Political beliefs of academics

{{significantly problematic}}{{Sources needed}}{{uspolitics}}

There is much talk in countries including the [[United States|U.S.]] about the '''political beliefs of academics'''. Some people hold the view that [[professor]]s and other [[academic]] figures form a [[liberal]] or [[left-wing]] cabal that practices [[Moral panic|evil professor values and subverts the minds of the young]].

Often, a "professors are indoctrinating the youth!" gambit is tied to an [[Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy]] gambit.

==Are professors actually socialist/liberal?==
In [[reality]], US professors truly are more socialist or liberal than the general population; there are some plausible causes:

# The more educated a person becomes, the more the person has to [[reasoning|think]]. As a result, the person is better equipped to notice the [[hypocrisy]] and outright [[bullshit]] of [[authoritarianism|authoritarian]] or [[fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] ideology (and so-called "[[traditional values]]" when it consists of these things). In the USA, socialists and social-liberals are the ''most educated'' ideological demographics.<ref name=Pew>Pew Research Center. (2005). [http://www.people-press.org/2005/05/10/beyond-red-vs-blue/ Beyond Red vs. Blue.] 7 September.</ref><ref group=note>Or, as we at RationalWiki like to say, "[[Reality]] has a liberal bias" (with "liberal" being used here in the U.S. sense, e.g. skewing to the left of the [[political spectrum]]).</ref>
# Institutions of higher education (and to a lesser extent, college graduates themselves) in the United States tend to be more concentrated in urban areas.<ref>Elin Johnson (December 19, 2019). [https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/12/20/access-higher-education-tilts-heavily-toward-urban-areas "Education Deserts"]. ''Times Higher Education''.</ref><ref>Richard Florida (October 31, 2018). [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-31/the-place-of-college-grads-in-the-urban-rural-divide "The Talent Dividend in Urban and Rural Areas"]. ''Bloomberg''.</ref> There is a consistent and globally-observed {{wpl|urban–rural political divide||,}} even going back to ancient times.{{efn|For example, in ancient Rome.}} Plenty of explanations for this divide have been put forth, but one of the more compelling ones (especially in this instance) is that people who live in urban areas may be more likely to experience a diversity in the types of people they know,{{efn|Given the much higher population and the greater accumulation of different communities in your typical city, there is more opportunity to run across people who are different from you.}} lending itself to open-mindedness towards people of other ethnicities and lifestyles.
# Neoliberals and Neoconservatives are attracted in greater numbers by the larger salaries ({{wpl|bribery}}) on offer in the financial sector, in ideologically-aligned [[think tank]]s like the [[Heritage Foundation]], or in institutions like [[Hillsdale College]]<ref>{{wpa|Hillsdale College}}</ref> (a sponsor on shows like ''The Mark Levin Show'') or [[Liberty University]]. The economics departments of some public institutions — such as Auburn University and George Mason University — also have a reputation for their Neoliberal advocacy, but in general, people with these beliefs are more likely to prefer the higher salaries offered outside the public sector. 
# The very few professors who are ''not'' tolerant of other viewpoints and/or populations ([[Transphobia|Mary Daly]], for example) are usually [[Tankie]]s, Libertarians, or Nazis, as noted [[Political beliefs of academics#UCLA survey|below]], and in the long-term, a campus can sustain only ''one'' intolerant point-of-view.{{cn}}
# Many teachers are part of a [[trade union|union]] and many more are government employees<ref group=note>Which comes first: the chicken, or the egg?</ref> — both of these categories tend to support workers' rights and to advocate democracy rather than [[plutocracy|rule by inherited wealth]]. 
# Highest-quintile intelligence is strongly associated with altruistic motivation, so Neoliberal and Neoconservative ideologues are very rare among this group across all subjects — and indeed, internationally. This tends to invalidate claims that self-selection or hiring bias effect<!-- sic, don't change, please --> the prevelance of left-leaning individuals in academia, as highest-quintile intelligence scores are 
probably required
 very common in faculty positions.<ref>[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028961500080X Scholarly elites orient left, irrespective of academic affiliation.] Idan S. Solon.  <u>Intelligence</u>. Volume 51, July–August 2015, Pages 119–130.</ref>

==Effect on students==

As with most 'brainwashing' claims, the supposed effects of teacher bias are highly dubious and at most amount to an indirect influence over the students' terms of reference and quick-recall heuristics. The likelihood of it influencing fundamental beliefs and deep thoughts is, as always, pretty minimal given the other external and internal influences affecting them (background, social group, media consumption, personal taste). According to a ''[[Washington Post]]'' op-ed by ideological Conservative (and hence [[Skepticism|skeptical]] anti-ideologue) Howard Kurtz:

{{cquote|When asked about the findings, Jonathan Knight, director of academic freedom and tenure for the American Association of University Professors, said, "The question is how this translates into what happens within the academic community on such issues as curriculum, admission of students, evaluation of students, evaluation of faculty for salary and promotion." Knight said he isn't aware of "any good evidence" that personal views are having an impact on campus policies.<ref name="Kurtz"/>}}

Or in other words, despite the personal beliefs of professors, academia lacks a "systemic bias" in favor of Socialism. This view is not universally held, however, as professors such as the Democratic-Party Neoliberal {{wpl|KC Johnson}} have pointed out curricula in several humanities departments which are slanted towards a Socialist point of view and hiring patterns that clearly discriminate against Neoliberal and Neoconservative professors. His chief concern, however, is with students specifically training to become public school teachers; although he does mention the possibility of similar mindsets outside this area, he does not cite instances of this actually happening.<ref>http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2012/08/no_conservatives_pleasewere_co/</ref><ref>https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2005/05/23/johnson</ref>

Some [[radical]] professors are, of course, ''very open'' about the fact that they are in academia to grind a [[Partisan|political and/or ideological axe]] and train their ideological successors, but this does not translate to a giant secret [[conspiracy]] involving all Socialist and Nationalist professors.{{fact|joke}} If there actually are secret conspiracies in academia to mint students into good little foot-soldiers for their causes, they're simultaneously doing an amazingly good job at remaining secret and failing epically at their stated purpose.   

One of the popular claims is that these professors are cogs in a [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] political machine. However, only half of college students identify as Democrats, and only 52% of college-educated professionals (including professors) vote Democratic, which isn't quite the oft-painted image of a 'liberal [[hivemind]]'.<ref name="Judis">Judis, J. B. (19 June, 2007). Back to the Future:   
[http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=back_to_the_future061807 The re-emergence of the emerging Democratic majority.] ''The American Prospect''. 7 September, 2007.</ref>

==Statistics==
===By discipline===

Not all academic departments have discernable political leanings.<ref name="Kurtz"/> Among professors (less than 20% of whom identify as '[[conservative]]'), 'liberals' are most prominent in the [[social science]]s and humanities. Professors in [[engineering]] and [[business]] departments are about evenly split.

===Carnegie University survey===

This 1989 survey is somewhat dated. [[Libertarian]] Peter G. Klein used this article for his rant on [[socialist]] economists, which [[Red-baiting| of course placed liberals and communists in the same camp since democracy is a slippery slope to communism]].<ref name="Klein">[http://www.mises.org/story/2318 Oh, the Mises Institute.]</ref> It indicated that over 70% of [[tenure]]-tracked professors were 'liberal', while less than 20% were 'conservative'.

{| class="wikitable" style="width: 50%; margin: auto; text-align:center" |+{Text}
|+ Liberal professors by discipline
! scope="row" | Public Affairs
| 88%
|-
! scope="row" | Ethnic Studies
| 76%
|-
! scope="row" | Anthropologists
| 72%
|-
! scope="row" | Political Scientists
| 72%
|-
! scope="row" | Economists
| 63%
|}

The study also indicated that:

*71% believe [[income inequality]] is too high
*81% want the [[government]] to do something about it
*Democrats outnumber [[Republican]]s 2.8:1

===University of Toronto survey===

This study, which was based on 1999 data from the North American Academic Study Survey, asked 1,634 full-time employed faculty members at four year institutions across the U.S. However, the sample was largely limited to full-time social-science and humanities professors, which skewed it:<ref name="Kurtz">Kurtz, H. (29 March 2005). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html College Faculties a Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds.] ''The Washington Post''. 7 September, 2007.</ref>

{| class="wikitable" style="width: 50%; margin: auto; text-align:center" |+{Text}
|-
! !! All professors !! Ivy League professors
|-
! scope="row" | 'Liberal'
| 72% || 87%
|-
! scope="row" | 'Moderate'
| 13% || 0%
|-
! scope="row" | 'Conservative'
| 15% || 13%
|}

{| class="wikitable" style="width: 50%; margin: auto; text-align:center" |+{Text}
|+Liberal professors by discipline
|-
! scope="row" | Humanities
| 81%
|-
! scope="row" | Social Science
| 75%
|-
! scope="row" | Engineering
| 51%
|-
! scope="row" | Business
| 49%
|}

===UCLA survey===

According to Christopher Shea of the ''Boston Globe'', a 2001 survey carried out by the UCLA Higher Education Research Institute "identified a distinct leftward tilt in academia, but a smaller one than you might expect."<ref name="Shea">Shea, C. (12 October, 2003). [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2003/10/12/what_liberal_academia/ What liberal academia?], ''Boston Globe''. 7 September, 2007.</ref> It further indicated that [[radical]]s on either side of the spectrum make up less than 6% of all professors, although the vast majority of these were 'far-left'.

{| class="wikitable" style="width: 50%; margin: auto; text-align:center" |+{Text}
|+ All professors
|-
! scope="row" | 'Far-left'
| 5.3%
|-
! scope="row" | 'Liberal'
| 42.3%
|-
! scope="row" | 'Moderate'
| 34.4%
|-
! scope="row" | 'Conservative'
| 17.7%
|-
! scope="row" | 'Far-right'
| 0.3%
|}

==See also==
*[[Association fallacy]]
*[[Self-fulfilling prophecy]]
*[[Anti-intellectualism]]
*[[Politicization of science]]

==External links==
*{{wpa|Political views of American academics}}
*[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/books/03infl.html?em Professors' Liberalism Contagious? Maybe Not], ''[[New York Times]]''
*[http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=reality_bites Reality Bites], Chris Mooney
*[http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.147.6141%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=jA28UNuFDomo0AHt2YD4AQ&usg=AFQjCNFpTaqWQOMgP2E5IdYbPWWb-K90HA&sig2=bHQAF3VXe-OAJlUEiqlUCg The Social and Political Views of American Professors], Neil Gross and Solon Simmons

==References==
{{reflist}}

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category:Academia]]
[[Category:Anti-intellectualism]]

Categories: Sociology, Academia, Anti-intellectualism