Interesting Article in the Economist

College Confidential Community
1

<p>Yes, I know it's a very conservative magazine, but astute and not prone to exaggerating the facts (though sometimes their interpretation).</p>

<p>America's Left Dominated Universities
<a href="http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3446265%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3446265&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"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...</p>

<p>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."</p>

2

<p>Have you read Ellen Goodmans columm?

[quote]
Every year, conservative groups put some $20 million into campus politics and publications. While liberal students may organize against sweatshops and sneakers, conservatives organize against campus liberalism. One group led by David Horowitz has been pushing an "academic bill of rights" aimed at what is called liberal bias.</p>

<p>There is now more ammunition for the battle of the intellectual bulge. Two new studies point to campuses as oases of blue. The first, a survey of 1,000 academics, shows that there are seven Democrats for every Republican in the humanities and social sciences. A second study of voter registration records shows that Democrats outnumber Republicans 9-to-1 on the faculties of Berkeley and Stanford. ........</p>

<p>Well, let us not forget that campuses are still lacking in the old-fashioned kind of diversity. As for lopsided? Among full professors, 87 percent are white and 77 percent are male.</p>

<p>But as someone who has long argued that people tend to hire those they feel comfortable with, I get the idea. I also get the idea of ideological diversity. You can, after all, have ethnic and gender pluralism along with intellectual uniformity. The Bush Cabinet is the case study of a multicultural rainbow of political clones.</p>

<p>What is fascinating, however, is to see how the campus watchers have usurped the language of liberalism for their own. It reminds me of the arguments in favor of teaching creationism in the name of open-mindedness.

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002107730_goodman03.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002107730_goodman03.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

3

<p>I agree. </p>

<p>However, it's hardly a new phenomenom. If I recall my history correctly, many of the world's democratizing revolutions have been championed by students/academics, including the pressure that ultimately lead to the fall of Soviet Eastern Europe. For an example in today's world, the students are leading the push for liberalization of Iran. </p>

<p>Isn't academia usually centered on the politics of idealism and change? They make themselves look silly from time to time (excessive PCism, blog articles "explaining" the red states, etc.). But, academics are a pretty harmless lot.</p>

4

<p>Funny - I see them all as "right dominated". Try to find a university or college that doesn't use the market system as the basis of all economic analysis (there may be critiques of course, at the margins); that teaches about race as the fundamental basis of critical historiography - in all subjects; that systematically challenges the market as a suitable underpinning of research in the sciences.</p>

<p>The reality is that the span of most political and social conversation in the U.S., including that occurring on university campuses, is extraordinarly narrow, and well to the right of that exists throughout the rest of the world.</p>

5

<p>Countering survey after survey demonstrating a liberal bias among college faculties by saying I don't believe college faculties are liberal, therefore they aren't, is not an effective argument. Maybe if you reside somewhere over on the far left everything looks right to you. Countering the position that college faculties are not politically diverse with an argument that they aren't diverse enough in some other way does nothing to negate the original argument, either.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110005976%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110005976&lt;/a>
A Chill in the Classroom
Liberal professors routinely harass conservative students. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110005979%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110005979&lt;/a>
Meet the Newest Member of the Faculty</p>

6

<p>How come nobody ever considers the idea that maybe liberals are just better educated, better read and more intellectual people? ; }</p>

7

<p>mini - absolutely agree with you on the classical economics example! it seems like a good portion of this liberal vs conservative argument depends on one's frame of reference, though. (also, it's a bit sad the way the situation can become conveniently polarized in the mind of the public.) and i think interesteddad makes a very good point about the structure of academia today, and how it encourages new thought that challenges the norm (the very word "dissertation" pretty much embodies that!) such that academia almost inherently encourages a liberal sort of thought.</p>

8

<p>What is it about ultra conservatives and their publications like the Economist that they are so anally obsessed with publicly whining about any liberal bent in government, media, and intitutions of education and otherwise. If a professor expresses a liberal political view, it is deemed "harrassment" as if the professor is a pedophile laying his filthy hands upon the apparently weak and malleable mind of an otherwise "right-thinking" college student. If the media publishes a story about a conservative politician or public figure having done something wrong, it is the "ultra liberal press" gone awry. And they always have "survey after survey demonstrating a liberal bias" because the ultra conservatives seem to spend their every waking moment and waste tens of millions of dollars creating flawed surveys that are purposefully designed to support their views. You do not find "survey after survey demonstrating conservative bias" simply because those with a touch of liberalism think it foolish to expend the effort creating such self-righteous banter. The problem with ultra conservatives is not that they are but they insist that everybody else who professes a different view is a resident evil to be eradicated. To the ultra conservative the nation and its institutions are always in the throes of collapsing at the hands of liberals. They must awake every morning in a sweat from fear that today may be the day that liberal armagedon will occur and if they do not preach against the hated liberals there will be no stopping the tide. Psychologists should study this disease of mass insecurity to determine its roots and perhaps suggest a cure.</p>

9

<p>"How come nobody ever considers the idea that maybe liberals are just better educated, better read and more intellectual people? ; }"</p>

<p>We'll compare stats some time. :D</p>

<p>"Every year, conservative groups put some $20 million into campus politics and publications."</p>

<p>Yet every year the vast majority of the rest of the spending on education is given a liberal slant. A grossly unequal battle in both the amount of exposure and money spent. Universities do run the risk of becoming "echo chambers" that believe every thinks as they do because their views are the only ones they hear. (Just playing devil's advocate).</p>

<p>"What is it about ultra conservatives and their publications like the Economist that they are so anally obsessed with publicly whining about any liberal bent in government, media, and intitutions of education and otherwise."</p>

<p>It's just that it's all they hear (and liberals don't say the same things about Fox News? you assume what you agree with is right and any anything different needs to be challenged? aren't the impulses identical?)? Heck, I'm a moderate. I don't care as much about what views are expressed, it's the imbalance that's disturbing. I'd be just as unhappy if all the professors were like the ones at Bob Jones U.</p>

<p>mini, I have a degree in Economics and I think I understand what you say. It's even worse than you think. Even Communists in China have adopted the market system wholesale. I don't think there's anyone quite as liberal as you want short of the Cubans and they're broke. Probably because all the current alternatives to the market system have proven unmitigated failures in practice. You'll need a new basic theory of economics (and fight all the usual battles introducing it) before anyone uses a different basis for what they teach.</p>

<p>I might argue with you on the rationales for the way the other subjects are addressed. Given the current state of the balance of power in the country and our origins, being Euro/North American centric in history, etc. just means educations is a reflection of political and economic reality. Asia will get dramatically more important in this century as our population changes and China becomes our main competitor, but I'll bet Africa and South America will still get short changed. Just a guess of course. At that, the Eastern school my son has applied to barely teaches "dead white guy" history or anything else any more.</p>

<p>(Wait, the Economist is ultra conservative? Really? Boy, there's some other, really conservative stuff you should read if you think that. :D)</p>

10

<p>What is it about liberals and their publications like the New York Times that they are so anally obsessed with publicly whining about any conservative bent in government, media, and business and otherwise*?* If an old white guy expresses a conservative political view, it is deemed racist, ignorant, sexist, and uncompassionate as if the old white guy is a slave master laying his filthy <a href="and%20white!">B</a>** hands upon the apparently weak and malleable mind of an otherwise ”enlightened, diversity-loving liberal intellectual.” If "Faux" News publishes a story about a liberal politician or public figure having done something wrong, it is the*”neo-con” bent of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly at fault.* And they always have emails after emails, website after website, Hollywood celebrity after Hollywood celebrity demonstrating the stupidity of George W. Bush and anyone so hopelessly idiotic enough to cast a vote for him because the liberals seem to spend their every waking moment and waste tens of millions of dollars creating flawed arguements that are purposefully designed to support their views. You do not find emails after emails, website after website, Hollywood celebrity after Hollywood celebrity attacking liberals' character and intelligence simply because those with a touch of conservatism think it foolish to expend the effort creating such self-righteous banter. The problem with liberals is not that they are but they insist that everybody else who professes a different view is a ignorant, racist, diversity-hating redneck. To the liberal the nation and its institutions are always in the throes of regressing to a repressive right-wing christian theocracy. They must awake every morning in a sweat from fear that today may be the day that conservative armagedon will occur and if they do not preach against the hated conservatives there will be no stopping the tide. Psychologists should study this disease of mass insecurity to determine its roots and perhaps suggest a cure.</p>

<p>/cuts both ways
//just saying</p>

11

<p>Drusba--the Economist is an ultra conservative publication? My S and H, both liberal bent, love the Economist. The Economist certainly did not seem to be enthralled with Bush.</p>

12

<p>The Economist is not a conservative magazine. Some other publications (The Nation, I'm looking your way) do portray The Economist as right-leaning, but I think that's mainly because it actually makes an attempt at being impartial. But leading up to the election, there were plenty of articles that were essentially against conservative policies, fiscal, social, and otherwise. </p>

<p>I, for one, am pretty far left, and I read The Economist each week. It's great.</p>

13

<p>Schwaby, genius I say!</p>

14

<p>"I, for one, am pretty far left, and I read The Economist each week. It's great."</p>

<p>Right or left, it does offer a facinating view of how thoughtful people outside the US see us and what's happening in our world. That's a rare, valuable commodity.</p>

15

<p>*"How come nobody ever considers the idea that maybe liberals are just better educated, better read and more intellectual people? ; }" *</p>

<p>and yet so incredibly out of touch with the ... people. From the heights of hollow ivory towers, it is hard to understand what happens on the ground. Spending too much time in the rarefied air of liberal intellectualism provokes the same negative phenomena known by mountain climbers: the temporary euphoria is quickly followed by lunacy.</p>

16

<p>"If a professor expresses a liberal political view, it is deemed "harrassment" as if the professor is a pedophile laying his filthy hands upon the apparently weak and malleable mind of an otherwise "right-thinking" college student."</p>

<p>True, but pedophiles are usually not in a position to grade their victims' newly developed knowledge of the theory of sex espoused by pedophiles.</p>

17

<p>I have a different take on the liberal/conservative issue. I think it is desirable for professors to be honest about their political opinions but also to be not only open-minded but impartial in their grading and comments. In many cases, there is no absolute "truth" or possibility of incontrovertible proof. A professor of history or politics should state upfront his/her perspectives and biases and recognize them as such, but also welcome and indeed encourage opposite opinions. In fact, one of the best teaching tools may be to play devil's advocate or to require students to argue different sides of a question. A good professor is one who encourages his or her students to form their own conclusions and to present the best evidence in support of his or her arguments. Developing critical thinking should be the goal of a liberal arts education. As long as professors and students keep that in mind, it should not matter whether a professor is liberal or conservative.</p>

18

<p>"A professor of history or politics should state upfront his/her perspectives and biases and recognize them as such, but also welcome and indeed encourage opposite opinions."</p>

<p>You make good points, marite. The problem is that we'd be concerned that too much of this is unconscious, the way a fish doens't notice the water. Do you have any idea how many times we encounter people on both sides that assume anyone who doesn't automatically think they way they do is wrong, or worse, stupid? Teaching our children to think for themselves is all well and good if the environment they go into accepts truely open thinking. It's not a good thing if the attitude permiates the atmosphere so throughly that there's no room for other opinions.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong, maybe that's what all universities are like. On the other hand, it's not what we expect from practical experience or reading elitists articles on how stupid people who live in red states are.</p>

19

<p>"mini, I have a degree in Economics and I think I understand what you say. It's even worse than you think. Even Communists in China have adopted the market system wholesale. I don't think there's anyone quite as liberal as you want short of the Cubans and they're broke."</p>

<p>I think you've made an argument about power, not about economics. That the world has succumbed to a neo-liberal fatalism is obvious enough, but it has nothing to do with "eternal verities". The Pax Romana was to live forever, and the rise of Hitler was the beginning of the thousand year Reich. </p>

<p>As the C. Wayne Andreas, the former head of Archer, Daniels, Midland once said, "There is not a grain of wheat sold in a free market anywhere in the world, and won't be if I have anything to say about it."</p>

20

<p>"I think you've made an argument about power, not about economics."</p>

<p>No, I'm pretty comfortable with what I was saying. A free market is more efficient, better in most ways, than any other. No eternal verities here, just nothing comparable, certainly not planned economies. The free market does have a major weakness, that it is subject to attempts to control it. Adam Smith wrote about people like C. Wayne Andreas back in 1776. The theory assumes there needs to be a countervaling force to oppose that tendency. </p>

<p>Unfortunately, laws and regulation are all we've come up with so far, and regulation in particular is susceptible to becoming a servant of the regulated, as it did in the telecom industry where the telcos all but owned their regulators for decades and were using them to protect them from competition and change. That situtation's no different from what you describe about wheat.</p>

<p>Maybe the best attitude is the simpliest: don't trust anyone and demand accountablitly all around. That appliest to universities, too, of course.</p>

<p>What alternative were you suggesting, mini?</p>