Left Dominance in Academic Hiring - defenses, empirical findings, PC, and law schools

As the right dominates electoral politics, the left's defense of their cultural stranglehold on university and college faculty appointments results in ever more shrill defensiveness.

In part, this is the result of PC orthodoxy itself. PC claims that identity based on race, sex, and sexual orientation ought to be priviledged in the academy - but not political orientation. Defending this contradiction is wearing thin as the 'cultural war' proceeds.

Acclaimed historian K C Johnson (Brooklyn College), whose notorious tenure saga is explained here http://hnn.us/articles/1470.html
explains three of the most prominant defenses for doing nothing at insidehighered and crictizes them.
http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2005/08/26/johnson

Here are are the defenses:
1. The cultural left is, simply, more intelligent than anyone else;
2. A left-leaning tilt in the faculty is a pedagogical necessity, because professors must expose gender, racial, and class bias while promoting peace, “diversity” and “cultural competence;"
AND
3. A left-leaning professoriate is a structural necessity, because the liberal arts faculty must balance business school faculty and/or the general conservative political culture.

Jim Lindgren's post on the above may be of especial interest to law students because of the many comments, 112 and counting, posted by such students here
http://volokh.com/posts/1125075855.shtml


Elsewhere, law prof Todd Zywicki (GMU law) examines these arguments and weighs their empirical plausibility, which he finds lacking.

About the third for example, that conservatives are put-off my the scientific method and therefore don't choose academic careers, he says that this implies that soft fields like theology and english ought to attract more right-wingers than hard subjects like chemistry and engineering. But on the available evidence, this is false.

Zywicki concludes:
"More fundamentally, the authors [of these arguments] are simply incorrect to argue that the religious beliefs of conservatives make them unable to apply the scientific method. As Larry Summers learned the hard way, the modern-day Lysenkoism of political correctness is a faith just as strong, if not stronger, than religious faith. Summers great heresy was to suggest that certain faith-based tenets of the modern academy could be subjected to testing by the scientific method. Make no mistake about it--the orthodoxy of political correctness is just as at odds with the scientific method as traditional religious belief. The only difference, of course, is that traditional religion is shunned in the modern academy, while political correctness is the academy's official religion."
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_08_28-2005_09_03.shtml#1125339674

By Zwicki's personal reckoning, given the political hurdles right-wingers face at every step in an academic career, selecting against academe is an entirely rational decision.


Finally, law prof James ("Jim") Lindgren (Northwestern), a scrupulously honest liberal,
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_08_28-2005_09_03.shtml#1125252745
brings attention to a NYTimes account of a forthcoming law review article on political diversity in law school faculty by John McGinnis, et al,
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/weekinreview/28liptak.html
Lindgren calls it a fair account.

Among his two criticisms, the first is:
"in my studies with the General Social Survey, political ideology is the strongest predictor of views across a range of hundreds of issues that I've looked at--stronger than race, gender, education, class, occupation, age, region, marital status, etc. Those who say that labels such as 'conservative' and 'liberal' are meaningless today are frankly uninformed. Most survey researchers know that these labels are quite salient."

But why do the defenders of academic orthodoxy not know this?

ONe commenter on this phenomenon (see first Jim Lindgren link above)is systems analyst Clayton Cramer, a blogger and well published gun rights historian who couldn't get into either the University of Idaho or Washington State for a masters despite alread having two books out:

"It is true that most academics are not such doctrinaire haters that they would intentionally prevent qualified conservatives from being hired--but it doesn't take too many of the PC bunch making hiring decisions or sitting on tenure committees to effectively block all conservatives from becoming employed--especially when the attitudes KC Johnson quotes are considered acceptable.

"I don't have much confidence that the academy plays it very straight. Some years back, I was applying to grad schools to work on my master's in history. I had just completed my BA in History, cum laude, and the department granted "with distinction" as well--perhaps because I already had two history books published before I received my BA. I had As in every class in my major.

"My GPA for all classes was about 3.8--dragged down by having taken upper division classes in computer science, as well as other classes that history majors don't usually take, such as two semesters of calculus, and the serious sequences of chemistry and physics.

"When I took the History GRE, I scored 91 percentile on the world history section, and 99 percentile on the American history section.

"With those qualifications, you might think that getting into grad school to work on a master's would have been a piece of cake, right? Nope. The only grad school that would accept me was Sonoma State University, where I had earned my BA. Washington State University at Pullman and University of Idaho sent me rejection letters indicating that I wasn't qualified for their programs. When I asked them to explain in what way I was not qualified, I could get no answer out of them.

"It makes you wonder, doesn't it?"

It makes me believe that connections and pull matter more than any objective assessments.

-Orson

 

Aren't you getting tired of this Con loving crap yet? Oh yes, liberals all bad, Cons good. Take a look in the mirror - Cons have been in power for 12 years now - and in total control of all three branches of government for the last 5. In the words of RR, are you better off 4 years ago than you are now? Hardly.

The CONS have been whining and crying for nearly 25 years now - whining about the "mainstream media" when they are the mainstream media. Whining about the schools when the majority of the school board (In Fremont) are Cons - when are you going to stop whining?

Why not post something original instead of cutting and pasting someone else's opinions?

 

Right on the money Mr. Engineer....

Here's something original....

Academe is the last outpost of free thinking and open discussion left in this country. Far from being dominated by proto-communist professors shoving their views down the poor students' throats, professors are struggling these days just to get a pulse out of the product of 12 - 20 years of Reagan, and two Bushes.....

Thinking outside the box is dead with today's youth - which I guess is a victory of sorts for the neo-cons.... They are more interested in cars, material goods, and what Paris Hilton did (or who she did) over the weekend than the pressing issues of the day - oil prices, economic stagnation, war on every horizon, countering radical Islam.

For a bunch of people who control every last dime of assets in this country (i.e., the conservatives, lest I be too obscure), they sure do have a lot to whine about don't they? I guess they won't be happy until all of us are stomping along in unison with our jack boots and giving the big one arm salute to Herr Bush & Co.....

 

CLUELESS IN LEFT-WORLD!

Reading Mr. Engineer and Carl's posts, can i say "clueless?" When claims of whining are met with whining and name calling instead of facts, better argument, and ideas, I'd stop. But not these friend on the emotionalist left!

Engineer asks: "In the words of RR, are you better off 4 years ago than you are now? Hardly."

Here's a few relevant facts from a July 2005 survey from the Harris Poll: ***"With a few exceptions, Americans are generally happier with their lives and more optimistic about their future than are Europeans."*** Specifically, Am's are almost TWICE as optimistic about the future than Euro's - about two-thirds of us compared with a third of the latter. Given my critics claims, this ought not to be the case.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=585

If this unmasks the "failure" of Pubbie leadership, then make the most of it.

-Orson
(ex-Dem, October 1996)
[***emphasis added***]

 

Re: CLUELESS IN LEFT-WORLD!

I can certainly believe Americans are happier than most Europeans. Here's another happiness poll:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3157570.stm

# The happiest
Nigeria
Mexico
Venezuela
El Salvador
Puerto Rico
# The least happy
Russia
Armenia
Romania
Source: New Scientist

I guess Hugo Chavez must be doing a better job than Bush then . Seriously, "happiness" is more a complicated function of culture than a simple matter of politics.

 

We have some similar allegations in Australia.

Costello [The Treasurer] warns against anti-Americanism (registration may be required).

and

.

No wonder we are having such troubles with the supposed "Axis of Evil". They have teachers that do not like the US!

 

Well, I never tend to get involved in the political debates on this forum, since 1) Die-hard liberals and Conservatives are unlikely to convert each other, especially when both sides rely so heavily on the staw-man approach and 2) I feel let down by both the Democrats and Republicans in DC.

That said, since my careers has been in the schools and colleges, I can address a couple of issues brought up by Carl and Mr. Engineer.

Mr. Engineer: Why not post something original instead of cutting and pasting someone else's opinions?

Tony: OK. These are my observations from two decades of work experience. I don't know how original they are, but they are mine, not cut and pasted from someone else.

Mr. Engineer: Aren't you getting tired of this Con loving crap yet? Oh yes, liberals all bad, Cons good.

Tony: Yes, I'm tired of it; but I am equally tired of the "crap" that states "liberals all good, conservatives all bad" or even more absurd "liberals all smart, conservatives all dumb". I work with highly educated liberals and conservatives. I also know a good number of ignorant liberals and conservatives.

Mr. Engineer: Take a look in the mirror - Cons have been in power for 12 years now - and in total control of all three branches of government for the last 5. In the words of RR, are you better off 4 years ago than you are now? Hardly.

Tony: Well, I am personally better off, but I am only one person. I have been severely disappointed that the conservative legislature and executive branches did not make good on their pledges for fiscal conservativeness. However, decades of legislative control by Democrats did not fix all problems either.

Mr. Engineer: The CONS have been whining and crying for nearly 25 years now - whining about the "mainstream media" when they are the mainstream media.

Tony: I don't understand this statement. Talk radio is obviously a conservative-dominated medium and the Internet has made self-publishing, such as blogs and discussion forums (like this one) avaiable to both librerals and conservatives. There is no research to sugges that television and print (newspaper) media are predominately conservative.

Mr. Engineer: Whining about the schools when the majority of the school board (In Fremont) are Cons - when are you going to stop whining?

Tony: Having done quite a bit of work with district and county boards of education and having served on a board myself, I know firsthand that if a district's superintendents, school principals and teachers are of liberal*, that far outweighs the influence that some conservative board members (even if they hold a majority) will have on the daily operation, curriculum and instruction that occurs within schools. Oh sure, board members decide certain general policies, approve contracts, hear boundary and suspesion/explusion disputes and perform a lot of ceremonial functions. But they do not implement the policies and procedures or do the teaching. The politics of the front-line employees who are there every day are much more influential than the politics of a board that meets for a few hours once a month.

*-This is an example. I am not stating that all superintendents, principals and teachers are liberal--I know better.

Carl: Academe is the last outpost of free thinking and open discussion left in this country.

Tony: I have worked for 7 institutions of higher learning. While there is a good deal of free thinking, there is little tolerance for open discussion of many topics and not nearly the tolerance for variant ideas that one would expect. Unfortunate, but true. Colleges and universities are not the last outpost of TRUE free thinking and open discussion. That distinction must go to the Internet.

CARL: Far from being dominated by proto-communist professors shoving their views down the poor students' throats, professors are struggling these days just to get a pulse out of the product of 12 - 20 years of Reagan, and two Bushes.....

Tony: Most professors that I know (including myself) are not interested in shoving their views down student's throats--although there are far too many academic quacks who engage in such educational malpractice. Liberal or conservative professors who fail to develop students' critical thinking abilities by only shoving one side of an argument or topic at them are a dsigrace to their profession.

It is true that professors are struggling to get a pulse out of many students, but to attribute that to Reagan and Bush is really stretching it. Many of my students were in preschool or kindergarten when Reagan left office. Their last 16 years have been equally split between Republican (Bush & Bush) and Democrat (Clinton) presidents--they are products of both.

Carl: Thinking outside the box is dead with today's youth - which I guess is a victory of sorts for the neo-cons....

Tony: Nothing is served by making baseless statements like this.

Carl: They are more interested in cars, material goods, and what Paris Hilton did (or who she did) over the weekend than the pressing issues of the day - oil prices, economic stagnation, war on every horizon, countering radical Islam.

Tony: Precisely...and they are just like the youth of EVERY generation that is more concerned with such things as fast cares, materials goods, pop culture, music, etc., rather than boring grownup stuff like inflation, the economy, what is happening in other countries, etc. The youth during EVERY Democratic presidency has had exactly the same value system.

Carl: For a bunch of people who control every last dime of assets in this country (i.e., the conservatives, lest I be too obscure), they sure do have a lot to whine about don't they?

Tony: Certainly you are not suggesting that only conservatives make money and that liberals have no assets?

Carl: I guess they won't be happy until all of us are stomping along in unison with our jack boots and giving the big one arm salute to Herr Bush & Co.....

Tony: I guess that liberals would have been happier if we were all saluting Al Gore or John Kerry. Surely each side wishes that it had everybody. The fact that we can vote for one or the other makes us different than the one party rule of Nazism or Communism provides is part of what makes this country great. I do not understand why imitating the Nazi symbol (a repugnant thing to every conservative that I know) would make any conservative (or liberal) happy.

The liberal and conservative sides each have their many strengths and weaknesses (usually in their application, not ideals). Caracatures of one or the other does little to stimulate the "free thinking and open discussion" that both you (plural) and I value so highly.

 

I assume you mean "are you better off now than you were four years ago?"

If so, the answer is YES!

Aren't you?

 

Re: Re: CLUELESS IN LEFT-WORLD!

While I like and enjoy New Scientist, the Beeb's source above, there are significant problems with the subject. Although sociologists have been collecting data on happiness for a long time (SEE http://www1.eur.nl/fsw/happiness/ - this database began in 1946), psychologists have been slow to make sense of what happiness means and how to experience more of it. Thus, Martin seligman's new program at Penn to redress this lack. http://www.upenn.edu/researchatpenn/article.php?600&hlt

Here's one confounding example, take Mexico, which ranks number two on the list. A recent poll also tells us that 30-40% of Mexicanos would move to the US if they could! Even among those with universiy educations, the number was about a quarter. Is happiness compatible with a strong wish to move? (I won't try to resolve this problem - I'll merely show how it undermines drawing any firm conclusions.)

But what we do know from comparative data is that the happiest people tend to be in more traditional societies, lacking (or resisting) the embrace of such revolutionary notions as meterial progress - ie, people who don't measure themselves against change. So the more meaningful measures are between those like us that do, ie, Europe and other developed nations.

Clearly expectations about the future (ie, optimism) - which have been studied by economists for decades - is important to progressive societies. It can make the difference between recession and unemployment and prosperity and work. We also know that such things matter in the US, politically, since American elections often ride on such perceptions.

For what it's worth, here's very recent data on happiness:

"World Happiness Index"
Rank / Nation

1 Puerto Rico
2 Mexico
3 Denmark (the only EU nation to exceed
the US in optimism in my
above post)
15 US
25 Singapore
42 Japan
48 China
49 South Korea
82 Indonesia
-------------
SOURCE:
http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/biz/200412/kt2004121015562011860.htm

A large nation like the US appears not to do too badly. Yet the Korea Times (see link) attempts to make sense of this list, demonstrating only how hard it is to draw conclusions - just like I've said.

-Orson