Academia is Far to the Left of the Electorate

[mahagonny]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

[Sun_Worshiper]

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.

[Ruralguy]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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?

[Sun_Worshiper]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

[Parasaurolophus]

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.

[Sun_Worshiper]

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.

[dismalist]

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').

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.

[Parasaurolophus]

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').

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.

[dismalist]

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').

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.

[Parasaurolophus]

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.

[dismalist]

Yet again an illustration of my point.

Thank you.

[mahagonny]

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.