In the article, Younge refers to a study by Daniel Klein and Charlotta Stern which revealed a variable bias towards "liberalism" dependent on disciplinary affiliation. According to this study, as cited by Younge, "30 times as many anthropologists and sociologists voted Democrat as Republican, while for those teaching economics the ratio plummeted to three to one."
Assuming (reported) voting behaviour to be an accurnate indicator of political outlook, is there something inherently more progressive in anthropology and sociology than economics, that it attracts more liberal voters? Is this pattern - assuming it to be credible research - valid for countries other than the USA? Are there differences between anthropologists and sociologists - lumped together in this description of the study - when it comes to political views?
Traditionally, "south of Jammie steps" [with the exception of Commerce] disciplines are held to be more progressive than those to the north - a view echoed by Younge: "Republicans are probably more inclined to find a home in some of these [non-Humanities] disciplines."
All of which makes one wonder. Given that the discourse of University management these days reverberates with managerialist and neoliberal underpinnings, few would argue that those occupants of the northernmost offices in Bremner align most comfortably with the ideology south of Jammie steps. And yet, if one examines their disciplinary allegance, we find: a poet, an anthropologist, an archaeologist, a psychologist and a lawyer. All - with the contested exception of archaeology - south of Jammie steps disciplines.
Might the political geography on Campus be imploding?