Discrimination at Cal Poly? Say it isn’t so, part two

March 20, 2013
Nate Honeycutt

Nate Honeycutt

Discrimination at Cal Poly? Say it isn’t so, part two


(Editor’s note: This is part two in a two-part opinion piece.)

Does the study by the young researcher show that Cal Poly meets the “legal definition of discrimination?”

The discrepancy in the numbers of liberal and conservative faculty in higher education meets legal requirements for assuming discrimination (Teamsters vs. United States, 1977, as cited in Inbar & Lammers, 2012). Though this discrepancy is one that the average individual would likely recognize as being part of university culture, relatively little is known about why it occurs.

Over the past seven months I have been conducting research on the political climate and political diversity among university faculty at four California State Universities. This research has involved replicating and extending a study conducted by Inbar and Lammers (2012) (http://yoelinbar.net). While Inbar and Lammers only studied the conservative experience among Social and Personality Psychologists, in my research I asked university faculty across disciplines about their own political orientation, their experience of hostility, and their willingness to discriminate, incorporating both the conservative experience and the liberal experience.

Why might this discrepancy exist?

Many theories have been posed in an attempt to identify why the imbalance in political ideology exists in higher education. Some say that it is because of self-selection, in that teaching, educating, and other elements of being a faculty member at a university produces the discrepancy because this is not a career that appeals to conservatives.

Others align with the notion of “birds of a feather flock together” that suggests people are attracted to organizations made up of “people like me” (Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995).

This notion of “birds of a feather” can have interesting implications, too. If you don’t see anyone like you entering a profession, you might subconsciously conclude that the profession is not open to you. This is played out through concerns about faculty diversity in gender, race, and ethnicity, but this is also crucially important when it comes to political ideology.

A comment was made on this point when I presented my research at the Cal Poly selection level for the CSU Research Competition. A panel judge thought that hiring simply reflects the available pool of applicants, but this point is not valid. Similar arguments have been made in regard to low numbers of women and minorities in hiring. Perhaps there are less “conservatives” in a pool at the hiring committee level, but not because conservatives are less interested in the position or less qualified—they were hindered earlier on. A good way to look at this argument is to take any of the ideas suggesting that conservatives don’t have what it takes, and substitute the word ‘women’ or ‘minorities’ to best understand the full impact. Using one of those two words changes things, doesn’t it?

This point strikes home for me. While conducting this research people have asked me what my political ideology is, questioning my objectivity in conducting this study. Individuals typically research topics that are of a personal interest to them. Because I intend to pursue a career in higher education in the field of psychology, this study provided me the opportunity to investigate something interesting to me, and gave me insight into what I am going to be getting myself into. The incorporation of questions to investigate the liberal experience in addition to the conservative experience (Inbar and Lammers only investigated the conservative experience) is evidence enough of objectivity.

A third more disturbing perspective claims the presence of outright discrimination. Inbar and Lammers (2012) reported that among liberal personality and social psychologists in their national sample, “More than one in three would discriminate against them (Conservatives) when making hiring decisions” (p. 501).

The Cal Poly study

Incorporating the variety of disciplines from Agriculture to Engineering, Social Sciences to Hard Sciences, Business to Arts provided the opportunity to view the situation from a university level, and provided the opportunity to investigate how disciplines may differ from one another. Additionally, this enabled us to incorporate disciplines that are traditionally considered to be more conservative to see how they would factor into the big picture.

Upon approval from the Human Subjects and Internal Review Boards of the four universities—Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, CSU Monterey Bay, CSU Stanislaus, and Humboldt State—all faculty members were individually sent an invitation email to voluntarily participate in the study.

Of the nearly 700 faculty that responded 70.4 percent self-identified as liberal, 15.3 percent as moderate, and 14.3 percent as conservative, or about a 5:1 liberal to conservative ratio.

The results continue to be quite staggering.

On the perception of hostility, inability to express views, and discrimination the results were quite clear:

• On perception of hostility within their field, conservatives reported nearly double the amount of hostility experienced by liberals and moderates.

• On inability to express views, conservatives reported that they are nearly two times more likely to withhold expression than liberals and moderates.

• On discrimination, conservatives reported that they experience almost double the discrimination within their fields reported by liberal and moderates.

Participants were asked a question used by Inbar and Lammers (2012): “If two job candidates (with equal qualifications) were to apply for an opening in your department, and you know that one was politically quite conservative, do you think you would be inclined to vote for the more liberal one?” We asked this twice: once in the original form as stated here and again with the political labels reversed (Inbar and Lammers only asked about discrimination towards conservatives, and I wanted to correct that.) The results were perfect—the charts were charts researchers always hope to get, but rarely do. Imagine a perfectly mirrored image:

• Liberals were significantly more likely—about two times more likely—to hire a liberal over a conservative.

• Conservatives were significantly more likely—about two times more likely—to hire a conservative over a liberal.

• Moderates were evenly split, and reported little if any intent to make a choice based on perceived political orientation.

Looking at the liberal and conservative groups in a big-picture perspective, one in three of the liberal participants indicated that they would be somewhat to very much inclined to discriminate against a conservative in a hiring decision, while a little under one in three conservatives indicated they would be somewhat to very much inclined to discriminate against a liberal in a hiring decision. These numbers must be tempered, though. While almost equal percentages of liberal and conservative respondents indicate a strong inclination to discriminate in hiring, there are also five times more liberals than conservatives. This pattern of discrimination suggests that the number of conservatives hired is likely to dwindle further.

One could view this situation as spawning from two different motives: liberals applying “birds of a feather” or outright discrimination, while conservatives merely fighting for survival in an environment they are already a minority in. We need further research and open discussion to figure out which hypothesis is correct. In further analysis of our data, we plan to see if patterns are the same or different in traditionally conservative disciplines such as business and agriculture.

Any other comments?

As a part of the study, an open-ended response question was included at the end of the survey. The responses from some faculty members give unique insight to their personal experiences and perspectives. Following are some selected comments:

Comments by Liberals:

• I wouldn’t hesitate to invite a conservative
 colleague to a symposium I organized but I would be more likely to organize a symposium on economic inequality, which is not a topic that my conservative colleagues are well-versed in. Thus, I would likely not include them because they don’t have the expertise…Also, if two candidates are equally qualified for the job, I would definitely choose the more liberal to diversify the department.

• The academic field attracts people interested in education more than making a lot of money. Conservatives tend to follow career paths that can earn them the most, hence they may not seek teaching jobs as much as moderates/liberals.

• Politically conservative viewpoints about immigration do not fit well with the department or the universities’ mission.

• Most conservatives I have met who are faculty have a persecution complex. They are in the minority and feel that they do not get their air time.

• In general, my opinion is that “liberal” is more equated with “open minded”; whereas, “conservative” is thought as “closed minded”.

• “Conservatives” appear to not want to “conserve” anything, and appear to me to be the most liberal in their take on society (telling people how to act in their bedrooms, etc.). **** them all and vote socialist!

• Most scientists are liberal because they are rational thinkers who are rarely ideologues.

Comments by Conservatives:

• I have first-hand experience with many of these questions often times in academia. There is a major left leaning majority that is unabashed in its agenda. If one “outs” themselves as a conservative it is academic suicide. Politics have nothing to do with our field, and frankly should not matter. However, the truth is the liberal people and agenda are the mainstream of higher education and are advanced unequally every day.

• On this campus for me to say I’m a conservative would be equal to “coming out of the closet”–so to speak.

• I am a heterosexual, White, male, Roman Catholic, NRA member, Tea Party member, and a proud American veteran. Unfortunately, my values and ideals are not respected or accepted by many, many faculty on this campus. In my 10 years at Cal Poly, I have witnessed a slow evolution toward left-wing liberalism as older, more conservative or politically neutral faculty retire and younger faculty are hired. I think there is very little political diversity at Cal Poly, especially in non-science colleges and departments.

• I am constantly surrounded by colleagues who assume I share their political, left views.

• Many faculty feel it is their “job” to teach students liberal values.

• I’ve worked at three universities and faculty all seem to be quite liberal and potentially prejudiced towards conservative positions.

• Liberal faculty speak freely, often mocking conservative figures, ideas, and even colleagues. The reverse is not so.

For some, their agenda seems quite pompous and unabashed, for others their situation comes across as quite dire. Most of the above comments relate to the conservative experience. There were no open-ended responses reflecting liberal persecution, or the like.

Liberal privilege the modern day “white privilege”?

An interesting perspective presented by Jussim (2012) published in the same journal issue as Inbar and Lammers (2012) drew parallels between what he distinguished as “Liberal Privilege” and “White Privilege” as coined by McIntosh (1988). Though Jussim qualifies his perspective stating that he does not “claim or imply that discrimination against scholarship that seems to support conservative ideas in academic is comparable to discrimination experienced by any particular demographic group in the broader culture ” (p. 505), he notes that “McIntosh’s essay was a good model for communicating the broad and diverse nature of White Privilege ” (p. 505) and that “it is also a good model for communicating the broad and diverse nature of liberal privilege ” (p. 505).

Some excerpts from Jussim describing the “Liberal Privilege” (504-505):

• I can avoid spending time with colleagues who mistrust me because of my politics.

• If I apply for a job, I can be confident my political views are more than likely to be an asset than a liability.

• I can be confident that the political beliefs I hold and the political candidates I support will not be routinely mocked by my colleagues.

• I can be pretty sure that my students who share my political views and go on to academic jobs will be able to focus on being competent teachers and scientists and will not have to worry about hiding their politics from senior faculty.

• I can criticize colleagues’ research that differs from mine on issues such as race, sex, or politics without fear of being an authoritarian, racist, or sexist.

• I can systematically misinterpret, misrepresent, or ignore research in such a manner as to sustain my political views and be confident that such misinterpretations, misrepresentations, or oversights are unlikely to be recognized by my colleagues.

• If I work in politically charged areas, such as race, gender, class, and politics and if my papers, grants, or symposia are rejected, I need not ask each time if political bias led to their rejection.

Jussim followed his examples up with some excerpts from McIntosh’s (1988) essay (http://www.nymbp.org/reference/WhitePrivilege.pdf) that he viewed as conveying the simplicity of the translation from racial privilege to political privilege:

• I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the world’s majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.

• I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out-of-place, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance, or feared.

• If my day, week, or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it has racial overtones.

It seems clear that these “privileges” can easily lead to distorting and undermining the objectivity and validity of science in many ways.

So what? Who cares? What are we supposed to do about this?

Using a more diverse faculty sample, and incorporating the liberal experience in addition to the conservative experience, the observations from the present research reinforced many of the observations made by Inbar and Lammers (2012). Conservatives perceived that their working climate is hostile to their views, and they were unwilling to express those views. They believed that they were subject to discrimination.

The results show that either group, if in the majority, is likely to hire “birds of a feather,” so discrimination on the basis of politics is not a one-way street. However, given overwhelming majority of liberals in the faculty—outnumbering conservatives 5:1—coupled with these attitudes toward hiring, and the unwillingness of conservatives to “out themselves” by expressing their opinions, it is likely that political diversity and the number of conservatives on campus will continue to shrink in the future.

This revelation should be quite disturbing and appalling to you, as it is to me. Universities should be a marketplace of a variety of ideas, perspectives, and beliefs, not a stronghold for one-sided political perspectives as the research shows.

Jonathan Haidt, a leading Social Psychologist now at NYU, outlined two major implications of academic life being void of dissenting voices, such as the voices of conservatives.

Without input from conservative colleagues, it is possible for scholars, particularly in the social sciences, to overlook meaningful research questions or even misinterpret their results (Haidt, 2011).

A sort of “political affirmative action” is not the sort of solution that should be applied to remedy the political ideological imbalance in universities. But, this area of research is one that is typically considered to be quite controversial, and as such many researchers and reviewers avoid and often discourage it. This is a “taboo” topic of sorts, and often not considered plausible by academics and leaders within universities. So, I believe that opening up discussion and awareness on this topic could lead to individual introspection and great discussion about what is going on and the harmful implications should this lopsidedness continue within universities.

My research, though, is clear evidence that discrimination is occurring in academia. Everyone thinks it doesn’t happen, but it does.

This study reflects documented explicit discrimination among faculty against conservative individuals and ideas, but does not tap into implicit discrimination. A valuable extension of this work could include tapping into the implicit biases of individuals, as most individuals are typically not willing to indicate that they would strongly discriminate against someone else—that typically isn’t a very socially desirable trait. An extension such as this could potentially lead to further reinforcing the results obtained from the present research.

Moving forward

In the coming months, I will have the unique and rare opportunity to present different versions of this work at two professional psychology conventions as first author. The first conference is the Western Psychological Association (WPA) convention in Reno, and the second is the Association for Psychological Science conference in Washington D.C. Both conventions rarely feature work by students, and more rarely still the work of undergraduates and third year undergraduates at that. These conventions are quite important for me and my professional development and career advancement. Attending these conventions allows me the opportunity to establish a name for myself, network, and be seen.

Help sponsor me to the aps conference

I need your help to get to the psychology conventions, and to continue research in this domain. If you are interested in supporting me in my research and presentation endeavors, please visit my web-site www.natehoneycutt.com. Additionally, if you are interested in a presentation on my research to your club or organization contact me through my web-site, or if you would like to see a copy of my research paper or other work please visit my web-site.

As coined by Alcoholics Anonymous, the first step to recovery is awareness and self-admission. This study has made you aware of the problem at hand. What are you going to do about it?

Nate Honeycutt is a third year Psychology major at Cal Poly from Arroyo Grande who outside of researching controversial political psychology topics serves as an elected representative in Cal Poly’s student government, and enjoys hiking, biking, and kayaking.



Another thing: to be ‘discriminating’ means to be tasteful…to exercise good judgment.

Often, to discriminate is a good thing.

If war criminals like Dick cheney, paul Wolfowitz, CondoLEEZA Rice, Donald rumsfeld. were before me in any situation. darn swell i would discriminate against them.

Same with limbaugh, hannity, coulter and the rest of the worng right-wing screeching crowd.

Discrimination as practiced towards extremist Nuts is not discrimination.

It’s wisdom.


Too bad you were unable to exercise any of that good judgment you just read about somewhere.


The problem being discussed here is 1) equal access and 2) active discrimination.


The data in both the Inbar and Lammers study and the study’s extension and replication by Honeycutt points to meeting the ‘legal definition’ of ‘discrimination’ and a ‘hostile’ work environment perpetuated by a significant portion of Cal Poly and other CSU faculty in the survey.

We are talking about the selective hiring of certain people and the active non hiring of others.The data indicates clearly that if you have the right political orientation, then you get a pass… and if you don’t… you will not get the job.

If we can’t agree that discrimination is not a good thing… well, we have nothing to say…. and let the courts decide.


Whether it is about ‘free speech’ or access to the resources of the university, promotion, or tenure… it is clear that some folks have problems and others get the goodies. Reading the open ended quotes from liberals drip with hate and venom towards conservatives.

BTW… space limited the room allotted to present all the nasty comments… they were by no means cherry picked.


Someone ‘bet’ that the academic administration is ‘conservative’… but that is amusing. It was under a prior administration that starting in the 80’s most of the leftists came into Cal Poly transforming the university completely. If we look at just the classifications of Republican or Democrat ( assuming that there are no democrat conservatives anymore)… you find a staunchly democrat administration. Warren Baker, if memory serves me, was a ‘declines to state’ and the New President Armstrong is … surprisingly… a registered Republican.

Administrations are classically full of good soldiers ready to push the button … obediently. They are not politically conservative by any measure.


Someone thought the faculty was being ‘demonized’… the faculty had every opportunity to answer the questionnaire differently or hold back their comments discretely… but they ‘let it all hang out.’ If it looks like a bad person, smells like a bad person… well, it just might be.

I love little comments from folks who say that because discrimination on politics is not currently illegal that it is somehow okay. I heard the same logic growing up in the south… spoken by another type of democrats. If you want to get a real chucky… check out the so-called ‘diversity’ department ( their name… not the departments name) and you’ll find no African-Americans… but that is another story.


This is funny and arrogant…

Unfortunately, they often believe such rubbish. Having watched Cal Poly hires over the last thirty years…I would be very concerned if this was a result of hiring the best and the brightest.


Since I brought that up, I assume you are referring to my “little comment” (how infantilizing, thanks).

Roger, in no way did I say that because discrimination on the basis of politics was not currently illegal that I thought it was ok. Please don’t put intentions behind my words that are not there. Honeycutt asked if the study showed Cal Poly met the legal definition of discrimination. My answer was simply, as the federal and state law currently stand, no it does not. My follow up was, if you think politics should be a protected class, take the steps to change it (law suit, ballot measure, etc). That is all.

My screen name and/or my willingness to point out a flaw in the article may lend you to make assumptions about my political association and therefore my thoughts on the matter. As far as I’m concerned, Repubs and Dems are just Coke vs. Pepsi. Maybe a slight difference in taste and recipe, but essentially filled full of the same crap.

Ted Slanders

Isn’t it possible to just cut to the chase? Discrimination this, legal discrimination that, Honeycutt says why does this discrepancy exist at Cal Poly, Roger says if you’re a conservative you’re going to be continually humiliated by the professors, boo hoo, yada, yada, yada.

If we simply reduce this to it’s irreducible primary, in that if you’re a conservative, then for Christ’s sake, just go to a known conservative and/or religious college, therefore eliminating all of this lengthy gobblyl-gook mumbo jumbo and whining in the first place.

In the same vein as certain factions watch Faux News instead of MSNBC, or pick a particular division of Christianity over another, or vote along party lines, just simply stay with your birds of feather and quit the whining when you choose to be in another’s feathered nest!


There are conservatives, like myself, that haven’t given up on public education. We placed our children in public schools… but I don’t know if I would do so again without looking at the teachers and the curriculum very closely.

The temptation is always to ‘stay with birds of a feather’… however, this is not in the best interests of our community. It is important for those of a different stripe to be engaged in the community where they feel they can make a difference… helping out at school, supporting someone they believe in for school board… but most of all… recognizing that they are the one responsible for their child’s education…. not the community or the school.

Cal Poly needs to clean up its act… it is in their own best interests… and it is the right thing to do.


I agree with the study; a majority of faculty at Cal Poly are something other than conservative. But this has zero ramifications. First, there are many closeted gay faculty at Cal Poly. If everything is so left-wing at Cal Poly, why don’t these closeted faculty come out? Second, granola_girl is 100% correct. When I reported a case of harassment to the proper Cal Poly authorities, their first question was “Which protected class do you belong to?” I was told directly that the same exact behavior is labeled as either “unprofessional” if you’re not a member of a protected class, or as “harassment” if you are a member of a protected class. This distinction by Cal Poly seems rather conservative.

Additionally, the entities who determine Cal Poly’s future do so without consultation with the faculty. Here are a few that come to mind. The switch from a teaching school to a teaching/research school. The expansion of the administration and administrative salaries. The implementation of the “student success fee” and Prop. 30, which gave the administration more money to play with but required no accountability as to how the funds are used. No faculty raises for the last several years despite the administration boosting administrative salaries in order to attract top administrative talent. The latest push coming from the CSU is to limit all degrees to 180 units, which is being implemented without faculty consultation. This mirrors a push for online classes, also done without faculty consultation and oversight. In addition, many of these initiatives are being pushed by state politicians, people who have no affiliation whatsoever with the academic environment.

So, no need to worry. Despite the political make-up of the faculty, the faculty are not a major part of the decision making process at Cal Poly, if they are a part at all.


Au contraire, hiring is the faculty prerogative as is curriculum.

The unfettered growth of administration is a problem everywhere… as is the concept’ of faculty ‘self governance’ a thing of a ‘conservative past.’

I wouldn’t claim to know how many gay or lesbian faculty currently teach at Cal Poly… but those I know don’t seem to be hiding. In fact, a friend ( who happened to be a lesbian) was dying of cancer and asked me to take over her classes… which I did at no charge to the campus.

My attorney was a bit frustrated with a certain liberal arts department involved in a discrimination suit with an African professor… because he thought they were ‘racists’… he Assumed they were Republicans. It was amusing to show him that they were not… the farthest thing from it!

Just because you are unaware of injustice… or protected from it… doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.


The hiring process is not that simple. It’s a different world now that there is less money to go around and the fact that the administration is holding onto the money much tighter. The faculty do get to select the new faculty, but only after the money is given to the individual department. Two cases in point in the College of Engineering. The administration decided certain departments needed faculty who had certain areas of expertise. The departments were given given funding (or so it seems) to hire only that certain type of faculty. It’s the admin controlling the purse strings: the admin lack the technical expertise to know what skills various departments require. It’s great to have more faculty, but the admin’s preferences is less than optimal for the departments.

In addition, retiring faculty are not being replaced. While we all watch the admin growing in numbers and salaries, the approach the admin forces on the faculty is larger classes, students teaching classes, a push to online courses, and a reduction in units for various degrees. Once again, the faculty have zero choice in this. In the end, it has become a giant case of the emperor’s new clothes. The changes that are happening are lowering the quality of education provided by Cal Poly, but no one will publicly state this.

Who really cares about liberal vs. conservative? This argument is simply deflecting attention away from the real problems.


I reason that all that this shows, is that ‘conservatives’ love to play the martyr when everything doesn’t go exactly their way.

Honeycutt defines it in his penultimate sentence: “This study has made you aware of the problem at hand. ” ….The circular conclusion that formed the premise.

Thought no one would notice ?


BTW …The first step in AA is not, “There is a problem”… but, ” I have a problem”.

Honeycutt is still stuck in denial, transference, and blaming.



I think the facts show an enthusiastic willingness to discriminate against conservatives. The typical leftist mantra that ‘there is no problem’ melts in the face of the facts.

Just saying it isn’t so… doesn’t make it go away

Try again


When modern ‘conservatives’ stop discriminating against science, history, progress, groups and cultures they don’t like, and civilization ….then they might have a gripe.

In the meantime, opinions are not facts.


Good study, and I wish Honeycutt well in his presentations.

I hope a follow up experiment is conducted in a “typically conservative” sphere, like banking or agriculture.


Not sure it would apply, a study like this is better suited to education because the education system is the keystone of society – to succeed or fail by. Having close-minded, limited-thought people grow our food has no real impact on us; yet if they “teach” young minds to only their narrow-mindedness, then that will effect society over time.

I agree, it was an interesting study. I predict a child-like backlash from the “liberal” types and an over-exuberant “way-to-go” from the “conservative” types. Which really should not be called “liberal” anymore, but “democrats” (I also think “republicans” should stop calling themselves “conservatives”, as an fyi).


“Selected” comments? How about “cherry picked” comments? Which is cause & which is effect? Could it be that maybe, just maybe, more educated people tend to be more liberal in their views? You can write a very technical & professional sounding piece to prove your point; doesn’t make it fact. I attended Cal Poly many years ago, and being a BayAreahippybiker, I was surprised at the number of “conservatives” (read: rednecks) at the school. I felt outnumbered, for sure. Maybe it has swung the other way by now, but to call the trend discrimination is absurd. Maybe in our glorified wine culture Nate & Roger can find some cheese to go with their whine…


I also had a concern on the selected comments. While I can easily believe the comments selected did come from the self-identified liberals and conservatives, I think including them here is a disservice to any hope of non-bias. If you are going to include “open-ended” comments, have them all listed so all can be viewed. If Nate is a conservative, he should know better than this; if he’s liberal, he probably did not expect anyone to question it.


“Does the study by the young researcher show that Cal Poly meets the “legal definition of discrimination?””

No, because neither the federal government nor the State of CA recognize political affiliation or activity as a “protected class.”



If you are giving a thumbs down to the law, then start a petition to get a proposition that changes it on the ballot for the next CA election, and/or contact your elected officials and tell them you think political affiliation should be added as a protected class.

If the thumbs down is for me for pointing out that the study does not show that Cal Poly meets the legal definition of discrimination because the existing law does not include political affiliation as a protected class, then I am sorry that you do not like commenters who base their statements on facts.

Ted Slanders


I run into the same problem with my biblical teachings relative to the stories at times here at CCN. Unfortunately, 99.99 percent of the pseudo-christians just cannot accept biblical fact when it’s shown to them in it’s intended historical context.

The same holds true in your case as well with the “dislike and run crowd” defying facts, with no comments whatsoever to refute what they say is wrong.

Education can be time consuming, whereas ignorance is downright expensive.


You are correct. Perhaps instead of asking if it meets discrimination laws, he should ask if conservative educators can apply for political asylum…. hehe, political asylum from inmates who now run the asylum, as it were!


Great information. It does, however, seem to demonize the faculty. I would be willing to bet most of the academic administration is conservative, in addition to being primarily white and male. In the academic environment, most of the indicators of whether you’re doing a good job or not are based on how well you follow directions from above. Ability to follow directions without question is a conservative quality and one that brings in the biggest rewards in academia.


This is the problem with using labels on people, it confuses most people to the point where they haven’t a clue about what they speak.