Repeal of the ACA: Confused!

Yes. (Although the far right certainly has nuts, too.)

In the Anglosphere, by far, the overwhelming reservoir of antisemitism is not knuckle-dragging KKK members. It’s college campuses, the political left, and so-called black “activists.”

Dershowitz: The Hard Left Is Very Anti-Semitic; Keith Ellison, Black Lives Matter Inspire Anti-Semitism | Video | RealClearPolitics!

4 Likes

I see what you’re saying.
Thanks.

Just another way to look at the education and party affiliation discussion.

We have 145 million people working in America. Aprox. 125 million in the private sector, 20 million in the public sector. Think of all the entrepreneurs, small-business owners and skilled trades people who do not need/ want a graduate degree. Then we find high numbers of government employees who have graduate degrees, and of course people in academia.

There’s a problem with these “smart” folks being the furthest removed from the results of their often Dem policies and ideas. My brothers have both been small business owners. They know FAR more about unemployment, disability insurance and the tax code than their “super smart” little sister. wink. Also, they can replace a garbage disposal and change the oil in the car. Hate them.

Anyway, there may be more at work here than “smart people naturally gravitate toward the Democratic party.” Maybe many of those smarties are removed from real world government regulations that make running small businesses so complicated these days. And a larger percentage of them have a - let me say it! self-interest in big government. I don’t know the numbers, but I’d suspect this.

1 Like

It’s not that smart people tend to vote Dem; it’s that highly educated people do.

The numbers were just a Google search away…And they don’t jibe with your suspicions.

"In a recent survey conducted by Government Business Council, the research arm of Government Executive Media Group, 44 percent of respondents identified as Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents, while 40 percent identified as Republicans or Republican-leaning independents. The remaining respondents were undecided or did not identify with either party, though a plurality of them said they were “conservatives.”

Thanks for looking that up. To be clear, I said “public sector” not federal government. I’m talking about unionized workers like teachers or firemen or police who have been very successful at getting pensions, that sort of thing. I don’t know the numbers on that either, but we have large segments of the public that is mostly insulated from the kinds of realities faced by small-business people or the self-employed. Many of these people need an accountant, a lawyer or two, and some consultants just to sort out all the regulations that the people in government see as “job security.”

At higher education makes Democrats, it still applies. If I have a Ph.D., I’m going to be more likely to be employed in academia or government agencies like the NIH than people who do not have graduate degrees. More government funding. More money toward their special area of the world.

Edited to add: Maybe I’m making a muddled up observation here since you guys have talked about several things. The political make-up of our universities, the political affiliation of highly educated people in general, and then I brought up public sector vs private sector employees. In government and teaching, we have more highly educated people but when you look at the military we have I think, pretty even splits among Dems and Reps in enlisted people, but more Reps in higher leadership, I think. Anyway, I’ll stop now.

That explains some, but I have a different idea. I think that the level of education and political affiliation have more to do with how the person thinks. Once most people reach Ph.D. or post doc. level, they are far into the theory/abstract of any given subject. Most lesser educated, at least in the technical/science fields still have a hands on working knowledge of the tangibles of their field and think in more concrete terms and conditions. Translate this to politics and it becomes ideal vs. real. The person who thinks in abstract terms is going to gravitate toward the more ideal types of politics, and the concrete thinkers are going to gravitate toward the less ideal, more concrete political ideologies.

In the ideal, most left politics look pretty good, especially from a greater good kind of perspective. But from a bread and butter, money in the pocket angle, right leaning politics look better.

2 Likes

You sure did. My bad.

If you’re suggesting the Dems are more likely to support science, I’ll happily concede the point. :grinning:

1 Like

See my edit. I kind of muddled things up myself.

John Kerry is as far removed from reality as you can get. I know that first hand.

We’ve talked about this a little bit before in a different context. I think you’re talking about official party platform positions with regard to things like global warming, and also maybe attitudes from self-identified Dems or Reps with regard to issues like evolution?

We’ve had some prominent Reps make statements with regard to evolution or global warming that aren’t based on my understanding of science, that’s for sure. We’ve also had BOTH parties misuse scientific data, as politicians and journalists have spun and misapplied numbers like the 97% “consensus” for political gain. Repeatedly. It’s a mess.

More interesting to me is the demographic shift from religious to secular, from older protestant denominations to evangelicals who have higher birth rates and how these shifts are effecting party affiliation and attitudes about science. By the numbers, Republicans are increasingly becoming the party of religion, and the Dems the party of the secular or none. Some of what we see are people falling out in terms of religious affiliation, and the data we hear is often NOT great data.

About a Pew poll regarding evolution, for example, some of the questions regarding evolution are poorly worded for people who have a more nuanced view, primarily because they tend to set up an unnecessary or false dichotomy between evolution-without-God and creationism-with-God, thus precluding the middle ground of evolution-with-God. We get religious people who look like they reject science in the polls, when that is not necessarily so.

FYI, Mormons poll really strongly on the creation side of this question, BUT students are taught straight organic evolution in the BYU biology department, not creationism. We have a majority of Reps, but our religion requires no such dichotomy between science and faith. There’s accepted disagreements about the just how literal to take the creation story. That leaves a lot of room for evolutionary processes. We also tend to become MORE religious with higher educational attainment, which I believe makes us different than other Christian groups. I have zero fear that children will loose their faith as they gain scientific knowledge, and, I see a space, and a need for “conservative or religious intellectuals.” I know some progressives think there is no such a thing. I hope that will change as religious scientists like Michael Dennin continue to address the science-religion debate. I know my faith tradition is a small percentage in the scheme of things, but I’m just giving that example because it’s one that I’m familiar with.

1 Like

You make some interesting points, many of which I agree with. But in speaking of Dems being more apt to support science, I was actually being a little more concrete, and was referring to this:

“Another set of topics where consistent differences along party and ideological lines occur are views about government funding of the science and engineering enterprise. Fully 83% of Democrats and leaning Democrats say government investment in basic scientific research pays off in the long run, and just 12% say such investments are not worth it. A considerably smaller majority of the GOP and independents who lean to the GOP see benefits from government funding of basic science; 62% say government investments pay off in the long run, but 33% say such investments are not worth it. Political differences on these topics are consistent with party and ideological differences about government spending more broadly, whether related to science or to other domains.”

1 Like

I’ve been thinking of your post, Pat. This part does worry me a bit. So many professors seem more concerned with teaching kids what to think, than with teaching them how to think. It’s a human failing to be blind to our own biases, or to think that we aren’t biased at all. And they have no problem at all with not having a diversity of political ideas in their department, because they do not believe in conservative or religious intellectualism. There have been surveys about discrimination in this regard, and selecting faculty who will “be a good fit” often means “people who think like just like us.”

I mentioned a bit the tendency for some more Rep leaning folks to be less interested in life in the ivory tower, and that plays into this as well.

I’m not sure how we’ll overcome this. Why would you concede control of the university? It’s very powerful, shaping these young minds. But I think one answer may lie in seeing our political parties peel off a bit and hopefully we end up with more moderate folks doing something different.

edited

2 Likes

Here’s a crazy thought. Have you considered the possibility that the profs involved might be making valid points regarding race, class, etc., and that the students are responding to compelling arguments in a rational manner; ie, by accepting them? Y’all seem to be operating from the position that what’s being taught is simply and obviously incorrect, and amounts to no more than political indoctrination. I don’t think that’s a fair starting point.

We wouldn’t have to go back very far to find a time when profs were teaching crazy radical ideas such as ‘racial and gender equality’–ideas that were angrily rejected as progressive nonsense by many students’ parents.

1 Like

Just came across this, and as a professor and department chair, I thought I’d chime in. It is certainly correct that by far the majority of faculty are liberal and would be labeled as a democrat (myself included). I am a scientist, and this is less of an issue in teaching the hard sciences (chemistry and physics) compared to humanities and social sciences.

This “indoctrination” by liberal professors is an interesting discussion. But most of these “liberal” views are about compassion toward all races and peoples, equality for the sexes, and a long term view on environmental and sustainability issues. The students are very smart, and they would not be fooled by professors feeding them lies and manipulating their core beliefs. The fact that most educated people tend to share these similar “liberal” views says something.

Also, there was a comment above that departments hire those who “fit”, or share the views of those already in the department. This is not true, and hiring faculty to a tenure track professor position is a transparent process with quite a bit of oversight. We just went through this in my department, and I can tell you if a discussion about “fit” or personal beliefs came up, we would not be able to proceed with the hire. This is not like Trump filling his cabinet. There are very specific criteria we use to judge the candidates in order to assess their potential as teachers and scholars.

2 Likes

@antiquity, if I may, what is your field of study?

Chemistry is my field. This is my 15th year in academia, starting as an assistant professor, going through tenure to associate professor, and now as a full professor and chair. I am no expert on politics and history, but have enjoyed reading/commenting on a few of these threads.

1 Like

Great to have you around.

Sure, but as you know, there is tremendous leeway in assigned reading lists and discussion in subjects like the social sciences or the humanities. For example, when a professor assigns a book about the evils of capitalism and the unethical nature of Wall Street, and then gives no counterpoint, or no other view. This kind of thing happens all the time. Some of the reading lists have just amazed me for their one-sidedness. If someone wants to draw parallels between Hitler and Trump, good for them. Academic freedom. Great. Maybe they should also talk about the Clintons and Tamany Hall while they are at it, but this viewpoint is far less likely to come up, in fact, it would be an outrage to many of those same people who would think the Hitler lesson was a good idea.

We all loose when there is not room for debate, or for hearing both sides of issues. We get group think and echo chambers. If you imagine that lefty professors to not use biased language, or are somehow above letting their political views color their discussion, then I’m going to disagree. My son has complained about professors letting kids with “trigger warnings” stifle discussion. That’s concerning.

Hey, nice to have you here, Antiquity. I hope you’ll post more. While I respect your experience, and admire your personal and professional position on the subject, I disagree. It does happen, based on my own experience. Also, I’ve had friends in the humanities and social sciences acknowledge such conversations, and who have shared specific incidents with me. I’m mostly a stay at home mother, but am also an M.Ed.S. school psych who works part-time as an instructor in a university setting. I collaborate and teach with faculty across several disciplines, but maybe more meaningfully, I’ve lived in a university neighborhood for over 20 years. You’d be surprised what people say at the parks, pools, dinner parties, and book groups when they assume that everybody within hearing is left of center. Also, I’ve had several people over the years “come out to me” as a closet conservative and tell me why they will never admit to that because it would have zero upside for them professionally. Many of your colleagues who you think are “just not very political” are just intimidated.

A couple of related Op Eds, if any of you are interested. If you hit a paywall, I’ll cut and past it up for ya if you’d like.

The WSJ one is paywalled, so I’ll put it here. The One Kind of Diversity Colleges Avoid

"I’ve seen faculty searches up close. Somehow teachers with conservative views just don’t make the cut.

Many universities are redoubling their efforts to diversify their faculties in response to last fall’s wave of protests from student groups representing women and minorities. Yale, for example, has announced a $50 million, five-year initiative to enhance faculty diversity. Brown has committed $100 million to hire 60 additional faculty members from historically underrepresented groups over the next five to seven years. America’s institutions of higher education seem committed to faculty diversity. But are they really?

In the more than 20 years that I have been a professor at Georgetown University, I have been involved in many faculty searches. Every one begins with a strong exhortation from the administration to recruit more women and minority professors. We are explicitly reminded that every search is a diversity search. Administrators require submission of a plan to vigorously recruit applications from women and minority candidates.

Before we even begin our selection process, we must receive approval from the provost that our outreach efforts have been vigorous enough. The deans and deputy deans of each school reinforce the message that no expense should be spared to increase the genetic diversity of our faculty.

Yet, in my experience, no search committee has ever been instructed to increase political or ideological diversity. On the contrary, I have been involved in searches in which the chairman of the selection committee stated that no libertarian candidates would be considered. Or the description of the position was changed when the best résumés appeared to be coming from applicants with right-of-center viewpoints. Or in which candidates were dismissed because of their association with conservative or libertarian institutions.

I doubt that my experience is unusual. According to data compiled by the Higher Education Research Institute, only 12% of university faculty identify as politically right of center, and these are mainly professors in schools of engineering and other professional schools. Only 5% of professors in the humanities and social-science departments so identify.

A comprehensive study by James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School shows that in a country fairly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, only 13% of law professors identify as Republican. And a recent study by Jonathan Haidt of New York University showed that 96% of social psychologists identify as left of center, 3.7% as centrist/moderate and only 0.03% as right of center.

The advocates of diversity in higher education claim that learning requires the robust exchange of ideas, which is enhanced when students and faculty have the greatest possible variety of backgrounds. They argue that exposure to people from different backgrounds breaks down unfair stereotypes and promotes understanding of those who come from different circumstances than oneself.

It is also claimed that being in a diverse academic environment better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce, and that this preparation can only be developed through exposure to people of diverse cultures, ideas and viewpoints. And a diverse faculty provides students with role models who demonstrate that people from all backgrounds can achieve intellectual excellence and are worthy of respect.

These are good arguments. But surely the robust exchange of ideas is enhanced by exposure to and interaction with people who have diverse political and philosophical viewpoints, not only cultural or ethnic backgrounds. Actually engaging with those with whom one disagrees can break down stereotypes and promote understanding across ideological divides. And if students see faculty members who share their unpopular viewpoints, they may be more inspired to pursue intellectual excellence.

The relentless call to actively recruit women and minority candidates arises from the fear that if left to their own devices, predominantly white male faculties will identify merit with those who look and think like them, undervalue the contributions of those from different backgrounds, and perpetuate a white male stranglehold on the academy. Yet without an exhortation to pursue viewpoint diversity, this is exactly what happens.

Predominantly liberal faculties identify merit with positions that are consistent with theirs, see little value in conservative and libertarian scholarship, and perpetuate the left-wing stranglehold on the academy.

Having a diverse faculty is a genuine value for a university and its students. Indeed, it may be valuable enough to justify spending $50 million or $100 million to increase the percentage of women and minority professors. But if diversity is really such an important academic value, then why are universities making no effort to increase the political and ideological diversity of their faculties?"

Mr. Hasnas is a professor at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business and executive director of the Georgetown Institute for the Study of Markets and Ethics.

1 Like

C’mon PP. Virtually the entirety of American culture–our zeitgeist–serves as the counterpoint of which you speak. When it comes to influencing our young people, capitalism (along with heterosexuality and white culture) enjoys an advantage no mere college course could possibly match.