Political background and identification of US professors circa 1969

Previously, we've seen that upper income Jews in Boston voted much further left than Protestant Bostonians in the middle of the 20th century; that "Boston Brahmins" were a relatively conservative group; that Jewish billionaires are further left than non-Jewish billionaires; etc.

It should not come as much of a surprise to anyone passingly familiar with non-Moldbuggist American history that in a 1969 survey of professors, Jews reported themselves more leftist in parental background, personal identification, voting behavior, and their children's activism than Protestants.

In "Jewish academics in the United States", Lipset reports:

The extent to which the political background of Jewish academics differs from that of others may be seen in the responses to the Carnegie survey question: "What were your father's politics while you were grow- ing up?" Forty-six per cent of the Jews, as contrasted to 19 per cent of the Catholics and but 14 per cent of the Protestant majority, reported fathers who were "left" or "liberal" in their views. Conversely, less than 20 per cent of the Jewish professors had "conservative" fathers, while 63 per cent of the Protestant academics indicated such a background (Table 19).

Family political-intellectual tradition affects the behavior of the chil- dren of academics. Among those faculty with children of college age, a majority (56 per cent) of the Jews report that their children have "been active in civil rights, anti-Vietnam, or other demonstrations," as con- trasted with little more than one-fifth (22 per cent) of the Gentile pro- fessors. The reason, of course, is that the children of liberal academics participate much, much more in demonstrations than children of con- servative academics, and Jewish faculty are disproportionately liberal. That the correlation is between parental politics and participation is made clear by Table 20, which shows that 68 per cent of the left faculty having children of the right age—regardless of religion—said their children had been active in demonstrations, compared to just 4 per cent of the strongly conservative professors.

The contribution of faculty of Jewish background to liberal and left political groups has been stressed in a number of surveys preceding our own. Almost all earlier studies found that close to 90 per cent of Jewish academics regularly voted Democratic in presidential elections. 45 Jewish faculty also were found to contribute heavily to the backing of leftist third parties. Thus, according to a 1948 study, fully 30 per cent of the Jewish professors voted for Henry Wallace. 46 The same proclivity can be seen in Britain, where a faculty opinion study reported that the Jews were "the most left-wing of all." 47 Recent studies of American college professors conclude that Jews have been much more heavily opposed to the Vietnam war, and stronger supporters of student activism, than their Gentile colleagues. 48

The Carnegie Commission's national survey yielded the same strong relationships. The Jewish faculty were much more inclined to identify their politics as "left" or "liberal" than Protestants and Catholics (Table 21 ). 49 Jews contributed disproportionately to the small group who backed left-wing third party presidential candidates in 1968; they were much more likely to have been for the nomination of Eugene McCarthy than of Hubert Humphrey at the Democratic convention, and gave Richard Nixon an exceptionally low vote in the election. In 1964 only 2 per cent of the Jewish faculty voted for Barry Goldwater, compared to 24 per cent of those of Protestant parentage (Tables 22, 23, and 24).

The Jews, as a group, took much more liberal positions on such issues as the use of force at the Chicago Democratic convention in 1968, the Vietnam war, student activism, the treatment of blacks in both the university and the larger society, and the legalization of marijuana (Tables 25, 26 and 27). The gap between Jews and Christians on these issues is very large, while among Christians, Protestants are usually slightly more conservative than Catholics. For example, 59 per cent of the Jews gave general approval to "the emergence of radical student activism in recent years," compared to 44 per cent of the Catholics and 40 per cent of the Protestants. The proportion of Jews favoring immediate United States withdrawal from Vietnam is twice that of non-Jews. Three- fifths of the Jews favored the legalization of marijuana (59 per cent), compared to 33 per cent of the Catholics and 29 per cent of the Protestants.


  1. Duarte et al. pointed out in their recent Behavioral and Brain Sciences target article that social science used to be politically more diverse. I wonder if the elimination of political diversity in academia is simply a consequence of its Judaization.

  2. notice that those who identify as "strongly conservative" basically don't exist from any religuous background.

    granddad was a prof, an episcopalian, a democrat.

    but he used to invite jews over for dinner and tell them how great hitler was.

    conservative and liberal meant different things back then.

    back then i'd most likely have answered "moderately conservative".

  3. as long as n/a thinks the problem is that jews are "liberals" rather than that jews are jews, he is in their thrall.

    he is their butt boy.

    they are his leather daddy.

  4. Previously, we've seen that upper income Jews in Boston voted much further left than Protestant Bostonians in the middle of the 20th century

    except "we" haven't seen it, because the mid century GOP was no more conservative than the mid century dems.

    brahmins voted GOP, because they hated Southerners. Southerners voted Dem, because they hated Yankees and niggers.

    top marginal rate 90%.

    you're mentally retarded.

  5. whoever controls the horizon of interpretation and self-interpretation controls the debate.

    whoever is unaware of how short the artificial horizon, the horizon which is supplied...

    cannot think.

  6. Anonymous,

    Efforts to police discourse on race, IQ, sociobiology, etc., certainly seem to have been disproportionately Jewish ("Montagu", Lewontin, Kamin, Rose, Gould, etc.). But I'm sure self-selection and left-wing bias have also led to less ideological diversity among non-Jews in social science and academia in general.


    When did I say I think 'the problem is that jews are "liberals"'? Ethnic conflict exists and will always exist because groups do not share identical interests. In the time and place we actually live, one reflection of ethnic conflict is disproportionate Jewish support for left-wing politics.

  7. indeed n/a.

    you are correct sir.

    when it suits the jews they'll form the...

    In 1997, Henry Kravis joined with Lewis M. Eisenberg to establish the Republican Leadership Council.

    though to be fair to a jew, kravis is from tulsa.

    the problem is that jews are universalists in speech but extreme ethno-centrists in deed and in motivation.

    and like hollywood movies, universalism sells.

  8. and n/a again shows what a jew he is when he refers to "ethnic conflict".


    the jew is sui generis.

    "ethnic conflict" is just another generalization which ignores this BRUTE FACT!

    idiot europeans have fought with and killed each other for how long? and they're all cousins really.

    but n/a has this weird hatred of southern europeans, maybe eastern europeans too.

    even though, really and contra n/a's absurd claims, SOUTHERN EUROPE HAS BEEN THE RICHEST AND THE MOST SOPHISTICATED PART OF EUROPE.

    and i say that as one with negligible or nil southern european ancestry.

    the italians were the first to climb K2, and the british suck at football in comparison.

  9. while aristotle and plato wrote and alexander conquered my ancestors worshipped trees and practiced human sacrifice.

    a little humility is in order.

    until the last 300-400 years NW Europeans were the niggers of Europe.

  10. Hughgabe,

    "the jew is sui generis."

    No, the difference is one of degree, not kind.

    "but n/a has this weird hatred of southern europeans, maybe eastern europeans too."

    Did you not just get through ranting at me for a supposed lack of particularism a few threads back? Now you're complaining I have too much partiality to my own people. You recently accused me of a lack of introspection, but it's clear you're in need of some yourself. You're not interested in arguing rationally or even being consistent; you're interested in striking poses that you think set you apart as having special insight.

    "until the last 300-400 years NW Europeans were the niggers of Europe."

    Even if this were true, which it's not, it would make no difference. NW Europeans are still my people, and I still would like to see them continue to exist.

  11. The restrictionists actually went out of their way to deny that they believed they were racially superior to other groups. The Congressional Record reports Representative William N. Vaile of Colorado, one of the most prominent restrictionists:

    “Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the `Nordic` race, or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world. Let us concede, in all fairness that the Czech is a more sturdy laborer…that the Jew is the best businessman in the world, and that the Italian has…a spiritual exaltation and an artistic creative sense which the Nordic rarely attains. Nordics need not be vain about their own qualifications. It well behooves them to be humble.

    What we do claim is that the northern European and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But… [t]hey came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it.

    “We are determined that they shall not…It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves.” [Cong. Rec., April 8, 1924, 5922]


  12. well n/a that's a "formalism" we can agree on.

    i think the jews different in kind.

    you in degree.

  13. and you're frightfully constipated.

    you're still holding back on your shit.

  14. i mean for God's sake, doesn't "everyone" know that the Scots are worse than the Jews?


    lots of Scots emigrated.


    yeah. the ideal holocaust would include all the jews and all the scots.

    not kidding.

  15. really! i'm not kidding.



    my personal experience with scottish people has been even more negative than such experience with jews.

    appalachia is basically scottish.

    so the trashiest part of the GOP is scottish, if one insists on an ethnic breakdown.

  16. n/a is pathetic liar.


    why do i say that?

    because his interest is a STUPID interest/obsession...a VERY STUPID interest/obsession.

    n/a ERWACHT!

    life expectancy for a newborn female in japan is what?

    he imagines that in his utopia of pure colonials americans, everyone would live to 120?

    n/a has a low IQ and hates it.

    ...and the colored girls said...

  17. ...doo dee doo doo dee doo...

    n/a has yet to GRASP that...






    n/a IS A MORTAL...




  18. n/a is a still a CHILD...

    but so are almost all adults...


    For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

  19. ...But it was all right, everything was all right,...

  20. ..., the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother...


    that's my bottle of gin this evening.

  21. n/a calls be "hughgabe"...

    a name appropriate to him would be...

    moooooo! gabe.


    joooooo! gabe.

    n/a is in a mental prison built by his jew masters.

  22. n/a is like a man who sees the light but is still under water.

    he's excited.

    he's about to breathe.

    but he's yet to take his first breath.

  23. For What It's Worth...

    what a field day for the heat...

    look what's going down...

    paranoia strikes deep...

  24. nobody's right...

    if everybody's


  25. Regarding voting in 1968:

    Left to Right voting ratio (Humphrey and Other / Nixon and Wallace)

    Jews: 131 to 10 [83.7%/6.4%]
    Catholics: 23 to 10 [61.3%/23.6%]
    Protestants: 11 to 10 (If limited to Whites only, ratio may be slightly right-leaning) [47.9%/33.3%]

    Overall USA (Actual results): 8 to 10 [43.7%/56.3%] (i.e., right-leaning)

    The hypothetical White Protestant professoriate does seem to reflect the USA's overall actual result, except on one metric: Protestant professors only said they voted for George Wallace at a rate of 1.4% (presumably with such a huge sample size the margin of error was very small). The overall actual result was 13.5% for Wallace.

    A few possibilities: (1) Professors were disproportionately from outside the South. (2) Disproportionately more universities outside the South. (3) White professors who actually voted for Wallace didn't admit to it in the survey (the Bradley Effect)

    But the main explanation must be: (4) The White racialist presence in the U.S. professoriate, probably once significant if not necessarily explicit, had cratered into irrelevance by 1969, especially among the young professors.

  26. "until the last 300-400 years NW Europeans were the niggers of Europe. "

    Wrong, see Michael H. Hart's Understanding Human History. It's true that during ancient greece' time, the slavs and germanic people were primitive. But their IQs weren't low, they already had a higher native intelligence than, say, arabs.