Thanks for this piece. What I have noticed in academia is that the shortage of right wingers on the faculty is not seen as something to be redressed, but a source of smug satisfaction. I've been told, with a straight face, that there are no conservatives because "they're too interested in making money [to pursue academic careers]" and ev…
Thanks for this piece. What I have noticed in academia is that the shortage of right wingers on the faculty is not seen as something to be redressed, but a source of smug satisfaction. I've been told, with a straight face, that there are no conservatives because "they're too interested in making money [to pursue academic careers]" and even "conservatives are too stupid to do a PhD". The lack of curiosity, as there would be about any other underrepresented group, is truly staggering.
More insidiously when I've pushed the issue, some responded that making an effort to hire right wingers would lower standards (!!). (This argument from the same people who would be outraged if you made this criticism of affirmative action....)
It continues to shock me how widely it is assumed that conservatives can't do intellectually rigorous research, but it's there in academia.
You see it when one of the rare right wingers in the humanities is cited, they'll be referred to as "conservative historian professor Jones...", a qualification that left-liberal scholars don't get, because theirs is the presumed neutral position. You have to be an actual communist to get that kind of label if you're on the left. But even a moderate con is always described as a "right winger". (I've often wondered if I'll get this hedging qualification attached to my work too.)
This is the insidiousness, that Heterodox Academy and others are fighting, but it's an uphill battle.
I would also query your claim that libertarians are well represented: perhaps among economists or in business schools, but not in the humanities.
Thanks for this piece. What I have noticed in academia is that the shortage of right wingers on the faculty is not seen as something to be redressed, but a source of smug satisfaction. I've been told, with a straight face, that there are no conservatives because "they're too interested in making money [to pursue academic careers]" and even "conservatives are too stupid to do a PhD". The lack of curiosity, as there would be about any other underrepresented group, is truly staggering.
More insidiously when I've pushed the issue, some responded that making an effort to hire right wingers would lower standards (!!). (This argument from the same people who would be outraged if you made this criticism of affirmative action....)
It continues to shock me how widely it is assumed that conservatives can't do intellectually rigorous research, but it's there in academia.
You see it when one of the rare right wingers in the humanities is cited, they'll be referred to as "conservative historian professor Jones...", a qualification that left-liberal scholars don't get, because theirs is the presumed neutral position. You have to be an actual communist to get that kind of label if you're on the left. But even a moderate con is always described as a "right winger". (I've often wondered if I'll get this hedging qualification attached to my work too.)
This is the insidiousness, that Heterodox Academy and others are fighting, but it's an uphill battle.
I would also query your claim that libertarians are well represented: perhaps among economists or in business schools, but not in the humanities.