Shop Talk: Friday, March 18

Some clarification: were key labels such as Fundamentalist and Evangelical defined? Or was it left to the responder to figure it out? (I have found many people find those terms interchangeable.) What about Roman Catholics, who seem to range in self-identification from very conservative to quite liberal?

There seems to be a little slippage here in Wood’s analysis. If bias against religious or political conservatives exists as he describes it to limit new hires, can we also use the same mechanisms to account for the incredibly small number of Communist Party members in higher education?

Chuck Kleinhans

I would agree with chuckkle that the definition given for something like “fundamentalist” or “evangelical” would be important because many do (mistakenly) conflate the two. To be sure there is some significant overlap, but many fundamentalists view evangelicals generally as “too liberal” and likewise, some evangelicals would fall politically all over the spectrum (Tony Compolo is one notable example who is a prominent evangelical yet fiercely liberal politically in most of his positions).

However, I do think it that some of these views are well founded (which the author tries to preempt my noting). It is simple matter of fact that certain types of fundamentalists (dare I say most) and many who profess evangelicalism are hostile to certain disciplines: anthropology is generally regarded distrustfully and sometimes dismissed by strong fundamentalists (because it seeks alternative explanations for cultic practices besides direct divine intervention). I would say all fundamentalists and a good number of evangelicals (but probably not a majority in academe) are anti-evolution. How would that affect biology and instruction of it? In my experience (and I admit this is somewhat anecdotal), fundamentalists tend to have a general distrust for philosophy (often citing, out of context, the bible verse to avoid “vain philosophies and endless speculations”). How would a fundamentalist fair in gender studies, feminist studies, or certain aspects of modern literature which tend to give credence to values diametrically opposed to most fundamentalist Christians. However, in other disciplines, this point may be largely moot and thus is more of a personal bias than something which might potentially undermine academia. For instance, many well respected physicists happen to also be evangelical Christians (though most of them have “crossed over” and try to teach theology or least engage in “pop theology”), thus in these disciplines, it might actually be something academics should consider in their favor (I’m only being a little facetious). In sum: it is interesting, but in certain disciplines I would say it is not without merit that some of these biases should enter into the discussion, though for many others it is a failing of academia, but a far less surprising assessment than that of Gross et al (which seemed largely counterintuitive).

Wood dismisses the distinction between having biases and acting on them rather too quickly. I will admit to biases (who doesn’t have them?) but I have to say that in the many searches I’ve been on over the years, I have almost NEVER known whether or not a candidate had particular religious or political affiliation, whether or not they were a member of the NRA, etc., etc. I will admit that I am usually aware of whether or not they are a vegetarian or vegan but only because I’ve dined with most of them (and actually how elaborately they explain their dedication to vegetarianism and whether or not they subject the poor server to an interrogation of cooking practices does tell me a lot about how high maintenance or self-important they are — so I guess I have acted on that bias, even though I am vegetarian myself). In the rare instances where the candidate has freely talked about their affiliations, I don’t think it has made much difference — but am willing to admit that it might have. We simply don’t inquire. When a candidate’s possible affiliations are part of the record (attendance at a religious affiliated school or internship with a particular group) listed on the c.v., I haven’t seen much of what Wood claims — but probably there is more bias against religious folks than other groups. Wood suggests at the end that there might be some vast liberal media conspiracy to keep these findings from the public but here I have to dissent. There are enough conservative bloggers and columnists these days, not to mention Fox news which actively looks for info like this, that if this study is halfway worth reading, it will get the traction he wants it to.

And yet, what really does it tell us. Does he imagine that a similar survey of say, military officers or board members of Fortune 500 companies wouldn’t turn up biases (maybe not the same ones, but still, try being an atheist in the military, esp the Air Force)? I don’t want to unthinkingly defend the hiring practices of colleges and universities. I think we could all tell stories about being on search committees or being recruited by one that would easily classify as horror stories. I’m all for owning up to biases and trying to overcome them but I draw the line at attempts to discredit an entire sector for bias when other, equally important and powerful sectors in our society are not subjected to the same analysis.

t_rey is on target. Just because folks like Beulah are upset that others disagree with them does not make their views part of constructive and valid education. It’s great to know what all views are on a subject, but some of the groups identified in the survey reject views that any curriculum would consider central. T_rey’s example of evolution is an excellent case in point and I would imagine that sociologists would find many similar reasons to suspect that certain candidates would have difficulty teaching the subject. The goals of higher education include making clear what we do and do not know and pointing that out to students. Many of the named groups do not share that goal. If I’m going to invest millions of dollars and a lifelong position in a faculty hire, I’m going to make sure that the candidate shares an understanding of the subject aqnd what education is and also that he/she will interact constructively with colleagues. Again, some of the named groups are not only known to have difficulty doing that, but are also known to be destructive.

If there’s an education to be had in alternative realities, there probably open positions for instructors.

I don’t have a problem if “Fundamentalist” or “Evangelical” were left undefined. People shouldn’t use these labels as proxies for evaluating an applicant’s teaching or research qualifications. If search committees really would rule out an otherwise qualified candidate because they happened to learn that person was a Fundamentalist or an Evangelical, then there is a problem, and the accusation of bias is certainly warranted.

The question I’m left with here, however, concerns the methodology. I really wish that Chronicle bloggers (on the left and the right) wouldn’t simply ride their hobbyhorses when discussing studies but discuss the more methodological issues and problems with all the studies they discuss, and not simply the ones they disagree with. Never mind the conclusion: how was the issue operationalized, what’s the evidence, and what assumptions does one need to make in order to read the data a certain way. As in just about any issue, the findings in one study do not a fact make. How many conflicting studies are there about whether women are discriminated against in sciences? Or what about surveys claiming the Tea Party is racist? We are given the total number of surveys sent out, but not the numbers returned. If a significant number did not return the surveys, then there may be a problem with interpreting the results. I’m also always skeptical when percentages are cited, but the meaning of those percentages are not (e.g., what exactly does “negatively influenced” mean, and how was that numbered arrived at? The number of people who chose 1 on a scale of 1-10, with 4 being neutral? Or the number of people who chose 1-3? Or what? Mean numbers are also not very valuable without a measure of dispersion, and I couldn’t find any such measures in a quick look at the Tables available on preview at Amazon. I’m also not sure what to make of the fact Yancey hasn’t appeared to publish on this issue in peer review journals, although I could very well be wrong on this issue. Again, this is not to suggest that Yancey is biased, or that the scholarship is flawed. There’s just a lot of things that can wrong with any study like this (and, again, substitute studies on women in science or Tea Party if your politics warrant it), and I for one think that peer review is essential in this case, since Wood himself points out that Yancey is new to this area of research. (And, again, being new to an area of research and publishing with Baylor is not necessarily going to get your work immediately recognized by peers. Wood himself point out that himself had not heard of it, so the great conspiracy argument is a bit hard to take seriously).

Those who are “hostile to certain disciplines” generally don’t seek advanced degrees in those disciplines and then apply for academic positions in them. “t_rey,” you assume that because some fundamentalists (you venture “most”) are “hostile” to a discipline, that anyone who belongs to the attributional category is thereby properly treated with “distrust.” We have a name for this intellectual laziness. it is called “bias.” Candidates for academic positions should be evaluated on their merits as scholars and as teachers, not on the basis of their private beliefs or attributional characteristics.

Peter Wood

Dear Nordicexpat, Do you really expect someone writing a review on a Chronicle blog to delve into the methodology of a social science survey study? If you want to know how the “issue was operationalized,” read the darn book. “Never mind the conclusion” is precious.

And for someone concerned with methodology, you clearly didn’t read what I did write very closely. Yancey used a seven point scale, not a ten-point scale, with “4″meaning “it does not make a difference.” He provides the raw numbers, percentages, means, response rates, and probably everything else you would want in a long methodological appendix and supplemental materials.

Can things go wrong with a study like this? Sure. Have at it. I don’t know how much of his research was submitted to peer review, but given the biases he is navigating, I have rather less confidence than you that peer review would be that reliable an indicator of methodological robustness. Read through the comments above and judge how many of those opining about this study would be likely to approach it without prosecutorial zeal.

Peter Wood

About 1900 to1940 and even a little later, it was an unwritten but closely adhered to rule that no Catholic or Jew could be hired into an administrative position in many universities. This can be verified by examining the past records.

The important point here is not that groups tend to invite like individuals into their membership. The point is that when these natural human tendencies play out in academic settings they affect what gets studied, how the inquiry is framed (including methodological and statistical decisions), how subtleties in findings are interpreted, and how reporting emphases play out. While these effects, and others, may be unavoidable, I would hope that no one will defend them as a good thing. I also hope we recognize the many historical occasions where they have produced flawed findings and slowed intellectual and scientific progress.

Detail: As a specialist in design and methodology, I see strong correlations between what one might call “political world view” and choices in method and statistics. Even more troubling are the correlations I see between one’s political leanings — which I admit may themselves be co-variants of more fundamental psychological properties — and how investigative questions are framed. I no longer hold to my younger self’s view that these conditions can or even should be ameliorated but I do believe that we can and perhaps should attempt to balance them.

If Peter is suggesting that a department that consistently leans excessively one way or the other in any important cognitive or affective dimension will, over time, produce less valid knowledge and may teach with less objectivity and impartiality, I agree. The question is how should we respond to this situation, or should we?

Yancy’s results as portrayed here are indeed disturbing and deserve the careful attention of all in academe, but Mr. Wood appears to press their interpretation much too far:

“As Yancey notes, “more than two-thirds of the respondents indicated that knowing that a candidate was a fundamentalist would negatively influence whether they would hire that candidate.” That’s an astonishing degree of animus. It means that an anthropologist, no matter where he went to graduate school, the quality of his scholarship, his knowledge of the field, the merits of his current research, or his ability as a teacher, would—if he was known to be, say, a Seventh Day Adventist—have virtually no chance of academic appointment in the United States…”

Did Yancy in fact measure the impact on these legitimate evaluative criteria, and engage in an analysis that shows fundamentalism to have a much larger effect than the total effect of these legitimate criteria? Because that’s the kind of evidence needed to draw the “no chance of appointment” conclusion provided here. And if that evidence is not provided in Yancy, but is Mr. Wood’s unsubstantiated addition to the discussion, his voice does not deserve much attention.

Behold! I agree with Peter Wood on some matters:

“Candidates for academic positions should be evaluated on their merits as scholars and as teachers, not on the basis of their private beliefs or attributional characteristics.”

But clearly he, and his colleagues at the National Association of Scholars, judging from their website, do actively judge “merit” as a scholar by ideological position: they are prejudiced against Marxists and feminists, for example.

I have no expertise in evaluating the kind of survey that underpins Yancey’s book, but a couple of things that perhaps someone can explain. Can we really conflate religious membership with political orientation so easily as Wood seems to conclude here and elsewhere? It seems I agree with dank48 on this question. Further, I raised the question with the range of Roman Catholics—from extremely conservative to very liberal—the category Jew shows a similar range, from extremely Orthodox to very liberal and reformist (and how would we handle secular Jews? Or lapsed Catholics?—and why do we never talk about lapsed Protestants?). The range of political views in the survey strikes me as conceptually limited from the get-go: “Democrat, Republican, Green Party member, Libertarian, Communist Party member.” Communist Party or Green Party membership hardly covers everyone who would self-identify as left of the Democratic Party. And many of those people, if/when they vote, would choose a Democrat rather than a third party candidate (if one was available).

But since Wood orients this matter around faculty hiring, let me point out a few things he doesn’t consider. First of all, this may depend on one’s field and discipline and professional organizations, but it seems to me that most of the time on the departmental level people really do know more than the CV and official interview information. It is rather common, at least in my experience, to gather some additional information by phoning or emailing some candidate’s references, or other faculty at the school where the candidate is now located for more information. For a tenured position the grapevine seems even more important in a search. I’ve certainly received calls of this kind. Some of them seemed to just be seeking further information (could the candidate teach a certain topic?) while others seemed like ideological fishing expeditions by someone who was looking to accumulate reasons to argue against a candidate.

Second, I agree with Wood (!) that bias and prejudice should not operate in hiring decisions, but at the same time I’ve certainly witnessed that they do. An example: in a relatively small department on the first round of looking over the applicants, a senior professor simply blackballs one of the best (on paper) candidates, with what amounts to an “over my dead body” statement. How would Wood (experienced administrator that he is) deal with that? Should the untenured faculty present object? How and in what way? Should the entire department get riled up about this? Or do you just accept it as the local rules of the playing field?

Or, a candidate is given a clear and winning majority vote for hiring, but three tenured faculty object (on political orientation grounds) and go to the Dean privately, who then decides to not allow the hire to go forward, saying that he couldn’t possibly hire someone under such circumstances.

Perhaps Wood could address these kindof questions in a future column.

Chuck Kleinhans

schultzjc,

You can determine a candidate’s understanding of a subject, her education, and how she will interact with colleagues from nothing more than a vague religious label? Could you explain how your approach isn’t the textbook definition of bias?

PS. and is this book any news to us (closeted) conservative professors? While people are coming out of the closet left and right, we are shoved right in…

How are you not a fundamentalist yourself? With views like “president’s office on campus until our imperialist warmongering government gets out of name-your-conflict-zone”. Wow.

I agree, but the fact of the matter is that some individuals do pursue advanced degrees from fundamentally flawed programs (or simply learn the material to get a degree while personally disagreeing with it and planning on discreditting it later) were their particular religious interpretation is at odds with the accepted manner of doing research. Specifically, the only thing that I can think of off the cuff that fits this category with little ambiguity, is the fundamentalist applying for a position in biology. It is fairly well established that fundamentalist Christians do not accept Darwinian evolution, most are “young earth Creationists” though a few may cave to “Intelligent Design” (still a pseudo-science). Some of those who advance such ideas actually have excellent qualifications, publication records, and respectable degrees (isn’t Michael Behe one of the foremost authorities on single cell propulsion via a flagella?). Here is a case where there is a bias, but a bias is not necessarily something wrong.

Biases, while often misused and inappropriate, can be useful. And the fact of the matter is that everyone has biases, some positive some negative. People have a bias against certain types of food. People have a bias about the water in certain parts of the world. While it may be culturally insensitive to turn down a drink of water in sub-Saharan Africa because you assume, via a bias, it might not be safe, it is still an acceptable (and potentially life saving) bias. And there are some biases against people that are not necessarily incorrect (though usually they are it is not a de facto reality). For instance, I have a bias against repeat or habitual sex offenders. And research seems to suggest that I am fully justified in assuming they will never change. While I agree with the general thrust of the argument (that biases should not generally enter into hiring or many other decisions, even though the reality is that they do), I do reject the argument that all biases are by their nature wrong and ill advised. I will maintain that a fundamentalist Christian should not be hired for a biology position unless s/he can demonstrate how this does not adversely influence his/her teaching (and research). I think this is an appropriate bias (and I doubt you will convince me otherwise). That said, if I were to discover that a biology candidate (though it is not my field so this would probably never occur) was a fundamentalist, I would need to address their view of Darwinian evolution, but it is a question I would not feel compelled to address if they were not fundamentalist. This is an instance were a bias would lead me to see if the candidate violates the bias, which is an appropriate response. If, however, I was unconvinced, I could not, in good conscience, recommend such a candidate. Likewise, I would have serious doubts about hiring a proponent of the “new atheism” for a religion position (again a bias, but one with good reason).

Again, I agree that most biases should not enter into hiring decisions, but sometimes they should hold sway, and I find the position that all biases are evil and that we can somehow overcome all of our biases in such hiring decisions incredibly naive. Everyone has biases, the question is whether you recognize them and distinguish which ones are appropriate, which are not, and which warrant futher investigation.

Really, I do not think that I’ll ever understand it: how can conservatives be so obtuse or duplicitous? Clearly, with the exception of religious affiliation, anti-discrimination laws and policies are designed to protect people who are distinguished by essential characteristics. In other words, they have no control over these characteristics. Religious and political beliefs, however, are the result of and part of the process of thinking. It is the single most important part of an academic’s job description to discriminate on the basis of thought. If conservatives who complain about bias cannot understand this, they manifestly do not belong in academia. If they do — and I think many, like Horowitz, do — they are simply cynical opportunists, willing, as conservatives have so often been willing, to practice political jujitsu to gain an advantage over their imagined opponents.

As other commentators here have noted, conservatives have to prove that in the hiring process, beliefs that they hold that are extraneous to the subjects they study have regularly had an unfair impact on hiring decisions. I’m sure it happens, but I doubt that it happens regularly.

Oh, the hypocrisy. Where to even start with such an “argument”…

As Dean of the School of General Education and Chair of the Department of Humanities at Kaplan University, we have long championed the humanities. We are very proud of our exceptional faculty and curriculum. All our faculty in the humanities hold at minimum a master’s in the field or a related master’s with eighteen graduate credit hours in the field. All bachelor’s degree students are required at minimum to take one course in the humanities—many take more either as required or elective courses—and a quarter of all elective courses at the university have an embedded humanities outcome which ensures students are learning about the value of humanities throughout their program of study, not solely in humanities courses. Our Humanities Committee—one of eight such general education committees—is comprised of humanities faculty who not only write the embedded outcomes and their rubrics, they review all humanities assignments embedded in non-humanities courses to ensure the humanities are being taught robustly and rigorously.

Here is a small sample of our humanities curriculum:

HU201 Voices of Western Culture: Art and Ideas; HU245 Ethics; HU261 Global Civilization; HU280 Bioethics; HU300 Art and Humanities: 20th Century and Beyond; HU310 Culture, Society, and Advanced Technology; HU345 Critical Thinking; SS235 20th Century African-American Leadership

We are also proud to be further expanding our humanities curriculum in 2011.

I agree that we could do a better job on our public website sharing the wonderful work we are doing in the humanities and many other liberal arts disciplines, and we will work to provide a greater place of prominence; we do highlight these, however, on our Center for General Education website: http://generaleducation.kaplan.edu/default.html and I hope those wishing to learn more about us, our faculty, and our curriculum will visit this site.

Kara VanDam, PhD
Dean, School of General Education
Kaplan University

Michele Hinton-Riley, PhD
Chair, Department of Humanities
Kaplan University

It is obvious The Chronicle is bias toward online education. I wonder if they are paid off to write bias unethical stories like this? When online education takes over traditional education stuff like this just might end!

I second this call.

How about it Sir? Do you have the ethics to admit you are wrong and, more to the point, that you are an embarrassment to your profession for going off half-cocked?

nugatory — Lying is something ardent sycophants do in service of their “just cause.” You recall Nixon don’t you?

The obvious lack of research rigor and effort, sweeping generalizations and inflammatory claims appear a bit too extreme to be genuine. They sure do increase page views, however. The advertisers must love this author.

They do have a “too extreme to be real” tone, don’t they? I wonder if this fellow is getting ready to promote another book?

Hello tsb2010: The process i described as evolution–the adaptation of cancer cells and pathogens is not an idea it is an OBSERVATION. Am I another kind of fundamentalist because I accept that the world is not flat? The difference between me and a fundamentalist (which I am not) is that my viewpoint is open to change given new data and information.

And I never mentioned the word “conservative” in my post but you put it into your response.

Fair enough “bettershools”. I’m a scientist by training.

What school was this?

Let’s just say it was one of the schools mentioned in the article. It was several years ago and in all fairness they ran a disclaimer in their advertising. There was a tag that said credits may not transfer.

If I don’t like their politics? That’s a brooooad range.

The question of pushing views is different from pushing CERTAIN views. In effect, one can advance/evangelize countless topics. Is the bias against the advancing or the topic advanced?

It may be brooooad but it’s legal. As for pushing, I think my note is clear.

in response to Olmsted I would like to make a clarification. I am not saying that all religious bias is ok unilaterally. I am saying that occasionally a bias (religious or otherwise) however is rooted in the reality of a large percentage of the population of a certain group. I am also not saying to blindly follow the bias but instead to follow up. The scenario is (as I understand it) if I were to discover a job candidate was X independent of an interview. In such a scenario I would not address the issue directly, but perhaps more indirectly. In the case of a fundamentalist Christian biologist I would ask something about Darwinian evolution and how a certain aspect might be taught in Freshman biology. Certainly not an out of bounds question, but a telling answer may result. I will confess I am not as familiar with fundamentalist Jewish or Christian views of evolutionary biology, so I cannot directly comment on that decision. I do know it is an almost central tennet of fundamentalist Christianity to reject evolution (beyond very minute “micro-evolution”) and someone who is fundamentalist and yet accepts darwinian evolution is at odds with the overwhelming majority of their faith (an evangelical is not the same as a fundamentalist, I know many evangelicals who are comfortable with darwinian evolution but have never heard of a fundamentalist Christian in this position).

In the same manner you would not ask a communist activist to teach Adam Smith’s theory of economics because they would do so only as a means to destroying it and advancing a different agenda than really giving it a fair shake. I am not saying that biases should be embraced wholesale. I am saying we all have biases and should acknowledge which of those biases need to be mitigated, which should be further investigated for contrary evidence, or which can be merely accepted (I stand by the point that a member of the “new atheists” can be disqualified from a religion position without any further investigation). The reason is that some of the central tennets for these groups runs counter to the skills need for proper development of the subject in a university setting. I will state again, I agree that generally biases are not good and should not enter into most hiring decisions, but they do exist (it is dangerous to declare one’s self wholly neutral) and in some very specific and probably rare instance they are beneficial to appropriate decisions. That said, I do feel that people in general (myself included) are overly reliant upon biases and it is a mistake to pretend they don’t exist (that’s really the point, isn’t it?).

I had no idea that this book review would prompt such vivid displays of the forms of bias (shading over to outright bigotry). The most arresting aspect of these displays is the element of pride and self-righteousness mixed into the rationalizations for some pretty shabby behavior.

I referred in my review to a report published by the Institute for Jewish and Community Research which drew attention to bias against Evangelical Christians. Why would a Jewish group concern itself with this phenomenon? Not because of ideological alignment. An academic world that indulges in demonizing one group on the basis of religion is fully capable–and even likely–to carry the practice to other groups when it feels like it.

The several comments here that evoke the idea that people who uphold a religion that posits an active Creator or which dissents from some views of evolution ought thereby be appropriately screened out of any academic position in biology (and perhaps some other fields) strike me as indulging a fantasy especially constructed for cosseting a prejudice. A biologist can be judged perfectly well on the quality of his or her scientific work with no reference whatsoever to his her theology. Short of evidence that theological propositions have motivated an individual to commit scientific misconduct, the theological question is irrelevant. Why go in search of an extreme example except to give oneself a feeling of “justified after all?”

Peter Wood

“An academic world that indulges in demonizing…”

So, reporting that one is “cool/unfavorable” toward a religious group is the same as demonizing them now? That’s a stretch. The terms used in the study are decidedly mild.

“The several comments here that evoke the idea that people who uphold a religion that posits an active Creator or which dissents from some views of evolution ought thereby be appropriately screened out of any academic position in biology…”

I do not understand your objection. According to your review of the book, the author has failed to prove that academics screen out otherwise qualified candidates because of extraneous beliefs. How is that bigotry?

In my experience, qualified faculty at for-profit colleges are victims more than anything else — victims of the recession, just like the students. The attrition rate is horrible, almost as bad as the admissions department.

In fact, many admissions reps at for-profit colleges have earned an online graduate degree at the school they worked for — paid for by employee tuition grants [90/10?]. Often, these admissions reps also double as online instructors. I guess you could call it farm-raised.

Just like those who bash all for-profits sound like paid union enforcers and “non-profit” lobbyists with their insults and name calling.

Oh, 12345678, you make me laugh when you call in as your heroes the accrediting agencies! I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are working for one of the “good guys” who actually do follow the rules, as you seem so adamant about defending your school. But just because those accrediting agencies “articulate what they expect pertaining to faculty credentials” does not necessarily mean they enforce what they articulate. Maybe not all accrediting bodies are equal, maybe they do not treat all schools alike, maybe they DO make YOUR school tow the line, but my experience as a student and employee at one of the larger for-profit schools has taught me otherwise. You mention that your school was nationally accredited, mine is regionally accredited, perhaps that is the difference. I tried to research the credentials of my “facilitators” (most of them do not deserve to be called teachers much less professors) and not even from my inside position could I gain any knowledge as to their qualifications! I, personally, DO “wish to inquire why the accreditor has not intervened to correct that college’s purportedly substandard hiring practices”.

One of my “facilitators” did have a master’s degree, but no experience actually teaching in a classroom as this person was a guidance counselor at a middle school. Although it was a class that I had looked forward to learning the subject matter, I found that every assignment that I turned in was judged merely on the APA requirements and no feedback was offered as to the actual content of my submission. Even though I received “A”s for every assignment, I felt as if the facilitator had not really read my work (beyond checking my citations), nor offered any constructive feedback from which I could learn. I was an “A” student who left the class with the feeling that I had learned nothing from the course.

Let me reiterate, the for-profit school I attended did not publish the names of their adjunct facilitators in any way, certainly not in the course catalog! Oh yes, they published maybe a dozen names of their full time faculty, but I never had the pleasure to have a class with any of them. All of my facilitators were part-time, and thus not listed in the catalog nor on the website. And if I could not find that information, as a student and employee of the company, how can you expect anyone else (including the author of this blog) to do so?

I agree with Frank, because so many of the faculty are adjunct, they are by and large, poorly trained and quite incompetent. And no matter how much I reported and complained about their inadequacies….nobody in management wanted to hear about it. Those are the facts of my personal experience.

Maybe the party is over for you willy, but thousands more are about to enter your world of insurmountable debt. This “party” isn’t over until we fix these abuses in which you have already become a victim.

Here’s why:

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/04/does-your-brain-bleed-red-white-.html?rss=1

Conservatives are simply not as intelligent as liberals when it comes to complex solutions to difficult problems. This is not to say they are “stupid,” but in the field of Academia, they are stunted due to the way their brains work. This is picked up on by Academics, whose job is to arrive at solutions effectively, both in the hard sciences and in the humanities. Trial and error shows that conservatives, percentage wise, do not write papers as well as Liberals, do not do science as well, and excel more at things like Public Relations, Hotel management and Coaching. Some of these jobs are actually higher paying then the jobs Liberals get, but they are based on emotional content and personality, coupled with a modicum of math and sciences (you have to pass core curriculum to get any sort of degree). When it comes to complex sciences, Empirical evidence suggests that conservative assistants are simply not as competent as liberal ones. sorry.

The link above is a scientific study (which of course, unscientific and incompetent conservatives will repudiate for emotional reasons) describing the phenomenon of the physical differences between a conservative and a liberal brain.

What??? First I heard that leftist political leanings equate with personality, and specifically with narcissism, imperialism, destructive, not fun to be around, and never happy.

Hey, beulah, I’m an optimistic leftist with a drive to create positive results, have fun, and be happy and help others to be happy. Have you ever read up on the psychological condition called “projection?”

Well, the difference is that even among African Americans, Hispanics, homosexuals, etc., there still is a diversity of beliefs regarding the role of God, and Jesus, in determining one’s beliefs, actions and behaviors, and in judging other’s beliefs, actions and behaviors.

Conservative Christians, of any race, age, sex, or ability believe that their beliefs are right and anything that does not match those beliefs is wrong. Conservative protestants specifically hold beliefs that are counter to academic inquiry, see: http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Conservative-Protestants-Believe.aspx where we learn that:
-God is incorporeal, omnipresent spirit;
-Jesus Christ is God’s only incarnation;
-God created the universe and all life forms from nothing in less than 7 days, less than 10,000 years ago–not as revealed by modern science;
-Saved souls [that's them] experience the bliss of heaven and unsaved souls [that's you] the torture of hell;
-The original sin of Adam and Eve caused all to inherit sinfulness;
-Salvation is granted by the grace of God alone, through faith in Jesus Christ alone as Lord and -Savior–not through “works” or through sacraments;
-Suffering is caused by the inheritance of mortality originating from Adam and Eve’s disobedience to -God, or is caused by Satan, or is caused by God’s to test, teach, or strengthen belief in Him;
-Abortion is considered murder; divorce is a sin except under exceptional circumstances

How (in heaven’s name) are any of these beliefs congruent with unbiased research, expertise, and teaching in sociology, psychology & psychiatry, ecology, biology, history, archaeology, anthropology, geology, medicine and health occupations, cultural studies, and more.How can someone be considered qualified in these disciplines while holding these beliefs that are contrary to the findings of the discipline? Turning it around and making academe seem to be biased for recognizing the limitations of these beliefs, is the real sin here.

Were you ever able to have the instructors or students produce a rubric that was used to grade their work? If so, what was the structure of it and if not, what rubric would you suggest for grading written work?

I have seen unethical administration as well. It is important to ask the students who attend each what they think. Since many are approved to operate by the state and have an accreditation I think the education a student receives is beneficial.

One of the struggles even our government has encountered while studying whether benefits can be administered on the basis of quality is how to define quality education in for profits or not for profits. No one has presented an acceptable way to define quality as yet. And the battle rages.

I think you’re mistaking “grants” for “loans.” I don’t care if people take out loans to study medicine, plumbing, or comparative literature – if they intend to go on and pay them back, then more power to them. If your husband viewed his plumbing education as an investment (as I view my graduate education), then I’m sure that loans would have been an option.

Grants are a different story altogether. They are used to incentivize the decision to choose one field over another. In that case, given the dearth of scientists, engineers, and nurses in this country, I think that grants should sweeten the pot a bit for those who are weighing whether or not to acquire the education necessary to enter those fields.

Not unlike “the unbanked” with payday loans or subprime borrowers with mortgages… It seems that somewhere during the last three decades it became more profitable ripping off people using complex mathematical algorithms (flash trades, derivatives) and fine print gotcha tactics (credit cards, predatory loans) knowing that the consequences for the purchaser were not going to be good and then shorting them (As Carl Levin asked Goldman’s CEO: “It’s a shitty deal and you know it because we caught you saying it in your e-mails”).

At some point, we stopped working with real people and they became numbers. They ceased breathing oxygen and started breathing CDO’s and financially rigged products… Now that our economy is on life-support, I do not think it is a big leap here to accept what lizziec is saying. The marketing of the for-profit business model does not meet the reality of the product.

How is this different from sub-prime again? I mean, they are expanding the industry into “bubblical” proportions so that “everyone” can get ‘educated’. The leaders of the companies are making billions with little proven success for the outcomes of their products. The system is predicated on loan debt (which cannot be forgiven)… This is a straight Ponzi (see Bill Black’s work about the criteria for control fraud). Huge volumes, astronomic CEO pay, externalize the cost (government subsidy), don’t prosecute fraud and trumpet the benefits of online/for-profit education for as long as possible until the wheels fall off (then blame the teachers)…..

I was surprised that so many faculty stated that their cool/unfavorable feelings toward these groups were grounds not to hire individuals with those political or religious affiliations. But when Peter Wood concludes that it is likely these biases have significantly shaped university faculties, he is taking a couple of big leaps.

How many fervent NRA supporters have tried to join the pool of PhD candidates in Philosophy? How many fundamentalist Christians are knocking on the door to get into Sociology departments? I don’t know, but apparently neither does Peter Wood. And, at both the level of graduate admissions and faculty hiring, departments can’t have been shaped by bias unless a significant number of NRA supporters, fundamentalists, etc., have tried to get into departments and been weeded out because of their affiliations.

This leads to the second problem. Yancey’s question sets up a hiring hypothetical: you can’t ask questions about these characteristics, but you happen to find out about them. Fair enough for his research goal: trying to find out whether academics have bias against these groups. But of course good hiring practices are designed precisely to rule out such biases (that’s why you can’t ask!). I’m sure it’s possible information sometimes trickles in despite the rules. But again, there would have to be proof that hiring committees often do learn about these affiliations before we can jump the conclusion that bias has influenced the current makeup of departments.

Anecdotal evidence is limited, but it it can’t help but color these findings for me. I am a Mormon, one of the groups that academics tend to be cool on. I can’t hide this fact, since my undergraduate degree is from Brigham Young University. But somehow I was accepted into many top graduate programs and have received many job offers over the course of my career–and this in a discipline, English literature, that tends to have left-leaning faculties. I lean that way myself, but hiring committees wouldn’t have known that at the beginning of my career. There are also many Mormons–some devout, some lapsed–in my discipline who have thriving careers.

By the same token, I do not know many fundamentalist Christians in English. I’ve been on many graduate admissions committees, and if fundamentalists applied to our program, they rarely if ever disclosed the fact in their applications. So if they applied and were rejected, it wasn’t because of their religious affiliations. (Good practices work; why is Peter Wood assuming they don’t?)

These findings are interesting. But based on this review, we are a long long way from being able to conclude that bias has shaped who now inhabits university departments.

You’re too stupid to know who your friends are.

Well, haohtt, I hope that unlike betterschools, you recognize that at no point anywhere in this entire thread did I ever “insult” or “name-call” for-profit education. I think that they deserve a much more intelligent debate than they are apparently getting here, and I have acknowledged at least a couple of those area where I think that they are institutionally superior. It’s too bad that our discourse has sunk so low that we can’t even debate the complexities of an issue on the freaking Chronicle of Higher Education.

Once again, read that carefully, again, slowly: “leads to licensure.”

I tried to parse it but I don’t understand what northplatte said. Time for a break I guess.

It is kind of surreal to read comments about your work. I thank Peter for the review and for provoking such a discussion. It is to create such discussion that I wrote the book (certainly was not for the money as those of you who have published academic books can attest). I was torn whether to offer my own comments and I have decided that doing so can only help improve the discussion. Sorry in advance with what is doomed to be a long post.
First, let me clarify my conclusions from this work. I am not claiming that Republicans and fundamentalists can not get a job in academia. I am not dismissing a self-selection effect that helps to shape the political and religious makeup of academics. I am arguing that self-selection is not the only factor. There is a bias that plays some role in screening out religous and political conservatives. Religous and political conservative can and do get hired in academia but they have a higher hurdle than their peers simply because of their religious and political beleifs. How high the hurdle is can not be determine with the data I collected. But that it is a screen that exists is strongly supported by the data.
To me this is an important finding. The makeup of academics as highly progressive and irreligious has long been established. There is plenty of stories of bias and research that suggests that social conservatives pay an occupational penality for their beliefs. But I found nothing in the literature that provide systematic support for the presense of a bias against religious and political conservatives. My work allows academics to express on thier own the reality of that bias. Until I see systematic information that indicates that such bias does not exists then I have to accept the fact that self-selection is not the only factor in creating the religous and political makeup of academics. Ideally we can now begin to explore how bad the bias is rather than deny its existence.
For some of those on here, the existence of this bias is not seen as a bad thing. I disagree. I believe that science as an institution is harmed because of these biases. Space does not allow me to fully express why I have such beliefs but discuss them more in my book. But if a person decides that it is alright to have bias and discriminate against Republicans and evangelicals then at least we should recognize that this bias exists and we have decided to accept it. To me that is a more honest apporach than to deny the existance of the bias.
Some have brought up objections about the research. As it concerns the methodology you really need to read the book to see evaluate my apporach. I tried not to go further than where the results took me but I can not fully explain that in this short comment. As it concerns not studying other professions it is clear that you can only study a limited part of society in a given project. There is a lot of other research that explores bis in other institutions, (i.e. racial bias in religious institutions, or bias against atheists in the miltary). But there is little that looked at bias in academia. I merely went to where I felt there need to be more research. Nothing in my findings dismisses other types of biaes but I merely am documenting biases that have not been documeted before. Finally as it concerns the fact that I am looking at attitudes but not actual discrimination I pled guilty. But social desirablity effects makes it difficult, if not impossible, to systematically study discrimination in academia. I have been able to document scholars actually stating that they will be less likely to hire someone because of their relgion or political beliefs. If half of all sociologists will make such an admission about hiring a fundamentalist, then is it not reasonable that a good many of them actually do become less likely to hire fundamentalist if given a chance. It seems implausibe to believe that my research could generate such high numbers of individuals who support a statement of bias and that there is no discrimination against religious and/or political out-groups.
I hope this clarifies some of what I think I have found and what I tried to accomplish. I also hope that my inclusion in the debate on this blog does not stifle debate but rather it enhances it. Thanks for your interest in this important topic.

So as not to get confused with the main point below, I would guess that you have not had need for consultants. Either way, you certainly suffer from a negative stereotype of them — a negative experience perhaps. First, I have myself performed and succeeded in every single area in which I provide consultation. I don’t offer hypothetical services or expose clients to further risk. My job is mitigating their risk. Second, universities (mostly your type) engage our services to do something they don’t know how to do very well, or not at all, but they don’t want to create yet another department that will outlive them and will soon find ways to justify its existence long after the original need has expired. I use consultants for the same reason. I also count myself fortunate to get to know experts in different areas. It is a worthwhile experience. I also think that it is intelligent to be sufficiently self-aware that you know what you don’t know. “Consultant haters” generally lack this self-awareness. Do you really advocate building internal resources to address transitory needs for expertise that you do not possess? Do you do your own plumbing?

You ask if these biases actually transelate into discrimination. There are a couple of ways of apporaching this question. Is it that the bias faced by religious and political conservatives discourage them from going into academia? That is a possiblity. I know from personal experience that many of these conservatives pick up these biases as students. In this sense we may have self-selection that is at least partially driven by bias against social out-groups. The other angle is how search committees may act on their biaes. In a world of the internet it is harder to keep one’s political and religious interest a secret unless a person is not active at all. There is also the concern that a pro-life evangelical has to hide his/her beleifs in a way that a pro-choice Jew does not have to during the job talk. We all have been on those talks and know that it is uncomfortable enough without such extra pressure. So I am confident that the biases I document indicates some of the reasons why religious and political conservatives are less likley to be hired in academia.
I think you ask a good question about how much of this is self-selection, how much of this is bias and how much of this may be some sort of combination as I describe above. Fair enough. But many have denied that such bias does exists. I am confident that the information in my book shows that it does exists. I welcome the conversation on how bad the bias is. I think that is a step up from denying the bias existence.
Finally I have to ask what is a “smoking gun.” I notice that many of my white students deny the existence of racism today because we do not have the Klan running around and overt racial discrimination is illegal. I can tell you that scholars in the field of race/ethnicity disagree with my students. But there is no smoking gun for the students and thus they can hold on to their beliefs. So I can not provide a smoking gun in over discrimination but here is what we do know. Religious and political conservatives are underreperesented in academia. There is evidence that social conservatives are underemployed in academia (the citation escapes me at the moment but I can look it up if necessary). Now my work shows that academics themselves admit that they would discrimianate against these groups if given the chance. You add this to the qualitaitive evidence of some of the case studies of discrimination, then you have pretty convincing evidence.
I will stay away from the term “smoking gun” since it implies a certainity that few scientists are comfortable with. But in the end I think my data is a missing piece of evidence that shows a high likelihood of discimination and I will be as bold as to say that the likelyihood is high enough that it warrents action. We can wait for a smoking gun like some of my students want to wait for a smoking gun about racism but I think that would be a mistake. Thanks for the questions Nancy.

Thanks for the reply. I would not take the position (as in the racism example) that there is nothing here until someone produces a smoking gun. It looks like your findings will properly spur a discussion (as in this blog) on what it means that academics hold these views. But to my mind the issue is not the nature of the evidence (lack of a smoking gun), but rather the nature and scope of the problem you think calls for action. Hence my questions.

Especially relevant is the pool of students who might otherwise go into academia were it not for unfavorable feelings of academics. You say you know from personal experience that students pick up on these biases when they come to college. But by own experience suggests that students themselves are more likely to bring their biases to college. Growing up in a conservative culture in Utah, my peers were rarely predisposed toward an interest in becoming an academic, either when they were in high school or when they went to college (and this was a fairly affluent, professional part of the community). Indeed, because my father was a professor I heard a good many jokes and disparaging remarks about professors, even from adults.

By the same token, at BYU I came to know many of the relatively small number of students who aspired to go to graduate school in humanities and social sciences, and those students seem to have faced no discrimination in getting positions in higher education.

Hi,
I’m glad you jumped in. I just wanted to ask how you determined what answering a 3 or a 5 actually meant for this survey. The problem, as I see it, is that these answers could be interpreted as simply saying, in cases where applicants are otherwise equally qualified, I would prefer/not prefer someone with X characteristics. I think these kind of “weak” preferences might be more of an artifact of the question, rather than indicative of a pattern of discrimination in actual hiring. (In other words, we’re only talking about generic Republicans vs. generic Democrats, and I think preferences may change when actual people are involved).
The answers concerning fundamentalists definitely seemed to be more negative, so I think the suggestion of prejudice/discrimination against them could be warranted. I’m not as certain about the others, however. The survey results could mean that political conservatives face slightly worse odds of getting hired. But without knowing the range of other characteristics that could tip the decision one way or the other (appearance, height, looks, region from which degree was conferred, hobbies, etc), it is hard to know whether “discrimination” is really the right word to describe what is going on. After all, deciding between candidates who are otherwise equal in qualifications is always going to be somewhat arbitrary). As I said on numerous occasions, this isn’t my field, so I’ll accept that the analysis above might be wrong.

You ask a great question. Some of those indicated that learning about a person’s conservative political or religious leanings would only “slightly” discourage them from hiring them. Others state that it would strongly discourage them. If I remember correctly among sociologists about 8 percent (or 1 in 12) stated that it would strongly discourage them. The worst case is in Anthropology where about 25 percent of them state that it would storngly encourage them. I see this work’s most powerful contribution is to stop the denial that there is no bias. I think there needs to be future work on how powerful the bias is. Nevertheless I think we can all agree that those who state that it would strongly discourage them are not merely stateing an “if everything else is equal” perspective.
But allow me to make the case that even the 8 percent is meaningful. The mode number of members on search committees I have served on is about 6. If we assume that each of those 6 sociologists have an equal chance of strongly rejecting religous and political conservatives then there is a 40 percent chance that such a person will be on that committee. You couple that with the fact that there are highly likely to have at least 1 or 2 more people on the committee who are slightly likely to not favor the candidate then we have an understanding that it is harder to get an academic job as a religious or political conservative. It is not impossible but it is harder. I think it is fair to state that religous and political conservative have to possess signficantly superier qualitications in order to win their jobs since if there is a proclivity to not hire them then members of the search committee have to be convinced to overcome that proclivity. We in academia have to ask whether it should be that way.

When a hiring panel of anthropologists declines to hire a fundamentalist Christian, that is not bias. That is screening. Would you hire, for your subject discipline, someone who repudiated the basic foundations of your discipline? Of course not.

Christians who believe the earth was created in seven days, that there was no evolution but only creation by the hand of god, are biased against the entire body of scholarship accumulated by that discipline.

Archaeologists look at the evidence of the fossil record. Anthropologists examine the evidence provided by groups and cultures. They are scientists who examine data, reality, facts, evidence.

Christians look at a divinely inspired book, and already know the answers before even asking the question, because it’s all in the book. What evidence found only serves to support and explain what they already know as truth.

I think we all agree that the extent to which this kind of “tacit” judgment has a material effect on hiring is an empirical question and that most practical methodologies that that attempt to answer it are likely to be less than robust. However, I think that these kinds of biases — many of them borderline unconscious, projected, or otherwise psychologically transformed — are ubiquitous in everyday life and no less so in academic hiring situations. I have seen unmistakable evidence of them myself. I recall an academic cocktail party in Boston where the subject of hand guns came up in a negative and, I felt, uninformed and illogical, light. I pointed out that, being a westerner, I grew up with guns and learned safety when I was six. I recalled the fact that kids took their guns on the school bus to work on the stocks in high school shop class. I mentioned that in spite of having guns all around me as a child, I never knew anyone who was hurt. I then mentioned that as someone who often shares the mountains with mountain lions, bears, and wolves (all of which have been known to attack humans in spite of what some may have read) I still carry a hand gun gun in some circumstances, and that on one occasion there is no doubt that doing so saved my life and my dog’s life while, in this case at least, sparing the life of the bear who halted her attack when I fired alongside her. To that point, the conversation had been lively, animated even, on various points of humor. From that point, the psychological temperature in the room dropped to -10. Had I been applying for a position rather than giving a guest lecture, I am certain that I would have begun the process several points behind the curve. Would I have got the job anyway? Who knows but it seems inarguable that the playing field would have been tilted against me.

In my text I do point out some of these differences that are statistcially signfincant. As you know t-test take into account the variance of each mean. The differences I point out between Democrat and Republican or Atheist and Evangelical are signfinant.
Now your other point is that if we take out fundamentalists do we have findings. As I pointed out we still have plenty of signficant findings but the findings on fundamentalist is quite stronger than the other findings. I actually expected to find more powerful findings on political rather than religious groups and so this surprised me. I do keep stating religious and political conservatives since my T-test indicates that political conservatives are more signfincantly more likely to face negative bias than their progressive counterparts. However, I concede that the findings are best expressed by the attitudes academic express towards fundamentalist and, to a lessor extent, evangelicals.

You used “economic power” and “lazy” in the same sentence in your last paragraph. That’s quite illogical.

savemetime: thanks for sharing, now how old is the earth and all creation?

I think the more appropriate principle to apply is that extraordinary claims demand proof – when religions claim that supernatural beings exist, that those beings control everything from rainfall to the AIDS epidemic, that an offspring of a god brought dead people back to life, etc., etc., etc., it falls to those religions to prove these claims. Scientists have no obligation to disprove such claims. And by the time you add up all of the wild, wacky and mutually contradictory claims that the thousands of big and little religions around the world make, proving all of those negatives would be a ridiculous waste of time.

Rubrics were used religiously… but as Forrest Gump is famous for saying, “stupid is as stupid does”.

If you don’t know the materials, the rubric isn’t going to help you.

Dear dank48. I trust this thread has run its course. It is a pleasure to see it so aptly summarized.

Peter Wood

“Christians who believe the earth was created in seven days, that there was no evolution but only creation by the hand of god, are biased against the entire body of scholarship accumulated by that discipline.”

You have a terrifically literal read on the biblical religions. Are you sure that’s how contemporary textual hermeneutics generally work? To listen to you, it’s as if no one has historicized their religious tradition. I find that more than a little unlikely.

Although, I can imagine conditions of general intellectual poverty in which it wouldn’t happen. Maybe the fundamentalists need a student enrollment quota at Harvard Divinity.

“That should be who ‘whoever,’ the subject of “was reading.”  It’s a common error, but one that an English teacher should catch.”

Good catch. That was my error, not Isaac’s.

Gabriela Montell
Web Producer

Hi Isaac:

Congratulations.  I’ve been reading your work for years.  “I told you so.”  Don’t consider those stupid adjunct positions where they snuff the life out of you.  I may be wrong, but I think they hired you for your persistence and your willingness to keep on trying no matter what.  Good for you.

PS:  RBC:  You take good care of this guy.

Hasty or not, correct grammar ought to come “naturally” to an English prof (and as we know now, it did – the CHE editor made the error).  I find this idea that some people have that English is so unnatural and difficult that it should be assumed that everyone, including native speakers who teach English grammar for a living, will get it wrong on the first try, and thus accuracy is only a matter of editing, very troubling. If it’s that bad, it’s time to change the “rules” of English, not our standards of what kinds of “errors” are acceptable in what written contexts. Would you find it acceptable if it were a math prof who write that 2+2 = 5 (as a real error, not a typo) because they were being “hasty”?

Yes, the pronoun is the subject of “read” (whoever was reading). But it’s also the object of “lead” (Isaac leads whomever).  It’s grammatically ambiguous. While you may have stylistic preferences on the matter, there isn’t much of a case to be made that one option is “wrong” and the other is “right.”

I agree with E_eddie_edwards.  The first paragraph of the letter is bizarre and I suspect that a lot of search committees would round file the letter without further reading.  The rest of the letter seems pretty standard, but the space for the first paragraph is ill-used as a model for those who are still on the job market and want to get an academic job.

“I only have an M.A.”

Unless it was mailed to you, take a bit more pride in that accomplishment!

It seems not to have mattered, but I hope you remembered to change PERSON’S NAME. :) Congrats, man!  Looking forward to your manual on how to survive the tenure track in a few years.

Don’t forget the little people!

Universities should not be franchised.

Expading the school outside the state will dilute the quality of education. If foriegn students are interested in the school, then let them enroll in the US. If US students want to participate in study abroad programs, then let the school work with a local and certified college.

This has been a big issue for Australian colleges and universities.  Since at least 2000 the federal government has operated a register for institutions that teach international students on shore.  Basically, the federal government wont issue a visa to a student unless they have an offer of enrolment (which is normally recorded electronically on the immigration department’s database) in a program and institution registered by the feds.

Almost since its inception in 2000 the separate Australian federal quality assurance body for universities has scrutinised off shore programs closely, almost always inspecting off shore teaching sites (at the university’s expense!).

Nonetheless, international education warrants institutions’ vigilance, as the authors argue.  

While I support providing the opportunity of an education to anybody who wants it; I must say that instances such as this creates a very negative connotation to any internationalization.  Would an international education society be a good start to overseeing such campuses?