The GOP and Man at Yale

This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

The New York Sun

When Robert Bork was a professor at Yale Law School, he had a telephone call from the young editor of the Yale Daily News, who was in a tizzy. The paper was going to press with its findings on the faculty vote in the upcoming election, President Lyndon Johnson vs. Senator Barry Goldwater. The editor explained that the paper was kind of embarrassed: As things stood, the next day’s edition would reveal that only a single member of the Yale faculty (of approximately 1,000) was going to vote for Barry Goldwater on Tuesday.


“Who is that?” Professor Bork asked.


“Some loony in the international relations department,” the editor said. “We know you have right-wing leanings, Mr. Bork. Is there any chance we could give your name as supporting Goldwater? Otherwise it would be pretty unbalanced.”


Mr. Bork shrugged and said, okay, count me in. When the paper appeared, he had a call from the one other Goldwater supporter: Would Mr. Bork lunch with him? “I did,” Mr. Bork tells, smiling. “The kid was right. He was loony.”


Forty years later (November 18, 2004), the New York Times has published an illuminating article by reporter John Tierney titled, “Republicans Outnumbered In Academia, Studies Find.” We are told that the political imbalance among American faculty is as pronounced as ever. “At the birthplace of the free speech movement, campus radicals have a new target: the faculty that came of age in the ’60s. They say their professors have been preaching multiculturalism and diversity while creating a political monoculture on campus.”


Several studies are cited. One of them, a national survey of more than 1,000 academics, shows that Democratic professors outnumber Republicans by at least 7-to-1 in the humanities and social sciences. “That ratio,” we are told, “is more than twice as lopsided as it was three decades ago, and it seems quite likely to keep increasing, because the younger faculty members are more consistently Democratic than the ones nearing retirement.”


As a shrewd observer of the scene, David Horowitz, points out, “Right now, conservative students are discouraged from pursuing scholarly careers, because they see very clearly that their professors consider Republicans to be the enemy.”


Another faculty study found a 9-to-1 ratio of Democrats to Republicans on the faculties of Berkeley and Stanford. That study included the hard sciences and engineering (where good sense is reputed to prevail). The ratio was especially lopsided among younger professors of assistant or associate rank: 183 Democrats vs. 6 (loony?) Republicans.


The imbalance is continuing, and doesn’t much bother anybody except, perhaps, students left to ponder the asymmetries. Learning brings wisdom, right? Well, not on this campus.


It was that way at Yale 15 years before Goldwater ran for president, and a book remarking the phenomenon was hooted out of town though its author lived on to write this column. Four years after Goldwater, a poll at Princeton registered that 70% of the faculty had voted the day before for Humphrey, 7% for Richard Nixon, and 7% for Dick Gregory, the black comedian. Postgraduate humor.


And these aren’t just wispy afterthoughts of a staid community that, one wild day, dived into the swimming pool with their clothes on. No, no, these are earnest fellows. For the first time last year, universities were “at the top of the list of organizations ranked by their employees’ contributions to a presidential candidate,” according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group. In first and second place in per capita contributions were: (1) the University of California system, and (2) Harvard (runners-up were Time Warner, Goldman Sachs, and Microsoft).


When the jury found O.J. Simpson not guilty of killing his wife and her companion, the American people reacted along racial lines. Seventy percent of whites thought him guilty, 70 percent of blacks thought him not guilty. What everyone could see was an epistemological divide.


That divide is there in the academic world. People see things differently. The people who elected the government of the United States see things differently from those who trained them in how to weigh public issues. “Our colleges have become less marketplaces of ideas than churches in which you have to be a true believer to get a seat in the pews,” writes Stephen H. Balch, president of the National Association of Scholars. On the other hand, those who get only standing room in the academies get also the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate.


The New York Sun

© 2025 The New York Sun Company, LLC. All rights reserved.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. The material on this site is protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used.

The New York Sun

Sign in or  Create a free account

or
By continuing you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use