Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (102191)	2/25/2005 12:59:11 PM
From: DavesM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793916

I wonder if Stanford's numbers include the Hoover Institute? On a side note, I believe that the University of Southern California was offered the Nixon Presidential Library (as Pat Nixon was a graduate, and several of the Trustees were strong supporters of Nixon). The Nixon Presidential Library is in Yorba Linda, CA.

To: LindyBill who wrote (102191)	2/25/2005 4:12:24 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793916

Did you check the PDF URL I listed? Volokh gave a quick overall. I found a few things of interest. <<we conducted a systematic and thorough study of the party registration of the Berkeley and Stanford faculty in 23 academic departments. The departments span the social sciences, humanities, hard sciences, math, law, journalism, engineering, medicine, and the business school. >> <<Fully 64 percent of the comprehensive list could not be identified as either D or R, being absent from the voter rolls, unaffiliated, indeterminate because of multiple records, or registered to minor parties.>> <<One could well imagine, therefore, more faculty members voting Republican than is suggested by the 10 to 1 ratio.>> What caught my eye about Volokh's piece was how he emphasized "scholarly" so I emphasized it, too. His summary isn't very scholarly, I don't think. For one thing, he gives the ration as that of Democrats to Republicans. There is a difference between a registered party member or someone who considers himself a party member and an independent, which he ignores. But more obvious is the nine to one ratio without accounting for "others." If the faculty comprises 100 faculty and the number of Democrats is 90 to the Republicans' ten, that means something. But if that same faculty is nine Democrats, one Republican, and 90 independents, it's close to a non-issue. You might have noticed, too, in the passages I clipped that only certain departments were included. So, I conclude that that 9-1 ratio, while interesting, is too sloppy to be scholarly. If he hadn't made a point about "scholarly," I wouldn't have commented.