DOCSLIB.ORG

Survey of the Social, Political, and Educational Perspectives of American College and University Faculty

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Survey of the Social, Political, and Educational Perspectives of American College and University Faculty DOCUMENT RESUME ED 135 278 HE 008 622 AUTHOR Ladd, Everett Carll, Jr.; Lipset, Seymour Martin TITLE Survey of the Social, Political, and Educational Perspectives of American College and University Faculty. Final Report. 2 Volumes. INSTITUTION Connecticut Univ., Storrs. SPONS AGENCY National Inst. of Education (DHEW) ,Washington, D.C. BUREAU NO BR-3-3053 PUB DATE [76] NOTE 427p. EDRS PRICE ME-$0.83 HC-$23,43 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Administrative Policy; Affirmative Action; Age Differences; Collective Bargaining; *College Faculty; Economics; Educational Administration; Faculty Evaluation; Faculty Promotion; Faculty Workload; Foreign Policy; *Higher Education; National Surveys; Occupational Surveys; *Opinions; Political Issues; Public Opinion; Research; Sex Differences; Social Problems; *Teacher Attitudes; Teacher Role; Unions; Universities IDENTIFIERS National Institute of Education; NIE ABSTRACT A large-scale, national survey of college and university professcrs was conducted in 1975, supported by the National Institute of Education. The data were collected from more than 3,500 faculty members, and include 400 separate items fromeach respondent. The study tapped faculty opinion on such matters as unionization, bargaining agents, the university's response to and priorities in austerity, the argument over affirmative action, equality vs. meritocracy in the university, the nature of the academic enterprise, perception of one's own role(s), the value placed on various faculty responsibilities, teaching versus research, the failings cf the American university, domestic social,political, and economic matters, and foreign policy issues. Faculty views are presented in three perspectives: as compared with facultyopinion at earlier times, compared with public opinion, and analyzed by age, sex, and academic rank of the respondents. (MSE) *********************************************************************** Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished * materials not available from other sources. ERIC makes everyeffort * * to cbtain the best copy available. Nevertheless, items ofmarginal * * reproducibility are often encountered and this affects thequality * * of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makesavailable * via th ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). EDES is not * resEonsihle for the quality of the original document.Reproductions * * supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from theoriginal. *******,,*************************************************************** VOLUME I FINAL REPORT Survey, of the Social, Political, and Educational Perspectives of American College and University Faculty National Institute of Education Project Number 3-3053 Project Directors: Everett Carl]. Ladd, Jr.. , Director, Social Science.Data,Center and.ProfessOr of Political Science, University of ConnettiCUt Seymour Martin Upset. Professor of Political Science , and Sociology Stanford University Institution Administering Grant Funds: University of Connecticut Storrs, Connecticut 06268 Nsi The research reported herein was performed pursuant to a grant contract with the National Institute of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Contractors undertaking such projects under Government sponsor- ship are encouraged to express freely their professional judgment in the conduct of the project. Points of view or opinions stated do not, therefore, necessarily represent official National Institute of Education position or pclicy. 2 VOLUME I FINAL REPORT Survey of the Social, Political, and Educational Perspectives of American College and University Faculty National Institute of Education Project Number 3-3053 Project Directors: Everett Carll Ladd, Jr. Director, Social Science Data Center and Professor of Political Science University of Connecticut Seymour Martin Lipset Professor of Political Science and Sociology Stanford University Institution Administering Grant Funds: University of Connecticut Storrs, Connecticut 06268 The research reported herein was performed pursuant to a grant contractwith the National Institute of Education, U.S. Department ofHealth, Education, and Welfare. Contrictors undertaking such projects under Government sponsor- ship are encourage LA) express freely theirprofessional judgment in the conduct of the project. Points of view or opinions stated do not, therefore, necessarily represent official National Institute of Education position or policy. f!! TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE PART I: INTRODUCTION 1 Portrait of the American Academi,-.: An Introduction 1 PART II: AN OVERVIEW PORTRAIT OF THE PROFESSION 2 The Social Character of Academe 12 3 Faculty Women: Little Gain in Status 22 4 Academic Men and Women: Attitudinal and Behavioral Differences 31 5 The Political Liberalism of the Profession 43 6 The Aging Professoriate: A Changing Political Philoaophy 52 7 The Self-Critical University 63 8 Academe: A Teaching Profession, Not a Scholarly One 73 PART III: PROFESSIONAL STATUS AND CONCERNS 9 Faculty Attitudes and Approaches Toward Work 83 10 Faculty Self-Definitions of Role 94 11 Perceptions of the Profession 104 12 Perceptions of Individual Occupational Requirements 112 13 Perceptions of Power and Influence in America 124 PART IV: ISSUES OF THE UNIVERSITY 14 The Debate Over Equality and M ritocracy 137 15 Perspectives on Equality and Meritocracy: Their Determinants 148 Table of Contents Page 16 Academic Freedom: The Intelligence Heritability Debate 159 17 What is the Appropriate Student Role in University Affairs? 168 18 Retrenchment in the University: Declaring Priorities 178 19 The Growth of Unions in Acadcme 187 20 The Derivation of Support for Faculty Unionism 199 21 Characteristics of Faculty Union Constituencies 209 22 Characteristics of Faculty Union Activists 222 23 The Impact of Collective Bargaining on Academe 233 PART V: THE POLITICS OF ACADEMICS 24 The Extent and Predictability, of Political Divisions in Academe 243 25 Faculty Politics: The Role of Discipline and Type of School 252 26 The Politics of the Scholarly Elite 264 27 The Political Participation of Academics 273 28 Political Party Support Among Faculty 284 29 The Ideological Characteristics of Republican and Demozratic Partisans in Academe 293 30 Ideological Orientations and Journal Readership 303 31 Culture and Politics: Automobile Buying as a Case Study 315 32 Perspectives on Watergate 325 33 Perspectives on the Vietnam War 333 34 Perspectives on Foreign Affairs 341 35 Perspectives on the Middle East Conflict 351 PART VI: CONCLUSIONS 36 Epilogue: Portrait of the Profession 361 Table of Contents Page APPENDIX: TECHNICAL REPORT: 1975 SURVEY OF THE AMERICAN PROFESSORIATE 369 Project Professional Staff & Social Science Data Center Staff 370 Sampling Procedures 371 Questionnaire Administration 372 Weighting Procedures and Nonrespondent Bias 374 Comparative Analysis 382 Scale Construction 389 institutions Included in the Sample 390 Survey Questionnaire 394 6 PREFACE ri In April 1973, we submitted to the National Institute of Education a request for research support. We proposed to conduct a national survey of American college and universityprofessors. Several considerations were identified as of primary importance in justifying this new survey and Iti specifying its focus. We noted that it was not until 1969 that a large-scale, omnibus, national survey of U.S. faculty had been conducted. Universities had become primary social institutions but the sociopolitical orientations of their members had not been systematically examined--even though the survey tool was being regularly employed as a means ofinquiring into public opinion generally. We argued that the place of the contemporary university had become such that students of American society and politics should include the university within the bounds of their theoretical and empirical data gathering perview. More specifically, we emphasized the importance of attending to faculty opinion in the context of a changing environment. The 1969 Carnegie Commission on Higher Education "snapshot" of facultyopinions 'and perspectives was taken at a time when campus protests and demonstrations were the dominant concern. By 1973, however, academe had clearly entered a new era, with a distinctive agenda. Austerity had begun to command attention as much as protests did a half decade earlier. In the context of fiscal austerity, loss of public confidence or at least enthusiasm, and growingpessimism, a number of new or greatl, extended areas of conflict had appeared. We noted, for Example, that as recently as the mid-1960s unionization of collegeand university professors was not seriously discussed. But by the early 1970s it had become a major issue and a subject of contention. To understand universities, to be able to anticipatethe types of responses they will make to the demands upon them, tobe able to assess their performance generally, one must understand the social,political, and educational commitments of the people who directthem--meaning here most notably the half million men and women who areemployed full- time in professorial positions. We also noted in our April 1973 proposal that in the courseof research which we had already conducted on facultyopinion a number of areas of inquiry had been identifiedrequiring further survey examination. The principal publication based on the firstphase of our examination of the Americanacademic community is The Divided Academy: Professors and Politics (New York: McGraw Hill, 1975). The survey which we proposed in April 1973 was,after
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Social and Political Views of American Professors
    THE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL VIEWS OF AMERICAN PROFESSORS Neil Gross Harvard University [email protected] Solon Simmons George Mason University [email protected] Working Paper, September 24, 2007 Comments and suggestions for revision welcome In 1955, Columbia University sociologist Paul Lazarsfeld received a grant from The Ford Foundation’s newly established Fund for the Republic – chaired by former University of Chicago President Robert M. Hutchins – to study how American social scientists were faring in the era of McCarthyism. A pioneering figure in the use of social surveys, Lazarsfeld employed interviewers from the National Opinion Research Center and Elmo Roper and Associates to speak with 2451 social scientists at 182 American colleges and universities. A significant number of those contacted reported feeling that their intellectual freedom was being jeopardized in the current political climate (Lazarsfeld and Thielens 1958). In the course of his research, Lazarsfeld also asked his respondents about their political views. Analyzing the survey data on this score with Wagner Thielens in their 1958 book, The Academic Mind, Lazarsfeld observed that liberalism and Democratic Party affiliation were much more common among social scientists than within the general population of the United States, and that social scientists at research universities were more liberal than their peers at less prestigious institutions. Although The Academic Mind was published too late to be of any help in the fight against McCarthy (Garfinkel 1987), it opened up a new and exciting area of sociological research: study of the political views of academicians. Sociologists of intellectual life, building on the contributions of Karl Marx, Max Weber, Karl Mannheim, and others, had 1 long been interested in the political sympathies of intellectuals (see Kurzman and Owens 2002), but most previous work on the topic had been historical in nature and made sweeping generalizations on the basis of a limited number of cases.
    [Show full text]
  • Larry Diamond Papers
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt058032tv No online items Guide to the Larry Diamond Papers Daniel Hartwig Stanford University. Libraries.Department of Special Collections and University Archives Stanford, California October 2010 Copyright © 2015 The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved. Note This encoded finding aid is compliant with Stanford EAD Best Practice Guidelines, Version 1.0. Guide to the Larry Diamond SC0910 1 Papers Overview Call Number: SC0910 Creator: Diamond, Larry Jay Title: Larry Diamond papers Dates: 1969-1977 Physical Description: 0.75 Linear feet Summary: Collection includes memos, minutes, reports, correspondence, and background materials from Diamond’s work on the ASSU Task Force on Tenure and Teaching Quality (1976) and the Subcommittee on Female Admissions of the Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Financial Aid (1971-72), of which he was the chairman. The charge to this committee was to assess the impact of admitting significantly more female students to Stanford. Language(s): The materials are in English. Repository: Department of Special Collections and University Archives Green Library 557 Escondido Mall Stanford, CA 94305-6064 Email: [email protected] Phone: (650) 725-1022 URL: http://library.stanford.edu/spc Information about Access This collection is open for research. Ownership & Copyright All requests to reproduce, publish, quote from, or otherwise use collection materials must be submitted in writing to the Head of Special Collections and University Archives, Stanford University Libraries, Stanford, California 94304-6064. Consent is given on behalf of Special Collections as the owner of the physical items and is not intended to include or imply permission from the copyright owner.
    [Show full text]
  • Is the Constitution?
    How Dell10cratic Is the Constitution? Robert A. Goldwin and ~Villiam A. Schambra editors American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research Washington, D.C. This book is the first in a series in AEI's project IIA Decade of Study of the Constitution," funded in part by a Bicentennial Challenge Grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Main entry under title: How Democratic is the Constitution? (AEI studies; 294) 1. Representative government and representation-United States­ Addresses, essays, lectures. 2. United States-Constitutional history-Addresses, essays, lectures. 3. Democracy-Addresses, essays, lectures. 1. Goldwin, Robert A., 1922- II. Schambra, William A. III. Series: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. AEI studies; 294. JK21.H78 321.8'042'0973 80-24291 ISBN 0-8447-3400-4 ISBN 0-8447-3399-7 (pbk.) 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 © 1980 by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington and london. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without permission in writing from the American Enterprise Institute except in the case of brief quotations embodied in news articles, critical articles, or reviews. The views expressed in the publications of the American Enterprise Institute are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, advisory panels, officers, or trustees of AEI. Printed in the United States of America The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, established in 1943, is a nonpartisan, nonprofit research and educational organization supported by foundations, corporations, and the public at large.
    [Show full text]
  • MIT's Openness to Jewish Economists
    MIT’s Openness to Jewish Economists by E. Roy Weintraub CHOPE Working Paper No. 2013-05 June 2013 MIT’S OPENNESS TO JEWISH ECONOMISTS E. Roy Weintraub Duke University June 26, 2013 Abstract MIT emerged from “nowhere” in the 1930s to its place as one of the three or four most important sites for economic research by the mid-1950s. A conference held at Duke University in April 2013 examined how this occurred. In this paper the author argues that the immediate postwar period saw a collapse – in some places slower, in some places faster – of the barriers to the hiring of Jewish faculty in American colleges and universities. And more than any other elite private or public university, particularly Ivy League universities, MIT welcomed Jewish economists. JEL Classification: A14, B00, B20 Keywords: MIT, Jewish faculty, anti-Semitism, Samuelson Page 1 of 16 This paper will appear, in an edited form, in the Supplementary Issue to Volume 46 of the History of Political Economy, and in the 2014 Duke University Press hardcover book titled MIT and the Transformation of American Economics. Please do not quote from, cite, or reproduce this version without the written permission of the author, and volume’s editor, E. Roy Weintraub ([email protected]). MIT’s Openness to Jewish Economists E. Roy Weintraub1 MIT emerged from “nowhere” in the 1930s to its place as one of the three or four most important sites for economic research by the mid-1950s. Other papers in this volume provide a variety of narratives of how this occurred. Here I point out that the immediate postwar period saw a collapse – in some places slower, in some places faster – of the barriers to the hiring of Jewish faculty in American colleges and universities.
    [Show full text]
  • The Academic Life. Small Worlds, Different Worlds. a Carnegie Foundation Special Report
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 299 902 HE 021 877 AUTHOR Clark, Burton R. TITLE The Academic Life. Small Worlds, Different Worlds. A Carnegie Foundation Special Report. INSTITUTION Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Princeton, NJ. REPORT NO ISBN-0-931L.;0-32-4 PUB DATE 87 NOTE 376p. AVAILABLE FROM Princeton University Press, 3175 Princeton Pike, Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 ($12.50, paper--ISBN-0-931050-32-4; $24.50, hardback--ISBN-0-931050-31-6). PUB TYPE Reports - General (140) -- Viewpoints (120) EDRS PRICE MF01 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS. DESCRIPTORS Careers; *College Faculty; Culture; Higher Education; Institutional Characteristics; Organizations (Groups); Power Structure; *Professional Occupations; Professors; Researchers; Research Utilization; *Teaching (Occupation) IDENTIFIERS Academic Structure ABSTRACT The condition of the academic profession today is examined with a focus on the teaching and research functions in the academy. The diverse settings in which academics work are considered in three parts: (1) the foundations of the academic profession (the evolution of institutions; the elaboration of disciplines; and the open system); (2) the dimensions of academic professionalism (the imperatives of academic work; the enclosures of cilture; the grip of authority; the promises of career; and the ties cf association); and (3) the logic of the profession. Three judgments on the logic of the acdemic profession in America deal with: the hegemony of subjects; the dual commitment of academics to subjects and institutions, which greatly strengthens centrifugal forces in the profession; and the nature of research and teaching as human activities that promote the tendency for academic life to remain a calling. Appended are research focus and procedures; American disciplinary associations (1985); supplementary tables on the imperatives of academic work, the enclosures of culture, and the promises of career.
    [Show full text]
  • RF Annual Report
    ANNUAL REPORT 1976 © 2003 The Rockefeller Foundation a THE~ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION 1,133 AVENUEo~, THE AMERi’cAS, .NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10036 " ’PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES,"OF AMERICA © 2003 The Rockefeller Foundation CONTENTS Trustees, Officers, and Staff n Organizational Information xit THE PRESIDENT'S REVIEW 1 GRANTS AND PROGRAMS 11 Conquest of Hunger 12 Population and Health 23 Education for Development 36 Conflict in International Relations 42 Equal Opportunity 49 Arts, Humanities and Contemporary Values 62 Quality of the Environment SO Special Interests and Explorations 93 Study Awards 1 ©2 STATEMENTS 109 118 2003 The Rockefeller Foundation TRUSTEES AND TRUSTEE COMMITTEES December 31, 1976 CYRUS R. VANCE Chairman JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER SRD Honorary Chairman BOARD OF TRUSTEES W. MICHAEL BLUMENTHAL BILL MOVERS ROBERT H. EBERT JANE C. PFEIFFER CLIFFORD M. HARDIN JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV BEN W. HEINEMAN ROBERT V. ROOSA THEODORE M. HESBURGH NEVIN S. SCRIMSHAW VERNON E. JORDAN, JR. FREDERICK SEITZ LANE KIRKLAND MAURICE F. STRONG JOHN H. KNOWLES CYRUS R. VANCE MATHILDE KRIM PAUL A. VOLCKER RICHARD W. LYMAN CLIFTON R. WHARTON, JR. EXSGwrmm COMMITTEE THE PRESIDENT Chairman Alternate Members ROBERT H. EBERT VERNON E. JORDAN, JR. BEN W. HEINEMAN MATHILDE KRIM LANE KIRKLAND ROBERT V. ROOSA JANE C. PFEIFFER FREDERICK SEITZ CYRUS R. VANCE PAUL A. VOLCKER *m4 W£f- CQMM8TTEE ROBERT V. ROOSA Chairman Alternate Members W. MICHAEL BLUMENTIIAL CLIFFORD M. HARDIN MAURICE F. STRONG PAUL A. VOLCKER COUNSEL PATTERSON, BELKNAP AND WEBB ROBERT M. PENNOYER // © 2003 The Rockefeller Foundation OFFICERS AND STAFF IN NEW YORK December 31, 1976 ADMINISTRATION JOHN H. KNOWLES President ALLAN C.
    [Show full text]
  • A Choice, Not an Echo: Polarization and the Transformation of the American Party System
    A Choice, Not an Echo: Polarization and the Transformation of the American Party System The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Rosenfeld, Sam Hoffmann. 2014. A Choice, Not an Echo: Polarization and the Transformation of the American Party System. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:12274614 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA A Choice, Not an Echo: Polarization and the Transformation of the American Party System A dissertation presented by Sam Hoffmann Rosenfeld to The Department of History in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of History Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts May 2014 © 2013 Sam Hoffmann Rosenfeld All rights reserved. Dissertation Advisor: Lizabeth Cohen Sam Hoffmann Rosenfeld A Choice, Not an Echo: Polarization and the Transformation of the American Party System Abstract This dissertation offers an intellectual and institutional history of party polarization and ideological realignment in the postwar United States. It treats the construction of an ideologically sorted party system as a political project carried out by conscious actors within and around the Democratic and Republican parties. The work of these activists, interest groups, and political elites helped to produce, by the last decades of the twentieth century, an unpredicted and still-continuing era of strong, polarized partisanship in American politics.
    [Show full text]