Campus Reform: Northern Illinois University

CampusReform.org's (CR) Mission Statement states, in part, that its mission is "designed to provide conservative activists with the resources, networking capabilities, and skills they need to revolutionize the struggle against leftist bias and abuse on college campuses."  [Italics added.]  I have commented on the website that CR has "the cart before the horse."  (fn 2.)  In other words, CR proffers its call to activism based upon its unproven belief and anecdotal evidence rather than sound scientific research proving its thesis of leftist bias and abuse on college campuses.

As proof of "leftist bias and abuse on college campuses" CR, in its "Activism Resources" section, provides CR readers with what appears to be a faithful summary, or paraphrase, of a December 6, 2004 article by Daniel J. Flynn entitled "Deep Blue Campuses."  (See:  http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/12/6/92934.shtml for the full text of the original article).  Mr. Flynn states his methodology for studying whether leftist bias and abuse exists on some American campuses is as follows:  "My methodology in researching the aforementioned schools consisted of counting only contributions to the two major campaigns and their auxiliaries containing the candidate’s last name in the title. "  (fn 3.)  Mr. Flynn admits in the next sentence:  "This is an inexact science."  (fn 4.)  Indeed. 

John B. Lee, Ed.D., (fn 5) did a report entitled:  "The 'Faculty Bias' Studies:  Science or Propaganda?" in November, 2006.  (fn 6.)   In Mr. Lee's report he examined eight studies (fn 7) that "have presented evidence purporting to show that higher education in the United States displays a systematic liberal bent.  This, in the opinion of critics, marginalizes conservative voices on the faculty and results in political views being presented in the classroom and a research agenda that is shaped by liberal priorities.  These critics also suggest that students with conservative views are at a minimum uncomfortable in this environment and at worst may be punished with lower grades.  This report examines eight studies dealing with these issues."

Mr. Lee's study concludes, in part, the following:  "The authors of the studies cited here have a clear agenda - to assert that the personal social and political values of college faculty members are reflected in their professional work on the campus. ... The most significant flaw is the link between the empirical results and their conclusions.  The danger of these publications is the potential migration of unsupported conclusions into facts in the general press."

. . .

"Starting with this shaky empirical data, the authors imply that the dominance of Democrats on the faculty narrows the theoretical perspectives available to students, excludes or marginalizes conservative voices on the faculty, and penalizes students who do not agree with the political beliefs of the teacher.  None of the studies reviewed here indicate how the supposed liberal bias affects the hiring process or promotion opportunities.  The two studies that investigated students' perceptions of their teachers did not support the proposition that liberal teachers make students uncomfortable in their classes.  This may be because the hypothesis is false or because the authors' research was so poorly designed that they could not exclude alternative explanations."

. . .

Until credible studies are conducted to provide a more grounded and systematic approach to understanding the subtle relationship between political beliefs and professional responsibilities, it is irresponsible to suggest that the conclusions reached in these reports represent a scientifically derived set of facts.  They do not.  Passing off personal opinions as facts is not science; it is the antithesis of what serious researchers try to do, regardless of whether they are conservative or liberal." (fn 8.)

So, what does Mr. Lee's study say about Mr. Flynn's article "Deep Blue Campuses"?  Mr. Lee's study says nothing directly.  Although I am not a research scientist, it is logical to judge Mr. Flynn's study as also lacking a credible link between his empirical data and his conclusions. 

Mr. Flynn's "methodology in researching donations from employees at U.S. News and World Report’s top twenty-five national universities consisted of counting only contributions to the two major campaigns and their auxiliaries containing the candidate’s last name in the title" (fn 9) and his resulting conclusion that:  "For years, the left dismissed such anecdotes as cherry-picked examples that distort the reality of the campuses as repositories of debate, intellectual diversity, and free speech.  In response, conservatives began to undertake empirical surveys demonstrating the political imbalance on college campuses. . . . Numerous studies have demonstrated just how politically slanted the campuses are.  The findings of Deep Blue Campuses are consistent with the existing body of data that shows that those entrusted with imparting knowledge to the rising generation are outside of the mainstream.  . . . The lopsided ratio of Democrats to Republicans among college faculty and administrators rivals and in some cases exceeds the ballot disparity between the winning and losing candidates in phony elections held in Castro’s Cuba and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq."

"Just as political conformity is unhealthy in a nation, it is unhealthy in an educational setting too.  Students pay tens of thousands of dollars for an education yet are denied exposure to points of view covering roughly half of the political spectrum.   

Changing this requires that more fair-minded people, rather than political hacks, enter the teaching profession at the college level. Alas, that project is too ambitious for this pamphlet.

Awareness rather than action is the purpose here.  And when taxpayers, parents, students, and alumni become aware, they can make educated choices – choices about, for example, which schools to avoid in the application process and which schools to withhold donations from.

This booklet examines about one percent of institutions of higher learning in America.  Are you curious about a school not listed?  I encourage you to undertake research on any school that interests you.  Doing so is easy."  (fn 10.)

To the contrary, Mr. Flynn, such research is hard; proving the link between the empirical results and their conclusions, i.e., conclusions that represent a scientifically derived set of facts, requires a well-designed study that is competently executed.  To even a layman, such as myself, "researching donations from employees at U.S. News and World Report’s top twenty-five national universities" for only two "major campaigns" does not pass the methodological smell-test. Belief and anecdotal stories are not proof.

I call on the Leadership Institute and CampusReform.org to do the research called for by Mr. Lee and so inadequately attempted by Mr. Flynn.  Otherwise, your mission "to provide conservative activists with the resources, networking capabilities, and skills they need to revolutionize the struggle against leftist bias and abuse on college campuses" risks being seen as a canard that is no more valid than a call to stop the Leprechauns from hording the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.  "Daniel J. Flynn is an American conservative and author of the book A Conservative History of the American Left (2008), in addition to the books Why the Left Hates America: Exposing the Lies That Have Obscured Our Nation's Greatness (2002) and Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas (2004), and the information booklet Cop Killer: How Mumia Abu-lamal Conned Millions Into Believing He Was Framed (1999). He is the former executive director of Accuracy in Academia, a non-profit conservative organization that seeks to combat a perceived left-wing bias in higher education, and is also associated with Young America's Foundation and the Leadership Institute. He also edits the weblog FlynnFiles."  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_J._Flynn)

2.  "For instance, the Media Research Center is a conservative organization that describes its mission as follows:  "The mission of the Media Research Center, 'America's Media Watchdog,' is to bring balance to the news media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene." [Italics added.] 

The Media Research Center believed a liberal bias existed in the media.  CampusRefor.org believes there is "leftist bias and abuse on college campuses."  Unlike CamusReform.org, the Media Research Center went the next step and sought to prove its thesis (of liberal media bias) through what it described as "sound scientific research."  Here at CampusReform.org there is not ever a pretense of sound scientific research to prove its thesis (leftist bias and abuse on college campuses).  Instead, CampusReform.org proffers its call to activism based upon its unproven belief and anecdotal evidence.

I'm a liberal, so I hold no brief with most conservative causes.  What I do want (and the reason I'm even here saying this stuff) is to see more constructive and informed political discourse based on facts, not supposition and mere belief. 

If there is significant leftist bias and abuse on college campuses, then I'm all for you guys organizing, making your case and redressing the wrong.  But, first you have to define your terms - what exactly is leftist bias; define abuse in the context you are using it - and, second, you have to show some sort of sound scientific research which at least tends to prove that such bias and abuse exists.  Then you organize your campus activists and seek change.  You guys have the cart before the horse."

3.  http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/12/6/92934.shtml

4.  "This is an inexact science. Public FEC reports contain only $200+ donors, not everyone fills out the reports honestly or completely, and searches based on key words “Bush” or “Kerry” leave out some contributions that in effect go to the campaign. Even with these limitations, it’s unlikely that anyone looking at the same reports – as blogger “David M” did on the eve of the general election cycle – would come up with ratios that differ in any discernable way from the ratios I’ve computed."  Anonymous blogger "David M" is the justification for Mr. Flynn's inexact methodology?  Really?

5.  John B. Lee is founder and presided of JBL Associates.  See:  http://jblassoc.com/bio_jlee.php

6.  http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/higher_ed/FacultyBiasStudies.pdf

7.  See:  http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/higher_ed/FacultyBiasStudies.pdf at "Studies Analyzed in the Full Report, p. 2.

8.  See:  http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/higher_ed/FacultyBiasStudies.pdf at "Studies Analyzed in the Full Report, pp. 28-29.

9.  http://www.campusreform.org/activism-resources/deep-blue-campuses, "Methodology."

10.  http://www.campusreform.org/activism-resources/deep-blue-campuses.