Um... let me get this straight

So, on the one hand, we have The Wall Street Journal complaining about liberal bias at universities. Again.

Mr. Rothman used statistical analysis to determine what factors explained how academics ended up working at elite universities. Marital status, sexual orientation and race didn't play a statistically significant role. Academic excellence, as measured by papers published and awards conferred, did. But the next best predictor was whether the professor was a liberal.

There are two obvious explanations for Mr. Rothman's results. One (which the Journal seems to be advocating) is that universities are baised toward liberals. The other is that academic excellence is heavily correlated with being liberal. (Of course, the truth is probably a mixture of both.) Admittedly, it's also plausible that the people who accept publications and give out awards—you know, other academics—are also biased towards liberals, but I don't hear that argument much. For some reason, the liberal-bias attack is usually leveled at universities, as though they make hiring and promotion decisions independenntly of worldwide intellectual opinion.

Robert Brandon, a Duke University philosophy professor, is one liberal who has at least made an effort to explain why conservatives are seldom seen in academia. "We try to hire the best, smartest people available. If, as John Stuart Mill said, stupid people are generally conservative, then there are lots of conservatives we will never hire. Mill's analysis may go some way towards explaining the power of the Republican Party in our society and the relative scarcity of Republicans in academia."

Congratulations, Prof. Brandon, you've made yourself look like an ass. Even if you're right.

But Mr. Klein says a better explanation of liberal dominance is the theory of "groupthink," which holds that insular groups tend to adopt a set of uniform beliefs and then act to exclude anyone who doesn't hold those views. One way to combat groupthink would be if donors to universities and regents began pressuring faculties to adopt an Academic Bill of Rights that would forbid university faculties from hiring, firing, and granting or denying promotion or tenure on the basis of political beliefs.

Brilliant! I couldn't agree more. Hiring and promotion should be based entirely on academic excellence—publications, awards, peer reputation, and maybe even a bit of teaching and public service. Political and religious beliefs should play no role whatsoever, no matter how politically incorrect, no matter how unpopular with students, parents, politicians, or even The Wall Street Journal.

Actually, we already have something like an Academic Bill of Rights, namely, the AAUP's “Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure”. See also the AAUP's statement “On Collegiality as a Criterion for Faculty Evaluation”:

Criticism and opposition do not necessarily conflict with collegiality. Gadflies, critics of institutional practices or collegial norms, even the occasional malcontent, have all been known to play an invaluable and constructive role in the life of academic departments and institutions. They have sometimes proved collegial in the deepest and truest sense. Certainly a college or university replete with genial Babbitts is not the place to which society is likely to look for leadership. It is sometimes exceedingly difficult to distinguish the constructive engagement that characterizes true collegiality from an obstructiveness or truculence that inhibits collegiality. Yet the failure to do so may invite the suppression of dissent.

On the other hand, earlier in the same article, the author complains about anti-Israeli bias at Columbia. The New York Daily News has a handy scorecard listing half a dozen rabid anti-Zionist apparatchiks for their readers to harass. Admittedly, a lot of these folks sound like loons, assholes, or both. There's no excuse for browbeating or humiliating students, no matter how strongly you disagree with them. (On the other hand, students have been known to claim ‘humilation’ by instructors for being publicly asked questions on the course material that they couldn't answer. It's never nice having one's ignorance displayed in public.)

But what should Columbia actually do? Censure these faculty for expressing their political beliefs? What happened to the Academic Bill of Rights?!

And why is this held up as an example of liberal bias? Pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli bias, sure. But when did the opinion that Jews have no right to the land of Israel become liberal? I don't recall nationalism—in this case, Palestinian nationalism—being a traditional liberal value. (Perhaps “liberal” merely means “unpopular among Republicans”?)

Update: Oh, right. I forgot about David Horowitz, the actual author of the “delicious” Academic Bill of Rights. See the AAUP's response and Horowitz's counter-response, as well as a this more direct rebuttal.

Comments

[Rudbeckia Hirta]

Another factor at work is faculty salaries. When my conservative classmates in math learned how much faculty earn, the first thing they did was sign up for a class in Financial Mathematics. The second thing was to start calling around looking for internships at investment banks.

[Anonymous]

A post on similar topic today here:

http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/more_friends_of_1.html

[Suresh]

I think this comment, from Keat's Telescope, is indicative:

Before going further, I guess I should self-identify. I am a passionate scientist, and I believe that the Bush administration treats scientific advice (in fact whole categories of advice) as constituting just another lobby. I believe this judgement works to its detriment and peril, and to the peril of my children. And yes, I'm a card-carrying lefty, but one who cares about winning elections and reducing acrimony. I think this makes me the kind person Mr. Adesnik is trying to persuade here. Although Mr. Adesnik is taking some care in critiquing his interlocutor, he nevertheless hurts his case with his own biases. Specifically, when Adesnik says "While I can understand how one might argue that science has discredited creationism, " he should realize that he has already lost me. Science HAS discredited biblical creationism. You may as well say "while I can understand how one might argue that semiconductors can be used in the assembly of complex circuits..." I believe Mr. Adesnik would like people to stop making fun of ethical systems originating from the Bible, which he feels Ms. Shogan has done. Those who know me know I accept this. Wonderful. But if Mr. Adesnik is asking people to recognize cognitive biases, then here's the mirror.

http://keatstelescope.blogspot.com/2004/11/who-are-you-calling-stupid.html

Personally I think this whole "academic bias" meme is unmitigated BS.

I think there is a danger in taking it seriously given that absolutely no significant evidence has been presented in its favour.

There is no evidence that conservatives are systematically denied grad school admission.

There is no evidence that conservatives are systematically denied tenure track interviews or jobs.

There is no evidence that conservatives are systematically denied tenure or promotion.

The simple and obvious hypothesis is that fewer conservatives than liberals choose to pursue academic careers.

Which brings me to my second point: there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong with this.

If there are more liberals than conservatives in academia then there must obviously be more conservatives than liberals in other institutions, so why is it only academia which needs to be "balanced out"?

My conclusion is that liberals and moderate academics should call this BS loudly. There is absolutely no reason to require academic departments be politically "balanced."

Calling for such "balance" is the Right's newest assault on academic freedom and the right to dissent.