Political study says the university has a liberal bias
A study by Campusreform.org shows that USC as an institution has a liberal bias, according to its assessment of administrative policies, campus groups and faculty members.
The website determined that the liberal political bias of campus life is in part because of the disproportionate number of liberal clubs on campus. Of the 17 political clubs at USC, 11 are liberally oriented.
Micah Scheindlin, political director of USC College Democrats, said that the number of political clubs is a reflection of the political composition of the student body.
“If students are liberal these are their personal views and the number of clubs shows their excitement and beliefs,” Scheindlin said.
Campusreform.org stated that the USC faculty is also has an overwhelmingly liberal bias.
It cites that of the USC faculty and staff who donated to the 2008 presidential campaigns, 91 percent contributed to Democratic candidates — amounting to $80,548, according to Campusreform.org.
Marissa Lorion | Daily Trojan
USC faculty and staff donated only $7,933 to Republican candidates in 2008.
But Ann Crigler, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute for Politics, says that there is a difference between contributions to a party and a political candidate.
“It is not safe to necessarily draw parallels between candidates and political parties,” Crigler said.
Campusreform.org is a social networking site “to provide conservative activists with the resources,” according to its mission statement.
It has more than 14,000 affiliates on college campuses across the country, according to Abby Alger, new media manager for CampusReform.org.
“We are an online hub for conservative and libertarian organizations and offer support and outreach to student groups on college campuses,” Alger said.
Campusreform.org has eight permanent field reps, who help to start conservative and libertarian clubs on college campuses.
“We hope to restore the balance and fix the playing field, which is tilted too far to the left at the moment,“ Alger said.
Crigler cautions such evaluations of political biases on campus.
“Equating partisanship with bias is not a 100-percent foolproof way of doing it,” Crigler said. “Republicans and Democrats are not entirely different.”
Alger said, however, that such a disproportionate faculty has a negative effect on the classroom atmosphere.
“[Faculty and staff] partially skew what goes on in the classroom and there is an imbalance in political outlets and allies for conservative students on campus,” Alger said.
Crigler, however, said that universities typically tend to appear more liberal than conservative.
“If they define liberals and conservatives as ends of the spectrum and liberals as critical thinkers and developers of new ideas, then any university fits a leftist political bias,” Crigler said.
The university’s administration also expresses political bias, according to Campusreform.org, by offering courses such as Politics of Global Environment (IR 323), which emphasizes “biodiversity and global governance” and Critical Studies in Whiteness (AMST 543), which focuses on how “whiteness operates within specific racial regimes to perpetuate inequality.”
The website also said that the administration expresses a leftist political bias because it received a “red light” for violating students’ freedom of speech when controversial activist David Horowitz visited campus.
According to Crigler, such institutes as the Unruh Institute demonstrate USC’s active stance to create bipartisan discourse on campus.
“Unruh regularly hosts political discussions on campus, where political clubs conduct analyses of campaigns and policies,” Crigler said.
How satisfying to see that our great university has carved out such a transformative reputation, both culturally and intellectually. It wasn’t very long ago that the school was besmirched with a reputation for producing corrupt Nixon administration hacks, and for being a bastion of conservative mediocrity. What a tremendous legacy Steve Sample has left behind. Let it not be lost on my fellow alumni that the university’s meteoric rise in reputation has coincided with it’s more balanced political atmosphere.
Come on Trojans! Let’s be above the fray and focus on what’s important and pragmatic. Let our activist, identity-politics-promoting neighbors in Westwood pump their fists in the air for–nothing–while we prevail in these tumultuous times. Who gives a damn what side we identify with?!
Let’s not dwell on abstract arguments that lack evidence and facts.
Most of our elected officials and those who identified themselves as conservatives or liberals based on their affinity toward these politician are not critical thinkers. If they were, our country would not be as divisive as it is today.
Critical thinkers appreciate arguments from different point of views and would not settled for name-calling as a way to suppress the opposing viewpoints. How can we teach the young generations that name-calling is a form of bullying if the adults do not even conduct themselves in a civil manner?
I would expect (hope) that as a person becomes more educated, s/he tends to be more “open-minded” and becomes more of a critical thinker. And this person can possess “liberal” or “conservative” beliefs (or both).
What is lacking in many people is that they do not have the skills to think critically. Many times they do not analyze the issues from various viewpoints and they have the tendency to be judgmental. Did our education system failed them?
Ah, a contribution from one of our libertarian-anarchist-nihilist friends. It’s always delightful when you show up! Thanks for reminding us that if we form an opinion and take a side on an issue, we’re not as “reasonable” as one of you “critical thinkers” whose operating principle is “Every idea is equally right, every idea is equally wrong, every conclusion is equally valid, so let’s just pretend to weigh the two options (which are equal) and pick one at random.”
Being able to make judgments and distinctions is the object of wisdom.
Thinking every idea and party is equally valid is the hallmark of ignorance.
Just because someone who is willing to listen to different viewpoints doesn’t make her/him a “libertarian-anarchist-nihilist”.
I did not say that if people form an opinion or take side on certain issues, then they are not “reasonable”. If their opinions are formed based on objective analysis of the hard facts (evidence from studies, historical data, and/or lessons-learned), then the side that they take is as “reasonable” as the inferences from their premises. If their opinions are formed based on subjective views, then they can’t expect everyone to agree with them.
Joe, critical thinkers do not view “every idea is equally right, every idea is equally wrong, every conclusion is equally valid, so let’s just pretend to weigh the two options (which are equal) and pick one at random.”? This is your opinion and I have to say that your opinion is incorrect. Please tell me what is “right”? and what is “wrong”? Critical thinkers would evaluate different ideas, look at all the evidence and then conclude that idea A is “better”/more “effective” solution than B, C, D, etc. because of facts (1), (2), (3), etc. Critical thinkers would not form an opinion by saying, A is better than B, C, D, etc. because Joe tells us so and he is always “right”–for all they know, Joe may (1) be an expert and knows what he is talking about because he has lived through different eras, has experienced different kinds of crisis, or (2) have the crystal ball that allows him to see everything, or (3) just have an illusion of knowledge. Critical thinkers would be more willing to accept what Joe tells them if Joe is a renown expert in the field and can provide logical reasons to show how he derived at his conclusions.
Logical reasoning based on “wisdom” maybe acceptable. However, objective evidence is essential and would bring more credibility to one’s judgments or opinions.
Recognition of ignorance fuels advancement. Illusion of knowledge/wisdom impedes progress.
Snore. This is not news. The writer obviously wrote this piece as a thinly veiled plea for conservatives to become more outspoken at USC. Is this op-ed or hard news? Look at the discussion that ensued…a bunch of name-calling about who falls where on some imaginary political spectrum. Is there not something more interesting to the conservatives at USC than this crappy website and the shoddy poll it ran?
By the way, I took IR 323, and yes, it has a bias towards internationalism and ecological conservation. I also took US Foreign Economic Policy and Intro to Political Economy, and these classes had a serious bias towards promoting US interests above all others, and a deep underlying assumption that modern capitalism universally improves quality of life. Sounds reasonably conservative to me. The Economics department at SC is also quite conservative, as my friends from that department tell me.
Lets not forget about the Board of Trustees? Who do THEY give money to? Why does the definition of the University as an Institution stop and start with students and faculty?
A little critical analysis would benefit this piece tremendously.
“Trojanelli” there are plenty of answers to your three questions (and by the way, the answer to #2 is #3, which you have mischaracterized as adding to the deficit. Of course when business is booming there is more revenue for government. This is basic, but it is not usually taught here, now is it, which is the whole point of this article.)
Anyway. Good job Joe in calling out Crigler’s stream of utter nonsense. Let’s see, if liberals are critical thinkers and developers of new ideas, that makes conservatives… hmmm… surely she didn’t mean that!
The irony, as Joe pointed out, is that liberals are developers of old and flawed ideas. Trojanelli, have you walked through South Central? This is a region that has been completely shaped by Leftist ideology. Most inner cities have been across the country. They are beautiful laboratories illustrating the failure of Left-leaning policy.
Again, these are legit questions that ARE NOT BEING ASKED HERE (or at many universities). Again, that is the point.
BTW the graphic on faculty political donations is very misleading. Clearly, GOP donations are less than 10 percent of the Democratic, but the graphic shows roughly half.
Sigh. More of the same.
The whole premise is failed the minute it reduced an entire campus into a discrete set of binary criteria. People who are socialist are not the same as people who are communist, etc. Saying that the campus leans “liberal” does not really mean much because it is not painting the complete picture.
Furthermore, this fails to break down by schools. The majority of the University falls under arts and letters, which historically (and I’m taking centuries-worth) lean left, so it might be normal for there to be a cluster of people with left-leaning beliefs. On the other hand, Marshall leans heavily right, with the exception of the social entrepreneurs there (also a reflection of changing attitudes). If they want to be more accurate, they need to track down concentrations and commitment to ideologies. There may be 11 out of 17 groups that “are liberal,” but perhaps the remaining 6 are more fundamentalist or more active, which should factor back into overall campus attitudes.
dP, what you fail to understand is, outside of the alternate universe where left-wing ideologues live, nobody much CARES whether you’re a socialist, a communist, a fascist, a Marxist, a Maoist, or some other flavor of leftist. They all share the same fundamentally wrong premises, and we reject all of them.
Joe, please be specific about your charges. Are you saying medicare, welfare, unemployment benefits, are not worthwhile in a civil society. Are you saying the Civil Rights Act was not the right thing to do. Are you saying other liberal causes like…… the end of slavery [remember the conservatives were not marching with the Abolitionists], and women’s right to vote [remember the conservatives were not marching with the Suffragettes] …were the wrong way to go in this fine country???
Just tell us, exactly what liberal, or other causes you disagree with…please.
You have every right to promote Conservative Values and agenda……but if you dare disagree with Liberal causes….then please have the courtesy to explain your anger. Just throwing mud and making hallow charges does NOT help the political debate…..
For example, I am proud of the TEA Party for raising the political consciousness and getting people excited about the political process…..I believe they had some good candidates……[however, in two cases..they did NOT have candidates ready to serve as intelligent & qualified senators: in Nevada [Angle] or in Delaware [C. O’Donnell].
also…..they are right to be concerned about TAXES, Deficit Spending, Jobs……HOWEVER, they and the Republicans have NOT articulated
1. Where they would make significant Cuts in Spending.
2. How they are going to stimulate Job Growth in the Private Sector,
or 3. How they are going to PAY FOR TAX CUTS [which ADD to the Deficit!!!!
Joe, Maybe you can give me these answers…..
Trojanelli, you may need a refresher on history. The abolition of slavery was brought about by Christian, conservative, Republicans under the leadership of radical right-wing third-party candidate Abraham Lincoln. The fight for Civil Rights was waged by conservative Christians like Martin Luther King, Jr., and it was liberal Democrats turning the fire hoses on them. The Republican Party won the battle in Congress for the 1964 Civil Rights act, while liberal Democrats like Robert Byrd filibustered and fought it. Women’s suffrage was supported by both parties, and the first women in Congress and the Senate were Republicans. (First female President coming soon… you betcha!)
So that leaves you with what accomplishments to point at?
One big, unconstitutional, bankrupt entitlement program?
Two big, unconstitutional, bankrupt entitlement programs?
Three big, unconstitutional, bankrupt entitlement programs?
“According to Crigler, such institutes as the Unruh Institute demonstrate USC’s active stance to create bipartisan discourse on campus.”
Crigler’s idea of bipartisan discourse: “…define liberals and conservatives as ends of the spectrum and liberals as critical thinkers and developers of new ideas…”
New ideas like the ones you’ve been pounding on since the 1930s? Critical thinking about, like, a century’s worth of history of failure and death stemming from your sick ideology?
When you have a campus institute for politics set up intentionally to spread left-wing lies about political facts and ideas, THAT ITSELF is evidence of the problem Crigler claims doesn’t exist.