https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/partisan-registration-and-contributions-of-faculty-in-flagship-colleges
Discuss please.
Missing from the study, of course: adjunct faculty.
Quote from: mahagonny on February 01, 2021, 04:36:41 AM
https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/partisan-registration-and-contributions-of-faculty-in-flagship-colleges
Discuss please.
Missing from the study, of course: adjunct faculty.
It's good to know that STEM still has some ideological variation.
Interesting part about donor ratios. One thing that I've observed is that conservatives are, by nature, more independent than liberals, and so are probably less inclined to join an official organization (such as a party) and are probably also less likely to give to one.
I did a quick skim, and I while I might have missed it, I don't see any control variables. This means that education level, which is correlated to party ID and to being a professor, may be driving the results.
But, for the sake of argument, let's accept the results. They aren't really surprising and it also isn't particularly healthy for most of higher education to be of one party. The real question is why this is the case and what is the solution? My guess is that OP and those who are likeminded blame academics for being too ideological, and this may be partly true, but it is also the case that the Republican party and right wing more generally have embraced ignorance, racism*, and conspiracy theories as a political strategy, and academics are uncomfortable with this.
I'd love to see a Republican party that adopts more sane positions (there are a few on the national stage, like Ben Sasse and Mitt Romney). I think some academics would be inclined to vote for these folks - e.g. professors in b-schools.
*I know you guys hate to hear it, but this is the Southern Strategy.
More STEM folks were Reagan era Republicans or so called "Reagan Democrats."
A younger crowd supported Bush 2, McCain and Romney, but believe me, that was a smaller crowd. At least at my school, which actually leans quite conservative, went from a STEM faculty that was almost half and half when I arrived to maybe just a few percent, mostly older, Republicans or conservative leaning. A major factor in this, I believe is that some of the dept. have gone from zero women to half an half, and many are very left leaning. I don't know if that would really be a factor in academia in general. But an even bigger factor was Trump, or at least a more rapid one. I think that really drove away nearly all of the Republicans in STEM that I knew, but I was probably not knowing as many over the last few years.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on February 01, 2021, 07:13:11 AM
I did a quick skim, and I while I might have missed it, I don't see any control variables. This means that education level, which is correlated to party ID and to being a professor, may be driving the results.
But, for the sake of argument, let's accept the results. They aren't really surprising and it also isn't particularly healthy for most of higher education to be of one party. The real question is why this is the case and what is the solution? My guess is that OP and those who are likeminded blame academics for being too ideological, and this may be partly true, but it is also the case that the Republican party and right wing more generally have embraced ignorance, racism*, and conspiracy theories as a political strategy, and academics are uncomfortable with this.
So based on the breakdowns in the results, does this mean that
- STEM faculty are more racist than humanities faculty?
- Male faculty are more racist than female faculty?
- Full professors are more racist than assistants or associates?
- Professors at non-elites are more racist than professors at elites?
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 01, 2021, 07:58:27 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on February 01, 2021, 07:13:11 AM
I did a quick skim, and I while I might have missed it, I don't see any control variables. This means that education level, which is correlated to party ID and to being a professor, may be driving the results.
But, for the sake of argument, let's accept the results. They aren't really surprising and it also isn't particularly healthy for most of higher education to be of one party. The real question is why this is the case and what is the solution? My guess is that OP and those who are likeminded blame academics for being too ideological, and this may be partly true, but it is also the case that the Republican party and right wing more generally have embraced ignorance, racism*, and conspiracy theories as a political strategy, and academics are uncomfortable with this.
So based on the breakdowns in the results, does this mean that
- STEM faculty are more racist than humanities faculty?
- Male faculty are more racist than female faculty?
- Full professors are more racist than assistants or associates?
- Professors at non-elites are more racist than professors at elites?
First of all, as I said in my post, I would take this study and especially its finer points with a grain of salt, since the statistical analysis is so limited.
Second, to answer your question, I don't know why the study's results are what they are - and the study doesn't offer any insight on the mechanisms at work (not that I see anyway). I could imagine various reasons: These faculty may (on average) be more conservative and as a result vote for, and donate to, the Republican party despite its nods to racism; or maybe they are more racist on average or just not as bothered by racism; or maybe they have convinced themselves that the GOP is not racist. Without more fine grained data analysis we can't know.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on February 01, 2021, 08:15:02 AM
Second, to answer your question, I don't know why the study's results are what they are - and the study doesn't offer any insight on the mechanisms at work (not that I see anyway). I could imagine various reasons: These faculty may (on average) be more conservative and as a result vote for, and donate to, the Republican party despite its nods to racism; or maybe they are more racist on average or just not as bothered by racism; or maybe they have convinced themselves that the GOP is not racist. Without more fine grained data analysis we can't know.
Or rather, they just don't
define racism as broadly* as some people do. There are lots of terms that have very different meanings to different people, and in the absence of some sort of legislated definition, no-one has to automatically accept anyone else's.
*"Broadly" doesn't even quite get at it. For instance, some people define all kinds of behaviour by white people "racist", but also claim that the same behaviour
against white people cannot be "racist". Someone else may have a narrower definiton of what counts as racist, but one that is consistent regardless of who engages in it.
Frankly, the real surprise is that the Republican party still has a significant presence in academia at all at this point. If you somehow missed Republican hostility to the academy, to science, and to the humanities and social sciences in particular, then you've been asleep for the last twenty or more years.
If you looked at the last four years and decided you still wanted to be a Republican--hell, if you looked at the last twenty!--then I think you're either stupid or morally bad (and that's an inclusive 'or'). Now, that's just my opinion (but it happens to be correct). That doesn't mean you should be a Democrat, and it doesn't mean that there's no room for you to go off and be conservative about stuff with likeminded people. But it does mean that you should have taken a look at what was going on in the Republican party and distanced yourself from it. If you didn't, then that's squarely on you.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 01, 2021, 09:49:18 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on February 01, 2021, 08:15:02 AM
Second, to answer your question, I don't know why the study's results are what they are - and the study doesn't offer any insight on the mechanisms at work (not that I see anyway). I could imagine various reasons: These faculty may (on average) be more conservative and as a result vote for, and donate to, the Republican party despite its nods to racism; or maybe they are more racist on average or just not as bothered by racism; or maybe they have convinced themselves that the GOP is not racist. Without more fine grained data analysis we can't know.
Or rather, they just don't define racism as broadly* as some people do. There are lots of terms that have very different meanings to different people, and in the absence of some sort of legislated definition, no-one has to automatically accept anyone else's.
*"Broadly" doesn't even quite get at it. For instance, some people define all kinds of behaviour by white people "racist", but also claim that the same behaviour against white people cannot be "racist". Someone else may have a narrower definiton of what counts as racist, but one that is consistent regardless of who engages in it.
You are welcome to interpret it however you want, but since the study that OP put forward does not offer any insight on the mechanism underlying this (flimsy) statistical relationship, it is just evidence-free opining on your part.
QuoteIf you looked at the last four years and decided you still wanted to be a Republican--hell, if you looked at the last twenty!--then I think you're either stupid or morally bad (and that's an inclusive 'or').
The morally bad part is telling: Politics as religion, as a crusade.
No, we are neither saints nor devils. We merely have different interests and otherwise disagree.
Quote from: dismalist on February 01, 2021, 02:19:41 PM
QuoteIf you looked at the last four years and decided you still wanted to be a Republican--hell, if you looked at the last twenty!--then I think you're either stupid or morally bad (and that's an inclusive 'or').
The morally bad part is telling: Politics as religion, as a crusade.
No, we are neither saints nor devils. We merely have different interests and otherwise disagree.
Morality ≠ religion. And, while we're at it, moral relativism is incoherent.
I'm not sorry your feelings are hurt when I say you're a bad person.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 01, 2021, 02:38:07 PM
Quote from: dismalist on February 01, 2021, 02:19:41 PM
QuoteIf you looked at the last four years and decided you still wanted to be a Republican--hell, if you looked at the last twenty!--then I think you're either stupid or morally bad (and that's an inclusive 'or').
The morally bad part is telling: Politics as religion, as a crusade.
No, we are neither saints nor devils. We merely have different interests and otherwise disagree.
Morality ≠ religion. And, while we're at it, moral relativism is incoherent.
I'm not sorry your feelings are hurt when I say you're a bad person.
Alas, you make my point.
If you insist on doing bad things, I'm going to judge you for them. That's life, and them's the breaks. Even children are capable of understanding that from an early age. That's perfectly consistent with you mistakenly believing you're a good person doing good things. But at some point you have to wake up and smell your farts.
And just to be crystal clear: I don't think that being conservative entails you're either stupid or bad. I do think that, at this point, being a Republican does. There comes a point when good people have to stop being complicit in doing bad things, if they're going to continue to count as good people.
Yet again an illustration of my point.
Thank you.
Quote
But, for the sake of argument, let's accept the results. They aren't really surprising and it also isn't particularly healthy for most of higher education to be of one party. The real question is why this is the case and what is the solution?
Just curious, can you name one person or organization who is trying to change it? Because it seems to me the left is gloating over their victory and the right has just gone away to lick its wounds.
Quote from: mahagonny on February 01, 2021, 03:42:42 PM
Just curious, can you name one person or organization who is trying to change it? Because it seems to me the left is gloating over their victory and the right has just gone away to lick its wounds.
Can you name any gloaters?
Also, since when does crying about it as loudly as possible at every possible opportunity count as 'going away to lick your wounds'? Conservative crocodile tears about 'viewpoint diversity' (hah!) have been a mainstay of the editorial pages for
years. Remember all the Heterodox Academy hullabaloo? Remember the last decade of 'free speech on campus' BS? Remember the Harper's letter?
Among other things, follow the money. Its hard to be against Big Government when you work for a public institution or depend on federal research grants.
Quote from: mahagonny on February 01, 2021, 03:42:42 PM
Quote
But, for the sake of argument, let's accept the results. They aren't really surprising and it also isn't particularly healthy for most of higher education to be of one party. The real question is why this is the case and what is the solution?
Just curious, can you name one person or organization who is trying to change it? Because it seems to me the left is gloating over their victory and the right has just gone away to lick its wounds.
Not quite sure what you are asking here, but there are lots of conservative organizations that cater to conservative students and professors (e.g. College Republicans and NAS) and there are foundations that give money to advance conservative scholarship (e.g. Smith Richardson, Institute for Humane Studies).
The point remains, however, that the conservative party has to offer something to attract academics. Mostly they haven't done that and have instead demonized professors and attacked higher education (not to mention promoting ignorance and conspiracies).
Not sure about licking wounds or gloating either. Feel free to be specific or give examples.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on February 01, 2021, 06:06:20 PM
The point remains, however, that the conservative party has to offer something to attract academics.
That's easy. They are somebody other than the liberals.
QuoteAmong other things, follow the money. Its hard to be against Big Government when you work for a public institution or depend on federal research grants.
Makes sense. So would it follow logically that perhaps there are academics, perhaps even many, who see themselves as favoring big government of necessity while not so much on board with all of today's liberal passions and causes? Or is that not something one can live with comfortably and so not worth the trouble, therefore just fall in with the herd and don't make trouble?
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 01, 2021, 02:38:07 PM
Quote from: dismalist on February 01, 2021, 02:19:41 PM
QuoteIf you looked at the last four years and decided you still wanted to be a Republican--hell, if you looked at the last twenty!--then I think you're either stupid or morally bad (and that's an inclusive 'or').
The morally bad part is telling: Politics as religion, as a crusade.
No, we are neither saints nor devils. We merely have different interests and otherwise disagree.
Morality ≠ religion. And, while we're at it, moral relativism is incoherent.
I'm not sorry your feelings are hurt when I say you're a bad person.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean about moral relativism. But people disagreeing on something doesn't automatically mean it is because one is more virtuous and one is more evil.
I'm glad I got away from the extremely moralistic religious communities I was exposed to when I was young. Dividing everyone into "good" and "bad" may give a self-righteous glow, but it doesn't make a better society.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 01, 2021, 03:10:51 PM
If you insist on doing bad things, I'm going to judge you for them. That's life, and them's the breaks. Even children are capable of understanding that from an early age. That's perfectly consistent with you mistakenly believing you're a good person doing good things. But at some point you have to wake up and smell your farts.
And just to be crystal clear: I don't think that being conservative entails you're either stupid or bad. I do think that, at this point, being a Republican does. There comes a point when good people have to stop being complicit in doing bad things, if they're going to continue to count as good people.
Given how long it takes (decades, at least) for a new political party to form and reach sufficient popularity to be a serious contender for forming a government, this basically says that a one party state would be better than the status quo.
Through all of history, all over the globe, the evidence is pretty clear that a one party state of
any political stripe becomes a totalitarian dictatorship.
Quote from: mahagonny on February 01, 2021, 11:58:34 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on February 01, 2021, 06:06:20 PM
The point remains, however, that the conservative party has to offer something to attract academics.
That's easy. They are somebody other than the liberals.
Clearly that isn't enough, at least according to your own opening post
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on February 02, 2021, 06:40:05 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on February 01, 2021, 11:58:34 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on February 01, 2021, 06:06:20 PM
The point remains, however, that the conservative party has to offer something to attract academics.
That's easy. They are somebody other than the liberals.
Clearly that isn't enough, at least according to your own opening post
It would be enough if the interest in diversity, the mantra of nearly every school in the USA, were to be taken seriously.
QuoteCan you name any gloaters?
Yeah, Sun Worshiper and yourself.
Quote from: mahagonny on February 02, 2021, 06:46:05 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on February 02, 2021, 06:40:05 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on February 01, 2021, 11:58:34 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on February 01, 2021, 06:06:20 PM
The point remains, however, that the conservative party has to offer something to attract academics.
That's easy. They are somebody other than the liberals.
Clearly that isn't enough, at least according to your own opening post
It would be enough if the interest in diversity, the mantra of nearly every school in the USA, were to be taken seriously.
So academics should vote for things that they are opposed to in order to create ideological diversity, even in the absence of efforts by the conservative party to seek their votes? Ok, I'm sure that strategy will bring lots of academics into the fold.
Look if you actually care about why academics are more liberal and what can be done to deal with it, then you need to think both about academics themselves and about the parties that they vote for. If you just want to pointlessly criticize academia for having lots of liberals, then keep doing what you are doing.
QuoteCan you name any gloaters?
Quote from: mahagonny on February 02, 2021, 06:46:05 AM
Yeah, Sun Worshiper and yourself.
Where do you see me gloating about academics being more liberal? In my first response to this thread I said that the current situation is not healthy.
Eliminate fields in which the student has to have or affect a liberal sensibility and leaning in order to get a degree. Eliminate all fields in which the same is true for conservatives. What will you end up with? A shift to the middle.
QuoteSo academics should vote for things that they are opposed to in order to create ideological diversity,
Alternatively, they should advise their administrations to stop advertising an interest in diversity until such time as they actually have some. And get rid of the diversity and inclusion staff so they can get a real job where you actually have to accomplish something. A learning experience for them and cost savings for the institution.