Dan Gomez: Taking a liberal slant in the classroom

[Noel Fahden/The Daily Pennsylvanian]

Monopolies are generally thought of as "bad." Most of the time, they don't serve the public interest and they are incredibly inefficient. And yet, there is one monopoly in America that affects every college student -- the liberal monopoly on professorships.

Recently, the Center for the Study of Popular Culture conducted a survey on professors' political views at universities nationwide, including Penn. The results were astounding. Among those Ivy League professors surveyed, 64 percent considered themselves either liberal or somewhat liberal. A mere 6 percent considered themselves conservative or somewhat conservative.

In addition to this, 84 percent voted for Al Gore in 2000, with George W. pulling in just ahead of Ralph Nader (9 percent for Dubya, 6 percent for Nader). At Penn, of those affiliated with a particular political party who were surveyed, 60 were registered Democrats and only five registered as Republicans.

When asked who their favorite president of the past 40 years was, 13 percent of Ivy League professors said Jimmy Carter (ranking him as fourth). The Republican who ranked the highest was Ronald Reagan, coming in at a whopping 4 percent.

Let's make a quick comparison for a minute. Jimmy Carter is widely considered (unless, I guess, you are talking to an Ivy League professor) to be the worst president in history. He lost Iran to fundamentalist Islam. When said fundamentalists took Americans hostages, he made a half-hearted attempt to rescue them, which failed and cost further American lives. Under his administration, the strongest move he made against the imminent Communist threat was to pull out of the 1980 Moscow Olympics (I know if I was a Russian, I would have been scared!).

The economy was so bad under Carter's administration that they had to come up with a new name for it -- stagflation, a combination of stagnation and inflation. Oh yeah, and he was attacked by a bunny rabbit (that's not a typo, you read that correctly).

This is pitted against Ronald Reagan's record of ending the Cold War and laying the groundwork for the economic boom of the '90s. (To those of you who believe that the Cold War was brought to an end by the Democrats' policies as well, I can assure you that withdrawing from the Olympics was no contribution to bringing down the worldwide Communist superstructure).

As these statistics make clear, professors at Penn and throughout the Ivy League are overwhelmingly liberal. This monopoly on higher education is an extreme impediment to our education.

For years now, the faculty and administrators of colleges and universities have been lecturing America on the values of diversity. And yet, this survey shows how paper-thin the University's attachment to real diversity is. Part of the reason Penn is constantly harping on the diversity of its faculty is because diverse professors present students with different views and different experiences.

You know what would help the University diversify the views and experiences of professors? Hiring professors with different opinions.

Oh, but I forgot. Opinions don't matter when you are teaching. That is, according to Political Science Professor Avery Goldstein, who was paraphrased in the DP saying, "... a professor's political preferences should have no effect on the subject matter taught in a class."

But in higher education, much of what we learn is theory, which is why professors disagree. I think I get it: a professor's skin color has an effect on what he teaches, so diversity of skin color is good. But political views don't, so diversity of that kind has no value. Funny, I always thought that a person's views were shaped by his opinions. Silly me.

And in case you think that such a monopoly on teaching is innocuous, a book written by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, entitled Where Did Social Studies Go Wrong?, details how exclusively liberal education in elementary, middle and high school can have a detrimental effect on a student's ability to learn. The book explains that the liberal teachers' ideology "... is deeply suspicious of America's institutions, values and role in the world, while uncritically celebrating the institutions and values of most other societies."

And the practical effects of this liberal ideology? To take a modern example, the liberal stranglehold on teaching allows teachers to "harp on American insensitivity toward Islam while muting concerns about the murderous intolerance of Islamic radicals toward America."

Of course, this is not to say that liberals are purposely taking control over education, or that they are calculatingly indoctrinating America's students. A conservative monopoly could be just as damaging (some of the possible side effects might include young people actually wanting to defend their country from attack).

But since no one is there to challenge the liberal monopoly (or, if they have tenure, fire them), there is no impediment to indoctrinating students. Furthermore, the fact that only liberal professors are hired breeds a confidence in professors that their view is correct. After all, virtually everyone in the Ivy League thinks the exact same thing.

The University needs to stop paying lip service to diversity and actually try to promote it in thought among our professors. If they do not, then we will all know that the quality of our education just isn't a priority.

Dan Gomez is a junior History major from Wayne, Pa. and chairman of the Penn College Republicans.

Comments (36)

Jimmy Carter "widely considered to be the worst president in history"? He certainly wasn't the greatest, but he certainly is not widely considered to be the worst. That's just silly. I'd nominate Ronald Reagan: high unemployment (typical of all recent Republican administrations), AIDS epidemic, inflation, recession, support for right-wing terrorist regimes haunting us to this day. And what do we have now? A president not even duly elected, but appointed by a partisan 5-4 split decision in the Supreme Court. And oh yeah, the war to pad Halliburton's profits, high unemployment (a Bush family tradition), energy and environmental policies assured to keep us at war in the Persian Gulf for generations, out-of-control deficits and corporate crooks in charge at all levels of government and industry. Republicans must hate their grandchildren with that pathetic legacy! Mark Price, Compliance Specialist Wynnewood, PA

Dan- Once, just once, consider looking more deeply into a problem than simply scratching its surface, drawing a conclusion, and getting indignant. Have you considered why professorships are dominated by liberals? Could it be that many more liberals pursue PhD's than conservatives? Perhaps there's even something about the process of obtaining a PhD that inclines one to be more liberal-minded. Your total lack of investigative work totally undermines anything of worth you might try to say, and certainly does not reflect well on your idea that we need more conservatives in academia. Perhaps you should try a little academia yourself. Jeff

Right on Dan. You are 100% correct. My son graduated last May from Penn and told me numerous accounts on how many of his professors were not only liberal, but unnecessarily hostile to Republicans. One professor even had the temerity in a P.S. to one of his homework assignments that was emailed to students that "Bush is a moron". Another professor mentioned in her first class that even though she came from Texas, she still voted for Gore. I could cite more examples, but I don't have 3 hours to write them. Dan, keep exposing this hypocrisy and hopefully things will change. Howard, INVESTMENT ADVISOR BERGEN COUNTY, NJ NASDAQ321@AOL.COM

Mr. Price's notion "Perhaps there's even something about the process of obtaining a PhD that inclines one to be more liberal-minded." couldn't be more on the money. Based on my experience in getting my PhD, any conservative viewpoint would be just cause for flunking a student during the comprehensive exam. Even a moderate view point makes one unfit as a peer and unfit for teaching. And this was at a business school! A Penn Dad

Howard- Thinking Bush is a moron is not necessarily indicative of hostility towards Republicans....but, instead, justified dissatisfaction with ONE Republican. And, certainly you must believe that SOME conservatives are dissatisfied with the Bush administration. Or at least some are willing to voice their opinions that Bush is a moron. Considering how disappointing Bush has been as a President, people from BOTH ends of the political spectrum are fed up. Granted, a professor really shouldn't be using the classroom as a forum to voice personal opinions. But, questioning the current president does not indicate a hostility to the rest of that political party. '03 Grad

Carter at least could recognize his own cabinet members unlike Reagan. Oh and that Carter deficit? 32 billion dollars. Which is a twentieth the size of this years Bush deficit. Oh and Reagan never even bothered to submit a balanced budget. People become anti-Republican party (my guess at the foundation for describing oneself as liberal or libertarian) due to such hypocrisy as prancing about as financially responsible while running up trillions in national debt. Then there's super-patriot Republicans cutting Iraq war veteran's benefits even before they're returned from the Gulf! Oh and homeland security? Bush opposed the creation of a cabinet level department for more than a year until it was finally shoved down his throat by Democrats and went against his own CIA whose summary was invading Iraq would cause WMD proliferation not prevent it. Lin

Dan- I have to echo Jeff's earlier comments. Your column sickens me. "A conservative monopoly could be just as damaging (some of the possible side effects might include young people actually wanting to defend their country from attack)." I'm sorry Dan, but what the hell are you talking about? Everybody, no matter what their political leanings, wants to defend their country from attack. But, some people (I guess YOU would call them liberals) actually think that the U.S. should have a reason before waging war on a country in the name of defense. You're so off-base Dan. I hope that you let go of your stereotypes. Emily

While there is no doubt that the overwhelming number of professors are liberals, what does Mr. Gomez really intend to do about it? Would he favor (like so many other "conservatives") creating quotas for conservative professors? (I recently heard a proposition that would bar federal funds to universities which do not have the sufficient amount of conservative professors on staff) How is that conservative by any definition? Create a "diversity" panel to explore the problem and put new hiring guidelines in place? Sounds like a liberal tactic to me.......You see, I don't get the whole hang up about this whole thing. Professors tend to be liberal, because the overwhelming number of PhDs in the humanities and social sciences (the only areas in which a bias may influence a student body as opposed to hard sciences which are non-political by nature) are, in fact, liberals. Why this is the case is open to speculation, but no amount of complaining will change this reality. Also, assuming Dan gets his way and "conservative" professor quotas are introduced, just who decides what a conservative is? Right now, there is a huge ideological struggle on the Right between Paleo-conservatives and Neo-Conservatives and the whole range in between. Neo-conservatives tend to be pro-war, favor large government and embrace an activist foreign policy. FDR, Wilson, Churchill and Reagan are revered. Paleo-conservatives are anti-war, anti-large government and anti-interventionist. The founding fathers and free market economics are their guiding forces. There could not be a bigger gulf between these ideologies, yet both are considered "conservative". Mr. Gomez is no doubt a Neo-Conservative as are most college conservatives. For example, a paleo-conservative would never use the phrase "(Carter) lost Iran to fundamentalist Islam". Since when was Iran ours to lose? The US doesn't own Iran and certainly has no business interfering with its chosen government. Maybe a repressive, corrupt US backed Shah was the real reason "we lost" Iran, but Neo-Conservatives tend to be black and white about issues (Mr Gomez tends to be) and tend to be hard line ideologues. Given an ideological quota system would obviously be unworkable, what can Mr. Gomez do? He can continue to write and get his ideas heard or he could transfer to a conservative school (and there are many in the Mid-West and South). As a political afficianado, Mr. Gomez certainly knew Penn was liberal before arriving. Yet in the free market of educational choice, he chose to attend a liberal institution. Therefore, his whining falls on deaf ears. bc

Dan - Great article. Thanks for writing it and for trying to bring some balance into Penn's classrooms. -Jefferson Lilly, C'89, WG'98- Jefferson Lilly, Sales Manager San Francisco

I don't even care what his political view are...His columns look like there were written by a smart-ass 10th grader who had just watched Bill O'Reill for the first time. In other words, poorly written, not funny, and just plain uninformed......Guess what pal, professors have always been mostly liberals because I certain point of view grows out of actually studying and informing yourself of something. You want conservative professors....I hear Liberty(Falwell's scool) and Bob Jones are taking transfer applications. Robert Barlett 00' rwb44@hotmail.com

Very accurate. I lived during the long gas lines of the Carter Administration. Best Presidents of past 40 years and why: 1. Ronald Reagan (Tax cuts for all; end of Cold War; Strong National Defense including Strategic Defense Initiative, Reagan had spending cuts but Dems in congress overspent despite Mr. Reagan's objections); 2. JFK (Tax cuts for all, ended Communist Missle threat in Cuba, last good Dem president concerning policy issues); 3. George W. Bush (tax cuts for all, responsed with force to attack on America). What keeps George Bush Sr. off the list is his mistake of compromising with liberal democrats in congress in raising taxes... it cost him the election as it opened the door for Ross Perot to take some of his votes (giving the Presidency to Clinton). What keeps Bill Clinton off the list? Besides lying to a grand jury, he gave us our largest tax increase in 1993 (with aid of dems in congress). When the dems were replaced with a Republican majority in congress in 1994 the "Contract with America" proposed by Newt Gingrich led to lower taxes and a balanced budget... Clinton and Gore unsuccessfully tried to take credit for this. If you were not born before 1968 talk to people who were and they can tell you that the above info is accurate. God Bless, Sean Lee

Dan, Thanks for the most entertaining article I have read in a good long while. It is comforting to know that despite your heavy commitment level to the Penn College Republicans, you still find time to warn and inform us all of the great liberal Flouride conspiracy. Oh, and Sean, I am sorry, but Reagan instigating 'tax cuts for all' only came in as a close second. Cheers, Milo Milo milocool@yahoo.com

Jimmy Carter lost Iran? Reagan laid the groundwork for the 90's boom? What a bunch of baloney. You need to skip a couple days of Karl Rove's summer camp and read up on your history Dan. Carter didnt "lose" Iran anymore than Truman "lost" China. In both cases, corrupt, American supported (although thinly in the KMT situation) highly unpopular regimes somewhat inevitably fell to mass populist sentiment and action. You think Carter was taking to the streets and sacking embassies? You think Carter did things differently from his Republican predecessors? Now for Reagan, the somewhat recent idea that he *won* the cold war by his steely gaze, tough talk and spend-and-dont-tax philosophy is belied by the more tangible ideas that 1) the centrally planned system was coming apart at the seams, and 2) the nation had been sucked into an incredible blackhole for blood and treasure in Afghanistan. Sure, Reagan's sunny bellicosity may have given the Soviets a push and a nudge towards the reconcialiatory policies pursued by Gorbachev, moves that facilitated the USSR's undoing. But win? Please. The Cold War was won by the march of history. And your assertion that Reagan's record deficits laid the groundwork for the 90's boom? Take some econ classes and learn that the boom was created and fueled by lower federal deficits and decreased consumer saving, even dissaving. Much as conservative ideologues like yourself seem to think otherwise, federal deficits are BAD for the economy, sucking up investment dollars from the private sector. Grad '01, Law Student NYC

Maybe I'm missing something here. If you go to a liberal arts college....what do you expect to find? seriously, how big was this study? were these questions asked to Engineering professors, Computer Science professors? KJ, student around

I think it is clear that the article is not very well thought out. The reason more liberals get Ph.D.s is because you have to sacrifice some of your financial future to do it. I am sure if you looked at M.D., J.D. and MBA postgraduate degrees you would find a much higher proportion of conservatives - because it is more clear that the time spent to get those degrees is an investment which will be returned financially at the completion of a degree. However, with Ph.D.s it is not always the case that the degree will reap a financial award. Roy, grad student chicago

You'd think the DP could come up with new column ideas at least every now and then. Two articles almost identical to this one appeared just over 3 months ago, June 5, 2003. I'll say now what I said then, the same point that Jeff and others have made in response to this piece: Rather than debate the merits of conservative v. liberal philosophies (not what the article is about), I'd like to make another point: maybe there aren't more conservative or Republican professors not because Penn hasn't hired them but because they aren't out there to be hired. It is a fact that when people are exposed to more education, as is necessary for a PhD, they are less likely to be conservative or Republican. Education leads to knowledge, and that knowledge includes the implications and consequences of different ideas and ideologies. Perhaps academics the world over are not comfortable being conservatives when they know the facts. In addition, I must take issue with the notion that because professors are more likely to identify as Democrats and/or to think Bush is a moron they are necessarily liberal. Lots of Republicans think Bush is a moron, even if they voted for him and agree with his (?) ideas. Most people think Bush is a moron. He's not the sharpest tack, and most people readily admit that. More importantly, however, Democrats and Republicans are so similar these days, and Democrats are often quite centrist, moderate, and at times even conservative. There is no reason to assume professors who identify as Democrats are liberal. Grad Student, Graduate Student SAS

Dan, I think given the majority of the feedback, the situation is even more dire than you outlined. Bill Loller

Dan, you did a great job expressing a sentiment that conservatives have felt for a long time. If there are enough conservatives in America to elect a President, shouldn't there be conservative representation in academia? Joe Lucas jclucas@alumni.law.upenn.edu

Roy-- While I suspect you might find more conservatives in a J.D. program than in an English Ph.D. program, there still are not enough conservatives to stop lamenting the lack of intellectual diversity. Blogger

Whaa-whaa-whaa...conservative are so oppressed. As previously mentioned, I'm sick of reading these recycled topics from conservatives like purported bias in education & the media that don't even attempt to touch on the origins of this "bias". If you want a right-leading scholars, look to the hundreds of conservative think-tanks (including the Hoover Inst. here at Stanford) and if you want blatantly right-slanted press, turn on Fox News. It isn�?t like there aren�?t sufficient outlets for these views. But what this does is allow conservatives to avoid discussing their policies. For example, Dan, what rational did Bush have to create loopholes in the Clean Air Act, lift the snowmobile ban and increase logging of old growth in Nat. Parks, or give tax breaks for gas-guzzling SUV's? I can only think of big business interests. And why does he oppose the assault weapons ban? Why does his admin have the highest non-military growth of gov in twenty years (with pork like farm subs, steel tariff, transportation spending, prescrib. drug, etc). I can only look to Karl Rove. And who is going to pay the trillion dollar deficits we now have? Shouldn�?t true, small-government conservatives be irate about this type of guns and butter spending that is synonymous with LBJ? Stanford grad student

Joe Lucas, are there "enough conservatives in America to elect a President", or just enough conservative judges on the Supreme Court? May I remind you that Al Gore won the majority of the votes, even after Ralph Nader took many far-left votes from him. You and other conservatives may have forgotten this, but many of the American people have not. rod

Six percent of the Penn faculty are conservative? That is a lot higher than I would have guessed! Penn: $120,000 to be indoctrinated by Marxists. David, Astrophysicist Penn subtrrn@hotmail.com

THANKS DAN! It's about time that someone put these limousine liberals in their place! I'm tired of all these Mercedes driving, Prada wearing Penn kids telling me how there is injustice in America and how the answer lies in more taxes to benefit the structurally unemployed(i.e. those who consistently have shown that they do not want to work). I'm all for social justice but does billions of dollars in government spending on liberal policies necessarily imply that social justice can or will be achieved? Also, the liberals many times forget that the purpose of any government is to provide protection(in the form of force) for their people. Republicans are intelligent to recognize that w/o adequate defense spending, there would be no US to complain about for we would all be eliminated! While you liberals may have a heart now, I'm sure that you'll get a brain soon and share the Republican viewpoint. Dan Fan, Republican in a sea of confused Liberals

Expanding on your latest column, a comparison: CARTER: -Party/political preference: Liberal, Democrat -Widely considered: "�?to be the worst president in history" -Symbolic protest: Pulled out of the Moscow Olympics -Silly scary experience: Attacked by a bunny rabbit BUSH: -Party/political preference: Conservative, Republican -Widely considered: �?to be the worst president in history -Symbolic protest: Freedom Fries -Silly scary experience: Choked on a pretzel See? Anyone can do it! It�?s easy to take potshots at presidents and other public figures: Democrats, Republicans, movie stars, sports figures, and even newspaper columnists. Your position with the DP gives you a weekly opportunity to do so, Mr. Gomez, but you�?d do better to stick to your message. If you expect to be taken seriously, don�?t sprinkle your columns with tangential jabs and half-truths. You may think it�?s humorous, but it distracts from even your most valid arguments and it discredits you. Who cares about bunnies, pretzels, or sarcastic sidenotes? Try some balance and some depth. Whether you believe it or not, your readers are intelligent people�?I think they�?ll be willing to listen. m.e., penn student

Not just liberals but Tenured Elitist "Know Nothing About Capitalistism in Real World" Professors are the problem. They never earned a dime outside their sheltered environment. Sean Lee