Anthropology and communications saw no registered Republicans. English, Sociology, and Art departments had a ratio of around 40:1 Democrat professors Republican professors, whereas in technical fields the ratio drops considerably to only 1.6:1 in engineering, and around 5:1 for economics, chemistry, and mathematics.
Langbert notes:
> The political registration of full-time, Ph.D.-holding professors in top-tier liberal arts colleges is overwhelmingly Democratic. Indeed, faculty political affiliations at 39 percent of the colleges in my sample are Republican free—having zero Republicans.
> When asked for their political identities on a scale of “very liberal” to “very conservative,” 23.2% of respondents identified as “very liberal,” 38.53% identified as “somewhat liberal,” 24.48% identified as moderates or centrists, 9.92% identified as “somewhat conservative” and 3.87% identified as “very conservative.”
> Across 14 departments in the Social Sciences and Humanities, the report identified 312 Democrat faculty (88%) and only 4 Republicans (1.1%), a ratio of around 78 to 1.
Is this a problem? We expect universities to have a pro-truth, pro-reality, pro-knowledge bias, which are things the Republican party overtly rejects. We could expect that Republicans might not make it to universities as often, or they might not want to attend, or they might cease being Republicans upon learning facts and logic. None of this would be surprising and none of this would necessarily be a problem by itself.
> We expect universities to have a pro-truth, pro-reality, pro-knowledge bias, which are things the Republican party overtly rejects.
The people you’re pretending to be harbingers of truth believe that men can get pregnant.
> or they might cease being Republicans upon learning facts and logic.
So why is the bias the strongest in the least rigorous fields (communications, anthropology, music) and weakest is the most rigorous (mathematics, engineering, medicine, physics)?
Well they can. Some transgender men can get pregnant AFAIK.
This bias might be strongest in humanities because of self selection - conservatives think those are useless, but can see the utility in engineering - among other reasons.
How very brave of you to create this new account just to post something "obvious". I'm guessing it's "obvious" because of cyclic definitions, and deliberate imperviousness to the idea that chromosonal sex, phenotypical sex and gender aren't strictly equivalent.
I don't subscribe to the sexist belief system that women and men are defined by collections of cultural stereotypes or as mere identities to be opted into.
Quite astounding that people sincerely believe this nonsense and end up so proudly expressing stupidity like "men can get pregnant" because of it.
That happens in conservative circles
too. But instead of 4 years, Americans like myself are stuck with 40 years of business indoctrination from pro-business and conservative “leadership”.
The same leadership, by the way, that largely insisted on college degrees in the first place.
> The conservatives are right about the partisan bias of universities
Yes - and?
Police forces and catholic churches skew conservative, but I figure it's an emergent property based on the self-selected group who join the respective organizations plus some exposure to new ideas.
You seem like you expect political "neutrality", but if you look at at any institution, you'll find "bias": theatre fook, country music, poets, small Business owners, baristas , farmers, CxOs, software engineers tend to lean one way or another on average. The battle is not to establish political neutrality everywhere, but selective against universities because the staff & students leans left. I'm yet to hear conservatives complain about the political bias in the Fraternal Order of Police or the FBI.
Looking at history, every nascent autocracy takes aim at independent intellectuals, like clockwork. First to be neutralized is the opposition, then the press, then the intellectuals in higher education.
> I figure it's an emergent property based on the self-selected group who join the respective organizations plus some exposure to new ideas.
There are plenty of conservatives interested in anthropology; there’s no reason to think they’ve self-selected out of the pool, so then we have to consider if conservatives enter the field but are exposed to new ideas such that none remain conservatives for long (this seems unlikely), or that these departments have been taken over by people who explicitly use their influence within these departments to promote certain narratives; this is far more likely as they have been explicitly stating that this is what they are doing for decades now.
This theory is further corroborated by where you see this bias; it’s the least pronounced in quantitative, technical fields (mathematics, engineering, chemistry), and most pronounced in fields that are almost completely qualitative.
I'm not sure what evidence you would expect to see if it was self-selection because of an in-group mentality versus explicit hostility to intentionally keep some out.
By comparison, is there some affirmative evidence for the reason why there are so few liberals in the FBI is because they self-selected out, instead of that the FBI being perceived as a conservative institution causes them to self-select out?
> I'm not sure what evidence you would expect to see if it was self-selection because of an in-group mentality versus explicit hostility to intentionally keep some out.
> is there some affirmative evidence for the reason why there are so few liberals in the FBI is because they self-selected out, instead of that the FBI being perceived as a conservative institution causes them to self-select out?
I’m not sure I understand your question. I would presume if people are self-selecting out of any organization it’s because they believe it isn’t a suitable place for them, and if this division is along party lines then politics is likely to be the cause of that belief. In either case, if the FBI skews conservative, I would guess that this was due to internal gatekeeping, not self-selection, and I think the history of the organization supports that assertion.
I'm not sure what you're pointing at in the links: I don't see any "explicit roadmap" to exclude mainstream conservative thinkers from professorships documented there. The main examples seem to be Creationists and Alex Jones and similar inflammatory content creators having paid speaker invitations rescinded due to student pressure, which is an radically different topic than what I thought the thread was about.
> In either case, if the FBI skews conservative, I would guess that this was due to internal gatekeeping, not self-selection, and I think the history of the organization supports that assertion.
The FBI very dramatically skews conservative compared to the American base, and I think it is a conspiracy theory level claim that the explanation is that the FBI is deliberately keeping out mainstream-left-leaning people from being agents.
It's always very attractive to believe that there's some shadowy cabal explicitly and deliberately controlling the strings to the outcomes that you don't like, when in reality it essentially is never the case. The reality is always far messier, and nearly all bad things stem from complex emergent systemic outcomes with no X-Files Smoking Man at the center of it all.
Any claim of an affirmative explicit decision for the bad outcome requires exceptional justification, because it's just such an appealing thing to want to believe and its almost never true.
> The main examples seem to be Creationists and Alex Jones and similar inflammatory content creators having paid speaker invitations rescinded due to student pressure, which is an radically different topic than what I thought the thread was about.
I’m pointing you towards the trends; you aren’t going to find documentary evidence stating: “We didn’t hire this guy because of his voting history” because a) it’s illegal and b) it’s very unlikely these biases are coordinated between institutions. The Long March article is instructive because the departments where the bias is strongest are all frequent washout degrees for critical theorists.
> It's always very attractive to believe that there's some shadowy cabal explicitly and deliberately controlling the strings to the outcomes that you don't like, when in reality it essentially is never the case.
I never made any assertion as to the existence of a “shadowy cabal” nor any other organized concert. This is an inane attempt to make my claims look ridiculous because you can’t refute them on their own merits. To wit:
> I think it is a conspiracy theory level claim that the explanation is that the FBI is deliberately keeping out mainstream-left-leaning people from being agents.
If you found out 100% of agents were not left-leaning, would you still consider this a fanciful, tin-foil hat style conspiracy? Because that’s what we are talking about here. Note that you have not accurately represented my claim: There is no FBI-style organization in my model that is coordinating the exclusion; it’s intentional, but happening at a local level, not as part of a centralized effort.
I may have misinterpreted "explicit roadmap", to be that implied a directing/organizing entity that is coordinating the exclusion of right-leaning people from professorships, versus your reply here clarifying you mean something different.
> If you found out 100% of agents were not left-leaning, would you still consider this a fanciful, tin-foil hat style conspiracy
Yep, I would. I think we are in the world where FBI agents are skewed as dramatically to the right as university professors are skewed left (which is to say: very). I don't believe either one as the deliberate exclusion of interested individuals from those positions based on their voting records, but instead more likely that both are self-selection and direct correlation to political views effects even when it's too such an extreme degree.
It's the same effect as theater having way more queer people in it than football, which is also not due to any conspiracy.
> or that these departments have been taken over by people who explicitly use their influence within these departments to promote certain narratives
What mechanisms do these department heads use to suppress conservative viewpoints in research? While politics in academia can be vicious, it's never a grand conspiracy like you think it is, it's typically, and depressingly petty issues and grudges.
> What mechanisms do these department heads use to suppress conservative viewpoints in research?
DEI has likely had a minor influence. In the articles I linked above, the bias towards liberalism is weakest among Asians, then whites, and then strongest among blacks and Latinos. I don’t know what the racial composition of professors looks like, so this is just a hunch.
The primary mechanism would be to simply avoid hiring those who fail to signal that they are sufficiently liberal, and avoid funding research that would reach illiberal conclusions. I can’t point you to any evidence of this besides the paper I linked above, but which seems more likely:
1) Republican opinions just so obviously conflict with the study of communications that there are zero professors of communications who are registered Republicans.
2) Democrats took control of these positions and did not care to invite anyone who didn’t signal that they were ideological fellow travellers?
> While politics in academia can be vicious, it's never a grand conspiracy like you think it is, it's typically, and depressingly petty issues and grudges.
Being interested is not the same as being competent.
Conservatism is not a doctrine of competence. Experience shows time and again that conservatives can't think, can't plan, and can't govern. They act in emotional and purely self-interested ways to promote rigid hierarchies, and are reliably surprised by consequences that are obvious and predictable to rational educated actors.
Conservatives are split into 2 groups. Conservatives who are in it for the money and conservatives who are in it because they don't know any better.
College professor is not a well paying job for the level of skill required nor is it a job that someone who isn't very knowledgeable could do. That excludes most conservatives from the position.
The conservatives are right about the partisan bias of universities. See this survey by Mitchell Langbert.
https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/31/2/homogenous_the_p...
Anthropology and communications saw no registered Republicans. English, Sociology, and Art departments had a ratio of around 40:1 Democrat professors Republican professors, whereas in technical fields the ratio drops considerably to only 1.6:1 in engineering, and around 5:1 for economics, chemistry, and mathematics.
Langbert notes:
> The political registration of full-time, Ph.D.-holding professors in top-tier liberal arts colleges is overwhelmingly Democratic. Indeed, faculty political affiliations at 39 percent of the colleges in my sample are Republican free—having zero Republicans.
Duke: https://dukechronicle.com/article/duke-university-faculty-su...
> When asked for their political identities on a scale of “very liberal” to “very conservative,” 23.2% of respondents identified as “very liberal,” 38.53% identified as “somewhat liberal,” 24.48% identified as moderates or centrists, 9.92% identified as “somewhat conservative” and 3.87% identified as “very conservative.”
Yale: https://buckleyinstitute.com/faculty-political-diversity-rep...
> Across 14 departments in the Social Sciences and Humanities, the report identified 312 Democrat faculty (88%) and only 4 Republicans (1.1%), a ratio of around 78 to 1.