Conservitives in Academia

I really don't like the new New York Times Select Policy -- all their columnists are hidden behind a pay-for-view barrier now. Say -- I wonder if anyone has done a #of times mentioned vs time graph? That shouldn't be hard to do.

At any rate, one of the conservative columnists in the NYTimes -- Tierney -- wrote about the liberal bias in academia several days ago. He was specifically talking about journalism and law school. Today he has a follow up column. What I love is how he starts off the column -- a list of reasons that readers sent him:

1. Conservatives do not value knowledge for its own sake.
2. Conservatives do not care about the social good.
3. Conservatives are too greedy to work for professors' wages.
4. Conservatives are too dumb to get tenure.

This is intelligent discourse? Please, if you are writing a column in the NYTimes you're going to get all sorts of responses from the totally wacky to the insightful. I would hope that you were hired at the NYTimes because you will filter out the wacky ones and address the insightful ones. In his defense, he does spend the second half of the column discussing things in a little more depth (he mentions group think, etc.). I don't really know the law and the journalism fields. But I do know a bit about physics.

I would like to think that physics doesn't have the bias described, but if I look around the department almost all of us are liberal. There are some unifying factors: we live in Seattle (a very very blue-state city), we are in science and even if you like Bush's conservative policies it is hard to like what is happening to science & research budgets -- which has direct impact on how we do our research.

How about the students -- the next generation of "us"? What is their bias? I have no idea. I've had conversations with so few of them about politics that I really don't know what the average is.

I can't help but wonder if some of it isn't "you do what your friends do". And by-and-in-large the people we choose to be friends with are people that are similar to us. This paves a path of least resistance and we follow that for the most part. Hence, once the liberal tilt has been established...

Or, perhaps you've not made up your mind yet -- you don't really care. But day after day you are working with people that are liberals. Even if you don't talk about it directly, you hear the viewpoint and the things that are taken for granted. I'm sure, for example, that my undergraduate class knows my political leanings even though we've never had a lecture involving them directly.

Is it a problem? I would think that a conservative and a liberal would teach physics the same way. Perhaps they would use different jokes. ;-) I would call it a problem if there were smart people who wanted to do physics but didn't feel welcome because they were conservitive. We've had this problem with women, for example. They were not welcome in this field and have had to fight their way in. This isn't fixed yet, but it is getting better. And physics definately lost a lot out because we ignored half the smart people out there.

I wonder if the research choice would be different between liberals and non-liberals? I'm going to stereotype here: perhaps research and thus funding more from the Department of Defense than the National Science Foundation or the Department of Energy. Hmmm. At UW we have a second physics department -- Applied Physics -- and they tend to have more of this kind of research funding. I wonder if the politics over there is any different?

Comments

[Jonathan]

> Say -- I wonder if anyone has done a #of
> times mentioned vs time graph?

Yep.

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/blogpulse_nyt.png

Or you can find your own trends here:

http://www.blogpulse.com/trend

[aalu paneer]

Gordon,

I had been following conservative/liberal and Darwin/ID discussion live while I was in US and now online from India. I am find new respect for Fermilab and various HEP scientists and institutions involved (and QDs too).

You have been discussing these subjects directly and even taking sides. This is something totally missing in our society (India) where scientist and intellectuals do not want to takes side or be involved in any debate with political aspects.

In some cases, it is not to invite the ire of politicians when the time for grant comes. In some cases, it is not be identified with one group or other (media witch-hunt and name-calling is as effective in India). In some cases, it is the "taking high road" and "aloofness" to avoid a confrontation.

These fears seem to be missing in an typical American scientist, it seems. But from what I gathered during my stay is that these pressures *are* present and I am sure these issues come up for American Scientists too.

How do you (as a group) overcome that? How has an American scientist managed to keep these things at bay?

Eg, do you worry that next time you ask for a grant, you are told -- "You sided with Darwin, sorry, no grant." Poof goes your career? Do you worry about an interview with Bill O'Riley and him call you "Un-American" (he has done that before very effectively) and poof goes your unbiased status. These are extreme situation, but I hope you get the drift.

Does American scientist worry about self when standing up for the group and how does an American scientist protect her/him self when standing up for the group?

- aalu paneer

[Gordon Watts]

Jonathan -- thanks. You can really see when the Times turned on its select service. Sure goes the opposite direction of the whole blog-o-sphere cred. :(

Aalu. Heck yeah, we worry about it. But every country has its hot button issues. It certianly crosses my mind that if enough scientists complain loudly enough then then we become more of a target. And no one likes giving $$ to a group surrounded by controversy -- self generated or not. But I'm sure different countries and cultures mean different tipping points. For example, there is certianly stuff that goes on that I'd love to write about -- but there is no way because it would come back an kick-my-butt. ;-) It may be we are little more reckless over here in America than you guys are back in India. But I bet as new generations grow up it will get better. Also, in Inida my impression is that in many places religion plays a stronger role than here in America (when we have a religous protest march here, no one dies except from heat exhaustion). I'm sure that means that people may be less willing to speak out about religion. Don't take me wrong -- as they say "All politics is local".

[Kevin Black]

I think its instructive to look up the definition of of liberal
---
associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
-----

I can't help but find the idea that the media has a "liberal bias" as anything but heretical and amusing. What media can they possibly be talking about? The guys who hand out the workers united paper on the street?

If there was ever anything that was more clear cut it is that the media has a conservative bias. It almost has to by definition of how our system works.
Why? In order to get any exposure on a large scale you have to have a major newspaper or news station either support you or work for one of them. How many independent journalist stories do you see on CNN? CBS? the New York times. I would say that if it is pretty damn close to zero.

So you have to work for or have a very close association with one of these major news media. Of course who owns these corporations - huge mega corporations. Almost by definition these corporations like the way things are and would like it to stay that way - because they made it this way and they are - by definition of being a huge mega corporation are on top of their field.

So what possible motive do they have for letting independent unbiased reporting take place. Maybe a few let things slip here and there, but for the most part you are going to make damn sure your company looks pretty good and support your corporate interests. Because, your job of course is to make money. Not to report the news. To make money is the primary objective.

Looking at the media coverage, if you look at media coverage outside the US it becomes very clear. Why isn't East Timor a hot topic here? Because the US supported what happened at least implicitly. I mean, 10's of thousands gone and barely a mention.

Or look at the coverage of South America in the 80's. A whole lot of garbage about fighting the "drug war" and spotlighting the violence in the region. Of course the drug war was nothing more then the US's way of keeping South America firmly under our thumb. I mean if you really wanted to stop the drug trade - wouldn't you have a war on the people who were the real cause of the problem - us (the people who drive the whole industry)...
So what are the stories all about? Apparently they are quite complacent to regurgitate what ever the establishment tells them without complaint - sounds like a real liberal bias ehh??

So how do they get away with it? With a stroke of evil genius- very similar to how they get away with convincing people that giving tax cuts to the rich and getting rid of social security and health care are good for the middle class..
How do they do it? By arguing that the media is liberal! By making liberal a bad word. Its really remarkable, if you listen to what a lot of (not all of) but a lot middle America is saying - its pretty liberal what they want. But they have been convinced that honest, hardworking, middle America has to be labeled "conservative" regardless of the actual positions they take. And again, this is all supported by the way most people get there thoughts - tattooed into their brains by the TV.

I think that says a lot. Convincing at least 51% of the country into believing something that is clearly only good for the richest few that it is good for all of them and managing to blame it all on a "liberal" media effectively says a lot about what is going on here.

The thing that hurts the most is that you don't have to do a lot of research to find out what is going on. A decent internet connection and google.

And we talk about our freedom of the press. Yeah, there aren't goons with bats who will hit you over the head if you print something that is against the government. But think about it, would you ever make it high up in the Exon Corp if you wrote storis about their abuses? Of course not... So why would you ever make it up in the media corporation that is owned by Exon or GE or ...
By DEFINITION, you couldn't be you just couldn't be anything but completely subserviant to your corporate bosses if you were ever going to do something like write a major collumn in the NY Times or be on the NBC nightly news. So how could the media possibly have a "liberal bias"? Only when you are through the looking glass and the Red Queen is on her head....

[m.visaya]

that who has much in common with a package to be delivered. presumably, so it would last long, at least in transit... (EGG-712)

[tommaso dorigo]

Hi Gordon,

in Italy it's pretty much the same - physicists are left-wingers, in the majority of cases. This however does not apply to all the academic world, although there is indeed a global bias in that direction.

I would say that the first item in the NYT columnist's list is not too far from reality. The value of knowledge is tightly linked to several concepts that are dear to liberal thinking.

However, in Italy I can tell you that most physics students are liberals just as well if not more than their professors. So don't expect things to change soon...

Cheers
T.