I have a post up at Discover, The academy is liberal, deal!, where I confirm that yes, academics are liberal, and second, that there’s no profit in changing this situation. A conservative weblog, Kronology, responded:
Khan–like many pat-myself-on-the-back liberals–assumes “conservatives value the remuneration of the conventional private sector more than liberals, who may opt for the prestige and status of the Academy.” I have news for Khan: Outside the Academy itself, the prestige and status of those successful in the private sector exceed that of those in academia.
…Khan’s statement, however, illustrates the problem for society with academia’s bias. When one group excludes another, it is tolerable to American society for two reasons: 1) right of association or 2) a reasonable basis exists for the discrimination. We can eliminate the right of association for justifying the liberal discrimination against conservatives in this case because–whatever its members may think–the Academy is not a private club but a group of professions. In excluding conservatives, the liberals are depriving others of their livelihoods, just as though they opted to exclude all Orthodox Jews.
So, I responded in the comments that I’m not a liberal. Back when I started blogging I assumed that reading the full post to which you link and respond was actually the polite thing to do. I conclude in the linked post:
Where does this leave us? Buyer beware! I’ve identified myself as conservative several times on this weblog. I’m pretty skeptical of the findings of social science in a lot of cases because I assume there’s bias which creeps in because there’s so much unanimity of thought in labs. I’ve heard plenty of stories on the ideological pressures which are get reinforced as a matter of course. Not only that, but many social sciences have normative biases baked into the cake of their disciplines. Economics is one where many on the far Left complain that “orthodox” “positive” economics is actually ideology pretending to be science. As a conservative, and not a libertarian, I think they have a point. In particular, the materialistic methodological individualism of modern economic models of utility do miss something I believe when it comes to Eudaimonia.
But as a conservative, I believe in muddling on. I’m skeptical of social engineering generally, and I’m skeptical of social engineering in this case. Just how the die rolls.
My proximate caution is to be very careful about the law of unintended consequences. As a simple example, consider if the academy takes proactive steps to entice conservatives into the field. Where won’t they go? Liberal bias in the academy does exist, and it does shape many disciplines, especially those with immediate policy implications. But “fixing” the problem through technocratic means is a liberal impulse. Second, conservatives need to challenge the whole premise of demographic proportionalism, something that is not possible if one buys into the logic for short-term self-interest.
Affirmative action for all! Especially me!
that there’s no profit in changing this situation.
That’s a conclusion that can be empirically tested, can it not?
The military is disproportionately conservative. Have liberals profited by seeking to force the military culture to cater to liberal sensitivities?
I grant you that I’m shifting the focus away from an affirmative action type of scenario where the left would be seeking to develop a system where liberals in the military increase in numbers towards an analysis which focuses on liberal sensitivities, but I think that a parallel could be constructed along these lines with regards to the issue you laid out.
So first, do liberals profit by forcing their cultural values into institutional realms dominated by conservatives? Do they meet with success when they embark on these efforts?
I get the sense that conservatives aren’t really that steamed about academia being disproportionately staffed by liberals but the fact that the culture of academia is so blatantly hostile to conservative intellectual thought. The counterpoint here is that I sense that liberals are not rushing to join the military so that they achieve population proportionality, they’re content to allow the military to be staffed disproportionately by conservatives but want to inject liberal values into the institution and culture.
So I think you need to clarify more fully your position on acquiescence to institutional reality. What are the parameters which bound your statement that there is no profit involved in changing this situation and does change have to involve social engineering and when social engineering is involved is it true that no profit arises in all cases or just some cases.
“I have news for Khan: Outside the Academy itself, the prestige and status of those successful in the private sector exceed that of those in academia.”
This is simply wrong. The professors at the top of the research pyramid are known worldwide. If you asked a car salesman at Lexus to name the best car salesman at BMW, I doubt he’d have the slightest idea. But, if you ask a physics professor at the University of Tokyo who the best physicists at MIT were, I bet he’s know. Granted, not many people outside of academia would know who the best physicist at MIT is, but not many people know the best car salesmen at BMW either. What is the private-industry equivalent to the Nobel Prize?
I do think that the vast liberal majority in acacemia is a problem, and I have a libertarian technocratic solution!
First, overturn “Griggs vs. Duke Power”, the most important court case most people have never heard of. The court ruled that employees can’t give IQ tests for employment (because IQ tests are RACIST). On the other hand, colleges are allowed to ask for IQ tests (which is what the SAT and ACT essentially are). The BA is a Rube Goldberg machine that gets around this rule. People have to waste 4 years majoring in sociology to prove they are smart enough to do well on a 60 minute IQ test.
Second, stop giving out federally subsidized loans to anyone who wants to go to college regardless of their high school grades or intended major. Private companies would be much more selective in providing loans to people who will actually learn something in college.
I agree that it is a lost cause trying to get conservative sociology professors, but it would be well worth it if fewer people took sociology courses.
@TangoMan:
do liberals profit by forcing their cultural values into institutional realms dominated by conservatives? Do they meet with success when they embark on these efforts?
I’ve been watching the contortions at Marquette University (Catholic) for almost a year now, where the clerical administration, in an effort to appease G-BLT sensitivities, hired a new Dean with G-BLT scholarly credentials and then rescinded their offer of employment after complaints that the candidate’s entire academic ouvre was about various forms of gender-bending. In the ensuing fiasco, nobody on either side of the debate (including many liberal faculty, Catholics who sent their kids to this school, the local Bishop, the press, and sources of public funding) could figure out how to reconcile “inclusiveness” and “tolerance” with “Catholic mission” in the University. Regardless what anyone thinks about “Catholic mission,” certainly a parochial school has some right to define itself parochially. But the big win for the G-BLTs was to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt among people who traditionally oppose them. Confuse the enemy. To your question, then: looks like the libs profited from that. Here’s an independent faculty blog, where you can read the gut-wrenching events as they unfolded last spring and summer: http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/
“Private companies would be much more selective in providing loans to people who will actually learn something in college.”
Actually, private companies do dole out a lot of scholarships, mostly in narrowly technical fields that are of direct benefit to the company’s bottom line. Guess where that leaves the Liberal Arts, which “conservatives” used to defend?
“What is the private-industry equivalent to the Nobel Prize?”
I’m not sure how you missed the rise of the “celebrity CEO” over the last 30 years, but ask the average person to name the CEOs of Microft, Apple, Virgin and Facebook and they’d probably get a couple of them right. Ask them to name a physicist and most wouldn’t know Stephen Hawking, much less anyone else. Hell, ask them to name a non-Peace or -Literature Nobelist and I’m guessing most would draw a blank, considering how good our children are at finding England on a world map.
Why else do the tabloids care about Paris Hilton? Without that name, she’d be just another beautiful trainwreck. With that name, she’s bread and circuses for masses that do, on some level, care.
The idea of the liberal preponderance in the academy is a quite common trope. Here’s a rare bit of journalism about the converse. In 2004 the NPR series THIS AMERICAN LIFE did a story about a trader on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange was is a liberal (or perhaps just centrist) Democrat. This story is “Act Three” of the program, begins about 33 minutes in, and lasts 13 minutes.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/272/big-tent
The professors at the top of the research pyramid are known worldwide. If you asked a car salesman at Lexus to name the best car salesman at BMW, I doubt he’d have the slightest idea.
But the salesman knows of the richest folks in America, or his neighborhood, or at the dealership, more appropriate points of comparison I think.
What is the private-industry equivalent to the Nobel Prize?
Making bank and having respect.
Well, I’m interested in the break up of the Republican Pary, Cpac lead to a break up between the social conservatives that boycotted because GoPride was there and of course the Ron Paul people were in full force. And also Johnson and Christie did better than the social conservatives except for Romeny. I think this is interesting that the libertarians and some of the social liberals in the Republican Pary are not letting the religious right push them out. Believe it or not, George W Bush lead things to this by making various factions mad at him like Immirgation, Trade, and the social issues or even among a few people in the Party the War. Is Bush more divisive than even Richard Nixon. Just wanted to talk about a different subject here.
Second, stop giving out federally subsidized loans to anyone who wants to go to college regardless of their high school grades or intended major.
this is a good idea for many reasons.
I grant you that I’m shifting the focus away from an affirmative action type
yes
This is myopic. Nearly all ambitious and right-thinking individuals attend the Academy, and regardless of what they say it influences their thinking. Professors do have prestige, and people seeking to rise in status internalize their views. Thus a liberal Academy makes for an ever more liberal society.
The conservative impulse to reject social engineering is appropriate in a decent society with a stable order. When liberals succeed in destroying that, it’s time to stop conserving (what’s left to conserve?) and either become a reactionary or a fascist.
Cynthia curran has been taking drugs. Fiscal conservatives, libertarians and neoconservatives have been in control of any so called “conservative” parties for the last decades! Hello? Where have you been? If anything the reactionaries and traditional conservatives are trying to break in the liberal control of nearly all parties in the West and to break away with liberalism and for the first time in decades it’s happening. Thanks to the future great depression coming in the West and many other problems we may even have gated communities. I can’t believe you think “religious right” have any power. We never had any. We never did. We are just finally through and can see that libertarianism and neoconservatism needs to get out and call themselves liberals instead of conservatives. Be a liberal if you want to but don’t dare call yourself a conservative!