Conservative Professors Research Articles

Trump divide among American conservative professors.

There has been an outpouring of research on right-wing populist conservatism since the advent of the Trump presidency and right-wing movements in Europe. Yet, little research has been devoted to divisions among conservatives themselves, especially among conservative academics. Although Trump has maintained remarkable unity within the Republican Party for electoral reasons, he has fostered sharp divisions among conservative intellectuals and academicians. This article compares 102 politically conservative professors who are Trumpists and 80 conservative professors who are anti-Trumpists. All 182 function as public intellectuals who advocate their views in print and digital media. Drawing on recent research in the sociology of intellectuals and particularly Pierre Bourdieu's analytical field perspective, this article proposes a fielding political identities and practices framework to show how these two groups of professors (Trumpists and anti-Trumpists) differ in where they teach, their intellectual orientations, their scholarly productivity, where they network with think tanks, scholarly professional associations, and government agencies, and their stances on key issues surrounding the Trump presidency. The academic Trumpists embrace the right-wing populist wave mobilized by Trump and the conservative academic critics resist this move. This polarization of views between these two groups of conservative professors is enduring and rooted in two distinct social networks that connect positions in the academic field to affiliations with think tanks, government agencies, and professional associations in the field of power that reinforce their respective political identities. This research contributes to political sociology, the sociology of intellectuals, and the sociology of conservative politics in American higher education.

Ideology and Religion in Students’ Attitudes Toward Economically and Socially Conservative Professors

Many instructors of political science wrestle with the question of whether to reveal their political ideology to their students and recent polarization in the United States intensifies those concerns. Prior research suggests that liberal and moderate students are wary of taking a course with a conservative professor, but do students react to economically conservative professors the same as they do socially conservative professors? We conducted an online survey experiment of current students at two public universities in the southern United States to test whether a reputation for expressing conservative opinions on either economic or social issues affected a professor’s appeal to students. Participants split along ideological lines on both professor profiles, but greater skepticism was directed at the socially conservative professor. Preference for a socially conservative professor was greatest among more religious students.

Professors’ Politics and Their Appeal as Instructors

ABSTRACTAs more universities view students as customers and as more critics accuse universities of political bias, it is important to learn how students respond to professors’ politics. Does a politically active professor make a course more or less appealing? In this experiment, I randomly presented descriptions of course instructors to current university students and asked them to describe their appeal. Subjects expressed greater interest in professors who were politically ambiguous or whose politics matched their own. Conservative professors were more polarizing than liberal professors, and liberal students rejected conservative professors more than they preferred liberal professors. Based on these results, political neutrality is the safest bet for attracting a broad set of students, especially when a professor is conservative.

Sándor Ferenczi, Géza Róheim and the University of Budapest, 1918–19

The article deals with the prehistory and the circumstances of Sándor Ferenczi's university career, and also discusses the university affairs of another prominent Hungarian psychoanalyst, Géza Róheim. Ferenczi's application for lectureship at the Medical Faculty was refused by the conservative professors in 1913. However, after the revolution in 1918 the university students themselves demanded Ferenczi's invitation to teach at the university. The Faculty resisted again, but finally, in April 1919 Ferenczi was appointed as professor Chair of Psychoanalytic Studies and Psychoanalytic Clinic of the Medical Faculty of the Budapest University. His appointment was confirmed by the Communist government, which came to power in March 1919. Róheim's application for lectureship was also refused, by the Philosophical Faculty, in 1917. In contrast to various legends, Róheim was not rewarded with a university chair in 1919, although he gave lectures on anthropology for different audiences and supported the cultural politics of the Councils' Republic.

Shields, Jon A. & Joshua M. Dunn Sr. Passing on the Right: Conservative Professors in the Liberal University

Shields, Jon A. & Joshua M. Dunn Sr. Passing on the Right: Conservative Professors in the Liberal University

Passing on the Right: Conservative Professors in the Progressive University

Passing on the Right: Conservative Professors in the Progressive University

Why There Are No Conservative Professors and Why Do Conservatives Care: Implications for Christian Scholarship

ABSTRACTThe dearth of conservative professors in many disciplinary fields in higher education has been the concern, oddly enough, of liberal scholars. Perhaps one of the most prolific apologists of the liberal professorate has been professor of sociology Neil Gross at the University of British Columbia. Gross attributes the abundance of liberal professors in certain fields to political typing, a process of self-selection based on preconceived and self-perpetuating biases regarding the epistemological assumptions of disciplinary domains. This study offers a more pedestrian account of the liberal bias on the university campus and proposes implications for Christian scholarship.

Passing on the Right: Conservative Professors in the Progressive University. By Jon A. Shields and Joshua M. Dunn. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. 241p. $29.95 cloth.

Passing on the Right: Conservative Professors in the Progressive University. By Jon A. Shields and Joshua M. Dunn. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. 241p. $29.95 cloth.

Jon A. Shields and Joshua M. Dunn, Sr., Passing on the Right: Conservative Professors in the Progressive University

Jon A. Shields and Joshua M. Dunn, Sr., Passing on the Right: Conservative Professors in the Progressive University

Wokół staropolskich fundacji i benefaktorów Szkół Nowodworskich w Krakowie

Szkoły Nowodworskie, których kontynuatorką jest dzisiejsze I LO im. B. Nowodworskiego, mają kilkusetletnią historię. Idea założenia szkół narodziła się w gronie profesorów Akademii Krakowskiej w 1586 roku, ale do właściwego otwarcia placówki doszło 2 lata później, dzięki inicjatywie profesora Stanisława Pika Zawadzkiego. W pierwszych dziesięcioleciach istnienia instytucja musiała zmierzyć się z licznymi trudnościami, takimi jak epidemie czy też naciski konserwatywnych profesorów, chcących zamknąć szkoły. W tych trudnych początkach szczególnie pomógł placówce biskup krakowski Piotr Tylicki. Jako benefaktor przeznaczył szkołom 10 tys. zł. Kolejnym ważnym dobrodziejem był kawaler maltański Bartłomiej Nowodworski, który w 3 fundacjach w latach 1612, 1617 i 1619 ofiarował w sumie 15 tys. zł. Darowizna ta pomogła instytucji przetrwać. Szkoły Nowodworskie miały w dalszych dziesięcioleciach wielu benefaktorów. Najważniejszym z nich był Gabriel Prewancjusz Władysławski, który darował 50 tys. zł. Dzięki temu, przy wydatnej pomocy króla Władysława IV Wazy, mógł powstać nowy budynek szkół zbudowany w 1643 roku. Dynamika fundacji w następnych dziesięcioleciach znacznie jednak spadła, co było efektem postępującego zubożenia kraju. Ostatnim odnotowanym darczyńcą był w 1745 roku sekretarz królewski Tomasz Szreniawski.

Heritage as a Socio-Cultural Construct: Problems of Definition

Kurmo Konsa: Heritage as a Socio-Cultural Construct:Problems of DefinitionKeywords: cultural heritage, socio-cultural construct,heritage processSummary:The 20th and 21st century society is definitely characterised by the extremely rapid development of science, technology and social systems, but also by a desire to consciously preserve the valuable part of our past and present for future generations. Heritage issues related to the development of society have become increasingly important. Heritage has always existed, but people are now aware of its existence, it is being researched and attempts are being made to start consciously shaping it. The increased political interest in heritage is related to this. The visibility and significance of heritage in contemporary societies is growing. In this respect, heritage has become an increasingly important factor in culture politics and this is true of all the various levels of society. Heritage can be used for very different objectives and in very different ways. When dealing with cultural heritage, it is important to keep the following three dimensions in mind. Firstly, the possible range of heritage objects and phenomena; secondly, at what level of society heritage is beingdealt with; and thirdly, what are the values on which the definition of heritage is based. The approach to these three heritage dimensions helps to create the framework for the procedural modelling of heritage. Namely, the procedural approach stresses the fact that the people and societies that exist today are not passive recipients, keepers and transmitters of heritage, but rather, active creators and shapers of their heritage. The heritage process forms the basis for defining heritage based on the various levels of society. Heritage is simultaneously a part of the physical reality and an intangible phenomenon. The article makes an attempt to unite both poles of heritage, and to consider the utilisation and context of heritage. Heritage links people to each other, and to the environment, and is one of the forms of expression for our humanity. By relying on heritage, recreating it, and by loading it with significant meaning, people shape the way that societies function.CV:Kurmo Konsa is an Associated Professor at the Department of Archival Studies at the University of Tartu, and Professor of Conservation at Tartu Art College. He owns an M.Sc in microbiology from the University of Tartu, and an MA in Book Science from Tallinn University. Kurmo Konsa holds a doctoral degree in Informational Science from Tallinn University. His doctoral work focuses on preservation of written heritage and preservation surveys issues. In the past he has worked at TartuUniversity Library as paper conservator and at Estonian Postal Museum as conservator and curator of collections.

Liberals and conservatives rely on common moral foundations when making moral judgments about influential people.

Do liberals and conservatives have qualitatively different moral points of view? Specifically, do liberals and conservatives rely on the same or different sets of moral foundations-care, fairness, loyalty, authority, and purity (Haidt, 2012)-when making moral judgments about influential people? In Study 1, 100 experts evaluated the impact that 40 influential figures had on each moral foundation, yielding stimulus materials for the remaining studies. In Study 2, 177 American liberal and conservative professors rated the moral character of the same figures. Liberals and conservatives relied on the same 3 moral foundations: For both groups, promoting care, fairness, and purity-but not authority or loyalty-predicted moral judgments of the targets. For liberals, promoting authority negatively predicted moral judgments. Political ideology moderated the purity-moral and especially authority-moral relationships, implying that purity and authority are grounds for political disagreement. Study 3 replicated these results with 222 folk raters. Folk liberals and conservatives disagreed even less about the moral standing of the targets than did experts. Together, these findings imply that moral foundation theory may have exaggerated differences between liberals and conservatives. The moral codes of liberals and conservatives do differ systematically; however, their similarities outweigh their differences. Liberals and conservatives alike rely on care, fairness, and purity when making moral judgments about influential people.

Review: A Contract with the Earth, by Newt Gingrich and Terry L. Maple

Review: A Contract with the Earth By Newt Gingrich and Terry L. Maple Reviewed by Byron Anderson Northern Illinois University, USA Newt Gingrich and Terry L. Maple. A Contract with the Earth. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007. xv, 222 pp. ISBN-13: 978-0-8018-8780-2 (cloth) US $20. Printed on acid free paper that is at least 30 percent post-consumer waste. A Contract with the Earth is about a new kind of environmentalism, a broad, inclusive approach to thinking about and solving environmental problems. It invokes an entrepreneurial zeal, public–private partnerships, executive leadership, and collaboration between industrial and environmental stakeholders. The book is not a step-by-step plan for implementing the contract, but a more generalized plan that presents five platforms, for example, recruit a generation of well-trained scientists and engineers to address environmental issues, and ten commitments, such as retire or rejuvenate old technologies. While the book encompasses mainstream, democratic values, examples are provided incorporating green enterprise and entrepreneurial environmentalism. The authors, Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999 and former environmental studies professor, and Terry Maple, president and CEO of the Palm Beach Zoo (Florida) and professor of conservation and behavior at the Georgia Institute of Technology, call for an entrepreneurial form of environmentalism that would serve our country, economy, and earth. Gingrich was a guiding force of the Contract with America, a document credited with helping the Republicans gain a majority th of seats in the 104 Congress. A Contract with the Earth is a title meant to attract attention, only this time Gingrich and Maple combine respect for the natural world with mainstream values of the American people, for example, by suggesting that conservation cannot succeed by charity alone and should be designed to appeal to self interest. There is an overriding confidence in the creativity of the American people, open democratic societies, and market-based conservation. Ample examples are provided for each of these. The authors favor reducing carbon in the atmosphere, developing new technologies, committing to science, technology engineering and math education, and creating incentives and rewards. They also believe that conservative views are compatible with environmentalism, and readers are reminded that conservatism has often lead the way for environmental betterment, for example, the actions of Teddy Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot. The authors are not enamored with today’s political scene and recognize that change is needed. The focus is on mainstream politics; no mention is made of alternative political agendas, such as the Green Party. Mainstream political agendas focus too much on short-term goals to allow for the long-term focus of the new environmentalism. On the other hand, the authors are optimistic about “humanity’s ability to restore and renew the Electronic Green Journal , Issue 26, Spring 2008 ISSN: 1076-7975

Is the Academy a Liberal Hegemony?: The Political Orientations and Educational Values of Professors

In the last several years, conservatives have argued that an overwhelmingly Left and liberal faculty has taken over American colleges and universities. In particular, two main claims have been advanced: (1) a disproportionate percentage of the faculty is liberal; and (2) these liberal faculty are pushing their values on students and colleagues, skewing the educational process. However, data to support these contentions come from unrepresentative institutions and/or disciplines and mistakenly equate party identification with political ideology. In contrast, we use two nationally representative surveys done by the Carnegie Foundation (in 1989 and 1997) to address these concerns. We have several key findings: (1) although left-of-center faculty increased slightly, the best overall description of these trends suggests increased movement to the center, toward a more moderate faculty, between 1989 and 1997; (2) there are sizable differences across disciplines and institu- tional types, with conservatives being the plurality in some fields and in two-year colleges; (3) changes in age and gender have offsetting effects on changes in liberalism; and (4) there are significant differences in edu- cational values between liberal and conservative professors. In the last several years, right-wing activists and scholars, especially David Horowitz and the Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC) and the National Association of Scholars, have claimed that an overwhelmingly Left and liberal fac- ulty has taken over universities, imposing political correctness and suppressing dissent (e.g., Tierney 2004; Wall Street Journal 2004; Wisse 2004). The thought police, the argument goes, have made conservative views unwelcome on campus, and college students are being exposed only to liberal and leftist perspectives.

Reworking the Past: Hitler, the Holocaust, and the Historians' Debate (review)

Volume 10, No.1 Fall1991 147 Tschirgi defines the core of the Middle East conflict as the "struggle between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs for sovereign control of Palestine ." Thus although he clearly recognizes Israel's existence, paired with Palestinian self-determination, as necessary elements of a solution, he neglects the importance of the Arab states and movements within those states in the context of a solution that would insure Israel's secure existence. In addition he fails to address the question of whether the two objectives might indeed be irreconcilable. Ultimately Tschirgi falls victim to the common mistake of assuming that there are really only two alternatives with regard to the territory that came under Israeli control in 1967: incorporating it into Israel or withdrawing from it so that a Palestinian state can be established. Perhaps the time has come to recognize that a solution might require looking creatively beyond these two choices. A number of other options do exist. Although complicated , some of them may offer a means of getting around the various stumbling blocks that have been encountered repeatedly since 1967. In the meantime, Tschirgi's book represents one account of the course of American diplomacy on the Middle East, but does not achieve the degree of evenhandedness that a superficial examination might suggest. Harold M. Waller Department of Political Science McGill University Reworking the Past: Hitler, the Holocaust, and the Historians' Debate, edited by Peter Baldwin. Boston: Beacon Press, 1990. 308 pp. $29.95. Between 1985 and 1988 a verbal confrontation erupted in the West German press which was known in German as the Historikerstreit. In the wake of President Reagan's honoring of war dead (including members of the Waffen SS) at Bitburg, two conservative professors, Ernst Nolte and Andreas Hillgruber, published essays which seemed to suggest that Nazi Germany and its crimes were more or less normal and understandable responses to the mass violence of the first half of the twentieth century in general and to the threat of Bolshevism in particular. In response Jilrgen Habermas, the leftof -center professor and critic, denounced them and their approach as representative of malevolent right-wing tendencies in the Federal Republic of Germany. What followed was the "Historians' Debate," as it is called in English . The term loses in translation the sense of bitterness and urgency which the German word maintains; it might better be called the historians' "conflict " or "fight." Every historian of modern Germany on both sides of the 148 SHOFAR Atlantic seemed anxious to get something into print as quickly as possible to take a stand on the issue and its various permutations. This anthology includes sixteen such essays, all of them critical of Nolte and Hillgruber. In a sense this book was out of date before it was released. Detailed, learned, and spirited disputation over questions raised by the Bitburg incident , the plans for a Museum of Ger:man History in Berlin, and the provocative essays on the German past, now have been overshadowed by the opening of the Wall, the crumbling of Communism in East Germany, and the reunification of Germany on terms set by the conservative coalition in Bonn. In May 1988 I visited divided Berlin at the invitation of the Federal Republic with several other Americans who study German history. The Historikerstreit was at its zenith, and we asked to speak with Ernst Nolte. He received us with impeccable courtesy, but behaved very much like a man under siege, carefully tape recording all of our dialogue as if he feare9 that wewould try to trap him intellectually or distort his position for dark political purposes . In March 1991 I returned to a new and undivided Berlin. A whole new series of questions was under discussion among historians, questions of rewriting the East German official histories, of restructuring school and university faculties, and of the future of Marxist historical analysis now that the self-proclaimed Marxist state on German soil has proven so artificial and transitory. Baldwin, assistant professor of history at Harvard when the book was published, was caught off guard by the rush of events (just as was every historian I know, including those who lived only a few...

Communications Overload: Proposals from the Study of a University Library

Urban social institutions are being exposed to a growing barrage of communications. A preview of future conditions was sought in a contemplorary institution already operating at high message input levels, particularly one unable to raise the price of services in accordance with spurts in demand. A many-sided analysis of a library for research and higher education was undertaken.' A set of general policies was revealed which first employed economies of scale and then, under conditions of stress, shifted costs *to the executive and to' the client publics. A communications channel capacity model was developed. Fourteen separate policies, combined to meet the stresses of increasing communications load, were identified. The varied effects of overloading upon spatial organization, physical equipment of central facilities, the decision pattern, morale, and the status structure are treated. Richard L. Meier is research social scientist in the Mental Health Research Institute and associate professor of conservation in the School of Natural Resources, University of Michigan.