The notion that there is political lopsidedness in academia tilted to the left is an old canard propagated by anti-intellectual ideologists who do not now and never had a taste for truth. The only reason this canard keeps popping up is that journalism is a label that leans toward stupidity. It will go away when journalists quit reporting it. by John Kozy
(liberal)
Friday, January 22, 2010
The notion that there is political lopsidedness in academia tilted to the left is an old canard propagated by anti-intellectual ideologists who do not now and never had a taste for truth. And now, Patricia Cohen of the New York Times has written a piece titled, Professor Is a Label That Leans to the Left, about a study done by two sociologists, Neil Gross and Ethan Fosse, that is full of abject nonsense and comments from proponents of the right wing.
She writes this, either quoting or paraphrasing these sociologists: "Conjure up the classic image of a humanities or social sciences professor, the fields where the imbalance is greatest: tweed jacket, pipe, nerdy, longwinded, secular — and liberal. Even though that may be an outdated stereotype, it influences younger people's ideas about what they want to be when they grow up." How? Most students enter college without ever having seen any college professor. Never having seen a college professor, how could this "classic image" have influenced them?
Although she correctly points how this view has been manufactured and fostered by the American conservative movement, she fails to draw any conclusions from it. Conservatives, either religious or otherwise, are true believers. To them the truth is irrelevant, and if truth is irrelevant, the search for it and its acquisition is of no interest. When these people enter college, they do so to merely acquire techniques. Their questions are, how do I do that? and of what use is learning that? They rarely ask, is that the truth?
But what Ms Cohen and the conservatives who promote this canard fail to recognize it that the political orientations of most professors have no relevance to anything they do in the classroom. What difference would it make to students if a professor who teaches mathematics were a republican, a democrat, a socialist, a communist, or even an anarchist? What about professors of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Astronomy, Foreign Languages, English Grammar, Geology, and most other subjects? Who cares what they believe?
To all professors—liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist, communist, or anarchist—two plus two is four, H2O is water, e equals mc2, the planets revolve around the sun, and the sun is not the center of the universe.
Professors teach what is known in their own subject-matter fields. How would knowing what their voter registration cards say further the conservative-liberal debate? (I even doubt that anything that can truly be called a debate exists.) There are just a small number of academic departments where a professor's political beliefs might influence his teaching. Notice, I wrote "might." Most professors, at least the good ones, can easily present the best arguments used by both sides with equal vigor. They can also present the criticisms. For some unknown reason it is assumed by the right that a scholar's beliefs trump his knowledge. Is that because their beliefs trump their knowledge? True believers already know it all; they can't be taught. The university is not a place in which they are comfortable because questioning their beliefs generates distress and places their self-interests in jeopardy.
The Western World's ideal of education stems from Classical Greece where Plato started the first real university. His ideals were the search and dissemination of truth, goodness, and beauty. If you study Plato's Dialogues you will discover just how hard he was on people's beliefs. He used the character of Socrates to demolish them.
Those who believe that universities should include the teaching of beliefs and ideologies are advocating the conversion of the university into what is called, in the Middle East, a madrassa. Americans of late have been very hard on madrasses, complaining that they teach the ideology of Islamic jihad. Yes, they do. Which ideology of jihad does the American right want the American university to teach?
True believers never discover truth. It is only discovered by doubting what is commonly believed and trying to either verify or refute it. In that light, much ideology is not worth bothering about; no evidence can be offered for it one way or the other.
Some students enter college with open minds and a desire to know. Many don't; knowing does not interest them. And if anyone really wants to know how professors become leftish, read Bart D. Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, where Ehrman describes how he, a student with a fundamentalist Christian background, found the strengths of his fundamentalist beliefs weakening as he learned more and more about how the Bible came to be.
In my career as a professor, I was aware of only one professor who used his classroom as a platform for his personal political beliefs. Contrary to what Ms Cohen might assume, he was an arch conservative. The students who took his courses were well aware of what he was doing; they spoke about it all the time, just as Mankiw's students of economics at Harvard have publicly described Mankiw's course as massive conservative propaganda.
No professor at the university I taught at ever made an issue of this professor's propagandish teaching. They didn't have to; they all knew that the bright students in his classes recognized it for what it was and that the dull students didn't matter. They weren't going to learn much anyhow. And that may really be what distinguishes leftish professors from rightish ones. The leftish ones allow students to draw their own conclusions.
Anyone who leaves college with the same beliefs had when he/she entered has wasted his/her money and time. What the conservatives who have manufactured and propagated this leftish professor canard want to do is destroy the search for truth by falsely describing it as a political ideology. All they want to do is erase the distinction between knowledge and belief. They comprise, in fact, nothing but a modern day Papal Inquisition.
The only reason this canard keeps popping up is that journalism is a label that leans toward stupidity. It will go away when journalists quit reporting it.
The views expressed
in this article are those of John Kozy only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
John Kozy is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I can't believe you spent 20 years teaching in universities (according to your biography) and remained oblivious to the leftist bias in academia. If you want proof of bias, just look at the election returns in the Massachusetts special election. Coakley carried the academic centers of Cambridge and Amherst and its surrounding towns by 85 percent while Brown was winning in most of the rest of the state. Unless, of course, you are insisting that these results were obtained because liberals are intelligent and conservatives are stupid.
I think you probably misunderstand how bias works -- in both academia and journalism. Professors don't sit on their desks, with their legs folded in the lotus position, chanting over and over to their "Obama good. Palin bad.", just as journalists don't sit around thinking about how to slant every story to their point of view. In journalism, most bias is manifested in what is covered and what is not covered. Thus, during the 2008 election the mainstream media made scant mention of Obama's pal, William Ayers, while we heard over and over again about Palin's Troopergate "scandal".
In the classroom, the bias is in what is taught and what isn't taught. So you think that professors of biology can't impart bias? What about those who assign Rachel Carson for reading, but not a book reporting on the millions of malaria deaths that have resulted from the DDT ban Carson's book inspired? What about foreign language professors who exclusively assign readings by leftist authors? Ditto, English grammar (which is always taught in conjunction with English literature).
The fact that most students come out of college as leftists and then spend the rest of their lives moving back to the right is evidence enough that they are being propagandized. You can be sure there were more students among that 85 percent that voted for Coakley than there were professors. How do you suppose they acquired their views, if not from their professors?
I believe that the author of this piece confuses two issues, which are actually quite separate:
(1) Do college professors "lean to the left"?
(2) Does their political preference influence their teaching in an improper way?
The first proposition is indisputable. Numerous studies have shown that academics are overwhelmingly Democratic voters, and socially liberal.
The second proposition is more difficult to establish. There are certainly some professors, and not just on the Left, who are very open about proselytizing for their ideas. There are courses which require their students to believe in the Leftist agenda. But the real question is, how common are they?
Take into context that everyone considers "their own" views, beliefs, outlook, social or political paradigm (name it what you will), to be reasoned and wise. It is a forgone conclusion that teaching / instruction / lectures / grading will also be from a position of "their own" reasoned and wise position, and that any other (especially opposing) view is not as reasoned and wise.Â
They do not have to be openly proselytizing or shoving viewpoints (left- or right-leaning), professors need only consider themselves as the gatekeeper of wisdom and the bias flows w/o thought.
Unfortunately, there is only the rare professor (left- and right-leaning) out there that does not believe they have the market cornered on reasonable viewpoints.
I'm in my mid-40's, and activities I participate in puts me in constant social contact with groups of college aged students for years at a time. I have seen first hand guys that were pretty middle of the road or even far-right (or *gasp* Christian) that have been beaten down so hard on their viewpoints that they are almost unrecognizable socially & politically only three years later.
I do not claim to be an expert on the subject, but it seems to me their is a pretty equal left-right split that runs through the faculties of the universities I have attended. The difference is that the dividing line in academia is significantly to the left of what is usually the center within society at large. Conservatives are present, but the liberals set the agenda and the terms of engagement.Â
I can't believe you spent 20 years teaching in universities (according to your biography) and remained oblivious to the leftist bias in academia.
What you can't beleive doesn't matter. Facts do matter.
If you want proof of bias, just look at the election returns in the Massachusetts special election. Coakley carried the academic centers of Cambridge and Amherst and its surrounding towns by 85 percent while Brown was winning in most of the rest of the state.
Are you suggesting that universities somehow emit some magical force to make people living near them vote Democratic? LOL!
Unless, of course, you are insisting that these results were obtained because liberals are intelligent and conservatives are stupid.
Less educated is not the same as stupid.
What about those who assign Rachel Carson for reading, but not a book reporting on the millions of malaria deaths that have resulted from the DDT ban Carson's book inspired?Â
Maybe because that second book is full of bogus claims? DDT was banned because it was reducing bird populations. Birds eat insects, plus insects are known to evolve resistance to pesticides, so the mosquitos, and the malaria they carry, would have rebounded even if DDT had never been banned.....and many species of birds would have died out.
Thus, during the 2008 election the mainstream media made scant mention of Obama's pal, William Ayers, while we heard over and over again about Palin's Troopergate "scandal".
You have got to be kidding. I heard a lot about both issues, actually. Ever watch FOX News?
The fact that most students come out of college as leftists and then spend the rest of their lives moving back to the right is evidence enough that they are being propagandized.
You call that a fact? Why? Please provide evidence.
Here is an article from [The American Thinker] that suggests very strongly that university professors not only lean to the left but also promulgate leftist views to their students. Having graduated with my B.A. in 1982, I thought professors then largely leaned left. I cannot image them becoming more conservative in the 28 years since then.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
