Why professors are liberal: They're intelligent

San Diego Union ^ | December 3, 2004 | Various

[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

[lt.america]

Had an "intelligent" liberal professor banging his shoe on his desk about why we should have dropped the A-bomb on Mt. Fuji to demonstrate its power vise killing thousands. When someone pointed out the fact they didn't surrender after the first bomb and that we only had a limited amount of nuclear fuel to begin with and about another 10 reasons why this was foolish, the professor cut him off and basically called him a liar.

[rollo tomasi]

I think modern day academia are addicted to Gramsci, Lukacs, Adorno, Fromm, and Marcuse.

Nothing like taking classes with a Prof. who thinks 'Eros and Civilization' is the gospel truth.

[Pylot]

Forgot to mention they tend to run toward communist thinking too.

[massgopguy]

Every year without fail, it seems that some MIT type can't resist the urge to walk across the "frozen" Charles River.
They get 1600's on their SATs, then they wash up in Scituate.
Too bad it's never Chomsky.

[Sooth2222]

Those who can't, teach.

And those who can't teach will publish and gain tenure.

[Borges]

I studied English at the Grad Level and all those names were on my reading list.

Though you have to admit Adorno's 'There is no poetry after Auschwitz' is one of the 20th century's best aphorisms. Terse and chilling.

[stanz]

some extremely intelligent, highly accomplished people in this world are complete morons outside of their very specific fields of endeavor.

You said it. I work for a law firm. Need I say more?

[Trampled by Lambs]

Intelligent and educated are not neccesarily the same thing.

[My2Cents]

All the really good philosophical thinking was done by the end of the 18th Century.

[jdm]

bttt

[SpaceBar]

I've spent plenty of years in acadamia on the science and engineering side where most professors are in fact quite conservative. The title should read "Why the pseudo intelligent left who've infested the soft sciences and liberal arts think they're so smart".

[austingirl]

What a crock, they are liberal because they are socialists. They aren't so intelligent if they can't see that it has never worked primarily because it is against human nature.

[My2Cents]

And those who can't be guidance counselors, there's always the school psychologist.

[Borges]

Schopenhauer and Nietzche were great writers and thinkers even if their work has led to some unpleasant ends. But any great thinker can lay claim to such. 18th century philophy led to communism.

[My2Cents]

in acadamia on the science and engineering side where most professors are in fact quite conservative

That's because they deal with real world laws and principles, and tangible results.

[HungarianGypsy]

For us stupid folks (hyuck) out here, I want to know one thing that is attractive about the liberal agenda? Is the choice to kill one's own offspring? Is it being overtaxed? What is it?

[macbee]

The reason most faculty are liberal is because the faculty that has been liberal for generations are the ones who pick new faculty.

Many thanks for your excellent post. I attended one of the most leftist colleges in the US back in the 70's and remember well the rigid enforcement of many forms of orthodoxy through the school, including Skinnerian behaviorism in the Psych department and Keynesian theory in Econ. This continued commitment to orthodoxy in academia is having a impact on quality, as in the case of Mary Habek, one of the best young military historians around, who was recently denied tenure by Yale.

Institutions of learning which do not permit any true competition of ideas are in very real danger of losing their reason for existence.

[Publius6961]

"the transfer of society's wealth"

Great catch!
I have been exposed to this BS for so long it sailed right by me.
Universally, the validation of a true liberal is the unshakeable faith in the conviction that both "government" and "society" has wealth, or worth or intelligence. Keeping that faith allows less guilt to steal the wealth from the individuals who actually earn and hold wealth and property.

[Truthsayer20]

"Actually, liberal professors seem to gravitate to fields where it's very difficult to demonstrate that they are incompetents."

Not necessarily true. In my experience, the hard sciences (math, physics, chemistry) have as many liberals as the social sciences. Engineering is another matter altogether, however.

[My2Cents]

I should correct that: I meant 17th Century philosophers (e.g., Locke). Hegel being an example of 18th Century philosophers.