Political Attitudes and Behavior of a University Faculty

• Published date: 01 September 1961
• Author: Alex Gottfried
• DOI: 10.1177/106591296101400359
• Date: 01 September 1961
• Subject Matter: Articles

43

Considering

the

nature

of

the

judicial

process,

it

is

little

short

of

remark-

able

that

the

product

has

been

so

good.

There

are

areas,

however,

where

this

cannot

be

said.

The

law

of

search

and

seizure,

and

the

allied

field

of

wire-

tapping,

testify

to

the

mess

that

can

result

from

an

effort

to

tackle

broad

policy

matters

on

a

case-to-case

basis.

For

example,

at

times

it

has

been

far

easier

to

justify

an

arrest

than

to

secure

a

search

warrant.

The

right

to

search

is

far

broader

in

connection

with

an

arrest

than

it is

under

a

search

warrant.

Perhaps

it

should

be

just

the

reverse.

A

state

may

convict

a

defendant

on

the

basis

of

wiretap

evidence

secured

by

its

officers

in

violation

of

federal

law,

even

though

by

the

very

act

of

testifying

the

state

officer

commits

a

federal

crime.

Far

from

a

seamless

web,

we

have

been

given

a

patchwork

crazy

quilt.

Congress

should

copy

its

successful

experiment

with

the

regulation

of

judicial

procedure

through

rules

of

court,

and

authorize

the

Court

to

appoint

an

advisory

com-

mittee

to

draft

a

search

and

seizure

code

for

consideration

and

promulgation

by

the

Court,

with

statutory

status.

Professors

in

Politics

POLITICAL

ATTITUDES

AND

BEHAVIOR

OF

A

UNIVERSITY

FACULTY

ALEX

GOTTFRIED

University

of

Washington

This

research

falls

into

the

category

of

studies

of

sub-elites;

i.e.,

status

groups

directly

beneath

those

of

the

highest

rank.

Data

of

the

following

sort

were

sought:

(1)

voting

behavior;

(2)

degree

of

identification

with

parties,

candidates,

issues;

(3)

level

of

interest

in

politics;

(4)

intensity

and

kind

of

political

participation;

(5)

frequency

and

amounts

of

campaign

contributions;

(6)

attitudes

toward

religion

of

candidates;

(7)

ranking

of

personal

qualities

of

candidates;

(8)

degree

of

exposure

to

mass

media,

and

inferences

about

influence

upon

respondents;

(9)

skill

of

respondents

in

predicting

election

results.

The

following

report

is

drawn

from

research-in-progress,

with

student

assistance:

the

findings

are

tentative

and

presented

with

caution.

The

bases

of

the

present

findings

are

two

questionnaires,

roughly

the

same,

one

submitted

in

1956,

one

in

1960,

to

the

faculty

of

a

large

university.

The

populations

are

not

identical,

but

comparable.

In

1956,

894

were

distributed,

of

which

47.9

per

cent

have

been

partially

processed;

for

1960,

the

figures

are

1,500

and

46.2

per

cent.

Although

the

respondents

supported

the

Democratic

presidential

candidate

in

each

election,

the

margin

of

support

was

not

of

the

order

assumed

by

many

politicians

and

by

many

professors.

Suprisingly,

Nixon

polled

a

higher

per-

centage

of

1960

votes

than

Eisenhower

polled

of

1956

votes.

Less

surprisingly,

perhaps,

Stevenson

did

better

than

Kennedy.