Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

2 in 5 Top-Ranking Liberal Arts Schools Have No Full-Time Republican Professors

New study explores liberal bias of university faculty—it’s worse than we thought

Maria Dryfhout/Dreamstime.comMaria Dryfhout/Dreamstime.comIn late April, Mitchell Langbert, an associate professor at Brooklyn College, published a study on ideological homogeneity at liberal arts colleges in the journal Academic Questions. His findings confirm what many right-wingers have been whispering—and shouting—about for a while now: nearly 39 percent of the colleges sampled are Republican-free, in terms of faculty ideological makeup.

Langbert sampled 8,688 tenure track Ph.D.-holding professors from the top 51 liberal arts schools, according to the 2017 U.S. News and World Report list. He used only full-time, tenure track faculty (full, associate, or assistant professors) and excluded all part-time professors (adjunct, visiting, and emeritus). Langbert then matched these names with voter registration records, using only colleges in states where voter registration information is public.

He also excluded 101 professors—a little more than one percent of the total sample—from the analysis, because they were registered as members of minor parties (cue big-L libertarian weeping).

He found "a D:R ratio of 10.4:1 across all liberal arts departments if the military colleges are included and 12.7:1 if the military colleges are excluded." Unsurprisingly, the hard sciences—engineering, chemistry, physics, and mathematics—had more even ratios of Democrats to Republicans than fields like sociology, english, religion, and anthropology. Communications ranked highest in terms of ideological homogeneity skewed toward the left.

Langbert could not find a single Republican with an "exclusive appointment" to gender studies, Africana studies, or peace studies. In total, he found more than 800 departments that did not employ a single Republican, and only 225 that did—so around 78 percent of departments did not contain a single full-time professor who identifies as Republican.

Of course, some schools are outliers: Thomas Aquinas, a Roman Catholic college with under 400 students, has an impressive 33 full-time faculty who identify as Republican. West Point and the U.S. Naval Academy, two military schools, also have high percentages of Republican-leaning faculty; and Claremont McKenna College and Kenyon College are also outliers in terms of their relatively high amount of ideological diversity.

This issue isn't something that's popped up recently; the trend has looked this way over time, and studies done in the U.K. show similar trends. Langbert writes, "More than a decade ago, Stanley Rothman and colleagues provided evidence that while 39 percent of the professoriate on average described itself as Left in 1984, 72 percent did so in 1999."

All of this is not to say that professors should convert to Republicanism, or that the world would be made better with political homogeneity in the other direction (quite the contrary). But liberal bias seeping more deeply into the institutions that control credible scholarship, and into the institutions tasked with churning out the next generation of thinkers, is cause for concern.

"Political homogeneity is problematic because it biases research and teaching and reduces academic credibility," writes Langbert. "Even though more Americans are conservative than liberal, academic psychologists' biases [for example] cause them to believe that conservatism is deviant."

This should be cause for concern for anyone who cares about fostering intellectually rigorous environments where young people can test out their most wild, contrarian, and (sometimes) abrasive beliefs, all while being fiercely challenged by their intellectual opponents and course material. It's difficult to create that ecosystem when faculty seemingly agree on everything.

Photo Credit: Maria Dryfhout/Dreamstime.com

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Yeah, because Republicans are backwards, science denying hicks that want to teach church.

  • KevinP||

    Good reading:

    John Stossel: The Left's Bad Ideas About Science Are More Harmful Than the Right's


    Quote:
    The conflict conservatives have with science is mostly caused by religion. Some religious conservatives reject evolution, and some oppose stem cell research.

    But neither belief has a big impact on our day-to-day lives. Species continue to evolve regardless of what conservatives believe, and if conservatives ban government funding of stem cell research, private investors will continue the work.

    By contrast, the left's bad ideas about science do more harm.
  • BestUsedCarSales||

    The stem cell example isn't even anti science. It's not denying anything about it's efficacy. It's a moral argument for that. It's like saying people against animal testing are anti science.

  • sarcasmic||

    That's because the left must use force for everything. It's not fair unless everyone is forced to do the same thing. So they impose their ideas upon everyone, like it or not. Their bad ideas wouldn't do so much harm if they didn't use government to force them upon everyone.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Hmm, sounds like religious conservatives, especially those wishing for theocracy.

  • sarcasmic||

    I have yet to meet anyone wanting a theocracy other than the followers of Owlgore the Climate Savior.

  • Mr Smeeth||

    All the religious conservatives I know (not many admittedly) just want to be left alone. Maybe you were correct 50 years ago, but now you just sound like Soave and Buttplug.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    That explains all of the boors hectoring women outside clinics; the push to cripple public schools with vouchers; the (carefully cultivated) prayers that begin public meetings; the ranting about perverts and the crusade against gay marriage, etc.

    I often said that when gay marriage became compulsory I might consider become a wingnut. So far, so good.

  • Mr Smeeth||

    "That explains all of the boors hectoring women outside clinics; the push to cripple public schools with vouchers; the (carefully cultivated) prayers that begin public meetings; the ranting about perverts and the crusade against gay marriage, etc."

    And yet, the force is conspicuously absent, however, I am not the least it surprised you're one of those idiots who thinks words=violence.

  • MAGA my NAGGA||

    That explains all of the boors hectoring women outside clinics; the push to cripple public schools with vouchers; the (carefully cultivated) prayers that begin public meetings; the ranting about perverts and the crusade against gay marriage, etc.

    Lol someone get this pussy a fainting couch.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I don't mind wingnuts expressing their opinions.

    Bigots, boors, and the ignorant have rights, too.

    It is silly to say that religious conservatives 'just want to be left alone.' To the contrary, they, like most right-wingers, are ardent authoritarians.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • Mr Smeeth||

    "It is silly to say that religious conservatives 'just want to be left alone.' "

    Is that what I said? Because that doesn't look like what I said.

    "All the religious conservatives I know (not many admittedly) just want to be left alone. "

    Are you Sparky? Neither one of you seem to read well.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    If not that religious conservatives want to be left alone, what were you trying to express?

  • ace_m82||

    "All the religious conservatives I know (not many admittedly) just want to be left alone."

    I'm assuming those words, in that order. Try really hard to read/comprehend them this time.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Try to express the point you believe he was trying to make, wingnut. Or acknowledge his statement was pointless at best.

  • ace_m82||

    Attempted "Appeal to ridicule".

    He doesn't know any religious conservatives who want to control your life. That might mean that most of them don't want to control your life.

    Considering you want to control our lives, you should be familiar with the concept.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Try to express the point you believe he was trying to make, wingnut. Or acknowledge his statement was pointless at best.

  • Duelles||

    Go ahead. Define what someone else writes to reflect your own bias. Well done Rev. Pathetic

  • Finrod||

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    especially those wishing for theocracy.

    Yeah, all seven of them!

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Seems like many American Catholics don't even want to be too connected to the Pope these days.

  • Libertymike||

    Mister, we could use a man like Karol Wojtyla again.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Maybe they blame him for the recently announced closure of at least half of the Catholic churches in my town's diocese? It wouldn't be reasonable, but some people seem to disfavor reason.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Chill out Skeptic, Muslims aren't that big a portion of the population in this country.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Look at the birth rates. Mohammed is about to become the #1 baby name...

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    One of the fastest increasing names is "Nova" which tells us that we really need some action now, more than ever.

  • Cyto||

    Hey, Nova was hot. I can see why the name is catching on...

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's a boys name on that list.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Hmmm. So what STEM degrees do you hold?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Don't give in to the demon of credentialism.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Me? Never. But liberal arts majors are often really into credentials.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    (Pssst, it's a joke. I even put "teach church" in there to give it away)

  • Ymmarta||

    As opposed to teaching there are 50+ genders.

  • Ben of Houston||

    It seems to have started more out of ideals. The scientist in his lab working for everyone is a liberal ideal. The engineer in his plant bringing home the bacon is a conservative one. Therefore, liberals tend towards academia while conservatives went to industry.

    However, it has gone to the extreme that many conservatives find themselves ostracized on campuses. Even if there is no outward persecution, people don't want to be the odd person out (see churches, which tend to become monochromatic and stay that way no matter how nice everyone is). However, we have seen a very significant amount of directed persecution of conservatives of all stripes, which causes further conservative estrangement.

    To compare, heavy industry is now almost exclusively conservative. It has much of the same effect.

  • lulz farmer||

    -t. liberal who thinks human evolution stopped from the neck up and only created superficial differences

    :^)

  • LynchPin1477||

    gender studies, Africana studies, or peace studies

    I suspect there is a fair amount of self selection going on here, too. The kind of person who leans Republican isn't likely to go into those fields.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    It's entirely self-selected. Government has distorted the higher education market so badly that students want the easiest degree possible, and what's easier than shouting down everybody else to get an A for politically correct effort?

  • Juice||

    Never heard of peace studies. What exactly would that entail?

  • Paulpemb||

    These days, it involves beating down anybody you consider a 'warmonger'.

  • The Last American Hero||

    So wait a minute. Peace sells, and somebody's buyin'?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Do you know who? This guy kept asking me back in high school.

  • sarcasmic||

    Piece. Tail. Hehehe.

  • SIV||

    I took 3 or 4 "peace studies " classes as an undergraduate. I think I had enough to minor in it if I was looking for a career as a commie.

  • Rhywun||

    That is because Republicans hate women, black and brown bodies, and love war. Duh.

  • Schizoidman_21||

    What a flaming asshole you are!

  • skunkman||

    Or course, none should be legitimate college degrees either. They all warrant classes in history or political science schools.

  • wearingit||

    "But liberal bias seeping more deeply into the institutions that control credible scholarship, and into the institutions tasked with churning out the next generation of thinkers, is cause for concern."

    Or we can trust people to make up their own damn minds about what they want to believe. Shouldn't matter what they identify as.

    This whole article likes to say it's a problem but then caveats it with a one liner "not that places should hire more republicans." It's a bunch of BS.

  • LynchPin1477||

    It can be a little hard to make up your own mind when you don't hear different points of view.

    Having said that, I think these numbers are symptoms, not the disease itself.

  • SQRLSY One||

    So what's the disease, then?

    My best stab at it: The disease is Government Almighty... If'n ye do not properly worship Government Almighty, then Government Almighty might ban and shun you... NO research grants for YOU, you infidel, you!

    AKA, Government Almighty is all things, knows all things, and can fix all things that are broken... Even if Government Almighty broke it in the first place! If you dare to DOUBT these things, then Government Almighty does NOT want you playing in Government Almighty's sandboxes!

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    No, it's government distorting the education market: Title IX, subsidized student loans, subsidized universities, the immense influence of hiring policies requiring pieces of parchment without regard to content, and the constant barrage of propaganda. When young people are told they must get a degree, any degree, regardless of value, just to show they wasted four years following some kind of loose regimen, they will naturally gravitate to the useless degrees which consist of nothing more strenuous than shouting down everyone else.

    The solution is to get government out of the education market and make it carry its own weight. Colleges will have to cut costs or go out of business. Useless degree programs will evaporate for lack of students. It won't be immediate, it might take a generation, but they will end up back in the education business, not in the parchment business.

  • Finrod||

    Let student loans be dischargeable in bankruptcy and put the universities on the hook for them.

    That will wipe out the useless degrees or it'll wipe out the universities that insist on keeping the useless degrees. Either way, problem solved.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I would say cultural fragmentation exacerbated by increasing politicization of our lives, particularly at the federal level. Politics is usually zero sum, which makes the stakes very high. As more areas of our lives fall under political control, and especially non-local political control, those high stakes make it easier, almost necessary from a strategic perspective, to view political opponents as a threat and as enemies, which either pushes people to extremes or simply out of the process all together.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Yes. The more government interferes in our daily lives, the more time we have to spend fending it off, and when that isn't practical or possible, we have to try to deflect its damage onto others. The ultimate deflection is pre-emptive strikes, trying to damage those who would damage us before they can try to damage us.

    Eventually it gets so bad that people have no time to mind their own business, literally.

  • Cyto||

    You do realize that taking over the education system is actually one of the most fundamental strategies of the original communist movement, right?

  • damikesc||

    ...or we can shut off all funding at a government level and let them make it on their own.

    I'm opposed to affirmative action for conservative professors...but I'm MORE opposed to funding ideological think tanks with federal funds.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Unsurprisingly, the hard sciences—engineering, chemistry, physics, and mathematics—had more even ratios of Democrats to Republicans than fields like sociology, english, religion, and anthropology.

    Cue the discussion about conservatives believing in real, actual science while progressives are all about feels.

  • KevinP||

    I am an engineer (the most reality-based branch of science) and I have observed that liberals, progressives and Democrats have plenty of anti-science and anti-intellectual activists who believe that:

    * Vaccines cause autism. (This is somewhat bi-partisan, but there are plenty of liberals who believe in this)
    * GMO foods cause cancer and every other ailment. (No evidence can be found)
    * Hydraulic fracturing poisons the water table despite being several thousand feet below it. (The EPA says that there is no evidence of this).
    * Anyone who expresses skepticism about global warming computer models is a "denier". (The Earth's actual mean temperature is the same as it was 18 years ago, and is now at the lowest end of what the climate models predict). Links:
    http://media.al.com/news_hunts.....-large.jpg
    * Taking guns away from law abiding citizens will reduce crime because criminals will obey gun laws. (In the last twenty years, law abiding citizens have bought nearly a hundred million firearms and the violent crime rate has declined by half).

    A small section of Republicans certainly have some issues with the teaching of evolution and creationism in schools, but the left side of the spectrum has far more emotional and science-free pet projects that they would like to ram down the throat of EVERYONE.

  • sarcasmic||

    Dude, the scientific method was invented by old, white people who probably had slaves. It's like old and stuff.

    What we have now is consensus. We put a bunch of really smart people who already agree on something into a room and put it to a vote. That's the new science. Consensus. It's better than the quaint scientific method because it wasn't invented by white people, it's fair, it gives everyone a fair say (as long as they agree in the first place, deniers aren't allowed into the club) and its fair. Besides, the people doing the voting are like really smart and stuff.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    More specifically, we want consensus from pretty, media-savvy people and their worshipping sycophants.

  • The Last American Hero||

    They also get to hide the raw data and make sure publications will blacklist scientists that don't tow the lion.

  • skunkman||

    Holy crap sarcasm, you ant KevinP have put together the best stuff I've read all day. Speak the truth.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Cool story, but nothing there explains why the ratio is closer to 1:1 rather than 10:1 in favor of either side.

    The real reason is that those fields are inherently apolitical and as such aren't designed specially to attract one belief system over another.

  • Mr Smeeth||

    "Cool story, but nothing there explains why the ratio"

    Was it supposed to? Because it doesn't look like it was supposed to.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Then there was no point in providing it as a response.

  • Mr Smeeth||

    "A small section of Republicans certainly have some issues with the teaching of evolution and creationism in schools, but the left side of the spectrum has far more emotional and science-free pet projects that they would like to ram down the throat of EVERYONE. "

    That looks like a point right there.

    Glad I could help you with that

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Uh huh. So first it doesn't answer the question then magically it does. Cool story, bro.

  • Mr Smeeth||

    No, I said it was a point, not an answer.

    Reading seems to be hard for you.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    You're clearly not too bright so I'll let you stew in your disability.

  • Mr Smeeth||

    Oh ok you're just trolling, my bad.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Oh ok you're just trolling, my bad.

    *eyeroll*

  • TuIpa||

    "$park¥ leftist poser|5.17.18 @ 1:55PM|#

    Oh ok you're just trolling, my bad.

    *eyeroll* "

    Even more evidence Spunky's emotional and educational development ended in high school.

  • Finrod||

    High school? Try junior high school/middle school.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Sure, if you misrepresent the arguments, liberals come off as 'anti-science'. For example:

    GMO foods cause cancer and every other ailment. (No evidence can be found)

    That is PART of the argument, which is probably a false claim. The OTHER part of the argument has to do with some of the strategies used to create GMOs. Some of the strategies, like making certain crops resistant to certain herbicides (e.g., "Roundup Ready"), facilitates overspraying of these herbicides, and these herbicides may have some link to cancer if used in abnormally large quantities. But this whole nuanced argument is just lumped together as "LOL those librulz hate science because they oppose GMOs".

    So yes there are the idiot liberals who oppose GMOs based on irrational fear. But there are legitimate concerns about SOME of their use.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Yeah, like poor people in equatorial countries might not stave to death.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    There are SOME strategies for making GMOs, like inserting genes to make crops more drought-resistant, which can help a great deal with nutrition issues in developing countries, that don't have this byproduct concern of crop land being oversaturated with pesticides. Yes.

    There are also SOME strategies for making GMOs, like inserting genes to be resistant to pesticides, which are more problematic, as I noted above.

    This is still an emerging field and not all of the risks, costs and benefits have been fully explored. As I said, SOME of the people screeching against GMOs are simply irrational fear-based hysterics. But not all of it is.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    er, make that herbicides, not pesticides

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Even that seems only incidental to GMOs though. Seems like as much as it's a real problem (And I don't know, so I'm trusting that you're not lying to me because you're a cool guy) it seems like it's one of over usage of herbicides. The fact that the plant itself is resistant is not inherently the issue.

  • skunkman||

    So true. The US chai latte crowd actually believes that the food fairy will drop food and water off for those poor people. (full disclosure, I enjoy a good chai latte, but I'm usually in line with asses).

  • lulz farmer||

    Maybe they should starve to death if they have 8 children to a woman on foreign aid dime that others have to pay for, and are creating a Malthusian nightmare for everyone else.

  • Cyto||

    Yeah, everything in there is nonsense.

    The herbicides used for GMO (glyphosphate) is orders of magnitude less toxic than the alternatives. That's why it is so useful as a broad spectrum herbicide on food crops that are resistant. It has a relatively short half-life in the environment and no unintended toxic effects.

    There have been some rumblings about possible carcinogenic effects, but they are in the absolute lowest category and would only even theoretically be relevant for farm workers who are regularly exposed to large quantities.

    The entire thing was an intentional smoke-screen by anti-GMO activists. They got it listed by the WHO as a cancer-causing chemical even though the evidence is strongly against it. The connections to the anti-GMO crowd have since been brought to light and the listing has been thoroughly debunked. So much so that even leftist organizations like factcheck.org call them out on it. Parroting it now does your argument no favors.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    and would only even theoretically be relevant for farm workers who are regularly exposed to large quantities.

    That's what I'm saying. Although it's less of a concern in the US because of a better safety track record overall. It's a greater concern in developing countries where the track record of using concentrated herbicides safely is not as well established. Particularly in places like Argentina, which went all-in on Roundup Ready soybeans.

  • Cyto||

    It is well studied. There are no actual risks to farm workers. This has been studied many times.

    And compared with the alternatives, it is many, many orders of magnitude safer.

    The reason they glommed on to this wasn't because of some concern about this chemical or that herbicide. They are opposed to genetic modification, full stop. So they are looking for anything they think will get your attention and make you take their side.

    GMO crops use much less chemicals than non-GMO crops. That's kinda the point.

    The activists are even opposed to golden rice, a strain that has a gene added to produce vitamin K - a common deficiency that causes blindness. It doesn't involve any chemicals or any toxicity to any animal or any selective advantage. It literally just adds a vital nutrient to a staple food, saving poor kids from blindness. And they are opposed to that. (violently opposed)

  • Cyto||

    Vitamin A. Next time, proof-read before hitting submit.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Some of the strategies, like making certain crops resistant to certain herbicides (e.g., "Roundup Ready"), facilitates overspraying of these herbicides

    Absolutely 180 degrees wrong, Corrigan. One of the main benefits of Roundup-Ready crops is using lots less herbicides. Saves a ton of money and leaves less lying around the environment.

  • I'm Not Sure||

    Knowing a number of farmers, the idea that being able to spend more on overspraying of unneeded herbicides would be considered a benefit by them is kind of silly.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Actually that is false. Roundup ready crops need LESS herbicide because you can use it closer to harvest.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I am an engineer (the most reality-based branch of science)

    It's also one of the narrowest fields of study. Which is probably one reason why you seem to have a hard time appreciating and honestly analyzing alternative points of view. Too much time spent in math and engineering classes, not enough time spent in humanities and philosophy classes.

  • VinniUSMC||

    Too much time in hard science that requires analytical thinking, and not enough time in classes that primarily require feelings and drug induced "deep thinking". Sure bro.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    It's about time someone actually came out and said this. Sheesh, I thought my prediction was going to not come true.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's a reason I advocate strongly for a general liberal arts teaching in schools. The problem seems to be that as everyone has to take liberal arts type gen-eds to graduate, they make them progressively easier.

    Liberal arts should be rigorous as well. I do think it is important for a well rounded individual. I came to CS through the humanities, and really was disappointed how many engineers were retarded about anything outside their purview. And that their only measure of worth was that they would be making better money than others out of school.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    I would say the humanities classes won't help. Regular interaction with people, v especially those smarter than you (and recognizing that there are people smarter than you) help to ground a person.

  • KevinP||


    It's also one of the narrowest fields of study

    In my field, if I get it wrong, buildings fall down and people die. This has the effect of enhancing focus and skepticism.


    "Which is probably one reason why you seem to have a hard time appreciating and honestly analyzing alternative points of view. "

    Alternative points of view like those promoted in the modern American university?

    Washington Post: Liberal intolerance is on the rise on America's college campuses


    Quote:
    Today's students are indeed both more left wing and more openly hostile to free speech than earlier generations of collegians.

    Don't believe me? There are hard data to prove it.
  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No, how about "alternative points of view" such as, for example, when liberals complain about GMOs, there are some seeds of legitimate concern in their complaints, but these seeds are washed away in the broader state of political discourse and unfairly characterized as "lol librulz hate science, just look at their opposition to GMOs", which you are all too happy to repeat uncritically because it advances a partisan narrative rather than advancing the state of knowledge.

  • Bubba Jones||

    It would be helpful if the "legitimate concerns" came from people who had taken a biology class.

  • Cyto||

    That's a pretty narcissistic take.

    Engineering is different in that there is an objective "right" and "wrong" for everything. It either works, or it doesn't.

    So it appeals to people who think in stark terms like that.

    A chemical engineer and a woman's studies professor are not going to have much overlap in terms of personality. In chemical engineering, either your process works and you have a clean supply of polymers, or it doesn't. Something like women's studies is only opinion. There is no objective reality to test any of it against. You can survey other people's opinions, you can catalog their experiences... but at the end of it all, you only have an opinion about what is right.

    Which field is going to be susceptible to group-think? Which field is going to be immunized against political theory driving them toward the wrong answer?

    If you can't test it against reality, is it an academic discipline at all? Or is it just politics wrapped up in a cap and gown for respectability?

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Not only that, which group will decide that "there is no such thing as objective truth"? And therefore, everyone in right (except those alt-right nazis).

  • JoeBlow123||

    "Which field is going to be susceptible to group-think? Which field is going to be immunized against political theory driving them toward the wrong answer?"

    Baloney. I am sure all the eugenicists from back in the day were women's studies majors. Furthermore, it is pretty easy to draw a connection between science and communism in that the communists had a "scientific" belief and proofs that world was trending towards communism.

    "f you can't test it against reality, is it an academic discipline at all? Or is it just politics wrapped up in a cap and gown for respectability?"

    Would you prefer no one studies history or literature or music or economics or political science? I do not want to live in that world and frankly it would be a much dumber world.

  • damikesc||

    The issue is that the education in history et al is usually amazingly bad. Id prefer no classes to terrible ones.

  • damikesc||

    The issue is that the education in history et al is usually amazingly bad. Id prefer no classes to terrible ones.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Take a look at the ABET requirements for engineering programs before you say that. We have humanities/social science requirements. How many engineering courses did you take?

  • aajax||

    I squeezed in a liberal arts course almost every semester in engineering school. I wasn't the only one, either.

  • Ron||

    KevinP
    to add to your list the idea that a person can choose their own gender. People can act any way they want but no matter how many operations a person has they will never be a different gender

  • aajax||

    People can talk as much as they want about gender, but it won't make them an authority.

  • leninsmummy||

    How long do you think data and models can continue to diverge and retain credibility?

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Another way to recognize the difference: in "hard" sciences, engineering, and math, practitioners are at least supposed to be impartial. And in my experience, most scientists and engineers can separate their political opinions from their technical work.

    In almost all other fields, including art, sociology, history, and even economics, practitioners are expected to have a specific biased and politically-significant point of view, and do work to support theirs (and rebut others).

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    That's essentially what I was getting at with my 11:54 comment.

  • sarcasmic||

    Math is an art. Sciences use it as a tool. But by itself it's an art.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    At the end of the day it's all philosophy. Unfortunately philosophy is boring and icky and not "real" science and stuff.

  • KevinP||

    No, it's not "all philosophy". If you stress a bar of steel beyond a certain point, it will fracture. There's no philosophizing about it.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Do you know what PhD stands for? I suspect PhD is waaaay above your level, but still, you might know what it stands for.

  • KevinP||

    I have a Master's degree in Chem. Engineering. Some of my best friends are PhDs. I wouldn't trust most of them to walk my dog. And I don't even have a dog.

    No offense to PhDs, most of whom are smart people, but often lacking in common sense.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    But do you know what PhD stands for? Do you know that there are PhDs in physics, math, chemistry, etc?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    He meant that PhD means Philosophiae doctor. Also, you should get a dog. They are great.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    I have a Master's degree in Chem. Engineering.

    Why are you putting up buildings?

  • KevinP||

    Do I know what PhD stands for? LOL.

    Why am I putting up buildings as a Chemical Engineer? Have you heard of refineries? Manufacturing plants?

    Perhaps you should work in a real world field for a little while and learn about what other people do for a living?

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Yeah, I know IT isn't "real" science. Only engineering is "real" science. I'll also assume that since you still haven't answered the question you don't know what PhD stands for. The fact that being an engineer gives you the power to say what people ought to know is laughable.

  • KevinP||

    I accept your surrender.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    I accept your surrender.

    I know you'll believe I surrendered because you have to believe I surrendered to keep your precious ego intact. I recommend you take a few seconds to Google PhD so that you'll know what it stands for in the future.

  • Cyto||

    Piling it higher and deeper doesn't mean the same thing in disparate fields.

    One of my friends in molecular biology spent 8 years inventing a new system for measuring cell surface protein motility. It took her 8 years just to get the thing properly calibrated. That was part of her thesis.

    No field that recognizes taking classes and writing a paper as a PhD is in the same category as the apprentice-based sciences.

  • TuIpa||

    PhD stands for "Sparky has no degree at all, and instead of improving himself so he can be less of a pathetic miserable fuck, he wastes time stupidly trolling on the internet"

    We get it guy, you fucked up your life, and you hate yourself, and yoy take it out on other people because that's what shitheads like you do. I hope any woman you get involved with knows to expect the beatings your drunk overweight loser ass will be giving her.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    It took you long enough to break out the Tulpa sock so you could spit and whine all over the place.

  • TuIpa||

    Lol I don't care what some loser who fucked up his life like you have thinks!!!

    How many fucking years will it take for you to get that?!?!?

    No wonder you thought college was too difficult and avoided it!!!

  • TuIpa||

    Sparky thinks this is his little fiefdom, but even here, like his workplace and social relationships, no one really takes him seriously because all he does is bitch and cry and be a miserable abusive fuck.

  • TuIpa||

    "Cue the discussion about conservatives believing in real, actual science while progressives are all about feels. "

    As you can see, Sparkos education and social development stopped in high school.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I'm gonna be honest, 3/5ths having one is better than I thought.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    The assumption here is also that registered Republican = Right Wing and vice versa.

  • lap83||

    so you might say it's a good compromise?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Yeah, 2 out of 3 ain't bad, so 3 out of 5 is a reasonable compromise. People always forget the second part of the lyric.

  • Libertymike||

    The best part of the lyric is "there ain't no coup de ville at the bottom of a cracker jack box..."

  • lap83||

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    It's a compromise of misery, so to speak, if I get your drift, and I'm thinking I do.

  • lap83||

    I'm not sure myself anymore

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    You know who else thought 3/5ths....

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    2/5ths of the country?

  • Earth Skeptic||

    TJ?

    -goes looking for Sally-

  • BYODB||

    Northern States that didn't want slaves counted as people since it would give more electoral power to the South?

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    "nearly 39 percent of the colleges sampled are Republican-free, in terms of faculty ideological makeup."

    I didn't realize that professors had to join political parties. Man, that 2-party system really has a foothold on our way of life.

  • KevinP||

    They don't have to, but if they register as voters in states which have partisan party registrations, we can certainly look at who they identify with.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Given that about 20% of American adults are not registered to vote, and almost half of registered voters are "independent", I was curious about what Langbert found. His analysis shows about the same ratio of unregistered among professors (22%), but many fewer independents (16%).

    Maybe evidence that professors are more dedicated to 2-party (or perhaps 1-party) politics.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    My guess is that both registration and party allegiance is probably correlated with socioeconomic status as well.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Peace Studies is a whole new field I've never heard of.

  • lap83||

    It's too mainstream, you only know about stuff that's part of the underground railroad right?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Those of us with our degrees in Quantum Aggressions are simply too elite to know about anything else.

  • Cyto||

    I just had a PhD in Alternative Dispute Resolution stop by the house.... she literally walked out 5 minutes ago. She makes far more than you'd guess travelling to Africa and the middle east to design curricula for kids in violent areas, teaching them how to deal with all that stress and violence. She has a UN passport and is paid by dozens of NGO's around the world.

    She's not the brightest bulb, but she's figured out a way to turn that degree into a lifestyle.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Good on her. I certainly don't malign anyone for their field of research.

  • Cyto||

    Next time she comes over, I'll invite you around. Maybe you'll change your mind!

    (she's a professional SJW. Really, it is her job. Makes her more than a little bit insufferable. Worse, she's often wrong about basic facts relevant to her field. Adds a whole other layer to it. For funzies I paired her off with a soCon construction buddy at a party. It was really entertaining. He's not that bright either, and has some really offensive beliefs - and he still bested her at her own game. SJW PhD is a very, very low bar)

  • KevinP||

    And the result: The dark cloud of intolerance is always descending upon Republicans but it always turns out to be composed of progressives and Democrats.

    Dartmouth Study Finds Democrats Are The Least Tolerant Students On Campus


    Quote:
    In the campus-wide field survey, students of all political stripes were asked how comfortable they would be about living with a roommate who holds opposing political views. Of the 432 students surveyed, only 39 percent of students who identified as Democrats said they would feel comfortable living with a Republican, 16 percent said they felt neutral about the proposed arrangement, while 45 percent, a plurality, said they felt uncomfortable.
    A majority of students who identified as Republicans (69 percent) said they were comfortable living with someone of opposing political views, 19 percent said they felt neutral about it, and only 12 percent said they felt uncomfortable. Among Independent students, 61 percent said they felt comfortable living with someone with opposite views, 22 percent were neutral about it, and 16 percent were uncomfortable.
  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    I wonder how much of that is simply a practical matter, that Republicans have no choice but to co-exist with Democrats, whereas there are few enough Republicans that Democrats can easily survive without ever meeting a Republican.

    Or that Republicans have to keep a low profile, and so most Democrats don't realize they even known any Republicans.

  • ||

    It's (not) interesting that 'opposing political view' is conflated with 'Republican'. Especially since one is "I'm uncomfortable with *any* other viewpoint." while the other is more "I'm uncomfortable with *that* other viewpoint." The fact that the study kinda predisposes itself to the notion that democrats would be intolerant of other democrats (or republicans intolerant of republicans) shows the authors haven't been paying attention. One or both groups could be way less tolerant than is portrayed here.

  • sarcasmic||

    Tolerance doesn't mean tolerating intolerance. Republicans are intolerant. So by not tolerating Republicans, Democrats are showing tolerance.

  • Paulpemb||

    Exactly. Democrats are the party of tolerance and inclusivity. They appeal to the best side of humanity, unlike the Republicans who want to establish a theocracy, force women to be breeding slaves, bring back slavery and push your kindly old wheelchair bound grandmother off of a cliff. Nobody could possibly have any logical reason to be uncomfortable around Democrats, even science-denying Republicans can understand that.

  • KevinP||

    Agreed. The dark cloud of intolerance is always descending upon Republicans.

    NRA Sues New York for Punishing Financial Institutions Doing Business With Group


    Quotes (but read the whole article):
    The National Rifle Association on Friday sued the state of New York for fining and coercing financial institutions until they severed their connections to the gun-rights group.

    Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo and the Department of Financial Services, the state financial regulatory agency, engaged in a "blacklisting campaign" against banks and insurance companies who did business with the NRA, infringing upon the group's constitutional right to "speak freely about gun-related issues and defend the Second Amendment,".

    The NRA presented as evidence an April letter from Maria Vullo, the DFS's superintendent, warning banks under her purview about the "reputational risk" of doing business with gun-rights groups. The state also pressured the companies behind the scenes.

    "Directed by Governor Andrew Cuomo, this campaign involves selective prosecution, backroom exhortations, and public threats with a singular goal—to deprive the NRA and its constituents of their First Amendment right to speak freely about gun-related issues and defend the Second Amendment," the complaint states.
  • Procyon Rotor||

    As a resident of NY state, I thought there was no way I could hate Cuomo any more than I already did. But the man proves to have a never-ending capacity to become more of an authoritarian asshat.

  • Finrod||

    "I'm sure we all agree that we ought to love one another and I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings and I hate people like that!" -- Tom Lehrer, National Brotherhood Week

    That was a line that got huge laughter back in 1965.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Note that the solution is not some affirmative action for Republicans. The problem is that Academia has far too many "professions" which have no purpose except to train the next generation of themselves. Their degrees are no more useful than any other degree, serving only to certify that four years were wasted getting the parchment.

    Like any other government interference in the economy, the results of mandates and subsidies are predictable distortions. Remove those mandates and subsidies!

    Some will object that there are no government mandates on getting a degree. But can those objectors say with a straight face that government hiring policies have no influence, or government propaganda and subsidies have no influence? No.

    Get government out of education. Make it pay its own way. Parents and students will quickly set their own priorities and eliminate all these biases.

  • sarcasmic||

    One thing I learned working in restaurants was that not all college degrees are equal. There was a waitress with a Masters in English, graduated summa cumme laude. Made more money waiting tables than she could using her degree. There were countless liberal arts grads working as managers. The degree didn't help. It just created loans to pay back. One waiter had a degree in environmental science. Useless.

    But everyone who majored in something engineering related found work after graduation.

    Imagine that.

  • BYODB||

    Indeed, one of our payroll ladies has a degree in English. Which makes it a little odd to me that someone with a Masters in English couldn't find anything better than waiting tables. My guess? She was probably hot enough that waiting tables was big bank for her, or you all worked at a pretty high scale place. Your average Applebee's waitress probably isn't doing as well, and I would be at least moderately surprised they could make their loan payments.

    (Or, wait, were they actually paying their loan payments? It's a question you really need to ask these days, it seems. Bubble trouble?)

  • sarcasmic||

    She was probably hot enough that waiting tables was big bank for her, or you all worked at a pretty high scale place.

    Hot was the last word I would use to describe her. Frumpy, dumpy and lumpy come to mine. Hot? No.

    Not that high scale. Just busy. Very, very busy.

  • Libertymike||

    Does a hot waitress, ceteris paribus, make more bank than an average looking waitress?

    I am asking due to your restaurant experience.

    In my experience as the consumer, the answer is NFW. In fact, it cuts both ways. If she is hot and her service is not commensurate with her hotness, my tip reflects this. If she is hot and her service matches her hotness, my tip will be generous.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Depends on the venue, tho I personally am more likely to over tip a pleasant hot waitress than a pleasant average waitress, and also more likely to under tip a bitch skating on her looks. But that's more of a recent development. I think a lot of guys won't penalize no matter what.

  • Libertymike||

    Well, we have similar tipping practices, except I will generously tip a short, fat, VERY PLEASANT waitress in addition to generously tipping a tall, slim VERY PLEASANT one.

  • sarcasmic||

    Unless service is terrible I do 20% in my head and round up to the nearest five. Except for breakfast. I always tip 25% for breakfast.

  • Cyto||

    Hot definitely makes a difference.

    You still have to be a pro, but hot gets a lot more tips. Go to high-end bars and take note of the barkeeps... how many are 50+ and fugly? How many are smoking hot and 30?

    The very high end will skew older and more male, but everyone is still usually more attractive than normal. People like to be served by attractive people, and they are more prone to take an instant liking to attractive people. This is going to lead to attractive people getting the service jobs and making more in tips.

    But you still have to know your craft. Upselling is a huge part of waiting tables. If you can't get an appetizer, drinks and a desert or two onto the ticket, you aren't going to make top dollar.

  • sarcasmic||

    I always made more money as a waiter than anyone I worked with. Including hot chicks. It's based on sales. I'd always ask if they wanted an appetizer or desert. I would upsell dinners whenever possible. Would you like another drink? So by the time the hot chick was hitting seven hundred in sales for the night I was over a grand. Numbers beat hotness at the end of the day.

  • Cyto||

    This is also very true... my wife used to manage an upscale restaurant and upselling was always a big push. Get that bottle of wine on the table!

    She always says, drinks is where you make your money!

  • sarcasmic||

    She always says, drinks is where you make your money!

    From the perspective of a server, drinks are the easiest way to run up the bill. The bigger the bill, the bigger the tip.

  • ||

    But everyone who majored in something engineering related found work after graduation.

    I was pressured by several research advisers to go to graduate school (B.S. in Biochemistry). I was repeatedly told that working as a B.S. Biochemist would be completely devoid of intellectual stimulation and rife with corporate procedure and politicking. They weren't exactly wrong, but I couldn't argue with having a savings account and a down payment on a house before most of my peers had even started on their thesis.

    I took a position with loose academic affiliation several years later. It was a bit bizarre to see people who are obviously engaged in a Sugar Daddy/Baby feedback loop and are regarded as intellectuals

  • Pro Libertate||

    Get the government out of education altogether. That's not from a libertarian perspective, that's from a parent's.

  • damikesc||

    The solution is to cut off funding, tax endowments, and make universities make it on their own.

    The case that they provide a benefit to society is sketchy at best.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Our strongest schools should emulate lousy schools by hiring more Republicans?

    Should they also impose speech codes, teach nonsense, collect loyalty oaths, mock academic freedom, enforce old-timey conduct codes, engage in viewpoint-based discrimination in everything from admission to hiring (administrators to janitors, professors to basketball coaches), become a third- or fourth-tier institution, suppress science to flatter childish dogma, and generally follow the formula of just about every campus conservatives control?

    Nice to see right-wingers coming around on affirmative action, though. Especially a "free markets" guy like Prof. Langbert, who seems too dopey and partisan to recognize that our high-ranked schools are strong because they are operated in the liberal-libertarian mainstream tradition and that our lesser schools are lousy because they are censorship-shackled, homogenous, nonsense-teaching right-wing goober factories.

    When the market speaks vividly about the difference between reason- and reality-based schools and those that prefer backwardness, nonsense, and right-wing orthodoxy, Prof. Langbert seems to lose his ostensible faith in markets.

  • sarcasmic||

    This is what happens when someone posts a comment without reading the material.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    No. No, that's just what happens when Rev. Arthur L"ook out clingers, I'ma reamin' your evenin''" Kirkland posts.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Some people are still mad about being picked on in high school...

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    It's another sock that people haven't caught on to yet for some reason.

  • TuIpa||

    No, I think everyone has realized in this thread that it's your sock.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I read the Langbert paper. I also visited his blog.

    Other than that, great comment!

  • TuIpa||

    And you still posted that?

    That's worse, not better.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    If you don't conclude from his work that he's a typical wingnut whimpering about all the best schools having too few movement conservatives for his taste, what do you believe his aim to be?

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Niwit

  • KevinP||

    Former Democratic President Bill Clinton on why affirmative action is needed:



    Otherwise, he added, "there are universities in California that could fill their entire freshman classes with nothing but Asian Americans."

    Source:
    Asian-American state senators block proposal to reintroduce race preferences in California

  • Eidde||

    I scrolled down looking for the rev, I was fairly sure he'd come like a fly to honey.

  • Rossami||

    I was wondering when you'd show up. Odd that all the things you complain about (speech codes, teaching nonsense, mocking academic freedom, viewpoint-based discrimination, etc) are statistically being committed at far higher rates and with far higher degrees of severity by the non-conservative schools.

    Equally odd that you think "free markets" have anything to do with education. That has not been true at the university level since the end of WW2. Government meddling has distorted the market past any recognition that could even remotely be approximated as "free".

    Sadly, not odd at all that you ignore all the evidence directly in the article and all the supporting evidence in the provided links in favor of your personal rabid anti-conservative bigotry.

  • ||

    intellectually rigorous environments

    Intellectual rigor is synonymous with white male heterosexuality. So, forcibly subjecting women to intellectual rigor would be rape. Which actually kinda explains the '1 in 5 women are raped on campus' statistic.

  • Eidde||

    "A Purdue University engineering professor recently lamented the emphasis on academic "rigor," calling it a "dirty deed" that upholds "white male heterosexual privilege.""

    It may be a dirty deed, but at university I bet it isn't done dirt cheap.

  • ||

    Mitch Daniels froze tuition for 5 yrs. in 2013 and has renewed the freeze for '18-'19. Certainly not dirt cheap, but gradually approaching the price equivalent, if not value equivalent, of dirt.

  • SteelDriver||

    Considering Purdue is usually one of the schools least affected by grade inflation, the value of their 'dirt' might be a little more than average. Maybe, it's really fertile soil (but I'm biased, as a Purdue grad). :D

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Holy crap.

    Donna Riley calls for doing away with the notion of academic rigor entirely, suggesting that higher education pursue "other ways of knowing" in order to "build a community for inclusive and holistic engineering education."

    I wouldn't let this woman design a grass hut.

  • Cyto||

    Anyone who uses the term "holistic" without irony can usually be safely ignored.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    That right-wingers are unwilling or unable to create strong conservative-controlled schools despite a claim of strong market imbalance is telling.

    They'd rather whine about perceived problems, and nip at the ankles of strong schools.

    Perhaps because they recognize that the nature of conservativism is the reason right-wing campuses are such pathetic yahoo farms.

    Carry on, clingers. With plenty of whimpering while you find your bootstraps and vindicate your ostensible principles concerning markets, I expect.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    That left-wingers have been succesful in creating dozens of liberal-leaning schools, filled with fields of study useless for everything except virtue signalling, AND tapped into the tax dollar trough to fund a perpetual cycle of "educating" the next generation of lib-arts professors is more telling.

    But you carry on, because nothing feelz as good as righteous group masturbation.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The liberal-libertarian mainstream offers Harvard, Williams, Yale, Columbia, Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon, Michigan, Reed, and a hundred like them.

    Conservative academia offers Liberty, Thomas Aquinas, Hillsdale, Ouachita Baptist, Grove City, Franciscan, Bob Jones, Oral Roberts, and a hundred like them.

    Which group should be trying to emulate the other?

    If anything, legitimate academia should stop accrediting schools that teach nonsense, disdain science, and mock academic freedom. The better schools never should have begun to appease the lesser.

  • Cyto||

    I sincerely doubt that the reputations of any of the ivy league schools was built on the work of progressives.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Then why do right-winger whine so much about Ivy League and similar schools?

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Rev, I should have been more specific. Liberals have been good at co-opting established institutions, most of which already had well-recongnized elite status. And most of which has decidedly conservative pasts. Until the 1960's (at the earliest) your list of liberal universities and colleges would have been rather stuffy, and perhaps even reactionary to any woke activist.

    The fringe right wing institutes you mention have their counterparts in wacky departments and colleges within more sane universities. Racial/ethnic studies, gender studies, aroma therapy (really, anything "new age"), and of course, political activism do nothing but stroke political g-spots and perpetuate the useless academic cycle. If you want to discredit groups that "teach nonsense, disdain science, and mock academic freedom", I suggest you start there.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The best schools are liberal-libertarian schools that tend to have fewer right-wing faculty.

    The schools that feature right-wing faculty are lousy.

    I believe even conservatives can recognize the pattern.

  • Finrod||

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • KevinP||

    Study finds ZERO conservative books, many liberal ones, on freshmen reading lists


    Quote:
    Young America's Foundation has surveyed the required reading programs for incoming college freshmen nationwide and found that, over the past three years, none of the colleges have assigned a conservative-leaning book.

    None of them.

    "Young America's Foundation believes young people should be exposed to a true liberal education-one that includes both liberal and conservative ideas, but there appears to be no balance in these readings that are required by colleges and universities," YAF states. "From the moment students enroll in college through graduation day, they are exposed to liberal themes-and few, if any, will read a conservative book or heard from a conservative professor."
  • Tony||

    So what's a conservative book that should be on the reading list?

  • KevinP||

    I'm not a conservative, so I will let conservatives nominate a good book that represents their views.

    But self-identified conservatives are about 35% of the population. And the lack of a single book that represents their views points to the modern university turning into a progressive indoctrination camp.

  • Tony||

    But like Ann Coulter's latest racist screed or what?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I'm not a conservative

    lol good one

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    He's a "libertarian" or perhaps an "independent."

    Why not humor him, at least a bit? He's only fooling himself, and perhaps it makes him feel better.

  • ace_m82||

    I see you simply don't believe in anything that goes against your "us vs them" paradigm.

    Carry on.

  • James Pollock||

    "I'm not a conservative, so I will let conservatives nominate a good book that represents their views."

    The obvious answer is "The Bible", which gets cited repeatedly by conservative politicians as a "favorite book".
    Most Americans don't read books. Some are proud of this, others evasive about it.

  • Eidde||

    Something by the great cellist Yo Ma Ma.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I just want to know what's the definition of a Conservative/Liberal book. Like, I had to read Their Eyes Were Watching God, and I would not consider it particularly liberal. But we all know that she was a hard one to classify in general.

  • KevinP||

    The methodology is described here:

    http://www.yaf.org/news/yaf-st.....-programs/

  • Tony||

    That website looks like a joke and their "methodology" an even funnier joke.

    Still no examples of what counts as a conservative book.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    The article gave examples:

    Free to Choose by Milton Friedman, Atlas
    Shrugged by Ayn Rand, The Road to Serfdom by
    Friedrich von Hayek, I Am Charlotte Simmons by Tom Wolfe,
    Scratch Beginnings: Me, $25, and the Search for the American
    Dream by Adam Shepard, Chinese Girl in the
    Ghetto by Ying Ma, or Liberty and
    Tyranny by Mark Levin.

    It does not define why they are conservative, but that is a list. Several of those books are good.

  • TuIpa||

    "their "methodology" an even funnier joke."

    Lol, how the fuck would you know, self professed "humanities guy?"

    Feel free to elaborate on your methodological concerns. I'll wait for the reply that will never come.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    This study is comprised of required readings for the Top 50
    colleges and universities according to Forbes. Young
    America's Foundation researched each of the colleges and examined
    their freshman required reading programs and compiled the data for
    the past three years. After all the data was collected, each
    title was researched and looked at closely to determine the themes
    presented within the book.

    That was the sum of their methodology. I appreciate that they listed some books they consider conservative, but I think it's still pretty ill-defined for that article.

  • MyCroftxXx||

    anything by Heinlien. Ayn Rand (but i wont push it). Most classical fav's lean conservative

  • James Pollock||

    "anything by Heinlien."

    Friday
    To Sail Beyond the Sunset
    ... If This Goes On...
    And, of course, Stranger in a Strange Land

    Heinlein was an amazingly fervent anti-communist. But his works are by no reasonable definition exclusively "conservative".

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Giving equal time to "liberal" and "conservative" views strikes me as the same fantasy that the presidential debates accurately represent all political spectrums. I mean, those who are libertarians love Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh right? We're just republican lite. We'll really dig that conservative reading list.

    Someone above mentioned Hayek. Name one lesson that Trump has learned from Hayek. In fact, how many of you actually believe that Trump knows who Hayek is?

  • Finrod||

    I wouldn't expect Trump to know who Hayek is, but Trump isn't conservative.

  • The Last American Hero||

    How do ya think they got to be top ranking?

    *rimshot

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    The words "rimjob" actually.

  • Michael Cox||

    Alternative point is that conservatives know they make more money in the private sector.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Bingo. People who choose education are generally not in it for the money. You'll find a liberal bias among people who work with autistic children too. Or who volunteer at animal shelters. That doesn't mean there's a systematic plot to exclude republicans. It just means there's a correlation between people who are touchy feely about political issues and people who are touchy feely about handicapped children.

  • Tony||

    It's not a problem at all if you value market-based competition above affirmative action. Republicans tend to go into liberal arts less. Maybe it's because they're systematically excluded, but I think it's more likely because they are by definition closed-minded people who have no interest in exploring the liberal arts.

    And in this day and age, the leader of the Republicans is a ridiculous incompetent fat orange sleazebucket. People who are Republicans right now are not self-respecting people.

  • KevinP||

    because [Republicans ] are by definition closed-minded people

    The Coddling of the American Mind:
    In the name of emotional well-being, college students are increasingly demanding protection from words and ideas they don't like. Here's why that's disastrous for education—and mental health


    Quotes (but read the whole article):
    If campus culture conveys the idea that visitors must be pure, with résumés that never offend generally left-leaning campus sensibilities, then higher education will have taken a further step toward intellectual homogeneity and the creation of an environment in which students rarely encounter diverse viewpoints.
    ...
    When the ideas, values, and speech of the other side are seen not just as wrong but as willfully aggressive toward innocent victims, it is hard to imagine the kind of mutual respect, negotiation, and compromise that are needed to make politics a positive-sum game.
  • Tony||

    I agree with a lot of that sentiment, but I trust educated people in academia to solve that self-contained problem rather than say TV pundits doing buttwork for a political party. As in, maybe it's not actually as big a problem as said pundits want you to think it is.

  • Eidde||

    The last thing us eddicators need is some outside aggytaters coming onto our campuses tellin' us what to do!

  • Eidde||

    (But keep sending us money, of course, that won't agitate us even if the money is from an outsider)

  • damikesc||

    And, in the past, blacks didn`t go to college because they did not want to.

    And, does any OTHER group eschew jobs in higher education or is it ONLY conservatives.

    I mean, if they had no women....would you assume "well, womem do not want to do it"?

  • Tony||

    People with graduate degrees in this country tend to be far more liberal than conservative.

    Maybe it's because conservatives are the new slaves, or maybe it's because conservatives can't handle the thinking required. I'll politely suggest that your guess is as good as mine.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Or maybe it's easier to get a graduate degree in fluffy bunny studies than in engineering.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Or maybe smart people reject backwardness, favor reason, and are tolerant.

    In other words, they tend to be immune to Republican registration and conservatism.

  • Finrod||

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • damikesc||

    People with graduate degrees in this country tend to be far more liberal than conservative.

    Skulls full of mush do great parroting indoctrination. No doubt.

    Just seems odd that ONLY conservatives aren't the victims of anything here.

    I mean, if blacks were zero members of faculties, even though their post-grad rates are, to be generous, less than good --- I am betting you'd be less likely to assume they just failed.

    Maybe it's because conservatives are the new slaves, or maybe it's because conservatives can't handle the thinking required.

    Yes, must be hard to think "What does this Marxist want me to say"?

  • James Pollock||

    "If campus culture conveys the idea that visitors must be pure, with résumés that never offend generally left-leaning campus sensibilities, then higher education will have taken a further step toward intellectual homogeneity and the creation of an environment in which students rarely encounter diverse viewpoints."

    Horseshit. College students get ideas from all the same sources that the rest of America does... there's no magical "AM radio" shield around campus that blocks Rush, et al, from delivering their ideas to American students. Then there's this thing called "The Internet"... where was it invented and first deployed?

  • sarcasmic||

    Republicans tend to go into liberal arts less. Maybe it's because they're systematically excluded, but I think it's more likely because they are by definition closed-minded people who have no interest in exploring the liberal arts.

    Or they're practical people who choose degrees like engineering that will actually get them a job.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    There are plenty of right-wing academics in fields other than engineering, science, and the like. They can be found on hundreds of low-quality, conservative-controlled campuses throughout the country.

    Conservatives seem bothered and perplexed by the obvious lessons, and market message, here.

  • TuIpa||

    "hundreds of low-quality, conservative-controlled campuses throughout the country."

    Name some. We did this before and you got shut down and ran.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You sound like a thoroughgoing dope. And a liar.

    I prefer to encourage half-educated, uninformed wingnuts to perform their own basic research -- a small step toward ostensible adulthood -- but here is a head start:

    Franciscan, Liberty, Ozarks, Dallas, Ouachita Baptist, Liberty, Hillsdale, Ave Maria, Thomas Aquinas, Oral Roberts.

    Bob Jones, Grove City, Biola, Cedarbrook, Wheaton, Anderson, Regent, Union, Patrick Henry, Samford.

    Taylor, Evangel, Azusa Pacific, Geneva, Covenant, Cornerstone, Harding, Moody Bible, George Fox, North Greenville.

    From there, look for a school whose name includes South, Baptist, Southern, Christian, Southeastern, Bible, or Southwestern. If the name includes two of those, it's a confirmation of yahoo factory status.

    Any "Concordia" is a safe bet, too.

    Any more uninformed, disingenuous observations, Tulpa?

    Carry on, clingers. As best you can, anyway.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    If I had known it would take Tulpa this long to perform some basic research, I would have named another 20 or 30 wingnut schools.

    I believe in assisting those who can't keep up.

  • Finrod||

    You're full of shit, fucking slaver.

  • Tony||

    That's the natural order of things. So how about engineers and computer geeks stop trying to have big political ideas, which they clearly aren't suited to?

  • sarcasmic||

    Engineers and computer geeks tend to excel at logical and abstract thinking. Two skills you definitely lack. So I can see how such people would have political ideas that intimidate or confuse you.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    They also understand arithmetic.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Wait, you're telling me that a... a Proust scholar is better suited at solving homelessness? 'cause I can tell you the liberal arts majors trying to solve it now have made a proper cock-up of the entire thing.

  • Tony||

    That's because Americans keep electing used-car salesmen instead of Proust scholars or engineers.

  • damikesc||

    We elected Clinton and Obama who, allegedly, were SUPER smart. Like INSANELY smart.

    Seems that both kinda shat the bed pretty badly.

  • Tony||

    Compared to what?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Clinton's personal conduct was deplorable but he was a good president. Obama was a good president, but bigots tend to dislike him.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I mean, aside from the fact that both were war mongers, hated immigrants, and made life more difficult for poor people (Clinton especially). Both presidents were conservatives by every possible definition of the word. The only real difference -- they made good speeches for gay rights.

  • James Pollock||

    "The only real difference -- they made good speeches for gay rights."

    Obama was against same-sex marriage until halfway through his Presidency.

  • Finrod||

    Idiot leftist thinks anyone that disagrees with it is a bigot. Fuck off, slaver.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Duh, we just didn't give them enough money.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Is there any data to support the notion that there are any republicans in those fields? I mean, I expect that Democrat faculty outnumber republicans in engineering departments 10:1.

  • Finrod||

    It's the engineering fields that are the least biased towards Democrats. The fields whose names end in Studies often have no Republicans at all.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    That's because liberal arts is science-based.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Private businesses should lead the charge by eliminating degree requirements where possible and only require certification in necessary skills.

    Sadly the whole licensing thing gets in the way of fully going that route, but it would be a start.

  • SIV||

    1. Aptitude tests

    2. Contracted apprenticeships

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Absolutely!

  • James Pollock||

    We used to just accept that businesses would have to take the time to train new hires in their jobs.

    Now they're spoiled... they want to be able to hire employees who already have all the skills.

  • josh||

    "Democrats who viewed the results were surprised there were that many Republicans too, and promised swift action to correct the problem so students don't have to be in fear any longer."

    *not an actual quote.

  • Duelles||

    The head of the law school at U of New Mexico proudly declared at our son's graduation that they had no republicans on staff. By this time I didn't care since he went to Amherst College, and had 2 master degrees from Columbia - one being from the school of Journalism. Both of which he funded himself. Life is good. He now represents Exxon, BP, Hess, etc as a lawyer. He can defend fracking because he knows how it is done and regulated. Also he realizes companies want to treat share holders well - meaning no law suits, do it right.

  • JeremyR||

    In my experience, conservative leaning liberal arts teachers tend to work at engineering/tech schools.

    At least that was the case in mine, I took philosophy and my teacher was a rabid anti-communist.

  • James Pollock||

    So, Republicans shun full-time teaching, at least in liberal arts.
    In other Earth-shaking news, corporate CEOs tend Republican, and hermits tend towards "no party affiliation".

    I went to a law school attached to a liberal-arts school. It's located in a left-leaning metropolis and I wouldn't be surprised to find that the faculty had more registered Democrats in it than registered Republicans. But one of the faculty members ran for U.S. Senate as a Republican, and another ran for state Attorney General in the Democratic primary, and simultaneously won the Republican primary as a write-in. (He left government service after a single term, allegedly for health reasons, and served as President of yet another local liberal-arts college.)

  • Quintus Slide||

    "Langbert could not find a single Republican with an "exclusive appointment" to gender studies, Africana studies, or peace studies."

    Ummm ... how many did he expect to find in those fields?

  • Moo Cow||

    Lookin for some good ol affirmative action?

  • Mike d||

    In all fairness, are liberal arts colleges discriminating against conservatives or are conservative (+libertarian) profersors avoiding the field of liberal arts. Or it is some combination.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I'm generalizing a bit here, but liberal arts colleges aren't at the top of anyone's lists. Except maybe for (some) liberal arts professors.

  • DrZ||

    If a Republican were put on staff at a university that had no Republicans, the university would have to issue trigger warnings lest the leftist students break down and curl up in a fetal position.

    The left cannot fathom that anyone thinks differently than they do.

  • James Pollock||

    "The left cannot fathom that anyone thinks differently than they do."

    Also the right. And both of them look down on the center for being wishy-washy.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    At no point during my interview did politics come into play. I've been a faculty member for five years and nobody knows I'm a libertarian. I don't actively hide it. I'm also not a loudmouth evangelist. Granted, I'm not in African studies or women's studies.

    A couple things worth noting. 1) we get paid well below the median among those with our accomplishments. It's a deliberate decision to educate people (or conduct research) at the expense of money in our pockets. Maybe republicans are more resistant to this? 2) This study is clearly cherry picked, which is fine. But if we cherry pick in the opposite direction — let's say economics departments at large academic institutions, you'll find that the proportion of free market advocates far outnumbers almost every other profession.

  • SteelDriver||

    I don't disagree with the cherrypicking accusation, necessarily. However, are "Democratic-leaning" professors against free market principles? That one could even say that with a straight face (and I don't think you're wrong) shows how far down the line they've moved (not that Republicans haven't moved further right, too) - as I don't think even Democrats of 20+ years ago would have been considered against free market principles, necessarily.

  • James Pollock||

    Depends on who you asked, there were plenty of folks who considered any body left of Reagan as a Communist.

  • Joe Emenaker||

    I may be reading into it, but I get the feeling that the article points the finger at the demand side of the equation (i.e. colleges won't hire conservative faculty). I think it's more of a supply-side issue. Ponder, for a moment, how the world would gain a Republican liberal arts PhD. You, somehow, have to find someone who loves tax breaks for the rich, massive military spending, and legislatively mandating morality while *yet* seeing value in something like poetry, language, ethnic studies, or gender studies... so much so that they go through the ordeal to get a PhD. That's a pretty slim demographic.
    Not only that, but, once they learn the significance of peer-reviewed research (and discover that that eliminates everything FoxNews ever told them), and they start *really* studying gender and ethnic issues (and discover that there actually *are* some), I think you're going to get some of those Republican students who "woke" and went to the dark side.

  • mchughjj||

    This shouldn't be breaking news. Those who study journalism, generally speaking, have a left tilt.

    As an engineering type, you learn to deal with all sorts. I'd prefer to receive information from sources that think they are unbiased. In politics, this usually means listening to sources that are to the left of me.

    I went to a Catholic High School with the highest national record of alumni admitted to the Naval Academy in Annapolis. This meant my peers were very economically libertarian but pro-military. The academic curriculum was, fast-forwarding, pro-modern-day Pope Francis. I've made my own way. I think Fox News is abject propaganda, Trump is simply an idiot, but I consider myself a Reagan conservative.

  • aajax||

    You can get the Republican viewpoint for free by tuning in to talk radio anywhere in the country, much of which is bashing anything to do with academia.

  • Fmontyr||

    A rather pointless article. Of course, there is a liberal dominance in education. Conservatives live their lives in the world that is fearful of the advancement of new ideas. Thankfully the liberal bias in the higher education system challenges students to step beyond rote routine learning and thus provide for the needs of the future with a wealth of ideas.

    Taken as a group, Republicans are creationists, anti-climate change, and suspicious of new knowledge, the dullards of society.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    You just proved sarcs[ point about liberals and tolerance, you fucking moron. When you make artie poo seem less obnoxious than you your idiocy is cemented in the annals of Reason. Bravo, shit for brains....

  • Hank Ferrous||

    The air at the height of ignorance must be thin, liberal bias does not imply a lack of rote or routine in-group knowledge being passed on as 'learning.' MLC is correct, you bring nothing to the discussion, and make even Artie look less vapid.

  • Fmontyr||

    I refer the detractors of my comment to the well thought-out one by Joe Emenaker|5.17.18 @ 9:11PM|#

  • Finrod||

    You're a fucking moron, stuck in your Community-Based Reality.

  • chris goodwin||

    Whaddya mean, "intellectually rigorous" ?

    I already know what you oughtta think.

    Don't need no rigor mortis.

  • Heraclitus||

    Well, the Republicans did vote in a reality tv star who made himself relevant by claiming to be good in bed to Howard Stern. A president who does not read books. A president who put his name on a fake university. I realize that not all politics are national, but come on Reason, you know professors are smart people who think for a living. The Republicans are self-declared anti-intellectuals. It makes no sense for professors to declare themselves or identify themselves with the GOP.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    How many of Justice Thomas' clerks have been registered Democrats (or libertarians, or moderates, or RINOs)?

    How many of Justice Alito's clerks have been predictably partisan Republicans and conservatives?

    I eagerly await the Reason and Langbert reports on the issue of ideological diversity among government employers (Supreme Court justices, other judges) and government employees (clerks). Perhaps special attention could be devoted to the "feeder" system.

    Carry on, clingers. Perhaps with more whining about how our stronger schools do not employ enough movement conservatives for your taste, or asking why good schools do not emulate the low-quality, conservative-controlled schools in that regard.

  • Finrod||

    Fuck off, idiot slaver.

  • IMissLiberty||

    I'm deeply grateful to my "liberal arts" college: St. Mary's College in Moraga, California. In 1973 my Econ 101 class used two textbooks, one written by Paul Samuelson and one by Milton Friedman. I believe the "liberal" bent had a lot to do with wanting to present differing views. There was no question in my mind that the latter's book made more sense, and I use those ideas every day. (I also remember their photos on the back of the books: Samuelson's sourpuss and Friedman's middle-aged Santa Claus face--he seemed such a happy cynic, and a genuine appreciator of mankind with all our flaws.) I'm not sure which parties they may have belonged to, and I have no idea about the professor, either.

    The college likes to teach critical thinking, and logic, so they clearly made an effort not to be biased in that way. They still teach "liberal arts" as a major, reading the classics, learning some Greek or Latin, recreating science experiments from history, and so forth.

    About half my classmates were Catholic. I imagine that gives them an international, somewhat borderless view of the globe, and certainly a somewhat conservative view in many ways as well as potentially liberal.

    It's a reminder to me that even an authoritarian religious organization can prefer a libertarian government. They're certainly doing more good when opposing governments, than when they were the government.

  • jomo||

    I admit I am sick of the extreme SJWs, but consider this. The popular complaint among many Republicans today is that "the left is all about controlling our thoughts and they are also all about the feels." Ironically, it's hardcore Republicans whose idea of freedom is the "freedom" to call people n1gg3r5, the "freedom" to be a Nazi whose stated belief of eradicating those genetically/religiously different from them is the "free speech" they want to "preserve," the freedom to discriminate against others for not sharing the same unprovable belief in their version of an invisible sky god, and basing all laws and policies off of that.

    I am as tired as anyone else here of rampant PC culture, but I also can't believe that we've reached a point in our dialogue where being opposed to Nazis (whose stated goal is to rid the earth of those unlike them) is equated with "control" and "hating freedom." The people who complain about "liberals are all about the feels and not the facts" are the same people whose entire belief system DEPENDS ON their unprovable feels about a supreme deity that selectively favors white Americans.

    This from people whose main goals are to foster rampant corporatism, to control who can kiss who and what people can put in their bodies, and to base government off of religion.

    Considering that the supposedly "fact-based" and "responsible" Republicans are also recently proven to be as bad or worse than Democrats in the area of rampant government spending....

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    The popular complaint among many Republicans today is that "the left is all about controlling our thoughts and they are also all about the feels."

    It's a really interesting stance too, because the natural consequence of this belief is that we have to protect the little snowflakes from being indoctrinated by liberal professors. We have to shield them from certain world views, lest they become brainwashed by the liberal agenda.

    Parenting goes a long way. Teaching your kids to be independent thinkers is the best antidote to any perceived attempt at left wing indoctrination. If your parenting style raises lemmings who blindly follow authority, then sure, you might have something to worry about.

  • Finrod||

    You're conflating "opposing Nazis" with "punching Nazis and not letting them speak" by a group that tries to call everyone that opposes them Nazis.

  • IMissLiberty||

    I recall my Econ 101 professor spending a couple of hours (in 1973) reciting the economic causes of American wars from before the revolution to the (then) present day. There was certainly a global view and one that was not insular. The professors at St. Mary's College of Moraga were often priests and ex-priests, and had served in other countries, with a sense of history. Probably it was somewhat "classical liberal" in effect.

    I have never seen wars the same way, again. Economics appears to be the single most driving force for starting wars and keeping them going. It made sense (but did not justify) in a way that other reasons for conflict simply don't. Society won't spend the huge amounts of wealth to engage in war, unless they think or feel it costs them more not to do so. Few individuals who don't stand to gain, economically, think it's a good idea at any time. No matter how moral the other reasons for starting a war, it takes money to wage it (even if you print it).

  • IMissLiberty||

    I believe that "liberal" and "conservative" are innate inborn traits, then shaped by nurture. Someday maybe we'll recognize that and stop trying to change what can't be changed. Libertarians recognize that government force can't do that, no matter how much force or bribery it employs, so we might as well negotiate between us.

    Additionally, the values of a "California Republican" may be different than those of a "Texas Republican." Democrats let anybody into the party (though they don't allow easy access to power), and Republicans are conservative about different things depending on what they're trying to conserve. Even within parties, they don't agree, and often join whichever party in that area has more clout, or a clearer cut objective that has appeal. It's a big soup.

    It doesn't make much sense to evaluate a professor by his voter registration, especially if you leave out the Libertarians! The LP has a more-selective process than any other party, and though no party controls who registers to vote with them, there is little incentive for a voter to register "Libertarian" unless they agree with our central non-agression principle and defense of freedom.

    There's a reason why 13 colonies with different values, religions, languages, and histories, only agreed on a few things they would authorize government to do, and in defense, only. It was a successful experiment. Too bad we stopped using what we learned from it.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Someday maybe we'll recognize that and stop trying to change what can't be changed.

    People change their political beliefs all the time. In fact, I'd wager there are more people who change their political beliefs than there are people who don't. One good example is the Libertarian vice presidential candidate.

  • SunkCost||

    Alternative headline: "Party committed to anti-intellectualism unpopular with intellectuals"

  • Finrod||

    "For every complex problem, there is a simple, easy-to-understand, wrong answer." Congrats, you found it.

  • Bill Pound||

    The Democrat/Media/Education complex has swayed many with political correctness. Some areas of science reach consensus. Professional societies often place retiring officers in charge of selecting the next officers. Universities hire only those to agree with their thinking.

    I have a BS in Physics (Montana State), MBA in Operations Research (UC Berkeley) and PhD in Industrial Engineering (Northwestern). I am a lifelong student of science, statistics, and quality assurance; and worked my whole career in manufacturing. What I can tell you is that Uniformity is the Enemy of Knowledge. The more uniform our campuses become the less knowledge they will impart to their students. They may have power. They may feel successful. But they simultaneously fail their objective to educate people. The irony. Gaining knowledge requires variation in thought, word, and deed.

  • Finrod||

    You win the thread.

  • ||

    My Buddy's mom makes $77 hourly on the computer . She has been laid off for five months but last month her check was $18713 just working on the computer for a few hours. try this web-site

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.seekcyber.com

  • Mark22||

    There is no problem with political homogeneity per se. In a free market, you could have highly biased schools coexisting nicely.

    There is a problem with the notion of accreditation, peer review, and government financing, which has killed market mechanisms and forces students to go to schools whose ideology they reject because they need the credentials and the financial support.

  • ||

    I just got paid 7k dollar working off my laptop this month. And if you think that's cool, my divorced friend has twin toddlers and made over 12k her first month. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less. This is what I do

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_ http://www.socialearn3.com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online