POLITICS AND ACADEMIC VALUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 1

Running head: POLITCS AND ACADEMIC VALUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Politics and Academic Values in Higher Education:

Just How Much Does Political Orientation Drive the Values of the Ivory Tower?

APA Citation: Geher, G., Jewell, O., Holler, R., Planke, J., Betancourt, K., Baroni, A., Di Santo,
J., Gleason, M., & Eisenberg, J. (2020). Politics and Academic Values in Higher Education: Just
How Much Does Political Orientation Drive the Values of the Ivory Tower? Unpublished
Manuscript.

Glenn Geher, Olivia Jewell, Richard Holler, Julie Planke, Kian Betancourt, Amanda Baroni,

Jacqueline Di Santo, Morgan Gleason, and Jacqueline Eisenberg

State University of New York at New Paltz

Contact information regarding this manuscript as follows:

Glenn Geher, Ph.D.

Founding Director of Evolutionary Studies / Professor of Psychology

State University of New York at New Paltz

E-mail: [email protected]

Homepage: http://www.glenngeher.com
POLITICS AND ACADEMIC VALUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 2

Abstract

This research examined academic values among a broad sample of academics throughout the

United States. The primary purpose of this research was to see if academic values are

significantly related to field of expertise, political orientation, gender, and personality.

Participants, who included 177 academics, were asked to indicate how much they prioritize five

academic values, including academic rigor, academic freedom, student emotional well-being,

social justice, and the advancement of knowledge. Political orientation was related to each of

these values, except for academic freedom, with political liberalism corresponding to a focus on

student emotional well-being and social justice with a concomitant de-emphasis on academic

rigor and knowledge advancement. Area of expertise demonstrated a similar effect, with scholars

from the field of education showing a pattern similar to those who have a strong liberal political

orientation and scholars in the field of business showing the converse trend. Gender had

independent effects, with females having stronger emphases on student emotional well-being and

social justice compared with males. Finally, in terms of personality correlates, those who scored

relatively high on a measure of agreeableness demonstrated more emphasis on student emotional

well-being and social justice with a de-emphasis on academic rigor and knowledge advancement.

Taken together, these findings indicate that academic values are strongly related to a variety of

socially and psychologically relevant variables. Further, these data provide strong evidence that

values among academics vary wildly as a function of such variables as political orientation, area

of expertise, gender, and personality.

Keywords: Academic Values, Social Justice, Politics, Academic Freedom, Free Speech
POLITICS AND ACADEMIC VALUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 3

Academic Values in Higher Education:

The Roles of Field of Study, Personality, Gender, and Politics

In a provocative recent lecture on the campus at the State University of New York at New

Paltz, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt (2016a) presented an argument regarding a shift in

values with the academy. According to Haidt, the shift is broadly understood as a shift toward

valuing Social Justice (or a focus on making the world a more equitable place for all) over Truth

(or the advancement of knowledge). Haidt’s thesis (articulated well in Haidt 2012), rests partly

on the idea that ideologies, regardless of content, often mirror the nature of religious thinking,

with a basic set of ideas that are considered sacrosanct within a particular social group.

Academia is famously liberal in terms of political ideology (see Rothman et al. 2005;

Cardiff & Klein 2005), which can have cascading effects on an academic institution’s

infrastructure ranging from academic morality (Blunden, 2006) to whom to hire as a faculty or

staff member. As such, we might expect that within an academic community, extremely left-

leaning beliefs would be held as sacrosanct and that, concomitantly, alternative beliefs would be

seen, in Haidt’s (2016a) terminology, as blasphemous. For instance, a belief that taxes should be

used to work toward socioeconomic equality would be seen, from this Haidt-ian vantage point,

as a sacrosanct truth with any alternative perspectives being seen as unacceptable - or, more

dramatically, as blasphemous.

As ideologies become relatively polarized, perspectives that deviate from the core beliefs

connected with said ideologies become less and less acceptable despite the efforts to reconsider

and refine university values and institutional infrastructures (in Blackley, Luzeckyj, & King,

2020). Haidt’s (2012) thesis largely sees all modern human ideological systems as having

substantial parallels with systems of religious beliefs. Further, this thesis conceptualizes such
POLITICS AND ACADEMIC VALUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 4

social psychological processes as rooted in ancestral tribalistic psychology, which, from the

evolutionary perspective (see Geher 2014), is typified by strong pressures for individuals within

clans to identify strongly with in-group norms and to treat out-group norms and individuals with

skepticism. These basic human social psychological processes, from this perspective,

characterize our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors to this day.

Academic Values and Haidt-ian Psychology

Applied to modern academia, Haidt’s (2016a) thesis essentially argues that the

predominant norm within the academy is one that is essentially extremely left-leaning - perhaps

beyond what most would consider as politically liberal, in fact. In such a world, then, the basic

values held by the extreme left can be expected to serve as sacrosanct values among many

academics - and as the predominant values that are held on campuses across the nation.

One core ideological element of the far left is an emphasis on social justice - making the

world an equal and just place for people of all kinds of backgrounds. In fact, Haidt argues that a

social-justice orientation in the academy has become so dominant, that many universities now

see social justice as the primary value of their mission statements (Preston, 2006). Such an

outcome mismatches, as Haidt (2016a) points out, with the traditional basic value of academia

which is essentially uncovering the true nature of phenomena in the universe - or, perhaps put

more simply, the advancement of knowledge.

As Haidt’s argument advances, he identifies that the goals of a social-justice orientation

are often inconsistent with the goals of a knowledge-advancement orientation. In other words, if

the objective is to work toward social-justice achievement, then any knowledge obtained in the

scholarship that does not necessarily contribute to effect social justice is scholarship that will

more likely be viewed as inadequate within the academy.

POLITICS AND ACADEMIC VALUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 5

With this set up, we sought to examine the degree to which academics value social justice

versus knowledge advancement as core academic values. Further, our research sought to uncover

correlates of the differential focus of each of these (and some related) academic values.

Political Orientation and Academic Values

The ethos of modern academia is undoubtedly shaped by the predominant values held by

the academics currently at universities. The increasing predominance of liberal and left-leaning

faculty on American college campuses exists across universities of varying caliber, as well as

across disciplines (Rothman et al. 2005). The idea that the academy is politically divided to a

degree and is shifting away from the traditional goal of simply advancing knowledge is not

unfounded or entirely unexplored. Yet, empirical investigations into this issue have oftentimes

carried an inimical tone, primarily aiming to find evidence against the existence of liberal bias in

academia (La Falce and Gomez 2007). This dialogue has thus manifested into somewhat of an

ideological debate between conservative critics and liberal defenders of academia attempting to

elucidate the true validity (or lack thereof) of the intellectual diversity movement.

Diversity has long been a highly valued component of academia. However, particularly in

recent years, higher education has been suffering an increasing loss of political diversity as

academia becomes more aligned with a liberal social agenda and progressive ideals (Duarte et al.

2015; Haidt 2016b). Thus, the problem that has arisen is that although diversity of race,

ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation is valued within higher education, diversity in thought

and ideas is often not (Klein et al. 2005; Maranto et al. 2005). Moreover, this lack of viewpoint

diversity is inherently biased and may carry adverse consequences to the validity of research as a

whole (Duarte et al., 2016).

POLITICS AND ACADEMIC VALUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 6

Previous work has indeed found differences in educational values based on the political

orientation of university faculty (Zipp and Fenwick 2006). Namely, conservative academics were

more concerned with ensuring students are prepared for careers, and were less likely to value

academic freedom, creative thinking, an appreciation of literature and the arts compared to

liberal faculty. From this, the researchers concluded that the values of liberal faculty are more

aligned with traditional goals of higher education. To a degree, this conclusion holds truth in that

conservatives value career preparation, which is not a traditional value in academia; however, the

values included in the study were not truly encompassing of more rudimentary values of

academia.

As Haidt (2016a) argued, the primary emphasis of the ideological elements of social

justice versus truth may be central to understanding the underlying differences in academic

values across academics and universities. Politically left academics, perhaps being more likely to

endorse social justice opposed to the objective advancement of knowledge, may also have a

starkly different conceptualization of what should be valued in academia compared to more

conservative academics. Little research has empirically assessed the relation between core

academic values, political orientation, and additional factors (e.g., field of study, individual

personality) with an entirely objective lens. Additionally, in light the current national political

climate characterized by increasing political polarization and cross-party hostility, these

disparate values may be amplified to an even greater degree.

Field of Study and Academic Values

Historically, academics in certain fields of study (e.g., humanities and social sciences; see

Geher and Gambacorta 2010) are more likely to hold core left-leaning ideological beliefs than

are academics in the natural sciences, business, and engineering (Ladd and Lipset 1975, as cited
POLITICS AND ACADEMIC VALUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 7

in Rothman et al. 2005). Sociology and psychology in particular are overwhelmingly uniform in

the political orientations held by academics, as the nature of these fields often align with

principles of social justice (Duarte et al. 2016; Haidt 2016a; Klein and Stern 2006; McClintock et

al. 1965). The identity and epistemology of these disciplines seem to fundamentally conflict with

classic liberal and modern conservative ideology (see Adam 2012).

Past research has consistently demonstrated that academic disciplines are dominated by a

liberal majority, albeit to varying degrees based on field of study (Maranto et al 2005a). Based

on a voter registration study, the ratio of democrats to republicans across departments is

estimated to be 5 to 1, whereas business schools is estimated to have a much smaller 1.3 to 5

ratio and the sociology department is estimated at a staggering 44 to 1 ratio (Cardiff and Klein

2005). Additionally, ideological diversity in both political orientation and policy views is greater

in republican than democratic academics, with economics having by far the greatest variation in

policy views (Klein and Stern 2005). Viewpoint diversity is an important asset to the

advancement of knowledge in the academy, and, as demonstrated, it is largely shaped by

political forces.

On campuses, perceived hostility against conservatives appears to perpetuate this

polarization in viewpoint, as both ends of the political spectrum largely possess an “in-group/out-

group” attitude (Honeycutt and Freberg 2017). Regardless of the underlying mechanisms,

academics are differentially attracted to fields of study based on their political orientation. As a

result, the various fields of study are likely to have different core beliefs pertaining to what

should be valued in academia.

POLITICS AND ACADEMIC VALUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 8

Personality, Gender, and Academic Values

Given the ubiquitous role of basic personality traits (Feingold 1994) and gender (Hyde

1990) on behaviors that cut across domains, these variables may also significantly relate to

academic values in meaningful ways. Thus, we may expect effects of gender and personality on

indices of academic values.

There is a gender gap in the moral motivation for civil engagement in adolescents, with

girls driven to take action by their desire to help and give back and boys driven by the desire to

act out their beliefs and values (Malin et al. 2015). Differences in moral motivation between girls

and boys may provide clues as to why there is a gender gap in political ideology in adulthood. In

particular, female faculty members are typically more left leaning than their male counterparts,

and have been shown to become increasingly more liberal in recent years, which may have an

effect on political leaning in academia since the number of female faculty members has been

increasing (Zipp and Fenwick 2006). Additionally, gender differences in political orientation

among academics may have an effect on academic values because of gender differences in

personality traits as a result of the differing traits influencing behaviors of the individuals.

Regarding personality traits, males typically score higher than females on scales of

assertiveness, and in contrast, females score higher than males on anxiety, trust and tender

mindedness or nurturance (Feingold 1994). These differences in personality traits suggest

possible gender differences in academic values, particularly regarding social justice and the

emotional well-being of students because of gender differences in helping behaviors (Hyde

1990).

Aside from gender-by-personality interactions, it may be the case that basic personality

traits, such as the Big Five dimensions (of extraversion, emotional stability, openness,
POLITICS AND ACADEMIC VALUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 9

agreeableness, and conscientiousness; see Gosling et al. 2003) correlate with academic values. In

particular, we predict that openness would be positively correlated with a focus on academic

freedom. Given the powerful predictive nature of the Big Five regarding a host of psychological

outcomes, we include a brief measure of the Big Five in this study to explore dispositional

correlates of academic values.

The Current Study

To address the phenomenology of core academic values among academics, we created

measures regarding how much people endorse five basic academic values (academic freedom,

knowledge advancement, academic rigor, student emotional well-being, and social justice). Vis a

vis the reasoning mentioned to this point, participants (who were all academics) also completed

measures of political orientation, field of academic inquiry, gender, and basic personality traits

(the Big Five). Our basic hypotheses were as follows:

With regard to political orientation and academic values, political liberalism will

correspond to holding values of student well-being and social justice, whereas political

conservatism will correspond to valuing academic freedom. We also expect field of study to

predict these values, with those in Business being less likely to value social justice and student

emotional well-being - and the converse being predicted for faculty in schools of education or

social sciences. Of the Big Five personality traits, we predict openness to experience to be

positively correlated with the value of academic freedom. Finally, we predict some gender

effects, such as women being more focused on social justice and student emotional well-being

compared with men.

POLITICS AND ACADEMIC VALUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 10

Method

Participants

Participants were at least 18 years of age and were a current academic faculty member of

any university or college within the United States took an online survey created via Qualtrics. Of

the 177 participants who started this survey, about 140 completed the survey in its entirety. Thus,

approximately 140 participants were analyzed for most measures. For our analyses, the N ranged

from 120 to 147 and included 67 males and 68 females.

Measures and Procedure

The researchers distributed the Qualtrics survey link in various online venues. Public

groups and pages that were in any way affiliated with academic faculty from a university or

college within the United States were reached out to on Facebook. Additionally, the researchers

disseminated the Qualtrics link to academic faculty members from various universities and

colleges throughout the United States. Faculty members’ email addresses were randomly

selected from open faculty directories.

The first of the three measures of interest presented to the participants was the Budget

Allocation Task (Li 2008). This method was employed to capture how each participant rated the

following five academic values: academic rigor, academic freedom, social justice, emotional

well-being of students, and advancing knowledge. Participants were instructed to allocate exactly

100 points across the five values. For instance, if a participant valued only emotional well-being,

then the participant would allocate 100 points for that category and 0 for all the others.

The second measure presented to the participants was the Social and Economic

Conservatism Scale (SECS; Everett 2013). This scale included 12 items for the participants to

indicate how much they agreed or disagreed towards a statement of a political issue by entering
POLITICS AND ACADEMIC VALUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 11

in a number ranging from 0 to 100 (0, 50, and 100, respectively, indicating Strong Disagreement,

Neutral Agreement, and Strong Agreement). Examples of political statements include: Women

should have the right to have an abortion; Gun ownership should not be restricted; and

Patriotism is an important value.

The Ten Item Personality Scale was the final measure of interest presented to the

participants (Gosling et al. 2003). The scale included 10 items that assessed the Big Five

personality traits (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism).

On a 1 to 7 likert scale, participants indicated how much they agreed or disagreed with

statements that that described them (1 indicating Disagree Strongly and 7 indicating Agree

Strongly).

Results

Academic Value Allocations: Descriptive Statistics

Our initial analyses included descriptive statistics speaking to how much participants

valued each of the five academic values included in this study. As found in Table 1, data are

presented across all participants as well as divided by gender.

POLITICS AND ACADEMIC VALUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 12

Table 1: Means and Standard Deviations for Academic Values as a Function of Gender

M SD

Academic Rigor Total: 26.02 15.47

Males: 27.79 13.48
Females: 24.97 13.09

Academic Freedom Total: 19.24 12.38

Males: 20.19 10.91
Females: 18.68 9.16

Social Justice Total: 12.97 10.85

Males: 11.43* 11.77
Females: 15.88* 9.38

Emotional Well-Being Total: 12.48 7.85

Males: 10.61* 7.24
Females: 15.13* 7.38

Advancing Knowledge Total: 25.76 12.87

Males: 28.33 13.67
Females: 25.19 9.81
___________________________________________
N for Males = 67; N for Females = 68
*p < .05 (significant sex difference in means based on between-groups t-test)

Overall, regardless of any gender differences, academic rigor and advancing knowledge were the

most highly endorsed of the core values. To address possible gender differences for each value,

we conducted a between-groups t-test. There was a significant gender difference for social

justice with females (M = 15.88, SD = 9.38) valuing social justice more than males (M = 11.43,

SD = 11.77; t(133) = -2.43 ; , p = .02, d = .97). Similarly, females (M = 15.13 , SD = 7.38) valued

student emotional well-being (t(133) = -3.59 , p = .00, d = 1.47) more than did males (M = 10.61,

SD = 7.24).
POLITICS AND ACADEMIC VALUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 13

Zero-Order Correlations between Political Orientation and Academic Value Allocations

This research is premised partly on the idea that academic values are correlated with

political orientation. To examine this question, zero-order correlations were computed between

scores on the Social and Economic Conservatism Scale (SECS) and scores on each of the

academic values.

Emphasis on academic rigor and advancing knowledge were each correlated significantly

and positively with political conservatism (r = .30, p ≈ .00; r = .22, p ≈ .00, respectively). On

the other hand, political conservatism was negatively correlated with emphasis on both social

justice and the emotional well-being of students (r = .-.34, p ≈ .00; r = -.16, p = .03,

respectively). Emphasis on Academic freedom was not correlated significantly with political

conservatism.

Table 2: Correlations between Scores of Political Conservatism and Academic Values (r with p
in parentheses)

Academic Academic Social Well-Being Advancing

Rigor Freedom Justice Knowledge
SECS Score .30** .01 -.34** -.16* .22**
(conserv.) (p ≈ .00) (p = .44) (p ≈ .00) (p ≈ .03) (p ≈ .00)

*p < .05; **p < .01

Effects of Field of Study on Academic Value Allocations

For each of the five academic values that we studied, we conducted a one-way ANCOVA

with field of study as the independent variable and political orientation as a covariate. These five

analyses are presented in turn.

Academic Rigor. To see if field of study affected scores on how much individuals value

academic rigor (controlling for political orientation), an ANCOVA was conducted. Five levels of
POLITICS AND ACADEMIC VALUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 14

field of study were included, as follows: Humanities, Social Sciences, Sciences, Business,

Education. The ANCOVA revealed no significant effect for field of study (F(4, 120) = 1.76, p =

.14; ηp2 = .06), while a significant effect of the covariate (political orientation) was obtained

(F(1, 120) = 6.91, p = .01, ηp2 = .06). The means and standard deviations for this variable across

levels of field of study are found in Table 3.

Table 3: Means and Standard Deviations for Academic Rigor as a Function of Field of Study

Field of Study N M SD
Humanities 11 27.73 9.56
Social Sciences 54 24.70 12.16
Sciences 31 27.94 16.31
Business 13 33.85 15.57
Education 11 17.73 7.86

Interestingly, field of study was not, in and of itself, significantly related to political orientation

(F(4, 119) = 2.10, p = .09).

Academic Freedom. To see if field of study affected scores on how much individuals

value academic freedom (controlling for political orientation), an ANCOVA was conducted.

Five levels of field were included, as follows: Humanities, Social Sciences, Sciences, Business,

Education. The ANCOVA revealed no significant effect for field of study (F(4, 120) = 1.03, p =

.39; ηp2 = .04). No significant effect of the covariate (political orientation) was found (F(1, 120)

= .91, p = .34; ηp2 = .008). The means and standard deviations for this variable across levels of

field of study are found in Table 4.

POLITICS AND ACADEMIC VALUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 15

Table 4: Means and Standard Deviations for Academic Freedom as a Function of Field of Study

Field of Study N M SD
Humanities 11 23.18 13.47
Social Sciences 54 20.09 8.93
Sciences 31 17.90 11.72
Business 13 16.54 8.75
Education 11 17.55 7.37

Social Justice. To see if field of study affected scores on how much individuals value

social justice (controlling for political orientation), an ANCOVA was conducted. Five levels of

field were included, as follows: Humanities, Social Sciences, Sciences, Business, Education. The

ANCOVA revealed a significant effect for field of study (F(4, 120) = 3.79, p <.01; ηp2 = .12). A

significant effect of the covariate (political orientation) was found (F(1, 120) = 16.00, p <.01; ηp2

= .12). The means and standard deviations for this variable across levels of field of study are

found in Table 5.

Table 5: Means and Standard Deviations for Social Justice as a Function of Field of Study

Field of Study N M SD
Humanities 11 11.36 8.67
Social Sciences 54 14.30 10.37
Sciences 31 12.23 10.81
Business 13 6.920 8.05
Education 11 25.45 14.22

Emotional Well-Being. To see if field of study affected scores on how much individuals

value emotional well-being (controlling for political orientation), an ANCOVA was conducted.

Five levels of field were included, as follows: Humanities, Social Sciences, Sciences, Business,

Education. The ANCOVA revealed a significant effect for field of study (F(4, 120) = 3.01, p =

.02; ηp2 = .10). A significant effect of the covariate (political orientation) was found (F(1, 120) =
POLITICS AND ACADEMIC VALUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 16

3.01, p = .03; ηp2 = .04). The means and standard deviations for this variable across levels of

field of study are found in Table 6.

Table 6: Means and Standard Deviations for Emotional Well-Being as a Function of Field of
Study

Field of Study N M SD
Humanities 11 13.18 6.80
Social Sciences 54 12.54 6.90
Sciences 31 12.77 7.46
Business 13 8.85 9.82
Education 11 20.64 7.10

Advancing Knowledge. To see if field of study affected scores on how much individuals

value advancing knowledge (controlling for political orientation), an ANCOVA was conducted.

Five levels of field were included, as follows: Humanities, Social Sciences, Sciences, Business,

Education. The ANCOVA revealed no significant effect for field of study (F(4, 120) = 2.39, p =

.06; ηp2 = .08). No significant effect of the covariate (political orientation) was found (F(1, 120)

= 2.94, p = .09; ηp2 = .025). The means and standard deviations for this variable across levels of

field of study are found in Table 7.

Table 7: Means and Standard Deviations for Advancing Knowledge as a Function of Field of
Study

Field of Study N M SD
Humanities 11 24.55 9.07
Social Sciences 54 26.15 9.95
Sciences 31 29.16 13.22
Business 13 33.85 16.35
Education 11 18.64 8.69

Personality Traits and Academic Values

This section is designed to examine how the Big Five personality traits relate to the five

academic values examined in this research. Zero-order correlations were computed between
POLITICS AND ACADEMIC VALUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 17

participants scores on the major personality traits (extraversion, openness to experience,

agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism) and each of the five academic values included in

this study.

Agreeableness significantly correlated with four of the five academic values. Significant

(or near-significant) positive correlations were observed between agreeableness and both social

justice, (r(135) = .17, p = .05), and student emotional well-being, (r(135) = .27, p ≈ .00. These

findings suggest that academics who highly valued social justice and student emotional well-

being were also highly agreeable. Significant (or near-significant) negative correlations emerged

between agreeableness and both academic rigor, (r(135) = -.24, p = .01), and advancing

knowledge, (r(135) = -.17, p = .05), suggesting academics who highly valued academic rigor and

advancing knowledge were less agreeable. An additional significant negative correlation was

observed between conscientiousness and social justice, (r(136) = -.22, p = .01), suggesting that

academics who highly value social justice are less conscientious. Extraversion, openness to

experiences, and neuroticism did not significantly correlate with any of the five academic values

(Table 8).
POLITICS AND ACADEMIC VALUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 18

Table 8: Correlations between Big Five Personality Traits and Academic Values

Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism

Values

Academic -.11 .10 -.24** .11 -.17

Rigor (136) (136) (135) (136) (136)
[.20] [.27] [.01] [.23] [.06]

Academic -.05 .09 .16 .05 .09

Freedom (136) (136) (135) (136) (136)
[.57] [.32] [.07] [.57] [.32]

Social Justice -.02 -.04 .17* -.22** .03

(136) (136) (135) (136) (136)
[.82] [.66] [.05] [.01] [.73]

Student
Emotional .05 -.03 .27** -.15 .09
Well-Being (136) (136) (135) (136) (136)
[.60] [.69] [~.00] [.09] [.29]

Advancing .10 .03 -.17* .16 .00

Knowledge (136) (136) (135) (136) (136)
[.25] [.75] [.05] [.06] [~1.00]

Note. * indicates p < .05; ** indicates p < .01; N is in parentheses; actual p value is in brackets.

As agreeableness was clearly related to four of the five academic values in this study, we

thought it might be useful to see if this dimension was also significantly related to gender and

political orientation, as these two variables also related to these values in interesting ways. A

zero-order correlation between agreeableness and political orientation was not significant (r(135)

= -.08 , p = .39). Further, a between-groups t-test found no association between agreeableness

and gender (t(132) = 1.76, p = .09; M, SD (Males) = 8.76, 1.91; M, SD (Females) = 9.29, 1.70;
POLITICS AND ACADEMIC VALUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 19

Cohen’s d = .29). Thus, agreeableness seems to be an independent factor that bears on basic

academic values among academics.

Discussion

The focus of the current study was to test Haidt’s (2016a) model of the relationship

between political liberalism in academia and a differentiated emphasis on various academic

values. Previous research has suggested that professionals in academia tend to fall further on the

left side of the political spectrum (Pothman et al. 2005; Cardiff and Klein 2005), which could

impact the values endorsed by universities. Our hypotheses reflect different questions related to

understanding whether this differentiation in academic values truly exists at universities, and if it

is associated with a liberal bias.

Our initial hypothesis stating that political liberalism would correspond to a focus on

social justice and student well-being was supported. Additionally, those who were more

politically right-leaning placed more of a priority on advancing knowledge and higher degrees of

academic rigor. Since those who are more politically left-minded historically favor policies that

are focused on ideas like equality and ending discrimination, it is possible that those ideas are

reflected in the values of social justice and student well-being.

What is less easily explained, is that conservative people were more likely to favor

academic ideals like advancing knowledge and academic rigor. However, one might think that

all academics, regardless of political ideology, would be supportive of academic rigor and

advancing knowledge, since, hypothetically, those are some of the general goals of higher

education. What this points to, in a way, is less that political conservatives value these

educational goals more, but that political liberals seem to value social justice and student well-

being, potentially at the cost of putting emphasis on rigor and advancing knowledge.
POLITICS AND ACADEMIC VALUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 20

In terms of area of study, we found that academic field was significantly related to a

focus on social justice and a focus on student emotional well-being. More specifically, we found

that those who were in the school of education were most focused on both social justice and

student emotional well-being (while those in business were least likely to prioritize these values).

Our last hypothesis stated that openness to experience would be positively correlated with

academic freedom. To our surprise, openness to experience was not significantly correlated with

any of the academic values. However, interestingly, agreeableness was correlated with four of

our five academic values. Specifically, agreeableness was positively and significantly correlated

with social justice and student emotional well-being; it was negatively correlated with academic

rigor and advancing knowledge. Additionally, conscientiousness was negatively correlated with

social justice. The last two correlations make intuitive sense, since those who are dedicated to

social justice or social well-being may be more agreeable overall. Those who are considered

highly agreeable may be better or more inclined to help students with issues that are not strictly

academic (such as stress or adjustment issues). These individuals may also be focused on social

justice because they may believe in ideas like equality and benefitting as many people as

possible.

The other two academic values, academic rigor and advancing knowledge, were

negatively correlated with agreeableness, suggesting that instructors who value these two ideals

may be more concerned with making sure their students are learning what they need to know, at

the cost of being considered “friendly.” That being said, this correlation does not tell us anything

about how much students of these professors learn, if these professors are liked or not, and how

strict they are. It simply illustrates a pattern that could indicate personality differences between

different kinds of professors.

POLITICS AND ACADEMIC VALUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 21

Limitations

While the data that were collected went through a rigorous analysis, no study is without

various limitations. Using a survey that collects self-report data frequently has the potential to

produce biased or problematic data. If demand characteristics came into play, it is possible that

participants produced biased responses.

It is not likely that a particular university or academic institution practically define each

of the five academic values (academic rigor, academic freedom, social justice, emotional well-

being of students, and advancing knowledge) used in this survey in the same contexts as other

universities. Academic freedom, for example, may be constituted differently across universities

or colleges (Marginson, 2006; Kerlind & Kayrooz, 2010), and across disciplines (see Moses &

Ramsden, 2006).

There is also the question of whether the SECS scale truly captures what was intended as

political conservatism. Political ideologies traverse a variety of beliefs, both social and

economic, realistically there is no way that a survey with twelve questions could accurately reach

every idea about what it means to be politically conservative or liberal. That being said, the

researchers felt that this scale assessed enough of the political spectrum to be applicable to the

current study, and the relationship between political ideology and academic values.

The survey was disseminated using faculty directories at a variety of universities all over

the country. Researchers chose to contact numerous faculty members within a wide variety of

academic disciplines. With the goal of receiving the largest amount of responses possible, as well

as the broadest range of disciplines as possible, the researchers may not have been truly random

in their sampling which could limit the generalizability of the research.

Future Research
POLITICS AND ACADEMIC VALUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 22

Our findings are provocative, to be sure. If academics who are more liberal-minded less

emphasize academic rigor and advancing knowledge than they emphasize student well-being and

social justice, then academics need to be cautious about how political orientation may be shaping

all facets of an academic experience, as well as the impact of that university value shifts can on

faculty systems (Wheaton, 2020). If the trend in higher education is leaning toward more

universally liberal campuses, at the expense of valuable educational opportunities in the form of

alternate opinions and challenging courses, then universities and colleges may be faltering in

their duty to students.

This study represents a slice of the political ideas that academics around the country may

have. To our minds, this fact implies that the best option going forward is to collect more data to

better understand if this shift in ideology at universities is fully reflective of Haidt’s (2016a)

theory on the distinction between “truth” and “social justice” universities. His theory suggests

two basic points. The first is that university professors and academics may be more liberally-

leaning in general. Second is that these liberal-minded academics are putting more emphasis on

the social and emotional aspects of university life, and less emphasis on academic values that

may lead to a more nuanced or valuable education.

Taken together, these points imply that this liberal trend in academia is shepherding

universities as a whole towards a less challenging and less comprehensive education. When a

space for the discussion of diverse ideas and opinions is abandoned in favor of a “safe space”

where all people’s opinions are assumed to be the same and kept hegemonic, no one is

challenged in any way which may be considered mentally stressful. Despite the fact that mental

exertion is part of getting an education, this shift towards decreasing political diversity is coming

dangerously close to creating a large-scale context where conservative ideas are not only rejected
POLITICS AND ACADEMIC VALUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 23

but are fully demonized, with the result being that conservative students do not attend

universities or do not feel comfortable therein because they refuse to volunteer to be part of an

environment that is so hostile towards them.

With regard to the other end of the political spectrum, liberal students may not learn as

productively because they are not being challenged at the universities that only preach similar

ideas as the ones they already have.

Without question, political issues affect all facets of the academy. The current research

strongly supports the idea that a trend toward the political left among university faculty is

shaping the nature of what it means to obtain a college education in multiple ways. Future

research that follows our path can help shed light on these issues, hopefully helping pave the way

for universities to be safe havens of intellectual heterogeneity while, concurrently, being safe

havens for the students who enter our halls.

POLITICS AND ACADEMIC VALUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 24

References

Adam, R. J. (2012). Conceptualising the epistemic dimension of academic identity in an age of

neo-liberalism. Education Research and Perspectives, 39, 70-89.

Blackley, S., Luzeckyj, A., & King, S. (2020). Re-valuing higher education: learning(s) and

teaching(s) in contested spaces. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(1), 1-12.

Blunden, R. (2006). Academic Loyalties and Professional Disobedience. Higher Education

Research & Development, 15(1), 13-28.

Cardiff, C. F., & Klein, D. B. (2005). Faculty partisan affiliations in all disciplines: A

voter-registration study. Critical Review, 17(3-4). doi:10.1080/08913810508443639

Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., & Tetlock, P. E. (2015). Political

diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38,

1-58.

Everett, J. A. (2013). The 12-item social and economic conservatism scale (SECS). PlosOne,

8(12). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0082131

Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological

Bulletin, 116(3), 429-456. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.429

Geher, G. (2014). Evolutionary Psychology 101. New York: Springer.

Geher, G. (2006). Evolutionary psychology is not evil! (… and here’s why …) Psihologijske

Teme (Psychological Topics); Special Issue on Evolutionary Psychology, 15(2), 181-202.

Geher, G., & Gambacorta, D. (2010). Evolution is not relevant to sex differences in humans

because I want it that way! Evidence for the politicization of human evolutionary

psychology. EvoS Journal: The Journal of the Evolutionary Studies Consortium, 2(1),

32-47.
POLITICS AND ACADEMIC VALUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 25

Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J. & Swann, W. B. Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five

personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504-528.

doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1

Haidt, J. (2012) The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New

York: Pantheon.

Haidt, J. (State University of New York at New Paltz; Instructional Media Services). (2016a,

September 30). Truth or Social Justice University? Presentation given at the State

University of New York at New Paltz. Podcast retrieved from

http://newpaltz.mediasite.suny.edu/Mediasite/Play/2f4aad7b42e14e429566b21abdfc1f6c1d

Haidt, J. (2016b). Why Concepts Creep to the Left. Psychological Inquiry, 27(1), 40-45.

doi:10.1080/1047840X.2016.1115713

Honeycutt, N., & Freberg, L. (2017). The liberal and conservative experience across academic

disciplines: An extension of inbar and lammers. Social Psychological and Personality

Science, 8(2), 115-123. doi:10.1177/1948550616667617

Hyde, J. S. (1990). Meta-analysis and the psychology of gender differences. Signs, 16(1), 55-73.

doi:10.1086/494645

Kerlind, G. & Kayrooz, C. (2010). Understanding Academic Freedom: The views of social

scientists. Higher Education Research & Development, 22(3), 327-344.

Klein, D. B., & Stern, C. (2005). Professors and their politics: The policy views of social

scientists. Critical Review, 17(3-4), 257-303. doi:10.1080/08913810508443640

Klein, D. B., Stern, C., & Western, A. (2005). Political diversity in six disciplines. Academic

Questions, 18(1), 40-52. doi:10.1007/s12129-004-1031-4

Klein, D. B., & Stern, C. (2006). Sociology and classical liberalism. The Independent Review,

11(1), 37-52.
POLITICS AND ACADEMIC VALUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 26

Li, N. P. (2008). Intelligent priorities: Adaptive long- and short-term mate preferences. In G.

Geher, & G. Miller (Eds.), Mating Intelligence: Sex, Relationships, and the Mind's

Reproductive System. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Malin, H., Tirri, K., & Liauw, I. (2015). Adolescent moral motivations for civic engagement:

Clues to the political gender gap? Journal of Moral Education, 44(1), 34-50.

doi:10.1080/03057240.2015.1014324

Maranto, R., Redding, R. E., Hess, F. M. (2005a). The PC academy debate: questions not asked.

The politically correct university: Problems, scope, and reforms (3-14). The AEI Press.

Maranto, R., Redding, R. E., Hess, F. M. (2005b). By the numbers: The ideological profile of

professors. In D. B. Klein & C. Stern (Eds.), The politically correct university: Problems,

scope, and reforms (15-33). The AEI Press.

Marginson, S. (2006). How Free is Academic Freedom? Higher Education Research &

Development, 16(3), 359-369.

McClintock, C. G., Spaulding, C. B., & Turner, H. A. (1965). Political orientations of

academically affiliated psychologists. American Psychologist, 20(3), 211.

doi:10.1037/h0022172

Moses, I. & Ramsden, P. (2006). Academic Values And Academic Practice In The New

Universities. Higher Education Research & Development, 11(2), 101-118.

Preston, N. (2006). Issues for Higher Education in the Teaching of Ethics. Higher Education

Research & Development, 11(1), 9-20.

Rothman, S., Lichter, S. R., & Nevitte, N. (2005). Politics and professional advancement among

college faculty. The Forum, 3(1), 1-16. doi:10.2202/1540-8884.1067

POLITICS AND ACADEMIC VALUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 27

Wheaton, A. (2020). Shift happens; moving form the ivory tower to the mushroom factory.

Higher Education Research & Development, 39(1), 67-80.

Zipp, J. F., & Fenwick, R. (2006). Is the academy a liberal hegemony? The political

orientations and educational values of professors. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(3), 304-

326.