Professor Wade is very outspoken on many issues, as sociologists tend to be. However, some of her comments are rather disconcerting coming from a professor, and a lot of the things she has written are just factually inaccurate too.
In a June 2015 tweet, Professor Wade shared a link that was critical of the conservative student group Turning Point USA’s literature. The article was from Jezebel, and in typical Jezebel fashion it mixed faulty logic, misquotes, and gutter insults: “The materials were badly written and ahistorical—if selectively so, in the Founding Fathers dick-sucking way often exhibited by the far right—as well as consistently anti-intellectual and unintentionally hilarious. ”
But Jezebel being Jezebel aside, here is what Professor Wade thinks of Turning Point USA:
“Horrifying.” Why? That someone has an opinion you think is wrong, or that makes you uncomfortable Lisa? They can be wrong and not scary. Yes, college students are hearing another perspective on the issues TPUSA is advancing. Liberal professors need not be horrified by booklets on how to combat them, unless their beliefs truly aren’t justifiable.
Professor Wade doesn’t stop there of course. The articles she has written on Sociological Images are where things get bad.
On March 25th of this year, she posted an article titled “Are Economics Majors Anti-Social?” The opening paragraph goes as follows: “Yep. Economics majors are more anti-social than non-econ majors. And taking econ classes also makes people more anti-social than they were before. It turns out, there’s quite a bit of research on this, nicely summarized here. Econ majors are less likely to share, less generous to the needy, and more likely to cheat, lie, and steal.”
How does the Professor know this? Well aside from the above link, she goes on to cite one study in particular, which (and try not to laugh) says economics majors are less “generous” because they are less likely to give to WashPIRG, a leftist advocacy organization.
For those who aren’t familiar with the PIRGs on various campuses, they’re basically foot soldiers for the Democrat and Green parties. As is the case at other schools, students at the University of Washington are hit up for a “fee”, which is really a donation to WashPIRG. They can waive said fee since it isn’t mandatory, and is simply an option at registration. Economics majors are more likely to decline the payment. Therefore, since the study used donating to WashPIRG as one of its criteria for being generous or charitable, economics majors are greedy sons of bitches.
Whether anyone involved in this process thought to themselves “are economics majors more conservative than sociology majors, and therefore don’t want to donate to a group that advances leftist dogma?” is beyond my pay grade. The study also looked at a “non-partisan” group that lobbies to keep tuition rates low, and econ majors were less likely to donate to that as well. Of course, a group that lobbies to keep tuition rates low is, um, STILL NOT A CHARITY, and not a good way to measure generosity. Also, it’s not non-partisan. Often budget disputes for public universities come down to party line votes. How high tuition should be at a public university is political, since tax dollars are involved. Hell, it’s political at private universities too since so much tax money gets pumped in those institutions every year. Very sad that this has to be explained to “sociologists.”
But I have an idea – let’s do a study on generosity where the criteria is donating to Republican candidates.
Wade finishes up her piece with the closing: “Being exposed to a variety of views, including ones that question the premises of neoclassical economics, may be one way to make economists more honest and kind. And doing so isn’t just about sticking one to econ, it’s an issue of grave seriousness, as the criminal and immoral behavior of our financial leaders is exactly what triggered a Great Recession once… and could again.” Economics with Professor Wade folks. Expose yourself to more Marxism or you are a bad person.
Think that’s all? Ha! There’s plenty more to choose from. Take some of her others hits, There are 22 Million Angry, Impulsive Americans with Guns, or White American men with their weapons and the bloody summer of 2015, or how about Where Americans’ 2014 Tax Dollars Went. This last one should be good, after all she knows so much about economics.
The article features an image from the National Priorities Project on where the American tax dollar went in 2014:
Um…..No. Like not even close. This is a straight up lie and here’s how they do it:
From the National Priorities Project’s website: “In order to do this analysis, National Priorities Project (NPP) separates federal funds from trust funds. Trust funds, generated from sources such as payroll taxes, can only be used for specific programs like Social Security and Medicare. All other funds are federal funds, including revenue from your federal income taxes, and can be used for a wide variety of purposes.”
Yup, they TOOK OUT Social Security and Medicare from the analysis. This is what the left has to do now. They have to distort the numbers to make the federal budget look more conservative, and bury the acknowledgement of their edit in a footnote a few clicks into their site so it can’t be called a lie. Well it is one. They lied, and I bet Professor Wade uses numbers like these in her classroom if she is willing to use them in publications like Sociological Images.
Guess what, when you include Social Security and Medicare, which are two massive budget items (SS is actually the largest in the whole budget at the moment), the military becomes 15 percent of the total spending. In dollar terms, it was $526.6 billion in fiscal year 2014, down in both nominal and real terms from the year before. The overall budget was roughly $3.5 trillion.
Occidental sociology majors should be proud of Professor Lisa Wade. Grade-A academic.