Academia Hostile to Conservatives? The Jury’s Still Out
Is there a strong bias against conservatives in higher education? Researchers have produced numerous studies to examine this question. They have sought to measure bias quantitatively through various surveys. Usually they conclude that there is little evidence of bias, and that people who say there is are merely crying wolf.
In a new in-depth essay at NAS.org, NAS Chairman Steve Balch argues that the burden of proof should rest with those who deny bias: they must prove that it does not exist rather than demanding proof that it does.
Dr. Balch’s timely essay comes the week after NAS published “They So Despise Her Politics – Do Conservative Faculty Members Get a Fair Shake?. That article describes the case of Teresa Wagner, who believes she was denied a teaching position because of her conservative politics. There we published documents from Wagner’s lawsuit against the University of Iowa College of Law.
What do you think? How can we know for sure whether conservatives face systemic discrimination in the Ivory Tower?
Given the kind of posts on higher ed that I read at various conservative web sites — National Review, Pope Center, ACTA, NAS (even though you don’t like to be considered “conservative”, the rest of the world surely will) — the constant hostility to faculty — even sometimes opposition to having research at universities! — opposition to government funding of education and research — I would not be terribly surprised if higher education would be suspicious of conservatives.
As I’ve noted before, any faculty candidate at a research-level university who expressed opposition to research or government funding would automatically be DOA.
The conservative reaction to “Climategate” won’t help conservatives who want to go into science. When that Republican state official decided to go after that climate researcher who had formerly work in-state, it sent shudders through the science people I know who were aware of it.
I thought Kerry Emmanuel’s piece, while somewhat self-serving, was a good overview. Forced to make a choice between “conservative” academic values and science, I and other like-minded beginning scientists are going to have an easy, even though somewhat painful choice.
It’s difficult to know what Jonanthan is referring to, since he doesn’t cite anything specific, just some unnamed and unsourced “conservatives” who are apparently very, very scary people. When on earth did anyone at this web page declare opposition to conducting research at universities? Some of our posters have indeed lamented the quality of what passes for “research” these days, but that’s not what you seem to be saying. And as far as threats to scientific inquiry are concerned, I’d think that some of the most significant ones come from within the academy’s walls, not from yahoos and primitives external to them. Have you talked recently, for example, to any biologists who’ve concluded that sex differences are largely innate, rather than “socially constructed” as the ascendant feminist orthodoxy holds? Former Harvard president Larry Summers could fill you in on that one. Or suppose you conclude, as Columbia psychiatrist Robert Spitzer did several years ago, that homosexuality is not necessarily innate and immutable as you’d better believe it is on so many campuses. Watch out. Better, take cover.
In any case, I’d say that the sciences are actually a little friendlier – or at least less hostile – to “conservatives” of whatever variety than other academic venues are. In the humanities and social sciences, for example, I think it’s sometimes easier to find three-legged people than political or academic “conservatives.” Ironically, it’s also where you’ll find some of the most virulently anti-scientific sentiments anywhere, among feminists, afro-centrists or gay activists. It’s curious that this doesn’t seem to be a problem for you.
Some names? I’ve had an exchange or two right here in these blog comments with George Leef. Richard Vedder comes to mind. Mark Bauerlein — an English professor! — had a piece somewhere about science research. True, he had coauthors in science who are also apparently NAS people. Of course, your own Peter Wood who if I am not mistaken came down on the side of the attorney general who is going after the Penn State professor involved in “Climategate.” If I have to choose between the attitude of Peter Wood and Kerry Emmanuel expressed here, it’s not going to be a hard choice.
It’s not that I’m unaware of threats to the academy from within. It’s just that it’s dismaying to see it rapidly growing on the other side. Your own jibe about “quality of what passes for research” is an example. Having submitted my first research, this does not help the frame of mind I will need in the job market.
By the way, you raised a question elsewhere about rising college tuition, where does it go. I’m no expert on college finances, but my bet would be the largest chunk of it goes to fund salaries for faculty and staff in departments like the one you belong to.
We seem to have some difficulty in communicating, Jonathan. I’m not referring simply to scientific research, but am using the term more generally. Even so, you’d do well to consult the writings of a scientist such as Richard Lewontin, who has often been irked by the baloney some of his peers have willing to spout, in order to assure continued research funding or public visibility. See for example his lengthy essay in the New York Review of Books, 1/9/97, vol.44, no.1. I also suggest that you read Peter Wood’s piece again, since you seem to have missed his point, as I think you’ve done with the other authors as well. We see nothing wrong with holding anyone, scientists included, accountable for public funds that they’ve been given the use of. You don’t really believe, do you, that scientists are entitled to say “Give us the money, and don’t ask any questions. We’re scientists.” As I observed in a comment attached to that article, if you’re going to take the governor’s nickel, then you have to expect to reckon with his accountant, same as all other grant recipients. What’s wrong with that? I don’t see how it’s an attack on science, or advocates eliminating scientific research.
I’m not sure why you think that tuition increases are going to boost faculty salaries or departmental budgets – if only that were true. Off the cuff, I’d attribute continually rising costs to the construction of dorms that resemble five star hotels, ever burgeoning residence life staffs, innumerable deans of diversity, of institutional quality, sustainability, etc. etc.
In any case, we aren’t the least bit afraid of controversy or passionate, principled disagreement, so why don’t you do as Kerry Emmanuel did, and submit your own piece? We’re happy to provide a forum for the genuine engagement of ideas that’s so often lacking in the contemporary academy.
Ah, Richard Lewontin, the Marxist foe of sociobiology, hybrid corn, and agribusiness. He might make a good recruit for NAS! He’s right, we haven’t defeated cancer, not back in 1997, not now. Maybe the whole effort has been a blunder, even if we haven’t done badly against some other things like heart disease. Maybe we should shut down the National Institutes of Health and then stop teaching molecular biology. Until someone comes up with the secret of immortality. Now that would be some hype.
Nice try at putting words in my mouth, but no, I “don’t really believe that scientists are entitled to say “Give us the money, and don’t ask any questions. We’re scientists.” If you’re really interested in scientific accountability, I suggest you read up on some real cases of scientific fraud, in which institutions have had to return tens of millions of dollars in grant money, in which individuals sometimes have paid monetary and certainly professional and employment penalties.
The thing with the Climategate professor is, few people in their right minds — — who actually know anything about his paper — thinks he committed anything that could be considered fraud, certainly not in a legal sense. Including people who think the “hockey stick” was not the greatest piece of scientific work. So when gangster politicians start coming after people like that, some people get upset. Some even think it’s “very very scary”.
Rather than writing “off the cuff”, since you’re posting graphs and so forth on college tuition, why not do a bit of research on where the money really goes. Do they really use tuition money to fund dorms in your part of the world? Do you really think a tripling of tuition (after taking into account inflation) really all goes into deans? Have you followed your departmental budget for the past 30 years? I’m not suggesting that everyone should do this, but if you’re going to post articles about the subject, it’s a good idea to at least do a little homework.
Jonathan;
Can you possibly leave your gun in its holster a bit longer before you react? You write as if you’re corresponding with someone else. Why the reflexive confrontationalism and hyperbole? I’m aware of Lewontin’s politics, but does that negate his point? In any case, please read Peter Wood’s article again, since he offers only cautious and conditional support for the Va. AG, acknowledging that the power of the state could certainly be abused in such instances. I’m also well aware of the occurance of egregious cases of scientific fraud, but I wasn’t addressing that issue. My point – and Peter’s – focused on the accountability of anyone who accepts public money to the appropriate public officials, in this case an AG. I don’t see how that’s putting words in your mouth.
I responded to your speculation about rising tuition costs with some tentaive observations of my own, and you once again came out swinging. The graph that we posted wasn’t ours and certainly couldn’t be seen to pose as original research. We picked it up because it nicely illustrates the indisputable fact of exponentially rising tuition costs relative to other economic sectors. There may be various reasons for the increase, although my in own opinion those expensive dorms and vastly expanded bureaucracies and support staff weigh heavily in the final tally. In any case, we don’t think that the students who pay these bills are getting their money’s worth.
But what about my invitation? Why don’t you write something for us as Kerry Emanuel did? You’d reach a larger audience, since many readers don’t follow discussion threads such as this one as closely as they do the front page items. Just do tone it down a bit, eh? The offer stands.