next »

[joey_fan]

This might seem like an odd question, but I was recently having a conversation with colleagues across different fields about the general political orientation/leanings of our colleagues, and there was a strong consensus that faculty in the humanities/literature/arts tend to be more willing to openly claim liberal/progressive or "lefty" values (whether or not they "live up to them" is a different story, I admit).

I wonder, though, about the converse: Are people in the so-called "hard" sciences more conservative?

My friends seemed to think that faculty in statistics/econ/business/finance can be more (fiscally) conservative than the stereotypically "liberal" cultural anthropology or comparative literature types, but what about socially conservative faculty? Where do they tend to be, in your opinion/experience?

[csguy]

From what I've seen Business and Religion (Christian college) are the conservative strongholds.

Techies may be socially awkward but not necessarily particularly conservative. They are often less interested in political or social issues. Fair number of libertarians (not socially conservative -- not into legislating morality or much of anything else).

[abdbiz]

I also would say that techies are more libertarian.


The gay issue is not a party issue, imo. Many that tend to vote D are not really for gay marriage. Many Rs dont really care what gay people do. Im generally closer to R than D, but i dont see why gays shoudnt be able to get a marriage license from the state (or at the least all the rights of marriage). I also dont see why gay people cant adopt a child. To me, it is far better than the alternative.

I feel like slick Willy was more of an R than W. Some of that may be due to split government.

[joey_fan]

Thanks, people--the libertarianism angle does make sense as a way of characterizing certain faculty members, and I think that was the category missing from the conversation we were having the other day.

It's interesting, though--at my (secular) institutiton, it seemed very clear that the religion/theology/divinity faculty were certainly not conservative and more of the progressivist, social justice camp.

This might seem like an odd question, but I was recently having a conversation with colleagues across different fields about the general political orientation/leanings of our colleagues, and there was a strong consensus that faculty in the humanities/literature/arts tend to be more willing to openly claim liberal/progressive or "lefty" values (whether or not they "live up to them" is a different story, I admit).

I wonder, though, about the converse: Are people in the so-called "hard" sciences more conservative?

My friends seemed to think that faculty in statistics/econ/business/finance can be more (fiscally) conservative than the stereotypically "liberal" cultural anthropology or comparative literature types, but what about socially conservative faculty? Where do they tend to be, in your opinion/experience?

[beacon1]

social justice camp

I hate this word. To think that serious minded folks would be out for social injustice is misguided. Social justice is a feel good word. Stalin advocated social justice through Marxism and we all know how well that went.

[prytania3]

The Silicon Valley is very "blue."

'Nuff said.

[joey_fan]

I wonder about the "social justice" phrase too--I think it's being used very expansively, almost as a euphemism or catch-all term, and sometimes it encompasses such a wide swatch it's hard to tell what people mean by it anymore.

Instead of "social justice," would a phrase like "economic justice" be closer to what you would value? Or is that not quite it either?

social justice camp

I hate this word. To think that serious minded folks would be out for social injustice is misguided. Social justice is a feel good word. Stalin advocated social justice through Marxism and we all know how well that went.

[anthroid]

Most folks who claim to be advocates for "social justice" are not very far to the left and don't really mean it.  Social justice is a far more powerful movement than what is a rather weak liberal position at present.  IMHO, of course.

To answer the OP: my SO has been a mechanical engineer for over twenty years, and he insists that he is one of the few engineers of any stripe to be even a little liberal.  I'd say he's fiscally libertarian and socially almost as liberal as me (who sits far left with the real social justicers).  He indicates that his work colleagues are profoundly conservative and that some of them cross over into serious homophobia, racism, classism, and sexism. 

[pyshnov]

"Social justice" is a slogan among slogans. Others are "diversity", "excellence", "change", "lack of leadership", "progress", "homophobia", "classism", "sexism", etc. - now practically ad infinitum.

They are also euphemisms. They are designed not to be taken as definitions, their meaning is as broad as the politics of the day requires. They are designed, however, to be taken very seriously; refusal to take this garbage seriously, mocking it, would be an "anti-social" act endangering your career.

Who design them? You know my opinion on these things - communists. But, the slogans are in the process of acquiring a wider usage. When they are effective in fooling people, why not to use them? "Al-Qaeda" is becoming a slogan. The whole sentences are becoming slogans that are supposed to express a certain political stand, for instance, "bring the troops home" means "we don't say the war is wrong, we just... blah, blah."

What seems to me very amazing is the speed with which the population "internalised" the trick and started using it expertly. Although, euphemisms were used for centuries, mainly by the polished society (there is even a book about it), but probably not for such brutal coercion. Some slogans now are a lie in itself, such as "social justice" which is clearly the opposite of justice, since justice is, of course, supposed to be blind to the social status.

[adhoc]

social justice camp

I hate this word.

Which word?

[beacon1]

social justice camp

I hate this word.

Which word?

All three - especially when linked together.

[grad_geek]

To answer the OP: my SO has been a mechanical engineer for over twenty years, and he insists that he is one of the few engineers of any stripe to be even a little liberal...He indicates that his work colleagues are profoundly conservative and that some of them cross over into serious homophobia, racism, classism, and sexism. 

I've always had the impression that people in applied fields were more likely to be conservative, whereas people in more theory-oriented fields tended to be more liberal.  Thus, the engineers and accountants I know are pretty conservative, but the physicists and economists are liberal.

Just my impression, based on totally anecdotal "evidence."  Has anyone else seen a similar trend?

[helpful]

Some slogans now are a lie in itself, such as "social justice" which is clearly the opposite of justice, since justice is, of course, supposed to be blind to the social status.

So the fact that the prisons are populated by a disproportionate number of people from a particular minority group says what? That that minority group, whatever it may be, is inherently evil?

Look at the statistical track record of people who get the death penalty in the U.S. Now tell me that justice is blind to social status!

[anthroid]

"Social justice" is a slogan among slogans. Others are "diversity", "excellence", "change", "lack of leadership", "progress", "homophobia", "classism", "sexism", etc. - now practically ad infinitum.

They are also euphemisms. They are designed not to be taken as definitions, their meaning is as broad as the politics of the day requires. They are designed, however, to be taken very seriously; refusal to take this garbage seriously, mocking it, would be an "anti-social" act endangering your career.

Who design them? You know my opinion on these things - communists.
<snip>

You are, quite simply, wrong.  I am not a communist and neither are most Americans concerned with social justice.  Social justice has had a long history of real meaning in this country.  Social justice has to do with righting wrongs done to the majority of the population of this country--women and other historically oppressed populations denied the vote or the right to speak for ourselves or earn our own livings or not to be jailed based on assumptions (see, for example, the clear injustice proven by the Northwestern University Journalism Program's work with death row inmates--almost all of whom are African American, and many of whom have been exonerated.  That work, and that result, is social justice.  It appears that the communists to whom you refer acted in opposite ways in your country).

Your sweeping generalizations negate all of your arguments.  You appear to have a tiny data set from which you are drawing all of your conclusions.

[beacon1]

You are, quite simply, wrong.  I am not a communist and neither are most Americans concerned with social justice.  Social justice has had a long history of real meaning in this country.  Social justice has to do with righting wrongs done to the majority of the population of this country--women and other historically oppressed populations denied the vote or the right to speak for ourselves or earn our own livings or not to be jailed based on assumptions (see, for example, the clear injustice proven by the Northwestern University Journalism Program's work with death row inmates--almost all of whom are African American, and many of whom have been exonerated.  That work, and that result, is social justice.  It appears that the communists to whom you refer acted in opposite ways in your country).

I think the term used from Lenin was "useful idiots". The problem with the term "social injustice", like Pyshnov stated, is a euphemism that rarely gets at what it says it does. He states that using terms like that have a more sinister goal at its root. It is a "feel good" word that everyone wants to be a part of (especially academics). After all, who isn't for justice especially social justice. What the word does is draw a rift is society. It gives folks something to be upset about... how can we tolerate social injustice. This gives the state the opportunity to eventually seize power of the situation to "cure" the so called problem.

The example of black males in prison makes for a good one. Of course some of those men are there for the wrong reasons. Some committed severe crimes. Then someone injects the word "social injustice". This not only has the effect of targeting the person or cause of real injustice (the person wrongly accused) but also has overreaching effects. It makes people believe that a revolution needs to occur to fix a problem rather than just address the injustice. After a short while, dissention is not allowed on this topic. Then the state steps in to right the wrong (exerting more authority, taking control). What the revolutionaries don't understand is that the revolution will eventually turned on them once the state controls things. This is why they are termed "useful idiots".

I am not great at explaining communist thought and I know it sounds like a conspiracy theory. But ask the question, "Why is it SOCIAL injustice and not just injustice. After all, we are social creatures, does that really need to be said? It is because it aims to get at something different than just injustice. It is a term that many use with out actually dissecting what it means.