thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Feb 10, 2004 11:54:25 GMT -5
The most important type of diversity a university can offer is diversity of thought among the faculty. If there is a cliche that is more blatently true than that one, I don't know what it is.
Diversity at Duke- perhaps one of the more conservative universitites in the US News top 25. What does diversity mean there? Well in the social sciences, where party registration is likely to have the most impact on what/how is taught, it means something like 90 Democrats for every Republican professor. Come on board libs- is there any excuse for a school in North Carolina with a large history department not having a single Republican on the faculty? What would you think about a school that had a history deparment with 32 registered Repubs and NOT ONE registered Democrat? Would you want your children to go there? Honestly?
From Frontpage.mag....
"The Duke Conservative Union announced today that it has uncovered the blatant hypocrisy of President Nannerl Keohane’s touting of “diversity” as a cardinal virtue in higher education. In a full-page advertisement in today’s Chronicle, the student-run daily of Duke University, the DCU demonstrated that many of the departments at Duke are home to mind-numbing political conformity.
By cross-referencing Duke’s departmental faculty lists with North Carolina voter registration, the DCU found, for example, that Democrats outnumber Republicans in the departments of History, Literature, Sociology, and English by 32-to-0, 11-to-0, 9-to-0, and 18-to-1 margins. Accordingly, the Duke Conservative Union has questioned President Keohane’s self-championed obsession with “intellectual diversity.” The advertisement calls on President Keohane to divulge whether she thinks such ideological conformity represents what she means by “diversity.”<br>
|
|
Z
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 409
|
Post by Z on Feb 10, 2004 12:26:27 GMT -5
i wholeheartedly agree with your basic premise that intellectual diversity is critical to any vibrant academic environment. but, as has been bandied about on the board before, i'm not sure i believe that the liberal academic establishment is proactively fencing out prospective conservative profs. isn't this really an issue of self-selection within the candidate pool?
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Feb 10, 2004 13:12:31 GMT -5
Two answers:
1. I believe there is plenty of evidence to suggest that conservatives are proactively kept out of academe. It has comes in waves of anecdotal evidence- but how else would it be registered? Hiring commmitees are not exactly going to be tricked into admiting they don't like conservatives, are they? There are countless stories of people being punished profesionally (not getting tenor, having classes removed from them, etc) who were out of the closet and many more tales of people who left academe early because the strain of being in the closet was too much. And then there is the fact that conservatives in college faculties feel that they have to be in a closet at all. I am not exactly timid about my personal politics. In a year and half of law school, I never once let my political idealogy show. I was afraid to be "that conservative" in my law school when it came to study groups, etc. Left wing opinions were floated without restraint to be sure. No conservative opinions unless highly guarded. i have no doubt that this same atmosphere pervades in social sciences among both Phd candidates and young profs- which may be driving much of the self-selecting you offer.
2. Let's assume conservatives do self-select out of academe. Since when is that an excuse the left tolerates when it comes to promoting diversity? Isn't it the responsabilty of the university to proactively seek balance of thought in the faculty, rather than just NOT proactively precluding it? It seems much more important to me than universities proactively seeking racial balance in the faculty, as surely they do. Why is this the one imbalance there is no effort to address?
Incidentally, I have been sharing this discussion with a friend of mine who got his Phd in economics from Maryland. He thought about academe but ultimately went into practice. We don't know exactly why, but it seems no stretch to deduce he may have been pushed out of academe by his experiences as a Phd candidate. His words:
"This has become a real problem in economics departments too, particularly within macro and labor fields. The only departments with a conservative core that I can think of right now are Chicago, John Hopkins, UVA, and Stanford (because of Hoover obviously). UMD was rife with liberals. I can remember the day of the 2000 election when the chair of the dept. came into the grad student coffee hour and told us all to hope that the dems would be victorious."
And that friends, in the most conservative academic field of them all. Just imagine what you are asking of a young conservative who wants to teach English or history at the college level, imagine the added effort he or she faces to get there. No wonder it is a rare one that tries.
|
|
Z
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 409
|
Post by Z on Feb 10, 2004 13:36:19 GMT -5
well again, i think ideally we would have a more representative mix in terms of partisan politics on our nation's faculties. however, i just don't buy the notion that the relevant self-selection is something borne from unspoken pressures within the academic community. i mean, have you ever met a conservative interested in sociology, much less teaching it? nevertheless, to the extent that pressure does exist, it is inapprproriate and should be addressed. i thought during my time at georgetown and at law school at nyu there was in fact a pretty wide spectrum of political viewpoints on the faculty. while my 1L faculty was pretty liberal, nearly every professor i had my third year (including none other than ken starr) was conservative (probably b/c i was taking almost exclusively corporate classes). finally, i remain unconvinced that this problem denigrates the intellectual environment to the extent you say it does, since in many instances professors never have the opportunity / never choose to inject their personal political beliefs into class discussion. and i think the issue of faculty ethnic diversity remains more of a priority due to the positive societal externalities resulting therefrom (although that's probably a topic for a different thread).
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Feb 10, 2004 13:41:44 GMT -5
Two thoughts:
1. It's "Dook"; never Duke. They don't serve that respect. Besides, that's the way people generally pronounce it: "Dooook," rather than "Dyook" :)
2. I'm a firm believer that conservatives tend to self-select out for non-discriminatory reasons: pay, potential for prestige, etc.. Academics may be recognized for their work in a particular field or area, but competition is pretty fierce - it's far easier to distinguish yourself in the private arena. And let's not overlook the disparity between a professor's salary and what his credentials could net him in the private sphere.
3. More importantly, this sounds like the basis for proposing affirmative action for conservative thought. Whether you're championing something approximating that or not, the argument that conservatives are somehow discriminated against suffers from the same challenges of proof that confront a Title VII plaintiff: there are simply too many non-invidious reasons to explain what appears to be superficially discriminatory to convince anyone that discrimination is actually the cause. I think we've seen stories of "victimized conservatives" at universities across the country who actually appeared to have brought some of their misfortune on themselves. I recognize that it may be a chicken & egg thing, in that the person's abrasive conduct may have been precipitated by some earlier example of anti-conservative bias, but that theory goes both ways. It's just too facile to say that because there's a disparity and there's anectodal evidence that some people are genuinely anti-conservative, that alone must be the principal cause.
Just my two cents, anyway.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Feb 10, 2004 14:18:26 GMT -5
Come on showcase. Duke history department: 32 Dems. 0 Republicans. All the self-selection hypotheses in the world won't excuse that.
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Feb 10, 2004 14:34:49 GMT -5
Hey, there are Dems, and there are holdover Dixiecrats. I'm living in Raleigh right now, and I know can personally think of two at least two professionals who profess to be Democrats but who are in love with all things Dubya despite the paradox one would assume to be inherent in such a stance. Moreover, the sample size is pretty small. I'm no statistician, but is 0-for-32 necessarily significant as a statistical matter? If the overall pool is 32,000, and 'Pubs self-select out generally such that they're underrepresented by 20% (i.e.: 9,600 are 'Pubs), is it so inconceivable that in any given pool of 32, there might be none? Serious question, I don't know; I just think it's not as remote a possibility as one would think - even assuming no outside factors. Moreover, the foregoing that presumes that the Dook example is emblematic of the entire sector. I bet the numbers are reversed at U of Chgo., UVa, or Pepperdine, but that wouldn't prove (or even make a strong case for) the proposition that there's systemic discrimination against Dems. Ultimately tho, isn't this an argument for AA for conservatives? Aren't 'Pubs supposed to rail against that as a matter of principle? Where's the capability for self-determination, manifest destiny, pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps, etc., etc.?
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Feb 10, 2004 14:59:14 GMT -5
You think this is a Dixiecrat glitch? Come on. If anything, Democrat is too conservative a lable for many sociology and english profs who are reg Dems in this poll. Small sample set my foot; I have provided links before for several colleges and their party representation by faculty before and what we are looking at nationwide is roughly 10:1 Dem to Republican and more than that in the elite schools. When I showed the same numbers for Brown university, it is safe to say there were no Dixiecrats hiding in those stats. This is not extraordinary, it is not a holdover from the past- it is the trend throughought the nation's elite faculties. 32 Dems to 0 Repubs is not a small sample set when you are talking about the history faculty at Duke. I am assuming that is nearly the whole department. But again, we have seem similar numbers before at probably a dozen universities- all of which I have shared on this board. I have never seen any of these statistical reports challenged for accuracy before. Never. Do you have any basis to do so? I would like to see these numbers done at Univ Chicago- which seems to be the most conservative faculty in America. I bet it is. And I will bet you dollars to donoughts that means 20% or so but not much more of the faculty are reg Repubs. But in the absence of that info, I think I have provided ample evidence of similar lack of balance before at a range of both the best and largest universities in the world. We can balance out the extremely rare Chicago with super left wing schools like Brown. But the troubling thing is schools like Duke are not known to be the extreme left wing schools- and yet there is no balance. It is the middle of the pack that is out of wack- I am not just bringing up exception schools from the left but you are countering it seems with exception schools from the right- ones that I am EXTREMELY skeptical are any where near as conservative as Duke appears to be liberal. And again, I would be stunned, STUNNED, to hear that the conservative faculty at Chicago was even 25% republican by registration. Wouldn't you? What if I can produce these numbers- and Chicago and UVA faculties are not more than half Republican? (I would bet my right arm that UVA and Chicago social sciences are at least 80% Dem or to the left, but until I find it, what is the best evidence you have to contradict mine? Do you have numbers for Republicans at any good schools? Becuase I have provided proof of left wing faculties at about a dozen on this board in the last couple of years and can promise you I was not cherry-picking just to show you the left wing schools. Again, Duke is probably one of the more conservative schools in the US News top 25. its not like I just handed you Wesleyan's faculty numbers.
To your final point...its the hypocrisy of AA that drives us nuts. I have to have some consistency here from this divisive social experiment gone awry. If I had my druthers- all forms of AA would be gone. But if you are going to support them for race in order to ensure diversity of background in admissions and faculty hiring, I am going to have to ask that you are not subsequently loading the faculty entirely to one party in this 50/50 nation. I don't think that is too much to ask.
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Feb 10, 2004 15:44:44 GMT -5
You think this is a Dixiecrat glitch? Come on. If anything, Democrat is too conservative a lable for many sociology and english profs who are reg Dems in this poll.
I think you are bringing too polarized a view of Democrat vs. Republican. I'm just pointing out that there's a LOT more to any one person's beliefs and agenda than how they registered, be it in NC, MS, or NM.
Small sample set my foot; I have provided links before for several colleges and their party representation by faculty before and what we are looking at nationwide is roughly 10:1 Dem to Republican and more than that in the elite schools.
Your foot would indeed be a small sample size. More to the point, I have little trouble finding articles that decry the imbalance based on registration figures at certain sampled universities, but have yet to see a study, here or elsewhere, that does so systematically. If you still have a link, please pass it along; seriously, I've seen a couple of studies, but I recall them being based more on anecdotal evidence, rather than a comprehensive study.
More to the point, it seems to me that it's poor methodology to say "Brown cancels out U Chgo., and Dook's not supposed to be Brown or U Chgo., so it must be representative of the middle." You and I both know that's poor logic. And, for what it's worth, down here I get the impression Dook (UNJ-Durham) DOES have a liberal rep. - it certainly gave that impression when I took a tour there a couple of years ago, just to see it.
Assuming you're correct, however, this means I can expect you to champion my effort to ensure that Dems are proportionately represented at the nation's B-schools and in the boardrooms and trading floors of Wall Street (or all those that have a nexus to interstate commerce, anyway)? Fair's fair, after all, and if we're recognizing political belief as as suspect classification...
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Feb 10, 2004 16:12:14 GMT -5
Look, while I have to put off finding a broader study than one that focuses at a select group of institutions, let me just unpack some of the issues I have with such studies by quoting from one at... studentsforacademicfreedom.org/archive/2003/Penn091203.html Note the following... Is it possible for a conservative student or doctoral candidate to take a class with a like-minded professor?
A new study released by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture suggests that it may not be.
"Most students probably graduate without ever having a class taught by a conservative professor," wrote CSPR President and well-known conservative David Horowitz in the project's executive summary.
The study -- which found that Penn's faculty members are overwhelmingly Democratic by a ratio of 12 to 1 -- surveyed the faculty and administration of 32 colleges and universities around the country. It included all of the Ivy League schools, in addition to other prominent research institutions like Stanford University and smaller colleges such as Amherst and Pomona.So, you have to admit that the study did not, apparently, opt to include any schools such as UofC that have a more conservative rep - I think we'll all agree that the Ivies and Amherst and Pomona can be counted on to break well left. Among all 32 schools surveyed, the total number of registered Democrats was 1,397, the number of registered Republicans was 134 and the number of unaffiliated professors was 1,891.I think what can fairly be concluded from this is that (as a relative matter) of the people who decided to register for one party or the other, the great majority were indeed Democratic. As an absolute matter, however, the overwhelming majority of professors at these purported bastions of liberalism did not align one way or the other. We have no knowledge about this latter group (including what percentage would vote Republican as consistently as their 'Pub-registered bretheren), so I completely disagree with Horowitz, who concludes that... the large number of liberal faculty members means that the viewpoints of conservative students never get to be heard.There's just no basis what so ever to extrapolate that conclusion from this highly selective sample, from which some disquieting but ultimately inconclusive conclusions may be drawn. Until the samples start to include some bastions of conservative thought, my response to these studies will likely be: "Dewey Defeats Truman!" [edit: d@mned smileys...]
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Feb 10, 2004 16:23:05 GMT -5
Do you really think that there is a remote chance that the history, english, sociology, poli sci departments at Chicago show 12:1 Republican prof to Dem? Is that really what you are holding out for before you will admit there is an elephant in this room? Look at the US News top 25. How many of those schools, are you willing to GUESS, can be considered "conservative bastions?" You are not claiming the Ivies as your team and trying to stick me with Bob Jones University as balance are you? The registered Dems to Repubs numbers stands on its own. Lots of people don't register parties for lots of reasons. But it would be unreasonable indeed that the unregistered professors to even break even even in the face of the staggering prediliction for Dem affiliation among those who were registered with a party. You have any reason to believe the un-registered profs are a more balanced lot than their registered collegues?
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Feb 10, 2004 17:21:26 GMT -5
And you're shocked, "SHOCKED," that the soft sciences like English, Women's Lit, etc., break heavily Democratic? All I'm asking for, ALL I HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR, is a study that doesn't confine itself to studying highly predictable groups like the Women's Lit Dep't at Penn or Brown. Yeah, you're going to find at 12:1 ratio of Dems to Pubs there. Can we now open it up to broader segments of academia to get a better sense of what's going on, or would that be politically inconvenient.
I agree that the registration numbers themselves are disquieting, but the only elephant in the room is that the "Conservatives are universally underrepresented at universities" drumbeat lacks anything approaching solid research to back its claim. The only justifiable claim is that there is a solid but INCONCLUSIVE basis to argue that conservatives APPEAR TO BE underrepresented in the faculties of many of the premier universities. You want to extrapolate beyond the facts in a way that's logically dubious, I welcome you, as always, to do so (not that you need it).
I agree there's signs of trouble, but systematic exclusion across the entire system from the premier slots? No. There's more to being a prof than being on at a university that makes the Top Tier of US News & World - if there's real discrimination there, it should be rooted out, but again, in my opinion there's only the appearance of discrimination (pending an actual, comprehensive study).
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Feb 10, 2004 17:38:54 GMT -5
As stated several times in this discussion, the social sciences are the fields where poltical ideology is most likely to manifest itself in what is and is not taught and how. I know you like to junk common sense at the begining of these discussions to try to make everything difficult in terms of conceding points, but you might have saved us both time by elimating the nonsense about how many un-registered profs at these schools were conservative when registereds break more than 10:1 Dem and just gone straight to this part where you say "well, yeah, of course the social sciance departments at good schools are full of lefties." I don't really give a damn how liberal or conservative the chemistry or physics departments are. Do I have to explain to you why?
If you have not seen a systematic analysis of left wing tendencies in college faculties, it is not becuase it has not been provided on this board. When you get surveys that give you the party registration of all profs at a dozen or more schools in social science departments- that is systematic. Ignore it if you prefer not to deal with it- but I have put such studies on this board, and you may even have found one yourself from Howorwitz. It is perfectly normal that many of the profs are not registered to any party. But it would be extraordinary if the thousand plus unregistered profs were signficantly to the right of the registered profs. In fact, I am confortable assuming that many of these profs are not registered because the Democratic party is too conservative for them.
As for "extrapolating beyond the facts in a dubious way" as you seem to think I do habitually....well now you are just being an a$$hole by tossing out un-founded personal insults.
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Feb 10, 2004 18:05:57 GMT -5
well now you are just being an a$$hole by tossing out un-founded personal insults.
Pot, meet Kettle.
you might have saved us both time by elimating the nonsense about how many un-registered profs at these schools were conservative when registereds break more than 10:1 Dem and just gone straight to this part where you say "well, yeah, of course the social sciance departments at good schools are full of lefties." I don't really give a damn how liberal or conservative the chemistry or physics departments are. Do I have to explain to you why?
I dunno; do the words "at Penn or at Brown" mean anything to you? Do the words "selective sample" mean anything to you?
More to the point, why is self-selection such an impossibility for these highly crunchy fields? I discarded self-selection before on the basis that you were making your argument about universities broadly, but if you want to confine it to a few choice fields that are traditionally relegated to liberals, that makes self-selection by conservatives all the more relevant. YOU are moving the goal-posts to suit your needs; I for one do not lump econ and the law (two areas for which you provided anectodal evidence) with "history, english, sociology, poli sci departments." If you want to make the argument about most non-hard-sciences fields, then make it and accept that the studies are not broad enough. If you want it to be about the Women's Lit departments at Brown or Cornell, then please demonstrate (again, if you believe you have already) why self-selection cannot be a possible explantion in these two very narrowly defined samples.
When you get surveys that give you the party registration of all profs at a dozen or more schools in social science departments- that is systematic.
Assuming it is for the sake of argument, you have the studies to back your presumptive corrollary contention that a professor's ideological bent will somehow infect each and every one of his students? Can't wait to see it!
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Feb 10, 2004 18:42:14 GMT -5
All of these surveys done take into account poli sci (or govt) and history. Let's just stick with those. Showcase, is poli sci a crunchy field you relegate to the left on its face? I am not going to do the research again. It was posted here before, and I believe it might be the same one you referenced re: Horowitz. Since you seem to be itching to push this into a narrow "of course all professors of lesbian narratives at Brown are liberal" adbsurdity, let's just concentrate on the two subjects any curricula has that are most open to being politicized; history and poli sci. Can you find any room to be big enough to concede that there may be many areas where conservatives could contribute to the discourse of say political theory or the history of the Cold War? Just too asburd to imagine that there might be conservative contributions to those "crunchy" fields? Again, there was nothing selective about the samples I have given. One was a comprehensive survey of profs at the University of Colorado- a massive school in a Republican leaning state. Guess what? History department numbers were just as slanted as Penn or Brown. I have provided much evidence on this issue over the years. You have not provided a single instance of a school having even 25% GOP profs in a social sciences field. I am not doing your own legwork for you. Let's see some of these hidden bastions of conservative thought. What do you have?
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Feb 10, 2004 20:08:04 GMT -5
All of these survey's done take into account poli sci (or govt) and history. Let's just stick with those. Showcase, is poli sci a crunchy field you relegate to the left on its face?
I relegate nothing beyond the obvious on its face. But the scope of what we're talking about has shifted greatly in the course of an afternoon.
I am not going to do the research again. It was posted here before, and I believe it might be the same one you referenced re: Horowitz. Since you seem to be itching to push this into a narrow "of course all professors of lesbian narratives at Brown are liberal" adbsurdity,
That's just my point, however: that the studies often suffer from the deficiency that they select absurdly narrow criteria from which to expound broad conclusions.
let's just concentrate on the two subjects any curricula has that are most open to being politicized; history and poli sci. Can you find any room to be big enough
It wasn't big enough to agree that "the registration numbers themselves are disquieting" and that "there is a solid but INCONCLUSIVE basis to argue that conservatives APPEAR TO BE underrepresented in the faculties of many of the premier universities"? Perhaps not...
to concede that there may be many areas where conservatives could contribute to the discourse of say political theory or the history of the Cold War? Just too asburd to imagine that there might be conservative contributions to those "crunchy" fields?
I never said that, nor do I espouse that. Like Z, I too firmly believe that there is much to be brough to the table from both ideological perspectives. But the idea that "conservatives have nothing to contribute" has little to do with if they are systematically excluded vs. self-selected out. Alternatively, are we so sure that the purported "conservative" contributions are not being provided by the unregistered profs or registered Dems? Not being rhetorical, but I think its an important secondary question on this issue.
Again, there was nothing selective about the samples I have given. One was a comprehensive survey of profs at the University of Colorado- a massive school in a Republican leaning state. Guess what? History department numbers were just as slanted as Penn or Brown.
I know about the Colorado-Boulder survey, and submit that UC-Boulder is not, say, Alabama or Old Miss. I also know about the UT-Austin survey, and submit that it's surprising, but it too may have that rep - seriously, I'd be interested to hear what DFW or DallasHoya have to say on that. If schools have reps, I for one am not surprised that their history or poli schi departments skew liberal, although I recognize that maybe the "reps" are created by discriminatory department heads, and if so that stinks. But why no surveys that include, say, LSU, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, UF-Gainsville, UNC, UVa, IU-Bloomington, UGa, etc.? Rather than a list of schools with conservative or liberal reps, I think of these as schools where students can (or should be able) to go to get a solid publicly-sponsored education. If the bias at Brown, Penn, etc., is present at these schools too, then I agree with you wholeheartedly that there's a real bias that systematically keeps conservatives out of university social science departments.
As I pointed out before, however, I have been unable to find comprehensive studies. The only reports I've been able to locate are the ones, like the ones you've brought to the table, that suggest bias at anywhere from one to thirty campuses. Maybe that's because the studies are perfect representations of all universities, but just maybe its that the people who are investing the most time in doing this kind or research (Horowitz and his ilk) aren't really interested in reporting findings that don't support his position? Or perhaps they are conducting surveys with generally unsurprising results (even if the actual numbers are disappointing)?
I have provided much evidence on this issue over the years. You have not provided a single instance of a school having even 25% GOP profs in a social sciences field. I am not doing your own legwork for you. Let's see some of these hidden bastions of conservative thought. What do you have?
Well, as I asked before, if you could point me to the studies you have found, it would certainly help me in the effort to find "counter-studies," so to speak. Moreover, as I freely admitted above, I've been unable to find such studies that spot "bastions of conservativism" (other than the obvious schools), but, as noted above, that may be unsurprising. I mean, on this thread we've got studies appearing to account for 34-40 schools. There are at least 50 flagship public university campuses, some of which are "good" schools, that ought to be included.
Before this goes to far, however: again, all of the above is only relevant if the postulate is that "there is rampant, nation-wide discrimination against conservatives in the social sciences." If it's JUST about the 'premier' institutions we've already discussed, I agree there appears to be a problem, but insist that at least some of it CAN be accounted for by self-selection. Ultimately, let me reiterate that any discrimination solely based on non-performance criteria is unacceptable, and my arguments are not intended to justify such a practice.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Feb 10, 2004 21:05:21 GMT -5
I don't see how the argument has shifted over the course of the day. From my first post I have been talking about social science departments, which I disagree is suspiciously selective; these are areas where political balance are most needed as in these subjects political point of view is certain to inform what is taught and what is not as well as how it is taught. I do trust that left wing physics profs keep their poltical views out of the classroom when they are talking about cosmology. You will have to pardon me if I don't trust history departments without a single registered Republican from doing the same when they are teaching about the end of the Cold War for example. I doubt you would lend so much benefit of the doubt of professionalism to a school where thee was not a single registered Dem on the history faculty. Do you really think that the faculty at a Bob Jones- assuming for arguments sake that it is a heavily conservative faculty, can educate just as well as a balanced faculty? Hell, I don't! Why would you just assume that their monolithic political bent was going to be kept out of the curriculum?
I am not purposely withholding the surveys I have previously posted here. I don't even remember which year I posted them. If I knew where they were, I would give them to you. From what I remember, they measured only social sciences departments at several top 50 schools (25-35 from memory) including several large public ones.
I understand that you you are skeptical that Horowitz selected only data that supported his conculsions. All I can say that it is enough to tick me off that almost every school on teh top 25 seems to be so infected in the social sciences. That is quite significant to me. From the begining, the particular dearth of Republicans has troubled BECAUSE it they are social sciences depts and BECAUSE these were elite schools- not DESPITE these facts.
And I certainly concede that self selection plays a role- I am just uncomfortable with left wingers who run universities accepting this self selection alone but proactively attacking problems of underrepresentation in any other realm. I am very uncomfortable with the elimination of Republicans as a meaningful presence in history, poli sci, and english departments specifically as they are subjects I love- and in east coast elite schools in particular, which are the best schools in the country and happen to be where I anticipate my children might one fday choose to attend. So even if we are just talking about eh Ivies, Duke, etc- that is enough to bother me greatly. LSU and Kansas St might be great schools- but they means little to this New Englander. I want balance, just a bit, in the wealthiest schools in the world which happen to also talk a big game about diversity and happen to populate the areas where I intend to raise my family. I don't expect the Kennedy School to go 50/50 on me- I just don't think 10-20% is too much to ask for while they are doing so much for other less important forms of diversity IMO.
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Feb 11, 2004 9:43:29 GMT -5
I don't see how the argument has shifted over the course of the day.
I dunno, 'Bin: we talked about Dook, Penn & Brown, & then UC-Boulder. We talked about law & economics, and then just social sciences faculties. Maybe I put on you the broader scope given that much of these studies purport that the discrimination they've uncovered is widespread, but I don't think the parameters of the debate have been as clearly defined throughout as they were in your first post.
...social science departments, which I disagree is suspiciously selective; these are areas where political balance are most needed as in these subjects political point of view is certain to inform what is taught and what is not as well as how it is taught.
Look, I agree that you're less likely to hear a defense of Nixon's presidency from a registered Democrat than a registered Republican. But these studies fail to note that the great majority of professors in these faculties apparently have no registered affiliation - because it couldn't be ascertained or wasn't disclosed.
You will have to pardon me if I don't trust history departments without a single registered Republican from doing the same when they are teaching about the end of the Cold War for example.
No I won't, because there's no pardon necessary. It's your belief/opinion, in which I have no say. I simply disagree with that there is a necessarily strong correllation between a professor's registered party affiliation and how (s)he teaches. I know plenty of profs who go to great lengths to ensure that their own personal biases don't figure into their teaching. On the other hand, I agree that some are far less concientious. This is my point: Registration alone sheds some (but ultimately inclusive) light on this, which is the underlying issue - and that assumes the registrations studies are conducted with a sound methodology. I simply have not found a basis to advance as far as you have on the issue of educational bias.
I doubt you would lend so much benefit of the doubt of professionalism to a school where thee was not a single registered Dem on the history faculty.
Personally, I honestly never cared how a professor voted. If I thought from first-hand experience that the prof was pushing an agenda, I avoided the prof. When I couldn't, I tended to espouse contrary views. I tend to be fairly oppositional - perhaps you've noticed.
I understand that you you are skeptical that Horowitz selected only data that supported his conculsions. All I can say that it is enough to tick me off that almost every school on teh top 25 seems to be so infected in the social sciences. That is quite significant to me. From the begining, the particular dearth of Republicans has troubled BECAUSE it they are social sciences depts and BECAUSE these were elite schools- not DESPITE these facts.
And I certainly concede that self selection plays a role- I am just uncomfortable with left wingers who run universities accepting this self selection alone but proactively attacking problems of underrepresentation in any other realm. I am very uncomfortable with the elimination of Republicans as a meaningful presence in history, poli sci, and english departments specifically as they are subjects I love- and in east coast elite schools in particular, which are the best schools in the country and happen to be where I anticipate my children might one fday choose to attend. So even if we are just talking about eh Ivies, Duke, etc- that is enough to bother me greatly. LSU and Kansas St might be great schools- but they means little to this New Englander. I want balance, just a bit, in the wealthiest schools in the world which happen to also talk a big game about diversity and happen to populate the areas where I intend to raise my family. I don't expect the Kennedy School to go 50/50 on me- I just don't think 10-20% is too much to ask for while they are doing so much for other less important forms of diversity IMO.
I appreciate that the bias that appears to exist at schools in which you have a particular interest (i.e.: elite east coast schools) is rather perturbing for you - in part for personal reasons. I simply find the numbers disquieting because I do not believe they tell the whole story, for the reasons stated above (in bold). I think this ultimately devolves into a perfectly reasonable difference of opinion over what the data indicate.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Feb 11, 2004 9:50:28 GMT -5
50 posts! I just earned my second star! Showcase, when did you assume my title of all time posts leader?
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Feb 11, 2004 10:24:03 GMT -5
I'm pushing to be the first to each new plateau - a process faciliated by the series of deadlines I have had over the past few weeks.
Nothing breeds procrastination like obligation...
|
|