University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The relationship of attitudes of faculty and major students in selected curricular areas in relation to political ideology and student activism

(USC Thesis Other)

The relationship of attitudes of faculty and major students in selected curricular areas in relation to political ideology and student activism

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE RELATIONSHIP OF ATTITUDES OF FACULTY AND
MAJOR STUDENTS IN SELECTED CURRICULAR AREAS
IN RELATION TO POLITICAL IDEOLOGY AND
STUDENT ACTIVISM
by
Norma Jean Luobikis
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Education)
June 1977
UMI Number: DP24218
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Dissertation Publ sb sng
UMI DP24218
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90007
P h/D ,
tdl
\ 'y
I — ^ feH
T h is dissertation, w ritte n by
........NORMA. . JEAN .X.UOBIKIS ... ££
u nde r the d ire ction o f h .£ X D is s e r ta tio n C om -
m ittee, and a p p ro ve d by a ll its m em bers, has
been presented to and accepted by T h e G ra d u
ate S chool, in p a rtia l fu lfillm e n t o f re q u ire
ments o f the degree o f
D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y
Dean
D a te.
it
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ,
Completing a dissertation always involves the help
i * j
jand cooperation of many people. It is impossible to extend,
[appreciation to everyone who has assisted me, but there are j
some people without whose assistance this dissertation could
not have been completed. I should like first to express my j
i
appreciation to my committee members, Dr. James Magary
\
(Chairman), Dr. William O'Neill, and Dr. Charles W. Gay,
I |
jfor their continual support, encouragement, and expedition
I
i
of the processes involved. I should also like to thank the
ladministration, faculty, and students at the college from
i
which the sample was drawn. I am also appreciative of the ■
assistance given to me by staff members at the Survey Re- 1
search Center of the University of California, Berkeley,
and the Data Processing Center at the University of Southern
| y
I
California. I should particularly like to express my thanks
)
to Sharon Hilliard and to Barbara and Daryll Speers for i
i
jtheir assistance in data processing, analysis, and tabula-
tion. Thanks are also due to Marcella Curtright for typing ;
i
the dissertation with such care and precision. Most impor- ;
tantly, though, I should like to thank my mother, Mrs.
Lucille Luobikis, whose continual encouragement, support,
i
]and assistance ensured the successful completion of the j
i i
Page
I
I
ii
1 !
Background j
Statement of the Problem j
Significance of the Problem j
Assumptions and Hypotheses :
Definitions of Terms 1
Scope and Delimitations j
Outline of Remainder of Dissertation '
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE..................... 15
Characteristics of Institutions in
Relation to Student Activism
General Characteristics of Faculty
Faculty Attitudes and Behavior Regarding
Sociopolitical Issues and Student
Activism
Characteristics of Students
Attitudes of Students
Student-=Faculty Congruence
III. METHODOLOGY.................................... 89
Selection of the Sample !
Instrumentation
Data Processing and Analysis j
Limitations j
TABLE OF CONTENTS
[ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............
i
i
jChapter
I. OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM
I
Chapter Page
!
IV. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS .... 101-
Results of the Comparison of LCA :
: and CCA Faculty Members
| Discussion of the Findings for LCA
and CCA Faculty Members !
! Results of the Comparison of LCA
| and CCA Students
I Discussion of the Findings for LCA '
and CCA Students 1
Results of the Comparison of LCA
Students and LCA Faculty <
Discussion of the Findings for LCA
Students and LCA Faculty j
Results of the Comparison of CCA I
Students and CCA Faculty Members i
Discussion of the Findings for CCA !
Students and CCA Faculty Members j
l
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . 210
Summary
Conclusions '
Recommendations :
APPENDICES
Appendix A :
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
[REFERENCES
1
_ v _
Cover Letters and Questionnaire .... 222
i
Percentage Scores for Each Group j
in the Sample............................ 245
Chi Square Results..................... 287!
I
I
Percentage Scores of Senior Students ;
at Medium-Quality Schools in 1969 i
Carnegie Study......................... 297^
n1
CHAPTER I
OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM
I
i
i
j Background
’’Starting with the Berkeley 'revolt' of 1964, the
American campus has seemingly exploded with political and
social action ..." (Lipset & Altbach, 1967, p. 199). The
seeds of dissension were sown, and higher education became
the fulcrum for change. Everyone within higher education
was directly or indirectly affected by the events and
changes that occurred on college campuses.
Clark Kerr, in asking for faculty response to the
Carnegie Study, declared that "American higher education is
i
i
|currently undergoing its greatest changes in a hundred
years” (quoted in Ladd & Lipset, 1975b, p. 317). Many of
these changes were the result of faculty and student in
volvement in social issues, for society as a whole was also
undergoing rapid change. These changes created tension and
i
jconflict within higher education and between the general
i
j
i
\
_________ i____________________________________
2
public and higher education, causing concern about the
influence of faculty members on their students and on
society as a whole. Since the educational system is viewed
I
jas a politicizing agent in society and the key to rapid
)
social change, many people have discussed the role of the
faculty member relative to these changes (Coleman, 1965,
p. 3; Key, 1963, p. 316; Zeigler & Peak, 1970, p. 115).
The relationship between students and faculty has
also been of special concern; indeed, some educators believe
that this relationship may be the crux of the problems of
jhigher education. Mayhew (1969a, p. 22) stated that "actu-
jally the faculty is the real enemy of students. . . . Col
lege faculty members have generally been resistant to edu
cational change and innovation because change threatens the
style of life and interests faculty members have found
congenial.'5 Desmond expressed the view that career inter-
i
ests of the faculty are pitted against the educational
i
interests of the student (1969, p. 23). Others believe that
the problem arises from differing expectations and values of
the two groups (Ehrich, 1964, p. 109; Flacks, 1963, p. 21).
Some believe that the difficulty lies in the faculty mem-
i
bers1 lack of respect for the rights of students ("Students'
Pole Expands," 1970; Mitau, 1969, pp. 156-159; Horowitz,
3
1969, p. 553). Still others believe that the problem is
that students are too positively aligned with the faculty.
Clark Kerr has written that:
. . . in the 1960s, when the campuses were centers of opposi
tion to the Vietnam War and of support for civil rights acti
vities , there were those who partially wrote off students who
became visibly involved in such efforts as "dupes of their
radical professors.” (Ladd & Lipset, 1975b, p. xi)
I
Whatever the relationship,
It is the faculty which is the necessary center of gravity of
the politics of the university for teaching, for learning, for
internal discipline, and for the educational quality and char
acter of the institution as a whole. (Bundy, 1968, p. 42)
No matter what the causes of campus activism, it has
definitely affected higher education. The relationships !
among faculty, students, administration, and the general
public have changed. The sociopolitical involvement of the
faculty and students has magnified the role of higher edu
cation as an agent of change.
i
I
| Statement of the Problem
This study is concerned with the relationship
between attitudes of male faculty members and male senior
majors in the curricular areas traditionally considered
Imost■'liberal— social studies and the humanities— and those
i
regarded as most conservative— engineering and agriculture.
The relationship of sociopolitical attitudes of faculty
members and students within and between these curricular
areas was studied.
i
I
! Significance of the Problem
i
i Faculty members and majors within the same academic
disciplines have traditionally had similar sociopolitical
orientations. This has been due either to recruitment of
certain kinds of students into a given area or to the in
fluence of faculty members on their students (Bereiter &
Freedman, 1962, p. 585). Idzerda (1967, p. 56) indicated
jthat ". . . faculty attitudes do affect what the student
jlearns, the way he learns it, the values he gives to learn
ing, and the influence that learning has upon his life out-
i
|side the classroom." The advent of student activism may
i
have affected these values and this relationship.
The concept of ’’scientific detachment" may be one
factor that separates students and faculty. Faculty members
within the social sciences and humanities have traditionally
assumed the role of "detached" critics of the social system
(Lipset^, 1965, p. 8; Kerr, 1966, p. 124). They have been
I
; able tp maintain this role because they were not tied to
tradition or to the need for large amounts of tax support
'or federal funds to maintain their academic programs, which
5
are especially low in cost compared to those of agriculture
and engineering. Of $4.7 billion of federal funds spent in
higher education in 1968, the top four beneficiaries were
agriculture, atomic physics, medicine, and space science
!(McConnell, 1969, p. 342). This relative financial inde-
i
I
pendence creates an atmosphere that is conducive to social
i
change. Conversely, faculty members in high-cost academic
programs such as agriculture and engineering tend to per
petuate the present social milieu through their conservative
i
nature or self-interest (Jenkins & Riesman, 1968, p. 284).
There may be a closer relationship between the atti-
i
tudes and values of students and faculty within the liberal |
I
arts because of their similar orientation to social criti
cism and social change. This may be especially true since
the liberal arts faculty has been most supportive of stu
dents’ roles in social change. Many writers have indicated
that student activism has indeed had the effect of drawing
students and faculty closer together (Mitau, 1969, p. 157;
”0n Campus,” 1967, p. 88). This very attitude of social
nriticism and social reform may be the basis for attracting
majors who would be most inclined to diverge from the more
j
traditional or academic concepts of change. The very char
acteristic that is the basis of social criticism (scientific
6
detachment) may be the basis for the greatest differences
between liberal arts faculty members and majors.
It is no accident that the most serious unrest and demor
alization among students and faculty members in universities
today are found in humanities departments and in the "softer"
j social sciences where the drive for involvement is most overtly
i in conflict with the academic mode of detachment. (Ways, 1969,
p. 97)
Thus, there may be differences in terms of the kinds and
amount of involvement necessary to effect change. The
faculty may be more oriented to identifying areas in need
of change on a theoretical level, whereas the majors may be
more oriented to effecting these changes. Although the
liberal arts faculty members may be inclined to favor |
changes, they may be ambivalent about actively participating
in protests to accomplish this or having the changes affect
them. There may be problems even if the liberal arts
faculty supports student changes on campus. Illustrative
of this was the Berkeley Free Speech Movement. Although the
faculty in the social sciences and humanities was the most
supportive of student rights and the student strike, the
majors in these areas were the most critical of their
j
departments and demanded the greatest curricular changes
i
i(Feuer, 1964, p. 7; Selznick, 1965, pp. 103-104). This
i
I
jreaction created differences between students and faculty.
It may be that although "academics are more inclined to
favor liberal or radical social change than other strata
. . . support ends at the borders of the campus" (Ladd &
jLipset, 1975b, p. 33), since "few institutions are so con
servative as the universities about their own affairs while
i
!
their members are so liberal about the affairs of others"
(Kerr, 1966, p. 99).
One also finds the possibility of problems accen
tuated by students in the conservative academic disciplines.
Student activism and social situations may have changed the
values of students majoring in these areas. The issue of
i
ithe war in particular may have had an effect, since Gergen
t
[and Gergen (1970) found that during the Spring 1970 crisis ,
f
i
"more than one of every three students has altered his
respect for his faculty, but respect has been increased or
decreased depending on faculty sentiment toward the war."
jCirese and Koon's (1970) study of 1,542 college seniors
I
jfound that support for student protests against the war was
high on every type of campus; that one-half of the seniors
indicated they were or would have been active participants
on their campus in a student protest against the war, and
I
!
janother 36 percent were or would have been in sympathy with
jsuch a movement; and that 99 percent of the college student
l _ ... ;
8
population felt that confrontation was a necessary and
effective means of changing social and political direction.
If these data can be generalized, this could have created
serious differences between faculty and majors in engineer-
I
ing and agriculture since the members of these departments
were the most supportive of the war and the most hostile to
student protest (Lipset & Ladd, 1970).
Thus, one can readily note the impact of attitudes
and the importance of knowing the relationships of attitudes
that exist between faculty members and majors. This kind of
knowledge could reveal trends in curricular reform and
innovation or areas of possible student protest and aliena
tion, and could also provide data that might indicate the
stability of the "status quo” in various departments.
Riesman's (1956) concepts of ''constraint" and
"variety" in aspects of education are basically applicable.
Constraining forces are those that tend to keep a field the
way it is or to keep it developing in its present direction,
or at an accelerated rate. Forces of variety are those that
tend to alter the nature or direction of development of a
field. The faculty and students in an area can function,
i
then, as forces of either constraint or variety.
The tendency of fields to attract people similar to those
already in them will ordinarily be a constraining force, although
9
in a changing society it may be a force for change. For in
stance, in a rapidly changing field like psychology it might
be argued that the tendency of the field to go on attracting
the same kinds of people produces novelty as much as it impedes
change. Each new generation of "anachronistic" psychologists
encounters a new discipline with which to be out of step, and
their inclinations are as likely to lead them to form new move
ments as they are to lead them to sustain older ones. . . .
I Variety also arises from the tendency of fields to attract
different kinds of people for different reasons and also from
the fact that people often change in different ways in response
to the same general situations. Opposed to these forces is a
constraining force that is probably much stronger in some fields
than in others, the tendency of a field to mold people into a
likeness, to fit people out with a standard set of attitudes
and styles of behavior.
Just as the selective and formative power that a field has
over individuals is a major constraining force, so may we expect
the powers of selection and redefinition that individuals have
j over the content of a field of study to be a major source of
variety. Taking these factors into account, it ought to be
possible to examine a field and arrive at some realistic esti-
i mate of its potentialities for change as against the likelihood
that it will go on as it is. We should need to know what kinds
of people it attracts as students and professionals and what
sorts of changes it produces in them. We should want to know
how susceptible its content is to redefinition, how resistant
it is to the efforts of individuals to reformulate it in their
private ways. (Bereiter & Freedman, 1962, pp. 585-586)
It would therefore be important to determine what kinds of
attitudinal relationships exist between faculty members and
majors in their areas, between majors in different areas,
and between faculty members in different areas.
Assumptions and Hypotheses
j
| It is assumed that those curricular areas chosen
I
i
were staffed by faculty members who were representative of
10
the most polarized attitudes on national and campus socio
political issues and student activism. It is also assumed
that the participants responded honestly to the statements
on the questionnaire.
The following hypotheses were tested:
Hypothesis 1. There will be no significant differ
ence in attitudes relating to political ideology and
student activism between faculty members and majors
in the liberal curricular areas.
Hypothesis 2. There will be no significant differ
ence in attitudes relating to political ideology and
student activism between faculty members and majors
in the conservative curricular areas.
Hypothesis 3. There will be no significant differ
ence in attitudes relating to political ideology and
student activism between faculty members in the
liberal and conservative curricular areas.
Hypothesis 4. There will be no significant differ
ence in attitudes relating to political ideology and
student activism between majors in the liberal and
conservative curricular areas.
Definitions of Terms
The Carnegie Study.— This term refers to the 1969
national survey of the attitudes and characteristics of
11
60,028 college and university professors at 303 institutions
and 70,694 undergraduates at 189 institutions. The study
was supported by the Carnegie Commission on the Future of
jhigher Education in cooperation with the American Council
Ion Education. The results are reported by total sample and
by the quality of the institution. The data have primarily
been reported by Lipset and Ladd (1970), Ladd and Lipset
(1975a,b,c), and Trow and Associates (1975).
Conservative curricular areas (CCA).— This term
refers to engineering and agriculture (Lipset & Ladd, 1970;
jLadd 6c Lipset, 1975b) .
i
j Faculty members.— This term, when used in discuss-
jing the data of this study, is defined as American male
i
I
members of the instructional staff who have a 100 percent
teaching load at the institution studied. In discussing
the literature, the term refers to anyone deemed a staff
member at an institution of higher education.
Institution.— This term refers to any four-year
I
^college or university.
Liberal curricular areas (LCA).— This term refers
to the social sciences (not including social work or social
12
welfare) and the humanities (Lipset & Ladd, 1970; Ladd 6c
Lipset, 1975b).
Medium-quality college.— This term is defined as a
college in the Carnegie Study that scored between 378 and
|444 on the Gourman ratings and between 550 and 718 on the
t
I
jCollege-R.ater system.
Nonviolent disruptive protest.— This type of protest
is defined as:
. . . any campus incident during the year which involved (a)
occupation of building or section of building, (b) barring of
entrance to building, (c) holding officials captive, (d) inter-
j ruption of school function (e.g., classes, speech, or meetings),
I or (e) general campus strike or boycott of classes or of school
I function. (Bayer & Astin, 1969, p. 339)
I
! Seniors.— Seniors are defined as full-time students
!
who have accumulated 135 or more quarter units.
! Violent protest.— This type of protest is defined
as :
. . . any campus incident during the year which involved (a)
burning of building, (b) damage to building or furnishings,
(c) destruction of records, files, papers, (d) campus march,
picketing, or rally with physical violence, (3) one or more
persons killed, or (f) some persons injured. (Bayer & Astin,
I 1969, p. 339)
13
Scope and Delimitations
The samples for this study were selected from cur
ricular areas that were found to be the most conservative
(agriculture and engineering) and the most liberal (social
(sciences and humanities) in higher education (Astin, 1965;
iBecker & Carper, 1956; Cole & Adamsons, 1969; Downing &
Salomone, 1969; Feuer, 1964; Ladd, 1969; Lipset & Schwartz,
1966; Spaulding & Turner, 1968; Ladd 6i Lipset, 1975b).
The departments within the curricular areas chosen
were based upon the departments included in the Carnegie
Study. These departments were delimited by whether the
college offered a major program in the area. The sample
I !
was delimited to all full-time, American, male faculty mem
bers and senior majors in the social sciences, humanities,
lengineering, and agriculture departments at a selected four-
year public institution of higher education. Only those
majors who had met all normal academic entrance requirements
I
I were included in the sample (students admitted through
special programs were not included). Faculty members and
seniors who were majoring in areas that were interdepart
mental or who had conflicting double majors (e.g., physical
jeducation and sociology) were eliminated from the study.
! Although the questionnaire surveys attitudes toward
14
educational concerns and issues, this study will be con
cerned only with the differences in characteristics of the
sample groups, and differences in their attitudes toward
student activism and sociopolitical issues. The number of
i
i
Istatistically significant differences on educational issues
!
will be cited in relation to the items concerning the sam-
i
pie, student activism, and sociopolitical problems, but
these items will not be discussed in the findings unless
they are directly related to student activism or socio
political concerns.
Outline of Remainder of Dissertation
Chapter II of this study presents a review of lit-
jerature on the characteristics of institutions in relation
i
to student activism, the characteristics and attitudes of
faculty members and students, and the congruence of faculty-
jstudent attitudes .
Chapter III presents a discussion of the methodo
logical procedures used, including a description of the
sample, the instrumentation, the research methodology, and
i
jtreatment of the data.
i
| The findings are presented and discussed in Chapter
IV, and Chapter V presents the summary, conclusions, and
recommendations of the study.
■ ■ - - - ■ —— — , , —— . — ..-------— . l
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
i
I
i
! The purpose of this chapter is to review the perti
nent literature in the following areas: (1) characteristics
of institutions in relation to the extent of and proclivity
toward student activism, (2) characteristics and attitudes
of faculty members, (3) characteristics and attitudes of
jstudents, and (4) congruences of facuity-student attitudes.
i
jThe characteristics of the faculty members and college stu- 1
I I
(dents in general and in selected curricular areas, as well
|
jas attitudinal and behavioral reactions of faculty members
and students to national and campus issues, will be dis
cussed. The discussion will focus primarily on reactions to
t
sociopolitical issues such as the Vietnam war and changes
within the educational structure, since these two issues
were most often cited as major causes of campus protest.
Wo attempt is made to discuss the causes of student acti
nism. The study is delimited primarily to the results of
I
i
*
! _______________________________15_______________________________
16
surveys and quasi-experimental and descriptive studies pub
lished between 1965 and 1970.
Characteristics of Institutions in Relation
to Student Activism
During the 1967-1968 academic school year student
protest occurred at slightly more than half of the institu
tions studied by Boruch (1969). During 1968-1969, there was
an increase in student protest and demonstrations at 30
percent of the institutions, no change at 44 percent, a
decrease at 1.5 percent, and no protests at 22 percent
(Hodgkinson, 1970, p. 538). It was estimated that 6.2 per
cent of all institutions of higher education experienced at
least one incident of violent protest during the 1968-1969
academic year; 16.2 percent experienced nonviolent protests;
i
and 22.4 percent experienced either violent or disruptive
protests (Astin & Bayer, 1969, p. 3; Bayer & Astin, 1969,
Jp. 340; Hodgkinson, 1970, pp. 538-539). During the Spring
1970 crisis, campus operations were significantly affected
at 57 percent of the institutions. There were student
strikes at 14 percent of the institutions, peaceful demon
strations at 44 percent, and destructive actions at 4 per-
Icent. Commencement exercises were modified at 7 percent of
I
the institutions. Symbolic (nondisruptive) expressions of
17
antiwar sentiment occurred at 17 percent of the institutions
during graduation, and disruptions occurred at 1 percent of
the institutions (Peterson, 1970).
Certain variables in institutions of higher educa
tion provide a basis for predicting the amount of student
I
i
activism on campus. This is not to say that these variables
cause student activism; rather, they provide the environment
for dissent or provide an atmosphere that attracts students
who have a proclivity toward social criticism and a desire
to initiate student activism. These variables include
location, control, academic calendar, research orientation,
size of institution and level of degree awarded, and quality!
of the institution.
Location
I Location of student activism can refer to specific
institutions or geographical areas. Most of the student
protests occurred at Ivy League colleges, the University of
i
i
i
iCalifornia at Berkeley, the University of Wisconsin at
Madison, the University of Michigan, the California Insti-
I
tute of Technology, and the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. This is important because the combined enroll
ments of these institutions amounted to less than 5 percent
lof the more than seven million full- and part-time students
18
in America (Keniston, 1970a, pp. 118, 120; 1970b).
The states with the highest incidence of student
protest were New York (50 percent of thecinstitutions), Iowa
(48 percent), Michigan (43 percent), Massachusetts (40 per
cent) , and California (36 percent) (Hodgkinson, 1970, pp.
539-540).
The areas with the greatest increase in student
protest were the Far West (36 percent), the Mideast (35.7
percent), and the Great Lakes region (33.2 percent). . The
areas with the least increase in student protest were the
Southwest (19.2 percent) and the Southeast (22.3 percent).
A similar geographical pattern was evident during the Spring
i
1970 crisis. The reaction was most intense in the north
eastern states. These states were followed by the Pacific
states, the Midwest, the mountain states, and the Southeast
(Peterson, 1966; Hodgkinson, 1970, pp. 538-539). The
regions with high population density seemed to have had a
higher percentage of student protest. Hodgkinson (1970,
p. 540) noted that the "high protest states tend to be urban
'while the low protest states tend to be more rural. The
;data provides [sic] some support for the hypothesis that the
I
crisis on campus is a parallel to the crisis of the city."
19
Control
Studies on control show varying results. Hodgkinson
(1970, p. 540) found no significant relationship between
student protests and the publicly or privately controlled
'status of institutions; their data indicated an increase in
i
Iprotest at 46 percent of the public institutions and 55
percent of the private institutions. According to Bayer and
Astin (1969), however, during 1968-1969, major protest.in
cidents were about twice as likely to occur at private as
at public institutions at the university level. Public and
private secular universities and liberal arts colleges
retorted more student protest than public liberal arts col- I
t '• *- i
i 1
i
|leges, religiously sponsored institutions, or technical and
teachers' colleges (Peterson, 1966). The reaction of the
Spring 1970 crisis was more widespread and intense in the
jindependent (nonsectarian) colleges and universities than in
the public institutions (Peterson, 1970).
i Calendar
The school calendar was related to the extent of
Istudent protest. Institutions on the semester system re
ported a 40 percent increase in protest; those on the quar
ter system reported a 36 percent increase; those on the
trimester system reported a 51 percent increase; and those
20
on the four-one-four work experience program reported a
45 percent increase (Hodgkinson, 1970).
Accreditation and age
j The factor of accreditation proved significant, for
j 93 percent of the institutions with increased student pro-
i
I
test were accredited. The age of an institution, however,
had no effect on increased student protest (Hodgkinson,
1970, p. 540).
Federal aid
Institutions with high incidences of protest tended
to be research oriented. Universities receiving $14 million
or more in federal funds (primarily for scientific research)
in 1968-1969 tended to be the country's most renowned in
stitutions and the ones with the highest levels of protest
(Hodgkinson, 1970). These institutions also experienced the
most violent repercussions during the Spring 1970 crisis.
Of these institutions, 33 percent had student/faculty
strikes and 31 percent experienced destructive demonstra
tions (Peterson, 1970).
Size of institution and level
■ of degree awarded
I
I There was a definite relationship between the
( -
21
highest degree awarded by an institution and the increase
in the percentage of institutions reporting increased stu
dent protest (Bayer & Astin, 1969; Hodgkinson, 1970). There
was a 24.8 percent increase in institutions awarding less
i
|than a B.A.; a 33.5 percent increase in those awarding a
t
B.A., a 50 percent increase in those awarding an M.A., and
a 67.1 percent increase in those awarding a Ph.D. (Hodgkin
son, 1970). The reaction to the Spring 1970 situation
followed this pattern (Peterson, 1970). Hodgkinson (1970,
pp. 541-543), however, indicates that institutional size
was a better predictor of the incidence of student protest
ithan was the highest degree granted. At all degree levels,
i
jthe institutions with increased student protest were larger
i
ithan institutions that reported no change in protest. The
\
total enrollment size of an institution was highly related
to the probability of major student protest (Astin & Bayer,
1969; Bayer & Astin, 1969; Hodgkinson, 1970; Peterson,
1970). Generally speaking, the larger the institution, the
greater was the probability of student protest, although
the general nature of the relationship between size and
protest was complex and confused. In every region of the
country, the institutions with much protest were at least
twice as large as institutions that reported no significant
22
change in amount of protests (Hodgkinson, 1970, pp. 541-
543). Very few institutions with small student enrollments
(less than 1,000) had any incidents of violent protest.
Less than 3 percent of the more than 500 four-year colleges
(with small enrollments reported incidents of violent pro
test. Among intermediate-size institutions (enrollments
between 1,000 and 5,000), 4 percent of the two-year col
leges, 5 percent of the four-year colleges, and 14 percent
of the universities experienced incidents of violent pro
test. Among the large institutions (enrollment over 5,000),
16 percent of the two-year colleges, 14 percent of the four-
year colleges, and 22 percent of the universities experi
enced incidents of violent protest. Nonviolent disruptive
protest followed a similar trend.
Peterson (1970) found that reactions to the events
of the Spring 1970 crisis were especially widespread at very
large institutions (over 12,000 students). Violent protest
i
jwas reported at 30 percent of the very large institutions,
I
compared to less than 1 percent of the small colleges
(1,000 students or fewer) in the sample. Thus, the rela
tionship of institutional size to both violent and non
violent disruptive protest is evident.
23 1
Quality
The academic quality of an institution is directly
related to student activism. Selectivity of students is one
of the important factors in the quality of the institutions
I
las well as the extent of student activism. Bayer and Astin
i
(1969) indicated that previous research showed that selec
tivity was closely related to an institution's educational
environment and prestige and that it affected students1
career choices and their chances of dropping out. They
found in their study that none of the least selective uni
versities had violent or nonviolent disruptive protest.
With each higher level of selectivity, the proportion of
protests increased dramatically. Approximately 85 percent
of the most selective universities experienced either vio-
i
lent or nonviolent disruptive incidents. Keniston (1970b,
p. 6) indicated that dozens of studies confirmed the rela
tionship of entrance requirements to student activism. The
i
Istudies consistently confirmed the relationship between high
jentrance requirements and increased student activism (Astin
i
j& Bayer, 1969; Bayer, Astin, 6c Boruch, 1970; Keniston,
|l970b). Gergen and Gergen (1970) found that the effects of
I
the Vietnam war x^ere far more profound at schools with high
entrance requirements. Peterson (1970, p. 4) found that the
24
relationship between college selectivity and the intensity
of the Spring 1970 situation relating to the Cambodian in
vasion and Kent State deaths was striking, since
j
■ The magnitude of the reaction in the most selective institu-
j tions (that admit freshmen mainly from the top 10% of high
i school classes) was three to four times that of the non-
| selective colleges.
I
Thus, Bayer, Astin, and Boruch (1970) concluded that the
most selective universities provided an institutional basis
for cultural criticism and social renewal and that this,
in turn, provided an environment for dissent and protest.
Although selectivity of students (SAT scores, rank
,in graduating class in high school, National Merit Award I
Jwinners, etc.) is important in terms of the quality of an
i
{institution, other factors within the institution affect its
i
I
quality and therefore its ability to be selective. The
quality of an institution also relates to accreditation,
i
|the number of Ph.D.s on the faculty, the size of its
library, kind or level of degree awarded, etc. (Lazarsfeld
Si Thielens, 1958; L'ipset Si Ladd, 1970; Hodgkinson, 1970).
There is a positive correlation between the quality of an
institution and the amount of student activism. As the
j
'quality of an institution increased, the incidence of stu
dent activism increased (Hodgkinson, 1970).
25
The Carnegie Study separated institutions into
groupings of high, medium, and low quality. The assessment
of four-year colleges was done by a combination of rankings
by Gourman and the College Rater. Oourman's rating includes
Isuch factors as accreditation, selectivity, proportion of
i
i
jstudents receiving scholarships and fellowships, the admin-
i
Jistration's commitment to excellence, the number of library
i
volumes, the level of financial aid to students, the board
of trustees, and faculty morale (rank, tenure, salary
schedule, research facilities). The College Rater criteria
were SAT/ACT scores of recently enrolled freshmen, propor
tion of faculty with doctorates, faculty salaries, and
library collections. The top-quality colleges score 445
and above on Gourman or 719 and above on College Rater.
The middle-quality colleges score between 378 and 444 on
Gourman and between 550 and 718 on College Rater. The low-
!
quality colleges score less than 378 on Gourman and less
than 550 on College Rater (Trow, 1971, p. 79). The data
using these criteria for assessing the quality of a school
jtotally substantiated the correlation of quality of insti-
l
jtution and amount of student activism (Ladd & Lipset, 1970).
I In summary, one finds that private, nonsectarian
four-year colleges with graduate schools were substantially
more likely to have nonviolent disruptive protests than
public or sectarian colleges (Bayer 6c Astin, 1969). Insti
tutions with the fewest protests were four-year colleges,
technical schools, liberal arts colleges, or private non-
i
i
Isectarian colleges that had environments characterized by a
j
jhigh degree of concern for the individual student. There
i
were apparently certain institutions that had a tendency
toward "protest-proneness" independent of the issues (Bayer
6c Astin, 1969). As the quality rankings of the institutions
increased, the incidence of student protest increased.
Institutions that reported an increase in student protest
also had a far more "open and heterogeneous student body
than the national averages" (Hodgkinson, 1970, p. 545).
These institutions were most often located in the Far West,
with California being one of the states with the highest
i
incidence of student activism.
General Characteristics of Faculty
i
I
All groups, including educators, have general char
acteristics that differentiate them from other groups.
Although the field of education is extremely diverse, there
are certain variables that cause educators to be more like
I
[than different from their colleagues. At the same time,
there also are variables that differentiate them from each
27
other.
Personal characteristics
It has been found that several variables that are
independent of the professional situation have a profound
j
leffect upon the attitudes of faculty members. Certain of
these nonprofessional variables predispose faculty members
to accept social change and student radicalism (Cole &
Adamsons, 1969; Downing & Salomone, 1969; Lipset &.Ladd,
1970). These variables include political orientation,
father's occupation, religion, sex, age, and academic rank
(Cole & Adamsons, 1969; Ladd & Lipset, 1975b).
Political orientation.— The dominant political
orientation of college professors is liberal, according to
i
the Carnegie Study. About 50 percent of the faculty members
described their political views as left or liberal as com
pared to 25 percent who described themselves as conserva
tive. Certain groups of faculty members tended to favor
left-liberal politics. They included Jewish faculty mem
bers ; the more intellectually productive academics, as
i
j
^indicated by involvement in research, publishing, etc.; and
faculty members in the social sciences and liberal arts.
Faculty members who were oriented more toward teaching than
28
toward research were generally more conservative.
Faculty attitudes were expressed behaviorally during
the national elections. Although no data were available for
the 1960 election, the majority of the faculty members have
Ivoted Democratic, leftist, or third party in every election
j
{since 1944 (Ladd & Lipset, 1975b, p. 29). Cole and Adamsons
i
(1969) substantiated the thesis that Democrats and left-
oriented parties were more liberal in their political
orientation. Faculty members who stated that they were
Democrats, Socialists, or adherents of left-of-center third
parties were more likely to identify themselves as radicals
than were faculty members who stated they were Republicans
or independents. Cole and Adamsons (1969) found that poli
tical affiliation was correlated with faculty support of
j
i
Columbia students during their protests in the spring of
1968. Professors with liberal or left-oriented views on
national issues had a greater proclivity toward strong
support of student activism as compared to middle-of-the-
roaders or conservatives. Seventy-one percent of the
faculty members who were left or liberal in their views
[approved of the emergence of radical student activism,
jwhereas only 12 percent of the conservative faculty members
supported this concept (Lipset & Ladd, 1970, pp. 50-51;
29
Ladd 6c Lipset, 1975b, pp. 56, 92).
Those faculty most liberal-left in national affairs tend on the
whole to be the most supportive of student protests and demon
strations, the most willing to bend traditional university prac-
| tices in such areas as admissions and faculty hiring in the
I interest of racial equity, the most in favor of giving students
a bigger role in decisions affecting the academic community,
and the most inclined to change other features of university
governance in the direction of greater faculty (as opposed to
administration) control, and toward junior in contrast to senior
I faculty. (Ladd & Lipset, 19 75b, p. 43)
i
Thus one finds that political orientation and affiliation
are important variables in studying student activism.
Sex.— There were generally no significant differ
ences in political beliefs or professional attitudes between
i j
i
male and female faculty members, although views on certain j
,social issues differ (Cole & Adamsons, 1969; Ladd 6c Lipset,
jl975b , p. 90) .
Father's occupation.— Cole and Adamsons (1969, p.
J 32O) found that faculty members whose fathers were pro-
jfessionals were generally more left-wing in their political
beliefs. These faculty members were more predisposed to
support social change movements and the student demonstra
tions at Columbia. The Carnegie Study did not support this
jfinding, but indicated that the amount of education and
occupation of parents of faculty members were consequential
30
factors in terms of faculty orientations (Ladd & Lipset,
1975b, p. 90).
Religion.— The Carnegie Study found that 51 percent
l
i
,of the faculty members studied were Protestant, 13 percent
Catholic, and 10 percent Jewish. In the elite universities
jsampled, 17 percent of the total faculty and 25 percent of
i
the social scientists were Jewish. Only 7 percent of the
Jewish faculty members identified themselves as conserva
tives, compared to 22 percent of the Catholics and 29 per
cent of the Protestants. Fourteen percent of the Jews
described their politics as left, compared with 4 percent
of the Gentiles. Although no appreciable differences in
political leaning were found between Catholics and Protest
ants, Lipset and Ladd (1970) concluded that "the contribu
tion of liberal-left-leaning Jews to academe is signifi
cant." Jewish social scientists were even more overwhelm
ingly on the liberal or left side than Jews in other fields.
Few variables differentiate faculty political opinion as
sharply and consistently as religious background, structured
in terms of Jewish and Christian. In all institutional and
I discipline contexts, Jews stand to the left politically of
their Christian colleages, (Ladd & Lipset, 1975b, pp. 166-167)
Jewish academicians were also consistently more supportive
of student activism than Gentiles (61 percent compared to
31
43 percent). Cole and Adamsons (1969, p. 320) also found a
relationship between religion and political identification.
Age and rank.— Many studies of political behavior
;have found that the old generally are more conservative than
i
i t >
the young (Cole & Adamsons, 1969, p. 320; Lazarsfeld &
Thielens, 1958, pp. 144-148; Lipset & Ladd, 1970, p. 106;
i
lLadd & Lipset, 1975b, p. 187). Lipset and Ladd (1970), in
analyzing the differences in support of campus activism
; among social scientists, found that as age increased, sup
port for student activism decreased. The same relationship
was found xtfith the faculty as a whole. "The rise of radical
! j
student activism" was supported by 53 percent of the faculty
|under 30 years of age, by 48 percent in their thirties, by
39 percent in their forties, by 34 percent in their fifties,
and by 29 percent over 60 years of age. Cole and Adamsons
(1969, pp. 320-321) found that older professors were con
siderably less likely than their younger colleagues to have
i
favored the Columbia demonstration. On the other hand, they
found only a small relationship between age and political
identification, with 42 percent of the youngest and 30 per-
i
j
'cent of the oldest faculty members labeling themselves
strongly radical or liberal. When political identification
was standardized, the relationship between age and support
32
of the student demonstration was not reduced, indicating
that attitudes toward political tactics rather than goals
may have differentiated the young from the old. In general,
then, older faculty members less often condoned civil dis
obedience in society or on the campus, whereas younger
i
faculty members more often supported civil disobedience in
society and carried these attitudes onto the campus.
Academic rank has often been used as an indicator
of attitudes. Schuman and Laumann (1967) analyzed faculty
attitudes toward the Vietnam war by academic rank. Downing
and Salomone (1969, pp. 44-45) questioned this criterion anc
hypothesized that attitudes toward the war and bombing
should be discussed not in terms of academic rank but rather
in terms of age and differing political environments and
i
historical eras during which attitudes about international
affairs and communism formed. The data suggest that younger
and older faculty members were more dovish than colleagues
j
of the same rank in their middle years. Thus, age appears
to be related to faculty views on the war, although age and
rank are generally positively correlated.
Faculty orientations
The orientation of the faculty to various issues
reflects and determines the character, orientation, and_____
33
ultimately the quality of the institution. Emphasis on
subject matter versus students, teaching versus research,
and the liberalism or conservatism of the institution and
I
|the department are all influences.
Student versus subject.— Koile and Tatem (1966, p.
126) compared college faculty members on student and/or
i
i
subject matter orientation. Those faculty members who were
more student- than subject-oriented included: (1) instruc
tors and assistant professors as opposed to higher-ranked
faculty members, (2) faculty members with degrees below a
doctorate, (3) women, (4) faculty members with public school
experiences prior to college teaching, (5) faculty members
i
teaching applied, technical, and vocational subjects (fol
lowed by vocational-technical, social sciences, humanities,
and natural sciences), and (6) faculty members in the
middle age groups. No difference was found in relation to
the number of years of teaching experience. Teachers in
the student-oriented group ranked teaching first, guidance
land personnel work second, and research last in role prefer-
i
lences. Teachers in the subject-oriented group reversed the
I
ipositions of personnel work and research.
Research versus teaching.— The actual amount of time
34
allotted to faculty research has been increasing. In, 1964,
48 percent of the faculty members at four-year colleges
devoted 15 percent of their time to research activities
l
|(National Education Association, Research Division, 1966).
During the 1968-1969 academic year, the hours of faculty
time spent in and the commitment to research increased 34
percent in the national sample and by an average of 54 per
cent at the high-protest institutions (Hodgkinson, 1970,
p. 547). A number of authors indicated that a new breed of
faculty member is emerging (Berelson, 1960, p. 52; Gardner,
1964, p. 12; Klapper, 1969, pp. 42-43). Berelson (1960)
indicated that college presidents were finding young faculty
members to be especially interested in research. Thirty-six
percent of the college presidents found it necessary to
develop research opportunities to attract new faculty mem
bers . On the other hand, writing nine years later, Klapper
(1969) found that new faculty members were basically
teaching oriented and content to remain so. Although some
differences in role preferences were evident, the differ
ences were all in the direction of stronger research orien
tation. The differences were small. The Carnegie data
indicated that research-oriented faculty members were sup-
jportive of social change and student activism and were more
35
prone to be in high-protest institutions.
This "research culture" as an expression of intellectuality
fosters a critical and . . . a liberal politics, whereas the
"teaching culture,” associated with the transmission of knowl
edge rather than original inquiry, sustains a more conservative
'orientation. This is why, we must deduce, faculty at elite
scholarly centers are consistently and markedly more liberal
than their counterparts at "teaching" institutions of lower
academic standing. (Ladd & Lipset, 1975b, pp. 144-145)
Those faculty members who were most successful and influen
tial and maintained the highest level of scholarly produc
tivity were the most liberal and most supportive of radical
student activism and social changes (Ladd & Lipset, 1975b,
p. 144).
1 Liberalism versus conservatism related to institu-
i ---------------------------------------------------------------
I
tional influences.— The social, political, and philosophical
attitudes of faculty members are affected by the institu
tions at which they completed their educational training
i
and at which they are employed. Studies indicated that
graduates of high-quality institutions of higher education
I
jtended to be more liberal regarding social and professional
issues (Goldblatt, 1967; Lazarsfeld & Thielens, 1958; Lipset
& Ladd, 1970, p. 51). High-quality schools are:
I Those schools whose faculty rank among the more prominent
1 scholars in their fields; which devote a considerable portion
of their resources to support of scholarly endeavors in the
form of good libraries, laboratories, and research budgets;
36
which have relatively high admission standards; and which are
heavily involved in graduate education tend to have both faculty
and student bodies who are disproportionately liberal or left.
(Ladd & Lipset, 1975b, p. 139)
iLazarsfeld and Thielens (1958) indicated that the higher the
i
quality of the college, the more liberal was its faculty on
professional and extraprofessional issues. Conversely,
colleges of lower quality had more conservative faculties.
Faculty members at high-quality colleges were more concernec.
about and had more favorable attitudes toward civil liber
ties and academic freedom than those teaching in low-
quality colleges. Goldblatt (1967) found that the quality
i
of the employing college influenced attitudes toward aca-
!
demic freedom even when the quality of the graduate school
was held constant. Faculty members employed at high-
quality colleges were more liberal on social and profes
sional issues. When academic mobility of faculty members
I
(changing from lower- to higher-quality institutions and
jvice versa) was studied, it was found that new faculty mem-
i
ibers have a tendency to accommodate to the academic views
'of their colleagues. This helps to maintain and reinforce
the orientation of the institution.
Department orientations
There is much evidence to indicate that faculty
37
members in various curricular areas differ in regard to
political orientation, sociopolitical issues, social change,
and student activism (Spaulding & Turner, 1968; Leinenweber,
1968; Kristol, 1967; Ladd & Lipset, 1975b). Spaulding and
iTurner and Lipset and Ladd cite many studies. Every study
jsubstantiated the curricular differences, but the Carnegie
Study is the most explicit and comprehensive regarding the
differences. One would
. . . expect some field-related variations in political atti
tudes. But the degree of this differentiation is really quite
extraordinary. For example, 81 percent of clinical psycholo
gists described their politics as ''left" or "liberal" in the
Carnegie survey, as compared with 61 percent of professors of
English, . . . 25 percent of mechanical engineers, and just 17 i
percent of faculty in colleges of agriculture. We find further |
. . . that basic population groups in the larger society the
young and the old; Protestants, Catholics, and Jews; whites and
| blacks ; the prosperous and the poo* appear less sharply dis
tinguished on important questions . . . than professors in the
various academic departments. . . . the fact that the faculty
in social science and their engineering colleagues are more
dissimilar in some basic political commitments than are members
! of such grossly differentiated groups as the affluent and the
poor is striking testimony to the prominence of disciplines in
university life. . . . The remarkable uniformity of distributions
by discipline across a varied set of political questions attests
to the highly ideological character of the thinking of academics,
. . . (Ladd & Lipset, 1975b, pp. 56-58)
More liberals or left-oriented faculty members were found
jamong social scientists (70 percent) than among biologists
(50 percent), engineers (33.3 percent), or agriculturists
(less than 20 percent). Jewish social scientists were even
38
more overwhelmingly on the liberal side than Jews in other
fields. In the general faculty sampling, 14 percent of the
Jews described their politics as left (radical), as compared
to 4 percent of the Gentiles. Of this group, 22 percent of
Ithe Jewish social scientists and 36 percent of the Jewish
i
sociologists indicated that they were politically left-
leaning. When the "left" (radical) and "liberal" categories
were combined, they were found to contain 93 percent of the
Jewish sociologists and 85 percent of the Jewish psycholo
gists. The left-liberal political ideology was most domi-
jnant within the liberal arts areas, whereas faculty members
iin the more applied fields were generally more conservative.
[ tIlIs relationship of political attitude to academic field
I
has been evidenced by voting patterns in the 1968 elections.
t
l
jFaculty members in the social sciences and humanities voted
!
overwhelmingly Democratic, whereas engineers and agricul
turists voted overwhelmingly Republican.
Support of student activism and social change on the
i
national and campus levels was correlated with the political
^orientations of the various departments. Faculty members in
jthe social sciences and humanities were most supportive of
i
!student activism and social change, and faculty members in
the applied fields such as engineering and agriculture were
39
the most opposed (Lipset, 1969; Lipset & Ladd, 1970, pp.
50-51, 106; Ladd & Lipset, 1975b, pp. 56, 61, 92). Kristol
(1967, p. 229) concluded from his data that the faculties
|in engineering, law, agriculture, medicine, and business
I
jeducation were "as conservative and placid as ever,” whereas
t
[there was a ’'new turbulence ... in the departments of
I
sociology, political science, philosophy, history, anthro
pology, English literature, classics, and religion." Al
though Leinenweber disagreed with Kristol’s explanation of
the causative factor or of differences, his data were con
sistent .
i
| Summary
I
1 The research indicated that faculty members in
i
|higher education have particular characteristics and atti
tudes that differentiate them from each other and/or from
the general public. Such characteristics as political
iorientation, religious affiliation, age, and academic
i
department differentiated faculty members from each other
relative to support of student activism. Various charac
teristics differentiated student-oriented and subject-
oriented professors. Younger faculty members, although
basically teacher-oriented, tended to be more research-
oriented than older faculty members. There tended to be a
40
relationship between liberalism and the quality of institu
tions of higher learning from which one had been graduated
or at which one taught. Significant differences were found
in attitudes of faculty in various academic departments.
IThus, it can be noted that numerous variables affect faculty
i
'characteristics, which in turn affect faculty attitudes and
I
Ibehavior.
Faculty Attitudes and Behavior Regarding
Sociopolitical Issues and Student Activism
Faculty members have historically and traditionally
been involved in sociopolitical issues and issues of civil
liberties and academic freedom. Between the 1890s and
1930s, faculty members were involved in such movements as
anti-imperialism and antiwar (Spanish-American War) posi
tions , atheism and agnosticism, socialism and communism.
The issues of the 1950s were McCarthyism and academic free
dom. The three main issues of the 1960s were campus unrest,
racism, and the Vietnam war (Boruch, 1969, p. 12; Cashman,
11970, p. 268; Dunbar, 1968, p. 23; Keniston, 1970a, p. 54;
!
-"Spirit of 73," 1969; Thornberg, 1969).
i
| The general population of Americans considered
campus unrest (the result of the above concerns) to be the
nation's number two problem in 1969 and the number one
41
problem in 1970 (Keniston 6c Lemer, 1970, p. 28; Gallup,
1972, p. 2250). National polls during the era of frequent
student demonstrations indicated tremendous public hostil
ity. A 1969 Gallup sample showed that 94 percent of the
jgeneral public felt that college administrators needed to
jtake a stronger stand on student disorders (Gallup Opinion
Index Report, 1969, p. 26). In 1970, during the protests
against the Cambodian incursion, 82 percent of the general
public disapproved of "college students going on strike as
a way to protest the way things are run in this country"
(Gallup, 1972, p. 2250). On the other hand, over 40 percent
i
jof the faculty approved of "the emergence of radical student
jactivism." The majority of the faculty concurred with the
i
objectives of the student activists in national policy and
educational changes (Ladd 6c Lipset, 1975b, p. 34). About
70 percent of the faculty members indicated that college
courses should be made "more relevant to contemporary life";
60 percent that their institutions should be more actively
involved in’solving social problems; and 52 percent that
"most American colleges reward conformity and crush student
i
[creativity" (Lipset 6c Ladd, 1970, p. 49).
42
Attitudes about
student activism
Faculty members have been both ambivalent and
sharply divided regarding student activism. When asked
jabout the emergence of radical student activism, 3 percent
of the faculty unreservedly approved, 40 percent approved
with reservations, 42 percent disapproved with reservations,
and 16 percent unreservedly disapproved (Ladd & Lipset,
1975b, p. 233). Faculty members appear to support activism
and demonstrations so long as they do not disrupt academic
i
life or involve violence. Seventy-three percent of those
polled indicated that the use of violence to achieve politi-
!
cal goals is never justified. Sixty percent of the faculty |
members, as opposed to 25 percent of the general public,
were critical of the amount of force used to curb the
demonstrations at the Democratic National Convention (Ladd
& Lipset, 1975b, p. 367; Robinson, 19 70, p. 7). Eighty
percent of the faculty agreed that "students who disrupt
the college should be expelled or suspended" and 83 percent
jfelt that disruptions were a threat to academic freedom.
'At the same time, 70 percent of the faculty indicated that
jstudent demonstrations belonged on the campus and 43 percent
felt that there were circumstances that would make a strike
by their teaching assistants a legitimate means of action.
43
In the Columbia student revolt 64 percent of the faculty
approved of the aims, but only 5 percent approved of the
methods. Among the faculty who taught on campuses where
l
Ithere were demonstrations (two-thirds), 51 percent approved
i
i
jof the aims and 29 percent disapproved (Ladd & Lipset,
1975b, pp. 34, 35, 204). The American Council of Education
i
istudy of the 1967-1968 school year indicated that the fac
ulty provided sympathetic support for protestors. Students
iwere supported on substantive issues at 70 percent of the
institutions studied (Boruch, 1969). Thus, the faculty was
more supportive of student activism than the general public,
|but the amount and basis of support varied markedly. i
j !
i Behavioral support of
j student activism
"Faculty support of student strikes and demonstra
tions , weak as it was, played a critical role in prolonging
and intensifying them" (Mulherin, 1969, p. 283). The sup
port and sympathy of faculty groups were evidenced at
Berkeley, Columbia, and Stanford (Glazer, 1965, p. 290;
;Mayhew, 1969b, p. 339; Ways, 1969, p. 97). Ways (1969, p.
j 97) indicated that student protest was more interesting in
|
I
terms of what it told about the faculty than about students.
For the most part, "the majority of faculty, like the
44
majority of students, stand in uneasy silence, sympathetic
enough with the protest to refrain from condemning it."
A precedent for faculty support of student activism
was set in December 1964 at the University of California at
i
jBerkeley when the faculty endorsed, by a vote of four to
one, student demands that the administration cease regulat-
ing political activities (Jones, 1966, p. 139; Langer, 1966,
p. 1040). It was the faculty in the humanities and social
science departments that most, strongly supported the student
strike at Berkeley. "In the humanities generally, those on
the faculty who held out against the wide-spread support of
.the strike were under strong attack from their colleagues
. . ." (Petersen, 1965, p, 367). Within the social science
jdepartments, teaching assistants were generally allowed or
advised not to meet their classes during the student strike.
Those students in the social sciences and humanities were
i
well represented in the strike, whereas it was unsuccessful
in the physical sciences and engineering (Feuer, 1964, p.
7) .
The conditions under which faculty attitudes about
i
[student activism corresponded to their behavior were ana-
i
j
lyzed. The behavioral criterion used to indicate support
i
of the student demonstrations at Columbia was meeting
45
classes. Those professors who cancelled classes or held
them off campus were considered to be supporting the strike.
Approximately 50 percent of the sample attitudinally opposec.
the demonstration, yet only 32 percent held classes in their
!
Iregular classrooms. Conversion of attitudinal support into
I
<
jbehavioral support was dependent largely on the attitudes of
faculty colleagues within the department or university divi
sion. If colleagues supported the demonstration, it was
difficult for faculty members to hold regular classes
regardless of their personal beliefs, whereas if colleagues
'were opposed to the demonstration, the converse was true
(Cole & Adamsons, 1969, pp. 323-328).
Administrators estimated that some faculty members
;were leaders of protests in about 10 percent of the insti-
i
tutions and 3 percent of the faculty of small colleges were
alleged to have engaged in behavior that violated some civil
law. Faculty participation was related more to demonstra
tions characterized by physical but nonobstructive activity
or to diplomatic protest than to more violent kinds of
jprotest activities. Faculty planning of protests appeared
I
jto be more closely related to United States policy in Viet
nam than to involvement in black student demands, student
involvement in academic governance, or hiring practices
46
(Boruch, 1969, pp. 5-9). According to the Carnegie Study,
only 1 percent of the faculty had actually participated in
the most recent demonstrations on his campus (Faia, 1976).
| College administrators and faculty members often
(attempted to resolve the issues in a protest incident by
j
jnegotiating with demonstrators. This approach was more
^likely to be used at institutions that had nonviolent dis-
ruptive protests. Some faculty member issued formal state
ments in support of the student demonstrators at 30 percent
of the institutions with violent protest. Formal statements
of support were issued at 18 percent of the institutions
jwith nonviolent disruptive protest. Few faculty officials I
lor members resigned as a result of protest incidents,
|
[although the tendency to resign was clearly related to the
use of violence. Faculty resignations resulting from pro
tests occurred at an estimated 10 percent of the institu
tions where there were violent protests and at only 2 per
cent of the institutions where there were nonviolent dis
ruptive protests (Bayer & Astin, 1969, p. 347).
[ Institutional changes as related
j to major campus protest
Although unrest and change are positively associated, the data
show clearly that colleges and universities are not intransi
gent and that they do institute changes without confrontation
47n
i
and crisis. (Bayer & Astin, 1969, p. 347) j
I
i
The changes resulting directly from violent protests usually
were the formation of new committees or study groups or new j
iBlack Studies programs. The changes usually resulting j
jdirectly from nonviolent disruptive incidents were the for- 1
i '
i
mation of new committees, curriculum changes (including !
Black Studies programs), and provision for greater student I
i
l
participation on existing committees. Where protest was 1
violent, 72 percent of the campuses made substantive insti- |
tutional changes compared to 54 percent at campuses with
nonviolent but disruptive incidents (Bayer & Astin, 1969, |
pp. 347, 349).
!
Attitudes and behavior related
to social problems
"Evidence that the dominant mood on the American i
campus is liberal to left and hence predisposed to favor
politics dedicated to egalitarian social change is clear and
decisive, . . ." (Ladd & Lipset, 1975b, pp. 25-26). Since
faculty members are more liberal than other occupational i
or educational strata, it is not surprising to find studies j
i
on social issues showing the faculty as markedly more sup
portive than the general public. For example, 58 percent j
of the faculty and 20 percent of the public favored legaliz-!
I
ing marijuana; 52 percent of the faculty and 11 percent of
48
the public opposed banning pornographic material; 50 percent
of the faculty and 33.3 percent of the public favored re
ducing military spending, 70 percent of the Faculty and 56
percent of the public favored increasing expenditures for
urban problems, and 65 percent of the faculty and 55 per-
!
cent of the public favored maintaining or increasing expen
ditures for welfare, with the majority of the faculty
favoring increasing and the majority of the general public
favoring maintaining welfare expenditures (Ladd & Lipset,
1975b). Two issues have been especially important indica
tors of the role of the faculty as forerunner of the causes
land as being highly visible in the extent and kinds of
involvement. These two issues are racism and the Vietnam
;war.
i
Reactions to racism.— Explicit .racism and extreme
i
right-wing positions are probably the only positions that
have not been supported by large numbers of professors (Ladd
6c Lipset, 1975b, p. 55). Faculty members have been involved
I
jin civil liberties and minority rights issues and have
demonstrated nationally and on campuses. The Carnegie Study
found that 38 percent of the faculty members felt that
lAmerican colleges were racist and 45 percent felt that white
racism was the main cause of Negro riots (Ladd 6c Lipset,____
49
1975b, pp. 33, 365). A Gallup survey, on the other hand,
indicated that almost 75 percent of the general public felt
that Negroes were to blame for their present conditions
(Erskine, 1968-1969). Faculty members have also taken a
{more liberal position than the general public on school
ibusing to achieve racial integration. Forty-six percent of
the faculty members supported busing, according to the
Carnegie Study (Ladd & Lipset, 1975b, p. 33). A 1970 Gallup
survey (Gallup, 1972, pp. 2243-2244) indicated that only 14
•percent of the general public supported busing. In fact,
i
no predominantly white stratum or educational group gave
|more than 20 percent support. A 1970 Harris survey (1971,
|p. 229) found similar attitudes. When asked whether they
could support busing for integration if there was no more
busing than at present, only 19 percent responded favorably.
iThus, one finds that faculty members are more liberal in
i
even the most controversial areas.
Reactions to the Vietnam war.— Much has been writter.
about faculty attitudes and behavior regarding the Vietnam
iwar. Faculty members expressed their views in various
ways: within their classrooms, in their publications, and
via the media in interviews, personal statements, and let
ters to the editors. Faculty members initiated teach-ins
50
against the war in 1965 (Kristol, 1967; Leinenweber, 1968;
"On Campus," 1967; Lipset & Ladd, 1975, p. 25). Twenty
percent of the faculty at the University of Michigan signed
a public protest letter to President Johnson, calling for
|an unconditional halt to the bombing raids on North Vietnam
(Schuman Sc Laumann, 1967). Between October 1964 and June
1968, about 14,750 university-affiliated individuals con
tributed 18,500 signatures to petitions published in the
Sunday New York Times. Ladd (1969, p. 1429) concluded:
"that college professors have much more organized public
opposition to the Vietnam war than most if not all other
occupational groups is clear/’
Various professional organizations passed and
signed petitions and resolutions. In 1967, 1,300 members
of the American Sociological Association signed petitions
or letters to the president and the Congress calling for
"a halt to bombing, immediate negotiations, and an orderly,
phased withdrawal of American forces from Vietnam" (Ladd,
1969). In 1969 , the faculty members of the Modern Language
Association
!
f
! . . . rammed through resolutions condemning the Vietnam War
. . . the staid old association found itself passing resolu
tions opposing the "illegal and imperial" Vietnam war, counsel
ing opposition to the draft and denouncing government repres
sion of Le Roi Jones and Eldridge Cleaver. ("Professors," 1969)
51
In 1970 the American Philosophical Association passed a
resolution calling for the immediate American withdrawal
from Vietnam ("Professors and Politics," 1970).
i
i A number of surveys concerning the war were con-
I
Iducted. Armor and his associates (1967), in a study of 152
I
professors in the humanities, social sciences, and natural
sciences found that professors were neither radicals nor
pacifists but were more antiwar than the general public.
Sixty-six percent of the faculty was opposed to American
military involvement compared to 33 percent who were in
favor, but 43 percent indicated that given the involvement,
the United States must remain in Vietnam until a settlement
was reached. Fifteen percent favored an immediate with
drawal from Vietnam, 32 percent favored a decrease in mili
tary involvement, 46 percent favored stopping the bombing
i
i
in North Vietnam, 13 percent favored decreasing the bombing,
and 12 percent favored increasing it.
Studies indicated rather conclusively that faculty
i
members differed markedly in their attitudes toward the war
jon the basis of their curricular areas. Professors in the
jsocial sciences were by far the most opposed to the war
(Schuman & Laumann, 1967, p. 34; Downing & Salomone, 1969,
p. 45; Ladd, 1969, p. 1429; Peterson, 1970, p. 2). Schuman
and Laumann (1967, p. 33) found no faculty consensus on the j
bombing in Vietnam. Of the 57 percent of those who returned
their questionnaires, 29 percent supported the bombing i
I ;
Ipolicy and 28 percent opposed it. Downing and Salomone j
! i
l . ;
1(1969, pp. 44-45) also found no unanimity of opinion among ;
!
i
Ifacuity members regarding the war. The Carnegie Study (Ladd
!
! I
Lipset, 1975b, p. 32) indicated that a substantial major- i
ity of faculty members favored getting out of Vietnam either
i
by immediate withdrawal of all troops (19 percent) or by \
encouraging the emergence of a coalition government in South
i ;
jVietnam (41 percent). This was contrasted with 33 percent j
iwho supported withdrawal in the context of Vietnamization
jand 7 percent who supported total troop commitment to defeat
i ’
the Communists. A Gallup survey (1972, p. 2031) of the I
general public was completed eight months later with approx
imately the same results. Vietnamization was supported by ;
\
I
[56 percent of the public and total commitment of forces was '
I
|
jsupported by 12 percent. j
i
! I
| Faculty commitment to the war was perhaps best !
^demonstrated by the fact that faculty involvement in the
!
[planning of student demonstrations appeared to be more
i ;
closely related to the American policy in Vietnam than to \
j
any other issue (Boruch, 1969). Most of the senior faculty
53
members in the sociology department at the University of
California at Berkeley were against the war and most parti
cipated in some form of protest— signing petitions, drafting
statements, or joining antiwar organizations. Eminent mem-
i
! bers of the departments of sociology, history, and English
! joined the Faculty Peace Committee, an antiwar organization
i
at Berkeley (Leinenweber, 1968), and some 80 Berkeley fac
ulty members and graduate students pledged not to engage in
war research or weapons production. At the same time, how
ever, the faculty of the University of California, Los
Angeles, voted 514 to 329 against separating the Los Alamos
and Livermore weapons development and testing centers from
the university (McConnell, 1969, p. 343).
A poll was taken of the Academic Senate of the Uni-
i
versity of California, Los Angeles, to determine the influ
ence of a student’s draft status on grading procedures.
i
Of the 515 faculty members polled, 416 indicated that the
draft did not influence their grading. Many professors
indicated that they considered draft status only in border
line cases. Many institutions of higher education abolished
i
I
jclass ranking and/or ceased furnishing students' class rank
ito draft boards ("On Campus," 1967).
A survey of 1,856 institutions indicated that 28
54
percent of the schools modified some undergraduate course
content to reflect antiwar interests in response to the
Spring 1970 crisis. Final examinations and grading proced
ures' were altered by some faculty members at 25 percent of
i
jthe institutions. Normal instructional activities ceased
i
|at 21 percent of the nation's colleges; 8 percent for one
!day, 7 percent for two days, and 6 percent for a longer
period (Peterson, 1970). On the majority of the campuses
less than 10 percent of the faculty reportedly made changes
in the content, examinations, or grading procedures of their
courses.
As one can note, antiwar attitudes were very much
in evidence and resulted in a wide variety of activities by
faculty members that affected the institutions both directly
and indirectly.
Summary
The research indicates that faculty attitudes and
behavior concerning campus and national issues cannot be
precisely delineated, but in general have tended to be more
liberal than those of the general public. Faculty members
i
I
'were most actively involved in the issue of American policy
i
i
jin Vietnam. Most academicians were opposed to student
jmilitancy, although they concurred with the general_________
55
objectives of student activists. The extent of involvement
in and commitment to effecting the changes demanded by-
student activists varied greatly among faculty members, with
those in the social sciences and humanities being the most
t
'supportive. In general, the changes that were brought about
i
i
jon campuses in response to demand were committee and cur
ricular changes. These changes occurred in institutions
with varying degrees of student protest activities and at
institutions that had no protest activities.
Characteristics of Students
It is difficult to discuss the general character
istics, attitudes, and behavior of the more than seven
million students in higher education (Keniston, 1970a;
i
Opinions of College Freshmen, 1970, p. 302). The numbers
involved and the variety of backgrounds, interests, and
goals make students a more heterogeneous than homogeneous
Igroup .
I '
Even within a relatively homogeneous liberal-arts college,
it is impossible to speak of the student: we meet instead a
variety of clearly distinguishable types of student. These
can be classified in various ways, according to intelligence,
field of concentration, social background, future profession,
[ and the like. (Keniston, 1966a, p. 323)
56
Subcultures
There are several subcultures that can be found on
most college campuses. There is the vocationally oriented
group, the academically oriented group, the collegiate
group, and various nonconformist groups. The vocationally
oriented students perceive college as
. . . off-the-job training, an organization of courses and
credits leading to a diploma and a better job than they could
otherwise command. These students have little attachment to
the college . . . [and] are resistant to intellectual demands
on them beyond what is required to pass the courses. (Clark
& Trow, 1966, p. 21)
|The students in the academically oriented culture value
i
i
i
intellectual concerns and are seriously preparing for gradu-j
ate work and academic or professional careers. The students'
I
in the collegiate subculture are more socially oriented and
involved in fraternities, athletics, and "school spirit"
activities. The nonconformist subculture includes aes
thetes, bohemians, the alienated, radicals, activists, and
others. The activist subculture includes those students who
participate in student demonstrations or activities that are
concerned with political, social, or ethical issues (Keni
ston, 1967, p. 111). These subcultures are important since
#
|"to a substantial degree, the traits of the college student
determine the characteristics of the college environment"
57
(Bayer, Astin, & Boruch, 1970, p. 1).
The character of a college and its effect on stu
dents are related to the kinds and strength of subcultures
within the student body. Since the socialization process
i
lin college encourages a sharing of values, attitudes, and
i
jpatterns of behavior, student cultures characterize and to
j
some extent determine the educational philosophy of the
institution and the types of programs within the institutior.
(Bradshaw, 1975, pp. 279-280; Clark 8c Trow, 1966; Trow,
1971, p. 16).
Although the subcultures represent diverse groups
of students, many researchers have been concerned with
i
(ascertaining a profile of the general characteristics, atti
tudes , and behavior of students in higher education. This
i
isection of the review of literature will include studies on
students in general and students in the student activist
subculture.
I students in general
|
| Recent studies have indicated that today's college
i
^students are more intelligent, better informed, more ser
ious, less prejudiced, psychologically more stable, more
idealistic, more flexible, and more concerned about poli-
tics, democratic values, and human relationships than past
58
generations (Keniston, 1966b, p. 47; 1968, p. 229). A 1968
Newsweek survey indicated that the majority of students are
still interested in football, fraternities, dating, getting
along in school, getting married, finding a job, and secur-
!
i
ling a niche in society rather than in reforming society or
I
jtheir colleges (''Campus Rebels," 1968, p. 63). A survey by
Time one year later, however, indicated that each new
freshman class is "more radical, more tuned in, turned on
and dropped out than the last" ("Spirit of '73," 1969, p.
49) .
Of the freshman classes in 1970, 57 percent were
male, 91 percent were Caucasian, and 5 6 percent were from
(suburbs or moderate-sized towns. The percentage of males
attending college was the same as in 1968; but there was an
i
increase of 2 percent of minority group members in college
between 1969 and 1970 (Trow, 1975, p. 359; Keniston, 1970a,
p. 50; "Opinions of College Freshmen," 1970, pp. 302-303).
R.eligion was an important part of the lives of the majority
of students. Most students believed in God but were criti-
;cal of organized religion (Keniston, 1966b, p. 46; Crawford,
I
'1969; "Survey of College Student Opinion," 1969, p. 452;
|"Spirit of '73," 1969). Over half of the students studied
i
!
planned to attend graduate school. The majority of students
59
planned to enter the professions and almost one-half of the
students planned to be teachers ("Spirit of '73," 1969;
"Opinions of College Freshmen," 1970, p. 302). Goodwin
(1969, p. 175) cited several studies that indicated that in
i
(relation to occupational goals students ranked self-
j
(development first, interpersonal goals second, and salary
considerations last. About one-half of the students in a
Roper survey, however, indicated that making money was a
major goal ("Spirit of '73," 1969).
Political orientation vacillated somewhat during the
years. Bay (1967, p. 77) indicated that one difficulty in
I
'studies was that college populations were polarized, with
j
(larger percentages of students who were radical or liberal
! i
'or conservative and with fewer students in the middle. In
the 1969 Carnegie study, 5 percent of the students indicated,
that they were left in their political orientation, 40 per-
i
cent indicated liberal, 37 percent indicated middle-of-the-
road, 17 percent indicated moderately conservative, and 2
percent indicated very conservative. In comparing medium-
i
i
iquality schools, 1 percent fewer students indicated left,
i
(liberal, or middle-of-the-road as their political orienta-
I
tion (Trow, 1975, p. 18). According to Harris polls in 1969
and 1970, 16 percent of the students were conservative
60
(Lipset & Schaflander, 1971, p. 49). A 1970 survey indi
cated that freshmen students were more conservative than in
the past. Only 33 percent of the students labeled them
selves left or liberal, 44 percent indicated middle-of-the-
i
|road, and 23 percent indicated conservative ("Opinions of
College Freshmen," 1970, p. 302; Bayer, Astin, & Boruch,
1970, p. 18). The data indicated that
. . . university students as a group are decidedly to the
left politically, of the middle-class as a whole, and their
parents. Whether judged by attitudes toward civil rights,
welfare state legislation, government economic planning, or
propensity to vote Democratic, American students are among
the most liberal strata in the middle classes. (Lipset, 1966,
p. 371)
i
i
Ladd and Lipset (1975b, pp. 25-26) also concluded that the
ldominant mood of the college campuses in 1969 was liberal
to left and thus predisposed to favoring egalitarianism and
social changes.
Changes in interest and involvement in politics have:
taken place since 1960. In 1960, students were politically
disinterested, apathetic, and uncommitted to social move-
i
Iments (Goldsen, Rosenberg, Williams, & Suchman, 1960, p.
] 199) . In 1962, the majority of students at Stanford and
Berkeley were passive and uninterested in local affairs or
in working toward improving national or international rela
tions . They were more concerned about their emotional______
61
well-being and need for love and affection. The data con
firmed that
. . . most students have a strongly "privatist" orientation.
They rank highest their own individual careers and future
family life. Involvement in international, national or civic
; affairs and services to other people are ranked astonishingly
; low and there is little change from the freshman to the senior
; year. (Katz, 1966, p. 139)
i
i
I
By 1969, 40 percent of the students had become very much
interested and active in politics, and by 1970, over 50
percent of the students were engaged in sociopolitical
activities. Although students were involved in politics,
86 percent of them were more concerned with existing issues
than partisan politics and a plurality of students favored
! 1
the Independent descriptor over Democrat or Republican
(Good & Bates, 1969, pp. 396-398; "New Mood on Campus: Sur
vey,” 1969; "Spirit of '73," 1969; Cirese & Koon, 1970).
A 1969 Yankelovich survey indicated that one-fourth of the
students who were practically oriented (in business, engin
eering, and the sciences) and one-half of the students who
[were liberal and change-oriented (in the arts and humani-
Ities) felt that no presidential candidate in 1968 came close
|to their point of view ("What They Believe," 1969, p. 70).
I
Thus the studies indicated that the majority of
students were Caucasians, were males, and were religious.
i
u _____________________________________
62
They were generally left of the average population in poli
tics and became politically active during the late 1960s.
Attitudes of Students
i
The various areas and issues about which students
!
ihave been concerned and which have been directly or in-
!
directly related to campus unrest include educational con
cerns , sociopolitical issues, and student activism.
Education
Most of the research indicated that students were
satisfied with their education. In 1966, 80 percent of the
students at Berkeley were satisfied with their education
I
(Keniston, 1966b). Between 75 percent and 88 percent of
the freshmen surveyed in 1969 felt that their education was
basically sound and satisfactory and only 2 to 4 percent
were dissatisfied or felt that drastic changes were needed
i
("Survey of College Student Opinion," 1969). The Carnegie
Study indicated that satisfaction was related to the quality
of the institution, with 72 percent of the total population
being satisfied, 68 percent of the students at high-quality
iinstitutions and- 73 percent at medium-quality institutions
i
jbeing satisfied (Trow, 1975, p. 27). No relationship was
i
found between educational dissatisfaction and involvement
63
in student protest even though 35 percent of the student
activists felt that the educational system needed to be
improved or radically changed ("Survey of College Student
Opinion," 1969, p. 452; Keniston & Lerner, 1970; Somers,
1965).
Although the overall evaluation of the educational
system was positive, there were areas about which students
i
were highly critical. When asked the main reason why stu
dents demonstrated, lack of influence in running the col
leges was selected by 42 percent of the students. Over 75
percent of the general population wanted more involvement
and over 85 percent of the student activists wanted more
jinvolvement (Dunbar, 1968, p 23; "Why Students Act That
i
Way," 1969, p. 35). The majority of students felt that they
should have power to affect all university decisions
("Spirit of *73," 1969). In fact, over 60 percent of
ithe students felt that colleges should be governed com
pletely by their faculty and students (Trow, 1975, p. 26) .
Over 70 percent of the students felt that they should have
jcontrol or voting power on committees to determine student
discipline. The largest percentage of students felt that
they should be formally consulted in regard to undergraduate
i
i
jadmission policies and bachelor's degree requirements (Trow,
64
1975, p. 23). In 1969, 69.percent of the students surveyed
indicated that faculty promotion should be based on student
evaluations (Bayer, Astin, 6c Boruch, 1969, p. 6; Boruch,
1969, p. 1). Students were divided between voting power, ;
jformal consultation, informal consultation, and little or
|no role on the issue in the Carnegie Study (Trow, 1975, p.
23) .
Students were most critical about the curriculum
(''Survey of College Student Opinion," 1969). Over 85 per
cent of the students in every study since 1968 felt that
they should have substantial say in structuring the curri-
jculum (Bayer, Astin, 6c Boruch, 1969, p. 6; Boruch, 1969,
jp. 2). The majority of students indicated that students
|
jshould have voting power on the provision and content of
i
[courses. Almost 40 percent felt that students should have
voting power on committees and another 34 percent felt that
they should be formally consulted (Trow, 1975, p. 23) .
I Thus, students were generally satisfied with their
i
jeducation, but wanted more influence and involvement in the
[educational decision-making processes. They were particu-
I
jlarly concerned about being involved in evaluating faculty
members and structuring the curriculum.
65
Social problems
The two major concerns of students were the Vietnam
war and racial problems.
! In virtually every major disturbance on any American campus
j in the past five years, they have explicitly objected to the
1 university’s collusion with the war in Southeast Asia and/or
| its insensitivity to or collaboration with the prevalent
j racism of American society. (Keniston, 1970b, p. 6)
f
[
Boruch (1969, p. 11) also indicated that the most frequent
issues were the 1965 civil rights movement and the Vietnam
war in 1968. The Yankelovich survey found that the prac
tically oriented students considered the war to be the most
!important problem, followed by racial problems and civil
jrights. The liberal or change-oriented students had the
same concerns, but reversed the order ('’ What They Believe,"
1969, p. 70).
I
The Vietnam war.— American involvement in the Viet
nam war raised a number of issues. There was concern about
i
|the role of higher education in war-related activities such
j
as recruiting, ROTC, and military research on campus; con
cerns about Selective Service; and concerns about Vietnam
i
land United States military policy there and elsewhere,
i In 1969, the majority of students were opposed to
i
[weapons research being done at educational institutions
66
(Trow, 1975, p. 19). Interestingly, though, the majority
of students supported the right of individual professors to
undertake military research projects. The majority of the
students also were in favor of retaining ROTC on the cam
puses and permitting defense recruitment on campus (Foley &
Foley, 1969, p, 36; Harris Survey, 1970, pp. 110-117).
Views on the draft changed markedly through the
years. By 1969, 59 percent of students supported the con
cept of a volunteer army. This was an 18 percent increase
from the previous year. There was a 16 percent increase
between 1968 and 1970 (Astin, Bayer, &. Boruch, 1969, p. 14;
^'Opinions of College Freshmen," 1970, p. 302). In 1969,
! only one-third of the students expected to enter the mili-
!
i
tary and over one-fourth planned to legally avoid induction.
About 2 percent planned to turn in their draft cards or
dodge the draft. Less than 1 percent planned to move to
Canada (Crawford, 1969; "Survey of College Student Opin
ions," 1969, p. 452). Resistance to the draft increased
from 300 men per year between 1965 and 1968 to 300 per
month in 1969 (Turner, 1970, p. 40). Interestingly, 61
percent of the practically oriented students in the Yankelb-
vich survey felt that draft resistance was not justified
under any circumstances, whereas 67 percent of the liberal,
67
change-oriented students felt that there were circumstances
\tfhen it would be justified (’ ’ What They Believe," 1969, p.
70). Besides resisting the draft, students also partici
pated in sit-ins, demonstrations, and destruction of draft
!cards to express their concerns about the draft and the war.
i
Public opinion polls indicated that the large
majority of American students supported the Vietnam war
until 1968. Prior to 1968, the antiwar sentiment was no
greater for students than for the general population (Lipset
6c Schaflander, 1971, pp. 36, 41; Lipset, 1966; Keniston,
1966b, p. 45). By 1968, the majority of students felt that
it was a mistake to be in Vietnam (Perrin, 1968, p. 58;
"What They Believe," 1969, p. 70). By 1970, three national
surveys indicated that the majority of students favored
withdrawal from Vietnam; over half the students polled in
another survey indicated that colleges should help solve
the problems of war and peace; and 81 percent of the stu-
!
jdents on traditional campuses supported antiwar demonstra-
jtions (Putnam, 1970; Trow, 1975; Lipset 6: Schaf lander, 1971,
p. 44; Girese & Koon, 1970, p. 8). By 1970, one-third of
I
jthe students surveyed had changed their career plans to
draft-exempt occupations, had reduced their desire for
advanced degrees, had decreased their respect for the
68
administration and their parents, and were more negative
about religion; one-fifth of the students were dissatisfied
with their education and traced this directly to the war;
one-fifth considered changing residences; and two-thirds of
^the students were emotionally upset by the war. Educational
I
and personal effects of the war were far more profound at
the more competitive institutions (high entrance require
ments) . Almost twice the number of students at the more
prestigious institutions felt that their education was less
valuable; three times as many lost study time; twice as many
experienced alienation from the political system, and a
jthird considered emigrating from America (Gergen 6c Gergen,
1970a) .
Although there were antiwar demonstrations prior to
Ithe Spring 1970 crisis, the Cambodian events and killings at
Kent State resulted in the first national student strike of
long duration. Data from various opinion polls indicated
jthat about one-half of the student population was involved
I
in the demonstrations (Cirese 6: Koon, 1970, p. 8; Gergen 6c
(Gergen, 1970b; Lipset 6c Schaflander, 1971, p. 4). Students
at 40 percent of the institutions attempted to communicate
with local citizens about campus reaction to the war. Spe
cial seminars, workshops, or research projects were
69
initiated by students at 37 percent of the institutions;
letter-writing campaigns were initiated at 29 percent of
the institutions; antiwar speakers were brought to 26 per-
i
jcent of the institutions; 23 percent of the institutions
|had students and faculty members who planned work in behalf
of congressional peace candidates; and delegations were
sent to Washington, D.C. by 20 percent of the institutions
and to the state capital by 14 percent of the institutions
i
(Peterson, 1970).
Racial concerns.— Although the civil rights movement
jin 1965 created much change for minority groups, 60 percent
I of the students polled still considered race relations a !
major problem in 1969 and in 1970 41 percent felt that col
leges should bring all their knowledge to bear on solving
i
racial problems ("Profile of the College Rebel," 1969, p.
408; Putnam, 1970, p. 373). The majority of students in
several studies agreed that America is a racist society
I
I(Yankelovich, 1969, pp. 73-74; "Profile of the College
i
;R.ebel," 1969; "Spirit of ’73," 1969; Cirese & Koon, 1970).
i
'Forty-six percent of the total student population in the
j
jCarnegie Study indicated that the main cause of Negro riots
was white racism, and 12 percent more of the students at
high-quality schools agreed (Trow, 1975, p. 19)._____________
70
A 1969 survey indicated that 84 percent of the stu
dents felt that equal rights for minority groups could be
achieved under the present form of government (Lipset &
Schaflander, 1971, p. 57). Education seemed to be their
I
lanswer. The majority of students favored financial aid and
i
jcompensatory education for minority groups (Bayer, As tin, &
i
j
Boruch, 1969, p. 16), Although 44 percent of the students
at medium-quality schools in the Carnegie Study indicated
that American colleges were racist, most college students
were opposed to lowering admission standards for minority
jgroups, but favored establishing special Black Studies pro-
jgrams (Foley 6c Foley, 1969, p. 36; Trow, 1975; ’’ New Mood on
jCampus," 1969).
i
i
I Other issues.— The use and legalization of mari
juana was a major issue. Although the majority of students
had not tried marijuana, various studies showed an increase
iin the use of marijuana during 1969. Over 45 percent of
i
ithe students in every study favored legalizing marijuana
i
("New Mood on Campus," 1969; "Spirit of ’73," 1969; "Opin
ions of College Freshmen," 1970; "Profile of the College
Rebel," 1969, p. 408; Trow, 1975, p. 19).
In 1969, the majority of students studied supported
government control of environmental pollution, legalizing
71.
abortion, and abolishing capital punishment (Bayer, Astin, j
i
8: Boruch, 1969, pp. 5-14; "Spirit of '73," 1969). The I
majority of students in 1969 and 1970 were law and order j
i !
joriented and felt the courts protected the criminal too much
land were too concerned with the rights of the criminal
j(Bayer, Astin, 8c Boruch, 1969, p. 15; "Opinions of College !
|
Freshmen," 1970, p. 302). The majority of students indi- ;
I
cated that the government should be more involved in and j
provide more funds for control of pollution (90 percent), !
iprevention of crime (88 percent), elimination of poverty |
(78 percent), and protection of consumers (72 percent) i
(Bayer, Astin, 8c Boruch, 1969; "Opinions of College Fresh
men," 1970, p. 302; Keniston, 1970a, p. 52).
! Although students were concerned about many individ-
i
I '
jual issues, one of the areas of greatest concern was society
as a whole. A 1969 Gallup poll indicated that the second 1
most frequent concern for college students was the inade- j
iquacies of society ("Why Students Act That Way," 1969, p.
i "
i
j35) . Students were highly critical of society. One-third i
i i
: to one-half of the students surveyed stated that America 1
i |
'was a "sick society" and 91 percent of the students indi- I
I I
Icated that there were problems in society ("What They Be- :
lieve," 1969, p. 70; Crawford, 1969). Although a number of
72
studies in 1969 indicated that college students were more
alienated and radical than past generations, the majority
of students were optimistic about the future. They felt
that America could effectively respond to the need for
I
i
ichange and advocated fundamental changes by working through
the democratic system to reform the major institutions in
isociety ("Profile of the College Rebel," 1969, p. 408;
Lipset 8c Schaflander, 1971, pp. 46, 56).
By 1970, students had become more critical of
society and more reform oriented. Seventy-five percent of
the students felt that basic changes in the system were
necessary to improve the quality of life in America. Over
j
ihalf of the students felt that meaningful social change
j
jcould not be achieved by traditional American politics, and
i
j
44 percent felt that social progress was more likely to
occur through "radical pressure from outside the system"
than through major institutions in the system (Keniston 6c
iLerner, 1970; Trow, 1975, p. 18; Lipset & Schaflander, 1971,
jPP. 49, 56). When asked about the degree of confrontation
necessary to effect change, the majority of students felt
|that nonviolent mass protests and demonstrations were neces-
i
I
sary, and most studies confirmed the students’ opposition to
violence, disruptions, and civil disobedience. Only 18
73
percent of the students felt that disruptive tactics,
destruction of property, physical confrontation, or violence
were necessary to change the status quo. Only those stu-
j
Jdents who attended high-quality institutions or who were
!
[change-oriented felt that violence or civil disobedience
could be justified (Cirese 6c Koon, 1970, pp. 5-6; Lipset 6c
Schaflander, 1971, p. 61; nWhat They Believe," 1969, p. 71;
"Why Students Act That Way," 1969, p. 35; Trow, 1975, p.
19) .
Thus one finds that college students in general were
i
[concerned about the same kinds of social problems and issues
i
i
,that concerned student activists. It is therefore not sur-
!
[prising that the general students gave implicit, if not
i
[explicit, support to student activists who were involved in
i
nonviolent protests.
Attitudes toward student
activism
Although 68 percent of the students polled in 1968-
l
11969 were tired of campus unrest, most students were in
I
jsympathy with the goals of student activists and 40 percent
(supported "activist" values (Foley 6c Foley, 1969; Skolnick,
i
I
1969, p. 309). In the Berkeley Free Speech Movement, it was
estimated that there were 21 students who were sympathetic
74
and approved of the cause for every one student who "sat
in.” Two-thirds of the student body at Berkeley agreed with
the goals of the Free Speech Movement and 34 percent of the
student body supported the tactics (Bay, 1967; Somers, 1965,
j p . 544; Lipset, 1968, p. 31; Selznick, 1965, p. 311; Kenis-
ton, 1966b, p. 47; Block, Haan, & Smith, 1968, p. 201; "Why
Students Act That Way," 1969).
The majority of students believe that radical
organizations lost sympathizers in 1969 because of their
frequent use of violent tactics, but the majority of stu
dents became more supportive of activist goals and tactics
after the Spring 1970 crisis ("New Mood on Campus," 1969,
i
p. 42; Lipset, 1968, p. 31; Cirese & Koon, 1970). A Harris
survey (1970, p. 88) indicated that 75 percent of the stu
dents endorsed a need for social change, 58 percent felt
that demonstrations were effective forms of protests, 67
jpercent felt that student protest would speed up needed
f
Ichange, and 79 percent indicated that radical pressures were
I
needed to initiate institutional changes.
j Although the majority of students felt that rules
I
governing student behavior on campus were sensible, they
t
jwere opposed to college officials regulating student behav-
|ior off campus. The majority of students felt that political
751
activities and student demonstrations were acceptable j
I
activities on college campuses, but they opposed more mili- !
tancy by faculty or students and violent resistance to pub-
I !
!lic authority by the faculty. The majority of students felt!
!
I that campus disruptions were a threat to academic freedom
I x * ■ ,
and were caused by outside agitators and professional !
i
troublemakers. They also felt that students who disrupted j
i
l
the functioning of the college should be expelled or sus- |
(
I
pended and school officials should have the right to ask j
i
for police help when students threatened violence. There •
I
xtfas some discrepancy in the findings of whether college
f
officials have been too lax in dealing with demonstrators.
I
l
Bayer and Astin (1969) and Bayer, Astin, and Boruch (1970)
I
indicated that the majority of students felt that officials !
(
were too lax, whereas the 1969 Carnegie Study indicated that
• they were not (Trow, 1975, pp. 20-21; Bayer, Astin, & |
i
Boruch, 1970, pp. 6-7; Foley & Foley, 1969; Harris Survey, j
i
1970, pp. 165, 167, 171; Cirese & Koon, 1970, p. 11; "Why
Students Act That Way," 1969, p. 34).
Thus one finds that students were generally suppor
tive of the aims and goals of student activism but were
opposed to violence and disruption of classes. It is
76
apparent that the events of the Spring 19 70 crisis affected
student views on activism.
The extent of student activism
' Although the media gave the impression that the
i
I
jmajority of students and campuses were involved in confron-
I
tations and demonstrations, dissent was "by no means the
dominant mood of American college students. Every respon
sible study or survey shows apathy and privatism far more
dominant than dissent" (Keniston, 1967a, p. 108). Most of
the students at most of the colleges were uninvolved with
student activism ("Political University," 1969, p. 54;
Reed, 1966; Peterson, 1966, 1970).
In 1966, the combined membership of the Student
Non-violent Coordinating Committee, the Congress of Racial
Equality, Students for a Democratic Society, and the Student
Peace Union was estimated to be between 12,000 and 50,000
students out of six million college students (Peterson,
1966, 1970). In 1966, 3 percent of the students at Berkeley
were members of the Free Speech Movement (Keniston, 1966b,
!p. 47). In 1967, the Students for a Democratic Society had
i
i
!35,000 members in 300 chapters. In 1968, membership de-
i
■clined to 30,000, with only 6,000 students who paid their
{national dues out of a population of seven million students.
77
By 1969, most of the institutions had no chapters (Keniston,
1970c; Lipset, 1968; "Campus R.ebels," 1968, p. 63; Block,
Haan, & Smith, 1968) .
Although the number of students involved in organi-
jzations was small, a larger number of students participated
j
|in activist causes. In 1966, it was estimated that 10 to 12
percent of the students participated in demonstrations. It
was estimated that 15 to 18 percent of the students at
Berkeley particpated in the Free Speech Movement (Block,
Haan, & Smith, 1968). In 1968, a Harris poll estimated
that 100,000 students were radicals and a Gallup poll esti
mated that 20 percent of the students had participated in i
protest demonstrations (Lipset, 1968, p. 31). In 1969, a
Roper survey indicated that 9 percent of the seniors were
very active in demonstrations and 25 percent were moderately
active ("Survey of College Student Opinion," 1969, p. 453;
i
|"Profile of the College Rebel," 1969, p. 408). In 1970, it
iwas estimated that between 1 and 5 percent of the students
i
jwere actively involved in student protest (Peterson, 1970).
JThus, one can note that a relatively small percentage of
students was involved in student activism and/or student
demonstrations.
78
Characteristics of
student activists
The defining characteristic of student activists
jwas that they participated in student demonstrations and
i
^activities that concerned political, social, or ethical
principles (Keniston, 1 9 6 7 , p. 1 1 1 ) . They generally
attended large independent colleges and universities that
were noted for their high academic quality and the liberal
ity of their orientation (Peterson, 1 9 6 6 ; "Profile of the
College Rebel," 1 9 6 9 , p. 4 0 8 ; Cirese 6 c Koon, 1 9 7 0 ) .
Student activists were generally Jewish or indicated
no religious affiliation. This characteristic was suffi-
i
ciently important that an American Council on Education !
study indicated that the best way to predict whether a cam
pus would have protest over the American policy in Vietnam
was to calculate the percentage of students who marked
"none" for religion (Flacks, 1967, p. 65; Keniston, 1967,
1970c, p. 120; Block, Haan, & Smith, 1968; Astin 6 c Bayer,
1969, p. 5; "Profile of the College Rebel," 1969, p. 408;
Smith, Haan, 6 c Block, 1970) . The second best way to pre
dict protests over the American policy in Vietnam was to
calculate the number of National Merit Award winners in the
freshman class, since student activists were students with
high ability who earned better grades and were more_________
79
intellectually oriented and more concerned with attending
graduate school and joining the academic community upon
graduation than nonactivists (Astin 6 c Bayer, 1969, p. 5;
Keniston & Lerner, 1970, p. 76; Keniston, 1970b, p. 6, and
11970c, p. 120; Smith, Haan, & Block, 1970; Lipset, 1966, p.
367; Bay, 1967; Gergen 6 c Gergen, 1970b; Somers, 1965; "Pro
file of the College Rebel,1’ 1969, p. 408).
The parents of student activists were generally
highly educated and had more advanced degrees than the
parents of nonprotesters. Their fathers generally had
higher status professional occupations and belonged to
higher socioeconomic levels. The dominant ethos of their
i
families was liberal, humanistic, democratic, egalitarian,
and highly individuated. These were values that the student
activists identified with and accepted (Flacks, 1 9 6 7 , p. 6 7 ;
Block, Haan, 6 c Smith, 1 9 6 8 ; Bay, 1 9 6 7 ; Lipset, 1 9 6 6 , p.
i
j 3 6 8 ; Watts 6 c Whittaker, 1 9 6 6 ; Keniston, 1 9 6 7 ; Smith, Haan,
!& Block, 1970) .
I
Thus, student activists were left to liberal in
jtheir political orientation. They valued intellectuality,
self-expression, independence, honesty, morality, and
humanitarianism, which involved a concern for man and a
sense of community and a responsibility for others. They
80
ranked interest in the world of ideas, art, and music and
dedication to work for national and international betterment:
as the two most important personal values. They were
therefore more involved in politics (91 percent compared to
|41 percent of the general population); were more often in
i
the humanities and social sciences; were more prone to
become teachers or join Vista or the Peace Corps; were more
sensitive to social abuse; and were more likely to be in
demonstrations to initiate social change and eliminate
social injustices. Generally the causes did not personally
affect the activists, but instead affected people who were
less fortunate. An example of this was the protests
against the draft policies. Activists were among those mosti
likely to receive student deferments for graduate work, yet
they identified with those people for whom the selective
service rules were unjust (Flacks, 1967, pp. 55, 56, 78;
Keniston, 1967, pp. Ill, 118; Turner, 1970, p. 43; Smith,
Haan, & Block, 1970; Watts & Whittaker, 1966; Lipset &
Wolin, 1965, p. xii).
In summary, one finds that protests were most likely
!to occur in institutions that enrolled relatively high pro
portions of students of high ability, Jewish students or
i
students with no religious preference, and students who were
81
politically liberal. Dozens of research studies confirmed
that a "good’1 student body (defined as students with high
aptitude scores, intellectual motivation, high IQs, from
professional families, and with plans to complete college
i
jand graduate school) made student unrest more likely. In
jfact, about 90 percent of all protests involving the war in
I
Isoutheast Asia could have been predicted simply by knowing
the characteristics of the student body. These students
were from socially and educationally advantaged homes and
I
itheir values and ideals were generally consonant with those
i
of their parents. The values of these students differed
!from those of the norm and caused them to be more involved i
in activities aimed at bringing about change within the
jeducational institutions and society.
Behavior of student activists
Student activists planned, organized, and partici-
i
pated in both nonviolent and nondisruptive activities and
'violent and disruptive activities. They participated in
isigning petitions and voter registration, peaceful marches
jand demonstrations, mass meetings, picketing, sit-ins,
i
■bombings, holding of administrators, civil disobedience
techniques, confrontation, and negotiations of grievances
(Boruch, 1969, p. 10; Lipset, 1966, p. 359; Keniston &______
82
Lerner, 1970, p. 36).
Summary
Various subcultures of students were found on cam-
jpuses. These subgroups determined the atmosphere of the
institution. Students in general were predominantly male
Caucasians who were religious, politically to the left of
the norm, and interested and active in politics. The atti
tudes of general students and activists were basically con
gruent on most issues concerning educational and socio
political problems. The differences between activists and
nonactivists generally were in the extent of agreement on
issues.
There were, however, several areas of difference
in characteristics and in basic values between activists
and nonactivists. Activists were more concerned about
I
bringing about social change. They were more personally
involved in organizing and participating in protests and
demonstrations, whereas general students usually were con
tent to remain approving onlookers. The area that most
!differentiated the activists from nonactivists was the means
i
of effecting social change, the activists declaring them
selves willing to use tactics that were sometimes unaccept
able to most students.
83
Student-Faculty Congruence
In 1957, Phillip Jacob concluded in Changing Values
in College that little happened in college to "alter the
mold of values for students." Jacob indicated that although
istudents tended to accept the prevalent norms of the college
and became less dogmatic, less prejudiced, and more critical
minded, they tended not to change their basic values. Thus
he concluded that "college has a socializing rather than a
liberalizing impact on values" (Jacob, 1957, p. 53). Since
then, hundreds of studies have been done to determine the
effects of a college education.
There is much evidence that colleges socialize
i
students to characteristic values (Vreeland & Bidwell,
*1966, p. 237; Goldsen et al., 1960; Webster, Freedman, &
!
i
Heist, 1962). Feldman and Newcomb (1969) reviewed hundreds
of research reports and concluded that "there are conditions
under which colleges have had . . . impacts on their stu
dents and not least upon students' values,"
The impact and effects of the various academic dis
ciplines were also studied. Students and faculty members in
given fields tended to have personal characteristics, val
ues, abilities, and interests that differed from those of
people in other fields (Astin, 1965, p. 275; Pricert, 1964;
84
Bereiter 6 c Freedman, 1962). Sociopolitical values, liberal
ism, self-perception, and psychological characteristics of
members of various academic disciplines were studied.
Differences between the academic groups were found in all
| Turner, 1968; Spaulding, Turner, 6 c McClintock, 1963; Ladd 6 c
i
Lipset, 1975b). The goals and values of people in the
various disciplines differ markedly also (Bereiter 6: Freed
man, 1962; Vreeland 6 : Bidwell, 1966; Ladd 6 c Lipset, 1975b) .
positive correlation between academic disciplines and stu-
jdent and faculty attitudes and values. Whether as a result
of selective recruitment or socialization, students selected,
and remained in those academic disciplines that were con
gruent with their attitudes and values. Students seemed to
be attracted to faculty members with similar beliefs
(Spaulding 6 c Turner, 1968; Pricert, 1964; Bereiter 6 c Freed-
i
man, 1962; "Beliefs Attract People," 1966). Rosenberg
j(1957, pp. 81-83) found that students either selected
I
[departments with values that were consistent with theirs,
Pricert concluded that
. . . values and attitudes of students majoring within a given
jareas (Bereiter 6 c Freedman, 1962; Davis, 1965; Spaulding 6 c
Numerous studies have indicated that there was a
ed majors, or adapted to the values of the field.
85
discipline are constantly being reinforced and strongly influ
enced along isomorphic lines through identification with fellow
students and teachers holding similar values, and that these
strongly held ethical beliefs act as insulators when students
are exposed to teachers and students from the other disciplines.
(Pricert, 1964, p. 121)
One of the major areas of differences in values was
in terms of liberalism. "Whatever the reason, it does
i
appear that some fields are relatively more attractive than
others to liberal-minded people and some more attractive to
conservative-minded people" (Bereiter 6c Freedman, 1962, p.
569). Many studies have indicated that the faculty and
I
students in the humanities and social sciences were the most:
liberal, whereas business, engineering, and agriculture were
I the most conservative (Bereiter 6c Freedman, 1962, pp. 568-
j 5 6 9; Lipset, 1969; Lipset 6 : Ladd, 1970; Ladd 6 c Lipset,
j
| 1 9 7 5 b ; Trow, 1 9 7 5 ; Emmerson, 1 9 6 8 , p. 3 0 8 ; Selvin & Hag-
strom, 1 9 6 5 ; Vreeland 6 c Bidwell, 1 9 6 6 , pp. 2 4 0 , 2 5 3 ; Stem-
ber, 1 9 6 1 ; Davis, 1 9 6 5 ; Astin, 1 9 6 5 ; Kristol, 1 9 6 7 , p. 2 2 9 ) .
i
Studies indicated that students and faculty in the
social sciences and humanities came from similar family
backgrounds; had similar personal characteristics such as
religion and political party affiliation; and had similar
lvalues such as intellectual and humanistic orientations and
i
i
Isocial criticism; and had personal goals that stressed moral
86
aims, helping others, creative expression, and satisfaction
in their work as opposed to monetary concerns. Faculty and
students in engineering and agriculture were similar in
personal characteristics such as political affiliation and
I
[practical orientation, and had similar personal and profes-
I "
sional goals that stressed technical achievement, a concern
ifor the accumulation of money, and competitiveness (Cole &
Adamsons, 1969; Eitzen & Maranell, 1968, p. 655; Goodwin,
1969, pp. 178-179; Spaulding & Turner, 1968, p. 247; Kenis
ton, 1970a, p. 53; Vreeland & Bidwell, 1969, pp. 245-246;
"Profile of the College Rebel," 1969, p. 408).
Students and faculty in the humanities and social
sciences were more often involved in demonstrations and
sit-ins related to civil rights, the Vietnam war, minority
group concerns, and educational concerns. Faculty and stu
dents in business, engineering, and agriculture were least
i
[involved. Faculty and students in the social sciences and
humanities were more often involved in antiwar activities
and were more often doves. Faculty and students in busi
ness, engineering, and agriculture were more often suppor-
Stive of the Vietnam war and were more often hawks ("What
;They Believe," 1969, pp. 70-71; Downing & Salomone, 1969,
l
p. 45; Ladd, 1969). Students within the social sciences
87
humanities were most prone to be student activists and in
volved in bringing about social change. Faculty in the
social sciences and humanities were most involved in and
supportive of activist causes. Students and faculty in
i
lengineering, business, and agriculture were least involved
i
|in or supportive of student activism (Cole & Adamsons, 1969,
pp. 326-327; Selznick, 1965, p. 311; Wolin 6c Schaar, 1965,
p. 362; Smith, Haan, 6 c Block, 1970, p. 264; Lipset, 1969,
p. 24; Lipset, 1968, p. 5; "Profile of the College Rebel,"
1969, p. 408; Bay, 1967; p. 83; Turner, 1970, p. 43)).
Although faculty members have generally been fur
ther to the left (more liberal) than students on most I
l
issues, the faculty was more opposed than students to mili-
I
I
|tant activism and campus politicization. Faculty and stu-
\
dents were fairly close, however, on political policy
issues, the Vietnam war, civil rights, and domestic social
Ipolicy (Ladd 6 Lipset, 1975b, p. 302; Lipset 6 Schaflander,
F
l
>1971, p. 40) .
I
j In summary, the data indicated that higher education
!
'affected the attitudes and values of students, that varying
|disciplines differed in their orientations, and that stu
dents selected those institutions and academic departments
that were congruent with their values. The areas of social
88
science and humanities were most liberal and change-
oriented, whereas the areas of engineering, agriculture,
and business were the most conservative and least change-
oriented .
I
I
CHAPTER III
! METHODOLOGY
1
1
i
j In this chapter a discussion will be given of (1)
i
j
sample selection procedures, (2) instrumentation, (3) data
collection procedures, (4) design and statistical analysis
employed, and (5) limitations of problems within the study.
Selection of the Sample
The study sample consisted of senior majors and
Ifaculty members in selected curricula at one California
j
(college. Originally two institutions that were matched on
i
jmost variables were included. Data collection had begun
when the administration of one institution rescinded its
permission to use the school in the study. The basis of
this decision was the possibility of a student demonstration
I
'and increased student activism on campus. The administrator
i
Isaid that the school felt that it was an "inopportune time
j
jto do research involving activism,” although the possible
I
i
(demonstration was in no way related to this research
8.9
90
pro j ect.
The institution
The institution is a four-year public college that
joperates year-round on the quarter system. It has over
|8,000 students and is located in a rural-suburban area of
i
|Southern California. It is governed by The Trustees of the
California State Colleges and accredited by the Western
Association of Schools and Colleges. It is one of four
institutions in California that offer programs in both
agriculture and engineering. Although both bachelor's and
master's degrees are offered in other areas, no master's
programs are offered in the specific curricular areas
within this study. State residents need an eligibility
index, based upon their GPA and SAT/ACT scores, that would
i
iplace them among the top third of all California high school
graduates for admission. Out-of-state students need an
eligibility index that would place them in the top sixth of
ICalifornia graduates (Singletary, 1968; College Catalog,
!
;1970-1971). The college was ranked as a medium-quality
i
I
jcollege in the Carnegie Study.
i
Historically, the school was a specialized insti-
0
tution with a polytechnic ^emphasis. Fields like agricul
ture, engineering, business, and home economics were
91
emphasized. The application of knowledge was also empha
sized .
. . . programs stress instruction which is specific and prac
tical. Faculty members are selected on the basis of academic
qualifications, professional experience, and teaching ability,
i Students are encouraged to obtain actual experience through
J the use of individual and group projects, work-study programs,
I and internships. In laboratories, classrooms, and field study
there is a constant interplay between general principles and
practical applications. (College Catalog, 1969-1970, p. 15)
However, the college apparently is broadening its perspec
tive; the following year the college catalog was changed
to:
The College has specialized in specific practical, occupa
tionally centered learning. In addition, the College now
assumes the obligations of offering a liberal education, of
preparing men and women for professional and occupational
roles in a variety of fields. It also recognizes the impor-
I tance of research to good teaching. (1970-1971, p. 15)
i
i
The college has had almost no student demonstrations
or protests through the years. Although there are activist
!groups like the Black Student Union, there has been only
t
one demonstration in the past year. Interestingly, some
students demonstrated against the demonstrators. The amount
of faculty involvement in protest and demonstrations has
also been limited. The extent of student activism at this
jcollege supports the studies related to the amount of stu-
f
t
ident activism in relation to the quality, orientation, and
92
characteristics of an institution.
Sample
| All full-time, American, male faculty members and
i
ifull-time, American, male, senior majors in the social
|
jscience, humanities, agriculture, and engineering depart-
i
ments were asked to participate in the study. The area of
agriculture includes the departments of international agri
culture, agricultural business management, natural resources
management, animal science, agronomy, fruit industries,
ornamental horticulture, foods and nutrition, plant and
soil science, and agricultural biology. The area of engin- i
i
i i
eering includes the departments of aerospace, electrical and
electronic, industrial, mechanical, and civil engineering.
The area of the humanities includes the departments of Eng
lish and history. The area of social sciences includes
sociology, economics, and concentrations in the social sci
ences .
There were 30 faculty members in agriculture, 65 in
engineering, 26 in the social sciences, and 26 in the human
ities at the college. Of these people, 13 (43 percent) in
agriculture, 38 (59 percent) in engineering, 13 (50 percent)
|in the social sciences, and 7 (23 percent) in the humanities
[returned questionnaires. There were 113 senior majors______
93
enrolled in agriculture, 314 in engineering, 151 in the
social sciences, and 79 in the humanities. Of these stu
dents, 217 (69 percent) in engineering, 56 (57 percent) in
I
i
^agriculture, 76 (50 percent) in the social sciences, and
i
j51 (54 percent) in the humanities returned their question-
I
i
|naires. It was necessary to delete 12 Conservative Curricu-
i
lar Area (CCA) students1 questionnaires, nine Liberal Cur
ricular Area (LCA) students' questionnaires, and one CCA
i
faculty questionnaire because they were incomplete. After
those questionnaires were deleted there remained 50 subjects:
in the CCA faculty sample, 22 in the LCA faculty sample, 261
lin the CCA student sample, and 118 in the LCA student sam
ple .
Instrumentation
The Carnegie Study questionnaires (Ladd & Lipset,
I
1975b, pp. 317-328; Trow, 1975, pp. 375-386, 403-414) were
modified so that most of the questions relative to personal
data and all attitude questions could be applicable to both
students and faculty. All items on the modified form were
i
jderived from the undergraduate or faculty forms of the
I
icarnegie Study questionnaires. The modified questionnaire
jwas basically organized so that topics were grouped into
!
sections on academic issues, sociopolitical issues, and
i __________, ________________________________________ :____________t_____________________________ __________________
personal characteristics and interests. The first 192 items
are the same for both faculty and students. Items 193 to
203 on the faculty form were specially designed to determine
the characteristics of the faculty group being sampled.
!ltems 193 to 227 on the student form were specifically de
signed to determine characteristics, needs, and desires of
the student group being sampled. The modified questionnaire
is presented in Appendix A.
Permission to do the study was obtained from the
i
deans of the Schools of Agriculture, Engineering, Liberal
Arts, and Graduate Studies; the director of Institutional
Research; and the academic vice president of the college.
The deans of the various schools were given printed infor
mation relative to the study to discuss during their
department chairmen meetings. The deans indicated that
they would discuss the study with the department chairmen
and encourage faculty and student participation.
Information regarding faculty members in the cur
ricular areas being studied was provided by the administra
tion. Information relative to rank, percentage of teaching
time, sex, degree, prior employment, appointment date, etc.,
was provided. All faculty members who met the criteria of
the study were placed on a mailing list. A modified form
95
of the Carnegie Study questionnaire and a letter of expla
nation (see Appendix A) with a self-addressed, stamped
envelope were delivered to faculty members via intracampus
Imail.
j
j Lists of senior majors were obtained from the Data
I
Processing Center. Each student name was checked in the
I
jregistrar's office to be certain that he met all of the
criteria. Data Processing provided the addresses of all
majors in the sample. The materials were sent to the local
address of each student. The materials were placed in the
mail the day before the faculty questionnaires were dis
tributed so that they would arrive on approximately the samej
j d a y .
j
All answers were to be recorded on the question-
i
i
naire. The questionnaire was to be returned to the experi
menter in the self-addressed, stamped envelope that was
jincluded with the materials. An incentive was added to
i
iencourage student response. Three respondents won five
i
'dollars each in a random drawing from among the student
responses.
i ■ '
I
i
As the questionnaires were returned, they were dated
so that the data could be analyzed accordingly in the event
of a situation that could affect the results. All students
96
not returning the questionnaire within five days received a
card requesting assistance in the project and advising them
that additional questionnaires were available in the depart
mental offices if their questionnaire had been lost or dis
carded. Signs to this effect were posted by faculty mail-
i
Iboxes and in individual departments for faculty members.
i
Three days later another postcard was sent and new signs
were posted. All questionnaires were to be returned by
June 8, 1971.
It was possible to determine who had needed cards
sent since all questionnaires were coded by name and depart
ment. A master list matching names with numbers was made.
Another list consisted of addresses. As a questionnaire was
returned, the name was checked on the master list and
address list. At the end of the two weeks, the master lists
were destroyed to insure anonymity of respondents. During
i -
the time span, and after the time limit, 14 students con
tacted the experimenter by phone or by mail to indicate
that they had received a card reminding them to complete the
questionnaire but had not received the questionnaire itself.
Questionnaires were returned in time by six of these stu
dents. Two students called to ask to be included in the
sample as they felt they should have been included in the
97
samDle (they learned of the study in a social science meth
odology class). These two students were also provided with
questionnaires.
Four faculty members and four students from each of
|the general areas of humanities, social science, engineer-
!
jing, and agriculture were selected from each college. These
16 students and 16 faculty members were randomly selected.
The names of all faculty members and majors at each school
in each area were listed numerically. The random table of
numbers was used to select these subjects. Each subject was
contacted for an appointment for an interview. All subjects
selected agreed to be interviewed. Three faculty members
and two students who did not complete the questionnaire were:
i
!among those interviewed. Interviews lasted from one hour to
1
two and one-half hours, depending upon the time the respond
ent discussed each topic. Each subject was asked to provide
some personal data, which included occupational background;
age and rank for faculty members; political orientation of
self, department, and college; religious orientation; and
educational and personal aspirations. They were asked to
i
t
discuss their views on nine topics. Each topic was intro-
jduced with: "What do you think about . . .?" The subjects
jwere asked to discuss (1) the general atmosphere of the
98
college, (2) the control of the college, (3) academic free
dom at the college, (4) emphasis on research and publication
at the college, (5) student activism, (6) American society
today, (7) the drug culture and the use of drugs, (8)
jminority group rights and problems, and (9) the Vietnam
jwar. The responses to these items were recorded during the
I
]interviews.
Data Processing and Analysis
The questionnaire data were treated by the use of
the Chi Square test since the data could be placed on inter
val scales. The data were programmed and analyzed at the
i
computer facilities at the University of Southern Califor
nia. The computer program SPSS (Statistical Package for
i
|the Social Sciences) was used for the Chi Square analysis.
i
The distribution of scores by percentages was also obtained
for each item for the LCA faculty, the CCA faculty, the LCA
students, and the CCA students.
Upon analyzing the data, it was decided to collapse
the data into agree-disagree choices on those items based
on the Likert scales of "most to least agree." The original
I plan was to analyze the data by general group areas (aca
demic, social, political) with specific items being dis
cussed only to provide examples. This was not possible,
99
however, since there was not consistency among the five
faculty raters who attempted to group the data.
Because of the differences in sample sizes, an
attempt was made to equate the groups statistically. Sev
eral random groupings were analyzed. No significant differ
ences were observed in any of the computer runs, so it was
i
decided to use the total population within the study.
Limitations
The major limitation of this study is sampling bias.
Although this is a problem in all surveys, it is accentuatec
in this study in that only 35 percent of the LCA faculty
i
(members returned their questionnaires. Between 50 and 54
I
jpercent of the other three groups returned questionnaires
Ithat could be used in the study.
A study on nonresponse bias, using the Carnegie
Study, indicated that there were no major differences
between the achieved sample and criterion sample on rank,
appointment, or field of highest degree. The only differ
ence appeared to be in the distribution of higher degrees,
jwith overrepresentation of Ph.D.s and research-oriented
<
!
;f acuity responding to the questionnaire. Although one might
lexpect a greater nonresponse rate from among the politically
left, the study found little difference between the group
100
that responded and the one that did not. It was therefore
concluded that for the Carnegie Study "there is no apparent
difference between the two samples that might indicate that
the respondents to the faculty survey are significantly
different from the nonrespondents" (Trow, 1975, pp. 345-
348). It is possible that the same is true for this study.
i
The limited sample of LCA faculty also created a
second problem within the study. It was not possible to
analyze some items statistically because of an insufficient
number of responses in certain cells. This meant that it
was necessary to discuss many of the data in less precise
ways, such as mean percentage scores and mean differences.
CHAPTER IV
!
: PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
1
i
i
|
This chapter is concerned with reporting the sta
tistical and descriptive findings of the study and discuss
ing the findings. The data comparing (1) the LCA faculty
group with the CCA faculty group, (2) the LCA student group
with the CCA student group, (3) the LCA student group with
the LCA faculty group, and (4) the CCA student group with
the CCA faculty group will be presented and discussed.
Results of the Comparison of LCA
and CCA Faculty Members
S tatistically
{ significant data
The responses of the LCA and CCA faculty members on
the total questionnaire differ at a statistically signifi
cant level on 24 items. Five items relate to differences in
the sample, four to educational concerns, eight to student
i
|and faculty activism, and seven to social issues. One item
i
i
i
! 101______________________________
1021
is significant at the .001 level, 11 at the .01 level, eighti
at the .02 level, and four at the .05 level. Seventy-five
percent of the items are differences in direction of agree- j
I i
jment (the majority of one group agrees with the item and j
ithe majority of the other group disagrees). :
! i
i ■
i
Sample.— It is important to note that there are no
statistically significant differences regarding any of the <
characteristics that could have been confounding variables
■ i
(i.e., religion, age, rank, etc.). Political orientation is
undoubtedly a difference, but the variable could not be !
analyzed statistically since only one LCA subject labeled j
himself as conservative (A,B:79 [in this chapter, this
designates Appendix and item number]). This variable will
be discussed under nonstatistical data. Forty-three percent
i
more LCA than CCA faculty members were members of student
political clubs or groups, and 28 percent more socialized !
i
i
with departmental members half of the time or more (A-C: ;
115, 190). Thirty-two percent more LCA than CCA faculty ;
i
members indicated that a man’s teaching and research in- !
variably reflect his political values (A-C:84). Whereas 80 !
i
[percent of the CCA faculty indicated that striving for |
i
occupational success would not require them to compromise |
important ethical principles, the LCA faculty was definitely
• j
split. Twenty-seven percent felt that compromise might be
103
necessary, 27 percent disagreed, and 23 percent omitted the
item (A-C:34). Although the majority of both groups was
satisfied with the academic reputation of the college, 30
percent more CCA faculty members were very satisfied and
40 percent more LCA faculty members were dissatisfied (A-C:
1). Each of these variables could reflect upon one's views
i
i
Ion support of student activism.
Student activism.— Attitudes relative to student
and faculty activism differed markedly. The LCA faculty
consistently supported student activism on all statistically
significant items. The majority of LCA faculty members
[approved of the emergence of radical student activism. The
i
I
majority of CCA members disapproved, with 21 percent more
CCA than LCA faculty members disapproving without reserva
tions (A,B:123). About 30 percent more CCA than LCA faculty
members indicated that (1) most college officials have been
too lax in dealing with student protests on campus, (2)
students who disrupt the functioning of a college should be
expelled or suspended, (3) most campus demonstrations are
created by far left groups trying to cause trouble, and (4)
[faculty unions have a divisive effect on academic life (A-C:
j97, 95, 90, 104). At least 30 percent more LCA than CCA
[faculty members agreed that students and faculty members____
104
should be more militant in defending their interests (A-C:
94, 103). This is behaviorally expressed in that 30 percent
more LCA than CCA faculty members had been involved in a
student demonstration (A-C:132).
Social issues.— The issues on which the faculty
groups differ concern civil liberties and minority rights,
use of marijuana, and the military-industrial relationship
with the college. The majority of CCA faculty members
agreed while the majority of the LCA faculty disagreed that
there is too much concern in the courts for the rights of
criminals and that these days you hear too much about the
i
rights of minorities and not enough about the rights of the *
(majority (A-C:155, 167). The majority of the LCA faculty
Jagreed while the majority of the CCA faculty disagreed that
i
(1) capital punishment should be abolished, (2) racial
integration of the public elementary schools should be
achieved even if it requires busing, and (3) marijuana
should be legalized (A-C:156, 174, 152). On the issue of
student suspensions because of the use of marijuana, the
i
jCCA faculty members were split evenly, with 28 percent each
i
jstrongly agreeing, agreeing with reservations, and disagree
ing with reservations, whereas the greatest percentage (46
percent) of the LCA faculty strongly disagreed with
105
suspending or dismissing marijuana users (A-C:151). The
LCA faculty members were split in regard to colleges and
universities severing all ties with the military-industrial
jcomplex, whereas 80 percent of the CCA opposed this concept
i(A-C:176).
i
i
i
Summary.— Thus one finds that the LCA faculty was
consistently more liberal than the CCA faculty in its re
sponses, and more supportive of student activism and civil
liberties in general.
Nonstatistical data
Although only 24 items on the total questionnaire
i
were statistically significant based on Chi Square analysis,
marked differences were evident on items that could not be
i
i
jtreated because of the limited number of LCA faculty mem
bers who responded to the questionnaire. Many items could
not be computed statistically because of insufficient cases.
An apparent significant difference was assumed when there
was at least a 30 percent difference in response on agree-
disagree items. This is comparable to the difference at the
.05 level of significance using a Chi Square analysis. Cut
off scores for three- and five-choice responses correspond
to the .05 level of significance also. The differences in
106
the percentage of responses by the two groups indicated that:
there were significant differences on 42 items. Six items
related to differences in characteristics and interests of
the sample, 10 items to educational concerns, 23 to student
lactivism, and three to social issues.
i
i
i
i Sample.— Differences in the two groups were evident
in political and academic orientations. Although approxi
mately one-fourth of each group considered themselves to be
middle-of-the-road politically, the LCA faculty consistently
considered themselves to be more liberal than did the CCA
faculty. Thirty-six percent more LCA than CCA faculty mem-
i
I
bers considered themselves to be liberal or left politi- |
cally, and 41 percent more CCA than LCA faculty members
Iregarded themselves as moderately or strongly conservative
(A,B:79). Most LCA faculty members labeled their friends
as liberals, whereas most CCA faculty members labeled their
jfriends as conservatives (A,B:81). The majority of both
i
jgroups indicated that their parents were conservative, but
I
l
jthe percentage was greater for CCA faculty; and 21 percent
j
jmore CCA faculty members indicated that their parents were
istrongly conservative (A,B:80).
Members of the LCA faculty tended to be more con
cerned with intellectual pursuits and considerations than
107
CCA faculty members. Eighty-two percent of the LCA faculty
members planned to earn doctorates. This is 30 percent more
than in the CCA group (B:192). No LCA faculty member indi
cated that "intellectual" was very descriptive of the cam-
jpus , and 35 percent more LCA than CCA faculty members indi-
i"
icated that it was "not at all descriptive" of the school
i
i ( A , B : 9 ) .
Activism.— The apparent differences of the faculty
primarily concerned the aims, methods, and values of student
activism. At least 30 percent more LCA than CCA faculty
members agreed that (1) hippies represent an important
criticism of American culture, (2) student demonstrations *
Lave a place on a college campus, (3) the Chicago police did
i
■not act reasonably in curbing the demonstrations at the
Democratic National Convention, (4) collective bargaining
by faculty members has a place in a college or university,
land (5) a strike would be a legitimate means of collective
i
jaction for faculty members (A,B:88, 89, 93, 105, 106). The
majority of both groups felt that student demonstrations
i
I
;had no effects except on their views of the administration
i
land the community's relation to the college, but a larger
j
percentage of CCA than LCA faculty members indicated this
[belief. Significant differences between the two groups were
108
evident only in regard to the effects of demonstrations on
teaching or learning and relationships with students. Al
though at least 50 percent of both groups indicated that
there were no effects from demonstrations, 23 percent of
i
I
the LCA faculty members indicated favorable effects regard
ing teaching and learning, and 18 percent regarding faculty-
student relationships. These percentages are not high, but
they are the areas with most favorable effects (A,B:142,
145, 146). The LCA faculty was consistently more supportive
of the aims and methods of student demonstrators in Washing
ton, D.C., at Kent State, and during the Days of Concern.
The largest percentage of LCA faculty generally approved of
the aims but not the methods used. These respondents were
the most ambivalent regarding the Days of Concern in May
1970. Over half of the sample either did not answer (36
ipercent) or had uncertain, mixed, or indifferent feelings
j (23 percent) . The largest percentage of CCA faculty members
|
consistently disapproved of the aims and methods of student
i
demonstrators, but the next largest group approved of the
jdemons trators ' aims but not-their methods (A,B:124-126) .
j Thus the LCA faculty was consistently more suppor-
i
tive of student activism, but was more ambivalent or unwill
ing to respond to the issues in specific demonstrations.
109!
Although these respondents generally indicated no personal
effects based on student demonstrations, they were inclined
to find more favorable effects than the CCA faculty. |
i j
i Social problems.— Only three items in the area of
i ' i
jracial problems appeared to have significantly different >
jresponses. At least 20 percent more LCA than CCA faculty |
i
members felt that American colleges were racist, were more j
supportive of establishing Black Studies programs, and |
j
favored lowering academic standards to admit minority groups
i
i
(A,B:168, 170, 171). The second issue concerns the Vietnam i
war and communism. The largest percentage of LCA faculty
(46 percent) favored immediate withdrawal from Vietnam.
Although 28 percent of the CCA faculty favored reduction of
i !
i
involvement, insuring a prevention of a Communist takeover, |
!
the next largest response of 26 percent was for immediate
withdrawal (A,B:182). All (90 percent) of the LCA faculty j
t
members who responded felt that Communist China should be i
I I
Irecognized immediately by the United States, whereas only
j58 percent of the CCA faculty agreed (A,B:130). The third !
!
issue concerns poverty groups. Sixty-six percent of the CCA
faculty agreed while 73 percent of the LCA faculty disagreed
I
iwith the statement that most people who live in poverty
!
could do something about it if they really wanted to do so
(A,B:158). Although there were not many differences in
110 i
views on social issues, these three issues were representa- j
tive of the issues of greatest concern during this era. '
Summary.— The nonstatistical data indicate that the
LCA faculty members were more liberal in their political
orientation and the CCA faculty members were more conserva
tive. The LCA faculty members were more concerned with
intellectual concerns, more supportive of student activism,
and more liberal on social concerns.
Interview data
Eight LCA faculty members and eight CCA faculty 1
members were interviewed. Each person provided personal I
data and views on the educational environment, student
jactivism, conditions in America, the drug culture and use
of drugs, minority group problems, and the Vietnam war.
The LCA faculty.— The background of the LCA faculty i
I
members was particularly interesting. On^y three of the j
|faculty had been teachers throughout their careers. Two !
i i
men were retired military officers, one sociologist was :
1
retired from diplomatic service and was supportive of Nixon-;
!
ian politics, one man was in banking and planned to return
to the business world upon completion of his Ph.D., one man
had been in school administration for over 20 years, and one
man defined himself as a "gentleman farmer who teaches.”
111!
i
One man labeled himself a conservative, two regarded
i
!
themselves as middle-of-the-road, and the rest called them- 1
selves liberals. Almost all of the men regarded the school
as conservative but their departments as moderately liberal
jto liberal. The two men who consistently gave the most
i
(liberal responses labeled the school and their departments :
! " j
jas ultraconservative. Two of the men were agnostics, one |
i ;
was Catholic, and the rest were Protestants. j
I
Only one man was displeased with the general atmos- I
phere of the school; all eight of them indicated that the ■
f
students were of poor academic quality. Descriptions of ’
students included "Students range from illiterate to very '
capable" and "Students are dull and unimaginative." All of 1
i
the men discussed the need for intellectual pursuits. No i
j i
one felt that there was any pressure to publish or do re- ;
search, but six men felt that one should "participate in !
search and research" to be effective. Three men expressed
concern over the lack of professional scholarship at the j
school. Three of the nontenured men felt concern regarding
academic freedom. They felt restricted in what they could '
jexpress to students, faculty, and administration. The
responses on student activism ranged from "It's a marvelous
thing" to "I'm empathetically for it but from a distance"
to "It stinks." In general, though, there was support of
112
student activism. Only two men discussed student activism
in negative terms. The rest of the faculty discussed both
the positive and negative aspects, but generally stressed
|that which was positive.
| The majority of the men were highly critical of
t
[
jAmerican society. They agreed that "America is in trouble"
and therefore felt that changes were necessary. They
favored "students taking an active part in political change
through recognized methods,” and "involvement but not vio
lence or disruption." The majority of the men felt that one
i
|of the problems in today's society was the drug culture.
I
Only one man discussed positive aspects of the drug culture.
He and one other man supported the use of marijuana. The
other eight members were adamantly opposed to the use of
jdrugs in any form, but surprisingly, three of them were
willing to support the legalization of marijuana.
The men were much more supportive of minority group
rights and problems. Most indicated a need to make changes
in these areas. Most expressed a stronger commitment to
making societal changes than institutional (academic)
jchanges. Six men felt that they could support busing if
jcertain conditions existed, but only two could support low-
I
i
|ering academic standards for minority group faculty or
113
students. These views are in agreement with the statistical
data. Although 55 percent of the LCA faculty members sup
ported busing, only 32 percent did not. While 59 percent
of the LCA faculty supported black control of schools with
i
j de facto segregation, only 32 percent supported black con-
i
jtrol in special college programs for the blacks or lowering
;the academic standards to admit minority group students.
They were most opposed to lowering standards for minority
group faculty members; only 14 percent of the LCA faculty
could support this. Although these percentages are not
high, they are consistently higher than those of the CCA
I
(faculty group. The interesting point, though, in terms of
i
jthe interviews, is that every man provided alternative ways
'to meet the needs of minorities or to raise their academic
i
level to meet the present standard. All were also extremely
supportive of educational opportunity programs.
The area of greatest consistency was the position on
the Vietnam war. Although two men indicated that they had
been hawks, all 10 men presently supported withdrawal of
forces either immediately or as soon as possible.
|
j The CCA faculty.— Almost everyone in the CCA area
regarded himself, his department, and the school as conser-
jvative. One man labeled himself middle-of-the-road compared
_1
to his department. He was "a Ooldwater man politically,”
but his positions were among the most supportive of student
activism and the most liberal on social issues. For exam
ple, he was the only person who supported legalization of
jmarijuana. One faculty member in engineering indicated
i
[that his department was moving to the left: ”We are more
liberal . . . You'll even see some students with long hair
and mod clothes.”
The CCA faculty differed markedly on the academic
quality of the program. Two men felt the quality was low,
three felt it was high; the rest felt it was comparable to
other schools. None of the men felt that research was
!stressed. Three felt that it should be emphasized more,
jbut the college did not push research because of lack of
!
[funds . One man felt that scholars should go elsewhere to
teach as more applied knowledge is needed. "We have enough
theory, and the world isn't a hell of a lot better off.”
One tenured and one nontenured man indicated that they did
not feel free to express their views. Another stated that
the problem of academic freedom was "hogwash. Some people
jjust don't know when to shut up and then they make the
jsituation worse for us.” He and most of the other men felt
I
'that those are "the kinds of people who bring outside
115
control on the school.” These six men were therefore
totally opposed to student activism and the drug culture.
Responses ranged from ’’they're trying to force solutions toe
fast” to "they’re wrecking higher education" to:
t
I
j I’m against long hair and I take a dim view of radicals . . .
I You’ll find no long hairs in my classes. . . . Communists want
[ anything in the way of unrest. They implant unrest. Long
I hairs are dupes of the Communists and I’m dead set against it.
. . . Variation in dress is OK but this minority of trouble
makers wear outlandish costumes to be noticed. They go to
extremes with their bare feet, dirty clothes and long, dirty
hair . . .
Although most of the CCA faculty members were also critical
of today’s society, they tended to place the blame on stu-
!
dent unrest.
j All of these men opposed lowering standards for
minority group faculty or students. Most felt that minority
group people who were willing to work hard could "pull
ithemselves up by their bootstraps." The social concern
I
involving the most variance, however, was the Vietnam war.
Views varied from having a moral obligation to defend Viet
nam to having a moral obligation not to be involved. In
terms of present alternatives, the views split, although
i
imost supported Nixon’s Vietnamization program. One man,
i
i
who was a career officer and taught ROTC part-time else
where, felt that we "should have taken care of it faster.
116
Naturally, we would have killed a lot of the enemy, but
that's all they understand." He was one of three faculty
members who had changed their view from total commitment to
Vietnamization within the last year. Mo one in this group
[supported total commitment at this time.
I
Thus, it is evident that the attitudes of the LCA
and CCA faculty are markedly different. The differences
were most evident in regard to student activism. Although
both groups were concerned about today's society, the CCA
faculty members felt that student activism was the cause of
today's problems, whereas the LCA faculty felt that student
activism might be the cure for today's problems.
I
I
i
Summary and conclusions
Only 24 of the items differ at a statistically
significant level. An additional 42 items that could not
jbe computed statistically by Chi Square analysis appear to
jbe significant. The area involving the largest number of
jdifferences among faculty members is student activism.
Jxhere are differences on 31 items concerning student acti-
i
Jvism, 14 concerning educational issues, and 10 concerning
Isocial issues. Throughout the study, the LCA faculty was
j
more supportive of student activism and more liberal in its
responses than the CCA faculty. These findings were totally
117
consistent with individual responses in interviews with 16
faculty members. On the basis of these findings, the
hypothesis that there will be no significant difference in
attitudes relating to sociopolitical ideology and student
jactivism between faculty members in liberal and conservative
t
jcurricular areas must be rejected.
!
Discussion of the Findings for
LCA and CCA Faculty Members
Two general conclusions can be drawn from the data.
First, the data totally support all of the other research
jindicating the dichotomy in attitudes of faculty members in
I
i
jthe social sciences and humanities as compared to the
faculty members in engineering and agriculture. Second,
the data support the Carnegie assessment of the school as
a medium-quality school in terms of the attitudinal posi
tions and interests of the faculty.
The data totally support the assumption that the
i
jCCA faculty members are more conservative and the LCA
i
i
jfaculty members are more liberal in their sociopolitical
|attitudes. Although both groups indicated that the greatest
i
i
percentage of students and faculty were middle-of-the-road,
I
I
64 percent of the LCA faculty members considered themselves
to be left-liberal and 46 percent of the CCA faculty members
118
considered themselves to be conservative (A,B:79, 82, 83).
Those faculty members who were interviewed also supported
the position that the LCA departments were liberal and the
CCA departments were conservative. This difference is par
ticularly important since there are no confounding variables
1
1
jsuch as age or religion within the study. The individual
!
I
responses throughout the total questionnaire are consistent
with this position on all except four items. The differ
ences on these four items are slight (no more than 5 per
cent) (A,B:29, 59, 149, 157). In comparing the responses
with the average percentage of medium-quality schools in
the Carnegie Study, a greater percentage of the LCA faculty j
responded to the left, whereas the CCA faculty responded to
the right on all except 10 items (A,B,D:2, 29, 33, 63, 87,
101, 102, 171, 172, 173). Interestingly, five of these
items relate to student activism and three relate to minor
ity group issues. In each case the medium-quality school
faculty was more liberal in its responses than the LCA
faculty. The data are also consistent with the results of
the total Carnegie sample. Thus, the data support the con-
i
elusion of Ladd and Lipset (1975b, p. 40) that there is "an
underlying ideological perspective among academics which
allows them to organize a diverse set of issues.1 1
119
The data almost perfectly fit the Liberalism-
Conservatism Scale and the Campus Activism Scales that were
constructed by Ladd and Lipset. A factor analysis and
orthogonal rotation were performed on the Carnegie data to
I
{determine items that represented a single dimension. Posi-
jtion on the Vietnam war, legalization of marijuana, causes
i
I
jof Negro riots, busing for integration, and one's self
appraisal of political orientation were the bases of the
Liberalism-Conservatism Scale (Ladd & Lipset, 1975b, p. 40).
Four out of five of the items on the Liberalism-
Conservatism Scale are statistically significant in this
study (A-C:79, 152, 174, 182). Although there is no sta
tistically significant difference on the item indicating
!
I
'that "the main cause of Negro riots in cities is white
jracism," the LCA faculty members were more supportive in
iextent and degree than the CCA faculty members (B:174).
The Campus Activist Scale included statements generally
{evaluating student activism and prescribing appropriate
f
I
Jresponses to demonstrations (Ladd 6c Lipset, 1975b, p. 40).
jlhree out of four of the items used in the Campus Activist
jScale are statistically significant in this study, and the
* «
jfourth is apparently significant (A-C:90, 93, 95, 123).
I
iLadd and Lipset found the correlation (.69) of the Liberal-
120
Conservative and Campus Activism scales to be "exception
ally high." Those faculty members most liberal-left in
national affairs tended to be most supportive of student
protests and demonstrations (Ladd & Lipset, 1975b, p. 43).
! These data also substantiate the linkage of intel
lectual concerns with liberality (Ladd & Lipset, 1975b, p.
i
'xi) . The LCA faculty's greater leaning toward intellectual
endeavors can be noted by differences in striving for ad
vanced degrees. All of the LCA faculty members planned to
earn at least a master's degree, with 82 percent planning
to earn a doctorate, compared to 52 percent of the CCA
faculty members who planned to earn a doctorate (A,B:192).
Although both groups are primarily teaching-oriented, the
LCA faculty members are more research-oriented and
publication-oriented than the CCA faculty. One reason why
the LCA faculty may be less teaching-oriented than the CCA
faculty is the difference in class sizes. Ninety percent
of the CCA faculty members compared to 32 percent of the
LCA faculty members have class loads of under 100 (B:197).
Only 74 percent of the Carnegie sample had teaching loads
of under 100, but more had teaching loads of under 50 than
I
in this sample (36 percent Carnegie, 28 percent CCA, and
5 percent LCA) (B,C:197).
121
The LCA faculty was also more critical of higher
education in fulfilling intellectual needs (A,B:36-39), and
more prone to feel that most colleges reward conformity and
crush creativity (A-C:42). Their concern about intellectual
lemphasis was also reflected in the differences in feelings
about the intellectual atmosphere of the college. No LCA
faculty member indicated that "intellectual” or "liberal"
was very descriptive of the school. Only 2 percent of the
CCA faculty indicated that "liberal" was very descriptive
and only 12 percent indicated that "intellectual" was de
scriptive (A,B:9, 16). It is therefore not surprising that
i
i
the majority of both groups indicated that most of the stu- |
dents were not of a very high caliber academically and did
not engage in keen competition for high grades (A,B:18, 19).
It is surprising, though, that there would be the marked
difference in response regarding the academic reputation of
;the school. Although only 5 percent of the LCA faculty
i
|members were very satisfied and 45 percent were dissatisfied
|With the college’s academic reputation, 34 percent of the
JCCA faculty members were very satisfied and only 10 percent
,were dissatisfied with its academic reputation (A-C:l.).
i
|0ne reason for this may be that the school has traditionally
been practically oriented with an emphasis on engineering
- - 1 2 -2 1
and agriculture and thus has developed a reputation for
!
strength in these areas, whereas the liberal arts area is 1
I
just beginning to be developed and strengthened. Thus, the 1
jattitudinal aspects of the LCA faculty correspond to the
‘ intellectual-liberal orientation found in the Carnegie Study
\ (
!
j (Ladd 6c Lipset, 1975b, pp. xi, 161). 1
i ;
i '
The second conclusion supports the assessment of I
the school as a medium-quality school based upon the char
acteristics and attitudes of the faculty. In essence, this
I
I
*
conclusion is one of the reasons why the results of the i
study are not more polarized. Although differences are !
evident, the range of responses on issues is not comparable
to that of the Carnegie Study. Illustrative of this point
jis the self-assessment of political orientation. Sixty-four
jpercent of the LCA faculty, 37 percent of the medium-quality
i >
school total faculty, and 26 percent of the CCA faculty mem-|
bers labeled themselves as left or liberal (B,D:79). Of the
total Carnegie Study sample, 72 percent of the social sci- 1
ence and humanities faculty, 47 percent of all fields, and
i
1 26 percent of the engineering and agriculture faculty rnera-
i I
i ;
[bers called themselves left or liberal (Ladd & Lipset, 1975b,*'
i !
p. 369). It is evident that the medium-quality schools j
have fewer faculty members who ddem themselves liberal;
123
thus, these institutions are probably less liberal.
Many of the data in this study support the position
that the school does not have the characteristics of a
high-quality school that would be more liberal. As already
I
I
jindicated, the faculty did not feel that the campus was very
jintellectually or liberally oriented (A,B:1, 7, 16, 18, 19).
In fact, the largest percentage (over 77 percent) of both
i
I
faculty groups indicated that "practical" was indeed very
descriptive of the school (A,B:18). The school is defi
nitely teaching- rather than research-oriented. There is
almost no need to publish to obtain tenure or promotion
(A,B:56, 58). This was confirmed by all 16 faculty members I
j
|Who were interviewed. In fact, one LCA faculty member indi-
I
'cated that "up to six years ago, if you were working on
I
I
research, you were likely not to get promoted. They wanted
teachers, not scholars."
The recruiting and selection processes reinforce
these values, both in terms of who is initially hired and
the socialization process after the hiring. The fact that
there is a lower percentage of blacks (0 compared to 5 per
cent) and Jews (9 percent compared to 23 percent) in the
LCA sample than in the social science and humanities depart
ments in the Carnegie Study affects the extent of liberalism
124
and support for student activism (Ladd & Lipset, 1975b,
p. 88) (A,B:185, 187). Another important factor is the
limited number of radicals in this sample. In the medium-
quality schools, 4.2 percent of the faculty members indicate
|that they are left (radical) politically. Only 4.5 percent
I
•of the LCA sample are left. Thus, the percentage of radi-
I
cals in the LCA sample is less than one would expect (A,B,
D:79). It is evident that those persons who would be prone
to be most liberal are not represented to the extent one
would expect. This would naturally affect the degree and
extent of support for student activism and social change.
The background of the faculty members who were interviewed
also lends support to the fact that those people who are
f
j
jhired are generally far from radical.
I
| Once hired, faculty members are socialized and rein-
i
forced to fit the mold of their department. Thus a radical
might become less radical within the present department
since there is more social interaction and involvement in
political organizations among the LCA faculty than in the
CCA faculty (A-C:79, 81, 190). The fact that the LCA
faculty members have more social interaction concerning
student activism and social change may be one reason why
they reported the highest percentage of harmful effects of
125
student demonstrations on their relations with others within
their departments and in other departments (A,B:143, 144).
Although there was more support of student activism
i
'among LCA faculty members than among CCA faculty members,
I
Ithey were not as supportive as faculties at high-quality
jschools (Ladd & Lipset, 1975b, p. 144). This was also the
area in which the LCA faculty was more often conservative
in comparison to the total faculty response at medium-
quality schools (B,D:29, 87, 98, 101, 102). The area of
jstudent activism is interesting in terms of the acknowledgec.
[support of the LCA faculty. The LCA faculty members were
I
;consistently more involved in campus and community demon
strations (A,B:127-140). They were most actively involved
in demonstrations against the school’s administrative poli
cies and observed demonstrations against racial or ethnic
policies and United States military policy (A,B:133-140).
Thirteen percent of the LCA faculty members indicated that
they helped plan, organize, or lead the protest; another 19
percent indicated some kind of participation. This is in
teresting in that 55 percent of the LCA faculty members
indicated that they were not involved. Thus, 13 percent of
I
the faculty did not respond— even when the choice was no
involvement (A,B:127-132). It is noteworthy that between
126
18 and 23 percent of the LCA faculty as compared to between
8 and 14 percent of the CCA faculty omitted answers to all
questions pertaining to involvement in any of the kinds of
demonstrations that were specifically listed (A,B:133-140).
The percentage of omissions on items related to student
activism is the largest in the study (A,C:124-126, 133-140).
i
There are undoubtedly many reasons why a faculty
member might be unwilling to identify his beliefs and val
ues . Inasmuch as there were a number of omissions in regarc.
to involvement in demonstrations and student activism and a
high percentage of LCA faculty did not return the question
naire, these factors must be considered. It is possible
that the conservative orientation of the school and adminis
tration could cause some people to be unwilling to commit
themselves on a college-sanctioned study since there could
be negative repercussions. Three of the most liberal LCA
faculty members who were interviewed indicated this as a
i
i
;factor. Two of them did not complete the written question
naire but were willing to spend two hours in an interview.
;The most liberal CCA faculty member interviewed asked to
1
have his questionnaire returned to him after the data were
jtabulated since "these things have a funny way of ending up
!
in personnel files."
127
All four of these men felt that their departments
and the administration were conservative, whereas they
themselves were liberal. Each spoke of the difficulty of
’being a liberal in a conservative school and how much easier
|and more acceptable it was to be more conservative than
!
one's colleagues rather than more liberal. Each was con
cerned about job security. One faculty member stated:
People in the social sciences are continually on the firing
line. Your courses continually make you take positions on
issues better not discussed at this school. Either you are
I dishonest with your students or you set yourself up to alien
ate the department and administration and get yourself screwed.
Another man stated:
i
i
I
! People in the liberal arts are less apt to express their views
because they are more far-out . . . conservatives don't care
because their job isn't on the line with every view that they
take in a class discussion.
i
Their concern may be part of the reason why 55 percent of
'the LCA faculty members either felt that striving for occu-
i
Jpational success would require them to compromise important
i
ethical principles or were unwilling or unable to respond
to the question, whereas 80 percent of the CCA faculty indi-
i
I
jcated that this would not be a problem (A,B:34). The con-
f
cern for job security was also reflected in the data in that
35 percent more LCA than CCA faculty members indicated that
a man's teaching and research inevitably reflect his________
128
political values (A-C:84). It is apparently believed that
a man's politics can affect his chances for retention or
promotion, since no faculty member indicated that he was
sure that there had not been such a case in the preceding
'two-year period. In the medium-quality schools, 12 percent
|were sure that this was not possible. In fact, over 30
i
percent of both groups knew of or had heard of a case in
the past two years. This was 10 percent more than in the
medium-quality school sample (A-D-.107).
There are other possible reasons why the return rate
for LCA members was low. The proximity in time to final
i
I examinations may have been a factor. Several faculty mem
bers commented that they would complete the questionnaire
after they finished the last-minute grading of term papers
and essay exams. Most of these people did not complete the
questionnaire. Another factor that may have affected the
return rate by more radical or left-oriented faculty members
is discussed by Trow:
There are reasons to expect the nonresponse rate among
the left to be somewhat high. Research focused specifically
i on activists on the left is frequently condemned in radical
! literature; research itself is often the target for much debate
! and sometimes demonstration. (1971, p. 5 7)
I
I
Thus, participating in a survey, particularly one sanctioned
by the administration concerning attitudes and involvement
129
in activism, would probably not be a positive experience
for most radicals.
In summary, one can conclude that there are defi
nitely differences in sociopolitical attitudes, and atti
tudes and behavior concerning student activism among members
of the CCA and LCA faculties. These differences were sup
ported by the statistical data and the subjective data
jobtained by interviews.
Results of the Comparison of
LCA and CCA Students
Statistically
(significant data
t
i
The comparison of responses by students representing
the most conservative (CCA) and most liberal (LCA) curricu
lar areas provides the largest number of statistically sig
nificant differences. One hundred forty (61 percent) of
the items are significant at or beyond the .05 level of
significance. Of the 227 items on the survey, 19 are sig
nificant at the .05 level, nine at the .02 level, 29 at the
.01 level, and 80 at the .001 level. There are 25 statis
tically significant items concerning the sample, 66 concern
ing education issues, 35 concerning student activism, and
14 concerning sociopolitical issues. In most instances
130
(over 70 percent), both groups of students responded simi
larly in terms of direction (i.e., agreeing or disagreeing
with the statement) but differed in the extent of differ
ences (distribution of percentages within the cells of
"with reservations" or "strongly agree or disagree").
Sample.— The 25 statistically significant items are
within the areas of socioeconomic level, religious affilia
tions , political orientations, career decisions, and activ
ities and interests. Nine of the items are statistically
significant at the .02 or .05 levels, four at the .01 level,
and 12 at the .001 level. The items that are significant
at the .001 level relate to differences in views on politi
cal leanings, changes in major or career plans, and kinds
i
i
tof activities the students are interested in or in which
i
they participate.
It is possible that more LCA students come from
lower socioeconomic backgrounds since 10 percent of the LCA
students as compared to 2 percent of the CCA students have
participated in a program for disadvantaged students (A,B:
i
■200). It is interesting to note that only one minority
jgroup member in this study participated in a program for
|the disadvantaged (A,B:187, 192). In terms of religious
affiliation, 15 percent more CCA students than LCA students
131
are Protestant, 16 percent more are conservative in their
religious beliefs, and 13 percent fewer have no religious
affiliation (A-C:185, 186).
The largest percentage of LCA students regard them-
i
jselves, their friends, and most professors at the college
i
i
|as liberal in political leaning. The LCA students are
i
divided in regard to labeling most students at the college
(42 percent labeled most students as middle-of-the-road and
37 percent labeled them as moderately conservative). At
least 10 percent more CCA than LCA students regarded them
selves, their friends, and most students at the college as
middle-of-the-road, although they felt that most professors
were moderately conservative. The largest percentage of
both groups, though, labeled their parents as moderately
conservative. A larger percentage of LCA students than of
CCA students labeled their parents as liberal or middle-
of-the-road, however (A-C:79-83).
The variety of interests and involvement in activi
ties provides another basis for differences between the two
groups. Almost one-fourth more LCA students than CCA stu
dents have changed their long-term career plans and one-
third more have changed their majors (A-C-.193, 194). Sta
tistically significant differences are also found on every
132
item relating to the kinds of activities in which students
have participated, with the exception of working in the
Peace Corps or Vista. Although the majority of both groups
had not participated in the listed activities, a greater
percentage of LCA students had consistently done so (A-C:
109-115, 199). Statistically significant differences are
also found in the kinds of activities that students would
like to do if they had not already done so (A-C:116-122).
Although most LCA students indicated that they would like
to work in the Peace Corps or Vista or tutor minority
jchildren, the CCA students were rather evenly split regard-
i
ing a desire to participate in these activities (A-C:116,
F
117). Most LCA students indicated that they would like to
participate in an encounter group, work in the community to
organize social action, or work in a political campaign,
whereas most CCA students would not like to do so (A-C:118,
119, 121). Although CCA students were less interested, few
students from either group were interested in working as a
hospital volunteer or in being a member of a student politi
cal club. In terms of interest, working as a hospital
volunteer is the only item on which there is no statisti
cally significant difference (A-C:120, 122). Although both
groups indicated that they were very much interested in
133
national politics, 20 percent more LCA students were
strongly committed to this interest (A-C:86).
Educational aspects.— There are 66 statistically
isignificant items relating to the areas of campus environ-
I
i
|ment, ways of improving undergraduate education, objectives
!
jand outcomes of higher education, roles and functions of
i
i
ihigher education, decision-making at the college level, and
racial concerns and issues in education. Inasmuch as the
roles and functions of higher education, decision making,
and racial issues are related to student activism, these
areas will be discussed.
i
There are eight statistically significant items |
related to the role and functions of higher education. Of
jthese, two are statistically significant at the .001 level,
two at the .01 level, one at the .02 level, and three at the
.05 level. Both groups responded similarly in direction but
differently in extent of agreement on five items. Each
group was split on its response to one item. There was only
one item that involved a difference in direction.
Both student groups agreed that public colleges and
universities must be more responsive to public demands than
are private institutions, although CCA students agreed to a
greater extent (A-C:35). Both groups disagreed with the
134
statements that their ’'field is too research-oriented’1 and
that "genuine scholarship is threatened in universities by
the proliferation of big research centers," but a greater
percentage of CCA students disagreed (A-C:50, 52). Both
jgroups agreed that the concentration of federal and founda-
i
tion research grants in the big institutions contributed
substantially to the advancement of knowledge but a larger
percentage of CCA students agreed (A,B:55). The majority
of LCA students, however, indicated that big contract re
search has become more a source of money and prestige for
researchers than an effective way of advancing knowledge.
The majority of CCA students disagreed (A-C:51). It is
interesting to note that the LCA students 1 response was
split regarding the severing of all ties between higher
i
education and the military-industrial complex, while the
CCA students’ response was split on the legitimacy of
weapons research on campus. The majority of CCA students
opposed severing ties with the military-industrial complex
and the majority of LCA students opposed weapons research
■on campus (A-C:176, 177). Although the majority of both
I
I
jgroups of students indicated that scientific findings should
ibe published regardless of their consequences, 22 percent
i
i
jmore LCA than CCA students agreed (A-C:163).
135
There are nine statistically significant items rela
tive to control and responsibilities in decision making:
four items that are significant at the .001 level, five at
the .01 level, and one at the .05 level. The majority of
Iboth groups indicated that the rules at the college were
i
jsensible and generally administered in a reasonable way,
:although a greater percentage of CCA students indicated
this (A-C:91, 92). Although most students apparently did
not find the existing situation to be negative, there seemec.
to be a desire for increased student involvement in the
decision-making processes. Both student groups agreed that
jf , most undergraduates are mature enough to be given more j
[responsibility for their own education” and that their
£
I
'"department has taken steps to increase student participa-
!
ition in its decisions,” although the LCA students agreed
more strongly (A-C:62, 63). The largest percentage of LCA
students indicated that students should have voting power
on committes for undergraduate admissions policy, bachelor’s
degree requirements, and provision and content of courses.
The largest percentage of CCA students indicated that stu-
i
idents should have formal or informal consultation in these
!
jareas. A greater percentage of LCA students than CCA stu
dents indicated that students should have voting power and
136
control of these areas, whereas a greater percentage of CCA
students than LCA students indicated that students should
have formal or informal consultation or no role in decision
making in all but two areas (A-C:74-76). Although the
majority of LCA students agreed that all department members
were presently able to vote on departmental decisions and
that institutions would be better off with fewer administra
tors, the CCA students were split in regard to agreement or
disagreement (A-C:64, 67). About one-fourth more LCA than
|CCA students felt that undergraduate education would be
jimproved if the college were governed completely by its
jfaculty and students (A-C:29).
Of the five issues regarding racial concerns, two
are significant at the .001 level, two at the .01 level,
and one at the .02 level. The majority of the LCA students
agreed and the majority of the CCA students disagreed that
any special academic program for black students should be
administered and controlled by black people, and that more
minority group undergraduates should be admitted to the
college even if this meant relaxing normal academic stand
ards of admission (A-C:169, 171). The majority of both
groups disagreed with the position that normal academic
requirements should be relaxed in appointing minority groups
to the faculty of the college, although 37 percent more CCA
students strongly disagreed (A-C:172). The majority of
both groups agreed that where de facto segregation exists,
black people should be assured control over their own
i
{schools; however, a greater percentage of LCA students
|agreed on this point (A,B:173). Although the majority of
i
CCA students disagreed with the following concepts, the LCA
students were split on the issue of whether racial integra
tion of the public elementary schools should be achieved
even if it required busing and whether most American col
leges and universities were racist (A-C:174, 168).
I
Student activism.— Thirty-five out of 46 items (76 j
percent) directly involving student and faculty attitudes
i
land involvement in activism and demonstrations are statis
tically significant (A,C:85, 87-90, 93-106, 123-149). Of
those items that are statistically significant, only five
are significant at less than the .001 level of significance
(A,C:85, 98, 126, 146, 149). Eighty-three percent of the
differences are in extent of agreement or disagreement.
j
[Only five of the items represent differences in direction.
jThe results of approval or disapproval of the emergence of
i
jradical student activism set the tone of differences between
I
i
jthe two groups. Almost 60 percent of the CCA students______
138
disapproved of radical student activism, whereas 71 percent
of the LCA students approved (B,C:123). On the other items
relating to difference in direction, the majority of the
CCA students agreed while the majority of the LCA students
i
|disagreed that:
1. With a few exceptions, the Chicago police acted
reasonably in curbing the demonstrations at the
Democratic National Convention (A-C:88).
2. Most campus demonstrations are created by far
left groups trying to cause trouble (A-C:90).
<
j 3. Students who disrupt the functioning of a col
lege should be expelled or suspended (A-C:95).
i 4. Faculty members should [not] be more militant
j in defending their interests (A-C:103).
jAlthough 85 percent of the CCA students, including 54 per-
| cent who strongly agreed, indicated that campus disruptions
by militant students were a threat to academic freedom, the
LCA students were almost evenly split between agreeing and
disagreeing (A-C:100). Both groups disagreed with the
following statements, but a larger percentage of LCA stu
dents disagreed:
1. Student demonstrations have no place on a col
lege campus (A-C:93)
2. Political activities by students have no place
on a college campus (A-C:96).
3. Most college officials have been too lax with
student protests on campus (B,C:97).
139
4. Student publications should be cleared by col
lege officials (A-C:98).
5. College officials have the right to ban persons
with extreme views from speaking on campus
(A-C:99).
! 6. Collective bargaining by faculty members has no
| place in a college or university (A-C:105).
i
I
i
|Both groups disagreed with the statements that (1) meaning
ful social change cannot be achieved through traditional
American politics, (2) students should be more militant in
defending their interests, and (3) faculty members should be
free on campus to 'advocate violent resistance to public
|authority, but CCA students disagreed to a greater extent
and more strongly (A-C:85, 94, 101). Although both groups
agreed with the following statements, at least 20 percent
more LCA than CCA students agreed that:
1. Faculty members should be free to present in
class any ideas that they consider relevant
(B,C:102)
i 2. A strike would be a legitimate means of collec-
j tive action for faculty members under some cir-
i cumstances (A-C:106).
!
1
| 3. Hippies represent an important criticism of
I American culture (A-C:89).
i
! 4. My college should be actively engaged in solving
social problems (A-C:149).
I
I 5. In the USA today, there can be no justification
for using violence to achieve political goals
(A-C:87).
140
Differences are also evident in regard to the atti
tudes, role and involvement, and effects of student demon
strations. On those demonstrations that are listed on the
questionnaire (Kent State, Days of Concern, and Washington,
J d .C.), both groups were consistently more in favor of than
[opposed to the demonstrations, although a large percentage
of both groups had mixed or indifferent feelings (A,B:124-
126). Most students from both groups approved of the aims,
if not the methods, of the Kent State demonstrators. The
jlargest percentage (33 percent) of the LCA students approver
i
of the aims and methods of the demonstrators at Kent State.
!
[This is 21 percent more than the CCA students. The largest
i
percentage of CCA students (37 percent) approved of the
aims but not the methods of the Kent State demonstrators;
however, this is only 6 percent more than the LCA student
response (A-C:126). It is noteworthy that there were no
significant differences in the responses regarding demon
strations for the Days of Concern in 1970 and in Washington,
D.C. in 1971, and that about one-third of both groups had
mixed or indifferent feelings about the Days of Concern
demonstration (A-C:124-125).
\ More LCA than CCA students were involved in the
i
I
[student demonstrations. Although there were too few cases
141
to treat statistically, 12 percent more LCA students than
CCA students helped to plan, organize, or lead a protest
(A,B:127). Twenty-three percent more LCA students partici-
i
pated in active protest in demonstrations and 15 percent
more openly supported the goals of the protesters (A-C:128,
129). Twenty-four percent more CCA students than LCA stu
dents were not actively involved in any way (A-C:132). The
LCA students were consistently more involved in helping to
organize or lead, in participating, and in observing demon
strations against American military policy, administrative
policies, and ethnic and racial policies at the college and
elsewhere. On the average, 18 percent more CCA than LCA
students indicated no involvement in the above kinds of
demonstrations (A-C.-133, 135, 137-139). The differences in
involvement in the demonstrations are all at the .001 level
of significance except for involvement in a demonstration
lagainst existing ethnic or racial policies at the college
;or a demonstration against college demonstrators at the
i
jcollege or elsewhere. Although these situations cannot be
i
'treated statistically because there are too few cases in
I
jcertain cells (A,B:134, 136, 140), there is an apparent
i
jdifference in the involvement in a demonstration against
I
l
jexisting ethnic or racial policies at the college (A,B:136).
142
There are statistically significant differences in
six out of eight of the effects of student demonstrations.
There are no statistically significant differences regarding
the effects of the demonstrations on the students' view of
I the campus administration or on the school's relations with
|the local community (A,C:147, 148). The difference in the
effect of demonstrations on relations with other students
is significant at the .01 level of significance (A,C:146).
All of the following items are significant at the .001
jlevel. The majority of students indicated that student
demonstrations had no effect on research or studies or their
!
■relations with departmental faculty members, other faculty j
i J
jmembers , departmental majors, or other students. Most stu
dents indicated that student demonstrations had no effect on
their learning. A larger percentage of LCA students than
CCA students consistently indicated that student demonstra
tions had favorable effects. On the average, 29 percent of
the LCA students indicated the effects were favorable,
whereas 6 percent indicated they were unfavorable. Of the
CCA students, 8 percent indicated the effects were favor
able, whereas 10 percent indicated they were unfavorable
(A-C:141-146).
In summary, one finds that the LCA students were
143
more consistently in favor of student activism and more
involved in student demonstrations. Most students felt that:
student activism had little effect, but the LCA students
indicated more positive effects than did CCA students.
j
| Social problems.— There are 14 statistically sig-
!
jnificant items that deal itfith social problems. Ten of the
t
items are significant at the .001 level of significance,
two at the .01 level, and two at the .05 level. Seven of
the items are differences in extent of agreement or dis
agreement, five of the items are differences in direction,
land two of the items involve a split in response by the LCA
i
students while the majority of the CCA students disagreed.
The majority of the CCA students agreed that (1)
there is too much concern in the courts for the rights of
criminals, (2) most people who live in poverty could do
something about their situation if they really wanted to,
and (3) these days you hear too much about the rights of
jminorities and not enough about the rights of the majority.
|The majority of the LCA students disagreed with these con
cepts (A-C:155, 158, 167). The majority of the LCA students
i
| agreed whereas the majority of the CCA students disagreed
i
Ithat capital punishment (the death penalty) should be
iabolished and marijuana should be legalized (A-C:152, 156).
144
Neither group of students indicated that undergraduates who
were known to use marijuana regularly should be suspended
or dismissed from college, but LCA students were more
strongly opposed, with 60 percent strongly disagreeing
! (A-C:151) . The majority of both groups disagreed with the
i
Iposition that man will never realize his full potential
f
juntil he is freed from the laws and conventions of society,
but the majority of CCA students disagreed more strongly
(B,C:165). The majority of both groups agreed with the
following concepts, but a greater percentage of LCA students
agreed that:
I
1. Divorce laws should be liberalized (A-C:153).
j 2. Current levels of air pollution in large cities j
j justify the use of drastic measures to limit
I the use of motor vehicles (A-C:157).
i
3. Urban problems cannot be solved without huge
investments of federal money (A-C:159).
4. Communist China should be recognized immediately
l by the United States (A-C:180).
j
i
jAlthough the majority of CCA students disagreed with the
)concepts that the main cause of Negro riots in the cities
iis white racism and that some sort of Communist regime is
i
j
jprobably necessary for progress in underdeveloped countries,
the LCA students were split between agreeing and disagree-
!
|ing (A-C-.175, 181). Marked differences were also found in
145
positions on Vietnam, Immediate withdrawal from Vietnam
was favored by 35 percent more of the LCA students. A lar
ger percentage of CCA students than LCA students favored
the alternatives. Eight percent more CCA than LCA students
I
favored reduction of involvement and encouragement of a
coalition government in South Vietnam, with 26 percent
i
Ifavoring reduction of involvement that would also prevent a
Communist takeover in the South (A-C:182). About 5 percent
of both groups favored total commitment.
Summary.— Sixty-two percent of the items on the
questionnaire are statistically significant at or beyond
i
the .05 level of significance. The LCA and CCA students
differed on various personal characteristics and on their
views relating to the campus environment, roles and func
tions of higher education, objectives and outcomes of
jhigher education, decision making, and racial issues in
j
’ education. They also differed on attitudes concerning stu
dent activism and on various social problems . The LCA stu
dents usually responded in a more liberal direction through-
jout the study and were more supportive of student activism.
i
IThe CCA students usually responded in a more conservative
idirection and were less supportive of student activism.
Although there are 140 statistically significant differences;
146
in the data, the majority of differences is in the extent
of agreement. Thus, on most issues the majority of the
students agreed, but a larger percentage of one group
(
agreed.
i
iInterview data
i
I
j Four students from each of the four curricular areas
were randomly selected. Each of the 16 students was asked
to provide data on personal characteristics and to discuss
each of the following areas: (1) the general atmosphere of
jthe college, (2) the control of the college, (3) academic
freedom, (4) research and promotion at the college, (5)
i
student activism, (6) American society today, (7) the drug
culture and use of drugs, (3) minority group problems, and
(9) the Vietnam war.
The LCA students.— The eight students in the LCA
sample were between 23 and 33 years of age. They all con-
jsidered themselves liberals. Two students had no religious
i
jaffiliation and the rest regarded themselves as liberal
i
Ichristians. Two of the sample were Chicanos, one was black,
i
jand the rest were Anglos. Two students were married. Three
|
jstudents were veterans; one was a career officer and the
other spent 12 years in the military. Two students planned
147
to earn doctorates and teach at the college level, and two
planned to earn only a bachelor's degree, since "more than
that is a waste of time." The student who gave the most
radical responses was a 34-year-old who had been "going to
(school for the past 29 years." He had worked in management
|and in higher education and planned to become a contractor
j
upon completion of his bachelor's degree. Five of the stu
dents were pleased with their education, and three felt that
classes had sometimes been a waste of time.
Every person in the sample felt that the college
Iwas vocationally oriented and conservative but that his own
department was liberal. Almost all favored local control j
of the college, The one exception felt that
Everyone should keep his hands off education . . . Compulsory
education laws should be repealed and everyone should face
responsibility for his own education with no free rides . . .
The schools should be sold to the highest bidder.
Everyone agreed that there was no emphasis on research or
jpublishing at the college but that the faculty "should do
|so on their own to keep up with the field." Only one person,
jfelt that there was academic freedom on the campus. Re-
I
i
jsponses included the following:
I Teachers need more leeway for innovation . . . There isn’t
freedom: just responsibility . . . Everything from the admin
istration is a written threat . . . You can’t step out of
148
bounds or they come down on you . . . Where there is no voice,
there is apathy; and here is apathy . . . They use Gestapo
methods against you . . .You can say what you believe but not
do what you believe. You must dissent nicely . . . Teachers
have their hands tied because they know they can be replaced.
All of the students favored student activism but
jwere against violence, which they labeled "barbaric." One
i
jstudent indicated that the campus was the place to learn,
not voice political dissent. No one felt that demonstra
tions should interfere with the right of others to learn.
American society was seen to be in a state of
change, with people searching for meaning and values. One
student stated, "We are in the dawn of change." Another
felt that "We are at the crossroads and we need to re
evaluate our priorities." Every student had a generally
optimistic outlook on America today. Change was not seen
i
t
as a negative situation by any of the members of the sample.
It was considered necessary since "the system isn't holding
up . "
I
' The use of drugs was considered to be "a part of
jthat change" by one person. Although everyone was opposed
I
jto the use of hard drugs, only two people were opposed to
i
jthe use of marijuana. None of the sample presently use
'drugs but most felt that the use of marijuana was acceptable
jfor others. Responses included the following:
il49
They’re doing an over-kill on marijuana offenses . . . Drugs
are used as a short-cut to happiness . . . Anyone manufactur
ing hard stuff should get the death penalty.
Everyone felt that drug use was a means of escaping one's
problems.
! Everyone was critical of the present situation for
minority groups in society and education, but all felt that
improvements were being made. Responses ranged from "The
racial situation is in such a state of affairs that it makes
me want to cry when I think about it," to "Progress is being
made but not fast enough," to "The only method available to
those with no money and no power is violence, so there are
i
riots; so there is change." All of the sample favored spe-|
cial programs and better education from elementary school
j
I through high school. Only half of the sample favored lower
ing present standards to provide equal opportunities.
Everyone was opposed to the Vietnam war. Responses
included the following:
It's great for business, so who cares whether we win or lose
except those who are fighting? The little guy always loses.
He's either fighting or he's dead. . . . It's a foolish thing.
. . . The American people can't be expected to stomach this
agreement. If you're fighting, you're fighting and if you're
not, you get out.
j
Everyone favored withdrawal. Half of the sample favored
immediate withdrawal and the other half favored phased
150?
t
withdrawal. |
k
Thus the selected sample of LCA students who were
interviewed felt that the campus was conservative and their
departments were liberal; that present state controls should,
be replaced by local control; and that the campus was teach-
I
ing and vocationally oriented rather than research and pro- |
1
fessionally oriented. The LCA students questioned the I
i
j
amount of academic freedom for teachers and students and ;
supported student activism to bring about social and educa- ;
tional change. They had a favorable outlook on society in 1
i
general. They opposed the use of hard drugs and supported
the legalization of marijuana. They were concerned about
social and educational inequities for minority groups even
though improvements had been made. They also opposed the
jwar and favored withdrawal.
I
The CCA students.— The sample of eight CCA students
is probably not representative of the total sample, since
Ihalf of the respondents regarded themselves as liberals
while the other four subjects were divided between moder
ately and strongly conservative. In general, however, the
responses of those CCA students who labeled themselves as
liberals were not as liberal as those of most of the LCA
students. All of the students were Caucasian. Two had no
"151!
religious affiliation and three labeled themselves as lib- |
eral Christians. Their ages ranged from 22 to 42. Half of ;
the sample was married. Four men were veterans and one was |
I
a retired naval career officer. One man planned to earn a J
i i
Idoctorate, and three others planned to earn advanced de- '
!
Igrees. All of the sample planned to enter business or !
j
industry immediately upon graduation. j
I
All of the students indicated that their departments
and the campus were conservative. One man felt that the
i
!
campus was split, with the conservative position winning !
I
I
only because the administration was conservative. He stated
! J i
that "The arts are liberal and agriculture and engineering
are conservative, with no middle ground." Half of the stu
dents indicated that the school was practical in its orien- 1
tation. Half of the sample indicated that the students were
apathetic. All of the students felt that their departments !
I
were doing a good job academically, that there was no empha-j
sis on research and publishing, and that there should not j
be .
The responses regarding administrative control on
campus varied from needing less government control to need- |
j
ing more state control, with no response specifically repre-j
senting the majority. In considering academic freedom,
152'
three of the students felt that academic freedom was not a j
problem. In fact, one student would have liked to impose '
more controls to insure that teachers would not discuss j
[anything except the subject matter. The other five students
!
Questioned the extent of academic freedom. Comments in- j
!
|
jeluded the following: j
i
We don't have it here . . . If professors really said what j
they believe and took a radical position, it'd be all over
for them . . . Students have freedom but teachers don't. I
happen to know they're watched. . . . I've heard a lot of
complaints from some instructors . . . I had a liberal arts j
teacher who was liberal. He lost his job. It may have been |
'cause of the cuts but I don't think so. !
All except two students supported the aims of stu
dent activism. None of the students supported violence,
I
'but two students supported the aims and methods of student !
! :
i i
activism when violence was not used. The majority of stu- ;
dents objected to having demonstrations that interfered ,
with the rights of others. One student felt that "The whole
damned lot of them need to be arrested and put away," de- 1
daring that activism was a "menace and is the cause of all !
of the problems we're having." j
In general, the students did not feel that we were
jhaving insurmountable problems in America. They were cri
tical of society and felt that it was heading in too many
directions, but that it "can be saved" if we deal with the
1531
moral problems of today and improve the justice system. !
!
(About half of the students discussed each of these items.)
I
It is interesting to note that only two students cited the
!use of drugs or the drug culture as a moral problem. Al-
!though half of the group felt that drugs were used to escape
ifrom reality, only two students were opposed to legalizing i
i :
marijuana. None of the students smoked marijuana at the '
time of the survey.
I
i
The majority of the group was not as supportive of !
i
racial issues as the LCA students. Although all of the
students supported equal opportunities for minority groups j
and recognized a need for compensatory education, they were ;
i
i
jmore inclined to feel that minority group members needed to ,
| I
work harder to achieve success. The majority of the group 1
supported the idea of providing additional funds for pro
grams to improve the educational level of minority group
|
members, but they all opposed lowering standards in educa- |
tion or employment. Comments included the following: j
!
i
There are too many on welfare . . . I have no sympathy for i
them if they don’t try . . . If they wanna improve, they will
. . . They are totally unreasonable in their demands. i
I
All of the students felt that involvement in the !
! i
jVietnam war was a mistake. One student indicated that our
i
i
presence in Vietnam was for economic needs : __________________
154!
j
We went in for natural resources that we need . . . You have :
to step on someone to get what you want . . . We’ve done it j
in the past, which doesn’t make it right . . . We do things j
to please ourselves and do what’s best for us. That's good j
economics . . . I
i i
I ,
(others gave other kinds of reasons for being there but they
j i
jail felt that America could no longer justify remaining
j j
jthere. Two students felt that communism might be the right
answer for the Vietnamese. Two students favored immediate j
i
withdrawal, four favored withdrawal as soon as possible,
and two favored total commitment. :
i
:
I Summary.— Although the LCA sample may be represen-
| i
jtative of the population of LCA students, the CCA sample is
biased by a greater percentage of liberals than is found in
the total CCA sample. About 30 percent of the total LCA j
i
sample indicated that they were left or liberal, compared !
to 50 percent in this randomly selected sample. This bias j
i
may account for the similarities in responses.
The two student groups agreed that the campus was
i
i
conservative. The LCA students felt that their departments !
were liberal and the CCA students felt that their depart
ments were conservative. Both groups questioned the amount
of academic freedom on campus. The LCA students were more j
critical of outside control of the campus and more
L551
I
supportive of student activism. Both groups opposed the
use of violence. Both groups had a positive outlook on J
American society but differed on its problems and their j
I !
jcauses and cures. Both groups favored legalization of
I
Imarijuana and were opposed to the use of other drugs. The j
j
jL C A students were more concerned about the present situation
i
and issues regarding minority groups. Both groups felt that
i
improvements were being made, but the LCA students felt that
i
society needed to do more and the CCA students felt that the
individual needed to do more. Although both groups opposed ,
i
jthe war, the LCA students were more in favor of withdrawal
I
jthan the CCA students. Thus the responses of the subjects
lare generally consistent with the statistical data, even |
1 ;
jthough the samples may not be representative of the total ;
I :
population. One can conjecture that liberal CCA students ;
j «
may be less liberal than LCA students.
| I
Summary and conclusions
i
| One hundred forty of 227 items on the survey are
i
i i
statistically significant at or beyond the .05 level of !
! i
significance. Of those items that are statistically sig
nificant, 5 7 percent are significant at the .001 level.
Twenty-five items relate to differing characteristics of
the sample, 66 items to views on educational aspects, 35
1561
i
items to attitudes and involvement in student and faculty j
i
activism, and 14 items to attitudes on social problems. |
i
Sixteen students were also interviewed. Their responses
i
'were basically consistent with .the statistical data.
j The findings indicate that the LCA students are more
i ;
liberal than the CCA students and more supportive of student
j
activism. Although the data definitely indicate that there I
I
are differences between LCA and CCA students, these differ- i
ences are generally in extent rather than direction of
i
agreement on items. On the basis of the statistical data !
i
and the data from the interviews, the hypothesis that there i
would be no significant differences in attitudes relating
to sociopolitical ideology and student activism between j
!
jstudents in the liberal and conservative curricular areas j
I i
j }
must be rejected. j
| Discussion of the Findings for
I LCA and CCA Students
i
j The fact that 61 percent of the items are statis- j
tically significant indicates that the students in the most j
I
conservative and most liberal curricular areas differ mar-
|
jkedly in their characteristics and attitudes toward academic;
and sociopolitical issues and student activism. This is j
I
i
most evident in comparing the results of this study with
1571
those of the general population of students and the students
in the medium-quality schools in the Carnegie Study. The
responses on sociopolitical issues and student activism are j
consistently in the anticipated directions. The LCA stu-
Idents responded from a more liberal orientation and the CCA !
i
students responded from a more conservative orientation |
than the norms on all except three items (A-B:32, 102, 177) !
i
I
(Trow, 1975). A comparison of this sample with a more
!
closely matched sample, the male seniors from medium-quality
I |
schools in the Carnegie Study, shows that only 14 items j
i
concerning sociopolitical issues and student activism were j
mot answered in the predicted directions— with the LCA stu- «
i
dents to the left, the Carnegie samples in the middle, and
the CCA students to the right. These differences are j
probably due to the differences in orientation and charac-
i
teristics of the samples, the geographical location of the (
sample, and the two-year time difference in the studies. j
i
Differences in the expected responses regarding liberalizing
i
divorce and abortion laws, providing opportunities for all !
high school graduates to attend college, and introducing j
measures to eliminate smog may be due to the situational
i
jdifferences found in California (A,B,D:32, 153, 154, 158).
The differences in response to war-related issues are
158!
undoubtedly due to the events of the two years between the |
i
two studies (A,B,D:179-182). During this time span, and ;
especially after the Spring 1970 crisis, the general public j
and the academic community changed their views on the war j
land war-related issues ("What They Believe," 1969, d. 70; !
Lipset & Schaflander, 1971, pp. 36-65). The differences
regarding racial concerns could be due to the differences
in time, the specific location of the institution being j
studied (near a large, integrated school district), the ;
i
selection standards of the school (75 percent of the appli- |
cants are admitted), or the sample (this study included a |
larger percentage of students who had participated in pro- ;
grams for the disadvantaged, were Jewish, or had no reli- j
i
i
gious affiliation). There is also a difference that may |
relate to the general orientation of this sample compared ;
to the Carnegie sample. The majority of both groups of
students in this study still felt that meaningful social !
i
changes could be achieved through traditional politics ,
whereas the Carnegie seniors were evenly divided on this
i
i
issue (A,B,D:85). Thus, this sample appears to be less j
radical than the 1969 sample. This could be due to the fact
that "The campuses of the United States probably were less !
politically involved during 1970-71 than at any time since
| 159'
i i
I
the beginning of the Vietnam war" (Lipset & Schaflander, !
1971, p. 5). This difference may also be due to the voca- j
tional orientation of the selected campus and students.
I In analyzing the differences in the values, goals, j
: I
lattitudes, and involvement of the students and the differ
ences in the college environments, one can see that "to a
substantial degree, the traits of the college student deter-
imine the character of the college environment" (Bayer, ■
i
Astin, & Boruch, 1970, p, 1). In comparing the sample in \
■
i
this study with the Carnegie sample of senior male studentsJ
jone finds much evidence to support the conclusion that the j
students in this study are more representative of a medium-
quality, practically or vocationally oriented college than
of a higher-quality professional school.
There are marked differences between the environment
at the college from which the LCA and CCA students were \
i
selected and that of other medium-quality colleges. This 1
college was often described by both the LCA and CCA studentsj
as being a practical, Victorian school with more limited
[social activities than is the case for medium-quality |
Lchools in general (A,B,D:11-13, 223). The fact that the ;
^ f
}
f
^school is a commuter college may be related to why students
Lee other students and other majors less and are less
satisfied with the social life on campus than seniors in |
i
I
the Carnegie Study. ;
The practical orientation of the school is substan- j
j
tiated by the majority of the students interviewed, the |
i i
jkinds of curricula offered, the college catalogs, and the |
historical background of the college. This emphasis on |
practical rather than theoretical knowledge undoubtedly
affects the emphasis on intellectualism.
A greater percentage of this sample compared to the
Carnegie sample felt that "intellectual" was not very |
descriptive of the college (A-D:9). The college also has j
i
less intellectual and academic emphasis than the average
medium-quality college (A,B,D:9, 17, 18). This was sub- j
stantiated by students who were interviewed who had attended
other colleges. j
j The historical emphasis on technical subjects such !
I
las agriculture and engineering undoubtedly influences the |
| I
[extent of liberalness and the Victorian atmosphere. The
j i
icamnus and administration were described as conservative by i
I
j i
[every person interviewed. The data also indicate that most j
j
of the faculty and students on campus were middle-of-the- \
road or conservative (A,B:82, 83). About one-fourth fewer
of the selected seniors than the Carnegie seniors labeled
1611
most students on campus as liberal in their political orien-i
I
tation. A larger percentage of students in this sample than
i
in the Carnegie sample labeled most students at the college !
t
|
las middle-of-the-road or conservative. Although 8 percent
'more LCA students than Carnegie students perceived the j
j i
faculty as liberal, 22 percent fewer CCA students than Car- |
!
I
negie students indicated that most of the faculty were lib- i
eral and 22 percent more LCA students indicated that the !
i
faculty was conservative. Thus, one can readily see that j
most students did not regard the faculty as liberal and |
that differentiations based upon curricula were evident
(A-D:82-83). The insularity of the various curricula may
I
cause students to generalize to the whole college the
atmosphere within their own departments and may be the basis
for the kinds of differences between LCA and CCA students. i
i
These factors undoubtedly account for the fact that ^
I
i
the students at this college are less radical and less in- ,
volved in student activities than at other medium- or high- ,
I
quality colleges. Although the LCA students fit the proto-
i
type of the student within the liberal curricular areas in
that they are more supportive of student activism and more
linvolved in school activities and student demonstrations, ;
i ■
i ;
they are more prone to use traditionally approved methods
162!
of protest and nonviolent demonstrations (A,B,D:85, 87, 109-j
i
113, 198, 199). It is interesting to note in this context
that more students in this study indicated that faculty
members should be more militant in defending their interests
than that students should be more militant (A,B:94, 103). !
Although a larger percentage of LCA students than Carnegie
students was involved in organizing and leading all the !
I
I
types of demonstrations listed in the survey, there was
never more than a 7 percent difference (A,B,D:133-140). !
i
i
Since most studies indicate that the LCA students were the !
prime organizers at other institutions, the percentage
seems low. Although a greater percentage of LCA students
than Carnegie students participated in most of the demon
strations , the difference is not appreciable. Averaging
all participation, only 1 percent more LCA students than
I
Carnegie students were participants. This is due to the ;
i
fact that a larger percentage of Carnegie students than LCA |
i
students participated in demonstrations against United |
i
States military policy and administrative policies and j
against demonstrators on their college campuses (A,B,D:133, ]
135, 136). This difference may well be due to the fact that
i
so few demonstrations of any kind occurred on the campus j
being studied compared to other institutions of higher
o ;
i
education. This theory can be supported to some degree by j
the fact that a larger percentage of LCA students than j
jCarnegie students participated in demonstrations that
loccurred other than on campus (17 percent more Carnegie
'students than LCA students participated in on-campus demon-
jstrations, whereas 17 percent more CCA students than Car
negie students participated in off-campus demonstrations)
(A,B,D:133-140). The CCA sample was consistently and pre
dictably less involved than the LCA or Carnegie sample in
almost every kind of demonstration (A,B,D:133-140).
The fact that the extreme position in terms of stu
dent radicalism is not found on the campus supports the
> 1
i
theory that the students at this college reflect the orien- .
tation of the school and determine it. Although 15 percent ;
i
of the LCA students labeled themselves as radicals, their
behavior has not been radical or disruptive. This may help
i
explain the fact that liberal and conservative students on
this campus are less divided on the issue of student acti- j
cisrn than one might expect (Bayer, Astin, & Boruch, 1970, |
j
■p. 5). It may also he related to the amount of implicit and
i
explicit support of student activism and the issues that are'
related to student activism. !
It is possible that the moderation of the LCA
1641
i
j
students is related to the fact that over 70 percent of the !
i
statistically significant items are differences in extent
of agreement rather than direction of agreement. This could
explain why the divergence of attitudes is not as evident.
I
Another possible answer could be that the sample is skewed
I i
jto the right (more conservative). The comparison with the
Carnegie Study norms indicates that the LCA students are
consistently to the left and the CCA students are consis
tently to the right. One can therefore assume that the !
similarity in direction of response is not due to a skewed j
sample. |
Although the students within this study may be more ;
i
alike than different as a result of selection and recruit
ment, there are many differences between the two groups ;
within the study. In comparing the CCA students with the 1
i
LCA students, one finds that the LCA students are more 1
i
i
critical of the intellectual and academic atmosphere, more I
!
liberal, less religious, more involved in campus and socio- :
political activities, and less stable in their career ori
entation and majors (A-C:l, 2, 5, 9, 18, 23, 36-39, 42, 43,
79, 86, 110-119, 121, 122, 185, 193, 194). These character
istics are consistent with those found in the literature
for students in the social sciences and humanities, and for
1651
I
those students who are more protest-prone and involved in j
student activism. This relationship was also supported in ;
i
this study (A-C:123-140, 149). J
In analyzing the CCA students, one finds that they
I
|are definitely more vocationally oriented (A.-C: 30, 33, 209- ■
i
I
211). They are more conservative in their beliefs, values, j
I
and behavior according to both the statistical and interview
j
data (A-C:79, 186). The major areas of difference between
the LCA and CCA students involve the role of higher educa-
j
tion, the role of students in campus governance, minority j
9 t
group and racial issues, sociopolitical issues, and student I
activism.
j Both groups of students support most of the items
I
concerning the role of higher education in providing re
search for national and industrial needs; however, the CCA !
i
students are consistently more supportive (A-C:35, 50-52, 1
i
j55, 163, 176, 177). Perhaps one reason that the CCA stu- !
1
I
i
jdents are so much more consistent and supportive is that J
| 1
itheir fields are more often involved in the research. This :
1
icould provide employment during a time of job insecurity for
engineers. It is interesting to note that there is only
1
1
one item on which the CCA students are divided: weapons j
1
research on campus (A-C:177). This response may be due to
1661
i
conflicting values regarding American involvement in the I
I
Vietnam war. |
Another area of difference involves educational
Igovernance and decision making. The majority of both groups
!of students, although satisfied with the present rules and \
i
|the wav they are administered, wanted more responsibility 1
I
!
and involvement in the decision-making processes (A-C:59, |
i
i
62, 91, 92). Increased student participation in decision j
making has been established in both curricular areas, but j
i
not enough change has occurred to satisfy the LCA students
(A-C:63, 70, 71). They desire more involvement in such
areas as faculty appointments and promotions, admission
policies, degree requirements, selection of content and i
J i
j
curricula, residence hall regulations, and student disci- ;
pline. It is interesting to note that although the LCA
students had more faculty support and had been involved j
t
I
more in participatory governance, they were the least satis-!
fied and most concerned with becoming involved in the edu- j
cational process. Illustrative of the difference is the i
t
1
fact that a large percentage of LCA students wanted voting
Ipower on committees whereas the CCA students were satisfied
I
with formal or informal consultation (A-B:73-78). Students
would make certain kinds of changes if they should become
the decision makers. Undoubtedly the first change would be j
to make courses more relevant, since over 85 percent of all j
i
the Carnegie samples and the subjects in this study felt ■
jthat undergraduate education would be improved by providing |
■ I
|more relevancy in courses (A-C:26). |
! i
Inasmuch as the greatest percentage of statistical j
J j
differences is related to the issue of activism, it is evi- j
I
f
dent that student activism is an area that definitely dif- ■
J
i
ferentiates the LCA and CCA students. It is important to ;
note, however, that 80 percent of these differences are ones
i '
I
!of extent of agreement rather than of disagreement on the |
issues. There are only five items that involve differences ’
in direction. Thus one finds that the students seem to be 1
I
!in general agreement on the issues, but a greater percentage
i
of LCA students than of CCA students is supportive of the .
i
actions and attitudes involved in student and faculty acti- ]
vism. !
One of the few differences in direction of response !
i
1
relates to approval of the emergence of radical student i
j
activism. The majority of CCA students disapproved, whereas
the majority of the LCA students approved. The word Mradi- ;
i
cal" may be the difficulty for CCA students, since responses
to more subtle items or related items were usually in the
168!
same direction as those of the LCA students (A-C:89, 91-99, ;
I
102, 105, 106, 149). |
The fact that the largest percentage of LCA students
approved of the aims and methods of the demonstrators in
j
■Washington, D.C. during the Days of Concern, and at Kent '
j |
IState conforms to the general trend (A-C:124-126). Sur- i
! !
.prisingly, though, the largest percentage of CCA students I
i
(approved of the aims but not the methods of the demonstra- ;
j
tors in Washington, D.C. and at Kent State (A-C:124, 126). 1
Although this is consistent with the general student popu- ,
lation, a more conservative population would be expected toj
oppose both aims and methods. The Days of Concern demon
stration is the most problematic in that the largest per
centage of CCA students and second largest response (only ■
3 percent less than the response approving the aims and j
methods) of the LCA students indicated uncertain or mixed !
feelings. This may be because of the moral implications, |
the disruption of some academic classes on campus, concerns j
!
about induction into the military, or professional concern, !
since some engineering majors plan to work on federally
funded military research projects. This kind of concern i
was evident when two engineering students who were being |
i
considered for jobs with the federal government called to
| ’ ” 1691
see whether any outside agency would be given information ;
from the questionnaire and to request that their question
naires be returned to them. |
j i
| A larger percentage of LCA than of CCA students was |
; !
(involved in organizing and leading all of the different ‘
[ ;
t ,
(demonstrations, except the one against the demonstrators
* ~ i
i
!(A-C:133-140) , The LCA students also participated more |
i
often in the demonstrations. The only demonstration in
(which CCA students were more involved than LCA students was
j :
Ithe demonstration against the demonstrators (A,B:140). ;
!
j At least half of the students indicated that stu-
jdent demonstrations had no effect on anything except their
jlearning (A-C:141-148). Considering the limited number of !
i ;
*
demonstrations on the campus, it is surprising that a larger
i
percentage of students did not indicate that there was no
effect. This response may have been due to the students' 1
jinvolvement in off-campus demonstrations or the various j
Effects of demonstrations at other schools on the students, '
j
faculty, and administration. It is not surprising that of ;
i
|
(those students who indicated an effect of demonstrations,
i
ja larger percentage of LCA students reported favorable ;
jeffects whereas a larger percentage of CCA students indi- !
i
cated unfavorable effects (A-C:141-148). It is interesting
1701
to note that the only two areas of agreement between the |
CCA and LCA groups were that most of those who indicated an j
effect felt that student demonstrations had an unfavorable j
; effect on students * view of the administrators and an un- j
ifavorable effect on the college's relation with the local j
i !
jcommunity (B:147, 148). This reaction by students and by i
j i
'local communities seemed to be relatively true nationally. |
In general, one can conclude that LCA students were
[predictably more supportive and involved in student activism
than CCA students. It is important to note, however, that '
both groups responded similarly in direction, which may i
indicate that although student activism appears to be an
i
issue that separates the groups, it may indeed be a unifying
force. '
The largest percentage of items involving difference
in direction is in the area of sociopolitical issues. The !
i
only issues on which the LCA and CCA agree on direction j
involve (1) liberalizing divorce laws, (2) freeing man from
i
laws and conventions so that he can maximize his potential, |
(3) solving urban problems with federal fundings, and (4) ;
establishing means of reducing air pollution (A-C:153, 157, |
159, 165). The LCA students were consistently more liberal
in their responses. The CCA students were consistently more
-----------------------------------------------------------------— J
conservative and tended to take ’’law and order” positions ;
i
on issues (A-C:155, 156, 165). The response of the CCA
jstudents regarding the use of marijuana is interesting in
i
I
ithat 60 percent of the CCA students opposed legalizing mari-
'juana and 65 percent opposed suspension or dismissal of ;
i
users from the college (A-C:151, 152). It may be that these
j
students did not feel that what a person does off campus
should affect his status as a student, or it may be that
the CCA students were more conservative in their law and j
order views regarding offenses that are less likely to \
i
affect them or their friends. Thus, when it came to divorce
laws or enforcement of marijuana laws, they seemed to be
i
i
Imore concerned with "the rights of the individual.”
The LCA students’ attitudes toward the disadvantaged
I
and minority group problems were consistently liberal on j
i
i
every item (A-C:158, 167-175). The CCA students were >
rather consistently less supportive of the concerns of the
disadvantaged and minority groups. The only issues sup- j
\
\
ported by the majority of the LCA students were Black Stud- |
ies programs and local control of schools where de facto j
]
i
segregation exists (A-C:170, 173). In general, the LCA ,
!
jstudents felt that programs should be provided to help the
jdisadvantaged to improve their position in society but that
172'
i
standards should not be lowered to accomplish this. One i
I
LCA student summed up the feeling with the statement that
he was i
i
as opposed to preferential treatment for the blacks at the
i expense of the whites as for whites at the expense of blacks. I
' I I 1
: I 11 give them a hand but I won t cut off my arm for them. j
* t
! i
I .
It is important to note that although the CCA students' '
I
response to minority issues was less supportive than that
! '
of the LCA students, when compared to the Carnegie norms, i
!
the CCA students' responses were as supportive as, or more j
supportive than, those of the Carnegie seniors (A-D : 169-171 , j
173, 174). The differences in response may be due to the ^
fact that a larger percentage of minority group members than
the norm was involved in this study.
The concern about minority problems and rights by
i
the students in this study was supported behaviorally as ,
i
i *
well as attitudinally. Students were involved in more :
demonstrations against administrative policies and existing :
ethnic or racial policies on the campus than in any other ;
i
kind of demonstration (A:134, 135). Inasmuch as the ad
ministrative policies demonstration indirectly involved
racial policies, this was one of the areas of greatest con- i
i
I i
cern on campus. i
The other major sociopolitical issue of concern was j
i
the fight against communism. The CCA students tended to be ;
i
less adamant about the Communist threat than one might ex-
i
pect. About two-thirds of the CCA students supported the
limmediate recognition of R.ed China by the United States,
i !
|and about one-third supported the position that some form I
! j
of Communist regime is probably necessary for progress in i
underdeveloped countries. (These positions are more liberal
than those of the Carnegie seniors [B:181, 182].) The CCA
students' response to the Vietnam war was more ambivalent.
Their responses were split three ways. Total military
commitment was the only unacceptable position for most of
the students (B:182). These kinds of responses are in- i
!
dicative of persons who are not frightened by the "Commu- ;
I
nist threat,” who desire to end the continued cold war
l
i
attitude and policing actions that are a result of anti-
I
Communist positions, and, in turn, lessen the probability j
!of induction into the military service. The LCA responses
to recognizing Red China and to immediate withdrawal from j
I
Vietnam were predictably liberal. The LCA students' ambiva-
i
lence about the necessity of communism for the progress of
underdeveloped countries may be the result of discussions
jin social science classes about the problems of under-
174'
developed countries and the underlying philosophies and j
1
issues. 1
i
I
Thus one finds that there are both differences and J
I similarities between the two student groups. Although the
1LCA students consistently responded in the liberal direction
1 1
! I
land the CCA students consistently resnonded in the conser- I
i ‘ 1
vative direction, the responses differed in extent rather j
than in direction of agreement. Although the large number
of statistically significant items indicates that the two j
I
populations did differ on their sociopolitical beliefs and <
i
i
feelings about student activism, there are not the great !
extremes in the belief systems of these students that are
found in comparing the range of beliefs in the general j
population group of the Carnegie Study. i
There is, therefore, a definite lack of radicalism j
within this sample. This lack of radicalism is behaviorally
evidenced by the limited extent of involvement in student ;
I
demonstrations and protests. The effects of student acti- j
vism, however, cannot be totally evaluated by the support !
lof activism on the campus. Illustrating this point is the
i
fact that although one-half of the students reported no
effects of student demonstrations, both groups consistently
indicated a desire for a greater role in decision making
and a concern for racial inequities in education. These j
issues are the same ones that have been raised on other
i
campuses. Those demonstrations that have been held on cam- j
i
jpus have been related to those issues that sparked demon-
'strations on other campuses (the Vietnam war, racial in- j
jequities, and campus governance). Therefore, one must con- I
| ’ " !
.elude that student activism has affected the attitudes and j
I
lactions of these students. i
I i
I
| Results of the Comparison of
! LCA Students and LCA Faculty
| I
I Faculty and students in the liberal curricular areaS|
I
have the fewest differences on the various issues. A Chi
jSquare analysis indicates statistically significant differ- *
! ;
ences on only 10 items (A,C:26, 29, 45, 59, 70, 76, 99, 169,,
I
|l88 , 190). Five of the items were significant at the .001 1
i
Level, two at the .01 and .05 levels, and one at the .02
; i
| I
^level. The responses on many additional items appear to be |
! I
markedly different but cannot be statistically analyzed |
I
because of an insufficient number of responses. (
j i
Statistically
significant data
i
j All of the statistically signifant items relate to |
! i
i
educational concerns. Most of the statements relate to
1761
I
decision-making policies , issues, and power. Most faculty j
i
members indicated that they had a great deal of opportunity j
to influence policies within their department, whereas most j
majors indicated that they had only some opportunity to do |
: i
jso (A-C:70). The majority of students indicated that they j
|should have voting power on committees for the provision I
1 I
and content of courses. The faculty was divided rather j
equally among the choices of voting power, formal consulta-
i
tion, and informal consultation by students (A-C:76). A j
f
larger percentage of students than faculty agreed and/or !
agreed more strongly that (1) undergraduate education would
be improved if courses were more relevant to contemporary
life and problems and (2) faculty promotions should be based
j
in part on formal student evaluations of their teachers i
j
(A-C:26, 59). Most of the faculty and students strongly j
disagreed with the statement that college officials should ;
have the right to ban persons with extreme views from speak-1
i
i
|ing on campus, but a greater percentage of students than j
I
faculty strongly disagreed (A-C:99). Most of the students
agreed and the faculty disagreed that higher education
would be improved if the college were governed completely
jby its faculty and students, and that any special academic
i
program for black students should be administered and
I T T '
controlled by black people (A-C:29, 169) . Most of the stu- ;
dents disagreed and most of the faculty agreed that a man
can be an effective teacher without personally involving
i
|himself with his students (A-C:45). This response may be
jrelated to the differences in the socializing patterns of !
Jthe faculty and students (A-C:188, 190). i
i
i
Other data i
The following data cannot be treated statistically |
1
because of an insufficient number of responses, but the :
frequency distribution of the responses indicates differ-
ences that warrant discussion. The areas of apparent dif- ^
i
ferences between students and faculty of the LCA concern
i
the sample, the college environment, and attitudes toward
student activism.
i .
i |
i
Sample.— There are differences between the students |
| - I
land faculty in regard to race, religion, evaluation of the !
t
political orientation of the college faculty, and educa- ;
i
tional aspirations. All the faculty members in the sample j
|
were Caucasians, whereas 9 percent of the students were of j
iother racial or ethnic groups (A,B:187). A greater per- j
i ;
!centage of the faculty than students had no religious
affiliation, were Protestant, or were Jewish. All of the
178]
faculty who belonged to an organized religion indicated j
affiliation with the Judeo-Christian religion, whereas 6 i
percent of the students belonged to other religions (A,B:
185) .
| Over half of the LCA faculty members labeled them-
i ;
jselves as liberal or left while indicating that most of the
| i
faculty members on the campus were middle-of-the-road in ;
i
terms of political orientation (A,B:79, 83). Most of the !
ILCA students labeled themselves as liberals and most of the |
! !
faculty members as left or middle-of-the-road. About one- !
fourth of the faculty and students indicated that they
believed that most of the faculty at the college was con
servative, but almost one-third more students than faculty :
i
i
jindicated that most of the faculty at the college was lib- ,
i
eral or left (A,B:83).
i
There were marked differences in the educational |
aspirations of the faculty and students. All of the faculty’
members intended to obtain advanced degrees, with over 80 j
i
I
percent desiring a doctorate. Eighty-six percent of the \
| i
students intended to earn advanced degrees, with 20 percent j
of these students intending to earn a doctorate (A,B:192). j
Thus, one finds that there were more students who
jweremembers of minority groups and more faculty members who
179
were Jewish or who had no religious affiliations. The j
i
majority of both groups labeled themselves as left or lib
eral. Faculty members had higher educational aspirations,
|but students also had high educational aspirations.
I
i .
! Student activism.— There appear to be differences
i i
jbetween the LCA faculty and students relative to attitudes j
i i
toward student activism, roles in demonstrations, kinds of |
involvement, and effects of demonstrations. Although the i
majority of students and faculty members approved of the
emergence of radical student activism, the students approved
j
to a greater degree and extent (A,B:123). Eighty-two per
cent of the faculty members agreed that "there can be no
i
justification for using violence to achieve political goals
in America." Students were almost equally divided in their '
response, but slightly more students agreed with the state- ,
ment (A,B:87). The same relationship existed regarding
campus disruptions by militant students as a threat to
academic freedom (A,B:1G0). Faculty and students were ;
opposed to faculty members being free to advocate violent ;
'resistance to public authority. The extent of disagreement j
i
is indicated by the fact that 86 percent of the faculty and i
62 percent of the students were against faculty violence, i
with over half of the faculty and a quarter of the students [
180!
strongly disagreeing with the idea (A,B:101).
I
In general, the majority of students and faculty
was not involved in any demonstrations. The grouped data
on role in demonstrations indicate that about 60 percent of
{the students and faculty were totally uninvolved in any kinc.
of demonstration. About 14 percent of the faculty and stu- 1
i
dents helped plan or organize a demonstration. The students1
were rather consistently more involved in demonstrations.
The exceptions were that a larger percentage of faculty I
I
members helped organize a demonstration against the adminis-j
trative policies at the college and were more involved in |
participating in demonstrations against ethnic and racial
policies elsewhere. Twenty percent of the students were
also involved in demonstrations against the United States
militarv policy, whereas only one faculty member partici- j
I .
pated (A,B:127-140). !
j j
The largest percentage of students (33 to 41 per- !
cent) consistently agreed with the aims and methods used in ■
the demonstrations at Kent State in May 1971, during the ;
I
Days of Concern in May 1970, and at Washington, D.C. in
iMay 1971. The faculty tended to approve of the demonstra-
!tor' s aims but not their methods, although there was as much!
faculty sentiment for as against the methods employed during
18l!
the Days of Concern. About one-fourth of the faculty indi- [
cated uncertain, mixed, or indifferent feelings for each of i
i
the demonstrations. One-third of the students felt simi-
i
jlarly about the Days of Concern demonstration (A,B:124-126).
| The grouped data on the effects of student demon-
i
jstrations indicate that over half of the faculty and stu- j
jdents felt that demonstrations had no effect on teaching or !
I
learning, campus relationships, and community relations. 1
Fourteen percent more of the students than faculty felt that
j |
Ithe demonstrations had a favorable effect, while 6 percent |
i
more faculty than students indicated that demonstrations had
I
a harmful effect. Individual analysis of the items substan-:
i y
tiates this finding (A,B:141-149).
Summary |
j In comparing the responses of students and faculty
jmembers in the liberal curricular areas, 10 items emerge as ;
statistically significant, All of the differences relate to
educational concerns. Apparent differences relative to the .
i ,
isample, the campus environment, and student and faculty !
i ‘ i
jactivism are evident. Almost all of the differences are in !
j !
ithe extent rather than the direction of agreement and in- j
volvement. There are apparent differences in the sample.
There was a larger percentage of students who were members
of minority groups, who belonged to the Christian religion,
182]
who considered themselves to be radicals, and who consid- !
ered the college faculty to be liberal. j
!
The faculty was more concerned about and critical of
the intellectual and academic aspects of education and the J
(college. Although both groups supported student activism, j
i 1
[the students were more supportive in their attitudes and i
| * I
i
tbehavior. Most of the statistically significant statements !
' i
concerned the students1 desire to have more influence and I
i
involvement in decision-making policies in the educational j
system. The students were more concerned about having j
i
teachers become personally involved with them. It is inter-^
esting to note that there are no apparent or statistically |
significant differences of opinion regarding sociopolitical
issues. On the basis of these findings, the hypothesis that
I ' i
there will be no significant difference in attitudes relat- |
ing to sociopolitical ideology and student activism between
students and faculty members in the liberal curricular areas
must be rejected. j
Discussion of the Findings for
LCA Students and LCA Faculty ;
i
Analysis and discussion of the results of the LCA j
sample are difficult because of the poor response by the
I
l
;LCA faculty members. The limited response and the possible
sampling bias must be considered at all times in generaliz- !
I
ing about the data. There are various differences between
"""183!
the groups that could also affect the results. These in- |
elude differences in the racial distribution (more minority
group students) , the religious differences (more Jewish and ]
nonaffiliated faculty), and differences in educational
'aspirations (higher goals for the faculty). All of these !
!
jdifferences, however, are consistent with the findings ;
i
regarding faculty-student characteristics in the social i
sciences and humanities and academics in general (Sanford, i
1962, p. 66).. !
The data indicate that the LCA faculty members and
students are highly representative of the liberal orienta- |
ition. In comparing these data with the Carnegie results of
total college averages, medium-quality colleges, and seniors
at medium-quality colleges, only seven inconsistent respon-
jses can be noted. The LCA students' responses are less
I
jliberal than the Carnegie results on three items on the
jentire questionnaire (A-D:32, 102, 177)(Trow, 1975, pp. 18-
i
29). The LCA faculty responses are less liberal than the 1
I
Carnegie results on four items on the entire questionnaire ,
(A-D:2, 87, 101, 102, 171). j
I
There is an extremely high consistency of responses |
i
‘ i
Ibetween the LCA faculty and students. There are only 10
reversals in direction on the total questionnaire (A,B:5,
1841
20, 23, 24, 29, 70, 95, 164, 168, 171). There are five j
i
\
i
items in which there is a difference in direction, but one i
i
group is equally divided in its response (A,B:35, 38, 41,
168, 181). Of these 15 items, only two show statistically
(significant differences (C:29, 70). '
i
i
Both groups rather consistently respond from a 1
liberal orientation. About 10 percent of the responses are ■
within two percentage points of each other. Although most j
I
of the responses are in the same direction, the students I
!
t
respond to the left more often. The students' responses ;
are to the left and the faculty responses are to the right
on all eight items that involve differences in direction.
i
On those items that involve differences in extent of agree- ,
ment, the percentage of students responding to the left is j
I
triple that of the faculty. ;
i
Thus, although there is a great deal of congruence
in orientation and responses between the faculty and stu- !
dents, the students appear to be more liberal on academic j
and sociopolitical issues and student activism than the
Jfaculty. This is not what one would have expected in the
j
past. Many studies indicated that the faculty had previ- j
r j
ously been more liberal and indeed a liberalizing agent for
students (Bereiter & Freedman, 1962, p. 569; Lipset 6c
185!
i
Schaflander, 1971; Ladd & Lipset, 1975b). Lipset and !
Schaflander (1971, p. 40) indicate, though, that the faculty
is more opposed than the students to militant activism but
I
is fairly close to the students on sociopolitical issues.
|This has been substantiated in this study in that there are
< I
|no statistically significant differences in the area of !
! * ;
social problems, and greatest disagreement on issues related
I
I
to student activism.
I
j The reason for this opposition to student activism [
I
;may relate to the kinds of issues and concerns involved in
I
(student activism. These issues involve changing the power j
Istructure of the college and challenging faculty preroga-
i
| tives.
1 Students consistently indicated that they were not
sufficiently involved in the decision-making structure and !
i
i
that they wished to be more involved (A,B:29, 59, 62-64, 66,!
i
70-78). Although about 50 percent of the students and !
faculty were satisfied with the administration on campus,
68 percent of the students felt that the college should be
!
governed completely by the faculty and students, and 64 j
I
I
percent of the students and 83 percent of the faculty felt
that there should be fewer administrators (A,B:29, 68). The
i
students wanted to change the power structure to insure more
1861
involvement for them in decision making, but the faculty
I
was not willing to assume additional administrative respon- :
sibilities even though they were critical of the existing :
i
situation (A-C:29). Faculty members were already involved
'in administrative duties within their departments It is
i
jnoteworthy that they were more critical of the campus !
I i
ladministration than of departmental administration, where I
I
they were more involved in decision making (A,B:63, 72).
Students were more critical of both the department and the (
administration as they felt that they had little power or
influence in either situation. That which had been accorded
them was not enough for them. The LCA students had been
been provided with more opportunities for decision making :
jWithin the their departments, but they wanted more involve
ment (A,B:63, 70).
Although the faculty was basically supportive of
i
i
student participation and involvement, the amount of support
depended upon the degree to which students wanted control of
i
those areas that have traditionally been faculty preroga-
I
jtives. The faculty was more supportive of change in those
jareas that did not affect them and their decision-making
1
rights and privileges (A,B:59, 63, 73-78). The two areas j
with the greatest differences, therefore, involve student
187 ;
evaluations of faculty members and decision making in cur- j
ricula.
i
The faculty was least supportive of voting power or j
formal consultation involving students in faculty appoint- j
;
'ments and promotion (A,B:73-78). Although the majority of
ithe faculty agreed with students that faculty promotions '
j i
jshould be based in part on formal student evaluations, 33 ,
j i
jpercent more students strongly agreed (A-C:59). These i
i
idifferences may be due to some faculty members r feeling j
i
jthreatened by student evaluations or feeling that students
jare not qualified to evaluate them. ;
j
j Faculty members were supportive of student involve- ;
jment in decisions regarding curriculum, but this was the
i
i
|area of greatest disagreement between faculty and students.
|The percentage of students desiring control or voting power
I in provision and content of courses was double that of the j
i * 1
i l
jfaculty (A-C:76). The specific areas of concern were rele- !
Ivance and variety of courses. Forty-five percent of the
i ” i
students were dissatisfied with the variety of courses
i
presently offered, and 41 percent of the students felt that
what was taught was "irrelevant to what is going on in the
i
outside world" (A,B:5, 150). Thirty percent more students |
than faculty members strongly agreed that education I ! wouldbej
188!
improved if course work were more relevant to contemporary [
life and problems" (A-C:26). The concern for relevancy was !
expressed by at least 8 5 percent of all groups of students j
isampled in the Carnegie Study (A,B,D:26) (Trow, 1 9 7 5 ) . |
I The student concern for variety of courses and
t
[relevance called into question the competence of the faculty
i j
to select that which was necessary to provide a well-rounded
education. This was of greater concern to faculty members I
I
than to students (A,B:30). Although faculty members might i
readily support the addition of electives, they might not
support elimination of general education requirement j
courses. The faculty would be particularly concerned about
any outside person, student or administrator, who might
attempt to interfere with the content of courses. This
would be interpreted as an infringement of the teachers' i
academic freedom. Therefore, most faculty members would j
! i
jresent anyone who threatened to usurp their control in the
i
t
classroom.
Another area in which there might be conflict would j
be the establishment of special programs for minority |
groups. Although the majority of both groups agreed that
Black Studies programs should be provided if there were a
request for them, 40 percent more students than faculty
’ 1891
strongly agreed with establishing these programs (A,B:170). !
The majority of the students would lower admission standards
for minority group students and would have any special aca- j
I
demic programs for black students administered and con-
Itrolled by black people. The faculty disagreed with these :
j |
jtwo policies on the issue of lowering standards (A-C:169, '
i ' j
■171). Although neither group was willing to lower faculty !
i j
standards, the students did not feel that this was necessary
for administrators or minority students. It is possible
!
that the higher than usual percentage of minority group
students affected these results. One Chicano student who I
i
was interviewed declared that "Education is upward mobility.,
:We need the doors open to make it and we need people at the '
top who know and understand our needs."
j
The faculty, on the other hand, must attempt to meet
the needs of these students in their classes. Several 1
faculty members discussed the difficulty of teaching classes
with divergent levels of ability and background. They felt i
I
i
that it caused them to do a disservice to students at both j
academic extremes and that lowered admission standards auto-
i
jmatically meant lowered class standards. One faculty member
j
stated, "We don't help them at this level, and they don't :
help us." Faculty members who were interviewed could give
190*
some justification for lowering student admission standards.
t
No one was willing to justify lowering standards for teach-;
(
ers or administrators. The statistical data support the j
i
i
fact that the faculty would be concerned about additional j
!administrators in general, let alone ones who might be less:
t
f :
(competent but hired because of their race (A,B:67, 169). |
i ;
i i
One faculty member who was interviewed summed up the feel- )
i
ings of others by stating, "I want the best people in edu- !
|
cation as students, teachers, and administrators whether .
they're black, white, or purple." This concern about the !
"down-grading of higher education" was consistent for the j
faculty members, since they were generally more concerned
about and critical of the present academic and intellectual,
standards than were the students (A,B:1, 2, 17, 18, 19).
Another major area of difference between faculty
members and students was the concept of involvement. The
faculty members apparently adhered to the concept of aca- j
demic detachment that is characteristic of people in the
\
humanities and social sciences (Lipset, 1965, p. 8). They i
I
therefore believe that they can be effective teachers with-j
out personally involving themselves with their students. i
Students disagreed, with 31 percent strongly disagreeing |
(A-C:45). The limited social interaction between the
T9T1
faculty and students is substantiated by the fact that fewer
!
than 10 percent of the students saw half or more of the !
faculty socially and over 55 percent of the students never j
, <
|saw them socially, yet 76 percent of the students were |
i |
(satisfied with the faculty-student relationships (A-C:3,
i 1
188, 190). Thus it may be concluded that faculty members i
i
were apparently being involved in ways that the students j
deemed appropriate or that the term- "involvement" was de- j
fined differently by each group. j
When one considers involvement in relation to stu
dent activism, one finds that the faculty members were con- j
sistently less involved and less supportive than students,
but it is important to note that they were involved and
l
supportive. This is consistent with previous findings
(Petersen, 1965, p, 367; Feuer, 1964, p. 7). Since the
majority of the students and faculty was liberal to left,
lone would assume support for student activism (Ladd & Lip
set, 1975b, p. 33; Lipset & Ladd, 1970; Feuer, 1964, p. 7; I
i
Selznick, 1965, pp. 103-104). |
The amount of support of student activism on this !
I I
campus by LCA faculty members may be affected by the general
I !
jagreement between them and students on the negative effects
i
jof violence and disruption (A,B:87, 100, 101). Since 15
192:
percent of the students regarded themselves as left in their
I
political orientation, one would assume that there would
have been many more protests and demonstrations on campus, j
This was not true, either because those students defined
|”left” differently or because they were left in comparison
j
ito the total student body, which appeared to be middle-of- I
i ■ i
the-road to conservative (A,B:83). Compared to activists I
at other schools, their behavior was not radical. Although;
there have been some demonstrations, they have been orderly,!
nonviolent, and basically nondisruptive of classes. Perhaps
one reason for this limited number of demonstrations is that
most of the students believed that "an individual person
ican do little to bring about changes in our society” (A,B:
164). Another reason may be that the majority of students i
still believed that they could bring about change through
traditional means (A,B:85). Another reason may be that
:
i
they were less radical than in the past (Harris Poll, 1970, ;
pp. 1170-1171).
Undoubtedly the most important factor relative to
i
[congruence is the fact that most members of both groups were
to the left in their political orientation (A,B:79). This ;
provides the basis for acceptance of the same values and j
beliefs and has consistently been a factor in differentiat-
1931
ling groups in this study and others. Whatever the reason, \
I
I
it appears to be relatively easy for the LCA faculty to ■
jaccept and support student activism and educational change |
| (A,B:123) .
i
I 1
'Summary ;
i
One finds the greatest congruence among LCA students
i
and faculty members. Their differences of opinion on issues
are generally in the extent rather than the direction of
i
difference. This is substantiated by the limited number of >
i
apparent or statistically significant differences. In gen
eral, the faculty and students agreed on most educational
and sociopolitical issues. The only areas of difference
relate to student participation and involvement in decision
i
making and campus governance.
Students responded in a more liberal direction than ;
faculty on three times as many items on the questionnaire.
They were also more involved in student activism to initiate
j j
the changes they felt were necessary. Although the faculty :
i '
members were less involved in demonstrations, they were
|
generally supportive of the students' positions and behav
ior. The congruence of the faculty and students in terms
l '
*
of political beliefs was undoubtedly a major factor in '
(establishing the supportive relationship of faculty members
1941
and students. The findings in this study are therefore :
I
consistent with those of previous studies in terms of the
relationship of students and faculty members in the social
jsciences and humanities.
i
I '
i
Results of the Comparison of CCA Students
I and CCA Faculty Members
A comparison of the responses of the CCA faculty j
i
and students reveals 39 items that differ at a statistically
significant level. Five items relate to differences in the!
sample, 24 to educational concerns, six to student activism,!
i j
and four to sociopolitical concerns. Ten items are signi
ficant at the .001 and .01 levels, seven at the .02 level,
and 12 at the .05 level. There are nine items involving \
differences in direction and six items on which the faculty !
!
agreed but the students were divided on their responses.
i
|The remainder of the items are differences in extent of
agreement or disagreement. !
!
Sample |
The sample differed in kinds of involvement, social-
I
izing, and educational aspirations. About one-third of the
students planned to end their formal education after com
pleting a bachelor's degree and about one-half planned to •
earn a master's degree or its equivalent. About one-third |
1951
of the faculty members planned to complete their formal
education with a master's degree and one-half planned to
i
earn a doctorate. About 40 percent more of the faculty ;
i !
imembers than students planned to earn a doctorate (A-C:192).j
j
iTwenty-three percent more students than faculty had worked
j * i
iin a community to organize for social action and 18 percent I
I |
imore students had worked in a political campaign (A-C.-lll- j
| !
112). A larger percentage of students than faculty had
i
friends who were liberal or middle-of-the-road in their 1
political orientation. Whereas the largest percentage of
students had friends who were middle-of-the-road, the lar- ;
i
gest percentage of faculty members had friends who were
conservative (A-C:81). There was limited socializing be-
i
tween faculty and students. Only 5 percent of the students
saw half of more of the faculty members socially and 62
i
percent almost never saw them socially. Although the '
1
( i
'■majority of the faculty did not see half or more of their ;
!
icolleagues socially, only 14 percent almost never saw them 1
(A-C:188). j
Educational concerns
I The educational issues that are statistically sig
nificant relate to the areas of campus environment, ways of
i (
I j
!improving education, decision making, and general___________ j
196;
educational issues. Only those issues of educational con
cern that relate to student activism will be discussed.
I
Sixteen of the 24 statistically significant items j
relate to decision making, campus governance, or other
activist concerns. Two items are significant at the .001
level, five at the .01 level, four at the .02 level, and
five at the .05 level. There is one item on which the
groups differ in direction and three items on which the
faculty disagreed but the students were divided.
The majority of both groups disagreed with the
following items, but a larger percentage of the faculty
disagreed:
1. Most students are treated like "numbers in a
book" (A-C:23).
2. Undergraduate education in America would be
improved if grades were abolished (A-C:25).
3. Junior faculty members have too little say in
the running of my department (A-C:65).
4. Much of what is taught at my college is irrele
vant to what is going on in the outside world
(A-C:150).
The majority of students opposed clearing student publica
tions with college officials, whereas the faculty was di
vided on this issue (A-C:98). The majority of both groups i
i
jopposed banning extremists from speaking on the campus, but i
a larger percentage of students disagreed (A-C:99).
The majority of both groups agreed that (1) educa
tion would be improved if all courses were elective, (2)
[faculty promotions should be based in part on formal studend
Evaluations, and (3) any institution with a substantial
i
I
| i
inumber of black students should offer a program of Black
i
Studies. However, a larger percentage of students than j
i
faculty agreed with these items (A-C:24, 59, 170). The '
students were divided regarding their feelings about insti- |
tutional and departmental decision making, but the faculty
members felt that (1) all faculty members are involved in j
voting on matters within the department, (2) institutional
i
[policies are not determined by a small group of powerful
senior professors, and (3) the institution would be better
off with fewer administrators.
I
Students wanted to be more involved in decision ;
[making. The only item involving a difference in direction
l
[indicated that the majority of the faculty had influence
i i
jand the majority of students did not (A-C:70). The majority
I i
iof the students and faculty agreed that the department had
i !
taken steps to increase student participation in its deci-
i
jsions , but a larger percentage of faculty members than of j
students felt that this had happened (A-C:65). The largest
-------------------------------------------------------
I
percentage (42 percent) of the CCA faculty members indicated
l
that students should have informal consultation on bache- j
lor1s degree requirements. About one-fourth of the CCA j
faculty indicated that students should have formal consul
tation or little or no role. The largest percentage of !
jstudents indicated that they should have formal consulta- -
ition. About one-fourth of the students indicated that they
! I
jshould have voting power or informal consultation (A-C:75). ;
Students wanted even more involvement in the provision and
i
I
jcontent of courses. Although the largest percentage of
each group indicated that the students' role should be for
mal consultation, 22 percent more students than faculty
imembers felt that they should have voting power (A-C:76).
Student activism
There are several differences between the faculty
and students regarding activism. Although 68 percent of the
t
faculty agreed, with 42 percent strongly agreeing, that most
college officials were too lax in dealing with student pro- (
i
tests, the students were divided on the issue (A-C-.97). j
|The faculty and students had opposing opinions about the j
1 I
iWashington, D.C. , Days of Concern, and Kent State demonstra-|
tions. In each instance, a larger percentage of students
than of faculty approved of the aims and methods, or________
approved of the aims but not the methods, whereas a larger
■ !
percentage of faculty than of students disapproved of the
[aims or the aims and methods of the demonstrators. However]
> i
; i
I students were less supportive of faculty activism. Neither
'faculty nor students felt that faculty members should be !
i
jmore militant in defending their interests, but the faculty
i j
Jmembers were divided on the issue of collective bargaining. !
i !
A larger percentage of students than of faculty disagreed j
i
with both of these issues (A-C:103, 105). j
i
i
Social problems
The areas of difference relate to the use of mari
juana, banning of cigarette ads, and the necessity of Com-
I j
imunist involvement in developing countries. Both groups
I i
lopposed the legalization of marijuana but 22 percent more
faculty members strongly disagreed with legalization (A-C:
i
|152). y The majority of faculty members felt that under- ,
graduates who used marijuana regularly should be suspended 1
or dismissed; the majority of the students disagreed (A-C: ■
151). The majority of both groups favored banning of ,
I
| I
Icigarette advertising, but a larger percentage of faculty
i
members agreed, and agreed more strongly (A-C:160). The [
i I
; I
majority of both groups disagreed with the concept that some
form of Communist regime was probably necessary for progress*
■2001
i
in underdeveloped countries, but a larger percentage of the j
faculty disagreed and disagreed more strongly than did the !
students (A-C:181). J
J f
Summary and conclusion J
| There are 39 statistically significant differences
i
in responses on the items. The CCA faculty members and ;
i
students differed in regard to educational aspirations,
i
kinds of involvement, and socialization patterns. Although j
the students were generally in agreement with the faculty ■
jmembers in relation to the direction of response, there are
I
generally differences in the extent of acceptance. The
;students favored changes in requirements and curricula and
l
■wanted more involvement in decision making within the in
stitution and department. They were also more critical of
the decision-making processes within the department than
was the faculty. The greatest differences in direction ,
I
|
occurred in the area of student activism, with students !
I ;
'consistently being more supportive of student activism than '
i ■
i 1
'faculty members. The faculty and students opposed Communist!
i
!
involvement in underdeveloped countries, but the faculty |
i
were more opposed than the students. The groups differed 1
on the issue of suspending or dismissing students who used
marijuana. ___________________________________
| 2011
On the basis of these findings, the hypothesis that'
there will be no significant difference in attitudes relat-
i
ing to sociopolitical ideology and student activism between j
[students and faculty members in the conservative curricular |
' i
(areas must be rejected. j
1
i !
I
Discussion of the Findings for CCA Students
and CCA Faculty Members
i
The data indicate that the CCA faculty members and
t
students are very representative of the conservative orien- j
j i
Itation. In comparing these data with the Carnegie results j
i (
jof the total college population and medium-quality college j
i
javerages, 13 inconsistent items can be noted. The CCA stu
dents' responses are less conservative than the Carnegie
i
results on nine items (A,B,D:154, 169-171, 173, 174, 179,
180; Trow, 1975; Ladd & Lipset, 1975b). These items concern
jlegalization of abortion, establishment of a volunteer army,;
i
i
(recognition of Communist China, and minority group issues.
jThe CCA faculty members' responses were less conservative
i
(than the Carnegie results on six items (A,B,D:29, 33, 63,
! i
;171-173; Trow, 1975; Ladd & Lipset, 1975b). These items j
| I
(concern college governance, educational values, student j
i j
jactivism, and minority group issues. These results are j
i
highly consistent with the literature in establishing that
2021
the faculty and students in agriculture and engineering
represent the conservative curricular area (Ladd & Lipset, !
1975b; Bereiter & Freedman, 1962; Stember, 1961; Kristol, ;
11967).
! There is much congruence in response between CCA
i
I
jfaculty members and students. There are 15 reversals in 1
i
direction on the entire questionnaire (A,B:19, 33, 51, 70,
84, 89, 97, 104-106, 124-126, 151, 164). There are seven ;
I
items on which there is a difference in direction, but one !
group is equally divided in its response (A,B:28, 41, 53, !
66, 67, 98, 99). Of these items, 12 show statistically i
significant differences (A-C:28, 33, 66, 67, 70, 98, 99,
105, 124-126, 151). The students' responses were in the
liberal direction four times as often on these items. In
analyzing the entire questionnaire, one finds that the ,
jstudents' responses were in the liberal direction, in terms
jof extent of difference, five times more often than the
faculty responses. Thus, although both groups generally
responded from a conservative orientation in comparison to :
t
i
jother curricular areas, the students responded from a more |
lliberal-activist orientation than the faculty. This ten- i
i !
.dency differed from that which would have been expected from
the literature. Past studies have shown that the faculties
are more liberal than students and that CCA students are j
I
the least liberalized by their college experience (Stember, |
1961; Webster, Freedman, 6 c Heist, 1962; Ladd 6 c Lipset, j
\
|1975b; Lipset 6 c Schaflander, 1971).
]
I The area of student activism involves the greatest
[number of differences between the CCA students and faculty.
i |
[Eleven of the 15 differences in direction relate to activist
I
issues. The students were more supportive than the faculty
i
of student activism on almost every issue on the question- 1
naire. The students had been more involved in student *
activism and had participated more than the faculty in j
every kind of demonstration except for noncampus demonstra-
jtions against racial policies (A,B:127-140). This faculty
I
involvement is consistent with the fact that their attitudes
toward racial problems were more liberal than the Carnegie
» i
norms for total institutions and medium-quality institu- !
tions. Although the majority of both the faculty and stu-
jdents felt that student demonstrations had had no effects,
i 1
■the students generally felt that where there were effects,
I j
jthey were favorable, whereas the faculty felt that they were
I !
[unfavorable (A,B:141-148). It is important to note, how-
I i
jever, that although the CCA students may have been more
I
[supportive of student activism than the faculty, this
204^
support was limited and was liberal only when compared to j
the CCA faculty members. |
It is important to note student perceptions of 1
i 1
(faculty situations and issues in terms of activism and j
: i
(governance. Although the students were more supportive of
i
student activism than the faculty, they were less supportive
of militant faculty activism (A-C:102). This is particu- j
i
i
larly interesting since the students were more supportive (
i
j
of faculty unions, collective bargaining, and faculty |
t
strikes than were the faculty members (A-C:104-106).
Students’ perception of the governance of their
department is also of interest. Students were apparently
less sure of what was happening within their departments, |
and more prone than the majority of the CCA faculty members
to feel that junior faculty members were not equally repre-
i
sented in decision making in the department and institution
i
!(A-C:63-67). This difference may be due to information
provided by discontented faculty members, or it could be I
i
I
based upon the fact that the student role in decision making
I
was not sufficient to permit accurate personal judgments j
* i
(A-C:63, 70, 71), It is also possible that the students j
were projecting their dissatisfaction with their limited j
roles in decision making onto the junior faculty members.
205
Another possibility is that the faculty members interpreted!
participation in decision making differently than the stu
dents did. Although 72 percent of the CCA faculty members j
(indicated that departmental decisions were normally made by
ja vote of all members, only 36 percent indicated that the !
administration of the department was very democratic, and
only 44 percent of the CCA faculty members indicated that
i
they had a great deal of influence in the departmental
policies, as compared to 73 percent of the LCA faculty mem- j
bers. Almost one-quarter of the CCA faculty disagreed with [
the majority and felt that there was not an equal represen- f
tation in departmental decision making (A-C:64-66, 70, 71).
I Thus, students may have had a basis for their evaluation.
It is possible that this same kind of situation
exists in student participation in the department. Although
80 percent of the faculty members indicated that their ;
department had increased student participation in decision :
jmaking, only 59 percent of the students agreed, and 19 per-
i ;
icent of the students felt that they had no opportunity to ;
j '
'influence their department (A-C:63, 70). j
!
Students wanted more involvement in faculty promo- j
tions and in the provision and content of courses. Although
the majority of the faculty supported student involvement in
206'
these areas, they did so to a lesser extent. Seventy-eight ;
i
percent of the faculty agreed that "faculty promotions
should be based upon student evaluations," but 90 percent j
f I
|of the students agreed, with twice as many students as
ifaculty strongly agreeing (A-C:59). The students also
I I
wanted more involvement and power in determining bachelor's :
I
degree requirements and in the provision and content of
courses. Concerns are indicated by the fact that a larger !
percentage of students than faculty members felt that much
I
of what was taught was irrelevant to what was happening in
i
the world. The faculty tended to want to provide opportu- I
nities for participation and involvement but also to limit ■
the power of students within the decision-making processes
i
i(A-B:73-78).
i
j
If students did have control of curricula, one of
the areas that would be developed would be a Black Studies
Iprogram, since 89 percent of the students compared to 62 1
j
percent of the faculty favored initiating these kinds of
programs (A-C:170), If students had the kind of power over :
|Student discipline that they felt they should have (25 per
cent for control and 40 percent for voting), they would alsoj
I
be better able to counteract the belief of the majority of 1
CCA faculty members that students who use marijuana
jregularly should be suspended or dismissed (A-C:78, 151).
The fact that the majority of students opposed
legalization of marijuana but were unwilling to suspend or j
i i
lexpel students who used marijuana may be due to the fact |
>
Ithat they or their friends used marijuana. Their opposition
i
|may also be based on the position that college officials
I
I
have no right to regulate off-campus behavior. This would
be consistent with the views of 94 percent of the students ;
3
!
at medium-quality colleges in the Carnegie Study (Trow, '
1975, p. 21). The faculty was consistently opposed to the
use of marijuana. Over half of the CCA faculty strongly i
'Opposed legalizing marijuana, with 16 percent more faculty
than students generally opposing legalization. About the
same relationship exists in regard to opposing cigarette
advertising.
Both groups also opposed Communist involvement in i
|Underdeveloped countries. The difference in the extent of *
i
jopposition may relate to differences in the eras in which
these two groups were raised. Downing and Salomone (19 69)
I
;found that people who were not raised during the Cold War
i
era were less hostile to communism and more dovish in their !
i
positions on the Vietnam war (A-C:181). ■
i
I A major factor that may have affected the results
2081
is the political orientation of these two groups. Although j
i
there is no statistically significant difference in the j
[political orientation of these two groups, 13 percent more i
I '
t I
|of the faculty are conservative (A,B:79). There is a sta
tistical difference, however, in the political orientation
i
|of their friends. Over 20 percent more of the faculty than '
i
students had conservative friends. In general, students had
friends who were as liberal as or more liberal than they
f
(A-C:81). This factor may have greatly influenced the |
i
sociopolitical attitudes of these CCA students. Their ,
t
greater involvement in working in political campaigns and in
organizing for social action in the community also may have '
provided association with people who were more liberal than <
i
Jthey (A-C:111, 112). The limited social interaction with ;
jfaculty members may also have been a factor (A-C:188).
Iwhatever the reason, though, the CCA students were defi-
!
hitely more liberal than their teachers.
In summary, one finds that the CCA students and j
i
i
faculty represented the conservative end of the academic j
.establishment and that the students were less conservative ■
I '
jthan their teachers. The areas involving the greatest num- j
i >
! I
ber of differences between the two grouns concern governance]
j
bnd decision making in education and student activism.
209'
!
Throughout the study, the students were more liberal and 1
supportive of student activism and the issues related to it.
I
i
i
I
t
f
i
»
i
\
!
i
i
, i
!
i
i
I
i
i
CHAPTER V
; SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
t
Summary
The purpose of the study was to investigate the
relationship of attitudes of college faculty members and
senior majors in the most liberal and conservative curricu
lar areas. The relationship of sociopolitical attitudes
and attitudes toward student activism within and between
these curricular areas was studied.
A modified form of the 1969 Carnegie Commission
i
Survey of Faculty and Student Opinion was distributed to
all full-time male faculty members and majors in agricul
ture, engineering, social sciences, and humanities at a
t
jselected four-year college. The questionnaire was to be
(completed within a two-week period during May and June 1971.
The sample from the conservative curricular area included
50 faculty members and 261 majors in agriculture and engin
eering. The sample from the liberal curricular area
2 i r
i
included 22 faculty members and 118 majors in the social
i
sciences and humanities. The questionnaire data were
treated by Chi Square analysis.
i ;
I Eight students and eight faculty members from the I
I [
'liberal curricular area and eight students and eight faculty
i
I
jmembers from the conservative curricular area were randomly <
I
selected. These 32 persons were interviewed regarding the j
■ I
general areas of the questionnaire. The areas included j
i
personal-professional information, educational concerns, |
I
student activism, and sociopolitical issues. The responses
of the subjects were recorded and tabulated.
The following null hypotheses were tested:
Hypothesis 1. There will be no significant dif-
j
ference in attitudes relating to political ideol
ogy and student activism between majors in the
liberal and conservative curricular areas.
Hypothesis 2. There will be no significant dif- j
ference in attitudes relating to political ideol-
I !
| ogy and student activism between faculty in the :
I liberal and conservative curricular areas. |
I |
I Hypothesis 3. There will be no significant dif- j
j ference in attitudes relating to political ideol-
I ogy and student activism between faculty members
i
and majors in the conservative curricular areas. |
212
Hypothesis 4. There will be no significant dif
ference in attitudes relating to political ideol
ogy and student activism between faculty members |
and majors in the liberal curricular areas.
! The first hypothesis was rejected because there were
i
l
il41 statistically significant items. The second hypothesis
jwas rejected because there were 24 statistically significant-
items and 42 additional items that appeared to be signifi- !
cant but could not be treated statistically. The third j
hypothesis was rejected because there were 39 statistically
significant items. The fourth hypothesis was rejected be-
i
t
cause there were 10 statistically significant items and
i
seven additional items that appeared to be significant but
could not be treated statistically. These results were >
?
supported by data from personal interviews.
The findings indicated that:
1. Members of the selected academic disciplines
were representative of the liberal and conservative socio
political orientations. !
2. Members of the liberal curricular areas were
consistently more liberal, intellectually oriented, critical
of the educational and social systems, and supportive of and
Involved in student activism than members of the conserva-
I
tive curricular area.
I _ _ _ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - i .... ............... — --------------------------------------------------------------------- — —1
213!
i
3. Students were more like the faculty members in ;
their curricular areas than like other students in regard ;
to sociopolitical attitudes and attitudes toward student j
1
j
lactivism. |
t 4. Attitudinal congruence was highest between the 1
!faculty and students in the liberal curricular area, next
i
i
t
'between faculty and students in the conservative curricular
area, then between the faculties, and lowest between the i
j
students. I
|
5. The various groups differed more often in the j
extent of agreement than in the direction of agreement.
6. Both groups of students were more liberal and
supportive of student activism than the faculty.
7. Both groups of students wanted more involvement
in structuring their education— decision making regarding j
i
academic requirements, curriculum, and faculty evaluations. •
8. Although the majority of students indicated that
student demonstrations had no effect on them, the kinds of
I *
issues that concerned them and the reasons for campus |
demonstrations were the same as at colleges with a high
incidence of student protest and demonstrations.
214;
Conclusions j
i
Various conclusions can be drawn from the findings. ,
The first conclusion is that the findings are consistent
Iwith and supportive of the findings of past research con
cerning the characteristics, attitudes, and behavior of
i
istudents and faculty members in general and in relation to I
i
the specific curricular areas that they represent. The
findings support the conclusions that: j
I
1. People with certain kinds of characteristics, |
!
values, attitudes, and goals enter the various academic
curricular areas. i
2. People with similar characteristics, attitudes, :
i
lvalues, and goals select certain academic disciplines.
1 >
! i
3. The characteristics, values, attitudes, and
goals of the people within the various academic discplines
differ.
!
| 4. People within the various curricular areas are |
jmore similar to each other than to other groups (i.e. , stu- j
i ,
dents are more like the faculty in their major field than
like students in other disciplines). *
i ]
j 5. The LCA faculty and students are more liberal, i
jmore academically and intellectually oriented, and more
i
accepting of and involved in initiating institutional and i
2151
[
societal change than the CCA faculty and students. '
i
6. The LCA faculty and students are more supportive
i
of student activism than CCA faculty and students,
t 7. Students are more supportive of student activism
i
jand, perhaps as a result of the greater variation of back- :
i
igrounds and personal characteristics, are also more divided!
j ;
ion issues than are the faculty members.
! j
| 8. The students and faculty at this college have |
I i
! I
jthe same kinds of concerns and reactions as students and I
faculty in other colleges.
9. Students want more involvement in the decision- j
i
i
making process within the educational institution, whereas
faculty members are somewhat reluctant to give up their
I
academic prerogatives.
Another conclusion that can be drawn from the data
is that there is a positive relationship between the quality
jof an institution and the attitudes and behavior of faculty
jand students within the institution. In the college that
! ;
jwas studied, all of the attitudinal and behavioral data
jsupported the conclusion that this was a medium-quality, j
practically and vocationally oriented college. The inter- ;
i i
! i
[action of the faculty, students, and institution affected
i
the area of student activism. Inasmuch as the college is
216
conservative and vocational in its orientation, fewer of
the people who would tend to be radical in their beliefs
select the college as a place to learn or teach. This is
i
I especially true since the liberal arts program has not been
' i
!emphasized and is presently being developed. The kind of
i
! students who select this college therefore are not as ’
i
oriented toward radical student activism. This lack of ;
extremism in those students who are change-oriented means j
that they tend to attempt to bring about change in ways that:
i
t
are more acceptable to the faculty and administration. ;
I
Thus, there is greater congruence of attitudes between j
faculty and students and although the issue of student
activism provided the area of most statistically significant
differences, the differences in attitudes were not as ex- j
I
I
treme as one might expect in terms of the range of response.;
In fact, most of the differences were in extent rather than '
in direction of agreement. Although both groups of students
wanted more involvement in selection and promotion of j
i
faculty members and in curricular matters, neither group !
i i
isupported the use of violent or disruptive behavior to i
i
| ■ j
jeffect these changes. This was also true of the demonstra- I
I i
i
tions regarding administrative policies, racial issues, and t
war-related issues. It is therefore concluded that although*
the students at this college were representative of college
students in the kinds of concerns that they expressed, the
selection and recruitment process and orientation of the
I students, faculty, and institution have a definite effect
ion the extent and kind of student activism on campus.
I
; |
Recommendations j
Many changes have occurred since the data for this
study were collected. The mood on campuses has changed
markedly. Campuses are calm and activism is taking new '
forms. The college selected for this study has since become
a state university and has broadened and expanded its phi
losophy and goals. The emphasis on practical knowledge
remains but a liberal education is now also emphasized.
iThe university is now
i
; ... dedicated to the individual’s productive application of
! knowldege . . . This university specializes in career-oriented
! professional and liberal education which prepares its students
j in a variety of disciplines . . . The University’s primary
purpose is to teach, but it also recognizes that research is ,
1 important to good teaching and the search for truth. (College |
| Catalog, 1976-1977, p. 12) I
The result of this change is that the liberal arts area has !
i i
jbeen broadened and expanded. There are now more faculty and-
!
jstudents and new curricula in the area. New departments
|with majors in behavioral science (sociology and
218i
i
psychology), social science, philosophy, ethnic studies, j
and liberal studies have been created. It is now also pos-;
i
jsible to earn a master's degree in English and economics. j
i i
!Since these changes have undoubtedly affected the general |
!atmosphere of the institution, follow-up studies should be 1
1 i
(done. |
The first line of research that could be pursued !
I
would be to determine whether the changes in the liberal
i
areas have affected the attitudes of faculty and students 1
toward the atmosphere on the campus. Since the environment
may be affected by the proportion students and faculty in j
various curricular areas, changes may have occurred. One
could predict the university may have become more liberal
I
and more intellectually oriented. It is also possible that,
because of the processes of selection and recruitment of
i
faculty and students, little change has occurred. It would
be interesting to determine whether there is now a greater
divergence in attitudes in terms of extent and direction of
i
agreement. If more liberal faculty and students have been
recruited, it is possible that the camnus has become more !
:
! i
ipolarized in its attitude. \
i ' ■ 1
i
Still another investigation could determine whether
i
changes have occurred in general in the attitudes of faculty
219"!
and students during this five-year period. Attitudinal j
changes of faculty and students in engineering and agricul- J
|
I
ture should basically be a function of the difference in |
itime since those departments have not changed markedly. It
iwould be interesting to determine whether students are j
I ,
jpresently more involved in decision making and more content !
| -
with curricula. It would also be interesting to determine >
j ' i
whether changes have occurred in views on sociopolitical
issues.
It is therefore recommended that follow-up studies )
i
be done to determine changes in the atmosphere of the in- J
| i
jstitution and changes in the attitudes of the faculty and
i
students. Inasmuch as there is an interaction between the
institution, the faculty, and the students, it would be
f
helpful to determine whether changes have occurred to meet
the new objectives of the institution. j
A P P E N D I C E S
220
A P P E N D I X A
COVER LETTERS AND QUESTIONNAIRE
221
222
*If you do not meet ALL of the following criteria, please do NOT com
plete this questionnaire: MALE, SENIOR (135 units), FULL-TIME STUDENT
(12 units or more), AMERICAN CITIZEN MAJORING IN ENGLISH, LANGUAGE ARTS,
HISTORY, ECONOMICS, SOCIAL OR BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE, PHYSICAL EDUCATION,
ENGINEERING, AGRICULTURE, or POLITICAL SCIENCE.
I
I Dear Senior:
JI am presently working on my dissertation in educational psychology at
;USC. I know how busy seniors are and also that other surveys may have
;made similar demands upon your time. I believe, though, that the kinds
|of knowledge possible from this survey may provide insights to better
assist your department in working with majors within the department.
The accuracy of the survey and the worth of its findings are dependent
on your willingness to complete the questionnaire. I believe the impor-
itance of the study will justify the time it takes to complete the sur
vey. (It takes about one-half four to complete.) The project has been
approved by the appropriate administrative offices at Cal Poly.
|
I Traditionally, there has been a high correlation between the attitudes
:of professors and those of majors within those professors’ specialties |
in regard to social-political attitudes and ideology. Clark Kerr, in !
requesting faculty response to the Carnegie Commission on Higher Educa-
I
jtion and American Council on Education survey of social-political atti-
jtudes and student activism in 1970 indicated that "American higher
{education is currently undergoing its greatest changes in a hundred
years." Research indicates that many attitudinal changes have occurred.
Research in the area of student activism indicates that the tradition
ally high relationship of social-political attitudes of faculty members
and majors within their specialty may no longer exist.
My dissertation is primarily concerned with determining the relationship
between attitudes of professors and those of majors within those pro
fessors’ specializations as these pertain to social-political ideology
;and student activism. More specifically, the problem can be stated as
ifollows: To what extent to students emulate the social-political atti-
i ■
Itudes of faculty members within their major fields with respect to (a)
overall social-political ideology, and (b) student activism?
|
!It is impossible to frame questions which are equally relevant to all
curricular areas; you may find some that seem inappropriate to your
situation. I urge you to answer all the questions as well as you can;
I will take into account special circumstances within my analysis.
Your responses will be held in strictest confidence. I am only
223
interested in statistical relationships and will under no circumstances
report responses on an individual basis.
I hope that you will find the questionnaire interesting to answer, and
that you will complete and return it to me in the enclosed envelope.- .
Inasmuch as the element of time is one of the most crucial factors to
control (due to the changes of attitudes based upon daily events in
'politics, society and/or the college), all questionnaires must be com-
Ipleted by June 8, 1971. As an added incentive for completing the ques-
t
itionnaire, three of the returned questionnaires will be randomly selec
ted and each winner will receive five dollars ($5) . If you are inter
ested in the results of the study in regard to your curricular area of
specialization, copies will be sent to the dean and to department chair
men. A copy of the results can also be sent to you if you indicate your
name and Fall 1971 address on the questionnaire.
With thanks for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Norma Luobikis
|2231 Country Club Drive j
Glendora, California 91740 |
224
Dear Faculty Member:
I am presently working on my dissertation in educational psychology at
USC. I know how busy faculty members are and also that other surveys
may have made similar demands upon your time. I believe, though, that
the kinds of knowledge possible from this survey may provide insights
to better assist your department in working with majors within the
idepartment. The accuracy of the survey and the worth of its findings
are dependent on your willingness to complete the questionnaire. I
[believe the importance of the study will justify the time it takes to
■complete the survey. (It takes about one-half hour to complete.) I
jwould further hope that you would encourage senior, male majors in your
classes to complete the questionnaires which have been mailed to them
so that meaningful comparisons can be made. The project has been
approved by the appropriate administrative offices at Cal Poly.
Traditionally, there has been a high correlation between the attitudes
of professors and those of majors within those professors’ specialties
in regard to social-political attitudes and ideology. Clark Kerr, in
requesting faculty response to the Carnegie Commission on Higher Educa
tion and American Council on Education survey of social-political atti
tudes and student activism in 1970 indicated that "American higher edu
cation is currently undergoing its greatest changes in a hundred years."
Research indicates that many attitudinal changes have occurred. Re
search in the area of student activism indicates that the traditionally
high relationship of social-political attitudes of faculty members and
majors within their specialty may no longer exist.
My dissertation is primarily concerned with determining the relationship
between attitudes of professors and those of majors within those pro
fessors' specialization as these pertain to social-political ideology
and student activism. More specifically, the problem can be stated as
follows: To what extent do students emulate the social-political atti
tudes of faculty members within their major fields with respect to (a)
overall social-political ideology, and (b) student activism?
It is impossible to frame questions which are equally relevant to all
curricular areas; you may find some that seem inappropriate to your
situation. I urge you to answer all the questions as well as you can;
I will take into account special circumstances within my analysis. Your
responses will be held in strictest confidence. I am only interested in
statistical relationships and will under no circumstances report re
sponses on an individual basis.
I hope that you will find the questionnaire interesting to answer, and
225
that you will complete and return it to me in the enclosed envelope.
Inasmuch as the element of time is one of the most crucial factors to
control (due to the changes of attitudes based upon daily events in
politics, society and/or the college), all questionnaires must be com
pleted by June 8, 1971. If you are interested in the results of the
study, in regard to your curricular area of specialization, copies will
ibe sent to the dean and to department chairmen. A copy of the results
can also be sent to you if you indicate your name and Fall 1971 address
jon the questionnaire.
With thanks for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Norma Luobikis
2231 Country Club Drive
Glendora, California 91740
Attachment
i
r m
ATTITUDE SURVEY OF ACADEMIC, SOCIAL AND POLITICAL ISSUES
MARKING INSTRUCTIONS: Please place all answers on this questionnaire.
Make marks which completely fill the space ( ). Erase any answers you
wish to change.
A. How satisfied are you with the following at your college?
(1) Very Satisfied
(2) Satisfied
(3) Dissatisfied
(4) Very Dissatisfied
1. The college’s academic reputation ..................... (1)(2)(3)(4)
2. The intellectual environment ......................... (1)(2)(3)(4)
3. Faculty/student relations .............................. (1)(2)(3)(4)
4. The quality of classroom instruction ................ (1)(2)(3)(4)
5. The variety of courses I can take.....................(1) (2) (3) (4)
6. Friendships with other students . . .................. (1)(2)(3)(4)
7. The administration........................................(1)(2)(3)(4)
8. The overall evaluation ................................ (1)(2)(3)(4)
B. To what extent do you think each of the following describes
the psychological climate or atmosphere at your college?
(Mark one for each item)
(1) Very Descriptive
(2) In Between
(3) Not at All Descriptive
9. Intellectual ............................................ (1)(2)(3)
10. Snobbish ................ .............................. (1)(2)(3)
11. Social ................................................... (1)(2)(3)
12. Victorian ................................................ (1)(2)(3)
13. Practical minded ....................................... (1)(2)(3)
14. W a r m ..................................................... (1) (2) (3)
15. Realistic ................................................ (1)(2)(3)
16. Liberal ................................................... (1)(2)(3)
227
C. Answer each of the following as you think it applies to your
college:
Yes No
17. The students are under a great deal of pressure to
get high grades................ ()
i
^18. Most of the students are of a very high calibre
j academically .............................................. ()
I
19. There is a keen competition among most of the students
for high grades....................................... ()
20. There isn't much to do except to go to class and
study................................................... ()
21. Athletics are overemphasized...................... ()
22. The student body is apathetic and has little school
s p i r i t ................................................. ()
23. Most students are treated like "numbers in a book" . . ()
D. Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with each of
the following statements.
(1) Strongly Agree
(2) Agree with Reservations
(3) Disagree with Reservations
(4) Strongly Disagree
Undergraduate education in America would be improved if:
24. All courses were elective ............................ (1)(2)(3)(4)
25. Grades were abolished .................................. (1)(2)(3)(4)
26. Course work were more relevant to contemporary life
and p roblems............................................ (1)(2)(3)(4)
27. More attention were paid to the emotional growth
of students .............................................. (1)(2)(3)(4)
28. Students were required to spend a year in community
service in the U.S. or abroad......................... (1) (2) (3) (4)
29. The college were governed completely by the faculty
and students ............................................ (1)(2)(3)(4)
30. There were less emphasis on specialized training
and more on broad, liberal education ................. (1)(2)(3)(4)
228
31. My beliefs and attitudes are similar to most
students’ ................................................ (1)
32. Opportunities for higher education should be
available to all high school graduates who want it . (1)
33. The chief benefit of a college education is that
it increases one's earning power ..................... (1)
34. Striving for occupational success would require
me to compromise important ethical principles .... (1)
35. Public colleges and universities must be more
responsive to public demands than are private
institutions ............................................ (1)
36. Most undergraduates at my college are satisfied
with the education they are getting.................. (1)
37. My subject is doing a good job of training students . (1)
38. Many of the best students can no longer find mean
ing in science and scholarship....................... (1)
39. Some of the best students drop out because they
do not want to "play the game" or "beat the system" . (1)
40. The female students in my department are not as
dedicated as the m a l e s ........................... (1)
41. The program in my department favors the bright,
imaginative student ..................................... (1)
42. Most American colleges reward conformity and
crush student creativity .............................. (1)
43. Most faculty at my college are strongly interested
in the academic problems of undergraduates ......... (1)
44. Professors and administrators at my college show
too much interest in students’ personal lives .... (1)
45. A man can be an effective teacher without person
ally involving himself with his students ........... (1)
46. Most professors at my college don't do much to
I earn their p a y ......................................... (1)
47. Most Ph.D. holders in my field get their degrees
without showing much real scholarly ability ......... (1)
48. Many of the highest paid university professors get
where they are by being operators, rather than by
their scholarly or scientific contributions ......... (1)
2) (3)(4)
2)(3)(4)
2) (3) (4)
2) (3)(4)
2) (3) (4)
2)(3)(4)
2)(3)(4)
2)(3)(4)
2)(3)(4)
2) (3) (4)
2)(3)(4)
2) (3) (4)
2) (3) (4)
2)(3)(4)
2)(3)(4)
2) (3) (4)
2)(3)(4)
2 ) ( 3 ) ( 4 )
229
49. By and large, full time professional researchers in
universities are people who couldn’t quite make it
on the faculty . .......................................
50. My field is too research oriented .....................
51. Big contract research has become more a source of
money and prestige for researchers than an effec-
1 tive way of advancing knowledge .......................
j
*52. Genuine scholarship is threatened in universities
j by the proliferation of big research centers . . . .
The concentration of federal and foundation research
grants in the big institutions (mark each line)
53. (1) is unfair to other institutions .......
54. (2) is corrupting to the institutions ...........
; 55. (3) contributes substantially to the
| advancement of knowledge .....................
56. Many professors in graduate departments exploit
their students to advance their own research . . . .
57. In my department it is very difficult for a man
to achieve tenure if he does not publish ...........
I
!58. Teaching effectiveness, not publications, should be
j the primary criterion for promotion of faculty . . .
159. Faculty promotions should be based in part on
! formal student evaluations of their teachers . . . .
i
I
j60. A professor at a junior college or state college
I ought to get the same pay as a university pro-
| fessor of equal seniority .............................
]61. Respect for the academic profession has declined
over the past 20 years ................................
62. Most undergraduates are mature enough to be given
responsibility for their own education ..............
63. My department has taken steps to increase student
| participation in its decisions ......................
(64. In my department decisions, other than personal
i matters, normally are made by the vote of the whole
department, including junior members ................
(1)(2)<3)(4)
(1)(2)(3)(4)
(1) (2)(3)(4)
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(1)(2)(3)(4)
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(1)(2)(3)(4)
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(1)(2)(3)(4)
(1)(2)(3)(4)
(1)(2)(3)(4)
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(1)(2)(3)(4)
(1)(2)(3)(4)
(1) (2) (3) (4)
2301
65. Junior faculty members have too little say in the
running of my department................................. (1)(2)(3)(4)
66. A small group of senior professors has dispropor
tionate power in decision making in this institu
tion ..................................................... (1)(2)(3)(4)
67. This institution would be better off with fewer
administrators .......................................... (1)(2)(3)(4)
68. There should be faculty representation on the
governing board of this institution .................. (1)(2)(3)(4)
69. Trustees’ only responsibility should be to raise
money and gain community support ..................... (1)(2)(3)(4)
E. How much opportunity do you feel you have to influence the
policies of (a) your department? (b) your institution?
(mark one in each column)
70 71
Department Institution
A great d e a l ..................... ' () ()
Quite a b i t ...................... () ()
S o m e () ()
I
j N o n e ............................. ( ) ( )
| f . Do you feel that the administration of your department is:
72. Very autocratic................()
Somewhat autocratic ......... ()
Somewhat democratic ......... ()
Very democratic................()
G. What role do you believe undergraduates should play in deci
sions on the following? (Mark one in each row)
(1) Control
(2) Voting Power on Committees
(3) Formal Consultation
(4) Informal Consultation
(5) Little or No Role
73. Faculty appointment and promotion .................. (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
i
(74. Undergraduate admissions policy ..................... (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
23V
75. Bachelor’s degree requirements .................... (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
76. Provision and content of courses .................. (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
77. Resident Hall regulations ........................... (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
78. Student discipline .................................. (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
I
( h . Indicate the political leaning which best describes:
(1) Left
(2) Liberal
(3) Middle—of-the-Road
(4) Moderately Conservative
(5) Strongly Conservative
79. Yourself .............................................. (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
80. Your parents.......................................... (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
81. Your friends ......................................... (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
82. Most students at your college ........................... (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
83. Most professors at your college ....................... (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
I. Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with each of
the following statements:
(1) Strongly Agree
(2) Agree with Reservations
j (3) Disagree with Reservations
(4) Strongly Disagree
84. A man’s teaching and research inevitably reflect his
political values .....................................
i
j85. Meaningful social change cannot be achieved through
J traditional American politics . . ..................
86. I am very interested in national politics .........
87. In the USA today there can be no justification for
using violence to achieve political goals .........
88. With a few exceptions, the Chicago police acted
reasonably in curbing the demonstrations at the
■ Democratic National Convention .....................
i
i
:89. Hippies represent an important criticism of
American culture .....................................
j90. Most campus demonstrations are created by far left
groups trying to cause trouble .....................
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(1)(2)(3)(4)
(1)(2)(3)(4)
(1)(2)(3)(4)
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(1)(2)(3)(4)
232i l
91.
92.
93.
I
i
: 94.
I
I
I 95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
i
101.
102.
103.
104.
i
105.
106.
Most rules governing student behavior here are
sensible................................................ (1) (2) (3) (4)
Campus rules here are generally administered in
a reasonable w a y ....................................... (1)(2)(3)(4)
Student demonstrations have no place on a college
campus....................................... ........... (1) ( 2) ( 3) (4)!
Students should be more militant in defending
their interests ....................................... (1)(2)(3)(4)
Students who disrupt the functioning of a college
should be expelled or ‘ suspended...................... (1)(2)(3)(4)
Political activities by students have no place on
a college campus ....................................... (1)(2)(3)(4)
Most college officials have been too lax in dealing
with student protests on campus ..................... (1)(2)(3)(4)
Student publications should be cleared by college
officials.............................................. (1) (2) (3) (4)'
College officials have the right to ban persons
with extreme views from speaking on campus......... (1) (2) (3) (4)|
Campus disruptions by militant students are a
threat to academic freedom ............................ (1)(2)(3)(4)
Faculty members should be free on campus to
advocate violent resistance to public authority . . (1)(2)(3)(4)
Faculty members should be free to present in
class any idea they consider relevant .............. (1)(2)(3)(4)
Faculty members should be more militant in
defending their interests............................ (1)(2)(3)(4)
Faculty unions have a divisive effect on academic
l ife..................................................... (1) (2) (3) (4)
Collective bargaining by faculty members has no
place in a college or university ..................... (1)(2)(3)(4)
A strike would be a legitimate means of collective
action for faculty members under some circum
stances ................................................ (1)(2)(3)(4)
J. Have you known of a case here within the past two years
in which a man’s politics affected his chances for retention
or promotion?
'233
107. I know definitely of a ca s e ..................()
I’ve heard of a c a s e .........................()
I don’t know of a c a s e ...................... ()
I’m sure it hasn’t happened..................()
In recent years, have you ever felt intimidated in your
classes by students with strong political or racial views?
108. Y e s ...........() N o ...........()
In regard to each of the following activities,
(a) Did you ever engage in the activity?
(b) If not, would you like to do it?
Would
Did Like to
Yes No Yes No
Work in Peace Corps or Vista .... 109.
0 ()
116. () ()
Tutor minority group children . . . 110.
0 0
117. () ()
Community organizing for social
action ................................ 111.
0 ()
118. () ()
Work in a political campaign .... 112.
0 0
119. () ()
Work as a hospital volunteer .... 113.
0 0
120. () ()
Participate in an encounter group
(sensitivity training) .............. 114.
0 0
121. () ()
Member of student political club
or group .............................. 115.
0 0
122. () ()
What do you think of the emergence of
in recent years?
radical student activism
123. Unreservedly approve .........
. . 0
Approve with reservations . . .
. . 0
Disapprove with reservations .............. ()
Unreservedly disapprove ..................... ()
How would you characterize your attitude toward the following
demons trations ?
2341
124. 125. 126.
Washington, Days of Kent
Approved of the demonstrators' aims
and methods.........................
Approved of their aims but not their
me tho d s ................................
Disapproved of their aims
Disapproved of their aims and their
methods ................................
Uncertain or mixed feelings .........
Indifferent ............................
D.C.
5/71
( )
Concern State
5/70
( )
(
(
(
(
0
What has been your role in a student demonstration?
(Mark all that apply)
127. Helped to plan, organize, or lead the protest .
128. Joined in active protest with the demonstrators
129. Openly supported the goals of the protestors
130. Openly opposed the goals of the protestors . .
131. Tried to mediate in the protest ................
132. Was not involved actively in any way .........
With regard to demonstrations or protests on each of the
following issues, have you: (Mark all that apply)
(1) Helped Organize or Lead
(2) Participated in
(3) Observed at First Hand
(4) None of These
At My College Elsewhere
A demonstration against
US military policy .... 133. (1)(2)(3)(4) 137. (1)(2)(3)(4)
A demonstration against
existing ethnic or racial
policies.................. 134. (1)(2)(3)(4) 138. (1)(2)(3)(4)
235
A demonstration against
administrative policies
of a college .........
] A demonstration against
; college demonstrators
!Q. What effect have student demonstrations had on each of the
i following? (Mark one in each row)
J (1) Very Favorable
| (2) Fairly Favorable
(3) Fairly Harmful
(4) Very Harmful
(5) No Effect
141. Your research of studies ........................... (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
142. Your teaching or learning ........................ (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
143. Your relations with departmental faculty members . (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
144. Your relations with other faculty members .... (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
145. Your relations with departmental majors
(students) ............................................ (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
146. Your relations with other students ............... (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
147. Your view of your campus administration...(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)[
148. Your institution’s relations with the local
community ............................................ (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
R. Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with each of
the following statements.
(1) Strongly Agree
(2) Agree with Reservations
(3) Disagree with Reservations
(4) Strongly Disagree
149. My college should be actively engaged in solving
social problems ....................................... (1)(2)(3)(4)
|150. Much of what is taught at my college is irrelevant
i to what is going on in the outside world........... (1) (2) (3) (4)
Il51. Undergraduates known to use marijuana regularly
should be suspended or dismissed ..................... (1)(2)(3)(4)
At My College
135. (1)(2)(3)(4)
136. (1)(2)(3)(4)
Elsewhere
139. (1)(2)(3)(4)
140. (1)(2)(3)(4)
152.
153.
154.
155.
i
1156.
i
I
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
i
1163.
I
1164.
i
1165.
i
i
1166.
I
1167.
j
168.
1 6 9 .
236
Marijuana should be legalized....................... (1) (2) (3) (4),
Divorce laws should be liberalized .................. (1)(2)(3)(4)
Under some conditions, abortions should be
legalized.............................................. (1)(2)(3)(4)
There is too much concern in the courts for the
rights of criminals................................... (1) (2) (3) (4):
Capital punishment (the death penalty) should be
abolished .............................................. (1)(2)(3)(4)
Current levels of air pollution in large cities
justify the use of drastic measures to limit
the use of motor vehicles ............................ (1)(2)(3)(4)
Most people who live in poverty could do something
about their situation if they really wanted to . . . (1)(2)(3)(4)
Urban problems cannot be solved without huge
investments of federal money................ (1) (2) (3) (4)|
Cigarette advertising should be outlawed.. (1) (2) (3) (4)^
Women are at least the intellectual equals of men . (1)(2)(3)(4)
There are dimensions of life that cannot be
grasped rationally..................................... (1) (2) (3) (4),
Scientists should publish their findings regard
less of the possible consequences......... (1) (2) (3) (4) j
Realistically an individual person can do little j
to bring about changes in our society .............. (1)(2)(3)(4)
Man will never realize his full potential until
he is freed from the laws and conventions of
s o c i e t y ........................................ (1)(2)(3)(4)
Striving for occupational success is incompatible
with contributing to the long-run good of mankind . (1)(2)(3)(4)
These days you hear too much about the rights of
minorities and not enough about the rights of
the majority................................... (1)(2)(3)(4)
Most American colleges and universities are racist
whether they mean to be or not . .................. (1)(2)(3)(4)
Any special academic program for black students
should be administered and controlled by black
people ................................................... (1)(2)(3)(4)
2 3 7 1
170.
171.
j 172.
i
173.
174.
175.
176.
177.
178.
1
1179.
I
180.
181.
i
i
,s.
I
! 182.
Any institution with a substantial number of black
students should offer a program of Black Studies
if they wish it . . ...................................
More minority group undergraduates should be
admitted to my college even if it means relaxing
normal academic standards of admission ..............
The normal academic requirements should be relaxed
in appointing members of the minority groups to
the faculty of the college ............................
Where de facto segregation exists, black people
should be assured control over their own schools . .
Racial integration of the public elementary
schools should be achieved even if it requires
busing ...................................................
The main cause of Negro riots in the cities is
white racism ............................................
American colleges and universities must sever all
ties with the military-industrial complex .........
Classified weapons research is a legitimate
activity on college and university campuses ....
A student's grades should not be revealed to
anyone off campus without his consent ..............
Only volunteers should serve in the armed forces . .
Communist China should be recognized immediately
by the U.S......................................
Some form of Communist regime is probably necessary
for programs in underdeveloped countries ...........
Which of these positions on Vietnam is closest to your
The U.S. should withdraw from Vietnam immediately
The U.S. should reduce its involvement and encourage
the emergence of a coalition government in South
V i e t n a m ......................................... ..
The U.S. should try to reduce its involvement, while
being sure to prevent a Communist takeover in the
South ...................................................
The U.S. should commit whatever forces are necessary
to defeat the Communists ..............................
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(1)(2)(3)(4)
(1)(2)(3)(4)
(1)(2)(3)(4)
(1) (2)(3)(4)
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4)
i
(1) (2) (3) (4)j
1
(1) (2) (3) (4)j
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(1)(2)(3)(4)
(1) (2) (3) (4)
own?
(1) (2)(3)(4)
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4)
2381
STUDENT ONLY
Yes No
183. Are you a United States citizen?
184. IE YES: Have you ever been a citizen of another
( ) ( )
country?
! 185. What is your present religion?
( ) 0
Protestant
Catholic
Jewish
. . 0
( )
0
Other
None . .
No answer
0
( )
0
186. Would you describe yourself as conservative in
your religious beliefs?
0 0
187. Are you: (Mark all that apply)
White/Caucasian ................................ ()
Black/Negro/Afro-American ..................... ()
Puerto Rican ................................... ()
O riental......................................... ()
None of these.................................... ()
How many of the people you see socially are:
(1) Almost Always
(2) Most
(3) About Half
I (4) Some
I (5) Almost None
188. Members of the faculty ............................ (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
] 189 . Members of the student b o d y ................. (1) (2) ( 3) (4) (5)j
190. Faculty members within your department.......... (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)(
191. Student majors within your department .......... (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
; 192. What is the highest academic degree you intend
| to obtain? (Mark one)
N o n e .......................................................... ()
I Bachelor's degree (B.A., B.S., etc.) .................... ()
' L.L.B. or J.D..................................................()
| M.D. , D.D.S., or D.V.M....................................... ()
Other professional (M.B.A. , M.S.W., e t c . ) ................(*)
Master's degree (M.A., M.S., etc.) ........................ ()
Ed.D............................................................()
Ph.D. . . ()
O t h e r ........................................................()
2391
Which of the following experiences applies to you since
entering college? (Mark all that apply)
193. Changed your long-term career p l a n ................................ ()
194. Changed your major field............................................ ()
195. Attended a junior college ....................................... ()
j196. Attended another college ......................................... ()
1197. Participated in R O T C ................................................. ()
1198. Voted in a student election........................................()
199. Worked in a college political campaign ........................... ()
200. Was enrolled in a program for disadvantaged students .......... ()
201. Participated in R O T C................................................. ()
202. Was ever on academic probation ............................ ()
203. Participated in an honors p r o g r a m .................................()
For each of these statements indicate whether it is true
or false at your college.
(1) Almost Always True
j (2) Usually True
j (3) Usually False
(4) Almost Always False
204. Professors in my major field give my work the
attention it deserves................................ (1) (2) (3) (4)|
205. Professors give my work too much attention ........... (1)(2)(3)(4)
206. Getting a degree is more important to me than the
content of my course.................................. (1) (2) (3) (4)^
207. Professors tend to reward nonconformity.............. (1) (2) (3) (4).
j208. The best way to make it is to tell professors
what they want to h e a r ................................ (1)(2)(3)(4)
People want different things from college:
j (a) Indicate how important it is for you to get
I each of the following at college,
I (b) Indicate how much of each you have received
i
at your college
240
Importance
(1) Essential
(2) Fairly Important
(3) Not Important
A detailed grasp of a special
field .......................
A well-rounded general
education ..................
Received
(7) Much
(8) Some
(9) None
Importance Received
Training and skills for an
occupation ................
Learning to get along with
people .....................
Preparation for marriage . . .
Formulating the values and
goals of my life ..............
209. (1) (2) (3) 215. (7) (8) (9)
[
210. (1)(2)(3) 216. (7)(8)(9) J
I
i
211. (1)(2)(3) 217. (7)(8)(9)|
i
212. (1)(2)(3) 218. (7)(8)(9)!
I
213. (1)(2)(3) 219. (7)(8)(9) j
i
i
214. (1)(2)(3) 220. (7)(8)(9) I
All in all, in terms of your needs and desires, how much of
the following have you had at college? (Mark one in each
row)
(1) Too Much or Too Many
(2) About the Right Amount
(3) Not Enough
221. Freedom in course selection ..............
222. Social life ................................
223. Personal contacts with classmates . . . .
1224. Work required of you in courses .........
j 225. Outlets for creative activities.........
1226. Personal contacts with faculty...........
227. Advice and guidance from faculty and staff
228. In what year were you born? ______________
(1)(2)(3)
(1) (2) (3) ’
(1)(2)(3) :
(1)(2)(3) j
(1)(2)(3) j
(1) (2) (3) :
(1) (2)(3) :
Date of completion of questionnaire
241
183.
184.
185.
186.
187.
188.
189.
190.
191.
192.
FACULTY ONLY
Are you a United States citizen?
IF YES: Have you ever been a citizen of
another country?
Yes
( )
0
No
0
0
What is your present religion?
Protestant .... ()
Catholic............ ()
Jewish.............. ()
O t h e r ............. ()
N o n e ................()
No answer ....()
Would you describe yourself as conservative in your
religious beliefs? Yes () No ()
Are you: (Mark all that apply)
White/Caucasian ....
Black/Negro/Afro-American
Puerto Rican ...........
Oriental ................
None of t h e s e ..........
How many of the people you see socially are:
(1) Almost Always
(2) Most
(3) About Half
(4) S ome
(5) Almost None
Members of the faculty .............................. (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
Members of the student body ......................... (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
Faculty members within your department ............ (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
Student majors within your department ......... . (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
What is the highest academic degree you intend
to obtain? (Mark one)
N o n e .......................................................
Bachelor's degree (B.A., B.S., etc.) ..................
L.L.B. or J.D..............................................
M.D. , D.D.S. , or D.V.M....................................
Other professional (M.B.A., M.S.W., etc.) ...........
Master's degree (M.A., M.S., etc.) .....................
Ed.D.........................................................
Ph.D.........................................................
Other . . — ......................... ._______
242!
193. What is your present rank?
Instructor.......................................()
Assistant Professor ......................... ()
Associate Professor ........................... 0
Professor.......................................()
Lecturer.........................................()
O t h e r ........................................... ()
How long have you been employed? (Beyond the level of teaching
or research assistant):
194. In colleges or universities ______ years
195. At this institution ■ years
196. At how many different colleges or universities have you been
employed full-time (beyond the level of teaching or research
assistant)? _________
197. About how many students, at all levels, are enrolled in your
courses this term?
Under 25
25-49
50-99 400 or more
100-249
250-399
. • ( )
. • ()
. • ( )
;198. If you were to begin your career again, would you still want
! to be a college professor?
Definitely yes
Probably yes .
Probably no
Definitely no
( )
( )
o
'()
In a normal week, what proportion of your work time is
devoted to the following activities:
199. Administration (departmental or institutional,
including committee work) ______
200. Consulting (with or without pay)
201. Outside professional practice __
%
7
/o
%
202. Do your interests lie primarily in teaching or research?
Very heavily in research ...........
In both, but leaning toward research
In both, but leaning toward teaching
Very heavily in teaching ...........
o
0
0
0
243
203. In what year were you born? ___________
Date of completion of questionnaire _______________________________
A P P E N D I X B
PERCENTAGE SCORES FOR EACH GROUP
IN THE SAMPLE
244
:em
Topic of Statement
lo.
Group*
Very
Sat.
Sat.
Dis-
sat.
Very
Dis.
Omit
1 College’s academic reputation FAC LCA 4.5 50.0 45.5 0 0
FAC CCA 34.0 56.0 8.0 2.0 0
STU LCA 8.5 65.3 22.9 3.4 0
STU CCA 40.2 52.9 5.4 1.1 0.4
2 Intellectual environment FAC LCA 9.1 40.9 45.5 4.5 0
FAC CCA 14.0 56.0 24.0 6.0 0
STU LCA 5.1 50.8 37.3 6.8 0
STU CCA 11.1 69.7 14.9 4.2 0
3 Faculty/student relations FAC LCA 18.2 68.2 9.1 ' 4.5 0
FAC CCA 50.0 36.0 10.0 2.0 2.0
STU LCA 24.6 51.7 19.5 3.4 0.8
STU CCA 25.3 58.6 14.9 0.4 0.8
4 Quality of classroom instruction FAC LCA 4.5 77.3 13.6 4.5 0
FAC CCA 16.0 60.0 24.0 0 0
STU LCA 11.9 63.6 22.9 1.7 0
STU CCA 11.9 67.4 17.2 3.1 0.4
5 Variety of courses FAC LCA 9.1 31.8 4.5 0 54.0
FAC CCA 26.0 44.0 12.0 0 18.0
STU LCA 11.9 43.2 33.9 11.0 0
STU CCA 18.0 48.7 28.4 5.0 0
*FAC LCA = Faculty members in the liberal curricular areas
FAC CCA = Faculty members in the conservative curricular areas
STU LCA = Student majors in the liberal curricular areas
STU CCA = Student majors in the conservative curricular areas
Item
No.
Topic of Statement Group
Very
Sat.
Sat.
Dis-
sat.
Very
Dis.
Omit
6 Friendships with other students FAC LCA 4.5 31.8 0 4.5 59.1
FAC CCA 20.0 50.0 4.0 2.0 24.0
STU LCA 21.2 55.9 16.9 5.9 0
STU CCA 33.0 54.5 11.5 0.8 0.4
7 Administration FAC LCA 4.5 45.5 31.8 4.5 13.6
FAC CCA 4.0 62.0 16.0 14.0 4.0
STU LCA 4.2 46.6 34.7 12.7 1.7
STU CCA 6.9 65.2 22.2 5.7 0
8 Overall evaluation FAC LCA 4.5 59.1 27.3 0 9.1
FAC CCA 8.0 70.0 16.0 0 6.0
STU LCA 5.1 68.6 24.6 1.7 0
STU CCA 10.3 76.2 13.0 0 0.4
Item
No.
Topic of Statement Group Very Desc In Betw. Not Desc. Omit
9 Intellectual FAC LCA
FAC CCA
STU LCA
STU CCA
0
12.0
5.1
10.0
40.9
62.0
56.8
73.9
59.1
24.0
38.1
15.7
0
2.0
0
0.4
10 Snobbish FAC LCA
FAC CCA
STU LCA
STU CCA
4.5
4.0
5.9
8.4
13.6
8.0
38.1
25.3
77.3
84.0
55.9
65.9
4.5
4.0
0
0.4
N>
- C >
Item Topic of Statement Group Very Desc. In Betw. Not Desc. Omit
11 Social FAC LCA 9.1 68.2 18.2 4.5
FAC CCA 6.0 58.0 32.0 4.0
STU LCA 11.9 58.5 29.7 0
STU CCA 00
00
68.2 22.6 0.4
12 Victorian FAC LCA 13.6 27.3 45.5 13.6
FAC CCA 10.0 20.0 62.0 8.0
STU LCA 20.3 36.4 42.3
oo
o
STU CCA 11.5 36.4 49.8 2.3
13 Practical Minded FAC LCA 77.3 18.2 0 4.5
FAC CCA 78.0 20.0 2.0 0
STU LCA 44.9 46.6 7.6 0.8
STU CCA 64.0 29.9 5.7 0.4
14 Warm FAC LCA 27.3 63.6 4.5 4.5
FAC CCA 50.0 40.0 8.0 2.0
STU LCA 14.4 61.0 24.6 0
STU CCA 23.4 65.5 10.7 0.4
15 Realistic FAC LCA 45.5 40.9 0 13.6
FAC CCA 58.0 34.0 6.0 2.0
STU LCA 22.0 64.4 13.6 0
STU CCA 46.4 47.1 6.1 0.4
16 Liberal FAC LCA 0 54.5 40.9 4.5
FAC CCA 2.0 66.0 26.0 6.0
STU LCA 6.7 43.2 50.0 0
STU CCA 9.2 59.4 31.0 0.4
247
I
Item Topic of Statement Group Yes No Omit
17 Students are under a great deal of pressure FAC LCA 27.3 63.6 9.1
to get high grades FAC CCA 36.0 62.0 2.0
STU LCA 40.7 59.3 0
STU CCA 48.3 51.3 0.4
18 Most students are of a very high caliber FAC LCA 9.1 86.4 4.5
academically FAC CCA 34.0 58.0 8.0
STU LCA 23.7 76.3 0
STU CCA 37.2 61.7 1.1
19 Keen competition among most of the students FAC LCA 31.8 63.6 4.5
for high grades FAC CCA 42.0 52.0 6.0
STU LCA 39.8 60.2 0
STU CCA 52.5 46.7 0.8
20 Isn't much to do except go to classes and FAC LCA 36.4 54.5 9.1
study FAC CCA 16.0 76.0 8.0
STU LCA 53.3 44.9 1.7
STU CCA 44.4 55.2 0.4
21 Athletics are overemphasized FAC LCA 9.1 77.3 13.6
FAC CCA 8.0 84.0 8.0
STU LCA 11.0 88.1 0.8
STU CCA 6.9 92.3 0.8
22 Student body is apathetic and has little FAC LCA 54.5 18.2 27.3
school spirit FAC CCA 42.0 52.0 6.0
STU LCA 89.0 10.2 0.8
STU CCA 77.0 22.6 0.4
ro
■P-
oo
Item Topic of Statement Group Yes No Omit
23 Students are treated like "numbers in a book" FAC LCA
FAC CCA
STU LCA
STU CCA
22.7
10.0
43.2
28.7
72.
88.
54.
70.
7
0
2
5
4.5
2.0
2.5
0.8
Item Topic of Statement Group
Str.
Agree
Agree Disagree
Str.
Disagree
Omit
24 Improve education with all courses FAC LCA 9.1 36.4 22.7 31.8 0
elective FAC CCA 2.0 12.0 22.0 64.0 0
STU LCA 18.6 44.1 26.3 11.0 0
STU CCA 3.8 26.4 34.9 34.9 0
25 Improve education with grades FAC LCA 13.6 40.9 40.9 4.5 0
abolished FAC CCA 8.0 20.0 34.0 36.0 2.0
STU LCA 29.7 41.5 20.3 5.1 3.4
STU CCA 12.6 33.0 31.8 21:5 1.1
26 Improve education with course work FAC LCA 18.2 36.4 36.4 4.5 4.5
more relevant to contemporary life FAC CCA 16.0 58.0 20.0 6.0 0
and problems STU LCA 48.3 40.7 9.3 1.7 0
STU CCA 40.2 44.4 12.6 2.3 0.4
27 Improve education with more attention FAC LCA 18.2 40.9 31.8 4.5 4.5
paid to the emotional growth of FAC CCA 14.0 40.0 36.0 8.0 2.0
students STU LCA 39.0 44.1 13.6 3.4 0
STU CCA 22.6 46.7 24.1 6.5 0
249
..... 1
Item Topic of Statement Group
Str.
Agree
Agree Disagree
Str.
Disagree
Omit
28 Improve education with students FAC LCA 27.3 45.5 27.3 0 0
required to spend a year in community FAC CCA 22.0 42.0 22.0 12.0 2.0
service in the U.S. or abroad STU LCA 30.5 28.0 18.6 22.9 0
STU CCA 19.9 24.5 31.4 24.1 0
29 Improve education with college FAC LCA 18.2 13.6 59.1 9.1 0
governed completely by its faculty FAC CCA 6.0 30.0 28.0 36.0 0
and students STU LCA 27.1 40.7 19.5 12.7 0
STU CCA 10.7 33.3 34.9 20.7 0.4
: 30 Improve education with less emphasis FAC LCA 40.9 36.4 22.7 0 0
on specialized training and more on FAC CCA 4.0 14.0 44.0 38.0 0
broad liberal education STU LCA 25.4 42.4 25.4 6.8 0
STU CCA 3.8 18.0 49.8 28.4 0
31 My beliefs and attitudes are similar FAC LCA 0 22.7 50.0 0 27.3
to most students’ FAC CCA 2.0 52.0 30.0 2.0 14.0
STU LCA 6.8 47.5 29.7 15.3 0.8
STU CCA 6.9 56.7 27.6 6.1 2.7
32 Opportunities for higher education FAC LCA 18.2 59.1 4.5 13.6 4.5
should be available to all high FAC CCA 34.0 36.0 20.0 10.0 0
school graduates who want it STU LCA 61.9 27.1 5.9 5.1 0
STU CCA 42.9 31.0 17.6 8.4 0
33 The chief benefit of a college FAC LCA 0 4.5 40.9 54.5 0
education is that it increases FAC CCA 2.0 20.0 50.0 28.0 0
one's earning power STU LCA 5.9 22.0 31.4 40.7 0
STU CCA 11.1 40.6 28.7 19.5 0
K . ^
Item Topic of Statement Group
Str.
Agree
Agree Disagree
Str.
Disagree
Omit
34 Striving for occupational success would FAC LCA 4.5 27.3 18.2 27.3 22.7
require me to compromise important FAC CCA 4.0 8.0 30.0 50.0 8.0
ethical principles STU LCA 16.1 30.5 30.5 22.9 0
STU CCA 9.2 26.8 32.6 31.4 0
35 Public colleges and universities must FAC LCA 0 45.5 45.5 4.5 4.5
be more responsive to public demands FAC. CCA 18.0 42.0 20.0 20.0 0
than are private institutions STU LCA 20.3 37.3 19.5 20.3 2.5
STU CCA 24.9 46.7 18.4 10.0 0
36 Most undergraduates at my college are FAC LCA 0 59.1 18.2 9.1 13.6
satisfied with the education they are FAC CCA 28.0 50.0 18.0 0 4.0
getting STU LCA 5.1 52.5 35.6 6.8 0
STU CCA 13.4 62.1 19.2 4.6 0.8
37 My subject is doing a good job of FAC LCA 13.6 45.5 9.1 18.2 13.6
training students FAC CCA 32.0 54.0 12.0 0 2.0
STU LCA 13.6 53.4 22.9 7.6 2.5
STU CCA 24.9 49.0 14.9 3.4 7.7
38 Many of the best students can no longer FAC LCA 9.1 27.3 36.4 9.1 18.2
find meaning in science and scholarship FAC CCA 2.0 24.0 32.0 38.0 4.0
STU LCA 11.9 38.1 39.0 9.3 1.7
STU CCA 6.9 21.1 40.6 29.1 2.3
39 Some of the best students drop out FAC LCA 22.7 22.7 27.3 4.5 22.7
out because they do not want to "play FAC CCA 6.0 30.0 30.0 28.0 6.0
the game" or "beat the system" STU LCA 19.5 38.1 31.4 10.2 0.8
STU CCA 14.9 23.0 36.4 24.9 0.8
to
Ln
Item Topic of Statement Group
Str.
Agree
Str.
Agree Disagree
Disagree
Omit
40 The female students in my department FAC LCA 0 13.6 18.2 68.2 0
are not as dedicated as the males FAC CCA 2.0 14.0 22.0 44.0 18.0
STU LCA 6.8 14.4 38.1 39.0 1.7
STU CCA 7.7 14.2 34.5 33.3 10.3
41 The program in my department favors FAC LCA 9.1 50.0 22.7 13.6 4.5
the bright, imaginative student FAC CCA 10.0 38.0 34.0 14.0 4.0
STU LCA 7.6 43.2 35.6 13.6 0
STU CCA 11.1 45.6 34.1 8.8 0.4
42 Most American colleges reward conform FAC LCA 9.1 54.5 18.2 9.1 9.1
ity and crush student creativity FAC CCA 10.0 24.0 44.0 22.0 0
STU LCA 16.9 48.3 28.8 5.9 0
STU CCA 13.4 33.7 39.8 11.9 1.1
43 Most faculty at my college are strongly FAC LCA 9.1 45.5 22.7 9.1 13.6
interested in the academic problems of FAC CCA 30.0 40.0 24.0 4.0 2.0
undergraduates STU LCA 13.6 40.7 37.3 8.5 0
STU CCA 18.8 51.0 23.0 6.9 0.4
44 Professors and administrators at my FAC LCA 0 18.2 31.8 45.5 4.5
college show too much interest in FAC CCA 0 4.0 44.0 50.0 2.0
students’ personal lives STU LCA 0 5.1 44.9 50.0 0
STU CCA 0.4 3.4 43.7 52.1 0.4
45 A man can be an effective teacher FAC LCA 13.6 50.0 18.2 18.2 0
without personally involving himself FAC CCA 20.0 22.0 42.0 16.0 0
with his students STU LCA 13.6 22.0 33.1 31.4 0
STU CCA 19.9 29.5 28.4 22.2 0
ND
Ln
ND
i
Item Topic of Statement Group
Str.
Agree
Agree Disagree
Str.
Disagree
Omit
46 Most professors at my college don’t do FAC LCA 0 4.5 36 .4 59.1 0
much to earn their pay FAC CCA 4.0 4.0 42.0 50.0 0
STU LCA 5.9 16.1 48.3 28.8 0.8
STU CCA 7.3 22.6 46.0 23.8 0.4
47 Most Ph.D. holders in my field get FAC LCA 9.1 4.5 27.3 59.1 0
their degrees without showing much FAC CCA 6.0 12.0 34.0 46.0 2.0
real scholarly ability STU LCA 5.1 10.2 45.8 39.0 0
STU CCA 6.9 11.9 33.3 44.4 3.4
48 Many of the highest paid university FAC LCA 9.1 13.6 45.5 22.7 9.1
professors get where they are by being FAC CCA 12.0 26.0 40.0 18.0 4.0
operators, rather than by their STU LCA 5.1 36.4 37.3 19.5 1.7
scholarly or scientific contributions STU CCA 8.8 29.1 39.1 16.5 6.5
49 By and large, full-time professional FAC LCA 0 9.1 36.4 40.9 13.6
researchers in universities are people FAC CCA 6.0 14.0 28.0 38.0 14.0
who couldn’t quite make it on the STU LCA 0.8 13.6 55.9 22.9 6.8
faculty STU CCA 3.4 11.1 49.4 25.3 10.7
50 My field is too research oriented FAC LCA 9.1 9.1 40.9 31.8 9.1
FAC CCA 4.0 10.0 20.0 60.0 6.0
STU LCA 4.2 19.5 41.5 34.7 0
STU CCA 1.1 7.3 46.0 44.1 1.5
51 Big contract research has become more a FAC LCA 9.1 40.9 31.8 9.1 9.1
source of money and prestige for re FAC CCA 22.0 28.0 36.0 8.0 6.0
searchers than an effective way of STU LCA 15.3 35.6 37.3 7.6 4.2
advancing knowledge STU CCA 8.4 26.8 46.4 11.5 6.9
253
r
Item Topic of Statement Group
Str.
Agree
Agree Disagree
Str.
Disagree
Omit
52 Genuine scholarship is threatened in FAC LCA 4.5 18.2 50.0 18.2 9.1
universities by the proliferation of FAC CCA 14.0 28.0 30.0 22.0 6.0
big research centers STU LCA 11.0 27.1 50.8 7.6 3.4
!
STU CCA 4.2 20.3 50.2 16.1 9.2
53 Concentration of grants in big insti FAC LCA 13.6 31.8 31.8 13.6 9.1
tutions is unfair to other institutions FAC CCA 6.0 40.0 36.0 10.0 8.0
STU LCA 13.6 43.2 28.0 8.5 6.8
STU CCA 12.6 38.7 33.3 8.0 7.3
54 Concentration of grants in big insti FAC LCA 9.1 40.9 31.8 9.1 9.1
tutions is corrupting to the institu FAC CCA 6.0 20.0 44.0 22.0 8.0
tion STU LCA 10.2 23.7 50.0 9.3 6.8
STU CCA 5.0 23.0 44.8 19.2 8.0
55 Concentration of grants in big insti FAC LCA 4.5 50.0 36.4 0 9.1
tutions contributes substantially to FAC CCA 20.0 52.0 22.0 4.0 2.0
the advancement of knowledge STU LCA 11.9 53.4 22.0 5.9 6.8
STU CCA 18.0 59.0 14.2 3.1 5.7
56 Many professors in graduate departments FAC LCA 13.6 31.8 36.4 9.1 9.1
exploit their students to advance their FAC CCA 18.0 36.0 24.0 10.0 12.0
own research STU LCA 5.9 39.8 45.8 5.1 3.4
STU CCA 9.6 32.6 34.1 13.4 10.3
57 In my department it is very difficult FAC LCA 0 4.5 27.3 68.2 0
for a man to achieve tenure if he FAC CCA 4.0 8.0 16.0 70.0 2.0
does not publish STU LCA 6.8 16.9 43.2 27.1 5.9
STU CCA 1.5 8.0 33.0 47.9 9.6
ro
Ln
Item Topic of Statement Group
Str.
Agree
Agree Disagree
Str.
Disagree
Omit
58 Teaching effectiveness, not publica FAC LCA 31.8 50.0 13.6 4.5 0
tions j should be the primary criterion FAC CCA 62.0 30.0 4.0 4.0 0
for promotion of faculty STU LCA 69.5 27.1 2.5 0 0.8
STU CCA 74.7 23.8 1.1 0 0.4
59 Faculty promotions should be based in FAC LCA 18.2 50.0 27.3 4.5 0
part on formal student evaluations of FAC CCA 22.0 56.0 16.0 6.0 0
their teachers STU LCA 50.8 40.7 7.6 0.8 0
STU CCA 47.5 42.5 9.2 0.4 0.4
60 A professor at a junior college or FAC LCA 31.8 22.7 31.8 13.6 0
state college ought to get the same FAC CCA 46.0 26.0 24.0 4.0 0
pay as a university professor of equal STU LCA 41.5 28.8 24.6 5.1 0
seniority STU CCA 35.6 39.8 19.9 4.2 0.4
61 Respect for the academic profession has FAC LCA 45.5 36.4 9.1 9.1 0
declined over the past 20 years FAC CCA 44.0 46.0 10.0 0 0
STU LCA 28.0 41.5 23.7 4.2 2.5
STU CCA 22.2 48.7 20.7 6.5 1.9
62 Most undergraduates are mature enough FAC LCA 27.3 50.0 18.2 4.5 0
to be given more responsibility for FAC CCA 18.0 52.0 24.0 6.0 0
their education STU LCA 28.0 54.2 12.7 5.1 0
STU CCA 19.5 46.4 27.2 6.1 0.8
63 My department has taken steps to FAC LCA 36.4 50.0 9.1 4.5 0
increase student participation in its FAC CCA 34.0 46.0 10.0 10.0 0
decisions STU LCA 37.3 33.9 20.3 7.6 0.8
STU CCA 22.6 36.4 24.5 14.9 1.5
to
Ln
Ln
255
Item Topic of Statement Group
Str.
Agree
Agree Disagree
Str.
Disagree
Omit
64 In my department, decisions normally FAC LCA 40.9 31.8 13.6 13.6 0
are made by the vote of the whole
FAC CCA 40.0 32.0 12.0 12.0 4.0
department STU LCA 25.4 38.1 22.9 10.2 3.4
STU CCA 6.9 34.1 29.5 14.2 15.3
65 Junior faculty members have too little FAC LCA 9.1 22.7 36.4 27.3 4.5
say in the running of my department FAC CCA 10.0 10.0 30.0 48.0 2.0
STU LAC 7.6 33.1 38.1 14.4 6.8
STU CCA 8.8 23.4 41.4 14.2 12.3
66 A small group of senior professors has FAC LCA 22.7 22.7 31.8 22.7 0
disproportionate power in decision FAC CCA 14.0 10.0 34.0 40.0 2.0
making in this institution STU LCA 17.8 29.7 35.6 11.9 5.1
STU CCA 18.0 26.1 28.7 15.7 11.5
67 This institution would be better off FAC LCA 59.1 22.7 13.6 0 4.5
with fewer administrators FAC CCA 34.0 34.0 20.0 8.0 4.0
STU LCA 26.3 38.1 28.8 3.4 3.4
STU CCA 19.2 28.7 37.5 8.0 6.5
68 There should be faculty representation FAC LCA 81.8 13.6 4.5 0 0
on the governing board of this insti FAC CCA 50.0 34.0 4.0. . 6.0 6.0
tution STU LCA 61.0 31.4 4.2 1.7 1.7
STU CCA 43.7 43.3 4.6 1.1 7.3
69 Trustees r only responsibilities should FAC LCA 36.4 22.7 31.8 9.1 0
be to raise money and gain community FAC CCA 20.0 16.0 36.0 20.0 8.0
support
STU LCA 29.7 26.3 30.5 11.0 2.5
STU CCA 14.6 31.4 35.2 12.3 6.5
ho
Ln
r
Item Topic of Statement Group
Great
Deal
Quite
a Bit
Some None Omit
70 Amount of influence on departmental FAC LCA 72.7 0 18.2 4.5 4.5
policies FAC CCA 44.0 32.0 22.0 2.0 0
STU LCA 10.2 20.3 49.2 18.6 1.7
STU CCA 7.3 24.1 48.3 19.2 1.1
71 Amount of influence on institutional FAC LCA 4.5 4.5 50.0 36.4 4.5
policies FAC CCA 0 10.0 46.0 44.0 0
STU LCA 0 3.4 29.7 64.4 2.5
STU CCA 2.3 3.4 40.2 52.9 1.1
Item Topic of Statement Group
Very
Auto.
Auto
cratic
Demo
cratic
Very
Demo.
Omit
72 Administration of department FAC LCA 13.6 13.6 31.8 36.4 4.5
FAC CCA 14.0 20.0 36.0 28.0 2.0
STU LCA 9.3 28.8 43.2 17.8 0.8
STU CCA 11.1 27.6 49.8 10.0 1.5
Item Topic of Statement
Con-
Gr°UP trol
Vote on
Comm.
Formal
Consult
Informal
Consult.
Little
or None
Omit
73 Role of students in faculty appoint FAC LCA 0 18.2 18.2 45.5 18.2 0
ments and promotions FAC CCA 0 4.0 32.0 40.0 24.0 0
STU LCA 1.7 35.6 22.9 30.5 9.3 0
STU CCA 1.5 18.0 29.5 34.9 15.3 0.8
74 Role of students in undergraduate FAC LCA 0 27.3 22.7 27.3 22.7 0
admission policy FAC CCA 0 8.0 22.0 36.0 34.0 0
STU LCA 5.1 33.9 21.2 20.3 19.5
0 K
STU CCA 1.1 15.7 19.5 33.0 29.5 i.i
1
Item Topic of Statement Group
Con
trol
Vote on
Comm.
Formal
Consult.
Informal
Consult.
Little
or None
Omit
75 Role of students in bachelor s FAC LCA 0 27.3 36.4 13.6 22.7 0
degree requirements FAC CCA 0 8.0 26.0 42.0 24.0 0
STU LCA 3.4 50.0 22.9 14.4 9.3 0
STU CCA 0.8 24.1 33.3 26.4 14.2 1.1
76 Role of students in provision and FAC LCA 0 27.3 27.3 31.8 13.6 0
content of courses FAC CCA 0 8.0 46.0 34.0 8.0 4.0
STU LCA 7.6 52.5 24.6 7.6 5.1 2.5
STU CCA 3.8 30.3 38.3 21.8 4.6 1.1
77 Role of students in Resident Hall FAC LCA 31.8 54.5 13.6 0 0 0
regulations FAC CCA 8.0 50.0 32.0 10.0 0 0
STU LCA 42.4 44.9 7.6 5.1 0 0
STU CCA
i
29.5 39.8 17.6 6.9 5.0 1.1
78 Role of students in student FAC LCA 18.2 72.7 9.1 0 0 0
discipline FAC CCA 16.0 50.0 24.0 8.0 2.0 0
STU LCA 41.5 39.8 10.2 6.8 1.7 0
STU CCA 24.5 39.5 21.1 5.7 8.0 1.1
Item Topic of Statement Group Left Liberal
Middle
of Road
Moderate
Conserv.
Conser
vative
Omit
79 Own political leaning FAC LCA 4.5 59.1 27.3 4.5 0 4.5
FAC CCA 2.0 26.0 26.0 36.0 10.0 0
STU LCA 15.3 50.0 20.3 11.9 2.5 0
STU CCA 1.1 27.6 37.5 30.3 2.7 0.8
n:
00
Item Topic of Statement Group Left Liberal
Middle
of Road
Moderate
Conserv.
Conser
vative
Omit
80 Parents1 political leaning FAC LCA 0 18.2 22.7 50.0 4.5 4.5
FAC CCA 2.0 6.0 18.0 42.0 26.0 6.0
STU LCA 0 16.1 21.2 49.2 13.6 0
STU CCA 0.4 7.3 28.0 47.1 15.7 1.5
81 Friends’ political leaning FAC LCA 0 30.0 22.7 13.6 0 13.6
FAC CCA 2.0 22.0 30.0 40.0 0 6.0
STU LCA 7.6 49.2 34.7 7.6 0.8 0
STU CCA 0.8 30.3 49.8 17.6 0.4 1.1
82 Political leaning of students at FAC LCA 0 9.1 50.0 36.4 0 4.5
this college FAC CCA 0 16.0 50.0 28.0 2.0 4.0
STU LCA 0.8 15.3 41.5 37.3 5.1 0
STU CCA 0 20.7 52.9 19.2 4.2 3.1
83 Political leaning of professors at FAC LCA 0 9.1 54.5 22.7 4.5 9.1
this college FAC CCA 0 14.0 40.0 30.0 12.0 4.0
STU LCA 0.8 39.8 31.4 22.9 4.2 0.8
STU CCA 0 10.0 36.8 43.7 5.7 3.8
Item Topic of Statement Group
Str.
Agree
Str.
Agree Disagree
Disagree
Omit
84 A man’s teaching and research FAC LCA 18.2 59.1 18 .2 4.5 0
inevitably reflect his political FAC CCA 6.0 34.0 32.0 24.0 4.0
values STU LCA 23.7 48.3 16 .1 11.8 0
STU CCA 8.4 42.1 29.5 19.2
259
oo
o
Item Topic of Statement Group
Str.
Agree
Agree Disagree
Str.
Disagree
Omit
i
85 Meaningful social change cannot be FAC LCA 0 31.8 31.8 36.4 0
achieved through traditional American FAC CCA 6.0 14.0 28.0 48.0 4.0
politics STU LCA 14.4 27.1 38.1 19.5 0.8
STU CCA 8.4 21.8 37.9 31.0 0.8
86 I am very interested in national FAC LCA 40.9 27.3 18.2 9.1 4.5
politics FAC CCA 44.0 34.0 16.0 2.0 4.0
STU LCA 47.5 33.9 14.4 3.4 0.8
STU CCA 27.2 42.5 21.5 7.3 1.5
87 In the USA today there can be no FAC LCA 36.4 45.5 9.1 9.1 0
justification for using violence FAC CCA 66.0 20.0 10.0 4.0 0
to achieve political goals STU LCA 28.0 27.1 28.8 16.1 0
STU CCA 54.4 28.7 12.3 3.4 1.1
88 Chicago police acted reasonably in FAC LCA 9.1 9.1 36.4 45.5 0
curbing demonstrations at the Demo FAC CCA 26.0 24.0 32.0 10.0 8.0
cratic National Convention STU LCA 8.5 20.3 22.0 49.2 0
STU CCA 18.4 37.5 23.8 17.2 3.1
89 Hippies represent an important criti FAC LCA 36.4 45.5 18.2 0 0
cism of American culture FAC CCA 14.0 32.0 32.0 18.0 4.0
STU LCA 34.7 44.9 12.7 6.8 0.8
STU CCA 19.2 40.2 28.7 11.5 0.4
90 Most campus demonstrations are created FAC LCA 4.5 22.7 40.9 31.8 0
by far left groups trying to cause FAC CCA 24.0 42.0 24.0 10.0 0
trouble STU LCA 4.2 24.6 41.5 29.7 0
STU CCA 18.0 39.5 35.6 6.1 0.8
ro
cr>
a
Item Topic of Statement Group
Str.
Agree
Agree Disagree
Str.
Disagree
Omit
91 Most rules governing student behavior FAC LCA 18.2 50.0 18.2 9.1 4.5
here are sensible FAC CCA 30.0 54.0 14.0 0 2.0
STU LCA 11.9 44.1 27.1 16.9 0
STU CCA 25.3 52.5 14.6 7.3 0.4
92 Campus rules here are generally admin FAC LCA 18.2 50.0 22.7 4.5 4.5
istered in a reasonable way FAC CCA 30.0 54.0 12.0 2.0 2.0
STU LCA 11.9 46.6 26.3 15.3 0
STU CCA 23.4 54.8 14.9 6.5 0.4
93 Student demonstrations have no place FAC LCA 0 13.6 50.0 36.4 0
on a college campus FAC CCA 18.0 26.0 42.0 12.0 2.0
STU LCA 3.4 9.3 50.0 37.3 0
STU CCA 12.6 23.0 46.7 17.2 0.4;
94 Students should be more militant in FAC LCA 4.5 40.9 31.8 18.2 4.5
defending their interests FAC CCA 4.0 10.0 34.0 50.0 2.0
STU LCA 8.5 28.8 44.1 17.8 0
STU CCA 3.4 10.0 42.1 44.4 0
95 Students who disrupt the functioning FAC LCA 18.2 31.8 40.9 4.5 4.5
of a college should be expelled or FAC CCA 56.0 26.0 8.0 8.0 2.0
suspended STU LCA 13.6 33.9 43.2 9.3 0
STU CCA 44.1 31.0 19.2 5.7 0
96 Political activities by students have FAC LCA 4.5 4.5 40.9 50.0 0
no place on a college campus FAC CCA 10.0 6.0 54.0 30.0 0
STU LCA 2.5 4.2 32.2 61.0 0
STU CCA 8.4 17.6 43.3 30.7 0
ro
ON
t —J
Item Topic of Statement Group
Str.
Agree
Agree Disagree
Str.
Disagree
Omit
97 Most college officials have been too FAC LCA 4.5 36.4 36.4 18.2 4.5
lax in dealing with student protests FAC CCA 42.0 28.0 20.0 8.0 2.0
on campus STU LCA 5.1 16.1 53.4 24.6 0.8
STU CCA 22.2 26.4 40.2 10.0 1.1
98 Student publications should be cleared FAC LCA 0 36.4 27.3 36.4 0
by college officials FAC CCA 16.0 34.0 38.0 12.0 0
STU LCA 1.7 16.1 22.8 59.3 0
STU CCA 6.5 23.0 36.4 34.1 0
99 College officials have the right to FAC LCA 4.5 22.7 31.8 40.9 0
ban persons with extreme views from FAC CCA 24.0 24.0 26.0 26.0 0
speaking on campus STU LCA 2.5 6.8 20.3 70.3 0
STU CCA 11.5 17.6 31.8 38.7 0.4
100 Campus disruptions by militant students FAC LCA 36.4 45.5 9.1 4.5 4.5
are a threat to academic freedom FAC CCA 54.0 34.0 10.0 2.0 0
STU LCA 23.7 28.0 27.0 21.2 0
STU CCA 53.6 31.4 10.3 3.4 1.1
101 Faculty members should be free on FAC LCA 4.5 4.5 31.8 54.5 4.5
campus to advocate violent resistance FAC CCA 2.0 4.0 22.0 72.0 0
to public authority STU LCA 15.3 22.0 37.3 24.6 0.8
STU CCA 6.5 13.0 27.2 52.1 1.1
102 Faculty members should be free to FAC LCA 50.0 22.7 13.6 9.1 4.5
present in class any idea they consider FAC CCA 26.0 32.0 20.0 22.0 0
relevant STU LCA 59.3 33.1 5.1 2.5 0
STU CCA 26.8 44.1 18.4 10.3 0.4
N>
O
N>
Item Topic of Statement Group
Str.
Agree
Agree Disagree
Str.
Disagree
Omit
103 Faculty members should be more militant FAC LCA 31.8 40.9 18.2 9.1 0
in defending their interests FAC CCA 12.0 24.0 22.0 42.0 0
STU LCA 22.0 33.1 33.9 10.2 0.8
STU CCA 5.0 12.6 47.5 34.1 0.8
104 Faculty unions have a divisive effect FAC LCA 0 22.7 27.3 45.5 4.5
on academic life FAC CCA 24.0 28.0 26.0 16.0 6.0
STU LCA 7.6 28.0 38.1 23.7 2.5
STU CCA 11.1 29.9 44.8 5.4 8.8
105 Collective bargaining by faculty FAC LCA 0 13.6 27.3 59.1 0
members has no place in a college FAC CCA 20.0 32.0 32.0 16.0 0
or university STU LCA 4.2 6.8 38.1 50.0 0.8
STU CCA 8.4 24.5 47.9 17.2 1.9
106 A strike would be a legitimate means FAC LCA 59.1 22.7 18.2 0 0
of collective action for faculty FAC CCA 18.0 26.0 28.0 28.0 0
members under some circumstances STU LCA 39.8 38.1 11.9 10.2 0
STU CCA 13.0 44.1 23.4 18.4 1.1
Item Topic of Statement Group Know of
Heard
of
Don' t
Know of
Not
Possible
Omit
107 A man's politics have affected his FAC LCA 13.6 18.2 68.2 0 0
chances for retention or promotion FAC CCA 10.0 26.0 64.0 0 0
in the last two years STU LCA 31.4 16.9 50.0 0.8 0.8
STU CCA 13.8 14.9 69.0 1.9 0.4
263
Item Topic of Statement Group Yes No Omit
108 Felt intimidated in classes by strong political FAC LCA 22.7 77.3 0
or racial views FAC CCA 2.0 98.0 0
STU LCA 31.4 67.8 0.8
STU CCA 24.5 75.1 0.4
I
109 Worked in the Peace Corps or Vista FAC LCA 0 100.0 0
FAC CCA 2.0 94.0 4.0
STU LCA 1.7 86.4 11.9
STU CCA 0 95.0 5.0
110 Tutored minority group children FAC LCA 18.2 81.8 0
FAC CCA 14.0 82.0 4.0
STU LCA 43.2 50.8 5.9
STU CCA 8.4 86.2 5.4
111 Community organizing for social action FAC LCA 45.5 54.5 0
FAC CCA 32.0 64.0 4.0
STU LCA 33.1 58.5 8.5
STU CCA 7.3 87.7 5.0
112 Worked in a political campaign FAC LCA 40.9 59.1 0
FAC CCA 32.0 66.0 2.0
STU LCA 38.1 51.7 10.2
STU CCA 16.5 78.9 4.6
113 Worked as a hospital volunteer FAC LCA 4.5 95.5 0
FAC CCA 4.0 90.0 6.0
STU LCA 9.3 76.3 14.4
STU CCA 3.8 87.7 8.4
264
Item Topic of Statement Group Yes No Omit
114 Participated in an encounter group (sensitivity FAC LCA 22.7 72.7 4.5
training) FAC CCA 6.0 90.0 4.0
STU LCA 34.7 56.8 8.5
STU CCA 15.7 79.3 5.0
115 Member of student political club or group FAC LCA 54.5 36.4 9.1
FAC CCA 12.0 82.0 6.0
STU LCA 34.7 58.5 6.8
STU CCA 16.1 78.9 5.0
116 Like to do work in the Peace Corps or Vista FAC LCA 50.0 36.4 13.6
FAC CCA 42.0 50.0 8.0
STU LCA 61.0 36.4 2.5
STU CCA 49.4 49.0 1.5
117 Like to tutor minority group children FAC LCA 31.8 36.4 31.8
FAC CCA 38.0 56.0 6.0
STU LCA 43.2 22.0 34.7
STU CCA 46.4 46.4 7.3
118 Like to organize for community social action FAC LCA 40.9 22.7 36.4
FAC CCA 32.0 54.0 14.0
STU LCA 45.8 27.1 27.1
STU CCA 31.8 60.2 8.0
119 Like to work in political campaign FAC LCA 22.7 50.0 27.3
FAC CCA 38.0 42.0 20.0
STU LCA 42.4 28.0 29.7
STU CCA 30.3 57.1 12.6
265
Item Topic of Statement Group Yes No Omit
120 Like to do hospital volunteer work FAC LCA 18.2 54.5 27.3
FAC CCA 10.0 78.0 12.0
STU LCA 23.7 66.9 9.3
STU CCA 18.4 73.6 8.0
121 Like to participate in encounter group (sensi- FAC LCA 13.6 63.6 22.7
tivity training) FAC CCA 26.0 68.0 6.0
STU LCA 40.7 37.3 22.0
STU CCA 32.6 56.3 11.1
122 Like to be member of political club or group FAC LCA 18.2 31.8 50.0
FAC CCA 16.0 74.0 10.0
STU LCA 28.8 44.1 27.1
STU CCA 20.3 66.7 13.0
Total Dis Total
Item Topic of Statement Group Approve Omit
Approval approve Disappr.
123 Opinion on emergence of radical student FAC LCA 9.1 45.5 27.3 9.1 9.1
activism FAC CCA 4.0 24.0 40.0 30.0 2.0
STU LCA 17.8 53.4 22.9 4.2 0.8
STU CCA 3.8 35.6 40.6 18.0 1.9
to
o>
o\
Item Topic of Statement Group
Approve
of Aims
& Methods
Approve
of Aims
Disappr.
of Aims
Disappr.
of Aims
& Methods
Uncertain
or Omit
Indifferent |
i
124 Attitude on Washington, D.C. FAC LCA 13.6 45.5 0 4.5 22.7 13.6
demonstration FAC CCA 8.0 26.0 10.0 38.0 10.0 8.0
STU LCA 40.7 26.3 0.8 8.5 18.6 5.1
STU CCA 21.8 38,3 2.7 12.3 20.3 4.6
' 125 Attitude on Days of Concern FAC LCA 18.2 18.2 0 4.5 22.7 36.4
1
demonstration FAC CCA 8.0 18.0 8.0 30.0 18.0 18.0
STU LCA 36.4 16.9 1.7 4.2 33.0 7.6
STU CCA 16.9 23.0 1.9 8.0 37.5 12.6
126 Attitude on Kent State FAC LCA 22.7 27.3 0 9.1 22.7 18.2
demonstration FAC CCA 8.0 20.0 8.0 26.0 20.0 18.0
STU LCA 33.1 31.4 1.7 6.8 16.1 11.0
STU CCA 12.3 37.2 3.8 15.7 24.5 6.5
Item Topic of Statement Group Yes No Omit
127 Helped to plan, organize, or lead a student demonstra FAC LCA 13.6 86.4
tion FAC CCA
STU LCA
STU CCA
0
13.6
1.1
100.0
86.4
98.9
128 Joined in active protest with the demonstrators FAC LCA 4.5 95.5
FAC CCA 0 100.0
STU LCA 27.1 72.9
STU CCA 4.6 95.4
ho
Item Topic of Statement Group Yes No Omit
129 Openly supported the goals of the protestors FAC LCA 9.1 90.0
FAC CCA 4.0 96.0
STU LCA 27.1 72.9
STU CCA 11.9 88.1
130 Openly opposed the goals of the protestors FAC LCA 0 100.0
FAC CCA 8.0 92.0
STU LCA 7.6 92.4
STU CCA 6.5 93.5
131 Tried to mediate in the protest FAC LCA 4.5 95.5
FAC CCA 2.0 98.0
STU LCA 7.6 92.4
STU CCA 3.8 96.2
132 Was not actively involved in any way FAC LCA 54.5 45.5
FAC CCA 84.0 16.0
STU LCA 56.8 43.2
STU CCA 80.5 19.5
Organized Parti-
Item Topic of Statement Group Observed None Omit
or Led cipated
133 Involvement in a demonstration against US FAC LCA 0 0 4.5 77.3 18.2
military policy at my college FAC CCA 0 0 4.0 88.0 8.0
STU LCA 7.6 13.6 19.5 56.8 2.5
STU CCA 0 4.6 17.2 73.6 4.6
ro
CTv
00
Item Topic of Statement
134 Involvement in a demonstration against
existing ethnic or racial policies at my
college
135 Involvement in a demonstration against
administrative policies at my college
136 Involvement in a demonstration against
college demonstrators at my college
137 Involvement in a demonstration against
US military policy elsewhere
138 Involvement in a demonstration against
existing ethnic or racial policies else
where
139 Involvement in a demonstration against
administrative policies of a college
elsewhere
Group
Organized
or Led
Parti
cipated
Observed None Omit
FAC LCA 0 4.5 18.2 59.1 18.2
FAC CCA 0 2.0 12.0 78.0 8.0
STU LCA 4.2 8.5 33.1 50.0 4.2
STU CCA 0 1.1 25.7 69.3 3.8
FAC LCA 9.1 4.5 13.6 50.0 22.7
FAC CCA 0 2.0 14.0 76.0 8.0
STU LCA 8.5 7.6 28.0 51.7 4.2
STU CCA 1.1 2.7 26.4 65.1 4.6
FAC LCA 0 0 0 81.8 18.2
FAC CCA 0 0 6.0 86.0 8.0
STU LCA 0.8 0.8 10.2 80.5 7.6
STU CCA 0 4.2 11.1 80.1 4.6
FAC LCA 0 4.5 9.1 68.2 18.2
FAC CCA 0 0 8.0 84.0 8.0
STU LCA 4.2 16.9 17.8 55.1 5.9
STU CCA 0 4.6 9.2 78.2 8.0
FAC LCA 0 13.6 9.1 59.1 18.2
FAC CCA 0 0 12.0 78.0 10.0
STU LCA 4.2 5.9 23.7 58.5 7.6
STU CCA 0.4 1.1 10.3 78.9 9.2
FAC LCA 0 4.5 0 72.7 22.7
FAC CCA 0 0 4.0 82.0 14.0
STU LCA 3.4 5.1 12.7 68.6 10.2
STU CCA 0.4 0.4 5.0 83.9 10.3
1
Item Topic of Statement Group
Organized
or Led
Parti
cipated
Observed None Omit
140 Involvement in a demonstration against FAC LCA 0 0 0 81.8 18.2
college demonstrators elsewhere FAC CCA 0 0 0 88.0 12.0
STU LCA 0 1.7 9.3 77.1 11.9
STU CCA 0 0.8 4.2 85.1 10.0
Item Topic of Statement
Very
Group
Favor.
Favor
able
Harmful
Very
Harmful
No
Effect
Omit
141 Effect of student demonstrations on FAC LCA 0 4.5 4.5 4.5 77.3 9.1
research or studies FAC CCA 0 0 4.0 2.0 94.0 0
STU LCA 6.8 20.3 4.2 4.2 64.4 0
STU CCA 1.5 3.8 13.4 2.7 77.0 1.5
142 Effect of student demonstrations on FAC LCA 0 22.7 4.5 9.1 50.0 13.6
your teaching or learning FAC CCA 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 88.0 2.0
STU LCA 14.4 27.1 5.9 2.5 48.3 1.7
STU CCA 1.5 7.7 13.4 3.8 72.0 1.5
143 Effect of student demonstrations on FAC LCA 0 4.5 13.6 0 68.2 13.6
your relations with departmental FAC CCA 0 2.0 2.0 0 92.0 4.0
faculty members STU LCA 7.6 19.5 2.5 1.7 67.8 0.8
STU CCA 0.8 4.6 5.0 0.8 87.4 1.5
144 Effect of student demonstrations on FAC LCA 0 4.5 13.6 4.5 68.2 9.1
your relations with other faculty FAC CCA 0 0 8.0 0 90.0 2.0
members STU LCA 5.1 16.9 5.1 2.5 68.6 1.7
STU CCA 0.4 5.0 4.2 0.4 86.6 3.4
ho
o
1
Item Topic of Statement Group
Very
Favor.
Favor
able
Harmful
Very No
Harmful Effect
Omit
145 Effect of student demonstrations on FAC LCA 4.5 13.6 4.5 4.5 59.1 13.6
your relations with departmental majors FAC CCA 0 8.0 0 0 90.0 2.0
(students) STU LCA 11.9 17.8 3.4 0 66.1 0.8
STU CCA 1.1 7.3 6.1 0.4 82.0 3.1
146 Effect of student demonstrations on FAC LCA 0 18.2 4.5 4.5 54.5 18.2
your relations with other students FAC CCA 0 8.0 0 0 86.0 6.0
STU LCA 5.9 21.2 5.9 0.8 64.4 1.7
STU CCA 1.1 10.7 7.3 0.4 77.8 2.7
147 Effect of student demonstrations on FAC LCA 0 13.6 27.3 9.1 40.9 9.1
your view of your campus administra FAC CCA 2.0 26.0 24.0 8.0 38.0 2.0
tion STU LCA 1.7 19.5 18.6 9.3 50.0 0.8
STU CCA 3.1 16.5 21.5 4.2 52.9 1.9
148 Effect of student demonstrations on FAC LCA 0 13.6 22.7 9.1 40.9 13.6
your institution's relations with the FAC CCA 0 10.0 12.0 26.0 52.0 0
local community STU LCA 1.7 16.1 22.0 7.6 51.7 0.8
STU CCA 1.9 9.2 22.2 6.5 57.5 2.7
Item Topic of Statement Group
Str.
Agree
Agree
Str. .
Disagree . Omit
Disagree
149 My college should be actively engaged FAC LCA 22.7 40.9 13.6 13.6 9.1
in solving social problems FAC CCA 26.0 42.0 24.0 8.0 0
STU LCA 46.6 38.1 12.7 2.5 0
STU CCA 19.9 49.0 20.3 .10.7 0
N)
Item Topic of Statement Group
Str.
Agree
Agree Disagree
Str.
Disagree
Omit
150 Much of what is taught at my college FAC LCA 9.1 22.7 36.4 22.7 9.1
is irrelevant to what is going on in FAC CCA 4.0 10.0 40.0 46.0 0
the outside world STU LCA 14.4 26.3 48.3 11.0 0
STU CCA 11.5 23.4 44.4 20.3 0.4
151 Undergraduates known to use marijuana FAC LCA 0 22.7 22.7 45.5 9.1
regularly should be suspended or dis FAC CCA 28.0 28.0 28.0 16.0 0
missed STU LCA 5.9 5.1 28.0 60.2 0.8
STU CCA 14.6 19.2 33.7 31.4 1.1
152 Marijuana should be legalized FAC LCA 13.6 40.9 18.2 22.7 4.5
FAC CCA 8.0 16.0 22.0 54.0 0
STU LCA 34.7 28.0 12.7 22.9 1.7
STU CCA 13.4 25.7 21.1 38.7 1.1
153 Divorce laws should be liberalized FAC LCA 36.4 31.8 13.6 9.1 9.1
FAC CCA 24.0 26.0 24.0 24.0 2.0
STU LCA 44.9 36.4 12.7 5.9 0
STU CCA 26.8 29.5 26.8 15.7 1.1
154 Under some conditions, abortion FAC LCA 68.2 22.7 0 4.5 4.5
should be legalized FAC CCA 50.0 36.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 .
STU LCA 75.4 17.0 2.5 4.2 0.8
STU CCA 61.3 28.0 3.8 6.5 0.4
155 There is too much concern in the FAC LCA 4.5 22.7 27.3 36.4 9.1
courts for the rights of criminals FAC CCA 34.0 38.0 20.0 8.0 0
•
STU LCA 9.3 26.3 22.9 41.5 0
STU CCA 27.2 32.2 26.8 12.6 1.1
272
Item Topic of Statement Group
Str.
Agree
Agree Disagree
Str.
Disagree
Omit
156 Capital punishment (the death penalty) FAC LCA 45.5 22.7 22.7 4.5 4.5
should be abolished FAC CCA 22.0 14.0 20.0 42.0 2.0
STU LCA 59.3 16.1 7.6 16.9 0
STU CCA 27.2 10.3 24.9 37.2 0.4
157 Current levels of air pollution in FAC LCA 40.9 40.9 4.5 9.1 4.5
large cities justify the use of FAC CCA 52.0 32.0 10.0 6.0 0
drastic measures to limit the use STU LCA 72.0 17.8 7.6 2.5 0
of motor vehicles STU CCA 51.0 29.5 12.6 6.5 0.4
158 Most people who live in poverty could FAC LCA 0 18.2 50.0 22.7 9.1
do something about their situation if FAC CCA 22.0 44.0 24.0 10.0 0
they really wanted to STU LCA 7.6 16.1 44.1 32.2 0
STU CCA 18.0 45.6 28.7 6.9 0.8
159 Urban problems cannot be solved with FAC LCA 31.8 31.8 18.2 9.1 9.1
out huge investments of federal money FAC CCA 28.0 32.0 32.0 6.0 2.0
STU LCA 23.7 42.4 25.4 8.5 0
STU CCA 14.9 37.9 35.2 11.9 0
160 Cigarette advertising should be out FAC LCA 27.3 31.8 22.7 9.1 9.1
lawed FAC CCA 52.0 26.0 12.0 8.0 2.0
STU LCA 34.7 25.4 21.2 16.9 1.7
STU CCA 36.4 24.1 21.8 16.1 1.5
161 Women are at least the intellectual FAC LCA 68.2 18.2 0 4.5 9.1
equals of men FAC CCA 78.0 12.0 4.0 4.0 2.0
STU LCA 74.6 20.3 2.5 2.5 0
STU CCA 58.6 37.2 3.8 0.4 0
N>
-•J
JLO.
Item Topic of Statement Group
162 There are dimensions of life that FAC LCA
cannot be grasped rationally FAC CCA
STU LCA
STU CCA
163 Scientists should publish their find FAC LCA
ings regardless of the possible con FAC CCA
sequences STU LCA
STU CCA
164 Realistically, an individual person FAC LCA
can do little to bring about changes FAC CCA
in our society STU LCA
STU CCA
165 Man will never realize his full poten FAC LCA
tial until he is freed from the laws FAC CCA
and conventions of society STU LCA
STU CCA
166 Striving for occupational success is FAC LCA
incompatible with contributing to the FAC CCA
long-run good of mankind STU LCA
STU CCA
167 These days you hear too much about FAC LCA
the rights of minorities and not FAC CCA
enough about the rights of the major STU LCA
ity STU CCA
Str. Str.
Agree Disagree . Omit
Agree Disagree
27.3 45.5 13.6 0 13.6
28.0 32.0 18.0 20.0 2.0
40.7 37.3 12.7 8.5 0.8
36.4 39.1 14.6 7.7 2.3
31.8 45.5 13.6 0 9.1
28.0 42.0 20.0 8.0 2.0
32.2 40.7 16.9 10.2 0
22.2 38.3 30.7 8.0 0.8
9.1 27.3 45.5 13.6 4.5
10.0 32.0 34.0 24.0 0
18.6 38.1 28.0 15.3 0
13.4 37.5 32.6 16.1 0.4
4.5 9.1 31.8 45.5 9.1
4.0 8.0 18.0 70.0 0
7.6 25.4 35.6 31.4 0
5.7 13.4 34.9 44.4 1.5
13.6 13.6 36.4 27.3 9.1
6.0 12.0 28.0 54.0 0
7.6 22.0 43.2 25.4 1.7
7.3 24.1 41.0 26.4 1.1
4.5 22.7 22.7 40.9 9.1
28.0 36.0 18.0 16.0 2.0
6.8 25.4 34.7 33.1 0
28.7 39.5 23.4 7.3 1.1
274
Item Topic of Statement Group
Str.
Agree
Agree Disagree
Str.
Disagree
Omit
168 Most American colleges and universities FAC LCA 4.5 40.9 22.7 22.7. 9.1
are racist whether they mean to be or FAC CCA 8.0 16.0 36.0 36.0 4.0
not STU LCA 12.7 37.3 40.7 10.2 0
STU CCA 7.7 26.4 45.6 18.4 1.9
169 Any special academic program for black FAC LCA 4.5 27.3 54.5 4.5 9.1
students should be administered and FAC CCA 8.0 30.0 32.0 30.0 0
controlled by black people STU LCA 16.1 50.8 22.9 10.2 0
STU CCA 8.8 36.8 32.6 20.7 1.1
170 Any institution with a substantial FAC LCA 27.3 54.5 13.6 0 4.5
number of black students should offer FAC CCA 26.0 36.0 28.0 8.0 2.0
a program of Black Studies if they STU LCA 66.9 25.4 5.1 2.5 0
wish it STU CCA 37.5 51.0 7.7 2.3 1.5
171 Academic standards of admission should FAC LCA 9.1 22.7 45.5 9.1 13.6
be lowered to admit minority groups FAC CCA 4.0 20.0 34.0 40.0 2.0
STU LCA 20.3 32.2 23.7 22.9 0.8
STU CCA 3.1 15.7 29.5 51.0 0.8
172 The normal academic requirements FAC LCA 4.5 9.1 63.6' 13.6 9.1
should be relaxed in appointing mem FAC CCA 2.0 4.0 42.0 50.0 2.0
bers of the minority groups to the STU LCA 5.1 17.8 37.3 39.0 0.8
faculty of the college STU CCA 2.3 6.1 28.7 61.7 1.1
173 Where de facto segregation exists, FAC LCA 9.1 50.0 31.8 4.5 4.5
black people should be assured control FAC CCA 12.0 44.0 22.0 14.0 8.0
over their own schools STU LCA 25.4 51.7 13.6 7.6 1.7
STU CCA 20.3 42.9 21.8 11.9 3.1 275
Item Topic of Statement Group
Str.
Agree
Agree Disagree
Str.
Disagree
Omit
174 Racial integration of public elementary FAC LCA 18.2 36.4 22.7 9.1 13.6
schools should be achieved even if it FAC CCA 8.0 14.0 32.0 44.0 2.0
requires busing STU LCA 19.5 28.8 28.0 23.7 0
STU CCA 10.0 22.6 33.7 32.6 1.1
175 The main cause of Negro riots in the FAC LCA 18.2 27.3 31.8 9.1 13.6
cities is white racism FAC CCA 10.0 24.0 22.0 42.0 2.0
STU LCA 14.4 35.6 34.7 14.4 0.8
STU CCA 5.7 23.4 38.7 29.5 2.7
176 American colleges and universities FAC LCA 4.5 40.9 31.8 13.6 9.1
must sever all ties with the FAC CCA 10.0 8.0 36.0 44.0 2.0
military-industrial complex STU LCA 15.3 33.9 36.4 14.4 0
STU CCA 6.5 18.8 45.1 27.2 2.3
177 Classified weapons research is a FAC LCA 4.5 31.8 9.1 45.5 9.1
legitimate activity on college and FAC CCA 24.0 28.0 24.0 20.0 4.0
university campuses STU LCA 5.1 25.4 23.7 44.9 0.8
STU CCA 14.6 33.3 24.9 24.9 2.3
178 A student’s grades should not be FAC LCA 50.0 36.4 9.1 0 4.5
revealed to anyone off campus without FAC CCA 54.0 28.0 8.0 8.0 2.0
his consent STU LCA 71.2 22.0 5.1 1.7 0
STU CCA 67.8 24.1 4.6 2.3 1.1
179 Only volunteers should serve in the FAC LCA 22.7 27.3 18.2 18.2 13.6
armed forces ^ FAC CCA 28.0 28.0 26.0 16.0 2.0
STU LCA 50.0 27.1 14.4 7.6 0.8
STU CCA 35.6 35.6 16.1 11.9 0.8
276
1
Item Topic of Statement Group
Str.
Agree
Agree Disagree
Str.
Disagree
Omit
180 Communist China should be recognized FAC LCA 45.5 45.5 0 0 9.1
immediately by the US FAC CCA 28.0 30.0 16.0 22.0 4.0
STU LCA 62.7 28.0 5.1 4.2 0
STU CCA 30.7 34.9 21.1 10.7 2.7
181 Some form of Communist regime is FAC LCA 0 22.7 22.7 45.5 9.1
I
|
probably necessary for progress in FAC CCA 6.0 10.0 24.0 58.0 2.0
1
underdeveloped countries STU LCA 14.4 36.4 36.4 12.7 0
STU CCA 10.3 24.1 37.5 26.1 1.9
, Item Topic of Statement Group
Withdraw Reduce
Immed. Coalition
Reduce
Previous
Commit.
Total
Commit.
Omit
182 Position on Vietnam FAC LCA 45.5 27.3 9.1 0 18.2
FAC CCA 26.0 20.0 28.0 6.0 20.0
STU LCA 63.6 25.4 5.9 5.1 0
STU CCA 28.7 33.0 31.8 4.6 1.9
Item Topic of Statement Group Yes No Omit
183 Are you an American citizen? FAC
FAC
STU
LCA
CCA
LCA
100
100
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
STU CCA 99 .6 0 1.4
ro
"-j
Item Topic of Statement Group Yes No Omit
i
184 If yes: Have you ever been a citizen of FAC LCA 4.5 95.5 0
another country? FAC CCA 4.0 92.0 4.0
STU LCA 1.7 87.3 11.0
STU CCA 5.4 90.4 4.2
Item Topic of Statement Group Protestant Catholic Jewish Other None Omit
185 What is your present religion? FAC LCA 36.7 4.5 9.1 0 36.7 13.6
FAC CCA 56.0 2.0 8.0 6.0 22.0 6.0
STU LCA 27.1 23.7 0.8 11.9 31.4 5.1
STU CCA 44.4 22.6 1.5 10.3 18.0 3.1
Item Topic of Statement Group Yes No Omit
186 Would you describe yourself as conservative in FAC LCA 18.2 68.2 13.6
your religious beliefs? FAC CCA 32.0 60.0 8.0
STU LCA 21.2 73.7 5.1
STU CCA 36.8 60.2 3.1
Item Topic of Statement Group White Black Puerto Oriental Other Omit
Rican
187 Race FAC LCA 100.0 0 0 0 0 0
FAC CCA 96.0 0 2.0 0 0 2.0
STU LCA 91.6 5.1 0 0.8 2.5 0
STU CCA 91.2 1.1 0 6.1 0.8 0.8
ro
Item Topic of Statement Group
Almost
Always
Most Half Some
Almos t
None
Omit
188 See socially: members of the FAC LCA 0 13.6 31.8 40.9 13.6 0
faculty FAC CCA 0 6.0 12.0 64.0 18.0 0
STU LCA 0 2.5 . 4.2 30.5 61.9 1.8
STU CCA 0.8 1.1 3.4 32.2 62.1 1.4
189 See socially: members of student FAC LCA 0 0 13.6 40.9 45.5 0
body FAC CCA 0 2.0 6.0 50.0 40.0 2.0
STU LCA 7.6 18.6 26.3 32.2 14.4 0.8
STU CCA 13.0 26.4 19.9 29.9 10.3 0.4
190 See socially: faculty members FAC LCA 0 9.1 36.4 45.5 9.1 0
within your department FAC CCA 0 8.0 10.0 60.0 22.0 0
STU LCA 0.8 2.5 5.9 33.9 55.9 0.8
STU CCA 1.9 4.6 4.6 30.3 58.2 0.4
191 See socially: student majors FAC LCA 0 0 9.1 45.5 40.9 4.5
within your department FAC CCA 0 2.0 6.0 50.0 40.0 2.0
STU LCA 5.1 13.6 16.9 41.5 22.0 0.8
STU CCA 10.0 19.2 19.5 39.1 11.9 0.4
Item Topic of Statement Group
Prof. Degree
(L.L.B . , M.D., etc.)
M.A.
Ed.D.
Ph.D.
Other Omit
192 Highest academic degree FAC LCA 0 0 13.6 81.8 0 4.5
intend to obtain FAC CCA 6.0 10.0 22.0 52.0 6.0 4.0
STU LCA 13.6 17.8 47.5 20.3 0.8 0
STU CCA 32.6 7.3 46.0 13.4 0 0.8
VO
S T U D E N T O N L Y
Item Topic of Statement
193 Changed your long-term career goals
194 Changed your major field
195 Attended a junior college
196 Attended another college
197 Participated in ROTC
198 Voted in a student election
199 Worked in a college political campaign
200 Was enrolled in a program for disadvantaged students
201 Participated in ROTC
202 Was ever on academic probation
203 Participated in an honors program
Group Yes No
STU LCA 63.6 36.4
STU CCA 39.8 60.2
STU LCA 63.6 36.4
STU CCA 33.0 67.0
STU LCA
76.3 23.7
STU CCA 72.4 27.6
STU LCA
30.5 69.5
STU CCA 30.7 69.3
STU LCA 2.5 97.5
STU CCA 5.7 94.3
STU LCA 78.8 21.2
STU CCA 82.4 17.6
STU LCA 22.0 78.0
STU CCA 12.6 87.4
STU LCA 10.2 89.8
STU CCA 2.3 97.7
STU LCA 2.5 97.5
STU CCA 5.0 95.0
STU LCA 41.5 58.5
STU CCA 36.8 63.2
STU LCA 33.1 66.9
STU CCA 32.6 67.4
' 2 8 Q
Item Topic of Statement Group True
Usually
True
Usually
False
False Omit
204 Professors in my major field give my work
the attention it deserves
STU LCA
STU CCA
30.5
29.5
55.9
62.1
11.9
8.4
1.7
0
0
0
205 Professors give my work too much attention STU LCA
STU CCA
0.8
0.4
5.9
2.3
59.3
65.9
32.2
30.7
1.7
0.8
206 Getting a degree is more important than
content of course
STU LCA
STU CCA
7.6
4.6
18.6
16.9
32.2
36.8
41.5
39.8
0
1.9
207 Professors tend to reward nonconformity STU LCA
STU CCA
0.8
1.1
16.1
14,2
61.9
59.0
20.3
24.5
0.8
1.1
208 The best way to make it is to tell pro
fessors what they want to hear
STU LCA
STU CCA
25.4
21.1
45.8
46.0
22.9
24.9
5.1
6.5
0.8
1.5
Item Topic of Statement Group
• - r
Essential Important
Important
Omit
209 Importance of special field detail STU LCA
STU CCA
31.4
58.6
56.8
37.2
11.9
3.8
0
0.4
210 Well-rounded general education STU LCA
STU CCA
73.7
40.6
20.3
54.4
5.9
4.6
0
0.4
211 Training and skills for occupation STU LCA
STU CCA
31.4
64.0
42.4
33.0
26.3
2.3
0
0.8
212 Getting along with people STU LCA
STU CCA
66.9
58.6
27.1
36.0
5.9
5.0
0
0.4
213 Preparation for marriage STU LCA
STU CCA
11.9
11.9
28.8
29.5
58.5
55.2
0.8
3.4
2 81!
Item Topic of Statement Group Essential Important
Not
Important
Omit
214 Formulating values and goals STU LCA 57.6 30.5 11.9 0
STU CCA 41.0 41.8 16.1 1.1
Item Topic of Statement Group Much Some None Omit
215 Importance of special field detail STU LCA 30.5 58.5 10.2 0.8
STU CCA 50.6 43.7 3.4 2.3
216 Well-rounded general education STU LCA 41.5 54.2 2.5 1.7
STU CCA 36.0 58.2 3.1 2.7
217 Training and skill for occupation STU LCA 16.1 57.6 24.6 1.7
STU CCA 50.6 43.3 2.7 3.4
218 Getting along with people STU LCA 33.9 57.6 5.9 2.5
STU CCA 28.0 54.4 14.6 3.1
219 Preparation for marriage STU LCA 8.5 39.8 50.0 1.7
STU CCA 3.4 31.8 60.5 4.2
220 Formulating values and goals STU LCA 31.4 51.7 15.3 1.7
STU CCA 18.0 59.4 19.2 3.4
Item Topic of Statement Group
Too Much
or Many
Right
Amount
Not
Enough
Omit
221 Freedom in course selection STU LCA 1.7 45.8 50.8 1.7
STU CCA 1.5 52.5 45.6 0.4
222 Social life STU LCA 4.2 63.6 31.4 0.8
ro
00
ro
STU CCA 4.6 53.6 41.0 0.8
1
Item Topic of Statement Group
Too Much
or Many
Right
Amount
Not
Enough
Omit
223 Personal contacts with classmates STU LCA 3.4 61.0 34.7 0.8
STU CCA 3.1 76.2 20.3 0.4
224 Work required of you in courses STU LCA 8.5 78.8 11.9 0.8
STU CCA 28.0 69.7 2.3 0
225 Outlets for creative activities STU LCA 1.7 38.1 59.3 0.8
1
STU CCA 1.9 49.8 47.9 0.4
226 Personal contacts with faculty STU LCA 0.8 51.7 45.8 1.7
STU CCA 1.9 70.5 26.8 0.8
227 Advice and guidance from faculty and staff STU LCA 1.7 49.2 47.5 1.7
STU CCA 1.5 62.1 35.6 0.8
Item Topic of Statement Group
1951-
Later
1945-
1950
1941-
1945
1936-
1940
1935-
Earlier
228 Year of birth STU LCA 0.8 65.3 24.6 5.1 4.2
STU CCA 2.3 61.3 27.2 6.1 3.1
283
1
F A C U L T Y O N L Y
Item Topic of Statement Group
Instrue- Assistant
tor Professor
Associate _
Professor
Professor
Lecturer Omit
193 Present rank FAC LCA 0 40.9 31.8 18.2 9.1 0
FAC CCA 0 36.0 40.0 14 .0 10.0 0
Item Topic of Statement Group
1 Year
or Less
2-3 4-9 10-14
Over
14
Omit
194 How long employed in higher education FAC LCA 22.7 40.9 13.6 13.6 9.1 0
FAC CCA 32.0 34.0 18.0 6.0 8.0 2.0
195 How long at this college FAC LCA 45.5 40.9 9.1 4.5 0 0
FAC CCA 40.0 38.0 18.0 2.0 2.0 0
Item Topic of Statement Group 1 2 3 4-6
Over
7
Omit
196 Number of colleges at which employed FAC LCA 45.5 13.6 22.7 4.5 0 13.6
FAC CCA 66.0 30.0 2.0 0 2.0 0
Item Topic of Statement Group
Under
25
25-49 50-99
100-
249
250-
399
Omit
197 Number of students in your courses FAC LCA 4.5 0 27.3 68.2 0 0
FAC CCA 6.0 22.0 62.0 8.0 0 2.0
r o
o o
4>
1
Item Topic of Statement Group
Definite Probable Probable
Yes Yes No
Definite
No
Omit
198 If you started over, would you still FAC LCA 40.9 40.9 9.1 4.5 4.5
be a college professor? FAC CCA 50.0 42 .0 4.0 2.0 2.0
1
Item Topic of Statement Group 0-10% 11-20% 21-40% 41-60%
Over
60%
Omit
199 Percentage of time in administrative FAC LCA 0 36.4 22.7 27.3 9.1 4.5
work FAC CCA 2.0 44.0 30.0 6.0 18.0 0
200 Percentage of time in consulting FAC LCA 59.1 31.8 4.5 0 0 4.5
FAC CCA 58.0 38.0 4.0 0 0 0
201 Percentage of time in professional FAC LCA 77.3 9.1 9.1 0 0 4.5
practice FAC CCA 86.0 12.0 2.0 0 0 0
Item
m . r r . ~ « Both; Stress
Topic of Statement Group Research
Research
Both; Stress
Teaching
Teaching Omit
202 Primary interest in teaching FAC LCA 0 13.6 50.0 27.3 9.1
or research FAC CCA 0 4.0 36.0 60.0 0
Item Topic of Statement Group
Before
1909
mo-
1919
1920-
1929
1930-
1939
1940-
Later
203 Year of birth FAC LCA 4.5 13.6 31.8 36.4 13.6
FAC CCA 6.0 20.0 34.0 26.0 14.0
to
00
Ln
A P PE N DI X C
GHI SQUARE RESULTS
286
LCA FAC vs LCA STU CCA FAC vs CCA STU CCA FAC vs LCA FAC CCA STU vs LCA STU
Item
df
2
X LS* df
2
X LS df
2
X LS df
2
X LS
1 1 2.43 NS 1 .33 NS 1 9.59 .01 1 26.76 .001
2 1 .08 NS 1 2.36 NS 1 1.85 NS 1 24.39 .001
3 1 .13 NS 1 2.71 NS
4 1 .15 NS 1 .61 NS
5 1 4.20 .05
6
1 6.11 .02
7 1 .06 NS 1 .08 NS 1 .31 NS 1 13.82 .001
8 1 .01 NS 1 .24 NS 1 .75 NS 1 9.02 .01
9 2 2.71 NS 2 23.76 .001
10 2 6.52 .05
11 2 3.58 NS
12 2 4.68 NS 2 5.36 NS
13 2 12.04 .01
14 2 13.77 .01
15 2 22.30 .001
16 2 12.36 .01
17 1 .43 NS 1 1.83 NS 1 .06 NS 1 1.68 NS
18 1 .01 NS 1 6.41 .02
19 1 .10 NS 1 .77 NS 1 .37 NS 1 5.03 NS
20 1 .89 NS 1 10.92 .001 1 2.75 NS 1 2.65 NS
21 1 1.34 NS
22 1 19.57 .001 1 7.37 .01
23 1 2.30 NS 1 6.59 .02 1 1.25 NS 1 7.77 .01
24 1 1.64 NS 1 4.77 .05 1 6.73 .01 1 34.20 .001
25 1 2.40 NS 1 4.48 .05 1 3.37 NS 1 23.13 .001
26 1 11.28 .001 1 2.89 NS 1 1.26 NS 1 .78 NS ro
00
^ 1
1
LCA FAC vs LCA STU CCA FAC vs CCA STU CCA FAC vs LCA FAC CCA STU vs LCA STU
It 0111
df
2
X LS df
2
X LS df
2
X LS df
2
X LS
27 1 3.73 NS 1 3.17 NS 1 .07 NS 1 7.17 .01
28 1 1.04 NS 1 6.38 .05 1 .12 NS 1 5.85 .02
29 1 8.73 .01 1 .85 NS 1 .01 NS 1 ■17.12 .001
30 1 .40 NS 1 .18 NS 1 20.77 .001 1 72.38 .001
31 1 2.23 NS 1 .02 NS 1 3.49 NS 1 3.42 NS
32 1 .16 NS 1 10.06 .01
33 1 13.72 .001 1 17.64 .001
34 1 .03 NS 1 8.38 .01 1 4.40 .05 1 3.39 NS
35 1 .55 NS 1 2.18 NS 1 .49 NS 1 5.17 .05
36 1 .41 NS 1 .36 NS 1 .66 NS 1 12.32 .001
37 1 .06 NS 1 1.12 NS 1 2.32 NS 1 4.99 .05
38 1 .06 NS 1 .00 NS 1 1.11 NS 1 16.24 .001
39 1 .04 NS 1 .02 NS 1 1.38 NS 1 12.13 .001
40 1 .23 NS 1 .20 NS
41 1 .49 NS 1 .53 NS 1 .42 NS 1 .98 NS
42 1 .03 NS 1 2.63 NS 1 6.12 .02 1 9.36 .01
43 1 .23 NS 1 .00 NS 1 .14 NS 1 8.19 .01
44 1 .08 NS
45 1 4.96 .05 1 .65 NS 1 2.06 NS 1 5.73 .02
46
1 2.07 NS
47 1 .00 NS 1 .69 NS
48 1 1.46 NS 1 .00 NS 1 .75 NS 1 .03 NS
49 1 .78 NS 1 .00 NS
50 1 1.19 NS 1 14.82 .001
51 1 .01 NS 1 3.24 NS 1 .02 NS 1 6.71 .01
52 1 .97 NS 1 5.03 .05 1 1.53 NS 1 5.02
•05 M
C O
... .... 00
1
LCA FAC vs LCA STU CCA FAC vs CCA STU CCA FAC vs LCA FAC CCA STU vs LCA STU
Item
!
df
2
X LS : df
2
X LS df
2
X LS df
2
X LS
53 1 .44 NS 1 .26 NS 1 .07 NS 1 .73 NS
54 1 1.75 NS 1 .01 NS 1 3.23 NS 1 .96 NS
55 1 .39 NS 1 1.27 NS 1 .66 NS 1 5.42 .02
56 1 .00 NS 1 2.51 NS 1 .34 NS 1 .00 NS
57 1 .01 NS 1 11.38 .001
58
59 1 7.41 .01 1 5.12 .05 1 .35 NS 1 .03 NS
60 1 1.46 NS 1 .15 NS 1 1.38 NS 1 .98 NS
61 1 6.13 .02 1 .00 NS
62 1 .06 NS 1 .11 NS 1 .12 NS 1 9.14 .01
63 1 6.42 .02 1 4.40 .05
64 1 .15 NS 1 10.15 .01 1 .01 NS 1 8.46 .01
65 1 .40 NS 1 4.08 .05 1 .73 NS 1 1.23 NS
66 1 .02 NS 1 9.44 .01 1 2.22 NS 1 .00 NS
67 1 5.45 .02 1 6.91 .01
68 1 .61 NS 1 .03 NS
69 1 .01 NS 1 1.19 NS 1 1.65 NS 1 1.79 NS
70 1 13.54 .001 1 32.60 .001 1 .08 NS 1 .00 NS
71 1 .62 NS
72 1 .38 NS 1 .20 NS 1 .05 NS 1 .00 NS
73 1 3.36 NS 1 2.51 NS 1 .06 NS 1 3.34 NS
74 1 .43 NS 1 .58 NS 1 1.85 NS 1 16.97 .001
75 1 .96 NS 1 9.52 .01 1 4.33 .05 1 9.89 .01
76 1 10.92 .001 1 4.85 .05 1 .02 NS 1 7.79 .01
77 1 .03 NS 1 3.64 NS
78 1 .28 NS 1 1.78 NS
ro
oo
VO
T 4 - — . ,
LCA FAC vs LCA STU CCA FAC vs CCA STU CCA FAC vs LCA FAC CCA STU vs LCA STU
item
df
2
X LS df
2
X LS df X2 LS df X2 LS
79 2 4.25 NS 2 44.65 .001
80 2 7.01 .05
81 2 14.02 .001 2 22.68 .001
82 2 .88 NS 2 12.80 .01
83 2 1.14 NS 2 48.84 .001
84 1 .06 NS 1 1.05 NS 1 6.31 .02 1 13.88 .001
85 1 .42 NS 1 1.40 NS 1 .48 NS 1 4.15 .05
86 1 .69 NS 1 1.71 NS 1 .35 NS 1 4.75 .05
87 1 .02 NS 1 34.84 .001
88 1 .07 NS 1 25.75 .001
89 1 1.82 NS 1 14.55 .001
90 1 .01 NS 1 .82 NS 1 7.74 .01 1 26.33 .001
91 1 1.18 NS 1 1.04 NS 1 1.15 NS 1 18.33 .001
92 1 .77 NS 1 .93 NS 1 1.15 NS 1 15.18 .001
93 1 1.11 NS 1 20.03 .001
94 1 .39 NS 1 .00 NS 1 7.16 .01 1 27.17 .001
95 1 .03 NS 1 1.24 NS 1 5.99 .02 1 26.63 .001
96 1 1.78 NS 1 17.65 .001
97 1 3.35 NS 1 7.28 .01 1 3.99 .05 1 24.77 .001
98 1 2.84 NS 1 7.10 .01 1 .66 NS 1 5.21 .05
99 1 4.04 .05 1 5.93 .02 1 1.92 NS 1 17.05 .001
100 1 .02 NS 1 49.49 .001
101 1 12.62 .001
102 1 3.52 NS 1 2.81 NS 1 1.40 NS 1 19.93 .001
103 1 1.59 NS 1 7.42 .01 1 6.86 .01 1 53.53 .001
104 1 .77 NS 1 1.30 NS 1 4.61 .05 1 1.93 NS
" " “ 1
LCA FAC vs LCA STU CCA FAC vs CCA STU CCA FAC vs LCA FAC CCA STU vs LCA STU
item
df X2 LS df X2 LS df x2 LS df X2 LS
105 1 5.34 .05 1 19.68 .001
106 1 2.67 NS 1 13.51 .001
107 1 1.50 NS 1 .71 NS 1 .01 NS 1 13.14 .001
108 1 .34 NS 1 1.68 NS
109
110 1 .89 NS 1 62.46 .001
111 1 .34 NS 1 23.02 .001 1 .50 NS 1 42.59 .001
112 1 .01 NS 1 5.17 .05 1 .16 NS 1 23.96 .001
113 1 4.41 .05
114 1 .98 NS 1 18.30 .001
115 1 2.74 NS 1 .24 NS 1 13.62 .001 1 16.57 .001
116 1 .02 NS 1 .17 NS 1 .39 NS 1 4.44 .05
117 1 1.31 NS 1 1.09 NS 1 .02 NS 1 5.56 .02
118 1 .04 NS 1 .03 NS 1 2.14 NS 1 19.53 .001
119 1 3.47 NS 1 1.90 NS 1 .66 NS 1 15.38 .001
120 1 1.30 NS 1 1.31 NS
121 1 1.02 NS 1 5.94 .02
122 1 .39 NS 1 7.36 .01
123 1 .78 NS 1 1.90 NS 1 4.71 .05 1 32.47 .001
124 2 30.86 .001 2 2.67 NS
125 2 30.77 .001 2 5.02 NS
126 2 8.72 .02 2 12.04 .01
127
128 1 38.00 .001
129 1 12.54 .001
130 1 .03 NS
N >
KO
I - 1
1
LCA FAC vs LCA STU CCA FAC vs CCA STU CCA FAC vs LCA FAC CCA STU vs LCA STU
Item
df
2
X LS df
2
X LS df
2
X LS df
2
X LS
131 1 1.73 NS
132 1 .00 NS 1 .15 NS 1 5.59 .02 1 21.98 .001
133 2 16.09 .001
134 2 4.07 NS
135 2 3.84 NS 2 18.44 .001
136 2 3.39 NS
137 2 2.55 NS 2 33.74 .001
138 2 28.87 .001
139 2 24.20 .001
140
141 2 36 .66 .001
142 2 55.51 .001
143 2 35.77 .001
144 2 25.77 .001
145 2 28.17 .001
146 2 13.36 .01
147 2 3.91 NS 2 .39 NS
148 2 1.40 NS 2 3.21 NS
149 1 1.66 NS 1 .00 NS 1 .01 NS 1 9.68 .01
150 1 .05 NS 1 7.61 .01 1 2.73 NS 1 .89 NS
151 1 1.80 NS 1 7.64 .01 1 4.34 .05 3 33.43 .001
152 1 .11 NS 1 3.69 .05 1 5.85 .02 3 27.76 .001
153 1 .13 NS 1 .38 NS 1 2.44 NS 1 20.00 .001
154 1 .02 NS 1 .82 NS
155 1 .05 NS 1 2.05 NS 1 8.82 .01 1 18.49 .001
156 1 .01 NS 1 .00 NS 1 5.78 .02 1 44.73
292
iH
O
O
1
LCA FAC vs LCA STU CCA FAC vs CCA STU CCA FAC vs LCA FAC CCA STU vs LCA STU
Item
I
o 9 n
t
df X LS df
z
X LS df
z
X LS df
Z
X LS
157 1 .11 NS 1 4.22 .05
158 1 .01 NS 1 51.27 .001
159 1 .01 NS 1 .85 NS 1 .17 NS 1 5.27 .05
160 1 .01 NS 1 5.12 .05 1 .94 NS 1 .00 NS
161 1 .01 NS
162 1 4.77 .05 1 .03 NS
163 1 1.49 NS 1 4.50 .05
164 1 1.81 NS 1 1.06 NS 1 .00 NS 1 .82 NS
165 1 1.10 NS 1 7.52 .01
166 1 .06 NS 1 3.19 NS 1 .61 NS 1 .04 NS
167 1 .00 NS 1 .12 NS 1 5.80 .02 1 43.34 .001
168 1 .06 NS 1 1.33 NS 1 2.97 NS 1 7.22 .01
169 1 6.14 .02 1 .81 NS 1 .00 NS 1 13.26 .001
170 1 21.57 .001 1 .33 NS
171 1 1.12 NS 1 .49 NS 1 .51 NS 1 43.35 .001
172 1 13.75 .001
173 1 1.83 NS 1 .16 NS 1 .04 NS 1 5.95 .02
174 1 .91 NS 1 1.65 NS 1 8.40 .01 1 7.49 .01
175 1 .00 NS 1 .24 NS 1 1.17 NS 1 13.68 .001
176 1 .03 NS 1 .88 NS 1 5.63 .02 1 18.65 .001
177 1 .31 NS 1 .25 NS 1 .64 NS 1 10.15 .01
178 1 3.52 NS 1 .02 NS
179 1 2.47 NS 1 3.52 NS 1 .05 NS 1 1.19 NS
180 1 .58 NS 1 22.05 .001
181 1 3.61 NS 1 5.85 .02 1 .25 NS 1 7.64 .01
182 3 48.96 .001
ro
vo
LO
r
LCA FAC vs LCA STU CCA FAC vs CCA STU CCA FAC vs LCA FAC CCA STU vs LCA STU
Item
df
2
X LS
2
df X LS df
2
X LS df
2
X LS
183
184
185 2 1.02 NS 2 10.07 .01
186 1 .06 NS 1 7.86 .01
187 1 .01 NS
188 1 21.19 .001 1 7.97 .01 1 4.60 .05 1 .10 NS
189 1 1.19 NS
190 1 16.06 .001 1 1.25 NS 1 4.60 .05 1 .11 NS
191 1 .28 NS 1 4.96 .05
192 1 51.18 .001 1 3.02 NS
I 193 2 .44 NS 1 17.39 .001
194 1 .32 NS 1 29.92 .001
195 1 .03 NS 1 .44 NS
196 1 .56 NS 1 .01 NS
197 1 1.20 NS
198 1 .46 NS
199 2 1.46 NS 1 4.76 .05
200 1 9.46 .01
201 1 .67 NS
202 1 .59 NS
203 1 .28 NS 1 .00 NS
204 1 1.84 NS
205 1 2.66 NS
206 1 .65 NS
207 1 .06 NS
208 1 .36 NS m
VO
■P-
LCA FAC vs LCA STU CCA FAC vs CCA STU CCA FAC vs LCA FAC CCA STU vs LCA STU
Item
2
df X LS
2
df X LS
2
df X LS df
2
X LS
209 2 27.51 .001
210 2 39.26 .001
211
2 65.72 .001
212 2 2.99 NS
213 2 .11 NS
214 2 8.49 .02
215 2 17.58 .001
216
217 2 68.26 .001
218 2 6.19 .05
219 2 7.08 .05
220 2 7.99 .02
221
222
2 3.42 NS
223
224 2 29.20 .001
225
226
227
228 1 .22 NS
*LS = Level of significance
N>
vO
A P P E N D I X D
PERCENTAGE SCORES OF SENIOR STUDENTS AT MEDIUM-QUALITY
SCHOOLS IN 1969 CARNEGIE STUDY
296
297
Item Group
Very
Satisfied
Satisfied Dissatisfied
Very
Dissatisfied
Omit
1 STU 34.1 53.6 9.7 1.9 0.7
2 FAC 3.8 40.8 41.9 11.6 1.9
STU 10.5 54.5 28.3 6.3 0.5
3 FAC 25.8 56.6 13.8 1.7 2.1
STU 17.3 55.1 23.0 4.1 0.5
4 STU 8.7 57.4 29.0 4.3 0.6
5 STU 12.6 40.7 34.9 10.8 1.0
6 STU 47.5 42.3 7.9 1.7 0.6
7 FAC 9.5 41.7 33.3 12.9 2.6
STU 7.2 50.4 28.6 12.8 1.0
Item Group
Very
Des criptive
Between
Not
Des criptive
Omit
9 STU 12.9 66.2 18.7 2.2
10 STU 8.5 38.7 50.6 2.2
11 STU 34.8 50.5 12.4 2.3
12 STU 9.8 32.5 54.5 3.2
13 STU 22.0 63.2 12.5 2.3
14 STU 30.9 54.3 12.4 2.4
15 STU 22.1 61.5 13.9 2.5
16 STU 17.7 56.9 23.0 2.4
Item Group Yes No Omit
17 STU 53.0 48.8 1.2
18 STU 48.7 48.8 2.5
19 STU 44.7 53.4 1.9
20 STU 34.7 64.1 1.2
21 STU 11.9 86.8 1.3
22 STU 66.5 32.1 1.4
23 STU 29.0 69.3 1.7
L -
298
Item Group
Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Omit
24 FAC 4.7 15.9 29.0 48.2 2.1
STU 14.7 35.0 28.8 21.1 0.4
25 FAC 9.3 22.4 30.8 35.0 4.2
1
STU 20.8 39.1 25.2 13.9 1.0
i 26 FAC 26.9 46.7 18.4 6.5 1.6
t
]
STU 49.1 41.1 7.9 1.0 0
27 FAC 21.5 48.4 22.4 5.8 1.9
STU 36.1 46.5 13.7 2.8 0.9
28 FAC 18.8 36.2 26.9 16.5 1.6
STU 15.4 34.4 31.4 17.7 0.9
29 FAC 10.3 27.9 33.0 27.3 1.5
STU 19.9 41.3 29.1 8.9 0.8
30 FAC 18.2 40.5 29.8 10.0 1.5
STU 9.2 32.5 41.7 15.9 0.7
31 STU 8.6 58.2 25.0 6.5 1.7
! 32 FAC 33.2 34.6 17.8 13.4 1.0
!
STU 68.8 27.0 3.1 1.0 0
33 STU 9.1 28.0 32.0 28.4 2.5
34 STU 6.9 22.7 38.4 29.6 2.4
35 FAC 18.8 49.2 18.2 12.4 1.4
36 FAC 12.6 60.9 20.3 4.7 1.5
STU 11.0 59.3 24.4 4.8 0.5
42 FAC 13.6 36.8 36.4 11.1 2.1
STU 14.9 41.2 33.4 8.8 1.7
43 FAC 23.0 46.7 22.5 6.4 1.3
STU 17.1 48.3 27.6 6.4 0.6
44 STU 2.2 5.8 44.6 46.8 0.6
45 FAC 10.3 30.6 31.4 26.7 1.0
STU 9.4 29.9 28.9 31.4 0.6
46 STU 4.3 18.1 53.0 23.8 0.8
47 FAC 6.2 17.4 39.1 27.5 9.8
48 FAC 13.1 33.7 40.3 10.2 2.6
299
Item Group
Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Omit
49 FAC 2.4 10.0 50.4 30.5 6.7
50 FAC 5.1 20.0 41.7 28.6 4.6
51 FAC 16.0 43.1 30.5 4.6 5.8
52 FAC 6.7 25.8 45.1 16.6 5.8
53 FAC 20.5 37.6 28.3 7.8 5.8
54 FAC 8.5 25.3 43.0 16.8 6.4
55 FAC 21.8 57.5 13.4 2.8 4.5
56 FAC 17.9 46.3 27.1 0.4 4.6
57
l
FAC 4.8 11.9 33.7 46.8 2.8
I
58 FAC 42.1 44.9 10.0 1.4 1.4
STU 71.6 24.8 1.9 0.7 0.7
59 FAC 15.5 40.0 28.3 14.8 1.4
STU 7.5 44.9 35.1 9.7 2.8
60 FAC 24.0 35 .8 28.1 9.6 2.5
61 FAC 21.7 37.2 26.4 11.3 3.3
62 FAC 18.3 51.6 23.3 0.6 0.7
63 FAC 6.5 13.7 11.7 13.8 54.4
64 FAC 68.9 28.3 2.8
65 FAC 10.7 16.5 28.5 42.2 2.1
66 FAC 18.5 21.9 28.0 29.5 2.1
67 FAC 20.0 25 .8 30.6 21.5 2.1
68 FAC 63.3 26.6 4.6 3.7 1.7
69 FAC 17.9 27.0 31.0 21.5 2.6
I
Item Group
Great
Deal
Quite
a Bit
Some None
Omit
■
70 FAC 34.8 27.4 30.7 6.2 1.0
71 FAC 5.4 13.1 48.2 31.0 2.4
30C
Item Group
Very
Autocratic Democratic
Autocratic
Very
Democratic
Omit
72 FAC 8.4 19 .2 32.9 38.1 1.5
Item Group
Vote on Formal
Control
Committee Consult.
Informal Little
Consult. or None
Omit
73 FAC 0 6.7 16.2 23.9 52.4 0
STU 0.6 25.4 22.6 25.7 24.7 1.0
74 FAC 0.2 13.9 24.4 26.8 33.6 0
STU 0.9 24.2 23.0 26.0 23.9 2.0
75 FAC 0.1 15.4 27.8 23.7 31.8 0
STU 1.6 35.9 31.4 19.3 10.9 0.9
76 FAC 0.1 15.3 32.4 36.7 14.3 0
STU 3.9 42.2 36.6 14.0 2.5 0.8
77 STU 40.8 47.6 7.7 1.9 1.0 1.0
78 FAC 18.7 47.2 21.5 8.2 3.4 1.0
STU 29.4 54.2 11.5 2.9 1.2 0.8
1
Item Group
-r Middle-
Left Liberal
of-Road
Moder.
Conser.
Conserva
tive
i
Omit
79 FAC 4.2 36.6 27.5 25.8 3.2 2.7
STU 4.1 40.1 32.3 18.7 1.2 3.6
80 FAC 1.4 14.2 23.3 35.9 20.3 4.9
STU 0.2 8.5 27.7 47.3 12.0 4.3
81 STU 3.3 40.7 37.4 12.5 0.8 5.3
82 FAC 1.0 23.4 40.0 28.0 4.1 3.5
STU 2.6 40.1 38.4 12.8 1.3 0
83 STU 0.6 32.1 34.7 23.2 2.2 7.2
Item Group
Strongly
Agree Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Omit
84 FAC 8.5 31.6 33 .3 24.2 2.4
STU 9.8 36.6 37 .7 13.9 2.0
85 FAC 8.8 21.4 38 .3 28.2 3.3
STU 11.1 36.9 36 .0 12.4 3.6
301s
Item Group
Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Omit
86 STU 25.3 41.8 22.4 7.8 2.7
87 FAC 46.7 24.1 18.6 7.3 3.3
STU 40.8 30.5 19.8 6.2 2.7
88 FAC 16.3 25.1 26.2 28.4 3.9
89 FAC 17.2 33.4 28.8 17.8 2.8
90 FAC 18.3 30.8 30.5 16.5 3.8
91 FAC 29.6 45.7 15.7 7.5 1.5
STU 17.5 49.5 21.2 10.8 1.0
92 FAC 31.1 48.5 12.9 5.8 1.7
93 FAC 11.2 19.1 36.6 30.7 1.5
STU 7.2 13.9 38.3 40.2 0.4
94 STU 4.5 16.1 37.1 41.0 1.3
95 FAC 50.9 27.8 14.4 5.6 1.3
STU 23.9 33.5 31.5 10.5 3.6
96 FAC 5.0 11.1 35.2 47.6 1.1
STU 2.0 5.9 31.1 59.8 1.2
97 STU 15.8 28.9 39.9 13.2 2.2
; 98
i
STU 4.9 17.1 36.5 41.0 0.5
i 99
I
STU 6.4 12.3 26.9 53.6 0.8
I
! ioo FAC 50.6 30.8 12.5 4.1 2.1
101 FAC 8.7 12.3 23.0 53.6 2.4
STU 10.8 21.3 31.3 35.5 1.1
102 FAC 46.1 35.1 10.5 6.9 1.5
STU 56.0 36.2 5.6 2.0 0.2
103 FAC 18.6 36.3 29.4 13.3 2.4
104
I
FAC 19.2 29.5 29.6 16.0 5.6
105 FAC 15.1 21.1 35.2 25.7 2.3
106 FAC 18.9 26.4 32.2 20.5 2.0
i
STU 17.5 43.9 25 .4 12.6 0.6
302,
Item Group Know of Heard of
Don
Know
't
of
Not
Possible
Omit
107 FAC 11.0 12.0 63.0 12.3 1.5
Item Group Yes No Omit
1
j 108
|
FAC 3.8 94.2 1.9
109 STU 0.1 99.9 0
| 110 STU 18.7 81.3 0
I 111
STU 13.6 86.4 0
112 STU 24.7 75.3 0
113 STU 13.8 86.2 0
114 STU 15.5 84.5 0
115 FAC 17.7 80.5 1.8
116 STU 58.7 37.4 0
117 STU 49.5 28.0 22.5
118 STU 30.7 50.3 19.0
119 STU 23.1 46.4 30.5
120 STU 26.1 54.2 19.7
121
i
STU 33.9 42.4 23.7
Item Group Yes Omit
127 FAC 0,6 99.4
128 FAC 1.1 98.9
129 FAC 6.7 93.3
130 FAC 1.8 98.2
131 FAC 4.2 95.8
132 FAC 26.2 73.8
Item Group
Organized
or Led
Participated Observed None Omit
133 STU 1.8 19.9 31.4 43.6 3.3
134 STU 0.9 6.9 27.3 60.0 4.9
303
Item Group
Organized
or Led
Participated Observed None Omit
135 STU 2.0 16.8 32.5 44.7 7.0
136 STU 0.3 2.7 8.6 83.3 5.1
137
t
STU 0.5 7.7 8.0 68.0 18.4
138 STU 0.5 3.1 10.1 70.3 14.0
139 STU 0.2 0.7 4.9 75.8 18.4
140 STU 0 0.1 2.8 79.9 17.3
Item Group
Very
Favor.
Favor- _ Very
, Harmful „ ^ _
able Harmful
No
Effect
Omit
141 FAC 0.9 2.9 2.4 1.0 87.3 5.5
142 FAC 2.6 15.9 3.9 1.0 72.4 0
143 FAC 1.6 8.3 4.8 0.6 80.8 3.9
144 FAC 1.3 9.3 6.9 0.9 77.6 4.1
! 146
|
FAC 4.7 21.5 3.4 0.6 65.3 4.6
147 FAC 9.7 20.7 14.1 14.7 46.5 4.3
148 FAC 3.8 14.2 23.3 7.2 46.8 4.7
I
1
! Item Group
Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Omit
149 FAC 19.6 37.3 29.4 12.6 1.1
STU 21.9 45.1 24.3 7.7 1.0
150 STU 9.9 13.5 44.6 9.9 2.1
151 FAC 32.3 24.2 26.0 15.7 1.9
STU 13.2 17.3 31.5 34.8 3.2
152 FAC 10.4 19.3 20.8 46.3 3.2
STU 20.8 28.5 21.2 26.9 2.7
153 STU 19.8 30.6 28.2 17.0 4.4
154 STU 50.1 36.3 6.1 5.2 2.7
155 STU 10.6 27.4 42.1 16.3 3.6
156 STU 40.2 26.7 18.5 11.6 3.0
157 STU 28.4 35 . 3 24.7 8.3 3.3
304
Item Group
Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Omit
158 STU 12.9 37.4 33.4 14.1 2.2
159 STU 22.6 40.4 28.5 4.4 4.1
; 160 STU 28.1 27.3 30.9 10.0 3.7
| 161 STU 51.4 36.6 8.1 1.9 2.0
| 162 STU 28.1 27.3 30.9 10.0 4.7
! 163 STU 15.9 42.2 30.2 9.5 2.2
164 STU 11.3 40.2 36.1 10.5 1.9
165 FAC 11.0 25.0 33.1 28.1 2.8
STU 6.6 22.6 43.6 25.0 2.2
166 STU 5.7 23.6 47.3 20.3 3.1
167 STU 17.9 35.3 30.2 14.0 2.6
168 STU 11.0 34.3 38.6 13.9 2.2
169 FAC 3.8 21.4 35.6 38.2 1.0
STU 11.1 34.0 38.1 15.7 1.1
170 FAC 25.5 38.9 21.1 13.6 1.0
STU 51.8 35.6 8.3 3.4 0.9
171 FAC 11.8 25.4 26.8 34.8 1.1
i
i
STU 5.6 16.3 29.4 47.8 0.6
172 FAC 3.7 16.8 26.3 51.9 1.3
STU 3.0 14.7 29.1 50.7 1.4
173 FAC 22.0 42.3 22.1 10.4 3.2
STU 26.5 31.0 26.7 12.5 4.3
174 FAC 15.6 25.4 28.6 27.5 2.8
STU 6,4 16.5 41.5 25.3 10.3
175 FAC 14.0 29.1 31.1 21.6 4.2
STU 9.7 30.0 41.3 15.4 3.6
176 STU 12.5 25.8 41.0 17.6 1.1
177 FAC 14.8 27.5 25.2 27.9 4.5
STU 10.9 32.4 27.6 22.7 6.4
178 FAC 54.6 27.5 11.1 5.1 1.7
STU 55.7 28.3 10.9 2.4 2.7
305
Item Group
Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Omit
179 STU 28.3 35.8 25.3 7.3 3.3
180 STU 21.0 34.9 27.6 12.2 4.3
181 FAC 3.5 14.5 31.7 46.1 4.1
|
STU 4.9 2.7 36.5 27.8 28.1
i
1
l
Item Group
Withdraw
Iramed.
Reduce
Coalition
Reduce
Previous
Commit.
Total
Commit.
Omit
182 FAC 16.4 38.5 33.8 8.2 5.1
STU 12.8 22.8 35.1 26.0 3.3
Item Group Yes No Omit
183 FAC 95.9 2.7 1.4
184 FAC 4.1 86.0 0
Item Group Protestant Catholic Jewish Other None Omit
185 FAC 51.7 18.5 4.2 5.1 15.8 4.8
STU 57.2 21.2 1.5 4.5 13.0 2.6
Item Group Yes No Omit
186 FAC 41.3 56.1 2.7
Item Group White Black
Puerto ^ ^ ,
Oriental Other
Rican
Omit
187 FAC 96.4 1.1 0.8 0.4 0 0
STU 97.0 0.9 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.9
Item Group
Almost
Always
Most Half
Almost
Some
None
Omit
188 FAC 11.9 20.6 19.9 32.7 14.0 0.9
190 FAC 4.9 9.7 14.7 49.8 20.0 0.9
191 STU 10.7 65.5 20.6 0.9 0 2.2
. . .
306
Item Group B.A.
Prof. Degree
(L.L.B., M.D., etc.)
M. A.
Ed.D. ^ 1
_ _ Other
Ph.D.
Omit
192 FAC 3.0 14.8 15.6 59.9 2.4 4.3
STU 22.3 7.8 50.9 15.0 1.0 2.0
STUDENT ONLY
Item Group Yes No
193 STU 47.2 52.8
194 STU .42.2 57.8
195 STU 7.7 92.3
196 STU 24.0 76.0
197 STU 6.7 93.3
198 STU 87.4 12 .6
199 STU 29.4 70.6
200 STU 7.0 96.0
201 STU 6.7 93.3
202 STU 22.5 77.5
203 STU 20.8 79.2
Item Group True
Usually
True
Usually
False
False Omit
204 STU 26.4 51.3 18.2 3.3 0.8
205 STU 0.9 1.0 50.6 46.4 1.1
206 STU 5.9 14.3 36.2 42.7 0.9
207 STU 2.7 20.0 53.5 21.5 2.3
208 STU 23.7 49.6 21.3 4.9 0.5
Item Group Essential Important Not Important Omit
209 STU 57 .6 38.1 4.2 0
210 STU 52 .9 45.6 1.1 0.4
307
Item Group Essential Important Not Important Omit
211 STU 51.4 37.4 10.9 3.0
212 STU 80.6 17.2 1.8 0.4
213 STU 12.4 47.2 39.3 1.1
214 STU 72.2 24.5 2.7 0.6
Item Group Much Some None Omit
214 STU 72.2 24.5 2.7 0.6
215 STU 30.1 64.8 4.5 0.6
216 STU 58.2 39.7 2.0 0
217 STU 20.9 57.9 19.9 1.3
218 STU 59.3 34.3 5.8 0.6
219 STU 37.5 50.1 11.1 1.3
220 STU 39.3 50.0 10.3 0.4
Item Gro up
Too Much
or Many
Right
Amount
Not
Enough
Omit
221 STU 0.8 53.7 4.5 0.1
222 STU 4.9 70.0 24.4 0.7
223 STU 1.9 79.9 17.3 0.9
224 STU 15.9 76.7 6.4 1.0
225 STU 0.9 46.9 51.2 1.0
226 STU 0.6 49.4 49.3 0.7
227 STU 1.2 49.8 47.8 1.2
FACULTY ONLY
Item Group
Instruc
tor
Assist.
Prof.
Assoc.
Prof.
Professor Lecturer Omit
193 FAC 18.9 32.2 23.0 20.8 2.0 3.1
308
Item Group
1 Year
or Less
2-3 4-9 10-14
Over
14
Omit
194 FAC 10.0 18.6 30.5 13.5 33.7 1.7
195 FAC 18.1 25.5 27.6 10.5 14.9 3.4
Item Group 1 2 3 4-6
Over
7
Omit
196 FAC 56.8 24.3 10.7 5.3 0.3 2.6
Item Group
Under
25
25-49 50-99
100-
249
250-
399
Omit
197 FAC 14.4 22.1 33.9 23.0 2.4 4.1
Item Group
Definite
Yes
Probable Probable
Yes No
Definite
No
Omit
198 FAC 55,7 34.6 7.0 1.4 1.4
Item Group 0-10% 11-20% 21-40% 41-60% Over 60% Omit
199 FAC 54.3 19.5 9.3 6.7 6.8 3.4
200 FAC 78.2 11.2 4.5 0.7 0.3 5.1
201 FAC 82.0 6.2 3.2 1.3 1.1 6.2
Item Group Research
Both; Stress Both; Stress
Research Teaching
Teaching Omit
202 FAC 0.9 11.1 35.5 49.8 2.7
Item Group
Before
1909
1910-
1919
1920-
1929
1930-
1939
1940-
Later
Omit
203 FAC 6.0 16.0 25.6 34.3 15.1 2.3
I
I
REFERENCES
309
REFERENCES
Armor,
i
Astin,
! As tin,
Bay, C.
Bayer,
Bayer,
Becker,
Beliefs
D . , Giacquinta, J. B., McIntosh, R. G. , 6 c Russell, |
D. E. H. Professors' attitudes toward the Vietnam !
war. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1967, 31^, 159-175. ;
k. W. Classroom environment in different fields of
study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1965,
56(5), 275-282. !
»
k. W. , 5 c Bayer, A. E. Antecedents and consequents 1
of disruptive campus protest. Washington, D.C.:
American Council on Education, 1969. ;
Political and apolitical students: Facts in search
of theory. Journal of Social Issues, 1967, 23, 76- :
91.
1. E. , 6e As tin, A. W, Violence and disruption on
the U.S. campus, 1968-1969. Educational Record,
1969, 50, 337-350.
V. E. , As tin, A. W. , Sc Boruch, R . F. Social issues
and protest activity: Recent student trends.
Washington, D.C.: Office of Research of American
Council on Education, 1970.
7 i
i
H. S., & Carper, J. The elements of identification ,
with an occupation. American Sociological Review,
1956, 21, 341-348.
attract people. Science News, October 15, 1966, 907
314.
310
3111
Bereiter, C., 6 c Freedman, M. B. Traits of ability and j
attitude related to academic field of specializa- '
tion. In R. N. Sanford (Ed.), The American college. '
New York: Wiley 6 c Sons, 1962.
i
Berelson, B. Graduate education in the United States. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.
'Block, J. , Haan, N. , 6c Smith, M. B. Activism and apathy in !
; contemporary adolescence. In J. F. Adams (Ed.),
j Contributions to the understanding of adolescence.
Boston: Allyn 6 c Bacon, 1 9 6 8 . :
Block, J., Haan, N., 6 c Smith, M. B. Socialization corre- |
lates of student activism. Journal of Social
Issues, 1 9 6 9 , 2 5 ( 4 ) , 1 4 3 - 1 7 7 .
Boruch, R. F. Faculty role in campus unrest. Washington,
D.C.: American Council on Education, 1 9 6 9 . j
Bradshaw, T. K. The impact of peers on student orientations
to college: A contextual analysis. In M. Trow
(Ed.), Teachers and students. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1 9 7 5 .
>
jBundy, M. Faculty power. Atlantic Monthly, 1 9 6 8 , 2 2 2 , 4 1 -
4 7 .
Campus rebels: Who, why, what. Newsweek, September 3 0 ,
1 9 6 8 , 7 2 , 6 3 - 6 7 .
Cashman, P. H. Working with the modern student. Journal ,
of Higher Education, 1 9 7 0 , 4 1 , 2 6 4 - 2 7 4 .
Cirese, S., 6 c Koon, J. College seniors view campus unrest |
and national issues— Spring 1 9 7 0 . Unpublished manu-!
script, Center for Research and Development in
Higher Education, University of California, Berke- |
ley, 1 9 7 0 .
Clark, B. R., & Trow, M. The organizational context. In
T. M. Newcomb 6 c E. K. Wilson (Eds.) , College peer
groups. Chicago: Aldine Press, 1 9 6 6 .
Cole, S., 6 c Adamsons, H. Determinants of faculty support !
for student demonstrations. Sociology of Education, ;
1969, 42, 315-329. ;
i
Coleman, J. S. (Ed.) Education and political development, j
| Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1965.
i
i
Crawford, K. Campus revolution. Newsweek, June 2, 1969,
I 73, 39.
i
jDavis , J. Undergraduate career decisions. Chicago: Aldine1
Press, 1965. !
Desmond, R. L. Faculty and student frustrations shaping
the future of the university. AAUP Bulletin, 1969,
55, 23-26. j
Downing, L . A., 6 c Salomone, J . J . Professors of the silent 1
generation. Trans-Action, 1969, 6, 43-45. ,
Dunbar, E. (Ed.) Campus mood, spring '68. Look, April 2,
1968, 32, 23-37.
Ehrich, R. W. Age stratification among teachers. Educa
tional Forum, 1964, 29/1) , 105-109.
Eitzen, D. S. , 6 c Maranell, G. M. The political party
affiliations of college professors. Social Forces, !
1968, 47, 145-153.
Emmerson, D. K. Students and politics in developing nations.
New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1968.
I
Erskine, H. The polls: Recent opinion on racial problems. .
i Public Opinion Quarterly, 1968-1969, 32^, 696-703. '
Faia, M. A. Letters to the editor. Chronicle of Higher j
I Education, 1976, 11/16), 18.
i
Feldman, K. A., 6 c Newcomb, T. M. The impact of college on
| students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969.
iFeuer, L. S. Rebellion at Berkeley. The New Leader, 1964,
67(26), 3-12.
313’
Flacks, R. Adaptations of deviants in a college community, i
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of J
Michigan, 1963. !
Flacks, R. The liberated generation: An exploration of the
j roots of student protest. Journal of Social Issues , j
1967, 23(3), 53-57. |
!
jFoley, J. A., 6 c Foley, R. K . The college scene. New York: ;
Cowle, 1969.
i
iGallup, G. H. The Gallup poll: Public opinion 1935-1971 ;
(Vol. 3). New York: Random House, 1972. j
Gallup opinion index report. No. 49. New Jersey: Gallup '
International, 1969. '
.Gardner, J. The flight from teaching. New York: Carnegie |
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1964. j
K . , 6 c Gergen, M. K . Politics of despair. Saturday j
Review, September 19, 1970, 53^, 80. (a)
K . , 6 c Gergen, M . K . Vietnam and the students: A
brief summary of research results. Unpublished
manuscript, June 1970. (b) •
N. What happened at Berkeley. In S. M. Lipset 6 c
S. S. Wolin (Eds.), The Berkeley student revolt: ;
Facts and interpretations. Garden City , N.Y. : . !
Doubleday Anchor Books, 1965.
Goldblatt, H, Academic mobility and cross pressures on i
college teachers during the McCarthy era. Sociology
of Education, 1967, 40, 132-144. !
i
jGoldsen, R. K . , Rosenberg, M. , Williams, R. M. , 6 c Suchman, .
' E. A. What college students think. Princeton, ;
1 N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1960.
'Good, T . L . , 6 c Bates, D . A. Politics and youth, attitudes
t of young Americans, Clearing House, 1969, 43, 396- ;
I 400.
Gergen,
jGergen,
i
Glazer,
314!
Goodwin, L. The academic world and the business world: A
7 I
comparison of occupational goals. Sociology of :
Education, 1969, 42, 170-187.
Gorman, B. W. Changing ideas and the teacher. Peabody |
Journal of Education, 1967, 44, 199-243. ;
1 !
Harris, Louis. Youth attitudes for Life Magazine. Year End
> Issue. New York: Louis Harris Associates, 1970. 1
i
l liarris survey yearbook 1970. New York: Louis Harris Asso-
j ciates, 1971. !
i t
jnodgkinson, H. Student protest— an institutional and |
national profile. The Record, 1970, 71^(4), 537-555.1
i
Horowitz, I. L. Young radicals and professorial critics.
Commonweal, 1969, 89, 552-556. ;
Idzerda, S. J. Faculty attitudes: Aids or barriers to
liberal learning? Liberal Education, 1967, 53(1), <
56-62.
.
i
Jacob, P. Changing values in college. New Haven, Conn.:
j Edward W. Hazen Foundation, 1957. !
Jenkins, C., & Riesihan, D. The academic revolution. Gar
den City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1968.
Jones, M. B. Role of the faculty in student rebellion.
I Educational Forum, 1966, 30(2), 35-142.
i
IlCatz, J. Social expectations and influences. In L . E.
j Dennis & J. F. Kauffman (Eds.) , The college and the
student. Washington, D.C.: American Council on
Education, 1966. ,
j
Keniston, K. The faces in the lecture room. In R. S. ;
i Morison (Ed.), The contemporary university: USA. ■
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1966. (a) '
i
I
i
Keniston, K. The truth about today’s college students. !
U.S. News and World Report, 1966, 60(22), 42-47. !
(b)
J
315'
i
i
Keniston, K. The sources of student dissent. Journal of |
Social Issues, 1967, 23_, 108-138. (c) (
Keniston, K. Youth, change, and violence. American
Scholar, 1968, 37(2), 227-245. !
i
i
Keniston, K. America’s cultural revolution: To heal our
society’s deep rifts. Current, 1970, 123, 48-56.
! (a)
Keniston, K. Harvard on my mind. New York Times Review of
Books, September 24, 1970, 15, 6-7. (b)
Keniston, K. What’s bugging the students? Educational !
Record, 1970, 51, 116-129. j
I
Keniston, K., 8c Lerner, M. Unholy alliance against the J
campus. New York Times Magazine, November 8, 1970,
120, 28-29, 56, 58, 60, 63, 66, 68, 70, 73, 76, 81,
83, 86. :
Kerr, C. The uses of the university. New York: Harper &
Row,1966. ,
Key, V. 0. Jr. Public opinion and American democracy. New :
York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1963.
iKlapper, H. L. Young college faculty member: A new breed?
j Sociology of Education, 1969, 42, 38-49. .
i
I
Koile, E. A., & Tatem, D. W. Student-oriented teacher.
Junior College Journal, 1966, 3b(5) , 24-26.
Kristol, I. Malcontent professors. Fortune, 1967, 76(7) ,
229-230. |
*
Ladd, E. C. Jr. Professors and political petitions.
Science, March 28, 1969, 34, 1425-1430.
Ladd, E. C. Jr., & Lipset, S. M. Academics: America’s most’
! politically liberal stratum. Chronicle of Higher |
; Education, 1975, 1^(6), 2. (a) |
Ladd, E. C. Jr., 8c Lipset, S. M. The divided academy. New ^
York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. (b)
! " ' , 3161
Ladd, E. C. Jr., 6c Lipset, S. M. How do faculty members
take their responsibilities as citizens? Chronicle .
of Higher Education, 1975, 1JL(15) , 13. (c)
i
Langer, E. Berkeley scene, 1966: Politics and potshots. j
Science, May 20, 1966, 152, 1037-1041.
i i
! t
jLazarsfeld, P. F., & Thielens, W. Jr. The academic mind: \
' Social scientists in a time of crisis. Glencoe, I
111.: The Free Press, 1958.
* i
Leinenweber, C. Letters to the editor. Fortune, 1968, 77,
131. (With rejoinder by I. Kristol.) j
i
Lipset, S. M. Political man. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday
Anchor Books, 1963.
Lipset, S. M. Students and politics. In S. M. Lipset 6c !
S. S. Wolin (Eds.), The Berkeley students* revolt: !
Facts and Interpretations. Garden City, JT.Y. :
Doubleday Anchor Books, 1965.
( Lipset, S. M. Student opposition in the United States.
Government and Opposition, 1966, 1^, 351-374.
Lipset, S. M. Rebellion on campus. American Education,
1968, 4(9), 28-31.
Lipset, S. M. If Harvard can’t hold the line. U.S. Hews j
and World P.eport, 1969, 6(5, 42-43. (a)
Lipset, S. M. Political thrust motivating campus turmoil.
Saturday Review, March 1, 1969, 52, 23-25, 47-48. ,
J (b) ;
Lipset, S. M. , 6c Altbach, P. G. Student politics and ,
| higher education in the United States. In S. M. 1
| Lipset (Ed.), Student politics. New York: Basic !
! Books, 1967. j
| i
Lipset, S. M., 6 c Ladd, E. C. Jr. . . . And what professors I
j think. Psychology Today, 1970, 4(6), 49-51, 106. j
* i
I '
Lipset, S. M., 6c Schaflander, G. M. Passion and politics. 1
Boston: Little, Brown 6c Co. , 1971. !
3171
Lipset, S. M., & Schwartz, M. A. The politics of profes- I
sionals. In H. M. Vollmer & D. L. Mills (Eds.), |
Professionalization. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: ;
Prehtice-Hall, 1966.
9 \
i
Lipset, S. M., & Seabury, P. Perspectives of the editors:
The lesson of Berkeley. In S. M. Lipset 6s S. S.
Wolin (Eds.), The Berkeley student revolt: Facts
and interpretations. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday
Anchor Books, 1965.
Lipset, S. M., 6c Wolin, S. S. (Eds.) The Berkeley student
revolt: Facts and interpretations. Garden City,
N.Y.: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1965.
Mayhew, L. B. Faculty and students as adversaries. Com- j
pact, 1969, 3, 22-25. (a) !
Mayhew, L. B. Faculty demands and faculty militance.
Journal of Higher Education, 1969, 40(5), 337-350. (
i
McConnell, T. R. Faculty interest in value change and
power conflicts. AAUP Bulletin, 1969, 55^, 342-352.
Mitau, G. T. Needed: Peacemakers and social engineers.
AAUP Bulletin, 1969, 55, 155-158.
Mulherin, K. California's academic fault. Commonweal,
1969, 90, 281-286.
National Education Association, Research Division. Sampling
study of the teaching faculty in higher education:
I Summary of status and opinions of the teaching '
1 faculty in higher education. NEA Research Bulletin,!
i 1966, 44(1), 3-10.
New mood on campus: Survey. Newsweek, December 29, 1969, i
74, 42-45. |
On campus: Fear and anger: Effect of war. Newsweek, |
July 10, 1967, 70, 87-88. j
Opinions of college freshmen. School and Society, 1970, I
98, 302-303. 1
I
Perrin, N. College seniors and the war. New Yorker, July. :
20, 1968, 44, 56, 58-60, 65-68. i
Petersen, W. What is left at Berkeley. In S. M. Lipset & \
S. S. Wolin (Eds*), The Berkeley student revolt: ,
Facts and interpretations. Garden City, N.Y.:
I Doubleday Anchor Books, 1965.
;Peterson, R. The scope of organized student protest in !
i 1964-1965. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing
Service, 1966. !
Peterson, R. Cambodia, Kent, Jackson, and the campus !
aftermath. Unpublished manuscript, Carnegie Com- ■
mission on Higher Education Survey, October 1970.
i
Political university. Time, May 16, 1969, 93^, 45, 59. !
Politics in academe. Newsweek, January 12, 1970, 74, 42-48j
Pricert, S. S. Ethical and philosophical attitude patterns |
of student majors in four disciplines. California
Journal of Educational Research, 1964, 15(3), 112-
121.
Professors. Time, January 10, 1969, 93/2), 55.
! 1
Professors and politics . Time, January 12, 1970, 9_5, 36.
[ i
Profile of the college rebel: Roper survey. School and
j Society, 1969, 97_, 408, 410.
i '
Putnam, H. Campus unrest: Its crisis and cure. School
! and Society, 1970, 9^8, 372-374.
Reed, M. Student non-politics, or how to make irrelevancy
! a virtue. The American Student, 1966, ^(3), 7-10.
I i
Riesman, D. Constraint and variety in American education. j
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1956. |
Riesman, D. Changing campus and a changing society. School'
; and Society, 1969, 97, 215-222. j
319!
Robinson, J. Public reaction to political protest: Chi
cago 1968. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1970, 3^, 1-9. :
Rosenberg, M. Occupations and values. Glencoe, 111.: The |
Free Press, 1957. I
i
ISanford, N. (Ed.) The American college. New York: Wiley I
j 6c Sons, 1962. j
I ‘
1
jSchuman, H. , 6c Laumann, E. 0. Do most professors support j
i the war? Trans-Action, 1967, 5_, 32-35.
i
i
Selvin, H., 6c Hagstrom, W. Determinants for support for
civil liberties. In S. M. Lipset 6c S . S. Wolin ;
(Eds.), The Berkeley student revolt: Facts and j
interpretations. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday '
Anchor Books, 1965.
Selznick, P. Analyses and interpretations: Reply to Gla-
zer. In S. M. Lipset 6c S. S. Wolin (Eds.) , The j
Berkeley student revolt: Facts and interpretations.1
Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1965.
Singletary, 0. A. (Ed.) American universities and colleges.
Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education,
1968.
Skolnick, J. Student protest, AAUP Bulletin, 1969, .55(3), :
| 309-326. ;
| I
Smith, M. B., Haan, N., 6c Block, J. Social-psychological
j aspects of student activism. Youth and Society,
| 1970, 1(3) , 261-288. j
Somers, R. H. The mainsprings of the rebellion: A survey j
of Berkeley students in November 1964. In S. M.
Lipset 6c S. S. Wolin (Eds.) , The Berkeley student
revolt: Facts and interpretations. Garden City,
N.Y.: Doubledav Anchor Books, 1965. i
Spaulding, C. B., 6c Turner, H. A. Political orientation and
field of specialization among college professors. j
Sociology of Education, 1968, 41(3), 247-262. i
320’
t
Spaulding, C. B., Turner, H. A. , 6c McClintock, C. G. j
Political orientations of academically affiliated !
sociologists. Sociology and Social Research, 1963,
47(2) , 273-289.
Spirit of *73: Attitudes of college freshmen. Time, Octo
ber 24, 1969, 94, 49, 52.
iStember, C. Education and attitude change. New York: '
| Institute of Human Relations Press, 1961.
I
The students’ role expands . . . College Management, 1970, j
5(1), 12-14. !
~ I
Survey of college student opinion. School and Society,
1969, 97, 452-453. “ ;
I !
Thornberg, H. Statistics of dissent. Arizona Teacher,
1969, 57(10), 50-51. :
Trow, M. Technical report: Carnegie Commission National j
Survey of Higher Education. Unpublished paper,
' December 1971.
Trow, M. (Ed.) Teachers and students. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1975.
Turner, F. Student movement as a force for educational
change. Liberal Education, 1970, 56^, 39-50.
Vreeland, R. S., 6s Bidwell, C. Classifying university
departments: An approach to the analysis of their
j effects upon undergraduates 1 values and attitudes.
! Sociology of Education, 1966, .39, 237-254.
Watts, W. A. , 6c Whittaker, D. N. Free speech advocates at
I Berkeley. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
j 1966, 2, 41-62.
i
Ways, M. The faculty is the heart of the trouble. Fortune,
1969, 79, 94-97, 161-164.
jWebster, H. , Freedman, M. , 6c Heist, P. Personality changes
, in college students. In R. N. Sanford (Ed.), The
American college. New York: Wiley 6c Sons, 1962.
321;
What they believe: Fortune-Yankelovich survey. Fortune, :
1969, 79, 70-71, 179-181. !
Why students act that way: A Gallup study. U.S. News and
World Report, June 2, 1969, 6j6, 34-35. j
i
jWolin, S. S. , & Schaar, J. H. The abuses of the multi- |
( versity. In S. M. Lipset & S. S. Wolin (Eds.), ;
! The Berkeley student revolt: Facts and interpreta- j
\ tions. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday Anchor Books,
j 1965. i
^Yankelovich, D. Profile of a generation. Multilithed ,
report of survey for CBS, April 1969. j
I
Zeigler, H., & Peak, W. Political functions of the educa- I
tional system. Sociology of Education, 1970, 43(2),
115-142. I
i
i
i

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The relationships of selected variants and body-image for physically handicapped persons

PDF

Curricular preferences and transfer decisions as related to selected respondent information characteristics

PDF

The curriculum classification of junior college students

PDF

Assessment of selected learning outcomes of an experiential education program

PDF

The relationship between success in a public management program and selected academic and nonacademic predictors

PDF

The relationship of selected personality and cognitive factors to critical thinking among graduate students in educational psychology

PDF

The effects of analogical instruction on the transfer of procedural knowledge and its interaction with learner ability

PDF

The utility of computer-managed instruction in a restrictive environment

PDF

Selected background factors relating to student predisposition toward the study of foreign cultures and peoples

PDF

A tentative curriculum model for the undergraduate program in education at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro

PDF

The effects of wife abuse on the children

PDF

The relationship between Chicano advocacy orientations of school principals and student achievement at selected schools

PDF

A study of the effects of presenting literature to first grade students by means of five visual-verbal presentation modes

PDF

The relationship of weight loss in an obesity treatment program to expectancy of success and to selected attribution constructs

PDF

Career/employment possibilities and goals of American doctoral students majoring in international education programs at major United States universities

PDF

The relationship of maternal factors and socioeconomic level to the reading achievement of 7-11 year-old black students

PDF

The Ghanaian student in American universities: Selected attitudes and perceptions

PDF

The relationship between critical thinking ability, personality, and academic achievement of graduate students in the School of Education at the University of Southern California

PDF

An investigation of the use of calculators with low achieving 4th grade students in mathematics achievement and attitude

PDF

Self-efficacy, job/home attitudes and career concept relationships in pairs of mothers and undergraduate daughters

Asset Metadata

Creator Luobikis, Norma Jean (author)

Core Title The relationship of attitudes of faculty and major students in selected curricular areas in relation to political ideology and student activism

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, curriculum and instruction,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c26-463527

Unique identifier UC11247110

Identifier usctheses-c26-463527 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier DP24218.pdf

Dmrecord 463527

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Luobikis, Norma Jean

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA