Why are most professors liberal?

[Ant]

You can add your own thoughts... krugman shares his below... some of the stories he cites you may have missed in the past 2 weeks... like republicans trying to pass a bill that gives students the right to sue professors if they display political or religious bias in the classroom.

An Academic Question
By PAUL KRUGMAN

It's a fact, documented by two recent studies, that registered Republicans and self-proclaimed conservatives make up only a small minority of professors at elite universities. But what should we conclude from that?

Conservatives see it as compelling evidence of liberal bias in university hiring and promotion. And they say that new "academic freedom" laws will simply mitigate the effects of that bias, promoting a diversity of views. But a closer look both at the universities and at the motives of those who would police them suggests a quite different story.

Claims that liberal bias keeps conservatives off college faculties almost always focus on the humanities and social sciences, where judgments about what constitutes good scholarship can seem subjective to an outsider. But studies that find registered Republicans in the minority at elite universities show that Republicans are almost as rare in hard sciences like physics and in engineering departments as in softer fields. Why?

One answer is self-selection - the same sort of self-selection that leads Republicans to outnumber Democrats four to one in the military. The sort of person who prefers an academic career to the private sector is likely to be somewhat more liberal than average, even in engineering.

But there's also, crucially, a values issue. In the 1970's, even Democrats like Daniel Patrick Moynihan conceded that the Republican Party was the "party of ideas." Today, even Republicans like Representative Chris Shays concede that it has become the "party of theocracy."

Consider the statements of Dennis Baxley, a Florida legislator who has sponsored a bill that - like similar bills introduced in almost a dozen states - would give students who think that their conservative views aren't respected the right to sue their professors. Mr. Baxley says that he is taking on "leftists" struggling against "mainstream society," professors who act as "dictators" and turn the classroom into a "totalitarian niche." His prime example of academic totalitarianism? When professors say that evolution is a fact.

In its April Fools' Day issue, Scientific American published a spoof editorial in which it apologized for endorsing the theory of evolution just because it's "the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time," saying that "as editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence." And it conceded that it had succumbed "to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do."

The editorial was titled "O.K., We Give Up." But it could just as well have been called "Why So Few Scientists Are Republicans These Days." Thirty years ago, attacks on science came mostly from the left; these days, they come overwhelmingly from the right, and have the backing of leading Republicans.

Scientific American may think that evolution is supported by mountains of evidence, but President Bush declares that "the jury is still out." Senator James Inhofe dismisses the vast body of research supporting the scientific consensus on climate change as a "gigantic hoax." And conservative pundits like George Will write approvingly about Michael Crichton's anti-environmentalist fantasies.

Think of the message this sends: today's Republican Party - increasingly dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research - doesn't respect science, or scholarship in general. It shouldn't be surprising that scholars have returned the favor by losing respect for the Republican Party.

Conservatives should be worried by the alienation of the universities; they should at least wonder if some of the fault lies not in the professors, but in themselves. Instead, they're seeking a Lysenkoist solution that would have politics determine courses' content.

And it wouldn't just be a matter of demanding that historians play down the role of slavery in early America, or that economists give the macroeconomic theories of Friedrich Hayek as much respect as those of John Maynard Keynes. Soon, biology professors who don't give creationism equal time with evolution and geology professors who dismiss the view that the Earth is only 6,000 years old might face lawsuits.

If it got that far, universities would probably find ways to cope - by, say, requiring that all entering students sign waivers. But political pressure will nonetheless have a chilling effect on scholarship. And that, of course, is its purpose.

[Suffice]

they're liberal cuz they're more educated, therefore they're not closed-minded. It's kinda funny when u see these liberal old farts

theres a good quote by Winston Churchill that goes something like this: "if you're young and conservative, you' have no heart; if you're old and liberal, you have no brains." I guess that kind of goes against what i just said, but it's a funny quote nonetheless

[Don Seer]

^ i think it depends upon the context you take it in..

if you take that comment as a response to criticisms then i think it stands up.


yes i believe liberalism is related to intelligence

[7even]

People fear/hate/go against things they don't understand.














I leave it at that.

[Ant]

i know its almost funny to hear conservatives admit that most professors vote democrat and then try to complain that this is "proof that colleges are biased." 

David Brooks in todays NYT tried to argue that the republican party is the party of philosophy lol and that most liberals don't even read philosophy.... lol these people live in amazing denial... the fact that most people with a PH D vote democrat says a lot more negative things about the republican party than it does about academia......

lol at first glance almost anyone would say... 'hey if our nations educators overwhelmingly dislike bush then maybe there is a problem with bush' but in conserviworld lol where introspection is never an option it means the problem exists on the outside... republicans spent the last four years blaming the other guy for their fuck ups and i assume they will spend the next four doing the same thing.  one day when modern  repubilcans learn to look in the mirror they might be able to fix their party until then the american republican will remain a global laughing stock.

and morons like cwalker, woodrow, and trauma will run around bragging about being a member of the winning team, but never with anything to show for their victory.

[Sikotic™]

Liberals are not as closed minded as conservatives. If professors were conservatives, our ideas would all be very similar.

[Trauma-san]

It's undeniable that most professors are liberal, and I have my own ideas why.  You won't agree, but it's the truth, as I see it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liberals typically have the pie in the sky idea that they can save the world, and that they can MAKE A CHANGE! and things like that, they are more worried about the thought behind the process, instead of whether or not the process works.  You see this all through congress, they don't care if a program is WORKING or not, they just care whether or not they're doing SOMETHING, even if it doesn't work.

Anyways, there's a certain pretentiousness in that, and I'm not trying to down them, or say conservatives are more intelligent, or anything, because it's many times the exact opposite. 

The reason many professors are liberal, is because it takes a more liberal mindset to even WANT to teach people. 

On the other hand, a conservative would be more likely to only worry about his family, and have a 'can't save 'em all' attitude, whether you agree with it or not.  That's just the way it works.  Liberals are more 'dreamers', conservatives are more realists who don't take as many chances, in every conceivable definition of the word.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This also explains why most musicians, artists, actors, etc. are liberal.  Why? ... because a liberal would be more apt to think "Yeah! I can start a rock band and get famous!"

a conservative would say "Man, there's thousands of musicians that don't make it for every one that does; even if I'm BETTER than them, there's more variables involved, and I'd probably just end up broke... the safer bet is to get a good job, and not throw my life and career onto the streets while I try to find work as an actor/musician/whatever my dream is"

There ya have it.  Hate me if you want, call me an idiot if you want, but deep down you know I'm 100% correct. 

[7even]

^^ That's also right, but of course not the entire thing in it.

[Sikotic™]

That's true, but if it wasn't for that "make a change" frame of mind, we would still be stuck in the middle ages.

[Machiavelli]

Liberals are more Intelligent but Conservatives are 'smarter' and have more common sense IMO.

Like Trauma said, Liberals are more concernced about the details and what is gunna be the best way to do something while Conservatives just want to keep it simple and make it done correctly...

[Trauma-san]

That's true, but if it wasn't for that "make a change" frame of mind, we would still be stuck in the middle ages.

Of course.  It takes all kinds of people to make the world go around.  If EVERYBODY had fantasies about being famous, or ending world hunger, and shit like that, nothing would get done, though.  You need a balance of both.  I like art.  I like music.  I like movies.  I like teachers.  I'm not downing any of that, I'm just saying that's what it is.

As for the intelligence thing, true intellect is subtle and unstated.  When someone "thinks" they're smart enough to teach children, watch out.  When someone "thinks" they're smart enough to change the world, watch out. 

When you realize exactly how foolish and naieve, and pretentious you are, that's when you REALLY start to learn and aquire knowledge, that's my experience. 

Oh, and in case there's ANY doubt, it's absolutely ridiculous, and a sign of closed mindedness Overseer, to state that intelligence and liberalism are related.  Are you honestly so full of shit that you believe that?  The intelligence manifests itself differently, it's not at all, in any shape or form correlated with political leanings.

I consider myself intelligent, vastly more intelligent than you, and when I was a college student, I was very liberal.  I didn't believe in God; I didn't agree with hardly any conservative ideals, I voted for Bill Clinton.  As I grew older, and learned more about the world, I became more conservative, it's just how I lean, it has nothing to do with intellect.  An intelligent liberal might go on to be a famous writer, or a journalist, or a scientist.  An intelligent conservative might be named Bill Gates. 

Pretentious, look it up.

[Don Seer]

That's true, but if it wasn't for that "make a change" frame of mind, we would still be stuck in the middle ages.

Of course.  It takes all kinds of people to make the world go around.  If EVERYBODY had fantasies about being famous, or ending world hunger, and shit like that, nothing would get done, though.  You need a balance of both.  I like art.  I like music.  I like movies.  I like teachers.  I'm not downing any of that, I'm just saying that's what it is.

As for the intelligence thing, true intellect is subtle and unstated.  When someone "thinks" they're smart enough to teach children, watch out.  When someone "thinks" they're smart enough to change the world, watch out. 

When you realize exactly how foolish and naieve, and pretentious you are, that's when you REALLY start to learn and aquire knowledge, that's my experience. 

Oh, and in case there's ANY doubt, it's absolutely ridiculous, and a sign of closed mindedness Overseer, to state that intelligence and liberalism are related.  Are you honestly so full of shit that you believe that?  The intelligence manifests itself differently, it's not at all, in any shape or form correlated with political leanings.

I consider myself intelligent, vastly more intelligent than you, and when I was a college student, I was very liberal.  I didn't believe in God; I didn't agree with hardly any conservative ideals, I voted for Bill Clinton.  As I grew older, and learned more about the world, I became more conservative, it's just how I lean, it has nothing to do with intellect.  An intelligent liberal might go on to be a famous writer, or a journalist, or a scientist.  An intelligent conservative might be named Bill Gates. 

Pretentious, look it up.

LOL you fool.. you fell into the trap.. knew someone would.

just becuase you THINK you're intelligent doesnt mean you are.

You're the pretentious one I never proclaimed my own intelligence. (which makes you liar too!) yet you just did! hypocrite.. theres a word for you!

Take your holier than thou attitude and go live with infnite.. you're two sides of the same coin, blind to your own ignorance and overly self-important.

i know my own limits and i know my strengths. its a strength to  know when things are beyond ones own limits.
sounds crazy? i work with a bunch of people of similar technical ability to myself.
BUT.. due to inflated ego's they waste project time as they won't admit when they're stuck or wrong
they'll sit hiding the fact they're stuck as they don't want to appear "stupid".

therefore I get the kudos.. because when I get stuck... I will use the resources (people, or whatever) around me
to get past that block and maintain progress.. thats pragmatism triumphing over pretentiousness.
and in the end i'm past the gate first.. that makes me reliable and dependable.

its about getting the job done. not about fronting over who's got the bigger brain, dick whatever..

almost typical tortoise and hare type shit. being aloof and selfish won't help you in the end.

[Ant]

In every argument one side has to declare to the other side that they know more.  The losing side is typically the first to call the other a 'know-it-all' and then at the same time proclaim they are just that.   If I'm not being entirely clear there is a common psychological tendency for people on the losing side of an argument to lash out at the other side for being arrogant.  As if calling osmeone an arrogant know it all disproves an argument - it doesn't. But that is pretty much what most of Trauma's arguments boil down to.  When he has nothing better to say he runs around calling the other side arrogant...

Then time and time again Trauma makes assertions that can easily be picked apart by an astute observer, and when they are he just runs away with his tail behind his legs, and pretends like they never happened.    Case in point..... the claim that intelligent liberals might be "writers, or scientists" while intelligent conservatives might be highly successful businessmen.  Sure I don't doubt that there are many successful liberal scientists and jounralists - altho I would question the apparent lack of conservative scientists - but an intelligent liberal might also turn out to be Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, Lee IaCocca, or George Soros. 

If you want evidence of intelligence or lack thereof look at an individuals life accomplishments...  If Trauma was intelligent or "vastly more intelligent than overseer" then why is he a 30 yr old loser?  You have intelligence dig yourself out of the 20 foot deep ditch you call a life and do something interesting.. until then your claims of intelligence are meanlingless and most likely will be for the rest of your existence.

[7even]

Businessmen are often rather conservative for 2 reasons:
1) things should remain the way they are, because they wanna remain as mighty and rich as they are, which pretty much gives away a conservative attitude
2) to be up in the game, most likely you got to be an asshole, that's just the way it is lol. talking about bill gates, I think a liberal person would rather not use those barely legal tactics he always used to fuck the competition up. That's a tough claim I can't back up with anything but it is just my view of it - think about it, and if you disagree well then it's just not meant to be.

the author of the "Godfather" said something like "under every huge fortune, there's a crime behind it"
- and I sorta agree with it. most cases, definitely, sometimes not a crime by law, but at least moral.

[Don Seer]

so you'd agree with the following statement? Conservatives are more immoral.