By Rachel Lu
Thursday, June 02, 2016
Give Nicholas Kristof credit. He really is trying to
persuade liberal academics to be more welcoming toward conservatives. Twice
within the last month Kristof has raised the issue in the pages of the New York Times, arguing that academic
liberals have become “the illiberal ones” by marginalizing conservatives within
the academy. In his latest, he even wrote that the disdainful attitude he has
perceived toward Evangelical Christians “feels to me like bigotry.”
At moments like these, there is some temptation to sneer
and shout, “Welcome to the world!” We shouldn’t. This was a significant
gesture. A liberal New York Times
columnist just used the b-word to refer to liberal
academics. More amazing still, the purported targets of this bigotry are conservative Christians. That’s brave.
If I had read such a piece in graduate school, I would have raced out to buy a
copy of the paper so I could tape the column to my fridge.
Is it true? Clearly it is true that conservatives are dramatically underrepresented in the
academy, particularly in the humanities. As Kristof notes, it is easier in many
disciplines to find a self-described Marxist than to find a Republican. (And in
fact, the numbers aren’t close. About 18 percent of social scientists
self-identify as Marxists, whereas Republicans represent 7 to 9 percent.) That
raises two further questions. Why has this happened? And is it a problem?
It is a problem, first and foremost because liberal
intolerance adds to the insularity that is already undermining scholarship.
When everyone in a scholarly community thinks in similar ways, echo chambers
start to form, and sloppy studies or arguments are accepted with insufficient
scrutiny. We’ve seen some
appalling examples of that blindness in recent years. Of course, whenever
this point is raised, somebody races to point out that ideological diversity is not the same as political diversity. We want a scholarly community to include a
stimulating range of perspectives, but party affiliation may not tell us
whether that goal has been achieved. The Democratic-party platform says nothing
specific about the proper interpretation of Plato’s Symposium. That’s true, but let’s not miss the forest for the
trees. We have good reasons to think that our universities are suffering from
insularity and groupthink. At the same time, we can see that religious and
politically conservative perspectives are dramatically underrepresented. Are
these things connected? I think they are.
Of course, there are further reasons to favor an academic
environment that is more welcoming to conservatives. It’s healthy for
undergraduate students to encounter a broad range of perspectives in their
college years. Pervasive bias also undermines the Academy’s influence.
Americans start to disregard scholarly work when they correctly perceive that
most mainstream institutions have established political and moral perspectives
that are wildly out of sync with their own. It detracts from the university’s
credibility when its faculty is so obviously out of sync with the American
mainstream. Finally, in a politically divided nation, it’s just not fair to use
public funds to finance institutions that function to a large degree as
partisan intellectual strongholds and indoctrination centers. If universities
hope to retain public support through years of painful budget-balancing, they
should make more effort to avoid such obvious bias.
This leads us to the question of the hour: Why aren’t there more conservatives in
academia? One reason is fairly obvious: open prejudice. When a significant
share of faculty admit that they would be less likely to hire someone they knew
to be conservative or Evangelical, it’s not shocking to find that those groups
are underrepresented in the academy.
Discrimination in hiring isn’t the whole story, though.
Responding to Kristof’s piece, sociologist Neil Gross argued that “a larger
reason why there aren’t so many conservatives in higher education has to do
with self-selection, which is to say that one generally doesn’t find an equal
number of PhD candidates applying in the academic job market.” In other words,
job applicants, like professors themselves, tend to be disproportionately
liberal. This is especially the case in the social sciences.
To his credit, Gross mostly dismisses theories that hold
conservatives to be naturally stupid or intellectually uncurious. (He admits,
however, that these theories have a non-trivial following among liberal
faculty.) Instead, he tentatively supports the theory, that in our society,
it’s just become normal to think of universities as comfortable places for
liberals. He writes:
During the progressive era [there
were] big fights over the meaning of academic freedom, as a small number of
very left-leaning social scientists found themselves in big public tussles with
university trustees over their calls to break up big capital. I think it has
resulted in a show that academia was a hospitable place for people with
liberal-leaning views.
That social definition of what it
meant to be a professor spread and became established. Increasingly, liberal
students who were academically talented said, Hey, this is a professional
career I can really see myself being in, and conservative students didn’t. For
me, that is what the driver of this is.
As a conservative and erstwhile academic, I find this
quite exasperating. Gross seems to be
making a good-faith attempt to understand the phenomenon. But even though
substantial numbers of faculty openly admit to harboring prejudice against
conservatives and traditional religion, he doesn’t think prejudice is the real
problem. Job applicants are disproportionately liberal. From that, we can see
that conservatives are simply choosing not to pursue academic careers.
Departments then have little choice but to hire liberals.
That makes sense until we recall that in order to apply
credibly for an academic job, one must first be ensconced within the academy
for at least seven or eight years. First comes college, and then a
master’s-level degree may be needed to secure a spot in a competitive doctoral
program. (Of course, conservatives could be screened out at any of these
stages.) After that, you need to spend three or four years trying to impress
the professors in your graduate program before you have any chance of securing
an academic job. These may very well be the same professors who openly admitted
on a recent survey that they probably wouldn’t hire you if they knew you were,
say, a religious conservative.
So yes! Lingering stereotypes from 1960s labor disputes,
as Gross suggests, are probably the main thing driving conservatives from the
academy! That’s absolutely plausible.
I don’t wish to sound bitter, because I greatly enjoyed
my years in academic philosophy, and I didn’t encounter as much open disdain as
some might suppose. Most professors and colleagues were at least polite about
my politics and faith, and some were conscientiously respectful. (I have a
particularly touching memory of a liberal atheist professor insisting on hiring
a substitute for me, at his own expense, so that I could attend my Good Friday
service.) I still have many liberal academic friends who do seem to want their
departments to be welcoming to religious traditionalists and conservatives.
Partly for that reason, I am less despairing about the future of the academy
than many of my conservative colleagues are.
Nevertheless, I find that most liberal academics (even of
goodwill) tend to be unrealistic about the potential for traditionalists and
conservatives to succeed in their departments. Even when people are nice about
it, religious conservatives in the academy are very well aware that they are freaks. That’s a serious
problem from the perspective of professional development, because success in
the academy isn’t just a matter of jumping through the right hoops. You need to
find like-minded people and persuade them to induct you into their
conversations. How do you do that if you’re an ideological Martian from the
get-go?
Even if people are friendly, they aren’t likely to pick
you for their team if your entire perspective seems radically strange to them.
The academic job market is punishing already, so you really need those
enthusiastic friends and mentors if you are to have a shot at climbing the
crag. I think many conservatives and traditionalists spend their early years of
graduate school furiously searching for a way to insert themselves into ongoing
scholarly conversations without selling out half of the things that they really
believe. Is it surprising that some give up before they get to the
job-application phase? That many assess the situation a bit earlier, and pursue
other careers? Or that some go in as conservatives but no longer self-identify
that way by the time they hit the market?
Liberals have spent years preaching the importance of
“diversity.” They have a huge, color-coordinated file full of strategies for
giving a boost to disadvantaged groups. It’s time to consider whether there’s
anything in that file that might help traditionalists and conservatives.
No comments:
Post a Comment