Krugman on Conservatives and Liberals in the Academy
Krugman's latest is worth a read. I'm not convinced by this line of argument, but it includes one of the hypotheses I take most seriously.
Though the Academic Freedom Bill of Rights is a disaster, that doesn't mean that there's not a problem with liberal and leftist bias in the academy. I think the conservatives blow the problem out of proportion, but I can't be sure because I haven't seen any real data. I do know that some of my (liberal and conservative) colleagues agree with me about this. Others, unfortunately, dismiss any attempt to discuss the issue with a wave of the hand and a jerk of the knee.
Krugman's latest is worth a read. I'm not convinced by this line of argument, but it includes one of the hypotheses I take most seriously.
Though the Academic Freedom Bill of Rights is a disaster, that doesn't mean that there's not a problem with liberal and leftist bias in the academy. I think the conservatives blow the problem out of proportion, but I can't be sure because I haven't seen any real data. I do know that some of my (liberal and conservative) colleagues agree with me about this. Others, unfortunately, dismiss any attempt to discuss the issue with a wave of the hand and a jerk of the knee.
posted by Winston Smith at
9:16 AM
11 Comments:
Constantine:
I can think of one way: consider the "lamppost problem" as applied to academic research, even in a case as narrow as, say, federal environmental regulation. The lamppost theory says that those with bias will tend to look at their favorite solutions, without trying anything new. (it's easiest to look for something under a lamppost, rather than go off in the dark.)
Throw a moderate conservative into the mix, and you end up with CO2 emissions trading and the like. Of course, you may also get the pie-in-the-sky type "there is no global warming" goofballs, but the crackpots will get weeded out in the end.
-mac
I find it hard to believe that the right-wing equivalent of this can be found anywhere outside of Jerry Falwell's Liberty University.
I especially enjoyed this final exam question:
2. Discuss the sweeping attack on democratic rights under the Bush administration and what this means for the future of democratic government in America.
Not hard to figger out how to ace this test...
FROM wmr:
I agree with Winston that we need real data on this. Surprisingly, or not, Horowitz does not agree.
Chris at Mixing Memory sent him a suggestion for a study into the matter, but Horowitz just blew him off, saying, "Look, this is a ridiculous exercise. Only the blind can't see there is bias."
===================================
Here's the data.
72% left to 15% right. Of course, Media Matters, et al have pooh-poohed it. I doubt any study would convince those who are hostile to the idea. It is indeed a ridiculous exercise.
I don't like to get into personalities, but this "Chris" fellow is really something. He has some sort of masters degree, doesn't give his last name, but writes people demanding to be treated as a serious scholar. Neither Horowitz or anybody else owes him the time of day.
I mean, seriously, folks...
Lessee...lots of stuff here.
1. Re: taking Chris seriously, tvd: do you think that it's impermissible to take someone seriously if we don't know who they are? I've got a dog in that fight, obviously... I'd say we should focus on the power of the ideas, not the identity of the person who has them.
2. Chris is talking about discrimination, not bias. My guess is that there is some bias in the classroom--more than liberals will admit but less than conservatives think--but no discrimination against conservative profs.
3. WRT one of Constantine's comments: well, of course it seems that the "bias" for reason isn't a bias. Surely someone has done some thinking about what bias is. Presumably not ever way of favoring things is bias. If we say otherwise, we seem to have expanded the definition to the point of meaninglessness.
4. re: the link tvd provides: yeah, I've seen that, and the woman's a freakin' kook. Also: I love these academic lefties like W. Churchill posing with automatic (or faux automatic) weapons. Oooh...they're so *tough*...
5. I think CO2 trading might actually have been an idea from the free marketeers.
Ugh. no sleep in recent memory. more later.
Oh, and 72%/15% does indeed tell us almost nothing about what we need to know. We don't need to know what the political affiliations of profs are, we need to know whether there's bias in the classroom.
A study is needed. NOTHING ELSE WILL DO. There's just too big a chunk of each side that's convinced it's right. Of course, regardless of the outcomes of studies, there will be big (but smaller) chunks of each side that won't change their minds--but there's nothing we can do about them.
Has it occured to anyone to question how a study of classroom bias would work? This question is by its very nature political, and therefore damned near impossible to study. Conservatives will do their studies and conclude that bias is pervasive and damaging; liberals will do their studies and conclude that bias is, with rare and isolated exceptions, a myth; and the rest of us will soldier on in the way we do now. What, precisely, will be gained?
We saw how hard it was for academics to face the music in a case of easily verifiable fraud from one Dr. Bellesiles. How much harder will it be to bring about acknowledgement of something as fuzzy as political bias? I don't think it's possible.
A study won't help. No harm in doing it if it amuses you, but it won't help.
One of the interesting things is how the mere discussion of (e.g.) Horowitz' "Academic Bill of Rights" is pretty much guaranteed to further the cause of those who say there is a problem -- whether or not one actually exists. It foments distrust; which won't necessarily lead to any more bias than currently exists, and also doesn't imply that the discussion about possible bias shouldn't take place, but it certainly raises the temperature, doesn't it? And there's clearly an element of "oh, you liberals like affirmative action, do ya? Well, try this one on for size!" [ as a complete aside, I was going to go off on that, but it would take too long because it requires "nuance." ]
But then, that's what it means to not be a member of the reality-based community. If the world doesn't meet your pronouncements about the way it is, do what you can to make the world concord with your pronouncement.
Winston, your faith in evidence to resolve social conflict is touching. It's also naive and completely out of touch with modern America. It's an ugly reality that we are buried in propaganda, but you think digging out of this grave starts with penetrating the molehill of left-wing propaganda rather than the right-wing mountain!
Horowitz's efforts to assault liberal education are a new campaign in the culture war. He knows what he's fighting for. You want to study where you suspect liberals might be wrong, which is not an effective or useful defense, but is a good way to stimulate further propaganda.
I would consider a study only with parallel studies of the captains of industry and of military officers. If there's going to be affirmative action in academe, there must be parallel affirmative action in deeply conservative institutions. Otherwise, it's time to fight (metaphorically).
You have good content on your blog keep up the good work
Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you! The information and Internet marketing product evaluations that you provide are great for beginner webmasters.
I have a best internet business site/blog. It pretty much covers best internet business related stuff.
Come and check it out if you get time :-)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home