Liberal professors admit to openly discriminating against conservative peers

[Sean Renaud]

Current laws and an over abundance of government agencies aren't the answer, it's simply getting the present university faculty to fucking do their jobs in educating kids and hiring faculty without prejudice. Universities should be scrutinized by those who are paying their wages, and shitcanned when they fail to measure up.

Are you really suggesting we shitcan the best in the world?

 

[Dazzle1]

Academia is a haven for liberals, because merit and honesty don't apply as in the real world

Chomsky churchill, Finklestien would be lucky to get a minimum wage job with thier skill set.

 

[Sean]

I am going to be pissed if I am on ignore and you are not.

LMAO. I'm pretty sure I'm on iggy two (sic).

 

[Wok]

Could you explain how to solve this in a right wing fashion?

http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~kouba/CalcOneDIRECTORY/limcondirectory/img4.gif

Episilon-delta definitions of limits is proof of the hand of God.

That and Delta-N definitions of convergence and divergence.

 

[kbate]

Episilon-delta definitions of limits is proof of the hand of God.

That and Delta-N definitions of convergence and divergence.

Since convergence and conservative share a lot of letters, you must be Right.

 

[RjThoughts]

Since convergence and conservative share a lot of letters, you must be Right.

Sorry, but US gymnast McKayla Maroney is not iompressed with your knowledge

http://static.thehollywoodgossip.com/files/mckayla-is-not-impressed_454x374.jpg

 

[RjThoughts]

McKalya Maroney is not impressed with us

http://static.thehollywoodgossip.com/files/mckayla-is-not-impressed_454x374.jpg

 

[KingOrfeo]

http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=3116

Took 2 seconds - but you're educated liberals and only missed that he posted the author's name.

campusreform.org. Not a credible source, to put it mildly, and especially not on this topic.

 

[kbate]

campusreform.org. Not a credible source, to put it mildly, especially on this topic.

One of the most annoying situations in Lit discussion is when someone who has not read the thread jumps in with an indictment of a source which they have never seen before in their life. So, my dear KingOrfeo, please at least read the damned thread before you jump in with ridiculous dismissals based on "Your source isn't good!" Thank you.

 

[KingOrfeo]

One of the most annoying situations in Lit discussion is when someone who has not read the thread jumps in with an indictment of a source which they have never seen before in their life. So, my dear KingOrfeo, please at least read the damned thread before you jump in with ridiculous dismissals based on "Your source isn't good!" Thank you.

The most important piece of information in any message is the name of the messenger.

 

[kbate]

The most important piece of information in any message is the name of the messenger.

No, the most important thing is to read the message. It doesn't matter if it is on the wall or in a book, if the text is the same it is the same message.

You did not read the OP message either on the OP or on the linked site, which would have taken you to the original study.

Yet you felt it necessary to indict the middleman as if you are an expert on that particular blog. And that - makes your post on the subject even of less value than the study which began this entire topic.

 

[Sean Renaud]

No, the most important thing is to read the message. It doesn't matter if it is on the wall or in a book, if the text is the same it is the same message.

You did not read the OP message either on the OP or on the linked site, which would have taken you to the original study.

Yet you felt it necessary to indict the middleman as if you are an expert on that particular blog. And that - makes your post on the subject even of less value than the study which began this entire topic.

Unless you've got a lot of spare time in your life you have to dismiss a certain amount of sources out of hand without giving them even a second's consideration.

 

[kbate]

Unless you've got a lot of spare time in your life you have to dismiss a certain amount of sources out of hand without giving them even a second's consideration.

And of course you can tell by the name, "campusreform" that the site should be dismissed - even though the quoted article was published in a semi-mainstream newspaper and came from a study conducted at a university? There is no need to read the article or follow to the study it speaks of; because a conservative posted the thread you can tell the source is bad and the thread is invalid and are immediately qualified to sit in judgement.

 

[Sean Renaud]

And of course you can tell by the name, "campusreform" that the site should be dismissed - even though the quoted article was published in a semi-mainstream newspaper and came from a study conducted at a university? There is no need to read the article or follow to the study it speaks of, because a conservative posted the thread you can tell the source is bad and the thread is invalid and are immediately qualified to sit in judgement.

No you can't tell by the title, I know nothing of that site to know if it's credible or not. There may or may not be reason to read the article and follow it's studies and nothing about conservationism is inherently bad (no matter how bad all the locals are) but if I see brietbart.com I assume it's at best a halftruth until it's backed by something. Particularly if it sounds outlandish.

Coach is pretty close to that same tier of assume he found something slanted, might be worth a read but it probably doesn't hold up and it's only worth your time if you've got time to spare.

 

[KingOrfeo]

You want a credible source on this topic, try Russell Jacoby, "The New PC: Crybaby Conservatives," The Nation, 03/16/05:

Conservatives complain relentlessly that they do not get a fair shake in the university, and they want parity--that is, more conservatives on faculties. Conservatives are lonely on American campuses as well as beleaguered and misunderstood. News that tenured poets vote Democratic or that Kerry received far more money from professors than Bush pains them. They want America's faculties to reflect America's political composition. Of course, they do not address such imbalances in the police force, Pentagon, FBI, CIA and other government outfits where the stakes seem far higher and where, presumably, followers of Michael Moore are in short supply. If life were a big game of Monopoly, one might suggest a trade to these conservatives: You give us one Pentagon, one Department of State, Justice and Education, plus throw in the Supreme Court, and we will give you every damned English department you want.

Conservatives claim that studies show an outrageous number of liberals on university faculties and increasing political indoctrination or harassment of conservative students. In fact, only a very few studies have been made, and each is transparently limited or flawed. The most publicized investigations amateurishly correlate faculty departmental directories with local voter registration lists to show a heavy preponderance of Democrats. What this demonstrates about campus life and politics is unclear. Yet these findings are endlessly cited and cross-referenced as if by now they confirm a tiresome truth: leftist domination of the universities. A column by George Will affects a world-weariness in commenting on a recent report. "The great secret is out: Liberals dominate campuses. Coming soon: 'Moon Implicated in Tides, Studies Find.'"

The most careful study is "How Politically Diverse Are the Social Sciences and Humanities?" Conducted by California economist Daniel Klein and Swedish social scientist Charlotta Stern, it has been trumpeted by many conservatives as a corrective to the hit-and-miss efforts of previous inquiries by going directly to the source. The researchers sent out almost 5,500 questionnaires to professors in six disciplines in order to tabulate their political orientation. A whopping 70 percent of the recipients did what any normal person would do when receiving an unsolicited fourteen-page survey over the signature of an assistant dean at a small California business school: They tossed it. With just 17 percent of their initial pool remaining after the researchers made additional exclusions, some unastounding findings emerged. Thirty times as many anthropologists voted Democratic as voted Republican; for sociologists the ratio was almost the same. For economists, however, it sank to three to one. On average these professors voted Democratic over Republican fifteen to one.

What does it show that fifty-four philosophy professors admitted to voting Democratic regularly and only four to voting Republican? Does a Democratic vote reveal a dangerous philosophical or campus leftism? Are Democrats more likely to deceive students? Proselytize them? Harass them? Steal library books? Must they be neutralized by Republican professors, who are free of these vices? This study opens by quoting the conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks on the loneliness of campus conservatives and closes by bemoaning the "one-party system" of faculties. Nonleftist voices are "muffled and fearful," the researchers say. They do not, however, present a scintilla of information to confirm this. It is not a minor point. No matter how well tuned, studies of professorial voting habits reveal nothing of campus policies or practices.

The notion that faculties should politically mirror the US population derives from an affirmative action argument about the underrepresentation of African-Americans, Latinos or women in certain areas. Conservatives now add political orientation, based on voting behavior, to the mix. "In the U.S. population in general, Left and Right are roughly equal (1 to 1)," Klein and Stern lecture us, but in social science and humanities faculties "clearly the non-Left points of view have been marginalized." This is "clearly" not true, or at least it is not obvious what constitutes a "non-Left" point of view in art history or linguistics. In any event, why stop with left and right? Why not add religion to the underrepresentation violation? Perhaps Klein, the lead researcher, should explore Jewish and Christian affiliation among professors. A survey would probably show that Jews, 1.3 percent of the population, are seriously overrepresented in economics and sociology (as well as other fields). Isn't it likely that Jews marginalize Christianity in their classes? Shouldn't this be corrected? Shouldn't 76 percent of American faculty be Christian?

The Klein study and others like it focus on the humanities and social sciences. Conservatives seem little interested in exploring the political orientation of engineering professors or biogeneticists. The more important the field, in terms of money, resources and political clout, the less conservatives seem exercised by it. At many universities the medical and science buildings, to say nothing of the business faculties or the sports complexes, tower over the humanities. I teach at UCLA. The history professors are housed in cramped quarters of a decaying Modernist structure. Our classiest facility is a conference room that could pass as generic space in any downtown motel. The English professors inhabit what appears to be an aging elementary school outfitted with minuscule offices. A hop away is a different world. The UCLA Anderson School of Management boasts its own spanking-new buildings, plush seminar rooms, spacious lecture halls with luxurious seats, an "executive dining room" and--gold in California--reserved parking facilities. Conservatives seem unconcerned about the political orientation of the business professors. Shouldn't half be Democrats and at least a few be Trotskyists?

 

[kbate]

You want a credible source on this topic, try Russell Jacoby, "The New PC: Crybaby Conservatives," The Nation, 03/16/05:

Dear Orfeo,

It isn't about where you find the information. Had you read the thread and followed the links, you would have known that Dixon had thoroughly trashed the OP and his article by posting the peer reviews which have been printed.

You are choosing the same route as coach did, the fallacy of 'invincible ignorance'. "I'm not changing my mind no matter what evidence you provided."

An blog titled, "Crybaby Conservatives" certainly sounds like a peer reviewed and balanced bit of reporting. I guess you can't get more unbiased than a title like that.

 

[run_silent]

Nearly all my decisions to stop corresponding with individuals (or their alts) has been due to 'quote hacking', but I am discontinuing my correspondence with you for both your spoken support of the practice (and or disbelief in the existence of it in light of the fact) earlier in this exchange, but moreso for the fact that you are simply a dimmer light in the universe of discussion. All the posts I have gotten from you have simply been 'me too' posts for others, and adding an insult or too just to stay involved. If I wish to exchange ideas with others, I need to know those others have ideas to exchange. Just not enough to you of value to make for a reason to stay in touch....

Coach I agree with some of your basic ideas but your debating style sucks. It's harsh and insulting. Not just with Kbate but most other posters. A level headed debate goes much farther than insults.

 

[run_silent]

Dear Orfeo,

It isn't about where you find the information. Had you read the thread and followed the links, you would have known that Dixon had thoroughly trashed the OP and his article by posting the peer reviews which have been printed.

You are choosing the same route as coach did, the fallacy of 'invincible ignorance'. "I'm not changing my mind no matter what evidence you provided."

An blog titled, "Crybaby Conservatives" certainly sounds like a peer reviewed and balanced bit of reporting. I guess you can't get more unbiased than a title like that.

This just needed to be quoted.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Derp!

One of the most annoying situations in Lit discussion is when someone who has not read the thread jumps in with an indictment of a source which they have never seen before in their life. So, my dear KingOrfeo, please at least read the damned thread before you jump in with ridiculous dismissals based on "Your source isn't good!" Thank you.

So it's okay for YOU to post a source that readily admits that it's providing a biased viewpoint, but it's NOT okay for Orfeo to counter with sources sympathic to his position.

Thanks for clearin' that up!

 

[kbate]

So it's okay for YOU to post a source that readily admits that it's providing a biased viewpoint, but it's NOT okay for Orfeo to counter with sources sympathic to his position.

Thanks for clearin' that up!

As usual, you didn't read the article, the sequence or the thread but feel expert enough to jump in and speak as if you did.

Thanks for the response anyway.

 

[KingOrfeo]

You can download the paper here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2002636 It's 36 pages long. It hasn't been published yet (next month), and will be peer reviewed then, which is when you can really discuss its scientific merits.

But I'm willing to accept the conclusion.

Of course, the two men running the study are interested in human behavior, and if the majority of professors in the country were conservative my guess is they'd show exactly the same hesitation in hiring or awarding grants to liberals.

The take-away here is Birds of a Feather. But that shouldn't apply to hiring in higher education.

That study, I note, looks only at "social and personality psychologists" and says nothing about academics in any other field.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Haha, yeah. I was in a store the other day and say a book titled "Geometry for Christian Schools".
I still haven't figured out how geometry is different from one religion to another or even if you're an atheist.

See Sacred Geometry.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I thought it was rather well-known that Republicans were more likely to have university degrees . . .

Actually, I think liberals are more likely to have graduate degrees.

 

[KingOrfeo]

An blog titled, "Crybaby Conservatives" . . .

Nitpick: It's not a blog, that's the title of the article (which includes some discussion of peer-reviewed studies but makes no pretense of being one).

 

[about_average]

The article quoted in the OP is so blatantly incorrect that's it's laughable, but let's ignore that the study was of a tiny minority of academia and pretend for a moment that it can be applied in general.

Maybe the liberals at Uni discriminate against conservatives because they are tired of hearing how evolution is a religion, how atheism is a religion, how same sex marriage will destroy the institution of marriage, etc.
If I thought hiring someone meant I'd have to listen to that shit all day, I'd discriminate too. I don't suffer fools well.