***
The Lopsided Ivory Tower: Reflections on a Controversy Occasioned by a Conference
"The vast majority of professors, at most public universities and many prestigious private ones as well, hold and espouse views that are liberal-to-left and advance their views by affiliating themselves with the Democrat party. As a result, there is less intellectual "diversity" on campus than in the society at large. This want of diversity is said to violate the core ideals of higher education and to skew both research and instruction, as well as undermine the credibility of higher education in the eyes of taxpayers, many of whom may be disinclined to support politically lopsided campuses...
It is unlikely that any group possesses the only truth and the whole truth, as John Stuart Mill reminds us in On Liberty: "Popular opinions are often true, but seldom or never the whole truth. They are a part of the truth; sometimes a greater, sometimes a smaller part, but exaggerated, distorted, and disjointed from the truths by which they ought to be accompanied and limited." In other words, it is imperative that truth-seekers listen to, and sometimes embrace, the claims of rivals. This is the most effective and reliable method for analyzing and resolving social and political controversies:
In politics, again, it is almost a commonplace that a party of order or stability and a party of progress or reform are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life.... Each of these modes of thinking derives its utility from the deficiencies of the other; but it is in a great measure the opposition of the other that keeps each within the limits of reason and sanity. Unless...all the other antagonisms of practical life are expressed with equal freedom and enforced and defended with equal talent and energy, there is no chance of both elements obtaining their due; one scale is sure to go up, and the other down. Truth, in the great practical concerns of life, is so much a question of the reconciling and combining of opposites that very few have minds sufficiently capacious and impartial to make the adjustment with an approach to correctness, and it has to be made by the rough process of a struggle between combatants fighting under hostile banners.
... Almost every department in the humanities and social sciences has instituted in the curriculum--to some degree and in some way--politically orthodox approaches and topics. Class/Race/Gender approaches, which now permeate the humanities and social sciences (and are increasingly found in other disciplines and professional schools), incorporate an avowedly left-leaning political orientation. Many of the "studies" disciplines--African-American Studies, Women's Studies, Gay/Lesbian/Bi-sexual/Transgendered Studies, Pornography Studies, Peace Studies, White Studies, Fat Studies, etc.--promote a generally leftwing appraisal of the world. Middle Eastern Studies, for example, has been so warped and corrupted by anti-Israel and anti-American biases that, according to Martin Kramer, it has repeatedly failed to foresee or understand tectonic changes in the Middle East, with tragic human consequences. Cultural Studies--an interdisciplinary field focused on the poetics and politics of popular culture--has been shaped by leftwing theorists, including Marx, Sartre, Foucault, Lacan, the Frankfurt School, and Gramsci. The assumption governing these "study" areas is that the Truth has been found, and it merely needs to be conveyed to students...
The Center for Survey Research and Analysis (CSRA) at the University of Connecticut surveyed randomly chosen undergraduates in the top 50 colleges and universities (as listed by U.S. News & World Report). Forty-nine percent of the students surveyed said that their professors "frequently injected political comments into their courses, even if they had nothing to do with the subject." Twenty-nine percent of the respondents felt that they had to agree with the political views of the professor to get a good grade. Forty-eight percent reported that panels and lecture series on political issues seemed "totally one-sided." Forty-six percent said professors "used the classroom to present their personal political views." And 42% faulted reading assignments for presenting only one side of a controversial issue. A majority of the students responding considered themselves liberal or radical. Only 10% of the respondents were majoring in political science or government. The vast majority were studying subjects like biology, engineering, and psychology...
A study by Redding of articles appearing in American Psychologist between 1990 and 1999 revealed that 96% of the articles expressing any political views expressed liberal views. As Redding also points out, research is distorted in another way as well--by the exclusion of research that might correct one's own. The works of avowed conservatives (inside and outside academia) are rarely read and cited by academic researchers (unless to be sneered at). The prevailing assumption seems to be that nothing is to be learned from conservative scholars. The exclusion of conservative viewpoints has an insidious effect on intellectual honesty, creativity, and progress. As Redding puts it, "lacking political diversity, we maintain a dominant liberal discourse that may result in the biased evaluation or exclusion of conservative ideas as well as undue confidence in the validity of liberal paradigms, thus undermining the accuracy of our scientific theories and findings"...
In 2002, Boston University held a conference on "The State of the Social Sciences." Session III addressed the issue of "The Political Leanings of the Social Sciences." One participant, Peter Wood, pointed out some of the negative effects of ideological commitment and uniformity. First, they induce scholars to lie and to accept the lies of others to advance a political agenda. There is little interest in uncovering inaccuracies in congenial research, and when these inaccuracies do come to light, they often are either ignored or denied. Second, they induce scholars to engage in self-deception. Social scientists are prone to identify with the people they think they should help. This identification provides a powerful incentive for social scientists to interpret data in ways that might advance the cause of people in need of a break. Third, social scientists who live in a political echo chamber move to the extreme, nursing the notion that "we can erase human nature, or that there is no such thing as human nature, that it is all culture, it is all therefore malleable, that we can change the world to suit some sort of ideal." For Wood, this is putting "social science in the service of something that ultimately is destructive" to both the social sciences and the people that are supposedly to be helped (191-92). And fourth, a lopsided political commitment within the social sciences poses a danger to academic freedom. Academic freedom is predicated upon truth-seeking and commitment to fairness (192). Academic freedom guarantees that scholars can "freely question and teach and pursue ideas where ever they might lead us. But if we are engaged in lying, if we are engaged in self-deception, if we are engaged in a wrongful sort of utopianism, I think we put that academic freedom in jeopardy" (Wood 192)...
Many academics find nothing wrong with the current ideological lopsidedness of higher education. As professor Hollinger blithely put it, what's the problem with a given department being 90% Democrat? Although he used "90%," I think he would ask the same question if it were 100%. Hollinger sees nothing problematic with this situation because he does not see Democrat/left values and policies as biased. They are the "truth," and 100% of the "truth" is a Good Thing. Hollinger believes that these values and policies are "true" and "good" because he assumes that they have undergone authentic and rigorous vetting. According to his thinking, then, what liberal academics believe must be morally and intellectually superior to those of their opponents. This is why he sees any effort to redress the political imbalance on campus as a nefarious conspiracy against the truth.
This sense of ethical superiority is reinforced by the widespread conviction amongst academics that one of their most important professional duties is to wage war against racism, homophobia, sexism, and imperialism. These terms, of course, can mean what Humpty Dumpty wants them to. They are almost always defined to condemn attitudes and policies that differ from those espoused by the left. A Republican or conservative is, by definition, a "racist," "homophobe," etc. The notion of allowing more of these intellectually impoverished and morally vile people into the citadel of higher education must strike many on the left as absurd and reprehensible. Given this widespread and unquestioned "conservaphobia," no amount of evidence or argument is likely to convince a critical mass of academics to make room for right-of-center colleagues to any significant degree, if at all."
