Comments on: Republican anti-intellectualism

By: james

james — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:02:35 +0000

How much is the over representation of Democrats in academia related to intelligence vs. the well documented fact of the over representation of Democrats among state and federal employees? How is the academia voting pattern any different from other state or federal employment institutions?

By: John Ray

John Ray — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 03:03:51 +0000

A comment from http://dissectleft.blogspot.com The famously Bush-hating Jonathan Chait has an article in which he defends the overwhelming Leftist bias in academe. He rejects the notion that underrepresentation implies bias, though he realizes that Leftists like himself normally make the opposite argument where blacks are concerned. That does rather highlight the difficulties that the dishonesty of Leftists gets them into. Chait in fact is forced to admit that conservatives are right and that lack of proportionality does not imply bias! A major backdown for a Leftist, it seems to me. He also has a point in saying that academe is not a natural career choice for a conservative, though I disagree with his reasons. Academe is a stuffy bureaucracy and conservatives prefer the more free-wheeling and wide-open business world. I was in academe for many years and I am in no doubt that most of my colleagues would not last 5 minutes in business. My own combination of actual success in both academe and business is certainly extremely rare. There are however many conservatives with academic ambitions and Chait ignores what almost every one of those people could tell him—that you virtually cease to exist in academe once your conservative views are known. Like most conservatives who do make it into academe, I got an academic job before my political views were known but once they were known, the roadblocks put up to my further progress in academe were almost amusing in their compulsiveness and violation of academic principles. Chait is just not acknowledging the facts, which is what I expect from Leftists. I have more on the Leftist nature of academe here

By: John Ray

John Ray — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 03:03:14 +0000

By: Robert Light

Robert Light — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 02:32:27 +0000

A surprising theme running through this entire discussion -- a theme thus far completely unacknowledged -- is the ridiculous assumption that "truth" is just a matter of counting heads. ("Truth," in this instance: what is right morally-politically). But why can't it just as easily be the other way around? Surely it could just as easily be the case that the paltry number of conservatives ensconsed in elite academia is reflective of "conservatism's" possible superiority, no? Truth, after all, might really be a province of the few; and in this case of the even fewer! (Rough metaphor: Harvey Mansfield is a far more profound, original scholar than, say, Brian Leiter). Besides, if liberals are going to argue (which Chait's column meretirciously does) that academia is the arbiter of right (justice) -- i.e. academica constitutes the exclusive summit atop a descending heirarchy -- then liberals should at least go the whole-hog and be consistent. They might stop to consider this: There are six conservatives on the entire Harvard faculty -- this, out of a faculty of approximately 500. Should thus a person be considered insane or stupid to think these six conservatives as possibly the wisest (both in practical and theoretical wisdom*) of the whole lot? ----- * A distinction I find often totally lost on most liberals (i.e. "progressives" and socialists) -- which actually may bespeak their stupidity more than anything "liberals" might adduce for/about conservatives.

By: Robert Light

Robert Light — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 02:31:09 +0000

A surprising theme running through this entire discussion -- a theme thus far completely unacknowledged -- is the ridiculous assumption that "truth" is just a matter of counting heads. ("Truth," in this instance: what is right morally-politically). But why can't it just as easily be the other way around? Surely it could just as easily be the case that the paltry number of conservatives ensconsed in elite academia is reflective of "conservatism's" possible superiority, no? Truth, after all, might really be a province of the few; and in this case of the even fewer! (Rough metaphor: Harvey Mansfield is a far more profound, original scholar than, say, Brian Leiter). Besides, if liberals are going to argue (which Chait's column meretirciously does) that academia is the arbiter of right (justice) -- i.e. academica constitutes the exclusive summit atop a descending heirarchy -- then liberals should at least go the whole-hog and be consistent. They might stop to consider this: There are six conservatives on the entire Harvard faculty -- this, out of a faculty of approximately 500. Should thus a person be considered insane or stupid to think these six conservatives as possibly the wisest (both in practical and theoretical wisdom*) of the whole lot? ----- * A distinction I find often totally lost on most liberals (i.e. "progressives" and socialists) -- which actually may bespeak their stupidity than anything "liberals" might adduce for/about conservatives.

By: Michelle Dulak Thomson

Michelle Dulak Thomson — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:56:09 +0000

Patrick, I don’t know whether you or anyone will read this on a more or less moribund thread, but — It’s my contention that you can have people with tons of years of education in a non-intellectual vocational discipline (business, education, music) and people with tons of years of education in an intellectual vocational discipline (thesis and dissertation track folks in social sciences and hard sciences who seek the job market in academia and a life of research and teaching) all lumped into one category. Those two groups are two fundamentally different types of education, however. They cannot be compared for intellectual content. Of course they can be “compared for intellectual content”; what you mean is that the comparison won’t end in their being judged equal. But never mind that. What puzzles me is your leaving the humanities entirely out of court. If the university consisted entirely of science students (soft or hard) and “non-intellectual vocational” students, I imagine even the scientists and the “NIVs” would feel that it was, um, missing something. Is the study (as opposed to practice) of literature, art, music more like the “NIV” education you describe, or more like the sciences? I’m asking in all seriousness, because I know a lot of highly-skilled scientists (beginning with my parents, accomplished and successful biochemists) who aren’t particularly aware of or indeed interested in most of the arts, and who know or care little of history before their own lifetimes. I also know a lot of practicing musicians (to take one of your “non-intellectual vocational” categories) who do know a lot, not only about music but about the other arts and about history, partly because these are things that classical musicians need to know, partly because the mind interested in classical music is likely to be curious also about these other things. Which, I wonder, has the richer intellectual education? (I think I can ask fairly, having been on both sides — first as a mechanical engineering student, then as a violinist and violist, among other things. I know what my answer would be.)

By: pedro

pedro — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:39:49 +0000

Chait complains that the tendency of the Academy to vote Democrat is being seen by some conservatives as an indictment of the Academy. The response: to complain that Chait is being unfair to Republicans, whose brain power is being derided by his complaint. Ah, but of course, some of the commenters here complain that it is only the ‘soft’ disciplines that lean Democrat (and of course, they don’t see this assertion as arrogant derision of the Humanities and Social Sciences.) Here’s news for you: Republicans don’t fare much better in the ‘hard’ sciences. Whether this may be regarded as an indictment on the Republicans or not, it certainly is related to its association with the Falwells and Dobsons of America, to its dismissiveness towards the scientific consensus on global warming, and to its streak of anti-intellectualism.

By: Joe O

Joe O — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:28:58 +0000

I think Walt is right above. Academia is just more of a desirable occupation for those on the left rather than those on the right. I am sure there is no political litmis test in the hard sciences. The competition for teaching positions in the humanities ironically would make it relatively easy to institute balancing political quotas if anybody wanted to. If you get 100 qualified applicants for each position, it wouldn’t be that hard to find a qualified conservative.

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 01:54:16 +0000

I just don’t see what the crisis is- if having Democratic professors meant so much, shouldn’t a vast majority of university graduates be Democrats? Good professors teach reason- not preach values. This outrage reminds me a little of the liberal media outrage- do conservatives believe that if Democrats possessed less control over academia and the media Republicans would win elections by even greater margins? The appropriate reaction to this “crisis” is to ignore it. When WalMart stops censoring CDs and magazines, I’ll start considering more balance in universities, too

By: Lee Scoresby

Lee Scoresby — Sun, 12 Dec 2004 22:30:57 +0000

How many of us in the humanities or social sciences have good empirical data that suggests people are discriminated against for their political views? I have zero. I have never seen or experienced anything close to such discrimination—with one exception, that of conservative Christian colleges and universities such as Liberty. Frankly, I just don’t know what a commitment to ideological balance would even mean. That we should hire people because of the results they get? I can see the arguments in sociology: “oh, no, we’ve got someone whose data shows that virginity pledges usually wind-up having delayed premarital sex! Quick, let’s get someone who disagrees!” Or in international relations, “we’ve got two advocates of the principle that democracies don’t fight one another! We need someone who takes the opposite stance!” Look, there is a problem here. The fact that you can walk into a room with your colleagues and assume that everyone voted for Kerry and thinks Bush is an idiot does impact the atmosphere at departments, But, in the social sciences at least, research that is driven by ideology is usually bad research, and demonstrably so. It is very hard to listen to a lot of these complaints and not assume that some conservatives don’t like having some of their claims subjected to rigorous scrutiny.

By: Barry

Barry — Sun, 12 Dec 2004 19:02:38 +0000

MNZ, the point is that, even in the non-humanities, there seems to be a high proportion of Democrats/liberals, and a low proportion of conservatives. This is hard to explain with the Theory of Evul Humanities Liberals. The things I’ve mentioned are far more dominant in the GOP than Michael Moore is, and far worse.

By: mnz

mnz — Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:49:53 +0000

Barry and Williestyle, Since you both read into my post what you wanted to read into it, let me clarify. My basic point was that the humanities (and certain social sciences) being dominated by one political ideology is more of a concern than the hard sciences. (Now, try reading my post.) Barry, I also take exception to you using extremist caricatures to represent your opponents. (Is Michael Moore a Left-wing intellectual?) Moreover, my post was about the dominance of LEFTISTS in the humanities…not Democrats. There are departments in the country were a moderate Democrat ideologies are chastised.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:30:56 +0000

I’ve read most of the comments on this thread and I haven’t seen this one anywhere…so my apologies if I am replicating an earlier remark. Another more fundamental problem in this argument is that numbers of years of education = better educated = intellectual. Wrong. There’s a massive difference in the “education” one receives with a Bachelor’s in Business or an M.B.A. versus a Bachelor’s and Master’s in a Humanities field or a social science field. You can certainly find narrow humanities folks and narrow social scientists, but in my experience, on the average, you have a much greater probability of finding that narrow person holding a B.A. in Business. It’s my contention that you can have people with tons of years of education in a non-intellectual vocational discipline (business, education, music) and people with tons of years of education in an intellectual vocational discipline (thesis and dissertation track folks in social sciences and hard sciences who seek the job market in academia and a life of research and teaching) all lumped into one category. Those two groups are two fundamentally different types of education, however. They cannot be compared for intellectual content. Without accounting for the content of a degree program it’s misleading to simply run with the argument that more years of education = better educated = intellectual, even though it does make lots of people who have no reason to feel better about themselves and their degrees.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:27:07 +0000

By: WillieStyle

WillieStyle — Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:53:55 +0000

Humanities and certain social sciences are not like the hard sciences. In the hard sciences, you have the scientific method and the ethos of naturalism enforcing some objectivity to the fields. (Try to find a biologist that buys into Lamarckian evolution.) Why do folks keep making this distinction? Doesn’t the original Chait article state that Repubs are under-represented in the “hard sciences” as well?