Pinning down the power of ideology on faculties

[chronicle_moderator]

Numerous studies in recent years have purported to show that students are being indoctrinated by left-wing professors and that conservatives are routinely discriminated against in hiring and promotion decisions. The American Federation of Teachers, a group that leans to the left, recently commissioned a study of that research that found it consistently lacked scientific rigor. Is it possible to conduct research on how professors' political beliefs affect their teaching or the professional advancement of their conservative colleagues? Or are too many factors impossible to control for?
Read The Battle Over.. and They Jump to Those Claims.

[joehardy]

Numerous studies in recent years have purported to show that students are being indoctrinated by left-wing professors and that conservatives are routinely discriminated against in hiring and promotion decisions. The American Federation of Teachers, a group that leans to the left, recently commissioned a study of that research that found it consistently lacked scientific rigor. Is it possible to conduct research on how professors' political beliefs affect their teaching or the professional advancement of their conservative colleagues? Or are too many factors impossible to control for?
Read The Battle Over.. and The Battle Over..

It's not just a matter of controlling variables but defining them. How do you define a "leftist" professor? A centrist? Or whatever?
And how can you necessary jump from course content to a professor's actual beliefs?  I teach a required interdisciplinary course that includes study of both Marx and Darwin. The goal of those who teach this course is to lay out the ideas of the various authors and generate critical thinking and discussion. Yet there are always those who assume that simply teaching about Darwin means the teacher is "anti-Creationism" or that teaching about Marx means the teacher has Marxist leanings. Or that the college is trying to "indoctrinate" students. In my Media and Society class we look at media from various perspectives such as semiology, psychology, sociology and Marxism. In the sociology segment we look at examples of representations in media of blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Native Americans, and gays and lesbians, representations both positive and negative. The goal is to get students to think about how media representations affect audience perceptions of groups and individuals. Yet I have encountered the occasional student who somehow believes this is a course in "political correctness" or an attempt to force multicultural diversity or affirmative action or gay rights, etc.
No, it's an attempt to develop critical thinking skills regarding media.
So imputing a teacher's political beliefs from course content would be very problematic.
Then again, how do you define leftist or liberal or conservative? A social justice liberal versus an economic liberal?  A traditional values conservative from a libertarian conservative?
It reminds me of all those studies years ago when Saturday morning TV was all cartoons and communication scholars killed many trees publishing arguments about cartoon violence. Was Wiley Coyote being flattened by an Acme anvil violence? Was Elmer Fudd shooting (and missing) Bugs Bunny violence? And was it violence in the same manner as the bad guy killing the storekeeper he was robbing in an episode of a primetime crime drama?
Finally, how can you "prove" that one's political leanings were the primary variable in one's receiving or not receiving promotion or tenure.
I don't believe meaningful research can be done in these matters.

[mrhistory]

I have a colleague who has what I call jokingly "a Mormon problem"
She finds that centering the rise of and reaction to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in the 19th century to be a good entre into a variety of social, political, and cultural forces in the early US.  Its an academic presentation whether for freshmen or at conferences and yet persistently I hear (esp from students) that she herself *must be* or *is* a Mormon.  She isn't.  But, since she teaches about something that others find controversial and doesn't make some disclaimer, it is assumed her interest must be personal. Or, an apologia of some kind.

Same with an economic-intellectual historian I know. He is interested in the way ideology plays out in the marketplace and is particularly interested in early 20th century socialist-immigrants and what their assimilation to the US marketplace looks like.  Others assume the only reason anyone would want to study something is to *valorize* it unless them are condeming it 24/7.

I still remember being a visiting grad student during the election of 2000 and seeing a couple of faculty voting at the Rep primaries while waiting for a friend. Later, someone wrote and article about the "liberalism" of the faculty at said school and how none voted Republican in the 2000 primaries.  Really, I saw two with my own eyes taking a ballot and going into a booth. I knew then that the so-called evidence in that famous (and fatuous) rabble-rouser's "study" was crap.

I personally stay further away from my beliefs in my own studies than most I know. My interest in the general subject drives my scholarly interests but , like many, I'm interested in the choices that those who don't agree with me make.  I guess a big old disclaimer would absolve me of any "suspicion" but I'm not going to make one. Believe what you like, list me where you will.

[dark_globe]

Numerous studies in recent years have purported to show that students are being indoctrinated by left-wing professors and that conservatives are routinely discriminated against in hiring and promotion decisions. The American Federation of Teachers, a group that leans to the left, recently commissioned a study of that research that found it consistently lacked scientific rigor. Is it possible to conduct research on how professors' political beliefs affect their teaching or the professional advancement of their conservative colleagues? Or are too many factors impossible to control for?
Read The Battle Over.. and The Battle Over..

It's not just a matter of controlling variables but defining them. How do you define a "leftist" professor? A centrist? Or whatever?

It depends on the beholder. I taught a course a few years ago on a subject that dealt with contemporary political issues. For the text I chose a book, based primarily upon its clarity, by an author who I knew was a conservative; he even dedicated this book to Ronald Reagan. Yet one student complained to some conservative group on campus that I had assigned a radical left-wing text for the course.

[akimbo]

In my Media and Society class we look at media from various perspectives such as semiology, psychology, sociology and Marxism. In the sociology segment we look at examples of representations in media of blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Native Americans, and gays and lesbians, representations both positive and negative. The goal is to get students to think about how media representations affect audience perceptions of groups and individuals. Yet I have encountered the occasional student who somehow believes this is a course in "political correctness" or an attempt to force multicultural diversity or affirmative action or gay rights, etc.

The groups that you include for analysis of media representation are among those that are "favored" by liberal causes.  Do you not also discuss how the media portrays conservative Christians, corporate/business leaders, the military, rural southerners and other groups that are generally favored in conservative groups?  If not, then there does appear to be a liberal bias in what you present.

[joehardy]

In my Media and Society class we look at media from various perspectives such as semiology, psychology, sociology and Marxism. In the sociology segment we look at examples of representations in media of blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Native Americans, and gays and lesbians, representations both positive and negative. The goal is to get students to think about how media representations affect audience perceptions of groups and individuals. Yet I have encountered the occasional student who somehow believes this is a course in "political correctness" or an attempt to force multicultural diversity or affirmative action or gay rights, etc.

The groups that you include for analysis of media representation are among those that are "favored" by liberal causes.  Do you not also discuss how the media portrays conservative Christians, corporate/business leaders, the military, rural southerners and other groups that are generally favored in conservative groups?  If not, then there does appear to be a liberal bias in what you present.

Good question and the answer is yes, sort of. Sort of because the video clips are of groups considered "marginalized" and we look at both how they've been portrayed by the mainstream and then how they use media to advance their own agendas. So it's definitely not uncritical.
The final written assignment basically is for each student to choose some way in which media representations marginalize them. Perhaps they are an athlete or a fraternity/sorority member, regularly portrayed as either a dumb jock or a drunken frat rat. I've had students write about being blond, being a Catholic school girl, a black female upset by misogyny in rap videos, being a Jew or Mormon in the Bible Belt, being from a very wealthy suburb and assumed to be rich and privileged, from a small town or a farm and assumed to be a redneck, being a cheerleader and assumed to be an airhead, being a female athlete and assumed to be a Lesbian. I've had only one or two write about being a conservative Christian but that's probably because we're a church-affiliated college and though quite an open-minded place (the Baptist and Church of Christ colleges near us view us with some suspicion for being so "liberal") we have very active campus religious groups.
In class discussions several black students have spoken of how even fellow black students from different backgrounds put them down if they, for example, listen to country music. The students seem to find the course more liberating - lots of discussion - than a course with an agenda.  Of course there is an agenda. It's a communications course and we're trying to see just how much of what we believe - about people, places, events - is shaped by our media exposure and not just TV, but film, radio, magazines, newspapers and books.
The only real "complaint" I've ever had about the course comes from the semiology section where we analyze codes, signs and symbols in music videos and television series. Students tell me they can't stop analyzing what they watch and, when they are watching with their friends or family members, they are sometimes told to, "Shut up, stop analyzing and watch the show."
Hope this clarifies things.

[pyshnov]

chronicle_moderator:

Numerous studies in recent years have purported [sic] to show that students are being indoctrinated by left-wing professors and that conservatives are routinely discriminated against in hiring and promotion decisions.

Surely, these two items: "students are being indoctrinated" and "conservatives are routinely discriminated against in hiring and promotion decisions" are not the same thing. The former is just un inappropriate manner in teaching, but the latter is a corruption, discrimination and crime.

Is it possible to conduct research on how professors' political beliefs affect their teaching or the professional advancement of their conservative colleagues?

Well, not much research is needed to see in various institutional policies the prohibition to discriminate against all "groups", but with notable omission of prohibition to discriminate against political beliefs.

What we are witnessing since early 80's is not just an ideological shift, but the appearance on university scene of a low communist character, someone who is publicly preaching anti-discrimination, but, in fact, is blasting the carriers and destroying the lives of their colleagues for "group" reasons, attitudes and ideology. The Left quietly extended ideology into a corrupt mode of acting. The academics, organized into "groups", also never shrink from defending any member of a "group", no matter how despicable his/her behavior might be.

Seven years ago I wrote: "Jews, communists, "lesbians", feminists and marihuana addicts, all, unfortunately for me, had a representation in the figure of Professor Larsen, and saw their special interest in saving her. They acted as a mob. The cunning professor-criminal used political corruption in this society to stay out of jail." This observation was not based on research, but on the circumstances of the case of fraud committed against me (http://ca.geocities.com/uoftfraud/). All the institutional and governmental policies only encouraged such behavior of the "groups". On another thread of this forum, my words were quoted with the comment "Interesting!"

No, it's not possible in the present circumstances to conduct unbiased research of the activities of the "groups". Can anybody be so naive as not to expect a counter-study "purported" to show, scientifically of course, the results opposite to the results shown by an opposite "group"? No, the group opposite to the "groups" is not yet there.

What is needed is to allow the full freedom of speech and to break the conspiracy of silence surrounding these activities. Unfortunately, the mass media so far offered little help; the "groups", loudly preaching anti-discrimination but silently condoning  corruption, are there too.

[pyshnov]

Sorry, the URL in my previous post didn't come out right; it should be http://ca.geocities.com/uoftfraud/
---------
There is a terrific good discussion of the same issue of "studies" here: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/22/bias

[mrhistory]

I'm at a university in the heart of the conservative south and the department is conservative as well.  And, yet, everyday I hear how liberal *we* all are. Can't tell that from the doors on offices...or the conversation in the halls.  Still, the methodologies are interesting in these studies mentioned because without effort I can think of why I've found similar studies to be flawed---at best:

voter registration with party affiliation---my first election I wanted to vote in a primary for a particular candidate. That determined my "party" for years afterward because I didn't bother to go to the trouble to change it and didn't vote in a *primary* again there. Was I an "X"?---actually, no.

campaign contributions---a colleage at Present U informed me he *knew* I was an X because I donated to candidate Y in another state. All contributions over 25$ were listed on line and my spouse and I each contributed 100$.  Well, I'm not a member of the X party but my brother-in-law was involved with the campaign and the candidate was my father-in-law's college roomate AND my spouse's godfather.  We like him and were happy to donate but that means nothing about our political beliefs.

"surveys"---I have a friend who *always* returns surveys. He believes that "messing up" the results ultimately confuses everyone because "then the public potentially does something else!"  An idiotic stance but he returns these sorts of academic-political things all the time and, when its available, he loves to put "socialist" or "Communist" on the form. Bet he's not the only one out there...

Finally, in many states, being a nominal "Democrat" can put you far, far to the right of a garden-variety "Democrat" in another state and the people who do these sorts of rough sorting into parties studies know it but, it doesn't suit their purposes to highlight that does it?

[daurousseau]

Like almost every issue that have constituted the "culture wars" of the last two decades, this is a talking point cranked out by some right-wing think tank. An intern in the Kristol-D'Sousza factories cooks up an issue, a pundit kisses off on it, and  emails go out to the the outlet malls--O'Reilly, et al. Yahoos from the state legislatures pick it up from there and start phoning their golf buddies on the Board of Regents.

Here's how we used to handle this in the U.S. State Department Historical Division, hardly a leftist citadel: we hired an intern to crank out some research, which a spokesperson crafted into a polite factual letter to the blustering Senator. The more they blustered, the more bland replies they got in turn.

I recommend that university presidents stop ducking their responsibilities and start defending their institutions. Hire the interns, turn them loose, flood the media with the boring facts.

[t_folk]

I consider myself a conservative. I am a libertarian and a Catholic. However, I don't feel discriminated against by my colleagues or my friends who are liberal or even socialist. I do, however, find that my students are discriminatory - my conservative students. This more than likely stems from my views on personal liberty. They don't understand why I don't find homosexuals to be "disgusting" or why feel that people should be allowed to smoke pot if they want to in the privacy of their home. The little f'rs can be really nasty and I've had parents calling me to complain that I'm indoctrinating their students with a "leftist" agenda. WTF! I'm more conservative on political issues than most republicans (I feel that many "political issues" of today have no place in the political arena). So, whatever. Are there more "liberals" in the academy than "conservatives"? Probably. Are they trying to convert the nation to Marxism one student at a time, I don't think so (though, there are certainly professors who try to).

[navydad]

Goodness this junk gets old. Once again an issue is framed as "conservatives vs. liberals." As I and others have pointed out in various discussions, this simplistic dichotomy distorts reality rather than clarifying it. Nevertheless, a couple of comments are in order. The right wing has a vested interest in portraying itself as some sort of persecuted minority. This is a necessary and predictable tactic of all groups that are fundamentally oppressive (fundamentalist religious groups, cults, most revolutionary political groups). With many groups the tactic is a reflection of reality: the groups often are marginalized or oppressed, at least at some point during their development. The perception of persecution usually works to rally the true believers of any movement while justifying extreme and oppressive measures to fight the persecution. But the right wing can't credibly claim that the government or the corporate world persecutes them, so they push the shibboleth of "liberal bias" in academe and the press. But even if we accept the premise of a predominately "liberal" bent among academics (which I do), how does one account for the phenomenon? The right wing seems to be arguing that "liberal" members of these groups have somehow taken over the reins of power in their professions and simply exclude "conservatives." The logical conclusion is that if academe and the press were open and fair, there would be relatively equal numbers of "conservatives" and "liberals" in these professions. This obviously is ridiculous. Some part of the "liberal bias" in academe undoubtedly is due to self selection. In other words, people who choose to pursue academic careers differ from those who don't in a number of different ways, some of which correlate with political orientation. So what are some fairly safe generalizations one can make about most academics? First, they aren't motivated primarily by money or power. Second, they are interested in pursuing and transmitting knowledge. Third, their average intelligence is higher than the average intelligence of the general population. Another part of the "liberal bias" is a function of pursuing an academic career: what you learn affects your political beliefs. For example, there is evidence that college students generally become more "liberal" as they become more educated. Hmmmmmmmmmm. To state my admittedly elitist argument more offensively: the "liberal bias" in academe exists because higher intelligence and more knowledge correlate with more liberal political beliefs. And please spare us your anecdotes and counter examples. It's all about overlapping distributions.

[t_folk]

the "liberal bias" in academe exists because higher intelligence and more knowledge correlate with more liberal political beliefs. And please spare us your anecdotes and counter examples. It's all about overlapping distributions.

This is silly. And, to play devil's advocate, if the "liberal academe" is so smart, why are most of the "rich folk" conservative?

[dark_globe]

the "liberal bias" in academe exists because higher intelligence and more knowledge correlate with more liberal political beliefs. And please spare us your anecdotes and counter examples. It's all about overlapping distributions.

This is silly. And, to play devil's advocate, if the "liberal academe" is so smart, why are most of the "rich folk" conservative?

Maybe because conservatives are greedy b*st*rds with no social conscience who focus all their energy on the accumulation of wealth.

[case_insensitive]

the "liberal bias" in academe exists because higher intelligence and more knowledge correlate with more liberal political beliefs. And please spare us your anecdotes and counter examples. It's all about overlapping distributions.

This is silly. And, to play devil's advocate, if the "liberal academe" is so smart, why are most of the "rich folk" conservative?

Maybe because conservatives are greedy b*st*rds with no social conscience who focus all their energy on the accumulation of wealth.

What a big load of bias...