A Republican Conspiracy Theory?

[achilleus]

LA Times Online:



Why Academia Shuns Republicans
by JONATHAN CHAIT

A few weeks ago, a pair of studies found that Democrats vastly outnumbered Republicans among professors at leading universities. Conservatives gleefully seized upon this to once again flagellate academia for its liberal bias.

Am I the only person who fails to understand why conservatives see this finding as vindication? After all, these studies show that some of the best-educated, most-informed people in the country overwhelmingly reject the GOP. Why is this seen as an indictment of academia, rather than as an indictment of the Republican Party?

Conservatives have a ready answer. The only reason faculties lean so far to the left is that deans, administrators and entire university cultures systematically discriminate against conservatives.

They don't, however, have much evidence to back this up. Mostly, they assume that the leftward tilt is prima facie evidence of anti-conservative discrimination. (Yet, when liberals hold up minority underrepresentation at some institutions as proof of discrimination, conservatives are justifiably skeptical.)

Conservative pundit George Will recently tied the dearth of conservative professors to the quasi-Marxist outlook in African American studies, women's studies and cultural studies. And at many campuses, those departments certainly don't amount to much more than left-wing propaganda factories. It's also true that radical multiculturalist theory — which sees white male oppression as the key to everything — has taken root in plenty of more mainstream disciplines.

This no doubt makes things hard on prospective conservative academics, not to mention mainstream liberal ones. A historian I know (a liberal) used to complain that history departments showed little interest in the traditional research he did, only caring about subjects like "buggery in the British navy."

But the rise of fashionable left-wing scholarship can be blamed for only a tiny part of the GOP's problem. The studies showing that academics prefer Democrats to Republicans also show that this preference holds in hard sciences as well as social sciences. Are we to believe that higher education has fallen prey to trendy multiculturalist engineering, or that physics departments everywhere suppress conservative quantum theorists?

The main causes of the partisan disparity on campus have little to do with anything so nefarious as discrimination. First, Republicans don't particularly want to be professors. To go into academia — a highly competitive field that does not offer great riches — you have to believe that living the life of the mind is more valuable than making a Wall Street salary. On most issues that offer a choice between having more money in your pocket and having something else — a cleaner environment, universal health insurance, etc. — conservatives tend to prefer the money and liberals tend to prefer the something else. It's not so surprising that the same thinking would extend to career choices.

Second, professors don't particularly want to be Republicans. In recent years, and especially under George W. Bush, Republicans have cultivated anti-intellectualism. Remember how Bush in 2000 ridiculed Al Gore for using all them big numbers?

That's not just a campaign ploy. It's how Republicans govern these days. Last summer, my colleague Frank Foer wrote a cover story in the New Republic detailing the way the Bush administration had disdained the advice of experts. And not liberal experts, either. These were Republican-appointed wonks whose know-how on topics such as global warming, the national debt and occupying Iraq were systematically ignored. Bush prefers to follow his gut.

In the world of academia, that's about the nastiest thing you can say about somebody. Bush's supporters consider it a compliment. "Republicans, from Reagan to Bush, admire leaders who are straight-talking men of faith. The Republican leader doesn't have to be book smart," wrote conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks a week before the election. "Democrats, on the other hand, are more apt to emphasize … being knowledgeable and thoughtful. They value leaders who see complexities, who possess the virtues of the well-educated."

It so happens that, in other columns, Brooks has blamed the dearth of conservative professors on ideological discrimination. In fact, the GOP is just being rejected by those who not only prefer their leaders to think complexly but are complex thinkers themselves. There's a problem with this picture, all right, but it doesn't lie with academia.

[D'Artag-NOT]

Sing it, brotha!

The father of one of my teammates asked me recently why it was that "all the California universities were so liberal". I told him that as far as I knew, they were not. Then he asked me why there were all those anti-Palestinian riots on the UC campuses? Again, I had to tell him that as far as I knew, there weren't any.

But then, I've only worked at UC Irvine for 28 years, so perhaps the father of a sophomore knows better than I do.

[Epee_Pox]

Well, liberal-arts academia is supposed to be somewhat more philosophically liberal than the real world. Ideas and theories, rather than making a buck to pay the bills, and all that. So of course its members, who have chosen that life over other callings, are more likely to be philosophically liberal and therefore politically liberal. I don't think many conservatives have a problem with this.

I think the problem that is complained of by folks on the right is a documented tendency for idealogical intolerance on the part of academics. It's not so much that they are liberals, it's that they are sometimes intolerant of other points of view. Presenting a viewpoint contrary to the party line can be academic suicide, or at the very least subject to shouting down, shutting down, or even outright theft of student newspapers when an article espouses such views. Criticism is called censorship, while contrary views are censored. Hardly an encouraging environment for valuable debate or intellectual freedom

The problem is not with academia being liberal, the problem is hypocrisy.

[Epee_Pox]

Also, I remember when I was in college (late 80s, early 90s) that several of my professors remarked how conservative the students seemed. In fact, we were no less liberal than those who had gone before us. By comparison to the professors' world, however...

It seems to me that, in the echo chamber of academia, views that are far to the left of the mainstream become seen as the norm. Thus, academics are more likely to see themselves as NOT all that liberal, when they are seen precisely as that when viewed from without.

[jeff]

Perhaps conservatives prefer to go compete in the free market instead of teach about the free market?

It's funny - nobody seems to complain about the starboard tilt of most energy companies (especially oil), banks and brokerages, defence contractors and so forth. Orthodoxy rules in corporate America, too - it's "career limiting" to disagree with the bosses there as well...

(Nice thing about an education in technology - there's not a lot of political content in a EE, CS, or chemistry curriculum)

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by jeff

Perhaps conservatives prefer to go compete in the free market instead of teach about the free market?

It's funny - nobody seems to complain about the starboard tilt of most energy companies (especially oil), banks and brokerages, defence contractors and so forth. Orthodoxy rules in corporate America, too - it's "career limiting" to disagree with the bosses there as well...

(Nice thing about an education in technology - there's not a lot of political content in a EE, CS, or chemistry curriculum)

The difference with the corporate orthodoxy is that if your boss is being stupid, and you can't say anything about it, the market will point it out in due time. Basically, being wrong and/or stupid in the business world fails on its own. In academia, however, you can be wrong and/or stupid all you want, and if people agree with you, there are no "natural laws" (like the free-market system) to shoot you down.

[jeff]

Hoo-boy, Soldier - wait till you get into the corporate world, and see how much institutionalized stupidity can exist for year after year.... Worth an entire thread all to itself. Otherwise, why would we need a Dilbert comic strip?

Anyway, this is about ideology, not stupidity. Do people go off to Exxon Mobil or Halliburton and say "your executive management lacks liberals and you're excluding them unfairly"? Or VMI, West Point, or your school, if we want to go back to educational institutions.

I would add that people still in school exaggerate the importance of the educational sector on overall thought (If they were dominant, Gore would have just been reelected, eh?) while really there is much more influence over our lives from corporate sources that influence people throughout life, not just the years in school. How much advertising to you see in a day? Also, corporate interests directly and indirectly exert influence on policy through lobbyists and corporate contributions to an extent academicians could only dream of. Yet, where is the outcry to force boards of directors to appoint left leaning types to executive management throughout corporations?

[Soldier]

Thankfully, I'll never have to touch the corporate world!

The thing about military schools is that you have to want to teach there; a rather specific desire. Not many liberals want to.

[jeff]

Never say never: lots of people do their military service and then go work in the private sectoir. I've worked along many of them. Besides, stupidity (and ideology) exist everywhere - I imagine you'll see plenty of it in the military too.

As to your second point: maybe there aren't that many conservatives that want to teach social sciences at UC Berkeley. Why the complaints?

[Masterurethane]

It's a long standing theory that education and liberalism go hand in hand. Of course, some people just want to make money, and put up with education just to get a high paying job. But, in England at least, all of the educated people I know are liberals, and I'm talking education in terms of seeing the world, developing a sense of logic and independent thought, and of course blending with other people and cultures, as well as what you learn from a teacher.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by jeff

Never say never: lots of people do their military service and then go work in the private sectoir. I've worked along many of them. Besides, stupidity (and ideology) exist everywhere - I imagine you'll see plenty of it in the military too.

As to your second point: maybe there aren't that many conservatives that want to teach social sciences at UC Berkeley. Why the complaints?

Note "have to". Retirement's not bad at all after 20 years.

And I don't know why people are complaining - I'm not! Most college students are flamingly liberal anyway; let them have their liberal schools. There's a few pretty conservative schools for students of that persuasion.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by Masterurethane

It's a long standing theory that education and liberalism go hand in hand. Of course, some people just want to make money, and put up with education just to get a high paying job. But, in England at least, all of the educated people I know are liberals, and I'm talking education in terms of seeing the world, developing a sense of logic and independent thought, and of course blending with other people and cultures, as well as what you learn from a teacher.

Of course, possibly the vast majority of people you know are liberals, and there are plenty of educated people who aren't liberals, that you just don't know. We conservatives aren't all sabrists, and we don't all drag our knuckles and thump our chests. Most people in the military are quite educated, having done plenty of world-traveling, and are also relatively conservative.

[jeff]

No complaint on my part for your points, Soldier. Including the fun slur against sabreurs

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Soldier

Thankfully, I'll never have to touch the corporate world!

The thing about military schools is that you have to want to teach there; a rather specific desire. Not many liberals want to.

If you start rising in the ranks, I imagine that you will have to deal with military procurement, and thus corporate types, sooner or later.

So - what kind of people tend to gravitate to teaching in military academies? What unusual combination of personal properties makes a person both academic and military?

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

Also, I remember when I was in college (late 80s, early 90s) that several of my professors remarked how conservative the students seemed. In fact, we were no less liberal than those who had gone before us. By comparison to the professors' world, however...

And you know the students before you - which you presumably did not meet - better than the professors - which definitely did meet them - because of precisely what?

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Soldier

The difference with the corporate orthodoxy is that if your boss is being stupid, and you can't say anything about it, the market will point it out in due time. Basically, being wrong and/or stupid in the business world fails on its own. In academia, however, you can be wrong and/or stupid all you want, and if people agree with you, there are no "natural laws" (like the free-market system) to shoot you down.

With all due respect, Soldier, I think that your age (or rather, lack thereof) is showing here. A few comments:
1. In the corporate world, a bad leader can drag down a lot of underlings with him, who may very well be competent on their own. Less so in the academic world.
2. As was pointed out before, corporate stupidity can go on for a long time - other firms may be equally bad (but maybe for other reasons), big companies take some time to run down due to sheer financial inertia, badly-led companies can get protection from politicians, etc.
3. In academia, at least in the hard sciences, you can be proved dead wrong, in which case your standing takes a nosedive more or less immedieatly (atl east if it is about a big enough issue). Science does contain laws. Also, there is a lot of competition among scientists, and any obvious fault can be used by another scientist to further their own career.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Hi!



If you start rising in the ranks, I imagine that you will have to deal with military procurement, and thus corporate types, sooner or later.

So - what kind of people tend to gravitate to teaching in military academies? What unusual combination of personal properties makes a person both academic and military?

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

Ah, yes, I'll have to deal with them; I only meant that I wouldn't have to be part of them.

I don't know what exactly makes a person both academic and military. I do know that many officers look forward to being involved here as staff, because working with cadets is a completely unique leadership opportunity. Many of the officers that try to come back here were cadets here at one point.

Also, you need to have at least a Bachelor's Degree to be an officer, and at least a Master's if you want to get much past captain - so, any officer of mid- to high-rank is going to be at least somewhat academic anyway. I don't think academic leanings are so very rare in people, especially people with much of an education; therefore, it would stand to reason that it's not very rare among military members. From there, it's just a matter of probability for how many academically-minded military members you have.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Hi!



With all due respect, Soldier, I think that your age (or rather, lack thereof) is showing here. A few comments:
1. In the corporate world, a bad leader can drag down a lot of underlings with him, who may very well be competent on their own. Less so in the academic world.
2. As was pointed out before, corporate stupidity can go on for a long time - other firms may be equally bad (but maybe for other reasons), big companies take some time to run down due to sheer financial inertia, badly-led companies can get protection from politicians, etc.
3. In academia, at least in the hard sciences, you can be proved dead wrong, in which case your standing takes a nosedive more or less immedieatly (atl east if it is about a big enough issue). Science does contain laws. Also, there is a lot of competition among scientists, and any obvious fault can be used by another scientist to further their own career.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

It appears I stand corrected.

[Vol_907]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

1. In the corporate world, a bad leader can drag down a lot of underlings with him, who may very well be competent on their own. Less so in the academic world.

Jeg stemmer ikke fullstendig overens med deg her...

The academic circles I ran in (undergrad about the same time as Epee Pox, grad school in the mid '90s) were rife with liberalism. Liberal arts sections of colleges--history, language, philosophy, poli sci, law, psychology & sociology--tend to be breeding grounds for leftism. Lots of theory, not a lot of practicality, so there are a lot of ideas that don't work don't get weeded out (e.g. Marxism ensures a country's prosperity and the rights of its constituents--when they have the failures of the USSR and the former Warsaw Pact countries under Communism as examples. They tend to be overlooked by the theorists).

And, where the theorists managed to get established, they tend to promote those who are like-minded.

Business schools do tend to be more conservative, though (at least, that's what my MBA-candidate roommate stated, many many moons ago). Again, because they get some more real-world experience than do the theorists.

As far as the hard sciences go, well, while there are hypotheses that can be proven or disproven according to the laws that govern the properties of our universe, unfortunately, there can be measures taken to manipulate, or at least put spin on, gathered data (e.g. the Kinsey reports, et al).

jth