99.51% of top liberal arts prof. contributions go to Dems

[lostinblue 1,989]

99.51% of top liberal arts prof. contributions go to Dems

Only one undergraduate professor from the top 50 liberal arts colleges has donated to a Republican presidential candidate in the current election cycle.

According to FEC third quarter reports released October 16, 47 professors at the top 50 liberal arts colleges in the country, as ranked by U.S. News & World Report, have given to presidential campaigns. Of those 47 professors, Hamilton College History Professor Robert Paquette was the sole donor to a Republican candidate, giving $150 to Carly Fiorina’s campaign.

The remaining 99.51 percent went to Democrat candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. The 46 other professors collectively donated $20,875 to Hillary Clinton and $8,417 to Bernie Sanders. Professors donating to Clinton have given an average of $1,043.75. Those giving to Sanders donated an average of $323.73.

"I do believe these numbers give an accurate representation of the political leanings of faculty on most college campuses," Paquette wrote in an e-mail to Campus Reform, "especially allegedly elite liberal arts colleges like Hamilton College," where he claims to be the "only out-of-closet conservative in a faculty of 200."

After 35 years of experience in higher education, Paquette believes that the business "has become a racket monopolized by the academic left."

Paquette argues that with cover from "spineless or sympathetic" administrators, leftist faculty are able to keep their campuses liberal. Conservatives like himself can be prohibited from participating in searches for their own department and large endowment funds are "lavished on faculty activists and their programmatic agendas.”

Paquette says that trustees know about the problem but "[prefer] not to hear, see, or speak any evil to protect the elite ‘brand’ of the college."

When the search is expanded to include students, graduate/law professors, and administrators at the elite group of colleges, Paquette’s donation is joined by an additional $6,150 to Jeb Bush, $150 to Ted Cruz, $2,000 to Carly Fiorina, $540 to John Kasich, and $250 to Scott Walker.

Even so, only 10.84 percent of donor affiliates gave to Republican candidates, and their donations amount to less than 15 percent of total contributions.

Historical giving patterns reveal a strong bias toward liberal candidates, especially at the nation’s most elite colleges. In 2012, Campus Reform reported that 96 percent of Ivy League donations went to the Obama campaign. So far this cycle, over 95 percent of Ivy League affiliates have donated to Democrat candidates

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6920.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

99.51% of top liberal arts prof. contributions go to Dems

Only one undergraduate professor from the top 50 liberal arts colleges has donated to a Republican presidential candidate in the current election cycle.

According to FEC third quarter reports released October 16, 47 professors at the top 50 liberal arts colleges in the country, as ranked by U.S. News & World Report, have given to presidential campaigns. Of those 47 professors, Hamilton College History Professor Robert Paquette was the sole donor to a Republican candidate, giving $150 to Carly Fiorinas campaign.

The remaining 99.51 percent went to Democrat candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. The 46 other professors collectively donated $20,875 to Hillary Clinton and $8,417 to Bernie Sanders. Professors donating to Clinton have given an average of $1,043.75. Those giving to Sanders donated an average of $323.73.

"I do believe these numbers give an accurate representation of the political leanings of faculty on most college campuses," Paquette wrote in an e-mail to Campus Reform, "especially allegedly elite liberal arts colleges like Hamilton College," where he claims to be the "only out-of-closet conservative in a faculty of 200."

After 35 years of experience in higher education, Paquette believes that the business "has become a racket monopolized by the academic left."

Paquette argues that with cover from "spineless or sympathetic" administrators, leftist faculty are able to keep their campuses liberal. Conservatives like himself can be prohibited from participating in searches for their own department and large endowment funds are "lavished on faculty activists and their programmatic agendas.

Paquette says that trustees know about the problem but "[prefer] not to hear, see, or speak any evil to protect the elite brand of the college."

When the search is expanded to include students, graduate/law professors, and administrators at the elite group of colleges, Paquettes donation is joined by an additional $6,150 to Jeb Bush, $150 to Ted Cruz, $2,000 to Carly Fiorina, $540 to John Kasich, and $250 to Scott Walker.

Even so, only 10.84 percent of donor affiliates gave to Republican candidates, and their donations amount to less than 15 percent of total contributions.

Historical giving patterns reveal a strong bias toward liberal candidates, especially at the nations most elite colleges. In 2012, Campus Reform reported that 96 percent of Ivy League donations went to the Obama campaign. So far this cycle, over 95 percent of Ivy League affiliates have donated to Democrat candidates

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6920.

Not a secret they are a liberal bunch

[bowens44 214]

The higher your IQ, the better educated you are the more likely you are to be a liberal. Liberals vote Democrats.

[Rob L 3,811]

LIB arts professors represent a large percentage of the economy and will have the ability to skew the election results. The REAL people ( multinational energy companies for example) will become disenfranchised by this large economic power.

[GandD 5,966]

Education is bad.

[decocker 7,198]

imo, the liberal/conservative nonsense is nothing more than a distraction. imagine how much we could accomplish if all the bipartisan nonsense was eliminated. imagine if we could simply focus on detecting problems and finding solutions without all the spin.

very basic differences are what drives us to pick a side, and picking a side when trying to unify for the sake of national problem solving/solutions is counterproductive.

obviously, liberals and conservatives will always exist and while it's possible for a person to become more liberal or conservative through life, our personalities/biologies in these ideals are set. imo there is no benefit to viewing conservatives and liberals to two separate teams trying to "win". in order for government to optimally function, we need both conservatives and liberals - working together.

According to the experts who study political leanings, liberals and conservatives do not just see things differently. They are different—in their personalities and even their unconscious reactions to the world around them. For example, in a study published in January, a team led by psychologist Michael Dodd and political scientist John Hibbing of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln found that when viewing a collage of photographs, conservatives' eyes unconsciously lingered 15 percent longer on repellent images, such as car wrecks and excrement—suggesting that conservatives are more attuned than liberals to assessing potential threats.

Meanwhile examining the contents of 76 college students' bedrooms, as one group did in a 2008 study, revealed that conservatives possessed more cleaning and organizational items, such as ironing boards and calendars, confirmation that they are orderly and self-disciplined. Liberals owned more books and travel-related memorabilia, which conforms with previous research suggesting that they are open and novelty-seeking.

“These are not superficial differences. They are psychologically deep,” says psychologist John Jost of New York University, a co-author of the bedroom study. “My hunch is that the capacity to organize the political world into left or right may be a part of human nature.”

Although conservatives and liberals are fundamentally different, hints are emerging about how to bring them together—or at least help them coexist. In his recent book The Righteous Mind, psychologist Jonathan Haidt of the N.Y.U. Stern School of Business argues that liberals and conservatives need not revile one another as immoral on issues such as birth control, gay marriage or health care reform. Even if these two worldviews clash, they are equally grounded in ethics, he writes. Meanwhile studies by Jost and others suggest that political views reside on a continuum that is mediated in part by universal human emotions such as fear. Under certain circumstances, everyone can shift closer to the middle—or drift further apart.

very interesting article..probably posted before

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/

[Teddy B 17,252]

imo, the liberal/conservative nonsense is nothing more than a distraction. imagine how much we could accomplish if all the bipartisan nonsense was eliminated. imagine if we could simply focus on detecting problems and finding solutions without all the spin.

very basic differences are what drives us to pick a side, and picking a side when trying to unify for the sake of national problem solving/solutions is counterproductive.

obviously, liberals and conservatives will always exist and while it's possible for a person to become more liberal or conservative through life, our personalities/biologies in these ideals are set. imo there is no benefit to viewing conservatives and liberals to two separate teams trying to "win". in order for government to optimally function, we need both conservatives and liberals - working together.

very interesting article..probably posted before

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/