Terry Hastings points me to this very interesting Volokh thread addressing KC Johnson’s Inside Hire Ed article on ideological diversity within the academy—an article that itself takes on a U of Pittsburgh critique of the latest in a string of surveys showing ideological one-sidedness (overwhelmingly favoring the left) in American universities. Writes Johnson:
Inside Higher Ed recently reported on four University of Pittsburgh professors critiquing the latest survey suggesting ideological one-sidedness in the academy. According to the Pitt quartet, self-selection accounts for findings that the faculty of elite disproportionately tilts to the Left. “Many conservatives,†the Pitt professors mused, “may deliberately choose not to seek employment at top-tier research universities because they object, on philosophical grounds, to one of the fundamental tenets undergirding such institutions: the scientific method.â€Â
Imagine the appropriate outrage that would have occurred had the above critique referred to feminists, minorities, or Socialists. Yet the Pitt quartet’s line of reasoning  that faculty ideological imbalance reflects the academy functioning as it should  has appeared with regularity, and has been, unintentionally, most revealing. Indeed, the very defense offered by the academic Establishment, rather than the statistical surveys themselves, has gone a long way toward proving the case of critics who say that the academy lacks sufficient intellectual diversity.
[…] Had members of the academic Establishment confined themselves to such arguments (or had they ignored the partisan-breakdown studies altogether), the intellectual diversity issue would have received little attention. Instead, the last two years have seen proud, often inflammatory, defenses of the professoriate’s ideological imbalance. These arguments, which have fallen into three categories, raise grave concerns about the academy’s overall direction.
1. The cultural left is, simply, more intelligent than anyone else. […]
2. A left-leaning tilt in the faculty is a pedagogical necessity, because professors must expose gender, racial, and class bias while promoting peace, “diversity†and “cultural competence.†[…]
3. A left-leaning professoriate is a structural necessity, because the liberal arts faculty must balance business school faculty and/or the general conservative political culture. […]
In response to the posting, one of Volokh’s commenters—the aptly-named “Goober”—reinforced the arguments, only this time, by taking the offensive:
I was hoping to find more substance in the article itself than was excerpted here. I must say it seems like the customary conservative whining and intimations of discrimination that were out of style in 1994 when it was liberals who were the ones playing identity politics.
I have a couple of questions for anyone who genuinely believes these disparities are evidence of discrimination in faculty hiring.
1) Is it unreasonable to suspect that bright young conservative college students tend to value financial success and go to B-school and the banks, but bright young liberal college students tend to value academics and go to grad school?
2) Is it unreasonable to suppose that the conservative mindset, in general, tends to disvalue the reflective temperament necessary for academic pursuits? Think whether you could imagine George W. Bush or Al Gore as a university professor (and they had roughly the same grades and SAT scores, remember). Indeed, I can only think of one or two recent Republican presidential candidates fit the temperamental bill of university faculty, Forbes and Gramm. Yet on the Democratic side, Kerry, Gore, Kucinich, etc.—only Edwards and maybe Dean seem unsuited to academic work.
And it’s not surprising—Republican voters found something deeply unsettling about John Kerry’s stress on “nuance” during the last election, preferring Bush’s moral clarity. Nuance is where academics live. If Republican voters don’t think it’s an attractive trait in candidates, why is it not unreasonable to suspect they’d be turned off from pursuing career choices that demand they personally develop that trait?
3) If discrimination is the reason for these disparities, why does the disparity appear even in the physics and math departments? Is there a Democratic way to do physics?
Overall, I find the empirical argument seriously undeveloped. And as a meta-commentary, I find the willingness of many conservatives to believe the theory of discrimination—reflexively, in spite of all its holes, as an “of course” matter—to be yet another example of intellectual unsuitability for tenured faculty positions.
Leaving aside for the moment charges of “whining” (something, evidently, of which only conservatives are capable; otherwise, “whining” is reframed as “bravely agitating for institutional change”)—along with the ludicrously intimated proposition that the left has ceased playing identity politics (when, in fact, such politics have become the animating influence of their entire political worldview)—let’s address these points one by one, briefly.
First, Goober asks if it is “unreasonable to suspect” that conservative college students “tend to value financial success and go to B-school and the banks, but bright young liberal college students tend to value academics”—a question that Johnson has already implicitly addressed in his article when he notes that “as money-making fields have always been attractive to conservatives,” the “proportion of self-professed liberals or Leftists in the academy nearly doubled in the last generation.”
And besides, as many people “grow” into conservatism, many of today’s conservatives were very likely still “bright young liberal college students” who valued academics at the time they started making career choices.
Second, Goober asks if it “is it unreasonable to suppose that the conservative mindset, in general, tends to disvalue the reflective temperament necessary for academic pursuits?” Again, assuming there is a singular “conservative mindset” (and anyone who spends any time on blogs knows that you are far more likely to find the “hive mind” on the left, in that such a thing represents a “community” swarm intended to affect political change), it is simply ludicrous to suggest that such a mindset would “devalue” a reflective temperament. In fact, as I’ve argued again and again, the place many Americans are most likely to encounter a devaluation of the reflective temperament nowadays is in the academy itself, where only “sanctioned” speech is actively encouraged, with dissenting views relegated to “free speech zones,” where they are thankfully—but only logistically—safe from charges of “hate speech.”
In short, a “reflective temperament,” it seems to me, is precisely the kind of temperament that challenges established orthodoxies; and it is conservatives—or better, classical liberals—who are doing just that whenever they attempt to question the theoretical assumptions that continue to undergird today’s social theorizing, assumptions that have found their policy manifestation in the Great Society and subsequent programs driven by identity politics. Ironically, attempts to investigate the practical effects from these theories is to be met with anti-reflective attempts to foreshorten debate, which takes the form of ad hominem attacks on motive (to be anti race-based affirmative action is to be “racist”; to be against same-sex marriage is to be “homophobic,” etc.).
Finally, Goober asks: “If discrimination is the reason for these disparities, why does the disparity appear even in the physics and math departments? Is there a Democratic way to do physics?”
To which the obvious answer is that Goober, bless him, is engaging in a bit of rhetorical sleight of hand here. Because the question here is not about the discipline; it’s about the people working in that discipline—and the people doing the hiring in that discipline. So, whereas physics itself might not lean Democratic, that those who teach it in the academy continue to do so actually reinforces the idea that there is discriminatory practice involved in hiring.
Or, as another of Volokh’s commenters puts it:
This is a non-sequitur. If discrimnation exists, then it doesn’t matter what subject matter you are teaching. Discrimination means you are hiring on qualities other than those that are related to the job at hand.
It’s not that there is a Democratic way to do physics, but that the professor of physics happens to be a Democrat, and so, is hired in part because of his political leanings and not just his demonstrated mastery of the subject.
As someone who’s sat in on faculty interviews, I would argue that self-selection, intentional or not, is the primary reason for the current one-sided academy. In my discipline (English) for instance, one’s politics are often quite evident from one’s theoretical positions. And so by hiring only those of a particular theoretical bent (new historicists, post-structuralists, etc.), you can reliably exclude a political class without actively querying about the politics of an individual candidate.
I’d be interested to hear if this is the case in other disciplines, as well.
****
see also, The Debate Link
I think that’s it right there. And I also think that that’s the primary motivation for creating these poltically loaded theoretical lines in the first place.
I am trying to figure out how to phrase this without blow-torching the thread.
Among the less abstract disciplines, I think a certain lack of ambition is evident in a significant number of the professors, which is why they did not chose a more lucrative position in the private sector. Among these folks there is a definite tendency to not think too much or make waves. Please note the qualifiers: I am not talking about everyone in the teaching profession here. But when I was in school i recall alot of profs who weren’t interested in getting published or ground breaking research, and they all seemed to prefer the camouflage of conformity.
BMOE,
That is a sly way of saying, “Those that can, do: those that can’t, teach.” I don’t think that quote encompasses all of academia, but it sure encompasses a large part of the Liberal Colleges.
If I had more time, I would do some research into a little college in Michigan (Hillsdale College) and Google some of their Profs. If memory serves me correctly, the REFUSE to accept any state or federal aid, because there are too many strings attached. It would be interesting to find out what kind of Political mix this small college has.
I think it is more of a will/won’t scenario rather than can/can’t. The mindset I am refering to is more a matter of ambition than ability. The people who prefer the safety of academic conformity would naturally gravitate toward the “social safety net” side of the political spectrum it seems to me.
I’ve read fellow college peers imply that doing intern work… or research work… or assistant work… or whatever colleges call that crap these days… You should not express political views contrary to the professor.
If you read the comments of the website, especially this one, you’ll find discussed the prospect of left-leaning semi-indoctrinated students turning more conservative as they continue their academic careers. That pretty much describes me. Just felt like pointing that out.
Coincidentally, call me a sound-bite whore, but when you spout stuff like “[Conservatives] object, on philosophical grounds, to one of the fundamental tenets undergirding such institutions: the scientific method.” then you immediately get filed under “Ivory Tower Idiot” by me and you lose any credibility.
Those who can’t teach, teach gym.
Gym teachers I’ve had are better role models than most other teachers.
rls: Hillsdale is decidedly conservative.
“Many conservatives,†the Pitt professors mused, “may deliberately choose not to seek employment at top-tier research universities because they object, on philosophical grounds, to one of the fundamental tenets undergirding such institutions: the scientific method.â€Â
To turn this around, perhaps a reason conservatives don’t seek university employment is they’d prefer not to work in an environment which bends scientific results to political convenience.
Or what about an environment which constantly grates on the nerves with university-wide memos ordering everyone to avoid using the words “Merry Christmas” as a greeting, or university-wide EOAA sessions to teach you that sexual harrassment can be reported by a third party who witnesses what they think is harrassment even if the supposed victim doesn’t, or the hiring of Ethiopians and Nigerians to meet African-American hiring quotas, the on- campus caterwalling of gender-feminists, pandering to whining and racist Black Student Unions, the designation of “Black History Month,” “Women’s History Month,” “Hispanic History Month,” etc, etc.
In other words, what about the self-exclusion of people that just don’t want to work in a fucking nuthouse?
First, a little historical perspective on the mindset of middle-aged academics who currently attempt to run these institutions:
1) College studies at all levels provided deferment from military service, until:
2) LBJ ended graduate school deferment in 1967, causing the privileged class (i.e., able to afford endless years of tuition) to face the draft, who then:
3) Attached themselves the previously unsuccessful anti-war movement which then gelled on-campus, resulting in:
4) Well, you know the rest of the sad story.
Some of you may be able to better conduct an in-depth psychoanalysis on what the effects of harboring the deep seeded guilt of their self-interested actions of so many years ago. Though it appears that in escaping their demons, these individuals have been reduced to becoming “a reactionary and, even while touting himself as being a champion of ‘modern’ thought, is militantly defensive of an outmoded and archaic ideology.” (Hence all the high-pitched barking when their ideas and motives are challenged.)
I tend to chuckle when liberals and liberal academics use the term “scientific methodâ€Â. Science fields of academia teach how to solve problems by developing hypotheses, making assumptions, testing the solution, collecting data, analyzing the data, correcting the hypothesis and/or assumptions and repeating until the problem is solved. Conversely, liberal (excluding the arts) studies tend to teach how to critique and identify (create) problems. What modern liberal (excluding the arts) studies have done is to include a course in statistics and regression to the curriculum, call it science as they bias data and use it as justification to further their ideological hypotheses.
The result is that the “nuance†in their “highly evolved†thought process tends to be the mechanism they need engage to continually prop-up their ideas after their assumptions and/or data have been demonstrated as faulty, if not totally dishonest.
I would admit that there is some self-selection bias in both selection of majors and choice of vocation. Those with advanced degrees in chemistry, physics, engineering, mathematics, economics (math based), and even law as opposed to those Phd’s in “Social Studies†and “Political Studies†typically have a disdain for nonsense. (“If you’re not a part of the solution, you’re part of the problemâ€Â) Facing the internal bias of the academic environment, and the inherent lack of a sense of accomplishment in such an eviroment, they have more than ample, and better, opportunities in the private sector, unless lazy or blind to the academic environment.
Riddle me this. How come its seems that publishing history professors seem to be more conservative. Is it just my self-selection in what topics of non-fiction I read, or is it that the intense and prolonged research requires someone with motivation and an inherent understanding of the concept of “risk-reward†on which our republic and economic systems is based.
I hadn’t read this whole site. His writings in the two pages made sense and fit the story of LBJ’s ending deferment as I knew it, but the I skimmed this site, the more it sounds like he wears his purple Nikes while he eats his applesause and sips his kool-aid.
I’m a bit bemused by the mere fact that this debate keeps coming up. I mean, when faced with the fact that portfolio managers (for example) usually vote Republican, no one ever feels the need for any explanation beyond “well, they would, wouldn’t they?” What’s special about academics?
From my own experience (in the departments of architecture, art, and urban planning), I wouldn’t really draw a line between ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’, so much as I would between ‘liberals’ and ‘radicals’–or, simply, those who have a working and flexible relationship with the real world (or, if you prefer, the ‘real world’
and those who do not.
To generalize broadly: my few truly ‘liberal’ professors tend to be older (unfortunately, their younger colleagues have mainly been thoroughly ruined by a system which no longer encourages flexibility of thought); their way of speaking is less fixed into absurd and intentionally obscure patterns of jargon, they recognize the existence not only of conservative thought on, for example, sociology, but of other ideas (’conservative’, ‘liberal’, or ‘radical’
on any given issue which may or may not agree with their own. The true ‘liberal’ professors also encourage their students to argue with them, and express their own minds and their own opinions (as such!) on a given subject openly and transparently alongside the dry presentation of their subject: they expect and even hope for argument, and wondrously enough even anticipate learning from the experience.
What I would call the ‘radical’ professors, on the other hand, present their subject within a rigid framework and system of jargon predetermined by a hidden philosophy which is never questioned and rarely even acknowledged. ‘Argument’, such as there is, occurs only within the bounds of this unacknowledged system and so it is deeply and unredeemably trivial. Basically, the courses taught by ‘radicals’ are like nothing so much as the obsessive exegesis of a limited number of sacred texts by an extremely conservative cult–without even the willingness to question the veracity of these ‘sacred scriptures’ that the old Medieval monks who spent years of furious speculation on the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin had.
(Oh, and ‘scientific method’? PLEASE. The ‘scientific method’ has very little to do with liberal arts professors who believe that science or any ‘objective’ ‘standard’ of ‘proof’ is the mere tool of a phallocratic, capitalist, colonialist, racist culture–no, indeed, that ‘science’ is inseparably a part of that culture and must be brought down like any other institution of the capitalist patriarchy.)
In the architecture and urban planning academic departments (of my own experience), the true ‘liberals’ are, generally, either those design professors who not only teach studio but concurrently run their own design practices and are always face-to-face with the problems of actuality, or they are the remaining few professors of theory and criticism from the days before post-structuralism etc. took over the world of art and architecture criticism and decisively killed its capacity to give a damn in a more than purely aesthetic or tenure-related sense. That is, they are the last of the modernists. The rest, alas, are far more interested in John Ruskin’s wife’s pubic hair–or Louis Sullivan’s questionable sexuality–than in anything Ruskin actually wrote or Sullivan actually built.
I should also add that, regardless of their expressed political affiliations, none of my friends in the hard sciences (all of my friends from undergraduate school with almost no exceptions were scientists and engineers) gave two hoots for the liberal arts and considered it to be thoroughgoing garbage–hence, when you asked any one of them what courses he or she was taking, you tended to get an answer along the lines of ‘Analysis I, Biology, Algebra I, Organic Chemistry. Oh, yeah, and some Humanities shit.’
In other words, whether you end up with a ‘D’ or an ‘R’ by your name when it comes time to vote, a good hard science education remains the finest bullshit-proof coating you can give a kid.
Alex.
Totally agree.
I think Jeff’s point about self-selection is well made, but I would ask hum when did it start to occur? Self-selection can propagate and amplify an initial advantage, but still, why was the mold broken at liberal? What prevented a more even division of academia into two camps, much like blogging itself?
That said, and despite Goober’s assertion otherwise, technical departments tend to skew libertarian, eg, CalTech. There is a strong anti-religous undertow, or if you prefer, a strong materialist base, but that isn’t the same as liberal. Plus, even post-The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, hese fields are less subjective than the arts, and so there is less that can be inferred from a topical approach. These differences are usually pragmatic.
I would suggest that very intelligent people tend to believe in their own strength, and so they believe that there is a comprehensive policy solution to all human ills. That they do so might have less to do with this assumption’s truth, and more to do with the fact that it concentrate’s power in their hands. This is what bothers me about the “conservatives are greedy individualists” meme – many liberal policies install a politburo class who use a social justice platform to justify delivering power and wealth to themselves, small change though this may be in acadamia. Rejecting the underlying assumption to a ruling class, ie, I know what is good for you better than you do, is fundamentally conservative (classically liberal), and doesn’t preclude intelligence at all.
Also, I too have given the ‘Abstract, E&M, Diffy Q, AdLab, and, uh, South East Asian Religions’ answer.
Heh. Yeah, the attitude among the scientists and engineers of my acquaintance (with the possible exception of the ones who just went into electrical engineering or computer science for the money) is strongly libertarian, too–folks love their illicit explosives (elemental sodium and potato cannons and overcharged capacitors and just anything large enough dropped from a sufficient height), nighttime excursions into forbidden parts of campus (roofs, steam tunnels, ventilation ducts. . .), and their pranks. Whatever the political attitude of any given person officially may be, in their own lives (in my experience) your average science and engineering nerds are about as averse to any interference in their own lives or restrictions on their own ingenious pleasures as any stereotypical West Virginia backwoodsman chasing trespassers off his property at rifle point.
Hence, in a particularly amusing example, the (very small and just as very crazy) ‘Social Justice Cooperative’ president, a tedious neo-Victorian feminist graduate student, held a (I shit you not) ‘Crush the Patriarchy Bake Sale’ complete with giant American flag bedecked phallus-shaped pinata. What self-respecting humorist could leave that alone? And so, of course, the next edition of the school’s ‘Only Intentionally Humorous Publication’ responded with an entire issue dedicated to making fun of this particular humorless person, and her “giant permanent marker and phallus-cutting scimitar”. She, of course, immediately wrote back in outrage in the little (really–like one page) college alt-weekly and commenced with something along the lines of “Yes, I know–how dare a woman open her mouth if not to service a man/the good old boys always protect their own”. Of course, the people responsible for the humor magazine were (and are) of the goth science nerd persuasion and were not only not all ‘boys’, they were not predominantly heterosexual and a number of them were probably not even sure themselves of what sex they were any more, nor did they really care. But self-identified liberal or libertarian they uniformly disapproved of being told what to do by tedious authoritarians of any political stripe.
These are the sort of people who end up working at Apple or Pixar or Google and have those little Linux penguin stickers stuck to everything they own. They like their freedom–whether or not they always equally respect the freedom of others.
I’m still waiting for someone on some thread to answer my objection to the idea that the imbalance can be explained by the fact that Republicans generally prefer to make money in private industry. That could explain a lot of fields, but professors of Classics (Latin and Ancient Greek) are almost never Republicans, even though there is no private industry in which they can use their skills. The only choices are university teaching, high school teaching (if you can handle the discipline, and usually only for Latin), and working in some unrelated field while doing Latin or Greek on the side. This one field proves that the disparities can’t all come from voluntary avoidance of universities by disgruntled Republicans.
These Pitt professors must not be familiar with the field of education, in which the more conservative/classical liberal scholars, and some of the more enlightened liberals, see the need for increased rigor in education research.
The debate over the use of experimental methods is ongoing, and as you might expect, these methods have been encouraged by the Bush Administration’s Dept. of Education, which of course makes the reactionary liberal ed profs even more resistant to change.
I have to add a personal story to this. I was interviewed for a ed research position by a researcher, who proceeded to tell me 10 minutes into the interview that although “Republicans are evil,” their emphasis (via the Bush Ed Dept.) on more objective and rigorous methods was necessary, as all the years of case studies, inadequate control of confounding factors, over-reliance on qualitative data, and scholars not knowing the statistical methods they’re trying to use, has led to very little knowledge of what actually works.
Which, combined with the education establishment’s desire to fix that which was not broken, has led to the quality public schools we all know and love.
I can’t speak out of direct experience, but I might theorize that in the sciences. researchers that can come up with technologically useful results would gravitate toward the private sector.
In Film Studies, we study (and profoundly, pathetically misinterpet) psychoanalytic theory, post-structuralist stuff, etc., to unmask the cruel hegemony of US films, to free students from the System!! Theoretical studies pad the discipline. How can you say anything new about the history of film? How can an English prof think of something new to say about Dickens? Theory!
I see non-radical humanities students discouraged from pursuing doctorates because they’re white and male or because they actually do believe in the System. Why would anyone pursue a career that ridicules their identity and then work someplace where you have to keep your ideas quiet or risk a tire slashing?
Why is academics different from banking? Because in college we are socializing our children.
From Dr. Weevil:
“…professors of Classics (Latin and Ancient Greek) are almost never Republicans, even though there is no private industry in which they can use their skills….(t)his one field proves that the disparities can’t all come from voluntary avoidance of universities by disgruntled Republicans.”
I would venture this is more a voluntary avoidance of reality by disgruntled Democrats.
Seriously, the fact that there is not much of a economic future in these fields would tend to discourage the more pragmatic from undertaking them, don’t you think?
And Alex, stereotypical West Virginia backwoodsmen use shotguns for chasing trespassers, much more effective at close range and while moving. We mostly use rifles for sniping revenooers.
After watching (and participating in) faculty searches at more than a few universities, let me say that in at least some polisci departments there is active antipathy toward conservative/Republican candidates or those who appear to be so. I remember especially on candidate who self-identified as a Mormon (kinda hard to hid that 2 year gap while doing his missionary work) who was immediately pegged after the interview as “he *has* to be a Republican, he’s a Mormon from Utah.” In many departments it would be easier to get hired if you were a convicted pedophile than a registered Republican.
And don’t forget Deans have power, too. I remember one very bitter, out Lesbian Dean who routinely down-checked 1) males in general; 2) white males especially; 3) Asian males [patriarchal societies, you know]; 4)especially married white males; and 5) attractive, feminine females. Didn’t leave much, and we lost at least 3 hires due to her attitudes.
I can’t imagine anyone interested in this subject who has not heard of the National Association of Scholars, but there is the link, just in case. The organization is “dedicated to the restoration of intellectual substance, individual merit, and academic freedom in the university.” It’s done some great work, and it’s membership consists of classical liberals as well as conservatives.
“its”
Everytime I hear a liberal expounding on their “nuance,” I think of a line from a Bertoldt Brecht play. “But a fart has no nose.”
While I was reading your comments I was remembering watching Newt Gingrich teach class on C-Span. You remember, the one he got into trouble over. He was an effective teacher and the course was very interesting. Somehow, he probably wouldn’t be listed as the professorial type.
Het, just a thought. Isn’t Krugman the perfect example? His superior intellect and his x-ray vision enables him to see that which mere mortals cannot; gives him a special insight into weighty matters of the world.
Never mind that the facts directly contradict his thesis – facts just get in the way of what he knows!
I mean, after all, he is a professor at Princeton.
Someone should have mentioned the private schools’ tendency to accumulate the more conservative professors, in that they are mostly religious institutions. If the left be that party which wants more freedom for aggression, and the government schoools tend to become, more and more, vehicles of propaganda for official aggression, don’t we have an explanation? To expect such schools to go against that which gives them their foundation and their increase,namely the growth of aggression upon the net taxpayer, may be naive. Let’s hear how government colleges might have a much higher percentage of right wing professors without being privatized.
Those who can, do
Those who can’t, teach (no offense)
Those who can’t teach, work for the government.
The more inept you are, the more liberal you are.
I especially liked this comment:
Never have truer words been written. He’s a Democrat from Chicago for crying out loud. Even though he’s never procreated it doesn’t mean his ‘children’ didn’t vote in the last election along with his great-great-grandparents, cartoon characters, etc..
It’s that “reflective temperament” that liberal academics are so famous for that silenced Larry Sommers for daring to blaspheme in church, and who have created a climate where certain research topics are too dangerous for non-tenured professors to touch. The same one that regards Ronald Reagan as stupid and evil but feels Mao is deserving of respectful study.
When the left is trying to avoid budget cuts affecting colleges, they will indirectly admit that gobernment funding pushes them to the left. They say that they will be made ideologically servile to businessmen, if generous public funding is not forthcoming. In other words they would be collectively pushed to the right, if they had to depend on private funding. Considered in this way it is not even really controversial that the left bias is caused by public funding, which is also to admit that it exists. The controversy is really about what scholars would believe if they did not have to worry about funding.