US universities' left leaning faculty

[beskeptical]

Continuing from this post (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=447071&#447071) on the FL law thread.....

I tracked down the original article, Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty (http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss1/art2/), which the WA Post news article reports on. (I only had to mention my university and give an e-mail address and name to get instant access to the article. They say they don't share e-mail addresses.) While there was no link to the main data source they used for the analysis, the article describes it well enough to draw conclusions about the validity of the study. I found the article to be of excellent quality, BTW Tomba. Going directly to the source reveals a lot the Post article does not.

While there were more Democrats than Republicans among the professors, Democrats still were only 50%. So were the remainder non-affiliated more Republican leaning or not? Heck, they could have been Libertarians or the Republicans could have left that survey question blank. Not having access to the survey, it's hard to say. I suppose it is safe to assume from some of the other results that there are more Democrat or Democrat leaning professors than those that lean right.

But now comes the key question, what do the terms liberal and conservative mean? One major survey from 1984 showed more professors identified themselves as conservative than liberal. At that time a conservative might have meant one was not against the Vietnam War. The breakdown of questions of supposed 'moral' conservativeness, (a description I object to but will use here because I think we know what it means), such as, "do you accept homosexuals" and "are you pro-choice" give very left leaning percentages. But questions of economic conservatism such as, "should the government support the poor" give more equal pro and con responses.

Hopefully you can figure out the table in this format.Table 3. Responses of college professors to attitude items (%)
Strong Agree/ Somewhat Agree/Somewhat Disagree/Strong Disagree/Don't Know
Homosexual lifestyle as acceptable as heterosexual
44% 23% 17% 14% 2%
Women's right to have abortion
67% 17% 7% 7% 1%
Accept extramarital cohabitation
50% 25% 12% 11% 1%
Government should guarantee employment
25% 41% 23% 11% 0%
Government should reduce income gap
38% 34% 17% 10% 0%
Protect environment despite higher prices, fewer jobs
48% 40% 9% 2% 1%
So clearly the meaning of conservative and liberal now and in the 70s might be considerably different. Marxism is most definitely not the way the left leans. Pro-choice and acceptance of homosexuality is the way the left leans in this circumstance.

As to how the leaning of the professors on various social issues comes to be in different proportion to the US population as a whole, the authors of the study urge caution attributing the cause to hiring discrimination. Our findings on the more controversial issue of discrimination against conservative faculty should be regarded as more preliminary. Indeed, if the findings are interpreted in this way, then they raise questions about the professional status of women and observant Christians in academia as well. To our knowledge this is the first time this sort of empirical analysis has been applied to this question, and there may be much more to learn from additional data analysis or examination of other data sets. Our goal is to draw attention to the application of rigorous methods to evaluate this controversy systematically, rather than letting the debate deteriorate into anecdotal charges and counter-charges. Our statistical analysis suggests that conservatives may have a legitimate complaint. The important thing is that their complaint be evaluated by methods that minimize the impact of the strong feelings that such disputes bring out on both sides.
The original article reveals a lot more than these two comments and I recommend others interested read it in it's entirely. As to the claims by the religious conservatives that universities have run amok with tenured left wing faculty and require legislative intervention, that is most frightening. Since if economic issues are not the liberalism issues in question, we end up back at the real core of the issue, a right wing religious assault on a few very specific issues: Teaching the science that contradicts the Bible and support of pro-choice and gay rights issues. I'm not sure how environmental issues play in here if at all.


I would conclude university professors don't lean left, rather they lean toward tolerance. While one's abortion stance might depend on how one defines a fetus as a person or not yet a person, homosexuality acceptance depends on religious definition of 'sin'. And, professors should, of course, lean toward real science over 'YEC, ID and Creationism as science' nonsense.

Our country is founded on separation of church and state, and those desiring a religious based university education may go to private religious universities. I don't see the left leaning trend in university professors is true for non-religious left issues. The Post article also cites, "It's hard to see that these liberal views cut very deeply into the education of students. In fact, a number of studies show the core values that students bring into the university are not very much altered by being in college."So we do not have a problem with tenured professors' political prejudices, we have a problem with that claim being used to prejudice a desire to influence all education in the US toward Biblical beliefs.

[beskeptical]

What, no comments from all those folks claiming the campus faculty are rife with left wing tenured professors?

Well, that's OK. It's probably beyond ID wedge mantras and into politics anyway.

I was hoping for a little bit of analysis of the research results and the way the results are used rather than whether or not the campuses had problems. Here is a case where one has to go to the original source of the data in order to discover the conclusions are not exactly what those citing the research claim it to be.

[Disinfo Agent]

Thank you for the analysis, beskeptical.

[A Thousand Pardons]

While there were more Democrats than Republicans among the professors, Democrats still were only 50%.

Interesting stat! I think I had heard that the number was higher.

But now comes the key question, what do the terms liberal and conservative mean? One major survey from 1984 showed more professors identified themselves as conservative than liberal. At that time a conservative might have meant one was not against the Vietnam War.

::snip::

So clearly the meaning of conservative and liberal now and in the 70s might be considerably different.

Did you mean to have the first date be 1974?

[Van Rijn]

Well, as you say, this has gone beyond ID and into general politics. For the record, I firmly believe that only science belongs in the "hard" science classroom. However, in my own experience, I've seen a number of professors stray into areas that have little to do with the class material, and show strong political "left" positions. These were usually NOT in the hard science classrooms.



While there were more Democrats than Republicans among the professors, Democrats still were only 50%. So were the remainder non-affiliated more Republican leaning or not? Heck, they could have been Libertarians or the Republicans could have left that survey question blank. Not having access to the survey, it's hard to say. I suppose it is safe to assume from some of the other results that there are more Democrat or Democrat leaning professors than those that lean right.

But now comes the key question, what do the terms liberal and conservative mean? One major survey from 1984 showed more professors identified themselves as conse


This is a fair point. The terms "Left" or "Right" (or "liberal" and "conservative") are far too limiting. Some issues are somewhat standalone that nonetheless have tended to be identified with one side though they really have more to do with specific beliefs. I tend to look at a person's political position in two axis: How much do you think the government should be involved in the personal lives of consenting adults, and how much do you think the government should be involved in a person's economic life? Unfortunately, there are only two major parties in the country, so it often comes down to identifying with the party you disagree with least.

But here's your comment from another thread:


As to the facts as you say, I addressed this in the other thread linked above. The problem comes in using labels like 'left' and 'right' which have very broad scopes. I looked at the carefully done study Tomba linked to and while it did support the left leaning beliefs on tolerance, it did not support the left leaning beliefs on economics.

Really? Here were the economic questions on the poll:

.Table 3. Responses of college professors to attitude items (%)
Strong Agree/ Somewhat Agree/Somewhat Disagree/Strong Disagree/Don't Know

Government should guarantee employment
25% 41% 23% 11% 0%
Government should reduce income gap
38% 34% 17% 10% 0%
Protect environment despite higher prices, fewer jobs
48% 40% 9% 2% 1%

I read that as:

66% agree that government should guarantee employment. Only 34% believe it should be left to market forces. So the majority is in favor of heavy government intervention in the job market.

72% (!) believe that government should reduce the income gap. I suppose you could argue there are other ways to do it, but the most obvious method is by transfer payments (playing Robin Hood). This question could be more specific, nevertheless it shows that the majority is in favor of heavy government intervention in your personal economic life.

The last question is especially badly worded, and here we see 1% answering "Don't know" (which is how I would answer such a question). Everyone wants to protect the environment, but there are different ideas about how to do it. For instance, (1) heavy regulation that tends to raise prices and reduce jobs or (2) growing the economy and researching and implementing cleaner technologies that would lower prices and increase jobs. I think this question points to a heavy pro regulation "left leaning" position, but since it doesn't specifically provide alternatives, it is hard to say for sure.

Still, based on the first two questions, I would say this poll strongly points to a "left leaning" government economic interventionist position.

[mid]

I read that as:

66% agree that government should guarantee employment. Only 34% believe it should be left to market forces. So the majority is in favor of heavy government intervention in the job market.

72% (!) believe that government should reduce the income gap. I suppose you could argue there are other ways to do it, but the most obvious method is by transfer payments (playing Robin Hood). This question could be more specific, nevertheless it shows that the majority is in favor of heavy government intervention in your personal economic life.

I'd disagree with your use of the word "heavy", there. It might (might) be justified for the 25%/38% that "strongly agreed" to each statement, but how you got from "somewhat agreed" to statements to heavy government intervention I don't understand.

Surely reducing the poverty of the lowest earners, though both increasing their incomes and getting more of them into work in the first place is one of the primary goals of a government? If they aren't doing that, then I'm not really sure what else they should be doing, other than meddling in my private life. As for your comment that the most obvious method is transfer payments, I think your right-leaning is getting the better of you. Progressive taxation and a sensible level for the minimum wage would be more common methods, surely?

[Makgraf]

I tracked down the original article, Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty (http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss1/art2/), which the WA Post news article reports on.
ToSeeked! (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=446385&highlight=&#446385)

[beskeptical]

I tracked down the original article, Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty (http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss1/art2/), which the WA Post news article reports on.
ToSeeked! (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=446385&highlight=&#446385)I didn't see that you had posted it earlier. So why did Tomba not notice either :wink: . Anyway, it would have saved me looking for it. :D

[beskeptical]

Did you mean to have the first date be 1974?The problem is the background discussion for the research has several analysis of the same data and data bases from several different years that were analyzed.Research on the political orientations of American college professors has long
drawn upon a series of national surveys of U.S. college and university faculty,
which were conducted by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education in 1969
and 1975 and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in 1984.
These surveys were conducted partly in response to the upheavals of the 1960s,
which turned many American campuses into centers of social and political protest
(Carnegie Council, 1978; Carnegie Foundation, 1989).
[snip]
Another line of criticism held that the entire conservative critique rested on
faulty empirical assumptions. Hamilton and Hargens (1993) reanalyzed the
Carnegie data and found that the proportion of faculty who identified themselves
as liberal or left declined from 45% in 1969 to 39% in 1984. That placed college
faculties well to the left of the general population, which was 17% liberal in 1969
and 18% liberal in 1984, but the difference seemed to be diminishing (Harris,
2002). The authors also argued that any liberal tilt was restricted to a limited
number of disciplines, noting that liberal-left views were most common among
professors in the social sciences (59%) and humanities (54%), and much less so in
fields such as the physical sciences (37%), education (38%), engineering (23%),
and business (17%).
This critique has provided the empirical grounding for others who have
argued that, as Hamilton and Hargens put it, "the incidence of leftism has been
considerably exaggerated.” While it is complicated to follow, the 1884 data showed 39% of the faculty considered themselves liberal, so I probably shouldn't assume the percent of those considering themselves to be conservative was >50% but I just said it that way for the sake of my point. So on that count, upon re-reading the piece, I stand corrected.

However, much of the analysis discusses the specific issues one considered to arrive at the label of liberal or conservative. While the Vietnam War wasn't directly asked about, the comment noting The political orientation of professors became part of the national political
debate once again in the 1990s, when conservative critics began to argue that
1960s radicals and activists had joined university faculties in numbers sufficient
1 Rothman, Lichter, and Nevitte: Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty
Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2005suggested the term liberal did indeed have meaning in regards to Vietnam. Emotions over the anti-war movement did not immediately cease in 1974.

[beskeptical]

Well, as you say, this has gone beyond ID and into general politics. Not if we stick to looking at how this research citation has been mis-used to claim support for conclusions the data do not support. Actually, in this case the data supports the conclusions but not exactly and not re the Marxist professor comment made in the FL law thread.

But now comes the key question, what do the terms liberal and conservative mean? One major survey from 1984 showed more professors identified themselves as conservative.


This is a fair point. The terms "Left" or "Right" (or "liberal" and "conservative") are far too limiting. Some issues are somewhat standalone that nonetheless have tended to be identified with one side though they really have more to do with specific beliefs. I tend to look at a person's political position in two axis: How much do you think the government should be involved in the personal lives of consenting adults, and how much do you think the government should be involved in a person's economic life? Unfortunately, there are only two major parties in the country, so it often comes down to identifying with the party you disagree with least.But we shouldn't be using the terms left and right if they are not accurately descriptive. We should be discussing where the professors stand on particular issues. It may be OK to ask their political party affiliation, but the 'wedge' plan to get ID and creationism into biology classes as science uses the 'misuse' of the term 'left' to manipulate support. By coming back to the issues rather than the very misleading terms the 'wedge' tactics are weakened.

Not to mention it improves communication to discuss what you have, not what you imply what you have means. In other words, you can't claim professors are left leaning unless you define what that means.

Here were the economic questions on the poll:

.Table 3. Responses of college professors to attitude items (%)
Strong Agree/ Somewhat Agree/Somewhat Disagree/Strong Disagree/Don't Know

Government should guarantee employment
25% 41% 23% 11% 0%
Government should reduce income gap
38% 34% 17% 10% 0%
Protect environment despite higher prices, fewer jobs
48% 40% 9% 2% 1%

I read that as:

66% agree that government should guarantee employment. Only 34% believe it should be left to market forces. So the majority is in favor of heavy government intervention in the job market.

72% (!) believe that government should reduce the income gap. I suppose you could argue there are other ways to do it, but the most obvious method is by transfer payments (playing Robin Hood). This question could be more specific, nevertheless it shows that the majority is in favor of heavy government intervention in your personal economic life.

The last question is especially badly worded, and here we see 1% answering "Don't know" (which is how I would answer such a question). Everyone wants to protect the environment, but there are different ideas about how to do it. For instance, (1) heavy regulation that tends to raise prices and reduce jobs or (2) growing the economy and researching and implementing cleaner technologies that would lower prices and increase jobs. I think this question points to a heavy pro regulation "left leaning" position, but since it doesn't specifically provide alternatives, it is hard to say for sure.

Still, based on the first two questions, I would say this poll strongly points to a "left leaning" government economic interventionist position.You are correct and I should have added the first two columns together. Then we could get to the question of what does 'somewhat agree' mean. In the case of government intervention in the free market system 'somewhat agree' can mean anything from weak to strong regulations. By the same token 'somewhat disagree' can mean the same thing. So unless you equate Libertarian to Conservative Republican, you can't say how conservative or liberal those in either 'somewhat' category actually lean. Perhaps because the answers are not evenly distributed, you could make a tentative argument. On the other hand, the 'somewhat' categories might make up the bulk of the conservative professors. So you'd have to collect more data to confirm any conclusion about where those answering 'somewhat' actually stand.

You can't take this data and say it supports socialism, communism, nor Marxism leanings any more than you could take opposite data and say it supported Libertarian or completely unregulated capitalism leanings.

[Makgraf]

I tracked down the original article, Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty (http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss1/art2/), which the WA Post news article reports on.
ToSeeked! (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=446385&highlight=&#446385)I'm confused, Mak. I went to the source because Tomba used a news article on the source as a citation. I started a new thread so we wouldn't be on the FL law thread. So did you post on the FL law thread and not realize the conversation was here or are you just commenting that you posted on the other thread before noticing we were discussing it?

Not sure if my question is clear, I hope it is.
I just like saying ToSeeked (in the thread I linked to I link to that study).

[Van Rijn]

I'd disagree with your use of the word "heavy", there. It might (might) be justified for the 25%/38% that "strongly agreed" to each statement, but how you got from "somewhat agreed" to statements to heavy government intervention I don't understand.

Surely reducing the poverty of the lowest earners, though both increasing their incomes and getting more of them into work in the first place is one of the primary goals of a government?


First question:

-Government should guarantee employment

Not, "government should promote employment," or "government should promote a healthy economy." To guarantee employment requires specific and heavy government involvement.

Second question:

-Government should reduce income gap

Not, "reduce poverty by promoting a better economy" or "Encourage conditions that lead to greater wealth for all" or in fact anything about reducing poverty at all. It isn't even a question about welfare. Rather it specifically asks if the INCOME GAP should be reduced.


If they aren't doing that, then I'm not really sure what else they should be doing, other than meddling in my private life.


Well, that's the point, isn't it? The question is: How much should the government meddle in your economic affairs? There are different viewpoints about how much they should and in what ways. As for a few other things they can do - provide military protection, police, courts, not to mention regulation, fund long range research and provide emergency support for those currently out on their luck.


As for your comment that the most obvious method is transfer payments, I think your right-leaning is getting the better of you. Progressive taxation and a sensible level for the minimum wage would be more common methods, surely?

Progressive taxation is the usual method for securing funds for transfer payments. "Left leaning" economic policies promote far more progressive taxation, and assumes it is a good thing to reduce the income gap. "Right leaning" economic policies don't consider income gap to be a primary issue and promote a less progressive or flat tax. Minimum wage is a side issue - it tends to reduce the employable population though increases wages for the minimum wage earners who continue to work.

As for your opinion on my political position, I think your left leaning is getting the better of you. :wink:

[Jim]

First question:

(snip)

Second question:

(more snip)


Okay, so let's all agree that - as with most polls - the questions for this survey are not very well worded; they leave a great deal to the interpretation of the person being surveyed.

Also, the Agree Strongly-Agree Somewhat-Disagree Somewhat-Disagree Strongly categories... well, they suck. Where do you draw the line between any two of them? I'll bet it's not the same line others might draw.

Such a survey would give more meaningful information if it asked more direct and to-the-point questions.

As it is, all you can conclude from the survey is that, at the time it was conducted, a majority of faculty had liberal leanings in social and economic areas. Trying to quantify or label those leanings is an exercise which may burn a few mental calories, but won't give a consensus.

(Fixed /quote)

[Van Rijn]

Well, as you say, this has gone beyond ID and into general politics. Not if we stick to looking at how this research citation has been mis-used to claim support for conclusions the data do not support. Actually, in this case the data supports the conclusions but not exactly and not re the Marxist professor comment made in the FL law thread.


I won't speak to what others have said, but my only conclusion about the poll, in response to your comment, was that it did support that "left leaning beliefs on economics" were in the majority among those polled. I have said elsewhere, and separately, that one of my professors was a Marxist Socialist. I mean that specifically, based on his own statements and the definition of the term. That is a fact and not related to the poll.

But we shouldn't be using the terms left and right if they are not accurately descriptive. We should be discussing where the professors stand on particular issues. It may be OK to ask their political party affiliation, but the 'wedge' plan to get ID and creationism into biology classes as science uses the 'misuse' of the term 'left' to manipulate support. By coming back to the issues rather than the very misleading terms the 'wedge' tactics are weakened.

Not to mention it improves communication to discuss what you have, not what you imply what you have means. In other words, you can't claim professors are left leaning unless you define what that means.


In general, in regards to economics, it is used to indicate how much and how directly the government should intervene in economics, with "left leaning" indicating more intervention and "right leaning" indicating less, with extreme left indicating a very large government sector, and extreme right a small government primarily acting as referee to the market.


You can't take this data and say it supports socialism, communism, nor Marxism leanings any more than you could take opposite data and say it supported Libertarian or completely unregulated capitalism leanings.

I agree, the poll questions are far too unspecific to draw conclusions about the "isms."

[Moose]

Paul Krugman wrote a column on this very subject. Presented (http://www.pkarchive.org/column/040505.html) without comment.

[10stone5]

I went to an engineering/finance school - so there weren't a lot of 'long-hairs' there. Reason --> it wasn't cheap, you couldn't exactly slack off.

On the other hand, it wasn't a Nazi concentration camp either.

Its more political rhetoric than anything else - the so-called 'culture wars' that these a-holes have been 'fighting' since the 60s.

[Van Rijn]

Paul Krugman wrote a column on this very subject. Presented (http://www.pkarchive.org/column/040505.html) without comment.

My only comment is that this editorial says more about the writer's bias than the subject he is discussing.

[Moose]

My only comment is that this editorial says more about the writer's bias than the subject he is discussing.

So does your post. Ironic that.

Van Rijn, you may not be aware of this, but a column is supposed to be biased. And it's okay (it really is) for an opinion piece to be significantly contrary to the "party line". That's the very cornerstone of freedom of expression. Bias is really only a problem when you package opinion pieces and call them news, the way Fox does.

I'm just sayin'...

[beskeptical]

I tracked down the original article, Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty (http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss1/art2/), which the WA Post news article reports on.
ToSeeked! (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=446385&highlight=&#446385)I'm confused, Mak. I went to the source because Tomba used a news article on the source as a citation. I started a new thread so we wouldn't be on the FL law thread. So did you post on the FL law thread and not realize the conversation was here or are you just commenting that you posted on the other thread before noticing we were discussing it?

Not sure if my question is clear, I hope it is.
I just like saying ToSeeked (in the thread I linked to I link to that study).I thought I changed my post before anyone quoted it. I realized after reviewing the whole thing your post was pages earlier. So ....Nevermind. :oops:

[beskeptical]

First question:

-Government should guarantee employment

Not, "government should promote employment," or "government should promote a healthy economy." To guarantee employment requires specific and heavy government involvement.

Second question:

-Government should reduce income gap

Not, "reduce poverty by promoting a better economy" or "Encourage conditions that lead to greater wealth for all" or in fact anything about reducing poverty at all. It isn't even a question about welfare. Rather it specifically asks if the INCOME GAP should be reduced.

....But regardless of how you interpret the questions, not everyone interprets the questions the same way. I might see "guarantee employment" and decide "somewhat agree" means "promote employment". What else does it mean, guarantee "some people employment", guarantee "employment sometimes"? Because everyone reads certain meaning into a question in a questionnaire, most researchers use some additional means of testing the validity of the questions. Unfortunately I couldn't find the actual data collection document on the net to see what the data collectors intended the questions to measure and how the data collectors verified the reliability of their questions to actually get the measurement they intended.

The rest of your exchange with 'mid' shows how both of you indeed interpret the questions and answers very differently.

[Demigrog]

It really doesn’t matter what the political leanings of the faculty are in general. It is the ones that use their position to spread their political opinions that matter.

The vast majority of faculty (and students) I’ve known are not particularly vocal about their political views (as it should be). The issue as I see it are activist professors (and students) that push their views on students. Any poll that wants to accurately model the political atmosphere on campuses should focus only on them.

"Left" and "Right" are woefully inadequate to describe political views. At least have four poles, "true liberal", "libertarian", "true conservative", and "populist".

Anecdotally, I never had a single activist “true conservative”, “libertarian”, or “populist” professor, but numerous activist “true liberal” professors. I was at a large public university, which seems to fit the stereotype. I also noticed that I never had an activist professor (of any type) in an Engineering class, read what you will into it. :wink:

[beskeptical]

Well, as you say, this has gone beyond ID and into general politics. Not if we stick to looking at how this research citation has been mis-used to claim support for conclusions the data do not support. Actually, in this case the data supports the conclusions but not exactly and not re the Marxist professor comment made in the FL law thread.


I won't speak to what others have said, but my only conclusion about the poll, in response to your comment, was that it did support that "left leaning beliefs on economics" were in the majority among those polled. I have said elsewhere, and separately, that one of my professors was a Marxist Socialist. I mean that specifically, based on his own statements and the definition of the term. That is a fact and not related to the poll.And as a single observation, it says nothing about the whole of college professors. Not a single thing in the study cited supported any preponderance of Marxists college professors. In my personal experience, I have never met a singe 'Marxists' professor. That would be my experience of 3 years in Lane Community College, Eugene OR and 6 years at the U of WA, Seattle, WA where I took a wide variety of courses besides my major. The closest any of the professors came to your description was one prof. who said we could feed the world if we wanted to. Both of those colleges are in 'blue' areas of 'blue' states. Eugene is known for being one of the holder over cities from the 'hippie' era.

But we shouldn't be using the terms left and right if they are not accurately descriptive. We should be discussing where the professors stand on particular issues. It may be OK to ask their political party affiliation, but the 'wedge' plan to get ID and creationism into biology classes as science uses the 'misuse' of the term 'left' to manipulate support. By coming back to the issues rather than the very misleading terms the 'wedge' tactics are weakened.

Not to mention it improves communication to discuss what you have, not what you imply what you have means. In other words, you can't claim professors are left leaning unless you define what that means.


In general, in regards to economics, it is used to indicate how much and how directly the government should intervene in economics, with "left leaning" indicating more intervention and "right leaning" indicating less, with extreme left indicating a very large government sector, and extreme right a small government primarily acting as referee to the market.That would be one stereotyped meaning. Another stereotyped meaning would be that left favors the working class and the right favors big business. Or you could say the left favors the environment and the right favors corporate profits. My point is the terms 'left' and 'right' do carry some meaning, but not always a complete, consistent or accurate meaning.

[beskeptical]

Paul Krugman wrote a column on this very subject. Presented (http://www.pkarchive.org/column/040505.html) without comment.That is an excellent editorial comment and presents another side to this discussion. I didn't want to go there but reading another's observation gives me confidence I wasn't wrong to consider it.

[beskeptical]

Paul Krugman wrote a column on this very subject. Presented (http://www.pkarchive.org/column/040505.html) without comment.

My only comment is that this editorial says more about the writer's bias than the subject he is discussing.Isn't that what editorial comments are supposed to be?

It presents an idea, it doesn't say it is a verified fact.

[beskeptical]

My only comment is that this editorial says more about the writer's bias than the subject he is discussing.

So does your post. Ironic that.

Van Rijn, you may not be aware of this, but a column is supposed to be biased. And it's okay (it really is) for an opinion piece to be significantly contrary to the "party line". That's the very cornerstone of freedom of expression. Bias is really only a problem when you package opinion pieces and call them news, the way Fox does.

I'm just sayin'...I should of read this before I commented. You said it for me.

[Moose]

I should of read this before I commented. You said it for me.

No worries, I claim no exclusivity to my comments. *chuckle*

Here's a switch, though, I'd gone to an anglican conservative university. There was a noticable bias to the right in terms of policy.

Two incidents in particular come to mind. One fellow, on two occasions, popped a beer bottle over someone's head. In Canada, that's usually tried as aggravated assault. Another committed arson in my dorm, a few hours after a dorm party to which he hadn't been invited and nearly everyone was passed out in bed.

Neither student was expelled. Neither student was charged or even investigated by police. Both incidents were covered up, and in fact, university management tried to pin the arson on the dorm residents. Both students were high profile members of the university church, and their expulsion would have been embarassing for the college and the church.

There were no marxist activists. There were no fundamentalist activists. The professors taught from their (somewhat conservative) perspective, but they were professional.

Being a liberal atheist acadian at a conservative anglican loyalist college, I never felt anywhere near as priviledged as the church crowd seemed to be, in terms of university policy was concerned, but I also never felt particularly persecuted because of the differences in my background. It didn't come up a lot, and usually only on my terms (or enough so that I never felt like I was being challenged.)

[Van Rijn]

My only comment is that this editorial says more about the writer's bias than the subject he is discussing.

So does your post. Ironic that.

Van Rijn, you may not be aware of this, but a column is supposed to be biased. And it's okay (it really is) for an opinion piece to be significantly contrary to the "party line". That's the very cornerstone of freedom of expression. Bias is really only a problem when you package opinion pieces and call them news, the way Fox does.

I'm just sayin'...

You're completely missing my point.

First he refers to two studies that purport to show a bias against Republicans and conservatives at universities. He doesn't describe them or discuss their merits as has been done here with the poll that is the subject of this thread.

Then he offers his opinions as to why the bias (which he doesn't argue against) exists. Since these are fact-free opinions, it doesn't matter where he comes down on the issue, they are necessarily an expression of his bias. The same would be true for me, you, beskeptical, or anyone else. The editorial is content free: You may agree with his opinion or not, but it doesn't actually say anything useful about the subject, unless you think sweeping comments like this are useful:


Think of the message this sends: today's Republican Party - increasingly dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research - doesn't respect science, or scholarship in general. It shouldn't be surprising that scholars have returned the favor by losing respect for the Republican Party.

[Van Rijn]

Well, as you say, this has gone beyond ID and into general politics. Not if we stick to looking at how this research citation has been mis-used to claim support for conclusions the data do not support. Actually, in this case the data supports the conclusions but not exactly and not re the Marxist professor comment made in the FL law thread.


I won't speak to what others have said, but my only conclusion about the poll, in response to your comment, was that it did support that "left leaning beliefs on economics" were in the majority among those polled. I have said elsewhere, and separately, that one of my professors was a Marxist Socialist. I mean that specifically, based on his own statements and the definition of the term. That is a fact and not related to the poll.And as a single observation, it says nothing about the whole of college professors.


Of course it doesn't. It simply demonstrates that there was a Marxist Socialist professor at the university I attended.


Not a single thing in the study cited supported any preponderance of Marxists college professors.


Yes, as I already said, the study is not specific enough to draw a conclusion on this. Why this constant focus on Marxists?


In my personal experience, I have never met a singe 'Marxists' professor. That would be my experience of 3 years in Lane Community College, Eugene OR and 6 years at the U of WA, Seattle, WA where I took a wide variety of courses besides my major. The closest any of the professors came to your description was one prof. who said we could feed the world if we wanted to. Both of those colleges are in 'blue' areas of 'blue' states. Eugene is known for being one of the holder over cities from the 'hippie' era.


Also anectdotal experience, just as mine is. In my case I had one Marxist Socialist professor, another that went into great detail about how we should reduce the military to a tenth of its current size (this was in the middle of the cold war) and another one who took "The Limits To Growth" as undeniable fact.



Not to mention it improves communication to discuss what you have, not what you imply what you have means. In other words, you can't claim professors are left leaning unless you define what that means.


In general, in regards to economics, it is used to indicate how much and how directly the government should intervene in economics, with "left leaning" indicating more intervention and "right leaning" indicating less, with extreme left indicating a very large government sector, and extreme right a small government primarily acting as referee to the market.That would be one stereotyped meaning. Another stereotyped meaning would be that left favors the working class and the right favors big business. Or you could say the left favors the environment and the right favors corporate profits. My point is the terms 'left' and 'right' do carry some meaning, but not always a complete, consistent or accurate meaning.

I agree that there can be confusion about the terms "left" and "right." That is why I defined the terms specifically for the subject being discussed - government and economy. We can argue about nuance, but I hope we can agree that IN GENERAL, "left leaning" policy favors a larger government involvement with the economy than "right leaning" policy.

[Moose]

My only comment is that this editorial says more about the writer's bias than the subject he is discussing.

[...]

I'm just sayin'...

You're completely missing my point.

I'm afraid your point had been lost in your brevity. Thanks for expanding it.

First he refers to two studies that purport to show a bias against Republicans and conservatives at universities. He doesn't describe them or discuss their merits as has been done here with the poll that is the subject of this thread.

It all comes down to column inches, unfortunately. The more a columnist stops to describe and discuss, along with whatever sequés are necessary in order to do so smoothly, then he never has the opportunity to get around to the point he's writing about.

Remember, Krugman writes for print media. We could simply link to the studies we're talking about. He doesn't have that luxury.

Then he offers his opinions as to why the bias (which he doesn't argue against) exists. Since these are fact-free opinions, it doesn't matter where he comes down on the issue, they are necessarily an expression of his bias.

Again, opinions are perfectly kosher in an opinion column. (Not an editorial, BTW, he's not the editor of the NYT).

You would be perfectly correct had this been a news article or an actual editorial, which operate under different rules.

The same would be true for me, you, beskeptical, or anyone else.

If we're to be held to the same standards you seem to be holding Krugman, then you've massively failed to follow your own standards.

Both of your posts refer to 3rd party articles and/or studies without proper references (not even linking). They offer opinions and nothing more. No facts. "Content free", as you'd put it.

I'd even spotted a sweeping statement in your original, completely unsupported claim about Krugman's alleged bias.

Think of the message this sends: today's Republican Party - increasingly dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research - doesn't respect science, or scholarship in general. It shouldn't be surprising that scholars have returned the favor by losing respect for the Republican Party.

I look at each call to equate creationism with science, and I can't find any basis to disagree with his opinion.

[beskeptical]

Not a single thing in the study cited supported any preponderance of Marxists college professors.
Yes, as I already said, the study is not specific enough to draw a conclusion on this. Why this constant focus on Marxists?Well it started with a comment by Spacewriter:By the way, it seems to be becoming fashionable to label anybody whose thinking doesn't satisfy the right wing's desire for godliness as "Marxist." Another bad move.To which you responded:Back at my university, a Socialogy professor clearly was a Marxist Socialist. I still have my copies of the "Communist Manifesto" and "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalisim." There were other texts that had an intensely socialist position, nothing was presented (other than nasty comments) about other positions. I did learn something from the class (probably not what he hoped, I had been a "Democrat by Default" at that point) and he was pretty open to discussion, but I was careful about what I said, too. There were quite a few classes where the professors had positions I would consider quite far to the "left." In another, I suffered through the ideology of "The Limits To Growth." The professor of a history class thought we should radically reduce the size of our military and spent a lot of time on the issue (this was in 1981). I've heard plenty of similar stories from others since then and it doesn't appear things have changed much. I don't think I was discriminated against, but I was careful about what I said and I was exposed to only a narrow spectrum of political viewpoints.So going back to the beginning, the studies do not seem to support that your experience was typical.

In my personal experience, I have never met a single 'Marxists' professor. ......Also anectdotal experience, just as mine is. That was the point.

Not to mention it improves communication to discuss what you have, not what you imply what you have means. In other words, you can't claim professors are left leaning unless you define what that means.
In general, in regards to economics, it is used to indicate how much and how directly the government should intervene in economics, with "left leaning" indicating more intervention and "right leaning" indicating less, with extreme left indicating a very large government sector, and extreme right a small government primarily acting as referee to the market.That would be one stereotyped meaning. Another stereotyped meaning would be that left favors the working class and the right favors big business. Or you could say the left favors the environment and the right favors corporate profits. My point is the terms 'left' and 'right' do carry some meaning, but not always a complete, consistent or accurate meaning.I agree that there can be confusion about the terms "left" and "right." That is why I defined the terms specifically for the subject being discussed - government and economy. We can argue about nuance, but I hope we can agree that IN GENERAL, "left leaning" policy favors a larger government involvement with the economy than "right leaning" policy.Actually, while I agree that is the 'stereotyped' version of 'right' and 'left', I don't agree at all it is the 'reality' version. But I think we should have that discussion on another board.

While you did clearly define what you meant by the terms, that doesn't help assess what the persons answering the questions in the survey meant. So as long as you don't apply your definition to the survey results, we would be communicating nicely. The minute you apply your definitions to the intent of the survey respondents, we aren't communicating the same things.

[beskeptical]

Again, opinions are perfectly kosher in an opinion column. (Not an editorial, BTW, he's not the editor of the NYT).

You would be perfectly correct had this been a news article or an actual editorial, which operate under different rules. I may have used the wrong terminology here in haste as well. I only learned recently the distinction between these two pages and didn't automatically pay attention.

[Disinfo Agent]

Then he offers his opinions as to why the bias (which he doesn't argue against) exists. Since these are fact-free opinions, it doesn't matter where he comes down on the issue, they are necessarily an expression of his bias.
No bias has yet been proven to exist at universities. Imbalance is not necessarily bias. For instance, in the latest presidential elections in the U.S., the Republicans won by a safe margin--does that mean the elections were biased in their favour?
Of course not! They won because they deserved to win; because the majority of the voters preferred them.
You cannot conclude that a bias exists from the realisation that there is a difference. "Bias" implies more than that: it implies an unfair difference. It has not been proven, so far, that the observed difference is unfair.

[Spacewriter]

Then he offers his opinions as to why the bias (which he doesn't argue against) exists. Since these are fact-free opinions, it doesn't matter where he comes down on the issue, they are necessarily an expression of his bias.
No bias has yet been proven to exist at universities. Imbalance is not necessarily bias. For instance, in the latest presidential elections in the U.S., the Republicans won by a safe margin--does that mean the elections were biased in their favour?
Of course not! They won because they deserved to win; because the majority of the voters preferred them.
You cannot conclude that a bias exists from the realisation that there is a difference. "Bias" implies more than that: it implies an unfair difference. It has not been proven, so far, that the observed difference is unfair.

A very small majority of voters. It does not imply bias, but it may imply that the rest of us who didn't vote for us are not being represented.

[Disinfo Agent]

A very small majority of voters.
Large enough to disspell the doubts that were hanging about since the previous election.

It does not imply bias, but it may imply that the rest of us who didn't vote for us are not being represented.
Possibly true, but I wrote "a majority of the voters" thinking of the people who did vote. I may not be using correct terminology...

[Jim]

A very small majority of voters.
Large enough to disspell the doubts that were hanging about since the previous election.

Not really. You cannot use the results of one election to "validate" the results of another. Circumstances change; opinions change; candidates change (both meanings intended). New voters enter the system; some previous voters leave it. And, many voters are afraid of change, especially during what they perceive as a crisis.

It does not imply bias, but it may imply that the rest of us who didn't vote for us are not being represented.
Possibly true, but I wrote "a majority of the voters" thinking of the people who did vote. I may not be using correct terminology...[/quote]

I think what he meant (feel free to correct, Space) is that those who didn't vote for the winning ticket may feel they are not represented. Remember, in the US political system, the winners are supposed to represent all voters, not just those who supported them. Some winners do this better (some far better) than others.

[Jim]

Back at my university, a Socialogy professor clearly was a Marxist Socialist.

And I had a business professor who was most definitely a Republican. All that means is, they exist.

I agree that there can be confusion about the terms "left" and "right." That is why I defined the terms specifically for the subject being discussed - government and economy. We can argue about nuance, but I hope we can agree that IN GENERAL, "left leaning" policy favors a larger government involvement with the economy than "right leaning" policy.

I don't think so. By your definition, libertarians and anarchists are "right-leaning" because they want minimal or no government involvement. Marxists and Facists must both be "left-leaning" because they want maximum government involvement, allbeit in different ways and for different purposes.

(fixed a quote tag)

[Disinfo Agent]

A very small majority of voters.
Large enough to disspell the doubts that were hanging about since the previous election.
Not really. You cannot use the results of one election to "validate" the results of another. Circumstances change; opinions change; candidates change (both meanings intended). New voters enter the system; some previous voters leave it. And, many voters are afraid of change, especially during what they perceive as a crisis.
You're quite right. My words were badly chosen. I withdraw that remark.
:oops:

It does not imply bias, but it may imply that the rest of us who didn't vote for us are not being represented.
Possibly true, but I wrote "a majority of the voters" thinking of the people who did vote. I may not be using correct terminology...
I think what he meant (feel free to correct, Space) is that those who didn't vote for the winning ticket may feel they are not represented. Remember, in the US political system, the winners are supposed to represent all voters, not just those who supported them. Some winners do this better (some far better) than others.
Ah, yes, the Electoral College system! I thought Spacewriter was talking about the people who did not vote. #-o

[Van Rijn]

Not a single thing in the study cited supported any preponderance of Marxists college professors.
Yes, as I already said, the study is not specific enough to draw a conclusion on this. Why this constant focus on Marxists?Well it started with a comment by Spacewriter:By the way, it seems to be becoming fashionable to label anybody whose thinking doesn't satisfy the right wing's desire for godliness as "Marxist." Another bad move.To which you responded:Back at my university, a Socialogy professor clearly was a Marxist Socialist. I still have my copies of the "Communist Manifesto" and "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalisim." There were other texts that had an intensely socialist position, nothing was presented (other than nasty comments) about other positions. I did learn something from the class (probably not what he hoped, I had been a "Democrat by Default" at that point) and he was pretty open to discussion, but I was careful about what I said, too. There were quite a few classes where the professors had positions I would consider quite far to the "left." In another, I suffered through the ideology of "The Limits To Growth." The professor of a history class thought we should radically reduce the size of our military and spent a lot of time on the issue (this was in 1981). I've heard plenty of similar stories from others since then and it doesn't appear things have changed much. I don't think I was discriminated against, but I was careful about what I said and I was exposed to only a narrow spectrum of political viewpoints.So going back to the beginning, the studies do not seem to support that your experience was typical.


(1) I wrote about what I experienced and what I have heard from others. I don't recall tying this to any studies or polls. My key point was that Marxist Socialist professors do (or at least did) exist. It was not a label I placed on the fellow because of differing religious beliefs.

(2) In regards to Marxism, the poll questions discussed don't speak to the question. They do suggest a left leaning bias.


While you did clearly define what you meant by the terms, that doesn't help assess what the persons answering the questions in the survey meant. So as long as you don't apply your definition to the survey results, we would be communicating nicely. The minute you apply your definitions to the intent of the survey respondents, we aren't communicating the same things.

You wanted a definition of terms and I provided it, as well as my reasoning about the questions. If you have a substantially different definition, please present it. My definition is a very common one. It is impossible to speak about the questions without interpreting them. If I haven't already made it clear enough, I would like to see more questions and more specific ones. But this discussion is based on what we have available.

[Van Rijn]

If we're to be held to the same standards you seem to be holding Krugman, then you've massively failed to follow your own standards.

Both of your posts refer to 3rd party articles and/or studies without proper references (not even linking). They offer opinions and nothing more. No facts. "Content free", as you'd put it.


I really don't know what you are talking about. What articles didn't I link to? The poll that is the topic of this thread was linked by Beskeptical in the original post (another link would be redundant). I did have a link to the column.

As for the poll, I discussed the poll questions specifically and provided my analysis. This column writer has done nothing even remotely similar.



I'd even spotted a sweeping statement in your original, completely unsupported claim about Krugman's alleged bias.

Think of the message this sends: today's Republican Party - increasingly dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research - doesn't respect science, or scholarship in general. It shouldn't be surprising that scholars have returned the favor by losing respect for the Republican Party.

I look at each call to equate creationism with science, and I can't find any basis to disagree with his opinion.

Right. And where is the study that shows the Republican Party is "dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research"? There have always been creationists, but WHERE ARE THE NUMBERS THAT SHOW THEY DOMINATE THE PARTY? And where is the study that shows Republicans don't respect science or scholarship? You don't have any problem with a sweeping statement like that?

I'm curious if you think the following statement is fair, unbiased and based on fact (for the record, I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS, it is simply a reflection of Krugman's statement):


Think of the message this sends: today's Democratic Party is increasingly dominated by people who don't respect other political beliefs or religion. It shouldn't be surprising that laymen have returned the favor by losing respect for the Democratic Party.

[Moose]

Right. And where is the study that shows the Republican Party is "dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research"? There have always been creationists, but WHERE ARE THE NUMBERS THAT SHOW THEY DOMINATE THE PARTY? And where is the study that shows Republicans don't respect science or scholarship? You don't have any problem with a sweeping statement like that?

Tsk tsk. Misquoting to change the context. Naughty stuff.

Actually, now that I think of it, you've done it chronically. Let's correct this.

Let's have a closer look at his statement where he refers to those two polls, allegedly improperly, shall we?

It's a fact, documented by two recent studies, that registered Republicans and self-proclaimed conservatives make up only a small minority of professors at elite universities.

Are you really contesting this statement? If registered Republicans and people who identify themselves as conservatives aren't a small minority, then this whole debate is a non-issue. It would also follow that those who are making an issue out of the supposed imbalance are either gravely mistaken, or lying for political gain.

Is this, then, your position?

As far as I can tell, there's no real contest about the fact that conservatives appear to be in the minority among academic circles. It's been widely believed even before those studies confirmed the perception.

Why, then, should Krugman have to waste column inches defending specific figures that aren't contested, nor even directly relevant to the conclusion of the article?

But what should we conclude from that?

From here, sentence two, we go into analysis and opinion, which is the whole point of an opinion column. Those "two reports" are a lead-in, not the foundation of his argument.

Your next misquote is this:

"dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research"

whereas Krugman actually said:

increasingly dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research

Your omission of that one word drastically changes the meaning of that sentence. But worse, you again omit key portions of that paragraph, which are critical to the context of that statement:

Think of the message this sends: today's Republican Party - increasingly dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research - doesn't respect science, or scholarship in general. It shouldn't be surprising that scholars have returned the favor by losing respect for the Republican Party.

Krugman is talking about the impression that is given by the actions described in the previous paragraph(s).

Scientific American may think that evolution is supported by mountains of evidence, but President Bush declares that "the jury is still out." Senator James Inhofe dismisses the vast body of research supporting the scientific consensus on climate change as a "gigantic hoax." And conservative pundits like George Will write approvingly about Michael Crichton's anti-environmentalist fantasies.

Which are supportable statements (as far as they need to be supported in an opinion column) about acts that lead to Krugman's perception.

Are you denying that there are increasing calls among elected officials, (typically republican), for creationism to be included in science classes?

As far as your final quote is concerned (who on earth is Luap Namgurk, or are you faking quotes now?), yes, I would agree with that statement in its spirit (despite the obvious omission of a prior key paragraph which may significantly, again, alter context), based mostly on my observations of the last US election campaign.

fair, unbiased and based on fact

Bias is irrelevant to an opinion column. While "based on fact" is relevant, facts don't need to be individually supported in an opinion column the way they do in a news article. Fair is relevant, but "unfair" comes from misquotes, deliberate misinterpretations, and untruths.

I would suggest you consider whether or not your last couple of posts have been fair responses to Krugman's column, and if the "bias" is really entirely Krugman's.

[teddyv]

(who on earth is Luap Namgurk, or are you faking quotes now?),

Looks like Paul Krugman backwards. :wink:

[Moose]

(who on earth is Luap Namgurk, or are you faking quotes now?),

Looks like Paul Krugman backwards. :wink:

Ah. So it is. I'm terrible at Scrabble and word puzzles.

[Van Rijn]

Right. And where is the study that shows the Republican Party is "dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research"? There have always been creationists, but WHERE ARE THE NUMBERS THAT SHOW THEY DOMINATE THE PARTY? And where is the study that shows Republicans don't respect science or scholarship? You don't have any problem with a sweeping statement like that?

Tsk tsk. Misquoting to change the context. Naughty stuff.

Actually, now that I think of it, you've done it chronically. Let's correct this.


I believe I have been civil with you. It seems that you cannot do the same. In this case, the material I refered to was quoted in full, before my comment. I could argue the point, but it would be pointless. It has nothing to do with the question I asked. Since it doesn't appear to be possible for you to have a reasonable discussion on this subject, I see no reason to continue.

Since this subject is getting heated, I think I will bow out here. I will say that, while I think a few posts got a bit too personal, I enjoyed the discussion, and would like to thank beskeptical for starting the thread.

[beskeptical]

... I will say that, while I think a few posts got a bit too personal, I enjoyed the discussion, and would like to thank beskeptical for starting the thread.Thank you. I appreciated your observations from your different perspective. We need open discussions. Just as professors need to bring up controversial challenging viewpoints, so do the rest of us in various settings like BBs such as this one..

[Moose]

I believe I have been civil with you.

I've been just as civil as you've been. If you're seeing malice, you're mistaken, but I will gladly apologize for the impression you got. It wasn't intended.

You were loose about your quoting, unacceptably so IMO, and I'm not in any way sorry about calling you on it.

In this case, the material I refered to was quoted in full, before my comment.

I beg your pardon, but _I_ had quoted that. You had quoted my quote (correctly), but had repeated it improperly trimmed, and your comment seemed to refer solely to the incorrect impression given by the trimmed quote, as I have shown. (Your response didn't make much sense as applied to the full quote.)

I will respect your decision to bow out, but I would still like to know if your beef with this...

It's a fact, documented by two recent studies, that registered Republicans and self-proclaimed conservatives make up only a small minority of professors at elite universities.

...comes from what you feel is a factual error on Krugman's part? Do you see room for factual contention within this statement that I don't? Because otherwise, I really don't see what your problem with this statement is. None of the rest of the article depends on this other than as a contextual starting point.

I feel this is a fair question, as your objection seems to rest entirely on your apparent beef with this one first sentence.

(Every other objection seems to stem from a misunderstanding of what's kosher in an opinion piece. I see no real need to press this, however, as I feel I've gotten my point across. Or should have, by now.)

Incidentally, if Krugman was unfairly biased, as you charge, I think it wouldn't make sense to acknowledge facts not beneficial to his "side", that there is an apparent imbalance between the numbers of identifiable conservative or liberal professors. The conclusions of those reports he mentionned are not beneficial to what Krugman would prefer to see, I think. That he has not in any way attempted to bury facts contrary to what he would like to see should be significant. At least that's my point of view.

I simply don't think you've been successful in showing any impropriety on Krugman's part. Nothing he's said is improper for an opinion piece, nor even particularly controvertial. Most of Krugman's ideas for why the imbalance might exist have appeared in this thread in one form or another. I won't attempt to claim he's neutral (he's not, and he's never claimed otherwise in my sight), but nothing he's said is improper for an opinion column.

You might ask yourself if you'd have felt the same had the column been written by someone other than Krugman. (I don't really want to know the answer to this, btw. This is something I think you should consider on your own, without me up your nose about it.)

I hope this clarifies my position on the subject.