As legislation is introduced in more than a dozen states across the country to counter political pressure and proselytizing on students in college classrooms, a majority of Americans believe the political bias of college professors is a serious problem, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows.
Nearly six in 10 – 58 percent – said they see it as a serious problem, with 39 percent saying it was a “very serious” problem.
The online survey of 9,464 adult respondents nationwide was conducted July 5-9, and carries a margin of error of +/- 1 percentage point.
Predictably, whether political bias is a problem depends greatly on the philosophy of the respondents. While 91 percent of very conservative adults said the bias is a “serious problem,” just 3 percent of liberals agreed.
Conservatives have long held that college campuses are a haven for liberal professors. The activist group Students for Academic Freedom, founded by David Horowitz, has promoted state legislation invoking a “Students Bill of Rights” on campuses to protect conservative students from academic reprisals by professors who hold contradictory beliefs.
Men were much more likely than women to see the bias of professors as a problem – 64 percent of men agreed, while 53 percent of women said the same.
Whites were twice as likely to call it a “serious problem” as African-Americans, the survey showed.
Shock! Zogby Finds Bias Among College Professors
Posted by Pam
on 7/10/2007
This is impossibe!!!:o For years we have been told there is no such thing! We have been told they are centrists, and that anything that disagrees with them is right-wing extremism!!!
I am SO glad I retired from that cesspool of liberal ideologues. Geesh, it’s taken me almost a year to recover. Worse, there are staff who agreed with me in more Republican values and they (as with me) kept our mouths shut for fear of retribution.
You’re confused. Zogby didn’t find that college professors were biased– rather only that a majority of his survey respondents believed them to be. Not the same thing, Peejz. Public opinion does not equate to a statement of fact.
As stated in the results, it showed the opinions of the participants followed their own personal values– which makes sense because what else are they going to base their opinion on?
Maybe the survey would have made more sense if it actually polled current students and/or recent college grads, but just randomly sampling a generic poll of ‘adults’ is only going to give opinions based on ideology, not necessarily the reality of what’s happening on campuses today.
I can assure you Tofu that the survey is correct. Academia is full of liberal bias and I might add lies.
3, Tofu, how about this bet. We go to a university. For each liberal professor I get to whack you with a tire iron. For each conservative professor you get to whack me. Want to take me up on that?
Side bet: Anyone believe we will find a conservative professor before I put Tofu in the hospital with permanent injuries?
“I can assure you Tofu that the survey is correct.”
BonBon…Tofu’s not saying that the poll is incorrect.
Re-read the post.
And you know what?
Thank god that college professors are LIBERAL.
The very definition of liberal makes this a smart choice.
—————-
From dictionary.com :
lib·er·al
adj.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded
—————————
Sounds like the right kind of person to be teaching and opening minds, no?
The reality is that a lot of professors outside of the hard sciences, and a few in them, lean way to the left. They also have no qualms about basing grades on personal bias rather than actual performance. AN example would be the visiting professor at Duke who flunked a student, not because he did below par work, but rather because he was on the Lacrosse Team. Then there are the 80+ professors at Duke who signed a letter demanding that the Lacrosse team be punished and the three students falsely accused of raping a woman who had the DNA from 5+ men in her panties, not one of theme the accused lacrosse players. NOT A ONE OF THOSE PROFESSORS APOLOGIZED!!! Duke on the other hand will be settling the lawsuits for years.
I once had a political science professor inform me that he had been a communist until he realized that communism didn’t work. If you take a long hard look at the vast majority of soft or social science professors, very few of them have EVER had positions that required them to actually be productive in a traditional sense. How many executives in the real world are in positions wherein they can not be fired for anything less than gross misconduct? Once a professor receives tenure, it is next to impossible to fire him. Look at Ward Churchill, the professor from Colorado who referred to the victims in the World Trade Center as “little Eichmans”. As a tenured professor, the university was essentially unable to get rid of him despite his writings being questionable (potentially plagiarized) and his qualifications, including his claim to native American ancestry, being falsified.
I just recently got into an argument with a woman who just received her Phd in Poli Sci about the value of gun control as a crime deterrent. She had been so conditioned to believe the propaganda about it working that even when presented with FACTS proving otherwise, refused to accept that her preconceived ideas were wrong. She even denigrated the work of multiple researchers that put her credentials to shame because their work disagreed with her ideas. Researchers who had held the same anti gun bias prior to conducting their multi year studies. Who is more open minded, the person that insists that they are right despite the facts, or the one who changes their opinion when that opinion turns out to be contradictory to the facts?
Hey San Fran, the only problem with that definition is that the liberal professors are extremely intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them. They also need to understand that progressive means moving towards a goal of improving something. That means that when historical facts show that reducing income tax rates INCREASES revenues, and the goal is to increase REVENUES, tax rate increases are counter productive to the goal and hence NOT progressive.
Likewise, repeated studies show that lengthy jail sentences for violent offenders reduce violent crime by acting as both a deterrent to others and as a means to prevent the repeat offender from recidivating. Hence, fighting to eliminate mandatory minimum sentencing will allow repeat offenders to recidivate more frequently and therefore increase violent crime. Therefore reduced jail sentences increase violent crime and are therefore NOT progressing towards the goal of reducing it.
Reputable studies show that criminals are more afraid of encountering an armed victim than of encountering a police officer. Recent events in Israel and the US have shown that the surest way to prevent mass murder is for armed individuals to stop the antagonist as soon as possible, through the use of force if necessary. Data also shows that in cities with more restrictive gun laws, crime is substantially higher than cities without such laws. Records also show that increased sentencing for offenders who use a firearm during the commission of a crime deters many criminals from using firearms. With all of this data in hand, if the goal is to reduce violent crime, doesn’t it make more sense to allow law abiding citizens free access to firearms while punishing severely those criminals who abuse them?
All of the positions that I have demonstrated as being in direct opposition to the stated goals are “Liberal” positions. Exactly how “Progressive” is it to reduce tax revenues, to not prevent predatory criminals from having access to victims, and to prevent victims from being able to defend themselves? Would not the more “traditional” goals of increasing tax revenues, locking away dangerous criminals until they are no longer able to prey on anyone, and allowing victims to defend themselves against attack simply be a much more intelligent course of action to follow?
8- If you look at the definition of ‘liberal’, it makes sense that most professors are liberal at this level of academics. Those of intellect are bound to flourish in careers in higher education where free thought and exploration of ideas is not only encouraged, but celebrated.
As for gun control being a deterrent, tell that to the families of the three citizens who were gunned down by a wacked-out Firefighter on New Years here in Cleveland. A Firefigther, by the way, who was granted a concealed/carry license.
Yikes, not New Years. July 4th. eek
“Those that can – do: those that can’t – teach.â€
12: Where is the ‘rolls eyes’ emoticon?
>-
What a wonderful poll result!!
Could it be that regarding the left-right balance liberals would tend to not call it a “bias” but simply an “attitude”?
And what does this poll also tell us? Maybe that well-educated people tend more towards the political stance that you call “left”… I mean, it is not a hazard that dictators* like Stalin or Pol Pot first murdered the intellectual caste when establishing their reign of terror!
And now PCD & MK, I am waiting for your insults …or as I see it: your only means of defense!
*I just read an article about the US government medical representative Richard Carmona who mentioned the buzzword “censorship”…
San Fran….it was late and I was tired. But you know I learned liberals do NOT have open minds nor do they always teach in a fair and balanced way. For instance I took a class in Amer History and the Professor told the class Ronald Reagan gave away the Panama Canal. Do you know who really sold the Canal? In 1978?
PCD…there is one and only one Republican professor and that is Condi Rice and even she was a registered Democrat when she first started out.
14, Mattias, be happy you only suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune and not the physical punishment you have tichly earned.
Tofu, just goosestep along with your do nothing professors. How many liberals actually do something? IF we limit doing something to doing it with your own resources, then the number gets very small.
16- Sorry PCD,
Looks like I forgot your fists as a valid political means of argumentation. Besides (I had to look up the exact term myself), did you ever hear of the term “ochlocracy”?
17, you forget that muslims settle their differences by force.
9. FAO you make the assumption that liberals think in a reasonable, rationale way. The reality is that they turn away from anything logical or truthful that may not fit into their ideology. Case in point. With all the terror attacks during the Clinton administration no one ever said a word. The day of 9/11 we all sat in the conference room watching CNN and they were all saying, “How could Bush have let this happen.” It was then that I realized I didn’t even want to be around these bozos any longer.
There is debate and then there is a refusal to acknowledge facts. Liberals do not have open minds.
7. Here’s my definition of a liberal.
adjective. Close minded, intolerant, unable to debate an issue with any logic. Sometimes untruthful. A desire to have the government pay for everything yet control nothing.
Oh and a willingness to tax the working poor so they do not get ahead while at the same time protecting their rich cronies. Sounds like what the Republicans are always accused of but when I look at people like the rich celebrities and the media moguls who have the really big bucks and don’t spread the wealth I get pissed.
At least the corporations Republicans are always accused of helping employ people and produce goods and services.
20- if I see words like “intolerant”, I associate somebody like
“those muslim animals”-Mike Kilo with it
.. and if if it comes to “unable to debate an issue with any logic” it reminds me of “not the physical punishment you have tichly earned”-PCD…
Honestly: you conservatives don’t have the most public-compatible representatives talking for you on this site!!! :d
Well Matthias you do exactly what most libs do when confronted with an argument and that is to start placing blame and pointing fingers rather than giving logical arguments for a point of view.
Mike calls them muslim animals and why not? That’s exactly what they are. Just because libs are trying to stay pc in this country and bend over backwards trying to give the impression that somehow it’s our fault and not the jihadists who have declared war on us doesn’t mean that some of us aren’t entitled to express our thoughts as we see them.
As for PCD, he often expresses the frustration I always feel when listening to the lame, illogical reasoning behind your points of view.
Everyone is different and everyone reacts different. Get used to it. Be tolerant of others.
“Honestly: you conservatives don’t have the most public-compatible representatives talking for you on this site!!!”
Well, no matter what you opinion is of this it is true that the liberals on this site have the same problem.
14- You left this out:
“#10: Those of intellect are bound to flourish in careers in higher education where free thought and exploration of ideas is not only encouraged, but celebrated.”
Which is exactly what is NOT happening in that environment, don’t you understand? If you think free thought and exploration of ideas is encouraged in leftist-dominated academia then you are so far off the mark you may as well be on another planet.
Liberalism IS a form of mental illness…
23- “Mike calls them muslim animals and why not? That’s exactly what they are. …the jihadists who have declared war on us…”
I tell you why this asshole is not allowed to use such a disgusting term:
a) because [as you to some degree admit yourself] there are muslims on one hand and jihadists on the other
and
b) even amongst the radical muslims it was just a small minority who was ready to attack your country
You will find few liberals who will call you for your unjustified (and as it turns out politically totally useless) attack “christian animals”!
“You’re confused. Zogby didn’t find that college professors were biased– rather only that a majority of his survey respondents believed them to be. Not the same thing, Peejz. Public opinion does not equate to a statement of fact.”
Ahh, you mean like the public opinion polls regarding Iraq?
Avbit of consistancy is in order please. You folks live by public opinion polls, and now yopu must lie in the bed that you’ve made.
“b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded”
=))
Because most college proffessors are tolerant and oppen minded! :-@
/sarcasm
I would submit that the vast majority of “free thinkers” are NOT found in academia- this is a myth. Instead, they are found in private sector business, especially small business.:x
27. If you have read as much as I have about Islam and the problems, culture, etc. in the middle east you would begin to understand why it is imperative we fight them in order to maintain peace in the world. As for the very small minority of muslims who don’t agree with the ideology of Islam ruling the world they don’t speak out for fear of retribution. Make no mistake that fear is real. Would you like me to point you to some very good books to read?
31- As I see it, even since GW started his christian crusade and until today there is less than one third than the world’s muslim population living in countries (Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria) that are involved in military conflicts or terrorism and even in those you have huge parts that don’t approve violence.
“Make no mistake that fear is real.”
Whose fear?
I mean, you cannot deny that this is kind of a hen&egg-problem. If I lived in a [muslim] country and people attacked my neighbour country with some questionable justification (WMDs), claim to tolerate and liberate me and at the same time call me for my beliefs an “animal”… what kind of feelings would you think would I develop?! Just look at the scores:
US people killed by muslim terror acts on US soil=3,000+ : Muslims killed by military action on their own ground=XX,000+
Besides… I have an idea what kind of books you would recommend.. 8-|
Well Mr. Know it all. First of all 9/11 wasn’t even the first attack. It goes way back to the Shah of Iran and the Carter administration. You have no idea what books I’m referring to so your argument is once again what the close minded liberals gut reaction typically is.
I’ve done my homework so why don’t you. There isn’t enough bandwidth here on the site to explain to you why your post represents ignorance.
“Just look at the scores:
US people killed by muslim terror acts on US soil=3,000+ : Muslims killed by military action on their own ground=XX,000+”
Completely inaccurate.
33- I gave you some estimated body count figures. Honestly: Who has the better reason to fear somebody?
And referring to your Shah vs. Carter-argument: What the fuck does my muslim wife has to do with those guys (or Iraq or Al Quaeda or Palestine or whatever war zone) that such an asshole like MK is allowed to call her an “animal”?!
The last guy who wrote a book that openly called a group animals due to their religion or race that I remember was Adolf Hitler! And we know what the result was… Is it such kind of book, that you refer to?
34- What are your figures?
34.
It’s not the figures that are inaccuarate, but how you portray them. It is a typical Michael Moore style twist of facts.
“What the fuck does my muslim wife has to do with those guys (or Iraq or Al Quaeda or Palestine or whatever war zone) that such an asshole like MK is allowed to call her an “animalâ€?!”
I don’t recall that he called her an animal. Got the quote?
35, Mattias, you argue in circles, closed circles. You don’t allow true facts in, but you spin out hyperbole and myths to justify yourself.
Mike thouroughly explained “Muslim Animal”. You got a problem with his definition? Does your wife fit Mike’s definition?
Mattias, you are the typical dumb Kraut who didn’t know what Hitler was doing to the Jews and had to be led by a bayonet in the back to the camps to get the truth through your square head.
#32: “As I see it, even since GW started his christian crusade and until today there is less than one third than the world’s muslim population living in countries (Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria) that are involved in military conflicts or terrorism and even in those you have huge parts that don’t approve violence.”
WHAT are you talking about? Muslim terrorism/violence is happening almost EVERYWHERE! What planet are you on? Earth to Matthias—come in Matthias…
40- If there is muslim terrorism all over the world, there must be victims all over the world.
So I repeat the question in your direction, Robert:
How many (non-muslim) people died as a result of radical muslim violence/terrorism (worldwide) and how many muslims died as a result of US/allied military action?
If somebody dares to speak of “muslim animals” based upon the thousands of muslim terror victims- what would somebody be allowed to call Christians or Americans regarding the tenthousands muslims that were killed in the last 6 years by the allied forces???
And Ted, how do I twist facts? I am not referring to military casualties amongst in Iraq of Afghanistan- I refer to civilian victims! People, that were as innocent as the ones that were buried under the collapsed WTC!
39- Mike’s terminology speaks for itself. If he referred to radicals, fundamentalists, or terrorists he could refer to “radical animals”, “fundamentalist animals” or “jihad animals”…
“Muslim animals” is a very clearly understable statement FULL STOP.
If I say that I think that Mike is a racist, intolerant asshole, there is also few to misunderstand or to blandish. I say it that way and I mean it that way!
“How many (non-muslim) people died as a result of radical muslim violence/terrorism (worldwide) and how many muslims died as a result of US/allied military action?”
Who knows the numbers? But the main point is the fundamental difference between terrorists deliberately targeting civilians and unavoidable collateral damage.
Another way to look at it: if the radicals didn’t start shit, there wouldn’t be shit. Kapische?
You can’t argue this kind of thing with liberals Robert. They deny muslims hate us, hurt us or for that matter have ever even started anything. It’s all Bush’s fault.
Matthias….there have been many, many people who have died at the hands of muslims terrorists. Just after Clinton shook hands with Terrofat the killing began in earnest in Israel and many died as a result of that handshake. Just because you close your eyes to the fight doesn’t mean it’s not there. Heaven help us all if we lose because of your liberal ideologies.
Re 42:
“Mike’s terminology speaks for itself.”
In other words, you don’t have a quote and you are basing this statement on assumptions and nothing real to stand on.
“”Muslim animals”is a very clearly understable statement FULL STOP.”
Yes, it is. It means Muslims that acts like animals. Does your wife act like an animal, ie support the Jihadist killing on innocents by a sect of Muslims middle east locations such as Iraq and Gaza?
If it were Christians doing the same thing, I am sure he would also call a spade a spade. This seems to speak less to his bigotry and more towards yours, as you obviously saw but ignore the recent convsation he had with another memeber of your ilk who was big enough to apologize for her assumptions.
“I say it that way and I mean it that way!”
How Hilter-esque of you.
“And Ted, how do I twist facts? I am not referring to military casualties amongst in Iraq of Afghanistan- I refer to civilian victims!”
No, you refered to tens of thousands of Iraqis who are “killed by military action on their own ground” implying that the US military killed them when the vast majority of those victims have NOT been killed by any military force, but by terrorists.
I would argue that the terrorists are even lower than animals; at best they are sub (less than) human. As such they need to be exterminated, like roaches, or a rabid animal.
BonBon you are correct about arguing with Liberals; we use logic, reason, and fact. They are unable to process such data.
If I was a graduate student going for my pHd in Psychology, I think i would select as a study for my thesis an anaylsis of the classic Liberal mind. Why are they the way they are? Is it mental illness alone, a physical defect in the brain, or both? Why is it that classic, knee-jerk Liberals are unable to reason? That would be a fascinating study.
Gang, all Mattias can wrap his little mind aroud is that the US is bad. We kill people. He can’t see the Muslim Animals killing indescriminately. He can’t see fact nor reason. I say we exclude him from any future conversations that touch on Muslim Animals.
Hi PCD….I vote for that. I have already sworn not to argue with some unreasonables on this site. One more doesn’t make that much difference.