Thursday, June 21, 2018

Professor Doom: Campus Hiring Bias: 78% of Departments have ZERO Republicans

Campus Hiring Bias: 78% of Departments have ZERO Republicans

     The whole point of a university is to include the entire universe of ideas. It seems noble enough, but what happens when you allow people in whose ideas don’t allow any other ideas in? The seed for the takeover was planted decades ago when it was decided letting such people in was nevertheless part of the university mission.

     Eventually, you get a lockdown. It’s not a fast process, mind you, but as these people with exclusionary ideas put their chokehold on campus, it accelerates. Past a certain point (namely, control of the hiring committees), the only people who can become faculty must hold those ideas, and nothing else.

      And so it is that we now have campuses drowning in ideology, more importantly, drowning in exactly one ideology. How bad is it?

Have No

     How clear is it that there must be bias in the hiring process at these schools? Our schools scream about how much they want diversity…but as far as hiring goes, there is to be no diversity in political views. It is worth noting that even at the schools which may have some Republicans…they’re pretty rare.

      Looking at the statistics further, we get more interesting details, but first let us consider the data set:

Langbert sampled 8,688 tenure track Ph.D.-holding professors from the top 51 liberal arts schools, …used only full-time, tenure track faculty (full, associate, or assistant professors) and excluded all part-time professors (adjunct, visiting, and emeritus).

     They removed all the adjuncts and temp workers from the data, for good reason. The majority of college professors are adjuncts today, with minimal pay and no benefits. You can spend a decade or more as an adjunct, and if you make any waves (and God forbid you have a pro-Trump bumper sticker…), you’re gone. These poor adjuncts aren’t about to interrupt the ideological narrative being instilled in the students, so it’s fair to look at just the full-time tenure track faculty.

     He also excluded 101 professors—a little more than one percent of the total sample—from the analysis, because they were registered as members of minor parties (cue big-L libertarian weeping).

      Our “two party” system is ridiculously corrupted at this point. My entire life it seems my only choices from the two big parties in a Presidential election are either the candidate for “massive debts, huge social programs, and endless war” or the candidate for “massive debts, endless war, and huge social programs.” There are other parties, and allow me to at least mention the Libertarian party, which thinks you should be allowed to keep your money, believes it’s far better for you to take care of yourself, and understands that murder is bad—basically diametrically opposed in every way to the only two parties you can realistically choose from in any election.

     Throwing out these “weird” third parties from the study is a little unfair but, seeing as that’s how alternative political parties are treated everywhere else, I guess I’ll overlook it here.

      While there is a definite Democrat bias on campus, there are some exceptions in certain departments:

…the hard sciences—engineering, chemistry, physics, and mathematics—had more even ratios of Democrats to Republicans…

     It’s “almost” curious that Republicans are often described as Bible-thumping, science-denying ignorant rubes, while the data from our campuses indicates that if you’re in a discipline which requires scientific thought and respects empirical evidence, you’re vastly more likely to be Republican. I put the “almost” in quotes because those offensive descriptions of Republicans are being provided by the media…which in turn is predominantly Democrat (incidentally, there are many hysterical videos on YouTube watching these media guys lose their minds at the outcome of the last Presidential election, and I encourage the gentle reader to watch a few, to see just how strong the bias evidently is).

     What departments are heaviest with the Democrats?

 …sociology, english, religion, and anthropology. Communications ranked highest in terms of ideological homogeneity skewed toward the left.

     Hmm, a few of those departments have the reputation of being academic slums. I’m rather surprised Education isn’t here, but the study is focusing on the higher tier schools, which probably don’t have Education departments.

…could not find a single Republican with an "exclusive appointment" to gender studies, Africana studies, or peace studies.

--and yet somehow Communications was most skewed? The article doesn’t explain the contradictions here.

   I’ve never even heard of “peace studies.” In any event, we clearly are seeing a trend as far as the most disreputable departments also being the most filled with Democrats. It’s funny, our metropolitan areas most controlled by Democrats also have a vile reputation. Hmm.

      Now there are some small schools with a number of Republican faculty, but they tend to be religious or military schools. You can’t shout “ah ha!” here, because while it’s trivial to find schools which are exclusively Democrat schools, there are no schools with exclusively Republican faculty. It’s almost as though one side actually believes in diversity, while the other only uses it as a tool to grab power.

       Overall, the bottom line is a student can easily go his entire college education without exposure to any non-Democrat ideas:

…around 78 percent of departments did not contain a single full-time professor who identifies as Republican.

      Now, higher ed is already making holding certain political views part of the job requirement for faculty, even to teach mathematics. It’s safe to say that these departments with “perfect” Democrat representation are going to be that way forever more. Meanwhile, the departments which allow Democrats in are clearly endangered, because, sooner or later, there will be a Democrat lockdown, and then it’s all over for them.

     As I’ve said before, once a school becomes converged, controlled by this particular set of political beliefs, the only quick solution is bulldozers. This solution is not on the table, of course, and so instead these schools will die a slow death, as they invariably get a reputation for race riots and, more importantly, extreme indoctrination at the expense of all education. People don’t want to go to such schools, much less go deep into debt for the privilege of doing so.

       Will these schools take all of higher education down with them? I hope not, but at this point I can’t be certain.


  1. There's almost no difference between the two dominant parties, so what's the big deal about having an equal number of professors from each?

    Adding more Republicans will only harden more young minds - as that party is more rigid in its attitude about ideas that improve the lives of all citizens, rich and poor alike.
    Better to measure professors' opinion about ideas.

    1. Agreed that both parties are similarly run by the deep state. R's and D's, but behind these names you'll find the same old, same old.
      Your logic states that there's no diff, so what's the big deal? Well, when a ratio changes by a factor of 4, certainly some people are shifting their positions on an issue, right? Even if the deep state pulls most/all of the strings, there are clearly noteworthy alterations in how people are thinking on the subject, those people who are in the 2 parties.

  2. The big deal is about half the country is Republican, and yet this isn't represented on our campuses, campuses which scream incessantly about "underrepresentation" of all other forms of identity, and use that misrepresentation to justify ridiculous boondoggle expenditures.

    In short, we clear hypocrisy in the dominant belief system on campus (I know, we have many examples that they don't really believe what they say, but this it least one more glaring example).

    As far as "hardening" minds, well, right now many of those minds are simply soft mush filled with false, hypocritical "ideas" which only makes lives worse, if not simply ending those lives horribly. Maybe a little "hardening" with empirical facts on ways to improve lives would be a good idea.

  3. The free exchange of ideas is under attack whether it is about buildings and faculties or Internet channels and individual publishing of concepts and viewpoints. It is a climate of crushing new ideas and it is devastating to those finding the path foreward. We have more disinformation writers than information. We find a treasonous behavior now called crisis acting. We watch as officers in uniform draw their salary while lying to the people paying that salary. We can't be sure what sex a person is by how they present themselves. Corporations act in the opposite manner than would benefit their customers. You can see and feel a control grid of lies and disinformation everywhere you look. Hell, if it were only a jungle out there, I would feel better. It ain't a jungle, it is a Satanic Hell made just for you.

  4. Fetzer's ratemyprofessor page has students saying he's as far left as they come for professors and here he is now complaining that there are no Republicans? What is going on?

    1. Well, I must confess to having voted for Bill Clinton twice and for Barack Obama twice. But the alternatives were clearly unqualified. Both did immense damage to the United States on multiple grounds.

      When Hillary ran against Trump, it was no contest. Unless you have been living in a cave, you have to understand that she is a monster, which became clear when the NYPD first acquired access to the Wiener laptop and its contents. I would have voted for Bernie with a clear conscience, but the DNC didn't give us the choice.

      While I disagree with Trump's foreign policies, which are far too Zionist to be good for the Middle East or the world, it looks to me as though he is cleaning house with regard to pedophiles here in the US and exposing the "fake news" media, neither of which would have happened under Hillary. So I wish him well but take him to task for his (many) mistakes as they occur.

    2. So, let me ask you, when you say "fake news" you are including Fox, correct? Because back around 2007 you were telling us that Fox news viewers are the most uninformed voters in the country. Sounds like they were being subjected to fake news to me. If you believe Trump, Fox is the only reliable news source on TV which is so absurd it's laughable (just watch Hannity for 5 minutes).

    3. Well, the DNC sabotaged the candidacy of Bernie Sanders. In collusion with key members of the FBI and the DOJ, it also sought to sabotage the candidacy and (then) presidency of Donald Trump. If you can stomach such astounding forms of treason and treachery, which undermine our democracy and freedom, then we have taken separate paths. I do no apologize for viewing the present Democratic Party differently than in the past. What I don't understand is why anyone would not have changed their mind by the point in time, including you.

    4. You didn't answer my question.

      I have no regard for either big business party. I see no sense in leaving the corrupt democrats in order to support the equally (or more) corrupt republicans. If you think Trump is different, we have nonnegotiable differences.

  5. A Trump shill is no better than an Obama or a Bush shill. You, sir, have lost your mind.