What is the motive behind claims of liberal bias in university hiring?

[Rev Prez]

Rev Prez, one earns considerably more than $40K as an associate professor.

That should be "assistant professor." And the number I looked at averaged full time and part time assistant professors and instructors together. Full time salaried assistant professors make on average $50K, or about five thousand dollars less than the average pay for a SB in EE or CS.

 

[Rev Prez]

Hmmm...when we interview people for new faculty positions, you know, there's just no box on the application for "liberal or conservative," nor does anyone ask during the interview. We discuss their research and teaching preferences, publication history, and funding track record, not their political views. There's no vast conspiracy to keep conservatives out.

No, there is no vast conspiracy. But I find it difficult to believe given the skew that you innocently focus entirely on their relevant track record. The participation rate of conservatives in the sciences and engineering is far higher than in the humanities; not surprising, publication choice and funding track record rarely is an indication of political affiliation in the technical fields. Then again, I also find it hard to believe that questions regarding general fitness, answered possibly in background checks, etc., do not contribute to some subtle discrimination. Add to that the fact that many of your accreditted faculty positions are in liberal arts schools, in hotbeds of liberalism, and you have to ask yourself why open conservatives would subject themselves to such a hostile atmosphere when the private sector offers better pay and comfort.

 

[Joel]

The participation rate of conservatives in the sciences and engineering is far higher than in the humanities; not surprising, publication choice and funding track record rarely is an indication of political affiliation in the technical fields.

Just to check (excuse the oversimplification), are you saying that it may affect negatively upon a social scientist's credentials if his research has been founded by the government?

 

[Rev Prez]

Just to check (excuse the oversimplification), are you saying that it may affect negatively upon a social scientist's credentials if his research has been founded by the government?

Or, say, a conservative thinktank. However, I think the subjects of research are more important. Middle Eastern Studies, for example, has gone overboard looking for gender and ethnic specialists, an area that might not attract as many conservatives because of its inherently left-leaning subject matter as much as strategic studies. And interdisciplinary MES and SS projects are rare as far as I know.

 

[ray b]

Yes, I could see that parallel. Ironically, though, all the Vietnam war trouble was started by a Democrat.

IKE was a Democrat ?? NO WAY

 

[Bystander]

Wilson ignored Ho (under whichever of his 100 or so aliases he was using at the time) at the end of WWI; Roosevelt intended to have Chiang Kai Shek annex French Indochina at the end of WWII; Truman ignored Ho (quite properly) at the end of WWII --- three dems, three big screw-ups re. SEA.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Wilson ignored Ho (under whichever of his 100 or so aliases he was using at the time) at the end of WWI; Roosevelt intended to have Chiang Kai Shek annex French Indochina at the end of WWII; Truman ignored Ho (quite properly) at the end of WWII --- three dems, three big screw-ups re. SEA.

Aw come on. Wilson? Ho was a student in Paris, right? The President of the United States is f'ing up if he doesn't counter the opinions of one radical French student? And you yourself said that Truman's (lack of) action was "quite proper", therefore not a FU. So that leaves Roosevelt, who died before WWII ended and whatever his opinions may have been, never had any opportunity to affect matters in Viet Nam, or French Indochina as it was then. This is just spin.

 

[russ_watters]

Ray, you resurrected this thread just to take a pot-shot at me? That's really weak. Sorry, but I don't respond to such things.

 

[ray b]

Ray, you resurrected this thread just to take a pot-shot at me? That's really weak. Sorry, but I don't respond to such things.

pot shot??
no you posted a vauge non-factual statement

I posted a true fact
the Nam mess started in 1958-9 under IKE with troops call advisors
from a small beginning grew a BIG MESS

and BTW respond you DID

 

[Bystander]

Aw come on. Wilson? Ho was a student in Paris, right? The President of the United States is f'ing up if he doesn't counter the opinions of one radical French student?

The "father" of the league of nations is not just "f'ing up" (you are absolutely correct, that is the lib campus spin), he's screwing the pooch big time by ignoring the political and social climate in E. Asia in a way that can be and was at the time interpreted in E. Asia as another instance of Euro-centric, bigoted, white supremacist arrogance. This is an item that can be found in every E. Asian firebrand's gunnysack.

And you yourself said that Truman's (lack of) action was "quite proper",

"ignore Ho, yes --- Hayseed Harry had the same handicap LBJ got from Kennedy, no transition period, and was forced to proceed with policies, staffs, and programs established by his predecessor. His botches were in not sh*t-canning FDR's "f a buncha slopes" policy toward SEA in 1948, sh*t-canning FDR's force Britich, Dutch, and French divestiture of interests in SEA, and integrating a recognition of established colonial interests with the Marshall Plan (work with the Europeans rather than threatening to withhold MP benefits if they don't abandon colonial interests).

therfore not a FU. So that leaves Roosevelt, who died before WWII ended and whatever his opinions may have been, never had any opportunity to affect matters in Viet Nam, or French Indochina as it was then.

FDR: "I don't want to hear another word about SEA." This is a bit of a paraphrase from post-war planning sessions; he had already offered suzerainty over E. Asia to Chiang, who had declined; had informed the Allies that they were going to divest themselves of interests in the area; and, the grapevine in the East works every bit as well as it does in the West --- "FDR doesn't care any more what happens to us than Wilson did. This, following Wilson's arrogance, and followed by Truman's failure to implement the "Truman Doctrine" (contain, or prevent the spread of communism rather than actively trying to roll it back), in that he denied the French any support in SEA (yes, they "frenched" it up --- "we have come for the past five years taxes").

This is just spin.

The campus spin is that Wilson was the great humanitarian --- he ignored half the planet when setting up the league --- and they were and remain pissed --- major effect on Vietnam. Roosevelt was very public in his efforts to throw everything east of the Irriwaddy to the Chinese "wolves (in the eyes of SE Asians)." That definitely had an effect on following events in SEA. Truman stabbed the French in the back. "The Yanks make really dependable allies." That influenced the course of ensuing events.

Ike sort of corked the inevitable conflict at "smoldering" to "brushfire" level in the Laotian panhandle. Screwed the pooch in not taking up the Soviet offer to recognize two Vietnams in '56, J. F. Dulles' advice/recommendation.

Kennedy had Harriman abandon the strategic advantage 1961(2?), and away we went.

That's four screw-ups if we take the lib campus spin (anybody can make a mistake) --- big league disasters if we call a spade a spade.