Comments on: Conservatives in Academia

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:51:27 +0000

Why are humanities professors liberal? 4 reasons. 1) Many of them come from the Vietnam generation. The easiest way for a kid to get out of duty was to stay in school. The kind of kid that would want to get out of military duty is the kind of kid that will be a liberal. 2) Ressentement, Democratic Envy, internalized teenage humiliation. In junior high school, there were three kinds of kids: cool kids, nerds without brains, and nerds with brains. The cool kids grew up to be normal, complacent adults (insurance agents, managers at Walmart, etc). The nerds with brains grew up to be normal, curious adults (engineers, scientists, accountants, lawyers). The nerds without brains grew up to find others like themselves. They did so in academia. 3) Risk aversion. Graduate school is easy. Graduate school in a humanities department is easier. 4) Insularity. Like the ancien regime in France, today’s academics are so insulated from real life, they have completely lost their moral sense. This tends to promote preposterous leftist theories, that are taken seriously nowhere but in academia. This is magnified as the academy becomes more and more intellectually one-dimensional-the more liberal a university becomes, the less internal questioning that occurs, which allows for more liberalism (David Horowitz’ Free Speech games are obnoxious, but illustrate this point: Free Speech is more threatened on very liberal campuses than in any other public arena in American society). Note that 1-3 are cases of self-selection-liberal people go into academia more, so of course academics will tend to be more liberal. 4 is arguably an example of institutional bias. Solution? Ignore them. Just as plumbers may well be more conservative than the population at large, but we don’t care, (because we don’t count on plumbers to shape us or inform us in any way outside of plumbing), academics are clearly more liberal-but so what? Once our society figures that out (and we are in the process of doing so), we will realize that academics, while they may be experts at gender theory or phenomenology psychological nonsense, have no more expertise in political choices, international affairs, or morality or ethics than the local plumbers’ union. steve

By: Michael Kochin

Michael Kochin — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 01:40:48 +0000

Natural scientists are more conservative as a group than their social science and humanities colleagues, just they are more religious. About 40% of US natural scientists in a 1996 survey reported belief in a personal God (E. J. Larson & L. Witham, Nature 386, 435 – 436 (1997)); rougly the same percentage as on the first such survey back in 1916. As I recall, the percentage for humanists and social scientists in only around 20%. Now it is true that if we look at elite natural scientists there has been substantial change since 1916. But still, a puzzle, why should humanists and social scientists overall be more atheistic (and more liberal, and more democratic) than their natural science counterparts? Occam’s razor (thank to that Duke prof. for reminding this thick conservative of it) suggests that the explanation just might be the same as the explanation for why we see so small a percentage of US citizens in Ph.D. prgrams in Computer Science and so many in law school taking courses on Internet Law. Can you say: differential opportunity costs? I knew you could.

By: David Velleman

David Velleman — Sun, 15 Feb 2004 22:29:04 +0000

The perception of discrimination against conservatives is probably a byproduct of a preference for scholarship that is overtly inspired by race- and gender-politics. This preference has completely altered the face of many disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. Those disciplines have spent 10 – 15 years hiring “scholars” whose work is explicitly dedicated to identity politics of race and gender. This trend is due, in part, to the intellectual vacuum created by post-modernism. If there are no objective intellectual standards (which is what the post-modernists believe) then hiring may just as well be guided by the political sympathies of the recruitment committee—in particular, by their desire to promote racial and gender equality. We therefore have an entire generation of tenured professors who were hired, not because their work was intellectually superior or even moderately good, but because it purported to uncover racism and sexism in previously unsuspected places, or to recover the cultural contributions of previously neglected minorities and women. One can be a strong proponent of racial and gender equality and yet deplore the influence that identity politics has on these disciplines. One can be a feminist and still think that commitment to the cause of feminism is not a qualification for academic employment. One can be an anti-racist and yet deny that sloppy scholarship can be excused on the grounds that it serves the cause of fighting racism. Unfortunately, most of us have hesitated to draw these distinctions—partly out of fear that we might undermine causes that we support, and partly out of fear that we might be labeled racists or sexists ourselves. Our hesitations have gravely endangered the independence of the academy. I do not support any efforts to enforce ideological balance in universities. But I also believe that our grounds for resisting such efforts have been seriously undercut by the politicization of the academy over the past decade or two. The main reason for allowing us to govern ourselves in the academy is that we are applying intellectual standards that we are best qualified to apply. If we are not applying such standards , if we are instead hiring people because their work is feminist or anti-racist, then we lose our grounds for insisting on self-governance. In any case, those who deny that academic hiring is political simply aren’t looking in the right places. The point is not that recruitment committees are checking up on candidate’s political party affiliation; the point is that explicitly political research programs are dominating many disciplines in the humanities and social sciences.

By: limberwulf

limberwulf — Fri, 13 Feb 2004 17:12:02 +0000

Most conservatives I know do not agree with the educational system itself. Many find the idea of working for a government institution to be itself a conflict of ideals. Not all colleges are government supported or controlled, but by and large there is a massive inclusion of government in the operations of acedemia. A majority of the conservative professors and teachers I have seen have been either in private schools or are in areas that tend to be most helpful in spreading conservatism, i.e. business and economics. The idea of one group being smarter or more willing to put up with the environment of school I think is difficult to back up. I know plenty of smart people and plenty of stupid people. They are on all sides of the political, social and economic spectrum. I personally find that people tend to operate in an environment that works with their belief system. Conservatism works well in business, but it works poorly in a government institution. Liberalism works well in academia, and is insulated to some extent from the business world, meaning that it can adhere to its ideals without obvious contradictions being thrown at it. Ideals on either side have to have a certain insulation from reality to remain viable. Academia as the system currently stands is a poor environment for conservative ideals.

By: humeidayer

humeidayer — Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:16:59 +0000

Nothing to do with intelligence, necessarily, much as those in academia would like to believe in that self-serving explanation. Dogmatism is the most effective scarecrow for genius.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Fri, 13 Feb 2004 07:05:40 +0000

“If the essay was on child abuse and you mentioned abortion as a form, then I would expect that to appear in the first paragraph.” Considering your reading comprehension on my post, perhaps it is unsurprising that an A student might get lower grades from you. If you would re-read my framing of the essay you will see that your concerns have already been addressed. Let us make it easy for you: “We were instructed to write an essay intended to persuade the reader to agree with our point of view on a controversial topic dealing with American law or culture.” The sarcasm was honed after college. ;)

By: Another Damned Medievalist

Another Damned Medievalist — Fri, 13 Feb 2004 06:30:26 +0000

Sebastian, it might surprise you to know that many of those terrible left-wing academics would see your experience partially as one of bad teaching, and perhaps of the times. that said, different disciplines have different styles. English majors tell me all the time that they are A students as they read the big B- to C grades that they earn from me. If the essay was on child abuse and you mentioned abortion as a form, then I would expect that to appear in the first paragraph. I would expect the thesis to be fairly high up in the first paragraph, unless the paper were over 10 pages. But then, I also dock grades when people use MLA, because in my class we use Chicago, as that’s what is the norm in my discipline. Lots of students don’t think it’s fair, but the rules of the discipline are part of the course description.

By: GMT

GMT — Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:21:43 +0000

whoa, are we talking about what conservatives do or what they say? I mean, it’s no wonder they think academia is full of “liberals,” since “liberal” in actual conservative use means “anyone even remotely to the left of me,” leading to some really odd accusations (Tacitus as a liberal site, for instance). But, since conservative’s supposed principles are nowhere evident in their actual policies, shouldn’t we be asking about the liberal bias in conservative policy-making? Why won’t the liberal media talk about this? And just how would someone espousing cold-fusion economics and an ethical system based on cringing fear of a giant Charleton Heston in the sky think they could get a job in academia? What they must think of us!

By: james

james — Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:02:30 +0000

Concerning personal experience with differences of view. I was part of a project abroad program. One of the projects entailed a study of the effect of lead paint on households with small children. The group involved in this project came to the conclusion that removing lead paint, while a such a family was living in the home, was as dangerous as leaving the paint. The head of the department exploded into a rage at hearing this. His statements implied the result the group came up with was unacceptable, due to the fact this finding did not result in a recommended coarse of action that match his personal view of the issue. He did not question the validity of the data. The department head later apologized. I have no idea if this demonstrates a conservative or liberal view on anything. It does demonstrate a willingness to intimidate students when their views conflict with a professors or administrators.

By: Dean Howard

Dean Howard — Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:57:49 +0000

Conservatives are probably rare in academia because they leave owing to the “hostile atmosphere,” as it were. I received my PhD at Berkeley (God help me) before spending 15 years as a professor in the Ivy League and later a premier foreign university (widely characterized as a bulwark of socialism in that country), by which time I’d had it up to the eyeballs, gave up my tenured position, and left for industry. A number of conservative friends in academia have either left also, are thinking about it, or are resigned to suffering in silence to minimize the otherwise inevitable flak. The incessant left-wing yammering just became tiresome (as did the risible paychecks, the stifling bureaucracy, and the lack of opportunity). It is stressful and unpleasant to be entirely out of step with most of your colleagues, to be a lightning rod for vociferously expressed left-wing disapproval of any conservative policy (one’s support for which was generally imputed), to be lumped in with particularly distasteful figures on the right-wing, to be patronized as not having yet seen the light, and generally singled out for opprobrium. Imagine being an American in France right now, and you have the picture. That social pressure is probably the primary mechanism for keeping academia left-wing. Academia most likely became left-wing in the first place because homogeneous population distributions tend to be metastable in the presence of a disruptive force. An simple analogy would be a tray of water that, unless lifted in a perfectly level fashion, will tilt and slosh water to the low side, thereby generating a torque that aggravates the original tilt. Steven den Beste has written a superb essay (“Formation of residues”) http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/08/Formationofresidues.shtml on how this phenomenon leads to inhomogeneous population distributions. Academia has concentrated those of a left-wing viewpoint because such opinions historically would make those holding them unpopular elsewhere, or at least on the fringe. Tenure insulates academics holding unpopular views from retribution directed toward their employment, while the pressure to produce creative independent thought too often degenerates into garden-variety contrariness (“the prevailing orthodoxy is capitalist, so …I guess I’m a socialist”) in a misguided (and somewhat pathetic) attempt to establish intellectual bona fides. Add a jigger of late adolescent rebellion to appeal to the student body, and voila! A left-wing faculty member is born (in the US; in Eastern Europe it worked the opposite way). Repeat the process a few times, the trend accelerates, and academia becomes a left-wing bastion, as new entrants try to distinguish themselves from the pack by staking out still more extreme positions (much like Janet Jackson, on a topical note, and the Jacobins in the French Revolution, on a historical one). Nothing to do with intelligence, necessarily, much as those in academia would like to believe in that self-serving explanation.

By: james

james — Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:46:47 +0000

Provided is a link to an organization that specializes in free speech issues on college campuses. You will notice that the majority of cases are concerning a conservative group, individual, or ideology being suppressed by the college administration. http://www.thefire.org/index.php

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:02:10 +0000

I don’t have time to go into all the details, but I will relate 3 incidents all relating to the year long Dimensions of Culture class. Background: UCSD had at the time 5 colleges. Each had a different basic writing course. All students were to take the writing course to gain a minimum proficiency in writing. My college had ‘Dimensions of Culture’ or DOC. We spent a year learning about how culture effects reality and writing about it. Quarter 1: We spent weeks learning about how all of culture and morality is socially constructed. Emphasis was placed on the fact that no one culture was better than another, and the fact that no culture could be independently judged on anything because all cultures formed their own values. Typical po-mo crap. Toward the end of the quarter we talked about how South Africa constructed its society to opress black people. I raised my hand and asked how one could reconcile the idea that societies should be free to form their own cultural norms with the idea that the cultural norms expressed through aparthied were ‘objectively’ wrong? I suggested that Western treatment of South Africa implied either that there were actually norms independent of culture (which we wanted to enforce), or that we were attempting to impose merely Western norms on South Africa. The teacher responded by suggesting that only racists would defend South Africa, and that I clearly had no understanding of the underlying issues. The discussion in class included two students who called me a racist in the class with one suggesting I was a NAZI, with no comment from the teacher, and no reply allowed. Quarter 2: This quarter was more specifically about US law and culture. We were instructed to write an essay intended to persuade the reader to agree with our point of view on a controversial topic dealing with American law or culture. It was a 5 page paper. I spent the first 2 pages discussing why we thought of child abuse as an especially horrible crime. I mentioned that we place emphasis on the vulnerability of the child and of the abuse of power between a parent and child. I wrote at length about how child abuse can cripple the ability of the child to function as an adult later. I spoke about how parents sometimes treat their children as existing for their own convenience. On page 3 I drew parallels with abortion and continued from there. The grade I received was a D. The only notes on the paper were one circled mis-spelling and a circle around my transition to abortion with the comment “This is the thesis. The thesis belongs at the beginning of an essay.” I had never received anything less than a B+ on a college essay, and never received less after that paper. I was an English Literature major, so I wrote quite a few essays. I asked the teaching assistant about it. She said that the thesis must be exposited at the beginning of an essay. I was not exhibiting clear thinking by waiting until the third page to write the thesis. I protested that an essay on abortion was so contentious that it was far better to present your arguments before mentioning the word ‘abortion’ since once the word was in the air, thinking on both sides tended to cease. She disagreed. I went to the professor and he said that I could re-write the essay with the thesis first for a regrade with a maximum of a C. I did so and received a C. Not long after that we formally discussed abortion in class. We spent 2 days discussing the horrors of the pre-Roe era. Outside of class we were required to attend an on-campus lecture with either the San Diego head of the National Organization for Women or the National Abortion Rights Leauge, I don’t remember which. I was asked by the TA not to ask ‘provacative’ questions. The speaker spent 20 minutes on a slide show about ‘scary’ anti-abortion protestors. She focused special attention (5 or so slides) on a Catholic nun with a big cross praying on the sidewalk. I was not called on, but a Catholic girl asked what was so scary about a nun praying on the street. We were assured that the nun was threatening, just not in the pictures. All in all she was an effective speaker, responding well to the mood of the crowd, etc. For ‘balance’ we were shown the cheesy 1970s movie “The Silent Scream”. The movie has weird sound effects and is pretty lame. I asked if we could have a pro-life speaker. I was told that it wouldn’t be ‘appropriate’ to invite such a speaker. I pointed out that we had just had a pro-abortion speaker. The professor was unimpressed and said suggested that the 20 year old film was adequate rebuttal to a live, crowd-interactive, presentation. By quarter 3, I saw that DOC was becoming a substantial drag on my GPA, so I shut up.

By: james

james — Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:48:45 +0000

Max Andersion – Actually it should have been “Toe the party line”. I am not familar with “tow the party hawser”.

By: Chris Martin

Chris Martin — Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:39:11 +0000

James, here is the Clinton quote in context:

It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' means. If 'is' means is, and never has been, that's one thing. If it means, there is none, that was a completely true statement.

By: WillieStyle

WillieStyle — Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:13:26 +0000

Just so, and having seen and heard with my own eyes and ears specifically discriminatory intent on the University of California-San Diego campus I personally don’t have a problem saying that it exists and suggesting that it shouldn’t.

Care to share? In fact, in the hopes of getting somewhere in this debate, I’d ask that conservatives relate their tales of discrimination on college campuses. Us liberals are suckers for sob-stories and I’m sure you could turn us around with enough sufficiently heart-wrenching tales of discrimination. P.S. I said heart-wrenching. Stories about how folks made fun of your bow tie, or how your roommate used your Ronald Reagan poster to wrap his blunt, will not help your cause very much.