Political situation

<p>Swat looks pretty good on paper for what I want, but I'm concerned about the political atmosphere there. I've heard it's just short of Berkeley as far as liberal protests and that most students and basically all the staff feel the same way politically (Democrat). I'm a conservative who loves to argue with anyone else whose position is, in my opinion, flawed. Will I be shunned by students or profs if I make it known that I'm a Republican?</p>

<p>From everything I've read on the many posts on this topic (on other forums - the Swat LJ, etc.) it wouldn't be a problem.</p>

<p>You will find no shortage of people who will be willing to argue politics with you 'til the sun comes up and everyone of last of them will be as absolutely sure they are right as you probably are!</p>

<p>My daughter said that her only complaint with Swarthmore is more heated political discussion among students than she cares to hear, mostly because it quickly becomes clear that nobody is going to change the other's mind. Sounds like she tends to stay clear of it for the most part. Of course, this was also an election year, so political debate would have been at four-year peak. Politics is so partisan these days, with both sides seemingly haven forgotten about shades of gray, that I can understand her position. Political discouse these days is pretty tedious -- merely disagreeing with a politician being reason enough to demonize him or her.</p>

<p>Here's a superb blog entry by Swat history prof. Tim Burke on the subject of liberals and conservatives in the ranks of professors:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/tburke1/perma21604.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/tburke1/perma21604.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>A couple of snippets:</p>

<p>
[quote]
2. No one is ever asked, bluntly, in the humanities what their political affiliation is at the time of hiring. The discussion of the “politics” of a candidate in history or anthropology has never, in my own experience, involved any speculation about political affiliation. If there is a conversation about “politics”, it is likely to be about much more arcane, disciplinary arguments, about what specialization or methodology a person uses. I’ve occasionally heard someone pronounce this or that methodology or form of scholarship “reactionary”, but that’s a highly mobile epithet and can be applied to almost anything, including ideas and forms of practice that are highly, intensely leftist on the general map of American political life. To ask whether someone was a “Democrat” or even a “leftist” or “liberal” (or “conservative”) in a discussion of hiring would be like confessing that you’re the village idiot—it would seem a hopelessly unsophisticated way of thinking.</p>

<ol>
<li>On the other hand, collegiality is a powerful cultural force in many colleges and universities, and its stultifying or comforting effects (take your pick) often have nothing to do with politics in any sense. A conservative or libertarian who is a mensch about his or her views and research may well be admired, even beloved, by liberal or left colleagues, and fondly regarded as valuable because of their views. On the other hand, someone like Daniel Pipes who is running around picking broad-brush fights with everyone whom he perceives as a bad academic, usually based on a paper-thin reading of their syllabi or even just the titles of their research, is going to be loathed, but as much for his behavior as his political views. A liberal or leftist who plays Stalinist Truth Squad in the same way is going to be equally loathed and avoided. I’ve seen departments where everyone treats a particular person as a “politicized” pariah even though the political views of that person are exactly the same as the general distribution in the department, and it’s entirely about strident, personally confrontational, abrasive, self-aggrandizing behavior. Now it may be that conservatives, having been sneered at, are more inclined, almost out of necessity, to go on the offensive, and create a feedback loop in the process. But the mode of action is more important than the views.

[/quote]
</li>
</ol>

<p>
[quote]
I've heard it's just short of Berkeley as far as liberal protests and that most students and basically all the staff feel the same way politically (Democrat).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The last large-scale "protest" at Swarthmore was in December 2000, when a large number of students staged a "sit-in" protest in the admissions office over the decision to discontinue football. Ironically, one of the leaders of that protest went on to become a Swarthmore adcom. I'm not sure college football qualifies as a "radical leftist" cause!</p>

<p>From reading the school newspaper, there have been three "issues" generating some noise on campus in the last few years. </p>

<p>The first was over "Digital Copyright" issues. Swarthmore students downloaded Diebold Corporation memos (legally) about flaws in their computer voting machines and posted the memos on the Swarthmore website. Diebold threated lawsuits to remove them and the issue became a bit of a "cause".</p>

<p>The second was a "living wage campaign" for college employees, a trendy issue that's been sweeping college campuses. This produced quite a bit of noise and ended up with a series of fireside chats with the President of the college in the Kohlberg coffee bar, student presentations to the Board of Managers, petitions, etc. Meanwhile, the Pres. adroitly prepared white papers for the students outlining the number of faculty positions and course offerings that would have to cut if the living wage proposal were enacted, in effect, turning a budget issue from theoretical to concrete. The Board ended up enacting a more modest set of wage increases.</p>

<p>The third is a student-led initiative on genocide in the Sudan. Specfically a fund to support African Union peacekeeping soldiers. This has generated quite a bit of interest on campus with big press conference on Capitol Hill in Washington with a keynote speech by a freshman Swattie whose family was killed in the Rwanda genocide. Following the press conference, Swatties fanned out on Capitol Hill to "lobby" the legislators from each of their home states. The student initiative has both Repubican and Democratic supporters in Congress and is not really a partisan issue.</p>

<p>There has been modest anti-war rhetoric on all college campuses in the last several years (including at Swarthmore). However, I don't get the sense that this issue has gotten any real traction. It's difficult to work up widespread "anti-Vietnam" style fevor in a post 9/11 world.</p>

<p>As long as you like a good argument, I think you'll be fine. Most Swatties I know are liberal, but that certainly does not mean that they don't value diversity of opinion. I know that when I chose Swarthmore, it was important to me that there were multiple voices dissenting from the "accepted" mean, and I've found that. The president of the campus Republicans is well liked and respected among my more left-leaning friends. I think Swarthmore isn't the place if you're very, very socially conservative and it's important to you that your friends are, too. </p>

<p>As Burke writes, much of the debate, not only among the faculty but also among the students, revolves around political philosophy/the role of government--discourse among my friends this year was less about current policy, and more about theory.</p>