<p>Having lived in Berkeley most of my adult life, I didn’t meet many professors who would self-identify as radical, even if they were. </p>
<p>In politics I think that everything is relative. In Berkeley I was considered a moderate; in Indiana I am a Socialist. My beliefs did not change, but where I sit on the political spectrum relative to my neighbors did.</p>
<p>Social constructionism (or constructivism) is a popular intellectual approach. It’s not dogmatism. It basically says (well, it says lots of things, which is why it is so interesting) that our social perceptions are a matter of our social experiences. It’s been around since the 60’s, at least. And, the philosophies that led to this sort of academic thought process run back to the 1800’s, at least.</p>
<p>What conservatives sometimes mistake as liberal dogma is a prof’s attempt to reason, not blindly accept. Or not, as I tell my kids, to fall into, “I think it, so it must be true.” Or “my neighborhood, town, church, ethnic group, political group, etc, believes this, so it must be true and right.” Or, “I experienced this, so it must be universal.”</p>
<p>There’ve been a lot of op-ed pieces on the report, but I just skimmed it for the first time. It looks to be a review piece of already existing papers and studies, which in my opinion (not worth much, I’ve got no training in history or sociology) aren’t really rigorous. The authors sometimes cite specific studies, but often use phrases like “studies show” or “in study after study”, etc. etc., without any citations to the conclusions that follow these pronouncements. Some of the referenced studies specifically study UC undergrads, but many more studied a nationwide cohort of college students, or the general population. </p>
<p>It’s an indictment of the state of education in the nation as a whole, yet the report is supposed to be about “the corrupting effect of political activism in the University of California.” The authors could probably swap out disturbing anecdotes and do something similar for other large groupings of schools.</p>
<p>It is no surprise that conservatives see academia as left wing, given how conservatives themselves seem to be doing quite a bit to alienate academia like:</p>
<ul>
<li>Promoting creationism or “intelligent design” in biology (as opposed to devotional theology) classes.</li>
<li>Bashing educated people and evidence of education (e.g. Jon Huntsman’s ability to speak Mandarin Chinese) as “elitist” or otherwise undesirable.</li>
<li>Dogmatic opposition to even the possibility of climate change or human involvement in such.</li>
</ul>
<p>On the other hand, there are reasons why academia would be more left leaning on both the social and economic dimensions even without the above actions by conservatives.</p>
<p>On the social scale:</p>
<ul>
<li>Many universities bring people together from different backgrounds (cultural, religious, etc.), so the interaction that results may reduce the dogmatic right-or-wrong ideas about other cultural, religious, etc. viewpoints, or reduce prejudices regarding things like race or sexual orientation.</li>
<li>The study of social sciences often requires a more detached, non-judgemental viewpoint of the social phenomena being studied (e.g. some of the things described in Freakonomics like the economics of prostitution).</li>
</ul>
<p>On the economic scale:</p>
<ul>
<li>Public universities receive a lot of money from the government to operate, so naturally their faculty and other employees have self interest in government involvement here.</li>
<li>Public and private research universities receive a lot of money from the government in research funding.</li>
<li>Public and private universities benefit from students getting government financial aid and loans to pay tuition and other costs.</li>
</ul>
<p>“Some of the referenced studies specifically study UC undergrads”</p>
<p>By the time I graduated from Cal, the biggest group on campus was Young Republicans; there were Ronald Reagan banners flying high at frat row, and most of the students were willing to sell their souls to get into business school or Boalt Law. Ah, it was such a radical place…</p>
<p>I’m wondering if comparing an education & professors that one experienced in their 20’s to the education received twenty years later, if it was really the setting & instruction had changed, or was it the way the receiver perceives it?</p>
<p>@emeraldkity4: That’s a good point. I think it was likely a bit of both. I know that during my undergraduate years I never had a professor whose political orientation was discernible in the classroom. Twenty (oK, 20+) years later I knew each professor’s political leanings and affiliations by the end of the second class period.</p>
<p>Hold the ranks, my Cc lefty friends. Hold the ranks!</p>
<p>Those damn liberal academics! Always trying to prove they’re smarter than everybody:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But oh wait…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Do</a> Liberals, Atheists Have Higher IQs? - BusinessWeek](<a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/636619.html)</p>
<p>Whether or not anyone is more ‘intelligent’ (if you believe that intelligence can even be measured), you still have a problem of methodology. People who routinely inject their beliefs and assumptions about how the world works into their research and rely on these assumptions to frame their argument with no empirical proof are simply bad academics. It sounds to me like what the study is saying is that liberals are more likely to be lousy methodologists – regardless of who is “smarter.”</p>
<p>I have looked in vain for the cite this morning but I can’t find it, but awhile ago I came across a (legitimate academic) study which looked at what International Relations professors believe about foreign policy. What was striking was the huge number of academics who agreed with a series of statements that included the ideas that there is nothing special about the United States, or that the United States has something to apologize for. I’d prefer that the person who teaches my child not start out with the assumption that the US has done something wrong in the world or that US foreign policy should be predicated on apologizing to our neighbors. It’s perfectly legitimate to ask a series of questions in class about the role of the US in the international system – but these questions need to be asked in a neutral, not in a partisan fashion. And the professor should not assume that all students agree with his assumptions or seek to impose those assumptions on others. Regardless of anyone’s IQ, that’s just not smart!</p>
<p>Oh noes, academics are tolerant, open-minded and scientific. Whatever shall we do? There are professors who call themselves Marxist - quick, fire them all for being un-American commie traitors! Social justice is a code-word for commie dictatorships! Women’s studies is a front for feminist man-hating! A course on the American West talks about ethnicity and the environment - obviously that means it’s corrupted by liberal trash!</p>
<p>Thanks, CASmom. I needed a good laugh this morning before I go to work undermining the American way.</p>
<p>People who routinely inject their beliefs and assumptions about how the world works into their research and rely on these assumptions to frame their argument with no empirical proof are simply bad academics.</p>
<p>Why limit it to "academics? " We could say, bad citizens, bad voters, bad students, no? Isn’t this lack of reasoning and empirical proof common in, oh, say, an argument about whether academia is radical? “Lousy methodology” is rampant. And, unfortunatley, accepted.</p>
<p>When I was a freshman at Berkeley in 1985 I had classes both from Todd Gitlin (sociology) and Vincent Sarich (anthropology). Each could be considered a radical in their own way, but likely don’t sit on the same side of the fence on most topics. They are or were controversial luminaries in their fields and they got everyone thinking for themselves - agree or not.</p>
<p>This ‘study’ must be what one of our current presidential candidated was referencing when he said that he read the other day the they don’t teach American history in 6 or 7 UCs. “It’s not even available to be taught” is how he put it. That’s one for a resounding, Amy Poehler “REALLY?”</p>
<p>I’m going to put together an incendiary report revealing that the faculty at Liberty University tilts to the right.</p>
<p>If you wanted to generate something interesting, you’d study the faculty at, say, the University of Alabama to see where they fell politically.</p>
<p>^ and back it up by checking to see which few donated to which political candidates or causes- and whether they are dog or cat people. Because, studies show…</p>
<p>Btw, every time I hear the “studies show” or “9 out of 10 dentists prefer Crest,” I ask myself, prefer it over what? Dirt? Comet cleanser?</p>
<p>@ Polarscribe: You’re welcome. That was clearly my objective in posting the report, which you obviously didn’t read. </p>
<p>@Wildwood: Seriously? Your response is that conservatives must be less intelligent? Just for the record, since you prefer attacking me to reading the article, I consider myself to be socially liberal, fiscally conservative, an atheist and have an IQ in the 140’s. Sorry if that spoils your theory. </p>
<p>I had no subversive agenda in posting the link to the article. I truly found it interesting and wanted to share it with the forum. I haven’t posted on CC since my daughter graduated in 2010. I guess the tone of discourse here has degraded as much as it has in the country in general. How sad.</p>
<p>*
@emeraldkity4: That’s a good point. I think it was likely a bit of both. I know that during my undergraduate years I never had a professor whose political orientation was discernible in the classroom. Twenty (oK, 20+) years later I knew each professor’s political leanings and affiliations by the end of the second class period.*</p>
<p>I’m not saying your perceptions about the profs are inaccurate, although I find that showing political beliefs seems to vary with dept. & age of prof, but couldn’t it be that you now are noticing smaller details about the class & teaching style that indicate to you their political leanings & those things are just going over the heads of the younger students?</p>
<p>I’ve taken some courses over the last few years, & while I am politically progressive (but economically more conservative), truthfully I had only a handful of courses where it was really obvious what the political background of the prof was, and in the main instance, I had taken three courses from him as well as participated in outside projects so I spent more time with him than most. His field -anthropology also gives more opportunities to expound on interests that could be construed as "liberal, than for instance my geology or chem profs.</p>
<p>I don’t mind taking courses from those with a different political background than I. As long as they know their subject & do a good job running the class. I have had several classes from profs who I would consider to be libertarian, but again most of them I really don’t have much idea how they would stand on different political issues because that wasn’t what the class was about.</p>
<p>
How right you are. We need some more high-IQ conservatives to raise the tone.</p>
<p>No, CASmom, obviously you didn’t read the report, because each example I mocked came directly from the report’s silliness.</p>
<p>Yes, the report actually criticized a class on the history of the American West for including “ethnicity and the environment” in the course description. As if somehow those two critical issues had nothing to do with the development of the American West - when they had EVERYTHING to do with it, beginning from when we fought a war of conquest against Mexico to even make the West, American. Chinese laborers built the Transcontinental Railroad, resource extraction was key to the development and population of the Western states (hello, Gold Rush) and the modern environmental movement was effectively founded in California by some dude you might have heard of by the name of John Muir. Those pieces are absolutely integral to the story of the American West.</p>
<p>I took an upper-division course on the history of the American West at a flagship university in a state that is decidedly not liberal, and it pretty much covered… ethnicity and the environment.</p>
<p>
The report blames the countrys tone of discourse on the radical professors (p. 71): Under the influence of a politicized academy, national political life becomes more bitter and divisive, not less.</p>
<p>Also note that, according to the report (at p. 47), the U.S. is dwarfed in population size by many other countries.
This assertion does indeed reflect a crisis of competence.</p>