March 29, 2005

New Study Confirms The Blatantly Obvious

Washington Post;

College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

"What's most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field," said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. "There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It's a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you'd expect to be dominated by liberals."


The liberal label that a majority of the faculty members attached to themselves is reflected on a variety of issues. The professors and instructors surveyed are, strongly or somewhat, in favor of abortion rights (84 percent); believe homosexuality is acceptable (67 percent); and want more environmental protection "even if it raises prices or costs jobs" (88 percent). What's more, the study found, 65 percent want the government to ensure full employment, a stance to the left of the Democratic Party.

Posted by Kate at March 29, 2005 11:40 AM

Thought for the day. from larry borsato
All I could think when I read this was:Those who can, do. Those who can't, are liberal.Thanks to small dead animals for the link.... [Read More]

Tracked on March 29, 2005 3:33 PM


The dotty, batty, intellectuals: Go to Littlegreenfootballs for an insightful peek (peck)

at "Professor" Ward Churchill and his flock of


Quack, quack, quack.

As Big Bird said, "That's not funny." (Sesame Street; the incubator of multi-cult, affirmative action, drake's (female) liberation, feel-good cr-p, & etc.) & the Count (remember Joe Flaherty on SCTV?) Ridicule is the method to savage this liberal c---.

Posted by: maz2 at March 29, 2005 12:39 PM

Smart people are ipso facto not conservatards. This is not news.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 29, 2005 2:52 PM

A university is a place to consider the broadest possible range of ideas. Conservatives already know which ideas are right (the same ones that were right yesterday). Why would they hang around a university when they could be running a corporation or a powerful government? And what harm is there in having some liberals sitting back at the university, discussing alternative ideas? If they stumble on a good new idea, some conservative hurrying through will surely take it up and run with it. And if they make some new liberals out of undecided young minds, they're just making sure that wherever there is power, there will also be loyal opposition.

Posted by: Laura at March 29, 2005 3:17 PM

The next study that needs to be done is an impact study. That is to say, we know faculties are liberal, but we don't know how that latent bias affects admission, instruction, or evaluation of students. We also don't know how it affects selection and promotion of faculty, or how it affects what professors research and write about.

Anecdotal evidence of malfeasance abounds, but that and a buck-forty will buy you a coffee at Timmy's. This survey just isn't enough.

Posted by: Damian at March 29, 2005 3:25 PM

"...and want more environmental protection 'even if it raises prices or costs jobs' (88 percent)."

Of course it raises prices and costs jobs. If it doesn't, it's useless, because it's doing something that the market would have taken care of anyway.

Posted by: Laura at March 29, 2005 3:31 PM

72% describe themselves as liberal, but only 67% believe homosexuality is "acceptable"? So do the remaining "liberals" advocate jail time, or do they think that shunning is sufficient?

Posted by: Sean E at March 29, 2005 4:58 PM

but we don't know how that latent bias affects admission, instruction, or evaluation of students.

Sure you do...if your a Liberal, or feels society owes you a living... your in!

Posted by: rob at March 29, 2005 5:37 PM

homosexuality is acceptable (67 percent)

Why does this remind me of a joke:

A father watched his daughter playing in the garden. He smiled as he reflected on how sweet and innocent his little girl was. Suddenly she just stopped and stared at the ground. He went over to her and noticed she was looking at two spiders mating.

"Daddy, what are those two spiders doing?" she asked. "They're mating," her father replied. "What do you call the spider on top, Daddy?" she asked. That's a Daddy Longlegs." Her father answered. "So, the other one is Mommy Longlegs?" the little girl asked. "No," her father replied. "Both of them are Daddy Longlegs."

The little girl thought for a moment, then took her foot and stomped them flat. "Well, it might be OK in Ontario & British Columbia BUT we're not having any of that shit in Alberta."

I think I shoulda waited til Friday for that one...

Posted by: rob at March 29, 2005 5:54 PM

As Maggie T said (that's Thatcher not Trudeau)"Human nature is conservative."
That's true for even liberal university professors (Just try to suggest to them that the principle of tenure should be abolished!)
We live in a country where the people in power, whether it be government or media, tend to be liberals. The people in general notice to varying degrees that there is a bad smell about. But being polite Canadians we are too hesitant to say straight out, that they are shovelling us a load of BS.
We mustn't wait too long. Look at the Europeans, they've been rolling in it for so long that they don't seem to even notice the smell.

Posted by: Cal at March 29, 2005 8:20 PM

Why is it acceptable if it raises prices and costs jobs? Are these job costs in academia where the profs used to get a meager salary and are now immune to market forces because of a bilking of society called tenure ? President Eisenhauer came up with two great sayings,the first,was beware of the military-industrial complex(which we saw in the US and in the Soviet Union and is widely quoted).The second,and maybe the most important but least quoted,was DO NOT LET GOVERNMENT FUND UNIVERSITY RESEARCH! These tenured profs now come up with the most assinine research that they know is wrong but there is no one out there to prove it as the lay person is not funded by government.

Posted by: spike at March 29, 2005 8:22 PM

Yee Ha!
Joe Green's back and appears to be well rested and roaring to go after his Easter break.

Posted by: Cal at March 29, 2005 8:42 PM

Uh....hope ya ain't implying Spike is any were close to Joe.....dems migt be fightin words...

Posted by: rob at March 29, 2005 8:55 PM

Indeed not. The position of the posting is due entirely my desire to stay au courant with the participants of the Road Kill Diaries.
On the other hand I reckon anybody called Spike wouldn't skedaddle at the first sign ah trouble.

Posted by: Cal at March 29, 2005 9:19 PM

Didn't say it's acceptable. Just saying that's the way it is. Want more environmental protection? If people want it, and there's a way to make a profit, the market will provide it. If there isn't a way to make a profit, and people still want it, it's going to cost. Is the cost acceptable or not? That's to be decided. That's why we need discussion - and you're absolutely right, not just government-funded discussion in the universities. And not just backroom discussions on Parliament Hill to come up with backdoor budget tricks to implement Kyoto without presenting a plan that we can discuss. I'm personally willing to sacrifice quite a bit to curb emissions, but I want to discuss a plan with my neighbours, not just hear about how some sweeping measure has been buried in an omnibus bill. Can't figure why Kate hasn't taken up this issue.

Posted by: Laura at March 29, 2005 9:51 PM

Too many radical Albertans here Laura, very sensitive issue, and were all gun shy from the last go around.

I do agree we have to be responsible when it comes to the environment, however, kyoto is a knee jerk reaction to controlling a gas that's not controllable. They have to focus on the actual problem which is what causes smog. CO2 just makes trees and plants grow better, and your going to have to use your lawnmower more. Simplistic, but can you really be certain...;-)

Posted by: rob at March 29, 2005 10:17 PM

The liberal bias in universities is destructive to the students, the parents and the culture.

In the States, a Bachelor's degree is a very exensive proposition, sometimes in excess of $100,000 for a (barf) "prestigious" school.

The very least a kid and parents have a right to expect is that the kid comes out of it with a good orientation about making a living and creating some kind of future.

I mean to say if you're a Fine Arts person, then the opera and the ballet cost bucks. If you value books, it takes cash to pay for them. If you want to wander around the Louvre and Chartres Cathedral or follow in the footsteps of Lawrence Durell's life in Crete, you have to pay the freight. So no matter what the kid does, they have a right to expect that an expensive education will help.

Today with this liberal bullshit coming out of colleges, the kid may need 10 or 15 years of reorientation to get their mind right. (No, Johnny, you don't *hate* the corporation, you try to get a job with it. See, it takes capitalism to provide the cash that supports the ability to go to the Abbey Theatre to see where Yeats put on his plays.)

For a college to send a kid out into the world prepared to fail and hate life should be grounds for a suit based on breach of contract. The professors should be fired and forced to make a living selling liquor in a bad neighborhood on the midnight-to-dawn shift.

Posted by: Greg at March 29, 2005 10:55 PM

"I'm personally willing to sacrifice quite a bit to curb emissions,"
Not me, I've got lots to say.

" Can't figure why Kate hasn't taken up this issue."
Maybe because she knows that all the yammering about climate change and Kyoto is a bunch of speculative BS.
There is more carbon locked up in the form of limestone in the 10 mountains surrounding Banff than there is in all the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. The climate change Chicken Littles prey upon the scientific ignorance and more importantly the dearth of critical thinking skills exhibited by so many of the so called "well educated".
People who you use their limited life experience (Boy we sure haven't had much snow the last few winters!) to judge the earth's climatic cycles are making errors by a factor of many thousands of years.
There are millions of times as much oxygen in the earth's atmosphere than what would be required to burn all know petroleum reserves in one shot.

Don't be lead around by the nose by a bunch of lobbyists in scientists' clothing.
Sorry Kate this could be just a bunch of speculative BS about your thoughts on the subject.

Mt. Etna produces 35,000 tons of carbon dioxide per day and is the largest single source of natural carbon dioxide in the world.
Good luck to the Italians in meeting Kyoto.

Posted by: Cal at March 29, 2005 11:03 PM


I have a nephew that had exactly that attitude, he went to university, had his mind poisoned, figured he had to do nothing accept quote from books and it woould provide him with the means for a very comfortable life(kind of a Joe Green type of attitude).

He screwed up and his dad wasn't going to pay for him anymore, and made him join the reserves if he wanted to continue to live at home. He's a totally different person now, having to face the reality of a low funded Canadian Military, and came back and apologized to ever one for his forced narrow way of thinking.

Think maybe there's somthing to be said for the draft? Maybe not as it then becomes a forced situation, but is that really a bad thing for young adults to be forced to learn responsibility, reliance, working togethor as a group?

Opening a can of worms or a necessity>

Posted by: rob at March 29, 2005 11:11 PM

Whoa..... good links Cal,

Had to put on my mask from all the harmeful CO2 just from reading the Etna artical(it's been deemed a harmful gas by the Gov of CDN).

Going to have to use these on the nutcase environmentalist at work tomorrow. Go figure, he's from Kingston ON. He don't like me to much, so I'll have to keep encouraging that feeling... ;-)

Posted by: rob at March 29, 2005 11:24 PM

"Maybe because she knows that all the yammering about climate change and Kyoto is a bunch of speculative BS."

So what if it is BS? (But you might find some interesting stuff here: US Global Change Research Program,
Still, even if it is BS, how can we sit back and let Ottawa pull off this backdoor trick? Very clever of them, I guess - wait till everybody's so tired of hearing about Kyoto that they won't even bother to complain.

Posted by: Laura at March 30, 2005 12:31 AM

Thats right, we have to watch our polutants that we spew into the air from the back of a vehicle one foot off the ground as the CO2 will somehow get to 30,000ft and higher and destroy the ozone and if you don't believe me just look up and,whats this? Vapor trails from planes that burn more fuel in one Vancouver to London flight than a three thousand acre farmer burns in a year? But they can't be a problem or the scientists could'nt get a free ride to the next taxpayer funded meeting in Rome or some other exotic place.Also the people of Asia put more CO2 into the air just by breathing than North America produces and they are exempt from Kyoto.I also heard today that the Japanese build diesel powered vehicles that are available in most countries except North America because they don't meet our emmission standards.What a load of crap!You would think that N.A. was on another planet instead of just across the oceans from the rest of the world.

Posted by: spike at March 30, 2005 12:48 AM

The only thing that's gonna wake this Gov. up is a percision guided 2000lb bundle of joy in the house of C I'm afraid.

Never now, might rescramble there braincells and align them the "right" way.

Posted by: rob at March 30, 2005 1:06 AM

Sources close to Prime Minister Paul Martin said separating the Kyoto measures from the budget bill will make no difference because a vote on the environmental measures will be considered a vote on the survival of the government.

Were screwed no matter what we do anyway:

Posted by: rob at March 30, 2005 7:36 AM

rob, I'm glad that your nephew finally got his head screwed on straight. I'm sure his parents didn't send him to a university to create a worse life for him.

What I would like to see is something along the line that Horowitz talks about, that is, a mechanism that will assure that an equal number of conservative professors are hired. I cannot think of one single reason that could legitimately argue against balance.

My view is that a draft should come into effect if a military emergency really needs it.

Posted by: Greg at March 30, 2005 2:10 PM

Ummm, Spike, I agree with you about all the air travel to these international conferences on climate change... it probably does more harm than good. But... I hate to break this to you... CO2 doesn't destroy the ozone layer. CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) have been blamed for that. C02 has been blamed (and thanked) for absorbing infrared radiation given off by the Earth. Earth is constantly losing heat energy as infrared radiation escapes to space. Fortunately CO2 and other gases absorb infrared radiation, trapping heat energy in the atmosphere, and keeping the Earth system warmer than it would otherwise be. (This is a good thing.) CO2 is added to the atmosphere by plenty of natural processes, including people breathing it out, and removed from the atmosphere by plenty of natural processes, including people's crops soaking it up. The concern is just that the balance may be off. We don't need to tell anybody to stop breathing.

Posted by: Laura at March 30, 2005 11:31 PM

I think that we were talking about CO2.I reread my post and I did'nt say anything about ozone.Canada's commitment on Kyoto is'nt about lessening CFC's,it's about you and I and the one ton challenge.75% of the worlds population is exempt from kyoto,don't you wonder why that is?The most pollution in the world is from Asian cooking fires so what do we do about that?Kill half the Asians? Is the only reason that kyoto was put forth was to move the manufacturing to Asia to try and raise their standard of living and keep the polution half way around the world even tho' our steel mills are many times cleaner?

Posted by: spike at April 1, 2005 12:35 AM

I reread your post and you stated that CO2 in the atmosphere is( a good thing)so what is all the fuss about?Is it because of a problem or a manufactured problem to keep that govt. funding coming.At least till the ones wanting it are retired and living half the year in BC and the other half in Palm Springs maintaining seperate homes in each place.I know one of these people and he calls himself a conservationist,so be carefull who you support.

Posted by: spike at April 1, 2005 9:11 AM

From your post, Spike: "CO2 will somehow get to 30,000ft and higher and destroy the ozone". I'd be happy to continue to discuss this with you, but not by typing comments back and forth behind a post that nobody else is reading anymore. Whaddyasay you and I start our own team blog to debate this? Or just call me and I'll meet you on coffee row someday.

Posted by: Laura at April 1, 2005 1:12 PM

Sounds like a plan.

Posted by: spike at April 1, 2005 2:04 PM