Gross and Simmons' important new study of academic political ideology may underestimate the degree of liberal dominance because of the way it categorizes political "moderation" among academics. As discussed in my last post, the authors find that 43.5% of academics are liberal, 47% are "moderate," and 9% are conservative. This leads the authors to conclude that, while there are very few conservative academics, the overall valence of the academy is moderate rather than liberal.
One problem with this conclusion, discussed in my previous post, is that the preponderance of liberals is much greater in those fields where ideology actually matters. Another is Gross and Simmons' analysis of "moderation." As they explain, the "moderate" category in their Table 2 (reprinted in my earlier post) is actually a combination of survey respondents who described themselves as "slightly liberal" (18.1%), "middle of the road" (18.0%), or "slightly conservative" (10.5%). I wonder, however, whether these self-descriptions are based on a reference group of other academics (who are well to the left of the general population) or of the general public. Many people who do not follow survey research understandably define "moderation" relative to the orientations of the people they know. For academics, these reference groups are disproportionately likely to be other academics and nonacademics with ideological backgrounds similar to those of people in the academic world. The famous anecdote about the New York intellectual who couldn't believe that Nixon had won the 1972 election because no one he knew had voted Republican may be an exaggeration; but it does contain a kernel of truth. Thus, self-described "middle of the road" and "slightly liberal" academics - perhaps even "slightly conservative" ones - may be well to the left of center by the standards of the general population.
I cannot reliably prove or disprove this theory based on the data presented in the Gross and Simmons paper. But there are some indications that it captures an important part of what is going on. For example, Gross and Simmons found that 78% of their respondents voted for Kerry (77%) or Nader (1%) in the 2004 election, and only 21% for Bush (Bush won the popular vote by a narrow 51-48 margin in the general population). Assuming that most of the self-described conservatives (20 percent of the total sample, if you count the "slightly conservative") voted for Bush, this implies that nearly all of the self-described "slightly liberal" and "middle of the road" academics voted for Kerry. By contrast, CNN exit polls indicate that self-described "moderates" in the general population voted for Kerry by a much narrower 54-45 margin. While ideology is not the only influence on voting behavior, this result certainly suggests that self-described academic centrists are on average much further to the left than moderates in the general population.
UPDATE: I should note that while there is good reason to suspect that academic "moderates" overall are more liberal than those in the general population, it is impossible to tell from the Gross-Simmons paper how this breaks down in particular disciplines. For example, it is possible that self-described "middle of the road" academics in the hard sciences are more moderate than those in the social sciences and humanities.
UPDATE #2: It is worth pointing out that Gross and Simmons do not deny the fact that academics are more liberal than the general population. As they put it (pg. 72), "we would not contest the claim that professors are one of the most liberal occupational groups in American society, or that the professoriate is a Democratic stronghold." Their main original claims are that 1) academics are more moderate than usually assumed, and 2) there is more diversity of opinion among left of center academics than conservative critics claim. The first conclusion depends crucially on the authors' definition of moderation - the issue discussed in this post. The second may well be true. In fact, I suspect that it almost certainly is. There is likely considerable divergence between the roughly 20% of humanities and social science professors who describe themselves as "radical" (see my last post) and those who are mainstream liberals. However, this finding does not change the fact that academics are overwhelmingly on the left rather than the right. Political diversity among academics does exist, but much of it is confined within a truncated liberal to radical political spectrum.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Self-Selection and Ideological Imbalances in Academia:
- Intellectual Diversity in Academia--Discrimination v. Self-Selection:
- Affirmative Action for Conservative Academics?
- Pitfalls of Ignoring Libertarianism in Studies of Academics' Ideologies:
- Academics' Ideology and "Moderation":
- Ideology and Academia - Liberal Dominance Only in Those Fields Where it Matters:
- Professors and Intelligent Design:
- Interesting Study on Professors' Ideology:
The original post accepted Gross and Simmons' categories as given. This one challenges them. Moreover, as I indicate in this post, we don't have definitive proof of how liberal the self-described academic moderates actually are.
But I think that's influenced by my own definition of moderate.
I see a moderate as someone who is able to look at both sides of a given political issue and see the positives and negatives. They may come to a conclusion that one side of an issue or another is correct, but they're generally capable of finding finding compromise around an issue they are on the opposite side of.
Those that were "middle of the road" or "slightly liberal" may have voted more for kerry. They may also be "more liberal" than self identified middle of the Roaders in the general population, but I see something intrinsically different in someone who puts down "middle of the road" even if their definition of middle of the road is qualitatively different from what someone else puts down as middle of the road.
I thought one of the many superiorities of conservative academics to their liberal counterparts was supposed to be that liberals are such whiny little bitches.
Even Gross and Simmons agree that academics are on average more liberal than the general population. See their discussion of the issue in the paper. Hardly any experts dispute that premise.The main issue in dispute is HOW MUCH they diverge from the general public.
Moreover, in my post I also cite data supporting this on the basis of academics' voting patterns. While ideology is not the only factor influencing voting decisions, it is a significant one. And Gross and Simmons present evidence that it is more determinative of academics' voting decisions than those of the general population.
Ilya, taking the Bush v Kerry vote as representative of conservative v liberal may be highly skewed by the visceral reaction that moderate academics may have experienced due to Bush's express disdain for inteleksuels. Of course they're not going to like the guy.
It's probably foolish of me to respond to a dumb, obnoxious comment like this one. But let me note 3 points:
1. I am not a conservative.
2. The post says nothing about the CAUSES of liberal dominance in academia. Discrimination, in my view, is a factor, but far from the only one.
3. It is not unreasonable to suppose that there are a lot more liberals willing to discriminate against conservatives in academia than there are male chauvinists willing to discriminate against women. Indeed, Gross and Simmons' data indicate that over 60% of academics, including a majority of male academics, describe themselves as "feminists" (compared to only 27% of women and 12% of men in the general population). This is not a class of people likely to engage in discrimination against women on any large scale. That said, I'm not necessarily endorsing Summers' theories, as I lack the expertise in the relevant fields.
Yeah right. I know, you're a libertarian and libertarians aren't conservative.
And of course I was being sarcastic.
I agree that it contains a kernel of truth. This quote is usually attributed to Pauline Kael, the late critic for The New Yorker, though there is considerable doubt she actually said it. (She was quoted in the NYT as saying, "I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don't know. They're outside my ken. But sometimes when I'm in a theater I can feel them").
But even the correct Kael quote does not detract from Professor Somin's overall point, that many in the elite (academic or otherwise) are out of touch.
And yet you keep coming back. If one is known by the company he keeps, then what does that make you? Or does it give you a (false) sense of superiority to compare yourself to the Great Unwashed?
Get out of your mom's basement and find something productive to do, troll.
(I would say to compare those with post-grad study (44/55), but I expect that some would worry that grad students are too in-the-fold to have politics of their own untainted by the liberal academy brainwashing; I am aware that the argument has even been made with regard to undergrads.)
Instead of blowing bubbles with profs' self-reported location on a left-right spectrum, let's get the "conservative critics" to guess what the proportion of professors favor a cast of specific liberal programs, then ask the professors which ones they favor, and then compare to see how good the critics guesses were.
Well, that would be boring, wouldn't it. Back to axe grinding, please.
(I would say to compare those with post-grad study (44/55)
NOte that the distribution among both groups is pretty close to that in the generla population (51-49 Bush) and very divergent from those of the professors.
Let me make 3 points:
1. I have lived in the US since I was 6.
2. Even if academics define "feminist" in the way you claim, that still suggests they are unlikely to want to discriminate against women (the claim I was using that figure to support).
3. Many academics are well aware of the definition of feminism used by most womens' studies scholars - which goes far beyond equal opportunity between the sexes.
4. Sure, people don't always live up to their ideals. However, if the ideals are shared by the vast majority of the relevant decisionmakers and deviation from the violates both the law and professional norms, it is unlikely that there is going to be enormous deviation from them.
Considering that brainwashing starts in preschool and is perpetuated through the entirety of k-12 education, it's not surprising.
I would only compare those who have been out of school (and in the real world) for a minimum of say, three years. That should be enough time for a new graduate to be mugged by reality.
I respectfully disagree. Even the authors concede that academics are overwhelmingly liberal on foreign policy, racial, and social issues. They contend that they are much less so on economic ones. I agree that the gap between the general public and academics smaller in the latter category. But it is larger than the authors suggest because the questions they chose either have boundary problems (e.g. - majorities of both academics and the general public support more government action to help "the poor"; but academics likely support a lot more such action), or are unrepresentative of the issue area as a whole (e.g. - fewer academics than the general public think that corporate profits are too high; however this question focuses on a populist grievance against corporations rather than left-liberal one).
I was going to suggest the same thing.
Before law school, I wouldn't self-identify as a feminist, and then I learned what a feminist was. Most likely, the additional increase in self-identification is, at least in part, due to the realization that feminism is a mainstream ideology that most people accept, rather than a scary word used for extremists.
Peace,
Ben
I suspect that many of the people whom the study calls "moderates" are likewise in the leftmost third of the political spectrum.
There have been other studies that suggest one big conclusion -- religious conservatives are very underrepresented in the academy. I suspect libertarians are overrepresented in academia, but there aren't many from the religious right. Many fewer than in the populatioin.
As to foreign policy, support for Israel probably isn't a good yardstick, given that the percentage of Jews in the academy is much higher than in the country as a whole.
But the study's conclusions seem plain. A substantial minority of the academy is definitely left. Another substantial minority is moderate. A very small minority is conservative. And it seems odd to say that understates how liberal the academy is.
Saying that liberals dominate academia is like saying water is wet -- we all know it to be so.
And for those who say there is no liberal bias in higher education, please don't piss in my ear and tell me it's raining.
I don't think that the corporate question is very representative. There are ways to be left-wing about economic poicy without believing that corporate profits are too high, and those modes of thought are very common in academia.
As Gross and Simmons themselves conclude, academics are well to the left of the general population on foreign policy issues they measured other than Israel, particularly issues related to the use of force.
And support for Israel is not an issue that neatly splits the left and the right. Numerous liberals are pro-Israel for a variety of reasons. Consider the generally pro-Israel positions of numerous Jewish groups, the AFL-CIO, and the Democratic Party. In addition, academics are disproportionately Jewish, and this will lead them to be more pro-Israel than other leftists. Moreover, academics are less pro-Israel than the general population according to the Gross and Simmons survey, which finds about 20 percent favoring Israel over the Palestinians, 10% the reverse, and the rest neutral. In the general population, most surveys show about 40-50 percent pro-Israel, 10-15 percent pro-Palestinian, and the rest neutral.
Most academic liberals in the US have issue positions to the left of European center-right politicians. For example, most of them are unlikely to be too fond of Sarkozy, Margaret Thatcher, or Berlusconi, or to share their views on key issues.
I agree that it is difficult to just "write off" their findings, and I am not trying to do that. However, they could have improved the study by focusing on the self-described "moderates" and comparing their issue positions to the general population. For some issue questions, they do in fact collect such data, but have not as far as I can tell performed a systematic analysis of the "moderates" issue positions and vote choices. The limited evidence they do present suggests that "moderate" academics are well to the left of moderates in the general public.
THe point where I diverge from the study's authors is on the claim that the "left" groups is only a "substantial minority." I think it's a clear majority - especially in most politically relevant fields.