Why are professors liberal?

Abstract

The political liberalism of professors—an important occupational group and anomaly according to traditional theories of class politics—has long puzzled sociologists. This article sheds new light on the subject by employing a two-step analytic procedure. In the first step, we assess the explanatory power of the main hypotheses proposed over the last half century to account for professors’ liberal views. To do so, we examine hypothesized predictors of the political gap between professors and other Americans using General Social Survey data pooled from 1974–2008. Results indicate that professors are more liberal than other Americans because a higher proportion possess advanced educational credentials, exhibit a disparity between their levels of education and income, identify as Jewish, non-religious, or non-theologically conservative Protestant, and express greater tolerance for controversial ideas. In the second step of our article, we develop a new theory of professors’ politics on the basis of these findings (though not directly testable with our data) that we think holds more explanatory promise than existing approaches and that sets an agenda for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    There is growing recognition among sociologists of knowledge that professors’ politics matter. For example, sociologists of ideas attend to the ways in which commitment to paradigms and approaches, especially for humanists and social scientists (Gross 2008; Rojas 2007) but for natural scientists as well (Frickel 2004), may be bound up with political identity. Scholarship on the sociology of intellectuals considers how the economic conservatism of a small number of academics, namely economists, powerfully shaped late twentieth-century social and economic policy (Babb 2004; Fourcade-Gourinchas and Babb 2002). Likewise, a large body of research in science studies examines how scientists’ explicit and tacit political commitments may influence their investigations (e.g., Barnes 1977; Shapin and Schaffer 1985; Haraway 1989).

  2. 2.

    In this article “liberalism” refers to views that would be classified as left of center in the contemporary American context, including favorable attitudes toward certain aspects of the welfare state and government programs to reduce inequality, support for a politics of inclusion vis-à-vis minority groups, and a preference for multilateralism and diplomacy in international affairs. We address below the question of historical variation in liberalism’s meaning.

  3. 3.

    However, the authors miscalculated the numbers for political self-identification. Later analysis revealed that the correct figures were 62% liberal, 26% moderate, and 12% conservative (see Rothman and Lichter 2008).

  4. 4.

    Given that this is so, some might ask whether professors should truly be seen as liberal at all. Our view, developed elsewhere (Gross et al. 2011), is that liberalism and conservatism are not objective categories of ideology and political practice, with the analyst entitled to specify a priori what makes someone a liberal or conservative. Rather, these are historically-variable collective identities, the meanings of which are constantly in dispute among actors in the political field, with significant consequences. We thus hew closely to our statement above that we mean by liberalism those views and self-understandings seen as liberal in the contemporary American (neoliberal) context.

  5. 5.

    In apparent contradiction, Lipset and Dobson also insisted, in line with Ladd and Lipset’s findings, that the highest-status academics tended to be the most liberal. Also see Lipset (1982).

  6. 6.

    Of course, a political movement could exhibit creativity at the ideological and organizational level and still be characterized by rigidity among the rank and file. And, indeed, running in the opposite direction from work by historians on the contemporary conservative movement is scholarship by political psychologists, reprising themes of the “authoritarian personality,” who claim that support for conservatism is undergirded by a psychological need for “uncertainty avoidance; intolerance of ambiguity; needs for order, structure, and closure; perception of a dangerous world; and fear of death” (Jost and Hunyady 2005, p. 261). In agreement with Martin (2001), we find such claims theoretically thin and empirically problematic.

  7. 7.

    Bourdieu (1991) gives a different account of these dynamics when considering the case of pre-Nazi Germany.

  8. 8.

    No measure is available in the GSS of whether respondents are located in the broader nonprofit sector. While a substantial number of American professors teach at private institutions and might benefit more indirectly from the largess of the state, if the new class direct economic interest hypothesis were robust the high percentage of professors who are public employees should substantially reduce the political gap between professors and other Americans.

  9. 9.

    Because of space and data constraints, we do not examine any hypotheses linking professorial liberalism to meso- or macro-level features of the American political-economic context, as would be suggested by comparative class approaches to intellectuals and politics of the kind developed by Brym (1980), Karabel (1996), and Wright (1978).

  10. 10.

    Our dummy variable here codes for whether respondents are Protestants and members of liberal or moderate denominations.

  11. 11.

    We are grateful to Omar Lizardo for suggesting this approach.

  12. 12.

    For those interested in replication, the specifications of our imputation model—including the random seed—are available from the authors.

  13. 13.

    As a check on the reliability of the imputation procedure, we reran all the models reported below excluding imputed cases for the six variables with high levels of missingness. Results were substantively unchanged.

  14. 14.

    For example, the occupational coding is specific enough to tell us that of the 326 GSS respondents who are professors, 11% are social scientists, 25% are humanists or in the fine arts, and 8% are physical or biological scientists, with the remainder located in other fields. Extrapolating from nationally-representative surveys of the American faculty conducted in 1975, 1984, 1988, 1992, and 1998, we would expect 12% of respondents to be social scientists, 24% to be humanists or in the fine arts, and 20% to be physical or biological scientists (Schuster and Finkelstein 2006, p. 447). Similarly, as we report below, the distribution of political self-identity within the professors subsample in the most recent period is almost exactly the same as that found in specialized surveys of the professoriate covering professors in all types of institutions.

  15. 15.

    This is the size of the gap for which the regression decompositions attempt to account. The number shown in Table 1 is slightly smaller because the data there are unweighted.

  16. 16.

    For the period 2000–2008, 43% of professors in the GSS sample stated their political identity as “extremely liberal” or “liberal,” and 9% as “extremely conservative” or “conservative.” These numbers are extremely close to the 44% versus 9% figure numbers from Gross and Simmons’s (2007) survey, enhancing our confidence in the reliability of GSS data for studying the politics of professors. Consistent with the observation made by a reviewer that a mean score of 4.45 on the 7 point GSS political self-identification scale for the 1974–2008 period is far from extreme, Gross and Simmons argue that there is a sizable and often ignored moderate bloc in academe. This is an important point often ignored by conservative critics, but it does not change the fact that in relative terms the American professoriate is clearly to the left. A further question arises about these descriptive statistics, however. Another reviewer observed that the standard deviation on the political self-identification variable is considerably higher for professors than for non-professors, and expressed concern that this could signal that a small number of professors in our sample from elite institutions—who have long been found to have more liberal views—could be driving up the mean for all professors, making the professoriate appear more liberal than it actually is. However, Gross and Simmons found that while there is an institutional status gradient in professorial politics, professors in lower tier institutions—in community colleges and 4-year, BA-granting schools—remain much more liberal than most Americans. Indeed, if the contemporary professoriate consisted exclusively of professors from such schools, it would still be one of the most liberal major occupations, at 38% liberal. We therefore think the alternative interpretation of the large standard deviation is correct: that it reflects the greater variance typically associated with small subsamples (see Gelman and Hill 2007).

  17. 17.

    This is consistent with the findings of Gross and Simmons (2007), who report that, on average, professors are more likely than other Americans to believe that business corporations make a fair and reasonable profit. Although Gross and Simmons find that professors do tend to favor government action to reduce income inequality, as we note below, they also find that the majority are not consistently “progressive” in their economic views. Again, it is the social liberalism of professors that stands out.

  18. 18.

    Alternative versions of the model using different specifications of this set of GSS variables—for example, whether the respondent thinks high income is the most important aspect of a job—found no substantively meaningful associations.

  19. 19.

    Details on these scales are available from the authors. All indices are standardized, summated scales exhibiting desirable properties of parsimony (i.e., few items in the scale), reliability (i.e., high values of Cronbach’s alpha), and unidimensionality (i.e., loading primarily on one factor).

  20. 20.

    We suspect that missingness, which we could obviously not correct for on outcome measures using multiple imputation, may account for the fact that we found no economic attitudes differences between professors and non-professors in the GSS, where other research would lead us to expect at least some. For example, for one of the items in our economic attitudes scale, which asks about the value of government efforts to reduce income differences, 44% of our professorial cases have missing data. Gross and Simmons (2007), asking the same question verbatim, found a 17.8 percentage point gap in liberal responses as compared to general population data from the 2006 GSS.

  21. 21.

    Consistent with our findings in this regard, Woessner and Kelly-Woessner (2009, p. 55) report, using data from the 2004 Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) survey, that while conservative students are somewhat more oriented toward making money than liberal students (2.46 versus 2.56 on a four point scale measuring the desire “to be well-off financially”), it is moderate students who are the most materially oriented (2.73).

  22. 22.

    Woessner and Kelly-Woessner’s (2009) argument, that the “academic pipeline” leaks conservatives, is broadly consistent with the theory we develop here.

References

  1. Alexander, J. (2006). The civil sphere. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Allison, P. (2001). Missing data. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Alwin, D., & McCammon, R. (2003). Generations, cohorts, and social change. In J. Mortimer & M. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 23–50). New York: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Babb, S. (2004). Managing Mexico: Economists from nationalism to neoliberalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Baldassarri, D., & Gelman, A. (2008). Partisans without constraint: political polarization and trends in American public opinion. American Journal of Sociology, 114, 408–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Barnes, B. (1977). Interests and the growth of knowledge. London: Routledge and K. Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bassett, R. (Ed.). (2005). Parenting and professing: Balancing family work with an academic career. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bell, D. (1976). The coming of post-industrial society: A venture in social forecasting. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bell, D. (1979). The new class? A muddled concept. In B. Bruce-Briggs (Ed.), The new class? (pp. 169–190). New Brunswick: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bérubé, M. (2007). What’s liberal about the liberal arts? Classroom politics and “bias” in higher education. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Binder, A., & Wood, A. (forthcoming). Becoming right: How campuses shape young conservatives. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  12. Black, E., & Black, M. (2002). The rise of southern republicans. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Blinder, A. (1973). Wage discrimination: reduced form and structural estimates. Journal of Human Resources, 8, 436–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bourdieu, P. (1991). The political ontology of Martin Heidegger. Peter Collier, translator. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

  15. Bourdieu, P. ([1984] 1988). Homo Academicus. Peter Collier, translator. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

  16. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1979). The inheritors: French students and their relation to culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Brennan, M. (1995). Turning right in the sixties: The conservative capture of the GOP. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Brint, S. (1984). ‘New Class’ and cumulative trend explanations of the liberal political attitudes of professionals. American Journal of Sociology, 90, 30–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Brint, S. (1985). The political attitudes of professionals. Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 389–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Brooks, C., & Brady, D. (1999). Income, economic voting, and long-term political change in the U.S., 1952–1996. Social Forces, 77, 1339–1374.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Brubaker, R. (2004). Ethnicity without groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Bruce-Briggs, B. (Ed.). (1979). The new class? New Brunswick: Transaction Books.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Brym, R. (1980). Intellectuals and politics. London: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Buckley, W. (1951). God and man at Yale: The superstitions of academic freedom. Chicago: Regnery.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Burke, P. (2004). Identity and social structure. Social Psychology Quarterly, 67, 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Calhoun, C. (1994). Neither gods nor emperors: Students and the struggle for democracy in China. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Clark, T. N., & Hoffmann-Martinot, V. (Eds.). (1998). The new political culture. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Clark, T., & Lipset, S. M. (1991). Are social classes dying? International Sociology, 6, 397–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Clemens, E., & Cook, J. (1999). Politics and institutionalism: durability and change. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 441–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Cohen, N. (2002). The reconstruction of American liberalism, 1865–1914. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Cohen-Cole, E., & Durlauf, S. (2005). “Evaluating claims of bias in academia: a comment on Klein and Western’s ‘How many Democrats per Republican at UC-Berkeley and Stanford.’” Working paper, Department of Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

  32. Cole, J., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Collins, R. (1979). The credential society: An historical sociology of education and stratification. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 168–189). New York: Free.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Coontz, S. (2000). The way we never were: American families and the nostalgia trap. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Correll, S. (2001). Gender and career choice process: the role of biased self-assessments. American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1691–1730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Correll, S. (2004). Constraints into preferences: gender, status, and emerging career aspirations. American Sociological Review, 69, 93–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Critchlow, D. (2007). The conservative ascendency: How the GOP right made history. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. D’Souza, D. (1991). Illiberal education: The politics of race and sex on campus. New York: Free.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Darnell, A., & Sherkat, D. (1997). The impact of protestant fundamentalism on educational attainment. American Sociological Review, 62, 306–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Deary, I. J., David Batty, G., & Gale, C. R. (2008). Bright children become enlightened adults. Psychological Science, 19, 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Dey, E. (1997). Undergraduate political attitudes: peer influence in changing social contexts. Journal of Higher Education, 70, 308–323.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Diamond, S. (1995). Roads to dominion: Right-wing movements and political power in the United States. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  44. DiMaggio, P., & Mohr, J. (1985). Cultural capital, educational attainment, and marital selection. American Journal of Sociology, 90, 1231–1261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Downs, D. (2005). Restoring free speech and liberty on campus. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Drori, G., Meyer, J., Ramirez, F., & Schofer, E. (2002). Science in the modern world polity: Institutionalization and globalization. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Ecklund, E. (2010). Science vs. religion: What scientists really think. New York: Oxford University Press.

  48. Ecklund, E., & Scheitle, C. (2007). Religion among academic scientists: distinctions, disciplines, and demographics. Social Problems, 54, 289–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Evans, G. (Ed.). (1999). The end of class politics? Class voting in comparative context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Eyal, G. (2003). The origins of postcommunist elites: From Prague Spring to the breakup of Czechloslovakia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Eyerman, R. (1994). Between culture and politics: Intellectuals in modern society. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Faia, M. (1974). The myth of the liberal professor. Sociology of Education, 47, 171–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Fairlie, R. (2005). An extension of the Blinder-Oaxaca technique to logit and probit Models. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, 30, 305–316.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Feldman, K., & Newcomb, T. (1969). The impact of college on students (Vol. 1–2). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Ferree, M. M., Khan, S., & Morimoto, S. (2007). Assessing the feminist revolution: The presence and absence of gender in theory and practice. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Sociology in America: A history (pp. 438–479). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Finkelstein, M. (1984). The American academic profession: A synthesis of social scientific inquiry since World War II. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Fourcade-Gourinchas, M., & Babb, S. (2002). The rebirth of the liberal creed: paths to neo-liberalism in four countries. American Journal of Sociology, 108, 533–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Frank, D., & Gabler, J. (2006). Reconstructing the university: Worldwide shifts in academia in the 20th century. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Frickel, S. (2004). Chemical consequences: Environmental mutagens, scientist activism, and the rise of genetic toxicology. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Frickel, S., & Gross, N. (2005). A general theory of scientific/intellectual movements. American Sociological Review, 70, 204–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Gecas, V. (2000). Value identities, self-motives, and social movements. In S. Stryker, T. J. Owens, & R. W. White (Eds.), Self, identity, and social movements (pp. 93–109). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Gelman, A., Park, D., Shor, B., Bafumi, J., & Cortina, J. (2008). Red state, blue state, rich state, poor state: Why Americans vote the way they do. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Gerson, K. (1985). Hard choices: How women decide about work, career, and motherhood. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Gerteis, J. (1998). Political alignment and the American middle class, 1974–1994. Sociological Forum, 13, 639–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Goffman, I. W. (1957). Status consistency and preference for change in power distribution. American Sociological Review, 22, 275–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Goldthorpe, J. (2007). On sociology (2nd ed., Vol. 2). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Gottfredson, L. (1981). Circumscription and compromise: a developmental theory of occupational aspirations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 545–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Gouldner, A. (1979). The future of the intellectuals and the rise of the new class. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Greeley, A., & Hout, M. (2006). The truth about conservative Christians: What they think and what they believe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Gross, N. (2008). Richard Rorty: The making of an American philosopher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Gross, N., & Cheng, C. (2009). “Narratives of political development among American professors.” Working paper, University of British Columbia.

  73. Gross, N., & Simmons, S. (2006). “Americans’ views of political bias in the academy and academic freedom.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of University Professors.

  74. Gross, N., & Simmons, S. (2007). “The social and political views of American professors.” Working Paper, Department of Sociology, Harvard University.

  75. Gross, N., & Simmons, S. (2009). The religiosity of American college and university professors. Sociology of Religion, 70, 101–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Gross, N., Medvetz, T., & Russell, R. (2011). The contemporary American conservative movement. Annual Review of Sociology, 37, 3253–3254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Gusfield, J. (1984). The culture of public problems: Drinking-driving and the symbolic order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Habermas, J. (1984–1986). The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 1–2. Thomas McCarthy, translator. Boston, MA: Beacon.

  79. Hackett, C., & Michael Lindsay, D. (2008). Measuring evangelicalism: consequences of different operationalization strategies. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 47, 499–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Halaby, C. (2003). Where do job values come from? Family and schooling background, cognitive ability, and gender. American Sociological Review, 68, 251–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Hallett, T., & Ventresca, M. (2006). Inhabited institutions: social interactions and organizational forms in Gouldner’s patterns of industrial bureaucracy. Theory & Society, 35, 213–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Hallinan, M., & Williams, R. (1990). Students’ characteristics and the peer-influence process. Sociology of Education, 63, 122–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Hamilton, N. (1995). Zealotry and academic freedom: A legal and historical perspective. New Brunswick: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Hamilton, R., & Hargens, L. (1993). The politics of the professors: self-identifications, 1969–1984. Social Forces, 71, 603–627.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Haraway, D. (1989). Primate visions: Gender, race, and nature in the world of modern science. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Haskell, T. (1996). Justifying the rights of academic freedom in the era of ‘power/knowledge’. In L. Menand (Ed.), The future of academic freedom (pp. 43–88). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Hauser, R., Tsai, S.-L., & Sewell, W. (1983). A model of stratification with response error in social and psychological variables. Sociology of Education, 56, 20–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Highton, B. (2009). Revisiting the relationship between educational attainment and political sophistication. Journal of Politics, 71, 1564–1576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Himmelstein, J. (1990). To the right: The transformation of American conservatism. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Hochschild, A. (2003). The commercialization of intimate life. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Hofstadter, R. (1966). Anti-intellectualism in American life. New York: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Hofstadter, R., & Metzger, W. (1955). The development of academic freedom in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Holland, J. (1984). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments. New York: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Hope, K. (1975). Models of status inconsistency and social mobility effects. American Sociological Review, 40, 322–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Horowitz, D. (2006). The professors: The 101 most dangerous academics in America. Washington, DC: Regnery.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Horowitz, D. (2007). Indoctrination U.: The left’s war against academic freedom. New York: Encounter.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Jackman, M. R., & Muha, M. J. (1984). Education and intergroup attitudes: moral enlightenment, superficial democratic commitment, or ideological refinement? American Sociological Review, 49, 751–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Jacobs, J., Karen, D., & McClelland, K. (1991). The dynamics of young men’s career aspirations. Sociological Forum, 6, 609–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Jennings, M. K., & Stoker, L. (2008). “Another and Longer Look at the Impact of Higher Education on Political Involvement and Attitudes.” Paper for Midwest Political Science Association conference.

  101. Jost, J. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61, 651–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Jost, J., & Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 260–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Jost, J., Kay, A., & Thorisdottir, H. (Eds.). (2009). Social and psychological bases of identity and system justification. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Kanazawa, S. (2010). Why liberals and atheists are more intelligent. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73, 33–57.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Kao, G. (2000). Group images and possible selves among adolescents: linking stereotypes to expecations by race and ethnicity. Sociological Forum, 15, 407–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Karabel, J. (1996). Towards a theory of intellectuals and politics. Theory & Society, 5, 205–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Kimball, R. (1990). Tenured radicals: How politics has corrupted our higher education. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  108. King, L., & Szelényi, I. (2004). Theories of the new class: Intellectuals and power. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Klein, D., & Stern, C. (2004–2005). “Political Diversity in Six Disciplines.” Academic Questions, 18, 40–52.

  110. Klein, D., & Stern, C. (2005). Professors and their politics: the policy views of social scientists. Critical Review, 17, 257–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Klein, D., & Western, A. (2004–2005). “Voter registration of Berkeley and Stanford faculty.” Academic Questions, 18, 53–65.

  112. Konrád, G., & Szelényi, I. (1979). The intellectuals on the road to class power. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Kurzman, C., & Owens, L. (2002). The sociology of intellectuals. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 63–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Ladd, E. C., Jr., & Lipset, S. M. (1976). The divided academy: Professors and politics. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Lamont, M. (1987). Cultural capital and the liberal political attitudes of professionals: comment on Brint. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 1501–1506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Lamont, M. (1992). Money, morals, and manners: The culture of the french and american upper-middle class. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Lamont, M. (2008). How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Lassiter, M. (2005). The silent majority: Suburban politics in the Sunbelt south. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Layman, G. (1997). Religion and political behavior in the United States: the impact of beliefs, affiliations, and commitment from 1980 to 1994. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 288–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Jr Thielens, W. (1958). The academic mind: Social scientists in a time of crisis. Glencoe: Free.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Leahey, E. (2007). Not by productivity alone: how visibility and specialization contribute to academic earnings. American Sociological Review, 72, 533–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Lechner, F., & Boli, J. (2005). World culture: Origins and consequences. Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Lieberman, M., Schreiber, D., & Ochsner, K. (2003). Is political sophistication like riding a bicycle? How cognitive neuroscience can inform research on political attitudes and decision-making. Political Psychology, 24, 681–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Lindsay, D. M. (2007). Faith in the halls of power: How evangelicals joined the American elite. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Lipset, S. M. (1982). The academic mind at the top: the political behavior and values of faculty elites. Public Opinion Quarterly, 46, 143–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Lipset, S. M., & Dobson, R. (1972). The intellectual as critic and rebel: with special reference to the United States and the Soviet Union. Daedalus, 101, 137–198.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Mannheim, K. (1949). Ideology and Utopia: An introduction to the sociology of knowledge. Louis Wirth and Edward Shils, translators. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.

  128. Manza, J., & Brooks, C. (1997). Class politics and political change in the U.S., 1952–1992. Social Forces, 76, 379–408.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Manza, J., & Brooks, C. (2002). The changing political fortunes of mainline Protestants. In R. Wuthnow & J. Evans (Eds.), The quiet hand of God: The public role of mainline Protestantism (pp. 159–180). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  130. Manza, J., & Wright, N. (2003). Religion and political behavior. In M. Dillon (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of religion (pp. 297–314). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  131. Manza, J., Hout, M., & Brooks, C. (1995). Class voting in capitalist democracies since World War II: dealignment, realignment, or trendless fluctuation? Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 137–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Marini, M. M., & Brinton, M. (1984). Sex typing in occupational socialization. In B. Reskin (Ed.), Sex segregation in the workplace: Trends, explanations, remedies (pp. 191–232). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  133. Marini, M. M., & Greenberger, E. (1978). Sex differences in occupational aspirations and expectations. Work and Occupations, 5, 147–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Marini, M. M., Fan, P.-L., Finley, E., & Beutel, A. (1996). Gender and job values. Sociology of Education, 69, 49–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Martin, J. (2001). The authoritarian personality 50 years later: what questions are there for political psychology? Political Psychology, 22, 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Mazur, A. (2007). “A statistical portrait of American Jews into the 21st century.” Working paper, Syracuse University.

  137. Messer-Davidow, E. (1993). Manufacturing the attack on liberalized higher education. Social Text, 36, 40–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Meyer, J., Ramirez, F., Frank, D., & Schofer, E. (2007). Higher education as an institution. In P. Gumport (Ed.), Sociology of higher education: Contributions and their contexts (pp. 187–221). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  139. Miller, A., & Hoffmann, J. (1999). The growing divisiveness: culture wars or a war of words? Social Forces, 78, 721–752.

    Google Scholar 

  140. Mullen, A., Goyette, K., & Soares, J. (2003). Who goes to graduate school: social and academic determinants of matriculation in master’s, first-professional, and Ph.D. programs. Sociology of Education, 76, 143–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  141. Neumark, D. (1988). Employers’ discriminatory behavior and the estimation of wage discrimination. Journal of Human Resources, 23, 279–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  142. Newcomb, T. (1943). Personality and social change. New York: Dryden.

    Google Scholar 

  143. Newport, F. (2008). “Democrats Have Significant Identification, Issue Advantage.” Gallup. Retrieved October 20, 2010 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/104494/Democrats-Significant-Identification-Image-Advantage.aspx).

  144. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  145. Oaxaca, R. (1973). Male-female wage differentials in urban labor markets. International Economic Review, 14, 693–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  146. Owen, D. (2008). “Political socialization in the twenty-first century: Recommendations for researchers.” Working Paper, Georgetown University.

  147. Parsons, T., & Platt, G. (1973). The American university. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  148. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  149. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students. Vol. 2, a third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  150. Perna, L. (2004). Understanding the decision to enroll in graduate school: sex and racial/ethnic group differences. Journal of Higher Education, 75, 487–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  151. Phelan, J., Link, B., Stueve, A., & Moore, R. (1995). Education, social liberalism, and economic conservatism: attitudes toward homeless people. American Sociological Review, 60, 126–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  152. Pierson, P., & Skocpol, T. (Eds.). (2007). The transformation of American politics: Activist government and the rise of conservatism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  153. Powell, W., & DiMaggio, P. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  154. Rae, N. (1989). The decline and fall of the liberal republicans: From 1952 to the present. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  155. Rojas, F. (2007). From black power to black studies: How a radical social movement became an academic discipline. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  156. Ross, D. (1991). The origins of American social science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  157. Rothman, S., & Lichter, S. R. (2008). “The vanishing conservative: is there a glass ceiling?” Paper presented at American Enterprise Institute conference.

  158. Rothman, S., Lichter, S. R., & Nevitte, N. (2005). “Politics and professional advancement among college faculty.” The Forum 3: article 2.

    Google Scholar 

  159. Rubin, D. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  160. Sadri, A. (1992). Max Weber’s sociology of intellectuals. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  161. Saito, H. (2011). Actor-network theory of cosmopolitanism. Sociological Theory, 29(2), 124–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  162. Schmalzbauer, J. (2002). People of faith: Religious conviction in American journalism and higher education. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  163. Schneider, B., & Stevenson, D. (1999). The ambitious generation: America’s teenagers, motivated but directionless. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  164. Schrecker, E. W. (1986). No ivory tower: McCarthyism and the universities. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  165. Schuman, H., Steeh, C., Bobo, L. D., & Krysan, M. (1998). Racial attitudes in America: Trends and interpretations (Revisedth ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  166. Schuster, J., & Finkelstein, M. (2006). The American faculty: The restructuring of academic work and careers. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  167. Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  168. Sewell, W., & Hauser, R. (1972). Causes and consequences of higher education: models of the status attainment process. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 54, 851–861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  169. Sewell, W., & Hauser, R. (1975). Education, occupation, and earnings: Achievement in the early career. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  170. Sewell, W., Haller, A., & Portes, A. (1969). The educational and early occupational attainment process. American Sociological Review, 34, 82–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  171. Sewell, W., Haller, A., & Ohlendorf, G. (1970). The educational and early occupational status attainment process: replication and revision. American Sociological Review, 35, 1014–1027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  172. Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  173. Shapiro, V. (2004). Not your parents’ political socialization: introduction for a new generation. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  174. Shulman, B., & Zelizer, J. (Eds.). (2008). Rightward bound: Making America conservative in the 1970s. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  175. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  176. Smith, T. (1990). Classifying protestant denominations. Review of Religious Research, 31, 225–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  177. Smith, B., Meyer, J., & Lee Fritschler, A. (2008). Closed minds? Politics and ideology in American Universities. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  178. Stanton-Salazar, R., & Dornbusch, S. (1995). Social capital and the reproduction of inequality: information networks among Mexican-American high school students. Sociology of Education, 68, 116–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  179. Steensland, B., Park, J., Regnerus, M., Robinson, L., Wilcox, W. B., & Woodberry, R. (2000). The measure of American religion: toward improving the state of the art. Social Forces, 79, 291–318.

    Google Scholar 

  180. Stevens, M., Armstrong, E., & Arum, R. (2008). Sieve, incubator, temple, hub: empirical and theoretical advances in the sociology of higher education. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 127–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  181. Summers, L. (2007). “Comments.” Symposium on Professors and Their Politics, Department of Sociology, Harvard University.

  182. Swartz, D. (1997). Culture and power: The sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  183. Tobin, G., & Weinberg, A. (2006). A profile of American college and university faculty: Political beliefs and behavior. San Francisco: Institute for Jewish and Community Research.

    Google Scholar 

  184. Vaisey, S. (2006). Education and its discontents: overqualification in America, 1972-2002. Social Forces, 85, 835–864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  185. Veysey, L. (1965). The emergence of the American University. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  186. von Hippel, P. (2007). Regression with missing Ys: an improved strategy for analyzing multiply imputed data. Sociological Methodology, 37, 83–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  187. Weakliem, D. (2002). The effects of education on political opinions: an international study. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 13, 141–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  188. Weeden, K., & Grusky, D. (2005). The case for a new class map. American Journal of Sociology, 111, 141–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  189. Weil, F. (1985). The variable effects of education on liberal attitudes: a comparative-historical analysis of anti-semitism using public opinion survey data. American Sociological Review, 50, 458–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  190. Western, B. (1996). Vague theory and model uncertainty in macrosociology. Sociological Methodology, 26, 165–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  191. Wilson, J. (2008). Patriotic correctness: Academic freedom and its enemies. Boulder: Paradigm.

    Google Scholar 

  192. Woessner, M., & Kelly-Woessner, A. (2009). Left pipeline: Why conservatives don’t get doctorates. In R. Maranto, R. E. Redding, & F. M. Hess (Eds.), The politically correct university: Problems, scope, and reforms (pp. 38–59). Washington, D.C: The AEI.

    Google Scholar 

  193. Woodberry, R., & Smith, C. (1998). Fundamentalism et al.: conservative Protestants in America. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 25–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  194. Wright, E. O. (1978). Intellectuals and the class structure of capitalist societies. In P. Walker (Ed.), Between labor and capital (pp. 191–212). Boston: South End.

    Google Scholar 

  195. Wright, E. O. (1985). Classes. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  196. Wuthnow, R. (Ed.). (2007). Encyclopedia of politics and religion (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: CQ.

    Google Scholar 

  197. Young, C. (2009). Model uncertainty in sociological research. American Sociological Review, 74, 380–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  198. Zipp, J., & Fenwick, R. (2006). Is the academy a liberal hegemony? The political orientations and educational values of professors. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 304–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

For helpful comments on earlier drafts we thank Clem Brooks, Charles Camic, Nathan Fosse, Andrew Gelman, Julian Go, David Grusky, Laura Hamilton, Michael Hout, Andrew Jewett, Michèle Lamont, Erin Leahey, Omar Lizardo, Neil McLaughlin, Paul Quirk, Lauren Rivera, Fabio Rojas, Darren Sherkat, Mitchell Stevens, David Swartz, Stephen Turner, and Christopher Winship.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neil Gross.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gross, N., Fosse, E. Why are professors liberal?. Theor Soc 41, 127–168 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-012-9163-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Professors
  • Intellectuals
  • Politics
  • Liberalism
  • New class