Both the Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed give considerable space today to two new studies that purport to show that the (by now inarguable) leftist domination of college faculties is the result more of self selection than bias. The first of the studies featured a rather comically simple e-mail deception, where fake inquiries were sent to graduate-program directors — with some of the e-mails indicating that the prospective grad student worked for the Obama campaign and the others indicating that the student worked for that notorious conservative firebrand, John McCain. Why no mention of, say, George Bush?
The authors acknowledge that working on the Obama and McCain campaigns might not be perfect proxies for liberal and conservative. “We worried that a stronger conservative prompt, such as being a George W. Bush supporter, might — if claims about the extent of hostility to conservatism in academe are true — lead some respondents to question the legitimacy of the e-mail,” they write.
Are conservatives really that rare? So rare that mentioning work for the most recent two-term president of the United States would be so outside the bounds of normality that it would “lead some respondents to question the legitimacy of the e-mail”? I’m afraid they’re right. But what happened when fake grad students mentioned John McCain? Surprise, surprise, they got polite responses. No more. No less. I suppose that proves that grad student directors won’t immediately delete e-mails from someone they believed worked for a politician who was a leading Republican climate-change alarmist, passed comprehensive campaign-finance reform, took a position to the left of his party on immigration, and called members of the Religious Right “agents of intolerance.”
The second, more interesting study, was based on data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which asked respondents to identify themselves on a five-point spectrum ranging from very conservative to very liberal. The study found that liberals were more likely to pursue advanced degrees:
After statistically accounting for other traits that might make some people likelier than others to enroll in graduate programs and seek doctorates, the researchers found that people who identify as liberals are more likely to pursue such a course in life. Moreover, they said, the tendency cannot be explained away by students’ exposure to liberal ideas in college or graduate school, or by factors such as liberals’ relative lack of materialism or interest in marriage at an early age.
I don’t know any serious conservative who disbelieves that self-selection plays a significant role in creating our current, left-dominated faculty. After all, we’re now dealing with several generations of leftist dominance, including — dating back from at least the Sixties — the perception that the universities represent the national headquarters of leftist, counter-cultural dissent. The university faculty, from students’ first substantial exposure to it, looks and acts like a closed shop. The topics they study don’t interest conservatives, and the culture they’ve created is often repellent to conservatives. And because the university culture doesn’t value conservative voices — and only wishes to cleanse itself of the stain of overt bias — it will trumpet studies like these as evidence that disparities are entirely the fault of conservatives. After all, if only we wanted to write more about, say, these topics, then we’d find the doors wide open!
As for overt bias, it’s out there also — just ask Ken Howell, June Sheldon, Mike Adams, Julea Ward, and Martin Gaskell.
My pet theory is that conservatives are infinitely less likely to derive the bulk of their self-esteem from being (thought of as) smart. I won't bore anyone with a dissertation in this regard, but it explains a lot about the kind of people who go into academia, journalism or even become writers/directors in Hollywood.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExactly what is the practical difference between "self selection" and discrimination? Is it that the self selection process is not NECESSARILY discriminatory? What prevents it from being so?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHaving worked on an admissions committee, I have to say how easy it is for anybody to decide that an application belongs to someone who is not "one of us" at any level of admissions to anything. Furthermore, that tacit understanding never even has to be mentioned by a single soul. I am convinced that the "best" schools, the Ivy league, is simply now run by Liberals for Liberals. After all, the third or fourth generation of the children of radicals and leftists are now applying. The take over of the Academy was an Alinskyesque takeover where moderates and Liberals in the 50s and 60s hired Marxists and Activists to show how "open" and diverse and tolerant they were to radical points of view. The problem was that the radicals, being radicals, did NOT follow suit. They did not hire people of opposing points of view. Guess what...they hired more troops, radicals and Marxists. There really is no mystery here and we are stuck for the forseeable future. It is truly a mess.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWonderful. Now, let's see them defend admitions policies as self-selecting.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShortly after California passed Prop 209, I went to one of those recruitment fairs for prospective community college faculty. Wasn't there to look for a job, but rather to see what they had to say. What they had to say was neutral.
Still, I provided my name and address (had to, to get in). Of course, there was the usual "diversity" checkbox thing. So I registered twice. Once was with my true name and check box. Once was with a slightly altered version of my true name that sounded Hispanic and female, with appropriate check box. Same address.
A couple of months later, my Hispanic female alias got a notice from De Anza college in Cupertino, inviting application for a position that (as I recall) was Dean of Math and Science. But my true identity (white male) did not get the recruitment letter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAbeFroman, that's an interesting theory.
If not smart -- what, then? Decent? Pretty? Strong?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@MikeB
"If not smart -- what, then? Decent? Pretty? Strong?"
I'm not sure what you're asking here. My contention is most assuredly not that liberals are smarter in any way. But, rather, that in the case of academics, for instance, you have a group of people with a worldview shaped by positive feedback based on their achievement as students which was in contrast with the ambivalence they faced from peers who placed no value on that in any meaningful social context. It breeds conformity within the parameters which enable them to elicit praise, respect or a feeling of community while also enabling their contempt for anyone who fails to comport with their rather insular mode of thought.
As a result, the academy is overwhelmingly left-wing both by virtue of self-selection and discrimination when the opportunity presents itself.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseConigliolo and Mr. French nail it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA great deal of this self-selection has to do with the types of graduate degrees that lead to further entrenchment in academia (versus degrees that take you out of the realm of academia, like MBAs).
First, the liberal mindset is one of "I can make the world a better place" or "with just the right amount of training/money/policy we can eliminate {insert problem here}."
Second, the programs that reward that sort of utopian thinking are often not the sorts of degrees that an outside employer is looking for.
So, those of a leftist/utopian bent are often funneled back into academia by the lack of a market for their particular brand of knowledge. So, you get an English major that flows into a graduate program because an English degree isn't very marketable; they remain in that general area of expertise, indulging their utopian preferences, and choose "Gender Studies" for their Masters focus; there are *very* few places outside academia that really want to hire someone who has an advanced degree in Gender Studies; they return to academia for another level of sheepskin - narrowing their focus yet more - or to begin teaching.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is the natural consequence of the Vietnam-era 2-S deferment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm a Ph.D. student in a field founded on anti-capitalism critique, Cultural Studies. I'm engulfed by Marx and his legions of marxists reconstructionists. I am a free minds, free market libertarian who chooses to live personally as a conservative.
Why would I choose this course of study? Because, like it or not, Marx has had, and continues to have tremendous influence. Cultural Studies scholars ask relevant questions. Their failing is in their utter disdain for diversity of thought, despite their claims to the contrary. While self-selection plays a role, the truth is too many conservative students aren't able to rationally defend their position. My experience has been that my Marxist profs have respected the challenges I've made to their orthodoxy, engaged in fair debate, and never, ever, punished me for my views.
Conservatives need to "man up" in the classroom and deny the misguided their current role of preeminence.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm a conservative who taught high school for many years before entering a role at a university overseas last year. I was clearly the odd man out -- though I did discover some closet conservatives in my tenure -- but I relished the role and challenged the status quo thinking in conversations with my peers. The response was not to punish me but really, a kind of fear that came into their eyes. Seriously. They didn't know how to deal with a person who said, as I did at a dinner table of academics one evening, "Well, I like Sarah Palin." Talk about a conversation stopper.
My wife and I had many of them over to our small flat for dinner and I developed some good relationships with them. One in particular -- a divinity Phd. from Princeton -- came to value hearing my alternative viewpoint as I did his.
The key, I believe, is for conservatives to enter good-naturedly into the fray, to voice the unspeakable opinion, and to learn to say, "Touche." They love a good touche.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDiversity is merely a screen to hide the quotas that courts won't let them use. Face it, the same reasons that are claimed everyday for making the student population "diverse" have equal validity when applied to the faculty, as do the excuses such as "self-selection."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI posted some thoughts on this issue earlier:
External Link
There's probably a combination of self-selection, discrimination, and peer pressure at work. In fields like physics or chemistry, one's political views are generally irrelevant to the subject matter (except, of course, for the hyper-politicized field of climate science), so one would not expect there to be overt bias in hiring. Yet even so, conservatives tend to be a small minority, and the ones that are by and large tend to keep their political opinions to themselves except in "safe" company. Some "go native" to fit in with their peer group (scientists are human and no human foible is alien to them), yet others become alienated from their surroundings.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am living proof that the climate deters academics not only at the college level, but also in the secondary school market. All other things being equal, I'd love to teach high school, but would not be able to stomach the diversity/PC/peer promotion/zero tolerance and even less common sense climate in the public school system.
I wouldn't last ten days. "Today, students, we are supposed to discuss Kwanzaa. We're going to talk about Praxiteles instead."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI earned my Ph.D. in U.S. history in 2009 and I am a Christian conservative. In my experience, though I did encounter shock or argument when I openly expressed my views (though there were many who respectfully engaged me), the biggest indicator of liberalism was simply the assumption. I lost count of the number of conversations, classes, conference panels, whole conference, etc. where the words used, the topics discussed, the jokes told, etc. communicated: We all agree on this, ha, ha. For example, for the January 2009 AHA (American Historical Association) meeting, the AHA had years before selected San Diego, only to find that the owner of the primary conference hotel had donated in support of Proposition 8. There was talk of boycotting the hotel (dismissed for the cancellation costs) and they decided to have a series of panels at the conference on "historical perspectives on same-sex marriage." I looked at the panel and paper titles, and there was only one perspective offered: pro-gay marriage. The concept of someone having a different opinion or that a real discussion of the issue might allow for different opinions was not even considered. All who opposed the received wisdom were dismissed as bigots and homophobes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think that this self-selection phenomenon can be linked to to the victimization mania in this country. Certain groups of people who claim victimization have like ideas and like voting habits.They love diversity because they think it will lessen their victimization. But then when they have a certain amount of power they circle they wagons and protect what they have because , you guessed it , they will be persecuted and become powerless due to their always being victimized. That's why they don't think anything is wrong with the university situation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIronically when other groups that they think caused the victimization claim victimization themselves, they get into a great agitated state( too many pronouns ). Their arguments suddenly are based on the situation's right and wrong with no heed to victimization or moral relativism.
The truth shall set you free.
The fact that liberals would view the free spending, Wilsonian warrior Bush as "more conservative" than McCain indicates that liberal beliefs are emotional rather than rational conclusions.
From the time of the French Revolution forward, this is a movement based on emotion and is therefore much more unpredictable and uncontrollable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe leftist academics defense of self selection sounds a lot like old time segrationists talking about how blacks really weren't interested in becomming firefighters or police, or entering professiona requiring education and intelligence. Back then this self selection defense was correctly labeled as a hostile work environment.
Conservatives dont go into academia because:
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse1. They know they are not wanted there, and will face constant criticism and socially ostracized.
2. If they try to enter, any conservative research is rejected, and not published. So they must obscure their own views, and tow leftist orthodoxy to get published, and get their PHD, and tenure.
3. The few conservatives that make it anyway, if they dare to out themselves and express their real views, are soon ousted by leftists on some manufactured charge.
4. If you read any leftist academic blogs, conservatives are rutinely described as ignorant, intolerant, resistent to science and facts, etc. This from a community that is far more insular and closed to outside opinions that any conservative community.
5. Leftist academics will inevitably bring up conservative support for creationnism as a disqualification, because they indicate the person is incapable of objective science. But these same leftists are just as resistent and hostile to non fundamentalist conservatives, or libertarians, who have no interest in creationism, and who generally respect science, except when it is politicized by leftists, like climate change.