Sociation Today ® 
The Official 
Journal of 
The North 
Carolina 
Sociological 
Association: A 
Peer-Reviewed
Refereed Web-Based 
Publication 
ISSN 1542-6300
Editorial Board:
Editor:
George H. Conklin,
 North Carolina
 Central University

Board:
Rebecca Adams,
 UNC-Greensboro

Bob Davis,
 North Carolina
 Agricultural and
 Technical State
 University

Catherine Harris,
 Wake Forest
 University

Ella Keller,
 Fayetteville
 State University

Ken Land,
 Duke University

Miles Simpson,
 North Carolina
 Central University

Ron Wimberley,
 N.C. State University

Robert Wortham,
 North Carolina
 Central University


Editorial Assistants

John W.M. Russell,
 Technical
 Consultant

Austin W. Ashe,
 Duke University

Submission
Guidelines
for Authors


Cumulative
Searchable Index
of
Sociation Today
from the
Directory of 
Open Access
Journals (DOAJ)


Sociation Today
is abstracted in
Sociological Abstracts
and a member
of the EBSCO
Publishing Group


The North
Carolina
Sociological
Association
would like
to thank
North Carolina
Central University
for its
sponsorship of
Sociation
Today


*® 

Volume 8, Number 2

Fall/Winter 2010
 

Political Ideology and Perceptions of Bias 
Among University Faculty

by

Susan Bullers,

Melissa Reece,

and 

Christy Skinner

University of North Carolina Wilmington

Background

    Political bias in U.S. Colleges and Universities has been a recurring topic of interest and empirical study for decades. In the 1960's and 1970's researchers were interested in the negative career effects of liberal political activism. More recent debates over the preponderance of liberal professors are motivated by concerns that students are not getting a balanced perspective in their course content and/or that faculty career trajectories are negatively affected by personal political beliefs that differ from the institutional norm.

    Findings from the 1960's to the present have found the following trends; in aggregate, U.S. College and University faculty are more likely to tend toward democratic/liberal identification than republican/conservative identification and have higher rates of liberal/democratic identification than the general population (Bartlett 2005; Eitzen and Maranell 1968; Hamilton and Hargens 1993; Klein and Stern 2004; Lipset and Ladd 1974; and  Rothman, Lichter, and Nevitte 2005).  Faculty political views vary significantly by field of study with the social sciences tending toward liberal, the natural sciences tending toward "moderate," and business, engineering, and agriculture tending toward conservative (Eitzen and Maranell 1968; Faia 1974; Hamilton and Hargens 1993; Klein and Stern 2004; and Lipset and Ladd 1974); women and minorities tend to be more liberal than male and non-minority faculty (Faia 1974; Hamilton and Hargens 1993; and Lindholm, Astin, Sax, and Korn,2002); faculty at elite schools tend to be more liberal than those at non-elite schools (Eitzen and Maranell 1968; Hamilton and Hargens 1993; and Lipset and Ladd 1974); rates of publications and grants are higher among liberal faculty than among conservative faculty (Hamilton and Hargens, 1993, Lipset and Ladd 1974); and younger faculty tend to be more liberal than older faculty (Eitzen and Maranell, 1968; Faia, 1974; Klein and Stern 2004; and Lipset and Ladd 1974).  Findings also show that US southern faculty are more likely to be democrats than non-southern faculty, although democratic party identification in the U.S. south does not necessarily translate into a liberal political ideology (Eitzen and Maranell 1968).

    Although there are several differences in scope and methodology among these studies, the most fundamental question of this line of inquiry lies in the conceptualization of "bias."   Individuals' political opinions and beliefs vary considerably in an engaged intellectual environment (see Lipset and Ladd 1974). This is an integral part of scholarly inquiry and is the very topic of research among many social scientists.  Holding an opinion, either minority or majority, is generally upheld as an individual right in academia.  The more pertinent issue underlying these debates is whether or not institutional influence is exerted on the grounds of those opinions.  It is the perception of such influences that we are interested in exploring here. 

    Several divergent explanations have been offered for the higher rates of liberal faculty, as well as higher publication, grant, and elite school appointments among liberal faculty.  Conservatives argue that institutional biases block the career trajectories of faculty with conservative beliefs (Brooks 2003; Rothman, Lichter, and Nevitte 2005), while liberals argue that the knowledge gained in higher education leads one to a more liberal ideology (Bartlett 2005; Lipset and Ladd 1974). 

    Previous research has addressed this question by analyzing shifts in political views among faculty over time, with consideration given to the effects of long-term influence of institutions' normative political beliefs, aging of faculty, self-selection into academia of those with normative views, and discrimination against those with minority views in both promotion and publication opportunities. Although the findings regarding aggregate political shifts over time are conflicting, Hamilton and Hargens (1993) found a small shift toward conservatism between 1969 and 1984 and Rothman, Lichter and Nevitte (2005) found a shift to the left between 1984 and 1999.  Hamilton and Hargens' (1993) detailed study of political shifts indicates that between 1969 and 1984 shifts involved movement to adjacent categories in a five point scale (left, liberal, middle of the road, conservative, right) and that the majority of the movement has been away from the "middle of the road" category in both left and right directions.  The aggregate shift was toward the right but the degree of shift was negligible.

    Looking at retrospective changes in individual faculty political views, Faia (1974) found that political beliefs among faculty were formed in their undergraduate years and were relatively stable thereafter.  Faia suggests that continued institutional norms, beyond undergraduate education, had a minimal effect in changing personal political ideology among faculty. 

    Another facet of perceived bias concerns the social psychological aspects of in-group/out-group perceptions.  Perceptions regarding the attributions of motivations, size, tactics, power and influence of  one's own group as well as one's opposition are influenced by individuals' subjective, selective, and often skewed, perceptions.  The majority of recent literature regarding political bias in higher education emanates from agendas proclaiming that those with a particular political ideology are disenfranchised (Brooks 2003; Klein and Ster 2004; and Rothman, Lichter and Nevitte 2005).  However, most of the evidence presented does not speak directly to disenfranchisement but rather to unequal distributions of political ideologies among university faculty.  Although predominance of a particular view can lead to the disenfranchisement of those with minority views, any analysis of disenfranchisement needs to analyze the specific negative effects of holding minority views rather than establishing the fact that there is a majority ideology. 

    The current study uses data from a faculty survey to examine personal perceptions of political bias in a university.   Perceptions of dominant political ideologies and personal political party identification, as well as perceptions of the negative effects of one's political ideology on one's career trajectory will be examined. 

Methods 

    The survey (Appendix A) was mailed via campus mail to the faculty at a Comprehensive University 1 level State University in the southeastern U.S. in the spring of 2004.  The population included 551 full-or part-time faculty members with teaching duties. Faculty members were asked to fill out the questionnaire and return it through campus mail to a dedicated mailbox.  Questionnaires included ID numbers that corresponded to names on a master list. The master list was kept in a password–protected file in the PI's office, and was destroyed when data collection and matching was complete, in accordance with the University's IRB protocol.  Two data files were constructed; one with all variables and one with identifying variables of age, race, and sex removed. These precautions assured confidentiality in that only the principle investigator had access to the data file that contained identifying variables.  This process allowed for case matching with additional public record information and prevented duplication of responses.  Responses were entered into an SPSS data file using only assigned ID numbers.  A website containing a brief description of the study, research methods, and confidentiality measures was posted and referred to in the cover letter.

    Data regarding tenure status, department, discipline, and salary were acquired from public records and entered into the data file by matching ID codes. 

    226 faculty members responded, resulting in a response rate of 37.4%.  This response rate is low but at or above response rates for surveys with similar content.   There are several cautionary notes associated with such a low response rate.  Because this is a controversial topic, there is no reason to believe that the non-responders are randomly distributed across the political spectrum.  Despite confidentiality measures, the matching process and linkages with public information may have created a hesitance for some to respond.  Although individuals may have been motivated to respond, or not, to increase or decrease counts for particular political views, the ID system used prevented multiple submissions.  Given these limitations and the purpose of the study, we will focus on the interrelationships of the variables rather than the distribution of the characteristics in the population.

Variables

    Exact variable wording can be found in Appendix A.  Political party affiliation was measured on a seven-point scale ranging from strong democrat to strong republican and a write-in "other" category, consistent with the General Social Surveys item format (NORC, 972-2004).  This variable was collapsed into a three-category variable, "political party" in which "strong democrat," and "not very strong democrat" were recoded as "democrat"; "independent, close to democrat," "independent," and "independent, close to republican" were coded as "independent;" and "not very strong republican" and "strong republican" were coded as "republican."  The "other" category was retained as in the original because there were few cases and many did not indicate any specific beliefs.

    Political ideology was measured on a seven-point scale ranging from "extremely liberal" to "extremely conservative," again, consistent with the General Social Surveys item format.  This variable was collapsed into a three-category variable, "political ideology" in which "extremely liberal," "liberal," and "slightly liberal" were recoded as liberal; "moderate" was retained as "moderate;" "slightly conservative," "conservative" and "extremely conservative" were recoded as "conservative." 

    Personal bias perception items included a checklist item, "negative effects," asking if one's political beliefs had negatively affected their career at any of the following levels; department, college, university, and field.  Another item, "attacks," asked if respondents they had ever suffered personal attacks or harassment from colleagues because of their political beliefs. Responses to this item were yes/no checks and a write-in response space was provided for number of incidences.  Productivity was measured with a write-in count of academic publications, or presentations if in the Fine Arts.   One item, "conceal" asked respondents about any felt need to conceal their political beliefs at any of the following levels; department, college, university, and field.  The "promotion" checklist item asked if respondents felt that their political beliefs had negatively affected their career during any of the following decision processes; hiring, third year review, tenure, promotion, contract renewal, distribution of resources, and acceptance of professional works. 

    General bias items included a checklist item, "faculty bias" asking if respondents felt there was a general bias among faculty at their institution against; conservatives, liberals, or a write-in category for "others." Respondents were also given a checklist item, "dominant faculty ideology," asking if they felt the predominant political ideology among faculty at their institution was conservative, liberal or a write-in category for "other."  Another item, "dominant student ideology," asked if respondents felt that the predominant political ideology among students at their institution was conservative, liberal, or a write-in category for "other."  Respondents were also asked if they thought that their political ideology was made evident to their students during their teaching ("ideology evident in teaching"). Response categories ranged from "definitely" to "definitely not."  Survey demographics included year of birth, recoded to "age;" year of hire at their institution, recoded to "years at Institution;" "sex;" and a write-in race/ethnicity item that was recoded as "minority" or "white."  Open-ended general comments were solicited as well.

    Variables collected and matched from the public records data included "tenure" status, which was recoded as tenured/not tenured and annual "salary" in dollars, including grant salary. The "discipline" variable was recoded into broader groups to maintain confidentiality among departments with low response counts.  The department recode criteria maintains the general political affiliation trends found in previous research; "Liberal Arts" includes the social sciences, humanities, library, and fine arts; "Business" includes all departments in the business school, "Science and Math" includes physical sciences, math and computer science; "Education" includes all programs in the school of education, and "Health" includes nursing, health, and physical education.  Note that this institution does not have a medical school; traditionally moderate in political views, or an engineering school; traditionally conservative in political views.

Analysis

Preliminary analyses and response rates

    Because previous findings report a weaker correlation between Democratic Party identification and liberalism in the US south than in the rest of the country we conducted a preliminary analysis to determine the correspondence between political party identification and political ideology for our sample.   This analysis will also inform questions regarding the political party identification of those who self-identify as moderates on the political ideology scale.

    Next, response rates by tenure and discipline will be presented. A Chi-square analysis was performed on the response by tenure table.  Low cell counts in the response by discipline tables precluded meaningful statistical testing.  Response rates can only be compared by variables included in the public information data file so we are are not able to compute response rates by any of the political opinion variables. 

Political ideology factors

    Political ideology distribution by discipline, tenure and gender were analyzed with cross-tabulations and Chi-Square test of significance. Due to low cell counts the Chi-square test of significance was not valid for the political ideology by discipline table.  In order to compare responses regarding political ideology dominance to perceptions of political ideology bias, distributions of reported bias against, and dominance of, liberals and conservatives are both presented in cross-tabulations, by political ideology.  Reports of the likelihood that one's political ideology is evident in one's teaching were analyzed by discipline and political ideology.  Again, these analyses included cross-tabulations but had low cell counts that prevented statistical testing. 

Negative effects of political ideology

Reported negative effects of political views at various university levels, negative influences of political views at various career decision points, the felt need to conceal political beliefs, and attacks or harassment for political beliefs were all analyzed in cross-tabulation by political ideology.   Again, low cell counts precluded Chi-square analyses here. 

Multivariate Analyses

    Reported negative effects of political views at various university levels, negative influences of political views at various career decision points, the felt need to conceal political beliefs, and attacks or harassment for political beliefs were all analyzed in cross-tabulation by political ideology.   Again, low cell counts precluded Chi-square analyses here. 

Results

    Previous research has shown that Democratic Party affiliation in the US south is less strongly associated with liberal political ideology than elsewhere.  However, in this sample 97% of Democrats identify as "liberal."  Party affiliation distributions show that the majority of liberals are democrats and the majority of moderates and independent but a slight majority of Conservatives are Independents  (Table 1). 

Table 1
Faculty Political Ideology by Party Identification (percentages)

 
Liberal
Moderate
Con-
servative
Democrat
68.8%
10.0%
2.6%
Independent
29.2
70.0
51.3
Republican
0.7
15.0
41.0
Other
1.4
5.0
5.1
Total
100
100
100
N
144
20
39

    The overall response rate was 37.4% with somewhat higher response rates among non-tenured faculty than tenured faculty (Table 2).  Full professors had the lowest response rates at 30.6%.  Response rates among the five disciplines ranges from 22% in education to about 40% for both science/math and liberal arts.

Table 2
Response Rate by Tenure (percentages)
 
Response
Rate
Sample 
N
Population
N
Not Tenured
38.8%
91
234
Tenured
35.8
52
145
Full Professor
36.6
63
172
Total 
37.4
206
551
Chi Square=.42, df=2, p=.814, not significant.

    The overall political ideology of responding faculty shows a liberal preponderance;  70.9% (Table 3). Political ideology generally followed previously reported trends in differences by discipline. Business tended toward conservative, liberal arts tended toward liberal. Health was split with a small preponderance of liberals. Education and science/math were more strongly liberal in this sample than in previously reported studies at other universities. This may be due, in part, to the fact that this university does not have a medical school or an engineering school, which typically report a more conservative political ideology.  Again, the distribution of self-report characteristics may be compromised by the response rate for this sample.

Table 3
Response Rate by Discipline (percentages)

Discipline
Response
Rate
Sample 
N
Population
N
Business
38.8%
19
49
Education
22.0
13
59
Health
32.5
13
40
Science/Math
40.0
56
140
Liberal Arts
40.4
101
250
Total
37.4
202
538

    Descriptive statistics show a lower percentage of liberals, than moderates or conservatives, without tenure, and a higher percent with tenure (Table 4). However, conservatives have a higher percent of respondents with full professorship than either of the other two ideology categories. 

Table 4
Political Ideology by Discipline (percentages)

 
Liberal
Moderate
Con-
servative
Total 
N
Business
15.8%
21.1
63.2
100
19
Education
90.9
9.1
0.0
100
11
Health
46.2
15.4
38.5
100
13
Science/Math
76.8
10.7
12.5
100
56
Liberal Arts
80.8
6.0
14.0
100
100
Total
70.9
9.9
19.2
100
-
N
144
20
39
-
199

A Chi-Square test of these data shows that the relationship between tenure and political ideology is not statistically significant (Chi square = 4.03, 4df, p=.402).  Political Ideology does differ significantly by gender, with women reporting higher rates of liberal ideology than do men (Chi square = 8.214, 2df, p=.016).

Table 5
Political Ideology by Tenure (percentages)

 
Liberal
Moderate
Conservative
Not Tenured
41.7%
55.0
51.3
Tenured
29.2
20.0
15.4
Full Professor
29.2
25.0
33.3
Total
100
100
100
N
144
20
39
Chi square=4.03, df=4, p=.402, NS

    Findings suggest that respondents did distinguish between political dominance and political bias.  Reports of a dominant liberal political ideology at the University were fairly consistent across all groups (55%-66.7%), with the higher rate reported by conservatives (Table 6).  Rates of political bias were much lower and differed substantially between conservatives and liberals.  Only 5.3% of respondents indicated a bias against liberals whereas 18.9% of respondents indicated a bias against conservatives.  Bias against liberals was reported by liberals (6.9%) and moderates (5%).  Bias against conservatives was reported by all groups with 48.7% of conservatives, 25% of moderates and 10.4% of liberals reporting such a bias.

Table 6
Political Ideology by Gender

 
Male
Female
Liberal
63.4%
81.8%
Moderate
11.4
7.8
Conservative
25.2
10.4
Total
100
100
N
123
77
Chi square=8.214, df=2, p=.016.

    Trends in these findings suggest that Liberals are more likely to report that their ideology is evident in their teaching than are moderates and conservatives (Table 7).   Combining responses of "definitely" and "somewhat likely," liberals rank highest (56.3%) while moderates and conservatives are substantially less likely (27.8% and 25.7% respectively).    Evidence of political ideology in teaching also differs by discipline (Table 8).  Again combining the "definitely" and "somewhat likely" categories, ranking of positive response rates were as follows, liberal arts (60.4%), science/math (42.3%), health (38.5%), education (25%) and business (21%). 

Table 7
Political Dominance and Bias by Political Ideology

 
Lib.
Mod
Con 
%
N
Dominant
Conservative 
Ideology
11.8%
15.0%
12.8%
12.1%
25
Dominant
Liberal 
Ideology
54.9
55.0
66.7
56.3
116
Neither 
Indicated
33.3
30.0
20.5
31.6
65
Total
100
100
100
100
206
Bias
Against
Liberals
6.9
5.0
-
5.3
11
Bias 
Against
Conservatives
10.4
25.0
48.7
18.9
39
Neither 
Indicated
82.7
70.0
51.3
75.8
156
Total
100
100
100
100
206

Table 8
Ideology Evident  in Teaching by Political Ideology

 
Lib.
Mod.
Con.
Total 
N
Definitely
8.9%
11.1
5.7
8.5
16
Somewhat
Likely
47.4
16.7
20.0
39.2
74
Somewhat
Unlikely
20.0
38.9
37.1
24.9
47
Definitely 
Not
23.7
33.3
37.1
27.5
52
Total
100
100
100
100
189

    Responses regarding the overall negative effects of political views show a similar percent of reported effects across all groups but at different levels for each group (Table 9). The negative effects for liberals are more likely to be reported at all levels; department, college, university, and field, whereas moderates report negative effects most often at the field and to a lesser extent, at the department level. Conservatives report negative effects most often at the Department and College level, and to a lesser extent at the field level. Overall, 10.2% of faculty reported any negative effect of political ideology at any level. 

Table 9
Ideology Evident in Teaching by Discipline

 
Business
Edu-
cation
Health
Science/
Math
Liberal
Arts
Definitely
10.5%
0.0%
7.7%
7.7%
9.9%
Somewhat
Likely
10.5
25.0
30.8
34.6
50.5
Somewhat
Unlikely
36.8
58.3
30.8
15.4
23.1
Definitely
Not
4.1
16.7
30.8
42.3
16.5
Total
100
100
100
100
100

    Responses regarding perceptions of negative influences of one's political ideology in any career decision process were around 5% for both liberals and moderates but over 15% for conservatives (Table 10).   For liberals, these effects were most often reported at the "promotion" and "other" decision points.  Moderates reported negative effects exclusively at the "promotion" decision.  Conservatives reported these effects at almost all decision points but most strongly at the "other" and "resource distribution" decision points.  Although salary is affected by several factors, a post-hoc ANOVA test revealed no statistical difference in salary (including grant salary) among the three groups (F= .170, df=2,200, p=.844, ns). 

Table 10
Percent Indicating Negative Effects of Political
Views by Political Identification

 
Lib.
Mod.
Con.
Total %
N
At Departmental
Level
4.9%
5.0%
7.7%
5.3%
11
At College
Level
2.8
-
7.7
3.4
7
At University
Level
3.5
-
-
2.4
5
At Field
Level
2.8
10.0
2.6
3.4
7
At Any
Level
9.7
10.0
2.8
10.3
21
None
Indicated
90.3
90.0
97.2
9.7
185
Total
100
100
100
100
206

    33 percent of Conservatives reported a need to conceal their political beliefs at any level, while 20% of moderates and 18.8% of liberals reported a need to conceal their political ideology at any level (Table 11).  For liberals this need was reported most often at the department level, for moderates it was reported most often at the department and field levels, and conservatives reported the need to conceal their political ideology at all levels, especially at the university, department and college levels. 

Table 11
Percent Reporting Negative Influence of Political Views
on Career by Political Identification

 
Lib.
Mod.
Con.
Total %
N
At Hiring
Decision
0.7%
0.0%
5.1%
1.5%
3
At Third
Year Review
Decision 
1.4
-
5.1
1.9
4
At Tenure
Decision
0.7
-
2.6
1.0
2
At Promotion
Decision
2.1
5.0
2.6
2.4
5
At Contract 
Renewal
Decision
-
-
-
-
-
At Resources
Decision
1.4
-
7.7
2.4
5
At Publication
Decision
1.4
-
5.1
1.9
4
Other
4.2
-
15.4
5.8
12
Any
5.6
5.0
15.4
7.5
15
None Indicated
94.4
95.0
84.6
92.5
191
Total
100
100
100
100
206

    Rates of reported harassment/attack were relatively consistent across all groups (Table 12). Moderates reported the highest rate of harassment/attacks at (10%), followed by liberals (9.1%) and conservatives (7.9%). 

Table 12
Percent Reporting Need to Conceal Political 
Views by Political Identification

 
Lib.
Mod.
Con. 
Total %
N
At Departmental
Level
11.1%
15.0%
23.1%
13.6%
28
At College
Level
3.5
10.0
23.1
7.8
16
At University
Level
5.6
10.0
28.2
10.2
21
At Field
Level
4.2
20.0
10.3
6.8
14
At Any 
Level
18.8
20.0
10.3
6.8
44
None
Indicated
81.2
80.0
66.7
78.3
162
Total
100
100
100
100
206

Table 13
Harrassment/Attacks by Political Ideology

 
Lib
Mod
Con
% Indicating Yes
9.1%
10.0%
7.9%
No Indication
90.9
90.0
92.1
Total
100
100
100
N
143
20
38

    Multivariate logistic regression analyses (Tables 14, 15 and 16) show that minority status is the only significant predictor of bias perceptions, for all three models.  Factors which approached significance include non-tenured faculty being more likely to report negative effects from their political views and full professors being less likely to feel the need to conceal their political views.  Post hoc analysis of minority status by political views (Table 17) showed that minorities were more likely that non-minority individuals to report conservative political views.  This finding is inconsistent with previous studies. 

Table 14
Logistic Regression
Effects of Ethnicity, Age, Gender, Political Views and Tenure
on Any Negative Effects of Political Views N=201

 
B
S.E.
Sig.
Exp(B)
Ethnic Minority
1.256
.582
.031
3.510
Female Gender
.025
.166
.882
1.025
Political Views*        
       Liberal
.168
.844
.842
1.183
       Conservative
.309
.909
.734
1.362
Tenure**        
       Full Professor
-.265
.625
.672
.786
        Non-Tenured
.534
.572
.350
1.707
Constant
-2.706
.825
.001
.067
*Reference category=moderate
**Reference category=tenured, not-full

Table 15
Logistic Regression
Effects of Ethnicity, Age, Gender, Poltical Views and Tenure
on Any Need to Conceal Political Views N=201

 
B
S.E.
Sig.
Exp(B)
Ethnic Minority
1.311
.483
.007
3.710
Female Gender
-.112
.157
.476
.894
Political Views*        
       Liberal
.289
.638
.651
1.334
       Conservative
.773
.680
.255
2.167
Tenure**        
       Full Professor
-.802
.455
.078
.448
        Non-Tenured
-.381
.453
.400
.683
Constant
-1.508
.611
.014
.221
*Reference category =moderate
**Reference category=tenured, not-full

Table 16
Logistic Regression
Efffects of Ethnicity, Age, Gender, Political Views and Tenure
on Any Negative Influence of Political View on Career N=199

 
B
S.E.
Sig.
Exp(B)
Ethnic Minority
1.241
.666
.063
3.459
Female Gender
.182
.168
.279
1.199
Political Views*        
       Liberal
.154
1.149
.893
1.167
       Conservative
1.383
1.154
.2231
3.988
Tenure**        
       Full Professor
-.245
.797
.759
.783
        Non-Tenured
1.241
.693
.073
3.460
Constant
-3.773
1.139
.001
.023
*Reference category=moderate
**Reference category=tenured, not-full

Table 17
Minority Status by Political Views

 
Liberal
Moderate
Conservative
Total
Minority
Status
14 
(48.3%)

(17.2%)
10 
(35.4%)
29 
100%
Non-
Minority
128
(74.4%)
15 
(8.7%)
29 
(16.9%)
172
100%

Discussion

    Contrary to previous finding for the south, this sample showed a high correlation between Democratic Party identification and liberal ideology.  This may be due, in part, to a geographically diverse faculty.  However, over 50% of Conservatives reported Independent party identification.  Conservatives are more likely to identify with the Independent Party (51%) than with the Republican Party (41%) or Democratic Party (2.6%). 

    Response rates for faculty without tenure were higher than for those with tenure, although the relationship between tenure and response rate was not statistically significant. This offers some assurance that non-tenured faculty were as willing as tenured faculty and full professors to respond to the survey.  Response rates across disciplines are relatively consistent, except for a relatively lower response rate from the "Education" category. 

    The distribution of political ideologies by discipline generally follows that found in previous literature, with the exception of the high rates of liberal ideology for the "Education" category.  This group also had the lowest response rate, which may have lead to an unstable representation of that group.  Conservatives had a higher percentage of non-tenured faculty members than either Moderates or Liberals but also a higher rate of full professors than either of the other groups.  The result was that tenure status did not differ significantly by political ideology (Chi square = 4.03, 4 df, p=.402 ns).

    There was a statistically significant difference in ideology by gender, with women reporting higher rates of liberal ideology.  Associations between gender and political ideology could play a major role in aggregate changes in University and College faculty ideology over time and within discipline.  The gender gap among faculty has been decreasing over recent years and the increased representation of women in any particular school or discipline could account for changes in aggregate ideology (see Lindholm et al, 2002, for more detail).  In addition, Hamilton and Hargens (1993) discuss findings that show that women are more strongly represented among those disciplines that tend to identify as liberal/democrat.  (With the exception of the Health field, which is 77% female and 38% conservative, this is generally true of respondents in the current study).  It would be especially helpful to explore these effects with historical data to quantify the effects of gender on aggregate shifts in political ideology among faculty. 

    There were no substantial differences in reports of dominant political ideology among Liberals, Moderates, or Conservatives.  The majority of all groups reported that liberals were dominant and a consistent small minority in all groups reported that conservatives were dominant.  Perceptions of bias, however, did differ among ideology groups.  Overall, reports of bias were much lower than reports of dominance.  Although all groups reported higher rates of bias against conservatives than against liberals, almost 50% of conservatives reported a bias against their own ideology group.  This trend was reiterated in reports of having to conceal political views, and in negative effects of views on career decisions.  Conservatives were about 10% more likely than Moderates or Liberals to report the need to conceal their political beliefs, and to report that their beliefs had a negative effect on their career decisions points.  However, in the item looking at the structural location of negative effects, overall group differences were negligible.  The most prominent findings in this area were that all Moderates who reported a negative effect listed the "field" level, and Conservatives reported the highest rates of negative effects at the Department and College level.  Few negative effects were reported at the University level.  Conservatives and conservative-dominated disciplines reported lower rates of likelihood that their political ideology was evident in their teaching.

    Although there was a preponderance of Conservatives reporting negative career effects and a need to conceal political beliefs, findings regarding harassment and attacks showed a slightly higher rate of incidences among moderates and liberals. 

    The significant effects of minority status on all political bias measures was interesting given the relatively equal distribution of minorities across the political spectrum in this sample. A few respondents wrote in unsolicited comments regarding gender and racial bias. It may be that some respondents felt these issues were connected to political view bias in ways that affected the relationship between minority status and bias in general.  On the other hand, female gender was negatively (yet not significantly) associated with political bias. These findings deserve further investigation. 

Appendix A

Dear Colleague,          ID Number_________

I am conducting a survey among (this University) faculty concerning beliefs about political ideology biases and political identity.  I would greatly appreciate your time in responding to this brief (16 item) questionnaire.  Responses will be confidential, your participation is voluntary, and you may stop at any time.  Your refusal to participate in any way will not jeopardize any benefits due you. This survey is part of an academic research project intended for publication. For more information on methodology, confidentiality measures, and for preliminary results from this survey, please log onto (website address). Please fill out only the number-coded questionnaire sent to you and please do not put your name on the questionnaire.  The survey can be returned by inter-campus mail to:  (dedicated mailbox address) 

Sincerely, 

(PI)

1) Where would you place yourself on this scale?
__Strong Democrat
__Not very strong Democrat
__Independent close to Democrat
__Independent
__Independent close to Republican
__Not very strong Republican
__Strong Republican
__Other party________________________
 

2) Where would you place yourself on this scale?
__Extremely Liberal
__Liberal
__Slightly Liberal
__Moderate, middle of the road
__Slightly Conservative
__Conservative
__Extremely Conservative
 

3) Do you feel that your political beliefs have negatively affected your career at any of the following levels?
__ Departmental  __ College level __University level __ In your field 
 

4) In this University, have you ever suffered personal attacks or harassment from colleagues because of your political beliefs?
__no __yes  (if yes, how many times/how often ___________________)
 

5) How many of your academic works have been accepted for publication (presentation, if fine arts) in a professional peer-reviewed venue?   _______________

6) Have you ever felt the need to conceal your political beliefs in the workplace, out of concern for discrimination at any of the following levels?
__ Department  __ College level _ 
University level __ In your field
 

7) Do you feel that your political beliefs have negatively influenced your career during any of the following decision making processes while at xxx?

___ hiring __third year review __tenure __promotion __contract renewal

___ distribution of resources  ___ acceptance of your professional works 

other_____________________________
 

           (over)
8) Do you feel that there are is a general bias among (this University) faculty against 
___conservatives ____ liberals  others _________________________
 

9) Do think the predominant political ideology among (this University) faculty is
___conservative ___liberal  other_______________________ 
 

10) Do think the predominant political ideology among (this University) students is
___conservative ___liberal  other_______________________ 
 

11) Do you think that your political ideology is made evident to your students in your teaching? 
__definitely   ___somewhat likely       __somewhat unlikely   __definitely not

___I do not teach

12) Year of birth.  19 ___ ____

13) Year of first hire at (this University).   19___ ___

15) Sex __male  __female

16) Race/ethnicity  ________________

Comments: 

  References

Bartlett, Thomas. 2005. "Paper Assails Report on Liberal Bias." Chronicle of Higher Education 52:A16-A16.

Brooks, David. 2003. "Lonely Campus Voices." New York Times. September 27th, 2003. Section A, p15.

Eitzen, Stanley and Gary Maranell. 1968. "The Political Party Affiliation of College Professors." Social Forces 42:145-153.

Faia, Michael A. 1974. "The Myth of the Liberal Professor." Sociology of Education 47: 171-202.

Hamilton, Richard F. and Lowell L. Hargens. 1993. "The Politics of the Professors: Self-Identifications." Social Forces 71:603-628.

Klein, Daniel B. and Charlotta Stern. 2004. "Political Diversity in Six Disciplines." Academic Questions 18:40-52.

Lindholm, Jennifer.A, Alexander W. Astin, Linda J. Sax, and William S. Korn. 2002. "The American College Teacher: National Norms for the 2001-2002 HERI Faculty Survey." Higher Education Research Institute.

Lipset, Seymour Martin and Everett Carll Ladd, Jr. 1974. "The Myth of the "Conservative" Professor: A Reply to Michael Faia. Sociology of Education 47:203-213.

National Opinion Research Center, 2005.  General Social Surveys, 1972-2004. Chicago, IL: Storrs, CT: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut/Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.

Rothman, Stanley, S. Robert Lichter, and Neil Nevitte. 2005. "Politics and Professional Advancement among College Faculty." The Forum 3: Article 2.
 

 Return to Sociation Today Fall/Winter 2010

©2010 by the North Carolina Sociological Association