Academia and Liberalism

Recently, three articles have appeared noting a trend that those of us who have spend a great deal of time in university settings are well aware - that faculty (namely those in the social sciences and the humanities) are overwhelming liberal.

George Will in his syndicated column writes about a few recent studies of college faculty, noting that on survey find the Democrats outnumber Republicans 7 to 1 among faculty in the social sciences and humanities and another a 9 to 1 ratio in a wider sample of disciplines at Berkeley and Stanford. He also notes that "in terms of employee per capita contributions to presidential candidates ... the top two [institutions] were the University of California system and Harvard, both of which gave about 19 times more money to John Kerry than to George W. Bush." The findings indicate quite clearly that the political breakdown of faculty are a gross distortion of the general public, a finding few in academia would dispute. Will bemoans what he calls the "intellectually monochrome" university that espouses diversity in "everything but thought."

A similar article appeared in the Economist following the Will piece, criticizing the lack of political diversity in American universities, calling it "profoundly unhealthy" and dubbing the academic communities "echo chambers."

The principal article by Mark Bauerlein in an article originally appearing in the Chronicle of Higher Education explores more deeply the origins and effects of the political bias in academia. Following many of the same studies cited by Will and the Economist, Bauerlein argues that the unrivalled liberal slant of academics is caused because certain fields are based entirely "on progressive politics" and others allow advancement only by appealing to liberal thought. Furthermore, extremism among faculty is facilitated by a "Common Assumption" that all faculty at professional gatherings are progressive-liberal and behaving as though extreme views are commonly accepted; likewise the few conservatives at academic functions ten to remain quiet in the face of seemingly overwhelming antagonism. My own experience has tought me both these tenets are generally true. This group think mentality crease a "False Consensus" that faculty assume opinion of the academic community must match the general public as there seems to be no challenge to it. The lack of reasoned debate and exposure only to other similar, or more radical, left-wing thought tends to foster greater extremism among faculty the "Law of Group Polarization". The end result is that faculty liberalism becomes more extreme, conservatives are dismissed by academics as stupid and ignored in discussions and the like, the university becomes more isolated from the general public.

Bauerlein criticizes the lack of political diversity in the ivory tower not merely on principle, but notes that conservative texts aren't being read, nor are conservative thinkers being discussed. There is a lack of inquiry in the classroom which hampers students and the university alike. Bauerlein's thinks that academia needs to reach out to a wider spectrum of political opinion in faculty because a) it "accords with the claims of diversity", b) one's positions are strengthened from strong, reasoned antagonism (in a JS Mill fashion), and c) to breach the gap and claim a relevant role among the public.

While these three articles mentioned nearly everything I have to say on the topic, they leave out a couple of issues. First, the liberal bias in academia is a self-propagated trend. Faculty have an overwhelming role in selecting future faculty. Beginning with undergraduate students, they determine grades, they choose which students to mentor, and they offer encouragement to those they choose to attend graduate school. At the graduate level, they determine who is admitted, have a far greater role to play in mentoring and in offering (or not offering) both academic and financial assistance, and can determine, almost arbitrarily, who graduates and who does not. Unlike most professions, faculty as a group predominantly control the hiring of new faculty, and then control the promotion and retention of current faculty. While a few conservative aspiring faculty may slip through the cracks, it is clear to see how a faculty body of almost all liberals would encourage, mentor, hire, and promote a new generation of overwhelmingly liberal faculty.

The second issue left unaddressed by these articles is, given the current bias and the fundamental role of current faculty in the grooming of future and junior faculty, is how to rectify the situation. I haven't got the answer to the question, though I think acknowledging there is a problem in political homogeneity on campus is a big first step (and one few in the academic community have taken).