Posted on 01/15/2002 12:44:36 PM PST by kattracks
It's even worse than we thought: More than 80 percent of Ivy League professors who voted in 2000 chose loser Al Gore and only 9 percent voted for President Bush, a new survey reveals.
Only 3 percent of the out-of-touch eggheads described themselves as Republicans, the poll by Luntz Research Cos. found, and - we are not making this up - the profs picked Bill Clinton as best president of the past 40 years, the Washington Times reported today.
"All that this survey shows is what we already know, that the elite universities are subsidiaries of the Democratic Party and political left," said David Horowitz, president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, which commissioned the poll.
The profs' goose-stepping conformity "disappointed" Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster whose firm conducted the survey.
Where's the Diversity?
"I think if parents saw the political leanings of these professors, they'd be upset," he told the Times. "I think universities should insist on the same diversity in their faculty that they look for in their students. I have a problem when these faculties have no Republican or conservative representation at all."
Here are some other fascinating tidbits from the poll:
The poll highlights the astonishing hypocrisy of such bastions of limousine liberals as Harvard University, which gives plenty of lip service to highfalutin socialist schemes but can't keep its black faculty happy and, what's even more embarrassing, won't even pay its blue-collar staff a decent wage.
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
I propose we stop calling them "elites" and call them something truly descriptive. Know Nothings? Useful Idiots (not original, but oh, so true)? Armchair Organisms (never actually _done_ anything but determined to tell the rest of us what we should do)? Virtual People? I kind of like the last one best.
Like I commented to my cousin, these issue distributions track pretty closely with what's been reported for the East Coast media from time to time over the last 30 years.
So it raises the interesting question: why do the major media track with the Ivies, and not with wider academic opinion? Or do academics nationwide track with both the Ivies and the media people?
This is an interesting development, and I smell the operation of a couple of strong filters here. I don't think they got to these extremes of distribution by attraction and acculturation only, but also by subtraction. In other words, I suspect that these numbers are reflective of numbers of people of other views who aren't here.
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.