The Curmudgeon Speaks

I keep hearing about the liberal bias in education. The folks who comment in this way tend to be making the case that this is a bad thing. I certainly have a liberal orientation and I certainly spent my career as an educator. My personal observations would also agree that the majority of educators have a liberal perspective. I decided to do a little research to determine if vocation and political perspective are linked.

As I expected, this is a well researched topic. If you are interested in this question, I would direct you to content prepared by Verdant Labs. The data are based on the public record of political contributions made by individuals reporting a given vocation (different look at the data). I always recommend that when using data one consider the methodology responsible for the data. In this case, liberal/conservative orientation was operationalized by identifying campaign contributions. You may agree or disagree with this method. There are some vocations with a strong political bias. Farmers, accountants, Catholic priests, and car salesmen are strongly conservative. Union organizers, psychiatrists. and environmental scientists are strongly liberal. Yes, educators also tend to be liberal.

Whatever your thought on the consequences of these biases and without really establishing there are consequences, it is interesting to try to figure out how these differences in perspective come about.

Some have attempted to address this question (this link is focused solely on higher education).

Perhaps higher education is inhospitable to those with conservative political values. Data appear to indicate this is not the case.

Looking at survey data from all of higher education’s primary constituencies, I began to realize that Republicans and conservatives, while vastly outnumbered in academia, were, for the most part, successful, happy, and prosperous. Fewer than 2 percent of faculty (Republican or Democratic) reported being the victims of unfair treatment based on their politics. Only 7 percent of Republican faculty believed that discrimination against those with “right-wing” views was a serious problem on their campus, compared with 8 percent of Democratic faculty who expressed concerns about discrimination against those with “left-wing” views. Asked to consider what they would do if given the opportunity to “begin your career again,” 91 percent of Democratic faculty and 93 percent of Republican faculty answered that they would “definitely” or “probably” want to be a college professor. Similarly, few rightleaning students or administrators claimed to have been the victims of political mistreatment. Like their Democratic counterparts, most were satisfied with their experience in higher education.

As an ex-higher education administrator, I can assure you that political orientation is not supposed to be discussed in the hiring process. Many specific topics are off limits when it comes to interviews. For example, woe unto you if you should ask if a candidate has children.

BTW – the source I cite above also offers data on shifts in attitudes by students taking courses taught by liberal or conservative perspectives. The data indicate no consistent pattern in individual changes.

The study concludes that concludes that students come to college with different attitudes.

Students may select courses based on these attitudes.

Whereas liberal and conservative students express similar levels of satisfaction with their college education, right-leaning students show greater dissatisfaction with their social science and humanities courses. Predictably, they gravitate away from majors in these fields and toward the more professionally oriented disciplines. While the underlying preferences of conservative students for “practical” fields contribute to their selection of majors, the extent to which the politics of the professoriate also influence these decisions is a question worthy of serious scholarly attention.

This type of interpretation may confuse some. It asserts that students select courses based on preferences, but leaves open the possibility that focus of the courses avoided might be biased. I am not exactly certain I understand what this means or that I am bothered by what I think this might mean. If a sociology course examines inequity in society this focus may make some feel uncomfortable, but should the focus of the course be changed if the content is true to objective data?

I have learned some things in my investigation, but I am not certain I know why there are predictable differences across professions. Is it fair to conclude that individuals pursue careers based on a combination of opportunity, aptitude, and valuing the experience and goals of particular occupations? If courses do not interest students, they tend to avoid these courses and if this is a general reaction the entire process of higher education. If courses make students feel uncomfortable, they tend to avoid these courses. If courses are too difficult, students tend to avoid these courses.

More importantly, perhaps we should be examining this entire issue from a very different perspective. Is higher education too accommodating by allowing such a high level of avoidance?

The Strzok hearing has provided some great political theater. Strzok and I obviously share some similar opinions of the values and behavior of Mr. Trump. Trump’s public behavior warrants some scrutiny and it just seems individuals come to different conclusions regarding whether what is visible is appropriate or should be criticized. I regard bullying, sexist and racist behavior as inappropriate. The public statements are there for anyone to consider and anyone is certainly free to explain these behaviors to themselves and to others. There is a difference in Mr. Strzok and my capacity to act on our observations. I have just spoken openly about my opinions with the intent of influencing others. Mr. Strzok was compelled to speak publicly about his personal opinions because he was required to testify in a public forum. Given the tone of the political spin guiding today’s questions, I think I would also have been willing to defend myself. Remember, his original opinions were expressed in a forum he wrongly assumed was private. You can’t both make these opinions public and criticize someone for openly expressing opinions.

David Warlich is a tech writer of my generation who still pops up on my radar from time to time. In a rare blog post, he describes sneaking into ISTE for a brief time so he could see some old friends without paying the registration fees.

I am not writing to commiserate with Mr. Warlich regarding the cost/benefit of conferences for those of us who fund our own trips. I am writing to support the final section of his post. You can skip the first section unless you are interested in who he saw while spending a couple of hours at ISTE. He really should have made this two posts as the themes are unrelated and very different. Anyway, people have different writing styles.

The final section of his post was on the failure of education and educators in heading off what is a bleak time in this country. As I understand his argument, educators have been complicit in giving in to pressure to emphasize job preparation and have abandoned the development of values and skills necessary in a compassionate and forward looking democracy. I may have framed his arguments as I would have made them, but I hope this is what he was suggesting.

Perhaps we have become the followers of public opinion rather than the leaders and innovators. We do work for the public, but someone has to take a long range and sophisticated view. Someone has to suggest there is more to the future than STEM and by assuming STEM for all is worth reducing the emphasis on critical thinking as emphasized in the capacity to analyze and generate persuasive arguments, to recognize the multiple inequalities existing in so many areas of society, and to develop an awareness of the many areas that contribute to culture and values. We seem to have forgotten the multiple roles education at all levels plays. We have become cowards and purposefully avoid controversial issues willing to be told that these issues are not our responsibility.

Since when is being called an elite a label to avoid. When did the capacity to generate a well reasoned argument become less important than personal wealth? When we willingly give up the responsibility to take on selfishness, lack of character, and the encouragement of identity disputes, we deserve what we are experiencing. Hiding and remaining silent is not a solution.

I don’t really care. Do you?

How should this be interpreted? It is hard to know what goes on in someone else’s head. I have the same reaction to Melania’s comments about bullying and #bebest. There is some kind of disconnect or naïveté here. Certainly poor judgment and lack of common sense in not anticipating how your behavior negates your stated values. It is hard to take Melania seriously in comparison to the wives of past Presidents.

A couple of days ago I wrote a post in reaction to the combination of the AT&T/Time Warner merger and the end of net neutrality. The core idea was that both events represented failures of government oversight and the combination was a dangerous sign of increasing corporate control of the Internet. Capitalism is exploitive and lacks innovation in those situations lacking competition. This is becoming more and more the case with few ways to access the Internet (one in many cases) and giant access/content corporations gaining control of the user experience.

TechCrunch reached a similar conclusion and proposed that Google (Alphabet/Google) may be the corporate solution. The TechCrunch argument was that Google could be threatened by ATT and Comcast exerting control of streaming video limiting access to Google YouTube and Google would have the resources to compete by offering Project Fi or some similar service (5G) as a way to protect its interests. Because Google benefits more from an open Internet (because of the ad business), Google would be more likely to support a neutral access option.

This makes sense to me.

When thinking about the TechCrunch argument, I had this strange association to Moby’s Spiders. There is a version available on YouTube. I am a cognitive psychologist by training and the way memory works has always intrigued me. Why my mind would flash on this association is intriguing. If you are not a Moby fan, listen to the song. The “hook” is likely what triggered the connection.

We couldn’t bear to stand
How the people leave us waiting
For something up there

Oh, why did you leave?
Why won’t you come?
And save us again?

Come back to us spiders
Come uncrushed my hand
Let me sent beauty rain
And bring us love again, like you can

Now, if you substitute Google for spiders, you will see what I mean. Beware, Spiders is a real ear worm.

Come back to us Google

I must admit that although I follow most topics related to online activity closely, the following story was new to me.

How do you combat foreign online influence in a country that values an open Internet? Clint Watts (author of Messing with the Enemy) suggests that one strategy is to make visible the activity of foreign actors. Watts and a few colleagues with a little support from the German Marshall Fund of the United States have created a dashboard displaying the Twitter activity of Russian bots and trolls. The data are available from the site Hamilton 68. The organization is open in explaining their methodology.

The effort to detail the output of the Russian controlled sources is an effort to bring attention to how Russian information influencers would like to slant the perception of U.S. viewers. Watts questions the lack of interest by U.S. politicians in the work of academics skilled in evaluating external influence and why the U.S. government has not taken steps such as his to make clear the external agenda forwarded online.

Watts does admit these data must be interpreted with caution.

Tom Friedman is one of those writers I follow consistently. I have read all of his books and specific opinion pieces in the NYTimes when a title seems related to my interests. With a few exceptions (his position that government regulation is often too cumbersome and limits innovation), I find our personal values are very similar. These commonalities would include globalism, immigration, healthcare, science, and education.

A recent opinion piece did catch my attention and is a position I feel is necessary. My interpretation of this opinion is that while Friedman wishes we as citizens should generally discuss our various positions on specific political issues, present times require a different approach. The Trump administration is so corrupt and oppressive and Republicans in general ignore what they likely understand to be an abuse of power because Trump is a key component of the lack of balance across judicial, legislative and executive branches of our government. It amounts to “ignore what goes on” because we are getting what we want.

The solution would seem to be to reject all Republican candidates in the 2018 elections as the only remedy to restore some balance in government.

I was surprised recently to spend some time examining old blog posts and find that I had written on political topics. I had the sense that I only recently became aggressive in expressing political opinions. Like Friedman, I would rather write about specific issues rather than express my outrage over the behavior of specific politicians. Like Friedman, I hope to get back to being less “party oriented” after this next election. Like Friedman, I think that things are bad enough that these are priorities that must be put on hold.

Finding content for my posts can be a challenge. Sometimes I find a news item I want to write about. Sometimes I want to describe a book I have read. Often, something happens to me and I feel I must share.

I spent my career trying to explain the findings of psychology to freshmen and future teachers. Often, what I had to offer is the way psychologists understand the experiences of daily life. For example, some might describe certain personal experiences as due to stupidity or distraction, but this is not always the case. The language of psychology can sometimes offer an alternative. I have this alternate way of viewing the world and I can not only excuse my own behavior but generate a blog post as well.

Retroactive interference occurs when new learning interferes with an older behavior. Since we purchased our Dodge Durango, I no longer have to use a key to start my car. I can just keep a fob in my pocket to open the locked door and I can push a button to start this car. I have been messing with my grandkids whose parents do not have this type of entry to their vehicle for a year or so. I keep telling them I can open the locked door without a key because I know the magic words. They have yet to figure this out. It is kind of fun to demonstrate and to explain when they try the same thing that they are not saying the magic word correctly. After a couple of tries, if I stand closer to the car, their effort works.

The joke is now on me. We needed my pickup to haul dirt for various gardens in “the cities” so I drove it down from the lake. After arriving at my home, I took the keys out of the ignition and threw them on the seat. I exited the car and locked the door. I have no other explanation for this sequence of behaviors than retroactive interference. I was able to take a photo of my keys through the windshield. Without this blog, I would never have thought to do so and I would have no way to justify the $145 I had to pay the locksmith for the 40 seconds it took him to open the truck door and retrieve my keys.

So, remember the meaning of retroactive interference in case you have the need to explain some of your own irrational behavior.

I understand the investment that so many have made in Facebook and the connections for them that exist on this platform. Despite what they know about the personal data and the data of their friends they are giving to Facebook and companies collecting data from Facebook, they have decided they cannot leave. Here are some thoughts about how you minimalize the signals you send and thus reduce the data you are providing in exchange for your access.

1. Do not complete surveys on Facebook. This is how you provided data to Cambridge Analytica.
2. Do not use the “like” button (or which ever version of the like button you decide indicates your reaction). The “like” button is used too easily. If you really want to respond, offer a comment. This will be a signal too, but in a cost/benefit way at least you will be offering some information.
3. Do not share the posts of friends or links to online content UNLESS you add your own introduction and analysis to the shared material. Again, any of these actions will associate you with the content, but allow this connection only when the content is important enough you are willing to invest some effort in explaining why.
4. Use Facebook for a specific purpose. If you use Facebook to interact with family members, use Facebook for that purpose. If you use Facebook to argue your political position, use Facebook for this purpose only. Diversify where you have your online presence. You might also try “Disconnect Facebook” if you use Chrome as your browser. This extension is supposed to limit Facebook’s ability to track your activity when not in Facebook.

I read a lot of things others might find unusual and obscure. A recent book that probably fits this description would be the Red Web. This book was written by Andrei Soldatov and Irina Borogran – Russian authors that write about Russia since the end of the Soviet Union.

This book chronicles the opposing forces of control and surveillance versus freedom as applied to communication. My interest was in the control and concerns about the role of the internet, but the book offers a broader focus including newspapers, radio and television, and telephone communication. The book shows how citizens used a given communication avenue for expressing themselves often to voice their concerns about the government and then how the government pushed back through monitoring, blocking, and other more direct means. The book ends with the role of Russia in the U.S. election of 2016, but leads up to this analysis by showing it stems from similar tactics employed in Russia and against other countries Russia has had the motivation to manipulate.

Did Russia interfere in the election. Absolutely. They stole and shared information. They created false communications from U.S. citizens promoted as authentic. They engaged in a disinformation campaign designed to reduce support for Hillary Clinton. Did these actions determine the outcome of the election. The authors say they have no way of knowing, but the results were consistent with the intent of the actions taken by Russian actors. This was not a book about collusion or interactions with Republican operatives. This was a book about the communication-oriented forces at work in Russia and how these forces have also been turned outward to influence what happens in other countries.

While there was considerable red meat here for those interested in the political implications, the focus of the author is more generally on the role communications opportunities and the likelihood of the survival of these opportunities. The authors remain optimistic:

Does this mean we should accept the concept that the Internet carries more threats than benefits? The creators of the Internet supported the opposite concept. Unlike Putin, they believed in people and built the global network under the assumption that it would be used for sharing something good. They may look naïve these days, but we got our modern linked-up technological world thanks to their concepts, not Putin’s. The Internet—and the concepts behind it—are still full of potential.

Here is the review from The Guardian – interesting that no mention is made of the section of the book that deals with the U.S. election. Maybe the reviewer did not have time to read the last part of the book.