To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Political views of American academics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The political views of American academics began to receive attention in the 1930s, and investigation into faculty political views expanded rapidly after the rise of McCarthyism. Demographic surveys of faculty that began in the 1950s and continue to the present have found higher percentages of liberals than of conservatives, particularly among those who work in the humanities and social sciences. Researchers and pundits disagree about survey methodology and about the interpretations of the findings.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    178 758
    520 545
    322 940
    4 308
    403
  • Neil deGrasse Tyson: Science, Abraham Lincoln, Immigrants, and the Fading of America
  • How the Liberal University Hurts the Liberal Student
  • Introduction to Political Science
  • It Depends What State You’re In: Policies and Politics of the US Health Care System | Part 1
  • Black Politics After Obama: Academics Reflect on Black Politics

Transcription

I have to chuckle a little bit when I'm approached by anybody, but in particular journalists, and say, “Are scientist worried that the public is in denial of science or is cherry-picking it?” And I chuckle not because it's funny but because they're coming to me as a scientist when they should be going to everyone. Everyone should be concerned by this, not just scientists. In fact, scientists will just continue as they're doing. You might withdraw funding, but then there isn't any science done—okay. You are transforming your civilization if you choose to either stand in denial of science or withdraw science funding from those who are actually doing the research. Everything we care deeply about that defines modern civilization pivots on innovations in science, technology, engineering and the math that is the foundational language for it all. Everything: transportation, your health, your communication through smart phones that talk to GPS satellites to find out where Grandma is. To make a left turn to find her address or the nearest Starbucks. Whatever is your need, whatever is your want, the emergent innovations in science and technology are not only enabling it, they are creating for you solutions to challenges you always lived with but never thought that they could be solved. The message is clear: if you do not understand what science is and how and why it works—by the way, I'm not even blaming you. I look back as an educator, I look back to K through 12, kindergarten through 12th grade, and I say there's something missing there. If you, as an educated adult, can say, "This is what these scientists agree to, but I don't agree with them." If that sentence even comes out of your mouth it's like: oh my gosh. Okay, well, we live in a free country, you can say and think what you want. I'm not even going to stop you. But if you rise to power and have influence over legislation and that legislation references what you think science is but is not, that is a recipe for the unraveling of an informed democracy. So I'm not even going to blame you. It's not your fault. I'm an educator. Let's go back to K through 12. Somewhere in there while you're learning about reading, writing, and arithmetic and while you have a class in earth science and biology and chemistry, maybe physics, somewhere in there there needs to be a class, possibly taught every year, on what it is to analyze knowledge, information, how to process facts, how to turn data into information and information into knowledge and how to turn knowledge into wisdom. Because it is wisdom that you need to invoke when you're a leader. You need insight into not only what is going on but what will then happen in the future as a consequence of your decisions. You know who had all of that? Abraham Lincoln. We remember him for the Civil War and slavery, two top categories that he's justifiably remembered for. You know why I also remember him? In 1863, you know what he did? By the way, that year he had plenty of other things, many other priorities in his life. 1863: middle of the Civil War, Gettysburg Address. That same year, he signed into law the National Academy of Sciences who were charged with advising the executive and the legislative branch of all the ways that science needs to be recognized as a fundamental part of what will assure the future health, wealth, and security of the nation. By the way, Abe Lincoln was a Republican president, greatly valuing what science is going to tell him. This puts into motion a valuation of academic science that would boost the United States from a backwoods country into the world's leading economic force. And he had the wisdom, the insight, the knowledge. He knew how to think about that problem. Today you have partisanship over what is science? Again, people somehow don't understand what science is and how and why it works. That has to be a course in the curriculum K through 12, right through college, because everyone in Congress went to college. And so if you come out of college and don't know this, we need some of that in college as well. Now the partisanship: you hear liberals claiming the science high ground, accusing right-leaning people of science denial, generally in reference to climate change data and, as well but less frequently, teaching evolution in the biology classroom. People want to teach biblical creation. So this high ground is not as high a ground as the liberal community would want to claim, because there is a portfolio of things that for you to think that way will require that you reject some mainstream science. And in that portfolio you find people who lean left. If you are all-in for alternative medicine, and if you're anti-GMO, if you're anti-vax, you are in denial of mainstream science—period. So we have these two political ends of the spectrum each accusing the other of whatever, and I'm saying science has no political party. It is true—when you establish an objective truth with the methods and tools of science, it is true no matter what political party you are, what your philosophies are, what religion you belong to, what country you're born in. That's why it's science. It may be unique among human enterprises that it transcends all of this. Now what we need to do is recognize what science is, how and why it works and what are the objectively established scientific truths, then have the political conversation. Do you put in carbon tax or tariffs on solar panels? Should you invest in this industry? Should you subsidize it? Those have political solutions. My jaw drops open every time I see people having a political conversation, arguing about a scientific truth. We're wasting time, people. Because nature is the ultimate judge, jury, and executioner, and the whole point of science is to find out what nature is, how it works, how we can best use our knowledge of nature in the service of our needs, and the needs of others across the world. So if this keeps up the United States will just fade, and the rest of the world that understands how to invoke scientific insight and knowledge will rise up, and we will just become irrelevant on the world stage. By the way, when you innovate your jobs don't go overseas because you are innovating here and this is where the intellectual capital for that is located. That's how that works. If you're going to complain about trade imbalances it's because you're doing what everybody else is doing and now you want to protect your jobs by putting tariffs on other people so that we can buy our own products. But if you innovate you are making products that no one else knows how to make yet. So the whole concept of tariffs, that's what you do when you're not leading. You have those conversations when you're the same as everybody and then you go into a protectionist mode. And one last point, about immigrants: on average since 1900 about one in ten Americans was born in another country, so ten percent immigrants, average. It's fluctuated from like five percent to 14 percent, but since 1900 it averages about one in ten. The Nobel Prizes have been given since 1900. Let's ask the question: what percent of American Nobel Prizes in the sciences were won by immigrants? One third of all Nobel Prizes given to Americans since Nobel Prizes began have gone to immigrants. They are a factor of three more represented in scientific scholarship, as represented by the Nobel Prize, than they are even in the population. How does this happen? We were leading the world in science, technology, engineering and math, so the most brilliant minds around the world were attracted to us, contributing to who and what America became. As we begin to fade, that all goes away. The brilliant minds are attracted elsewhere and America fades. It's not a cliff face, it's just a slope. Maybe so gradual you're not even thinking about it, and one day we wake up and we start running behind other countries saying, "Can we join in? Tell us how you did it." That's actually not the America I grew up in.

Contents

History

Pre- and post-WWII

Max Yergan was one of the first professors fired for political views.
Max Yergan was one of the first professors fired for political views.

Carol Smith[1] and Stephen Leberstein[2] have documented investigations of professors' political views at the City College of New York (CCNY) during the 1930s and 1940s. Citing the tactics of private hearings, requiring respondents to name others, and denying rights of legal representation, Smith calls the investigations a "dress rehearsal for McCarthyism".[1] Smith described the case of Max Yergan, who was the first African American professor hired at the CCNY. After complaints that he expressed liberal and progressive views in his classes on Negro History and Culture, Yergan was terminated in 1936.[1] In 1938, the U.S. House of Representatives created the House Un-American Activities Committee; one of the committee's first actions was to attempt to investigate the political views of faculty in the New York public colleges.[1]

In 1940, Bertrand Russell was denied employment as a philosophy professor at CCNY because of his political beliefs.[1] That same year, the New York State Legislature created the Rapp-Coutert Committee, which held hearings in 1940–41 during which faculty accused of holding communist political beliefs were interrogated.[2] More than 50 faculty and staff at CCNY resigned or were terminated as a result of the hearings.[1][2] One professor, Morris Schappes, served a year in prison for refusing to name colleagues who may have been affiliated with the Community party.[1] Smith believes that the investigations caused the largest political purge on one campus in the history of the US.

In 1942, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), began investigating the political views of W.E.B. DuBois, an African American sociologist who taught at Atlanta University.[3] The investigation centered on DuBois's 1940 autobiography, Dusk of Dawn. Although the investigation was dismissed, Atlanta University fired DuBois in 1943. Public outcry led the university to reinstate DuBois, but he retired in 1944. In 1949, the House Un-American Activities Committee summoned faculty members from the University of Washington, and three tenured faculty members were fired.[4]

Public concern about the political opinions of college teachers intensified after World War II ended in 1945.[5] Sociologists who were investigated by the FBI for their political beliefs during this period include Ernest Burgess, William Fielding Ogburn, Robert Staughton Lynd, Helen Lynd, E. Franklin Frazier, Pitirim A. Sorokin, Talcott Parsons, Herbert Blumer, Samuel Stouffer, C. Wright Mills, and Edwin H. Sutherland.[3]

McCarthyism and loyalty oaths

Joseph McCarthy's hearings led to faculty members being pressured to resign.
Joseph McCarthy's hearings led to faculty members being pressured to resign.

Although government employees and entertainment figures were most often investigated for alleged communist sympathies during the "Second Red Scare" of the 1950s, many university faculty were accused as well.[4] In their 1955 study of 2,451 social scientists who taught at American colleges and universities, Lazarsfeld and Thielens noted that the period of 1945–55 was especially marked by suspicion and attacks on colleges for the political views of their faculty. These authors label this period "the difficult years."[5]:35

In 1950, the University of California Board of Regents and its administration began to require faculty to sign a two-part political loyalty oath: one part required faculty to declare they were not Communists, and did not believe in the tenets of Communism;[6] the other part was an oath of loyalty to the state of California and the US Constitution in accordance with the Levering Act.[4][7] In early March, 1950, the faculty, who numbered 900, unanimously refused to sign even though the Regents threatened non-signers with termination.[6] Faculty who refused to sign the loyalty oath were terminated, although most of the terminations were later overturned by a California state court.[7] In 1951, members of the American Legion began accusing various university faculty of being communists.[8] University administrations responded by banning left-wing student groups and communist speakers.[4] Joseph McCarthy's Senate committee investigated 18 faculty members at Sarah Lawrence College, some of whom were pressured to resign.[8]

According to historian Ellen Schrecker, "it is very clear that an academic blacklist was in operation during the McCarthy era."[4] An estimated 100 university faculty were terminated during the McCarthy era due to suspicions about their political beliefs.[9]:122 In 1970, Federal Bureau of Investigation Director J. Edgar Hoover sent an open letter to US college students, advising them to reject leftist politics,[10] and throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the FBI conducted a secret counterintelligence program in libraries.[3]:viii–ix

Surveys

Ford Foundation

In 1955, Robert Maynard Hutchins led an effort within the Ford Foundation to document and analyze the effects of McCarthyism on academic freedom.[11]:25–27 He commissioned sociologist Paul Lazarsfeld to conduct a study of university faculty in the United States, and the results were published by Lazarsfeld and Wagner Thielens in a book, The Academic Mind. As part of a survey of faculty views about academic freedom during the "Second Red Scare", they asked 2,451 professors of social science a large number of questions, and found that about two thirds of these faculty members had been visited by the FBI and had been asked questions about the political beliefs of their colleagues, students, and themselves.[3]:xvii They also included a few questions about political party affiliations and recent voting patterns, and reported that there were more Democrats than Republicans, 47% to 16%.[5] According to sociologist Neil Gross, the study was significant because it was the first effort to poll university faculty specifically about their political views.[11]:25–27

Carnegie Commission on Higher Education

The Lazarsfeld and Thielens study had examined a sample of 2451 social science faculty members.[5] A second study, conducted in 1969 on behalf of the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, was the first to be performed with a large survey sample, extensive questions about political views, and what Neil Gross characterized as highly rigorous analytic methods.[11]:28–30 The study was conducted in 1969 by political scientist Everett Carll Ladd and sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset, who surveyed 60,000 academics in multiple fields of study at 303 institutions about their political views.[11]:28–30 Publishing their results in the 1975 book The Divided Academy, Ladd and Lipset found that about 46% of professors described themselves as liberal, 27% described themselves as moderates, and 28% described themselves as conservative. They also reported that faculty in the humanities and social sciences tended to be the most liberal, while those in "applied professional schools such as nursing and home economics" and in agriculture were the most conservative. Younger faculty tended to be more liberal than older faculty, and faculty across the political spectrum tended to disapprove of the student activism of the 1960s.[12][13][11]:28–30

Smaller follow-up surveys on behalf of the Carnegie Foundation held in 1975, 1984, 1989, and 1997 showed an increased trend among professors toward the left, apart from a small movement to the right in 1984. By the 1997 study, 57% of the professors surveyed identified as liberals, 20% as moderates, and 24% as conservatives.[14][15][11]:31[13]

Later surveys

As later surveys were published, some scholars pointed to the harmful effects of a political imbalance in the faculty,[14][16][17][18][19] and one editorial described the effects as "ruining college".[20] Other scholars said that there were serious methodological problems that led to overestimates of the disparity between liberals and conservatives, and that there were political motivations for such overestimates.[13]:24[21]:20[22][23]

Higher Education Research Institute

Beginning in 1989, the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) at the University of California, Los Angeles has conducted a survey of full-time faculty at American four-year colleges and universities every three years.[13][11]:31 The HERI Faculty Survey gathers comprehensive information about the faculty experience, such as position, field, institutional details, and personal opinion and views, including a single question asking respondents to self-identify their political orientation as "far left", "liberal", "moderate/middle of the road", "conservative", or "far right". Between 1989 and 1998, the survey showed negligible change in the number of professors who described themselves as far left or liberal, approximately 45%. As of 2014, surveying 16,112 professors, the percentage of liberal/far left had increased to 60%.[24][25][26][27] When asked in 2012 about the significance of the findings on political views, the director of HERI, Sylvia Hurtado, said that the numbers on political views attract a lot of attention, but that this attention may be misplaced because there may be trivial reasons for the shifts.[28]

North American Academic Survey Study

Ladd and Lipset, who had conducted the original Carnegie survey, designed a telephone survey in 1999 of approximately 4000 faculty, administrators, and students, called the North American Academic Survey Study (NASS).[29] Stanley Rothman, the project lead after the passing of Ladd and Lipset, published a paper using NAASS data along with Neil Nevitte and S. Robert Lichter which concluded "complaints of ideologically-based discrimination in academic advancement deserve serious consideration and further study".[14] Rothman along with co-authors Matthew Woessner and April Kelly-Woessner reported their extended findings in a book titled The Still Divided Academy.[30][29][31]

Politics of the American Professoriate

Neil Gross and Solon Simmons conducted a survey starting in 2006 called the Politics of the American Professoriate which led to several study papers and books. They designed their survey to improve on past studies which they felt had not included community college professors, addressed low response rates, or used standardized questions. The survey drew upon a sample size of 1417 full-time professors from 927 institutions.[32][19]

In 2007, Gross and Simmons concluded in The Social and Political Views of American Professors that the professors were 44% liberal, 46% moderates, and 9% conservative.[32][21]:25–26 Inside Higher Ed reported that economist Lawrence H. Summers made his own analysis of the data collected by Gross and Simmons and found a larger gap among faculty teaching "core disciplines for undergraduate education" at elite research universities, but the report also concluded that "there was widespread praise for the way the survey was conducted, with Summers and others predicting that their data may become the definitive source for understanding professors' political views."[19]

Gross published a more extensive analysis in his 2013 book Why Are Professors Liberal and Why Do Conservatives Care?[11] and, with Simmons, in their 2014 compilation Professors and Their Politics.[21]:25–26 They strongly criticized what they saw as conservative political influence on the interpretation of data about faculty political views, arising from activists and think tanks seeking political reform of American higher education.[21]:20 Sociologist Joseph Hermanowicz described Professors and Their Politics as "a welcome addition to sociological literature examining higher education, which, in the case of its intersection with politics, has not received serious attention since Paul Lazarsfeld and Wagner Theilen's classic study of 1958 and Seymour Martin Lipset and Everett Carll Ladd's 1976 work."[33]

Regional and disciplinary variations

Steven Pinker has advocated for more acceptance of political diversity in the social sciences.
Steven Pinker has advocated for more acceptance of political diversity in the social sciences.

Several studies have found that the political views of academics vary considerably between different regions of the United States, and between academic disciplines. In a 2016 opinion column in The New York Times, for example, political scientist Samuel J. Abrams used HERI data to argue that the ratio of liberal to conservative faculty varied greatly between regions. According to Abrams, the ratio of liberal to conservative professors was highest in New England, where this ratio was 28:1, compared to 6:1 nationally.[34][35] Abrams also commented on these findings that "This previously unspecified ideological imbalance on campuses has led to cries of discrimination against right of center professors and scores of reports from both academic and popular press sources which have chronicled the concerns with this "beleaguered" and "oppressed" minority on campus... The data clearly reveal that conservative faculty are not only as satisfied with their career choice – if not more so – as their liberal counterparts, but that these faculty are also as progressive in their teaching methods and maintain almost identical outlooks toward their personal and professional lives."[36]

Mitchell Langbert examined variations in political party registration in 2018, describing a higher concentration of Democrats in elite liberal arts institutions in the northeast, and found more Democrats among female faculty than male faculty. He also found the greatest ratio of Democrats to Republicans in interdisciplinary studies and the humanities, and the lowest ratio in professional studies and science and engineering.[37]

Focusing specifically on social psychology academics, a 2014 study found that "[b]y 2006, however, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans had climbed to more than 11:1."[16] The six authors, all from different universities and members of the Heterodox Academy, also said, by 2012, "that for every politically conservative social psychologist in academia there are about 14 liberal psychologists" according to Arthur C. Brooks. Academy member[38] Steven Pinker described the study as "one of the most important papers in the recent history of the social sciences".[39] Russell Jacoby questioned the focus of the study on the social sciences rather than STEM fields saying that the "reason is obvious: Liberals do not outnumber conservatives in many of those disciplines".[22]

Effects

On students

Since the modern conservative movement in the United States began in the mid-20th century, conservative authors have argued that college students are unduly influenced or indoctrinated as a result of the prevalence of liberal faculty at their schools.[40][41] William F. Buckley's God and Man at Yale: The Superstitions of "Academic Freedom", Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind, Dinesh D'Souza's Illiberal Education, and Roger Kimball's Tenured Radicals have made such arguments.[40][11]:27,221–222[41] George Yancey argues that there is little evidence that the political orientation of faculty members affects the political attitudes of their students.[42] A study by Mack D. Mariani and Gordon J. Hewitt published in 2008 examined ideological changes in college students between their first and senior years and found that these changes correlated with that of most Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 during the same time period, and there was no evidence that faculty ideology was "associated with changes in students' ideological orientation" and concluded that students at more liberal schools "were not statistically more likely to move to the left" than students at other institutions. Similarly, Stanley Rothman, April Kelly-Woessner, and Mathew Wossner found in 2010 that students' "aggregate attitudes do not appear to vary much between their first and final years," and wrote that this "raises some questions about charges that campuses politically indoctrinate students."[30]:77–78 Analysis of a survey of students' political attitudes by M. Kent Jennings and Laura Stoker found that the tendency of college graduates to be more liberal is largely due to "the fact that more liberal students are more likely to go to college in the first place."[43]

On faculty

Lawrence Summers has said: "As someone who is a strong Democrat and is a liberal, and does not think that we have won the argument with the country over the last 40 years, rather to the contrary, it makes me wonder whether if you do not engage in intense dialogue with those whom you disagree with... whether your own arguments will be sharpened and honed to maximum effect."[19]
Lawrence Summers has said: "As someone who is a strong Democrat and is a liberal, and does not think that we have won the argument with the country over the last 40 years, rather to the contrary, it makes me wonder whether if you do not engage in intense dialogue with those whom you disagree with... whether your own arguments will be sharpened and honed to maximum effect."[19]

Rothman, Kelly-Woessner, and Woessner also found in 2010 that 33% of conservative faculty say they are "very satisfied" with their careers, while 24% of liberal faculty say so. Over 90% of Republican-voting professors said that they would still become professors if they could do it all over again. The authors concluded that, although such numbers are not definitive as to how faculty members feel that they have been treated, they provide some evidence against the idea that conservative faculty members are systematically discriminated against.[31][30]:102 Woessner and Kelly-Woessner also examined what might have given rise to the differences in the numbers of liberals and conservatives. They looked at the choices made by undergraduate students when planning future careers. They found that there were no differences in intellectual ability between conservative and liberal students, but that liberal students were significantly more likely to choose to pursue PhD degrees and academic careers, whereas conservative students of identical academic accomplishments were more likely to pursue business careers. They concluded that the greater numbers of liberal than conservative professors could be accounted for by self-selection in career paths, rather than by bias in hiring or promotion.[31][44]:38–55

Lawrence Summers said at a symposium about The Social and Political Views of American Professors that he considers it a problem that some academics express an "extreme hostility" to conservative opinions. He observed that faculty who were invited to give Tanner Lectures on Human Values were almost always liberals, and expressed concern that an imbalance in political representation at universities could impede rigorous examination of issues. He also attributed the small numbers of conservative professors largely to the career choices made by people comparing academic careers with other options.[19]

One outcome of these controversies was the founding of the Heterodox Academy in 2015, a bipartisan organization of professors seeking to increase the acceptance of diverse political viewpoints in academic discourse.[45] As of February 2018, over 1500 college professors had joined Heterodox Academy.[46] The group publishes a ranking which rates the top 150 universities in the United States based on their commitment to diversity of viewpoint.[47][48][49]

Jon Shields and Joshua Dunn surveyed 153 conservative professors for their 2016 study Passing on the Right: Conservative Professors in the Progressive University.[18] The authors wrote that these professors sometimes have to use "coping strategies that gays and lesbians have used in the military and other inhospitable work environments" in order to preserve their political identity. One tactic used by about one-third of the professors was to "pass" (or pretend) to hold liberal views around their colleagues.[20] Shields stated his view that the populist right may overstate the bias that does exist and that conservatives can succeed using mechanisms like academic tenure to protect their freedom.[50]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g Smith, Carol. (2011). "The dress rehearsal for McCarthyism." Academe 94(4): 48-51.
  2. ^ a b c Stephen Leberstein, "Purging the Profs: The Rapp Coudert Committee in New York, 1940–1942," in Michael E. Brown et al. (eds.), New Studies in the Politics and Culture of US Communism. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1993; p. 92.
  3. ^ a b c d Keen, Mike Forrest (2017). Stalking Sociologists: J. Edgar Hoover's FBI Surveillance of American Sociology. Routledge. ISBN 9781351488228.
  4. ^ a b c d e Schrecker, Ellen (October 7, 1999). "Political Tests for Professors: Academic Freedom during the McCarthy Years". University of California at Berkeley. Retrieved June 6, 2018.
  5. ^ a b c d Paul Félix Lazarsfeld; Wagner Thielens; Columbia University. Bureau of Applied Social Research (1958). The academic mind: social scientists in a time of crisis. Free Press.
  6. ^ a b Radin, Max. (1950). Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors (1915-1955), 36(2): 237-245. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40220718
  7. ^ a b Innis, Nancy K. (1992). "Lessons from the controversy over the loyalty oath at the University of California." Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning & Policy 30(3): 337-365.
  8. ^ a b "Sarah Lawrence Under Fire: The Attacks on Academic Freedom During the McCarthy Era". Sarah Lawrence College Archives. Retrieved June 6, 2018.
  9. ^ Aby, Stephen H. (2009). "Discretion over valor: The AAUP during the McCarthy Years." American Educational History Journal 36(1): 121-132.
  10. ^ Hoover, J. Edgar (September 21, 1970). "An Open Letter to College Students" (PDF). Nixon Library. Retrieved June 6, 2018.
  11. ^ a b c d e f g h i Gross, Neil (2013). Why Are Professors Liberal and Why Do Conservatives Care?. Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674059092.
  12. ^ Everett Carll Jr Ladd; Seymour Martin Lipset (1 January 1975). The Divided Academy: Professors and Politics. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-010112-8.
  13. ^ a b c d Zipp, John F.; Fenwick, Rudy (January 2006). "Is the Academy a Liberal Hegemony?: The Political Orientations and Educational Values of Pr ofessors". Public Opinion Quarterly. 70 (3): 304–326. doi:10.1093/poq/nfj009.
  14. ^ a b c Rothman, Stanley; Lichter, S. Robert; Nevitte, Neil (2005). "Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty" (PDF). The Forum. 3 (1). doi:10.2202/1540-8884.1067.
  15. ^ Hamilton, Richard F.; Hargens, Lowell L. (March 1993). "The Politics of the Professors: Self-Identifications, 1969-1984". Social Forces. Oxford University Press. 71 (3): 603–627. doi:10.2307/2579887.
  16. ^ a b Duarte, José L.; Crawford, Jarret T.; Stern, Charlotta; Haidt, Jonathan; Jussim, Lee; Tetlock, Philip E. (2015) [July 18, 2014]. "Political diversity will improve social psychological science". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Cambridge University Press. 38 (e130): e130. doi:10.1017/S0140525X14000430. PMID 25036715.
  17. ^ Tetlock, Philip E.; Mitchell, Gregory (February 2015). "Why so Few Conservatives and Should we Care?". Symposium: Liberals and Conservatives in Academia. Society. 52 (1): 28–34. doi:10.1007/s12115-014-9850-6.
  18. ^ a b Jon A. Shields; Joshua M. Dunn Sr. (March 2016). "Passing on the Right: Conservative Professors in the Progressive University". Oxford Scholarship Online. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199863051.001.0001. ISBN 9780199863051. OCLC 965380745.
  19. ^ a b c d e Jaschik, Scott (October 8, 2007). "The Liberal (and Moderating) Professoriate". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved June 15, 2018.
  20. ^ a b Sweeney, Chris (December 20, 2016). "How Liberal Professors Are Ruining College". Boston Magazine. Retrieved 15 May 2018.
  21. ^ a b c d Gross, Neil; Simmons, Solon (29 May 2014). "The Social and Political Views of American College and University Professors". In Gross, N.; Simmons, S. Professors and Their Politics. Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-1-4214-1334-1. LCCN 2013035780.
  22. ^ a b Jacoby, Russell (April 1, 2016). "Academe Is Overrun by Liberals. So What?". The Chronicle Review. The Chronicle of Higher Education. (Subscription required (help)).
  23. ^ Ames, Barry; Barker, David C.; Bonneau, Chris W.; Carman, Chris J. (12 September 2007). "Hide the Republicans, the Christians, and the Women: A Response to "Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty."" – via papers.ssrn.com.
  24. ^ Astin, A.W.; Korn, W.S.; Dey, E.L. (May 1990). The American College Teacher: National Norms for 1989-90 HERI Faculty Survey report (PDF). Higher Education Research Institute. p. 44. Retrieved 8 June 2018.
  25. ^ Sax, L.J.; Astin, A.W.; Korn, W.S.; Gilmartin, S.K. (September 1999). The American College Teacher: National Norms for 1998-99 HERI Faculty Survey report (PDF). p. 61. ISBN 1878477242. Retrieved June 8, 2018.
  26. ^ Eagan, M. K.; Stolzenberg, E. B.; Berdan Lozano, J.; Aragon, M. C.; Suchard, M. R.; Hurtado, S. (November 2014). Undergraduate Teaching Faculty: The 2013-2014 HERI Faculty Survey (PDF). Higher Education Research Institute. p. 61. ISBN 978-1-878477-33-0. Retrieved June 7, 2018.
  27. ^ Ingraham, Christopher (January 11, 2016). "The dramatic shift among college professors that's hurting students' education". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 7, 2018. In 1990, according to survey data by the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) at UCLA, 42 percent of professors identified as "liberal" or "far-left." By 2014, that number had jumped to 60 percent.
  28. ^ Jaschik, Scott (October 24, 2012). "Moving Further to the Left". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved June 9, 2018. Sylvia Hurtado, professor of education at UCLA and director of the Higher Education Research Institute, said that she didn't know what to make of the surge to the left by faculty members. She said that she suspects age may be a factor, as the full-time professoriate is aging, but said that this is just a theory. Hurtado said that these figures always attract a lot of attention, but she thinks that the emphasis may be misplaced because of a series of studies showing no evidence that left-leaning faculty members are somehow shifting the views of their students or enforcing any kind of political requirement.
  29. ^ a b Klein, Daniel B. (September 2011). "Academe's House Divided". Academic Questions. 24 (3): 65+. doi:10.1007/s12129-011-9240-0.
  30. ^ a b c Stanley Rothman; April Kelly-Woessner; Matthew Woessner (16 December 2010). The Still Divided Academy: How Competing Visions of Power, Politics, and Diversity Complicate the Mission of Higher Education. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4422-0808-7.
  31. ^ a b c "Five myths about liberal academia", Matthew Woessner, April Kelly-Woessner and Stanley Rothman Friday, February 25, 2011 Washington Post
  32. ^ a b Gross, Neil; Simmons, Solon (September 24, 2007). "The Social and Political Views of American Professors". (working paper). CiteSeerX 10.1.1.147.6141.
  33. ^ Hermanowicz, Joseph C. (November 2015). "Professors and Their Politics. Edited by Neil Gross and Solon Simmons". American Journal of Sociology. The University of Chicago Press. 121 (3): 983. doi:10.1086/682889.
  34. ^ Adams, Samuel J. (July 1, 2016). "Opinion. There Are Conservative Professors. Just Not in These States". The New York Times.
  35. ^ Jaschik, Scott (July 5, 2016). "New analysis: New England colleges responsible for left-leaning professoriate". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved May 14, 2018.
  36. ^ Abrams, Samuel (December 2016). "The Contented Professors: How Conservative Faculty See Themselves within the Academy". ResearchGate. Retrieved June 13, 2018.
  37. ^ Langbert, Mitchell (June 2018). "Homogeneous: The Political Affiliations of Elite Liberal Arts College Faculty". Academic Questions. National Association of Scholars. 32 (2): 186. doi:10.1007/s12129-018-9700-x. Retrieved June 13, 2018.
  38. ^ Jussim, Lee (November 24, 2015). "Introducing Heterodox Academy". Psychology Today.
  39. ^ "Steven Pinker on Twitter". September 15, 2015. Retrieved June 12, 2018.
  40. ^ a b Nash, George H. (2014) [1976]. The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945. Open Road Media. ISBN 9781497636408.
  41. ^ a b Mariani, Mack D.; Hewitt, Gordon J. (October 2008). "Indoctrination U.? Faculty Ideology and Changes". PS: Political Science & Politics. American Political Science Association. 41 (4): 773–783. doi:10.1017/S1049096508081031. JSTOR 20452310.
  42. ^ Yancey, George. "Recalibrating Academic Bias." Academic Questions 25, no. 2 (2012): 267–78.
  43. ^ Gross, Neil (March 3, 2012). "The Indoctrination Myth". The New York Times. Retrieved June 16, 2018.
  44. ^ Woessner, Matthew; Kelly-Woessner, April (2009). "Left Pipeline: Why Conservatives Don't Get Doctorates". In Marranto, Robert; Redding, Richard E.; Hess, Frederick M. The Politically Correct University: Problems, Scope, and Reforms. The AEI Press. ISBN 9780844743172 – via Google Books.
  45. ^ Lerner, Maura (April 24, 2018). "Nurturing a new diversity on campus: 'Diversity of thought'". Star Tribune. Retrieved 24 May 2018.
  46. ^ Friedersdorf, Conor (February 6, 2018). "A New Leader in the Push for Diversity of Thought on Campus". The Atlantic. Retrieved 24 May 2018.
  47. ^ Bailey, Ronald (October 24, 2016). "How Heterodox Is Your University?". Hit & Run Blog. Reason. Retrieved 24 May 2018.
  48. ^ Richardson, Bradford (October 24, 2016). "Harvard among least intellectually diverse universities: Report". The Washington Times. Retrieved 24 May 2018.
  49. ^ Healey, Lauren (October 31, 2016). "Report Ranks Universities Based on Acceptance of Viewpoint Diversity". INSIGHT Into Diversity. Potomac Publishing. Retrieved June 12, 2018.
  50. ^ Green, Emma (April 30, 2016). "Do American Universities Discriminate Against Conservatives?". The Atlantic. Retrieved 15 May 2018.

Further reading

  • Axelrod, Paul (2002). Values in Conflict: The University, the Marketplace, and the Trials of Liberal Education. McGill-Queens University Press. ISBN 9780773524071.
  • Hamilton, Neil (2017). Zealotry and Academic Freedom: A Legal and Historical Perspective. Routledge. ISBN 978-0765804181.
  • Holmes, David (1989). Stalking the Academic Communist: Intellectual Freedom and the Firing of Alex Novikoff. University Press of New England. ISBN 9780874514698.
  • Horowitz, David (2007). Indoctrination U: The Left's War Against Academic Freedom. Encounter Books. ISBN 9781594032370.
  • Lewis, Lionel (1988). Cold War on Campus: A Study of the Politics of Organizational Control. University of Washington Press. ISBN 0295956526.
  • McCormick, Charles (1989). This Nest of Vipers: McCarthyism And Higher Education In The Mundel Affair, 1951–52. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 9780252016141.
  • Price, David (2004). Threatening Anthropology: McCarthyism and the FBI's Surveillance of Activist Anthropologists. Duke University Press. ISBN 978-0-8223-3338-8.
  • Schrecker, Ellen (1986). No Ivory Tower: McCarthyism and the Universities. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195035577.
  • Shapiro, Ben (2010). Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth. WND Books. ISBN 0785261486.
This page was last edited on 10 October 2018, at 21:16
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.