<p>
[quote]
Numerous surveys have found that professors, especially those in some disciplines, are to the left of the general public. But those same -- and other -- surveys have rarely found evidence that left-leaning academics discriminate on the basis of politics. So to many academics, the question of ideological bias is not a big deal. Investment bankers may lean to the right, but that doesn't mean they don't provide good service (or as best the economy will permit) to clients of all political stripes, the argument goes.</p>
<p>And professors should be assumed to have the same professionalism.
A new study, however, challenges that assumption -- at least in the field of social psychology. The study isn't due to be published until next month (in Perspectives on Psychological Science), and the authors and others are noting limitations to the study. But its findings of bias by social psychologists (even if just a decent-sized minority of them) are already getting considerable buzz in conservative circles. Just over 37 percent of those surveyed said that, given equally qualified candidates for a job, they would support the hiring of a liberal candidate over a conservative candidate. Smaller percentages agreed that a "conservative perspective" would negatively influence their odds of supporting a paper for inclusion in a journal or a proposal for a grant. (The final version of the paper is not yet available, but an early version may be found on the website of the Social Science Research Network.)
<p>We are probably in dangerous “political” territory here. (There are multiple studies on the relationship between political orientation and IQ…:))</p>
<p>In a class on the Soviet Union, I knew the professor; he was young and we had friends in common. One of my classmates was a party-line Marxist from India. To any question, he’d recite the Communist Party answer. To note, back then the Indian Communists were e–essentially unrevised Stalinists. </p>
<p>The professor confided to me late in the term that he had no idea how to grade this guy. His exams and papers were exactly like what he said in class: absolute party-line Stalinism. He was torn: the answers were nonsense but they were argued sincerely. </p>
<p>I’ve had talks over the years with teachers at a number of levels who now have to deal with creationism. Some elementary school teachers have told me parents have objected to science lessons that talk about things like dinosaurs existing a very long time ago. High school teachers have said arguments break out about evolution - and the text books which are used here. Funny thing is the teachers, while generally horrified, are much more open-minded than the students (and teachers); they’ll say if a person wants to believe in that, then fine but they also have to learn how the rest of the world thinks. The elementary school teachers have been blunt: teach what you want at home. </p>
<p>BTW, I don’t expect this thread to last long.</p>
<p>I think it is an interesting discussion because political views can be discussed rationally with intelligent reasoning backing it up, or they can go over the top with emotions and defensive hysteria.</p>
<p>It seems as if the public franchise is very hot on venting on the Louisiana charter schools. I guess the talking points have gone out and the army is deployed. The subtext, of course, is that charters are for illiterate bible freaks in Louisiana and therefore you’re stupid (and even worse – like someone from Louisiana!) if you support charters.</p>
<p>This also means that discussing politics that are directly relevant to higher education is accepted on College Confidential. The rules for courtesy are still applicable. </p>
<p>So can somebody explain to me how the definition of being fiscally conservative switched and the definition became those in favor of the redistribution of wealth from the masses to the few are now fiscally conservative?</p>
<p>Is this taught in school?
Ok…I am editing my post.</p>
<p>The funny thing is this is taught in school. This is taught in many of our leading institutions by esteemed professors that are paid by private interests.</p>
<p>Perhaps because intellectual curiosity is sadly lacking in many conservatives they tend not to go into academia, thus, a preponderance of liberal thinkers in universities.</p>
<p>I’m taking bets on whether this thread will morph into a heated debate about circumcision, which was the topic of the thread that closed down the politics subforum.</p>
<p>It seems as if the public franchise is very hot on venting on the Louisiana charter schools. I guess the talking points have gone out and the army is deployed. The subtext, of course, is that charters are for illiterate bible freaks in Louisiana and therefore you’re stupid (and even worse – like someone from Louisiana!) if you support charters.</p>
<p>Sewhappy, are you disputing the list of what’s being taught in LA’s charter schools?</p>
<p>I think what is being taught with taxpayer funds in Louisiana charters is directly relevant to higher education. If that which is being taught (as listed in the now-banished Mother Jones link) is the background that students have when they enter college, the character of collegiate education, and of free inquiry will change substantially.</p>
<p>EmilyB – I am glad Louisiana kids and their families are not locked into Louisiana public schools without a choice. </p>
<p>I think opponents of charters are plumbing religious elements in Louisiana charters to get some traction in their efforts to bring down the movement – and mostly for self-serving reasons, btw. </p>
<p>Yeah, I’m kind of cynical.</p>
<p>Regarding the OP’s post, I will say our kid had a number of conservative or at least balanced professors at Harvard, a surprising number, actually. The more prominent professors he was able to study under were largely conservative or at least nuanced in their thinking. </p>
<p>My DH was a tenured professor at a large state flagship. There was a lot of liberal rhetoric at department meetings and pervading the publishing but often socially the faculty turned out to be quite conservative.</p>
<p>"EmilyB – I am glad Louisiana kids and their families are not locked into Louisiana public schools without a choice.</p>
<p>I think opponents of charters are plumbing religious elements in Louisiana charters to get some traction in their efforts to bring down the movement – and mostly for self-serving reasons, btw."</p>
<p>So, the list of things being taught is in fact accurate then. Thanks.</p>
<p>'I think what is being taught with taxpayer funds in Louisiana charters is directly relevant to higher education. If that which is being taught (as listed in the now-banished Mother Jones link) is the background that students have when they enter college, the character of collegiate education, and of free inquiry will change substantially." </p>
<p>I don’t see how they make it out of 100 level college classes if that is what they are being taught, unless they stick to Bob Jones Uni.</p>
<p>If conservatives want to have a say in the university system, let them work their butts off in undergrad, compete for the few spots in good grad schools, work their butts off again getting their PhDs, and then accept a job that pays less than a good administrative assistant’s. Then let them publish or perish. </p>
<p>This is why there aren’t many conservatives in higher education. They prefer to get MBAs or law degrees and run the world their way through the misuse of banks and manipulation of law that benefits them, not the rest of us.</p>
<p>Were Bernie Madoff and Michael Milken conservatives? I don’t know.</p>
<p>My conservative offsprings’ political views seem to have been unaffected by their liberal professors and high school teachers. They did take sociology classes, and I did worry about them being graded fairly, but no one will ever know the answer to that. My son wrote a high school paper titled “No to Socialism,” and got a B. I thought it was a pretty well-researched and reasoned paper.</p>
<p>Ultimately, it comes down to openness and free inquiry. What passes for American conservatives today simply refuse to consider changing realities and new understandings. </p>
<p>See the desperate rear-guard action being fought against same-sex marriage, in the face of an overwhelming pile of evidence that it has no negative impacts and that, in fact, every argument proffered against it is a bigoted stream of hatred. The evidence doesn’t matter to them - the Bible says so and that’s that. Same with climate change - a massive and growing body of evidence suggests that human activity is contributing to the warming trend, yet many conservatives remain in denial.</p>
<p>It’s not “bias” for a scientific person to consider those who ignore scientific evidence in favor of hoary old stereotypes or corporate-friendly wishful thinking to be, well, ignorant.</p>