Liberals in Academia

I really love Paul Krugman. His op-ed in today's NY Times deals with why professors tend to be so liberal. I have always maintained that the wide gap between liberals and conservatives in academia is due to two major reasons:

Reason # 1) Most importantly, liberals are more likely to be drawn to academia while conservatives are more likely to work for corporations. Krugman makes this point in his article. Just looking around on my campus at Brandeis, we can see the truth in this. The liberals here, who comprise the vast majority of the student body (why do think I like it here so much?) study all kinds of different things from biology to neuroscience to sociology to Islamic and Middle Eastern studies to history (the last two fields being mine). Many will go onto careers in academia in these fields. Meanwhile, the conservative students are all eagerely working on their economics or business majors in preparation to go off and be the next Ken Lay's and Bernard Ebbers' of the world. To generalize: liberals like studying and discussing and learning; conservatives like making money, and sometimes stealing money.

Reason # 2) Let's face it- Liberals are smarter and therefore more likely to have the PhD qualifications needed to teach at universities. I know it sounds arrogant, but there's some truth to it. Krugman doesn't make this point in his op-ed, so I thought I'd help out amd add it.

Anyways, here's the juiciest excerpt from Krugman's column today.

Consider the statements of Dennis Baxley, a Florida legislator who has sponsored a bill that - like similar bills introduced in almost a dozen states - would give students who think that their conservative views aren't respected the right to sue their professors. Mr. Baxley says that he is taking on "leftists" struggling against "mainstream society," professors who act as "dictators" and turn the classroom into a "totalitarian niche." His prime example of academic totalitarianism? When professors say that evolution is a fact.

In its April Fools' Day issue, Scientific American published a spoof editorial in which it apologized for endorsing the theory of evolution just because it's "the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time," saying that "as editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence." And it conceded that it had succumbed "to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do."

The editorial was titled "O.K., We Give Up." But it could just as well have been called "Why So Few Scientists Are Republicans These Days." Thirty years ago, attacks on science came mostly from the left; these days, they come overwhelmingly from the right, and have the backing of leading Republicans.

Scientific American may think that evolution is supported by mountains of evidence, but President Bush declares that "the jury is still out." Senator James Inhofe dismisses the vast body of research supporting the scientific consensus on climate change as a "gigantic hoax."

Wow. Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. For a humorous take on the Florida bill, check out Tom Tomorrow's comic strip this week. But more importantly, head over to the NY Times website and read the full text of Krugman's column. What are you waiting for?