My goodness, I have so much to say on this, I hardly know where to begin! I appreciate so much of what you say here, but I’d love to hear your thoughts on how departmental course offerings and curriculums should be determined. Whose right is it to decide on these matters? Individuals? Committees? Alumni? Voters?
In my understanding, curricular concerns factor in heavily on who gets hired…which has a trickle down effect on grad students and what they choose to study.
When I was being advised on my course of study for my M.A. in English lit, I was told (on the down low) that certain areas of study (that I would have loved to pursue) would very likely result in zero job opportunities if I went on for the PhD. I never felt like I was personally looked down upon by progressive professors for being a religious conservative (actually, they were awesome about letting my ideas rise or fall on their own merits), but they gave me that advice out of care for me and the reality they knew I would face if I continued in my academic pursuits.
Race, gender, and class studies (on almost any period or genre) were kind of like the hot tickets. Media studies were sort of an up-and-coming area with some room for newcomers. But none of these were really my interests, so I found myself in a tough spot.
All this to say that I am suspicious that curricular bias (rather than bias against certain individuals) could be the main problem that conservatives face, and if that is the case, affirmative action would not be the solution.
I think this is exactly right. But it's kind of a happy point, because it suggests ways of addressing the problems without affirmative action for conservatives as such (which I do think has various downsides). It's already generally the case that departments have to get their searches approved by the administration, and that the administration will generally be more enthusiastic about approving searches in some areas than others. In the past, my sense is that this has generally reinforced the progressive tilt of the university--I'll bet it wasn't just that the English department wanted to search in race, gender, or class studies, but that the administration was happy to approve a new hire in that area, and might've been less excited to authorize a search for a Milton scholar.
But I also have the sense that university presidents and deans tend to be more pragmatic than the faculty at large. So going forward, it's easy to imagine administrations deciding to send out the message that they're going to be much happier to search in areas that are likely to attract conservative scholars. E.g., in history, search for military or economic history, in political science, search for national security studies, in sociology, search for sociology of religion, or family studies/demography, etc.
Great points! So, do you think that all the cultural buzz about the problem of progressive hegemony in higher education might just lead to a natural correction of the problem from within the universities themselves? Like, now that the problem has come to light, will admins take action?
I agree with you that the problem wouldn’t be difficult to remedy if there were enough motivation. High-quality conservative scholars are certainly out there. They just need opportunities.
Partially? I do think admins will take some action in this direction over the next few years, but there's not a lot of turnover, and there's also just going to be less hiring because of the budgetary situation--federal spending cuts, endowment taxes--so even if every hire over the next four years was in one of these areas, I don't think the overall picture at the end would look all that different.
"In a Facebook discussion thread not long ago, I tried engaging with some delusional academics who insisted that professors were never hired on the basis of race or gender."
What I find amazing is how a high IQ, great education, and tons of philosophical insight isn't sufficient to stop this kind of *completely obvious* delusion. I understand the near unavoidability of the kind of delusion we have towards the qualities of our loved ones, for instance. But the thing you're talking about here is another thing entirely. It's almost as bad as the people who graduate with good grades in serious majors from excellent universities but go on to believe in astrology and similar bullshit.
I wonder if there's a good way to educate people so that they don't become utterly clueless when their emotions regarding politics and religion become involved.
Indeed. And sometimes it's hard to get a perspective when you are inside.
But, higher education in the United States is a magnet for talent from around the world and regarded with something approaching reverence. The Universities are the crown jewels.
Yes! Americans underestimate how amazing their universities are. They are the envy of the world. I really hope they understand how amazing it is that their forebears have carved out so many well-resourced spaces for research, learning, and the preservation of hard-won knowledge throughout this vast country and how bordering-on-the-impossible it would be to reconstruct such institutions (even in the aggregate) if somehow in a fit of fury they decide to profoundly degrade them.
You write “It sure would be a problem if there were (e.g. social) incentives for professors and students to have and maintain certain political positions! Now, can progressives please seriously engage with the concern that this is precisely what they have done over the past 10 - 15 years?”
My first reaction was “wait, isn’t it more like 50-60 years? This stuff has been going on a long time (with variations in intensity)”. Unless you specifically mean the post-2012 flavor of progressivism.
I think there's an interesting question of whether the progressive bias among faculty goes all the way back to Abelard. Just as a conservative bias among law enforcement may go all the way back to Hammurabi.
> Only by explicitly correcting for background bias can we reasonably hope to find the actually most meritorious candidate.
I don't know why this side of substack consistently ignores the second argument for diversity in science. Yes, it's good for the scientists, for the people involved, but it's also good for *science itself*. (Is this the influence of the rationalists and their hyper-focus on individualism?). The point is (not only) to help the marginalized and give "the most meritorious" a place, but also to correct *systemic bias* in the scientific literature. If you have people who are good at science but only generate theories/advance the field in a certain direction, then a scientist that gives a course correction can be an enormous boon (even if they're comparatively worse at writing papers, gathering data etc). See e.g. https://bobjacobs.substack.com/p/feminist-critiques-of-scientific
I cannot imagine how anyone could interact with academics and come away with the impression that they had more animosity towards women than towards conservatives. You can look up the survey evidence that many academics will openly admit that they want to discriminate against conservatives. And the gender skew you point to is nothing compared to the partisan skew.
On your second point, you seem to be ignoring the following passage from my post:
> "universities should contain sufficient diversity of thought that voices can be relied upon to raise appropriate warnings about the downsides of proposals like lockdowns, digital censorship, etc. Progressive monoculture threatens the university’s ability to generate such warnings when needed, which is a fine reason to welcome more viewpoint diversity."
(Note that the epistemic value of diversity is specifically an argument for viewpoint diversity, and only secondarily for demographic diversity *insofar as* that happens to correlate with viewpoint diversity. But it offers no reason at all to favor a demographic minority with common academic views over another candidate with a common demographic profile but a more distinctive intellectual perspective.)
> And the gender skew you point to is nothing compared to the partisan skew
Source? I’ll believe your personal experiences about your faculty, and maybe if I’m in an especially generous mood, about your whole country too. But *all* of academia? Do you have a source similar to my gender-discrimination source for that?
> a fine reason to welcome more viewpoint diversity.
The quote is about viewpoint diversity, not demographic diversity. I disagree that demographics only matter insofar as they influence viewpoint/“raising appropriate warnings about the downsides of proposals”, since demographics influence a whole host of other things too. For example, it influences the scope of what gets researched, the heterogeneity of hypotheses that get tested, and which things get even *noticed* (like the cell-protrusions example from my post)
Well, the post was about viewpoint diversity which is a lot narrower -and thus not the same things as- intellectual diversity. But I don't think this even fully fits with intellectual diversity either.
For example, men have way higher rates of colorblindness than women. So if a group of male and female biologists were walking through the jungle, and the women on average, noticed slightly different things because of this, is that caused by *intellectual* diversity? Obviously not, it's because of the differences in *sex* which is part of *demographic* diversity.
My goodness, I have so much to say on this, I hardly know where to begin! I appreciate so much of what you say here, but I’d love to hear your thoughts on how departmental course offerings and curriculums should be determined. Whose right is it to decide on these matters? Individuals? Committees? Alumni? Voters?
In my understanding, curricular concerns factor in heavily on who gets hired…which has a trickle down effect on grad students and what they choose to study.
When I was being advised on my course of study for my M.A. in English lit, I was told (on the down low) that certain areas of study (that I would have loved to pursue) would very likely result in zero job opportunities if I went on for the PhD. I never felt like I was personally looked down upon by progressive professors for being a religious conservative (actually, they were awesome about letting my ideas rise or fall on their own merits), but they gave me that advice out of care for me and the reality they knew I would face if I continued in my academic pursuits.
Race, gender, and class studies (on almost any period or genre) were kind of like the hot tickets. Media studies were sort of an up-and-coming area with some room for newcomers. But none of these were really my interests, so I found myself in a tough spot.
All this to say that I am suspicious that curricular bias (rather than bias against certain individuals) could be the main problem that conservatives face, and if that is the case, affirmative action would not be the solution.
I think this is exactly right. But it's kind of a happy point, because it suggests ways of addressing the problems without affirmative action for conservatives as such (which I do think has various downsides). It's already generally the case that departments have to get their searches approved by the administration, and that the administration will generally be more enthusiastic about approving searches in some areas than others. In the past, my sense is that this has generally reinforced the progressive tilt of the university--I'll bet it wasn't just that the English department wanted to search in race, gender, or class studies, but that the administration was happy to approve a new hire in that area, and might've been less excited to authorize a search for a Milton scholar.
But I also have the sense that university presidents and deans tend to be more pragmatic than the faculty at large. So going forward, it's easy to imagine administrations deciding to send out the message that they're going to be much happier to search in areas that are likely to attract conservative scholars. E.g., in history, search for military or economic history, in political science, search for national security studies, in sociology, search for sociology of religion, or family studies/demography, etc.
Great points! So, do you think that all the cultural buzz about the problem of progressive hegemony in higher education might just lead to a natural correction of the problem from within the universities themselves? Like, now that the problem has come to light, will admins take action?
I agree with you that the problem wouldn’t be difficult to remedy if there were enough motivation. High-quality conservative scholars are certainly out there. They just need opportunities.
Partially? I do think admins will take some action in this direction over the next few years, but there's not a lot of turnover, and there's also just going to be less hiring because of the budgetary situation--federal spending cuts, endowment taxes--so even if every hire over the next four years was in one of these areas, I don't think the overall picture at the end would look all that different.
Also good points. That sounds realistic to me. I guess the hope should be for slow change.
"In a Facebook discussion thread not long ago, I tried engaging with some delusional academics who insisted that professors were never hired on the basis of race or gender."
What I find amazing is how a high IQ, great education, and tons of philosophical insight isn't sufficient to stop this kind of *completely obvious* delusion. I understand the near unavoidability of the kind of delusion we have towards the qualities of our loved ones, for instance. But the thing you're talking about here is another thing entirely. It's almost as bad as the people who graduate with good grades in serious majors from excellent universities but go on to believe in astrology and similar bullshit.
I wonder if there's a good way to educate people so that they don't become utterly clueless when their emotions regarding politics and religion become involved.
We don't hammer in such points in K-12 education, but we should.
Biases, biases, biases.
How to engage with opposing viewpoints and hold a civil discussion.
Biases, biases, biases.
These should be taught and repeated every single year, so every kid has them ingrained.
> This strikes me as absurdly overblown.
Indeed. And sometimes it's hard to get a perspective when you are inside.
But, higher education in the United States is a magnet for talent from around the world and regarded with something approaching reverence. The Universities are the crown jewels.
Yes! Americans underestimate how amazing their universities are. They are the envy of the world. I really hope they understand how amazing it is that their forebears have carved out so many well-resourced spaces for research, learning, and the preservation of hard-won knowledge throughout this vast country and how bordering-on-the-impossible it would be to reconstruct such institutions (even in the aggregate) if somehow in a fit of fury they decide to profoundly degrade them.
You write “It sure would be a problem if there were (e.g. social) incentives for professors and students to have and maintain certain political positions! Now, can progressives please seriously engage with the concern that this is precisely what they have done over the past 10 - 15 years?”
My first reaction was “wait, isn’t it more like 50-60 years? This stuff has been going on a long time (with variations in intensity)”. Unless you specifically mean the post-2012 flavor of progressivism.
I think there's an interesting question of whether the progressive bias among faculty goes all the way back to Abelard. Just as a conservative bias among law enforcement may go all the way back to Hammurabi.
Excellent post. This covers related ground and may be of interest:
https://rajivsethi.substack.com/p/the-storm-ahead
> So while there’s more animosity and discrimination against conservatives than against (say) women
Why would we assume this? The data shows science is still heavily male dominated (https://www.unesco.org/reports/science/2021/en/dataviz/share-women-researchers-radial) and it doesn't seem like conservatives are experiencing things like assault more than women?
> Only by explicitly correcting for background bias can we reasonably hope to find the actually most meritorious candidate.
I don't know why this side of substack consistently ignores the second argument for diversity in science. Yes, it's good for the scientists, for the people involved, but it's also good for *science itself*. (Is this the influence of the rationalists and their hyper-focus on individualism?). The point is (not only) to help the marginalized and give "the most meritorious" a place, but also to correct *systemic bias* in the scientific literature. If you have people who are good at science but only generate theories/advance the field in a certain direction, then a scientist that gives a course correction can be an enormous boon (even if they're comparatively worse at writing papers, gathering data etc). See e.g. https://bobjacobs.substack.com/p/feminist-critiques-of-scientific
I cannot imagine how anyone could interact with academics and come away with the impression that they had more animosity towards women than towards conservatives. You can look up the survey evidence that many academics will openly admit that they want to discriminate against conservatives. And the gender skew you point to is nothing compared to the partisan skew.
On your second point, you seem to be ignoring the following passage from my post:
> "universities should contain sufficient diversity of thought that voices can be relied upon to raise appropriate warnings about the downsides of proposals like lockdowns, digital censorship, etc. Progressive monoculture threatens the university’s ability to generate such warnings when needed, which is a fine reason to welcome more viewpoint diversity."
(Note that the epistemic value of diversity is specifically an argument for viewpoint diversity, and only secondarily for demographic diversity *insofar as* that happens to correlate with viewpoint diversity. But it offers no reason at all to favor a demographic minority with common academic views over another candidate with a common demographic profile but a more distinctive intellectual perspective.)
> And the gender skew you point to is nothing compared to the partisan skew
Source? I’ll believe your personal experiences about your faculty, and maybe if I’m in an especially generous mood, about your whole country too. But *all* of academia? Do you have a source similar to my gender-discrimination source for that?
> a fine reason to welcome more viewpoint diversity.
The quote is about viewpoint diversity, not demographic diversity. I disagree that demographics only matter insofar as they influence viewpoint/“raising appropriate warnings about the downsides of proposals”, since demographics influence a whole host of other things too. For example, it influences the scope of what gets researched, the heterogeneity of hypotheses that get tested, and which things get even *noticed* (like the cell-protrusions example from my post)
"it influences the scope of what gets researched, the heterogeneity of hypotheses that get tested, and which things get even *noticed*"
You mean, intellectual diversity?
Well, the post was about viewpoint diversity which is a lot narrower -and thus not the same things as- intellectual diversity. But I don't think this even fully fits with intellectual diversity either.
For example, men have way higher rates of colorblindness than women. So if a group of male and female biologists were walking through the jungle, and the women on average, noticed slightly different things because of this, is that caused by *intellectual* diversity? Obviously not, it's because of the differences in *sex* which is part of *demographic* diversity.