the real world of politics it is (unfortunately) right and true that those with the most votes or the most money tend to win; but higher education ought to be above this. We ought to treat our opponents as those who merit careful consideration, from whom we may learn (not how to win friends and make money, as too may in this discussion seem to want, but) something important about ourselves and our world. Again, this is not a defense of FIRE, ACTA etc.; rather, it is to point out that you’ve given me no reason to believe they should defend themselves. All you’ve told me is *that* you think they are wrong; I have no idea why.

Sartor Resartus, at 2:35 pm EDT on July 12, 2007

It’s important to make a distinction between students being harmed by their professors’ political bias (retaliation in grading, for example)and students merely not liking what they read or hear because it conflicts with the ideas they brought with them to the classroom. In the (to me) rather unlikely event that a student is actually harmed by his professor’s bias, all institutions have formal systems to ensure the student’s grievance will be given a fair hearing. I know of no actual evidence indicating the likelihood such a student would receive retribution from the professor as a consequence, although that idea also seems to get a lot of play in public discourse.

Lyn, Professor, at 2:40 pm EDT on July 12, 2007

Public Support for Tenure

Tenure is a condition of employment offered in return for services purchased by students, taxpayers and/or donors to academe. In theory, tenure is necessary to ensure that academics are not terminated for expressing unpopular ideas. In theory, tenure is a job benefit offered to offset otherwise a ‘low level’ of monetary compensation. In practice, tenure is defined as a contract for continued employment as long as there is sufficient work. Entire departments have been eliminated in order to rid institutions of one or two tenured faculty for whom there is ‘no longer work.’ A tenured person’s employment contract can terminated for cause at any time for ‘cause’ so long as that cause is not related to the legitimate expression of ideas and methods related to the job for which the person has been hired. The vast expansion of ‘harassment’ and ‘hate speech’ codes have provided a rich new source of ‘causes’ for termination. Arguing the theoretical reasons for tenure is a fine moot exercise. Literally, tenure is a technical matter of employment law.

Follow up survey questions would have added great value to this discussion. Accusing Horowitz, Republicans, or conservatives of ‘ginning’ up anti-tenure hysteria avoids extrapolates far beyond what the surveys found. There are independently minded self-made folks who will never agree that tenure is a wise policy. There are small business folks, who may have failed in a business venture or two before finding success, who wonder why academics should be given life time jobs. And there are other folks who respond favorably to Horowitz’s resonant message. To wit, ‘Horowitz speaks truth to taxpayers and donors.’

Those who write the checks for higher education have every right to insist that institutions not offer permanent employment contracts. Independently minded folks reasonably believe that tenure will deaden the hunger to create and improve. Independent business folks reasonably believe that faculty should not be provided any more protection from often harsh economic conditions than they enjoy. And conservatives have every right to believe that liberally politicized faculty who disrespect them while suppressing and misrepresenting conservative views do not deserve tenure. In general, folks have the right to believe that tenure is not a life long sinecure, but rather a limited academic protection. All of these folks have the right to insist that their money not be used to support a form of employment with which they fundamentally disagree.

Always an Adjunct?, Dr. at Adjunct CC, College & University, at 2:55 pm EDT on July 12, 2007

Liberal/conservative biases

Believe it or not I offer a rather unusual resource to examine in looking at the controversy—Al Franken’s “Lies, and the Lying Liar who tell them.” What he does is simply review comments by the right and challenge their veracity. I have challenged some of my more conservative friends to look at the book and find a single flaw in his analysis. I have yet to hear a single comment, like “On page 62 he claims...” He honestly did a great job with a light-hearted perspective on much of the commentary. He has easy targets in Hanity and Limbaugh, who often make up statements out of air. What he does claim is that he is a liberal and proud to be one. He has spent more time in Iraq than most of the conservative spokespersons. I know this is only tangential to the focus of the article, but it seems that since we have had a “uniter” president we are splitting our nation into a black/white (not race) division among ourselves, and the most devastating seems to be the liberal/conservative division.

Fred Flener, Retired prof, at 3:25 pm EDT on July 12, 2007

Hats off to Curro Romerro

Curro Romerro’s essay helpfully advances this discussion: First, anyone who denies an enormous gap between the values and dispositions of the professoriate and the general public must confront Curro’s very language, one example will suffice: “This is not the place to give copious evidence: read the leftist researchers themselves who do profound analyses in all areas of economic and social life into the corruption of our civilization. It’s often attributed to “liberalism,” yet what about corporate “liberalism” and “anything goes” in a consumerist society? There’s ample evidence to show that the institution that determines our very existence is, essentially, a sociopathic institution.” This is not the sort of thing most people understand, much less agree with. However, Curro’s diatribe is all-too familiar, indeed ubiquitous in colleges and universities. Independent of the Zogby poll, Curro proves by example that people in Higher Ed are very, very different from people not in Higher Ed.

Second, Curro’s passionate plea to “engage the conversation” by teaching students to “learn the skills of evaluating and ENGAGING the evidence and the arguments” is as hollow as it is noble. I take Stanley Fish as an exemplar and leader in this respect… I don’t quite know what Curro thinks of Fish. Regardless, I don’t believe Curro is adequately considering the difficulty of “conversation” between people who hold views as different as his are from my non-academic neighbors’. If Curro actually believes that our (I assume he means something vaguely Western European) “civilization” is “sociopathic” [sic] then I’m not sure on what grounds the “conversation” could actually begin. In many classrooms the “conversation” looks something like this:

Teacher: Our civilization is sick. Student: That seems crazy. Teacher: You are blinded to your own ignorance due to your privilege; “crazy” is hegemonic hate-speech that offends the socially challenged. Your very discourse is poisoned by our violence ridden society. Student: Still, it seems wrong that our civilization is sick. Teacher: You are not being sensitive to the under-represented; you may think whatever you want, but you must learn to express your opinions as I say. Student (with a wink): Our civilization is sick.

Pseudo-conversations like this leave self-righteous faculty to congratulate themselves for having educated the youth; they leave the youth to go home to their parents and bitch about faculty bias. Thus, Curro Romerro helpfully illustrates both academic bias and the near impossibility of academics to see it (Stan Sporny’s point, above). Curro is truly representative of academics in both his political extremism (really the lesser of the two points) and his mantra-like repetition of “dialogue” “conversation” “engagement.” As if simply repeating the words made two people shouting (or staring blankly) at each other a conversation. I’ve come to believe that many of my colleagues have an essentially different understanding of the word ‘conversation’ than do I. For me, a conversation is always aimed at the Truth; as a consequence, I must struggle to make the best sense of my interlocutors remarks, for my own benefit. I’ve noticed that many colleagues see conversation as a means of mutual expression of opinion, for no particular aim other than knowing what the other thinks. Thus, when I converse I must first struggle (the easy part) to figure out what my interlocutor thinks and then struggle to figure out why (the harder part), and finally decide whether I’ve been fair and whether I should change my view as a result. Many of my colleagues’ approach is to stop at the first step; it doesn’t really matter why people think what they do, only that they think it; it would certainly be offensive to expect my interlocutor to change her mind as a function of my conversation, thus I won’t even consider changing mine either.

Doubtless, Curro Romerro and his fellow travelers, are better teachers and researchers than my little dialogue above would suggest. Still, I believe the deep divide in values between professors and the general public (hence their students) is far more difficult to bridge than Curro realizes. One of the first (and most difficult) steps, would be for academics to admit that they may be (not ‘are’) wrong about their political beliefs. This is the one step I see Curro (as representative) unwilling to take.

Sartor Resartus, at 4:00 pm EDT on July 12, 2007

Sartor-I’m a social scientist and I can assure you that a class like “non-college educated” is analyzed and referred to all the time with no necessary nefarious connotations. My point in framing that class is that if we have a group that has little or only disappointing experience with college, and that group has a dim view on academic policy, then that in itself explains something. My parents and some of the best people in the world I know are “non-college educated” and but for the grace of God there go I, so no offense was meant. I used to be an active member of one of the conservative groups I speak of, but more so I am a frequent observer of such groups, and I can assure you that they are well organized, well funded, and nearly relentless in their partisan objectives. That’s what I meant by “Trotskyite” (well, that and the fact that many neo-con critics were actual Trotskyites, veterans in relentless culture wars). Join one and find out for yourself, don’t take my word for it! FIRE, ACTA, etc., should be judged by their empirical records. I hate to knock this thread off subject, but these groups tend to focus on genuine and sometimes exaggerated liberal excess while consistently turning a blind eye to conservative institutions that are just as guilty. Note ACTA, FIRE, the NAS, etc., decry partisanship in academe, but do they decry the conservative scholars that regularly write for National Review or the like? Did they not support legislation in Missouri recently which defined left leaning bias as criticizing creationist views of students? Do they not turn a blind eye to conservative religious schools such as Liberty or the Kings College (NAS just appointed an executive from that college) which have amazingly dogmatic policies and orientations while throwing the equivalent of an epileptic fit over the policies of Brown, Gonzaga or Harvard that they accuse of being ideologically charged? The charge of hypocrisy I level does not come lightly. These groups have worked hard to earn it. I agree with you that we in academe should give our opponents careful consideration. In fact, it is the premise upon which I speak. I only want to mention that the conservative groups that I castigate have no intention of playing by those rules, and never have. I point to their actions and positions as evidence. I think all fair minded conservatives must have a fair hearing; in fact it may shock you that I think I am one of them (I am steadfastedly opposed to increased immigration, affirmative action, and gun control for example). But after viewing and participating in these and like organizations for years I think I can say they are interested in self-serving fund raising or partisan points scoring and not in the academic values they use against academe. I realize that not everybody regularly reads this site, but I have argued about FIRE and ACTA often here, and am somewhat tired of proving this. But as I hope that you are well intentioned, let me give you just a little of the evidence. Note FIRE’s actions against a small private school who has engaged in left leaning offences: http://www.thefire.org/index.php/schools/1757 Now, what about a small, private college like BYU, which recently fired a person for writing an article defending same sex marriage policy? FIRE is silent. http://www.thefire.org/index.php/schools/1672 How about one of the most egregious colleges in the nation as far as imposing dogma and censorship on its students and faculty, Liberty University? FIRE has no mention of them whatsoever...http://www.thefire.org/index.php/states/VA Here is ACTA lauding the kind of legislation they seek, and the kind of vision they trumpet for academe. Notice this bill counts critiques of creationism and Biblical inerrancy as proof of liberal bias. http://www.goactablog.org/blog/archives/2007/04/missouri_house.html Notice the NAS names as its head man a professor from a dogmatic, narrowly sectarian evangelical college, one that trumpets its diverse and ideologically broad mission in declaring in the first sentence that it is committed to “the truths of Christianity and a biblical worldview.” Oh, and this guy, who represents an organization that laments leftist partisanship in academe is a regular contributor to National Review and American Conservative magazine and favors creationism over evolutionary theory... http://www.nas.org/print/pressreleases/hqnas/releas_19apr07.htm http://www.tkc.edu/abouttkc/missi...iew.com/comment/wood200508090808.asp

Is this the vision of academe that you prefer? It’s what they prefer...For them to invoke the pretty and fine language of academic freedom and critical inquiry and then to act like this is hypocrisy I say, and I stand by it.

Ken, at 4:25 pm EDT on July 12, 2007

Concession to Ken

Ken, your points are well taken and I’ll do you the respect of examining them in depth in due course. Thank you for sharing your insights and investigations; I’ll certainly approach FIRE and ACTA with due skepticism in the future. I am well intentioned and respect your decision to use language as volatile at ‘hypocrisy’ and ‘Trotskyite’. Before having thoroughly examined your references to FIRE, I wonder if your criticism isn’t a little unfair: I thought FIRE openly (i.e., not hypocritically) accepted institutions who articulate religious or other reasons for censoring speech; that is, I thought FIRE’s stated concern was with institutions whose official position is openness to all views, but who censor views from the right. Clearly public institutions could not do so, but I thought that if private institutions were simply honest about speech codes then FIRE leaves them alone.

In the spirit of genuine debate among those who mostly agree, I wonder to what extent your criticism of FIRE and ACTA doesn’t dovetail a little too nicely with (what I take to be obvious) anti Christian bias among higher ed folk. I know many in higher ed for whom being a Christian is coextensive with being dogmatic, hypocritical, and not very smart. As 800 years (at least) of Roman Catholic universities would seem to prove, Christian faith is not necessarily at odds with the kind of Inquiry we both seem to cherish. There is nothing about “the truths of Christianity and a biblical worldview” (in my understanding thereof) that is necessarily at odds with open Inquiry. Indeed, I would claim that open Inquiry as we understand it is inconceivable independent of Christian history; in fact, I believe that open Inquiry, as ought to be the raison d’etre of our colleges and universities, is an essentially Christian value (for more on this see Remy Brague’s ‘Eccentric Culture’). Now, again, this is not to excuse the dogmatism of anyone and it is clear to me that some or many Christian colleges are not committed to what I call genuine Inquiry. It is only to say that it is not qua Christian that they are dogmatic.

Sartor Resartus, at 5:20 pm EDT on July 12, 2007

Do we really need a poll to tell us this? I’d take Zogby with a grain of salt also, but this is arguing over whether the Sun rises in East. Look, if everybody who you work with is a Democrat, I’m sure you can look around your office and consider yourself a moderate, but to outside observers this seems ridiculous.

Whenever a poll like this comes out, certain profs here will get defensive. A few of you guys have come up with long explanations about why they’re wrong and some on the left have put together entire research papers on why all of this is some sort of Republican hit job.

In that entire time, have ever come up with a poll that shows the opposite?

For all the polls, both of the general public and academics themselves, that we can show demonstrating that academia is left-wing — can you provide a single poll that shows the mass of right-wingers populating it?

Among the overwhelming majority of my professors (I went to a fairly large, relatively prominent public school) it was just assumed I was a Democrat and it was assumed that their colleagues were Democrats. (and, yes, before you argue with me over this, I am using “Democrat” as a proxy for liberal — the two were used interchangeably. It’s possible for a person to be one and not the other, but there’s an incredibly large correlation between the two.) The same was the case at a much more prominent graduate school.

I never knew of **anybody** among my friends who felt their situation at their school was any different. Now, if you want to argue over how much this seeps into grading, hiring — feel free (I think at least some seepage is inevitable). But to argue over whether academia is leftwing (which is what a lot of posters here are doing, either indirectly or directly, besides discussing tenure) is to argue over whether water is wet.

>>>“How can we take such an incredibly un-nuanced view seriously (is not the Wall Street Journal the best selling newspaper and FoxNews the top rated cable news channel? Even if this were not the case, have you not seen the many studies suggesting that while, yes, a majority of journalists vote Democratic and have views left of center on social issues, that they have views right of center on economic issues?)”

No, I haven’t. Please cite them. Re: the WSJ and Fox News, both have an audience/readership of 1-2 million. That’s good for a newspaper and a cable news network, but when compared to the fact the left has CBS News, ABC News, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, the NYT, and the every poll I have ever seen of journalists puts 80-90% of them as liberal, I’ll also go with the argument that the mainstream media is liberal — exceptions don’t make the rule.

>>>“Since intellectual liberalism (n.b. “liber") requires skepticism and questioning”

Classical intellectual liberalism requires vigorous skepticism and questioning. Modern day liberalism requires no such thing (I’m not saying that applies to you or other posters here, but this is not a sine qua non of being a liberal). What’s usually called liberal in the United States today would be better described as leftist. Under the classical definition, Friedrich Hayek was liberal (this is why he refused to call himself a conservative), but leftist economists hated the guy and few modern day liberals (okay—none) would consider him one of their own.

AD, at 6:30 pm EDT on July 12, 2007

So — be privatized

” .. We have nothing to apologize for, and much of which to be proud ..”

Gee, swell! If you’re doing such an outstanding job, then you should do even better, being privatized and off the restrictions of the public dole.

Let us know when you’re off the public dole — happy to send “farewell” card. Buh-bye!

Buzz, at 6:30 pm EDT on July 12, 2007

Classroom Overated

The value of college is how many of your fellow graduates will use their alumni directory to find a person to solve a problem they have.

Much hot air above misses the point that the President of the US is likely to be an Ivy League graduate — has nothing to do with tenure or quality of education.

Follow the social economic standing of the student body. That will lead you to the public’s perception of formal education.

Quizzical, at 7:20 am EDT on July 13, 2007

Sartor

Thanks for reminding me what, in my own discourse, can be such a turn off to students and the public at large. Some of my language is not very adept a projecting myself as “a public intellectual.” Could I respectfully substitute “discussion” for “conversation” and “participate” with “engage"? I’ve said it elsewhere in these threads that my fellow Texan Jim Hightower, a self-described progressive populist, puts it thus: The issues we’re haggling over are not about Right versus Left; they’re about top versus bottom. People understand that.

There is indeed a danger in the hypothetical classroom conversation you propose (in response to me) in which the student ends up winking agreement with a dogmatic leftist professor. And I’ll bet I’ve been guilty of that at times, though you also give me credit for likely being a more nurturing pedagogue than that, which I have reason to believe from many students, for the most part, I am. I try to remind students constantly that academic inquiry is not throwing claims at one another: I.e. “Corporate culture is sociopathic, corrupt.” “Is not.” “Is too.” “Is not.” “Is too.” The student, knowing her or his grade is at stake, relents, tattles to parents about bullying in the classroom.

Most of this discussion is about skepticism, about threading our way intellectually between various dogmas. A more useful dialogue in search of truth might be Peter Elbow’s “believing game.” I congratulate myself that I play that game well myself listening to conservative talk radio. I hear the profoundly humane values of talk show hosts and callers alike, as well as what might be Freudian slips that betray certain critiques of their own conservative values. (Again, I lack space and time here to give examples, regretably.) And, as I’ve tried to point out elsewhere, I hear strong conservative impulses in leftist academics, myself included, some of which I can self-consciously justify, others which would scare me if I came face to face with them.

One question that intrigues me is the whole question of hierarchy, be it Feudal, Communist, Capitalist or any other. In our own society, we generally accept, often venerate, corporate hierarchy. In any given situation we can ask whether, or to what extent, we’re being had by elites, or by the class or party or government structure itself. We can also ask whether, or to what extent, the rest of us are parasitizing those “above.” Both the “top” and the “bottom” do sometimes accuse the other of fomenting class war.

I worry that the “liberal/conservative” discussion (I’ll avoid as too competitive the term “debate") is largely a bogus, unproductive one. Maybe it should be a “radical conservative/radical left” dialogue? If so, then how do we play the “believing game” enough to go beyond a mere barrage of claims and counter claims? How do we genuinely examine the “best” cases that can be made to support our claims? To the extent that we do that we all undergo change, I’m afraid. It’s scary, the prospect of modifying some of my dearest perceptions, the result of research voyages of discovery not previously known (gender, race, sexuality studies, surely, are adventurous cases in point). The idea is to play “The believing game” well enough at least to catch a genuine glimpse into someone else’s schema and even to feel it at gut-level for a time, then recover and combine that knowledge with one’s own. Is that a more courageous way of thinking than just repeating old thought patterns? Is the university not a community of learners challenging each other to rethink each other’s positions and to keep asking and thinking? Is it not about changing each other’s minds (brainwashing) so much as hybridizing solutions to problems in the most all-inclusive way? Neither can that be done by indoctrinating students from the Right, as if to say, “Those haughty elitist Leftists: What they’re proposing can be safely ignored. You can discern it by their hackneyed terminology. Case closed.” And vice versa. It’s to say, “Look, these profs are challenging you to play the believing game with great skill and emotional courage. Only then can you recover and challenge professors to be equally honest and courageous in how you present well-researched, well-argued cases for new claims of your own. I say unto students: If I suspect you’re just “winking agreement” for a grade, I’m likely to be unimpressed, disappointed even. I want to see hybidity of thought (yes, whatever that may mean, and worth another discussion.)

One claim I make now, absent its case, of course, is that not just professors deserve “tenure,” or job security, and actually function better thereby. Everybody does. Do I need to define terms and explain myself further? Yes. Unfortunately, I’ve hogged more than my share of space.

Suffice it for now to Google Participatory Economics. (Parecon for short.) I don’t buy it wholesale, and have many questions. But that these economists would dare to work out so mathematical a model which I suspect potentially matches important needs and values of the great majority of people everywhere (though anathema to the billionaire class), is, to me, a great conversation piece.

Curro Romero, at 10:40 am EDT on July 13, 2007

A democractic society

To sustain a working democratic society [used to think this one was a good role model but lately....]there needs to be a place where people can say opinions along the line of, “The emperor has no clothes.” without fear of of retribution from the establishment. Presently, the university system of tenure provides the system of institutions that permits the open expression of opinion.

While the tenure system isn’t perfect, its benefits FAR outweigh it costs. Until all institutions permit open expression of opinion we must protect the one that does.

The beauty of the truth is its ability to survive in the competition of the marketplace.

Ollie, at 1:35 pm EDT on July 13, 2007

>>>"I hope you see my point, that most conservative critics of academe (or the media for that matter) have their objectivity and logic so warped by their own ideological passions that their critiques cannot be trusted. When a conservative student or prof argues this poorly, just as if a liberal student or prof does so, they are and should quite properly be graded down or not hired.”

Ken, — polls showing there are a large amount of rightwingers balancing liberals in the media and academia – do you have something?

Is this just a matter of criticizing other people’s views or can you back this up here?

AD, at 6:20 am EDT on July 14, 2007

AD-I’m not sure how to take your first post as I never implied (especially in the quote from my post you provide) that conservative faculty or journalists equal liberal ones numerically (or even in influence). How did you come up with that? Certainly you are an intelligent person who watches tv outside of Fox news, reads magazines other than National Review, and listens to radio outside of Limbaugh, so you have already heard that there is a scientific consensus about global warming, right? I admit that if one were to, for some bizarre reason, rely on the aforementioned outlets for their information concerning the world they may actually have to ask for a citation, but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt on this one. But just in case, here an article that expresses most of the relevant info: all scientific professional organizations whose expertise bears on the subject have conclusively declared global warming to be a fact, and the vast majority of studies agree while no peer reviewed abstracts contradict that view. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686But, come on, you knew that, didn’t ya?

Ken, at 9:15 pm EDT on July 15, 2007

AD-My argument was not that leftists don’t dominate academe, and not that this was not a problem. In fact I specifically said it was a problem. I consider myself a conservative and I find the usual liberal dogma in academe (in some fields) to be quite boring and counterproductive to good inquiry. My argument was that the critique from conservatives was hypocritical in that most of them wanted to simply replace leftist dogma with conservative dogma (notice how they celebrate religious colleges that strictly enforce conservative dogma). Also, I argue that most movement conservatives would see anything to the left of Foxnews as an abominable left wing bias. Because of this much of what they see as a problem is just not. Actually most journalists lean left, though more on social matters than economic matters (where they are actually to the right of the general public). http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447 I simply mentioned that to casually lob out bloggisms like “the MSN is a liberal tool” is an amazingly unnuanced view that should be criticized. No, the right does not dominate the media, but with self-consciously conservative outlets (there are nearly no self consciously liberal outlets, they at least profess objectivity as a goal)like Fox news and the Wall Street Journal dominating in their respective spheres there is hardly a liberal hegemony in media.The link I sent you mentioned that out of hundreds of peer reviewed articles on the subject, 75% explicitly agreed with the consensus global warming view, 25% were neutral and there were absloutely zero that took the conservative view that global warming is a hoax. Now that is a suspect view I would say. Don’t be coy, do you hold that view? And if you do, why should academe take you and your view seriously in the absence of any empirical support and in contradiction to the explicit stance taken by every (100%) professional organizations whose expertise overlaps that issue? We might think your view is a goofy ideological vestige and safely ignore it. Are we being biased if we do? Academe can never engage seriously someone who implies that we have to take such an unsupported view seriously or else we are guilty of bias.

Ken, at 7:55 pm EDT on July 16, 2007

I feel sorry for you AD if you cannot imagine a person who is pro-death penalty, anti-gun control, anti-immigration, anti-affirmative action (like I am) but who also has to pause when “conservatives” spout nonsense like “evolution is false” or “global warming is a hoax” or “the media is all a left wing conspiracy” and say “hey, that’s an amazingly unnuanced and probably foolish view.” The “conservative movement” has taken an anti-intellectual turn as of late, and then complains that intellectuals don’t give it a fair hearing.

Ken, at 12:25 pm EDT on July 18, 2007

Blah blah blah

There is no left or right. There’s only governmental nepotism.

Befuddled, at 5:30 pm EDT on July 18, 2007