Subject: DESPICABLE LEFTWING BIAS IN ACADEMIA Mon Dec 23, 2013 5:23 am
The vastly disproportionate presence of leftist professors on university campuses across the United States has been well documented. One of the more significant studies on this subject was conducted in 2003 by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC), which examined the ratio of registered Democrats to registered Republicans on the faculties of 32 elite colleges and universities nationwide. These institutions included the entire Ivy League, premier liberal arts colleges like Amherst and Pomona, well-known technically-oriented universities like MIT, highly competitive public institutions like the University of California at Berkeley, and other elite private universities like Stanford.
The researchers compiled lists of tenured or tenure-track professors in these schools' Economics, English, History, Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology departments -- choosing these professors because they (unlike their colleagues in the Math or Science departments) taught courses in which ideology and politics could play a large role in classroom discussions or assignments. The researchers then compared these lists to the voter-registration lists of the counties or states in which the colleges were located, and attempted to match individual names. Wherever positive identification was possible, the political-party registration of the professors was tallied.
The researchers selected party registration for this study because other indices of bias would have been highly subjective. The meanings of "liberal" and "conservative," for instance, are notoriously indeterminate, reflecting as much the prejudices of the cataloguer as they do the preferences of those being studied. By contrast, the terms "Republican" and "Democrat" can reasonably be said to reflect a predictable spectrum of assumptions, views and values.
It was not the intention of the researchers to suggest that there should be quotas based on party affiliation in the hiring process at universities. Rather, it was their purpose to discover whether there was a grossly unbalanced, politically shaped selection process in the hiring of college faculty.
In its examinations of more than 150 departments and upper-level administrations at the 32 elite colleges and universities, the CSPC found that the overall ratio of registered Democrats to registered Republicans was more than 10 to 1 (1397 Democrats, 134 Republicans). Although in the nation at large, registered Democrats and Republicans were roughly equal in number, not a single department at any of the 32 schools managed to achieve anything even remotely approaching parity between the two. The closest any school came to parity was Northwestern University, where 80% of the faculty members were registered Democrats and 20% were registered Republicans. At other schools, the ratios of faculty Democrats to faculty Republicans were as follows:
Brown University: 30 to 1 Bowdoin College: 23 to 1 Wellesley College: 23 to 1 Swarthmore College: 21 to 1 Amherst College: 18 to Bates College: 18 to 1 Columbia University: 14 to 1 Yale University: 14 to 1 University of Pennsylvania: 12 to 1 Tufts University: 12 to 1 UCLA: 12 to 1 UC Berkeley: 12 to 1 Smith College: 11 to 1
At four schools, the researchers could not identify a single Republican on the faculty:
Faculty party-registration was just as unbalanced at major research universities as it was at small colleges. At Columbia University, for instance, the CSPC could identify only 6 faculty Republicans and could not locate a single Republican in the History, Political Science, or Sociology departments. Cornell University was just as left-leaning: the departments of English and History were entirely devoid of registered Republicans.
It was found, moreover, that administrators at the 32 schools leaned just as far to the left as did the faculties: At schools like the University of Pennsylvania, Carnegie Melon, and Cornell, not a single Republican administrator could be found. In the entire Ivy League, the researchers were able to identify only 3 Republican administrators.
These figures suggest that most students at these schools probably graduate without ever taking a class taught by a professor with a conservative viewpoint. The ratios themselves are impossible to understand in the absence of a political bias in the training and hiring of college instructors. They strongly suggest that the governance of American universities has fallen into the hands of a self-perpetuating political and cultural subset of the general population, which seems intent on perpetuating its control.
Without further investigation it is not possible to establish with certainty why this state of affairs has come into existence, but there are many obvious factors that may be said to have contributed to it. Among them is the very exclusion of conservatives from faculty and administrative positions itself. This in itself creates a hostile environment for conservative students contemplating an academic career. This core hostility is amplified by practices that have been incorporated into academic life in the last several decades, including campus speech codes and politicized classrooms -- both of which represent radical departures from the pre-Sixties academic environment. A comprehensive study by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education found that more than 90 percent of well-known college campuses have instituted speech codes intended to ban and punish politically incorrect, almost always conservative, speech. (For details, see TheFire.org. For student testimonies about in-classroom political indoctrination, see NoIndoctrination.org.)
Adapted from: "Political Bias in the Administrations and Faculties of 32 Elite Colleges and Universities," by David Horowitz and Eli Lehrer (August 28, 2003).
Subject: Re: DESPICABLE LEFTWING BIAS IN ACADEMIA Wed Dec 25, 2013 7:52 pm
They can scream till the cows come home... since they themselves constantly call for boycotts of individuals and companies, we'd just return the favor...
Besides, they'd be wrong in claiming that we're 'violating academic freedom,' as they are free to starve while unemployed and are not prevented from finding paying customers who will kool-aid their destructive leftist nightmares...
Fuck 'em! On second thought, let's not even do that, as one might catch something...
Subject: Re: DESPICABLE LEFTWING BIAS IN ACADEMIA Wed Dec 25, 2013 9:29 pm
Quote :
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) allows taxpayers to deduct the value of gifts made to a nonprofit university from taxable income. However, the tax laws authorizing the deduction include an array of eligibility requirements that taxpayers must meet. You must become familiar with the applicable rules prior to taking the deduction to ensure compliance.
Subject: Re: DESPICABLE LEFTWING BIAS IN ACADEMIA Thu Dec 26, 2013 4:09 am
Here's a sample of their oppressive Machiavellian machinations:
College’s ‘neutral’ policy stiffs libertarian students, funds their opponents
More troubling details have emerged in the case of a libertarian student club’s lawsuit against against the University of Michigan: Not only did UM administrators refuse to give the group funding for an anti-affirmative action event, but they also gave liberal students funding for a pro-affirmative action event just days before. UM collects mandatory fees from students in order to distribute money to student groups for events and speaker fees–about $300,000 each year. However, administrators claim to have a blanket policy against using the money for political or religious events. On this basis, they denied the Young Americans for Liberty its request for $1,000 to cover the cost of bringing anti-affirmative action activist Jennifer Gratz to campus. The Daily Caller previously reported on YAL’s lawsuit, which claims that the university provided funds to other political and even religious groups as recently as 2010. (RELATED: Libertarian student group sues UMich for political discrimination) But an omitted detail has come to light: The university actually funded a group in direct ideological opposition to YAL’s Gratz event. Gratz’s visit to UM came just a week after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, a case that will decide whether the citizens of the state of Michigan have the right to prohibit universities from basing admissions decisions on applicants’ skin color. The Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) is a registered student group at UM, and was given access to the student fees fund by a university commission, according to YAL’s lawsuit. Mandatory student fees helped cover BAMN members’ travel costs to go to Washington, D.C. and protest in front of the Supreme Court just days before the Gratz event. The direct comparability of the cases suggests UM considers demonstrating in favor of affirmative action before the Supreme Court to be non-political activity. On the other hand, bringing an anti-affirmative action expert to campus to talk about the issue is political. The university said it is reviewing the students’ lawsuit and declined to comment. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education wrote that UM’s policy is unconstitutional in the first place, since the Supreme Court has held that universities may not discriminate against political and religious groups in its funding choices. But the double standard makes the case even more egregious. “If these facts prove to be true, then will UM have an extremely hard time arguing that it has not engaged in clearly unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination,” wrote FIRE. “Having not only funded political and religious groups generally but also only a week earlier funded a political rally by a group espousing the opposite viewpoint, UM would have a hard time claiming that its decisions were based on anything other than disapproval of YAL’s message. This is an unacceptable outcome, both morally and legally, and the UM administration and student government ought to know that.”
Subject: DESPICABLE LEFTWING BIAS IN ACADEMIA 
Mon Dec 23, 2013 5:23 am
