As I have reported in these pages before, George Mason University’s Dan Klein has done a lot of work on the political bias against conservatives or free-marketeers in academia. Yesterday, over at Freakonomics, Stephen Dudner added to the conversation by commenting on a piece by John Tierney in the New York Times about the bias that “some of the world’s pre-eminent experts on bias discovered an unexpected form of it at their annual meeting.”
Tierney’s note about the bias:
It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.
“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal.
This part is really interesting:
“Anywhere in the world that social psychologists see women or minorities underrepresented by a factor of two or three, our minds jump to discrimination as the explanation,” said Dr. Haidt, who called himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “But when we find out that conservatives are underrepresented among us by a factor of more than 100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate explanations.”
Dubner makes a good point which is that under representation isn’t hard to understand in a self-selecting group. In fact, it is the point of the selection.
The lack of diversity isn’t actually “statistically impossible” in a self-selecting group. But that of course is the point. How can it be that an academic field is so politically homogeneous? What kind of biases does such homogeneity produce? What sort of ideas get crowded out? And how homogeneous are other disciplines?
I have to say that I was surprised at the overt political (leftward) bias exhibited by several prominent economists at the recent American Economics Association meetings, although my sample set was quite small.
Tierney concludes:
In the old version, the society announced that special funds to pay for travel to the annual meeting were available to students belonging to “underrepresented groups (i.e., ethnic or racial minorities, first-generation college students, individuals with a physical disability, and/or lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered students).”
As Dr. Haidt noted in his speech, the “i.e.” implied that this was the exclusive, sacred list of “underrepresented groups.” The society took his suggestion to substitute “e.g.” — a change that leaves it open to other groups, too. Maybe, someday, even to conservatives.
Finally, a recent piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education reports on a new analysis that shows the left-leaning bias in Harvard University Press:
Harvard University Press’s output during the last decade has leaned heavily to the left, according to an analysis published this week in Econ Journal Watch. The press’s slant embodies and reinforces ideological disparities in academe, the paper argues, because faculty members are rewarded for publishing with prestigious presses like Harvard.
The analysis is here.
It would be interesting to understand why such bias exists (especially in economics where my bias tells me that it doesn’t make sense!). Also, does evidence of bias make it go away?
Thanks to Jason Fitchner for the pointer.
I think it stems from lack of self doubt. I am in an executive MBA program so I'm being exposed to several academic viewpoints about economics and finance. What I've noticed is that the more the professor thinks that he/she is an expert in that field, the more they think that they are qualified to dictate to others who are not in that field. So whether or not they started out life as liberal and were attracted to the "air of authority" that academia seems to have or were convinced of it as they became experts in their field, the outcome is the same: they feel qualified to wield the power of government to tell others what to do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOur local Big Ten university, which isn't as liberal as some, finds it perfectly acceptable to employ far left professors who share their opinions with their students whether they want to hear them or not (First Amendment right, you know), but denied the Young Republicans Club the right to use its allotted student organization funds to pay for an appearance by Ann Coulter because she's "too controversial" and liberal students objected.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, the departments (even the hard sciences where I come from) self-select liberals. In Physics, departments are full of people who religiously believe in Manmade Global Warming, for example.
This ignores the fact that conservatives (in my experience) self-select OUT of the process before ever applying for the faculty job. The DrWife and I looked at the 7 yrs for the PhD, 4 yrs for 2 post-docs, & 6 yrs of tenure-track (i.e., temporary) position before we could settle down and have the first kid... and we concluded that that was no life for us. We didn't even bother with the academia route, despite having the proper credentials.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn other news, (room temperature) water is wet.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn economic circles the Keynes model prevails (mostly because we have all grown up with it) and is necessary for socialism to exist. No fiat currency = no socialism. Whether these economists publicly acknowledge it or not they understand that this is true.
On the other hand if we had an economy modeled on Adam Smith's observations we would have currency backed by tangible property the socialism we have would very mostly likely be untenable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI've taken several math & science courses recently (microbiology, anatomy & physiology, statistics) and can't say I've noticed any politics creeping into the lectures.
Sociology, however, is a different matter, and I suspect it's representative of the humanities generally. My sociology text is slanted heavily left; It obsesses about the issues of social justice and inequalities in American society. Search 'sociology' on Wikipedia and you'll find the word 'inequality' appears 5 times in 10,000 words of text. In my textbook, the word appears 3 times in the table of contents alone. Open the chapter entitled "The Economy and Work" and you'll find three basic types of economy described: capitalism, socialism, and communism. I'll quote the first sentence on communism: "An ideal political and economic system characterized by the absence of social classes and a government; all members are socially equal." As Dave Barry would say, I'm not making this up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKind of ironic that the professed core value of leftism, diversity and openness to difference, does not extend to political viewpoints, where even the slightest deviation is vigorously punished, and anybody that is different is persecuted until they are driven out.
The problem with curing the academic political diversity problem is that the standard cure, affirmative action until the disparate outcomes disappear, is something that is opposed by most conservatives. If leftists really beleived in diversity, they would be calling for affirmative action for conservatives themselves, but of course another fundamental charachteristic of leftism is hipocracy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's the chicken or the egg - Does being Liberal attract you to academia (self selection) or does academia make you liberal? Of course the liberal academics will argue the former. I would tend to argue the latter - how else to explain that college students tend to be liberal, but then become more conservative when they graduate and move into the real world? Liberal viewpoints are encouraged by academia - it is only later when the student compares his liberal views with the reality of life outside of academia that he wakes up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJoe L said, "In economic circles the Keynes model prevails (mostly because we have all grown up with it) and is necessary for socialism to exist. No fiat currency = no socialism. Whether these economists publicly acknowledge it or not they understand that this is true."
This economist doesn't understand it to be true. In fact, I argue with great confidence that socialism does not depend at all on a fiat currency. Why in the world would it?
Lack of a fiat currency puts monetary policy on a more-or-less random path. That is all.
The govt can still tax or regulate or own the means of production under a commodity currency.
The choice of commodity currency as a fiat currency has no impact on whether socialism is desirable or how well it works.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI do believe this sad state of affairs is the result of the Gramscian March through the institutions, resulting in what I call a Fear Society Lite (borrowing Natan Sharansky's term).
What astonishes me is the members' utter self-unawareness -- like the fish in water? -- of their tribal imperative to signal membership via the proper (pc) set of political bona fides, whether they are true believers or only doublethinkers out to protect their careers.
Am waiting for the day the whole thing collapses in a preference cascade of doublethinkers realizing they're not the only one who doesn't buy the narrative.
Fear societies, heavy and lite
External Link
Gramsci's long march through the institutions ends at the water's edge
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
Someone might also inquire into salary discrepancies between liberals and conservatives in the university. I know of conservatives in tenured positions at major state universities who earn less than department secretaries. The argument used against them is that publication in conservative journals is not "real scholarship."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere's another factor in the "liberalization of academia" that, I think, routinely gets overlooked - the rise of the conservative academy.
Conservatives have contributed to this disparity by creating their own academic institutions that operate in parallel to the secular academy. In part, they abandoned the public academy for more comfortable ivory towers, where they would not be castigated for their religious and political beliefs.
Visit Regent or Evangel universities, and I'd wager that the disparity is turned on its head, with few liberals represented on the faculty.
I'm not obtuse enough to think that this explains the entire disparity in academia. At the same time, I don't think it can be ignored as insignificant. Conservatives can't credibly critique the liberalization of colleges and universities without owning up to their own contribution to the problem.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePoint of Clarification: I'm also not obtuse enough to think that all "conservatives" are "Christian," by my previous comment is written that way. That's poor composition on my part.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Economics" is not a science, nor is sociology. The whole idea of science is built upon predictability. The problem with economics is, outside of a few basic axioms, the variables in a real world equation consist of people, and people can and do change their behavior in response to the forces that are inflicted upon them, and they do not do so in strictly predictable ways. They come up with strategies that are designed to avoid pain and optimize their own positions.
Just imagine what electrical engineering would be like if copper molecules in a wire could become annoyed and change their electrical conductivity on their own to resist the current which irritated them. Designing a simple electrical circuit would be impossible. When your "variables" are sentient beings there can be no predictability, and thus it is not science.
Economics, sociology, climatology, and astrology are pretty much equivalent. Calling them science doesn't make it so.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm a conservative teaching and researching in a business field--marketing--where, if anywhere, one would expect to find a preponderance of conservatives: but it ain't so. At conferences and in journals, liberal assumptions and bias are everywhere predominant. All the banter and jokes at conferences build on the unstated premise that the interlocuter is liberal. It is consequently harder for conservative academics to present at conferences and publish in top journals--and publications are the currency of the academic realm. No one is surprised to see articles on the homeless published in a major marketing journal (JCR), but I can attest from recent experience that an article can be rejected because it builds on assumptions that are fairly self evident to a conservative--e.g., that economic efficiency is a normative goal or that the customer is the most powerful participant in the supply chain ("tell that to Enron's customers" the editor editorialized in a second round rejection letter). When most of the axioms of one's thought are at odds with the prevailing weltanschaung, the rhetorical task one faces when writing an article can be daunting and sometimes impossible. The challenge when writing (Socrates refused to write for this reason) is to anticipate and answer the objections of an unseen, silent audience. When there are objections on every hand, each requiring a lengthy response to adequately address, it can become impossible to articulate and defend a position within the page constraints of a standard academic article.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI work in higher ed and was at a meeting today in which my boss was INTRODUCING one of our alums with these words, "He worked for the Bush-Cheney campaign, but we won't hold that against him." I almost said, "Why would I hold that against him? I voted Bush-Cheney-- TWICE." She just assumed that the 100+ people in the room were just like her. She was even oblivious to the fact that she probably offended the man.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI chose to not pursue a career as a college professor for several reasons.
First, getting a Ph.D. takes approximately 7 years and it is very easy to wash out if you alienate the wrong professor. This is particularly true of politically conservative students who are prone to alienating someone on the faculty who will then block the student from getting his dissertation topic approved or successfully defending his dissertation. It is very easy to spend 7 years pursuing a Ph.D. and then walk away with a consolation master's degree.
Second, there is a glut of Ph.D.'s who are seeking associate professorships. Most colleges actively discriminate against whites in their faculty hiring.
Third, it is very hard to get tenure. Most associate professors never get tenure and are forced off the faculty in a few years. Conservatives are particularly prone to being forced out because they will inevitably infuriate the vast majority of their colleagues merely by existing.
In other words, almost all colleges actively discriminate against conservative students, the discrimination gets worse as the students seek graduate degrees, and the discrimination becomes almost impossible to surmount as the students become faculty members themselves.
The only way to end this discrimination is for Republican governors and legislators to insist upon hiring conservative faculty members in real numbers at their respective state public colleges.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd yet, here is the USA in the year 2011, our Reichstag fire 10 years behind us and fascism gaining fast.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGo figure.
My confidence that the 'neocons' wisdom is slim. Somehow in the last 20 or 30 years, they've solely gained great enough wisdom to overthrow thousands of years of hard won lessons, paid for in human misery, taking us back to a serfs and lords, root hawg or die civilization. Yeah. I'm iffy on their wisdom. Especially as many of their adherents can't even SPELL the soundbites they throw around so wisely.
cdscott1968, I don't agree that governors are the only route to ending discrimination against conservatives in higher ed.
Today I read an article about a professor who posts lecture-podcasts on a web site, because he is more interested in reaching learners than academics. His topic - JRR Tolkien's Lord Of The Rings - tends to be rejected by the literary status quo as "not real literature" (because after all "everyone knows" that serious literature is defined by genre, subject, and political approach)
If the learning model itself were to evolve, then the entirety of academia would be left standing in the same position as those literary types who believe that somehow Lord Of The Rings isn't significant because it happens to violate the core ("sacred") values of 20th century literature (derived from the lessons of modernism).
All it would take is for what is already happening to be recognized and somehow "gatekeepered".
As people recognize that the main point of college is often more about making network contacts and getting a piece of paper (and real education is something to be gotten outside of the classroom) more people are finding ways around that. It is increasingly becoming clear that having a college degree does not automatically equal professional competence, and more employers are relying instead on different types of certification or verification of abilities.
If this model is evolving into the new reality of education, then there is no need to intervene: the schools themselves are becoming nothing more than social network clubs.
The biggest problem is one we are already confronting - the question of who gets to determine what is and is not "important" (or even "true"), now that so many people are openly skeptical of well-trained "experts" in many fields.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse