Al Gore, George Stephanopoulos, Leon Panetta, and Donna Shalala are a few of the numerous Clinton administration figures who found jobs in academia after they left office. Accuracy in Academia has just reviewed the post-political lives of cabinet-level appointees in the Carter, Reagan, Bush (41), and Clinton administrations and found that 21 Democrats landed jobs in higher education after their government service, while just six Republicans did. Mal Kline writes: "nearly half of the officials President Clinton appointed to his cabinet left the lame duck administration for jobs in academia. Less than one-tenth of all of President Reagan’s appointees left public office for college payrolls."

Dan, you seem to be implying that Universities refused to hire republicans. I doubt that is the case. Most of those people wound up with high paying jobs in the bussiness world. They didn't try to go acedamia.

Also, most White House officials go back to the jobs they had after thier service in Washington. Democratic administrations tend to find talent from Academia. Republicans from industry. It's no conspiracy that Rebublicans who've worked all thier lives in bussiness can't find jobs teaching political science at Columbia. They're not qualified!

And George Stephanapolis and Al Gore are qualified to teach in the academy? Give me a break. Many people with hard-earned doctorates in this country can't get full-time academic appointments because of oversupply in the labor force. The fact that Al Gore took a job away from a qualified person (liberal or conservative) is unjust.

There is no conspiracy; there is just systematic bias based in ignorance and self-righteousness.

DB,

You specifically reference Columbia. George Stephanopoulos taught there immediately after he left the Clinton administration. He has no Ph.D. I think his experience in government might make him a valuable teacher, but the same could be said for numerous Republicans who aren't hired by places like Columbia. Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, and Phil Gramm all have Ph.D.s. How can someone like Stephanopoulos--who has no Ph.D.--find a job in academia so easily, but Gingrich, Gramm, Armey, and others--who do have Ph.D.s--get shut out entirely?

Dan I understand your point. But your missing mine. None of those republicans TRIED to get jobs in acadeamia. Very few try. They have more intersting and suiting things to do.

Dick Armey has a PhD? I thought he was the former extermnator. MAybe I'm wrong.

Tom Delay is the exterminator. Armey has the Playa-Hata-Degree.

DB, We may be missing your point, but your point that the Republicans haven't "TRIED" misses the point. So, it's not a matter of anyone missing any points, you are just misinformed about the nature of academic recruitment of former administration figures, and you've created a criteria area that isn't there. No former administration heads TRY to get posts in academia. Liberal or Conservative, you don't merely TRY to get a job in academia. That's not how it works. You've created an area of criteria that doesn't exist. You get identified, recruited, enticed, and lured into univiersities. Both liberals and Conservatives have ample opportunities available to them; Conservatives just don't have those opportunities in academia. If you want to say that Conservatives aren't identified, recruited, enticed, and lured into univiersities, then you get the point, and we all agree.

I find it hard to believe that with 10,000 colleges and universites in this country no one would offer up a place for the former Speaker of the House. Maybe Harvard and Berkely were holding back.

Look, it's all sematics. Why in the hell would a University offer someone like Newt a job when two days after being bested by a smut peddeler the man's got twenty paid positions??

Well for one, Newt is a former History professor, and a published author. That's what he did before running for Congress. . . . And if its about semantics, then you're making it that way. It's not like a Liberals only hope for employment is in academia. But it is a safe refuge. They also have ample opportunity in the private sector of public policy, and are well represented and on the payroll for lobbying houses, pharmaceutical firms, corporations, etc...It's just that Conservatives just don't have the opportunities in academia.

Wolfozitz was a carrer acedemic. Find a bigger conservative.

Was. Will he be invited back? That's the question we're talking about --the actual author's post here, not you coming up with 3 names of people who once taught, but the actual author's post on the phenomenon of Liberal Adminstration officials finding homesin academia AFTER they've served the White House. We're not talking about 3 conservatives who used to teach. Since you're arguing so many things at once, what are some things that you find "conservative" about Wolfowitz. It's not a trick question, I'm just curious.

Newt was not an administration member to any President's that I know of, and he is one of the most controoversial politicans of the last quarter-century.

Wolfowitz's conservative credentials are pretty well established. On foriegn policy he favors the use of unilateral force over multilateral and diplomatic alternative. This is a conservative position. His entire view of international relations is strictly a "Realist" position, the name for the conservative school of IR. On domestic policy, I really don't know his positions. I'm assuming that by questioning Wolfozitiz's conservative credentials you are probably pointing out that he must favor big government spending since his plan for the Iraq war is so expensive. That might be true, but its not really his department to worry about things like that. He's a national security expert, and on national security he's a conservative. One who spent a good deal of time in Acedemics, and one who will probably go back in a few months time.