Waaaay down at the bottom of the article, one will find that the total number of respondants who classify themselves as Unaffiliated with a political party (1891) outnumbers the sum of self-identified Democrats and Republicans (1397 + 134). There are, additionally, 43 Miscellaneous, where one will find such fringe affiliations as the Greens and the Libertarians ;) , and a curious category, Too Many, where people who filed more than one response are counted (790). An examination of the breakdown of numbers by school indicates that those with high numbers of "Too Many" tend to have lower numbers of Independents, a term I prefer to "Unaffiliated", when compared to schools with low numbers of "Too Many".

So what does this mean?

Does this mean that Horowitz and Lehrer wrote the article knowing that most people only read the first three paragraphs of anything and they deliberately spun it to look like there are nothing but Democrats teaching in our high-profile universities?

Does this mean that they think it's more important for a professor to be enrolled in a political party than not to be?

Does this mean that they think some of the Democrats should be fired to make places for Republicans? Does it mean that they think some of the Independents (those traitors to classification!) should be?

Does this mean that Independents don't count or are undesirable in the academic paradise of Horowitz and Lehrer?

Does this mean that affirmative action is OK as long as it supports one's own side, and is not something that should be opposed on principle? Hmmm?

How about this scenario:

People more likely to register Republican are also more likely to go into business, because they come from families that believe in the bootstrap-pulling-up kind of take-care-of-you-own thing. People more likely to register Democratic are more likely to go into teaching because they come from families that believe in the education-is-the-bedrock-of-our-society social-engineering kind of thing. Also, you can make more money in business than you can in teaching, so teaching would tend to draw more people who in another era would be drawn to mission work (see also, "Progressive Movement"). This is still true, despite all the hollering about teachers' unions. The people who play the game the best get the promotions in both areas. So you will find political adepts at the top of both professions.

Now that the business people, and the Republicans, some of whom are the same, have taken a look around they discover that -- O Horror! -- the people who teach are not like them. What A Surprise! They blame it on overt discrimination against Republicans. However, if there were a larger pool of Republicans in teaching to start with, the so-called discrimination would be far less.

The fact is, Republicans don't raise their children to teach because there's no money in it. And that's OK. But it's silly to expect that the proportions on the top levels of a profession will be equal when the entry-level distribution is so skewed by the proclivities and talents of the potential applicants.

Oh, and incidentally -- I am a registered Republican, in case you have forgotten. I am a registered Republican not because I like the Republican Party but because I live in an overwhelmingly Republican area and I got tired of being unable to vote meaningfully in primary elections, especially local primaries. I'd like to see Mssrs. Horowitz and Lehrer figure that variant ("Ridiculous Party Affiliation") into their little table. Maybe that accounts for some of the "Too Many"s.

Regards--
Mary Anne