Speaking as a UNL emeritus faculty member, I can certainly testify that over the 30 years I was on the faculty, the faculty moved dramatically far to the left. The same is true at almost every other university. It is not possible to teach a subject that has any sort of controversial political content without introducing one's own biases. The situation has become so extreme that I despair that the faculty and the administration can reform themselves. There will have to be a very strong outside force that demands change.
"To put it in perspective Nebraska’s Farm Bureau gave about $20,000 in 2020. That’s 1/43rd of the giving by the University of Nebraska’s liberal professors."
This feels like an attempt to imply that Nebraska's farmers somehow give less money that the University's faculty and staff do but it misses two critical tidbits in its comparison.
There are something like 16,000 faculty and staff affiliated with the University of Nebraska. There are what, maybe 50 employees affiliated with the Nebraska Farm Bureau? So the argument here is actually that the Farm Bureau employees give 7x more than the University staff do, per person? That the university staff are, compared to farmers, less partisanly motivated.
Also strange to fail to mention that a single farming group alone - Herbster Angus Farms - gives more than the University of Nebraska system.
Then its a faulty comparison for even more reasons.
First, you are comparing organization donations (NFB PAC) to individual donations (University affiliates). That requires some standardization for size, at the very least.
Second, it is flawed because you're implying that the Farm Bureau represents all of or even a significant share of Nebraska's farmers. That simply isn't true, from a donations perspective. As your own opinion piece mentions, Herbster Angus Farms donated $746,200 - more than the whole of the University of Nebraska system. Implying that the NFB's donations are representative of NE farmers giving is pretty disingenuous when one farming company gave over 35x more.
You should have done the per capita donations of the farmers vs university faculty and staff before making grandiose claims about phantom PACs.
Either the donations of the politically active people in an occupation count or they don't. Where would you draw the line? Do Pillen Family Farm's donations count?
If Charles Herbster's donations don't count because he is a farmer & involved in politics, you might as well discount the donations of every professor, faculty, and staff member who expresses political opinions and activities.
If you can't see the bias you are introducting there, I can't help you.
I'm not the one running around writing articles to make claims. I won't do your work for you.
Here's perhaps an easier one for you, for an apples to apples comparison.
How much did the Nebraska Conference of the AAUP donate to politicians in Nebraska in 2020 compared to the Nebraska Farm Bureau. Both are fairly equivalent advocacy organizations for their respective occupations.
Two very important points are being overlooked here: the public's decreased trust in our higher education institutions and the decrease in the public's feeling that higher education is important. Decreased funding is a logical end point when there is a decrease in public support/approval of an entity/program.
This isn't a mystery or a conspiracy. The author is writing about personal donations from staff and faculty. Faculty back the party that protects their employer and research funding, the same lobbying you'd expect from any corporation dependent on federal money. Those PERSONAL donations reflect institutional and professional survival.
Mastio's only hard dollar figures are from 2020. University staff were apparently reading the threat correctly well before the current cuts. Republicans won, and the attacks on education followed. Now Mastio is attacking those same professionals for giving their own money to a cause they read correctly.
Look at what happened to NU under the Trump administration. Federal agencies have canceled or frozen tens of millions in research funding to NU since 2025, including a $19 million USAID irrigation contract. Republican Gov. Pillen proposed a $14.3 million cut to NU's budget, which state lawmakers reversed specifically because of the federal losses NU was already absorbing. Separately, a 15% cap on NIH overhead reimbursement implemented by Republicans, would've cost NU $27 million a year. Fortunately, it was struck down by a federal court and upheld on appeal in January. Republicans do not support education. Supporting Republicans would mean faculty and staff undermining the very field they've devoted their careers to.
Mastio ends by asking "what are those professors teaching our kids?" Those professors were investing in your kids' futures, unlike the Republican party. Further, donation data says nothing about classroom content. By the way, Mastio is a University of Iowa graduate, a public state university. He benefited from the system he now criticizes.
Actually, if you follow the links in the piece the upsurge and increasing polarization of the donations starts under W and accelerates when McCain and Romney ran. These are not scary Trumpites.
Whenever the trend started, it doesn't change the common sense explanation. Employees back the party protecting and advocating for their interests. If anything, their personal donations show that the Republican party's agenda has not aligned with the needs of educators for decades. We should be reviewing how the Republican party failed them. Today's education cuts show their donations made to Democrats were well placed. The Republican party has made massive cuts to our educational institutions, not just Trump. Gov. Pillen has made the same attempt.
Speaking as a UNL emeritus faculty member, I can certainly testify that over the 30 years I was on the faculty, the faculty moved dramatically far to the left. The same is true at almost every other university. It is not possible to teach a subject that has any sort of controversial political content without introducing one's own biases. The situation has become so extreme that I despair that the faculty and the administration can reform themselves. There will have to be a very strong outside force that demands change.
Reach out to me at dmastio1@yahoo.com. I'd love to interview you on the record.
"To put it in perspective Nebraska’s Farm Bureau gave about $20,000 in 2020. That’s 1/43rd of the giving by the University of Nebraska’s liberal professors."
This feels like an attempt to imply that Nebraska's farmers somehow give less money that the University's faculty and staff do but it misses two critical tidbits in its comparison.
There are something like 16,000 faculty and staff affiliated with the University of Nebraska. There are what, maybe 50 employees affiliated with the Nebraska Farm Bureau? So the argument here is actually that the Farm Bureau employees give 7x more than the University staff do, per person? That the university staff are, compared to farmers, less partisanly motivated.
Also strange to fail to mention that a single farming group alone - Herbster Angus Farms - gives more than the University of Nebraska system.
Actually, the link goes to the data for the Farm Bureau's PAC which is funded by Farm Bureau members which is farmers.
Then its a faulty comparison for even more reasons.
First, you are comparing organization donations (NFB PAC) to individual donations (University affiliates). That requires some standardization for size, at the very least.
Second, it is flawed because you're implying that the Farm Bureau represents all of or even a significant share of Nebraska's farmers. That simply isn't true, from a donations perspective. As your own opinion piece mentions, Herbster Angus Farms donated $746,200 - more than the whole of the University of Nebraska system. Implying that the NFB's donations are representative of NE farmers giving is pretty disingenuous when one farming company gave over 35x more.
You should have done the per capita donations of the farmers vs university faculty and staff before making grandiose claims about phantom PACs.
If you think the Herbster donations were about farming, I can't help you.
Either the donations of the politically active people in an occupation count or they don't. Where would you draw the line? Do Pillen Family Farm's donations count?
If Charles Herbster's donations don't count because he is a farmer & involved in politics, you might as well discount the donations of every professor, faculty, and staff member who expresses political opinions and activities.
If you can't see the bias you are introducting there, I can't help you.
Send me the list of university donors running or preparing to run for state-wide office. I'll recalculate based on that.
I'm not the one running around writing articles to make claims. I won't do your work for you.
Here's perhaps an easier one for you, for an apples to apples comparison.
How much did the Nebraska Conference of the AAUP donate to politicians in Nebraska in 2020 compared to the Nebraska Farm Bureau. Both are fairly equivalent advocacy organizations for their respective occupations.
Two very important points are being overlooked here: the public's decreased trust in our higher education institutions and the decrease in the public's feeling that higher education is important. Decreased funding is a logical end point when there is a decrease in public support/approval of an entity/program.
This isn't a mystery or a conspiracy. The author is writing about personal donations from staff and faculty. Faculty back the party that protects their employer and research funding, the same lobbying you'd expect from any corporation dependent on federal money. Those PERSONAL donations reflect institutional and professional survival.
Mastio's only hard dollar figures are from 2020. University staff were apparently reading the threat correctly well before the current cuts. Republicans won, and the attacks on education followed. Now Mastio is attacking those same professionals for giving their own money to a cause they read correctly.
Look at what happened to NU under the Trump administration. Federal agencies have canceled or frozen tens of millions in research funding to NU since 2025, including a $19 million USAID irrigation contract. Republican Gov. Pillen proposed a $14.3 million cut to NU's budget, which state lawmakers reversed specifically because of the federal losses NU was already absorbing. Separately, a 15% cap on NIH overhead reimbursement implemented by Republicans, would've cost NU $27 million a year. Fortunately, it was struck down by a federal court and upheld on appeal in January. Republicans do not support education. Supporting Republicans would mean faculty and staff undermining the very field they've devoted their careers to.
Mastio ends by asking "what are those professors teaching our kids?" Those professors were investing in your kids' futures, unlike the Republican party. Further, donation data says nothing about classroom content. By the way, Mastio is a University of Iowa graduate, a public state university. He benefited from the system he now criticizes.
Actually, if you follow the links in the piece the upsurge and increasing polarization of the donations starts under W and accelerates when McCain and Romney ran. These are not scary Trumpites.
Whenever the trend started, it doesn't change the common sense explanation. Employees back the party protecting and advocating for their interests. If anything, their personal donations show that the Republican party's agenda has not aligned with the needs of educators for decades. We should be reviewing how the Republican party failed them. Today's education cuts show their donations made to Democrats were well placed. The Republican party has made massive cuts to our educational institutions, not just Trump. Gov. Pillen has made the same attempt.