Skip to comments.Why professors are liberal: They're intelligent
Posted on 12/03/2004 12:55:13 PM PST by Ramonan
In his column, "Campuses remain Democratic havens," George Will certainly tries hard to explain why faculty members at our prominent universities are overwhelmingly liberal. But as is often the case with Will, he fails to mention the obvious. These people are liberal because they are intelligent, thoughtful and well-educated. They know something of labor and social history and realize that for most people a return to conditions of the early 20th century would not be in their interest. Finally, they are unpersuaded by slogans like "compassionate conservative" and "ownership society," which are primarily a cover for the transfer of society's wealth into the pockets of the rich.
THOMAS ALDEN Borrego Springs
Demonstrating once again that you can be articulate, educated, powerful and connected yet still have no clue to what is actually going on, Will bemoans the lack of "conservative" thought on college campuses. The first thing that comes to my mind is thank God. If most professors' ideological rudders represented those of the current Republican Party, institutions of higher learning would be teaching creationism as the explanation of man's existence on Earth, ignoring more than a century of anthropological discoveries because they conflicted with biblical teachings. Government studies would renounce labor unions as pseudocommunist fronts, since businesses always do what is best for workers. Law schools would concern themselves primarily with property law, since only owners of property have rights.
CLIFF HANNA San Diego
(Excerpt) Read more at signonsandiego.com ...
Are you sure they are intelligent? They remind me of Lemmings. And to think, when I was young and not mentally mature I was a liberal. I'll probably be a liberal when I am old and senile, too just like most of them.
My personal theory as to why professors are overwhelmingly liberal, is that they are able to stay in their academic world and live in their theories (fantasies). Because they spend their time in this domain, they are never really challenged by such minor details as reality.
Can someone post the "Aw, not this $hit again!" pic of the fifties guy?
HAHAhahahaaa... that was pretty darn good....
125 degrees in July? Sounds like Borrego.
If you like coyotes, roadrunners, tumbleweeds, cactus, sand, and dehydration, Borrego Springs is your place.
Most of us are acutely aware of our limitations. Many college professors, however, are proof that there is a difference between intelligence and wisdom.
And they don't realize it.
That was exactly my reaction!!
There is a singular element which sets apart those who live under the umbrella of tenur and academia. For the most part they have to have a terminal degree and to get that degree they have to be somewhat tenacious in their academic pursuits. Tenacity is the order to get there. It simply takes,usually, 4 years for a bachelors degree,2-3 years for a Masters, and 3-4 years for the terminal degree, PhD,Eed,M.D.,D.D.S.,ThD.,D.O.,DVM, and so on. Some of these people go out into the real world and open buinesses, go to work for buisiness, start medical or dental practices, and other real world work. Some stay at the universities and teach. This does not require extraordinary intelligence. I am in the medical field, and a lot of the doctors I know are actually dumbasses. The idea that university types are the intelligent types falls on its face. The people writing these letters are usually pimple-faced youths who have no point of reference. They neither seek nor do they have any idea what intelligence is. Sure, some folks seem to be smart on their face, and they are, but many teachers are merely immersed in a specific subject that the student simply knows nothing about. Put that same teacher in a hall full of people in his same field, and he ceases to be "intelligent". I could come before a group of freshmen at any college or medical college and wax eloquent about the autoimmune disorders of systemic lupus erythematosis, or Sjogrens disease. I could snow them with 5 syllable words and they would think I am smart. When in fact I don't know jacksh*t about those subjects beyond what a general practitioner knows. On the other hand I could go to a general practice seminar and hear a speaker on choledochlithiasis and its surgical and nonsurgical remedies and I would think he is not smart. That is because I have spent 25 years studying general surgical disease and their treatment. Everything has a point of reference. Take me out of my element and I am just like everyone else trying to get thru this beautiful world without hurting anyone.
"Why the pseudo intelligent left who've infested the soft sciences and liberal arts think they're so smart"
I got a MA in math and most of the department was pretty quiet when it came to politics. They didn't wear their politics on their sleeves that is. However, everywhere else at the university, it was pretty obvious what the politics were.
All but two people in my Algebra class voted for Bush in our mock election. Of course we are in a conservative area. One though was a gothic type who makes a point of disagreeing and the other was a perfectionist who'd yell at anyone who didn't understand something (not me thankfully) and talk all class time and get mad when people disrupted class when she didn't understand somethiung.
If most professors' ideological rudders represented those of the current Republican Party, institutions of higher learning would be teaching creationism as the explanation of man's existence on Earth, ignoring more than a century of anthropological discoveries because they conflicted with biblical teachings. Government studies would renounce labor unions as pseudocommunist fronts, since businesses always do what is best for workers. Law schools would concern themselves primarily with property law, since only owners of property have rights.
News alert: the conservatives have more new ideas than the liberals. We are not backward into the stone age. Open your mind and do some reading: like Thomas Sowell and others.
College is a time when young people find themselves exposed to different cultures and citizens, confirming that not everyone comes from similar backgrounds with similar beliefs. That diversity is the reality, not just a good idea.
Then why not have some conservative professors to challenge young liberal-indoctrinated minds?
It is also a time to reach further than your grasp, to seek new information and challenge long-held truths. In science, if existing theories are found to be in error, they are refined or new ones take their place. So it is with education. When processes from the past prove faulty in the present, they too are discarded, exchanged for new models that represent recent findings. Perhaps this is Will's strongest objection: that his ideas have outlived their relevance.
I guess I was far too busy teaching to read this until now. I am appalled by this man's perspective. But I guess that's true of most FR readers. Fascinating remarks by many who responded to your post.
A person with a PhD can write his own ticket. He can take a position with gov't and leave it at that, or he can build palaces of thought and get them published. So many take a PhD and then do nothing with it. For a person with a PhD, when he speaks, he must be heard. Somebody else can say exactly the same thing and may be ignored. Probably will be ignored.
I'm more intelligent and also experienced
Doctors and lawyers have more commen cents.....
Those who can, do. Those who can't teach. Those who have done, also teach.
I think we should add that last part. I am an economics/accounting major and I have noticed most of them are Republican (with the few kooky econ profs with their own wild theories, mostly taxing everything to solve govt problems). Not only are they Republican, most of them have many years of business experience, and a few even have their own practices, and teaches for fun and/or extra side income.
Way I heard it was a paraphrase of something I think Ronald Reagan said - It's not that liberals are stupid, it's just that they know so much that's not true.
Complete bilge. You don't think Literary studies or Philosophy requires analytical skills or for that matter that knowing how to write is important and a very valuable skill? You have to prove your arguments with citations from the text or your argument holds no water with a good Proffesor. With my experience it's the hard-science majors who tend to be non-transient and know one narrow field and little else...including how to express themselves. And hiring for Lioberal Arts majors is actualy up especially since the Tech bubble burst.
You are correct that they make up letters. My Ex's first job was part of a 14 person staff for the Copley press that did nothing but write letters to the editor. They were off the official payroll. Copley Press owns the SD Union. This was back in the 70s and I don't believe the practice has changed. They would be given marching orders how to slant the letter depending on the editorial department leanings (make the writer look stupid if was against the paper's position or be brilliant if it supported the position). They were paid by the letter submitted. When a newspaper wants controversy, they will create it. Therefore, look on any letter-to-the-editor with skepticism whether it is really from John-Q-public or the papers editors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.