The characteristics that define one’s political orientation are also at the fore of certain jobs, the sociologists reported. Nearly half of the political lopsidedness in academia can be traced to four characteristics that liberals in general, and professors in particular, share: advanced degrees; a nonconservative religious theology (which includes liberal Protestants and Jews, and the nonreligious); an expressed tolerance for controversial ideas; and a disparity between education and income.I suppose this implies that conservatives have a lower disparity between education and income, given that they are less likely to choose jobs in academe (I have to assume they are more likely to choose jobs in the private sector where the income is higher).
The article is unpublished (and thus has not gone through peer review), but can be read here. I would have liked to review it for the GBOC, but I've gotta prep lecture for tomorrow, burn my bra and finish painting that protest sign. Such is life in the liberal academic community.
9 comments:
I'm so glad you posted this! I read this article and thought, "Ooh! I need to blog about this" but you beat me to it!
I thought this was really interesting, especially if you consider potential disciplinary differences (i.e., I'd imagine sociology has more liberals "per capita" than other social sciences, and especially more than the natural sciences).
I have some more thoughts about this, but I'll wait to hear what others have to say first. : )
I hope to find the time to read this. It is interesting. In terms of ShockProf's disparity comment...I wonder if because there tends to be a truncated variation in eduction for professors. Since most have PHD and a much smaller percentage of non-professors do not, that sounds a bit confounding. But more importantly, the question is interesting.
I do find it quite interesting the author suggest academics "express" a greater tolerance for controversial ideas. I believe you will find that many nonprofessors disagree. Many academics believe "tolerance" means supporting their "tolerant" viewpoint. It would be truly interesting to explore a study [I mean this quite seriously] to see if academics truly ARE more tolerance or just express it. There certainly is a social desirability effect. I suspect that many academic do not realize or want to own up to how intolerant they are. For example, how many academics would truly "tolerate" a viewpoint in the classroom that homosexuality is unnatural? I truly always wanted to take a women's studies class at MSU when in my PhD program. Yet there was a clear warning that I heard many times....if you push back on the ideology (I have chosen this word very deliberately) of one faculty member in particular you will be bashed both by the professor and the other students. Not in the "heh, isn't learning fun" sort of way. That does not sound like tolerance to me. Although my experiences as a conservatively minded person in academics has generally been quite positive (i have to say, I only rarely felt an clear ideological bent in a classroom environment and certainly NEVER by ShockProf- ain't bad after 10 years post-high school education), I sometimes wonder how many great learning opportunities have been missed in classrooms.
I just read the article. What intrigues me about academics is anytime there is an imbalance - gender, racial, or research agenda - we assume (sometimes rightfully) that there is a systemic problem and attempts are made to "fix" the problem through affirmative procedures. The assumption (often lacking few if any facts) is there is either overt or subvert discrimination in the processes that we create.
Except for this....this is one area where we largely try to explain it away as something more natural and organic. Most liberals scoff at the idea that there is a bias in the classroom. Even the overall bias I can take, but in some cases (again, not always an experience I had but certainly sometimes...especially with a certain Sociology professor at MSU who used to teach the "Social Classes" course) the outright hostility is simply incredible. I yet again raise the often discussed bias among male graduate students I knew at MSU to avoid woman's studies courses. Liberals discount this....explain it away as simply not accurate. As angry conservatives (***gasp***maybe even religious conservatives) who are closed minded. It is ONLY when conservatives make these allegations are they summarily discounted and quite plainly ignored. Any other claim of bias or intolerance is flown from the top of the highest flagpole. I find it more sad than anything. As most of you know - I am quite passionate about what I believe. At the same time, some of my favorite people in the world are those who challenge my views. I learn very little from those that share my views but can really learn a lot from others. That is not rhetoric but fact, fact I often quite enjoy. I truly hope at some point academics as a collective learn that.
I saw the story on this and have not had a chance to read the paper, but hope to soon. I really think that Scooby has a point with his last comment.
Although I don't know Scooby personally, I have gotten into several discussions (sometimes prolonged) with Scooby on this blog and, honestly, I feel that I learned from the experience. And, I don't mean just in the "Oh, that's what someone else thinks" but, "Oh, that is a really good point. The evidence that I know says otherwise, but I can see how Scooby might look at that evidence a different way." In other words, it became an academic discussion that could inform better research.
I have been disheartened on multiple occasions in graduate school and after of people who simply don't listen to conflicting opinions. Although people I know often talk of "teachable moments," too often that flows in the direction of "I will teach you something" and not enough the other way. That does not mean that I have to agree with the dissenting opinion, but that I should value it and evaluate where it diverges from mine and why. And, from a research point of view, how that divergence can be studied to close the gap.
On the other hand, some of the "solutions" offered on the right to this debate are just absurd. David Horowitz makes it very difficult to have a reasonable debate about bias in the academy because of his clownish accusations and proposals. I don't think that conservative litmus tests should be applied to potential graduate students or faculty just like I don't think that race-based affirmative action should promote unqualified candidates. I think that this clownishness has also been bad for public debate. The fact that there are few heavyweight conservative intellectuals left -- probably a bi-product of a lack of conservative voices in the academy -- means that the same clownishness prevails in our debates about public policies as well.
That being said, I think that Scooby is right that we can learn from other places where we have seen some form of overt or subvert discrimination and help encourage those who might not consider a career in academia to enter. Of course, with limited slots, there are questions about prioritizing the multiple forms of discrimination that different applicants can face; but, there is no reason not to consider a dissenting voice, all else being equal.
Mike3550 - your check is in the mail and tell mom I say "hi!" Thanks for the kind words. I think we all learn from one another thus why we do this. I guess the reality of more subtle forms of intellectual bias in academics hit me when I was on the job market last year. During one interview I had there was NO doubt I was being prodded for my political views. It was so obvious to me. I have no doubt it was part of the reason I did not get the job offer. In the end I got a much better job so thank God (sorry to mention God) things worked out for the best.
Yet the intentional bias in hiring practices can also be more subtle. I would be hard pressed to see that a faculty member with pro-death penalty yet solid research record would be hired in most programs. Quite frankly, an individual like this would not even get to the interview stage in many programs. Let’s also say an academic that publically stated they disagreed with affirmative action policies/efforts. Absolutely would not get hired in most programs. The real problem is that such decisions can be explained away in so many different ways that hides the reality. We often use the “jimmy leg” approach to hiring. There are very subtle differences in candidates often that explains why we hire whom we do – “I connected with this person,” “This person seems like they will be a ***good colleague*** (means they will agree with my viewpoints),” “This person values social justice (means supports my political viewpoints).” The term “social justice” GRATES on my nerves. Social justice has been co-opted by the left to mean “supports liberal social policies.” The job I am speaking of above….one person essentially said that to me at one point.
A great example of an academic with an apparent anti-academic establishment viewpoint would be Gary Kleck at Florida State. Great researcher - solid record. Yet his research largely runs against the grain of most left-leaning academics that guns are bad and that gun violence is caused by liberal (read conservative) gun policies. Regardless of his record, Kleck would not get an interview in many programs I suspect because of his viewpoints. Such bias can be masked in many subtle and sinister ways due to how search processes work in many programs.
Bottom line - maybe conservatives shy away from academics because the culture of academics makes them (us) often feel quite unwelcomed....I think I need a hug.
By the way, Go Scott Brown!
OK, weighing in here briefly:
First, Scoob said:
I would be hard pressed to see that a faculty member with pro-death penalty yet solid research record would be hired in most programs. Quite frankly, an individual like this would not even get to the interview stage in many programs.
I think that argument is a bit disingenuous. I think it depends on the reason why that person supports the death penalty.
A criminologist who supports the death penalty on the basis of incapacitative or retributive arguments would not, in my view, encounter much resistance from potential colleagues, at least not formally. Say what you will about the rightness or wrongness of capital punishment, an executed offender has a zero percent chance of recidivating, so it certainly accomplishes the goal of incapacitation. Perhaps I am naieve about this, but I honestly don't believe that expressing such a view would be a deal-breaker for a job candidate. In fact, any professional resistance to that candidate would be inappropriate.
However, if that same criminologist expressed support for the death penalty on the basis of a deterrence argument -- that capital punishment is an effective deterrent against violent crimes, including murder -- then professional resistance is certainly warranted, because that argument is empirically false. That candidate might not get an offer, and might think "They didn't want to hire me because my pro-death penalty view conflicts with their liberal agenda," when in reality it was their disconnect with the empirical literature that was the problem.
I think this is a big part of the problem (and I'll speak only for criminology/criminal justice here, as I know far less about the faculty makeup in other disciplines). We've discussed this before: get-tough drug and crime policies (mandatory minimums, juvenile transfer, etc.) that historically -- though not exclusively -- have been supported by conservatives are often demonstrably ineffective. A criminologist who expresses support for these policies in the face of conflicting evidence has every right to experience professional resistance, even if on the surface it gives the appearance of ideological bias. (By the way, let me be clear that I am NOT suggesting that ALL conservative crime strategies fail and/or that ALL liberal crime strategies succeed. Only that certain policies that are popular with conservatives, like the ones I've mentioned, often enjoy little empirical support.)
Second, I wasn't going to go here, but then I decided I would: perhaps more young conservatives ("real Americans") would pursue careers in higher education if Sarah Palin and her ilk would stop accusing the "academic elite" of undoing the moral fiber of this nation. The populist anti-intellectualism (or anti-intellectual populism, whichever you prefer) that characterizes the GOP base is only hurting matters. Want to see more conservatives in the academy? Then stop demonizing "elite self-proclaimed intellectuals". Just sayin'.
Take a deep breath now Dr.H. There is no big-bad boogie people out there called Bush, Cheney, and Palin waiting to ruin your day. At some point you leftys need to let that anger go. Its ok, just breath. Just ask Martha Coakley, she found that out. These are tired lines and excuses. I find it so intriguing that in this discussion you bring up Sarah Palin. A little Sarah Envy is what I am guessing.
The point I made was not disingenuous at all. The point is bigger than the death penalty - I was using that as an example. The point is that hiring decisions in academics are made based on very loose criteria. Certain qualifications make someone get to one stage of an interview process, but then the ultimate offer is based on many more intangible things - perceptions of political ideology is likely one of those intangibles. Dr.H., my memory of one of your experiences at an interview in a large midwestern city was like that. While the scenario was flipped (you being just a tad of an angry feminist while the largely male faculty were not, why would you not think it happens the other way around. Isn’t that the very reason we wanted to break down what was thought of as being largely white, male, and conservative viewpoint that was more pervasive in past generations of CJ programs? Right, that they structured education and hiring practices to replicate their own ideas – and we needed to deliberately change these to a more “inclusive, open-minded” approach. Why would you think its not the other way around now?
Again, any other disparities in academics are explained as structural problems....this one is just happenstance. You know, luck of the draw…personal choices…something about the cool tweed jackets. Your viewpoint that there is nothing structural about this is naive. Ask students in your classes who feel comfortable indicating they consider themselves conservative if they feel like they are systematically biased against. Isn't that what you would tell me if there were other disparities we were trying to explain? That is what is great about streets, they often go both ways (except for those pesky one-way streets).
Hugs Dr.H!
In retrospect, your statement reinforces exactly what I mean.
Facts: You might think the research has firmly addressed the deterrent effect of the death penalty. It has not. We all know due to the host of methodological problems (small numbers, actual sentences versus actual executions, these go through trends, etc, etc) make the analysis nearly impossible to come to a firm conclusion. There is an ideological bias against it - you have presumed that to be absolute fact and that is the problem. Science SHOULD NEVER get to a point where we have an “ASKED, ANSWERED” mentality.
Just like the research has not firmly concluded if "liberal" approaches to crime are any better than "conservative." Again, you have a selective view of the data. Let's just go back to a famous little report called The Martinson Report...certainly not a ringing endorsement for treatment. See Joan McCord's piece on Cures that Harm and the systematic efforts to exclude certain research from journals...our efforts to "help" many times hurt. Bottom line: While we can draw some general agreement around what you say, don't overplay the hand. It's much more nuanced than that.
Post a Comment