Who's Behind the Attack on Liberal Professors?

Not sure if this was ever posted before. I just came across it tonite.

Who's Behind the Attack on Liberal Professors?
###
In a recent article on HNN Professors Eric Foner and Glenda Gilmore worry that academic freedom is being eroded. While they address the McCarthyite tactics of the right, I think there may also be another interesting story here.

I work with the Commonweal Institute, a moderate/progressive think tank. My work with Commonweal involves research into right-wing organizations. This research entails checking the affiliations of conservatives cited in news stories, articles, op-ed pieces, books and articles. The people and organizations Foner and Gilmore mention share interesting connections.

The piece mentions Campus Watch, which is part of the Middle East Forum. If you visit the website of Cursor's Media Transparency, an organization that investigates right-wing foundations, you will discover that the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation fund the Middle East Forum.
###

They are co-chairs of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, which is determined to expose "unpatriotic" college professors, often with quotes taken out of context, or quotes which are not "politically correct" according to the right wing. They know who's funding them.

nt

So-called "Academic Bill of Rights"

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Content/read.asp?ID=50

<snip>

"Our institutions of higher learning must have an Academic Bill of Rights that stresses intellectual diversity, that demands balance in reading lists, that recognizes that political partisanship by professors in the classroom is an abuse of students' academic freedom, that the inequity in funding of student organizations and visiting speakers is unacceptable, and that a learning environment hostile to conservatives is unacceptable."

This is burning like wildfire here in Colorado. Legislation to be submitted this week when the legislature opens.

Regardless of the author(s) of the document, I cannot find fault. Your snippet above is taken from an online article that is not the Academic Bill of Rights. Sahme on you for structuring your post in such a manner that implies that it is. I do not care for the messenger(s) pusing the document, but I cannot but agree with it as read.

If we are to be truly progressive and hope to sway others to our lines of thought, we cannot afford to appear duplicitous in any way. The truth is enough.

Here is an excerpt of the document, followed by a link to the document in its entirety:

• All faculty shall be hired, fired, promoted and granted tenure on the basis of their competence and appropriate knowledge in the field of their expertise and, in the humanities, the social sciences, and the arts, with a view toward fostering a plurality of methodologies and perspectives. No faculty shall be hired or fired or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of his or her political or religious beliefs.

• No faculty member will be excluded from tenure, search and hiring committees on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.

• Students will be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects and disciplines they study, not on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.

• Curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences should reflect the uncertainty and unsettled character of all human knowledge in these areas by providing students with dissenting sources and viewpoints where appropriate. While teachers are and should be free to pursue their own findings and perspectives in presenting their views, they should consider and make their students aware of other viewpoints. Academic disciplines should welcome a diversity of approaches to unsettled questions.

• Exposing students to the spectrum of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects examined in their courses is a major responsibility of faculty. Faculty will not use their courses for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination.


• Selection of speakers, allocation of funds for speakers programs and other student activities will observe the principles of academic freedom and promote intellectual pluralism.

• An environment conducive to the civil exchange of ideas being an essential component of a free university, the obstruction of invited campus speakers, destruction of campus literature or other effort to obstruct this exchange will not be tolerated.

http://studentsforacademicfreedom.org/abor.html

on edit: Should we shun a meal because it was grown by a conservative farmer? avoid a drink because the well is owned by a conservative? Yet, expect those same conservatives to buy our goods?

Regardless of the messengers uniform, the message itself may indeed be a good thing. In this instance, I cannot fault the Academic Bill of Rights. Nowhere does itmention liberal, conservative, progressive, green, or any other political affiliation or belief. It's completely neutral.

... there is this note:

"Until now, campus political bias has been like the weather: everybody talks about it but nobody does anything. Well now we have. We have sparked a nationwide campus movement to restore intellectual diversity to our college campuses. As a result of our efforts, students on fifty-nine campuses are forming chapters of a new organization, Students for Academic Freedom to accomplish this task. We have set up a national office and coordinator in Washington and have petitioned legislators to enact an Academic Bill of Rights that will insist on intellectual diversity in the university curriculum. We have created a website at www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org to be a clearing house for this national coalition of students working to restore academic integrity and academic freedom to our college campuses. You can help.

"Every dollar you give will be used to finance this effort. We are placing ads for the Academic Bill of Rights in college newspapers. We are challenging the required reading programs that assign only radical texts to incoming freshmen. We are challenging the political harrassment of conservative and religious students in the classroom, and the general abuse of the university for political agendas including professorial "teach-ins" that provide one-sided lessons about war and peace. We are demanding that diverse texts be included in the curriculum and that speakers programs include conservatives as well as leftists and liberals. In a word we are working to democratize our university campuses and produce a regime change in the academic one-party state.

"Please give to our efforts and give generously. Support our students."

David Horowitz

======================================================================

The right wing funds this group, witness of that is Horowitz's message. They have no intention of spurring academic freedom on campus. Their aim is to rid academia of liberal voices.

Get with it--follow the money.

You will find that I refer only to the document as worthwhile. I do not support those who are currently pushing it.

... because of who's pushing it. There was never a need for such in the past, yet now that the right seeks to influence young minds as part of their greater plans, the document they created suddenly has legitimate meaning. It's written to attract people to their cause. Anyone with a beef with a professor will read this and think, "hey, these guys are right." No, they are the right.

It's a means of recruiting the disaffected, rather than a means of stating the obvious. The document means little--what's behind it means a great deal. It's disingenuous, from the start. For that reason, it, its supporters, and the funders of this effort are suspect.

Cheers.

Is water not wet because someone of another group draws it? Does fire not burn becausea repug lit the match?

the supporters are suspect, but the document as written has great value. It states exactly what progressives state - diversity and equality. Are we so slosed minded that we are blinded to the truth because of the messenger?

If Dubya stated that it was raining - and we looked outside and saw the drops - would we dismiss the statement as a falsehood because it was Dubya who stated the obvious?

Please. Lift the mantle and read the document as written. It's a good document. Scurrilous scum are promoting it, but that in no way diminishes its inherent soundness.

The automatic gainsaying of a position because we dislike the speaker does nothing but show us as obstinate buffoons - myself included - because I have been guilty of it in the past.

Because a conservative says it does not necessarily make it bad, just as a progressive's words are not always good.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The reason conservatives aren't at universities is because conservatives are stupid. We don't need to hear what they have to say. We already know they are wrong.

That's as bad as what the conservatives are putting out.

Campuses vary in the numbers of what could be considered conservative or progressive instructors, but all campuses have some sort of student grievance procedure in place. If any student feels that s/he was penalized in any way by an instructor who forced his/her political views in class or by some lack of diversity in campus programming, that student is free to file a grievance. Students may not always be stellar academically, but believe me they are rocket scientist level when it comes to figuring out their rights. They also seem to come with built-in BS detectors.

Students are generally somewhat idealistic, although not so much nowadays as when I was an undergraduate. Still, instructors who present them with new and challenging information and views are often the most popular instructors on campus. We do have one very right-wing instructor on campus that I know about who teaches a history course on Ronald Reagan and students sign up for his class because they want to know why Reagan is so popular in certain circles. Generally they understand why after they take the course, although they may... or may not... remain unconvinced as to the wisdom of his policies.


(I'm sure, having heard student gossip, that there are plenty of other right-wing instructors on campus, but the history instructor is one about whom I happen to have personal knowledge. I don't want to speak of others unless I can speak from experience.)

...and well-intentioned. But based on the man's actions over the last decade, everything he does has a rightwing agenda. And that is where the rubber really meets the road.

Congress initially believed that the Patriot Act was a good thing even though only one Senator had read the entire bill before voting. What do most of us think of it now?

I have read the document in full and can find no fault in it. I'm ignoring the messenger and simply digesting the message.

The problem is that Horowitz intend to have this "bill of rights" enforced selectively, with the aim of targeting progressive professors.

is that what they mean?

And why isn't anyone out there pressuring business schools to hire profs to provide some balance to the overwhelmingly pro=business bias of b-school faculties?

This whole thing is ridiculous. Maybe there's a REASON an overwhelming majority of profs in social sciences and humanities are NOT right wingers... They actually have to think, and do so in complex ways.

And, it's really the ONLY place in our entire society where students are exposed to ideas not processed through the right wing media.

That's why universities are dangerous. And that's why right wing dictators the world over, from Hitler on down, target universities and university professors in EXACTLY the same way Horowitz and his buddies are targeting US universities...

Demanding that reading lists adhere to something as subjective as "balance" is the very opposite of academic freedom.

This seems quite obvious to me - what nerve these guys have!

got links to other articles in it too.

I was a history major, and there were only five history professors. In those days there were no part-timers in the department.

Four of the five professors were Marxists, and the fifth was over 75 years old. I got to make a speech at his retirement dinner representing the student body. I graduated, so I don't know who was hired to replace him, but I can guess since it was a peer committee that recommended the new professor for hiring.

I think everyone would agree that if a person is a history major, he should not have only Marxists as his professors. That defeats the whole purpose of higher education.

Now there were disagreements. There was a mainline member of the CPUSA who ran for a different office every two years. There was a Maoist who went to China to work in the fields each summer (this was late 1970's) and there was a Trotskyite. But I don't think I'd call that legitimate diversity for a college history department.

BTW - I graduated as a committed communist until I lived on my own for about a year with my first job. I wasted a lot of my parents' money hearing dialectics upon dialectics from a bunch of men and women who had been college students, grad assistants, instructors, and then professors without ever leaving their small artificial world to see how their ideas looked in the real world.

I would like to know if there are many college departments like the one I went to, and if so, I would expect the college to make some corrections and insist on some diversity in their faculty.

Diversity is essential. Truth usually wins the hearts and minds of most of the populace.

I can confirm the lack of diversity in my own schooling. I also agree with the "closed system" of student, assistant, tecaher, prof who never see the "real" world beyond the ivy.

on edit: there is a "c" in teacher

As a professor of political science I have to be honest about this topic. Though conservatives may indeed have a few well funded think tanks in DC, virtually every American university is a liberal think tank. As many as 90% of professors in the social sciences and the humanities are self-described liberals. Though I try in my own classes to create a neutral environment and air both sides of issues (students usually can't figure out whether I am a liberal or conservative), many of my colleagues do not. They view their classes as forums for promoting their personal political beliefs. Since the students look to these professors as authoritative experts, the potential for indoctrination is real. Particularly when, as all too commonly happens, contrary (conservative) view points are censored and/or ridiculed by these authority figures. But what is even worse is when professors grade down students for expressing non-progresive ideas. Yes, it really happens. It is this kind of behavior--on the part of professors--that really destroys academic freedom. On many college campuses there is almost no intellectual diversity.

It is completely understandable that conservatives would want to stop the propagandizing of the classroom, since they have so few voices there. I find the challenges being made against the liberal academic monopoly to be neither sinister nor offensive--no matter who is ultimately behind it. These challenges will (I truly believe) actually increase academic freedom by broadening the spectrum of ideas that can be explored and debated in the university setting. I welcome more honest debate than is currently taking place. If we are right, we can win an honest, open debate.

I am also motivated by the wish that some of my fellow professors would get back to teaching their subjects rather than taking valuable class time preaching their personal political views. I hate getting their students in my upper-division classes. Such students, while they may know all about bashing Bush, have not been taught the fundamentals of our discipline. This is a horrible diservice.

Far better than this poor soul could do.

any ideas on why this imbalance exists as much as it does?

Is it because conservatives are just not drawn to college teaching?

Are they actally excluded?

Does my peer committee theory make any sense?

Since you're in the trenches, any ideas?

Yes, I believe conservatives are less likely to be drawn to academia, and if they do come, less likely to stay. They prefer to make money, or can't tolerate the way their ideas are demeaned.

But I also think they are effectively excluded. This is not done because the liberal majority are out to get them, but more because the liberals can't understand where the conservatives are coming from. When 90% of what you hear from your colleagues is all from one point of view, when you hear something contrary it just sounds weird or even dead wrong. Thus, conservative ideas tend to be dismissed as wacko and their adherents as idiots. The result is that when liberal hiring committees view the qualifications of a conservative applicant, they will likely think he is not very bright. And when that conservative tries to get his work published, it will likely be turned down by the best journals. For a conservative to prosper in such and environment is quite difficult, regardless of how well researched and supported their ideas are. In short, yes, the peer committees hire and promote people who think like them (liberals), because they struggle to see any other sort of thinking as legitimate.

These facts produce a huge problem. Think about the whole reason for the push for diversity on college campuses. The primary justification is that students will get a better education if they are exposed to many different people with different backgrounds and different points of view. Such exposure will help the students to learn to think critically and to be open to new possibilities. This is a commendable goal. But, as a practical matter, it is completely defeated if these diverse students are all molded to think exactly the same by a diverse faculty who all think exactly the same. Such an environment does not create free thinkers but rather monotone ideologues. Duckspeakers (look it up in 1984, if you don't know what I am talking about). I sometimes think that the real kind of affirmative action that we need on campuses is ideological. We need to go out of our way to hire and promote conservatives until there is a real diversity of ideas and real debate. As is, though the faces on campus may be of many different colors, they are just bleating like sheep.

Yeah, when are rich white males gonna get a break in this country, huh?

You're serious, aren't you? Wow.


Wow.








Wow.

Be careful. I have said nothing about affirmative action in other settings where the justifications may be entirely different. But in the context of education, the biggest argument currently for affirmative action is anchored in the notion of diversity. And that is in reference to a diversity of ideas. But this goal of diversity is not really served, even if everyone is of different races, different genders, and different sexual orientations, if they all think the same. If we really want intellectual diversity on campuses, the only way to get there is by intentionally hiring conservatives. That is the reality. Now, if you don't want a free market place of ideas and prefer that only liberal/progressive ideas be taught, just admit it. But if you do want a free exchange of ideas on campus, please admit that we need more conservative thinkers there. There is no real debate or real freedom of thought if only one viewpoint is present.

I'm thinking hard. I'm reliving my own college years....and....nope, not one obviously "leftist" professor. I was "leftist," but I remember very few, if any, remarks made about dismantling the corporate state or redistributing wealth. If I had, I mighta been more interested!

Then again, I was majoring in English, one of the "liberal" arts, and they were indeed teaching some godless commie authors like Shakespeare, Twain, Samuel Johnson, Updike, James Baldwin, Borges, Pauline Kael, Pynchon, E.M. Forster, Swift, Shelley, Dickens, Emily Dickinson, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Robbe-Grillet, Didion, Woolf, Soujourner Truth, Coleridge, Frost, Lord Byron, Browning, Austen,James Joyce, ee cummings, Eliot, Balzac, Beckett, Gertrude Stein, George Orwell, Joseph Conrad, Auden, Philip Roth, Don Delillo, Steve Erickson, Barthelme, etc. Oh, Y'know, just about the entire tradition of art, thought, and literature... I mean, who do THEY have as their literary touchstones? Ayn Rand? Father Coughlin?

Methinks this is just another attempt at redefining the "center" as "to the right of Reagan," just like the mainstream corporate media has been doing for the last two decades...It's sad to see academia falling for this shit, beacuse for a while now, that was the place to get your mind opened, not to fall into line with right-wing propaganda.

JDphD, don't people coming from different ethnic backgrounds often bring a unique perspective/experience. If I'm taking U.S. history, I would have to think the perspective of an African-American would bring some very strong additional value. I agree with some of your points, but your NIMBY attitude on affirmative-action just makes me sigh.

Aside from economics or business mgmt., I doubt any of us have ever had a real rw professor. Ive come to truly enjoy debating with "some" of my conservative friends/coworkers so I would revel in a college course taught by a bushy. Ill take one in my back yard, might liven things up!

With just 6 posts, I don't know your writing style yet, but you're sounding like a right-winger to me.

Are you really trying to hint that diversity is not served because different genders, different sexual orientations and different races think the same? That's a bit outrageous. I've known gays and minorities who are republican. And I've known professors who are republican too. Intentionally hiring conservatives? LOL.

I worked at at an Ivy League University. Check out the Board of Trustees at these "liberal" institutions. Where did all these neocons get their educations -- Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, Harvard, etc. The 8 Ivys. Their conservative views seemed to survive these so-called "one viewpoint" liberal institutions quite well.

I don't know where you teach, but my own college (in the NE) has always been known as a so-called "liberal" institution -- and yet ALL points/opinions were allowed and existed. I've never experienced the scenario you described. Everyone was heard from -- everyone argued and it was healthy and enlightening.

Your post reminds me of the line my mother uses (from Rush or O'Reilly) where she nearly screams that "99% of all college professors are liberal! Is that fair?" Where do these statistics come from anyway? My mother never even went to college, but throws around these unusually high-numbered stats. She is absolutely convinced 99% is a "fact" and now completely distrusts anyone who goes to college or teaches there. (Gee, and who exactly does that mindset help?)

First, how dare you accuse me of being a "right-winger". Isn't such an accusation a violation of this board rule: "Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, troll, conservative, Republican, or FReeper. Do not try to come up with cute ways of skirting around the spirit of this rule."

I am a life-long Democrat. I have consistently supported Democratic candidates. But I also believe in being intellectually honest. In the context of this discussion, that means admitting that academia is dominated by the Left. Though you claim to have known "gays and minorities who are republican" and "professors who are republican too", I bet you have known many, many more in these categories who are liberals/Democrats.

There has been serious research done on this point. I will cite some below. But, before I do so, I must admit that these numbers come from conservative sources. I am sure you will dismiss them outright, but to do so is to fall into the "ad hominem" logical fallacy and to illustrate the very point I am making. A bit of information is not wrong just because someone you don't like is saying it. And the way to deal with truthfulness or falsity of an idea is to engage the idea, not exclude it and its adherents. Maintaining an academic environment in which virtually all the teachers come from the left, and in which only views from the left are given fair presentations reeks of intellectual cowardice. Do not just dismiss the information I now present. If you disagree with it, do not just discredit the sources, instead, PROVE it wrong.

Here is the research (I looked it all up a few months ago, so the links may be old):

"At the University of Colorado ... 94% of the liberal arts faculty whose party registrations could be established were Democrats and only 4% percent Republicans. Out of 85 professors of English who registered to vote, zero were Republicans. Out of 39 professors of history—-one. Out of 28 political scientists—two.... At Brown University, 94.7% of the professors whose political affiliations showed up in primary registrations last year were Democrats, only 5.3% were Republicans. Only three Republicans could be found on the Brown liberal arts faculty. Zero in the English Department, zero in the History Department, zero in the Political Science Department, zero in the African Studies Department, and zero in the Sociology Department.... At the University of New Mexico, 89% of the professors were Democrats, 7% Republicans and 4% Greens. Of 200 professors, ten were Republicans, but zero in the Political Science Department, zero in the History Department, zero in the Journalism Department and only one each in the Sociology, English, Women's Studies and African American Studies Departments.... At the University of California, Santa Barbara, 97% of the professors were Democrats, 1.5% Greens and an equal 1.5% Republicans. Only one Republican professor could be found.... At the University of California, Berkeley, of the 195 professors whose affiliations showed up, 85% were Democrats, 8% Republicans, 4% Greens and 3% American Independent Party, Peace and Freedom Party and Reform Party voters. Out of 54 professors in the History Department, only one Republican could be found, out of 28 Sociology professors zero, out of 57 English professors zero, out of 16 Women's Studies professors zero, out of nine African American Studies professors zero, out of six Journalism professors zero.... At the University of California, Los Angeles, of the 157 professors whose political affiliations showed up 93% were Democrats, only 6.5% were Republicans..... At the University of North Carolina, the Daily Tar Heel conducted its own survey of eight departments and found that, of the professors registered with a major political party, 91% were Democrats while only 9% were Republicans." David Horowitz, Missing Diversity, Jewish World Review (June 18, 2002)<http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/horowitz061802.asp> (14 September 2003).

" poll of 151 professors and administrators in social science and liberal arts faculties at Ivy League universities had a margin of error of plus or minus 8 percent. The survey found: While Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush each had 48 percent of the popular vote in the last presidential election, 84 percent of the professors who voted in 2000 picked Mr. Gore—more than nine times as many as voted for Mr. Bush.... Asked their party affiliation, 3 percent of the faculty said they were Republicans and 57 percent said they were Democrats—-a strong contrast to a recent nationwide survey showing slightly more Americans consider themselves Republicans (37 percent) than Democrats (34 percent). Forty percent of the professors support slavery reparations for blacks, compared with 11 percent of the general public. Ivy League faculty strongly oppose (74 percent to 14 percent) a national missile-defense system, while the American public favors such a system by 70 percent to 26 percent. The professors oppose school vouchers 67 percent to 26 percent, while Americans support vouchers 62 percent to 36 percent." Robert Stacey McCain, Poll Confirms Ivy League Liberal Tilt, Washington Times (15 January, 2002) <http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/poll.htm> (14 September 2003).

"Karl Zinsmeister] classified faculty who registered as Democratic, Green or Working Families Party as members of the party of the Left and those registered as Republicans or Libertarians as members of the party of the Right. The results were: Brown University, 5 percent of faculty were members of the party of the Right; at Cornell it was 3 percent; Harvard, 4 percent; Penn State, 17 percent; Stanford University, 11 percent; UCLA, 6 percent; and at UC Santa Barbara, 1 percent. There are other universities in the survey; however, the pattern is the same—-a faculty dominated by leftist ideology. In some departments, such as Women's Studies, African-American Studies, Political Science, Sociology, History and English, the entire faculty is leftist. When it came to the 2000 election, 84 percent of Ivy League faculty voted for Al Gore, 6 percent for Ralph Nader and 9 percent for George Bush. In the general electorate, the vote was split at 48 percent for Gore and Bush, and 3 percent for Nader. Zinsmeister concludes that one would find much greater political diversity at a grocery store or on a city bus." Walter E. Williams, Phony Diversity, Townhall.com <http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20020827.shtml> (14 September 2003) (paragraph break omitted), referring to Karl Zinsmeister, The Shame of America’s One Party Campus, The American Enterprise (September, 2002): 18.

Let readers decide for themselves.

Your links to the Washington Times and Horowitz et al say it all. You claim to want intellectual honesty, and then go on to cite the most biased and extremely conservative sources.

As an artist who lives in an incredibly diverse community (openly gay people live next door to families, etc.), and who lives in the supposedly liberal NE, I stand by my statements. I do not know a lot more liberal people than right-wingers. Not even close. It amazes me too. And I cannot believe how out-of-step I feel with so many relatives and the country-at-large merely for holding Democratic views.

Since you were so offended by my stating that you "sounded like a right-winger," I do apologize.

On Edit: But your sources sure are right-wing.

I came up with similar right wing groups. Lots of college conservative groups who checked on their own faculties.

But if they are the only statistics available, what are you going to do? The surveys do mesh with my own knowledge. Faculties are overwhelmingly liberal. I would have said that without any statistics. There are statistics available, and they seem to correlate pretty much throughout the country.

If you don't like who gathered them, I guess you can dismiss them out of hand.

"At the University of Colorado ... 94% of the liberal arts faculty whose party registrations could be established were Democrats and only 4% percent Republicans.

OK, that leaves 2% as "declined to say" but nonetheless... since when is being a registered Democrat an indication that an individual is liberal? Within the Democratic party there are all shades of views, and I would contend that the Democratic party seen as a whole is right in the middle of the road. Certainly it can't be considered left wing under any circumstances, even today.

Forty percent of the professors support slavery reparations for blacks, compared with 11 percent of the general public. Ivy League faculty strongly oppose (74 percent to 14 percent) a national missile-defense system, while the American public favors such a system by 70 percent to 26 percent. The professors oppose school vouchers 67 percent to 26 percent, while Americans support vouchers 62 percent to 36 percent."

I wonder if any among the general public have any in depth understanding of these issues or any real appreciation of the range of consequences that would follow if, for example, school vouchers were permitted. The general public is interested in more money in their personal wallets and defending their wallets against anyone trying to take money out. IOW, they are focused on the short range. While it's certainly true that a liberal arts instructor might be "out of touch" with the general public thought, that instructor would be expected to have a more informed analysis of the long term consequences of such policies.

Zinsmeister concludes that one would find much greater political diversity at a grocery store or on a city bus."

And I would expect to find a much greater range of educational level among individuals in the grocery store or on a city bus. I would hope that the more any individual knows about issues and the more information and knowledge that individual has to bring to an understanding and evaluation of the issues, the more that individual's opinions would come to resemble those of university professors. If smart people tend to think alike, there's probably a reason. It isn't necessarily that they are all "indoctrinated." Now, think about why else they might agree.

In the data of the study, there's a note about looking by Republican-Democratic versus liberal and conservative. They explained that Democratic and Republican does not correlate overly well with liberal and conservative, but liberal and conservative means different things to different people, and there is no public record of who is liberal or conservative. However, there is a public record of who is a registered Democratic or Republican voter, so for data gathering that seemed the only way to go. Seemed reasonable. I don't know how else you could do it which would be data and not opinion or analysis. The survey was trying to get at actual numbers.

I think it's reasonable to assume that 100 registered Democrats are more liberal than 100 registered Republicans though Texas Democrats might be more conservative than Vermont Republicans for sure.

townhall.com...most rabid of the rightwingnut sites...well funded groups paid to flood message boards and promote their views ( even teach them to lie and infiltrate)....taught at "Study Groups" nationwide "The Townhall MeetUp is growing."

:shrug:

What I always find interesting about academia is how on one hand universities have many policies that are very supportive of affirmative action and diversity relating to students. Yet when it comes to actual hiring of university employees especially professors, look out. I'm a grad student at Duke and seem to remember that last year the faculty here, not exactly a right-wing group, voted that race/diversity should not be used as a consideration for tenure.

Talk about hypocritical. Sometimes I get the impression that the English and Pyschology departments at the "elite" universities, have about as much diversity as a KKK meeting. I really do believe that the NIMBY attitude, "Not in my back yard", is very alive and well concerning the hiring practices at universities. Affirmative action is not needed so much for conservatives as it is for under-represented minorities. The attitude, affirmative-action is great for everyone, but hold on it shouldn't apply to my profession attitude is a bunch of BS.

Academic freedom sounds good. If those bill of rights are adopted by the universities, Conservatives will then have NOTHING to gripe about when their ideas go nowhere. Unless we ourselves don't WANT debate on campus. I for one have confidence liberal ideas will win out in honest discussion anyways. Don't you?

Grok

I'm definitely for more open debates on campus. I think we too often see what I call a shout-down on campuses. When "elightened" students drown out someone trying to give a speech. I was just making the point, I really don't believe that universities believe in affirmative action for minorities. I do believe women have made great progress, but minorities???

as professors while minorities have not. Neither group is anywhere near where they ought to be relative to their availability numbers. If you examine the data, you'll see that women are more than 50% of the population, nearly 50% of the work force and in many fields, a high percentage of the PhD population, but much smaller proportions are hired in their fields at the best schools. At some universities, their colleagues are to some degree comfortable with them as low ranking, untenured assistant professors or possibly plateaued associate professors, but treat them differently from men; thus there are very few women full professors relative to their availability and there is very little concern about this, perhaps in part because people are buying into the myth.

See the MIT study on discrimination against faculty women (it was on the web at one point).

We're now seeing women as heads of universities and the number of women professors has been bumping up.

who is a conservative would be a whole lot richer than a new PhD in history who is a liberal? I assume they have each been working as a grad assistant for a couple years and barely have a few quarters to rub together. Am I missing your point? I really have never met a rich grad assistant, regardless of race, gender or political affiliation.

For freshman classes where its mainly lecture, it doesn't make much difference if you're a conservative or liberal. But think about a discussion based higher level history course in which say the 2000 election was being discussed.

Do ya think it could be that this whole subject is a canard? This organiztion has Whoreowitz's snot-encrusted ex-Marxist digits all over it. And that assplug cannot be trusted.

I don't remember any "indoctrination" experiences in college, just a lot of tedious lectures.

I went in not knowing a thing about Marxism. I came out a Marxist. Do you think it had anything to do with the four Marxist professors I had for about 80 of my 128 credits?

Overthrow the government? Unlikely. But you might gain some compassion for your fellow human beings, which is not a shibboleth of right-wing "indoctrination."


Your experience is atypical, I believe.

It opened my eyes to a whole new way of thinking.

However, it was wrong to have only Marxist professors. Is this really controversial? It seems like common sense to me.

its useless to complain, all must dance the Stalin jig!

When I went to college from 76-79 communism was not on the dustbin of history as it is now.

I assume that if these professors are still there, and if they are still communits, they are a lot more humble than they were back then. In 1979, communism was on the march throughout the world, or seemed to be at the time. Just in the few years before that S Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique, Nicaragua and Afghanistan had installed communist, or communist-friendly governments usually by force.

Meanwhile in the US the talk was about malaise and energy crisis, and retreat.

When I went to college, the lessons I learned in my history classes were that Marxism was the stream of history that could be delayed but not stopped, and the USA was a collapsing giant. It seemed very real at the time.

A young person may not believe me, but people my age will remember the times. It was pretty shocking how the Soviet Union went from expanding to collapse almost over night. Monday morning quarterbacks will say they saw the economic collapse coming the whole time, but it sure didn't seem that way at the time.

I spent my junior year as an exchange student in Austria, and the Austrians were really afraid that when Tito died (it took forever) the USSR would cross Austrian territory to bring Yugoslavia back into its orbit.

Seems ridiculous today, but it seemed very real then.

Stalin has as much to do with communism as Hitler has to do with Democracy - only in so far that they came to power under said political doctrines. If you want to talk bout communism, you should talk about Lenin and Trotsky.

I don't remember any "indoctrination" experiences in college, just a lot of tedious lectures.

I don't remember anything like that either and, although I was an undergrad in the mid-1960s I have continued taking courses over the years.

I do remember hearing about things that I had never heard about before. Now, when the Vietnam War is history, I'm hearing things about which I was not aware even though I lived through that time.

What I think is happening is that undergraduate students don't have any real framework to evaluate ideas. That does come with age. Sometimes students don't know the questions to ask or they haven't lived through a time when those ideas were tried and may not have been as good in practice as they are in theory.

Large lecture classes are necessary in the "Intro to... " courses but, past those requirement courses, students are required to produce papers about their own research in the library and online. As long as their statements are supported by facts and references, any instructor will give them credit for what they do even if their conclusions don't conform to the instructor's ideas. Students do need to take some responsibility for their own education by the time they reach college!

You complain about professors espousing their "personal political views". Well, if those professors are on the political left, then their personal political views aren't JUST personal. They happen to represent the best thinking of the political left.

Seriously, why should we waste any time with conservative "thinkers"? They don't value what we value.

What we SHOULD do is take seriously the opinions of people that think the way we think.

Seriously, these professors are the experts. Their opinions matter and students should be glad they get the opportunity to hear them. Conservatives have their preachers that they listen to in church. We have professors in the University. Let conservatives stay in their churches. At least I know my university "preacher" is going to tell me the TRUTH.

But at least your honest enough to admit that you really don't want college to be a place where a diverse range of ideas are explored, but you instead prefer it to be an indoctrination center. While I disagree, I appreciate your candor.

From the perspective a World War II Democrat, who always fancied themself as liberal, this type of intellectually vaccuous thinking makes me wonder what it means to be "liberal" anymore. Or at least makes me suspect that the younger people don't know what it means. I've complained for years to my friends and family that some of the younger liberals are something closer to fascists than anything else. If this post is representative of how young "liberals" are thinking, then Webster needs to change the defintion of the word.

sure weren't any experts. They were teaching about the Soviet Union's expansion and the USA's coming soon collapse. They couldn't have been any more wrong if they had been trying.

"I am also motivated by the wish that some of my fellow professors would get back to teaching their subjects rather than taking valuable class time preaching their personal political views. I hate getting their students in my upper-division classes. Such students, while they may know all about bashing Bush, have not been taught the fundamentals of our discipline. This is a horrible diservice."

Here, here.

Second: I've been on a numbering of hiring committees, and I can tell you that each one was different in its approach. When looking for a medievalist, for example, the committee looked almost entirely for someone who enjoyed "reconstructing" history to prove his or her point about the literature. This is VERY conservative academically. We pushed aside all applications where the applicant was text-based, either post-structrualist or some form of reader-response--a VERY liberal approach (at least in medieval studies). All of this doesn't mean much since we're dealing with the Middle Ages (unless one wishes to extract political leanings from medieval hermeneutics--a fruitless inquiry).

But! What happens when you do the same job search but with a position for early American Lit. or modern British lit. Then the theoretical approach becomes inextricable from political leaning. You want to do a litmus test for academia? Just look at the applicant's theoretical models.

Now! I've worked at two universities. With any job there are needs to be filled, of course. You get 100 applications, and from there you cut the pool in half based on departmental needs and applicant qualifications. So, you're down to 50. From there, half of the applicants just rise to the top (publications, teaching evals.). Now going from 25 to the 12 we will interview is where it gets fun. I've seen two approaches: 1) Find someone who is a "good fit" theoretically with the department, has similar modes of reading, has a similar approach to others in the department. This allows for an overall cohesiveness between courses and allows for the university (especially if it's a small one) to "specialize" in a certain area. 2) The department looks for a diversity of theoretical approaches(yes, we all teach these theoretical approaches, but it doesn't mean we believe in them). If you go with this one, the interviews are VERY important; you have to make sure you're not hiring a hostile Marxist, deconstructionist, new-historicist, etc. This could eventually mean an inter-departmental war.

I've never sat on a committee where we tried to extract political leanings. We were very intrigued by one candidate because he worked with both Marx and Rand. It's always a matter of how well they do what they do, not simply WHAT they do. To be honest, the only "discrimination" one finds is towards the overtly religious. I've threatened to quit a committee over this one. As long as the scholarship is solid, the person is a solid instructor, the person isn't an ass in the interview, and you fill in the departmental needs, I DON'T CARE.

Perhaps it is because of the huge Democrat population in the state that the conservative young republican types are centering on the newspapers which have online fourms. Presently intellectuals of any kind are being lambasted. The republicans are seriously trying to
take the state by the time Sen. Robert Byrd is unable to serve. Many would like to rudely shove him out in his last days.

If anyone here wishes to visit an example of this in a small college town called Huntington, here is a link to "The Huntington News Net" which is strictly an online newspaper. Marshall University is in this town. The message is standard; all professors are skum. It would appear these board warriors would like to defenestrate all the prof's in the state as they must believe them to have democratic party ties to keep their jobs.

http://huntingtonnews.net/cgi-bin/ubb-cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=3

In most cases they use the AM talk radio tactics with members of the board who are trying to make a case which they don't agree with. There may be a pattern to all of this on a national scale. I hope everyone reading this post looks around the bloggs in their area to see if the same is going on there.

No doubt there are republican boards where these people congregate
and scheme on ICQ etc to see what they can do next. The
choice target for them are the older computer users who aren't as savvy to their word and policy games.

DMIO

professors have been silenced, muzzeled, fired?

What are the numbers?

look at the level of disagreement here on DU. Some favor free trade others do not. Some support nuclear power some do not. Some support a prominent role for U.S. foreign policy others do not.

The left is so fractious that treating it like a monolithic block of ideas is ludicrous. And although there is also diversity on the right much of their mantra can be attributed to Guns, Gawd and Greed.

Pitting left vs. right with equal resources, the right always wins. For those who believe there are no right wing professors on campus better look harder.

to become.. It's amazing to me that the same people who scream "personal responsibilty" at every opportunity, seem to want "regulations and rules" when it comes to the "higher education" of their spawn..

To me it seems like a mass hysteria of the bible-thumping, second-guessing,morality-spouting fundamentalist Mom & Dad..

They had had junior or junioretta under their influence for 18 years.. Maybe they have even homeschooled them.. Mommy & Daddy have been ready , at the drop of a hat, to run to the school board, torches alight, ready to do battle with the "Satanic and evil" curriculum or any forward-thinking teacher's philosophy..

And....... all of a sudden, their little darlings are too far away to fill them in on what the "real world" is like.. Usually arounf Thanksgiving time, the college freshmen descend on their old stomping grounds (home) to demonstrate their newly minted individuality.. This can be frightening to Mommy & Daddy.. Perhaps the "neat-as-a-pin" female child has packed on a few pounds from all the starchy foods, maybe she has started to smoke, or heavenforbid...drink.. Little "button-down Bobby" may be sporting some facial hair, and may be wearing "dungarees & sandals".. Who knows?? They may even question the validity of all that "stuff" they were taught as kids..

THESE TRAITS ARE GOOD THINGS..

College is usually the first place where kids , finally out from under the thumb of M&D,can actually think for themselves.. Given time, and a variety of experiences, most will wander back to the sanity and serenity, but the experimentation allows THEM to set the boundaries..

Liberal thinking is a byproduct of college.. It cannot be avoided..

Anytime large groups of people from all over the place gather in one place, there HAS to be an exchange of ideas.. There is nothing wrong with this..

It DOES scare fundamentalists, because they need that leash and collar to make sure that their "young'uns" stay faithful to the cause..

Smart parents know that the only way to properly raise responsible adults, is to turn 'em loose, and let 'em learn.. The more things a person is exposed tom the more sure they are when the finally do make a decision..:)

Where did you get that? Is it you?

In every arena the conservatives have taken power, they have done so through lies and theft. They don't play by the same rules anymore. Anyone who believes there will be a free discussion of ideas and flowers and hugs for all is living a huge delusion.

As stated earlier, taking over the educational system is part of the basic guidebook for dictatorships. It's happening in the primary and secondary schools already - their funding is being decimated.

Does anyone truly believe what a right wing fundie nut writes? If Horowitz says academic diversity, he means open the gate so rw nuts can begin propagandizing young minds.

How long do you think the progressive professors will last on campus once these psychos take charge? And, believe me, they will take charge. They have no intention of holding open debate anywhere in this nation; whether in Congress, town hall meetings, or on college campuses.

You know their agenda. Why on earth should they ever be trusted to do what they say? They haven't yet.

kucinich.us

deanforamerica.com
clark04.com
sharpton2004.org

Tom DeLay:"I challenge anyone to live on my salary" <$158,000 a year>

far-right Heritage Foundation, which in turn is funded by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Richard Mellon Scaife, Joseph Coors's Castle Rock Foundation and the Olin Foundation, The American Enterprise Foundation, National Endowment for the Humanities, among others. Russel Kirk

Currently the core of the "conservative movement" meets weekly with representatives of the FSFG. As Eric Alterman has revealed:Their weekly agenda was hammered out every Wednesday at a meeting chaired by Grover Norquist, a rightwing Leninist who believes in an ever-shifting tactical alliance.… Among those who attend the invitation-only meetings are spokespeople and representatives of NRA, the Christian Coalition, the Heritage Foundation; corporate lobbyists, the top people from the Republican party and the Congressional Republican leadership, and chief White House aides. Trusted rightwing journalists and editors also attend, though the meetings are off the record.

While the ostensible purpose of the meeting is to share information and coordinate strategy, they also give Norquist the opportunity to act as an ideological enforcer. When one member of the Bush administration worried to a New York Times reporter that the administration's plan to repeal the estate tax would cripple charitable giving, he was publicly warned by Norquist that this was "the first betrayal of Bush", and was gone not long afterward. When a conservative pundit named Laura Ingraham criticised a fellow conservative in the House of Representatives for overzealousness, she was immediately informed by Norquist to decide "whether to be with us or against us". She was no longer welcome at the meetings

pro Movement sites:
www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/ HL811.cfm
the conservative movement starts here: www.townhall.com


a Movement watch site:
www.mediatransparency.org/movement_goes.htm

:puke:

Also maybe the Young Republicans. At least this is what I have heard. I know the Young Republicans group sued a high school here in Florida for not being allowed to have a "toppling Saddam" statue in a parade.

I have the article somewhere, need to find a better search for my hard drive. Power Drive works fairly well, but I still can't find some stuff.

Oh, since the school did not have the money to fight them, they got to have their tasteless float.

Oh, since the school did not have the money to fight them, they got to have their tasteless float.


The school districts more often than not are strapped for money for little things like textbooks, paper, pencils, and teachers. When they see a lawsuit coming, they back down rather than spend their time and money resources in court.

Colleges and universities are supposed to be free of those constraints. They aren't, but probably the first time Junior has even heard some of these "liberal" ideas floating around is when he hits college.

As someone already mentioned, people are hired at colleges and universities to fill very specific needs. Plenty of conservative instrustors are hired on the basis of their scholarship, not their politics. But if conservatives had the deciding vote in the process, a liberal leaning individual wouldn't have a chance.

Young Conservatives of Texas at TU....the nation's largest university has a "watch list" The list, published on the group's Web site, www.yct.org and distributed on campus, criticizes 10 professors -- nine of them liberals

The list bashes government professor Jennifer Suchland and sociology professor Gretchen Webber for focusing on inequalities in American gender, race and class. Clement Henry, a government professor, is criticized for alleged pro-Palestinian views. Thomas Garza, a professor of Slavic languages, is named for criticizing American foreign policy and the Bush administration. Government professor David Edwards earned a place on the list for his "hatred of conservatism and capitalism." Edmund T. Gordon, a black professor of anthropology, is accused of overemphasizing white oppression of blacks. Economics professor Harry Cleaver is singled out for an anti-free-market, "postmodernist agenda." Penne Restad, a history professor, is accused of embracing a "far left interpretation of American history."

Did you see noindoctrination.org?

It is a web site which encourages students to report their professors for "indoctrination".

However, it doesn't have too many entries. Boo-hoo.

If students (who, last time I checked, have free will) are not particularly attracted to such a site, what does that say about this alleged "problem" of left / liberal / commie indoctrination?

Published on Saturday, September 28, 2002 in the San Francisco Chronicle. Professors
Want Own Names Put on Mideast Blacklist They hope to make it powerless. ...
www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0928-03.htm

In an effort to counter what they label as a McCarthyesque hunt by a pro-Israel think tank, about 100 professors from across the country have asked to be added to a "Campus Watch" Web site that singled out eight professors because of their views on Palestine and Islam.

The Web site lists "dossiers" for the eight university professors and teachers, including a graduate student instructor from UC Berkeley, and portrays them as preaching dangerous rhetoric to students. The site also calls them "hostile" to America.

Run by the Middle East Forum, a Philadelphia think tank, the site, www. campus-watch.org, also asks for people to snitch on Middle East lectures, classes and demonstrations.

"We are all ill-served by the mistakes, intolerance, the extremism, the duplicity, that one finds in Middle Eastern studies," said Daniel Pipes, president of the Middle East Forum. "Middle Eastern studies is in an Enron- type crisis. . . . We are putting a spotlight on what we consider to be a problem."

But Judith Butler, a UC Berkeley professor of rhetoric and comparative literature, said it is an intimidation tactic

Where are the beloved notions of "free market" and "personal responsibility" in all of this.

Funny how students suddenly are incapable of personal responsibility for their intellectual development when forced to study liberal communist ideology at college.

And funny how "love it or leave it" and "if you don't like it, don't buy it" suddenly don't apply when it comes to college. This is because every little repug patrician brat has a god-given right to attend whatever college they want.

Let's face it - conservative colleges have been an embarrassing failure. So much for bootstraps - guess the conservatives are too incompetent to establish their own fine institutions.

I had a variety of professors of different political leanings, from conservative econ profs (it seems to be a trait of econ profs) to a zionist drama prof to a radical feminist lit prof who told us "The Odyssey" was comparable to "Star Trek" in that Odysseus went from island to island, sleeping with the women there (Circe and Calypso), like Kirk did from planet to planet. I also had a psych prof who was "personal friends with BF Skinner" and showed us old tapes of him and Skinner on the Dick Cavett Show. He also had a commune allegedly based on "Walden Two", and I could have received extra credit by hanging out there, but I had heard rumours about what females were in for at this commune (think frat house tours involving LSD instead of roofies). I had a flag-waving history prof who taught that we were right to have been involved in the Vietnam War and a liberal one who had us read "The Ugly American" and make up our own minds about politics and foreign affairs.

I wish it had been that way for me. I'd like it to be that way for my kid when he gets there.