right thing by trying to convince israel no attac iran at this point. but we need to really get something going that some alternative to a major attack. here it is and this is the best i can do. secretary schultz approved. henry kissinger has written a blurb on the back. he approves the idea. i'd like to see the united states try it. in the meantime if were going to do that, i would really hope israel does not attack iran because that is going to lead to an ongoing dynamic between these two countries. who knows when it would end even if there is no nuclear war, there would be an ongoing war of terrorism. it would just multiply the problems israel faces today.

if we can somehow avoid that, the administration is doing just the right thing with israel trying to reassure israel would have ideas, we are committed to their support, but we need to come up with ideas and do more to really solve this problem. >> host: abraham sofaer, the factors you or jewish jewish to pepsi in a role negotiating with the iranians? >> guest: i'm sure it did. i'm not just a and a middle eastern. my heritage is iraqi and iranian and egyptian. i come from a family that probably left israel after the first result on trent revolt against rome when the temple was destroyed the second time. or maybe the first time.

but we've been in the mid-east for 2000 years. so my mother's mother was egyptian. my mother sat there was caregroup lee. from kirkuk. they all had relatives in iran and my mother speaks some farsi. it does have an influence. they know. they can tell immediately i am culturally -- i don't distinguish myself culturally from iranians or egyptians were iraqis. i grew up in a house or my parents spoke arabic and we were a secular family so it only

dancing at parties and stuff. not exactly the religious type, but definitely culturally middle eastern. so maybe that helped me because when they would come in trying to sell some thing, it is something i'm pretty used to and i think we are at a disadvantage when we send people to negotiate who are used to western rational negotiations. they're negotiating is definitely different. the same principle of trust but verify, but the process is fair. >> host: -- >> guest: .

there's no doubt in terms of national security. we have many very solid report written or each of the capacities for a nuclear weapon have been found to exist by the inspections that would have the ability to conduct. they can do it. how long would it take to do it if they made up their minds? they have to enrich the only enrich some uranium up to 20% and the rest is under 5%. there's quite a bit of work to do, but they are building a better enrichment machinery. so if they want to break out and do it fast, they can certainly do it within a year.

>> host: "taking on iran" is the name of the book. abraham sofaer at the hoover institution is the author. this is booktv on c-span 2. >> up next come a pan on professors in the u.s. this is about an hour and a half. >> we are going to get started, everyone. thank you for coming tonight. my name is eric lander, director of the institute for public knowledge and on behalf of the institute for public knowledge at nyu and public works, which is our favorite new web review publication, we are delighted to

be here for the lunch and panel discussion. joe gross' new book, this is a topic of great sensitivity and interest to all of us here, but those of us who are interested in the politics of academia more proudly turns out to be a great difference of opinion este simple things like whether professors are liberal and clearly there is disagreement about why professors have the kinds of politics they do have. neocons not as a partisan. he is not here to persuade you that there's a right way the academy should be organized. he comes as a social scientist at in trying to understand th

situation to explain how he got here as best as they possibly can. i'm on record as having strong feeling. i'm on record on the back of the book. i should refrain myself from making comments, but what impresses me is the cmi network in an unusual way. establishing real certainty where professors should be situated particularly. he got to the heart of the most fundamental questions of our academics tend to stand on political issues, how we should think about it and how we should think about the culture and politics that places some people in a profession at the academy and other kinds of places. if you ask liberals why

professors tend to be liberal, they say i'm not sure they are liberal. they are liberal because liberals tend to be smarter. of course smarter people are attracted to the university report tell you things if you're a conservative, you probably care about money or you have some different values the way you're going to behave in the world. the last place you want to be had is a universe beat, so that explains it. there's lots of chatter about why we have the university, and neil cuts through all of this in the book and offers an original and rigorous and consistently surprising account of why the university looks the way it does. i'm not going to say too much more because we'll start the night with neil himself and talk

about the book for 10 or 15 minutes, providing a summary of the big arguments. then we are in for a treat. we have an all-star panel to talk about the work. first we have paul starr, a princeton university and someone who's used to using social science to engage the most significant public debates of our time and often not explicitly political terms. that really is about rigorous thinking in the public realm to promote his liberal politics. there would be a fruitful exchange and then we have nicholas lehman, outgoing dean of the journalism school i'm proud to say will be a fellow next year, so getting a preview of what it will be like to have nick around. makes two is not shy about

engaging public and plitical questions and people have a variety of viewpoints on where he comes out too. he's committed to an american-style of objectivity but on occasion taken stances as well. there's nothing that should prevent us from doing that wholeheartedly tonight. i look forward to a terrific conversation. our panel tonight is not just for us in the room. it's also broadcast on c-span. at best the speakers to come speak at the mic and then i will moderate questions afterwards. i ask her to have a question if you could go to the mic so they capture for everyone. without further ado, neil, welcome. [applause] >> well, thanks very much for that nice introduction, eric. i want to take the opportunity

to thank you here at new york university for organizing this event and thanks also to paul and nick for being here and offering what i'm sure will be a set of media comments. my name it is to spend a few minutes at the outset outlining the basic thesis of my book so the discussion will make sense if you haven't read it yet. one way of understanding book is understanding what it's not. over the last 15 years, much is written about politics from the right, a well-known example is david horowitz, the 101 most dangerous academics in america, which listed the things of radicals from closer to the center. save the world on your own time and from the left, what's liberal about the liberal arts? reply to the charge of bias in higher education. this is only a sampling.

differences in politics that argument aside, these books have in common their passions critique defenses of political trends in higher education, real or imagined. they can to persuade us things need to be changed or nothing is changing. my book does not belong to the genre of writing. it deals with the same spectrum of issues, but my entries are entirely of a social scientific nature is eric indicated by which i mean the goal of the book is to provide the most factually answered. why do conservatives care? to do so i make it way through social science data in a manner that will be accessible to those outside the field. as a nationally representative survey of more than 1400 professors at the sociologists

back in 2006 which focused on political views. this in-depth interviews by resear assistants for conduct that teaching in departments of sociology professor's political wire stories and use of politics and research. there's a survey of a thousand american adults on the liberal issue and in that in areas on the same subject was 69 residents of wisconsin and colorado from the states of major controversies on professors in politics. the sociologists and the social survey, a large survey of america does feel that regularly since the 1970s to determine what factors account for political differences with jeremy freese i have longitudinal data to identify political predictors of graduate

school attendance. i connected a field experiment for a political bias the process including americans and i interviewed prominent conservative activists tracing history of attacks on the ivory tower. what did i find? verse, although conservative claims run amok in the academy, the american professoriate is twice as liberal. there is variation in professor's political views of the social science being applied to fields that engineering and business more to the right. the data indicates the occupations in the u.s. 9% of professors consider themselves on the radical left in some shape or form. 31% of the placed under the

banner progressives and another 14% on the centerleft. all told, between 50% of professors tell someone the the left hand side of the political spectrum. ..@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x

>> one theory holds that@x@x professors lean left because it is in a class interest to@x@x do so for example, it would@x@x benefit academics politically professionally and personally for the state@x to spend more on higher@x@x@x@x education and this might@x@x@x@x lead them to lighten up line that -- when a behind the democratic party.@x third, looking and values differ in a white conservati@xves are about to@x make money and don't care about ideas or the fourth theory highlights the@x cognitive factors a personality.@x there is empirical support but not as much as advocates@x@x claim. at the same time partly on@x the basis of the yield@x

experiment in which my@x colleagues and i spent -- sent e-mail's to students to@x directors a graduate studies@x@x and reading programs asking@x canals define reason to root out the theory cherished by@x@xx those on the right that liberals are overrepresented in academia because there is discrimination but instead i argue that based on occupational reputation plays a key role to explain@x@xx my professors tend to be@x@x@x@x liberal.@x@x@x@x@x@x@x first they@x began to develop a reputation for liberalism@x@xx and the emergence of modern form coinciding overtime it@x@xx @xcame institutionalized.@x@x@xx today for that student on the left is something you might naturally consider as@x@x you search explicitly for a@x@xx career@x path.@x@x@x@x@x by contrast if you are a@x@x@x@x

@xlented student chances are@x@x you'd never seriously@x@x@x@x@xx contemplate a career in@x higher education.@x@x@x and conservatives are@x@x@x steered out in a process for@x@x those that reenforce the@x@x@x education.@x@x@x@x@x@x@x class, values, a personality@x@x differences and the like to@x@xx come into play here but mine@x@x is an account of which@x@x@x@x@x identity looms especially@x@x@xx large and their various@x@x@x@xx pieces of evidence to@x@x@x@x@x support such an account.@x@x@x@h also why do conservatives@x@x@xx care?@x@x in recent years against of@x@x@x the professoriate? the answer is@x obvious if@x@x@x most professors were@x@x@x@x@x@x conservatives liberals would @x upset personally and@x@x@x@xx institutionally and@x@x@x@x symbolically but part of the@x@x reason i tried to show in@x@x@xx

the book how criticism of@x@x@xx liberal professors became a@x@xx mainstay of conservative@x@x@x@x discourse wallet was getting@x off the ground and one@x@x@x@x@x aspect that continues in@x@x@x@x those words of newt gingrich@x@x and@x others with the cultural elite i argued this is and remains useful to the right@x@xx because it identifies some@x@x@x eat this is a populist@x@x@x@x@x enterprise given that the@x@x@xx right have the back of the@x@x@x elites since it has been@x@x able to draw.@x@x@x@x@x@x are their moral and@x@x@x@x@x @xlitical implications to be@x@x drawn?@x yes. but@x i don't attend any of@x@x that in a book but as site@x@x@x

have exploited jerry social science but maybe we will have a chance to talk. [applause]@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x he mentioned david horowitz@x@xx list 100 most dangerous@x@x@x@xx professors i was so@x@x@x@x@x disappointed.@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x [laughter]@x@x@x but you can imagine how@x@x@x@xx relieved i was wind@x@x initiative souza case now and there i was.@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x @xid to have an invitation@x@x@x like this this is the second@x@x time i have talked on the very subject i ask myself is@x@x this the occasion to talk as@x@x a@x liberal or as a@x@x@x@x@x@xx sociologists?@x@x@x@x@x@x

and i ate mostly address his@x@x work as a@x sociologists but@x@x @xrst we want to do is give@x@xx my sense of the context that@x the developments off -- not@x@xx to be with a great deal of@x@x@x americans are politics has@x@x@x become organized and@x@x@x@x@x differentiated on@x@x@x@x@x ideological lines and there is a@x process of sorting and@x so selection going on in@x@x@x@x many different@x arenas that@x@x @xad liberals and@x@x@x@x@x@x@xx conservatives to form@x@x@x@x@xx different communities and@x@x@xx you have the influence of@x@x@x the first ball of cells@x@x@x@xx selection with the mutual@x@x@xx influence in those@x@x@x@x@x@x communities that intensifies@x@x the differences leading to greater polarization over@x@x@xx time.@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x we have evidence for@x@x@x@x@x@x

example, americans are@x@x@x@x@x making choices@x about where@x@x to live on the basis of@x@x@x@x social@x@x characteristics and@x lifestyle preferences that@x@x@x are highly correlated with@x@x@x politics.@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x@x so we can see looking at@x@x data over time that american@x@x @xmmunities in almost any@x@x@xx level this city and county@x@x@x level that these have become@x@x @xre lopsided democratic or@x@xx republican this is different@x@x of@x gerrymandering.@x@x@x@x@x@x very interesting evidence@x@x@xx about americans choices@x@x@x@xx about religion.@x@x@x@x@x@x@x there is a book recently by david@x campbell called american grace which is a

very surprising portrait of american religious activity and preferences. there is a tremendous fluidity to americans' religious identity. a majority of the americans say if they practice any religion, practice a different from the one they were raised. a great many americans are switching and church hopping and shopping and others are not observing any religion and at all and what is happening is first of all, between religious observers that religion acidy is now one of the best predictors of the viewpoints if you ask

people according to campbell and putnam that it is a very strong predictor of how they vote. this was not true 30 or 40 years ago that has become true overtime and with congregation and is a the indication and increases the pattern of religious and political polarization taking place in the united states. want and get used to be the case that americans watched

the news on one of the three networks they were rather centrist and plant and they had everybody watching the news to separate themselves with fox and msnbc and online you get the same pattern of blood left dry basis but the so selection and when they make said tate choices they are vital but one example in neil gross book were he discusses the clinic the economist who tracked students from their high school years and

students your high-school seniors expressed more liberal views and are more likely to become majors of the social sciences and humanities and the more likely to go into business or engineering one and those who choose the humanities become more liberal thoses business become more conservative this is exactly same pattern observed in other areas and it seems there is something to observed in many aspects of american life. with this environment it shouldn't surprise us that liberals and conservatives sort themselves into different occupational fields, it doesn't apply to all occupations but in particular the professoriate

and as a result liberals and conservatives end up dominating different institutions and nobody would be surprised and "fortune" magazine reports every now and then on surveys with corporate ceos that 95 percent republican. so to take another survey of top military officers overwhelmingly republican. this is not surprising that so selection mechanism and there may well be mutual influence especially for those who want to get ahead. i don't think we should be shocked or surprised that the universities are heavily populated by liberals with the same kinds of reasons of self selection process.

and i'm not surprised conservatives care about it. they like to control universities to. they know that ideas matter. what have they done about it? here is a part of the story i would like to see in the book not being entirely passive or idle day to some extent have created their own counter academy with the creation of think tanks like heritage, a cato, american enterprise institute, with the intellectuals to focus singleminded the on the political tasks with the battle of ideas. but that is giving them and

advantage to academics by the constraints also now there are conservative colleges so on my own campus we have the james madison led by professor robert george and it is parallel to another center of the universe of political philosophy with parallel structures and so when i see developing in many different arenas is a pattern of

ideological with their separate organizations to take a look at the legal profession where you have separate societies and professional societies as liberal and conservative lawyers, this is the pattern that has existed in many other societies something of a surprise to see it in the united states 50 years ago but now it is a general pattern made so the question about the liberal professoriate is not a new phenomenon it goes back a long way and as i understand of the academy for being

liberal and the students are making the choices on the basis of the reputation of the academic objective. and the second part that there were changes in the path to wingback to the progressive era at earlier what had been religiously oriented colleges conservatives turning in a more liberal direction. the question than neal says at 1.a very general narrative but the question the book leaves unanswered if the academic world wasn't

in a more conservative way how did liberal state control? how did they change that? and why today are they unable to change that? what happens in the earlier period that brought about political change in the character of the academic world that is not happening and maybe you should address that later on. other reasons of the academy that explain why conservatives and liberals make different choices about academic careers and they cite nine other van richard hayak the great conservative economist to said in 1949 for the exceptionally able

and a multitude of areas of influence and power. and conservatives with equal talent just choose to go into is a law or the military or other fields the liberals from that meeting dominate the university by default because conservatives have better things to do. because the two explanations with the first account is one that emphasizes some distinctive episode in the american past that led it to develop this character. the other explanation suggest that in any capitalist society conservatives are more likely to go into the

military were to be attracted to the other fields and here is where it would have to end helpful or perhaps difficult to get evidence about other societies with it is just about the united states or is there a more general pattern? my impression is that the american academic world is not any unusual and it is true in many other places and consequently i am inclined to to be partial to the theory that would account for this as a more general pattern to not make it depend solely on the particular things that happened in the history of the american university. so let me finish up.

i was year in 1995 at the institute of humanities to talk in a series of public life to talk about liberalism and conservatism and the individual and there is no reason why anybody else would remember what i had said and indeed i did not remember but it turns out it is almost about the subject of the very same thing and since 1995 just after the nuking rich led republican takeover, while battles over foreign policy demand -- diminish and intensified there is a

tendency among conservatives to regard these battles as the domestic equivalent of war that they replaced the cold war was a great historic struggle of our time in the view of many conservatives cultural and intellectual landscape is almost entirely in possession and so much so that the last exercise of the frightening dominion the rule of political correctness and here i was quoting kramer and now it is almost all in the arts and the literary and publishing world the entertainment industry and the left agenda and kramer went on rigid in the idea that it is in tolerably repressive than the source of evil in the

world and the idea according to kramer that currently prevailed at almost level. this pitcher seems wildly inaccurate with the use of the vocabulary is a measure how thorough the conservatives have a chance for the ashes of anti-communism against those they think of the enemy of american culture. as the conservatives were the same people who decry the loss of civility and generally speaking american liberalism are siblings american conservatism with the philosophical sense his conservative but the breach is why today this is that as time and it is possible to

say the differences among parties or intellectuals of fine-tuning and the first principle with the highest levels of government and around the family breakfast table it is a good time for intellectuals. [applause] if. >> web like to do to be more anecdotal to have an odd life experience whereby title i am an academic but i don't work full-time in the university in july was 48 years old. so i was able to follow

through much of my life many of the debates in the book and suddenly if you have an opportunity to see university life that a high-level from the inside. while deep into middle-age. so by the way in the aforementioned david horowitz book about the 101 most dangerous academics, two of those are facts of the man wrote -- chuck remembers at columbia journalism school even though the faculty is only 35. that is pretty good. [laughter] i also want to mention i don't know if you remember but 10 years ago when i was trying to decide about making a systematic why switch to become an academic to princeton. do you remember that?

whether this was a good lady at and if that was what i should do when i went there. i am grateful for that. i admire the books of lot especially being very careful and rigorous about reading the literature to put out every possible theory and but i would give you is the theory and anecdotal impression so i hope it is somewhat useful but i cannot claim to have done the rigorous study but i lived it as a national experiment. number one, being at columbia the last 10 years, yes, universities are overwhelmingly liberal. there are a few conservatives around columbia we have done some conscious diversity hiring

and are in the cross hairs not just mr. horowitz but a lot of other people do you remember the incident of the president of npr of losing her job over a sting operation? weaver that the for npr. [laughter] but unfortunately i think the reason we're so much in the cross hairs is the idea that journalism also is a liberal profession and if you what to say where does that come from is that it comes from our school. we've got that e-mail and james dickey showed up several times to do ambush interviews with people and that events like this. and we have spent on the

bill already show many times so i am used to --. [laughter] ibm used to that part of the debate. but it is true that a general 10 or is super liberal but i can think of anyone i know on the columbia faculty who did not vote for obama twice. >> in different years that i hope. [laughter] that the dean of the business school was hired as the adviser to romney but those are the only to get everybody else part of what is going on is a little chronological as it is self reenforcing.

a lot of the liberal universities as in any environment is not in on the argument but what do you will your eyes over or tell jokes over and assume that everybody is on the left so if you mention the name george w. bush they say oh my god but nobody says what argument are you making exactly about george of the bush? but to assume he is on their side and we are on our side. in terms of the etiology of where it comes from, i found allies intellectually as described more persuasive than he did. that is my anecdotal impression that i do think there is a class interest

that is particularly noteworthy to me as an outsider it is obvious that if you walk into what is supposedly a private university, it is unbelievably dependent on government and is almost a government agency. over one-third of the income of columbia comes from the federal government directly and that bad the understates the case because it is so dependent on federally guaranteed student loans that if they went away the whole university would go way. so there really is a phenomenon is not immaterial that the minute president obama took office practically he hugely increased funding of the extremes to go to the academy made to what academics was an inspiring speech at the national

academies. and it isn't accidental when democrats are in power and liberals are in power universities and institutions individually do better and i don't think they're relevant to the explanation of why academics are liberal. i also want to quarrel a little bit with this all selection theory that i found up to a point* persuasive but and two points, one is the point* that paul made that is so u.s. and specific and doesn't explain unless you want to say it joker's globally over many centuries , why, in general, academics are a left element in societies all over the world. there are exceptions but

that may be generally the case procopius there is a more profound question about human nature. in a certain way and i will return, i think most people are less ideological and ideologically motivated and how they come across in this book. i would offer at least as a hypothesis the reason most people become academics is not because they are first a liberal and i went to find a happy professional home but instead to be the academic but there are elements in their that have the embedded liberalism in them. but they don't choose to

become academics because they are liberal first, they choose to become academic journalists, as social workers because they are drawn to the field and they find themselves in an environment that is liberal and reinforces their own liberalism. i am being anecdotal but most people i know that academic did not start from the premise i want to find a comfortable place. almost use an analogy that may or may not work but with cultural identification i think of people who are seriously religiously observant that i know including my wife will say i have to live in a place where i can be that's or

some of klay friends who are gay will say i want to live in a place rich is easier to be gay not harder. but i am offering the thought that relatively few people may feel that way so the whole determining the source of their vocation in life but as the alternate hypophysis, it is not entirely fair because it does not encompass all variables but crudely, the status of a here in the market is over here and the left is more associate with the state in the right is more associated with the market in a global context

united states compared to most of the developed world is to the right to other countries in terms of ambiance that puts them more to the state and as you know, so my hypothesis is what is very striking to me you have seen it here tonight your boss really isn't university of british columbia but the discipline of sociology that is inhabiting to realms and the realm of the discipline is more career determinant than the realm of the institution that the paycheck is written on.

academic disciplines are actually even though people make fun of academics are being a practical one of the most successful examples is of localization truly globalized. therefore the hypophysis i want to offer is one reason with being liberal in america is they operate in local communities and to pick up the views of the global community as opposed to the national community and this is striking to me as a journalist because even if you think yourself as a super sophisticated journalist with an enormously sitting inside the american institutions to talk to other american journalist and is part of a global conversation much less likely to pick up the global consensus with everything to the left.

there are lots of things double-a-2 follow-up on but it has to do with the threats to universities and there is a good discussion with several places saugh in the book that conservatism's much as the word corporate to a liberal audience is something going on and that is the way rigo in the circle a few oases no street journal with the diversity's they know something is up and you will see "the new york times" with the investigation of corporations. but i think conservative

attack and universities begins as a concern -- conspiracy is a threat to universities but i don't think it is ideological. but what i see from being in the university of the main threat is said to describe the research model when people inside the system don't see as much like an outsider like me but nobody gets there is such a thing as the research university model. they have a huge variety of stakeholders the of the parents who want kids to go

here and there is such an option they have not done a good job to communicate the best part of the function to the world and as market and business values become ever more of sending in american society, there becomes the argument he sees this in the university of virginia that they should be run more like business to teach skills and not have the academic tenure and academics should only teach practical things not impractical theoretical things but all these attitudes are in some way conservative but they are not conservative with david horowitz ideological.

and then specially the road there will more rich universities. i think the focus on the ideological threat can obscure it is a threat to the universities and that is very real. so hopefully we can go back and forth. thank keogh. [applause] >> thank you tunic and paul. before we open into the group i want to give you a chance to respond with some commonalities with the comments it would be interesting to address the issue of the question how americans how they should

think about the politics of the professoriate and how that shapes the way the understand the situation in the united states and the last point* about globalism of the academy is original and interesting and worth chewing on and every would be letting ourselves down if we did not stop -- address the bigger question and you talk about the way the university flourishes and that is true but i remember a few years ago when barack obama made a speech proposing the possibility that universities continue to raise tuition as if they would cut the amount of federal financial aid that was a threat to the episcopal situation to universities across the country that builds and the notion there is a certain level every year four-door

trusties throughout the country when nets think this is the real results but this is a major assault and clearly one of the issues of the united states today is the notion that universities are prohibitively expensive. and we can no longer justify asking students to take on the debt load that they take on. the privilege of university researcher and other research universities set in contrast to the vulnerability of the undergraduate who leaves with 50 or 60 or $100,000 in debt you have a volatile situation. saw was some point* we need to talk about the current situation that strikes me as a difficult one. but wider use en

minutes responding then please do come join the conversation. >> the survey comments. and very interesting i will try to address them quickly. i take paul to bring of two major points about the growth of cells selection dynamics and political segregation in american society and then if this is a uniquely american story. identify what to do more than say i agree. there clearly is evidence of political self degradation that part of what motivated the book for me is the sense it is happening in a number of different spier's as the university could be a possible site to figure out

the small-scale dynamics driving it. i would say that social scientist although attentive have not always thought of them as driven by dynamics of the dignity not maximizing sets of values but to be the environment where one feels comfortable and at home with others who were some of the like-minded and parts of the goal of the book is to spend more time thinking about this. and other forms of identity that with conventional politics is the kind we ought to be addressing more and in particular now been on the question if this is the uniquely american story i don't address it in great detail in the book because we don't have great data on

the subjects we do have some for a comparative social survey and that would indicate in many countries as you mentioned we are perhaps more select on some issues like gender but less on issues like the growth of the welfare state so there are differences and similarities so why focus on the american story? the account that i try to offer in the book during that progressive era but it goes back further than that to a period of this secularization of the second half of the 19th century. this was certainly important shoot shape the university but part of a broader process where church and state is separated and

others fear began to separate as well. with respect to these secularization at this happened in all western societies. but not all at once by a back-and-forth zigzag fashion and it played out very differently. france, germany, england, in the u.s. with lots of demonstration a fax with one country going to germany and vice versa and the account i offer in the book abbreviated as it is but a common set of secularization , leading to changes of the compensation of the professorial but those do staff each with a different political mix but one that nevertheless ochers differently and that is ultimately might account.

they have pride commonalities but a quite different trajectory. on good points as well i will say a couple of things to do class interest i do think they do but it to bring forth to pieces of evidence to call into question if this explains the phenomenon and first of all, its class interest really did explain my professors are liberal you may expect more change over time and and academics as someone goes to graduate school to realize they have a career ahead of them and then commit some solace he might realize where it lies a few batters the bread and then become enmeshed in liberalism.

the evidence suggests there is not the image change over time. those who are more of liberal and kottich baby there is some shift over time but not that dramatic but that the occupations would be more liberal but just in a preliminary test it also contains the fact of greater proportion of people to our public employees it is a great theory in principle and there is of value but it is not convincing but the second point* before i come around and that is the question is if academics seek out jobs because they want to do the environment and the answer i try to give in the book is not quite that simple.

you're absolutely right most go into academia -- they're passionate about biology and sociology and 70 for a minority of academics those motives are mixed the it is just a passion that leads people into academia. it is more with the possibility so if you are on the left you include higher education with a list of possibilities because you feel as some level there will be a sense but if you do corporate -- deliberate to go into corporate that they could have various levels of awareness but the sense of the identity drives it.

so it does happen sometimes. and here is where i would like to seize sociologists in general attend more to this question the book can be driven to make political traces not simply add of a conscious desire to maximize on a set of values that finally with the state of higher education today this is a time of a real threat. i am not sure this entire -- entirely ideological but that the pressure for vocationalism poses a serious threat but also the case that some of those pushing for that are doing so on the basis that a

higher education means to the left and this is a great opportunity to major liberal academics have the opportunity to replace the research university with a liberal leaning and it is a friend but i will say there is more divergence than might be imagined an interesting thread of conversation happening now between traditionalists conservatives and libertarians was a traditionalist saying we're not comfortable with the western tradition and they would say they want to resist the urge so what happens in the coming years during periods of institutional crisis many of the possibilities rise to the four i am a bit pessimistic and worried what

will come down the pike but there is reason to suspect a concern to l.a.'s drive some of the reform in the states like florida and elsewhere. >> thank you. rather than raise your hand come to the microphone. >> please try to ask a question. a couple of issues come to mind one of which is i recall reading michael savage how he intended to be an academic and found the community inhospitable to his point* of view. in that context with academia as well as the

greek life on campuses campuses, there is very much a class issue you have to do a certain -- certain amount in the fraternity of the greek community of academia some of those who have achieved some prominence are going to naturally promote and except those to reflect their own values. i would suggest, getting to a question that it has to do with not so much so selection of the privilege that you have is in academia where you are not testing your views against the marketplace for agree to go to the marketplace to help someone make money even if you don't agree if they hire you, you don't have to validate your social point* of view, a social

engineering oftentimes which drives policy. so the question has to do with the point* of view it is more of the fraternal because you have to go through so many steps the dissertation, adviser, lette rs of recommendation to get to a point* where you can join the fraternity. not so much selection by those who have already pledged. >> thank you. >> i think there is ways of expressing those points that you just raised and one is to say that's where is social networks and you're more likely to be included in to push up word the other

way to make the point* is to make the claim that many conservatives do if you're not part of the group you're not included but some of the factors play some kind of a role. and there are few places on campus free trade work to for inspiration. to issue to graduate school there may not be very many to play some kind of a role but as to the claim to briefly reversed the argument for this field

experiment that we took a lot of flak in those e-mail's of undergraduate students and each person got to e-mail's of mentioning that they had worked on the mccain or obama campaigns these are tailored for the fields and for what they didn't receive and the very, very tiny level of support for the obama student relative to control but not enough to be specific. is this a good task of bias? but but what is to suggest

most are professionals and tries hard not to let politics interfere. and it doesn't drive the process. with the academic careers for the academics of the professorial job but it might have some of value. >> the question primarily or to any professional schools but if discrimination was the operative mechanism we should just see the concentration in the fields where political views would be silly and but in the other fields with geology

and and see how it comes up. is not as salient aspect much less a doctorate. >> but with the cultural view there could be something in the pursuit of open-ended knowledge you don't know whether the questions will lead you to that you are predisposed to someone who is liberal? am i hearing that right? >> i mentioned this quotation from high-tech fact people with more conservative views are likely to find a better avenue for their talent in

business in the other fields and we're talking here people of high ability that is what the discussion refers to and that tends to drain off those into other lines of work with the doctoral degree institutions from that has the effect of further down and that accounts for a great deal of the difference. >> not because of cultural orientation into money or professional success or another brown. i am pushing to figure out where this comes from. you partially answer that but why did hayak say that? why do they have the attractions to the other

domains? >> because they are more at ease in those environments of business and the military. the people on the left can make their way in those worlds but they may feel a certain discomfort. >> i will invite you to talk about the past and the president of first to remind you that from my perspective with diversity among conservatives with a category called liberals radicals were never comfortable as a survey in the '60s with liberals in james feinstein wrote a booker so is an opportunity to talk about how the category has changed over time to a knowledge there is

real differences and many people have problems with the central conservatism's historic klay and it is about the corporatism of the university today but continues today and seemingly by a liberal administrator advocating that on the one hand and the second is to open the question to talk about the politics to think about how does the conversation she'd -- change more generally? not just the professorial but what it is a just about the politics of people in the teaching profession. >> might be the only person in the room who knew clark. [laughter]

i wrote extensively in a book but that i published in the '90s. he brings up and thought of himself as a perfect example of a of liberal and was completely shocked to find himself under attack both from the left and romney/ryan remember the free speech movement and ronald reagan running for governor were very closely linked and time. but the problem is he was a labor economist the rational man and he believed most universities function on the principle that we do not make clear and transparent to all public what we are for. with the blind man in the

elephant story and we don't try to bring them together. but by writing says to call it a the master plan has a dream he could take some functions all people web from the university and build them into the 18th century french machine whose purpose is were transparent and made them so apparent he lost the consensus around it that to make them systematize to get the consensus but instead generated resentment. but i don't think it is fair to call him corporate as much as overorganized and blacking in a political sense. his idea was the three part

class system everybody in california and it seems like ancient history everybody to go to hired education that is a genetic thing to claim in the history of the world. but it was the try apartheid class system in the research model and the bigger cal state system and those that only taught skills to the middle class then the community college system and everybody was in the box with a few little chutes and ladders but having that made it clear and pretty toxic. i will stop there.

the we are suffering the consequences. >> we were still an undergraduate by:edited of body volume was one of my professors. under attacked and the assumption was then we did not even consider at that point* from the right. to have a book with that same title would be totally different.

possibility that the as for naught and the maybe, more in line with american public opinion more generally. and then i do wonder if there is a contingency as well. >> with the case to 12 education it is called

school reform which i have written about is the same thing the productive is some there is a difference with the you think education is to teach people how to do things to make them more efficient in the world or to stand apart to have stand apart to have people think for themselves to have a critique to create a realm for studying that they may not have a practical application but those to attitudes map onto new predispositions and so in that sense there is the conservative assault it is the practicality and ideology. >> to follow-up on that, there is a lot of talk about the problems of

credential the inflation was such a high proportion of young people getting bachelor's degree but does it mean what it once did? that is an issue but the point* you just raised more people get back to their degrees and higher education ceases to be such an exclusive domain, the respect that people have for professors may change. professors may be seen as large not research public university as teachers the extension of the high-school teacher then we would expect pressures on them and attitudes to be similar to what we expect. >> also much more pressure for the outcome of measures and accountability measures. >> my initial question with

the research that you did below the label of conservative did you see a difference with of a label of the theory and practice? so does the presumed politics set up appear then a different set that out with a setting that would be surprising was to parallel institutions and the commonality that if we had better communication across it would be worked out and i guess i would be interested to hear we have to say about the notion of but there are not terrible arguments about teaching people how to do things or make things but if you tip over into outcome based testing which is scary so we have not talked about this but the first to an

interim peace situations what should we hope they get out of it? >> i am not sure about the whole question but thank you for the questions. let me respond by making two points. for someone to recommend a book by young sociologists at uc san diego who has written a book about the think tank in america focused on the right-wing think-tank across the spectrum and one of the points he makes that is relevant to the point* think tanks are at odds but they are quasi academic that many have connections and they go back and forth and to describe them as separate

but not and related but that not being said of want to raise a and interesting counterfactual. supposed those in a period of the real expansion of think tanks of the postwar period, there is a longer history and suppose they have perceived higher education to be a place that was more open to them and we talk about if there are those on the left could have done or create the perception would there have been as much pressure to forge peace other knowledge creation institutions? had they not done so would the fingers on the right be more disciplined?ht be more disciplined? than they currently are would american politics look different as a result? it is hard to answer those questions but of course, it is worth thinking about.

>> of course, i have not read your book yet. >> is on sale. >> but somehow we all except the idea that professors and university is our liberal that between 50 and 60 percent were and so if you get up to 50 or 60% it is not the overwhelming data sets give the also the city in the '50s and '60s that

individuals like me would call liberal and the plaintiff is there not a conservative as opposed to the liberal. so that needs to be stressed more when day pointed out the overwhelming majority but many of us still see the democratic party as the bald head of liberalism there s the d head of liberalism there are many conservatives but to talk a little more i want to quickly point* out to a wonderful difference working in a think tank you don't have to teach cab -- class's he don't have to help anybody or have to apply for

grants and the money is just there. the think tank's supplies if you're hired the many to do the research. you're hired the many to do the research. >> before you answer i will take one last question. >> my belief is one goes to school to learn how to think for themselves not necessarily to learn with other people think and to make them. if liberals or conservatives are teaching the process then nobody has any fear of the outcome. i want to make a statement about the fact i grew up in a republican home which was

kind of weird because they were first-generation americans. and pour and i became a democrat. but it my parents grew up in a very different era and republicans and democrats have changed with the structure. is there so many liberals teaching people to be liberals how we end up with some many conservatives? [laughter] >> let's start with nec. >> here is a whole other point* but maybe a non sequitur but the whole idea and the rest -- institution nine lead is in that cross

hairs at this point* as much as anybody. the idea we bring in the innocent essential students and graham marsh them by time they leave it is part of the book but mark -- our students come from 40 countries and they are way to the left and if anything i would not say they are centrist but more respectful of the process of objectivity that both my as those -- a sociologists colleagues have demonstrated tonight. . .