I came across a piece this morning that dovetails nicely with my most recent post regarding academia's leftist bias and how it most definitely influences and skews the work of scholars and historians, despite their loud protests to the contrary.
Call it history’s conservative curse.
According to a University of Miami study, those historical rankings of American presidents that pop up every year or so are significantly weighted in favor of Democrats, thanks to the liberal leanings of academia. Political science professor Joseph E. Uscinski, one of the study’s authors, said the new analysis shows that the overwhelmingly liberal academic community consistently ranks Republican presidents about 10 spots lower than the public would.“I don’t think anyone is surprised,” Mr. Uscinski told The Washington Times. “Among the political scientists and historians that I work with, Democrats outnumber Republicans 8 to 1.” (Emphasis mine.)
What is also quite fascinating is that the study also highlights and echoes a point I made in my post - academia is out of step with the views and opinions of most Americans:
What was eye-opening, he said, was the stark difference between the historians’ assessments of Republicans and the grades given by the public.
The study also confirms that the politicization of historical analysis is embraced by those who criticize their philosophical opponents for the very same type of bias. What makes academia's bias so much worse is their deception and their self-proclaimed superiority when it comes to "objective analysis."
So, once again, the facts simply confirm what many already know - that the claim of objectivity and superior historical analysis by many academic historians is bogus and a sham. Though they like to criticize and impugn other perspectives ("celebratory" & "heritage" history, for example), their perspective and analysis is no more legitimate than mine or yours and others who embrace other perspectives.
You can read the article here. You can read the complete study here.