New University President?
- Thread starter USC2USC
- Start date
Well, my GINT professors talked about politics quite a bit, but well, they were GINT professors. And they were very good BTW. Back when I was in school, there was a woman named Janice, a Reaganite who always seemed to be outside the Russell House, rain or shine. Seemed to be a nice woman, and she would politely debate all comers. My own personal experience is that the SC student body and faculty runs more conservative than other parts of the country.
I'll own that comment and sorry if it offends you. My 30 years of work with engineers taught me that most are disciplined and highly focused on details. In the world of politics, we rarely know the details. If the new pres is like that, I am pleased that he is our guy. And btw, I knew I would hear from some engineers lol !
Seems to me that the State University of SC should have as its number 1 goal the education of its population! To strive to be an Academic Elite University is a worthy goal but secondary to moving from the bottom of the rankings of states in education.
One day in Gambrell Hall our professor was late to class. A TA came in and told us he was on a call with the state department and would be finished soon. Sure enough, he came into class a little bit later and picked up talking about the lesson for the day.
Seems he was on an advisory committee for one of the committees of the State Department that was responsible for providing international affairs advice to one of the Assistant Secretaries of State.
I don't think it works this way anymore but this was under George HW Bush (The dad) and he was someone who saw value in having different perspectives amongst his advisors. (Or at least his appointees did). It seems lately that folks just want to hear opinions from people that agree with them.
I never had any idea what political beliefs my professor held though. Our class wasn't a politics class at all but it seemed to me he could argue all sides of an issue confidently and persuasively.
In fact, the one thing I thought he did believe was that politicians talking about foreign affairs in the news and on tv in those days were not intelligent about the topic. I think that's even more true today.
Maybe the student body, but I bet if you polled the donations of the faculty, 90%+ would be to one side.
Either way, as long as it's kept personal and not injected into the classroom, I don't care. But that isn't the case in many scenarios.
Oh yeah? Mayhap you should discuss such with Darla Moore.
Haley replaces major USC donor on trustee board
Haley being a sCUm grad is a perfect example of why the position of Governor should have NO SAY SO as far as who is nominated or added to the BOT, nor as far as what/where The University of South Carolina chooses to focus on or towards, etc.
90%? We must not have gone to the same school. Or maybe you meant it as hyperbole. Many of my professors were conservative. We are in the South after all. That said, GINT really was the only department that was overtly political, but that was for obvious reasons.
Study finds those with graduate education are far more liberal than peers
Study finds those with graduate education not only lean more to the left than do other Americans, but have done so increasingly in the last two decades.
Actually, it was an underestimate. There are sites that compile and publish donation information. It was over 96%. It wasn't like that when I went there many moons ago, but that's where it is now.
Anyway, I'm hoping this guy keeps the focus on education and moves us forward.
I'm only a USC graduate so I might be a little dense and my math suspect so you might have to spell it out for me. Neither that article nor those charts seem to say what you say above. I don't see anything anywhere close to 96% or 90%. Additionally, I see "hold views" and nothing about donations.
Last edited:
I'm sure it's not exact, but donations from educators go overwhelming in one direction at just about every school. Been that way for a while.
90%??? I sometimes wonder where the rest of y'all went to school? Moscow U? That's not the Carolina I know. If I did somehow end up at Moscow U, no wonder we were so bad at football.
I didn't post any article or links and I wasn't referring to the one someone else posted either. And he isn't trying to prove my point either. The poster is trying to say something completely different. I'm referring to sites out there that compile donations from organizations. I'm not going to drag this any further down that rabbit hole than we have already gone, but just do some research on your own.
I'm just hoping this President will keep that mess out of the classroom and further us as an institution of high learning. I've read something things I liked and some things I disliked, so we will just have to see.
On your more general note, I also very much hope the new USC president is great.
Last edited:
It's so funny when I hear about indoctrination at USC - or any school for that matter. It seems that at USC what is happening is that kids are merely exposed to ideas that weren’t included in their mommy and daddy’s attempts to indoctrinate them. Just exposed to them by being on a campus that isn’t as homogenous as where they came from.
I can say from my many years at USC that I really only recall the politics of two professors - one conservative and one liberal. And I just knew their politics - they didn’t push them on anyone. And what if they did? You’re looking at a couple of hours a week of a bunch of kids just trying to get through class so they can get on with the rest of their day. Indoctrination on campuses a silly premise all around.
All that to say, this new president seems to be a great hire. He knows USC well - which hopefully means he understands the athletic department too. Even if he accomplishes nothing of consequence, he’ll be better than the last guy and should provide some stability to build on for the future.
I can say from my many years at USC that I really only recall the politics of two professors - one conservative and one liberal. And I just knew their politics - they didn’t push them on anyone. And what if they did? You’re looking at a couple of hours a week of a bunch of kids just trying to get through class so they can get on with the rest of their day. Indoctrination on campuses a silly premise all around.
All that to say, this new president seems to be a great hire. He knows USC well - which hopefully means he understands the athletic department too. Even if he accomplishes nothing of consequence, he’ll be better than the last guy and should provide some stability to build on for the future.
I completely agree. I grew up in a community that was mostly just like me and my family. When I went to Carolina, for the first time I was able to meet and get to know a wide array of people not just from all over the state and nation but all over the world. I am extremely thankful to the university for that opportunity.
Also, i never had a professor even bring up politics in class during my entire 4 years. And the largest student organization on campus at that time was College Republicans. All this anti-higher ed BS is just that....BS.
A couple of comments:
I went to USC in both undergraduate and graduate schools in the early to mid 1970s. Not one time can I recall a professor talking politics, not once. And that was during the height of the Viet Nam War and Watergate.
Secondly, Dr. Amiridis worked under Dr. Pastides. I feel certain that Amiridis would not have gotten the job if Pastidis gave him even an indifferent recommendation, much less poor recommendation. Congrats to Dr. Amiridis.
I went to USC in both undergraduate and graduate schools in the early to mid 1970s. Not one time can I recall a professor talking politics, not once. And that was during the height of the Viet Nam War and Watergate.
Secondly, Dr. Amiridis worked under Dr. Pastides. I feel certain that Amiridis would not have gotten the job if Pastidis gave him even an indifferent recommendation, much less poor recommendation. Congrats to Dr. Amiridis.
Usually when I hear someone complaining about indoctrination, it's someone that spends a lot of time trying to indoctrinate someone else.
For example, talk radio hosts and cable news hosts and programs: Their entire livelihood is based on spinning their own narrative about how things "should be" and they almost never treat an opposing view as legitimate or deal with it honestly- and those that are the people whining about someone else "indoctrinating" someone.
That's laughable and quite ironic.
As I have said before in this thread- college students are adults. They choose which college they want to attend. College is not compulsory. If they do not like the college they attend, they can choose to leave and attend another college (or no college at all).
So the "indoctrination" argument carries no credibility with me.
I agreed with him up to the gray area part. I'm an engineer and politics are black and white as well.
College professors donate to Democrats over Republicans by ratio of 95-to-1: Study
A new study by the National Association of Scholars found that college professors overwhelmingly donate to Democratic politicians instead of Republicans.
www.washingtonexaminer.com
That’s because grad school is a huge attempt at indoctrination. I got my masters in education. I’ve never heard so much liberal Mumbo Jumbo.Study finds those with graduate education are far more liberal than peers
Study finds those with graduate education not only lean more to the left than do other Americans, but have done so increasingly in the last two decades.www.insidehighered.com
Found this part about students interesting too:
According to a 2020 study, there is regression to the mean effect among individuals who go to college. Both left-wing and right-wing students become more moderate during their time in college.
According to a 2020 study, there is regression to the mean effect among individuals who go to college. Both left-wing and right-wing students become more moderate during their time in college.
I'm sure this is true.
I think, as a student, if you purposefully try to talk with fellow students of various backgrounds and perspectives, the likelihood of ending up less on the extreme end of things increases.
Of course, when I was in college, most of my friends and I never really talked politics at all. I wasn't all that interested in it even though i heard plenty about it. In classes, I heard various perspectives but for some reason the idea that their perspective was somehow wrong wasn't something that occurred to me. It was simply their perspective.
IOW's perhaps a better fitting UserName as opposed to "DeeDave" could very well be "RCCock" (of course as long as no one has already claimed such that is!!).
With the R being "Respectfully", and with the C being for "Considerate", there of course would be the semi-decimal'd version of "RespectfullyConsiderateCock"!!!
😎😉 Just a lil' BS'n there on my part!! No offense intended even in the slightest of a slight!!
Peace!!
Gaim
College professors donate to Democrats over Republicans by ratio of 95-to-1: Study
A new study by the National Association of Scholars found that college professors overwhelmingly donate to Democratic politicians instead of Republicans.
It is shocking that a self-professed conservative media outlet would run an article based on "research" by a self-professed conservative political advocacy group that pushes tired talking points of snowflake conservatives. Shocking, I tell you.
What would be "shocking" is a liberal telling the truth. Shocking I tell you. And I noticed you didn't refute anything because you can't. Sorry snowflake.
He's right. Go back to the underlying study quoted in your article. The Examiner itself is a well known conservative newspaper, but it simplifies a study by the NAS, an organization funded by the billionaire Scaife, that is known for trying to find and criticize "liberalism" in the American university. Because the NAS wants to give a veneer of academic responsibility, it does highlight the flaws in its own study. (Go towards the bottom of the study's findings.) It says:
"Although college professors contribute at greater rates than the general population at large, fewer than twenty percent are contributors. Federal contributions are income elastic (Hughes, 2017), so institutional characteristics interact with professors’ fields and individual characteristics. That is, professors in small, religious, and less prestigious institutions are less likely to contribute to candidates and committees in part because they are paid less. During the 2016 cycle, Democrats in the general population were more than twice as likely as Republicans to contribute (22 percent versus 10 percent; Pew, 2017), so contributions after 2012 are likely to skew findings further than the registration data do."
So it's a limited sampling (professors who self reported their donations) of the limited number of professors who even bother donating (<20%), and a sampling, which seems to be from one / two? election cycle(s). They even state that Democrats *generally* in 2016, not just professors, were more likely than Republicans to donate in that cycle.
Last edited:
He's right about what? That liberal leaning sites won't report this? Again, no repudiation, no links that show anything different. I did a Google search on political contributions by college instructors, this was the first hit. There were several dozen hits that I perused. Why don't you look into it and report back with data that refutes college professors (that give) give overwhelming to democrats. I couldn't find any.
I did. You're not going to comment on what I pointed out? As you can see, if you actually read my post, I am quoting from the study your article referenced.
The headline is misleading at best. It's not 90% of college professors. The "study," funded by a well known critic of American universities and conducted by a group that makes it known it is trying to 'stamp out' liberalism in American universities, acknowledged that it says that approx 90% of the 20% of professors who self reported their donations skewed dem in the one or two election cycles they reported. (It doesn't seem to clearly state if it was one or two, but it looks to me to be just the 2016 cycle.) It also says that Dems generally, not just professors, gave 2x what Republicans did in that cycle. What exactly are you disputing in what I said? The "study" itself that *you* referenced discloses that.
Last edited:
You didn't. Here's my comment. You cited a "flaw" in the study that basically says they contribute more to democrats but, come on, most professors don't contribute at all. By the way, I looked at the article again and didn't find that citation. Can you direct me to that. And no, what you said does not refute anything I said. I was responding to someone who asked for proof and then called me a snowflake for sharing the article. If you can find information that shows, I don't know, that professors give more to Republicans then democrats that would be repudiation. You at least sound more intelligent then that other guy. Thanks for not calling me names.
It's toward the bottom. It's a highly flawed "study" at best. 1. The people who funded and conducted the study are well known conservatives. Both the funder and group are well known critics of universities, so known to have a particular bias, and it does not take a genius to guess what "results" they want. As Mark Twain said, there are lies, damned lies and statistics. 2. They cite professors who self reported, which, as you know, statisticians call a selection bias. Maybe the professors who self reported that cycle wanted to send a political message? Who knows? They don't ask though. 3. They cite one election cycle. (Maybe two?) As you know, that is called a small sample size. 4. The same study notes that Dems *in general* gave more in the 2016 cycle. Twice as much. If we wanted to engage in nonsense, maybe you could say Dems are twice as rich so can give twice as much Or Dems outnumber Republicans by 2.0x. We know that extrapolating in that way is hogwash, so what other factors were at play? Likely Dems were energized against the nominee that cycle, but the study does not go into that, because it doesn't help the conclusion they seem to want. 5. So extrapolating that to state flatly that 90% of all American professors regularly donate to the Dems is very much of a stretch.
Last edited:
I regularly teach at the Business School and spend time in other classes there. I have never seen any faculty member “indoctrinate” anyone. In fact the faculty is rather moderate and doesn’t push an agenda. The only agenda is to teach the kids to the best of their ability and get them jobs. This 90% quote is garbage and doesn’t fit with my real world experience.
I would expect a pragmatic approach to business, mathematics, and the sciences. History, literature, and philosophy, not so much.
I still can't find it but did find this:
their study based on faculty voter registration along with partisan affiliation of federal contributions listed in the 2019 Federal Elections database.
That doesn't sound like self reporting but it would help if I can find the citation you are talking about and actually read what it says. But like I said, there are a lot more articles out there than just this one. Meanwhile, try to find a study that shows college professors give overwhelmingly to Republicans. Bet you cannot.
their study based on faculty voter registration along with partisan affiliation of federal contributions listed in the 2019 Federal Elections database.
That doesn't sound like self reporting but it would help if I can find the citation you are talking about and actually read what it says. But like I said, there are a lot more articles out there than just this one. Meanwhile, try to find a study that shows college professors give overwhelmingly to Republicans. Bet you cannot.
Some people's brains are seriously broken. The local dog-catcher is probably a raging partisan. Turn off the junk food news.
Similar threads
