I can’t believe I’m reading this, and you won’t, either. It’s too early for April Fool’s Day. The article by Jere P. Surber in the Chronicle Review explains that academics are liberals because they understand the trajectory of history, just as President Obama does. (He also points out that “you don’t have to be a militant Marxist to recognize that people’s political persuasions will align pretty well with their economic interests,” and those in the liberal arts don’t earn as much money as other academics.) He sums up:

It is because we liberal-arts professors have a personal stake in our relative economic status; we have carefully studied the actual dynamics of history and culture; and we have trained ourselves to think in complex, nuanced, and productive ways about the human condition that so many of us are liberals. Most of us agree with President Obama that there is a “right side of history,” and we feel morally bound to be on it. Although we’d like to see some parity in compensation with our colleagues, we chose our fields with full awareness of the tradeoff. Part of our compensation lies in knowing that our studies can complement our standing on the “right side,” rather than having our basic commitments dictated to us by the limitations of other, narrower professions.