Talk:Political views of American academics

Xavier University

The description for the article at http://www.xavier.edu/xjop/documents/Hudson.pdf is not at all accurate. In fact it says there is no conclusive evidence of said hypothesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarysa (talk • contribs) 14:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

This is false. Read again in-depth and we'll talk. mezil (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Sarysa here, the study cited does not appear to support the content it is used as a ref for. It concludes that "In terms of the importance of salary, there was no significant difference between conservatives and liberals on how important this factor was in thinking about a career," and says that "there is no indication that conservatives in this group are more likely than liberals to self-select themselves out of academia," which seems to be the opposite of what the article currently says. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You would be correct, but my input includes analysis using said data. The other sources are more "in support" of the point of the article, which in itself is not saying that there absolutely is strong liberal bias in academia, but that there is evidence in support of the claim that there is some extent of liberal prejudice within the community of academics. If you do not agree with the article, please feel free to change and alter it as you find necessary with relevant sourcing. I don't own it, I'm only providing reasoning behind my actions. mezil (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained cleanup tag

@Pincrete: Is there any specific reason for the POV tag that you added to this article? Jarble (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The article conflates various terms and IMO, barely begins to address the topic. Specifically, liberal has a very different meaning in Europe and US. Further, economic liberalism, social liberalism, political liberalism are very different things, but I don't know which is being addressed. In Europe 'liberal' equates with moderate centrist political positions, whereas in US it equates more often with radical positions. Then, in education, we have the traditional use of 'liberal education' to mean a rounded, humanistic education, the traditional 'ideal' ironically of many educationally-conservative commentators.

At other times modern teaching methods appear to be equated with liberal bias, and PC and 'socio-cultural and political apologists' are presented as the alternative to centre-right positions. To be honest, the only sentence that was wholly clear to me was the opening one (perception). Perhaps 'neutrality' was the wrong tag and I appreciate that this is a difficult topic area, but I could not see anything resembling a 'rounded picture' of whether/why/in what way there might be a perceived or actual liberal bias in academia, nor whether that was necessarily a bad thing. Pincrete (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete: I have reverted your "edit" of Jajhill's table as it appears to be unconstructive, bordering on vandalism. Please provide justification or do not revert, thank you. mezil (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the removal: imo it places undue weight on a single, out of date study. We should briefly summarize their findings in prose instead. Please don't restore without first discussing it and getting consensus here. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually I was unaware that I had removed any table, however, looking at it, what does it communicate? Are these self-identifications? Without context, I have no idea what it all means and largely agree with Fyddlestix that text about the basis of the study and main conclusions would be more informative. Pincrete (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Article here by Neil Gross, asking many of the questions that 'raw stats' don't ask. A taste: just because most professors are liberal doesn’t mean the average student is being force-fed liberal ideology. In interviews I conducted with professors, I found that a large number teach on highly technical subjects where it would be downright weird to let politics enter the classroom. As one engineering professor put it when asked how politics factored into his work, “a chunk of metal doesn’t have politics.” Pincrete (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Yavorpenchev: @Pincrete: @Fyddlestix: While the points about the age of the study and that there is only one study cited are reasonable, I would strongly disagree with everything else. What such a table communicates that a summary can't is the ideological balance of each academic department. Listing the data by department in prose makes less sense than constructing a table. These are self-identifications, and that they are self-identifications can be noted above the table. As for the quotation above from Neil Gross's article, it entirely misses the point about academic bias. The issue isn't its effect on students; students political attitudes largely come from their peer group (in other words, other students). The problem with academic bias is that it produces bad, ideologically motivated research that is not replicated, goes uncriticized, even when debunked often continues to be cited, and the most ideologically lopsided academic departments have hostile climates and discrimination directed at professors who do not lean to the political left and that is a major reason why. From the Inbar and Lammers study, "...conservatives fear negative consequences of revealing their political beliefs to their colleagues...[and] they are right to do so: In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists said that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues. The more liberal respondents were, the more they said they would discriminate." From a literature review by José L. Duarte, Jarret T. Crawford, Charlotta Stern, Jonathan Haidt, Lee Jussim, and Philip E. Tetlock, "[The] lack of political diversity can undermine the validity of social psychological science via mechanisms such as the embedding of liberal values into research questions and methods, steering researchers away from important but politically unpalatable research topics, and producing conclusions that mischaracterize liberals and conservatives alike... Increased political diversity would improve social psychological science by reducing the impact of bias mechanisms such as confirmation bias, and by empowering dissenting minorities to improve the quality of the majority’s thinking... The underrepresentation of non-liberals in social psychology is most likely due to a combination of self-selection, hostile climate, and discrimination." Jajhill (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jajhill: I completely agree, that is why I defended your actions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yavorpenchev (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but the value of listing the political leanings of physicists, theologians, geographers etc. (ie 95+% of academia), because there is a single paper saying that social psychological research may be negatively impacted as a result of political bias in that particular field is somewhat lost on me. Pincrete (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Please prove that all professors are fair, that they don't influence their students or co-workers.

History, politics, sociology, law make more than 5% of academia.Xx236 (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course they do, but the studies Jajhill linked are of poor quality - the Lammers study only surveyed members of a specific association of psychologists, and by the study authors' own admission, had a response rate of 26% - they themselves compare that to the response rate that Klein and Western got in 2005, but fail to mention that Klein and Stern's paper was basically disregarded by serious scholars because of the low response rate. (See this paper for example). The Honeycutt and Freberg paper only surveyed scholars in a handful of California State University campuses, and again only got a response rate of 26%, which other RS have made clear is not a high enough response rate to draw meaningful conclusions from. The Duarte review, again, only talks about psychology. So while I have no problem with saying in the article that academia is generally liberal (in fact I added a bunch of sources to the article yesterday that say just that), these sources can't be used to verify that. They are very limited in scope and their methodology has been called out by other RS - and there are much much better and higher-quality sources out there that we can use to talk about academia in general. But the most important thing is that the numbers are properly contextualized, rather than presented as self-explanatory facts in a table. The higher-quality literature makes it very clear that it's more complicated than a simple tabulation of (mostly sketchy) survey results suggests. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Table again

I still strongly object to the table that purports to give percentages of party affiliation and and liberal-conservative percentages:

• The column titled "RLN" is currently sourced to a report by an obviously WP:BIASED conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute. But the data comes from this paper in The Forum. The paper is not peer reviewed and the authors never released their data. It was strongly challenged by other scholars in this paper, where they argue that "Rothman, Lichter, and Nevitte's work is plagued by theoretical and methodological problems that render their conclusions unsustainable by the available evidence."
• For some reason, there is also a column for the NAASS survey, which is the same survey that Rothman, Lichter, and Nevitte based their study on. Rothman et al specifically say (on page 3) that "The data come from the 1999 North American Academic Study Survey (NAASS)" So why are we reporting one survey's results as two? This is misleading to say the least.
• We have the same issue with the "2006 PAP Survey" and the "2007 Gross Simmons" survey - these are duplicate numbers from the same study - Gross' paper clearly states that "The study we undertook, which we called the Politics of the American Professoriate survey..." and the figures are clearly duplicated in both columns (rounded up in the first set). Gross' numbers appear to be solid, but the conclusions that he draws from them are clearly the primary thing worth noting about his work - in other words, the numbers need to be contextualized and Gross and Simmons' analysis of them need to be included if we're going to neutrally and fairly represent their work.
• The Langbert study says directly that their data "may be somewhat aberrational" and that they "cannot be sure" whether it is accurate.

In other words, these numbers are hugely controversial and should not be reported in a table as if it was something easily measured or factual. Most of these are rough, survey-based estimates at best, and for that reason I don't think any table of this type can be properly referenced or belongs in the article. The current table also cites the wrong sources (original studies should be cited instead of an AEI report), and repeats 2 sets of figures twice. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

My friend, you actually managed to sort of convince me. The Recent research, Theories and explanations and Implications sections have been written predominantly by you, so fair enough. Good effort and good nerves, thumbs up from me :)

mezil (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Questionable addition to wikipedia

As far as I can see this particular article has a very specific American leaning but the title of the article would suggest that the studies cited here apply to all higher education globally, additionally the focus on an absolute polarized Left/Right paradigm would in my view be largely construct and a consequence of a First Past the Post two party system rather than something that would be empirically quantifiable at a global scale, the qualities which make up a given "right" or given "left" vary from nation to nation.

It would be my view that the title of this article be updated to reflect the UScentric nature of this piece or that the article itself be nominated as a candidate for deletion outright as it is of it's current writing more of a skewed opinion piece than an article of substance.

Zardrastra (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

This article looks like a wall of nonsense. What is it doing in an encyclopedia? SPECIFICO talk 17:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Why are we calling a "study" a "report"?

@Snooganssnoogans: what sources do you have that call the study a "report"? I can't find any RS that refer to the NAS study as a report, and the NAS itself refers to its study as a report. We don't call it a peer-reviewed study because it has not been peer-reviewed (to my knowledge), but a study it certainly is.[1] And a link to its journal entry: [2]. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not peer-reviewed, and should therefore be described as a report. Fox News is not a RS, in particular when it comes to scientific topics (the network is known for its promotion of falsehoods and misrepresentation of science on climate change). A study implies peer-review (especially when it's placed in an article full of actual peer-reviewed studies). I consistently use the term "paper" to refer to working papers and "report" or "analysis" for analyses by think tanks and advocacy organizations. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't find any policy that states studies that haven't yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal should be called reports, but it's quite possible I missed it. Where is this stated on Wikipedia? I also couldn't find any place on Wikipedia that states Fox News is not a reliable source. I don't know if we'll be able to keep "report" unless there's sound reasoning behind contradicting the source material. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It's just common sense. It's not a peer-reviewed study, so we refer to it as a paper or report. This is not a problem that I've ever encountered before. It's beyond me why you want to mislead readers into thinking this is a peer-reviewed study when it isn't. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Snoogans: Please remember to AGF. This is my second request in a 30 day period, if I'm not mistaken. Clearly I am not trying to "mislead readers" by directly quoting the sourcing. Nobody said anything about "peer-reviewed," so there is no reason for readers to get that impression. I'm fairly certain misrepresenting the source material is a policy violation, but I am more than happy to open up an RfC and help us iron this out. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

On Wikpedia, we never identify studies as "peer-reviewed" (see all the peer-reviewed studies in this article which are not explicitly identified as peer-reviewed). We simply say "study", because it's presumed that a "study" cited on Wikipedia will be peer-reviewed. "Report", "Analysis" or "Paper" do however avoid the ambiguity to a large extent. Please do a RfC. You can also bring this up on the 'Style Guide' noticeboard (or whatever it's called). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a document prepared by an advocacy group to promote its mission. For the moment it's OK to leave it in the article if clearly attributed, but this is not a "study" in any sense. It's a statement that cites various statistics according to methods chosen by the authors according to methods and purposes that have not been vetted by any independent review. SPECIFICO talk 16:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 12 May 2018

Liberal bias in academia → Political views of American academics – Title of the article should not assume the consequent, and furthermore, should make sense internationally (the Liberal Party of Australia is hardly "liberal" by American standards). The appropriate title of this article would create a platform for neutral discussion of all aspects of views of academics, not just purported "liberal bias." No doubt there are charges of conservative bias in academia as well (see the recent media discussions of large Koch-funded donations to George Mason University) and we shouldn't have to create separate partisan articles for each. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support - What NorthBySouthBaranof said. The word liberal changes in meaning over time and location. The word bias is relative and suggests unfair prejudice. Having a political view does not mean you are biased. O3000 (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Proposed title is much clearer about the article's scope. Ibadibam (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Clearly the proposed title better reflects article content, whereas the reinstated "Liberal bias" is POV, OR, and generally preposterous. SPECIFICO talk 15:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - This disguises what the article is really about, which is the perceived left-slant in American universities. Natureium (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• That's an OR conclusion. And "perceived" is what we call "weasel". SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Current title reflects much (most) of the coverage this topic has received in media. Arkon (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as proposed - follows naming given by reliable sources and is an accurate name for the topic at hand. Alternate proposal if the word "liberal" itself is the problem (which, honestly, it probably isn't): Left-wing bias in academia. Red Slash 20:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, neutral on adding the word "American" to the article. Depends on the scope we want this to have. Red Slash 20:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• You're going to need to show how the sources state, as fact, that there's this "liberal bias" thing. Otherwise you are stating a conclusion based on various studies and analyses that would be covered by the new title but not the one you seek to retain. Moreover jumping from "liberal" to left-wing is an absurd and preposterous bit of OR POV that is not supported by any RS cited. SPECIFICO talk 20:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• The current title can not stand - if this move isn't done, it will have to be renamed something else. The current title is affirming the consequent - we cannot factually state that there is a "liberal bias in academia" absent a clear and unambiguous consensus of reliable sources doing so. There are certainly arguments that this is the case, but clearly those arguments must be presented as the contested opinions that they are. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The content in the article clearly proves that there is liberal bias in academia. I wouldn't say that the consensus is as strong as global warming--but it's close.– Lionel^(talk) 23:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Your problem is that the fact that academics tend to hold liberal personal views does not prove the existence of "liberal bias." The definition of bias is prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair; that such academics are prejudiced ... in a way considered to be unfair is in no way a proven matter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: move rationale falls flat on its face. We have hundreds of thousands of articles that have a political modifier in the title. If the article contains some off-topic content, move the content--don't rename the article. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater! There is nothing wrong with having "liberal" in the title.

That said, @Red Slash: offers an excellent alternative: Left-wing bias in academia.– Lionel^(talk) 23:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

There is absolutely something wrong with the word “bias” in the article title as it suggests unfair prejudice. It is an insult. We don’t even use the word bias in the title of the Klu Klux Klan article. I’m not a huge supporter of academia. But, to use a title suggesting that they are like the KKK seems a bridge too far. Do we have any articles on the beliefs of groups, say businessmen, Christians, farmers, and title it “conservative bias in …”? Bias means prejudice. We don’t put insults in WP titles – even for the Ku Klux Klan. O3000 (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Um, it may be hard for people with a certain POV to reconcile, but prejudice is exactly what this article is about. It may be inconceivable to some that White Male Republicans and their ilk face discrimination. The word "bias" is in common use in section titles. We have hundreds of sections with "bias." Some articles with "bias" are

• Gender bias on Wikipedia
• Racial bias in criminal news in the United States
• Second-generation gender bias
• Racial bias on Wikipedia

– Lionel^(talk) 02:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Political beliefs aren't gender or race. This is a category mistake. I mean we have an article on Spectrum bias but so what? Different kettle of fish. So just because the word "bias" appears in the title of other articles doesn't mean squat.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, we have an article on Gender bias which redirects to Sexism, which is a discussion of discrimination based upon gender, not a particular gender. The equivalent title here would be Political bias in academia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - The proposed title would turn the focus into a duplicate of the existing article academic bias, and, at its current length, there is no reason to limit the scope to America. Certainly, other studies exist from around the world and can be included. I do think the suggested Left-wing bias in academia is more correct and clear to the greatest number of people. I also think that, in addition to the studies that prove there is a disproportionate number of leftist in academia compared to the general population, the article should expand on the "bias" part by including more information about the consequences of this imbalance, including the impact on students, research, and culture. -- Netoholic @ 00:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC) Changing to Oppose and procedural close. Its clear other voters are not using this WP:RM process as its intended (to discuss correct application of our naming conventions), but rather to fundamentally change the intended focus of the article to something different. This is not the appropriate forum for such discussions (WP:VENUE). -- Netoholic @ 06:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• You seem to be confusing the current title with the proposed move. Please check and explain your view in terms that are not internally inconsistent. SPECIFICO talk 03:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• My vote is clear. This topic isn't about general bias in academia, nor is it about general political bias in academia. It is about the claims of, and proof of, left-wing bias specifically. The OP is trying to generalize a topic which deserves specific focus. -- Netoholic @ 07:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Some folks see bias in their Wheaties. Keep in mind that there are 2,600 four-year colleges and universities in the US, 600 of which are Christian-affiliated. It is good to have an article on the political views of academics. But, bias is a derogatory term. Why would an encyclopedia wish to apply a derogatory, political label to academia in general in an article title? Basically, we are telling the reader that they needn’t read the article if they want to know if there is a liberal bias. Who needs nuance? We should not have far-left or far-right political blogs writing our article titles. O3000 (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• And the current article and sources simply do not evince "proof of left-wing bias". Anyone who believes there are RS references that would support such a conclusion would be well-advised to locate and cite them. Otherwise it's this move is a done deal. SPECIFICO talk 19:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• You may wish to re-read the sources and article (and improve BTW), your POV is of no consequence. Arkon (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• This is far from a done deal. At the moment, it looks like it will be no consensus, which means the title will remain as is. Natureium (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Moves are not !votes, they're based on policy-based arguments, and it is clear that policy does not permit us to have an article whose title assumes the existence of the unproven. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• I agree. People are trying to change much more than the name of the article here by arguing that the subject itself isn't valid. That's another matter entirely. Natureium (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support Sorry, but I can't take "liberal bias" seriously as a non-POV title. Obviously, when conservatives choose to deny science and common sense, academia is going to have a slant towards liberals. That isn't an opinion, it's a fact, insamuch as you believe in actual facts._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support The "liberal bias" title is so over the top POV it's an embarrassment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Add: first, "liberals are over represented in academia" (which is supported in sources) is not the same thing as "there's a liberal bias in academia" (which is NOT necessarily supported by sources). Second, to the extent that some sources do talk about "liberal bias in academia", it's mostly in the context of debunking such a thing. So not a good justification for such a title.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Anytime men or whites or whatever are "over-represented" in a career, leftists will openly make claims of bias in hiring. The same applies here - this article can cover bias in academic hiring/promotion. -- Netoholic @ 07:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok here's your problem. Problems actually. And these are very typical. You use absolute qualifiers such as "anytime". And "men or whites". And "leftists" (wtf that's suppose to mean - one would think that any decent person, whether right or left, would oppose gender and race discrimination. None of these are actually applicable or true. Stop thinking in black vs. white (or red vs. blue or whatever). The way you make your statements really just betrays your own bias, non-neutrality and prejudices.

And it's already been pointed out that race and gender are not like political beliefs (one is a choice, the other not). I mean you might as well argue that flat-earthers are "discriminated against" in academia (not that conservatives are flat earthers, just that your logic applies to ANY group which chooses to believe ANYTHING, whether true or not).

Oh, and finally, in case you haven't noticed, I presume that you oppose it when "Anytime men or whites or whatever are "over-represented" in a career, leftists will openly make claims of bias in hiring". I mean, do you agree with "leftists" (sic) that "anytime men or whites are over-represented" (sic) there is biasing in hiring? Yes? No? If no, then why are you making an argument which you yourself don't believe in? That's disingenous and dishonest (if "yes", then you're good).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I like how you try to shame me for using common terms like ""leftists" (sic)" (and include scare quotes to make your point) and then in the very next section use blanket ideological terms conservatives (sic) in the exact same way. -- Netoholic @ 22:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad that you like it, but dude, my usage of the "blanket ideological term" "conservative" was precisely to point out that you SHOULDN'T stereotype conservatives, whereas your usage of the "blanket ideological term" "leftist" was to make the ridiculous assertion that all leftist are exactly the same and act in the same way. See the difference? Not that hard. Also, how about you step up and instead of weaseling and deflecting you answer the question. Also not that hard.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

There's also the other 99 fallacies in Netoholic's argument. Bias in hiring? What's the proportion of "liberals" in the applicant pool? How does it compare to the proportion of installed faculty? What's the correlation of "liberal" views with education? What's the proportion of "liberals" among PhD's in the population? Or does that just show liberal bias in grad school admissions? And what's the relative propensity of marginalized right wing conspiracy-quaffers to believe in half-baked assertions of liberal bias even while citing evidence to the contrary? 4 down, 96 to go. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Wait a minute, all I've been hearing lately is that different outcomes are definitely a result of bias and/or discrimination, and can't be simply due to individual choices or other factors. --Netoholic @ 22:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Netoholic, suppose that's true - that you have been hearing this lately. Do you agree with it? That different outcomes are definitely a result of bias and/or discrimination? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

What does an editor's agreement have to do with this thread? Arkon (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not that hard to understand. His oppose argument is basically ""leftists" (sic) do this so I'm going to do it too", even though he presumably disagrees with when "leftists" do it. It's a crap argument.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hearing what? Like secret voices? Even the paltry and random assortment of sources in this article don't say that. What do you think "bias" means, anyway? Do you think faculty should be randomly selected like Powerball? How many variables can you fit on the head of a pin? SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you stay on topic please? Address sources and the like? Arkon (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I already stated the indisputable reason why the requested move is inevitable: The sources and text of the article do not support the current title. Instead of telling others what to do, try finding additional sources that would support your preferred title/subject. I doubt you'll find any in RS. SPECIFICO talk 00:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Funny, because I stated the exact opposite of your "indisputable" statement. Weird right? How about you find/provide sources for your preferred title/subject. Arkon (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, this discussion supports the concept that there obviously exists a great deal to discuss in this particular arena. So, why would we put a conclusion in an article title? Particularly when it is so controversial. And, how many conspiracies fit on the head of a pin? O3000 (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support - per VM's astute comment above. Neutrality^talk 07:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Which "astute" comment may that be? Arkon (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Can you please stop haranguing people? Or if you're going to do it, at least put a little effort and creativity into it, rather than repeatedly asking questions with obvious answers.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Arkon - as others have pointed out, the "bias" title simply does not reflect the actual content of the article, nor does it reflect the reliable, non-opinion sources. There is plenty of material on the political views of U.S. academics, and how those vary by field. And the data shows that academics are more likely to be liberal Democrats than the general public. But overrepresentation is not the same thing as "bias" (whatever that means - I find it vague and unhelpful). Neutrality^talk 05:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• To editor Neutrality: - The broad "political views of academics" topic you're talking about is a different one than this article is intended to focus on, and I encourage you to go start that new article if you like. This topic is more narrowly focused and is named using a WP:COMMONNAME associated with it. This article is meant to cover any claims of bias AND the refutations of those claims of bias. This article will take the information about the well-documented ideological disparity, incorporate the claims of bias made in reference to that disparity, cite the research which investigates those claims of bias, and present the conclusions which either back up or refute those claims of bias. Trying to change the title and redefine the focus is WP:WRONGFORUM and ultimately pointless (since after the move, someone could split back out the new liberal bias content and start the article from scratch again). If you think this liberal bias topic doesn't belong on WP, then AFD it... but WP:RM is a process for simply applying our naming guidelines - not intended as a forum for discussing major changes in article scope nor the legitimacy of an article on Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 05:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Procedural comment. I have reverted the move that was performed today by a participant involved in this discussion. Please allow the Wikipedia:Requested moves process to proceed normally, including letting an uninvolved editor close the request after the usual period of discussion. Dekimasuよ! 07:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek has been on Wikipedia long enough to know not to move a page during a move discussion he's involved in. Please adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Natureium (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose No serious study has been done demonstrating anything resembling conservative bias in academia. Every study and survey shows clear-cut, purposeful, and pervasive liberal biases. The article title should reflect the subject matter. Hostility toward conservative students and guest speakers, the passionate acceptance of left-wing ideology and left-wing causes on their campuses, disparate treatment of conservative faculty and liberal faculty, the banning of the American flag, safe spaces, cry closets, anti-Trump courses, "Day of Absence" of white people, and it goes on. The article title should reflect the subject matter, which should be expanded and organized. Over-representation and bias are different, and both topics are pertinent to this article. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The current title doesn't appear to prepresent the larger body of reliable sources, nor does it correctly describe the text of the article. It looks like a WP:NPOV violation to me. The title certainly is worthy of an encyclopedia topic, but the current title isn't an accurate description of the body of the article. The current title implies it's a worldwide phenomenon, yet the article focuses only on the United States. I wouldn't object to a title like "liberal bias in American academia" to make it clearer what the article is about. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  Its important to point out that several editors endorsing this rename have likewise been voraciously editing the article to make it conform to that view. This effort is futile because RM cannot establish consensus on inclusion of this subject on Wikipedia, only change its name. Content related to liberal bias can (and likely will) just be split right back out if the article is moved because the proposed title is too broad. -- Netoholic @ 04:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

  I guess the other supporters have a valid point that a population having a majority of liberal people doesn't automatically equate to a liberal bias. There is certainly a conservative perception of liberal bias in academia. Perhaps the article could be recast that way? ~Anachronist (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support per "Neutrality in article titles". TFD (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• To editor The Four Deuces: - Would you confirm whether or not you arrived at this RM via this non-neutral post (per WP:CANVASS)? -- Netoholic @ 05:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support I learned of this move request from this post. Aside from the obvious issues of neutrality, this article is almost entirely about the political views of American academics rather than any liberal bias in academia (which is only mentioned briefly in the section "Effects"). Most of the sources referenced are research on the political views of professors at American universities, and most of the text of the article discusses that topic. One wouldn't say "liberal bias in American academia" to describe the fact that professors tend liberal anymore than one would say "conservative bias in rural America" to describe the fact that rural populations tend conservative, or "Democratic bias among African-Americans" etc. The phenomenon described by this article is political beliefs in one sub-population being unrepresentative of the population as a whole. That isn't what "bias" means, at least not in regular usage, and thus the current title is not just non-neutral, it's simply inaccurate. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support per previous supporters. (summoned here by a selective post on WikiProject Conservatism).- MrX 🖋 12:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Would not Left wing bias in US academia better reflect that the article is about?, after all liberal does not mean the same thing to all people (even now). At the very minimum it should make it clear this is about the US higher education system.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Either way, no “bias” (i.e. prejudice) has been shown. I suggest we change the title to Conservative bias that liberal bias exists in academe. O3000 (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The bias is systemic and pervasive but not surprising since higher education institutions have a long history of promoting free thinking.[3]--MONGO 15:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support Strong support per the reasoning of the proposer. Gandydancer (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I wouldn't mind a new title perhaps with something different than bias, but the proposed title is to broad for the actual content of the article. PackMecEng (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support As the article should also discuss conservative academic politics too, even though they are generally outnumbered by those that slant left and thus will not have much coverage (but they do exist). --Masem (t) 17:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I became aware of this discussion from the posting at WikiProject Conservatism, and judging by the comments above, it sure looks like there has been a lot of posting by both "sides". Anyway, the change would much better reflect WP:NPOV. The problem isn't the word "bias", but rather the blanket implication that what our readers need to know is that it is a "liberal" one. That's assuming the existence of a bias that slants in that way. And please understand that I am saying that while being fully aware of the abundant reliable sourcing indicating that the bias does slant that way. But there is also a well-documented "conservative" minority in academia, and it's unencyclopedic to imply that the only information that matters is that the "liberals" are in the majority. The encyclopedic treatment would be to describe the "political views of American academics" in a comprehensive way, even as that description will prominently include the significant dominance of liberal views. Treating this page as a vehicle to tell our readers "hey, you better know this, academia is dominated by liberals" is entirely a violation of NPOV and WP:RGW. Consider: we have a page on Christianity and violence that (I assume, haven't looked recently) gives prominence to the information that violence is contrary to much of Christian theology while also dealing with concepts like Just war – but we would not call it Christian bias against violence. Gun politics in the United States is blue, but Republican bias against gun control and Democratic bias against gun rights are red, and would be blatant WP:POV forks if they existed. Looking at some other examples listed above, pages about bias at Wikipedia are, at least, about Wikipedia. The one about news bias probably is bad in the same way as this page is (surely there are differences between news outlets). And the one about second-generation bias doesn't attribute the bias to anyone in its title. The properly encyclopedic topic is the political views in their entirety, not whether they slant one way or the other. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support per proposer and Tryptofish. You'd think after 16 years we'd figure out this "NPOV" thing but apparently not. Gamaliel (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Supportt' simply for neutral title ....but yes liberalism in higher educated people is the norm. ...... even during the 80s professors did not steer all that far away from the centerREAD ME.--Moxy (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support because the title has "American" in it. wumbolo ^^^ 21:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support as per the basics, see WP:NPOVTITLE of which it is a violation, let's fix this blemish.--Calthinus (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support per proposer and Calthinus. To expand, the title does not only reflect a judgement but is also highly misleading, because liberal has many different meanings depending on the region and other criteria. wikitigresito (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Left-wing targeting of academia

It's really ludicrous that the left-wing influence on academia is being challenged. This influence was a prime focus of the agenda of the New Left from the very beginning in the 60s. Just read our article Port Huron Statement which says "this 'will involve national efforts at university reform by an alliance of students and faculty' who "must wrest control of the educational process from the administrative bureaucracy."

If we are serious about improving and expanding this article then content addressing the efforts of the New Left and Students_for_a_Democratic_Society_(1960_organization) in particular must be added.– Lionel^(talk) 23:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

This would appear to be WP:SYNTH here absent any reliable sources making connections between these things. Your leap from "left-wing influence on academia" (which surely exists, just as "right-wing influence on academia" surely exists) to "liberal bias in academia" is not something you may just assemble from whole cloth. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

This is OR. On the other hand, the fact that starting in late 1970's because so much conservative money poured into setting up "independent" conservative think tanks, many educated conservatives CHOSE to go into these think tanks (AEI, Heritage, etc.) rather than traditional academia is pretty well documented. And they did so because, as long as you held or were willing to promote "correct" (i.e. conservative) beliefs, you got paid a lot better and you didn't have to worry about pesky things like peer review. So to the extent that there's a skewed representation of political beliefs in academia, a good chunk of that reflects simple self-selection.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

David Horowitz

I have removed a reference to a book by David Horowitz which was used to source the factual statement that "there is liberal bias in academia." Horowitz is a political ideologue, not an expert on academia. His work of popular political polemic might be useful to present Horowitz's attributed point of view, but I object to any statement therein being stated in Wikipedia voice as an unchallenged fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Such a statement is fine and welcome as long as it's attributed to him in the prose ("David Horowitz claims..."), just not if stated in Wikipedia's voice. Part of the scope of this article is to include points and counterpoints in regards to claims of bias made by pundits. You should modify such content, not remove it. --Netoholic @ 17:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

But why quote him anyway? TFD (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent re-write

I have reverted to before the recent wholesale rewrite and NSB's valiant effort to recover valid article content in the wake of it. Please state and discuss specific manageable components of this revision here on talk and seek consensus for your view as to how any of them improve the article. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be a common problem in the realm of politics-related articles for a few specific editors to entirely revert any edits they don't like. You can't just revert everything without saying what you disagree with. I see that you and NSB want to change what the article is about, and change the title to reflect that, but that is not the topic of the article. I changed back to the edits NSB made, not because I agree with them, but because of the issue of mass reversions. Natureium (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with IDONTLIKEIT. Their exist many NPOV problems with your mass rewrites. They should be reverted and consensus reached. O3000 (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The edits I made are descriptions of the studies done. They are not my own ideas.

Your change back to "Claims of liberal bias..." is an instance of weasel words per WP:WEASEL. I'm sure a compromise can be reached that states the topic of the article without editorializing. Natureium (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

They are claims by some sources you have picked. "Ideas" was weasely. And your perception of what this article was about does not match the perception of many other editors. O3000 (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree, "Claims" is sort of weasely, but it's the best available solution to the problem created by the NPOV violation of this article's title. If the title was changed, we could use better wording. Some people are resistant to changing the title, however, so we're kind of stuck with this kludge of a lede paragraph. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead

Due a recent flurry of activity (May 2018), I've reverted the lead to the last stable version from March 2018, which was stable for well over a year. Use this section to discuss updates/changes to that lead section. -- Netoholic @ 05:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Liberal Bias: the motherlode 60 sources to add to this article

There is a new research organization whose main purpose is to gather research and study the liberal bias. I'm referring to Heterodox Academy. Their extensive list of research papers will keep us busy documenting liberal bias for months. I suggest we divvy up the list and start adding relevant content to the article. Any thoughts on how to proceed?

Heterodox library

– Lionel^(talk) 10:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It appears to me that you are doing whatever you can to push one POV into this article by relying on agenda-driven sources. O3000 (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

That is absurd. The topic is liberal bias. Since when is adding on-topic reliably sourced reliably sourced scholarly content POV pushing? That's like saying adding police-involved killings of Blacks to the Black Lives Matter article is pov-pushing.– Lionel^(talk) 13:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it's like writing an article on the Republican Party using as a major source, the Democratic Party. O3000 (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

But, that is what we do here. We write articles on the Republicans & conservatives using BuzzFeed, Mother Jones and SPLC.– Lionel^(talk) 13:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Posting such ridiculous statements simply makes my point. Your “motherlode” which you say will keep us busy documenting liberal bias for months is a POV organization. You and that organization believe that there is a liberal bias and you have forced a POV title and are now using a partisan source to “prove” your POV. O3000 (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, what you seem to have here is a collection of studies that say "professors are liberal." OK, so what? It has been explained time and again that the fact that faculty tend to be left of center on the American political spectrum is not necessarily evidence of anti-conservative bias; just as the fact that most top NBA players are African-American is not necessarily evidence of anti-white bias. You need studies that make a connection between professors' personal political viewpoints and something relevant - like, do professors disproportionately give conservative students bad grades? That would be evidence of an anti-conservative bias. Merely endlessly pointing to what professors personally believe is not helpful to this debate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Lionelt is correct, here. We use organizations as sources that exist for the primary purpose of pushing a left-wing worldview, advancing the agenda of the DNC, and attacking Republicans and President Trump for articles related to conservative issues, Republicans, and President Trump. Sources can be biased, as long as they're properly attributed. That's why it's so important that we make it very clear where this information is coming from, to put the information into context. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Lionel, but policy is against you. It says that articles should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." That means that the Heterodox Academy's views - or any heterodox views - cannot be given much weight and certainly cannot be used for us to state as a fact that published reliable, sources are biased. You need to get the policy changed. It could be they are absolutely correct, but that in itself would not help you. TFD (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify. I'm not saying that we should use Heterdox as a reliable source. Heterodox has compiled a database of about 60 peer-reviewed scholarly sources from a variety of journals and publishers. These support the topic "Liberal bias in academia" succinctly. Here is a random sampling of the studies:

• "Why are there so few conservatives and libertarians in legal academia? An empirical exploration of three hypotheses." Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 39 (1), 153-207[4]
• Why are professors liberal and why do conservatives care?. Harvard University Press.[5]
• "Political Polarization on Campus at an All Time High" UCLA Higher Education Research Institute.[6]

So you see, these high quality studies directly support the topic "Liberal bias in academia." And there are about 57 more... And the list was compiled by Hererodox. No need to Google. Hererodox has done all the work. If any of their fellows are editors we should hand out barnstars. Obviously I can't go through 60 sources and add relevant material. That's why in the interest of efficiency that I suggested that we divvy up the 60 sources.– Lionel^(talk) 08:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

There are about 15 editors who have recently visited this page. Each editor could review 4 sources, and add anything they find about the topic of this article liberal bias. We'll have this article shipshape in no time.– Lionel^(talk) 08:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

OTOH this wealth of research into liberal bias could be used to source a new article Left-wing bias in American academia, since so many of the !voters support "American." – Lionel^(talk) 08:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Lionelt wrote: "So you see, these high quality studies directly support the topic "Liberal bias in academia.""

Umm, no they don't. Here is what one of your sources actually says:

"And before you blame colleges for liberal indoctrination, remember these were newly enrolled students, surveyed in the fall of their freshman year. That is, they arrived on campus with these political beliefs."
— Polarization on Campus at an All-time-high

If you would like to write the article, Liberal American students seek an education, feel free to do so.- MrX 🖋 11:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

They all show up with their Bernie beanies and leave with an MBA. That's American Education in the milennium. Unless they go to a "Christian college" -- then they show up with a bible and leave with a beer and a babe. SPECIFICO talk 12:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps an over would help What Is a Liberal Education?.--Moxy (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)