Hold Yer Horowitz

By J. Stethers White | Friday, April 8, 2005

One need not be a conservative student to recognize the stupefying ideological homogeneity of college faculty. Any student remotely aware of his environment will quickly realize that most professors are left-of-center. Well, actually, no. Not just "most"—as Professor Daniel Klein demonstrates, the ideological disparity is neither slight nor insignificant. Rather, it is commonplace for a university to be so lopsided that it has nine times as many liberal professors as it does conservatives.

No one—students, faculty, administrators, or otherwise—could credibly dispute the left's dominance of the campus. However, some eagerly question the significance of said dominance: if professors teach objectively, personal political beliefs are irrelevant, or so the fable goes. But accepting this line requires naïvete bordering on willful self-delusion. In the social sciences, subjects enmeshed with public policy, a professor's personal ideology shapes not just his worldview, but also his understanding of the field, and it is this ideologically-filtered viewpoint that he transmits to his students.

Even in areas where politics should be immaterial, a professor's ideology can seep through. As Klein pointed out, English professors may not preach about their politics, but "they choose the books." While I certainly would not welcome classes focusing on Ayn Rand, there shouldn't be a place for I, Rigoberta Menchu, either. Nor should students analyze characters as metaphorical dildos, a task to which I was once subjected in a course purportedly studying Elizabethan drama. Unfortunately, this sort of charade is now so pedestrian, it has become clich�.

The fact of leftist influence in all subjects, from social science to humanities, isn't really contestable, and lately it has received increasing attention. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman took up the problem last week. He briefly toyed with the notion that perhaps self-selection has something to do with the divide before deciding instead that Republicans can't be scholars, of course, since they're all a pack of anti-scientific theocrats. As arrogant and moronic as his latter suggestion may be, the former has merit.

There exists, in fact, many conservatives who hold Ph.Ds, they just are not necessarily found in academe. Some find work with the think-tanks that have given so much to American conservatism: the American Enterprise Institute, Cato, the Hoover Institute, the Heritage Foundation, &c. Others still have found work commercially in a private sector inherently friendlier to conservative views.

Amongst Klein's bevy of data, one statistic illustrates this particularly well: while Democrats working in academe outnumber Republicans 8.6 to one, those outside of it divide 4.2 to one—almost the same as the divide within universities circa 1970. While it ought not be surprising that conservative scholars are probably avoiding an increasingly hostile academic establishment, it would be much more surprising if self-selection alone accounted for the disparity. More likely is that aggressively liberal academic departments are somewhat biased in their hiring practices, discouraging at least some conservative Ph.Ds from working in academe.

This increasing academic lopsidedness does have frightening implications for the quality of education—a worry that activists are mobilizing to counter. Aside from Klein's study, David Horowitz, circus-conservative extraordinaire, published similar findings on liberal bias. Horowitz's solution: an Academic Bill of Rights to protect students' "right" to "intellectual diversity," whatever that is. In addition to recognizing a stew of newfound rights, the document would insist that universities foster "a plurality of methodologies and perspectives" amongst their faculty. Although he began his campaign in Colorado, momentum quickly gathered; both Ohio and the US Congress are considering similar measures, and in Florida, the legislature is considering a bill that would allow students the right to sue professors who don't "respect" their viewpoints.

Frankly, this sort of response is balderdash. Since when do conservatives, when faced with personal adversity, whine about 'fairness' and demand state intervention? "Fostering pluralities" has a better-recognized name—affirmative action—and any true conservative should oppose it, whatever form it takes and regardless of its beneficiaries. Furthermore, any ill-conceived affirmative action scheme wouldn't guarantee a better faculty, but it might very well create a less able one. Ward Churchill and Shelby Grantham notwithstanding, conservatives would still like to believe scholarly accomplishments have something to do with professorships, and forcing institutions to hire token conservatives will not further that end.

New Criterion editor Stefan Beck '04 doesn't much care for Horowitz and his ilk. He believes that academe's liberal bias hurts liberal students the most. Obviously, right-leaning students have access to outlets of conservative thought, which balance the oft-biased views of their professors. Liberal students, meanwhile, do not rely upon the same outlets; relying only upon their professors, they receive only "half an education."

The Right should not resort to diversity mongering, and in doing so, sacrifice its principles for a small tactical victory. The proper response to liberal bias—the truly conservative response—is a stiff upper-lip. Since William F. Buckley Jr.'s God and Man at Yale, conservatives have been quite clearly out of place on campus. But with constant access to the inner workings of the hard left, they have an opportunity to firm their own ideological grounding and to critique that of the Left. It is an opportunity conservatives ought gladly take, rather than adopting some their opponents' most craven tactics.

Hold Yer Horowitz

Article Tools

Related Articles