David S writes: >I see that Paul Krugman has analyzed the problem and concluded that the reason >conservatives don't do well in academia (other than self-selection) is that >conservatives are creationists: ... Yeah, that must be the reason.<
I thought what PK was saying that it was a more general problem than so-called "creation science/intelligent design theory." It's more an attitude that theology should dominate logic and the like. But what is a "conservative," anyway? His definition doesn't include libertarians, who aren't exactly "conservative" in the traditionalist or religious sense of the word. Libertarians and their ideas do very well in economics departments, dominating the field. Or maybe they do fit the theology framework, since they worship at the altar of the Invisible Hand. (The IMF sacrifices entire economies (or rather, their non-rich populations) at that altar.) >I would certainly agree that self-selection is a major factor. The >conservative best and the brightest go to law and business school, whether >they graduate into well-paid positions, which allow them to buy homes and >raise families in comfort. For whatever reason, those on the Left rank those >values lower, and are more prepared to lead lives of activist/eternal grad >student at the economic margin.< I don't think the Left differs on these values. Rather, it's more tolerant. Conservatives -- including conservative Leftists -- hate homosexuals, whereas most Leftists and libertarians don't. One thing that's often forgotten is that most of US society (i.e., corporate society) is hostile to leftists. That's one reason why they go to safer places, such as academia. >However, notwithstanding self-selection on the average, there is a cohort of >very bright conservative students at the margin who are interested in >avademia, but explicitly and implicitly discouraged from going into academia. >If you are a potential grad student who voted for George Bush, you are going >to face a variety of professional and personal obstacles to career success. >Although the evidence is anecdotal, I don't see how this can be disputed. >To be clear, my complaint is not that there is a disparity in academia and >isn't that unfair to potential conservative professors. My complaint is that >academia suffers from the absence of conservatives. Speaking from experience >(UCSB in the mid-1980s), I intentionally took an English class from a >"critical theorist," sociology from Richard Applebaum (a socialist), a grad >class on C. Wright Mills from Richard Flacks (legendary 60s radical), >contemporary political theory from Cedric Robinson (a Marxist), >post-industrial capitalism from a Left perspective, and others I cannot >remember. I wanted to understand the "other side" and had the opportunity to >learn from very smart people. However, if I was a Lefty and wanted to do the >reverse, my options would have been very limited. There was one Straussian in >the poli-sci department teaching theory, and the econ department was hardcore >neclassical (students in econ 1 were required to watch Free to Choose videos). > Perhaps there were others I was unaware of. But as a practicable matter, the >only way the Lefty could have learned the "other side" was to go to a >non-conservative professor and ask for reading recommendations, which is >obviously not the same as having a real, live person as a teacher.< Needed is a clear definition of "left vs. right" and a serious statistical analysis. Anecdotes are mostly useful for contradicting sweeping generalizations or for deriving new theories. >I just don't think it is good for the university where there are entire >departments where not only did not a single person vote for George Bush, but >no one in the department even knows anybody who voted for George Bush. It >seems very insular and less than ideal for a university allegedly devoted to >critical inquiry.< It suggests that academics typically have above-average educational achievement. JD
