Don't they just have that last bit totally backwards? The people I know who are in or going into academe know it doesn't pay well, and don't care because that's what they want to do. It's not a post-hoc decision to become liberal because of the pay; it's a decision that you want to be in academe in spite of the pay because you're a liberal!

Wait, can't we just say "education" & be done with it? "Critical thinking skills"?

Given that "liberal" measures a whole host of different things to different people, I think it's difficult to interpret this study as being about redistributionist impulses on behalf of impoverished professors. In particular, FAIR found that although there are widespread perceptions of the media as left (which, in the study you report, are reflected in journalists' self-perceptions), journalists actually tend to be center-right on fiscal issues (although they seem to be somewhat further left on social issues).

Also, given that the median income for professors is well above the national median income, I'm skeptical -- are professors really dumb enough to believe that redistributionist policies will transfer wealth from the very rich to the merely rich?

I think before we can talk about why professors think what they do, we need to know about what they actually think. This study looks at how professors believe their views compare to the rest of the population (because "liberal" and "conservative" certainly aren't absolutes), and compares those beliefs to the corresponding beliefs of other people. It has nothing to do with how liberal or conservative professors actually are.

Could it be that conservative mores don't hold up as well to academic scrutiny? Widely generalizing here, but conservatives I know that call themselves such tend to see things as black and white, while in reality, things are never that simple.

That is such utter BS, that I would like to head desk. So it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that academics simply know more about oppression and how it works and how certain economic measures continue this?! I am deeply offended by those assholes.

I'm curious - why does this blog not catch the obvious false-dichotomy? "Liberal" and "conservative" are social constructs of themselves. Further, the terms are so diluted at this point as to be bereft of any meaning anyway. We relate to them about the same way we relate to favorite teams and their associated imagery: If I self-identify with one group, then I tend to imbue it with positive traits, and the opposite for the other group.

In other words, if I already identify as "liberal", I'm probably going to react to this study with "Well, maybe professors are smarter" or some other reaction that retains the positive traits I already self-identify with.

If I self-ID as a "conservative" I'm probably going to react with "Well, people with *real* jobs associate strongly with MY beliefs" ad nauseum.

I can't believe anyone thought there'd be something to learn here.

I'd like to see religious beliefs, maybe measured by service attendance, up there somewhere. I suspect there's a strong effect there, although which way the causality goes is up for grabs.

As an academic with generally conservative views I can attest that this is absolutely true. It is not a matter of education or "knowledge about oppression", or "seeing things in black and white". It's simply very difficult to be comfortable in a job where nearly all of your colleagues disagree with you. Most people are polite about it, but there's always a couple who simply think you must be an idiot, a warmonger, or a racist. You can try to not talk about politics, but then hiding your opinions is incredibly frustrating.

And then there's tenure. In most places you are considered for tenure after 7 years. Personal dislike by an existing tenured professor is enough to prevent you from getting it. Denial of tenure usually means that you are expected to leave. So, if you are a conservative in a department with an ardent liberal who doesn't like you because of your political opinion you can waste 7 years of your life in academia.

I'm lucky in that I work in science. Politics only comes up in social situations and I know who I can talk about it with and who I need to avoid talking about it with. I can't imagine being a conservative in a field like sociology, where everything is politically charged.

Two questions:

1) Haven't there been studies looking at the correlation between intelligence and political views? Anyone know of the outcomes?

2) Exactly what IS a non-academic natural scientist? Who do they work for? (Raytheon? Pfizer?)

People in religious studies (excluding the ones in seminaries) tend to lean to the left (as far as their religious views go) simply because conservative religious beliefs tend not to hold up well under academic scrutiny.

It could probably be argued that none of these explanations are actually true, but rather that the long, intense (and thankless) training period required to get a job in academia weeds out a hell of a lot of people. The reason for this could be one of many.

My personal (half-serious) explanation would be that you have to be damned optimistic about life in general to make it though a PhD program and several postdoctorate research positions and keep going in academia regardless of how few actual professional positions exist in the job market, and still be positive enough about life that you don't alienate anyone invited to participate in your tenure review.

However, I really do not believe that the claim that academia is a non-exploitative environment holds water. Graduate students and postdoctorate researchers are exploited to a great degree, especially at public land-grant universities, which are becoming less and less publicly accessible due to rising tuition and decreased employee support for nonprofessional employees. Liberal professors (especially social sciences and humanities departments, which train students in fields they simply will not get jobs in) are very much a part of an exploitative system, something which very few professors will accept.

Canada has two great examples of this right now. Our Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party of Canada is Stephen Harper, an economist. The Leader of the Opposition and leader of the Liberal party is Michael Ignatieff - a Harvard professor until he was lured back to Canada to play politics, who says he'll probably go back to that job if he doesn't become PM. The two men couldn't be more different.

I find it troubling that people don't know what a non-academic scientist is.

Honestly, I think what's more interesting is just how diluted the actual "liberal/conservative" binary seems to be. Only 34% of all workers identified with one or the other, meaning the vast majority of people surveyed were moderate. I think THAT'S interesting, considering how strongly the labels get thrown around in politics

I'd like to see this graph redone with a slightly different bias:

Compare "Moderates" vs "Radicals", with the gray bars on one side, and the Liberals and Conservatives lumped together on the other... I wonder if any other trends could be uncovered using that data.

Thank you to all for the discussion board. i enjoyed reading everyone's views. I have no opinion on the liberal academic point - or at least none immediately that I'd like to express in this forum. However, as I stated, I am appreciative of everyone that is willing and able to argue online (I guess that makes me somewhat of a voyeur). I am especially appreciative of this blog. I wish it were possible to have more of these types of debates in "real life" ...

In the U.S., there is a strong (but not perfect) correlation between current political "conservatism" and authoritarian thought patterns (whether authoritarian follower or authoritarian leader). If you are generally inclined to believe that there is only one proper way to do things and that one must follow a leader without questioning basic goals, you will focus on making sure that everyone and everything is in its proper place. Authoritarian systems don't reward followers who are innovators or questioners (leaders may innovate). The current style of U.S. academia prizes people who come up with the Next Big Trend and manage to convince others, and it seems likely that these people would tend to be politically "liberal", or at least give lip service to "liberalism". Many other countries' academic cultures tend to be "conservative".

There might also be an issue to do with language here. In a university setting, perhaps "liberal" has a more precise definition that allows more people to identify with it than outside the university, where the word is often pejorative, thereby making people less likely to identify with it. In other words, perhaps core beliefs are actually distributed more evenly, but the title "liberal" is less likely to scare one within academia, hence more people reporting themselves (and feeling) as "liberal"?

I'm not sure whether I believe this or not -- I'm just hypothesizing.

This hypothesis is a bit reliable, but surely incomplete & superficial. I have my doubts about if this study is as professional as it seems in the article.
My question now is: why americans are always trying to find the explanation to diversity/liberalism?
Does it hurt too much the variety of ideologies?

Academics & intellectuals are well aware that they are not going to get the social recognition than a law or economic profile. They know they don't work for the high pay: they work to make this world better, not worse. To enhance human & intellectual capabilities, not monetary.

The american society is sleeping in the cloud of imperialism, and I don't think there will be a solution fot that. It's way deep in the collective unconscious.

I find the near-perfect reversal between liberal academia and conservative clergy interesting. These are both jobs where it's very tough to treat ideology as a question of diversity independent of ability to do the job (the way ideology would be for, say, supermarket cash register people), because promoting certain views of the world -- through teaching/papers or sermons -- is a core task of the job. I wonder whether a study couldn't shed more light on why professors are liberal by looking simultaneously at why religious workers are conservative.

I think the whole liberal/conservative thing is a bit simplistic and outdated; a 2-dimensional representation would be better. I like the separation of social and fiscal issues used in the Nolan chart. Here are my thoughts in light of that:

-Intelligent, thinking people are more likely to be socially liberal, willing to question conventions and accept behavior where social conservatives reflexively have a negative reaction.
-Liberal views on government and economics are probably more acceptable to a typical professor than to a businessman, due to their different economic interests (note that salaries and funding for professors frequently come from the government). These views also provide more of an opportunity for academics to influence the world, as it is easier for an academic to persuade a few powerful people in government than to persuade millions of individuals; this will cause some academics to favor a more powerful government that intervenes more in the economy.
-Overall, I would say that social conservatism is extremely backward and unintellectual, while social liberalism (maybe "tolerance" sums it up better) is more appealing to thinking people. Fiscal conservatism/"right-wing economics" is similar to leftist economics in intellectual sophistication, but the leftist policies may appeal more to a professor's theory of justice or (more selfishly) to their own economic interest. The combination of these two things means that professors will lean to the left; those who don't are probably more likely to be moderates or libertarians than supporters of today's Republican party.

"They also speculate that the relative low pay, given the high educational attainment that the profession requires and high status that it brings, may lead professors to lean towards democratic principles of economic redistribution."

On the other hand, one could speculate that, in reality, the pay isn't that low, the privileges are plenty, the status is high, and they enjoy the research, if not the teaching as well.

But the number one reason is that on top of all that, liberal academia is *the* place where liberals can say any idiotic thing, call it critical thinking, not have any scrutiny because they've censored out of the department all other points of views, and still get paid for it.

Can it get any more attractive than that?

No.

In my experience, the majority of people I know who are liberals base their political views on reason; the majority of people I know who are conservatives base their political views on ideals (or, less charitably, ideology). This is not to say that a conservative POV is necessarily unreasoned, or unsupportable by reason. Just that, of those I've met, that's not generally how they got there. Or, conversely, that liberalism is necessarily "more logical"--or that, even if it is, that makes it inherently superior. Just that, regardless of how one *could* get to that POV, that's how they *did* get there.

IOW, there may be really excellent, rational, testable reasons for conservative views/solutions/policies, but many (most?) people who hold those views don't do so because of those reasons. And, conversely, there may be widely-held beliefs that would strongly undergird liberal views/solutions/policies, but many (most?) people who hold those views don't do so because of a pre-existing ideology.

So, if my experiences are representative, professions that are focused on thought--and, in some fields, without much actual contact with the non-academic world--would tend to mesh well with liberal political views. I don't profess to know which is cause and which is effect--or if it's merely a correlation. Meanwhile, professions that are focused on doing stuff, with lots of contact with the world--and in many jobs, actively discourage independent thought in favor of folllowing instructions/orders/methods--tend to mesh well with conservative political views. Again, i'm not positing cause/effect/correlation.

I want to know why bartenders are so liberal...

I find it interesting that they don't link education itself with the concept of liberalism. For example, in Newcomb's old Bennington study it was found that undergraduates became more liberal over the course of their education. Though it may be that they were "brainwashed" by their environment, an equally defensible position is that they broadened their perspectives through education. An interesting topic nonetheless.

I think they are "liberal" because they have spent a great deal of time studying how the world works, and see a need for change. When facts about social inequality are labeled "liberal" there is a conservative political agenda at work. Facts are facts.

University funding is driven by government grants, tax revenue, and mainly government guaranteed loans.  In other words, the bigger the government, the higher your pay.

It might also be that the training of academics influences them toward the left. There is a bit of socialization (indoctrination?) occurring at universities. It would be interesting to see if academics were liberals when they first started college. 

Most academics are liberal because intelligence, education, and freedom tend to foster liberal attitudes. Conversely, ignorance, stupidity and narrow-mindedness are conducive to simplistic black and white conservative thought devoid of complexity and nuance.

Why do PhDs bias towards liberalism?
Everyone seems to be putting the cart before the horse here. A plausible explanation is that liberalism is, simply, more correct. As one's learning increases, he or she is more likely to gravitate towards liberalism.

One way to back test this theory is to attempt to capture the leanings of academia over time. If the academy, on a case-by-case basis, has become more liberal over time, then we may be able to correlate their liberalism with learning.

The most obvious answer to this question is that liberals tend to hire more liberals and surround themselves with like-minded people. Speaking from experience, they may as well write into the job description "Conservatives need not apply." What makes it even more pathetic is that they call themselves "inclusive" and "tolerant." Even if a closet conservative should make his/her way into a professorship, there is no way he or she would ever make it into university administration. Read: NO WAY.

Liberals are just godless commies that want to use the classroom to indoctrinate their students with their humanist religion in hopes of obtaining a global, socialist utopia. The rest of us are actually conducting work and getting things done. Like the saying goes..."those that can, do. Those that cannot, teach..and those that cannot teach, get tenure."

Academia thrives on being given money by governments and other people. It's a liberal fundamental. It is not profit oriented or progressive

http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/why-is-academic-writing-so-academic

IMHO this is the edge of a bigger discussion that may require some thought into what fosters liberal or conservative leanings.

The professors are liberal simply because they are more educated. The religious workers-usually believe in a mythical being and thus are clearly less educated and are more conservative. The correlation is clear and I am confident cause and effect is present as well.

Um, it seems obvious. Theyre "liberal" because they are educated. Because stuff like accepting science, understanding literary criticism, and looking at history from different cultural contexts is now considered "liberal" in this country. Conservatives used to be educated, but they sort of became anti-intellectual after the evangelicals took over.