Liberal Bias in Universities

[onthebottom]

An interesting article from the Economist:

If you loathe political debate, join the faculty of an American university

TOM WOLFE'S new novel about a young student, “I am Charlotte Simmons�, is a depressing read for any parent. Four years at an Ivy League university costs as much as a house in parts of the heartland—about $120,000 for tuition alone. But what do you get for your money? A ticket to “Animal House�.
In Mr Wolfe's fictional university the pleasures of the body take absolute precedence over the life of the mind. Students “hook up� (ie, sleep around) with indiscriminate zeal. Brainless jocks rule the roost, while impoverished nerds are reduced to ghost-writing their essays for them. The university administration is utterly indifferent to anything except the dogmas of political correctness (men and women are forced to share the same bathrooms in the name of gender equality). The Bacchanalia takes place to the soundtrack of hate-fuelled gangsta rap.
Mr Wolfe clearly exaggerates for effect (that's kinda, like, what satirists do, as one of his students might have explained). But on one subject he is guilty of understatement: diversity. He fires off a few predictable arrows at “diversoids�—students who are chosen on the basis of their race or gender. But he fails to expose the full absurdity of the diversity industry.

Academia is simultaneously both the part of America that is most obsessed with diversity, and the least diverse part of the country. On the one hand, colleges bend over backwards to hire minority professors and recruit minority students, aided by an ever-burgeoning bureaucracy of “diversity officers�. Yet, when it comes to politics, they are not just indifferent to diversity, but downright allergic to it.

Evidence of the atypical uniformity of American universities grows by the week. The Centre for Responsive Politics notes that this year two universities—the University of California and Harvard—occupied first and second place in the list of donations to the Kerry campaign by employee groups, ahead of Time Warner, Goldman Sachs, Microsoft et al. Employees at both universities gave 19 times as much to John Kerry as to George Bush. Meanwhile, a new national survey of more than 1,000 academics by Daniel Klein, of Santa Clara University, shows that Democrats outnumber Republicans by at least seven to one in the humanities and social sciences. And things are likely to get less balanced, because younger professors are more liberal. For instance, at Berkeley and Stanford, where Democrats overall outnumber Republicans by a mere nine to one, the ratio rises above 30 to one among assistant and associate professors.

“So what�, you might say, particularly if you happen to be an American liberal academic. Yet the current situation makes a mockery of the very legal opinion that underpins the diversity fad. In 1978, Justice Lewis Powell argued that diversity is vital to a university's educational mission, to promote the atmosphere of “speculation, experiment and creation� that is essential to their identities. The more diverse the body, the more robust the exchange of ideas. Why apply that argument so rigorously to, say, sexual orientation, where you have campus groups that proudly call themselves GLBTQ (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and questioning), but ignore it when it comes to political beliefs?
This is profoundly unhealthy per se. Debating chambers are becoming echo chambers. Students hear only one side of the story on everything from abortion (good) to the rise of the West (bad). It is notable that the surveys show far more conservatives in the more rigorous disciplines such as economics than in the vaguer 1960s “ologies�. Yet, as George Will pointed out in the Washington Post this week, this monotheism is also limiting universities' ability to influence the wider intellectual culture. In John Kennedy's day, there were so many profs in Washington that it was said the waters of the Charles flowed into the Potomac. These days, academia is marginalised in the capital—unless, of course, you count all the Straussian conservative intellectuals in think-tanks who left academia because they thought it was rigged against them.

Bias in universities is hard to correct because it is usually not overt: it has to do with prejudice about which topics are worth studying and what values are worth holding. Stephen Balch, the president of the conservative National Association of Scholars, argues that university faculties suffer from the same political problems as the “small republics� described in Federalist 10: a motivated majority within the faculty finds it easy to monopolise decision-making and squeeze out minorities.

Cont....

OTB

[onthebottom]

Cont......

Ivy-clad propaganda

The question is what to do about it. The most radical solution comes from David Horowitz, a conservative provocateur: force universities to endorse an Academic Bill of Rights, guaranteeing conservatives a fairer deal. Bills modelled on this idea are working their way through Republican state legislatures, most notably Colorado's. But even some conservatives are nervous about politicians interfering in self-governing institutions.
Mr Balch prefers an appropriately Madisonian solution to his Madisonian problem: a voluntary system of checks and balances to preserve the influence of minorities and promote intellectual competition. This might include a system of proportional voting that would give dissenters on a faculty more power, or the establishment of special programmes to promote views that are under-represented by the faculties.
The likelihood of much changing in universities in the near future is slim. The Republican business elite doesn't give a fig about silly academic fads in the humanities so long as American universities remain on the cutting edge of science and technology. As for the university establishment, leftists are hardly likely to relinquish their grip on one of the few bits of America where they remain in the ascendant. And that is a tragedy not just for America's universities but also for liberal thought.



OTB

[happygrump]

Is this the same magazine that supported Kerry against Bush?

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by happygrump
Is this the same magazine that supported Kerry against Bush?

Yes, it is.

OTB

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by bbking
Haven't you gotten it yet OTB - you have to have a heart and brain to be a good Liberal. Isn't that what the GOP tells the unwashed masses of the red states about the Eastern elite and those Hollywood types. :p


bbk


You forgot to add deep pockets to afford it.

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by bbking
Haven't you gotten it yet OTB - you have to have a heart and brain to be a good Liberal. Isn't that what the GOP tells the unwashed masses of the red states about the Eastern elite and those Hollywood types. :p


bbk

I love the "heart" stuff, we'll take your money and buy your vote with it and then you'll thank us. Makes perfect sense, no really it does.

Now adress the article, or is this typical liberal elitist topic shifting.

;-) Ranger68 is my new idol

OTB

[islandboy]

Well said Onthebottom. Dogma, either liberal or conservative is simply bad. It makes is easier to convince people (including oneself) based upon 30 second sound bites that play into predispostions and ignore analysis. One problem in dealing with the fall out of this issue is that real answers require so much analysis that thinking in short cuts is somewhat inevitable. How does one then restrict sloganeeing and ensure that problems receive fair and open debate.

Perhaps, in politics you could ban all ads under a certain time limit and which did not deal with stated facts. (Imagine the uproar?) Perhaps in education, in each major there should be a required course in contrary thinking. At the University of Chicago for example, it economics faculty would have to teach one course in Harvard style Kennsion econonics - actually it does that right along to be sure its student understand those Harvard people; the harder thing would be to get the Harvard people to finally give a good course in monetarism. But you get the idea. Teaching what the other side has to say is surely a justifiable requirement of a "liberal" education.

[ocean976124]

Communism is dead, well except China, North Korea, and American Universities...

[strange1]

Originally posted by onthebottom
... A ticket to “Animal House�.
In Mr Wolfe's fictional university the pleasures of the body take absolute precedence over the life of the mind. Students “hook up� (ie, sleep around) with indiscriminate zeal. Brainless jocks rule the roost, while impoverished nerds are reduced to ghost-writing their essays for them. The university administration is utterly indifferent to anything except the dogmas of political correctness (men and women are forced to share the same bathrooms in the name of gender equality). The Bacchanalia takes place to the soundtrack of hate-fuelled gangsta rap. ..


I've got to go back to University.

On the serious side, Universities suffer from an increasingly bureaucratic system of interfaculty politics. They seem to be more focused on procedural norms instead of developing critical thinking skills. Without a specific policy valuing diverse views, administrators, like most people, will tend to hire those whose views and opinions mesh with their own.

In addition, Universities no longer fulfil the same role that they used to. It is now the accepted middle and upper class expectation that after high school, teens will automatically go to University, irregardless of their future directions, even if the teens know what they are. Modern culture places very little value on trades so youth feel that they're a failure unless they make it to University. Since modern Universities no longer have a majority of their students planning to focus on developing critical thinking skills for the love of learning, how can they be expected to live up to the expectations of the past.

BTW. it's called "Liberal Arts" for a reason.

[islandboy]

But then again, you Canadians outrigth ban hate speak without a showing in immenant danger (immediant incidentment) of violence as in the States.

[someone]

The impression I get is that American universities/colleges come in both extremes. I remember applying to some American places when I was on the job market and getting these statements of religious affirmation to fill out. Basically, they wanted to make sure you were the right religion (or at least religious). When I got those I knew to just forget about the application.

To some extent you get that in Canadian universities but it is more specific to certain disciplines. I have yet to meet anyone working in a Canadian sociology department who was not extremely left wing. Political science is almost as bad (although I have meant American political scientists who are actually Republican). Liberal arts types like English professors also tend to me left wing but I don’t mind that so much as in their case they are just personal and not professional opinions (they are not being paid for their understanding of economic and social issues). Likewise, I think it is irrelevant whether natural scientists are left or right wing as it does not relate to their professional expertise On the other had, you often (but not always) find right wing types in Business departments. At times you even get ideological types in economics but it is not nearly as bad as left wing ideological types think (they tend to claim that anything they disagree with is part of a right wing plot even). Personally, I think it is good for students to be exposed to as many ideas as possible. The problem occurs if they only get exposed to one type of thinking. Moreover, I do think that some of the left wing disciplines reward those who think like them with higher grades.

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by someone
The impression I get is that American universities/colleges come in both extremes. I remember applying to some American places when I was on the job market and getting these statements of religious affirmation to fill out. Basically, they wanted to make sure you were the right religion (or at least religious). When I got those I knew to just forget about the application.

.


Would be my bet that Christian Universities can ask that their students be religious.

[someone]

Originally posted by papasmerf
Would be my bet that Christian Universities can ask that their students be religious.

Fortunately that type of instiution is far less common in Canada.

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by someone
Fortunately that type of instiution is far less common in Canada.


Can't see how that is fortunate. After all isn't is about choice?

[someone]

Originally posted by papasmerf
Can't see how that is fortunate. After all isn't is about choice?
Universities have two functions. The main one is to expand knowledge through research. The search for truth as nothing to do with religious superstition (or “belief�, if you find “belief� less offensive than “superstition�). The second function is dissemination of knowledge and education. Education should be about knowledge and critical thought and not “beliefs� (to use a polite word). Moreover, it should expose students to different ideas and challenge the to think about things in new ways. That will not happend if they are being taught by people who already thing the way they do.

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by someone
Universities have two functions. The main one is to expand knowledge through research. The search for truth as nothing to do with religious superstition (or “belief�, if you find “belief� less offensive than “superstition�). The second function is dissemination of knowledge and education. Education should be about knowledge and critical thought and not “beliefs� (to use a polite word). Moreover, it should expose students to different ideas and challenge the to think about things in new ways. That will not happend if they are being taught by people who already thing the way they do.


Guess it is all a matter of perspective and of course up to the individual. Unless of course you favor the elimination of a persons right to choose the education, best suited for oneself.

Of course I expect you support peoples right to go to the university of their choice and even Christian or Catholic ones if they choose.

[someone]

Originally posted by papasmerf
Guess it is all a matter of perspective and of course up to the individual. Unless of course you favor the elimination of a persons right to choose the education, best suited for oneself.

Of course I expect you support peoples right to go to the university of their choice and even Christian or Catholic ones if they choose.

As long as they are not getting my tax dollars, directly or indirectly. However, I still think it is unfortunate.

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by someone
As long as they are not getting my tax dollars, directly or indirectly. However, I still think it is unfortunate.



You do have the right to beleve that. Just as other has to disagree with you.

[Ranger68]

I'm sorry, was that an op-ed piece, or part of a smear campaign?

LOL

Nice hypocrisy there, neo-cons.
LOL

[Ranger68]

I really hope the right can keep this arrogance and anger up for another four years ... Then the Republicans will be truly insignificant, like an op-ed page article actually.

LOL

[islandboy]

There are some rather small US colleges that do not accept Federal Funds and do ask. However, they still accept all and do not condition the faculty hirings on any religous test. Why, I do not know.

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by someone
The impression I get is that American universities/colleges come in both extremes. I remember applying to some American places when I was on the job market and getting these statements of religious affirmation to fill out. Basically, they wanted to make sure you were the right religion (or at least religious). When I got those I knew to just forget about the application.

....

If this happened to you in the job market you could have made a tidy sum from our litigious society in court, if you applied to a religious private University that is another matter.

OTB

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by someone
Universities have two functions. The main one is to expand knowledge through research. The search for truth as nothing to do with religious superstition (or “belief�, if you find “belief� less offensive than “superstition�). The second function is dissemination of knowledge and education. Education should be about knowledge and critical thought and not “beliefs� (to use a polite word). Moreover, it should expose students to different ideas and challenge the to think about things in new ways. That will not happend if they are being taught by people who already thing the way they do.

Precisely the reason that a single belief system (Liberal politics for example) is dangerous.

I'll ignore the superstition statement.

OTB

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by someone
As long as they are not getting my tax dollars, directly or indirectly. However, I still think it is unfortunate.

My thought exactly, with Liberal dogma that is.
OTB

[happygrump]

This is one article, in one magazine, coming from a self-admitted right-wing bias. Why place any credence in it at all? Undoubtedly The Economist is a well-written and credible magazine, but - and here's the rub - just because it got accepted for publication does not automatically mean it is valid.

Besides, if there's liberal bias in American universities, so what? These are the same universities that are world renowned for producing the best, brightest and most successful students on the planet. They must be doing something right.

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by happygrump
This is one article, in one magazine, coming from a self-admitted right-wing bias. Why place any credence in it at all? Undoubtedly The Economist is a well-written and credible magazine, but - and here's the rub - just because it got accepted for publication does not automatically mean it is valid.

Besides, if there's liberal bias in American universities, so what? These are the same universities that are world renowned for producing the best, brightest and most successful students on the planet. They must be doing something right.

I don't know anyone who would disagree with the premise, if you do that's fine.

Would you come to the same conclusion in PP 2 if there were a conservative bias? I doubt it. And yes, we do have the best schools teaching the most successful students on the planet, in the PhD programs 50% of these are from outside the US. 35 of the top 50 schools in the world are in the US (so says the "right wing" "credible" Economist).

OTB

[someone]

Originally posted by happygrump
These are the same universities that are world renowned for producing the best, brightest and most successful students on the planet. They must be doing something right.

Actually, American universities come inoth extremes. Although many of the top universities in the world are American (e.g. Harvard, MIT, etc.) many of the worst are also American. K. Arrow (an American Nobel price winner) once claimed that American had both the 10 best and 10 worst universities in the world. Personally, I don’t that they have either all the 10 best or 10 worst but they are well represented in each category.

[someone]

Originally posted by onthebottom
Precisely the reason that a single belief system (Liberal politics for example) is dangerous.

I'll ignore the superstition statement.

OTB

The reason you have to ignore it is that there is no basic difference between religious beliefs and beliefs in astrology, numerology etc.

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by someone
The reason you have to ignore it is that there is no basic difference between religious beliefs and beliefs in astrology, numerology etc.


That seems like a very bigoted statement.

[red]

Originally posted by papasmerf
That seems like a very bigoted statement.

no more than a born again christian telling you that you are going to hell because you weren't born again

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by red
no more than a born again christian telling you that you are going to hell because you weren't born again


Oddly enuff I never heard that from any politicians that were not democrats, Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson.

[red]

Originally posted by papasmerf
Oddly enuff I never heard that from any politicians that were not democrats, Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson.


i never heard it from any politician- just from born again christians- they are quite happy to say it

[someone]

Originally posted by papasmerf
That seems like a very bigoted statement.

I mean no disrespect for those who belief in astrology or numerology. I apologize if I offended them :-)

More seriously, I look at it as a positive (as opposed to normative) statement. If you can provide evidence that the world was created by some mythical being snapping his fingers, I will listen when you give your Nobel lecture in Stockhom. However, I think that this is getting off the topic of the thread.

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by red
i never heard it from any politician- just from born again christians- they are quite happy to say it


You forget the Revrend Jessie Jackson and Revrend Al Sharpton??? As for a Born Again shouting hellfire and brimstone? You can walk away. But when a Unversity proclaims anything non-liberal as faulted and flawed, you are forced to stay as it will affect your grades if you leave. And forced to pay if you are a tax payer.

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by someone
I mean no disrespect for those who belief in astrology or numerology. I apologize if I offended them :-)

More seriously, I look at it as a positive (as opposed to normative) statement. If you can provide evidence that the world was created by some mythical being snapping his fingers, I will listen when you give your Nobel lecture in Stockhom. However, I think that this is getting off the topic of the thread.


We take the Creator on Faith. No reason to defend or provide proof that is best found is faith.

[happygrump]

Originally posted by papasmerf
But when a Unversity proclaims anything non-liberal as faulted and flawed, you are forced to stay as it will affect your grades if you leave.

I attended 3 Universities in Canada, and this was never my personal experience. It may, however, be different in the US.


Originally posted by papasmerf
And forced to pay if you are a tax payer.

Agreed, just like taxpayers are on the hook for all sorts of expenditures that they may not agree with. I don't have any kids, but I have to pay a hefty amount for schools in my property tax. I don't know anyone personally who lives in Quebec or Newfoundland, but I pay my share of tax that gets transferred to those provinces. I even pay for Stephen Harper's salary (*shudder*), along with every other politician in Parliament.

That's the way the system works. Deal with it.

[peteeey]

Sounds like TERB.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by onthebottom
[B]An interesting article from the Economist:

[b]In Mr Wolfe's fictional university the pleasures of the body take absolute precedence over the life of the mind. Students “hook up� (ie, sleep around) with indiscriminate zeal. Brainless jocks rule the roost,

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by someone
The reason you have to ignore it is that there is no basic difference between religious beliefs and beliefs in astrology, numerology etc.

No, I just thought it was unnecessarily offensive to characterize what a Billion people believe as superstition - I understand your point but not your methods.


FYI - http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

OTB

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by red
no more than a born again christian telling you that you are going to hell because you weren't born again

Hey, if you don't believe how much of a threat is that ;-) Oddly enough they're just trying to help.....

Kidding aside, all intolerance, including the religious sort mentioned in your post or referring to all non-believers as infidels for example, is offensive. Believe what you want to believe.

I have to say I've never been approached by anyone who's offended me with religion, and I've known many evangelical Christians.

OTB

[strange1]

Originally posted by papasmerf
We take the Creator on Faith. No reason to defend or provide proof that is best found is faith.

Exactly his point. Just because a lot of people believe in a particular faith doesn't make more or less true.

[onthebottom]

This is a great example, a thread about liberal bias in education (which the liberals see no problem with) turns into a thread about religious bias in education (which the liberals are worried about).

Amazing.

OTB

[someone]

Originally posted by onthebottom
I have to say I've never been approached by anyone who's offended me with religion, and I've known many evangelical Christians.

OTB

I guess our experiences are different. If they kept to themselves, I would have few problems with them. However, I have lived in dry countries in the American bible belt (needless to say there were also not many MPs, etc.). I am also old enough to remember bans on Sunday shopping and like activities here in Canada (Indeed, the province I live in is only now considering opening liquor stories on Sundays). I won’t even get started on problems like the middle east and Ireland as that would be a major thread.

I admit that most religious people are not that bad. Indeed one of my best friends is an observant Muslim and another is a Catholic (I know that this sounds like the people in the past who said that some of their friends were black :-)). Religious types who keep their religious beliefs to themselfs are fine with me.

[someone]

Originally posted by onthebottom
This is a great example, a thread about liberal bias in education (which the liberals see no problem with) turns into a thread about religious bias in education (which the liberals are worried about).

Amazing.
OTB

Actually, I think that it is only in the U.S. that secularism and liberalism are considered synonyms. When I was a student I went out with a girl in the Student Christian Movement (people who know me are always amazed to hear that). That was one of the most left wing groups on campus, campaigning for funds for the Sandinistas, etc. The University also had a libertarian professor who was extremely anti-religious.

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by someone
Actually, I think that it is only in the U.S. that secularism and liberalism are considered synonyms. When I was a student I went out with a girl in the Student Christian Movement (people who know me are always amazed to hear that). That was one of the most left wing groups on campus, campaigning for funds for the Sandinistas, etc. The University also had a libertarian professor who was extremely anti-religious.

Again you topic shifted, you guys are great at this.

I know many religious people who are liberals - many in my family in fact.

OTB