By now you’ve all heard of the new study, reported here, finding — Gasp! — that college faculties tilt so far to the left that they’re almost horizontal: 72% of all full-time faculty members, and 87% at “elite” universities, identify themselves as liberal.
What I found most interesting was not the dog-bites-man quality of this news itself (although the numbers are dramatic) but rather one of the common responses, of which a great example was quoted:
When asked about the findings, Jonathan Knight, director of academic freedom and tenure for the American Association of University Professors, said, “The question is how this translates into what happens within the academic community on such issues as curriculum, admission of students, evaluation of students, evaluation of faculty for salary and promotion.” Knight said he isn’t aware of “any good evidence” that personal views are having an impact on campus policies.
“It’s hard to see that these liberal views cut very deeply into the education of students. In fact, a number of studies show the core values that students bring into the university are not very much altered by being in college.”
I wonder if Knight would say the same thing if 100% of the professors were liberal. Why not, if their ideology and values are irrelevant?
But if the ideology, values, politics, etc., of professors are irrelevant to both the operation of universities and the teaching of students — if, as Knight says, students are not influenced at all by the personal views and values of professors — then what is the point of striving for a diverse faculty?
Oh, wait. I almost forgot. Those who demand “diversity” don’t really care about that kind of diversity, i.e., a diversity of ideas, opinions, values. It’s perfectly O.K. with them if nearly all faculty members are Democrats, so long as they sport a variety of skin colors and some variation in body parts.
It really is a shame libs have to profess their faith in “diversity” when we all know the real purpose of preferences is a redress of prior discrimination. There is much evidence this is true, most prominently that many liberals unschooled in the legal niceties admit it openly.
This misdirection shows how completely dishonest liberals can be, effecting them negatively in the long run. But more importantly such deceptions prevent meaningful discussions about the issues. We should be discussing how discrimination by A toward B is redressed by discriminating against C in favor of D. Obviously libs developed their response, as equally based in truth as their support for “diversity”.
But as long as the discussion concerns “diversity” rather than the issue at hand the core issues pass unchallenged. Obviously that’s the tactic race preference supporters have decided to use, and it’s an admission they know they will lose on the merits.
I just commented on my blog on a recent hire in our English department, a minority woman who was given a job. No interview, no job talk–nothing. The only work she did in pursuit of the job was writing a letter and compiling a CV.
She’s only just graduated with her Ph.D., so there was no “hiring a superstar” involved in the process. It was simply giving this woman a tenure-track position because she was a minority, and everyone in the department knows it.
We also had a recent hiring process in which is was stated openly that only women would be considered for the position. Obviously better qualified men were rejected in favor of a minimally qualified woman.
Neither had previous ties to the school or to anyone in the department, so the only things being taken into consideration were race and gender.
Winston:
It is illegal (Title VI) to advertise for just men or just women (except for rare BFOQs – Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications, which are narrowly construed) for a position opening.
Even the more blatant affirmative action programs are not allowed to completely exclude one race/gender. Even if it pretty much ends up being exclusive in practice, you can’t put it in writing!!! (I don’t advocate trying to get away with something in practice that you technically can’t do “officially”, but I know it does happen.)
Obviously, those in the English department don’t ever talk to the HR people or the lawyers (or the later are incredibly stupid at this institution!).
Oops, I meant Title VII. Not watching my Roman numerals!
Actually, the Michigan Student Study, one of the datasets Professor Patricia Gurin “analyzed” for U-Mich as an expert in Gratz and Grutter, suggests that student attitudes on diversity pretty much are set in stone. Of course, the full impact of that conclusion was recast in such a way to suggest that was true for every attitude except those influenced by diversity.
Take Knight’s admission a bit further though – if students views don’t change much in college, how could there conceivably be an educational benefit to diversity sufficiently compelling to justify violations of the 14th Am.?
I wonder what percentage of the professors at a HBU are Democrats? Probably close to 100%. The least diverse universities are the ones that people on the left hold up as being the model for diversity.
Dr. Liz–
The position in question was not advertised. It simply popped into existence, and it was given to a minority woman.
Two other positions in the department were given to women candidates, because there was a clear understanding–even spoken of in department meetings regarding these hirings–that the positions would only be offered to female candidates.