Missouri Football players on strike

[simms3]

I attended three public universities and have worked for one for the last 7 years. People who believe that universities in general aren't centers of liberalism is kidding themselves. The fact that professors lean left is borne out in study after study and survey after survey. While there are exceptions (a number of private schools tend to lean right) the academy is probably the most liberal institution in the U.S., up there with the media and the entertainment industry. In Professors and their Politics, sociologists Solon Simmons and Neil Gross report that 62% of professors self-identify as liberal, compared to only 18% saying they're middle-of-the-road and 19% saying they're conservative.

This does not mean that all or even most professors trying to "indoctrinate" their students or stymie those with opposing beliefs. It doesn't mean that all professors are liberal, let alone extremely liberal; in fact it varies from program to program; business and the hard sciences are less liberal than the humanities, for instance. It also doesn't mean that the student body necessarily reflects the beliefs of the professors. In fact, Gross has argued elsewhere that students rarely experience radical changes in their political beliefs in college.

What it does mean, however, is that academia tends to be self-selective, with students who are already liberal being the ones who  pursue that career. It means that very liberal intellectual movements and endeavors are able to gain ground in academia, even though there's limited interest outside it. And it means that liberal professors tend to groom like-minded students for advancement while deterring conservatives and moderates.

What's interesting about some of the current debates is that they're not between liberals and conservatives, but rather different factions of liberals. Safe space liberals versus free speech liberals. Pro-Palestinian liberals versus pro-Israel liberals. White progressives versus minority activists. It ain't easy to fit into a convenient narrative, but that doesn't stop some people from trying.

This is a very good analysis.  In fact, if you are fairly conservative and want that environment, SMU is a private university in Dallas that is pretty unabashedly conservative!  It's as conservative as Yale is elitist.  Pick your poisons, pick your environments, but don't pick A and expect it to be B.  A big enough university will have a little bit of A and B, and perhaps some C too.

[finehoe]

Yes, Liberals Rule the Ivory Tower—But Why?

Why Are Professors Liberal and Why Do Conservatives Care? is full of statistics on the liberal voting preferences and political and cultural self-identification of academics. Some facts from the book:

50 percent of professors describe themselves as being "left or liberal." That puts the professoriate considerably to the left of the country as a whole; Gross estimates that professors are "about three times more liberal on average" than American adults.
However, just 8 to 9 percent of college faculty can be accurately described as "far left" or "radical"—and the percentage is even smaller among younger faculty. "The professorate is obviously not bursting at the seams with revolutionaries," writes Gross.
19 percent of professors could be called "moderates."
On the right, Gross estimates that economic conservatives comprise just 4 percent of academia, and that 23 percent of academics are social and pro-military conservatives. In general, conservatives "tend to cluster in fields like accounting, management information, marketing, and electrical engineering" and economics.
Professors are also less religious than average Americans—but this, too, shouldn't be overblown. Research by Gross has shown that just over half believe in God.
So, academia is indeed more liberal than America, just as other professions, such as the clergy and the military, are dens of conservatism. But where conservatives get it wrong, Gross says, is in their simplistic assertions that academia's leftward lean is a result of bias or discrimination. Rather, he argues, academia is liberal because... it has been attacked for being liberal. Gross's analysis concludes that the ivory tower's well-known political reputation has encouraged a kind of self-selection effect, where conservatives gravitate away from it, and liberals towards it.

That would mean it's precisely backwards to claim that universities discriminate against conservatives in favor of the godless and liberal. Rather, people who are godless and liberal tend to flock to universities—and stay there.

Gross's findings suggest that there isn't much indoctrination taking place on campus: in detailed follow-up interviews with 57 professors who participated in his study, just two "fit the stereotype held by conservative critics of a radical professor bent on converting students to his political point of view."

I had a long conversation with Gross on the Point of Inquiry podcast about his research and what it means to the culture wars. Among other things, we observed that academia's liberalism would be very hard to change; after all, it's not likely that professors are suddenly going to change their beliefs or parties. We also discussed how conservative complaints about academia's liberalism don't have an obvious analog on the left: you don't usually find liberals calling for, say, the military to be less right wing—they just tend to accept it. So why doesn't the right accept the liberalism of academia as just part of the nature of things?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/higher-education-liberal-research-indoctrination

[Adam White]

I attended three public universities and have worked for one for the last 7 years. People who believe that universities in general aren't centers of liberalism is kidding themselves. The fact that professors lean left is borne out in study after study and survey after survey. While there are exceptions (a number of private schools tend to lean right) the academy is probably the most liberal institution in the U.S., up there with the media and the entertainment industry. In Professors and their Politics, sociologists Solon Simmons and Neil Gross report that 62% of professors self-identify as liberal, compared to only 18% saying they're middle-of-the-road and 19% saying they're conservative.

This does not mean that all or even most professors trying to "indoctrinate" their students or stymie those with opposing beliefs. It doesn't mean that all professors are liberal, let alone extremely liberal; in fact it varies from program to program; business and the hard sciences are less liberal than the humanities, for instance. It also doesn't mean that the student body necessarily reflects the beliefs of the professors. In fact, Gross has argued elsewhere that students rarely experience radical changes in their political beliefs in college.

What it does mean, however, is that academia tends to be self-selective, with students who are already liberal being the ones who  pursue that career. It means that very liberal intellectual movements and endeavors are able to gain ground in academia, even though there's limited interest outside it. And it means that liberal professors tend to groom like-minded students for advancement while deterring conservatives and moderates.

What's interesting about some of the current debates is that they're not between liberals and conservatives, but rather different factions of liberals. Safe space liberals versus free speech liberals. Pro-Palestinian liberals versus pro-Israel liberals. White progressives versus minority activists. It ain't easy to fit into a convenient narrative, but that doesn't stop some people from trying.

For the record, I never said colleges weren't liberal. I took exception to this:

"College is liberal hell. White liberals are responsible for all of this faux high racial tension black victimization bullshit, and now they have to lie in the bed that they made. They wanna bring back the 60s (when blacks really really had racial concerns) so bad."

I think that's the cartoonish view of universities that completely ignores the diversity and heterogeneity of most campuses. Yes, there are lots of liberals and leftists and whatever. But it's not all "PCU" - and the crazies seem to get a lot of press because they're good for it. I reckon an average person could attend a major public university and not really have to deal with "liberal hell" unless he chose to engage with it.

[CCMjax]

Yale is known as an elitist institution that makes it hard for many outside types to thrive there.  I'm pretty sure that I, a white male from a middle class family who's daddy wasn't a senator or high profile lawmaker, would have felt left out or not respected enough amongst some of those who were seen as "entitled through legacy."  Are we on a path to making every institution the same? 

[simms3]

^^^Short answer, yes.  Same same, but diiifferenttt.  I wish I could insert James Franco meme here right now.

[Adam White]

Yes Stephen, and I agree with your premise.  But at the same time, the way people are acting, one would think we had transgressed back into the 60s.  I think you and I can both come at this from the perspective of a minority and as people in a minority group that have likely experienced bias/prejudice/hate, perhaps sometimes fairly extreme, from people just based on who we are, at some point in our own lives.  But honestly, in this day and age it's so uncommon and universally frowned upon that I just shrug it off and move on.  I see it in the gay community.  We take everything for granted.  But the generations before us of Harvey Milk's time, or even before, or even as recently as in the 80s and 90s when large percentages of the gay population literally died off as the only place in the country that would fund research into what was happening were hospitals and clinics in SF, they really went through a whole lot.  By comparison, if we wander off into a conservative part of town and hear the word faggot mumbled under someone's breath (which honestly, how often does that happen anywhere, these days...if it happens, it happens in a place you'd expect it, and the whole country hears about it as a front page story), it's like the end of the world happened.  Yes, there are isolated incidents which are atrocious, like the recent beating in Palm Springs of all places, but these incidents that used to happen every day all over the country for years are now a few times a year in total, countrywide, and receive major press, and all the troops rally to find justice.  I mean, it's a different world, for blacks, gays, women, now even trans, basically there is fairly universal acceptance and tolerance.  And these kids in college today grew up in by far the most tolerant world the world has ever seen and look how spoiled they're acting!  I can't stand them.  Little bitches who have actually never experienced real strife who claim their mere existence demands respect and admiration and for all of their demands and ill-formed thoughts based out of no actual experience to be listened to on a one way street.

We are basically at 95-99% tolerance.  A few decades ago, closer to 0% tolerance.  100 years ago people of the same race were even intolerant of each other (Italians vs Irish etc).  We're in a world today where if a mixed-race, super fat, Muslim-Wicca mixed religion MTF woman former drag queen who kept her name of Sue Casa ran for president, she has a fighting chance!

And we're to believe these little snobs at Yale have it so bad and there's intense racism there?  'Da fuck?  Like what more do these people want?  There will always be racism and classism and elitism and misogyny and anti-semitism and general hate.  I will say, the more this becomes a single-group thing (like only black people are experiencing this awful racism from everyone else, and Asians don't even count as a minority group because they're basically "white"), the more this stuff happens, the more it will piss more people off and frankly, it might exacerbate racism.  It's becoming too much in my opinion.  Too many asks for sheer perfection on the part of everyone, which will never happen.

you'd be surprised how much of this i agree with, but I always try to remind myself that the adversity I've seen or experienced isn't the end story.  Like here in Jax, while gays were still being killed in fag bashing incidents or dying without their parents in AIDS hospices, there was a real struggle for women trying to get equal pay or break the glass ceiling, and there was still a short period where wealthy Jewish investors (like Alexander Brest) still had to have a gentile business partner if they wanted to succeed.

Definitely not as bad as being traded as sexual property, or being the victims of genocide, but both struggles (equal pay, acceptance into the business community) were worth fighting for nonetheless, I think.

I think at Yale, the basic problem is that Yale is being marketed as a jumping point into the Meritocracy, when in fact there is no such thing at that level of wealth and exclusion.  Kids go there and find themselves faced with the same insurmountable barriers that have defined the college for 9 generations.  The only way into the circle is marriage or financial miracle.

It creates cognitive dissonance.  But then, Yale always has.

Yea, which makes it all the more pathetic that kids go to Yale thinking they'll automatically be a state senator within 15-20 years or a CEO.  A black graduate of Yale has a better chance at being hired at a prestigious law firm, bank, or into a political role than a white kid who went to Chico State.  Ok?!?!?  Like, a MUCH MUCH MUCH better chance.  That's because student A went to Yale and student B went to Chico State, it's all about the school.  A black graduate of Yale with no particular background probably has about the same chance as a white graduate of Yale with no particular background, all else being the same...Yale on a resume speaks volumes no matter who you are.  But neither has the same chance as a graduate of Yale coming from some NE dynasty (someone who by history/chance is likely to be white).  The point is, this is the way it is and has been.  This is actually often the appeal of going to Stanford versus Yale or Harvard.  Stanford is admission purely on smarts, not on background.  Less of a competition with dynasty grads.  If one were smart enough to get into Yale, that same person should be smart enough to get into Stanford.  And anyone who does any bit of research into what these schools are like and how they're different should be fully prepared to have to deal with and compete with the old-school elite at NE Ivy League schools.  This is no secret.  And it's not a race thing.  It's just that there's a club that still happens to be more white and while that's changing fairly rapidly, too, it's still about who you are and your background and that's just the way it is!  If you can't deal with that, there are hundreds of other schooling options, some just as "good" as the Ivies in the NE.

But let's make everything about race and play victim all the time.  In this day and age, it would not surprise me if there were new grads, perhaps black grads that were choosing between southern HCBUs and taking a full ride at say Yale, and choosing the latter, and expecting the culture at Yale to reflect what they saw at one of the southern HCBUs.  Never gonna' happen!  If the "cultural" aspect of it is more important to you and what you want is what you saw at Morehouse or even a Clemson, etc, then go there!  Not Yale!

I just don't get how awful it can be for these people.  I think they're just overly entitled.

You seem to know an awful lot about how it is to grow up as a poor black kid. And how it is to be a poor black kid at an Ivy League university.

I wish I had the strength of your convictions.

Also:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Polk_Rich_Applicants.htm

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshfreedman/2013/11/14/the-farce-of-meritocracy-in-elite-higher-education-why-legacy-admissions-might-be-a-good-thing/

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/09/the_1_percents_ivy_league_loophole/

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2014/06/04/its-time-to-eliminate-legacy-preference-in-stanford-admissions/

http://reason.org/news/show/legacy-admissions-hurt-middle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_case

Stanford is no different than Yale or Harvard when it comes to admissions, even if it is in the Bay Area.

[simms3]

So you spent time to try to find a bunch of articles that attempt to disprove something I never said.  Oh, and your articles mention that the acceptance rate of legacies at schools including Stanford are 2-3x that of other applicants.  Doesn't actually go into legacy attendance at all, and says nothing that is a secret.  The fact of the matter is, duh, colleges and literally every other organization give some preferential treatment both to legacies and to people who might be able to donate more, and often they go hand in hand.  This has never been different in our lifetimes.  Ironically, the big donors are the ones that fund the world class programs, facilities, and faculty, and allow such huge percentages of middle to lower income students to attend for free.  So I personally could give two shits if John Smith gets into a top notch school slightly less qualified (these kids are NOT getting in if they are dufuses, no matter how rich their parents are) than me if it means I can tap into their endowment to attend for free.

Also, Stanford is very non-traditional compared to the Ivies.  There is a bigger emphasis on sports and the curriculum and teaching methods are a little more MIT than Harvard.  And it goes on from there.

When you attend an Ivy, you have exposure to and must deal with finals clubs and borderline oppressive tradition.  These clubs are what you try to get into, and rest assured it's exclusively about who you are (and that will never change...must we all always feel "left out"?).  These don't even exist at Stanford.  There are no secret societies at Stanford.  Hardly any tradition.  Football is big (even I go see Cardinals games every now and then)  It's a very different environment.  But sure, go ahead, pretend all schools, or all elite schools are the same.

I think the point is there are differences amongst elite schools or small, specialized schools, and then the big state universities are generally big enough where it's impossible not to find like-minded people or friends with similar backgrounds, or your niche.

My take and outlook is clearly extremely different from yours.  My coworker who sits next to me went to Harvard.  Her father owns one of the top 3 entertainment companies and is a billionaire back in NYC.  Her boyfriend's brother was in the Yale finals club that got in trouble recently, but believe me when I say there is a huge back story there.  I think she makes more than I do as a green analyst who knows nothing probably because her father is an investor in one of the funds (I am guessing), whereas I have toiled 60-90++ hour weeks on average for the last 5 years and worked my ass off to be one of the only non-Ivies in my firm, but I'm not  green with envy should this actually be the case.  It's perhaps unfair that she's 4 years younger and illiterate compared to me and might make a bit more.  She lives with a fellow Harvard girl in a new condo buillding next door to my old apartment building (coincidentally).  She pays $2200 for her beautiful bedroom in a doorman building that sold out at $2K/square foot whereas I pay closer to $3K for my bedroom in a building with stairs and some old coin laundry machines in the basement.  Life just isn't fucking fair.  Who cares.  She's still about my favorite person in the office.

The professor that got screamed at by that girl at Yale is a nice man, apparently, and came from Harvard where is deeply missed.  These kids are more privileged than 99.9% of the world just by the mere fact they are attending these schools.  But apparently it's never enough.  I think they are selfish, greedy bitches who complain about everything and take a concept like "safe space" from a recent South Park episode parodying this whole thing before it even got started, they take that seriously.  You can't make this stuff up.  People older than 25 need to start growing some backbone and sticking up to these bully kids.

[Adam White]

So you spent time to try to find a bunch of articles that attempt to disprove something I never said.  Oh, and your articles mention that the acceptance rate of legacies at schools including Stanford are 2-3x that of other applicants.  Doesn't actually go into legacy attendance at all, and says nothing that is a secret.  The fact of the matter is, duh, colleges and literally every other organization give some preferential treatment both to legacies and to people who might be able to donate more, and often they go hand in hand.  This has never been different in our lifetimes.  Ironically, the big donors are the ones that fund the world class programs, facilities, and faculty, and allow such huge percentages of middle to lower income students to attend for free.  So I personally could give two shits if John Smith gets into a top notch school slightly less qualified (these kids are NOT getting in if they are dufuses, no matter how rich their parents are) than me if it means I can tap into their endowment to attend for free.

Also, Stanford is very non-traditional compared to the Ivies.  There is a bigger emphasis on sports and the curriculum and teaching methods are a little more MIT than Harvard.  And it goes on from there.

When you attend an Ivy, you have exposure to and must deal with finals clubs and borderline oppressive tradition.  These clubs are what you try to get into, and rest assured it's exclusively about who you are (and that will never change...must we all always feel "left out"?).  These don't even exist at Stanford.  There are no secret societies at Stanford.  Hardly any tradition.  Football is big (even I go see Cardinals games every now and then)  It's a very different environment.  But sure, go ahead, pretend all schools, or all elite schools are the same.

I think the point is there are differences amongst elite schools or small, specialized schools, and then the big state universities are generally big enough where it's impossible not to find like-minded people or friends with similar backgrounds, or your niche.

My take and outlook is clearly extremely different from yours.  My coworker who sits next to me went to Harvard.  Her father owns one of the top 3 entertainment companies and is a billionaire back in NYC.  Her boyfriend's brother was in the Yale finals club that got in trouble recently, but believe me when I say there is a huge back story there.  I think she makes more than I do as a green analyst who knows nothing probably because her father is an investor in one of the funds (I am guessing), whereas I have toiled 60-90++ hour weeks on average for the last 5 years and worked my ass off to be one of the only non-Ivies in my firm, but I'm not  green with envy should this actually be the case.  It's perhaps unfair that she's 4 years younger and illiterate compared to me and might make a bit more.  She lives with a fellow Harvard girl in a new condo buillding next door to my old apartment building (coincidentally).  She pays $2200 for her beautiful bedroom in a doorman building that sold out at $2K/square foot whereas I pay closer to $3K for my bedroom in a building with stairs and some old coin laundry machines in the basement.  Life just isn't fucking fair.  Who cares.  She's still about my favorite person in the office.

The professor that got screamed at by that girl at Yale is a nice man, apparently, and came from Harvard where is deeply missed.  These kids are more privileged than 99.9% of the world just by the mere fact they are attending these schools.  But apparently it's never enough.  I think they are selfish, greedy bitches who complain about everything and take a concept like "safe space" from a recent South Park episode parodying this whole thing before it even got started, they take that seriously.  You can't make this stuff up.  People older than 25 need to start growing some backbone and sticking up to these bully kids.

Simms, you seem like a nice enough guy. I don't know that much about you other than you are from Jax, grew up in Ortega (I think), live in San Francisco and work in real estate or something related. I also know your sexual orientation. I don't know if you're white (I assume you are) and I don't know if you attended an Ivy League university or college (though I have to assume you did based on your comments).

I have been to San Francisco twice in my lifetime, each time for about 3 or 4 days. I think. The last time I was there was in the late 80s. My best friend moved to San Francisco a number of years back and currently lives in Oakland. A former work colleague/friend of mine just moved to SF with his job (Sony Playstation). I have slightly more than a passing interest in SF due to the fact that I have considered I might want to live there someday.

Objectively speaking, when it comes to San Francisco, my CV is pretty thin. If I tried to tell you what it was like to live and work in SF, you'd be well within your rights to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about as I haven't the experience to know that. Even if I have visited a couple of times and know some people.

Most people would agree with that logic.

I take the same approach to things like race relations. And being a black kid attending Yale. Now, maybe you know what it's like to attend Yale (or Stanford) and so I am in no position to argue with you on that point. I don't have an Ivy League eduation and wouldn't dream of claiming to know what it's like to go to one of those schools (even if some of my friends have done). Fair enough. But even if you do have that experience, are we really the right people to be arguing about the experiences of black students at Ivy League universities?

If you are a black male who attended an Ivy League university, then I apologize. As I said, I only know so much about you.

Edit: I just re-read your comment and see that you referred to yourself as a "non-Ivy". If that's the case, then I don't think you have enough experience to really say what it's like to attend an Ivy League university (in general) or Yale (in particular), even if your work colleague is a Harvard grad.

I don't know if you attended Stanford. But I live in London and wouldn't claim to know what it's like to attend LSE just because it's close to my office. And I wouldn't claim to know what it's like to be an Oxbridge grad just because I know a few.

[Adam White]

So you spent time to try to find a bunch of articles that attempt to disprove something I never said.  Oh, and your articles mention that the acceptance rate of legacies at schools including Stanford are 2-3x that of other applicants.  Doesn't actually go into legacy attendance at all, and says nothing that is a secret.  The fact of the matter is, duh, colleges and literally every other organization give some preferential treatment both to legacies and to people who might be able to donate more, and often they go hand in hand. 

VS

"Stanford is admission purely on smarts, not on background."

[I-10east]

Here's Vox's take on this debacle. Take it for what it's worth (It's very succinct, particularly the lack of info concerning that meeting).

https://www.youtube.com/v/mRQpd2iQLf8

[Adam White]

Here's Vox's take on this debacle. Take it for what it's worth (It's very succinct, particularly the lack of info concerning that meeting).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRQpd2iQLf8

Thanks for that.

[wanderson91]

I feel like a lot of you don't really understand everything that went on at Mizzou that eventually led to the President of the University System resigning. Here's a great timeline that delves into all the issues students had with the administration and why they felt the need to protest.

http://www.themaneater.com/special-sections/mu-fall-2015/

[tufsu1]

^ agreed...and thank you!

[simms3]

A lot of that is not much different than the goings ons at other college campuses.  Some things were poorly handled by MU or the police, but not necessarily anything to do with racism, just stuff handled poorly.  And some of the racist/prejudice stuff has nothing to do with black people specifically, and some of it clearly doesn't stem just from "white privilege".  After reading Maneater, I'm actually more amazed that the events that happened did and more convinced than ever that as a society we have become egg shells.  Just pathetic.

[simms3]

So you spent time to try to find a bunch of articles that attempt to disprove something I never said.  Oh, and your articles mention that the acceptance rate of legacies at schools including Stanford are 2-3x that of other applicants.  Doesn't actually go into legacy attendance at all, and says nothing that is a secret.  The fact of the matter is, duh, colleges and literally every other organization give some preferential treatment both to legacies and to people who might be able to donate more, and often they go hand in hand. 

VS

"Stanford is admission purely on smarts, not on background."

Maybe "pure" was a strong word but your articles only mentioned acceptance rate, not actual statistics on legacy acceptance.  So point still stands.