Blog Archives

New Study on Faculty Voter Registration

12/27/2016

Mitchell Langbert, Anthony Quain, and Daniel B. Klein recently published an outstanding study on faculty political orientations. They used a unique dataset that contains information on voter registration roles. Their study examined data from the top 40 US universities that contained over 7,243 professors.

Overall, they found:

An average D:R ratio of 11.5 to 1;
Substantial variation across universities and across academic fields;
In the social sciences and humanities there were more professors registered to 3rd parties (e.g. Green Party) than were registered republican;
In economics, 4.5 to 1,
History 33.5 to 1,
Journalism 20 to 1,
Law 8.6 to 1,
Psychology 17 to 1;
Many departments didn't have a single republican;

It's worth remembering that democrats are about 30% of the American population, while independents constitute about 40% and republicans about 30%. Mathmatically, this means that university professors come from a relatively small and entirely unrepresentative segment of the American political spectrum. How this happens is a matter of speculation but the consequences are not. University faculty, especially in the humanities and many of the social sciences, share little by way of background, values, or orientations with the average American. They share almost nothing with individuals on the right side of the political spectrum, who are the only true minority left on most campuses.

Once again, there is more intellectual diversity in churches and amongst the priesthood than on our campuses.

You can dowload the study below:

langbertquainkleinsept2016.pdf
File Size:	435 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

Comments

Books by Professor Michael Rocque

12/27/2016

Comments

But What if Social Justice Isn’t Contrary to the Truth?

12/27/2016

Comments

I've reached out to several scholars of varying ideological backgrounds, inviting them to contribute an essay on this blog. In the weeks to come, I'll publish those posts/essays. Authors were given wide lattitude to contribute in a way they saw fit and I promised them their essays would enter here unedited.

My desire is twofold: First, to stimulate a broader disciplinary discussion about matters of intellectual diversity, academic freedom, and biases in the social sciences. A national conversation is going on about higher education generally and the social sciences specifically. We should be involved in that conversation, if for no other reason to better our scholarship.

My second desire, however, is to demonstrate to readers my commitment to intellectual diversity--that is, exploring ideas and patterns in data from several viewpoints.

If you are interested in writing a post or a longer essay, shoot me an email.

Let me thank Dr. Michael Rocque for agreeing to be the first to contribute to CCBlog. Dr. Rocque is a committed scholar with a serious mind.

In his essay, Rocque responds to Jonathan Haidt's recent argument that universities should choose to either support social justice or scientific truth. The two, argues Haidt, are incompatible.

Rocque questions Haidt's position in the essay below:

**************************************************************************

In late October, Heterodox Academician Jonathan Haidt published an essay arguing that truth and social justice are apparently so much in opposition that universities need to choose which they will pursue.

The basic thrust of the essay is that institutions of higher learning must either accept uncomfortable truths, or ignore them and pretend they don’t exist, all in the name of social justice. The essay is based on a talk Haidt has given which can be viewed in the link above.

As an assistant professor of sociology in a small liberal arts college (SLAC), I’d like to (respectfully) challenge Haidt’s premise a bit. In sociology, the discipline’s founders in the late 19th and early 20th centuries viewed sociology’s main goal to be using science for the purpose of social reform and justice. It was only later in the 20th century that some tried to steer the discipline away from justice and toward pure science whose only goal is knowledge (see any good intro to Sociology textbook). The idea was that sociological science could not be objective if it had a rooting interest for a particular side (e.g., the disadvantaged). This appears to be where some social scientists (like Haidt) remain firmly situated, likening the social to the physical sciences whose only goal should be truth.

I’ve come sort of full circle in my brief career as a criminologist/sociologist. I was trained in graduate schools in research oriented programs and generally believed in the pure science approach. But as I want to argue here, my experience at a SLAC the last two plus years has broadened my horizons a bit. I’ve come to question whether any social science—which by definition studies the world in which we participate—can be truly objective. I’ve also come to realize that social research, if it is not for understanding some social problem in order to better understand how to address it, is not very exciting. In the end, social research can be aimed at justice and also the truth.

Let me tackle Haidt’s primary arguments to illustrate my view.

First, what he really seems to be critiquing is the safe space culture in which free speech is viewed as secondary to comfort. In other words, truth loses out to feelings of equity—or social justice. While trigger warnings, safe spaces, and coddling of liberal students has been all the rage for 1st Amendment academic patriots, there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about what these things are meant to do. Haidt and others assume safe spaces are about shutting down the conversation, removing any uncomfortable ideas from the ivory tower, and thus infringing on academic freedom that we all cherish so much.

From my perspective, when ideas or unpopular thinkers are shut out of the academy in the spirit of safe spaces, that is an unintended, unfortunate consequence of a well-intentioned measure, not its primary goal. Shane Windmeyer, who created Campus Pride, says it well: “We don’t want to shelter our students from the real world, nor do students want to be sheltered. They know what the real world is like; they just want to know that their campus is going to be a place where they don’t have to worry about being harmed or discriminated against or have any type of violence in their community targeted to them” (quoted in The Advocate). Who could be opposed to offering students a place where they feel comfortable to discuss uncomfortable ideas? After all, this is precisely what conservatives argue safe spaces are destroying. And of trigger warnings—only a severely cold blooded prof would want to purposefully upset a student who has experienced trauma by forcing them to participate in a discussion that triggers that trauma. What harm is offering a warning in that possible scenario?

The trouble is when things get taken too far—past their intended meaning. With any well-intentioned, useful, and meaningful policy or program, there is the potential for misuse or abuse. Just as is the case with welfare (both individual and corporate), some misuse the resources. And clearly some have tried to shut down free speech in the name of safe spaces (see the Melissa Glick controversy). Does that mean the idea of safe spaces is naturally contra free speech? Of course not.

Second, Haidt claims that “Social Justice Universities (SJU)” are more concerned with protecting groups than truth. I’m not sure what these means, other than a claim that in fact, racism/sexism/ do not exist and are not truths to be examined by the university. If they actually are real and problems, then studying them (and even wishing—gasp—to eradicate them) is a form of truth-seeking. Again, if a university denies reality and claims discrimination is occurring when it really isn’t, that’s a problem but has nothing to do with the goal of social justice. It is not social justice to invent problems where they do not exist.

In many ways, I agree with the points Haidt makes in the essay/talk, but disagree that they are fundamental tenets of universities or colleges seeking social justice outcomes. In my own work, I am often interested in inequality and the sources of disparities. If that research shows disparities continue to persist beyond all feasible and legitimate explanations, I would hope that work would be used to try to rectify the situation. What is the point of social science research if it is useful but not used? Chris Uggen summed up this perspective well in his author bio to the recent book Global Perspectives on Desistance. There, he stated that he is “firm in the belief that good science can light the way to a more just and peaceful world.”

The key phrase there is “good science.” Good science, which seeks truth, can focus on social justice in just this way. Good science does not ignore outcomes contrary to preconceived notions. There is nothing inherently contradictory to the marriage of good science and social justice, from that perspective.

Perhaps the rub is what definition of “justice” one is operating from. If one assumes social justice means everyone is treated fairly, equitably, then there is no conflict between truth and justice. If one assumes justice means shielding students from unpopular perspectives or knowledge, then clearly there is a disconnect between social justice and truth. I simply do not see the latter as a universally accepted definition of social justice. Do some seek to shut down conversations in the name of social justice? Very likely—it is these instances, not social justice itself, that should be the enemy of truthers.

Comments

James Watson Got PC'd

12/16/2016

Comments

Imagine working all of your life in a lab and finding the ellusive double-helix of human DNA. Imagine working in the hard sciences for the next three to four decades, producing work that benefits all of mankind. And don't forget, imagine winning a Nobel Prize for your scietific work.

Then along comes a reporter who asks you an off-the-record question about race and publishes your honest and, more importantly, scientifically accurate, response.

Boom!

Career over.

James Watson's contributions to science have been enormous but that didn't save him from the SJW's. Watson lost his position AT HIS OWN LAB and has been summarily excommunicated from speaking engagements.

New York University was one such place where Watson was banned. You can read the letter submitted by the usual suspects below.

I'm sure the person who finds a cure to cancer will be greeted with the same moral piousness Watson experienced if he/she runs afould of established leftist doctrine.

This is shameful.

Comments

Marxists, Marxists Everywhere.....Except in the Hard Sciences

12/16/2016

Comments

A University Professor Speaks Out

12/16/2016

Comments

More people are starting to realize that SJW's are a plauge to campus. Read an interview with a professor who works in the hard sciences, who also happens to be a professor of color.

Read it here

Comments

From the President of Yale 25 Years Ago

12/16/2016

Comments

Something Tells Me the Results Were a Forgone Conclusion

12/16/2016

Comments

The Left’s War On Science

12/16/2016

Comments

John Tierney at City Journal recently published a piece on the problems associated with a lack of viewpoint diversity in our universities and how this affects science. Yes, this issue extends beyond the concerns of a lowely criminologist and is now taken seriously by a range of scholars.

Tierney's writing is crisp and he does a good job in debunking some of the more exagerated claims made by liberal scholars. Indeed, he presents a relatively reasoned argument that the left's institutional dominance has resulted in entire fields becoming politicized. We know about the usual culprits, such as Women's Studies, ________ Studies, and sociology. But did you know that environmenal health has also been affected, as have other disciplines associated with the health sciences?

Political advocacy is a cancer to science.

You can read his piece here

You can also listen to a brief podcast/soundcast here

Comments

Washington Post: Second Chance Law Puts Violent Youth Back on Street

12/5/2016

Comments

In case you missed it, many criminologists are now arguing that we should empty our prisons or, at a minimum, reduce the number of people in prison by 50 percent. Prisons don't work, they say, and they make people worse.

Nowhere has this movement been more succesful than in the juvenile justice system. A large cabal of left-leaning academics and their financial backers have pushed for states to close ALL juvenile institutions. These institutions, they argue, cut off future opportunities, make minor offenders into monsters, and are home to horrible abuses.

States are receptive to this rhetoric. They see it as a way to save $$ and to show how "evidence based" they are. They are also hyper-sensitive to the politics of incarceration, which manages to wrap together into one big ugly package matters of race, oppression, harm, and discrimination.

Not long ago I was speaking to the head of corrections in a neaby stated. Off the record he told me that they were releasing kids back into the community who had committed serious crimes, including murder and rape, and that they were hamstrung to do anything more to protect the community. I could tell this pained the guy. He went on to tell me about the craziness of the current movement to close down all institutions. Some kids, he argued, needed to be placed in a facility where they could get the help they needed, while others were simply too dangerous to leave in the community.

Personally, I see incarceration of adults and youth as 1) a proper and restrained response to serious and continual violations of the criminal law, as 2) a resource that shouldn't be abused (used too much), and 3) as a way to effectively protect the public.

Unfortunately, if you have studied the history of corrections you know that we bounce from one extreme to the other--always with grand promises that hardly ever pan out. So it is with offering "kids" who have committed some really aweful crimes a 2cd, 3rd, or 10th chance.

A large body of criminological literature shows that criminal participation is relatively stable over time and situation and that young people who commit serious crimes are most at risk of becoming life-course persistent offenders. They will go on to sell drugs, to rape and rob, and maybe even kill someone.

But in today's correctional climate, few want to admit that these "brute facts" matter. Instead, advocates are more than willing to place serious offenders back into your neighborhood. To them, putting people in jail or prison brings harm to them--to the offenders--and they are more than willing to overlook or to ignore or to explain away the crimes they commit when placed back into your neighborhood. Remember, the sociologists at Harvard and other universities that adovate for these policies don't have to live with the consequences of their policies--only you do.

The Washington Post recently ran an investigatory piece on DC's use of the "second chance" law. You have to read their analysis to beleive that intelligent people, including judges, not only act with abandon when it comes to protecting the community but do so by mindlessly mimicing the rhetoric of anti-incarceration advocates.

You can read the story here:
www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/second-chance-law-for-young-criminals-puts-violent-offenders-back-on-dc-streets/2016/12/02/fcb56c74-8bc1-11e6-875e-2c1bfe943b66_story.html?utm_term=.af9292bffc7b&wpisrc=nl_evening&wpmm=1

Comments

<<Previous

New Study on Faculty Voter Registration

Books by Professor Michael Rocque

But What if Social Justice Isn’t Contrary to the Truth?

James Watson Got PC'd

Marxists, Marxists Everywhere.....Except in the Hard Sciences

A University Professor Speaks Out

From the President of Yale 25 Years Ago

Something Tells Me the Results Were a Forgone Conclusion

The Left’s War On Science

Washington Post: Second Chance Law Puts Violent Youth Back on Street

John Paul Wright and Matt DeLisi

Archives

Categories