Evidently this discussion extends beyond this thread. I did a google and a lot of this stuff came up.
The following is an article I found interesting that I don't offer as any kind of proof or anything just as someone else's viewpoint about this subect. Since I am a 'lefty' it is of course, a liberal viewpoint.
Why Republicans shun ivy towers
- Steven Lubet
Thursday, December 2, 2004
Conservative activists are on the march, determined to expose hotbeds of liberal influence wherever they find (or even suspect) them. Their latest target is higher education, one of the few corners of American life where liberal ideas still hold sway. Indeed several recent studies have confirmed that Democrats greatly outnumber Republicans -- in some cases, by ratios of 7 to 1 -- on many university faculties. This revelation has caused outrage in conservative quarters (including columnist George F. Will; see "No diversity of thought," Nov. 29) where it is considered evidence of liberal manipulation -- and worse.
Leading the charge is David Horowitz, a former student leftist who is now president of the right-leaning Center for the Study of Popular Culture. According to Horowitz, there has been a "successful and pervasive blacklist of conservatives on American college campuses," that can only be rectified by the intervention of state legislatures and boards of trustees. He has called for an "Academic Bill of Rights" to protect the interests of conservative faculty and students.
Other conservatives make similar claims. Thomas Reeves of the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, for example, has insisted that "conservatives are discriminated against routinely and deliberately" in faculty hiring, making some well-qualified candidates virtually "unemployable" on respected campuses.
These are odd arguments to hear from conservatives, since they usually deny that disproportionate statistics can be taken as proof of discrimination. When it comes to employment discrimination or affirmative action, conservatives will blithely insist that the absence of minorities (in a workforce or student body) simply means that there were too few "qualified applicants" from a particular group. And don't bother talking to them about a "glass ceiling" or "mommy track" that impedes women's careers. That's not discrimination, they say, it's "self-selection."
Conservatives abandon these arguments, however, when it comes to their own prospects in academe. Then the relative scarcity of Republican professors is widely asserted as proof of willful prejudice.
Of course, there are other possible explanations. Perhaps fewer conservatives than liberals are willing to endure the years of poverty- stricken graduate study necessary for a faculty position. Perhaps conservatives are smarter than liberals, recognizing that graduate school is a poor investment, given the scant job opportunities that await newly minted Ph. D.s. Or perhaps studious conservatives are more attracted to the greater financial rewards of industry and commerce.
Beyond the ivy walls, there are many professions that are dominated by Republicans. You will find very few Democrats (and still fewer outright liberals) among the ranks of high-level corporate executives, military officers or football coaches. Yet no one complains about these imbalances, and conservatives will no doubt explain that the seeming disparities are merely the result of market forces.
They are probably right. It is entirely rational for conservatives to flock to jobs that reward competition, aggression and victory at the expense of others. So it should not be surprising that liberals gravitate to professions -- such as academics, journalism, social work and the arts -- that emphasize inquiry, objectivity and the free exchange of ideas. After all, teachers at all levels -- from nursery school to graduate school -- tend to be Democrats. Surely there cannot be a conspiracy to deny conservatives employment on kindergarten playgrounds.
Alas, there have in fact been instances of political discrimination in academic hiring and promotion. And yes, conservatives -- both faculty and students -- have been snubbed or mistreated on overwhelmingly liberal campuses. More important, certain professors, and in some cases entire departments, have crossed the line from legitimate scholarship to overtly politicized advocacy, most frequently coming from the left. These problems should be vigorously addressed as individual cases, and remedied where necessary -- perhaps by disciplining individual professors, or even by reorganizing errant departments. But none of this is proof of systematic intimidation or blacklisting, as alleged by Horowitz and others.
The reality is that universities, by their nature, tend to be liberal institutions, not only in the United States, but in many countries around the world. Conservatives may bemoan the social forces behind this phenomenon, but there is nothing sinister about it. Nonetheless, liberals (like me) should admit that faculties face a risk of intellectual conformity, which can be stultifying and confining even when it is unintentional. Most major universities would likely benefit from the presence of more conservative scholars, who would sharpen the dialog and challenge many assumptions.
I might even be convinced to support some form of recruiting outreach or affirmative action for Republicans -- but surely my conservative colleagues would never stand for it.
Steven Lubet (
[email protected]) is a professor of law at Northwestern University. His latest book is "Murder in Tombstone: The Forgotten Trial of Wyatt Earp" (Yale University Press, 2004).
Page B - 9
URL:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/12/02/EDGNBA4QU51.DTL
[obviously the italics is added by me]
Perhaps you do.
