Political donations illustrate bias

UC dollars flow disproportionately to Democrats

By Josiah Prendergast
From the December 2004 Print Edition

The liberal bias in academia has been decried as a travesty against students and a betrayal of taxpayers for quite some time; however, recent years suggest an increase in the conglomeration of left-leaning professors on college campuses. The recent presidential election accentuated the salience of this growing disparity on university campuses, particularly within the University of California system. It has become standard that you “pay to play” in politics, hence the McCain-Feingold Act, intended to somewhat level the playing field. But professors are provided with the opportunity to make a political impact beyond the mere bounds of financial contribution and voting. Their unique and revered position in society allows them to shape the ideologies of future generations.

Data from the last four presidential elections suggest that the faculty of the UC system is out of the mainstream and continues to move further left. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 70 percent of funds contributed by UC faculty found its way into the coffers of the Democratic Party, as opposed to the 27 percent destined for the right-wing conspiracy. The same source reported that the breakdown was 93 to 7 percent in the most recent election, compared to 77 to 20 percent in 2000.

Many who consider themselves left-of-center are sick and tired of hearing Republicans complain about the disparity in contributions. Surprise — so am I! Financial contributions result from several different factors. While not limited to these few, they are largely due to financial priority, personal conviction, and political climate. We should applaud professors who choose to contribute to the political system financially, as it is one of many ways to exercise the freedom of expression.

According to Fundrace.org, which draws its information from the databases of the Federal Election Commission, Professors Michael Katz and Donald Glaser contributed $40,000 and $25,000, respectively, to the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Dean Edward Penhoet is reported as having also given $25,000 to the DNC. Conversely, I could not find any faculty member from UC Berkeley to have contributed such large amounts to any conservative political party or candidate. Ultimately, this is the result of financial priority of each individual. The greater the percentage of faculty contributing in large sums to one side, the greater the disparity in overall ideology appears.

The drastic shift between the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections cannot be singularly attributed to the decline in conservatives on campus. Turnover simply is not that high in universities. The most direct cause is George W. Bush. Whether you like him or not, this swing largely falls on his shoulders. In the 2000 election, UC faculty gave $575,271; whereas contributions for the 2004 election totaled $1,393,773. The 2000 recount and the war in Iraq have boosted participation in the professorate, if not the youth. Despite this huge increase in political donations, funds going to the Republican Party have even fallen in absolute terms. Disillusionment with the Bush administration no doubt has played a part, regardless of the hiring policies of the UC system.

Partisanship aside, this issue should be just as personal for liberals as it is for conservatives; the heart of it is no different from the arguments that are heard every day about how our legislatures are predominately wealthy, white, male, and just don’t give a damn. Whether I believe that such a statement is true, it exists nonetheless, and those that put forth such an assertion believe it with the passion of a thousand Cal football fans.

The base of the argument is that nonpartisan government and nonpartisan education can exist regardless of gender, ethnicity, income level, or ideology, but in fact do not exist. Qualitative representation relies on the ability of any legislator to represent the interests of all constituents, regardless of personal background. However, the present school of thought is to achieve descriptive representation, whereby representation is assumed within the legislature if its composition mirrors the diverse population. Likewise, although our universities could theoretically provide entirely objective courses, they do not, largely due to the political composition of the faculty.

There should be no issue with the contributions that professors choose to make; it is their prerogative to donate to the parties and candidates they support. However, the statistics are indicative of the unbalanced education we students are receiving, and indeed paying for. At a state-sponsored institution, this sort of bias is quite simply unacceptable. If you wouldn’t accept a legislature that lacks diversity, then why condone an education that does? Don’t fault professors for their political involvement; blame only those who inappropriately bring it into the classroom. Education should not be about agenda, but sadly that is what it has come to. We deserve something more.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot