Just a pointer: be sure not to miss John Holbo’s post on conservatives in academia and Belle Waring’s memoir of one she knew in the Berkeley Classics Department.
I think he is right to say the disparity is the result of a self-selection process. It is a fact that there is the perception that conservatives have a much more difficult time succeeding in the academy. I don’t know whether the perception is factual or not, but when considering whether to go on to grad school or law school, my professors all suggested law school, knowing I leaned to the right.
When deciding, the choice is a no-brainer. To succeed in the academy is already a dicey prospect, and for a rightwinger to consider spending 7 years pursuing a PhD with no guarantee of a job, in a field hostile to rightwingers, it would be extremely irrational to take that route rather than law school, where rightwingers suffer no penalty and can make far more money than they could as a professor.
I think this is only true for some disciplines, mostly the social sciences other than economics and the humanities, though I agree that it probably isn’t much of a factor in philosophy departments.
Can anyone tell me why this is a more interesting, or provocative, question than: “Why are so many CEO’s Republicans”?
As various bloggers have noted, the bias among economists is in the other direction, though ‘conservative’ is not exactly the correct term. Most economists support free markets more than the average voter does. Even left-wing economists, like me, have a more favorable view of markets than the average leftwinger.
mondo: Because the blogsphere is lousy with academics. If it were as riddled with CEOs, I rather imagine we’d see countless iterations of the argument you cite. This is basically just shoptalk.
Belle Waring’s piece is perceptive and compassionate. Thanks for the link.
People care less about the politics of CEOs because CEOs aren’t instructing (and indoctrinating?) the youth of society.
The poltics of educators matter a lot more to society at large than the poitics of managers and CEOs.
All of the replies to mondo grant the implicit premise that the proportion of Republican CEOs is as high as the proportion of left-wing professors, a premise that seems to me highly implausible. Large numbers of prominent CEOs and other senior American business execs are Democrats (Gates, Fiorina, Ellison, Thomas Pritzker, Novell CEO Eric Schmidt, etc etc.).
All of the replies to mondo grant the implicit premise that the proportion of Republican CEOs is as high as the proportion of left-wing professors, a premise that seems to me highly implausible
Well, OK. So you think it’s implausible. Maybe. I think it is a pretty safe bet that the ideological expected value of CEO’s is to the right of center on economic issues, whatever party they are in, so your point seems a bit pedantic to me. But hey, let the chips fall where they may.
But you misunderstand the premise of my post, which was this: why is evidence of such a statistical bias more significant in academia than in, say, the corporate world? Is it true that military people are largely conservative? Are artists typically as far “left” as people think?
Let’s be honest: this question isn’t repeatedly raised because people are raising a simple question in quantitative sociology. The question is repeatedly raised as a prelude to charges of systematic and deliberate hiring bias. And the argument is waged for political reasons, precisely because of the type of cultural authority that resides in universities.
The real issue is: is the statistical bias a manifestation of a hiring bias? or is the statistical difference primarily explained by self selection based on values, competencies, and temperament?
On average, I have to go with the latter.
Maybe it’s the pervasiveness of academics in blogworld, but the idea that right-wing CEO’s are less worrisome than left-wing English professors because the latter, but not the former, are educating and indoctrinating our young seems ivory-towerish to me. Who is manufacturing the products of commercial culture that our youth gobbble up despite the disdain lefty academics have for them? Maybe if you get to write the poems, it doesn’t matter who writes the laws, but if I get to produce the movies, television shows, popular music, video games, professional sports, and what-have-you, I’ll let you have the poets.
…the idea that right-wing CEO’s are less worrisome than left-wing English professors because the latter, but not the former, are educating and indoctrinating our young seems ivory-towerish to me…
Not only that, it would prove that the thinkers in the ivory tower are not very left wing after all! I mean, if commie postmodernist nihilist eggheads don’t see the threat posed by big-time capitalists, who does? (parody intended)
“Can anyone tell me why this is a more interesting, or provocative, question than: “Why are so many CEO’s Republicans”?” - mondo dentro
Mondo, because many, many people believe this:
“The poltics of educators matter a lot more to society at large than the poitics of managers and CEOs.”
- Robert Lyman
I’m sure that CEO’s and the leadership of right-wing political parties are very glad that most people think that.
CJ
1) Most CEOs are not entertainment-industry CEOs. Conflating the two is misleading. The politics of the guy who made your toaster are not terribly important compared to your kid’s English professor.
2) The entertainment industry frequently (not always—country music is one common exception) tilts left-wing on cultural issues, whatever the preferences of the execs may or may not be, as do many of the entertainers that the allegedly right-wing CEOs hire. Show me a recent movie or network TV series that takes the NRA or the opponents of gay marriage seriously rather than parodying them as kooks and bigots.
3) Even if the dominance in the universities is a product of “self-selection,” it may still be a substantial problem for two reasons: a) it may be the result of a exclusionary culture (conservatives don’t apply because they are treated poorly by the lefties in power) and b) it makes one-sided education substantially more likely (although not, to be fair, inevitable).
With regard to 3)a), above, I don’t think many people here would give their blessing to an all-male university which officially permitted female faculty members—but refused to talk to them, openly regarded them as stupid, and dismissed their work without engaging it (“Of course we expect a woman to say that.”). Nor would they think much of a department chair who said “Most women are stupid, so there are lots of women we won’t hire.” Sure, it’s all male as a result of “self-selection,” but that doesn’t make it OK.
Um, Barry, do you have an argument as to why the politics of, say, the CEO of a vacuum-cleaner company matter more than the professors I had in school? Or is it just so obvious that only a conservative like me is too dumb to see it?
I’m sure that CEO’s and the leadership of right-wing political parties are very glad that most people think that.
Hah! Amen, Barry. Amen.
Sure, it’s all male as a result of “self-selection,” but that doesn’t make it OK.
OK, Robert. I will take your desire for diversity as sincere. I’ll even stipulate your equation of race, gender and ideology as categories to which the notion of “bias” can be applied. I don’t disagree, in principle.
What I do disagree with is your selective application of the principle. I can assure you that I, for one, find the lack of lefties in the US intelligence apparatus, M-I complex, and corporate leadership to be very troubling, and detrimental to the future of my children. I want to see more ideological “diversity”, and no I’m not joking.
Do you support me? More pacifists in the military? More labor-rights-obsessed CEO’s?
Anyone out there seriously want to defend the proposition that the politics of Jack Welch, anyone named Ford, CEOs of energy companies and their wholly-owned subsidiaries like Texas and Oklahoma, and a whole bunch of other non-entertainment types have less real-world impact on my life and yours than the natterings of some lefty academic in some course we probably didn’t take too seriously in the first place?
Mondo,
My initial point was, essentially, that education is different than most other endeavors. Teaching and research are a tasks which, to be performed effectivly, require balance, openness, and vigourous debate. Lack of intellectual diversity at universities however created is in and of itself problematic.
The same is not true of the manufacture of tires. So lack of diversity in tire-manufacturing companies is a problem only if created by hiring bias.
If you think I’m wrong about the uniqueness of education, that’s fine, but say so out loud.
That said, I would not favor more pacifists in the military anymore than I would favor professors who think that education is always and everywhere wrong, or tire-making employees who think that tires are the source of all evil. There is little point in inviting people into an organization who make their goal the destruction of that organization or the subversion of its goals.
Now, if Democrats are, by peer pressure or by dicriminatory hiring practices, excluded from the military, that’s a big deal and I would oppose it. But since killing people and blowing things up does not require diversity in the ranks the way that providing a complete education does, I worry about it a lot less.
Making tires may not require intellectual diversity (I’d bet that it requires a lot more than one would think, offhand), but when the CEO’s think one way, they have extraordinary influence on society. [again, being USA-centric] anybody who’s looked at recent US history should notice a trend favoring the opinions of CEO’s over those of most professors.
I would say that the US is getting an excellent example of how ‘groupthink’ applied to military matters can cause difficulties, but that’s mostly a non-military matter (i.e., the administration).
I tend to feel that it is in the best interest of a society to have a reasonably diverse military.
I don’t think I disagree too much with your second post, Barry. Certainly your point about groupthink at high levels of the military and administration is well taken.
Teaching and research are a tasks which, to be performed effectivly, require balance, openness, and vigourous debate.
I agree with this part, Robert. It is precisely these traits that select out for “fundamentalists” of any kind, and explain the difference between many (not all) of the pseudo-academic think tank intellectuals and actual academics. Indeed, some would say that it is exactly the mindset required for the traits you mention that selects so highly for “liberals” rather than “conservatives”. I’m inclined to think that this is very simplistic, and a cheap shot to boot—but is it really so far-fetched?
One of my beefs with what you are saying is this: all academics have to publish or perish. The “genetic algorithm” implied by this process suggests a balance between conservatism (in the evolutionary sense) and innovation that goes counter to claims of narrow-mindedness or crass bias. If you have good ideas, can state them properly, and get them published, you’re in the club. True, if you are too outlandish, or to “ahead or your time”, you may have problems—but is that really the same thing as “bias”? I think not.
Finally, I still must strongly disagree with you that academia should be held up for special “diversity” scrutiny. It is here that I sense a very political axe being sharpened to a fine edge. If that’s the case, as you said, I’d wish you’d just say so!
This whole discussion seems to assume a premise that I consider highly dubious: that labels such as “left”, “right”, “liberal” and “conservative” represent consistent, coherent political worldviews embraced by individuals out of a sense of philosophical kinship. I assert that in fact these labels refer to large coalitions of socioeconomic and demographic cohorts, and that the political views defined by them are chosen by the alliances in question, rather than vice versa.
Viewed in this light, the question, “why are academics on the left?” has a tautological answer: because the notion of “the left” has been defined by academics and people with similar interests and outlooks.
(I elaborate on this argument here.)
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review