Почему среди профессоров преобладают либеральные взгляды

[bravchick]

Любопытная статья в New York Times про то, почему среди профессоров преобладают либеральные взгляды. Основная мысль -- в обществе считается, что университет место для либералов. Поэтому люди консервативных взглядов редко идут в профессора (а также в журналисты, художники и актеры). То есть, не профессора становятся либералами, а либералы профессорами.

Еще более интересны аналогии, которые в статье приводятся в качестве аргументов: точно также мужчины не идут в медсестры, а женщины в физики (а вовсе не из-за дискриминации). Сама по себе мысль не сложная и не новая, но то, что ее пропагандирует New York Times, мне кажется любопытным.

Comments

Re: среди профессоров преобладают ...

[shkrobius.livejournal.com]

There is no such tradition. If you read anything before the 1930s, the universities are pictured as the bastions of conservatism, often of the worst kind. This "tradition" is recent in origin; specifically, it is post-war. The question is what happened in the early 1950s to change the character of the academia. Ideas 1 to 2 are entertaining. Idea 3 is the unfortunate reality, but it is the consequence rather than the reason. If you look at the data in the paper, 25% of American sociologists are Marxists. I mean this literally; that is how they define themselves. Yes, it is a given that they will hire other Marxists; the situation reached the point when the propagation of Marxist sociologists is self-perpetuating. Interestingly, Gross gives idea 2 as the explanation of professorial leftism. According to him, sociologists are far to the left of computer scientists because sociologists are smarter. He means it in all seriousness, thus convincingly proving the opposite.

Actually, I do not know the answer, if you discount various nonsense. Surprisingly, it is difficult to find any credible research on this topic (and I've looked). My hunch is that it is an echo of the GI bill and certain other factors. Absorbing a huge mass of students required the expansion of the higher education system. A lot of professors were drafted into the war effort. Quite a few of them did not return, either not coming from the war or finding more attractive jobs. At the same time the administration had changed and two generations of New Dealers found themselves without sinecures and the prospect of employment; nobody needed them in the US. These people were absorbed into the rapidly expanding academia, especially liberal arts colleges, quickly dominating the humanities. This generation-1 educated and trained the first wave of baby boomers that became generation-2. Then it became self-perpetuating. Quite simply, it became impossible to be educated in the humanities (and all student need to take such courses) without being exposed to (at least some) leftist brainwashing. The diffusion from there to public schools made this exposure even earlier which assists indoctrination higher up. By generation-3 and -4 the system became self-perpetuating. So the reason is WWII and its immediate aftermath creating the unique opportunity.

Re: среди профессоров преобладают ...

[bravchick.livejournal.com]

Традиция не обязательно должна уходить в века. 50 лет, на мой взгляд, вполне достаточна. Не нравится слово "традиция", можно сказать "мода". Это не важно.

Возможно, даже вероятно, что в общественных науках есть дискриминация правых. В точных я ее не вижу, но профессора все равно в основном левые или лево-центристкие. Есть исключения, конечно, но их мало. Версия, что то, что сегодня человеку правых взглядов редко захочется в академию, где доминируют левые, является одной из основных причин того, что академия продолжает быть левой, мне кажется правдоподобной. Она не отвечает на вопрос о том, как академия стала левой. Но добавляет понимание того, что происходит сейчас, что уже не мало.

Re: среди профессоров преобладают ...

[shkrobius.livejournal.com]

If the academia is a place for people with original views, independent thinking, and non-conformist bent, as it pictures itself, it makes perfect sense that it attracts the contrarians rather than conformists. On the other hand, if it is a place of suffocating conformity, then this rationale begins to make sense. To explain why the self-image is at odds with the reality you need to explain this reality first. There are universities where left domination never occurred, either in the humanities or natural sciences, like UChicago. You need to explain these exceptions, too. Furthermore, you need to explain why is the academia changing precisely at the moment when this domination looks most assured: why these universities that are dominated by the left are becoming more conservative. Observe that domination of the conservatives had no effect on the desire of the left to enter the academia. Yet you consider it reasonable that the opposite must be true. I think that this idea is plain wrong. Curiosity and talent do not correlate with political views. If you want to study mathematics you do not rate the universities by the politics of its faculty (at least, very few people do). You want to pursue mathematics and you are happy for any opportunity to do so. There is another aspect of it, which you may not know about. At the national labs, there is no substantial left bias. People do science. It is cutting edge. They are educated like anyone in the academia. The salaries are comparable. The political views, by my observations, are reflecting the average in the particular geographical locations. Yet these are populated from the same pool. And again people land with a job where they can rather than chosing it by plumbing the leftism of their future colleagues. This explanation is simply non-explanation. It looks kinda reasonable by it is of Chapaev's variety.