Tweet
This is an interesting read as are the two articles it links to on the right of the page.
I think it is hilarious that conservatives are now arguing along the lines of "political quotas" because most university academics are liberal. What happened to the "free marketplace of ideas"?
For the record I have never graded a student's paper lower because it contained conservative views; but to the extent that most conservatism is a grab bag of ill-defined prejudices I can see why that might happen.
Presumably this only concerns the humanities and social sciences (and probably excludes economics departments and business schools which are much more right wing). An interesting comparison would be the sciences. Why is it that the sciences are prejudiced against Christian views on the creation of the universe and evolutionary theory? Isn't this a terrible thing? Christian students should righteously agitate for Creationist views to be equally represented in the university!!!
Of course this is not going to happen for the obvious reason that Creationism is not intellectually respectable.
Why must this be different in other subjects like English, Philosophy and History? I'm guessing it's because people believe that these subjects are matters of mere opinion rather than factual investigations, primarily because they deal with values. The problem is that values are as real as anything else - you try to imagine a world without any kinds of value at all.
Moreover the sciences are not value free either - they are supposed to be valuable, so that presupposes a clear conception of value to begin with. Nor is it the case that subjects in the humanities do not deal with facts. Subjects like history and political science are awash in facts (the relationship of philosophy with facts is more complicated since the notion factuality is one of the most important things that is investigated in the subject). More to the point, apart from a few postmodernist cretins, these subjects no less than the sciences are practised in a way that raises logic and argument to the status of holy writ.
So why are the conservatives doing so badly. Well, for one thing it isn't clear that they are across the board. Economics departments have a profoundly right wing bias because the general trend in economics has been towards an increased role for markets and a decreased role for the state (I think that's currently on the turn though). In short, for some time the right have been winning the war of ideas in this discipline.
On the other hand, with the notable exclusion of religious studies, religion has basically been expunged from the curriculum. Perhaps 150 years ago a student could make an argument based on scripture and be taken seriously, that is no longer the case because appeals to religion have been largely discredited in the academic community. And without their religious basis most conservative beliefs on social matters are reduced to the status of unsupported prejudices. One need only consider contemporary studies in punishment. Conservative writers on punishment are largely confined to theoretical justifications of retributivism because all the facts swing the other way. Disciplines like evolutionary psychology are providing us with new ways of thinking about crime and new prospects for effective crime prevention. In the face of such mountainous research, conservative attitudes to punishment are simply seen as irrelevant.
In subjects like history, conservatives are also on the back foot. Since conservatives have historically tended to support established power, the first discovery that most students make on studying history (that the establishment tends to be Machiavellian) tends to lead students with a conscience to move to the left. For example, someone who knows that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a fake, or that the government spies on legitimate protests, is not going to view Bush's excuses with much enthusiasm. This is what accounts for the antiestablishment trend among academics. Conservatism is generally speaking indefensible from a moral point of view. I remember reading about the conservative campaigns against universal suffrage, women's rights, and racial equality. When I see current conservative campaigns against gay rights, it is hard not to remember the lessons of history.
So to some up, the reason that conservative views fare badly at university is mainly because they are not intellectually respectable. In any number of disciplines the facts speak against conservatism. People often complain that those academic brainiacs have their head in the clouds, but what does it say when institutions dedicated to intellectual excellence largely support liberalism? If you don't think it's because the liberals are largely right, then you are putting forth a conspiracy theory. The simplest explanation is that when a general viewpoint is produced by vigorous research and criticism, that viewpoint is more likely to be right (or should I say left).
I think it is hilarious that conservatives are now arguing along the lines of "political quotas" because most university academics are liberal. What happened to the "free marketplace of ideas"?
For the record I have never graded a student's paper lower because it contained conservative views; but to the extent that most conservatism is a grab bag of ill-defined prejudices I can see why that might happen.
Presumably this only concerns the humanities and social sciences (and probably excludes economics departments and business schools which are much more right wing). An interesting comparison would be the sciences. Why is it that the sciences are prejudiced against Christian views on the creation of the universe and evolutionary theory? Isn't this a terrible thing? Christian students should righteously agitate for Creationist views to be equally represented in the university!!!
Of course this is not going to happen for the obvious reason that Creationism is not intellectually respectable.
Why must this be different in other subjects like English, Philosophy and History? I'm guessing it's because people believe that these subjects are matters of mere opinion rather than factual investigations, primarily because they deal with values. The problem is that values are as real as anything else - you try to imagine a world without any kinds of value at all.
Moreover the sciences are not value free either - they are supposed to be valuable, so that presupposes a clear conception of value to begin with. Nor is it the case that subjects in the humanities do not deal with facts. Subjects like history and political science are awash in facts (the relationship of philosophy with facts is more complicated since the notion factuality is one of the most important things that is investigated in the subject). More to the point, apart from a few postmodernist cretins, these subjects no less than the sciences are practised in a way that raises logic and argument to the status of holy writ.
So why are the conservatives doing so badly. Well, for one thing it isn't clear that they are across the board. Economics departments have a profoundly right wing bias because the general trend in economics has been towards an increased role for markets and a decreased role for the state (I think that's currently on the turn though). In short, for some time the right have been winning the war of ideas in this discipline.
On the other hand, with the notable exclusion of religious studies, religion has basically been expunged from the curriculum. Perhaps 150 years ago a student could make an argument based on scripture and be taken seriously, that is no longer the case because appeals to religion have been largely discredited in the academic community. And without their religious basis most conservative beliefs on social matters are reduced to the status of unsupported prejudices. One need only consider contemporary studies in punishment. Conservative writers on punishment are largely confined to theoretical justifications of retributivism because all the facts swing the other way. Disciplines like evolutionary psychology are providing us with new ways of thinking about crime and new prospects for effective crime prevention. In the face of such mountainous research, conservative attitudes to punishment are simply seen as irrelevant.
In subjects like history, conservatives are also on the back foot. Since conservatives have historically tended to support established power, the first discovery that most students make on studying history (that the establishment tends to be Machiavellian) tends to lead students with a conscience to move to the left. For example, someone who knows that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a fake, or that the government spies on legitimate protests, is not going to view Bush's excuses with much enthusiasm. This is what accounts for the antiestablishment trend among academics. Conservatism is generally speaking indefensible from a moral point of view. I remember reading about the conservative campaigns against universal suffrage, women's rights, and racial equality. When I see current conservative campaigns against gay rights, it is hard not to remember the lessons of history.
So to some up, the reason that conservative views fare badly at university is mainly because they are not intellectually respectable. In any number of disciplines the facts speak against conservatism. People often complain that those academic brainiacs have their head in the clouds, but what does it say when institutions dedicated to intellectual excellence largely support liberalism? If you don't think it's because the liberals are largely right, then you are putting forth a conspiracy theory. The simplest explanation is that when a general viewpoint is produced by vigorous research and criticism, that viewpoint is more likely to be right (or should I say left
).
Group think is dangerous. I wouldn't know that more liberal policies are correct if I can't compare them to policies that are silly, stupid, inane, and failing. 
Comment